To Ryzen or not to Ryzen, that is the question

I suggest getting the R7 1700 with a Asus Prime X370 Pro. Just make sure that the ram you purchase is on the QVL list or it may only run at 2133 speeds. Otherwise, if you are truly going to wait, just pick up the 7700K with a decent board ASAP because your machine may not last even another month. I have 2 Ryzen systems, both using the Asus Prime X370 Pro and other than long bios boots times of up to 22 seconds, I have had Zero issues with either one.

Thanks for the mobo recommendation. And yeah, been digging through the QVL lists on various mobos. There are very few two-DIMM 32GB kits that'll run 2666 or faster. It's a needle in a haystack situation for sure. Hopefully BIOS updates will address that?
 
R7 1700 and B350 board is the best bang for the buck in mixed work (read: not 100% gaming) going right now, and it's not really close. It's a little over $400, $500 with ram, and unlike Intel the socket should be good for 3-4 years...

I'm not sure why everyone thinks they need an x370. That seems to be more for SLI/xfire and high end o/c as the B350 boards seem to get around the same o/c so far. Unless you need the specific io the x370 has, I don't know that it's worth another $70-$100 (or more). You'd be better off investing that extra on the vid card side.
 
Yeah it's tough. For me every purchase comes with a serious downside:

1. 6850k - slower than 7700 in games, slower than Ryzen in workstation sh*t, and still $650
2. Ryzen - crappy gaming performance
3. 7700k - multithreaded workstation performance sucks
4. 6900k - costs more than your first-born child

I have a feeling that no matter which one I buy, I'm going to have some regrets.

And you know, I feel like when I built this 2600k box, things were much more clear in the CPU market. I mean, everybody knew, that was the CPU to buy. Now? It's like every high-end CPU is 'tarded in its own unique way.

How about two XEON 1366 (unlocked) 6/12 on DUAL 1366 motherboard. You can find two unlocked XEONs 1366 socket for $100.
 
R7 1700 and B350 board is the best bang for the buck in mixed work (read: not 100% gaming) going right now, and it's not really close. It's a little over $400, $500 with ram, and unlike Intel the socket should be good for 3-4 years...

I'm not sure why everyone thinks they need an x370. That seems to be more for SLI/xfire and high end o/c as the B350 boards seem to get around the same o/c so far. Unless you need the specific io the x370 has, I don't know that it's worth another $70-$100 (or more). You'd be better off investing that extra on the vid card side.
I know my reason for looking at X370 is that there are boards available with two NVMe M.2 slots while the second slot on similar B350 boards is SATA only. If that changes before I get around to buying components I'd probably go for B350.
 
Thanks for the mobo recommendation. And yeah, been digging through the QVL lists on various mobos. There are very few two-DIMM 32GB kits that'll run 2666 or faster. It's a needle in a haystack situation for sure. Hopefully BIOS updates will address that?

I found this to be the case as well....
 
I don't really get the "side" of things. Never was much into brand loyalty. And as far as I'm concerned, both AMD and Intel have kind of screwed us, in different ways. AMD just suddenly gave up on the enthusiast market for what seems like no reason. Then Intel used the opportunity to get lazy about performance, and greedy with pricing. AMD appears to be making an effort to comeback, for which I applaud them -- we need both companies in the enthusiast space to keep competition flowing. But I'm also still kind of pissed they left in the first place.

I've no loyalty to either brand. For me, it's strictly a question of which is the better buy in my circumstances. I kind of envy straight-up gamers in one respect: your decision is easy. Buy an i5-7600 or an i7-7700k, depending on budget, and pair with nastiest GPU you can afford. Done deal. For us enthusiast mixed-use users, the answer is not anywhere near so clear, and Ryzen appears to be a viable product in that space -- but not the only viable product.

If your using your system for work, I think you mentioned that before and your 2600K is on it's last legs I would if i was you not wait the month or so and get something now before you are left with nothing and screwed, I get the new R7 platform is having growing pains and that will put alot of ppl off and if you can wait you should but in you case DuronBurgerMan I don't know if waiting is a the best option, you might be better off getting the 6XXXK CPU of your choice or if you still want to see how Ryzen will fair down the road maybe get a cheap used Xeon or cheap Sky lake MOBD and CPU to tide you over, depending on what you get you can even use mem that would support your possible Ryzen build to cut down on cost.

