Cheaper even than the steady sub £100 ebuyer price, the Ryzen 3 CPU, in a suitable budget B350 motherboard, overclocks to in many but not all cases match and sometimes beat the significantly more expensive i5 7400 in games (though in many reviews it's barely noticeable unless you are using a GTX 1080 or at least at GTX 1070; if on a more representative budget using a GTX 1060 and not running other programs at the same time as gaming, the G4560 or G4600 are still great value for money, frames per second wise, though in some games not quite as fluid-smooth running as the multi core CPU). The i5 part comes with integrated graphics, though, which unfortunately the Ryzen doesn't have but the main selling point of the Ryzen 1200 is that it can be overclocked using the supplied Wraith cooler, without having to shell out for a third party cooler.
If you're not going to overclock and particularly if you are using something like a GTX 1060/RX 580 or cheaper budget graphics card, the cost per frame ratio is around the same as the cheaper G4560 and G4600 - see the benchmarks review below - though that's assuming you don't have other processes running while you game, like browsers, music players, or some productivity app rendering in the background, which many of us do but that reviewers often don't seem to have taken account of that in their reviews. If running productivity applications that take advantage of extra cores, the Ryzen 3 1200, overclocked, is decent performer at the cost, though not a significant improvement on Intel i5 CPUs of old; I'm hoping the Ryzen 3 1200 drives down the secondhand price of Intel i5s, to give the beleaguered budget system builders a break, to offset the increased cost of midrange graphics cards thanks to mining, higher memory costs, HD costs, soon-to-be higher SSD costs, apparently, etc.
I'm sharing yesterday's Hardware Unboxed review of the CPU overclocked because it benchmarks not just multiple CPUs but with three different price-point graphics cards, which to me seems much more realistic than reviews testing using only top end graphics cards, which reviewers argue is to remove any bottleknecking from the graphics card and to show the CPUs at their best.
Latest comments (69)
Kyouken
19 Aug 17#18
Which CPU is better for gaming is a lot more complex than just which has the highest overall Peak, average and minimum FPS It would appear.
However, not everything is as it seems based on the numbers alone. Assassin's Creed Unity posts a lead on the i5, but when studying performance at the per-scene level, i5 is pulling ahead in relatively empty scenes in our benchmark, with Ryzen 5 performing better in areas packed with NPCs. There's the suggestion that the i5 frame-rate average is boosted by big performance gains in less useful, more 'empty' rendering scenes. Similarly, in the Crysis 3 benchmark, the i5 and indeed i7's scores are skewed higher when the viewpoint shifts to similarly sparse scenes.
Agharta to Kyouken
19 Aug 17#19
I think the frame latency figures are useful as it shows the number of frames that were displayed beyond a particular number of milliseconds. In other words how many rogue frames there were which is more meaningful than the absolute minimum frame rate which could have just been a one off. Any review that doesn't measure that I can't take seriously.
MRP to Kyouken
19 Aug 17#21
Ryzen does better overall in Crysis anyhow as it uses the extra cores but its a good example of number padding.
Reviewers did straight up make it very clear it was a bad idea to buy an intel CPU in practice. For many reasons!
The more we learnt over the months the better understanding of what was occurring and each subsequent Ryzen release was more positive. Though even the Ryzen 7 had a very positive reception.
From the looks of it Intel arent replying to the higher end Ryzen. They are more worried about the lower end high margin chips. The day of dual core cpu are now finished.
MysticalUndies to MRP
19 Aug 17#28
Did you even read that review. It stated on crysis that the only processor capable of maintaining the framerate above 60 fps was the 4 core i7 and that the Amd chips produced random stutters.
When a cpu maintains a framerate above 73fps the entire time yet the 8 core ryzen 5 drops to 50fps, how can the review say the Intel chips struggle in complex areas? It contradicts itself.
Quote while talking about crysis 3 "surprisingly, this combination of heavy workloads causes momentary stutter that favours Intel. The eight-core overclocked Ryzen dips to 56fps, the 7700K bottoms out at 73fps."
I wouldn't class an overclocked 8 core chip dropping 17fps lower than a 4 core Intel chip a chip that performs better. No one wants sub 60fps and to be bottlenecked by a cpu. I can only imagine the ryzen 3 has bigger dips in performance.
Note the i5 performance here despite the game not being optimised for Ryzen(old game), and that the i7 7700k (4 core, 8 threads) costed more than twice as much as the Ryzen 1600(6 core, 12 threads) in July at time of article.
is it any surprise reviewers are happy with Ryzen?
Also spoiler alert but the Ryzen 3's absolutely wiped the floor with the i3's and pentium and hang with the i5's performance wise. :laughing:
MysticalUndies to MRP
20 Aug 17#32
Again unable to read. That is only average fps and that shows the i7 beating the equally priced ryzen 7, which it did in every game in that review. Minimum is also just as important as it is what causes stutter. I don't want a game dropping below 60 fps which all the ryzen chips did. Amd just can't handle games as well. If your buying for gaming, there isn't one review site that doesn't recommend the i7 over ryzen. And don't go down the old game route, the dx 12 games favour Intel chips too. See here at tom's hardware. Ryzen 7 Ryzen 5 Ryzen 3 Even the i5 here beats all the ryzen 7 flavours in dx12 with the exception of deus x. This review also breaks down the frame variance and timing so you can see how fluid the game would run. I'd have expected ryzen to favour dx12 titles with its vast amount of cores but the figures tell a different story. For example in CIV 6, even though it spawns 45 threads the ryzen chips are almost 10 seconds a turn behind! Many devs are still releasing games with dx11 too.
cigbunt to MysticalUndies
20 Aug 17#35
Sorry your wrong...
I'll just leave this here for you
MysticalUndies to cigbunt
20 Aug 17#38
OK, so you're point is a very simple video is completely right but the more complex analysis of a wider selection of games on Toms hardware is wrong? Maybe it was too difficult to read that much info at once.
cigbunt to MysticalUndies
22 Aug 17#51
What's the date of the review?
KITTYBOTS to MysticalUndies
20 Aug 17#36
You obvious can't read,and Digital Foundry are part of Eurogamer one of the leading gaming websites.
