Ryzen vs intel, second pc build

[Ordinarily_Greater]

4 minutes ago, herman mcpootis said:

i'd resue the rest of the build you have now, got you a 1440p monitor for better picture quality.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Xeon E3-1231 V3 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($239.99 @ Amazon) 
Memory: Patriot - Viper 3 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory  ($49.99 @ Newegg) 
Storage: MyDigitalSSD - BP5e Slim 7 240GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($92.99 @ Amazon) 
Video Card: Gigabyte - GeForce GTX 1070 8GB Windforce OC Video Card  ($363.56 @ Amazon) 
Power Supply: Corsair - CXM 450W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply  ($29.99 @ Newegg) 
Other: Acer G247HYU smidp 23.8-inch IPS WQHD (2560 x 1440) Display (Display Port, HDMI Port & DVI Port)  ($215.88 @ Amazon) 
Total: $992.40
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-05-09 06:51 EDT-0400

Where is the Motherboard?

[ImNotThere]

4 minutes ago, herman mcpootis said:

i'd resue the rest of the build you have now, got you a 1440p monitor for better picture quality.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Xeon E3-1231 V3 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($239.99 @ Amazon) 
Memory: Patriot - Viper 3 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory  ($49.99 @ Newegg) 
Storage: MyDigitalSSD - BP5e Slim 7 240GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($92.99 @ Amazon) 
Video Card: Gigabyte - GeForce GTX 1070 8GB Windforce OC Video Card  ($363.56 @ Amazon) 
Power Supply: Corsair - CXM 450W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply  ($29.99 @ Newegg) 
Other: Acer G247HYU smidp 23.8-inch IPS WQHD (2560 x 1440) Display (Display Port, HDMI Port & DVI Port)  ($215.88 @ Amazon) 
Total: $992.40
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-05-09 06:51 EDT-0400

This is also a great idea, howeveri couldnt save the ram, right? Its 2 x 4 gb sticks 

[ImNotThere]

the xeon uses the same socket as my i3 4170 lga1150

[Herman Mcpootis]

Just now, ImNotThere said:

This is also a great idea, howeveri couldnt save the ram, right? Its 2 x 4 gb sticks 

if your motherboard has 2 slots only, you can use one of the 4gb sticks with the 8gb one for now, and try to sell the kit to get another 8gb. if it has 4 slots just slap it in and it should work.

[Herman Mcpootis]

1 minute ago, Ordinarily_Greater said:

Where is the Motherboard?

i told him to reuse the rest of his build, that includes the motherboard.

[ImNotThere]

1 minute ago, herman mcpootis said:

if your motherboard has 2 slots only, you can use one of the 4gb sticks with the 8gb one for now, and try to sell the kit to get another 8gb. if it has 4 slots just slap it in and it should work.

Oh really? It has 4 slots but i didnt think i could run with3 sticks at 16 gb?

[Herman Mcpootis]

Just now, ImNotThere said:

Oh really? It has 4 slots but i didnt think i could run with3 sticks at 16 gb?

might not run in dual channel but i highly doubt it won't work. 

[ImNotThere]

1 minute ago, herman mcpootis said:

might not run in dual channel but i highly doubt it won't work. 

Im completely a noobie at ram tbf so ill assume youre right!

[aithos]

4 hours ago, tom_w141 said:

 

I have edited the above to be more truthful, the honest truth is no one should be buying an i5 in 2017 as they are fully saturated with only 4 threads, on an aging platform with absolutely no future. New builds you should either go R5, R7 or i7. 4 threads is already close to not enough (i5s are pegged at 95-100% usage in modern titles already and therefore have no where to go in future titles). When you factor in the price difference between the i7 and R5 the way to go and remain on budget in 2017 is the R5 1600.

I'm sorry, but I disagree completely.  Unless you're doing something that is heavily threaded (gaming is not) then it makes almost no difference whether you have hyperthreading or additional cores.  It has been shown over and over again that CPU performance has barely improved at all in the past 5~ generations, and most of the gains have actually been in memory management and power efficiency as opposed to processing power.  So unless you're streaming regularly or you do a lot of media creation or virtualization you will benefit very little from having an i7 or any AMD cpu.

