You do NOT know because you choose to hide from the facts. Facts show 7700K is faster than any of the R7 for games periods. And quit with the hyperbole. Here are the benches for the i5 vs R5 see:
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2875-amd-r5-1600x-1500x-review-fading-i5-argument/page-4
I agree, the i7 is faster than R7 in gaming. Never suggested otherwise. What are you talking about?
Also, yeah, that's a release date benchmark you know. Actually, the fact that you are commenting on Techspot while linking a benchmark from a different site says all that needs to be said. You are going to link whatever benchmark is more favorable to your position regardless of whether or not it's actually relevant to the discussion. And I'm sorry to say it, a launch date benchmark isn't really relevant.
But with that said, even in that benchmark, with low ram frequency (2933), not many optimization patches out for Ryzen, an R5 1600 that costs lower, comes with a decent cooler and can OC to 3.8ghz with said cooler in a cheaper mobo is neck and neck with a more expensive, with no cooler and requiring a more expensive mobo i5. There isn't even a comparison here, the R5 1600 murders the i5, even in just gaming, not to mention anything else. Now if you actually looked at more recent benchmarks, like the ones from digital foundry or techspot, the i5 is a ****ing joke. In the DF crysis 3 run it was hitting 52 fps while a stock 1600 was at 110+.
And the biggest competitor for the i5 is not the overpriced R5, but rather something like the R3. When you can get 1300x for $100, see $30 on 1300x at Microcenter with mobo purchase (btw Newegg is not selling the same mobo for $30 less so it is real discount):
http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.aspx?Ntt=1300x
Any less than top line game performance in the 7700K, has no real justification just to be muddling in the middle.
That's completely nonsense.Do you have 4way sli 1080tis? No? 4000mhz ram? Then you are muddling in the middle, aren't you? And I'm sorry, but the 1300x can't max out a 1070 or a 1080, so that's where the 1600 comes in. I'd much rather have a 1600 + a 1080 / 1080ti than a 7700k and a 1070 / 1080. The 7700k is the best in gaming but it doesn't really make much sense buying it. You are better off spending that extra 200€ you'll save by going for the 1600 in a better gpu or a better monitor than buying the 7700k.
Strawman fits you name all right. No one is comparing the FX to 2017 and expecting 8 cores of the pile of _______ driver to win. This is a bogus strawman argument and you know it. And it s also a strawman to go compare old i3 for the 6 core FX with today's games. Anyone that got cheap i3, for less money than the FX would have had money saved to replace their CPU or have already long upgraded. There is a reason for cheap 2 cores, they are cheap disposable and replaceable. It is NOT an apples to apples comparison that you imagined it to be.
And ignorance should be your name buddy. There is a reason I compared the 6 core fx to the 3rd gen i3. It's because they had the same price you brainiac. A 5 minute google search would tell you that. the 6300/6350 launched at 120 and 140€ respectively, and the i3's launched from 109 to 139 depending on the frequency. So the argument that more cores will be better for the future was proved to be absolutely true. Just ignorant people like you don't realize it cause they are comparing modern day i3's to 6 year old cpus.
Your next paragraph proves EXACTLY what I just said. You are comparing them to modern CPU's!! That's not how the comparison goes buddy. In order to prove the claim "A multicore cpu will scale better in the future compared to similar priced but with less cores cpu" you need to compare the cpu's in question. Those would be for example the fx 6300 and a 3rd gen i3.
The same way holds true for today. In order to prove that the R5's with their multiple threads won't be more future proofed than the i5's youll need to compare the R5 with the CURRENT i5's 5 years from now. Instead, what you are doing is comparing current R5's to the i5's that will be released in 2021 and then pretend like the original claim was false. I'm sorry, but you are wrong.
So this claim to wait for the software optimization is just cheap marketing words to lull gullible to pay more for stuff now. How about AMD take a 20% deposit now, and take the remain 80% later when they actually deliver on the gains later. That is a non-starter for AMD, well damn, why should we be taken for ride by them about more cores/threads and future optimizations. I'll buy what is good bang-for-the-buck now, and buy later what is the best bang-for-buck later.
It's not cheap marketing when it's actually 100% true, as shown by the fx 6350 to i3 3120 comparison.
It is too bad AMD has chosen to price themselves way out of what could even qualify as good bang-for-buck with the only exception being the R3 with the Microcenter discounts.
R7 should be at max $250
R5 should be at max $150
R3 should be at max $100
And that is the most dumb **** I've heard. Ryzen are overpriced? LOL
Even if you ONLY and only talk about gaming, your claim is still false absolutely false. Now if actually bring in all other applications besides gaming your claim can only be taken as troll / comedy or parody. That was ****ing stupid. The 1600 with it's platform will cost you about ~100€ less than the i5 7600k, and they are tied in gaming (except some cases where the i5 gets absolutely demolished like crysis 3 and bf1 64mp). Actually, the funny thing is that the i5 is faster in gaming than Ryzen only when it doesn't really matter. Sure it gets 140 in bf1 single player instead of 130 of Ryzen, but does it matter? Not really. But when it comes to 64mp or crysis 3 it makes some dives to the 50ies, while Ryzen stays calm and calculated at 100+.
BTW Ryzen will be bottlenecking your GPU. Why is it that AMD is testing their Vega's with the 7700k? It is already well established that at Ryzens can't keep up with the GTX1080ti at 1440p. See:
http://www.legitreviews.com/cpu-bot...-on-amd-ryzen-versus-intel-kaby-lake_192585/4
Once again, you fail to amuse me. Completely stupid benchmarks. Only 2 of those games are graphically demanding (deus x and ghosts) and they are pretty close. Also, you failed to mention that the i5 will bottleneck it too, will it not? You are just changing your points halfway through. If an R5 1600 bottlenecks a 1080ti than so does an i5, period.
That means all Ryzens must be priced with replacement in mind, so that you can still make use of the AM4 platform, AMD's only saving grace.
And the same applies to the i5's, only there is no use for the z270 platform anyways
.
Vega 56 needs to be $300 max
Vega 64 needs to be $400 max
And once agian, you are full of ****. Vega 56 should cost as much as a 1070, seeing how it has similar performance. I would buy the 1070 in that case, since it consumes less power, but that's about it. 300 is how much the 1060 costs and the vega 56 walks all over it.
Anything more and AMD is way overpriced and under performing. No one should be paying more now for future potential gain, when that money can be save and buy the next-gen product for real gain later. Wishful thinking does NOT save you real money.
Again, full of nonsense. You are not paying more now for the future. You are paying LESS than Intel for the same performance NOW and even better performance in the future.
