Thinking about an AMD Ryzen build

Now that Ryzen is out on the market, I started to piece together my next build. Here's what I have so far. I am waiting for AMD's RX Vega cards to get an idea for the total price.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/mqyLYr

My estimated budget would be around $1000.

I doubt I can fit everything into $850. The graphics card is going to be relatively expensive, I assume.
 
Last edited:
Does this PSU have enough overhead?

For the case: my heart's desire is a Coolermaster HAF 912. :D Not sure how to pick one though. I'd like it to be big enough so it can have enough airflow.

I wasn't sure about the RAM's clock speed.

GPU: If I'd buy this system right now, I'd consider those two cards. But I'd rather wait for VEGA. What do you think?

If I have to, I'll spend $1000 but I'd rather not get an i5 if I can help it. Jumping from 2 cores to 8 cores would be huge for me, since I was out of the loop for 4 cores anyways.

I don't even know the name of my computer case. It looks like a run of the mill no-name budget case. (MS, MSG W are on the front) I doubt I can fit my new stuff into it, and I really don't like it anymore to be honest.

The PSU is absolute crap, I'm sure, but I can check it for you.
 

Deadpool

Active Member
Bad idea. Wait for the 1400-1500-1600. 8c/16t is useless for gaming. Even the 6 cores from the 1600 are too much.

Cooler I would recommend Cryorig H7 and RAM at least 2666MHz.

The Vega cards were just announced. They'll be released probably in June. I wouldn't wait. Just get the 4Gb 480.

I am not sure if intel i5 bottleneck GTX1060 or RX480.

Not at all.

I would definitely get the Seasonic S12II 620W.

By the way, the I5s are 4 cores.
 
6 / 8 cores may be overkill AT THE MOMENT. But what about futureproofing? I don't want to get 4 cores with an i5 if they will be outclassed in the next 1-2 years. I am buying this rig for the long run.

EDIT: Can't find the cyrorig in the parts list.
 
Last edited:

Deadpool

Active Member
Have you seen the gaming benchmarks? The 1700 and 1800 are outperformed by the 7600k and 7700k.

The 1400-1500 series have higher clocks ( they can be OCed more because of the low core count, probably) and less threads, and in the best cases games use 4.

Unless you do content creation or video editing get a 4 core CPU. Everyone will tell you the same. Getting more cores doesn't mean it'll last longer, or that it'll perform better everywhere.

Until there are more reviews and benchmark I would just go Kaby lake or Skylake. Any 1151 I5 will last long enough. And if you realm want to future proof it get a 7700k and forget about it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deadpool

Active Member
PCPartPicker part list: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/8x3sWX
Price breakdown by merchant: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/8x3sWX/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-7600K 3.8GHz Quad-Core Processor ($238.75 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($34.99 @ Newegg Marketplace)
Motherboard: MSI Z270-A PRO ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($101.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: *G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2666 Memory ($94.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung 850 EVO-Series 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($93.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($49.33 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: *MSI Radeon RX 480 4GB Video Card ($185.66 @ Jet)
Case: Thermaltake Versa H23 ATX Mid Tower Case ($39.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: SeaSonic S12II 620W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($48.99 @ NCIX US)
Total: $888.67
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
*Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-03-03 17:35 EST-0500
 
Last edited:

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
I'd cautiously say 4 cores isn't going to cut it in 1-2 years but that's just me. I already see usage of my 8 cores in 2015-2016 games and the trend will only continue more with DX12 scaling with cores better. 4 core usage is definitely not "best case", stuff is already utilizing 6-8 threads with ease.
 

mistersprinkles

Active Member
^What he said, but also, it has been shown now that Ryzen is out, that Intel beats it for most games. There are some super multithreaded games (ie, ashes of the singularity) that run great on AMD now but for the most part for TODAYS games, it is behind Intel. Whether that matters to you based on what you want now and what you think the future will bring is up to you. I just thought it bared mentioning that in most current games Intel is stilll ahead. Also there should be an Intel price cut coming soon. So they say.
 

Deadpool

Active Member
I'd cautiously say 4 cores isn't going to cut it in 1-2 years but that's just me. I already see usage of my 8 cores in 2015-2016 games and the trend will only continue more with DX12 scaling with cores better. 4 core usage is definitely not "best case", stuff is already utilizing 6-8 threads with ease.

I would not say "with ease". That´s on the best DX12 games like Ashes of Singularity. Also hyperthreading makes no sense after 6 cores. The performance gained by enabling it is not noticeable, in fact on the 1800X is worse:

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-amd-ryzen-7-review/5/
 

Deadpool

Active Member
I'm talking about my real world experience with games and using an 8 core processor for the past several years. Not benchmarks.

I have an eight core CPU too. And I don't think yours can compare to the 1800X, neither can mine. I would definitely buy a 6 core CPU, for future proofing and what not, but definitely not an 8 core one. For gaming.

