• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Techspot:Core i7 7700k@4.9G vs. Ryzen 5 1600@4G with Vega 64 & GTX 1080

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

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,316
2,011
106
What this test shows is that even at 1080P, we are often hitting GPU limits on the GTX 1080 if running at ultra settings / max AA in the latest games.

I touched on this topic in the other thread about Coffee Lake and it's merits for gaming. Is Ryzen 'bad' at gaming? No, not at all. It's a competent gaming CPU but its true strengths lie in its MT performance. Its performance 'ceiling' at gaming is a lot lower than a highly clocked i7, and you only need to find a non GPU limited test like this one to prove it: http://www.legitreviews.com/cpu-bottleneck-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-tested-on-amd-ryzen-versus-intel-kaby-lake_192585

Yes, it does take a 1080 GTX Ti to truly show the differences between an i7 and Ryzen, and not many of us can afford such a high end GPU. However, what about the next generation of GPUs? Or the ones after? These will be as fast or faster than the 1080 GTX Ti. We tend to hang on to our CPUs much longer than GPUs, and a faster gaming CPU remains relevant for longer without seriously bottlenecking future GPU upgrades.

For example, I'm still running my 2011 era i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz and it started out running a then top of the line Radeon 7970. That was then upgraded to a GTX 970 in 2015 and I upgraded again to a Radeon Fury earlier in the year. I would estimate the Radeon Fury to be roughly 2.0x the performance of the 7970... would have I have been able to get the full benefits from the GPU upgrades had I opted for a cheaper, slower CPU at the time, say an i3 or AMD FX CPU? I would say probably not.

The same arguments can probably be made about CPUs today. Unless games suddenly became massively multi-threaded in the next couple of years, I would bet that a 7700K would remain 'relevant' for gaming longer than a R5 would be. When it comes to gaming, IPC + clockspeed are still the most important metrics. Thread count is important in certain games (AOTS, for example) but that is more of an exception than the norm.
Those tests are not enough to conclude whether a GTX1080 is a definite bottleneck at 1080p or if those results are related to peculiarities of the games involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

GaiaHunter

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2008
3,535
26
91
What this test shows is that even at 1080P, we are often hitting GPU limits on the GTX 1080 if running at ultra settings / max AA in the latest games.

I touched on this topic in the other thread about Coffee Lake and it's merits for gaming. Is Ryzen 'bad' at gaming? No, not at all. It's a competent gaming CPU but its true strengths lie in its MT performance. Its performance 'ceiling' at gaming is a lot lower than a highly clocked i7, and you only need to find a non GPU limited test like this one to prove it: http://www.legitreviews.com/cpu-bottleneck-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-tested-on-amd-ryzen-versus-intel-kaby-lake_192585

Yes, it does take a 1080 GTX Ti to truly show the differences between an i7 and Ryzen, and not many of us can afford such a high end GPU. However, what about the next generation of GPUs? Or the ones after? These will be as fast or faster than the 1080 GTX Ti. We tend to hang on to our CPUs much longer than GPUs, and a faster gaming CPU remains relevant for longer without seriously bottlenecking future GPU upgrades.

For example, I'm still running my 2011 era i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz and it started out running a then top of the line Radeon 7970. That was then upgraded to a GTX 970 in 2015 and I upgraded again to a Radeon Fury earlier in the year. I would estimate the Radeon Fury to be roughly 2.0x the performance of the 7970... would have I have been able to get the full benefits from the GPU upgrades had I opted for a cheaper, slower CPU at the time, say an i3 or AMD FX CPU? I would say probably not.

The same arguments can probably be made about CPUs today. Unless games suddenly became massively multi-threaded in the next couple of years, I would bet that a 7700K would remain 'relevant' for gaming longer than a R5 would be. When it comes to gaming, IPC + clockspeed are still the most important metrics. Thread count is important in certain games (AOTS, for example) but that is more of an exception than the norm.
These tests are always (for scientific reasons) made in benchmarking machines and not day to day machines.

Declaring that if CPU as a lower max fps ceiling now will equate to it having a max lower fps ceiling in the future is risky.

It depends of the bottlenecks of the GPU, how games are being programmed, etc.

Even now one can see that at higher resolutions, performance doesn't always follow the 1080p performance.

Also your link is from March. It is a new platform.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
What this test shows is that even at 1080P, we are often hitting GPU limits on the GTX 1080 if running at ultra settings / max AA in the latest games.

I touched on this topic in the other thread about Coffee Lake and it's merits for gaming. Is Ryzen 'bad' at gaming? No, not at all. It's a competent gaming CPU but its true strengths lie in its MT performance. Its performance 'ceiling' at gaming is a lot lower than a highly clocked i7, and you only need to find a non GPU limited test like this one to prove it: http://www.legitreviews.com/cpu-bottleneck-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-tested-on-amd-ryzen-versus-intel-kaby-lake_192585
It seems like a lot of game computer buyers only accept "The Best" on CPUs. If you look at the Coffee Lake thread 8X as many people are going for the i7, over the i5, despite there likely being a smaller performance delta than price delta. IOW the i5 Coffee lake will likely be the better Perf/$ deal, but that is not what most people will be buying.

So Ryzen being good at gaming is not good enough for many, which will hurt AMD.

This actually surprised me. I thought there would be a lot more people interested in the i5 Coffee Lake (as I am), and better Perf/$.

I am thinking of any upgrade soon for a large array of reasons (Q9400 here), and I will be looking at i5 Coffee Lake vs Ryzen 1600. The Bang/Buck chips. Neither will be the "best" for gaming, but both will be fine.
 

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2011
5,185
107
106
Very cool, I wish I had more disposable income to play with ryzen. As it stands now I have to wait for Zen2 to come out, I just cant justify spending money on a downgrade right now. Hopefully Zen2 will have the IPC and clockspeeds to beat my 3770K.
 

Zucker2k

Senior member
Feb 15, 2006
909
370
136
I hope you don't actually plan to go into statistics with that outlook.

Techspot/HW Unboxed results are representative precisely because fluctuations average out due to the large number of data points.
Fluctuations, huh? Whatever floats your boat, mate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sweepr

Zucker2k

Senior member
Feb 15, 2006
909
370
136
It's obvious that my argument flew right over your head.
No, it did not. You think his data is worth something; I think not (read trash). That's an irreconcilable point of departure. So you see, I understood you perfectly. :)
 
Last edited:

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,363
640
121
R5 1600 is the best bang for buck chip across AMD's Ryzen lineup. I think the next gen R5 2600 will be even better. I am hoping AMD can get clocks up by 500 - 600 Mhz especially for single core turbo with Ryzen on 14nm+. That should make it a very good gaming chip.
I been praising the R5 since before release. It was painfully obvious it was the gaming chip to get for people who need the best bang for buck chip.
Completely agree man, it's the next gen that's even more interesting. It actually has potential to pass Intel if AMD gets enough of clockspeed or IPC improvement.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
4,556
766
126
if Ryzen 2.0rev gets at least 500mhz bump Intel will have a real fight for the gaming crown. This R5 chip is very close to the best Intel has to offer right now. I'm impressed
Was the plan for the next Zen release to be on a new node? Unless it is, I don't know how easy it will be for them to get that much of a boost out of the Samsung/GF 14 nm process without some big changes to their design.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,382
2,556
136
It's gonna be fun watching how this "trash data" review site shows Coffee Lake in a positive light. It only takes one CPU launch to go from trash to top-tier, and vice versa.
 

