Should I get Ryzen 5 for games?

>>376795295
1600, 1600x and 1700 are confirmed the best bang for the buck. Ryzen is great because it features a brand new socket and gives you a up to date Motherboard which should last a while in terms of features. I'd say, go for it.

Got a 1600x myself, it's a great upgrade over the i7 930 i used to have. Just make sure to get DDR4 Ram with a frequency of 3200 for max profit in performs and price.

File: 1467250560144.jpg (54KB, 500x373px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x373px

>>376795465
You have to be careful with the RAM, only Samsung B dies can hit higher than 2933mhz currently.

That said the 7700K's days ontop are numbered, even outside of multithreading. As compilers come out that are built for the higher ILP that Zen can leverage, Kaby will start falling behind per clock.

>>376795295
>Just make sure to get DDR4 Ram with a frequency of 3200 for max profit in performs and price.
You'd actually do better getting dual rank RAM for cheaper prices, better performance, and lower voltage.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Ryzen-5-1600X-CPU-265842/Tests/R5-1500X-Review-Mainstream-1225280/3/

>>376797596
Every other test is showing the opposite

>>376797780
You sure about that? I could see single rank RAM outperforming dual rank in synthetic benchmarks but not in actual games.

So, will 1600 + 588 combo be enough for 1080p at 60fps? I saw GTAV dropping to sub 30fps in grass so now I'm not sure if I should wait for Vega.

What's the price difference between the 1600 and 1600x? Is the 1600x even worth it?

I'm planning on upgrading my FX-6300 and I don't know which CPU to get.

>>376795295
Get whatever is cheapest. If you're solely playing games then the i5 and ryzen 5 are pretty much the same so it's all down to price.

Never ever buy Radeon graphics though. Everyone I know and myself who've owned Radeon graphics have had nothing but problems. I'd say pair that new i5/ryzen 5 with a gtx 1070. I got one recently and it's a monster of a gpu at 1080p/1440p.

>>376801041
>Is the 1600x even worth it?
No. It has slightly higher clocks but that's it. 1600 has good stock cooler and still cheaper so you can just overclock it to get same/better performance than 1600X and save money.

File: 11.jpg (278KB, 962x1032px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 962x1032px

>>376801243
Ryzen + Nvidia combo doesn't really work that well though.

>>376801328
Thanks, m8. I'm on a limited budget, so if the 1600x offers no significant advantage in gaming, I'll just get the 1600.

File: 1.png (384KB, 1920x1006px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1920x1006px

>>376801243
>Everyone I know and myself who've owned Radeon graphics have had nothing but problems.
I have an AMD RX480. It's the first AMD card I've bought ever and it's the best card I've ever owned. I've had exactly zero problems with it whatsoever.

>>376801396
It works fine. Amd and Nvidia have been releasing frequent patches and these problems are pretty much ironed out now. For 1440p60 the 1070 will be the main bottleneck anyway, not the ryzen or i5.

>>376801667
I upgraded from a 390 to a 1070 and I was having constant black screen issues which I thought was an isolated problem for me alone at first but my buddy who also had a 390 was having the same issue and it turned out it was a crimson driver issue and it took amd 6 (six) months to patch it. It was a common issue and there are many steam threads about it. It would occur frequently in gta 5 and many people weren't happy about that. Also it has issues when running Maya which still hasn't been patched to this day iirc. I sold that shit as soon as the 1070 pricing became cheaper.

>>376795295
You should

>>376801667
I have only experienced a crash from using the Wattman feature to benchmark power effectivity.
Beyond that, and the chance for 100% fan on the rare awakening, its been pretty much bug free.

Whats a good ryzen build with a budget of around 1300 dollars?

>>376795295

You can but if you get Ryzen, get an AMD GPU as well

I'd like to get a Ryzen, but I fear emulation performances on Dolphin, CEMU and whatever will be shit

>>376803478
ryzen 7 + gtx 1070 + any case, peripherals you want.

>>376801668

Except for the bit where it's been confirmed Nvidia can't make DX12 drivers for shit, so all the benchmarks from many sites are fucked when they include RotTR.
It's the only bench where including the 1080 as standard shows a big Intel bias, but then you throw in a 480 and not only do you see it be largely unbiased suddenly, it may even improve performance a little.

Considering the lower cost and DX12/Vulkan futureproofing, it could be a little cheaper to crossfire. At the very least, if you have the money for it, you can just get both AMD and Nvidia and make whichever is best primary.

>>376803712
Going by the emulator thread we have over on /vg/?
CEMU is going to require a high end i7(or a i5 that is a renamed i7 with disables cores).
Otherwise you end up with 70-80% performance. Which is 16-20FPS in Zelda. Where the FX8300 owner would get 1 FPS less.

Ryzen will either land on 20-24, or in the same range as i5, due performance bugs. Going by how PCSX2 performs, you shouldn't expect CEMU to run properly without basically having the same hardware as the developers of CEMU run.

>>376801328

>So you can just overclock it and get the same/better performance
Absolutely not, not without replacing the stock cooler anyway, you have to make a 600Mhz difference and the 1600x can also be OCed into 4Ghz+ easy.
The price difference is rather minimal, the only pain in the arse is needing to get your own heatsink.

>>376804573
Are you retarded or something? 1600X is only 200MHz higher. And you absolutely can OC to 3.7-3.8 with stock cooler.
>1600x can also be OCed into 4Ghz+ easy
Again, no. It's the same silicon lottery. There're 1600 which can get up to 4.1 and 1600X chips which struggle to reach 3.9. X gives you no advantage whatsoever.

>>376804481
>one game

wow what a revelation! everyone only plays rottr right? right?

fuck off retard. there is no issues with nvidia outside of that single game and even adoredtv has said this and also said it's a shitty optimized game which shouldn't be used as a benchmark. every other dx12 game on nvidia runs absolutely fine. you can pay me a million bucks but i won't ever go back to amd after the 2 years of cancer and bugs i had with them.

>>376798659
580 is more than plenty for 1080p and is even capable for 1440p/60fps.

>>376805173

>one game
>every site is including in their results
>and it's a massive outlier
They also include old games from 2013 and PC version of Cars, which is completely busted.
They should remove all the outliers, but they don't, so you get biased as fuck numbers.

>>376805173

>I'm literally retarded

Hey you did actually like, look stuff up and did research before saying that right?
Because you know that rottr is actually fine, and it's entirely Nvidia's DX12 drivers that are busted right?
Y'know, considering AMD works perfectly fine, so it can't be the game engine right?
Also conveniently forgetting how Nvidia's cancer works for the sake of a narrative, like Gameworks and how they straight up fix broken games in their drivers (including games they broke themselves in development) just so AMD would have to go out their way to achieve similar results for each individual game, when they can't afford it.

Fuck off retard. There are underlying issues specifically with Nvidia and they aren't going away just because you don't want the best out of your system.

>>376804876
Higher stock clocks and XFR, and on average better bins

>>376804876

[citation needed]
Considering 1600X is listed at stock for 4Ghz at boost, 4Ghz at idle is hardly a stretch. How can a 1600X fail to reach underclocked?
It doesn't matter about lottery, I didn't buy a 1600 because I don't want to chance anything and would rather never need to OC in the first place, for such a small difference in price to boot.

File: sanjeet.png (12KB, 768x75px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 768x75px

>>376805921
>and it's entirely Nvidia's DX12 drivers that are busted right?
>considering AMD works perfectly fine

is that why nvidia in dx12 on intel absolutely curbstomps anything from amd yet amd's shitty broken ryzen platform runs like shit in the same scenario but it's all nvidia's fault right? is that why the 480 runs like garbage compared to the 1060 on intel platforms in rottr but this means its working perfectly fine right?

you're either trolling or severely mentally retarded. ironic how you talk about research and you didn't know that basic information i just mentioned.

>>376806143

>I straight up can't type English now
what
Thanks for disputing fact with make believe, I feel enlightened now.

File: 1463089344906.jpg (31KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 250x251px

>>376806239
>he can't refute anything i said because he knows it's true
>tfw i literally just paraphrased what his beloved adoredtv said in his ryzen of the tomb raider video
>this damage control

lmao

>>376806143
Why are hardware unboxed so based? Literally the best hardware YouTuber right now.

>>376806051
Bingo, unless you have watercooling not much point in OCing a 1600X or 1800X. It's like if Intel offered a 7750K at 4.8ghz boost clocks. Yeah you could take it to 5ghz on air but that 200mhz isn't worth it. Water up to 5.2ghz would be.

>>376806051
>at boost
Do you even understand what it means? Don't expect 4GHz on all cores.

>>376807401
I got it on all cores at 4092mhz out of box with XFR, it hogs voltage to 1.4(1.425 is fine according to AMD) though automatically also I got d15, so not everyone's case.

>>376806461
>please nvidia don't be angry with me send me your stuff I was only pretending not to like SLI
>based

not to mention his incompetence at trivial things

>>376798659
The 580 is capable enough. Grass in GTAV really shouldn't be used as a comparison since ultra settings even tank fps with a 1080. It's the most demanding setting in the game by far.

>>376808670
The thing is, I'm really poor. So 1000 euro PC is serious investment for me and I don't really want to have such expensive rig to have framerate problems. I'm not a graphic whore but I won't disable grass in GTA because it'll look like PS3 version without it.

