AMD Ryzen 5 1400 1500X & 1600X Review!

[martin-w 3,235]

11 hours ago, joemiller said:

Pease re-read my explanations... and analyze.

 

Thanks for the suggestion Joe, but I don't need to re-read or analyse anything. The comments you made were easy to interpret. 

 

Quote

However, it is not (not) what some folks in our community try to make it appear:  

 

Who exaggerated the 7700K's capabilities? Who are these "folks"? I've asked you before and got no response. Again, I've not seen that anywhere on the forum. Indeed, all you needed to do was use your own judgement, do your own "analysis". If you had you would have been well aware of the chips capabilities compared with previous platforms as a result of the 2.5% increase in IPC and small additional overclock. Did "you" not do your own analysis? Did you not bother to research and just dived in? I've lost count of the number of times myself and others have mentioned the small increase in IPC over previous platforms.

If you aren't happy with "your" choice, you shouldn't blame others, only yourself to be honest. You had all the tools at your disposal to make your own decision.

 

Quote

is as ineffective as all the previous ones (thanks to Intel's greed and robbery) 

 

Again, makes no sense. How can the 7700K be as ineffective as "ALL" the previous chips when there has been a significant increase in IPC since the 2600K you quoted? Does that increase in IPC generate the ultimate flight sim experience... no, of course not. As Ryan rightly pointed out, flight sim is archaic software. 

In addition, flight simmers are a minuscule fraction of Intel's customer base.  They don't make super powerful chips just for flight sim, just for you. The chips they do manufacture are perfectly fine for the vast majority. It's not all about you and your flight sim needs.

Do Intel charge a lot for their CPU's? Of course they do! Until AMD recently stepped up they almost had a monopoly, so to be  expected whether we like it or not. However, they aren't deliberately holding back performance just to rip off flight simmers or anyone else. More's law is under threat, it's becoming harder and much more expensive to eek out greater performance.

[martin-w 3,235]

On 13/04/2017 at 3:22 AM, joemiller said:

And Intel's  7700K is NOT best for flight-sim either. Yes, it's better than a 2700K, 

 

You are taking "best" out of context. max wasn't saying it's the ultimate CPU and can never be bettered.

Obviously the 7700K is the best for flight sim. Because no other CPU currently betters it. Thus, obviously it's the best.

Surely you understood the context.

 

 

[JimmiG 244]

On 4/13/2017 at 4:22 AM, joemiller said:

And Intel's  7700K is NOT best for flight-sim either. Yes, it's better than a 2700K, but even at 5.0Ghz the 7700K is not enough to tickle FSX nor P3D and make it scream!  I just build a entire computer with an Intel 7700K  @ 5.0Ghz and fast RAM... and P3D was like: "Boooooooo.. sorry buddy.... I need more than this chip to make me happy." 

 

Unfortunately, that's where we stand!

 

The problem is FSX and P3D. They're based on outdated  graphics engines dating back to the age of single-core CPUs and "dumb" GPUs that just weren't able to offload the CPU much. Until we get a replacement for the geriatric ESP engine, we will all be waiting for the 8 GHz single-core chip so we can party like it's 2004.

[joemiller 269]

On 4/18/2017 at 3:32 AM, martin-w said:

Who exaggerated the 7700K's capabilities? Who are these "folks"? I've asked you before and got no response. Again, I've not seen that anywhere on the forum. Indeed, all you needed to do was use your own judgement, do your own "analysis". If you had you would have been well aware of the chips capabilities compared with previous platforms as a result of the 2.5% increase in IPC and small additional overclock. Did "you" not do your own analysis? Did you not bother to research and just dived in? I've lost count of the number of times myself and others have mentioned the small increase in IPC over previous platforms.

If you aren't happy with "your" choice, you shouldn't blame others, only yourself to be honest. You had all the tools at your disposal to make your own decision.

