[NEW MERCENARIES] Please note that all new forum users have to be approved before posting. This process can take up to 24 hours, and we appreciate your patience.
No need to lie. Do not advise as overclocking. 7700K accelerates as well as the rest 80 +% of processors in the world. 5000 MHz (+ 11 / + 19%) is a rarity. Talk about the top (!) Overclocking can children or someone who is not competent in this. You are not competent in compilers either. No need to lie that games are not compiled under the amd. It's naive.
Ryzen 1700 can accelerate + 30%. Do not mix the overclocking of the top frequency cpu with low frequency! This applies to all processors.
Talk about the price is superfluous. 7700K is not a 2011 socket.
About overclocking Intel. Try to overclock the 5960 / 6900K to a frequency of 7700K. Good luck. And he will also lose 7700K in single-threaded games. The price is 1000-1100 $.
4690K frequency + 21,8% relative to the test 1800х. Draw conclusions. Then look at the frequency of 7700K and 6900K and 1800x.
P.s. Sorry for bad English
I don't follow you at all. Where did I lie?
Base clock of 7700 is 3.6 with a boost of 4.2 ghz. In my mind anything you get higher = OC. Stock OC should get to 4.8 on basically all CPU with stock cooling/no deliding = 15%, ~1/3 maybe more will hit +5 Ghz = ~20% once you delid/improve cooling.
7700k is currently the Best gaming CPU. Note I am only focusing on Gaming, what this entire thread is focused on. If you want to think about future games then more cores likely will matter, but today in the gaming scene a 7700k is the best you can get according to all the review websites.
The cost of a 7700k + 1151 LGA MB on newegg right now can be found for 400 bucks, but I went to a slightly better mb model for 420.
A 1800x base clock is 3.6 Ghz with a boost to 4 ghz. I don't know of anyone that hit above 4.2 stable here and even that is very tough to hit. I would obviously suggest saving money and get a 1700x ~500 bucks or 1700 ~420 bucks but that isn't the point of this thread. I was taking the two best Gaming CPUs and comparing them -> If you toss in the money the cheapest I can find for 1800x + any MB 599.99 on newegg. (I am sure you can find cheaper other places, but same can be said for Intel.)
So then you get to the crux of the issue. You can buy a 200$ cheaper best Intel gaming processor + MB that is faster on the vast majority of games. This low price is due in part from AMD releasing their new CPUs, but I see no reason to jump to AMD for a CPU that isn't as good if you are a gamer.
Sorry I don't follow the second half your arguments. But if you are focusing on encoding, and work related tasks, then we can have a civil chat about that somewhere else. Obviously for Intel the more cores you have = less you can OC. IE I am sure if you disabled 3 cores + HT on a 7700 CPU that hit 5 ghz it would manage ~5.2 ghz.
As for AMD optimized coding... Just take a look at some of the bigger tech focused sites. AMD just did a big PR push with Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation to show what an optimized game can pull off. The results look great. Just no one has done it yet, and hardly anyone is doing it now. AMD has a huge uphill battle to traverse before they can convince the average publisher to optimize games for there unique CPU architecture. I wont put links to other places here, but send me a PM if you are actually interested in seeing what they need to do convince game publishers to do.
Well the good thing is that even with the issues the Ryzen sets have been selling well to early adopters who want to help working out the kinks. Once we see solid results for the best MB pairings and more work with developers to get optimization done I think there will be a lot more parity. Even if AMD doesn't quite catch up, if they offer 90% of the performance at 75% of the price it's going to be an easy choice for most gamers. A lot of people like myself would continue to support them for whatever innovations may come. Minimal work has been done at this point and yet even only with what AMD initially brought to the table there are some great findings when it comes to actually utilizing multiple cores for gaming. With that and work on DX12/Vulcan and any other tools that come down the pipeline it's likely that the chipset wars will work out well for AMD and for those of us who love getting the most out of what's paid for.
Base clock of 7700 is 3.6 with a boost of 4.2 ghz. In my mind anything you get higher = OC. Stock OC should get to 4.8 on basically all CPU with stock cooling/no deliding = 15%, ~1/3 maybe more will hit +5 Ghz = ~20% once you delid/improve cooling.
