So now I have a dilemma

[TemjinGold]

Thanks for all the opinions. I appreciate that we got civil recommendations from both sides. I did a lot of thinking and decided ultimately I will keep the 1800x but I cancelled the Crosshair (since it is backordered to the wazoo, and with XFR only upping 100mhz, I don't need to pay that much for a mobo) and ordered an Asus B350 board instead (which was actually in stock).

For those wondering why I'm even upgrading, my motherboard is failing after almost 6 years. I'm getting a number of problems, one of which is that 7 of my 10 usb ports are dead. Currently hanging on with a USB hub but not sure how much longer that will last. Since this release got me excited about building something anyway, I figured it wasn't worth trying to patch up.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

Word spends 99% of its tine waiting for you to type something. Optimizing it 25% per core won't make a human write text faster.

You're arguing for future possible performance, and in areas that don't even apply to this person's use case.

Please step back and realize that you're posting in an "is Ryzen right for me" thread NOT "is Ryzen a good value for VIsual Studio developers or transcoding enthusiasts" thread.

You can be an AMD fan without needing to think that Ryzen is the best CPU for every user.

Woot, you can certainly do better than ad hominem. My points are legit. Many softwares scale great with more cores. Big softwares like operating system especially multitasks much better on an eight core chip. Ever try torrentting, browsing up browsers, while waiting on a multiplayer game of yours running in the background to gain enough players? Then shift tab to jump right back in the game before quickly playing your favorite gaming music? It's something a lot of people do. They need multicores.

 

[Absolute0]

The Ryzen processors are a tad bit slower on some games at 1080p, but if you game on 1440p or higher you'd have no issues, while being much faster than anything else on the market when it comes to applications and office work. Its equal or even beats the 6900k while being $600 cheaper.

I'd personally get the 1700 and overclock it manually, but if you don't want to bother with that or want to overclock more later then the 1800x is the way to go! Though you got to know that the initial processors have limited OC headroom. 4.1GHz seems to be about the max they can go unless you are pushing it. This is for all 8 cores though, which is what Intel counterparts can do as well. So similar OC headroom as Intel in terms of 8 core processors.

4.1 Ghz on a 6900K would be considered a dud. 4.3-4.5 Ghz is common. 4.2 is a bad chip or limited cooling and 4.6 was the best stable OC i found.

So yeah it's true Intel 8 core are not clocking to 5 Ghz like the quads. But they ARE clocking past Ryzen.

Thanks for all the opinions. I appreciate that we got civil recommendations from both sides. I did a lot of thinking and decided ultimately I will keep the 1800x but I cancelled the Crosshair (since it is backordered to the wazoo, and with XFR only upping 100mhz, I don't need to pay that much for a mobo) and ordered an Asus B350 board instead (which was actually in stock).

For those wondering why I'm even upgrading, my motherboard is failing after almost 6 years. I'm getting a number of problems, one of which is that 7 of my 10 usb ports are dead. Currently hanging on with a USB hub but not sure how much longer that will last. Since this release got me excited about building something anyway, I figured it wasn't worth trying to patch up.

That's a fantastic upgrade from the 2500K so do enjoy. If your mobo is kaput I'm sure the 2500K is still worth something to the enthusiasts here; they make for a great cheapo secondary rig.

 

[TemjinGold]

4.1 Ghz on a 6900K would be considered a dud. 4.3-4.5 Ghz is common. 4.2 is a bad chip or limited cooling and 4.6 was the best stable OC i found.

So yeah it's true Intel 8 core are not clocking to 5 Ghz like the quads. But they ARE clocking past Ryzen.




That's a fantastic upgrade from the 2500K so do enjoy. If your mobo is kaput I'm sure the 2500K is still worth something to the enthusiasts here; they make for a great cheapo secondary rig.

Good point. I haven't sold anything here (used to ebay for selling but ever since their screw sellers over policy, been soured on that) though I've been a forum member for a long time and like to consider myself fairly active. Don't know if never haven't sold stuff makes people question whether they can trust me. My ebay account is pretty pristine (joined ebay for a very long time too) and under the same nick as my account here. Let me know if I shouldn't be asking in this thread (not about my parts themselves but about selling policy here and the like).

 

[DaveSimmons]

Woot, you can certainly do better than ad hominem. My points are legit. Many softwares scale great with more cores. Big softwares like operating system especially multitasks much better on an eight core chip. Ever try torrentting, browsing up browsers, while waiting on a multiplayer game of yours running in the background to gain enough players? Then shift tab to jump right back in the game before quickly playing your favorite gaming music? It's something a lot of people do. They need multicores.

Inigo Montoya would like a word with you. I did not attack you, I did not even disagree that Ryzen is a good value for some use cases. I pointed out that those use cases are not the ones TemjinGold described.

TemjinGold has decided to spend the extra $150 over a 7700K and give up some current gaming performance, but I would make the same recommendation to anyone else wanting the best CPU for light app use with gaming as the only heavy CPU load. You are the one adding in other uses like VMs that were never mentioned. As for Windows itself, start up Task Mananger and notice it is using 0% of your CPU.

All I was trying to get you to see is that Ryzen 1700 - 1800X are not the best CPU for every use case. To help people you should be trying to recommend the right tool for their needs not yours.

 

[TemjinGold]

Inigo Montoya would like a word with you. I did not attack you, I did not even disagree that Ryzen is a good value for some use cases. I pointed out that those use cases are not the ones TemjinGold described.

TemjinGold has decided to spend the extra $150 over a 7700K and give up some current gaming performance, but I would make the same recommendation to anyone else wanting the best CPU for light app use with gaming as the only heavy CPU load. You are the one adding in other uses like VMs that were never mentioned. As for Windows itself, start up Task Mananger and notice it is using 0% of your CPU.

To be fair, I saved ~$100 by getting a B350 board instead of the Z270 I would've gotten, so it's really only an extra $50 haha...

 

[DaveSimmons]

To be fair, I saved ~$100 by getting a B350 board instead of the Z270 I would've gotten, so it's really only an extra $50 haha...

That looks like a solid board, especially since you said you planned to run at stock. No glowy color-changing LEDs or giant plastic shrouds though

 

[TemjinGold]

That looks like a solid board, especially since you said you planned to run at stock. No glowy color-changing LEDs or giant plastic shrouds though

Haha glad to not pay for that crap along with the forced SLI option that I'll never use. I still remember how at one point, you suddenly had no choice but to buy a multi-GPU board for Intel if you wanted something half decent.

 

[Conroe]

Get a 2600K and a 1080ti. Enjoy your new GPU bottleneck.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Performance is pretty solid in a lot of areas but it seems Zen doesn't have the memory performance needed to keep up in games and other things.

I too was stunned by the L1 cache performance which is half of what Intel's current chips have and is hampering the data flow.

 

[escrow4]

You went for a rushed out AMD chip with sloppy firmware that needs at least 6 months of polish vs a stable Intel platform that has no errata that will impact you daily? Eh?

 

[Hi-Fi Man]

I too was stunned by the L1 cache performance which is half of what Intel's current chips have and is hampering the data flow.

Not only is L1 bandwidth half, the L3 is a victim cache unlike Intels. Don't get me wrong, Zen's cache is significantly superior to what they've had before but it's an area in which they've always struggled.

 

[Shmee]

I would wait a bit longer if I could for reviews of the 1500x. That may be the best chip to get.

 

[lopri]

Here is one way to look at it: which one would you rather have?

7700K @$350 vs 5960X @$500, or
7700K @$350 vs 6900K @$500

That thought experiment might help.

 

[Hi-Fi Man]

Here is one way to look at it: which one would you rather have?

7700K @$350 vs 5960X @$500, or
7700K @$350 vs 6900K @$500

That thought experiment might help.

Ryzen does not have the performance profile of a 5960x or 6900k and it does not have the platform either.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Ryzen does not have the performance profile of a 5960x or 6900k and it does not have the platform either.

Please don't spread FUD, Ryzen does trades blows with either chip and the platform is getting better by the day. BW-E wasn't perfect on the first week either.

 

[lopri]

Ryzen does not have the performance profile of a 5960x or 6900k and it does not have the platform either.

What do you base that on? I read AT's, Techreport's and The Stilt's benchmarks. I would put the quality of reviews AT's < TR's < The Stilt's. But whichever you put more weight on, the trend is unmistakable.

 

[Hi-Fi Man]

They don't have the same performance profile based on benches from AT, TR, etc. It would be spreading FUD to say otherwise. Also, by platform I mean to say support for 28/40 PCIe lanes, quad channel memory, ten SATA ports, etc. This is not to say performance isn't similar overall but in key areas it isn't which is why I say the performance profile isn't the same.