Discussion Ryzen 5 VS Intel I5 - Surprising performance differences.

[NightHawkRMX]

Ryzen 5 1600 vs. Core i5-7600K, How Times Have Changed!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97sDKvMHd8c


Recently, Hardware Unboxed uploaded a video titled "Ryzen 5 1600 vs. Core i5-7600K, How Times Have Changed!" detailing in-depth benchmarks between the Core I5 7600k and the AMD Ryzen 5 1600.
Both processors were tested both at stock and at mildly overclocked frequencies. Both CPUs were tested with an RTX 2080ti and an identical kit of 3200mhz Gskill ram with XMP on. The Ryzen 5 1600 was tested on the MSI B450 tomahawk motherboard, while the 7600k was tested with MCE off on the ASRock Z270 Taichi motherboard. Both CPUs were cooled by the Corsair H100i Pro RGB AIO.

This video was a follow up to their original comparison around the launch of 1st generation Ryzen, roughly 2 years ago.
In 2017, if you wanted an overclockable mid range cpu, 2 popular choices were the 6 core, 12 thread, AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and the 4 core 4 thread Intel Core i5 7600k.

Hardware Unboxed's launch benchmarks showed the Intel Core I5 7600k had a higher overall framerate in the majority of games when compared to the AMD Ryzen 5 1600. However, the benchmarks also showed the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 surpassed the Intel Core i5 7600k in framerate stability at times and surpassed the I5 in multithreaded applications. It was also noted that the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 included a Wraith Spire cooler and the Intel Core I5 7600k came with no included cooler.

Now, Hardware Unboxed released updated benchmarks testing newer games. These benchmarks showed the I5 7600k only has a significant lead in 1 title, Far Cry New Dawn. There were a few titles where the I5 slightly won and there were somewhere the Ryzen 5 slightly won, basically a draw. In modern CPU demanding games such as AC Odyssey, Battlefield 5, SOTR, and The Division 2, the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 had a significant lead over the Intel Core I5 7600.
Steve did mention that programs getting optimized for ryzen and intels hits from patches may have contributed to ryzens increased performance, as well as games using more threads.

This leaves me with a few questions for yall.

1. Do you think that AMD Ryzen optimizations have helped the Ryzen 5 1600 to surpass the Intel Core I5 in modern titles, or do you think the extra cores and threads are the main reason for the better performance?
2. Do you think that in the future we will see similar results when comparing the Ryzen 5 2600 to the Core I5 8600k or 9400f?

I am surprised how well the I5 performed for only 4 threads, however, the Ryzen 5 1600 can be bought online for like $100, making it an incredible value.

 

[velocityg4]

1. Optimizations have probably helped both from AMD and game developers. Intel has had more performance impacting security patches. Assuming the testing was done with all the latest updates installed. If not then the AMD would have an even bigger advantage. As more games are multi-threaded. That has certainly helped.

2. Possibly, as they have the same number of cores and Ryzen is already pretty well optimized. Not as much of a change. Unless more flaws are found in Intel vs AMD architecture in the future. As Ryzen has double the threads and better heavily multi-threaded performance. It has the potential of doing better in future titles optimized for multi-threaded performance.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

When the 7600K was falling behind, it crashed and burned. Very much like the dual-core i3s did before that. When the 7600K was ahead, the R5 1600 was still doing well.

Your questions:

1. I think it was the extra cores/threads that helped. We saw the same results with as far as the dual-core i3s falling WAY behind in certain titles in the years before that.
2. It could be similar, but I think it's too early to tell. As of games today, I only see up to 8 threads being used with my 2700X.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Steve did mention patches hurting intel.
I'll admit, for the games I play, I could have chosen Intel over AMD, however, Id much rather have my 4 core overclockable cpu with a great upgrade path than a more expensive 2 core locked cpu with a worse upgrade path.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

The slight back and forths in performance aren't much concern. Even if and when Intel takes off with a huge lead in perf., AMD is still right there chugging along consistently. It was the considerable drops in performance from the 7600K that make it a poor gaming CPU; along with the price and release date of it. My opinion has been the same since the release of 8th-gen the same year as 7th-gen, Intel could have skipped 7th-gen or made it a core-count increase like 8th-gen. I had bought an i7-7700K mid-2017. I later swapped it for a Ryzen 7 2700X after the 9900K released because I don't like what Intel has done since 7th-gen.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I actually like the 7700k, however, it should be cheaper for only 4 cores.
5ghz OC, hyperthreading, and good IPC make is good for gaming performance.
Any other 7th gen cpu doesnt really make sense.

I love the 8700k too since it has a lot of threads and can be OC to 5ghz.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

The i7-7700K is a lot more likable when you don't have to pay for it.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I guess everything is.
Nearly all Intel's k skew CPUs would be likable to me if they were priced accurately (basically half or 2/3 of what they cost).
Should not have to pay for Intel to remove artificial memory speed caps and unlock the multiplier.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

Yeah, other than that I really like HardwareUnboxed and the discussion topic of that video and your post. The only thing Intel has going for them at the moment is the i5-9400F at $149 (which offers similar performance as the i7-7700K), and even then it isn't that great since you have to buy the more expensive Z390 motherboard to ensure out-of-the-box compatibility. Might as well go for the Ryzen 5 2600 or wait for the 3600.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I do like the 9400f. I would like it even more if it was unlocked tho.

 

[Gam3r01]

I would have gone ryzen with my next upgrade if I didnt get this processor in the giveaway.
Performance is so close that the pricing alone is the deciding factor for me.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Aww dangit. I entered that giveaway but didn't win.

