Using the FX line of chips is not really useful. They aren't true 4/6/8 core CPU's. As I said above, those are all AAA titles. Looks through your game list, how many are triple AAA. Not many for me. Between 2700k and 7700k, there is about a 30% increase in performance. With no competition, there is no need to innovate. Intel still owns there own foundries, they don't need to save cash to start another process. For me, its all about performance for your dollar. I could care less about AMD and Intel's politic's. I want the best deal for my money and your money if I'm helping your build a system. Should you buy i9 for gaming? No. Should you buy Ryzen 7 for gaming? No. Should you wait for Coffee Lake and see if they are 6 core? Yes. Wait till they release, compare with AMD and make a decision. I'm very interested to see what Intel's mainstream 6 core's do in comparison to AMD.
of the games you play which don't make good use of more than a single core, when were their engines coded? aren't some like 10-15+yrs old (Unreal? ...or which CoD engine am i thinkin of?), and weren't they also once AAA title games/engines too? single-core perf peaked Jan-2011 with Sandy, & Moore's indicates that die-shrinks are nearly at an end too... multi is the less-expensive & fastest way to continue perf increases, so that's where i expect the industry to remain headed. all i currently play is GTA, which is an awful game for Ryzen vs an i7. but looking at the silicon industry, the newest game engines, the core utilization %'s, & the trends in API ...i'm sure an i7-7700 will be hindered before an R1700. even my lowly FX8320 (hey, it's what $110 could afford me on Black Fri in 2013!), which was out-done in "modern 2012 games" by an i5, now beats it in "modern 2017 games". if i could toss $600 at a new platform each year, then i'd already rock the 7700k - but i gotta plan further ahead. 100% agree. i really hope Intel has been sandbaggin, sittin on beastly R&D stuff that echos the 2nd i-series leap. it just doesn't look that way from how they've been responding to AMD all year... small yet sharp signs of utter panic over there.
You also have to look at the resolution you are planning to play your games at.. Any of the AMD processors can run the exact same frame rates as a 7700k at 1440p and 4k for less money.. If you still going to play games on a 1080p monitor, and never plan on upgrading to a 2k, 4k or widescreen monitor.. then go right ahead and whip out that Visa Platinum card, and charge it baby..
Very well written articles gents. Army/ Ivan, I expect y'all to start working for PC Gamer next month or so... Is this why my shit still runs fine? I'm on my 3rd Nvidia upgrade, switched to SSD, still rockin' this i7-2600.
7700k would last 5 years minimum. I suggest it to this day but since Coffee Lake is only a few months out, I heed caution to jumping for anything right now. PUBG, Ark and many other games that aren't on Frostbite. Unreal engine is current. Its free for devs to use until they start making money on it their game. For purely gaming, there is no need for 6-10 cores, literally a waste of money. I would suggest a 6 core only IF you plan to game and stream on the same PC. Here's the Benchmarks I found... http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review,4987-3.html
those benches are 3 weeks into launching new arch, platform, & ecosystem... all (plus drivers, firmware, & code updates to some of the games themselves) have improved quite a bit so far. Kaby had launch hiccups that effected early testing, even tho it's nowhere near new in any way. i'd take them with a grain of salt, at the least.
so all those updates from every part of the industry & the paid man-hours behind them were for nothing then? lol, c'mon... this took me 20sec to find via google, & it's only an example of 1 dev making changes to 1 engine's code used in 1 game: https://www.eteknix.com/amd-ryzen-rotr-patch/