In most cases waiting would be the purdent thing to do and i would agree but if you are using that system for your life blood and it craps out just consider how badly that will hurt you, if you already have a back up waiting to go if your current 2600K dies on you then never mind me, I'm just don't want ppl to get burned while waiting for Ryzen to improve as it might take a lot longer then we hope.

as i mentioned before hand I'm cool with the CPU's limitations and early adoption BS with BIOS mem and so on but that is not for every one, so at the end of the day you need to weigh your wants vs your needs and the needs should win out, want you need now will be your answer, I hope this helps if not well thanks for reading anyway
 
From what I have seen in other forums as long as your willing to run it stock and at default memory it should not be a issue. But yes tweaking the system is a mixed bag and likely will stay that way for a little while.
 
In most cases waiting would be the purdent thing to do and i would agree but if you are using that system for your life blood and it craps out just consider how badly that will hurt you, if you already have a back up waiting to go if your current 2600K dies on you then never mind me, I'm just don't want ppl to get burned while waiting for Ryzen to improve as it might take a lot longer then we hope.

Hard to say how much life is left in this machine. Some days, she's still pretty good. Other days, it has trouble posting, or booting into Windows. Mostly, I just leave it on whenever it manages to boot up, and avoid rebooting unless absolutely necessary. Performance is abysmal but it keeps trucking that way. I dunno. I don't get the feeling that it's going to die on me tomorrow, but it's been a slow and steady increase in weird behavior. Certainly I don't want to wait around much longer. A few weeks? I can roll the dice for that, I think. A few months? Probably not a good bet. Until Coffee Lake (what the hell kind of name is that, anyway?) comes out at the end of the year? No, definitely not. Something's gonna give before then, I bet.
 
Hard to say how much life is left in this machine. Some days, she's still pretty good. Other days, it has trouble posting, or booting into Windows. Mostly, I just leave it on whenever it manages to boot up, and avoid rebooting unless absolutely necessary. Performance is abysmal but it keeps trucking that way. I dunno. I don't get the feeling that it's going to die on me tomorrow, but it's been a slow and steady increase in weird behavior. Certainly I don't want to wait around much longer. A few weeks? I can roll the dice for that, I think. A few months? Probably not a good bet. Until Coffee Lake (what the hell kind of name is that, anyway?) comes out at the end of the year? No, definitely not. Something's gonna give before then, I bet.

I would at the very least get a back up system hobbled together out of used parts because even though right now it appears to work "fine" one day she might freeze on you and after resting it won't post any more, just saying if you want to wait and see that's cool, but you really should have a emergency system ready to go, you never know what life will throw at you.

I never asked but is your 2600K overclocked really high, mine has been overclocked to 4.2GHz @ 1.25v since mid 2012 and it has started to restarting in the middle of booting up windows almost every time i turn here on so even a medium over clock like mine might be to much for a 6 year old CPU like mine, it might be wise if you are over clocked you turn it down abit just to extend the life of the CPU in these uncertain times
 
I would at the very least get a back up system hobbled together out of used parts because even though right now it appears to work "fine" one day she might freeze on you and after resting it won't post any more, just saying if you want to wait and see that's cool, but you really should have a emergency system ready to go, you never know what life will throw at you.

I never asked but is your 2600K overclocked really high, mine has been overclocked to 4.2GHz @ 1.25v since mid 2012 and it has started to restarting in the middle of booting up windows almost every time i turn here on so even a medium over clock like mine might be to much for a 6 year old CPU like mine, it might be wise if you are over clocked you turn it down abit just to extend the life of the CPU in these uncertain times

It hasn't been overclocked in a long time. I used to have a mild overclock, 4.1 or 4.2GHZ, back in the day, but I had to stop that sh*t when I was mining crypto. Stressed everything too much. Haven't had it OC'd since then. And yeah... another poster suggested picking up a used z68 mobo on the cheap if I'm going to be doing any waiting. It's a good idea. I'll probably do that. After all, I can ebay that sh*t later if all is good. 6 years of abuse on a single box is a long time in our world, my friend. A looooong time.

I was looking through my sh*t on Facebook this morning, and found the pics of the original parts, all in their pretty boxes and packaging back in '11. I was all... poor parts. You didn't know back then what hellish future awaited you.
 
I'm in the same boat, can't make up my mind what to do. I was torn between the 6800k, 7700k, and 1700.

