Question About Ryzen

Kharismen · Jul 8, 2017

So I talked to people about the ryzen 1800x because I want to be able to record gameplay and it look good at least 1440p. I was confused if I should get the ryzen or intel 17-7700k some say ryzen some say i7. One person I talked to said that the ryzen 1800x is gonna bypass the i7 in the future for gaming and pretty much everything but I don't really see how it can. I'm also asking for several opinions on which I should get. Thanks!

Ecky · Jul 8, 2017

Ryzen is a better choice for streaming. It may never pass the i7 for high framerate gaming, but given the extra cores, you'll have a much better time if you're doing high resolution, high framerate encoding at the same time.

That said, the 1700 is physically identical to the 1800X, just lot cheaper. The only real difference is in the default clockspeed of the two chips.

Kharismen · Jul 8, 2017

Ecky :

Wouldn't I want to get the 1800x though because gaming performance would be better, and also would there be a huge difference of fps in games or will a ryzen still run every game today almost just as well as the i7

Lehan123456789 · Jul 8, 2017

Ecky :

The 1800x is binned for better quality, so your overclocks will technically be higher, however the difference may be negligible. Double the cores of the i7, any R7 chip will outperform it in multi-threaded workloads (video editing/rendering, streaming etc.) by a huge margin, however the single threaded performance is not quite as good as the i7 (something you are unlikely to notice playing at below ~120hz).

In short, get the 1700/1700x/1800x as it will be far better for streaming!

Side note: As games start using more cores and threads the 1800x will start outperforming the i7 in games.

Ecky · Jul 8, 2017

Both Ryzen and an i7 will maintain 60fps in just about every game. It's only if you're aiming for 120+ that the i7 pulls ahead.

The 1800X and 1700 perform exactly the same at the same clocks, and both tend to hit their ceiling at the same clockspeed. I can't see any reason to pay more for the 1800X unless you're opposed to changing the default multiplier on the 1700.

danielthegreate · Jul 8, 2017

It is very likely that the already faint advantage of 7700k disappears in a few years, just compare the games of 2016-2017 with those of 2015 and before and you will see that the performance gap is quite smaller in newer games, these games were developed even before Ryzen launch but can take advantage of multiple cores much better already. This is a trend, and there is no reason that the trend stops now.

That said, The small frame rate difference between 1800x and 7700k is due to single core performance and is not as large as the reviews show (5-10%), simply because they intentionally create a core bound scenario, which will not happen while you game normally. Also, the 1800x has a rather large multicore performance advantage over the 7700k.

4745454b · Jul 9, 2017

I've been hearing this "more cores" stuff for a long time. You would think by now the 8320 would be some awesome gaming machine and able to best anything out there. Of course if that were true AMD never would have put so much time and money into Ryzen.

Don't forget that DX12 is supposed to help with CPU overhead as well. So as game engines get bigger and need more power, the demands on the CPU might go down some with the lower level access found in DX12. To be honest, I've heard so much about "more cores" that I wouldn't worry what the future might bring. There will be games here and there that might respond better to Ryzen over the 7700, but right now the 7700 is the chip to beat. And Ryzen doesn't do that. And I don't see that changing any time soon. E6600/Q6600, i5 750, i5 2500, 3570/3700, 4670/4770, etc. These chips have always been THE gaming chip. I don't see this changing. No matter how loud the cry of "more cores" gets.

RAGNAR5 · Jul 9, 2017

Kharismen :

if you want to just play the games then for now i7 7700k is better but when you talking about gamplay recording it's gonna bottleneck.
so with both task's you told it's better to go woth r7 1800x.

and people who say r7 1800x they are not wrong.2 things make ryzen getting faster in ime :1- with new bios updates ryzen getting more stable and faster.
2-games that releasing in up ahead gonna be able to use all the cpu cores and thread better.(some of released games with new update's getting more fps on ryzen base cpus )

nonsleeper · Jul 9, 2017

4745454b :

Except that those old AMD CPUs don't have separate cores.

