Do I pull the trigger or wait for intel's next move?

Do I pull the trigger or wait for intel's next move?
Upgrading from an 8350

Other urls found in this thread:

techreport.com/review/31366/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-ryzen-7-1700x-and-ryzen-7-1700-cpus-reviewed
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

R7-1700 unless you're an idiot.

but I want to play games

Obvious anti ryzen intell shill thread.

Prove to me that this particular CPU finds it impossible to play games.

Please show me this processor being unable to launch a game.

Unless you want to run at hundreds of FPS at 1080p in ancient DX 11 games, you'll be fine.

...

Don't wait for anything, it's dumb

Definitely get it

Also do not get Ryzen if you play games, it's horrible at games

Ryzen is literally twice as much for worse performance in games, a horrible deal

I don't see the 6900X on there, which is the R7's main competitor. I also see that an i3-7350K is a better value than all of Intel's other CPUs. This chart is a load of horseshit.

Uhh those numbers are straight from the PC gamer review, it's 100% correct

The Intel shills are in full force here lol
If we're talking about gaming value, why shouldn't OP just get an i3 and forget about the i7?

>$170 i3 is the best value

This is the dumbest appeal to authority I have ever read in my entire life. Also, the chart is missing what resolution, settings and what games were run at.

Thanks for the price drops Ryzen

>boxposting
>>>/reddit/ is that way

/thread.
Stock cooler is pretty damn good.
Why i7 7700k for $339 and a $150 mobo + $30 CPU cooler if I could get an 8 core r7 1700 for $299 + stock/aftermarket cooler level and a $100 mobo.
More cores for $100 bucks less is a pretty good deal

BUT MUH GAYMEN PERFORMANCE


ONLY INTEL CAN GET OVER 800FPS IN CS:GO

I got my 7700k for $300
and a $100 mobo. Already had the cooler obviously but it would only cost me about $27 more.
That's why i got it because it was cheaper.

buh buh but when Microsoft fix the Windows scheduler then it will be the round powerhouse.

AyyMD fanboys really think that Microsoft will help AMD top Intel.

Intel and Microsoft are blood brothers.

>only 800 FPS
>He doesn't run at 320x240

Scrubtown here we come.

Fuck off you turbo autist

...

>Intel and Microsoft are blood brothers
What kind of crack are you smoking?

>reading things exactly as they are written is now autism

How about you use the English language correctly, you blithering idiot?

Wait for the R5 series if nothing else.
The line up seems to have changed since the initial leaks but even ignoring that the 1600X is a six core with the same clocks as the 1800X with a better cache to core ratio.
It could be killer.

$100 mobo for i7 7700k?
Source?
I'm waiting for my old PC to crap out anytime now and I'm looking at the R7 1700/R5 due to its performance value overall as a CPU for my new build.
And signs (PS4/XB1) point that games will use more cores in the near future.

/thread

I literally just bought this on ebay from newegg for 310. Fucking thank god I didnt fall for the Ryzen meme was so close too

Don't forget about delidding because of the shitty TIM under IHS (~$30)

Why the fuck would you get a 7700k for gaming? Overkill as fuck.

>quad core

its like we're stuck in 2008 forever

1 shekel has been deposited to your account

depends if you have a high-end graphics card and want to run high refresh rate and FPS or not

Cause I wanted a i7. Plus I want my computer besides my GPU to last me 9-10 years.

Cause pretty much I can really

GTX 1080 TI + i7 7700k here I come!!!

>wants computer to last 10 years
>buying a quad-core

4K OLED 60+ FPS Gayming here I come!

It just werks I guess
Plus yeah multi-core gayms are gonna rise soon on PC due to consoles such as the XB1/PS4.
Now that Ryzen has proved that their multi-cores and performance are actually viable against Intel.
Only time will tell (r5 lineup, bios updates, etc..).

>"with my 1080p monitor"

Check the warehouse for 6700ks

picked one up for $200

144hz 144fps master race

OP here, I have a 4k monitor and I just got a 1070 recently but I'm still getting the heavy frame drops to 30fps that I did when I had my 680, so that's why I want to upgrade my cpu
I'll use it for workstation purposes in addition to gaming

Why would you get a 4k monitor if modern games are just gonna run like that for a year or maybe two?
1080p and your GPU will last a LOT longer.

I wonder when GPUs will get to 7nm so we can see huge improvements again

It's going to be nice seeing every idiot convinced by intel marketing to buy a 7700k lamenting their CPU in two years when the cheaper ryzen processors are getting better performance out of newer games with lower frametimes, smoother gameplay, more cores, miles better everything-else performance, and an actual upgrade path.

after AMD wrecks nvidia with Vega

Vega should see huge gain in perf/watt since they're going to use tiled rendering like maxwell

>mins above 60
I don't get it how is it bad

Processors aren't sold on hopes and dreams.

True, they won't listen though.
They just want an i7 for "gaems" or brand appeal now, no reason to not get an r7 1700 if it is for productivity.

