Is the i5 7600k still worth getting once Ryzen 5 comes out ?

>>59723286
No

Unless you require 165 hz HARDCORE VIDYA EXPERIENCE IN 720P

depends whether or not games will start using moar corez in the future.
it's a gamble, but much less of a gamble than faildozer was.

Unless everything you do is manageable on one or two cores, no it isn't.

And even if it is, why aren't you opting for an i3?

>>59723414
need 4 cores minimum for vidya

For the value: a big no.
If you want to get 5-7 fps more in gayms till optimization kicks in like the R7 while at >90% CPU usage and not
be able to multitask or do anything while doing that then sure.
In some cases the R5 is on spot with the i5 in gayms,
but productivity wise the R5 no doubt wins.

>>59723347
even then, it's best to get the highest clock pentium/i3 since games still suck ass at multithreading

>>59723434
most games run fine on dual cores with hyperthreading, you don't need 4 physical cores unless you're using them for work/productivity

>>59723286
benches will tell, who knows
>>59723445
@733T fps on your 360 hz noscope fatality xtreem gaming monitor. my old locked haswell 5 isn't at 100% 1440p 60fps

>>59723485
battlefield 1 and dx 12 says otherwise

>>59723514
realistically you wouldn't be expecting like 120fps out a rig with a pentium/i3, we're strictly talking price/perf here

>>59723499
Some benches are out,
they show the R5 1400 doing well against the i5 7400 on AMD cards.

>>59723549
well bf1 brings my 6700k to 100percent utilization.
i know its one game and its ea but i think theres something in multithreaded games especially with consoles having 8 of them.

>>59723686
what gpu/driver and how much fps are you getting? Of course devs will eventually start making use of more cores especially with the adoption of DX12/Vulkan where that's a big selling point, but my point is at the moment there isn't much point in getting a quad core if you're just going to be doing some low/midrange gaymen

>buying Kaby Lake or Ryzen
Wait for both of them to mature first. Go with Skylake if you need something now. You don't want to deal with the headaches of updating UEFI firmware.
Kaby Lake is almost there, but still not quite.

>>59723286
Yes. AMD single threaded performance still blows asshole which is important on 95% of games.

>>59723736
4 IS the new 2.

>>59723286
probably aye, youll get marginally better performance in most games that are cpu bound. however I doubt your gpu will be that powerfull is your opting for this. so it'll be kinda meh

Ryzen will be good competition for non-Oclockable kaby lake cpus

>>59723286
It isn't even worth it right now.

>>59723286
no

>>59723835
I've been running Kaby Lake since it came out and it's been smooth sailing, what kind of problems are there?

>>59723286
I'd say no.

Ryzen doesn't just have many cores and threads. The cores are pretty strong as well.

It's nice to see the 4c8t R5 1500x for only $190. It's overclockable and, if the most recent R7 benchmarks are something to go by, the 1500x might end up being way better than the i5 7600k. Or at least trade blows with it.

>>59723736
gtx 1070, render scale 130percent , 1080p max settings. 70fps average

>>59723686
This

With the PS4 Pro & Xbox1S/Scorpio being (under clocked) 8 core machinery, the number of devs moving onto multiple core usage is going to extrapolate exponentially in the coming years.

Now = 4c/8t
Future Proofing = Xc/Yt (with X being equal to or greater than 8).

>>59723835
You're fucking dumb. CPUs don't "mature," the platform around them does. Even putting aside that you can drop a Kaby Lake chip into the same Z170 board, Z270 is just a minor iteration of an established and mature platform, so has no major issues. Not to mention that Kaby Lake chips fix a bunch of errata that Skylake chips shipped with at a hardware level.

What a stupid fucking suggestion that somebody buy Skylake, which is worse in literally every way (aside from the housefire temperatures of Kaby Lake, but then it clocks higher). The literal and only reason to do so is if you can find some sort of amazing deal on one, but I sure haven't seen any.

>>59723928
It seems like it's likely to be the 'almost as good' option, but much better in terms of cost for what it can do.
If you're just building to play games, the main problem is how many companies still build for single core threading, since that's the largest market atm.
The majority of big titles don't design games for the high end elite, they like money too much. Eventually they will, but remember a lot of the big games took 3-4 years to be created, and they're not going to create things purposefully for multi core threading / 8 cored processors until the majority of their market has the computers to run them.

>>59723434

R3 Ryzen will humiliate i5s for the price.

>>59724045
You got a point there. However, based on the most recent Ryzen benchmarks, the difference between the 1500x and the 7600k may be as little as 5 to 15 fps. The minimal difference and cheaper price may give Intel a run for their money.

I'm also curious to see how the R3s will fare against the Pentiums, especially when it comes to price. Will the lowest end R3 dethrone the G4560 as the king of budget cpus?

File: 1468710939273.png (389KB, 634x596px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 634x596px

>>59723286
>4 cores
>4 threads
>no cooler
>not OC-able on all motherboards
>2017

>>59724743
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-3-launch-1600x-performance-reveal/

The cheapest R3 is a quad core that costs $120 USD. They could lower the price before release, but it doesn't look like it's going to be able to beat the $60 USD G4560 in price/performance.

>>59723286
No

>>59723391
More cores doesn't matter, ryzen 5 is a quad core

>>59723890
Power consumption, stuttering/ inconsistent performance, ect.

>>59723286
It's not worth it now

>>59724891
I saw those Ryzen 3 prices already, but those weren't confirmed by AMD yet. They seem quite reasonable though.

There's a good chance that AMD might respond to the success of the G4560 by making the R3 1100, a true four-core, similar in price, or at least slightly more expensive. They do have until H2 2017 to react.

100% sure it's gonna be faster than the Ryzen 1600X in gaming performance.

And then as usual AMDtards will find excuses, throw in some conspiracy theories and bring up wishful thinking about how their product is futureproof.

Business as usual

>>59724958
Only the 1400/1500 are 4-core processors - the 1600 is a 6-core in the same price range as the i5 7600K. Personally, I feel like there's almost no way you could convince yourself that you would only game on your computer. If you are not planning to OC, the R5 1600 will be a hell of a deal. Remember that you probably want to offset the cost of the chipset slightly because of the premium you'll likely want to pay for faster memory on the Ryzen rig though.

File: 3208013-ryzen+5.png (207KB, 1162x616px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1162x616px

>>59724958
ryzen 5 has a 4 core and a 6 core variant

I bet 100 bucks that the 1600X will have a higher power consumption than the 1700@stock.
It will draw similar power as the 1800X.

But at the same time, 2 cores less means performance loss, even in unoptimized games, albeit small loss.

The 1600X will have a bad price/performance ratio for many countries in which the prices are way higher than that 249$.