4745454b :

So we have seen the trend of multiprocessing since the single core became onsolete. I have seen suggesstions that a dual core is enough, blah blah,... and see where we are now. Just over a year ago 6600k was the gaming CPU to get and the 6700k with its hyperthreading was for productivity, see where we are now. Why do you think that this trend will suddenly stop now?

RAGNAR5 · Jul 9, 2017

4745454b :

AMD'S bulldozer series was total crap so it isn't fair to compare it with any other series.(AMD'S OR INTEL'S)
but yes if you just gonna do gaming not other tasks on pc 7700k is the obvious solution for now.

4745454b · Jul 9, 2017

Except that those old AMD CPUs don't have separate cores.

? You completely missed the mark.

AMD'S bulldozer series was total crap so it isn't fair to compare it with any other series.(AMD'S OR INTEL'S)

I don't mean to say Ryzen is crap. If it was just a matter of needing more cores like some suggest then it doesn't matter how bad Bulldozer might have been, it's 8 cores would have lead it to victory. But it didn't. Ryzen does very well for what it is and I hope they continue to fix what's wrong with it. (whether you choose to admit it or not, there are issues with VME and SMT among other issues as well.) Ryzen is a good start and puts them back closer to being a power house. But they really aren't back to where they need to be.

TMTOWTSAC · Jul 9, 2017

The OP wants to record games in 1440p. Ryzen generally does not hit the same maximum framerate as a 7700k, that isn't in dispute. But it tends to maintain better framerates while multitasking, so it should get the nod in our recommendations here. The reason it maintains better frames is the higher core count, which allow it to dedicate entire physical cores to the additional tasks like streaming/recording. The increased core count hasn't helped older games much. Newer games have varied greatly with how much extra cores help vs high clocked single core performance, but multicore has been the trend going forward. In part because clockrates have stagnated over the years, so game developers haven't really had anything else to focus on.

The 1700 vs 1700x vs 1800 vs 1800x mostly comes down to stock clockspeed and voltage, with the 1700 being a lower tdp chip. Many people like it for the price, but promptly overclock it to 1700x levels which eliminates any power savings. And as always, there's no guarantees with OC but it's been pretty reliable in that regard. With Ryzen, higher clocks mostly affect the framerate you get in games. They have much less impact (relatively speaking) on the multitasking abilities since the main advantage here is number of cores.

Hope this helps you decide Kharismen.

danielthegreate · Jul 10, 2017

4745454b :

I think he is right on point, and you are the one missing the mark by setting bulldozer as the representation of multicore performance while it has so many shared resources between "cores" that people started to claim that it isn't even a true 8 core, there are lots of articles on it. It is also held down by other bad architectural decisions and is a misrepresentation of multicore at its best.

The trend toward multicore is clear as day, especially in the last couple of years the divide between i3 and i7, and the recent increase in the gap between the i7 and i5. Parallel processing is on the rise, and it has been speeding up during the past couple of years for good reasons. There is no reason for it to stop now.

Ecky · Jul 10, 2017

danielthegreate :

The only reasons you might not see highly parallel processing (especially in games) is that it's relatively difficult to code. We see as many games recently starting to become well-threaded, is that EA's latest Frostbite engine (which is terribly complex) is well-threaded, so any game built with it will be. Most games not using this engine don't scale well beyond a handful of cores, and, although it's true that major publishers such as EA have the resources to build game engines that are, I expect those games from smaller companies and indie games will likely continue to be poorly-threaded for the foreseeable future.

4745454b · Jul 10, 2017

I'm not saying it's not going to happen. I'm saying I wouldn't buy anything based on a belief that it's right around the corner. When the first quads came out people were claiming that you'd need one to game. You can still make do with a HT i3. We are starting to get a game here and there where an i3 won't cut it anymore, but we aren't at a point where an i3 is going to be a complete no go.

it has so many shared resources between "cores" that people started to claim that it isn't even a true 8 core, there are lots of articles on it. It is also held down by other bad architectural decisions and is a misrepresentation of multicore at its best.

Sigh. Is this still such a confusing thing? There are no shared resources for the INT cores. (If anything is shared between them it's the scheduler.) The FP cores are "shared", but only in that they are more powerful 256bit engines that can (in theory) work on two 128bit tasks at the same time. Only the FP cores have shared resources. The issue with dozer isn't "shared resources", but as you correctly pointed out, bad architectural decisions. I'm not trying to use the 83xx as a "standard" which is why I said you missed my point. If only cores mattered than the 8320 would beat the 7600 because it has more cores. Honestly, it does. But it doesn't beat it. One shouldn't buy a new Ryzen CPU because it's an 8C/16T CPU. It's the same fallacy that makes the 8320 the better buy over the 7600.

nonsleeper · Jul 11, 2017

4745454b :

i3 being a no go isn't the point here, the trend of multi core utilisation is. "You can still make do with a HT i3." -> they became better than non-HT i3s because of multicore utilisation in the last couple of years. Games (and software) have far better multicore load balancing than they had a few years ago, and this trend has been speeding up during the last couple of years.

4745454b :

i5 6600k was the go to gaming cpu a couple of years ago, now the i7 only has hyperthreading over it and became the go to gaming cpu over the i5 in less than two years.
Ryzen has about 5-10% less fps in cpu bound cases, and about 60% more raw multicore processing power than i7. Even if the multicore processing improves 1% per core in two years, the gaming performance gap between i7 7700 and Ryzen will close. Wether we see 1% improvement in core utilisation in games in the next couple of years or not, what I'm saying is that based on the trend that we see over 5% improvement on i7 and it has just hyperthreading over 6600k, 1% is very probable.

4745454b :

I-chache, Fetch and decode are also shared. In addition to the FP scheduler.
shared frontend, cache and floating point logic, is also called CMT which is "Clustered Multi Threading". So no, bulldozer didn't have 8 cores.

4745454b :

It exactly is shared resources, the bad decision was that they shared resouces as CMT, if the had done SMT like intel did, they would have had a 4-core which would have had much better performance.

4745454b :

You said more cores doesn't matter because bulldozer was bad, which is a classic strawman of multicore. We are saying that since the single core difference between Ryzen and i7 7700 is not huge, its effect is very likely to disappear by a small improvement in multicore utilisation based on the recent trends.
Single core performance of Ryzen is very close to 7700, and its multicore is way more powerful. Only a small multicore utilisation is required (about 1% per core better load spreading) for Ryzen to meet and beat the 7700, and that is very likely to happen looking at the trend we saw in the past two years (above 10% improvement in overal core utilisation looking at intel high cores and also 6700 compared to 6600).
Ryzen does not need a massive multicore adaptation to meet and beat the 7700, and the amount that is needed is going to happen unless the trend in multicore improvement stops now, which is not likely.

TMTOWTSAC · Jul 11, 2017

To be fair, the i5 6600k (and now 7600k) also have a clock speed deficit compared to their i7 counterparts. At stock speeds, 3.5-3.9 GHz vs 4.0-4.2 GHz for Skylake, and 3.8-4.2 GHz vs 4.2-4.5 GHz for Kaby. The i5 was always favored for its price, while the i7 was often considered overkill. I agree that the situation has changed to favor the i7 since then, thanks in part to Ryzen's price competitiveness, as well as more demanding game engines and API's that make better use of additional resources.

Whether multicore efficiency can overcome IPC and clockspeed deficits in the consumer space is an experiment that's been taking place in the real world for the last decade or so, with a resounding "It depends on the type of workload" conclusion thus far.

danielthegreate · Jul 11, 2017

TMTOWTSAC :

Looking at games and software today, and comparing them to a decade ago, I'd say there is a resounding trend toward adopting multiple threads. It does theoretically depend on the workload, but looking at how games have been improving in utilising threads, that workload certainly has a lot of headroom to benefit from better core utilisation.

