Microcetner $100 off 1700x and $50 off 1700

holy shit

BRB taking a trip to microcenter tomorrow bros

Other urls found in this thread:

asrock.com/mb/AMD/X370 Taichi/#Memory
youtube.com/watch?v=lN5mxFfkr7g
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

damn i miss CA. have to cough up 3rd world prices now...

microcenter is great for CPU purchases

that they are

Meh. Not seeing it where I am (Philadelphia-Wilmington region). Only $50 bundle discount for 1700x & 1800x, and $30 for1700. If I could get $100 bundle break on a 1700, there might be room for temptation.

If 3200 MHz DDR4 wasn't so ass-rapey right now I might consider it ... but. Can't justify it right now. I'd be looking at $600 minimum outlay for CPU-RAM-mobo (if not $650 plus), have to consider $600 to $800 more for GPU to do that justice.

Base estimate is no less than $1200, and more like $1500 would be the buy-in. And that's plundering HDDs, SSDs and PSU from at least one other system, as well as gutting the case and rebuilding.

Just can't justify that. I'd basically be throwing out an FX8350 and it's Gigabyte UD3 fx990 mobo, plus an EVGA GTX 970, which is already overpowered for my needs.

I can wait for ~2020 and see what the ecosystems offer at that point.

I ordered one of these but heard these aren't good for gaming, I only play one game currently while studying (ark survival evolved) how do you guys reckon she'll go?

ryzens work quite well for gaming

but I'd have suggested not to go for an r7 ryzen and wait a few more days for the r5 for cheaper gaming performance

they are good for gaming you mong

stop falling for intel shill memes.

They are good for games
But the platform is having teething problems and even when all is said and done, Ryzen V1.0 will probably perform only as well as Skylake in games with less than 4 core utilization

Good fucking deal. My only problem is that they are out of the crosshair hero. Anything you guys could recommend that does a better job?

For gaming, the 7700k is the absolutely better and more economical choice, AMD is only a niche use case for stuff like video encoding that can be done faster on the GPU anyway

>s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-stutter!
no thanks

Interesting results on the 980ti on Intel vs Ryzen

And the 1080ti and titan xp and the fury x

The only one that seems normal is the 1080

until you guys provide a frame by frame graph that proves that it dips consistently, that number might as well be just some weird anomaly after a loading screen or a one-time occurrence.

because it doesn't seem to dip too often to keep the average FPS so much higher above the AMD chip.

Check out the testing methodology if you don't trust it simply because it shows favorable results for Ryzen.
It's LTT of all channels.

I'm hearing this is a "typo" and it's really $50 off.

Not worth the trip for a 1700X.
$100 may have been nice, though.

Odd in general.

Much higher minimums, much lower averages.
But linus measures by the like lowest fps, not 0.1% or 1% minimums, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure they ever really go into detail about their methodology and shit.

I'll wait to see Ryzen+Vega benchmarks anyway. Will probably shit on the 6900k+Vega there. More than enough people have verified that Nvidia drivers are what is causing most of the gaming performance issues on Ryzen.
It's pretty weird that AMD engineers and support never suggested to reviewers to use the RX480 and just drop the settings all the way down on 1080p. These problems should have been found before day1.

The large majority of Nvidia issues are with DX12, but unfortunately people still test games on Nvidia with DX12 render paths that perform WORSE than DX11

Yeah. I've not seen an game perform better in DX12 for Nvidia than DX11 on any CPU/Game/GPU combination.
So why the fuck would they even test that? And if they test it, why would they not throw out the result since it's a clear outlier?

Fucking shills.

You have to be a total faggot if you honestly care about playing your shitty 2 year old game on 4K ultra.

a

They are pretty good, just make sure you get high speed memory to go with them.

1700X can't even beat i5-2500K

fucking amdead shills

Save yourself the headache. Get a Intel, all the good mobos use the Intel chipset.

That game runs pretty ass and doesn't use HT well. One of the most poorly optimized pieces of shit out there.
But it should still be good for 60fps minimum. Even an FX-8350 can average about 60fps in that game.

This is why people are feeling like they need an upgrade now days. Games aren't doing better shit that needs more CPU power, they're just being programmed worse.

...

