dirtyferret
Posts: 899 +1,274
That's not a benchmark that is a press release that ryzen 2 is coming, you stated it was already faster then Intel. Show me the comparison benchmarks!
Intel Core i7-8700K, i5-8600K, 8400 versus AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, R5 1600X, 1500X
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
So 8700K is not faster or what?
I said it will be faster. Current Intel's have in many cases difficulties to beat rushed-to-market "Ryzen 1" that is made with 14nm LPP process, meant for mobile phone chips. Ryzen 2 will make everything better and manufacturing process will also be for high clock speeds products, not for mobile phones.
So current Intel CPU's won't have a chance.
amstech
Posts: 2,662 +1,824
One review I would really like to see is an i5 8400 (6/6) vs a 7700K (4/8) vs a 8700K (6/12) with all CPU's at 5.0GHz. I'd ask Steve nicely but by now he is most likely looking forward to a few Sam Adams Octoberfest Drafts at happy hour to settle his blood after reading 5+ pages of this petty AMD vs Intel nonsense.
Last edited:
dirtyferret
Posts: 899 +1,274
Do you not understand english? I am being dead honest as that would be a viable reason for you not understanding my request. You have now avoided my request twice hiding behind a press release.
YOU STATED RYZEN 2 WAS FASTER THEN CURRENT INTEL CHIPS SHOW ME THE BENCHMARKS.
If you need help to translate the above line into your native tongue the following link can help.
https://translate.google.com/
dirtyferret
Posts: 899 +1,274
Don't know how you can do 8400 @ 5ghz but you could simulate it with the 8700k HT shut off.
I STATED RYZEN 2 WILL BE FASTER THAN CURRENT INTEL CHIPS.
Did I say it IS faster? No.
dirtyferret
Posts: 899 +1,274
Sausagemeat
Posts: 1,597 +1,423
So you’re saying that 720p testing won’t matter in the future because games are GPU limited? Games are GPU limited now mate! You’ve just sidestepped the point. It is absolutely reasonable to assume that if chip a is faster than chip b today then the same will be true of games released in the future. Ryzen is slower than Intel at gaming today and will continue to be in the future, at least to make this assumption is not unreasonable based on current testing. It would be unreasonable to assume that AMD’s chips will overtake Intels chips.
And funny, the “wait for Ryzen 2” chants are already out, the AMD fandom waited 5 years for Ryzen and 6 months in now we have to wait for Ryzen 2?! Ryzen 2 needs to be faster for AMDs sake, it’s definitely not a given though, I expected Ryzen 1 to be better than Intel mostly because of the hype. It wasn’t, close but second best and crucially, not an upgrade for existing Intel systems over the last 5 years. Ryzen 2 is roadmapped for 2019 but I’d take that with a pinch of salt. Both AMDs recent big releases were heavily delayed (Ryzen and Vega). And Intel release far more SKUs per year than AMD do. So what happens when Ryzen 2 releases is anyone’s guess.
Of course it smacks of desperate fanboyism to get so upset on a forum about one corporations chips being slower than another corporations chips in gaming apps to start asserting that the corporation whom you prefer will definitely be better on the next release (scheduled for 2019). Why don’t you put a $1000 dollar bet on Ryzen 2 benchmarks beating its competition at gaming on release? I’m sure a bookie somewhere will happily take your money on that one and even give you good odds!
Vulcanproject
Posts: 1,698 +3,210
I'm actually shocked how slow Ryzen is in F1 2017 and Project CARS 2. Both great games that racers will want to pick up.
AMD really do need to work hard on Ryzen's gaming performance if they are to close off all reasons for people to purchase Intel, stuff like that is why consumers will ultimately go to the tried and tested if they have any doubts.
AMD really do need to work hard on Ryzen's gaming performance if they are to close off all reasons for people to purchase Intel, stuff like that is why consumers will ultimately go to the tried and tested if they have any doubts.
Basically it goes like this:
Current games: less cores with higher GHz is better.
Future games: more cores is better even if they have less GHz.
So 720p does not tell anything about speed in future games. It only tells something about current games in the future. Totally different things. Future games will surely make better use of cores, that's 100% sure. You can argue how long timeframe is "future" but not that it won't happen.
Ryzen was supposed to have Sandy Bridge class IPC (40% better than Excavator) with clock speeds around 3 GHz (because of manufacturing process). I don't know where you read hype that said it will be better than Intel's low core offerings
Many people still think there are no decent upgrade from 5 year old Intel system even when considering Intel's offerings. At least Ryzen is pretty good upgrade when considering I/O options whereas Intel's LGA1151v2 is not.
Ryzen 2 is roadmapped for late 2018, so "somewhere" 2019 is not hard prediction. And it should fit current AM4 boards.
