>CPU: Ryzen 1700X
>MB: Gigabyte GA-AB350-GAMING 3
>GPU: Inno3D GTX 1070 iChill X4
>RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4, 2x8GB, 3200MHz
>PSU: EVGA SuperNOVA G2L 750W
>Cooler: CPU Noctua NH-D15 SE-AM4
>Case: SilentiumPC Aquarius X70W
>equivalent to ~1550$ with 23% tax
Did I do good Sup Forums or did I fuck up.
Also ITT: post your specs and judge others.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
pcpartpicker.com
twitter.com
should've got a 7700k instead, sorry
>AMD CPU
fpbp
You could've gotten a better CPU for the same money, but chances are you're not gonna notice the difference anyway.
This
There's just no better CPU for gaming
>Ryzen CPU for gaming
You royally fucked up idiot.
Yes it's a good workstation CPU but you bought the worst choice for gaming.
$1000 Intel CPU: 80FPS
$300 AMD CPU: 74FPS
enjoy paying $700 more for 6 frames Intelbros
unless you're doing some hardcore software rendering or similar, the ryzen cpu is overpriced and pointless for gaming.
either get a 7600k or wait 6 months for the 6 core ryzen with some hope of gaming performance being improved for ~$250
7700k costs 350$ and performs better than the 500$ ryzen you cuck lmao
ok
>6700k
>80fps
>$300
vs
>Ryzen 1800X
>$500
>60fps
>AMD
6-7fps less at the moment doesn't seem that bad since I will make use of 8 additional threads on my courses at University. Also I'm rather thinking about future when game devs learn how to utilise more threads than now when most people have 2-4 cores at best
...
>6-7fps less
see You are payin extra $200 to have 20fps less
>literally paying for worse performance
6600k is still best value for dollar, 7700k best in general for gaming.
AMD's lineup doesn't have the best single thread perf, but you should have known that even before their release.
>amd cpu
>nvidia gpu
JUST
well >how about no
Yeah, and a Nvidia 970 on top of that.
Who needs more then 3.5GB VRAM anyway? Four core CPUs are the future
>4 core
Please stop posting here. Kaby Lake was a mistake, and everyone knows it.
There's no reason to get a 1700X over a 1700 unless you're too dumb to OC yourself.
it's fine
though the intel fanboys will cry about it because they love to shitpost
>i3 7350k > i5 7600k
>1700x
>not just getting a 1700 and overclocking it
It overclocks well to 1800X levels even on air. And considering it's almost on par with the i7 7700k and actually future proof, I'd go with that.
>Ryzen for gaming
You fucked up big.
When more than a couple of games use 6/8 cores there will be much better options at also better price
If you purchase thinking about the future you're a dumbass
Kaby lake does better currently
In 3/4 years there will be all kinds of new shit and your ryzen will be a joke
this is quite possibly the worst excuse anyone can make. it's like 20% slower than a cheaper intel part and unless you're doing some hardcore software production work then anything more than a quad core i5 or even at max an i7 is perfectly fine. i do my own youtube comps for fun on a overclocked i5 from 3 years ago and it runs perfectly fine.
also they said the same about "muh devs utilizing moar coars" back in like 2011 when the fx processors came out. devs can't just make games utilize 16 threads like that. there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to threads in games for handling shit like game physics etc. 4 cores will be the sweat spot for years and years till whole new game engines and rendering technologies come out which will need the extra threads.
Whatever makes you feel better lol
>Ryzen 1800X 60,4 FPS
>i3 7350k 68,5 FPS
YOU CANT MAKE THIS SHIT UP
60$ more at best and practically better performance for multithread.
Also at 1440p gaming (pic related) your intel 7700k starts to shit itself and loses to Ryzen.
this is called a gpu bottleneck. this isn't representative of cpu performance.
>20%
More like 5% avarage. It's the 970 vs the 390 all over again.
Look how well the people who fell for the 970 meme are doing now.
>60$ more at best and practically better performance for multithread.
Since when is 500-300=60?
>Also at 1440p gaming (pic related) your intel 7700k starts to shit itself and loses to Ryzen.
And Ryzen gets beaten by an even cheaper Intel CPU
That's a GPU bound game, there's all the 91fps and 92fps benchs are literally getting the same results (We don't se mins there either)
That's the absolute worst you can do if you wanna compare CPUs lol
Ryzen is better for content creators. The 7700k is king of core clock so it's better for games.
>still using ivy bridge i5 non-k
>get the urge to upgrade
I'd love to get a Ryzen 1700 and overclock it but I'd have to get a new mainboard as well.
>Look how well the people who fell for the 970 meme are doing now.
how well are they doing? i'd assume pretty well. i watched hardware unboxed video on the 970 and that card was kicking ass 3 years later
>Look how well the people who fell for the 970 meme are doing now.
perfectly fine if they are playing at 1080p
*in 720p without AA
Noone bothers making games for more cores since most of the people have 8 at best and mostly 4 threads to utilise. If they used thread pool for performing tasks it would perfectly scale into the future. But that's a bit harder than just write everything at predetermined thread count. Also it would make bad impact for casual user with 2 core i3.
That's literally fake news
No game uses more than 2 cores and that won't change in the future. There is no reason to get anything but a good old i3.
>No game uses more than 2 cores and that won't change in the future.
both The Division and Watch Dogs 2 use all 4 cores of my i5
what? any aftermarket 970 with factory OC can match with an rx 480 with its own factory OC and is very slightly slower than the gtx 1060 with factory OC.
Why the fuck are you lying, AMDshill?
Technology does not progress. We will never use anything but two cores so it's doesn't make sense to buy a Ryzen.
i wouldn't say no game uses more than 2 cores but i would say that it is not a requirement to have anything more than 2 cores.
just look at then new kaby lake pentium which came out recently. it's like the best budget gaming cpu available today and all the reviews i watched of it (digital foundry, hardware unboxed etc) found that modern games run perfectly fine on it despite it only having 2 physical cores.
4/8 cores is a bonus but is not absolutely required. dual core is fine for all games if you're playing at 60 fps on a 60 hz monitor.
you are right about buying AMD products is nonsense
pcpartpicker.com
cpu/gpu undecided depending on benchmarks of 1400x and vega
y-you're not ppoor are yu
where's 1700?
I've heard that Ryzen can't handle slow RAM. Is this true?
Considering getting a 1700 with a 1080 next month and currently only running with 2400 DDR3
below 2500k
didnt make the list
as 970 owner, well its surprisingly good, as long as you dont try 4k
anyone with anything less than a 980 ti/1070 shouldn't be looking at 4k anyway. the 970 is a brilliant card for what it does, especially with the fact you can get an extra 15% extra performance from manually overclocking.
>anyone with anything less than a 980 ti/1070 shouldn't be looking at 4k anyway
I have a 1070, and I wouldn't even consider it sufficient for 4k. More than sufficient for 1440p, though.
If only because it's base clock is 4.2GHz. No one has does this yet, but I want to see how a 7700K downclocked to Zen clock speeds performs at 1080p.
I'd like to see how a 7700k vs 1700X performs at 3.5GHz, then 3.7GHz, then 3.9GHz, and then 4.0GHz. Want to see how performance scales, too bad no review site does this.
do all intel cores run at the max speed advertised or is that something sort of new for amd?
Should have gotten an i3 and 1050 DESU. You don't really need anything more than that for gaming.
We're talking about a clock for clock comparison. It's not an ideal performance metric, because the baseclock for Zen is considerably lower than the baseclock for the 7700k.
That said though, it would be interesting to see how performance scales for Zen vs 7700k starting at 3.5GHz up to 4.0GHz (even if the 7700k baseclock is 4.2GHz).
Especially for gaming. If the 7700k still pulls ahead in a clock for clock comparison, then it's the better buy in the long run. But if the 7700k delivers ass performance at 3.5GHz and only really shines at 4.0+, then a 1700/X chip would be a better buy in the long run. Does that make sense? The aim here is not to focus on max speed/boost clocks.