Which AMD Ryzen processor is the best in terms of value?

[Catacrotic21]

The processor is needed for occasional gaming and it also needs to be future proof. If there is a better option on the Intel's side please tell.

[Mister Woof]

3600 best value for gaming

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

2 minutes ago, Catacrotic21 said:

The processor is needed for occasional gaming and it also needs to be future proof.

define value & futureproof

I planned my r7 1700 to run for 8+ yrs

[Enderman]

Best value is buying used.

[Mister Woof]

10 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Best value is buying used.

Preferably a used first or second generation Ryzen chip from someone who got suckered into AMD's "upgrade path" strategy to get you to buy three CPUs from them instead of just one.

[Firewrath9]

Just now, Plutosaurus said:

Preferably a used first or second generation Ryzen chip from someone who got suckered into AMD's "upgrade path" strategy to get you to buy three CPUs from them instead of just one.

?

no, I’d rather ave an intel chip with no upgrade strategy.

/s

 

 

please let us downvote

[Mister Woof]

4 minutes ago, Firewrath9 said:

?

no, I’d rather ave an intel chip with no upgrade strategy.

/s

 

 

please let us downvote

so, you bought 3 chips. 

 

nice

 

When the selling point is, "yes, with this product, it lets you buy more products" its quite telling.

 

I'll keep cruising on my 2017 chip that still stomps on Zen 2 in gaming.

[Fasauceome]

18 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

so, you bought 3 chips

Better than buying 3 chips and 3 motherboards, which the Intel upgrade path seems to be.

 

There's no "suckering" involved with AM4, it's just better than Intel's sockets so far because it's got better CPU compatibility.

[Mister Woof]

9 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

Better than buying 3 chips and 3 motherboards, which the Intel upgrade path seems to be.

 

There's no "suckering" involved with AM4, it's just better than Intel's sockets so far because it's got better CPU compatibility.

 

Perspective - There's no need to upgrade motherboards when you don't have to upgrade the CPUs 

[Fasauceome]

1 minute ago, Plutosaurus said:

 

Perspective - There's no need to upgrade motherboards when you don't have to upgrade the CPUs 

It would be rather impressive if Intel managed to make a processor that never needs to be replaced, but so far people seem to be caught in the same upgrade cycle for AMD and Intel.

[Mister Woof]

4 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

It would be rather impressive if Intel managed to make a processor that never needs to be replaced, but so far people seem to be caught in the same upgrade cycle for AMD and Intel.

I would say generally speaking, people tend to upgrade very 5 years or more. It's telling because there are so many users here still on haswell and older and FX chips, and are only now considering upgrading.

 

Upgrade path is largely a marketing gimmick IMO, because big upgrades every 5 years makes a whole lot more sense.

 

If we presume similar upgrade cycles....then the upgrade path on AM4 is rather pointless, as by the time a Ryzen 1 user is going to upgrade, we will be beyond AM4.

 

So the fact intel needs a new mobo every 2 years vs AMD every 4 is kinda moot.

 

 

[Fasauceome]

2 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

I would say generally speaking, people tend to upgrade very 5 years or more

I'm not so sure, loads of people put themselves on a 3 or even 2 year upgrade cycle. My last client was upgrading an i5 7400, and my next is also inside a 3 year window since his first PC. If you buy a high end rig, it would last 5 years, but a mid range or entry level rig doesn't quite hold on as long, and those users are the ones upgrading a lot sooner. Since Ryzen emphasizes budget uses, there are tons of people in that shorter upgrade cycle.

[Mister Woof]

1 minute ago, fasauceome said:

I'm not so sure, loads of people put themselves on a 3 or even 2 year upgrade cycle. My last client was upgrading an i5 7400, and my next is also inside a 3 year window since his first PC. If you buy a high end rig, it would last 5 years, but a mid range or entry level rig doesn't quite hold on as long, and those users are the ones upgrading a lot sooner. Since Ryzen emphasizes budget uses, there are tons of people in that shorter upgrade cycle.

I still believe that upgrading more often at a reduced price ends up costing you more in the long run.

 

Buy a good cpu and enough RAM, try to make it last 5 years, and get one more GPu mid-cycle.

