Printable View
Wow,the Ryzen 5 1600 is more or less the same on average in the tests,and that is at 1080p using a GTX1080TI:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1450...n-5-hexa-core/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfNMn7RWgLw
http://i.imgur.com/KXWgowj.png
Edit!!
RAM is running at 3200MHZ for both systems.
Yes I watched this too and immediately tweeted Paulshardware / Bitwit to compare the two. Skylake - X seems to be a waste of time compared to Ryzen even in 1080p gaming.
get that ryzen, yo.
DF tests the Ryzen 5 1600/1600X against the Core i5 7600K:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...5-7500k-review
http://i.imgur.com/RgwBLib.png
http://i.imgur.com/DGQ6rNM.png
Quote:
The Witcher 3, Rise of the Tomb Raider and especially Crysis 3 love frequency of course, but they also benefit heavily from as many cores and threads as you can throw at them, with both Ryzen 5s offering a significant advantage over Intel's stock Core i5. Here, Ryzen 5 sits comfortably at a mid-point between Core i5 and Core i7. However, not everything is as it seems based on the numbers alone. Assassin's Creed Unity posts a lead on the i5, but when studying performance at the per-scene level, i5 is pulling ahead in relatively empty scenes in our benchmark, with Ryzen 5 performing better in areas packed with NPCs. There's the suggestion that the i5 frame-rate average is boosted by big performance gains in less useful, more 'empty' rendering scenes. Similarly, in the Crysis 3 benchmark, the i5 and indeed i7's scores are skewed higher when the viewpoint shifts to similarly sparse scenes.
We've got a complete breakdown of this behaviour in our video review, but the bottom line is that it's not just different game engines that can favour i5 or Ryzen 5 processors - it can actually vary on a scene-by-scene nature in many games. And of course, therefore, results can vary depending very much on what scenes are chosen for benchmarking.
To illustrate, The Witcher 3's Novigrad City - our test area - can easily max an i5 quad with 100 per cent utilisation across all cores, and Ryzen 5 is faster here. However, benchmark a less demanding area or an engine-driven cut-scene and the i5 takes the lead. We've tried to tailor our tests to concentrate more on these heavier workloads and for our money Ryzen 5 is the more versatile, capable performer in areas where the CPU matters most in gaming.
Quote:
But with the CPUs available to buy right now, Ryzen 5 1600 is our choice as the best mainstream gaming CPU on the market. And that's a simply phenomenal achievement - since the debut of the Core i5 2500K back in 2011, Intel's i5 K chips have earned their place at the heart of millions of users' gaming PCs. The Ryzen alternative is faster where it needs to be, better suited to more modern game engines, and comes across overall as a kind of hybrid of i5 and four-core/six-core i7s depending on how its resources are deployed. This is AMD at its best: innovative, disruptive and bringing about radical change in a static market, with a simply superb alternative product.
That's quite interesting - it reads like the i5 will often appear faster when you average a benchmark run due to higher FPS in the areas which are high FPS anyway, but Ryzen copes better when the i5 gets bogged down. TBH I recall something similar with Bulldozer too - while everyone+dog was doing 800x600 single player benchmarks, BD was actually better than many gave it credit for when it came down to it in big 64 player online battles in BF3 etc.
Once again a benchmark isn't as simple as looking at one number! Nvidia really pushed for frame time analysis when AMD have a frame pacing problem in crossfire, which pushed AMD to improve it - the same sort of comparisons need to be made for things like this.
More and more places are recommending Ryzen, and without the 'oh but...' caveats of previous generations. There's really nothing major left to criticise. As we've said before, it's great to finally have some competition back in the CPU market!
Ryzen does lag in some single thread items, which matters are some games still do not handle multi thread very well let alone 6 cores, not to mention the older games. Just my opinion that the clock speed is Ryzens biggest weak point.
That does not make the Ryzen 1600 a not buy however as it is around £190 whereas that i7-7800 is around £350 based on the prices and performance difference ( not to mention mobo prices) The Ryzen 1600 is a clear buy. I got one myself and I am quite happy with it, it out does my old i7-4700HQ.
Really amuses me that some anti Ryzen peeps says this intel is much better! But fail to mention how much more expensive it is. I know some people do not care much for price but I do, I need to squeeze every ounce of performance out of whatever £ I can save over the years for a new system ( yes it takes me years, last full new system was 2010). And for people like me the Ryzen 1600 is where it is at.