https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x3ddh/ryzen_1700_vs_i7_7700k_review/
Also on youtube they discuss ryzen with gamersnexus.
the value is the selling point I reckon. Finally a bit of competition after a 7 year monopoly from intel. I wonder what intel has in line next, better be an improvement on the 10-15% gains every gen they’ve released in the last 5 years lol
I think so yeah.
As for my FPS, I don’t dip below 70 and the highest I get is around 105.
This changes from map to map of course. I’d say my average FPS is around 80-85.
1080p ultra
Also, people and reviewers are looking at the comparison between the R7 1800x and i7 7700k when the real comparison should be with the i7 6900k for gaming.
If you do that then it appears the 1800x has better performance ( in BF1 for eg.) than 6900k at half the price!
The platform is totally new and the full range hasn’t been released and vendor and Windows implementation has not nearly been optimized . Things will only get better and soon, I would hazard a guess, for AMD as the cost of a high performing pc has been drastically reduced.
BTW I checked some other benchmarks and 7700k is actually better than Ryzen CPU’s in gaming benchmarks.
That one particular benchmark vid however showed Ryzen to be above but seems like it was the exception.
So far I’ve seen 3 or 4 benchmark vids and only in 1 of them Ryzen seems to have the edge(strictly talking about gaming performance here).
This one is on the intel side :
Seems like it is a bit inconclusive at the moment. Most people say 7700k is better though.
Ryzen has just been released and there are initial issues in gaming performance probably due to lack of optimizations. At some points in Battlefield 1 Ryzen shows better performance with SMT disabled, so we will see. For sure there will be future updates to improve the Ryzen gaming performance, but in all honest i do not believe they will be able to reach Intel performance per core per clock. Gaming developers need to start optimizing games for multi-core systems as well, but for sure multi-core is the future. For the next 1-2 years, 4C/8T should be fine. I am on the Intel side, but i am happy AMD were able to step up in the game again. And all in all, i am talking for a gaming performance issues only. For any other applications, Ryzen shows better performance than Intel due to the higher number of cores- Video Transcoding,Rendering, etc.
Don’t forget the 7700k is a beast of Mhz ,This is great for gaming atm but the future is multi core and Ryzen will be a better longer term CPU
If I was building from the ground up, I would go with zen. AMD is competing again, thats a good thing regradless what side you are on. Right now i have 6600k. Hopefuly intel will drope the price on the 7700k.
I also want to upgrade my cpu. I dont know which one should I get R7 1700 or 7700k. I need cpu that can handle high fps, I play with 144Hz monitor. That Joker Productions video shows that the [email protected],9 GHz is about equal to the [email protected] 5GHz in many games. He also uses 3000MHz ram. Will Dice improve Ryzen performance in BF1? My current cpu (i5-3470) is huge bottleneck in BF1.
I know that Ryzen needs win10 optimization update. I just dont want to wait all the time.
Hi mate, just a heads up that alot of the benches done by reviewers were single player console ports and by no means any indication of how Ryzen will perform in REAL 64 player maps. Computerbase.de (you’ll need the browser translated to english) shows a bench with BF1 multiplayer where Ryzen is actually comparable to 7700k in 1080p BF1 multiplayer.
However the bench was done with both stock versions so technically 7700k clocked at 4.8Ghz will still be faster. Hard to say though once windows/ram/motherboards gets updated and optimised, personally i’m gonna sit another week or two before deciding.
P.S: That joker video shows 1700 was equal to 7700k because GPU was the bottleneck, you’ll see in his next video with 720p low settings that 7700k actually pulls ahead by 10-30%. (again, in single player games only ;/)
Well, considering im on the Intel side, i will advise you to get R1700. Its much more future-proof and there are upcoming OS updates, gaming optimizations which will solve the performance issues in games atm. Also, DX12 is in place and will take advantage of more cores even better. R1700 is the choice for a future processor.
2. Another topic is that higher resolutions are coming over which are even more CPU depending -1440p, 4K, 100-144-160hz, where it all takes a lot more CPU resources. And when you run a browser in background, Skype, Team speak, monitoring tools, 3rd party applications, you will notice a massive improvement from 8C/16T.
As it stands now I would not read anything into game tests untill the BIOS issues are resolved.
And we all know Devs optimization is heavily favoured towards Intel’s chips.
First time systems have kinks to work out and if you wait 6 months, the competition always puts out something new or tries to bring their stuff in line more price wise. Personally I am waiting until at minimum, the month of August before I make a decision. I like the new processors, but I want fast memory as well, not to mention that only dual channel is being recognized in a lot of situations. Right now Ryzen and the new hardware is not handling it as well as it should and is going to have to be ironed out. However, at half the cost compared to Intel high end for just a small hit to fps, It is looking like Ryzen is the one to beat.
Let’s just be grateful this is gonna give us some real competitive cheap CPUs rather than Intel charging what they want!
Check this out. Looks at the CPU usage of Ryzen vs 6700K at same FPS. Skip to 22:02.
I think alot of players need to experience 6 or 8 core cpu 64 person multiplayer gameplay compared to quad cores. 6700k and 7700k suffer even compared to six core 6850k, although they both have faster clock speeds. Also, just about every benchmark is based on single player, which is totally inadequate for online play; singleplayer performance is irrelevant. BF1 multiplayer is unbelievably CPU dependant and benefits from more cores. The amount of unplanned event processing during the match makes benchmarking harder, so most gaming websites typically just avoid it.
What seems to be impressive about Ryzen is that its 6 core and 8 core models look to have better clock speeds than Intel because they dont require as much voltage. This should hopefully allow for a better overclock.
Im still waiting until BIOS issues that affect ram speeds are sorted out and am leaning toward an 1800x build for BF1 specifically.
While you may or may not be right for that BF1 likes more cores for multiplayer play, Ryzen doesn’t overclock much. All of the 7 series processors top out at 4.1 ghz. I’ve been following this thread to see if Ryzen is good for multiplayer BF1, I am thinking about going SLI 1080’s, and would like to be 160+fps. Single player benchmarks show Ryzen at around 135fps, and the 7700k is a bit higher but I wonder what the multiplayer aspect would do to it’s numbers. Any real world multiplayer results out there? I’ll be gaming at 1440p on a 165hz gsync monitor.
It might not be getting higher FPS buts its defo a smoother gaming experience when the CPU is bottlenecked. And the 8 Cores 16 threads will last much longer once devs start getting more out of it. We have been hear before when Quad Core was just on the Market and it was getting less performance vs Dual Core and even Hyper-Threading used to be bad and was told to disable it for gaming now look at it.
Ryzen is a CPU Platform for the Future
Wow that’s pretty impressive
New benchmarks
7700k is still the king.
AMD Ryzen is a bit more lackluster than I hoped.