Was dead set on an i7-7700k, but then I read this...

http://www.toptengamer.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-vs-intel-i7-7700k-1800x/

Now am and doing some serious thinking... can anyone add any input?

8 real cores with 16 threads will outclass any intel quad core with 8 threads in theory. Ryzen infrastructure needs to mature some more. Some of the motherboards right now are picky with the brand and type of DDR4 used. Overclocking is meh. Windows drivers and games need to patched or created to use AMD's SMT(Hyperthreading) correctly. Games are a hit or miss, i7 7700k's IPC which is better than Ryzen will perform better with games that rely more more on singlethreaded performance while games that make use of eight threads+ (with good load balancing) Ryzen will perform better, however there are known issues with games misusing SMT causing performance issues, so disabling the SMT fixes that issue. Allowing Ryzen to perform better than an i7 7700 overall.

Ryzen 5/7 is more future proof than any intel quad core based cpu. but as of right now it still has some growing pains.

A buddy of mine upgraded from FX8320 to Ryzen 1800x and he is enjoying the upgrade even with the DDR4 being downclocked to 2133mhz from motherboard issue.

@04dcarraher: Do you think going from the FX8320 to the Ryzen 7 1700 would be a substantial upgrade for me if I went that route?

@Mighty-Lu-Bu:

yep,for example with a GTX 1080 Farcry Primal for example 1700 vs FX 9590 , Zen got a min of 65fps while the FX got 46, and average was 97 vs 77, GTA 5 there is around 30 fps difference on both min and average , BF1 around 25 FPS difference on both as well.

@Mighty-Lu-Bu: HELL YES. (coming from an 8150 user)

@_SKatEDiRt_: Very interesting... so I guess the question would be- do I go Ryzen 7 1700 or Ryzen 5 1600X? And I guess the performance will only get better right?

Look at more benchmarks and articles OP.

If you still need that single-threaded performance go with the i7-7700k.

Anything posted in here so far is going to be a substantial upgrade from an FX series CPU.

Go all out and get a 1800x if you have the money..

Honestly, the 1800x is not in my budget and I think it is just too expensive. IF I go AMD and that is a big if, I would go with either the Ryzen 7 1700 or the Ryzen 5 1600X. The Crazy thing about the 1600X is that when it's overclocked it performs very similar to the 1800x for about half of the price which is insane!!! All I do is game, surf the Internet and use MS office applications occasionally. The Ryzen 5 1600X seems like it is the processor to get right now and the really crazy thing is that the entire Ryzen family can go on the same motherboards! AMD also guaranteed Ryzen AM4 support at least until 2020 (perhaps even longer) and almost weekly the CPUs seem to be steadily Ryzening (couldn't help myself) in performance. I thought the launch was an absolute mess, but every week it seems that Ryzen is getting better and better.

Thoughts?

What games do you play?

@Jebus213: Doom, Left 4 Dead 2, League of Legends, WoW, Star Wars Galaxies (EMU), Metro Redux (both titles), Star Wars Battlefront (EA), Dying Light and Skyrim. Out of all of those, I probably play a heavily modded Skyrim and League of Legends the most.

Those benchmarks are cherry picked and do not show how the IPC hold it back in single threaded games. Look how it gets murdered on a Far Cry Game.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-amd-ryzen-7-1700-1700x-vs-1800x-review

Also, look how the i7 7700K performs on engines with good multi threading support. It competes very well and it has half the cores of the AMD chips.

Until AMD improves IPC, i7 7700K is still the best for gaming. They are both good though. Buy what you like.

1700x

WoW, SWG, and Skyrim would play better on the i7 but the amount of frames you're going to get it doesn't matter.

What about in terms of the 1600x and the 1700? Those are more in line with my original price point. From what I have since, once overclocked, the 1700 performs on damn near the same level as an OCed 1800X. However, the 1700X could definitely be in my price range, but if I overclocked it I would be a little worried about heat. I would be using air cooling (Thermalright Le Grand Macho RT- best air cooler on the market right now).

