POST A COMMENT

83 Comments

Back to Article

  • Cali3350 - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    I can say with confidence that Anandtech is the first webpage I have seen recommend a i7-7740x over a i7-7700k. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    Basic argument boils down to:

    - At retail, ~the same price ($350 vs $350, or $330 when Amazon is discounting)
    - Higher base frequency
    - We had better OC performance (our 7740X did 5G with little effort, our 7700K struggles over 4.8/4.9G - review to come)
    - There is a slight cost difference in the motherboard. You'll have to weigh that up against better stock/OC perf.
    - Admittedly Z270 is more mature, I'll grant you that, whereas X299 is a bit of a minefield when it comes to support and configuration.
    - One loose positive is that X299 does give a potential avenue to upgrade down the road, should you wish.

    There are arguments for and against, I'll grant you that. Some will agree, some will disagree.
    Reply
  • DanNeely - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    IF you're only comparing one 7700k vs one 7740x; I suspect you're probably looking at chip lottery effects more than anything else. There's enough variation there that I would be hesitant to trust any comparison based on fewer than a few dozen retail purchased chips of each model. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    There's something to be said about that. I wish I had access to a dozen chips of each, and time to test :D For the last few years, all my CPU samples have been on the wrong side of good for overclocking :( Reply
  • Dr. Swag - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    Not necessarily, the better power delivery on x299 does make a difference.

    I'm relatively certain the 7740x on averages oces around .1 to .2 ghz more than the 7700k. Ian already is a good example. As well, I recall that bitwit was able to get 5.3 ghz out of his 7740x. Granted, yes, it was a delidded CPU but still. I only know one person who has managed to get 5.3 ghz out of a 7700k and they delidded and binned the CPU themselves (they basically bought thousands of 7700ks and delidded and OCed all of them to try to find a magic one, which is their 5.3 ghz chip). I think it says something when it took them a few thousand CPUs to find one that could hit 5.3 ghz and bitwit comes in and just gets a 7740x that can do it.
    Reply
  • MatBailie - Friday, July 07, 2017 - link

    The internet is rife with blogs and articles about how X299's power delivery is awful. Rushed designs of motherboards due to lack of time given by Intel's seeming knee jerk reaction to Ryzen and Threadripper. Limited space for desired number of VRMs, etc. Over heating VRMs.

    I won't post links to competitor websites (I haven't read the rules, I'm assuming there'd be a rule for that) but a quick search will give almost endless results.

    This has lead some to say that a 7700k can, on average, overclock better than a 7740x. Personally I haven't tried, but it at least suggests that there is some debate to be had.
    Reply
  • edzieba - Friday, July 07, 2017 - link

    "The internet is rife with blogs and articles about how X299's power delivery is awful."

    Most of them are reporting on a quick viewing (or just reading the title) of one video by Der8auer. Where they skip over his comment that the bare VRMs work fine once you remove the heatsink that does more to insulate than to dissipate heat.
    Reply
  • Gasaraki88 - Friday, July 07, 2017 - link

    Yeah what hyperbole. How are motherboard maker design flaws related to the "X299 chipset"? This one extreme overclocker is having hot VRMs, doesn't mean the X299 is crap. Reply
  • Ej24 - Friday, July 07, 2017 - link

    Also it's mainly only a concern using the big 10 core cpu's that draw 300W or more at full 10 core OC. The smaller quad cores are almost certainly not going to push vrm temps. Reply
  • JasonMZW20 - Sunday, July 09, 2017 - link

    Don't forget that the 7740x also lacks an iGPU, which helps things a little when it comes to OC. Reply
  • Alistair - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    I've encountered a lot of confusion with the problem of peak gaming performance.

    Technically the 7740x will let you obtain the highest possible fps for most games. However, we need to point out that there are two different situations when considering CPU performance in games.

    The first one is when the CPU is bottle-necking, and no amount of changing video settings will suffice in providing a smooth experience.

