Should I buy a Ryzen for gaming or an i7-8700k?

Should I buy a Ryzen for gaming or an i7-8700k?

Ryzen

i7-8700k, don't fall for the meme
single-core performance will always outperform multi-core in gaming

If you plan to play video games and always have the best FPS intel is the right choice and has been for a long time.
AMD only shines when we are talking about value for money and in some cases multi-threaded performance if we talk about their flagships like the 1950x

Cyrix 6x86 is the only option if you want to stay truely free

neither

for ps3 emulation? anything you want. Both brands are trash

>dupe thread on Sup Forums or Sup Forums within 1-2 hours
every time

What GPU? What resolution?

i7.

With intel you basically pay 5x the price for 5% more single-core performance, which is always the sign of a shitty programmer who can't properly multicore.

1080 ti, 1440p 144hz.

I reguraly post in an Israeli forum and nobody suggest Intel. Switch the david star to the star of oda nobunaga

>single-core performance will always outperform multi-core in gaming
Well, until developers learn to utilize moar coars anyway.

I'd get Ryzen.

Then it doesn't matter what CPU you get as long as it's not a dual core.

CPU choice is irrelevant then.

Only get Intel if you do something retarded like 1080ti on 1080p or lower.

>mfw enjoying the game without any issue on my PS4 which costs less than either of those processors @ 1080p 30fps with perfect graphics and sound

Fuck off retard, AMD Poozen is shit for gaming.

>worst Ryzen
>130 fps in newest BF
>shit

>Playing on 1280x720p.
>duude you don't understand I can have 219.2 over ayymd 184.1 FPS!

>1280x720
So this is the power of Intel

This is not trivial. It's not always possible to implement concurrency in a video game (especially if you go multiplayer)

That's not even 10% difference at 720p. Ryzen is much cheaper too.

>144Hz
Get a 8700K if you've got the dosh to spare. Alternative just wait™ for Ryzen refresh, which will probably clock a bit higher.

>7700k faster than 8700k

wut

People have been spouting this bullshit since sandy bridge came out.

>30fps
>perfect graphics
Pick one

Can probably do slightly higher lower count (2-3 core) turbos faster, also small latency difference, the 8700k has higher latency from the extra cores.

Ryzen. Then upgrade to Ryzen 2 in 2019 without having to get another mobo

theyve been spouting it much longer than that my youngling

>the 8700k has higher latency from the extra cores

Since when do more cores cause higher latency?

Since forever, the core to core and memory controller latency slightly increases, the caches have to do 50% more snooping.

The game is locked at 30, so that's how it's going to run on your emulators as well. If you make it 60, it will play twice as fast.

Seriously
>2017
>not having a PS4

What's your fucking excuse nigger. Here in Yurop it's often discounted to 200€, I got mine for that price like 2 years ago on Amazon (brand new 500Gb).

More ringbus stops (or caching agents, call them whatever) == more latency.

The system agent has to do the snooping, not the caches.

Caching agent does the snooping.
System agents connects IMC and SerDes shit to ringbus.

Can you notice it compared to a 7700k though?

It's a very slight (compared to 7700k) increase in L3 and DRAM latency.
Shouldn't be THAT noticeable for most applications.

Why do you think low core count CPUs are used for precision audio or generally low latency work? Those 28+ core Xeons and EPYC are pretty shit at that job, especially the Xeons in this case, the EPYC might work if you can limit traffic to one CCX

>Should I buy a $400 CPU for gaming
Sad thing is half the people who ask really mean it

Ryzen is incompatible with modern gaming

i almost got baited into buying an 8700k today, when i noticed a price dip to 350€
Luckily i realized a 50€ drop can only mean there's something better right around the corner.

Rypoo is undeniable and objectively worse than Intel, there's no reason to buy it for gaming.

I, too, play on a 480i 1000hz monitor.

Are Intelfags so poor they need to play at 720p?

You aren't a true Intel fan until you play exclusively at QQVGA, AMD cannot compete.

That's what they told me when I bought my Q6600 instead of E8400 "yeah those 4 cores are gonna be the shit"

You should wait until the Ryzen refresh.
No joke. Intel prices might even go down.

>no m+kb support
>overpriced games
>shit fps
>pc has much more utility outside gaymin
I don't give enough of a fuck about the exclusives to want it. I don't want to spend 200€ and like 50€ per game when I'm only going to play like 3.

>playing first person shooters
>buying digital games even if they're cheap
>implying 60fps would make AAA rehashes any better
>implying you can't get the same general use out of a 200€ HP prebuilt with an SSD nowdays just fine

PC gaming is a meme and sticking an SSD even in an old PC makes even old computers perform ok in general tasks.

That's because Israelis know what's good

Intel prices won't go down because the supply part of supply/demand is nonexistent.

