>8 core / 16 thread monster >very good price / perform

File: newegg.png (122KB, 787x1013px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 787x1013px

>>59475376
Hey OP i'm currently going this route I think the 1800X would be over kill for me.

There's no reason to go Intel unless you sperg out over getting a few fewer frames in muh vidya gaems

>>59475402

Yeah. I still can't decide wether I should get 1800X or just the 1700.

But they all have 8 cores. It depends wether I need to spend more somewhere else like SSD.

>>59475402
1700 it is, also get XFX GTR 480 if possible.

>>59475446
You can OC it on this board to 4ghz and the trident-z memory should work flawlessly. 1800x gives you maybe 100-200mhz bonus over 1700.

>>59475481

The thing is I'm looking for a new 1440p or 4k monitor and have enough to purchase either 1800X or 1700 or the Intel Kaby Lake 7700K.

Saved up so much money by now that I only question which one to get.
Feel like moving away from my 1080p old cheap monitor which has bleeding/pixel issues.

For the GPU I'd probably get a 1080 or better.

>>59475376

You summed it up perfectly. Ryzen for me. Although I kight spend a little more for a 1700X.

>>59475402

Don't go ASUS with an AMD until they actually fucking try to win your money. The state of the Crosshair 6 at launch was disgusting.

Gigabyte, Asrock and to a lesser extent MSI deserve your money.

Good luck. AM4 motherboards only appear to the pure of heart.

>>59475557
Don't. The 1700X doesn't come with a stock cooler and for some fucking reason reports itself being 20 degrees hotter than it really is. A 1700 that doesn't hit 3.9GHz is unheard of, and many have hit 4.1

The guy from Nvidia who recently presented the 1080 Ti said it would be better if you have a CPU with more threads for games or gaming but it is hard to archieve because the devs need to change their direction.
Wouldn't be a Ryzen CPU the perfect fit ? Or is Intels 7700k still better?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79-s8byUkxk

at 40:00 question gets asked

Fuck man I can't decide

Also Ryzen supports SSSE3 for emulation and apparently it works better on 8 cores / 16 threads because CPU doesn't struggle as much.

competitive gamers are going with Ryzen.

that's really all you need to know.

everyone else is trying to sell you something.

>>59475827
>sse3 supported
everything since 2006 has
I am excited about AVX-512

>>59475376
>24 PCI-E lanes
>Even 5930k has 40 lanes

>>59475866
thats sponsored bs.
"competitive" gamers do not even need a i7 a Ryzen or even a fucking i5

You can push 144hz in CS:GO easily with a 2c/4t and a RX 480.

There's not that much competitive advantage by getting a Ryzen or a 7700k.

>>59475598

The senseMI is buggy still is all. I don't think we have seen everything the X chips can do just yet.

And it will all be going in a loop with an XSPC Ray Storm block so the cooler isn't really an issue.

>>59475827
Both would be a good fit WHEN game developers start taking advantage of that. the current state of graphics API architecture are in the beginning state of supporting multiple threads(Vulkan/DX12)

>>59475376
>i7700k

Stop

>>59475885
>pushing 144hz
>pushing

See, this is why you listen to the competitive gamers and not marketers. Nobody gives a shit what you can "push", because pushing anything is going to look like ass as your frame rate jumps around. Stability and frame time are more important than average fps. That's why 90% of benchmarks are fucking bullshit.

Competitive gamers don't "push" anything, they cap their game at a stable rate and stick to it. Back when I paid attention to such things and before 144hz monitors existed, the common frame rate cap for Source games was around 200 fps. Because only being able to input a command once every 16ms is far too slow.

There is less jitter with ryzen than intel in most games. This is an undenyable fact.

>>59475376
>Is it really that huge of a difference?
If you're doing super high frame rate gaming on a fancy monitor: Yes.
Otherwise: No.

>>59475883
>MUH LANES

yeah, i heard you need over 9000 of those for your gaymen rig.

>>59475912

but isn't Window 10, DX12 and Vulkan those API's that focus on using multiple threads in games and take advantage of that in the future?
By future I mean games like BF1 and Warhammer, Division?
Do you think dx11 and games that use prefer high clocks and single threads going to be common for the next let's say 3 years?

>>59475982
>only thing he does is gaymen

File: 1.jpg (228KB, 1279x715px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1279x715px

>>59475376
>toe to toe with Intel latest i7700k gaming preferred CPU

>>59475376
Ok so here are my reasons for going Ryzen:

I hate intel's business practices.
AM4 motherboards are cheaper
AM4 will last a lot longer than LGA1151
Overclocking for days
Soldered lid instead of shitty toothpaste
Less stutter in games

>>59476035
higher minimum frame rate in games (thanks guy, but you forgot to post clock speeds)

>>59476047
Except, the minimum frame rate isn't higher than the 7700's.

Do you have dificulty reading?

>>59475883
anddddd no one caresssssss

>>59476059
But it is.

Because those are stock clocks.

>>59476067
People who want to put four GPUs on their computer cares.

File: 1382923054161.gif (19KB, 518x400px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 518x400px

>>59476086
Those people have a keyboard with one button and this is it.

>>59475376
>toe to toe with Intel latest i7700k gaming preferred CPU
bullshit, that only happens in like 3-5 games
>optimal for 1440p or 4k gaming
because there is a gpu bottleneck at these resolutions
>All upcoming games developed in mind to use more threads and cores
this is also wrong
wait for the windows and games patches for ryzen first

>>59476098
what the fuck are you even playing at 720p

Waiting to see how r5 chips do before deciding which to buy. I like the look of the 1700, but have trouble justifying $350 for a cpu. Especially when i need a new mobo and ram.

Current system of 8320 @ 4.2
gigabyte ud3 990fx
8gb ddr3 1866
Fury nitro
Is still doing quite well in most games. But when i hit that cpu bottleneck it hurts.

i have my 1700 ordered on the way but i just cant fucking work out which ram/mobo to go for.

is it even possible to get 32gb ram running at 3200 on ryzen or what is the closest

File: 1489919694.png (44KB, 925x453px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 925x453px

>>59476106
half of the planet plays on 1080p or less
even people with gtx1080s play on 1080p screens, mostly because 1440p screens are way more expensive and not that great anyway
4k is still a meme resolution

>>59476091
I have a 3570K with 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes holding my 2x7970s just fine. So how is 24 going to be a problem?

>>59476080
The 1800x runs at 4ghzs and overclocks to 4.1 ghz max.

Fanboys are funny

>>59476172
Not to mention the 7700k is stock as well, at 4.5 ghz and will do 4.8-5ghz oc'd easily

File: 23re.png (599KB, 1192x600px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 1192x600px

>>59476035
Which would be the more well rounded chip? Cause I do more than game(is /g/ the new /v/?)

>>59475883

can you explain why this is bad?
I only use one graphics card and the usual 2-3 drives.