[Herman Mcpootis]

1 minute ago, aithos said:

I'm sorry, but I disagree completely.  Unless you're doing something that is heavily threaded (gaming is not) then it makes almost no difference whether you have hyperthreading or additional cores.  It has been shown over and over again that CPU performance has barely improved at all in the past 5~ generations, and most of the gains have actually been in memory management and power efficiency as opposed to processing power.  So unless you're streaming regularly or you do a lot of media creation or virtualization you will benefit very little from having an i7 or any AMD cpu.

 

[aithos]

2 minutes ago, herman mcpootis said:

 

Aside from the fact that that isn't a benchmark, doesn't provide any information about the test rig other than CPU/GPU, doesn't provide any setting or resolution information...  that STILL actually supports my point.  During 99% of that footage the i5-6600k overclocked matched the performance of the 6700k overclocked despite it being a HIGHER overclock.

 

So yeah, way to prove my point for me.  Thanks bud. 

 

Here's the simple facts: if gaming was heavily threaded then AMD would be better for gaming.  It's not, and they aren't.  Intel is the CPU of choice for gaming specifically because it's better for brute force processing and not multi-threaded applications.  You cannot sit here and argue that you need an i7 for gaming unless you know literally nothing about the topic. 

 

Oh, and for that matter... even the stock 6600k performed close enough that most people wouldn't even notice the difference.  Especially when you consider that most people aren't running overclocked Titan X GPUs.  The only reason it falls a little short is because the stock clock-speed is lower.

[tom_w141]

27 minutes ago, aithos said:

Aside from the fact that that isn't a benchmark, doesn't provide any information about the test rig other than CPU/GPU, doesn't provide any setting or resolution information...  that STILL actually supports my point.  During 99% of that footage the i5-6600k overclocked matched the performance of the 6700k overclocked despite it being a HIGHER overclock.

 

So yeah, way to prove my point for me.  Thanks bud. 

 

Here's the simple facts: if gaming was heavily threaded then AMD would be better for gaming.  It's not, and they aren't.  Intel is the CPU of choice for gaming specifically because it's better for brute force processing and not multi-threaded applications.  You cannot sit here and argue that you need an i7 for gaming unless you know literally nothing about the topic. 

 

Oh, and for that matter... even the stock 6600k performed close enough that most people wouldn't even notice the difference.  Especially when you consider that most people aren't running overclocked Titan X GPUs.  The only reason it falls a little short is because the stock clock-speed is lower.

Ba ba Intel sheep have you any cores? No sir no sir.

 

Seriously though you're just straight up wrong bud, that wasn't even the point I was making. The i5s 4 threads are heavily loaded in todays games (95-100%) which causes poorer minimums/frame drops. If this is the case in todays games then it further reinforces the fact that tomorrows games will be too much for its meagre 4 threads. The kaby lake i5 is a poor 1 indeed when compared to the well priced R5 (that's a straight up headshot from AMD right there, 1600 for less than a 7600k AND a decent cooler included). Intel need to either heavily slash the price of the i5 to make it more inline with its value (~$150) and/or the coffee lake i5 needs hyper threading, which is also why the coffee lake i7 is rumoured to be a 6 core, because we are reaching the point where 4c/4t can't cope.

 

EDIT: I will link a video to help you understand later (can't from this PC)

[aithos]

7 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Ba ba Intel sheep have you any cores? No sir no sir.

 

Seriously though you're just straight up wrong bud, that wasn't even the point I was making. The i5s 4 threads are heavily loaded in todays games (95-100%) which causes poorer minimums/frame drops. If this is the case in todays games then it further reinforces the fact that tomorrows games will be too much for its meagre 4 threads. The kaby lake i5 is a poor 1 indeed when compared to the well priced R5 (that's a straight up headshot from AMD right there, 1600 for less than a 7600k AND a decent cooler included). Intel need to either heavily slash the price of the i5 to make it more inline with its value (~$150) and/or the coffee lake i5 needs hyper threading, which is also why the coffee lake i7 is rumoured to be a 6 core, because we are reaching the point where 4c/4t can't cope.