The 6800k seemed like the perfect compromise...solid single thread, solid multi thread. But the more I look at benches, the less it makes sense to me. Discarding heavily threaded benchmarks, and focusing more on real world heavy thread workloads, the 7700k is uncomfortably close to the 6800k in a lot of tasks, even with the core disadvantage. At the end of the day, the 6800k seems to be gaining a bit of multi thread advantage in exchange for a bit of single thread performance. The gap, in either direction, doesn't seem to warrant the extra cost in both the CPU and platform.

The 7700k is probably my best choice, being a gamer first and other stuff second. But something feels gross about replacing my quad core from 2011 with...another quad core...I kind of wonder how the legs on the 7700k will hold up, as we seem to be reaching a tipping point of more and more things pushing more than 4 cores.

The 1700 just scares me with the gaming performance. Truth be told, the typical gaming performance doesn't scare me that much. The inconsistency scares me. There's a lot of games where it looks just fine to me. But here and there appear games where the performance is just dismal, to the toon of 40%+ worse. On the plus side, the platform may have decent legs. On the downside, the platform is a mess right now and we're left hoping it gets straightened out. And just how I feel a bit gross with the 7700k being a quad core in 2017, I feel a bit gross that the 1700 would probably be a sub 4Ghz in 2017.

So I have no effin idea.
 
I'm in the same boat, can't make up my mind what to do. I was torn between the 6800k, 7700k, and 1700.

The 6800k seemed like the perfect compromise...solid single thread, solid multi thread. But the more I look at benches, the less it makes sense to me. Discarding heavily threaded benchmarks, and focusing more on real world heavy thread workloads, the 7700k is uncomfortably close to the 6800k in a lot of tasks, even with the core disadvantage. At the end of the day, the 6800k seems to be gaining a bit of multi thread advantage in exchange for a bit of single thread performance. The gap, in either direction, doesn't seem to warrant the extra cost in both the CPU and platform.

The 7700k is probably my best choice, being a gamer first and other stuff second. But something feels gross about replacing my quad core from 2011 with...another quad core...I kind of wonder how the legs on the 7700k will hold up, as we seem to be reaching a tipping point of more and more things pushing more than 4 cores.

The 1700 just scares me with the gaming performance. Truth be told, the typical gaming performance doesn't scare me that much. The inconsistency scares me. There's a lot of games where it looks just fine to me. But here and there appear games where the performance is just dismal, to the toon of 40%+ worse. On the plus side, the platform may have decent legs. On the downside, the platform is a mess right now and we're left hoping it gets straightened out. And just how I feel a bit gross with the 7700k being a quad core in 2017, I feel a bit gross that the 1700 would probably be a sub 4Ghz in 2017.

So I have no effin idea.

I think you're right on the money with the 6800k. It's an older revision on a platform that will soon die, and the 7700k just seems like the better buy there. But between the various incarnations of Ryzen and the 7700k, it's much less clear. For the advantages of Ryzen in multi-threaded workloads, for encoding, graphics, dev work, etc... I'm willing to accept a loss in gaming performance. But not 30-40% loss. 10-15% loss on average, in 1080p, would be acceptable. I'd easily live with that, and be very pleased with the workstation performance. But the benchmarks are all over the place. Sometimes it's as much as 40% behind. And then in a few games... it outright wins, even against the 7700k. It's very schizoid. And, like you, this worries me. A consistent 10-15% loss in FPS vs 7700k, with everything else the same, would have made Ryzen a winner. A f*cking miracle, actually.

And hell, maybe it still is. Maybe AMD just pushed the launch date too far forward, and some of the weird sh*t will go away with BIOS updates, improvements to the power profiles in Windows, etc... One can hope, right? If so, you're right about the AM4 platform likely having more legs for future upgrades.

The clock rate doesn't bother me though. 6 and 8 core sh*t is always a bit behind on that, even with Intel. AMD's sh*t Bulldozer crap aside. No big deal.
 
OP: If gaming is important to you, then get an Intel chip (e.g. 7700k) as it does productivity pretty well but is unparalleled for gaming. However, if you plan to spend 50% or greater of your time on rendering/productivity tasks that requires multicores, then go for Ryzen 1700 (the rest aren't even needed since 1700 OCs to 4 ghz).
 
