www. O S N E W S .com
News Features Interviews
BlogContact Editorials
.
Intel still beats Ryzen at games, but how much does it matter?
By Thom Holwerda on 2017-03-17 22:48:39

Realistically, nobody should have expected Ryzen to be king of the hill when it comes to gaming. We know that Broadwell isn't, after all; Intel's Skylake and Kaby Lake parts both beat Broadwell in a wide range of games. This is the case even though Skylake and Kaby Lake are limited to four cores and eight threads; for many or most games, high IPC and high clock speeds are the key to top performance, and that's precisely what Kaby Lake delivers.

In spite of this, reading the various reviews around the Web - and comment threads, tweets, and reddit posts - one gets the feeling that many were hoping or expecting Ryzen to somehow beat Intel across the board, and there's a prevailing narrative that Ryzen is in some sense a bad gaming chip. But this argument is often paired with the claim that some kind of non-specific "optimization" is going to salvage the processor's performance, that AMD fans just need to keep the faith for a few months, and that soon Ryzen's full power will be revealed.

Both parts of this reaction are more than a little flawed.

I'm just glad there's finally competition in the desktop processor space again. Intel started to charge some outrageous prices these past few years, but if you wanted the best performance, you really didn't have much of a choice.

With Ryzen, AMD is showing the world it's back on track. It might not be there yet in every aspect, but it's an amazingly promising start.

 Email a friend - Printer friendly - Related stories
.
Read Comments: 1-10 -- 11-20 -- 21-25
.
RE[3]: It doesnt matter one whit
By The123king on 2017-03-19 11:11:50
I think you misunderstood the term "performance per buck"
Permalink - Score: 3
.
RE[4]: It doesnt matter one whit
By kamil_chatrnuch on 2017-03-19 13:05:46
i think you didn't read (him/her) properly: "A 7700k outperforms a Ryzen 1800x easily in almost every gaming benchmark and does it for $150 less..."

cheaper & faster.

Edited 2017-03-19 13:06 UTC
Permalink - Score: 3
.
I have a $700.00 budget Ryzen vs Intel
By lsatenstein on 2017-03-19 13:52:36
I am considering my options. I am retired, I don't have a business to use as a writeoff of a system purchase.

That said, what can I get for my $700 with either Vendor. I do want 16gigs ram.

So, configure a system for that amount of money. I will suggest I am less in favour of a pot warmer than a toaster (Ryzen 65Watts vs Intel 90Watts). I do not intend to do significant overclocking.
Lets see. Would a Ryzen 1600x be just right?
Permalink - Score: 1
.
RE[5]: It doesnt matter one whit
By The123king on 2017-03-19 16:32:09
Yeh, my bad, sorry.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[3]: It doesnt matter one whit
By JLF65 on 2017-03-19 18:27:45
Or you can get the Ryzen 1700 for about the same price (currently on sale at NewEgg for $330) and run it in Turbo mode.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE: I have a $700.00 budget Ryzen vs Intel
By Kochise on 2017-03-19 19:04:54
I have an AMD E-350 that runs just fine, mostly for office and development purpose, and it's enough. Really. No use buying the latest overpowered product just for the sake of it.

AMD returned in the game (pun intended) with the Ryzen, but as an underdog yet already has filled several niches (pun intended) with its APU processors. And quite brilliantly.

AMD knows its job, but please keep in mind they do race the competition with pride with 10x times less revenues. And are still afloat despite not being in the business range.

I applause their incredible resilience, impeccable technological choices and achievements through time. I just want people to select the right technology according their needs.

And if people find Intel better, so be it.

http://www.diffen.com/difference...

http://realmoney.thestreet.com/a...

Edited 2017-03-19 19:07 UTC
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[2]: I have a $700.00 budget Ryzen vs Intel
By ssokolow on 2017-03-20 02:48:26
I'd buy an Intel for the superior single-threaded performance (I'm always looking to see what new thing I can emulate), but only if I can spare the cash to run two machines with the Intel on the same quarantined subnet I use for my DOS/Win98 and WinXP retro-PCs).

As-is, when I can afford to upgrade my Athlon II X2 270, I'll go for the best pre-PSP Opteron I can track down.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[3]: It doesnt matter one whit
By tonny on 2017-03-20 03:10:54
> However, if you are a gamer and your measure of performance is how fast your games run, Intel wins hands down. A 7700k outperforms a Ryzen 1800x easily in almost every gaming benchmark and does it for $150 less...
Not entirely true. When you run games with > 1080p, game are bootlenecked by GPU, not CPU. So, if you gaming > 1080p, ryzen sure is competitive. And people that buy 7700K for gaming usually not gaming with < 1080p.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE: I have a $700.00 budget Ryzen vs Intel
By tonny on 2017-03-20 03:21:28
Depends on your need. I've purchased notebook from sandy bridge i5 and ivy bride i7 era with half of $700. Still perfectly usable. Just need to upgrade the mem to 16GB and put SSD on that.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
A rant!
By Odisej on 2017-03-20 10:48:48
I've been following similar discussions in recent months. Was quite into hardware, processor (AMD vs. Intel vs. Cyrix) stuff and graphics (ATI, Voodoo etc.) in the old days but then other things took over - job and family are priority. So after more then a decade I decided to buy a new computer - this time, like in the old days, part by part.

First of all, when I started reading I couldn't believe how ridiculous it all became. "Oh, my computer does 5 FPS more than yours." "You should get i7 WHATEVER because you can overclock it and you can play WHATEVER GAME in buttshiny resolution." "Only 16GB of ram is enough for multitasking." What crap! And people are paying 1000 euros for a single graphics card?! It all seemed like I entered some crazy universe.

Every genius that cannot live without a 3000 euro computer should play games on 320x200 for half a year and then be the smartest a*** around and give lectures on how 4K is the only way to go. And saying that AMD sucks just because he doesn't get 150fps on whatever game at max resolution is total bull****.

Reading such things makes me think the average IQ of a person using the computer and having an opinion about it fell considerably in recent decades, well bellow the typical number of lines in a terminal window.

Angelina Jolie does not look any nicer at 1080p than at 1024x768. Trust me: she looks good at ANY resolution and whith whatever processor. OK.

Edited 2017-03-20 10:54 UTC
Permalink - Score: 1

Read Comments 1-10 -- 11-20 -- 21-25

No new comments are allowed for stories older than 10 days.
This story is now archived.

.
News Features Interviews
BlogContact Editorials
.
WAP site - RSS feed
© OSNews LLC 1997-2007. All Rights Reserved.
The readers' comments are owned and a responsibility of whoever posted them.
Prefer the desktop version of OSNews?