iGouldz wrote

8800K - Turbo @4.7GHz | 4.7 x 12 = 56.4GHz total
1800X - Turbo @4GHz+ | 4 x 16 = 64GHz Total.
1700 - Turbo @3.7GHz | 3.7 x 16 = 59.2GHz

So the Ryzen 1700 is faster than the 8800k which makes it better than the new 8800k?
So I mean like 1700 is better so why go with 8800k which isn't really useful if you are only going to play games?

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Figured it was time for someone who actually uses Ryzen daily to comment.

Okay, let us start off with what I quoted, do you honestly understand anything about cores, clocks, and threads? I am just going to say no. Ryzen, if I am being perfectly honest, is shit for gaming. It is good at 1440p, and 4k when paired with a 1080ti/980ti just my opinion, two 580's in crossfire also are good with Ryzen, making good utilization of the cards.

But let's focus on "1800X - Turbo @4GHz+ | 4 x 16 = 64GHz Total." wat. Are you counting threads as physical cores? Also, all the cores never leverage a full 4GHz hardclock even on water. Where are you getting "64GHZ" are you multiplying core clocks? lmfao.

I have two separate rigs, one for AMD, the other is Intel, and the scores simply show Intel is better at gaming, and some editing software's (AE, Premier, SV) but there are plenty that favor Ryzen Premier, being at the top of this. It leverages Ryzens multiple cores, and threads evenly even allowing for a good back of other work, background processing is amazing on Ryzen there is no doubt about that. Regardless Intel basically and always really has STOMPED AMD in gaming due to their better SCP, and QCP. Much better then AMD, and most games don't use more than, two or four cores.

You know I am an AMD fanboy, but I don't mind Intel all too much.

Your argument with 13 made me laugh a little at this point.

1600X:$259 - 6 Core 12 Thread @3.7GHz Overclock-able CPU (I am guessing to around 4.1 GHz)
1700:$319 - 8 Core 16 Thread @3.7GHz CPU (not overclock-able)
1700X:$389 - 8 Core 16 Thread @3.8 GHz (Overclock-able) CPU

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

The 1700 is unlocked? *used it for three months*; I was honestly waiting for you to say "It doesn't have an X, therefore, it isn't overclockable" or some shit along that line. Want to know the funny part, I had an 1800X, and tested it baseline, and with a locked 4.0GHZ overclock. Then did the same with the 1700, and 1600(currently using this) and the numbers were nearly identical across all chips. Ryzen is much like Vishera, and or bulldozer, all the same chip and can achieve near to spec performance with each other with a overclock that is stable across all of them.

Personally I think if its only for gaming go with Ryzen... BUT if you plan on 3D modelling or video production, manipulation ect I would go with Intel because it is a lot more optimized for that work load.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

More cores/threads, on a modern architecture = better performance. Now while, people like Jay, or Linus, who have already tested, and or did some light benchs on coffee lakes high end chips show that they are better in IPC, SCP, QCP, and MCP, but for the price, it is clearly an enthuisiast chip until the more consumer chips drop (8700k, etc). Ryzen is the best for the budget, if it was for editing/manipulation/deep learning like tasks ONLY; but since OP mentioned he was using it strictly for gaming Intel>AMD any day until AMD fixes their SPC and bumps the price way up just for that. So it is inevitable if you want gaming performance Intel is the way to go.

How can you say personally? Did you use Ryzen, are you on a Ryzen system, have you leveraged over 200+ FPS on most games on modest settings, (high/med/ult)? Report back when you can, even with my system paired with a 1080ti, i struggle to maintain that. I have a 7700k, and a 6700k and both are great chips. I also have a 4790k, and a 3770k, in storage somewhere, anything from Intel really is a good choice, we recommend Ryzen so much around here to more workload, and gaming based tasks, simply due to you are getting more for the budget.

Yolo wrote lol this argument was way too funny to read.

It's not an argument. You'd have to give your reasons for believing what you do, which you haven't, you've just constantly made claims that you can't actually back up with any proof.

Yolo wrote I dont think this guy understands that that a that a higher clocked processor means its better simply cuz of higher clock speeds

Ah, the words of a man who blatantly doesn't understand how CPU micro-architectures work. You're aware that Zen and Kaby Lake are completely different architectures with completely different IPC, right? So you can't compare the two based on clock speeds. The same way you can't compare your 4.8GHz FX-8370 to an 7700k at 4.8GHz, because the 7700k would shit all over it.

Yolo wrote but based on that guys math thats how it would work.

