More dosbox: https://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/obermaier/Ci7-7820X/dos.png https://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/obermaier/amd_2_epyc_7501/dosbox.png Some more graphs for 7820X gaming and apps performance: https://pctuning.tyden.cz/hardware/procesory-pameti/47629-skylake-x-7900x-7820x-7800x-v-15-hrach-a-testech?start=7

Nobody buys a CPU based on those niche kind of reasons. Besides looking at the graphs its obvious DOSBox has a bug of some kind.

Wow, the Intel trolls are out in full force today 😛. Not only that, they're still extolling the virtues of single-threaded performance, even though this news is about more cores! I bet that if Intel was to release a new 12 core chip the Intel fanboys would still preach about single threaded performance, lol. As for the topic, I expect these new chips to have lower clocks than the six core variants - 33% more cores + same TDP + same process = lower clocks. It might finally bring the Core i7 closer to Ryzen 7, but otherwise it isn't very exciting.

ruthan:

Just try last Dos games as Daggerfall or dos Quake.. I now that Gourmet3D not testing this, but there are other webs, they have in history also X99 CPU like 5960x,6950X and some X299 Cpus is realy interesting reading, i dont link it just to show how bad Ryzen is for this, i just discovered it now:

I actually recently replayed Quake (on my Ryzen system), but not though dosbox - I want modern graphics and controls. Frankly, I would only use dosbox for really old titles which have no recent ports; last game I played through dosbox was Catacombs 3D. Games like Doom I also play through enhancements (like Doomsday). And as the guy above me said, there is probably some issue with dosbox and Ryzen. I also replayed Duke Nukem 3D on Steam (also on my Ryzen system) but I actually had problems with the FPS being too high (couldn't get vsync to work correctly and there was tearing everywhere). At any rate, replaying old games is not an area where I would have complaints with my Ryzen system.

Lol, so much keyboard championship going on in this thread. Here's an idea, buy whatever suits your needs most. If you solely game and prefer Intel, buy an Intel cpu and enjoy it. If you need 16 threads for cheap, buy AMD. Do whatever you want. I bought a 7700k because at the time it was the gaming champ and at 5ghz it still rips through games. I don't need more cores and I honestly don't care if a video encodes in 2 hours or 1h15m when I do it like twice a year. Just buy whatever suits you and don't sh1t on others and we'll all get on. That being said, I might be intrigued by AMD if Zen2 can offer a £300 cpu with 8c/16t at 4.5ghz and no niggles. And I'm sure Intel will be offering something fairly similar too so we'll see. Out.

Meh, my 5 year old 4930k running at 4,5 ghz is still ace... 40 pcie 3.0 lanes, means i get max bandwidth for both gpu's and it still got plenty of single thread performance so that it doesn't become the bottleneck. I likely won't buy a new cpu till cpu's come with 40+ pcie 4.0 lanes.

ruthan:

Just try last Dos games as Daggerfall or dos Quake.. I now that Gourmet3D not testing this, but there are other webs, they have in history also X99 CPU like 5960x,6950X and some X299 Cpus is realy interesting reading, i dont link it just to show how bad Ryzen is for this, i just discovered it now:

Oh the poor people who pay too much attention to FPS instead of actual fluid gameplay. I so do not envy worrying about a number over how good my actual gameplay is.

Srsbsns:

Something doesn't make sense on the TDP of these chips and 8 cores based on what we know about the existing node process. I assume these will have very low clocks?

I agree. Waiting to see em in action but the TDP is very weird..

I have to say that Intel is for, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, dummies and Amd for enthusiasts. Intel has pretty much been a turn on and go company. Whereas AMD has had some stumbling in their products. IE Ryzen release. How many updates did that require to make people happy? My point is Intel gives more of a confidence in your purchase to your average person that know s little about computing. Amd offers more for your money but you have to know what you are doing to wrestle the most out of it. Amd has come a looong way and I am still waiting for the dust to settle to see which company I go with to build a new rig. I am currently running a 4790k and it needs to be retired. Let the fireworks begin...... 🙄

ruthan:

More dosbox: https://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/obermaier/Ci7-7820X/dos.png https://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/obermaier/amd_2_epyc_7501/dosbox.png Some more graphs for 7820X gaming and apps performance: https://pctuning.tyden.cz/hardware/procesory-pameti/47629-skylake-x-7900x-7820x-7800x-v-15-hrach-a-testech?start=7

seriously ?? DOSBOX ? oook ...well only the fact that you see bulldozer cpus at the same level as ryzen should indicate that something is up ...even if you are building a pc and you care so much for dos box ...you are going to run software renderers ? for real ?and even if you run software renderers .... are 60 fps not enough for dos games ? does monkey island 2 need 144 fps ? or you prefer screamer rally over forza ? and if you are so concern about dos ....why don't you build an era appropriate pc for dirt cheap and enjoy all those games with out emulation ?

