idk lol
theres a lot of other reviews out there that have those so
probably @wendell when he does his review
I don't think it matters at the moment anyways, higher clocks don't mean shit if Ryzen is bottlenecked by DDR4 ram speeds. It's clearly starving for more ram speeds.
Mostly gaming reviews. I'm looking forward to the Linux and other stuff.
2 Likes
Looks like I'll be ordering one afterall. Gotta wait for more motherboards though.
Gamer Nexus ripping it apart and i can't believe the 7700k is in my future :(
y tho
look at this review
and the written review is linked in the description if you dont have 1 hour to watch it lol
brings up all of the good and bad of the 1800x
Its tiny tom :)
his in depth reviews are some of the best out there.
for gpus, cpus, whatever.
yes I know :)
oh about the length of the video
lol derp
Amd has fallen on their face if they do not come up with a better balance cpu outside of content creator for everything i have seen, The storage issue, the low performance in gaming, and mb caveats and ram speeds. Not looking good for the average consumer. The 7700 suddenly becomes a excellent balance in price for performance. Which i view as shooting yourself in the foot.
did you read the review i just link/watch it lol
the memory "issues" really dont do much at all in gaming & similar tasks.
and the single core is on par with broadwell-E at the least and sometimes is the same and beat the 7700k in single core.
Multi core absoulety rekts Intel chips lol
Off with it's head!
Does that count as "superior build quality"?
1 Like
so some interesting things as I have so far read PCPER, OC3D, AnandTech initial first half, Linus, Hardware canucks, GamerNexus, TechCity, and Jokers and I have noticed one interesting thing the mid tier MotherBoards seem to be offering better Performance across the board rather than the Highest end boards.
I think people need to calm down about it not being fast enough. Give it some time to mature. This is a new CPU architecture and needs some time for kernel devs to get to know it a bit
3 Likes
Also does anyone want me to simulate the performance of what the 5/3 chips will be? I can set it to be a 6 core and 4 core, and see how Ryzen does and if it clocks higher.
3 Likes
See I dont see this as a big deal. I need to do a certain thing to confirm.
Don't forget R5 4ghz+ on 6 cores. Which I think will more directly address the 7700k.
And the R5 is going to be $150-$250 I would guess.
The 1700 ($350 vs the 7700k -- $300 if you shop around, maybe less). Is a better deal if your stuff you plan to run wont use more than 4 cores. Especially if you OC that 7700k to 5ghz. that's hard to beat, really.
But the 7700k has a much shorter usable lifetime, even at 5ghz, I think.
If Im buying a PC for 3+ years, I would not buy a 7700k ; instead I would opt for the 1700.
12 Likes
You have that option in uefi? I didn't!
What you need to do is disable 2 cores and see if you can get to 4.2-4.5
or even 4 cores at 4.5
12 Likes
This. Since the 7700k does not destroy Ryzen and gaming works well enough I'll rather buy the 1700 and invest in longetivity.
3 Likes
2+2 config allows 4.25GHz at a comfortable 1.48v. 4+0 config cuts off a whole CCX and actually damages performance (half the cache and even worse IMC performance) leading to a lowly 4.12GHz. I didn't test 3+3 or 2+4 or anything because I wanted to do a head-to-head against a stock 7700K, but it seems like it's absolutely possible that a hexa-core will be capable of 4.2GHz+ given proper binning.
3 Likes