Trying to decide my build - Ryzen or Intel
I believe Intel still outperforms Ryzen. I personally have a 6950X and 16gb DDR4 3000 and a 1080 Ti. It just plays so smooth and nice. I recall reading something recently that said Intel still performing better than Ryzen.
Skjold Pjod
I am “That” guy you have all heard about.
1,073 precursors forged and counting.
I am “That” guy you have all heard about.
1,073 precursors forged and counting.
I believe Intel still outperforms Ryzen. I personally have a 6950X and 16gb DDR4 3000 and a 1080 Ti. It just plays so smooth and nice. I recall reading something recently that said Intel still performing better than Ryzen.
Well yeah, if you got $1600 plowed into the CPU, you better hope it outperforms something for a third that…. which it does, by maybe 20%. And the 7700K at $350 or so is also faster than the 6950x in anything but pure multithreaded apps.
But anyway enough of that. Ryzen is without a doubt much faster at multithreaded application, there is simply no contest there. But games – especially old ones like GW2 – are usually not so much multithreaded. If you look at benchmarks though, the 1600x is good enough to match the 7600K. Sometimes slower, sometimes faster but overall fairly close.
The i5 will only really pull ahead if you plan on doing heavy overclocking (ie reach ~5ghz) but even so that will only be good in games that uses <= 4 threads. If we are looking at modern games capable of utilizing more cores and thread, that overclock does nothing for the i5.
Overall, the 1600X is a much, much better buy at this time. i5 is obsolete technology and Intel has only been milking it by pumping up the prices on the i7. Ryzen has pretty much ended the i5 series. I dont expect there to be any more 4c/4t CPUs except in the sub-budget I-want-a-passivly-cooled-TV-computer range.
Note 2 things:
- Unless you are running on a potato, the CPU doesnt make that much of a difference in a game like GW2. They will pretty much all flatline in the same general area.
- The DDR4 is stingy on the Ryzen platform. I do not recommend Corsair. You want 2 sticks of Samsung B-die ram capable of reaching 3600mhz or around there (even if you mobo cant do that stable now, it might in the future), such as the G.SKill Trident series. But granted, that’s more expensive than the Corsair. They’re not bad per say but RAM matters alot. RAM frequency controls the CPU cluster core bridge on the Ryzen which pretty much translate to speed.
(edited by Dawdler.8521)
It boils down to if you are sensitive to price and what you are planning to do your system.
If you frequently do stuff where lots of active threads like rendering videos, photo shop, professional 3D rendering, then Ryzen is the less expensive alternative.
If you are looking for ultimate game performance and price doesn’t matter, then Intel.
And I disagree with Dawdler, GW2 is one of a handful of games where CPU is as or more important than the GPU due to it’s game engine design and use of Dx9. It is diminishing returns as overall CPU performance increases but CPU core performance does matter.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
Why the 1600x over the 1600 though? The later comes with a cooler and is like 10% less clock speed, but that seems moot with an overclock.
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards,
for there you have been and there you will long to return.
for there you have been and there you will long to return.
And I disagree with Dawdler, GW2 is one of a handful of games where CPU is as or more important than the GPU due to it’s game engine design and use of Dx9. It is diminishing returns as overall CPU performance increases but CPU core performance does matter.
But does it really on todays CPUs? Has anyone done apples to apples benchmarks? Of course they tested it at release and noted the avg framerate of an i5 2500k@3ghz and i5 2500k@4ghz. That should be quite a difference if the game was CPU bound. It wasnt. It was exactly the same fps.
But of course as I said if you are running on a potato…
Also note that the OP said he would use an RX470, which is good – Nvidia drivers on Ryzen seems to be completely broken (for some “mysterious” reason). To dig up a random test on Anandtech, DX9 Rocket League. At 1080p ultra and with 7500/GTX1060 vs 1600X/GTX1060 you get 156 vs 109 fps. That is a massive difference. Ryzen single core sucks you say, the i5 is much stronger? Well they tested 7500/Fury vs 1600X/Fury too. They got 178 vs 176 fps. Odd huh?
Edit: with an RX480 it was 182 vs 181 fps (1600X being the higher number, not that it matter lol). Didnt see they tested 3 cards.
(edited by Dawdler.8521)
The issue with Ryzen is that fact it’s really two quad core complexes (CCX), each with 8MB of L3 cache, on a single die (R5 disables 1 or 2 cores on each complex to get a 1600 hex or 1500 quad series) with a relatively “slow” interconnect (tied to the system memory speed) between them, which adds a significant bit of time if a thread running on one quad needs to talk to a thread running on the other quad or access memory from the other CCX’s L3 cache.
