Why are you guys ignoring the Ryzen 5 series lineup? I noticed you've done Ryzen 7 review, all the latest Pentium, i3, i5, i7 and now even the high-end i9 review. But there's *no* Ryzen 5 review from you guys. It's like it doesn't even exist for you... Strange. :/
melangkoh - He mentioned the GPU to be Titan Xp and the motherboard to be from MSI. The rest of the specs based on their previous benches have to be 16GB RAM, Samsung SSD? etc.
Testing with higher RAM clocks is nice and all, but since it was argued that the slower L3 cache / Mesh architecture would be the reason for "bad game peformance" on Skylake-X, I am sad to see nobody is testing Mesh overclocking in their game reviews. On my 7900X I was able to push the Mesh clock from 2.4GHz to 3.0GHz with zero voltage increase and 3.3GHz runs stable with just 1.080V. This gets me a good boost in Cinebench and it SHOULD boost game performance too if the L3 cache really is the problem.
Thx a lot Rich, DF is a great channel worth supporting! I think you should start an episodes about "DF Optimization" for best performance in the budged, mid level and high end spectrum of the PC configs targeting both 1080p or 4K gaming experience as well as VR. Basically you would give a helping hand thx to power of comparisons you are already doing to all those people, who don't know if they should invest their money in more expensive CPUs, GPUs or MBs to get what they need out of their systems. Today a gaming PC is almost like a simple server machine, which can cost quite a lot and people can spend their money into components, which they don't even need to have an experience their desire. It's going to be for sure quite time consuming to test most of the popular configuration choices, but I am sure that the result of that could be really enlightening for everybody... in the end what would make sense is to talk about difference between consoles, which are somewhat custom PCs these days, with disadvantages of more expensive, but usually better optimized games and paid services like online multiplayer. Ideal situation is of course to have gaming PC with the some of the consoles to experience exclusives on those systems, but what is the best balance you can achieve?
+TheLittleDetails CR There is a difference between spending more to have the best, and wasting money and then trying to compensate by bragging about your income and education on TH-cam.
Doesn't matter if you are rich, buying something overpriced is stupid no matter what. I guess you'll buy the best fps gaming CPU for 50 000 dollars just because you can and afford it?
Damn your videos are excellent! I've been a sub for awhile now but just letting you know how much I appreciate how you test everything so well and summarize your videos perfectly.
Why do you still benchmark Far Cry Primal? The Benchmark is using 1 Thread - seriously! I tested it with my 7700K and 1 Thread was the whole time on 100%, the other ones had nothing to do.
I would have liked some coverage of emulation and how these new CPUs perform when overclocked. The topic of emulation is more relevant now with the Wii/Wii U and PS3 running commercial games. Emulation is much more CPU heavy than AAA PC games, it would have been of value to see an overview of Skylake X's performance in this area.
Really enjoyable comparison. DF=best hw/gaming site for a wanna be "nerd" like me on youtube. Every time a DF video like this comes out I get a bit tingly inside :D Especially love when you find those small issues that no one even notices or care to pursuit further with it. Love it :)
+Samalyaboss martin: Intels 10 core is ridiculously hot, and consumes more power, and it isnt 2 cores, it is 4, while being more expensive. meanwhile, the gaming performance is almost the same(WHILE THE 10 CORE IS OC, which generates even more heat and power consumption), and in really multithreaded workloads those extra cores are going to be much more useful than more frequency(I mean in apps others than gaming, which are the ones you are going to expend this much money on, in gaming the 7700k OC is still the best, however, WHO THE FUCK ONLY PLAYS IN A PC). If the 10 cores is like this, I am shivering at how the 12,14,16 and 18 cores are going to be like... oh, and finally, they have changed the architecture to something really different, prioritizing L2 cache to L3 cache, and it is believed to have been one of the main reasons why it performs worse than last gen Intel's high end CPUs on gaming.
+BolusTube NOT in gaming, but in other stuff yes, Intel cores still have way better performance PER core, hence the i7 7700k blows all ryzen chips away.
Good thing they are not being marketed as gaming chips (unless I missed something, and AMD are). Hopefully we will see better scaling with multicore CPUs soon.
AMD R5 1600 is best CPU since i5 2500k skylake x is complete fail, slower than older intel chips but HUGE overheating and thermal issues along with monstruous power consumption.
Devin Money Realistically speaking, if you're running a decent OC on the chip you can easily get several years of performance out of it seeing as so few game engines right now scale with manycore setups. I probably wouldn't look at upgrading the CPU for at least another 2-3 years.
Excellent test as always!!! I think the takeaway from this is that we need to wait for AMD's Threadripper. Intel just doesn't offer a compelling value with X299.
@Dilly Vesper Your opinion does not matter,prove me wrong. Why do you think overclocking requires liquid cooling/ Why do you think the xbox 360s red ringed?Overheating. Overworking any machine,program,or living creature puts heavy strain upon it,and ultimately premature destruction of it. Give me stock power that is very decent. Give me energy efficiency,and proper heat dissipation. Give me the lowest heat energy without requiring special cooling. Over clocking is similar to putting nitro in a vehicle,sure you'll get great acceleration,but your engine can blow at if not properly and professionally adjusted for NOS;even then it creates heavy wear on the engine in a very short period of time.
Minecraft: Switch Edition, just got a 1080p update, I know it's silly but I'm curious if you guys could maybe look into performance analysis on the new update?
As far as gaming goes it's really up to the quality of PC ports, with most ports coming directly from the console versions support for higher numbers of cores isn't very common, most notably Forza Horizon 3 patched quad core performance a few months after launch while 6 core users were out of luck (i don't know if further patches rectified this). The Crisis series is famously "PC first"... though i'm not sure about the 2nd one, and Rise of the Tomb Raider seems to have in-depth PC support, while most games i think will perform as Far Cry Primal does with diminishing returns on cores greater than 4. When it comes to upgrading in preparation for future games i have no idea what the answer is, the consoles are prioritising graphics card performance over CPU, so while it will be a case by case basis it might be that CPU's won't be pushed all that much in the immediate future. Going to have to keep an eye out for performance issues related to core counts in the future.
My main rig 5930K is still good for a couple more years, I think I will upgrade my gaming rig's CPU from Intel's 6600K the 7700K and wait for the next big step up in CPU performance gains.
I'm so happy with my 5930k I bought 3 years ago now. Still has 6 core 12 threads, 40x pcie 3.0 great for sli and a pcie ssd. DDR4 ram quad channel and great overclocking/temps. I got 4.5ghz all 6 cores with only 1.3V. With the Noctua NHD15(i hate water cooling) I get 30 degrees idle and only 55-60 while gaming! Ryzen and all the intel stuff that has come out the last 3 years isnt any faster...which is kinda sad.
Rise of the Tomb Raider and Ashes of the Singularity have been patched to improve performance on Ryzen since you tested them. It would be nice if you were to analyse this in a video, particularly Rise of the Tomb Raider DX 12.
Did I miss the Ryzen 5 review? Also I would like to see a Ryzen 3 review as it's out in four days. Although I find reviews like this interesting, it's way beyond what I am willing to spend on a CPU.
AMD takes the crown this time, intel just went into full panic mode after Threadripper reveal! LOL Ryzen is the go to CPU for gaming and content creators! Intel please hold this L!
Poor advice at the end IMO. What people should really wait for is to see how AMD's Threadripper CPUs perform. We already know that they will be cheaper, but if they are also anywhere near Intel, it will truly be GG for Intel
im kinda stuck at the moment, should i buy r5 1600, or should i wait for coffee lake or whatever the next intel cpu are going to be named. or should i wait for zen 2?
Well I guess I made the right decision to purchase the 5930K when it was released, probably get 3-4 more years out of it before I feel the need to upgrade, but it all depends on the industry and how it improves.
Digital Foundry: -Ignores Ryzen 5 -Ignores to cover games updated for Ryzen -Forgets the i5 7640X, calls the 7740X the most bizzare (it is bizare, but the other one is even more insane). GF, why so silly ? I expect this from Linus or PC Gamer lol
Really dissapointed with them, they used to make highly informative video's. I don't mind them covering consoles, but it seems like they are totally done with PC tech. This video is half-assed if you ignore the R5 line-up.
Alexander Yordanov they got tired of using rise of the tomb raider for everything, guess what, the game got a ryzen update and they never review it... Yeah
It's interesting to see that the last 3 generations of Intel X cpus have pretty much the same performance. It looks like cpu performance scaling is coming to end sooner than I thought. There only 2 or 3 die shrinks left and it takes longer and longer to produce them. I'm really curious now whether the 10nm chips next year will have significantly better performance.
Pretty much the same performance on games* On the production workloads (for which these CPUs are designed for), Skylake-X destroy previous generations.
So wait, are these better than the i7 7700k? Or are they completely different? Because I don't understand why they aren't comparing them to the last i7.
I hav'nt had a AMD CPU since my AMD 850mhz back in like 2000.. been intel since but I think I'm gonna move on to the new AMD thread ripper 16 core CPU!
What I don't get is how the hell is the i5 7640X 14nm a newer gen processor is running 112W TDP while my old i5 4690k is a 22nm 88W TDP? Its a smaller die but consumes more energy? WTF Intel?
Im on sandy, waiting for true 10nm intel icelake or amd's 7nm next year i think we will finally see a large bump in performance with those chips. Lack of performance improvements and non existent pc exclusives is saving me money at least.
I would like for your to focus more on things like number of PCI lanes as well as quad channel support, max allowed memory and max memory frequency. A CPU is not defined just by the cores count and frequency.
I'm getting a whiff of the P4 Prescott from this new platform. On the bright side it's great to see AMD competitive again as it means Intel now how to work harder on price and performance.
