I like the part where you blindly ignore the faults of the 7700k (high temps, more expensive) simply because it can achieve 5 more fps than a R5 1600 / R7 1700. You're right. Intel is killing it! Especially at their enthusiast level. X299 is gonna be lit! Can't wait to get one!

Fanbois gonna fanboi

who said i'm a fanboy
I'm just stating what all reviews are stating, never said it was a flop never said anything except what all the reviews say



and this set off the fanboys

I was ready do dish out 700 on new ryzen build but went with 2nd 1080ti instead because I strictly game and was going to be kinda a sidegrade from 4770k

I'd be more interested in seeing the utlizations, not just cuz i wanna see how often those gpus are at 100%, but also so i can see just how little of the ryzen chip is being utilized to match the 7700k/2600k, because if it's only using 60% to match 100% utilization on the others.. it's quite clear which is the better buy, when they all perform identically in terms of real world gameplay experience at the present.

intel quad cores are ideal if you dont actually play games just run demo's (and close your eyes and begin uttering mantras when the physics portion of the demos start) and touch your balls with msi afterburner open, ryzen is an investment.

This post was edited by DCSS on Jun 11 2017 12:01pm

A dirt cheap investment for what you're getting at that.

lol do you even game
i'm still on a quad and when I was running single ti was getting better performance than ryzen users but hey, more coars right?
now if I streamed or did more cad work at home i'd go for it
and if TR has some tweaks done for higher per core performance I may look into that

Stop blanketing it as "better performance" because someone might read that and think it's more than 5 fps.

If you even watch a stream on a second monitor while gaming you're gonna have "better performance" with Ryzen.

This post was edited by Incendiary on Jun 11 2017 12:36pm

if you went in blind and weren't permitted to use an fps counter you wouldn't be able to tell which is which. The difference is intangible, negligible. The difference in utilization is not.
Ryzen's headroom is nuts

Riddle me this, what happens to the 7700k's relative performance when a game comes out that can use all of Ryzen's cores, when it was already performing virtually on par with the 7700k when games were only using 50%-60% of its core resources? The intel chip gets dumpstered.

Or let's say utilization stays the same (it wont) and games continue to use around half of a ryzen and all of a 7700k, when the point is reached that games are no longer achieving playable FPS on Ryzen... do you think they'll still be playable on the 7700k?

There is no conceivable reason to pay more for less. I can't find one single example of a game that is playable on intel but unplayable on ryzen. I've seen numerous benchmarks where intel gets a few more fps, say... 105 instead of 100, and quite a few where the opposite is true... but never have I seen it matter in either case.

This post was edited by DCSS on Jun 11 2017 01:04pm

1080p. I won't be running anything that needs 4k.

This thread blew up lol

riddle you what?
are you predicting the future now
because ht was supposedly help gaming but not many games actually benefit most times it hurts performance in gaming and how long has ht been around
I hope games finally start using more coars would be nice but that again is up to developers like ht, most dont because they dont want to exclude large amount of users but on that note I think the new xbox will have 7 cores for gaming performance but I think those will be jaguar cores but still might see it become standard later but by then new shit will be out, same shit with dx12 too