Borealis7

Platinum Member
Oct 19, 2006
2,651
57
91
so let me get this straight...in a GPU bound situation, it doesn't matter which CPU you use?

mind = blown.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
4,556
766
126
so let me get this straight...in a GPU bound situation, it doesn't matter which CPU you use?

mind = blown.
The 1080 FE is GPU bound at 1080p? You'd have a point if they only had 4k benchmarks in which case an i3 is going to do just as well, but they only used 1080p and 1440p. You can see the trendline with the gap shrinking and at 4k there probably wouldn't be one, but it's pretty silly to claim that the tests they ran only get the results they do because the system is GPU bound.

If that were the case, the individual results should be far more clumped up and there wouldn't be any oddities like the Intel chip having a 2% advantage at 1080p, but a 18% disadvantage at 1440p.
 

Borealis7

Platinum Member
Oct 19, 2006
2,651
57
91
The 1080 FE is GPU bound at 1080p? You'd have a point if they only had 4k benchmarks in which case an i3 is going to do just as well, but they only used 1080p and 1440p. You can see the trendline with the gap shrinking and at 4k there probably wouldn't be one, but it's pretty silly to claim that the tests they ran only get the results they do because the system is GPU bound.

If that were the case, the individual results should be far more clumped up and there wouldn't be any oddities like the Intel chip having a 2% advantage at 1080p, but a 18% disadvantage at 1440p.
of course i'm referring to 1440p, and that is only one game.
 

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,363
640
121
so let me get this straight...in a GPU bound situation, it doesn't matter which CPU you use?

mind = blown.
Yes, the point is that for a person who just needs a "budget" PC, they should just pick up an R5 and save their money. I always will advocate people to save and invest in their future wherever possible.
For those of us who have the luxury of just buying what we like....
We'll clearly just get the best i7 we can get.
Before I wouldn't consider the FX series really worth it getting. The R5 now is for those on a budget.
 

Ranulf

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2001
1,538
111
106
It seems like a lot of game computer buyers only accept "The Best" on CPUs. If you look at the Coffee Lake thread 8X as many people are going for the i7, over the i5, despite there likely being a smaller performance delta than price delta. IOW the i5 Coffee lake will likely be the better Perf/$ deal, but that is not what most people will be buying.

So Ryzen being good at gaming is not good enough for many, which will hurt AMD.

This actually surprised me. I thought there would be a lot more people interested in the i5 Coffee Lake (as I am), and better Perf/$.

I am thinking of any upgrade soon for a large array of reasons (Q9400 here), and I will be looking at i5 Coffee Lake vs Ryzen 1600. The Bang/Buck chips. Neither will be the "best" for gaming, but both will be fine.
I love my 2500k but there are times I wish I had bought the i7 version in 2011. Intel is glad I didn't I'm sure. It has lasted a long time but I think going with another non HT, 6 core only i5 seems like not the best route unless you figure on upgrading in 2-3 years. Which will probably mean new mobo, new chip and possibly new ram (hopefully cheaper again by then). The 1600 would likely be the better long term investment. People favor the i7 level chips because of how well they have lasted over the past 7-8 years.
 

VirtualLarry

Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
45,500
4,037
126
My decision to go with the R5 1600 (on all my main rigs), was driven by cost and value. I mean, at the current time, Intel's top-end consumer chip was a 4C/8T i7-7700K for $300 on sale at MC, or $340 elsewhere (I think that's the MSRP).. AMD was offering the R5 1600 6C/12T for $220. Two extra cores / four extra threads, for 2/3 the price, what's not to love? And these Ryzen CPUs, have Broadwell-esque IPC, not like the older crappy FX CPUs. So, that leaves the frequency deficit, which, I'm willing to live with, for the improved multi-threaded throughput, and the cost savings. (Edit: I'm not a 1080P gamer.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

Ratman6161

Senior member
Mar 21, 2008
608
69
91
You mean how it beats Intel in all other things, yet just comes close in gaming?
interesting comment given that the comparison is between an i7 and an AMD CPU that is priced like an i5. When you consider price, coming close to the i7 = bang for the buck/value.
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,432
365
126
It seems like a lot of game computer buyers only accept "The Best" on CPUs. If you look at the Coffee Lake thread 8X as many people are going for the i7, over the i5, despite there likely being a smaller performance delta than price delta. IOW the i5 Coffee lake will likely be the better Perf/$ deal, but that is not what most people will be buying.