/EG11/resize/600x-1/quality/80/format/jpg However, not everything is as it seems based on the numbers alone. Assassin's Creed Unity posts a lead on the i5, but when studying performance at the per-scene level, i5 is pulling ahead in relatively empty scenes in our benchmark, with Ryzen 5 performing better in areas packed with NPCs. There's the suggestion that the i5 frame-rate average is boosted by big performance gains in less useful, more 'empty' rendering scenes. Similarly, in the Crysis 3 benchmark, the i5 and indeed i7's scores are skewed higher when the viewpoint shifts to similarly sparse scenes.
There are now two great gaming CPU lines available for the core gamer. The overwhelming weight of the data points to Ryzen 5 as the best buy in this market segment, specifically the non-X 1600 model. It's especially compelling against the only two locked i5 chips we'd consider for gaming: the locked Core i5 7500 and 7600. Although it's a touch more expensive, you can overclock any Ryzen chip and you can run them with faster memory, 'luxuries' that are only permitted with the more expensive 7600K and top-tier Intel motherboards. And for its part, the once unassailable unlocked i5 K chip - beloved of gamers for so long - is overwhelmed in more complex gaming workloads by the wider Ryzen 5 six-core processors, while non-gaming tasks see the full weight of those extra cores and threads put to good use.
MysticalUndies to KITTYBOTS
20 Aug 17#37
You didn't read it all either. I said it contradicts itself. They put what you have quoted and then later say the ryzen struggles in more complex scenes bringing its min framerate below 60fps. You just quoted the exact part that had already been quoted earlier and I was contesting. The two contradicting statements don't make sense as how can the Intel scores be skewed if it doesn't drop as low in the complex scenes?
If anything, the Ryzen 1200 was literally *on the floor* losing to the G4560 (half the price) in all the gaming tests, and barely beating it in the generic CPU tests, despite having 2 cores extra.
MRP to Nate1492
21 Aug 17#43
You can overclock the Ryzen 1300 very easily. The stock cooler is decent. The pentium will get left behind with only two cores. From a system builder perspective the Ryzen is a no brainer. This is the bottom Ryzen and prizing is higher than this deal in the review.
From the very same Techpowerup review in their conclusion:
"When you overclock this chip to 1300X-level performance, you'll find that it is suddenly playing in the league of the faster Core i3-7300, which has it take the fight to lower-end Core i5 chips."
"At $80-ish, the Pentium G4560 is the real winner in the low-cost CPU market, but Intel reportedly throttled its supply because it's too good for Core i3 sales. The Ryzen 3 1200 still ends up being a better overall option than the Core i3-7100 at its price for its ability to overclock up to performance levels of pricier chips, its four cores, and a lower price-per-core than the G4560. An integrated graphics solution is sorely missing. AMD had better hurry up with its next-generation APUs based on "Zen.""
GAVINLEWISHUKD to Nate1492
21 Aug 17#46
If it was half the price then it would be a great deal, but sadly it's only about 20% cheaper.
On the other hand considering its as fast as a 7700k when clocked considerably lower it's a fantastic deal! :grin:
Nate1492 to GAVINLEWISHUKD
22 Aug 17#48
Are you deliberately trying to lie or something?
You find a GPU limited benchmark that isn't bottlenecked by ANY processor and claim they are 'the same speed'?
Check all the benches, check the min frames, check the 1920x1080p settings. Some games lose no FPS going from 1080p to 4k, this is clearly showing a CPU bottleneck.
Also, the G4560 can be bought for 59.48 from scan.
Anyway, even considering the current 59.48... That's not 20%, that's 60% cheaper. For faster game FPS and equal CPU tasks.
GAVINLEWISHUKD to Nate1492
22 Aug 17#50
You missed the whole point! There is clearly a mistake in the benchmark and they did not proof read it before publishing it. As fast as a 7700k at 1440p but slower at all other resolutions.
Anyway onto the point.
You can publish any price when you have no stock, now look for retailer's that have stock and it's about £78. Either way if you are only gaming there is not a massive difference between them and when paired with a likely 1050 or 1050ti or even a second hand 970 then you will get what you get.
As I have said before it's not a good time to be a budget rig builder at the moment with the price of DDR4, SSD's and GPU's. So best to either stick with what you have and upgrade or buy second hand.
Nate1492 to GAVINLEWISHUKD
22 Aug 17#52
Ahh, sorry I didn't sense your sarcasm, my bad.
As for the price being higher now, and right now being a bad time to buy, I agree.
But that extends my point, to this 95.99 CPU.
If 78 quid for a CPU that performs *better* is a bad price, how is this just not an awful price?
GAVINLEWISHUKD to Nate1492
22 Aug 17#53
But the [email protected] will beat it in most games and in most productivity tasks. You have to decide if the £18 is worth the extra.
And with the better efficiency, comparatively, you may start to see the value of the ryzen 3 slip away while OC'ing it, versus a stock i3 7300.
Anyway, I just don't see the 1200 being good value!
GAVINLEWISHUKD to Nate1492
23 Aug 17#59
That's the problem getting them in stock at good prices. Missed your price already. Cheapest in stock at this moment is Aria at £66.99+ shipping so over £75.
As I said picking one up at £50 it's a good choice but at the moment with the required ram, SSD ect being so expensive buying either makes little sense.
You are correct in if gaming on today's games an overclocked i3 gives you impressive results. But it's hard to not look forward and drop the extra £40 (or likely less with the mobo saving) on a six core Ryzen which is a lot of extra cores for little extra money.
So I think we can both agree that for once buying low end Intel or AMD in today's market is not the best move. :smile:
Nate1492 to GAVINLEWISHUKD
23 Aug 17#61
Buying low end, if you can find the G4560 for 50-60 quid, is a good purchase.
Once we start talking "future proof" with the 6 core Ryzen chip, we are talking 175 on the CPU and 100 on the Mobo alone.
All this talk about "future proof" CPUs is just crazy, games don't leverage multi core systems very well, so why should we build a budget oriented rig that is not aimed at playing the current offering of games?
You can always sink more money into the CPU later, or put that money towards another future budget build, which may, in the long run, be more cost efficient *and* faster.
GAVINLEWISHUKD to Nate1492
23 Aug 17#63
The Ryzen 6 core was in response to your talk of a i3 7350k. Once you take into account the expensive 'Z' chipset mobo a Ryzen with a B350 will only cost £30 more. Buying 2 cores Vs 6 cores seems a little shortsighted.
If 2 fast cores is all that is needed seems little point bothering spending lots extra on a 7700k. But it seems most people think 4 or more is the best option.