>>59476189
that depends on what programs you use
in some of them ryzen sucks even when it uses all cores (this could get patched), in some it's faster than most i7s
intel holds the same performance everywhere
also a ryzen with gtx1070 would be a better choice than ryzen + rx480
tl;dr intel will always get supported, with ryzen it's a big question

>>59476215
>with ryzen it's a big question
Are you saying Ryzen will not get support?

>>59476201
intel shills will grasp at any straw.

>>59476244
>>59476091
>hurr durr you don't need more than two gpus

>>59476240
intel could pay/force some developers to not support ryzen or just do a really lousy job
or the developers themselves could not care for amd because they're a really small userbase right now

3570K to 1700 a good upgrade?

>>59476292
>falling for ryzen
No.

>>59476201
It's bad for particular use cases, particularly with storage starting to move onto the motherboard. With two graphics cards and one M.2 drive you would use up 20 of those 24 lanes and that's with the cards using 8 lanes each (half speed). Any more cards and you'll need to start dropping some of them to 4 lanes.

Wouldn't be an issue for your use case though.

File: ryzen1800x.jpg (147KB, 1006x509px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1006x509px

>We also tested a large selection of games, in both 1080p and 1440p, comparing it to the Intel Core i7-7700k, which is the typical gamers' choice and $150 cheaper than the Ryzen 7 1800X. >Depending on the game, the results either nearly match the Intel CPU or are vastly slower, especially at 1080p. The only exception is Civilization VI where Ryzen's additional cores show a clear performance improvement.
>The most simple explanation why some games run at lower performance is because these games tend to be more CPU limited at the framerates tested. Every game has a certain CPU load it generates to calculate a single frame (almost independent of resolution), some games more, some less.
>When paired with a fast graphics card, and running at the standard resolution of 1080p, the framerate will be high, which results in a high CPU load. At some point, the CPU will be running as fast as it can, which will cap the framerate. This is worsened by games that don't properly scale across multiple cores, or only run at up to four cores, for example. While this is of course the game developer's "fault," it is a reality of today's game market that isn't going to change soon.
>Our second set of tests at 1440p shows performance losses getting smaller because the GPU can not drive such high framerates anymore; it is busy processing more pixels due to the higher resolution. This trend will continue at 4K resolution.

>What does this mean for gaming on Ryzen? I would say that if you have a graphics card of up to $300 and game at 1080p, you should be fine because the GPU will be the performance-limiting factor. When you use faster cards, like the GTX 1070, GTX 1080, or GTX 1080 Ti at 1080p, though, Ryzen will result in lower game performance. One solution is to game at 1440p or higher to ensure the GPU becomes the bottleneck again, or to buy an Intel CPU.

Intel 1080p
Ryzen 1440p - 4k because lesser frames on 1080p compared to Intels 7700k

>>59476277
>could

you said could 2 times. Is this really your argument?

>>59476153
In his defense, the people who play at sub 1080p are also probably not looking to buy several hundred dolllar CPUs.

>>59476322
yes
i'm really happy that i don't need to change my cpu right now, i will just wait a few months maybe ryzens will turn out to be great cpus and then i will buy one
people need to remember not to buy something that is brand new because there will be problems, there always are.

>>59476330
You forget about the 40-50% marketshare of 1080p screens, if you add both 4k and 1440p it's still less than there are gtx1080s and gtx1070s
people just don't need these resolutions right now, even with a 24 inch screen 1080p is enough

>>59476389
Oh absolutely, I totally agree with you, I just wanted to point out that many of those lower end gamers simply aren't and will never be in the market for these HEDT CPUs.

>>59476153

half of steam users use 1080p 44%
everything under full hd is consindered obsolete by now
the trend is moving towards 1440p or higher

File: WORK LOADS COMPARE.jpg (1MB, 1004x4936px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1004x4936px

>>59475376
>Not trying to bash or shill for any of those. I'm just stating facts so far shown by reviewers.
Great then you wont mind some benchmarks and facts.

File: GAME COMPARE.jpg (2MB, 1004x5792px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1004x5792px

>>59475376
>>59476562

File: OVER ALL COMPARE2.jpg (338KB, 1603x1032px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1603x1032px

>>59475376
>>59476562
>>59476570

Oh look, it's Ramesh.

File: 1419206769559.jpg (328KB, 810x587px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 810x587px

>>59476035

>that delta for ryzen

>>59475376
>pajeetpowerup.com
that's great, but I prefer looking at fair reviews instead of biased ones

>>59476562
>>59476570
>>59476576

the link is in the OP you stupid autist we all can read

That a 8 core CPU comes this close to Intel 7700k in performance is ridiculous. 5-10 frames don't matter and you won't see the difference. Min frame rate as the 7700k or higher. Bios updates already fixing performance.
Looks like the choice is clearly a 1800X or 1700X or 1700 don't you think ?
Less power consumption during gaming and idle too.

>>59476694

which ones are fair ?
post them

>>59476576

>300$ 7700k

>>59476728

Tom's with their magically scaling 6900k.

File: 1700re.png (163KB, 703x428px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 703x428px

>>59476728
I think I'm going for the 1700 and just OC it

>>59476710

Power consumption hasn't mattered for a desktop cpu since 3rd of march 2017. Get with the times.

>>59476710
>the link is in the OP you stupid autist we all can read
>post a picture containing all the benchmarks from said site, for fast viewing and not having to leave the site
>REEEEEEEEEEEEE WE CAN READ!
kek

> Bios updates already fixing performance.
This was supposed to be the Fixed performance as some shill in the other thread claimed that my other benchmarks were too old.
But I guess with AMD it's always wait for fixes, these benchmarks don't count, buy ryzen.

>Looks like the choice is clearly a 1800X or 1700X or 1700 don't you think ?
It clearly isn't unless your main use consists of H.265, h264, Wprime, blender, cinebench, veracrypt,7zip.
If you use those more than anything else in your day to day activities, get ryzen.
For literally everything else (except servers) get the 7700k and it will server you better, with out the promise of "one day it will be better"

>>59476779
>corelet CPU
>servers you better
Lmao.

Is it possible to OC the 1700 to 4.2GHz?

>>59476779

You don't sound convincing. Kek indeed.

>>59476779

>But I guess with Intel it's always wait for fixes, these benchmarks don't count, buy X99.

File: it's better because moar cores.jpg (81KB, 608x369px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 608x369px

>>59476793
AMD really hasn't changed

>>59476808
If I could convince a payed shill to killhimself I would be the second coming Jesus to humanity.

>>59476825

Intel should hire someone competent to shill. So far I'm more convinced that Ryzen is the better choice overall. And those come with a cooler for less money and all the advantages mentioned above.

>>59476811
X99 mobo's are expensive as fuck. So are the Intel 6 core or 8 core CPUs. No thanks.

>>59475402
>16GB RAM is $120
why is this allowed

File: 1370640631447.jpg (51KB, 960x821px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 960x821px

I really wish someone would give a final answer to this whole "wait4 optimzations!" mess. How much more performance can realistically be squeezed from R7 and from what channels? Revisions, steppings, microcode, BIOS updates or Windows scheduler updates?