7700k is currently the Best gaming CPU. Note I am only focusing on Gaming, what this entire thread is focused on. If you want to think about future games then more cores likely will matter, but today in the gaming scene a 7700k is the best you can get according to all the review websites.
The cost of a 7700k + 1151 LGA MB on newegg right now can be found for 400 bucks, but I went to a slightly better mb model for 420.
A 1800x base clock is 3.6 Ghz with a boost to 4 ghz. I don't know of anyone that hit above 4.2 stable here and even that is very tough to hit. I would obviously suggest saving money and get a 1700x ~500 bucks or 1700 ~420 bucks but that isn't the point of this thread. I was taking the two best Gaming CPUs and comparing them -> If you toss in the money the cheapest I can find for 1800x + any MB 599.99 on newegg. (I am sure you can find cheaper other places, but same can be said for Intel.)
So then you get to the crux of the issue. You can buy a 200$ cheaper best Intel gaming processor + MB that is faster on the vast majority of games. This low price is due in part from AMD releasing their new CPUs, but I see no reason to jump to AMD for a CPU that isn't as good if you are a gamer.
Sorry I don't follow the second half your arguments. But if you are focusing on encoding, and work related tasks, then we can have a civil chat about that somewhere else. Obviously for Intel the more cores you have = less you can OC. IE I am sure if you disabled 3 cores + HT on a 7700 CPU that hit 5 ghz it would manage ~5.2 ghz.
As for AMD optimized coding... Just take a look at some of the bigger tech focused sites. AMD just did a big PR push with Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation to show what an optimized game can pull off. The results look great. Just no one has done it yet, and hardly anyone is doing it now. AMD has a huge uphill battle to traverse before they can convince the average publisher to optimize games for there unique CPU architecture. I wont put links to other places here, but send me a PM if you are actually interested in seeing what they need to do convince game publishers to do.
Dust in the eyes. 7700 is not overclocking. 7700K has a frequency of 16.6% higher. MSRP 7700K - $ 339.00 - $ 350.00. MSRP 7700 - $ 303.00 - $ 312.00.
$ 192.00 - $ 202.00 MSRP = i5-7500, 3400 mhz 6 mb SMT off!
7700K has difficulties in games with a victory over 6900K. And the frequency is higher! + Broadwell vs kabylake! As a processor, the 6900K is much faster. The 2011 socket has no problems in games. The rest is much faster. So lower the tone about the best processor for gaming. Especially for $ 200.
About overclocking. You did not think why 8320 - @ 4400, and 4690K - 4500 mhz? Not 5000, not 4800, not 4600. Vishera and Haswell can 5000! Me and my friend can pass Vindictus at 5000 MHz. And why test 4400/4500? With water cooler. Its numbers about overclocking 7700K you need something to confirm.
Ryzen has already passed validation at 4300+, not that on 4000. From the series "5000+ on kabylake". And there and there are not afraid to break the processor.
You are more likely to wait for a faster processor for $ 200. It does not happen. + Modern architecture is strong every in different tasks.
And by compilers you have already shown your competence.
@Carino Sorry I am having a hard time following your train of thought/what you are trying to say. And just so you know I own or have worked with nearly all the CPUs out there... It is part of my job.
I don't know what you are saying about MSRP (prices on computer components are often sold well below msrp), my statement still stands on the prices I quoted. Just look at newegg...
I know I don't say k in all my other posts, but I figure it goes without saying since I would never buy a CPU that you can't OC... But to make you happy I will type a bit more.
I don't understand your comment about the 6900k. I have plenty for work, but they aren't intended as gaming CPUs. The fact of the matter is that 4 cores +HT = more than enough cores for almost all games out there. If you compare a stock 6900k vs a stock 7700k core you wont see a big difference on the vast majority of games but of course the 6900k is ~600$ more. You OC them you will see the 7700k win. You run 20 other programs in the background you will see the 6900k win... IE not a gaming CPU.
I don't understand your 8320 and 4690k reference. I am not talking about those chips. I think the only real big win with the 7700k is that it finally can hit 5 gig ~1/3 of the time or better. Before you had to get really lucky and if you hit 4.8 Ghz you were satisfied.
We already know on games it is all how many operations in a series you can get get done in a second that matters. You control that with IPC, which sadly Intel didn't change from 14 nm -> 14nm + process. But the 14 nm+ process gave you the ability to get ~0.2 ghz extra on your clock rate without much of a power change. Hence why the 7700k can hit 5 Ghz.