Ryzen 5 1600 can be had for as low as $199 USD. That's the best price to performance chip not the 7800x. I hope you guys take a look at the 1600 further and do an in depth analysis for the Ryzen 5 line up.
I dont get intel's point of having to pay twice as much for around 10-30% more performance in certain scenarios, this would be fine at the highest end where we get "diminishing returns" but this isnt the highest end anymore, 6-8 cores are mainstream now
Look at the 1600 vs the i7 7800x. Trading blows 50/50 for half the price. www.techspot.com/review/1450-core-i7-vs-ryzen-5-hexa-core/page9.html Intel getting their ass handed to them by a company thats 1/30 the size. AMD best bang for your buck o/
Nice to see Intel under pressure, it's just a shame that it's meant them rushing out a half-baked product instead of really putting some effort in and coming up with something truly innovative.
This Crysis 3 grass level overstrained most CPUs back then. 8 threads were at least required in 2013 on a Intel CPU. However, Crysis 1 only used 2 CPU cores. In this regard CRYENGINE 3.5 was better aligned to the future.
0:46 "rushed a new line of CPUs before they were properly cooked" No wonder Intel made the Skylake-X chips so hot, they wanted to continue cooking the chips XD
Intels 8 core chip is cheaper than before, but Intel cut of a ton of PCI lanes. You can't get full bandwidth with 2 NVme PCI express SSDs. What i9 rushed to market: Yes. We all know that. It was scheduled for a Q3-Q4 release. CPIid on the review CPUs where i7, not i9. Coffelake is now rushed to get a 6 core Intel mainstream part. The sad thing for gamers/pure gamers is that there is no "this CPU is Highlander/what you should get". Fast MHZ/IPC is everything in gaming. Intels 2 core chip even wins benchmarks against all other since it can be clocked higher. The i7 7740X can easily be clocked at 4.8 ghz and beat all Ryzen game benchmarks by 20% exempt a 2 games that are multithreaded. (Multithreaded is something Windows is not good at, same as memory management. Thats why zero mission critical servers uses Windows). Most games today: A 50 dollar 2 core Intel manages to get same results as the other CPUs. A few games are threaded for 4 CPUs = i7 7740. 2 games are threaded over 4/8 threads and perform better on 6/8 core CPU, and Intel is clocked 20% higher than AMD Ryzen. Its only money, maybe longterm that more apps are threaded and if you do anything else than game: Then its Ryzen. But pure gamers: Its intel only and its sad. BTW. I9 will get a new revision with soldered heatsink since Intels cheapness make them to hot today. Over 10 core: Intel have nothing, since 12+ cores are clocked 500mhz lower than AMD. Threadripper 12 core at 790 dollars is really interesting as long as you accept its 10-20% slower in games than 10 core 30%-50% more expensive intel (the X299 chipset is fanatical expensive. The Intel motherboard tax is hideous) ARM is already faster per mhz. Its real 64bit, something X86 is not. We have 6-8 core parts that cost under 50 dollars. If the PC gaming industry just could move to that platform, would save us all 500+ dollars/per gaming setup and ARM competition is fierce since anyone can buy a design license. We see today at least 5 companies designing custom ARMS = why we see 50%+ increase each year in performance. A11 will be the first mainstream chip killing off 32bit, removing that part from CPUs. The feature of CPUs. (desktop Mac removes 32bit support in 2019. Either a new secret custom Intel Uarch or move to ARM, like windows done with Universal platform / ARM support for Qualcomm with X86 codemorphing with VirtuaPC technology (that Intel tries to stop. Like in 2002 when fastest X86 PC was PowerMac with X86 emulation)
going to buy the i7 7820x , and don't plan to overclock at all , though i will use it to render on weekends like 8-10 hours render time , cpu cooler will be coolermaster liquid pro 280 rad with push pull fan config (4 fans on the rad ) can you let me know the thermals this cpu generates on full load at stock clocks , my motherboard will be gigabyte x299 gaming 7 or 9 both has 2 8pin power connectors i was thinking for ryzen but then i need more than 64 gb ram as i will do hair and fur simulations , ppl will say go for threadripper , but i don't want to spend that much amount on AMD , what's the point there if i go amd then 1000$ ryzen system without gpu sounds good to me , as in have a ryzen test system at my office it is giving us problems with 64gb ram , 32 runs fine
I don't see why you tested them all at the same frequency. If you can get better gaming performance by going with a quad-core because it overclocks higher than something with 6-10 cores then show it, if the more cores make more of a difference then show that too. No point in making the tests "fair" if real-world tasks won't be.
Who ever buys an overpriced CPU because it has 15 more fps? That perhaps relies on the GPUs job, Buying a CPU should and must only be for PCs overall performance, NOT ONLY FOR GAMING, but to everything and anything that a PC can work with. AMD made a smart move for not aiming only for the gaming industry/community, but for the general PC users from all angles, edit videos, uploading/downloading, multiple apps opened, other programs etc. As we know gamers tend to do more than just gaming. And having more cores, sucking less energy, giving out less heat and cheaper is the best thing that has ever happened in a long time, while the performance in gaming are not a huge difference (0-20fps) compared to Intel. It's a simple decision.