 

EDIT: I will link a video to help you understand later (can't from this PC)

Are you really going to sit here and call me a sheep when you're obviously the fan-boy in the room?  How much processing is going on with the cores is irrelevant, a CPU is going to use whatever resources are available to it.  What matters is real-world performance and the point I was making is that the frame-rates displayed in every game throughout that video clearly show that there is ZERO practical impact going from the 6600k to the 6700k despite having double the number of threads.

 

It's also why if you look at gaming performance you can put a quad core vs an octo core and the quad core will win out if the clock speed is even marginally higher (which it always will be).  People have even done tests (fairly recently) pitting a DUAL core against modern CPUs and they performed more than adequately. 

 

There is a place for having more cores and more threads, and I've made builds with CPUs from both companies over the years.  However, when I make a build I buy what's best for the use of the machine... and if that use is primarily gaming: you don't NEED 8 threads.  I always put i7's in my builds because I do other things besides game, but I can also afford to build pretty much whatever I want. 

 

Don't bother with your pointless video, it's already abundantly clear you want to make this a red vs blue BS argument and not objective based on facts.

 

FACT: gaming is NOT heavily threaded and does not require more than 4 cores 1 thread/core, regardless of which color CPU you are discussing.

[tom_w141]

2 minutes ago, aithos said:

Are you really going to sit here and call me a sheep when you're obviously the fan-boy in the room?  How much processing is going on with the cores is irrelevant, a CPU is going to use whatever resources are available to it.  What matters is real-world performance and the point I was making is that the frame-rates displayed in every game throughout that video clearly show that there is ZERO practical impact going from the 6600k to the 6700k despite having double the number of threads.

 

It's also why if you look at gaming performance you can put a quad core vs an octo core and the quad core will win out if the clock speed is even marginally higher (which it always will be).  People have even done tests (fairly recently) pitting a DUAL core against modern CPUs and they performed more than adequately. 

 

There is a place for having more cores and more threads, and I've made builds with CPUs from both companies over the years.  However, when I make a build I buy what's best for the use of the machine... and if that use is primarily gaming: you don't NEED 8 threads.  I always put i7's in my builds because I do other things besides game, but I can also afford to build pretty much whatever I want. 

 

Don't bother with your pointless video, it's already abundantly clear you want to make this a red vs blue BS argument and not objective based on facts.

 

FACT: gaming is NOT heavily threaded and does not require more than 4 cores 1 thread/core, regardless of which color CPU you are discussing.

If 4c/4t is enough why do i5s drop frames? Struggle in more cpu centric games like ashes of the benchmark and bf1? Have a less smooth experience in general? Btw im no fan boy of anyone the i7 7700k is the best performer in current games there is no doubt. But the R5 beats the i5 on price performance, future usefulness (that 4c/4t processor is already capped out = no headroom for more demanding games), multitasking, running any background programs while gaming, heavier threaded (future) games, streaming, productivity applications, video editing etc etc whilst costing LESS than the 7600k and including a cooler for further value. Why do quite a few games only use 4 threads? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm maybe because Intel has been stagnating the market with its laziness ever since Sandy bridge so games devs coded for quad cores... AMD derped and had an awful few years, Intel did some dirty dealing with OEMs (look it up) to bury them even further, Intel then gained a monopoly and pretty much gave up on innovating as they had no competition with just marginal % gains year upon year spoon feeding pricey quad cores to the masses and extorting anyone on X99 that needed more cores because there was simply no other choice. AMD is back with a decent architecture and wow low and behold coffee lake will have more than 4 cores, what a coincidence...

[aithos]

33 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

If 4c/4t is enough why do i5s drop frames?

Because they have a lower clock-speed.

 

Quote

Struggle in more cpu centric games like ashes of the benchmark and bf1?

Because they have a lower clock-speed, and because people who can't afford an i-7 probably also can't afford a top-end GPU or better/more RAM, etc.

 

Quote

Have a less smooth experience in general?

See above.  The video you linked shows the i5 at stock speeds maintaining well over 60fps and staying within 10fps of the other CPUs the vast majority of the time.  Again, you can point to numbers but I would wager almost anything that in a blind test that very few people would be able to distinguish with any accuracy which was the i5, unlike with tests for stuff like high refresh rate that overwhelmingly show that people familiar with 120hz+ can pick out the better screen virtually every single time.

