TR Forums

Long time fan of Tech Report, first post. Here we go....

So after the dust settled with the launch of Ryzen 7, I'm getting the itch to upgrade my main rig, a Core i5-3470 that I built in late 2012. While that rig serves me well, I want to replace my living room PC, which is a noisy, older, Athlon II X3 450, with 4GB of DDR2 ram that I last upgraded in early 2010.

If I had to buy today, I'm heavily considering the Core i5-7600 (non-k, because I don't want to deal with overclocking). However, I'm hesitating because it looks appears the issues with the Ryzen on 1080p has to do with SMT, and might be fixed in the near future. Especially since I'm a 1080p gamer.

Anyone else holding out for Ryzen 5 (or even 3?) Or should I just pull the trigger on another Intel build?

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.

Depends how urgently you need to upgrade. If you need to upgrade ASAP or sooner, the i5 system you are talking about should meet the needs you describe just fine. However, if you can hold off a few months, it certainly won't hurt to see what the R5s can do.

Avenger902 wrote:

Anyone else holding out for Ryzen 5 (or even 3?) Or should I just pull the trigger on another Intel build?

Ryzen will always provide worse gaming performance than Kaby Lake. It will provide a perfectly satisfactory experience for most non-fringe gaming settings and computer configurations (Such as a 240 Hz panel, 720p resolution, and etc), and it will provide this at a lower cost than Kaby Lake.

At the end of the day, it is rather insignificant which of the two you chose unless you game at high refresh rates. Graphics cards are far more important in improving gaming performance once you get a CPU with > Ivy Bridge performance (which Zen does beat).

Choose your poison.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm going to attempt to wait on this. My master plan is to make my 3470 my living room PC, and then purchase the shiny new quad which hopefully has a 25%+ improvement on my main rig. Hopefully my purchase finger won't get too itchy.

But if there's a chance that a Ryzen quad that has even a 15%+ improvement over the 3470 for less then $175, I'd jump on that.

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.

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.

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.

Hey no worries I have $60 available at the moment. I think I'll be ready to start building in May, but who knows.

I imagine any scheduler fixes are already part of the upcoming Creators Update.

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.

Same. Sure, I could buy a 1700 right now... but there's no board to buy for it. Might as well wait.

Vhalidictes wrote:

Same. Sure, I could buy a 1700 right now... but there's no board to buy for it. Might as well wait.

Well, there's that too!

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.

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)

There is zero reason to wait for a Ryzen 5 over an i5 unless you really, really want to punt AMD money.

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)

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.

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.

Kaby Lake Pentiums are already 2C/4T. In fact, the upcoming R5/R3 launches are probably why.

It's kind of a shame that Intel understands that undercutting your own products is better than allowing competitors a niche, we really need more x86 alternatives.

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, I'd love to see those benchmarks, but I'd bet money on the results being a 7350K win. Games care way too much about ST performance, and I don't see this changing any time soon. I've benched Stellaris on various machines, and even though it's multi-core aware and can use up to 6 cores at once, late games hiccup gets worse when the main thread's performance does.

In fact, I can identify which PC I'm using (Sandy Bridge-E, Skylake mobile, Haswell-E, Athlon 840K) just be loading up a advanced game.

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.

My only beef with the i3-7350K is that the price is inflated. Ditto for the i3-7300. In fact, I'd be happier if Intel dropped those 2 CPU prices a bit futher to $125 for the 7350K and $115 for the 7300 respectively.

As for the Pentiums I think the G4600's and G4620 should have their prices cut by $10 as well.

But besides that, I'm attempting to build for longevity. I see myself replacing and/or upgrading the 2C/4T chips in about 2 years time. I wanna build something like my 3470 that can go possibly for 4 years, (and even better 4C/4T or 4C/8T) but not have to drop more than $160 to do so.

That's why, to me, Ryzen is important. Even if Intel still wins, its enough to bring down the prices.

Well, waiting for Ryzen 5 will at least give time for motherboards to get back in stock. The way things are looking it may take several weeks for motherboard stock to build unless they go crazy flying in lots more. Only one currently at Newegg is a Biostar X370.

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.

2C/4T isn't enough for games anymore, a quad Ryzen should do as good or better. So I don't think they have anything to fear from Pentiums or i3's as the non-gaming performance will be even better. Here's a Core i3 7350K review showing it against an i5 7600K and 7700k.

Just ordered my R5 1600.

Have to put things into context. A G4560 is an i3 in everything except name. A Kaby Lake i3 with decent Hz is more than good enough to give a good 1080p experience.

The question is, how much better experience will $100-$200 over the G4560 give you versus that spent on graphics card, 16GB of real-ish CL15 3200Hz RAM, actual gaming monitor.

However, building a new system kinda sucks right now, both RAM and storage are very expensive versus what they should be. 1TB of SSD is actually more expensive than it was before instead of going down. Same with RAM, its almost at [edit: 100%] double of normal price a year or so ago.

Googling says both memory and storage supply issues should be sorted out somewhere after six months to year . OP is better off waiting for holiday season. Get a lot more bang per buck.

I wouldn't wait until the holiday season... Sure you will pay a little more now, but unless you're concerned with saving $100 on the entire build in order to lose 6-8 months worth of use on that machine.... then go for it. The wait game once products release almost never works out.

Now if you're concerned with the Ryzen 5 not being 100% top tier in gaming performance, that is another argument all itself. You could theoretically wait until the "bugs" or performance comes up. But in the end, if you bought it now you would have access to any performance gains as time went on anyhow. It's not like they are going to release a hardware only fix/refresh of Ryzen in the next 6-8 months.

If you have the money, need/want a new system and decided Ryzen is your CPU then there isn't any reason to wait for other prices to come down IMHO.

In late March, after Mass Effect Andromeda dropped and I saw how it completely brought my i5-3470/760 2GB rig to its knees; I ended up pulling the trigger on an i5-7600/1060 6GB purchase. (I managed to get the i5-7600 chip for about ~$200, which definitely helped a bit!)

If I had to do it all over again, I'd probably get the Ryzen5 1500x with a B350 Mobo. I was definitely surprised at how well it was able to keep up on the 1080p side this round, but the Ryzen 7 reviews ultimately scared me away in the end, (and I wanted to go explore Andromeda.)

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...

My money is on higher IPC as the limiter for gaming, as there will always be that one thread that everything else is waiting on. 4C/8T or 6C/12T becomes more appealing when you're doing other things concurrently (like streaming). You're also avoiding platform growing pains.

The GPU upgrade probably did a lot more to help improve your gaming performance than the CPU upgrade did, but yeah, at the moment 4 cores at higher IPC is better for a pure gaming system. We probably won't see significant changes from that until there's another round of CPU upgrades done in the gaming consoles. Ryzen performs fine in gaming, so I don't think you could have made a bad choice either way. The extra cores just aren't going to do you much good if gaming is your primary use case.

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...

Right now, I would say 4 high clocked high IPC cores are preferable. I think that moar coars will become more and more preferable over the next few years but your rig ought to be fine for a bit.

I'm going with an R5 1600 because the difference @1440 is negligible, I often keep VMs running while gaming/doing whatever, and AMD needs my money more than Intel (and I think they've earned it here [yes I'm a fanboy {but I think I'm reasonable about things}]).