Post CFL Ryzen Price drop / SKU shuffle thoughts, predictions?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,427
1,643
136
AMD's position will be chiefly determined by their market experiences from the past ten years or so. Also the WSA. I'm not sure what they intend to do with all the 14nm LPP wafers GF will continue producing, unless they can convince GF to go easy on them and make a primary switch to 12nm LP via retooling of fabs currently producing 14nm LPP.

WSA aside, expect AMD to lower prices to clear out the channels so that they aren't stuffed full of 2017's Summit Ridge when Pinnacle Ridge hits the scene in 2018. Overall, AMD's position is pretty strong since Intel hasn't even been able to get a cogent response to Ryzen to market until October, with a lot of the better Z370 boards lagging until November. We won't even see a proper platform upgrade in the form of Z390 until H2 2018 depending on whom you believe. Though I would expect closer to July than December, but you never know.

AMD had half a year to sell Ryzen against Kabylake, and depending on when 12nm LP is ready for non-risk production, Intel may have only 6-9 months to pit 6c Coffeelake against Ryzen. Overall AMD is in pretty good shape here.

I think 8c/16t Pinnacle Ridge - which is the best we'll probably see on AM4 - vs 8c/16t Coffeelake should be a very interesting contest.
Zen 7nm will be 12c24t and be available on AM4.
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,902
1,531
136
No changes. Zen+ in March or so. Regardless of what Intel puts out, it is very competitive and well priced.
 

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
12,584
3,985
136
Zen 7nm will be 12c24t and be available on AM4.
Probably, but 7 nm yields are likely to be bad. Not Intel 10 nm bad, but bad. Save the full die for Rome.

The thing AMD needs to be careful about is (of course) if they pump up the core counts too much, they will find people buying the cheapest model when reviews show the higher core counts are no faster in gaming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arachnotronic

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,427
1,643
136
Probably, but 7 nm yields are likely to be bad. Not Intel 10 nm bad, but bad. Save the full die for Rome.

The thing AMD needs to be careful about is (of course) if they pump up the core counts too much, they will find people buying the cheapest model when reviews show the higher core counts are no faster in gaming.
So running theory is bad yields mean that they won't make a 12c AM4 chip because everyone will want the 4-6c stuff and they will save the rest for EPYC.

Sorry but have you seen their current selling philosophy? It's all but average die costs. It won't matter to them whether a core is used for AM4 or EPYC.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
20,303
9,354
136
I will be surprised if they try to sell 12c/24t CPUs on AM4, but if they can pull it off, then great. Bottom line is, AMD will continue to improve IPC, memory controller, fabric speeds, and max clocks between now and the time that they launch Zen2 in 2019.

Intel will add two cores. That will have to carry them until desktop Icelake.

AMD will be fine.
 

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
4,093
1,475
136
I will be surprised if they try to sell 12c/24t CPUs on AM4, but if they can pull it off, then great. Bottom line is, AMD will continue to improve IPC, memory controller, fabric speeds, and max clocks between now and the time that they launch Zen2 in 2019.

Intel will add two cores. That will have to carry them until desktop Icelake.

AMD will be fine.
AMD will keep the same AM4 socket for desktop Zen2 and SP3 socket for server Zen 2. AMD’s Zen 2 is most likely to bring 12c/24t cpu on a single die.

https://videocardz.com/69428/amd-snowy-owl-naples-starship-grey-hawk-river-hawk-great-horned-owl

There were leaks a while back about 7nm server cpu named Starship with 48c/96t. Since AMD forms their server chip from 4 dies the desktop Zen 2 is a 12c/24t cpu.
 

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
The thing AMD needs to be careful about is (of course) if they pump up the core counts too much, they will find people buying the cheapest model when reviews show the higher core counts are no faster in gaming.
I predict AM4 will be on its way to become a (mostly) workstation platform by that time.

12C/24T and lower (with validated ECC)
4C/8T FirePro APU (with 1/2 rate double precision FP on the iGPU. This with ECC enabled HBM2)

Then for most consumers....

8C/16T or 6C/12T with dGPU

Athlon x 4 4C/8T with dGPU.

The question is whether or not AMD would use a consumer chipset for AM4 Workstation? (Intel at one time did use a consumer chipset, X58, for 1P LGA 1366 Workstations* made by HP (Z400), Dell (T3500) and Lenovo (S20))

*Interestingly enough both Xeon W3690 and Xeon W3680 (factory options for the HP, Dell and Lenovo 1P LGA 1366 Workstations) had an unlocked multiplier.....though the motherboards in these OEM workstation computers did not allow overclocking.

P.S. I also found out there were 45nm LGA 1366 Xeons that also had unlocked multipliers (Eg, W3570)
 
Last edited:

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
Anyone else see the low end possibly be occupied by 3C/6T CPUs with PR?
Pinnacle Ridge still uses two 4 core CCXs.....so that combination is not possible.

With a Raven Ridge derivative it would be possible though.
 
Apr 20, 2008
10,160
982
126
Probably, but 7 nm yields are likely to be bad. Not Intel 10 nm bad, but bad. Save the full die for Rome.

The thing AMD needs to be careful about is (of course) if they pump up the core counts too much, they will find people buying the cheapest model when reviews show the higher core counts are no faster in gaming.
All it takes is one "Must Have" game that requires tons of cores and the goalposts will shift dramatically. Crysis did it for GPUs so it's possible. Some games are benchmarked horribly and do not represent playing conditions. Battlefield Bad Company 2 uses 75%+ of my Piledriver CPU in full server games paired with a relatively modern GPU. This is an old game and it highly benefits from threads.

If say a new Rocket League comes out and still uses unreal it could be the one. It would have to push poly counts and physics through the roof but it's not out of the question.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,832
3,068
136
I will only use the R5 1600 vs Core i5 8600K.


Core i5 8600K MSRP = $257
Heatisnk & Fan = $30
Z370 Motherboard = From $120 ??

Total = $407

This setup will be able to OC to 4.7-4.8GHz, it will also consume more than 100W for the CPU.



R5 1600 = $215
B350 Motherboard Gigabyte GA-AB350M-D3H = $70 or ($60 AR)

Total = $285 or $275 AR

This setup will be able to OC to 3.8GHz with stock cooler, it will also consume more than 90W for the CPU.




Why would AMD need to make any price reductions on their Ryzen CPUs ??
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
I will only use the R5 1600 vs Core i5 8600K.


Core i5 8600K MSRP = $257
Heatisnk & Fan = $30
Z370 Motherboard = From $120 ??

Total = $407

This setup will be able to OC to 4.7-4.8GHz, it will also consume more than 100W for the CPU.



R5 1600 = $215
B350 Motherboard Gigabyte GA-AB350M-D3H = $70 or ($60 AR)

Total = $285 or $275 AR

This setup will be able to OC to 3.8GHz with stock cooler, it will also consume more than 90W for the CPU.




Why would AMD need to make any price reductions on their Ryzen CPUs ??
You also forgot to factor in the price of DDR4 RAM. Last I checked, you can't run a CPU and motherboard without RAM.

AMD needs low latency DDR4 3200/3466 to perform optimally, which doesn't come cheap. This is not my opinion, this is the opinion of Ryzen users on this forum and other forums. Intel is generally not as sensitive to latencies and can make do with slower/higher latency RAM without as much performance penalty. You could easily save $50 and get regular DDR4 3000 with Intel and not suffer a big performance hit as AMD would.

Also, compariing a B350 motherboard to an Z370? I'm sure that $120 Z370 motherboard will have better features and connectivity than the $70 B350 motherboard. I would argue to get similar specs to the Z370 you would need a X370 at around the $100 mark.

Once you take into account the total platform cost (including RAM) the differences aren't nearly as drastic as you suggest, especially if you invest in high speed low latency DDR4 for the AM4 platform to achieve optimal performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zucker2k

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,832
3,068
136
You also forgot to factor in the price of DDR4 RAM.

