# i5 6500 or i5 7500 or Ryzen 1700?



## SUPERREDDEVIL (Mar 2, 2017)

as title says, for pure gaming purposes, wich one is a good performer?

Excluded FX processors, not looking that way.

thank you all for your responses.


----------



## P4-630 (Mar 2, 2017)

Did you check any reviews?


----------



## SUPERREDDEVIL (Mar 2, 2017)

P4-630 said:


> Did you check any reviews?



yep, but in my country its all about the prices, the 6500 its 250 dollars, the 7500 (i guess it sthe same as 6500) and price is 275 dollars and ryzen 7 1700 is (jeez) here for 400 dollars. Dunno if save for the Ryzen one or build directly with an i5 of those.


----------



## n-ster (Mar 2, 2017)

Pure gaming, overclocking an intel is probably best, look for a OCable chipset and something like a 6600k or 7600k.

Ryzen 1700 is not the greatest single threaded processor, so OCing is a must if you want gaming performance. Future games might be better multi-threaded so take that into account, Battlefield is one of those very multi-threaded games for example


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 2, 2017)

i5 beat 8 core Ryzen chips in gaming


----------



## FYFI13 (Mar 2, 2017)

Even i3 7350K beats it in some games. Without any overclock... Imagine this thing at 5GHz.


----------



## P4-630 (Mar 2, 2017)

SUPERREDDEVIL said:


> yep, but in my country its all about the prices, the 6500 its 250 dollars, the 7500 (i guess it sthe same as 6500) and price is 275 dollars and ryzen 7 1700 is (jeez) here for 400 dollars. Dunno if save for the Ryzen one or build directly with an i5 of those.



I own the i5 6500 myself, it's a great CPU and it isn't bottlenecking my GTX1070.
I don't know what graphics card you will buy though, if it's a GTX1080 I would pick the bit faster i5 7600 if you don't plan on overclocking, if you are going 1440p there shouldn't be any problems.

For best performance and if you can afford it I would pick a i5 7600K and OC it.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2017)

1700


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 2, 2017)

needs to be a poll... 1700


----------



## R0H1T (Mar 2, 2017)

SUPERREDDEVIL said:


> as title says, for pure gaming purposes, wich one is a good performer?
> 
> Excluded FX processors, not looking that way.
> 
> thank you all for your responses.


Do you have a long term outlook, want to keep the same build for the next 3~5 years? If so then the Ryzen 1700 wins hands down, otherwise the highest clocked i7 from Intel.


----------



## P4-630 (Mar 2, 2017)

Yeah or spend more and get a 1700 and disable SMT for higher fps in gaming....


----------



## SUPERREDDEVIL (Mar 2, 2017)

Thing is, the price difference is THE DOUBLE here, and a Ryzen mobo also cost me the double of a nice intel one...


----------



## alucasa (Mar 2, 2017)

Then go for 1700? I don't think there is much to debate here since it's wallet that has the ultimate say.


----------



## P4-630 (Mar 2, 2017)

SUPERREDDEVIL said:


> Thing is, the price difference is THE DOUBLE here, and a Ryzen mobo also cost me the double of a nice intel one...



It's easy then, if you prefer not to overspend, for high fps in gaming a fast i5 will do it.


----------



## SUPERREDDEVIL (Mar 2, 2017)

alucasa said:


> Then go for 1700? I don't think there is much to debate here since it's wallet that has the ultimate say.



i mean, the price for the new ryzen is the DOUBLE, not the i5 6500, so, its worth to wait for the ryzen to wnet down on proce or go with the 6500 to say, to buy it tomorrow?



P4-630 said:


> It's easy then, if you prefer not to overspend, for high fps in gaming a fast i5 will do it.



Thank you! yes, those 400 bucks really hurts and ill guess the i5 still can do the magic instead of buying the ryzen, in terms of gaming performance.


