Destiny 2 Benchmarked: 30 GPUs Tested

[Timucin]

They still have work to do on the CPU side for AMD, but in general it looks ok.

Great article and all that except, can anyone tell me what is the purpose of comparing a $450 Intel CPU to $260 CPU, the equivalent competitor to 7700 is Ryzen 1800 ... Ryzen 1800 will still be little slower than 7700 , but the performance difference will be less than %5. That performance difference will reverse when things get busy on the screen, when AI and physics get involved.

So please don't misdirect your readers. Thanks

 

[AntiShill]

Great article and all that except, can anyone tell me what is the purpose of comparing a $450 Intel CPU to $260 CPU, ...

There is no misdirection other than your bogus prices. The 7700k is at $300.
http://www.microcenter.com/product/472529/Core_i7-7700K_Kaby_Lake_42_GHz_LGA_1151_Boxed_Processor

And the 1600x is at $220
http://www.microcenter.com/product/477456/Ryzen_5_1600X_36GHz_6_Core_AM4_Boxed_Processor
And the 1600 is at $190
http://www.microcenter.com/product/..._AM4_Boxed_Processor_with_Wraith_Spire_Cooler


And the expectation that the 1800 will be at 5% is probably wishful thinking until Bungie get patches out. Because it has already been noted in this article:

"As expected, at 4K we run into a massive GPU bottleneck and performance is much the same, though the 7700K did still maintain better 1% low results. Moving to 1440p the Intel CPU offered 15% greater performance and this margin was blown out to 27% at 1080p. Utilization was good on both GPUs and the game did evenly distribute load across the R5 1600's cores, it just didn't give it enough work to warrant having all those extra cores for this title."

And also noted from this article:

"The latest Core i3s will see utilization hitting around 80% and this was also true for the Pentium G4560 while the Ryzen 3 1200 was around 60-70% and the Ryzen 5 1400 only saw around 50% load."

So the different CPUs are being examined for their different levels of utilization and performance. But is it really that unreasonable to expect that if you pay more for a CPU that you should be able to get higher performance out of your GPU? Whereas paying more for a 1800x will not which is a real shame. See:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/476003/Ryzen_7_1800X_36_GHz_8_Core_AM4_Boxed_Processor

 

[Strawman]

This means at 1080p the R5 is gimping the GTX1080ti to GTX1070 levels. Which begs the question why would anyone spend $700 on GTX1080ti just to gimp it with a R5. What can you hope to save? $50-$80?

In this game. In an average of 30 games, it's less than 10%. Picking the games that it doesn't deliver and drawing conclusions makes you look biased. You've shown bias time and time again.

Also, the price difference isn't just 50-80$. The CPU alone costs minimum 100$ more, then you need an 80-100$ cooler to get the i7 to 4.9ghz and you also need deliding on top of it. And then there is extra dollars more the more expensive z270. The price difference is 150$ minimum and it can go as high as 200+. That money could be used to get you a jump from a 1080p monitor to a 1440p or a 4k one.

So you are basically saying that if you have a 1080ti it would be better to buy an i7 and a low end monitor than an R5 1600 and a high end monitor for gaming purposes. Sorry, but no. You are wrong.

Also, do I really need to mention the obvious elephant in the room? You act with certainty that the i7 7700k doesn't bottleneck a 1080ti under any game, so it will easily support the next generation of gpu's. How the heck do you know that? Shall I start rolling a neverending list of games that the 7700k does bottleneck the 1080ti? Then aren't you in the same problem when it comes to upgrading your GPU, even though you've spend more money for an i7? And now you can't even upgrade that thing unless you change your whole setup.

 

[Rapt0r]

They still have work to do on the CPU side for AMD, but in general it looks ok.

My ryzen 1800x had zero problems at 4k along with my 1080ti with120 - 150 frames in all scenes except cut scenes those seem to be locked at 30 frames.

 

[Puiu]

My ryzen 1800x had zero problems at 4k along with my 1080ti with120 - 150 frames in all scenes except cut scenes those seem to be locked at 30 frames.