That's good idea, I'll start asking what odds I could get for that bet.
111/92 FPS minimum is slow? Yeah, totally unplayable "(y)"
There's not much AMD can do if game is crappy Intel optimized title that uses old DX11 instead newer DX12 or vulkan.
Vulcanproject
Posts: 1,698 +3,210
It's slow at just 1080p for sure! Especially relative to the alternatives. Just in Project CARS 2 1500X is way slower than a mere 7600K, enough to make a very noticeable difference.
Neither of those games are particularly optimized for Intel, but the fact is if you have Intel then you know you can't go wrong as it'll be the target architecture. As long as it stays that way it's just another reason for consumers to not change. Concerning that I was looking at Zelda on CEMU today and if you have an Intel CPU and Nvidia GPU, it works a charm. Anything AMD doesn't so much.
There is plenty AMD can do, but blaming everybody else does nothing.
Boilerhog146
Posts: 642 +223
Over a year later again! Welcome to the party!
Rysen 2 had better be faster than these current intel chips.or we'll be doing this all over again.lol
What do you figure Intel will be doing in the meantime?sitting back on their laurals .waiting for it.I doubt it.they will be ready to counter again ,rest assured.IMO.had to throw that in .no all seeing, third eye here!
I just got to get me one of those crystal ball /time machine things you guys use to read those future benchmarks
and make such wild statements based on.can't be just opinions can they? Keep the Faith!
Last edited:
Boilerhog146
Posts: 642 +223
Basically it goes like this:
Current games: less cores with higher GHz is better.
Future games: more cores is better even if they have less GHz.
So 720p does not tell anything about speed in future games. It only tells something about current games in the future. Totally different things. Future games will surely make better use of cores, that's 100% sure. You can argue how long timeframe is "future" but not that it won't happen.
Ryzen was supposed to have Sandy Bridge class IPC (40% better than Excavator) with clock speeds around 3 GHz (because of manufacturing process). I don't know where you read hype that said it will be better than Intel's low core offerings
Many people still think there are no decent upgrade from 5 year old Intel system even when considering Intel's offerings. At least Ryzen is pretty good upgrade when considering I/O options whereas Intel's LGA1151v2 is not.
Ryzen 2 is roadmapped for late 2018, so "somewhere" 2019 is not hard prediction. And it should fit current AM4 boards.
That's good idea, I'll start asking what odds I could get for that bet.
111/92 FPS minimum is slow? Yeah, totally unplayable "(y)"
There's not much AMD can do if game is crappy Intel optimized title that uses old DX11 instead newer DX12 or vulkan.
I had to charge my phone .lol.
So more crystal ball/ time machine type predictions.good stuff.seems like you know what the game devs are thinking.finally gonna do some FREE optimising on some games for AMD .
Phr3d
Posts: 404 +87
"we'll use the much cheaper Ryzen 7 1700 overclocked to 4GHz."
much appreciated, Steve -- with holidays around the corner that and a mini-mobo are Top of my christmas list.. like to know how an affordable 7-17 selection will compare for the few titles I may pursue.
The REST of the 7-17 duties are already clear cut winners, so it's mine regardless of OC gaming performance, but still nice to know.
(and good on yer Intel for dragging out a 6-core affordable that has probably been on the shelf for 12 months or more, but with NO competition, why Bother and hurt your own sales..)
much appreciated, Steve -- with holidays around the corner that and a mini-mobo are Top of my christmas list.. like to know how an affordable 7-17 selection will compare for the few titles I may pursue.
The REST of the 7-17 duties are already clear cut winners, so it's mine regardless of OC gaming performance, but still nice to know.
(and good on yer Intel for dragging out a 6-core affordable that has probably been on the shelf for 12 months or more, but with NO competition, why Bother and hurt your own sales..)
Outlander04
Posts: 18 +6
Steve is it possible an intel bias is creeping into your results?
Take the Overwatch 1440p results . Ryzen 1800X and 1600X score the same average FPS as the 7700K and the 7600K . Both Ryzen chips score higher minimum frame rates than the intels and yet your chart ranks them lower .
Why?
Come to think of it he Ryzen scores higher minimum FPS than even the i7 8700K .
Take the Overwatch 1440p results . Ryzen 1800X and 1600X score the same average FPS as the 7700K and the 7600K . Both Ryzen chips score higher minimum frame rates than the intels and yet your chart ranks them lower .
Why?
Come to think of it he Ryzen scores higher minimum FPS than even the i7 8700K .
