For Gaming i7-7700 or Ryzen1700?

[Crumpet]

"Hmmm,didn't we see " does not indicate any knowledge, I wasn't claiming to know the cause,fabric was talked about as the cause for mayor performance issues in the same time frame aots bad performance was talked about,I'm sure most people (that don't go over each review with a magnifying glass) wouldn't make a distinction or wouldn't even care if the performance drop comes from one problem or the other,the important thing is that ryzen has problems that devs will have to code around and that is something that only happens very rarely.

It's almost like when completely new architecture gets released that developers need to adjust their current products to work with it.

SHOCKING DEVELOPMENT I KNOW

 

[tamz_msc]

"Hmmm,didn't we see " does not indicate any knowledge, I wasn't claiming to know the cause,fabric was talked about as the cause for mayor performance issues in the same time frame aots bad performance was talked about,I'm sure most people (that don't go over each review with a magnifying glass) wouldn't make a distinction or wouldn't even care if the performance drop comes from one problem or the other,the important thing is that ryzen has problems that devs will have to code around and that is something that only happens very rarely.

There are no major 'problems'-every CPU architecture has its strengths and weaknesses and developers have to code so that the strengths are exploited with minimum penalties due to the weaknesses. That is what optimization is about.

 

[Atari2600]

the important thing is that ryzen has problems that devs will have to code around and that is something that only happens very rarely.

You mean "Ryzen has differences that devs will have to code for"

 

[ryzenmaster]

They still had to fix performance for aots and they still did not fix performance for wd2,if peoples argument is that future dx12 games will run better on ryzen then there should be at least a little bit of evidence supporting this,wd2 scales up to 8c/16t on intel that's why people where saying that ryzen would blow the i7s away,still we only see the ryzen be on par with i7, I'm repeating myself on a game that scales very well on 8c/16t.

You're talking about expectations in regarding DX12 yet refer to DX11 title. While there are not that many DX12 or Vulkan titles around as of yet, we've already seen how well Ryzen does when paired with modern API and good implementation, such as Doom on Vulkan. There are limitations to parallel scaling, but it is a proven concept and does not only benefit Ryzen, but high core count Intel chips as well.

the important thing is that ryzen has problems that devs will have to code around and that is something that only happens very rarely.

Ryzen DOES indeed have a problem: the problem is that for years now Intel has been dominating CPU market, so naturally all performance critical code has been optimized for for Intel and Intel alone.

 

[nitromullet]

FUD FUD FUD

There really isn't any more FUD than there is wild conjecture and wishful thinking presented as fact on the other side.

Case in point...

If long term then 1700 is obvious choice, will keep getting better as games use more cores, which they are already starting to do, and this situation will just keep getting better over time as games make the jump to DX12, in 3-5 years a 1700 is going to be much better gaming CPU than a 7700k.

The gap that the 1700 has to make up on the 7700K is in the neighborhood of 20-25% overall in gaming. Given that the overwhelming majority of gamers are still using 2 or 4 core cpus today (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/) it is hard to imagine that game developers are going to focus on writing code that makes their games run better on 6 and 8 core systems to the detriment of the 2 and 4 core user experience.

I'm not saying that all things being equal users with more cores won't occasionally see better performance. What I am saying is that by opting for 1700 over a 7700K today you are not saving any money, but you are trading higher IPC and higher clocks in exchange for more cores. Additionally, you are banking on the notion that for some reason game developers are going to ignore their largest user base and start focusing on the 1-2% minority of users with 6 or more cores.

I'm sorry, but the actual "obvious choice" here is to look at 7700K performance in games, consider what that sort of IPC that might look like in a 6C/12T CFL cpu, and they wait to see how that pans out in terms of performance and actual pricing. If it's priced reasonably enough a 6C/12T CFL cpu should hit the sweet spot of high clocks/IPC and more cores. If CFL actually turns out just being the equivalent of a 7700K with 2 extra cores it will already dominate Ryzen, and honestly, that is really sort of a worst case scenario for Intel. (what are the chances of it performing worse than KBL?)

