AMD's new Ryzen chip.

Hey guys,

I'm in the process of building a new PC for 10 boxing. So, AMD is releasing their new chips in like two weeks and prices were leaked, so they're looking to be like $400~ for the Ryzen1800 which has 8 cores and 16 threads. And I'm hoping for some input from people who are better with computers than I am. (I just know more cores = better for boxing).


Here are some various articles I have found about the chips saying in some benchmarks they are going "toe to toe" with the 6900k

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-processor-tested/

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...the-cpu-market


So, I have never ever dealt with AMD. But, would these releases be worth trying them? I mean 8/16, that's like the 6900k which would be overkill for 10 boxing I'd imagine. (Right now I can do 5 with 40% on my 4770k).

There aren't any official benchmarks yet, so no one knows how well the chip performs (except the handful of people on the inside). The "more cores = better performance" is absolutely true when sticking to a single manufacturer across similar generations, but you can't make simple comparisons like that when dealing with different types of chips. Since, if "more cores = better performance" was always true, then the AMD FX-8350 with 8 cores at $150 would rival Intel's 6900K with 8 cores at $1,000. However, there's a very large difference in terms of performance between those chips, and, in this case, the price tag reflects that.

I'd love for AMD to finally offer some competition to Intel and I'm hoping that Ryzen does just that, but until benchmarks are out, we don't know the answer to your question.

I'm with MiRai. To further that, the first round of "official" benchmarks should be taken as incomplete data on general principle as it usually takes a few months of various people running them before we find out which synthetic benchmarks favor which processors and where the lurking demons (e.g. bugs) lie.

I don't even pay attention to benchmarks before something is available in retail. =)

And we dont know how well if run when muti client.

To be fair i might just get one and upgrade my amd cpu i have now.

I was actually coming here to see I feel anyone had talked about this yet.

heres a link to some info. From 2/22

so I'm planning on building myself a new computer. I built my wife a new one, and...I'm kinda jealous :p

heres my question though.


i have an mad fx8320 that I've overclocked to 4.3ghz. Would I really see a performance increase swapping to a processor with a lower base clock (I.e the lower tier ryzen 7) than what my current CPU is running at? Currently I see around 25 fps with 5x toons all on low. Ideally if I were to upgrade to a latest gen processor I'd expect to be able to play with the lead toon on ultra.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xixillia

heres a link to some info. From 2/22

---

This is what people are hoping for, and if the final results are even remotely close to that, then I think we'll see Intel have to cut some prices sooner than later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xixillia

heres my question though.

i have an mad fx8320 that I've overclocked to 4.3ghz. Would I really see a performance increase swapping to a processor with a lower base clock (I.e the lower tier ryzen 7) than what my current CPU is running at?

---

Looking at the chart in your link, there's an AMD FX-9590 on there, which has a stock clock of 4.7GHz that is using the same architecture that you are currently are. So, assuming the chart is true, then I would say yes.

The clockspeed of an apple, is not the same as the clockspeed of an orange, even if they're the same value. Clockspeed, in terms of what's printed on the box of the CPU, is not like MPH/KPH, where 100 MPH equals 100 MPH no matter what vehicle you're reading the speedometer in. Sure, if you had two identical CPUs with identical architecture, both in an identical setup, then 4GHz would equal 4GHz, but that's rarely ever the case.

Also, you wouldn't normally compare your current overclock to the base clock of a newer CPU, unless you weren't going to overclock the new CPU, or you had data that showed how much performance was expected out of those CPUs with those specific clockspeeds and identical workloads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xixillia

Currently I see around 25 fps with 5x toons all on low. Ideally if I were to upgrade to a latest gen processor I'd expect to be able to play with the lead toon on ultra.

---

Your GPU plays a pretty large part in video settings and overall performance too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xixillia

Would I really see a performance increase swapping to a processor with a lower base clock (I.e the lower tier ryzen 7) than what my current CPU is running at?

---

I'd think that *if* the software you run could actually utilize the additional cores in parallel to generate more effective in-game MIPS, then all other things being equal, the answer should be yes. As we've noticed in past tests, that scaling doesn't always obtain due to other bottlenecks like GPU, as MiRai alluded to, or chipset interconnects, memory bus, cache efficiency, etc. Not to mention plain old optimization oversights.