If you go 8 than go 1700 and oc. No point in getting Xs. I think their temperatures and power usage is about on par with intel with their 14nm, they came a long way from the bulldozers. A much more competitive cpu this time around. I think the stock cooler can already oc enough to match 1800x at like 3.7, but hitting 4.0+ requires a lot more voltage which can get hot. For whatever reason it just doesn't oc well past that point. If you do get it make sure you have am4 adapter plate to mate the cooler. 1600 isn't far off it seems, the money saved could be put towards a gtx 1070 or vega :P

Also pick the best mobo+ram config, you are going to have to do some homework there. Seems like the faster the ram ex. 2400mhz vs 3200mhz, the more performance you get out it. A lot of mobo/ram configurations out there struggle to hit about 2400 despite being a much faster ram, so hopefully more bios update will come to aid that. Thats easily 5% of gain left on the table.

Linus latest RX580 review revealed that there isn't major difference between 1800X and 7700K

Now since both CPUs equal in prices you'll benefit much more if you intend on editing stuff, if not there's still no much of a reason to buy 7700K.

But then again that video doesn't show what happens if both CPUs are OC.

That's why I wait for Cannon Lake 8700K which should be 20-25% stronger than 7700K

what i can say , I m loving mein now . its treating me well . I didnt use i7 7600 , for gaming its butter smoth and for my work its treating me well .

@Bikouchu35: Yeah right now I am leaning towards the 1700 mainly because when it is overclocked, it basically has the same performance as the 1800X for about $170 less. I will be using a Thermalright Le Grand Macho RT- not many people know about this air cooler in the states because there is literally one distributor for US. That being said, this cooler is 100% compatible with AM4 boards and will work with Ryzen right out of the box (they anticipated Ryzen's released so they made sure their cooler would be compatible). As of right now, this is the best CPU air cooler in the world- it beat Noctua's best in terms of performance, quietness and price which is insane when you really think about it. Like I said, they don't have a huge distribution chain in the states, but I have reached out to them and they have plans of teaming up with Newegg as an online US distributor so that they can push more product out in the states.

Here is a review of the cooler: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Thermalright/Le_Grand_Macho/9.html

Using this cooler, I should easily be able to overclock the CPU between 3.9 and 4.0Ghz which should make it go toe-to-toe with the 1800X. If I go this route, I will get an ASRock X370 Taichi motherboard- techpowerup gave it a perfect 10 and both them and Tweaktown said this is hands down the best AM4 motherboard without question. RAM wise I would go with the G.Skill Trident Z (CL14) 16GB 3200Mhz... I think that should work out.

@Mighty-Lu-Bu: How long do you keep a CPU until you replace it?

If you're the type that refreshes every 2-3 years, I don't think the i7 having only 4 cores is a huge deal.

If you're wanting to get 5 years or more out of it, I'd take the slower single thread performance and better overall performance of a 6 core Ryzen though.

Personally, I'm waiting until the second half of this year, when Intel launches a 6 core skylake offering. If the price is anywhere remotely comparable to the ryzen 6 cores, it should walk all over them.

Well it has been almost 4 years since I have upgraded my CPU so it is getting to be that time. Usually I upgrade my CPU every 3 1/2 to 4 years. If I ended up going with something like the 1700, I would easily keep it for a minimum of 4 years which pretty close in line with AMD support- they said they would support the AM4 motherboards at the bare minimum until 2021.

@Mighty-Lu-Bu

Thats good to hear, than you are set than. As far as I'm aware my buddy has the noct d15 and hes bragging that it beats close looped water solutions, so it must be pretty good than to beat that.

Hit up a microcenter if you live close to one, they sometimes do $30-50 off bundle with motherboard. They went up to $100 for 1700x/1800x. Upon further reading, it seems that the Xs are binned to give a higher odds of achieving higher oc, but the difference is like 3.9ghz vs 4.1ghz (maybe). I'd still go for the 1700 though, I think thats the best buy right now followed by the 1600.

