FX 8350 or i5 6600k?

[Biggus Nickus]

Hello...
I have been wondering on upgrading my CPU for a while.
My current setup is

EVGA GTX 1060 3Gb
FX 6300 4Ghz
8 GB DDR3

I'm wondering whether to buy a 170 euro FX 8350 or a 240 euro i5 6600k along with a new mobo and a cooler.
From which will I benefit more?(future proof etc etc)
I game on 720p@60 fps but I get some fps drops in games like War Thunder(city maps),Witcher 3(Novingraad) and stutter in 7D2D.

[Big Boom Boom]

Of course Ryzen is faster, no doubt. After all Kaby Lake is meh and the same as 2 years old Skylake, albeit overclocking a bit better like 200-300mhz more. Intel has been meh.

But what would happen when Intel drop Cannon lake mainstream?

[Mossy Snake]

引用自 Big Boom Boom：

Of course Ryzen is faster, no doubt. After all Kaby Lake is meh and the same as 2 years old Skylake, albeit overclocking a bit better like 200-300mhz more. Intel has been meh.

But what would happen when Intel drop Cannon lake mainstream?

That's likely going to be a long time from now considering how they've been acting. I'm actually hoping that the 6-core i7 rumor is true, since that will actually help Ryzen even more. If Intel starts pushing multithreaded performance, than game devs will be pushed to optimize for more core support to deal with the new "norm".

The main deal with KL is the surprisingly decent iGPU and the 7700k's ability to OC to 5GHZ with certain coolers.

[vadim]

引用自 MossyRathalos：

The top 1800X still performs above the i5 lineup, and since the Ryzen 1600X runs at the same speed with only 2 less cores, it should still pull ahead.

As far as we all know, that isn't true: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2822-amd-ryzen-r7-1800x-review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7

[Mossy Snake]

引用自 vadim：

引用自 MossyRathalos：

The top 1800X still performs above the i5 lineup, and since the Ryzen 1600X runs at the same speed with only 2 less cores, it should still pull ahead.

As far as we all know, that isn't true: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2822-amd-ryzen-r7-1800x-review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7

That's a pre-optimization thread from right when Ryzen launched (Could have looked at the wrong thread since I Google'd "GamersNexus R7 1800X review premier Blender FPS Benchmark")
Things have improved since then, as shown by all the BIOS fixes and optimizations.

[vadim]

引用自 MossyRathalos：

Things have improved since then, as shown by all the BIOS fixes and optimizations.

Really? Look at another article on the same site: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2865-ryzen-revisit-ram-overclock-windows-update-efi-updates/page-3
Can you see any FPS improvement? No? Me too...

[Mossy Snake]

引用自 vadim：

引用自 MossyRathalos：

Things have improved since then, as shown by all the BIOS fixes and optimizations.

Really? Look at another article on the same site: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2865-ryzen-revisit-ram-overclock-windows-update-efi-updates/page-3
Can you see any FPS improvement? No? Me too...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcochiappetta/2017/03/31/amd-ryzen-7-series-processors-show-significant-performance-gains-with-new-software-optimizations/#12b23a782ba8
https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/247141-total-war-warhammer-will-also-receive-ryzen-patch

Here are articles showing the improvement in the first two games to get optimizations (and supposedly TW:W isn't entirely finished with them yet) having FPS improvements.

Also in every video review I saw the Ryzen chips got higher FPS than the i5 lineup in every game except Far Cry Primal, where it evened out with the i5s.

[vadim]

Can you show me i5 FPS in these articles? No? Only fluent phrases about "new patch" and comparison between different Ryzen models? Too bad... Return to real world. Ryzen is very interesting CPU, I never denied that, but noone except brainless fans seriously expected it will be able to compete with modern intel in games.
It has very good performance in some other areas, solid performance in majority of tasks and lack only when app uses modern ISA like AVX or in very memory intensive applications (its L1 cache has only half of Skylake bandwidth). So, it cannot be used, for instance, to run scientific applications, but it either good or very good for almost anything else. What else do you need? Win gaming crown? That is impossible - Ryzen is really mix of Sandy Bridge and K10. It has lesser core performance than Haswell/Skylake by design. At least because it has less execution units in core and obsolete separated integer/float pipes which makes transfer between integer and real/SIMD domains very expensive. It still has the same branch prediction unit as Bulldozer which has almost twice more MPKI than Skylake.

[Mossy Snake]

引用自 vadim：

Can you show me i5 FPS in these articles? No? Only fluent phrases about "new patch" and comparison between different Ryzen models? Too bad... Return to real world. Ryzen is very interesting CPU, I never denied that, but noone except brainless fans seriously expected it will be able to compete with modern intel in games.
It has very good performance in some other areas, solid performance in majority of tasks and lack only when app uses modern ISA like AVX or in very memory intensive applications (its L1 cache has only half of Skylake bandwidth). So, it cannot be used, for instance, to run scientific applications, but it either good or very good for almost anything else. What else do you need? Win gaming crown? That is impossible - Ryzen is really mix of Sandy Bridge and K10. It has lesser core performance than Haswell/Skylake by design. At least because it has less execution units in core and obsolete separated integer/float pipes which makes transfer between integer and real/SIMD domains very expensive. It still has the same branch prediction unit as Bulldozer which has almost twice more MPKI than Skylake.

I fully understand that Ryzen series won't be the #1 gamer in human history (That'll be the next line of Intel/AMD chips) but I'm arguing about the 1600X opposed to the 7600k. I do think that the 1600X will be at least equal in gaming. Both chips run at roughly the same clock speed while the Ryzen has 6.8% weaker single core performance and the 7600k has less cores/threads, evening it out. They're also both OCable (Ryzen will likely lack in this area), which will close the potential gap further.

Also I find this interesting:

http://www.techspot.com/amp/review/1360-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-1500x-gaming/

Sure its a simulation, but its been said that all Ryzen chips are essentially a modified 1800X, making this test very close to what we'll likely see.
It shows the i5 and the Ryzen 5 trading blows, with the i5 leading in some games and the Ryzen in others. Just note that this is an older pre-optimization and a *****simulated***** test, so it is likely at least partially wrong.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

引用自 MossyRathalos：

引用自 vadim：

Can you show me i5 FPS in these articles? No? Only fluent phrases about "new patch" and comparison between different Ryzen models? Too bad... Return to real world. Ryzen is very interesting CPU, I never denied that, but noone except brainless fans seriously expected it will be able to compete with modern intel in games.
It has very good performance in some other areas, solid performance in majority of tasks and lack only when app uses modern ISA like AVX or in very memory intensive applications (its L1 cache has only half of Skylake bandwidth). So, it cannot be used, for instance, to run scientific applications, but it either good or very good for almost anything else. What else do you need? Win gaming crown? That is impossible - Ryzen is really mix of Sandy Bridge and K10. It has lesser core performance than Haswell/Skylake by design. At least because it has less execution units in core and obsolete separated integer/float pipes which makes transfer between integer and real/SIMD domains very expensive. It still has the same branch prediction unit as Bulldozer which has almost twice more MPKI than Skylake.

I fully understand that Ryzen series won't be the #1 gamer in human history (That'll be the next line of Intel/AMD chips) but I'm arguing about the 1600X opposed to the 7600k. I do think that the 1600X will be at least equal in gaming. Both chips run at roughly the same clock speed while the Ryzen has 6.8% weaker single core performance and the 7600k has less cores/threads, evening it out. They're also both OCable (Ryzen will likely lack in this area), which will close the potential gap further.

Also I find this interesting:

http://www.techspot.com/amp/review/1360-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-1500x-gaming/

Sure its a simulation, but its been said that all Ryzen chips are essentially a modified 1800X, making this test very close to what we'll likely see.
It shows the i5 and the Ryzen 5 trading blows, with the i5 leading in some games and the Ryzen in others. Just note that this is an older pre-optimization and a *****simulated***** test, so it is likely at least partially wrong.

