@eclap the 7700K is only really faster when it comes to ST and 1080p (and lower) gaming performance. i have yet to see someone spend around 300$ for a cpu (and you dont slap it on a 50$ board) and then starts gaming at 720p with a 750ti. everyone i personally know (friends/customers) that owns any i7 games at 1440p, where there is almost no difference between amd and intel.

Thats only more proof that its slower than intel... When you put the load on the processor and game gets slower then?

I especially love how you decided to make the z270 board a full $100 for no reason. Good post.

I was just pointing this out to someone elsewhere. 6800k $400, X99 $200 for a decent board. ~$50 more than a Ryzen or intel and you have a system that is a more capable than either Ryzen or intel 170/270 offerings. There's a wide gamut of options out there to fit just about any usage scenario at various price points.

I was just pointing this out to someone elsewhere. 6800k $400, X99 $200 for a decent board. ~$50 more than a Ryzen or intel and you have a system that is a more capable than either Ryzen or intel 170/270 offerings. There's a wide gamut of options out there to fit just about any usage scenario at various price points.

Yeah and I almost pulled the trigger on the 6800k x99 setup. But I know I'd miss the 5ghz 7700k IPC in games so I went with that. Something like a 6800k (7800k/8800k) will be my next upgrade about 2 years from now though. Makes perfect sense.

I am thinking of getting a 7600k and I only game at 1080p with an rx 480. I was wondering if any of the R5 will perform better than the 7600k or should I go with the 7600k and upgrade to zen when games actually use more than 4 cores.

Yes, Singleplayer is quite fine (CPU utilization 4x 100%). My GPU utilization was bad DX11/DX12, but I had no freezes and stutter fest. But moment I went to multiplayer... All the stuff there is... DX12 unplayable nightmare (CPU utilization 4x 100%). DX11 playable (CPU utilization 4x 100%), still good FPS (70+), but GPU utilization so low (~25~35%) that I can simply get much more from GPU if I pair it with CPU capable to crunch more threads. So, those benchmarks, I saw few of them on YT, they like to run that SP tank mission as it delivers good consistency. But if they just recorded multiplayer, they would have to show huge differences between those CPUs.

Hmm, no such issues here.

Zen is a good architecture. It obviously shows muscle on non-game workloads (which implies a latency problem as Hilbert alluded to). Wait for Zen v2 where they fix latency problems with games. It's unfair to compare Zen to Sandy Bridge since AMD are near bankrupcy at this point. If Zen doesn't move units in the business sector, AMD's done making processors. AMD banked on the sector that will likely make profits.

1800X (500$) + X370 MB (200$) = 700$ 7700K (350$) + Z270 MB (250-300$) = 650$

Well it'll depend on the software. I agree for games or software that isn't highly multi-threaded, you're better of with a 7700K. But when running games or software that actually support more then 4 cores, I would go for the AMD hands down in this scenario. IMO the failure or success of the new ZEN architecture lies more with the software and game devs now if anything else. If they decide to go more multi-threaded, then it'll be a win, if not, it'll fall flat down the road.

I was just pointing this out to someone elsewhere. 6800k $400, X99 $200 for a decent board. ~$50 more than a Ryzen or intel and you have a system that is a more capable than either Ryzen or intel 170/270 offerings. There's a wide gamut of options out there to fit just about any usage scenario at various price points.

If I was buying right now the 6800K/X99 option is the one I'd take. I've advised such to a few people to be honest, although people have different requirements to an extent. I feel that while the IPC of a highly clocked 7700/7600 is impressive, for other uses combined with gaming the X99 platform wins out in almost every respect. I'm also of a mind that the IPC offered by a 4.0-4.5ghz 6800K is going to be ample until games start becoming more multithreaded, while the 6800K is behind in most current (less threaded) titles compared to the 7700K it's still pushing way more frames than you really need in the majority of titles. A lot of people on this board keep their equipment for pretty long periods of time, myself included. There's a lot of us still using Sandy/Ivy chips without much of an issue when it comes to playing games. I'm of the opinion that in the long run more cores will be important, although I'm guessing that's 2-3 years down the line as opposed to IPC monster quads many are buying now. For general use when buying a higher end chip, I think the 6800K is currently the best option for many. I find Ryzen to be problematic as a platform, it's suffering the growing pains of new tech. It has a lot of potential, it simply isn't there just yet. I also think it'll (the 6800k) outpace the likes of the 7700 in a couple of years, and will enjoy similar longevity to the x58 platform when it comes to gaming - let alone other tasks.

To me the current Ryzen CPUs are good for those users who want to video editing and rendering for YouTube and live streaming and stuff like that. Or want to have more cores for the future. With me I would go AMD believe me but there are a few games that I play that run terrible on AMD hardware due to poor optimization for AMD hardware. Also some of these pointers that AMD is giving out is basic common sense. Also the memory configurations are pretty messed up if you ask me. If you want to maximize your memory to whatever the motherboard supports you are pretty limited because with certain speeds you are only allowed 2 sticks for dual channel RAM instead of using 4 thats what I am seeing from that chart that Hilbert posted in the article. If I am reading something wrong than someone who owns a Ryzen CPU or has more knowledge than me please correct me.

I would love to say you are correct, except that even in high performance power plans on windows 10 with my CPU, it consistently put them into park. I had to get ParkControl to disable core parking, on windows 10.

I checked on ~20 rigs with Win8, Win10 and everywhere core parking was off by default. And there is no need to use 3rd party tools. Power plan has many settings for core parking, but two of them: - Processor performance core parking min cores - Processor performance core parking max cores are responsible for On/Off - when they are equal parking is Off, when "min cores" is less then "max cores" then parking is On. To change them you first need to unhide them. Execute commands in elevated command prompt: powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR 0cc5b647-c1df-4637-891a-dec35c318583 -ATTRIB_HIDE powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR ea062031-0e34-4ff1-9b6d-eb1059334028 -ATTRIB_HIDE And then go to advanced power plan settings window - there in the tree under the root node "Processor power management" you will see these two settings. Adjusting the "Processor performance core parking min cores" to the same value as the "Processor performance core parking max cores" (i.e. 100%) should turn off core parking. I will quote MS document on this:

Processor Performance Core Parking Min Cores The minimum percentage of logical processors (in terms of all logical processors that are enabled on the system) that can be placed in the unparked state at any given time. For example, on a system with 16 logical processors, configuring the value of this setting to 25% ensures that at least 4 logical processors are always in the unparked state. The Core Parking algorithm is disabled if the value of this setting is not less than the value of the Processor Performance Core Parking Maximum Cores setting. Processor Performance Core Parking Max Cores The maximum percentage of logical processors (in terms of all logical processors that are enabled on the system) that can be in the unparked state at any given time. For example, on a system with 16 logical processors, configuring the value of this setting to 50% ensures that no more than 8 logical processors are ever in the unparked state at the same time. The Core Parking algorithm is disabled if the value of this setting is not greater than the value of the Processor Performance Core Parking Minimum Cores setting.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/7ni5368t51sdht3/ProcPowerMgmtWin7.zip or search for ProcPowerMgmtWin7

If I was buying right now the 6800K/X99 option is the one I'd take. I've advised such to a few people to be honest, although people have different requirements to an extent. I feel that while the IPC of a highly clocked 7700/7600 is impressive, for other uses combined with gaming the X99 platform wins out in almost every respect. I'm also of a mind that the IPC offered by a 4.0-4.5ghz 6800K is going to be ample until games start becoming more multithreaded, while the 6800K is behind in most current (less threaded) titles compared to the 7700K it's still pushing way more frames than you really need in the majority of titles. A lot of people on this board keep their equipment for pretty long periods of time, myself included. There's a lot of us still using Sandy/Ivy chips without much of an issue when it comes to playing games. I'm of the opinion that in the long run more cores will be important, although I'm guessing that's 2-3 years down the line as opposed to IPC monster quads many are buying now. For general use when buying a higher end chip, I think the 6800K is currently the best option for many. I find Ryzen to be problematic as a platform, it's suffering the growing pains of new tech. It has a lot of potential, it simply isn't there just yet. I also think it'll (the 6800k) outpace the likes of the 7700 in a couple of years, and will enjoy similar longevity to the x58 platform when it comes to gaming - let alone other tasks.

I went with the 6850K mostly for the longevity. I've got one 1080 Ti coming and probably grab another one in a few months, probably a Hybrid. I just could not see putting them in PCIe slots at lower than x16. The reduced ports and USB options of the desktop boards. I just updated from X58 so...I tend to go with the top end chipset of the mature product cycle. I should be good until X399.

Got myself a 1700 and a Gigabyte AB350 (was the only one with decent Audio), 2x 8GB 2666 Ripjaw and a 960EVO. Paid around 850 EUR. Just taking the CPU and MB (around 480 EUR), I could not imagine building something equal with Intel. Would not call myself a AMD fanboy, rather choose AMD for best bang for the buck. Always depends what one is doing, I do game a bit and find my 380 more than sufficient for Fallout4 with high detailed textures and all on ultra. Never counted the FPS, runs smooth at stock settings. Not into overclocking, not planning any SLI or Crossfire and I know I can use my MB and RAM for at least another 4-5 years (one of the reasons I do not use Intel anymore). I knew what was into by buying a completely new platform with new processor, was the smoothest since my first 1GHz AMD (those Phenom and Core2Duo were less pleasant). Not searched for quirks and none showed up. Even though I did not bother with a fresh install from my prevoius config and running Win01 Insider. System runs stable and faster than that 4 core Phenom I had before (which had some stuttering in Fallout4 and countless other games and was not really fast in transcoding). I am just a normal user, one that needs no therapist (which everyone really should need if he thinks that he notices the difference in anyhing above 50 FPS...just because of..science?!) that simply gets the cheapest thing available too do the job with least hassle. In short...build and buy what you want and can afford and nee it for. If your ego really needs those 10FPS more even though you can not even perceive them...and you have no issues in spending....buy it... If not, do the calculations of what you need and are willing to pay for it for the next 5 years and decide. There is no "black and white", it all depends on usage of the sytem.

