well going off of the steam survey (its the best we'v got tbh) 4 cores at over 50% now 2 cores at 43% though which means theres a hell of a lot of very crappy pc's out there still. i know a lot of variables when it comes to steam but you'd hope devs would be looking at least utilising more cores now, even just 2 is a nice jump over just maxing one out.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
CPU Longevity?
- Thread starter cosmogenesis
- Start date
If AMD's promise to keep AM4 as the platform for Ryzen+, surely the issue of longevity becomes less of a problem? Mobo + memory is half the cost, and you don't have to bother with a reinstall 
Personally I'm waiting to hear about the high frequency memory issues with current Ryzen, but assuming they sort that out, my plan will be Ryzen, then Ryzen+ in a year or two.
Personally I'm waiting to hear about the high frequency memory issues with current Ryzen, but assuming they sort that out, my plan will be Ryzen, then Ryzen+ in a year or two.
Soldato
Why though? A 6700k will be a faster gaming CPU than ryzen for the immediate future.
I certainly don't regret buying mine just before Christmas.
Depends on what you do with it though.
6700k will be a powerhouse for a fair few years for most common usage.
Associate
Depends on what you're doing gaming wise and image wise. Higher the Res the less it matters as you are then GPU bound. More games are taking advantage of more threads and therefore more cores but right now gaming performance is pretty much same for Ryzen and Kabylake. Price wise they are actually very similarly priced, wit usual RAM and Mobo manufacturer price differences. With skylake x around the corner it might be good to wait, CPU speed is still important and rumours are they will clock at 4.5ghz even 6 and 8 core parts. Price wise Intel won't want to lose more market share they will price well against the Ryzens. Me I upgraded to Kabylake i7-7700k don't regret,it rocks at 4.9ghz!
Caporegime
The 7700K is near £150 more than AMD's 'just as and often more capable 6 core', Intel's equivalent 6 core will be £400+
I just don't get it, AMD right now have a better chip than Intel for the money, even AMD's motherboard are less expensive, so the answer is wait for even more expensive Intel chip's and boards?
There is a 7% difference between the 7700K and the £150 cheaper Ryzen 5 chips, take out all the games prior to 2016 at its actually the Ryzen chip that wins, in everything outside of gaming the Ryzen chip wins conclusively.
But no... everyone should wait for Intel's £400 response.
Intel throwing more thread at it does not help them.
And yes the Ryzen chips are far better future proofing...
Last edited:
Soldato
The 7700K is near £150 more than AMD's 'just as and often more capable 6 core', Intel's equivalent 6 core will be £400+
I just don't get it, AMD right now have a better chip than Intel for the money, even AMD's motherboard are less expensive, so the answer is wait for even more expensive Intel chip's and boards?
There is a 7% difference between the 7700K and the £150 cheaper Ryzen 5 chips, take out all the games prior to 2016 at its actually the Ryzen chip that wins, in everything outside of gaming the Ryzen chip wins conclusively.
But no... everyone should wait for Intel's £400 response.
Intel throwing more thread at it does not help them.
And yes the Ryzen chips are far better future proofing...
You showed this much better than I did. Kudos!
Unfortunately people some people are blind to things like this. Call them misinformed or uneducated, I call them fanboys personally.
There will always be some that will defend the above results even though its clear who the winner is
Soldato
You showed this much better than I did. Kudos!
Unfortunately people some people are blind to things like this. Call them misinformed or uneducated, I call them fanboys personally.
There will always be some that will defend the above results even though its clear who the winner is
I think it's just hard for some people to acknowledge that AMD are now competitive against Intel, and they may not have been around on the computer scene the last time AMD were competitive with CPU''s against Intel. I suppose it's a bit like people who can't leave a mobile phone eco system, because theirs has to be better, I mean how could it not be they have been using it for so long etc.
Psychology, marketing, and general crowd following will always have a part to play in people perceptions of what is good, or not good as I am sure everyone will agree. However I may take another 9-12 months, and evidence or market share shift to AMD from Intel, and SI's and big OEM's offering the AMD alternatives to push forward this change.
Hey, at the end of the day people pay their monies and make their choice, if they don't have independent, thought, are swayed by marketing or just don't like a brand for whatever reason, then let them get on with it.
Soldato
I'm fairly set on waiting for x299 although may still go 1700x. If the six cores do 4.3-4.5 on decent aio I'd rather pay the extra, as it will be years before 12 threads become a bottleneck and even then, there's an upgrade path. Like with anything, at least for the most part, the best costs.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Frankly i don't care what others chose to do with their money.
