Overclock.net banner

Ryzen vs Intel (not just gaming)

4K views 31 replies 13 participants last post by  noobee 
#1 ·
I have some questions.... Everyone is comparing Ryzen (AMD AM4) with Intel (mostly Kaby Lake). Some reviewers are saying that many of the Ryzen chips are beating Intel but particularly the Broadwell generation. Although, when you compare the prices, the Ryzen is doing well vs Intel, too and when you compare cores - Intel Kaby Lake is outperforming it based on that - but only by a small margin?

But, what about the extra cores/threads comparisons and not just gaming but the impact or effect of the extra cores/threads that Ryzen has in some comparisons to Intel (Kaby Lake)?

If you want something that is all-purpose and the extra threads/cores come in handy, is Amd Ryzen the better choice in a future upgrade?

I am looking at an upgrade / new build down the road.... hopefully late spring, early summer. By then, we should know about Ryzen 5 (and 3?) sufficiently and whether it's a good buy.

I am interested in the power/ temperatures of these processors/systems as I think any of them would be suitable for gaming - for me, anyway.

Is there any good estimates/guesses of what these temps/power consumption might be for the Ryzen 5 chips? What's the temps for the Ryzen 7 1700? Compared to Kaby Lake chips?

I want something for everything - video editing, tons of tabs open, using programs like photoshop, gimp etc. etc.... so, the extra threads (cores, too?) would be of a particular benefit, right?

I think a 65 watt chip would be ideal (or no more than 65). So, I'd be comparing the Ryzen 5 1500X and 1600 with Intel Kaby Lake i5-7400 - 7600?
 
See less See more
#3 ·
Just be clear, Ryzen 3 is slotted to be used for the APUs primarily. I'm betting there will be a 4-core only CPU version, but I doubt it'd be worth grabbing since the Ryzen 5 1400 is clearly the best purchase for the masses.
tongue.gif


The greater number of cores and lower power usage would definitely benefit you over the barely-higher IPC performance from the relatively priced i5 lineup. There's no real reason to bother going for an i5 anymore with Ryzen right around the corner.
 
#4 ·
You have to consider many issues:
  • do you have high/low budget? If your budget is low, you will be probably more than happy to use Ryzen as it will cost less. If you have higher budget, you may be tempted to buy the most expensive Intel motherboard/cpu/ram and end up spending more.
  • do you need 8 cores now or its more a reserve for the future?
  • do you prefer fast 1-4 thread performance or multi thread performance?
  • do you want to use very fast memory (DDR4 3600-4000) or are happy with DDR4 2400-3200 with Ryzen?
  • how much RAM do you need? Ryzen seems to suffer from lower memory performance when all 4 slots are filled. It cannot maintain high frequencies. Very few motherboard + ram combinations seem to be capable of running 4x DDR4 3200. Also happens when double ranked memory is used.
  • do you have time to wait for further Ryzen revisions which will fix discovered issues? (FMA3 bug, possibly faster memory access)
I considered whether to go with Ryzen or Core i7 7700K and decided that for my usage i7 7700K will be more than sufficient even though more expensive. I really wanted to support AMD and buy Ryzen, but I can't wait 3-6 months for things to stabilize.

The problem with Ryzen per CCX cache (8MB for each cluster) and subsequent need to patch Windows scheduler is more serious than people think. In practice threads may get started/stopped. Kernel cannot predict on which CCX thread should be started to use CCX cache efficiently. Or there may be a fixed thread pool and work may be handed over to threads (different kind of work, not dependant on thread id). In this case Kernel also cannot do anything about this and work may end up on wrong CCX. This problem will sadly affect also 4 core Ryzens as they will be 2x2.
 
#5 ·
Did Intel have as many issues? I read that Ryzen is considered 1st generation and Kaby Lake is 7th. Is that accurate?

I want to use virtualization so VMWare and Virtualbox but I don't know if my choice has to depend on that. 8 cores would be nice but do I need it? I was told to save up for the cpu I want instead of getting a budget cpu and then upgrading.

I think I'd invest in at least 3000 DDR4 Memory min. since I read that Ryzen performs better with faster RAM. Intel/Kaby Lake will be fine with faster RAM but I might need a decent Z270 mobo? I thought of going ATX or mATX so I can have the option of 4 memory slots. Surely, AMD will iron out the wrinkles allowing that? I would like to choose AMD like you said and can probably wait but the issues sound like a large number so what's the probability of them getting solved? Intel sounds more expensive and you get less cores but more stable and less headaches?
 