I already said that you can get 4.2 Ghz on Ryzen stable. (I don't know what you mean past validation, but don't want is a CPU that blue screens every few hours because it isn't stable, even if it booted...) That still doesn't compare to Intel's process for OCing.
I also don't understand your last comments. The 7700k + MB is cheaper than the 1800x +MB by ~200 bucks. So my suggestion to anyone that wants the best CPU to run a game right now would be to get the 7700k +MB.
And for optimization.. For goodness sake just look at hardocp or tomshardware or any other big tech site and read about the results of optimization for AMD with Ashes Of The Singularity: Escalation.
Anyways we like won't get anywhere further on this, so I guess I will stop. replying Feel free to PM me if you actually have something you want to chat about constructively.
7700K has difficulties in games with a victory over 6900K. And the frequency is higher! + Broadwell vs kabylake! As a processor, the 6900K is much faster. The 2011 socket has no problems in games.
Uh, what?
The 6000 series are slower CPUs. They're worse in single threaded workloads, like Vindictus, lots of older games and even some modern ones that don't bother with multi-core support (bad on the devs).
If your main tasks are prosumer level stuff, the -E lineup of CPUs is your choice, which sadly stays a year behind the mainstream platform. But if you're gaming, it's the standard lineup, and the 7700K is currently at the top.
As for the overclocking thing.. I can't understand your post, but if you've got a CPU to 5GHz, congrats, I've yet to ever get there in 20 years of building PCs, and Intel didn't help when they cheaped out and stopped soldering the die to the IHS. Still angry about that to this day.
"The fact of the matter is that 4 cores +HT = more than enough cores for almost all games out there."
Is Ryzen not enough? Do you have 7700 (3600) just been enough, and Ryzen not ??
"That still doesn't compare to Intel's process for OCing."
Compare with I7-5775c. The first is 14 nm (+ Core M). Ryzen is the first 14 nm. And will the next CPU be more high-frequency than 7740K? It can be as with 5775. The highest frequency serial processor in the world is fx-9590. When will Intel have a serial processor 4700/5000? But you are not talking about it. For you it does not say anything. I wrote at once - do not write about prices. Do not write about overclocking. Why this child's argument?
Thanks OP for the overview. Was considering upgrading around Kaby Lake, held off for Ryzen benchmarks, now I'm going to wait for 10nm Intel chips. For what's it's worth to anyone else looking to host well, I've benched on an i5, i7, and Xeon one generation apart (the i5 is the lowest gen), and it's Xeon (slightly) > i7 = i5. I personally use the i5 now and I can maintain ~30 without multiprocessing in all but Death's Shadow and Juggalo. With multi it's 60ish all the way baby.
Also graphics card is nearly meaningless for this game. Tried various cards from a 8800 GTS to some Quadro cards to the 7xxx series HD radeons and some 9xx series Nvidia cards, in terms of host lag no difference. The lower end cards can't handle particle effects and shaders in particular, so you would need to crank those down, or you will get general frame lag.
I would strongly recommend, if you want to host well, get an i5 and overclock it, don't spend the extra on an i7 if this game (or gaming in general) is your main concern, and don't spend extra for the Xeon because those are silly expensive.
If you have extra money to burn, get liquid cooling for an i5 and overclock some more. Don't buy 1080 TIs, don't buy Ryzen, don't buy a Xeon, and maybe buy an i7 depending on your other interests.
The 6000 series are slower CPUs. They're worse in single threaded workloads, like Vindictus, lots of older games and even some modern ones that don't bother with multi-core support (bad on the devs).
If your main tasks are prosumer level stuff, the -E lineup of CPUs is your choice, which sadly stays a year behind the mainstream platform. But if you're gaming, it's the standard lineup, and the 7700K is currently at the top.
As for the overclocking thing.. I can't understand your post, but if you've got a CPU to 5GHz, congrats, I've yet to ever get there in 20 years of building PCs, and Intel didn't help when they cheaped out and stopped soldering the die to the IHS. Still angry about that to this day.
Yes. 2011 is not slower than 1151 in games. And in one thread games, i3 is faster than xeon and 7700K. You can not look at such games, it's a bad example. And you do not notice other examples. With the best representatives of the 3D game engine.
