If one were to build a new PC today how would they not go with an r7 1700 Ryzen?

If one were to build a new PC today how would they not go with an r7 1700 Ryzen?

You are honestly going to take +10% gaym performance of an 4c/8t CPU over the ability to load up anything you want, launch a game and still maintain the same gaym performance of an 8c/16t Ryzen CPU?

You'd rather have to shut everything you're doing down in order to enjoy the performance advantage vs the ability to not give a fuck and just load a gaym up ?

Keep in mind, every review site noted the IPC of Ryzen is much better than the gaym benches indicate which in all reality will be put it in the ballpark of 90-110% of kabylake (90% on avg) after the bugs are ironed out.

The BIOS issues need sorting first. Not going through the Z170 pain again.

>10%
wrong

I'm waiting for r3/r5, only a complete retard would buy the 1800x to game

Yeah "the bugs" I referred to that I've seen thus far from user reports include turbo not enabling properly possibly as a result of windows power management or BIOS update being needed. SMT not functioning properly. Memory overclocks disable cores which is another BIOS update issue and other various BIOS and Windos setting changes that will invariably all be easily resolved. I mean looking at the raw power of Ryzen and the value 1700 offers you'd have to be really dumb to not go AMD at this price point.

...

please learn to read before posting
r5 will be a great value build proposition tho

Honestly, if I were going to get an AMD CPU, it would only be the 1800x, reasoning behind it is that the r3 and r5 CPU's are supposed to be at the same clocks of the 1800x, so they should have around the same performance in gaming, less if the games utilize more threads, and less performance in multi-threaded applications.

>tfw i will never be retarded enough to buy the r7 1700

>Honestly, if I were going to get an AMD CPU, it would only be the 1800x, reasoning behind it is that the r3 and r5 CPU's are supposed to be at the same clocks of the 1800x, so they should have around the same performance in gaming, less if the games utilize more threads, and less performance in multi-threaded applications.
LMAO
really?? I thought they would be clocked higher

damn this is truly pathetic
7700K master race

Every review site has noted Ryzen's IPC performance is far better than the game benchmarks indicate pointing to some bugs needing fixed. This isn't a matter of debate and tge reason they're all saying the same thing is because Ryzen is a monster. Posting game benchmarks is literally pointless.

the 1600x will be the 1800x with 2 cores disabled.

Maybe more overclocking room?

Let me ask you a question as well:

Why do you care so much?

:thinking:

Depends ENTIRELY on use case. r3 or 5 will likely be the superior budget video game build compared to getting a core gimped pentium, non over clockable kabylake or more expensive 7700k

>Every review site has noted Ryzen's IPC performance is far better than the game benchmarks indicate pointing to some bugs needing fixed. This isn't a matter of debate and tge reason they're all saying the same thing is because Ryzen is a monster. Posting game benchmarks is literally pointless.
say it with me: bulldozer two point zero

>Depends ENTIRELY on use case
yeah i agree i mean i love watching 7zip and cinebench all day long, that's my main use case

Because analyzing computer hardware is one of my hobbies

bulldozer had poor ipc count, this only the polar oposite. anyone who says this outs themselves as a luddite or shill

or having 100 browser tabs open with shit streaming in the background which brings my 3570k to its knees if i launch a game. not with ryZen tho.

>Game benchmark heavily influenced by system memory

>Known bug in Ryzen affecting memory latency and speed

Ryzen is shit!

>or having 100 browser tabs open with shit streaming in the background which brings my 3570k to its knees if i launch a game. not with ryZen tho.
would be interested to see the real-world performance of ryzen with all that shit running vs the intel, my guess is that "muh streaming" would make no difference whatsoever and your "muh 100 tabs" are just taking up ram and 0% cpu time anyway

but what do you know about hardware who cares amirite muh ryzen heh

>Known bug in Ryzen affecting memory latency and speed
this, RIP

Yeah, which I couldn't understand. I personally go for whichever CPU performs better, I currently have an i7 4770k and a 4790k, if the R7 series of their CPU's is indicative of their overlclocking performance then it's going to be a bad time for AMD.
Honestly I believe that this has given Intel a push to achieve better CPU performance than what we've been given so far, but the Ryzen chips don't look that terrible, as far as the R7 series goes, in higher resolutions that I've seen, it seems to be on par if not a little below the Core i7 chips. However, depending on your upgrade scheduling, if you happen to get a new GPU that lifts the GPU bottleneck you'd be facing more of a CPU limit versus the i7's

