saving the money
The 7700k and r7 1700 cost the same, if you're talking about midrange stuff then it's more complicated but the 6c12t ryzens are great all around CPU's
Forum Index > Tech Support |
Cyro
United Kingdom20155 Posts
saving the money The 7700k and r7 1700 cost the same, if you're talking about midrange stuff then it's more complicated but the 6c12t ryzens are great all around CPU's | ||
NovemberstOrm
Canada16217 Posts
On April 21 2017 22:42 ZeromuS wrote: So... for game performance, Intel is still better than Ryzen? I've seen people rave about ryzen for video encoding though. So if I want to upgrade my PC in the future, I should stick on the intel OC train? Or are they close enough in 3D gaming performance that its worth saving the money and going ryzen? While there is a difference between fps unless you only game, and want to spend more for a 7700k to get maximum frames than your best bet is the 1600. At this point getting an i5 is silly with the extra cores you get with Ryzen. Also when you're getting over 100+ frames losing a few isn't too much of a big deal, and if you play on a higher resolution the gap in performance lessens cause the gpu is doing more work. | ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20155 Posts
At this point getting an i5 is silly with the extra cores you get with Ryzen It still depends on where your priorities are, a $65 pentium will beat any Ryzen CPU for sc2/WoW FPS etc. It's not just flat out better in every way but there's a large MT performance gain and relatively small ST loss when you're comparing OC'd Ryzen (6c12t+) to stock Kaby (non-7700k) if you play on a higher resolution the gap in performance lessens cause the gpu is doing more work That's only true when the GPU is capable of even lower performance than one or both CPU's. Quick example: You might see two different CPU's get 45fps vs 60fps on 1080p, but when you run at 4k the graphics card will only do 20fps. You get 20fps on either system now. That has not improved your 45fps at all, it's actually just made the game performance worse. When the game is running slower than you want it to run because of CPU performance, the last thing that anyone generally wants to do is to make it run even worse by making another part of the system weaker than the CPU that isn't giving the desired performance. When you upgrade to a faster graphics card, you're now running 45fps vs 60fps again on 4k this time, hitting the limits of both CPU's again - the resolution hasn't magically made either of them faster | ||
Poopi
France12466 Posts
| ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20155 Posts
| ||
ZeromuS
Canada13372 Posts
On April 22 2017 06:07 Cyro wrote: It still depends on where your priorities are, a $65 pentium will beat any Ryzen CPU for sc2/WoW FPS etc. It's not just flat out better in every way but there's a large MT performance gain and relatively small ST loss when you're comparing OC'd Ryzen (6c12t+) to stock Kaby (non-7700k) Show nested quote + if you play on a higher resolution the gap in performance lessens cause the gpu is doing more work That's only true when the GPU is capable of even lower performance than one or both CPU's. Quick example: You might see two different CPU's get 45fps vs 60fps on 1080p, but when you run at 4k the graphics card will only do 20fps. You get 20fps on either system now. That has not improved your 45fps at all, it's actually just made the game performance worse. When the game is running slower than you want it to run because of CPU performance, the last thing that anyone generally wants to do is to make it run even worse by making another part of the system weaker than the CPU that isn't giving the desired performance. When you upgrade to a faster graphics card, you're now running 45fps vs 60fps again on 4k this time, hitting the limits of both CPU's again - the resolution hasn't magically made either of them faster I was thinking of getting an i7 next as I have an i5 atm. So if I was gonna get an i7 im better off with the higher end ryzen cpus in terms of maximizing my money? I do like to stream from time to time, and I currently use my laptop with a 3 series mobile i7 as my encoding machine. I could use my i5 machine for streaming and use the new processor for gaming. I play a lot of overwatch and still some SC2 now, so I'm less concerned about pure single core performance vs before. If this helps provide some context. | ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20155 Posts
I was thinking of getting an i7 next as I have an i5 atm. Which ones? So if I was gonna get an i7 im better off with the higher end ryzen cpus in terms of maximizing my money? For workloads that can utilize 16 threads efficiently, yes. For a general gaming system no.. or maybe The 1700x/1800x are also not worth paying the 21-52% more over the 1700 because they're basically the same thing | ||
Kafka777
361 Posts
Otherwise performance issues will be related to memory, graphic card, network settings or other settings. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13372 Posts