The only people that should be buying Ryzen now are people who:
1) Just like to tinker with new tech
2) Are on an extreme budget, and know they won't ever plop down $300-400 for cpu. The Ryzen 1600 is an excellent chip for this consumer
3) Have an immediate need/use for more cores, with gaming not being a primary concern.

 

[frozentundra123456]

There really isn't any more FUD than there is wild conjecture and wishful thinking presented as fact on the other side.

Case in point...



The gap that the 1700 has to make up on the 7700K is in the neighborhood of 20-25% overall in gaming. Given that the overwhelming majority of gamers are still using 2 or 4 core cpus today (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/) it is hard to imagine that game developers are going to focus on writing code that makes their games run better on 6 and 8 core systems to the detriment of the 2 and 4 core user experience.

I'm not saying that all things being equal users with more cores won't occasionally see better performance. What I am saying is that by opting for 1700 over a 7700K today you are not saving any money, but you are trading higher IPC and higher clocks in exchange for more cores. Additionally, you are banking on the notion that for some reason game developers are going to ignore their largest user base and start focusing on the 1-2% minority of users with 6 or more cores.

I'm sorry, but the actual "obvious choice" here is to look at 7700K performance in games, consider what that sort of IPC that might look like in a 6C/12T CFL cpu, and they wait to see how that pans out in terms of performance and actual pricing. If it's priced reasonably enough a 6C/12T CFL cpu should hit the sweet spot of high clocks/IPC and more cores. If CFL actually turns out just being the equivalent of a 7700K with 2 extra cores it will already dominate Ryzen, and honestly, that is really sort of a worst case scenario for Intel. (what are the chances of it performing worse than KBL?)

The only people that should be buying Ryzen now are people who:
1) Just like to tinker with new tech
2) Are on an extreme budget, and know they won't ever plop down $300-400 for cpu. The Ryzen 1600 is an excellent chip for this consumer
3) Have an immediate need/use for more cores, with gaming not being a primary concern.

Totally agree. In fact I said basically the same thing in an earlier post. As you said, Ryzen is about 25% behind in gaming now. That means it needs to gain 50 % to reach the same lead as 7700k has now. I certainly am not willing to bet 300.00 on that happening.

 

[Agent-47]

The gap that the 1700 has to make up on the 7700K is in the neighborhood of 20-25% overall in gaming. Given that the overwhelming majority of gamers are still using 2 or 4 core cpus today (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/) it is hard to imagine that game developers are going to focus on writing code that makes their games run better on 6 and 8 core systems to the detriment of the 2 and 4 core user experience.

I'm not saying that all things being equal users with more cores won't occasionally see better performance. What I am saying is that by opting for 1700 over a 7700K today you are not saving any money, but you are trading higher IPC and higher clocks in exchange for more cores. Additionally, you are banking on the notion that for some reason game developers are going to ignore their largest user base and start focusing on the 1-2% minority of users with 6 or more cores.

I'm sorry, but the actual "obvious choice" here is to look at 7700K performance in games, consider what that sort of IPC that might look like in a 6C/12T CFL cpu, and they wait to see how that pans out in terms of performance and actual pricing. If it's priced reasonably enough a 6C/12T CFL cpu should hit the sweet spot of high clocks/IPC and more cores. If CFL actually turns out just being the equivalent of a 7700K with 2 extra cores it will already dominate Ryzen, and honestly, that is really sort of a worst case scenario for Intel. (what are the chances of it performing worse than KBL?)

while it can apply to both camps, but saying something over and over again simply does not change reality.

all ryzens CPUs are evenly paced. currents games may be slightly behind an i7 (5-10%) when using 1080 class GPU but when pairing a 1600x/1700 with a 1070 class CPUs, the performance is evenly matched. and if you say in the future ryzen cpu will hit the before i7 bottleneck, well i would argue that in the future games will be more multithreaded and hence i7 will hit the ceiling first.

why would coders write games in multi-thread? well like it or not, PC gaming is a niche market when compared to consoles, and all consoles are 8 cores for the unforeseeable future. so most games are written for consoles and then ported to a PC.

