Smart move?

Is this a good upgrade from a 2500k if i'm set on going the Ryzen route? No issues with this ram/mobo combo?


CPU - Ryzen 1700 Processor

MOBO - GIGABYTE: AORUS AX370-GAMING 5

RAM - Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4 3200MHz Kit (2x 8GB)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=aUk5T3AkJYE
youtu.be/TBf0lwikXyU?t=17m08s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Guess I'm clear to click order

Great, ordered!

>Vengeance
>When Flare X is coming out

>ryzen

You fucking idiot

better at everything vs 3750K and 3770K so I assume same for 2500K

I'm replacing my 2600 stock with 1700x.

I will keep parroting it but look at what happened to E platform over last 6 years in games, and that's when nobody used them for games.

is it that much of an improvement?

Should be fine. Just be prepared for some growing pains for the next couple of weeks as AMD, mobo manufacturers, and devs catch up with the new architecture.

> No issues with this ram/mobo combo?
I heard there are issues with BIOS, but that will be fixed w/BIOS updates.
> 2x 8GB
I don't get why people buy less than 16GB modules.

My 4690k is still going to be good for some years right ?

That's a sidegrade at best for >muh gaymes. No point upgrading unless you desperately need the extra cores.

if you're just a gaymer, spend that money on a 1060 6gb and an nh-d14 so you can overclock the shit out of your 2500K

you now there is 60% difference between min-avg frames?

sandy stutters like hell now days even at 4.4Ghz, not to mention power draw in ~200W range for 4c part but it's minor complaint

I'm in the same boat. My 2500kk @ 4.6Ghz just isn't cutting it anymore. I also want some of the newer motherboard features.

What's the best Ryzen motherboard for OC'ing? Asus or Gigabyte?

it's in infancy for now, nobody knows for now it's msi and gigabyte
but hard to tell who will make better BIOS in time

...

Thought as much. I'll give it a week or two, just sick of waiting.

Honestly wait until q2, when they release the 5 series most of the motherboard issues should be ironed out

not even the dude posting, but OP is talking about gaming?

what is it with this overplayed meme anyways? go jerk off over cinebench.

@OP, wait two weeks to a month for more benchmarks. As of now, no. 7700k is more powerful, though as benchmarks have shown once you have a 1080 and don't play at 1080 resolution, your processor might as well be a potato.

why no 7700k btw? or now cheaper 6700k?

>OP is talking about gaming
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I dint know why Sup Forums is usually so anti MSI, I guess it's my personal experience but I've never had issues wth them, yet they suck off Asus who've I've always had problems with

I'm all for the new architecture, 8 cores, more effiency, etc.
Not really interested in Intel anymore.

Looks similar to my choice. 1800X, Gaming K7 and 2x16 Vengeance LPX. You'll be good. Especially since Ryzen will gain some performance purely through software updates.

fuck yeah i like to infect myself with aids just so i can experience the latest in medical tech

Get the 1700. Go for the Gigabyte mobo, avoid the ASUS one like the plague. The RAM is ok.

Fuck off shill.

Ryzen has been confirmed to play games better, has far more consistent frame times. It's only going to get better with age too.

well, msi is known for making cheap shit, especially in the gpu market, hell I have an rma with my gpu with them right now, meanwhile asus on the motherboard front usually has the most bang for buck, but more recently got outdone by asrock on that end

basicly, anyone by biostar is decent if they have a name,

1. nobody games at 1080p anymore
2. 112 vs 96 fps difference is not noticeable
3. how much does intel pay you for this?

Save $100 and go with B350 board, the early oc results on even the cheapest 4 phase boards suggest that the cpu is the one that always buckles first

Anything is a good update from a 2500
Why didnt you got 2600k?

Only 100 frames per second?! I can't play shit that's that slow!!! I need 110 frames!

>1. nobody games at 1080p anymore
Except for almost everyone, then yes, nobody does. The fuck is wrong with you.

Nobody games at 1080p low settings with dual titan x and a $500 processor

there are tons of issues with ram/mobo

do not buy asus..

you either get the gigabyte or the taichi asus has some massive problems with their bios

This. And nobody turns all settings to the highest anyways. Ultra settings are a meme. Any decent GPU and CPU can run games. If you are an enthusiast and play in 4k you'll probably have a GPU bottleneck first unless you have like 2 or more high end GPU-s.

