I don't really side with either company, giving credit where credit is due for performance demonstrated in applications desired for intended use scenarios. When socket 7 K6-2/350 could keep up with a P2 in Quake, I bought it. When Slot A Athlons were defeating pre-Coppermine Pentium IIIs, I bought one. When Coppermine- PIII laid waste to the old Slot A, I built a P3/600C OC'd to 900 MHz... When Athlon 64's were beating early P4's, I bought them. When 800 MHz FSB P4's were beating Athlon 64s, i bought one. When Athlon 64/3500+ at 2.0 GHz was laying waste to old P4/3 GHz CPUs, bought it... As the current framerate king (within fiscal reason) is the 7700K, i bought it.
If/when I get around to upgrading again, I'll buy whatever is fastest (within reason, not really willing to pay a 100% premium for 5 % more gaming performance, this would be true even if a mythical 7790K existed at $560 as well), regardless of whose name is on the label.... same as I've done since 1997 or so. If /when AMD comes out with something matching/exceeding 7700k/8700K performance when I am looking to upgrade, I will gladly buy it.
If I perhaps all too routinely call out 'someone's' twice-daily BS, it will always be backed up with links/figures/charts/links, etc.... and usually be met with counterclaims of 'who cares about numbers', or , 'yes the platform uses more power, but the CPU alone uses 3 less watts' etc...
If someone asks the best processor for gaming while streaming, I will point out that tests show the 7700K lagging behind an 1800X....and recommend the R7 over the too-expensive 7900X, etc....
But, if someone asks the best gaming PC, you'd have to be on proverbial crack (edit: an exaggeration, I doubt anyone here is on crack!) to to claim any R7 is just as good with a mountain of online gaming testing evidence and 100's of gaming comparisons to the contrary. This is not saying the R7 or R5 can't deliver 100 or even 144 fps in some games, as often it can...; I only point out it can't keep up with the 7700K. (The deficit could be 2%, could be 10%, or could be 50%, depending on the game. When I 'play' CInebench, I' ll give more weight to those results. Likewise when/if I am going to work and need video editing done quickly within a cost reason, AM4 or even Threadripper might be quite compelling.)
If past/current users seeking advice over processor selection and system builds have their feelings hurt over someone else's dubious performance claims being debunked (admittedly, with a bit of factual sarcasm) with actual facts.....sorry. ( to said users, not the 'debunkee' ). And I don't call someone who purchases an AMD processor 'dumb' or 'stupid'; all prospective system purchasers ultimately vote with their actual wallets and hard earned money, and should perform due diligence in researching performance beforehand. Don't take my feeble word for it, and don't take Intel's , and don't take AMD's word for it, as both companies will cherry pick to suit their best case results. Compare in your top 3-4 uses...or ina barge of 20-30 games if needed. Do I claim 7700K is 'awesomely faster at 4k SLI'? No. Do I claim it might be 57% faster in 1080P in DOTA2, or 10-20% faster in BF1? Online reviewers and controlled testing say yes.
Edited by MDD1963, 30 August 2017 - 06:57 PM.