Will my Ryzen 1700 bottleneck a 1080 ti @ 2ghz boost?

[cucker tarlson]

logic done right:

"Don't buy a 8700K since AM4 will be supported for a long time and Zen 2 will offer slightly better IPC and slightly higher clocks, even though 8700K already offers great IPC and is a huge clocker. "

I'm not saying Zen doesn't have its advantages, but buy a 8700K now, OC to 5GHz and pair it with some fast (3200MHz or higher) DDR4 and you have a CPU that will rip through anything coming in the more foreseeable and distant future.

If the OP needs Zen 2, he might just pull the trigger on the 8700K now. Why bother waiting for Zen 2 when you have this ?

 

[Durvelle27]

logic done right:

"Don't buy a 8700K since AM4 will be supported for a long time and Zen 2 will offer slightly better IPC and slightly higher clocks, even though 8700K already offers great IPC and is a huge clocker. "

I'm not saying Zen doesn't have its advantages, but buy a 8700K now, OC to 5GHz and pair it with some fast (3200MHz or higher) DDR4 and you have a CPU that will rip through anything coming in the more foreseeable and distant future.

If the OP needs Zen 2, he might just pull the trigger on the 8700K now. Why bother waiting for Zen 2 when you have this ?

again 1080P not 1440P

please stop posting 1080P benchmarks


It makes absolutely no sense for the OP to go shtlake when he already has a Ryzen plateform

It's a waste of time for a minimal difference in performance @1440 and above

he's better off waiting for Zen+ or Cannon Lake

 

[cucker tarlson]

lol is it better to compare cpus at 1440p ? or 4K maybe, like AMD insisted reviewers do .....

maybe it makes no sense to you, but you don't even consider anything else than amd an option.

I'm not claiming 8700K is perfect, but if we're talking gaming performance then it absolutely obliterates any Ryzen.

again, why would he resort to waiting for Zen+ when there's just no way it'll match 8700K. same probability as V64 OC matching a 1080Ti OC. That's not gonna happen, don't be delusional, if he has money he could be rocking a 8700K next week, not amd's (slower) equivalent next year.

 

[Durvelle27]

lol is it better to compare cpus at 1440p ? or 4K maybe, like AMD insisted reviewers do .....

maybe it makes no sense to you, but you don't even consider anything else than amd an option.

I'm not claiming 8700K is perfect, but if we're talking gaming performance then it absolutely obliterates any Ryzen.

again, why would he resort to waiting for Zen+ when there's just no way it'll match 8700K. same probability as V64 OC matching a 1080Ti OC. That's not gonna happen, don't be delusional, if he has money he could be rocking a 8700K next week, not amd's (slower) equivalent next year.

you are so hilarious so a 8700K @5GHz is on average 10% faster than gaming than a 1800X @4ghz, we're talking a whole 1000MHz difference in clocks

Clock for clock coffelake is minimum gains even over SkyLake let alone Zen

so yes Zen+ with better clock potentials will indeed close that small gap that you rave about so much that makes little difference above 1080P

and yes it is better to compare CPUs at 1440P considering the OP specifically stated playing at 1440P not 1080P so it makes no sense to use 1080P benchmarks other than cherry picking which i see you love to do.

The 8700K only obliterates Zen in your imagination

 

[cucker tarlson]

you are so hilarious so a 8700K @5GHz is on average 10% faster than gaming than a 1800X

niiice...

 

[infrared]

@cucker tarlson 1440p is because that's the resolution of the OP's monitor, and our advice is for him specifically. Putting up graphs at 1080p doesn't help and exaggerates the real world difference the OP would see at his native resolution.

Anyway the op has come to a decision, no more replies please, thread will be closed momentarily.

 

[cucker tarlson]

@cucker tarlson 1440p is because that's the resolution of the OP's monitor, and our advice is for him specifically. Putting up graphs at 1080p doesn't help and exaggerates the real world difference the OP would see at his native resolution.

Anyway the op has come to a decision, no more replies please, thread will be closed momentarily.

OP has an OC'd 1080Ti, not a stock 1080.

