Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Ryzen 5 1600 vs Core i7 7800X 30 game battle

  1. #1
    Bows out! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hopefully somewhere less backstabby
    Posts
    28,789
    Thanks
    3,203
    Thanked
    4,456 times in 3,442 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Ryzen 5 1600 vs Core i7 7800X 30 game battle

    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/





    Edit!!

    RAM is running at 3200MHZ for both systems.
    Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 21-07-2017 at 02:26 PM.


    Those despicable Elk,stealing the pond weed!

  2. #2
    don't stock motherhoods
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,189
    Thanks
    724
    Thanked
    107 times in 92 posts
    • Millennium's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Z170 Pro Gamer ATX
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5 6600K @ 4.5GHz 4 core
      • Memory:
      • Corsair VPX 3000 DDR4 (16, 4*4)
      • Storage:
      • 500gb 850 Evo sata3 SSD, 2*2TB Green 5900 Raid 0
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI 390 8gb
      • PSU:
      • toughpower 1kw
      • Case:
      • Zalman Z3 Plus
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • VIEWSONIC VG2401MH 144hz (Solid)
      • Internet:
      • Origin ADSL Broadband, not really recommended.

    Re: Ryzen 5 1600 vs Core i7 7800X 30 game battle

    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.
    hexus trust : n(baby):n(lover):n(sky)|>P(Name)>>nopes

    how do you spend your time online? (Hexus link)

  3. #3
    Bows out! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hopefully somewhere less backstabby
    Posts
    28,789
    Thanks
    3,203
    Thanked
    4,456 times in 3,442 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: Ryzen 5 1600 vs Core i7 7800X 30 game battle

    DF tests the Ryzen 5 1600/1600X against the Core i5 7600K:

    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...5-7500k-review





    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.
    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.
    Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 08-08-2017 at 04:16 PM.


    Those despicable Elk,stealing the pond weed!

  4. #4
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    10,873
    Thanks
    1,503
    Thanked
    936 times in 806 posts

    Re: Ryzen 5 1600 vs Core i7 7800X 30 game battle

    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!

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Middle England
    Posts
    124
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts

    Re: Ryzen 5 1600 vs Core i7 7800X 30 game battle

    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.
    Honour in peace,

    A leprichaun talks to me....

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •