• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ryzen-A Fail for Gamers?

Page 18 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
beginner99 said:
Again? Didn't this already get cleared up in another Ryzen thread. It's ok to prefer one or the other brands but in the end, you can't be taken seriously if you post this over and over again.

I call comparing an OCed vs. a downclocked CPU trolling. Actually the charts only proof the 7700k is in these benches far superior as it wins most of them with 1 hand tied behind it's back. Since the 1800x is OCed the 7700k should be running at least at 4.8 Ghz if not higher meaning 20% faster...

I still haven't decided if I buy 7700k, Ryzen or wait for Skylake-X. But posts like this are for sure pushing me towards Intel. So if you actually are an AMD marketing guy (as I think you are), what you are doing is counter-productive. I'm telling you this because I want AMD to succeed but I', not buying their products out of pity. They need to deliver.
Click to expand...
I don't want to refer to any specific poster, but I agree, the flooding of this and the VC and G forums with adamant AMD supporters obviously trying to convince readers to purchase their products has just the opposite effect on me, and has made me determined to never buy an AMD product no matter how good the value is.
 
richaron said:
What I mean is that there are 2 distinct arguments here:
1) whether low resolution benchmarks have value.
2) whether low resolution benchmarks can be "extrapolated" into future performance.

The maker of the video invented point #2 whether deliberately or not. They then spent the rest of the video arguing against point #2.

But there is no logical connection to point #1.
Click to expand...

I don't think its about future performance personally. For me it certainly isn't. Future GPU's will be running future games and the graphical intensity increases along with GPU power. This is why people are still mostly happy with Sandy CPU's. CPU requirements haven't changed much but GPU requirements do.
The low res gaming benchmarks have value for today's high refresh gamers. If the CPU can't crank out the frames at 1080p, then it won't be able to at 1440p with dual high end GPU's either. That's the value I found in the Ryzen 1080p testing. I game at 100hz. I don't want a CPU that can't feed me a solid 100fps. The idea is to get a CPU that's fast enough for your monitor, then you can forget about it and focus on GPU upgrades for a while.
Or what about a current 60hz gamer who wants to upgrade to a 1440p 144hz monitor? They will spend $1200+ on GPUs and $800+ on a monitor only to discover their Ryzen is bottlenecking the entire system at 90fps...That's not going to make them popular with enthusiast gamers. Ironically, the 7700K and 6800K CPU's that AMD spent so much time bashing during their presentations simply don't suffer from these limitations.
 
Last edited:
Ok. Currently, have a i7 3770k with Fury card and play BF1 at 1440p at 100hz at low/med settings. I'm planning to get a 1080Ti so I can play at Ultra settings at 120hz and been told that I may be cpu limited by the i7 3770k. I was thinking of getting a 1700X but benchmarks and discussion go both ways. 1700X or 7700k?
 
Capt Caveman said:
Ok. Currently, have a i7 3770k with Fury card and play BF1 at 1440p at 100hz at low/med settings. I'm planning to get a 1080Ti so I can play at Ultra settings at 120hz and been told that I may be cpu limited by the i7 3770k. I was thinking of getting a 1700X but benchmarks and discussion go both ways. 1700X or 7700k?
Click to expand...

one of the few sites that have BF1 multiplayer chart comparisons

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03.../#diagramm-battlefield-1-dx11-multiplayer-fps

note the difference in performance between DX11 and DX12 and that performance decreases in DX12 for both AMD's and Intel's CPUs with 6+ cores
 
Capt Caveman said:
Ok. Currently, have a i7 3770k with Fury card and play BF1 at 1440p at 100hz at low/med settings. I'm planning to get a 1080Ti so I can play at Ultra settings at 120hz and been told that I may be cpu limited by the i7 3770k. I was thinking of getting a 1700X but benchmarks and discussion go both ways. 1700X or 7700k?
Click to expand...
It's a choice between near-full load on the 7700K, with somewhat faster(<10%) average FPS than the 1700X, but with considerably lower CPU utilization on the latter.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
I don't want to refer to any specific poster, but I agree, the flooding of this and the VC and G forums with adamant AMD supporters obviously trying to convince readers to purchase their products has just the opposite effect on me, and has made me determined to never buy an AMD product no matter how good the value is.
Click to expand...

