Ryzen 1600/1700 performance on WoW

[Holofernes]

the amd stuff is excellent and future proof. It gets better all the time. Paired with 3.2 ghz cl 14 ram my 1700 system fucks over all i7s with ease. Yes you might have 2- 3 % fps less when using a Ultrafast graphiccard, but the difference is really 120: 125.

My xperience wiht Ryzen 7: no matter what u do, u always have reserve on a ryzen system. U can stream 60 fps , record movie of gameplay via software capture , run simulationcrafts, and raid with 28 man into tomb hc all at the same time wihtout any stutter or noticable fps proc at ultra max details.
Intels 4 cores might give you a few more fps in some situation, because they tick faster, but if u start tasking your system with anything else that requires some computing power while gaming, u really notice how little reserve those have: they run at 100% and have nothing left. Ryzen runs at 10-12 % while raiding in wow, and doing other stuff is like nvm.

There are many fanboys and stuff like this. But i can tell you one thing. U wont notice a difference in older games that only use 1-2 cores between i7 and ryzen. But u notice a difference in the modern and more future games that are all 8 core+ optimized.

Most benchmarks are from games that are 3-5 years old, dont run on directx 12 and are using max 4 cores. Thats where the "i7 beats ryzen" stuff comes from.

Now all new consoles have 8 cores, so all games will at least need 8 cores to run decently.

And: if u dont use a VERY fast (and expensive) graphicscart (those that cost 800 EUro +), there is no difference in all those intel optimized games from the past to the ryzen. With higher frequency ram (3ghz+), Ryzen actually beats the i7 on pretty much every modern game in benchmarks.

[Tiberria]

Which is fine, as it still delivers enough performance for almost any game (if not every game), but it's pointless to buy one over Intel if you're only really playing games like WoW.

But, that is really only looking at how things are performing now. Most people stay on the same chipset/motherboard setup for 3-5+ years at this point. Since Intel is moving their Coffee Lake 7700k replacement CPUs over to 6-8 core CPUs and XBox and PS are also on 8 core CPUs, it isn't really a stretch to foresee the lack of cores on the 7700k making it a liability well within that 3-5 year cycle, if not 18-24 months down the road. What do you do when that happens? You're pretty much stuck replacing your CPU, motherboard and maybe even RAM, because there is no upgrade path from the 7700k.

Meanwhile, with Ryzen, the gaming performance - especially on anything 1440p+ is 100% acceptable on any current tier game to the point that you wouldn't notice the difference (and a lot of people are reporting 6+ core systems feel smoother when doing anything else in the background regardless of what benchmarks say). You then have the 8 cores/16 threads to ensure you maintain that performance if/when games continue to be more multithreaded in the future. And, if that doesn't work out and the IPC deficit of Ryzen becomes a problem for current tier gaming in 2-3 years? Future CPUs are expected to be on AM4 for another 4 years, so you can almost certainly just fix it with a CPU upgrade. To me, that seems like the best of both worlds.

Basically, I would sum it up as.
- If you want the absolute fastest gaming platform/FPS for the next 12-18 months and aren't concerned about the 2-5 year path, and don't care about additional media applications/multitasking, etc, either because you upgrade constantly or can afford full rebuilds whenever you want, go 7700k.
- If you're building a system to last you for the next 3-5 years, and give you more future proofing and future upgrade path compatibility, go with a Ryzen 1700/1700x/1800x.

[Karon]

I'm waiting tests with 7800x and the upcoming coffelake esacore in August/September too

New build in 2017 with a quadcore is ridiculous imho ^^

because games from 2017 use 8 or more threads amirite?

[Fascinate]

because games from 2017 use 8 or more threads amirite?

Some do actually. The point he was making i assume is that most people keep their PC's for a long period of time. I just built a ryzen PC but before that was a system i put together in 2011, had it almost 6 years. Intel has made such incremental performance leaps in that time span amd put the hammer down with 8 core CPU's for 300 dollars. Before ryzen hit no one was criticizing intel for charging 1000 dollars for 8 core CPU's, funny how this all works heh.