#6 ·
When using Ryzen for virtualization one will quickly run into memory limit. For virtualization you may want at least 32GB RAM with option to 64GB in the future. Very problematic with current AMD boards and 1st gen Ryzen to run that at decent speeds. You also probably want to run multiple SSDs in such case (at least 2). So you need board with 2x M.2 or 1x M.2 + 1x U.2 (and use adapter to convert it to M.2) where both can be used at the same time without performance hit.

Ryzen is probably best for encoding/rendering if you don't need lot of fast RAM. If you want Ryzen and lot of fast RAM, it seems its better to wait for subsequent Ryzen revisions and possibly new Ryzen boards.

It also seems that no board can run M.2 SSDs in RAID 1 regardless if its Intel or AMD.

I considered many possibilities:
  • Intel X99 + 6850K - old tech, will get obsoleted by X299 in a few months. The biggest benefits are fast SLI, support for lot of fast memory (3200-3600 speeds may be achievable) and possibility to upgrade to 6950K 10 core processor or one of monster Xeons (22 core) in far future (from ebay). Boards have max 1x M.2, some have 1-2x U.2 (have to use adapter). Would be slower and more expensive than Ryzen at the moment. But who will sell 6950K or Xeons for good price?
    smile.gif
  • Intel Z270 + 7700K - fastest single/low thread performance, less but very fast memory, no chance to swap in faster CPU later, ok SLI now (but maybe not in the future), up to 2x or 3x M.2 are supported on boards
  • AMD X370 + 1800X - low cost, good multi-thread performance but many issues at the moment. It seems better to wait. Motherboards don't have 2x M.2 with PCIE 3.0 x 4 mode, 2nd is slower. Unlike Intel sockets which are both dead now, AM4 will last longer. But I don't like myself to be the tester but buy a stable system.
If you want AMD and wait until most issues are resolved you will probably need to wait for longer than 6 months, as AMD is most likely busy with Ryzen 3 and Naples server processor.
 
#7 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhorse View Post

When using Ryzen for virtualization one will quickly run into memory limit. For virtualization you may want at least 32GB RAM with option to 64GB in the future. Very problematic with current AMD boards and 1st gen Ryzen to run that at decent speeds. You also probably want to run multiple SSDs in such case (at least 2). So you need board with 2x M.2 or 1x M.2 + 1x U.2 (and use adapter to convert it to M.2) where both can be used at the same time without performance hit.

Ryzen is probably best for encoding/rendering if you don't need lot of fast RAM. If you want Ryzen and lot of fast RAM, it seems its better to wait for subsequent Ryzen revisions and possibly new Ryzen boards.

It also seems that no board can run M.2 SSDs in RAID 1 regardless if its Intel or AMD.

I considered many possibilities:
  • Intel X99 + 6850K - old tech, will get obsoleted by X299 in a few months. The biggest benefits are fast SLI, support for lot of fast memory (3200-3600 speeds may be achievable) and possibility to upgrade to 6950K 10 core processor or one of monster Xeons (22 core) in far future (from ebay). Boards have max 1x M.2, some have 1-2x U.2 (have to use adapter). Would be slower and more expensive than Ryzen at the moment. But who will sell 6950K or Xeons for good price?
    smile.gif
  • Intel Z270 + 7700K - fastest single/low thread performance, less but very fast memory, no chance to swap in faster CPU later, ok SLI now (but maybe not in the future), up to 2x or 3x M.2 are supported on boards
  • AMD X370 + 1800X - low cost, good multi-thread performance but many issues at the moment. It seems better to wait. Motherboards don't have 2x M.2 with PCIE 3.0 x 4 mode, 2nd is slower. Unlike Intel sockets which are both dead now, AM4 will last longer. But I don't like myself to be the tester but buy a stable system.
If you want AMD and wait until most issues are resolved you will probably need to wait for longer than 6 months, as AMD is most likely busy with Ryzen 3 and Naples server processor.
!st question) Why would I want multiple SSDs? So, 2?
2nd question) "Motherboards don't have 2x M.2 with PCIE 3.0 x 4 mode" - the Z270 mobos do, though? It would be pretty bad though that AMD would put out new mobos and one M2.2 slot is crippled?

Third question) It seems that AMD wasn't allowed to use Intel's newest LAN? Intel boards have i219-v while AMD has i211-AT. Or how would you look at the discrepancy? Most of the Ryzen/AMD boards have Realtek LAN, anyway.... well, under $200....it's all Realtek.

