I don't believe there is any benefit for any of the tasks I do over 8 cores. I don't really do video rendering work (I dabble here and there). I don't think any games really take advantage of anything above 8 cores, they barely do 8 cores now. Nothing else I do really requires 8+ cores.

Why did you decide against the 7800X? Not enough of an upgrade? Because it's $200 cheaper, would likely offer better overclocking (due to better TDP), and by the time it would struggle to play a game you'd likely want to replace it anyway due to being too power hungry. But, I also don't know what your upgrade schedule looks like. It seems to me you'd have kept your old 4790K if it weren't for the issues you have.

The i9, 10 cores pricing isn't really linear in scaling. It's $400 extra dollars for 2 cores, some PCI-E lanes that I won't use (I'm never doing SLI/Xfire again, baring some major advancement) and it uses more power, thus lowering it's potential for overclocking, especially with the boards out now that are limited in both VRM cooling/aux power.

Makes sense - good reasoning.

I do think games releasing over the next several years will make use up to 8 cores. So I wanted a processor that out of the box was at least as fast as my 4790K in the games I play today (Heroes of the Storm for example) but I wanted it to scale well for future games.

I suppose the real question is if you have something like a 120Hz+ or G-sync display. As pointed out before, even an i5 can still play games that utilize 8+ threads at 60FPS, but, if you have a high refresh rate display, then yes, prepping for the additional high-clock cores is a wise choice in the long run.

Threadripper is going to be awesome for workstations, but for gaming - I think it's going to be similar to Ryzen in single threaded performance and as I said, I don't really know or care to have any extra cores over 8 ..... Remember, I have this chip clocked a 4.8 now and honestly I'm 90% sure I can get it higher.

I would argue the differences in frame rate from Ryzen are largely insignificant beyond benchmarks, but again, with a high refresh-rate display, something like an i7 is a better choice (like the better OCing, as you pointed out). But yeah, I don't think Threadripper doesn't really has a place in gaming either, or i9 for that matter.

I didn't know at the time that Ryzen wouldn't really be able to hit those memory speeds ..... Then the reviews started coming out and performance was slightly worse than my 4790K + memory issues - then on top of that the rumors of X299 being moved up to the summer came out and I was like, screw it - I'll wait. So I sent back the 1800x and canceled the board (that never shipped).

I'm not sure what board you wanted, but I heard plenty of people got to 3600MHz once the AGESA 1006 update came out (which I'm still waiting for...). Ryzen doesn't seem to improve a whole lot beyond 3200MHz anyway, but, I don't blame you for being deterred about potentially not reaching a speed you paid for, let alone having to wait so long.

Why did you decide against the 7800X? Not enough of an upgrade? Because it's $200 cheaper, would likely offer better overclocking (due to better TDP), and by the time it would struggle to play a game you'd likely want to replace it anyway due to being too power hungry. But, I also don't know what your upgrade schedule looks like. It seems to me you'd have kept your old 4790K if it weren't for the issues you have. Makes sense - good reasoning. I suppose the real question is if you have something like a 120Hz+ or G-sync display. As pointed out before, even an i5 can still play games that utilize 8+ threads at 60FPS, but, if you have a high refresh rate display, then yes, prepping for the additional cores is a wise choice in the long run. I would argue the differences in frame rate from Ryzen are largely insignificant beyond benchmarks, but again, with a high refresh-rate display, something like an i7 is a better choice (like the better OCing, as you pointed out). But yeah, I don't think Threadripper doesn't really has a place in gaming either. I'm not sure what board you wanted, but I heard plenty of people got to 3600MHz once the AGESA 1006 update came out (which I'm still waiting for...). Ryzen doesn't seem to improve a whole lot beyond 3200MHz anyway, but, I don't blame you for being deterred about potentially not reaching a speed you paid for, let alone having to wait so long.

I guess I just like the idea of having 8 cores. I feel like AMD's 1700x popularity and consoles set a good "platform" for devs in the future targeting 8 cores. Just seems like a nice number, the number itself is symmetrical.. lol. I do have an Acer XB270HU 144hz G-Sync. I generally like to keep all my games above 75fps+ on it. I think you're right that for QHD the 1700x and others are typically "good enough" as the GPU is the bottleneck. I just thought, like two years from now - what happens when I shove a Navi or a whatever is after Volta in? Will the CPU bottleneck QHD then? Probably not - but it's minor check in the Intel side of the chart. There are other apps too though, like adobe, office apps, etc where the numbers just favor Intel as slight as they are. I think just don't like the idea of buying a new computer and losing performance, even if it's minor and only in certain areas? I guess it's kind of irrational but it's just a weird mindset I have and when the price is only $200-300 more to eliminate all my concerns and I budgeted that amount anyway, it seems fine? I understand though that typically people don't think that way - they'd rather pocket the money for something else. Which is probably why every computer I've built for people in the past few months have been based on some variant of Ryzen. I think the value you get out of the product is better than what Intel is offering. I just value my money and the level of performance differently than most people. And when I added up all the pros/cons the price difference was worth it for me. Once I got it to 4.8Ghz, I was even happier.

