dennisbun

its easy...  you said for future upgrade then its am4... amd said they gonna use this socket for a long time so.... cant see why you would buy intel right now, they change their sockets like their underpants

That's true, AMD did state AM4 has an expected lifetime of 3 years. But like I said above, gotta get Ryzen 5

Even Intel's "Tick Tock" ideology is a load of Centaur poop. Their board support is terrible (Completely against their Tick Tock", they release when they have too, not the "Tick Tock" system they promote, their most expensive processors locked unless you BCLK around it and hope you don't ruin other components or d-lid it and switch and solder things on your motherboard (Try multiplier OC'ing Dual 5650's on a SuperMicro and not an sr-2 without an unfindable custom bios mod).
 
AM4 all the way. Unless it's for pro use and you have to have the top of the top, or it's an all used system (or old Xeons ;^) pft on Intel. The upgrade path on the AM4 is huge, with new tech. With the g you have an upgrade path, but it's going to be old gen tech. If you want to buy new, but AMD (CPU wise). Same with mid range graphics. Mid High end and up you only have 1 choice, so... On used CPU's I may still be blue, but new I'm I'm bright fricken red.
 
Locking original MSRP $1700+ cpu's, the heck is wrong with those people.

I'd be honest. You have way too many requirements for the amount of money that you are asking. 
 
Both the 7700K and 1700 can stream. But they do so at different quality presets without dropping frames. An 8 core 1700 can have a high quality stream(for the viewers).
What you compromise on is the lower average fps. 
 
Your mmo games aren't optimized to take advantage of as many cores as it can. And it still likes faster cores. 7700K is ideal for that. Dungeon raids, node wars, siege, world bosses, sever vs server. 7700K will give you a damn good avg fps if you can bump it to 5Ghz + High speed ram. I'd expect the 1700 to be about 20% behind. 
 
Multitasking obviously goes to the 1700. 8c16t vs 4c8t. Thats no fight. To give you a rough idea, I've had 40 chrome tabs + an MMO(afk in town hotspot, so that's easily 100+ players) + Overwatch quick play(12players)(80-90 fps) + blender + visual studio + and irresponsible amount of background apps + playing 1080p videos. Didn't even feel a stutter in Overwatch.
 
Though. Ideally, the perfect cpu for you would be the 5960x. But the budget doesn't allow for that. Sadly.
 
TLDR: 
7700K: 
+ ludicrous levels of average fps in your games(overclocked)
+ Overclocking 
 
1700:
+ Streaming quality
+ Multitasking
+ Smooth gameplay
 
5960x: 
+ ludicrous levels of average fps in your games(overclocked)
+ Overclocking 
+ Streaming quality
+ Multitasking
+ Smooth gameplay
 
You do the math. If not, give your pennies to intel for their 8 core. 
 
 

I would go with the r7 1700 for multitasking and streaming performance, and for mmo games I think it would still keep up with the intel counterpart. If you do notice lags or stutters, I would suggest getting an external capture device for streaming. 
 
Regarding the video, usually they used high end chip at low end cpu, why ? Usually its because the chip can't pass the quality check, ex : stability issue, temp issue, etc. But since they are unlocked, its possible to achieve the same speed. This is one of the reason why intel has lots of types in the same gen, they could just lock few cores from an i7 chip and sell it as an i5.

Well I am not in any particular hurry although I will get it this year hopefully.
Are they planning on releasing any faster amd CPUs than the r7 series though?
What would you pick if you were me according to all these data (for game performance with decent multitasking or and some streaming considering mmos as the main games of interest for user experience).
 
bythe way I just saw this , how come the 1700 beat 1800 at a slightly lower frequency... wow of course it is situational, are both of the three the same just clocked higher? I wonder...
 

It's not even rigging the price (Which they obviously profit hugely, as do retailers; except Microcenter somehow), they just take these baby steps since there was no competition. Then by switching boards all the time, the board companies I'm sure have to sign new agreements, which the customer then has to pay for, and it just goes on and on. As for locking their high end chips; who does that?
 
I'm not talking their high end consumer chips, but their Xeons, which start around $1700 and go up to about $6500 now? I read two press releases regarding the locks, and the reason given was they were protecting companies from over exuberant employees destroying their high priced silicon, so in the long run, these chips which are hand picked, microscanned for perfection (or as close to it as they can get), which could be by far and away the best gaming chips in the world (Imagine a quad 1245 v5 board, with 4 procs each clocked at 5.7 (Those are still expensive as heck mind you), but if you want to, you should be able to.
 
The real reason is, just like with Ryzen, the 5650's flooded the market, the 1245 v1 and 2 (The latter socket 1155 mind you, a motherboard chipset that got totally screwed) could be running, essentially 2 i7 4790's @ 5.3 or so with  larger caches, more threads, pci 3.0 and USB 3.0 support, ecc RAM etc... but you can only BCLK oc them, so your pci slots would fry, along with your usb's, and everything else but the chip, which could deal with proper cooling. It's not to ptotect anyone but them. Who is going to buy a 6700k when you can get 2 1245 v1's for the same price? Who cares if the dual socket board costs $350-$450 usd, it's worth it to lots of people. But, since Intel is not making money on the boards, and it would prolong server chipset life, their is no incentive.
 
I hope with Ryzen taking some of their share in the commercial market, in 3 or 4 years we may see some of these Xeons have bios updates that unlock them. Ryzen needs to start working on dual and Quad boards though, if they really want to hit Intel where it hurts, and affect a serious change in Intel's business "Ethics". You can still make stupid amounts of money while treating your customers correctly. Can you imagine buying a used Ferrari, your dream car, which could go up to 163 mph on a track or the Autobahn, just to be told "Oh no, we cap the engine for efficiency so the vehicle will last longer and be more reliable". Makes me mad enough to punt a penguin. And I like penguins. All pudgy, black and white little Weebles.

Ahh thank you for clarifying that, now I'm more confidence going with Ryzen
 
I know right, Intel is rigging the price so bad that only few people has access to it. Although I'm hoping that ryzen would even out the cpu market, feels like darth vader.

It's like *forced microtransactions*. Most games you pay a premium for ($19.99 or more) the micros are "Yeah, whatever". "Neat skin". "F this, I'm not grinding for 3 hours when I can pay 3 bucks for an item anyone can get and does not affect anyone but me" You don't need them to win, or enjoy the game though. In multi-player, rarely does it give you an unfair advantage (There is one game I cannot think of that was massively popular, that went from a fan meta-score of over 9, too 4.7 in 3 weeks. Payday was it? Over 70k reviews at an average at 9.3 or whatever, and in 1 week it dropped under 5. The "Black Market Update" I think they called it.

Now, if Intel sold you the Xeon for list, then said "Now, it does not matter what board you buy, what bios you write, what transistor/capacitor is changed, this is all your chip can do. Unless, you pay us X amount of money extra, then you can overclock it". The potential is already there, you just need to give us money to do it
 
So, in essence, it is worse than microtransactions, as at least micro-transactions allow you the choice. Intel takes that from you. They force companies to buy the best, but then artificially cap "the best", so you can't get "the best" out of it.
 
(Feel free to tldr hee as it's rant time)
 
Now Ryzen's server solution? Is that the Naples chip? If not, I am not sure. I know microcenter had a 100k overclock contest for a creation solution, but as for servers, the only thing I've heard of is Naples, and I have heard very little. If it dents Intel's market share, then I am all for it. I think their 17 and 18's would make great dual/quad/hexa/octa/deca core cpu's on their own, if boards were released. Okay, maybe not hex,oct, or dec, but dual and quad, well I believe they would have an immediate and publicly noticed impact (right now they are hurting Microsoft on the professional creative, along with home and very small business server side, with Intel actually down 7% i the commercial market this year. 7%? They were at 98%, what is 7%? Enough to scare the crap out of Intel, and a huge push from a consumer chip.
 
I hope Naples gets pushed up, heck, delay Vega longer if need be (We are going on two years delay, so I'm in no rush, my rx480 and old NV 500 series will get me by fine for now), as perhaps it would spur Intel into not just re-thinking their practices, but maybe actually changing them.
 
I'd love to hear more about the server solution. Feel free to comment here, or send me a message about what you think about it. Major points that can be said in a paragraph as opposed to an article (I should work on that, darn summarizing) I should look out for. Heh, and more importantly, can we take a multi-thousand dollar chip and attempt to overclock it on our own (Well not me, as unfortunately, if I ruin a 2k-7k chip, that hurts my, and my son's life style)? As said, I probably won't be toying with that type of hardware for a few years, but it would be great to know that we had the choice.
 

You can get 2966