I'll still check it out in a few minutes. I just re-installed Fallout 4 and I'll try to establish the average core usage with RTSS and HWinfo. Would be interesting to see that game use 6-8 threads.
 

mistersprinkles

Active Member
I have an eight core CPU too. And I don't think yours can compare to the 1800X, neither can mine. I would definitely buy a 6 core CPU, for future proofing and what not, but definitely not an 8 core one. For gaming.

I'll still check it out in a few minutes. I just re-installed Fallout 4 and I'll try to establish the average core usage with RTSS and HWinfo. Would be interesting to see that game use 6-8 threads.

Yes 83XX can definitely not compare. The thing is, to also touch on your previous comment, that apps are optimized for hyperthreading the way Intel does it, not the way AMD does it (since its so new). Also, I have looked at a lot of benches and comparisons, and if you are doing heavily multithreaded actual work, AMD pwns intel at the same price point. However for gaming, because stuff is so optimized for intel, you are still better off with intel.

Also, even though hyperthreading is, for games, not so hot right now, there are definitely situations with actual work (not games) where HT really does make a difference.
 
Wow. So many answers in such a short amount of time.

Intel does games better NOW, in 2017. For sure, bro. But what about later? Even the 7700k has 4 cores / 8 threads. From what I've seen, the Ryzen 7 beats the 6900k, but doesn't beat the 7700k. Which is fine. The GPU will matter more, in my opinion. I firmly believe that future games WILL utilize more cores and threads.

Just going to wait a bit. The R5 is 4 to 6 cores. Not sure about those.
 

Deadpool

Active Member
Wow. So many answers in such a short amount of time.

Intel does games better NOW, in 2017. For sure, bro. But what about later? Even the 7700k has 4 cores / 8 threads. From what I've seen, the Ryzen 7 beats the 6900k, but doesn't beat the 7700k. Which is fine. The GPU will matter more, in my opinion. I firmly believe that future games WILL utilize more cores and threads.

Just going to wait a bit. The R5 is 4 to 6 cores. Not sure about those.

It beats the 6900k in very few games by not a lot of FPS, in the others (80%), it´s worse by a considerable amount of FPS. Still costs half. However, it costs more than the 7700k, a lot more, and does worse, a lot worse.

I´ve tested my 8350 in Fallout 4 and most of the time it utilizes 4 cores at 40%-60%, and the other 4 at 25%-35%. I am positive that that usage is caused by Fallout because whenever you pause the game, inmediately Cores 5,6,7,8 go to 0%.
 

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
It beats the 6900k in very few games by not a lot of FPS, in the others (80%), it´s worse by a considerable amount of FPS. Still costs half. However, it costs more than the 7700k, a lot more, and does worse, a lot worse.

I´ve tested my 8350 in Fallout 4 and most of the time it utilizes 4 cores at 40%-60%, and the other 4 at 25%-35%. I am positive that that usage is caused by Fallout because whenever you pause the game, inmediately Cores 5,6,7,8 go to 0%.
This is what I mean by my usage with an 8320. I never attempted to compare an 1800X with an 8320. Just that my current chip has 8 cores and I see them used, same as you do with Fallout 4. That game is already over a year old and you see it using more than 4 threads.
 

Deadpool

Active Member
This is what I mean by my usage with an 8320. I never attempted to compare an 1800X with an 8320. Just that my current chip has 8 cores and I see them used, same as you do with Fallout 4. That game is already over a year old and you see it using more than 4 threads.

True. My mistake on that. New games do use more than 4 threads.

Either way, the 1800X is a bad choice. Anyone would get better results with a 7600K in games. I maintain what I said in my first post, and what I just found out actually makes me more certain, since we know DX12 games use 8 threads, and the 1800X does so bad on games, it is fairly accurate to assume that the Ryzen architecture is not as powerful as we expected. This guy has two options the way I see it:

  1. Wait for the 1500/1600 CPUs.
  2. Go Kaby/Skylake, which seems like the safe choice, based on what we know about the 1800X.
Both will be cheaper and, hopefully, more effective.
 

C4C

Well-Known Member
  1. Wait for the 1500/1600 CPUs.
  2. Go Kaby/Skylake, which seems like the safe choice, based on what we know about the 1800X.
Both will be cheaper and, hopefully, more effective.

THIS. If you don't need a rig with workstation capabilities, why bother with the 1700/1800 lineup? o_O

I was able to get my i5-6600K up to 4.8GHz last night without it blowing up.. and from the CPU-Z benchmarks I posted here, it looks like it isn't afraid to stand up to the big kids on the playground. even 4.7GHz and 4.6GHz seem to do dandy.

Unless you're upgrading from something like an FX-8XXX or Haswell-aged build, it doesn't seem like it's worth it to pull the trigger quite yet.. :D
 

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
Agreed on the above sentiment towards in Intel.

I just get tilted whenever people tell me 4 cores is enough these days as it's quite clearly not the case now and even less so in the future.
 
Top