if it's gaming then there isn't a reason to buy a new Ryzen CPU since you can OC the i5 3570K fairly well, but you would get a pretty big gain in multithreaded situations if you went for an 1600 or 1700 (I wouldn't bother buying an 1600x because of the lack of an stock cooler and the fact that the 1600 can reach the same clocks when you OC it).How would a step up from a Core i5 3570K to a Ryzen R5 1600X be like?
We've been saying "3/4 years" for the last 8+ years XDI'm still not sold on games preferring multithreaded architectures to IPC anytime soon though, reckon that will still take at least 3/4 years to happen.
They did come out, both have 8 cores, it didn't seem to change anything. Duel Core i3's can still beat 8 core AMD CPU's.I agree. I think once the new consoles come out you really won't be able to game effectively on pure dual physical core CPUs but dual cores with virtual core ability will remain a budget option
Normally I am on your side here that Frequency and IPC rule when it comes to games...BUT:We've been saying "3/4 years" for the last 8+ years XD
They did come out, both have 8 cores, it didn't seem to change anything. Duel Core i3's can still beat 8 core AMD CPU's.
I'll add another to this list as well:
"DX12 will change the way game engines use multiple cores"
That's been said since DX12's inception, still yet to see much benefit.
I've been finding myself to be doing far more multitasking than I did years ago. Hell, years ago we didn't have multi-process web browsers like we do today.if it's gaming then there isn't a reason to buy a new Ryzen CPU since you can OC the i5 3570K fairly well, but you would get a pretty big gain in multithreaded situations if you went for an 1600 or 1700 (I wouldn't bother buying an 1600x because of the lack of an stock cooler and the fact that the 1600 can reach the same clocks when you OC it).How would a step up from a Core i5 3570K to a Ryzen R5 1600X be like?
Maybe I missed it in there somewhere... Is there a particular reason that all of the Ryzen systems are configured with 16Gb of RAM, but all of the Intel systems have 32Gb? I know doubling the RAM on my current system sped it up quite a bit, so it makes me curious why there isn't a true apples-to-apples comparison on that front...
Can you plase explain to me what does 1% and 0.1% mean?I would love it if Techspot could also do some percentile results (1% and 0.1%) too in future reviews.
Could you add more comparisons for gaming? Most people who will get these will have older processors and comparisons to 3700K or 4790K would be useful for most people, not saying that comparing to current market is pointless, just that people want to know if the upgrade makes any sense. Older AMD processors would be nice too, kind of pointless but would show the progress they made.
The 3700K to any Ryzen R5 is going to be an upgrade. The 4790K is very clock to the 7500
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-7500/2384vs3648
And since even the low end R5 1500X competes very well with the 7500 in gaming, it's a safe bet to say it will too with the 4790K. You could get the higher clocked, 6 core 1600 or 1600X and it would be a very nice upgrade.
Review is stellar Steve, no complaints whatsoever!
This review is missing one critical CPU.
The 6800K.
I was hoping to see how the 6800K matched up against the 1600X in all of these tests, and then with both chips set at 4.0GHz. I love that 6-core Skylake chip!
If you have a 3700K there is no reason to upgrade if your talking gaming, its still faster then any Ryzen chip and just as fast as the 7700K with the same clock speeds. For other specific reasons it might be worth it though.Could you add more comparisons for gaming? Most people who will get these will have older processors and comparisons to 3700K .
Could you add more comparisons for gaming? Most people who will get these will have older processors and comparisons to 3700K or 4790K would be useful for most people, not saying that comparing to current market is pointless, just that people want to know if the upgrade makes any sense. Older AMD processors would be nice too, kind of pointless but would show the progress they made.
Ok, that makes much more senseRight now Ryzen's memory frequency is very limited with four DIMM modules.
I don't disagree, Just we've been saying this for 8+ years now. It's a bit boring you know? Ever since the Core2Quad and Phenom CPU's everyone's been rambling on about using more cores etc... That was a VERY long time ago in the tech world and it still hasn't really happened. It seems developers have just got to grips with quad cores.Normally I am on your side here that Frequency and IPC rule when it comes to games...BUT:
I can see a paradigm shift for more cores being the future should people migrate more to the Ryzen platform. The issue though is that we're a few years away from AMD capturing significant market share and pointing that trend upward. Thus, it's likely that without significant monetary incentives we're 3-5 years from the majority of games favoring Ryzen over Intel.
the simplest way to explain would be: you take the lowest 1% and 0.1% FPS numbers you got from the benchmarks and do an average for those. a game that has high average FPS but stutters will have low numbers in the 1% and 0.1% percentile results.Can you plase explain to me what does 1% and 0.1% mean?
For gaming it is.But to say a 3770k is just as fast as a 7700k at the same clock is just wrong...
Soooo the max overclocked 1600x is on the heels of a stock 7600k and Im supposed to be impressed?
Guys, these ryzen chips are Ivy level chips with more cores. I would love to see a 3770k vs 1500x both clocked at 4.0 ghz.
Lots of amd fan boys here. If you primarily game, and if your running out to build a system based of these cpu's your knowingly buying a system that is bottlenecking your gpu vs an overclocked 7600k. Sure these tests are with an ultra high end gpu, but, it a few years time that will be the more affordable 2070 or 3070 and your cpu will never let it stretch its legs
No, with a 1060 or faster card you will see incremental fps increase in many games, also ddr4 3000 and higher memory makes a big difference paired with a high end cardFor gaming it is.
I think you've read the wrong results dude. in that BF 1 OC chart you can clearly see the 1600x having better lows than the stock 7600k. and even after OCing the 7600k it was just 10 fps faster in the lows and 12 fps for the averages. this is a sub 10% difference, it's unnoticeable.Soooo the max overclocked 1600x is on the heels of a stock 7600k and Im supposed to be impressed?
Guys, these ryzen chips are Ivy level chips with more cores. I would love to see a 3770k vs 1500x both clocked at 4.0 ghz.
Lots of amd fan boys here. If you primarily game, and if your running out to build a system based of these cpu's your knowingly buying a system that is bottlenecking your gpu vs an overclocked 7600k. Sure these tests are with an ultra high end gpu, but, it a few years time that will be the more affordable 2070 or 3070 and your cpu will never let it stretch its legs
Have any data to share?No, with a 1060 or faster card you will see incremental fps increase in many games,
http://multimonitorcomputer.com/solved/ddr3-vs-ddr4-gaming.phpalso ddr4 3000 and higher memory makes a big difference paired with a high end card
Anandtech said:For discrete graphics card testing, only three differences stand out here. For GRID on the R7 240 the DDR4 set loses by 3.2%, but for the GTX 770 the DDR4 wins on Mordor by 6.4% and on GRID by 2.3%. All other differences are below 2%, mostly on the side of DDR4.