    The second one is when you actually have a superior CPU (Ryzen 1600x being 70 percent faster than its competitor the unlocked i5) but you are losing a few fps at the very high end, like achieving 150 fps vs 160 fps. In this case, a small tweak to your video settings will achieve the same fps with no noticeable change in image quality, and you can keep your higher overall performance for all other uses.

    I don't think we should consider the fps at fixed settings to be a fixed statistic. The gaming experience, and whether or not changing a few settings is all that is required to achieve an fps target is more important. Too much focus is put on the fps comparisons at fixed ultra setttings.
    Reply
  • Alistair - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    I mean that when I see a comparison between CPUs, and one achieves 5 fps more than another one at Ultra settings, would be interesting to know exactly what needs to be changed to bring the two CPUs to the the same fps. Useful to think about. Reply
  • MrSpadge - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    That's HardOCP's testing method, at least for GPUs. Makes sense, IMO, to put things into perspective. Reply
  • FreckledTrout - Friday, July 07, 2017 - link

    Also there is something noticeable when you have extra cores mostly idle, the gaming experience in some games is just smoother. I realize smoother is subjective but it is noticeable. I know a lot of review sites have tried to quantify this with things like 1% lows etc. but I have a feeling even that doesn't do the situation complete justice. Its more complicated than simply what is being rendered to the screen as you have AI, mouse/keyboard interactions on top of what is rendered. I picked up a Ryzen 1800x and some of the older games like Battlefield 4 which I have a lot of hours in, have a very noticeable smoothness to the game play that I prefer. Reply
  • msroadkill612 - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link

    Yes, i have followed amd obsessively :( / :), for some time, and I hear that a lot - not just mentioned in passing, but as a bit overwhelming. in a nice way - more calm/relaxed - less draining/jarring.

    Yet they cant really quantify or verbalise it.
    Reply
  • sonicmerlin - Sunday, July 09, 2017 - link

    70% faster? Really? In what universe? Reply
  • Outlander_04 - Sunday, July 09, 2017 - link

    In some benchmarks. Really. Reply
  • msroadkill612 - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link

    Which i think? is an argument for the R 1700/1600

    The ~300usd 1700 often goes toe to toe with intels $1k part. Remarkable.

    There is just so much power there, but like most things, it has its strong and weak points.

    Be a bit flexible in the options dept. of the game/app, & ease up on some options which tax its weak points, & u can improve minimum fps w/ little perceived image loss.
    Reply
  • JoeyJoJo123 - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    Before this post, I would agree with Cali3350.

    After eliciting your points, I can see solid rationale and I can see there is an even tossup between the 7700k and the 7740X.
    Reply
  • ImSpartacus - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    I get the rationale for a 7740X of you're aiming for maximum gaming performance with less regard for budget.

    However, I don't see why thst same choice on the AMD side isn't an 1800X.

    It's definitely an inferior value (even after recent near-$400 sales), but it's strictly better than a 1700 (or 1700X) in the performance department. So if your budget is less important, then it feels like it's the best choice (if you're limiting yourself to AMD).
    Reply
  • Outlander_04 - Sunday, July 09, 2017 - link

    Not if you are overclocking Reply
  • sin0822 - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    I agree Reply
  • willis936 - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    I would agree but I feel that the price difference in platform without the ability to take advantage of the benefits make the 7700k a no brainer compared to the 7740x. A $300 mobo should give $300 of value. Reply
  • Zizy - Friday, July 07, 2017 - link

    I agree 7740X OCs a tiny bit better, so you might consider it as the top gaming chip. But is this enough for it to make sense? Slight board price difference isn't so slight, but pretty hefty - 2066 is about twice as expensive, meaning you will pay 300-ish instead of 150. Potential avenue to upgrade is shaky at best too - who is going to buy your 4C chip when you want to upgrade? 7700k + board will likely lead to less loss (buy price - sell price) than 7740x alone. Reply
  • Tadashi130 - Friday, July 07, 2017 - link

