Paid £32 for my G3900 so I'm good

If you want the best for gaming then go for the i7-7700k.
It's objectively the best cpu for high framerate gaming.
But like you said if you want to do other muticore application/virtualization then consider ryzen.

This will be better for that use case.

have some heat very happy with my ryzen 5 1600 i would have got this if was buying now. always used intel in the past nothing wrong with amd

Reserved.

Hot, paid about the same for mine a few weeks back. Great CPU compared to Intels alternative.

Or an intel where the price vs performance will be much higher for a gaming CPU... Heat for this price though. Great little CPU on a mid-tier budget.

thought Ryzen was dodgy with esxi, that fixed since you recommend for VMs?

I do, but on my old trusty R720 at work. The articles I read were probably from a couple of months back.

have some heat very happy with my ryzen 5 1600 i would have got this if was buying now. always used intel in the past nothing wrong with amd

I ordered this yesterday. I do more than just gaming so it was the better choice even after toying with the 1600. But even for gaming it'll be a big step up from my 1055t.

Would this be ideal for 4K video editing? Or am I better off with the i7 7700k?

Thanks guys. I thought so too.

Hot :smiley:

Paid £250 for my 7700k so I'm good lol

Paid £32 for my G3900 so I'm good

Buttttt has nothing to do with high-core count CPU's, like this one :smiley:

Why buy this when for 830 quid you could get a MAcbook Air with 2015 i5?

No really I sh*t you not :-

https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/apple-macbook-air-829-at-argos-2740699

Much higher

Much

No mate. Higher, yes. Much? No, about 10%, and that's the only thing it's better in.

If you want the best for gaming then go for the i7-7700k.
It's objectively the best cpu for high framerate gaming.
But like you said if you want to do other muticore application/virtualization then consider ryzen.

The Ryzen CPU is a better choice if when you game you are also running other CPU-intensive programs at the same time, say rendering or encoding video, etc. If we're talking about real world usage, that scenario very much fits my real world usage. If I was making a computer purely to be a gaming box, I would probably go the Intel route, I say probably because though the Intel route seems to lead to higher frame rates where the high end graphics card isn't the bottleneck, game play in some games looks a little smoother to me with Ryzen. Even so, if I had to select one platform for purely gaming, I would probably go for the K-series i7 and overclock, or even a K-series i5 as a lot of newer games still don't take advantage of those extra i7 threads. I keep reading that for Ryzen there have been some patches for games that turn some of the earlier benchmark comparisons on their head but those are newer games, whereas a lot of the games that I like to play are older games that I pick up cheap in Steam sales; even if games in the future are better optimised to take advantage of what Ryzen has to offer, that future is further away for me, so to speak. Big fan of AMD's Ryzen as a competitor to Intel that should hopefully bring some long overdue competition in pricing!

Anyway, getting back on topic, I can't find it cheaper from any of the mainstream vendors - hot.

Also to add: the X Ryzens and other intel i7 have higher clocks but are worse value wise. This 1700 also includes a decent stock cooler with a led ring. Motherboards are another plus point.

He's not looking at PvP though, he's looking at the best CPU on the market for gaming. Which the i7-7700k is undoubtedly the king of.

Well, no.

That would be the 7740k, as I said, building a new rig? 7700k is irrelevant if value is of no concern.

Disagree but opinions are opinions.

Which part do you disagree with?

That the 7740k is a faster CPU for gaming than the 7700k? Factually this is correct.

That if money were of no concern and you're building a new rig that investing in an EOL socket and selecting a 7700k is wise? That makes no sense given the above.

If money is of concern (value, ref above) then spending an extra 30% on a 7700k versus a Ryzen 1600 (for gaming), or spending that extra £100 on a GPU (difference between a 1060-1070, or 1070-80) which would net you significantly more performance is also pointless.

Maybe you can elaborate.

It's worth adding that this chip (or the 1700x, or 1800x) aren't necessarily any good for productivity. Look up benchmarks in the apps you need to upgrade for before you commit to this chip, as you might find that it will actually give you a significant downgrade in performance.

Adobe Lightroom / Photoshop users especially should be wary of them.

If the ryzen 1400 is any indication of performance/value of the Ryzen 3, I would not wait for it.

The pentium G4560 and similar processors are amazing value to money.