Also, don't forget that time-honored tradition of building a completely new system that doesn't seem that much faster on paper and "HOLEE SHEEIT this thing is SOOO much faster" because you don't have 3-years of registry shenanigans, heat-sink dust, and SSD wear leveling bogging things down.

Thoughts on Ryzen, now that some reviews are out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xixillia

Thoughts on Ryzen, now that some reviews are out?

---

Seeing as AMD's $400 and $500 chips are hanging out with Intel's $1000, and $1700 chips when it comes to multi-threading, I think it's very competitive in that area. However, single-threaded performance is slightly low, which might affect gamers in games which aren't very good at using multiple threads.

One of the reviews I read said that they didn't do particularly well with multi-threaded games either. Performance was very hit or miss on various games. Maybe that will change as software developers add support for the Ryzen. If I were in the market for a new CPU, I'd hold off for a few weeks to see if gaming performance gets ironed out.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...pu,4951-6.html
Note the comments on Ashes of the Singularity, which they say scales well with additional cores and frequency. However, the Ryzen didn't do as well as they would have expected.

Am I reading that Tom's Hardware review wrong? Looks like for some games the $550 1800X is firmly behind the $340 i7-7700k at default clock speeds, and that gets worse when you OC the i7. Then on more-multithreaded games, it's up to rough parity, but then so is the i7-7700k, which makes a distinction there rather moot I would think.

Apparently they didn't design this chip to appeal to me personally, so I'm interested in what use case they targeted this CPU at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bollwerk

One of the reviews I read said that they didn't do particularly well with multi-threaded games either. Performance was very hit or miss on various games. Maybe that will change as software developers add support for the Ryzen. If I were in the market for a new CPU, I'd hold off for a few weeks to see if gaming performance gets ironed out.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...pu,4951-6.html
Note the comments on Ashes of the Singularity, which they say scales well with additional cores and frequency. However, the Ryzen didn't do as well as they would have expected.

---

In that Tom's Hardware review, Ryzen is within 10% of the 7700K (when both are clocked at 3.8GHz) in every game except for AoS, which is pretty acceptable seeing as their prior CPU wasn't so great anymore. However, the CEO of AoS personally responded to that saying:

“Oxide games is incredibly excited with what we are seeing from the Ryzen CPU. Using our Nitrous game engine, we are working to scale our existing and future game title performance to take full advantage of Ryzen and its eight-core, 16-thread architecture, and the results thus far are impressive. These optimizations are not yet available for Ryzen benchmarking. However, expect updates soon to enhance the performance of games like Ashes of the Singularity on Ryzen CPUs, as well as our future game releases.” - Brad Wardell, CEO Stardock and Oxide

If you look at BF4 right below it, which is known for how awesome it is at utilizing multi-threading, Ryzen is right there next to Kaby Lake. Here are some other statements that TH makes about some of the game performance benchmarks:

• "The Ryzen 7 1800X provides the same performance as Intel's Core i7-6900K, pushing the EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE into graphics-bound territory."
  
• "The gap narrows even more between Ryzen and Intel's processors as we shift to 2560x1440."
  
• "The Ryzen 7 1800X averages 91+ FPS during the benchmark, and only lags the Core i7-7700K by 2.8 FPS."
  
• "In all four configurations, the Intel processors are separated by a scant 0.2 FPS during the graphics-intensive workload. The Ryzen 7 1800X offers nearly the same performance as the leading CPUs."

Now, I didn't dig into the setup for the Tom's review*, so I don't really know why they forced the 1800X to sit at 3.8GHz when it boosts up to 4.0GHz out of the box, and I don't see any benchmarks from them where they tried to overclock it, even though they mention water cooling in their initial test setup.
* I just skimmed a lot of stuff looking for quick answers, but didn't find any (Hey, I'm busy right now!)

I dunno... I think AMD did a pretty good job after all these years of being way behind.

