CPU for gaming

[RadiatingLight]

2 minutes ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

Ok but Iv had both my 4790k was at 4.8 ghz and my 1600 is at 4ghz 

 

its a smoother rounded experiance in gaming maby 5fps less tops 

 

@App4that @tom_w141 care to way in ?

 

 

 

I'm not saying you're wrong.

Just saying that the conclusion I came to is reasonable given the evidence online.

 

I totally trust you though. and my opinion on the 1600 has actually changed. I now feel more inclined to reccomend it to gamers.

[ripper101]

5 minutes ago, RadiatingLight said:

why not just pick up a 4770 used for cheap?

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to get faster-clocked RAM and have things like faster single core performance?

[jjohnthedon1]

1 minute ago, RadiatingLight said:

I'm not saying you're wrong.

Just saying that the conclusion I came to is reasonable given the evidence online.

 

I totally trust you though. and my opinion on the 1600 has actually changed. I now feel more inclined to reccomend it to gamers.

I was expecting a downgrade in gaming after my 4790k died but assued it would do but boy was I wrong

im that kinda guy and hiccups at all I look straight at the afterburner overlay to check fps and frame times to see what happened and I just don't do it at all with the 1600 it says just flawless in gaming 

I was so amazed

 

i know what all the benchmarks say as when I had my 4790k I was like cool still on top

 

but untill you actually play on a ryzen system you won't understand the smoothness it's the best gaming experiance Iv ever had 

[RadiatingLight]

4 minutes ago, ripper101 said:

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to get faster-clocked RAM and have things like faster single core performance?

single core performance isn't much better than haswell on Ryzen, so unless you get a 7700K you won't see a difference there.

also, although it is nice to have, it's not needed for a smooth gaming experience. so save a couple hundred bucks and get nearly the same performance.

[ripper101]

1 hour ago, RadiatingLight said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Aytex said:

.

 

 

1 hour ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

 

 

 

I've been doing some research and from what I can see the 1700 cpu trails the 7700k. Are those 4 more cores and threads really worth it? Or is it more for marketing? I am really pretty much stumped here on what to get.

 

[jjohnthedon1]

1 minute ago, ripper101 said:

I've been doing some research and from what I can see the 1700 cpu trails the 7700k. Are those 4 more cores and threads really worth it? Or is it more for marketing? I am really pretty much stumped here on what to get.

 

It's such a smoother experiance on ryzen as the work load is spread out more across the cores

7700k platform is now dead with nothing new coming to is whereas amd have promised cpus into 2020 for am4 so there's a upgrade path 

the 1700 is a hair behind in gaming as of now 

I picked the 1600 over another i7 and I couldn't be happier 

[App4that]

Ryzen 1400 or 1600. No reason to buy a 7700k and have it running 20c hotter than it should unless you delid it. Then find out when you match the resolution to the graphics card you're using the 1600 and 7700k get the same fps in game, only the 1600 beats the 1700 in 1% lows.

 

How are people still blindly suggesting the 7700k even though it's no where near the performance of the 1600 for way more money? 

 

Oh, marketing. Nevermind, answered my own question. 

[ripper101]

9 minutes ago, App4that said:

 

 

What about if I am upgrading from a i5 4440? 1700?

[App4that]

Just now, ripper101 said:

What about if I am upgrading from a i5 4440? 1700?

The 1600 matches the 1700 and up when overclocked to the same average 4GHz in eaverything but the heaviest multithreaded applications. If you're gaming more than 90% of the time when not just idleling, save yourself some money and get the 1600. It's by far the best value in Ryzen. 

[Aytex]

1 hour ago, ripper101 said:

I've been doing some research and from what I can see the 1700 cpu trails the 7700k. Are those 4 more cores and threads really worth it? Or is it more for marketing? I am really pretty much stumped here on what to get.

 

In arma the 7700k is better than the 1700 since its more single core focused 

[tom_w141]

9 hours ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

Ok but Iv had both my 4790k was at 4.8 ghz and my 1600 is at 4ghz 

 

its a smoother rounded experiance in gaming maby 5fps less tops 

 

@App4that @tom_w141 care to way in ?

