Not meaning to be rude, but should a high FPS gamer in a small minority really have much to say on the subject? Fine, it doesn't give quite as many frames in 1080p crap. Just buy a cheapo i5 and play. Nobody cares. Go with the future son. If CPU's are GPU bound, on monitors you can buy just about everywhere, then 4 cores isn't going to matter.Every game which was not bottlenecked I have seen, is showing to be slower in Ryzen than the i7 7700k. Are you seriously saying that it's not? You don't have to over sell Ryzen. Maybe software updates can change things, but as of now, it's not faster. It may be as fast in a lot of games, due to the game being GPU bottlenecked, but as a high FPS gamer, I can tell you, almost every game has spots where there are CPU bottlenecks, so for me, it matters. If it doesn't for you, great.
Ok, I admit. Ryzen beats the i7 7700k in both synthetic benchmarks, and handbrake and a lot of others too. It still slower at gaming. 3dmark Time Spy and Firestrike are heavily influenced by physics tests. That's not gaming.http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-5
By most, I believe you mean any applications that are not games. i7 7700k is the only kaby i7 out there right now. Tell me, which of these benchmarks affirms your assertion that "Ryzen is not destroying Kabylake at most those things , it's behind actually"?
Feel free to google it and give me the link to one concrete evidence.
Are you saying that only people who play at 60hz should have a say?Not meaning to be rude, but should a high FPS gamer in a small minority really have much to say on the subject? Fine, it doesn't give quite as many frames in 1080p crap. Just buy a cheapo i5 and play. Nobody cares. Go with the future son. If CPU's are GPU bound, on monitors you can buy just about everywhere, then 4 cores isn't going to matter.
that was the wrong page i linked. Recheck the link. The new page is full of everyday non game applications that heavily tax the cpuOk, I admit. Ryzen beats the i7 7700k in both synthetic benchmarks, and handbrake and a lot of others too. It still slower at gaming. 3dmark Time Spy and Firestrike are heavily influenced by physics tests. That's not gaming.
I don't need to. Unless you believe magical bugs are responsible for joker gaining performance, then it's obvious that Joker had one of the few setups that wasn't excessively handicapped by bugs.Can you find any other site with comparable results? Has it not already been established that either that sites reviews were experiencing technical difficulties or are fake? (not the Overwatch results, the others).
Frozen, thank you for your thoughts - I just seen the neighboring threads ("Are AM4 Chipsets Gimped? "in Motherboards, "Ryzen-A Fail for Gamers?" , "Why does Ryzen 7 1800X performs so poorly in games? " here in CPU section) and that triggered my question.
to me it is somewhat disappointing when a good technical forum is used for self medication of buyers regret..
at the same time there is an excellent (in my opinion) thread Ryzen, Strictly Technical which is better than anandtech official review, and made it worth coming here at the launch/post launch. I would love to see more of the second and less of the X sucks threads filled with BS and FUD as I hope vast majority of us are adults and I care little in trying to 'prove' anything or 'convince' anybody. I want to learn, happy to share what I learned, thus the questions..
I'm not seeing what you are on this: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7that was the wrong page i linked. Recheck the link. The new page is full of everyday non game applications that heavily tax the cpu
Nad if you check this http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7
out of all these benches, only one game, total war war hammer, shows 1800x losing to latest kaby i5 7600k amd thats by 1 fps average. Its minimum fps is 10 fps higher than kaby i5 on the other hand. All these validates my previous post.
I am still waiting for your link.
No, but 1080p at high framerates is an edge case. At least be honest there.Are you saying that only people who play at 60hz should have a say?
There are games which ryzen beat 7700k. these games arent in gamer nexus's reviews. They are on youtube tho. If you look at my original post, i never say all, i say some against 7700k and most against i5I'm not seeing what you are on this: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7
Out of 6 games, the i7 7700k beat the Ryzen CPU in every case. The 0.1% time was also ahead on the i7 7700k in 5 of 6, and the one it wasn't was close.
I'm not sure what the percentages are. I'm sure it's not popular if you go to the general public. It's quite popular on these forums. Even then, there are games out there which can't even get to 60 FPS on an i7 7700k, so it does depend on what you play. WoW users who raid are always CPU bound, as well as other MMORPG's. Arma players also have such issues. Even GTA V drops below 60's in many areas.No, but 1080p at high framerates is an edge case. At least be honest there.
it's better than what i expected for professional/multithreaded tests and about what i expected in games (even with beta bioses). so i'm gruntled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsDjx-tW_WQ
I doubt there is the 'perfect' CPU out there for everyone. I started raiding in WoW as a healer when it first went live, running a Core 2 Duo, and an ATI 1600.... Had to look at the floor a lot, but things have come a long way since then.I'm not sure what the percentages are. I'm sure it's not popular if you go to the general public. It's quite popular on these forums. Even then, there are games out there which can't even get to 60 FPS on an i7 7700k, so it does depend on what you play. WoW users who raid are always CPU bound, as well as other MMORPG's. Arma players also have such issues. Even GTA V drops below 60's in many areas.
Ryzen is good enough for most gamers. That doesn't mean it's the best choice either. Look at benchmarks for your needs, and pick what makes the most sense. I'd recommend Ryzen for a lot of users. That doesn't mean I think it's the best at everything.
yes.Are you saying that only people who play at 60hz should have a say?
What the hell does NV1080 have anything to do with this conversation?yes.
if you need a NV1080 at 1080p to game, there is something fundamentally wrong with your priorities or you have super human vision. I am sure its not the later
We are talking about having 80+ FPS requirements and that an i7 7700k does that better than Ryzen. .
We've already been through this. Find another review other than that one, which shows those results. Either they had technical difficulties, or they fudged the results. No major review site has come up with similar results to that one.
!!!!We've already been through this. Find another review other than that one, which shows those results. Either they had technical difficulties, or they fudged the results. No major review site has come up with similar results to that one.
And what does usage have anything to do with it? Ryzen has twice the threads and cores. That is expected. The results is what matters. Until games use those added cores and threads, they don't really matter for gaming. That said, I hope that changes in time.!!!!
I know you said that on page two, thats why i added the video so that you can see the i7 in its glory pulling 80% usage while ryzen doing it at 40%
true, i made two points there:And what does usage have anything to do with it? Ryzen has twice the threads and cores. That is expected. The results is what matters. Until games use those added cores and threads, they don't really matter for gaming. That said, I hope that changes in time.
1. That's just not true all the time. I currently have an i7 5820K @ 4.4Ghz (should be very comparable to Ryzen, maybe higher due to clocks). There are a number of games which drop below 80 FPS. There are some that even drop below 60 FPS. As I mentioned earlier, games like WoW, Neverwinter (Most MMORGP's), Arma, GTA V in some spots, all drop below 60 FPS even with an i7 7700k. There are many more, those are just ones that come off the top of my head.true, i made two points there:
1. if you want 80+, ryzen can do it.
2. if ryzen does it with less utilization due to it having more cores, i.e. games are already well threaded, it will do fine in future too but maybe a 6c12t is better in te
It's easy to pick up on the negatives of Ryzen--REALLY easy. Where Ryzen thrives is where the masses are less knowledgeable. In some cases, this includes myself. They don't understand threading or encoding or processes. They understand video games and FPS. They don't know what Cinebench or Blender is really doing, but they know what Battlefield and GTA V are. So, when Ryzen falls short in those commonplace scenarios, in a manner the layman can easily understand, that aspect of the arch will stand out to more people.
On top of that, people simply don't get to realize where AMD is coming from. They don't really acknowledge that AMD is putting out its first real desktop chip in about 3 years. They don't get how far AMD was from Intel. Maybe they would understand if they took the analogy of basketball games. For the last few years, AMD has been NBA LIVE, promising, failing, delaying, and canceling, in the hopes of an eventual return to glory. Unlike NBA LIVE, AMD actually took its time off to produce something really strong. They did this with a MUUUUUCH smaller team, and a lot less money, too.
Lastly, no one seems to care that it's been 2 days. They think Zen on March 2 is Zen on December 2. There is no concept of improvements from launch with hardware, even as it's become commonplace with software. They read that there are bizarre problems coming up (SMT, power profiles, memory management, and more), but think those are permanent, or negligible. Why people don't expect a chunk of tweaks to smooth the platform out, I don't understand. Why they want AMD to fail so badly, and have Intel continue its overpriced monopoly on the high-end, I understand even less.