Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonojordan
Its the same battle it has always been. Do you like to game? Go intel as it performs better in just about every single game. Do you do alot of multi thread application work? Go amd it has more cores and does that sort of thing 10x better then intel does for the money.
AMD used to always tote the our chip is cheaper then even the latest version of intel I5. This is no longer the case. The skylake I7 can be found for cheaper in many places then even the low end version of ryzen chips
Not alot of actual benchmarks out there to show the exact differences. Pcworld did a test of current games between a 2 gen old broadwell I5 vs the cheapest ryzen chip. The I5 went toe to toe with the ryzen on every game trading blows of being 5fps higher to 5fps lower depending on the game.
Before skylake came out I was a huge AMD guy. The skylake chip is the 1st intel chip I have owned and wanted to hate it but in the end couldn't because of how solid they are and how much cooler it ran then any amd chip I ever owned.
|
Well I do a bunch of other work outside of gaming, hence my decision to go X99 and Haswell-E last time I upgraded my system. most games don't utlize more than 4 threads currently as it sits because Intel has more or less dominated the space since Ivy Bridge got released years ago. Intel has kept CPUs with more than 4 cores out of the hands of the majority of people and it definitely has slowed the progress of performance. Comparing MSRP to MSRP the R7 1700 is still $20 cheaper than the i7 7700K. That said the 7700K is of course going to demolish it in games. It has a much higher clock frequency, and since it is a quad core with SMT it won't run into a bottleneck when it comes to threading.
Back when the FX 8300 series came out, it consistently benchmarked about 15% lower than a comparable Intel CPU in the price range which was the great 2600K. But look at benchmarks that are from this year that include both the FX8300 series and the 2600K(There are a bunch out there as alot of sites were going that far back to scale Ryzen's performance) The FX8300 CPUs actually bench higher than the 2600K now, as back then most games were hard pressed to support dual core or rarely quad core back then. As games have progressed with newer APIs making scaling easier games have been able to utilize the resources better.
What I think alot of people are forgetting, is to get an 8 core 16 thread Intel part that doesn't even work remotely as well in workstation tasks, you are talking a MINIMUM price of a little under $1100. Even that CPU loses to a 7700K in gaming. All AMD has done is brought the price point down to a level where your average PC enthusiast can afford a chip with that kind of raw power and hopefully forces Intel to actually do something about their insane prices. The R5 and R3 CPUs are going to be the competition for the i5 and i7 consumer CPUs(4C/8T for sub $200, and 6C/12T for around $250).
I'm on a roughly 2 year upgrade cycle with my machine. I am not brand agnostic at all, I switch to whoever is going to give me the best bang for the buck both currently and in the future. I can almost guarantee you an 8 core 16 thread CPU is going to outlast a 4 core 8 thread CPU in the coming years. I had a 4C/4T(Kentsfield) when 2C/2T were really the "mainstream", got a 4C/8T as soon as they were available(Nehalem anyone?), upgraded to a 6C/12T as soon as I could, and will be going 8C/16T soon.
TL;DR - Ryzen is a fantastic workstation CPU that does a good job gaming with current titles but can potentially get better over time. Consumer i7/i5 is an adequate workstation CPU that excels in gaming but may potentially get worse as games and APIs progress to support better scaling.