Will some of this "optimization" only happen in R5 and R3?

>>59476940
It'll be max 10% better after patches, which is pretty formidable, but still less gaymen perf than 7700k.

>>59476794
Yes but not likely. I've been seeing most 1800x builds top out at at ~4.2-4.3 with insane core voltages >1.5. That's on full custom loops with beefy rads to boot. It's not a very realistic long term set up.

>>59476940
There will be no "optimization" for the current CPUs. The actual optimization is Zen+, where they'll fix the problems they're having now.

>>59476982
He means software fixes.

>>59476964
R7 never ment to out perform 7700k in games. 7700k beat their own 6900K or 6800K or the other 6 cores.
That's not really the point here.
It's what you get for $ in comparison to Intels line up.

>>59476910

>X99 mobo's are expensive as fuck. So are the Intel 6 core or 8 core CPUs. No thanks.

You must not be aware that upon release X99 had totally fucked memory that required a fair few bios updates to fix. /g/ somehow forgets this and slams AMD for the same thing.

File: 1487000432060.png (173KB, 2688x2688px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 2688x2688px

So what logical explanation for Ryzen not getting good result with gaming is that the Games cant use Ryzen correctly?

>>59476994
Yes but according to local shills 4coarz is enough and we all should buy 7700k.

>>59476991
I know. There won't be any magical +10% fixes. AMD knows their own CPUs and they would've been pushing those fixes before launch, if they existed.

>>59477017
Yes, same thing happened with Nehalem.

>>59477027
No, there will be. It's up to devs to optimise for Ryzen.

>>59476994
>>59477020

The shills don't care about which Intel chip wins, just as long as AMD loses. If the 1800x invalidates the 6900k it doesn't matter, as long as the 6950x is faster. If the 1800x beats the 6950x it doesn't matter, the focus will shift to single thread where kabylake wins.

Christ in some testing ryzen was beating out some dual xeon setups but given that sort of testing is for people who know what they are looking at /g/ remains ignorant of it.

>>59477005

well that wasn't as obvious until now
good to know but not really surprising that they had issues just like Ryzen with mobo bios on launch

>>59477057
software voodoo kek

fuckass devs who won't optimize their shit

>>59477057
That's what AMD marketing department wants you to believe. Didn't you learn anything from Bulldozer and Kaveri?

>>59477005
ASUS x99 cooked my 5820k. Memory was the smallest issue.

>>59477061

>well that wasn't as obvious until now

It was a well known problem that never made many headlines precisely because nobody wants to upset Intel (note I didn't say it was ignored). iirc it took a good 6 months before the problem was fixed and let the chips actually run fast ram.

>>59477077
Yes, even such marvellous fuckup as bulldozer offers adequate gaymen performance nowadays. Keked.

>>59477017
The explanation is that Intel has matured their per-core IPC after several revisions of the same product so despite Ryzen having similar or superior multi-core performance, the fact of the matter is that most games run most processes on a single-thread still (such as enemy AI, etc.) which results in single-core IPC being the bottleneck of the system, leading to 7700k being more beneficial for the current state of games.

That being said, Ryzen processors still fare very well and are a valid forward-thinking option, should AAA games start making better usage of multiple cores, like Battlefield series titles, etc. They also demolish multi-core heavy processes as well without slouching too far behind on single-thread performance.

Need better single-thread performance or more PCI-E lanes? Go Intel.

Need better multi-threaded performance and you don't need anything more than a single, big GPU + an m.2 SSD or 2? Go AMD.

For most typical "gamer" PC usage scenarios, AMD makes a lot of sense.

>>59476940
All of the above plus software optimization. Though in terms of stepping, zen is actually exceptionally mature for a fresh launch. They spent a lot of extra time working out the bugs and, likely, trying to find the best possible balance between maximum yields, performance, and efficiency.

AMD is really fucking small and there's far too many areas they need to work on to make the most of zen. It's going to take time and lots of recourses that they're painfully limited on. Thankfully, zen should prove successful in the server market as is. That'll give them some nice capital to work with.

Will we see further revisions prior to Zen+ to address certain limitations? Perhaps a better clocking variant otherwise mostly the same, a-la the devil's canyon chips? I'd say not likely.
I fully expect the focus between now and Zen+ on further laying the foundation they're severly lacking at present.

>>59476982
That gives Intel 2 years or so to bring out competing products. Hell they might even get a die shrink in that time, although 7nm sounds like an absolute bitch.

>>59476964
As long as it closes the gap somewhat. I just think it's a bit stupid to buy a CPU you know is not being taken full advantage of with a moving target "optimization" meme floating around.

>>59477061
>>59477080
Does this mean Ryzen might break away from the memory limitations it has currently where you can only run certain DIMMs at certain speeds in certain configurations? Or is this a hardware limitation in the chip itself?

>>59477119
No, Intel just cancelled Cannonlake-EX which means their 10nm yields are horrible.

>>59477119

>Does this mean Ryzen might break away from the memory limitations it has currently where you can only run certain DIMMs at certain speeds in certain configurations?

Yes - people have already gotten fast ram running, it just requires some manual tuning as (shockingly) Intel's XMP profiles don't always play nice with ryzen.

I'm surprised no one pointed out the fact that you can't get shit of an overclock on the ryzen cpus. On most new(er) Intel chips you can squeeze out an additional GHz or more easily, and Ryzen provides like 300 MHz OC at best from what I've seen from reviewers.

>>59477184
>different arches on different manufacturing processes
Water is wet?

>>59475376
you forgot
>less power consumption during full load
>65W version

>>59475455
>>59475402
the gtr is a good card but if possible wait for custom design vega.

>>59477184
You're not wrong. AMD marketed these with the best clocks they could muster, -8% or so below that margin. Intel usually clocks them ~20% or so below their maximum stable clockspeed.

Why not wait a month and go for the 6 core chips with identical gaming performance? Never understood the hype for the R7 chips. They're more expensive than the 7700K because they're aimed at a different market segment.

>>59477144
so is it better to just apply the settings written on the packaging of your ram manualy then?

>>59477184
overclocking is obsolete in current year and is just a marketing stunt

>>59477118
I'm very impressed that AMD managed to put out such a good arch in spite of them literally shitting away marketshare in the last decade. I'm also really excited for Naples but they'll have to break the entrenched hold Intel has on datacentre and IaaS. I don't think Amazon has a single AMD part in their whole operation, and Intel would probably fight tooth and nail, just about giving away their processors for free to hold on to big clients like AWS. Plus I think AWS has a semi-custom contract with Intel, not sure though.

>>59477141
>No, Intel just cancelled Cannonlake-EX which means their 10nm yields are horrible.

Shit. Are processors about to hit a brick wall until they can move off of silicon?

>>59477144
Great, I was worried that when AMD/motherboard manufacturers published their limitation guides that this would be some permanent limitation in Ryzen.