AMD needs low latency DDR4 3200/3466 to perform optimally, which doesn't come cheap. This is not my opinion, this is the opinion of Ryzen users on this forum and other forums. Intel is generally not as sensitive to latencies and can make do with slower/higher latency RAM without as much performance penalty. You could easily save $50 and get regular DDR4 3000 with Intel and not suffer a big performance hit as AMD would.
You dont need that much better memory, 3000MHz will do just fine for the R5, so the memory cost is the same for both systems.

Also, compariing a B350 motherboard to an Z370? I'm sure that $120 Z370 motherboard will have better features and connectivity than the $70 B350 motherboard. I would argue to get similar specs to the Z370 you would need a X370 at around the $100 mark.
The problem is that Intel CPUs need Z370 motherboard if you want to OC and another problem is that there will only be Z370 motherboards on the market in 2017 for Coffeelake CPUs.
So no i dont need to include a X370 with the Ryzen setup, the B350 will be more than enough for the vast majority of Gamers.

Once you take into account the total platform cost (including RAM) the differences aren't nearly as drastic as you suggest, especially if you invest in high speed low latency DDR4 for the AM4 platform to achieve optimal performance.
With both systems using 3000MHz memory the cost difference is huge. For a budget oriented Gaming system, going for the R5 1600 + GTX1070 will be much better than spending more for the Core i5 8600K and only use the GTX1060.

And not to mention the upgradability of the AM4 platform for future 8-Core SKUs.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
You dont need that much better memory, 3000MHz will do just fine for the R5, so the memory cost is the same for both systems.
Please tell that to IEC, who presented me with this graph to show his point about Ryzen performance scaling with lower latency RAM:
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/techspot:core-i7-7700k-4-9g-vs-ryzen-5-1600-4g-with-vega-64-gtx-1080.2518854/page-3


They don't even include vanilla DDR4 3000 in those charts, the slowest RAM is DDR4 3200 CL14. Based on this, you still think regular non LL DDR4-3000 is sufficient for Ryzen?

The problem is that Intel CPUs need Z370 motherboard if you want to OC and another problem is that there will only be Z370 motherboards on the market in 2017 for Coffeelake CPUs.
So no i dont need to include a X370 with the Ryzen setup, the B350 will be more than enough for the vast majority of Gamers.
Still doesn't discount the fact that you're using an ultra budget motherboard as a comparison. If AMD users truly don't care for motherboard features and are happy with a low end motherboard for $60 - $70, then you have a point.

With both systems using 3000MHz memory the cost difference is huge. For a budget oriented Gaming system, going for the R5 1600 + GTX1070 will be much better than spending more for the Core i5 8600K and only use the GTX1060.

And not to mention the upgradability of the AM4 platform for future 8-Core SKUs.
I actually would like to see the relative performance of both platforms running regular DDR4 3000. Based on the charts above, AMD performance would suffer quite a hit using lower speed/higher latency RAM.

Also, if you are going to now include the ~$100 price difference between the platforms to justify a faster GPU, I could counter that an i3 8100 + GTX 1080 (or 1070 Ti) would be better for gaming than either an R5 1600 + GTX 1070, or 8600K + GTX 1060. See where am I'm going with this?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zucker2k

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136
You dont need that much better memory, 3000MHz will do just fine for the R5, so the memory cost is the same for both systems.



The problem is that Intel CPUs need Z370 motherboard if you want to OC and another problem is that there will only be Z370 motherboards on the market in 2017 for Coffeelake CPUs.
So no i dont need to include a X370 with the Ryzen setup, the B350 will be more than enough for the vast majority of Gamers.



With both systems using 3000MHz memory the cost difference is huge. For a budget oriented Gaming system, going for the R5 1600 + GTX1070 will be much better than spending more for the Core i5 8600K and only use the GTX1060.

