i want to buy a new cpu this summer should i get a ryzen or a i7 ?

>>60117303
ryzen

/thread

inb4 ryzen shills

it depends

>>60117303
Ryzen 5 1600X.

File: camila_cabello.jpg (919KB, 2703x3900px) Image search: [Google]

919KB, 2703x3900px

>>60117303

i7 has superior single-threaded performance at the cost of 1. delidding 2. massive cooler like NH-D15 3. Z270 motherboard with decent VRM.

Ryzen 1700 (or better) has superior multi-threaded performance at the cost of 1. RAM unreliability 2. X370 motherboard with decent VRM 3. Hoping for patches and updates that might never come.

So you pays your money and takes your choice.

A new CPU just to browse porn or a high end CPU for heavy multi-tasking?

>>60117417
> 1600X
lmao, just get the 1600, it's cheaper, comes with a great cooler and when overclocked, gets almost the same performance as the 1600X

>hi guiyz i wan buy cpu
>no list of requirements
>no use cases
>no information on intention

Delete your fucking shit thread.

Ryzen if you're a logical person that wants a CPU that is great all around.
7700k if you want to waste more money on 5% better 'gaym' performance with a housefire that you need to DELID THIS.

>>60117427
AM4 will definitely get Zen 2/3. LGA1151 probably won't get i7-8xxx. And it won't be worth the upgrade anyway because Intel has run out of road on their current arch.

>>60117427
The problem with this explanation is that, while you are correct a 7700k offers better single core performance, Intel has also pretty much hit the wall in terms of boosting single core, so Intel themselves are going to be forced to move in a multi-core direction that will tilt the field towards multi-core performance where AMD have Intel on suicide watch at the moment.

Buying a 7700k today is buying into the very tail end of a dead-end strategy where Intel themselves are soon going to be forced to shift consumer CPU development in a direction that will benefit AMD more than themselves (at least in the short to medium term).

>>60117438
high end for multi task and gaymen. i have crossfire 390s right now but i get low fps cause my fx 8350 is poopy. all my friends with cheaper shit than me get higher fps in games than me.i have never bought intel before and my pc is 10 years old i just thought i might want to switch to intel this time.

>>60117486
Intel's new arch breaks backwards compatibility and may end up being Itanic 2.0. http://wccftech.com/intel-developing-new-x86-uarch-succeed-core-generation/

>>60117538
Unless you are shooting for 144hz 1080p in games, i7-7700K isn't worth it.

>>60117303
If you're waiting until the summer at least wait for Coffe Lake and Skylake-X to.be released from Intel. Then you can compare it to Ryzen.

Wait till computex. Intel will follow up with Skylake-X. It's not really much better than Broadwell-E but it's cheaper for sure.

If they pump out an 8C/16T 7900K for $500 you can choose plus it will make Ryzen cheaper if anything

>>60117541
Right, but even so that new arch isn't expected to hit until 2020-2021. What's Intel going to do in the meantime? The 7740k is literally going to be ~1% faster thant he 7700k. There is no more single core perf coming for Intel on this arch so they are going to have no choice but to go for a more multi-core approach.

Unfortunately for Intel, going towards adding coars is just going to help AMD sales.

>>60117553
my monitor is 144hz and i run above 1080p
i have a Pixio PX277

>>60117570
>Skylake-X
Isn't that their enthusiast platform? You aren't going to see $500 CPUs on there.

>>60117303
If you're playing games at 1080p and you're willing to pay more for a little more fps buy an i7, otherwise buy Ryzen.

>>60117570
>If they pump out an 8C/16T 7900K for $500 you can choose plus it will make Ryzen cheaper if anything.

Three problems with that idea:

1) Intel can't sell a 6900k successor for $500 without throwing away literally every customer who bought a 6900k or a 6950k because it would amount to publicly teabagging them.

2) Even if they were willing to throw those customers away, the 6900k already loses to the 1800x, and by the time they could actually get a 7900k into the wild AMD would be releasing Zen+.

3) On what basis are you confident that Intel can raise the performance over a 6900k by a large enough margin to outperform an 1800x?

>>60117637
See:
>>60117486
>>60117541
>>60117603
Basically just be aware that buying into a 7700k at this point has a high risk of being a purchase into the downside of single core performance dominance in games since there isn't any more blood to squeeze from that stone.

If you are willing to take that risk for the short term FPS gains at 1080P, then so be it.

>>60117445
the 1600X is for iliterate though

>>60117637
You aren't going to notice any huge FPS difference at 1440p 144hz. You will end up GPU bottlenecked in most games unless you're running a 1080 ti or Titan Xp.