Ryzen has been out for months and already acknowledged by all the tech YouTubers as the best CPUs, I'm not paying for Intel fuck you

>all the tech YouTubers
I like Ryzen but your source for hardware validation is absolutely retarded.

How did you get so much info from my comment?
>playing weeb games
>not torrenting every game
>implying 60fps doesn't make anything better
>you can also spend 500€ on a nice mid range rig that can play any modern game, without having to get a shitty console that will be worthless in a few years
Stop trying to make excuses for you bad life descisions on Sup Forums. You fell for the console jew.

>720p intel has lead

>1440p Ryzel is neck to neck

I rather choose based on reality, not some obscure settings no one will play at.

>neck to neck

100% is the same as 103%?? AMDfags are truly delusional

102.5% is the same as 103%?? Intelfags are truly delusional

The degeneration of STATE of Intelfags on Sup Forums

Ryzens are better at the same price for work but if you are just gonna play games, you are fine with Inel.

Won't happen any time soon, because they are too busy developing DLC packages.

>23fps
LOL

The 8700k easily goes toe to toe matching ryzen 8 core parts in heavy multithreaded workloads. It’s generally faster in medium and light multithreaded workloads and crushes ryzen in single threaded performance.

Ryzen may match it in heavy multithreaded scenarios, but it will never match the 8700k in anything else. It will always be behind. Regardless how hard you try and how heavy you try to overclock, it will never match or surpass the 8700k in single threaded performance.

Worst case scenario is the 8700k matching ryzen 8 core parts in heavy multithreaded scenarios but destroying it in everything else. And that’s what makes the 8700k the superior processor. It has best of both worlds while ryzen only has one.

>zen appears to be more power efficient because its 8 cores use as much power as intel 6 cores and intel 8 cores uses more than amd 8 cores
this is appears this way because zen clock for clock is slower than skylake and its refreshes and zen also doesn't clock nearly as high as intel counterparts. intel parts like the 8700k are clocked extremely high and because of that draw a lot of power for being a 6 core compared to amd's 8 cores. intel though is able to produce a 6 core part that's able to keep up with amd 8 core parts in heavy multithreaded scenarios, genuinely faster in low-medium multithreaded, and superior single threaded. but again, comes at the cost of higher clocks. in the end, maybe amd has a small single digit percentage lead in power consumption if we can theorize a similar ipc, frequency, core for core zen vs intel's skylake, but with similar heavy multithreaded performance at stock and overclock, intel with its faster low-medium multithreaded and superior single and ipc, both come out to being neck to neck in power consumption. stock and overclocked to their limits on both ends. also intel has superior avx performance than amd's zen architecture and avx is known to drastically increase power consumption.

This sounds like pasta.

It is. I keep on seeing the same shit in these threads

>moar cores = higher latency
the reason why amd can scale so high, and do so with insanely high yields is because of infinity fabric. they are able to connect, essentially, "modules" together as one in the form of ccx's. each ccx contains 4 zen cores with each one of those 4 zen cores are directly linked to one another. add in two fully enabled ccx's and you get 8 cores. place two zen dies on a single pcb, and you have 4 ccx's for a total of 16 cores all connected via infinity fabric. the benefit to infinity fabric and the usage of ccx's is that you don't have to create a single monolithic design and try to connect all those cores together. but there are draw backs and that's ccx to ccx crosstalk latency. direct core to core communication is insanely fast and low latency. ccx to ccx crosstalk isn't anywhere as fast as direct and higher latency. now crosstalk on amd ryzen when isolated to the independent ccx is very fast and low latency as each of those 4 cores are directly linked to one another.this is why ccx is, and always will be limited to 4 cores. its pretty impossible to directly link 5, 6, 7+ cores together. you would need something like a ring buss or amd's ccx design. but once you want to communicate outside the ccx to another ccx cores is when the high latency and slower communication happens. thread scheduling is very important with ryzen to help limit the latency issues of ccx crosstalk.

intel instead of using something similar to infinity fabric uses a ring bus design. all the cores are built on a single, monolithic designed die and communicate to each other with a bi-directional ring bus. the benefits of this design over amd's design is lower latency and faster core to core communication. you don't have to cross a "middle man / no man's land" to communicate to each other. but it does come at a draw back of being a more complex, lower yield design as the entire die is built as one monolithic die along with the ring bus. the more cores means more stops. more stops equal more delay = latency. a 4, 6, 8 core intel ring bus design produces less latency and faster core communications compared to amd's infinity fabric 4, 6, 8 design but evidently you can get as high latency with intel's ring bus when you start scaling up to like 30 - 40 cores. but at lower core count ring bus is better.
intel has recently experimented with a new design called mesh with skylake-x but its currently suffering an issue of reduce performance with skylake-x compared to skylake mainstream in single threaded and low multithreaded tasks.

