And the 1700x is also slower than a 6600k some times too. Can't just cling to the wins and forget the losses. Why? The 6800k has 8 more pci lanes and quad channel RAM. Plus out performs R7 in gaming (you know the think most of us on here built our computer for). So I feel the value comparison is adequate. All three of you must have become professional power users over night or something.

It's funny how you miss all the points. I'm not even disagreeing with you about gaming. But if you want a gaming computer, you go build a Kaby/R5 machine and be happy. But we can't pretend here that the 6800 is any kind of competitor to the 1700x in the productivity side of things. You take whichever side of the argument suits you. When someone recommends the R7 chips for gaming, you cry for the quads, and when someone says that the R7 chips are better for productivity, you cry for gaming and you actually recommend a chip that is more expensive, not as much faster in gaming and at least 30% slower in productivity. So, there's that. :infinity: You would also be surprised on the amount of people in here who're actually professional power users.

Moreover with ryzen you can get dirty cheap <80$ B350 MB and still use your 1700 + OC 🙂.

It's funny how you miss all the points. I'm not even disagreeing with you about gaming. But if you want a gaming computer, you go build a Kaby/R5 machine and be happy. But we can't pretend here that the 6800 is any kind of competitor to the 1700x in the productivity side of things. You take whichever side of the argument suits you. When someone recommends the R7 chips for gaming, you cry for the quads, and when someone says that the R7 chips are better for productivity, you cry for gaming and you actually recommend a chip that is more expensive, not as much faster in gaming and at least 30% slower in productivity. So, there's that. :infinity: You would also be surprised on the amount of people in here who're actually professional power users.

Oh you just love making stuff up and pulling **** out of your ass. Productivity was never stated as the sole purpose of said fictional rig so I not going down that rabbit hole and letting you dictate the conversation like you so love to when you are wrong. I don't cry for the quads in gaming so again stop. I've said they are the top for now. 30%?????????? http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=29013 Don't claim something that is easily proven false. (I know most of the time the difference in production performance is around 30% but not always like you claim) According to you Handbrake is more important to user on here than GTA5. All this because Undying claimed x299 would be too expensive to which I said you could build a low end HEDT rig for about the same money as a 1700x rig. Get your heads out of your asses.

Lol at the guy saying there is a 60$ difference in the platforms for a the r5 1600 with b350 which essentially has and does everything the 7700k equivalent can do there is like 300$ difference here where I live even when factoring in the ram. U can argue gaming performance but the difference is so small it's not a real argument to me especially since I game at 4k.

lol at the guy saying there is a 60$ difference in the platforms for a the r5 1600 with b350 which essentially has and does everything the 7700k equivalent can do there is like 300$ difference here where i live even when factoring in the ram. U can argue gaming performance but the difference is so small it's not a real argument to me especially since i game at 4k.

read again i'll ****ing make it bold for you!!!!

you got your crystal ball working? I did the math back when the r7's came out. the price difference between a 6800k/x99 and the 1700x/x370 system (the x99 had 32gb of ram and the x370 only had 16gb btw) was like $60. This idea that ryzen is hundreds of dollars cheaper than intel is false especially since you are basically required to buy more expensive ram with ryzen. Add that to the fact that so far x370 motherboards are a tad more expensive than similar z270 boards. Don't get me wrong i'm not throwing shade at ryzen just stating fact.

Funny how you forget the rest of the charts. [spoiler]http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=29009 http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=29007 http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=29008 http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=29011 http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=29012 (Oh look! I'm even including the one you posted, because life and real things aren't black and white you know. It's closer to statistics, you get the median of what something is, not the absolute values). http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=29013 http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=29014 Fascinating to see that the older the 3D benchmark is, the faster Broadwell seems to be. http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=29015 I didn't include the image where Broadwell is faster in 3DMark Vantage, because of the 16 image limit that the forum has. It is indeed faster, but the lead is smaller than the 3DMark06 one.[/spoiler] So from these charts you don't conclude that the 1700x is a better CPU for productivity? In some of them it's actually close to the admittedly hyperbolic 30% I wrote. Furthermore Hilbert didn't include, this is a website from a gamer's perspective anyway, any VM benchmarks, or encrypted content benchmarks, or compiling benchmarks, where Ryzen completely destroys any mainstream Intel platform and goes head to head with dual socket Xeon systems. [spoiler]https://www.servethehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-Python-Linux-Kernel-Compile-Benchmarks.jpg https://www.servethehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-c-ray-Benchmark.jpg https://www.servethehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-7zip-Compression-Benchmark.jpg https://www.servethehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-NAMD-Benchmark.jpg https://www.servethehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-OpenSSL-Sign-Benchmark.jpg https://www.servethehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-OpenSSL-Verify-Benchmark.jpg And yes, unlike you I show all the slides. Ryzen's Sysbench (which is a synthetic benchmark) single core performance sucks. Compare it with all the rest of the actual cases above though. https://www.servethehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-Sysbench-Single-Threaded.jpg[/spoiler] Do you want me to mention ECC memory support in all CPUs? Fully unlocked instruction sets? That you can basically have an ECC-enabled octocore system that's approaching dual-socket Xeon performance for something like $500? Are we serious here?