So noticing decent X370 boards in stock again ASRock Killer 370 looks like a good board. Definitely sticking to RAM on the QVL list. Best I could find is a Corsair 32GB kit that'll do 2666, which is okay I guess. Think I'm going to go ahead and pull the trigger on this sh*t if I can find a 1TB SSD worth buying. Already ordered the 1080 ti from nvidia since that popped back into stock this morning. Case on its way.
 
Another solid Ryzen review addressing performance in gaming and productivity work loads, i thought it was pretty good as it is showing were the Ryzne CPU's are strong right now and were they are showing weakness and why they suffer in certain gaming workloads, also Roy Taylor committed on the review agreeing with the review and the points it made about AMD's relationship with 3rd party partners....





I can't wait to build my 1700 system still waiting on the MOBD thought should be her hopefully thrusday-friday
 
I know my reason for looking at X370 is that there are boards available with two NVMe M.2 slots while the second slot on similar B350 boards is SATA only. If that changes before I get around to buying components I'd probably go for B350.

Yeah, that seems to be the main thing, some people want the io the x370 has. I don't even have one M.2 drive so an x370 made zero sense.
I think you're right on the money with the 6800k. It's an older revision on a platform that will soon die, and the 7700k just seems like the better buy there. But between the various incarnations of Ryzen and the 7700k, it's much less clear. For the advantages of Ryzen in multi-threaded workloads, for encoding, graphics, dev work, etc... I'm willing to accept a loss in gaming performance. But not 30-40% loss. 10-15% loss on average, in 1080p, would be acceptable. I'd easily live with that, and be very pleased with the workstation performance. But the benchmarks are all over the place. Sometimes it's as much as 40% behind. And then in a few games... it outright wins, even against the 7700k. It's very schizoid. And, like you, this worries me. A consistent 10-15% loss in FPS vs 7700k, with everything else the same, would have made Ryzen a winner. A f*cking miracle, actually.

And hell, maybe it still is. Maybe AMD just pushed the launch date too far forward, and some of the weird sh*t will go away with BIOS updates, improvements to the power profiles in Windows, etc... One can hope, right? If so, you're right about the AM4 platform likely having more legs for future upgrades.

The clock rate doesn't bother me though. 6 and 8 core sh*t is always a bit behind on that, even with Intel. AMD's sh*t Bulldozer crap aside. No big deal.

From what I'm seeing, that's the case. There are edge cases where it falls further behind in gaming, but others where it pulls ahead.

So far very pleased with my 'budget' system, around $550 all in reusing my drives, psu, case and video card. Hard to beat for the price!
 
I think you're right on the money with the 6800k. It's an older revision on a platform that will soon die, and the 7700k just seems like the better buy there. But between the various incarnations of Ryzen and the 7700k, it's much less clear. For the advantages of Ryzen in multi-threaded workloads, for encoding, graphics, dev work, etc... I'm willing to accept a loss in gaming performance. But not 30-40% loss. 10-15% loss on average, in 1080p, would be acceptable. I'd easily live with that, and be very pleased with the workstation performance. But the benchmarks are all over the place. Sometimes it's as much as 40% behind. And then in a few games... it outright wins, even against the 7700k. It's very schizoid. And, like you, this worries me. A consistent 10-15% loss in FPS vs 7700k, with everything else the same, would have made Ryzen a winner. A f*cking miracle, actually.
Do you play those 40% games?
 
Another solid Ryzen review addressing performance in gaming and productivity work loads, i thought it was pretty good as it is showing were the Ryzne CPU's are strong right now and were they are showing weakness and why they suffer in certain gaming workloads, also Roy Taylor committed on the review agreeing with the review and the points it made about AMD's relationship with 3rd party partners....





I can't wait to build my 1700 system still waiting on the MOBD thought should be her hopefully thrusday-friday


Can't stand that guys accent so didn't watch. But that AdoredTV guy is known to be an AMD apologist.
 
So noticing decent X370 boards in stock again ASRock Killer 370 looks like a good board. Definitely sticking to RAM on the QVL list. Best I could find is a Corsair 32GB kit that'll do 2666, which is okay I guess. Think I'm going to go ahead and pull the trigger on this sh*t if I can find a 1TB SSD worth buying. Already ordered the 1080 ti from nvidia since that popped back into stock this morning. Case on its way.

