F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop Upgrade from Ryzen 7 1700 to Ryzen 5 5500

Upgrade from Ryzen 7 1700 to Ryzen 5 5500

Upgrade from Ryzen 7 1700 to Ryzen 5 5500

Pages (2): Previous 1 2
Y
YodaStyle2001
Member
56
02-14-2022, 09:17 AM
#11
Maybe just this one match? I own a 1600 and 8700k, but the 8700k at 5GHz isn’t even half as quick—about 25-30% faster than what you’d expect in games at low resolution.
Y
YodaStyle2001
02-14-2022, 09:17 AM #11

Maybe just this one match? I own a 1600 and 8700k, but the 8700k at 5GHz isn’t even half as quick—about 25-30% faster than what you’d expect in games at low resolution.

I
IAmASworD
Junior Member
9
02-28-2022, 06:05 AM
#12
This performance is heavily dependent on the CPU, similar to what you'd see in cities. Even in titles like AC:Odyssey, FPS averages in the 1600s were around the 30s to 50s for the 8700 model. People tend not to admit it, but the first-gen Ryzen units were notably slow. In this test, a 5GHz 8700k achieved 521 on single-core compared to 466 on the stock 8700 and 338 on the 1600... a 38% boost with the stock model and a 54% jump with the 5GHz version. It often performs worse in games since Cinebench focuses more on processing power rather than memory speed, but the 8700k can handle much faster RAM than the 1600. I might have overstated the improvement from 35 to 30, probably around the high 30s, though still quite poor. Comparing exact results is tricky due to player counts. I noticed the game dropping to around 30A more than once, never falling below 70 on the 5GHz 8700k.
I
IAmASworD
02-28-2022, 06:05 AM #12

This performance is heavily dependent on the CPU, similar to what you'd see in cities. Even in titles like AC:Odyssey, FPS averages in the 1600s were around the 30s to 50s for the 8700 model. People tend not to admit it, but the first-gen Ryzen units were notably slow. In this test, a 5GHz 8700k achieved 521 on single-core compared to 466 on the stock 8700 and 338 on the 1600... a 38% boost with the stock model and a 54% jump with the 5GHz version. It often performs worse in games since Cinebench focuses more on processing power rather than memory speed, but the 8700k can handle much faster RAM than the 1600. I might have overstated the improvement from 35 to 30, probably around the high 30s, though still quite poor. Comparing exact results is tricky due to player counts. I noticed the game dropping to around 30A more than once, never falling below 70 on the 5GHz 8700k.

T
TheRealShrub
Senior Member
409
03-07-2022, 01:49 AM
#13
I received mine at 4 GHz, but the stock performance was poor overall
T
TheRealShrub
03-07-2022, 01:49 AM #13

I received mine at 4 GHz, but the stock performance was poor overall

S
SrPuma
Junior Member
4
03-12-2022, 01:53 AM
#14
I experienced mine at 3.9; I struggled with 4.0 and couldn't run 3200, so I used 2933 RAM. With a powerful GPU, upgrading to 5600 would bring a massive jump compared to the first generation. Even with a weaker GPU, frame rates would drop noticeably in many games, particularly online multiplayer.
S
SrPuma
03-12-2022, 01:53 AM #14

I experienced mine at 3.9; I struggled with 4.0 and couldn't run 3200, so I used 2933 RAM. With a powerful GPU, upgrading to 5600 would bring a massive jump compared to the first generation. Even with a weaker GPU, frame rates would drop noticeably in many games, particularly online multiplayer.

Pages (2): Previous 1 2