Ryzen 5 or Intel i5?

[Deleted]

You said it, man.

Apart from WoW, there's other games too that depend on IPC (Single Thread) performance: Total War games, Civ games, and so on.

I haven't managed to find a game that benefits from my 4770k HT yet, and AFAIK there's only a handful of games than benefit from more than 4 cores on the market.

So if you are a gamer, an Intel CPU is a no-brainer.

Not sure about that really, I would say if you are a gamer with a huge wallet, go intel, if you are part of the average joe with an average wage and want a very strong system that can do it all that punches above its price class, go Ryzen.

The PC sector needs to provide a proper analysis of the hardware, telling people that a £330 CPU is deemed standard in PC gaming just puts people off, theres a reason why so many PC games are not well optimised, PC gamers need to provide proper info to prospecting buyers with the budget at hand with realistic scenarios for gaming.

Running at on or above console settings will yield very high frame rates, frame rates that exceed the console version while being able to do more with the system is a compelling buy, high price tags stops people from buying and as a result, devs don't produce good quality PC games, we just get after thought ports.

[Lathais]

So your 5 yr old computer had enough PCIe lanes to support multiple M.2 NVME drives and a x16 Graphics card, came with DDR4 and USB C 3.1?

Does it have the still massively useful [sarcasm alert] SATA express[/sarcasm alert]?

Did you buy it based on it's support for Quad SLI/Crossfire (basically no longer supported)?

Was thunderbolt compatibility an important consideration? It's been ever so useful in the past 5 years.

You were one of the "core fetishists" I was referring too. I remain unconvinced that >4 cores is going to be of significant use to most people even a few more years down the road. In many cases 4 cores is still not a major advantage over 2 and the 4 core chips have been the standard now for how many years?

You will eventually be right about the usefulness of > 4 cores, but as they say "even a stopped clock is right twice a day".

Do those features really translate in to a ton of performance though? Not really. A 2500k is still holding it's own in modern games.
http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/27...or-2017/page-3

Some games it's worse than others, it really is starting to show it's age at this point. Still, that it's really holding it's own when overclocked is pretty amazing. Expecting parts to last 5 years instead of just 1-3 is becoming a thing.

[Jigga93]

depends. do you play other games? do you stream?

[Doogler]

IMHO, worrying about tech changes more than a year or two down the road is foolish.

By the time you hit a major tech change, so much else is likely to have changed, that your "future proofed" system is no longer "future proofed".

Basically the one and only one reason to go with something like Ryzen over an i5, is if you are doing heavily threaded work. Which simply isn't the case for 95% of the people out there. Ryzen kicks butt (especially on a cost basis) if you do, but falls short if you don't.

Despite the claims of CPU core fetishists, there are still very few games that benefit from > 2-4 cores and that is not likely to change to any significant degree in the next few years.

You have a situation here where worst case the ryzen 5 is only a couple percentage points behind the i5 but can win really big when the cores come into play. While wow may not take advantage of the extra cores there are already things that can, with more coming. The single threaded difference is a tiny price to pay for the upside.

[Fascinate]

^That guy gets it.

[Cheze]

people have been claiming that 4+ thread performance would soon be important in gaming for like eight years now and we're still not really there; most modern games only really use two threads (one for rendering, one for everything else), maaaybe offloading a few inconsequential tasks to a third or fourth thread. IMO it's hard to construct a scenario where 6+ threads represent a decisive advantage vs. 4 (unless you're doing such as streaming or other intense task while gaming.)

that said it seems like AMD is rapidly closing the gap in single core performance vs intel which makes ryzen much more attractive; I think if I were buying today I'd still get intel based on brand loyalty and not wanting to be an early adopter of a new architecture (predicting future tech is difficult), but if you're the type that being an early adopter gets your dick hard Ryzen seems like a reasonable choice.

[Akainakali]

Do those features really translate in to a ton of performance though? Not really. A 2500k is still holding it's own in modern games.
http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/27...or-2017/page-3

Some games it's worse than others, it really is starting to show it's age at this point. Still, that it's really holding it's own when overclocked is pretty amazing. Expecting parts to last 5 years instead of just 1-3 is becoming a thing.

You're not the one I'm arguing with really. I'm running a x79 system with a 6 core chip that I've had for at least 5 years. So I'm well aware of how long a system can last. I've actually been kinda annoyed with Intel for not producing anything that would have been a significant upgrade for so long.

You're making an argument for buying good hardware, which I completely agree with.

I'm just saying it's pointless trying to "future proof" something with features that may never actually be useful. Thus my list of features that are important now, that were unavailable 5 years ago and features over the same time period, that were advertised as the next big thing, that proved to be nearly or totally useless.

My 6 core chip has done me little to no good vs a 4 core chip.

The one area where my attempt at 'future proofing' the system, anticipating the importance of > 16 PCIe lanes to support stuff like multiple graphics cards + PCIe SSDs, turned out to be correct. The need for it, didn't actually kick in until 5 years later and with the bandwidth of PCIe 3.0, it was a pretty marginal advantage at best. Especially with the demise of multi-GPU setups for all but the highest end systems.