yeah i do keep posting it on every ryzen thread that pops up because its truth. i don't want some poor bloke to go buy a ryzen thinking its the best thing since slice bread compared to intel's offerings. people OVERLY promote ryzen to the point of hiding its faults. i switched from a 1800x to a 8700k and its the best thing i've done. games like pubg and space engineers with the same video card saw huge, real noticeable gains. going from my 1800x to my 8700k and with my vega 56, in a 1080p window i gained 30fps on max, and 20fps on minimums. i can actually run the game fairly smooth now at 1440p fullscreen while prior it struggled. you can spew all your toxic "poorly optimized games" nonsense all you want but all you're doing is showing your own ignorance. with a 8700k you don't have to give a shit if the game is poorly optimized or not. you will get the best possible performance with it. you don't have to wait for those mystical 100% perfectly multi-threaded games to take advantage of all those slower 8 cores you have on ryzen.

Yes, that's neck to neck.

Mesh will never reach the latency of ringbus, even on small core counts.
Each core acts as a network/endpoint, so it can move in any direction, on 30 cores each cores can move to other 30 directions, so imagine the traffic there.
While ringbus is a one way road.

If you have a Vega64 / GTX 1080 or higher and game on 1080p get the 8700k, if you have a higher res display or lower tier GPU get Ryzen.

>1600 @ 3.8 GHz
>RX 580 8G
it's alright
putting it in that fractal design core 500 case was pretty gud tho

What case is that bb?

cooler master haf xb evo bb
its interesting to see intel trying to create something new but yeah i have doubts about mesh. i can actually see them copying amd's infinity fabric+ ccx design down the line for their higher core counts. ring bus is fantastic for low core counts but infinity frabric + ccx design is so much better for higher core counts. and really, once you enter the realm of 30 - 40 cores you're going to be running very specific software with proper thread scheduling to help limit the latency issues.

Except bulldozer now performs better than core i7 2600.

>muh multi core / single core performance may may
Still using a six core Faildriver from 2012 and there's not a single game that does not run over 75 FPS with 1080p and Ultra settings.
Literary cost me 80€ with the motherboard in 2013.

Multicore is a thing now.
Alpha stage emulators are just optimized really badly. Same was with CEMU, now it runs brilliantly.

>i don't want some poor bloke to go buy a ryzen thinking its the best thing since slice bread
It is though, compared that it costs as much as sliced bread.

Nobody should pay half of their monthly paycheck for a PC build to enjoy some shitty video games occasionally with min 60 frames a second.

thanks bb

stop being poor and buy both chips, test, and sell what give worse performance.

Learn something about how games are developed before spouting nonsense

This whole fucking thread is pasta, what did you expect?

>5 frames per second
>paying an extra 400 dollars and giving your money away to the Intel Jew is worth it for the 5 extra frames per second on your babby toys
The absolute state of shills

I don't think you understand this means 30% more performance with less cores at stock clocks.

$104 for a more powerful CPU

The 1700x is about $299, stop being a retarded shill.

A U T I S M
the thread

YOU FUCKING PLEBS STOP FUCKING WITH MY BOARD

Which desk is that? It's beautiful.

Actually the fps isn't locked to the physics so you can run Persona 5 with 60fps on rpcs3 if you want. Maybe Persona 5 144fps will be possible when the cpu power is there.

is this the new "muh ryzen is smoother than stutterlake"?

Intel for gaming, ryzen for not gaming

The 1800x gets btfo in games by the 8400, half the price

Ryzen if you want both. I play any modern game at 120 plus fps at 1440p on a 144hx monitor. Plus it smashes ass on production too. Im VERY happy with my purchase. Plus, the 2nd gen series is coming soon in about 2 months. Will even be better.

Not a troll and while I get emulators are generally poorly-coded by amatuers picking up the pieces after some reverse engineer did all the hard work and then abandoned the project, what do actual modern games ever need serious processing power for that can't be multi-threaded? Seems like any software rendering would, while requiring more dynamic access to changing information, still be made parallel. And of course all physics could be entirely parallel. And there's no way actual game logic should ever be that processor-demanding. Is there some kind of rendering technique that needs highly sequential processing or something?

Because

Not at higher resolutions its doesn't. If you want to play at peasant resolutions, then yeah go get 180fps at 1080p. Anything past 144fps is a waste of money, even if you have 200hz monitor. Ive owned both, and there is ZERO difference between them. I play all modern games at 1440p at 120 plus FPS.

OP is playing at 1440p, so Ryzen gen 1 or 2 (a few months from now) will take care of all his needs. Not just gaming.

>not even bottlednecked by a gpu so hard you cant tell

Care to elaborate for the brainlets, spergus maximus? How difficult is it to utilize multiple cores?