The Guru3D review shows the same, where Ryzen is within about 10% compared to Intel, and half of the time it's dead even at higher resolutions. Hell, if you do other things on your computer other than gaming, like rendering video, then Ryzen is tied with, or better than, 8/10-core $1000+ Intel CPUs. Granted, Guru3D did have their Ryzen CPU under an AIO water cooler, I believe.

Now, on the other hand, the Intel 7700K is still very sexy, and it's better at single-threaded performance, which plenty of things we do on a daily basis still benefit greatly from. Intel is arguably more popular these days and also has better features on their chipsets, which probably equates to motherboard manufacturers trying fancier things on the Intel motherboards that they offer, but they had better f'ing have those things seeing as Intel's R&D budget has got to be orders of magnitude larger than AMD's, when it comes to the CPU sector.

Personally, when I look at CPUs I estimate their performance based upon how much I think I can overclock them. Realistically, I try for 800-1,000Mhz of additional clockspeed over their base clock, which is usually about a 20-30% gain (and I've been successful with this over the past several years). Unfortunately, I don't have any experience with 4-core mainstream setups, and the 7700K already starts at 4.2GHz and boosts up to 4.5GHz, so I wouldn't think that I could overclock the 7700K all that much.

Guru3D did some overclocking on Ryzen, but they did have it under water which most people don't want to mess with (even factory sealed setups). So, if you're stuck on air and don't do anything except play games, then the Intel 7700K is probably the better choice. However, if you're gaming, streaming, recording, encoding, et cetera... then the $500 1800X doesn't look too shabby when compared to other 8/10-core CPUs like the 5960X, 6900K, or 6950X, all of which are much more expensive*, but I'm also not a fan of jumping on brand new CPUs/chipsets when they release (neither CPU or GPU). :)
* Again, the Intel X99 chipset may be a lot better than AMD's current offering. I haven't directly compared the two, but it still costs a lot more to go with Intel right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiRai

In that Tom's Hardware review, Ryzen is within 10% of the 7700K (when both are clocked at 3.8GHz) in every game except for AoS, which is pretty acceptable seeing as their prior CPU wasn't so great anymore. However, the CEO of AoS personally responded to that saying:

“Oxide games is incredibly excited with what we are seeing from the Ryzen CPU. Using our Nitrous game engine, we are working to scale our existing and future game title performance to take full advantage of Ryzen and its eight-core, 16-thread architecture, and the results thus far are impressive. These optimizations are not yet available for Ryzen benchmarking. However, expect updates soon to enhance the performance of games like Ashes of the Singularity on Ryzen CPUs, as well as our future game releases.” - Brad Wardell, CEO Stardock and Oxide

If you look at BF4 right below it, which is known for how awesome it is at utilizing multi-threading, Ryzen is right there next to Kaby Lake. Here are some other statements that TH makes about some of the game performance benchmarks:

• "The Ryzen 7 1800X provides the same performance as Intel's Core i7-6900K, pushing the EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE into graphics-bound territory."
  
• "The gap narrows even more between Ryzen and Intel's processors as we shift to 2560x1440."
  
• "The Ryzen 7 1800X averages 91+ FPS during the benchmark, and only lags the Core i7-7700K by 2.8 FPS."
  
• "In all four configurations, the Intel processors are separated by a scant 0.2 FPS during the graphics-intensive workload. The Ryzen 7 1800X offers nearly the same performance as the leading CPUs."

Now, I didn't dig into the setup for the Tom's review*, so I don't really know why they forced the 1800X to sit at 3.8GHz when it boosts up to 4.0GHz out of the box, and I don't see any benchmarks from them where they tried to overclock it, even though they mention water cooling in their initial test setup.
* I just skimmed a lot of stuff looking for quick answers, but didn't find any (Hey, I'm busy right now!)

I dunno... I think AMD did a pretty good job after all these years of being way behind.

The Guru3D review shows the same, where Ryzen is within about 10% compared to Intel, and half of the time it's dead even at higher resolutions. Hell, if you do other things on your computer other than gaming, like rendering video, then Ryzen is tied with, or better than, 8/10-core $1000+ Intel CPUs. Granted, Guru3D did have their Ryzen CPU under an AIO water cooler, I believe.

