Intel vs Ryzen Build for College Dorm Room Work/Gaming

[brob]

11 hours ago, Vicente Gomez said:

Wouldn't the extra cores and threads make different programs run more efficiently? And wouldn't I be able to run more of them at the same time because of Ryzen?

No. Programs designed and coded to have multiple concurrently executing pieces (threads) will run more efficiently with more cores/threads. The important part of the previous sentence is "concurrently executing". Lots of programs use multiple threads. However, many of the threads spend most of the time sitting in idle states awaiting some event. The vast majority of programs are single or lightly threaded. Programming systems tend to do better with higher performance cores rather than more cores.

 

Not necessarily. Grossly simplified. The o/s gives an executing "task" a time-slice (usually measured in milliseconds). It the task doesn't block itself, (e.g. i/o), before the time-slice expires, the o/s blocks it. It then gives a waiting task a time-slice and the blocked task goes back in the queue. The more powerful the core, the more work can be done in a single time-slice. The more cores one has, the more time-slices a task will get in a given period. So which cpu can do more work in a given period depends heavily on the nature of the programs being run.

 

While computer science majors spend a huge amount of time sitting in front of computers most of the work they do tends to be lightly threaded. That said, one may often want to run a VM or two. In which case having more cores available will improve overall performance. 

 

Storage speed is quite important. Program and website development generally involve a fair amount of file i/o. I would suggest scrapping the outlined storage scheme and going with a 1TB ssd. I would also suggest a different cpu cooler and lower capacity psu.

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 1700X 3.4GHz 8-Core Processor  ($349.78 @ OutletPC) 
CPU Cooler: Noctua - NH-U12S SE-AM4 CPU Cooler  ($59.90 @ Amazon) 
Motherboard: MSI - B350M MORTAR ARCTIC Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard  ($98.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 Memory  ($135.88 @ OutletPC) 
Storage: Crucial - MX300 1.1TB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($277.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
Video Card: Sapphire - Radeon RX 580 8GB NITRO+ Limited Edition Video Card  ($285.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
Case: BitFenix - Prodigy M Midnight Black MicroATX Mini Tower Case  ($89.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
Power Supply: EVGA - SuperNOVA G3 550W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply  ($79.99 @ Amazon) 
Wireless Network Adapter: TP-Link - TL-WDN4800 PCI-Express x1 802.11a/b/g/n Wi-Fi Adapter  ($35.69 @ Amazon) 
Other: Windows 10 Pro ($30.00)
Total: $1444.20
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-07-04 11:46 EDT-0400

[ARikozuM]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

So unless you are saying they are splitting up tasks that are dependent on each other in don't really see your point. Also what programmer would split up dependent tasks to multiple cores when it won't speed up the process.

For something like Battlefield, giving single-threaded Fns to each core available helps with overall stability. Single-threaded Fns have to be done sequentially, for example a bullet can't be measured at the 10th meter if the 9th meter hasn't been processed (each core can calculate for a different bullet or trace). This isn't splitting a single-threaded Fn into a multi-threaded Fn. 

[Brooksie359]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

For something like Battlefield, giving single-threaded Fns to each core available helps with overall stability. Single-threaded Fns have to be done sequentially, for example a bullet can't be measured at the 10th meter if the 9th meter hasn't been processed (each core can calculate for a different bullet or trace). This isn't splitting a single-threaded Fn into a multi-threaded Fn. 

All multi-threaded workloads are like that. They have sequential tasks that can't be split up but they have enough sequential tasks that they can distribute those separate tasks onto multiple cores. That makes it a multicore workload. If all things could be split up then we would run it on a gpu and not a cpu.

[ARikozuM]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

All multi-threaded workloads are like that. They have sequential tasks that can't be split up but they have enough sequential tasks that they can distribute those separate tasks onto multiple cores. That makes it a multicore workload. If all things could be split up then we would run it on a gpu and not a cpu.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(computing)

 

Multi-threaded loads are not the same as single-threaded Fns that use multiple cores. 

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(computing)

 

Multi-threaded loads are not the same as single-threaded Fns that use multiple cores. 

Ok how about I put it in a way that you can't try and make an argument about semantics. If it can leverage more cores efficiently then it doesn't matter if it's multi-threaded or whatever else you are trying to say it isn't because at the end of the day the r7 1700 will have good performance because the program can utilize all its cores effectively. You were trying to say that the 7700k is better because single core is more important but if the task is done quicker with the 1700 because you can split up tasks to different cores then I would have to disagree. I have worked alot with cad programs and other CAE programs and the extra cores definitely helped and is one of the main reasons I got the r7 1700. I use ansys and solidworks and in those programs they are able to leverage the cores really well and I wouldn't recommend a 7700k over a 1700 for those programs. That's why I originally disagreed with you. 

[ARikozuM]

21 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

That's why I originally disagreed with you. 

I'm not saying that either choice is poorer or better since it depends on the programs themselves. Do they like faster cores above all else or do they like more cores (like how Premiere will render with all cores available, but only uses a few cores for editing). 

 

I'm asking that the OP choose which processor would be the best match for the $100 delta. If the $100 can't go to something else since everything is is well-budgeted, go 1700 or 7700. If the $100 can get something better (more storage or faster RAM), go with the 1600.