i5 6500 or i5 7500 or Ryzen 1700?

[Dbiggs9]

Ryzen newer games will use more cores in the future. you are talking a small amount in games not anything that makes it unplayable.

 

[P4-630]

One more important thing is how much you are willing(can) (to) spend at the moment.

 

[Vya Domus]

Games already use more than 4 threads effectively this myth needs to die. I for one would not even think about buying into an i3/i5 or any other future AMD quad core , more threads = less stutter and better minimum fps , this is what makes a difference not 5 extra fps when you are already at , say 100 fps .1700 is way more capable at just about anything else in addition. It may not be an absolute necessity for you , but you would certainly not waste money on an 1700.

 

[Sasqui]

Hey, look at that 3 out of 2 people voted for Trump, I mean Ryzen... lol

 

[eidairaman1]

Hey, look at that 3 out of 2 people voted for Trump, I mean Ryzen... lol

Why are you bringing politics into a technology forum, why does it matter if someone voted for trump or hillary?

Lets stay on topic shall we?

 

[Vario]

I voted i5. If its cheaper for you, and it does everything you need it to do, its probably the way to go. Glad to see Ryzen is close in single thread though. I wonder if there will be soft code based improvements and optimizations for Ryzen to come, that would be a nice surprise.

Intel is better at gaming for now, the 1700 will be better in the long run, I would suggest waiting for AMD's R5 & R3 CPU's if you're patient enough.

They said the same thing about the FX8150 being better in the long run then the 2500K. Now, the i7 920 was good long term. And the 2500K was. But the 8150 was a dud at release and still is a dud now. Buy what makes sense now and if/when things require 8+ threads you can upgrade to the latest at that time, whether it is AMD or Intel.

 

[Eroticus]

I Voted for Ryzen.

This video shows raw benchmarks captured with the AMD Ryzen 1700 (3.9GHz) CPU versus the i7 7700K (5GHz) from Intel. GPU is GTX 1080. For more details on test systems and full review, please refer to my 1700 review.


By the logic of some people here even Intel Pentium G is better than 6950x in some resolutions and games that almost no one play...

 

[Vario]

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/03/amd-ryzen-review/

Extra PCI-E lanes seems like a sweet deal once NVME PCIE storage becomes the norm.

 

[BiggieShady]

This video shows raw benchmarks captured with the AMD Ryzen 1700 (3.9GHz) CPU versus the i7 7700K (5GHz) from Intel.

Noticed two things, how Ryzen has very few stutters (they are rare although noticeable) and how WashDogs2 is cpu bound on kaby lake - uses up >95% at times and drop to 60-ies on gtx1080 (biggest win for ryzen)

 

[GreiverBlade]

I Voted for Ryzen.

This video shows raw benchmarks captured with the AMD Ryzen 1700 (3.9GHz) CPU versus the i7 7700K (5GHz) from Intel. GPU is GTX 1080. For more details on test systems and full review, please refer to my 1700 review.


By the logic of some people here even Intel Pentium G is better than 6950x in some resolutions and games that almost no one play...

oh so actually the "intel is better for gaming" thing is not ... relevant and a 3.9ghz beat a 5ghz???? (ok ok ... it's 4C/8T vs 8C/16T i reckon )

i think i will be going red instead of blue if i need to upgrade from my 6600K, luckily since i have a 6600K i can wait until the 1700/1700X prices drop a bit

Noticed two things, how Ryzen has very few stutters (they are rare although noticeable) and how WashDogs2 is cpu bound on kaby lake - uses up >95% at times and drop to 60-ies on gtx1080 (biggest win for ryzen)

interesting ...

also that :

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/03/amd-ryzen-review/

Extra PCI-E lanes seems like a sweet deal once NVME PCIE storage becomes the norm.

yep ... it's actually like getting a X99 setup for less money ... in the end

 

[Vario]

oh so actually the "intel is better for gaming" thing is not ... relevant and a 3.9ghz beat a 5ghz???? (ok ok ... it's 4C/8T vs 8C/16T i reckon )

i think i will be going red instead of blue if i need to upgrade from my 6600K, luckily since i have a 6600K i can wait until the 1700/1700X prices drop a bit


interesting ...