I think the Intel hardware seems better or higher profile/higher quality hardware or just more features and the prices are only slightly higher - well, maybe cpu-comparative. I am still undecided but where I was heavily leaning towards Ryzen, now I'm not so sure. I would like the extra cores but maybe I would just wait longer if I was encoding.
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by noobee View Post

!st question) Why would I want multiple SSDs? So, 2?
2nd question) "Motherboards don't have 2x M.2 with PCIE 3.0 x 4 mode" - the Z270 mobos do, though? It would be pretty bad though that AMD would put out new mobos and one M2.2 slot is crippled?

Third question) It seems that AMD wasn't allowed to use Intel's newest LAN? Intel boards have i219-v while AMD has i211-AT. Or how would you look at the discrepancy? Most of the Ryzen/AMD boards have Realtek LAN, anyway.... well, under $200....it's all Realtek.

I think the Intel hardware seems better or higher profile/higher quality hardware or just more features and the prices are only slightly higher - well, maybe cpu-comparative. I am still undecided but where I was heavily leaning towards Ryzen, now I'm not so sure. I would like the extra cores but maybe I would just wait longer if I was encoding.
I would say right now it's good to have 1x M.2 SSD and in the future possibly more. U.2 is not very useful as there are almost no drives for it. Converter for M.2 has to be bought, then it could work. For example ASRock X370 Taichi has 2x M.2, but one is faster, one is slower. Asus X370 CROSSHAIR VI HERO has only 1 M.2.

Z270 motherboards have that. For example Asus Z290 Maximus IX formula supports 2 M.2. MSI Z270 XPOWER GAMING TITANIUM supports 3 M.2. ASRock Z270 Taichi also supports 3 M.2.
X99 motherboards mostly have M.2/U.2 combination, except for the great ASRock X99 Taichi which has 2 M.2.

You have to decide if you will be happy with just 1 high speed M.2... Often it is placed under the first PCIE x16 slot to burn there...
 
#10 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by guttheslayer View Post

If I am considering for a PC solely for video editing, is Ryzen a good buy for the price?
Yes. Ryzen 1700 will clock about the same as the 1800X. Unless you don't overclock the 1800X is topped out from the box but may be able to squeeze a little more from it.
 
#11 ·
You just forgot to consider that Intel LGA1151 is a dead end. Also, you overlooked Intel problems with the AMD, brand new platform, ones. Very commom.

Anyway, grats and enjoy your RIG.

smile.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhorse View Post

You have to consider many issues:
  • do you have high/low budget? If your budget is low, you will be probably more than happy to use Ryzen as it will cost less. If you have higher budget, you may be tempted to buy the most expensive Intel motherboard/cpu/ram and end up spending more.
  • do you need 8 cores now or its more a reserve for the future?
  • do you prefer fast 1-4 thread performance or multi thread performance?
  • do you want to use very fast memory (DDR4 3600-4000) or are happy with DDR4 2400-3200 with Ryzen?
  • how much RAM do you need? Ryzen seems to suffer from lower memory performance when all 4 slots are filled. It cannot maintain high frequencies. Very few motherboard + ram combinations seem to be capable of running 4x DDR4 3200. Also happens when double ranked memory is used.
  • do you have time to wait for further Ryzen revisions which will fix discovered issues? (FMA3 bug, possibly faster memory access)
I considered whether to go with Ryzen or Core i7 7700K and decided that for my usage i7 7700K will be more than sufficient even though more expensive. I really wanted to support AMD and buy Ryzen, but I can't wait 3-6 months for things to stabilize.

The problem with Ryzen per CCX cache (8MB for each cluster) and subsequent need to patch Windows scheduler is more serious than people think. In practice threads may get started/stopped. Kernel cannot predict on which CCX thread should be started to use CCX cache efficiently. Or there may be a fixed thread pool and work may be handed over to threads (different kind of work, not dependant on thread id). In this case Kernel also cannot do anything about this and work may end up on wrong CCX. This problem will sadly affect also 4 core Ryzens as they will be 2x2.
 
#12 ·
I'm aware that both Z270 and X99 are dead ends. But Z270 allows you to use superfast memory that AMD probably won't for some time, kaby lake has higher IPC, higher frequency and also OCs better. Ryzen can't take away the fast single/few thread processing away from 7700K now or in the near future.