In other games, the socket 2011, if worse, is not strong. However, I write - that 2011 is not inferior. There are victories and defeats. But the problem is that you do not see victories.
And this is at a lower frequency (!), With broadwell (!!). And there are more differences. Cache latency, RAM channel ... In general, a more multi-core processor is faster than 2-4 cores. However, I understand, not for everyone is obvious.
And your categorical (!) About the slow processors of the series 6000, - gives out that you are not strong in the work of processors, like the previous opponent.
What's your native language? Your posts are quite difficult to understand.
I use a 6850k (and I upgraded from a 5930K), I know full well its capabilities. I do prosumer stuff and run SLI, so I need the extra PCI-E lanes as well as CPU cores.
The CPUs are still inferior in games. Look at ANY GAMING BENCHMARK, the Kaby Lake processors, aka 7000 series, beat the 6000 series, which beat the 5000 series.. and so on. Trying to say a CPU with slower IPC is better is flat out wrong. The only thing they do better is working with heavily multithreaded applications, which are not games, and that's something Ryzen does better (sans Intel's extreme CPUs with 8+ cores), for now.
Everything else, like quad channel memory, has a very minor effect on gaming performance, if any at all in most games. There are some that can have a notable framerate difference, but the higher IPC of Skylake/Kaby Lake will still beat out higher memory bandwidth on Broadwell-E.
Like everyone knowledgeable keeps saying: If you're a gamer, stick to the Mainstream line. An i5 CPU (ex. 7600K) is just as good as an i7 (ex. 7700K) for gaming.
But if you do things like stream, encode video, work with professional applications, etc., start at the Mainstream i7 line, and if you actually need more cores and memory bandwidth, step up to the Enthusiast one, or go with Ryzen at a much cheaper pricepoint with most of the power of Intel's CPUs. Just note that if you do run into things that are single core limited (like Vindictus), your performance will be a fair bit lower, especially on Ryzen.
I just hope when Skylake/Kaby Lake X are finally out that Intel will stop this "mainstream/enthusiast" nonsense and unify their platforms. Been anti-consumer for years now, especially with the year+ lag behind the enthusiast releases; it's gotta stop, and Ryzen's our hope for change.
My 4790k at 4.4ghz (one of the strongest cpus in terms of single core performance) still cannot host perfectly without me getting some fps hit. That should tell you enough about the coding in this game.
I doubt an intel extreme chip would even run this game perfectly lel.
My 4790k at 4.4ghz (one of the strongest cpus in terms of single core performance) still cannot host perfectly without me getting some fps hit. That should tell you enough about the coding in this game.
I doubt an intel extreme chip would even run this game perfectly lel.
im running 4.6 ghz on my 4670k and i cant keep a stable 60 fps even with multi core. The UI takes up so much cpu power on the same thread that vindy runs on
You upload this video shortly after I comment on your original about showing if Ryzen has improved with optimizations over these past few months. Ty for the upload. I know that earler I've been debating between a 7700k vs a 1700x, but after doing more research, it seems that when all three of the Ryzen 7's are OC'd to 4Ghz, their performance is identical. Now I'm considering the 1700 for the better price point seeing as I can OC it and get the same performance as an 1800x.
You upload this video shortly after I comment on your original about showing if Ryzen has improved with optimizations over these past few months.
In games without a benchmark, this does not check.
X3: Terran Conflict - Benchmark - 1.8% increase (bios and Windows 10 updates). These are typical results from updating the BIOS.
I know that earler I've been debating between a 7700k vs a 1700x, but after doing more research, it seems that when all three of the Ryzen 7's are OC'd to 4Ghz, their performance is identical.
Yes.
No. Not every Ryzen 1700 overclocked to 3900 mhz.
4000 mhz - high frequency, there is a big chance that the processor is not stable. (At low voltage).
High voltage - high risk damage to the processor.
4000 mhz is the limiting frequency. Messages from the Internet about stable work may not be true.
But for a while and some tests the processor can perform tests for 4000-4200 mhz.
This is a fact for all (90% +) processors. The specific frequencies are of course different.
The Ryzen 1700 has an average lower overclocking than 1700x / 1800x.
Now I'm considering the 1700 for the better price point seeing as I can OC it and get the same performance as an 1800x.