They're shit, Intel is far faster

Dank memes aside, what kind of person needs a Ryzen CPU? How does it outperform the intel equivalent for the same money? Is it even interesting for someone who doesn't render videos?

Intel supports Feminist Frequency.

>p-please buy Intel they're %100 better I swear Intel produces the best processors only the highest quality silicon and transistors and have the best chipsets as well... Pretty please buy our cpu? :(

>Dank memes aside, what kind of person needs a Ryzen CPU
It's like roughly having two 4770k CPUs put together. (that can't reasonably clock over 4.1Ghz, though)

One 4770k is good. Why would you not want two for the same price and all those modern features on the new motherboards?

I'm a developer. My development tools take up a lot of extra power over a game. Profiler. Having my other applications I use always running in the background.
I'm also having twitch running a lot, which has a horribly fucking inefficient flash decoder. Having to close shit out to open up resources for something else really fucks the shit out of my workflow and drives me mad right now.
I have 2 monitors running right now, and my 2500k can hardly handle that and the workload I spread across those two, when I want to move to 4. A 4c/8t hardly seems like enough of an upgrade to justify new RAM (after I spent so much on this low latency 16GB of DDR3 in 2011), new overpriced motherboard, and so on, for a CPU that's not much better than what Intel was selling 3-6 years ago.

I don't game a lot, but when I do, I don't want the game using 99% of all threads on the CPU like on a 7700k anyway. I don't care if the game underutilized 16 threads, that's extra power I have so other shit doesn't lock up and so a game locking up doesn't lock up my computer

As a male feminist this makes me happy.

Lol no it doesn't you stupid street shitter. My i5 6600k compiles 800 c++ lines in a matter of seconds

>my CPU compiles hello world in a matter of seconds

>encoding on the GPU
>quality
HAHAHA no.

800 lines..?

I've written more than that in a single day numerous times, not to mention the size an actual application gets to with multiple people working on it, you fuckhead.

Obviously, more cores for more multitasking prowess is a fair point, but how many of the "My new Ryzen build" nerds actually need 16 threads? Where I'm from the 1700X costs 394 Euroshekels, while the 7700k is only € 347, a 6800k is just barely more at € 416.

I just bought a new CPU cooler for the AM4 socket, so I'd much rather upgrade to Ryzen instead of an i7 and buying the lga115x moutning kit separately, but no matter how I look it at, I just can't justify getting an AMD CPU over even the 7600k, let alone what else intel offers at that pricepoint.

You can get a $300 1700, with a stock cooler than can push 3.8-3.9GHz overclock, and a $110 B chipset motherboard that can overclock as long as it has some 7-8 chokes.

I don't really see how this is bad value.

It's bad value because the equivalent Intel platform at the same performance costs $1400 with a motherboard and cooler.

8c/16t may be overkill, but even in modern games it seems like 6c/12t certainly isn't.

So many games are maxing out the 7700k at 95-100% utilization on all 8 threads now days without keeping 144fps minimum, so obviously more power is desired by them but the next generation isn't going to magically have 50% more single core performance so 50% more cores and threads makes more sense.

I'm getting the 1600X myself. I'll get an 8core once they improve it a bit, probably with zen3 and the jump to 7nm. But I can see 6c/12t CPUs getting pretty maxed out by games even at 144fps minimum in a few years.
But of course there will still be shittily programmed indie games too that they're worse on.

This is as good an explanation as I've seen on what Ryzen 7 actually is.

Prior to Ryzen's release, would anyone have really said that a 4770k at 4.1 GHz is some kind of "bad" CPU that can't play games? No, that's actually laughable, and now you're getting 2 of them for the same price that you would have paid (still would pay) for a single 4770k.

Euro prices are shitty for AMD but you're crazy if you invest in a 4c/4t CPU in 2017. You'll want to replace that within 2 years, guaranteed. Also the 1700 is the only SKU that makes any sense to buy seeing as how they all overclock to stock 1800X speeds anyway as far as I know.

>you're crazy if you invest in a 4c/4t CPU in 2017. You'll want to replace that within 2 years, guaranteed
That sounds like an aggressive AMD ad.

>That sounds like an aggressive AMD ad
You see some of the minimum FPS data for 7600k's in recent benchmarks? That shit isn't going to get any better. 7700k or 6800k are the only logical starting points if you insist on intel and plan on keeping your PC for a long time.

>who even needs all that power?!
>16 threads for $330, with a good cooler included? fuck shills
>buy this 4 thread CPU for $240 instead. By the way, you'll need a $100 cooler and a $50 more expensive motherboard to make use of it. Good value though, only $390 by comparison, since no one needs 16 threads.

I don't insist on intel, the contrary, I'd have to put in extra effort to accomodate an intel CPU. But for the price I'd have to pay for the 1700X I can almost get an i7 6800k, or the 7700k and save some money. I'm also considering a used 4790k and skip another generation of new CPUs and wait for intel to pull a trick from their sleeve to BTFO AMD again, they surely holding back tons of technology ready for roll-out.

>wait for intel to pull a trick from their sleeve to BTFO AMD again, they surely holding back tons of technology ready for roll-out.
Haha no. Only refreshesh and dieshrinks, goyim.

>Haha no. Only refreshesh and dieshrinks, goyim.
Are you sure they can afford to keep doing that with AMD becoming real competition again?

Not everyone needs it.

But it makes more sense spending $330+$80 for an 8core/16thread CPU and motherboard then spending $240+$140+$100 for a 7600k, motherboard, and cooler, doesn't it?

It's not like the Ryzen single thread IPC is even worse. If you compile for an AMD CPU and take advantage of it AMD CPUs doing 4 complex instructions per cycle compared to 1 complex + 3 simple of Intel's since the end of time, it's really 10%-80% higher for common instructions.

I think
>who needs to spend $410 on a 8c/16 cpu?
is an odd question instead of asking
>who needs to spend $500 for a 4c/4t CPU to drive it to those 5Ghz overclocks they have a boner for?
Especially when the 8c/16t ends up having higher performance per core in anything remotely multithreaded that takes advantage of the SMT that the 4c/4t doesn't have. And even when something is completely single threaded, it's still 80% as good.

>I can get a 7700k with a locked motherboard and shitty cooler for that price
k? Just get a 7700 then, moron.

As bad of value as the 7600k and 7700 are, the locked 7700 with a cheap B250 motherboard is pretty damn good.

The x99 platform cost for the 6800 is something you're omitting. I'm still hoping for a decent second hand deal somewhere soon with Am4 and lga 2066 around the corner.

Yes, i mean no. They have no choice. They also fired their validation teams looooooong ago so prepare for shitfests.

>They also fired their validation teams looooooong ago so prepare for shitfests.
But they needed that money to give to Feminist Frequency instead. That was more important.

>If 3200 MHz DDR4 wasn't so ass-rapey right
This is making me too reluctant to take a step up.

With 32GB DDR3 it seems kind of stupid to buy into a DDR4 platform and only get 8 or 16 GB, and 32GB DDR4 plus a motherboard and a CPU kind of makes it a tad more costly than just a CPU.

>and wait for intel to pull a trick from their sleeve to BTFO AMD again, they surely holding back tons of technology ready for roll-out.
Yeh. They've pulled their tricks.
>Hyperthreaded i5s
>Moar cores
>Hyperthreaded bentiums
>MOAR GIGGAHURTZ
>Housefire IPC

If the board let that kike Brian Krzanich carry on, then Intel are gonna invalidate half of their product line and kill their own economy.

Frankly, Intel have nothing. Because they didn't expect anything to happen, just look at the mobile market, that intel got shut the fuck out of. Twice. Once by Keller and Apple with the A8, and again by Qualcomm.

AMD was behind by a solid 40-50% in IPC, they regained that ground in a single generation, and have produced a more efficient architecture to boot.
Intel need a new arch, which will take them 4 years minimum. By which time, Zen+ will be out, and provide god only knows what benefits over Zen.

asrock.com/mb/AMD/X370 Taichi/#Memory

What does the "v" in the OC column indicate?

>Intel have nothing
They had a quasi monopoly on performance CPUs for what? A decade? They have money, and money buys everything. I guarantee the next generation of intel CPUs will be loaded with non-meme innovation and BTFO AMD again. They have the financial muscle to take back the market share they lost to Ryzen.

