Ryzen or Kabylake

[NebbyNu]

So I'm currently running a machine with an overclocked AMD A10-7700k and an r9 290. I keep coming across slow downs in programs and a little stuttering in games and am now exploring the idea of upgrading. All I plan on swapping is the mobo, cpu, and ram. My main question is regarding the CPU. I have found similar deals on an i5 7600k/6600k and the r5 1600x/1500x. Which processor would likely fair best in a primarily gaming machine? (I also edit videos for school now and then) Would I benefit more from Ryzen's higher core count? Does one overclock better than the other? Any advice would help.

 

PS - please no fanboy comments

 

Edit: I'm trying to spend around or under $250 on the cpu if that helps any

Edit #2: Thank you everyone for your comments, I really do appreciate the help

[Crunchy Dragon]

I would take Kaby Lake, but get a 7700K if you can. If not, definitely Ryzen

[knightslugger]

edit video? moar cores. all day. every day. for that reason, Ryzen.

[TheSLSAMG]

For primarily gaming, the Kaby Lake chip would do better than a Ryzen chip. However, video editing would be a significantly better on the 1600X. If you only edit videos every now and then and you don't mind waiting on longer encode times, the i5 would be a good option. Skylake and Kaby Lake i7s have been coming down in price though, so if you can get one, go for it.

[DrMacintosh]

Ryzen would be your best bet my dude!

[BluJay614]

34 minutes ago, norrisben8 said:

So I'm currently running a machine with an overclocked AMD A10-7700k and an r9 290. I keep coming across slow downs in programs and a little stuttering in games and am now exploring the idea of upgrading. All I plan on swapping is the mobo, cpu, and ram. My main question is regarding the CPU. I have found similar deals on an i5 7600k/6600k and the r5 1600x/1500x. Which processor would likely fair best in a primarily gaming machine? (I also edit videos for school now and then) Would I benefit more from Ryzen's higher core count? Does one overclock better than the other? Any advice would help.

 

PS - please no fanboy comments

 

Edit: I'm trying to spend around or under $250 on the cpu if that helps any

Okay, for gaming, I would go Intel. However, Ryzen will have a better upgrade path due to the platform being supported for a longer period of time, and it's higher core/thread count can help with your video editing. To add on, Ryzen isn't too far behind with gaming, and tends to produce better frame times(less stutters). Personally, given all the information, I would go Ryzen in your case. If the most intensive thing you where gonna do is games, and you want all them frames, Intel is your best bet.

[Ebony Falcon]

Are you playing on a 1080p 200hz monitor  with a 1080ti? 

If not get ryzen, miles better at editing and really not that much difference in gaming, also ryzen is a lot smoother in gaming too 

[Emberstone]

3 hours ago, norrisben8 said:

I'm trying to spend around or under $250 on the cpu if that helps any

Why not just get an 8600K and be set for the next several years? They're on Amazon for $265 right now and are only second to the 8700K in gaming by a slim margin. It's a six-core CPU, so thread-heavy tasks will run fine on it.

 

3 hours ago, norrisben8 said:

Which processor would likely fair best in a primarily gaming machine?

 

2 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Ryzen would be your best bet my dude!

Ryzen is not his best bet for gaming, my dude. Take that from someone who owned a 1600X and had it overclocked to 4.0 GHz with 3066 MHz memory. He will be happier with Intel.

[knightslugger]

10 minutes ago, Emberstone said:

Ryzen is not his best bet for gaming, my dude. Take that from someone who owned a 1600X and had it overclocked to 4.0 GHz with 3066 MHz memory. He will be happier with Intel.

I'd take a slightly slower 8/16-core for video work all day over a high speed 4/8-core. And honestly it's not horrible for gaming. it's actually quite good.

 

When you find that inexpensive gaming / productivity god CPU/MB combo, let everyone know.

[xg32]

if you are primarily gaming, i7 8700 is your best value, if that's not in ur budget then r5 1600 is ok, as long as it's not 120hz gaming. the 8600k only has 6threads, and the 1700 is close enough to a 8700 in price i'd pick it for way better gaming performance. kaby lake should no longer be in consideration, unless you already have a motherboard.

