add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Intel or Ryzen?

MonsterMang0
  • 34 months ago

I was just wondering which one is better for gaming, I can not decide whether I should get an Intel or a Ryzen CPU. I was leaning towards Intel because I've always had it and it has always worked fine, but I'm not so sure with the rising popularity of Ryzen.

Thanks!

Comments

  • 34 months ago
  • 2 points

Jesus has RYZEN

  • 34 months ago
  • 1 point

They're both pretty good. AMD has some issues when it comes to higher refresh gaming, but if you're solely aiming for 60 fps there's no real justification to spend more for an Intel chip over a similar Ryzen chip. It depends on your situation.

  • 34 months ago
  • 1 point

I'd recommend taking a look at reviews/benchmarks and reading the reviewers' conclusions. It's really not as simple as "60 Hz = Get either. 144 Hz = Intel." Both companies offer competitive products and there are compelling reasons to choose one over the other, even in gaming. Here are a few reviews that can give you an idea of things to consider.

Gamers Nexus

Anandtech

Tech Spot

Tech Deals (Video)

Bit Wit (Video)

  • 34 months ago
  • 1 point

I'm in the same boat so very interested in what everyone's opinion is, either the 7600k or the r5 1600 I'm torn between...

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 34 months ago
  • 1 point

The only thing putting me off Ryzen 1600 is the ram issues etc... going with the 7600k seems the much easier route lol.

  • 34 months ago
  • 1 point

From the more recent reviews that I've seen (the Tom's review on the R5s, for instance) AMD has cleared up most of the RAM issues with software updates.

  • 34 months ago
  • 1 point

Things have improved, but they are still not 100% fixed. My 3200 mHz kit can only hit 2666 mHz right now and many other still have similar issues. AMD is releasing an update in May to further address the problem:

We will continue to update you on future AGESA releases when they’re complete, and we’re already working hard to bring you a May release that focuses on overclocked DDR4 memory.

Source

  • 34 months ago
  • 1 point

I'm planning to go with a 1600 for my upcoming build, so I'm glad that they are working on it. Thanks for the info.

[comment deleted]
  • 34 months ago
  • 1 point

It is also very possible to be unfixable on this generations memory controller.

It's also possible that there is nothing broken that needs fixing. The community seems to be operating on the assumption that not being able to support overclocked memory speeds means there is something "wrong" with the firmware.

We're working with a memory controller rated to handle 1866MT/s at 4 ranks per channel, vs Intel @ 2400MT/s at 4 ranks per channel.

Expecting over 3000MT/s on Ryzen, and assuming there is something wrong with it when it doesn't get there, would be like expecting every Kaby lake controller to hit over 4000MT/s.

  • 34 months ago
  • 1 point

Keep in mind, there's no reason to expect every Ryzen CPU to achieve memory overclocks to 3200MT/s and beyond.

Intel Kaby lake memory controllers are rated to handle 4 ranks of memory per channel at 2400MT/s. Ryzen is only rated to handle 1866MT/s with the same 4 rank per channel load.

Intel doesn't make any claims to supporting higher speeds, but as has always been the case with memory controllers, as we reduce the number of ranks, they tend to be able to run higher speeds. AMD has taken the liberty of actually listing supported speeds for fewer rank configurations, where we learn that we have to drop down to 2 ranks per channel on a single DIMM to match Kaby lake supported speeds with 4 ranks per channel.

This discrepancy tells us right away that Ryzen isn't going to hit memory speeds as high as Kaby. Expecting 3200-3600MT/s on Ryzen with common dual rank DIMM's is roughly equivalent to expecting 4000-4600MT/s from Kaby Lake.

We shouldn't be comparing clock speeds we can hit on 2 different platforms directly anyway. Don't let Kaby Lake dictate expectations. The Ryzen memory controller is hitting higher memory bandwidth at lower memory clock speeds than Kaby lake anyway.

  • 34 months ago
  • 1 point

There's certainly an argument to be made about expectations, but it would be more productive once AMD releases its update in May. If there were no improvements to be had, AMD would not be primarily dedicating a microcode update to overclocked memory.