I wasn't talking about that kind of issues. It's been reported that the game doesn't use SMT (the extra virtual threads) at all.
The game seems to try to use all threads available, but it's not finding the virtual ones on AMD's side. They still have a lot of time to polish the game before launch and this bug has been reported to the devs. Hopefully they'll fix it like other games managed to.

Great article and all that except, can anyone tell me what is the purpose of comparing a $450 Intel CPU to $260 CPU, the equivalent competitor to 7700 is Ryzen 1800 ... Ryzen 1800 will still be little slower than 7700 , but the performance difference will be less than %5. That performance difference will reverse when things get busy on the screen, when AI and physics get involved.

So please don't misdirect your readers. Thanks

no misdirecting anyone as you can read above why I said that and the direct competitor of the 7700k is the 1700 not the 1800x. the 1800x is way too expensive to be recommended as a good purchase.

 

[AntiShill]

Also, do I really need to mention the obvious elephant in the room? ... And now you can't even upgrade that thing unless you change your whole setup.

There is no elephant in the room. Going based on past experience, and looking at current data. You can see that the FX-83__ and other piledriver bottlenecks the GTX970, but the older Sandybridge are serviceable for even the GTX1070 this day. And the "whole setup" is just another exaggeration. 6 years and counting on old sandybridge is make this "whole setup" really a non-issue. And to be precise, the "whole setup" is just motherboard and CPU, if you were to upgrade since DDR5 for memory is not likely going to common place for at least the next 2 years.

And you get z270 boards for $90 see:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130993&cm_re=z270-_-13-130-993-_-Product

And compared to B350 boards, this is basically a wash, see for example:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813144018&cm_re=b350-_-13-144-018-_-Product

A delta of about $10 at best. And there is no massive saving to be gained going with X370 either.

In short AMD, being the second option, coming late to the party, being par or lower performance in gaming, if they want people to switch, they need to provide real monetary incentive, and this applies to Ryzen and Vega. Why is AMD is willing to price threadripper at 50% of Intel but unwilling to price Ryzen at 50% of the price of Intel Kabylakes like the 7700k? Why is it AMD thinks it is ok to screw the gamers?

 

[Jo3yization]

The CPU test is vary deceiving. The i7 is overclocked heavily and the ryzen is not so it's not vary comparable. Clock the CPU's the same then see what's better. That would be a better comparison, smells like intel bought this post

I agree, I wish they would use REALISTIC 7700k OC's instead of a cherry pick OC. How many 7700k owners can honestly OC to 4.9ghz at reasonable temps for daily use without de-lidding??

 

[Strawman]

There is no elephant in the room. Going based on past experience, and looking at current data. You can see that the FX-83__ and other piledriver bottlenecks the GTX970, but the older Sandybridge are serviceable for even the GTX1070 this day.

Serviceable? The fx8350 is serviceable too, it all depends on what you mean by that. I wouldn't pair either with anything above a 1060. 2500k / 2600k was the last serious upgrade when it comes to CPU's. All the CPU's that followed it were pretty meh giving 10-15% more performance tops, while on the GPU front generation after generation we had huge leaps, that's why GPU's get botttlenecked by CPU's nowadays.

And, that's precisely why the 7700k that already bottlenecks the 1080ti in a plethora of games, will bottleneck even more a 2080ti. So you've spend 200$ more and you find yourself in the same shitty situation.

Of course you also forgot that you are cherrypicking benchmarks. In this one, the 7700k was running at 4.9. Plz, tell us how much will the cooler cost to get an i7 to that frequency, and then tell us again how huge is the price difference between the total setup compared to the R5 1600. It won't be 80$ like you suggested, obviously in an attempt to lie and get a bigger check from Intel.

In short AMD, being the second option, coming late to the party, being par or lower performance in gaming

They are lower only in a very specific gaming scenario, the 1080p 144+ hz scenario. Not many people go for a 1080ti with a 1080p monitor though

Why is AMD is willing to price threadripper at 50% of Intel but unwilling to price Ryzen at 50% of the price of Intel Kabylakes like the 7700k? Why is it AMD thinks it is ok to screw the gamers?