It's better to support AMD so that they can still make cheaper CPU for double the performance, Intel could just overprice their technology and take us hostage, but thanks to AMD we gamer have still possibility to have good performance
Seen they're benchmarking at 1080P and immediately paused the video. Do people really drop $350+ on just their CPU and then cheap out on the monitor? At this level it should be at least a 1440P/144Hz FreeSync or G-Sync monitor.
The internet's intel-hatefest circle-jerk is now at legendary levels. If we take this logic about Intel's latest platform and apply it to AMD, then AMD should not even exist anymore and not for a long time. Meanwhile much bigger fuckups from AMD generate massive amounts of damage control. This all goes well beyond "root for the little guy, give hell to the man" - it's like a certain subsection of PC gamers, especially those with blogs or channels, feel they can do what AMD's latest still cannot even do - turn the ratio of sales into something competitive "so everyone wins". Sorry, reality doesn't work that way - your created narrative alone is not going to make things better. What will is AMD being competitive MULTIPLE generations in the row, not Intel slightly fucking up once and you making a mountain out of a molehill.
Only place that is memory bandwidth fanatics. At 1080P / 150+ frames. Its more an benchmarking illusion than real gaming performance unless all uses 244hz monitors / 1080P. (because: think how programming work. Why would memory bandwidth on intel impact performance at the levels that Digital foundry believe. AMD is another story since the infinity fabric is linked to memory speed. No other apps shows any improvement on Intel going from 2400 DDR4 to 4000 DDR4. We talk less than 1 % performance increase on all apps that I have seen tested)
Why are you guys ignoring the Ryzen 5 series lineup? I noticed you've done Ryzen 7 review, all the latest Pentium, i3, i5, i7 and now even the high-end i9 review. But there's *no* Ryzen 5 review from you guys. It's like it doesn't even exist for you... Strange. :/
AnalogFoundry Because they love Intel's pee pee more than AMD's, lol.
its in general a very dishonest site. Note how they never mention system specs with their "benchmark" so you cant verify shit.
They literally done several reviews 3 month ago. Pay attention.
melangkoh - He mentioned the GPU to be Titan Xp and the motherboard to be from MSI. The rest of the specs based on their previous benches have to be 16GB RAM, Samsung SSD? etc.
These guys are legit. They aren't shills, just pay more attention to what he says. He gave the specs lol.
Intel: oh noes, Amd is pushing affordable CPUs to the market!
*Rushes in the most unaffordable thing in existence.
I’m loving the PC focused content, DF keep it up.
Testing with higher RAM clocks is nice and all, but since it was argued that the slower L3 cache / Mesh architecture would be the reason for "bad game peformance" on Skylake-X, I am sad to see nobody is testing Mesh overclocking in their game reviews. On my 7900X I was able to push the Mesh clock from 2.4GHz to 3.0GHz with zero voltage increase and 3.3GHz runs stable with just 1.080V. This gets me a good boost in Cinebench and it SHOULD boost game performance too if the L3 cache really is the problem.
Hardware unboxed tested mesh overclocking and it got his chip.. 1-2fps more. Virtually useless
Herr von Bödefeld this has 3 likes and 2 comments. Why is it in the top?
Thx a lot Rich, DF is a great channel worth supporting! I think you should start an episodes about "DF Optimization" for best performance in the budged, mid level and high end spectrum of the PC configs targeting both 1080p or 4K gaming experience as well as VR. Basically you would give a helping hand thx to power of comparisons you are already doing to all those people, who don't know if they should invest their money in more expensive CPUs, GPUs or MBs to get what they need out of their systems. Today a gaming PC is almost like a simple server machine, which can cost quite a lot and people can spend their money into components, which they don't even need to have an experience their desire. It's going to be for sure quite time consuming to test most of the popular configuration choices, but I am sure that the result of that could be really enlightening for everybody... in the end what would make sense is to talk about difference between consoles, which are somewhat custom PCs these days, with disadvantages of more expensive, but usually better optimized games and paid services like online multiplayer. Ideal situation is of course to have gaming PC with the some of the consoles to experience exclusives on those systems, but what is the best balance you can achieve?
I really appreciate the detail you & your crew go into on these product reviews.
I may not like your hand gestures, but your reviews are some of the best I've ever seen
Keep up the great work
No baseline comparison with older platforms or Ryzen, no power consumption analysis, and still 15 minutes? Come on...
Guilawless They talk about power consumption.
Waste of money: check!
Spartan S I went to school for a long time and work hard. I like to have the best in my free time. Some people don't mind spending more.
TheLittleDetails CR well if you like an expensive underperforming space heater in your cpu socket then go right ahead.
+TheLittleDetails CR There is a difference between spending more to have the best, and wasting money and then trying to compensate by bragging about your income and education on TH-cam.
bolo santosi How is the most powerful cpu on the market underperforming?
