CPU Upgrade vs 1080ti?

[Liviu Cojocaru]

I think it's decided then, I will wait and see the new Ryzen first but will probably end up upgrading my cpu and go with 7700k. I have been putting it off for a while, upgrading 4 generations of cpus will probably help with the overall experience not just for gaming. Also I don't believe I need a case bigger than I already have lol. I have the Thermaltake Chaser MK-1, though for a cooler, I might finally go with watercooling this time. Is there any more maintenance with water cooling vs air?

There is no difference between air and water when it comes to cooling if you ask me

 

[Frag_Maniac]

There is no difference between air and water when it comes to cooling if you ask me

You'd have to have only used AIO WC to say that, which let's face it, is not at all the same as a custom loop.

That said, while the maintenance isn't necessarily more frequent with a custom loop, it's certainly more laborious. Plus, even with AIO factory sealed units, the rad fins are like paper and very fragile compared to air HS fins.

The cooling type you use has more to do with how high an OC you want to achieve, than whether you prefer water or air though. In my honest opinion, a 7700K is already clocked pretty high, and can be run quite a bit cooler by just setting the IGP voltage to zero in the BIOS.

Then again, going forward, I'm not sure I'd want to invest that much in a mere quad when the Ryzen 8 core chips are showing higher minimum FPS, which means smoother gameplay. It's not just about ave FPS, a lot of games can run at high FPS, but they have micro stutter.

Plus the most recent benches showing how Ryzen 8s perform with high speed RAM shows the 7700k is not necessarily the king of gaming anymore, and with more games supporting beyond 4 cores, that will only swing more in favor of high core count.

 

[Dan848]

The only maintenance with an air cooler is purchasing a can of air to blow out dust collection - that should be done for the entire computer, all heasinks, RAM, PSU, and so on.

Water cooling requires cleaning from time to time, just like an air cooler. Water cooling has considerably more maintenance than an air cooler. An internal water radiator should be mounted in the front of the case for best cooling. Regarding water cooling maintenance, you must regularly check that no coolant is leaking from anywhere. Water pumps usually last about 5 years then need replaced, though some designs are poor causing an early death of the pump [motor].

Also, a good air cooler does just as good a job as a water cooler and is quieter, the pump on the water cooler makes noise, in addition to the radiator fans. You can make your own custom water cooer with a larger, external, radiator, however, most cases do not have the proper holes drilled for the water tubing for external coolers. Also, the fans will be outside of the case causing more noise.

So, water coolers require more maintenance than air coolers. It is the simplicity of a good air cooler that is the reason people buy them, just make certain you have enough room in your case and your RAM sticks are not too tall, in case your motherboard places them under an air cooler or its fan.

 

[Caring1]

An internal water radiator should be mounted in the front of the case for best cooling.

No, mounting position is optional depending on your opinion and how it looks in the case.
Personally I believe better cooling is gained by having the radiator top mounted and the fans exhausting the hot air.

 

[Vayra86]

If OP is looking for 120fps/hz gaming, 7700K is the go-to and will definitely net some frames compared to the 3570k. Even with my current GTX 1080 the 3570k @ 4.2 is a huge bottleneck for quite a few games when you go above 60hz. For high refresh you want every bit of CPU perf you can get on four cores. Beyond four the gains are limited.

If 60hz/fps is your goal, Go Ryzen 5 and dont even look back.

 

[Nicholas Peyton]

I am thinking of upgrading once again, and right now not entirely sure on what I should choose between a cpu upgrade or a 1080ti.

First of all, here are my specs:
CPU: i5-3570k
GPU: 2 x Gigabyte G1 Gaming GeForce 970
RAM: 2 x 8GB Ballistix DDR3 1600Mhz
PSU: Thermaltake 850 Watts (can't quite remember the exact model)
MOBO: Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H
CPU Fan: CoolerMaster Hyper 212 EVO

I game using a 1080p 144Hz monitor, and if I can, I also use Dynamic Super Resolution when framerate allows depending on the game. I play a lot of Witcher 3 still to this day (modded mind you), which I know is a more CPU demanding game and one of the reasons for this dilemma.

So I am either thinking of getting a 6th or 7th gen CPU (most likely 6700k or 7700k) if I am to go this route but If I was to get a 1080ti I would wait for the manufacturer custom cards.

