Which one should I get Ryzen or i7?

[dennisbun]

2 minutes ago, Droidbot said:

that's just called IPC, basic concept. 

 

hilariously the thing keeping Ryzen at 4Ghz under air/water is thermals due to the new manufacturing process

Well it seems he only know how it works in general.

 

I see, but is it because of the thermal offset ? One of linus' video says something about ryzen has a thermal offset

[Denis_Twin]

5 minutes ago, Droidbot said:

hilariously the thing keeping Ryzen at 4Ghz under air/water is thermals due to the new manufacturing process

Sounds interesting, can you elaborate?

Do you mean that there is hope for higher (stable) frequencies/speeds for the ryzen chips? That would be very interesting for future tweaking.

 

I like how the discussion is turning out so far. Learning new things

[dennisbun]

3 minutes ago, TwinDenis said:

Enlightening indeed, from my understanding the only way to measure the latest systems are only benchmarks and power consumption (assuming both versions of the a unit are as optimized as possible) as he said, they try to either go higher in clock speeds with less work or having it work more in lower speeds.

So this is what I got from the video. If I know I wont stutter in normal-low (not too badly) optimized games that are released in both cases, then yeah 1700 would be the way to go since everyone here agrees, we came to this conclusion.

Question though, it is stuck to me that how can the 3ghz speed caught up with the 4.2 speed cpu? (I saw the video but still the difference seems big in speed... or is it not?)

 

Thanks

Well yeah its kinda confusing, and this happens because of the architecture itself, maybe it has something to do with the CCX design, its kinda hard to explain and im not that expert anyway.

[Denis_Twin]

1 minute ago, dennisbun said:

Well yeah its kinda confusing, and this happens because of the architecture itself, maybe it has something to do with the CCX design, its kinda hard to explain and im not that expert anyway.

it is alright, thanks Dennis

Offer what you can dw 'bout it, we all learn every day

[dennisbun]

6 minutes ago, TwinDenis said:

it is alright, thanks Dennis

Offer what you can dw 'bout it, we all learn every day

yeah there's no end explaining everything. 

 

All in all if you have time, then maybe wait until the next intel CPU came out, you might be able the save up more money and get better parts. As for me, I'm waiting for ryzen 3 to be released.

[Denis_Twin]

6 minutes ago, dennisbun said:

yeah there's no end explaining everything. 

 

All in all if you have time, then maybe wait until the next intel CPU came out, you might be able the save up more money and get better parts. As for me, I'm waiting for ryzen 3 to be released.

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...

 

[dennisbun]

11 minutes ago, TwinDenis said:

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).

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.

[Droidbot]

31 minutes ago, TwinDenis said:

Sounds interesting, can you elaborate?

Do you mean that there is hope for higher (stable) frequencies/speeds for the ryzen chips? That would be very interesting for future tweaking.

 

I like how the discussion is turning out so far. Learning new things

whereas intel has been using 14nm finfet since skylake (low oc) and while kaby ocd well it got very hot. this is amd's first foray into 14nm, and due to the core density and new architecture, it doesnt oc well. 

 

yes, it is quite possible for a new zen+ to be refined and be a better oc platform overall

[Denis_Twin]

1 hour ago, dennisbun said:

-sip-

 

54 minutes ago, Droidbot said:

 

-sip-

 

Okay I guess we covered most of the things we should, although one or two things still remain in which one of them would be silicon lottery thing and the other overclocking which both share the same subject.

So, lets say I want for several reasons to hit the 4ghz mark on an ryzen, what should I do?

[Nishyman]

On 4/30/2017 at 6:12 AM, Matevzs1 said:

Hey.

I will kidnap this topic. So I'm deciding between i7 7700k and Ryzen 1700. I will be using it for Photoshop, Premiere Pro, After Effects, little gaming (really little ), etc.

 

I know pretty much all of you will tell me that 1700 is clear winner and all benchmarks say so too, BUT I'm deciding about this for over a month now, so here is my current point of view and I would really appreciate it if you would tell me what is your opinion about my thinking.

 

- We all know that Intel chips are great quality products which will last for 10+ years. As for AMD, in the past they were not so good, and Ryzen is totally new platform. Nobody had this chips for more than 3 months, so how I can be sure it won't lose performance sooner than expected or even something worse?