 

has worked for me for the past 10 years

 

I get really irritated when i see people slam intel so hard over this, and prop up AMD like they are jesus christ on silicon.

 

The upgrade path isn't as important or useful, especially to people who rarely upgrade anyway, as it's made out to seem.

[Firewrath9]

Just now, Plutosaurus said:

I still believe that upgrading more often at a reduced price ends up costing you more in the long run.

 

Buy a good cpu and enough RAM, try to make it last 5 years, and get one more GPu mid-cycle.

 

has worked for me for the past 10 years

 

I get really irritated when i see people slam intel so hard over this, and prop up AMD like they are jesus christ on silicon.

 

The upgrade path isn't as important or useful, especially to people who rarely upgrade anyway, as it's made out to seem.

What if smeone upgrades often? Some people upgrade not for an actual benefit, but for the fun, and for being at the “pinacle” of technology. An iphone 7 works perfectly fine, but some people neeeed a XS. Also, lets say that you do blender, and render stuff as a hobby. As you become more and more advanced, you’ll prob need a better CPU, and thus want an upgrade. Easy to go from beginner to advanced in 2 years.

 

Also your last sentence makes no sense. Heres another sentence that goes by your same logic.

 

Playing video games on a PC is useless, especially to people who don’t play games.

[Mister Woof]

2 minutes ago, Firewrath9 said:

What if smeone upgrades often? Some people upgrade not for an actual benefit, but for the fun, and for being at the “pinacle” of technology. An iphone 7 works perfectly fine, but some people neeeed a XS. Also, lets say that you do blender, and render stuff as a hobby. As you become more and more advanced, you’ll prob need a better CPU, and thus want an upgrade. Easy to go from beginner to advanced in 2 years.

 

Also your last sentence makes no sense. Heres another sentence that goes by your same logic.

 

Playing video games on a PC is useless, especially to people who don’t play games.

If you're doing professional work, you aren't using these consumer chips anyway.

 

If you upgrade for the benefit of upgrading, you're going to want the benefits of the new motherboard features anyway, so again, upgrade path on motherboard is moot.

[Firewrath9]

Just now, Plutosaurus said:

so, you bought 3 chips. 

 

nice

 

When the selling point is, "yes, with this product, it lets you buy more products" its quite telling.

 

I'll keep cruising on my 2017 chip that still stomps on Zen 2 in gaming.

“Stomps” 

2080 ti 720p +5% fps 

ABSOLUTELY REKT M8, THOSE 5 fps will mKe me ebic gamer style all sucky noob low iq enemyies

[Mister Woof]

2 minutes ago, Firewrath9 said:

“Stomps” 

2080 ti 720p +5% fps 

ABSOLUTELY REKT M8, THOSE 5 fps will mKe me ebic gamer style all sucky noob low iq enemyies

It's 5 year old technology and 2 years on the market, and still ahead. But okay.

 

But be advised, my first comment on this thread is to buy a 3600. It doesn't make sense to buy an 8700k today.

[Firewrath9]

Just now, Plutosaurus said:

If you're doing professional work, you aren't using these consumer chips anyway.

 

As a hobby god damn it. I do photography for fun, and have a couple friends who do it not professionally, but are really into it. They don’t buy 500000$ cameras, do they?

[Mister Woof]

2 minutes ago, Firewrath9 said:

As a hobby god damn it. I do photography for fun, and have a couple friends who do it not professionally, but are really into it. They don’t buy 500000$ cameras, do they?

It's your money, do what you want. Feel free to validate your purchase.

 

My point stands. Generally speaking, most users don't benefit from "upgrade path" and it just encourages them to buy shit they don't actually need.

 

Like that dude who made a thread here the other day who upgraded his 1700 and experienced no gains.

 

I can "upgrade" my 1600 on my den PC.....but it's a 1080p/60 gamer. There's absolutely no need. And by the time it's not good enough......I'll buy whatever is top dog then and drop my 8700k to the den tv spot, which is equivalent to current Ryzen 3000 performance and likely the limit of AM4. 

[Firewrath9]

Just now, Plutosaurus said:

it just encourages them to buy shit they don't actually need.

You can “upgrade” to an 9900k, do you feel a urgent necessity to do so? I from my 8400 can upgrade to 9900k, yet I don’t feel any urge whatsoever.