@Bikouchu35: Thanks for the info! From what I have gathered from intensive research, the Ryzen 5 1600X and the Ryzen 7 1700 are the best in terms of performance and price ratio. The 1600X gives a lot better performance than the 1600 so the X is this case is actually justified. The 1700 has super low power consumption rates for an 8 core processor and I am pretty confident that I can get it to 3.9ghz.

Can't wait!

You can still overclock a non-X model and get the same performance.

IMO 7700k for gaming. IPC is going to be king for awhile over core count. And I don't know about the Ryzen's OC abilities, but the 7700k get's a pretty big boost from an easy OC.

In about 6 months (maybe even less) Ryzen will outperform the i7-7770K and when you mix this with the fact that AMD is going to support Ryzen along with the AM4 motherboards until 2021 its a win-win. Also, I have seen many comparisons in gaming where both are getting similar FPS results and the i7 is using close if not all of its CPU power while the Ryzen 7 is no where near that. Right now Ryzen's main problem is bad optimization and right now with that bad optimization it comes close to the same gaming performance as an i7-7700k (note I am talking about 1080p which in some titles can about a 5%-15% difference- at 1440p and 4k, Ryzen either goes toe-to-toe with the i7-7700K or surpasses it. This doesn't really matter because according to Steam, 95% of gamers out there are playing games at 1080p or below). When new BIOS versions get released, games get patches and Windows 10 get updates, Ryzen will pull ahead. It sounds corny, but Ryzen is literally carving out a new era with multi-core processors and gaming. Their developer support is huge and you can expect that all of the popular games will definitely be patched. If you have followed the process, Ryzen has literally improved on a weekly basis- I remember reading about an Ashes of Singularity patch that recently came out and it gave Ryzen a 30% performance boost... that is insane!

I am not trying to take away from the i7-7700K which is a fantastic processor, but the Ryzen family has a lot more potential.

@Mighty-Lu-Bu: I'm optimistic for AMD's future as well.

However I wouldn't bank on developers jumping on board and heavily optimizing in favor of AMD and multi-cores that soon.

AMD has been preaching the virtues of multiple cores for years, and it still never happened.

That being said, the Ryzen is still a perfectly fine choice. Most benchmarks only really show the i7 as being significantly ahead at settings where the GPU is barely being taxed at all. IE: who gives a rats ass if you can get 200 fps instead of 160 fps on medium settings in overwatch?

Crank that shit up to ultra, and maybe even game at 1440p or above and all of a sudden there's barely any noticeable difference.

And if I'm wrong, and games do suddenly become heavily optimized for multiple cores, you're laughing!

There is a huge difference between my wife's 1600X and my 8350. I am about to upgrade from my 8350 to a 1700.

....Devs are using multithreading especially multiplatform titles because of the current consoles need too because of the lack of processing power from each core.

Same thing was said back in the day with the transition from dual to quad cores. Or when AMD creamed intel with their first real dual core.

Alot of games nowadays are being designed to make use of more than 4 threads. With DX12 trying to be the standard, multithreading even with DX11 its a big part of game design anymore. Not sure why some think AMD is the only one "praising virtues of multiple cores" More cores and threads equals more performance and multitasking ability, intel knows this as well. When intel opened their wallets and backed AMD into a corner back in 2005/2006. AMD didnt have the ability to compete and use current tech(intel bought up patents) to combat intel on equal footing. Intel has stagnated the cpu market for almost 6 years.

@04dcarraher: more like 9 years, i7 architecture launched in 08 and Intel hasn't done much in the way of innovation since.

Had AMD been that far ahead, they would probably sandbag just like Intel though.

Intel has brought innovations for their CPUs but it's not to the high end gaming market.

Most of their improvements are for the mobile and server markets.

Look at how laptop CPUs have improved. They have lowered power requirements enough that some high end laptops can have a desktop class CPUs in them.