----------



## alucasa (Mar 2, 2017)

SUPERREDDEVIL said:


> i mean, the price for the new ryzen is the DOUBLE, not the i5 6500, so, its worth to wait for the ryzen to wnet down on proce or go with the 6500 to say, to buy it tomorrow?



Then, no, go for Intel.


----------



## P4-630 (Mar 2, 2017)

SUPERREDDEVIL said:


> Thank you! yes, those 400 bucks really hurts and ill guess the i5 still can do the magic instead of buying the ryzen, in terms of gaming performance.



If you're going for a GTX1080 , I'd buy a K CPU so you can overclock it to get the maximum fps out of your system.

If you go for a GTX1070, a i5 7500 or i5 7600 will do, or if you can save more cash, go with a Skylake CPU.


----------



## SUPERREDDEVIL (Mar 2, 2017)

P4-630 said:


> If you're going for a GTX1080 , I'd buy a K CPU so you can overclock it to get the maximum fps out of your system.
> 
> If you go for a GTX1070, a i5 7500 or i5 7600 will do, or if you can save more cash, go with a Skylake CPU.



nope, pairing it with an R9 390 8Gb. So no bneck there


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Mar 2, 2017)

I would suggest waiting.  Wait for Ryzen to "mature".  Wait to see how the lower core count Ryzen's clock.  Wait to see what happens to Intel's prices.  2-3 months.


SUPERREDDEVIL said:


> Thing is, the price difference is THE DOUBLE here, and a Ryzen mobo also cost me the double of a nice intel one...


Early adopter fee.

If you want a stable fast gaming system TODAY, get Intel.  If you want something that's going to have a long run, wait.


----------



## P4-630 (Mar 2, 2017)

SUPERREDDEVIL said:


> nope, pairing it with an R9 390 8Gb. So no bneck there



Then in that case you could go with a i5 6500 if you don't plan on OCing to save some cash.


----------



## Lionheart (Mar 2, 2017)

Intel is better at gaming for now, the 1700 will be better in the long run, I would suggest waiting for AMD's R5 & R3 CPU's if you're patient enough.


----------



## SUPERREDDEVIL (Mar 2, 2017)

Add a poll, Just because. hahaha


----------



## alucasa (Mar 2, 2017)

Not sure 1700 will be "better" in long run. I am sure its performance will increase slightly over time but it's not like a CPU can magically become a unicorn over few patches.


----------



## Sasqui (Mar 2, 2017)

SUPERREDDEVIL said:


> Add a poll, Just because. hahaha



I voted Intel, only because the Ryzen platform is still a work in progress... from what I've seen.  For multithreaded tasks, it's price point can't be beat at the moment.


----------



## P4-630 (Mar 2, 2017)

SUPERREDDEVIL said:


> Add a poll, Just because. hahaha



You could add that you don't plan on overclocking and that you will pair it with a R9 390 for gaming.


----------



## Dbiggs9 (Mar 2, 2017)

Ryzen newer games will use more cores in the future. you are talking a small amount in games not anything that makes it unplayable.


----------



## P4-630 (Mar 2, 2017)

One more important thing is how much you are willing(can) (to) spend at the moment.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 2, 2017)

Games already use more than 4 threads effectively this myth needs to die. I for one would not even think about buying into an i3/i5 or any other future AMD quad core , more threads = less stutter and better minimum fps , this is what makes a difference not 5 extra fps when you are already at , say 100 fps .1700 is way more capable at just about anything else in addition. It may not be an absolute necessity for you , but you would certainly not waste money on an 1700.


----------



## Sasqui (Mar 2, 2017)

Hey, look at that 3 out of 2 people voted for Trump, I mean Ryzen... lol


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 2, 2017)

Sasqui said:


> Hey, look at that 3 out of 2 people voted for Trump, I mean Ryzen... lol



Why are you bringing politics into a technology forum, why does it matter if someone voted for trump or hillary?

Lets stay on topic shall we?