1700 @ 3700-3800 ~= stock 1800х. (Expected overclocked!)
Ryzen 5-7, Treadripper (and socket 2011/2066) is redundant for this game. It's enough 7700K / 7740K. (But 7 and socket 2011/2066 are much more powerful processors than socket 1151. If you are not only playing games, 6+ cores are better)
The tredripper 1900х is interesting - base frequency is 3800, XFR is 200 mhz. And the server platform.
There is a suggestion that XFR will give the resulting working frequency of 4000 mhz. Details are needed. For 1800x - 3700 mhz if the AVX256 / FMA is not running. (1800x @ 3900 mhz - 5.4% overclock)
Comments
I don't follow you at all. Where did I lie?
Base clock of 7700 is 3.6 with a boost of 4.2 ghz. In my mind anything you get higher = OC. Stock OC should get to 4.8 on basically all CPU with stock cooling/no deliding = 15%, ~1/3 maybe more will hit +5 Ghz = ~20% once you delid/improve cooling.
7700k is currently the Best gaming CPU. Note I am only focusing on Gaming, what this entire thread is focused on. If you want to think about future games then more cores likely will matter, but today in the gaming scene a 7700k is the best you can get according to all the review websites.
The cost of a 7700k + 1151 LGA MB on newegg right now can be found for 400 bucks, but I went to a slightly better mb model for 420.
A 1800x base clock is 3.6 Ghz with a boost to 4 ghz. I don't know of anyone that hit above 4.2 stable here and even that is very tough to hit. I would obviously suggest saving money and get a 1700x ~500 bucks or 1700 ~420 bucks but that isn't the point of this thread. I was taking the two best Gaming CPUs and comparing them -> If you toss in the money the cheapest I can find for 1800x + any MB 599.99 on newegg. (I am sure you can find cheaper other places, but same can be said for Intel.)
So then you get to the crux of the issue. You can buy a 200$ cheaper best Intel gaming processor + MB that is faster on the vast majority of games. This low price is due in part from AMD releasing their new CPUs, but I see no reason to jump to AMD for a CPU that isn't as good if you are a gamer.
Sorry I don't follow the second half your arguments. But if you are focusing on encoding, and work related tasks, then we can have a civil chat about that somewhere else. Obviously for Intel the more cores you have = less you can OC. IE I am sure if you disabled 3 cores + HT on a 7700 CPU that hit 5 ghz it would manage ~5.2 ghz.
As for AMD optimized coding... Just take a look at some of the bigger tech focused sites. AMD just did a big PR push with Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation to show what an optimized game can pull off. The results look great. Just no one has done it yet, and hardly anyone is doing it now. AMD has a huge uphill battle to traverse before they can convince the average publisher to optimize games for there unique CPU architecture. I wont put links to other places here, but send me a PM if you are actually interested in seeing what they need to do convince game publishers to do.
That's. Not. How. Hardware. Works.
+sigh
Render farms, multitasking, rendering on your own content, Ryzen
Dust in the eyes. 7700 is not overclocking. 7700K has a frequency of 16.6% higher. MSRP 7700K - $ 339.00 - $ 350.00. MSRP 7700 - $ 303.00 - $ 312.00.
$ 192.00 - $ 202.00 MSRP = i5-7500, 3400 mhz 6 mb SMT off!
7700K has difficulties in games with a victory over 6900K. And the frequency is higher! + Broadwell vs kabylake! As a processor, the 6900K is much faster. The 2011 socket has no problems in games. The rest is much faster. So lower the tone about the best processor for gaming. Especially for $ 200.
About overclocking. You did not think why 8320 - @ 4400, and 4690K - 4500 mhz? Not 5000, not 4800, not 4600. Vishera and Haswell can 5000! Me and my friend can pass Vindictus at 5000 MHz. And why test 4400/4500? With water cooler. Its numbers about overclocking 7700K you need something to confirm.
Ryzen has already passed validation at 4300+, not that on 4000. From the series "5000+ on kabylake". And there and there are not afraid to break the processor.
You are more likely to wait for a faster processor for $ 200. It does not happen. + Modern architecture is strong every in different tasks.
And by compilers you have already shown your competence.
I don't know what you are saying about MSRP (prices on computer components are often sold well below msrp), my statement still stands on the prices I quoted. Just look at newegg...