 

Quote

Btw im no fan boy of anyone the i7 7700k is the best performer in current games there is no doubt. But the R5 beats the i5 on price performance, future usefulness (that 4c/4t processor is already capped out = no headroom for more demanding games), multitasking, running any background programs while gaming, heavier threaded (future) games, streaming, productivity applications, video editing etc etc whilst costing LESS than the 7600k and including a cooler for further value.

If you say so.  There are a bunch of factors that go into how people should spend their money, but the things you're listing here are the same things I said would be cases where you probably wouldn't want an i5.  However, if all you're doing is gaming then it's perfectly fine... and the 7600k isn't the only option either.  And as for "including a cooler" give me a fucking break, no one uses stock coolers and AMD's is junk the same as Intel's were.

 

Quote

Why do quite a few games only use 4 threads?

First of all, most games don't even use 4 threads.  Or rather, they aren't optimized for it.  The way multi-threading works is that if the program doesn't explicitly handle the threading then the CPU "decides" how to allocate the resources, much the same way that SLI works.  In fact, you can pretty much just take everything that people apply to SLI and apply it to threads/cores when it comes to gaming.  You want the single fastest that you can afford because having more doesn't scale linearly.

 

Also, because programming is fucking hard.  It's pretty clear you have no idea how absurdly difficult game engine development is and how ridiculous it would be for gaming companies to attempt to optimize game code for multi-threading.  It isn't like some physics engine with ONE task that you can guarantee will be running on a supercomputer, not only does it need to handle all manner of different situations (referring to the engine) but it needs to be able to run on about 10 years worth of different hardware.

 

To put it bluntly: it's virtually impossible to optimize games for heavy threading.  Until the day machines are writing game code it won't happen.  Period.  It has nothing to do with Intel or some inane conspiracy to stagnate technology, it has to do with non-hardware factors.

 

Quote

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm maybe because Intel has been stagnating the market with its laziness ever since Sandy bridge so games devs coded for quad cores... AMD derped and had an awful few years, Intel did some dirty dealing with OEMs (look it up) to bury them even further, Intel then gained a monopoly and pretty much gave up on innovating as they had no competition with just marginal % gains year upon year spoon feeding pricey quad cores to the masses and extorting anyone on X99 that needed more cores because there was simply no other choice. AMD is back with a decent architecture and wow low and behold coffee lake will have more than 4 cores, what a coincidence...

This is absurd.  It's called: manufacturing limitations.  Intel has also offered 6+ core CPUs for AGES, they are typically released after the initial 4 core launch.  Oh, and AMD isn't "back" with anything, it's more of the same empty promises while falling short of all the hype.  I used to be a big fan of AMD back in the day, and my first couple custom computer builds were AMD.  I would LOVE for AMD to really push Intel in the gaming arena, but I don't see it happening.  They don't have the money to do it, plain and simple.

 

edit: and I have ZERO brand loyalty, I have built PCs with components from nearly every major company/brand.  I will buy what is the best for my use, period.  I will give the nod to a company I like IF the performance and price are close enough to make no practical difference, but I will not blindly throw away money or performance for a brand name.

[tom_w141]

2 hours ago, aithos said:

Because they have a lower clock-speed.

 

Because they have a lower clock-speed, and because people who can't afford an i-7 probably also can't afford a top-end GPU or better/more RAM, etc.

 

See above.  The video you linked shows the i5 at stock speeds maintaining well over 60fps and staying within 10fps of the other CPUs the vast majority of the time.  Again, you can point to numbers but I would wager almost anything that in a blind test that very few people would be able to distinguish with any accuracy which was the i5, unlike with tests for stuff like high refresh rate that overwhelmingly show that people familiar with 120hz+ can pick out the better screen virtually every single time.

 

If you say so.  There are a bunch of factors that go into how people should spend their money, but the things you're listing here are the same things I said would be cases where you probably wouldn't want an i5.  However, if all you're doing is gaming then it's perfectly fine... and the 7600k isn't the only option either.  And as for "including a cooler" give me a fucking break, no one uses stock coolers and AMD's is junk the same as Intel's were.

 

First of all, most games don't even use 4 threads.  Or rather, they aren't optimized for it.  The way multi-threading works is that if the program doesn't explicitly handle the threading then the CPU "decides" how to allocate the resources, much the same way that SLI works.  In fact, you can pretty much just take everything that people apply to SLI and apply it to threads/cores when it comes to gaming.  You want the single fastest that you can afford because having more doesn't scale linearly.

