Ryzen

[Fasttimes]

Intel already has come down some because of it. Competition is good but for now intel is better for me.

[HalflingWarrior]

Originally Posted by Broiled [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

i read ryzen stuff for 2 hours last night, its about 20% behind intel and its 20% more money ( probably because its new )

i think its great intel has competition now, being the only product means you can sell for whatever you want.

Ryzen will have to come down in price to compete even on the same level. Hopefully intel will come down a bit as well.

Things to keep in mind:

The Ryzen 7 1700 chip is only $329, $20 LESS than the 7700k. Additionally, the R7 1700 is an 8c/16t chip whilst the 7700k is a 4c/8t chip.

[Kevris]

Originally Posted by Broiled [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

amount of cores does not matter if its behind in performance

adding more cores ( which use more power ) isnt the answer to computing performance.

That's ..not accurate at all.

Think outside the gaming box.

[Sage Truthbearer]

Interesting topic.. Why wouldn't having more cores be a good thing as developers begin to program multi-threaded games for the PC?

Unless you can show that signs point to a multi-threaded revolution is not inevitable and that processing is instead being offloaded onto GPU.

[Kevris]

Originally Posted by Broiled [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

i need to replace my desktop soon and i dont know if i should go onboard with ryzen at early stages or grab an i7

generally buying into new technology is a bad idea, my gut tells me to wait a year or two and let things settle down.

i almost never use my desktop but i do need to have one available.

You have two options, and it all boils down to whether or not money is the limiting factor.

If it isn't, buy the top of the line parts and be done with it. 1080 TI, I7 6950, etc.

If money is the limiting factor: Determine how much you want to spend, look at the parts from competing vendors that match your budget number, compare them. One part will be faster than the other; buy the faster part.

There is no room for fanboyisim or brand loyalty. Just buy the part that's fastest at the price you want to spend. These companies aren't sports teams, they're part makers. One part is always faster than the other part at your budget number. If it's a literal toss-up between the two parts, then you can include some brand loyalty or fanboyisim.

They've made this all really easy over at www.logicalincrements.com, though I doubt they've had time to update for Ryzen yet.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Kevris [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Just buy the part that's fastest at the price you want to spend. These companies aren't sports teams, they're part makers.

That's not entirely true. For instance, even if ATI has a better graphics card than Nvidia for a certain price point you still might want to go with Nvidia card (because you know ATI is a shitshow, and even if you get the faster card it won't matter if you can't the %&$% drivers to work). Or if you're a big OSS person you might buy ATI anyway even though it's crap, because Nvidia is super closed-source and you want to support the more OSS vendor.

But in general this advice is spot on.

[Kevris]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's not entirely true. For instance, even if ATI has a better graphics card than Nvidia for a certain price point you still might want to go with Nvidia card (because you know ATI is a shitshow, and even if you get the faster card it won't matter if you can't the %&$% drivers to work). Or if you're a big OSS person you might buy ATI anyway even though it's crap, because Nvidia is super closed-source and you want to support the more OSS vendor.

But in general this advice is spot on.

I would contend that both companies have had their fair share of issues over the years. Great example: http://gizmodo.com/373076/nvidia-res...rashes-in-2007

My neutrality is based on my personal bias: I have never had any real issues with parts or software from either company.

[HalflingWarrior]

Originally Posted by Sage Truthbearer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Interesting topic.. Why wouldn't having more cores be a good thing as developers begin to program multi-threaded games for the PC?

Unless you can show that signs point to a multi-threaded revolution is not inevitable and that processing is instead being offloaded onto GPU.

Absolutely, and it IS already happening...albeit slowly.

Was just looking at some graphs the other day that were showing the FX8350 outperforming the infamous i5 2500k in several modern gaming titles. Titles that are sufficiently threaded now to properly load the 8350's cores. Now when both of these chips were new, an i5 2500k overclocked @ 4.0GHz would absolutely DECIMATE an FX8350, clocked @ 4.8GHz, in gaming!

This is the argument people are making for the Ryzen7 chips; that you can buy a 7700k and have the best possible gaming performance RIGHT NOW but over time the 7700k is going to become comparatively slower than the Ryzen7. Until eventually their paths cross, and 8c/16ts of the Ryzen7 start to mean more than the 5.0GHz and higher single-threaded IPC of the 7700k.

[Fasttimes]

Still not as good for emulation tho [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] maybe one day

[aMindAmok]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's not entirely true. For instance, even if ATI has a better graphics card than Nvidia for a certain price point you still might want to go with Nvidia card (because you know ATI is a shitshow, and even if you get the faster card it won't matter if you can't the %&$% drivers to work). Or if you're a big OSS person you might buy ATI anyway even though it's crap, because Nvidia is super closed-source and you want to support the more OSS vendor.

But in general this advice is spot on.

It's been quite some time since AMD's drivers were an actual problem. Updates for games when they release used to be a big problem. Not so much any more though. But non-functional drivers? It's been many moons since anyone could claim that with a straight face.