>>59477267

Basically. Still might need to tickle voltage a bit. Later today i'm going to pick a fight with my ram kit which is good for 3200mhz but i've only got it running at 2133mhz right now as I was in no mood for that sort of tweaking after spending all day rebuilding my pc and then installing windows.

>>59477294

t. Nvidia

>>59477308
AMD already announced a Naples deal for Microsoft azure servers. The platform looks really competitive, I doubt they'll have problems selling it. That they're basically coming from 0% market share might make things easier, their revenue can only go up this way.

>>59477337
>AMD already announced a Naples deal for Microsoft azure servers
>poojeet companies shit together on the designated street
really makes you think

>>59477308
No, it's just Intel. They had the same problem with 14nm.

>>59477144
>>59477308
>>59477118
https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c14d-16gfx

heard that ryzen scales quite well with better memory. so is memory like this worth it?

>>59477358
Yes-yes, Intel is poojeet company too.

>>59477308
>>59477308
>Shit. Are processors about to hit a brick wall until they can move off of silicon?
Silicon will hit a major bump theoretically at ~5nm, which will unsurpassable by conventional architecture designs.

There's been great investment in silicon transistors though, so they won't just be dumped and move on to carbon nanotubes or some shit.
Maybe some 3D transistor voodoo will happen to aid performance further.

10nm should be feasible, but it's just too early.

File: no bro.jpg (68KB, 1280x872px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1280x872px

>>59477294
>overclocking is obsolete
>implying the 7700k at 5GHz doesn't shit on literally everything Ryzen will ever have to offer

>>59477384
How long until 7nm Ryzen 2?

>>59477396
>shit on literally everything Ryzen will ever have to offer

wow someone really attached his ego to intel.

>>59477396
Man nice housefire you got there. Wasn't Intel all about power efficiency back then, before Zen?

>>59477421
Keep waiting Mr. Nahasapeemapetilon.

>>59477421
That would be Zen3 and it's ~2019.

File: 481927462be9p7keh.jpg (139KB, 569x283px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 569x283px

>>59477374
It scales well with higher memory clock speeds, presumably because of pic related. Getting it to run stable isn't that easy right now though, most likely due to fucked up BIOS versions.

>>59477384
Nah, there's still enough room to scale down on silicon, it just gets more expensive. EUV is on the way and FD SOI will probably make a comeback too. Also its not like we'll have an alternative in he foreseeable future.

>>59477464
this is probably because amd has not given mainboard manufacturers much time to get their boards running.
maybe we see all this problems be fixed in 2 month?

>>59477396

Digital Foundry said that OC to 5ghz is pointless in gaining anything significant. What does matter is faster ddr4 ram like 3000mhz in XMP for example. You get better results with stock and good ram kit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43g3OTK2AbE

>>59477498
No, that happened with every new platform ever. X58 teething, 1155 SATA problems, x99 clusterfuck, whatever.

>>59477524
just read that amd has not given manufacturers much forerun and this problems will probably be fixed in a couple of month.

>>59477573
Then why did the same shit happened with holy Intel? Are they pajeets too?

File: Screenshot_20170319-100943.png (343KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 1080x1920px

>very good price

>>59477609
>shitskin subhuman hue
You literally deserve it.

>>59477588
idk and I don't particularly care. was just wondering if I will run in these kind of problems when I build my new rig around june/july this year. (maybe full amd if some good custom vega designs are available till then)

File: ryzen.png (188KB, 777x667px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 777x667px

Should i get the 1700 or pay 50 Yurops more for the 1700X ?

>>59477502
Too bad RAM speed is a lot less relevant to Ryzen because of its atrocious clock speeds. Not being able to OC past 4GHz is fucking pathetic and only AMD shills would defend this.

>>59477663
>muh cockspeeds
I swear you ALL want the second coming of NetBurst. Are you fucking insane?

>>59475950
>Competitive gamers don't "push" anything, they cap their game at a stable rate and stick to it.

Source? There is no point in limiting the framerate unless using Vsync without triple buffering (and Vsync itself adds at least one frame rendering time to the delay at best). Competitive players are iterested in smallest possible output delay, and removing the FPS limit is a very good thing to do (it was not possible in CS1.6 without severe physics change).

>>59477657
Buy the one that has an X on it. All the cool kids are doing it.

>>59477609

post price of 6900K in that currency then you might rethink

>>59477680
When IPC are comparable, clock speeds matter, imbecile.

>>59477686
Nah, you want constant frametimes unless you got an async monitor

>>59477704
>muh cockspeeds
Oh, you really do want the second NetBurst.

>>59476728
the ones done by those who know what they are doing
find them yourself, you fucking pooinloo

>>59477704
>IPC and clockspeed are the only design variables of a modern CPU

>>59477713
You probably weren't even alive when netburst was released

>>59477722
>higher clocked i7s anally rape the mediocre Ryzen line-up
Hmm I wonder why.

>>59477374
Depends on what you're doing, but technically yes. I've been reading about the "victim" L3 cache and how can cause some serious latency when saturated. It's still pretty well over my head, but the gist seems to be system RAM can potentially be faster anyway with high clockspeeds and low timings.

I couldn't comment on whether things can improve with careful software optimizations alone or not.

>>59477722
IPC*clock speed=performance retard and don't give me MOAR COARS shit

>>59475376
how fast does it compile gentoo?

>>59477749
The scaling is not linear and higher clock speeds give marginal performance gains after ~4.8ghz.

>>59477740
In anything that doesn't multithread well. Its almost as if they're marketed at different market segments or something.

File: Screenshot_20170319-102525.png (492KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 1080x1920px

>>59477693

>>59477749
>t. uses a G3258 in a workstation

>>59477775
B-but you can OC it. More ghz means more performance. We need 10ghz chips.

File: laugh.jpg (18KB, 248x189px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 248x189px

>>59477762
>The scaling is not linear

>>59477803
It's not and we know that since shitburst age. Intel tried everything to achieve higher cockspeeds, even fucking 51 stage pipeline.

>>59477803
>scaling is linear
Underage b&

File: 2102-600x437.jpg (55KB, 600x437px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x437px

>>59477707
>>59477704
why is everybody even comparing an 8 core cpu to a 4 core cpu?

ppl should compare the 1800x to an intel 8 core thats around 500$. and when ryzen 5 comes out you should compare a 4 core intel to a 4 core amd in the same pricerange and compare mainboard prices so ppl actualy know the best price performance ratio for a new build.

>>59477814
because the 4 and 6 core ryzen CPUs aren't available yet. Somehow people got the impression that AMDs new 8 core, primarily marketed as competition to intels 2011 platform, has to be the new uber gaming chip to be competitive. Granted, the 4 and 6 core chips won't have better gaming performance, but most likely won't be significantly worse. And much cheaper. Thus offering a really nice price/performance CPU, making the CPU market competitive again. Nobody in their right mind expected AMD to beat the 7700K in gaming performance.

>>59475950
They dont cap the FPS. Uncapped gives you chance to see the frame faster.

