Ryzen 7 1700 vs. Core i7-7820X: 8-Core Royal Rumble
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
SamuraiSamson
Posts: 50 +33
Depends on your gaming/mulithread ratio. The gaming performance may not be up to par, but in most other programs the R5/R7 is superior to the Kaby Lakes.
Guillermo Belli
Posts: 86 +115
Nice review, no doubt Ryzen represents tremendous value.
Would you care to share what memory kit did you use for the Ryzen build? I'm struggling to find a DDR4-3200 kit that's compatible. Also what motherboard did you use?
A list of components for reach system would be very welcome/useful in future articles.
Would you care to share what memory kit did you use for the Ryzen build? I'm struggling to find a DDR4-3200 kit that's compatible. Also what motherboard did you use?
A list of components for reach system would be very welcome/useful in future articles.
Guillermo Belli
Posts: 86 +115
I noticed that with fast memory Ryzen is not so far behind in single core performance, but of course it depends on the workload. Also, multi core gains are higher with Ryzen than with Skylake-X.
I'll speculate that the reason the 6900K is faster than the 7820X is the mesh interconnect. The software probably needs optimization, or simply will hit performance in certain workload. I guess that with very high core count Xeon parts is faster than the ring bus. We'll see...
I'll speculate that the reason the 6900K is faster than the 7820X is the mesh interconnect. The software probably needs optimization, or simply will hit performance in certain workload. I guess that with very high core count Xeon parts is faster than the ring bus. We'll see...
One thing no one mentions is Intel's chipset ecosystem. System stability is a big deal for a lot of people and Intel has had the upper hand here...at least from my experience with previous generations of AMD systems.
How many hours a day are you going to be running cinebench multi-threaded? How many hours are you going to use your PC to do file compression with 7-zip, video encoding with handbrake etc.? I got work machines, and server farms for that. For the machine I build for myself, gaming performance is the single most important deciding factor.
It is well established that Ryzen at best performs like a Sandybridge for gaming see:
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/05/26/definitive_amd_ryzen_7_realworld_gaming_guide/13
And this NOT me saying this:
"
Overall, the Intel Kaby Lake 7700K CPU at 5GHz Z270 system provided the highest performance while gaming. Didn’t matter if it was single-GPU, multi-GPU, 1080p, or 1440p, or 4K, the most wins (at least in terms of raw data) are with the 7700K at an overclocked 5GHz.
Overall, the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X at an overclocked 4GHz provided the same performance and gameplay experience as the Intel 2600K on Z68 at 4.5GHz. It was most competitive with the 2600K CPU with both overclocked to the highest levels.
In terms of gameplay experience we felt the 2600K and Ryzen CPUs "felt" the same while gaming in single-GPU at any resolution. We "felt" the 7700K at 5GHz had an experience advantage at all resolutions, and especially with multi-GPU CrossFire.
"
If you wanted to build a server farm to render video with handbrake, get ryzen. But $100-$300 CPU for home use is not a render farm. I don't want to spend $300 on a CPU and put in the all the work to build a system just so I game as well as I did on my old Sandybridge. AMD shills refuse to acknowldege this simple fact, along with the fact that the ryzen has GPU bottleneck timebomb built-in. I learned this the hardway with my FX-8320, it simply can't keep up with the GTX970 even though it is newer, got more cores, than my i7-2600k. This how Ryzen will play out 2 years from now withe nextgen GPUs.
Sure go bury your head in the sand and believe 4K 60fps or less is good enough because the GPU cap is holding everything back. But I'd be stupid to pay more for that, whether is it ridiculously overpriced Intel X whatever crap or the overpriced Ryzen 7. Overpriced is overpriced. Being less dumb than is still dumb.
And guess what, the market is not dumb. What was the wishful thinking price AMD wanted for R7 1700X? $400. Guess what, in less than 6 months, it is now at $290. See:
http://www.microcenter.com/category/4294966995,4294965455/AMD-Processors
http://www.microcenter.com/product/476004/Ryzen_7_1700X_34_GHz_8_Core_AM4_Boxed_Processor
And it is well known that the R7 1700X easily matches the 1800X. My demand that top line Ryzen be $250 is really NOT that unreasonable or unrealistic. AMD is has set there price too high to start with. The market is forcing it to reduce the price. This is the reality.
So I think I am being more than generous to AMD to say that he Ryzen's need to priced with replace/disposable pricing in mind. Because you will need to replace them in a couple years to match the newer GPUs. AMD needs to price ryzen like they did with the socket A AthlonXP (t-bird, barton, thoroughbred) vs the P4 back in the days. I remember having brought by $100 athlons and embarassed my friends $200 P4 builds at LAN parties.AMD did this back then to great effect, and they can do this down to win over substantial market share. And I stand by what I already said for the current time, the the pricing should be
R7 - $250 max for the 1800x
R5 - $150 max for the 1600x
R3 -- $100 max for the 1300x
Last edited:
The GPU bottlenecks are plain as day to see from the articles themselves and the data they presented. You attempt at pretending to not understand that is no you. Ryzen is already bottlenecking GTX1080ti at 1440p. Faster GPU means that bottleneck will extend to 4K.
