AMD Ryzen 5 1400 gaming performance leaks - analysed on YT

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Aritra Das, Apr 1, 2017.

  1. Silva

    Silva Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,650
    Likes Received:
    806
    GPU:
    Asus RX560 4G
    Totally agree with you.

    If you're on a budget, forget about R7 or an I7. But then you have a hard decision again between an R5 with SMT and an i5 without HT. I mean, people go for expensive i7 instead of i5 for HT having no real benefit (because games are 4 or less cores optimized) and...ah forget it.

    The ones calling themselves hardcore gamers will always buy new parts every 2 years or less, so they just want "the best" at the moment and throw all the money at said company. I can't afford that but even if I would, wouldn't do it.

    Ya, right...at 1080p R7 1700 is:
    6 fps slower on Hitman with 105 fps
    32 fps slower on TR2016 with 100 fps
    28 fps slower on FCPrimal with 80 fps
    23 fps slower on TDivision with 96 fps
    Source: Guru3D (on old BIOS and DDR4 at 2667 CL16)

    My monitor is Freesync ready at 75hz max (but I bet as 1080p is the most popular resolution, 60hz is the most popular refresh rate), so all acceptable values knowing those games don't fully utilize the CPU power because of the game code not being optimized.

    An youtuber named Jayztwocents did a live stream with the new Tom Clancy, streaming from the same Ryzen machine he was gaming on, butter smooth and all the cores at 80% or something. Try that on a 7700K.

    "Oh no, a i7 7700k is more powerful than R7 1700..."
     
  2. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,793
    Likes Received:
    1,148
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    And predicting that a component will shine in the future is ill-advised. We all know how slow to adopt new things software devs are. Just look at the piss poor support for AMD's previous 8 core CPU.
     
  3. eclap

    eclap Banned

    Messages:
    31,495
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    Palit GR 1080 2000/11000
    Deluded much?
    Seen it all before. All those shouting that fx 8350 is the one to go for over i5 for gaming a few years ago, how 8 cores will matter etc. We see it now, i5 is miles ahead in gaming.

    Same goes for DX12, more recently. AMD fans suggesting people buy AMD cards because most games will be DX12 within a year or 2. Thing is, it's now 2017 and there's still a lot more DX11 games and even in DX12, Nvidia do just well, in fact better than AMD.

    Future is just that. Future. When things change, I'll upgrade. Hey, if Ryzen is somehow considerably better for games in 3 years time, I'll say bye bye to this i7 and get one. Until then, I'll enjoy the better performance of my i7. Why is it so difficult for a lot of these new users to understand?
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2017
  4. Silva

    Silva Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,650
    Likes Received:
    806
    GPU:
    Asus RX560 4G
    Yes, IPC sucked hard and there was zero multi thread support.
    Now comparing a 2500k to an FX8350 there's not so big of a difference.

    Again, FX is better over old i5s in recent games.

    Future is me knowing I don't need to spend money on another CPU for 6 years (for people buying Ryzen anyway, people with quadcores on the other hand...).
     

  5. eclap

    eclap Banned

    Messages:
    31,495
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    Palit GR 1080 2000/11000
    No, it's not. It's not even close.
     
  6. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,793
    Likes Received:
    1,148
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    Proof on this or stop saying it because everything I see says otherwise. With the exception of DX12 Division which the FX kills the R7 1800x in.
     
  7. PrMinisterGR

    PrMinisterGR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,900
    Likes Received:
    775
    GPU:
    Inno3D RTX 3090
    Because it's obvious it's going to choke in anything modern if you have notpad running in the background, that's why. Given so close IPCs, it's madness to get half the core count for the same money guys.

    It actually is close with newer games, but it depends on the game. And if the Sandy is overclocked, then it's much more far away. But this is not really a conversation in this thread, because Ryzen doesn't really have an IPC deficit like Bulldozer did.
     
  8. Silva

    Silva Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,650
    Likes Received:
    806
    GPU:
    Asus RX560 4G


    I see 6 Intel CPU's below FX8370.

    REMOVED RESIZE YOUR IMAGES PLEASE

    I didn't knew how and neither doing spoilers, sorry! :(
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2017
  9. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,566
    Likes Received:
    3,118
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3080
    Your post was decent up until here.

    7700K is not simply outclassed. It's currently the fastest gaming processor, in every single game that's out. It's also beats Ryzen in a ton of productivity software/benchmarks as well - because it turns out most stuff isn't multithreaded. I also don't expect most things to magically become designed for 8 cores overnight - there are still major games/applications being released that are single threaded, let alone benefiting from 8 cores.

    And that's where the choice becomes grey. If I'm a hardcore gamer, and I don't think any games will truly being utilizing 8 cores until 2-3 years from now - and I upgrade my processor every 3 years or so, why would I buy Ryzen? It's currently a less stable, slower, more expensive platform (if you go for 1700x or higher). In 3 years all the early issues/problems/design oversights will all be fixed.

    Thing is though, if you do video editing, the answer is different. If you do workstation stuff, but specifically applications that heavily use AVX2, then the answer is different again. The answer is going to be different for each person, their use case, and how they feel about the future of multi-threaded performance.

    Also you can get a 7700K on Microcenter for $300 - a sale they've been running for a few months now.

