Not really. I have the same processor, and I think it's far too early to upgrade it for gaming.
I was browsing Anandtech, and I thought this was a funny "meanwhile at Intel" moment
I know it's a server processor, etc etc
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AMD Ryzen CPUs will launch by March 3
- Thread starter TC McQueen
- Start date
Not really. I have the same processor, and I think it's far too early to upgrade it for gaming.
I was browsing Anandtech, and I thought this was a funny "meanwhile at Intel" moment
TheGreyHulk
Member
Please OC well. If their chips can OC to the mid 4's, intel will have to drop prices or something.
I hope AMD delivers big with Ryzen. I need to upgrade and dont want to have to buy another CPU for another 8 years or so.
Shit those benchies look promising. Need them actual benchmarks for games tho.
I hope AMD delivers big with Ryzen. I need to upgrade and dont want to have to buy another CPU for another 8 years or so.
Shit those benchies look promising. Need them actual benchmarks for games tho.
CreepingFear
Member
I'll wait to see what PCper and Anandtech have to say. Hoping for the best. We need competition.
LelouchZero
Member
What games do you play and do you do anything CPU intensive besides gaming?
For 60 fps gaming the i7 4790K is pretty solid and is capable of pushing over 60 fps in most CPU intensive titles, I have mine at 4.8GHz with 16GB of 2400MHz ram and 60 fps gaming is a lock with the exception of GTA V's Extended Draw Distance above 50% where you can see drops below 60 in crowded areas.
But if you're targeting 120/144 fps in CPU intensive games such as Battlefield 1 a 6+ core i7 and likely a 6+ core Ryzen CPU will pull away and see higher frame-rates as that game scales past 4 cores. For 120/144 fps gaming a 6+ core CPU would be desirable in the games that scale past 4 cores.
EDIT: Although it's worth noting that something like a 6700K/7700K with 3000MHz+ ram appears to be able to target 120/144fps in that game fairly well, especially when overclocked.
EDIT: I tested GTA V again and it seems that 30% and above is troublesome, the faster memory available on DDR4 based platforms and the higher IPC of the Skylake processors should be very beneficial, possibly the same for Ryzen CPUs as-well.
Yeah, bought it last year. Bought it mostly because I didn't see AMD making an exit and I could piss away the money I put into it in a worse case. I only put a small percentage of my portfolio in it, and now that small bit of money has turned into something quite a bit more. I kinda kick myself occasionally for not putting more in it and selling a chunk of it when I saw it hit 100%, though. I had made some small 10-20% trades of AMD in the past when it was on its way down, too.
mordecaii83
Member
Well shit, with these leaks it looks like I'll be upgrading from my 5820k sooner than I ever thought I would... that 1800X looks amazing if it benches as well as the leaks are saying!
I haven't been able to play the games I wanted because I just got the 4790K (this week, on a great deal, at an auction) with a Z97 board and DDR3 1866 ram.
The GPU I pair it with is my "old" one I bought used, on a budget, the GTX 770.
So right now all I'm playing is Overwatch and Dark Souls 3, but I can't play Witcher 3 as well as I'd want with that GPU, nor any other graphically intensive game (like Witcher 3, Battlefield 1 probably, and the ones I'm waiting forward to the most: Cyberpunk 2077 and Star Citizen).
LelouchZero
Member
Ah I see. I would prioritize a GPU upgrade, if you're targeting 60 fps gaming you're pretty much set for a good while in most games unless something comes out and really hammers the CPU.
Alright thanks.
That's what I'm actually scared of: next gen games (Cyberpunk 2077/Star Citizen) being demanding on the CPU and scaling very well with newer ones.
(Under spoiler because it's unrelated to the thread)
PS: the computer I got is a 4790K (with a Noctua NH-U12P on it) on an Asus Z97-A, with 2x8GB Corsair Vengeance 1866Mhz, a GTX 660, a 256GB SSD + 1TB HDD, all of that (+case and PSU) for 300€, which I can probably sell on a profit before Ryzen comes out, that's why I'm hesitating.
