Read more.Quote:
The new chips are here, will you be buying?
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
The new chips are here, will you be buying?
I have finished with my build for now but currently have a project going with my brother in law for a gaming rig, the single core performance still has him wanting the 8700k I am afraid. As some people have said here, whilst AMD are doing a great job with professional multi core workloads, unless they can actually beat Intel by a noticeable difference in gaming performance for a similar or better price, not as many people as AMD would like are wanting to bite. It is sad but true, I did the same thing with my rig, I ended up getting the 7700k instead of the 1800x.
It's definitely on my shortlist for the next rig, but that'll (hopefully) be far enough out that ryzen 3 will be available
Intel can't beat intel with a noticeable difference in gaming, even an i3 won't be a noticeable bottleneck these daysQuote:
Originally Posted by EvilCycle
The thing with the single threaded performance is that it becomes irrelevant on anything above 1080p, but no outlets seem to want to show that. Hexus is one of the few that does test multiple resolutions. If you are going above 1080p (which you should be with a CPU like this) the difference is almost 0.Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilCycle
I'm still considering the APU route as an interim.
For me it's a yes, multi threaded workload for me on this "work" pc. 8c 16t will be a decent upgrade from my 6c 12t machine based on x58/X5645/24 gig DDR3
It will come down to what I can afford.
Were I in the position to just buy whatever I want, then yes it is the most tempting it has been in a long time though I am not entirely sure given what I believe to be my usage, that it would still be a better choice than the 8700K.
100% correct but his thinking is that when his shiny new 4k capable GPU is not so shiny new and no longer running the latest AAA's at 4k, he will still be getting the frames and general game settings he wants by going back to 1080p instead of upgrading again, he isn't quite the enthusiast as some of us are here and wants more mileage than most would expect. It was a bit different for me as the first gen of Ryzen was a little iffy in some areas so I just thought I was playing it safe for a gaming rig.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wozza365
If he wants more mileage in the latest games then the more powerful processor is going to make the most sense. Newer games are only becoming more multi threaded, and those that are can often perform better on the Ryzens than Intel because they are better in terms of raw power. I bought the 1700X for that exact reason. The i7's from before this gen look almost pathetic now that Intel finally released 6 cores, and how long before more cores are wanted? I think the jump from 6-8 will be less than 4-6.
I think Ryzen 2 (the next one) is almost definitely going to include a mainstream 12c/24t CPU option and once again, Intel's high end offerings are going to look pathetic in anything but gaming.
Maybe,as FO4 performance is noticeably better(although Intel has the edge).
I use my rig for gaming, just plain o'gaming. I would stick with Intel if I had to upgrade today for this reason only. Now if your wanting to do some workload heavy stuff too then Ryzen +(its not really Ryzen gen 2, that's coming out later). After watching GamersNexus review on Youtube i would also advice someone who wants to game/stream or is thinking of doing in the near future on the same PC to go with Ryzen +. Ryzen+ has its uses, just not good enough for my gaming needs.
Resolution has nothing to do with with ryzen performance - the only time a gap opens up between intel and ryzen is at ultra high refresh rates. If you go down to 1080p the chip doesn't commit sudoku.Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilCycle
It's also worth considering the longevity of the platform - if you want a system to last longer "than most would expect", you should be buying the platform that will have new motherboards & CPUs released for it for years to come
I read this comment a lot and can only assume people like yourself play mainly single player games. Play any 64+ multiplier game online (planetside 2, Squad, PUBG etc.) and single threaded performance is a must even when playing at the low frame rates of 4k where the world simulation time still far exceeds GPU draw time. "Outlets" should showcase benchmarks where IPC actually matters, not the same old benchmarks that show marginal differences between CPUs generation. Easier said than done mind. I don't know of any benchmark that showcase the online workloads of large scale multiple games, only benchmarks that test their graphics engines offline.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wozza365
Unfortunately no. My pc is purely a gaming pc and most of the games I tend to play (mainly simulators) are mostly single threaded. AMD has a long way to go to catch up with Intel on single threaded performance and the 2700x is behind my 4790k let alone a 8700k in single threaded tasks. Saying that I wouldn't buy Intel at the moment either as the performance gain is not worth the huge price I would have to pay so I shall be sticking with what I have for a good couple of years yet.
Well, considering the subsystem pricing, they're pretty close between a higher end X470 mobo and the 2700X vs an average middle priced Z370 mobo and the 8700K.
I guess it depends on usage scenario, do you need higher single core IPC, or do you need more cores for multi-threaded workloads? Personally I'd opt for the 2nd gen Ryzen for more than just the pricing or IPC / all-core performance, I'd also opt for it due to the way Intel has handled the whole Meltdown / Spectre issue. Even for gaming, the 2700X is a great performer, it looks like they've produced a great cpu for the price.
Now if only memory and gpu pricing wasn't so ridiculous, I'd almost be tempted to semi-retire my Sandy Bridge system.
It's probably not something that sees a benchmark due to inconsistency between passes.Quote:
Originally Posted by een4dja