Solved

Ryzen Vs Intel for streaming confusion.

I want to upgrade my pc for streaming, as a 6600k just won't cut it. Those who think it can, just stop. I've tried. I was going to go with an R6 1600x because I thought it would perform much better than my current one dye to larger core count, more threads and more cache, but after looking at several compasrisons of streaming performance, I found a 7600k beaating the 1600x. Is this just lack of optimization? Is it poor design on AMD's part? I'm so confused because I thought intel would have been molested by Ryzen in this category.
Reply to BoondockSaint080
30 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about ryzen intel streaming confusion
  1. It all comes down to the multithreading capability of your apps.
    If they can effectively keep more than 4 threads busy, they ryzen 1600X with 12 threads should be the winner.

    Unfortunately, many games and some apps depend on the performance of a single master thread.
    In that case, Intel should prevail.
    I5-7600K can typically overclock to 4.9 or so while ryzen 1600x tops out nearer to 3.9.
    Add in the better efficiency per clock and intel will do better in most games and in less than fully multithreaded apps.
    You can get some insight to this by looking at "Amdahl's law"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

    However, if a i5-6600K with an overclock has been demonstrated to you to not do the job, I do not think a I5-7600K would do much better.
    You should be looking at the I7-7700K or perhaps the upcoming I9 processors.
    Reply to geofelt
  2. I'd fight very hard to get the 1700 or 1700X....
    Reply to mdd1963
  3. geofelt said:
    It all comes down to the multithreading capability of your apps.
    If they can effectively keep more than 4 threads busy, they ryzen 1600X with 12 threads should be the winner.

    Unfortunately, many games and some apps depend on the performance of a single master thread.
    In that case, Intel should prevail.
    I5-7600K can typically overclock to 4.9 or so while ryzen 1600x tops out nearer to 3.9.
    Add in the better efficiency per clock and intel will do better in most games and in less than fully multithreaded apps.
    You can get some insight to this by looking at "Amdahl's law"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

    However, if a i5-6600K with an overclock has been demonstrated to you to not do the job, I do not think a I5-7600K would do much better.
    You should be looking at the I7-7700K or perhaps the upcoming I9 processors.
    I don't plan on going intel and certainly not the x299 chipset. I may not have a lot but I do have some self decency lmao. Also I wasn't suggesting that I go for a 7600k, but rather that an equivelant to my processor is outperforming the 1600x, making me doubt it's capabilities. Obviously the 1600x 'should' win, but thats not the case according to what I've seen. I'm asking if AMD has failed to match intel in its own 'game' (non-gaming tasks) and that's the way it is, or does obs need an update that'll utilize ryzen to the fullest.
    Reply to BoondockSaint080
  4. mdd1963 said:
    I'd fight very hard to get the 1700 or 1700X....


    Ooooookkkaaaaaayyyyyy. Keep fightin my dude.
    Reply to BoondockSaint080
  5. How much of a streaming advantage the 1600/1700 get also depends on the amount of post-processing you intend to do on top of your game stream, such as adding a webcam overlay, color correction, scaling, watermark, background image, banners, text overlays from twitch/twitter/whatever, etc. The more extra processing you add, the bigger the advantage should be.
    Reply to InvalidError
  6. InvalidError said:
    How much of a streaming advantage the 1600/1700 get also depends on the amount of post-processing you intend to do on top of your game stream, such as adding a webcam overlay, color correction, scaling, watermark, background image, banners, text overlays from twitch/twitter/whatever, etc. The more extra processing you add, the bigger the advantage should be.



    It would be minimalistic but that's besides the point. 6 cores and 12 threads should rape 4 cores and 4 threads by 2 and a half miles of pure dick, but it's fucking intel as much as intel is fucking it
    Reply to BoondockSaint080
  7. It probably comes down to the specific game, and what streaming settings were used. You can make any processor look inadequate with the right (or rather, wrong) encoding settings. And at the same time, even bargain CPU's with hardware assist (Quick Sync, Nvenc, etc) can be made to look like they're doing an amazing job.
    Reply to TMTOWTSAC
  8. Most games can hardly make any use of more than two cores and four threads, so Intel dominates pure gaming-oriented benchmarks. There is nothing throwing more cores in a CPU can do about that.

    If you look at scientific applications, CPU-based rendering and other stuff that traditionally has excellent multi-core, multi-socket, multi-system scaling, Intel's chips are choking on Ryzen's dust trail on bang-per-buck.
    Reply to InvalidError
  9. TMTOWTSAC said:
    It probably comes down to the specific game, and what streaming settings were used. You can make any processor look inadequate with the right (or rather, wrong) encoding settings. And at the same time, even bargain CPU's with hardware assist (Quick Sync, Nvenc, etc) can be made to look like they're doing an amazing job.

    In the benchmarks I'm talking about no hardware assist is on, and the settings were optimal. I did notice the constant 100% usage on Intel's side while ryzen tgot 50%-80%, leading me to believe it's unoptimized af
    Reply to BoondockSaint080
  10. InvalidError said:
    Most games can hardly make any use of more than two cores and four threads, so Intel dominates pure gaming-oriented benchmarks. There is nothing throwing more cores in a CPU can do about that.

    If you look at scientific applications, CPU-based rendering and other stuff that traditionally has excellent multi-core, multi-socket, multi-system scaling, Intel's chips are choking on Ryzen's dust trail on bang-per-buck.


