Ryzen or 6900k+? Which 8 core has it all?

[Feryn Builds]

So, here's a question I need answered as thoroughly as possible.
Assuming money is a non issue, which 8 core processor actually pulls ahead overall in features (to include their respective motherboard chip sets), processing power (to include gaming and video production on high bit rates), overclocking (on air and water), and theoretical longevity?

The processors I'd like to compare here are the entire Ryzen 7 line-up (1800x, 1700x, 1700) and the 6900k.

Again, assume money is a non-issue. I would like to also spark a discussion on how Ryzen might improve over time using actual data from previous new architectures that hit the market.

[Guest]

6900k is most likely better at gaming at this moment. 6900k has 4 lanes for memory, Ryzen "only 2". But... I am not sure, because I don't know much about Intel CPU's. 1x Intel I7 6900k for each mobo. There are coming some motherboards where you can add 2 (or more) Ryzen CPU's in. Because of this, I think the Ryzen has it all, when money isn't an issue. (again, I make the assumption that the 6900k can't be used in a dual CPU mobo)

[The Sloth]

5960x overclocked or 6900k, an 5960x can overclock much more than ryzen or 6900k can, IPC becomes a non-issue with a good overclock, i am personally getting a 5960x and overclock that thing to 4.5 ghz in the future. ryzen is a good platform but it needs 6 months to a year for it to reach its full potential, x99 had the same issue when it first launched with bugs and optimizations. 

[stealth80]

Prob the 6900k for money no issue. The platform is mature and also offers quad channel and more PCIE lanes. However, for me the sensible buy is a 1700, overclock it and run that. Fixes will come for Ryzen. But then you also need to consider X299 is inc ... 

[Xianto]

Best thing to do at the moment is Wait and see what Ryzen gonna show after solving software issues. Gaming is on good level and other usage like video encoding is really good (benchmarks available).

 

If you dont want to wait, and dont want to be a bit like Beta tester with Ryzen (some people have plenty of issues to even pass POST) i suggest Intel.

 

In case of additional things through platform, Intel 6XXX and 7XXX series gives basicly same like AM4, with main difference that one is AMD second is Intel, and Intel have better performance in case of Memory.

 

Personaly i have Ryzen 1700X with Asus Crosshair VI Hero. Taking away issues at beginning - i cant complain about it at all.

[Princess Luna]

I'd get the 1800x over the 6900k due to pricing any day... you can make a whole 1800x system for the price of the 6900k and have pretty much same performance...

 

If money is not an issue At All then get a 6950x even though I think by now waiting for skylake-e would be better way to go.

[Guest]

Don't forget the plans where people could get dual socket AM4 motherboards. This would/should destroy the 6900k hands down, considering money isn't an issue.

[Feryn Builds]

12 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

But then you also need to consider X299 is inc ... 

 

4 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

waiting for skylake-e would be better way to go.

Unless something changes and they release before August and I can get one and build my system before August, then x299 will be out of the picture for me. I will be taking this build with me to Korea and trying to ship computer parts to an APO in Korea seems to be neigh impossible without paying overheads (upwards of 50% the product cost)

 

Just now, Dutch-stoner said:

dual socket AM4 motherboards

Again, same issue.

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

As of right now, it all depends on your use-case. Ryzen is very, very good at certain things, and slightly behind Intel in other things such as heavy AVX loads.  Also, if quad channel memory is useful/required, the 6900k/6950x is better.  I would really not recommend getting any Ryzen CPU but the 1700.  It's simply better value for your money.  Even if it is not issue, there's no sense in just wasting money.  Also, again, even if money isn't an issue, you will not see a huge difference when actually using a 1700 vs. a 6900k (assuming overclock), so wasting money on a 6900k, unless you really need AVX or some other such load, is not a good idea.

[Gwersebe]

If we are talking about pure performance without factoring in cost go with the Intel but if cost is a factor maybe consider Ryzen.

Ps right now Ryzen has some early adopter "quirks" associated with a completely new architecture. Good Luck

[smokefest]

1 hour ago, Feryn Builds said:

So, here's a question I need answered as thoroughly as possible.
Assuming money is a non issue, which 8 core processor actually pulls ahead overall in features (to include their respective motherboard chip sets), processing power (to include gaming and video production on high bit rates), overclocking (on air and water), and theoretical longevity?

The processors I'd like to compare here are the entire Ryzen 7 line-up (1800x, 1700x, 1700) and the 6900k.

Again, assume money is a non-issue. I would like to also spark a discussion on how Ryzen might improve over time using actual data from previous new architectures that hit the market.

if you dont care about money, intel,

 

If you care about money, eaaaasily ryzen,

[t3h_g453]

Another thing to consider: x99 is basically a dead platform now with no new CPUs coming out for it (all the enthusiast Intel CPUs are going to be x299) while AMD says the AM4 platform will be supported until DDR5 and PCI-E 4 are out. Therefore, if you get x99 now and want to upgrade later you'll need a new mobo and CPU as opposed to just a new CPU for AM4