>>60117570
since when has the waitTM meme transitioned to any other than AMD? are you for real?

Heavy multi-taking makes ryzen a no brainer, right?

>>60117303
A Via netbook. Then install Gentoo on it.

>>60117303
Between a i7 and a Ryzen, get the i7. Between a i5 and a Ryzen, get the i5 only if you don't care about single core. Anything else, get a Ryzen.

>>60117681
>Intel can't sell a 6900k successor for $500 without throwing away literally every customer who bought a 6900k
all 5 of them? LUL

>>60117681
>by the time they could actually get a 7900k into the wild AMD would be releasing Zen+.
It's coming in June though.

Unless you have a dedicated application that uses multicore optimization you would end up happier with a CPU that offers superior single core performance.

So do you edit a lot of videos?

>>60117817
It's going to be yet another ridiculously expensive enthusiast CPU that costs thousands of dollars and can barely compete against the 1800X.

>>60117818
no i just play games and sometimes i have alot of programs open at the same time.

>>60117836
Still coming out before Zen+ though, what the fuck does that even have to do with what I said?

>>60117840
Are the programs doing something? If not then getting moar coars won't do shit.

>>60117303

Ivy Bridge i3

>>60117646
Broadwell-E already has $400 CPUs albeit 6 cores.

It would make sense for them to shift all of their "tiers" one step down.

>$2000 monster = 12 core 7??? (formerly 10 core 6950X)
>$1000 = 10 core 7950X (formerly 8 core 6900K)
>$400-$700 = 8 core 7900K/7800K (formerly 6 core 6800K)

>>60117866
its like game and discord open maybe internet and Photoshop open. my discord has been crashing and glitchy lately
maybe its my cpu.

File: cpu.png (2MB, 672x1516px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 672x1516px

>>60117951
>Inferno bridge
>ever

>>60118051
If the game itself doesn't benefit from more cores, you won't see shit. Discord is nothing and it's basically impossible to crash it due a CPU

>>60118126
>Haswell is on the same square as Bulldozer
4790k is still one of the best i7s.

>>60118051
>browser, dishit, photoshop and game open
ITT: Things that never happened

>>60117817
Well now I am curious to see what kind of numbers it can put up against the 1800x if its coming out that soon. Not that it will really matter as I'm sure Intel will price at $1,000 and sell 0 (zero) of them anyway.

>>60117818
As a few people have already noted, single coar performance is a dead end. Intel has already extracted just about as much single core performance at 14nm as physics allows.

That means Intel will have no choice but to move to a moar coarz approach and finally drag software optimization towards multicore. And I don't mean in several years. I mean that that the immediate successor to the 7740k is going to have to be a 6 core at minimum because the 7740k is going to be 1% faster--at best--than the 7700k. Buying a 7700k now is like signing a 35+ year old free agent in sports, you are just going to overpay for the downside of their career arc.

>>60119115
Haven't you yeard? They're totally gonna lower it to $950. It's gonna be a bargain at that price. http://www.pcworld.com/article/3193149/computers/intel-projects-decline-in-chip-prices-and-amds-ryzen-is-one-reason.html

>>60119156
It's already been spotted in the wild. https://wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lake-desktop-6-core-4-core-cpu-leaked/

>>60117637
>Pixio PX277
my nigga
best bang for buck monitor out there
even if you pay up extra for the pixel perfect guarentee it still is the best bang for buck

>>60119115
I doubt they'll sell an 8 core CPU at $1000 when the lineup has 10 and 12 core models too.

>>60119115
>>60119293
this
I'm betting it will be brought down to 500 even just to compete
2018 will be an exciting year for the cpu and gpu markets

>>60119293
>>60119323
While I'd like nothing more than Intel to have to lower their prices to be competitive .. come on, it's Intel. Even if the prices are comparable, the chipset/mobo will still cost a fortune on top of that.

>>60119323
It'll probably be something like
12C - $1500+
10C - $900-1000
8C - $500-600
6C - $400
4C Kaby Lel with castrated features - no idea why this even exists

This sort of scheme is basically the same price points except the appearance of the 12C model pushes everything down a peg.

>>60119356
>the chipset/mobo will still cost a fortune
It comes with a lot more connectivity than Ryzen though, it's not like you're paying for nothing. The lack of connectivity on an 8C CPU is one of the reasons I haven't already bought Ryzen.

>>60119402
Well it will certianly be interesting to see how AMD's X399 chipset works out in comparison.

