Ok, I see, so you simply ignore the performance comparison charts and think that Ryzen 3000 is the mother of it all. It's not. And I don't like it because it has its own traits.
-
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.
Intel admits it won't catch up with AMD's 7nm chips until 2021
- Thread starter Phil Smith
- Start date
Ok, I see, so you simply ignore the performance comparison charts and think that Ryzen 3000 is the mother of it all. It's not. And I don't like it because it has its own traits.
When measuring a CPU performance comparison you do it by using software that pushes every transistor to its limit, that's what Cinebench and many other applications do, when you present to us 4K gaming reviews and single threaded benchmarks to make your point you need to realise you're going to get called out on it.
Like these people who review CPU performance in games by staring at a wall and then crow "Look, i3 is as fast as an i7".
Yes, some still do that crap.
You are clutching at straws my friend. If you are so sure you can get the same performance from a 1700 then go and buy one. What I wouldn’t do is try to convince others that a 1700 offers remotely comparable performance to a 3700X.
Hence the reason for his insane mental gymnastics to justify his arguments.
My mind is Pretzeled just reading it
Lol. Yes I can’t remember such a silly argument since the coffee lake thread.
Well, Ryzen 7 1700 offers 50% or more better performance per dollar which is my point. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-3700x/22.html
Ok, the price for a 1700 is low 200’s the price for a 3700X is low 300’s that is the reality.
That £100 saving will pale in comparison to the expense of building a 4K gaming system and a Ryzen 1700 is going to offer significantly less CPU performance than a 3700X. That is my point.
Is the difference in performance worth the price? Well to me I’d say it is.
Performance is always relative to what you need and that is how you should judge it.
Gpu A does 60fps at 4K
Gpu B only does 50fps at 4K
Gpu A costs 40% more than B
So it’s not worth it right, only if you can handle stutters and screen tearing otherwise it’s worth paying 40% more
Same with CPUs
Maybe CPU A is 50% faster in Workload X
But that 50% is only 3 minutes - so how valuable is 3 minutes of your time?
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 895
The R7 1700 is a very capable cpu, but we have a R5 3600 that would last just as long.
https://i.imgur.com/KRc1ycy.jpg
Permabanned
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 3,214
- Location
- bedlam
He as based the 3% On 4k gaming, the GPU is a bottle neck in that case. So tbf in a way he is right, the same as a 6700k can still game very well at 4k.
How ever he is wrong in every other way.
How ever he is wrong in every other way.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 3,214
- Location
- bedlam
You would buy gpu B, the cost of GPUs is shooting up each year. And today gpu A is ok in 12months it will not be ok.
The same should be said for his cpu choice. But it's no because a 6700k can still game at 4k, the 1700 will be ok for a year or 2
Graphics card prices seem to finally be coming down, but I can see CPU prices raising while Intel tries to get it's act together.
It's pretty easy choice between a 1700 for 230 and 3700X for 320 as long as you have 320 quid.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 3,214
- Location
- bedlam
I am not wrong about anything. Actually, you are the one calling the black white
Nope. The 1700 cpu is good for the one example you have shown. In ever other test and situation the 3700 is better. And as bios's get better and your can push ram passed 3600mhz the 1700 will just fall behind more
3700X is almost 3 times more expensive! 3 times! More expensive. You can buy 1700 for 134 pounds.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 3,214
- Location
- bedlam
Yes. But the performance doesn't change. It's still slower than the 3700
I own a 9400f and got that over the 3600x because it was cheaper. But I do still know the 3600x was the faster cpu.
You can get an i3 8350k for £42. That’s almost 12 times less than a 9900k!
Twelve times more money for 1.2% more performance going by your standards.
The price difference between a 1700 and 3700X is about £100.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 3,214
- Location
- bedlam
He comparing used 1700 to new 3700x..
I did see one sell for 145 last week.. but to be fair I would not buy a 1700 the performance just isent there, buy a 3600 if money is a problem
My bot has just come back with results and the price difference between a 1700 and 3700X (new) is about 100. If you can afford the extra it's well worth it.
On a side note the bot has also come back with 3900X's in stock!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 3,214
- Location
- bedlam
Then your bot is wrong.
1700 @140
3700x @ 330
1700 @140
3700x @ 330