>They have money, and money buys everything
Money can't buy competent CEO and some quality engineers. They donate said money to FemFrequency though. That's much more important than new CPU uarches.

>They had a quasi monopoly on performance CPUs for what? A decade? They have money, and money buys everything
Money fails to buy competence. As demonstrated.
Intel is reportedly on internal meltdown, with staff very unhappy with the situation.
While you make a good point in that Intel do indeed have financial muscle, that will prevent them becoming AMD.V2 and falling into a decade long depression.

Intel's Generational "leaps" have reduced from 15% of Sandybridge to Ivy Bridge, and from there, 10%, then 5%, then 4%, and with Skylake, actually somehow losing IPC?
No, Intel need to build something new from the ground up.
They may be able to float on Kabylake for a while, maybe push for higher clocks until their new arch is ready, but anybody with half a mind can see that this is going to be difficult for Intel in the next few years if they stick with the path they're on.

youtube.com/watch?v=lN5mxFfkr7g

>wait for intel to pull a trick from their sleeve to BTFO AMD again, they surely holding back tons of technology ready for roll-out.
>Haha no. Only refreshesh and dieshrinks, goyim.

Of course Intel is holding back. There is this website they've got called ark.intel.com and on that website you can see the specs of their 24c48t chip and other chips that cost more than a new car. I can assure you that these chips do not cost anywhere near that to produce.

Intels profit margins are very high, specially on their Xeon line of chips.

Intel could easily just slash prices dramatically or release some of their Xeon-type chips as consumer chips.

Intel has in practice had a monopoly on "Windows-compatible" CPUs for so long that they have been able to keep the prices artificially high while holding back on performance.

Notice that "Windows-compatible" is the key there because they have been utterly crushed in all other areas. Look at their play to get a hold of the mobile market with their horrible pure garbage Atom SOC's, for example. They have been dumping these way below cost in order to get them into as many tablets as possible. They were a failure anyway because they are so horrible compared to even small players like MediaTek.

>I can assure you that these chips do not cost anywhere near that to produce.
Their yields are so low they are never meant for consumer use. You're a literal fucking retard.

Yeah. I couldn't stomach the RAM prices.
I needed 32GB. I had to get 2133mhz ram since it was $135 for 2x16GB and I didn't want to spend nearly as much on RAM as the CPU.

Hoping I can at least overclock it to 2666. I'd be happy then.

Uhhh hyperthreaded i5s would be a good trick.

The i5-6600k should have been hyperthreaded to begin with, and just lower binned that'd have trouble overclocking over 4.7 or whatever.
$240 for 4c/4t is fucking absurd. I don't understand how people actually let themselves get jewed like that. You have to just have no brain to pay that sort of money for 4c/4t no matter how good the single core performance is.
4c/4t should have been $175 at most.

Good question.

>reduced from 15% of Sandybridge to Ivy Bridge
lmfao no fucking way.
any gains were negated by the fact that sandybridge could OC to ivybridge performance negating any ipc gains it had as it couldn't clock high enough to surpass high clocked sandybridge

>Uhhh hyperthreaded i5s would be a good trick.
You mean an i7?

Like when there was a 2500k, 2600k, 2700k.

It seems like i5s should have been 4c/8t over a year ago with Skylake.
i7 should have been 6core+. i3s 4c/4t. 2c/4t belongs for pentiums only.

Intel was milking the goyims hard. I feel sorry for you guys that actually overpaid so much for anything after the 4790k and 5820k. Those were the last two good CPUs Intel made.

No, i5 badge with i5 price but i7 performance, new i7 gets 10 cores at a ~350 bucks pricepoint. I really hope AMD will be able to keep up with that so intel is forced to keep their prices low.

>new i7 gets 10 cores at a ~350 bucks pricepoint
Wait, fucking where?!

It's the logical step to keep their market share. They have the technology and can afford to sell it cheaper than AMD.

pretty much this

ryzen is absolutely fucking insanity of a chip

amazing what u can do when you give more die space when u dont worry about iGPU

>and can afford to sell it cheaper than AMD.
No, they can't. The moment profit margins will go down investors will rope Krzanich.

He's confused. Intel will most likely be moving to 6 core chips for their mainstream line, not 10.