[Deleted]

because games from 2017 use 8 or more threads amirite?

Modern games are using hardware better compared to older games, people need to stop looking at games from 5 years ago.

However, the closer PC begin to resemble consoles, the better optimised games will be, right now consoles are 8 cores on the CPU.

[Fascinate]

People should be comparing ryzen to broadwell E, that is what intel had when they released. Comparing gaming performance between ryzen and kaby lake is also unfair. Ryzen can match or beat a 6900k in most things, a thousand dollar CPU intel released barely a year ago. Intel then had to knee jerk react to ryzen with skylake x by pumping a ton more power into those chips to get clocks up, they knew ryzen had broadwell E by the nuts. Skylake x is now of course faster with the higher clocks, but at literally twice the price lol.

Ryzen is honestly a no brainer except for well off people who can spend 3k on a PC without blinking an eye.

[Barnabas]

People should be comparing ryzen to broadwell E, that is what intel had when they released. Comparing gaming performance between ryzen and kaby lake is also unfair. Ryzen can match or beat a 6900k in most things, a thousand dollar CPU intel released barely a year ago. Intel then had to knee jerk react to ryzen with skylake x by pumping a ton more power into those chips to get clocks up, they knew ryzen had broadwell E by the nuts. Skylake x is now of course faster with the higher clocks, but at literally twice the price lol.

Ryzen is honestly a no brainer except for well off people who can spend 3k on a PC without blinking an eye.

Kaby lake is kind of a waste also. Cannon lake is the better future option since it's kaby lake on a process shrink. For me I won't upgrade until 7nm or 10nm offerings.

[Barnabas]

What this guy said.

There is literally nothing you can do to boost performance in this game. Legion is the most poorly optimized expansion/game Blizzard has ever released. Not even Diablo 3 was this bad on launch and they haven't fixed a single thing about it. On the official forums myself and 100s of others had a 50+ page thread going reporting our findings and they promised optimization was coming in 7.1. They fixed nothing.

I run a fairly old CPU at this point but my rig is solid:

i7 4790 at 4.0Ghz.
GTX 1080
32GB DDR3 2100.

I get the exact same stats. Valsharah and Suramar have been dogshit since launch. Some of the new ToS bosses drop me to 30FPS too.

Flying over but on the ground it's not that bad at all. View distance is pretty brutal on hardware though. I use taxi service flights and just basically swap screens to go in low power state anyway.

[Tiberria]

People should be comparing ryzen to broadwell E, that is what intel had when they released. Comparing gaming performance between ryzen and kaby lake is also unfair. Ryzen can match or beat a 6900k in most things, a thousand dollar CPU intel released barely a year ago. Intel then had to knee jerk react to ryzen with skylake x by pumping a ton more power into those chips to get clocks up, they knew ryzen had broadwell E by the nuts. Skylake x is now of course faster with the higher clocks, but at literally twice the price lol.

Why? If you're making a hardware purchase for gaming, you care about the bottom line performance and price/performance, not when a CPU was launched vs another CPU or if it's "fair" to AMD to make that comparison. There's plenty of decent arguments for going the Ryzen route vs going with a Kaby Lake system, but this isn't a good one.

[Fascinate]

Why? If you're making a hardware purchase for gaming, you care about the bottom line performance and price/performance, not when a CPU was launched vs another CPU or if it's "fair" to AMD to make that comparison. There's plenty of decent arguments for going the Ryzen route vs going with a Kaby Lake system, but this isn't a good one.

Ryzen was not released to compete against kaby lake, it was released to compete against broadwell e...... just so happens to be priced similarly to intel's mainstream low core count lineup.

[Thunderball]

Ryzen was not released to compete against kaby lake, it was released to compete against broadwell e...... just so happens to be priced similarly to intel's mainstream low core count lineup.

Gonna screenshot that.

[Fascinate]

Gonna screenshot that.

