Am4

so whats the best bang for buck ryzen purely for gaming? is it true that there's less micro-stutter than with an intel cpu? will gaming benchmarks eventually overtake intel through optimization at the same or better price points?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Rb0yfX8161M
pcworld.com/article/3176100/computers/amd-ryzen-7-1700-vs-a-5-year-old-gaming-pc-or-why-you-should-never-preorder.html?page=2
anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four/16
youtube.com/watch?v=JypkqwpOtNI
agner.org/optimize/optimization_manuals.zip
wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lake-desktop-6-core-4-core-cpu-leaked/
youtube.com/watch?v=cLj0kDHl-_I
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

if you budget gaymin your bottleneck is going to be the gpu, just get the 1500x and dump the rest into a gpu.


That is unless you a "progaymer" and need that 250fps, in which case get a cheapo 7350 or something.

R5 1600, yes, uncertain

1600 if you're overclocking.
1600X if you're not.

Ryzen is a meme cpu. i7 is better for games.

wouldn't i be saving money on a cooler if i bought a 1600x and didn't overclock

so which one yields better results

1600 seems to be the sweet spot but the 1500X is also a solid contender. it's basically a 6700.

No, because 1600 comes with a cooler whereas the 1600x does not

>games are going to optimize for more cores soon

People have been claiming that since 2006.

It has already happened

Considering i5's are acting in games like Applefags choking on dicks, it's pretty much half-way there.

1700

>i7 is better for games
I've heard a lot that an i7 is unnecessary for gaming, that i5 is the recommended cpu.
It seems intel fanboys go to the next highest core-i that is somewhat acceptable value, since i5 is deprecated now.

The time to get intel for every build is over.

in 2006 you could game on a single core.

1600

>i7 is better for fags
ftfy

how well could a stock cooler actually overclock though? not that much to gain i imagine

> bought 6core x99 system for $1080
mobo $300, cpu $600, ram $180
>Cuda cores are better for what I do TIL
>friend sells me a R5 1400 with mobo for $220,ram $114
>Ryzen system performs same as x99 fo what i am doing
>sell x99
>profit $746

>i imagine
AMD's stock coolers are rated for 125W, they're as good as some decent aftermarket solutions, 1700's at 3.8/3.9 are doable on a stock cooler and 4.0 is as well if you get a golden sample

It can OC a decent amount, they aren't dinky pieces of crap like Intel's stock coolers.

apparently the stock ryzen cooler is almost on par with the 212

Intel has a lot of different coolers they don't all suck, 90% suck but not all of them.
intel cooler BXTS15A

>so whats the best bang for buck ryzen purely for gaming?
r5 1600. 1500x is just ~$20 less and is much worse.

>is it true that there's less micro-stutter than with an intel cpu?
Uncertain, there's some evidence for it. But one thing is 100% sure, it will stutter much much less when stuff is running in the background.

>will gaming benchmarks eventually overtake intel through optimization at the same or better price points?
Games have gotten more and more optimized for more cores since dual cores became a thing. It's just question of time. Even intels next mainstream line will have 6 cores.

Since the r5 is pretty much on par with i5s already it's only getting better. As for r7, we just don't know if it will overtake the 7700k in raw game FPS before both are obsolete.

Yet 4c/4t i5 wins 8c/16t ryzen.

no true, stop shilling shlomo

Not true, I have an ivy 5@ 4ghz and it does fine @60hz. I don't even max cpu in anything. I wouldn't buy a 4t in 2017 but if you have one it's still decent.

1600 with a manual oc. you can clock it to a safe temp on the stock cooler then upgrade later if you really want to push the vcore for another 2-300 mhz. All core boost of a 1600x is only 3.7ghz and any 1600 can get that on the stock cooler.

actchually

1600 if budget

1600X if you wanna have higher chances in cpu lottery and upgrading with compatible cooler you own already

>4c/4t i5 wins 8c/16t ryzen
keep telling yourself that

youtube.com/watch?v=Rb0yfX8161M
Oh wow, $500 cpu barely keeping up with last year's $200 i5, losing in most games.

Tell me more about great 8 core performance in modern games.

Oh god, look at this multithreaded performance vs 5 years old i5 3570k
pcworld.com/article/3176100/computers/amd-ryzen-7-1700-vs-a-5-year-old-gaming-pc-or-why-you-should-never-preorder.html?page=2
Is this the true power of Ryzen's 16 threads?

Check this out, even amd shills' favorite anandtech is afraid to compare i5 and r7 in 1080p - showing only 4k results. Do you know why it is so, Pajeet? Might it be great multithreaded performance?
anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four/16

What's the difference between the 1600 and 1600x in terms of overclocking?

>using a low-clock AMD CPU
>using an overclocked Intel CPU

Why don't you put in an overclocked 1600X in there? Don't you think it's going to be much more fair comparison? Only a retard would buy a 1700 solely for gaming and not overclock it.

Tons of tests. i5 will still win 1600x. That's the point. In the whole line up of Ryzen there is not a single cpu capable to win 4c/4t intel in games. And this is even in games that utilize up to 8 threads like battlefield, AC, Doom, etc.

i7 will simply destroy all ryzens in games.

>In the whole line up of Ryzen there is not a single cpu capable to win 4c/4t intel in games.
Sigh... someone show this guy those benches. I don't have them saved.

>i5 will still win 1600x
[Citation Needed]

youtube.com/watch?v=JypkqwpOtNI

>haha! nobody will notice I'm posting the low clocked SKUs that are beaten by the lower tier cheaper SKUs with less cores at higher clocks


Is this the power of desperation?

...

...

...

Don't need that, Zen has higher IPC, was confirmed by Agner in his optimization manuals

agner.org/optimize/optimization_manuals.zip

...

...

...

...

Stop spamming, you're nearly as bad as that shitposter.

>overclocked ryzen

Good luck with that

...

Titan Xp has less frames than 1080ti ??

Great picture, mate. Thanks for confirming that at 1080 i5 7500 is equal in gaiming to 1600x and outperforms 1700x. 4c/4t outperforming 8c/16t. And 7600k outperforms all ryzens. Just like I said.

...

Should I just sell my 7700K?

Report this fucker, this is no better than that retarded avatarfagging spambot

But it's relevant to the thread

Superb GPU bottlenecked test! Two completely different cpus go neck in neck with 1-2 fps difference. Truly an unbiased test with 2 1080ti. Also, why posting more tests? Didn't the ones you posted before already proved my point that 4c/4t go neck in neck with 8c/16t, beating them in most instances?

No, there's nothing wrong with it unless you need more cores.

Sure m8. If you have GTX 1060 or below and want nothing to change. Or if you want to get lower fps in games.

I have a 1600 on stock cooler. OC'd it stable to 3.6, no sweat and temps hover the low 50s while playing. Had it for the past couple days, stable as fuck right now. I see people say they have theirs on 3.8 with stock cooler, too.

...

Once again $200 i5 4c/4t beating all ryzens except $500 chip (which is still destroyed by i7).
What exactly are you trying to achieve by proving my point again and again?

More cores is better

>using a low clock AMD CPU vs a high clock Intel CPU

Try again Intel shill.

>Thanks for confirming that at 1080 i5 7500 is equal in gaiming to 1600x
Which puts the Intel in a really bad light because the AMD still has the advantage of all the other non-game load types.

And that's not even counting the massive i5 stutters from all the cores being maxed out. Only a retard would buy an i5 instead of an R5.

The 1600x clearly has better minimum framerates and effectively identical average framerates to the 7600k, while being similarly priced to the 7600k, and eating the 7600k alive at more multi-threaded workloads.

Even if you assume games will NEVER become better optimized for more cores, why would you throw away the extra performance outside of gaming for no reason?

Why are you arguing with this idiot? He ignored everything posted just to snipe at one image and now he's planning on shitposting from there hoping everyone forgets the others, are you 12? You really can't see this?

Great. But not relevant to the argument, which was that 4c/4t can perform as well as or better than 8c/16t in games.

>1600x
>8c/16t
What did he mean by this?

You retards argue with the most recent post, completely missing the context and what the argument is about. Which is some retard saying that games NOW are optimized for more than 4 cores
And me responding that this is bullshit, as 4c/4t cpu goes neck in neck or beats 8c/16t cpus.

Yet the plurality of benchmarks posted in this thread show that you are clearly wrong. The 4c/4t Intel CPUs do not go "neck and neck" with the 8c/16t cpus, particularly in FPS minimums, 0.1% minimums, and 1% minimums.

This. I think R5 1600 will give you the most bang for the buck. The price difference going up to a 1600X isn't that big but when you add a cooler it is.

Another important factor that I personally look at but other people don't is that the 1600 is a 65W TDP part and the 1600X is a 95W part.

My current CPU is a 65W TDP part with a 140W massive cooler on it. It idles at 36-40C with the fan off and even when that 120cm fan spins I barely hear it. It would be different with the stock cooler but still, a lower TDP does mean less noise and heat.

In all those benchmarks i5 was pretty equal to r7s. Not mentioning that the benchmarks chose were cherrypicked to favor amd. I can come up with as many benchmarks where i5 will beat the shit out of Ryzen but you will start crying how this tests are not tests, wrong MOBO used, wrong ram used, etc. etc. like amd shills always do.
For every benchmark saying ryzen is better, there is a benchmark saying otherwise. So, this shit is pretty useless. Anyway, even with these benchmarks my point was proven - i5 can go neck in neck with any ryzen cpu in any game.
I am out so you can continue your leddit level circlejerk

>No charts
>No graphs
>No tables
>No embedded videos
>No links
>No evidence at all
>Abandons thread when challenged with evidence
Shekelchasers

B T F O
T
F
O

>R5 1600
/thread

The 1600X is only a better deal if you already have a decent heatsink (and fittings) ready, otherwise the $30 price difference for the 400 MHz boost is really more like a $70+ difference thanks to no bundled cooler.

>haven't seen this micro stutter on my 7600k
Is the problem as abundant as everyone says? I'm not sure if I hit the lottery or not. Games run great on it.

For whatever reason AMD fanboys are so desperate to try to "prove" that cores matter more and more, that they'll go off the smallest claims they can find by one or two individuals.
Realistically the majority of the gamer market for PC don't have more than 4 cores/8 threads, thus why video game developers for PC do not build them specifically with 6/8core 12/16 thread in mind. Flat out people making games for the PC will always target the majority, and try to add on some extra things for those with the latest and greatest hardware.
The only real advantage to Ryzen is if you multitask while gaming a lot, or if you do things other than gaming. "Future proofing" is basically a meme at this point.

>4 cores should be enough for anyone!

Not even Intel is on your side anymore. wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lake-desktop-6-core-4-core-cpu-leaked/

BTW, this will reduce Intel's single core advantage by 10% or so. You better get ready for COARS.

...

Call me when AMD release an 8c/16t with an iGPU.

That's nice and all, but you're more likely to find a maiden in a whorehouse than you are to get Ryzen stable at 4.5GHz for daily use.

7700k owner here. Kinda wish I got a ryzen. Oh well, maybe soon. I'm just responding to inform you that the term is "neck and neck", not "neck in neck". You are killing your argument by using it incorrectly, I can't take you seriously. Like trying to have a conversation with a black, and the ebonics creeps in and you realize you just lost precious minutes reasoning with an ape.

I don't know what I find most embarrassing in these threads... AMD fanboys claiming Ryzen is the best for everything in spite of almost all benchmarks showing Intel beats AMD in games or Intel fanboys claiming that Intel CPUs are best for everything when they get obliterated in multi-core benchmarks.
That is not even considering the performance for your money in which case Ryzen is usually much better depending on your needs.

1600

Is there any updates on when ITX AM4 motherboards are coming? Biostar announced two a while ago, and Gigabyte announced they're working on some, but I've seen nothing since.

>Kinda wish I got a ryzen
The hell? Why? You want less fps in games?

Better minimums and better multitasking? Also 7700k is much hotter.

>Better minimums
7700K has them though.

Not everyone and only when OCed.

here's locked 7700 vs OC 1700
youtube.com/watch?v=cLj0kDHl-_I

>oпять нeceт тeхнoжлoбa
Mapтыхa плc.

>тecты нeтecты!

Taк нecи кoгo-тo нopмaльнoгo вмecтo тeхнoжлoбa.

Чeм тeбe нeнopмaльнo-тo? Teм, чтo pyзeн oбcиpaeтcя?

Teм, чтo y тeхнoжлoбa пoдзaлyпный твopoг вмecтo мeтoдoлoгии тecтингa, дa и pиг хyй пoйми кaкoй. Хoть-бы TPU пpинec.

Boт тeбe мeтoдoлoгия. Кaк видишь, oбдpиcтaйзeн oпять oбoccaн.

>HardOCP
Кaйл yйди нaхyй.

>640x480

wrong

He yйдy!

Кaкoгo хyя oн нa пpeзeнтaции RTG дeлaeт? ЗPAДA?

Fuck off retards and take your sub-human language with you.