>R5: 3.5 GHz
jesus christ, it is truly over

Lmao
I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt because it would be utterly stupid to have them clocked so low when their intel counterparts currently are clocked at 4.2Ghz and above, unless they can overclock one Gigahertz or more, but as I said if the R7 series overclocking performance is indicative of the entire Ryzen overclocking performance then AMD is going to have a bad time

Ryzen is even shit at streaming, it's shit at almost everything

No way I would buy that crap

I don't get this. Wouldn't less cores mean = higher base clocks?

their 8c parts match intel's 8c parts in overclockability

guru3d
>For the 1700X we followed a request asked in our forums, we used just the Noctua heatpipe based cooler for overclocking. We reach a stable 4.0 GHz at ALL cores. However with proper liquid cooling and a lucky 1700X we have no doubt that you will reach the 4.1~4.2 GHz range on all eight-cores. This threshold is more or less the same for 8-core Intel processors, as more cores create more heat and complexity

ars review is abnormally under performing others. they need to update it.

Well you would think, I would think that it would mean more power to clock the other cores higher, as with less cores it would generate less overall heat, so far the information about the clocks that I've researched aren't wrong. AMD if they can clock their CPU's higher they should, but I'm guessing they don't want to outshine their flagship in benchmarks, but they should be going about it the same way that Intel does in my opinion. Anyways, the 7700k is around $250 at Microcenter right now, but I have a 4790k overclocked to 4.7 on stock voltages so I'm sated for the moment.

Not necessarily. If heat was the limiting factor then maybe but that doesn't appear to be the case with Ryzen. R7 1700s clock as well as R7 1800Xs, which makes anything over the R7 1700 useless for overclockers.

browser tabs aren't doing anything to the cpu they are already loaded. You are trying to tell me you have 100 browser tabs open that are all actively computing something intensive in javascript or some plugin ?

This must be very old since the clocks are all wrong on the Ryzen 7 line.

Right now all I've heard with the 6900k CPU's are averages of around 4.3Ghz stable versus the averages of 4-4.1ghz for the 1800x, but things can change, but right now the 6900k is still ahead, albeit at a much higher price it still shows us that at the time being Intel's architecture is better at overclocking than AMD's, but I'm not one to speculate, I'm just hoping that Intel either lowers some of their prices to more reasonable margins, or AMD's chips are better than what we've seen so far.

I have 3570k @4,7, stock voltages too. I think I'll wait till december before upgrading anything

This is actually correct, it just shows the base clocks, not boosts.

In a second window open yes they are and not it doesn't take any more than three tabs + one game to make a four core part start chugging. Don't try and start sounding absurd with me, retard. People run all kinds of shit in the backround (read RUN not idle) while gayming.

This is a big enough issue that I close my browser down before loading a game each time on my cleanly overclocked to 4.2ghz 3570k

Unless you're one of those faggots who thinks "silky smooth 30fps". My monitor is 120hz btw

because intel just works while amd doesn't

there's already bugs with ram, and excuses about

>muh scheduler
>muh game devs

bulldozer-tier shilling all over again. should've waited a month and actually ironed out that shit for a strong first impression. amd retards never learn

>If one were to build a new PC today how would they not go with an r7 1700 Ryzen?
If they wanted to play games properly.

>bulldozer
opinion discarded

you mean if they didn't know how to use a pc and only loaded up a game at which point they'd have no clue the difference here

>MON user SAID THE MEANIE-WEANIE WORD MAKE HIM STOP RRRRREEEEEEEEE

>and not it doesn't take any more than three tabs + one game to make a four core part start chugging.


Bullshit I was able to do much more than that on a 3630

no I meant if they wanted their computer to perform well with games

Because i got a i5 7600k for way cheaper than Ryzen and it does better for gayms. If I had the patience I would have waited for 1600x, but that's taking way too fucking long and I don't give a fuck at this point.

yes it means you have no clue what you're posting about

i suppose you wish to carry on this baseless empty back and fourth another 20 replies since it's the only thing you know how to do

one multitwitch tab on second monitor + one game on main monitor = your intel 4c is gasping for air