Please do? lol

Like you intel kids are so lost on this entire launch its baffling. You are comparing 4c CPU's to 8 core CPU's in gaming, one has a 1ghz higher clock rate when overclocked. If you had a lick of sense you would compare it to 6900k gaming performance, and realize what AMD is gifting everyone.

[Tiberria]

It's pretty clear on a non biased level that Ryzen was introduced to bridge the gap between the Broadwell-E/6-8 core Extreme Edition CPU spot in the marketplace and the i7/i5 gaming/mainstream performance niche. Their intention is to make the Broadwell-E $800+ CPU obsolete, and make it so that people who would typically buy an i7 could instead get the extra cores plus the gaming performance at about the same price point as i5/i7 have been living for years.

It's kind of silly to say it was only intended to compete with Broadwell-E as opposed to being a mainstream consumer/gaming CPU, given that it's in a completely different price point from the Intel 6+ core CPUs, and given that the market for those CPUs is clearly a fraction of the market for i5/i7s. Unless you want to cede the entire gaming market to Intel, it's perfectly reasonable to compare Ryzen to both Kaby Lake and Broadwell-E.

[Fascinate]

It's pretty clear on a non biased level that Ryzen was introduced to bridge the gap between the Broadwell-E/6-8 core Extreme Edition CPU spot in the marketplace and the i7/i5 gaming/mainstream performance niche. Their intention is to make the Broadwell-E $800+ CPU obsolete, and make it so that people who would typically buy an i7 could instead get the extra cores plus the gaming performance at about the same price point as i5/i7 have been living for years.

It's kind of silly to say it was only intended to compete with Broadwell-E as opposed to being a mainstream consumer/gaming CPU, given that it's in a completely different price point from the Intel 6+ core CPUs, and given that the market for those CPUs is clearly a fraction of the market for i5/i7s. Unless you want to cede the entire gaming market to Intel, it's perfectly reasonable to compare Ryzen to both Kaby Lake and Broadwell-E.

That's what people aren't getting, it really isnt...

Its a direct response to broadwell E, its a GIFT that the 1700 matches up price wise (actually cheaper now) to a 7700k. Were people up in arms in regards to broadwell E gaming performance vs 7700k before ryzen hit? Hell no lol, they knew it was aimed at different segments. Its just funny how this entire thing went down, no one actually gets it.

I will reiterate, its a pure gift from AMD that 1700 is in the 7700k price range.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh as for the OP's question, ryzen does just fine even in old games like WoW. Most raid bosses im >60 FPS, only a few of the poorly tuned ones do i dip under. As someone else said in this thread the worst is world bosses, ive seen in the 30 FPS range, stuttering mess. Nothing to do with hardware, everything to do with bad coding.

[Arbiter]

Please do? lol

Like you intel kids are so lost on this entire launch its baffling. You are comparing 4c CPU's to 8 core CPU's in gaming, one has a 1ghz higher clock rate when overclocked. If you had a lick of sense you would compare it to 6900k gaming performance, and realize what AMD is gifting everyone.

I've stated numerous times on these forums that Ryzen is well worth it's money for an enthusiast grade CPU like Broadwell-E should most definitely consider a Ryzen CPU considering the price per dollar is fucking outstanding. And you're right, it should be compared to a 6900K...at least until you mention gaming performance. As far as Ryzen 7 goes, it should have never been marketed as a gamer CPU. That's Ryzen 5's job. Ryzen 7 should be for multithreaded applications with the ability to game as a secondary concern. You don't buy a 6900K to game on so why should you compare it to just that? When you focus on gaming for a CPU you should look at the best performance you can buy with your money. By trying to use Ryzen 7 as an argument for gaming at it's cost you're going to lose every time as there are cheaper alternatives that will give you the same performance or better across games.

And do yourself a favor, every time you come running to these threads to defend your purchase, try to refrain from the constant insults like "you intel kids". Makes you look ignorant and it's impossible to take you serious after that. Ryzen 7 is a good purchase, but it's not the best purchase for gaming. "oh well games MIGHT use 16 threads in a couple years" isn't a good argument and Consoles usage of 8 tiny little cores isn't really a good argument either. They've been out a while and most games still don't use 8 cores on PC. It's not going to magically double that in a couple years considering it's taken this long just for the handful of games to use 8.