Not sure why you have to keep questioning performance; which is fully realized.
Since the Ryzen-5 is fully released and already benchmarked. It's just not released at the retailer level yet. All the performance info users need is already out there from reviewers, benchmarks, etc.

[Mossy Snake]

引用自 Bad-Motha：

引用自 MossyRathalos：

I fully understand that Ryzen series won't be the #1 gamer in human history (That'll be the next line of Intel/AMD chips) but I'm arguing about the 1600X opposed to the 7600k. I do think that the 1600X will be at least equal in gaming. Both chips run at roughly the same clock speed while the Ryzen has 6.8% weaker single core performance and the 7600k has less cores/threads, evening it out. They're also both OCable (Ryzen will likely lack in this area), which will close the potential gap further.

Also I find this interesting:

http://www.techspot.com/amp/review/1360-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-1500x-gaming/

Sure its a simulation, but its been said that all Ryzen chips are essentially a modified 1800X, making this test very close to what we'll likely see.
It shows the i5 and the Ryzen 5 trading blows, with the i5 leading in some games and the Ryzen in others. Just note that this is an older pre-optimization and a *****simulated***** test, so it is likely at least partially wrong.

Not sure why you have to keep questioning performance; which is fully realized.
Since the Ryzen-5 is fully released and already benchmarked. It's just not released at the retailer level yet. All the performance info users need is already out there from reviewers, benchmarks, etc.

We have no clue how accurate most of those leaks are (minus the 1400, as the guy literally showed the box and the system running), so its best to remain skeptical for now.

[Big Boom Boom]

引用自 MossyRathalos：

引用自 Big Boom Boom：

Of course Ryzen is faster, no doubt. After all Kaby Lake is meh and the same as 2 years old Skylake, albeit overclocking a bit better like 200-300mhz more. Intel has been meh.

But what would happen when Intel drop Cannon lake mainstream?

The main deal with KL is the surprisingly decent iGPU and the 7700k's ability to OC to 5GHZ with certain coolers.

Which reminds me of FX failure lol. 5.0Ghz without any IPC improvement, sounds familiar.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

They're not leaks they are legit reviews and benchmarks for most part.
Just like all that stuff you all reviewed from those who received their AMD Reviewer Package for Ryzen-7

[Mossy Snake]

引用自 Bad-Motha：

They're not leaks they are legit reviews and benchmarks for most part.
Just like all that stuff you all reviewed from those who received their AMD Reviewer Package for Ryzen-7

Well, I guess it evens out the 7600k and the 1600X as equally capable chips then.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

I just don't even see why the Ryzen considerations.
Just get an i5 or an i7; lol

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

引用自 MossyRathalos：

引用自 ReZo：

i5 6600k is 60% faster than the FX 8350 and it's even faster or the same for multicore.

i5 6600k is 2% faster than the Ryzen 5 1600x so basically the same performance but its 90% slower on multicore performance however games dont utilise more than four cores and the i5 has a 10% faster four core performance than the R5 1600X

We know literally nothing about the 1600X except cores, threads, and clocks. We can't make a guaranteed assumption just yet. (The only chip we KNOW almost everything about is the 1400, and it seems like a darn good chip)
The 6600k is 3.5Ghz while the 1600X is 3.6Ghz. I think the 1600X will beat most of the i5 lineup and be very close or even with the 7600k.

Basically we can. And it doesn't have to be guaranteed.

引用自 Big Boom Boom：

Of course Ryzen is faster, no doubt. After all Kaby Lake is meh and the same as 2 years old Skylake, albeit overclocking a bit better like 200-300mhz more. Intel has been meh.

But what would happen when Intel drop Cannon lake mainstream?

With your logic it too would just be "meh" since it's still Core. Except for the possibility of two cores more but you've been able to get chips with more cores before too (Intel HEDT or Xeon.)
But Intel haven't been "meh."