It would be a sidegrade. Unless you need the cores. Seems like Ryzen is a hell of a multicore monster. Amazing for servers and workstations.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

I voted Intel, only because the Ryzen platform is still a work in progress... from what I've seen. For multithreaded tasks, it's price point can't be beat at the moment.

With a 390 none of those processors will be a bottleneck, if he can afford there's no reason not to grab the ryzen which will be as good as the Intel processors listed at gaming and twice as good at anything multithreaded, if you wallet approve this is what you must do

 

[GreiverBlade]

It would be a sidegrade.

wth? the 1700/1700X is on par with a 7700K ... and the core count could also be a step up if i ever plan on heavily threaded task (encoding streaming whatever else ...)
plus the 1700 is one of the 65w right? 30w less? deal

on the long run it will be less a sidegrade plus the PCIE lane argument is still valid for me

i mean i was planning to go 6700K/7700K later (way later)... (that would be a sidegrade too i reckon) but 8C/16T at the same price of a 4C/8T is not a bad trade

 

[SUPERREDDEVIL]

D*mn, all of you people voting for Ryzen is making me save for that thing some months hahaha what a fine battle we have here today gentleman.

 

[Sasqui]

D*mn, all of you people voting for Ryzen is making me save for that thing some months hahaha what a fine battle we have here today gentleman.

Results kind of surprised me. Any competition with intel will be good for all of us, it's been way too long.

 

[GreiverBlade]

D*mn, all of you people voting for Ryzen is making me save for that thing some months hahaha what a fine battle we have here today gentleman.

actually the "king of the *perf/price* ratio" IS Ryzen ... thought i am happy with my 6600K and i feel like a 6600K would be fine for you too ...

now, more personally speaking ... the 1700 where i live is priced like the 7700K and it's more a 6900K counterpart in workstation task, while being close enough of the 7700K for gaming ... which explain why i would choose Ryzen over an i7 ... since i can get X99 HEDT performances level for less money invested and still getting nearly same gaming performances than the direct price concurrent (not mentioning i bet i can get the fund for the mobo + CPU by reselling my mobo and CPU and adding it to my initial CPU alone budget, thus also reducing the total cost ... )

but my GPU is a 1070 (for now, plenty enough since i only have a 27" 1080p 60hz screen ) since 4K is not an option for me (because of usefulness and maturity) i might go for a 27" 1440p 144hz ... well i wonder what's the result on that res (rather than 4K and 1080p)

 

[SUPERREDDEVIL]

I know! long time no seeing this kind of "competence" (jeez, since the ATHLON 64 era!) and i think AMD gets on the track again, no matter if they dont beat the 7700K, its a nice battle for us the consumers and good for the industry, i hope intel is seeing this with good eyes and start beign more "fair" with their product prices.

 

[Vario]

wth? the 1700/1700X is on par with a 7700K ... and the core count could also be a step up if i ever plan on heavily threaded task (encoding streaming whatever else ...)
plus the 1700 is one of the 65w right? 30w less? deal

on the long run it will be less a sidegrade plus the PCIE lane argument is still valid for me

i mean i was planning to go 6700K/7700K later (way later)... (that would be a sidegrade too i reckon) but 8C/16T at the same price of a 4C/8T is not a bad trade

Sidegrade for single thread gaming bro. Now if you want that core count bump, that would be a big upgrade.

 

[GreiverBlade]

Sidegrade for single thread gaming bro. Now if you want that core count bump, that would be a big upgrade.

at a lesser expense ... so yep to me it deserve a "good job AMD" ...

nonetheless if it's a sidegrade in single thread gaming ... then it's still a "good job AMD"

my AMD Athlon Pluto (SLOT A) 700A is dancing on the shelf ... in front of 2 Intel PIII XEON and some S604 one ... even if Ryzen is not on the level of the legendary Slot A Athlon ... it's still a very nice CPU and pricing is a little higher than i hoped for but still within acceptable range.

 

[Vario]

I agree. Once they get some higher clock speeds out of it and better turbo and memory compatibility it will be amazing.