----------



## Vario (Mar 2, 2017)

I voted i5.  If its cheaper for you, and it does everything you need it to do, its probably the way to go.  Glad to see Ryzen is close in single thread though.  I wonder if there will be soft code based improvements and optimizations for Ryzen to come, that would be a nice surprise.



Lionheart said:


> Intel is better at gaming for now, the 1700 will be better in the long run, I would suggest waiting for AMD's R5 & R3 CPU's if you're patient enough.



They said the same thing about the FX8150 being better in the long run then the 2500K.  Now, the i7 920 was good long term.  And the 2500K was.  But the 8150 was a dud at release and still is a dud now.  Buy what makes sense now and if/when things require 8+ threads you can upgrade to the latest at that time, whether it is AMD or Intel.


----------



## Eroticus (Mar 2, 2017)

I Voted for Ryzen.










This video shows raw benchmarks captured with the AMD Ryzen 1700 (3.9GHz) CPU versus the i7 7700K (5GHz) from Intel. GPU is GTX 1080. For more details on test systems and full review, please refer to my 1700 review.


By the logic of some people here even Intel Pentium G is better than 6950x in some resolutions and games that almost no one play...


----------



## Vario (Mar 2, 2017)

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/03/amd-ryzen-review/

Extra PCI-E lanes seems like a sweet deal once NVME PCIE storage becomes the norm.


----------



## BiggieShady (Mar 2, 2017)

Eroticus said:


> This video shows raw benchmarks captured with the AMD Ryzen 1700 (3.9GHz) CPU versus the i7 7700K (5GHz) from Intel.


Noticed two things, how Ryzen has very few stutters (they are rare although noticeable) and how WashDogs2 is cpu bound on kaby lake - uses up >95% at times and drop to 60-ies on gtx1080 (biggest win for ryzen)


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 2, 2017)

Eroticus said:


> I Voted for Ryzen.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


oh so actually the "intel is better for gaming" thing is not ... relevant  and a 3.9ghz beat a 5ghz????  (ok ok ... it's 4C/8T vs 8C/16T i reckon )

i think i will be going red instead of blue if i need to upgrade from my 6600K, luckily since i have a 6600K i can wait until the 1700/1700X prices drop a bit 



BiggieShady said:


> Noticed two things, how Ryzen has very few stutters (they are rare although noticeable) and how WashDogs2 is cpu bound on kaby lake - uses up >95% at times and drop to 60-ies on gtx1080 (biggest win for ryzen)


interesting ...

also that :


Vario said:


> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/03/amd-ryzen-review/
> 
> Extra PCI-E lanes seems like a sweet deal once NVME PCIE storage becomes the norm.


yep ... it's actually like getting a X99 setup for less money ... in the end


----------



## Vario (Mar 2, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> oh so actually the "intel is better for gaming" thing is not ... relevant  and a 3.9ghz beat a 5ghz????  (ok ok ... it's 4C/8T vs 8C/16T i reckon )
> 
> i think i will be going red instead of blue if i need to upgrade from my 6600K, luckily since i have a 6600K i can wait until the 1700/1700X prices drop a bit
> 
> ...


It would be a sidegrade.  Unless you need the cores.  Seems like Ryzen is a hell of a multicore monster.  Amazing for servers and workstations.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Mar 2, 2017)

Sasqui said:


> I voted Intel, only because the Ryzen platform is still a work in progress... from what I've seen.  For multithreaded tasks, it's price point can't be beat at the moment.


With a 390 none of those processors will be a bottleneck, if he can afford there's no reason not to grab the ryzen which will be as good as the Intel processors listed at gaming and twice as good at anything multithreaded, if you wallet approve this is what you must do


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 2, 2017)

Vario said:


> It would be a sidegrade.


wth? the 1700/1700X is on par with a 7700K ... and the core count could also be a step up if i ever plan on heavily threaded task (encoding streaming whatever else ...)
plus the 1700 is one of the 65w right? 30w less? deal 

on the long run it will be less a sidegrade  plus the PCIE lane argument is still valid for me 

i mean i was planning to go 6700K/7700K later (way later)... (that would be a sidegrade too i reckon) but 8C/16T at the same price of a 4C/8T is not a bad trade


----------



## SUPERREDDEVIL (Mar 2, 2017)

D*mn, all of you people voting for Ryzen is making me save for that thing some months hahaha what a fine battle we have here today gentleman.