Sure you can take the stand that you will never want more than 4K at around 60fps, but that is not where gamers like for things to stay. Why can't we have 4K at G-synced 144hz? Why shouldn't we build good bang-for-the-buck systems with forethought and planning for when that can happen? Fact is that Ryzen is priced to high right now for that bang-for-the-buck equation to work.
All this speculation about software optimization is just pure speculation. It is wishful thinking. When that optimization finally goes live 2 years later, you got new CPUs to consider, and new pricing landscape to account for. You'd better off if you can buy cheaper now and assume a "disposable model" and replace it later. This something that AMD can actually use to their advantage because they don't replace the socket all the damn time like Intel. But AMD negates this when they overprice their Ryzen, especially for those with existing Sandbridge, Haswell, setups, it is really only a side grade for gaming performance. AMD has got to reduce their barrier of entry.
Guillermo Belli
Posts: 86 +115
I initially read the article from my mobile phone, and for some reason did not see the components table, so never mind about that. But still, I wold like to know what memory kit did you use.
What kind of timings were you using with 3200mhz ram?
This is what happens when you run over 3200 C14 and tightened sub-timings:
https://bbs.io-tech.fi/attachments/witcher-3-memtest-v4-png.21212/
And this is what happens when you run Ryzen with 3466 C14 and tightened sub-timings vs 2133mhz:
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/aot/223462/aot/223459
Are we honestly looking at the same processor?
This is what happens when you run over 3200 C14 and tightened sub-timings:
https://bbs.io-tech.fi/attachments/witcher-3-memtest-v4-png.21212/
And this is what happens when you run Ryzen with 3466 C14 and tightened sub-timings vs 2133mhz:
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/aot/223462/aot/223459
Are we honestly looking at the same processor?
Last edited by a moderator:
CaptainTom
Posts: 414 +221
Like someone else said - are you serious?
Skylake-X is not stronger than Ryzen cpu's costing half as much (And using substantially less energy). In fact Skylake-X has lower IPC than Broadwell, Skylake, AND Zen. The only thing Intel has is the overpriced 7700K for 165Hz+ 1080p gaming, that's it. Everything else is equal or weaker than Zen for more money and power usage.
Those who shill for intel will do so without end. My performance machine, which most would call a gaming machine, is used for coding, video conversion. Real time compression and decompression of large dataset sql databases.
Sure, gaming benchmarks make intel look good; but MOST people looking at AMD aren't gaming 24-7-365. AMD now has three generations of being on par with intel orange to orange comparison in gaming and their best consumer offerings match, exceed, and occasionally even outrun top line intel on more realistic things. Like video conversion and file compression.
My view here is that we've got $1000 range intel chips that give you a few more fps on a subset of games; or a sub $300 chip that trounced them in some tests, and pull even in most others.
Are we really supposed to be looking at 70fps vs 68fps on one game at the detriment of all the heavy lifting numbers numbers?
Sure, gaming benchmarks make intel look good; but MOST people looking at AMD aren't gaming 24-7-365. AMD now has three generations of being on par with intel orange to orange comparison in gaming and their best consumer offerings match, exceed, and occasionally even outrun top line intel on more realistic things. Like video conversion and file compression.
My view here is that we've got $1000 range intel chips that give you a few more fps on a subset of games; or a sub $300 chip that trounced them in some tests, and pull even in most others.
Are we really supposed to be looking at 70fps vs 68fps on one game at the detriment of all the heavy lifting numbers numbers?
G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 CL14 using XMP profile.
gamerk2
Posts: 971 +984
The results aren't that shocking. Put together the cache differences, and the slower core-to-core communication (due to moving beyond a handful of cores, this change was necessary), and just plain old scheduling overhead, and you have a lot of performance loss compared to a *slower* CPU architecture with fewer cores.
I've warned about this for a few years now: Adding cores that do not go used will have negative performance impacts. And you're starting to see this issue come up in gaming results.
I've warned about this for a few years now: Adding cores that do not go used will have negative performance impacts. And you're starting to see this issue come up in gaming results.
namesrejected
Posts: 398 +302
You need to return whatever your smoking, its some bad sh*t and its clearly screwed with your head. AMD has to make a profit, your asking them to give their processors away.
You know full well ryzen is no winning in the gaming benches and has a GPU bottleneck timebomb. So all you can do resort to nonsensical insults. AMD made profits selling AthlonXP back in the days for significantly less than the P4. They can do same for current Ryzens. We as consumers should always demand lower pricing. AMD fails its purpose if it is letting Intel sell overpriced processor. I.e. basically getting away with murder. Ryzen is failing badly right now at getting Intel to lower their prices.
All these over $300 CPU are overpriced and irrelevant to the gamer builds who are looking for best bang for the buck. Stop bringing up strawmen overpriced skylake-x crap. Sorry for you partisans, the 7700K happens to own the crown for this. AMD needs to price to challenge intel because they are NOT winning the benches across the board and definitely falling behind on gaming, and they are already showing that they will bottleneck the future GPU, not to mention even the current GTX1080ti.
