Tytan64

AMD is back! I'm so glad I didn't have to build myself another Intel rig ^.^b

afaik Ryzen is not compatible with ECC memory. I think you need to get other RAM for that system then, sorry.

I'd go for a BIOS update. Unfortunately you can't do it without a working system. Maybe the people at the place where you bought it can do it for you.

I'd suggest that you look at reviews on sites like Amazon/Newegg, done by people with the same RAM and similar builds and see what they have done. In most cases I've come across, some have gotten higher speeds through fine tuning the memory timings and or/changing SOC settings.

An actual Ryzen R7 1700 @4GHz here ... I have a 60Hz 1080p display and I play most AAA games with V-Sync on. Butter smooth. And before you ask, no I didn't get an 8-core for gaming only. I stream and I like to use the h.264 option for encoding and when I bought the R7 1700 there were only 4-core i7 CPUs.
Anyways. I get about 170fps in DOTA 2 and LoL when V-Sync off. I also play GTA V online with a couple of friends and it's said that GTA V doesn't like Ryzen. Again, butter smooth experience. 
I don't think you can really go wrong with either Intel or AMD at this point if you're a gamer. But I'd choose to buy the R5 1600 instead of the R7 1700 or the i5-8600K because it delivers good performance and is way cheaper than both options. Also you can upgrade your CPU in the future without having to switch the whole platform. I'm thinking about Ryzen 3 (or whatever they will call it) when they use the 7nm process. 
Coffeelake delivers the most frames per second, yes. But it's a more expensive and also more limiting plattform in my opinion. Personally I was very happy to not having the need to build an Intel system again.
I had a Core 2 Quad Q9550, an i7-2600K and an i7-4790K ... boring. 

Get the ryzen and high performance memory.
If you have the money, get the 1700 or 1700X and spend the rest on the graphics card.
 
Now you have the chance to not get the Intel...
 
 
I really don't understand why you have to get the Intel, when you have the choice...

Well, the case is like that. 

Hello everyone, 
 
I just wanted to show you my very compact Ryzen system!
 
AMD R7 1700 @stock (undervolted offset -0.1385V)
16GB HyperX Savage 2666MHz
GTX 690 (I will put a GTX 1070 FE in there next month)
ASUS B350M-A
be quiet! Straight Power 10 500W 80+ Gold
SAMSUNG SSD 960 EVO
Bitfenix Prodigy M black
 
Thanks to undervolting the CPU barely hits 50°C with the stock cooler under Prime95!
The cable management was tough in this case but I think I did ok on that.
Let me know what you think about it =)
 
 

 
Saw this picture from while I was building. This was the first test. Started with a USB drive ofcourse. Looks really nice to me.  
 

Dude you still got like 250 more than I.
I wonder why the difference is that big. At least in benchmarks it looks like a GTX 980 Ti can beat a GTX 1070
 

Hello everyone,
 
I have an i7-4790K overclocked to 4.7GHz with 32GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM and a GTX 980 Ti overclocked to 1400MHz.
Here are my results! Maxwell isn't dead yet!
 
[ Updated version down below ]
 

If 3 have died then it's just a matter of time.

Gonna weigh in here and say that if I were to run 3 cards in one system, I would probably go for blower-style cards for the exact reason @cisto1999 pointed out. It's better to get all that hot air straight out of the case rather than have it blowing inside. 
 
Blower cards of the latest gen GPU's, especially the 10XX series are better than previous gens because the GPUs are much more energy efficient. They don't need to work as hard and thus, the blower coolers are sufficient. They are not as bad as some of you are making them out to be. 
 
@cisto1999 make sure you have good air flow in your case (good intake fans at the front blowing fresh air directly to the blower intakes) and you'll be fine. 

Really come on you yourself knows a 1080 is way better option, why you even ask?

No, it won't since it could handle two TitanX in SLI as well.
BUT running such a weak card for physx makes the overall performance worse than just using physx on your main card...

5960X or go home

If gaming is all you do then really the price to performance would be better offset by grabbing an i5-4690K and putting the rest of the money into a video card. Even with a good amount of multi-tasking the 4690K will hold up well - I only recently upgraded from my old i5-2500K to the rig in my signature because the software I am currently writing required me to. On the older sandy bridge i5-2500K I was able to play Farcry 4 maxed out at 1080p, have several excel windows with thousands to tens of thousands of cells open, a couple of programming IDEs and very large word documents (300+ pages) with no problems. Oh, and a typical load of 20 ish Firefox tabs.
 
If this sounds like more than what you do (probably is) then the i5 will be fine. Take the savings from not getting the i7-6700K, DDR4, Z170 board, etc. and get a 980 or 980Ti. The Devil's Canyon chips will be viable to max out pretty much anything at 1080p for at least another 3-4 years.
 
If you REALLY want the Z170 chipset and the new USB 3.1 features, etc. then the i5-6600K is the budget sweet spot.

No, the GTX 980 Ti is way better, just for double precision calculations the Titan would be better.

All these posts and no one noticed the "Fury + Fury X", at the Nano price point?
 
I call shenanigans.

Sorry, but this statement is completely Wrong.
 
By that Logik, an i5 could never match the Performance of an AMD FX 83xx CPU.
 
On 4.8 Ghz it will surely be difficult to notice any difference in most scenarios.
 
- When HyperThreading can be used, your i5 will calculate much faster due to much higher clock speed. Which is like 30%+ Faster per Core.
- HyperThreading, when it can be fully used, brings you maybe 30-40% more performance, at BEST.
 
So, on situations, where HTT can be used, your i5 still wont be slower. Because it will be just faster per Core.
On situations where HTT cant be used, it will be even more faster.
 
The ONLY Thing, where the i7 would be better is Multitasking. If you do multiple things. Like, 4 Cores are busy doing something, you still have the virtual Cores to do some minor stuff at the background.
 
It just depends what applications you use. Most Games will run better with an 4,8 Ghz i5, than an 3,5 Ghz i7.

Send it back for replacement/refund

Well, maybe AMD offers something fitting for me with ZEN.
I doubt their processors will be more powerful than my current. But I can still dream ...

Maybe I could get more frames than 60 in Crysis 3 with an i7 4790K but I wouldn't really notice since I only own a 60Hz panel. Man I'd give my soul for an eight-core i5 or i7
I dislike the IO shield of my mobo very much. That's why I'm looking foreward to change the whole system instead of just the processor

Well, my suggestion is you sell the 4690k while you can still get something for it and get a 4790k that will offer the performance you're looking for. 
Thats exactly what I did. 
Once everyone catches on that the 4690k can't keep up, good luck selling it.

For that budget I would certainly go for an overclockable i5 ( 4690K/6600 ) and a 390.

This is actually a good idea! Thank you ^^