Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, JustAnEngineer
Avenger902 wrote:Anyone else holding out for Ryzen 5 (or even 3?) Or should I just pull the trigger on another Intel build?
derFunkenstein wrote:I think at the low end, Ryzen will provide a better gaming experience than Kaby Lake. You're just going to have to get down into Core i3 territory before that's true, though. In the Ryzen 5 range, it's probably true that the Core i5 will do better at the same price range in games.
K-L-Waster wrote:Depends how urgently you need to upgrade.
cmrcmk wrote:K-L-Waster wrote:Depends how urgently you need to upgrade.
This. R5 will probably provide a better ROI if you're not chasing max performance and it might even provide some downward price pressure on i5 if you can wait.
LostCat wrote:derFunkenstein wrote:I think at the low end, Ryzen will provide a better gaming experience than Kaby Lake. You're just going to have to get down into Core i3 territory before that's true, though. In the Ryzen 5 range, it's probably true that the Core i5 will do better at the same price range in games.
I think the 1600x should basically perform exactly like the 1800x. I mean, what games actually use 8 cores? I wasn't aware if any of them did.
derFunkenstein wrote:Mafia III does, but you're right that there aren't many. And in that case, it'll be compared to a Core i5-7600K, which would really shift things into AMD's favor on most games and productivity benchmarks.
Another reason to hold out is the apparent immaturity of the platform. Lots of talk about BIOS updates being needed and scheduler fixes and whatever else. Learn from my mistake. Hang on a moment.
MileageMayVary wrote:I'm holding out hope for a Ryzen5 1600x.
Hoping in the next month or two they will get the MB supply and BIOS issues ironed out.
Vhalidictes wrote:Same. Sure, I could buy a 1700 right now... but there's no board to buy for it. Might as well wait.
derFunkenstein wrote:I think at the low end, Ryzen will provide a better gaming experience than Kaby Lake. You're just going to have to get down into Core i3 territory before that's true, though. In the Ryzen 5 range, it's probably true that the Core i5 will do better at the same price range in games.
christos_thski wrote:Core i3 territory is where the G4560 reigns supreme with 65 bucks, though. Will AMD have a competitive product with that? (I certainly hope so and I don't see why they shouldn't, technically, but so far I haven't seen any candidates)
Avenger902 wrote:Traditionally, i3's are around the $100 mark which is what the Ryzen 3's are targeting. But unless AMD releases a 2C/4T part, Intel Pentiums will reign supreme. But honestly, I would rather have a true quad with Ryzen 3 1100 then a 2C/4T part.
Avenger902 wrote:Traditionally, i3's are around the $100 mark which is what the Ryzen 3's are targeting. But unless AMD releases a 2C/4T part, Intel Pentiums will reign supreme. But honestly, I would rather have a true quad with Ryzen 3 1100 then a 2C/4T part.
derFunkenstein wrote:Yeah, in the $120 range where the i3 sits, the Ryzen 3 will be a better CPU all around—including in games—and have an unlocked multiplier, too. If you really want to cheap out with a Pentium, then go for it. Raven Ridge won't be here any time soon. Where Ryzen 7 vs Core i7-7700K was a gaming win across the board for Intel, I think Ryzen 3 (or 4C8T Ryzen 5, depending on pricing) vs similarly-priced Core i3s will be a gaming win for AMD. Two extra full cores will make a difference in games.
It's the $175-250 fight that's going to be interesting. I'd love to see TR overclock the i3-7350K and pit it against a 4C8T Ryzen 5, and I'd like to see the i5-7600K vs a 6C12T Ryzen 5. I think it'll be very even in that price range.
derFunkenstein wrote:Yeah, in the $120 range where the i3 sits, the Ryzen 3 will be a better CPU all around—including in games—and have an unlocked multiplier, too. If you really want to cheap out with a Pentium, then go for it. Raven Ridge won't be here any time soon. Where Ryzen 7 vs Core i7-7700K was a gaming win across the board for Intel, I think Ryzen 3 (or 4C8T Ryzen 5, depending on pricing) vs similarly-priced Core i3s will be a gaming win for AMD. Two extra full cores will make a difference in games.
It's the $175-250 fight that's going to be interesting. I'd love to see TR overclock the i3-7350K and pit it against a 4C8T Ryzen 5, and I'd like to see the i5-7600K vs a 6C12T Ryzen 5. I think it'll be very even in that price range.
Avenger902 wrote:Traditionally, i3's are around the $100 mark which is what the Ryzen 3's are targeting. But unless AMD releases a 2C/4T part, Intel Pentiums will reign supreme. But honestly, I would rather have a true quad with Ryzen 3 1100 then a 2C/4T part.
Avenger902 wrote:The only question I would have right now, being a 1080p gamer, is what's better, a 4C/4T chip with a Higher IPC? Or Moar Cores with the 4C/8T chip? I'm crossing my fingers that the Higher IPC was the better choice for the next 3 years...