AMD Ryzen CPUs

i will be cpu limited , but hoping for +20%, more after cpu upgrade but will not upgrade cpu as my 2600k is rock solid stable at high over clocks so will only move on cpu when it's really worth while

as it's also a mobo & memory & them mobo/mem i currently have is high end

 

Early adopters always pay more and potentially suffer the teething headaches of new technology.
Ryzen looks to be a good step up from earlier AMD releases.
The only reason for running out and buying right away however, would be if you are completely replacing an obsolete system and currently do more multi-threaded applications than gaming.

 

Well, your gpu should always be running at 95-100% usage. If it isnt, that is not a good thing. It means you arent getting the most out of your gpu, and other components are restricting your gpu from working to its fullest. For gaming, you never want the bottle neck (or limiting component) to be anything other than your gpu.

Plus, you wont be getting high usage at 1080p with Vsync at 60 fps. Purposely limiting how much the gpu has to do is not an accurate metric for how much work the gpu is capable of doing. My 1070 runs at 100% in every game because i let it do so for maximum performance. And in AC, this translates to >100 fps with all settings in AC at max, except reflection frequency at medium. And this is at 1440p.

If you are using a 1080p monitor with a gtx 1080, you really ought to be supersampling everything you play. Go into the Nvidia control panel and use their DSR stuff. Use that to play at 1440p or higher, and then uncap your framerate and turn off Vsync. You will likely see 100% gpu usage. If you arent even after all this.... your cpu is likely a fairly substantial bottleneck. And yes, even 'good' cpu's will bottleneck a high end gpu (edit: just saw your sig and you have an i7 6700. probably not gonna be a bottleneck at all).

 

Interesting. My GPU is pretty much pegged at 100% all the time. That was the same with my 2500k and GTX780 though.

I'm running at 1440p with Gsync, most settings on max 2X SGSS. 90FPS+ AC does look nice, the cars in particular look fantastic, very smooth, so fluid

 

You mean most of the reviewing media?
Look, I get what you're saying and I'm holding off on bying anything now myself, because I want to see what's going to happen with optimizations on the Ryzen. But, talking about gaming only, it's still an unknown how fast the transition to multicore in gaming will happen, and when or if the Ryzen will start to dominate. A year? Two-three years? It's certainly not unthinkable that the 7700K will yield better gaming performance than the 1700(x) for a year or two still, and be competitive for another 3-4 years. That would be enough reason for anyone to get a 7700K today, if they plan to use it for gaming only.

 

In the end everybody got the choice now.
Both platforms handle things well, a 10% give or take isn't really significant.

If it's really just gaming, the 7700k seems better, for mixed stuff both are fine and if you do regular mulitthreading/rendering work then Ryzen seems to be ahead.

Either way, all have solid performance and don't really go wrong with either platform.

 

Getting a Ryzen system soon.
For RAM: what is more important for Ryzen, timings or frequency?

How about these ones:
Corsair 16GB, DDR4-2800, CL14-16-16-36 (CMK16GX4M2B2800C14)
http://geizhals.at/corsair-vengeanc...2800c14-a1351645.html?hloc=at&hloc=de&hloc=uk

 

Are you going to wait for the 4 core 8 thread variants? I'm curious if AMD undercuts the i6700k prices when they release a 4 core equivalent. The price at my local store is USD$279 for the i6700k.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

The best not for Ryzen but a rule for all cpu is high freqency low timings, every cpu support a max frequency ram(e.g. My FX8320 support 1866mhz max) btw take a look at the motherboard specification before you choose the ram

 

Here is another interesting video in my opinion that puts some light about the gaming mess argument

Anyways, i'm not saying that every tech guy from reviewing media is wrong but i always take things with a grain of salt and i personally do a lot of research before jumping to a final conclusion, while many people tend to rely a lot and trust every benchmark and words from certain people. Fact is that today, speaking about "only-gaming" machines, my opinion is that everyone is free to buy what pleases or suits him better of course. But, even if i'm going only to game with my pc and i have to choice between 2 great cpus, in this case intel i7 7700k and amd r7 1700, i would still pick amd. First, because having a 10% increase in framerate is not going to change my gaming experience, especially when games run at 100+ fps already and even if they don't, still not worth paying the same price for a cpu that gives me for example 80 fps instead of 70 that it has half of the core/threads. Second, buying a pc is an investment and i'm not willing to spend 1500 €/$ in a system that will be limited in a few years. Games will start soon to take more advantage with multicore processors and i prefer to invest my money on a durable system that gives me negligible less performance now in games but that will be better as it gets better software optimizations. Everyone will agree that right now ryzen cpus especially ryzen 1700 has unmatched price/performance ratio and it is wrong excluding it for only gaming purposes unless you want to change your pc every year and you want that ridicoulus 10% more performance on a game without considering that not getting an r7 1700 means also having 70% less multithreading performance. This is an example of what i'm talking about and what you can expect for future:

