Weekend Open Forum: To Ryzen or not to Ryzen?

[Mirob]

I went with a 7700K before Ryzen came out. I had a one year old i5 6500 itx build before that. Small was fun but I wanted bigger and faster. I stayed with LGA 775 for a decade before that, E6400, E6600, Q6600, E8400 and a Xeon 5440.

Ryzen seems like a great CPU. I'm sure it would bottlenecked by my rx 480 at 2560x1080 just as my 7700k is. I don't want to spend over $300 on a GPU or CPU. But I splurged a bit on the 7700k after seeing the 6700K priced to the moon for so long. It is the top gaming CPU now. Soon it will be something else. It will never be this iteration of Ryzen. Kabylake-X will probably nudge it out a bit. Coffeelake? Zen+? Who knows? If Coffee drops in my Z270 I might try it. Now I really need a better monitor and GPU. I hope Vega is good.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Not really. I dont game enough anymore to need tons of power.

I am much more interested in raven ridge at the end of the year then ryzen.

 

[CaptainTom]

Honestly Ryzen is the only thing I would recommend new builders buy at this point unless they are going cheap, and then get a $55 Pentium lol.


My 6700K @ 4.5 GHz will be fine for a while, but if AMD manages 10 - 20% gains every gen - I may just build a new (12 - core?) rig in 2019 with Zen 3.

 

[WaveZero]

I have been using Intel core i7 920 @4.0GHz from 2009 to 2015, I then upgraded to the Xeon W3680 (6 cores/12 threads) which has a stable OC@4.67GHz in 2016 using the same platform/mobo X58, along with 32GB of RAM from the 12GB I had. The Xeon benches over 1000 Cinebench points each time, but the heat that comes off from the CPU isn't worth it.

I will be upgrading to either the Ryzen R7 1700X or 1800X, but it really depends on whether I can get a good deal after all the initial hype is gone.

 

[wizardB]

Waiting for the motherboards to mature and then I'm in like Flin.

 

[captaincranky]

Waiting for the motherboards to mature and then I'm in like Flin.

I'm pretty sure that would be spelled, "Flynn". Google the backstory of that expression, you'll find out why.

 

[wizardB]

Yup spell check is the bane of my existence

 

[captaincranky]

Yup spell check is the bane of my existence

But really, you need to Google how the expression, "in like Flynn", arose.

 

[wizardB]

I know what in like Flynn means and this upgrade will be easily obtained at a much more desirable cost then a comparable Intel system would so it does apply.

 

[Xtreme gamer]

I'm in an odd place. I had a 5820k right now. It's about on par with Ryzen IPC wise but does have 2 less cores. For me though, 6 cores is enough for now. I'd be more inclined if Ryzen could overclock higher, I have a dud of a 5820k that can only got to 4 GHz.

Yea mine is only 4ghz too.

 

[JaredTheDragon]

I've been running two identical FX-8350s for work, an FX-8120 for my gaming rig, and an A8-5600K for my TV. Ironically, I use the TV-PC far more than my gaming rig, and the gains going from 8120 to 8350 were negligible.

I'm definitely ready for a 1700 or 1800 Zen chip. Twice the threads, faster, and cheaper than Intel. Innovative design and a lot of room to breathe.

I can't see any reason to go with Intel other than to dump money into the garbage (the Intel community, I should say) outright. I mean it says it right on the chip. It may as well say, "Sauron" or "Palpatine". Anyone who thinks it's a coincidence isn't paying attention.

 

[Gmn17]

6 core 12 thread coffee lake can't wait

 

[KernTUG]

Even if I weren't on my i7 7700K + Z270 system, I woldn't go Ryzen yet.

1. I don't need the core count, at all.
2. I game, browse the internet and do a little bit of work. Occasionelly video editing.
3. The 1700 and i7 7700K are equal in price.

Obviously, core count will matter in near future and consumer software like games will probably develop faster than previously from Sandybridge up until now speaking of threads.
But I think I'm pretty good to go for the next 3-4 years.

 

[anselhelm]

As someone who would make use of the additional cores, if I had the disposable funds right now for it, I'd be very tempted to upgrade my ageing AM3+ 8320-based PC.

As it stands though, multiple parts of my PC need an update and I can't justify upgrading them all in the near future. As such, I'll most-likely be prioritising graphics (speculatively Vega 11 or at least Polaris 10 refresh) and storage (HGST He10 10TB).

Based on current circumstances, I am likely to have to wait until Zen2 (Zen+) to take the plunge on Ryzen. On the upside, the motherboard and driver issues should be resolved by then.

 

[manigma]

I was with AMD from a decade. Now ordered an i5 7500 disappointed from Ryzen, they should drop prices by 30-40% if they don't want to end up like their FX series.

