LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThe Ryzen 5 1600 wins for me at least, 6 cores/12 threads for under £200, in fact I saw it going for £185 on Amazon a short time ago.
The Ryzen 5 1600 wins for me at least, 6 cores/12 threads for under £200, in fact I saw it going for £185 on Amazon a short time ago.
In this hypothetical it has to be the Ryzen. I have a yen for Zen, ye ken?
In practice the question is whether to get a ThreadRipper or an EPYC 1P. I look forward to reading reviews and calculating complete system prices. If Zen 2 isn't too far away then I might be able to wait for it.
I see what you did there!Originally Posted by devBunny
Already chose a 1700. The 1600 is a good deal. In terms of future use 1700 would be better.
It is pretty simple.. AMD offer the best product for the price currently.. am not a fan of either brand or want to defend them either, as a consumer I go for the best value for the coin spendt... though when I build it is the big CPU/GPU's though but even there AMD currently has won me over.
Intel all the way...
Nah, I'm just pulling your leg! Ryzen is a way better deal. Sure, single-threaded performance isn't quite up there, but Ryzen is more future-proof and AMD doesn't artificially segment the market like Intel by fusing off features.
As late as yesterday I recommended a friend to go with the R5 1600 over the i5-7600K. He's always been using Intel, but even he recognized the better deal when he saw it.
This thread has been sprayed with red love (giggity). It proves that AMD have shook the market eith Intels response and the competition is now in the right area. I would definitely go for a r5 1600, this is due to my AMD bias but also because all my suspicions that Intel have been artificially holding back because they've had no competition has really angered me. If Intel had continued doing their devarc rather than just doing a ticktocktocktocktocktocktock on us, AMD wouldn't have had a chance.
I'm still not sure which way I'll jump on this, part of me says follow the crowd and go with the AMD with the next PC I plan to build soon'ish. But my current PC is an i5-2500k which I've been running about six years and it's still going well, would I have been as happy with a six year old AMD, and will the AMD have the headroom to still be going strong in a few years time?
I know I wouldn't go for the non-K version of the Intel, the extra cost spread over the four-five year lifespan isn't a worry.
The two options in the question are comparing a 6 month old chip with a brand new one. I'm going to wait and see what Intel do with Coffee Lake later in the year before making a decision, so my answer to the question above at the moment is neither, I would wait a few more months to see how things settle. If AMD start taking market share Intel will have to react in some way, perhaps with more competitive prices.
If I was spending that much it'd be the 1600 without question.
In fact the 1600 was second place in my CPU list, it only lost out to the G4560 because the extra £150 brought much better results when spent elsewhere.
Intel are re-packaging and re-branding existing Xeon products from an old roadmap. There is nothing new here other than an overclock of existing parts and some price adjustments. Yes the case for 6 cores is now so overwhelming that it looked like Intel were finally going to buckle anyway at least that far, but please don't confuse packaging with innovation.
Intel are primarily a manufacturing company, historically their CPU design has always lagged others. Even now when they are pretty much the only player, if I wanted a really high end server I would be looking at an IBM Power based machine. Then there is the way that Intel have been laptop focussed for some years now as they didn't think the desktop was a worthwhile market.
It takes several years to design a new core. Just to do a new layout with a given core/cache/gpu split takes about 6 months. Intel haven't reacted yet other than marketing tweaks. They have always been good at that, but that is to their advantage bleeding us for maximum profit not to our advantage.
I stick by my earlier comment, the Intel cores are as good as they can manage. The products are well balanced for maximum Intel profit. I can't see any holding back here, apart from they could have optimised for desktop rather than laptop. But then people seem to like the reduced TDP, so perhaps they were spot on there too.
The difference between intel and AMD 6 years ago was not what it is now. If you can afford to pay the ~£300 for a 6-core coffee lake there'll be nothing wrong with it, but looking at value a 12 core ryzen processor will wipe the floor with a 4 core intel processor in 6 years time.
I'll be one of the odd ones out and say I'd still go for the Intel chip. Because:
1.I like per-core performance (in my day to day work/play, 4 high-IPC cores are somewhat more useful than 6 mid/high-IPC cores).
2.Intel's platforms/chipsets are still a bit more solid than AMDs (as long as they're not rushing them out, *cough*X299*cough*). Was burned back in the Athlon x2 days and have just never really been convinced by AMDs platforms.
3. I like power efficiency and quiet-ish operation of my PC, while also enjoying some mild overclocking. Intel seem to care more about efficiency and cool running than AMD do (except with their TIM choices, but that's a minor grumble). Often feels like AMD chips are already well on the way to their thermal/power limits even running at stock.
4. I don't replace my core components often enough for an extra £100 here or there to be a massive decider, since a CPU/mobo platform will generally last me at least 4 years - plus we all know how relatively pointless it is trying to future proof a PC, anyway
Just my 0.02p
1. I bet the per-core performance difference won't be noticeable or an issue to most of users, including you. You didn't used yet a Ryzen 1600 and a 7600 side by side to make a grounded statement.I'll be one of the odd ones out and say I'd still go for the Intel chip. Because:
1.I like per-core performance (in my day to day work/play, 4 high-IPC cores are somewhat more useful than 6 mid/high-IPC cores).
2.Intel's platforms/chipsets are still a bit more solid than AMDs (as long as they're not rushing them out, *cough*X299*cough*). Was burned back in the Athlon x2 days and have just never really been convinced by AMDs platforms.
3. I like power efficiency and quiet-ish operation of my PC, while also enjoying some mild overclocking. Intel seem to care more about efficiency and cool running than AMD do (except with their TIM choices, but that's a minor grumble). Often feels like AMD chips are already well on the way to their thermal/power limits even running at stock.
4. I don't replace my core components often enough for an extra £100 here or there to be a massive decider, since a CPU/mobo platform will generally last me at least 4 years - plus we all know how relatively pointless it is trying to future proof a PC, anyway
Just my 0.02p
2. I had a nForce platform in Athlon X2 days and never had an issue really.
3. This is just an old stereotype. AMD is much better nowadays with thermals/acoustics and Ryzen is comparable/even better compared to what Intel has.
4. Yes, I have to agree with that, but now the market has an inflexion point - like in the single core to multi core days - when suddenly AMD came to life and gave people the chance to move away from only 4 cores, which Intel kept as long as they could.
So, all in all, I suggest you try first an AMD Ryzen powered system and after a few days of use, give us your opinion.
Ryzen seems like an easy and obvious answer.
Where it gets interesting is when you're not building a gaming PC. The Ryzen line aren't APUs, whereas all the Intel ones are up to the HPET chips. I was looking at a Ryzen 5 1400 for a low-end rig for somebody who doesn't game, and the Intel offering is actually cheaper because of this. I was quite surprised.
It would definitely have to be the Ryzen out of the two.
Partly as AMD usually tend to be better value, but mostly for the fact that I trust there to be more of an upgrade path with AMD, whereas Intel love to change sockets much more frequently.
On that front there is of course the 1700(x)/1800(x) as an upgrade anyway but AMD don't tend to change socket with each new processor like intel seem to be doing these days which as you say is also an advantage.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote