1. TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users. Ask a question and give support. Join the community here.
    TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users.
    Ask a question and give support.
    Join the community here, it only takes a minute.
    Dismiss Notice

Nvidia Volta gaming GPUs are not in the 'foreseeable future'

By Cal Jeffrey · 139 replies
Aug 15, 2017
Post New Reply
  1. Strawman

    Strawman TS Maniac Posts: 209   +154

    How about you use your brain instead of using tom's hierarchy chart that has no data either? The 6300 is the same CPU as the 6350 only clocked 100mhz lower on turbo and 400 on normal. You can OC it to the exact same frequency, as is the case with all the AMD's CPU's for as far as I can remember. The fx 8300 for example can be oced to the fx 8350 frequencies without even touching the voltages.

    Just by looking at it though the chart is full of ****. It has the i7 980 in the same tier as the i3 2100!? It has the phenom X4 above the 8370E? LOL
    HardReset likes this.
  2. AntiShill

    AntiShill TS Booster Posts: 190   +48

    You sure like cherry picking, wheres your link to show rest of the data.

    If the 1300x with 4 cores can't max a 1070 or 1080 then 6 of the same cores is NOT going to help either. And DDR4-4000, add another $100 or $150 to you R5 will ya. That stuff is not free. And it has already been demonstrated where Ryzen's limits are, none of then can max a GTX1080ti for sure and they are already capping 1440p on even a GTX1070.

    You like to make irrelevant nonsensical comparisons. Not going spend more time of 2013 vintage garbage. I just got rid of a FX-8320, 2 more cores than your fx-6350, and still managed to bottleneck the GTX970, while my even older i5-2500K will handle the same GTX970 just fine.

    Desperately making up lies now aren't you. nVidia released the GTX1060 6GB at $249 see:

    Current market prices due to crypto currency mining does NOT allow AMD to set a higher MSRP just because they feel being greedy. We as consumers can see this a blatant attempt as selling less for more.

    More lies. Last I checked market price for the top line 7700K is $280 and the R7 1800x is $350. See:

    You got do better than posting blatant lies. It dosen't take google long to find hard facts. BTW if AMD wasn't overpriced why has that R7 1800x dropped from $500 to $350 already. And microcenter even give it another $30 discount for a mobo, so essentially $320. So my $250 price is really NOT all that unrealistic or unreasonable. Which is all to say AMD is overpriced and AMD knows it. Now that they ran out of donations from the fanboys, the market will assert the true pricing.

    You are paying more for less with AMD. You will be taking a massive loss on bang-for-the-buck to go with AMD right now, for anything but the 1300x with the $30 discount at Microcenter.
    Boilerhog146 likes this.
  3. AntiShill

    AntiShill TS Booster Posts: 190   +48

    How about you stop insulting people with lies you invent. Tom's char has more credibility than your subjective opinions.
    Boilerhog146 likes this.
  4. Strawman

    Strawman TS Maniac Posts: 209   +154

    Here is the whole benchmark. Throughout the whole of it he kept talking about how the i5 got **** on by the R5. He talked about the R5 burning the i5 to the ground, the i5 having catastrophic drops in heavy scenes etcetera. Not my words.

    And mind you, DF does one of best most thorough benchmarks.

    Okay, since you are full of nonsense, I'll have to say something in order to properly debunk the **** you are sprouting. First of all, there is no CPU around that can max any card in every game. For example, even 7700k at 6ghz WILL bottleneck a 1080ti in some games. Dota 2 for example.

    So with that said, let's proceed. Are there games that will bottleneck the 1080ti on 1080p on an R5? Sure. But as I've said above, there are games that will also bottleneck the i5 AND the i7! So saying that Ryzen bottlenecks a 1080ti is just dumb and meaningless. ALL cpus can bottleneck a 1080ti, it entirely depends on the game. You are just being biased towards Intel here.

    The fact of the matter is the R5 1600 offers a better gaming experience all around than an i5, it is about 70 to 100€ cheaper and completely demolishes it in most other tasks. Now with that said, please show the benchmarks where a 1070 was bottlenecked on 1440p on an R5 (and that it doesn't do the same thing on an i5). That doesn't exist, does it?

    I agree, the 8 core fx's weren't that good compared to the similarly priced 2500k. I had an fx 8350. Although I really doubt it bottlenecked your 970.