    From a pure gaming standpoint (Which is what this article is about), upgrade to what? The other CPUs on X299 are slower in ST applications.
    Also 100-200 more MHz is not worth The extra cost and headache of the X299 mess.
    I would stick to 7700k.
    Reply
  • Yorgos - Monday, July 10, 2017 - link

    You totally disregard the fact that you pay features of the x299, that you are not able to use with the 7740k, and according to your optimistic view on upgrades, you'd pay north of 500$ for a decent cpu to upgrade that 7740k... Which is a total of atleast 900$ wasted on a crippled cpu and platform with the unknown factor of intel's upgrade path.
    I never understood your purch media logic.
    Even the die hard intel fan, should and must go for 7700k.
    Reply
  • jjj - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link

    This is not a guide this is a selling pitch for anything , no matter how much of a poor choice the product is.
    A guide helps the user avoid poor choices, you do the opposite as the vast majority of the SKUs listed are not a good idea at this point.
    Complete and utter lack of integrity.
    Reply
  • sonicmerlin - Sunday, July 09, 2017 - link

    Which speaks to how biased those other sites are, desperately rooting for the underdog.

    Why the heck would you buy a CPU with a lower IPC, that performs even worse in gaming? The prices are comparable for a 4 core CPU. So why go with Ryzen?
    Reply
  • Outlander_04 - Sunday, July 09, 2017 - link

    Because ryzen doesn't perform worse in gaming, and it kicks butt pretty much everywhere else while costing less ? Reply
  • Gavin Bonshor - Sunday, July 09, 2017 - link

    I actually agree with Ian too - My personal experiences with an i7-7740X are positive, especially when it comes to overclocking. I need to do more personal testing in regards to temperatures, but overclocking headroom seems to be plenty. How that will equate in terms of cold scaling will be interesting, but X299 does offer an extra level of upgrade if you so need more cores, albeit at a higher price.

    For those wanting a more budget friendly gaming rig, a Z270 and i3-7350K could be a good option for games not core heavy!
    Reply
  • Spunjji - Monday, July 10, 2017 - link

    Agreed. I've seen the justification, which makes sense in itself, but the recommendation still doesn't make much sense to me because it relies heavily on hand-waving about the cost differences. An extra ~20% on total platform cost with reduced functionality (re: Quicksync) and reduced maturity seems like a bad trade for perhaps an extra 5% (e.g. 1-200Mhz) of performance in CPU-limited circumstances. Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    What's this Athlon X860X that you're talking about? Also, the 860K is based on Steamroller, not Excavator; that honour falls to the Athlon X4 845, a CPU that can be found for about the same price with the same cooler, but you're better off with the 860K if you're gaming due to the extra L2 cache. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    I mentioned it as the X860X once. I called it the 860X all the other times. The miscomm about Excavator was a bad copy paste in my offline doc. Reply
  • silverblue - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link

    Sorry mate, I didn't mean that to sound harsh. Reply
  • stacey94 - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    Considering the Ryzen 5 1400 drops to the $140 range pretty regularly, it seems questionable to recommend an i3 for anything, besides maybe cheap emulation. Reply
  • webdoctors - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    I think you forgot to add a "NOT" this sentence:

    For this segment, AMD does NOT have much to play with right now. The cheapest Ryzen 5 processor, the Ryzen 5 1400, is at $169

    Great article, I didn't know about the new Pentium G4560. Looks like the Pentium G4560 and Ryzen5 1600 are the new sweet spots for system builders. Now if only DDR4 memory would come down in price!!
    Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    Updated :) I've done testing on the G4560 - the data should already in bench ( www.anandtech.com/bench ), just need to write the review. Reply
  • silverblue - Saturday, July 08, 2017 - link

    I've heard a dirty rumour that Intel are to reduce (or have already reduced) production of the G4560 in order to boost prices and thus make the i3 7100 more attractive. Reply
  • msroadkill612 - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link

    I have a reflex thought when I see an attractively priced intel product:

    "Yeah, but they will waste my time spent researching it, by placing some bear trap in their byzantine price gauging system."
    Reply
  • kpb321 - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    I'm a little surprised the Ryzen 1500x got skipped. Yeah it's only a quad core but with higher base and boost clocks is should handle gaming better than a 1600 at stock and probably won't overclock any higher. Most games don't yet benefit from from that many cores so your ~25$ more on the CPU probably isn't buying you much right now for gaming. Reply
  • msroadkill612 - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link

    1500x also has a whopping 16MB of L3 cache for its 4 cores - the same as for an 8 core.

    helps or hinders? Dunno.
    Reply
  • Arbie - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    Beyond details of performance, we need to consider the competitive picture - specifically, where we'd be without AMD. Intel has proven by their slow pace of development and niggling out features in recent years that, with no x86 competition, progress will stagnate. Tellingly, as soon as AMD begins to compete again, Intel announces more new tech than ever.

    AMD has come from way, way behind in this ultra-high tech battle, to the benefit of us all. Think how amazing that is, and ask yourself how likely it is that they can pull that off again, if we buyers don't respond because hey, Intel is a little better in this or that. Given that their products are now very competitive, AMD should be favored. Put your money where it will not only get you a great chip - whether or not the very best - but will also ensure development in the future. If you're shopping, now is the time to reward the company that has somehow restored competition, not the company that has held back and gouged us. There may not be another chance.
    Reply
  • HiroshiTrinn - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    Only problem with your comment is that AMD needs to be relevant more than once per decade... Reply
  • marco_mandini - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    Your only problem with his comment is that you clearly failed to grasp any of it. And whether AMD are relevant five years from now is irrelevant regarding anyone's very relevant 2017 purchase. Also, does it really take so much "keenness of insight" for a consumer to recognize when he's been perceived as an idiot, for years, by a manufacturer that suddenly delivers when they have to? People should be offended and go out of their way to avoid their products, for like a decade. For educational purposes, at least. And for anyone who appreciates Intel's latest offerings, express your thanks where it's due. Thank you, AMD, of course I'm going Ryzen. Reply
  • Ratman6161 - Friday, July 07, 2017 - link

    Well, I'll agree with this line of though at least part way. Agree that I make decisions about what I will build today based on what is available today (or might consider the very near future) not what will be available years from now. I also agree that even if you prefer Intel, you have to be glad that AMD is around because it takes competition to move the industry forward. But...I would never go so far as to buy AMD just to support them or just to stick it to Intel. Sorry, that's a great big no! That said, When I did a new build a while back I went with the R5 1600. but I did that not to support AMD but because its a great choice at a great price for the particular things I do with my system (which doesn't include games by the way) Reply
  • Arbie - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    Your statement is true, but it isn't a problem with my comment - it's a problem for AMD. And they're pretty valiantly addressing it. Nobody honestly thinks we'd be better off if they fail, right? Buyers are always making a choice of whom they will support with their custom; but this time the stakes may be higher than folks realize as they debate this FPS vs that MHz. We should hope *very much* that Ryzen, Epyc, Vega etc are a success, which trumps a lot of this discussion and boils down to: buy AMD this time around if you reasonably can. Reply
  • Arbie - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    Thank you marco_mandini! My reply was of course directed at HiroshiTrinn. Reply
  • marco_mandini - Friday, July 07, 2017 - link

    My whole market-justice rant aside (:P), it's frustrating so many people don't get what you said. Even if you're an Intel fan, the way to have outstanding and affordable Intel CPU's in the near future, instead of held back and overpriced yesterday's technology is to go AMD these days. And let AMD make Intel do what they won't if they don't have to. "Yeah, but look, Intel's doing 143 fps, like way better than this AMD piece of crap at 141 fps, let's help Intel get rid of anyone's attempt at competition, so we can go back to being treated like idiots for at least another decade, preferably longer..." Reply
  • lordken - Saturday, July 08, 2017 - link

