Gaming in 2017 is truly the worst

Gaming in 2017 is truly the worst.
I have to pick between a stuttering mess or a 8% lower average.

Can't you just give me a CPU which performs on par and doesn't stutter?

personally I'd pick consistent lower average over stuttering any day, but do as you wish.

>over 250 fps in OverWatch on ultra is bad performance

8% lower, but more consistent average with better support for future games.

PS4 and Xbox use 8 cores. Guess where we'll be heading

>When you eventually have a 1280 ti from nvidia in 3 years these cherry picked 480p benchmarks will matter
>When games use better API's in the future that can use more threads, the extra cores won't matter

this lets just all sell our computers now

what smoother frametime line tells us?
that CPU can't handle a GPU driver?
or that CPU can't handle part of game code?

my bet that GPU driver calls are multi threaded already it can handle driver better but gets stuck on game code a bit which will be fixed/adapted in newer games anyway
meaning it has higher longevity than 7700K which has much bigger frame time jumps and would bottleneck new GPU faster

explain to me why i'm wrong

What I'm saying is the "just wait" meme is coming from the 480p benchmark shills and they don't even realize it. It's still only 10% to 15% behind so in the worst case scenario when the 7700k is pushing 60fps an AMD build will likely be around 54-50fps. I would bet more on something that has ~155% the overall power eventually coming out ahead. It's also quite rare to only have one thing running on your PC anymore. It's all somewhat absurd right now.

ITT: Nit picking gamefags picking nits.

Fake news

The 7700k does not stutter, in fact it gets way better minimum frame rates

Literally no reason to buy Ryzen

>more consistent average
>30 fps lower 1% mins across the board in 15 different reviews

Are we talking about the same product Mr marketer?

Oh no, do I get 140 or 150 fpses in my games, this is of utmost importance! Just can't have those dips from 450 to 430fps in LoL, I might lose a game and then my friends won't deem me the best!

The faster Intel chip is also $160 cheaper

Minimum is still an average, that says nothing about stuttering, where's the frametime graph.

Yeah, but do you really need that for gaming is my point and is it really that important.

Also, I haven't checked the price of AM4 motherboards, but aren't AMD boards generally cheaper so you'd end up at similar price point

1700 is $20 cheaper not sure what you're smoking

Is the stuttering just a common problem that Intel CPUs have always had?

I get stutters on my i5-2500k that I never noticed since I have a 7970 that never dropped under 60fps minimum until recently.

Anyway I feel like the 1700 is at least worth it in gaming for its price. A 1700 system is only like $30 more than an i5-7600k one.
Smoothness and minimums are more important. So as games and Windows(uses fucking Intel compiler) optimize for Ryzen better, I think it'll show to be the better gaming processor overall.
Its biggest problem is that older games like Watch Dogs 2 and Rise of the Tomb Raider where it does especially bad, when it shouldn't, probably aren't going to get patches for it.
But Prey launches soon. I want to see benchmarks on that when they're working with Bethesda.

C'mon. Would you rather have stutter-free gameplay, absolutely crushing multithreaded performance and more bang for buck building an AMD system (where future CPUs will likely slot right in the same socket) or 8% more performance?

Some people act like it's an 80% performance gap. FFS get some perspective.

I have an i5 3570k @ 4.4 Ghz and I notice stuttering in games at times even without max load with a Fury X. Very frustrating desu.

I wasn't considering upgrading but all these reports of smoother gameplay are honestly making me consider an R5 or the lowest R7.

Yeah it's not just like subjective reports.
Tom's hardware and computerbase.de both did frametimes analysis and the Ryzen does look very smooth.

But some people are reporting dips on older games like Arma2 and shit, but I don't play those.
Some people claimed Arteezy, a dota2 streamer, was getting FPS dips down to 30fps using Ryzen but I can't see confirmation of that since his past broadcasts are only available to subscribers.
But on average I've seen that the Ryzen 7 CPUs have little to no stutters compared to the 7700k and 6900k both across the majority of games I've seen that tested on. It's just a shame their minimums aren't even higher right now.

I'm actually just considering the 1700. Even if the 1600X is clocked 7.5% higher per core, it's 2 less cores. And the 1700+mobo only costs $30 more than a 7600k+mobo+cooler. I'm not sure... I'm not in a rush though so just waiting to figure out whether a 1600X or 1700 is better for me. I think I'm definitely getting ethier of them.

The difference from the 1700 and 1800X only seems to be like 3-7% in gaming. Almost nothing. But that just makes the 1700 a better value.

In Dota 2 Linux benchmarks for Ryzen Dota 2 was doing shit. It seems to be something engine related. But knowing Valve and their tech demo state for Dota 2 I'm sure they'll patch it real quick. But also not a game I play.

But yes I'd much rather have 8% lower averages when all my games are running above 90 fps bare minimum than have stuttering like I have now.

>everything in this image

Placebo effect. CPU has no effect on frame times (unless of course you are demanding more from the CPU than it can give).

You say placebo effect but multiple frametime analysis show smoother frametimes and many reviewers have outright mentioned it.

So no, not placebo. The assumption that CPU can't have an effect on frametimes is idiotic.

>Fury X
>stuttering

I wonder what the problem could be. Surely it's the cpu.

The CPU does not handle frame timing so it makes no sense for it to affect it. However, there is the possibility for a driver conflict, so I suppose it's possible.

That's the 7700k compared to the 1800x

If you want to compare to the 1700 it's far worse.

The 1700 is $330 and the Intel 7600K is $240 and beats it.

If you have a microcenter near you, they're selling the 7700k for $319. I'm finding it even harder to justify Ryzen because the motherboards are not as cheap as AM3+ boards were either. They're already on the level of Z270 at price.

>still posting that pre-release benchmark
>the one where 5GHz OC'd 7700k loses to stock 7700k on average

I envy your persistence and hope you earn many a shekel.

>They're already on the level of Z270 at price.

That's sad. It's almost like AMD wants Ryzen to fail.

They obviously do not want it to fail, and the platform is just about on the level of features as Z270 if not achieving parity with it, so of course the board partners will charge that. AMD has no control over this. I just think it was a missed opportunity to establish more users and keep them on that platform.

Now, on Ryzen pricing, yeah, they fucking dropped the ball. 50 - 100 dollars less for each chip and they would probably be seeing a LOT more adoption. Honestly though, I think AMD did really good on these chips for where they were previously, and if they keep pushing the envelope, we'll see better competition next time. The people calling Zen a total failure are exaggerating massively.

Definitely not the GPU, as I'm not limited by VRAM and I had it with my 980 too.

B350 motherboards are as cheap as hell. Like $70-$90 for decent quality ones.

B350 allows overclocking and shit, you just won't get to 4ghz all core on one. I'm just going to get a B350 myself. The X370 are all boards meant to compete with high end Z270 boards while B350 are made to compete with the like $120-$150 Z270 boards.

Also Microcenter gives you $30 off for buying Ryzen and a motherboard together, which makes it like $85 cheaper than a 7700k for a 1700.

To be fair, they don't have much say in how the board makers set prices.
But by all means, unless you plan ludicrous overclocking, save yourself some money and get the B350 chipset.

Don't believe uninformed comments you read on Sup Forums. That poster doesn't know what they're talking about and hasn't compared the price of comparable cpu+motherboard+cooler combos.

They priced it too low actually.

If they priced it at 600+ retarded gamers would stop looking at it screaming about how it's worse than 4 core i7's in single core work loads.

Phenom II x4 955 - works well for me still after almost 7 years use. really only demanding tasks that push it hard is when i do video encoding. Also photoshop but it favors the ram more than cpu. Gaming is mostly older titles (1999-2004) so nothing really stressful. I think I'll keep my trusty Phenom II a while longer (in fact I have a spare in case this one dies)

>Also Microcenter gives you $30 off for buying Ryzen and a motherboard together, which makes it like $85 cheaper than a 7700k for a 1700.
They do that with all high end mobos and CPUs, including the 7700k. I'm coming off of 990FX right now.