 

[JQB45]

At least you entered, I didn't even enter. Kind of wish I had (and won of course) as I would have sold it and upgraded my Ryzen system or fixed my i5-2500k system.

 

[Unolocogringo]

With all of the security patches and updates applied the Ryzen processor line is about even with Intel per core gaming wise.
Add in Ryzen's extra threads and it simply wins in highly threaded apps.
I have been Waiting on Ryzen2 3000 launch to upgrade.
Still rockin a Phenom 2 X6 @3.6 the 4 core dominated market did not interest me and it is getting old. Many years of folding

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I would have sold it an upgraded my ryzen system aswell. Certainly not what intel wants, but i wasnt dropping $150 on an z370 mobo and ditching am4.

 

[mdd1963]

I had bought an i7-7700K mid-2017. I later swapped it for a Ryzen 7 2700X after the 9900K released because I don't like what Intel has done since 7th-gen.

Was yours a mostly gaming rig, per chance, or mostly video editing/rendering in addition to gaming/simultaneous streaming? (Most pure gaming benchmark comparisons I've seen would have shown going from 7700K to a 2700X as being a lateral, at best, to slightly backwards move regarding pure min/average frame rate potential...; once the former was OC'd, well, so far only the 8600K and above, including 9th gen of course, have surpassed it...)

 

[NightHawkRMX]

There is more to a CPU than performance in games.
Overall gaming performance between the 2700x and 7700k is similar. 2700x wins in some, 7700k wins in others.
However, the 2700x will have a more stable framerate and will certainly run cooler and consume less power than a 7700k.

https://img.purch.com/image008-png/o/aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9PLzUvNzY1NTA5L29yaWdpbmFsL2ltYWdlMDA4LnBuZw==

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

Was yours a mostly gaming rig, per chance, or mostly video editing/rendering in addition to gaming/simultaneous streaming? (Most pure gaming benchmark comparisons I've seen would have shown going from 7700K to a 2700X as being a lateral, at best, to slightly backwards move regarding pure min/average frame rate potential...; once the former was OC'd, well, so far only the 8600K and above, including 9th gen of course, have surpassed it...)

You are right. I do mostly game. I had already delidded my i7-7700K and achieved 5.0GHz (which was virtually no different than 4.5GHz gaming) and I began seeing I was needing more and more voltage to maintain 5.0GHz, had to go down to 4.9GHz. Then I started playing AC Odyssey and it uses 90-100% CPU with the 7700K. I wanted a CPU that I didn't have to worry about upgrading for many years. I was going to buy the i9-9900K when it launched, but the release price was $579 and I just didn't want to pay that at the time.

I like a CPU that has plenty of leftover processing capability while I'm gaming. I don't want to have to double check that I have every background process killed before launching a game.

 

[dudeman509]

Kaby Lake was what Skylake should have been to begin with - high clocked 4-core parts. Intel took their sweet time getting to 14nm as well, so much so that Broadwell was mostly forgotten architecture.

They probably just were hoping to keep the higher core counts in the enthusiast market as long as possible, because those CPUs typically have a RIDICULOUS price tag on them.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

SKylake/Kaby lake should have offered more cores than they did.
Maybe they should have not featured a million and one security flaws as well.

 

[TerryLaze]

SKylake/Kaby lake should have offered more cores than they did.

If they did there wouldn't be any AMD today anymore...
(at least no CPU team)
And if intel would release sunnycove for desktop right now they would again be about 20-30% faster then zen2 in everything and destroy the little bit of buffer that AMD is building up right now.
And it doesn't matter how bad the yields are,even if it's just 10% yield that's probably still more than 100% of the CPUs AMD can produce right now.
And it doesn't matter how much it would cost intel, they could hurt for a while,heck they could hurt financially for decades and still be ok.

Intel released the first 10nm laptop parts a whole year ago,I believe they have plenty of yield but they are having enough growth with 14nm to release them yet.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

SKylake/Kaby lake should have offered more cores than they did.

If they did there wouldn't be any AMD today anymore...
(at least no CPU team)
And if intel would release sunnycove for desktop right now they would again be about 20-30% faster then zen2 in everything and destroy the little bit of buffer that AMD is building up right now.

Somehow, I agree with both of you.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I really am not tied to Intel or AMD. I just like whoever offers better value.

I wouldn't really care if AMD stopped making CPUs if Intel was able to bring decent performance to the table and continued to innovate in the way of multicore advancement.
But Intel didn't, so AMD stepped in.

AMD offered and still offers better value, so I bought AMD.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

What do you think is better value for someone looking to overclock.
Ryzen 1600 or 2600.
The 1600 is cheaper and slower out of the box, but it comes with a better cooler and can overclock decently.
The 2600 is more expensive and faster out of the box, but it comes with a worse cooler and cannot overclock very far.

 

[SgtScream]

Ryzen is such a great choice for high resolution gaming due to the graphics card being the limiting factor. And the superior multicore performance is what's going to give systems better gaming longevity as a whole because at these high resolutions, just meeting the games cpu recommended system requirements are what's important and Ryzen will be able to deliver that easy for years. Wouldn't it be interesting as graphics cards progress in performance, eventually to the point where higher resolutions like 4k are limited to the ipc of the processor? Only then do I see Intel taking back the throne unless AMD continues to close the gap in IPC. All I know is my Ryzen R7 1700 does just fine with my gtx 1080 ti on ultra via 3440x1440p ultrawide. Might as well sit back and observe the competition for a year or three, however it doesn't look like there will be any competition in the near future in the desktop market.