Still too expensive .. yeah ddr4+mobo+cpu .. will wait another cupla months, price goes down, silicon gets better ddr4 getz chepa, intel replys, amd price cuts in retaliation? xmas!
Pound shoots up in value?
This is the Ryzen I'd go for tho ...65w..

Wish I had an excuse to upgrade my 2500k :laughing:

Dropped nearly another £5, to £195.72.

Honestly the plan if i upgraded was to run the 2500k as a second PC for my growing G4WL collection that doesn't play great on 10. Maybe i'll get on it and build a ridiculous balls to the walls rig over the summer when I have some down time.

Yeah, I went from a i5-2500K to a i7-6700K and tbh, I don't feel a huge difference until I start doing video editing. Even then, it only really shows when I start rendering video. For games, you won't be that far behind right now. I'm sure that'll change in the next year or two, but, it's still a rockin' chip.

Hmm...this reminds me to build up a PC from my ol' 2500K :smiley:

I've an expansion card for USB 3 (I need a fair few USBs anyway) and given current pricing Im fine with my Sata SSD. For word processing and the older games I play theres no real discernible difference my r9 285 still bottlenecks my system way before the cpu does in most tasks. Sure in the higher end it does, but the money just isn't justified right now.

Wish I had an excuse to upgrade my 2500k :laughing:

Cheaper here: Flubit £191

New estimated arrival date: May 04 2017 - May 06 2017

:smiley:

I agree, atleast they are on par and having the competition back will hopefully give us better price and performance.

Exciting times for both. I am happy with a 6700k for 250 though, was a good buy for my requirements and in the nexr few years if games have optimisation for AMD i will probably jump ship.

I'm going for one of these.
If only because of intels 5% incremental increases dribbling out over the last few releases.

There might be a long term problem with that strategy though.
Similar to those on video card threads with the 'hope Vega gets here soon, so I can by a cheaper GTX 1080 etc.".
But yes people are far to easily impressed with the mostly tiny % difference between Skylake/Kabylake and Ryzen for gaming. Personally, I only build with gaming as a secondary concern and am quite willing to lose 10-20% theoretical max performance (but generally far closer for min frames which is far more important), if I get a CPU which is faster in application and has cores to spare when I'm going stuff.
That, plus at some point people have to support the underdog if they value competition and choice. Not that hard to do since Ryzen offers good value and performance.
BTW, I'm sure that a 4GHz Ryzen can match that in some games: BF1 multiplayer, Doom and perhaps even Crysis 3. Basically anything which scales well with cores. Yes, the upcoming LGA2066 Intel HEDT processors with 8+ cores may be quicker if they clock to 4GHz+ but are likely to cost a lot.

Dont get me wrong i love what ryzen can do. But majority of ppl building a pc will build with gaming in mind. For the next few years, intel is better overall. Thanks to ryzen intel 6700k dropped and i grabbed for under 250. Overclocked to 4.6ghz and under 65 degrees load. Ryzen can't touch that.

As far as I'm concerned, most people don't need the latest and greatest chips for audio work. I say this as an audio engineer. A number of years later (4-5 years maybe) I'm still running a dedicated music rig off an Intel 3570K. I haven't had a project that maxes out the rig when recording/mixing. Only video editing has been a little taxing on it.

In other words, don't let benchmarks dictate your buying decisions when it comes to audio. Unless, for some reason, you run loads of VST instruments. Then, you may have a point. But even then, that's what the "Freeze" function is for :smiley:

Ryzen is not particularly good at photoshop.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/7.html

Having a tough time finding an OC comparison, but using the i7 7700k's increase of 600 mhz resulting in about 6% reduction in time... I can take a rough guess that OC'ing the 2500k to about 4.3ghz should result in nearly identical time in PS6.

So, compared with the 1800x, that's the 500 quid chip, you would see virtually no difference in photoshop.

No clue about cubase though, very light on reviews.

I can only assume you would be able to understand this a bit more than me: http://www.scanproaudio.info/2017/03/02/amd-ryzen-first-look-for-audio/

As I imagine you are doing Audio work.... Anyway, that's still looking at the 1700x, rather than the 1600... So for your workload, it wouldn't seem like a good choice.

not just that you can get this cpu with a b350 for less than £300 and overclock with the i5 you need Z170-270 motherboard to overclock. best bang for bug IMO people who go in 2017 and pay more for a 4 core CPU Is a fan foi.

The issue is massive gains as the previous poster mentioned is all relative. Sure if you have a top of the line card (assuming a titan x or 980ti in that review?) then the differences are noticeable. However for the vast majority on a previous gen mid range radeon or nvidia card (r9 2xx/r9 3xx/gtx 7xx/gtx9xx) there would be more gains to be gotten from a graphics card upgrade rather than a CPU one if you're sitting on an overclocked 2500k or newer.