What do you guys think?

EDIT: Forgot to put motherboard model and cpu cooler!

Most games only utilise up to 4 cores. And once overclocked, your current CPU is only 10% slower than an overclocked i7 6700k at 'quad core' only tasks.

Multi-core performance, on the other hand--is indeed a bit behind. But look at the bright side; the newly released gaming champion; i5 7600k (2017) is only 20% faster than your i5 3570k.

Your i5 3570k is also still 5% faster at single core vs a new Ryzen 1700. And 4% faster than a Ryzen 1700 at quad core.

Unless your doing multi-core "work-station" stuff, then your CPU has a few years left in it.

1600MHZ ram may be holding your CPU back. Grab a cheap 'used' DDR3 2400 kit off Ebay and your good to go.

There's also some great prices on GPU's just now.

 

[ratirt]

Most games only utilise up to 4 cores. And once overclocked, your current CPU is only 10% slower than an overclocked i7 6700k at 'quad core' only tasks.

Multi-core performance, on the other hand--is indeed a bit behind. But look at the bright side; the newly released gaming champion; i5 7600k (2017) is only 20% faster than your i5 3570k.

Your i5 3570k is also still 5% faster at single core vs a new Ryzen 1700. And 4% faster than a Ryzen 1700 at quad core.

Unless your doing multi-core "work-station" stuff, then your CPU has a few years left in it.

1600MHZ ram may be holding your CPU back. Grab a cheap 'used' DDR3 2400 kit off Ebay and your good to go.

There's also some great prices on GPU's just now.

Single thread of a RyZen is way beyond I7 3rd gen. Some optimization and it will run way faster than any I7.

Here is something you can refer to. I watched it and so should you and then we can share information We'll see what you will say afterwards.

 

[Nicholas Peyton]

Single thread of a RyZen is way beyond I7 3rd gen. Some optimization and it will run way faster than any I7.

Here is something you can refer to. I watched it and so should you and then we can share information We'll see what you will say afterwards.

When I first watched that video, a few weeks ago.. it brought a smile to my face.

(I desperately wanted AMD to beat intel on as many fronts as possible) for sooo many reasons.

But unfortunately that video still confirms that the Ryzen CPU's are no match for the i7 7700k.

They are however a phenomenal performer vs i7 6900's. (which is their true competition).

From a gaming standpoint (which relies on single-to-quad core performance the Ryzen CPU's are severely lacking.

I think AMD dug their own grave in that respect; at the "horizon launch event" they kept talking about GAMING. So the press went mad when Ryzen never lived up to the gaming performance.

Think of it like this:

i7 7700k

core 1........core 2.....core 3.....core 4
10..................10...........10............10 = 40

-Multi-core score = 40
-Gaming score (4 cores) = 40



i7 6900k

core 1......core 2......core 3.....core 4.....core 5....core 6......core 7.....core 8
8.5...............8.5...........8.5...........8.5.............8.5.........8.5...............8.5...........8.5 = 68

-Multi-core score = 68
-Gaming Score (4 cores) = 34


The Ryzen 1700 is much like the i7 6900k. (yet still 15% slower at quad-core) Each core is slower, But only moderately slower.
8 moderately-fast cores are still much faster than just 4 really-fast cores.


The problem is; people aren't *considering* a i7 6900k for gaming. But they are considering a Ryzen 1700 for gaming due to its price point.

The OP's CPU (i5 3570k) is still 5% faster at single core than a Ryzen 1700 and about 4% faster at quad-core.

Moreover, i5 3570k is only 20% slower than intel's latest gaming flagship (the i5 7600k).

Omg; I have an old AMD FX 8350 and it still keeps up with all my games; and the OP's i5 3570k is 50% faster than my CPU at quad-core (gaming). Although it is 17% slower at multi-core. (But that doesn't matter).

Honestly he has a few years left in that CPU!!​

On a note r.e intel vs AMD:
What I do find disappointing... is that AMD's newest '4 core, 8 thread' CPU (1500x). Is still 30% slower than intel's 4 core, 8 thread CPU (i7 7700k).

If AMD had matched performance with intel on the Ryzen 1500x; the press would have proved AMD's truly caught up with intel.

Are we going to see 30% uplift through optimisations? I hope so. But I'm also not holding my breath. I wish I was wrong. But lets face it; its not going to happen :-(

 

[ratirt]

When I first watched that video, a few weeks ago.. it brought a smile to my face.

