For Gaming, Which CPU -- AMD Ryzen or Intel CoreX?

Hang on I think malo is saying the X has the cooler

 

No. You asked what the X stands for. One of the differences is that it doesn't come with a cooler.

 

Yup. The more expensive one with the higher TDP doesn't come with a cooler and you can supposedly clock a 1600 to 1600X speeds without problems with the stock cooler if you want. (The TDP does go up though, but that's never been a concern of mine)

 

1600 vs 7800x vs 7700k 30 games test:



Article: https://www.techspot.com/review/1450-core-i7-vs-ryzen-5-hexa-core/

 

The 1600 is not far behind and half the price
plus the boards are cheaper

 

The Intel system also had 32GB versus 16GB, not that it should matter much (if at all).

 

My only complaint about this comparison is the fact that they only used a nvidia graphics card, whose drivers are known for getting a wonky behavior in some games, when paired with Ryzen CPUs.

I get that this is partially AMD's fault for not releasing any high-end card for over 2 years, and if you're testing CPU performance you should use the fastest GPU available, but in the case of Ryzen 5 1600 I doubt many people will pair it with a $700 graphics card anyway. It wouldn't hurt to do some tests with the RX 580.

 

Based on what? Its price? It's ok to pair a 4c8t 7700k with a $700 GPU but not a 6c12t CPU?

 

Yes.

 

Shows just how much AMD has disrupted the market when you're basing what people shouldn't buy solely on the fact that it's cheaper than the competition. It is difficult for consumers to break out of the mindset Intel has pounded into us for 10 years.

 

Not what people shouldn't, just what people wouldn't.
How many people are likely to pair a $700-$800 with a $200 CPU? Among gaming-oriented PCs, how often do people use a ~4:1 ratio of expense between GPU and CPU? It's usually closer to 2:1 AFAIK.
Gamers with a total budget that reaches a GTX1080 Ti will probably get a Ryzen 7 1800X or the 7700K.

 

Isn't that at least partially due to Intel charging high prices for a very long time due to the lack of competition?

If cpu x performance similar to cpu y at half the price than I don't see why that isn't a valid comparison. Why wouldn't you buy a 200 dollar part if performance is similar to a 3 or 400 dollar part?

If I pair my 4 year old 4770 with a 1080ti instead of my r9 290 I will notice a lot of extra performance in games. If I match my r9 with a many core cpu I probably won't really notice anything in games and if I compare a 1080ti and many core cpu with a 1080ti and my 4770 I probably won't notice a huge difference.

Most gamers probably benefit more from a faster GPU than a faster cpu so if you can save 200 bucks on a couple why not? That means you can buy that 700 dollar GPU instead of a 500 dollar GPU.

Win win situation I'd say.

 

Well that's my point, AMD are providing a very capable gaming CPU with previously unheard of core/thread count in that price segment. Consumers no longer have to fit into that ratio if they don't want to and won't be stuck with a 4c4t i5 CPU that won't scale very well. The 1600X clocks as high as the 1800X, in most gaming equals the performance, and is $100 less than a 7700k.

Sure there are definitely performance differences in some games due to massive IPC and clock speed of the 7700k, but that's not the argument here and has been discussed ad nauseum everywhere for months. The issue here is the concept that price ratio for CPU/GPU determines speed, which isn't the case anymore. Intel aren't in sole control of the market anymore.

 

I'm still rocking a 2600k @ 4.4 and considering throwing a 1080 or Ti in rather than go through a new build. Knowledgeable gamers are always looking for best bang for their buck.

 

I have a 1070 in a 4.2 GHz 2500K. Prey and Dishonored 2 ran quite well. I replaced a 970 and also bumped it to 16GB RAM. Dishonored 2 was swapping to disk with a 8GB + 4GB VRAM setup.

I also had a 1070 in a 4.2 GHz 3570K but I managed to kill that CPU when I was bored and felt like delidding it. Oh well. So I replaced that with a 7600K which went to 4.8 GHz with no effort. Definitely a bit snappier than a 4.2 GHz SB/IB.

 

i5 and i7 Sandys can last a decade for advanced home use. Maybe even i7 920. Incredible really.

 

I still use my i7 860 with 8GB RAM ^^
But that's because current consoles have anemic CPU, with Ryzen coming to consoles (I suppose) a CPU upgrade will become critical for gamers at least.

 

I'm still using 2 x Harpertown (Intel E5462 / 12M Cache / 2.80 GHz / 1600 MHz FSB). Come January 2018 that system will be a decade old. Single-threaded performance is taking it's toll though.

 

Still using a q6700

 

But with the mid gen upgrades just coming to market won't that take at least another 2 ~ 3 years?