PS: the computer I got is a 4790K (with a Noctua NH-U12P on it) on an Asus Z97-A, with 2x8GB Corsair Vengeance 1866Mhz, a GTX 660, a 256GB SSD + 1TB HDD, all of that (+case and PSU) for 300€, which I can probably sell on a profit before Ryzen comes out, that's why I'm hesitating.
Nostremitus
Member
With the price difference here, you could buy a backup dGPU and still come out cheaper.
Holy shit, I hadn't heard of that. AMD was at like 1.62 in July 2015, 1.9 in February 2016 and right now it's 13.13.
Shouldn't be that surprising, but wow. Feels like yesterday people were asking themselves if we were going to see a world without AMD.
LelouchZero
Member
60 fps isn't much of an issue for 4 core 8 thread Haswell and up CPUs at the moment providing you've paired the CPU with fast memory and it's at 4GHz+ But I don't know how much more CPU intensive newer games will become in the next 2 years. There will be more games which scale past 4 threads though.
If you can sell it on for a profit and it makes you comfortable to get a 6+ core Ryzen or Intel CPU go for it, you'll probably be able to sit on a 6+ core CPU for 5 years with ease, especially the 8 core, just look at the i7 2600K. Admittedly it was released over 2 years before the current generation machines launched which have CPUs which pale in comparison which possibly only did it favors.
I don't really see these CPUs struggling any-time soon to hit 60 fps unless the PC version has significant enhancements over the console version which hammer the CPU and takes advantage of the processing power available, in which case you could possibly reduce some CPU intensive settings to target 60 providing the game scales in that aspect.
Rushersauce
Banned
Wow, you got it for an amazing price. Gratz, it's an amazing CPU
Same, might replace my 5820k @ 4.4GHz for a 1700X / 1800X if it OC's well.
KojiKnight
Member
Just remember the ol' stock market rule. But on rumor, sell on news. Even good news is likely to drive that price down to a more reasonable level. Nothing balloons that much that fast without at least some correction.
Finaika
Member
6700k is still a beast.
dr_rus
Member
It adds quite a lot to the final cost as it's about 1/3rd of, say, desktop Skylake die:
And funnily enough that's almost exactly what adding another 4 cores to that die would require:
Why Intel left this obvious hole in their lineup for so long is beyond my understanding. But now they'll get hit into it with force by Ryzen.
Unlikely. 4790K is one of the fastest gaming CPUs out there. Unless all games from now on will be perfectly scaled to 8 cores, it will still be faster due to its clocks and IPC than even my 6850K.
exmachina64
Banned
AMD's back, baby! Always bet on Keller!
KojiKnight
Member
Yes, single core performance within 10% of Intel's top line. 6 and 8 core processors will be mainstream priced, and comparable processors between the two are going to be 150+ cheaper in most price points.
Do we know anything about the new motherboards yet? Specifically, are we getting any Mini-ITX ones?
I'm in the process of buying parts for a new rig, but I'm yet to buy a motherboard, processor or GPU. At this point I think it would be stupid to ignore Ryzen, but I'll be building into a Node 202 and I'd love to have the chance to go Ryzen. Needs the right motherboards though I guess..? I'm guessing the H170 Mini-ITX motherboard I had planned for my build won't support Ryzen.
I'm in the process of buying parts for a new rig, but I'm yet to buy a motherboard, processor or GPU. At this point I think it would be stupid to ignore Ryzen, but I'll be building into a Node 202 and I'd love to have the chance to go Ryzen. Needs the right motherboards though I guess..? I'm guessing the H170 Mini-ITX motherboard I had planned for my build won't support Ryzen.
Unknown Soldier
Member
You probably should have put $5,000 of your money in it anytime in 2016. As of right now you are super late to this party and your odds are even of either losing your shirt or doubling your money by 2017.
