Core i7 vs. Ryzen 5 with Vega 64 & GTX 1080

Burty117 said:
Nice testing Steve, good to see the results. Considering the frequency difference of the two chips (nearly a whole GHz) Ryzen really is very impressive!
enemys said:
Is it a rendering bug on my side, or does the last page include the 1440p GTX 1080 chart twice, with 1440p V64 chart missing?
Click to expand...
Yeah mines the same. Steve will probably read this and get it sorted :)
Click to expand...

Fixed guys, sorry about that. Excel kills me a little more inside each time :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stark, Charles Olson, Humza and 8 others
Like always. Well done. Perfectly tested in GPU-Limit the whole time. Why no 720p??? You don*t have to be a genius to know, that in 1440p most games will be totally GPU-bound. But I gotta say: Respect for your consequent benchmarking in GPU-Limit. Obviously people wanna see that so it generates klicks. :D
 
The review seems flawed. As a consumer, I'd rather you compare similar price points than hardware equivalencies. For the price of 64 liquid cooled, it's possible to get a 1080ti. The 7700 costs ore than double that of a 1400. If the focus wasn't the hardware, than the title is wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion and Amet Monegro
Forebode said:
The review seems flawed. As a consumer, I'd rather you compare similar price points than hardware equivalencies. For the price of 64 liquid cooled, it's possible to get a 1080ti. The 7700 costs ore than double that of a 1400. If the focus wasn't the hardware, than the title is wrong.
Click to expand...
Then, as a consumer, you should be able to read the title and recognize that this isnt a "what is best perf/dollar" article, it is a "is there any truth to geforce sucking more on AMD vs INTEL" article that dives into the rumor that ryzen is worse on geforce cards, and investigates how ryzen is vs intel with the same GPUs in the same games as a direct comparison of arches.

I mean, it isnt like the author wrote that in the closing of the article....oh wait

"Bottom line, it's safe to say that it doesn't matter what GPU reviewers use to compare AMD and Intel CPUs and it doesn't matter what CPU reviewers use to compare AMD and Nvidia GPUs either. It's all fair game."

RTFA next time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lionvibez, Burty117 and Steve
Forebode said:
The review seems flawed. As a consumer, I'd rather you compare similar price points than hardware equivalencies. For the price of 64 liquid cooled, it's possible to get a 1080ti. The 7700 costs ore than double that of a 1400. If the focus wasn't the hardware, than the title is wrong.
Click to expand...

They didn't compare the Vega 64 LC to the GTX 1080TI because it's already been shown that the 1080TI is significantly faster than the Vega 64 LC (https://www.techspot.com/review/1476-amd-radeon-vega-64/page13.html)...but comes in much closer to the non-TI version of the GTX 1080.

As for why they picked the Ryzen 5 1400...1) they never said they were trying to determine which setup had the best price-to-performance; they said they were trying to see if using nVidia GPUs with Ryzen CPUs was causing a performance hit. 2) Since some games are actually showing now a difference in performance when more than 4 cores/threads are available, it makes perfect sense to test with a 4C/8T CPU (i7-7700K) against another 4C/8T CPU (Ryzen 5 1400). 3) Considering that the results by CPU for each GPU tested were fairly consistent in the average results being very close (2% to 7% range) & in the "worst" results (18-20%), & that's with the Ryzen CPU clocked at 20% slower than the Intel CPU, I'd say that ends up not only disproving the original hypothesis they were testing but also shows competitive performance from the Ryzen CPU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs, Amet Monegro, Burty117 and 1 other person
GreenNova343 said:
They didn't compare the Vega 64 LC to the GTX 1080TI because it's already been shown that the 1080TI is significantly faster than the Vega 64 LC (https://www.techspot.com/review/1476-amd-radeon-vega-64/page13.html)...but comes in much closer to the non-TI version of the GTX 1080.

As for why they picked the Ryzen 5 1400...1) they never said they were trying to determine which setup had the best price-to-performance; they said they were trying to see if using nVidia GPUs with Ryzen CPUs was causing a performance hit. 2) Since some games are actually showing now a difference in performance when more than 4 cores/threads are available, it makes perfect sense to test with a 4C/8T CPU (i7-7700K) against another 4C/8T CPU (Ryzen 5 1400). 3) Considering that the results by CPU for each GPU tested were fairly consistent in the average results being very close (2% to 7% range) & in the "worst" results (18-20%), & that's with the Ryzen CPU clocked at 20% slower than the Intel CPU, I'd say that ends up not only disproving the original hypothesis they were testing but also shows competitive performance from the Ryzen CPU.
Click to expand...

Per the review:
Ryzen 5 System Specs
  • AMD Ryzen 5 1600 @ 4 GHz
they used a 6 core 1600, not a 4 core 1400.

