am4

>>60163521
if you budget gaymin your bottleneck is going to be the gpu, just get the 1500x and dump the rest into a gpu.


That is unless you a "progaymer" and need that 250fps, in which case get a cheapo 7350 or something.

R5 1600, yes, uncertain

1600 if you're overclocking.
1600X if you're not.

Ryzen is a meme cpu. i7 is better for games.

>>60163731
wouldn't i be saving money on a cooler if i bought a 1600x and didn't overclock

so which one yields better results

>>60163521
1600 seems to be the sweet spot but the 1500X is also a solid contender. it's basically a 6700.

>>60163857
No, because 1600 comes with a cooler whereas the 1600x does not

>games are going to optimize for more cores soon

People have been claiming that since 2006.

>>60163910
It has already happened

>>60163910
Considering i5's are acting in games like Applefags choking on dicks, it's pretty much half-way there.

>>60163521
1700

>>60163821
>i7 is better for games
I've heard a lot that an i7 is unnecessary for gaming, that i5 is the recommended cpu.
It seems intel fanboys go to the next highest core-i that is somewhat acceptable value, since i5 is deprecated now.

The time to get intel for every build is over.

>>60163910
in 2006 you could game on a single core.

>>60163521
1600

>>60164000
>i7 is better for fags
ftfy

>>60163893
how well could a stock cooler actually overclock though? not that much to gain i imagine

>>60163521
> bought 6core x99 system for $1080
mobo $300, cpu $600, ram $180
>Cuda cores are better for what I do TIL
>friend sells me a R5 1400 with mobo for $220,ram $114
>Ryzen system performs same as x99 fo what i am doing
>sell x99
>profit $746

>>60164203
>i imagine
AMD's stock coolers are rated for 125W, they're as good as some decent aftermarket solutions, 1700's at 3.8/3.9 are doable on a stock cooler and 4.0 is as well if you get a golden sample

>>60164203
It can OC a decent amount, they aren't dinky pieces of crap like Intel's stock coolers.

>>60164203
apparently the stock ryzen cooler is almost on par with the 212

File: intel_ts15a_cooler_2.jpg (166KB, 699x508px)

166KB, 699x508px

>>60164245
Intel has a lot of different coolers they don't all suck, 90% suck but not all of them.
intel cooler BXTS15A

>>60163521
>so whats the best bang for buck ryzen purely for gaming?
r5 1600. 1500x is just ~$20 less and is much worse.

>is it true that there's less micro-stutter than with an intel cpu?
Uncertain, there's some evidence for it. But one thing is 100% sure, it will stutter much much less when stuff is running in the background.

>will gaming benchmarks eventually overtake intel through optimization at the same or better price points?
Games have gotten more and more optimized for more cores since dual cores became a thing. It's just question of time. Even intels next mainstream line will have 6 cores.

Since the r5 is pretty much on par with i5s already it's only getting better. As for r7, we just don't know if it will overtake the 7700k in raw game FPS before both are obsolete.

>>60163950
Yet 4c/4t i5 wins 8c/16t ryzen.

>>60165077
no true, stop shilling shlomo

>>60163986
Not true, I have an ivy 5@ 4ghz and it does fine @60hz. I don't even max cpu in anything. I wouldn't buy a 4t in 2017 but if you have one it's still decent.

>>60163521
1600 with a manual oc. you can clock it to a safe temp on the stock cooler then upgrade later if you really want to push the vcore for another 2-300 mhz. All core boost of a 1600x is only 3.7ghz and any 1600 can get that on the stock cooler.

>>60163731
actchually

1600 if budget

1600X if you wanna have higher chances in cpu lottery and upgrading with compatible cooler you own already

>>60165077
>4c/4t i5 wins 8c/16t ryzen
keep telling yourself that

>>60167469
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb0yfX8161M
Oh wow, $500 cpu barely keeping up with last year's $200 i5, losing in most games.

Tell me more about great 8 core performance in modern games.

Oh god, look at this multithreaded performance vs 5 years old i5 3570k
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3176100/computers/amd-ryzen-7-1700-vs-a-5-year-old-gaming-pc-or-why-you-should-never-preorder.html?page=2
Is this the true power of Ryzen's 16 threads?