1 rupee has been added to your account.

youtube.com/watch?v=aUk5T3AkJYE

The skus out now aren't even targeting that market

>graph shows AMD BTFO by single digit percentage frames
>checks price
>holyshit Intel BTFO by double digit percentage in price

This is coming from someone who uses both brands depending on pricing and situation.

Sounds like a dump move unless you actually need Ryzen for ... something.

I am a GNU/Linux user. My current desktop setup is a AMD A8-7600 APU with a Radeon 7850 GPU. I've had it for years. Back in the day I paid about $100 for the CPU and $100 for the motherboard.

These Ryzen chips are priced at $400-500 and the motherboard. They are supposedly equal to some expensive Intel CPU that nobody's going to buy anyway.

Intel's i5-7600K is about half the price of a Ryzen chip. I'd buy that or something like that if you actually want and need a new system now. Go for the Ryzen if you actually need that many cores for something - my guess is you don't.

I'm personally waiting to see what other Ryzen based chips are coming the new few months. A 6 core 12 thread chip at $200 or something like that could peak my interest.

I just don't see the point in paying $500 for a CPU, ever. I don't care if it's better than some $1000 CPU, a $200 or just a $100 CPU is good enough.

>Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4 3200MHz Kit
>Latency: 16-18-18-36
Why do you hate your CPU?

Aim for a true latency under 9ns.

2 cents have been deposited to you e-account Pajeet

Currently running a MSI motherboard with the CPU cooler on System Fan 1 because the PWM just stopped working on the CPU fan header after about a year. The CPU cooler (or any other PWM cooler) will be stuck running at full speed.

MSI makes alright motherboards but they do have some strange issues that usually show up after some random amount of time.

Windows scheduler has a problem too, wait for the fix, than choose.
I will go for the 1700

>6 core 12 thread chip at $200

No one will ever need that many cores ever. Doesn't matter if it costs $100 or $50. Intel has the perfect price/core balance. Buy Intel, son.

>gayming motherboard
why? are you 12?

Ryzen is good. However, it's a whole new arch, Windows (10, not 7) has problems with SMT, some motherboard manufacturers have problem with memory speed and performance (gigabyte doesn't)
It's an upgrade, and your shit isn't going to catch fire or anything, but you might have to scratch your head quite a few times in the following weeks, like any adopter of early new technologies.

>112 vs 96 fps difference is not noticeable
I hate people like you so very fucking much.
While it's true, when you go over 80-90 fps, the difference of 6 fps wont be completely obvious to the eye, it's still performance.
And better performance maters when you are comparing products.
ADD TO THAT THE FACT THAT 7700k is cheaper by 200 bucks and you have to be fucking retarded to claim "but muh performance doesn't matter", when you pay more, for less.

>b-but it's decent for gaming
You act like the 7700k is ONLY good at gaming.

7700k is only good for gaymen.

4K netflix too stupid!!!!!

7700k is BEST for gaymen and it's decent at everything else.
But you act like 7700k can ONLY run videogames good and fails at everything else.

>when you pay more, for less.
Double the core isn't "less" you autist
Also the performance difference between the 1800x and 1700 isn't that big at all.

>Double the core isn't "less" you autist
IT could have 100 cores for ALL I CARE.
If the performance is WORSE, it doesn't matter how many cores, or how many GHZ or other bullshit there are.
Do you understand?
Don't be a retarded stat monkey that look at marketing and buys into hype.

>If the performance is WORSE
stopped reading right here
More core at close IPC performs better. The performance aren't worse, they're objectively better.

looks like any CPU hits 60fps so doesn't matter which one, bruh.

>The performance aren't worse, they're objectively better.
There a shit ton of threads showing that ryzen is getting beat by intels shit. If all you can do is go in denial and reject all proof then you really shouldn't be posting.

Niggers

good for 2 years at least

It doesn't really matter what you think and what other people are posting
The R7 1700 pack objectively more performance than the 7700k. It's all about whether your usage of your PC is gonna take advantage of it or not.

64mb is all you ever need.

>It doesn't really matter what you think and what other people are posting
>Proof doesn't matter, I can be in denial and believe what ever I want
You sure can buddy, now fuck off.

>I need more than 100fps
Stay in Sup Forums

at multithread level, ryzen 7 is not that bad considering they're cheap processors with 16 threads but the singlethread scores are a little underwhelming compared to midrange sky/kaby lake processors

>not even the dude posting, but OP is talking about gaming?

You're an illiterate piece of shit and you need to kill yourself. Nowhere in the OP is gaming mentioned or even alluded to.

>While it's true, when you go over 80-90 fps, the difference of 6 fps wont be completely obvious to the eye, it's still performance.

You fucking half brained piece of shit.
1 Ryzen does handle gaming, in fact it overkills it by smaller margin than Intel does right now, but more than enough.
2 Ryzen rapes Intel in every possible productive scenario, whether you're using Photoshop, Finite elements models, running simulations, whatever.
3 Ryzen will be cutting it when 4 core CPUs will become obsolete (which is soon)

Today Ryzen offers you all you need to play games, AND better performance in serious application, AND gaming in 3 years from now.
Righ now Ryzen perfectly handles gaming good enough.
In 5 years it stil is going to unlike 7700K

Its okay, I know you prefer framedrops.

Nice try

>2 Ryzen rapes Intel in every possible productive scenario

Not if it uses AVX2 - there is no way zen can compete with that.

youtu.be/TBf0lwikXyU?t=17m08s

Please open your eyes.

That's not a video game is it!!!!!!!

>This is a pasta another user who went from 2500k to a 1700x

You read the reply, right? Games that use single or or at max two threads (and games that I actually play).

Worst case scenario for cpu: 1024x768, stock clocks on both:
SHOC:
-2500k: 95fps avg, 63 min, over 800 max (looking at ceiling with low amount of shaders, non-vsync'd main menu)
-1700x: 93fps avg, 55 min, same max
--Avg and min frames are obviously cpu bottleneck

Call of Pripyat:
-2500k: 89fps avg, 55 min, same max as shoc
-1700x: 80fps avg, 52 min, same max

Lost alpha:
-2500K: 68fps avg, 38 min, same max (but not in main menu, which is vsynced in dx10 mode)
-1700x: 67fps avg, 35 min, same max

Armed Assault:
-2500k: 105fps avg, 34 min, over 300 max (no option for vsync, so if not forcibly disabling it, max being refresh rate)
-1700x: 92fps avg, 36 min (inte_rasting), same max

ARMA2
-2500k: 90fps avg, 39 min, over 300 max (vsync disabled, game version 1.62)
-1700x: 88fps avg, 39 min (hmm), same max

These are on winny 7, sp1, same hotfixes on both systems (up to October 2016 or so: don't worry, no WAN connection on these boxes).
Asus P8P67 Deluxe, 2500k@stock (3.3GHz, 'turbo' disabled), 4x4GB Crucial Ballistix Sport CL9 1600 and
Asus Prime X370-PRO, 1700x@stock (3.4GHz, turbo disabled), 2x8GB G.Skill RipJaws V CL16 3200.
Both use WD10EZEX HDD's of same vintage (produced same month, exact same partitioning).

Like I wrote, Server 2008 gives couple more frames, but nothing significant.

What does the X370 mini have that a B350 does not ?

Does expensive memory translate to better performance? Check for compatibility it's an issue right now.

Too bad no one uses AVX2 while GPUs still exist.

No fuck you man You are telling me I am stuck on 2500k


This bulldozer all over again where shit is gimped cause it is new.
>inba windows updates for ryzen
>inba engine updates for ryzen

Do some more research and learn about GPU bottlenecks and re-check the reviews.

Don't rush into buying AMD. Bulldozer burned us and it feels like buldzoer all over again.

>Keeps spamming the same image where a 6900k is within margain of error of a 7700k as some sort of end all be all for CPU performance
Do you have Downs syndrome? If the only thing you care about is video games then buy a Core i5

It also doesn't help that Intel keeps restricting AVX2 on its chips so its not worth coding for outside of very specific workloads.

quad-core is a meme

>NO! DONT LISTEN TO INTEL SHILL LOOK AT THIS CHART!!!!

OId, optimized title with really, really outdated APi and CPU optimization.
You can throw in 6950x into it and you'll get about the same benchmark clock per clock.

That that user copy paste with a truckload of salt.

Fuck your chart
It the wait for optimization for amd cpu meme again,

Why does this not happen with intel? Why is it that when amd releases a new architecture windows takes a year or two to final get it to work properly instead of gimped

Emulators use AVX2.

>1 Ryzen does handle gaming, in fact it overkills it by smaller margin than Intel does right now
>in fact it overkills it
Console peasants really need to fuck off. It's really tiring to have to explain 30 fps isn't the human perception limit, neither is 60, neither is 100, neither is 120 or 144.
But noooooo look it runs over 60 frames, I-ITS OVERKILL, How are you not satisfied with this gaming performance.
Fucking casual.

>Today Ryzen offers you all you need to play games,
> AND gaming in 3 years from now.
>A-a--aaaaand Good performance in games
You it doesn't become any more true, the more you repeat yourself.

>Righ now Ryzen perfectly handles gaming good enough.
Except it costs more, delivers less. It's only upside is the promise of "well in the future......things will be better"

>In 5 years it stil is going to unlike 7700K
I am using a CPU that is over 6 years old and its still performing decently for all of my tasks.
Back then there was also the meme of MORE CORES. I saw that 4 cores is the optimal thing and anything over that is a FUCKING MEME, because it will take a very long time for applications to catch up and utilize more cores. By that time, my cpu will be old anyway and it will be time to upgrade.

SAME shit applies here, why buy a more expensive cpu now, for the "future" that will take YEARS to arrive, rather than getting something good now, and then many years later if there is actually a need to get more cores upgrade to that when there is PROOF it gives a benefit.

But like a sucker you are sold the dream of the "future"

Dolphin? Wow.

It did happen with X99 and Sandy Bridge you retard, Intel have just rehashed the same CPU since Sandy Bridge

stick with 2500k unless you upgrade to 4K

It also happened with Nehalem. It's just this board is full of Sup Forums crossboarders.

>Why does this not happen with intel? Why is it that when amd releases a new architecture windows takes a year or two to final get it to work properly instead of gimped
a)Intel has much more resources, so they can make sure everything works right by the time of release. AMD doesn't have the same luxury.
b)It DOES happen with Intel when they actually release new architectures(albeit not quite to the same degree) instead of just doing the same architecture over and over again minor changes. Even with Sandy Bridge, the 2600k would perform worse than 2500k at the same clocks when it couldn't take advantage of the extra threads.

>either is 120 or 144.
IPS matrix doesnt perform at that refresh rate, TN matrix is shit you have to be a retard to deal with that color and viewing angle for MUH FPS.

Get real though.
The game of 2017 is Nier Automata that Ryzen will take to 120 fps at ultra, everyting else is shit unvorthy of spending time on. Well also a DLC for DS3

1. everyone plays at 1080p
2. i will buy worse product so i will cry after 3 years that i can't hit 60fps but i guess it's good because i don't gave money to greedy jews XDDDD
3. how much does amd pay you for this you fucking braindead retard?

Z E N
E
N


but really they fucked up and went overboard with lowering the power consumption

they should have built the cpus more for pure performance
nobody is mentioning that the cpus consume less power than intel's solutions lol

Zeppelin is server part first and foremost. Their consumer line is just a byproduct, and a decent one at that.

>Get real though.
>The game of 2017 is Nier Automata that Ryzen will take to 120 fps at ultra, everyting else is shit unvorthy of spending time on.

>all that matters is ONE games performance, out of THOUSANDS of games

I don't know how you overcome the shame to post something so retarded.

Actually the good question is whether or not a 1800x beats 7700K with 4 cores disabled and balls to the wall OC on other cores.

ITT Intel Edge members tell us how bad ryzen is and how amazing kaby lake is goy.

Any measure of FPS above 60 is literally irrelevant so comparing 4 year old games is just stupid as they will run fine to begin with.

You'll get it when you grow up and start valuing your time.