>It's the logical step to keep their market share.
They haven't lost market share though. In fact, they've gained market share

Pushing AMD out of the market again is a lot more profitable than momentary profit margins.

If they do, do you think they will keep it on the same socket as kabylake i7's?

I'm fully expecting a new socket.

No. Consumer market is unstable, and they lost mobile and server ones to AMD and ARM.

So you think they will desperately cling to their overpricing and lose that market as well? That's not how it works.

Have you ever seen retail?

Fuck no, 1151 is a dead end, like most of their consumer sockets for the past decade they last for about 2 years and then move on.

They're already releasing an "i5" with hyperthreading, the i5 7640k, but it will be on the new LGA 2066, the next expensive HEDT platform. Literally makes no sense, who the fuck is buying a high end motherboard and pairing it with what is essentially a lower clocked 4c/8t consumer tier 7700k that should belong with a cheaper Z270 board.

intel is in full panic mode until they can get to their next shrink.

Do you think they will keep overpricing and not sell anything instead of lowering the prices to make less profit per CPU but more profit overall? Does this really make sense in your brain?

>intel is shilling out z type atoms in china right now

They'll sell to OEMs for cheaper but keep this unlocked 4c/4t shit at $450 to give a perception of value and quality to customers.

>If they do, do you think they will keep it on the same socket as kabylake i7's?
>I'm fully expecting a new socket.
It may be the same socket, but I'm almost certain it'll be a new chipset that Z270 won't simply BIOS flash to. So you'll need a new motherboard anyway.

>new LGA 2066
Oh baby, I can't fucking wait to shell out 1200 to 1500 bucks for my CPU and mobo upgrade.

They are jews
They haven't even dropped prices in the face of the R7.

>They haven't even dropped prices in the face of the R7
You don't drop prices of existing products, that's a panic reaction. You offer vastly better products for your next generation. As I said, i5s with i7 performance for the current i5 pricepoint and i7s with 6950X performance at the current i7 pricepoint.

You'd have to be crazy to think they'd price cut from 1700 USD to 350 USD

They'd BTFO AMD so hard they could sell rebadged CPUs for the same price for years and ask 200 bucks for entry level i3s. What's the profit margin of a couple 10,000 CPUs in the face of that?

Hey the i7-7740k might only be $300
(plus $250 motherboard for a shitty one)

If they weren't in panic mode then the proposed i5-7640k wouldn't exist on LGA 2066.

It makes no sense, they just have no idea how they should be responding to AMD right now.

>absolutely better and more economical choice
10 FPS higher and you have to pay out the ass for a OC-capable motherboard and cooler. Yeah, real bargain.

Why are you fucks saying intel motherboards are so much more expensive when there's z170 mobos for 90 bucks?

I can agree with the locked 7700 being a good choice, at least if you forget about the benefits of AM4 over LGA1151.
It's generally going to outperform a 5ghz overclocked 7600k, a 4ghz overclocked 1500x, and you can pair it with a reasonable B250 board and it comes with a cooler.

But the 7700k, plus a $140+ motherboard, and a $90+ cooler becomes retardo costs that doesn't justify its performance. You could just get an 1800X at that point.

Because those 90 bucks ones are worse quality than the average B350 board.
Many have 4 phase VRMs and shit.

You tend to need one of the boards that are $140 to actually get those 5Ghz overclocks stable, if your silicon is good enough for it.

Kill yourself shill.

Go compare the same model of a few Gigabyte LGA1151 and AM4 boards.
The Intel ones have cheaped out VRMs yet cost more.

This mostly comes down to:
a. Intel has high licensing fees for their chipsets, making them more expensive
b. Intel consumers are more stupid and will pay a premium for an inferior product

I've called microcenter and they confirmed 1700x is $100 off with motherboard purchase

I'm making the trip down there today!

And then you need to pick up at least a $50-$100 cooler if you want to push much over 4.5/4.6 Ghz.

Not that you wouldn't pick up a decent cooler for Ryzen either, I'm just saying that it is a given that the 7700k is going to require an aftermarket purchase.

>tfw into emulation (cemu, dolphin, etc.)
>only choice for me me is jewtel

Well, m-maybe some day AMD will have better performance right?

Here's your motherboard, bro.

since when is ryzen bad for emulation