Here:
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/amd-ryze...view-4232.html
and here:
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-4-core...core-i7-7700k/
and here:
http://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-perfor...e-gtx-1080-ti/
and here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/...ads-vs-four/16
and here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ng,4977-4.html
need I go on, or did this help you realize your error on IPC, Ryzen performance, and your anti-AMD bias?
What is even more amusing is some of these reviews/tests were months ago before bios and other optimizations. The IPC is VERY close. Some say is similar to broadwell, and intel IPC has a very low increase year to year. the 'lake' series are not great overclockers either in general. The silicon lottery is pretty harsh for these. 6700k get a common 4.5 GHz, look it up. Intel recently told 7700k owners to not overclock if they don't like running at 90C; and these are people with beefy coolers who paid extra for the unlocked core they are saying this to.
IPC = instructions per clock. So, IPC itself is very similar. Clock speeds aren't even that far off either. We are talking 500-700 MHz depending if you get a 1400 which seems to go to 3.8, or a higher end which seems to like 4.0. It isn't like 80%+ of the i5/i7s are going to 5.0; they are mid 4s and some a couple hundred higher if lucky; with $80-200 coolers. Since IPC is pretty much a non issue in the discussion now, clock speed is. Yes, WoW likes it since it is pretty much single threaded, but we aren't talking 3.2 vs 4.8 GHz here; and if you actually look at those benchmarks, the 1080 performance is pretty damn good, only a couple frames behind, which means the intel tax is not really worth it. avg frames in the 70s gg. If we move into other games, I can tell you that a 500 MHz increase in clock speed made almost no difference in the FFXIV: SB benchmark, 200 point on a score of over 12k; sort of sounds like margin of error; but that leverages multiple cores and HT/SMT, so it isn't cpu bottlenecked in the first place, I'm gpu bottlenecked with my 980ti as a few hundred on the gpu clock increased score 10x as much.
So, again, let's talk real numbers and stop the blind hate. Intel hadn't always been king of the hill. Several years ago, AMD was king. Just like ATi had that title over Nvidia in the past as well. Don't let short term memory and some false sense of brand loyalty cloud your judgment. They don't care. Competition is good, and that is what I support. I want at least two companies able to be competitive in the market, as it means we, as consumers, get better products, more innovation, at a faster speed, for lower prices. Intel admitted they were sitting on better tech in an interview, because they could. Now, they were caught napping and need to rush on their cycles and work on stuff they could've been all along. The 18 core is vaporware atm; and it will be priced over 2x that of threadripper. So let's just say AMD, the value leader, is now extending that value market into higher end products and the productivity arena.
Get that 6700k of yours up to the 5.0 I had my 2500k at, then we can start saying there is a significant core clock advantage between $330 i7 and a $200 1600; but maybe not so strong in the price to performance ratio on much else than single threaded games like WoW.
This is a budget build, no reason to not consider AMD. If this was a $3000+ build, then small advantages for 50% more cost become a more reasonable expenditure; so does looks, so getting a $330 7700k with the ASUS extreme boards with built in rgb watercooling block for $650 isn't much of an issue, as well as a ROG 1080ti.
Focusing on the user -needs- not our personal wants or biases is more important. Finding the minimum they need for what they want, then suggesting where they could spend more for tangible benefits while keeping a system well balanced is sound advice. Bashing legitimate options because you don't like a certain color isn't.