Gadgetory

welcome back to harbor unboxed you guessed it yep polarizing benchmarks however what we have here is very interesting and I'm certain you guys will agree now before we go on please know that I'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes here I do not have any risin 5 CPUs yet and if I did I probably wouldn't got to create this video anyway as it would be in breach of the NDA what I'm doing here is simulating horizon 5 performance at least for the CPUs that have the full 16 megabyte level 3 cache now I hope the title above which states that this is simulated gaming performance isn't deemed as clickbait that certainly wasn't the intention I feel the testing here is very interesting so let's move on last week AMD announced the official specifications for the upcoming Rison 5 CPUs which will come available in exactly 3 weeks time by announcing the few specifications they did they really let the cat out of the bag we now know a few things that we had suspected for a while Rison 5 is the same physical chip as horizon 7 so this means all models feature 2 CC axes each with 4 physical cores though not all of them will be enabled the 6 core model for example features 1 core disabled from each CC X well the quad core part features two cores disabled Persie CX 1 chest I had planned to do since my initial rise in testing was play around with the down core function found in the bias of pretty much all a m4 motherboards this function enables the ability to disable caused within the c CX modules or disable an entire c CX altogether something else i've been very keen to do when testing the 8 core isin 7 cpus is to do so using a range of GPUs thus far I've only benchmark gaming performance using the extreme Titan XP graphics card so I thought it'd be interesting to test not just with the Titan XP but also with something a little more reasonable like the gtx 1070 where is it yeah and then probably something more mid-range and even more affordable again like the gtx 1060 so now arms is the knowledge of exactly how Rison 5 CPUs will be configured and the current ability to mimic those configurations along with my desire to see how the performance stacks up with a range of GPUs I got to it I decided to lock the rise in seven 1,800 exit four gigahertz since this is an achievable overclock for this chip that said I have been limited to 3.9 gigahertz on some of my 1,700 X chips and 3.8 gigahertz on one of my 1700 chips so a 4 gigahertz overclock is by no means guaranteed for all risin seven processes anyway at this frequency I was able to simulate the overclocking performance of the risin 5 1600 X as well as the rise in 5 1500 X assuming both are able to push all cores to 4 gigahertz for the purpose of keeping all things equal across the rise in CPUs I went with the same frequency for testing purely for comparison sake I went with the KB Lake CPUs since they represent the very best gaming performance right now at least in most titles they also have no trouble hitting 4.8 gigahertz and this can really be considered a mild overclock so for testing we have the dual core hyper threading enabled core i3 70 350 K quad-core 7600 K and quad core hyper threading supported 7700 K again all we tested at 4.8 yoghurts to show the very best performance these chips have to offer right now or close enough anyway so for testing I'm not interested in the clock for clock comparison we know table X IPC performance is slightly better no need to go over that again all CPUs which do include the riser models were tested using ddr4 3000 memory the GPU is included for testing our the GTX 1080 TI gtx 1070 and gtx 1060 obviously we didn't use AMD GPUs as there's nothing that can replicate GT X 1080 Ti performance right now there's no point replacing save the GTX 1060 with the our X 480 just to give the AMD GPUs a showing I'd rather keep things more consistent finally for this test just six games were used but with three graphics cards and six CPU configurations that means there are 108 individual tests which require over 300 benchmark runs so let's go check them out I wanted to include Far Cry primal as this is a game where Verizon really struggles disabling courses and the CCX doesn't help improve performance here of course we never expected that it would however including the results because following this video I would like to test the second CCX disabled to see what kind of performance that makes in games like Far Cry where the rising CPU is really struggle I also include this game because I wanted to see how quickly we run into a GPU bottleneck with less extreme GPUs so here we see even with all cores clocked at full gigahertz the rise in CPUs are no match for even the core i3 meanwhile we see strong gains when moving from the 73 50k to the 7600 K and then again to the 7700 K moving to the gtx 1070 we see that the cable 8 processes all bunch up as isn't a CPU intensive title to begin with the rising CPUs aren't too far behind now though they are still lagging behind even with a lesser GPU now with the gtx 1060 handling the rendering work the rising CPUs are pretty much on par kb lake it's not that long ago that this kind of performance which is roughly equivalent to that of the GTX 980 was considered extreme high end it seems Far Cry primal has been developed in a way that just doesn't work that well with is in architecture it's unlikely that we'll see a patch at this point to update the game to better support Rison if that's even possible given the game's age a and B we'll probably just have to suffer through some short-term pain on that one I have found previously the disabling SMT really helps in Far Cry primal boosting performance by around 15% so with Far Cry primal we have a game that's not very CPU intensive and yet there's clearly some kind of issue with the rise in CPUs for honor is another game that is primarily GPU bound and here we see that even with the gtx 1080i handling the rendering work the rise in cpus are able to max it out the same is true for the core i3 73 50k for example that being the case we find much the same with the gtx 1070 and again the gtx 1060 so not much to discuss here but I just wanted to include another non CPU intensive game it's just to see if what we saw in Far Cry primal was unusual and it seems it is f1 2016 does use the CPU quite heavily and here we see the core i3 73 50k really suffering in comparison to the Core i5 and core i7 models that said performance was still very playable it just looks much slower when using a high end GPU even the 7700 K offers strong gains over the 7600 K here looking to rise and we see much more consistent performance across the various models the quad-core 1,500 X clocked at 4 gigahertz is able to match the 7600 K at 4.8 yogurt which is a pretty big deal here in fact the minimum frame rate was 6% greater and of course the 1500 X completely wastes the core i3 73 50k here moving to the slower gtx 1070 we see margins all closed up but again we see consistent performance for the Rison parts interestingly the 1500 X offers much better minimum frame rates with the gtx 1070 then these 7600 K does once we get down to the GTX 1060 things pretty much equal out across the board and now the 1800s can be seen matching the 7700 K next up we have battlefield 1 and here the core i3 73 50k is considerably slower than the core i5 7600 K again frame rates are still very high on the dual-core CPU as we never saw dips below 80 fps the 1600 X and 7600 K deliver similar minimums so it has to be said even with just four cores enabled the rise and cps are still able to deliver very smooth performance dropping down to the gtx 1070 closes up the margin and again we see the rise and see if you use do deliver a better minimum result when compared to the 7600 k now with the gtx 1060 things are pretty even and for the most part well within the margin of error obviously this is down to the fact that we are running into a heavy GPU bottleneck but it does give us a good idea of how real-world gaming with a reasonably affordable GPU looks right now Ghost Recon wildlands is another game that isn't that taxing on the CPU still with an extreme high end GPU the core i3 70 350 K does start to fall behind meanwhile rising delivers the same performance with 4 cores 6 cores and all 8 cores enabled moving to the gtx 1070 the margins between the various rising configurations and the core i3 Core i5 and core i7 models are all very similar finally with the gtx 1060 handling the rendering it's just the core i3 73 50k that falls behind by a small margin one game that I made sure was include was mafia 3 the game loves threads and here we see technology such as hyper threading making a real difference the core i7 77 okay for example was 41% faster than the 7600 T when compared in the minimum frame rate the simulated risin 5 1500 X configuration well they want to match the much higher clock to 7600 K so that was impressive to see out of the box the 1,800 X is actually slightly faster than the 77 okay in this title that said once overclock is 77 hundred K is able to pull ahead by about 10 FPS they simulated 1600 X was faster than the 7600 K while the 1500 X was slightly slower for the average but slightly faster for the minimum this here is very interesting we see yet again when dropping down to the gtx 1070 the risin cpu singer form better than the intel parts i assume is this down to the fact that they provide better minimum frame rates and these slower GPUs can't hit quite the same highs which bring the average down anyway using the gtx 1070 the 1800 x and simulated 1600 x are both faster than the 7700 okay clocked at 4.8 gigahertz meanwhile the 1500 x is roughly on par with the 7600 k which is an impressive result given its clock 17% lower now with the gtx 1060 we find all cpu configurations deliver pretty much the exact same performance as we are of course GPU limited here well quite a few interesting results were seen there in the small 6-game sample what we have learnt is that for the most part the 6 core rising cpus will perform very similar to that of the 8 core models in today's cpu demanding titles the 4 core or quad core parts will be slightly slower when using extreme GPU configurations in games such as battlefield 1 mafia 3 and f1 2016 for example that's it with the exception of Far Cry primal it looks as though the quad core rise in CPUs will still destroy the higher clocked dual core KB Lake processes such as the 73 50k even at full point a key Goats the 73 50k was no match in the more CPU intensive titles it was really interesting to find that when using the gtx 1070 the rise in cpus were actually able to pull ahead in game such as mafia 3 meanwhile those using a sub $300 us current generation graphics card won't see any difference between the quad core AMD Rison and intel kb lake cpus testing with the gtx 1060 naturally creates a serious GPU bottleneck and it really represents the kind of performance you can see from extreme GPU at the 4k resolution well actually that's probably not even true I'd say that 4k is still more extreme when it comes to shaping the results so it just goes to show that even with a high end GPU such as the gtx 980ti testing cpu gaming performance at 4k really is quite useless as it stands we are still waiting for games that better utilize the horizons so you can use and the good news is there are plenty of games on the horizon unfortunately right now there are a lot of games that may arise and look pre average and certainly not nearly as good as it actually is games such as Far Cry primal civilization 6 Gears of War for grand theft auto 5 hitman total bull hammer and watchdogs 2 for example all perform much weaker than expected on their eyes and CPUs that said though this isn't the same performance as bad in fact gameplay is still incredibly smooth it's just the frame rates are lower than where you would expect them to be in relation to the Intel CPUs to simulated 6 core and four core eyes and five gaming performance that you have seen here should be identical to what we see in three weeks time assuming they have no trouble running all cores at four gigahertz I also don't expect there isin five parts to overclock any better than the Rison 7 CPUs as they are essentially the exact same chips with a few cores disabled but you never know though again we will know for sure in a few weeks time what I can tell you is the 1500 X is going to be an incredibly good buy at $190 us or 275 ozzie and you also get that rate spire cooler in the package so again an amazing deal the 1400 is a chip that had me the most excited initially before we found out the true specifications it is 170 dollars us or two hundred and forty-five dollars ozzie which is a 10% saving on the 1500 X but I'm not sure that'll warrant having the available level 3 cache to eight megabytes anyway I'm very excited about these upcoming rise and 5 CPUs especially given the performance that's been seen here in this video Rison looked very impressive recently when I was testing out Mass Effect Andromeda I took the 1800 X and locked all cores at 4 gigahertz and compared that to a highly overclocked KB like 77 ok which was run at 4.9 gigahertz and in Mass Effect Andromeda the performance was very similar using a high-end graphics card I think it was the tie in XP or a motor in the GTX 1080i it doesn't matter they're pretty much the same product but very impressive performance in that new title and this is a game that I will be adding to my battery of gaming benchmarks very soon well that's all for this one guys I hope you enjoyed it I'm your host Steve catch again soon you