Nate1492 to GAVINLEWISHUKD
23 Aug 17#64
I think you are double dipping on 'OC'ing' a ryzen chip and "cheap mother board" here.
You can't do both with ryzen, find an AM4 board that can OC for a grain of salt for less than 80 quid.
The Z270 boards, sub 100 quid btw, are all rock solid.
Not to mention, you need higher frequency RAM for the Ryzen chipset to compete, otherwise the 'infinity fabric' starts to slow down everything.
I think you'd quickly find the costs of a competent AM4+Ram board to match/surpass the I3+z270 board.
I'd be willing to hear you out if you had actual AM4 (B350) socket boards that OC well and sell for less than 80...
Anyway, there is a point where it turns into an arms race and the suggestion just spirals to 'just buy the i7 7700k+Geforce 1080ti....'
So let's not do that.
I think there are tons of budget options that are good, when they are priced at the right prices. The G4560 at 60 is good. The Ryzen 1200 at 96 quid, is about 30 quid too much. This is virtually the same chip.
GAVINLEWISHUKD to Nate1492
25 Aug 17#66
After a quick 5 mins on pcpartpicker (in stock items)
Do you not think the extra £20 spend is worth it in the long run?
Nate1492 to GAVINLEWISHUKD
27 Aug 17#67
1) You whacked on a 13 quid cooler. Don't pretend the Wraith cooler isn't anything but marketing ploy.
2) That mobo is 30 quid cheaper for a reason, it's not good.
43 quid 'saved' by just choosing cheap parts.
Let's play the reverse game as well.
After 5 minutes on pcpartpicker (in stock items) I5 7600k, MSI z270-A Pro, and 8 gb of ram is 355.85.
Do you not think it's worth 22 quid more?
GAVINLEWISHUKD to Nate1492
27 Aug 17#68
You suggested a i3 7350k not me!
1) Can you find a cheaper cooler that supplies similar kind of cooling? Using your Intel CPU without a cooler wouldn't be a good idea. The AMD cooler is fine for a mild overclock (see reviews). Once you get above a certain level it's not worth spending 20% of your CPU cost on a cooler that supplies you 2-3%. But it's nice that AMD give you the choice unlike Intel.
2) It's cheap because it's an AMD board, but it's a good board. I listed the identical speced z270 board and to quote you "The Z270 boards, sub 100 quid btw, are all rock solid"
See you saved £3 on the mobo. Nice job.
I still really think you should buy a cooler. Seems a waste buying a nice fancy Intel CPU and it shutting down on anything other than the windows page because it's overheating.
But you answered my point the i3 7350k is not a great deal (that you suggested it was) when only £50 more you can get a 7600k.
Nate1492 to GAVINLEWISHUKD
27 Aug 17#69
See, the thing is, you are only replying to the things you want to/can.
I recommended the G4560 at 60 quid, I also suggested its hard not to consider the 7350k at 136 quid.
I also said that I wanted you to show me a sub 80 quid B350 board *that was good at OC'ing*.
You didn't do that, you simply found the cheapest board that looked like it had a z270 equivalent.
Same name, not the same board.
I've taken 5 minutes to read reviews of the B350 board you posted, I wouldn't buy it, I wouldn't recommend it. I saw enough in 5 minutes to know it is more trouble.
I had one line about the 7350k, which you JUMPED really hard on.
@And the I3 7350k at 136 quid... It's hard to not consider the value there.
That's all I said, I didn't even recommend it or suggest it, I said consider it. You may have a CPU cooler already.
Anyway, I will be absolutely clear.
The G4560 is a good buy. The 1200 is not.
You can get a mobo, cpu, ram for 183 quid and that's with the CPU priced at 67 quid, mobo 57, and ram 60.
Since we're not OC'ing the G4560, and getting straight out of the box performance, we don't need to spend the extra on RAM or MOBO and we still get the gaming performance and single threaded application performance.
I've done similar builds with the 1200, and I can't pull myself to get it below 250 quid, unless I choose not to OC it, then that makes the build a waste of space, as a non OC'd 1200 is just crap.
Anyway, all this might be moot when the new set of I3s come out shortly.
MRP
24 Aug 17#65
The amount of gymnastics and misinformation here is just insane. I dont think you are genuine poster.
If you were an Intel fan you would be waiting for Coffee Lake as they are doubling the cores and increasing single core performance. But it seems you are just looking to pad Intel's next quarter.
Kyouken
23 Aug 17#62
Talk about Strawman argument....
Anyway to make the point in pictures see below. See how significant having 4 Real cores (i5) makes.
Anything
less than 4 real cores is a false economy for a gaming machine and less
that that will affect you in some games which have been out for ages; if you
care about stutters.
Kyouken
23 Aug 17#60
I haven't checked prices but I don't think the ryzen 1600 which is the cheapest 6 core + 6 SMT is much less than 190? there isn't a 6 real cores only one yet as far as I know.
the 1200 is a quad core without SMT.
The 1400 is the cheapest 4 + 4 for about 150.
KITTYBOTS
20 Aug 17#40
Another review comparing the Ryzen 5 1600 and the Core i7 7800X this time:
The Ryzen 5 1600 looks pretty solid there. I predict the people telling everyone to buy a Core i5 7600K,will quietly ignore 4C/4T Intel CPUs once Coffee Lake is out. Even Intel considers them to be only worth of Core i3 naming now according to all the leaks.
[QUOTE]Once overclocked, the $215 R5 1600 was just 9% slower than the 7700K, while it matched the $415 7800X. I'm sure you're itching to see what the overall picture looks like so we won't wait any longer.
Just looking at the 7800X and R5 1600, here are the overclocked results when comparing the minimum frame rates. As we just saw, both averaged a minimum of 103fps across the 30 games tested. We can clearly see where the R5 1600 enjoyed some wins and suffered through a few loses. [QUOTE]
That is with a GTX1080TI.
MysticalUndies to KITTYBOTS
21 Aug 17#45
Nice to see the 4 core chip wipe the floor in every benchmark! A review about 6 cores and the 4 core chip wins in every game.
KITTYBOTS to MysticalUndies
21 Aug 17#47
Nice to see that the Ryzen 5 1600 matches a £300+ Core i7 7800X and is not massively behind a £300+ Core i7 7700K. So I assume you won't be bigging up Coffee Lake when it is out as it is 6C too. Also I see a lack of Core i5 7600K.
So you have gone by bigging up the Core i5 7600K,to now a Core i7 7700K. Yet,the latter is £100+ more expensive.
[QUOTE]Once overclocked, the $215 R5 1600 was just 9% slower than the 7700K, while it matched the $415 7800X. I'm sure you're itching to see what the overall picture looks like so we won't wait any longer.
Just looking at the 7800X and R5 1600, here are the overclocked results when comparing the minimum frame rates. As we just saw, both averaged a minimum of 103fps across the 30 games tested. We can clearly see where the R5 1600 enjoyed some wins and suffered through a few loses. [QUOTE]
That is with a GTX1080TI,a £600+ card.
I know you are trying to do your best to justify your own purchases,but with this deal hitting 450C already,you are not really having much effect with your one man army!!
:grin:
MysticalUndies to KITTYBOTS
22 Aug 17#49
I was merely surprised by these results as 6 cores is the sweet spot for dx12 as previous tests have shown, 6 cores clearly beat 4 if the IPC is the same and more than 6 has little to no effect. DX11 however doesn't take advantage of more than 4 so the dx11 results aren't surprising. Unfortunately the two 6 core chips here can't utilise that advantage in any of the dx12 games due to their lower IPC or differing cache setups.
I can't comment on a chip that's not in the review, the i5. I'd have liked to have seen an i5 in their as I'm sure many others would. I wasn't bigging up the i5 earlier, I was pointing out blatant contradictions in that previous review and defended both the i7 and i5. As in one paragraph it stated the Intel chips struggled in complex scenes yet the following paragraph it stated only intel could maintain the fps above 60. The two comments don't make sense and are clearly a contradiction.
With regards to the coffee lake comment, obviously the coffee lake will be faster as it's a kaby lake with slightly faster IPC, 2 extra cores and the same cache setup. They make this 7740x chip in this review a bit pointless.
cigbunt to KITTYBOTS
22 Aug 17#58
he would be better off saying he wants a hackingtosh as well as a high powered pc... and i'd go oh fair enough lol
(even tho you can hackingtosh on ryzen its just easier on intel)
Oneday77
22 Aug 17#57
Well something for a budget system builder to consider.
Buy an Intel setup based on 1151 sockets. Then in a years time buy a new processor. Which probably will still be quite expensive. Especially as Coffee-stain will need a new MB chipset. Buy an AM4 based system. Buy this processor. Clock the danglies off it because you can. Then in 12 months time buy a 6c/12t or 8c/16t processor for probably £150 or less used.
Sandybridge held its prices for ages. A 2600k still does. That doesn't help budget builders. Intel needs a shake and hopefully Ryzen is delivering.
Kyouken
22 Aug 17#55
again the point is if the Intel chips are pushing out high FPS on non demanding scenes they appear better than they are. if they normalised the results and there by weight the complex scenes higher you would get a truer picture.
it's clear that more than 4 threads are needed now and at the moment an additional 4 hyper threads is enough. But the number of threads being used is only going to go up and how long before you need 6 real cores?
cigbunt to Kyouken
22 Aug 17#56
thank you some one who actually read/watched the reviews...
Nail on the head here..."Intel chips are pushing out high FPS on non demanding scenes they appear better than they are"
Kyouken
21 Aug 17#44
if the results are skewed as per my original quote then pointing to other reviews which don't compensate for that are fundamentally flawed.
Hopefully others will also look into it and the reviewers up their game.
MRP
21 Aug 17#41
Some idea of how much value you get out of Ryzen 3 with ooverclocking:
MRP
20 Aug 17#39
You can omit digital foundry. Either way this is the conclusion nearly all websites have reached.
They are not trying to upset Intel or anything. There is minimal talk about their monopoly in the media or about the lack of progression and increasingly higher pricing without competition. They are treading carefully. Intel have undermined their current lineup by themselves anyhow with crazy high pricing, heat issues and pre announcements for Coffee Lake.
Even the 7700k (their absolute best single core performer) is being compared in reviews against the cheapo Ryzen 3's.
These are effectively like buying the current i5(4 cores).
At below £100 that was considered crazy a few months ago and some were recommending the Pentium(dual core, mediocre single core) with a more expensive motherboard.
michaeljb
18 Aug 17#4
Also the asrock b350 motherboard is on offer to for anyone looking for a cheap board to go with it for under 65 squid Linky
cigbunt to michaeljb
20 Aug 17#34
Pay extra £10 get the gigabyte.. has 6 sata and 4 ram slots
Oneday77
20 Aug 17#29
I don't know about anyone else but I'm sick of the Intel monopoly. AMD may not have every corner covered in their come back but Intel must have a bloody nose at least. The thing annoying me the most about Intel is all the socket changes. You get 2 generations of processor per socket if your lucky.
I'm looking to replace my 2500k and will probably get an R7 1700. Until then I'll bide my time, might even play with something like this. Till other AM4 processors come out. At least I can buy a better board and memory now.
Nate1492 to Oneday77
20 Aug 17#30
There isn't an 'intel monopoly' as much as an AMD failure here.
Intel hasn't pushed AMD out of the market, in fact, Intel enabled AMD to exist in the first place.
Intels behaviour has been one of a Monopoly though. Yes AMD have been well off the pace for 10 years. However Intel did not need to do 1156, 1155, 1150 and 1151 sockets in quick succession. The only obvious genuine change would be DDR4 support. I'm sure the Intel boffins could have made compatabilities between the rest. Look how well the 775 platform was supported.
AMD didn't change quite so radically between generations. AM2 was supported in AM2+. Also factoring in the FM2 that supported non-APU processors. You were still left with clear upgrade options for more than 2 years per Motherboard.
In any event the next couple of years should be interesting. Let's hope the consumer wins something from it.
basergorkobal
19 Aug 17#22
How much of an upgrade would this be from an overclocked i5 2600k system? Mostly for gaming and transcoding video.
TehJumpingJawa to basergorkobal
19 Aug 17#23
It wouldn't.
GAVINLEWISHUKD to basergorkobal
19 Aug 17#24
Is that an i5 2500k or an i7 2600k!? Either way with the cost of upgrading the answer is no while mobos and DDR4 is expensive. If it is an i5 2500k then trying to find a cheap secondhand 3770k (if cheap enough) will give you a small uplift.
With DDR prices and mining, being an upgrading PC gamer is not good at the moment.
If you have money burning a hole in your pocket and haven't upgraded anything in the last few years then look at a new monitor.
vulcanproject to basergorkobal
19 Aug 17#27
Wait for Coffee Lake. It'll be a couple months tops, and you'll have a wider choice of parts.
For transcoding a 6 core wouldn't hurt and there will be several intel mainstream 6 cores by then as well as the Ryzen ones. The Intel 6 cores will also probably be gaming beasts and a viable platform for a very long time, much like the longevity of your Sandy Bridge there
michaeljb
18 Aug 17#1
Nice price, im still torn between this or another g4560, the g4560 is enough but that cooler is much sexier on the ryzen and once I factor in an after market cooler for the intel they come out the same price
catbeans to michaeljb
18 Aug 17#2
What about mobo costs? And upgrading to DDR4.
michaeljb to catbeans
18 Aug 17#5
Just linked a mobo above that supports over clocking and is as cheap as any kabylake boards around, it's true ryzen benefits from faster memory, so you would have to factors that in. I happen to already have a 2400 stick so I would just try to oc that instead of buying faster
joe_shmoe to michaeljb
19 Aug 17#25
3000 mhz (the sweet spot) is £3-5 dearer than 2400,depending on 8 or 16 gb. its not an issue.
michaeljb to catbeans
18 Aug 17#6
Don't forget this doesn't have onboard video like the Intel so you would need a gfx card to
Rhythmeister to catbeans
19 Aug 17#15
The lack of DDR3 memory controller is certainly disappointing, I hope it doesn't put too many people off by forcing the move to DDR4 :unamused:
welsh_andy to Rhythmeister
19 Aug 17#26
it should i have ryzen 7 and ram is an utter, well u know what. had nothing but issues with ram even after the latest updates to my x370 strix gaming, samsung b die is way to go, but prices are terrible. hynix its hit and miss, my dark pro 3000 will only run at 2666 without overvolting, :cry: though on upside 2666 is decent sweet spot imo
Noclouds to michaeljb
18 Aug 17#7
I built a few systems for friends and my nephews using the G4560 and G4600 to fit tight budgets and am fond of both, though if building for myself the Ryzen model fits my usage better, when overclocked, as I often have multi programs running while gaming and sometimes render video. The Ryzen Wraith cooler is a bit of a star, as Linus showed in a recent video criticising Intel's steady lowering of the quality of their own cheap and quite noisy (under load) stock cooler. I guess one advantage of going the Ryzen route is AMD have committed to the AM4+ platform for several years to come, making for a cheaper upgrade path if you want to upgrade the CPU at a later date without having to buy a new motherboard, where Intel are talking about yet another platform upgrade, though platform upgrades bring new features, so I am torn on that one.
michaeljb to Noclouds
18 Aug 17#8
I recently built a g4560 rig for the inlaws and was quite impressed with it's price/performance, and this was when you could actually get them for 55 there more like 70 ATM which just makes the ryzen that much more tempting
KonsumerKing
19 Aug 17#20
Cheaper than a new AMD FX8350 !
revolver31
19 Aug 17#17
Overclockers had at this price all along so no biggy, but intel will be overpricing again nothing will change with pricing here as far as they're concerned they've upped the quality of the cpu's no need to drop prices as such there geed will continue to back them into a corner, after the z270 short life span and the yet again ANOTHER new platform you'd think people would get it already they won't change, not until it's to late.
The whole platform is overpriced as was z270, z170 and so on £/$ 300+ motherboards etc, you would have to be silly to buy into intel now even if they do drop a few quid off the cpu's (lol doubtful) the board/chipset prices and limitations are just to much, geez you couldn't even overclock your ram on the b250's a new restriction imposed by intel forcing a z chipset for mem oc and not just those who buy the k cpu's.
just buy am4 and ryzen get all the features btr price and get m.2 & usb etc straight to the cpu.
MRP
19 Aug 17#12
I recall there were people here insisting on the 2 core pentium paired with a rather expensive and dead motherboard platform over the Ryzen. Where are they now?
I guess 'wait for -insert new upcoming intel cpu-' will be the new norm.
michaeljb to MRP
19 Aug 17#14
This years Pentium lineup is quite strong, still wins alot of price to performance tests, hence the inflated prices now but yeah it does look like Intel is ditching the current platform yet again whereas amd have made a 5 year commitment I believe. I certainly wouldn't 'insist' on the Intel, in fact I was planning on picking up a another pentium but the r1200 has now got me thinking. :thinking:
Agharta to michaeljb
19 Aug 17#16
I think the commitment is more like 2 years which means 2 upgrades including the sub 10nm generation which still seems reasonable. In the past it was irrelevant that they kept the same socket as they had rubbish processors and as soon as they release a good one it requires a new socket.
Gordon.Bell
19 Aug 17#13
Reviews have all stated a lot of overclocking head room, even with stock cooler youtube.com/wat…WEg
Ev0lution
18 Aug 17#10
I would not go near a CPU until the Coffee Lake reveal hits on the 21st to see how Intel finally reacts to Ryzen on Price/Performance ratios.
Intel wont get away with rehashing the same CPU year in, year out now and that can only be a good thing for the consumer.
vulcanproject to Ev0lution
19 Aug 17#11
Greatly depends on pricing. If Intel directly swap out the new Coffee Lake models at roughly the same prices of existing Kaby Lake then they will regain the initiative.
For example according to Intel's own slide the i3 7100 (around £100) is replaced by the i3 8100, which should be at least as fast as the current i5 7600- if not even faster.
Thus generally beating a Ryzen 1400 let alone the 1200 here.
BrumGB
18 Aug 17#9
damn, I just watched a Ryzen-Tosh video and it's got me thinking about purchasing this CPU. Shame my experience with osx on anything but apple hardware = driver hell.
![Fresh Breakfast Meat Box (Using code) @ Campbells Meat [Haggis / Lorne Sausage / Bacon / Black Pudding & More]](/images/topics/208684_1.jpg)
![[Xbox One] Q. u. b. e: Director's Cut on Deals with Gold](/images/topics/208716_1.jpg)
Opening post
If you're not going to overclock and particularly if you are using something like a GTX 1060/RX 580 or cheaper budget graphics card, the cost per frame ratio is around the same as the cheaper G4560 and G4600 - see the benchmarks review below - though that's assuming you don't have other processes running while you game, like browsers, music players, or some productivity app rendering in the background, which many of us do but that reviewers often don't seem to have taken account of that in their reviews. If running productivity applications that take advantage of extra cores, the Ryzen 3 1200, overclocked, is decent performer at the cost, though not a significant improvement on Intel i5 CPUs of old; I'm hoping the Ryzen 3 1200 drives down the secondhand price of Intel i5s, to give the beleaguered budget system builders a break, to offset the increased cost of midrange graphics cards thanks to mining, higher memory costs, HD costs, soon-to-be higher SSD costs, apparently, etc.