I haven't made the purchase yet, there is still chance to get even X99. But 6850K can't really beat 1800X in single thread and loses in multi thread performance, being more expensive too. I will have to see some benchmarks whether it could make more sense for the future given that it can support x16/x16 SLI that could be useful in the future or swap in a 6950K or the best Xeon processor that can go in there.

I'm not even considering the new soon to be released Intel X299 since as you pointed out problems with new platform are common and initially board availability is not so good. I also heard that 6 core CPU for X299 will not have 40 PCIE lanes but less (24-28) and instead chipset will have more. But since chipset and CPU will use just DMI 3.0, its better to have PCIE lanes directly on CPU. Intel wants people to pay heavily for 40 lane cpu in the next generation. So actually X99 is not waste of money at all.
 
#13 ·
It sounds like one M.2 would be sufficient. If one is 'slower' then I don't see the point of getting a 2nd one unless it was really cheap. I'm concerned about the motherboard choices and I don't see the price advantages - like some who do. At least, in Canada, there are no 'deals.' In Canada, the R7 1700 is over $400 (Cdn)., for e.g. The Ryzen R5 chips might be more cost effective (and 'worth it.'). The main reason I would consider them is the extra cores/threads but I would want to know how much software out there make use of it. I'm not someone who would 'need' the highest frame rates for games as I think even the R5 would provide sufficient game play/performance if not the best. But, I would want to know how efficient are these chips regarding temperature/power consumption when they are at 'load' or doing multiple tasks. Also, I found it peculiar that it has 'inferior' hardware compared to Intel which I mentioned already (Intel LAN seems older on AM4 boards as an e.g.).

The Ryzen chips might be cheaper to comparative Intel processors but only around $50 or so - so for someone who has the $$, I don't see it as a huge difference. For me, yes, but for the average buyer/enthusiast who has the $$ to spend, I don't think so. So, if you are a gamer, I would think the speed of the chip matters more until games are designed to take more advantage of more cores - at lest, that is what I've read so far.

So, I would compare temps/power consumption and efficiency of the chip especially of the more mid-tier chips like the R5 (although the R7 1700 looks like the 'best' buy) and compare it to i5 or i7 (Intel) processors and their temps/power specs (when doing general purpose computing).

What I have read so far, the AMD Ryzen chips are not the best overclockers although the temps seem to be decent (of the few reviews I've come across). So, again, I think the AMD hardware is worth considering but right now, the motherboard choices are few and far between and I believe they don't make sufficient use of faster ram yet. There's a lack of optimization for various software/OS (e.g. Windows 10?) and this might make me wait even if I had the money to splurge now. I can wait although I don't have current hardware that can make use of even the current SATA HDs so I would like to upgrade soon just so I can have a fast hard drive (SSD)!
 
#14 ·
For me, there's only 4 reason not to buy a ryzen cpu.

1. You dont like the motherboards for ryzen
2. Cpu cooler same as #1
3. Intel features even igpu
4. You game at 720p or 1080p and you care so much about fps loss even if your gpu can handle games at those resolution

Other than that ryzen is better than intel.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonz View Post

For me, there's only 4 reason not to buy a ryzen cpu.

1. You dont like the motherboards for ryzen
2. Cpu cooler same as #1
3. Intel features even igpu
4. You game at 720p or 1080p and you care so much about fps loss even if your gpu can handle games at those resolution

Other than that ryzen is better than intel.
I considered Ryzen 1800X as I will be buying new PC, but rejected it for reasons mentioned in another topic. Mainly having too many problems right now, like ram speed, low practical RAM size (with good speed) of only 16GB, high latency, insufficient M.2 slots, problem with L3 cache speed between CCX. It was a let down for me. Good enough to save AMD from bankrupcy, but not good enough for me to sponsor it.

But for many people 1 M.2 will be enough, a mid cost X370 board + Ryzen 1500X/1600X/1700 and 16GB RAM will serve them well. ASRock X370 Taichi in particular is a good choice for Ryzen board.
 
#16 ·
How are X370 boards 'mid-cost?' They seem really expensive. Maybe not for Americans....but, for Canadians with the horrible currency difference, they are expensive.... processors/boards - for e.g. $80 - $100 more.

Cheapest/decent X370 board is $200 while the really ones start at $300. That's a lot for a mobo, isn't it?

Okay, so now that Ryzen R5 is released, is there any change in opinions? This is the price comparision in Canada:

R5 1400 - $225; R5 1500X - $253 - this is for newegg Canada. Intel i5 processors - i5-7500 - $260

So, comparing these three processors, which would you pick? The tax puts the final price very close to $300 for the last two processors suggested.