    +1 marco_mandini Reply
  • TomWomack - Friday, July 07, 2017 - link

    Without AMD we would be in exactly the same place, but possibly the pricing for the Sky Lake-derived HEDT chips would match Broadwell. Intel's development pace is absolutely as fast as the technology can be pushed: the result of competition shows up only in the pricing. Reply
  • ads295 - Saturday, July 08, 2017 - link

    I can only hope more people agree with you. It's not about "sticking it to Intel", it's about a much, much bigger picture that has already played out once. Worth learning from. Reply
  • sonicmerlin - Sunday, July 09, 2017 - link

    Companies should we rewarded for producing great products. Not for "being close". Reply
  • Arbie - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    And BTW it's "bated breath", not "baited". Reply
  • Drumsticks - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    I'm honestly most excited for Coffee Lake. Six Core X-Lake architecture on Intel's newest process, on what should be a pretty stable Z370 platform. It will have an unchallenged single threaded lead and probably enough frequency to compete with eight core Zen processors in multi-tasking. Reply
  • mapesdhs - Friday, July 07, 2017 - link

    Another chipset? Is it a different socket? Plus, Intel could have released a 6-core mainstream chip a looong time ago, same issue with everything else, they didn't bother because they didn't have to. I can't get excited over crumbs that could have fallen off the table years ago. Reply
  • t.s - Sunday, July 09, 2017 - link

    Yesteryear menus served to you in new package (mobo) that you have to bought too. Reply
  • Alexvrb - Thursday, July 06, 2017 - link

    If you've got an existing FM2+ rig with a decent motherboard and a slower/locked chip and you're trying to squeeze more life out of it before needing a complete new build, the 880K is a better deal IMO. It's got the 125W cooler included, and it's Godavari (soldered lid!) both of which mean decent overclocking out of the box.

    I'll never understand why they didn't design the FM2 platform with more cores in mind from the start. Something like a hexacore would have gone a long way in helping them fill the budget gap. I mean heck we still don't have Ryzen 3, and APUs (and possibly cheap APU derived Athlons?) are a while off.
    Reply
  • msroadkill612 - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link

    Agood point. The fm2+ & APU was a lovely rig, it just didnt have intel inside.

    Many intel rigs were sold, which on balance, couldnt touch FM2+ - destroyed in the market by intel FUD.
    Reply
  • jburns - Friday, July 07, 2017 - link

    I recently built a budget gaming pc with the AMD X4 880K which works very well.The 880K replaced the 860K cpu mid last year. Any reason why you have recommended the older cpu instead of the newer AMD X4 880K? Reply
  • silverblue - Friday, July 07, 2017 - link

    I'm curious; is there much of a difference? The price is a good £20 more in the UK. Reply
  • Alexvrb - Saturday, July 08, 2017 - link

    Technically the 870K and 880K complement the 860K, rather than replace it. If you're dirt broke and you don't overclock, the 860K is a better deal. That's why they recommended it. If you can afford something nicer, you're probably better off with a different platform. But if you're upgrading an existing system with a good mainboard (and you overclock), the 880K is the better buy.

    It's got a really decent cooler (the 125W cooler) that is equivalent to a $30-ish aftermarket cooler. The 860 and 870 come with the smaller cooler. Between that and the soldered lid, you can get decent overclocks, even with the stock cooler. It can go further with better cooling, but at that point you're probably better off with a newer platform entirely.
    Reply
  • mapesdhs - Monday, July 10, 2017 - link

    If it wasn't for the difficult to locating a suitable mbd, I'd say go for a used 3930K instead, they've been going for diddly squat in recent months. Just a shame it's much harder to find suitable mbds now (last year I bagged an ASUS X79 Deluxe for just 75 for my brother's PC upgrade, while an R4E for my own system was only 113). Reply
  • mapesdhs - Friday, July 07, 2017 - link

    "Intel has you covered"