Could get a 6600k for that price!

Getting very tempted :smile:.

for productivity destroys the i5

i know you from guru3d damm the world is small

in real world how does this compare to my [email protected] I'm thinking at this price i could grab some ram and a motherboard for £350ish all in?? might be useful for Photoshop, cubase???

Kabylake does run at a far higher frequency by default. Sandy Bridge 2600K had 3.4GHz base, while has 4.2GHz. Plus the turbo is quite different.
But when clocked the same? The difference is about 20-27%:

(Yes, that's Skylake but aside from clocking ability (and fixed-function media decoding) Skylake and Kabylake are the same. Seems Hardware.fr couldn't be bothered to do a full review of Kabylake.)
As usual, the scores depend on the games tested. And I'm sure that due to architectural decisions or even just because of being compiled with the Intel compiler, Skylake can be farther ahead of Sandy Bridge especially for the all important minimum frames, just wanted to point out that review sites running CPUs at stock makes the difference look bigger than it really is. In those tests, Skylake gains another ~5% due the DDR4 and Kabylake's IMC is better than Skylake's. But like those going for DDR4 @ 3600MHz with Ryzen, fast RAM doesn't come cheap.

EDIT: all of which is far enough for those willing to spend that much. But when Intel go on about the move from Skylake to Kabylake being +15% when like-for-like that's obviously complete nonsense to anyone who looked the (desktop) benches.
They are again promising +15% for Coffelake. It's good that their process now allows higher clocks (but couldn't they at least solder the K processors then?), but claiming +15% when that is only relevant in certain 15W U processors being able to keep to their turbos longer is marketing speak.

For anyone who gets free delivery with Overclockers UK, they have the same price.

The 1700 has also dropped a tenner down to £290 but that has a 1-4 week lead time.

Just what I was going to say. The 1080 is what you noticed.

Well, it would. As the 2600K and the 7700K are massively apart in frames in every single benchmark, lol. So for someone who cares about frames, it's a thing.

In other words, if back then you'd gone for the i7 Sandy Bridge your upgrade wouldn't have been anywhere as noticeable. Which is partially the argument for buying a hex or octo core now.
I'm still on my i5-3570K which I haven't even overclocked. So the logical upgrade would be first an overclock, then maybe hunt for an i7-3770K.
Any of that should take care of my needs, however somehow I want to upgrade to either this a Ryzen 1700. But since I don't run demanding games (the occasional bit of modded Skyrim which really doesn't scale with cores but on the other hand I've never run into performance issues with my stock IB i5), the only way I might justify it is by potentially running lots of VMs. Which I seldom do. Ergo, no shiny new toys for me :disappointed:

Still too expensive .. yeah ddr4+mobo+cpu .. will wait another cupla months, price goes down, silicon gets better ddr4 getz chepa, intel replys, amd price cuts in retaliation? xmas!
Pound shoots up in value?
This is the Ryzen I'd go for tho ...65w..

I used the 970 for a month in the 7700K. Made a massive difference (the CPU upgrade) on a lot of games like Battlefield , GTA5, H1Z1, Due to the extra threads.

Very nice set up there but I suspect the GPU upgrade made FAR more difference (for gaming at least) than the CPU upgrade in your case, aside from it's age a 2500K at 5GHZ is very impressive. I used to have a 2500K years ago when they were pretty new but never had much luck with overclocking it even with a good cooler 4.5GHZ was about the max for me and after about 18 months it failed altogether, which I suspect was OC related though never found out for sure :disappointed:

You should have tried the 970 in your upgraded build (if you still had it) to see how much of the boost was CPU vs GPU related...

not very knowledgeable on pc parts but will this cpu work on a asus m5a97 evo r2.0?

Haven't overclocked my 2500k yet so no need to upgrade :sunglasses: Don't play games any more :disappointed:

I've got the 1600, currently overclocked to 3.7Ghz and Corsair Vengeance 2400Mhz DDR4 Ram Overclocked to 2933Mhz. These CPUs can reach 3.9Ghz on the Stock Cooler if your mobo is up to it and possibly 4Ghz with another Tower air or water cooler if you win the silicon lottery but just be careful of the temps!

I went from a 2500K @ 5ghz & 970 to 7700K @ 5ghz and 1080ti.and it's bloody lovely lol. First proper full upgrade in six years.

my rx480 is bottlenecking my xeon 5620 which has a cpu passmark of 5000

Thing is I really don't use my PC all that much these days outside essay writing. Anything gaming wise my R9 285 is a bigger bottleneck, and most new releases I just get on the One or occasionally the PS4. Its not so much processor cost either. Its having to buy DDR4 RAM as well which is the killer given prices atm.