File: 7ed57c40-e767-0132-4662-0ebc4eccb42f.jpg (268KB, 1032x815px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1032x815px

>>59476317
>Gaming at 1080 on a 1080Ti
Are people really this retarded?

>>59477837
yet this is the comparison everybody makes.
apples with oranges all the way.

>>59475376
1800x = 5960x for half the price

>>59477904
What did you expect from gaymers?

/g/ is full of babby gamers. Arguing with them is like winning the special Olympics.

>>59477904
shader mods

>>59476352
Some people need to buy things when they are released. If no one ever bought hardware on release, then companies would forever be cucked and unsure as to the shortcomings and successes of their products.

I'm not saying that everyone should be an early adopter, but it's silly to suggest that all consumers wait indefinitely. For some people to wait you need others to bite, especially with a company like AMD that can't dictate the market like Intel.

>>59477904
Some people game at 144Hz

>>59477971
>babby
You are officially eligible for the Special Olympics.

>>59477982
many people also have fun testing this shit out

>>59477837
>most likely won't be significantly worse
>implying they won't have sandy bridge i5 performance at best

>>59476292
Yes. I made the same upgrade and have had performance increases in gaming, multitasking, desktop tasks, recording, streaming, etc.

>>59477999
how do you come to that conclusion? There are like 2 games that effectively use more than 8 threads. Why should performance tank if you just reduce core count, clocks stay about the same and IPC might see a negligible improvement because of less traffic over the fabric?

>>59476728
Not who you replied to but Anandtech is usually pretty good.

>>59476352
sshhh! we need the early adopter idiots to clear the minefields for us.

File: 5.4ghz.jpg (442KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 1920x1080px

Coffeelake will still beat Zen2.

>>59477994
Agreed, I bought a 1700 and have had a lot of fun getting to overclock and screw around with it.

File: Bildschirmfoto 2017-03-19 um 14.55.02.png (176KB, 996x1282px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 996x1282px

Situation: P67 mobo died, getting it repaired as we speak but I want to upgrade in the meantime to sell my 2500k+mobo+RAM while it's still worth something at least

2500K performance was enough for games, I often run 2 VMs to do compile jobs of the heavily unoptimized cmake C++ projects I work with at my side job at university.

Want to get a 1700 now. The ""productivity"" benchmarks seem great and if it can keep up with a 2500K for the few games I play (Overwatch and Skyrim mostly), I mean why not?

Just wondering if there are still serious "bugs". I mean in all those productivity tests it's not like the 7700K is a lot worse and at least it comes with a tried and tested platform. Not sure if I'm swallowing FUD now. But I kinda need to decide today if I get a 7700K stack or a 1700 stack

>>59478014
The r7s are so shitty they can barely keep up with the 2600k, it's only natural to assume that the same will happen to the r5s.

>>59475982
>he doesnt mass GPU mine altcoins

>>59478085
stop cherrypicking shit, they're better than sandy bridge. Also it still doesn't answer the question. How would sacrificing cores/threads that games don't use anyways have a negative impact on performance?

>>59478076
no serious bug. The biggest problem was getting RAM to run at higher clockspeeds and that's getting solved with BIOS updates. Well, and some ASUS board bricking itself, but that's hardly an issue of the platform.

>>59478050
Intel has been doing nothing but jerking off all these years. They can't beat AMD now

>>59478076
buying ~5960x on a new platform VS buying 7700k on a dead end platform
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-5960X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/2580vs3916

>>59475885
Nigga you can push 144fps with a shitty i3 and a GTX 750

>>59477814
>yadda yadda Intel 8-Core chip at $500
DNE

>>59478076
>tried and tested platform
Keep in mind AMD usually keep their platforms/sockets for much longer than Intel. Meaning in 3 years you might be able to upgrade to Ryzen v3 by just swapping out the CPU and maybe installing a BIOS update.

For Intel you'd probably need a new motherboard as well

>>59478198
They'll probably keep AM4 as long as they kept AM2 and AM3, so 5 years.

>>59478198
and intel mainboards are also more expencive than amd ones. :-(

>>59478198
>For Intel you'd probably need a new motherboard as well
And still get much higher performance and hardware reliability for not that much of a price difference. Hmm I wonder which is better.

>>59478230
At the low end, definitely. At mid-to-high-end it kind of evens out, but its diminishing returns all the same

>>59478238
>much higher performance and durability
>AM2 was so good they kept it for 5 years
>AM3 was so good they kept it for 5 years
>Once the kinks are worked out like with X99 when it was released, AM4 will stay for 5 years
Shiggy, intel shill

>>59478270
>paying less for buggier and more failure-prone hardware
Life as an AMDrone.

>>59478312
>it is buggier and more failure prone because i say so
>please ignore all the launches intel fucked up, that's not even remotely comparable

>>59478312
Intel has its share of failures don't kid yourself

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/06/cisco_intel_decline_to_link_product_warning_to_faulty_chip/

>>59477216
vega gonna be $250? lmao nvidia on suicidewatch

>>59476710
AMD buyer's remorse shills are pathetic. Why are you so adamant on fucking people over and telling them to get a worse performing component? OP obviously doesn't do encoding all day. If most of your computer usage consists of games and browsing the internet, the 7700k is a superior choice, period. Buying zen is basically beta testing zen+.

If OP or anyone else ITT does encoding for work then fine, ryzen is better. We all know 99.9% of /g/ doesn't, though.

>>59478439
Corelet pls.

>>59478439
What if I run CFD simulations all day long instead

File: 81172828bebc318075f8bc33514f5a92.jpg (78KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 540x720px

>>59478439
implying intel fanboys are not using ppl beeing uninformed to their advantage.
comparing the 7700k to the 1800x in gaming seriously.
lets compare the 8 cores intel has to offer for 500$ to the 1800x in games.

>>59477707

Pro players do not care about tearing atl all.

>>59476035
>146fps min
>170fps avg

Yup, that looks like shit fucking AMD sucks ass

File: 552.jpg (256KB, 1617x909px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1617x909px

which one /g/?

>>59478687
B350 one $50 cheaper
do you need SLI?

>>59478717
>B350
I play on overclocking to 4ghz with 3000mhz ram

>>59478742
and you can on upper bracket B350s
read the specs

>>59478742
>play
plan>>59478754

>>59476035
only 3 fps min less than the best gaming cpu on the market atm and I get 4 cores more for working stuff.
looks like a good deal for me.

>>59478754
any suggestions?

Wait, does ryzen fit the same socket as the fx series? I know those are am3 and ryzen is am4, not sure if totally different though and sitting on toilet.

>>59478817
it's a totally different socket. Incompatible.

>>59478776
http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/Fatal1ty%20AB350%20Gaming%20K4/index.us.asp

same board but cheaper, also compare this to gigabyte gaming ones, they look decent as well

>>59478817
make a second guess

>>59478817
AM4 isn't compatible with the AM2-3+ form. Not even the coolers are.

AM4 is supposed to be compatible with pretty much anything going forward though.

>>59478836
how does it overlock the heatsink on the vrm looks shit

In my experience, the motherboards in this first generation will be way expensive and engineered like shit.