Amd isn't screwing anyone. The R3 1200, R5 1600 and R7 1700 are a steal for their money. Your opinion disagrees with everyone on the freaking planet and it's obviously wrong. The R5 1600 doesn't cost half of what the 7700k does (although it comes really close, considering the included cooler) because it wipes the floor with the 7700k for productivity workloads. It's like asking Intel to sell xeons for 300$ because 7700k has better gaming performance. That's just absurd.

The R5 1600 has about 30-35% more multithreaded performance compared to the 7700k, it costs 2/3rd's of the money and comes with a decent cooler. Everyone in their right mind agrees that it's an absolute steal already.

 

[Strawman]

I agree, I wish they would use REALISTIC 7700k OC's instead of a cherry pick OC. How many 7700k owners can honestly OC to 4.9ghz at reasonable temps for daily use without de-lidding??

Excluding those who live in Syberia, 0

 

[AntiShill]

I agree, I wish they would use REALISTIC 7700k OC's instead of a cherry pick OC. How many 7700k owners can honestly OC to 4.9ghz at reasonable temps for daily use without de-lidding??

What cherry picked OC? This is a red herring. From the article:

"The latest Core i3s will see utilization hitting around 80% and this was also true for the Pentium G4560 while the Ryzen 3 1200 was around 60-70% and the Ryzen 5 1400 only saw around 50% load."

What do you think is the gaming load on a 7700k. Are you doing AVX instructions like Prime95 the whole time you are gaming? And what do you define as reasonable? You can run 4.9 Ghz without de-lidding and get reasonable temps (70C-ish) easily if you are not loading the CPU at 100% and/or doing AVX instructions. Please, show me a game where they actually hit the AVX instruction set hard and pegs the CPU at %100 utilization, then you might have a case.

 

[AntiShill]

Excluding those who live in Syberia, 0

You sure love your nonsensical hyperboles and exaggerations. Where exactly is Syberia anyways? You are not doing yourself any favor for credibility.

 

[Strawman]

You sure love your nonsensical hyperboles and exaggerations. Where exactly is Syberia anyways? You are not doing yourself any favor for credibility.

http://www.pcgamer.com/intels-tells-core-i7-7700k-owners-to-stop-overclocking-to-avoid-high-temps/

The company that cuts you your checks agrees with me and disagrees with you.

 

[AntiShill]

...
The company that cuts you your checks agrees with me and disagrees with you.

When you have no real argument you resort to personal attacks. I don't work for Intel. Here is some real data btw:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10968...-review-the-new-stock-performance-champion/11

 

[Strawman]

When you have no real argument you resort to personal attacks. I don't work for Intel. Here is some real data btw:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10968...-review-the-new-stock-performance-champion/11

And we are looking at 79 degrees on stock settings!! So, are you just proving the point for me or what? At 4.8 it goes all the way up to 95. They didn't even try at 4.9, god knows how much hot that thing would be. I bet it's going over 100.

So wtf are you talking about?

 

[AntiShill]

And we are looking at 79 degrees on stock settings!! ...

So what? It is well under the Intel spec. See:
http://ark.intel.com/products/97129/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_50-GHz
Package Tjunction of 100C.

Heck GPUs run at temps higher than that. You act as if this some kind of nightmare. Dramatizing much over nothing. Proper cooling and proper bios settings, especially that AVX offset, and you can see Anandtech got to 4900 without de-lidding on their very average sample. See:

"
Based on what we’ve heard out in the ether, our CPU sample is somewhat average to poor in terms of overclocking performance. Some colleagues at the motherboard manufacturers are seeing 5.0 GHz at 1.3 volts (with AVX offset)
"

And you can go ahead and lie about them not doing 4.9, but as they've clearly stated
"The second set of results is with the AVX offset. This afforded stability at 4.8 GHz and 4.9 GHz, however at 5.0 GHz and 1.425 volts the CPU was clearly going into thermal recovery modes, as given by the lower scores in POV-Ray."

Even 95C is taken care of, and it will throttle itself if you try to go over 100C. So what is reasonable temps really mean? One thing is certain, your subjective views clear do not define what reasonable temps should be.