Again, makes no sense. How can the 7700K be as ineffective as "ALL" the previous chips when there has been a significant increase in IPC since the 2600K you quoted? Does that increase in IPC generate the ultimate flight sim experience... no, of course not. As Ryan rightly pointed out, flight sim is archaic software. 

In addition, flight simmers are a minuscule fraction of Intel's customer base.  They don't make super powerful chips just for flight sim, just for you. The chips they do manufacture are perfectly fine for the vast majority. It's not all about you and your flight sim needs.

Do Intel charge a lot for their CPU's? Of course they do! Until AMD recently stepped up they almost had a monopoly, so to be  expected whether we like it or not. However, they aren't deliberately holding back performance just to rip off flight simmers or anyone else. More's law is under threat, it's becoming harder and much more expensive to eek out greater performance.

Martin, though you try your best to bring your ideas and explanations, I believe we all have different opinions, experiences and explanations around this topic. To help with giving my explanation, let me say this.... "Very likely I'm demanding too much out of P3D and must accept that for it to run without hiccups, I must lower the settings considerably. ( Maybe that's what it is)  

As you can see I opted not to argue any of your responses because we would be engaged in a never ending argument.. I prefer not to do that.)  (Trust me, I know what I'm saying but will pretend that I don't just to keep things civil)   

[joemiller 269]

On 4/18/2017 at 3:44 AM, martin-w said:

 

You are taking "best" out of context. max wasn't saying it's the ultimate CPU and can never be bettered.

Obviously the 7700K is the best for flight sim. Because no other CPU currently betters it. Thus, obviously it's the best.

Surely you understood the context.

 

 

I see 

[martin-w 3,235]

4 hours ago, joemiller said:

Martin, though you try your best to bring your ideas and explanations, I believe we all have different opinions, experiences and explanations around this topic.

 

True, some aspects are opinion, but others are fact. And the thing about "fact" is that it remains fact whether we like it or not. Some of the "opinions" you expressed are contrary to fact, so it's very important that it's highlighted.

 

Quote

As you can see I opted not to argue any of your responses because we would be engaged in a never ending argument.. I prefer not to do that.)

 

Possibly... or of course it could be that you wont provide a valid counterargument because you don't have a valid counterargument. 

I've debated with all manner of individuals, conspiracy theorists, climate change deniers you name it, and when I do it's common to encounter psychological factors like cognitive dissonance, cognitive bias etc. So not for a second do I believe I can change your opinion, or indeed wish to. The only reason I'm debating this in the first instance is that there are numerous individuals reading this seeking "factual" information. Thus, I do not wish for those individuals to be led astray by untruths.

 

Quote

Trust me, I know what I'm saying but will pretend that I don't just to keep things civil

 

See above.

But if true, you should never have contributed at all. No point contributing to a thread if you wont offer counter arguments or back up accusations. 

[joemiller 269]

4 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

True, some aspects are opinion, but others are fact. And the thing about "fact" is that it remains fact whether we like it or not. Some of the "opinions" you expressed are contrary to fact, so it's very important that it's highlighted.

Possibly... or of course it could be that you wont provide a valid counterargument because you don't have a valid counterargument. 

I've debated with all manner of individuals, conspiracy theorists, climate change deniers you name it, and when I do it's common to encounter psychological factors like cognitive dissonance, cognitive bias etc. So not for a second do I believe I can change your opinion, or indeed wish to. The only reason I'm debating this in the first instance is that there are numerous individuals reading this seeking "factual" information. Thus, I do not wish for those individuals to be led astray by untruths.ee above.

But if true, you should never have contributed at all. No point contributing to a thread if you wont offer counter arguments or back up accusations. 

ok

[martin-w 3,235]

1 hour ago, joemiller said:

ok

 

Glad you get it. Your 6700K to 7700K no one would regard that as a viable upgrade. 

[joemiller 269]

12 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

Glad you get it. Your 6700K to 7700K no one would regard that as a viable upgrade. 

