Buying a CPU in 2017

>>59653023
I have high hopes placed on the 1600X, I'd really like to buy something that isn't 4c/4t (7600k) in 2017, and it fits right into my budget.

But, if the single thread performance, and the 3+3 cores design turns out to be too bad...

I really don't know enough about the subject. I really want to buy AMD, but I'm worried it's just gonna be another meme and a budget workstation processor and nothing more.

IOMMU on their MBs is still fucked and if you want to use gpu passthrough it's better to wait™

>>59653023
Someone on reddit managed to get a 1600 and overclocked it to 3.8ghz on 1.35v.

I recently bought an old Intel i5 6500 for cheap :^)

>>59653057
IPC is exactly the same, it's R7 with disabled cores.
meaning 1600x=1800x in everything besides heavy multi thread.
Also unknown OC factor depending if cores were just disabled or lasered off.

>>59653194
My 1700x does 3.8ghz with only 1.26v, 1.35v is ~3.95ghz territory

>>59653023
I'll buy a second hand high end Broadwell i5 or i7 from someone upgrading to a price slashed Intel or Ryzen 5 / 7.

>>59653742
Another person claimed to get 3.9 or 3.8 at 1.18v but this is probably an outlier..

>>59653057
>and the 3+3 cores design turns out to be too bad.
https://youtu.be/Rhj6CvBnwNk?t=5m22s
Doesn't seem to have much of an effect on gaming at least.

>>59654125
The dual CCX design never really had much of an effect on anything. The only notable instance where it seemed to cause a noticeable difference was apparently Battlefield 1.