Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: chrome_2017-03-18_13-54-27.png (106KB, 228x241px) Image search:
[Google]
106KB, 228x241px
Digital Foundry finally did their Ryzen test, plus a 1600X simulated test.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TId-OrXWuOE
The biggest takeaway is that the 1600X FPS was usually only 4-7% less than the 1800X in benchmarks that weren't GPU limited. While that's still on average lower than the 7700k, the 7700k is also well above the 7600k in most games from the past 2 years.
It points to both the heavy under-utilization of the 1800X (especially in games that aren't under-utilizing the 6900k), but that for current games that the 1600X looks to be well above the 7600k in some games, and only slightly behind it in others, with room to spare while the 7600k is maxed out by them.
>>
>>59464689
So the takeaway is that for gamers (and thus, /g/ because nobody on /g/ does anything serious) is that the 1600x and its ilk are staggering value for vidya?
>>
>>59464904
Value for workstation tasks as well, still.
Much more the "jack of all" chip that's the best value all around, while the 1800X is workstation focused.
And the 1500X would be more gaming focused but still behind the 1600X in many games and obviously behind the 7700k by a significant amount.
That's what it shows to me.
>>
File: KDC1xjG.jpg (909KB, 2249x2713px) Image search:
[Google]
909KB, 2249x2713px
A few games look awful. The same that do better with 4+0 than 4+4 like Doom.
Doom is at least a game that seems like id Software might bother to patch.
>>
>>59466769
Doom also runs at a million fps almost regardless of hardware at nearly every resolution. Its a marvel of game engineering to be sure but squabbling over fps in that game is missing the point.
Christ my 8320e at 4.7ghz would ensure a 60fps lock (average was close to 100fps) at 1080p with a stock clocked 290x under vulkan.
>>
>>59466769
>percentages instead of values
>1080p
Wow stop posting anytime.
Thread posts: 6
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2