I'm not too worried about the RAM issues now. I think those issues will be taken care of. I read a lot of reviewers and the buyer had his RAM at 3200 MHz. That is, at stock speeds...

What concerns me is the high prices of the AMD hardware - I don't see the price being substantially lower than comparative Kaby Lake processors/hardware and this is specially applicable to the motherboards.... the X370 looks like a significant upgrade on the B350 boards. So, is the AMD/AM4/Ryzen a better deal when all is put together and with the better option - upgrade path? Should I save for an X370 board instead of the B350 mobo? It seems you get more features, better LAN hardware, options for wifi etc.

So?
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by noobee View Post

How are X370 boards 'mid-cost?' They seem really expensive. Maybe not for Americans....but, for Canadians with the horrible currency difference, they are expensive.... processors/boards - for e.g. $80 - $100 more.

Cheapest/decent X370 board is $200 while the really ones start at $300. That's a lot for a mobo, isn't it?

Okay, so now that Ryzen R5 is released, is there any change in opinions? This is the price comparision in Canada:

R5 1400 - $225; R5 1500X - $253 - this is for newegg Canada. Intel i5 processors - i5-7500 - $260

So, comparing these three processors, which would you pick? The tax puts the final price very close to $300 for the last two processors suggested.

I'm not too worried about the RAM issues now. I think those issues will be taken care of. I read a lot of reviewers and the buyer had his RAM at 3200 MHz. That is, at stock speeds...

What concerns me is the high prices of the AMD hardware - I don't see the price being substantially lower than comparative Kaby Lake processors/hardware and this is specially applicable to the motherboards.... the X370 looks like a significant upgrade on the B350 boards. So, is the AMD/AM4/Ryzen a better deal when all is put together and with the better option - upgrade path? Should I save for an X370 board instead of the B350 mobo? It seems you get more features, better LAN hardware, options for wifi etc.

So?
If you're building now, I would argue for the six-core $295 (Canadian) R5 1600. Don't get an i5 7500 - poor overclocking potential for a highly overclockable microarchitecture. A Kaby Lake chip can and should be run at 4.6GHz +, and the i5 7500 at only 3.8GHz Turbo barely even competes with the R5 1500. The R5 1600, however, is a better buy, even with the B350, than an overclocked 7600K.

Source: I just built my 7600K sig rig and I slightly regret not waiting for the R5 1600.
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonz View Post

For me, there's only 4 reason not to buy a ryzen cpu.

1. You dont like the motherboards for ryzen
2. Cpu cooler same as #1
3. Intel features even igpu
4. You game at 720p or 1080p and you care so much about fps loss even if your gpu can handle games at those resolution

Other than that ryzen is better than intel.
What about Cannon Lake?

It's still LGA 1151 socket?

I don't know why AMD Ryzen is suddenly recommended. The price reduction is not much. Does it perform much better? I don't put a lot f stock into single thread gaming - and AMD doesn't 'win' those. I like multithread performance of Ryzen but I don't think it blows Intel out of the water either. Will Cannonlake processors fit in current 1151 motherboards? Intel is the only one so far that lets you buy a budget cpu and upgrade later. With Ryzen, you have to buy a $200+ chip (well, in Canada) and it's only a R5 1400. Everything else is well over $200 and you get to $300 because of the tax.

Then you cannot get two M.2 slots and I think that would be more useful - I would like the option of two M.2 slots although maybe 1 is enough.

How is LGA 1151 a dead end if Coffeelake/ Cannonlake iis on the way?
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhorse View Post

If you have the money and considered Ryzen 1800X then Skylake-X 7820X will be a very good alternative. More RAM, more storage, slightly faster CPU. I expect them to sell very well.
Although we do not yet know what the threadripper prices will be.

Also the 7820X does not have ECC support, even low end Ryzen had that and when your talking about this number of cores the ability for ECC on workstations or if someone is building a small server is a great feature.

Really both the Ryzen and threadripper are operating in a great space to be attractive server and workstation builds for SMB clients.

Then there is the issue of longevity, with intel now using mud in their high end cpus what other corners did they cut? This issue was the last straw for me and I have been looking toward threadripper ever since.
 
#22 ·
OP, I recently had the same dilemma as you right when Ryzen was released. It was either get a 7700k or a 1700 for my workstation. It all boils down to the primary programs that you use, and what you use the most.