Long ago, like in 99, i jumped on the athlon card slot meme back when it first released. It was buggy shit (asus board).

Fell for the same meme when athlon went to a standard socket (also asus board) and had the same bugginess/underperformance.

I think people would be very smart to wait 3-6 months for motherboards to be properly engineered. Prices will be closer to normal as well.

is the 1800x the best cpu for streaming?

>>59478622
>8 core intel for $500
See >>59478192

>>59478922
a lot changed since back then though. QC got better, and boards less complex. North and Southbridge are integrated into the chip, only some I/O functionality remains on the board. The only real problem where non standard RAM clocks and that's getting fixed via BIOS updates rather quickly.

>>59478905
1700 limit is 4.0 it's thermal limited not power limited, board has enough power
to get better VRM you'd have to buy 200+board, compare phases to x370 fatality it's the same

>>59478922
coincidentally asus boards are shit this gen, pure coincidence

>>59478965
it's not really thermally limited. You just can't pump enough voltage into it to get it any higher. It's usually already running at 1.4+V for 4GHz, you don't really want to go any higher and the returns are really small. The arch just isn't designed to scale well beyond 3.3GHz.

>>59478905
since no one has gotten ryzen to 4.4 stable, dont worry about the VRMs lol

>>59478965
>>59478992
>>59479004

Solid info guys, thanks

File: 1488653145415.png (408KB, 882x1418px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 882x1418px

>>59478439

>>59479012
It isn't solid info, they posted 0 sources.

>>59479050
>not looking up the info yourself to verify what strangers tell you.

File: voltage scaling.png (55KB, 1509x905px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1509x905px

>>59479050
this point isn't even controversial. Ryzen hits the wall at slightly above 4GHz because it needs excessive voltage after that. Pretty much every review confirms that.

>>59475376
7700k shits on it

>>59475883
The 7700k only has 16....

File: 1488223097723.jpg (540KB, 1100x1002px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 1100x1002px

>>59479115
>Ryzen unable to even reach 7700k stock speeds
Couldn't make this shit up.

>>59477767
lol Kabum! indded

this board needs IDs to filter out the shils and shitposting faggots

>>59479154

in what

>>59479264
plebbit might be more your speed

>>59479312
yeah, more than 50% of posts being retarded garbage by presumably the same 4 guys is totally OK and doesn't kill sensible discussion

>>59479264
nah, cherrypicking is good
970vs390 threads made me buy 390, never regretted it once

these threads leads me to 1600x purchase, these intel shills work for AMD alright

>>59479211
>Still only has a marginal disadvantage at 1GHz less even when only 4 cores are used
Shiggy, intel shill.

>>59475376
Ryzen 5

>>59479211
>caring about >muh ghz
ryzen is whopping 11% slower even in the "average 1080p gaming" graph you shills love so much

>>59475402
>spending $244 on an RX480

Why when you can get them for $150-$180...?

And honestly you should probably just get a B350 motherboard.
And you should get Samsung DRAM.

Otherwise, the PSU looks fine, and case choice is up to you.

>>59478122

>Well, and some ASUS board bricking itself,

That was due to people interrupting the bios update that was taking forever and it bricking board. The latest bios (0902) prevents that from happening.

>>59475999
why haven't we seen any Doom benchmarks?

7700k for gaymen
1800x for winzip

kids btfo

>>59476035
doesn't this say that something suspicious is going on? why are the minimums just as high for the 1800x?

File: 1455687281173.png (141KB, 439x290px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 439x290px

>>59479728

A few sites tested doom but oddly primarily in opengl.

File: 85883.png (43KB, 650x350px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 650x350px

>>59479730
>1800x for winzip
>just marginally better than the $200 cheaper 7700k
There simply isn't any scenario in which Ryzen is worth buying.

>>59479895
1700 is better, cheaper and uses less energy in your image

>>59475376
>1800x
>toe to toe with 7700k in gaming

1. it's not
2. it's $200 more.

good goy

>>59479895

This is what a diseased mind concocts to convince it's self it made the right purchase.

>>59479895
>need to pay 1k dollar premium for ECC on the 7700k
wew

>>59480446

Shhh, let the 7700k fag believe what he likes. At least the consumer zen chips (well, ryzen at least) have ECC support, just a shame no motherboard is validated for it yet.

File: fucking nothing.jpg (100KB, 533x400px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 533x400px

>>59480446
>>59480786
>ECC

>>59476940
>How much more performance can realistically be squeezed from R7
You can easily see the potential performance of it in real workloads on Linux.

Games aren't using magically different instruction sets from those applications.
Windows is just optimized shitty for Ryzen, and games themselves don't make use of the two caches.

There's no reason why the 1800X should shit on the 6950X on Linux on so many applications, yet it'd be 20% behind it in some games despite having both better single threated and multi threaded performance, except that the games are using it wrong.

The potential performance you can expect in games that actually utilize it correctly, instead of it bottlenecking while at only 60% load, is simple: Better than the 6900k or 6950X.

The only exception is AVX2, AVX256, and AVX512 performance. But even in AVX2 it does REALLY REALLY good considering it emulates it.

>>59480815
>Intel cripples processor to force you to buy a super expensive version for important shit like ECC
>/v/faggots defend them
wew
Please tell me more about how deep Intel's dick is in your ass.

>>59477308
>Shit. Are processors about to hit a brick wall until they can move off of silicon?
Nope, just Intel. We'll have a few foundries manufacturing 7nm in 2019.
7nm (really 7.9nm or something) Ryzen is coming in mid 2019, most likely.

>>59480970

IBM is also at the bleeding edge of microprocessor design - perhaps more than anyone else on earth. IBM's R&D is formidable.

I think the Ryzen 7 is overkill for me, the 5 might be a better fit.

Waiting on decent ITX motherboards.

>>59475376
I think it's pretty obvious how good the Ryzen 7 CPUs are with how many people have to resort to lies and cherry picked benchmarks in this thread.

If it was so bad, shitposters wouldn't have to resort to shitposting about it. It would simply be obviously bad, just like how Bulldozer was obviously bad except in niche cases that had very high integer workloads instead of floats.
It was obvious by Bulldozer's architecture that it was bad in most cases. The same isn't true with Ryzen at all.

File: 1488930261379.png (5KB, 518x230px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 518x230px

>>59479728
>>59479834
>A few sites tested doom but oddly primarily in opengl.
>b--b-b-but it was in OPENGL

If this was an intel product people would be saying "first generation of a new architecture, it needs time to mature"

>>59481314
Vulkan and DX12 aren't working properly on Ryzen right now.

>>59475883

tell me what you need 24 lanes for?

thats enough for 1 graphics card and fucking 4 m.2 Ultra .but no mobo has that, so 2x m.2 ultra and a graphics card running at 16x.

seriously unless you plan to run 3-4 graphics cards (which is dumb anyway) you dont need it.

>>59476059

Hi there buddy, see that difference between min and max on the intel cpus? thats whats causing major frame dips and stuttering.