Seriously, everybody, READ THE REVIEW before commenting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lionvibez, orondf, Xavier Smith and 3 others
It's a nice test but it seems a bit late seeing as though we're like 3 weeks away from a massively revised Intel desktop lineup. I hope similar tests can be performed when the 6 core Coffee Lake parts hit
 
Steve said:
Burty117 said:
Nice testing Steve, good to see the results. Considering the frequency difference of the two chips (nearly a whole GHz) Ryzen really is very impressive!
enemys said:
Is it a rendering bug on my side, or does the last page include the 1440p GTX 1080 chart twice, with 1440p V64 chart missing?
Click to expand...
Yeah mines the same. Steve will probably read this and get it sorted :)
Click to expand...

Fixed guys, sorry about that. Excel kills me a little more inside each time :D
Click to expand...

Need tech support? XD
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amet Monegro and Burty117
Vulcanproject said:
It's a nice test but it seems a bit late seeing as though we're like 3 weeks away from a massively revised Intel desktop lineup. I hope similar tests can be performed when the 6 core Coffee Lake parts hit
Click to expand...
If we know Steve he'll do 40-50 games for those reviews :D

@Steve now I gave people very high expectations for that article. Good luck with getting any sleep for this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Burty117 and Steve
You can have Friday off after doing this, nice work.
Tell Julio you'll see him after work at happy hour, Samuel Adams Octoberfest is out.
 
Theinsanegamer said:
Per the review:
Ryzen 5 System Specs
  • AMD Ryzen 5 1600 @ 4 GHz
they used a 6 core 1600, not a 4 core 1400.

Seriously, everybody, READ THE REVIEW before commenting.
Click to expand...

Point for you, I thought they'd used the 4C/8T 1400, not the 6C/12T 1600.

However...they already showed that the 6C/12T 1600 was a match for Intel's 6C/12T i7-7800X (https://www.techspot.com/review/1450-core-i7-vs-ryzen-5-hexa-core/page9.html), & that both lagged behind the i7-7700K by the same amount, & they'd already shown that for gaming you can't really do better performance-wise (let alone cost-wise) on Intel's side than the i7-7700K (https://www.techspot.com/review/1445-core-i7-7800x-vs-7700k/page9.html). And since we're talking gaming performance, they didn't need to worry about the Ryzen 7 CPUs, since their extra cores don't bring anything extra to the table.

So, since we're not talking about price, & they wanted to test CPUs that are relatively close in performance (which the i7-7700K & Ryzen 5 CPUs are), I still don't know why you're complaining or somehow think the title is misleading. Maybe if you have actually read it, you wouldn't have that issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs and Puiu
maxresdefault.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phr3d, Lionvibez, Reehahs and 1 other person
A very timely review, thanks for this.
I'm prepping to get a new gaming system at the end of the year with a Ryzen 5 1600 (OC'd as close to 4 GHz as I can go) with high-speed RAM and a GTX 1080 on a 550W PSU. And you have confirmed that that will be plenty. I'm coming from an i5 3570K (OC'd from 3.4 to 4.2 GHz) and a GTX 780 so I've been forced to skip some of the eye candy of the latest games as I prefer to play at 1440p. Looking forward to it now!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson and Amet Monegro
Capaill said:
A very timely review, thanks for this.
I'm prepping to get a new gaming system at the end of the year with a Ryzen 5 1600 (OC'd as close to 4 GHz as I can go) with high-speed RAM and a GTX 1080 on a 550W PSU. And you have confirmed that that will be plenty. I'm coming from an i5 3570K (OC'd from 3.4 to 4.2 GHz) and a GTX 780 so I've been forced to skip some of the eye candy of the latest games as I prefer to play at 1440p. Looking forward to it now!
Click to expand...

not timely for me! I just bought a Z170 board with 7600k because my old mobo died on me (old mobo with i5-2500k). This probably would have sway me to get the ryzen and buy a nice video card. Currently still using my old 580ti on the new system... waiting for a deal to buy a 1070 or 1080. Had to buy new DDR4 ram too. :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amet Monegro
BlackCarT said:
Nice writeup brother.
Click to expand...
Well done review. But I think you are still looking at immature Vega drivers and another fact: Not all DX12 coding for games is equal. Some titles are meticulously coded in DX12 enabling all the benefits and others are hack jobs not using the full power of DX12. That explains the erratic Vega 64 performance in some DX 12 titles. It is not Vega 64 that is the problem, once again bad design is the issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TechSpot
  • Locked
AMD Ryzen 7800X3D vs. 7900X3D vs. 7950X3D: Gaming Benchmark
2
Replies
28
Views
425
Squid Surprise
Squid Surprise
TechSpot
CPU Cache vs. Cores: AMD Ryzen Edition
2 3
Replies
50
Views
724
Strawman
S
TechSpot
  • Locked
AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D vs. Intel Core i9-14900K
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
Strawman
S

Latest posts

Back