Nice to see someone understands that more cores does NOT automagically get you more performance. AMD needs to understand this too! More cores are only going to get you performance for the highly parallelizable/multi-threaded workload, which has very limited application for home users and gamers.
fadingfool
Posts: 331 +416
Unfortunately I don't just get to run games on my system and unlike the benchmarks used in all the articles my machine is not a fresh install with nothing else running. Extra cores means I can have all the cores required for gaming plus all the usual stuff going on behind the scenes on a machine that is running 24/7. This bottleneck GPu issue you keep alluding to doesn't effect above 1080p so for most enthusiasts is irrelevant - and whilst no-one is doubting the i7 7700k is great gaming chip this will not always be the case (I can't see any reason to upgrade to a 7700k from my 3770 - yet the extra cores of the Ryzen does appeal - not as much as thread ripper though).
Games will need more cores in the future (and with the current gen of consoles running off 8 core AMD probably sooner rather than later) and Intel mother boards and chipsets are always dead ends (never a decent upgrade path with Intel) .
namesrejected
Posts: 398 +302
Its not AMDs purpose to get Intel to lower their price, its the consumers. Plain and simple, if its overpriced don't buy it. Do you think Ferrari will lower their prices if GMC starts giving away vehicles? Intel overprices their stuff because the market they care about has deep pockets, and doesn't care about price. EPYC scares Intel, EPYC threatens the market Intel cares about. The PC market could fade away as far as Intel is concerned, and that is why AMD will have little to no effect on Intels prices. AMD is doing their job great, they are offering the consumer a product at a fair price " and in my opinion, they could easily tack on another $50 to $100 and still be fair ".
There, no nonsensical insults that time. Just common sense.
Kibaruk
Posts: 3,836 +1,189
When you think you can't be impressed... this guy comes and asks you to hold his beer.
Let me explain in simple words what that article is about, it generated a lot of polemic at that time -heck I know I was an active participant-, so it's understandable that you didn't get the idea on a simple read. Those articles, are about how people are performing benchmarks, the methodology of the benchmark and not about which processor or video card is faster per se. In the sense that games -for the most part- are heavily reliant on GPU and not CPU, so why there should be benchmarks done with X hardware and not Y hardware. How using this GPU versus that GPU could heavily incline the scale towards one of the products, while not really being the best hardware.
When ryzen performs about as well as sandybridge for gaming and is show the same kind of slow down bottleneck as Sandbridge for GTX1080ti, you know as well as I do that it does NOT have much more future capacity. Come tell me this crap two years from now, when this current generation of ryzen can no longer keep up with the new GPUs when you 4K 144hz become affordable and is a lot more common place.
AMD is no Ferrari to start with, nor is Intel. But you bet if Toyota lowers their prices, Honda, GM, Ford, etc. will all have to follow suit or lose sales, or any of the major manufacturers adjusts their prices all the other will feel the ripple effects very quickly. AMD has always been a second source and second best option to Intel, and their purpose is to lower Intel's prices, IBM sourced x86 parts from Intel and AMD way back in the 80s for exactly that purpose, BTW everyone knows how IBM made Intel and microsoft kings in the process. AMD in the CPU business has always been to beat Intel on price, however consumers have to do their part to hold their feet to the fire. The problem comes when you have Intel fanboys overpaying for extreme overpriced edition crap and that lets AMD fanboys get away with overpriced crap and pretend to claim value because it is less ugly. Get real people. I'm sure you work hard for your money, why are you so eager to donate to either of these mega corporations?
GreenNova343
Posts: 454 +336
And what benchmarks are you looking at?
https://www.techspot.com/review/1386-amd-ryzen-5-1400/page3.html
https://www.techspot.com/review/1379-and-ryzen-5-1600x-1500x/page4.html
Ryzen 5 CPUs were tested against Kaby Lake CPUs, not Sandy Bridge CPUs.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1455-ryzen-3/page3.html
Ryzen 3 tested against their Ryzen 5 siblings, as well as Kaby Lake CPUs (this time including the i3-7350K, 2C/4T CPU that they would compete against). Again, no sign of Sandy Bridge.
The irony is that, if by some odd chance you actually could show that these Ryzen CPUs were no better than Intel's Sandy Bridge CPUs from 6+ years ago...that would actually be much more damaging for Intel. Why, you'd ask?
Because the Ryzen chips are matching the Sandy Bridge CPUs in cores AND in clock speeds. If the Sandy Bridge CPUs were actually outperforming the Ryzen CPUs, then they would also be outperforming Intel's Skylake & Kaby Lake CPUs, which are clocked at the same speeds, if not much faster, than their Sandy Bridge predecessors. Funny, I thought computer technology was supposed to get better as time progressed, not have the new, improved, "faster" hardware somehow end up slower than the old hardware...
Kibaruk
Posts: 3,836 +1,189
@GreenNova343 by now I believe he is... "slow", so don't waste informed replies, as they are useless.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
Latest posts
-
BlizzGone: Blizzard cancels 2024 convention but promises an eventual return- GodisanAtheist replied