I remember games back from that day of age, even Quake 3 was unplayable at high fps, they where designed for 60fps with vsync, after that they go so fast you can't react, unless your reaction time is in the micro seconds.

SaLaDiN666:

Imagine you bought 1700x or 1800x and now, you want to upgrade to 2700x. 1700x cost 430e when released in my country, 1800x even more. Now, people sell them for 180e. So you already lost 250e. Gonna upgrade to 2700x? The best price you can get here for is 310 E. So you have to add another 60e to upgrade. There is a saying in my country. I am not rich enough to buy cheap things. So the AMD policy of backward compatibility in many cases cost you just additional money and actually the final cost is higher because you are more or less stuck in the circle of upgrading because their solutions offer less performance.

Whoa whoa whoa since when is compatibility a con? And is 1700x non functional when 2700x came out? One that upgrades from 1700x to 2700x is definitely one that upgrades from 7700k to 8700k(it's 50% more cores!) and then to 9700k and a bunch of extra motherboards for no reason at all. It's rediculous someone blames AMD for that.

SaLaDiN666:

Imagine you bought 1700x or 1800x and now, you want to upgrade to 2700x. 1700x cost 430e when released in my country, 1800x even more. Now, people sell them for 180e. So you already lost 250e. Gonna upgrade to 2700x? The best price you can get here for is 310 E. So you have to add another 60e to upgrade. There is a saying in my country. I am not rich enough to buy cheap things. So the AMD policy of backward compatibility in many cases cost you just additional money and actually the final cost is higher because you are more or less stuck in the circle of upgrading because their solutions offer less performance.

what? your logic is seriously flawed.... "their solutions offer less performance" what is this? how can we take you srsly? not sure if you're joking or just wanna justify buying intel

When I 1st started seeing 2700X benchmarks I must say I was pleased too see it catch up to Intel so well in games, I bought one the other day, but what really surprised me is that since after reading lots of motherboard reviews that happened to look at 1700x / 1800X Vs 2700X performance (also on the older X370 boards) I see a few things: DDR4 compatibility is Incredibly improved even for the X370 days for 1X00X chips 1X00X chips have very much also closed the gap to Intel since release day reviews in games. 2700X gen chips will always have better DDR4 support than the 1000 series due to the onboard memory controllers. 2700X even plays nice with Hynix based DDR4 memory kits running at 3200 / 3400 XMP2 profiles no problem on boards I have been looking at like the MSI X470 Gaming Pro Carbon. Still, in all this it is going to be fun to see Intel make stronger moves to counter this good and still Ryzen AMD competition 🙂 (maybe a lil sry for pun, maybe lol)

liesenberg:

I have used a lot both systems... for like 3 years my main rig was the AMD one and it was amazing... the intel one was at my office... As the time passed and games become more complex and demanding i started to see that my AMD system started bottlenecking my 7850 2GB in some titles, i also noted that some games started to have some serious stutters, then i decided to give my intel a run... picked up my Radeon and plugged on my intel one... and boy it was better... stutter gone and video card always at 100% usage. A year and half ago I sold my AMD rig to buy a new videocard. My point is... yeah Intel at the time was way more expensive... but payoff of my investimenet was also better in the long run... I am not saying that this will be the case now since Ryzen is doing pretty well... but in the long run if you intend to keep your rig for more than 5 years that extra you pay now you will be an advantage in the future because you will not need to buy a new rig so soon...

If you had bought the systems at the time of the Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 X2 CPU's the AMD would have been the faster/longer lasting one. But I agree that most of the time Intel had faster CPUs.

Srsbsns:

Nobody buys a CPU based on those niche kind of reasons. Besides looking at the graphs its obvious DOSBox has a bug of some kind.

