[H]ard|OCP decided it was time to test out the real world performance of AMD's Ryzen 7 1700 and did so with the programs most likely to be used … games. They tested 10 different games, from The Witcher 3 through DOOM at resolutions of 4K, 1440p, and 1080p. The GPU installed on systems will vary which is why they included GTX 1080 Ti, 1080 and 1060 along with the RX 480 both in single GPU and Crossfire configurations. Check out the full review to see how the Ryzen chip compares to the performance of Intel's 2600K and 7700K.
"With our AMD Ryzen 7 overclocked to 4GHz we find out if this is a competitive real-world gaming CPU or not. We compare it with two overclocked Intel 7700K and 2600K systems across six different video card configurations at 4K, 1440p, and 1080p to find out which CPU provides the best gameplay experience using playable game settings."
Here is some more Tech News from around the web:
- Star Trek: Bridge Crew drops out of hyperspace @ Rock, Paper, SHOTGUN
- RiME game review: An unforgettable memorial vacation @ Ars Technica
- Far Cry 5 trailer reveals doomsday cult, planes, bears & 2018 release date @ Rock, Paper, SHOTGUN
- Hackers jailbreak permanent mods onto Super Mario World save files @ Ars Technica
- 13 recent games that run well on terrible laptops @ Rock, Paper, SHOTGUN
- Humble Game On Bundle
So they used 2993mhz on
So they used 2993mhz on Rizen, but 3600mhz on Intel…
When 3200mhz is easy to run on AMD (3200mhz is plug and play)
So why drop the memory bandwidth so much on AMD ?
We also know that memory timing / latency at a given speed can make a difference… but nothing was disclosed.
And why would they ignore Rise of the tomb raider right after it got its Ryzen patch ?
Also Ryzen newest microcode is days away, and should allow 3600mhz ram like they use for the i7… seem like a rushed review to come to a predefined conclusion.
Also, the r7 1700 is $299 at Amazon, and the CPU come with superb stock cooler.
And if Core count simply doesn’t matter with gaming, why not pick the $220 1600 ? that also comes with a copper core cooler . (minus the RGB feature)
And the conclusion was bias central. It seem that they cant be objective and are looking at what is important to gaming in a rear view mirror.
What’s biased about Ryzen
What’s biased about Ryzen running neck and neck with the 6 year old 2600k in gaming when the results show likewise ?
Because Ryzen also comes in 4
Because Ryzen also comes in 4 core models ?
And on that same logic the 5ghz I7-7700k is also running neck and neck with the 6 year old 2600k in gaming.
I agree with StephanS. I saw
I agree with StephanS. I saw Intel bias all over that article. Nothing was mentioned either that Ryzen beat the 7700k by 52% in game streaming. Then they tried to smooth it over by saying the 7700k and the Ryzen still lack against the 2600k, but that still put a bias on Intel. The benchmarking was purposefully done in favor of Intel no matter how you slice it. Some enthusiasts and also game sites simply do NOT want to admit the power this processor has, and isn’t it amazing that a 1st generation AMD Processor goes neck and neck and at times outperforms a 7th generation Intel processor? And this is just the beginning.
Sorry Mr. member for 30
Sorry Mr. member for 30 minutes but you should read the article so you can refute it better.
harsh way to welcome a new
harsh way to welcome a new member Jeremy
maybe a bit less sarcasm would have been nicer
A: You clearly
A: You clearly don’t have a basic understanding of what the word sarcasm is.
B: How do you get through the day with grape-thin skin like that. Do you break down in tears when you run out of toilet paper?
Hey now, leave picking on
Hey now, leave picking on people to the professionals. 😉
I generally have a lot of
I generally have a lot of respect for HardOCP. However, this was not remotely an “unbiased” test. I don’t know how they possibly get off calling this a fair test by any stretch of the imagination. Nothing like having your thumb on the scale. How can you compare 5Ghz (Intel) to 4Ghz (Ryzen) and call the results “fair”? I’d say a fair test is stock clocks, or at the very least matched clock rates.
