Looks like a hard sell for current X99 owners that mostly game but it surely kicks arse where it counts. I get the feeling Intel had to nerf gaming performance to reap benefits elsewhere.
So of all of that you can only use 3 or 4 games for comparison, since everything else is either Framecaped or GPU bound....Also he is either lying about using a 1080Ti or reusing videos since in some games it either shown GTX 1050 or the info from Riviatuner were showing wrong clockspeeds and mem speeds.
Ryzen looks good enough for me to buy in ( just bought a mini Itx Asrock board ) - no CPU yet , not sure which one to get .
That was a pretty decent review too , never heard of this guy before .
It's 10% faster on average including games that simply dog out on Ryzen and one game that gets worse on Ryzen with each patch...@ 5ghz. In many newer games it's roughly 1 to 2% faster than Ryzen 5.
It's because you use terms like 'almost on par'. If you look at these numbers an overclocked R5-1600 offers 91.3 % of the Average Frame and 90.4 % of 1% Min FPS when compared to an overclocked 7700k. If you meant its within ~9%, then I guess your right.
Not so sure how long the 7700K's lead will last though.. Game optimization plays a pretty big role in how the CPU's perform, now that AMD has compelling CPU's devs are going to start actually optimizing for them.
It's also "only" 10% faster on average.. At framerates far above 100fps I think it's reasonable to call it "on par", at those framerates no one would be able to say which is which in a blind test. So yeah the 7700K is the clear winner in gaming if you like having graphs sitting next to you - but the 1600 is hardly a slouch either, and is far cheaper.. A $200 6 core with the fastest GPU in the world, @ 1080P, in Intel-optimized games only being 10% behind makes me think even if gaming was your main concern, you'd be more than fine with the 1600.
As Hardware Unboxed pointed out, he also needed to use/used $300 custom water cooling to achieve his clocks on the Intel side, the 1600 can hit its overclock on the stock cooler.. Not to mention it's a complete slaughter in non-gaming scenarios..
One thing I wish reviewers would do is have a "dirty bench", representing a system people watching would actually be using, no one has a squeaky clean system every time they play a new game. Discord/Steam chat, background processes, etc. will probably give the 6 core an edge even without dev optimization.
The 1600 is just a brilliant CPU. Forget the 7700K, people should spare a thought for the poor 7800X..
It's painful that a single game is preventing me from purchasing Ryzen, but it's the truth.
X-Plane 11 will be my "daily driver" for the next couple of years. And that game hates Ryzen so much!
If I only knew that they will fix that...
It's because you use terms like 'almost on par'. If you look at these numbers an overclocked R5-1600 offers 91.3 % of the Average Frame and 90.4 % of 1% Min FPS when compared to an overclocked 7700k. If you meant its within ~9%, then I guess your right.
Those numbers are "almost on par" though...and that's even accounting for skewed results like games that scale backward on Ryzen...and with a proven deficit in DX12 performance paired with NVIDIA GPU's ...maybe he's not the fanboy lol.
It's 10% faster on average including games that simply dog out on Ryzen and one game that gets worse on Ryzen with each patch...@ 5ghz. In many newer games it's roughly 1 to 2% faster than Ryzen 5.
You said it. There are instances where the 1600 gets slaughtered where the 7700K is on par or the top consistently.
Look at it this way, it may happen that your 1600 runs like a dog with a set of particular games where the 7700K will just offer the best performance, always. In fact those games where the 1600 runs like a clunker is where its average drops dramatically.
So... is this really a result of Intel's rushing to release more parts? The IPC performance of Skylake X seems to be... almost worse than the typical Skylake CPUs...
So what are peoples thought on the Core i7 6700 (Non-K) vs the Ryzen 5 1600 in scenarios like live streaming, rendering, etc. Clearly the Ryzen chips has more cores and threads, but is it going to be significantly better?
So what are peoples thought on the Core i7 6700 (Non-K) vs the Ryzen 5 1600 in scenarios like live streaming, rendering, etc. Clearly the Ryzen chips has more cores and threads, but is it going to be significantly better?
It is indeed but there's no "handful of games" running (way) worse on this CPU. You don't have any chances of your next favorite game releasing soon running it worse than any other CPU because of "tough luck".
I don't really know how people can dispute that the i7 7700K is the best gaming CPU available by a long shot.
Thanks for the reply. Let me throw a hypothetical our there for you. Say you have a 6700 and an ITX board, and you have the option to trade that for Ryzen 1600. Would you do it?
Thanks for the reply. Let me throw a hypothetical our there for you. Say you have a 6700 and an ITX board, and you have the option to trade that for Ryzen 1600. Would you do it?
Trade? Why? the 6700K still games fine. If you needed to stream and do other content creation might as well go for a Ryzen 1700, it's $269 at several retailers and will smoke the 1600 at streaming and stuff.
Ryzen 4.1ghz 3600c15 70 min - 102 average -122 max fps
Nizzen is getting 141 average fps on a 7800X in Farcry Primal 1080p with 4800mhz cpu
The one in the video only gets 105 average fps at 4700mhz.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ask a question
Ask a question
Overclock.net
27.8M posts
541.2K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!