I guess I just like the idea of having 8 cores. I feel like AMD's 1700x popularity and consoles set a good "platform" for devs in the future targeting 8 cores. Just seems like a nice number, the number itself is symmetrical.. lol.

Keep in mind software treats logical processors as physical cores. Devs don't tend to specify the CPU affinity, which is why some games performed poorly on Ryzen, but with some tweaks ended up being within a few FPS from an i7. Haha anyway 6 cores are symmetrical too - 3 on one half, 3 on the other.

I do have an Acer XB270HU 144hz G-Sync. I generally like to keep all my games above 75fps+ on it. I think you're right that for QHD the 1700x and others are typically "good enough" as the GPU is the bottleneck.

Yeah for your monitor, I would have recommended an i7 anyway. Ryzen is plenty capable for 60FPS, maybe 90FPS if you turn off AA, but I advise against it for those who want to go beyond that.

I just thought, like two years from now - what happens when I shove a Navi or a whatever is after Volta in?

By then I think games would be written with Ryzen in mind, so the frame drops wouldn't be so glaring. But, I'd still say an i7 is better for a situation like yours.

I think just don't like the idea of buying a new computer and losing performance, even if it's minor and only in certain areas? I guess it's kind of irrational but it's just a weird mindset I have and when the price is only $200-300 more to eliminate all my concerns and I budgeted that amount anyway, it seems fine? I understand though that typically people don't think that way - they'd rather pocket the money for something else.

Yup, I totally get that. I was going to buy the 1600 for a similar reason, but I decided against it since that could have limited my OC potential and motherboard lifespan (it only has 4-pin CPU connector, and an OC'd 1600 gets dangerously close to the 4-pin limit). I'm not upset having a 1500X - I game at 1080p @ 60FPS, and as long as consoles don't utilize more than 8 threads, I'm not concerned about my CPU being a bottleneck for several years. Besides, hopefully the next-gen Zens will offer better OC potential at lower wattages, allowing me to get an overclocked 6c/12t model without concern.

I do have an Acer XB270HU 144hz G-Sync. I generally like to keep all my games above 75fps+ on it. I think you're right that for QHD the 1700x and others are typically "good enough" as the GPU is the bottleneck.

Yeah for your monitor, I would have recommended an i7 anyway. Ryzen is plenty capable for 60FPS, maybe 90FPS if you turn off AA, but I advise against it for those who want to go beyond that.

I really don't understand what you are saying, considering the Acer XB270HU is a 1440p monitor, how would recommending intel over AMD to get to 144hz be benefitial? I mean, i have seen a very small, small amount of games care about intel vs AMD at 1440p. As well, Ryzen capable of 60fps, maybe 90fps? What? That's just downright misinformation. Most games i play, at 1440p, and yes i have a 1080ti, are 120fps, all the way up to 300fps, which very few below 90fps, and this is max, so i don't understand how a "ryzen" would somehow limit your FPS by as much as you say at 1440p, considering its what i have...and that's not true. Quite frankly, i average 70-90fps in PUBG at the highest quality, which is a game so many people complain about performance in, since it's an early access title....

I really don't understand what you are saying, considering the Acer XB270HU is a 1440p monitor, how would recommending intel over AMD to get to 144hz be benefitial? I mean, i have seen a very small, small amount of games care about intel vs AMD at 1440p. As well, Ryzen capable of 60fps, maybe 90fps? What? That's just downright misinformation. Most games i play, at 1440p, and yes i have a 1080ti, are 120fps, all the way up to 300fps, which very few below 90fps, and this is max, so i don't understand how a "ryzen" would somehow limit your FPS by as much as you say at 1440p, considering its what i have...and that's not true. Quite frankly, i average 70-90fps in PUBG at the highest quality, which is a game so many people complain about performance in, since it's an early access title....

Intel hardware (particularly when overclocked) is a lot more readily capable of achieving higher frame rates. Meanwhile, Ryzen tends to have lower IPC in gaming and tends to be limited to around 4GHz. When you have a 120Hz+ display, every frame counts. Let's face it - not everything is optimized for Ryzen. Just because you can play some games up to 300FPS, most modern games won't. Sure, maybe 90FPS is underestimating Ryzen's capabilities, but I'm still not inclined to recommend a Ryzen build for people who want the highest FPS possible. Keep in mind, I have a Ryzen myself for gaming. I built a Ryzen gaming rig for someone else, too. Given the chance again, I would have still bought a Ryzen for my system. I would recommend Ryzen for gamers. But as good as Ryzen is at many things, the limited clock speed, the lower gaming IPC, and latency of infinity fabric makes Ryzen objectively worse than Kaby Lake for very high frame rate displays. That doesn't mean it can't do it, but you may be limiting yourself.

Intel hardware (particularly when overclocked) is a lot more readily capable of achieving higher frame rates. Meanwhile, Ryzen tends to have lower IPC in gaming and tends to be limited to around 4GHz. When you have a 120Hz+ display, every frame counts. Let's face it - not everything is optimized for Ryzen. Just because you can play some games up to 300FPS, most modern games won't. Sure, maybe 90FPS is underestimating Ryzen's capabilities, but I'm still not inclined to recommend a Ryzen build for people who want the highest FPS possible. Keep in mind, I have a Ryzen myself for gaming. I built a Ryzen gaming rig for someone else, too. Given the chance again, I would have still bought a Ryzen for my system. I would recommend Ryzen for gamers. But as good as Ryzen is at many things, the limited clock speed, the lower gaming IPC, and latency of infinity fabric makes Ryzen objectively worse than Kaby Lake for very high frame rate displays. That doesn't mean it can't do it, but you may be limiting yourself.

Yes if you want 240hz I would aim for Intel. 144Hz should be fine on Ryzen. At least for most games. No issues running OW for example around 300ish fps. For sure Ryzen as a whole is slower then 7820x or 6900k to boot not by much but is. Depending on budget I would recommend either way. Just 7900x I wouldn't recommend really it's a pricey jump for not that much performance. But in gaming I would recommend 1600-1700 range for sure not 1800x 😀 For me this was full blown upgrade from 3770k 4.3ghz with 1833mhz ddr3. Only game that did not like new cpu was Rome 2.

Intel hardware (particularly when overclocked) is a lot more readily capable of achieving higher frame rates. Meanwhile, Ryzen tends to have lower IPC in gaming and tends to be limited to around 4GHz. When you have a 120Hz+ display, every frame counts. Let's face it - not everything is optimized for Ryzen. Just because you can play some games up to 300FPS, most modern games won't. Sure, maybe 90FPS is underestimating Ryzen's capabilities, but I'm still not inclined to recommend a Ryzen build for people who want the highest FPS possible. Keep in mind, I have a Ryzen myself for gaming. I built a Ryzen gaming rig for someone else, too. Given the chance again, I would have still bought a Ryzen for my system. I would recommend Ryzen for gamers. But as good as Ryzen is at many things, the limited clock speed, the lower gaming IPC, and latency of infinity fabric makes Ryzen objectively worse than Kaby Lake for very high frame rate displays. That doesn't mean it can't do it, but you may be limiting yourself.

....but 1440p, i feel like you have completely disregarded that fact in the first post, and in replying to me, which is why i questioned it in the first place. What you're saying makes sense at 1080p, but not at 1440p or higher. Again, i'm not disagreeing with you in any way (other then the fact that 1080p performance is so far up there, the fact that intel does "better" really doesn't even matter anymore, but to each their own), except for the fact you directly replied to a 1440p statement in the original post i quoted.

There are various games where Ryzen runs slower at QHD. https://techspot-static-xjzaqowzxaoif5.stackpathdns.com/articles-info/1348/bench/1440_GTAV.png https://techspot-static-xjzaqowzxaoif5.stackpathdns.com/articles-info/1348/bench/1440_WD.png https://techspot-static-xjzaqowzxaoif5.stackpathdns.com/articles-info/1348/bench/1440_ARMA.png https://techspot-static-xjzaqowzxaoif5.stackpathdns.com/articles-info/1348/bench/1440_Primal.png And while some of those results might be an upgrade from people coming from Sandybridge, etc processors - from my 4790K it's a downgrade. So essentially I'd be paying $600 or whatever the total system is to get worse performance. For $200 more on x299 I get same/better performance out of the box and significantly better performance once I overclocked to 4.8. That doesn't make Ryzen a bad processor or bad for gaming - like I said, its 85-90% of the performance for like a fraction of the cost. I just needed a new platform (my motherboard was dying) and I really didn't care for the idea of going backwards, however slight it may be.

