While the language is hyperbolic the sentiment has validity. Intel charges more money than the competition. A lot more.

 

Really ?,

These UK Ryzen prices do not look all that great compared to the Kaby Lake 7700K

 

Ryzen 1700X 3.8 Ghz £389

Ryzen 1800X 4.0 Ghz £488 (wow, not that cheap after all)

 

I7-7700K 4.2 Ghz £359

 

 

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/pc-components/processors/amd/amd-socket-am4

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/pc-components/processors/intel/socket-1151-kaby-lake

Really ?,

These UK Ryzen prices do not look all that great compared to the Kaby Lake 7700K

 

Ryzen 1700X 3.8 Ghz £389

Ryzen 1800X 4.0 Ghz £488 (wow, not that cheap after all)

 

I7-7700K 4.2 Ghz £359

 

 

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/pc-components/processors/amd/amd-socket-am4

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/pc-components/processors/intel/socket-1151-kaby-lake

 

Thats what I was saying in the Ryzen thread.  You can get the 7700k for £320 if you look around

 

 

if you decided on a GTX1080Ti it could be pricey

 

It certainly will be, considering that the standard GTX 1080 is around six hundred quid!! :blink:

Really ?,

These UK Ryzen prices do not look all that great compared to the Kaby Lake 7700K

 

Ryzen 1700X 3.8 Ghz £389

Ryzen 1800X 4.0 Ghz £488 (wow, not that cheap after all)

 

I7-7700K 4.2 Ghz £359

 

 

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/pc-components/processors/amd/amd-socket-am4

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/pc-components/processors/intel/socket-1151-kaby-lake

The 7700k is a 4 core/8 thread chip.  It's great for FSX.  The Ryzen 1700/1700x/1800x are 8 core/16 thread chips, with the 1700 being cheaper than the 7700k.  Multi-threaded applications like photo and video editing, 3d modeling, etc. will run better on Ryzen.  X-Plane may already run better on Ryzen under some scenarios (lots of AI traffic for example).  The question is: will P3D some day run better on Ryzen due to a change in the code base?  

I forget the name of the ACES developer, but he posted on his Blog a long time ago it was actually 5Ghz single core CPUs that they were targeting and they did not foresee the multicore phenomena. Thus the original release of  FSX was primarily single threaded. Over the Service Packages they added some multicore capability to the software, but like DX10 is was hastily and poorly implemented. It was not limited to just FSX, allot of entertainment software from that period had very poor multithreaded optimization. 

The 10GHz remark was tongue-in-cheek.  The point was that FSX is largely dependent on single thread performance.  

The 7700k is a 4 core/8 thread chip.  It's great for FSX.  The Ryzen 1700/1700x/1800x are 8 core/16 thread chips, with the 1700 being cheaper than the 7700k.  Multi-threaded applications like photo and video editing, 3d modeling, etc. will run better on Ryzen.  X-Plane may already run better on Ryzen under some scenarios (lots of AI traffic for example).  The question is: will P3D some day run better on Ryzen due to a change in the code base?  

 

Bulldozer and Piledriver were 8 core chips, look how that turned out.

If P3D runs better on an 8 Core chip sometime in the future then Ryzen may turn out to be the chip of choice but who would pay those prices today when the I7-7700K seems to hit 5Ghz reasonably easily.

 

Overclockers.uk  are discounting Ryzen already and they are only on pre-order, what do they know that we dont ?

Bulldozer was an 8 core chip, look how that turned out.

If P3D runs better on an 8 Core chip sometime in the future then Ryzen may turn out to be the chip of choice but who would pay those prices today when the I7-7700K seems to hit 5Ghz reasonably easily ?

 

The 52% IPC increase AMD has mentioned is compared to the final iteration of Bulldozer, aka Excavator (which itself was 15% faster than the original Bulldozer chips).

 

Ryzen is *not* another Bulldozer.  The benchmarks we've seen to date prove that much.  

 My advised for the OP is to wait and see what AMD brings us. Why pay over $500.00 more to a company that has been cheating and stealing from its customers for the past 10 years + ? 

 

$500 more?  I paid $260 for an i7-7700k, a very strong Intel CPU that overclocks to 5 GHz without any effort at all.

 

Cheating and stealing?  Sounds libelous to me.  Not giving you what you want at the price you think you should pay is neither cheating nor stealing.  A company that makes a better mousetrap can charge whatever price the market will bear--AMD has been bringing up the rear for a long time now, and without real competition, Intel has been free to demand a premium for their (much better) products.  Don't like that?  Don't buy it.  Your choice, but no foul on Intel's part.  I have never once had a CPU from Intel that failed to perform to spec.  I have had a few that didn't live up to the hype of others regarding suitability for overclocking.  Not Intel's problem.

 

Regards

While the language is hyperbolic the sentiment has validity.  Intel charges more money than the competition.  A lot more.  In the past they have offered significantly more performance for this higher price.  That appears to be about to change for the majority of workloads.  FSX is a special case as it was designed to run on hardware that never came to being (10GHz Pentium 4s).  I wouldn't base my view of a CPU's performance prowess solely on such an archaic application.  

 

 

$500 more?  I paid $260 for an i7-7700k, a very strong Intel CPU that overclocks to 5 GHz without any effort at all.

 

Cheating and stealing?  Sounds libelous to me.  Not giving you what you want at the price you think you should pay is neither cheating nor stealing.  A company that makes a better mousetrap can charge whatever price the market will bear--AMD has been bringing up the rear for a long time now, and without real competition, Intel has been free to demand a premium for their (much better) products.  Don't like that?  Don't buy it.  Your choice, but no foul on Intel's part.  I have never once had a CPU from Intel that failed to perform to spec.  I have had a few that didn't live up to the hype of others regarding suitability for overclocking.  Not Intel's problem.

 

Regards

 

See above comments.

21 hours ago, KenG said:

 

 

 

I forget the name of the ACES developer, but he posted on his Blog a long time ago it was actually 5Ghz single core CPUs that they were targeting and they did not foresee the multicore phenomena. Thus the original release of  FSX was primarily single threaded. Over the Service Packages they added some multicore capability to the software, but like DX10 is was hastily and poorly implemented. It was not limited to just FSX, allot of entertainment software from that period had very poor multithreaded optimization. 

 

 

Phil Taylor is the guy you were thinking of. His old blog is still around I recall. 

How about  any number of Z270 boards with a couple of M.2 slots and an i7 7770K or  a comparably configured AM4 X370 board with a Rizen 7 1700X. A recent test of this Ryzen chip beat a single thread test with the i7 7770K and of course in multi-threaded it beat the pants off the other $1700 Intel chip in multi-threaded tests.\

I mean those are your two MOBOs and CPUs going forward (or the Ryzen 1800X for example). What memory you get, drives etc is the secondary consideration because you've already settled on a good 1080 card.