Gadgetory

welcome back to hardware unboxed this is the one you've been waiting for the showdown between Intel's Core i7 700 X and AMD's risin 5 - 1600 we've seen how they compare for productivity workloads but if you like to game as well does Intel still take the cake when it comes to high-end gaming so just quickly what do you need to know before we jump into the benchmarks well about the CPUs themselves the 1700 X currently costs four hundred and fifteen dollars u.s. but has an MSRP of three hundred ninety dollars meanwhile the 1600 currently retails for just two hundred and fifteen dollars so almost half the price and while that's worth keeping in mind as we proceed AMD's a m4 platform also cost significantly less than Intel LGA 2066 but I'll touch on that a bit more later for testing we have 30 games in total all of which have been tested at 1080p using the gtx 1080i and no i'm not going to test at 1440p or 4k you'll have to look elsewhere for those results I'm not really interested in testing gaming performance of CPUs under GPU limited scenarios so moving on both systems were configured with ddr4 3200 CL 14 memory though whereas the Reisman system only gets 16 gigabytes the Intel system gets 32 gigabytes this shouldn't impact the results in any way but the reason I've done this is quite simple I don't have a 32 gigabyte kit yet that works with Rison at the 3200 memory speed alright so into the benchmarks and first that we have World of Tanks and this isn't a particularly demanding title but the idea here is to include a wide range of games so not all of them will be CPU demanding be aware this game is captain 120 FPS and while it is possible to circumvent that cap it's not something most people are going to do so I haven't bothered to do it myself anyway here we see the Rison v 1600 had no trouble pushing the gtx 1080i to the frame cap and it was even a few frames faster than the 7800 X which is worth noting Grand Theft Auto 5 is a game that never really played that well with rising CPUs it is an older title from 2015 and therefore does predate Rison by quite a few years anyway despite its age the game is still very demanding that makes good use of all system resources what's interesting to note here is that the overclocked r5 1600 was just 6% slower than 700 X and that's pretty impressive given its also clocked 15% lower it's also a massive improvement over the 20% margin at the rise in CPU travel to the 7700 K by previously I had benchmarked player unknowns battlegrounds at the start of the game you know that area where everyone runs around in invincibility mode waiting for the game to start I feel like this was probably a mistake for a few reasons firstly it is extremely difficult to gather reliable data here and secondly it's significantly more demanding than the actual gameplay itself you're never going to find everyone in a small area of the map when playing so that makes that benchmark a little bit unrealistic anyway I'm now testing within the actual game so that is dropping in to the main map and then starting at the same location each time from there I do follow the same path 60 seconds and the data seen in the graph is an average of three runs as you can see the r5 1600 performs very well in this title again please note this game is frame capped at 144 FPS and I'm not sure if there's a workaround to remove it that's relatively easy or not I didn't come across that information that said the 144 FPS is plenty I can't imagine many players will be able to take advantage of more in this title although the game is frame cap to the r5 1600 was consistently faster than the 700 X by a small margin delivering around 7% more frames when looking at the minimums The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt plays well on both the 7800 X and r5 1600 that said the Intel CPU was faster the game isn't frame capped so if the GTX 1080 I could deliver over 200 FPS using the ultra quality settings we would likely see that with a CPU such as the 7700 K anyway the r5 1600 was 15% slower than the 1700 X out of the box so it's a fairly decent margin however once both CPUs are overclocked that margin is reduced to the 6% so while still slower an impressive result nonetheless for the rise in CPU again we see this time when testing with rise of the Tomb Raider the r5 1600 is 12% slow in the semi area I'm looking at the average frame rate this time since the minimums are identical however once overclock the r5 1600 was just one and a half percent slower on average but twelve percent faster for the minimum so it's a very interesting result indeed again these figures are based on a three run average and the rise in CPU was consistently faster for the minimum I have continued to test ashes of the singularity escalation using the crazy preset which pretty much runs into a GPU limited scenario with the Intel CPUs that said the same isn't true for the Rison 5 or 1600 which I found quite surprising here it struggled to get the most out of the GTX 10 atti overclocking certainly helped but it was still a little bit off the pace one or two frames down from maxing out the GeForce graphics card the hakurei primal is a bit of a funny game that was one of the few titles that really baffled me when testing Rison for the first time all those months ago the performance was just so much lower than expected when compared to the 77 ok and yet we found the exact same thing when testing the semi 100x more recently in fact the 7800 x and r5 1600 do deliver very similar numbers in this title and I'd say overall the performance was decent frame rates never did below 60 fps so a very smooth experience at all times the division is a GPU limited title and while the r5 6100 is slightly down on the 700 X and 7700 K so the average frame rate it does roughly match the minimum result and it well over 100 FPS you have to wonder if the margins even matter at this point they certainly don't if you plan on running a graphics card equal to slower than say a geforce gtx 1070 hitman is a game that features a huge number of npcs and this can be quite taxing on the cpu and we've certainly seen that in the past with this title this is another title where the semi 100x fell quite a way behind the 77 or okay and the same is also true for the r5 1600 that said whereas the 1600 was 15% slower than semadar x at the stop cloth speeds overclocking both processors reduce the margin to 0 as both allowed for no less than 61 FPS to be rendered I have to admit I do have a confession to make I completely botch the quantum break benchmark results in the previous 7800 X versus 7700 ok video so sorry about that I'm not sure what went wrong but for some reason I seem to be frame capped at around fifty to fifty three fps I wasn't testing with vsync enabled or anything like that in order to fix the issue I had to actually delete all the config files and start over something I should have noticed and picked up on but I didn't so again sorry about that a bit of a strange bug there but anyway the results are now fixed and I have triple-checked everything here we see that at the stop clock speeds the minimum frame rate for the r5 1600 is down on the seminar X by about a 13% margin however as we've seen your mist is already overclocked in the 1600 really helps it close the margin and now it's just 4% slower moving on for testing overwatch I used my standard match test which is very CPU intensive despite that the horizon 5 1600 stood up very well and even edged ahead of the 700 X once both CPUs were overclocked so a great result for the plucky little Verizon 5 CPU here Doom has an obvious 200 FPS cap and unlike the semi 100x the r5 1600 had no trouble reaching it at the stop clock speeds not much else to really say here so let's move on to total war Warhammer and this is a game I've tested out of interest sake using both DirectX 12 and DirectX 11 the focus will be on the more modern DX 12 API but as I said the DirectX 11 results have also have included purely out of interest sake here the r5 1600 easily beats the similar X and when overclocked the minimum frame rate was 16% greater the horizon CPU did still trail the 7700 K by a decent margin here and Intel's quad-core proves to be quite the beast in this game using the older dx11 api the r5 1600 is now 22% fast and the 7800 X once overclocked the margin has opened up thanks to the GTX 1080p eyes ability to render more frames when using DirectX 11 out of the box the Rison processor gets a little trampled Mirror's Edge catalyst as it was a rather massive 22 percent slower than the semi 100x when containing the minimum frame rate yet once overclocked to 1600 did reduce the margin to just 7% and again with well over 100 FPS in fact 120 FPS at all times you have to wonder how important these margins really are nonetheless this is a win for the Blue Man Group let's move on to see what f1 2016 has for us here the r5 1600 was 19% slower than the 7800 X when comparing the out-of-the-box performance that's a pretty big win for Intel but yet again we find that AMD is able to make up some serious ground through overclocking at 4 gigahertz the 6100 is now just 6% slower than the 7x which is of course clocked at 4.7 gigahertz jumping back into another DirectX 12 title we have Deus Ex mankind divided and this is a rather poor one for Rison at least when paired with the GeForce graphics card something about the way the Nvidia drivers handled the DX 12 API just doesn't agree with Rison even once overclocked the r5 1600 was still 19% slow in the servitor X so this just like I said isn't a great title for the red team the performance is hardly poor from an end users perspective but it's a lot weaker when compared to the competition moving on the show what I mean about Rison doing poorly with the GeForce graphics card using DirectX 12 is day use X I already tested using dx11 as you can see a radically different picture here is the r5 1600 is now able to match the semi ahead of X in this title battlefield 1 is probably one of the more important titles in this list and here the r5 1600 was able to match the seven-hour X out of the box we find much the same ones both CPUs are overclocked as they allowed the GTX 1080 Ti to spit out no less than a hundred and 60 fps so while the 77 era came might be a little faster the 1600 X is certainly suitable for 144 Hertz gamers in this title mafia 3 is a bit of a dodgy title and I might even end up dropping it soon depending on how many of you are keen to see it remain initially arisin looks great in this title however with each patch Reisman's performance seemed to go backwards while intel's improved so I'm not sure what's up with that upon initial release Rison was actually beating the 7700 K in this title at the stock clock speeds but now it trails by a 32% margin we're looking at the minimum frame rate so again I'm not really sure what's up with that overclock the 1600 does recover quite a bit and is now just 7% slower than the 700 X but still those stock clock results are concerning and I'm a little suspicious as to what's going on here anyway marthy 3 is a poorly title and they will no doubt be some better built games coming up soon so I can probably replace it with one of those gears r44 is another game like Deus Ex mankind divided but just doesn't play well with the rise in CPUs when using a GeForce graphics card this is a DirectX 12 only title so until AMD release a high end GPU this is how things are going to have to be Gears of War 4 is a reasonably well put together game though but I personally would love to drop it because I just hate having to deal with that rubbish Windows Store this is the only game I test with from the Windows Store and unless there's some incredible game released in the future it'll probably the last game I ever buy on this horrid platform titanfall 2 is a game that plays well on just about anything and as a result it doesn't actually provide us with any interesting data that said though it is great to see the more affordable rising 6 hanging in there with the more expensive CPUs in this title moving on we have Civilization 6 and we're back to DirectX 12 but this one plays very well with the rise and slash GeForce combo and even out of the box the r5 1600 is able to clean up the core i7 700x overclock the r5 1600 is now 14% fast and similar X though it is still 10% slower than the 7700 K Dishonored 2 provides more interesting results though they do reflect what we've seen in most of the titles already tested stop the r5 1600 is 7% slow on the 7th her ex while quite shockingly it pulled ahead by a 9% margin once overclocked an incredible result for the red team here that said though it does go a bit south frame D when testing with watchdogs - and this is a title it's never really been that kind - the rise and cpus here the r5 1600 was 24% slower at the stock clock speeds though that rather large margin is reduced to this 9% once both CPUs are overclocked please note that previously the 7700 K and 7800 X were tested in Resident Evil 7 was a little bit of upscaling going on for this test I have adjusted the scaling to 100% and now we are truly reflecting 1080p performance for the first time we are seeing the r5 1600 full further behind in the 700 X once both CPUs are overclocked stop the rise on CPU is 4% slower while overclocked it was 6% slower these aren't huge margins by any means but it is the first we've seen this although for honor is mostly a GPU bound game and we see that as all three CPUs are able to deliver around the same average frame rate there is some variance when looking at the minimum what's really interesting here is that the r5 1600 actually beats not just the 700 X but also the 7700 K when stock and overclocked this is a very curious result indeed especially in a title where the CPU isn't that heavily taxed Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon wildlands is another GPU limited game for the most part the r5 1600 and 700 X still have a very similar performance and here we see at the 77 ok isn't a great deal faster Mass Effect Andromeda is a game that's played well with Verizon since day one and has continued to work well thrives and after numerous updates overclock the r5 1600 is able to get the most out of the GTX 1080i and here it matched the 700 X and 7700 K boy oh boy did I waste a lot of time trying to work out what the heck was going on with Dawn of War 3 the game was recently patched I believe it was the 11th of July don't quote me on that but it was sometime around there anyway it was sometime this month and the hotfix update completely crippled performance in this title reducing the gtx 980ti to around 50 FPS so I've had to use a previous version of the game for this benchmark because I didn't have the horizon 5 results obviously so please don't ask me how I was able to do that anyway here we set the r5 1600 is able to match the 700 X and Dawn of War 3 so some very competitive performance here indeed and just to touch on the issues that I talked about at the start the developers are aware of the issues or the performance issues of the hotfix created and they're working on a fixed so hopefully that comes in the next week or two moving on we have yet another game this time pray and this one is a very well put together title it's not particularly demanding on the CPU but it still doesn't hinder CPU performance either like what we see with the game such as Far Cry primal for example here the 7700 case 700 X and r5 1600 all deliver similar performance especially once they're all overclocked finally wrapping things that we have dirt 4 and this title plays very well on the rise in v 1600 stock the AMD processor was able to maintain more frames in the similar X and once overclocked it was just outright faster even matching the 7700 K for the minimum frame rate so a stellar result for AMD here I have to admit this just seems wrong I still can't get used to seeing AMD CPUs consuming less power than their Intel counterparts it feels unnatural for the longest time those horrible FX series chipset well on top of the power charts and I'm so glad we've been how to move on from that for what seemed like a similar level of performance and we'll touch on that at the moment the r5 1600 consumed quite a lot less power when compared to the 707 the rising system consumed 15% less power and 18% less before we didn't you ever clocking so that's a definite win for AMD right there who would have predicted this at the beginning of the year I'll