(I desperately wanted AMD to beat intel on as many fronts as possible) for sooo many reasons.

But unfortunately that video still confirms that the Ryzen CPU's are no match for the i7 7700k.

They are however a phenomenal performer vs i7 6900's. (which is their true competition).

From a gaming standpoint (which relies on single-to-quad core performance the Ryzen CPU's are severely lacking.

I think AMD dug their own grave in that respect; at the "horizon launch event" they kept talking about GAMING. So the press went mad when Ryzen never lived up to the gaming performance.

Think of it like this:

i7 7700k

core 1........core 2.....core 3.....core 4
10..................10...........10............10 = 40

-Multi-core score = 40
-Gaming score (4 cores) = 40



i7 6900k

core 1......core 2......core 3.....core 4.....core 5....core 6......core 7.....core 8
8.5...............8.5...........8.5...........8.5.............8.5.........8.5...............8.5...........8.5 = 68

-Multi-core score = 68
-Gaming Score (4 cores) = 34


The Ryzen 1700 is much like the i7 6900k. (yet still 15% slower at quad-core) Each core is slower, But only moderately slower.
8 moderately-fast cores are still much faster than just 4 really-fast cores.


The problem is; people aren't *considering* a i7 6900k for gaming. But they are considering a Ryzen 1700 for gaming due to its price point.

The OP's CPU (i5 3570k) is still 5% faster at single core than a Ryzen 1700 and about 4% faster at quad-core.

Moreover, i5 3570k is only 20% slower than intel's latest gaming flagship (the i5 7600k).

Omg; I have an old AMD FX 8350 and it still keeps up with all my games; and the OP's i5 3570k is 50% faster than my CPU at quad-core (gaming). Although it is 17% slower at multi-core. (But that doesn't matter).

Honestly he has a few years left in that CPU!!​

On a note r.e intel vs AMD:
What I do find disappointing... is that AMD's newest '4 core, 8 thread' CPU (1500x). Is still 30% slower than intel's 4 core, 8 thread CPU (i7 7700k).

If AMD had matched performance with intel on the Ryzen 1500x; the press would have proved AMD's truly caught up with intel.

Are we going to see 30% uplift through optimisations? I hope so. But I'm also not holding my breath. I wish I was wrong. But lets face it; its not going to happen :-(

You are still forgetting one crucial aspect of the IPC, gaming, and overall performance.
You probably will disagree since you have lost your confidence in AMD and you like to stick to Intel probably but RyZen is a new architecture. Intel hasn't change much in I7's since sandy, only minor improvements and shrinks. Which gives Intel a huge edge against new RyZen processors and that was also stated in that video. All programing has been coded for Intel. No architectural change gives several years of the same product which and all games, apps everything been done to support that product. It is really reasonable to state that. Intel is faster since everything has been done to support it. Maybe that is why Intel never decided to release new architecture and on the other hand there was no competition much from AMD so what was the point? Now there is but it is still new stuff. I remember same thing about the 1st gen I7's and 2nd as well.
As for I7 7700k you could see the utilization almost at 100%. Games are developing pretty fast and this 7700k will hit the wall soon with it's performance. Unless intel gives us 8800k (practically same as 7700k) that will boost to 7Ghz. Then maybe it will keep up. As you said I really hope so
As of your last statement "Never going to happen"? Lot of confidence in that but it's not that I believe it will happen. I know it will happen actually it has already started.

 

[Nicholas Peyton]

You are still forgetting one crucial aspect of the IPC, gaming, and overall performance.
You probably will disagree since you have lost your confidence in AMD and you like to stick to Intel probably but RyZen is a new architecture. Intel hasn't change much in I7's since sandy, only minor improvements and shrinks. Which gives Intel a huge edge against new RyZen processors and that was also stated in that video. All programing has been coded for Intel. No architectural change gives several years of the same product which and all games, apps everything been done to support that product. It is really reasonable to state that. Intel is faster since everything has been done to support it. Maybe that is why Intel never decided to release new architecture and on the other hand there was no competition much from AMD so what was the point? Now there is but it is still new stuff. I remember same thing about the 1st gen I7's and 2nd as well.
As for I7 7700k you could see the utilization almost at 100%. Games are developing pretty fast and this 7700k will hit the wall soon with it's performance. Unless intel gives us 8800k (practically same as 7700k) that will boost to 7Ghz. Then maybe it will keep up. As you said I really hope so
As of your last statement "Never going to happen"? Lot of confidence in that but it's not that I believe it will happen. I know it will happen actually it has already started.

I really, really hope it does.

I'm AMD. Not owned an intel processor for years. I've been AMD for mostly the past decade.

Where I'm at just now is this:

I'm ready to buy a new CPU. (My old AMD-FX 8350 is getting a bit outdated), but which do I go for? (I mainly just game and tinker about with extreme cooling & overclocking for the "hobby" of doing so).

It could take 3 years for all of these optimisations to to catch up and place AMD as a front runner again.

What do I do in the meantime? (See my dilemma)?

There is an absolutely fantastic community over at the "Ryzen owners club" at overclock.net. It's so busy its difficult to keep up on a day-to-day basis. There's an overwhelming positive vibe of 'brother help brother', not just from the community (but the developers as well). I desperately want to be part of that. I feel like I'm "missing out" because I don't have a Ryzen CPU.

Yet no matter how hard I try (and how many reasons I look for).. I'm still struggling to justify buying Ryzen in the "current climate".

Honestly; the other day; I even had all my parts picked out in my "basket".. I was ready to enter credit card details... but then.... i just... i couldn't........? I kept looking at the i7 7700k...... and wondering if I was making the right choice....

But I also can't seem to make a decision on the i7 7700k either; because I don't want to miss out on Ryzen.
​

Lol, it's an absolute nightmare...!

'Time'; is AMD's enemy just now!

 

[Vayra86]

I really, really hope it does.

I'm AMD. Not owned an intel processor for years. I've been AMD for mostly the past decade.

Where I'm at just now is this:

I'm ready to buy a new CPU. (My old AMD-FX 8350 is getting a bit outdated), but which do I go for? (I mainly just game and tinker about with extreme cooling for the "hobby" of doing so).

It could take 3 years for all of these optimisations to to catch up and place AMD as a front runner again.

What do I do in the meantime? (See my dilemma)?

There is an absolutely fantastic community over at the "Ryzen owners club" at overclock.net. It's so busy its difficult to keep up on a day-to-day basis. There's an overwhelming positive vibe of 'brother help brother', not just from the community (but the developers as well). I desperately want to be part of that. I feel like I'm "missing out" because I don't have a Ryzen CPU.
Yet no matter how hard I try (and how many reasons I look for).. I'm still struggling to justify buying Ryzen in the "current climate".

'Time'; is AMD's enemy just now!

Honestly, even for gaming a Ryzen 5 6/c/12t is the go-to CPU, the ONLY niche that should go for a 7700K is the 1080p/120hz gamer. If you're not that, RYZEN all the way. It's not even a debate.

 

[Nicholas Peyton]

Honestly, even for gaming a Ryzen 5 6/c/12t is the go-to CPU, the ONLY niche that should go for a 7700K is the 1080p/120hz gamer. If you're not that, RYZEN all the way. It's not even a debate.

Interested in your logic behind that. (as you know I'm looking for excuse to get Ryzen).

An i5 7600k is £25 cheaper just now and is 30% faster at single and quad core vs 1600x.

The 1600x does however leap wayyy ahead of the 7600k at multi-core by a whopping 70%.(But that 70% multi-core performance means little in games).​

I had the same argument with my brother, tried to convince him to go Ryzen. (I wanted something in the family I could use to make comparisons with myself)... anyway he still went for the i5 7600k (and now looking at the single / quad core performance. (which is gaming). I don't feel comfortable telling him he's made the wrong decision, now.

If the slow single/quad core results of Ryzen is only down to optimisations; why are we still seeing Ryzen skyrocket ahead at multi?

Wouldn't optimisations affect multi-core benchmarks too?

Do you believe in 6 months time (post optimisations) we're suddenly going to see Ryzens single core & quad core performance shoot ahead of intel?

 

[Agentbb007]

Late to this thread but my 2 cents is the 1080ti is way overkill for gaming at 1080p. Save the dough for future upgrades and go for a 1080. I've got a 1080 right now and I'm gaming at 1440p and it's plenty of performance.

 

[Vayra86]

Interested in your logic behind that. (as you know I'm looking for excuse to get Ryzen).

An i5 7600k is £25 cheaper just now and is 30% faster at single and quad core vs 1600x.

The 1600x does however leap wayyy ahead of the 7600k at multi-core by a whopping 70%.(But that 70% multi-core performance means little in games).​

I had the same argument with my brother, tried to convince him to go Ryzen. (I wanted something in the family I could use to make comparisons with myself)... anyway he still went for the i5 7600k (and now looking at the single / quad core performance. (which is gaming). I don't feel comfortable telling him he's made the wrong decision, now.

If the slow single/quad core results of Ryzen is only down to optimisations; why are we still seeing Ryzen skyrocket ahead at multi?

Wouldn't optimisations affect multi-core benchmarks too?

Do you believe in 6 months time (post optimisations) we're suddenly going to see Ryzens single core & quad core performance shoot ahead of intel?

People who blindly recommend the 7700K/7600K, only look at the bars in the benchmarks and forget to actually look at the FPS. There are only a small handful of games where Ryzen falls short, and even then, it does still push 60 fps or more. In all other games, a lower clocked Ryzen is almost equal to higher clocked Intel parts, which says alot about the wiggle room for optimization. The bench results where Ryzen falls behind on the 7700K are almost exclusively ABOVE 60 fps unless there is a GPU limitation under 60 fps. Who cares about 70 fps or 60 fps when you run a 60hz monitor? In addition, at your resolution target you are almost always GPU limited before you hit a CPU bottleneck (if you go 1440p or 3440x1440 in due time).

On top of all this;
- Ryzen can only improve, Intel Core will not, Ryzen will not get slower over time, that's for sure.
- 6 cores help minimum FPS in any game where you run some other application in background, at which point the 4c 7700K is likely to lose ground

Bottom line: get the performance where you can actually use it.

Now, with regards to choosing between 1080ti or a new CPU:
- GPU gets outdated faster than CPU, buying into the top-end GPU is ONLY a sensible choice if you use all that power TODAY. Why : because when the next best GPU release is up, the value of 1080ti will plummet on 2nd hand markets, while you do pay premium for having the top tier GPU today. Practically you're easily paying a 100-150 EUR premium for a highly temporary top dog feeling.

- VEGA is around the corner, which will be highly likely to give you more options, and there is a substantial performance bonus when coupling GCN with Ryzen already.

And in your specific case: the upgrade for CPU coming from an FX 8350 is *MASSIVE*.

If this doesn't decide it for you, then you've probably already made your choice

 

[Nicholas Peyton]

People who blindly recommend the 7700K/7600K, only look at the bars in the benchmarks and forget to actually look at the FPS. There are only a small handful of games where Ryzen falls short, and even then, it does still push 60 fps or more. In all other games, a lower clocked Ryzen is almost equal to higher clocked Intel parts, which says alot about the wiggle room for optimization. The bench results where Ryzen falls behind on the 7700K are almost exclusively ABOVE 60 fps unless there is a GPU limitation under 60 fps. Who cares about 70 fps or 60 fps when you run a 60hz monitor? In addition, at your resolution target you are almost always GPU limited before you hit a CPU bottleneck (if you go 1440p or 3440x1440 in due time).

On top of all this;
- Ryzen can only improve, Intel Core will not, Ryzen will not get slower over time, that's for sure.
- 6 cores help minimum FPS in any game where you run some other application in background, at which point the 4c 7700K is likely to lose ground

Bottom line: get the performance where you can actually use it.

Now, with regards to choosing between 1080ti or a new CPU:
- GPU gets outdated faster than CPU, buying into the top-end GPU is ONLY a sensible choice if you use all that power TODAY. Why : because when the next best GPU release is up, the value of 1080ti will plummet on 2nd hand markets, while you do pay premium for having the top tier GPU today. Practically you're easily paying a 100-150 EUR premium for a highly temporary top dog feeling.

- VEGA is around the corner, which will be highly likely to give you more options, and there is a substantial performance bonus when coupling GCN with Ryzen already.

And in your specific case: the upgrade for CPU coming from an FX 8350 is *MASSIVE*.