- All tests with Adobe CC are based on rendering times, but in my case it's much more important how good is overall responsiveness of software, I can export projects at night... So is there any benefit from more cores in normal workflow or can I benefit more from higher clocked cores?

- Are optimizations for multiple cores use really that close? We have 8 core Xeons for years at the market, so why is software not yet optimized for them then? Or it's not that simple, and we could wait for optimizations for few more years where whole story about processors could be totally different?

- i7 has integraded graphics while Ryzen7 doesn't. I will have nVidia GPU of course, but can be integraded GPU from i7 be beneficial in any other way? Is there any good point of having it?

 

Well this are my concernes and that's why I can't decide which processor to choose for over a month now. I really can't afford to choose the wrong one at the moment, but I will have to choose red or blue team in next 3 days so any help would be great, because I really don't want to draw.

 

Thanks in advance and have a great day!

Regards,

Matevz

I am in the exact same boat! I've been debating for weeks now, because a lot of the software I plan to run is pretty much single threaded ( autocad, sketch up, adobe suite, plus some gaming ) . And like you mentioned, people keep saying of course Ryzen; Developers will soon begin to optimize for multiple threads. But havent we had higher core count chips for a while already and those applications have yet to utilize multiple cores? Having 5ghz on four cores sounds amazing, but having 8 cores sounds amazing too.. haha. 

[dennisbun]

13 minutes ago, TwinDenis said:

 

Okay I guess we covered most of the things we should, although one or two things still remain in which one of them would be silicon lottery thing and the other overclocking which both share the same subject.

So, lets say I want for several reasons to hit the 4ghz mark on an ryzen, what should I do?

well first you need a motherboard that supports overclock and second you need a good cooling solution, although water cooling is recommended. That should get you a decent overclock and might reach the 4ghz limit. Also remember that ryzen works faster with faster RAM clock and oh yeah if you do wait until next year or so you might get ddr5 ram support I guess, but maybe not until 2 - 3 years.

[Denis_Twin]

7 minutes ago, dennisbun said:

well first you need a motherboard that supports overclock and second you need a good cooling solution, although water cooling is recommended. That should get you a decent overclock and might reach the 4ghz limit. Also remember that ryzen works faster with faster RAM clock and oh yeah if you do wait until next year or so you might get ddr5 ram support I guess, but maybe not until 2 - 3 years.

any particular parts that you would recommend for a stable 4ghz limit?

Not very familiar with those but I know we have 2 types of motherboards already and a few ram that boost performance (for the right price...).

I wouldnt wait 3 years to get a PC, in 3 years one who is working can make enough for 5 new computers especially if they work using a computer to begin with but yeah...

8 minutes ago, Nishyman said:

I am in the exact same boat! I've been debating for weeks now, because a lot of the software I plan to run is pretty much single threaded ( autocad, sketch up, adobe suite, plus some gaming ) . And like you mentioned, people keep saying of course Ryzen; Developers will soon begin to optimize for multiple threads. But havent we had higher core count chips for a while already and those applications have yet to utilize multiple cores? Having 5ghz on four cores sounds amazing, but having 8 cores sounds amazing too.. haha. 

Exactly, but multithread has been improved over the years I can even see mmos use multiple of my 4 cores so... My guess is they improved the architecture, we could even go with an fx 8350 at 4ghz and 8 cores but does it perform the same? I think it doesnt according to the posted benchmarks but who knows... If we can clock the ryzen at 4ghz or so it would be the go to for all occasions so this is my concern as well.

 

I just need someone to test ryzen on heroes of the storm, Ive seen only a few like 

who tested them but I can notice stutter ( it could be video recording stutter as well but I do not know, they didnt specify )

they claim they do not have any stutter or something even at 4k. 

 

So far the most intensive games Ive ever played (cpu bound) are tera, black desert (it should receive optimizations soon) an heroes of the storm.

[dennisbun]

11 minutes ago, TwinDenis said:

any particular parts that you would recommend for a stable 4ghz limit?

Not very familiar with those but I know we have 2 types of motherboards already and a few ram that boost performance (for the right price...).