I'm sharing yesterday's Hardware Unboxed review of the CPU overclocked because it benchmarks not just multiple CPUs but with three different price-point graphics cards, which to me seems much more realistic than reviews testing using only top end graphics cards, which reviewers argue is to remove any bottleknecking from the graphics card and to show the CPUs at their best.
Latest comments (69)
eurogamer.net/art…iew
However, not everything is as it seems based on the numbers alone. Assassin's Creed Unity posts a lead on the i5, but when studying performance at the per-scene level, i5 is pulling ahead in relatively empty scenes in our benchmark, with Ryzen 5 performing better in areas packed with NPCs. There's the suggestion that the i5 frame-rate average is boosted by big performance gains in less useful, more 'empty' rendering scenes. Similarly, in the Crysis 3 benchmark, the i5 and indeed i7's scores are skewed higher when the viewpoint shifts to similarly sparse scenes.
Any review that doesn't measure that I can't take seriously.
Reviewers did straight up make it very clear it was a bad idea to buy an intel CPU in practice. For many reasons!
The more we learnt over the months the better understanding of what was occurring and each subsequent Ryzen release was more positive. Though even the Ryzen 7 had a very positive reception.
From the looks of it Intel arent replying to the higher end Ryzen. They are more worried about the lower end high margin chips. The day of dual core cpu are now finished.
When a cpu maintains a framerate above 73fps the entire time yet the 8 core ryzen 5 drops to 50fps, how can the review say the Intel chips struggle in complex areas? It contradicts itself.
Quote while talking about crysis 3 "surprisingly, this combination of heavy workloads causes momentary stutter that favours Intel. The eight-core overclocked Ryzen dips to 56fps, the 7700K bottoms out at 73fps."
I wouldn't class an overclocked 8 core chip dropping 17fps lower than a 4 core Intel chip a chip that performs better. No one wants sub 60fps and to be bottlenecked by a cpu. I can only imagine the ryzen 3 has bigger dips in performance.
Crysis 3, Very High
Ryzen 5 1600 124.9
Ryzen 5 1600X 130.9
Ryzen 7 1700 126.7
Core i5 7600K 99.4
Core i7 7700K 138.2
Note the i5 performance here despite the game not being optimised for Ryzen(old game), and that the i7 7700k (4 core, 8 threads) costed more than twice as much as the Ryzen 1600(6 core, 12 threads) in July at time of article.
is it any surprise reviewers are happy with Ryzen?
Also spoiler alert but the Ryzen 3's absolutely wiped the floor with the i3's and pentium and hang with the i5's performance wise. :laughing:
See here at tom's hardware.
Ryzen 7
Ryzen 5
Ryzen 3
Even the i5 here beats all the ryzen 7 flavours in dx12 with the exception of deus x. This review also breaks down the frame variance and timing so you can see how fluid the game would run.
I'd have expected ryzen to favour dx12 titles with its vast amount of cores but the figures tell a different story. For example in CIV 6, even though it spawns 45 threads the ryzen chips are almost 10 seconds a turn behind!
Many devs are still releasing games with dx11 too.
I'll just leave this here for you
eurogamer.net/art…iew
However, not everything is as it seems based on the numbers alone. Assassin's Creed Unity posts a lead on the i5, but when studying performance at the per-scene level, i5 is pulling ahead in relatively empty scenes in our benchmark, with Ryzen 5 performing better in areas packed with NPCs. There's the suggestion that the i5 frame-rate average is boosted by big performance gains in less useful, more 'empty' rendering scenes. Similarly, in the Crysis 3 benchmark, the i5 and indeed i7's scores are skewed higher when the viewpoint shifts to similarly sparse scenes.
There are now two great gaming CPU lines available for the core gamer. The overwhelming weight of the data points to Ryzen 5 as the best buy in this market segment, specifically the non-X 1600 model. It's especially compelling against the only two locked i5 chips we'd consider for gaming: the locked Core i5 7500 and 7600. Although it's a touch more expensive, you can overclock any Ryzen chip and you can run them with faster memory, 'luxuries' that are only permitted with the more expensive 7600K and top-tier Intel motherboards. And for its part, the once unassailable unlocked i5 K chip - beloved of gamers for so long - is overwhelmed in more complex gaming workloads by the wider Ryzen 5 six-core processors, while non-gaming tasks see the full weight of those extra cores and threads put to good use.
The Ryzen 1200/1300x didn't wipe any floor.
techpowerup.com/rev…tml
If anything, the Ryzen 1200 was literally *on the floor* losing to the G4560 (half the price) in all the gaming tests, and barely beating it in the generic CPU tests, despite having 2 cores extra.
From the very same Techpowerup review in their conclusion:
"When you overclock this chip to 1300X-level performance, you'll find that it is suddenly playing in the league of the faster Core i3-7300, which has it take the fight to lower-end Core i5 chips."
"At $80-ish, the Pentium G4560 is the real winner in the low-cost CPU market, but Intel reportedly throttled its supply because it's too good for Core i3 sales. The Ryzen 3 1200 still ends up being a better overall option than the Core i3-7100 at its price for its ability to overclock up to performance levels of pricier chips, its four cores, and a lower price-per-core than the G4560. An integrated graphics solution is sorely missing. AMD had better hurry up with its next-generation APUs based on "Zen.""
On the other hand considering its as fast as a 7700k when clocked considerably lower it's a fantastic deal! :grin:
You find a GPU limited benchmark that isn't bottlenecked by ANY processor and claim they are 'the same speed'?
Check all the benches, check the min frames, check the 1920x1080p settings.
Some games lose no FPS going from 1080p to 4k, this is clearly showing a CPU bottleneck.
Also, the G4560 can be bought for 59.48 from scan.
scan.co.uk/pro…box
Or wait for the sales we've seen go to sub 50.
uk.camelcamelcamel.com/Int…rch
Anyway, even considering the current 59.48... That's not 20%, that's 60% cheaper. For faster game FPS and equal CPU tasks.