If this doesn't decide it for you, then you've probably already made your choice

I was curious regarding AMD's 54% IPC improvement claim; so I done a little 'extreme cooling experiment' today. (using Dry Ice): http://valid.x86.fr/tcq16c

Got my FX-8350 to 6.1Ghz (from 4GHZ). That's a 50% overclock.
That put me on par with an 'i7 3770'. (which is 30% faster than a stock FX-8350). <-- in cinebench I actually beat the 'i7 3770' by 6 points at single core. (not much, but the point is; at 6GHZ, I was able to match it).

The i7 3770 has the same single-core performance as a Ryzen 1700. (So you could say; that my 50% overclock of my FX-8350 gave me equivalent single-core performance to a new Ryzen 1700.

That actually makes perfect sense too, because my 50% overclock was almost perfectly in line with AMD's 54% IPC improvement over their previous generation. (which was always AMD's target for Ryzen).​

Now here's where it gets interesting: if you then compare the above, (an FX-8350 at 6GHZ or an 'i7 3700') to the i7 7700k. The i7 7700k still wins by 20% at single & quad.

It just seems like to me that the i7 7700k is still wayyy in the lead. (at single & quad).

And intel still hasn't dropped prices.

If AMD had really caught up with intel on IPC, then wouldn't their 1500x (4 core/8 thread) chip be matching i7 7700k performance?

Hopefully that's only down to optimisations. But if it all comes down to these optimisations; doesn't that make Ryzen a huge gamble?

Even if Ryzen's IPC catches up with intels through these optimisations; they're still only going to match it. Why take the gamble?

I hope I'm wrong. I really genially do (no pun intend).

If I'm right, Ryzen owners can only hope game developers all start utilising all cores. <--- THOSE were the games we seen the i7 7700k maxed out when the Ryzen wasn't.

If only it were simple, lol, but in my opinion:

Workstation: go for AMD Ryzen 1700 (the i7 6900k's price, now makes makes it obsolete)
Gaming: i7 7700k / i5 7600k

On the other hand; if you can be patient. Intel's next architectural release will be the best time to buy. Intel has lost ground due to Ryzen. They've got competition for 1st time in a decade. Its likely their next release will mean more than usual. (a real significant improvement; instead of the usual small, incremental tick-tock increases we've seen up until now; chances are -- it may even be reasonably priced.

Roomers are their refreshed 6 core CPU's (6850 for example) will hit shelves on a new 10nm lithography as early as January 2018.​

 

[ra773]

Most games only utilise up to 4 cores. And once overclocked, your current CPU is only 10% slower than an overclocked i7 6700k at 'quad core' only tasks.

Multi-core performance, on the other hand--is indeed a bit behind. But look at the bright side; the newly released gaming champion; i5 7600k (2017) is only 20% faster than your i5 3570k.

Your i5 3570k is also still 5% faster at single core vs a new Ryzen 1700. And 4% faster than a Ryzen 1700 at quad core.

Unless your doing multi-core "work-station" stuff, then your CPU has a few years left in it.

1600MHZ ram may be holding your CPU back. Grab a cheap 'used' DDR3 2400 kit off Ebay and your good to go.

There's also some great prices on GPU's just now.

it depense.

i'm playing BF1 in 1080p and right now im using a gtx 1070 clocked to 2100/4500 which gives me 100-120 frames on my 144Hz screen.
im very much limited with my i3-7350k which is loaded 100% all the time @5ghz.
on the other hand my 7700k @5ghz is doing fine with bf1 load of 60-70% maybe a little more but this gives me more fps too.


i would like to go with a ryzen if they would clock like 4.5-4.7ghz with 6 cores, but they don't.
and non the less they do have lots of improvement with ddr4 speed.

i can easy run ddr4 4000 / 16 on my apex with that i7-7700k @5ghz which is for high fps gaming no match for ryzen.

if amd could get close to that performance i would go with ryzen.
but right now it's allmost a nobrainer to go with kabylake and a board with fast ram.
it's much easier to handle.


just my 2 cent.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Honestly, even for gaming a Ryzen 5 6/c/12t is the go-to CPU, the ONLY niche that should go for a 7700K is the 1080p/120hz gamer. If you're not that, RYZEN all the way. It's not even a debate.

Ryzen 5 1500X....... 60% of the price of a 7700k....... 90% of the performance, unless 90% of a 7700k's performance is not enough for what you absolutely need to play your games, who apart from a bencher would buy it?

