CPU Longevity?

[voidshatter]

Boy you give your own opinion and wow being called stupid for buying a i7-7700k, nice very mature. My choice my money, my advice but never has to be taken and as I said it can depend on what you want to do and whether you want more cores or faster clock speed. Im sure Ryzen performs well and will get even better but personally i bought an i7-7700k last month deeming it to be the best for me and budget was irrelevant, however I got it for £280 so not to much more than the Ryzen 5s and cheaper than the 7s. Seems there is a lot of AMD nostalgia and fanboyism, personally ive never been a fan of AMD for CPUs or GPUs, they haven usually been cheaper for a reason and i believe there software support is worse than intel and nvidia.
I've seen varying benchmarks all very close, I'm confident 8 threads is still very relevant in gaming terms.
I am a tech fan and a gamer so I am glad they are being competitive again to give everyone more choice and better prices overall.

For some people it may look stupid to buy the i7-7700K, but for someone who knows what he needs it's not stupid. I've been an i7-980X@4GHz (6C12T) user for years, and I've seen enough days getting beaten by an i5-2500K@5GHz (4C4T) in so many games and daily applications where only the performance of 1-2 threads matter.

We all know that the CPUs nowadays have hit a wall and won't improve much on frequency, but they will continue to improve on the number of cores while the fab process develops. This means the i7-7700K will still last years and continue to be the king of clock (or remain about the highest standard) until it retires from single-threaded applications, while Ryzen is already doomed to be eliminated pretty soon for multi-threaded applications because we ought to see cheap 16C32T or 32C64T pretty soon.

 

[Doogles]

For some people it may look stupid to buy the i7-7700K, but for someone who knows what he needs it's not stupid. I've been an i7-980X@4GHz (6C12T) user for years, and I've seen enough days getting beaten by an i5-2500K@5GHz (4C4T) in so many games and daily applications where only the performance of 1-2 threads matter.

We all know that the CPUs nowadays have hit a wall and won't improve much on frequency, but they will continue to improve on the number of cores while the fab process develops. This means the i7-7700K will still last years and continue to be the king of clock (or remain about the highest standard) until it retires from single-threaded applications, while Ryzen is already doomed to be eliminated pretty soon for multi-threaded applications because we ought to see cheap 16C32T or 32C64T pretty soon.

Or maybe games will start to use more cores/threads, looking at BF 1 in multiplayer which seems to like 6c/12t, more cores are now affordable and actually worth thinking about before it was the FX 8xxx which was doomed from the start with low IPC but now if I was buying I'd get a 1600 over i5 any day.

 

[voidshatter]

If you are going to attempt to **** something off, then at least research it first. Socket AM4 will be around until at least 2020, so will get 2-3 generations of Zen CPU's that will just drop in with a BIOS upgrade.

Also if 2 core are enough, then just use i3's since i7's and i5's must be a waste of space according to you.

However, I will say this, it's not great at overclocking, but then it's a new architecture but I've built a total of five Ryzen system since launch, and they could all easily do 3.9GHz on low volts, running nice an cool. Which is more than can be said for a Kaby lake CPU that needs it's top chopping off if you want to get the full potential form it.

You think Ryzens are doing good in overclocking, at merely 4GHz? Take a look into the Valley thread. An i7-7700K can disable 2 cores and HT and go for [email protected] and achieve a high score. What about Ryzen? Bloody example.

 

[Journey]

You think Ryzens are doing good in overclocking, at merely 4GHz? Take a look into the Valley thread. An i7-7700K can disable 2 cores and HT and go for [email protected] and achieve a high score. What about Ryzen? Bloody example.

Jesus, are you blind? Read the post you just quoted, "it's not great at overclocking," if you are not careful people will just ignore you.

 

[voidshatter]

very poor opinion to have. if it's not the best of the best it's not a good investment? for one thing pc's are not an investment - you will not get your money or anything like it back if you go to sell it on. but more over it's just a silly opinion to state.

