Any PC Gamers Around?

[jasonojordan]

Originally Posted by Cole

Vulkan is going to see way wider implementation, and will be optimized for Ryzen, so the disparity is going to be way smaller. Plus, so long as the AMD is priced cheaper than it's direct competition and still provides a higher performance to value ratio, it's a winner in my opinion.

Looking forward to seeing what happens in the next year or so when things start to get optimized.

It may "be" a winner. Be being the key statement lol. If all things come to fruition as AMD has planned it will be a great battle again. I don't count my eggs before they hatch though. About the time I'm ready to upgrade again AMD will have had 2 years or more to get things ironed out and I will revisit it then.

[chaoscentral]

Originally Posted by jasonojordan

Its the same battle it has always been. Do you like to game? Go intel as it performs better in just about every single game. Do you do alot of multi thread application work? Go amd it has more cores and does that sort of thing 10x better then intel does for the money.

AMD used to always tote the our chip is cheaper then even the latest version of intel I5. This is no longer the case. The skylake I7 can be found for cheaper in many places then even the low end version of ryzen chips

Not alot of actual benchmarks out there to show the exact differences. Pcworld did a test of current games between a 2 gen old broadwell I5 vs the cheapest ryzen chip. The I5 went toe to toe with the ryzen on every game trading blows of being 5fps higher to 5fps lower depending on the game.

Before skylake came out I was a huge AMD guy. The skylake chip is the 1st intel chip I have owned and wanted to hate it but in the end couldn't because of how solid they are and how much cooler it ran then any amd chip I ever owned.

Well I do a bunch of other work outside of gaming, hence my decision to go X99 and Haswell-E last time I upgraded my system. most games don't utlize more than 4 threads currently as it sits because Intel has more or less dominated the space since Ivy Bridge got released years ago. Intel has kept CPUs with more than 4 cores out of the hands of the majority of people and it definitely has slowed the progress of performance. Comparing MSRP to MSRP the R7 1700 is still $20 cheaper than the i7 7700K. That said the 7700K is of course going to demolish it in games. It has a much higher clock frequency, and since it is a quad core with SMT it won't run into a bottleneck when it comes to threading.

Back when the FX 8300 series came out, it consistently benchmarked about 15% lower than a comparable Intel CPU in the price range which was the great 2600K. But look at benchmarks that are from this year that include both the FX8300 series and the 2600K(There are a bunch out there as alot of sites were going that far back to scale Ryzen's performance) The FX8300 CPUs actually bench higher than the 2600K now, as back then most games were hard pressed to support dual core or rarely quad core back then. As games have progressed with newer APIs making scaling easier games have been able to utilize the resources better.

What I think alot of people are forgetting, is to get an 8 core 16 thread Intel part that doesn't even work remotely as well in workstation tasks, you are talking a MINIMUM price of a little under $1100. Even that CPU loses to a 7700K in gaming. All AMD has done is brought the price point down to a level where your average PC enthusiast can afford a chip with that kind of raw power and hopefully forces Intel to actually do something about their insane prices. The R5 and R3 CPUs are going to be the competition for the i5 and i7 consumer CPUs(4C/8T for sub $200, and 6C/12T for around $250).

I'm on a roughly 2 year upgrade cycle with my machine. I am not brand agnostic at all, I switch to whoever is going to give me the best bang for the buck both currently and in the future. I can almost guarantee you an 8 core 16 thread CPU is going to outlast a 4 core 8 thread CPU in the coming years. I had a 4C/4T(Kentsfield) when 2C/2T were really the "mainstream", got a 4C/8T as soon as they were available(Nehalem anyone?), upgraded to a 6C/12T as soon as I could, and will be going 8C/16T soon.

TL;DR - Ryzen is a fantastic workstation CPU that does a good job gaming with current titles but can potentially get better over time. Consumer i7/i5 is an adequate workstation CPU that excels in gaming but may potentially get worse as games and APIs progress to support better scaling.

[jasonojordan]

Originally Posted by chaoscentral

Well I do a bunch of other work outside of gaming, hence my decision to go X99 and Haswell-E last time I upgraded my system. most games don't utlize more than 4 threads currently as it sits because Intel has more or less dominated the space since Ivy Bridge got released years ago. Intel has kept CPUs with more than 4 cores out of the hands of the majority of people and it definitely has slowed the progress of performance. Comparing MSRP to MSRP the R7 1700 is still $20 cheaper than the i7 7700K. That said the 7700K is of course going to demolish it in games. It has a much higher clock frequency, and since it is a quad core with SMT it won't run into a bottleneck when it comes to threading.

Back when the FX 8300 series came out, it consistently benchmarked about 15% lower than a comparable Intel CPU in the price range which was the great 2600K. But look at benchmarks that are from this year that include both the FX8300 series and the 2600K(There are a bunch out there as alot of sites were going that far back to scale Ryzen's performance) The FX8300 CPUs actually bench higher than the 2600K now, as back then most games were hard pressed to support dual core or rarely quad core back then. As games have progressed with newer APIs making scaling easier games have been able to utilize the resources better.