 

[mailpup]

Really? Do we have to go through this again? Strawman and AntiShll, if you can't keep personal comments out of your posts, stay out of the thread. Stick to the issues and leave personal jabs and comments out.

 

[Strawman]

So what? It is well under the Intel spec. See:
http://ark.intel.com/products/97129/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_50-GHz
Package Tjunction of 100C.

At stock, of course it is under the TJmax!

You act as if this some kind of nightmare. Dramatizing much over nothing. Proper cooling and proper bios settings, especially that AVX offset, and you can see Anandtech got to 4900 without de-lidding on their very average sample. See:

Proper cooling? But I though the price difference between the R5 1600 and the i7 7700k at 4.9ghz was 80$. So, how much is it then? How much does "proper" cooling cost to keep a 4.9 i7 under check?

Even 95C is taken care of, and it will throttle itself if you try to go over 100C. So what is reasonable temps really mean?

Reasonable temps mean using it in any app without the fear of damaging the longevity of your CPU due to overheating. Being 0% off the TJmax isn't a perfect example of reasonable temps.

 

[kdel405675]

I'm happy to know the GTX 980 is still relevent for 1080p. Destiny 2 looks like a really well optimized game for previous and current gen hardware.

 

[AntiShill]

At stock, of course it is under the TJmax!

I do NOT know why you act like that is surprise, especially with that "!". And it is lower by more than enough safety margin. But this is to be expected now.

Proper cooling? But I though the price difference between the R5 1600 and the i7 7700k at 4.9ghz was 80$. So, how much is it then? How much does "proper" cooling cost to keep a 4.9 i7 under check?

You pretend that that the R5 was not overclocked, but it was OC-ed to 4.0. I do NOT know how generous AMD is with their CPU lottery, but pushing 4.0 on the stock HSF will likely get very loud That fan will be noisy as heck. And it seems more that few people on various forums already recommend some sort of aftermarket cooling for trying to OC to 4.0.

And if you want guidance on OC-ing a 7700K, here is good one:
http://edgeup.asus.com/2017/kaby-lake-overclocking-guide/

And it would seem Asus was able to 5.0 on air without de-lidding. And they provide de-lidding guide too and data from de-lids show another 20C temp reduction.

 

[treetops]

Is the open beta over?

 

[Puiu]

I do NOT know why you act like that is surprise, especially with that "!". And it is lower by more than enough safety margin. But this is to be expected now.



You pretend that that the R5 was not overclocked, but it was OC-ed to 4.0. I do NOT know how generous AMD is with their CPU lottery, but pushing 4.0 on the stock HSF will likely get very loud That fan will be noisy as heck. And it seems more that few people on various forums already recommend some sort of aftermarket cooling for trying to OC to 4.0.

And if you want guidance on OC-ing a 7700K, here is good one:
http://edgeup.asus.com/2017/kaby-lake-overclocking-guide/

And it would seem Asus was able to 5.0 on air without de-lidding. And they provide de-lidding guide too and data from de-lids show another 20C temp reduction.

It's generally known that you can get Ryzen CPUs to 3.8-3.9GHz with the stock cooler with no problems and to get to 4.0 you need to get a CPU that is stable with lower vcore settings, otherwise you need to pay 20-30$ for a better air cooler (or the CPU just can't get that high - it happens sometimes). Something like the 20$ Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO should do the trick.

For the 7700K you will pay around 90-100$ if you want to get it to 4.8GHz which is possible without delidding with a big air cooler. Getting it to 5.0+GHz is much harder and you need to get lucky with your CPU. The majority of the time you need to delid it. Most people manage to get 4.7-4.8GHz and stop there because of the high temps.

Whether or not it is worth to get 100-200MHz by paying extra with the Ryzen CPU or to risk damaging your 7700K CPU by delidding is entirely up to the consumer. What is certain is that the 7700K requires more expensive coolers to get the most out of it.

As a side-note: the stock AMD fan doesn't get very loud even at high RPM (and it's not high pitched), although third party solutions do fare better. it's a really well done stock cooler.