Now, on the other hand, the Intel 7700K is still very sexy, and it's better at single-threaded performance, which plenty of things we do on a daily basis still benefit greatly from. Intel is arguably more popular these days and also has better features on their chipsets, which probably equates to motherboard manufacturers trying fancier things on the Intel motherboards that they offer, but they had better f'ing have those things seeing as Intel's R&D budget has got to be orders of magnitude larger than AMD's, when it comes to the CPU sector.

Personally, when I look at CPUs I estimate their performance based upon how much I think I can overclock them. Realistically, I try for 800-1,000Mhz of additional clockspeed over their base clock, which is usually about a 20-30% gain (and I've been successful with this over the past several years). Unfortunately, I don't have any experience with 4-core mainstream setups, and the 7700K already starts at 4.2GHz and boosts up to 4.5GHz, so I wouldn't think that I could overclock the 7700K all that much.

Guru3D did some overclocking on Ryzen, but they did have it under water which most people don't want to mess with (even factory sealed setups). So, if you're stuck on air and don't do anything except play games, then the Intel 7700K is probably the better choice. However, if you're gaming, streaming, recording, encoding, et cetera... then the $500 1800X doesn't look too shabby when compared to other 8/10-core CPUs like the 5960X, 6900K, or 6950X, all of which are much more expensive*, but I'm also not a fan of jumping on brand new CPUs/chipsets when they release (neither CPU or GPU). :)
* Again, the Intel X99 chipset may be a lot better than AMD's current offering. I haven't directly compared the two, but it still costs a lot more to go with Intel right now.

---

As for the tomshardware 3.8vs3.8 test im personally not at all interested in clock vs clock tests, only max OC vs max OC. Now from many other tests i've looked at the 1700x and 1800x are maxing out at about 4ghz while a 7700k can max out around 5ghz with the same cooling (at least 240 AIO's). When looking at what matters to those who overclock, its really no contest where IPC is concerned.

I've seen some tests showing that their IPC in synthetic benches (not multithreaded) is decent but for some reason that isnt translating to the same IPC in games. We'll have to see if that can get ironed out.

Now with all that said to me and others here if the IPC is good enough for single threaded games but we can get much better performance for multiboxing at this price point this might still be a good choice.

I also play emulators and will wait to see how it does there as well.

From tests i've seen (if overclocking, and even then it hardly matters) I also see little reason to bother with the 1800x over the 1700x. Heck even the 1700 isnt much further behind (pauls hardware hit 3.9 on the 1700 and 4.0 on the 1700x and 1800x). Then it gets more interesting.

Im currently running a 4790k at 4.7-4.8ghz under water so i see no real reason to upgrade. If i wanted to do 10 boxing though the 1700 and 1700x might be enticing.

Honestly I'm not that enthused for ryzen's results and the overclocking is unfortunately downright pathetic (seriously? their boost clocks are essentially as high as you can go) but whatever i decide to do i'll definitely be waiting a few months at least to see if these problems can get ironed out and if any other problems crop up. As well as how the platform (motherboard) in general behaves and what it can offer (price compared to intel mainstream boards to get a board with decent VRMs such as the crosshair VI is also pretty pricey).

ATEOTD I'm not sure anyone with a current Intel or one of the previous gen E CPUs would see the need to move to a Ryzen, however, IMO, it is about time that AMD became competitive again. Last time I remember this was with a 2.1Ghz Athlon, about 15 years or so ago (Opterons were quite reasonable at the time too).

We will hopefully see price reductions from Intel, and with some maturity on the AMD side (or even just a revision of microcode, code, or compilers), on par performance in both single threaded and multi threaded that give us choice on a much better level than there has been for the last decade.

Ok so I tried to see how many clients I could do tonight.

I've been using this new build for about a day now. It's a

Ryzen 1800x
B350 Tomahawk by MSI (Amazon somehow was out of stock of any of the X370 boards, even though I preordered first day. So I had to go to Microcenter and they had this one, so no SLI for me).
1070 GTX
32G of 2400.

