Why no love for the Ryzen line in build of the month?

[Lathais]

Can't deny though that for years ppl have been calling out next year is the year that games will start to utilise more cores!! And while very slowly its happening that games are actually using for example 4 core cpu's efficient and a game or 2 can push even more cores / threads in general it hasn't happened while ppl have been calling this out since the 4 core 6600Q C2Q cpu came out in like 2007? (was it)?

So in that respect i can see ppl still being conservative, esp since DX12 requires Window 10, which makes game dev's hesitant to develop native DX12 games since Windows 7 still has a large market share and that OS cannot utilise DX12.

And no Socket AM4 wasn't out, but don't forget that AMD has been pushing 8 core cpu's for quite a while now, without success though till Ryzen. Ryzen will change that, but i doubt it will go super fast. A game developers still will look at what the majority of their users are running and optimise for that, and my guess is it that alot (if not the majority) of these users even a few years from now will still be on 2 to 4 core machines.

Doesnt make it bad to invest in a 6 or 8 core CPU now, but solely for gaming i doubt 6 core or better will be the standard configuration in every gamers PC anytime soon. Gaming and productivity: Whole different story, there you will leverage those extra cores from the get go.

Maybe other people have, but I have not.Because while AMD was saying what it was saying and the AMD hype train was going, I was still with intel, still preferred intel and still solely recommended intel. Of course, things have changed since then. We actually have games on the market that are designed with DX12 from the ground up. We have games that are seeing benefits from more cores. It IS here. It is not rumors it may be coming. It is not just being talked about. it is happening. It took much longer than they thought it would but it did finally get there. hell, even inels next gen is going for more cores now. So what does that tell you?

- - - Updated - - -

except it isnt 100$ its much closer to 200$ more. If you overclock, the 1600 is 215 +70 for a b350 vs 7700k which is 330 + 120 for a z270 and at least 35 for a cpu cooler. so 285 vs 485. Its much closer to 200$, or 165 if you use a third market cpu cooler on the ryzen, in difference in the two rigs. You will see a bigger difference in performance with that money moving up a tier in GPUs.

Well, considering we are talking about reusing the motherboard and wanting it to last several years, I'd recommend getting an X370 instead of the B350. Also, let's just assume that they are upgrading and already have a CPU cooler they can use on their 7700k. Getting pretty close to $100 difference. I'll give them that, seeing as the Ryzen is STILL the better value price/performance.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i7-7700K 4.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($308.87 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock - Z270M Pro4 Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($101.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $410.85
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-02 12:30 EDT-0400

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor ($197.88 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte - GA-AX370-Gaming ATX AM4 Motherboard ($109.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $307.77
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-02 12:31 EDT-0400

So yeah, about $100 difference. So let's look at a full build to get the % increase in cost.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor ($197.88 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte - GA-AX370-Gaming ATX AM4 Motherboard ($109.89 @ OutletPC)
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 Memory ($141.86 @ OutletPC)
Storage: Samsung - 850 EVO 250GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($100.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital - Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($47.88 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: EVGA - GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB FTW3 GAMING iCX Video Card ($759.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Phanteks - Enthoo Pro M Tempered Glass ATX Mid Tower Case ($99.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: EVGA - SuperNOVA G2 750W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($112.93 @ Amazon)
Operating System: Microsoft - Windows 10 Home OEM 64-bit ($89.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $1661.30
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-02 12:34 EDT-0400

Quick build, I am sure some improvements could be made to lower the price, but will work for these purposes. So, if that's the Ryzen build and the intel build is $103.08 more, 1661.30/1764.38 we see that if the Intel is 100% the Ryzen is at 94% so the intel is about 6% more expensive. With a 1080ti, we are looking at a 4k system, so let's see if the intel is really 6% better on average at 4k:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/..._1300X/20.html

Huh, looks like it's less than 2% better. So 6% more $$ for 2% more performance. AMD wins Price/Performance, even giving intel the edge in just about every way possible. Spending more on the AMD Motherboard than needed, not getting a cooler for the intel, going with a higher end build to reduce the %-age difference in price. All edges given to intel and the AMD STILL has the better price/performance ratio.


