Currently I run an Intel CPU, but if I were to build today, I'd wait for the Ryzen X390 and X399, if the exist.
Ryzen right now offers unparalleled value when it comes to multi-threaded and workstation performance. On workstation, they overwhelmingly did meet their 6900K at half the price or less (for the Ryzen 1700) goal.
It's single threaded performance is "good enough" (gets to 3.9 - 4.1 GHz, while matching Haswell IPC). The only people who need the 7700k are those who game and don't do much else, or if they do much else, their applications are purely single thread bottlenecked.
They have a very powerful CPU with excellent power efficiency. Overclocking could be better though for sure.GPUs
From a GPU standpoint, Fine Wine appears to be very real. Some AMD fans do exaggerate how much it is, but it does seem to be a thing.
The other big reason is because looking at Vega, this is likely to continue:http://techbuyersguru.com/ces-2017-amds-ryzen-and-vega-revealed?page=1
But here's the thing: the tone AMD took in presenting Vega couldn't have been more different from how it presented Ryzen, and if we were to read between the lines, we'd say this is indicative of AMD's confidence in the product. First, it is now confirmed as a 1H'17 product (not 1Q'17 as originally anticipated). Additinally, Scott made clear that this is very much a next-gen product, but that many of the cutting-edge features of Vega cannot be utilized natively by DX12, let alone DX11. For example, Vega's next-gen compute engine, called the "NCU" (replacing the "CU"), offers flexible 8-bit, 16-bit, and 32-bit operations, but that these must be coded for directly. Some of the other new features in Vega include a texture culling technique that has the potential to reduce VRAM usage by half (again, requiring a software assist), a new programmable geometry pipeline with 2x throughput per clock, and a more flexible "primitive shader." Vega will also have higher clocks and IPC than Polaris, which itself had 15% higher IPC than Fiji.
I think that if you were to upgrade annually, Nvidia is a better option, but if you were to go with keeping your GPUs, AMD seems like the better option. We won't get much from Nvidia until maybe Volta I'm afraid in terms of longevity.
The other reason is that if you have a near tie, like a RX 480 vs GTX 1060 situation, if you were to build a new system today, the RX 480 would get you better performance for the money, not just in the future, but today. Freesync monitors do not carry a premium over non-Freesync monitors. G-Sync by contrast costs a lot more. Even if the RX 480 were slower (it is at a few DX11 games), the Freesync experience is very important for a good gaming experience. FPS and frame timing doesn't capture it. You'd have to pay a lot more for G-Sync.
AMD's driver quality as of late has improved too, as has their Crossfire support. Image quality has historically been better than Nvidia, although not as good as Matrox (sadly they don't have much of a place in the gaming world), If they partnered going forward with Matrox, I think they would have some amazing image quality.
If this could be combined with >120Hz OLED displays without any burnin and Freesync 2 HDR, I think that going forward, things could be amazing.Other
Mostly for consumer interests, it's best to buy from the underdog to prevent a monopoly. We saw with the 6950X and the way Nvidia priced Pascal what is going to happen. That doesn't stop me when the gap is huge though; I am running a 5960X on my main rig for a reason.
I find it odd that AMD, a company with hardly any money that is struggling to keep the lights on, is the one pushing behind technologies like HBM. It's very odd because in theory, the competition's vast R&D money should be a huge advantage and should enable them to push forward. Then again, with the 4800 series, they also pushed GDDR5 so perhaps this is not a surprise and before that, the not so successful GDDR4.Edited by CrazyElf - 4/8/17 at 11:21am