ROG Strix series GPU-s are incredibly overpriced. I'm sure you'd have been able to get a 2060 for that price.
The Mobo does not support OC-ing (cpu-s with "k" designation), neither those RAM speeds.
I think you should have gone with 2060, a Z-series motherboard, a slightly cheaper ram (there is really not that much advantage of 3400 compared to 3000, whereas the latter is much more cheaper..) And you could have probably saved afew bucks on the cpu.
Have you actually bought them? If not, try to cancel the order. And order a different pack.
Vega cores? Nothing in this post has anything Vega.
Do you need an upgrade right now? If not, I would wait a couple more months for Zen 2 to be released. But if you need an upgrade today, I would get the 2600 over the 1700 because of the small single core performance boost and the better memory controller. Which means better compatibility with more ram.
And if you get the 2600, make sure to update your motherboard's bios if it is a B350/X370 board.
I own both cpus and I can say that most of what you have been reading online is false. Stability has been about the same in my experience with crashes being pretty rare on both systems. The 8700k puts out more heat but then again it is also overclocked. Intel and AMD cpus have always lasted a long time even when AMD performance was lacking so whoever said otherwise is full of it. Obviously if you feed a cpu unsafe voltage or do something stupid a cpu can die but from normal use it shouldn't happen. If you aren't starting school until fall and you can wait till the 3000 series comes out i would recommend you wait as it should have more cores and better power efficiency which should be good for your workloads. Also they are significantly increasing avx performance.
At the time, maybe.
But right now we have that Information.
So its not even optimized or so. They only use DDR4-2666 on both Plattforms. Not a Problem on Intel, they don't loose much. But the AMD Chips we have right now do.
They did say that it wasn't the top product. And that they only used an 8 core at the time.
Though Lisa mentioned that there may be more than 8 Cores. You have to listen again...
And you ever thought about that AMd doesn't want to show too muh? Just enough to keep people excited but not rattle the competition so that when they actually release it the other ones don't have a better product??
So yeah, it is a mid range product according to the leaks that were leaked a couple of weeks ago...
Yeah, it ain't Intel, so people aren't exited ?
Only if the big ones do that, people get exited. But AMD?
Even if it is 7nm
even if they have shown 30-40% lower power consumption.
Even if they tested with "low spec" memory.
Even if they tested with a single CPU Die Chip (that might or might not exist).
Yeah, absolutely no reason to be exited. They "only" beat a 125W CPU with 75WQ Power Consumption -> https://www.anandtech.com/show/13829/amd-ryzen-3rd-generation-zen-2-pcie-4-eight-core
Who cares if they are the first to introduce PCIe 4.0 to the public.
Who cares if they have 7nm when the other has not
Who cares if they have the more advanced chip and possibly double the Core Count than 9900K in a normal Standard Desktop Enviroment.
And that with a chip that's said to be relased in around 6 Months or so.
Sorry dude, but that really IS exiting!
I don't get why you don't want to see it.
That they beaten Intel with a pro INtel Benchmark, with low spec memory with an early silicone that might get another revision or two and one or two other optimizations...
No, according to the Leaks they were announced or mentioned...
Watch the Video:
Yes, because they didn't fuck up the initial release of the CPU (like Bulldozer with the ancient K10 Northbridge that crippled the CPU Core. With a good Northbridge it would be better. Thus its best to compare Bulldozer at 2GHz, maybe 2,5GHz with the Rest at similar clockspeeds)...
And with the Chips they had right now they had also some "performance issues" and knew what the Problem was and how to improve it.
Mainly it was memory latency...
And also inter core Communication.
And also a bit bigger caches woudln't be a too bad idea either.
L2 Cache was a big Problem for AMD for years. Even in the olden days, the Cache was what crippled the performance of AMD Chips a bit (more)...
Yeah, because there is all the reason to be exited about Ryzen 3000 series.
Because its the first sub 14/12nm Consumer Product.
Because its the first product with PCIe 4.0 (CPU at least)
Because it was able to beat the Intel Chip with early silicone
Because its still around 5-7 Months away and it already performs amazing.
Because it has way lower power consumption than the 9900K. See the Link from Anandtech above. He speculates that the Ryzen 3000 Chip only consumed 75W while Intel did 125W according to his estimates.
Totally not something to be exited about ?
So its still possible that they might optimize timings and memory latency further. That's the biggest Problem Ryzen has.
I don't know if you know but AMD was the first one to integrate the Memory Controler into the CPU.
And now they are the first ones to throw them out again.
But the "I/O Die" isn't just a Memory Controller or PCIe interface like it is the Case with Intel. its the whole Chipset!
There's S-ATA inside, IIRC also HD Audio (though not sure, might be in the other chip), but USB is inside as well as PCIe and all the shit you need to make a working computer.
So in theory it doesn't even matter if the Chipset dies...
This isn't a halo CPU as it has just one chiplet. And I think you need to consider the difference in size between Intel and AMD here. Intel can crap out a monster CPU over night if they wanted to, just smack a billion dollars at the wall. AMD can't do that, so the effort is impressive regardless.