The performance looks smooth enough for me at 1080p paired with a cheap 480. Nothing beats this price per dollar at the moment. 8 games benchmarked youtube.com/watch?v=DKG6aRabg14[/url]

Got a better tip than this, Download "process Lasso" run that in the background, start your game, minimise the game and go into process Lasso - go to active processes - right click on the game running - go to CPU affinity (limit CPU use) next go to always - select CPU affinity - de-select all cores on the right hand column (8 total - 8-15) go back into your game. Now enjoy i7 gaming performance. (will need process Lasso running in the background however) Since you no longer have cross CCX module talk your performance will now increase massively, since latency has been reduced by 3X! Performance will vary but for me in armoured warfare i gone from max 110fps to 160fps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbryPYcnscA (Ryzen 1800x - Windows scheduling threads across CCX units) this was what inspired me to try this and it works!

@Fender178 and what use would 2 more be on a dual channel system? you can already have 32gb ram with just 2 sticks, how many "normal" users would need more?

I suspect AMD isn't in a position to speak for Microsoft, as it isn't the case the other way round. On the firmware/driver front - AMD can and does officially announce Chipset drivers and GPU drivers/firmware - Motherboard manufacturers can and do officially announce BIOS updates. - Microsoft can and does officially announce Windows OS updates. No company interferes with announcments of another companies field of responsibility. So if we are waiting for a OS update, we wait for an announcment of MS. If we are waiting for a Chipset update, we wait for an announcment of AMD. If we are waiting for a BIOS update, we wait for an announcment of ASUS/MSI/GB/Asrock/etc. The fact is, we don't know what it will be until it gets announced. So we can't know WHO will announce it. Possible outcomes (multiple answers or no answer at all can be correct at the same time): MS announces: "Windows 10 KB123456 -> includes Kernel optimizations for new generation of AMD CPUs" AMD announces: "AM4 Chipset Driver Update -> includes optimizations for new generation of AMD CPUs" Mobo company announces: "BIOS Update -> includes optimizations for new generation of AMD CPUs & AM4 memory compatibility" What will happen first? And when? Nobody not working closely with those big players knows. classic Heisenberg & Schrodinger :infinity:

Thanks for the reply. Since posting yesterday I've found out that AMD has said that the Windows 10 scheduler is not to blame, they said it in a blog. https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/03/13/amd-ryzen-community-update?sf62107357=1

http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/bruce6-500x350.jpg

Also the memory configurations are pretty messed up if you ask me. If you want to maximize your memory to whatever the motherboard supports you are pretty limited because with certain speeds you are only allowed 2 sticks for dual channel RAM instead of using 4 thats what I am seeing from that chart that Hilbert posted in the article. If I am reading something wrong than someone who owns a Ryzen CPU or has more knowledge than me please correct me.

I'd be very surprised if the memory situation didn't get better. When I built this Skylake PC, I initially got a set of 4 dimm modules for 16GB (4x4) because the store had run out of 2x8. My PC wouldn't post with all four DIMMs in. I took 2 out, leaving 8 gigs in total. I ran a mem test just for laughs getting massive errors. I gave up. However, the store got more 2x8 sooner than I expected, and they switched my 4x4 to one of those (that's what we agreed when I bought the parts). Using that 2x8 set, I installed both. The PC didn't post. I only left one in, it finally posted, and mem test was good. I updated the bios, installed the other DIMM as well, and got good mem test result. That's with Intel's nth generation of i cores and chipsets. If the situation with Ryzen mem doesn't get better, then there's something seriously wrong, but for now troubles are only normal, as funny as it sounds.

6900K (1000$) + X99 mb (250-300$) = 1250-1300$

Obviously you didn't read my post, I stated why I compared it to the 7700K.

I especially love how you decided to make the z270 board a full $100 for no reason. Good post.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. I just went with prices I quickly checked online, and a reasonable Z270 board can be bought for 200€ for me. I know stuff is more expansive for many, I just did a quick comparison for me as-is, as if I'd ordere either right now.

I was just pointing this out to someone elsewhere. 6800k $400, X99 $200 for a decent board. ~$50 more than a Ryzen or intel and you have a system that is a more capable than either Ryzen or intel 170/270 offerings. There's a wide gamut of options out there to fit just about any usage scenario at various price points.

I completely agree. There's so many option out there in the price range compared to a top end 1800X system that it might be subjectively cheap, but it depends on what you plan on using it.

@Fender178 and what use would 2 more be on a dual channel system? you can already have 32gb ram with just 2 sticks, how many "normal" users would need more?

Very true. I forgot there chips with more than 8gb with the release of DDR4 memory. Since there are some users out there with 64Gb of memory.