All that said though, and we are still not talking about any drastic differences. Most people probably couldn't tell you the difference without looking at benchmarks or FPS counters and even then, the difference is so small it's negligible. Same thing with the cost difference really. Once in to a high end build, it's not a whole lot more. In a budget build, yes, it will make a huge difference, but when discussing the 7700k we are not exactly talking budget builds. We are in to the high-end. So really, it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. Some will prefer intel, some will prefer AMD and that's ok.

All I really want to see is the intel fanboys stop saying that the 7700k is LEAPS AND BOUNDS better or that the Ryzen is COMPLETE TRASH and SO FAR BEHIND INTEL. It's not, reality is, AMD finally caught up to intel. They are right there, neck-to-neck with each other. Will Coffee Lake change that? Maybe, we'll see. Will be glad to discuss it once it is out and we can do some comparing. When Ryzen2 or whatever they are gonna call it comes out, we can then discuss and compare again. For the time being though, there is really nothing wrong with either choice.

Now, if we want to start talking about i5s and non-overcloackable intel CPUs, different story. Ryzen is hands down the winner. i3's have no place on the market with the G4560 there and the G4560 is not worth it with the R3's out there. The 7700k is, IMO, all intel has left to compete in the gaming market. Which is why the fanboys are clinging on to it's slight lead in performance so much.

[teamkiller]

@Lathais Very true.

[Holofernes]

i dont know where tha amd has bad performance comes from, because its simply not true. ryzen 1700, 1600, 1500 all run wow VERY easy and allow streaming recording whatever u want on maximum graphics levels without any hassle. perhaps a 5 ghz kaby lake gets 10 fps more, cool. but does it matter if u have 130 or 140 fps?

[Blackmist]

The current one has the G4500 rather than the G4560. Honestly no idea why.

The Ryzen chips are disappointing tbh. AMD have long gone for many slower cores over fewer faster cores, and it's doing them no favours among PC gamers. Especially things like WoW that barely benefit from multi-threading at all. Ryzen is an improvement over the older range, but that's not saying much. Throw in overclocking, and there's no real reason to go with AMD for a gaming PC unless you specifically intend to only play games that take advantage of 8+ cores.

[Lathais]

The current one has the G4500 rather than the G4560. Honestly no idea why.

The Ryzen chips are disappointing tbh. AMD have long gone for many slower cores over fewer faster cores, and it's doing them no favours among PC gamers. Especially things like WoW that barely benefit from multi-threading at all. Ryzen is an improvement over the older range, but that's not saying much. Throw in overclocking, and there's no real reason to go with AMD for a gaming PC unless you specifically intend to only play games that take advantage of 8+ cores.

Please for the love of god do not compare clock speed across different architectures. It means nothing without also taking IPC into account. Just look at the benchmarks I linked earlier and see, the Ryzens perform just fine in games. Ever so slightly behind the 7700k even though the clock difference is massive. Unless you have the right monitor your monitor is not even capable of displaying the difference in the two in most cases.

[Evildeffy]

Please for the love of god do not compare clock speed across different architectures. It means nothing without also taking IPC into account. Just look at the benchmarks I linked earlier and see, the Ryzens perform just fine in games. Ever so slightly behind the 7700k even though the clock difference is massive. Unless you have the right monitor your monitor is not even capable of displaying the difference in the two in most cases.

Throw in the fact he specifically mentions a G4500/G4560 and overclocking.
I'd be curious to see how anyone would manage that feat.

In fact I don't even know why the cheapest build offers a Z270 board in the first place, when building on that platform with something that is limited regardless you can pump the difference somewhere else that might even be more beneficial.
Such as a B250 board and using the stock cooler with the G45X0 and adding in an SSD.