 

[Strawman]

I do NOT know why you act like that is surprise, especially with that "!". And it is lower by more than enough safety margin. But this is to be expected now

I'm surprised by teh fact that you mentioned it.

You pretend that that the R5 was not overclocked, but it was OC-ed to 4.0. I do NOT know how generous AMD is with their CPU lottery, but pushing 4.0 on the stock HSF will likely get very loud That fan will be noisy as heck. And it seems more that few people on various forums already recommend some sort of aftermarket cooling for trying to OC to 4.0.

Your post is mostly true, barring a few details. The stock cooler can't reliably hit 4ghz and keep the heat under check. 3.9 is the max I would recommend. But it's not noisy at all, it's actually really really quiet. Still, an aftermarket cooler to get it to 4.0ghz costs 30-40$. An aftermarket cooler to get the i7 at 4.9 without delid costs a hundred.

 

[Kirky]

http://www.pcgamer.com/our-destiny-2-performance-analysis-confirms-the-game-is-legit-on-pc/

Read this. It will stop the "unfair" OC moaning. Stock intel i5 and i7 beat all ryzen chips including the TR. Even the overclocked i3 manages to beat all of them at 1080 and 1440, almost matching the i5 and i7.

Overclocking the i7 from stock to 4.9 gives a couple of fps. So if this techspot article had included stock clock benches it would have been even worse for Ryzen.

 

[The Tech Gen]

Also, do I really need to mention the obvious elephant in the room? ... And now you can't even upgrade that thing unless you change your whole setup.

There is no elephant in the room. Going based on past experience, and looking at current data. You can see that the FX-83__ and other piledriver bottlenecks the GTX970, but the older Sandybridge are serviceable for even the GTX1070 this day. And the "whole setup" is just another exaggeration. 6 years and counting on old sandybridge is make this "whole setup" really a non-issue. And to be precise, the "whole setup" is just motherboard and CPU, if you were to upgrade since DDR5 for memory is not likely going to common place for at least the next 2 years.

And you get z270 boards for $90 see:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130993&cm_re=z270-_-13-130-993-_-Product

And compared to B350 boards, this is basically a wash, see for example:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813144018&cm_re=b350-_-13-144-018-_-Product

A delta of about $10 at best. And there is no massive saving to be gained going with X370 either.

In short AMD, being the second option, coming late to the party, being par or lower performance in gaming, if they want people to switch, they need to provide real monetary incentive, and this applies to Ryzen and Vega. Why is AMD is willing to price threadripper at 50% of Intel but unwilling to price Ryzen at 50% of the price of Intel Kabylakes like the 7700k? Why is it AMD thinks it is ok to screw the gamers?

Clearly you are an AMD hater or an Intel fanboy or both. Especially with the comment of "Why does AMD think it is ok to screw the gamers" That comment is incredibly ignorant. How long has Intel been price gouging gamers? In fact when was the last time Intel actually cared about Gamers? Oh yeah! Only when AMD had a CPU that can match.

Second
Telling AMD how to price their products is laughable. If you don't want to buy the product than don't, but they still beat Intel's offering in terms of price no matter how you try to spin it.


AMD is late to the party? AMD has the fastest multicore CPU in the market right now. So turn down the fanboy noise, because Ryzen/Threadripper is the best thing to have happen in the gaming world & without it we probably would still be forced to be price gouged by Intel & Intel would sit on tech for another year and half.

 

[Strawman]

http://www.pcgamer.com/our-destiny-2-performance-analysis-confirms-the-game-is-legit-on-pc/

Read this. It will stop the "unfair" OC moaning. Stock intel i5 and i7 beat all ryzen chips including the TR. Even the overclocked i3 manages to beat all of them at 1080 and 1440, almost matching the i5 and i7.

Exactly. If that doesn't tell you that there is something wrong with the current state of the game (don't forget that it's still in beta) then nothing will I guess. Oh, look, the Ryzen lineup loses to Intel in a game where an oc'ed i3 is embarrassingly close to an oc'ed i7.

Apparently, it doesn't use any threads, seeing how an oc'ed i5 beats an i7.