 

[gx_saurav]

why would coders write games in multi-thread? well like it or not, PC gaming is a niche market when compared to consoles, and all consoles are 8 cores for the unforeseeable future. so most games are written for consoles and then ported to a PC.

Doesn't that mean game code is already optimised for 8 threads as consoles have 8C-8T CPU?

If next 2, 3 years are to be considered, I myself see games scaling beyond 4C-4T easily. Ryzen is good for long terms but it "might" still not match the more powerful per core of Kaby Lake. But that is fine, it was never meant to match Kaby Lake. It was meant to Match Haswell and Broadwell at a very low price and it does.

I even find a Core i7 7700 a good purchase for non-overclocking users. Good enough single threaded speed at less cost and ability to use 4C-8T when needed in games.

 

[frozentundra123456]

while it can apply to both camps, but saying something over and over again simply does not change reality.

all ryzens CPUs are evenly paced. currents games may be slightly behind an i7 (5-10%) when using 1080 class GPU but when pairing a 1600x/1700 with a 1070 class CPUs, the performance is evenly matched. and if you say in the future ryzen cpu will hit the before i7 bottleneck, well i would argue that in the future games will be more multithreaded and hence i7 will hit the ceiling first.

why would coders write games in multi-thread? well like it or not, PC gaming is a niche market when compared to consoles, and all consoles are 8 cores for the unforeseeable future. so most games are written for consoles and then ported to a PC.

while it can apply to both camps, but saying something over and over again simply does not change reality.

all ryzens CPUs are evenly paced. currents games may be slightly behind an i7 (5-10%) when using 1080 class GPU but when pairing a 1600x/1700 with a 1070 class CPUs, the performance is evenly matched. and if you say in the future ryzen cpu will hit the before i7 bottleneck, well i would argue that in the future games will be more multithreaded and hence i7 will hit the ceiling first.

why would coders write games in multi-thread? well like it or not, PC gaming is a niche market when compared to consoles, and all consoles are 8 cores for the unforeseeable future. so most games are written for consoles and then ported to a PC.

And the same applies to the AMD camp. We hear it over and over and over again, ad nauseum, both in the cpu and VC & G forums. Just wait till A, B, or C happens. AMD may lose now, but they will be ahead at some future date. The truth is, nobody really knows, if, when, or by how much. I *do* agree with you that saying something over and over does not necessarily make it come true, I just think we apply it to a different context.

 

[Carfax83]

why would coders write games in multi-thread? well like it or not, PC gaming is a niche market when compared to consoles, and all consoles are 8 cores for the unforeseeable future. so most games are written for consoles and then ported to a PC.

Unless you've been hiding under a rock these past several years, you should know that the consoles both feature octa-core CPUs, and that developers have been forced to rewrite their engines to extract performance out of these weak multicore CPUs. As a result, all of the big AAA engines (and many of the small ones) currently support 8 threads or more, and by big AAA engines I mean Frostbite 3, Unreal Engine 4, AnvilNext, CryEngine etcetera. And then there's the fact that PCs now have low level APIs, which makes multithreaded rendering even easier to implement.

As for PC gaming being a niche market compared to consoles, Activision just posted their quarterly financial report, and the PC was the biggest single platform earner by far.

 

[Malogeek]

Purely clock speed is becoming less of a factor nowadays compared to core/thread count. Ryzen has completely shaken up the market to the point where buying a 4c/8t for the prices Intel is demanding seems just crazy.

 

[tamz_msc]

Unless you've been hiding under a rock these past several years, you should know that the consoles both feature octa-core CPUs, and that developers have been forced to rewrite their engines to extract performance out of these weak multicore CPUs. As a result, all of the big AAA engines (and many of the small ones) currently support 8 threads or more, and by big AAA engines I mean Frostbite 3, Unreal Engine 4, AnvilNext, CryEngine etcetera. And then there's the fact that PCs now have low level APIs, which makes multithreaded rendering even easier to implement.

