unSatisfied

this a picture of ryzen master. all i had to do was set the first core to 3.7 and all the other automatically set themselves to 3.7. then i clicked the apply button and then i was running at 3.7ghz. its really easy so i wouldn't worry about it. if you want to go higher than that you either have to get luckier than me or set some higher voltages and have better cooling. 

1700 would be better for your purpose 

Omg. Thank you

Its been out for 3 days, and that's only the top tier of the line up. There's another 2/3 of the product line to launch, and your already asking where Zen+ is?
 
Seriously?

I highly disagree that gamers should ignore Ryzen, unless they are literally only interested in gaming. Ryzen has only been out for a few days and performance should increase significantly once software issues with Windows 10, BIOS, etc. are ironed out. With that said, however, Intel will always be better in a CPU bottleneck situation due to the higher IPC and clock speeds and the lack of support for 8c/16t utilization. That's just the thing most people don't understand, though, this is in CPU bottlenecked situations. The vast majority of people will always be bottlenecked by their GPU, and as a result of that, Ryzen and Intel don't have that much of a difference at all. What does have a HUGE performance difference is any multitasking/CPU intensive tasks that have good threading support.

The R7 1700 price difference is negligible (it is $30 cheaper in terms of MSRP actually), and can be overclocked to near 1800x performance, so I really don't understand why anyone would choose to go with an i7 7700k over an R7 1700 unless that person is only interested in gaming (which, admittedly, is probably the majority of people on this forum).
 
Maybe I do just fit into a niche, but I truly believe that many users (again, probably not the majority on this forum, however) can benefit from the workstation benefits that Ryzen does provide with the additional 4 cores and 8 threads.
 
With that all said, you seem to be over exaggerating the performance discrepancy between the i7 7700k and Ryzen 7 and are making it seem like hardcore gamers cannot play games on it which simply isn't true.

I completely agree that 1% and 0.1% minimums matter, which is why I'll be going with Ryzen. In pretty much every review that tested a Ryzen CPU with SMT disabled, the i7 7700k and the Ryzen CPU traded blows in regards to minimums. Once the scheduling issues regarding cache and SMT are fixed, then the minimum frame rates should be even higher. You also seem to disregard that the gaming industry as a whole is moving toward utilizing more cores/threads overall with newer APIs such as DX12 and Vulkan.

At that price you would get better performance from a Ryzen 8-core.  You'll save money on the motherboard as well.

well ryzen blows anything intel has out the water at your price point. Is the a actual reason as to why you need Intel. 

-cheap with good overclock for gaming and streaming a 5820k or a 6800k.
- pure content creation, streaming, rendering, gaming a ryzen cpu with 8 core 16 thread, powerful as a 6900k while being half the price. 

depends on what he does, if he is going for content creation purely i would go for ryzen. 

Wait... Does Intel NOT offer increases in performance between generations? Or does the 6700k have the same performance as a 7700k? Why everyone was upset when it launched?
 
Like fuckiing talking politics...

This is like asking about Skylake E 3 days after Kaby launch...
 
 

I'll retoast after the R5 launch maybe. That should give us more to work with.

Ryzen 1700 would be the best

How about explain the differences yourself? If you can't explain the differences to someone without using words and justify why somebody might need 20 chipset PCI-E lanes over 16 for a core i7, then frankly you need to stop being misleading and show yourself out.
 
Yeah, an i5-6400 or i5-6500 would be fine.
 
RX 480 and 16GB RAM would also be good.

Oh your one of those.....
 
AMD is not bad for gaming. Your pointing to one CPU as well. Benchmarks don't lie AMD 1700 holds it own in gaming the FPS and performance was more then acceptable. Do things need to be ironed out sure.
That goes for any new platform. As things become better optimized for AMD things will improve.
 
It is possible for Intel to be better at gaming then AMD, while AD can still be "ok or good" to say that the entire AMD platform is bad at gaming is just not accurate.
There are may people gaming just fine on the AMD platform and have been for years.
Maybe it doesn't meat your high standards but it works just dam fine.
 

If all you'll be doing is gaming, then yes, you will be completely fine with an i5 7600k.

What games do you play? I'd go with the i7 7700k just for gaming.
 
In terms of a CPU that can handle streaming/photo editing, etc. extremely well, I'd recommend considering the Ryzen 1700.

You seem to be confusing "bad value for a gaming PC" with "bad at gaming".
 
As an example, if the 7700K were suddenly increased to $1200, it wouldn't be any worse at gaming than it is now. It would just be a worse value.
 
Ryzen is not bad at gaming. It performs as well as many recent generations of Intel CPUs which everyone agrees are fine for gaming.
 
Ryzen 7 is a bad value for gaming, because you're paying extra for hardware that doesn't help much in games (8 cores). But purely in terms of performance (ignoring prices of everything) it is decent at gaming. So Ryzen 3 and 5 will address this by releasing processors without that extra hardware, which should still perform just as well in single-thread but without paying that extra fee for something you won't use in games. This will be a much better value than Ryzen 7. No one is expecting Ryzen 3/5 to beat the i7-7700K in performance, what we are expecting is 90% of its performance for half the cost, which is a much better value than Ryzen 7 or the 7700K.

Yeah, listen folks my thoughts as an Intel fanboi are:
 
Comparing a mature product with one whose drivers and BIOS are still in an essentially beta state is kind of worthless.
 
The mobo manufacturers have not had much time to develop their UEFI's and Mickysoft has not had a chance to mature a CPU driver.
 
Give it a month or two, to a time we aren't getting shipped 27 BIOS/driver updates per day.

Someone went out and tested Ryzen on Windows 7, and performance with SMT on was better than windows 10 with SMT off.  So there is an issue with windows 10 not correctly using the multithreading, as well as some additional windows 10 overhead it seems.
 
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-8#post-38775732
 
reddit thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5xkghp/confirmed_windows_10_scheduler_is_gimping_ryzen/

Another thing I don't like about these benchmarks is that none of them are testing multi-tasking, such as playing a game and watching a youtube video, or playing a game and streaming to twitch.  That is where the benefit of an 8 core cpu vs a 4 core cpu starts to make sense imo.  I personally would like to see some multi-tasking benchmarks.

Not true at all.
 
http://www.toptengamer.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-vs-intel-i7-7700k-1800x/
 
A 3.9GHz 1700 keeps up with a 5GHz 7700K, and you can do this on the stock AMD cooler. You'll need to invest in a decent aftermarket cooler to get the 7700K to attain such speeds. The R7 1700 is a better gaming CPU, but the majority of reviews seem to neglect this.

Buy an i5 7600K and invest in a better GPU. It will attain better FPS than any Ryzen or i7 alternative.
 
However, if it is strictly between the two, go for the 1700. You can get up to 4GHz overclocks on the stock cooler, and at 3.9GHz it keeps up with a 5GHz 7700K (which requires aftermarket cooling to attain).
 
http://www.toptengamer.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-vs-intel-i7-7700k-1800x/