Check this out, even amd shills' favorite anandtech is afraid to compare i5 and r7 in 1080p - showing only 4k results. Do you know why it is so, Pajeet? Might it be great multithreaded performance?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four/16

What's the difference between the 1600 and 1600x in terms of overclocking?

>>60167517
>>60167569
>using a low-clock AMD CPU
>using an overclocked Intel CPU

Why don't you put in an overclocked 1600X in there? Don't you think it's going to be much more fair comparison? Only a retard would buy a 1700 solely for gaming and not overclock it.

>>60167682
Tons of tests. i5 will still win 1600x. That's the point. In the whole line up of Ryzen there is not a single cpu capable to win 4c/4t intel in games. And this is even in games that utilize up to 8 threads like battlefield, AC, Doom, etc.

i7 will simply destroy all ryzens in games.

>>60167786
>In the whole line up of Ryzen there is not a single cpu capable to win 4c/4t intel in games.
Sigh... someone show this guy those benches. I don't have them saved.

>>60167786
>i5 will still win 1600x
[Citation Needed]

>>60167863
>>60167861
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JypkqwpOtNI

File: 1493400743726.jpg (2MB, 3840x1032px)

2MB, 3840x1032px

>>60167919
>haha! nobody will notice I'm posting the low clocked SKUs that are beaten by the lower tier cheaper SKUs with less cores at higher clocks


Is this the power of desperation?

>>60167994
Don't need that, Zen has higher IPC, was confirmed by Agner in his optimization manuals

http://www.agner.org/optimize/optimization_manuals.zip

Stop spamming, you're nearly as bad as that shitposter.

>>60167994
>overclocked ryzen

Good luck with that

>>60168034
Titan Xp has less frames than 1080ti ??

>>60168017
Great picture, mate. Thanks for confirming that at 1080 i5 7500 is equal in gaiming to 1600x and outperforms 1700x. 4c/4t outperforming 8c/16t. And 7600k outperforms all ryzens. Just like I said.

File: Panorama_0.jpg (600KB, 2550x1446px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 2550x1446px

>>60168084

>>60168114
>>60168061
>>60168042
>>60168034
>>60168022
>>60168017
>>60168009
>>60168001
>>60167994

Should I just sell my 7700K?

Report this fucker, this is no better than that retarded avatarfagging spambot

>>60168130
But it's relevant to the thread

>>60168114
Superb GPU bottlenecked test! Two completely different cpus go neck in neck with 1-2 fps difference. Truly an unbiased test with 2 1080ti. Also, why posting more tests? Didn't the ones you posted before already proved my point that 4c/4t go neck in neck with 8c/16t, beating them in most instances?

>>60168129
No, there's nothing wrong with it unless you need more cores.

>>60168129
Sure m8. If you have GTX 1060 or below and want nothing to change. Or if you want to get lower fps in games.

>>60164203
I have a 1600 on stock cooler. OC'd it stable to 3.6, no sweat and temps hover the low 50s while playing. Had it for the past couple days, stable as fuck right now. I see people say they have theirs on 3.8 with stock cooler, too.

File: Hardware_Unboxed_1600x.jpg (4MB, 2560x5760px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2560x5760px

>>60168142

>>60168193
Once again $200 i5 4c/4t beating all ryzens except $500 chip (which is still destroyed by i7).
What exactly are you trying to achieve by proving my point again and again?

>>60168226
More cores is better

>>60167919
>using a low clock AMD CPU vs a high clock Intel CPU

Try again Intel shill.

>>60168084
>Thanks for confirming that at 1080 i5 7500 is equal in gaiming to 1600x
Which puts the Intel in a really bad light because the AMD still has the advantage of all the other non-game load types.

And that's not even counting the massive i5 stutters from all the cores being maxed out. Only a retard would buy an i5 instead of an R5.

>>60168226
The 1600x clearly has better minimum framerates and effectively identical average framerates to the 7600k, while being similarly priced to the 7600k, and eating the 7600k alive at more multi-threaded workloads.

Even if you assume games will NEVER become better optimized for more cores, why would you throw away the extra performance outside of gaming for no reason?

>>60168320
Why are you arguing with this idiot? He ignored everything posted just to snipe at one image and now he's planning on shitposting from there hoping everyone forgets the others, are you 12? You really can't see this?

>>60168320
Great. But not relevant to the argument, which was that 4c/4t can perform as well as or better than 8c/16t in games.

File: 1489873082986.png (357KB, 640x480px)

357KB, 640x480px

>>60168372
>1600x
>8c/16t
What did he mean by this?

>>60168341
You retards argue with the most recent post, completely missing the context and what the argument is about. Which is some retard saying that games NOW are optimized for more than 4 cores
>>60163910
>>60163950
And me responding that this is bullshit, as 4c/4t cpu goes neck in neck or beats 8c/16t cpus.
>>60165077

>>60168416
Yet the plurality of benchmarks posted in this thread show that you are clearly wrong. The 4c/4t Intel CPUs do not go "neck and neck" with the 8c/16t cpus, particularly in FPS minimums, 0.1% minimums, and 1% minimums.

>>60163588
>>60163731
>>60163887
>>60164172

This. I think R5 1600 will give you the most bang for the buck. The price difference going up to a 1600X isn't that big but when you add a cooler it is.

Another important factor that I personally look at but other people don't is that the 1600 is a 65W TDP part and the 1600X is a 95W part.

My current CPU is a 65W TDP part with a 140W massive cooler on it. It idles at 36-40C with the fan off and even when that 120cm fan spins I barely hear it. It would be different with the stock cooler but still, a lower TDP does mean less noise and heat.

>>60168460
In all those benchmarks i5 was pretty equal to r7s. Not mentioning that the benchmarks chose were cherrypicked to favor amd. I can come up with as many benchmarks where i5 will beat the shit out of Ryzen but you will start crying how this tests are not tests, wrong MOBO used, wrong ram used, etc. etc. like amd shills always do.
For every benchmark saying ryzen is better, there is a benchmark saying otherwise. So, this shit is pretty useless. Anyway, even with these benchmarks my point was proven - i5 can go neck in neck with any ryzen cpu in any game.
I am out so you can continue your leddit level circlejerk

>>60168520
>No charts
>No graphs
>No tables
>No embedded videos
>No links
>No evidence at all
>Abandons thread when challenged with evidence
Shekelchasers

B T F O
T
F
O

>>60163588
>R5 1600
/thread

The 1600X is only a better deal if you already have a decent heatsink (and fittings) ready, otherwise the $30 price difference for the 400 MHz boost is really more like a $70+ difference thanks to no bundled cooler.

>haven't seen this micro stutter on my 7600k
Is the problem as abundant as everyone says? I'm not sure if I hit the lottery or not. Games run great on it.

>>60169533
For whatever reason AMD fanboys are so desperate to try to "prove" that cores matter more and more, that they'll go off the smallest claims they can find by one or two individuals.
Realistically the majority of the gamer market for PC don't have more than 4 cores/8 threads, thus why video game developers for PC do not build them specifically with 6/8core 12/16 thread in mind. Flat out people making games for the PC will always target the majority, and try to add on some extra things for those with the latest and greatest hardware.
The only real advantage to Ryzen is if you multitask while gaming a lot, or if you do things other than gaming. "Future proofing" is basically a meme at this point.

>>60169704
>4 cores should be enough for anyone!

Not even Intel is on your side anymore. https://wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lake-desktop-6-core-4-core-cpu-leaked/

BTW, this will reduce Intel's single core advantage by 10% or so. You better get ready for COARS.

Call me when AMD release an 8c/16t with an iGPU.

>>60167994
That's nice and all, but you're more likely to find a maiden in a whorehouse than you are to get Ryzen stable at 4.5GHz for daily use.

>>60168416
>>60168520
7700k owner here. Kinda wish I got a ryzen. Oh well, maybe soon. I'm just responding to inform you that the term is "neck and neck", not "neck in neck". You are killing your argument by using it incorrectly, I can't take you seriously. Like trying to have a conversation with a black, and the ebonics creeps in and you realize you just lost precious minutes reasoning with an ape.

