Ryzen cpu for my 470

[SwaggMcSwaggySwag]

So since the amd cpu launch flew over my head and i got into gaming again after a while what cpu would go well w my 470 i feel like my i5-4460 isn't cutting it anymore and having an all amd pc would be dope.

[tp95112]

Whats your budget?

[kelvinhall05]

If you want Ryzen, get the cheapest one and overclock it. If you want Intel, either get a 7700 (non-K) or don't upgrade and save for more.

[SwaggMcSwaggySwag]

Just now, tp95112 said:

Whats your budget?

Same price range as the Rx 470 around 250 to 300 bucks 

[79wjd]

What games are you playing? An i5-4460 should be sufficient. 

[Not_Sean]

I'd hold off for a while, The Ryzen stuff is sick BUT its still earlier adopter and some teething issues with BIOS and such. your 4460 will be fine, so I'd save up long and than go ryzen just give it a bit more time

 

 

[Stevoisboss]

Just now, SwaggMcSwaggySwag said:

Same price range as the Rx 470 around 250 to 300 bucks 

You probably are going to get similar performance with that budget unless you aren't only doing gaming. I would only really see a worthwhile upgrade being an R7 1700. 

[Coaxialgamer]

R5 1600 or r7 1700, if you can stretch your budget a bit, or find one for cheap. I definitely wouldn't pay the premium for the 1600x.

[Coaxialgamer]

22 minutes ago, Not_Sean said:

I'd hold off for a while, The Ryzen stuff is sick BUT its still earlier adopter and some teething issues with BIOS and such. your 4460 will be fine, so I'd save up long and than go ryzen just give it a bit more time

 

 

Those have mostly been resolved by now. Memory speed isn't really an issue anymore, and most board manufacturers have released at least 3-4 bios updates since launch. 

[Coaxialgamer]

37 minutes ago, kelvinhall05 said:

If you want Ryzen, get the cheapest one and overclock it. If you want Intel, either get a 7700 (non-K) or don't upgrade and save for more.

The 7700 is quite a bit slower than the 7700k though ( 3.6 vs 4.2ghz). You're basically losing the single benefit of going for kaby lake (the high per core perf), and the multithreading performance will lag behind the cheaper 6 core r5's. Wouldn't recommend tbh. 

[kelvinhall05]

1 hour ago, Coaxialgamer said:

The 7700 is quite a bit slower than the 7700k though ( 3.6 vs 4.2ghz). You're basically losing the single benefit of going for kaby lake (the high per core perf), and the multithreading performance will lag behind the cheaper 6 core r5's. Wouldn't recommend tbh. 

 

I would. It's much cheaper than the 7700k, and the motherboards also tend to be cheaper (assuming you would've paired a Z170 board with the 7700k).

[79wjd]

5 minutes ago, kelvinhall05 said:

I would. It's much cheaper than the 7700k, and the motherboards also tend to be cheaper (assuming you would've paired a Z170 board with the 7700k).

He has a good point though, the reason why Kaby Lake is better at gaming (and single threaded tasks, when I say single threaded I'm referring to <=8 threads) than Ryzen is because of the higher single core performance. That single core performance comes from a mix of better IPC and higher clockspeeds. Kaby Lake IPC is about 7% ahead of Ryzen, and both a 1600 and 7700 will run at around 4ghz~. That puts a 7700 about 7% ahead of a 1600 in tasks that use <=8 threads, but still significantly behind in any tasks that can use more than 8 threads. Alternatively, a 7700k can usually overclock to 4.8ghz~, which puts a 7700k about 30% ahead of Ryzen (in single threaded tasks) -- that's the biggest reason why a 7700k makes any sense at all over Ryzen -- because of the massive single threaded performance difference, but the 7700 doesn't have that same advantage.