On my workstation, I mostly do civil engineering in CAD based software. However, I also do 3D modeling and rendering. I also do lots of photoshop rendering and editing. I also do a little bit of video editing and encoding. CAD software is all single/dual threaded. 3D modeling is all single/dual threaded. Photoshop performance mostly maxes at about 4 threads for effects, but is mostly single threaded while editing. Rendering and encoding is multi-threaded.

So even though Ryzen dominates on the multi-threaded applications, it simply can't make up for the single threaded performance of the 7700k. Additionally, even though the 7700k loses in the multi-threaded department, it is still no slouch. Therefore, for me, it was a no brainer to go with intel at this time.

Decide what uses are primary on your PC and go from there. Just be realistic.
 
#23 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroibis View Post

Although we do not yet know what the threadripper prices will be.

Also the 7820X does not have ECC support, even low end Ryzen had that and when your talking about this number of cores the ability for ECC on workstations or if someone is building a small server is a great feature.

Really both the Ryzen and threadripper are operating in a great space to be attractive server and workstation builds for SMB clients.

Then there is the issue of longevity, with intel now using mud in their high end cpus what other corners did they cut? This issue was the last straw for me and I have been looking toward threadripper ever since.
Ryzen has only partial ECC support, in practice it doesn't work properly, it has been tested. It can correct single bit errors but can't halt system when uncorrectable error is detected.

Usage of TIM doesn't matter to 99% of customers as they won't be OCing and CPU will work fine within official specifications. To those 1% its better to delid which solves the problem of replacing OC damaged CPUs for Intel.
 
#24 ·
ECC support limitations you state are board dependent not CPU dependent. I would expect that at minimum the ECC support in motherboards for threadripper will be much more fleshed out. Getting ECC working correctly on AM4 was not a bios priority for a lot of manufacturers who were mainly just happy to have a bios that actually boots.

Also higher core temps effect users over the lifetime of the product. More heat = shorter life. So basically intel has designed these chips to die sooner so you can not use them as long.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroibis View Post

ECC support limitations you state are board dependent not CPU dependent. I would expect that at minimum the ECC support in motherboards for threadripper will be much more fleshed out. Getting ECC working correctly on AM4 was not a bios priority for a lot of manufacturers who were mainly just happy to have a bios that actually boots.
Is there some evidence that there exist Ryzen boards with fully functional ECC support? More than a claim on forum of course.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus222 View Post

OP, I recently had the same dilemma as you right when Ryzen was released. It was either get a 7700k or a 1700 for my workstation. It all boils down to the primary programs that you use, and what you use the most.

On my workstation, I mostly do civil engineering in CAD based software. However, I also do 3D modeling and rendering. I also do lots of photoshop rendering and editing. I also do a little bit of video editing and encoding. CAD software is all single/dual threaded. 3D modeling is all single/dual threaded. Photoshop performance mostly maxes at about 4 threads for effects, but is mostly single threaded while editing. Rendering and encoding is multi-threaded.

So even though Ryzen dominates on the multi-threaded applications, it simply can't make up for the single threaded performance of the 7700k. Additionally, even though the 7700k loses in the multi-threaded department, it is still no slouch. Therefore, for me, it was a no brainer to go with intel at this time.

Decide what uses are primary on your PC and go from there. Just be realistic.
That's why I was looking at 'future proof' vs 'budget-then-upgrade'

I was even looking at something like a Pentium G4560 and when everyone is gettting X299/X-Skylake etc., I would upgrade to (i7-7700 for e.g.) whatever I could still install into the mobo. Or could just switch out mobo and cpu. My situation requires buying new memory (DDR4) and SSD - I could either move the current gpu GTX 750 - or would need to buy that, too. I suppose I should buy a PSU as well - the one I have is old but so far, capable. I haven't decided whether to keep the current hardware - some of it still has some value - if I sell it as individual parts on ebay (The mobo, mostly). Otherwise, I could keep it as a HTPC or 2nd computer.

Ryzen doesn't have a 'budget option' (imho). So, it's a matter of determining what you want the overall budget $$ to be and how much to spend on the cpu (imho). So, either R5 1400, 1600, 1700 etc. For Intel, one can buy a G4560 and call it a day and upgrade the cpu later. It sounds like the i9 processors are supposed to go with the new motherboards - I just thought maybe with a BIOS update, they could be used with a 'current generation' mobo (e.g. Z270, H270).
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top