Doesn't matter if you are rich, buying something overpriced is stupid no matter what. I guess you'll buy the best fps gaming CPU for 50 000 dollars just because you can and afford it?
Damn your videos are excellent! I've been a sub for awhile now but just letting you know how much I appreciate how you test everything so well and summarize your videos perfectly.
Why do you still benchmark Far Cry Primal? The Benchmark is using 1 Thread - seriously! I tested it with my 7700K and 1 Thread was the whole time on 100%, the other ones had nothing to do.
because 1 thread allow you to see a basic thread max performance in this situation
Ok, you're right.
Am i missing something in the CPUs listed in the cinebench and handbrake comparisons the 7900X seem to be called a Core I7 7900X and not a I9
I would have liked some coverage of emulation and how these new CPUs perform when overclocked. The topic of emulation is more relevant now with the Wii/Wii U and PS3 running commercial games. Emulation is much more CPU heavy than AAA PC games, it would have been of value to see an overview of Skylake X's performance in this area.
where is the ryzen 5 reviews DF
Really enjoyable comparison. DF=best hw/gaming site for a wanna be "nerd" like me on youtube. Every time a DF video like this comes out I get a bit tingly inside :D Especially love when you find those small issues that no one even notices or care to pursuit further with it. Love it :)
AMD's upcoming 16c/32t monster, the ThreadRipper, gonna send this entire intel lineup to shame.
BolusTube but what do you lose besides the extra 2 cores and $1000 dollor difference and optimised for gaming wise? Cringing to know. Im cpu hunting.
BolusTube Ryzen 7 already has.
+Samalyaboss martin: Intels 10 core is ridiculously hot, and consumes more power, and it isnt 2 cores, it is 4, while being more expensive. meanwhile, the gaming performance is almost the same(WHILE THE 10 CORE IS OC, which generates even more heat and power consumption), and in really multithreaded workloads those extra cores are going to be much more useful than more frequency(I mean in apps others than gaming, which are the ones you are going to expend this much money on, in gaming the 7700k OC is still the best, however, WHO THE FUCK ONLY PLAYS IN A PC).
If the 10 cores is like this, I am shivering at how the 12,14,16 and 18 cores are going to be like...
oh, and finally, they have changed the architecture to something really different, prioritizing L2 cache to L3 cache, and it is believed to have been one of the main reasons why it performs worse than last gen Intel's high end CPUs on gaming.
+BolusTube NOT in gaming, but in other stuff yes, Intel cores still have way better performance PER core, hence the i7 7700k blows all ryzen chips away.
Good thing they are not being marketed as gaming chips (unless I missed something, and AMD are).
Hopefully we will see better scaling with multicore CPUs soon.
Wow!!!! such a in-depth review, sir.
You make the best reviews! :) Thanks
always a pleasure to watch! did you guys have a video how the 7700k stacks up against the 7820x and 7740x chips? im about to upgrade board and ram.
The stutter is Intels new power state setting C-state. Just disable it to remove stutter. Modern bios gives you that option.
AMD R5 1600 is best CPU since i5 2500k
skylake x is complete fail, slower than older intel chips but HUGE overheating and thermal issues along with monstruous power consumption.
From the i7 6700k, what upgrades in CPUs will I see in the next 3 years and suggestions to keep in mind?
Devin Money Realistically speaking, if you're running a decent OC on the chip you can easily get several years of performance out of it seeing as so few game engines right now scale with manycore setups. I probably wouldn't look at upgrading the CPU for at least another 2-3 years.
Any chance of a benchmark comparison of Ryzen with the Intel 4000 series cpus like the 4690k ?
Excellent test as always!!!
I think the takeaway from this is that we need to wait for AMD's Threadripper. Intel just doesn't offer a compelling value with X299.
Awesome video again thank you for the time and effort!!
Killin me with the crooked glasses lol ! Good vid tho.
I love this comparisons videos... Although I am a console player. Just interesting to know what kind of hightech is out there.
Remember when core I9 was a joke?
Pepperidge farms remember
fosh bz
the i11 is on its way. you heard it here first
Finally thank you for benching the 5960x vs these newer chips, its good to see how they stack up.
How long have I waiting for this video.
Overclocking is overrated. Give me raw power,give me energy and heat efficiency.
Keepskatin no is not.
@Dilly Vesper Your opinion does not matter,prove me wrong. Why do you think overclocking requires liquid cooling/ Why do you think the xbox 360s red ringed?Overheating. Overworking any machine,program,or living creature puts heavy strain upon it,and ultimately premature destruction of it.
Give me stock power that is very decent. Give me energy efficiency,and proper heat dissipation. Give me the lowest heat energy without requiring special cooling.
Over clocking is similar to putting nitro in a vehicle,sure you'll get great acceleration,but your engine can blow at if not properly and professionally adjusted for NOS;even then it creates heavy wear on the engine in a very short period of time.
Thank you for all your hard work.
U guys deserve a lot of gratitude that this comment section is not providing.