 

Also, because programming is fucking hard.  It's pretty clear you have no idea how absurdly difficult game engine development is and how ridiculous it would be for gaming companies to attempt to optimize game code for multi-threading.  It isn't like some physics engine with ONE task that you can guarantee will be running on a supercomputer, not only does it need to handle all manner of different situations (referring to the engine) but it needs to be able to run on about 10 years worth of different hardware.

 

To put it bluntly: it's virtually impossible to optimize games for heavy threading.  Until the day machines are writing game code it won't happen.  Period.  It has nothing to do with Intel or some inane conspiracy to stagnate technology, it has to do with non-hardware factors.

 

This is absurd.  It's called: manufacturing limitations.  Intel has also offered 6+ core CPUs for AGES, they are typically released after the initial 4 core launch.  Oh, and AMD isn't "back" with anything, it's more of the same empty promises while falling short of all the hype.  I used to be a big fan of AMD back in the day, and my first couple custom computer builds were AMD.  I would LOVE for AMD to really push Intel in the gaming arena, but I don't see it happening.  They don't have the money to do it, plain and simple.

 

edit: and I have ZERO brand loyalty, I have built PCs with components from nearly every major company/brand.  I will buy what is the best for my use, period.  I will give the nod to a company I like IF the performance and price are close enough to make no practical difference, but I will not blindly throw away money or performance for a brand name.

Um... What video? I haven't linked any...

 

No one uses stock coolers because they are traditionally poor but the wraith spire is a really good stock cooler and capable of mild overclocks with ease (thats why its mention able and its what makes it quite clear you haven't used one).

 

Games that already do off the top of my head? Metro last light, Doom, BF4/1, Assassins Creed, Civ 6 and Ashes of the Singularity to name but a few.

 

Manufacturing limitations bless you  Intel had so little competition that they scrapped their tick tock development cycle. Yes they had 4+ core cpus but not on the mainstream. A 6 core X99 would require an expensive motherboard and a £400+ cpu, ONE THOUSAND for an 8 core and so on. This is clearly milking the consumer as there was zero alternative. Now Ryzen comes around and suddenly their mainstream line is going to have a 6 core? You telling me thats a coincidence??

 

Also have zero brand loyalty, in my home their are 2 intel skylake systems 6600k/6700k, an R7 1700 system, 2 nvidia gpus and an AMD gpu. All 3 paid for and build by myself. R5 > i5 simple as sorry.

[aithos]

49 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Um... What video? I haven't linked any...

You're right, it was the other poster who linked the video that actually supported my argument as proof I was wrong.  My bad.

 

49 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

No one uses stock coolers because they are traditionally poor but the wraith spire is a really good stock cooler and capable of mild overclocks with ease (thats why its mention able and its what makes it quite clear you haven't used one).

Even if it's "decent" I don't consider it a "pro" when a very good air CPU cooler costs $20 and a top of the line one is $50.  That just isn't a significant cost compared to even a modest budget for a gaming machine.  I mean if you're building an extreme budget build for $600... then yeah maybe it gives a tiny amount of value, but in that price range you're already making extreme compromises so what are you actually gaining when there is no way you're actually going to be able to overclock. 

 

And no, I haven't used one... why would I?  My last couple builds have had top of the line air coolers and my upcoming build (awaiting my 1080ti FTW3) is going to be a modest custom water loop (CPU only) with the intent of doing a hardline full loop (with GPU) after I move into my new house next month and get settled.  Even if it was a better than average cooler I'd never use it because I don't ever compromise on power or cooling when it comes to my builds.

 

 

49 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Games that already do off the top of my head? Metro last light, Doom, BF4/1, Assassins Creed, Civ 6 and Ashes of the Singularity to name but a few.

Just because some engines perform better isn't proof of anything, in fact what sets those apart is actually the opposite of what you're implying.  Those aren't MORE optimized for multi-threading... they are POORLY written engines that bog down with average performance and so tax the CPU a lot harder than they really should.  The point isn't that more cores/threads is bad, it is never bad as long as you aren't sacrificing clock-speed to get them. 

