Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Results of 8350, ryzen, and 6700k heaven.
hatefulpeace
Member UncommonPosts: 621
Thought some one might find the results of this interesting. I havent got my ryzen yet, so i tested a 1080ti on my 8350.
Which has 8gbs of ddr 3 1600 mhz ram.
Heaven score, running
Custom
Direct x 11
Ultra
Extreme
disabled
Disabled
x8 aa
windows
1920 x 1080
Stock on the graphics card, got me 3029, with a 1080ti and the amd 8350 or 120.2 fps.
I had a 1070 on it which got overclocked by 100 core, 400 ram, 2100ish. I sold the 1070 to my friend and he got 2600ish.
I overclocked the 1080 ti by 122 core 382 ram, and got 3201 or 27.1 fps
Which is werid, you would think the 8350 if it was bottle necked wouldnt get a better score if i overclocked the gpu. Doesn't make sense to me haha, since my friend had the same card, and got 2600 vs my 2100.
Anyways when My ryzen comes today, Ill update see if anything changes, and my friend is bringing his i7 6700k computer over, we will slap the 1080ti in that and see what we will see. My guess is the 6700k will get 4000, the ryzen 3800.
Gonna add a 4k benchmark from ultra settings, from shadows of mordor.
the overclocked 1080ti 122 382 ram and 8350 got
average 87, max 116, min 56
Which has 8gbs of ddr 3 1600 mhz ram.
Heaven score, running
Custom
Direct x 11
Ultra
Extreme
disabled
Disabled
x8 aa
windows
1920 x 1080
Stock on the graphics card, got me 3029, with a 1080ti and the amd 8350 or 120.2 fps.
I had a 1070 on it which got overclocked by 100 core, 400 ram, 2100ish. I sold the 1070 to my friend and he got 2600ish.
I overclocked the 1080 ti by 122 core 382 ram, and got 3201 or 27.1 fps
Which is werid, you would think the 8350 if it was bottle necked wouldnt get a better score if i overclocked the gpu. Doesn't make sense to me haha, since my friend had the same card, and got 2600 vs my 2100.
Anyways when My ryzen comes today, Ill update see if anything changes, and my friend is bringing his i7 6700k computer over, we will slap the 1080ti in that and see what we will see. My guess is the 6700k will get 4000, the ryzen 3800.
Gonna add a 4k benchmark from ultra settings, from shadows of mordor.
the overclocked 1080ti 122 382 ram and 8350 got
average 87, max 116, min 56
Comments
3235, no 1080ti over clock.
3518 with the same overclock as the other, or 139.7 fps.
overclocked for shadows of mordor are,
average 89.4, max 116, min 57
Max overclock was 3.7 with the stock cooler for ryzen 1700 i got, max oc for the 1080ti was 130 core, 500 memory. Final results were
140.1 fps
3530
min fps 38.4
max 267.9
Amd 8350 stock both gpu cpu Fps 120.2 score 3202 min 27.1 max 236.1
Overclocked 1080ti 127.1 3201 27.1 258.7
stock ryzen stock 1080ti 128.4 3235 29.7 248.6
Max oc ryzen Max oc 1080ti 140.1 3530 38.4 267.9
K my friend with 6700k.
Stock everything.
146.7
3696
33.7
316.30
Stock 6700 oc 1080ti
155.5
3917
34.4
322.9
We oc to 4.5 and it didn't change the score.
well i got 1469 in cinebench 15
the 6900k got 1578 according to this stock
https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/intel_6950x_6900k_6850k_cpu_review/9
Why is that funny Gdemami? It is all legit information. The 1700 at 3.7 is close to the 6900k as far as cpu bench scores, it falls short at 1080p gaming, because of the lower single core. It is better than a 8350 as far as that goes by some. At 4k since it is a gpu bottleneck, it doesn't matter if you have a 7700k, a 6950x, a 8350, 1800x, or a 1700, they all get the same fps, which atm is maxed at 60hz, because there are no 144 hz 4k anythings.
So if you need 200 fps at 1080, i suppose the 7700k would help you out. If you need 60 hz at 1080p it doesnt matter what cpu you have, if you ahve a 1080ti your getting 60 fps.
My friend is doing the cinebench on his 6700k, lets see. He got 892. So there you have it, you get lower cpu power if you need cores and threads, you will get 150 fps in 1080p. So we will say a 7700k is basically the same as the 6700k there isnt much difference. The 7700k costs 329, plus you need a cooler which is cheapest like 25 bucks. So 360 for a i7 7700k. The 1700 is 329.
The only person the 7700k, or 7600k helps is some one who has a 144hz 1080 monitor, or possibly a 1440 144 hz monitor, but i didnt do the test, so i dono.
Which i bet since the 6800k cant overclock much past 4.0 with out blowing up. Since it has 6 cores, I would assume the same is true for the ryzen 4 core. I bet it over clocks to 4.5-4.9 and if it does, it only costs 150 bucks, which will give the same performance of a 7700k at 190 less, cause it also comes with a cooler.
So that solves it for me. When you compare a 1700 oced to 3.7 that gets almost the same as a 6900k for 329, vs 1100. It is clear which wins to me, the AMD. When the Ryzen 4 core comes out, it will be the same thing. It will be half the price of a 7700k, but give 90-99 percent of the performance of the 7700k.
I guess that answers your recent "Why people think gaming is expensive?" thread...
But I did own a 6800k I blew up, for that one time I decided to run eve x 2 and stellaris, so i suppose if i get bored of Empyrion and starbound, It will help. I was pretty disappointed when I first saw those numbers lol. it was 550 for the cpu, mb, and ram, so now people know if you do 4k gaming, there is no real reason to upgrade from any previous intels, or a 8350.
It is a shame I live in the woods and only get 10mbps down and 1mbps up through 4g lte, or I could host my server on this.
Also gonna redo it now, I reinstalled windows, and got 1609 in r15 cinibench vrs 1400.
However there is nothing wrong with dropping a lot more on your hobby. Hobbies aren't about being practical and cost efficiency but doing/having things we enjoy and I bet you feel great about your new toy(I know I would
Or 3000Mhz with manually setting the timings written on the stick/website for the default 3200Mhz speed.
However that's only if you have 2x8GB, and with the newest beta bios (though i wouldn't recommend flashing bios just yet, and if you do please do not do it from windows, it will definitely brick the board).
If you however have 2x16GB or 4x8GB, well gonna have to wait for the new AGESA code bios (mobo manufacturers got the code yesterday so it should hit within a week or so)
BTW maybe you're lucky with the ram sticks and could try to run the 2666MHz D.O.C.P profile, who knows
If you do some cpu speed overclocking please download Hwinfo64 and pay attention to the temps listed between cpu+motherboard temps and VDDCR CPU voltage to see if your VRMs are frying.
3.6-3.7Ghz with memory at 3000Mhz should give you up to 1800-1850 depending on timings.
i definitely wouldn't flash any bios just yet, but in the case you do follow this order to minimize chance of bricking the board :
Clear the CMOS, reboot, set optimized defaults, and then reboot again. Full power down, and then flash your UEFI from usb stick inside EUFI(bios)
Anandtech http://www.anandtech.com/show/9793/best-cpus (which agrees with @Gdemami 's i5 comment)
or Tomshardware http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-vs-intel-kaby-lake-gaming,4977.html
which compares performance in a series of games giving rise to http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html (which also agrees with Gdemami's i5 comment)
The way things are going though - with Intel adding HT to their Kaby Lake Pentiums (the G4560) and unlocking their Kaby Lake i3 (the i3-7100) will we even need an "i5" (or AMD equivalent) in a year or so?
To quote from the Anandtech link:
"The G4560 has a list price of $64 (retails at $80) and runs at 3.5 GHz - that's a dual core Kaby Lake processor only 900 MHz off of the top Core i7 for less than one-fifth of the price".
I wouldn't say G4560 is a threat to i5 since the resources of full 4 cores make a difference and G4560 might get deeper drops in minimal framerates at times.
i3 was already respectable budget CPU and G4560 makes it even (hilariously) better option.
As for Ryzen 5/3...I will wait for benchmarks but basing on R7 data available, I am skeptical. Even if it would maintain same per core performance, I am expecting it will be still slower than i5, for about the same price.