    I'm already well aware of the gaming results of Ryzen, and the fact that MOST scientific applications lend themselves towards Ryzen's corner, yet OBS is getting rather similar results, and not just relatively, i mean very similar results with the two. idk what is wrong and i'd really like to figure out what it is...
    Reply to BoondockSaint080
  11. BoondockSaint080 said:
    idk what is wrong and i'd really like to figure out what it is...

    The same thing that is wrong with everything else that should scale well with more cores/threads but doesn't: the software or significant chunks of it hasn't been written with the possibility of this many hardware threads in mind. That is understandable for OBS which is supposed to be a background task with the smallest footprint possible to avoid getting in the way of the game or other stuff being recorded. That sort of frugalism is misplaced when you have a 6C12T or 8C16T CPU available.
    Reply to InvalidError
  12. InvalidError said:
    BoondockSaint080 said:
    idk what is wrong and i'd really like to figure out what it is...

    The same thing that is wrong with everything else that should scale well with more cores/threads but doesn't: the software or significant chunks of it hasn't been written with the possibility of this many hardware threads in mind. That is understandable for OBS which is supposed to be a background task with the smallest footprint possible to avoid getting in the way of the game or other stuff being recorded. That sort of frugalism is misplaced when you have a 6C12T or 8C16T CPU available.


    Do you think dedicating 4 threads to obs and 8 to a game would improve the performance?
    Reply to BoondockSaint080
  13. I'd look at OBS and whatever games you are running using Process Explorer to spy on how many active threads each have, that should give you a general idea of how many threads/cores they can scale to.
    Reply to InvalidError
  14. InvalidError said:
    I'd look at OBS and whatever games you are running using Process Explorer to spy on how many active threads each have, that should give you a general idea of how many threads/cores they can scale to.


    Though i appreciate the advice, I've no access to a ryzen processor, and until I have proof that a 6 core Ryzen can beat a 4 core intel, even at a ghz faster at streaming and encoding, I'm not gonna have access. Obviously price to performance, the 1600x beat the 7700k, but is that extra clock speed really gonna dominate the 1600x in obs? I just dont get how the multitasking of gaming and streaming can be beaten by the 7700k. Is intel that on top of their optimization or are the devs of obs slacking? Is AMD's tech still that far behind that 4 intel cores beat 6 and cores? These are the questions and conversations I want to ask and start. These results have truly shaken my perspective on AMD'S lineup.
    Reply to BoondockSaint080
  15. Hi OP, to answer your question since I have had first hand experience with all Ryzen chips, I would say that for gaming Ryzen is good but no game will make use of more than 8-10 cores and I can assure you of that. When it comes to games, a lot matters on the resolution you will be gaming at. If it's at 1440p you will notice a very little difference between CPUs having more than 6 cores. At that resolution, it's the GPU you should worry about. If it's 1080p you game at the CPU will make a difference but not a huge one and mainly single-threaded performance would matter. For streaming, Ryzen it what you should be looking at. If you want to be sure, grab the cheapest Ryzen 7 CPU, the 1700 and call it a day!
    Reply to jason3871
  16. jason3871 said:
    Hi OP, to answer your question since I have had first hand experience with all Ryzen chips, I would say that for gaming Ryzen is good but no game will make use of more than 8-10 cores and I can assure you of that.

    Except OP wants to game + stream with OBS in the background. OBS itself is going to be a handful of extra threads depending on how much extra processing it has to do and is likely to make more use of extra threads in the future as 6C12T and beyond become more mainstream.
    Reply to InvalidError
  17. I think depending on what video card you are using that you are miss informed about the differences in FPS between Ryzen 5 and i7 7700k with any main stream video card. Also, the CPU load playing games will be less on the 6 and 8 core systems while gaming. Ryzen 1800X has been tested to be better than intel systems including Intel's 8 core 6900k when it comes to streaming games. The 1700($299) comes with a CPU cooler and can overclock to be as effective as the 1800x. Also, AMD will be using the same socket, so you can upgrade to the next generation Ryzen CPU that comes out next year.

    Start at 5:35. Ryzen is THE BEST CPU for Game Streaming? - $h!t Manufacturers Say Ep. 2
    Linus Tech Tips
    Published on Apr 6, 2017
    Is Ryzen REALLY the best consumer CPU option for video encoding and game streaming? Let's find out!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jludqTnPpnU

    Start at 1:00 into the video for benchmarks.
    Is a $160 CPU Enough for Gaming?
    Tech YES City
    Published on Jun 14, 2017
    "Today we pit the AMD Ryzen 5 1400 against the Intel i7 7700k with the Radeon and Geforce Mid-Range Champions (The RX 580 & GTX 1060 Cards) to see how much of a difference there is and also whether the performance you could gain off a 7700k is worth it when compared to the Ryzen 5 1400. Everything in this comparison was overclocked to relatively normal levels for air and water overclocks."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R173IbAXKX8
    Reply to goldstone77
  18. jason3871 said:
    Hi OP, to answer your question since I have had first hand experience with all Ryzen chips, I would say that for gaming Ryzen is good but no game will make use of more than 8-10 cores and I can assure you of that. When it comes to games, a lot matters on the resolution you will be gaming at. If it's at 1440p you will notice a very little difference between CPUs having more than 6 cores. At that resolution, it's the GPU you should worry about. If it's 1080p you game at the CPU will make a difference but not a huge one and mainly single-threaded performance would matter. For streaming, Ryzen it what you should be looking at. If you want to be sure, grab the cheapest Ryzen 7 CPU, the 1700 and call it a day!