I wouldnt wait 3 years to get a PC, in 3 years one who is working can make enough for 5 new computers especially if they work using a computer to begin with but yeah...

Exactly, but multithread has been improved over the years I can even see mmos use multiple of my 4 cores so... My guess is they improved the architecture, we could even go with an fx 8350 at 4ghz and 8 cores but does it perform the same? I think it doesnt according to the posted benchmarks but who knows... If we can clock the ryzen at 4ghz or so it would be the go to for all occasions so this is my concern as well.

I'm not sure either, as long as its a B350 or X370 motherboard you should be fine. And for the cooling solution, I'd suggest to go with an aio, as they provide easy installation and almost zero maintenance.

I used to work with autocad and solidworks3D and yes they do support multi-threading, but I had to disable it because of bugs and stutters, or was it the directx11, I forgot. Also, more cores helps with rendering, if thats what you do daily. But I rarely render anything from solidworks lol.

As for 8350 they still use the buldozer architecture, it is pretty good back then but it was inefficient.

 

From the video you can see that the cpu rarely reach 90% load, this could mean two things : a. The game is not optimized yet or b. The game doesn't really need that much power.

[Denis_Twin]

1 hour ago, dennisbun said:

I'm not sure either, as long as its a B350 or X370 motherboard you should be fine. And for the cooling solution, I'd suggest to go with an aio, as they provide easy installation and almost zero maintenance.

I used to work with autocad and solidworks3D and yes they do support multi-threading, but I had to disable it because of bugs and stutters, or was it the directx11, I forgot. Also, more cores helps with rendering, if thats what you do daily. But I rarely render anything from solidworks lol.

As for 8350 they still use the buldozer architecture, it is pretty good back then but it was inefficient.

 

From the video you can see that the cpu rarely reach 90% load, this could mean two things : a. The game is not optimized yet or b. The game doesn't really need that much power.

Well b350 and x370 are the only ryzen boards on the market anyway but no idea which one is better for OC, is a single fan water cooler enough for lets say 4ghz of 1700 ryzen?

I am using it for gaming and some streaming (it ranged from daily to weekly).

The game is out for quiet some time now (they even released a 2.0 version recently).

I bet as of right now everyone should just pick up the r7 according to all the info here.

This will help me recommend some good builds to my friends as well (which they only game or do normal school work).

[Nishyman]

10 minutes ago, TwinDenis said:

Well b350 and x370 are the only ryzen boards on the market anyway but no idea which one is better for OC

 

BitWit did a little video on exactly this a few days ago, not sure exactly how conclusive it will be for you though. He wasn't super thorough, but still gives a nice first comparision. Pretty much, they both achieved very similar overclocks. 

[Denis_Twin]

1 hour ago, Nishyman said:

 

BitWit did a little video on exactly this a few days ago, not sure exactly how conclusive it will be for you though. He wasn't super thorough, but still gives a nice first comparision. Pretty much, they both achieved very similar overclocks. 

exactly, he just said with simple testing that they are similar, so according to him just invest that extra money on a good memory or something, speaking of which I swear I couldnt find a motherboard that supports 3600 ram speeds (in case I get for example the 3600/16cL ram), they all cap out at 3200OC.

Someone posted above that  one can reach the performance of 7700k with a 3600speed low latency ram so that would indeed be ideal.

[Emberstone]

5 hours ago, TwinDenis said:

hmm by the way what is silicon lottery?

Silicon lottery is the term we use to describe luck with overclocking. All chips are not made equal. Some overclock better than others. Some reach the same overclock at a lower voltage, some run much cooler at similar voltages. By saying I won the silicon lottery, I mean I got lucky getting a chip that can hit 4.0 GHz on air at such a low voltage (1.33v; Ryzen is safe up to 1.45v) and never have the temp go higher than ~70 C, which is pretty damn safe.

 

5 hours ago, TwinDenis said:

Of course my only concern is with those mmos that are cpu intensive, then again I remember heroes of the storm and starcraft2 (same engine) running at 4 cores on my cpu so that means it utilizes the cores, so according to some if you have a beefy memory you can reach the 7700k while maintaining better multitasking capabilities (which sounds awesome).

I also play Heroes of the Storm on a regular basis (over 3000 games played). Sorry to burst your bubble, but that engine is not as multithreaded as you think. My last CPU was an i7-980X overclocked to 4.0 GHz, up from 3.33 GHz. Heroes of the Storm ran at 30 fps on that chi[ during teamfights because, despite that processor being as strong as a 6700K when all cores were taken into account, it didn't give a damn. It only cared about single thread speed, which that processor lacked. That means, even if you OC your eight-core R7 to 4.1 GHz, the 7700K will still run these games better at its stock frequencies due to its higher frequency and Kaby Lake's slightly better IPC.

 

The game might show a load on four cores, but take a closer look at how that load is spread out. One core will be completely loaded (probably to 100% utilization), and the rest will be barely touched.

 

That doesn't mean Ryzen won't provide a smooth gaming experience. After over a week of playing HotS on my new Ryzen system, the lowest fps I ever saw was 55 (Braxis Holdout when the banelings explode in the Zerg wave). It's 80-90+ most of the time. It stays over 60 even in teamfights. And as I showed above, your overall fps in SC2 will still be pretty good. It just dips when supply capped armies start attacking things.

 

To make a long story short, Ryzen doesn't suck at gaming. It is nowhere close to sucking. The 7700K is just better suited to the job, just as one could say the 7700K doesn't suck at productivity tasks while Ryzen is better suited to them.

[Denis_Twin]

10 minutes ago, Emberstone said:

Silicon lottery is the term we use to describe luck with overclocking. All chips are not made equal. Some overclock better than others. Some reach the same overclock at a lower voltage, some run much cooler at similar voltages. By saying I won the silicon lottery, I mean I got lucky getting a chip that can hit 4.0 GHz on air at such a low voltage (1.33v; Ryzen is safe up to 1.45v) and never have the temp go higher than ~70 C, which is pretty damn safe.

 

I also play Heroes of the Storm on a regular basis (over 3000 games played). Sorry to burst your bubble, but that engine is not as multithreaded as you think. My last CPU was an i7-980X overclocked to 4.0 GHz, up from 3.33 GHz. Heroes of the Storm ran at 30 fps on that chi[ during teamfights because, despite that processor being as strong as a 6700K when all cores were taken into account, it didn't give a damn. It only cared about single thread speed, which that processor lacked. That means, even if you OC your eight-core R7 to 4.1 GHz, the 7700K will still run these games better at its stock frequencies due to its higher frequency and Kaby Lake's slightly better IPC.

 

The game might show a load on four cores, but take a closer look at how that load is spread out. One core will be completely loaded (probably to 100% utilization), and the rest will be barely touched.

 

That doesn't mean Ryzen won't provide a smooth gaming experience. After over a week of playing HotS on my new Ryzen system, the lowest fps I ever saw was 55 (Braxis Holdout when the banelings explode in the Zerg wave). It's 80-90+ most of the time. It stays over 60 even in teamfights. And as I showed above, your overall fps in SC2 will still be pretty good. It just dips when supply capped armies start attacking things.

 

To make a long story short, Ryzen doesn't suck at gaming. It is nowhere close to sucking. The 7700K is just better suited to the job, just as one could say the 7700K doesn't suck at productivity tasks while Ryzen is better suited to them.

Ohhhh yeah... braxis.... the stutters  (now) are so real there, but I am not concerned about few numbers less, I just want it to be noticably smooth and thats all, I mean, its fine if it runs as it should (smoothly). It doesnt really matter for me if the 7700k is 195 fps and the ryzen is 180  fpsfor example because in the end of the day stability in performance is what matters

[Emberstone]

15 minutes ago, TwinDenis said:

Ohhhh yeah... braxis.... the stutters  (now) are so real there, but I am not concerned about few numbers less, I just want it to be noticably smooth and thats all, I mean, its fine if it runs as it should (smoothly). It doesnt really matter for me if the 7700k is 195 fps and the ryzen is 180  fpsfor example because in the end of the day stability in performance is what matters

I don't have any issues with stutter in games on my R5. Framerates are consistent and feel pretty good. I really encourage you to check out hard evidence from tech YouTubers so you can get a better picture of which CPU is better for your needs. At the end of the day, I'm another faceless voice in this thread. Lol.