    Idk man. I'd really like to see some minimum FPS testing with quad cores and stuff in background. I game all the time on my 4790K, which I don't even overclock anymore, with Corsair CUE running like 1% of my CPU, Afterburner, usually a bunch of chrometabs, all of Nvidia's garbage spyware services, cortana, a bunch of other crap and in general my minimums (that I notice) are basically exactly the same as most benchmark testing generally shows. I even run Netflix/Amazon video streams while I'm playing some modern games and don't even notice it.

    Like yeah, if you're doing like a Maya render on one screen while playing BF1 on the other - Ryzen probably going to handle that way, way better. But running notepad, or even all the other crap I run, isn't going to strain the processor in any meaningful way.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2017
  10. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,793
    Likes Received:
    1,148
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    Wow I missed out on playing Cinebench and 7-zip.... how was the story on those.

    Also you are comparing a 6 year old CPU the 2500k to a not even 3 year old 8370. Now if you compare it to the i5 that was released the same year (4670k) it's still far behind. Plus like PrMinsterGR said If you over clock the 2500k it is no contest (most 2500k's do 4.4GHz on air.
     

  11. PrMinisterGR

    PrMinisterGR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,900
    Likes Received:
    775
    GPU:
    Inno3D RTX 3090
    Isn't the whole point to project that kind of use in the future? Unless everybody here believes that we'll be stuck on 4 cores forever, isn't it the same like getting a fast i3 back in the day? I mean, it would still be technically OK today, but would it be worth the money if you could get a lower-clocked i7 in its place?

    To see the amount of blind fanboism going around, imagine the answers here if Intel was offering the 6900k with ~10% lower performance at $329.

    The situation with the 7700k for me seems the same. I remember i7's being "overkill" since forever, and HT being "useless". The fact of the matter is that we are already in an 8-thread "world", and I could never justify to myself to go for a quad, even if there are marginal performance differences in some games.

    The only way that I can see the 7700k as a legit purchase (even for gaming), is for emulation and 144Hz panels, for people who expect to be "stuck" at 144Hz. Every other user case isn't really justified.

    There is also a huge overreaction over the gaming numbers, when nothing has been optimized for the platform yet.
     
  12. eclap

    eclap Banned

    Messages:
    31,495
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    Palit GR 1080 2000/11000
    In the world where fast 4c/4t CPUs outperform 8c/16t in vast majority of games and perform great in games in general, it's safe to say that 4c/8t CPUs will do just fine in the next few years. My guess is 4-5 years, no problem. CPU advancements have not really been on par with GPU advancements for decades now, I don't think things will accelerate like mad on the near future.
     
  13. PrMinisterGR

    PrMinisterGR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,900
    Likes Received:
    775
    GPU:
    Inno3D RTX 3090
    I somehow can't see 4c/4t CPUs performing with less stutter in open world games, as a 8c/16t CPU. And nobody tests for that, nor for frame variance.

    Hell, I bet that in BF1 64 player multi, for example, that an 8 core would be a much nicer ride.

    I won't even mention that a computer is a general purpose device, since we only seem to be focusing on gaming here.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2017
  14. airbud7

    airbud7 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,835
    Likes Received:
    4,751
    GPU:
    pny gtx 1060 xlr8

    would you trade your haswell rig for R7?
     
  15. PrMinisterGR

    PrMinisterGR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,900
    Likes Received:
    775
    GPU:
    Inno3D RTX 3090
    If it was just trading (and not paying extra), I would trade anything below Broadwell-E.
     

  16. Silva

    Silva Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,650
    Likes Received:
    806
    GPU:
    Asus RX560 4G
    Cinebench shows raw performance of said processors, neither AMD or Intel is to blame if a piece of software doesn't utilize cores and favours clock speed.

    8370 is just a speed bump in clock speed, 8350 can do that.
    Isn't FX still better at multi threaded workloads? Also was cheaper to buy by some margin.

    *Irony* Shut up! Buying the 7700k is the best deal as it is the best processor for gaming and it will be forever still! *Irony*

    For real now, people missed the point with R7. You all can bash R5 as worst against an i5 and I agree, but stop saying spending the same money on a i7 is better over R7: it isn't.

    Like the 7700k does with the 3 times more expensive 6900k? Ups, wasn't supposed to say that out loud.

    I bet my left nut as you would have bought a 6900k instead of a 7700k if it was $499. I said it.
     
  17. eclap

    eclap Banned

    Messages:
    31,495
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    Palit GR 1080 2000/11000
    Yes, the 7700k is better for gaming than the 6900k. I have not a jot of an issue to say it because it's a fact and therefor I'll say it. You on the other hand are only here to try manufacture something using speculations and untrues.

    The fact is that if the 6900k cost £499, I would most likely still buy the 7700k because all I use my PC for is gaming.

    BTW, I'm done replying to your deluded flame starters.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2017
  18. Silva

    Silva Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,650
    Likes Received:
    806
    GPU:
    Asus RX560 4G
    Out of curiosity: What was your CPU before your 7700k?
     
  19. eclap

    eclap Banned

    Messages:
    31,495
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    Palit GR 1080 2000/11000
    2500k
     
  20. Silva

    Silva Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,650
    Likes Received:
    806
    GPU:
    Asus RX560 4G
    Let's see if you have that same CPU in 6 years time ;)
    PS: Have fun!
     

Share This Page