    I thought exactly the same, and I appreciate your input, but the comparisons I saw contradicted that. A 5ghz 7700k beat a 4ghz 1600x in BOTH gaming (as expected) and streaming. I'm just trying to spitball ideas as to the reason for.this disappointment. Even v8deo rendering does better on Ryzen, but streaming in particular does not.
    Reply to BoondockSaint080
  19. Have you tried using your GPU to do the encoding in OBS? you might find the i5 is sufficient if you do.
    Reply to RobCrezz
  20. RobCrezz said:
    Have you tried using your GPU to do the encoding in OBS? you might find the i5 is sufficient if you do.


    GPU encoding is blurry and choppy no matter the nitrate, even when just recording.
    Reply to BoondockSaint080
  21. BoondockSaint080 said:
    RobCrezz said:
    Have you tried using your GPU to do the encoding in OBS? you might find the i5 is sufficient if you do.


    GPU encoding is blurry and choppy no matter the nitrate, even when just recording.


    Really? A few of my friends use NVENC at 1080p and looks fine to me.
    Reply to RobCrezz
  22. RobCrezz said:
    BoondockSaint080 said:
    RobCrezz said:
    Have you tried using your GPU to do the encoding in OBS? you might find the i5 is sufficient if you do.


    GPU encoding is blurry and choppy no matter the nitrate, even when just recording.


    Really? A few of my friends use NVENC at 1080p and looks fine to me.



    Looks like 1500 nitrate at 8000 nitrate. Really weird.
    Reply to BoondockSaint080
  23. BoondockSaint080 said:
    mdd1963 said:
    I'd fight very hard to get the 1700 or 1700X....


    Ooooookkkaaaaaayyyyyy. Keep fightin my dude.


    Or, buy the underperforming (while streaming) 7600K if you wish...the .1/1% lows indicate a processor struggling in some games to keep up....

    Or, spend way too much on X99 , or, wayyy too much x 1.5 on X299.....

    Where were/are the streaming comparisons of which you speaketh? (I'm sure there are scenarios where the 7600K might lead in a few streaming scenarios with certain games, but the 4c/4t cpu's days are numbered...

    Today's logical choices are 1600X, 1700, 7700K
    Reply to mdd1963
  24. RobCrezz said:
    BoondockSaint080 said:
    RobCrezz said:
    Have you tried using your GPU to do the encoding in OBS? you might find the i5 is sufficient if you do.


    GPU encoding is blurry and choppy no matter the nitrate, even when just recording.


    Really? A few of my friends use NVENC at 1080p and looks fine to me.


    No idea why. X264 gets like .5 fps but the picture quality is there. I am running 1440p on a 1060 though so that might be a problem.
    Reply to BoondockSaint080
  25. BoondockSaint080 said:
    I want to upgrade my pc for streaming, as a 6600k just won't cut it. Those who think it can, just stop. I've tried. I was going to go with an R6 1600x because I thought it would perform much better than my current one dye to larger core count, more threads and more cache, but after looking at several compasrisons of streaming performance, I found a 7600k beaating the 1600x. Is this just lack of optimization? Is it poor design on AMD's part? I'm so confused because I thought intel would have been molested by Ryzen in this category.


    geofelt said:
    It all comes down to the multithreading capability of your apps.
    If they can effectively keep more than 4 threads busy, they ryzen 1600X with 12 threads should be the winner.

    Unfortunately, many games and some apps depend on the performance of a single master thread.
    In that case, Intel should prevail.
    I5-7600K can typically overclock to 4.9 or so while ryzen 1600x tops out nearer to 3.9.
    Add in the better efficiency per clock and intel will do better in most games and in less than fully multithreaded apps.
    You can get some insight to this by looking at "Amdahl's law"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

    However, if a i5-6600K with an overclock has been demonstrated to you to not do the job, I do not think a I5-7600K would do much better.
    You should be looking at the I7-7700K or perhaps the upcoming I9 processors.


    BoondockSaint080 said:
    RobCrezz said:
    BoondockSaint080 said:
    RobCrezz said:
    Have you tried using your GPU to do the encoding in OBS? you might find the i5 is sufficient if you do.


    GPU encoding is blurry and choppy no matter the nitrate, even when just recording.


    Really? A few of my friends use NVENC at 1080p and looks fine to me.


    No idea why. X264 gets like .5 fps but the picture quality is there. I am running 1440p on a 1060 though so that might be a problem.