>>60119431
Yeah, though I don't think it will be the right product for me. Those will probably be 12/16C parts and I wouldn't be surprised if they clocked even lower than current Ryzen, which is already unimpressive. Trading single-threaded performance on 8C for moar coars would be completely useless to me, I have no workload that would make any use at all of 12C/24T or 16C/32T. I wouldn't really expect prices lower than $700-800 either with a 1800X priced at $500 already.

>>60117445
1600x boosts to 4.1ghz, 1600 can't get that high by overclocking without suicide voltages

File: file.png (40KB, 403x405px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 403x405px

>>60121410
>tfw won silicon lottery

>>60119156
You are like the people saying we shouldn't build a massive fleet of Thermal Breeder Reactors because on day Fusion will be much better, so lets build solar and wind.

The 7700K is the best CPU for someone that wants to play games right now. If you are in the market for an upgrade it's the best you can buy which will last the longest time before you feel the need to upgrade again.

That it's near the limit of what currently can be done is meaningless, I'm buying it for today. Not for what might happen with a different CPU later that is better. Your statement is highly illogical. Why do I care if the 7700K is at the limit? That's the CPU I want to buy. Even if it was only 50% of the limit, who cares the CPU I'm getting right now is the best.

>>60121701
Because

1. It's only 10-15 FPS at most
2. It only matters at 1080p 144hz
3. Most people have a budget

>>60121773
That wasn't the argument put forward.

The argument was the 14nm tech can't go much faster so don't buy a 7700k.

Which makes no sense.

hola

i wanna upgrade my old fx 6300

dont know if i should go to a i5 7500 or a r5 1600 (same price where i live) or just upgrade the cpu to a fx 8350

i use my pc mainly for team fortress 2 and pornographic arts

what do you guys recommend?

>>60122064
>Which makes no sense.
Perhaps not now, but soon. Intel can't increase the clock speed or the IPC of the current architecture by much, so they need to release 6- and 8-cores for the consumer market, which will shift software development to utilize more cores, which will limit the power of 2- or 4-core cpus in the future.

It will not be immediately, since most of the PCs today have at most 4c/8t, but the developement will go in that direction.

>>60117303
Ryzen is most future proof from today shit and gives most bang for buck, so I'd say R5 1600 or R7 1700 and some sane not too expensive B350 motherboard.

Or 1600X if you need more single-thread speed than on average.

File: fixxxxd.png (847KB, 672x1516px) Image search: [Google]

847KB, 672x1516px

lemmie help all of you out with this.

>>60117417
What is OP going to do with 1600 CPUs?

File: Ryzen.png (190KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1024x576px

>>60117303
How much do you care about gaming performance at 1080p?

Refer to this diagram to see if Ryzen is right for you.

>>60125323
>Refer to this diagram to see if Ryzen is right for you.
this is stupid, you could just game on your computer and an r6 1600 would stil lbe better choice than i5 7600

>>60125568
>i want to buy a new cpu this summer should i get a ryzen or a i7 ?

>>60125616
>Refer to this diagram to see if Ryzen is right for you.

>>60125640
>this is stupid, you could just game on your computer and an r6 1600 would stil lbe better choice than i5 7600

File: 56456415193.jpg (83KB, 331x331px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 331x331px

>>60125674
stop already

>>60125640
See >>60117448

OP is a dumb faggot.

>>60123617
>i use my pc mainly for team fortress 2 and pornographic arts
just get a pentium or keep your current processor. it's not like porn and TF2 needs any real amount of processing power.

>>60121701
It matters because Intel have already hit the single core wall. The immediate supervisor successor to the 7740k will have to be a 6-core at minimum.

We are not talking about some hypothetical situation 5 years from now. Do you think Intel is going to release a 6-core next year that loses to the 7700k in gaming benchmarks? Or do you think Intel will start bullying devs to make their game store multi-threaded to Intel's 6 and 8 core consumer offerings don't lose to the 7700k?

Now consider what this will mean for AMD in the next 12-24 months.

>>60121410
That's only for one core...

>>60117427
You don't need delidding if you're on a NH-d15, as long as manually set the voltage and won't it go batshit insane on auto. I get around 88 degrees when stress testing the CPU with 120w power draining on 1.3v 4.8ghz.

>>60117303
Wait for Coffee Lake

File: 1491539414983.jpg (797KB, 1011x1637px) Image search: [Google]

797KB, 1011x1637px

>>60121701
You are like those people who bought a core 2 duo over a quad because "games only use 2 cores XD". Guess which CPU was still relevant 2 years later?