 

[Grings]

Ryzen over a non-k i5 hands down

the 6500 is 3.2ghz(3.6 turbo) the 7500 is 3.4(3.8 turbo), the skylake one is also limited to 2133 ram, the kaby 2400

I think the ryzen 3's will end up being better than these particular intel chips

 

[Komshija]

I voted for Intel for two main reasons:
1) You said gaming CPU, where i5 currently dominates while Ryzen 7 1700 will be an overkill
2) both i5 6500 and i5 7500 are cheaper than Ryzen 7 1700

In real world scenario, Ryzen 7 1700 is far, far more powerful than any existing i5 variant, but also more expensive.

 

[P4-630]

OP is playing games @1080p with a R9 390! A fast i5 is good enough even for a future graphic card upgrade with a K CPU.
Why would you burn a hole in your pocket on a 16 thread AMD CPU with an expensive motherboard now,
which you practically don't need at the moment? It doesn't even perform that well at 1080p for gaming.
OP isn't running a server lol! It isn't the time yet that games are fully optimized for a 16 thread CPU.

 

[BarbaricSoul]

^what he said

 

[GreiverBlade]

I voted for Intel for two main reasons:
1) You said gaming CPU, where i5 currently dominates while Ryzen 7 1700 will be an overkill
2) both i5 6500 and i5 7500 are cheaper than Ryzen 7 1700

In real world scenario, Ryzen 7 1700 is far, far more powerful than any existing i5 variant, but also more expensive.

dominate in gaming is an exaggeration, heck i even used a i3-4130T with sucess for gaming (adequately paired with a 750Ti which was enough for 1080p too)... in fact it's barely visible and yes a 1700 is more powerful than a i5 and prolly cost 100$ more but it's not his counterpart ... his counterpart are a same price 4C/8T for the price level (and gaming performances ... ) and a 1000$+ 8C/16T in term of workstation use ...
(thought, i for one also consider a i7 as Overkill in gaming ... tho you never know what you will do later that could use the excess of power ... which technically did lead me to consider a 6700K/7700K later ... but now AMD as a far better offer imho )

obviously since gaming is implied the fact that a 1700 @ 3.9ghz produce the same fps at a +/-5-10 variation than a 5.0ghz 7700K does not make a i5 dominate a 1700

that being said ... it can only go better with time passing ... sooooo where is the issue with the 1700 again? the fact that it's Ryzen from AMD? or it's not labelled Intel on it?

OP is playing games @1080p with a R9 390! A fast i5 is good enough even for a future graphic card upgrade with a K CPU.
Why would you burn a hole in your pocket on a 16 thread AMD CPU with an expensive motherboard now,
which you practically don't need at the moment? It doesn't even perform that well at 1080p for gaming.
OP isn't running a server lol! It isn't the time yet that games are fully optimized for a 16 thread CPU.

nah he can technically wait on the R3 and R5 Ryzen ... and still go the Ryzen way

for me too a 8C/16T would be too much ... but i rather take that option than change, as i've planned, my 6600K for a 6700K/7700K if Ryzen proven to be a failure ... and it's not the case.
oh well i will probably have a 6900K for the price of a 6700K if i do that ... very bad move indeed [warning sarcasme]

expensive mobo ... for once i disagree in stock at my retailer in example : Gigabyte AORUS X370 Gaming 5 : 224chf = a little cheaper than my Gaming 7 (279) and even has the same shroud on the IO and sound that my Gaming 7
WOOPS overexpensive indeed (wait ... actually it's same pricing ... +/-50chf ) the most expensives mobo barely reach the price of my Z170X Gaming 7 ... and seemingly offer a little more for the price... (i am quite surprised i have to confess ... nonetheless )

bundle from my E-tailer : a ASUS PRIME X370 a R7 1700 and 16gb DDR4 (2400 unfortunately but 2X8) for 679chf .... i've seen way worse bundle from Intel at the same E-tailer (thought the mobo is nothing like the one that follow )

and that one looks beautiful


same price league as my Gaming 7 : AORUS Gaming K7 (too black ... i rather go the Gaming 5 way) and ASRock Taichi (exactly what i need in term of color scheme ... but the AORUS Gaming 5 has enough white to be valid too )


cheaper than the Gaming 5 but still packing quit a lot (180chf~ meaning at last 99chf cheaper than my Z170X Gaming 7) and also a nice color scheme: ASRock X370 Killer SLI