[Fascinate]

I've stated numerous times on these forums that Ryzen is well worth it's money for an enthusiast grade CPU like Broadwell-E should most definitely consider a Ryzen CPU considering the price per dollar is fucking outstanding. And you're right, it should be compared to a 6900K...at least until you mention gaming performance. As far as Ryzen 7 goes, it should have never been marketed as a gamer CPU. That's Ryzen 5's job. Ryzen 7 should be for multithreaded applications with the ability to game as a secondary concern. You don't buy a 6900K to game on so why should you compare it to just that? When you focus on gaming for a CPU you should look at the best performance you can buy with your money. By trying to use Ryzen 7 as an argument for gaming at it's cost you're going to lose every time as there are cheaper alternatives that will give you the same performance or better across games.

And do yourself a favor, every time you come running to these threads to defend your purchase, try to refrain from the constant insults like "you intel kids". Makes you look ignorant and it's impossible to take you serious after that. Ryzen 7 is a good purchase, but it's not the best purchase for gaming. "oh well games MIGHT use 16 threads in a couple years" isn't a good argument and Consoles usage of 8 tiny little cores isn't really a good argument either. They've been out a while and most games still don't use 8 cores on PC. It's not going to magically double that in a couple years considering it's taken this long just for the handful of games to use 8.

Eh, its not marketed as a gaming CPU? The internet is run by kids, kids game, kids watch youtube, youtubers make videos about games. To keep it really simple for them said youtubers say A is better than B for gaming, kid talks on forum about how intel is great, ryzen is slow.

Literally that is how the ryzen launch went lol.

Adults realize not everything is black and white, the truth is usually a bit more complex. When you break it down and realize what AMD is giving you for the price, the small loss of FPS is a small price to pay for what you get in return. You also have to take into consideration, are you actually losing anything by going with ryzen? Both AMD and intel are capable of maintaining 60 fps on a 1080p monitor with a GPU up to the task. So that takes care of 99% of the monitors people are using today, how about 144hz monitors you say? Sure now we are getting to a point where buying intel over ryzen might make an actual difference. What i can say to that is this, i own a 165hz monitor, and unless i was looking at a FPS meter i highly doubt i could tell you if i am getting 135 or 150 fps. Actually no, there is zero chance i could get that right. I dont even know if i could tell you the difference between 100 fps and 200 fps, it all looks great once you get up into those numbers.

I said it at launch and ill say it again, the only people that should be buying 7700k's are people who actually make a living playing games. Its possible (if even a placebo affect) they can tell the tiny bit of input lag difference when playing at such high FPS. These guys have 240hz monitors and 1080ti's in SLI, they absoutely should be buying 5ghz CPU's to try and get as little input lag as possible. For the rest of the world, get a ryzen chip.

[mojo6912]

Nobody plays all modern games. And even then there are so few that actually do better with Ryzen I wouldn't pick one up. I'd get a coffee lake i7 later this year.

Yeah I would be considering coffee too but I didn't really wanna wait 8 or 9 months (or whatever the difference is), for Intel to catch up when I can get something awesome now for even cheaper. And by the time coffee is out, I'll have new cpu possibilities to look forward to just like the coffee waiters are doing now.

If you aren't overclocking an unlocked CPU you're wasting money on your CPU. And if you're not overclocking then the gap between ryzen and intel is massive.

Actually, without overclocking the gap is even smaller. Overclocking benefits Intel more.

[Gray_Matter]

Ryzen is garbage and the ONLY reason you'd buy it is if you have serious money issues. Bad IPC, terrible OC ability, and shitty compatibility...