    Yeah, in tech poop; enough if-you-do-A-then-B madness with X299 to give one a headache, daft prices, higher entry point for more than 28 lanes, overly hot chips, ported mainstream chip with a higher TDP and no iGPU, etc. X299 is a panic mess of a response. I wonder where we'd be if Intel had released the 3930K as the proper 8-core it could have been in the first place. Looking forward to TR...
    Reply
  • T1beriu - Friday, July 07, 2017 - link

    You recommend Core i7-7740X?! LOL Reply
  • pavag - Friday, July 07, 2017 - link

    If you cannot draw an X-Y price-performance chart, don't even try. You cannot support your recommendations, and I cannot believe your arguments. Reply
  • 0ldman79 - Friday, July 07, 2017 - link

    I'm happy to see my FX6300 still on a recommended list. It's been left out of most comparisons in the new CPU reviews. I get that it isn't even remotely new, but I'm still playing most games at 1080.

    It isn't the fastest, but it is certainly fast enough. Overclock it using the turbo modes and you can get some decent single and dual core performance out of it. I'm motherboard limited but it'll hit 4.4 and 4.8 in turbo with a 3.8 base.
    Reply
  • none12345 - Friday, July 07, 2017 - link

    Your 'smarter gaming' column doesnt make a lot of sense. Better to spend the extra money over the 'budget gaming' cpus on a gpu instead.

    Also a 7740 is going to be a lot more expensive then a 7700; its not just the cost of the chip, mobo is a lot more expensive. I dont think it makese a lot of sense to buy into the expensive x299 platform when you get none of the extras you are paying extra for. Price is no object, 7740 has its place i guess. It will be the very best for single threaded games at money is no object prices. But you will be paying a lot extra for mabye a couple fps at best. And on top of that its going to be weak in mulithreaded games. If you are going to be buying expensive x299 mobos...man at least get the 6 or 8 core. The 6 core is not much more then the 4. True the 6 core will clock lower, which means loosing a couple fps, but its easily worth loosing a couple fps in single threaded games, for more fps in multithreaded games, and everything else that is multithreaded.

    Ya you can upgrade later...but you are throwing away a $350 chip, when you could just spend ~$60 more and get a 6 core with more pce lanes and quad channel memory....makes no sense to get the 4 core. Course this puts you at ~$700 for mobo+cpu. Which wont give you that much more performance gaming then a ~$500 7700k+mobo, or you can get a 1700+b350mobo for ~$400 and get an 8 core, which will own it for multithread, but lose in games(my personal choice, tho i got a 1700x).

    The i5s and i3s i think just have no place in todays market. They are overpriced for what they offer. They are bottle necked in games today, and have no where to go as games continue to be more multithreaded. If you cant afford better, just get the cheap pentium instead.
    Reply
  • Hurr Durr - Saturday, July 08, 2017 - link

    So, don`t buy anything and wait for 10nm, got it. Reply
  • dwade123 - Sunday, July 09, 2017 - link

    Most PC gamers aren't even considering AMD products. Intel saw growth in gaming market after Ryzen launched. Vega will ironically increase Nvidia userbase as well. Reply
  • Manoa - Sunday, July 09, 2017 - link

    the problem is not that Intel is faster, the problem is that current version of Zen is broken in many ways: memory problems, the GCC compiling bug, FMA3 bug, cache latency problem (where, after 4M it significantly increase in latency), you can safely say that Intel are not the only ones who rushed X299, AMD also rushed the Zen.

    now the question is where to go from here:
    will threadripper have all these bugs fixed ?
    will the B2 stepping have all these bugs fixed ?
    will Ryzen Pro have all these bugs fixed ?

    and on Intel side the problems: Skylake and newer have the hyperthreading bug, with X299 you have to pay for keys to have RAID ? MOSFET problems
    and again you can ask all the questions as above, when or if any of this will be fixed

    that is why I purchased a phenom 2 thuban 6-core a month ago, 2017 CPU tech simply suckx, both Intel and AMD, you want a CPU with no problems ? buy old !
    Reply
  • mapesdhs - Monday, July 10, 2017 - link

    Did you get the 1100T? Decent chip back then, pity AMD didn't just refine and add two more cores instead of jumping down the Bulldozer hellhole. I bagged a 1090T for benchmarking, somewhat cheaper on the used market at the time.