 

(By the way, if you are curious about what my build is exactly so you can kind of get an idea of the performance I'm working with, it's in my signature).

[Denis_Twin]

44 minutes ago, Emberstone said:

I don't have any issues with stutter in games on my R5. Framerates are consistent and feel pretty good. I really encourage you to check out hard evidence from tech YouTubers so you can get a better picture of which CPU is better for your needs. At the end of the day, I'm another faceless voice in this thread. Lol.

 

(By the way, if you are curious about what my build is exactly so you can kind of get an idea of the performance I'm working with, it's in my signature).

yes it is a very good build, decent for the right price.

Anyways I was just curious since I encountered issues before with a stable 60fps... so fps do not show me anything as far as I am concerned other than graphical performance according to my experience.

You are not a faceless voice, you are someone who contributes online, sharing knowledge and experience, this is the power of the internet.

Back on topic, you say you dont get any stutter, jitter or anything so that is enough for me, and as you know most people (including me) complaining about hots being so stuttery yet you claim thats not the case for you which means ryzen is more than copable to game on while providing that extra room for doing content creation. Correct?

[Emberstone]

28 minutes ago, TwinDenis said:

and as you know most people (including me) complaining about hots being so stuttery yet you claim thats not the case for you

I've never actually heard about HotS being a stuttery game. I even lurk the forums daily. It can feel stuttery if your internet can't keep up since its netcode is based on a "lockstep system." If you lag, then you are out of step. The game will freeze until you are locked in sync once again. Same with SC2. Even on my ancient 980X it didn't stutter. The fps was just bad.

 

But really, find some comparisons on YouTube to give you the full picture on these chips' performance (I recommend benchmarks from Hardware Unboxed. They have a load of content on Ryzen). It's best you do that before pulling the trigger and later regretting your decision, instead of asking me.

[Denis_Twin]

12 minutes ago, Emberstone said:

I've never actually heard about HotS being a stuttery game. I even lurk the forums daily. It can feel stuttery if your internet can't keep up since its netcode is based on a "lockstep system." If you lag, then you are out of step. The game will freeze until you are locked in sync once again. Same with SC2. Even on my ancient 980X it didn't stutter. The fps was just bad.

 

But really, find some comparisons on YouTube to give you the full picture on these chips' performance (I recommend benchmarks from Hardware Unboxed. They have a load of content on Ryzen). It's best you do that before pulling the trigger and later regretting your decision, instead of asking me.

probs motherboard problem or something, there are many reasons for a game to stutter and yeah I am on the forums as well and 've seen many many reported issues but of course as you said most are related to network while my network is high end (I mentioned something about streaming before correct?).

 

Anyways I am studying the subject for quiet some time but since I do not know exactly how they work I cant judge by just looking up some extremely early comparisons, a new product is still a new product yet to be fully optimized for use. (Similar to how games transition from alpha to beta then to release, on release they discover most issues that were hidden since they have a larger scale of testers essentially).

For total worth according to people here and in general according to benchmarks my understanding is that the ryzen has more total worth (jack of all trades) than the 7700k so that should be the choice. There is however a lot of debate on which one is the "go to" option so that is why the concern remains in my mind about it but of course as you said both will do the job well.

Games use gpu mostly anyways and thats why we compare results in an mmo (which is hard though because many "random" events occur)

Such as the black desert video I showed earlier, he claims both run well (he uses an older i7 skylake) but the intel is more stuttery even in combat. Personally I have no idea why, its still an mmo and yet to be fully optimized but still according to the devs they will improve it. 

 

[Denis_Twin]

Okay so... how do those guys in the videos claim to clock their ram on the ryzen boards up to 3600mhz/16cl? the motherboard itself doesnt state any support for 3600mhz.

Would a 3200mhz/16cl 16gb ram work the same for gaming? (Since the relation between ram and cpu is always noticeable).

They said in the benchmarks that the better the ram the closer those two CPUs come in performance (depending on the game one can surpass the other).

According to some other benchmarks ryzen compliments more games that use more the GPU as well or so I thought from what they claimed. But in all situations ram was essential to achieve competition.