Minecraft: Switch Edition, just got a 1080p update, I know it's silly but I'm curious if you guys could maybe look into performance analysis on the new update?
interesting video once again DF. the ri(y)s(z)e of the ryzen seems to be a big competition for intels new cpus by value. wonder how this'll end up.
As far as gaming goes it's really up to the quality of PC ports, with most ports coming directly from the console versions support for higher numbers of cores isn't very common, most notably Forza Horizon 3 patched quad core performance a few months after launch while 6 core users were out of luck (i don't know if further patches rectified this). The Crisis series is famously "PC first"... though i'm not sure about the 2nd one, and Rise of the Tomb Raider seems to have in-depth PC support, while most games i think will perform as Far Cry Primal does with diminishing returns on cores greater than 4.
When it comes to upgrading in preparation for future games i have no idea what the answer is, the consoles are prioritising graphics card performance over CPU, so while it will be a case by case basis it might be that CPU's won't be pushed all that much in the immediate future.
Going to have to keep an eye out for performance issues related to core counts in the future.
My main rig 5930K is still good for a couple more years, I think I will upgrade my gaming rig's CPU from Intel's 6600K the 7700K and wait for the next big step up in CPU performance gains.
I'm so happy with my 5930k I bought 3 years ago now. Still has 6 core 12 threads, 40x pcie 3.0 great for sli and a pcie ssd. DDR4 ram quad channel and great overclocking/temps. I got 4.5ghz all 6 cores with only 1.3V. With the Noctua NHD15(i hate water cooling) I get 30 degrees idle and only 55-60 while gaming! Ryzen and all the intel stuff that has come out the last 3 years isnt any faster...which is kinda sad.
Rise of the Tomb Raider and Ashes of the Singularity have been patched to improve performance on Ryzen since you tested them. It would be nice if you were to analyse this in a video, particularly Rise of the Tomb Raider DX 12.
Water cooling not needed. My old rig I use as a Plex server now is an i5 2500K OC'd to 4.7 using a Noctua
It bothers me the tdp or thermals weren't emphasized.
Did I miss the Ryzen 5 review?
Also I would like to see a Ryzen 3 review as it's out in four days.
Although I find reviews like this interesting, it's way beyond what I am willing to spend on a CPU.
There is no Ryzen 5 review.
AMD takes the crown this time, intel just went into full panic mode after Threadripper reveal! LOL Ryzen is the go to CPU for gaming and content creators! Intel please hold this L!
Poor advice at the end IMO. What people should really wait for is to see how AMD's Threadripper CPUs perform. We already know that they will be cheaper, but if they are also anywhere near Intel, it will truly be GG for Intel
im kinda stuck at the moment, should i buy r5 1600, or should i wait for coffee lake or whatever the next intel cpu are going to be named. or should i wait for zen 2?
Well I guess I made the right decision to purchase the 5930K when it was released, probably get 3-4 more years out of it before I feel the need to upgrade, but it all depends on the industry and how it improves.
Digital Foundry:
-Ignores Ryzen 5
-Ignores to cover games updated for Ryzen
-Forgets the i5 7640X, calls the 7740X the most bizzare (it is bizare, but the other one is even more insane).
GF, why so silly ? I expect this from Linus or PC Gamer lol
Really dissapointed with them, they used to make highly informative video's. I don't mind them covering consoles, but it seems like they are totally done with PC tech. This video is half-assed if you ignore the R5 line-up.
Alexander Yordanov they got tired of using rise of the tomb raider for everything, guess what, the game got a ryzen update and they never review it... Yeah
They are biased toward Intel, Nvidia and PS4..
> Doesn't includes things **YOU WANT**
> =Intel Shill/ Novidiot
People need to understand the world isn't all yours. Go back your AyyMD.
Lol Alvin.
DF is now just a conslow channel. Go back to defending your corporations you muppet.
It's interesting to see that the last 3 generations of Intel X cpus have pretty much the same performance. It looks like cpu performance scaling is coming to end sooner than I thought. There only 2 or 3 die shrinks left and it takes longer and longer to produce them. I'm really curious now whether the 10nm chips next year will have significantly better performance.
Pretty much the same performance on games*
On the production workloads (for which these CPUs are designed for), Skylake-X destroy previous generations.
So wait, are these better than the i7 7700k? Or are they completely different? Because I don't understand why they aren't comparing them to the last i7.
Where are the Ryzen 5 reviews/comparisons?
I hav'nt had a AMD CPU since my AMD 850mhz back in like 2000.. been intel since but I think I'm gonna move on to the new AMD thread ripper 16 core CPU!
What about the mesh thing do you think by overclocking the mesh might help with some of the stuttering?
Thread ripper is going to really shake things up if it turns out what everyone hopes it will
What I don't get is how the hell is the i5 7640X 14nm a newer gen processor is running 112W TDP while my old i5 4690k is a 22nm 88W TDP? Its a smaller die but consumes more energy? WTF Intel?
why dislikes?...great test as always!