    I think you looked over my post. It answers your question completely. Watch the video!
    I think depending on what video card you are using that you are miss informed about the differences in FPS between Ryzen 5 and i7 7700k with any main stream video card. Also, the CPU load playing games will be less on the 6 and 8 core systems while gaming. Ryzen 1800X has been tested to be better than intel systems including Intel's 8 core 6900k when it comes to streaming games. The 1700($299) comes with a CPU cooler and can overclock to be as effective as the 1800x. Also, AMD will be using the same socket, so you can upgrade to the next generation Ryzen CPU that comes out next year. Start at 5:35. Ryzen is THE BEST CPU for Game Streaming? - $h!t Manufacturers Say Ep. 2 Linus Tech Tips Published on Apr 6, 2017 Is Ryzen REALLY the best consumer CPU option for video encoding and game streaming? Let's find out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jludqTnPpnU Start at 1:00 into the video for benchmarks. Is a $160 CPU Enough for Gaming? Tech YES City Published on Jun 14, 2017 "Today we pit the AMD Ryzen 5 1400 against the Intel i7 7700k with the Radeon and Geforce Mid-Range Champions (The RX 580 & GTX 1060 Cards) to see how much of a difference there is and also whether the performance you could gain off a 7700k is worth it when compared to the Ryzen 5 1400. Everything in this comparison was overclocked to relatively normal levels for air and water overclocks." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R173IbAXKX8
    Reply to goldstone77
  26. goldstone77 said:
    BoondockSaint080 said:
    I want to upgrade my pc for streaming, as a 6600k just won't cut it. Those who think it can, just stop. I've tried. I was going to go with an R6 1600x because I thought it would perform much better than my current one dye to larger core count, more threads and more cache, but after looking at several compasrisons of streaming performance, I found a 7600k beaating the 1600x. Is this just lack of optimization? Is it poor design on AMD's part? I'm so confused because I thought intel would have been molested by Ryzen in this category.


    geofelt said:
    It all comes down to the multithreading capability of your apps.
    If they can effectively keep more than 4 threads busy, they ryzen 1600X with 12 threads should be the winner.

    Unfortunately, many games and some apps depend on the performance of a single master thread.
    In that case, Intel should prevail.
    I5-7600K can typically overclock to 4.9 or so while ryzen 1600x tops out nearer to 3.9.
    Add in the better efficiency per clock and intel will do better in most games and in less than fully multithreaded apps.
    You can get some insight to this by looking at "Amdahl's law"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

    However, if a i5-6600K with an overclock has been demonstrated to you to not do the job, I do not think a I5-7600K would do much better.
    You should be looking at the I7-7700K or perhaps the upcoming I9 processors.


    BoondockSaint080 said:
    RobCrezz said:
    BoondockSaint080 said:
    RobCrezz said:
    Have you tried using your GPU to do the encoding in OBS? you might find the i5 is sufficient if you do.


    GPU encoding is blurry and choppy no matter the nitrate, even when just recording.


    Really? A few of my friends use NVENC at 1080p and looks fine to me.


    No idea why. X264 gets like .5 fps but the picture quality is there. I am running 1440p on a 1060 though so that might be a problem.


    I think you looked over my post. It answers your question completely. Watch the video!
    I think depending on what video card you are using that you are miss informed about the differences in FPS between Ryzen 5 and i7 7700k with any main stream video card. Also, the CPU load playing games will be less on the 6 and 8 core systems while gaming. Ryzen 1800X has been tested to be better than intel systems including Intel's 8 core 6900k when it comes to streaming games. The 1700($299) comes with a CPU cooler and can overclock to be as effective as the 1800x. Also, AMD will be using the same socket, so you can upgrade to the next generation Ryzen CPU that comes out next year. Start at 5:35. Ryzen is THE BEST CPU for Game Streaming? - $h!t Manufacturers Say Ep. 2 Linus Tech Tips Published on Apr 6, 2017 Is Ryzen REALLY the best consumer CPU option for video encoding and game streaming? Let's find out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jludqTnPpnU Start at 1:00 into the video for benchmarks. Is a $160 CPU Enough for Gaming? Tech YES City Published on Jun 14, 2017 "Today we pit the AMD Ryzen 5 1400 against the Intel i7 7700k with the Radeon and Geforce Mid-Range Champions (The RX 580 & GTX 1060 Cards) to see how much of a difference there is and also whether the performance you could gain off a 7700k is worth it when compared to the Ryzen 5 1400. Everything in this comparison was overclocked to relatively normal levels for air and water overclocks." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R173IbAXKX8



    While that all makes sense and does shed light on my issue, I was more or less looming at the 1600x. Although the 1700 may be better for me, I'm still VERY curious as to how the 1600x got beaten by a 7600k here https://youtu.be/P8bRqdFGCf0. Now I say beaten because for 6 cores and 12 threads, it got very similar maximum and minimum frames. I know tha theyre the same price-wise and that the 1600x will perform better in other cpu intensive tasks, but im not using those other tasks, and i'm just baffled by these results. The thumbnail is misleading and the first 3 minutes are of the 1600x's best moments. Realistically, the 1600x is better in almost every way, and should massacre the 7600k. I would agree that fps averages probably favor the 1600x, but it's not worth the upgrade. I'm still going head on into an investigation of wtf happened.
    The same also occurs here https://youtu.be/oXeenX0FZAY and there's another that for some f'ed up reason I can't find in my video history or in a search.
    Reply to BoondockSaint080
  27. I don't have any evidence for this, but my gut instinct tells me they're having two separate issues. On the Intel side, I'd assume the CPU is struggling to keep up with all the threads. And that the 1% and .1% lows in particular are being heavily influenced by thread scheduling on maxed out cores.

    On the AMD side, the cores never seem to max even though performance dips. That implies a subsystem inefficiency unable to keep the cores fed. Going by Ryzen's history so far that's probably related either to memory, or inter-ccx thread scheduling. Or both of course.
    Reply to TMTOWTSAC
  28. Best answer
    BoondockSaint080 said:
    goldstone77 said:
    BoondockSaint080 said:
    I want to upgrade my pc for streaming, as a 6600k just won't cut it. Those who think it can, just stop. I've tried. I was going to go with an R6 1600x because I thought it would perform much better than my current one dye to larger core count, more threads and more cache, but after looking at several compasrisons of streaming performance, I found a 7600k beaating the 1600x. Is this just lack of optimization? Is it poor design on AMD's part? I'm so confused because I thought intel would have been molested by Ryzen in this category.


    geofelt said:
    It all comes down to the multithreading capability of your apps.
    If they can effectively keep more than 4 threads busy, they ryzen 1600X with 12 threads should be the winner.

