Interesting, what overclock are you running on your i5?Judging by the simulated benchmarks, I really can't see this being a better value than an i5 for me, unfortunately. I wish it did.
R5 will compete with both i5-7400@3/3.5 GHz and i5-7600K @ 4.8GHz. It will probably be better choice than the first one.
huh? It's a far far far better choice than either. It's not even close...R5 will compete with both i5-7400@3/3.5 GHz and i5-7600K @ 4.8GHz. It will probably be better choice than the first one.
Interesting, what overclock are you running on your i5?
there is no more athlon? what will amd do in the sub $100 market besides the existing fx?
Also, the future APUs (Raven Ridge) could fill the role for cheap $100 high IPC 2C/4T or 4C/8T processorsthere is no more athlon? what will amd do in the sub $100 market besides the existing fx?
What is it's price to performance looking like now?Price of FX-8300 is 89,99 on Amazon. But I think it shall be 70 USD to end all the stock they have. They produced a lot of this crap due to their WSA.
Nothing. I'm comparing the benchmarks I've seen for i5 against the simulated benchmarks I've seen for R5.
The I must confess I fail to understand your reasoning: you draw your conclusion from benchmarks with overclocked CPUs, yet your needs are clearly in another tier.I never multitask on PC. One program at a time, on 1080p at 60 FPS.
What is it's price to performance looking like now?
The I must confess I fail to understand your reasoning: you draw your conclusion from benchmarks with overclocked CPUs, yet your needs are clearly in another tier.
How exactly did you establish the R5 would offer less value to you, considering that right now the simulation shows it being able to surpass by wide margins the 60 FPS limit in modern games, while presumably costing less than what the competition is offering?
If you intend to buy 7600K + Z270 then sure, these benchmarks tell the whole story and it's up to you to compare prices, but if you intend to buy i5 7500 / i5 7600 + H chipset, you're in for quite a nasty surprise. Cost will drop significantly, but performance will also follow: with combined CPU and RAM drops in frequency, expect a 15-25% performance drop.
Yes, I was thinking about the i5 7600K vs the R5 1600X. Do you think the current Ryzen 5 lineup will hold up in future RTS/Simulation and other ST-heavy genres of games compared to the i5?
Personally I believe a 6c/12t CPU will offer better performance in the future, but as it stands now - especially until we learn more about how ZEN inter-CCX comm works and how it may influence future performance - my recommendation would be to choose whatever your use case requires, with emphasis on price. Just build with fast RAM in mind (DDR4 3000+), no matter the CPU vendor.Yes, I was thinking about the i5 7600K vs the R5 1600X. Do you think the current Ryzen 5 lineup will hold up in future RTS/Simulation and other ST-heavy genres of games compared to the i5?
You stay on that 7500 and upgrade after the next cycle the earliest. If you have a really big itch to build a new system, make sure you sell yours for a good price first. Beware prices are slowly rising overall.I've the same question too.
Personally I believe a 6c/12t CPU will offer better performance in the future, but as it stands now - especially until we learn more about how ZEN inter-CCX comm works and how it may influence future performance - my recommendation would be to choose whatever your use case requires, with emphasis on price. Just build with fast RAM in mind (DDR4 3000+), no matter the CPU vendor.
So, when the R5 SKUs launch, check reviews for the games you play more, and compare builds (price for entire build especially). If the R5 is close in performance and costs less, go with that, since the CPU likely has room for more utilization. If the oc 7600K is well ahead - on both AVG and MIN values, go with that.
You stay on that 7500 and upgrade after the next cycle the earliest. If you have a really big itch to build a new system, make sure you sell yours for a good price first. Beware prices are slowly rising overall.
What video card are you pairing that CPU up with, and what frame rates (roughly) are you getting with AAA games? Do you find that combo to be "enough" for gaming?My 7600 non K hits 3.9GHz all 4 cores out of the box without overclocking or touching anything, and hits 4.0GHz+ with 2 cores or less. All in a 65w package. Will R5 beat that? Nope.
What video card are you pairing that CPU up with, and what frame rates (roughly) are you getting with AAA games? Do you find that combo to be "enough" for gaming?
I built a rig with an ASRock B150 K4/Hyper motherboard, with the "Hyper BCLK Adjust" feature for Skylake CPUs, and paired that up with an i5-6400 (2.7Ghz stock), and overclocked it above 4.2Ghz. Also have 16GB of DDR4-2400, and a 120GB SSD, and an RX 460 4GB Nitro in there currently.
Anyways, I just had a friend drop in on Skype that I hadn't spoken to in a while, and now he's interested in buying it.