Um, actually you're the one doing the sketchy math, I never done any maths here. Simply showed some proof that backs up exactly what I said. No need for math here. Super simple. Do you want me to post it again for you?
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Here, maybe I'll even make it a little clearer for you.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Oh wow, would you look at that, a stock 7700k is 17.7% faster than an overclocked Ryzen 7.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
7700k at stock is 6.5% ahead of the overclocked R7, AND this is at 1440p. At 1080p, the 7700k's lead will be even greater.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Oh wow, stock 7700k is almost 30% faster than overclocked Ryzen, weird huh? Almost as if I was entirely correct the whole time.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Again, 1440p so the difference is less than it would be at 1080p but stock 7700k is STILL 9% faster than overclocked Ryzen 7.

Are you catching on yet? Do you see the pattern? You know what, I'll keep going anyway because this next one is exciting.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Stock 7700k is 30% ahead of overclocked Ryzen 7, 40% ahead of Ryzen at stock clocks.

Hmm, almost as if the i7 is undoubtedly the better option for high refresh rate gaming, specifically at 1080p, huh?

---

Oh, and as for Ryzen somehow not being better for content creation, here you go;
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Ryzen 7 performs slightly ahead of mainstream i7's. Premiere is one of those that DID benefit greatly from IPC as opposed to cores, but it seems to be going the opposite way now so the gap is only going to get bigger in favour of Ryzen.

13 wrote

Yolo wrote lol this argument was way too funny to read.

It's not an argument. You'd have to give your reasons for believing what you do, which you haven't, you've just constantly made claims that you can't actually back up with any proof.

Yolo wrote I dont think this guy understands that that a that a higher clocked processor means its better simply cuz of higher clock speeds

Ah, the words of a man who blatantly doesn't understand how CPU micro-architectures work. You're aware that Zen and Kaby Lake are completely different architectures with completely different IPC, right? So you can't compare the two based on clock speeds. The same way you can't compare your 4.8GHz FX-8370 to an 7700k at 4.8GHz, because the 7700k would shit all over it.

Yolo wrote but based on that guys math thats how it would work.

Um, actually you're the one doing the sketchy math, I never done any maths here. Simply showed some proof that backs up exactly what I said. No need for math here. Super simple. Do you want me to post it again for you?
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Here, maybe I'll even make it a little clearer for you.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Oh wow, would you look at that, a stock 7700k is 17.7% faster than an overclocked Ryzen 7.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
7700k at stock is 6.5% ahead of the overclocked R7, AND this is at 1440p. At 1080p, the 7700k's lead will be even greater.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Oh wow, stock 7700k is almost 30% faster than overclocked Ryzen, weird huh? Almost as if I was entirely correct the whole time.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Again, 1440p so the difference is less than it would be at 1080p but stock 7700k is STILL 9% faster than overclocked Ryzen 7.

Are you catching on yet? Do you see the pattern? You know what, I'll keep going anyway because this next one is exciting.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Stock 7700k is 30% ahead of overclocked Ryzen 7, 40% ahead of Ryzen at stock clocks.

Hmm, almost as if the i7 is undoubtedly the better option for high refresh rate gaming, specifically at 1080p, huh?

---

Oh, and as for Ryzen somehow not being better for content creation, here you go;
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Ryzen 7 performs slightly ahead of mainstream i7's. Premiere is one of those that DID benefit greatly from IPC as opposed to cores, but it seems to be going the opposite way now so the gap is only going to get bigger in favour of Ryzen.

No, you misunderstand 13 im talking about iGouldz math those things were directed at him he had the math that made no sense I was more so backing you up, and saying based on iGouldz math that my 8370 would be better than an i7 based on how he was multiplying clock by cores I was simply saying that if that was the case then i wouldnt need an upgrade lol I know you cant compare a 8370 to a new i7. haha this was all just a misunderstanding

Yolo wrote No, you misunderstand 13 im talking about iGouldz math those things were directed at him he had the math that made no sense I was more so backing you up, and saying based on iGouldz math that my 8370 would be better than an i7 based on how he was multiplying clock by cores I was simply saying that if that was the case then i wouldnt need an upgrade lol I know you cant compare a 8370 to a new i7. haha this was all just a misunderstanding

Yeah, I got super confused for a couple minutes apparently lol. My bad. Still, I'm just going to leave all those benchmarks there to show how wrong he actually was.

13 wrote

Yolo wrote No, you misunderstand 13 im talking about iGouldz math those things were directed at him he had the math that made no sense I was more so backing you up, and saying based on iGouldz math that my 8370 would be better than an i7 based on how he was multiplying clock by cores I was simply saying that if that was the case then i wouldnt need an upgrade lol I know you cant compare a 8370 to a new i7. haha this was all just a misunderstanding

Yeah, I got super confused for a couple minutes apparently lol. My bad. Still, I'm just going to leave all those benchmarks there to show how wrong he actually was.

Lmfao yeah I think that will help him. It was actually so funny reading iGouldz posts cuz he didnt really know what he was talking about. "8800k"