Here a processor for those who want the best performance, the Intel Core i7 7820X. Retails for around A$859, but most shops are out of stock as it is such a brand new produc with not enough shipment. But you only pay $772. Simply add the item to your cart, then apply the code PLAYING in the cart and then check out using paypal.
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Intel-Core-i7-7820X-Processor-11M…
It's hilarious that intel are slow to act on some actual (for once) competition. Go AMD!
Be real, you're not getting the same performance. But the Ryzen is a better deal.
AMD is good because the price is cheaper and the performance is very close to Intel, but when it comes to sheer performance, Intel still rules and Intel can be overclocked higher closer to 5 Ghz where as the best Ryzen chips stops at 4.1 Ghz Max for daily usage scenarios.
Any way I am sure people who will buy processors are smart enough to know all these performance permutations themselves and can make up their own mind.
This isn't bad as a no compromise build - it's an 8 core beast AND insane single threaded performance. It basically combines the best of a 7700K build with the best of a Ryzen 1800x (or overclocked 1700) build.
Is it worth the $300-700 extra? Well, no… But if you have the money to throw around for an all in no compromise build, this is the CPU for the job.
if you are looking to make no compromises, you'd wait just a little longer for Threadripper. Intel X Series is full of compromises
Let me clarify more directly:
Ryzen > Intel for multi threaded loads*
Intel > Ryzen for single threaded.
Thread ripper = more cores and insane increases to multi threaded performance. No reason to expect increases to single threaded.
In other words, this CPU (or the series as a whole) still wins for the in-between market - you don't have to compromise on ~10% gaming performance in exchange for +20-30% rendering. You can have the best of both.
Note thread ripper basically brings the whole thing back again, only this time it's the newer 8 core Intel's up against 16 cores. An enthusiast could either go this for insane gaming and rendering performance, or threadripper for a slight decrease to gaming but insanely fast (like dual Xeon level) rendering performance.
To summarize another way:
Intel 7820x:
Gaming performance: 12/10
Rendering performance 12/10
Value: 5/10
(Note it more than meets both requirements)
Ryzen 1700 | 1700x | 1800x:
Gaming performance: 7/10 - 9.5/10*
Rendering performance: 8/10 - 10/10
Value: 10/10 | 8.5/10 | 7/10
*If not streaming - when single core boost kicks in
(Meets rendering at much lower price, but not quite ideal gaming performance)
Thread ripper:
Gaming performance: 8/10?
Rendering performance: 15/10
Value: 7/10?
(10 = approx highest I'd deem even needed at this stage, above it is stupidly over the top)
Note I have a Ryzen 1700. For me I couldn't care less about the slight FPS difference, the performance on everything that's multi threaded is insanely good. I'm very happy with it.
@dyl:
Note thread ripper basically brings the whole thing back again, only this time it's the newer 8 core Intel's up against 16 cores.
Threadripper sits above the 8 core i7 7820X. The 16 core 1950X would compete(price wise) with the 10 core 7900X. The 12 core sits smack bang in between the 8 and 10 core Intels.
@dyl: Your argument is complete guesswork. There are so many features gimped on Intel X series like PCIe Lanes, and there aren't too many apps/games which rely on single threaded performance anymore. Even if you did need this, you'd be paying out the ass for X series compared to AMD that the tiny gain is not even worth it. AMD Zen microarchitecture has 30% lower TDP than Skylake so there is plenty of headroom to OC. When we have Threadripper properly benchmarked and overclocked, my guesswork is that it will smash X series out the water in every test.
@The Land of Smeg: I wouldn't call it guess work, more theory.
I don't believe PCI lanes matter until we start seeing multi threaded games, until then a single high end card is more than enough to keep up - single threaded performance will still be the bottleneck.
Intel went with the gamble that games won't go multi threaded for a while, AMD I assume gambling they will. Trying to predict that is guess work.
If you prefer pictures to explain…
This image compares a 1700x to an Intel 7700k. The 7820x is similar to the 7700k in gaming and VR,but with the doubled core count everything else is pulled up to on par (or even superior) to the 1700x. I'm not sure if a lot of this is blind AMD fanboying, but note the above graphic is direct from AMD - they admit to this performance difference in gaming.
Edit: Here, even simpler picture explanation lol…
Edit2: Maybe could move VR in the future predictions as it may benefit from SLI, but rest I'd standby being quite accurate…
This CPU is bad for a no compromise build as it compromises with 28 PCIe 3 lanes.
Isn't that only going to matter if you use video cards in SLI/Crossfire or have more than 3 NVME storage devices and 1 video card (M.2? I'm a little fuzzy on the correct name, I mean SSD storage using PCI-e) though?
@Diji1: Something like that. Its primary drawback is it cannot do x16-x16 SLI/CF, and its secondary drawback is how the mainboard manufacturers allocate those 28 lanes. You only find out what kind of compromises and restrictions there are by digging into the manual.
For example, these two restrictions are imposed on a Rampage V Extreme (X99) mainboard with a 28-lane CPU. 3-way SLI/CF instead of 4 and only in x16-x8 and x8-x8-x8 modes; either the M.2 slot or the 4th PCIe 3.0 x8 slot can be used.
The X299 chipset provides for 24 more lanes but these are multiplexed onto the DMI 3.0 bus, thereby restricting the total bandwidth to the equivalent of 4 PCIe 3.0 lanes.
Graphics cards are majorly ahead of CPU single threaded performance currently. Maybe once we start seeing heavily multi threaded games SLI may make a comeback, but for now it's not overly important.
@lostn: Nope, it doesn't make a dent in real life or in benchmarks, but the topic in discussion is no compromise build and I've just shown you three compromises with this CPU.
You'd be choosing Ryzen unless it was for games or some other specific application where Intel has an advantage still though.
Ah 8 core CPUs… the answer to the question nobody asked.
This must match with a $300 + X299 board…
How about get a AMD Ryzen 1700 with a cheap B350 MB overclock to 3.8GHZ and get same performance for 1/3 of price.