..
The R5 1600 is an absolutely fantastic deal, every reviewer on planet Earth agrees with it.
You're right about that. More cores only guarantees increases in productivity suites (provided that the cores themselves don't suck horribly like the first FX series did), not overall system performance, especially in gaming. I can say however that in my with multi-core processors, more cores means longer usable life. A quad-core CPU with an insanely high clock may be better at gaming and overall use at the time of its release but what happens to that CPU when programs suddenly want more than four? The six and eight core CPUs with the lower clocks may function more slowly but the four core CPU won't function properly at all.I didn't compare FX chips to anything in 2017. I spoke to how many keep repeating that "moar cores" will mean better performance because they buy processors with more cores.
All reviewers, and you pretend to speak for them too. Yet you see stuff like this:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3214626/computers/build-a-budget-ryzen-gaming-pc.html
Soooo..... you work at Intel then? LOLThis reminds me of the joke at work. If product managers want a baby in one month, they would get 9 women to do it. Yep moar cores. LOL.
DF has a capture device, and the i5 7600k still gets demolished in CPU heavy scenarios.
What does this have to do with what I said? I said the R5 has absolutely fantastic VFM, and actually, the review you linked to debunk me seems to absolutely agree with me. ..
How do you know they are sponsored by AMD? I can say the same thing about ANY link you provide that shows the i5 better you know.And you know that how? All this about DF. They are just some garbage site, sponsoerd by AMD's marketing team. Why should anyone trust them.
Think? More like KNOW. I'm a heavily-decorated Tom's Hardware expert with one of my posts published in Tom's Guide. I've been a member there for almost eight years and I used to live there but I hardly go back anymore because it's no longer the site that I joined. I remember the "good old days" before Intel (seemingly) had their hooks in them. The attitudes there now seem to reflect AnandTech and oddly enough, both sites share an owner. Just in case someone wants to question me about it (and we both know who that would likely be), here's my profile there:Tom's hardware is an expect? Why, cause he has a site? You do realize most people think he is one of the worst benchmarking sources out there, right?
...
" Ryzen 5 overtook Intel’s Core i5 chips as the best CPU for mainstream buyers, enabling truly versatile computer builds and 8-thread gaming PCs for previously unheard-of prices"
..."
Think? More like KNOW. I'm a heavily-decorated Tom's Hardware expert with one of my posts published in Tom's Guide. I've been a member there for almost eight years. I remember the "good old days" before Intel (seemingly) had their hooks in them. The attitudes there now seem to reflect AnandTech and oddly enough, both sites share an owner. Just in case someone wants to question me about it (and we both know who that would likely be), here's my profile there:
http://www.tomshardware.com/community/profile-305421.htm
No, that means that you couldn't get a R5 with 550$, not that it's worse VFM. I'm confident that you are trolling, no way you are that stupid. I refuse to accept it.
He admits it right in the freaking review that the R5 has a better value proposition...
Figure you fall for nonsensicl hyperbole. Look at the gaming charts show from the same article:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3186...ins-for-best-mainstream-power-cpu.html?page=3
If it such hot value, why has its price been reduced a little over 3 months in? The answer is AMD overpriced them to start with just like the R7 1800x. AMD would have done much better for themselves to start with the R3 release first them add the R5 and the R7. All the way till August of 2017, they basically let the 7600K stand unchallenged
I completely agree. So if you are going for top gaming performance (a gpu of 1070 or above) the R5 1600 is a fantastic vfm. Almost every reviewer agrees with me.He author of that article never even mentioned the word value or VFM whatever that means. R5 can't fit in $550 build, because it is too expensive, and there is no good justification to move up beyond $550 for gaming unless you are really going for top gaming performance.
That's sort of a chicken and egg issue. Most productivity and creative software (that can be) are tuned for multi-core CPUs. General software can be so lightweight it's not going to matter - speed or cores. So as 4 physical cores become less of the norm replaced by 6, 8 and 12 core CPUs then I am sure software developers will come up with great uses for all them cores. It's going to be years before the majority of desktop users are in the +4/4 camp though.You're right about that. More cores only guarantees increases in productivity suites (provided that the cores themselves don't suck horribly like the first FX series did), not overall system performance, especially in gaming. I can say however that in my with multi-core processors, more cores means longer usable life. A quad-core CPU with an insanely high clock may be better at gaming and overall use at the time of its release but what happens to that CPU when programs suddenly want more than four? The six and eight core CPUs with the lower clocks may function more slowly but the four core CPU won't function properly at all.
I completely agree. So if you are going for top gaming performance... Almost every reviewer agrees with me.
Again, dishonesty. That's not what I said, I said it's absolutely fantastic VFM.
VFM is actually clear cut, it means fps / $ (or euro, whatever).
....
https://techspot-static-xjzaqowzxaoif5.stackpathdns.com/articles-info/1450/bench/Average.png
Oh we are back to that chart again. LOL. You said you are dishonest from comparing the 1600x with the 7800x, yet you do it again. LOL.
FPS/$ is not why you go 7700K, it is because you want the that last 3-10 fps gain, and you are willing to pay for it. If you can't understand that, you are embarassing yourself.
If you want to compare FPS/$, the R5 loses terribly to the R3 by the simple fact that it is priced 50% lower for 5% less effective performance and up to 30% less fps performance. You are embarassing yourself for not understanding such basic math.
The R5 like the 7600K is caught in the muddled middle, all you can say you love your R5 and you will put up with its limitations and call it good enough, but that is your subjective opinion. To maximize saving you would go R3. To maximize gaming performance you would have to go 7700k.
No I'm not, I'm comparing it to the 7700k.
Wrong. An R3 can't drive a 1080ti at 1440p, therefore I had to buy something better. .
And judging by the chart above, the performance difference between an R5 1600 and a 7700k on 1440p would be....0. So, the heck are you talking about?
Says you. That is from the article comparing the 1600x with the 7800x. You keep using it so you are being dishonest as you said yourself.
That is some bogus lie you put out there. Where is the proof buddy? You make the claim now show some proof.
I don't pay attention to launch date benchmarks, sorry, you have to try harder. Though I have to admit, the 1600 performs better than the 7700k in some games even on launch date benchmarks!! Didn't know that, thanks for clarifying.The fact is the chart show is to be very much non-zero. And here is more data to show that R5 is not better than even the i5 for 1080p, 1440p, or 2160p(also known as 4k) see:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/05/amd-ryzen-5-review-1600x/2/
You so called great value is all in your head.