    Unfortunately, many games and some apps depend on the performance of a single master thread.
    In that case, Intel should prevail.
    I5-7600K can typically overclock to 4.9 or so while ryzen 1600x tops out nearer to 3.9.
    Add in the better efficiency per clock and intel will do better in most games and in less than fully multithreaded apps.
    You can get some insight to this by looking at "Amdahl's law"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

    However, if a i5-6600K with an overclock has been demonstrated to you to not do the job, I do not think a I5-7600K would do much better.
    You should be looking at the I7-7700K or perhaps the upcoming I9 processors.


    BoondockSaint080 said:
    RobCrezz said:
    BoondockSaint080 said:
    RobCrezz said:
    Have you tried using your GPU to do the encoding in OBS? you might find the i5 is sufficient if you do.


    GPU encoding is blurry and choppy no matter the nitrate, even when just recording.


    Really? A few of my friends use NVENC at 1080p and looks fine to me.


    No idea why. X264 gets like .5 fps but the picture quality is there. I am running 1440p on a 1060 though so that might be a problem.


    I think you looked over my post. It answers your question completely. Watch the video!
    I think depending on what video card you are using that you are miss informed about the differences in FPS between Ryzen 5 and i7 7700k with any main stream video card. Also, the CPU load playing games will be less on the 6 and 8 core systems while gaming. Ryzen 1800X has been tested to be better than intel systems including Intel's 8 core 6900k when it comes to streaming games. The 1700($299) comes with a CPU cooler and can overclock to be as effective as the 1800x. Also, AMD will be using the same socket, so you can upgrade to the next generation Ryzen CPU that comes out next year. Start at 5:35. Ryzen is THE BEST CPU for Game Streaming? - $h!t Manufacturers Say Ep. 2 Linus Tech Tips Published on Apr 6, 2017 Is Ryzen REALLY the best consumer CPU option for video encoding and game streaming? Let's find out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jludqTnPpnU Start at 1:00 into the video for benchmarks. Is a $160 CPU Enough for Gaming? Tech YES City Published on Jun 14, 2017 "Today we pit the AMD Ryzen 5 1400 against the Intel i7 7700k with the Radeon and Geforce Mid-Range Champions (The RX 580 & GTX 1060 Cards) to see how much of a difference there is and also whether the performance you could gain off a 7700k is worth it when compared to the Ryzen 5 1400. Everything in this comparison was overclocked to relatively normal levels for air and water overclocks." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R173IbAXKX8



    While that all makes sense and does shed light on my issue, I was more or less looming at the 1600x. Although the 1700 may be better for me, I'm still VERY curious as to how the 1600x got beaten by a 7600k here https://youtu.be/P8bRqdFGCf0. Now I say beaten because for 6 cores and 12 threads, it got very similar maximum and minimum frames. I know tha theyre the same price-wise and that the 1600x will perform better in other cpu intensive tasks, but im not using those other tasks, and i'm just baffled by these results. The thumbnail is misleading and the first 3 minutes are of the 1600x's best moments. Realistically, the 1600x is better in almost every way, and should massacre the 7600k. I would agree that fps averages probably favor the 1600x, but it's not worth the upgrade. I'm still going head on into an investigation of wtf happened.
    The same also occurs here https://youtu.be/oXeenX0FZAY and there's another that for some f'ed up reason I can't find in my video history or in a search.