[comment deleted]
  • 34 months ago
  • 1 point

Hey Monster Mango. Just thought I would share a bit more perspective to add too what others have said. For me it comes down to several things. There is price to performance ratio. A big one when gaming requires a good Monitor and choosing the correct resolution and refresh rate. A good Graphics card are the most important parts of the build along with sufficient onboard memory. Then there are of course the keyboard and mouse. All these things add up to a good or bad gaming experience. What good is a 6950X or Ryzen 1800X if your paired with a GTX1050 or an RX460. You really have to think of the whole aspect and the objective of the computers purpose. Today with Ryzen out you can't go wrong with either brand. Ryzen is better in the streaming department while gaming. If your not going to stream, then Intel is fine. However if you want more longevity I would point again at AMD. DX11 and DX12 should be heavy considerations as well. Which games do you prefer? Microsoft and game developers will more and more be optimizing for more cores and more threads. Right now most games are written for primarily four cores. Some are better at multi threading. Even some DX12 games are not yet that optimized for more cores or threads. But it is the new API. Consoles are just moving to four core as pc was a bit sooner. With that being said, What resolution? What refresh? What size? Need to know size to choose the optimal resolution. Then which card? Then processor, but do you want longevity or just meet requirements. Need 8Gb onboard memory. Todays games can take up to and even more than about 6Gb. A separate drive from the boot is also a very nice to have. Loading games is faster that way. At very low res for today's standards is where Ryzen can struggle a bit but optimizations are being released which are already showing single thread increases of 10 percent in some cases and higher. Much comes down to the AM4 chipsets which are still being optimized. If your partial to Intel and want no frills but max performance, go i5 Skylake or Kabylake. Four more threads of the i7 will get you some more longevity. If you just want the best you can get for as little as possible go AMD. If your partial to AMD and want no frills but enough performance, R5 1500X. Even lower but probably still solid but not yet released will be the R3 series. 1500X is only 10-20 percent behind 1600 which is more like 5-10 percent behind R7 series. 1600 is very close to on par with and sometimes beating the i5 6600-7600k yet less cost. But it'll stream better if your into that. It's all about what your looking for but both have good performance that is very competitive in pretty much any segment of gaming. 60Hz or more? One of the first things to think about. More than it would be advisable to get a specialized monitor for the GPU brand though you can get by without. You can use a free sync monitor with Nvidia but not so much the other way around. But why spend on a Gsync and then go amd gpu? Both CPU brands work well with either Gpu brand nowadays. But I'm partial to matching AMD with AMD and Intel with Nvidia. But if your on the low end you can save money less concerned with matching. I've been making really long posts on here today but I like explaining the logic behind my statements. I should add, Vega is not out, so for me and I was not partial to brands, I would go 1800X with 1080 or plus like a Ti, i7 or 1800X will drive the card, but DX12. Going that high for me today is out of the question and for max lifetime of the machine I would wait on Vega. 1800X +Vega should be very good for years to come. Too many choices. Lol. I'm looking forward to my build.

  • 34 months ago
  • 1 point

just put together my 1600x and rx 480 8gb even in a lot of the older/indie titles that only use 1-2 cores i still get around 100 fps everything maxed except for Arma 3... that A###hole still refuses to give me a solid 60fps generally hovering at around 35FPS with everything (including view distance) maxed out on a busy server. Tone down the server usage a bit and it goes into the mid 40's/low 50's.

Bottom line i would absolutely go with ryzen... although i might trade the RX 480 for a GTX something. not because of performance (its killer especially in price/perf ratio) but because of thermals. i live in CA so a hot chip means a hot room witch means either an unhappy wallet or an unhappy gamer. every watt counts.

P.S my XFX stays plenty cool normally hovering around the low 70c range with ambient temps of 60-70F maybe 80ish after a long gaming stint take those ambients with a grain of salt never took a thermostat to my room.

  • 34 months ago
  • 0 points

Thanks for all the replies and help guys!

  • 34 months ago
  • -2 points

Games use 4 cores as maximum (almost all of them), so Intel is better for gamimg because the cores are more powerfull. Instead, Rayzen has more cores but less powerfull.

[comment deleted]
  • 34 months ago
  • 3 points

Keep in mind, that even without optimization for multi-threading, there are lots of simple optimization that can be done to bring Ryzen performance up to haswell/broadwell territory in lightly threaded games. In games where we see Sandy bridge class IPC or worse, the problem is often related to the fact that Ryzen cache configuration is so radically different. The L1/L2 cache sizes being different than Intel, means that if the software was compiled for Intel, then we have a data/instruction granularity mismatch to Ryzens ideal.

Solving this, could be as simple as recompiling with an updated compiler, and enabling compiler options to generate Ryzen optimized branches of code.

Where we see such incredible results in applications like Cinebench, we're seeing the results in software that actually runs optimized code on a per-machine/arch basis.

[comment deleted]
  • 34 months ago
  • 2 points

I have no idea what your beef with AMD is, but Ryzen's gaming performance is not as horrible as you are making it out to be. Pair Ryzen with a set of fast RAM and the gaming difference closes up real well. Complaining about Ryzen achieving 120fps when an Intel chip gets 145fps is silly.

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted]
  • 34 months ago
  • -1 points

Dude, quit trolling. The 1600 is a great value for money CPU, and saying that OP should go for a locked Intel chip is silly. Most Ryzen chips can hit the 3.8Ghz range with really decent temperatures and still have comparable/better performance than the competing Intel chip. Give AMD a shot. Ryzen is not the Bulldozer you think it is.

  • 34 months ago
  • 2 points

Disagreeing about hardware is not trolling. What the other user said is not unusual or strange, even if you disagree with it.

[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted]
  • 34 months ago
  • 1 point

Don't forget that you have to subtract 20o C from all ryzen temperatures due to the offset, so it would actually be 50o C instead

[comment deleted]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube