Which Ryzen processor that doesn't bottleneck a single GTX 1080?

I'm build a gaming PC and I want to know which Ryzen processor that doesn't bottleneck a single GTX 1080?

The primary focus of the build is purely gaming, a few very light photo/video editing, no multitasking.

p.s

I've done a few research about this already but I want to hear more opinions from you guys.

 

from the reviews ive seen thus far, a 1600/1600X should do quite well in gaming. anything above that wont give u any noticeable boost in gaming performance anymore.

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-06...2160-asus-gtx-1080-ti-strix-durchschnitts-fps

only 2-6 % difference at UHD between ryzen 1500 and an overclocked 6850K on a 1080 Ti.

some games like civilization or ashes of the singularity are very cpu bound depending on their settings though, so the difference will be a bit larger there.

 

I noticed that the 1500X is on par with the 1600X does that mean that the 1500X can 100% utilize the GTX 1080?

 

All CPU's bottle all the components that run under them. Always buy the best you can afford. Always.

Even if in today's workloads the differences may seem minimal; over the lifecycle of the system; the best processor (you can afford) will always give you the highest performance from all your subsystems over the course of ownership.

See:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-i7-8700k-cpu,5252.html


The latest Intel offerings are also very interesting for gamers and productivity workers too:

See:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-i7-8700k-cpu,5252-13.html

Don't limit yourself to a certain manufacturer (arbitrarily) and lock out future platform performance needlessly...

 

well, amd is more likely to support future cpu gens like ryzen2 than intel is with their arbitrary cockblock of older chipsets (see CFL cpus on socket 1151 with 200/100 series chipsets...), so going with a ryzen atm is actually not a bad choice at all in terms of future-proofing a system

Sent from my HUAWEI NXT-AL10 using Tapatalk

 

Settling for a less than 'best' performance for the lifecycle of a platform negates any potential gains one 'might' see.

I prefer how Intel does things; a new M/B is introduced when/if it is needed to deliver the promise of the newest processors (vs. holding back everything in time just to claim 'compatible').

See:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-i7-8700k-cpu,5252-2.html

Nobody makes things difficult for themselves and their customers as a matter of course... at least, not anyone that has been around as long as Intel has.

These decisions are not arbitrary. And for me and (most of) my clients that buy Intel platforms - when the time comes to replace a processor - it is also time to replace the M/B too - because otherwise; the performance jump I expect to receive would have materialized with the previous platform already.

 

For what you describe, either Ryzen 1600/1600x or 1700/1700x will do.

Upcoming games will be coded to take advantage of more cores, so I'd personally opt to get 1600x for now (given that Ryzen X CPu's seem to have better binning and can be overclocked better with lower voltage increases - that is, if Overclocking is something you want to do, and you don't need to) save some money and upgrade later.
In anything higher than 1080p, you won't really notice the CPU (anything beyond 4 core on Ryzen side will do you) - and if you're going for GTX 1080, you're probably going to want to game at least at 2k (though you never mentioned anything about this).

Plus, AMD gives you the option to upgrade the CPU to Ryzen+, Ryzen 2 and Ryzen 3 on the same motherboard. With Intel, you're usually stuck with 1 generation of CPU's and can't upgrade further (even to refreshes) on the same motherboard.
So with Intel, you're looking to spend more money in the long run.

Out of curiosity, have you considered getting Vega 56 instead of 1080?
You could undervolt it and overclock it on both core and HBM resulting in better than or at least equal to 1080 performance for a lower power draw than 1080 (the undervolting of Vega confirms at least that you can reduce power draw a lot and remove thermal throttling, allowing it to reach and maintain it's boost clocks - in which case, I don't think you would need to overclock the core... just undervolt the core and HBM and overclock only the HBM to say 950 MhZ - which should get you to 1080 territory), and, you could end up paying less (depending on where you're buying it).

Plus, Vega has various features in it that future games will be taking advantage of. Pascal has been pretty much pushed to the max as it is in terms of features, so performance will likely continue to increase on Vega... but not so much on Pascal (then again, it depends on which games you're playing and so forth).

Also, Vega might be a better option for photo/video editing given better OpenCL support... but it also depends on which software you use and what that software is coded to take advantage of.
Various games have also been noted to work better when you combine Ryzen with an AMD GPU in DX12 (either Polaris or Vega).

Again, all of this is based on your preferences as well and what kind of budget you have.

 

Notice that the Tom's Hardware article (links above) use the GTX 1080 as their GPU in the testing they did.

Notice the graphs (first set in the Conclusions) put the 1600X at about 13-15FPS lower than what Intel offers with the i7-8700K today.

Don't assume that what you can buy when R+ and R2/R3 comes out will be any different. You can hope; but don't bet on it with your wallet.

For a mere ~$100 more today; you have a system that is 25% faster in geometric mean of 99th percentile frame times, a good indicator of smoothness, converted into an FPS measurements...

Spend where you should (actual performance). Not where the (foolish) heart might indicate...

 

If someone decides their purchase based on other factors than pure performance, there's nothing wrong with that. It's their money and their decision on how to spend it.

If I don't want to support Intel for their bad behavior over AMD and other CPU makers that have gone by the wayside, then that's my decision.

If I want to help fund AMD as a competitor to Intel to keep them honest (or get caught again) so we as consumers get actual technical advancement instead of the stale Intel refreshes for 10 years like we just got, then I think that's a worthwhile trade-off for some performance loss off the top end.

The few FPS difference usually doesn't make any difference at all in the game play, I am not giving up anything by buying AMD CPUs if the top end of performance is lost through tossing it due to G-sync, V-sync, Frame limiting.

These days we are in a world of excess CPU / GPU power for most of the things we do. Comparing purchases based only on top end extra performanec makes no sense anymore. Only on a few games and even then a couple of config changes makes them even, can it matter.

Funding AMD as a competitor is a good thing, and should weigh heavily in the process of purchasing a new computer.

AMD has made it a lot easier this time with Ryzen, ThreadRipper, Epyc, and Vega.

There's no need to feed Intel, they are fat enough from their past greed.

As for which Ryzen CPU to get, it's really up to your budget, as always buy the best you can afford because you are going to live with that purchase for years to come.

A 1700, 1600, and even the lower end SKU's when OC'd do a great job for what they cost, so spend your money wisely, make sure you can eat and pay your bills over the next few weeks after purchase

 

Things to note: Toms tested at 1080p... and most games showed less than 10 FPS difference on stock frequencies... yes there were several exceptions like Project cars (but let's face it, those games are primarily optimized for Intel and Nvidia in the first place and never released patches for Ryzen).
Interesting to note that in Tomb Raider game for example (which did receive Ryzen patches), performance at average FPS is less than 10 FPS different... the minimums show a larger difference (between 1600x and i7-8700k) at 25 FPS difference, but again, the 1600X is running on lower speeds to begin with (note that 1800X oc-ed to 4 GhZ compensates greatly).

The Ryzen refresh is bound to ship with better/higher core clock speeds while reducing power draw.
I doubt that AMD would ship the CPU's with lower power draw only.
In all likelihood they will probably keep the current TDP and raise clocks as much as they can within that envelope on 12nm - unless they decide to go the lower TDP route - in which case we will still see a clock bump with a lower power draw.

And as for expecting no change from R2 and R3 in regards to IPC, or clock speeds... now you're just talking nonsense.
The first generation of Ryzen already proved itself, and has a far better support for upgrade paths vs Intel (especially when you take into account the price, which quite frankly shouldn't be ignored - plus Ryzen's untapped architectural features).

Also, you cannot realistically expect that this would be representative of 2k or 4k gaming... in which case, it would only be fair to include a review that covers higher resolutions:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11859/the-anandtech-coffee-lake-review-8700k-and-8400-initial-numbers

Not that much of a difference once you move past 1080p... and GTX 1080 would be better used at least on 2k.
Its fascinating how good a lower clocked Ryzen CPU is actually holding in relation to a much more expensive Intel part.
And if you're going to say 'for a ~$100 more..."... well, I can just as easily say 'for a little more money, but definitely less than what you pay for Intel, you can get Ryzen 1700, overclock it to 3.9/4 GhZ and get effectively 1800x performance.'

Going for the 'best performance that money can buy' is not really sensible. By that analogy the 18 core i9 should be a no-brainer over Ryzen 1950x... and yet, double the cost simply doesn't justify the 10% difference in performance. Given how fast revisions/refreshes come out, not to mention newest CPU's... AMD is the best option to provide the most out of the same platform for minimal cost down the line.
Plus, as hmscott said, I'd rather invest in AMD which is giving us new technologies, as opposed to the 'fat cat Intel' who have a tendency to also play dirty.
Once the playing field is 'equalized' however, I'll have a second look at Intel... right now though, they are simply overpriced for what they offer (better peformance? Yes, but barely any better at higher resolutions, and Ryzen patches already close a significant performance gap without overcloking the CPU - with Intel, you have to delid and risk losing the CPU in the process).

Again, all this depends on the OP and what kind of budget they are using and whether those differences in CPU's and software would be enough for them to pick one over the other.

 

Yup, I termed it as giving Intel a "time out" to think about what they did wrong, get their act back together, and start supporting LGA socket with real / long term support, and real CPU performance increases.

None of this Intel slo-mo tick / tock crap - counting the seconds as years... very freaking funny. Insult added to purposeful injury is what it looks like to me.

Intel: Haha we got's the tech, and we aren't going to give it to you, gonna drag it out over your entire lifetime instead of a couple of years.

Think again Intel!! Enjoy your Time Out.

I'd say 3-5 years outta be about right, maybe longer if Intel doesn't start dropping prices.

 

We're mostly saying the same things. But where the group below is concerned; they're ignoring that the latest Intel offerings is cheaper and more powerful than what AMD offers.

The OP is asking for pure performance; in gaming. If a GTX 1080 GPU is throttled with an AMD platform... it shouldn't be considered. And yeah; it is throttled. Next.

If/when AMD beats down Intel like you all wish for - it will just be 'everyone against AMD' at that point. This isn't your friend. This isn't family. This is a corporation driven by one goal; mega$$$$. Whoever is on top will be just as loathsome as the one at the top now.

With DT and notebook sales slipping for the last few years, do you really think Intel was 'holding back' in what it could offer? Think about that.

Do you really think that Intel is giving us today what it should have in circa 2010?

If the above is really true. What the $#$#$@#$ was AMD doing back then?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Intel has a plan with it's tech IP. AMD seems to have one too (at least for the short/medium term).

AMD is still catching up. If you support AMD just to get back at Intel; that is how progress is slowed down.

Reward the best products (always). That is what brings real competition.

Also; don't forget that I always state 'buy as much processor (and RAM) as you can afford' - so those points below are moot too.

Where is the OP?

Have we helped or are we (all?) guessing wrong on his real/actual questions within the couple of posts in this thread he has provided?

@Midas Touch?

 

Sorry if I wasn't able to read all the comments here, though I read some but I wasn't able to respond. I was having a problem with my laptop. It was 2 hours right after I created this thread the laptop started to show signs of failure and I have to find a way to fix it, reinstalling drivers, reinstalling windows, etc. so I wasn't really able to read the new comments here.

It was just right this moment at the time of this writing that the laptop also got fixed and its already 1:32 AM where I'm from...I'm exhausted so I will get back to this thread again and read all the informational comments that you guys made but that doesn't mean I neglected them, I really appreciate them I really do.

Thanks guys and hope you understand.

 

Why do you think inte released x299 with those cheap i5 and i7 then? Only because any person with righ mind would bjy it! X299 is like, it will be "latest and best" chipset for years, and so intel, for sake of mid range gamers released thos i5 and i7 x series! So that when coffelake x (maybe)get released, then users dont have to throw more money on the MoBo!

 

Intel still is a fracking monopoly; they couldn't care less about end-users and their upgrade paths.

 

TIL Intel is in the fracking business.