    Nonsense. That's MSRP, not the actual price. There never was a 1060 6gb for 250$, cheapest I could find throughout all Europe was 270€, that's 300$. That was 8 months ago mind you. I know the prices back then because I actually bought one.

    Oh, so now we changed from MSRP to market price? You are a disgusting dishonest intel fanboy. I won't be replying to you if you keep this up, this is the first and final warning. If you want to have a discussion stop acting dishonestly, otherwise I'm done with you

    But case in point, I agree, the 1800x is overpriced. So what? The 1700 is the exact same thing much cheaper. Also, there is the R5 1600 at 200$. That's a steal frankly.

    Because AMD only has one processor, the 1800x, therefore if the 1800x is overpriced then the entire AMD's lineup is overpriced? Lol, bullocks. You are, once again, dishonest, biased and hold double standards. The i7's and the i5's prices also dropped btw, you didn't seem to mention it. Could you buy a 7700k a year ago for 280$? Again, last warning, next time you are getting ignored. Either stop being a biased **** or welcome to my ignore list.

    No you are not. The R5 1600 completely demolishes everything in it's price range, the more expensive i5 7600k included. It's not even a contest. Double the performance in most tasks, similar performance in gaming, comes with a cooler, cheaper motherboards and long term support for the socket. Sorry, comparing the R5 to an i5 in terms of vfm is a joke.

    Actually, if I were to be as dishonest and biased as you are, I could point out that the i5 7600k even bottlenecks a 1060 in Crysis 3 for example. Should I now keep repeating that the i5 bottlenecks a 1060 as my main point during this back and forth exactly as you are doing? Nah, I'm not a disgusting dishonest fanboy, sorry.
    HardReset likes this.
  5. OcelotRex

    OcelotRex TS Guru Posts: 533   +291

    I never made the claim - you did. I used a known, expert opinion to support mine while you continue to make unsubstaintiated claims.

    Furthermore an unlocked 6 core processor taking 5 years to supersede the performance of a 2C/4T i3 isn't what rationale people would call a win. Focusing on price is a total red herring as by that time that was the only arena that AMD could play in.

    Some modern game engines can take take advantage of "moar cores" now but Intel's faster cores still end up better in 2017. from the 1600X review on this site:
    I'm willing to agree that sometime in the future more games will favor more cores/threads than the current value leader, the i5. Ryzen adoption rates will help that. Intel's next release supposedly being 6/12 i7's and 4/8 i5's will help that as well. It's going to be a few years still as engines have to be built, licensed, and games developed on them. Will the 1600X surpass the 7600k in 5 years? Perhaps but most will have built a new PC in the interim making it irrelevant.
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2017
  6. Strawman

    Strawman TS Maniac Posts: 209   +154

    Tom's hardware is an expect? Why, cause he has a site? You do realize most people think he is one of the worst benchmarking sources out there, right?

    Anyways, I showed you why Tom's hardware chart is flawed. Do you agree that the i3 2100 isn't in the same tier as an i7 980 or not? Cause if you don't, there is no reason to continue talking about it

    I never talked about a win. I said the original claim, that as time goes by more and more games will take advantage of "moar cores" proved to be true. But you mocked it, so you were wrong. It's time to man-up and admit it.

    Also, it didn't take 5 years. The fx 6350 was faster from 2015 onwards in most games. That's less than 2 years from release date mind you.

    You can cherrypick all you like from the article. Here, let me try

    So, similar performance in gaming TODAY, way way way way better in productivity and more future proofed. How is that even a fair comparison? Are you telling me that if you were to buy today you would go for the i5 7600k over an R5 1600 (which btw will cost you 70-100€ more as a platform)? That's just insane, sorry, you are crazy.

    Bottom line is, even if the 7600k actually HAD an advantage today in gaming, it won't have in the future, the same way it happened with the fx 6350 / i3. It happened in the past, contrary to what you said, that it didn't happen. You were wrong.
    Avro Arrow and HardReset like this.
  7. OcelotRex

    OcelotRex TS Guru Posts: 533   +291

    That's not the finding of the site you're posting on. Seem my post above.
    I purchased a MSI GeForce GTX 1060 GAMING X 6G for $229.99 with $10 MIR (and free shipping) on March 7, 2017 in the USA. The original MSRP of that card was $299.99.
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2017
    AntiShill likes this.
  8. OcelotRex

    OcelotRex TS Guru Posts: 533   +291

    Tom's is unequivocally an expert compared to your opinion. Until you back your claims with data then I agree, there's no reason for you to continue talking.
    That hasn't happened in the last 5 years nor has it become the norm today, see below.
    The pertinent point about gaming performance was quoted already: Granted, they're exceptionally good cores that can be pushed quite far and may even look to be the better choice right now in most games.
    So you're waiting 5 years again for the 1600x to pass the 7600k? That's not future proofing. I would buy the i7-7700k if I were buying today FWIW but now is not a good time to be buying with Intel releasing new processors over the coming months.

