ok well as some may know my PC is failing i was going to get a 7700k and then was told to wait for Ryzen that made sense.. now seeing the bench marks it looked like Ryzen was not going to be the top dog in Gaming but did do extremity well in content creation.. witch is what i expected now i am going to be spending a lot of money and i am trying to not have some kind of buyers remorse if i pic 1 over the other. so i am trying to ask you guys my main thing is games but i want to get in to streaming on you tube maybe twitch.. so the 2 CPUs i have to pic from are the i7 7700k or the R7 1700 parts that will be carried over. Screen res is 1080p Corsair Hydro Series H115i 2x XFX RX 480 in crossfire 16GB of DDR4 2x 500GB SSD 1 2TB HDD Main storage is on my file server..
Ryzen would be the choice of the two I think. It still has potential once the Windows schedulur update is released, updated microcode an bioses allowing for faster RAM speed, and the performance CPU driver. Zen+ will be released in maybe a year, you can just drop in and replace you current Zen. Per clock it is said to perform better (supposedly), but mainly it will likely clock a lot higher due to process improvements. Coffee Lake may be able to be a direct drop in for the i7-7700K, and a 6-core available (in response to Ryzen), but the 6 core will likely be more expensive and there will probably be a new socket as well. Coffee Lake is just an modified and updated Kaby Lake, it isn't likely to perform much better apart from a clock boost. The overclocking performance may be similar though. The additional benefit of Ryzen is that the current board may support the processor coming out after Zen+. This is a bit of a mystery at the moment. It is still Zen, but the first major update to it. It is said to be getting the AM4+ board, so I guess you would have the option of upgrading the board and CPU, etc, but the cooler would remain the same. Just remember there are lots of trolls on the internet who are anti-Zen. Even if Ryzen outperforms their socket 2011 processor that cost significantly more, they will still bag out Zen to justify their pro-Intel stance.
well what ever i get will have to last well in to what ever socket will be supported next... i try to holed on to my PC and only do CPU/motherboard upgrades till it brakes or i cant stand it..
i used to always go amd, but for the past few years the longetivity of intel and its overclocking has got me hooked. Still on my 2600k i havent had any struggle running anything, id stick with intel for the forseeable. why not just pick up another board and overclock to 4.6? unless its the pci ex lanes you are wanting.
i have all so seen people testing ryzan CPUS say they have more consistent FPS with out micro freezes or drop outs, they where just more stable even though there is an over all drop in FPS over the 7700k... I would think more stable FPS is more important then raw FPS.... IMO
Considering the OP is currently running a Sandy Bridge, "right now" isn't necessarily his only priority. How about beyond that? Basic games seem to have a recommendation for an i7 these days. AAA titles have had a 4-core requirement for many years now. The consoles already have more cores (albeit slower), but lazy ports would be depending on a core number more than core speed, which bring us back to basic games recommending an i7 with 8 threads. That's today. How will it be a few years from now? It took such a disgustingly long time because Intel's top 3 priorities are: 1) Money, 2) Cash, 3) Dough. Once upon a time Intel was a company that also had a vision and ambition to develop technology, but for many years now it only wants to milk cashcows. In other words, nobody could code for more cores because practically nobody had more cores. If Intel had had its way, we would still be running 4-cores mainstream in 2030. Who knows, smartphones might have become stronger than desktop PCs... I had to build this PC a year ago. Now I would most definitely go for AMD. Either this 8-core or a bit later a 6-core. Devs already use more cores. It has been seen in Guru3D reviews as well.
i was going to get a replacement 1151 motherboard but all the motherboards i see on Ebay are reconditioned shipped from china $120.. i have a buyer for my 2600k and it is an excuse i can use on the wife to upgrade.. :nerd: JayzTwoCents, bitwit, and Paul's Hardware i believe made mention that the games had over lower FPS but ran smooth as silk.. yeah that is a good point as they may have newer revs that fix the shortcomings of low IPC and lack of overclocking..
Yes, right now. Right now you don't need more, but most heavier games already use all 4 cores. Once again, the OP is running a machine from half a decade ago. Well, already back then the recommendation started to shift to 4 cores for AAA titles, and we all know the recommandation is closer to how the game is meant to be played, not the minimum requirement. More and more games all the time are console ports, and unfortunately they are lazy ports far too often. I'm currently playing Atelier Sophie, a game with graphics quality that looks 10 years old, but it's recommending a fricking i7. Why? I reckon it's because it was optimised for more cores (PS4) and thus it benefits from the multiple threads of i7 even if it barely uses a fraction of the total power. On the other hand properly made for PC games are scalable. Having more cores would thus bring smoother or better gameplay. How could you ever have too many if they still perform well enough per core?
You are rocking a GTX 1080? Isn't a 1060 enough for everybody? Most people don't have anything even near Nvidia 1080 level of power, so no game can make use of it, right? I mean, no studio would make a game that would benefit from that power because so few people have them. Such silly logic. I'm pretty sure the Intel 6-core owners here are perfectly happy with their decision, although some might feel even more power would be nice. I'm not happy with my i5, but I couldn't put more money in, and the price gap to i7 was ridiculous. But then again, I'm not exactly a heavy gamer and do other stuff as well that would scale 100% with more cores, like compiling, rendering, video encoding, etc. I have said it a dozen times already in various threads here over the years, but the fact so relatively few programs/games require more than 4 cores is because Intel refused to give the masses more. If the coders can use more, they will if the application benefits from it. I'm not much a programmer, but even my simple productions are multi-threaded (even if only using 2). If a pitiful amateur like me can do that, the real professionals can use all available no problem.
Not true if upgraded from retail version, have switched mobo myself after upgrading to Win 10 and no problems with activation after. It's not realistic to assume anything above 4 cores wouldn't happen. AMD is making 4+ cores a lot more affordable now and it's definitely the future. The sooner people adapt 4+ cores as standard the sooner it's present. Already there are games which benefit from and can use more than 4 threads so why wouldn't there be more of them? If I built a system now I'd definitely get a 6 or 8 core CPU. In fact planning on doing a Ryzen build later once 6 core R5 are out. (Before you ask no, I'm not aiming for 6 core because I think 8 cores is a waste, I'm waiting for 6 cores because it's cheaper / still 12 threads )
I am having the same dilemma but why I am leaning towards Ryzen because: Even though I am happy with my current CPU performance it is not an option to leave whatever background apps running before launching AAA games to enjoy top performance without any stutters, heck even Heroes of the Storm runs smoother with everything closed. There was a period of time when I could have whatever running in the background and running any game without any struggles, but not any more, 4 cores is just not enought any longer to have that pleasure. I don't know how better your i7 copes in environment like that and maybe all I need is 7700k but a thought of having 8 cores - 16 threads AND AM4 socket which can be kept for future CPU just sways me towards it. And maybe I am being too optimistic but I really hope that with time Ryzen through updates can up their minimum fps more or less. And at the end of the day, the more people will adopt 8c/16t the sooner developers will utilize them. So in my opinion it is a gamble where I may loose a little bit but potentially win a lot.
@Geryboy I don't think anyone here is saying everyone should buy a Ryzen (or Intel equivalent) but Ryzen did take one big step towards making 4+ more mainstream. In that respect anyone building a new system now should definitely go for 4+ cores for future proofing imo. I don't agree there's nothing going on, newer releases like WD 2 are already showing good scaling on more than 4 cores so it's definitely coming. When it's a norm well that's anyone's guess but like said the sooner people adapt more cores the sooner they will be used by devs (Hilbert said this in his reviews of Ryzen as well). Agree that it's not just flicking a switch or just around the corner (again, don't think anyone implied it is) and for truly proper threading the game needs to be written for 8+ threads from the ground up. But consoles already work that way so surely PC gaming will (easily) follow. One example from 2010. I bought Ghostbusters for PC and had a Core 2 Duo build at the time. Decent build but the game ran very choppy even if my GPU was way above recommended spec. Everyone was saying it's just a crappy port. Once I got a Core i5 while keeping the same GPU the game ran at a solid 60 fps all of a sudden. I did check CPU usage both before and after and it was maxed out on C2D during framedrops while i5 had a relatively even usage between cores and around 50-60 % on average iirc. Granted an isolated example but in fact GB wasn't a lazy port but it simply expected to have at least 4 CPU threads to work with, already back then. Metro 2033 was another game which showed a huge perf boost with a CPU upgrade at the time.
The game performance was showing abnormality compared to the excellent performance in other applications. There's no doubt it will be fixed if not perfectly, at least partially. Like I said before, the OP is still using some 6 years old CPU. If he's going to use this for half a decade as well, it's hard to see why he should get one that's perfect right now, but not years from now. If 3 years from now bigger titles really start to benefit from 6 physical cores, it's going to annoy him if he got 4, especially when he's doing streaming and other stuff in the background. Nvidia conquered the market because GPUs are sold for the situation right now, but CPUs should last a bit longer. It'd be weird to replace 4c/8t with 4c/8t half a dozen years later. It should be weird in anyone else's but Intel's opinion.
I'm kind of wondering what will game's even need more then 4 cores any how? it seems like it would be harder to have to program all that stuff and 90% of the games are ports it seems.. i guess the deciding factor is do i really want to stream online...? thanks for the help ill have to watch and see for the next few weeks if they fix the Simultaneous multi threading OS stuff. I think that is holding there CPU back a bit... as of right now I think the 7700k would be the safest bet for me.. but ill keep an eye out for any improvements. i am not making the purchase till April
As long as the keep porting games from playstation and xbox they will start to use the cores available. Remember both ps4 and xbox one are multicore sytems. But if all he is doing is gaming it makes no sense to jump on ryzen right now or near future. His best bet would be i7. I don't see the i7 not handling games anytime in near future as more and more games are depending on graphics cards nowadays anyways. Even at 1080p graphics cards make or break the games. The i7 is very powerful quad core that will last many many more years.
I bet you then have an answer to why the CPU performs so excellently in encoding, benchmarking, and such, but suddenly drops in games? The Win10 scheduler problem seems like one primary bug to start with. But you are right that Intel CPUs do work perfectly right out of the box. Why wouldn't they work since they are perfect almost decade old technology that hasn't changed an inch? Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Don't worry, though, I really will "get out of here" since I'm feeling I'm only repeating myself already, demeaning this thread.
Well, i´m somewhat biased but coming from an 9590 system the 1700 @ 4GHz is a blast for me and with my Gigabyte MB i had 0 Problems from the beginning.
