Jump to content
chaz69

AMD 1800X OMG!!

Recommended Posts

looks like the  i3-7350K is the route to go if you're a FPS gamer on the cheap/midrange still

 

the best ryzen to buy for value is the 1700 --- overclocks well and is ~100usd cheaper?  ---  definitely buying a ryzen or the 32 thread version in the near future however, bargain if you're after compute power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hiikeri said:

My another 7700K (4c/8t) video. Wheres Ryzen 1440p 100fps+ videos?

 

My GPU is bottlenecking. :/

 

Hi, I just see this and jumped in game to record a short clip for you. The game just updated every server is on the new massive map so couldn't get a full server, however, I will do tomorrow.

 

1700 @ 3.9Ghz

GTX 1070 (Against your 1080)

2400Mhz RAM

 

My RAM is only at 2400Mhz and baring in mind Ryzen has a fairly large FPS jump with faster RAM, I have 3200Mhz being delivered tomorrow so I will also retest with that.

 

I normally play at 3440x1440 100Hz, but your video you posted was in 2560x1440 so in this instance I run the game on the same settings on epic.

 

As you can see it clearly can go above 100+fps with very un-optimization core loads, most is siting on only 2 cores. CPU load around 15-22%

 

 

I will run further tests shortly in different situations.

 

 

It is easy to pick and choose which part of the maps to go to gain FPS, the 7700k will beat a Ryzen due to its high clock speeds but by how much is to be seen. In the UK you can have a 1700 8c16t cheaper than a 7700k 4c8t, lose a small amount of frames to gain cores for other programs for less money is a trade off most people would do considering both CPU's get very playable FPS.

 

Maybe to get a real comparison, why not both of us go on the same map at same time and run together and see where they both sit. Will get a good example of where things are at for the community. If you want to add me to steam - scramz

 

 

Edited by Scramz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Scramz said:

 

Hi, I just see this and jumped in game to record a short clip for you. The game just updated every server is on the new massive map so couldn't get a full server, however, I will do tomorrow.

 

1700 @ 3.9Ghz

GTX 1070 (Against your 1080)

2400Mhz RAM

 

My RAM is only at 2400Mhz and baring in mind Ryzen has a fairly large FPS jump with faster RAM, I have 3200Mhz being delivered tomorrow so I will also retest with that.

 

I normally play at 3440x1440 100Hz, but your video you posted was in 2560x1440 so in this instance I run the game on the same settings on epic.

 

As you can see it clearly can go above 100+fps with very un-optimization core loads, most is siting on only 2 cores. CPU load around 15-22%

 

 

I will run further tests shortly in different situations.

 

It is easy to pick and choose which part of the maps to go to gain FPS, the 7700k will beat a Ryzen due to its high clock speeds but by how much is to be seen. In the UK you can have a 1700 8c16t cheaper than a 7700k 4c8t, lose a small amount of frames to gain cores for other programs for less money is a trade off most people would do considering both CPU's get very playable FPS.

 

Maybe to get a real comparison, why not both of us go on the same map at same time and run together and see where they both sit. Will get a good example of where things are at for the community. If you want to add me to steam - scramz

 

 

Pretty nice on GTX1070. Thx. I get on same map/situation/empty server ~150fps.

 

Btw, Firing Range is pretty static environment. My another "bench"-video. Average 155fps.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Hiikeri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2017 at 9:52 AM, Scramz said:

 

Hi, I just see this and jumped in game to record a short clip for you. The game just updated every server is on the new massive map so couldn't get a full server, however, I will do tomorrow.

 

1700 @ 3.9Ghz

GTX 1070 (Against your 1080)

2400Mhz RAM

 

My RAM is only at 2400Mhz and baring in mind Ryzen has a fairly large FPS jump with faster RAM, I have 3200Mhz being delivered tomorrow so I will also retest with that.

 

I normally play at 3440x1440 100Hz, but your video you posted was in 2560x1440 so in this instance I run the game on the same settings on epic.

 

As you can see it clearly can go above 100+fps with very un-optimization core loads, most is siting on only 2 cores. CPU load around 15-22%

 

 

I will run further tests shortly in different situations.