admit it certainly wouldn't have been me well I did try to get to the point quite quickly on this one but at this stage I've blurted out something like 3,000 words so apologies for that anyway I hope you like me found the results really interesting I very much enjoyed the testing and I'm quite surprised by how well the Rison v 1600 is getting on today it's always been good but it seems like the fine-tuning AMD's done over the past few months has come together to make it that much better for gaming I mean look at this game about to throw up it's a good stuff I actually ended up spending an extra two days going over the results mostly retesting and comparing the core i7 semi 7rk and Rison 5 1600 because the figures we're looking at here just seems too close overall out of the box the r5 1600 was just 13% slower than the 7700 okay that's quite incredible keep in mind though there were a few GPU limited games and even worse a few that were frame capped but still they weren't frame cap to 60fps or anything like that many of them had frame limits of 120 or some even greater so the rise in CPU was still pushing the GTX 1080i very hard once overclocked the r5 1600 was just 9% solid with 77 ok while it matched the 7800 X that's right it matched the $390 us processor ok so I'm sure you're itching to see what the overall looks like so here it is right so what you're looking at here is the risin 5 1600 versus the core i7 700x comparing the overclocked results looking at the minimum frame rates as we just saw both averaged a minimum of 103 fps across the 30 games tested and here we can clearly see at the r5 1600 enjoyed some wins and suffered through a few losses it is worth noting though that the number of titles won and lost are very even indeed and as such there are a few ways you could adjust the data to give either CPU a slight edge but let's be honest it would only be that a very slight edge for example removing AMD's worst-performing title Gears of War for the r5 1600 will become just 1% fast in the 700 X and that's a negligible difference remove the second-worst titled a sex mankind divided using DirectX 12 and the r5 1600 is still just 1% faster and that's the beauty of testing with such a massive sample of games also please note that because there was a very large difference in performance between running Deus Ex mankind of vitae with DirectX 11 and DirectX 12 with the rise in CPU I've included both the results in this graph however I've only include the dx12 results for total war Warhammer and not the dx11 results since the r5 1600 was much faster in both tests so I favored the DirectX 12 results as they are based on the newer API no doubt some viewers will declare that I'm biased towards a certain company but if that were really true I would just omit certain games from the results I mean would you guys really complain if I only tested 20 games how many other media outlets conduct 20 game benchmarks using 100% fresh data if I was biased towards AMD there is no way you would see Deus Ex mankind divided or Gears of War 4 in this list meanwhile if our bias towards Intel I'd drop total war Warhammer and civilization 6 for example anyway enough of that I know the vast majority if you appreciate the lengths I go to to try and deliver balanced fair honest content right so if you have to value for money it's pretty clear the risin 5 1600 is the way to go and this is why I recently named at the best value performance desktop CPU in my top 5 CPUs video was unlikely the core i7 semi her ex was going to change that but I had hoped that the performance would at least be a compelling reason to buy Intel's new 6th core processor this slide that you've been staring at for the past few moments really says it all you can spend roughly twice as much to receive essentially the same experience and this is true if you're a gamer or a worker yeah let's let's go with the workout I'm sure there are those of you who are chomping at the bit to point out the 700 X system is more memory and while you'd be right it would be possible to save some money here and get full gigabyte modules but who invests in a premium platform to have 16 gigabytes of memory and no less for four gigabyte modules I've also selected the very best premium 16 gigabyte kit for the rise in CPU as this is what I used for testing but be aware there are cheaper options out there additionally Rison will hit 4 gigahertz with the Box cooler but it will be a more mild experience with a $20.00 aftermarket cooler like the cooler master 212 so keep that in mind the 7800 X on the other hand cannot be overclocked to 4.7 gigahertz using a 240 millimeter all-in-one closed-loop solution I required a 380 dollar custom loop setup to achieve that overclock so also be aware of that wrapping things up I think it's fair to say that the Rison 5 1600 delivers a very similar experience to the core i7 700 X and once overclocked there's really no distinguishing the 2 when it comes to gaming it also consumes less power that's the Rison 5 processor costs considerably less and it comes with a smart little box cooler actually it's not really that little is it aha anyway there are five 1600 in my opinion is the obvious choice II and I can't think of many arguments or reasons I'd make for buying the 700 X over the r5 6100 in fact I'd hate to be tasked with that job you'd have to come up with something ludicrous like AMD sticking their CPUs together with glue or something like that I'm your host Steve see again soon guys you