 

[Caring1]

I was curious regarding AMD's 54% IPC improvement claim...

Got my FX-8350 to 6.1Ghz (from 4GHZ). That's a 50% overclock.
That put me on par with an 'i7 3770'. (which is 30% faster than a stock FX-8350). <-- in cinebench I actually beat the 'i7 3770' by 6 points at single core. (not much, but the point is; at 6GHZ, I was able to match it).

That actually makes perfect sense too, because my 50% overclock was almost perfectly in line with AMD's 54% IPC improvement over their previous generation. (which was always AMD's target for Ryzen).​

If AMD had really caught up with intel on IPC, then wouldn't their 1500x (4 core/8 thread) chip be matching i7 7700k performance?
Roomers are their refreshed 6 core CPU's (6850 for example) will hit shelves on a new 10nm lithography as early as January 2018.

Pretty sure AMD's target was 40%, if they have achieved a 54% increase all glory to them.
AMD has never claimed to have "caught up" to Intel, I believe their goal was to narrow the margin enough to make their CPU's competitive, which they have done, and priced them accordingly to gain market share.
If that alleged rumour (English spelling) is correct, then Intel's new chip using 10nm technology will have higher voltage leakage and a low overclocking overhead, certainly more in line with current XEONS.

 

[Nicholas Peyton]

it depense.

i'm playing BF1 in 1080p and right now im using a gtx 1070 clocked to 2100/4500 which gives me 100-120 frames on my 144Hz screen.
im very much limited with my i3-7350k which is loaded 100% all the time @5ghz.
on the other hand my 7700k @5ghz is doing fine with bf1 load of 60-70% maybe a little more but this gives me more fps too.


i would like to go with a ryzen if they would clock like 4.5-4.7ghz with 6 cores, but they don't.
and non the less they do have lots of improvement with ddr4 speed.

i can easy run ddr4 4000 / 16 on my apex with that i7-7700k @5ghz which is for high fps gaming no match for ryzen.

if amd could get close to that performance i would go with ryzen.
but right now it's allmost a nobrainer to go with kabylake and a board with fast ram.
it's much easier to handle.


just my 2 cent.

Interesting, Very interesting indeed. does BF1 scale with more than 4 cores?

Your i3-7350k is still roughly 20% faster than my FX-8350 at quad core. (even while I'm overclocked to 4.8ghz).

However even a game as beautiful as 'The Witcher 3' doesn't show my CPU utilization at anything above roughly 50-60% (on any core). (while it still somehow balances the load across the cores)

However despite that; I am still pretty sure that despite what the 'utilization" reports; my CPU is still doing everything it can in that game (and isn't capable of anymore). The reason of course being that due to poor core scaling in the Witcher 3; there is "unused" CPU time which 'cannot and will not', ever be utilised by that game.
(So what I mean to say; is even though your utilisation is showsing 100%. And mine isn't. You're probably still getting more performance out of your CPU (and more FPS).

I'd guess the same would be true with Ryzen. The "utilisation" stunt due to poor scaling is something AMD was able to use to their advantage with the press. But it doesn't represent the truth.

At quad-core: a Ryzen 1800x is actually also only 13% faster than your i3-7350k. (your CPU must utilise 4 threads to accomplish this).
Meanwhile; The 1800x is 200% + more powerful at multi-core. But no game exists that perfectly scales with cores. (16 threads vs your 4).
And with games that only scale up to 4 cores; you are basically (for all intensive purposes) playing on a brand new 1800x maybe undervolted / underclocked just -13%


Caring1 is right, my mistake. AMD's target was 40%. But now I remember from the Horizon Event and press releases that they beat that goal and reached 54%.

Anyway, Ryzen only needs another 6% of optimisations to catch up with intel on IPC.

The problem we have now. Is that 6% turns into 24% when you multiply it by a 4-core gaming scenario.

There is no big conspiracy, it's actually quite simple. AMD has admitted themselves they are only 6% behind intel on IPC (and they are proud of that figure).

But unfortunately that's also the reason why the i5's and i7's are still winning hands down at gaming. It's NOT due to some "unknown mystery".
1) It's the fact these chips are already clocked to the bleeding edge of their capability.
2) And because most games don't scale withy more than 4 cores.