 

[infrared]

Makes little difference, mine (oc'd Ryzen 7) drives an oc'd 1080Ti very well at 1440p. It's still gpu bound in pretty much all games I play. Even in some of the worst situations like certain areas in fallout 4, it's not bad enough that I'd recommend someone a CPU upgrade for. Mines a direct copy of the OP's

Edit tl;dr version. My system is almost identical to the op and games are fluid and fps excellent, and you're telling him to spend 500 quid upgrading to an 8700k.

 

[EarthDog]

He'll could get more FPS that way.

Although games are GPU limted at 1440p that doesn't mean the CPU is holding the 30% faster GPU back there either. These flagship cards can show different results due to their sheer horsepower over the other cards.

 

[infrared]

Yeah, not saying there wouldn't be an fps bump, just not a massive one.

Oh well, that's my 2c anyway, I really only stepped in to stop a 1080p/1440p debate.

 

[Vya Domus]

Will Zen 2 be on AM4 platform? My only goal at the moment is not buggering with motherboard changes. I want this to be my rig for next 5 years. (Retired my 2500k) so I would like to stay on the 5-6 year cycle. I think I might get an i7-8700 non-k version, Overclock doesn't seem to really matter all that much for most games.

If you switch to Intel you're most likely going to have a bad time if you want platform longevity.

 

[Armagg3don]

It is a fact that for someone who has a 1080Ti, it is primordial an Intel to get the most out of it.
With that or any Ryzen is being wasted, and I do not say it, they say the real tests:

 

[Vya Domus]

ROTTR was patched and runs much better on Ryzen now. In those other games posted the performance differential is within 5-10% , more or less.

To say that it is "primordial to get an Intel" is a severe exaggeration with a sprinkle of fanboyism.

Seriously , changing the platform for that is the definition of throwing money out the window.

 

[cucker tarlson]

and FX6300 is still plenty for modern games.

 

[EarthDog]

ROTTR was patched and runs much better on Ryzen now. In those other games posted the performance differential is within 5-10% , more or less.

To say that it is "primordial to get an Intel" is a severe exaggeration with a sprinkle of fanboyism.

Seriously , changing the platform for that is the definition of throwing money out the window.

Is it though? I mean, 54 FPS in FC Primal is ~50% faster... Crysis is 16 FPS or 11%. That first game is almost 15% and 20 FPS, while the second title is 48 FPS and over 50% faster (which was patched). Clearly these are not the norm, the really big differences, however, if one is buying a 1080Ti, isn't it also throwing money away by putting a glass ceiling on the expensive GPU just purchased just to save a bit of money? Some just happen to want to get the most out of their setup. Intel is able to do that, at a price premium. It is up to the buyer to figure out if its worth it... as, it really can be. Some of these differences are pretty big, some are not big, but there, while others there is none. AS time goes on, people will need the most of their rigs anyway... The % difference can mean playable or not or another AA bump or IQ increase.

and FX6300 is still plenty for modern games.

Another guy who likes glass ceilings...

 

[Vya Domus]

and FX6300 is still plenty for modern games.

More like enough for 1080p 60. But you were close enough.

Most of you are simply giving terrible advice.

If you recommend him a 8700K he might just as well ditch the 1080ti for a Titan Xp because why not.

 

[Armagg3don]

ROTTR was patched and runs much better on Ryzen now. In those other games posted the performance differential is within 5-10% , more or less.

To say that it is "primordial to get an Intel" is a severe exaggeration with a sprinkle of fanboyism.

Seriously , changing the platform for that is the definition of throwing money out the window.

So does it feel good to lose 20-40fps?
It is not fanboyism, it is to stand in reality.
Or maybe you think someone who has a 1080 or 1080ti just wants to get a portion of their performance ??

I think the fanboy here is you.

 

[cucker tarlson]

lol @ terrible advice for getting a gaming oriented cpu instead of a productivity oriented one in a gaming rig.

ahhh, I love the world and all the people in it...

he might switch his 1080Ti for a Vega 64, it's 30% slower than 1080Ti just like Ryzen to 8700K, but has moar teraflops and I hear it's a big shot in Hollywood.

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/58843/hollywood-miners-gobbling-up-radeon-rx-vega-supply/index.html



It's gonna buy you a house by the sea and pay the bills some day.

we're just having fun.

 

[EarthDog]

Most of you are simply giving terrible advice.

Disagree. Arent we doing what we are supposed to do in forums? That is share knowledge and let the OP decide for themselves? I don't see bad advice here. I see two options. Its only bad advice if one is sitting far on one side of the fence missing the forest through the trees.