 

[DDG4005]

Both my boxes are running Core i7 3770s so I won't be upgrading to AMD's Ryzen, or any other Intel processor, in the near future.

 

[GreenNova343]

While I would love to be able to stay up with the curve, I doubt I will be upgrading anytime soon. Although I do game, the newest games I play on a semi-regular basis are Fallout 4 & BF4, with the actual games I play the most being SWAT 4 & Halo: CE (neither of which even strain my CPU, let alone my GPU). Plus, while I do finally have a "dual-screen" setup, it's a 1600x900 LCD monitor paired with a 1366x768 LCD TV, so my gaming is still single-screen/900p. The vast majority of time, however, my PC is used for "home"/"light office" use: surfing, email, Word/Excel files, etc. I don't need a Ryzen 3 for that, let alone a Ryzen 7 or Kaby Lake core i5. So unless my system goes kaput within the next few months, I highly doubt I'll be upgrading.

 

[Bas Keur]

Odd, my previous post disappeared and came back!?

Pretty sure it's because of the way the back end has been setup.
I'll leave the boring part, but it most likely because of the (comments) database setup. (Slave replication) Read: No Big Brother (this time)

 

[Bas Keur]

Both my boxes are running Core i7 3770s so I won't be upgrading to AMD's Ryzen, or any other Intel processor, in the near future.

Which is your given right, but it doesn't make much sense though =] Unless the 3770 is doing everything you wish, keep in mind the Ryzen is about -+ twice (!!) as fast. Pretty sure most of us have upgraded for less gain then that. If time is money & you work on your computer it's worthy investment. (Unlike lets say, a boat or a car)

 

[Thannos]

I just upgraded from an old school i7-970 @ 3.6GHz hexcore to a i7-6850k hexcore last August. It's currently stable at 4.5GHz with liquid cooling and will no doubt last me for the next several years. The only thing holding back my gaming performance is my current GPU which I plan to upgrade to twin 1080 Ti in SLi in the next few months (waiting for Vegato come out to see if it will force Nvidia to cut costs).

 

[Bas Keur]

I just upgraded from an old school i7-970 @ 3.6GHz hexcore to a i7-6850k hexcore last August. It's currently stable at 4.5GHz with liquid cooling and will no doubt last me for the next several years. The only thing holding back my gaming performance is my current GPU which I plan to upgrade to twin 1080 Ti in SLi in the next few months (waiting for Vegato come out to see if it will force Nvidia to cut costs).

Ah the good old 970K, But c'mon man =] the 6850k is a pretty modern beast, you should feel a bit annoyed (Well, I would) at Intel abusing the Monopoly they had... as the underdog can make a more advanced (Faster,Cooler,Smaller) 8 WAY CPU for less (about $200-+ I believe) then Intel right ?) They did it with the Pentium 4 that got destroyed by AMD's X2. All of a sudden Intel can drop prices like it's nothing. Whatever side you choose, competition is a good thing. I go for the best bang for buck. (Once S3 had the fastest GFX chip on the market ... Diamond S3 Virge+ anyone ?) some call me un-loyal =]

 

[Bas Keur]

While I would love to be able to stay up with the curve, I doubt I will be upgrading anytime soon. Although I do game, the newest games I play on a semi-regular basis are Fallout 4 & BF4, with the actual games I play the most being SWAT 4 & Halo: CE (neither of which even strain my CPU, let alone my GPU). Plus, while I do finally have a "dual-screen" setup, it's a 1600x900 LCD monitor paired with a 1366x768 LCD TV, so my gaming is still single-screen/900p. The vast majority of time, however, my PC is used for "home"/"light office" use: surfing, email, Word/Excel files, etc. I don't need a Ryzen 3 for that, let alone a Ryzen 7 or Kaby Lake core i5. So unless my system goes kaput within the next few months, I highly doubt I'll be upgrading.

Bruh, you play BF4 on a LCD TV ? An FPS shooter ? Man, the input lag should suck so bad. Did you even consider getting a 1080p gaming monitor ? If your tight on budget, you can get a Taiwanese knockoff for marbles these days, if possible a 120Hz or higher should really make a ton of difference. Just saying, also nothing strains your CPU/GPU on these resolutions. Pretty sure BF4 will be much nicer for you =]

 

[GreenNova343]

Bruh, you play BF4 on a LCD TV ? An FPS shooter ? Man, the input lag should suck so bad. Did you even consider getting a 1080p gaming monitor ? If your tight on budget, you can get a Taiwanese knockoff for marbles these days, if possible a 120Hz or higher should really make a ton of difference. Just saying, also nothing strains your CPU/GPU on these resolutions. Pretty sure BF4 will be much nicer for you =]

Nope, the LCD TV is the "secondary" screen, where I can keep other things going while playing on the 900p monitor. Yes, a 120Hz or 144Hz monitor would be nice...for gaming...but I'm lucky to maybe play an hour or so a week, most of which ends up being Halo rather than BF4 (mainly because the load times for the servers is super long).

 

[dirtyferret]

Considering that Intel is in the business of making money from cooking CPUs for a broad spectrum of uses, not just catering to a bunch of whiny, needy, gamers whimpering for 10nm processors, I'd say, "don't hold your breath waiting for Moore's "law" to kick in, we're at the point in micro miniaturization, it's more likely to fail than it is to hold true.

CHOKE ON YOUR LIES!!! I know for a fact Intel, AMD, Nvidia as well as all other hardware/software game developers are public work companies whose whole purpose is to further benefit the PC gaming world (the only reason to which one should ever even own a PC). They would never push out hardware/software with the sole intention of creating marketing hype to feed an insatiable appetite of "whiny, needy, gamers" demanding ever increasing performance (be it real world, synthetic based, or just theoretical) so that PC gamers can puff out their white as milk concave chests to their PC gaming brethren.

For me personally, after decades of building PCs with parts from every brand I only upgrade when I need to attain the performance I want. There is a sweet spot for tech price/performance and the dollars spent increasing that performance are rarely if ever worth it to me. I will re-evaluate the PC hardware market when the new consoles come out since they drive PC gaming.

 

[Mithan]

I picked up the 1700x on friday, here is my experience.

I have a 2500k@4.6ghz/2133mhzDDR3 and a 980Ti. I play at 1440p on a Acer 144hz IPS Gsynch Monitor.
I upgraded to the 1700x with a b350 Tomahawk motherboard and promptly overclocked it to 3900Mhz.

Gsynch used for all of the below settings.

BF1 at 1440p Ultra settings:
2500k = about 75-85fps in most areas in multiplayer
1700x = about 75-85 fps in most areas in multiplayer.
The games felt the same. My 2500k is smooth, no stuttering and such like some people try to tell you is going to happen on Intel platforms.

Dishonored 2: (Very High settings)
2500k = 1700x fps = 70-85 fps in most areas.
Both systems were essentially the same, didn't find 1700x to be more smooth or anything.

Fallout 4: (Ultra settings)
55-65fps in load areas, 75-85 in some outdoor areas.
2500k=1700x fps again

So basically, with my 980 Ti, the games all felt the same. I didn't really notice any difference subjectively. If I was to chart proper benchmark graphs, I am sure there would be a difference, but using MSI Afterburner and going off my "feel", they felt the same. BF1 ran smooth on both systems but so did Fallout 4 and Dishonored 2. I wanted to try ARK, but I had deleted it for space.

Obviously, I am GPU limited. So I couldn't see much difference in frame pushing power, but all the games I mentioned above run fine on Sandy Bridge.

The desktop and everything else felt better and smoother, not by much, but I was able to run more crap at the same time without any performance hit that you notice with the 2500k, so the 1700x is definitely a nice bump to multi-tasking. I was playing BF1 and had a video editor running in the background uploading a B350 Bios video and I recorded a bit more video with nVidia Shadow Play and it didn't hit me at all.... good luck doing that on the 2500k.


Overall, I am going to sell the 1700x (should only lose about $50 but whatever) and take the B350 Tomahawk motherboard back (nice little motherboard actually, if sparse), and then sell my 4 x 8 GB of 3000mhz GSkill Ram and I will wait until 2018 to upgrade, at which point I would get a Volta CPU, Ryzen Plus or a Coffee Lake 6 core. (Yes, I wasted a couple hundred in experiments).

I am on the fence about buying a 1080Ti. It seems I would get a 50-75% improvement in frame rates over my 980 Ti, and it would match perfectly with a new CPU next year, but I think for the games I am playing this year (BF1, the odd RPG that comes out, Mass Effect Andromeda next week, new Star Wars Battlefront later in the year if it doesn't suck) I am better off waiting until 2018 and getting an entire new build.

I honestly think that for GAMING, people are needlessly upgrading their CPU. Sandy Bridge and up are perfectly fine for this year IMO, provided you are willing to make a few concessions. Obviously, YOUR use may be different, so if you are streaming or doing productivity or whatever, you probably want to upgrade.

I think people are better off waiting for Ryzen Plus or Coffee Lake or perhaps Ice lake if it comes in late 2018. Cannon Lake is a laptop part obviously.

That being said, I think 1700x was a wonderful chip overall, I would have enjoyed seeing it paired to a 1080Ti and then comparing it, but I don't want to spend $1000 on a 1080Ti at the moment.