 

The point is that adding cores/threads almost never makes a practical difference in games assuming the rest of your system is reasonable.  CPU bound games are extremely uncommon, particularly at 1080p (and remember that I'm talking about playability, not benchmarking where frequently 1080p is CPU bound due to extreme framerates). 

 

You also need to remember that as you go up in resolution that taxes both the CPU and GPU a LOT harder, so if you're looking at 1440p or 4K gaming then obviously having more than 4 cores/threads is going to be a benefit.  But I would suggest that someone gaming in 1440p (if they have an actual gaming monitor that is 120hz+) isn't running or considering an i5 in the first place, so that falls into the same category as someone doing virtualization, or media creation or streaming...

 

49 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

 

Manufacturing limitations bless you  Intel had so little competition that they scrapped their tick tock development cycle. Yes they had 4+ core cpus but not on the mainstream. A 6 core X99 would require an expensive motherboard and a £400+ cpu, ONE THOUSAND for an 8 core and so on. This is clearly milking the consumer as there was zero alternative. Now Ryzen comes around and suddenly their mainstream line is going to have a 6 core? You telling me thats a coincidence??

I don't disagree that the lack of competition influenced the situation, but I disagree entirely that they would intentionally sit back on their haunches and do nothing.  That would be extremely stupid from a business perspective because people like me would never upgrade if there was no real performance difference and I'm Intel's target enthusiast (gamer, software developer who dabbles in media creation and builds PCs for friends/family). 

 

Also, don't sit here and pretend that the upper end of AMDs lineup isn't also very expensive.  Is the recent hike from $1k to $1800 for the "extreme" from Intel excessive?  Absolutely, that's just as absurd as a $1200 video card or a $2000 monitor.  Ryzen for the higher end skus is a good value by that measure, but compared to the i7-7700k it gets CREAMED in performance/dollar even when you consider heavily threaded applications.  There are pros/cons of both sides, as I've said a few times now.

 

And yeah, I am saying that's a coincidence.  It was inevitable within the next generation or two that Intel would drop the Dual Core holdover and move to a 4/6 core lineup eventually.  I would suggest that within a couple more generations it will be heavily 6 core and 4 will be the less common number.  Since they can't brute force higher CPU speeds due to voltage/heat limitations with the technology the only way for them to make meaningful gains without quantum computing is through more cores/threads.  I could have told you that 5 years ago, none of this shit is the least bit surprising and I think it's funny people want to pretend that Ryzen has anything to do with the cycles that are planned out years in advance.  I'm sorry, but no.

 

49 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

 

Also have zero brand loyalty, in my home their are 2 intel skylake systems 6600k/6700k, an R7 1700 system, 2 nvidia gpus and an AMD gpu. All 3 paid for and build by myself. R5 > i5 simple as sorry.

Again, I don't agree.  I said before that it depends on what you're doing and what the budget is and I stand by that, and like I said: there are cases when AMD makes more sense but it isn't as simple as R5 vs i5.

[Ordinarily_Greater]

5 hours ago, tom_w141 said:

If 4c/4t is enough why do i5s drop frames? Struggle in more cpu centric games like ashes of the benchmark and bf1? Have a less smooth experience in general? Btw im no fan boy of anyone the i7 7700k is the best performer in current games there is no doubt. But the R5 beats the i5 on price performance, future usefulness (that 4c/4t processor is already capped out = no headroom for more demanding games), multitasking, running any background programs while gaming, heavier threaded (future) games, streaming, productivity applications, video editing etc etc whilst costing LESS than the 7600k and including a cooler for further value. Why do quite a few games only use 4 threads? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm maybe because Intel has been stagnating the market with its laziness ever since Sandy bridge so games devs coded for quad cores... AMD derped and had an awful few years, Intel did some dirty dealing with OEMs (look it up) to bury them even further, Intel then gained a monopoly and pretty much gave up on innovating as they had no competition with just marginal % gains year upon year spoon feeding pricey quad cores to the masses and extorting anyone on X99 that needed more cores because there was simply no other choice. AMD is back with a decent architecture and wow low and behold coffee lake will have more than 4 cores, what a coincidence...

And all of Ryzen chips are overclockable! If i pay only just for Intel just get a NUC, right?