On April 24 2017 10:43 Cyro wrote: Which ones? Show nested quote + So if I was gonna get an i7 im better off with the higher end ryzen cpus in terms of maximizing my money? For workloads that can utilize 16 threads efficiently, yes. For a general gaming system no.. or maybe The 1700x/1800x are also not worth paying the 21-52% more over the 1700 because they're basically the same thing I was going to get a 6700K or 7700K Overclockable i7 that fits into a price range I can afford with a motherboard. I do like to dabble in video editing though, and I've been trying it out some more lately so it would be nice to have a computer that handles it a bit more efficiently than my current, older i5. For gaming at 1080 I know I dont NEED more than an i5, but if I am going to be getting a new motherboard and processor anyway, I can stretch my money further over time and have more capabilities if I go the i7 route no? | ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20155 Posts
Processors i5, i7 or Ryzen released in last 2 years do not constitute a bottleneck for sc2. They are all too fast for that. The fastest systems on the highest FPS settings cannot keep all frames above 1/60'th of a second in a high or sometimes even moderately high supply 1v1 battle. There are also large performance differences between stuff like Kaby and the earlier intel CPU's / Ryzen and from overclock vs stock, fast RAM vs slow RAM etc - so no, not fast enough :D ------ but if I am going to be getting a new motherboard and processor anyway, I can stretch my money further over time and have more capabilities if I go the i7 route no? Yeah, 7700k is basically just a better 7600k. No tradeoffs there | ||
Kafka777
361 Posts
The fastest systems on the highest FPS settings cannot keep all frames above 1/60'th of a second in a high or sometimes even moderately high supply 1v1 battle. There are also large performance differences between stuff like Kaby and the earlier intel CPU's / Ryzen and from overclock vs stock, fast RAM vs slow RAM etc - so no, not fast enough :D As I said, its not CPU that is the bottleneck in sc2. Each will give you over 120 f/s. The 60 f/s is the g-sync bug. Low frame rates do not result from processor speed but from software used, especially malicious software and various settings and other hardware. As to the 7700k and 6700k processors, they are just about the same. Unless you think you will notice a 2-3% difference that will be dilluted by the rest of your hardware. | ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20155 Posts
As I said, its not CPU that is the bottleneck in sc2. Each will give you over 120 f/s No, they won't. The CPU load is proportional to the amount of action, you can have 500fps in the first moments of a game and then effectively sub-60 during a high supply fight Increasing/decreasing CPU speed alone will change performance while other parts of the system such as graphics performance will not, hence CPU bottleneck The 60 f/s is the g-sync bug It's not related to g-sync at all As to the 7700k and 6700k processors, they are just about the same about +300mhz (~6.4%) so kinda, but a little better | ||
Poopi
France12466 Posts
On April 24 2017 23:55 Kafka777 wrote: Processors i5, i7 or Ryzen released in last 2 years do not constitute a bottleneck for sc2. They are all too fast for that. However, if you use any other software at the same time (like web browsers, especially chrome), skype, twitter etc, etc and especially if you stream and other background tasks at the same time then you should consider if you might need a high performance processor for your needs related to sc2. Otherwise performance issues will be related to memory, graphic card, network settings or other settings. I don't think so. Even tho I almost always play with Chrome open, I don't think that my playing conditions are always perfect, despite playing on a (albeit stock) 7700k with fast RAM (3200MHz). When I play a TvZ and we both reach 180+ supply with the zerg having a lot of lings, like 100+, it's not as easy to micro, so I am a bit salty that it will primarily affect me since I'm the T and I risk getting fungal'ed and stuff. (144Hz monitor) So I don't even want to imagine what it would feel like on Ryzen. edit: and I play with physics disabled, etc... every thing where CPU performance is affected I lower or disable. | ||
Kafka777
361 Posts
about +300mhz (~6.4%) so kinda, but a little better It has higher clock and lower power consumption - at the cost of efficiency. So no, its not 6.4% faster. I don't think so. Even tho I almost always play with Chrome open, I don't think that my playing conditions are always perfect, despite playing on a (albeit stock) 7700k with fast RAM (3200MHz). When I play a TvZ and we both reach 180+ supply with the zerg having a lot of lings, like 100+, it's not as easy to micro, so I am a bit salty that it will primarily affect me since I'm the T and I risk getting fungal'ed and stuff. (144Hz monitor) So I don't even want to imagine what it would feel like on Ryzen. edit: and I play with physics disabled, etc... every thing where CPU performance is affected I lower or disable You will notice the 7700k cannot handle memory faster than 2400 unless overclocked? You realize 3200 memory has higher latency than 2400 so in fact it is slower? Anyway - this will not make any difference really, if you have at least 16 gb ram. I use a lot of PC's and upgrade one at a time, my kids usually run into low frame rate problems with games, including sc2, which will run very well on an old 3 core sub 3 ghz processor. The only real problem I noticed is the way they use software - this has a significant impact - especially chrome browser - for whatever reason. They use up too much resources for other things. Some new software also takes up too much resources even if apparently it is not used, but works in background. Getting much better cpu helps, but it will not be as helpful as understanding hardware and software. | ||