    I'm sorry, but did you watch that video? I did and the 1600X beat the 6600K hands down... So, I don't understand your argument at all. It's not better and didn't beat the 1600X, and the entire video talks about why Blunty thinks the 1600X is so much better. Ok.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8bRqdFGCf0&feature=youtu.be
    OKay now for the second video I notice one thing right off the bat the R7 1700's memory is running at 2666MHz vs the I7 7700K's memory running at 3200MHz. Ryzen's infinity fabric frequency uses RAM frequency as a reference. Higher RAM frequency reduces latency of the communication between each CCX through infinity fabric, which in turn increase FPS performance directly. Going from 2133MHz RAM to 3200MHz on Ryzen will net you a ~30%FPS gain. This is a gain of ~15% higher than Intel receives from the same increase. This is significant decrease in performance for Ryzen, but let's watch the rest of the video. Okay, his presets are different from Linus's video. It shows better numbers for the i7700K in doom, but Linus talks and shows you the quality degradation on the i7700K vs the 1800X. The graph isn't telling you the whole story. Now GTA V the 1700 have higher .1% lows, which is going to be a smoother stream, and like I mentioned before you don't get the quality degradation on the Ryzen CPU like you get on the Intel CPU. Also, at 1440p Ryzen pulls ahead of the 7700K despite the 1 GHz higher CPU frequency, and higher frequency memory frequency advantage. Bitwit,"notice now how the 1% and .1% lows of the 1700 are now clearly overtaking the 7700K. And by a sizable margin actually."(4:30) I have no idea why he says,"even though are frame rates aren't quite up to snuff with the 7700k we are still seeing a smoother experience." (4:45) He just said,"at 1440p the frame rates are nearly identical."(4:28) But let's continue with the video. Here again in battlefield 1 the 1700 wins hands down.... Did you even watch these videos? Wait, the terminology he is using is misleading making you think the 7700K is doing better than the 1700. "kick in the streaming though, and we actually see the average frame rate of the 1700 pull ahead of the 7700k for the first time."(5:57) You want to have stable 1% and .1% lows in streaming. High average FPS doesn't matter compared the how high the 1% and .1% lows are. Having a high average FPS will not remove stuttering from dropped frames, because of poor 1% and .1% lows you suffer when streaming on the 7700K. He triple checked his system, ran it time and time again and was still seeing these numbers. As to say he was in disbelief the Ryzen 1700 was that much better. This kind of wording can be miss leading as to assume he did something wrong for this to happen. "the 7700k is slightly more choppy and less fluid experience over all. Even though it might be marginal it's still suffering quite a bit more than it's Ryzen rival when it comes to streaming Battlefield 1." (6:31) Ryzen this statement is also miss leading, because Ryzen 7 1700 isn't choppy at all while streaming this title, but he try's to make you think that. It's okay though because as he continues to the performance impact he does use the word "Devastating" when talking about the 7700K performance issues. The 1700 is the clear streaming winner by a huge margin, and he goes on to say that the testing substantiates his theory that the 1700 would be better... Okay, BoondockSaint080 what do you have for me next?
    Reply to goldstone77
  29. goldstone77 said:
    BoondockSaint080 said:
    goldstone77 said:
    BoondockSaint080 said:
    I want to upgrade my pc for streaming, as a 6600k just won't cut it. Those who think it can, just stop. I've tried. I was going to go with an R6 1600x because I thought it would perform much better than my current one dye to larger core count, more threads and more cache, but after looking at several compasrisons of streaming performance, I found a 7600k beaating the 1600x. Is this just lack of optimization? Is it poor design on AMD's part? I'm so confused because I thought intel would have been molested by Ryzen in this category.


    geofelt said:
    It all comes down to the multithreading capability of your apps.
    If they can effectively keep more than 4 threads busy, they ryzen 1600X with 12 threads should be the winner.

    Unfortunately, many games and some apps depend on the performance of a single master thread.
    In that case, Intel should prevail.
    I5-7600K can typically overclock to 4.9 or so while ryzen 1600x tops out nearer to 3.9.
    Add in the better efficiency per clock and intel will do better in most games and in less than fully multithreaded apps.
    You can get some insight to this by looking at "Amdahl's law"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

    However, if a i5-6600K with an overclock has been demonstrated to you to not do the job, I do not think a I5-7600K would do much better.
    You should be looking at the I7-7700K or perhaps the upcoming I9 processors.


    BoondockSaint080 said:
    RobCrezz said:
    BoondockSaint080 said:
    RobCrezz said:
    Have you tried using your GPU to do the encoding in OBS? you might find the i5 is sufficient if you do.


    GPU encoding is blurry and choppy no matter the nitrate, even when just recording.


    Really? A few of my friends use NVENC at 1080p and looks fine to me.


    No idea why. X264 gets like .5 fps but the picture quality is there. I am running 1440p on a 1060 though so that might be a problem.


    I think you looked over my post. It answers your question completely. Watch the video!
    I think depending on what video card you are using that you are miss informed about the differences in FPS between Ryzen 5 and i7 7700k with any main stream video card. Also, the CPU load playing games will be less on the 6 and 8 core systems while gaming. Ryzen 1800X has been tested to be better than intel systems including Intel's 8 core 6900k when it comes to streaming games. The 1700($299) comes with a CPU cooler and can overclock to be as effective as the 1800x. Also, AMD will be using the same socket, so you can upgrade to the next generation Ryzen CPU that comes out next year. Start at 5:35. Ryzen is THE BEST CPU for Game Streaming? - $h!t Manufacturers Say Ep. 2 Linus Tech Tips Published on Apr 6, 2017 Is Ryzen REALLY the best consumer CPU option for video encoding and game streaming? Let's find out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jludqTnPpnU Start at 1:00 into the video for benchmarks. Is a $160 CPU Enough for Gaming? Tech YES City Published on Jun 14, 2017 "Today we pit the AMD Ryzen 5 1400 against the Intel i7 7700k with the Radeon and Geforce Mid-Range Champions (The RX 580 & GTX 1060 Cards) to see how much of a difference there is and also whether the performance you could gain off a 7700k is worth it when compared to the Ryzen 5 1400. Everything in this comparison was overclocked to relatively normal levels for air and water overclocks." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R173IbAXKX8



    While that all makes sense and does shed light on my issue, I was more or less looming at the 1600x. Although the 1700 may be better for me, I'm still VERY curious as to how the 1600x got beaten by a 7600k here https://youtu.be/P8bRqdFGCf0. Now I say beaten because for 6 cores and 12 threads, it got very similar maximum and minimum frames. I know tha theyre the same price-wise and that the 1600x will perform better in other cpu intensive tasks, but im not using those other tasks, and i'm just baffled by these results. The thumbnail is misleading and the first 3 minutes are of the 1600x's best moments. Realistically, the 1600x is better in almost every way, and should massacre the 7600k. I would agree that fps averages probably favor the 1600x, but it's not worth the upgrade. I'm still going head on into an investigation of wtf happened.
    The same also occurs here https://youtu.be/oXeenX0FZAY and there's another that for some f'ed up reason I can't find in my video history or in a search.