As for PC gaming being a niche market compared to consoles, Activision just posted their quarterly financial report, and the PC was the biggest single platform earner by far.

More like thy have been forced to rewrite their engines because the seventh-generation console architecture is completely different from those that came before it. PS3's Cell CPU had eight 'cores' at a time PCs were just getting started with 4 cores, but it was notoriously difficult to develop for it.

 

[tamz_msc]

Why is this IPC and gaming performance debate still raging on? The OP has decided what is best for him considering that he plays single-player games at 1080p with a RX 480 and has no intention of overclocking, which makes sense because who would want to overclock when your ambient temperatures regularly exceed 35 degrees Celsius? This makes the CPU a much lesser factor in his case than the people quarreling over here think it is.

 

[Carfax83]

More like thy have been forced to rewrite their engines because the seventh-generation console architecture is completely different from those that came before it. PS3's Cell CPU had eight 'cores' at a time PCs were just getting started with 4 cores, but it was notoriously difficult to develop for it.

The PS4 did not have 8 cores. It had one CPU core, and 7 SPEs (of which one was used for the OS) which were basically specialized vector processors. The kind of data the SPEs were designed to handle are high in data level parallelism, which isn't really prevalent in actual game code. Which is why to get any work done with them you had to offload certain easily parallelizable tasks like graphics, physics and perhaps audio processing to them, and only the most skilled developers (ie Naughty Dog) were good at doing this..

 

[tamz_msc]

The PS4 did not have 8 cores. It had one CPU core, and 7 SPEs (of which one was used for the OS) which were basically specialized vector processors. The kind of data the SPEs were designed to handle are high in data level parallelism, which isn't really prevalent in actual game code. Which is why to get any work done with them you had to offload certain easily parallelizable tasks like graphics, physics and perhaps audio processing to them, and only the most skilled developers (ie Naughty Dog) were good at doing this..

Hence why I used quotes.

 

[nitromullet]

Why is this IPC and gaming performance debate still raging on? The OP has decided what is best for him considering that he plays single-player games at 1080p with a RX 480 and has no intention of overclocking, which makes sense because who would want to overclock when your ambient temperatures regularly exceed 35 degrees Celsius? This makes the CPU a much lesser factor in his case than the people quarreling over here think it is.

because it's a forum. Just because the OP has made up their mind doesn't mean there isn't stuff to talk about. I'm not online tech support, I visit these forums because I'm interested in the tech and the exchange of ideas and opinions. It's the OP's money, and they can do what they want. but I think they may reached a conclusion too soon.

Granted, I'm viewing this from the point of view of 7700k vs 1700, and assuming that 6C/12 CFL will be somewhat close in price. If the thought of a saving a bit of cash with a 1600 or 1600x appealed to the OP than that's probably a pretty safe bet in terms of price/performance.

That being said, IMO, 6C/12T CFL is probably going to crush Ryzen in the $350-400 range, especially at stock clocks.

 

[Crumpet]

Totally agree. In fact I said basically the same thing in an earlier post. As you said, Ryzen is about 25% behind in gaming now. That means it needs to gain 50 % to reach the same lead as 7700k has now. I certainly am not willing to bet 300.00 on that happening.

Got anything to back up your 25% Ryzen gaming deficit claim?

 

[tamz_msc]

because it's a forum. Just because the OP has made up their mind doesn't mean there isn't stuff to talk about. I'm not online tech support, I visit these forums because I'm interested in the tech and the exchange of ideas and opinions. It's the OP's money, and they can do what they want. but I think they may reached a conclusion too soon.

Granted, I'm viewing this from the point of view of 7700k vs 1700, and assuming that 6C/12 CFL will be somewhat close in price. If the thought of a saving a bit of cash with a 1600 or 1600x appealed to the OP than that's probably a pretty safe bet in terms of price/performance.

That being said, IMO, 6C/12T CFL is probably going to crush Ryzen in the $350-400 range, especially at stock clocks.

Firstly, this myth about how Ryzen has weaker IPC and which creates a big difference in gaming needs to be put to rest. Depending on tests done by reliable sources, Ryzen is almost 12% faster than Sandy Bridge(looncraz) to 8% behind Kaby Lake(the Stilt) to the fastest ever x86 architecture outside of 256 bit vector ops(Agner Fog), clock for clock.

Secondly, price. The 7700K makes the extra price worth it iff you're going to play competitive multiplayer games at very high FPS. Since the OP isn't into that, the 7700K is of questionable value.

Thus, my initial recommendation was to overclock his 2500K and wait for Coffee Lake, since the CPU isn't that important when you play single player titles with an RX 480 at 1080p.

Since he isn't going to overclock, his decision to go for a 1600 is something that makes sense in his particular case. Because just going from 4C no HT to 4C with HT isn't a big enough upgrade.

You want to discuss about how Coffee Lake would 'crush' Ryzen, there are other places for that.

You want to discuss how Coffee Lake would 'crush' Ryzen, there are other threads for that.

 

[Agent-47]

As for PC gaming being a niche market compared to consoles, Activision just posted their quarterly financial report, and the PC was the biggest single platform earner by far.

when you pulled one company to justify an entire industry, you donot deserve an answer more than this.

and they have be rewriting and validating their engines. just like they are doing now with DX12.

come towards the light side! I smell your fear in you for your i5. and fear leads to the dark side!

 

[Crumpet]

when you pulled one company to justify an entire industry, you donot deserve an answer more than this.

and they have be rewriting and validating their engines. just like they are doing now with DX12.

come towards the light side! I smell your fear in you for your i5. and fear leads to the dark side!

The light side, what constitutes the light side?

 

[Agent-47]

The light side, what constitutes the light side?

Being objective.

for example,
1. FX has been a shit option from day one.
2. AMD never had a good mobile platform, and i donot think they will be able to shake up the mobile market with ryzen (maybe ryzen+)
3. no one should buy any 1500/1500x unless severely budget constraint, even if making a gaming only PC. but opt out to 1600 if a good deal can be found, and there are plenty in UK at least.
4. intel recommending not to OC 7700 does not mean your 7700 will die if you OC it, or devaluates it's capabilities.

 

[Crumpet]

Being objective.

for example,
1. FX has been a shit option from day one.
2. AMD never had a good mobile platform, and i donot think they will be able to shake up the mobile market with ryzen (maybe ryzen+)
3. no one should buy any 1500/1500x unless severely budget constraints.
4. intel recommending not the OC 7700 does not mean your 7700 will die if you OC it, or devaluates it's capabilities.

FX was good for the budget oriented (until Skylake release lowered the price of Intel motherboards in my country anyway), but yes couldn't hold a crown to Intel.

But yes, I agree.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Got anything to back up your 25% Ryzen gaming deficit claim?

right here

That is the difference (well actually 26%) between the 1700 and 7700k at stock in gaming, which was the initial subject of this thread.

 

[Topweasel]

right here

That is the slowest clocked Ryzen against the highest clocked i7. Without more information we also dont know if they included games with Nvidia GPU's running DX12. A 1600x would compare much more favorably against a 7700k.

On top of all that Coffee Lake is yet another 14nm version from Intel. So expect very little IPC per core increase. More cores generally means lower clocks so probably not get much higher then 4.5GHz OC and lower stock numbers as well. If anything I predict Ryzen to gain ground on Intel without even releasing Zen+.

 

[tamz_msc]

right here

That is the difference (well actually 26%) between the 1700 and 7700k at stock in gaming, which was the initial subject of this thread.

Those tests are done with a GTX 1080, OP has a RX 480. The actual difference will be small, something like 10% at best. The 7700K is 33% more expensive than a 1600X where he lives. 10% more performance for 33% extra money.

Can't see any value in that.

Here is what happens when you test a much larger selection of games, with a GTX 1080:

With a RX 480, there will hardly be any difference between the 1600X and 7700K when you average it out.