-
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 to launch 6 core Coffee Lake-S CPUs & Z370 chipset 5 October 2017
- Thread starter AthlonXP1800
- Start date
Overwatch also hates overclocks. I still get the occasional crash (maybe once a week) and I've upped voltages and dropped frequencies on both my GPU and CPU about 5 times since finding benchmark-stable values. I've pretty much given up making that game happy.
Having now used the 8700K for a few days, in my opinion, getting Ryzen out of spite for Intel is cutting off your nose to spite your face. I was tempted many times and was glad that I didn't.
Obviously availability is a problem. If someone needs a high end PC NOW, I would probably recommend a Ryzen 1700X. But other than that, ignoring cost:
1600/1600X - Eclipsed by i5-8400/i5-8600K
1700/1700X - Eclipsed by i5-8600K/i7-8700K
1800X - Only better in niche multi-core cases than i7-8700K. At this point, if you are buying for multi rather than single core performance, probably should be considering i9-7900X or Threadripper?
To longevity of the socket is fairly moot as 99.9% of people do not upgrade their CPU before even a 3 year socket becomes obsolete.
The stability of the ZX70 platform is much preferable to the longevity of Ryzen. Good performance now versus potential good performance in future.
Obviously availability is a problem. If someone needs a high end PC NOW, I would probably recommend a Ryzen 1700X. But other than that, ignoring cost:
1600/1600X - Eclipsed by i5-8400/i5-8600K
1700/1700X - Eclipsed by i5-8600K/i7-8700K
1800X - Only better in niche multi-core cases than i7-8700K. At this point, if you are buying for multi rather than single core performance, probably should be considering i9-7900X or Threadripper?
To longevity of the socket is fairly moot as 99.9% of people do not upgrade their CPU before even a 3 year socket becomes obsolete.
The stability of the ZX70 platform is much preferable to the longevity of Ryzen. Good performance now versus potential good performance in future.
What an odd (and incorrect) statement.
You assume everyone games and only games.
What about me, for arguments sake I don't game now. I create content, render videos and use huge graphics.
Buying a 1700 is cutting off my nose to spite my face is it? I'll see better perf with Intel will I?
No, if you bought a 1700 just out of spite for Intel, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. If you have a specific use case then of course take the best option.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2016
- Posts
- 561
Agree with this. At one point testing a bad overclock, Prime had my 6700K exceed 100 degrees. Thought the chip would throttle to save itself, but apparently not.
In real world at a now stable 4.6GHz, my chip rarely exceeds 60 degrees. Benchmarks push it to about 74. Prime will push it to the mid 80s.
Don't listen to them. They simply can't accept that things changed 180° and now Intel loses on all fronts (ALL!).
Smoothness on Ryzen is better, Intel can give you more microstutter.
Ryzen 2 will give even more salt to Intel's wounds
Without wanting to get into the same old tired argument - I'm not an fanboi of either platform. I have absolutely zero loyalty or emotion towards any manufacturer of PC components. In fact, in my group of geeks, amongst all the "AMD is furnace lolol, IPC is ****", I was singing Ryzen's praises.
My first hand experience of the 8700K is flawless. No micro stutter. No instability. XMP 3200 MHz, 1.3V, 5Ghz. Reboot. Rock solid system at top of benchmark charts.
Maybe other experiences vary.
Don't listen to them. They simply can't accept that things changed 180° and now Intel loses on all fronts (ALL!).
Smoothness on Ryzen is better, Intel can give you more microstutter.
Ryzen 2 will give even more salt to Intel's wounds
I think it's more that people who like AMD have waited so long for something to come along that now it has, while great, is not perfect and not winning at everything. They are trying desperately to protect that gain they got which is fair enough.
But you say (broad sweeping statement) that the 8600K eclipses the 1700. For content creation and rendering thats not even close to being true.
The general point of my comment was "if [conditional] you buy ryzen just to spite Intel [ie. no other considerations] then you are only spiting youself". After all, it seems that most of the salt is coming from gamers that have various old intel i7s and cannot get an 8700K.
I accept my comment was sweeping, especially in the 8600K vs 1700 - 8600K is 40% faster than 1700 in single core, and 40% slower in multi-core. But I was really referring to the people that make the choice with no considerations outside of emotion.
But even spite alone is more than emotion. I will most likely be buying Ryzen because I don't want to have to delid my CPU and loose the warranty just to overclock it. If folk are seeing 20 degree drops just by changing the thermal paste then Intel need to learn that this is not OK. Yes I am only 1 consumer but principles are principles. It's not spiting me personally at all because I will have the faster chip for content creation.
You don't have to delid to overclock though. I think that's just a thing that people are now blanket stating because of the Intel HEDT platform. It helps sure, but is not essential.
Thats very good. I thought that was impossible these days. Good to know.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 May 2007
- Posts
- 3,221
What are you using to cool it ?
Lisa Su tears.
That's a fairly big "ignore" when considering a purchase, especially someone like me who looks to get the cheapest when looking at upgrading.
I wanted to know the same thing, so I had a look at his previous posts.