    I'm sorry, but did you watch that video? I did and the 1600X beat the 6600K hands down... So, I don't understand your argument at all. It's not better and didn't beat the 1600X, and the entire video talks about why Blunty thinks the 1600X is so much better. Ok.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8bRqdFGCf0&feature=youtu.be
    OKay now for the second video I notice one thing right off the bat the R7 1700's memory is running at 2666MHz vs the I7 7700K's memory running at 3200MHz. Ryzen's infinity fabric frequency uses RAM frequency as a reference. Higher RAM frequency reduces latency of the communication between each CCX through infinity fabric, which in turn increase FPS performance directly. Going from 2133MHz RAM to 3200MHz on Ryzen will net you a ~30%FPS gain. This is a gain of ~15% higher than Intel receives from the same increase. This is significant decrease in performance for Ryzen, but let's watch the rest of the video. Okay, his presets are different from Linus's video. It shows better numbers for the i7700K in doom, but Linus talks and shows you the quality degradation on the i7700K vs the 1800X. The graph isn't telling you the whole story. Now GTA V the 1700 have higher .1% lows, which is going to be a smoother stream, and like I mentioned before you don't get the quality degradation on the Ryzen CPU like you get on the Intel CPU. Also, at 1440p Ryzen pulls ahead of the 7700K despite the 1 GHz higher CPU frequency, and higher frequency memory frequency advantage. Bitwit,"notice now how the 1% and .1% lows of the 1700 are now clearly overtaking the 7700K. And by a sizable margin actually."(4:30) I have no idea why he says,"even though are frame rates aren't quite up to snuff with the 7700k we are still seeing a smoother experience." (4:45) He just said,"at 1440p the frame rates are nearly identical."(4:28) But let's continue with the video. Here again in battlefield 1 the 1700 wins hands down.... Did you even watch these videos? Wait, the terminology he is using is misleading making you think the 7700K is doing better than the 1700. "kick in the streaming though, and we actually see the average frame rate of the 1700 pull ahead of the 7700k for the first time."(5:57) You want to have stable 1% and .1% lows in streaming. High average FPS doesn't matter compared the how high the 1% and .1% lows are. Having a high average FPS will not remove stuttering from dropped frames, because of poor 1% and .1% lows you suffer when streaming on the 7700K. He triple checked his system, ran it time and time again and was still seeing these numbers. As to say he was in disbelief the Ryzen 1700 was that much better. This kind of wording can be miss leading as to assume he did something wrong for this to happen. "the 7700k is slightly more choppy and less fluid experience over all. Even though it might be marginal it's still suffering quite a bit more than it's Ryzen rival when it comes to streaming Battlefield 1." (6:31) Ryzen this statement is also miss leading, because Ryzen 7 1700 isn't choppy at all while streaming this title, but he try's to make you think that. It's okay though because as he continues to the performance impact he does use the word "Devastating" when talking about the 7700K performance issues. The 1700 is the clear streaming winner by a huge margin, and he goes on to say that the testing substantiates his theory that the 1700 would be better... Okay, BoondockSaint080 what do you have for me next?


    Nothing. I rewatched them and realized my thinking process errors and your points are, Well, to say the least, ON POINT. I appreciate the time and effort you've put into this.
    Reply to BoondockSaint080
  30. BoondockSaint080 said:
    goldstone77 said:
    BoondockSaint080 said:
    goldstone77 said:
    BoondockSaint080 said:
    I want to upgrade my pc for streaming, as a 6600k just won't cut it. Those who think it can, just stop. I've tried. I was going to go with an R6 1600x because I thought it would perform much better than my current one dye to larger core count, more threads and more cache, but after looking at several compasrisons of streaming performance, I found a 7600k beaating the 1600x. Is this just lack of optimization? Is it poor design on AMD's part? I'm so confused because I thought intel would have been molested by Ryzen in this category.


    geofelt said:
    It all comes down to the multithreading capability of your apps.
    If they can effectively keep more than 4 threads busy, they ryzen 1600X with 12 threads should be the winner.

    Unfortunately, many games and some apps depend on the performance of a single master thread.
    In that case, Intel should prevail.
    I5-7600K can typically overclock to 4.9 or so while ryzen 1600x tops out nearer to 3.9.
    Add in the better efficiency per clock and intel will do better in most games and in less than fully multithreaded apps.
    You can get some insight to this by looking at "Amdahl's law"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

    However, if a i5-6600K with an overclock has been demonstrated to you to not do the job, I do not think a I5-7600K would do much better.
    You should be looking at the I7-7700K or perhaps the upcoming I9 processors.


    BoondockSaint080 said:
    RobCrezz said:
    BoondockSaint080 said:
    RobCrezz said:
    Have you tried using your GPU to do the encoding in OBS? you might find the i5 is sufficient if you do.


    GPU encoding is blurry and choppy no matter the nitrate, even when just recording.


    Really? A few of my friends use NVENC at 1080p and looks fine to me.


    No idea why. X264 gets like .5 fps but the picture quality is there. I am running 1440p on a 1060 though so that might be a problem.


