AMD v/s Intel

[ZackCodesAI]

Just wanted to know how many gamers out there would go for Ryzen 1800x considering that stability problem will be solved by updates and future games are developing to use multicore .

And most importantly for 1080p gaming.

[UMxMarky94]

can there be a 3rd option like "other" as i would wait till RyZen 5 as it maybe be a better bang for the buck 

[ZackCodesAI]

2 minutes ago, UMxMarky94 said:

can there be a 3rd option like "other" as i would wait till RyZen 5 as it maybe be a better bang for the buck 

Done

[UMxMarky94]

4 minutes ago, Zackbare said:

Done

wooh i'm the 16.67% 

[Terryv]

I'd be much more likely to get ryzen 5

 

More specifically, their bottom range 6 core. Assuming it overclocks the same as the top 6 core

[PCGuy_5960]

Why don't we wait for benchmarks? I think that Ryzen 5 may perform a bit better than Ryzen 7...

[Scionyde]

I'm waiting for Ryzen 5, but mainly to see if it triggers a price drop on the 7700k. I don't see Ryzen 5 beating Intel from a performance standpoint, but the price is certainly attractive.

 

Ultimately, I don't think it's particularly a good idea to buy something and hope for better future performance at some undetermined time. I'm looking for something to last me 5-6 years (for gaming) before I upgrade again, and in my view the 7700k is probably the best choice for that. Ever since the new consoles came out, people have been claiming that games will start utilizing more cores, but that's been a much slower adoption than most people hoped. As people begin to make these same claims with Ryzen's launch, I'm understandably wary. In 5-6 years do I think "multicore" support will become more of a thing? Yeah, maybe. But for the years in-between I think the high single-threaded performance of the 7700k will be more relevant. 

 

On top of that, I'm a gamer who doesn't really care about buying games at launch. Triple-A games are far too buggy on launch, and price drops are usually quite substantial 12-18 months later (yay Steam sales). Even when these hypothetical games that love lots of cores come out, I'm not likely to buy them right away.

[typographie]

2 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Why don't we wait for benchmarks? I think that Ryzen 5 may perform a bit better than Ryzen 7...

Maybe so, but OP is specifically asking about the Ryzen 7 1800X. We already have benchmarks available for the CPUs in question.

[ZackCodesAI]

1 hour ago, Scionyde said:

..

You're no doubt correct about intel in general and 7700k being better in gaming as because of its single core performance. 

But, AMD now has been personally working with devs. so as to optimize their GPU and CPU which is a big deal, as many games out their were suffering already because they were Nvidia optimized, so even if you had a really good AMD GPU it lacked, so to solve it AMD started working with devs. Also, playstations are having AMD processors, so to keep the contract with sony IMO they'll also bring Zen architecture to next PS , again making a point to optimize themselves for games and vice-versa.

[ZackCodesAI]

WOW, I thought one would beat the other to ground, but man!! It's equal right now!!

[Guest]

I have a hard time getting behind AMD - they have sort of broke my heart. 

 

Some of these issues will never be fully solved IMO. Same old story. 

 

This is coming from someone who was rooting for AMD - had an FX-8320 and still have a 390 in my system. 

[AntonChigurh]

Honestly, I could get behind Ryzen if I were a content creator or streamer or something of the sort. But i'm not, and because most of what I want out of a PC is pure gaming performance, i'll probably stick with the 7700k.

[WMGroomAK]

Honestly, with most of the benchmark and OC results that I've seen, I would rather go for a R7 1700 and get a decent AIO to OC it to around 3.9 GHz.  

[Eckhart]

Ryzen 5 might be able to overclock better and get that better percore performance, I would go for a 6 core 12 thread and see how well they overclock first, at the moment IDK that percore performance can justify that price tag with the current competition but Im gonna wait for R5 to make that judgement

 

[stebucko360]

Don't understand why people buy 8 core processors if you are just using a pc for gaming. Most games don't utilise that many cores. Different story if you use your pc for video editing etc.

 

Buy an i5, put the extra money into your gpu = Better gaming experience.

 

Unless money is no issue of course! 

[ZackCodesAI]

16 hours ago, Zackbare said:

 future games are developing to use multicore .

 

 

7 hours ago, stebucko360 said:

...

Read the thread my friend ...

[killcomic]

Nah, I'm going with the 1700.  Mind you, I do more than just gaming. 

I could be wrong but I dont see much future in the 1151 socket.

[ZackCodesAI]

It's proved then, that atleast AMD is competing Intel head to head. Good thing for emerging market..

[App4that]

Multicore still relies on singlecore. Why Braodwell-E and Kabylake both still beat Ryzen even in the games we have that love cores. 

[ZackCodesAI]

3 minutes ago, App4that said:

Multicore still relies on singlecore. Why Braodwell-E and Kabylake both still beat Ryzen even in the games we have that love cores. 

I agree, but AMD has value/performance ration, which is really competitive. Also, getting a bit sidetracked, people still would like to work with multi-threads, even though they're gamer they also want outside gaming performance.

[App4that]

13 minutes ago, Zackbare said:

I agree, but AMD has value/performance ration, which is really competitive. Also, getting a bit sidetracked, people still would like to work with multi-threads, even though they're gamer they also want outside gaming performance.

No, a 7700k costs the same as a 1700. well, depending on region they trade blows. 

 

Totally agree though, if you have ANY conserns outside gaming the 1700 or waiting for the 1600x is an easy call to make. 

[ZackCodesAI]

Just now, App4that said:

No, a 7700k costs the same as a 1700. well, depending on region they trade blows. 

 

Totally agree though, if you have ANY conserns outside gaming the 1700 or waiting for the 1600x is an easy call to make. 

Well that's why I said competing value/performance ration, not better. Because obviously Intel haves that in gaming..

[DrMikeNZ]

On 3/22/2017 at 3:07 AM, PCGuy_5960 said:

Why don't we wait for benchmarks? I think that Ryzen 5 may perform a bit better than Ryzen 7...

I doubt it will be much better. The stock clocks on the R5 are the same or lower than R7. and R7 chips hit a pretty hard wall with overclocking.

As the R5 are a cut-down of the the same chip, I would not imagine their single-threaded performance to be significantly better.

Outside of synthetic benchmarks such as Cinebench, I have not seen a significant improvement to performance increasing an R7 1700 from 3.2 to 3.8 GHz, although it requires a large voltage increase and power usage.

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

Totally agree though, if you have ANY conserns outside gaming the 1700 or waiting for the 1600x is an easy call to make. 

I don't see Ryzen as an "easy call" to make. Outside of gaming I am seeing some extremely bad performance with my R7 1700 on several multi-threaded workstation applications, with performance/dollar on par with the significantly more expensive i7 6900K. It depends on your workload(s) and budget what will be best, and it certainly is not a simple decision.

[ZackCodesAI]

3 minutes ago, DrMikeNZ said:

I don't see Ryzen as an "easy call" to make. Outside of gaming I am seeing some extremely bad performance with my R7 1700 on several multi-threaded workstation applications, with performance/dollar on par with the significantly more expensive i7 6900K. It depends on your workload(s) and budget what will be best, and it certainly is not a simple decision.

What you're working with it? I wanna know more about it.

Also, I think it;s more of a software problem, which may get fixed and stabilize in future update? 

Like incompatibility?

[App4that]

4 minutes ago, Zackbare said:

What you're working with it? I wanna know more about it.

Also, I think it;s more of a software problem, which may get fixed and stabilize in future update? 

Like incompatibility?

Ryzen is two 4 core CPUs stuck together. It might improve, it might not. I wouldn't bet money on it though.