Anyway onto the point.
You can publish any price when you have no stock, now look for retailer's that have stock and it's about £78. Either way if you are only gaming there is not a massive difference between them and when paired with a likely 1050 or 1050ti or even a second hand 970 then you will get what you get.
As I have said before it's not a good time to be a budget rig builder at the moment with the price of DDR4, SSD's and GPU's. So best to either stick with what you have and upgrade or buy second hand.
As for the price being higher now, and right now being a bad time to buy, I agree.
But that extends my point, to this 95.99 CPU.
If 78 quid for a CPU that performs *better* is a bad price, how is this just not an awful price?
pricespy.co.uk/pro…810
I can see options for in stock, 59.99...
Anyway, wait a week if you must, you can frequently get this processor for 50-60 quid, it really isn't a point of contention.
35-45 quid is huge at the bargain end.
Anyway, yes, a well OC'd 1200 does improve it, but you're bumping into the price ranges of the higher i3 lineups.
the I3 7100, i3 7300 for non OC folk are around the same price (97 and 126).
And the I3 7350k at 136 quid... It's hard to not consider the value there.
pricespy.co.uk/pro…649
hothardware.com/rev…e=4
And with the better efficiency, comparatively, you may start to see the value of the ryzen 3 slip away while OC'ing it, versus a stock i3 7300.
Anyway, I just don't see the 1200 being good value!
As I said picking one up at £50 it's a good choice but at the moment with the required ram, SSD ect being so expensive buying either makes little sense.
You are correct in if gaming on today's games an overclocked i3 gives you impressive results. But it's hard to not look forward and drop the extra £40 (or likely less with the mobo saving) on a six core Ryzen which is a lot of extra cores for little extra money.
So I think we can both agree that for once buying low end Intel or AMD in today's market is not the best move. :smile:
uk.pcpartpicker.com/b/n…Zxr
Something like that.
You can spend under 300 quid total on the system.
Once we start talking "future proof" with the 6 core Ryzen chip, we are talking 175 on the CPU and 100 on the Mobo alone.
All this talk about "future proof" CPUs is just crazy, games don't leverage multi core systems very well, so why should we build a budget oriented rig that is not aimed at playing the current offering of games?
You can always sink more money into the CPU later, or put that money towards another future budget build, which may, in the long run, be more cost efficient *and* faster.
If 2 fast cores is all that is needed seems little point bothering spending lots extra on a 7700k. But it seems most people think 4 or more is the best option.
You can't do both with ryzen, find an AM4 board that can OC for a grain of salt for less than 80 quid.
The Z270 boards, sub 100 quid btw, are all rock solid.
Not to mention, you need higher frequency RAM for the Ryzen chipset to compete, otherwise the 'infinity fabric' starts to slow down everything.
I think you'd quickly find the costs of a competent AM4+Ram board to match/surpass the I3+z270 board.
I'd be willing to hear you out if you had actual AM4 (B350) socket boards that OC well and sell for less than 80...
Anyway, there is a point where it turns into an arms race and the suggestion just spirals to 'just buy the i7 7700k+Geforce 1080ti....'
So let's not do that.
I think there are tons of budget options that are good, when they are priced at the right prices. The G4560 at 60 is good. The Ryzen 1200 at 96 quid, is about 30 quid too much. This is virtually the same chip.
Ryzen 1600, Asrock AB350M Pro4, Corsair 2x4Gb 3000 MHz = £332
i3 7350k, Asrock z270 Pro4, Hyper T2 (cheap £13 cooler), 8Gb of the cheapest Ram = £312
Do you not think the extra £20 spend is worth it in the long run?
2) That mobo is 30 quid cheaper for a reason, it's not good.
43 quid 'saved' by just choosing cheap parts.
Let's play the reverse game as well.
After 5 minutes on pcpartpicker (in stock items) I5 7600k, MSI z270-A Pro, and 8 gb of ram is 355.85.
Do you not think it's worth 22 quid more?
1) Can you find a cheaper cooler that supplies similar kind of cooling? Using your Intel CPU without a cooler wouldn't be a good idea. The AMD cooler is fine for a mild overclock (see reviews). Once you get above a certain level it's not worth spending 20% of your CPU cost on a cooler that supplies you 2-3%. But it's nice that AMD give you the choice unlike Intel.
2) It's cheap because it's an AMD board, but it's a good board. I listed the identical speced z270 board and to quote you "The Z270 boards, sub 100 quid btw, are all rock solid"
See you saved £3 on the mobo. Nice job.
I still really think you should buy a cooler. Seems a waste buying a nice fancy Intel CPU and it shutting down on anything other than the windows page because it's overheating.
But you answered my point the i3 7350k is not a great deal (that you suggested it was) when only £50 more you can get a 7600k.
I recommended the G4560 at 60 quid, I also suggested its hard not to consider the 7350k at 136 quid.
I also said that I wanted you to show me a sub 80 quid B350 board *that was good at OC'ing*.
You didn't do that, you simply found the cheapest board that looked like it had a z270 equivalent.
Same name, not the same board.
I've taken 5 minutes to read reviews of the B350 board you posted, I wouldn't buy it, I wouldn't recommend it. I saw enough in 5 minutes to know it is more trouble.
I had one line about the 7350k, which you JUMPED really hard on.
@And the I3 7350k at 136 quid... It's hard to not consider the value there.
That's all I said, I didn't even recommend it or suggest it, I said consider it. You may have a CPU cooler already.
Anyway, I will be absolutely clear.
The G4560 is a good buy. The 1200 is not.
You can get a mobo, cpu, ram for 183 quid and that's with the CPU priced at 67 quid, mobo 57, and ram 60.
Since we're not OC'ing the G4560, and getting straight out of the box performance, we don't need to spend the extra on RAM or MOBO and we still get the gaming performance and single threaded application performance.
I've done similar builds with the 1200, and I can't pull myself to get it below 250 quid, unless I choose not to OC it, then that makes the build a waste of space, as a non OC'd 1200 is just crap.
Anyway, all this might be moot when the new set of I3s come out shortly.
If you were an Intel fan you would be waiting for Coffee Lake as they are doubling the cores and increasing single core performance. But it seems you are just looking to pad Intel's next quarter.
Anyway to make the point in pictures see below. See how significant having 4 Real cores (i5) makes.
img.purch.com/r/6…w==
Anything less than 4 real cores is a false economy for a gaming machine and less that that will affect you in some games which have been out for ages; if you care about stutters.
the 1200 is a quad core without SMT.
The 1400 is the cheapest 4 + 4 for about 150.
techspot.com/rev…re/
The Ryzen 5 1600 looks pretty solid there. I predict the people telling everyone to buy a Core i5 7600K,will quietly ignore 4C/4T Intel CPUs once Coffee Lake is out. Even Intel considers them to be only worth of Core i3 naming now according to all the leaks.
[QUOTE]Once overclocked, the $215 R5 1600 was just 9% slower than the 7700K, while it matched the $415 7800X. I'm sure you're itching to see what the overall picture looks like so we won't wait any longer.
Just looking at the 7800X and R5 1600, here are the overclocked results when comparing the minimum frame rates. As we just saw, both averaged a minimum of 103fps across the 30 games tested. We can clearly see where the R5 1600 enjoyed some wins and suffered through a few loses.
[QUOTE]
That is with a GTX1080TI.
So you have gone by bigging up the Core i5 7600K,to now a Core i7 7700K. Yet,the latter is £100+ more expensive.
[QUOTE]Once overclocked, the $215 R5 1600 was just 9% slower than the 7700K, while it matched the $415 7800X. I'm sure you're itching to see what the overall picture looks like so we won't wait any longer.
Just looking at the 7800X and R5 1600, here are the overclocked results when comparing the minimum frame rates. As we just saw, both averaged a minimum of 103fps across the 30 games tested. We can clearly see where the R5 1600 enjoyed some wins and suffered through a few loses.
[QUOTE]
That is with a GTX1080TI,a £600+ card.
I know you are trying to do your best to justify your own purchases,but with this deal hitting 450C already,you are not really having much effect with your one man army!!
:grin:
I can't comment on a chip that's not in the review, the i5. I'd have liked to have seen an i5 in their as I'm sure many others would. I wasn't bigging up the i5 earlier, I was pointing out blatant contradictions in that previous review and defended both the i7 and i5. As in one paragraph it stated the Intel chips struggled in complex scenes yet the following paragraph it stated only intel could maintain the fps above 60. The two comments don't make sense and are clearly a contradiction.
With regards to the coffee lake comment, obviously the coffee lake will be faster as it's a kaby lake with slightly faster IPC, 2 extra cores and the same cache setup. They make this 7740x chip in this review a bit pointless.
(even tho you can hackingtosh on ryzen its just easier on intel)
Buy an Intel setup based on 1151 sockets. Then in a years time buy a new processor. Which probably will still be quite expensive. Especially as Coffee-stain will need a new MB chipset.
Buy an AM4 based system. Buy this processor. Clock the danglies off it because you can. Then in 12 months time buy a 6c/12t or 8c/16t processor for probably £150 or less used.
Sandybridge held its prices for ages. A 2600k still does. That doesn't help budget builders. Intel needs a shake and hopefully Ryzen is delivering.
it's clear that more than 4 threads are needed now and at the moment an additional 4 hyper threads is enough. But the number of threads being used is only going to go up and how long before you need 6 real cores?
Nail on the head here..."Intel chips are pushing out high FPS on non demanding scenes they appear better than they are"
Hopefully others will also look into it and the reviewers up their game.
They are not trying to upset Intel or anything. There is minimal talk about their monopoly in the media or about the lack of progression and increasingly higher pricing without competition. They are treading carefully. Intel have undermined their current lineup by themselves anyhow with crazy high pricing, heat issues and pre announcements for Coffee Lake.
Even the 7700k (their absolute best single core performer) is being compared in reviews against the cheapo Ryzen 3's.
These are effectively like buying the current i5(4 cores).
At below £100 that was considered crazy a few months ago and some were recommending the Pentium(dual core, mediocre single core) with a more expensive motherboard.
Linky
The thing annoying me the most about Intel is all the socket changes. You get 2 generations of processor per socket if your lucky.
I'm looking to replace my 2500k and will probably get an R7 1700. Until then I'll bide my time, might even play with something like this. Till other AM4 processors come out. At least I can buy a better board and memory now.
Intel hasn't pushed AMD out of the market, in fact, Intel enabled AMD to exist in the first place.
en.wikipedia.org/wik…ces
Also, AMD change sockets just as frequently as Intel, if not worse.
Take a peak.
en.wikipedia.org/wik…ket
Look how well the 775 platform was supported.
AMD didn't change quite so radically between generations. AM2 was supported in AM2+. Also factoring in the FM2 that supported non-APU processors. You were still left with clear upgrade options for more than 2 years per Motherboard.
In any event the next couple of years should be interesting. Let's hope the consumer wins something from it.
Mostly for gaming and transcoding video.
Either way with the cost of upgrading the answer is no while mobos and DDR4 is expensive.
If it is an i5 2500k then trying to find a cheap secondhand 3770k (if cheap enough) will give you a small uplift.
With DDR prices and mining, being an upgrading PC gamer is not good at the moment.
If you have money burning a hole in your pocket and haven't upgraded anything in the last few years then look at a new monitor.
For transcoding a 6 core wouldn't hurt and there will be several intel mainstream 6 cores by then as well as the Ryzen ones. The Intel 6 cores will also probably be gaming beasts and a viable platform for a very long time, much like the longevity of your Sandy Bridge there
The whole platform is overpriced as was z270, z170 and so on £/$ 300+ motherboards etc, you would have to be silly to buy into intel now even if they do drop a few quid off the cpu's (lol doubtful) the board/chipset prices and limitations are just to much, geez you couldn't even overclock your ram on the b250's a new restriction imposed by intel forcing a z chipset for mem oc and not just those who buy the k cpu's.
just buy am4 and ryzen get all the features btr price and get m.2 & usb etc straight to the cpu.
I guess 'wait for -insert new upcoming intel cpu-' will be the new norm.
In the past it was irrelevant that they kept the same socket as they had rubbish processors and as soon as they release a good one it requires a new socket.
youtube.com/wat…WEg
Intel wont get away with rehashing the same CPU year in, year out now and that can only be a good thing for the consumer.
For example according to Intel's own slide the i3 7100 (around £100) is replaced by the i3 8100, which should be at least as fast as the current i5 7600- if not even faster.
Thus generally beating a Ryzen 1400 let alone the 1200 here.