What I think alot of people are forgetting, is to get an 8 core 16 thread Intel part that doesn't even work remotely as well in workstation tasks, you are talking a MINIMUM price of a little under $1100. Even that CPU loses to a 7700K in gaming. All AMD has done is brought the price point down to a level where your average PC enthusiast can afford a chip with that kind of raw power and hopefully forces Intel to actually do something about their insane prices. The R5 and R3 CPUs are going to be the competition for the i5 and i7 consumer CPUs(4C/8T for sub $200, and 6C/12T for around $250).

I'm on a roughly 2 year upgrade cycle with my machine. I am not brand agnostic at all, I switch to whoever is going to give me the best bang for the buck both currently and in the future. I can almost guarantee you an 8 core 16 thread CPU is going to outlast a 4 core 8 thread CPU in the coming years. I had a 4C/4T(Kentsfield) when 2C/2T were really the "mainstream", got a 4C/8T as soon as they were available(Nehalem anyone?), upgraded to a 6C/12T as soon as I could, and will be going 8C/16T soon.

TL;DR - Ryzen is a fantastic workstation CPU that does a good job gaming with current titles but can potentially get better over time. Consumer i7/i5 is an adequate workstation CPU that excels in gaming but may potentially get worse as games and APIs progress to support better scaling.

Yep I was not saying it won't get better. Was simply saying as of right now its not ready to take over. However it very well could in the future. Also as I said AMD is unrivaled if you plan to do any multi core stuff.

I went from a fx9590 to the skylake. For the sake of healthy market completion and pushing the industry forward I hope that developers start to cater to what the Ryzen chip was built for and it takes of like a streak of shit.

[chaoscentral]

Originally Posted by jasonojordan

Yep I was not saying it won't get better. Was simply saying as of right now its not ready to take over. However it very well could in the future. Also as I said AMD is unrivaled if you plan to do any multi core stuff.

I went from a fx9590 to the skylake. For the sake of healthy market completion and pushing the industry forward I hope that developers start to cater to what the Ryzen chip was built for and it takes of like a streak of shit.

Oh god FX9590 no wonder your temps were insane haha

[Cole]

Originally Posted by chaoscentral

Oh god FX9590 no wonder your temps were insane haha

Right? What is it, like a 220W CPU? Compared to Ryzen which on the low end is 65W(?) and on the high end 95. I'll most likely adopt with Ryzen, as I'm quite happy with my FX=6300, despite it being dated. After OCing it, it's no longer the bottleneck in gaming. But I can tell it's going to be quite long in the tooth very shortly

[chaoscentral]

The 9590 was literally just an overly glorified overclocked 8350. I had an FX8320 before I got my 5820K and overclocked that bad boy to 5GHz on liquid, that thing got HOT.

[Rougenite]

Since its off topic; I have two 780Tis I am willing to sell, second PCI slot died on the mobo. Both cards work. P/n: 03G-P4-2883-KR.

[jasonojordan]

Originally Posted by chaoscentral

The 9590 was literally just an overly glorified overclocked 8350. I had an FX8320 before I got my 5820K and overclocked that bad boy to 5GHz on liquid, that thing got HOT.

I had a 8370 before getting the 9590. Only reason I changed is there was a friend selling his real cheap because he was going to skylake.

[Cole]

Downloading Rise of the Tomb Raider right now. Looking forward to it, it's been maybe 15 or 16 years since I last played a Tomb Raider game

[echo419]

Originally Posted by Cole

Downloading Rise of the Tomb Raider right now. Looking forward to it, it's been maybe 15 or 16 years since I last played a Tomb Raider game

it is SOOOO good. I was shocked. only reason I played it was I bought the Tomb Raider bundle with my Xbox. Rise and the Definitive Tomb Raiders are really good. blown away really. you won't be disapointed.

[Cole]

Originally Posted by echo419

it is SOOOO good. I was shocked. only reason I played it was I bought the Tomb Raider bundle with my Xbox. Rise and the Definitive Tomb Raiders are really good. blown away really. you won't be disapointed.

Well, I am super disappointed. The game is ridiculously unstable. Doesn't matter whether it's in DX11 or 12, low graphics or high, steam overlay on or off. I get random crashes when I die, fast travel, while playing. It sucks big time. Have done just about everything I can to try and fix it.

[echo419]

Originally Posted by Cole

Well, I am super disappointed. The game is ridiculously unstable. Doesn't matter whether it's in DX11 or 12, low graphics or high, steam overlay on or off. I get random crashes when I die, fast travel, while playing. It sucks big time. Have done just about everything I can to try and fix it.

that sucks. you're missing out. never had that problem at all.

[Cole]

Originally Posted by echo419

that sucks. you're missing out. never had that problem at all.

Yep, it's a bummer. But when I'm able to play, I thouroughly enjoy it. Easily one of the best games I've played in years. My only wish is that I could play as the super pixelated Lara Croft from my youth.

[g33k]

Originally Posted by Cole

Yep, it's a bummer. But when I'm able to play, I thouroughly enjoy it. Easily one of the best games I've played in years. My only wish is that I could play as the super pixelated Lara Croft from my youth.

Sounds like you got your PC man, glad your​ enjoying it. Sucks about the game though I've had those issues with Portal 2 before but it was an issue with the game that the developers were able to fix. Maybe give Razr Cortex software a try if it picks up the game. The program is supposed to kill unnecessary background services and free up ram. I've used it with Fallout with good results.

Do you mean playing with the nude pixelated Lara Croft? Lol

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk