Ryzen 7 1700 or i7 7700

[Geotropism]

I'm looking for a new CPU/Mobo/RAM combo this Christmas. My i5 4590 just bottlenecks my GTX 1080 too much at 1440p @ 144hz. I'm deciding between the Ryzen 7 1700 and the i7 7700 (non K). If I get the Ryzen, I'll only overclock lightly, because I don't have adequate cooling and am scared to damage my system. I never stream and primarily game.  I do record videos from time to time, however. Many of you will say "go for the i7 7700 if you're only gaming", and I agree with this, but I also want some degree of future-proofing. Based on what I've seen on forums, the Ryzen's extra cores and thread could prove useful in future games where they might utilize the extra cores/threads. Can someone help out?

[Ordinarily_Greater]

1 minute ago, Geotropism said:

I'm looking for a new CPU/Mobo/RAM combo this Christmas. My i5 4590 just bottlenecks my GTX 1080 too much at 1440p @ 144hz. I'm deciding between the Ryzen 7 1700 and the i7 7700 (non K). If I get the Ryzen, I'll only overclock lightly, because I don't have adequate cooling and am scared to damage my system. I never stream and primarily game.  I do record videos from time to time, however. Many of you will say "go for the i7 7700 if you're only gaming", and I agree with this, but I also want some degree of future-proofing. Based on what I've seen on forums, the Ryzen's extra cores and thread could prove useful in future games where they might utilize the extra cores/threads. Can someone help out?

Yes the extra cores will help you and the CPU Usage will be less than the i7 because of the extra thread and cores

[Geotropism]

But is the performance difference worth it? Sure I'll be multitasking while gaming, which favors the Ryzen, but I still want my frames as close to 144 as possible. 

[Jurrunio]

3 minutes ago, Geotropism said:

But is the performance difference worth it? Sure I'll be multitasking while gaming, which favors the Ryzen, but I still want my frames as close to 144 as possible. 

Ryzen 5 1600is good enough to not limit the 1080's performance atm.

[Geotropism]

Just now, Jurrunio said:

Ryzen 5 1600is good enough to not limit the 1080's performance atm.

Would it be more beneficial to get the R7 over the R5 in the long run, though? The extra cores are more future proof, and I can afford it too.

[samcool55]

I would get the r7 1700. The performance advantage the i7 has is mostly because it can be overclocked to 5+Ghz (sometimes) which results in high single-core performance.

However the r7 1700 might be slower in older games than the 7700. Games will start to use more cores in the future (some already are actually), both AMD and Intel are pushing multi-core cpu's harder than ever and devs are already showing that they are optimizing for multi-core cpu's.

 

It will only be a matter of time until the more cores the 1700 has to offer will be used by games.

[GrayTech]

Get the Ryzen 5 1700 or 7700K. Even if you don't overclock, get the 7700K instead of the 7700.

i7 7700:   3.6GHz Base 4.2GHz Turbo

i7 7700K: 4.2GHz Base 4.5GHz Turbo

The big advantage Intel has over Ryzen is its frequenzy. And getting a locked intel CPU which runs at a "slow" frequency doesn't make much sence.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

I think in general the best gaming proposition right now is the Ryzen 1600.

 

BUT since your goal is to hit 144FPS (and provided you are sure the GPU will never be the limiting factor at 1440p), the CPU that is closer to deliver that is an overclocked 7700K. Ryzen will give you more than enough FPS for most of us, but hitting the 144FPS mark in all/most games is unlikely.

[Jurrunio]

1 minute ago, Geotropism said:

Would it be more beneficial to get the R7 over the R5 in the long run, though? The extra cores are more future proof, and I can afford it too.

Some youtube producers mentioned news on AMD breaking the current frequency limit in Ryzen chips. Also, AM4 will be around for a few years, so I'd pick the R5 so you can upgrade to the last top end AM4 CPU in the future. That extra 50% price of R7 ($300) comparing to R5 ($200) is quite large for 2 cores anyway

[Geotropism]

I wouldn't mind missing the 144FPS mark, but only if the difference is minimal. For example, if the R5 1600 can get me atleast 130FPS solid on a game such as Overwatch, and not have it's performance dip due to multitasking, then I would prefer that over a i7 7700k at 140FPS that does have it's performance dip due to multitasking. I'm just looking for a good balance of good FPS and multitasking ability, while also providing future proofing. 

[Jurrunio]

Just now, Geotropism said:

I wouldn't mind missing the 144FPS mark, but only if the difference is minimal. For example, if the R5 1600 can get me atleast 130FPS solid on a game such as Overwatch, and not have it's performance dip due to multitasking, then I would prefer that over a i7 7700k at 140FPS that does have it's performance dip due to multitasking. I'm just looking for a good balance of good FPS and multitasking ability, while also providing future proofing. 

R5 is fine with overwatch at 1440p 144Hz. This game isn't that CPU hungry even at this reso and refresh rate.

[Geotropism]

1 minute ago, Jurrunio said:

Some youtube producers mentioned news on AMD breaking the current frequency limit in Ryzen chips. Also, AM4 will be around for a few years, so I'd pick the R5 so you can upgrade to the last top end AM4 CPU in the future. That extra 50% price of R7 ($300) comparing to R5 ($200) is quite large for 2 cores anyway

This should be my last CPU upgrade for another 3 years atleast. Are you sure the extra 2 cores won't become useful within those 3-5 years? I would rather spend an extra €50 (the price difference in my country) than regret my purchase and have to upgrade later on. 

[Geotropism]

Just now, Jurrunio said:

R5 is fine with overwatch at 1440p 144Hz. This game isn't that CPU hungry even at this reso and refresh rate.

Thanks for that, I didn't know the R5 would be capable of reaching 144FPS. However, Overwatch won't be the only game I'll be playing and I am aware that it's not too CPU hungry. If I were solely playing Overwatch then I'd just get the Ryzen, but I also want to play games such as BF1 and future unreleased titles that may be much more CPU demanding.

[tom_w141]

16 minutes ago, Geotropism said:

But is the performance difference worth it? Sure I'll be multitasking while gaming, which favors the Ryzen, but I still want my frames as close to 144 as possible. 

Ryzen here purely because you are looking at a locked 7700. A 1700 can do 3.9/4GHz comfortably and I bet you can do more than light overclocking. AMD don't cheap out on thermal solution and solder the chip so that it runs a lot cooler than one using adhesive and thermal paste. For example my 1700 is at 4Ghz <60 degrees at all times and all I have is a mid range AIO cooler.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

12 minutes ago, Geotropism said:

I wouldn't mind missing the 144FPS mark, but only if the difference is minimal. For example, if the R5 1600 can get me atleast 130FPS solid on a game such as Overwatch, and not have it's performance dip due to multitasking, then I would prefer that over a i7 7700k at 140FPS that does have it's performance dip due to multitasking. I'm just looking for a good balance of good FPS and multitasking ability, while also providing future proofing. 

I think @Jurrunio is spot on then: AM4 will be used by AMD in future releases (or so they promised), so if you go Ryzen you can upgrade the CPU later without changing the motherboard (1151 won't be used beyond Kaby Lake). Ryzen also has a great balance of gaming vs. multitasking (not that i7s are bad at that, but the extra cores do help). And finally, the locked 7700 won't be that close to 144 all the time either (for games like Overwatch I would expect all these CPUs to give you very high framerates, provided the GPU can keep up).

So, if max FPS is not the only concern (and if you wouldn't get the unlocked chip anyway), I'd say you'll strike a better balance for your money with a mildly (say, with stock cooler) overclocked Ryzen 5 1600.

[Geotropism]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

Ryzen here purely because you are looking at a locked 7700. A 1700 can do 3.9/4GHz comfortably and I bet you can do more than light overclocking. AMD don't cheap out on thermal solution and solder the chip so that it runs a lot cooler than one using adhesive and thermal paste. For example my 1700 is at 4Ghz <60 degrees at all times and all I have is a mid range AIO cooler.

I might actually consider the i7 7700k now, purely because of what GrayTech said earlier. 

11 minutes ago, GrayTech said:

Get the Ryzen 5 1700 or 7700K. Even if you don't overclock, get the 7700K instead of the 7700.

i7 7700:   3.6GHz Base 4.2GHz Turbo

i7 7700K: 4.2GHz Base 4.5GHz Turbo

The big advantage Intel has over Ryzen is its frequenzy. And getting a locked intel CPU which runs at a "slow" frequency doesn't make much sence.

 

[tom_w141]

1 minute ago, Geotropism said:

I might actually consider the i7 7700k now, purely because of what GrayTech said earlier. 

 

Also regarding your upgrade plan LGA1151 will be obsolete next year so you will require a new mobo and cpu with your next upgrade. However the AM4 socket is guaranteed for a minimum of 4 years therefore in 3-4 years time all you will need is a zen3-4 cpu (whatever we are on then) and plop it in the same motherboard.

[Geotropism]

1 minute ago, tom_w141 said:

Also regarding your upgrade plan LGA1151 will be obsolete next year so you will require a new mobo and cpu with your next upgrade. However the AM4 socket is guaranteed for a minimum of 4 years therefore in 3-4 years time all you will need is a zen3-4 cpu (whatever we are on then) and plop it in the same motherboard.

Intel just went out the window, thanks for the enlightenment. Now I don't know which Ryzen to get. I don't want to cheap out, and the 1800/x is above my budget. Your thoughts, please?

[GrayTech]

1 minute ago, Geotropism said:

Intel just went out the window, thanks for the enlightenment. Now I don't know which Ryzen to get. I don't want to cheap out, and the 1800/x is above my budget. Your thoughts, please?

1700/1600 are the best value.

[Geotropism]

Just now, GrayTech said:

1700/1600 are the best value.

But which would better suit my needs? I can afford a 1600/1600x/1700 (Keep in mind I'm on a budget, and will have to upgrade my RAM/Motherboard as well) I've decided on buying this motherboard

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/TsfmP6/msi-b350m-gaming-pro-micro-atx-am4-motherboard-b350m-gaming-pro

and this RAM

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/dhM323/corsair-memory-cmk16gx4m2a2400c14

[GrayTech]

3 minutes ago, Geotropism said:

But which would better suit my needs? I can afford a 1600/1600x/1700 (Keep in mind I'm on a budget, and will have to upgrade my RAM/Motherboard as well) I've decided on buying this motherboard

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/TsfmP6/msi-b350m-gaming-pro-micro-atx-am4-motherboard-b350m-gaming-pro

and this RAM

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/dhM323/corsair-memory-cmk16gx4m2a2400c14

The 1600 would be the best value for what you need and it comes with a decent cooler. But its clock speed is a bit low if you don't want to overclock. The 1600X would be a higher clocked option but it doesn't come with a cooler. But higher speed ram would be a good investment since Ryzen just loves high speed RAM. (But I bought 2400MHz RAM as well since it was on sale ) But if you can afford 300MHz RAM or anything higher then 2400 go for it unless you get a good deal like I did. And personally I would get a better motherboard, yeah I know that you don't want to overclock much but this board has one of the worst VRMs of all the B350 boards as far as I know. And if you have the option to overclock, chances are that you will do it sooner or later. Maybe you start with a light overclock and push your CPU higher. You don't have to be scared of overclocking. The cooler that comes with the 1600 is good enough. The first time I saw this cooler in real life I was suprised by how huge it is compared to a modern intel stock heatsink. You probably won't damage anything by overclocking your 1600. Make sure that you put in a reasonable voltage and don't use auto. I overclocked my 1600 to 3.6GHz and it ran on about 1.39V on auto. Then I went back to stock because I didn't want to run at 1.39V all the time. I'll OC my CPU when I have enough time.  But keep in mind that you overclock your CPU at your own risk.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

7 minutes ago, Geotropism said:

But which would better suit my needs? I can afford a 1600/1600x/1700 (Keep in mind I'm on a budget, and will have to upgrade my RAM/Motherboard as well)

I think for gaming and multitasking (i.e., not intensive multithreaded computations) you will be fine with 6 "hyperthreaded" cores for many years. Games have been developed with quad-cores in mind, and while some use more than 4 threads and will therefore benefit from more than 4 cores, I don't expect 8-core SMT CPUs to become "necessary" (or "very convenient") for gaming overnight. I think 6 cores will put you ahead of the industry right now, and maybe a bit behind it by the time of your next upgrade, which seems reasonable to me. Especially taking in to account that going overkill now will cost you 50% more (don't know the prices for you, but here a 1600 is €200 and a 1700 is €300). I think that will be money better spent in other components to have a good balanced build today (or just saved ). And while you may not want to upgrade in a while, it is always possible to sell your used 1600 in a couple of years and only pay the difference for a new, "next gen" Ryzen CPU with more cores or whatever if it turns out more cores become more useful sooner than expected.

In other words: €20-40 to go from 4 cores to 6 is justified to me, €100 to go from 6 to 8 when you plan to game and multitask, isn't.

[Geotropism]

2 minutes ago, GrayTech said:

The 1600 would be the best value for what you need and it comes with a decent cooler. But its clock speed is a bit low if you don't want to overclock. The 1600X would be a higher clocked option but it doesn't come with a cooler. But higher speed ram would be a good investment since Ryzen just loves high speed RAM. (But I bought 2400MHz RAM as well since it was on sale ) But if you can afford 300MHz RAM or anything higher then 2400 go for it unless you get a good deal like I did. And personally I would get a better motherboard, yeah I know that you don't want to overclock much but this board has one of the worst VRMs of all the B350 boards as far as I know. And if you have the option to overclock, chances are that you will do it sooner or later. Maybe you start with a light overclock and push your CPU higher. You don't have to be scared of overclocking. The cooler that comes with the 1600 is good enough. The first time I saw this cooler in real life I was suprised by how huge it is compared to a modern intel stock heatsink. You probably won't damage anything by overclocking your 1600. Make sure that you put in a reasonable voltage and don't use auto. I overclocked my 1600 to 3.6GHz and it ran on about 1.39V on auto. Then I went back to stock because I didn't want to run at 1.39V all the time. I'll OC my CPU when I have enough time.  But keep in mind that you overclock your CPU at your own risk.

Thanks for the reply. Personally, I don't know what VRM is. I honestly have no clue what determines a low end motherboard from a mid end motherboard. Could you recommend a motherboard that you think is suitable for the 1600/1700? And as for the RAM, the motherboards I were looking at had "2400 MHz, 2133 MHz, 2667 MHz, 2933 MHz (O.C.), 3200 MHz (O.C.)" etc on them. I saw the "(O.C)" past the 2933MHz mark so I just presumed I'd have to overclock my motherboard for it to accept 3000MHz RAM, and I'm not into overclocking, well for now atleast.

[Geotropism]

4 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I think for gaming and multitasking (i.e., not intensive multithreaded computations) you will be fine with 6 "hyperthreaded" cores for many years. Games have been developed with quad-cores in mind, and while some use more than 4 threads and will therefore benefit from more than 4 cores, I don't expect 8-core SMT CPUs to become "necessary" (or "very convenient") for gaming overnight. I think 6 cores will put you ahead of the industry right now, and maybe a bit behind it by the time of your next upgrade, which seems reasonable to me. Especially taking in to account that going overkill now will cost you 50% more (don't know the prices for you, but here a 1600 is €200 and a 1700 is €300). I think that will be money better spent in other components to have a good balanced build today (or just saved ). And while you may not want to upgrade in a while, it is always possible to sell your used 1600 in a couple of years and only pay the difference for a new, "next gen" Ryzen CPU with more cores or whatever if it turns out more cores become more useful sooner than expected.

In other words: €20-40 to go from 4 cores to 6 is justified to me, €100 to go from 6 to 8 when you plan to game and multitask, isn't.

I'm just not sure whether I will actually upgrade in the future. By the time it's advantageous for me to upgrade, I most likely will not have the time for gaming due to college etc. Hence why future-proofing is a big factor for me choosing a new CPU. If I get the 1700 over the 1600/1600x then I presume the 2 extra cores might make it less likely that I'll need to upgrade later.

[GrayTech]

1 minute ago, Geotropism said:

Thanks for the reply. Personally, I don't know what VRM is. I honestly have no clue what determines a low end motherboard from a mid end motherboard. Could you recommend a motherboard that you think is suitable for the 1600/1700? And as for the RAM, the motherboards I were looking at had "2400 MHz, 2133 MHz, 2667 MHz, 2933 MHz (O.C.), 3200 MHz (O.C.)" etc on them. I saw the "(O.C)" past the 2933MHz mark so I just presumed I'd have to overclock my motherboard for it to accept 3000MHz RAM, and I'm not into overclocking, well for now atleast.

It says OC because DDR4 RAM can't run on such high frequencies at stock. But you just have to select a profile in your bios and your ram should run at the advertised frequency.