So Ryzen being good at gaming is not good enough for many, which will hurt AMD.

This actually surprised me. I thought there would be a lot more people interested in the i5 Coffee Lake (as I am), and better Perf/$.

I am thinking of any upgrade soon for a large array of reasons (Q9400 here), and I will be looking at i5 Coffee Lake vs Ryzen 1600. The Bang/Buck chips. Neither will be the "best" for gaming, but both will be fine.
This is an enthusiast forum. We're hardly indicative of Joe Public. In the public I fully expect the 6c/6t cpu to outsell the 8700k.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Christopher Bohling

Zucker2k

Senior member
Feb 15, 2006
909
370
136
My decision to go with the R5 1600 (on all my main rigs), was driven by cost and value. I mean, at the current time, Intel's top-end consumer chip was a 4C/8T i7-7700K for $300 on sale at MC, or $340 elsewhere (I think that's the MSRP).. AMD was offering the R5 1600 6C/12T for $220. Two extra cores / four extra threads, for 2/3 the price, what's not to love? And these Ryzen CPUs, have Broadwell-esque IPC, not like the older crappy FX CPUs. So, that leaves the frequency deficit, which, I'm willing to live with, for the improved multi-threaded throughput, and the cost savings. (Edit: I'm not a 1080P gamer.)
Who cares? If it's about core-count alone, the i7 wouldn't even be in the picture, yet it's arguably the better all-rounded chip with it's four highest ipc+frequency cores in addition to a decent igp. It's funny how you always conveniently leave out the graphics part in your 'penny-pinching' analyses. I mean, an igp has to count for something, right? Raven Ridge says hello.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
978
653
136
I been praising the R5 since before release. It was painfully obvious it was the gaming chip to get for people who need the best bang for buck chip.
Completely agree man, it's the next gen that's even more interesting. It actually has potential to pass Intel if AMD gets enough of clockspeed or IPC improvement.
'Best bang for buck' is subjective because it depends where on the performance curve you wish to be.

I could argue that an R3 1200 presents much better value than an R5 1600 since it is half the price but provides 80%+ the gaming performance. Or even a Pentium G4560 which has similar gaming performance to the R3 1200 (albeit with much worse MT performance) for 1/3 the price of an R5 1600.

IF you budget for a CPU happens to be roughly $200, then yes an R5 would be a good buy, with a good balance of gaming and MT performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zucker2k

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
4,002
1,232
136
'Best bang for buck' is subjective because it depends where on the performance curve you wish to be.

I could argue that an R3 1200 presents much better value than an R5 1600 since it is half the price but provides 80%+ the gaming performance. Or even a Pentium G4560 which has similar gaming performance to the R3 1200 (albeit with much worse MT performance) for 1/3 the price of an R5 1600.

IF you budget for a CPU happens to be roughly $200, then yes an R5 would be a good buy, with a good balance of gaming and MT performance.
I can argue against your logic. Multithread performance /$ is a very good metric to measure bang for buck. By that measure R5 1600 is the best bang for buck CPU (assuming you are overclocking).

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/75094-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-1500x-performance-review-16.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/75763-amd-ryzen-3-1300x-1200-performance-review-15.html

R3 1200 at USD 110 vs R5 1600 at USD 215. In CB R15 at 4 Ghz the former will get close to 600 the latter will get close to 1350. MT perf/$ is easily higher on R5 1600. This is why R5 1600 is called best bang for buck. The cheapest R7 1700 is USD 300 and cannot match R5 1600's MT perf/$ (when both are overclocked).

Gaming performance comes down to IPC and clocks as even today games are not designed to scale beyond 8 threads (which is down to the consoles having 8 threads). For a lot of mainstream consumers gaming performance is one among many factors which they look at.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY