This is not a gaming CPU. This is a low-end productivity CPU

This is not a gaming CPU. This is a low-end productivity CPU.

If you bought a Ryzen 1600 for gaming, you have made a bad decision.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=GJGJ0RzPyL0
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

>implying there are alternatives

>Implying I would buy AMDpoor.

>1600
>posts a 1200
>shills for intel

Well that's good because I bought a Ryzen 1800 for gaming.

There absolutely are. Even an i5 Ivy Bridge outperforms the Ryzen in 90% of games at a significantly lower cost.

If you are buying a Ryzen for gaming, but don't plan on investing a lot of time in DX12 games like Civ 6, you are wasting your money on features you don't need.

i3 8100 is cheaper and faster in games.

I grabbed what I found with a quick google search. I say 1600 because that's what Sup Forums regularly shills to gamers who don't know any better.

>shills for intel
You mean like how you blatantly shill for AMD?

The only thing I'm a fanboy for are facts and good information, and as bad and dodgy as Intel may be as a corporation, their CPUs still offer far superior value for money for those looking to play games.

I hope for your sake you're playing a lot of Ashes of Singularity, Civ 6, and plan on doing a lot of productivity work like video encoding and such.

If you only bought it for gaming in general without anything particular in mind, you have made a really stupid decision and wasted a lot of money.

I'm pretty happy with my 1600 desu

>stating facts about a CPU's limitations
>shilling

You can be happy with it, but if you bought it solely for gaming, you've still made a poor decision.

No I didn't because the equivalent Intel was more expensive.

>i3
simple; don't play shitty, unoptimized games that only use one core of the 16 core 4.8Ghz CPU it recommends. also
you're not smooth user

Actually I do plan to play a lot of Civ 6, Total Warhammer, and similar types of games.

multi-core support for gaming is the very real reality we face.
the intel CPU's you're recommending here have higher speeds but fewer cores and are only really suitable for old games and emulators. even then on something like a Ryzen 1600 you can wind out the speed across all 12 cores to 3.8Ghz on stock cooling with little problem, and depending on your luck in the silicon lottery and cooling, head into 4.0Ghz+ territory

it may be a sub $200 cpu but you're pushing out performance encroaching on i7 territory for less than half the price

>Simple; just play other game
I sure do love buying state of the art hardware that just doesn't work a lot of the time.

What equivalent? Multicore equivalent? Hardly any games even utilize 6+ cores, let alone 12 threads.

For the umpteenth time, even an older Intel CPU like an i5 Ivy Bridge will outperform a 1600 in like 95% of games because of better IPC and clock speeds. The extra cores are worth fuck all to the majority of games.

>simple; don't play shitty, unoptimized games
>don't play 95% of available games
Yeah, ok Sup Forums. I suppose you think people should install Linux for gaming too?

>buying a cpu for gaming

>that pic
>those last 3 digits

intel aviv confirmed for G A S S E D

>actively spending more money to brute-force a poorly compiled game
lmaoing @ u rn
>no games are optimized for PC
>overclocking isn't real
lmaoing @ u rn too, I'll take the $100 I saved and put it toward a gpu or something

>multi-core support for gaming is the very real reality we face
Maybe, but guess what, the catalog is tiny right now and it's growing very slowly. Right now, there is no reason to pay extra for cores if you're just gaming. In fact, for all the AMD dicksucking there is for AMD futureproofing their socket, I highly doubt the catalog of games properly utilizing 6+ cores will be very big around 2020, which is when they're changing their socket.

6+ cores is a meme right now, and if you really want it, Coffee Lake blows it out of the water because it still retains far better single/dual core performance, which the vast majority of current and next few years games utilize the most.

So you admit that intel CPUs are stronger, otherwise they wouldn't be able to "brute force" games that Ryzen fails at.

Yes, you pay more money for better hardware, and yes I'd pay more money to play ALL THE GAMES than cheap out and be forced to go "buh buh other game hehehehe" on anonymous paper mache boards.

Hey idiot, you could've saved a lot more on an Ivy Bridge and gotten better performance!

Also, the benchmarks don't lie. Intel wins by 10-20% on every single game minus the tiny catalog of DX12 games, which are mostly strategy games.

>which are mostly strategy games right now*
hurr durr what am future proofing

So Ryzen is garbage, but maybe it wont be garbage soon™

and it just so happens that "all the games" fucking suck, hmm isn't that odd? forgive me for not wanting to play pube gee at 4k120.
>buying ivy lake
the only problem here is I'm not a fucking idiot

"not a gaming CPU" is a meaningless phrase some Intel exec came up, but if you can't lead in technology because your tick-tock clock is broken you have to lead in marketing.

what am I looking at, user? is this a training guide or smth

I know that this is inflammatory bait, and I'm a fool to come into a Sup Forums thread expecting reason, but Ryzen processors are dirt cheap, which is a major selling point. Personally, I was still on an FX series, so jumping up to DDR4 alone was worth the upgrade, and after flipping my old parts, the whole upgrade set me back about $150.

Nitpicking over processors is pretty silly, considering there's often far more to be gained from buying a better GPU or moving from a mechanical to a solid-state drive.

You might be retarded, but remember what this thread is about, it's not that long. It's about what CPU is best for gaming.

>huuur it's a good gaming CPU just games that don't run well on it are bad XXXDDD

>future proofing CPUs
>the one pc component with the longest lifespan and will generally give you 7-10 years of acceptable performance at the very least
Even if you were future proofing, a first generation Ryzen will likely bottleneck if graphically powerful games started utilizing 6+ cores, which looks several years away anyway, and then you have Ice Lake.

Sorry, but you're clearly not very good at this. You should really investigate these things before purchasing instead of listening to everything Sup Forums tells you.

Games with poor multicore support aren't very demanding to begin with, it doesn't matter if the game runs at 90 FPS instead of 100 since my monitor is 60hz.
It's no secret that console games have pathetically underpowered CPUs, so games have to cater to these unbalanced systems and rarely have any interesting simulations and scale that make use of a powerful CPU.
One of the advantages of multiple cores isn't just more FPS for games that make use of the cores but also a smoother experience overall with no chokes since your OS will always be doing something in the background.
Also, Ryzen has plenty of room for overclocking unlike Intel, right now I can just play everything on ultra but in the far future when the CPU becomes the bottleneck - which is unlikely since games are GPU-centric - I can just overclock it to the equivalent of Intel's CPU that costs double the price.

>the only problem here is I'm not a fucking idiot
>no argument
>"y-you're a fucking idiot"
The smell of bitter AMD fanboy who knows he lost is a good one.

AMD is leading from behind.

Let's get the facts straight:
The current Intel offerings are better for gaming and emulation than the current ryzen offerings. If you're pushing for higher fps at a lower resolution like 1080p with a powerful gpu like a 1070-1080 you'll achieve those frame rates better with the Intel chips e.g. i5 8400 hexacore. If you're doing emulation Intel is also better due to emulators only needing max 4 cores but very fast and highly clocked cores for that single threaded performance. Even something like a 2500 OC to 4.8ghz will outperform a ryzen 1800x at 4ghz.

If you're playing at 1440p or at 60 fps then it doesn't really make a difference in games as you won't need that extra performance from either companies cpu and at higher resolutions you'll be GPU bottlenecked anyway.

Tldr; Intel is currently better for gaming if you want to push your hardware to the extreme or emulate. This could change however with Zen+ refresh in March.

Ya can't emulate PS2 games at full speed with AMD stuff.

>I can just overclock it to the equivalent of Intel's CPU that costs double the price
Except you can't, sweety.

>not just getting an unlocked i7 and being done with it

If you're playing online games competitively, fps absolutely matters.

why is no one posting benchmarks ?

You are just shitposting now. I would still rather get a 1600x or 1700 with cheaper mobo than any intel shit right now. Their singlecore performance is enough for every game on the market, what realy matters is GPU and the money i could save from going amd would allow me to get a better gpu. And since am4 will not be obsolete as soon as intel platforms getting ryzen seems like a no bargain. More and more oems including ryzen in their prebuilds, which is a sign that even average people realize amd is VERY competitive. Also strategy games are the best, i take extra cores thank you very much.

You have to wait until some assmad AMDdrone cherrypicks some.

N-No! 12+ threads are the f-future for games! Civilization 6 uses them so i-i'm sure all modern g-games will be using them uh... very soon!

it's what minimum wage retail employees get at workshops sponsored by Intel. That's how the computer business works in brick&mortar.

This one has all the benches and info you will need:

youtube.com/watch?v=GJGJ0RzPyL0

>You have to wait until some assmad AMDdrone cherrypicks some.
would still be better than what the Intel marketeer posts

Why is every Ryzen argument always "It's good enough" when the thread is talking about optimal. Why can't you accept that at this point in time Ryzen is outclassed for gaming, even if that might not always be the case.

Because they show how shit AMD is.

it's not my fault you choose to play awful, unfinished games that require the """extra horsepower""". I bought a CPU for finished games that actually run on computers, instead of broken games being optimized for 0.25 core "monster" consoles and crudely ported over to PC.
ivy is a joke, there is no need for an argument here. it's essentially just a rebranded sandy bridge, and we all know how much of a joke sandy was, and currently is. yeah just let me plonk down $200 for a four year old CPU that's been on it's way out since it was released, but hey
>at least it's not AMD hahaha

Nothing wrong with moar coars, but not when they are Haswell tier.

>Zen and Ryzen a smashing success
>Zen+/Ryzen 2 just around the corner

Intel literally shaking right now

Yes, I'm sure 99% of the people running benchmarks are all part of the Intel marketing team. I'm sure all the differences in clock speeds and IPCs including the ones on AMD's site are all lies.

OP started talking about a 1600 and here you are trying to sell me an 8600k. That's a jew move.

Hahah. what the fuck, user. Just buy Ryzen I really need my AMD stocks to recover ASAP help I lost over $5,000 last week.

>better CPU costs more
>j-jew move!

It's okay to have bought the worse gaming CPU user, just stop pretending that it's better because you want to exclude games that run badly on it from the equation.

>ivy is a joke, there is no need for an argument here
Because you don't have one. You're an utterly worthless idiot.

>it's essentially just a rebranded sandy bridge
That beats Ryzen in clock speed, IPC and benchmarks. Again, you have no counterargument.

>Techpowerup
LMAO

If you're spending money on more cores with gaming in mind, then yes there is something wrong. That's one way of admitting you're being memed.

>Games with poor multicore support aren't very demanding to begin with
What is arma 3?

>5% diff from an i7
wow, you sure convinced me to spend 30% more

The message there is that we are talking single digit % difference between a "gaming CPU" and a "not gaming CPU" even at FullHD.
Also it tells you that gaming benchmarks are shit for judging how powerful a CPU is.

>That beats Ryzen in clock speed, IPC and benchmarks. Again, you have no counterargument.
You still have yet to post proof of this.

Pffffft hahaha

Reading this thread, OP is the most blatant shilling I've seen in a while. Belongs on Sup Forums anyway.

Arma 3 is kinda demanding to my i7-930, yeah.

Because you are talking a 5% increase in performance for double the price. Which is a complete waste when you can still reach ultra 144hz on 1080 on a 1060 6gb and high frame rates on 1440p with a 1070 or higher. 4k is completely gpu bound right now as well, and we only see a difference of like 2 to 4 frames between intel and amd at thay resolution.

Simply put, Intel is technically better, but the price to performance is bad now that Ryzen exists.

...

So Intel is a better gaming CPU. Got it.

>tfw moar cores for Blender porn

The argument has only ever been: Ryzen CPUs should not be bought for gaming.

If you want a high end productivity CPU for video encoding, 3D baking & rendering among other things, I'll be the first to tell you a Ryzen Threadripper is a far better option than an i9. Even for lower end productivity, you're better off with a Ryzen than a Coffee Lake CPU (we'll see how Ice Lake goes though).

However, if you're just buying a CPU gaming, and you don't plan on playing a lot of Civ 6, Ryzen is a bad choice. It's as simple as that.

>2005 cpu lineup for office desktops has higher clockspeed than a 2017 cpu
>literally exactly the same CPU except released in 2013 is still better
you're for sure shitposting now. just go to bed, you've got class in a couple hours

is this shitcunt ignoring price to performance on purpose?

i bought a 1600x it does fine

shits over the old i5 4690 i had but thats probably more to do with muh threads and ram thats twice as fast

Yes. He even throws around words like "optimal" without factoring in cost.

If you ignore all context, yes. But it isn't better by much and not worth it for the price.

The only thing Intel CPUs are good for is emulating.

Most people don't use their computers just for gaming.

>more expensive CPU is 4.1% faster
woah............

whoops, missed one

>AMD CEO dumped all her shares recently
>random pajeets on Sup Forums are trying to convince me that AMD is doing well
AYYY

>muh clockspeed
pls fuck off you know nothing retard.

Well when I picked my Ryzen Coffee Lake wasn't out yet and I didn't want to buy a 4 core CPU on a dead socket that needs watercooling and delidding to use it at maximum potential.

It'll probabyl work just fine until the 7nm Zen2 or Zen2+ is out. And if those suck - I can't just switch to Intel. I'm not particularly loyal to brands.

...

What about price to performance?
Yes, Intel chips are better for gaming. But they're not nearly as friendly on the wallet. For newcomers to PC gaming this is a pretty big thing. I don't understand why this is always left out of these threads, it seems like the most obvious advantage of Ryzen.

Shilling aside a 1400 is the best budget gaming CPU that will allow me to save money and buy a 1060 and literally play everything. stay mad non-poor fags

you're just going to conveniently ignore mr
>sandy bridge outperforms ryzen clock speed
over here, huh

Coffee Lake still isn't out.
If you order one now you might get one in January. Best guess I found at any retailer is January 6th.

Literally look at the Intel and AMD websites you mong. I'm not spoonfeeding you this basic information.

Still waiting on that proof.

this is true only because the i5-8400 exists. Same clock speeds, same number of core, much higher IPC.

There's no need to upgrade from my $60 4.5ghz 6 core/12 thread though even if it is 32nm

You? Yes, you keep ignoring the Ivy Bridge argument even though it outperforms Ryzen in games.

>you're just going to conveniently ignore
That's neither me, nor was I talking to him, so yeah I'll ignore a retard who has no relation to my point.

the only single-core games you should ever be worried about playing are Oblivion and Crysis; both over a decade old and run 60fps without a hitch on laptop CPUs today

>Still believing the GHz myth
Ryzen at 4Ghz is equivalent or better than Sandy Bridge at 5Ghz

And I'm just here with my i5 2500K. Works a dream.

>coffee lake still isn't out
I can order one right now and get it monday, my friend got one with a week delay when he ordered it near the end of november