Yes if you want 240hz I would aim for Intel. 144Hz should be fine on Ryzen. At least for most games.

The emboldened part is the sole reason why I suggested Intel. This of course is assuming the CPU is the bottleneck. For people who spent the extra cash on a high refresh rate display, they're going to want to take advantage of it as much as possible, so you want to eliminate bottlenecks.

But in gaming I would recommend 1600-1700 range for sure not 1800x 😀

I'd say the 1600 is a good choice for anyone who does a lot of multitasking, including during gaming. I personally don't, so I got the 1500X. That has yet to struggle with any games I play, and until consoles use more than 8 threads I suspect it will remain good enough for a while. Sure, my peak performance will likely remain worse than an overclocked 1600 or 1700, but I play games at 60FPS anyway.

....but 1440p, i feel like you have completely disregarded that fact in the first post, and in replying to me.

What about 1440p? I don't see how that's relevant. The higher the resolution, the more taxed the GPU is, not the CPU. This discussion is about CPU bottlenecks.

There are various games where Ryzen runs slower at QHD. https://techspot-static-xjzaqowzxaoif5.stackpathdns.com/articles-info/1348/bench/1440_GTAV.png https://techspot-static-xjzaqowzxaoif5.stackpathdns.com/articles-info/1348/bench/1440_WD.png https://techspot-static-xjzaqowzxaoif5.stackpathdns.com/articles-info/1348/bench/1440_ARMA.png https://techspot-static-xjzaqowzxaoif5.stackpathdns.com/articles-info/1348/bench/1440_Primal.png And while some of those results might be an upgrade from people coming from Sandybridge, etc processors - from my 4790K it's a downgrade. So essentially I'd be paying $600 or whatever the total system is to get worse performance. For $200 more on x299 I get same/better performance out of the box and significantly better performance once I overclocked to 4.8. That doesn't make Ryzen a bad processor or bad for gaming - like I said, its 85-90% of the performance for like a fraction of the cost. I just needed a new platform (my motherboard was dying) and I really didn't care for the idea of going backwards, however slight it may be.

Even if in the up coming games it would have been different vs your old 4790k I don't think 7820x was a bad choice in any shape or form. And those games you linked won't get patched for Ryzen for sure, so in those and other examples people will be stuck with somewhat lower performance.

There are various games where Ryzen runs slower at QHD. https://techspot-static-xjzaqowzxaoif5.stackpathdns.com/articles-info/1348/bench/1440_GTAV.png https://techspot-static-xjzaqowzxaoif5.stackpathdns.com/articles-info/1348/bench/1440_WD.png https://techspot-static-xjzaqowzxaoif5.stackpathdns.com/articles-info/1348/bench/1440_ARMA.png https://techspot-static-xjzaqowzxaoif5.stackpathdns.com/articles-info/1348/bench/1440_Primal.png And while some of those results might be an upgrade from people coming from Sandybridge, etc processors - from my 4790K it's a downgrade. So essentially I'd be paying $600 or whatever the total system is to get worse performance. For $200 more on x299 I get same/better performance out of the box and significantly better performance once I overclocked to 4.8. That doesn't make Ryzen a bad processor or bad for gaming - like I said, its 85-90% of the performance for like a fraction of the cost. I just needed a new platform (my motherboard was dying) and I really didn't care for the idea of going backwards, however slight it may be.

Why you would use something other then guru3d is beyond me when talking on guru3d, but either way, i don't know if those tests are done with recent bios updates, and ram at least at 2666mhz (on both sides), so though i'm not saying you are wrong, because i clearly said i don't know the review you are talking about, but it is fact: 1440p and above, for ryzen, vs intel, does not matter that much. But, it seems clear that instead of listening to that fact, people want to argue, and that's fine, so i guess i'm done with this conversation. Seeya. Oh, and i was never questioning your decision, denial. I was questioning why schmidtbag would state what he stated when it makes no sense, again, at 1440p.

1440p and above, for ryzen, vs intel, does not matter that much. But, it seems clear that instead of listening to that fact, people want to argue, and that's fine, so i guess i'm done with this conversation. Seeya. Oh, and i was never questioning your decision, denial. I was questioning why schmidtbag would state what he stated when it makes no sense, again, at 1440p.

To reiterate - what does 1440p have to do with this? Why does the resolution matter? I agree, facts are important, but you're not providing the facts why 1440p changes anything. I understand the performance gap with Ryzen drops as resolution goes up, but the performance gap will also expand as GPU power goes up. Again, I may have been underselling Ryzen a bit, but the fact of the matter is, Ryzen is going to be more limited in peak FPS compared to a well-overclocked i7 or i9. Now, whether it's an economically wise choice to go for an i7 or i9 is a different story. EDIT: In the case of Denial, he was willing to spend the extra cash for the extra FPS. He is not wrong in doing so. I'm not saying it was wrong of you to use a Ryzen for your needs, either.