[NebbyNu]

Okay so everybody here is making tons of valid points that I'm just probably gonna have to do a little more research on. Basically I've come up with a part list of what the final product is likely to be. (if not the 1600x featured in the photo then the 7600k) I'm leaning more towards AMD at this point because of the extra multitasking/productivity crap I like to do along with some not super crazy but decent spec gaming. (GTA V likely being the most demanding game I'm playing at the moment) I'm also taking meltdown into consideration which if you haven't heard of it I'll link a vid. (It kinda is swaying my final decision being totally honest here)

 

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/4/16850776/intel-meltdown-spectre-security-patch-immune-response

 

[xg32]

2 minutes ago, norrisben8 said:

 

snip

 

if you are gonna go with a ryzen build right now, consider waiting a month or 2 for zen+, also the best b350 motherboard is the asrock pro4, unless u prefer msi of course.

[Emberstone]

1 hour ago, knightslugger said:

I'd take a slightly slower 8/16-core for video work all day over a high speed 4/8-core. And honestly it's not horrible for gaming. it's actually quite good.

 

When you find that inexpensive gaming / productivity god CPU/MB combo, let everyone know.

 

4 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Ryzen would be your best bet my dude!

(Quoting since Mac repped the post.)

 

Except the 8600K isn't a 4 core. It has 6 cores. Ryzen might be adequate, but I wouldn't argue that it's "good" for gaming now that Coffee Lake exists and offers the i5-8400, which pretty much smokes the gaming value Ryzen once had. MSI has the Z370-A Pro for ~$100 if you need a cheaper motherboard as well.

 

Anyway, I know you'd be fine with lower framerates since you just said it yourself, but he said his build is primarily for gaming. The 8600K (or even the 8400 for that matter) isn't even in the same ballpark as Ryzen is when it comes to framerates in many games, but still has six cores. Unless he's doing professional rendering work, he'll live (it isn't even that much worse).

 

If he said he was primarily doing highly-threaded work, I would probably be suggesting an R7-1700. But since he said he is primarily gaming, Intel is the way to go. You guys are suggesting a chip more suited to work than gaming when he said he will be primarily gaming in his original post. He also won't have to deal with the rampant memory issues Ryzen still has. On my rig when it was still using Ryzen, the latest BIOS actually regressed my maximum stable frequency from 3066 MHz to 2933, and it changed microcode so I couldn't go back to the older version. That, personally, was the last straw for me.

 

If he's fine dealing with lower framerates than the competition and the possibility of memory issues just so his side work goes a little faster, be my guest I guess.

 

(P.S. I'm not trying to fanboy. I own a Ryzen chip and motherboard. I'm just sharing an opinion based my experiences, and honestly, if you're gaming Intel has always been better in that regard. Just throwing this out there since the OP said he doesn't want fanboy responses, and I don't want mine taken as such.)

[asand1]

10 minutes ago, Emberstone said:

 

(Quoting since Mac repped the post.)

 

Except the 8600K isn't a 4 core. It has 6 cores. .

 

5 hours ago, norrisben8 said:

 I have found similar deals on an i5 7600k/6600k and the r5 1600x/1500x.

OP didn't ask about the 8600, he asked about a 4c/8t i5.

[Princess Luna]

 

Basically if you want the best performance possible you need the i7 8700 ~ i7 8700k since it would be faster than the Ryzen 7 1700 overclocked with much better single thread performance that helps in just about every thing.

 

Since your budget doesn't allow you to get the coffee lake i7 the obvious choice is between the Ryzen 5 1600 or Ryzen 7 1700

[Emberstone]

12 minutes ago, asand1 said:

 

OP didn't ask about the 8600, he asked about a 4c/8t i5.

He said he found deals, but was looking for a CPU around $250, so I suggested a $265 CPU.

