If one were to build a new PC today how would they not go with

>>59220661

The BIOS issues need sorting first. Not going through the Z170 pain again.

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-03 at 1.52.04 PM.png (85KB, 447x885px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 447x885px

>10%
wrong

I'm waiting for r3/r5, only a complete retard would buy the 1800x to game

>>59220755
Yeah "the bugs" I referred to that I've seen thus far from user reports include turbo not enabling properly possibly as a result of windows power management or BIOS update being needed. SMT not functioning properly. Memory overclocks disable cores which is another BIOS update issue and other various BIOS and Windos setting changes that will invariably all be easily resolved. I mean looking at the raw power of Ryzen and the value 1700 offers you'd have to be really dumb to not go AMD at this price point.

>>59220847
please learn to read before posting
r5 will be a great value build proposition tho

>>59220847
Honestly, if I were going to get an AMD CPU, it would only be the 1800x, reasoning behind it is that the r3 and r5 CPU's are supposed to be at the same clocks of the 1800x, so they should have around the same performance in gaming, less if the games utilize more threads, and less performance in multi-threaded applications.

>>59220874
>tfw i will never be retarded enough to buy the r7 1700

>>59220887
>Honestly, if I were going to get an AMD CPU, it would only be the 1800x, reasoning behind it is that the r3 and r5 CPU's are supposed to be at the same clocks of the 1800x, so they should have around the same performance in gaming, less if the games utilize more threads, and less performance in multi-threaded applications.
LMAO
really?? I thought they would be clocked higher

damn this is truly pathetic
7700K master race

>>59220847
>>59220856
Every review site has noted Ryzen's IPC performance is far better than the game benchmarks indicate pointing to some bugs needing fixed. This isn't a matter of debate and tge reason they're all saying the same thing is because Ryzen is a monster. Posting game benchmarks is literally pointless.

>>59220874
the 1600x will be the 1800x with 2 cores disabled.

Maybe more overclocking room?

>>59220661
Let me ask you a question as well:

Why do you care so much?

:thinking:

>>59220890
Depends ENTIRELY on use case. r3 or 5 will likely be the superior budget video game build compared to getting a core gimped pentium, non over clockable kabylake or more expensive 7700k

>>59220902
>Every review site has noted Ryzen's IPC performance is far better than the game benchmarks indicate pointing to some bugs needing fixed. This isn't a matter of debate and tge reason they're all saying the same thing is because Ryzen is a monster. Posting game benchmarks is literally pointless.
say it with me: bulldozer two point zero

>>59220939
>Depends ENTIRELY on use case
yeah i agree i mean i love watching 7zip and cinebench all day long, that's my main use case

>>59220921
Because analyzing computer hardware is one of my hobbies

>>59220947
bulldozer had poor ipc count, this only the polar oposite. anyone who says this outs themselves as a luddite or shill

>>59220959
or having 100 browser tabs open with shit streaming in the background which brings my 3570k to its knees if i launch a game. not with ryZen tho.

>>59220856

>Game benchmark heavily influenced by system memory

>Known bug in Ryzen affecting memory latency and speed

Ryzen is shit!

>>59220995
>or having 100 browser tabs open with shit streaming in the background which brings my 3570k to its knees if i launch a game. not with ryZen tho.
would be interested to see the real-world performance of ryzen with all that shit running vs the intel, my guess is that "muh streaming" would make no difference whatsoever and your "muh 100 tabs" are just taking up ram and 0% cpu time anyway

but what do you know about hardware who cares amirite muh ryzen heh

>>59221000
>Known bug in Ryzen affecting memory latency and speed
this, RIP

File: ryzenclocks.png (33KB, 732x693px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 732x693px

>>59220897
Yeah, which I couldn't understand. I personally go for whichever CPU performs better, I currently have an i7 4770k and a 4790k, if the R7 series of their CPU's is indicative of their overlclocking performance then it's going to be a bad time for AMD.
Honestly I believe that this has given Intel a push to achieve better CPU performance than what we've been given so far, but the Ryzen chips don't look that terrible, as far as the R7 series goes, in higher resolutions that I've seen, it seems to be on par if not a little below the Core i7 chips. However, depending on your upgrade scheduling, if you happen to get a new GPU that lifts the GPU bottleneck you'd be facing more of a CPU limit versus the i7's

>>59221051
>R5: 3.5 GHz
jesus christ, it is truly over

>>59221074
Lmao
I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt because it would be utterly stupid to have them clocked so low when their intel counterparts currently are clocked at 4.2Ghz and above, unless they can overclock one Gigahertz or more, but as I said if the R7 series overclocking performance is indicative of the entire Ryzen overclocking performance then AMD is going to have a bad time

File: streaming-obs.png (129KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1440x1080px

>>59220661
Ryzen is even shit at streaming, it's shit at almost everything

No way I would buy that crap

>>59221051
I don't get this. Wouldn't less cores mean = higher base clocks?