Poopi
France12466 Posts
On April 25 2017 06:41 Kafka777 wrote: It has higher clock and lower power consumption - at the cost of efficiency. So no, its not 6.4% faster. Show nested quote + I don't think so. Even tho I almost always play with Chrome open, I don't think that my playing conditions are always perfect, despite playing on a (albeit stock) 7700k with fast RAM (3200MHz). When I play a TvZ and we both reach 180+ supply with the zerg having a lot of lings, like 100+, it's not as easy to micro, so I am a bit salty that it will primarily affect me since I'm the T and I risk getting fungal'ed and stuff. (144Hz monitor) So I don't even want to imagine what it would feel like on Ryzen. edit: and I play with physics disabled, etc... every thing where CPU performance is affected I lower or disable You will notice the 7700k cannot handle memory faster than 2400 unless overclocked? You realize 3200 memory has higher latency than 2400 so in fact it is slower? . It's not as simple as that, the 3200MHz memory is still giving better performances than most (or all?) 2400 ones. As for the 7700k handling faster memory, I hope you do realize it's just ticking a box in the BIOS in order to activate XMP profiles? My software is fine by the way. | ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20155 Posts
It has higher clock and lower power consumption - at the cost of efficiency. So no, its not 6.4% faster. The performance per clock is the same so 6.4% higher clocks is 6.4% more performance ----- You realize 3200 memory has higher latency than 2400 so in fact it is slower? 2400/15 = 160 3200/16 = 200 16 cycles at 3200mhz takes ~1.25x less time than 15 cycles at 2400mhz - that's the latency 3200/2400 = 1.33x which is the bandwidth improvement in a sustained transfer The RAM performance does impact sc2 framerate The game does run okay on lots of hardware, it just doesn't run great/amazing on anything and there is a wide range of performance between different cpu's | ||
Kafka777
361 Posts
It's not as simple as that, the 3200MHz memory is still giving better performances than most (or all?) 2400 ones. As for the 7700k handling faster memory, I hope you do realize it's just ticking a box in the BIOS in order to activate XMP profiles? My software is fine by the way. The processor is simply unable to handle faster memory - this is a known bottleneck. It does not matter if you activate XMP. 7700k is only able to handle 2400 according to specification (in turbo mode). If specification is true (and it is close enough) then you will only be able to utilize 3200 memory specifications if you overclock your processor. However, as I mentioned, you will not lose out much on this. Ram, speeds are about the same all around in real usage simply because the processor is the bottleneck. Now what they give you from all this advertising - journalist pages is just crap. | ||
Poopi
France12466 Posts
On April 25 2017 07:10 Kafka777 wrote: Show nested quote + It's not as simple as that, the 3200MHz memory is still giving better performances than most (or all?) 2400 ones. As for the 7700k handling faster memory, I hope you do realize it's just ticking a box in the BIOS in order to activate XMP profiles? My software is fine by the way. The processor is simply unable to handle faster memory - this is a known bottleneck. It does not matter if you activate XMP. 7700k is only able to handle 2400 according to specification (in turbo mode). If specification is true (and it is close enough) then you will only be able to utilize 3200 memory specifications if you overclock your processor. However, as I mentioned, you will not lose out much on this. Ram, speeds are about the same all around in real usage simply because the processor is the bottleneck. Now what they give you from all this advertising - journalist pages is just crap. Why do they show 1600 MHz on CPU-Z then? | ||
Kafka777
361 Posts
hy do they show 1600 MHz on CPU-Z then? I have no idea what you are referring to exactly. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13372 Posts
I'll keep an eye out for when a mobo bundle ends up existing :D Only need 1 gfx card slot, don't see myself doing 2 cards anytime soon. Thanks for the help friends. Or I could get a 6700k with mobo for only 620 hrmmmmm | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games tarik_tv49345 gofns17287 summit1g11704 FrodaN3345 Grubby2826 sgares639 shahzam586 ToD243 Mew2King108 Nathanias96 NuckleDu84 PPMD45 Organizations StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft 2 • musti20045 46 StarCraft: Brood War• RayReign 37 • rockletztv 26 • Kozan • Migwel • aXEnki • Poblha • intothetv • Gussbus • IndyKCrew • LaughNgamez Trovo • Laughngamez YouTube League of Legends Other Games |
Kung Fu Cup
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
PassionCraft
ESL Pro Tour
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
hero vs Soulkey
AfreecaTV Pro Series
Reynor vs Cure
[ Show More ] ESL Pro Tour
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
Sparkling Tuna Cup
ESL Pro Tour
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
|
|