    You can disagree with the site you're posting on all you want but the red highlight above is clear - the 7600k does have an advantage today over the 1600X. Why you post here after that though I question.
    AntiShill likes this.
  9. AntiShill

    AntiShill TS Booster Posts: 190   +48

    Says you. It is the most biased benchmark, the presenter is hardly objective or balanced, just like faux news. Who the heck is DF anyways? Your friends? Where are their published charts of the benchmarks. Anyone can blabber on an on a video. Present the actual data, do statistical analysis.

    You sure about that? Max "any" card is not the same a max "every" card. I'm pretty sure any current CPU can max 8800GT, and the 8800GT is one of many of the any card selection. But run a GTX1080ti at 4K, there is no CPU that is 100% utilization today, the GPU is fully bottlenecked so the CPU is maxing the GPU in that case. Prove to us that that 7700k at 6ghz WILL bottleneck a 1080ti in "Dota 2 for example" once again you provide no proof, and no definition as to what you mean by "max any card".

    Whereas at 1400p or 1080p, the GPU is no longer at 100% utilization, but the Ryzen is unable to keep up with GPU, and you end with lower FPS. This is true for R7, R5, and R3. They share the same core design and suffer the same limitations.

    I am not biased towards Intel, why else would I even pay to experiment with the 1300x. The data has shown that Ryzen's cap the 1080ti at a lower framerate. It is nonsense to say all cpus can bottleneck a 1080ti, because obvious there is not a single CPU that deliver infinite FPS now is there. So ryzen has a bottleneck at a lower FPS than that the 7700k. The ryzen bottleneck is obvious for everyone to see:


    You just have to infer the 1070 performance from the data provided by the 1060 and 1080. No one is obliged to find you the 1070 data you want. You got google, you can find it and show us. You can see that the R5 is having trouble to get a clear win against the likes of the non-K i5s. What makes you think it will do better against the 7600K. BTW I think everyone will agree that Anandtech does very thorough tests and presents their data for every to see without sitting thru some ______ blabbering.

    Why doubt, go find out. For my own FFXIV bench using the same GTX970 it score whole 1000 points less than the 1300x. If that is not the FX8320 bottlenecking my GPU, I don't know how else to explain it.

    Your European prices is of no concern to me in the U.S. But the MSRP from nVidia is what compared to against AMD's vega MSRP. That is an apples to apples comparison. BTW you are the one talking about market prices here. In any case I got receipt of me getting a EVGA GTX1060 for $184 with a $25 rebate, so essentially $160 since I already deposited my rebate check. So this is not nonsense. It is your own fault for not being able to shop for the best deals.

    Oh I am scared. You are welcome to ignore me btw. What is so dishonest about market prices. What is dishonest is AMD's attempt to overprice Vega taking advantage of market prices.

    That is you fooling yourself think that is a steal. Lets start with with a good fair price for 1800x, $250 is my claim. I do NOT believe I am far off, since the 1700 is going for $270 right now, and there is $30 off for mobo with that too see:

    $250 for R7 1800x
    $225 for R7 1700x
    $200 for R7 1700
    Then we need a price gap to the R5 so
    $150 for R5 1600x
    $140 tor R5 1600
    $130 for the R5 1500x
    BTW with the 1500x at $170 with $30 off for mob see:
    I am no that far off. You can see where the market has pushed things as they should be without distortions, like crypto miners on GPUs.
    Then junk the 1400, it is utter garbage
    and then
    $100 for the R3 1300x
    $90 for the R3 1200

    This how AMD should price their ryzens if they want to win over customers. It only fair because we need to mitigate the case where we need to replace the CPU when it bottlenecks the next gen video cards. AMD should get back to being the best bang-for-the-buck and provide us unrivaled value.
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2017
  10. Strawman

    Strawman TS Maniac Posts: 209   +154

    I did. The i3 2100 is worse than the i7 980 (but quite a huge margin) though tom's have it in the same category. Therefore, tom's hardware is wrong. Unequivocally. No reason for you to continue talking, unless you want to admit I'm right

    Yes it has. Fx 6350 > i3 3rd gen. That's a fact. Unequivocally.

