Read more.Competition has been restored, but which £200 chip would you choose?
Read more.Competition has been restored, but which £200 chip would you choose?
Ryzen 5 1600 and that is from a FO4 player where the Core i5 7600K has the edge. The fact of the matter is when I am helping someone with a build many people I know would want a £200 CPU to last a few years,and as time progresses the Core i5 7600K will be more of a limiting factor. It also does not help it cost more as a CPU,it lacks a cooler,the Z series motherboards cost more than the B series ones and to get the best overclocks you need to delid destroying the warranty.
I helped someone with a build a while back,and by the time I had added the cost of even a £25 to £30 cooler,the added cost of the Core i5 7600K and the slightly more expensive motherboard,it was not worth it as the money saved went towards an SSD in the build. Plus in the games like Overwatch there is no difference between the chips too,and for their work related stuff it looked superior.
Also if the rumoured sub £130 price for the 4C/4T Ryzen CPUs is true then pay nearly double for a Core i5 7600K over a Ryzen 3 1100 seems a tad pointless for me.
1600.
More cores, more threads, cheaper motherboards and a better stock cooler. The biggest reason is that it'll be better for the industry as a whole if AMD can cut into Intel's market share.
Intel has been coasting for too long while putting in the bare minimum.
Ryzen 5, no question. Just need some money for an upgrade.
1600 - 6 cores and 12 threads is more future proof than 4 cores with 4 threads. AMD's SMT is fairly decent too, so those SMT threads are useful.
Sure, the Intel part is faster in single thread, but you have to look at the overall picture.
Most people here won't care about the integrated GPU. Indeed it just adds cruft to the motherboard. Boards for the AMD part seem fairly reasonably priced as well.
Ryzen 5, an obvious choice. It is the more powerful CPU, by a considerable amount. And sooner or later, games will be better optimised for more cores. It's just a matter of when.
Can you run a test with ECC ram when you do get a lower end one? Thinking that since Intel left the market - there is a space for small form factor servers , especially with Ryzen 3
Ryzen. The 1600 is plenty for gaming. Throw in my productivity workload and it is a no brainer.
New tech, vs established tech...
Not sure how I'd call it for a new build. Price & reliability, so probably the Ryzen; however, I do tend to be risk adverse.
amd rysen
If upgrading from a older pc than I have now I suppose it would be Ryzen although it still can be buggy with memory which tends to put me off. If upgrading from my 4790k then neither of them because they aren't a big enough improvement and Ryzen could have possibly worse single core performance than my 4790k. Single core performance is most important to me as I mainly play simulators such as TS2017 and FSX that are mainly single threaded and love a high clockspeed.
Ryzen 5 1600.
Intel has been resting on their laurels and charging at really high prices for far too long. The build quality of their latest offerings have been really iffy, and while I may get better performance on Intel CPUs, the fact that I have to purchase an expensive motherboard that can support the Intel CPU defeats the purpose. 4 cores and 4 threads are not going to last long so if I look at things in the long run, I'll get more mileage and save more money with the Ryzen 5 1600.
Many years back, I asked a gaming forum for recommendations for a budget gaming build. Most people recommended I get an i3 but one very respected user said that getting a Quad Core FX 4100 would be a better decision in the long run because more games would cap the minimum requirement at a Quad Core. His prediction was perfect and had I got that i3 like most people said, I would have ended up playing a lot less games than I do now.
Last but not the least, Intel still has that 1.2 billion dollar fine they haven't paid for unfair market practices. I greatly detest cheaters so AMD has my full support. Strong competition leads to better products, better prices and better deals for consumers. A market monopoly is the worst thing that can happen for us consumers.
Last edited by fend_oblivion; 14-07-2017 at 07:38 PM. Reason: Clarification
Ryzen 5.
11 to 1, thus far. The CPU world is changing, I guess...
i bought the ryzen 5 1600. i did enough research to where i saw in most cases in what i do, the 1600 was a better choice. i could have gotta an i7 7700k for $90. i still wanted the 1600, can again in what i do, the 1600 beat the i7 7700k. As far as gaming most of the programs are written mostly using the intel dev kit and not the ryzen kit. also some of the programmers have admitted to it being too much work to go passed 4 cores. are they lazy? maybe, but i do know they have a time frame to finish their project.
Ryzen 5 - I've already put my money where my mouth is.
AMD have stepped up, so I decided to show some love.
Coming from a £250 i7 2600k 4 core 8 thread, I refuse to spend £200 on i5 7600 4 core 4 thread 6 years later. I really will feel like going backwards despite the IPC increases. Now Ryzen 5 1600, 6 cores 12 threads. Now that's progress
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)