I literally had a friend go for the 7700k instead of the 1700 because "gamersnexus said it sucks at gaming". Meanwhile he said the reason he needed a new cpu in the first place was to do video editing

There's no helping some people

RedTeam+ are at full force ITT

indeed they are, schlomo, my friend

Appeal to authority? You're an idiot, all the reviews show the same thing.

It's at 1080p max settings

Here's another 14 games if you don't think that's good enough you fucking moron

>lower frametimes, smoother gameplay,

As a gamer, I give a much bigger shit about this than the 10fps difference compared to the 7700k. Another 10fps is nice, but I could literally just turn some graphics options down if it ever becomes a big deal (e.g.

Eh...?
I'm just saying that an r7 1700 is the best chip for productivity at the moment for $299 with an aftermarket level/stock-cooler.
I'm using intel right now if you're asking, I'm just a Sup Forums guy looking to replace this old PC for the best value.

>just wait, surely AMD will actually make a good product this time

It's not overkill if you want to max out

Nothing is faster than the 7700k at games

>implying it's not a good product

>an r7 1700 is the best chip for productivity

Complete bullshit though. Even a fucking $500 1800X can't beat a 7700k in productivity

wtf where'd you get this gif of my gf

But it also needs to be a tiny PCB with a good cooler to really sell that HBM2

AMD seem to like high stock voltage and it cooks their cards.

>7700 beats 6900
nice cherrypicked benchmark where the application cant utilize all 16 threads properly

...

Stockpile Skylake since it is the last CPU worth using (Supports Win 7)

Cherry picked? I can post these all day.

yes, you're cherry-picking benchmarks that cant use all 16 threads. blatantly fucking obvious when 7700 beats 6900, you retarded wankstain.

>pajeet cad
post solidworks, catia or gtfo

CPUboss. kys.

It's not cherry picking, this is mainstream software, just like the games

Let's see surely web browsing would be faster on those amazing workstation Ryzen CPUs right...

Oh wait

this. anyone trying to use CPUboss or passmark (cpumark/gpumark) should be fucking shot

>mainstream software
still not using all threads, you retard

Except it stutters significantly more than the 7700K.
Above 60fps, it's roughly equal to an Ivy Bridge chip in terms or consistency.

This.

The 7700k is clearly both faster and smoother

>opengl

cpuboss is a piece of shit.

sorry intel shill, I've actually done my research and looked up the benchmarks, I've already seen your cherry picks

(You)

>$170 CPU beats $1089 CPU
Intel BTFO!

>Choosing the Intel Jew cause AMD is 42 vents more.

So you're saying most mainstream software doesn't use all the threads?

I would agree!

Ryzen is GARBAGE for mainstream software

Ryzen is the better choice then. It's far smoother in games. Intel suffers from microstutters

Are we going down the list now?
We can do that. I have no problem.

Ryzen stutters as much as chips from several years ago. The 7700K doesn't. Thanks for playing.

kek, amdfags getting btfo over and over again

That faildozer though.

AMD really got screwed over for that core configuration didnt they?

Does not support the fact that Ryzen is worse in technical terms against the i7 7700k.
What do you expect of a chip that is not as optimized as Intel and STILL offers better productivity value most of the time?

Lmfao

Ryzen can't even compete with Intel's last gen chips

>garbage
no, but you're also forgetting that it's more of a workstation chip, not a mainstream chip.

the real fun stuff will happen after R5 gets released, which is the mainstream chips that will compete with i7 and i5

It's just downright ugly.

>better productivity

see

Sad.

Where do these graphs come from?
Their designs looks really shitty honestly (Microsoft paint tier).
Just asking (from an i6 6500 user).

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

AMD IS DEAD

Fake news. This is inconsistent with every other benchmark. Most people admit that games look smoother on Ryzen.

Lol it's exactly the same as all the other benchmarks

>all these shills now recommending i7's for gaming

see

techreport.com/review/31366/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-ryzen-7-1700x-and-ryzen-7-1700-cpus-reviewed

>The formulas behind these graphs add up the amount of time the GTX 1080 spends beyond certain frame-time thresholds, each with an important implication for gaming smoothness. The 50-ms threshold is the most notable one, since it corresponds to a 20-FPS average. We figure if you're not rendering any faster than 20 FPS, even for a moment, then the user is likely to perceive a slowdown. 33 ms correlates to 30 FPS or a 30Hz refresh rate. Go beyond that with vsync on, and you're into the bad voodoo of quantization slowdowns. 16.7 ms correlates to 60 FPS, that golden mark that we'd like to achieve (or surpass) for each and every frame. And 8.3 ms corresponds to 120 FPS, an even more demanding standard that Doom can easily meet or surpass on hardware that's up to the task.

>None of the CPUs we tested have more than a trace of frames that would drop frame rates below 60 FPS, so it's worth clicking over to the more demanding 8.3-ms plot to see what's happening. There, we can see that the Ryzen CPUs spend about as much time churning on tough frames that would drop animation below 120 FPS as Intel's Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge CPUs do.

It does well in Vulkan, at least.

this guy gets it

it's userbenchmarks