Every single time I see a
Every single time I see a benchmarked test of Ryzen vs. Intel for gaming, there is soon after a cluster of comments along the lines of it being biased testing, not the right RAM, not the right games, Intel chips are OCed too far, etc. When asked for a ‘non-biased’ test, the best that is offered are 30-minute youtube ramblings.
Please, can anyone provide a supposedly non-biased testing with actual charted results from a reputable source?
Nope … because the goal
Nope … because the goal posts will just move again unless the review pretty much states that the Ryzen is godlike and can beat even a magic $10,000 processor at everything.
Read as many reviews as you have the time and energy for and you will generally get a good idea of what the performance is like. A broad knowledge of the performance in various tests and system builds will filter out any theoretical bias and give you a good picture of the reality.
Well first time posting here,
Well first time posting here, but here goes.
What a lot of biased claims is basically logical fallicies. Reading that article was hard because [H] was trying to be the good guy in the article, however, fell flat on their faces hard (not pun intended).
1) All tests were tailored to the 2600k which did not allow for its shortcomings, and potentially hamstrung the newer CPUs. Hence why you saw a 6-7 year old processor hold its own against new blood.
2) Memory speed has been shown to be favored on newer Ryzen architecture. And while it was admitted that the faster speed only differentiated the results by at most 3% in the conclusions. This article did not balk at saying X cpu was faster than Y by a few percent in said game, thus, by interpretation won that matchup. This kind of terminology should be left out completely when comparing parts. Especially when you could swing the pendulum the other way by minimizing a weakness in said architecture, and show a dead heat comparison.
3) [H] has a narrative and tweaks their articles to fit it, and will defend it to the death. At least until proven wrong in their conclusions
When people questioned [H] for their review, which I was a part of, they followed it by posting a follow-up article.
but not before Kyle went to the discussion boards on their first review defending their decisions in his harsh style.
4) Outdated data presentation is used in reviews to draw conclusions and value performance. This paints a very one sided picture. Yet, when asked why they don’t update their methods, users are either harassed or told that [H] is still working on the equipment. Other websites have been using updated ( more detailed) charts to show performance for the last few years. However, [H] chooses to use max FPS charts for CPU/GPU reviews and frametime charts for VR reviews. Why the double standard?
5) The writer and the editor had differing conclusions based on the data offered for the basis for the article. This is a double edged sword here that can be taken however you want.
I could continue to pick apart the editorial process for HardOCP’s reviews
*I chose to move onto other sites like PCPer that tend to, as Kyle put it, take a more granular approach to data accumulation; rather than accept the “Take our word for it” real-world-gaming approach [H] chooses to do.
*The process of presentation and data accumulation is archaic. I would say this is the biggest issue I have with that site. Saying you have one of the longest running pages on the internet only garners so much leeway before people begin to call BS on your practices.
*The owner needs to learn to separate personal life from professional life when running that site. Pick and choose your battles. The man strikes me as thin skinned as some of the more prolific posters out there on social media, but then they do not have influential websites out there.
Thank you for the well
Thank you for the well thought out and written comment; we really appreciate those who take the time to explain their take on things.
Also appreciate the compliment, Ryan, Al, Josh and the gang put a lot of time and effort into the reviews; not just the testing but finding ways to provide meaningful data to our readers.
First off, Jeremy, I will
First off, Jeremy, I will never come here again and read anyone’s posts thanks to you, because you don’t know how to talk to people, so you can give yourself a nice pat on the back for driving someone away. It doesn’t take a Super-Tech to look over that article and meticulously take it apart word by word and refute each sentence to see the Intel bias here. If that is what you were looking for from me, I don’t have that kind of time. I was only re-inforcing StephanS’s conclusion and you had to jump right in there. What you really need Jeremy is about a dozen classes on congeniality and less time trying to exploit the faults of others.
OK, have a nice life.
OK, have a nice life.
I’ll ask once more: what
I’ll ask once more: what reviews are /not/ biased against Ryzen?