AMD Ryzen 5 1400 1500X & 1600X Review!

[joemiller 269]

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 3:20 PM, Patriot3810 said:

i would tell anyone looking to upgrade, wait until the end of june, the intel i9 is releasing next month and it's gonna bury amd once and for all.don't throw your money away on ryzen garbage, they will never be able to compete with intel.

http://wccftech.com/intel-skylake-x-core-i9-7920x-7900x-7820x-7800x-x299-leaked/

 

I am not (and I'm sure most of the smart people aren't either), excited with Intel's "milking" business practice. Imagine if we had only one cell-phone provider? How much would you be paying for phone service...?  By bytes and seconds. So, competition is best. So now a new platform.. new MOBO, memory, etc, etc? Hummm, some love that "milking" habit. Others don't.

More over, will.. FSX and P3D benefit from those 8, or 12, or 16 cores? Hummm.

[morganthomas757 2]

How anyone can say that Ryzen is better or "not as good and never will be" as Intel is unknown to me. At the weekend I built a new PC with an AMD Ryzen 5 1600X (OC to 4GHz, Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB and 8GB of Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200MHz RAM. 

The performance of my new PC is godly, with max autogen and scenery complexity at Aerosoft Frankfurt V2, in the cockpit of the Aerosoft A320 with REX 4 Soft Clouds I can push a solid 35-40 FPS in the cockpit!

At 29 Palms Skiathos in the exterior view of the PMDG 737 with the same settings as before, REX 4 Clouds too, I am pushing a constant 140-170 FPS ! 

To top things off, looking in Task Manager, my computer isn't even breaking a sweat! 40% CPU Usage, 20% GPU Usage, and 50% RAM Usage!

In total my computer added up to around £800 for the Desktop itself, so anyone thinking they need to get a 7700K or be forced to use Intel, you're wrong! Save money and buy a 1600X, and make the most of the 6 Cores!

[vortex681 806]

8 hours ago, morganthomas757 said:

The performance of my new PC is godly

But what screen resolution are you using? Few people ever mention this when talking about performance and it can have a massive effect. For example, a couple of years ago I was running FSX with an i7-920 with an old GTX 275 and was getting great performance with plenty of demanding add-ons at 1680x1050 screen resolution. If I tried that setup at 4k, or even QHD, the performance would probably be laughable.

[westman 257]

Have 2 Ryzen systems 1600x and 1800x both on asus croshair hero and 2x1070 SLI 

Work great but my  Intel systems  is a lot faster in the sim P3d v4

I7 7700k asus z270 apex 2x1070 SLI,  I9 7920x x299 apex 2x1080Ti SLI

 

[morganthomas757 2]

On 22/01/2018 at 5:24 PM, vortex681 said:

But what screen resolution are you using? Few people ever mention this when talking about performance and it can have a massive effect. For example, a couple of years ago I was running FSX with an i7-920 with an old GTX 275 and was getting great performance with plenty of demanding add-ons at 1680x1050 screen resolution. If I tried that setup at 4k, or even QHD, the performance would probably be laughable.

I run my flight sim at 1920x1080 resolution, plenty good enough for me on a budget, no need for myself to have a 4k monitor when I won't take full advantage of it!

[vortex681 806]

1 minute ago, morganthomas757 said:

I run my flight sim at 1920x1080 resolution, plenty good enough for me on a budget, no need for myself to have a 4k monitor when I won't take full advantage of it!

Please don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying that there was anything wrong with running at any particular resolution, just that mentioning performance without stating screen resolution is pretty meaningless.

[martin-w 3,235]

Agreed. I currently have a 1080P monitor... 200 frames per second in BF4 on ultra settings.