Intel is still 25% ahead at quad core performance (and we are still seeing big FPS increases on i5's and i7's vs Ryzen in most poorly optimised CPU bound games).

When I say optimisation I only mean games that don't scale with more cores. Unfortunately AMD doesn't have control over that.

I say again, multiply that 6% by 4 cores (on an intel i7 7700k) for example and there you have your 24% lead!

Do we really believe AMD are going to successfully get every game developer to successfully optimise their games to scale with 16 threads (8 cores) ?

To me it still seems like a gamble (for someone like me desperately trying to make a decision).

I'd wager a bet that these "optimisations" that they like to call them; are actually just AMD working with game developers to promote them to write their games to scale with cores. I really think that's all there is to it. There really isn't some mysterious optimisation that can be done to suddenly close a 6% IPC gap. The gap is physical.

The most we hope to see in the short run, is updated motherboard micro-code to help increase stability and DDR4 frequency..

 

[ra773]

i actually swapped back to my i7-7700k @5ghz and with ddr4 4000/16 on a asrock z170m ocf.
so if i play bf1 i can see evenly used all 8 threads between 60 and 85% with a increase of 25-30fps.
i would believe if i go for a 1080 that i7 might get some probs to keep up with high fps on large 64 server.

but anyway i guess that i7 is right now the best choice until amd is pushing their 6 core at least 10% to 4.5ghz.

so maybe second iteration next year with better DDR4 support. as we all know Ryzen is really speeding up with ddr4 @ 3200 and above.

 

[Tatty_Two]

i actually swapt back to my i7-7700k @5ghz and with ddr4 4000/16 on a asrock z170m ocf.
so if i play bf1 i can see evenly used all 8 threads between 60 and 85% with a increase of 25-30fps.
i would believe if i go for a 1080 that i7 might get some probs to keep up with high fps on large 64 server.

but anyway i guess that i7 is right now the best choice until amd is pushing their 6 core at least 10% to 4.5ghz.

so maybe second iteration next year with better DDR4 support. as we all know Ryzen is really speeding up with ddr4 @ 3200 and above.

Not so much in games, 1fps @ 2560 x 1440 in Battlefield 1 between memory running at 2133mhz and memory running at 3200mhz both at cl14...............

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Analysis/9.html

32ms in Photoshop is slightly better at around 5% gain but a better impovements from some other programmes.

 

[ra773]

Not so much in games, 1fps @ 2560 x 1440 in Battlefield 1 between memory running at 2133mhz and memory running at 3200mhz both at cl14...............

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Analysis/9.html

32ms in Photoshop is slightly better at around 5% gain but a better impovements from some other programmes.

Might be different if you get to higher fps with 1080p and 720p.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Might be different if you get to higher fps with 1080p and 720p.

Well 1.3fps at 1080p with his 1080 so I guess that's an improvement lol.

 

[Vayra86]

Well 1.3fps at 1080p with his 1080 so I guess that's an improvement lol.

From most I've seen of Ryzen and its amazing number of reviews and different kinds of tests, the dominating thing has been that Ryzen just does what it does and there isn't all that much you can tweak on it. Perhaps you can get some faster RAM, but beyond that, you can go completely wild and achieve literally zero. It just does what it does the way its arch is designed, and fuck you basically, no matter the volts you toss at it, air or custom water, no matter the board, etc. I also believe that the very narrow flexibility of the clocks on the entire product stack is evidence that everything in this CPU is optimized around that 3.5-4Ghz clock. SenseMi is another such thing, it does what it does, nothing you can really do with it.

 

[Tatty_Two]

From most I've seen of Ryzen and its amazing number of reviews and different kinds of tests, the dominating thing has been that Ryzen just does what it does and there isn't all that much you can tweak on it. Perhaps you can get some faster RAM, but beyond that, you can go completely wild and achieve literally zero. It just does what it does the way its arch is designed, and fuck you basically, no matter the volts you toss at it, air or custom water, no matter the board, etc. I also believe that the very narrow flexibility of the clocks on the entire product stack is evidence that everything in this CPU is optimized around that 3.5-4Ghz clock. SenseMi is another such thing, it does what it does, nothing you can really do with it.

Exactly why I am getting a 1500X with a good B350 board, that combo alone is a fair bit less than a 7700k without a board...... seen some nice reviews already on the 1500x hitting 4.2gig on less than 1.4V.