Windows 10: Intel should be very worried about AMD's Ryzen 7 processors

Are games really taking advantage of these cpu's. Maximum PC just wrote an article stating no difference in frame rates from lowly $80 intel cpus to core i5's and core i7's. That's right, no frame rate difference at all. .

 

You've made your disdainment for high end PCs highly known throughout your stay in these forums (7, 8, 10). I can point to a number of posts on that. That said, not everyone is interested in the everyday ho-hum PC. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

If one wants the most powerful chip for their systems to play games or do rudimentary tasks, why is that a problem? Heck, 99.9 percent of us don't take full advantage of the systems we have today. Should we all go back the old one core processors of yesterday and be happy?

The fact that Maximum PC states that means nothing to the masses considering Maximum PC HIGHLY promotes high end gear. That while they typically do budget setups, they also promote high end gaming systems as well. In fact, if you read some of the ratings on the gear they review or suggest, very little, if any on the low end side gets a high rating. I know, I read Maximum PC all the time. Maximum PC is simply playing both sides of the coin.

My two cents.

 

Too many are still taking single thread games as a point but that's not true any more. Try running BF1 for instance on a lowly dual core.

 

Exactly, today's games are not your grandfather's games of yesterday and are becoming incredibly complex. Here's a complete remake of Skyrim - Special Edition. Check out the system requirements...

Minimum
Windows 7/8.1/10 (64-bit Version)
Intel i5-750/AMD Phenom II X4-945
8 GB RAM
12 GB free HDD space
Nvidia GTX 470 1GB /AMD HD 7870 2GB

Recommended
Windows 7/8.1/10 (64-bit Version)
Intel i5-2400/AMD FX-8320
8 GB RAM
12 GB free HDD space
Nvidia GTX 780 3 GB /AMD R9 290 4 GB

And as any gamer knows, "recommended" is the new "minimum". And no one would max out Skyrim with those "recommended" specs and get decent frame rates throughout the game.

And, yes, though games are more optimized for GPU's than CPU's, some would cause a bottleneck with lower end CPU's than mid to upper end ones.

 

I think Game Developers have to create the games for the lowest end of the spectrum. I've read a lot recently saying that since multi core CPUs are becoming more common, the developers are starting to develope more games that will take advantage of the extra cores. It seems to me we are starting to see that now.

 

Just look at BF1 requirements.
Core i7-4790 4-Core 3.6GHz
FX-8350





Login


GeForce GTX 1060
Radeon RX 480 4GB





Login


4 GB





16 GB





Win 10 64

DX 11.1

50 GB
I couldn't even fire it up with my system
http://www.game-debate.com/games/ind...attlefield%201

 

I'll admit that most of what I do never touches most of the cores I have, but I do some things that use them all. Probably not enough to justify the cost though. But, I have just always prefered to have them and not need them to needing them and not have them.

 

That's why I'm waiting for mid range R5, 6/12 cores/threads, it should just about double the performance of my present processor.

 

Exactly. If you want to be able to play today's games, as well as tomorrows, in all their glory and eye candy, you'd better have both CPU and GPU to boot, otherwise you get a low grade gaming experience.

Ain't that the truth. And there aren't many of us here that'll be satisfied with minimum. And don't tell me about throwing money away. We all do it in some form or fashion. Some of us just prefer to waste it on a hobby we actually like *Smile

 

I don't have disdainment for high end PC's. Super flashy PC's are just not my thing, (case windows, lights, etc). But either way, the flashy part is just a personal preference, not a right or wrong and I don't intend to speak critically for anybody into that. If I have come off that way and offended anybody, I do truly apologize.

The point in my question, was the same point that Maximum PC was asking. Has the IPC (Instructions Per Cycle) increased enough in the past 5-6 years to mean that even lower end CPU's are far more capable than they are given credit for, especially in the gaming arena. The call they made, was that while previous rule of thumbs said a Core i5 was minimum and a Core i7 was better suited, today that really doesn't impact frame rates. The overall improvements in the lower end CPU's effectively allows them to product the same frame rates in today's games.

It's not a problem. But what if they are under the impression that they have to have a powerful chip to do those things? I'm guilty of it myself. I've always maintained to anybody who has asked that a Core i5 should be a starting point for a gaming rig. But perhaps today that advice is misleading.