I have the Killer AC board and its been great for me, i have my Gskill RGB running at 2933 even though its 3200 memory, had to loosen the timings to get it past the 2133. But its been great running an nvme and sata m2. And put my 1700x cpu to 3.9 without even changing anything
 
Can't stand that guys accent so didn't watch. But that AdoredTV guy is known to be an AMD apologist.

ya he does certainly lean in AMD's favor but at the same time he does not out right lie, at worst he has sited some more then optimistic reviews in the past to back what he was trying to say and if he was doing that here I would not bring this vid to light. In this vid he is being very "sober" in his review of Ryzen and not emotional like he was in his last vid, as he is showing the CPU's weaknesses along side it's strengths and the number that he is showing line up with other reviewers experiences so I thought this review was pretty solid and if i saw anything fishy in the review I would not bother posting here.

anyway like everything this should be taken with a grain of salt especially when they talk about possible of optimization because no one knows the future.
 
I would absolutely do a X370 Taichi with a 1700 and OC it to 3.9/4.0, but motherboard availability is definitely an issue. The gaming deficits that I have seen definitely fall into the realm of don't matter. I'd trade a small amount of trivial gaming performance (I'll turn down a setting or two, woe is me) for a huge gain in productivity power and overall product value.
 
All right... here's the final break down. Ordered all the parts.

Ryzen 1700X (went with the X since I've read it is a little better than 1700 with OC - and still cheaper than 1800X)
Noctua 12S Cooler with AM4 bracket
Asus X370 Prime mobo (originally wanted ASrock, but more memory options on Asus QVL)
G.Skill 32GB (16x2) 2666 15-15-15-35. On QVL list.
Geforce 1080 Ti straight from Nvidia
Plextor 1TB nmve boot drive
Seagate Barracuda 4TB data drive
Corsair 570X tempered glass case + 1 additional fan for exhaust
Corsair RMX850 power supply

Doing a 100% clean build. No parts migrated from old box. Smoking ruin of old box maybe okay for NAS duty or something. Then again, maybe not. Hey, anyone wanna buy some Radeons abused with too much BTC mining?

I guess we'll see how it is with Ryzen. Looking forward to playing with 8 cores. That was what decided it for me, by the way. There was more upgrade future in the AM4 platform, most likely. In a few years, maybe can drop in a new CPU & GPU and keep trucking. No future in the Z270 chipset. Even less of one with X99. I think the 8 core solution is more future-proof anyway. If I'm wrong, and we're still on quads in 3 or 4 years... well, that's life. Not like Ryzen is going to make me suffer or anything. Plenty faster than my crippled 2600k anyway.
 
ya he does certainly lean in AMD's favor but at the same time he does not out right lie, at worst he has sited some more then optimistic reviews in the past to back what he was trying to say and if he was doing that here I would not bring this vid to light. In this vid he is being very "sober" in his review of Ryzen and not emotional like he was in his last vid, as he is showing the CPU's weaknesses along side it's strengths and the number that he is showing line up with other reviewers experiences so I thought this review was pretty solid and if i saw anything fishy in the review I would not bother posting here.

anyway like everything this should be taken with a grain of salt especially when they talk about possible of optimization because no one knows the future.

Well, I'm about as neutral as they come with brands. I'll report back with my own findings after I get this thing built. No slant. No bullsh*t. Sad part is? This is Intel's fault. If they were selling a 6 core Kaby Lake, say 3.8 or 4.0 GHz, for like $500, I'd have gone that route instead. All day long. But it was older 6850k at 3.6 on even older platform for $650, or quad core Kaby Lake, or Ryzen.

I found it most difficult to decide between Ryzen and Kaby Lake. Kind of average-ish 8 core chip vs. fastest quad around. In the end, the newer platform and the 8 cores won. And partly because I saw some videos of folks playing games *WHILE* doing something else. Streaming, or whatever... and 7700k stuttered and dropped frames all over. Sure, it's faster than Ryzen in games *when you're not doing anything else*, and by a hefty margin too. But me? I'm thinking when I'm rendering some sh*t, maybe I could fire up a game to pass the time, and still be able to run both 'cause I've got cores for days.

Now that's a use case that definitely favors Ryzen.

Or maybe while After Effects is chugging away, I can f*ck around in FL Studio or something. Without having to have two separate boxes. And VM servers? Cake. No problem when you got 8 cores. Side note: PHP on Windows is pure hell. F*cking hate it.

But that's what I *think*. I'll put this sh*t together and tell you if the theory and the youtube bullsh*tters are right or wrong.

'cause the DuronBurgerMan doesn't lie.
 
