formulav8
Diamond Member
- Sep 18, 2000
- 7,004
- 522
- 126
Of course You would dude.If I were him, I'd cancel the Ryzen, buy a 7700k and a z270 board to go with the 1080 Ti and call it a day. Or hold out for Skylake-X.
Of course You would dude.If I were him, I'd cancel the Ryzen, buy a 7700k and a z270 board to go with the 1080 Ti and call it a day. Or hold out for Skylake-X.
Actually run something like Dwarf Fortress which has graphical requirements that could probably be satisfied by an old PCI (not PCIe) graphics card, but can decimate a CPU when you get enough Dwarfs and a big enough fortress it will get bogged down by single-threaded performance.Totally agree, all benchmarks should be space invaders in 240p, why overly stress the gpu.
yepActually run something like Dwarf Fortress which has graphical requirements that could probably be satisfied by an old PCI (not PCIe) graphics card, but can decimate a CPU when you get enough Dwarfs and a big enough fortress it will get bogged down by single-threaded performance.
he's not at 1080p. None of that matters above 1080p where Ryzen, especially 1700, seems exactly on par with 7700k right now.Uh, he's not "failing so hard" in his understanding. He's got a 100Hz monitor and he'll have that 1080 Ti which can push 100fps at his resolution, so having a CPU that can actually keep up is desirable.
If I were him, I'd cancel the Ryzen, buy a 7700k and a z270 board to go with the 1080 Ti and call it a day. Or hold out for Skylake-X.
but we're constantly told that only Intel matters because AVX blah blah blah AVX. So, if you're saying we should ignore it, then why would we even consider Intel when it performs far worse than Ryzen without that supposed advantage?BWE without heavy avx stuff does not draw 230 watt at 4.2, nah.
The 1080p is a red herring; the real problem is that in non-GPU limited situations, Ryzen shows itself to be an inferior gaming part to the Kabylake chips. bogg is going to get a 1080 Ti, or so he says, so he'll need as much CPU power to drive that thing as possible.he's not at 1080p. None of that matters above 1080p where Ryzen, especially 1700, seems exactly on par with 7700k right now.
This is pretty bad, it's not right to release products in this state. a lot of people here whine and moan about how terrible and greedy Intel is, but Z270 is not buggy, nor was Z170. Z97 was fine too. Z87/Haswell had some minor issue that I can't recall now, but it didn't affect the perf of the CPU.Then benchmarks are currently all over the place with jacked BIOSes and spotty memory issues from review to review. You've been around long enough to know that this cake hasn't finished baking.
Ryzen is a good chip for what it is, but if your primary use case is gaming and you don't do a lot of threaded stuff, I really can't see how I'd justify any of the Ryzen 7 SKUs over a 7700K.You're one of the smarter people around here, so please don't jump to the silly sky-is-falling conclusions of the typical trolls (no, you aren't one of those). It still seems that high-end Ryzen is probably going to end up within 5% of Kaby which, as you know, is quite staggering.
I don't think you will see OC improvements with the Ryzen 3 or 5. Really, it looks like this chip was designed for an optimal frequency range of maybe 3-3.5GHz and they just pumped this poor thing with extra volts to hit 4GHz single core turbo.Me, I just watch this stuff come out on release and let the patient folk deal with the expected bugs. I'm also waiting for the 6c/12t. Let's see how that $240 part compares to the ~$300-340 7700k...especially with a potentially higher OC with 2 dead cores of increased thermal room.![]()
This is quite sad honestly. Whether in the end there is a difference or not in results.some reviewers were not using a fresh Windows 10 build
Did Intel not do a quite buggy x99?but Z270 is not buggy
I don't think X99 was buggy, but if you have links to the contrary please share!Did Intel not do a quite buggy x99?
The point made in the GamersNexus video is salient. Yes, in real world conditions, Ryzen is pretty close to Intel offerings in gaming (in some cases, not all, sometimes Intel is substantially ahead), but why pay more for less performance? 8 cores are nice, and plenty of games can use them, but if that doesn't translate to higher performance, does it really matter? Plus, what happens when new GPUs come out and start making those same games more CPU limited? Even if it's not immediately important, I don't see the argument against the value of performance headroom.Totally agree, all benchmarks should be space invaders in 240p, why overly stress the gpu.
What about when new games come out making 4 core CPUs the limiter?The point made in the GamersNexus video is salient. Yes, in real world conditions, Ryzen is pretty close to Intel offerings in gaming (in some cases, not all, sometimes Intel is substantially ahead), but why pay more for less performance? 8 cores are nice, and plenty of games can use them, but if that doesn't translate to higher performance, does it really matter? Plus, what happens when new GPUs come out and start making those same games more CPU limited? Even if it's not immediately important, I don't see the argument against the value of performance headroom.
If Amd was charging intels prices yes, but as its half or to be perfectly honest one third of the price (1700 is effectively 1800x) for the same general performance i think people are being incredibly harsh, 8 core processors are not even aimed at the gaming audience (soon to change imo) did everyone judge the 6900k by the same standards last year? Was it ridiculed for losing to an i5? In 1080p gaming? Of course not because it would have been as ridiculous then as it is now.The point made in the GamersNexus video is salient. Yes, in real world conditions, Ryzen is pretty close to Intel offerings in gaming (in some cases, not all, sometimes Intel is substantially ahead), but why pay more for less performance? 8 cores are nice, and plenty of games can use them, but if that doesn't translate to higher performance, does it really matter? Plus, what happens when new GPUs come out and start making those same games more CPU limited? Even if it's not immediately important, I don't see the argument against the value of performance headroom.