It's most likely the power of the video card that truly has an impact on the games of today

I completely appreciate your 2 cents.

I'm for powerful PC's. That's part of the reason I am thinking of doing a Ryzen build depending upon how it really performs. Being a systems engineer for a living, I often run labs with multiple VM's. I'll often run a domain controller, (or 2), a SQL box, an Exchange box, 1-2 workstations, and some Linux boxes here and there. My limits are usually memory and IOPS (although SSD's have more or less made IOP's a thing of the past). I've also done video rendering from an old camcorder to video files. The more CPU I throw at that, the faster it goes. My son does some video editing for YouTube and more and more processing power is advantageous here as well.

My son's PC doesn't have a lot of flash, and it's only a Core i5, but it's using decent speed ram, it's fully modular power supply, it's a PCI Express based NVMe drive directly on the motherboard. It's not exactly a low end box. It really does run great. And with his games, a GTX 1060 is great enough.

 

Yes, you've made that clear.... a high number of times. That's the point. We get got it, you're not a fan. The problem is you're constantly making those comments and tend to come out sounding patronizing whenever someone talks about wanting a "Super flashy PC"... whatever that means, or PC parts. It's your consistency in this area that rubs.

At any rate, were getting off topic here. But I did want to address your comment on why a gamer might want to buy a high end processor vs. cheap $80 dollar one. Yet another why all the bling comment. And that does have to do with this thread.

And yes, we all have personal preferences. What's wrong with ours?

Peace *Cool

 

Has anyone looked at Ryzen from the motherboard's perspective? What of them? How do they stack against Intel based boards?

Just curious.

 

Nothing wrong with it.

Look at this thread, it became focused on how high system requirements are to play any of these games after my comments. I wonder if thats really true? Can a core i3 play BF1 with 8gb of RAM. Would changing over to a core i7 make it better for sure, as far as frame rates and lag goes? I think everyone will say yes, but is it really the case.

 

I made that single post to make the point that processors do matter where gaming performance is concerned. Speaking of which, did you check out this video? Notice how these faired in gaming. Point being processors do matter... whether AMD or Intel.

Also, notice his statement about the Ryzen processors (around the 8:45 mark) not allowing Titan X GPU to the same highs as the newer Intel i7 chips... that's a processor bottleneck.

[youtube]mW1pzcdZxKc[/youtube]

So yes, processor/processor performance does matter. The fact that Maximum PC demonstrated a low-end CPU could run games means nothing as my Intel i7-4790K's integrated GPU could game. How good is the performance is a different matter as demonstrated in the video showcasing the Ryzen chips. That said, I’ve not read the article to argue the finer points, but rest assured, I’ll look for it and read it.

 

Yes, I did watch this video earlier tonight. I've been keeping a close eye on this CPU for a potential future build. And yes, I did take note of the gaming comments made during the video.

It wasn't that Maximum PC was trying to say that a low-end rig "could" game. It said

They tested a Pentium G4600, a Core i3-7300, a Core i5-7600k and a Core i7-7700K. They used a Deus Ex Mankind divided Benchmark, a Rise of the Tomb Raider benchmark, a Far Cry Primal Benchmark and an Atilla: Total War benchmark.

Their conclusion stated

Perhaps it's the following causing the data to skew;

• They said, 1080p gaming. For those pushing 4k gaming to the edge, it's likely a different ballgame.
• Perhaps they used crappy benchmarks or games specifically that cannot make use of a processor correctly. Maybe the vast majority of all other games out there are way more CPU intensive.

It seemed a little shocking to me. Like I said above, I've always maintained to friends that if you are going to game, the sweet spot has been the Core i5. For those who asked if they need an i7, I've always asked what else they do with the computer and whether running everything maxed out is more of a requirement to them than running it smoothly.

I've not had the ability to test all of this myself, as my previous desktop build is a Core 2 Quad, Q9550 with a GTX 570. My Mac is a Core i5-4258u, but I cannot really game on my Mac running OSX. My sons Core i5-6500 is our really only modern gaming PC. And since I planned to game on it, I went with an Core i5 as I would have recommended to anybody.