    No it wasn't. There are 2 more quotes more than what you quoted, and they both said that they are similar in gaming. You only quoted what suited your case. Even your quote has a MAY in it.

    No I'm not, it's already outperforming it today. Try out Pubg / bf1 64mp / crysis 3. The i5 doesn't stand a chance.

    Also, yes it actually is future proofing. If you expect to keep your CPU for 5 years than obviously the one with more core and similar performance today is the smart choice.

    You are the one disagreeing with the site you are posting :)

    The paragraph you mentioned said "MAY". The other 2 I quoted said there is no difference. Why you post here after that though I question.


    I said it before and I'll say it again. The i5 7600k performs better when it doesn't ****ing matter. In heavy scenes though ,it completely gets demolished, as seen by the DF benchmark that included the frametimes. The i5 is just absolutely horrendous if you want 60 fps gaming. Heck, it bottlenecks a 1060 in a 4 years old title!!!
    HardReset likes this.
  11. OcelotRex

    OcelotRex TS Guru Posts: 533   +291


    You talk big and cannot back it up so we're done. Keep repeating yourself and you'll keep believing yourself.

    I'll post from Anandtech as well but since they don't agree with you I am sure you will dismiss:
    I cannot remember how many DX12 titles there are that are CPU limited but I know that's a small subset. I know you'll come back with "but in the future!!!" but that's the issue at hand - people like you are always claiming it's only a short time until performance gets better.
  12. Strawman

    Strawman TS Maniac Posts: 209   +154

    It DOESN'T matter. I wasn't comparing the i5 to the R5. I was simply suggesting that what you said was WRONG. It was. Demonstrably so. The claim that you mocked, that more cores will be more future proof was proven to be TRUE. You were WRONG. Now all you can do is a grow a pair and admit it. An fx 6350 demolishes a 3rd gen i3. You said otherwise. I'll be here waiting for you to prove that the claim that you mocked is wrong.

    Also, I'm not claiming anything. Sure the i5 is better, when it DOESN'T MATTER! That's the whole ****ing point, and that's exactly what the DF review showed. Yes, in light dx9 games, the i5 is great. It gets 200 fps while the R5 gets 180. Does it matter? Not really. But when it comes to heavy games and heavy scenes, the i5 gets completely demolished. This says it all. It even bottlenecks a 1060 on a 4 year old game. Find me anything that comes close to the picture below where the i5 is twice as fast as the R5 in any game. I'll be waiting

    HardReset likes this.
  13. Strawman

    Strawman TS Maniac Posts: 209   +154


    Seems like the 7700k bottlenecks high end cards in yet another game! Great isn't it? And wow, look at that i5 7600k. Absolutely astounding performance. It sits on the bottom right next to the 1500x!

    That AMD should really cut their prices
    HardReset likes this.
  14. OcelotRex

    OcelotRex TS Guru Posts: 533   +291

    Not only does that not matter 5 years down the road but you keep asserting that without providing the proof to back up that claim. Now you're shifting the onus to prove your assertion on me? That's about as weak of an argument as as one can attempt.
    Umm....read upthread. You're the one making all the unsubstantiated claims.
    This is a discussion about gaming. The i5 is better (thanks for the admission) at gaming. The end. Full Stop. The same can be said about the i7-7700k and Ryzen 7. End of Story.

    3-5 years down the road Ryzen may fill the script but that's a long time to wait if you're buying in the last 12 months. Value wise, not pure gaming performance, Ryzen is an excellent product. Just stop trying so hard to prove something that people much more qualified than you have proven to be wrong.
    Boilerhog146 and AntiShill like this.
  15. OcelotRex

    OcelotRex TS Guru Posts: 533   +291

    Ashes is a game? It's a glorified benchmark
    They did.
    Boilerhog146 and AntiShill like this.
  16. AntiShill

    AntiShill TS Booster Posts: 190   +48

    You sure love them cherry picked stats. Look at the rest of the data the article shows:

    No wonder you do not provide the whole link. See here is more typical chart from the same article:

    And what is the obsession with that one scene in crysis 3? That is the ultimate cherry pick. If the Average well over 110 fps, and there is an ocassional drop to 60, so what. The i5-7600k is only $180 see:
    Where as the 1600x is at $220 see:
    That is 20% more for basically the the same performance or less in a lot of cases.