Why you would use something other then guru3d is beyond me when talking on guru3d, but either way, i don't know if those tests are done with recent bios updates, and ram at least at 2666mhz (on both sides), so though i'm not saying you are wrong, because i clearly said i don't know the review you are talking about, but it is fact: 1440p and above, for ryzen, vs intel, does not matter that much. But, it seems clear that instead of listening to that fact, people want to argue, and that's fine, so i guess i'm done with this conversation. Seeya. Oh, and i was never questioning your decision, denial. I was questioning why schmidtbag would state what he stated when it makes no sense, again, at 1440p.

Yeah, I'm not trying to be confrontational or say that Ryzen is bad or whatever - I think it's a great processor. I'm just trying to clarify why I made the decision I made, which is what schmidtbag asked me. Different people are going to value different things out of their hardware. They are also going to value money differently as well. For me, I don't mind going outside the "bang for buck" to get a little more performance. Like I'm fully aware the price of the 7820x does not justify the performance increase over Ryzen, but I had the money allocated for the computer anyway and not to sound like a rich assh*le (I'm not rich lol) but $200-300 isn't that much to me when it comes to my computer. Hilbert didn't do as many games that show the performance delta between the higher clocked 4 cores and Ryzen, which is why I chose the techspot benchmarks. This is really the only game he tests that shows it: http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=28937&admin=0a8fcaad6b03da6a6895d1ada2e171002a287bc1 Most of the games that would show the biggest difference fall under his "additional results" page that only compares against the 5960x. The techspot review was at DDR4-3000 ram, I don't know what BIOS/settings it used.

....but 1440p, i feel like you have completely disregarded that fact in the first post, and in replying to me, which is why i questioned it in the first place. What you're saying makes sense at 1080p, but not at 1440p or higher. Again, i'm not disagreeing with you in any way (other then the fact that 1080p performance is so far up there, the fact that intel does "better" really doesn't even matter anymore, but to each their own), except for the fact you directly replied to a 1440p statement in the original post i quoted.

It's still a true statement at 1440P. Ryzen isn't the best option for 144/165hz 1440P I'd say only 4k and above where it doesn't matter.

It's still a true statement at 1440P. Ryzen isn't the best option for 144/165hz 1440P I'd say only 4k and above where it doesn't matter.

Not the best but easily enough.

Yeah, I'm not trying to be confrontational or say that Ryzen is bad or whatever - I think it's a great processor. I'm just trying to clarify why I made the decision I made, which is what schmidtbag asked me. Different people are going to value different things out of their hardware. They are also going to value money differently as well. For me, I don't mind going outside the "bang for buck" to get a little more performance. Like I'm fully aware the price of the 7820x does not justify the performance increase over Ryzen, but I had the money allocated for the computer anyway and not to sound like a rich assh*le (I'm not rich lol) but $200-300 isn't that much to me when it comes to my computer. Hilbert didn't do as many games that show the performance delta between the higher clocked 4 cores and Ryzen, which is why I chose the techspot benchmarks. This is really the only game he tests that shows it: http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=28937&admin=0a8fcaad6b03da6a6895d1ada2e171002a287bc1 Most of the games that would show the biggest difference fall under his "additional results" page that only compares against the 5960x. The techspot review was at DDR4-3000 ram, I don't know what BIOS/settings it used.

Nice, and how is it in general. Notice any difference, how does it OC? Edit: ah you already wrote some stuff one page earlier.. So 4.8ghz, wow. How cool is it, qt what voltage? 🤓

Nice, and how is it in general. Notice any difference, how does it OC? Edit: ah you already wrote some stuff one page earlier.. So 4.8ghz, wow. How cool is it, qt what voltage? 🤓

http://i.imgur.com/DDCUpxg.jpg 4.8 @ 1.25 That's blend - SmallFFT makes it go up to about 85c. In gaming I've yet to see it go above 60c.

http://i.imgur.com/DDCUpxg.jpg 4.8 @ 1.25 That's blend - SmallFFT makes it go up to about 85c. In gaming I've yet to see it go above 60c.

Wow great voltage too, 8core really looks good! What cooler do you use for it? 🙂 EDIT: well its one pricey upgrade, 1065€... https://s6.postimg.org/6v47ecgf1/i7_7820x_system.png Guess I'll wait, no need for it now, but yeah sure looks nice 🤓