Now look at Amd. the min and avg are closer to each other meaning stable frames.

Also that bench is kind of outaded. and for us who game at 1440p is kind of useless.

2.5 weeks and the shills are still going hard

the perfect way to shut them up is this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njm0MBOwFTM&t=84s

find me a 7700k that can run 2 unreal 3 games and 4 unreal 2 games

then we can talk

>>59481694
>doom not in vulkan, what is this shill shit, trying to make ryzen look bad, BENCHMARK it on real settings!
>okay here is vulkan
>r-ryzen doesn't work with dx12 or vulkan well yet, wait for fixes
Can't say I expected anything more.

>>59481769
>2.5 weeks and the shills are still going hard

>the perfect way to shut them up is this
I doubt the video of a server CPU "playing" 5 games at minimum settings and 200x200 resolution will shut the AMD shills up.

>>59482628
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyCXBfblYPQ

>>59482602
I'm not who you were responding to earlier in your post.

I was just pointing this out. Not my fault they didn't know that DX12 and Vulkan aren't working properly on Ryzen now. Or the rendering pipeline in those games earlier.

File: pittty.gif (933KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

933KB, 400x300px

>>59482657
>doom is in the menu mode
>one of the two other games is a guy alone, in the middle of nowhere staring at nothing
>guy can only play one game at a time anyway so at best this is a "look how quickly I can switvch between games"
>games run more poorly than on my 6 year old pc
>BUT LOOK I CAN HAVE THREE GAMES OPEN AT THE SAME TIME
I...I think the amd fanboys finally snapped, in their search for finding something, anything ryzen is "good" at they have left all sanity behind.

>>59482841
are you retarded? it's a miracle these games run at all on one GPU

>>59482841
>>BUT LOOK I CAN HAVE THREE GAMES OPEN AT THE SAME TIME

Wow, you're a retard

>>59481049
IBM sold of their manufacturing plants to globalfoundries...

>>59483196

Yeah they don't build shit themselves anymore but they still do a lot of advanced design work.

>>59483386
Well, not on node design anymore

>>59475376
>toe to toe with i7-7700K
>constant UEFI updates
>almost no stress on Ryzen
Nice try AyyMDrones

>>59483812
>No advice for OP

At least you tried, good goy

>>59476478
>the trend is moving towards 1440p or higher

it's moving towards 1080p 144hz, only turbo autists and enthusiasts are spending $500 on a higher res monitor right now.

File: 1310483412100.jpg (36KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 413x395px

>>59483940
>1080p
>2017
Top kek

>>59483812

It is toe to toe with the 7700k in gaming, and surpasses it in everything else. sure some games sees the 7700k ahead by 10 fps, but the min fps is way off with the 7700k while the 1800x sees the min much close to its max, so less stutter.

>>59483196

which is probably for the best. processes are taking longer to develop, cost more to develop, and are delivering less and less every shrink. there's much more value in making the best uarch instead of having the best process.

>>59483958
>It is toe to toe with the 7700k in gaming,
It's toe to toe with i3's not the 7700k

At higher resolutions everything is toe to toe with each other because the gpu becomes the bottleneck

>>59483994
>i3s

???

>>59483994
>It's toe to toe with i3's not the 7700k

wrong

>>59481719
> thats whats causing major frame dips and stuttering.

No it isn't, that literally has nothing to do with stuttering, frametimes are what determine stuttering you idiot, and those are great on the 7700k.

Framedrips into the 130's aren't even noticable.

The Ryzen cpu sucks for gaming just face it

>>59483994
Could you say that again, anon? You stuttered a bit.

File: 4.jpg (211KB, 1267x676px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1267x676px

>>59475376
>toe to toe with Intel latest i7700k gaming preferred CPU

Maybe if you live in an alternate reality

>>59484099
post buggy benches somewhere else kike

File: Untitled.png (44KB, 631x657px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 631x657px

>>59484099
>Gears of War 4

Kek.

>>59484275
>that benchmark doesn't count
>le ebic jew meme
>>>/pol

>>59484282
6900k on top nice

>>59484286
>Comparing a quad-core to an octo-core in a mostly single-threaded game

Nice try though, schlomo.

>>>/pol/

>>59484307
>$1,000 CPU
>Inb4 poorfag

>>59484325
>mostly single-threaded game
It's not a mostly single threaded game, you idiot, else the difference between the 4670k and the 4790k wouldn't be so big

You tech illiterate fanboys will grasp onto any straw to keep living in your fantasy world

File: IMG_5897.png (217KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 2048x1536px

>>59483957
>inb4 gaymen fuck off to /v/ hurr

>>59484361
>6700K loses to a 6900K
>Not a mostly single threaded game

Nice effort, though.

>>59484361
>i7-4790K - 4C/8T
>i5-4670K - 4C/4T

>B-b-but it's not a single threaded game, good goy!

Intel shills, everyone.

should i wait for the 1500x or get the i5 7500?

File: 3ccdf4606db841c8ae31c17482bad93b.jpg (36KB, 959x270px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 959x270px

>>59484099
I don't understand this stuff about Ryzen 7 being bad for gaming.

The red line is FPS for the 1800X. The cyan line is the 7700k.

Based on these results, the 7700k gets higher average FPS because when it's high, it's much harder.
But as soon as things dip? It only dips to around 120fps for Ryzen, and 110 for 7700k.

And this is Crysis 3, a game that was optimized for 4c/8t. The 7700k. And it still is worse for it, but people say the 7700k is better because the *~average~* is higher.
And it's not just Crysis 3. Tons and tons of games look the same. Only few examples that seem to usually work well with more cores, yet don't due to some optimization issues, like Doom, Tomb Raider, etc, don't look similar. (basically the few games that do better on Ryzen with 1 CCX disabled)

If you want your averages high, and never run anything in the background for your PURE-GAYMAN-MACHINE, then okay, the 7700k is better for you. But anyone with working eyes knows that it's the lows that matter, and knows there's usually shit in the background using 5-15% on average across 4 cores.

>>59484678
I think you'd have to be stupid to get 4c/4t in 2016, let alone 2017, unless you can get it for like $100 and already have a motherboard for it.
Games started using HT well 2015 and especially 2016. More games benefit from HT now days than don't.

>>59484717
Oh wait the 7700k is dropping to like 105, not just 110. That's even worse.

But it gets over 200 on the less strained parts, on an old game optimized for it, so it's somehow "better".

Source is the Digital Foundry Ryzen review.

>>59484678
Grab an R5 1500X and overclock that shit to near-1600X levels.

>>59484740
well i dont plan on overclocking at all. My budget is $850 so i plan on just using the stock cooler

File: Worries.Drink.Alcohol.hahatimefordepression.jpg (7KB, 224x217px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 224x217px

>>59475446
I'm on the same boat. 1700 is obviously the sane choice, but I would end myself if I get a chip that didn't OC very well. I'd rather just get a 1800x and get at least 4GHz. That should last me several years until Zen+ or whatever decently priced Intel alternative.
inb4 >Intel >decently priced

File: 1377474537930.jpg (260KB, 925x716px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 925x716px

>>59476934
>mfw 32GB was less expensive last year
I hate normalfags and their shitty status phones.
Call me when they all have blistering fast storage like NVMe drives, expandable storage, physical buttons, removable battery, and two type-C ports.