WOW, that "garbage" is better than most CPU's on the market. Yes, even for games. When you buy any CPU you should do the following:

1. Figure out your budget
2. Identify your use cases
3. Pick the best product that fits in your use cases / budget combination

The product that you pick in step 3 could be a G4560 or one of the Skylake X CPU's, or yes, it could be a Ryzen. If you pick the brand first and then choose a product that fits in your budget within that brand then you are selling yourself short.

Saying something like "the ONLY reason you'd buy it is if you have serious money issues" is hogwash. The vast majority of people are not prepared to spend $350+ on a CPU. That doens't mean that they "have serious money issues". It means that their priorities are in order. They don't need a CPU for gaming that will do 50k FPS on Overwatch. They need to a CPU that they can play the latest games on at reasonable FPS.

"Bad IPC" - How does a CPU that can play the vast majority of games at 60+ FPS have "bad IPC"? Is it the highest? Of course not but that doesn't make it bad. It just means that it's not the best. Those are two very different things.

"Terrible OC ability" - Not great but not terrible either but why is that even relevant when the vast majority of people playing games don't overclock.

"shitty compatibility" - Would be great if you can post something on this. I haven't seen any serious compatibility issues but if there are I think they are very important.

You may as well be saying something like "Toyota is garbage and the ONLY reason you'd buy it is if you have serious money issues. Bad horsepower, terrible torque, and shitty cornering..." because it's just as meaningless. Sure, if you compare a entry level Toyota to a Ferrari then it will fall short in those areas but very few people want that stuff. They just want a car that will get them from A to B. You are missing the big picture because you are so focused on what you think is relevant. The ironic thing is that it may not even be the best choice for you but you aren't considering all of your options because of your preconceptions.

[mojo6912]

Intel is already ahead of Ryzen when you UNDERCLOCK it. When it's at stock speeds, and so is the ryzen, the gap is pretty large.

I think you misunderstand. You said "And if you're not overclocking then the gap between ryzen and intel is massive." This implies that the gap between the two shrinks when you overclock them both. The opposite is true.

Oh, I just read your signature. I apologize, carry on.

edit: whoops worded that wrong.

[Gray_Matter]

That garbage is worse than both current Intel CPUs in nearly every game save for, at most, .05% of games. Those .05% would be things like Ashes and BF1. If you look at intel's newest offerings that have similar core counts they blow the AMD out of the water. There is literally no reason to buy AMDs garbage CPUs unless you literally can't afford more and absolutely must have the additional cores/threads for productivity reasons. Or you primarily play BF1.

You can't look only at core counts, you need to look at pricing.

For example here is the 1600X vs the 7600K. The 1600X is about $10 cheaper on Amazon.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1861?vs=1828

I don't see the Intel blowing the AMD out of the water. There are some games at 1080 (e.g. Civilization 6) where the 1600X is on top and others (e.g. SoM) where the 7600K is on top. Both are good processors for gaming. I'm only talking about games here and ignoring the other aspects where multiple threads are an asset such as WinRAR, 7zip and Blender. I am sure that you can find the odd game where the difference is quite big but for the majority, it's no more than a couple of percentage points either way. That's not what I would call garbage. If you want to pay for the Skylake X options then sure, they are going to be faster at gaming but you also pay a premium for that and the vast majority of people won't pay that. It goes back to what I said. Pick your budget and between that and your requirements you you pick what's best for your situation, regardless of the vendor. If you have $900 to spend on your CPU and MB for gaming then the decision is easy. Most people are spending that because most people are willing to spend more (note: that doesn't mean they can't afford more).

Back on topic. OP, it all depends what you would like to see. The Ryzen 1600X will probably work really nicely and give you some growth as more and more games make use of more cores. It's gaming for now and the future. Gaming for the older games and current games won't give you that much benefit but it will still give you 60+ FPS in most cases as has been previously shown here. If you look at the comparison above, it handles pretty well holding above 60FPS in almost all 1080 cases. You will see the growth potential when you look at games like Civ 6 or the encoding times because that's where the growth for games is coming in the future. The CPU manufacturers can't push the IPC much more so if games want to become more demanding then they will have to grow outwards, so to speak.