Should i go R5 1600 or R6 1700? I am a whore for cores and the

>>61005218
Go 8 cores or go home.

>>61005290

I went 6 cores and I am at home. What now, faggot?

>>61005218
If you dont mind spending the money, why not go for the better cpu

>>61005218
Is it that much of a choice? Both are good, just take 1700 if you need that extra power

>>61005218
Literally any Intel CPU shits on PooMD. i5 is far better than Ryzen 5 and the Ryzen 7 doesn't stand a chance to the 7700k.

I'm going 6 cores because by the time 8 cores really have a tangible benefit over 6 for my uses, zen2 will probably be available with more gainz than just two extra cores and it will use the same socket.

>>61005947
get back in the oven, yitzhak.

>>61005218
Install Gentoo

File: youwillneedmorethanthat.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>>61005955

File: E7CFDDB9-3C81-435A-B817-14375015792D-396-0000003A74A020C0.png (234KB, 882x758px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 882x758px

>>61005947

>>61005916
Off yourself, faggot

>>61005218
Get a 1700x from micro center. The motherboard bundles for the 1700 and 1700x are the same prices.

File: jigglypuff laughing.png (53KB, 398x399px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 398x399px

>>61005947
>i5 is far better than Ryzen 5 and the Ryzen 7 doesn't stand a chance to the 7700k.
anon

If you're going to consider a 1700 you may as well consider a 7800.

Sure it has two less cores but 25% more performance per core... We're talking ~160CB from AMD to over 200CB with Intel (cinebench r15)

>>61008693
i5 is 39% faster than Ryzen 5
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-7600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1400/3885vs3922
i7 is 37% faster than Ryzen 7
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core--i7-7820X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700/3928vs3917

>>61008781

Plus $200 for the 7800 cooling and DELID to stop it burning your house down.

>p-p-pls buy intel

>>61008827
>Pls buy intel OP

File: 1411177440158.png (68KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 500x500px

>>61005947

>$0.05 shekels was deposited on your account

>>61008827
How do any of those comparisons make sense compared to their price? They don't, and Userbenchmark's "effective speed" is a load of shit.

File: cinebrunch.png (344KB, 847x917px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 847x917px

>>61008827
>2 User Benchmarks
Yeah, this looks reliable. How about some actual benchmarks?

File: i9-7900x-tww.png (100KB, 825x719px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 825x719px

>>61008827
o rly?

File: 1496622103669.png (86KB, 337x441px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 337x441px

>>61005950
Good point.

>>61008827
>userbenchmark.com
The shig of 1000 costanzas.

>>61008827
>CPU costing 80$ more is better
>CPU costing 300$ more is better
Try harder shill

>>61008834
If you were going to buy a 1700, you needed at least a Switftech H220 or other so I don't see a difference.

You could delid but I wouldn't deem it necessary unless you want to push it. Which in any case, pushing voltages isn't asking for a long lasting clock to begin with.

Don't forget AMD needs good RAM that can hold 3200 or it's a waste of resources

>>61005218
R7 1700, especially if you're going to OC

>>61008827
Holy shit anon... get your shit together. Check the CPUs in your links again.