Just wondering, if that rig is going to be good for him. I assume that he wants to play AAA games with it, and Tekken 7 PC, possibly. (What I was going to use the rig for, before I found out I potentially had a buyer for it.)
I told him that if he got me a $300 deposit on Paypal, I'd get him an RX 470 4GB card, but he said he'll keep the current card (4GB RX 460) for now. I don't know if the current card will really cut it that well for 1080P, at least not 60FPS on High. Maybe Low/Med.
I think I'll advise him to get a 1070 if he really wants good frames at 1080P60.
The so called "backlash" is probably a reaction to the hype and attempts by a few AMD fans in these forums to promote the 1800 as the best gaming cpu, but whatever. It wont change my opinion, but it never was my opinion that Zen was a "fail" for gaming, just not the best choice at the current time. The big question is, I think, if the quad and hex cores overclock better than the 8 cores, but I am not expecting it too, since it appears the more expensive cpus are better binned than the cheaper ones. I probably would pick it over a 4/4 kaby lake, but it would depend on the budget if I would pick it over a 7700k.
well, it isn't like ipc has been going up anywhere substantial for the past half decade. in fact, I am pretty sure you can still handle most computing task on high end core2 quad and phenom II perfectly fine. I am planning to keep using my fx for two more years and then OC the hell out of it for extra performance until the OC shortens its life span enough that it finally dies, forcing me to upgrade.It is not as good as G4560 for gaming. If they discount it for another 15 USD then it will be an exceptional value. But... With this price. It is better to have your G4560 for 62 USD. Bulldozer cores are all crap. They are the crappiest silicons this industry has ever seen. This crap is worse than AMD K10 in terms of IPC. Can you think about this? It is worse than the 2007 architecture... Maybe I was bit high on price. These crap can only be an exceptional value if they sell this+stock fan for 69,99 USD.
Edit: No it is the equivalent of Conroe from 2006. Also it is comparable with K8 from 2005. A BIG LOL. WE ARE AT 2017! Only products it beats significantly IPCwise from 2000's is Pentium 4.
Nope, a CNPS5x, actually. Rather diminutive cooler for the task. It hits like 85-86C under OCCT load though, which is a lot.Larry did you use water cooling at all?
Yeah, Skylake is a fairly decent OCer.I didnt realize how good Skylake was for overclocking.....I know folks OC the Skylake Xeon CPUs...but getting an i5-6400 to 4+ GHz is nice !
Well, maybe. I know that the RX 470 4GB is suggested by the G4560 build / benchmark videos. I don't doubt that, but one DigitalFoundry YouTube showed that you could still get better framerates on an RX 470 with an i5 or even an i7. It's not maxed out with a G4560. At least, not in all games.Also, from everything I've read, the RX 470 is best matched by a G4560 CPU. Conversely, in your case, that OCed i5 6400 is not the bottleneck, and perhaps needs atleast an RX 480 to pair up and balance better.... The 1070 would be fab, of course.
What video card are you pairing that CPU up with, and what frame rates (roughly) are you getting with AAA games? Do you find that combo to be "enough" for gaming?
I built a rig with an ASRock B150 K4/Hyper motherboard, with the "Hyper BCLK Adjust" feature for Skylake CPUs, and paired that up with an i5-6400 (2.7Ghz stock), and overclocked it above 4.2Ghz. Also have 16GB of DDR4-2400, and a 120GB SSD, and an RX 460 4GB Nitro in there currently.
Anyways, I just had a friend drop in on Skype that I hadn't spoken to in a while, and now he's interested in buying it.
Just wondering, if that rig is going to be good for him. I assume that he wants to play AAA games with it, and Tekken 7 PC, possibly. (What I was going to use the rig for, before I found out I potentially had a buyer for it.)
I told him that if he got me a $300 deposit on Paypal, I'd get him an RX 470 4GB card, but he said he'll keep the current card (4GB RX 460) for now. I don't know if the current card will really cut it that well for 1080P, at least not 60FPS on High. Maybe Low/Med.
I think I'll advise him to get a 1070 if he really wants good frames at 1080P60.
I'm playing Andromeda on the i5 7500 + RX 480 4GB. Pretty good at 1080p/60 to 75 (I've a freesync monitor too, so that helps)1070 Strix OC which boosts to 2GHz easily out of box. Will see how Andromeda fares.
I'm playing Andromeda on the i5 7500 + RX 480 4GB. Pretty good at 1080p/60 to 75 (I've a freesync monitor too, so that helps)
The 1070 OC would be really niaaaace.
Are all 2016 and newer games using full 4 cores, and potentially more? I've seen BF1 as the main one that'd directly "potentially" benefit from Ryzen 5's more cores.
Regards,
Vishnu