>In 3 years
Most people with money to burn on a $500 CPU will upgrade within 4 years anyways tho

>Fury X
>Stuttering at max load
>it must be my 3790k because AMD are so popular lately!

OP's pic references the 1800x not 1700

>reading comprehension

R9 Fury passthrough, here.
It's a damn fine card and not a stutter for miles.

Hitching can be any number of things but it's probably a software issue or misconfiguration.

>8% lower average
We're talking 8% lower average with games at artificially low resolutions and graphics settings specifically designed to bottleneck at the CPU. These sorts of settings are necessary when you're specifically trying to benchmark a CPU, but they are not representative of typical use cases. Realistic settings are basically never going to bottleneck at the CPU, so most users are going to see literally 0% difference 100% of the time.

If you compare it to Bulldozer/Piledriver, it really was the case that the CPU was so shitty it -would- bottleneck in typical use cases. The same cannot be said for Ryzen unless you're deliberately trying to cause a CPU bottleneck.

Okay then. The 1700+mobo is *still* cheaper than the 7700k+mobo+cooler even with the instore-only discount on the 7700k which hardly anyone can get and most people spend more on gas driving there than they save.

I don't know what's so hard to understand about this for some of you. It's extremely simple math. You only have to add two numbers together on one side, then add 3 numbers together on another.

AMD did have frame stutter issues on all GCN cards for a time. But they've been fixed.

I can fill my tank from E with 93 octane gas for $35.

Why are you adding in coolers now? Most of us have one laying around. 1700 is $329, 7700K is $319 and better perf for gaming. Mobos are around the same price. And why the hell would you get a high end chip and then use the fucking stock cooler? I'd use AMD's new Wraith stock since it is pretty good, but the 1700 doesn't come with the Wraith, it comes with the Wraith Spire. Additionally, you are more likely to have to buy a new cooler (seriously, who uses fucking stock?) with Ryzen because of the new socket unless you have a noctua cooler like I do and can get free upgrade kits, or you get the ASUS Crosshair which can mount AM3+.

I also pass Microcenter on the way home from work, so I don't really use any more gas than I already was going to in the first place. Unless you're going on a fucking mecca pilgrimage, I doubt you're going to use more than $10 bucks worth of gas.

Second, I value consistency over peak. but then again, I wont be getting a 144hz monitor till at least oleds come out unless the price for 144 is damn near on part with 60 at 1440p

the issue is only present if you don't go to 1440p or 4k, and if graphics stagnate to accommodate 1440-4k adoption.

>X causes frame stuttering or has otherwise poor performance. I wont post any test to prove this though

so, tell me, how did the ryzen get to 85fps, 4 away from the best 7700 average, when ints minimum and max are so much lower?

it consistently drives a higher frame rate with lower lows, or it constantly drives a closer to 85 with very few peaks over or under.

meanwhile on the 7700 I would cap the frame rate because I honestly can't stand huge frame variance all the time, hell my current computer can get 60+ in gta5 but usually hovers around 20~ fps, so I cap the shit to 30 and be done with it, no more wildly different frame rates fucking with me.

Mobos are not around the same price. An equivalent AMD board is $30-$50 cheaper than an Intel one unless you're comparing H170 to A320.

Intel charges a big licensing premium from motherboard manufacturers for Z270 boards.

The Ryzen stock cooler is equivalent to a $30 one at worst.

You're not just pulling straws, you're bullshitting.

X370 boards were going from 100 to 175 before scalpers came in. 250ish including the Crosshair. Z270s are the same fucking range. You might be thinking X99 which has the absurd prices. Which they do but they also have more features and are not comparable. Stop being in fucking denial, faggot. I love AMD and want them to do well, (I'll probably go Ryzen for my home server since ECC support) but right now they're being beat out in price and perf.