read again i'll ****ing make it bold for you!!!!

FANBOY ALERT! IGNORE ON SIGHT! That intel cpu looks good, its a shame it will cost 1200+ and, knowing intel cpus, it wont go past 3.0 with the 10c active

Funny how you forget the rest of the charts. [spoiler]http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=29009 http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=29007 http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=29008 http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=29011 http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=29012 (Oh look! I'm even including the one you posted, because life and real things aren't black and white you know. It's closer to statistics, you get the median of what something is, not the absolute values). http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=29013 http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=29014 Fascinating to see that the older the 3D benchmark is, the faster Broadwell seems to be. http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=29015 I didn't include the image where Broadwell is faster in 3DMark Vantage, because of the 16 image limit that the forum has. It is indeed faster, but the lead is smaller than the 3DMark06 one.[/spoiler] So from these charts you don't conclude that the 1700x is a better CPU for productivity? In some of them it's actually close to the admittedly hyperbolic 30% I wrote.

Don't claim something that is easily proven false. (I know most of the time the difference in production performance is around 30% but not always like you claim)

In case you forgot what the original statement was about. I know you have your talking points that you just have to make.

All this because Undying claimed x299 would be too expensive to which I said you could build a low end HEDT rig for about the same money as a 1700x rig. Get your heads out of your asses.

Do you want me to mention ECC memory support in all CPUs? Fully unlocked instruction sets? That you can basically have an ECC-enabled octocore system that's approaching dual-socket Xeon performance for something like $500? Are we serious here?

Does not pertain to discussion at hand another straw-man.

You all are so passionate about CPU's I love it. @Silva I'm going to stay in my price utopia for another week thank you very much.

I did the math back when the R7's came out. the price difference between a 6800k/x99 and the 1700x/x370 system (the x99 had 32GB of ram and the x370 only had 16GB BTW) was like $60.

So...i just did the same thing you did but gave it the same amount of ram, 16gb each, 4x4gb on the x99, 2x8gb on the x370, and the number came to about $80 difference, and you're trying to defend Intel by saying it's more expensive, performs less with 2 physical cores less, but that's ok? I don't get it. And i chose the cheapest of the cheapest on both systems, and intel had a lot more cheap quality motherboards on their x99 setup then AMD does currently, which isn't surprising since x99 has been out for so long, but anything that would be worth having on the x99 motherboard would add another $80-120 at least

And the 1700x is also slower than a 6600k some times too. Can't just cling to the wins and forget the losses.

That's funny because that seems to be what you are doing. Want to compare prices? Compare the 6800k to the 1600/x, as the 6800k and 1600/x go back and forth with eachother on many things, just as the 1800x beats out intels 10 core processor or gets right up next to it in multiple areas as well. You can't just say "Well, the 1700x is slower then the 6600k sometimes too" without also saying "Well, the 1700x is bother faster and slower then the 6600k and the 6800k depending on the scenario, as well as the 1600/x are both faster and lower then the 6600k and 6800k" So why not compare them all? Prices and all? The simple fact of the matter is currently AMD processors go toe to toe with Intels processors that are more expensive, sometimes by a little, sometimes by a very large amount (I'm looking at you $500 AMD processor vs $1700 intel processor) and you're hear trying to tell everyone the AMD and Intels pricing aren't that off, and showcase a 6 core more expensive processor then intels 8 core, because the price isn't that different, when that same AMD 8 core processor can also take down intels much more expensive 8 cores. It just doesn't make sense. I'm just not sure what your end goal is. You try and make intel look cheaper then it is, because you won't compare AMDs 6 core vs Intels 6 core, and for what?

