Read more than eight words and you will see that he refers to DX9 and DX11 specifically, which of course benefit far less from more CPU cores. DX12 is generally a win for AMD. What's the problem?
The problem is clearly laid out in the OP. Pitiful that an i5 can be so thoroughly trounced yet moronic shills such as this author still go out of their way to make laughable attempts at rationalizing the defunct intel product.
Yay, we finally are at a point where AMD is a viable choice. It will be interesting to see what/if Intel fires back. If I was buying a new PC right now it would be a tough choice because I do a fair amount of HEVC encoding but am primarily a gamer.
Why did the i5-7600K get dropped from the majority of the benchmarks (or their results)? It seems rather odd to not report the data with the same set of CPUs for every benchmark.
Minor typo, but I believe in the Conclusion you mean to say " Looking at the results, it’s hard NOT to notice "
If you're going to be doing anything other gaming (and only 1080P gaming) then the Ryzen is a very good pick. When you're talking about video transcoding (one of my primary uses for my higher end computers) Ryzen 5 takes i5 to town.
Nice to see these chips tested with sensible gpu solutions. The GTX 1080 & above Nvidia cards (tho A.M.D. has yet to release anything as powerful) have been used by every site on the planet to test rysen chips; it took Jim on the adored TV youtube channel to actually show the lack of asynchronous compute hardware (which is not built in to Nvidia cards)and/ or the Nvidia drivers are actually knee capping rysen chips in 1080p game benchmarking, in DX 12, vs kaby lake i7's. Nvidia are just rubbish at DX12 for the money,and this will not improve no matter how many transistors they throw at it without assync compute hardware. Most experienced users I know are going to buy an R5 1600 (non X), clock it to 3.8 gig on all 6 cores,slap in an RX 580 when they drop to £200 ish, and not actually worry about benchmarks. It will game fine in 1080p compared to what they are running now. The whole i7 'gaming chip' argument is moot_ Until ~ 20 months ago, intel marketed i5's as gaming chips and the extra price on i7's was for a productivity edge. (5* consumer chips at a massive price hike,but they are a lot more pro work capable) I dont know anybody who uses a 7700K for anything, frankly. The whole system price thing has got beyond a joke.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
254 Comments
View All Comments
Maleorderbride - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
Read more than eight words and you will see that he refers to DX9 and DX11 specifically, which of course benefit far less from more CPU cores. DX12 is generally a win for AMD. What's the problem?farmergann - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
The problem is clearly laid out in the OP. Pitiful that an i5 can be so thoroughly trounced yet moronic shills such as this author still go out of their way to make laughable attempts at rationalizing the defunct intel product.Icehawk - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
Yay, we finally are at a point where AMD is a viable choice. It will be interesting to see what/if Intel fires back. If I was buying a new PC right now it would be a tough choice because I do a fair amount of HEVC encoding but am primarily a gamer.psychobriggsy - Wednesday, April 12, 2017 - link
If you do both at the same time, then the 1600's addition two cores and SMT will really help hide the effect on gaming from the encoding.Falck - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
Great review! Just another typo on page 3:"As the first consumer GPU to use HDM, the R9 Fury is a key moment in graphics..."
I think it's HBM?
Maleorderbride - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
Why did the i5-7600K get dropped from the majority of the benchmarks (or their results)? It seems rather odd to not report the data with the same set of CPUs for every benchmark.Minor typo, but I believe in the Conclusion you mean to say " Looking at the results, it’s hard NOT to notice "
Outlander_04 - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
Is there going to be a follow up article where you compare Ryzen performance when you use 3200Mhz RAM ?It does make a difference
psychobriggsy - Wednesday, April 12, 2017 - link
What's the cost differential of such RAM versus a more reasonable (when considering CPUs in this price range) option?trivor - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
If you're going to be doing anything other gaming (and only 1080P gaming) then the Ryzen is a very good pick. When you're talking about video transcoding (one of my primary uses for my higher end computers) Ryzen 5 takes i5 to town.Joe Shmoe - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
Nice to see these chips tested with sensible gpu solutions.The GTX 1080 & above Nvidia cards (tho A.M.D. has yet to release anything as powerful) have been used by every site on the planet to test rysen chips;
it took Jim on the adored TV youtube channel to actually show the lack of asynchronous compute hardware (which is not built in to Nvidia cards)and/ or the Nvidia drivers are actually knee capping rysen chips in 1080p game benchmarking, in DX 12, vs kaby lake i7's.
Nvidia are just rubbish at DX12 for the money,and this will not improve no matter how many transistors they throw at it without assync compute hardware.
Most experienced users I know are going to buy an R5 1600 (non X),
clock it to 3.8 gig on all 6 cores,slap in an RX 580 when they drop to £200 ish, and not actually worry about benchmarks.
It will game fine in 1080p compared to what they are running now.
The whole i7 'gaming chip' argument is moot_
Until ~ 20 months ago, intel marketed i5's as gaming chips and the extra price on i7's was for a productivity edge.
(5* consumer chips at a massive price hike,but they are a lot more pro work capable)
I dont know anybody who uses a 7700K for anything, frankly.
The whole system price thing has got beyond a joke.