 

 

It is easy to pick and choose which part of the maps to go to gain FPS, the 7700k will beat a Ryzen due to its high clock speeds but by how much is to be seen. In the UK you can have a 1700 8c16t cheaper than a 7700k 4c8t, lose a small amount of frames to gain cores for other programs for less money is a trade off most people would do considering both CPU's get very playable FPS.

 

Maybe to get a real comparison, why not both of us go on the same map at same time and run together and see where they both sit. Will get a good example of where things are at for the community. If you want to add me to steam - scramz

 

 

Your video is VERY misleading as that was an empty server. This game scales very drastically with slots. You can get 200+ fps on an empty server with an i7. I dont think most people should be using your video as a reference because of that.

 

I have an 1800x @4ghz with a 4000mhz ram kit running at 3200 and I am barely scraping out 50fps on full servers on the lowest settings. Yeah 20% cpu usage is impressive but you forget the whole point of a gaming on a 16 thread cpu. It's the use the extra cores to perform better. If you only played squad, you're paying 300$ for sub 200$ cpu performance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/03/2017 at 5:57 AM, shankly1985 said:

Dont forget the past guys, remember when Dual Core and Single Core was King! Everyone said i7 Was pointless for Gaming and disable Hyper-Threading etc Now see the difference in modern title i5 vs i7

kek LOL.gif. There is literally no difference in terms of FPS in Squad between 6100-6500 Skylake working at 4.6 gHz and an 6700k Skylake working at the same 4.6 gHz(and pretty much in almost all games, with probably 1-2 exceptions where you will see 1-2% difference in FPS in favor to 6700k)... Because it is completely bottlenecked by IPC of a single core. i7 is still almost if not completely pointless for gaming. Disabling Hyper-Threading helps in Squad.

Edited by Skul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2017 at 7:50 AM, MDInteractive said:

Ryzen 1700X at stock vs 7700k in firestrike extreme physics, tested 1080, 2k, 4k.... with 24-26 percent difference.

 

But the same/loses on the combined test. I don't understand why though, since the Graphics are pretty much neck and neck, and the physics are so much in favor of the Ryzen... o.O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Psyrus said:

 

But the same/loses on the combined test. I don't understand why though, since the Graphics are pretty much neck and neck, and the physics are so much in favor of the Ryzen... o.O

 

Probably because physics makes so little contribution to the combined score performance. Benchmarks targeting specific areas don't really show overall performance just what they're capable of. I am sure if a particular program relied heavily on physics Ryzen would show a significant advantage. Benchmarks, especially specific ones, are just a guide. Even the combined benchmark might be pushing hardware differently than the program you've tailored your hardware for. People buying a new Ryzen machine for UE4 based games, at this time, won't see the benefits new intel based users will due to the game engine currently being cpu reliant and not yet able to multithread particularly well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two cents from an actual ryzen 1600x owner. I have mine OC'd to 4.1 Ghz with multi threading disabled as well as 2999Mhz on the memory clock, I get around 55 fps~ in nearly full to full servers. It is partnered with an R9 fury also slightly overclocked. Ryzen gets decent performance all in all. With UE4 properly patched for ryzen and/or multiple threads and cores, I have no doubt it will keep up with the other CPU's in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@John Lemon I'd love to see a screenshot of cpu/gpu usage in MSI Afterburner for Ryzen playing Squad. Preferably showing multicore cpu usage to get a better idea how its cores are being stressed. Interested how the gaming load is being distributed on the cores with such a new product and if Windows is loading the cpu the same as Intel yet. It might be an area Ryzen can get more gains in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for Ryzen core Usage id say it can`t get worse than CPU usage of an I7 6core Chip , 1 core max clock max usage rest downclocking and chilling thier life.

The posted FPS of 1800X and 1600X systems  are comparable to what i see on a  equal clocked 5820K , So Ryzen isn`t bad in terms of IPC ( not top notch Skylake but ok ) even the potential of an quad core isn`t used in sqaud you see basicly the same load distribution on an i5.

 

But i don`t see the point to buy a 7700k + board delid it , buy new socket adapter for Watercooler, oc to 5 ghz ,can`t use half of my ram casue only 4 Slots availid   just to play one 20 bucks EA title that`s outcome in the next year is totaly unpredictable with 60 FPs min.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×