As we can infer from the above quote, Zen is not the best release evar. It has some issues. For example, the gaming benchmarks are not great, but hopefully OS updates, and some more BIOS updates will help AMD. People tend to forget, but Intel also had some problems with Skylake and early skylake iGPU issues. AMD is much smaller than Intel and Ryzen is a great achievement. Obviously it is not perfect, but even if AMD can't solve their gaming problems, hopefully Zen+ and others will fix those issues and improve on others.We see a lot of benchmark results where AMD is clearly equal or above Intel's HEDT parts in both ST and MT. However there are a few edge cases where AMD is lacking behind 10-20% still, even to Broadwell.
IMO, more games will be coming out using more cpu threads in the future like BF1 and others. You can partly thank AMD for that actually. The main consoles has their 8 core cpu's and many games are ported from consoles to pc's.what happens when new GPUs come out and start making those same games more CPU limited?
The problem with the argument about hypocrisy re: the 6900K is that no one was recommending it for gaming. 6600K/6700K were always the recommended thing; the 6900K was for people who needed its performance elsewhere, but here's the difference between it and Ryzen: Overclocked, it was easily at parity with the mainstream cores, even for gaming, in some cases, it was delivering top-tier performance if the game could leverage its cores. Ryzen is great for non-gaming things, but subpar for gaming (plus it has barely an OC headroom), while 6900K was great for non-gaming things and as good as anything out there at gaming. It was a complete ripoff for the price, and I don't think most held back on it for that.If Amd was charging intels prices yes, but as its half or to be perfectly honest one third of the price (1700 is effectively 1800x) for the same general performance i think people are being incredibly harsh, 8 core processors are not even aimed at the gaming audience (soon to change imo) did everyone judge the 6900k by the same standards last year? Was it ridiculed for losing to an i5? In 1080p gaming? Of course not because it would have been as ridiculous then as it is now.
True amd seemingly dont have the engineering man power to get everything fixed for launch, maybe they are to blame for not delaying, but all evidence points to ryzen being a worthy competitor to intel, if bios can be sorted that may include gaming for clean sweep of competitiveness.
Lets hope so for tech sake.
We're pretty much there right now with a few games and Ryzen isn't showing much of an advantage over 7700K, from what I've seen. Besides, 7700K has a solid advantage in a lot of games, even well-threaded ones; how long will it take before Ryzen becomes faster? Yeah, we might see the gap shrink, on average, but how long until it's actually at parity or better?What about when new games come out making 4 core CPUs the limiter?
Always has, always will. But I am excited to build my 1800X rig next week.I am only a bit disappointed by the OC potential, but I kind of had an idea you'd be throwing a lot of power efficiency out the window just to get a bit more out of it anyways. Otherwise pretty happy with everything else.
These few kinks some reviewers ran into are a normal part of any major new platform launch, I am sure they will get sorted in due time. Can't wait to put my Ryzen system together. But at this point I have no idea when my motherboard is going to ship. That's a true annoyance in all this.
Sucks being an early adopter man![]()
I'm actually not surprised. Unlike the BD cpu, AMD didn't do a special point about them getting over 8ghz on ln2 (Or any ocing for that matter).I am only a bit disappointed by the OC potential
Amd is advertising it as a jack of all trades cpu, which it is, 1600x 1400x are the dedicated gaming cpus.The problem with the argument about hypocrisy re: the 6900K is that no one was recommending it for gaming. 6600K/6700K were always the recommended thing; the 6900K was for people who needed its performance elsewhere, but here's the difference between it and Ryzen: Overclocked, it was easily at parity with the mainstream cores, even for gaming, in some cases, it was delivering top-tier performance if the game could leverage its cores. Ryzen is great for non-gaming things, but subpar for gaming (plus it has barely an OC headroom), while 6900K was great for non-gaming things and as good as anything out there at gaming. It was a complete ripoff for the price, and I don't think most held back on it for that.
AMD's customers are mainly interested in gaming, and 8-core Ryzen is definitely aimed at that market (as well as the professional market). Criticizing it for being below cheaper/equally priced options seems fair to me, especially if that's the customer's main use case. A customer who needs the extra cores would certainly see it differently, but I know I'm personally not in that category.
Furthermore, it's the only Ryzen chip AMD is offering right now. Things might change with Ryzen 5.
I too hope you're right about the BIOS updates.
We're pretty much there right now with a few games and Ryzen isn't showing much of an advantage over 7700K, from what I've seen. Besides, 7700K has a solid advantage in a lot of games, even well-threaded ones; how long will it take before Ryzen becomes faster? Yeah, we might see the gap shrink, on average, but how long until it's actually at parity or better? Plus, the 7700K is faster in pretty much every game out there right now.
I do not agree. AMD showed more professional/content app examples than gaming.AMD's customers are mainly interested in gaming, and 8-core Ryzen is definitely aimed at that market