Good luck.
kraspkibble
Permabanned.
It adds quite a lot to the final cost as it's about 1/3rd of, say, desktop Skylake die:
And funnily enough that's almost exactly what adding another 4 cores to that die would require:
Why Intel left this obvious hole in their lineup for so long is beyond my understanding. But now they'll get hit into it with force by Ryzen.
Unlikely. 4790K is one of the fastest gaming CPUs out there. Unless all games from now on will be perfectly scaled to 8 cores, it will still be faster due to its clocks and IPC than even my 6850K.
would it be easy for intel to ditch the iGPU and stick another 4 cores in there? i think i3's should have an iGPU but i5/i7 should not. or at least remove it from the K models.
Er yeh Intel boards don't support amd CPUs.
AMD is delaying ITX boards on the CPU launch. They will come out later.
Deathknell
Member
I really hope AMD delivers big with Ryzen.
So i can buy intel next i7 6-8 cores.
So i can buy intel next i7 6-8 cores.
DonMigs85
Member
Reminds me of my friend who tried to jam a Pentium II cartridge into a Socket 7 board
Hah.
I know that's a dumb question but hey, this is the first time I've even had to consider AMD. I know mixing and matching isn't a problem for GPU's and I think I knew it wasn't for CPU's but just wanted to confirm.
Hopefully we'll know by the beginning of March when the ITX Ryzen boards are coming even if it's not straight away.
Biggest difference is that the pins are on the AMD CPU whereas the pins are on the Intel motherboard socket.
Aye, cheers. As I say I think I did know that, hence why the CPU and Motherboard are the last two components I'm picking up for my build and won't be buying until the Ryzen picture is clearer, as I assumed I'd need both hand in hand. Guess I just needed to check I wasn't missing anything.
Very easy, and they charge you up the wazoo for the privilege because nobody can get close.
As someone who only just got a 6700k in the middle of last year, the performance of these AMD chips if accurate and successful will finally force Intel to stop bending people over for more than 4 cores.
Hell, I don;t even want an iGPU, I have a 980ti.
With a bit of luck they might offer something soon with 8 cores and no iGPU for not a wholly unreasonable sum of money.
Intel has CPUs that are more or less exactly that.
But only on their enthusiast platform.
DonMigs85
Member
Socket 7 actually did support both AMD K6 and the first Pentium P5 chips. It was the only socket to ever support both company's products.
There are already some games - like Dishonored 2, Watch Dogs 2, and Deus Ex: Mankind Divided - which struggle to stay above 60 FPS at all times on a 4c/8t i7.
It's looking increasingly likely that newer games will start requiring at least 6c/12t if not 8c/16t to stay above 60 now.
The only question in my mind is whether Ryzen have fast enough per-core performance and memory bandwidth/latency to manage this, or if it will still require an Intel CPU.
I mean, that's not strictly true.
Intel's top of the line performer for single-core performance is an i7-7700K which has 4c/8t and should hit 5GHz+
I really can't see Ryzen's overall per-core performance being competitive with that.
It will be interesting to see how Ryzen performs in games like ARMA.
People are comparing Ryzen to the 6950X, which is Intel's most expensive non-server CPU, but one which sacrifices single-core performance and clockspeed for better multithreaded performance with 10c/20t, which is two architectures old at this point (Broadwell) and priced so high simply because there was no competition.
It's fine to look at this and say that Ryzen is better value than Intel - that much is certain.
But it doesn't necessarily mean that Ryzen is going to beat Intel when it comes to gaming performance - where the 7700K is on top for the majority of games, not the 6950X.
If Intel release a 6-core Coffee Lake chip at the same price or less than an 1800X, that's almost guaranteed to be a better performer in games.
HEDT chips are more than just the regular desktop chips with more cores in place of the iGPU. They're much bigger dies, and are basically server parts with a few minor changes.