[Notdev]

The current one has the G4500 rather than the G4560. Honestly no idea why.

The Ryzen chips are disappointing tbh. AMD have long gone for many slower cores over fewer faster cores, and it's doing them no favours among PC gamers. Especially things like WoW that barely benefit from multi-threading at all. Ryzen is an improvement over the older range, but that's not saying much. Throw in overclocking, and there's no real reason to go with AMD for a gaming PC unless you specifically intend to only play games that take advantage of 8+ cores.

Ryzen chips have made strides since release. Most reviews and benchmarks are there are still 4-6 months old. They have caught up quite a bit, especially since they can ALL overclock and reach 3.6-3.8ghz reliably with the stock cooler.

Literally the only intel chips worth buying currently are the G4560+ pentiums (beast budget processor now with hyperthreading) and the i7 7700k for the best single threaded performance. Everything else doesn't have a big enough advantage (you're looking at 2-5 average FPS at best, and ryzen usually has far better minimums as well) over its ryzen counterparts to justify giving up all those cores, which will undoubtedly become important in the future as Intel's next gen is increasing core/thread count vastly so more and more developers will be designing software with 6-8+ threads in mind.

[Lathais]

Ryzen chips have made strides since release. Most reviews and benchmarks are there are still 4-6 months old. They have caught up quite a bit, especially since they can ALL overclock and reach 3.6-3.8ghz reliably with the stock cooler.

Literally the only intel chips worth buying currently are the G4560+ pentiums (beast budget processor now with hyperthreading) and the i7 7700k for the best single threaded performance. Everything else doesn't have a big enough advantage (you're looking at 2-5 average FPS at best, and ryzen usually has far better minimums as well) over its ryzen counterparts to justify giving up all those cores, which will undoubtedly become important in the future as Intel's next gen is increasing core/thread count vastly so more and more developers will be designing software with 6-8+ threads in mind.

See above for thoughts on the 7700k. Yeah, it's still king, but not by enough for it to matter and not relative to it's asking price.

I'm also really not so sure about the G4560 anymore. For about $25 more you can get an R3-1200 with a A320 Motherboard and have 4 cores instead of 2c/4t.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Pentium G4560 3.5GHz Dual-Core Processor ($79.44 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: MSI - B250M PRO-VD Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($54.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $134.33
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-02 13:41 EDT-0400

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 3 1200 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor ($108.89 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock - A320M-DGS Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard ($49.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $158.88
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-02 13:40 EDT-0400

If you again spend just a little bit more:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 3 1200 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor ($108.89 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock - AB350M-HDV Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard ($66.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $175.88
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-02 13:42 EDT-0400

You also have the ability to OC. So for about $40 more than the G4560 you can OC and have a true 4 cores. I'm not so sure the G4560 is the king of the budget builds anymore. I guess if you REALLY need that $40 for something then yeah, the G4560 is still the budget king, but that's a lot of added value for only $40 more. Really though, performance wise, they are about the same, so I'd still probably pick the intel.

AMD is really a solid option across all price levels at this point. When you consider that there were some games that came out in the past couple years that would not even let you play on a dual core though? Sure, users patched it and eventually the devs did the same so you could play those games on dual core, but it still happened and with games starting to like more cores, it is possible it will happen again. In fact, at some point in the future it's almost a foregone conclusion. When that is is the gamble you have to take. At the low end like that, I'd still probably choose the intel. If there did come a point where new games simply won't run on dual core, I'd take the gamble that it would be at least 2 years away and I could re-build at that point in time.

[moremana]

Ryzen is not a terrible option, and those on a tight budget should not dismiss it. Intel is better in regards to IPC, If I play on my Ryzen rig I dont see any difference unless I am watching my fps, game play is just as good as the Intel rig I mainly use. I do prefer Intel for gaming but I wont sway others who have a tight budget not to use Ryzen, I use it for all my productivity and WoW and SC when I am at my office and I am bored.

[Deleted]

Ryzen is not a terrible option, and those on a tight budget should not dismiss it. Intel is better in regards to IPC, If I play on my Ryzen rig I dont see any difference unless I am watching my fps, game play is just as good as the Intel rig I mainly use. I do prefer Intel for gaming but I wont sway others who have a tight budget not to use Ryzen, I use it for all my productivity and WoW and SC when I am at my office and I am bored.

I have more issues with people saying Ryzen performance is 'terrible' and yet don't show any benchmarks and breakdown what makes it terrible, if Ryzen chips are holding 90 FPS average in a game and the Intel platform does 110, how is 90 FPS terrible?

Games that drop below 60 FPS or down to 30 FPS is due to GPU or just a badly made game that will affect intel CPUs all the same, then again I didn' realise that people are 144 FPS CSgo pro heroes when in fact most gamers are actually shit and low skilled at playing videos games.

[Tiberria]

The other thing to keep in mind is that you can put the extra money you save going with Ryzen vs i7 elsewhere in your build.

For example, going from a 1070 to 1080 GPU is about +$120. Going from a 1080 to a 1080 Ti is about +$160. You could come very close to being able to afford those jumps by going with the R5 option over the 7700K, and those are very significant performance increases in most games, whereas the difference between R5 1600 and i7-7700K is pretty trivial.

Alternately, you could probably go with an extra 512 GB SSD with the price differential so that more of your games/apps are on SSD vs HDD, which is also a big deal in real world performance. You could go to 32 GB of RAM instead of 16 GB if your use case pushes you close to using 16 GB now. All of those feel like better upgrades to me than going Intel, especially since the AM4 platform will save you money down the road if you want to upgrade your CPU at any point during the ~5 year lifespan of your motherboard.

[Lathais]

The other thing to keep in mind is that you can put the extra money you save going with Ryzen vs i7 elsewhere in your build.

For example, going from a 1070 to 1080 GPU is about +$120. Going from a 1080 to a 1080 Ti is about +$160. You could come very close to being able to afford those jumps by going with the R5 option over the 7700K, and those are very significant performance increases in most games, whereas the difference between R5 1600 and i7-7700K is pretty trivial.

Alternately, you could probably go with an extra 512 GB SSD with the price differential so that more of your games/apps are on SSD vs HDD, which is also a big deal in real world performance. You could go to 32 GB of RAM instead of 16 GB if your use case pushes you close to using 16 GB now. All of those feel like better upgrades to me than going Intel, especially since the AM4 platform will save you money down the road if you want to upgrade your CPU at any point during the ~5 year lifespan of your motherboard.

Good point. To illustrate:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i7-7700K 4.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($323.44 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Noctua - NH-D15 82.5 CFM CPU Cooler ($88.95 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock - Z270M Pro4 Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($101.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 Memory ($141.86 @ OutletPC)
Storage: Samsung - 850 EVO-Series 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($104.64 @ OutletPC)
Storage: Western Digital - Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($46.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Video Card: Gigabyte - GeForce GTX 1080 8GB WINDFORCE OC 8G Video Card ($514.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Phanteks - Enthoo Pro M Tempered Glass ATX Mid Tower Case ($99.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: EVGA - SuperNOVA NEX 650W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($84.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $1507.71
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-02 20:00 EDT-0400

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor ($197.88 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock - X370 GAMING X ATX AM4 Motherboard ($111.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 Memory ($141.86 @ OutletPC)
Storage: Samsung - 850 EVO-Series 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($104.64 @ OutletPC)
Storage: Western Digital - Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($46.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Video Card: Gigabyte - GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB AORUS Video Card ($708.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Phanteks - Enthoo Pro M Tempered Glass ATX Mid Tower Case ($99.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: EVGA - SuperNOVA NEX 650W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($84.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $1497.21
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-02 20:01 EDT-0400

If I had to pick between those two systems, pretty sure almost anyone would pick the one with the 1080ti not the 1080. In addition, it's $10 cheaper. Sure, you could get a less expensive cooler on the intel build. You could also use a B250 on the AMD build. You could change a lot really, but it'll all be within $50-100 of each other in all likelihood.

[Notdev]

I'm also really not so sure about the G4560 anymore. For about $25 more you can get an R3-1200 with a A320 Motherboard and have 4 cores instead of 2c/4t.

G4560 occasionally dips to and below its suggested MSRP of $59.99. It's worth it at that price point, but not at $80. Also, you linked a B250 board, ASRock has a H110M that routinely goes on sale below $40 that has an updated bios for the G4560.

[Lathais]

G4560 occasionally dips to and below its suggested MSRP of $59.99. It's worth it at that price point, but not at $80. Also, you linked a B250 board, ASRock has a H110M that routinely goes on sale below $40 that has an updated bios for the G4560.

Yeah, I even said I'd probably still choose it. Still, it's not very much more to get in to a true 4 core CPU that can be OCed.

[Usagi Senshi]

Ryzen is not a terrible option, and those on a tight budget should not dismiss it. Intel is better in regards to IPC, If I play on my Ryzen rig I dont see any difference unless I am watching my fps, game play is just as good as the Intel rig I mainly use. I do prefer Intel for gaming but I wont sway others who have a tight budget not to use Ryzen, I use it for all my productivity and WoW and SC when I am at my office and I am bored.

I get 100+ fps on ultra (1440p) on most games (80-120fps in WoW/FFXIV) at 3.6ghz on my Ryzen 1600 and a 1070 and that's enough for me until I get another monitor (1440 144hz) and Nvidia's next gpu.

Not wanting to support Intel was worth a a few fps in some games with a major productivity upgrade on the side for cheaper than the i7.

The people (not you) that say Ryzen is shit for games really need to stop posting senselessly and pull the Intel stick out of their asses.

If you like using Intel, great, I won't shit on you for using them and hell, I even bought my best friend a new i5 4460 for his 1150 board he was using the Pentium G3258 in. I did offer to buy him Ryzen 1200 and a new board but he doesn;t want to upgrade to or use W10.

[T1berius]

intel fanboys might be the dumbest and most gullible and unwilling to accept reality people on the planet


got my ryzen 7 and 1080 ti, enjoying my 120 fps ultra settings in 30 man raids like i thought i would


ive used amd every since I started building computers, and they've always been cheaper with a better price point per performance



if you're really so fucking dumb as to buy a high end intel processor because "wow runs on one thread" or "wow runs on one core" without realizing that a cpu from 7 years ago can optimally run wow with max settings with the right gpu, no matter if it's amd or intel, then I don't know what to do for you

[Deathquoi]

intel fanboys might be the dumbest and most gullible and unwilling to accept reality people on the planet


got my ryzen 7 and 1080 ti, enjoying my 120 fps ultra settings in 30 man raids like i thought i would


ive used amd every since I started building computers, and they've always been cheaper with a better price point per performance



if you're really so fucking dumb as to buy a high end intel processor because "wow runs on one thread" or "wow runs on one core" without realizing that a cpu from 7 years ago can optimally run wow with max settings with the right gpu, no matter if it's amd or intel, then I don't know what to do for you

I don't know, I think someone getting this buttfrustrated about what CPU someone else likes might be dumber?

[T1berius]

I don't know, I think someone getting this buttfrustrated about what CPU someone else likes might be dumber?

lul, yes, that's why there's like 6 people upset about my comments in this thread, enough to spam me with replies

[Deathquoi]

lul, yes, that's why there's like 6 people upset about my comments in this thread, enough to spam me with replies

Probably has more to do with the fact that you're acting like a smug dick while being wrong.

[T1berius]

Probably has more to do with the fact that you're acting like a smug dick while being wrong.

what if

what if they're the ones being smug dicks while being wrong?

my 120 fps agrees with me