[Tom Cat]

Kaby Lake

[Ebony Falcon]

just watch this op it will be the best 20 mins u ever spend

 

and you will have your answer

 

[Zeitec]

7 hours ago, knightslugger said:

edit video? moar cores. all day. every day. for that reason, Ryzen.

If yoy want to go kaby Lake, it's the 7700k or bust. Otherwise go with the Ryzen 5 1600 if you're gaming. If you're editing try to find a Ryzen 7 1700 for cheap. 

[Stefan Payne]

9 hours ago, norrisben8 said:

My main question is regarding the CPU. I have found similar deals on an i5 7600k/6600k and the r5 1600x/1500x. Which processor would likely fair best in a primarily gaming machine?

Right now, you avoid Intel, until everything is patched and we know what is happening.

 

Recommending an Intel right now is just evil, because we just don't know everything yet, the needed BIOS patches are still on the way, so not everything is fixed about Meltdown and Spectre. Well, Meltdown is, Spectre is not.

And since AMD isn't affected, you can grab one of those, if you don't want to wait.

 

But I really wouldn't want an Intel right now, let alone recommending one!

 

[johnukguy]

4 hours ago, Emberstone said:

 

(Quoting since Mac repped the post.)

 

Except the 8600K isn't a 4 core. It has 6 cores. Ryzen might be adequate, but I wouldn't argue that it's "good" for gaming now that Coffee Lake exists and offers the i5-8400, which pretty much smokes the gaming value Ryzen once had.

Except that in fact it doesn't, given how Intel have mislead users about turbo boost/MCE and real life performance on Coffee Lake CPU's such as the I5 8400 especially. You might not be aware of this but AdoredTV's video, which explains what the situation is, is worth watching:

 

[Emberstone]

2 hours ago, johnukguy said:

Except that in fact it doesn't, given how Intel have mislead users about turbo boost/MCE and real life performance on Coffee Lake CPU's such as the I5 8400 especially. You might not be aware of this but AdoredTV's video, which explains what the situation is, is worth watching:

 

Have we had actual users confirming this? Actual users not reaching proper turbo speeds?

 

Steve at Hardware Unboxed mentioned this a while ago and wasn’t able to confirm turbo frequency variance on his own swath of boards. That said, he doesn’t have literally every Z370 board.

 

Anyway, I’m just going to stop here. The OP is repping a bunch of the AMD-centric posts, so clearly he values either his side work more than gaming, or the company, and my disdain for Ryzen after my awful experiences isn’t changing his mind (and that’s fine. I just don’t want someone to end up like me, having to buy into another platform in the same year just so they get the upgrade they wanted.)

 

All I can say is this: Ryzen ran most of my games slower than my 8-year-old i7-980X and wouldn’t run my memory at the speeds I paid for, and memory speed actually got worse with the latest BIOS on AGESA 1.0.7.1. Sure my rendering times were a lot better, but I game too, and was disappointed in the end.

 

If you’re dead-set on Ryzen despite its drawbacks (frequency, optimization, memory stability), at the very least wait for Ryzen+ in a month or two. Maybe AMD will have the IMC fixed so memory stability isn’t so volatile, and also break the 4.0 GHz barrier. That will make me feel better about recommending it.

 

(And with regard to the Intel bug that just surfaced, Hardware Unboxed just released a benchmark video with the fix applied and showed gaming and desktop workloads were unaffected.)

[Linus Tech Tits]

kabylake i7 or ryzen.

i5 perform identical or slightly worst than ryzen at min 1%

[luigi90210]

go ryzen, if you ever decide to stream down the road you can do that better with a r5 1600 than you could with an i5 7600k

not to mention AM4 is gonna be supported until 2020 so you will have many upgrade paths awaiting you 

[mr moose]

Support for  a platform means absolutely nothing if the OP isn't planning on upgrading in the next 2-3 years.  Given the average upgrade cycle is 5 years, platform support is generally  a poor reason to buy one over the other.  Simply get the best IPC for your dollar, doesn't matter which one it is.  Add up the cost of all the parts for each option and get the cheapest.