The throughput of a single core (IPC and clockspeed together with the performance of other parts such as cache, etc.) for Ryzen is within a few percent of skylake, so the improvement in core utilisation required to offset it is not that much, a few percent at best. People mistake Ryzen for the Bulldozer, they are not the same. Ryzen is a completely different animal.

4745454b · Jul 15, 2017

i3 being a no go isn't the point here

Then you are missing my point. People have been saying to get Ryzen because it's so strong now, and as time goes by it will continue to get stronger. As mentioned above, "As games start using more cores and threads the 1800x will start outperforming the i7 in games" and "It is very likely that the already faint advantage of 7700k disappears in a few years". There is a belief, and it's been around for a long time, that games will become more threaded/need more cores and you'll need massive core chips to run them. While I don't disagree with this, it's taking MUCH longer to happen than most are willing to admit. I've heard this ever since the Q6600 came out. Here we are, 10+ years later, and an Intel i3 2C/4T CPU is still just fine for most gaming. How many people over that span spent more on the CPU than they needed to? I upgraded off of my I5 750 to the 3770 not because I needed more CPU power, but I wanted the "3s". Having SATA 3 on my board allowing for my 840pro to go faster than 300MBps was much more important to me than having the 4C/8T CPU. Everyone is "mad" at me I keep mentioned the 83xx and it's not a strawman argument. If what you guys are claiming is true, the 83xx CPUs will be/would be faster than the Intel CPUs. But there is so much more to CPU speed/power then number of cores.

I-chache, Fetch and decode are also shared. In addition to the FP scheduler.
shared frontend, cache and floating point logic, is also called CMT which is "Clustered Multi Threading". So no, bulldozer didn't have 8 cores.

I meant no shared computing resources. The FP cores share features, but the INT cores don't. Of course the cache is shared, thats true of many/most chips. Same with the scheduler.

Here is what BD could have looked like, or what a "normal" dual core does look like. Notice the INT and FP share a fetch and decode. They also share the L2 cache.

This is what a BD module does look like. Yes, the L2 cache, fetch, decode, etc is all still shared. But unlike Intel with HT, the INT cores are separate and do have their own separate execution engines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading

Unlike a traditional dual-processor configuration that uses two separate physical processors, the logical processors in a hyper-threaded core share the execution resources. These resources include the execution engine..Hyper-threading works by duplicating certain sections of the processor—those that store the architectural state—but not duplicating the main execution resources.

As it was explained to me many years ago when Intel came out with HT, basically all they are doing is doubling the number of pointers/stores so that empty stages of the CPU can work on something. But unlike a BD module there is no duplicated section of the working engine parts. BD DID have 8 separate working INT cores. Maybe the L2 cache wasn't large enough for that many cores hitting at it once. But claiming that " bulldozer didn't have 8 cores" isn't true.

Going back to the OP, I feel that Ecky's answer is probably still the best one. From the gaming results I feel looking at them that the 7700 gives a slightly better/higher avg frame rate. But the OP mentioned streaming as well, and having the extra cores will only help. To be honest I don't think either option is "wrong".

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/13.html

Because based on Techpowerups review, in the gaming world the difference between the 1800X and the 7700K is ~10%. The 7700K might be faster, but I'm not sure you'll notice 10%. I'm not sure how streaming changes this but I'd be willing to beat the 1800x won't take as big a hit as 7700K does. Though if you are using shadowplay or AMDs similar feature this probably doesn't matter.

Edited for spelling.

Question About Ryzen

Prominent

Illustrious

Prominent

Respectable

Illustrious

Prominent

Titan

Prominent

Reputable

Prominent

Titan

Distinguished

Prominent

Illustrious

Titan

Reputable

Distinguished

Prominent

Titan

Share this page