But I do hope that Ryzen pushes Intel to release consumer CPUs with more cores in place of the iGPU.
Exciting times ahead.
LelouchZero
Member
Really? I'd like to see this, do you have any sources for this? I have Deus Ex: Mankind Divided but I haven't played too far into it to get into a really CPU intensive area but so far what I've played has been a locked 60 fps on my PC, I was quite impressed with how it performed actually.
Mankind Divided scales very well with more cores/threads.
Unfortunately most of the performance testing I can find was done at launch, and is often GPU-limited.
However GameGPU shows how well it scales:
While that 6700K is not at 100% CPU usage in their test, there are areas later in the game where I guarantee it will hit 100% across all cores and cause the game to drop below 60 FPS - which won't happen on a 6 or 8 core CPU with similar per-core performance.
TatteredHat
Member
It's kind of amazing to see the performance comparisons and how much Intel has been fucking over customers due to having no competition.
If these benchmarks turn out to be true, I might even end up getting a 1700/1700X instead of a 1600X just to show AMD my support. Do we know what the difference is between the normal and X varieties of the CPUs yet? Is it just overclockable vs. non-overclockable again?
If these benchmarks turn out to be true, I might even end up getting a 1700/1700X instead of a 1600X just to show AMD my support. Do we know what the difference is between the normal and X varieties of the CPUs yet? Is it just overclockable vs. non-overclockable again?
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Be great to have a fire lit under their arse in pricing, but in perf and process node terms it seems like this is AMD catching up rather than pulling ahead. I'm still expecting depressing 5% increases per gen, just with AMD competitive instead of a total laughing stock.
I'm not sure I see your point. There aren't really many architectural differences between HEDT CPUs and consumer CPUs. More cache, more memory channels, and more PCIe lanes, but the CPU cores themselves are pretty much the same.
Delusibeta
Banned
At the very least, wait until Ryzen is out. I'll expect AMD's stock price to drop when Ryzen's reviews go out, regardless of the contents of said reviews.
From what I understand the big difference is that the x variants have amds auto overclocking software built into them that scales the cpu up automatically to whatever your thermal setup can take. Unofficially people have been thinking there's probably an edge in the Silicon lottery game for X variant buyers vs non x versions as well with AMD putting their fingers on the scale for the X versions, but I don't think AMD have said anything about that.
Dream_Journey
Member
Looks promising, can't wait for real benchmarks, especially with high demanding CPU games, cmon AMD!
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Between the 1700 and 1700X is likely XFR support and the former not having it. Appaently all the 'X' Ryzen's have XFR. It stands for eXtended Frequency Range and means if you have a Ryzen with it, it'll run at as high a frequency as your cooler (and motherboard) will allow without you having to overclock it manually (should be able to disable this feature in bios I reckon).
There is also the increased frequency at stock for the 1700X, and it stands to reason that because of its XFR feature it will overclock better than a 1700.
Right but they are a lot more expensive to produce due to the increased die size and binning required to keep the TDP lower.
I'm not saying that the pricing hasn't got out of hand with them, but AMD are able to sell Ryzen at a much lower cost because it's a smaller die with a lot less connected to the CPU. (Fewer PCIe lanes, memory channels etc)
The HEDT chips are not really comparable to what AMD is doing with Ryzen.
But if Intel were to remove the iGPU from their mainstream chips and replace that with more cores - as they may be doing with Coffee Lake - that should be more comparable in terms of cost and complexity.
Ah, I agree if you put it that way.
First CPU-Z screenshot of Ryzen CPU leaked
Ryzen 5 1600X:
6800K@4GHz:
Hype rising.
This is a bit offtopic here and can derail the thread -) but from what is happening for the last couple of years it's pretty clear that they don't intend to - their way of "fixing" this is to promote the usage of DX12 and VK APIs where the actual fixing is down to developers.
My 7700k at 4.9Ghz get 2455 single core, 10609 multi core.
This is why we can't have nice things.