5 Clients brings the CPU to max maybe 18% during dungeons with decent size fights.

Tonight I tested 17 clients and pushed the stock speed (3.6) to 97% usage. Org dropped me down to a steady 13 FPS on graphic setting 1. I think maybe if I had some water cooling in the system and tried to overclock, some people were reporting speeds of 3.9 to 4.0, maybe the'd give me some boost. But when I wasn't in ORG I floated from 50-70% depending on movement and other players. This is the first computer I've ever built 100% by myself. So I wasn't too confident to mess around with the water-cooling. Maybe in a future build.

Overall it think for 10 boxing it'll certainly give you more than enough power and then maybe even enough to bump it up to 15.

I'd be curious to see results from a 1700x.

Here is some intresting thoughts.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvdSnEbL50

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moffen666

Here is some intresting thoughts.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvdSnEbL50

---

I opened that video thinking it was going to be someone else crapping all over AMD's Ryzen about the questionable performance in games, but I was pleasantly surprised and found it interesting.

Ryzen is definitely a beast and I applaud AMD for making this comeback, but it's going to need some software updates to fully support it, since, like he said in the video, Intel has been the top performer for the last several years because "Bulldozer was crap," and what that equates to is that most things have been optimized for Intel's architecture.

On the surface of any standard, single-game benchmarks we usually only see FPS numbers, and that's it. Some review sites might mention it, but I don't know of any that consistently give the overall load being produced on a CPU across its threads when benchmarking games. However, in the video, he points out that in another review it was shown that the R1700 and 7700K can achieve the same framerate (in BF1), but when looking at the load being put on the threads, the 7700K is maxed out, while the R1700 still has breathing room. This is obviously just one single example, but I find it to be a very interesting example since BF1 handles multi-threading very nicely.

I don't have a horse in the race, so to speak, since I'm locked into an Intel platform at the moment, but it's no secret that multiboxers benefit from more cores/threads* when available (assuming you aren't GPU bottlenecked), and for anyone looking to upgrade in the near future who has the need for heavily multi-threaded workloads (playing multiple game clients, recording, streaming, etc.), then Ryzen looks to be the answer at this time.
* AMD's older 8-core chips were not really 8 standalone cores.

I'm definitely happy that AMD is trying to get competitive with Intel again. I wish them success. Intel and Nvidia need to be kept on their toes. =)

Don't get me wrong I'm certainly happy for some competition and I will accept a reasonable reduction in single threaded gaming in exchange for better multi threaded performance (such as multiboxing)...but reasonable means 10%. I'm seeing some benches showing close'ish performance as posted above but then i see other tests showing it quite significantly behind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcbdN7vdCuQ Take this test and check total warhammer and watchdogs 2 around the 15-16 minute mark. In watchdogs 2 which even handles multithreading a bit better shows the 7700k OC 30% ahead of the 1800x OC and the 6900k even better at 37% ahead (and heres what really has me questioning the value further in that the 6900K is leading the 7700k despite the lower clock showing multithreading is helping, but it ISNT helping ryzen, this probably has something to do with immaturity and support for ryzen so i'll still be waiting to see if that gap closes as it matures, but its tests like these that do give me pause).

Furthermore its inconsistencies like these (multithreading benefiting intels 6900k and not ryzen) from time to time that just give me a feeling of incomplete overall quality (which also has me watching out for motherboard quirks in the future)

Its the same idea on the GPU front. I've used single AMD gpus and crossfire amd, ive used single nvidia and SLI nvidia and i've had more inconsistencies and quirks that just give me a feeling of lower quality and incomplete not fully realized quality/performance/etc on amd that make me stick to nvidia.

But again (i always have to leave a caveat to avoid a flame war lol) the competition is obviously good and i will be holding out to wait and see if they earn my dollar as they mature.

I think this is a good sum up of Ryzen in the gaming perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-mMBbWHrwM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moffen666

I think this is a good sum up of Ryzen in the gaming perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-mMBbWHrwM

---

wow this is how i looked at AMD not the best but very good at everything, This what i read and removed the "hate" i think its all round good cpu am not doping 1k on a CPU never have never will i used amd for a long time and i can not wait to get one.

the only time i wish i did not go AMD was on my laptop because the A10 is not a good and a i3/i5 would if been better for that.

http://youtu.be/tTbr7BNncB4?t=19m31s
http://www.pcper.com/news/Processors...ng-tests-Ryzen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mbox_bob

ATEOTD I'm not sure anyone with a current Intel or one of the previous gen E CPUs would see the need to move to a Ryzen, however, IMO, it is about time that AMD became competitive again. Last time I remember this was with a 2.1Ghz Athlon, about 15 years or so ago (Opterons were quite reasonable at the time too).

We will hopefully see price reductions from Intel, and with some maturity on the AMD side (or even just a revision of microcode, code, or compilers), on par performance in both single threaded and multi threaded that give us choice on a much better level than there has been for the last decade.

---

I certainly hope the Ryzen does offer good competitiveness. That's the only way we're going to continue seeing fast innovation out of Intel. That said, it's been a while since anyone talked about Moore's Law. I'd really like to see some battle royales going on in the CPU industry again. (And as much as I like the NVidia GPUs, the same applies there.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ughmahedhurtz

(And as much as I like the NVidia GPUs, the same applies there.)

---

All the reviews i keep reading on the 1080Ti getting priced at $700us is due to the upcoming AMD GPUs. SO it looks like the fight is back on for both CPUs and GPUs! I hope!

i got my AMD New system order today!

can not wait to relapse my AMD fx-8350


Goods Shipped:
£274.99 x 1 - AMD Ryzen 7 Eight Core 1700 3.70GHz (Socket AM4) Processor - Retail
£83.29 x 1 - Gigabyte GA-AB350-Gaming AMD B350 (Socket AM4) DDR4 ATX Motherboard
£149.99 x 1 - Kingston Fury Black 32GB (2x16GB) DDR4 PC4-19200C15 2400MHz Dual Channel Kit (HX424C15FBK2/32)
£609.00

was the best i could do on price really

ill report how good it is atm am at 5 fps in dala on 5 clients

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebony

ill report how good it is atm am at 5 fps in dala on 5 clients

---

http://i.imgur.com/5x9r2jH.png

Got to wait untill they come to me tomz!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebony

Got to wait untill they come to me tomz!

---

Overclockers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jabberwock

Overclockers?

---

Ofc!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebony

Ofc!!!

---

OCUK usually comes in more expensive for me than using a German or Polish website. :( My UK buddies use them a lot since they have ££ back home doing nothing.
Thankfully I work with a load German and Polish guys so they can translate the websites that don't have an English version. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jabberwock

OCUK usually comes in more expensive for me than using a German or Polish website. :( My UK buddies use them a lot since they have ££ back home doing nothing.
Thankfully I work with a load German and Polish guys so they can translate the websites that don't have an English version. :D

---

overclocks always been so good with warrys and stuff for me free shipping to US to get parts fixed that would cost me more then the old card is worth. They even been good with a mouse that ran out like 6 days before and still said they deal with and i had a new one a week later!

not long ago a 2 year old gfx card died 3 weeks later i got a new RX490 from somthing that was old they don't even sell anymore.

ebuyer can be cheaper but last time something went wrong with a part they did not care!


anyway back to pc

am running gfx setting 5 running 6 clinets and my isboxer is set to 50/40 on fps.

am using a stock cooler and to be fair for "stock" its not bad at all!

http://i.imgur.com/ZSyUGUQ.png

http://i.imgur.com/wEA2lY2.jpg

Nice, how does it feel?
What did you come up from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jabberwock

Nice, how does it feel?
What did you come up from?

---

its finding a 10 little hard, i think this is a lot to do with my 4gb rx490.

i had a amd 8350( i think) itsa big upgrade from that

i was going to pounce on the 1800x, but i heard about the 16core monster AMD has on the backburner and decided to wait. im currently on a 4970k with a 1080 so for 5boxing its perfect, i just cant stand dalaran and raids.

its still very playable at 40ish fps, i could get much more if i lowered some of the settings, but lately i got the transmog itch and lowering settings in not an option, i want to look good on all clients.

in case anyone is still wondering, this 1700x and the 1800x are great processors for regular gaming, and they are just phenomenal for multiboxing. just don't cheap out on the motherboard.