>>376795295
No

Wait for Coffee Lake

6 core Kaby Lake > any Ryzen

>>376808908
I feel you still sitting on an HD7850, but you don't need to turn it off at all. It's just that anything above high settings gives you pretty small visual benefits compared to the performance you lose out on and it still looks way better than ps3, believe me. The alternative would be to go with a 1060 or even 1070 if you manage to save up a bit more.

I think a 580 & R5 1600 will suit me well for 1080p.

I'm not bought into the 4K hype train yet, not until 2020 at least when even mid-low graphics cards will handle 4K no problem.

Sure, OP
If you play at 1080p I recommend going for an RX 570.
It's the sweetspot for that resolution and will probably play games in the next 3-4 years at 60fps. 4GB VRAM is enough of this resolution, as long as you don't go balls out on the AA or retarded quadruple filtering

>>376808918
It'll be greater in price, that much is certain.

>>376797527
Got myself g.skill ripjaws V 3200Mhz
Run just fine at 3200Mhz, just required a voltage bump to 1.4V (from 1.35V)
No idea if those are samsung b die

Is anyone here playing Starcraft 2 on Ryzen? Considering it only uses one core, what's the performance like?

>>376801243
Buy radeon if you don't want to upgrade every 2 years
Nvidia is doing a lot of planned obsolence shit
Just look at the joke the 780 has become

>>376810178
What mobo?

>>376798659
1600 + 580 will be enough for 1080p and 1440p
I'm using a R9 290 (about 10% weaker) at 1440p and have no reason to upgrade right now

>>376810242
gigabyte AX370 gaming 5
F4 UEFI

>>376808918
You'll hit thermal limit quite rapidly, maybe 4.6ghz out of one.

It's not enough to match Pinnacle Ridge, which will be out only a bit later.

>>376810178
Yep those are.

Care to help me out, fellow robots?

https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapcforme/comments/6axw60/i_want_a_solid_pc_for_video_games_1500_usd_budget/

>>376810719

R7 1700 + GTX 1080

They're alright but the real question is how many single threaded games you're going to play because for those an i7 7700K is currently the better choice, albeit being a step into the past as it has less cores and as such isn't going to perform nearly as well in multithreading optimized titles (of which there aren't many right now).
Though I'd argue there isn't any application in which you notice the single threading performance gain as either you hit 60fps already or you you wouldn't reliably with the Intel either.

>>376807982
are you retarded?

>>376810240
nope. tests prove there has been no gimping. try again.

>>376810719
go to pcpartpicker.com and look at 6700k builds. since gaming is your focus and you want highest fps I would go intel.

>>376795465
1600x is a waste of money, when overclocked 1600 is very close to the 1600x + free cooler.
1600 is prob best price to performance imo.
Upgrading from the i7 920 myself, seems a lot of people with first gen i7s are upgrading to ryzen.

File: nvidia.jpg (826KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

826KB, 1920x1080px

>>376811675
And don't forget about the 3.5GB scam

>>376811878
you do know the X is just a better binned 1600 right?

>>376812009
Theres no point arguing with faggots like you.
https://youtu.be/L4_4Tpa_cIQ
Plus 1600x is $350 dollarydoos and $300 for 1600 here in aus, literally no point.

>>376811909
http://www.babeltechreviews.com/nvidia-forgotten-kepler-gtx-780-ti-vs-290x-revisited/

>Even though we are comparing 2013 with 2016 using a slightly upgraded platform, we generally see small improvements in 2016 over 2013 for the GTX 780 Ti.
>However, generally, both the 780 Ti and the R9 290X have had improvements since 2013, even for the old games.
>There is no doubt that the R9 290X with its 4GB of vRAM, is a generally faster GPU for today’s games than the 3GB vRAM-equipped GTX 780 Ti although they are still competing in the same class.
>This was an interesting evaluation for us in revisiting a 2013 evaluation. We have seen that the 290X is still being optimized by AMD as its architecture is unchanged with the current 390X. Partly by being 2-1/2 year old architecture, and partly by having more vRAM, the 290X has turned out to be generally more “future proof” for playing today’s latest modern PC games. However, we can clearly see that the Kepler GTX 780 Ti still is in the same class as the 290X and it runs 2013 games just as fast or faster in 2016, although it has fallen further behind the Maxwell 980 series with the very latest games.
>It is clear that the latest generation of DX11/12 games are far more demanding on video cards, but especially regarding vRAM usage. The GTX 780 Ti is rarely limited by its 3GB of vRAM, and when it happens, the frame rates will often improve dramatically by lowering a few settings. It is clear that Nvidia has not neglected Kepler, but they are clearly more focused on Maxwell performance as it is their current architecture.

how you reply to this post will show everyone if you're actually misinformed/uneducated or just a straight up paid amd shill. you're not going to argue against certified benchmarks (+ charts) and believe a screenshot over them, are you?

>>376812161
there is a point if you want the best chance at a golden sample.