I don't know what I find most embarrassing in these threads... AMD fanboys claiming Ryzen is the best for everything in spite of almost all benchmarks showing Intel beats AMD in games or Intel fanboys claiming that Intel CPUs are best for everything when they get obliterated in multi-core benchmarks.
That is not even considering the performance for your money in which case Ryzen is usually much better depending on your needs.

>>60163521
1600

Is there any updates on when ITX AM4 motherboards are coming? Biostar announced two a while ago, and Gigabyte announced they're working on some, but I've seen nothing since.

>>60170212
>Kinda wish I got a ryzen
The hell? Why? You want less fps in games?

>>60170958
Better minimums and better multitasking? Also 7700k is much hotter.

>>60171010
>Better minimums
7700K has them though.

>>60171026
Not everyone and only when OCed.

>>60171037
here's locked 7700 vs OC 1700
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLj0kDHl-_I

>>60171145
>640x480

File: 14919902833690.png (254KB, 990x652px)

254KB, 990x652px

>>60167786
wrong

File: 1424234.jpg (76KB, 1278x676px)

76KB, 1278x676px

>>60171148
He yйдy!

>>60171209
Кaкoгo хyя oн нa пpeзeнтaции RTG дeлaeт? ЗPAДA?

Fuck off retards and take your sub-human language with you.

>>60171228
Enjoy your datacaps.

>>60171220
Eгo aмyдa тeпepь кyпилa.

>>60171242
Эх бeдный штeвyд, дaжe шиллa №1 пpoeбaл.

File: 1492308627226.gif (1001KB, 640x480px)

1001KB, 640x480px

Russian /hw/ is so filled with butthurted intelgoys that some of them leak here.

>>60171251
It's mostly Xeonniggers.

>>60171251
That sub-human language is against the rules here anyway.

>>60171260
There's no need for you to be so butthurt.

>>60171269
Yeah yeah tell that to the mods.

File: 14128785115954.jpg (11KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x200px

>>60171269
He bought ryzen so no wonder he's frustrated.

>>60171272
The mods need to ban the IMG_xxxx spammer first.
>>60171275
(you)

>>60171277
>IMG_xxxx spammer
Only a rangeban will put an end to that guy's retardation.

File: 14900130696830.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>60165077
> Yet 4c/4t i5 wins 8c/16t ryzen.
>>60167786
> Tons of tests. i5 will still win 1600x. That's the point.
>>60168084
> Thanks for confirming that at 1080 i5 7500 is equal in gaiming to 1600x
>>60168520
> i5 was pretty equal to r7s.
> So, this shit is pretty useless.

>>60164135
Actually still is nowadays.
I have a bunch of 2007-2009 games still runs on a single core athlon64 3000+ with hovering 30fps+/-.

A dual core athlon64 x2 3800 runs most 2010 to 2015 games sub 20fps. It runs, playable depends on perspective.

Heck i still remember playing hitman on a onboard sis 32mb gpu and pentium 3 700mhz at my friend's place. Lags often but we replayed the game so many times without complaining.

Now i have games running 60fps@1080p but i feel empty.

>>60171297
8 cores? Why would you need 4 cores...

>>60171301
most 3D games from around 2010 and later won't even start on a single core and a dual core will lag severely. 4 cores is the current bare minimum for decent gaymen.

>>60171506
Not true, most games dont even use 4 cores.
Almost all split the load so it equals 1 core.

File: 0yKZ3tj.jpg (60KB, 552x661px)

60KB, 552x661px

>>60171584
N-No, that's not true! 6c is absolutely a must for gaming without s-stuttering!

>>60171592
It is, as long as load balancing is a thing.

>>60171602
4 cores is the most you need because it balances the load so several applications dont cause stuttering and we wont see many applications that take use of cores because that takes a ton of optimization and costs a lot of time

>>60171712
It only costs some competent programmers instead of usual H1B pajeets.

>>60171729
Its a tragedy indeed

File: 4c.jpg (825KB, 1264x2204px)

825KB, 1264x2204px

>>60171584
>>60171592
4 cores ought to be enough for anybody!

>>60164000
This

>>60171842
>prooving the point with witcher and metro
>suddenly going full retard and topping of the gpu with the second game
why are amdtards this retarded?

you had prooven your point
the cpu was better
but then you had to be dishonest showing what can only be described as an attempt to hide a giant divide

>>60167786
1700 beats the 7700K in For Honor, Hitman, Tomb Raider and a couple of others from benchmarks I've seen.