And not to mention the upgradability of the AM4 platform for future 8-Core SKUs.
3000Mhz "will do just fine," until the gaming numbers start flooding in, and then you'll get complaints of "they gimped the AMD setup, everybody knows Ryzen loves low latency 3600mhz RAM." Lol.
My question is, is Ryzen even in the high end, high fps gaming talk? The 8600K will get you into that league for less than the cost of an 1800x. That should be a compelling reason for many "budget-oriented" AMD platform gamers to jump ship.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: epsilon84

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,832
3,068
136
Please tell that to IEC, who presented me with this graph to show his point about Ryzen performance scaling with lower latency RAM:
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/techspot:core-i7-7700k-4-9g-vs-ryzen-5-1600-4g-with-vega-64-gtx-1080.2518854/page-3



They don't even include vanilla DDR4 3000 in those charts, the slowest RAM is DDR4 3200 CL14. Based on this, you still think regular non LL DDR4-3000 is sufficient for Ryzen?
I dont debate if Ryzen gaming performance scales with faster RAM, im debating that for a budget Gaming oriented system spending that much more for the faster ram is not worth it. Better spend the extra money for a faster GPU if you are budget constrained than on LL Ram.

Still doesn't discount the fact that you're using an ultra budget motherboard as a comparison. If AMD users truly don't care for motherboard features and are happy with a low end motherboard for $60 - $70, then you have a point.
You should complain to Intel for not allowing OC to cheaper motherboards, the AM4 B350 boards have more features than the vast majority of gamers will ever use. We are talking about budget gaming here and Intel simple doesnt provide this level of perf/$ with Coffeelake CPUs in 2017.



I actually would like to see the relative performance of both platforms running regular DDR4 3000. Based on the charts above, AMD performance would suffer quite a hit using lower speed/higher latency RAM.
The performance of R5 1600 OC to 3.8GHz with 3000MHz memory at 16CL + GTX1070 will be superior to Core i5 8600K + GTX1060 to the vast majority of games.

Also, if you are going to now include the ~$100 price difference between the platforms to justify a faster GPU, I could counter that an i3 8100 + GTX 1080 (or 1070 Ti) would be better for gaming than either an R5 1600 + GTX 1070, or 8600K + GTX 1060. See where am I'm going with this?
The i3 8100 with only 3.6GHz will start to have serious performance hit using more than GTX1070 level of performance GPUs. So at the end a Core i3 8100 + GTX1080 will probably have worst performance (stuttering) than R5 1600 OC to 3.8GHz + GTX1070 at the same system cost.

Edit: Even with a OC TITAN-XP the R5 1600 OCed to 3.8GHz is toe to toe with a 4.8GHz 4C 4T Kabylake. The 3.6GHz Core i3 8100 is not suitable for high performance GPUs.

 
Last edited:

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
5,269
8,635
136
R5 1600 = $215
B350 Motherboard Gigabyte GA-AB350M-D3H = $70 or ($60 AR)

Total = $285 or $275 AR

This setup will be able to OC to 3.8GHz with stock cooler, it will also consume more than 90W for the CPU.

Why would AMD need to make any price reductions on their Ryzen CPUs ??
Core i5 8400 MSRP = $182
Heatsink & Fan = $30 (bare with me, I know it comes with stock heatsink)
Z370 Motherboard = $120

Total = $332

This setup will "overclock" to 4Ghz with MultiCore Enhancement available on Z boards. This is why we also include the separate cost for a better heatsink, although the stock one may also be enough.

Depending on the cost of the cheapest Z370 boards and whether a separate cooler is indeed needed, the i5 8400 build may actually end up at equal or close cost with the R5 1600 build.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,832
3,068
136
Core i5 8400 MSRP = $182
Heatsink & Fan = $30 (bare with me, I know it comes with stock heatsink)
Z370 Motherboard = $120

Total = $332

This setup will "overclock" to 4Ghz with MultiCore Enhancement available on Z boards. This is why we also include the separate cost for a better heatsink, although the stock one may also be enough.

