Discussion in 'Processors and motherboards AMD' started by IhatebeingAcop, Feb 12, 2017.
haha future proofing all the way
Let me add a comment to op.
If the majority of end-users have a two core processor, your games will be optimized for that. When four core processors arrived, everybody screamed .. why do we need four core processors - nothing supports four cores. So once more and more people will get 8-core processors and thus they get mainstream/high-end (but not 1200 USD enthusiast) (and AMD will with these prices), there WILL be more support for heavily threaded games. Its technology evolving, software always follows.
At these prices and IPC I would pick up an 8-core CPU over an 4-core one without hesitation. Mate, it is a no-brainer as these puppies are going to last you a long time.
Theres no proof of that
Well said Boss :thumbup:
There you have it , true and honest answer for your question directly from the Boss himself .
Awesome answer Hilbert :thumbup: , so true !
Some newer games really do take advantage of multiple cores.
Watch Dogs 2 for example...
Thats not the issue.
Its whether it is a more effective gaming processor than a 4 core+HT i7, this can handle 8 threads. Very few games can use that many, even fewer make better use of that many.
It has lower IPC and is likely not to clock as high so isnt likely to be general king of gaming CPUs.
and you really think your fang dangly computer is only playing the game....the more cores the more it can offload other things, i mean game and stream game and browse....video chat....blah blah.
less cores=less ability in the long run.
yes a 3 gig chip is not going to be better than 4 gig chip if the games and apps don't use it but it will give the ability to do more at the same time.
I probably would actually get one of these Ryzen CPU's (if I was looking for a new PC) in light of the recent performance reveal... Price is excellent too. Didn't expect them to be this good, well at least supposedly, we'l see for sure soon with more testing I guess!
Are you saying i7 cant do this?
For me it's a no brainer as I do a lot of audio work and I tend to use a lot of plugins even with my 4790k eventually I still run out of CPU power, and as a previous owner of an FX 8350 I can honestly say even with the lower IPC there where situations where it beat out my 4790K on the multithreaded stuff.
8 core is the new quad core, people should start getting used to it as there's going to be more and more games released with support as the 8 core becomes mainstream, so glad it happened just wish it came sooner.
More reason in the form of newer AAA games.
Much less reason than they show though
They only include 2 resolutions, 720p and 1080p. The largest changes in their % evaluation come from 720p.
It will be even less at higher res.
At least 10 of the 14 games tested exceed 100fps.
For most gamers those games wont matter unless they are running an old CPU, but taking the caution below:
I find the results suspect.
For example, the 7600K is average 49% faster framerate than the 2500K at 1080p, 51% at 720p.
Some games its way higher.
BF1 shows double the performance.
A few games are GPU limited so they are projecting it could be worse!
I'll wait for HardOCPs conclusion.
Neither does it show what should be shown, it only shows that the load gets balanced out.
Interesting is which processes that run in the background and the difference in performance between using the full CPU and using 4 cores only.
Heck, even the i3-7100 isn't that much slower than the i5-7600K, let alone that for gaming only (no live streaming etc.) even my old i7 is overkill.
Seeing what you have and as it is with games now you shouldn't care much, besides that a new GPU would add way more.
Ryzen doesn't come cheap either, plus you would need to invest in new memory and a new motherboard too.
As long as you only play games without streaming to twitch or alike that i5 will do it's job fine for some time, when it wont suffice anymore there will be much better offers anyway, maybe even better memory upgrades too.
AMD keep underscoring that these are ideal for content creators.
Majority of games still favor strong single thread performance and most likely the 7700k will have the edge there.
Also the figures/findings on Ashes and Total War differ from multiple other review sites.
It's a bit like the old argument with 32 bit vs 64 bit and the amount of memory you require. I remember people saying they'd never need more than 4GB in a system and that 64 bit OS's were only really viable for professional applications and look where we are now, I got 8GB in my system currently and I can feel it's becoming a choke point with newer titles especially at higher resolutions.
With regards to newer i5's & i7's, they are kind of like glass cannons. Really strong IPC but they still have the weakness of being quad cores, most newer titles are already taking advantage of more threads and with the eventual optimizations of DX12 & Vulkan we'll eventually see more cores being a better advantage than having stronger cores.
This makes chips like the 7700k a bit of a "now" solution rather than something with any real longevity.
The only problem with that logic is, if a 7700k ends up faster than Ryzen in games of today (which I predict it will remain to be), then by the time of the mandatory requirement for 8 core cpu gaming becomes more prominent, then 8 core cpus will have moved on too. That's why I chose 4 cores at faster clock speed. When 8 cores are that much better then it'll likely be a better time to move over to 8 core.
I see Ryzen as the start of better things to come by making 8 core more affordable. Once its matured in a few years time, then I'll see.