remain loyal to 7700K?

[SimonSchnurrbart]

Hi,

I just build me a new pc about one year ago, with an Intel I7 7700K on an ASUS Maximus IX Formula.

With the new 9th gen and the increasing core number I'm not sure if I should switch the platform to be future proof as I like to keep my pc for about 8 years. 

Should I sell my current mobo and CPU while I get some cash back or should I stay with the 7700k?

What do you guys think? I'm really uncertain right now.

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

1 minute ago, SimonSchnurrbart said:

just build me a new pc about one year ago,

that time, ryzen 1700/2700 were everywhere, you were royal enough

you should avoid any tech related news for another 7 years.

 

[Spotty]

Is the 7700K meeting your requirements? If so, stick with it.
If not, why isn't it able to meet your requirements? What would you need to be able to meet your requirements? Is the cost of changing worth the benefit?

[Stefan Payne]

6 minutes ago, SimonSchnurrbart said:

Should I sell my current mobo and CPU while I get some cash back or should I stay with the 7700k?

What do you guys think? I'm really uncertain right now.

Stay with your 7700K for another couple of months, save money and go for Ryzen 3000 when its out and the Benchmarks are there.

That will be the first 7nm Consumer CPU. ANd the 8 Core they have shown on CES was equal in performance in Cinebench to the 9900K with equal amount of corse.

And its said to be up to 16 Cores.

[BobVonBob]

At least at current time a 7 year old i7 is still perfectly fine for most tasks, see my build in my signature. Maybe if core counts start skyrocketing and stuff actually uses those cores you might fall behind, but as it stands you should be good.

[SimonSchnurrbart]

Quote

ryzen 1700/2700 were everywhere

Yes I remember I build it shortly before or after the release but according to "the internet" intel CPUs offered better clock speeds and since I mostly play games on the machine it was more important for me.

 

Quote

Is the 7700K meeting your requirements

Yeah I love it but I'm worried that the amount of true cores getting more important(for gaming) in the near future and I can't upgrade then. 

 

Quote

Is the cost of changing worth the benefit

This is what I ask myself right know  

[Stefan Payne]

5 minutes ago, SimonSchnurrbart said:

Yeah I love it but I'm worried that the amount of true cores getting more important(for gaming) in the near future and I can't upgrade then. 

Its already the case but the 9900K is rather hot and powerhungry - more or less what people claimed the AMD FX is, that CPU really is.

 

If you know a switch in manufacturing technology is on the horizon and coming within the year, you wait for it and go for that.

You don't just buy the "old shit", just because it looks good.

So you'd want to wait at least until summer and replace the CPU than.

 

Why don't you think about Ryzen 3000???
Those are 7nm - not the 14nm shit we have right now.

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

10 minutes ago, SimonSchnurrbart said:

"the internet" intel CPUs offered better clock speeds and since I mostly play games on the machine it was more important for me.

true and only if you have the very high end gpu & high res/ refresh rate monitor.

also note that ryzen are amazing overclockers 3ghz ->3.8ghz for almost guarantee

[SimonSchnurrbart]

Quote

Why don't you think about Ryzen 3000

Ryzen would be an option, I don't really care whether it is amd or Intel it's just that I'm worried about the core count.

I guess I'll stay with the 7700K as long as possible.

[Kitsan]

You say you're worried about core count.... why.... what are you using which uses more than 4 cores?

 

If you are worried about the future, what do you think you will use which will use more than 4 cores?

 

Bear in mind that all tech media is geared to making you want to upgrade/buy, even Linustechtips.... but we all love Linus because he's so entertaining

[ch3w2oy]

2 hours ago, SimonSchnurrbart said:

Ryzen would be an option, I don't really care whether it is amd or Intel it's just that I'm worried about the core count.

I guess I'll stay with the 7700K as long as possible.

What do you mean, you're worried about the core count? 

 

If so, intel is definitely not the way to go unless 2 things align, 1. You do nothing but game on your computer (don't need a lot of cores ATM anyway) and 2. You don't mind spending more money on something you could have gotten cheaper. 

 

Wait for Zen 2 or Ryzen 3 and then make a decision. Ryzen is already great, the next gen will be even better and make Intel 8th/9th gen at its current price irrelevant. 

[Mick Naughty]

I’d get a 9700k or better. 

I thought the 8700k upgrade I did would be sufficient but, I was wrong.

 

Enough to get by in gaming and editing it way better. But could use some head room. 

[Kitsan]

I'm certainly waiting for Ryzen 3, even if its IPC still isn't as good as Intels range it will definitely be closer and will force Intel to cool their pricing to a more reasonable level.

 

The question still stands, what will you use the cores for?

[Dedayog]

5 hours ago, SimonSchnurrbart said:

Hi,

I just build me a new pc about one year ago, with an Intel I7 7700K on an ASUS Maximus IX Formula.

With the new 9th gen and the increasing core number I'm not sure if I should switch the platform to be future proof as I like to keep my pc for about 8 years. 

Should I sell my current mobo and CPU while I get some cash back or should I stay with the 7700k?

What do you guys think? I'm really uncertain right now.

You don't understand future proofing if you are replacing a year old build

 

Analyze your needs, not just a core number.  Does the 7700K do what you need it to?

[Mister Woof]

7700k with the general 4.7-5ghz oc still beats all AMD chips and isn't far behind the 9900k at gaming in 99% of scenarios.

 

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3423-intel-i7-7700k-revisit-benchmark-vs-9700k-2700-9900k

 

Only upgrade if you do production workloads that need heavy threads. Although I suspect if you needed this you wouldn't have got the 7700k to begin with. 

 

You are literally throwing money away if you upgrade your cpu right now for just gaming. There is no reason for gaming to jump ship to the 9900k for any reasonable person who actually cares at all about money. If you didn't, you wouldn't be asking anyway and you would have just bought the upgrade anyway.

[Dedayog]

19 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Its already the case but the 9900K is rather hot and powerhungry - more or less what people claimed the AMD FX is, that CPU really is.

 

If you know a switch in manufacturing technology is on the horizon and coming within the year, you wait for it and go for that.

You don't just buy the "old shit", just because it looks good.

So you'd want to wait at least until summer and replace the CPU than.

 

Why don't you think about Ryzen 3000???
Those are 7nm - not the 14nm shit we have right now.

You really hold on to some outlandish presumptions.  14mm shit?  

 

The 9900K actually performs amidst all that heat and power, where the FX....   

 

You know for a fact that Ryzen 3000 is going to be just this amazing thing, cuz 7nm and Cinebench?

 

Slow down and let's actually wait to see how it performs.  AMD hasn't exactly had a track record of leap frogging its competition in recent years, it's closing the gap a bit at least..

 

 

[Stefan Payne]

44 minutes ago, jstudrawa said:

You really hold on to some outlandish presumptions.  14mm shit?  

1) 14mm would be a bit too large. You should have looked at the correct mesuring units. The Difference between nm and mm is a Million.

Meaning that you're talking about 14 Million Nanometre.

2) Yes, 14nm shit like 22nm is shit when 22 came around.

Like 45nm shit when 32nm was around. See Bloomfield -> Westmere

Like 32nm shit when 22nm was around. See Sandy-Bridge -> Ivy Bridge

Or back in the day, 0,18µ -> 0,13µ and so on.

 

The bigger structures are always shit as the smaller ones are usually more efficient, can clock higher or consume less power.

 

Quote

The 9900K actually performs amidst all that heat and power, where the FX....   

That is an outstanding example, as the AMD FX was also manufactured in a 32nm Process, where the Ivy-Bridge was made in 22nm, so the AMD had the same process disadvantage that Intel will have when the Ryzen 3000 series comes out.

 

And the i9-9900k also consumes around 200-250W if you don't limit the power consumption, without much overclocking.

If you limit the TDP its very hard power limited and gets throttled hard...

And its expensive as hell.

but you rather have an Intel with a not entirely honest 95W than an AMD with a more honest 95W, right?

Quote

You know for a fact that Ryzen 3000 is going to be just this amazing thing, cuz 7nm and Cinebench?

Yes, because the facts we have right now show that the CPU is better. Even if it is higher Power Efficiency. AMD released the Power Consumption rates at the Demo, wich might be around half of the Intel CPU. And it was only an 8 Core. AMD did show an 8 Core CPU. ALthough we know that 16 Core versions of the Matisse design will be available.

 

Meaning an 8 Core AMD was able to beat the 8 Core Intel -> IPC Increased, clock probably as well too.

And people are rumoring that the AMD Chip might actually be clocked 200MHz lower...

But that part is not certain.

The others are. That, if they didn't mess up the 7nm process, the CPU will be better is obvious as that was always the case in the past...

Quote

Slow down and let's actually wait to see how it performs. 

EXACTLY!

Just wait and see and not throw away the money right now for something that might be obsolete in a couple of months!

That's what I was talking about.

 

Quote

AMD hasn't exactly had a track record of leap frogging its competition in recent years, it's closing the gap a bit at least..

The Difference between Bulldozer -> Ryzen 1000 was pretty big and around 40-50% or so.

And the Difference between Ryzen 1000 and Ryzen 2000 was also pretty big. Slight increase in performance and up to like 400MHz higher clockrates.

That's enormous, compared to Intel and the baby steps they did since Sandy-Bridge with each generation...

[SpaceGhostC2C]

21 hours ago, SimonSchnurrbart said:

I like to keep my pc for about 8 years. 

Best way to keep a PC for 8 years is not to sell it / buy a new one for the next 7 years

By the time your PC hits any limit you actually mind, any upgrade you are considering now will only be cheaper or better. Maybe by the time you want more cores you also want PCIe 4, or faster RAM, or USB 3.14159, so you'll have the CPU but not the other features. Don't let buyer's remorse turn you 8-year lasting PC into a yearly refresh  

[MaratM]

If you willing to experiment you can always try to run 8700k or higher o your motherboard

It requiers a some simple CPU mod, a custom bios and a SPI programmer tool with a clamp.

[NORCALSC]

most people don't know what to do with 4 cores let alone 8, the 7700k is still a viable gamer, not much to gain from doubling core count in most situations

[SimonSchnurrbart]

Thanks for all the replies! I'll stay with the 7700K, lets just hope that 4 cores are enought for the next years/games to come! I think I was so uncertain as I heard some games(Far cry) won't even start with dual cores and I didn't want to experience that with my 7700k in the near future ^^ 

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

1 minute ago, SimonSchnurrbart said:

I heard some games(Far cry) won't even start with dual cores and I didn't want to experience that with my 7700k in the near future ^^ 

also note that all those "over demanding" games are all from ubisoft & denuvo, they are solely guilty on that. 

[HoneyBadger84]

Having come from an i7 3930k (released in Fall 2011) X79 system, I can say that sticking to technology for as long as you plan to, in terms of usability is not really going to be doable this time around I'd wager.  You'll get maybe 3 years out of the system before it starts showing it's age (not running things perfectly anymore).  And that's assuming you go super-high end with your parts.

 

I wouldn't upgrade in your current situation, I would wait until next gen hardware comes out then upgrade, if you're going to upgrade anytime in the next year, unless you explicitly need the extra cores the 9900k etc has.

[SimonSchnurrbart]

Quote

Having come from an i7 3930k (released in Fall 2011) X79 system, I can say that sticking to technology for as long as you plan to, in terms of usability is not really going to be doable this time

My last system was a QX9650 on an ASUS Striker II Extreme and it's still running. I just upgraded the GPU. But your probable right, it'll be hard to use the new system for so long this time. 

[Stefan Payne]

49 minutes ago, SimonSchnurrbart said:

Thanks for all the replies! I'll stay with the 7700K,

Yeah, you're in a good position to wait and with what we know right now, its better to wait at least until summer and look again when you hear about "Ryzen 3850" or something like that.
That will be another nice boost as the next generation Ryzen will be up to 16 Cores (Question is: When will they release the 16 Core Version. Its possible they don't start with it and the 16 Cores comes a couple of months later and they start with 8 and 12 Cores).

 

After that, there isn't really much happenig for a year or so and that might not be that amazing either.

 

49 minutes ago, SimonSchnurrbart said:

lets just hope that 4 cores are enought for the next years/games to come!

Depending on the Game you play that might not be the best right now and is at the lower end.

However, right now is a bad time to get a new system.

 

49 minutes ago, SimonSchnurrbart said:

I think I was so uncertain as I heard some games(Far cry) won't even start with dual cores

Yeah, but that's the case for many years.

Like 5 Years+.

Its not recent.

And in 2008 there were games that needed 2 Cores.

 

For 4 Core that will take another 3-4 Years or so because there are just so darn many of those. And with the small steps between generations, there wasn't really a reason to upgrade much.

Or for the Software Companys to innovate much.

 

But that changed back in 2017, when AMD released Ryzen with 8 Cores.

With Intel Increasing it to 6 and recently to 8 (though that's a bit on edge, the i9 isn't reallys a 95W TDP and should have gotten at least 125W, maybe even 140W).

And in ~3-6 Months that will increase to 16 Core.

 

That's the time when you look at the Hardware again. Because right now you only double the cores of the CPU. The Rest of it is more or less the same. 

With those CPUs you quadruple the Cores you have. That is more intriguing than only to double it.

 

49 minutes ago, SimonSchnurrbart said:

and I didn't want to experience that with my 7700k in the near future ^^ 

Well, that will happen in the next couple of years.

If you want to play on higher settings, you might want to save for a new Board + CPU.

 

But right now is not the time to buy new hardwares because we know that there will be something big coming in a couple of weeks/months...