I know I don't say k in all my other posts, but I figure it goes without saying since I would never buy a CPU that you can't OC... But to make you happy I will type a bit more.
I don't understand your comment about the 6900k. I have plenty for work, but they aren't intended as gaming CPUs. The fact of the matter is that 4 cores +HT = more than enough cores for almost all games out there. If you compare a stock 6900k vs a stock 7700k core you wont see a big difference on the vast majority of games but of course the 6900k is ~600$ more. You OC them you will see the 7700k win. You run 20 other programs in the background you will see the 6900k win... IE not a gaming CPU.
I don't understand your 8320 and 4690k reference. I am not talking about those chips. I think the only real big win with the 7700k is that it finally can hit 5 gig ~1/3 of the time or better. Before you had to get really lucky and if you hit 4.8 Ghz you were satisfied.
We already know on games it is all how many operations in a series you can get get done in a second that matters. You control that with IPC, which sadly Intel didn't change from 14 nm -> 14nm + process. But the 14 nm+ process gave you the ability to get ~0.2 ghz extra on your clock rate without much of a power change. Hence why the 7700k can hit 5 Ghz.
I already said that you can get 4.2 Ghz on Ryzen stable. (I don't know what you mean past validation, but don't want is a CPU that blue screens every few hours because it isn't stable, even if it booted...) That still doesn't compare to Intel's process for OCing.
I also don't understand your last comments. The 7700k + MB is cheaper than the 1800x +MB by ~200 bucks. So my suggestion to anyone that wants the best CPU to run a game right now would be to get the 7700k +MB.
And for optimization.. For goodness sake just look at hardocp or tomshardware or any other big tech site and read about the results of optimization for AMD with Ashes Of The Singularity: Escalation.
Anyways we like won't get anywhere further on this, so I guess I will stop. replying Feel free to PM me if you actually have something you want to chat about constructively.
The 6000 series are slower CPUs. They're worse in single threaded workloads, like Vindictus, lots of older games and even some modern ones that don't bother with multi-core support (bad on the devs).
If your main tasks are prosumer level stuff, the -E lineup of CPUs is your choice, which sadly stays a year behind the mainstream platform. But if you're gaming, it's the standard lineup, and the 7700K is currently at the top.
As for the overclocking thing.. I can't understand your post, but if you've got a CPU to 5GHz, congrats, I've yet to ever get there in 20 years of building PCs, and Intel didn't help when they cheaped out and stopped soldering the die to the IHS. Still angry about that to this day.
349$
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117726&cm_re=7700K-_-19-117-726-_-Product
https://ark.intel.com/ru/products/97129/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_50-GHz
$339.00 - $350.00
"The fact of the matter is that 4 cores +HT = more than enough cores for almost all games out there."
Is Ryzen not enough? Do you have 7700 (3600) just been enough, and Ryzen not ??
"That still doesn't compare to Intel's process for OCing."
Compare with I7-5775c. The first is 14 nm (+ Core M). Ryzen is the first 14 nm. And will the next CPU be more high-frequency than 7740K? It can be as with 5775. The highest frequency serial processor in the world is fx-9590. When will Intel have a serial processor 4700/5000? But you are not talking about it. For you it does not say anything. I wrote at once - do not write about prices. Do not write about overclocking. Why this child's argument?
Also graphics card is nearly meaningless for this game. Tried various cards from a 8800 GTS to some Quadro cards to the 7xxx series HD radeons and some 9xx series Nvidia cards, in terms of host lag no difference. The lower end cards can't handle particle effects and shaders in particular, so you would need to crank those down, or you will get general frame lag.
I would strongly recommend, if you want to host well, get an i5 and overclock it, don't spend the extra on an i7 if this game (or gaming in general) is your main concern, and don't spend extra for the Xeon because those are silly expensive.
If you have extra money to burn, get liquid cooling for an i5 and overclock some more. Don't buy 1080 TIs, don't buy Ryzen, don't buy a Xeon, and maybe buy an i7 depending on your other interests.
Yes. 2011 is not slower than 1151 in games. And in one thread games, i3 is faster than xeon and 7700K. You can not look at such games, it's a bad example. And you do not notice other examples. With the best representatives of the 3D game engine.
In other games, the socket 2011, if worse, is not strong. However, I write - that 2011 is not inferior. There are victories and defeats. But the problem is that you do not see victories.
