For whats worth, if someone chooses to spend more than RM 1.5k on the CPU alone then goes on to play at resolutions below 1440p seems kinda stupid.
Ryzen results seem pretty clear to me. You want 80% performance of a i7 6900K at less than half the price, you go for any of the Ryzen 7 chips. Provided you are clever enough to game with a decent 1440p/4K resolution.
You want to game at 1080p, do the world a favour and get the i7 7600K. RM 1.5k for a i7 7700K that seems only good for gaming is not worth it over the much cheaper and similarly capable in gaming i5.
i7 7700K has no place on the planet for 4k gaming as you could just get the cheapest R7 1700 and park the bottleneck on the GPU.
And for those hoping that the 6 core and 4 core R5 will be better at gaming than the R7, you will be disappointing yourself. The six core is basically a less capable 8-core die, which means 2 cores are disabled but the performance would be roughly similar in single threaded applications and gaming. The four core would probably in the same boat as well, or it might be a different die all-together-I'm not sure.
A lot of chatter that the SMT has issues for gaming, remains to be seen if that is really the case. If it was, what was AMD doing all this while not sorting that issue out, is a mystery.
Wanna game at 1080p, get the i5 7600K, OC the shit out of it. For everything else, anything above an OC'ed R7 1700 is really not worth it.
my 2 sen
This post has been edited by area61: Mar 3 2017, 01:11 AM
But in reality the higher resolution you go the less processor power you need to not getting CPU bottleneck in games because of lower frame rates unless the card you using need really need beefy processor to feed it like Titan XP Sli.
Precisely. Which is why i suggested that if you want to spend more than 1.5k on a processor alone for gaming, i highly doubt that you are going to game at 1080p. The R7 chips easily catches up with the i7s and i5s once you are in 1440p and 4k. The R7 chips then bring in more productivity for lesser cost as a big selling point compared to any of the intel chips.
After looking at many Ryzen reviews tonight i finally see the i5 albeit getting high average FPS, the minimum FPS is much lower.
If i can get similar IPC like the R7 but with much lower price for gaming, that's already a win imo and i'm talking about the 6 cores.
My view is that for a pure gaming perspective on 1080p the i5 7600k is the best chip out there. I would guess that the R5 1600x would serve as a better all rounder..but not great from a purely gaming stand point @1080p. Higher resolutions, it might close the gap with the i5 7600k on gaming and i for see it might actually turn out to be the best all rounder cpu for the price closely followed by the R7 1700
Too many review/benchmark to read ( wait weekend ), so instead I read this interesting article. Compared a stock Ryzen 1700 DDR4 system against old i5 3570K ( OCed 4.2GHz ) DDR3, and Ryzen lost. However based on comment/feedback from user, the gap close as display resolution get higher, and if the game are DX12 and Vulkan optimized. AMD also working with developers to optimize their games.
Sad result in The Division
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «
Surge above in DX12 in AotS
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «
AMD seems to suggest that its not optimized for gaming yet(based on their statement to pcper) and all this while games have been optimized by default for intel as it has been the performance leader for the past decade. I'll reserve my judgement when the entire Ryzen product stack is out. If till then they still have performance issues in gaming, then gamers will have to default to intel for gaming.
Gamers Nexus got it right. R7s are i7 in Productivity at half the price and a slightly overpriced i5 in Gaming. Well 1/2 x 2 is really 1.
Buyers really need to check their need before splurging their money and have to stop being lazy and start reading more than one review..
It's the other way around. Games are not optimized for Ryzen.
Correct, made a fool of myself there. Funny how it does well in Synthetics gaming but goes the other way round in actual gaming. Usually its the other way round.
This post has been edited by area61: Mar 3 2017, 02:01 PM
I've been following Ryzen for a month now. Since Ryzen r7 benchmark is out, am i safe to assume that even if i continue to wait for their Ryzen r5 1400x the performance is same as Kabylake i5 7500? Purely just for gaming.
Have to wait and see bro. As i mentioned above, AMD said games are not optimized for Ryzen yet. Once r5 is out..the should have optimised...if they didnt..well Kaby lake ftw..
The Windows Scheduler will need an update but that alone will not cure the gaming performance deficit of Ryzen 8-core part. This probably will affect the 6-cores as well and it really depends whether the 4-core variants will be affected or not depending on how AMD choose to bin it.
No cure for the latency between the 2 CCXs but they seem to believe that overclocking memory might reduce the latency.
Performance increase in games will have to come out of game developers on how they assign the threads across the 2 CCXs.
If the quad cores are made of single CCX, will be interesting to see how it matches with the i5 and i7 quadcores. Its really looking like the Broadwell-E/ Kaby lake situation on AMD side as well. 8 cores great in productivity and all round with deficit on gaming. Quad cores great for gaming mediocre in everything else. *My prediction nonetheless.
This post has been edited by area61: Mar 13 2017, 09:18 PM
Mar 3 2017, 01:10 AM
Quote
0.0185sec
0.43
7 queries
GZIP Disabled