Thus my expectations are the performance between G4560 and i5 with price much closer to the latter CPU and that does not seem to be a very good spot, imo - especially considering how wide the price gap between intel CPUs now is.
Quite the same story when FX was released...
Well, in worst case scenario, at least there will be some alternative, albeit possibly not a great one.
For instance go like this :
For starters just re-enter every voltage as it is on stock ( if your ram is 1.35v default then set 1.351v like in the guide, and set the timings as yours are, and try 3 different settings for last timing 34,35,36.
For instance if your memory is 16-18-18-35, try also 16-18-18-18-35/17-18-18-18-35 and 34/35/36 variations at the end
Not suggesting the G4560 is a challenge to an i5 - although it is a very powerful processor for the list price now that Intel have "unlocked" their artificial restriction.
What I am suggesting is that today a Kaby Lake i5 (ditto the AMD alternative as and when its out) is perfcatly fine for most games.
Extrapolate forward 12 months and consider CannonLake.
Intel hasn't released much but from what they have said its not unreasonable to see a CannonLake i3 matching a Kaby Lake i5. at which point we will be talking about an i3 being fine for games. Now maybe Intel will add a few locks etc. which might delay it.
And this is not an Intel vs. AMD thing since - assuming AMD roll out equivalent cpus - the same will apply. Basically Intel and AMD cpu's are adding "power" faster than game developers need it. Which means "we" don't need to be focusing on "the most powerful cpu available" with one eye on an upgrade within 12 months. As it used to be.
then go in and set ram timings to 18-18-18-18-36(35) save and exit and see if it's working with auto speeds, then set 2133Mhz speed and go on from there raising to 2400Mhz and 2666Mhz to see if it boots, and run 15 min of realbench and double check timings with cpu-z
If it doesnt work going backwards like this and setting the actual speed last, you have to unfortunately wait for new bios with the agesa microcode:(
Stock everything.
146.7
3696
33.7
316.30
Stock 6700 oc 1080ti
155.5
3917
34.4
322.9
That G cpu would get the same fps as a 1700 in any game that could only use 2 cores. Since by the looks the single core rank is the same as a 1700.
At 4k though, I doubt there would be any difference. Considering heaven at 4k only uses 2 percent of the 1700. So at 4k in till a GPU can bring the FPS I guess up to 100+, the best cpu for money ,just gaming, playing one game and nothing else at a time. The G processor wins.
As far as the i3 goes this is from Tomshardware's March cpu recommendations linked abov@hadz
"There’s only one variable complicating the Core i5-7500’s position: a new Core i3-7350K, Intel’s first overclockable Core i3. The company apparently listened to enthusiast feedback about the Pentium G3258 and created a quad-threaded model better able to handle modern games. That’s great and all, except the -7350K sells for $190. Until we have more data, we’re favoring the more expensive quad-core chip, rather than hanging our hopes on big overclocks to compensate for fewer on-die resource@hadz
So it is clearly on the radar. One reason behind my Cannonlake i3 comment.
@hatefulpeace we don't know about Ryzen 6 yet. We don't know much about Cannonlake yet either except for the minimum 15% faster.
Like I said though this isn't an Intel vs. AMD thing - or Qualcomm, Samsung or ARM thing for that matter. The bottomline is that "most gamers" no longer need the top of the range "gaming cpu". Doesn't mean you can't get a "faster" cpu is you wish and want to spend more. I have an NVidia Shield TV for streaming for example which is massively overpowered for the task! (Usually compared to a 1980s supercomputer!)
Thinking back there used to be "graphics workstations" - more powerful desktops at much higher prices for people whose work involved ........graphics! I'd forgotten about those until now.
The only part I bought that I have 0 regrets on is the 1080TI, that in heaven gets 48% faster at 4k than a 1080, and it only cost me 710 vs the 1080 I first had ordered and canceled which came to 580 after tax. I kinda feel the ryzen was a waste of money, I will more than likly just sell it in a few weeks, and prolly by a i5.
I must of got unlucky in the chip lottery, because it took a voltage of 1.46 to get it semi stable, but it still wasnt enough to run prime. Since my 3.6 is stable, at 1.248 volts and there is 0 difference in gaming between 3.6 and 4.0 I will just leave it at 3.6, and not waste money on a different cooler that will get me nothing in return.