I had a high end raid card in this for several years, because when I built it's predecessor there were no multi-terrabyte HDDs or SSDs for that matter. Now you can get equivalent performance and storage to a $1000 raid card + $3000 in 10k rpm HDDs, in a single $150 SATA III SSD (mind you that's going back more like about 8 years).

Finally as Fascinate fails to comprehend, I simply don't expect high core count systems to be useful to most people any time in the next 5 years. If you're willing to spend the money on one, more power to you, just don't expect it to make a significant difference in the useful life span of the machine.

[Lathais]

Finally as Fascinate fails to comprehend, I simply don't expect high core count systems to be useful to most people any time in the next 5 years. If you're willing to spend the money on one, more power to you, just don't expect it to make a significant difference in the useful life span of the machine.

and I agree with you entirely, up to this point.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...D=3938566&SID=
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...D=3938566&SID=

You are not spending more money for more cores, you are spending less money and it comes with a cooler so it's even less money. The Motherboards are comparable in price and you can use the same RAM, so how do you figure it's more money for more cores? These 6-core R5s are actually even less than an i5!

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...D=3938566&SID=
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...D=3938566&SID=


Which is why they are so worth it.

[Akainakali]

and I agree with you entirely, up to this point.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...D=3938566&SID=
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...D=3938566&SID=

You are not spending more money for more cores, you are spending less money and it comes with a cooler so it's even less money. The Motherboards are comparable in price and you can use the same RAM, so how do you figure it's more money for more cores? These 6-core R5s are actually even less than an i5!

Actually only the R5 1600 you linked comes with a cooler, the X1600 doesn't.

My default assumption though is that most gamers are going to buy a third party heat sink regardless. Since the stock coolers tend to be adequate at best and simply not in a class with a good third party cooler or up to the challenge of a heavily overclocked CPU.

So to me at least, the coolers really don't add a lot of value, that's why intel stopped including them on most of their overclockable CPUs (not that they dropped the price of the CPUs to reflect that of course) and I'm pretty sure that's why they don't include one on the x1600.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...D=3938566&SID=
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...D=3938566&SID=

Which is why they are so worth it.

It isn't that they're more money, it's that for single threaded performance, they fall significantly behind in a lot of situations.

Not saying they should be avoided or that they're a bad choice necessarily, I just don't think the multi-core heavily threaded paradise is going to come in time for them to be worth buying on the basis of more cores. It's kinda like people buying a 500 HP auto, which is going to spend most of it's time stuck in traffic. Might be theoretically impressive, but in the real world, it ain't getting you there any quicker.

There's a saying that "Fusion is the power of the future and always will be". IE, it's not going to be useful anytime soon. That basically sums up my attitude towards the "ZOMG! The cores will rock X years down the road!!!!".

[Lathais]

Actually only the R5 1600 you linked comes with a cooler, the X1600 doesn't.

My default assumption though is that most gamers are going to buy a third party heat sink regardless. Since the stock coolers tend to be adequate at best and simply not in a class with a good third party cooler or up to the challenge of a heavily overclocked CPU.

So to me at least, the coolers really don't add a lot of value, that's why intel stopped including them on most of their overclockable CPUs (not that they dropped the price of the CPUs to reflect that of course) and I'm pretty sure that's why they don't include one on the x1600.



It isn't that they're more money, it's that for single threaded performance, they fall significantly behind in a lot of situations.

Not saying they should be avoided or that they're a bad choice necessarily, I just don't think the multi-core heavily threaded paradise is going to come in time for them to be worth buying on the basis of more cores.

There's a saying that "Fusion is the power of the future and always will be". IE, it's not going to be useful anytime soon. That basically sums up my attitude towards the "ZOMG! The cores will rock X years down the road!!!!".

Actually, the 1400, the 1500X and the 1700(granted it's an R7) all come with coolers. The 1600X is the only one in the R5 series that does not come with a cooler.

Now you are changing what you said. I clearly quoted where you said "if you are willing to spend the money." So it was about the money and now it's not? Which is it? Quit changing your argument around.

Also, now that they have fixed some of the microcode and people have started optimizing for it and as long as you have your power settings right, it's really not significantly behind, just a little behind, not really even noticeable. It's only going to get better as more devs optimize for it and they further refine it. In other tasks, they are far far ahead. So it's really a no brainer when compared to i5s. Similar single core performance, significantly better multi-core performance, less money. You basically get an i7 for less than the cost of an i5, sometimes with a cooler.

[Deleted]

Actually only the R5 1600 you linked comes with a cooler, the X1600 doesn't.

My default assumption though is that most gamers are going to buy a third party heat sink regardless. Since the stock coolers tend to be adequate at best and simply not in a class with a good third party cooler or up to the challenge of a heavily overclocked CPU.

So to me at least, the coolers really don't add a lot of value, that's why intel stopped including them on most of their overclockable CPUs (not that they dropped the price of the CPUs to reflect that of course) and I'm pretty sure that's why they don't include one on the x1600.

You do know that Kabylake is a real firecracker right?

The usual Intel stock coolers can't cool the K series Kabylake CPUs.

[mjhaider]

I only trust Intel products and go with Intel i5.

[Wikko]

Well I'm leaning mostly on the Ryzen so far but the question remains to go with 1600 or 1600x. 1600 is priced at 259€ and the 1600x at 299€. The 1600 comes with a cooler so if the cooler was enough to get that 3,9-4ghz OC on it I would go that route. On the other hand the 1600x is already at the 4ghz mark but doesnt come with a cooler so I'd still have to buy one.

Not really sure what to get so if someone has experience with overclocking ryzen 5's then please let me know

[Zmaniac17]

I recently bought an i5-7600K. I did a lot of research on benchmarks and concluded Intel still out performs AMD on a single core. So unless they start making a lot of games that use 6 cores the i5 is the clear winner for gaming. AMD has vastly improved over its own previous generations though. If you're looking to do any video processing applications that require heavy CPU usage Ryzen 5 is the clear winner since you can take advantage of the 12 threads and 6 cores.

And the overclocking did not look very impressive. I think the days of buying a super cheap processor and cranking it up are gone. There may be more recent results for overclocking though I haven't looked at the most recent ones.

[Fascinate]

Well I'm leaning mostly on the Ryzen so far but the question remains to go with 1600 or 1600x. 1600 is priced at 259€ and the 1600x at 299€. The 1600 comes with a cooler so if the cooler was enough to get that 3,9-4ghz OC on it I would go that route. On the other hand the 1600x is already at the 4ghz mark but doesnt come with a cooler so I'd still have to buy one.

Not really sure what to get so if someone has experience with overclocking ryzen 5's then please let me know

1600 is of course the better bargain, stock cooler is good for a 3.8 or 3.9ghz overclock (my 1700 can do 3.8, but it has more cores). Remember when you overclock these chips it overclocks all cores, the 4.0ghz boost on the 1600x is only on one or maybe two cores.

[potis]

The only thing that changed when suggesting what you can get for gaming is that you wont get the answer "Omfg why AMD" as it was with the FX series.

Ryzen is perfectly fine to do anything.

I am an Intel fanboy btw and i wouldnt mind putting Ryzen to a few people if the prices here werent so fucked up, an i5 7500 build is cheaper than a Ryzen build by around 30-50e right now cause there are no AM4 motherboards to be found below 120e compared to Intel motherboards.

The only problem i find is that Intel will probably dominate the budget gaming.

I would never put a Ryzen 3 at their (leaked) low Ghz compared to the 3.7-4Ghz on the i3s especially for Blizzard games or many other games that really love that single 4Ghz core, like CS:GO/Dota 2 etc.

[Wikko]

1600 is of course the better bargain, stock cooler is good for a 3.8 or 3.9ghz overclock (my 1700 can do 3.8, but it has more cores). Remember when you overclock these chips it overclocks all cores, the 4.0ghz boost on the 1600x is only on one or maybe two cores.

Ah didnt realize that. Then are there any downsides for going 1600 instead of 1600x? When I'm going to OC it anyways

[Fascinate]

Ah didnt realize that. Then are there any downsides for going 1600 instead of 1600x? When I'm going to OC it anyways

Nope, 1600 is just better all around same as the 1700

- - - Updated - - -

The only thing that changed when suggesting what you can get for gaming is that you wont get the answer "Omfg why AMD" as it was with the FX series.

Ryzen is perfectly fine to do anything.

I am an Intel fanboy btw and i wouldnt mind putting Ryzen to a few people if the prices here werent so fucked up, an i5 7500 build is cheaper than a Ryzen build by around 30-50e right now cause there are no AM4 motherboards to be found below 120e compared to Intel motherboards.

The only problem i find is that Intel will probably dominate the budget gaming.

I would never put a Ryzen 3 at their (leaked) low Ghz compared to the 3.7-4Ghz on the i3s especially for Blizzard games or many other games that really love that single 4Ghz core, like CS:GO/Dota 2 etc.

Actually ryzen 3 will be a superior choice to intel as well because it has 4 real cores, not virtual like the i3's. The only two processors from the ENTIRE intel lineup anyone should be considering are the 7700k and pentium g4560, pretty crazy when you put it in that light.

[Deleted]

To buy a Ryzen (any model) for gaming is braindead. 7700k beats Ryzen in pretty much every game there is.

[Deleted]

Ah didnt realize that. Then are there any downsides for going 1600 instead of 1600x? When I'm going to OC it anyways

Nope, 1600 is just better all around same as the 1700

It's obviously mostly speculation at this time, and silicone lottery is lottery; but looking at the 1700, 1700X, 1800X numbers, the more expensive ones might be 'better' and reach higher overclocking numbers. What could lead to a conclusion like this:

no OC -> 1600X, higher performance for not much more money
casual OC -> 1600, cheaper and should be able to close some of the gap
serious OC -> 1600X, as mentioned, for the Ryzen R7, the more expensive chips reached higher clocks on average

And the price difference for the R5 chips is much lower than among the R7 chips.