Looking at cpu utilizations you will notice right away that there is plenty of headroom on amd side and supposing you want to run something in background or even alt-tab on the intel system, you will get probably stuttering because your cpu is already fully utilized by one game. I also have myself an intel cpu and depending on the situation/game, my i5 struggles to keep up with the gpu and i get stuttering on heavy cpu games.
In conclusion, my last and third reason to get amd is for ethical reasons since i believe intel doesn't deserve any support right now especially since they played dirty a lot of times in the past(also got fined by european court) and i believe they are still playing dirty trying to lose less possible market share now that amd is really competitive and the market need competition that is healthy for everyone.

 

speaking of that picture, i guess you havent seen this video

 

I've already saw it and in fact you should watch the video i posted before the picture. Looking at the picture alone doesn't make sense at all since in the video there are some interesting points and explanation for this results. And like i said i take every video with a grain of salt without saying guy 1 is right or guy 2 is wrong. Watch, listen and make yourself an idea.

 

I have already watched the video. Apparently you dont take that picture with grain of salt since you used it as the truth and said the intel cpu would hold you back when it actually points to it being downclocked.

Theres so much drama with this release. Its like watching "days of our lives".

 

I don't really have time and desire to argue with you but since you are accusing me to using that picture like truth and it is false, i must say that you didnt understand much about what i wrote up. I don't know and probably you neither if he really "downclocked" the i7 and since you are the one relying on another you tuber accusing another you tuber of something he can't even be sure himself but whatever. My point was not about ghz race since you can overclock even to 6ghz and you still will have the same core count and that was my point in fact, having more cores could give a precious benefit in future. That's it, end of discussion.

 

yep, i agree. I myself is in the decision making if im going to get a 7700k and get better gaming performance today or take a bet on any of the cpus in the r7 series. Maybe wait for r5.

Im not going by one youtuber and his accusations, but having read alot of tests and every one show pretty much the same thing except one that is a sign of something fishy.

 

If you are not in hurry to upgrade and you don't need 8 cores/16 threads at all, you can of course wait and see how things will change in terms of optimization and bug fixes in general and maybe getting a 6 core/12 threads later with a more mature architecture is a considerable choice also. Regarding gaming benchmark, you must consider that using different motherboard,ram, bios versions can change a lot results, but overall we saw whats the performance of this new cpus, so you can't really go wrong picking one. That advantage in singlethread it is given most because of the higher frequency skylake is running but like i said, you must consider that core count is what it is and intel knows it. But since they were in a monopoly regime, they kept selling overpriced quad cores with nothing new at all every generation, just higher frequencies mostly. Now that amd is back in the game and things are going to favor multithreaded performance,in 2 years or less you will have an obsolete system with skylake because 4 core will not suffice anymore even for gaming.
EDIT: I must correct myself pointing out that of course 4 cores will be always relevant, otherwise even amd would not produce any "zen" quad core but what i've wanted to say is that quad core of course will take place in the mid-low market and high end market will be dominated by cpus with more cores giving you more performance.

 

Before when quad core was new, a lot claimed it was unuseful & only goes with Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E8200 back in 2008. Eventually games will use more than quad core like some right now to the point it will become mandatory.

 

A positive video in all this drama

 

Right, as you lot seem to take stock in "reviews" rather than someone who's actually bloody got one......ask me to bench something, and i can give you some actual facts , rather than hearsay.

 

The reviewers also got one and its not "hearsay" to look around what kind of results reviewers have got, specially when they point in the same direction - Good in multithreaded applications but worse than Intel in games (NOW!! We cant know for the future). I can understand that you want to defend your purchase and its not a bad one, but we're talking about people that are doing the same tests with different cpus here and that weight alot when making the decision of which cpu to buy.