Well, I'm about as neutral as they come with brands. I'll report back with my own findings after I get this thing built. No slant. No bullsh*t. Sad part is? This is Intel's fault. If they were selling a 6 core Kaby Lake, say 3.8 or 4.0 GHz, for like $500, I'd have gone that route instead. All day long. But it was older 6850k at 3.6 on even older platform for $650, or quad core Kaby Lake, or Ryzen.

Would AMD even be around had Intel released a 6C/12T or 8C/16T mainstream chip 3-4 years ago? We can't forget that one of the reasons AMD is still around is because Intel needs at least one competitor in the desktop CPU space.
 
Would AMD even be around had Intel released a 6C/12T or 8C/16T mainstream chip 3-4 years ago? We can't forget that one of the reasons AMD is still around is because Intel needs at least one competitor in the desktop CPU space.

You might be right. Hell, I don't know how the folks at the top of the corporate dogpile think. Maybe Intel deliberately sandbagged. Maybe it's a ploy to keep AMD around as "competition." Maybe that's why everything the released for six years was just a small improvement. That's all irrelevant to me, though. I'd have bought Intel if they could have hit my use case better. But they didn't, for whatever reason. So here we are.
 
Well, I'm about as neutral as they come with brands. I'll report back with my own findings after I get this thing built. No slant. No bullsh*t. Sad part is? This is Intel's fault. If they were selling a 6 core Kaby Lake, say 3.8 or 4.0 GHz, for like $500, I'd have gone that route instead. All day long. But it was older 6850k at 3.6 on even older platform for $650, or quad core Kaby Lake, or Ryzen.

I found it most difficult to decide between Ryzen and Kaby Lake. Kind of average-ish 8 core chip vs. fastest quad around. In the end, the newer platform and the 8 cores won. And partly because I saw some videos of folks playing games *WHILE* doing something else. Streaming, or whatever... and 7700k stuttered and dropped frames all over. Sure, it's faster than Ryzen in games *when you're not doing anything else*, and by a hefty margin too. But me? I'm thinking when I'm rendering some sh*t, maybe I could fire up a game to pass the time, and still be able to run both 'cause I've got cores for days.

Now that's a use case that definitely favors Ryzen.

Or maybe while After Effects is chugging away, I can f*ck around in FL Studio or something. Without having to have two separate boxes. And VM servers? Cake. No problem when you got 8 cores. Side note: PHP on Windows is pure hell. F*cking hate it.

But that's what I *think*. I'll put this sh*t together and tell you if the theory and the youtube bullsh*tters are right or wrong.

'cause the DuronBurgerMan doesn't lie.

I'm right there with you, if there was a 6 core Kaby Lake for around 500-600$ plus a good Z270, I would have that built and here right now replacing my current rig, but like you said it just feels almost wrong buying a 4core CPU in 2017, I was even considering Broadwell-e 6core CPU but Ryzens price to performance is so dame good unless you need to have all your cores on one CPU die you don't need to spend the money, still wanting to go with intel for the various other reasons are all good too as long as you the buyer is satisfied, I currently have everything but the MOBD so I can't say for sure on Ryzens performance but I have no reason to doubt the reviews of the likes of Gamer Nexus so Ryzen should preform how I expect it to.


Anyway good luck with your system I look forward to what you have to say about Ryzen pertaining to you real world needs and how the gaming performance is for you.
 
All right... here's the final break down. Ordered all the parts.

Ryzen 1700X (went with the X since I've read it is a little better than 1700 with OC - and still cheaper than 1800X)
Noctua 12S Cooler with AM4 bracket
Asus X370 Prime mobo (originally wanted ASrock, but more memory options on Asus QVL)
G.Skill 32GB (16x2) 2666 15-15-15-35. On QVL list.
Geforce 1080 Ti straight from Nvidia
Plextor 1TB nmve boot drive
Seagate Barracuda 4TB data drive
Corsair 570X tempered glass case + 1 additional fan for exhaust
Corsair RMX850 power supply

Doing a 100% clean build. No parts migrated from old box. Smoking ruin of old box maybe okay for NAS duty or something. Then again, maybe not. Hey, anyone wanna buy some Radeons abused with too much BTC mining?