----------



## Sasqui (Mar 2, 2017)

SUPERREDDEVIL said:


> D*mn, all of you people voting for Ryzen is making me save for that thing some months hahaha what a fine battle we have here today gentleman.



Results kind of surprised me.  Any competition with intel will be good for all of us, it's been way too long.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 2, 2017)

SUPERREDDEVIL said:


> D*mn, all of you people voting for Ryzen is making me save for that thing some months hahaha what a fine battle we have here today gentleman.


actually the "king of the *perf/price* ratio" _*IS *_Ryzen ... thought i am happy with my 6600K and i feel like a 6600K would be fine for you too ... 

now, more personally speaking ... the 1700 where i live is priced like the 7700K and it's more a 6900K counterpart in workstation task, while being close enough of the 7700K for gaming ... which explain why i would choose Ryzen over an i7 ... since i can get X99 HEDT performances level for less money invested and still getting nearly same gaming performances than the direct price concurrent (not mentioning i bet i can get the fund for the mobo + CPU by reselling my mobo and CPU and adding it to my initial CPU alone budget, thus also reducing the total cost ... ) 

but my GPU is a 1070 (for now, plenty enough since i only have a 27" 1080p 60hz screen ) since 4K is not an option for me (because of usefulness and maturity) i might go for a 27" 1440p 144hz ... well i wonder what's the result on that res (rather than 4K and 1080p)


----------



## SUPERREDDEVIL (Mar 2, 2017)

I know! long time no seeing this kind of "competence" (jeez, since the ATHLON 64 era!) and i think AMD gets on the track again, no matter if they dont beat the 7700K, its a nice battle for us the consumers and good for the industry, i hope intel is seeing this with good eyes and start beign more "fair" with their product prices.


----------



## Vario (Mar 2, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> wth? the 1700/1700X is on par with a 7700K ... and the core count could also be a step up if i ever plan on heavily threaded task (encoding streaming whatever else ...)
> plus the 1700 is one of the 65w right? 30w less? deal
> 
> on the long run it will be less a sidegrade  plus the PCIE lane argument is still valid for me
> ...


Sidegrade for single thread gaming bro.  Now if you want that core count bump, that would be a big upgrade.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 2, 2017)

Vario said:


> Sidegrade for single thread gaming bro.  Now if you want that core count bump, that would be a big upgrade.


at a lesser expense ... so yep to me it deserve a "good job AMD" ... 

nonetheless if it's a sidegrade in single thread gaming ... then it's still a "good job AMD"  

my AMD Athlon Pluto (SLOT A) 700A is dancing on the shelf ... in front of 2 Intel PIII XEON and some S604 one ... even if Ryzen is not on the level of the legendary Slot A Athlon ... it's still a very nice CPU and pricing is a little higher than i hoped for but still within acceptable range.


----------



## Vario (Mar 2, 2017)

I agree.  Once they get some higher clock speeds out of it and better turbo and memory compatibility it will be amazing.


----------



## Grings (Mar 3, 2017)

Ryzen over a non-k i5 hands down

the 6500 is 3.2ghz(3.6 turbo) the 7500 is 3.4(3.8 turbo), the skylake one is also limited to 2133 ram, the kaby 2400

I think the ryzen 3's will end up being better than these particular intel chips


----------



## Komshija (Mar 3, 2017)

I voted for Intel for two main reasons:
1)  You said gaming CPU, where i5 currently dominates while Ryzen 7 1700 will be an overkill
2)  both i5 6500 and i5 7500 are cheaper than Ryzen 7 1700

In real world scenario, Ryzen 7 1700 is far, far more powerful than any existing i5 variant, but also more expensive.


----------



## P4-630 (Mar 3, 2017)

*OP is playing games @1080p with a R9 390!* A fast i5 is good enough even for a future graphic card upgrade with a K CPU.
Why would you burn a hole in your pocket on a 16 thread AMD CPU with an expensive motherboard now,
which you practically don't need at the moment? It doesn't even perform that well at 1080p for gaming.
OP isn't running a server lol! It isn't the time yet that games are fully optimized for a 16 thread CPU.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 3, 2017)

^what he said


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 3, 2017)

Komshija said:


> I voted for Intel for two main reasons:
> 1)  You said gaming CPU, where i5 currently dominates while Ryzen 7 1700 will be an overkill
> 2)  both i5 6500 and i5 7500 are cheaper than Ryzen 7 1700
> 
> In real world scenario, Ryzen 7 1700 is far, far more powerful than any existing i5 variant, but also more expensive.


dominate in gaming is an exaggeration, heck i even used a i3-4130T with sucess for gaming (adequately paired with a 750Ti which was enough for 1080p too)... in fact it's barely visible  and yes a 1700 is more powerful than a i5 and prolly cost 100$ more but it's not his counterpart  ... his counterpart are a same price 4C/8T for the price level (and gaming performances ... ) and a 1000$+ 8C/16T in term of workstation use ...
(thought, i for one also consider a i7 as Overkill in gaming ... tho you never know what you will do later that could use the excess of power ... which technically did lead me to consider a 6700K/7700K later ... but now AMD as a far better offer imho )

obviously since gaming is implied the fact that a 1700 @ 3.9ghz produce the same fps at a +/-5-10 variation than a 5.0ghz 7700K does not make a i5 dominate a 1700

that being said ... it can only go better with time passing ... sooooo where is the issue with the 1700 again?  the fact that it's Ryzen from AMD? or it's not labelled Intel on it?



P4-630 said:


> *OP is playing games @1080p with a R9 390!* A fast i5 is good enough even for a future graphic card upgrade with a K CPU.
> Why would you burn a hole in your pocket on a 16 thread AMD CPU with an expensive motherboard now,
> which you practically don't need at the moment? It doesn't even perform that well at 1080p for gaming.
> OP isn't running a server lol! It isn't the time yet that games are fully optimized for a 16 thread CPU.


nah he can technically wait on the R3 and R5 Ryzen ... and still go the Ryzen way 

for me too a 8C/16T would be too much ... but i rather take that option than change, as i've planned, my 6600K for a 6700K/7700K if Ryzen proven to be a failure ... and it's not the case.
oh well i will probably have a 6900K for the price of a 6700K if i do that ... very bad move indeed [warning sarcasme]

expensive mobo ... for once i disagree  in stock at my retailer in example : Gigabyte AORUS X370 Gaming 5 : 224chf = a little cheaper than my Gaming 7 (279) and even has the same shroud on the IO and sound that my Gaming 7
 WOOPS overexpensive indeed (wait ... actually it's same pricing ... +/-50chf )    the most expensives mobo barely reach the price of my Z170X Gaming 7 ... and seemingly offer a little more for the price... (i am quite surprised i have to confess ... nonetheless )

bundle from my E-tailer : a ASUS PRIME X370  a R7 1700 and 16gb DDR4 (2400 unfortunately but 2X8) for 679chf .... i've seen way worse bundle from Intel at the same E-tailer (thought the mobo is nothing like the one that follow )

and that one looks beautiful



same price league as my Gaming 7 :  AORUS Gaming K7 (too black ... i rather go the Gaming 5 way) and ASRock Taichi (exactly what i need in term of color scheme ... but the AORUS Gaming 5 has enough white to be valid too )
 

cheaper than the Gaming 5 but still packing quit a lot (180chf~ meaning at last 99chf cheaper than my Z170X Gaming 7) and also a nice color scheme: ASRock X370 Killer SLI


----------



## JalleR (Mar 3, 2017)

Agrees with #49


----------



## P4-630 (Mar 3, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> oh well i will probably have a 6900K for the price of a 6700K




If it's just for gaming, are you upgrading to GTX1080Ti then? 
In my mind a i5 6600K is fast enough for a GTX1070, hell even my i5 6500 isn't bottlenecking yet!