1600X owner here. Pretty happy with it so far. The only frustrations are with +20°C temp reporting and with memory compatibility.

I need to try and overclock my memory to at least 2666 later on, since it's reported as capable for such and the motherboard should be okay with it.

>>60171887
The point was
>Not true, most games dont even use 4 cores.
>Almost all split the load so it equals 1 core.
which was disproven by showing 4 core usage at 80%+ percent.

>>60170320
I see most of relevant benchmark showing Ryzen doing better
but have fun with your stutter if you want to

>>60171889

>tomb raider

now I know you're full of shit

>>60171842

Man, i5 wont survive another year just by seeing that image.

>>60171584
that's patently untrue.

AMD if you use tons of programs so the cores actually have a purpos
Intel if you want to play games

File: noam_chomsky.jpg (28KB, 512x341px)

28KB, 512x341px

>>60171842
>person says many
>shows 3 games of big studios that can afford top notch non pajeet programmers

>>60172069
>Not true, most games dont even use 4 cores.
>Almost all split the load so it equals 1 core.

>>60172116
They do split the load on almost all games, you showed exceptions to the rule, but i read up on dx12 which havent so far because i never gave a shit about win10 and it looks like 6 cores will be the new norm in a few years.

>>60167673

no difference, the 1600X comes with a slight clock boost out of the packet, but they can both be overclocked to the same maximum, usually around 3.8-4Ghz

I want to build a PC but I don't game at all. (Except for games like quake3 and age of empires 2 every sometimes)

Should I buy Intel CPU with integrated GPU now or wait for ryzen iGPU processor's?

File: 4c.jpg (1019KB, 1284x2220px)

1019KB, 1284x2220px

>>60172069

>>60172132
the claim was that it sums up to effectively one core being used fully, which is utterly false. work on your reading comprehension.

>>60172050
>Intel if you want to play only older games
fixed

File: 16584673245.jpg (14KB, 242x208px)

14KB, 242x208px

WHERE THE FUCK ARE MY FELLOW INTEL BROS, WE CANT LOSE THIS ARGUMENT I NEED REINFORCEMENTSSSSSS!!!!!!!!

Fact is Intel have been king since 2006/7, I have had an i5 3570k for 5 years and it's served me well, but I'm switching to an OC 1600 because these CPU loads and current gaming benchmarks are a sign that it's time to jump ship to AMD as far as I'm concerned.

>>60172162
I'd wait™ for ryzen APUs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJggwV9HxRM

bruh

Does anyone know how the ryzen 1600 or 1500x fare delaywise when directly recording instruments via an interface?

>>60163521
get 1600x it's only 10$ more than i5-7600k and it's on par in performance and has two more cores so if games starts using more than 4 then you are on the safe side
but all that is thrown away if you want/have high refresh rate monitor (100Hz+) then an i7-7/6700k is the way to go

>>60172443
Doesn't realtime kernel make cpu latency irrelevant just for recording?

>>60171842
Wish I had the link to the interview at hand but the metro engine was build to scale well over many cores even when 2c2t and 4c4t was still the majority of the market. It's a good case in favour of more cores meaning more performance in games and hopefully a sign of things to come.

>>60163583
nah, get a 1600, amds 4 cores are fucked till apus, and 6 cores allows you to dedicate 1ccx entirely to gaming, or if the game takes advantage of more than 4 cores, all 6 cores to it and get better than intel's fps, at least the minimums better.

>>60163521
100% depends
Frankly I would not go any lower then a 1700, as you can overclock it to 3.8 on almost every chip within safe voltages.

On amd you will not get the max fps, but most games will get you to 60 and vast majority above 90.

newer bioses make shit even better, but are not guarenteed fixes, if you are ok with what you currently see from reviews, go for it, I basicly have 2 cpus, one devoted to background applications and one devoted to games if I so chose, and if I was on intel, well... I have 6-10% idle use, so that would mean 12-20% on an intel 4 core, and that is 12-20% off the max framerate while on my 8 core the max fps would be untouched, lets also not overlook if you allow intel or amd cpu to be the bottleneck, you get stuttering, neither cpu is immune to it, but the 8 core will handle it FAR better then the 4 core.