If you recommend him a 8700K he might just as well ditch the 1080ti for Titan Xp because why not.

I take that back.. THAT is bad advice. there are real, tangible, significant gains to be had, versus the meager 2-4% LOSSES seen between TitanXp and 1080Ti FEs....... wow....

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080_Ti/30.html

So, maximize my system for a pittance more and remove any glass ceiling, or pay hundreds more for a performance loss with a TitanXP....

 

[Vya Domus]

I take that back.. THAT is bad advice. there are real, tangible, significant gains to be had, versus the meager 1-3% LOSSES seen between TitanXp and 1080Ti FEs....... wow....

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080_Ti/30.html

Nah , got to have those 256 extra CUDA cores , just like those few % you get with a 8700K.

It is terrible advice for the wallet. OP should tell us if he has an unlimited budget , we can do better than a basic 8700K. For example we can recommend him one of those binned ones.

 

[EarthDog]

Going from a 1080Ti to a Titan XP is a performance LOSS across all res's tested (click my link and see).

There are actual GAINS with an 8700K which also takes the shackles off a 1080Ti in some titles. Why wouldn't I do that? I mean comparing a 1700X to 8700K, their prices are similar, board prices are similar. Right? I mean, we can step down to a Ryzen Hex to actually save some cash, but its clocks are slower than the Octo above potentially making the gap larger. 1800X costs MORE than a 8700K. If you can use those cores, grab it for sure!!! If not............ well, I bet you can see where this is going.

I mean, facts are facts man.. you are spitting into the wind and getting shelled by your own fluids!!

 

[cucker tarlson]

Nah , got to have those 256 extra CUDA cores , just like those few % you get with a 8700K.

It is terrible advice for the wallet. OP should tell us if he has an unlimited budget , we can do better than a basic 8700K. For example we can recommend him one of those binned ones.

You've got cpu limited benchmarks showing 8700K beat the crap out of Ryzen. But if you take GPU bound scenes on a GTX 1080 at 1440p then by all means feel free to think it's us who's dumb.

The cpu can slow down GTX 1080 at 1440p not just by 10%, but by 15-30%. But what do I know about that with all the games I played on such setup. A 2GHz 1080Ti is a freaking leviathan , it rips though 1440p like a buzzsaw though butter, but you absolutely need a fast gaming CPU to get that performance constantly across the board.

 

[Vya Domus]

Going from a 1080Ti to a Titan XP is a performance LOSS across all res's tested (click my link and see).

Click my links as well.

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2863/titan-x-pascal

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2948/titan-xp

Titan Xp , the retarded name given by our beloved Nvidia to it's fully enabled GP102 which has 256 extra CUDA cores and it's faster than previous Titan X and 1080ti.

Funny because you were talking about facts and good advice just a moment ago. And something about fluids...

Don't get mad brah

 

[Vayra86]

you are so hilarious so a 8700K @5GHz is on average 10% faster than gaming than a 1800X @4ghz, we're talking a whole 1000MHz difference in clocks

Clock for clock coffelake is minimum gains even over SkyLake let alone Zen

so yes Zen+ with better clock potentials will indeed close that small gap that you rave about so much that makes little difference above 1080P

and yes it is better to compare CPUs at 1440P considering the OP specifically stated playing at 1440P not 1080P so it makes no sense to use 1080P benchmarks other than cherry picking which i see you love to do.

The 8700K only obliterates Zen in your imagination

Nah man, the 8700K is much more likely to hold 60 min fps, while Ryzen will dip under from time to time, at 1440p ultra with a 1080ti. Also, when going to lower ingame settings because OP wants to run high refresh, 120+ FPS will be that much easier to hold, in fact, Ryzen may not even touch on that.

For the average PC gamer yes, Ryzen is the cost effective choice, or a midrange Intel, or even an i3 Coffee Lake now. But for high end systems, you'll always want the fastest gaming CPU you can get. Why, because a platform upgrade is a hassle, and CPUs are capable of outlasting many generations of GPU. If Ryzen is already edging under 60 fps now, it will not stay relevant with a stronger GPU. This translates into a (much) longer lifetime for the faster CPU, end result is getting maximum potential for a longer period of time out of the GPU linked to it.