Ira Wechsler
Posts: 24 +12
Ira Wechsler
Posts: 24 +12
I do not like kings I am an egalitarian communist. Kings are b's in this day and age. What a waste using computers exclusively or mostly for gaming. I do a fair amount of streaming and searches for real news about labor struggles and mass anti-racist struggles. Most games today are savage bloody war games where three cheers for the red white and blue justifies massacres of families all in the name of Exxon-Mobil and BP. That is what the so-called war on terror is really about. Tell me who created ISIS and When? This crap is all fallout from papa Bush's Gulf War and opening military bases in the Arabian Penoinsula to protect Exxon-Mobils oil fields. Militaristic games are all based on lies and more lies. It is fun go kill an animated object. Do you think there is no fallout from killing real people even if justified by Wall Streets flag? Tell that to those poor deranged vets whose minds are blown after killing innocents. You can find them sleeping under bridges in every city. When the gaming industry starts making games with positive human values then I will worry which cpu is better for gaming. Ignorance abounds here with plenty of lost souls with no humanity left in them.
Boilerhog146
Posts: 642 +223
I don't like Kings or communists.
Yeah,I know.but he had only 1like since 2016.I think this was his best post out of all 8. And a nice rant it was.
Games with positive human values? Don't sound like much fun.
maybe a game with humanitarian missions?
as a psychologist running around looking under bridges.for messed up vets.wouldn't be very sensitive.
Yeah,I know.but he had only 1like since 2016.I think this was his best post out of all 8. And a nice rant it was.
Games with positive human values? Don't sound like much fun.
maybe a game with humanitarian missions?
as a psychologist running around looking under bridges.for messed up vets.wouldn't be very sensitive.
Last edited:
Boilerhog146
Posts: 642 +223
Lots of posts noting the gpu limiting.which is what you see at higher resolution.which is what the 720p results are for.480 p results would show more spread though meaningless as well.
looks like he placed the cpus in the same order.to remove risk of confusion or mixup.in the graphs.
nope .he did that in a few of the graphs.averages the same with higher minimums placed lower in the charts.I'm not gonna list them but if you look at a few of the earlier graphs you can see .
this was a lot of work .it got late or he got a bit lazy doing the charts it seems.not a big deal ,the numbers are there.
WTF? with over 650 benchmark passes.everybody was up all night for this one.
So ,er,um, when can we expect the overclocking article? LMFAO!
Last edited:
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,221 +3,075
I personally don't care if it does or not. Nor does anyone buying OEM.
NightAntilli
Posts: 929 +1,195
What do Project Cars and F1 2017 have in common?
GameWorks.
Waiting on Ryzen's gaming performance to improve for those titles is like waiting for money to grow on trees.
Sorry for being bias there, I just hate AMD, cant you tell? Actually it's Microsoft Excel who really hates AMD, auto arrange data by average result is what you're looking at. If you think I'm being childish and not taking your comment serious, it's because I'm being childish and not taking your comment serious. My trigger word is bias with either AMD, Intel or Nvidia in-front of it.
Can't recall the last time I found a single fps difference between 16GB's and 32GB's of memory in games. Despite your comment, I'm sure you're aware that Ryzen still has issues when all DIMMs are populated and as a result can't run at 3200 speeds.
PetrolHead
Posts: 68 +36
This is to be expected. Four memory modules stresses the memory controller more than two modules, so it's not surprising that the amount of modules also affects the achievable overclocking results. In fact, for several AMD CPUs from FX to Sempron, even the maximum supported _stock_ memory speed has varied depending on the amount of modules used, as well as the amount of available slots and the rank of the modules. For example for the FX line the officially supported speeds are as follows:
2 slots available, 2 populated: 1866 MHz
4 slots available, 2 populated: 1600 MHz
4 slots available, 4 poplutated, single rank memory: 1600 MHz
4 slots available, 4 populated, dual rank memory (or both dual and single rank): 1333 MHz
I don't know if Intel CPUs have been similarly sensitive to the memory configuration, but it's hard to see any point in using 32 GB of memory. The best case scenario is that it has no effect, but the worst case scenario is that it affects the maximum stable OC you can achieve.
Why is politics being mixed up with CPU benchmarking? Intel has been caught and fined in the past for their violations, but regardless of Intel, AMD, nVidia, etc. these are for profit corporations. None of them are saints. They have all long outsourced the manufacturing out of the U.S.A. decades ago. In the big picture is probably better for the world this way, though I would like it to be better for the U.S.A.
Nevertheless, the thing that matters now with these multinationals is to protect the individuals from being exploited. It starts by people actively defending their wallets. Looking for the best band for the buck is a start. Future proofing is folly, but it is even smarter is to look for the best bang for the buck over longer time frame.
Intel CPUs will work at DDR4-4000 speeds with all DIMMs populated, they aren't nearly as sensitive.
Similar threads
- Locked