>>59221051
their 8c parts match intel's 8c parts in overclockability

guru3d
>For the 1700X we followed a request asked in our forums, we used just the Noctua heatpipe based cooler for overclocking. We reach a stable 4.0 GHz at ALL cores. However with proper liquid cooling and a lucky 1700X we have no doubt that you will reach the 4.1~4.2 GHz range on all eight-cores. This threshold is more or less the same for 8-core Intel processors, as more cores create more heat and complexity

>>59221140
ars review is abnormally under performing others. they need to update it.

>>59221143
Well you would think, I would think that it would mean more power to clock the other cores higher, as with less cores it would generate less overall heat, so far the information about the clocks that I've researched aren't wrong. AMD if they can clock their CPU's higher they should, but I'm guessing they don't want to outshine their flagship in benchmarks, but they should be going about it the same way that Intel does in my opinion. Anyways, the 7700k is around $250 at Microcenter right now, but I have a 4790k overclocked to 4.7 on stock voltages so I'm sated for the moment.

>>59221143
Not necessarily. If heat was the limiting factor then maybe but that doesn't appear to be the case with Ryzen. R7 1700s clock as well as R7 1800Xs, which makes anything over the R7 1700 useless for overclockers.

>>59220995
browser tabs aren't doing anything to the cpu they are already loaded. You are trying to tell me you have 100 browser tabs open that are all actively computing something intensive in javascript or some plugin ?

>>59221051
This must be very old since the clocks are all wrong on the Ryzen 7 line.

>>59221169
Right now all I've heard with the 6900k CPU's are averages of around 4.3Ghz stable versus the averages of 4-4.1ghz for the 1800x, but things can change, but right now the 6900k is still ahead, albeit at a much higher price it still shows us that at the time being Intel's architecture is better at overclocking than AMD's, but I'm not one to speculate, I'm just hoping that Intel either lowers some of their prices to more reasonable margins, or AMD's chips are better than what we've seen so far.

>>59221216
I have 3570k @4,7, stock voltages too. I think I'll wait till december before upgrading anything

>>59221279
This is actually correct, it just shows the base clocks, not boosts.

>>59221274
In a second window open yes they are and not it doesn't take any more than three tabs + one game to make a four core part start chugging. Don't try and start sounding absurd with me, retard. People run all kinds of shit in the backround (read RUN not idle) while gayming.

This is a big enough issue that I close my browser down before loading a game each time on my cleanly overclocked to 4.2ghz 3570k

Unless you're one of those faggots who thinks "silky smooth 30fps". My monitor is 120hz btw

>>59220661
because intel just works while amd doesn't

there's already bugs with ram, and excuses about

>muh scheduler
>muh game devs

bulldozer-tier shilling all over again. should've waited a month and actually ironed out that shit for a strong first impression. amd retards never learn

>>59220661
>If one were to build a new PC today how would they not go with an r7 1700 Ryzen?
If they wanted to play games properly.

>>59221443
>bulldozer
opinion discarded

>>59221518
you mean if they didn't know how to use a pc and only loaded up a game at which point they'd have no clue the difference here

>>59221525
>MON ANON SAID THE MEANIE-WEANIE WORD MAKE HIM STOP RRRRREEEEEEEEE

>>59221351
>and not it doesn't take any more than three tabs + one game to make a four core part start chugging.


Bullshit I was able to do much more than that on a 3630

>>59221550
no I meant if they wanted their computer to perform well with games

Because i got a i5 7600k for way cheaper than Ryzen and it does better for gayms. If I had the patience I would have waited for 1600x, but that's taking way too fucking long and I don't give a fuck at this point.

File: avatar_c5b86f502aca_128.png (44KB, 128x128px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 128x128px

>>59221555
yes it means you have no clue what you're posting about

i suppose you wish to carry on this baseless empty back and fourth another 20 replies since it's the only thing you know how to do

>>59221567
one multitwitch tab on second monitor + one game on main monitor = your intel 4c is gasping for air