No R5 Ryzen testing or mentioning.
Richard has 3 different animations when he talks .I call them : Throwing darts, moving boxes, and the juggler.
Where's the power temperature stats?? Owh!! it would look bad on intel so DF won't show it,,,
Great video Richard!
So much FineWhine™ in the comments section 😂
Im on sandy, waiting for true 10nm intel icelake or amd's 7nm next year i think we will finally see a large bump in performance with those chips. Lack of performance improvements and non existent pc exclusives is saving me money at least.
I would like for your to focus more on things like number of PCI lanes as well as quad channel support, max allowed memory and max memory frequency. A CPU is not defined just by the cores count and frequency.
I'm getting a whiff of the P4 Prescott from this new platform. On the bright side it's great to see AMD competitive again as it means Intel now how to work harder on price and performance.
Stick with the z270 i7 7700k for if you're a strict gamer, or a Ryzen 1700/1700x build please for gaming least but mostly multi tasking/threaded work.
It seems the video quality when the presenter speaks is low or out of focus. Everything looks very soft
Can you just appreciate the irony here that the Piece to camera is out of focus on Rich for this video.
Man i love this channel
Ryzen 5 1600 can be had for as low as $199 USD. That's the best price to performance chip not the 7800x. I hope you guys take a look at the 1600 further and do an in depth analysis for the Ryzen 5 line up.
I dont get intel's point of having to pay twice as much for around 10-30% more performance in certain scenarios, this would be fine at the highest end where we get "diminishing returns" but this isnt the highest end anymore, 6-8 cores are mainstream now
But can it run Crysis?
I'll show myself out.
Look at the 1600 vs the i7 7800x.
Trading blows 50/50 for half the price.
www.techspot.com/review/1450-core-i7-vs-ryzen-5-hexa-core/page9.html
Intel getting their ass handed to them by a company thats 1/30 the size.
AMD best bang for your buck o/
Nice to see Intel under pressure, it's just a shame that it's meant them rushing out a half-baked product instead of really putting some effort in and coming up with something truly innovative.
Wow... I lost it. I have no clue what to buy and for what price exactly...
This Crysis 3 grass level overstrained most CPUs back then. 8 threads were at least required in 2013 on a Intel CPU.
However, Crysis 1 only used 2 CPU cores. In this regard CRYENGINE 3.5 was better aligned to the future.
Early next year I plan to build a Threadripper / GTX 2080 pc, was gonna use Vega but it's looking like a disaster for Radeon. Intel can go kick rocks.
man, what wrong with youtube these couple day?
when the video start to buffer and decide not to load the next chunk .... forever!
11:40 Can't really overclock my 7700k either, unless I want to use it as a frying pan.
Test the Ryzen R5 1600.
Interesting comparison with the old Intel chips.
If i had money, i could be rich and buy every single processor that comes out, not feeling bad about it.
Anyone else wish they'd test MMOs with these CPUs, and maybe with hyperthreading off?
Real competition is good for everyone, hopefully this is going to be like the mid 2000s where AMD and Intel had a more even marketshare.
I really hope the next generation of consoles will git a rysen cpu. The cpu has been a major problem this gen
I feel like Richard is a puppet on a string every time he makes those hand gestures haha
0:46 "rushed a new line of CPUs before they were properly cooked" No wonder Intel made the Skylake-X chips so hot, they wanted to continue cooking the chips XD
X99 here. I don't see a reason to upgrade who needs 150 FPS in 1080p? I'm running games in 3k around 60 to 100 Hz just fine.
How to record PS4 pro 4k footage?
Intels 8 core chip is cheaper than before, but Intel cut of a ton of PCI lanes. You can't get full bandwidth with 2 NVme PCI express SSDs. What i9 rushed to market: Yes. We all know that. It was scheduled for a Q3-Q4 release. CPIid on the review CPUs where i7, not i9. Coffelake is now rushed to get a 6 core Intel mainstream part.
The sad thing for gamers/pure gamers is that there is no "this CPU is Highlander/what you should get". Fast MHZ/IPC is everything in gaming. Intels 2 core chip even wins benchmarks against all other since it can be clocked higher. The i7 7740X can easily be clocked at 4.8 ghz and beat all Ryzen game benchmarks by 20% exempt a 2 games that are multithreaded. (Multithreaded is something Windows is not good at, same as memory management. Thats why zero mission critical servers uses Windows).
Most games today: A 50 dollar 2 core Intel manages to get same results as the other CPUs. A few games are threaded for 4 CPUs = i7 7740. 2 games are threaded over 4/8 threads and perform better on 6/8 core CPU, and Intel is clocked 20% higher than AMD Ryzen. Its only money, maybe longterm that more apps are threaded and if you do anything else than game: Then its Ryzen. But pure gamers: Its intel only and its sad.
BTW. I9 will get a new revision with soldered heatsink since Intels cheapness make them to hot today. Over 10 core: Intel have nothing, since 12+ cores are clocked 500mhz lower than AMD. Threadripper 12 core at 790 dollars is really interesting as long as you accept its 10-20% slower in games than 10 core 30%-50% more expensive intel (the X299 chipset is fanatical expensive. The Intel motherboard tax is hideous)
ARM is already faster per mhz. Its real 64bit, something X86 is not. We have 6-8 core parts that cost under 50 dollars. If the PC gaming industry just could move to that platform, would save us all 500+ dollars/per gaming setup and ARM competition is fierce since anyone can buy a design license. We see today at least 5 companies designing custom ARMS = why we see 50%+ increase each year in performance. A11 will be the first mainstream chip killing off 32bit, removing that part from CPUs. The feature of CPUs. (desktop Mac removes 32bit support in 2019. Either a new secret custom Intel Uarch or move to ARM, like windows done with Universal platform / ARM support for Qualcomm with X86 codemorphing with VirtuaPC technology (that Intel tries to stop. Like in 2002 when fastest X86 PC was PowerMac with X86 emulation)
You could not use 3200MHz ram when i7-7820x and i9 supports 2666MHz DDR4 ram.
going to buy the i7 7820x , and don't plan to overclock at all , though i will use it to render on weekends like 8-10 hours render time ,
cpu cooler will be coolermaster liquid pro 280 rad with push pull fan config (4 fans on the rad )
can you let me know the thermals this cpu generates on full load at stock clocks , my motherboard will be gigabyte x299 gaming 7 or 9 both has 2 8pin power connectors
i was thinking for ryzen but then i need more than 64 gb ram as i will do hair and fur simulations , ppl will say go for threadripper , but i don't want to spend that much amount on AMD , what's the point there if i go amd then 1000$ ryzen system without gpu sounds good to me , as in have a ryzen test system at my office it is giving us problems with 64gb ram , 32 runs fine
Amit Ghai Honestly if your looking for a more stable platform to work on x99 is probably better.
I don't see why you tested them all at the same frequency. If you can get better gaming performance by going with a quad-core because it overclocks higher than something with 6-10 cores then show it, if the more cores make more of a difference then show that too. No point in making the tests "fair" if real-world tasks won't be.
Who ever buys an overpriced CPU because it has 15 more fps? That perhaps relies on the GPUs job, Buying a CPU should and must only be for PCs overall performance, NOT ONLY FOR GAMING, but to everything and anything that a PC can work with. AMD made a smart move for not aiming only for the gaming industry/community, but for the general PC users from all angles, edit videos, uploading/downloading, multiple apps opened, other programs etc. As we know gamers tend to do more than just gaming. And having more cores, sucking less energy, giving out less heat and cheaper is the best thing that has ever happened in a long time, while the performance in gaming are not a huge difference (0-20fps) compared to Intel. It's a simple decision.
It's better to support AMD so that they can still make cheaper CPU for double the performance, Intel could just overprice their technology and take us hostage, but thanks to AMD we gamer have still possibility to have good performance
PrinceAnzo Cobra!!!
Seen they're benchmarking at 1080P and immediately paused the video. Do people really drop $350+ on just their CPU and then cheap out on the monitor? At this level it should be at least a 1440P/144Hz FreeSync or G-Sync monitor.
The internet's intel-hatefest circle-jerk is now at legendary levels. If we take this logic about Intel's latest platform and apply it to AMD, then AMD should not even exist anymore and not for a long time.
Meanwhile much bigger fuckups from AMD generate massive amounts of damage control.
This all goes well beyond "root for the little guy, give hell to the man" - it's like a certain subsection of PC gamers, especially those with blogs or channels, feel they can do what AMD's latest still cannot even do - turn the ratio of sales into something competitive "so everyone wins".
Sorry, reality doesn't work that way - your created narrative alone is not going to make things better. What will is AMD being competitive MULTIPLE generations in the row, not Intel slightly fucking up once and you making a mountain out of a molehill.
My 5960X is going no where for a good few years it seems
The Ryzen 5 1600 is better than the i7 7800X anyway!
Nah, price but never performance get real kid.
Mike ™ go check review and comparasion of both,the R5 1600 loses for less than 10% in almost every benchmark
Walletripper vs Threadripper, easy choice.
Mentions X299 platform lineup without making fun of it. For real DF? Everyone is mocking X299, this isn't a good sign of impartiality.
Six core cpu are the must near future for the gaming. But this X platform is expensive and rushed to market.
Only place that is memory bandwidth fanatics. At 1080P / 150+ frames. Its more an benchmarking illusion than real gaming performance unless all uses 244hz monitors / 1080P. (because: think how programming work. Why would memory bandwidth on intel impact performance at the levels that Digital foundry believe. AMD is another story since the infinity fabric is linked to memory speed. No other apps shows any improvement on Intel going from 2400 DDR4 to 4000 DDR4. We talk less than 1 % performance increase on all apps that I have seen tested)
Because you ignore ryzen 5??? Where are the reviews??
No Ryzen compared to this?