Hey Sup Forums I'm upgrading from a 2500k. I'm getting either a 7700k or a 1800x. Give me your solid advice

Hey Sup Forums I'm upgrading from a 2500k. I'm getting either a 7700k or a 1800x. Give me your solid advice.

Other urls found in this thread:

arstechnica
valid.x86.fr/39ngw0
youtu.be/r3uDsTZTwgM
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Fuck off back to Sup Forums, cunt.

1700 is 100 mhz slower for much less $
I would still likely go with Intel tho

It costs less too

7700k

Nice trips

If you're ugrading RIGHT NOW THIS VERY SECOND, I'd get a 6600/6700/7600/7700. Right now I have a Ryzen and I'm getting nothing but headaches.
>Ram compatibility is fickle
>Doesn't recognize most add-on cards in any of its slots
>-X cards have a temp offset, so fans run louder

Not to mention, the performance is supposedly underwhelming, but I haven't even gotten as far as that, nor was it the sole purpose of my build.

Intel; It just wurks

I'm not completely throwing Ryzen under the bus, but right now, so many kinks need to be ironed out, it's not even funny

Also
>Good luck finding decent, compatible coolers

7700k it is then

Ryzen 1700. It hits the sweetspot of being able to simultaneously compete well with both the 7700k and the 6800k/6900k.

7700k but I would wait a year because switching from 2500k to 7700k is not worth the money imo

Not when it loses to an i3

>stock

Buy 7700k sir.
It is a superior product.
Good luck.

Amd can't overclock for shit. The chart shows the maximum potential of a chip

>Loses to a heavily overclock i3 in probably a CPU-bound game.
>What is clock speed, Alex?

Fuck off

...

>buying (((4))) cores

I would when even 2 intel cores demolish amd'd 8 cores

A 2 core cpu demolishes a 8 core cpu, there is literally no way you can defend this unless you're a street shitter

It's called shit optimisation from the developer because up until Ryzen no one even had an eight core cpu.

In a couple of years I reckon Ryzen will outperform the 7700k in the then modern games.

yeah this happened to faildozer

Can anyone recommend a cpu and graphics card for vr and gaming @ 1080p? I've been thinking about upgrading from an fx 6300 to the Ryzen 1600x and gtx 750ti to a 480x.

>VR

don't

Are we in 2011?

>8 cores should be better than 2
>What are single- and dual-threaded applications Alex?

Games don't magically start using additional cores. The only way you can can argue is if you had both processors running at the same clock speed, or even at the max relative OC speed, but even to that extent, you can argue about different factors, like temps and energy usage.

The consensus is for people who aren't rabid fans is, yes, per core performance is lacking a bit behind Intel's--it's almost a given at this point, but the fact of the matter is, you're getting 16 logical cores versus 8, unless you drop some heavy money on Intel's equivalent.

Not to mention, the processors are just MADE better--you delid a 6700K and you can shave off up to 20C off of the max temps. They delidded a Ryzen and it dropped 2 degrees.

When Faildozer came out video gamers weren't being developed for eight core console hardware, which what would you know, is also manufactured by AMD.

Even still, there has been a noticeable improvement over time from Bulldozer. That trend will continue, and accelerate with the mass marketization of Ryzen chips and Consoles.

Why not?

mad nerds are typing their temper tantrums at you as we speak, brace for impact

>intel is a bit better
>a bit

there has been years where bulldozer and jaguars have been AMDs gaming CPUs at the same time

that 2500k 4.5ghz score

somehow i feel like the systems werent identical, when it came to software, and shit such as ram too.
but what do i know lel

Ikr, intel's 7 year old CPU is on par with amd'd current flaships lmao

>comparing it to a notoriously unoptimised 19th century shooter played by competitive video gayme autists

>Caring about FPS above your refresh rate
>In a known CPU-bound game, again

Jesus, go back to Sup Forums

>amd loses in every existing program
>waaah UNPOOPTMISIED i shit in the streeeet

not just that, seems according to these reviews, the STOCK 2600k beats a 4500Mhz 2500k in FPS games

LUL.
something fishy going on here.

dude coffee lake is here in a few months. Do yourself a favor to wait for the 8700k.

I bought a 240hz Asus monitor

Wasn't Kaby Lake just released a month or so ago?

Your imaginary poo charts don't count

actually, on their 1700 review, it says at some point a stock 3750k is faster than a 4500mhz 2500k

ok buddy.

Why play in 1080p ffs, also this get coffee lake.

It's the most anticipated lake so far, next good Intel chip after coffee lake will be tiger lake and that's 2019ish optimistically.

wut

Shill thread?
Shill thread

The i7 still shits on the 1800x, and the pic you posted is the highest performance point for the 1800x

But Coffee Lake is 2018, at best. And for how much $450?

>those baby lake frame drops

>shits on

I'm almost betting that it's not true 240mhz and they're just inserting blank frames to give you that effect.

And even if it is, realistically, you're never going to notice it, not to mention you're using a shitton of energy and your card is gunna run hot as hell.

im just glad i bought my 6800K, just saying

>most monitors cap at 60Hz
>few high end monitors cap at 144Hz
>literally thousands of dollars expensive top of the line experimental monitors cap at 240Hz
So this is relevant how?

All of your cherrypicked tests are multithreaded focused and you didn't include the 6900k because you knew it would demolish your cpoo

I know, right? AMD dosen't even include a free 32bit on-die cpu that talks to Israel for free.

>$1021+tax

Is the 6800k any good? It had better single threaded performance enough to destroy amdrones in games and also 6 cores to keep up in multi threaded programs.

More like year-end, also next gen after coffee lake is going to prioritize data center workloads so it's gonna be good, it's supposed to be good it's the final optimization and the answer to Ryzen with a 6 core chip.

arstechnica .com/gadgets/2017/02/intel-coffee-lake-14nm-release-date/

He bought the gimped chip with no lanez, 6850 is wat you need, goy

1. you don't need to "upgrade" your 2500k
2. if you are a gaymen faggot, grow up
3. if your monitor has a 60Hz limit, those benchmarks are pointless for you
4. do you use your pc as a shitposting machine? yes? then you don't need to waste money
5. do you use engineering software? then get the 1700

It's good but motherboards are shit expensive

What makes you so confident they won't push it back even further? They already have multiple times. And we are talking about desktop products, moron.

valid.x86.fr/39ngw0

I'm pretty happy with it. I had a 5820K that had died after 7 months. I had ran it kinda hard and rough though. This 6800K seems to be reliable, overclocks ram a little better, but the uncore won't go past 3.6ghz. I'm ok with that, mainly because mine clocks so high. I can do 4.6ghz but that's pushing hard. I have a $600 water cooling loop supporting this all granted.

The ram is pretty cool, it pulses and does stuff.

Just Wait©

I have a 240hz monitor and I'm a programmer

Last 14nm since Intel is pushing 10nm. The Feb 2018 release date could really be advanced because it's meant to compete with zen+, we'll see with cannonlake year end on mobile.

6 core chip, you know 7700K vs Zen results already

>if 7700K had 8 chips
>power draw

It's not 240hz, genius.

wew. you need 240Hz for vim?

This should be the new motto on this board

Just Wait©

So gaming benchmarks won't be relevant since you're such a busy and productive programmer?

the 10nm shrink is Intel's only hope at this point. They already optimized and overclocked their current arch to it's limit, and have run out of ideas. 1% ipc gain won't cut it this time, when Zen+ and the software finally catches up.

A sacrifice in fps vs. quality of life increase and an improvement in multitasking capabilities.

Ryzen isn't bad in games - it is not the best - but you can still have a positive gaming experience on Ryzen.

I'm running a 1700 at 3.8ghz and have had no issues. I upgraded from a 3570k and have noticed an all around improvement in games, general use, and my ability to have multiple programs open at once.

I think if you want to have the "best of the best" fps and cannot live with having anything less then you should get a 7700k. however, a 1700 will grant you a better overall computing experience.