    That is why AMD Ryzen prices have been dropping. 1800x is down to $350 from $500 in less than 6 months. There is no disputing real facts.
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2017
    Boilerhog146 likes this.
  17. Boilerhog146

    Boilerhog146 TS Evangelist Posts: 617   +217

    He uses ashes too ,a well known AMD sponsored title ,which uses a-sync compute( Proprietary software).. as well I haven't seen to many post containing that tidbit,
    AntiShill likes this.
  18. Strawman

    Strawman TS Maniac Posts: 209   +154

    I'm not shifting, you started the "prove it" argument, but you kinda forgot that you were the one that made the original argument about "moar cores". Look 2 pages behind.

    The i7 is indeed better than the R7, the i5 isn't. On average, they are on par. Some games it's behind, sometimes it's in the front. Thing is, as I've said already, it wins when mostly it doesn't matter.

    Also leaving the productivity aspect outside is like comparing the R7 to a xeon only in gaming and concluding that the xeon's are overpriced. That's bullshit.

    True, it has been proven that when things get tough the i5 stutters and drops frames like crazy.
    HardReset likes this.
  19. Strawman

    Strawman TS Maniac Posts: 209   +154

    And what's going on in the rest of the article? They are basically neck and neck, aren't they?

    And is this cherrypicking? That's 30 games averages and minimums. R5 ties to the 7800x, which btw combined with the cooler used and the mobo to reach 4.7ghz that's 2 to 3 times the cost. Heck, the cooler itself used costs more than the 1600 + mobo!

    Also, you know what the graph shows? That in average, the 1080ti bottlenecks all 3 cpus when they are overclocked. Not in all games, hence the 10fps difference between the 7700k and the R5 1600, but those differences come from games like FC primal and Gta V which traditionally work better on Intel.

    It drops to bellow 60. And if you knew anything about gaming you would realize that the average is meaningless. The average doesn't give you a good gaming experience, the minimums do. The i5 does actually occasionally stutter, you can see it in DF's frametimes where it spikes once every 30 seconds. That's a poor gaming experience.

    For example, if a CPU gets a maximum of 2.000.000 (yes, that's 2 million) fps 50% of the time and a minimum of 0 the other 50% of the time, you get an average of 1million fps, yet the experience is shitty. That's your i5 in a nutshell.

    I've said already, 2 times probably, the higher clocks of the i5 7600k make it produce more frames in lighter scenes or games that aren't heavily threaded. But that's irrelevant, cause in these situations both cpus get the job done with over 100fps. But when things get tough, the i5 collapses. Have you tried bf1 64mp? It's not a great experience, it drops to below 60 here and there exactly like it does in crysis 3.

    Well you are back to cherrypicking again. Why are you comparing it to the 1600x? That's stupid. The 1600 gets the exact same performance since it's fully unlocked, it's cheaper and it comes with a decent cooler. Sorry, if anything, Intel needs to drop their prices. With that said, they are pretty cheap in the USA. In EU the cheapest i5 can barely be bought at 230€, and they used to cost ~270 2-3 months ago.

    An R5 1600 performs on par with 7800x, which costs 400+ euro. You don't seem to be bothered questioning that though. I wonder why, since you are not biased and objectively looking at things

    But I agree, the 1800x was crazily overpriced, and I'm guessing it didn't sell very well. The R5 1600x also was overpriced, but that's compared to the 1600 not to the i5's. The R5 1600 currently is the best bang for your buck no matter if you are gaming or working on it.

    The only CPU's from Intel worth their money right now are the g4560 and the i7 7700k in the particular scenario where you are gaming on 1080p 144hz monitor and a 1080ti. In any other case, the R5 1600 is just better, since it will allow you to spend ~200€ into a better gpu / monitor.
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017
    HardReset likes this.
  20. amyacker

    amyacker TS Rookie

    Regarding die-size, isn't it only as large as it is due to the HBM2 modules being included on it?
  21. OcelotRex

    OcelotRex TS Guru Posts: 533   +291

    I'm going to take the time to break it down here so you can get my point. While true I called out the people who've been championing the "moar cores" defense of AMD I also provided support here on this site and Anandtech. I'll let Gamer's Nexus have the last word:
    Note the words exceeded or surpassed were not used and a gap still remains
    See above. This was a gaming only discussion so determining when wins matters is reframing the argument so you can "win" is pointless.