>>60172586
>at least the minimums better
Still no proofs of it. All tests I saw had better minimums on intel cpus.

>>60173508
Scroll up lil brudda

>>60163521
>ryzen
>purely for gaming

Get Intel, it's way better

>>60173864
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0oSYTP24rU
nice cpu usage m8
>hits 100 during witcher 3 & gta v
>barely any headroom left in all of the others

>>60173907
Thanks for this, intel clearly has the higher fps

>>60172050
>intlel
>gayming
lol

>>60174922
Throw in a browser in the background, a discord or other chat app, any recording software or any Windows service asking for CPU time your Intel becomes a stutterfest.

Also, only older games favor the i5 in averages. Newer games favor AMD and one year from now the i5s are useless even for gaming.

>>60175181
Nobody would buy an i5 for gayming now that Ryzen exists.

>>60175181
Well you are using a shit AMD CPU so obviously this stuff will break your CPU and cause it to overheat without even starting a game.
Us Intelbros on the other hand maybe get a 1-2% increase with several movie recordings in the background, rendering and 5000 chrome tabs open all playing flashvideos.

File: 1447777265908.jpg (225KB, 633x758px)

225KB, 633x758px

>>60175225
Wrong picture

>>60163521
r5 1600 is best

>>60175181
>Throw in a browser in the background, a discord or other chat app, any recording software or any Windows service asking for CPU time your Intel becomes a stutterfest.
>Always have chrome with 15 tabs and discord open along with some file explorer windows
>no stutter
what is this meme? Are there many other charts or any other at all besides the one that fanboys like to post about that show the infamous stutter?

File: Screenshot_20170411122002.png (718KB, 1280x720px)

718KB, 1280x720px

>>60175866
It's actually obvious that this is what will happen if any other processes require CPU time while all of the CPU's threads are at or near 100% utilization, but here is an example testing screen recording while gaming.

File: 1493675958603.png (48KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 2000x2000px

>>60163521
1600 lad

>>60174922
This

Do not buy AMD for games

>>60176866
I completely understand while recording, dont get me wrong. I'm just saying that I play stuff like Titanfall 2 and BF1 and shit that does 99% my CPU but I haven't noticed the frame stutters unless something huge happens on screen - which i think is more due to my R9 290 being old by now.

>>60163588
This is the best ryzen cpu in general, price/performance wise

>>60163521
i'm considering the 1600 since it looks like the best price/perf one out of all of them, to pair with a gtx 1070 since radeon is still officially shit. i might wait 8 months though for the zen+ refresh and the 2600 or whatever the 1600 refresh will be.

>>60175181
>lying on the internet

i have a 4690k and i play absolute dogshit optimized games like pub-g which rapes the cpu even with foliage and draw distance set to very low. i always use discord or steam voice chat when i'm playing and there's no hitching or stutter at all. the most i've had is the streaming when assets are being loaded in from my dying hdd.

>>60176866
Because I make youtube or twitch videos nobody watches. Ivy 5 still streams music, browser open and plays fine at 1440p 60hz. I wouldn'r buy a new 4t in 2017 but if you already have one. It's still decent.

>>60178265
That is not indicative of the game needing all that CPU power. From what I've read that game uses all the CPU it has available regardless of settings.

>>60163821
>within margin of error
>better

Oki doki

>>60180522
the point being made is that the 4 cores of any recent i5 in the last ~5 years are still capable of running games well and they're not some "stutterfest" like people are trying to imply when you have another application open. yes, the 1600 is obviously more capable but that doesn't mean the i5 is suddenly shit and can't run more than 2 applications at once like some people are also trying to imply.

if you have an i5 or can get an existing one for cheap (e.g. my uncle picked up an i7 4790 prebuilt for £150 on clearance last year) then it's perfectly fine, even better if you get it for cheap. to reiterate, just because the 1600 is much more capable, don't create fake stories about i5's with claims they're not capable at doing basic tasks because of this lesser capability. i'm sure everyone will agree with me here.

>>60163821
>BEST BANG FOR YOUR BUCK