That how game patches a week or two out from the R7 launch was able to significantly improve Ryzen framerate while not impacting Intel which isn’t constructed the same way. For Ryzen they just had to group threads that commonly communicate with each other to be assigned to the same CCX. So it’s very much how the game engine is designed as to if it performs similar to or worse than Intel.
And I disagree, the Ryzen core doesn’t “suck”. It’s a pretty sweet advance over the cores in the FX series. It’s just the idiosyncrasies of the overall design of the R5 and R7 series that can exhibit can cause performance between different apps to vary widely between being close to Intel or not.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
(edited by Behellagh.1468)
The issue with Ryzen is that fact it’s really two quad core complexes (CCX), each with 8MB of L3 cache, on a single die (R5 disables 1 or 2 cores on each complex to get a 1600 hex or 1500 quad series) with a relatively “slow” interconnect (tied to the system memory speed) between them, which adds a significant bit of time if a thread running on one quad needs to talk to a thread running on the other quad or access memory from the other CCX’s L3 cache.
That how game patches a week or two out from the R7 launch was able to significantly improve Ryzen framerate while not impacting Intel which isn’t constructed the same way. For Ryzen they just had to group threads that commonly communicate with each other to be assigned to the same CCX. So it’s very much how the game engine is designed as to if it performs similar to or worse than Intel.
And I disagree, the Ryzen core doesn’t “suck”. It’s a pretty sweet advance over the cores in the FX series. It’s just the idiosyncrasies of the overall design of the R5 and R7 series that can exhibit can cause performance between different apps to vary widely between being close to Intel or not.
Overall it’s a correct argument, but when just switching graphics cards can lower the performance difference between Intel and AMD CPUs from 30% to 0% despite the fact it should be the exact same difference given all things equal… The core clusters are just part of the equation.
It’s complicated.
Something else to note though is that PS4/XBone/Scorpio, they all share the same core cluster config (it’s 8 core AMDs, duh). Which theoretically mean that if a game is optimised for multiplatform, it should do fine on AMD. If the consoles had been using Nvidia chips – Switch doesnt count, it’s a kittenty handheld – it would have been quite a different future prospect I think…
(edited by Dawdler.8521)
The reason I am looking at the 1600x is because I already have an AIO Antec Khuler H2O 620 with the AM4 bracket on the way. I was looking at the Corsair RAM because it is one of the confirmed by ASRock to have a working XMP profile letting it hit 3200, however I am still watching the BIOS update notes.
I am leaning towards AMD, a little more, but will still wait about a month before deciding.
If I was spending this sort of money on new kit, I would make sure it had 6 cores – even if this is of little consequence to GW2.
Whatever response Intel make to AMD over the next few years it’s not going to be significantly faster 4-cores so the odds are that games are going to spread sideways rather than upwards!
If I was spending this sort of money on new kit, I would make sure it had 6 cores – even if this is of little consequence to GW2.
Whatever response Intel make to AMD over the next few years it’s not going to be significantly faster 4-cores so the odds are that games are going to spread sideways rather than upwards!
Yeah, single core CPU performance has pretty much hit the wall of physics that means it’s a radically different something — and nobody yet knows what — to improve much. Expect lots of work on more cores/threads, power efficiency, etc, to show up.
Also, a focus on moving processing into hardware that was previously done on the general purpose CPU.
So, yeah, as time progresses games are going to have to be better at using more cores, because that’s all they can get. Game devs know that a single thread can’t get faster than it is right now.
I’d personally wait until the new arch is released and tested.
Vee/Volk
Maguuma – Predatory Instinct [HUNT]
Necromancer
Maguuma – Predatory Instinct [HUNT]
Necromancer
I’ve checked out MDFGamingVideo’s posts on youtube this last week. Testing a 1700 @ 4GHz, 16GB RAM @ 3200, ASUS X370 Crosshair Hero VI and AMD Fury Nitro. 50+FPS everywhere, even during Maw event.
His channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbXYdLfEneVOBvrJnGnqvEw
I just got my bracket in for my AIO cooler, so I’m set as soon as I settle on a MB. I’m still trying to decide ASRock Killer or ASRock Taichi. I like the Taichi’s design better, but other than that they are pretty much the same board, minus a few extra bells and whistles on the Taichi.