The included cooler is NOT equivalent to a $30 cooler like the 212 EVO. The Wraith is, which is why I praise it, excellent stock cooler, but not the fucking Wraith Spire. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

Please post any evidence you have that Intel's CPU are a 'stuttering mess'. That, or I guarantee you're a shill presenting a false question designed to make Ryzen the 'obvious' answer.

You only need a B350 to do a mild overclock on the Ryzen, and mild overclocks is what they're best at anyway.
On the other hand, you can't overclock a K processor without a Z270 as minimum.

For 95%+ of people there is no reason to get a X370 over a B350.
You just get 6 USB 3.1G1 ports on the i/o instead of 2, 4 Sata ports instead of 2, and 28 PCI-E lanes instead of 26.
B350 is still enough for a GPU and 2 full speed M.2 Sata drives, which covers the use case for 95%+ of people.

The $80-$90 B350 boards are equivalent quality to the $130-$140 Z270 boards.

SHOW ME MICROSTUTTER STATISTICS OR SHUT THE FUCK UP

>evidence posted
it'll be denied won't it?

>oleds come out
Enjoy waiting 2 years

nice mine start having really bad stuttering issue after it got past 117 C°
the funniest thing is it didn't stopped he was just shutting cores off until it got below 113 and then back up again

how well does ryzen oc?

INTEL BTFO

>buying a microstutter piece of shit trash cpu

Damn Intel BTFO

It's not supposed to make sense guys. It's the "just wait" meme from the 480p benchmark crew while saying the "just wait" meme about the API's is a meme. They're conflicting statements anticipating the future while saying to not anticipate the future.

Are you blind? Ryzen was the only one to stutter hard enough to almost reach 30. You can't tell the difference between ~5ms varience (but it looks 'fuzzy' on the graph), but you sure as hell can tell when one of your frames suddenly takes ~3x longer than the previous one(!), jumping from ~10ms to almost 30ms, as with Ryzen.

>The 7700k does not stutter, in fact it gets way better minimum frame rates
how stupid are you?

I've waited like 6 years so far. Whatever.

I'm not upgrading until I can get an HDR10 3440x1400 34" that's at least 100hz (120hz freesync would be nicer) and covers at least 94% of DCI-P3. Which probably means an OLED.

Wow. Like half the average gap in frametimes.
If they can just get their frametimes down slightly lower, it'd be godly.

On a single frame per for each CPU. That's much better than the repeated stutters the 7700k is getting in other games.

That "leaked" bench was proven fake and you guys are still buying it. Sad.

mah nigga

>AMD pulls >40% IPC improvement out of their ass
>on a fucking shoestring budget
>AMD finally back to offering 90% while undercutting and actually sticking to sockets
>Intel force to pricecut

>Intel shills move goalposts

good goyim guys
monopolies are best for the consumer

here's to another ten years of stagnation once Intel takes back the market again!

assuming that graph is showing the game running at 60fps constantly, you sure as shit could tell if the frametimes are hovering at 20ms. It should be sub-16ms all the time.

When they put out a 4 core 8 thread unlocked chip for 200 bucks, I'll buy it.

You have then a very shitty rig.
Stutter, besides microstutter can arise from several bottlenecks including SSD/HDD, memory and network.

Personally on gta5 i have silk perfomance over M2 NVM with 7700K and 1080SLI 3400 mhz ddr4.

Sorry i forget, AMD cant run higher ddr4 frequencies. Its okay. At least the cores dont park idle.

You can fully OC with Z170, prices are somewhat cheaper. Im still on ASROCK K6 z170 5ghz with 1.3v damn stable.

Mine's getting pulled once my 1700X shows up. It's been a good half decade but I've waited long enough.

That source is trash. From the same source

im having a hard time not buying a 1700 desu

That is one of the reasons running 100+fps at minimum is ideal.