Depending on the cost of the cheapest Z370 boards and whether a separate cooler is indeed needed, the i5 8400 build may actually end up at equal or close cost with the R5 1600 build.
Any links to confirm that locked Coffeelake CPUs will be able to OC to all core turbo ???
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
I dont debate if Ryzen gaming performance scales with faster RAM, im debating that for a budget Gaming oriented system spending that much more for the faster ram is not worth it. Better spend the extra money for a faster GPU if you are budget constrained than on LL Ram.
You would have a point if the difference between fast LL RAM and slower RAM wasn't as drastic. You are potentially losing over 15% in gaming performance by using cheaper RAM. That is a huge performance hit. In fact, you're probably better off with a cheaper Ryzen 1400/1500 + LL RAM compared to a Ryzen 1600 with slower RAM, if gaming performance was your primary focus.

You should complain to Intel for not allowing OC to cheaper motherboards, the AM4 B350 boards have more features than the vast majority of gamers will ever use. We are talking about budget gaming here and Intel simple doesnt provide this level of perf/$ with Coffeelake CPUs in 2017.
I personally don't like the idea of pairing a $200+ CPU with a $60 motherboard, but that is just me. If you are telling me that the majority of AMD Ryzen users will consciously choose the absolute cheapest motherboard to go with their $200+ CPU, then I will concede your point. Matter of the fact is, generally, higher end CPUs get matched with higher end motherboards.

The performance of R5 1600 OC to 3.8GHz with 3000MHz memory at 16CL + GTX1070 will be superior to Core i5 8600K + GTX1060 to the vast majority of games.
And the performance of a 8600K @ 5GHz + a GTX 1070 would be in a completely different tier to a 1600 @ 4GHz + GTX 1070, especially if you limit the Ryzen to high latency DDR4-3000 (yes, 4GHz is possible if you don't gimp on the cooling and choose the cheapest motherboards with poor VRMs ;))

The i3 8100 with only 3.6GHz will start to have serious performance hit using more than GTX1070 level of performance GPUs. So at the end a Core i3 8100 + GTX1080 will probably have worst performance (stuttering) than R5 1600 OC to 3.8GHz + GTX1070 at the same system cost.
I disagree. I would be willing to bet that an i3 8100 + GTX 1080 will achieve better framerates than an overclocked 1600 + GTX 1070. Even if the i3 is bottlenecked somewhat, the GTX 1080 is a 20% faster GPU than the GTX 1070. The 1600 is not a 20% faster CPU at gaming compared to the i3 8100. In fact, I'm not even convinced it's actually a faster gaming CPU at all (even when overclocked)

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1600/20.html


The i3 8100 at 3.6GHz will sit in between the i5 7500 and 7600K, it is hardly a 'slow' CPU that will stutter in games. The systems above are using a GTX 1080 btw.

Yes, I chose 720P to highlight the differences in gaming performance before GPU bottlenecking is taken into account. Even at 1080P, the 1600 is behind the i5 7500/7600K, but the margin is less because the GPU would be the limiting factor more often at 1080P.

Still completely debunks your claim that an i3 8100 will 'stutter' with a GTX 1080.
 
Last edited:

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
5,269
8,635
136
Any links to confirm that locked Coffeelake CPUs will be able to OC to all core turbo ???
The best info we have so far is 8400 hexacore turbo is 3.8Ghz. Even if multicore enhancement does not work on non K Coffe Lake CPUs although it did work on previous gen CPUs, you would still end up with frequency parity between the i5 8400 and R5 1600.
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,951
1,581
136
You also forgot to factor in the price of DDR4 RAM. Last I checked, you can't run a CPU and motherboard without RAM.

AMD needs low latency DDR4 3200/3466 to perform optimally, which doesn't come cheap. This is not my opinion, this is the opinion of Ryzen users on this forum and other forums. Intel is generally not as sensitive to latencies and can make do with slower/higher latency RAM without as much performance penalty. You could easily save $50 and get regular DDR4 3000 with Intel and not suffer a big performance hit as AMD would.

Also, compariing a B350 motherboard to an Z370? I'm sure that $120 Z370 motherboard will have better features and connectivity than the $70 B350 motherboard. I would argue to get similar specs to the Z370 you would need a X370 at around the $100 mark.

