So i was browsing internet, about ryzen and ram cloaking, that ryzen love faster memory and so... But i did notice something weird. If you want to go above 2666 ghz you will have to include blck, which means you will need to overcloak cpu itself to increase the memory speed avove it?!
Not entirely unusual, the memory controller is on the CPU die after all.
And if you are using that fast of RAM - because the official maximum memory speed for Ryzen is 2666 - then you are probably overclocking the CPU anyway.
Im not even talking about i7 i think for me personal ryzen is the best available cpu. It has cores to support multyasking and rendering. I still own i7 in my laptop i got years before, it works good, but when it comes to multitasking, its just not good enough.
As i can asume 1800x is 5% increase over 1700x, and it cost 90 to 100 more. In gaming its few frames, but let me ask how does that 5% increase in rendering, for example, not touching OC?
You are on the spot here. The only reason to buy the ryzen over intel is if you are a multi-tasker running a lot of different things at one time. If you are straight up gamer the intel chips are actually better in the long run for a gaming desktop.
With that said it really isn't worth the money to ever buy a new chip when it first comes out. Unless you just have money sitting around to blow just wait six months to a year an the prices will drop a ton. Never understand the people that run out and buy things when they first come out. Those are also the people you normally see complaining when something goes wrong or the chips don't work as intended.
Im not even talking about i7 i think for me personal ryzen is the best available cpu. It has cores to support multyasking and rendering. I still own i7 in my laptop i got years before, it works good, but when it comes to multitasking, its just not good enough.
As i can asume 1800x is 5% increase over 1700x, and it cost 90 to 100 more. In gaming its few frames, but let me ask how does that 5% increase in rendering, for example, not touching OC?
1. Any cpu you bought "years before" will pale when compared to a cpu of today.
2. At the end of the day it depends - as said above - what you are prepared to pay coupled with what your needs are.
You say "why wouldn't you get something faster" well consider an analogy: say you can buy a car that does 0-60 in 5 seconds or one that does 0-60 in 4 seconds at a much higher price. To some it matters to many people though it doesn't - especially when pretty much all modern cars will truck along at the speed limit with ease etc.
Not entirely unusual, the memory controller is on the CPU die after all.
And if you are using that fast of RAM - because the official maximum memory speed for Ryzen is 2666 - then you are probably overclocking the CPU anyway.
Yeah, but i really didint know that if you want to overclock i do overclock cpu itself. No where such information to see... To have full potential of the ryzen chip you want your ram fast as fast as 3200ghz if possible, it is a big deal in games it gives you bunch of frames. But with this, you really dont want to go 1800x route, since i dont think that cpu is meant for overclocking ( Very close to the limit after all ) My logic is ruined by this. Need to rethink everything.
You are on the spot here. The only reason to buy the ryzen over intel is if you are a multi-tasker running a lot of different things at one time. If you are straight up gamer the intel chips are actually better in the long run for a gaming desktop.
With that said it really isn't worth the money to ever buy a new chip when it first comes out. Unless you just have money sitting around to blow just wait six months to a year an the prices will drop a ton. Never understand the people that run out and buy things when they first come out. Those are also the people you normally see complaining when something goes wrong or the chips don't work as intended.
Well, its worth or not, some people are in a need of new system. I moved to other country, i dont have my old system with me, i will be building new this year.
1. Any cpu you bought "years before" will pale when compared to a cpu of today.
2. At the end of the day it depends - as said above - what you are prepared to pay coupled with what your needs are.
You say "why wouldn't you get something faster" well consider an analogy: say you can buy a car that does 0-60 in 5 seconds or one that does 0-60 in 4 seconds at a much higher price. To some it matters to many people though it doesn't - especially when pretty much all modern cars will truck along at the speed limit with ease etc.
Not really Gervaise1, the cpu margins increases very slowly over the years, thats the one thing you could invest in, but that is my opinion.
I understand what are you trying to say with that analogy, but if you spend alot of time doing things with the computer it isn't place where you should save. And i do spend tons and tons of time in front of my computer.
Not really Gervaise1, the cpu margins increases very slowly over the years, thats the one thing you could invest in, but that is my opinion.
I understand what are you trying to say with that analogy, but if you spend alot of time doing things with the computer it isn't place where you should save. And i do spend tons and tons of time in front of my computer.
I can get going from a $220 to a $350, maybe even a $450 CPU for longevity's sake.
But going up to some of these $1,000+ CPUs, now your taking a very significant increase. There are some cases where that price increase can easily be justified, but with respect to gaming, those chips often perform worse than lower-priced CPUs.
With all of Intel's new offerings, for a desktop you just cannot beat a I7 7700 when it comes to gaming. If you want to go AMD then the 1700 is probably the best bet. I really don't understand why Intel seems to be throwing everything but the kitchen sink out there other than to confuse CPU purchasers.
For gaming, the only thing that comes close to a i7 7700 for $320 is an i5 7600 for $220: where, for 95% of all games, the only difference between the two is 100Mhz and $100.
Also the biggest reason Intel has all these SKUs: OEMs.
The vast majority of Intels processor sales are OEM contacts.
Comparitavely, Intel doesn't sell that many CPUs retail. And only a handful of SKUs are actually available retail.
Larger OEMs can make specific requests for chips, and Intel is happy to oblige (provided there is a minimum purchase in the contract). It isn't uncommon to see, of the 2 or 3 dozen SKUs for a given generation, that several of them will be a one-off chip only manufactured for one particular OEM.
Apple is notorious for it, but they are hardly the only ones doing it.
@albers Some things you may not be fully aware of concerning Ryzen:
It's basically two dies functioning as one. For this to happen efficiently enough to provide a compelling option (unlike Intel's attempt with C2Q a decade or so ago) the dies need to communicate. This is done with AMD's Infinity Fabric. IF is limited to the speed of the memory. However, past 2666 MHz, you see diminishing returns. In other words, you likely won't notice as much difference past 2666 unless you're looking at benchmarks.
Overclocking is way more common these days than it was in the past. We used to OC back in the day because it was a cheap way to get a lot more performance. AMD made this much easier due to its unlocked multipliers. Intel always locked the multipliers. It's one reason so many of us old timers are happy to see AMD return to competition. Obviously, the whole game is changed today, but I remember AMD fondly from the 2000 era.
To those arguing about 7700k vs. Ryzen: Intel is still the ST king, and that can't hope to change until at least Zen 2 on the new process from Samsung. Honest question: Are any of you not GPU limited? All of these benchmarks are using 1080p (or even 720p in some cases) with an overkill GPU to create a CPU limited test environment. At higher resolutions or with less GPU horsepower, Ryzen fares a bit better. The difference becomes 5 FPS, not 15, and you still retain the better muti-threaded capability.
Ryzen 7 is not two dies functioning as one. It's all one die, even if it has two separate L3 caches. Threadripper is two dies in a multi-chip module. Moving from one die to the other in Threadripper is a much bigger hit than moving from one core complex to the other in Ryzen 7.
@albers Some things you may not be fully aware of concerning Ryzen:
It's basically two dies functioning as one. For this to happen efficiently enough to provide a compelling option (unlike Intel's attempt with C2Q a decade or so ago) the dies need to communicate. This is done with AMD's Infinity Fabric. IF is limited to the speed of the memory. However, past 2666 MHz, you see diminishing returns. In other words, you likely won't notice as much difference past 2666 unless you're looking at benchmarks.
Overclocking is way more common these days than it was in the past. We used to OC back in the day because it was a cheap way to get a lot more performance. AMD made this much easier due to its unlocked multipliers. Intel always locked the multipliers. It's one reason so many of us old timers are happy to see AMD return to competition. Obviously, the whole game is changed today, but I remember AMD fondly from the 2000 era.
To those arguing about 7700k vs. Ryzen: Intel is still the ST king, and that can't hope to change until at least Zen 2 on the new process from Samsung. Honest question: Are any of you not GPU limited? All of these benchmarks are using 1080p (or even 720p in some cases) with an overkill GPU to create a CPU limited test environment. At higher resolutions or with less GPU horsepower, Ryzen fares a bit better. The difference becomes 5 FPS, not 15, and you still retain the better muti-threaded capability.
Actually, I have seen multiple tests where Ryzen performs much better when OC'd combined with faster memory. So yes the 2666 is the max when not OCing, but if you are OCing, the results show that faster memory is a big improvement. Intel on the other hand gets almost no benefit from OCings, even with faster memory.
Comments
And if you are using that fast of RAM - because the official maximum memory speed for Ryzen is 2666 - then you are probably overclocking the CPU anyway.
With that said it really isn't worth the money to ever buy a new chip when it first comes out. Unless you just have money sitting around to blow just wait six months to a year an the prices will drop a ton. Never understand the people that run out and buy things when they first come out. Those are also the people you normally see complaining when something goes wrong or the chips don't work as intended.
2. At the end of the day it depends - as said above - what you are prepared to pay coupled with what your needs are.
You say "why wouldn't you get something faster" well consider an analogy: say you can buy a car that does 0-60 in 5 seconds or one that does 0-60 in 4 seconds at a much higher price. To some it matters to many people though it doesn't - especially when pretty much all modern cars will truck along at the speed limit with ease etc.
Yeah, but i really didint know that if you want to overclock i do overclock cpu itself. No where such information to see...
To have full potential of the ryzen chip you want your ram fast as fast as 3200ghz if possible, it is a big deal in games it gives you bunch of frames. But with this, you really dont want to go 1800x route, since i dont think that cpu is meant for overclocking ( Very close to the limit after all )
Not really Gervaise1, the cpu margins increases very slowly over the years, thats the one thing you could invest in, but that is my opinion.
I understand what are you trying to say with that analogy, but if you spend alot of time doing things with the computer it isn't place where you should save. And i do spend tons and tons of time in front of my computer.
But going up to some of these $1,000+ CPUs, now your taking a very significant increase. There are some cases where that price increase can easily be justified, but with respect to gaming, those chips often perform worse than lower-priced CPUs.
The vast majority of Intels processor sales are OEM contacts.
Comparitavely, Intel doesn't sell that many CPUs retail. And only a handful of SKUs are actually available retail.
Larger OEMs can make specific requests for chips, and Intel is happy to oblige (provided there is a minimum purchase in the contract). It isn't uncommon to see, of the 2 or 3 dozen SKUs for a given generation, that several of them will be a one-off chip only manufactured for one particular OEM.
Apple is notorious for it, but they are hardly the only ones doing it.
It's basically two dies functioning as one. For this to happen efficiently enough to provide a compelling option (unlike Intel's attempt with C2Q a decade or so ago) the dies need to communicate. This is done with AMD's Infinity Fabric. IF is limited to the speed of the memory. However, past 2666 MHz, you see diminishing returns. In other words, you likely won't notice as much difference past 2666 unless you're looking at benchmarks.
Overclocking is way more common these days than it was in the past. We used to OC back in the day because it was a cheap way to get a lot more performance. AMD made this much easier due to its unlocked multipliers. Intel always locked the multipliers. It's one reason so many of us old timers are happy to see AMD return to competition. Obviously, the whole game is changed today, but I remember AMD fondly from the 2000 era.
To those arguing about 7700k vs. Ryzen: Intel is still the ST king, and that can't hope to change until at least Zen 2 on the new process from Samsung. Honest question: Are any of you not GPU limited? All of these benchmarks are using 1080p (or even 720p in some cases) with an overkill GPU to create a CPU limited test environment. At higher resolutions or with less GPU horsepower, Ryzen fares a bit better. The difference becomes 5 FPS, not 15, and you still retain the better muti-threaded capability.