    Now go back to post #44 in this thread. You were making claims that the FX-6300 outperforms a mobile i3-3120. I am sure that's the case as mobile CPUs in 2012 weren't the best but you've yet to substantiate that claim that in '15 the 6300 overtook i3's. At this point I think we both agree it's irrelevant but that doesn't change the fact it was thrown out there as proof and never supported.
    This was never a discussion about value or price - it was a discussion about raw gaming performance. If all you're doing is gaming the extra threads and cores don't matter.
    In some games, that can be the case. In most games the i5 cranks out a higher framerate and should considering that for the last 5-6 years the best performing processors had 4 physical cores. That's why the i5 was the recommendation for so long. It's going to take 3-5 years for developers and engines to catch up to higher count processors as more people buy them - that's been my entire argument from the beginning.
  22. Boilerhog146

    Boilerhog146 TS Evangelist Posts: 617   +217

    Did you just type that out loud?Your rookie account status is showing.,I think they are talking CPU, HBM2 accompanies the GPU.maybe in a decade see HBM8 On a CPU/GPU SoC..

    er, yes ,they are talking CPU in A GPU thread.Who Knew that could happen?:(
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017
  23. AntiShill

    AntiShill TS Booster Posts: 190   +48

    Who is neck and neck? Who cares about the overpriced 7800x. Where is the 7600k in this chart that matters.


    Well aren't you full of BS. Anandtech data on this kind of the stuff shows that R5 is better keeping up with the non-K i5. You see thru a wide range of games test benches, not just one cherry picked scene in Crysis see:

    And you can see the 99th percentile times, time under 90fps, time under 60 fps, and time under even 30 fps. And the time under 60 or 30 fps is like less that even 1 whole second for i5 or R5.

    It is not cherrypicking to compare with the 1600x. AMD should not have priced the 1600x that high start with. I've already shown my price list, and 1600x direct competitor is the 7600k. The 1600 matches up with the 7600 non-k. It is no accident that these are the lines ups see:

    7600k,7600,7500,7400 vs 1600x, 1600, 1500x, 1400 respectively. Whereas the 1500x and 1400 are clearly lower priced than their intel counterparts, the same can not be said for the 1600 and 1600x. AMD is the one being inconsistent on this. BTW I've already said with the release of the 1300x, 7600K has become overpriced. Actually everything more expensive than the 1300x is overpriced and they make up the muddled middle.

    Go ahead and believe that for yourself, that you got value because it is not extremely overpriced like the 7800x. It is same as saying a person can tolerate more heat, because they don't melt as quickly as a snowflake. Being less overpriced is still overpriced. Sorry those are the facts.

    Because if you paying for performance, then the price should be par with performance level see:

    So a 10% effective gain over the 1300x, should net you $10 at $100 for 1300x, so $110 for 1600x should be about right. So 1600x gets a better HSF, then another $10, so $120 at most. But not definitely not $50 more or nearly 50% price preium see:

    BTW the 1600 is still $10 more that the 7600k see:
  24. Strawman

    Strawman TS Maniac Posts: 209   +154

    You are the one reframing the argument though. You said that specifically, in the past, the "moar cores" argument didn't come true and so it won't come true today either. That's something you have to prove, and you haven't. I'm 100% positive that an 6350 outperforms any 3rd gen i3, which it was it's competition back in 2012.

    Heck, screw the i3. Let's go to something more recent. 2 years ago when the g3258 launched everyone was talking about how it rekt the fx8350 etcetera. A year later most games required the user to download an outside injector to even LAUNCH games! Why? Beacuse it's 2 cores weren't enough anymore. We don't even have to go to Intel vs AMD to prove that you were wrong. Take the Fx 4100 and the fx8350. They are essentially the exact same processors, just the 8350 has double the cores. If "moar cores" don't make in difference in gaming, then surely an fx 4100 performs on par with the fx 8350 in the majority of games. Do you think it does? If 4 cores is the max even today, then there should be 0 difference between these 2 cpus. Yet there is. My fx8350 that I had up until a couple of months ago was hitting 100% in all cores in lots of games (bf1 / wd 2 etcetera).