>>59484773
A 1500X would be pretty close to the 7500. Maybe a bit slower for single-threaded, and faster for multi-threaded. A big advantage Kaby Lake has over Ryzen are its clocks, and if you can negate that, it would almost always be equal, if not faster; Granted, CCX issues are ironed out by the time the R5 CPUs release. If you can, I would wait and save up for the 1600X.

>>59484717
>>59484736
Ryzen is better because it sets the standard for expanding game engine optimization for more than 4 cores.

The fact that minimum FPS is higher is telling that the arch is better and that Intel's IPC is decent but they're just cranking the clock speed to make up for their lack of innovation.

>>59476292
My nigga. Though I will go full retard with a 1800x.

I haven't upgraded the motherboard or CPU ever since I bought this system. What do you do with the spare parts? It's be sad just leaving the motherboard and CPU on their boxes, but I'd rather not use this hardware for homeserver shenanigans. My PC also doubles as a HTPC and a little NAS. I have no idea what to use it for. I thought maybe a router, but that would be way too powerhungry, I'd rather wait for Zen 4core parts since Ryzen looks extremely efficient.

>>59484740
But the 1600X has 50% more cores and threads for only $60 more.

>>59475376
>less power consumption during gaming
Haha you really think that?

>>59475376
There's so much wrong with your statement I'm not even going to bother.

>>59484969
Yeah, I realized that and left below instead.
>>59484918

>>59478312
>failure-prone hardware
How are those Atoms working for (You)?

>>59484286
>>>>/v/
maybe you'll trick some people there, shamal

>>59484988
>95W max tdp
>140W max tdp
>unironically blaming other components for power consumption

>>59484307
>$1000 dolar CPU on top

wew

>>59484988
Yes?
Every reviewer that recorded power shows that the 8 core 1800X uses about 20-25% less watts averaged over the games than the 7700k.

This is both because it's underutilized by them and it's just plain more power efficient of an architecture and manufacturing process.

This is why Intel is in so much trouble, as their biggest margins are in the server market and they literally don't care about you gaymers.

>>59475553
Personally, I would go amd, 1700 and oc to 3.8-4.0, silicon lottery determines if I get 4.0 at 1.4 volts or not.

Good enough performance now to make the difference between the 1700 and 7700 almost moot, with a clear 2-4cpu upgrade path (apparently they got teams working on zen2 and zen 3 at the same time, focusing on different problems) so when the time comes for end of life on the motherboard, or if amd does something amazing gen over gen like increases oc potential wildly, you have an entire platform that can still run with just a drop in upgrade.

File: 1488879697277.png (126KB, 536x986px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 536x986px

>>59483958
>but the min fps is way off with the 7700k while the 1800x sees the min much close to its max, so less stutter.
Oh look this old meme.

File: 1488879949259.png (124KB, 535x993px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 535x993px

>>59483958
>>59485622

File: 1488881122917.png (45KB, 630x424px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 630x424px

>>59483958
>>59485622
>>59485631
Wow, look at ryzen being so smooth.

>>59485622
>>59485631
>>59485654


>CPU scaling seems to top out at about eight threads

Shills can't read

>IntelReport
>muh gaymes

>>>/v/

>>59485659
>AMD Shills try to push the narrative that less fps on Ryzen means less stutters.
>proof gets posted and they get blown the fuck out
>suddenly no more jokes about suttering and instead it's
>BACK TO /V/ REEEEE
kek like clockwork!

File: who could be behind this.png (6KB, 356x480px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 356x480px

>>59484099
You see goy, less frames means it's less stuttery! Why would you want intels cheaper offer that gives you 134-164 FPS. When you could have cool, crips and smooth Ryzen that delivers stable 90 fps

>>59485692
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((20 sheckels were deposited into your account)))))))))))))))))))))))))))

File: Untitled.png (175KB, 1882x1316px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1882x1316px

>>59485622
>>59485631
>Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
>GTA V
>Same old games everytime

Good goy.

>>59485781
>in the cherry-picked games that have multithreaing the 8 core ryzen 500$ CPU finally gets even with the intel 4 cores CPU
Wow you sure convinced me to buy ryzen, but listen dude, can I like....pay an additional 300$ on top of the 200$ price difference?
You see I am a massive AMD fanboy so pay extra only makes me more happy.
Like I don't care if I have to pay double as long as it has moar cores and made by AMD I will buy it.

>>59485853
I don't need to convince you to do Ryzen. All you do is cherry pick gaymang benchmarks.

Sorry anon, I think you belong here:
>>>/v/

>>59485853
>Gayming
>Only gayming

Kek.

>>59485870
>>59485908
>All you do is cherry pick gaymang benchmarks.
>Take all the benchmarks and post them
>Muh muh cerrrrrrypicks
>post workloads
>Noo you only post gayman benchmarks
Refer to this
>>59476562
>>59476570
>>59476576
This is the supposed "up to date and fixed ryzen"

>>59485870
post pics of your renderfarm where your ryzen cpu actually has a purpose corefag

>>59485940
>>59485949
Sorry anon, not all of use are poorfags who gayme all day.

:^)

>>59485971
>5960X
>poorfag

>>59485971
>haha you only post game benchmarks
>okay what about these posts here that have workloads
>HAHA you only post game benchmarks
Well, I didn't expect much more from you. After all Amd shills are literally reality denying tards.

>>59485987
>Doesn't upgrade every generation
That's right, poorfag.
>>59485989
>>59464902
Maybe on your next shill thread, anon. This one's about to be archived.

File: 1370593682744.jpg (42KB, 295x195px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 295x195px

>>59476576
>>59476576

>RAM literally 50% faster on the 7700k

>>59486076
>waited till Ryzen to have proper mid-range build
maybe in the next 5 years AMD will be able to support a high-end build, and everyone's happy :33333

File: 1374257780288.gif (2MB, 187x155px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 187x155px

>>59486083
>RAM literally 50% faster on the 7700k
AMD tards can't even do math.
>3000 is 50% more than 2666
YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS UP!

>>59486120
>Implying i'm not waiting for Naples

Kek. Only corelets like you would imply that.

>>59486133
>even more waiting
quantum computing will catch up soon anon

>>59486133
>Only corelets
>all that matters to amd tard is how many cores it has
Go get the FX series my friend, I am sure it will server you well.

>>59486122
Not anon, but the RAM on the Intel system is still faster. As we all know, cherry picking is a big nono outside of gayming; i'm sure you learned that as a child, didn't you, anon?

>>59486147
>t. impatient manbabby
>>59486151
Kek. Exactly what a corelet would say. How are your cores outside of gayming, anon?
>>59464902