In other words, you aren't rational and base your decisions on emotions?

The R7 is the only CPU I'm aware of that's 90+% of the 7700k in gaming and 90+% of the 6900k in productivity for <$500.

But go ahead and base your buying deciding on emotions. It's not rational, but go ahead.
 
moonbogg said:
Ironically, the 7700K and 6800K CPU's that AMD spent so much time bashing during their presentations simply don't suffer from these limitations.
Click to expand...

In the computerbase.de updated benchmark suite, the 1800x is 98.3% as fast as the 7700k at 1080 gaming.

Doesn't seem to suffer, does it? Though after gaming at higher resolutions, I'd never go back to gaming at low graphic settings likes 1080 anyway.
 
Saying you Wouldn't buy a companies product ever again because of opinions of others, instead of using your own thoughts and capacity for objectivity is beyond pathetic.
Thats a fanboi attitude right there.

Insulting other members is not allowed.
Markfw
Anandtech Moderator
 
Last edited by a moderator:
guachi said:
In the computerbase.de updated benchmark suite, the 1800x is 98.3% as fast as the 7700k at 1080 gaming.

Doesn't seem to suffer, does it? Though after gaming at higher resolutions, I'd never go back to gaming at low graphic settings likes 1080 anyway.
Click to expand...
So if you are gaming in those scenarios the much cheaper 7700K is probably the better buy, or what you should stay with if you already have one.
 
Why do we compare the R7 1800X against Core i7 7700K and not against Core i7 6900K ??

I can see the comparison of R7 1700 at $329 vs Core i7 7700K at $349 because of the same price point but really the R7 1800X at $500 should be compared against the Core i7 6850K or 6900K.
 
AtenRa said:
Why do we compare the R7 1800X against Core i7 7700K and not against Core i7 6900K ??

I can see the comparison of R7 1700 at $329 vs Core i7 7700K at $349 because of the same price point but really the R7 1800X at $500 should be compared against the Core i7 6850K or 6900K.
Click to expand...
Because gaming is the most common reason for being a hardware enthusiast, and the 7700K is the fastest gaming cpu?
 
Flapdrol1337 said:
Because gaming is the most common reason for being a hardware enthusiast, and the 7700K is the fastest gaming cpu?
Click to expand...

I dont believe anyone refuted that, what i dont understand is why comparing the $500 R7 1800X 8C 16T against the $349 4C 8T Core i7 7700K and not the $600 6C 12T Core i7 6850K or the $1049 8C 16T Core i7 6900K ???

Also, $1049 Core i7 6900K is slower than $349 Core i7 7700K, did anyone said that Broadwell gaming performance is a fail ?? Because that is the title of this thread if im not mistaken, its not about who is the best gaming CPU currently on the market but if Ryzen gaming performance is a fail or not.
 
AtenRa said:
Why do we compare the R7 1800X against Core i7 7700K and not against Core i7 6900K ??

I can see the comparison of R7 1700 at $329 vs Core i7 7700K at $349 because of the same price point but really the R7 1800X at $500 should be compared against the Core i7 6850K or 6900K.
Click to expand...

Because Ryzen wouldn't look like a fail if they did. 😉
 
french toast said:
Saying you Wouldn't buy a companies product ever again because of opinions of others, instead of using your own thoughts and capacity for objectivity is beyond pathetic.
Thats a fanboi attitude right there.
Click to expand...
No, it is an anti fanboy attitude. No less rational than the horde of AMD fans who refuse to buy intel because of some business practices that happened ten years ago.
 
AtenRa said:
Why do we compare the R7 1800X against Core i7 7700K and not against Core i7 6900K ??
Click to expand...
Because the 1800x is at i7-5960x levels, a 2 years + old chip,hedt is expensive because enthusiasts pay crazy amounts of money for just a little bit better so nobody who's serious about hedt platform will choose the 1800x if he can get a faster chip even if it is insanely high priced.
1800x target group is "poor" people who want to belong to hedt but don't have the money for the latest and greatest and those people have the choice between used 5960x (or even older chips,or even multi processor platforms) at similar price to a new 1800x or, new 7700k/1800x.

Also the stilt already confirmed that zen's execution speed of code is pretty underwhelming,not even beating a lynnfield at lower clocks.
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-draw-call-performance.2499609/#post-38745075
 
AtenRa said:
Why do we compare the R7 1800X against Core i7 7700K and not against Core i7 6900K ??.
Click to expand...

The R7 is in a somewhat of a no man's land that no other chip is in. It's not a better peformer than the 7700K. It's not a better performer than the 6900K. But it's 90% of both.

In comparison to the 6900K, the R7 is just so much cheaper that the 6900K isn't even a choice for (almost) any consumer. The R7 was compared to to the 6900K in benchmarks and because it did so well I think people just acknowledged it's the clear winner. If you think about it, that's an amazing result for AMD.

So we compare to the 7700K partly because of goal post shifting, partly because we like to discuss gaming, and partly because the R7 is an actual choice for gaming in a way the 6900K really isn't.

Now, if someone already owned a 7700K, the R7 isn't something he should buy. I don't think anyone seriously thought it would be. And since the 7700K was only recently introduced the person who bought it clearly thought its CPU performance in productivity type programs was sufficient.

If a buyer does any kind of "productivity" type stuff at all, I'd recommend the R7 as it's good enough in gaming vs. the 7700 and much better in the other stuff. And it's not going to get further behind, just closer, in benchmarks.

If a buyer is mostly a gamer, I wouldn't recommend the 7700K because I'm cheap that way and I'd get 6700K or whatever is at $200. Or just go even cheaper and recommend that cheap Pentium, a 480, and a Freesync 1080/144 monitor (because the Gsync tax is too high to recommend a 1060) and tell the buyer to spend the money saved on hookers, blow, or games. Just go to Steam and stock up on $20 older games and have fun!

I'm in the first buyer group and I'm happy I finally have a "goldilocks" CPU that can be 90% of the best.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
No, it is an anti fanboy attitude. No less rational than the horde of AMD fans who refuse to buy intel because of some business practices that happened ten years ago.
Click to expand...

It is less rational. Not buying Intel because of Intel business practices is based on things Intel actually did.

Not buying AMD because of something a random screenname on an internet chat board said isn't based on things AMD actually did.
 
TheELF said:
Because the 1800x is at i7-5960x levels, a 2 years + old chip,hedt is expensive because enthusiasts pay crazy amounts of money for just a little bit better so nobody who's serious about hedt platform will choose the 1800x if he can get a faster chip even if it is insanely high priced.

1800x target group is "poor" people who want to belong to hedt but don't have the money for the latest and greatest and those people have the choice between used 5960x (or even older chips,or even multi processor platforms) at similar price to a new 1800x or, new 7700k/1800x.
Click to expand...

I see a lot of words... but don't see a reason why that means the 1800X should be compared to the 7700....?

Regarding the comparison to 5960 - performance at the moment will greatly depend on what programs you are running.



TheELF said:
Also the stilt already confirmed that zen's execution speed of code is pretty underwhelming,not even beating a lynnfield at lower clocks.
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-draw-call-performance.2499609/#post-38745075
Click to expand...

That is the benchmark that has Conroe faster than Sandy Bridge clock-for-clock?

There is no reason to question that benchmark... none at all. Especially when using an architecture that is already known to be running on unoptimised bios and OS. 🙄

[Unless you actually think Ryzen produces the same clock normalised draw rate as Deneb? You'd have to be a special kind of idiot to take that without question.]
 
frozentundra123456 said:
No, it is an anti fanboy attitude. No less rational than the horde of AMD fans who refuse to buy intel because of some business practices that happened ten years ago.
Click to expand...

You are still allowing others to dictate your actions, which seems to be the opposite of your goal. All you are doing is taking what someone else is telling you to do and putting a not gate on their statements. That behavior is an invitation to manipulation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top