    Actually, nevermind all that. Let's go the current i5 vs the R5 1600. Since the i5 has the better IPC and 4 cores are enough it should win in all games in all situations. Yet it doesn't. It loses to quite a huge variety of games. The heavier the scenes, the more the i5's 4 cores prove to be a bottleneck. That's pretty demonstrable in BF1, where the i5 get higher averages in single player than the R5 yet in 64mp it completely fails.
    I'm not reframing any argument. When you bring the price into perspective and claim that the Ryzens are overpriced (it wasn't you who brought the argument, it was antishill) then surely the total power of a CPU has to be taken into account, don't you think? You can't expect AMD to sell 1950x at 250$ because in gaming it's equivalent to the R5, and so the same applies to the rest of their lineup. All Ryzens offer way better total performance than anything close to their price. That's a fact, with which I guess you agree

    Now with that said, what I mean by the argument that the i5 win's when it doesn't matter is pretty obvious. Yes, it gets higher average on CSgo for example, but both the i5 and the R5 get over 200 fps. So does it matter? Does it REALLY matter?

    The thing is, who wins in benchmarks is heavily determined by which part of the game you benchmark. In lighter scenes with not much going on the i5 wins, hands down. Not by much, but it does. But they both pump out a heckload of fps, so it's kinda irrelevant. But when you actually NEED the cpu to work in those heavier scenes, the i5 gets demolished. Even in Crysis 3, if you benchmark the game from start to finish the i5 will get higher averages. Yet it frequently drops to the ~50ies, while the R5 sits on 100+. Which one has the better gaming experience you reckon? The same is pretty much true for ANY game that is CPU bound.

    Even in Dota 2 my friends 4690k (oc'ed mind you) outperforms my stock R5 1600 at the start of the game. He gets about 200 and I get 180. But when teamfights start happening, his i5 can drop to ~70 while my 1600 is stuck at 100, no matter what happens. At the end of the game maybe his 4690k will have higher averages, but so what? His experience is demonstrably worse, don't you think?

    I misspoke, I just didn't remember the particular i3 that cost the exact same price as the fx 6300 / 6350. Nevertheless, pick whichever 3rd gen either you want, the fx 6300 / 6350 outperforms it in modern games.

    And although it's true that the last years the best performing cores had 4 physical cores, that was not because 4 cores are better than 6, that's because Intel never released a 6 core i5 / i7. It's obvious that more cores give more performance just by comparing an i5 to the i7 in similar clockspeeds. They are the exact same cpu's, with the only difference being the HT. Therefore, it's same to assume that since logical cores increase performance so do physical cores. I'm 100% sure that an i5 like the 7600k with 2 more cores would outperform the 4core variant without breaking a sweat. And since that's exactly what coffelake is, we just have to wait and see

    Watch this 16 minute video and come back to discuss it.
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017
    HardReset likes this.
  25. Strawman

    Strawman TS Maniac Posts: 209   +154

    Against, you are being dishonest. THIS was the link YOU posted, and they are neck and neck


    Those are launch benchmarks. Sorry, you have to try harder. RotR got a patch specifically for Ryzen and nowadays they outperform the i5's in that game. Also, nvidia released a patch cause Ryzens didn't work well with their GPU's. Take a look at the Rocket league numbers with a 1080 and with an R9 fury, it's blatantly obvious to see what I'm talking about, isn't it?

    You are the only one that cherrypicks data bro, you just linked 3 links from the same benchmark yet in none of them are the game that the r5 1600 demolished the i5. I wonder why that is. I asked you already to stop being dishonest, but you can't.

    Of course it is cherrypicking and dishonest, for the same reason it would be dishonest of me to compare the R5 1600 to the 7800x. You know it, but you just pretend that you are not biased when it's obvious taht you are :)

    The R5 1600 outperforms the i5 in gaming when it actually matters and absolutely destroys it in everything else. Also it comes with a decent cooler, it can clock on a cheap motherboard and has longtime platform support. It's the blatantly obvious choice between those 2, i5 nowadays is a bad joke, unless of course you enjoy bottlenecking a 1060 on 3-4 years old games and dropping like dubstep in cpu demanding games like 64mp bf1 :)


    This says it all. If you are dishonest in your next post, we are done.
    HardReset likes this.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...