Amet Monegro
Posts: 76 +25
Update your BIOS, check If your RAM is in the motherboard compatibility list, wich motherboard is?
AMD Ryzen 5 1600 vs Intel Core i7-7800X: 30 Game Battle!
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
A restore probably won't help. You need to do a clean fresh install. I can tell you that will improve performance. I suspect quite a few reviewers got a tad lazy and used a clone of their Intel system to test Ryzen. BTW it goes the other way as well. Using a Ryzen install on an Intel system also really hurts Intel's performance.
Damn really? It deletes all the previous CPU's under device manager...
It's more the system files that are the issue, scrubbing the OS can be difficult. It's easier just to do a fresh install and then you can be 100% sure you are getting maximum performance.
An amazing review, plenty of games for anyone to do comparisons. However there is clearly something wrong with the 7800x, or maybe the platform, possibly a combination of both. Maybe intel will fix it, maybe it won't, but all of that is irrelevant, as the cpu shouldn't exist in the first place, it serves no purpose and nobody would ever want one. It's just not a viable option.
have you tried OCing the mesh from the 7800x? it could gain a few more % out if (kinda like OCing the memory for Ryzen). it seems that it works best for stock speeds with diminishing returns when you also OC the cores.
DerHaluter
Posts: 13 +7
You should do the tests in 720p with max details because when you test a CPU, that's the only way the test makes any sense.
It was obvious from the beginning when 1800X launched that these chip have a lot of potential, also considering their price. The main takeaway is that they are in the near vicinity of Intel, sometimes better, sometimes slower, but always good enough to not notice a real difference. We saw how much difference a few game optimizations done by developers can do with Ryzen chips so I would bet you that all the outlier games in which R5 1600 didn't do so well, are just not optimized/aware of Ryzen internal architecture. In time, with the push of compiler optimizations, hopefully some new consoles that have Ryzen CPUs on them and with great execution on AMD's part (they need to execute like this in the coming years, not to screw up Ryzen 2/3 or whatever they do) we will see that Intel advantage is games is just a result of many years of small optimizations...
Still, I wouldn't pay double the money on a CPU that is almost on par, consumes more power just for the badge. AMD knows how to make chips, they just were unfortunate enough to bet on a wrong design in late 2000s with Bulldozer and that is it.
I would encourage everyone to overcome their fears and buy AMD, because look at how fast things have changed in the past months with Intel when AMD finally release a competitive product. We got much more with the same money and that is a big win for all consumers. Also, appreciate the fact that AMD priced these babies reasonably, even though they knew they could push higher with the price. So, please support AMD.
Still, I wouldn't pay double the money on a CPU that is almost on par, consumes more power just for the badge. AMD knows how to make chips, they just were unfortunate enough to bet on a wrong design in late 2000s with Bulldozer and that is it.
I would encourage everyone to overcome their fears and buy AMD, because look at how fast things have changed in the past months with Intel when AMD finally release a competitive product. We got much more with the same money and that is a big win for all consumers. Also, appreciate the fact that AMD priced these babies reasonably, even though they knew they could push higher with the price. So, please support AMD.
S
Sim404177
I wouldn't get my panties in a knot yet this seems very inaccurate (Sorry for the people who did the testing that might read this)
Don't be sorry, it's inline with testing done by multiple other large tech sites and trusted sources. You're just making a baseless claim lets be honest.
The mesh overclock certainly helps improve performance, but just to the degree that many Intel fans were suggesting before any real testing was done.
the results seem consistent with what we've seen in other places that retested some of these games. they just used a lot more games than anyone else for a much better picture of the overall performance for these CPUs. did you make an account just to waste my time?
andy06shake
Posts: 506 +162
I have a 1600X(overclock of 4.1Ghz) paired with a GTX 1070 and I have to say im loving the new AMD CPU and find it quite the improvement over my other ageing i5 2500K rig.
I would not touch Intels new K series as there are numerous thermal and power consumption issues to contend with. Quite frankly the last gen Skylake are the better choice of chip if you are a gamer and with to stick with an Intel CPU.
I would not touch Intels new K series as there are numerous thermal and power consumption issues to contend with. Quite frankly the last gen Skylake are the better choice of chip if you are a gamer and with to stick with an Intel CPU.
Lieutenant Tofu
Posts: 7 +1
After early BIOS updates that improved bad 1080p gaming performance (wrong frequencies being set?) performance still lags behind Kaby Lake's 7700K. Likely reason for this, rather than the X299 platform, is that Skylake-X has a new cache arrangement and the ring-bus that connects the cores is replaced by a new mesh network, which facilitates rapid communication with the higher # of potential cores (18 according to the paper launch.) I doubt the X299 chipset has anything to do with it really- outside of BIOS issues like were seen about a month ago when 7900X got into the hands of reviewers. Future BIOS updates could provide improved CPU microcode and improve performance on Skylake-X, though.
(IIRC Intel processors' microcode could, in the past, be updated from Windows Update. Not sure if that is still possible.)
Interestingly, we're likely to see performance improvement over time in games after developers do the same sort of testing and optimization they did for Ryzen.
Lieutenant Tofu
Posts: 7 +1
Not a hard decision for me to make. My last build had a "Devil's Canyon" i5 and I loved it, but sadly I had to part with it. I plan for my next build to have an R5 1600. It perfectly hits that sweet spot for performance, price, core/thread count and motherboard cost.
Lieutenant Tofu
Posts: 7 +1
I'm thinking it's so there's a budget entry point for the X299 platform, so you can get a Kaby Lake-X now and upgrade to a Skylake-X with more cores/threads down the road. That, and I suspect they'll end production of chips like the 7700K, and their current mainstream chipsets, and shift everything over to X299 in time, so they have to migrate the Kaby Lake quad-cores over, too. The silly thing is that you're spending a ton on a board and then pairing it with the lowest-end possible chip, half your RAM slots are unusable and you're missing the majority of your PCIe lanes. It's like that episode of the Simpsons where Mr. Burns puts Homer's brain in his brand new robot.
Lieutenant Tofu
Posts: 7 +1
How much voltage did you need to hit 4.1 GHz? How are your temps (cooling?) Thanks!
Lieutenant Tofu
Posts: 7 +1
I assume you're running something like 4133 MHz DDR4? I believe that's only clocked at 2.066 GHz and operates at 4133 effective since DDR communicates on the high and the low of the clock signal. That, and one running at a lower clockrate than the other might not actually yield a bottleneck when you consider things like timings (RAM not actually able to exchange data with the CPU on every cycle).
PinkMachine
Posts: 14 +3
Anyone wants to buy my Intel i5-6600K and the MOBO from MSI? I'm going red now!
Neebsgaming
Posts: 18 +5
but just use a 1600x then that all im saying
Yup, competition is always great for consumers.
Re: PUBG fps cap
It is possible to change the FPS cap for sure.
Just gotta change one value in the ini-files.
It is possible to change the FPS cap for sure.
Just gotta change one value in the ini-files.
Neebsgaming
Posts: 18 +5
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