[Mister Woof]

2 minutes ago, Firewrath9 said:

You can “upgrade” to an 9900k, do you feel a urgent necessity to do so? I from my 8400 can upgrade to 9900k, yet I don’t feel any urge whatsoever.

Not at all. But nobody ever said that was a huge selling point for their platform.

 

Keep in mind we are talking about "upgrade path" on a component that is oftentimes as little as $80 and most often less than $150. People are blowing more than that on incremental upgrades elsewhere, or stupid shit like RGB or exotic cooling for Ryzen chips that don't actually improve overclocking potential. It's hyperbole to focus so fucking much on the importance on this single part when int he grand scheme of things, it's very minor.

[Firewrath9]

Just now, Plutosaurus said:

Not at all. But nobody ever said that was a huge selling point for their platform.

 

Keep in mind we are talking about "upgrade path" on a component that is oftentimes as little as $80 and most often less than $150. People are blowing more than that on incremental upgrades elsewhere. It's hyperbole to focus so fucking much on the importance on this single part.

Besides, no on even mentioned the word upgrade, or upgrade path, but then you began to spew after someone mentioned used. Also, idgaf about what you think, so I won’t be responding to any replies you make, I better sleep.

[Mister Woof]

Just now, Firewrath9 said:

Besides, no on even mentioned the word upgrade, or upgrade path, but then you began to spew after someone mentioned spew. Also, idgaf about what you think, so I won’t be responding to any replies you make, I better sleep.

Goodnight 

[MMKing]

59 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

I still believe that upgrading more often at a reduced price ends up costing you more in the long run.

 

Buy a good cpu and enough RAM, try to make it last 5 years, and get one more GPu mid-cycle.

 

has worked for me for the past 10 years

 

I get really irritated when i see people slam intel so hard over this, and prop up AMD like they are jesus christ on silicon.

 

The upgrade path isn't as important or useful, especially to people who rarely upgrade anyway, as it's made out to seem.

First of, what works great for YOU will not work great for everyone else. To some people, there is a desire to upgrade every other year or even more frequently than that. And it's not important as to why someone should feel the need to upgrade.

 

Second, AMD is being praised because performance is up and price is down.

1700x, 399USD 8 core / 16 thread = 3458 CB20 points = 8.66 points per dollar (Guru3D review)
3700x, 329USD 8 core / 16 thread = 4760 CB20 points = 14.46 points per dollar (Guru3D review)

3600, 199USD 6 core / 12 thread = 3604 CB20 points = 18.11 points per dollar (Techspot Review)

 

In two years and 3 months, multi-core performance of the 199USD 3600 exceeded that of the 1700x at half the price. AMD is not being praised in spite of poor value and performance. They are being praised for the opposite. If you bought a 1600 for two years ago for 219USD launch price. You could buy the 3600 today for 199USD and increase your multi-core performance by about 40-45% on the same motherboard. MSI lists A320, B350 and X370 BIOS support for the Ryzen 3000 series. I assume other manufacturers have similar offerings.

[Mister Woof]

14 minutes ago, MMKing said:

First of, what works great for YOU will not work great for everyone else. To some people, there is a desire to upgrade every other year or even more frequently than that. And it's not important as to why someone should feel the need to upgrade.

 

Second, AMD is being praised because performance is up and price is down.

1700x, 399USD 8 core / 16 thread = 3458 CB20 points = 8.66 points per dollar (Guru3D review)
3700x, 329USD 8 core / 16 thread = 4760 CB20 points = 14.46 points per dollar (Guru3D review)

3600, 199USD 6 core / 12 thread = 3604 CB20 points = 18.11 points per dollar (Techspot Review)

 

In two years and 3 months, multi-core performance of the 199USD 3600 exceeded that of the 1700x at half the price. AMD is not being praised in spite of poor value and performance. They are being praised for the opposite. If you bought a 1600 for two years ago for 219USD launch price. You could buy the 3600 today for 199USD and increase your multi-core performance by about 40-45% on the same motherboard. MSI lists A320, B350 and X370 BIOS support for the Ryzen 3000 series. I assume other manufacturers have similar offerings.

Nice, $418 for 8700k performance