    If it wasn't for the low supply of mbds though, I'd say a 3930K makes more sense; they're very cheap today, but good X79 mbds are hard to find (pity). The R4E was selling refurb for as little as 100 UKP a couple of years ago (I got two for 113 each). Hmm, I wonder how they'd sell today if one could buy it for that price new, and a 3930K for its typical used value (75 UKP to 90 UKP or so, eg. check ebay item 152596316712). Oc'd, I get a threaded CB R15 score of about 1250. Even a 4960X only cost me 200, and a top-end ASUS P9X79-E WS about the same.
    Reply
  • Manoa - Monday, July 10, 2017 - link

    yes I grant you: 2000/3000/4000 series Intel's are good and fast performance, some reached 5000 mhz on the sandies even if they are limited to low-speed DDR3 but after all the CPU speed is the #1 priority since Intel have good memory prefetch in hardware, I could even go for socket 2011 and put a nice xeon in it with solder for grease, and yes mobo is a problem, in fact I had trouble finding good mobo for the thuban

    the thing is that whenever you go Intel, you have to go deeper into your pockets, before going thuban I considered going Core 2 Duo/Quad but when I saw the price of the P5Q Deluxe which was 250$ (brand new) and next to it I saw an AMD mobo for thuban for 100$ (also brand new), my pocket started talking to me xD, I even found a very good mobo for the thuban the crosshair formula and it's price ? just 120$, nowhere near the Intel option

    I also have 12G of DDR2, which cost me a fortune back then, and it's fully functional, so I was limited to as he says "decade old" or else had to pay double because RAM prices went up significantly, instead for 90$ 1090T (used) and another 100$ mobo (new) I get a full computer and get to re-use the DDR2, now im sorted for the next 10 years with 2 AM2+ mobos (one working, one as backup).

    you did a nice job finding Intel hardware for cheep, and if I had DDR3 I would consider going with the sandies/ivies/haswells, but then again if I had DDR3 I would also consider AM3+ and faildozer :)
    Reply
  • Yorgos - Monday, July 10, 2017 - link

    Facepalm.
    You bought a decade old cpu because new cpus have bugs? Have you checked the errata of those old cpus? Prolly not.
    Reply
  • silverblue - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link

    Ryzen's memory performance is getting better with each microcode update and the FMA3 bug has been fixed already. As far as I can see, the GCC bug isn't an issue with Ryzen, but I don't know anything else about that nor the caching problems.

    A bug with HT was just found in Skylake and Kaby Lake. You can't detect them all at launch, and Intel isn't better than AMD in this regard, or vice versa.
    Reply
  • Outlander_04 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link

    There are memory problems with Ryzen?
    I just assembled my 1600 in a gigabyte B350 board and set the 3200 MHz XMP profile.
    And that was on the old BIOS
    Reply
  • Yorgos - Monday, July 10, 2017 - link

    I wonder why nobody give a rats behind on 1500x.
    This is prolly the only cpu that can tank against anything you throw at it. Less than 200$, with a cache of a 500$ cpu, and a great thermal behaviour it should be on the top list of every build that is in the sub 700-800 segment.

    Also, why would someone even consider buying a dual core pentium or i3? Why would you waste money on a weak cpu and then be forced to spend money on a gpu. The 7100 at 110$ is as cheap as a 7850k, plus you don't have to spend anything on a gpu.
    Reply
  • Ddadddy - Monday, July 10, 2017 - link

    Or an i5 7500 over a 7600k Reply
  • msroadkill612 - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link

    Well, starting with freesync vs gsync for your major $ monitor outlay.

    IF freesync, THEN its an AMD gpu choice.

    If its an amd gpu, u have to wonder about current and future synergy benefits of using sibling processors from amd, under the same support umbrella.