Lets see if they are :wink:

Ryzen 5 start at around £150

I don't know how that competes with the Pentiums? you can buy two or three G4560s for 150... So, I don't know why you have a 'winky face' on it... The Ryzen 1400 is incredibly bad value for money.

Nate and myself disagree vehemently on many things, and I've added him to my s*** list for his aggressive and simply rude replies.

I was not trolling, at all. And you should know Nate is invested in Intel financially, and has been extremely pro Intel in many threads. His stories of 'oh look how bad AMD is' involves increasingly higher levels of fabrication. I'd suggest he was getting 'value for money' here with how staunchly and deeply he supports Intel, but that's ridiculous, he probably actually likes Intel, despite his 20k investment in their stock... I doubt he can actually change that stock value by any reasonable number, so he's not an Intel shill, he just really enjoys Intel, would I use the word Fanboy? Probably. Who knows, maybe Nate will jump aboard AMD in the future, but I am skeptical of his bias.

If we're comparing Bananas with Apples (as you love to do), you'll be horrified to find that the Pentiums you wax lyrical about are also completely dominated by AMD:

http://m.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html

Next?

Dunno, Are i7's better value than i3's? Hard to tell if some people are being serious in the slightest.

Lets see what the pricing of the Ryzen 3 are like vs i3's dual cores.

Better value depends on what you are doing completely.

But the Pentium G4560 is an amazing budget CPU. Ryzen cannot compete with it on the low end for 50-60 quid.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-pentium-g4620-g4560-cpu,4934-4.html

VERDICT
Budget gaming builds always strive to optimize for performance per dollar. The Pentium G4560 stacks that equation in your favor like no processor before it. A slightly lower clock rate compared to the G4620 saves quite a bit of money, yet it's still fast enough for modern games and most desktop productivity apps. If a discrete graphics card is on your shopping list, the Pentium G4560's low cost might help you level-up to a faster GPU, too.

That's a screaming letter of budget value recommendation.

And yet the AMD CPU'S in the link above destroy that too.

Don't feed the troll anymore.

There is a story about RMA fraud on Ryzen processors from Amzaon. When you open your package record it on film. No CPU should have labels on it. Although this is unlikely better safe than sorry. It appears some people have been buying these then returning them swapping the CPU for a much cheaper model. Amazon appears to of then resent out the products to other customers. Overall just be careful.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-rma-fraud-on-amazon/

You are acting as if it wouldn't be quite fast.... You can absolutely do video editing on the 7700k.

Most people end up doing hardware rendering anyway, as it's quite fast and very good quality. Yes, you can get slightly higher via software, but it depends on what type of user you are, what % of what tasks you do, and just how much rendering you *actually* do.

When people say this is better for multitasking what exactly do they mean?
90% of my gaming is done whilst watching/ doing something on the other monitor and with various chat/ performace programs open.
Would i benefit from this over an Intel then? (p.s. have had a FX6300 for years now)

I don't multitask whilst gaming, don't video edit or anything like that. Simply want to upgrade my i5-2500k and am looking at the Ryzen 5 1600 as it's got great benchmarks and is (as far as I can tell) great value when comparing to Intel's offerings. Would people say that's a fair assessment and it would be a worthy upgrade? My GTX 970 will be next but my budget constraints mean it's one thing at a time.

Thoughts? Is 1600 future proofed enough? Purely as a gamer? Or worth shelling out more for this or the i7?

The concept of multitasking is for CPU intensive tasks, such as rendering (So, if you were doing streaming with software encoding while playing games, if for some reason you don't use hardware encoding).

But if you are doing gaming+chat/video *watching* or other things, and your focus is gaming, the Intel 7700k is a better CPU for you.

Q2 of 2017 has the I7 8700k coming out as well, may want to take a hold and see how that does, may reduced the 7700k prices, the ryzen prices, or offer great performance.

Purely as a gamer, the I7 is better. There is actually no comparison here, and I doubt anyone will disagree, the I7 series is better at gaming.

However, I would actually skip any upgrade for a bit longer, the 2500k is a great little chip, keep an eye out for the next two intel or amd offerings as you will benefit a lot from this renewed competition.

Other advice is generally to ignore Nate. He's as pro Intel as they come.

Thanks for the sound advice guys, Think I will hold out for a bit longer!