I guess we'll see how it is with Ryzen. Looking forward to playing with 8 cores. That was what decided it for me, by the way. There was more upgrade future in the AM4 platform, most likely. In a few years, maybe can drop in a new CPU & GPU and keep trucking. No future in the Z270 chipset. Even less of one with X99. I think the 8 core solution is more future-proof anyway. If I'm wrong, and we're still on quads in 3 or 4 years... well, that's life. Not like Ryzen is going to make me suffer or anything. Plenty faster than my crippled 2600k anyway.


Solid build, I'd have gone with the 1700 and saved a few dollars but overall good choice. With regard to the bold portion, even if you could drop a newer CPU in there 3-4 years from now, you'd most likely want to change out the motherboard for newer revisions that have more features regardless so its a pretty moot point. The funny thing is I just did the opposite of you, I dropped from a 5820k to 7700k because I wasn't getting use out of the extra cores and wanted higher frequency single thread. I got lucky too as this 7700k I received does 5 ghz at 1.25v all day long at very reasonable temperatures on a CLC. I haven't tested rendering videos while playing games yet but truth be told, even my 5820k would chug if I tried playing ARMA 3 while rendering videos in Sony Vegas. If you can pull that off with the 1700x, then that'd be really nice.
 
Last edited:
All right... here's the final break down. Ordered all the parts.

Ryzen 1700X (went with the X since I've read it is a little better than 1700 with OC - and still cheaper than 1800X)
Noctua 12S Cooler with AM4 bracket
Asus X370 Prime mobo (originally wanted ASrock, but more memory options on Asus QVL)
G.Skill 32GB (16x2) 2666 15-15-15-35. On QVL list.
Geforce 1080 Ti straight from Nvidia
Plextor 1TB nmve boot drive
Seagate Barracuda 4TB data drive
Corsair 570X tempered glass case + 1 additional fan for exhaust
Corsair RMX850 power supply

Doing a 100% clean build. No parts migrated from old box. Smoking ruin of old box maybe okay for NAS duty or something. Then again, maybe not. Hey, anyone wanna buy some Radeons abused with too much BTC mining?

I guess we'll see how it is with Ryzen. Looking forward to playing with 8 cores. That was what decided it for me, by the way. There was more upgrade future in the AM4 platform, most likely. In a few years, maybe can drop in a new CPU & GPU and keep trucking. No future in the Z270 chipset. Even less of one with X99. I think the 8 core solution is more future-proof anyway. If I'm wrong, and we're still on quads in 3 or 4 years... well, that's life. Not like Ryzen is going to make me suffer or anything. Plenty faster than my crippled 2600k anyway.


Nice Build. Glad you thought it trough and what fits best for your overall needs. And you are right, I have a 6850k but I don't know what the future holds for me upgrade wise when it comes to drop in chips. Ryzen is competitive enough that it really makes me think about future upgrades. Zen2 and Zen3 are all confirmed to be x370 compatible. So that feature is really important to me and always has been, but due to lack of competition intel has had me by the balls. This system will last me a bit.
 
Can't stand that guys accent so didn't watch. But that AdoredTV guy is known to be an AMD apologist.

He definitely seems to slant AMD.

I really wish he had a GTX 1080 to test with, instead of the 1070 though. I love that he did real world gaming for his tests, but playing on ultra settings with a 1070 just meant GPU bound result after GPU bound result. Honestly, the most surprising thing about those gaming results was how surprisingly decent even a *stock* 2500k was doing.

I think the one real highlight of the video was the Fallout 4 memory test though. Going from 2133 to 2667 gained 15% more frames, which is pretty nuts. It seems pretty clear that RAM speed is important for Ryzen in some situations. Definitely curious to watch and see how compatibility goes and if more 3200 kits start working.
 
I would go Ryzen 1700 or 6850k depending on how much you care about gaming. The intel will be better for gaming but the 1700 is a better value.

Edit, I see you've ordered already. Rig looks solid :pompous:
 
Last edited:
Another solid Ryzen review addressing performance in gaming and productivity work loads, i thought it was pretty good as it is showing were the Ryzne CPU's are strong right now and were they are showing weakness and why they suffer in certain gaming workloads, also Roy Taylor committed on the review agreeing with the review and the points it made about AMD's relationship with 3rd party partners....





I can't wait to build my 1700 system still waiting on the MOBD thought should be her hopefully thrusday-friday


Thanks for sharing! This was an amazing video, and I think really shows a fair look at Ryzen and an optimistic look at the future. Especially his streaming test, which clearly shows how Ryzen can be noticeably better in some tasks. I wish there were more videos like this initially as I felt the launch got hampered with unfair doom and gloom to an otherwise great product.
 