    I think you looked over my post. It answers your question completely. Watch the video!
    I think depending on what video card you are using that you are miss informed about the differences in FPS between Ryzen 5 and i7 7700k with any main stream video card. Also, the CPU load playing games will be less on the 6 and 8 core systems while gaming. Ryzen 1800X has been tested to be better than intel systems including Intel's 8 core 6900k when it comes to streaming games. The 1700($299) comes with a CPU cooler and can overclock to be as effective as the 1800x. Also, AMD will be using the same socket, so you can upgrade to the next generation Ryzen CPU that comes out next year. Start at 5:35. Ryzen is THE BEST CPU for Game Streaming? - $h!t Manufacturers Say Ep. 2 Linus Tech Tips Published on Apr 6, 2017 Is Ryzen REALLY the best consumer CPU option for video encoding and game streaming? Let's find out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jludqTnPpnU Start at 1:00 into the video for benchmarks. Is a $160 CPU Enough for Gaming? Tech YES City Published on Jun 14, 2017 "Today we pit the AMD Ryzen 5 1400 against the Intel i7 7700k with the Radeon and Geforce Mid-Range Champions (The RX 580 & GTX 1060 Cards) to see how much of a difference there is and also whether the performance you could gain off a 7700k is worth it when compared to the Ryzen 5 1400. Everything in this comparison was overclocked to relatively normal levels for air and water overclocks." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R173IbAXKX8



    While that all makes sense and does shed light on my issue, I was more or less looming at the 1600x. Although the 1700 may be better for me, I'm still VERY curious as to how the 1600x got beaten by a 7600k here https://youtu.be/P8bRqdFGCf0. Now I say beaten because for 6 cores and 12 threads, it got very similar maximum and minimum frames. I know tha theyre the same price-wise and that the 1600x will perform better in other cpu intensive tasks, but im not using those other tasks, and i'm just baffled by these results. The thumbnail is misleading and the first 3 minutes are of the 1600x's best moments. Realistically, the 1600x is better in almost every way, and should massacre the 7600k. I would agree that fps averages probably favor the 1600x, but it's not worth the upgrade. I'm still going head on into an investigation of wtf happened.
    The same also occurs here https://youtu.be/oXeenX0FZAY and there's another that for some f'ed up reason I can't find in my video history or in a search.


    I'm sorry, but did you watch that video? I did and the 1600X beat the 6600K hands down... So, I don't understand your argument at all. It's not better and didn't beat the 1600X, and the entire video talks about why Blunty thinks the 1600X is so much better. Ok.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8bRqdFGCf0&feature=youtu.be
    OKay now for the second video I notice one thing right off the bat the R7 1700's memory is running at 2666MHz vs the I7 7700K's memory running at 3200MHz. Ryzen's infinity fabric frequency uses RAM frequency as a reference. Higher RAM frequency reduces latency of the communication between each CCX through infinity fabric, which in turn increase FPS performance directly. Going from 2133MHz RAM to 3200MHz on Ryzen will net you a ~30%FPS gain. This is a gain of ~15% higher than Intel receives from the same increase. This is significant decrease in performance for Ryzen, but let's watch the rest of the video. Okay, his presets are different from Linus's video. It shows better numbers for the i7700K in doom, but Linus talks and shows you the quality degradation on the i7700K vs the 1800X. The graph isn't telling you the whole story. Now GTA V the 1700 have higher .1% lows, which is going to be a smoother stream, and like I mentioned before you don't get the quality degradation on the Ryzen CPU like you get on the Intel CPU. Also, at 1440p Ryzen pulls ahead of the 7700K despite the 1 GHz higher CPU frequency, and higher frequency memory frequency advantage. Bitwit,"notice now how the 1% and .1% lows of the 1700 are now clearly overtaking the 7700K. And by a sizable margin actually."(4:30) I have no idea why he says,"even though are frame rates aren't quite up to snuff with the 7700k we are still seeing a smoother experience." (4:45) He just said,"at 1440p the frame rates are nearly identical."(4:28) But let's continue with the video. Here again in battlefield 1 the 1700 wins hands down.... Did you even watch these videos? Wait, the terminology he is using is misleading making you think the 7700K is doing better than the 1700. "kick in the streaming though, and we actually see the average frame rate of the 1700 pull ahead of the 7700k for the first time."(5:57) You want to have stable 1% and .1% lows in streaming. High average FPS doesn't matter compared the how high the 1% and .1% lows are. Having a high average FPS will not remove stuttering from dropped frames, because of poor 1% and .1% lows you suffer when streaming on the 7700K. He triple checked his system, ran it time and time again and was still seeing these numbers. As to say he was in disbelief the Ryzen 1700 was that much better. This kind of wording can be miss leading as to assume he did something wrong for this to happen. "the 7700k is slightly more choppy and less fluid experience over all. Even though it might be marginal it's still suffering quite a bit more than it's Ryzen rival when it comes to streaming Battlefield 1." (6:31) Ryzen this statement is also miss leading, because Ryzen 7 1700 isn't choppy at all while streaming this title, but he try's to make you think that. It's okay though because as he continues to the performance impact he does use the word "Devastating" when talking about the 7700K performance issues. The 1700 is the clear streaming winner by a huge margin, and he goes on to say that the testing substantiates his theory that the 1700 would be better... Okay, BoondockSaint080 what do you have for me next?


    Nothing. I rewatched them and realized my thinking process errors and your points are, Well, to say the least, ON POINT. I appreciate the time and effort you've put into this.


    Happy to help!
    Reply to goldstone77
Ask a new question Answer

Read More

Streaming Intel