PC is indeed an investment - at the cost of depreciation over time you obtain satisfaction of game fps or whatever application speed for bragging rights. If it doesn't score best in anything, you'd feel itchy to upgrade more frequently, which results in less bang-for-the-bulk over time.

 

[voidshatter]

Jesus, are you blind? Read the post you just quoted, "it's not great at overclocking," if you are not careful people will just ignore you.

Not sure what you mean here. What I meant by "Ryzen not good at overclocking" is pointing to the issue of Ryzen having low frequency / poor clock. Ignore if you'd like.

 

[voidshatter]

Or maybe games will start to use more cores/threads, looking at BF 1 in multiplayer which seems to like 6c/12t, more cores are now affordable and actually worth thinking about before it was the FX 8xxx which was doomed from the start with low IPC but now if I was buying I'd get a 1600 over i5 any day.

Yeah, I just posted a benchmark of BF1 where Ryzen 1800X got worse performance than i7-7700K. Gonna wait longer to see 6-core and 8-core to shine, *if* they don't get out-numbered by 16C32T, 32C64T or whatever comes next.

 

[Journey]

Not sure what you mean here. What I meant by "Ryzen not good at overclocking" is pointing to the issue of Ryzen having low frequency / poor clock. Ignore if you'd like.

I said, in my post that they are not great at overclocking, you then stated that "You think Ryzens are doing good in overclocking" so are you reading the posts or just assuming people are only piling on praise? It seems that you have some sort of random hatred towards AMD, and the Ryzen CPU's and such just skim read and make an assumption that people are being positive about it.

I'd suggest that unless you have first hand experience of both newer, Intel and AMD systems that you quit commenting.

 

[Thekwango]

PC is indeed an investment - at the cost of depreciation over time you obtain satisfaction of game fps or whatever application speed for bragging rights. If it doesn't score best in anything, you'd feel itchy to upgrade more frequently, which results in less bang-for-the-bulk over time.

Bragging rights?? That right there is your problem. Most people don't give a toss about synthetic bench marks. They want something that runs smoothly and efficiently.
What Ryzen has done here and you don't even realise your posts are alluding to it is push the current Intel range into a very niche market - those who purely care about synthetic bench results and having 4million fps (in bench tests!)

 

[voidshatter]

I said, in my post that they are not great at overclocking, you then stated that "You think Ryzens are doing good in overclocking" so are you reading the posts or just assuming people are only piling on praise? It seems that you have some sort of random hatred towards AMD, and the Ryzen CPU's and such just skim read and make an assumption that people are being positive about it.

I'd suggest that unless you have first hand experience of both newer, Intel and AMD systems that you quit commenting.

Nope, it's not random hatred towards AMD. My first AMD CPU was in 1997. My response was towards your comment of i3. Based on your registration date, you shouldn't be a young boy any more. Why get into forum fight so actively without using mature languages? Did I inflame you or troll you?

If you've had access to both, then why not post your own comparisons?

 

[voidshatter]

Bragging rights?? That right there is your problem. Most people don't give a toss about synthetic bench marks. They want something that runs smoothly and efficiently.
What Ryzen has done here and you don't even realise your posts are alluding to it is push the current Intel range into a very niche market - those who purely care about synthetic bench results and having 4million fps (in bench tests!)

Not only my problem... The fact that you are replying in this thread means you care a lot about justifying your purchase. Most of the time the fight is won by those numbers out of synthetic benchmarks. For actual usage, how many would care which CPU runs more smoothly or lags for a second? Most of the time, people don't really need to upgrade. They feel like upgrading because they see newer products with better shiny numbers.

 

[Journey]

Nope, it's not random hatred towards AMD. My first AMD CPU was in 1997. My response was towards your comment of i3. Based on your registration date, you shouldn't be a young boy any more. Why get into forum fight so actively without using mature languages? Did I inflame you or troll you?

If you've had access to both, then why not post your own comparisons?

Wow, I'm stunned, where have I used non-mature language? You quoted my post, and bashed it, but you didn't even read it. You've not even apologised, or recognised that I said that Ryzen were not great at overclocking, just continued on with no acknowledgement at all.