>I have a Ryzen and I'm getting nothing but headaches.

This seems to be the common theme.

Totally not the shitty mobo he bought

7700k

Why would you buy a 1800 when a 2500k is just as good for gayman?

youtu.be/r3uDsTZTwgM

there were user right here on Sup Forums getting the 1700 to 3.9GHz, stop with the lies

So your setup is capable of running a constant 240 hz? Wow, that sounds impossible.
>LTT
ain't clicking that shit, sweetie

With the 7700k looks like it will

Wow those 20fps difference you will totally notice, goy!

how are you supposed to get a constant 240 fps? Most game engines are capped at 200fps and there are any GPUs that can do a constant 240fps even at 1080p in modern games.

240hrz is a literal meme.

All he does is webdev anyway

Right, Skylake-X head to head incoming

OP if you really can't wait for 7700K which is on par with an overclocked 4790K then go for it, the first hexacore coffee lake might be much more worthwhile and future-proof. Gaymes will also still be increasingly CPU intensive

Tell that to sli 1080ti. Well I won't be getting the second card until late april

You shouldn't be gaymen in 1080p on a 1080Ti ffs

You should if you want 240fps

who gives a fuck, wont be able to run windows 7 on anything now :'(

>hurr get LTSB

still a fucking slow as fuck botnet with a horrible UI

$1700 on GPUs to play games? You openly brag about that? And you are buying a $350 chip to run it? LOLOLOLOLOL

Ryzen is wierd.

It's definitely the CPU for non-gaymen.

But sadly it doesn't come with an iGPU so you're forced to buy a eGPU, which will cost money.

Kaby Lake CPU's come iGPU's that are "good enough". Outputting 4k 60fps to monitors and being able to decode 10bit 4k hevc video files. You will need a $50 eGPU to be able to do that with Ryzen.

virt-manager is a thing, moron

Best advice is to just get a 1600X since the AM4 motherboard will be supported for 2-3x longer than any Intel socket and chipset.
Then upgrade to the 2nd or 3rd generation Ryzen for an 8 core then as software actually starts being optimized for them. Currently the 1800X gets heavily underutilized and just isn't worth the $500.

No? The 1800X and 1600X are 4.1ghz max stock.
1700 is 3.75ghz max stock.
Sure you can OC it to 3.8-4.0ghz all core, but you are going to make a space heater since it fucks the power saving features and doubles the idle power usage.

>heavily OC'd versus stock.
>has 25% lower minimum frame rates
>i-it's totally winning in this game guys.
>p-please ignore that the developer already announced they're working on a Ryzen optimization patch and that even without that the heavily OC'd 7350K still loses!!!!!
Fucking moron. Only two Intel CPUs on that list get higher minimum frame rates than the STOCK 1700.

Well there's no better cpu for games other than the $350 chip

who the fuck is virt, and what makes him qualified to be a manager??

>25 lower minimum fps on a 5ghz overclock
>"demolishes"

I hope you aren't a europoor that wasted some free university to wind up so retarded. Oh, no, you're probably underage, aren't you?

This news just dropped yesterday right, Microsoft is now blocking Windows 7 and 8.1 updates on Ryzen and Kaby Lake systems.

Pretty sweet setup for literally wasting your life with. You probally just put in on a CC anyway.

if you "only" play game and don't care other shit
just buy 7700

With 7700k you get insignificant performance increase and with 1800x a decrease instead, especially if running 2500k at high clocks.

Most of my programs don't pass 300 lines, I don't care about how a 1800x compiles the code 0.03 seconds faster

Just wait!

We can finally stop buying overpriced 4c/8t CPUs that don't even manage 144FPS minimum on games that came out before the CPUs did.
Just wait!

AMD is a slow and wide CPU architecture. It's slightly slower at one specific task, while being slightly faster in multithreaded applications or multitasking.

Intel offers a narrow but fast CPU architecture. Allowing it to excel in most things, until more than 4 cores are capable of being used.

Buy Intel for the now. AMD for the now and the later.