    It beggars belief that zen & vega development teams were not closely co-coordinating (i have a stutter).

    If i had decided for open source Freesync monitors, and therefore polaris/vega gpu (nvidia dont support freesync ), I would seriously lean toward an r1600/1700, epyc or TR, for the above synergies.
    Reply
  • msroadkill612 - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link

    A bit OT, but I question the conventional perception of RyzenS automatic overclocking facility.

    Yes, the results are crap (100Mhz on just 2 cores?), but I would expect that in beta form. Its just a toe in the water for the concept ATM.

    But it must be much more that, given the lengths AMD have gone to, to place thermal sensors in every nook and cranny of ryzen (~700 sensors?), and the sophisticated granularity of control of clocks.

    At its logical, tweaked and evolved conclusion, it can automatically and intelligently scale to tasks, up to the ability of your cooling system.

    It seems a first step toward addressing a very fundamentsl aspect of OCing.

    we OC to a fixed level for all situations, and so, suffer the temp penalties for this, and so, achieve a lower effective overclock.

    Task relevant processors can be disproportionately OCd, as neighboring irrelevant processors are cool and down clocked.

    It has great potential imo, but is usually dismissed as floss.
    Reply
  • msroadkill612 - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link

    What avuncular advice would you mavens give a newb re liquid cooling?

    Its kinda sounding like folks should allow ~$100 on top of their 4C+ cpu and be done with it.

    Smaller nodes & multi billion transistor packages, have pushed air to its limits, just as we ~never see good air cooled motors now.

    Should they also be thinking of including the gpu cooling in this decision?

    Just generally, specifics are for other threads.
    Reply
  • Manoa - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link

    1:1, for every $ invested in the system a $ has to be invested into cooling.
    custom loops only, no AIO crap, blocks for mobo, cpu and video card(s) (don't bother looking too closely at their thermal performance they are all the same, looking at flow restriction and price is more important), don't WC the ram it's not worth, part of the equation will be the temperature of your room but the general rule I recommend would be 240mm of radiator surface per component, distilled water only - no chemicals, never mix different types of metals in excess of 0.10 corrosion potential, nickel with copper with brass is ok I tested this combination myself, to give yourself an edge at corrosion resistance keep your pump operating 24/7 even when the computer is off (circulation reduces corrosion), putting the radiator(s) outside the case will significantly improve cooling performance (reduces airflow suffocation), pull configuration for radiator fans allows installation of dust filters will provide easy cleaning and maintenance, radiator shrouds increase cooling efficiency, leak detection system to beep when a leak is happening, water level beeper to beep when water level too low
    Reply
  • msroadkill612 - Thursday, July 20, 2017 - link

    Ta heaps. Good specific tips & general philosophy.

    Distilled water surprises me. I thought there are better, less corrosive, coolants.
    Reply
  • Manoa - Tuesday, August 08, 2017 - link

    you can add anti-corrosive supplement, pumps don't like chemicals and as long as you don't mix metals with high corrosion potential it is not necessary, I would be more worried about algae and bacteria - for these nasty things you need a few things:

    to treat algae, I personally use prevent algae from api, it removes phosphate which is food for algae, it can't grow if there is no food, but you can use any anti-algae solution, many fish stores have them, but it is a must to use an anti-algae. keeping the water system in the dark will also help reduce algae, they like light

    and for bacteria, some of them don't like copper and since you have it in your loop you're 50% taken care of the problem, now the other bacteria which can tolerate copper, again here you will need (just like anti-algae, in a fish store) to buy an anti-bacteria agent, I personally use paracure non-chelated copper additive, but same here - you can use any anti-bacterial agent - some people use silver instead of an additive, I don't remember by heart the corrosion potential between silver and the rest of the metals in the loop, but im sure you can search and find the information and decide for yourself if you prefer a silver kill coil instead of some anti-bacterial agent, I decided on this non-chelated copper solution because it makes sense to me that copper is already in the loop so no corrosion problems
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now