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 3, 2017)

P4-630 said:


> If it's just for gaming, are you upgrading to _*RX Vega*_ then?
> In my mind a i5 6600K is fast enough for a GTX1070, hell even my i5 6500 isn't bottlenecking yet!


corrected ... the 1080Ti will be too pricey, because of nvidiots ... (naaahhh my 1070 will stay for longer than that ... )
thought you only quoted the small part  .... but you reckon for me (for once) Ryzen top tier mobo aren't much pricier than Intel counterparts   (when they are not lower in price ... which is kinda more often)

yep ... for a 1070 but i intend to go 1440p 144hz and i don't think Ryzen do bad at 1080p (not judging by practical test and review that some user did ... )
and my 1070 is enough for that ... 4K is useless 1080 are overexpensive where i live and the 1080Ti will change nothing ... it will just cost probably above 1200$ 

after all why pay 376chf for a 7700K when i can get a R7 1700
and also sell my mobo and CPU to mitigate the change cost ... and even have some spare cash if i manage correctly to appeal to I.D.H.H.F ("Intel Die Hard Hardcore Fans")

for me too my 6600K is enough, even a lower one would be enough, but i am a serial switcher ... and today the top dog with the best offer and a good margin on improvement is not Intel and if i intended, as i've wrote 3 time, to swap my 6600K by a 7700K for several reason (encoding and streaming were two of them) i see no good point in going 4C/8T if i can go 8C/16T for the same price, right?


----------



## P4-630 (Mar 3, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> *R7 7000*


 

Side grade to a 7000 series Radeon?


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 3, 2017)

P4-630 said:


> Side grade to a 7000 series?


you should thanks my post, which state the obvious rather than quote and post rubbish   (joke)
btw ... sidegrade ... well a 6700K or a 7700K would also be a sidegrade to a 6600K ... IF I WAS ONLY PLANNING ON GAMING ::: READ DAMNIT 

YEAH 4C/4T for 8C/16T is a sidegrade ... specially when at 3.8 it perform like a 5.0ghz 7700K ... 

@P4-630 I WAS JOKING ABOUT THE THANKS... but thanks for the thanks and to show you how grateful i am:

i will always keep my DELL Dimension 5150 in a perfectly pristine state because it sport a P4-630 in it  (all my other CPU are on my Shelf ... that one is the only one in a "complete" computer aside my main rig   )

OOOHHHH nice ... adding Radeon series for the R7 7000 ... you got me there  
mea culpa ... i just noticed now that i wrote R7 7000 instead of R7 1700 ...  i need a huuuuge coffee i started to mix up  7700 and 1700 and did a 7000 as a mashup


----------



## TRWOV (Mar 3, 2017)

Strictly for gaming I'd say i5 7500 due to higher clocks. Clock for clock the Intels are still faster, Ryzen needs some extra Mhz to match Intel's IPC.

If you want a jack-of-all-trades CPU I'd go for the 1700. You'll likely lose some frames but would gain in some other areas (encoding, streaming, etc).