Hahahaha... you love and beg for my comments.... Ok.. let me respond.

The 7700k is as in-effective as the previous CPUs for P3D. I know this irritates- and hurts you badly- but that is the reality. The Ryzen CPUs will do the same- or better- work than the Intel's 7700K. Bare in mind, I don't fly default a/c or cheap sceneries like yourself. No, I use top quality add-ons... that's where the real test is. (see our differences?  Ahhhhh).

Also, don't forget that any of these so-called "great chips" by Intel has no improvement for FSX or P3D from 4.7Ghz to 5.2Ghz. (it hurts. yes it does.. but that's the reality).   

So, what do we need? We need a much better chip, and for Intel to stop stealing people's money for very small "improvements" on their chips. (hurts? I understand, but it's correct). Hopefully AMD or maybe even Intel will some day  come up with a robust CPU (that's what we all hope... well not everyone.. some prefer to keep being lied and cheated by Intel) lol

Good luck !

 

 

[martin-w 3,235]

Quote

The 7700k is as in-effective as the previous CPUs for P3D. I know this irritates- and hurts you badly- but that is the reality.

 

Why do you think it hurts me badly. I don't sim anymore and don't have a 7700K. Only fact concerns me. 

But no, you said this before, you compared the 2600K and 7700K and said they were both equally ineffective. Simply not true when there's a significant CPU IPC increase. I know this first hand! When I upgraded to the 6700K there was indeed a noticeable increase in frame rate in the sim. And I should add, it was from a CPU architecture that wasn't as old as the 2600K you quoted. Indeed, there have been plenty of simmers who have upgraded and highlighted the performance increase. You fail to realise that you are a sample size of ONE!

Your problem was that you, very mysteriously, expected to see an increase in performance upgrading from a 6700K to a 7700K. A few minutes research on Google or anywhere would have revealed that was misguided.

The problem then though, after being misguided enough to expect miracles from a virtually nonexistent IPC increase, rather than taking responsibility yourself, you go on to blame members of the community that you refer to as "so called" experts.

 

Quote

Bare in mind, I don't fly default a/c or cheap sceneries like yourself.

 

So now, as well as being misguided, you are psychic too.  And I might add, totally wrong. I'm a moderator elsewhere and have beta tested complex add-ons', not to mention written many reviews.

 

Quote

Also, don't forget that any of these so-called "great chips" by Intel has no improvement for FSX or P3D from 4.7Ghz to 5.2Ghz. (it hurts. yes it does.. but that's the reality

 

Err... well yes it does. Overclocking is linear in a well balanced system. So 4.7 to 5.2 equates to almost 11%. So expect, at 30 frames per second, 3.3 frames per second. Not much I grant you, you probably wouldn't notice. Precisely my point in many posts. So err... no, it doesn't "hurt me", in fact I've babbled on about it so many times it must have bored people.

 

Quote

So, what do we need? We need a much better chip, and for Intel to stop stealing people's money for very small "improvements" on their chips. (hurts? I understand, but it's cor

 

You have ignored my previous comment regrading the difficulty chip manufactures,  (both Intel and AMD) now face in regard to increasing performance. More's law is under threat. Why do you think we are seeing multiple cores and threads? Because it's getting harder and harder to increase frequency, and guess what the sim needs? frequency! 

You have also ignored my previous comment where I point out that the flight sim continuity is  minuscule. Why would you expect Intel or AMD to suddenly spend billions countering the technological hurdles that now exist, in order to boost frequency (what FS needs) massively... just to please flight sim fans? Yes, Intel almost have a monopoly, so they capitalise on it, but they are NOT holding back CPU frequency "just for a laugh", just to irritate FS fans.

If you respond, please offer counter arguments to my points, rather than ignoring them and just making the same claims over again. If you address my points and offer valid counter arguments, I will gladly accept them.