But it is hard for me to sit back and watch others hand out bad advice about what to do with their money, despite what some reviewers say, like Toms Hardware, there is plenty of actually evidence on the net to prove AMD are competitive on performance alone, when it come to price for performance AMD have Intel conclusively beat.
I'm not convinced its fanboyisum, i just think there is too much bad advice out there and a mentality to follow it.
But it is hard for me to sit back and watch others hand out bad advice about what to do with their money, despite what some reviewers say, like Toms Hardware, there is plenty of actually evidence on the net to prove AMD are competitive on performance alone, when it come to price for performance AMD have Intel conclusively beat.
I'm not convinced its fanboyisum, i just think there is too much bad advice out there and a mentality to follow it.
I cannot see Intel offering same value for money and will personally be getting a 8/10 core AMD chip next yr when I look to upgrade my 6700k.
We've been shafted by Intel paying inflated prices for deliberately stifled tech (to maintain their profit margins).
Intel have only recently started spending more money on r&d which speaks volumes and the utter stupid advice not to overclock overclock-designed 7700k just shows how much they care about their customers.
Also competition is healthy. Time to give the other dog a bone!
We've been shafted by Intel paying inflated prices for deliberately stifled tech (to maintain their profit margins).
Intel have only recently started spending more money on r&d which speaks volumes and the utter stupid advice not to overclock overclock-designed 7700k just shows how much they care about their customers.
Also competition is healthy. Time to give the other dog a bone!
I put a spec me post up a few days ago asking to spec an Intel system. I then went back and edited the Intel out after reading about Ryzen. I've always been Intel since going from a Commodore A1200. Never given AMD a chance but now I'd jump ship in flash. But Alas I find myself waiting for the next big announcement from either gang.
You end up waiting forever if you do that though
AMD's tech is still fresh out the gate, Intel have just announced some 6-8 core models "soon". If you're not waiting for those, then base your choice on Ryzen vs a 7700k.You end up waiting forever if you do that though
I almost hit go on the Ryzen last week. I don't upgrade often i7.920 at the moment and only just got rid of my 8800GTX for a 1070. I can put it off for as long as I can stand the random BSOD's. Which may be nothing to do with the need/want to upgrade.
To be honest i think its MB issues as its taking an age to boot past bios. Even with everything disconnected.
I was waiting for these Ryzen memory timing issues/update due in a couple of weeks before upgrading the CPU, MB and memory.
Dunno how more deluded ppl could be? Multicore rulez - right here right now, sitting on 4 thread cpu now= stuttering hell of gaming experience, all 8 thread fxs and i7 = smooth game play. Why would you care to have +15fps in the straight line if you can't do sharp turn without lagging ?
Soldato
What are you taking about? What system spec is giving you a "stuttering hell"?
I had some bluescreen issues after a gpu upgrade (1060 for me) which turned out to be nvidia drivers. Needed a heavy-handed full removal of all hints of drivers, then it stopped
I'm also waiting on the memory timing stuff, tbh. It's very iffy for me as to whether I'd be better off with an overclocked 7700k vs a Ryzen. I know the latter has more cores+threads, but most of what I do is bound by 1-4 threads, so I want it to deliver the best performance it can for that task, and Ryzen seems very dependant on memory frequency to do so.
Soldato
I had some bluescreen issues after a gpu upgrade (1060 for me) which turned out to be nvidia drivers. Needed a heavy-handed full removal of all hints of drivers, then it stopped
I'm also waiting on the memory timing stuff, tbh. It's very iffy for me as to whether I'd be better off with an overclocked 7700k vs a Ryzen. I know the latter has more cores+threads, but most of what I do is bound by 1-4 threads, so I want it to deliver the best performance it can for that task, and Ryzen seems very dependant on memory frequency to do so.
I assume you don't play too many games then?
Soldato
Whilst this does hold some water, you are using an fx chip which is miles behind most intel chips.
In several of those benchmarks no cores on the Ryzen chip are hitting 100% and the GPU is also nowhere near 100% usage. So what is likely the bottleneck in these situations? Is it RAM or storage bandwidth / latency? Is there too little CPU cache or is it too slow? Is the "usage" measure simply inaccurate? (I imagine it's a gross simplification of what is going on inside the CPU / GPU). Is a frame limiter being hit? I'd be really interested if anybody could offer some insight.
Associate
Mate, you completely lost me with that post