Press F to pay respect to Ryzen

[Tom Cat]

It's a sad day for Ryzen fans today.

[NinJake]

Not really. I'd say there's still a clear line of use for Ryzen vs Intel chips dependent on what your needs are for the system.

[Tom Cat]

Just now, NinJake said:

Not really. I'd say there's still a clear line of use for Ryzen vs Intel chips dependent on what your use-case is for the system.

I donno those benchmarks Linus did were quite shocking. I wasn't even expecting them to be that good!

[Kobathor]

Just now, Douglas The Duck said:

I donno those benchmarks Linus did were quite shocking. I wasn't even expecting them to be that good!

Of course the 8700k is the new gaming beast. It also costs $350 or so like every other i7. The R5 1600 still costs around $220.

[Princess Luna]

2 minutes ago, Douglas The Duck said:

I donno those benchmarks Linus did were quite shocking. I wasn't even expecting them to be that good!

Linus benchmarks are actually one of the worse, gaming wise at least...

 

 

This one here is the best one at showing the i7 8700k capacity at gaming.

[Jade]

2 minutes ago, Douglas The Duck said:

I donno those benchmarks Linus did were quite shocking. I wasn't even expecting them to be that good!

Not really? The win Ryzen had was mostly in multicore. Intel's been stronger in singlecore forever now; add more cores and you can obviously outperform them in threaded workloads, regardless of whether or not you match core count.

[MEC-777]

Ryzen is still a very compelling option for those who don't have deep pockets. The differences in gaming isn't THAT drastic. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

I read that AMD slashed prices on Ryzen recently. So AMD is still going for the "more cores for less cost" strategy. At least this time they have an architecture that isn't a mini nuclear reactor.

 

Besides that, on the reviews I did look at for Coffee Lake, it doesn't offer much more in the gaming performance department than Kaby Lake anyway.

Edited October 5, 2017 by M.Yurizaki

[Thinkfreely]

12 minutes ago, Douglas The Duck said:

It's a sad day for Ryzen fans today.

Um....its a great day for Ryzen! :D. Ryzen costs less and performs really close in a lot of benchmarks with coffee lake. I only say RIP to the r 5 1600 and 1600x, due to how great the i5 8400 is performing. But even then, I can get a cheaper mobo with Ryzen, so its all tomatoes and potatoes right now.

[Sakkura]

$255 for a Ryzen 5 1600 + B350 board still beats Intel's midrange as long as Intel is only offering the Z370 chipset.

[Tom Cat]

I'm detecting some salt from some people. Not going to call anyone out. 

[Sakkura]

Just now, Douglas The Duck said:

I'm detecting some salt from some people. Not going to call anyone out. 

He who smelt it dealt it.

[Tom Cat]

Just now, Sakkura said:

He who smelt it dealt it.

Salt has no smell my dude.

[linustouchtips]

already jumped ship with ryzen more cores intel

[Sakkura]

Just now, Douglas The Duck said:

Salt has no smell my dude.

Have you heard of smelling salts?

[Guest]

For example, if you are a ryzen 5 1600 owner who does video encoding/rendering/content creation, the new core i5 8400 does have its limitations of not having hyperthreading and is a locked processor, ryzen has more threads and is unlocked which does give it the advantage for these tasks. When it comes to gaming, in some games, the i5 8400 beats the R5 1600, vice versa. I would prefer the ryzen 5 1600 because its cheaper.

[Tom Cat]

Just now, Sakkura said:

Have you heard of smelling salts?

That's something else entirely, and people who do that don't smell it....

[Sakkura]

Just now, TheBeastPC said:

For example, if you are a ryzen 5 1600 owner who does video encoding/rendering/content creation, the new core i5 8400 does have its limitations of not having hyperthreading and is a locked processor, ryzen has more threads and is unlocked which does give it the advantage for these tasks. When it comes to gaming, in some games, the i5 8400 beats the R5 1600, vice versa.

Well, once Intel has a cheaper midrange chipset to go with it, the Core i5-8400 will be a good competitor. But right now, you have to shell out for a more expensive Z370 board and still don't get the OC benefit.

 

Not to mention you shouldn't really ever upgrade from a midrange chip to another midrange chip from the same generation; the 8400 is more sensible for replacing eg. a Core i5-6500, i5-4670K, i7-3770K, or of course any of AMD's old FX duds.

Just now, Douglas The Duck said:

That's something else entirely, and people who do that don't smell it....

You sound salty.

[Ithanul]

19 minutes ago, Jade said:

Not really? The win Ryzen had was mostly in multicore. Intel's been stronger in singlecore forever now; add more cores and you can obviously outperform them in threaded workloads, regardless of whether or not you match core count.

Agree, if an individual looking for a multi-core workhorse, I be pointing them to a Ryzen chip or if the individual is on a tight budget.  Now, if the individual wants the fastest core CPU out there to haul butt, I point them to an Intel chip.

Both AMD and Intel are putting out some nice CPUs which in turn means good things for the consumer.  Hopefully, AMD can keep up the pace.

 

At the rate this thread is going.  It is going to get locked.

[KuJoe]

Dear Intel Fanboys,

 

You're welcome.

 

Love,

Ryzen Owners

 

[WMGroomAK]

In before thread locked?

 

Not sure why Ryzen users should feel bad...  From what I've seen, Intel has not really improved the IPC of the cores, just tacked on two more cores.  I might feel a bit salty if I was a 7700k owner since that launched only 10-months ago and would feel worse if I was stupid enough to purchase a 7740k.

[mariushm]

Not really.

 

8700k is 380$ on Newegg right now, and will require a cooler that costs around 50$ to cool it, and if you want to overclock it over 5 Ghz you'd be better off with watercooling.

So overall, you're looking at around 425-450$ for the CPU+cooler.

 

Ryzen 1700x is only 300$ and coolers can be bought for as little as 25$ and since they don't overclock over 4 Ghz, water cooling won't help so there's no need

Ryzen 1700 is 295$ and includes cooler that's good enough for stock and even some overclocking.

 

The 8700k uses as much power as the 8 core Ryzens and when overclocked .. see chart on this page: https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3076-intel-i7-8700k-review-vs-ryzen-streaming-gaming-overclocking/page-3

 

95w on stock, 129w at 4.9 Ghz 1.4v (GamersNexus got a weak performing one).

In comparison Ryzen 1700 stock is 80w, 1700 overclocked to 3.9 Ghz is 131 watts. 

 

Then, you only have 16 pci-e lanes, while with Ryzen you have 24, 16 going to cards, 4 going to m.2 and 4 going to chipset.  No m.2 direct to cpu for you with that 8700k

 

And then you have the boards more expensive as well, just because of the newer chipset.  Cheapest one on Newegg is 120$ and it's basic as hell, while I can basically get a 75-90$ board based on B350 chipset from AMD with loads more features and have a good PC.

 

.. ps and the cpu will go up to 85-90c if you OC to 5 ghz... you may have to delid your cpu and use liquid metal to reduce your temperatures by around 20c, see GamersNexus video... 

 

[Salacious B Crum]

It's a sad day for intel fans wallets as your not just buying a cpu but a mobo all for marginal gain over the 7700K

[ianspy1]

f

[SeanAngelo]

haven't watched the video reviews yet but judging by the comments, i'm guessing it performs better than Ryzen? (well, duh) how much of a gap in performance is it? are we talking big or small gap?