I grabbed an Asus B350 board and it was in stock and cheap. Nobody on Newegg knows that uATX and mATX are the same thing so nobody is buying it.

I'm a bit poor at the moment, so i'm holding out for 1600X. I'm 7 years on the stock cooler, this thing sounds like a jet taking off!

Everyone saying Ryzen is absolutely crap for gaming is overeacting. Its an average okay cpu, but if you plan to only play with it you can get absolute better performance out of 7700K, if you are prone to OC it to 5ghz.

As long as you plan to mainly game and use as a general workstation the 1700 seen to be the best price/performance ratio if you manage to OC it to at least 3.8/3.9 ghz.

>midrange and budgetrange aren't even out yet
>people are already losing their shit

Wait for Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3 and whatever alterations in pricing on both sides.

Only retards build on fucking launch.

>Phenom II x4 955
I love my 955 BE and I've used it for 7 years. Price-performance ratio was insane. I even played Witcher 3 with GTX 760. It's getting too old tho so I ordered 7600k (I'm on budget), rip 955.

As someone who was too stubborn to buy Intel the money I saved not upgrading when I wanted to over the last 6 years has paid for two motorcycles.
Of course, I stopped buying intel after that whole CPU on a card bullshit from the Pentium 3. Fuck I'm getting old.

DX12 in that game is known to have issues.

i came to this exact conclusion, the thing that is holding me back is wondering if there will be a better version in a year

>inb4 waitfag

Apparently only with AMD.

It'll be the same socket, unlike Intel's. Just upgrade then if they do.

>overclocked avg is lower than stock
>ayymd average 3-4fps lower
really cracks my 'rons

7700k at 5ghz is a gigantic housefire in dire need of delidding. There's no point in OCing it past 4.8 unless you want more e-peen points.

>DX12 in Battlefield One

Kek. GPUs aren't even able to get a higher FPS with it over DX11 in the game.

>Phenom II
Ayyyy lmao

llano architecture here. My 500$ AMD laptop ran Witcher 3 on medium settings just fine five fucking years after I bought it

Playing Darksouls 3 on it now.

When the lower end Ryzen come out and DDR4 prices settle down, I'll build a desktop and enjoy it for another five years. Then upgrade the CPU because AMD isn't run by Jews and actually has long term support for their sockets

based amd making sockets great again

>On a single frame per for each CPU. That's much better than the repeated stutters the 7700k is getting in other games.

What's worse, a stutter that's very obviously jarring and annoying every minute or so, or

You can see that test is locked at 120fps and the other one favoring AMD is locked at 144fps.

A 1080 can get that kind of static fps in some maps. Just looking at the ground which these tests probably did it's easy.

got one of the better 1200p monitors, and no reason to upgrade till contrast gets good for cheap

>Finally bought 1080p monitor
>In the year 2012+5
>Now everyone makes comparisons at 1200p, 2k, 4k, etc
>I don't give two fucks

Fuck it I'm going back to my 1280x1024

A single 25ms frametime is worse than dropping from 8ms to 20ms+(~

this

currently using a 965 oc'd. love this cpu so much, serving me well since 2009.

waiting for the 1600x, even if it will lag behind intel i wont hand a shekel to those kikes.

and you are hearing this from an Israeli.

Israeli hate diaspora Jews, don't they?

>and you are hearing this from an Israeli.
Nobody hates Jews quite like other Jews

Well, except me. I fucking hate Zionists with the fury of a thousand suns.

cant speak for all the kikes, but i personally hate the hassidic ones. they are literal parasites here in israel and across the globe.

they are reproducing at alarming rates, and grow in political power due to their numbers. leech of the rest of the population through wellfare and choke the country with their religious and cultural bullshit. they must be gassed.

The Phenom and Athlon 64 were actually good.

Ryzen is basically "Phenom IV" if "Phenom III" had existed instead of that Bulldozer mistake.