Same goes for Nvidia. The performance improvements are not as grand as 7800GTX to 8800GTX or 9800 GTX to GTX 280 or GTX 280 to GTX 480.

After the GTX 480 the performance improvements started to become less between the x80s. Nvidia then released Titans and Tis for a much higher price tag.

But if you look at the latop market then Nvidia has made great strides since lowering power requirements has finally allowed them to have desktop performance GPUs in laptops.

AMD is shit and no matter what they try, Intel will always be one step ahead.

@RyviusARC: Maybe Sandbagging is too harsh of a word, but "holding back" might be a bit more fair.

Based on the amount of overclocking headroom their products have typically had ever since the core 2 duo launched, and the fact that we still don't have a mainstream 6 core/12 thread intel product, it's pretty clear they were just waiting for AMD to catch up. I have no doubt now that Ryzen is here, their roadmap will spontaneously "accelerate" and bring 6 cores to the mainstream sooner than anticipated.

Never thought I'd see the day where a full 1 Ghz overclock on a 3.8-4.0 Ghz CPU would be considered just "decent".

Why do I think this? At our last tech show, I was speaking to the Intel Channel Manager for Western Canada. He told me about how scared shitless Intel was when AMD dropped the Athlon XP, and demolished the Pentium 4 architecture, and went on to be the performance leader for the most part until the core 2 launched. Intel never ever wanted to be in that position again, so they resolved to always be one step ahead, and even keep something in reserve.

@Mighty-Lu-Bu: honestly i would either go 1700 or 1700x and overclock either one.

@appariti0n:

Intel also did some really shady stuff to keep AMD from being able to compete.

@04dcarraher: Yup, and if AMD had the cash to buy up patents and do the same to Intel, they would have done it in a heartbeat. That's just the nature of business.

@Mighty-Lu-Bu: We got off topic, but at the end of the day dude, you really can't make a "wrong" choice here.

These two CPUs are likely going to trade punches depending on the game, and how it's coded.

I don't think either CPU will win or lose by such a dramatic margin that you'd even notice though. Unless as I said, you're just running benchmark tests at low detail settings @ 1080p.

@appariti0n:

It wasn't just the patents they did some shrewd business deals to snuff AMD out in other areas.... Which intel did get fined by multiple countries for what they were doing.

I'm not denying it, I'm just saying these types of shady practices are par for the course with a lot of large technology companies, and AMD would very likely have done the same thing, were they in a position financially to do so.

Well AMD holds the patent for HBM (High Bandwidth Memory) which is going to be the future of gaming IMO.

Actually they dont... they have bought rights to promote and use it. They don't have ownership of it. It is manufactured by Hyinx memory . HBM is also under JEDEC open source standards which means that any other company can manufacture and use it.

They co-developed the technology with Hynix.

At least according to this article: http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/anton-shilov/amd-we-are-actively-promoting-usage-of-hbm-and-do-not-collect-royalties/

Also in that article it states that Nvida delayed the use of HBM because they did not want to pay AMD royalty fees.

@Mighty-Lu-Bu:

HYNIX worked together with AMD to develop and promote HBM, they had an agreement that AMD would be the first to use and market it. Like I stated HBM is open source, Amkor tech is also making their own HBM... Samsung or even Micron can as well, so Nvidia could go to other vendors if need be. also Samsung has plans with entering the market with a bang with HBM gen 3.

Also the reason why Nvidia skipped HBM v1 was because the lack of memory per stack and cost was not worth the hassle. HBM2 is all about the costs and with current gpu's its not yet needed with the introduction of GDDR5X and memory compression methods.

Did you read the article? AMD holds part of a patent in regards to HBM What you are saying is correct, that it did start as an open source project. which it still is. However, AMD did patent it. The patent documents use to be online, but I having some issues locating them.

Here is yet another article:

http://wccftech.com/amd-squashes-rumors-hbm-ip-licensing-fees-memory-standard-free/

The one thing to note, is that AMD is not Intel and they publicly stated that they would not charge companies royalty fees to use their technology.