I bought my 7600K just for that reason, well, not specifically, but because my favorite game only use one core and I wanted a cheap replacement for my 2600K with fast cores.

las:

Seriously. 4 generations of Skylake arch and 5th time on 14nm (when those 8 cores release). I'll wait for 10nm Cannonlake with AVX512 or go Ryzen 3000 series.

Apparently Intel will be out at 10nm for mainstream chips by 2020 due to lots of issues with their 10nm process, but Ryzen 3000 at 7nm will be out next year and possibly with up to 12 cores on the AM4 socket 🙂

DOSBox? That thing has to be set up accordingly, and even then it uses only 50% of cycles available to freaking 2400G... Spoiler: "DOSBox fps is your thing? RLY?"

http://i67.tinypic.com/33lmi3c.png

Some people still live in imaginary world where all old software bugs would be fixed and all software would be recompiled and remastered for all new architectures.. its not gonna happens. Do you rember AMD K6 3D line, there was patch for Quake II, which doubled Quake performace because of use new 3D now instructions, but such patches existed only for few games, most of games were slow. History matters, so Intel still has its advantages.. its not such simple as that modern games in 4k and Winzip multicore benchmarks matters.. What about broken IOMMU Ryzen groups for virtualization? Im not Intel fan, i had lots of AMD cpu in the past, but if you want best gaming CPU its still intel. Someone people probably need to feel so clever that they saved some bucks when they bought Ryzen CPU - they are best performance for buck CPUS, but arent flawless uber CPU line best for everything..

ruthan:

Some people still live in imaginary world where all old software bugs would be fixed and all software would be recompiled and remastered for all new architectures.. its not gonna happens. Do you rember AMD K6 3D line, there was patch for Quake II, which doubled Quake performace because of use new 3D now instructions, but such patches existed only for few games, most of games were slow. History matters, so Intel still has its advantages.. its not such simple as that modern games in 4k and Winzip multicore benchmarks matters.. What about broken IOMMU Ryzen groups for virtualization? Im not Intel fan, i had lots of AMD cpu in the past, but if you want best gaming CPU its still intel. Someone people probably need to feel so clever that they saved some bucks when they bought Ryzen CPU - they are best performance for buck CPUS, but arent flawless uber CPU line best for everything..

And you live in world where modern 4GHz chip delivers same DOSBox performance as Sempron @1800MHz did 13 years ago. ...Imaginary world.

las:

With Intel you get good performance in everything.

*Buzz* The BS detector determined that statement is BS. As people have already stated and people have done reviews for, while Intel may sometimes get better high FPS in some games, the gameplay itself can be worse. So if you only judge a game by how high the FPS is as the "performance", then sure, your statement is closer to the truth. That being said however is not the correct way to determine good, fluid gameplay or performance. If a new CPU came out that could somehow give 1000 fps in games where Intel had 150fps, and AMD had 130fps, you'd be going "OMG LOOK AT THAT I WANT IT I WANT IT I WANT IT!" Right? But, there's a problem with this processor....sure it gets 1000fps, but every 5 seconds or so, you get a drop down to 20fps for no reason, so it's a stuttery 1000fps horrible gameplay. This is the issue with Intel processors. No, it's not all games. Yes, you can sometimes fix it with different settings in games. But even though Intel has some times the "highest" fps in settings you generally do not want to use as a gamer in the first place, it typically also has a much wider difference between its highs and lows, which causes stutters. Intel might get 150fps vs AMDs 130fps, but if both have a low of 50fps, the difference between Intel's high and low are further apart then AMDs and will be more easily felt, and often times Intels lows are actually LOWER then AMD lowes, worsening the symptom. Now, you may say "Oh that's a bunch of bull, i haven't felt any stuttering!" Great! I'm happy for you. You likely use your system as a true gamer and not set everything exceptionally low so you can get the highest FPS with a low resolution and a very high end graphics card. Which ultimately means the difference for you between Intel and AMD are pretty much pointless in themselves and you're just making my argument for me. Having the highest FPS is downright an incorrect way to determine best gameplay in a game. Having FPS that is generally higher then 60fps, while ALSO having your FPS not fluctuate too much (have the tightest possible difference between your lows and highs) is what determines fluid, enjoyable gameplay, unless you enjoy having stutter....?