 

Quote

Hopefully AMD or maybe even Intel will some day  come up with a robust CPU

 

They already have! For 99.9% of their customers. That 99.9% of customers have technically advanced, multi-core, multi-threaded CPU's that perform admirably for the intended use. In fact the vast majority of customers are more than happy with the rather incredible technology that's incorporated in that tiny little package. Modern CPU's from Intel are fit for purpose and do everything they are supposed to and more.

So why on Earth, would you, a member of a minuscule group that likes to "flight sim" expect Intel to provide the super high CPU frequency that YOU want for the sim, and very few others actually need? Are you really that special?

Sorry to say this Joe, but In short, you messed up and then blamed innocent members of the community and even Intel rather than yourself. 

 

 

[Glynn 405]

14 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

Why do you think it hurts me badly. I don't sim anymore and don't have a 7700K. Only fact concerns me. 

 

 

Martin, Stop rising to the bait, Joe does not really have a 7700K, he hates Intel for some reason, probably had some personal losses when Intel stomped all over AMD. 

When he first appeared banging the drum for Ryzen he stated quite clearly that he would never let an Intel chip near his system, the posts are still here somewhere, a quick search should find them.

Sussed him out straight away.

[martin-w 3,235]

3 minutes ago, Glynn said:

Martin, Stop rising to the bait, Joe does not relly have a 7700K, he is an AMD ###### full stop.

When he first appeared banging the drum for Ryzen he stated quite clearly that he would never let an Intel chip near his system, the posts are still here somewhere, a quick search should find them.

Sussed him out straight away.

 

 

Ha, thanks Glynn.  Great typing practice though.

I guess it takes all kinds to make a world.

[westman 257]

50 minutes ago, Glynn said:

Martin, Stop rising to the bait, Joe does not really have a 7700K, he hates Intel for some reason, probably had some personal losses when Intel stomped all over AMD. 

When he first appeared banging the drum for Ryzen he stated quite clearly that he would never let an Intel chip near his system, the posts are still here somewhere, a quick search should find them.

Sussed him out straight away.

++++

Thanks Martin and Glynn, 

[joemiller 269]

19 hours ago, Glynn said:

Martin, Stop rising to the bait, Joe does not really have a 7700K, he hates Intel for some reason, probably had some personal losses when Intel stomped all over AMD. 

When he first appeared banging the drum for Ryzen he stated quite clearly that he would never let an Intel chip near his system, the posts are still here somewhere, a quick search should find them.

Sussed him out straight away.

If someone would hate a product (in this case Intel), would they spend all the $$$$ to build a new system? No.  Some of us (some) dislike some company's business practices; thus we denounce it. Others could care less.. to them even a 10 days opened sardine can,  looks like sushi. (hey, to each it's own)

[joemiller 269]

19 hours ago, martin-w said:

They already have! For 99.9% of their customers. That 99.9% of customers have technically advanced, multi-core, multi-threaded CPU's that perform admirably for the intended use. In fact the vast majority of customers are more than happy with the rather incredible technology that's incorporated in that tiny little package. Modern CPU's from Intel are fit for purpose and do everything they are supposed to and more.

So why on Earth, would you, a member of a minuscule group that likes to "flight sim" expect Intel to provide the super high CPU frequency that YOU want for the sim, and very few others actually need? Are you really that special?

Sorry to say this Joe, but In short, you messed up and then blamed innocent members of the community and even Intel rather than yourself. 

 

 

Dude, no one messed up. I decided to build a new system with the 7700K primarily to see how well it performs for P3D. It performs well, but will struggle when you hit it with high-end add-ons (scenery, airplanes, weather..etc). To make it work, you just lower the settings...done!  or, use lower quality add-ons. done!  So, don't think that I'm not flying or my computer won't start, no!  It's just that some of us expect higher improvements on a product. We in the sim community, don't believe we are "special," we just want to give our money for a significant improvement. I'm sure you understand all this... but, you pretend you don't understand. So, having said this...

.. take care and happy flying.