And this is at a lower frequency (!), With broadwell (!!). And there are more differences. Cache latency, RAM channel ... In general, a more multi-core processor is faster than 2-4 cores. However, I understand, not for everyone is obvious.
And your categorical (!) About the slow processors of the series 6000, - gives out that you are not strong in the work of processors, like the previous opponent.
I use a 6850k (and I upgraded from a 5930K), I know full well its capabilities. I do prosumer stuff and run SLI, so I need the extra PCI-E lanes as well as CPU cores.
The CPUs are still inferior in games. Look at ANY GAMING BENCHMARK, the Kaby Lake processors, aka 7000 series, beat the 6000 series, which beat the 5000 series.. and so on. Trying to say a CPU with slower IPC is better is flat out wrong. The only thing they do better is working with heavily multithreaded applications, which are not games, and that's something Ryzen does better (sans Intel's extreme CPUs with 8+ cores), for now.
Everything else, like quad channel memory, has a very minor effect on gaming performance, if any at all in most games. There are some that can have a notable framerate difference, but the higher IPC of Skylake/Kaby Lake will still beat out higher memory bandwidth on Broadwell-E.
Like everyone knowledgeable keeps saying: If you're a gamer, stick to the Mainstream line. An i5 CPU (ex. 7600K) is just as good as an i7 (ex. 7700K) for gaming.
But if you do things like stream, encode video, work with professional applications, etc., start at the Mainstream i7 line, and if you actually need more cores and memory bandwidth, step up to the Enthusiast one, or go with Ryzen at a much cheaper pricepoint with most of the power of Intel's CPUs. Just note that if you do run into things that are single core limited (like Vindictus), your performance will be a fair bit lower, especially on Ryzen.
I just hope when Skylake/Kaby Lake X are finally out that Intel will stop this "mainstream/enthusiast" nonsense and unify their platforms. Been anti-consumer for years now, especially with the year+ lag behind the enthusiast releases; it's gotta stop, and Ryzen's our hope for change.
I do not see any problems with the socket 2011.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-broadwell-e-6950x-6900k-6850k-6800k,4587-3.html
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-22/indices-performance.html
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-ryzen-1800x-1700x-1700-test/4/#diagramm-battlefield-1-dx11-multiplayer-fps
I doubt an intel extreme chip would even run this game perfectly lel.
im running 4.6 ghz on my 4670k and i cant keep a stable 60 fps even with multi core. The UI takes up so much cpu power on the same thread that vindy runs on
You upload this video shortly after I comment on your original about showing if Ryzen has improved with optimizations over these past few months. Ty for the upload. I know that earler I've been debating between a 7700k vs a 1700x, but after doing more research, it seems that when all three of the Ryzen 7's are OC'd to 4Ghz, their performance is identical. Now I'm considering the 1700 for the better price point seeing as I can OC it and get the same performance as an 1800x.
Thoughts/Opinions?
In games without a benchmark, this does not check.
X3: Terran Conflict - Benchmark - 1.8% increase (bios and Windows 10 updates). These are typical results from updating the BIOS.
Yes.
No. Not every Ryzen 1700 overclocked to 3900 mhz.
4000 mhz - high frequency, there is a big chance that the processor is not stable. (At low voltage).
High voltage - high risk damage to the processor.
4000 mhz is the limiting frequency. Messages from the Internet about stable work may not be true.
But for a while and some tests the processor can perform tests for 4000-4200 mhz.
This is a fact for all (90% +) processors. The specific frequencies are of course different.
The Ryzen 1700 has an average lower overclocking than 1700x / 1800x.
1700 @ 3700-3800 ~= stock 1800х. (Expected overclocked!)
Ryzen 5-7, Treadripper (and socket 2011/2066) is redundant for this game. It's enough 7700K / 7740K. (But 7 and socket 2011/2066 are much more powerful processors than socket 1151. If you are not only playing games, 6+ cores are better)
The tredripper 1900х is interesting - base frequency is 3800, XFR is 200 mhz. And the server platform.
There is a suggestion that XFR will give the resulting working frequency of 4000 mhz. Details are needed. For 1800x - 3700 mhz if the AVX256 / FMA is not running. (1800x @ 3900 mhz - 5.4% overclock)
AMD r9 nano