What do I need to compare? We bought the Ryzen systems to test them against Intel, as the 6900K's were so expensive, and the R5 CPU's were silly cheap compared to the Intel offerings. These are not games systems, they are primarly used for development work, 3D modelling/CAD/CAM and rendering with some compute tasks with fast GPU's. The other systems are used for image manipulation with using Photoscan and other such software.

 

[Thekwango]

Not only my problem... The fact that you are replying in this thread means you care a lot about justifying your purchase. Most of the time the fight is won by those numbers out of synthetic benchmarks. For actual usage, how many would care which CPU runs more smoothly or lags for a second? Most of the time, people don't really need to upgrade. They feel like upgrading because they see newer products with better shiny numbers.

I don't need to justify anything. I've purchased neither - though I will almost certainly be going Ryzen because it is the better all round platform.

The reason you quote for people upgrading is unbelievably wrong. The very niche market as I mentioned above, yes that's why they upgrade because they need bigger numbers - epeen and all that - bigger/higher top end numbers often at the sake of stability. Yay my pc can run at 60ghz and I can get 3 more fps on top of the half a gazillion I already have, my pc is a stuttering mess but I don't care, cause number yo - those are the type that upgrade for shiny numbers. Back in the real world though, yes most people do care which cpu runs more smoothly and which lags for a second.

Im really struggling with your mindset on this to be honest.

What I will say though, and this is something that really infuriates me - it's totally skewed viewpoints like yours that will result in some poor sod who knows next to nowt about cpu's and ghz and max and min fps buying an i5 now and in a years time they'll be in the general hardware section asking for help because their system is stuttering and lagging. This thread is about cpu longevity. Not a gazillion fps or moar ghz. I'd suggest you maybe move on into the ocverclocking sub forum and have at it with the number crunchers. There's nowt wrong with wanting bigger numbers but you are in a very small minority of pc gamers.

 

[Thekwango]

Snip

I fear, sir, you may be flogging a dead horse. I'd hazard a guess this chap(or chapette) has the blinkers on due to some random rage he or she has developed for no reason against AMD/Ryzen.

 

[voidshatter]

Wow, I'm stunned, where have I used non-mature language? You quoted my post, and bashed it, but you didn't even read it. You've not even apologised, or recognised that I said that Ryzen were not great at overclocking, just continued on with no acknowledgement at all.

What do I need to compare? We bought the Ryzen systems to test them against Intel, as the 6900K's were so expensive, and the R5 CPU's were silly cheap compared to the Intel offerings. These are not games systems, they are primarly used for development work, 3D modelling/CAD/CAM and rendering with some compute tasks with fast GPU's. The other systems are used for image manipulation with using Photoscan and other such software.

I never said Ryzens are not good at specific development work. However, since you mention applications like image manipulation, care to compare [email protected] against 1700@4GHz for the following?

a) Import 100 RAW files into Capture One;

b) Export 100 RAW files into JPG files in Capture One;

c) Stitch 7 images (each 50MP) using Photomerge in Photoshop;

d) Apply a fixed set of filters in Nik Collection in Photoshop.

I can list a long number of applications where frequency is still the king.

 

[voidshatter]

I don't need to justify anything. I've purchased neither - though I will almost certainly be going Ryzen because it is the better all round platform.

The reason you quote for people upgrading is unbelievably wrong. The very niche market as I mentioned above, yes that's why they upgrade because they need bigger numbers - epeen and all that - bigger/higher top end numbers often at the sake of stability. Yay my pc can run at 60ghz and I can get 3 more fps on top of the half a gazillion I already have, my pc is a stuttering mess but I don't care, cause number yo - those are the type that upgrade for shiny numbers. Back in the real world though, yes most people do care which cpu runs more smoothly and which lags for a second.

Im really struggling with your mindset on this to be honest.

What I will say though, and this is something that really infuriates me - it's totally skewed viewpoints like yours that will result in some poor sod who knows next to nowt about cpu's and ghz and max and min fps buying an i5 now and in a years time they'll be in the general hardware section asking for help because their system is stuttering and lagging. This thread is about cpu longevity. Not a gazillion fps or moar ghz. I'd suggest you maybe move on into the ocverclocking sub forum and have at it with the number crunchers. There's nowt wrong with wanting bigger numbers but you are in a very small minority of pc gamers.

Nope, there won't be anything like 60GHz in the near future. 5GHz will continue to be of high standard for years.

By the time quad-core users are asking for help regarding stuttering (insufficient number of cores), first generation Ryzen users would also be asking for help regarding stuttering (low frequency). Chances are that the second generation of Ryzens can hit higher clocks, which results in the first generation users upgrading.

 

[Thekwango]

Nope, there won't be anything like 60GHz in the near future. 5GHz will continue to be of high standard for years.

By the time quad-core users are asking for help regarding stuttering (insufficient number of cores), first generation Ryzen users would also be asking for help regarding stuttering (low frequency). Chances are that the second generation of Ryzens can hit higher clocks, which results in the first generation users upgrading.

You do realise I was being facetious when I said 60ghz?!

1st gen Ryzen users will be the happier of the 2 then as they'll have the option to drop in a zen+ chip. Your i5 users will be looking a new board and chip.

Your argument kind of backs up mine for Ryzen over Intel in terms of longevity. Best have a longer think between posts mate, stop letting the rage cloud your judgement.

 

[voidshatter]

You do realise I was being facetious when I said 60ghz?!

1st gen Ryzen users will be the happier of the 2 then as they'll have the option to drop in a zen+ chip. Your i5 users will be looking a new board and chip.

Your argument kind of backs up mine for Ryzen over Intel in terms of longevity. Best have a longer think between posts mate, stop letting the rage cloud your judgement.

Z170 users could have dropped in an i7-7700K, which I consider a mercy from Intel. 7 years ago there was an argument about AMD being better at preserving motherboard compatibility. However, that argument was quickly dismissed because newer motherboard would always come up with something new to attract you upgrading, e.g. better memory overclockability, better PCI-E layout, more M.2 with higher bandwidth with affluent PCI-E channels etc. Yes, you can continue to use your old AMD motherboard, but when you are asking for help in the general section regarding stuttering, people would suggest you upgrade the motherboard as well, regardless of whether you need to or not. Been there, done that.

 

[Thekwango]

but when you are asking for help in the general section regarding stuttering, people would suggest you upgrade the motherboard as well, regardless of whether you need to or not. Been there, done that.

And that backs up yet another of my points - poor advice leading to people making wrong/poor/unnecessarily costly decisions. Again, thank you for arguing my point for me.
Why would you change your motherboard, unless there was a specific requirement that a new one offered? Just because it has something shiny and new on it doesn't mean you (by you I mean people in general) need to change it. Again the only people who do that are the number crunchers.

I said earlier I wasn't sure where your mindset was coming from but it's starting to become clear. It's a bit like the kid that was bullied in school growing up to be a bully himself.
You've received bad advice in the past and now you're inadvertently doing he same - offering poor/bad advice.

I think our discussion here is done to be honest. The past few replies you've actually made arguments for the points I'd raised - even though that was not your intention. That hole you're digging mate, I'll do you a favour and let you be so you don't dig it any deeper.

 

[voidshatter]

And that backs up yet another of my points - poor advice leading to people making wrong/poor/unnecessarily costly decisions. Again, thank you for arguing my point for me.
Why would you change your motherboard, unless there was a specific requirement that a new one offered? Just because it has something shiny and new on it doesn't mean you (by you I mean people in general) need to change it. Again the only people who do that are the number crunchers.

I said earlier I wasn't sure where your mindset was coming from but it's starting to become clear. It's a bit like the kid that was bullied in school growing up to be a bully himself.
You've received bad advice in the past and now you're inadvertently doing he same - offering poor/bad advice.

I think our discussion here is done to be honest. The past few replies you've actually made arguments for the points I'd raised - even though that was not your intention. That hole you're digging mate, I'll do you a favour and let you be so you don't dig it any deeper.

Nope. You still don't get the concept of bragging rights. Let's stop here (Hint: what is forum for?)