Once you take into account the total platform cost (including RAM) the differences aren't nearly as drastic as you suggest, especially if you invest in high speed low latency DDR4 for the AM4 platform to achieve optimal performance.
One of the most sold ram is Corsair 3000 lpx c15. Does fine xmp in a 1600, and there is no need to go for the c14 stuff here at that perf level. And its the ram that is beeing bought for 1600 level machines.
And what excactly is it that a expensive mb delivers? - k processors and corresponding mb is just typical segmenting stuff. We have two cheap asus b350m prime mb in the house and they are at least as good as the expensive stuff we used to have. No nonsense stuff that just works without a lot of bling. Thats excactly a huge advantage to the ryzen AM4 platform; you get the good stuff for cheap that can oc. And absolutely no problem in the powerlevel 1600 processors is in.
8600k and 1600 is clearly two completely different price segments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,951
1,581
136
You would have a point if the difference between fast LL RAM and slower RAM wasn't as drastic. You are potentially losing over 15% in gaming performance by using cheaper RAM. That is a huge performance hit. In fact, you're probably better off with a cheaper Ryzen 1400/1500 + LL RAM compared to a Ryzen 1600 with slower RAM, if gaming performance was your primary focus.



I personally don't like the idea of pairing a $200+ CPU with a $60 motherboard, but that is just me. If you are telling me that the majority of AMD Ryzen users will consciously choose the absolute cheapest motherboard to go with their $200+ CPU, then I will concede your point. Matter of the fact is, generally, higher end CPUs get matched with higher end motherboards.


And the performance of a 8600K @ 5GHz + a GTX 1070 would be in a completely different tier to a 1600 @ 4GHz + GTX 1070, especially if you limit the Ryzen to high latency DDR4-3000 (yes, 4GHz is possible if you don't gimp on the cooling and choose the cheapest motherboards with poor VRMs ;))



I disagree. I would be willing to bet that an i3 8100 + GTX 1080 will achieve better framerates than an overclocked 1600 + GTX 1070. Even if the i3 is bottlenecked somewhat, the GTX 1080 is a 20% faster GPU than the GTX 1070. The 1600 is not a 20% faster CPU at gaming compared to the i3 8100. In fact, I'm not even convinced it's actually a faster gaming CPU at all (even when overclocked)

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1600/20.html


The i3 8100 at 3.6GHz will sit in between the i5 7500 and 7600K, it is hardly a 'slow' CPU that will stutter in games. The systems above are using a GTX 1080 btw.

Yes, I chose 720P to highlight the differences in gaming performance before GPU bottlenecking is taken into account. Even at 1080P, the 1600 is behind the i5 7500/7600K, but the margin is less because the GPU would be the limiting factor more often at 1080P.

Still completely debunks your claim that an i3 8100 will 'stutter' with a GTX 1080.
Yes It will stutter and these graphs dont tell how real world gaming experience is in the new mp games when you play and dont run a standard sp script.
Shows lack of experience with gaming.
A 4 core 4t cpu is just outright stupid for stuff like bf1, overwatch in 144Hz and heck even stuff like pubg. Its a cpu for the past.

And no, an AM4 mb like asus prime b350 have plenty good vrm for oc a 6 cores1600. No probs whatsoever even to 4GHz if you want to crank voltage that high (no reason to really). Reason: you dont pay Intel shareholder so much. Its that simple. z170, 270,370 is just marketing crap. Same stuff, high margin expensive products. Classic segmenting.

The interesting stuff in Intel lineup is 8600 for low tdp gaming but ofcource the 8700k and non k models because they are performance leaders. The rest is just not compettitive for modern gaming.

Obviously 1800x becomes unattractive. I dont really know how attractive it was day one, but i think AMD will just move more of the good 1800x dies to TR and Epyc line. A situation like this just hows just how enormous the benefit is of using the same die for the entire lineup.
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
Yes It will stutter and these graphs dont tell how real world gaming experience is in the new mp games when you play and dont run a standard sp script.
Shows lack of experience with gaming.
A 4 core 4t cpu is just outright stupid for stuff like bf1, overwatch in 144Hz and heck even stuff like pubg. Its a cpu for the past.
Funny, I seem to run BF1 just fine on my ancient (by modern standards) 2500K @ 4.5GHz when paired with an R9 Fury. Maybe I'm just not that sensitive to momentary dips in framerates. It even runs well on my laptop which has an i5 7300HQ + 1050 Ti, of course I don't run at ultra settings due to the GPU but it is more than playable.


BF1 is hardly a bad experience on a 4C/4T CPU as you suggest. Yes minimum framerates are higher on the 7700K (as expected) but the 7600K overclocked still fares relatively well in this 'massively multithreaded' game.

Anyway, can we please get back on topic now? I think this thread has been derailed enough.
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,951
1,581
136
Please tell that to IEC, who presented me with this graph to show his point about Ryzen performance scaling with lower latency RAM:
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/techspot:core-i7-7700k-4-9g-vs-ryzen-5-1600-4g-with-vega-64-gtx-1080.2518854/page-3


They don't even include vanilla DDR4 3000 in those charts, the slowest RAM is DDR4 3200 CL14. Based on this, you still think regular non LL DDR4-3000 is sufficient for Ryzen?



Still doesn't discount the fact that you're using an ultra budget motherboard as a comparison. If AMD users truly don't care for motherboard features and are happy with a low end motherboard for $60 - $70, then you have a point.



I actually would like to see the relative performance of both platforms running regular DDR4 3000. Based on the charts above, AMD performance would suffer quite a hit using lower speed/higher latency RAM.

Also, if you are going to now include the ~$100 price difference between the platforms to justify a faster GPU, I could counter that an i3 8100 + GTX 1080 (or 1070 Ti) would be better for gaming than either an R5 1600 + GTX 1070, or 8600K + GTX 1060. See where am I'm going with this?
Yes its more sensitive to lower latency ram, but what it get is typically 3000c15 and its perfectly fine for that performance class (a 1600/1600x).
Next to nobody is testing a ryzen with c12 and strict subtiming for gaming. What we saw was more the oposite; 2133, because the new bios wasnt out before june/july that could run all the standard 3000c15/3200c16 ram.
What gives stutter in gaming (if you are at 2933 and above) and the low fps that really makes your mp experience come to a halt is if the throughput of the cpu cant pull the stuff. Then you are in for problems. The internet is flooded with gamers who dont understand their lower speed i7 or i5 is hammered to 100% in bf1.
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,951
1,581
136
Funny, I seem to run BF1 just fine on my ancient (by modern standards) 2500K @ 4.5GHz when paired with an R9 Fury. Maybe I'm just not that sensitive to momentary dips in framerates. It even runs well on my laptop which has an i5 7300HQ + 1050 Ti, of course I don't run at ultra settings due to the GPU but it is more than playable.


BF1 is hardly a bad experience on a 4C/4T CPU as you suggest. Yes minimum framerates are higher but the 7600K overclocked still fares relatively well in this 'massively multithreaded' game.

Anyway, can we please get back on topic now? I think this thread has been derailed enough.
Gaming play a huge part for how processors is priced, especially at the 200 usd class, so we are spot on.

BF1 is a huge game, and the series have in all years showed where it goes for gaming and performance demand.

Here it becomes relevant if you want a system consisting of a 1600 oc on a cheap 350 board with some 3000c15 standard ram or some Intel cpu in the order of 4c(4/8t) cpu.
I take the 1600 anyday.

And your 2500k dips to 30-35 fps in many situation bf1 mp64, and i can tell you how to get there. I have done that on a fast i5 hundred hrs. Yes its personal how dips affects you, like how much you value high quality textures.

But if you go out and buy a processor that need total cpu grunt in the leading performance game, you bring yourself in a risky position. There is absolutely no need to do that when you can get a cheap 1600 and oc it to 3.8 on a cheap 350 board using the stock cooler using the standard 3000c15 ram you would get for the Intel 4c system anyway.

Get the 1600 as minimum or opt for the 8700k. IMO thats the gaming cpu in a non tdp constrained environment we need. If you game 144 only go 1600 if you are really cheap. But never ever go 4c4t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VirtualLarry

ASK THE COMMUNITY