Ryzen

depends on what you're doing with it. r5 1600 is the best price-for-performance cpu for gaymen AND multicore workloads AT that price. if you want to move up to ryzen 7 then get the 1700 because its similarly very good value in that price range for that amount of cores.
if all you want to do is shitpost and play games then a goytel i5 is going to beat it marginally in performance. but keep in mind you'll have less flexibility with what you want to do, less overclocking ability because of using salad cream for thermal paste and a platform/socket with planned obsolesence.

>>60659877
Return that unstable garbage and get an Intel

>>60659991
>D-DELID DIS!!!

>>60659919
I do some modeling/number crunching for astrophysics studies, some gaymen, and video encoding/editing as a bit of an amateur hobby.

I'm wondering how much I'll really get out of a 1700 for what I use though.
>>60659991
Never reply to me again unless you're contributing to the thread. This is your first and FINAL warning.

>>60660049
if your workloads are highly parallel, which they sound like they are (especially video editing) then you will always benefit from more cores. consider that more cores that are clocked slightly lower will be faster than less cores clocked higher because there will be less context switching between different processes/threads. you can always overclock to get more performance in games that are still relying on single thread performance. it's just that the difference in price between the 1700 and the 1700X is just not worth it when you can make up that difference with overclocking.

>>60660049
I can reply to you because I'm using a superior processor, instead of a chinese-knockoff like 'amd'

>>60660108
>thermal jizz in $2k CPUs
Scholomo pls.

>>60659877
1600 should be great. However, If you're willing to spend a little bit extra the 1700 won't disappoint.

>>60660108
>intel processors synthesised by globalist jewish schemes
>amd processors are purebred american
oy vey

>>60660049
I own an R5 1600 coming from i5-4440
I like it can't complain, I do from what it seems the same stuff as you do with no issue outside if ram (which is Mobo and bios related)

I say keep it but for your Mobo be sure you have ram speeds checked out as it can bottleneck if you aren't at least at 2400 (many discussions on where things are at, look into it)

If you're willing to build a setup, do it. The socket and Mobo will not change if you opt in for even r7 1800x since it's all still am4. Just be sure you know that gpu affects performance of the cpu and that generally speaking it will perform better if your gpu is also better. I have an rx480 in my ryzen box and I'm getting performance much greater than I would have had with Intel and Nvidia for the same price point.

I'm not even shilling. And fucked me once and Intel is too jewey, gave it a shot again and am pleasantly surprised

>>60660049
You realize he's giving you good advice

I would never use AMD for doing anything serious

File: 1466686813939.png (117KB, 448x539px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 448x539px

>>60660160
We know that Mr Shlomblatt.

>>60660107
Cool thanks.
>>60660153
I'll need to get a new motherboard if I keep the Ryzen anyways. So I'm not opposed to going whole hog.
I have a GTX 1050 ti.

>>60660581
>1050ti
This changes things. Don't bother with the 1700. The 1600 will provide really good performance, and the 1050ti will bottleneck way before the 1600. Hell, you could get a Waiga© gpu and still have no reason to upgrade it apart from video editing perhaps, and you said that's just a hobby anyway. Save up the extra cash for a better GPU.

>>60660882
he's not exclusively gaming
>I do some modeling/number crunching for astrophysics studies
>video encoding/editing as a bit of an amateur hobby.

>>60660951
>>60660882
Yeah, I guess I'm not as concerned with the graphical performance. I do wonder how well the 1600 will hold up as far as upgrading a GPU down the line in a couple years, but that's always hard to predict anyway.

File: 1471396486391.png (182KB, 578x691px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 578x691px

>>60659877
1600 is great but i would go with a 1700. All Ryzen CPUs OC to around 4ghz so there isn't much benefit going for the x variants if you OC.

My Ryzen 7 1700 is @ 4GHz 1.365v

>>60659877
Obviously you should get the R7 1700 if you can afford it

>>60661073
Check the silicon lottery numbers, relatively few 1700s will do 4GHZ at reasonable voltages, mine can only do about 3800 stable at 1.4V, not sure if its my B350 motherboard

>>60661101
Last i checked 85% can do it below AMD's stated safe limit 1.45v.

>>60661090
>>60661073
Yeah, I can. I just don't know if it's worth getting if I'm not gonna see much of appreciable gains for what I'm using it for.

That said, my local parts store is having a bit of a sale on the 1700, I'll keep this >>60661101 in mind if I do that.

I know we do GPU aided processes on campus, although I don't know what the computers look like under the hood. Pretty sure the 1050 is sufficient if I ever wanted to look into doing that at home.

Thanks for the replies, Anons.

>>60661904
Then obviously you should just buy the R7 1700

>>60660049
>video editing/encoding
A faster gpu will benefit you more here

File: 1476288353638.png (194KB, 448x468px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 448x468px

>>60661992
>encoding on GPU

>>60659991
so he can get fucked and have to buy a new motherboard later this year because of the socket change jewery?

In my opinion your best bet is to stick with the 1600.

Makes no sense to get a 1700 instead, unless you do several hours of work each day that takes advantage of more cores.

On the Intel side, 4c/4t i5s are shit future-proofing -wise (2500K at 4.5ghz loses to stock 2600k in well multithreaded modern games), and the 7700K not great either, considering the lower core/thread count and CPU socket that's getting replaced very soon so you can't upgrade just CPU

Keep the 1600, wait for new and better Zen CPUs to hit the market