Aztechnology
Member
Soooo the question is. 1700 or 1700x. Also recommended boards? All the $100 seem to be more than enough for me. Never plan to SLI.
I am just working through boards at the moment (of what I can get access to anyway) as I am building a new Amd rig based on this entire gen shift (new mobo/Cpu/memory) I will pass back my findings here later today on my recommendations. And you can see it all with my full tests next weekSoooo the question is. 1700 or 1700x. Also recommended boards? All the $100 seem to be more than enough for me. Never plan to SLI.
Soooo the question is. 1700 or 1700x. Also recommended boards? All the $100 seem to be more than enough for me. Never plan to SLI.
I am just working through boards at the moment (of what I can get access to anyway) as I am building a new Amd rig based on this entire gen shift (new mobo/Cpu/memory) I will pass back my findings here later today on my recommendations. And you can see it all with my full tests next week
I am personally going to look into Asrock since I have good experience with the brand.
The X370 seems a bit to excessive for me though, heh.
I can't really find any reason I would need to buy a $200 board again. Currently I'm running at MSI X99a SLI plus with my 5820k. The $100 boards seems more than competent.
I've heard a lot of good things about ASrock over the years. Unfortunately they seem to be out of pretty much everything (Or are they just not on sale yet?)
Probably a stupid question and so used to intel, but these should make good gaming CPUs?
Yeah maybe I should also look into the B350 chipset ones. Retailers here in europe are out of stock it seems with 2 weeks waiting time.
Probably a stupid question and so used to intel, but these should make good gaming CPUs?
I think the only thing Intel is unhappy with right now is their 10nm delay. The only reason Kaby Lake even exists as a disappointing generational bump and that Ryzen could threaten, is because of 10nm issues.If I was Intel I would be pissed, it's not just fucking their margins on consumer HEDT, it's also going to destroy their margins in their server business where the real money on x86 CPU is made. And this is a terrible time for that to be happening to Intel too with all their x86 businesses in decline and nothing else on the horizon because they completely failed to break into mobile.
Probably a stupid question and so used to intel, but these should make good gaming CPUs?
Watch out salt is dangerous for your health.
Does it still hurt that they got their prediction about RX480 being hot piece of crap that will be bargain priced to push units correct ?
I thought NDA expires on the 28th of Feb? Otherwise, you could always return it unopened?What happens if the benchmarks come out day of release and you realize maybe it's not good? Or should we feel safe in getting them?
R5 coming in Q2, R3 in second half of the year. At least 1600x clocks are higher than rumored.
Remember to wait for full benchmarks, there is a chance Ryzen could still suck.
For those interested in how games scale on >4 core CPUs, cumputerbase posted an article today
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/
Nice, 3.6/4.0GHz clocks, early leaks were pointing at 3.3/3.7GHz for the 1600X, so with these news now I'm even more interested in the 1600X as a replacement for my very aging Phenom II X4 955.
Oh my, if this benches well its going to be my next build at years end. Theres is a high chance of it being my first full AMD build.
Not really? It seems that they run into diminishing returns as soon as they try to go beyond 4 cores 8 threads. Subsequently, for gaming there appears to be little point in getting a R7 over a higher clocked R5 or even R3.That's incredibly promising for Ryzen isn't it? Although it seems like they only tested games that used more than 4 threads?
For those interested in how games scale on >4 core CPUs, cumputerbase posted an article today
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/
I am not sure if you can read German, but the article states they used default XMP profiles supported by the boards on top of default clocks for all the processors.That must be 2500k at default clocks? No other way it to have that terrible score at 1080p.
Not really? It seems that they run into diminishing returns as soon as they try to go beyond 4 cores 8 threads. Subsequently, for gaming there appears to be little point in getting a R7 over a higher clocked R5 or even R3.
That's incredibly promising for Ryzen isn't it? Although it seems like they only tested games that used more than 4 threads?
Are there any current Thunderbolt 3 options on AMD boards? I know AM3+ didn't support it, no big surprise. I assume Intel is open to licensing it as widely as possible.
For those interested in how games scale on >4 core CPUs, cumputerbase posted an article today
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/
I love these 1280X720 benchmarks, it really shows those engines off which scale really nicely with thread count. Props to Watch Dogs 2 and Shadow Warrior 2
Those numbers cant be true, how suddenly 7700k vs 2500k is that huge when before it havent been in other tests?
That must be 2500k at default clocks? No other way it to have that terrible score at 1080p.
I am not sure if you can read German, but the article states they used default XMP profiles supported by the boards on top of default clocks for all the processors.
If I was Intel I would be pissed, it's not just fucking their margins on consumer HEDT, it's also going to destroy their margins in their server business where the real money on x86 CPU is made. And this is a terrible time for that to be happening to Intel too with all their x86 businesses in decline and nothing else on the horizon because they completely failed to break into mobile.
AMD may or may not save their company this way, but they are going to sabotage Intel so hard with this pricing.
Are there any current Thunderbolt 3 options on AMD boards? I know AM3+ didn't support it, no big surprise. I assume Intel is open to licensing it as widely as possible.