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 3, 2017)

TRWOV said:


> Strictly for gaming I'd say i5 7500 due to higher clocks. Clock for clock the Intels are still faster, Ryzen needs some extra Mhz to match Intel's IPC.
> 
> If you want a jack-of-all-trades CPU I'd go for the 1700. You'll likely lose some frames but would gain in some other areas (encoding, streaming, etc).


why ... higher clock ... for what i've seen a 3.9ghz R7 1700 is close to a 5ghz 7700K ... ok double core and thread count but it didn't need a few mhz more to reach it ...
but since it was gaming benchmarks ... i doubt the core count after 4 would matter (that ore AMD did a really good job on the core scheduler )

losing some frame yep that i agree ... even if most of the time i saw +/- 5-10 fps on a 150fps+ basis

jack of all trades... yep ... quite the definition i would use for Ryzen

the % loss in IPC is how much with Ryzen? because technically a R7 1700X/1800X (heck even the 1700 the only difference between the 3 is the clock and TDP) can go toes to toe with a 6900K, IPC can't be this worse


----------



## TRWOV (Mar 3, 2017)

Well, not every CPU/mobo combo will OC the same. Some 1700s might just get to 3.8Ghz and that's it. The 7500 turbos to 3.8Ghz too but, as stated, clock for clock the Intels are still a little bit faster and I've had a good record of them getting to the turbo speeds even on stock cooling.

Also, the i5 7500 is $200 while the 1700 is $330. The 6 and 4 core parts will likely be an even match for the Intels in terms of pure gaming performance. I'm hoping for them to be clocked at ~4Ghz right outr of the box.

Nonetheless the 1700 is a wonder chip. Twice the cores, 4 times the threads on the same TDP as Intel's quads is a massive development, don't take me wrong. I will definitively get a 1700.


----------



## Lionheart (Mar 3, 2017)

alucasa said:


> Not sure 1700 will be "better" in long run. I am sure its performance will increase slightly over time but it's not like a CPU can magically become a unicorn over few patches.



Phew patches?  You've got hotfixes & bios updates but I was mainly referring to 8 core 16 thread CPU's becoming the norm over the coming years though DX12 & Vulkan but hopefully AMD can sort out those 1080p results.


----------



## Grings (Mar 3, 2017)

in 4+ thread games (nearly all nowadays?) them intels run at the base clock, not turbo, and wont be anywhere near them 5ghz k chips in the comparisons

the amd will still turbo (and overclock too if you want) running games, as they wont fully load all cores

I think the ryzen is a really nice proposition, BUT if op is looking for a gaming only pc, get an intel k chip and overclock it past 4.5ghz


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 4, 2017)

Grings said:


> in 4+ thread games (nearly all nowadays?) them intels run at the base clock, not turbo, and wont be anywhere near them 5ghz k chips in the comparisons
> 
> the amd will still turbo (and overclock too if you want) running games, as they wont fully load all cores
> 
> I think the ryzen is a really nice proposition, BUT if op is looking for a gaming only pc, get an intel k chip and overclock it past 4.5ghz


well 4.5ghz is not ... mandatory ... my 4.4 6600K does fine ... 

there is a lot of reason that can indicate a Ryzen 8C/16T is a better choice ... the same reason as why a gamer would build a gaming rig on a X99 platform (and get ripped ... since at the cheapest her would get a 5820K 6C/12T haswell and still pay 40$~ more, and for the mobo ... well S2011-3 are a bit more expensive than a AM4 as far as i've seen on diverse site ) for example my cousin is mainly a gamer (not the brightest one ... he still swear by Razer/Alienware/random-flashy-gaming-brand-with-high-price-and-quality-issues) but he also do a lot of encoding and streaming ... well he got a X99 platform (a few month before Ryzen got out .... MAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHRF....) 

but IPC AMD to Intel ... nope the lead for Intel is not high as it was with Pildriver ... i mean, again, same clock a R7 1700X/1800X goes toe to toe (slightly above in some) with a double price 8C/16T X99 counterpart ... (strangely gaming is not totally the same ... which indicate indeed a slightly lower IPC ... thought the perf loss is negligible in most case)

bottom line, to me Ryzen choice is down to unknown ... you pay a bit more for the CPU not so much more for the mobo, but in case you need more than 4C one day... they will be there for you 
or just wait for Ryzen 5 or 3 and compare again.


----------



## evernessince (Mar 4, 2017)

BarbaricSoul said:


> i5 beat 8 core Ryzen chips in gaming



A blanket statement like that is just wrong.