If the 6 cores follow suit with the 8 cores (IE: if you overlock, very little difference between models), the 1600 should be a dang good value. The 7600k will out game it for sure, but with 2 more cores and *triple* the total amount of threads, the 1600 should crush it in everything that's decently threaded.
 
Yeah, the RAM issue was a mistake, but hopefully one that can be resolved shortly.

The memory I bought is technically 3000, not 2666. But according to the QVL, it will only run at 2666 right now.

Hopefully, if they are working on the memory issue, maybe I can get something closer to 3000 out of it in the future (maybe 2933?). Every test I've seen shows an easy 10% ish gain with fast memory on Ryzen. They *should* have corrected their memory controller issue before release. The numbers would have been much more competitive.

I was annoyed at how short the QVL list was. There was only ONE available 32GB kit that could even hit 2666 on the list. And only a few 16GB kits that could hit 2933. 3200 was a 8GB kit only. Hopefully BIOS updates add more compatibility and faster supported speeds.
 
Last edited:
I see that you already bought / are buying the system. As much as I think Ryzen brings a lot to the table, if you're relying on your system to do paying work I would have waited a month or two for the bugs to be worked out (I'm personally waiting for Naples before pitching to my boss).

Since you listed ~20% gaming as your usage scenario, I don't think you'll be disappointed in a Ryzen build. Good luck!
 
As much as I think Ryzen brings a lot to the table, if you're relying on your system to do paying work I would have waited a month or two for the bugs to be worked out (I'm personally waiting for Naples before pitching to my boss).

I'm less worried about that, given that my current box is twitchy and on its last legs now. I'm to the point that I'm afraid to reboot it, because I don't know if it will come back. So a few potential early-adopter bugs do not scare me in the slightest, by comparison.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure I'm with you here. I'm gonna wait around a bit for things to stabilize some and hopefully see some mobo reviews, but I'm like 90% sure I'm going Ryzen. I tend to hang on to my PCs for longer than most enthusiasts probably do and I can't help but feel safer getting an 8 core for the long haul. I got a 2500k instead of a 2600k because I didn't figure I'd care much about those extra threads, but a few years later I began to regret that pretty hard. Not making that mistake again.
 
it really seems like memory side of things really hurt amd. I bet if they had waited a few more weeks and included higher speed memory with review kits we would have seen heck of a lot better reviews at 1080p. Ryzen seems to lover faster memory as its increasing fabric bandwidth and communication speed between the CCX it seems. Misstep on their part.

I am waiting until you guys do a 1080p review with faster memory speeds than AMD included in review kits.

We need more data points because with certain games even Intel sees large increases going from 2133MHz to around 3000MHz, that AMD vid was 2133MHz to 2933Mhz.
Witcher 3 going from 2133MHz to 3066MHz saw a 17% performance gain on the i5 6500.
GTA 5 12.3%
Far Crt 4 14%
3rd table down: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-intel-skylake-core-i5-6500-review
Also importantly shows some games had negligible effect.

Here is the i3 6100 and 2133MHz to 2666Mhz (2nd table down with notable improvements some games and nearly none in others): http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-core-i3-6100-review

So more data is needed to work out how much of the increase with memory clock speed is from game sensitivity or the data fabric/Infinity fabric relationship with memory frequency, and ideally also with games known not to be sensitive to clock speed.

Cheers
 
We need more data points because with certain games even Intel sees large increases going from 2133MHz to around 3000MHz, that AMD vid was 2133MHz to 2933Mhz.
Witcher 3 going from 2133MHz to 3066MHz saw a 17% performance gain on the i5 6500.
GTA 5 12.3%
Far Crt 4 14%
3rd table down: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-intel-skylake-core-i5-6500-review
Also importantly shows some games had negligible effect.

Here is the i3 6100 and 2133MHz to 2666Mhz (2nd table down with notable improvements some games and nearly none in others): http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-core-i3-6100-review

So more data is needed to work out how much of the increase with memory clock speed is from game sensitivity or the data fabric/Infinity fabric relationship with memory frequency, and ideally also with games known not to be sensitive to clock speed.

Cheers

We'll see. I'm not particularly concerned either way. But some extra gaming performance would be nice.
 
Back
Top