10c/20t? with base clock of 4ghz? I Want sadly I just made this 6700k and I use the price will make me change my mind

In case you forgot what the original statement was about. I know you have your talking points that you just have to make. Does not pertain to discussion at hand another straw-man.

I do like to make my points, as everyone here knows. I just want to understand something. In the previous page, you say:

I did the math back when the r7's came out. the price difference between a 6800k/x99 and the 1700x/x370 system (the x99 had 32gb of ram and the x370 only had 16gb btw) was like $60. This idea that ryzen is hundreds of dollars cheaper than intel is false especially since you are basically required to buy more expensive ram with ryzen. Add that to the fact that so far x370 motherboards are a tad more expensive than similar z270 boards. [...]Don't get me wrong i'm not throwing shade at ryzen just stating fact. All this because Undying claimed x299 would be too expensive to which I said you could build a low end HEDT rig for about the same money as a 1700x rig.

First of all, we have to see what is actually the meaning of the word expensive. It has nothing to do with price alone. Something is expensive if for the same asking price you can get something else that will perform better, or you can get similar performance for a lower asking price, or if you simply can't afford it. You then go and say that the idea that Ryzen isn't hundreds of dollars cheaper than the Intel HEDT is false, and that for the same price you can build a low-end HEDT Intel rig, that according to your train of thought is very close in performance/dollar (hence the claim that Ryzen isn't much cheaper) to an R7 system. This is the core of your argument, right? That in the end, Ryzen as a platform isn't that much cheaper than a price-equivalent Intel HEDT system. Well, that's pretty much a pile of cr*p, as all the benchmarks have shown. We go back to Undying's argument here. If you want to game, get a quad Kaby with HT, or get a Ryzen 5. If you want to do productivity, go with Ryzen 7. I can't understand how your hypothetical HEDT system with a six core Broadwell-E is anything better (with the exception of PCIe lanes), than an R5 1600x. Why would any sane person get the Broadwell-E, unless they have very specific code in mind that might only work better with Intel. Take a look below: http://imgur.com/KbsQeKM.png These are fresh from today, the source is http://skinflint.co.uk, which is an EU price aggregator. The hexacore AMD system has one of the best motherboards for it out there, which could literally have been a simple ~70 euro mATX, but I wanted to indulge you. The Intel system has literally the cheapest X99 motherboard I could currently find in the EU. They both have the same amount of RAM, with a proper quad kit for the Intel system, and ECC memory for the Ryzen system. The Ryzen system with the same IPC, better quality motherboard, ECC memory and the same number of threads, and just four less PCIe lanes from the CPU, is 100 euro cheaper. :infinity: If I put the same memory kit to both (and it would work), the price difference would literally be hundreds of dollars (hundreds is more than a hundred). I won't even mention that in order to get ECC you need a Xeon that will run at ridiculous 1.6-2.0GHz speeds in this price range, and it won't even be Broadwell-E. Ah, and that motherboard won't work with it most likely, so that the whole workstation will end up shooting up upwards of $800 for essentially the same performance. What a great deal :infinity:

So...i just did the same thing you did but gave it the same amount of ram, 16gb each, 4x4gb on the x99, 2x8gb on the x370, and the number came to about $80 difference, and you're trying to defend Intel by saying it's more expensive, performs less with 2 physical cores less, but that's ok? I don't get it. And i chose the cheapest of the cheapest on both systems, and intel had a lot more cheap quality motherboards on their x99 setup then AMD does currently, which isn't surprising since x99 has been out for so long, but anything that would be worth having on the x99 motherboard would add another $80-120 at least

Again I did this the week R7 was released. That was two months ago. RAM prices have skyrocketed since. Also it appears the 6800k has gone up a bit in price too. Like I originally posted at the time of R7 release it was a $60 difference. 6800k is much better in gaming than 1700x but takes a back seat to the 1700x in production. I have made all my claims from the standpoint of gaming first as that is the most stressful thing i do with my computer. I don't run a business that has to render or encode as fast as possible like it seems every AMD shill in this thread does.

That's funny because that seems to be what you are doing. Want to compare prices? Compare the 6800k to the 1600/x, as the 6800k and 1600/x go back and forth with eachother on many things, just as the 1800x beats out intels 10 core processor or gets right up next to it in multiple areas as well. You can't just say "Well, the 1700x is slower then the 6600k sometimes too" without also saying "Well, the 1700x is bother faster and slower then the 6600k and the 6800k depending on the scenario, as well as the 1600/x are both faster and lower then the 6600k and 6800k" So why not compare them all? Prices and all? The simple fact of the matter is currently AMD processors go toe to toe with Intels processors that are more expensive, sometimes by a little, sometimes by a very large amount (I'm looking at you $500 AMD processor vs $1700 intel processor) and you're hear trying to tell everyone the AMD and Intels pricing aren't that off, and showcase a 6 core more expensive processor then intels 8 core, because the price isn't that different, when that same AMD 8 core processor can also take down intels much more expensive 8 cores. It just doesn't make sense. I'm just not sure what your end goal is. You try and make intel look cheaper then it is, because you won't compare AMDs 6 core vs Intels 6 core, and for what?

My goal was to point out that HEDT does have an affordable side to it that is all. I never once in this thread said unequivocally that Intel is better than AMD. I was painted into a corner by a few in here with what appears to be an agenda. BTW like the new Avatar but kinda miss the old one.

Again I did this the week R7 was released. That was two months ago. RAM prices have skyrocketed since. Also it appears the 6800k has gone up a bit in price too. Like I originally posted at the time of R7 release it was a $60 difference. 6800k is much better in gaming than 1700x but takes a back seat to the 1700x in production. I have made all my claims from the standpoint of gaming first as that is the most stressful thing i do with my computer. I don't run a business that has to render or encode as fast as possible like it seems every AMD shill in this thread does. My goal was to point out that HEDT does have an affordable side to it that is all. I never once in this thread said unequivocally that Intel is better than AMD. I was painted into a corner by a few in here with what appears to be an agenda. BTW like the new Avatar but kinda miss the old one.

Just out of curiosity why not compare it to the 6900k even tho you did it when R7 released? Because that is what I would compare it to. But still I understand your point that going with cheapest x99 you are on price around the same range as the second most expensive ryzen and fares better in games but worse in productivity. That there is an option to go affordable on intels HEDT side also. Hmmh I wonder how much R9 will cost. I guess we will get 1000€ Ryzens with 16 cores.

My goal was to point out that HEDT does have an affordable side to it that is all. I never once in this thread said unequivocally that Intel is better than AMD.

It doesn't. The price/performance is horrendous. http://imgur.com/KbsQeKM.png The Ryzen system is one hundred euro cheaper with ECC RAM and a much better motherboard. My component selection here helps Intel look better actually. This could give the same performance with no-ECC RAM and a B350 motherboard and be more than 200 euros cheaper.

I was painted into a corner by a few in here with what appears to be an agenda.

http://imgur.com/UZyt2CZ.png [spoiler]I thought that the agenda was saying that the Intel HEDT platform is "affordable".[/spoiler]

Just out of curiosity why not compare it to the 6900k even tho you did it when R7 released? Because that is what I would compare it to. But still I understand your point that going with cheapest x99 you are on price around the same range as the second most expensive ryzen and fares better in games but worse in productivity. That there is an option to go affordable on intels HEDT side also. Hmmh I wonder how much R9 will cost. I guess we will get 1000€ Ryzens with 16 cores.

Simply because it was $1000 and didn't provide $580 more performance over 6800k. Think of it as "High-end on a budget". With Threadripper I would think the best 10/20 will be around $700, the best 12/24 at say $850, 14/28 around $1200 and 16/32 for say $1500. Intel will likely be 7640x $225 7740x $330 7800x $400-450 7850x $550-$650 7900x $750-$900 7920x $1300 I say this because AMD will take a chunk out of Intel in this segment.

I believe that your Intel prices are very low, but I kind of hope you're right.

I believe that your Intel prices are very low, but I kind of hope you're right.

I think they may be as well but I'm a glass half full kinda guy.

You all are so passionate about CPU's I love it. @Silva I'm going to stay in my price utopia for another week thank you very much.

Make sure you sit down before reading the price or you might bang your head on the floor when you pass out. @PrMinisterGR You're still arguing with him? @Loophole35 I'll take Ryzen 65/95W TDP parts any day over the 140W toasters from Intel.

Yeah, not worrying much about skylake-x, still here with unlocked turbo haswell-ep http://i.imgur.com/Fr4x8wx.jpg