First it has to be a 6000 series or up i5.  Ryzen's IPC is on par with the 6000 series right now.
Second, it has to be a high clocked, and thus more expensive i5.  The baseline lower clocked i5 models won't beat Ryzen in gaming
Third, games that do take advantage of those extra cores will heavily favor the Ryzen over a four core with no hyper-threading.  For example, Battlefield 1 and the witcher 3.  It's good to keep in mind that the number of games using more cores only increases over time.

Let's not also forget that AMD doesn't force you to upgrade your motherboard every time they release a new series.



FYFI13 said:


> Even i3 7350K beats it in some games. Without any overclock... Imagine this thing at 5GHz.



You don't have to imagine, benchmarks already show an overclock 7700k at above 5 GHz beating Ryzen by an average of 7%.  Not to mention is consumes massively more power and requires a high end heatsink.  An i3 though?  Yeah, you must have cherry picked the one game where an i3 beats Ryzen.  Let's totally forget that most games use 4 cores or more and others won't even run on a two core processor.

My recommendation?  Wait for Ryzen R5.  It's going to deeply cut prices on those mid-range parts and it gives motherboard manufacturer's time to get boards out there.  Right now Ryzen mobo's are a bit scarce due to demand. You buy Intel right now and you get a four core without hyper-threading.  The 1600X is already confirmed to be a 6 core 12 thread CPU @ 4.0 GHz boost launching at $250. Can't really beat that for the money.



TRWOV said:


> Strictly for gaming I'd say i5 7500 due to higher clocks. Clock for clock the Intels are still faster, Ryzen needs some extra Mhz to match Intel's IPC.
> 
> If you want a jack-of-all-trades CPU I'd go for the 1700. You'll likely lose some frames but would gain in some other areas (encoding, streaming, etc).



Um, you have it backwards.  Clock for clock Ryzen is a bit faster than even Kabby lake.  Hence why Intel needs to clock them so high out of the box.  Intel's current IPC lead is only due to it's higher clock rates right now.

Yes, if you buy the 1700 instead of the 7700k you might loose some frames if you play on 1080p.  That's intel's highest clocked processor.  If you play on 1440p or 4k?  Likely zero frames lost.


----------



## FYFI13 (Mar 4, 2017)

evernessince said:


> You don't have to imagine, benchmarks already show an overclock 7700k at above 5 GHz beating Ryzen by an average of 7%. Not to mention is consumes massively more power and requires a high end heatsink.


True. In some cases even more than 7 %. And you're right about power consumption, Ryzen sucks a little bit more from the socket.



evernessince said:


> An i3 though?  Yeah, you must have cherry picked the one game where an i3 beats Ryzen.  Let's totally forget that most games use 4 cores or more and others won't even run on a two core processor.


I have never said that i3 7350K beats Ryzen in every game.  There are good few where it does, especially if you look at "Indie" category, or even WoW, Arma, Ark and such. For example Arma 3 can utilize 8 threads on my i7 4790K and yet, performance scales up as i overclock it. With Ryzen 1800X i saw awful results in this game.


----------



## puma99dk| (Mar 4, 2017)

@FYFI13 that really depends on the price of the i3-7350K because in my country u actually buy less for a i5-6400 or i5-7400 cpus.

Ik that the i5's ain't overclockable but in 9 out of 10 times ppl don't overclock so I personally would get a real quad-core instead of a dual-core with HT.

Yeh ik my own i7-6700k was a waste of money since I don't overclock it, but I wanted a cpu that boosted to 4.2ghz on all cores.


----------



## FYFI13 (Mar 4, 2017)

puma99dk| said:


> @FYFI13 Yeh ik my own i7-6700k was a waste of money since I don't overclock it, but I wanted a cpu that boosted to 4.2ghz on all cores.


Indeed, there are a good few people that buy "K" models just because they're higher clocked out of the box and then mix it with a little bit cheaper motherboards.


----------