It is running at stock clocks, but overclocking would still only improve performance by about 30%.Those numbers cant be true, how suddenly 7700k vs 2500k is that huge when before it havent been in other tests?
That must be 2500k at default clocks? No other way it to have that terrible score at 1080p.
Well part of what made Sandy Bridge such a big deal was not just that they were the fastest CPUs at the time by a noticeable margin, but that you were basically guaranteed at least a 30% overclock.This is like the next coming of the i7 2600K, maybe even better! I can't wait to see the reviews of this CPU!
Intel is not going to be licensing out Thunderbolt.Are there any current Thunderbolt 3 options on AMD boards? I know AM3+ didn't support it, no big surprise. I assume Intel is open to licensing it as widely as possible.
Assuming that your 6700K is overclocked, I would wait for at least the second generation unless the games you're playing now have performance issues caused by your CPU.if i'm just playing games is there much point in me spending £550 to replace my 6700K? i'd probably go for the 1700X and the board I am looking at is the Asus Prime X370 Pro. also i'd probably need to buy a new cooler on top of that...
I love these 1280X720 benchmarks, it really shows those engines off which scale really nicely with thread count. Props to Watch Dogs 2 and Shadow Warrior 2
It is true, but I could hardly see a 8c/16t beast struggling with minimums and frametimes. It should be the opposite, unless AMD somehow bungled up the game performance. Those benches are very encouraging. Of course enthusiasts are going to want to see how far these things can overclock to compare to a 7700k. If it's able to match it in game performance, you have a winner with all the extra cpu power still available for other tasks.Examining CPU performance based on average FPS in games is about as useful as examining the entrails of fro....actually these are pretty sweet.
Examining CPU performance based on average FPS in games is about as useful as examining the entrails of fro....actually these are pretty sweet.
I have a hard time caring. Such is business. AMD's been in the weeds so long that its ridiculous to feel bad for Intel who's reaped immense profit over the last decade.
I bought Intel for a decade, now I'll buy AMD. It's up to Intel to decide if they want to compete. I have no brand loyalty.
if i'm just playing games is there much point in me spending £550 to replace my 6700K? i'd probably go for the 1700X and the board I am looking at is the Asus Prime X370 Pro. also i'd probably need to buy a new cooler on top of that...
60 fps isn't much of an issue for 4 core 8 thread Haswell and up CPUs at the moment providing you've paired the CPU with fast memory and it's at 4GHz+ But I don't know how much more CPU intensive newer games will become in the next 2 years. There will be more games which scale past 4 threads though.
I don't really see these CPUs struggling any-time soon to hit 60 fps unless the PC version has significant enhancements over the console version which hammer the CPU and takes advantage of the processing power available, in which case you could possibly reduce some CPU intensive settings to target 60 providing the game scales in that aspect.
Yeah, it might line up nicely with Vega's release.So R5 X1600 is Q2 anyone know roughly where that lays on the calendar?
May, June?
For those interested in how games scale on >4 core CPUs, cumputerbase posted an article today
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/
Q2 is from the start of April until the end of June.So R5 X1600 is Q2 anyone know roughly where that lays on the calendar?
May, June?
It's a bit over the top to be honest. The i7 6700K has good life ahead of it so if you're playing games at 60 fps it's probably not going to be a much of an issue for a good while, that £550 would be better spent on a new GPU to be honest.
As I said earlier in this thread:
For 120+ fps a processor with more cores may be desirable for a game like Battlefield 1 and future games that heavily tax the CPU providing your GPU can keep up with it.
If you're interested in the new CPUs wait for the reviews and see if you like the performance, you could potentially sell you existing hardware not have to spend £550 if you really wanted it, maybe £100-200 at max. Although a new GPU will likely be a much better investment seeing as you already have a build.
This abundance of CPU power may lead to a i7 2600K situation, where 5+ years down the line it's still incredibly relevant in-terms of performance, or maybe there's something much better to be had at that time for a lower price, or even mainstream CPUs that go up to 16 cores. There's no real harm in waiting if you're happy with the performance your current CPU delivers, you may even be better off waiting to see AMD's and Intel's upcoming CPUs in the next 3 years.
So R5 X1600 is Q2 anyone know roughly where that lays on the calendar?
May, June?
Im more surprised 7700k out performing 4770k by such a margin in games, its way higher than early reviews. But but Intel not making IPC gains...
Im more surprised 7700k out performing 4770k but such a margin, way higher than early reviews. But but Intel not making IPC gains...
If Ryzen is the real deal, the resale value of the 6700k (or any quad core) will drop hard
As I said earlier, if I was sure Ryzen was the real deal, I'd sell my 6700k/z170a board right now
I could then buy a R7 1700+b350 board without losing barely any money (if at all)
If you at least eliminate GPU limitations (by e.g. using a high-end GPU at 720p like done by CB -- a step many publications skip) you can get some relative impression of CPU performance.Examining CPU performance based on average FPS in games is about as useful as examining the entrails of fro....actually these are pretty sweet.