 

 

 

Yes lower avg FPS (and only visible in the high end of refresh rates). I have 1440p 100Hz ultrawide so I'm never going to see this difference and even if my monitor could then your eye is very very unlikely to tell the difference between 130 and 140 fps. What your eyes will see though is minimums and frametimes, I get a smoother experience on my 1700 @ 4GHz than I did on my 6700k especially if any other programs are running and/or if i'm streaming (streaming is f'ing beautiful see LTT video from fairly recently)

[jjohnthedon1]

8 hours ago, App4that said:

Ryzen 1400 or 1600. No reason to buy a 7700k and have it running 20c hotter than it should unless you delid it. Then find out when you match the resolution to the graphics card you're using the 1600 and 7700k get the same fps in game, only the 1600 beats the 1700 in 1% lows.

 

How are people still blindly suggesting the 7700k even though it's no where near the performance of the 1600 for way more money? 

 

Oh, marketing. Nevermind, answered my own question. 

It's scary how similar our systems were and how much we think alike !

[tom_w141]

8 hours ago, App4that said:

Ryzen 1400 or 1600. No reason to buy a 7700k and have it running 20c hotter than it should unless you delid it. Then find out when you match the resolution to the graphics card you're using the 1600 and 7700k get the same fps in game, only the 1600 beats the 1700 in 1% lows.

 

How are people still blindly suggesting the 7700k even though it's no where near the performance of the 1600 for way more money? 

 

Oh, marketing. Nevermind, answered my own question. 

I agree

 

Although... "only the 1600 beats the 1700 in 1% lows." surely you meant 7700k not 1700?

[App4that]

8 hours ago, tom_w141 said:

I agree

 

Although... "only the 1600 beats the 1700 in 1% lows." surely you meant 7700k not 1700?

Oops LOL

[ripper101]

4 hours ago, App4that said:

 

12 hours ago, tom_w141 said:

 

 

13 hours ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

 

13 hours ago, tom_w141 said:

 

 

20 hours ago, Aytex said:

 

I understand this is a common argument thrown around quite often but I'd like to hear what y'all have to say on this and not the biased fanboys in the YouTube comment section. What I'm talking about is when people say that newer games the r7 1700's cores/threads will eventually want a higher number of cores (or multi-core performance rather than single-core). Would this be an actual possibility where the 7700k would be surpassed due to multicore performance? 

 

 

 

 

[tom_w141]

1 hour ago, ripper101 said:

I understand this is a common argument thrown around quite often but I'd like to hear what y'all have to say on this and not the biased fanboys in the YouTube comment section. What I'm talking about is when people say that newer games the r7 1700's cores/threads will eventually want a higher number of cores (or multi-core performance rather than single-core). Would this be an actual possibility where the 7700k would be surpassed due to multicore performance? 

 

 

 

 

If the 8c/16t of my R7 1700 were all fully utilised (30-70% right now depending on which core you look at) then yes it would surpass any 4c/8t processor like the 7700k (as long as IPC was comparable which it is).

 

Gaming used to be on single core CPUs because thats all there was, but we move on as tech develops. Whe have only been on quad cores for so long because Intel stagnated the market with quad cores for years because they had no competition. AMD comes back on the scene with a competitive architecture and wow surprise surprise coffee lake is rumored to be a 6 core, this is just proof that Intel got lazy and complacent so good on AMD for coming back strong and I hope they regain market share and force Intel to start innovating again.

[ripper101]

6 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

If the 8c/16t of my R7 1700 were all fully utilised (30-70% right now depending on which core you look at) then yes it would surpass any 4c/8t processor like the 7700k (as long as IPC was comparable which it is).

 

Gaming used to be on single core CPUs because thats all there was, but we move on as tech develops. Whe have only been on quad cores for so long because Intel stagnated the market with quad cores for years because they had no competition. AMD comes back on the scene with a competitive architecture and wow surprise surprise coffee lake is rumored to be a 6 core, this is just proof that Intel got lazy and complacent so good on AMD for coming back strong and I hope they regain market share and force Intel to start innovating again.

3

But why stay at 4 cores for so long? To leverage the market for a 1000 dollar 8 core?

[tom_w141]

1 minute ago, ripper101 said:

But why stay at 4 cores for so long? To leverage the market for a 1000 dollar 8 core?

R&D costs money. Selling the same quad core with minor % gains year on year is very cheap. I mean come on Kaby lake is basically skylake refresh. No need to develop if your competition is way behind (bulldozer is awful and AMD was behind for ~5 years) and yes to sell that overpriced 6900k because there was no other choice. This is why monopolys are very bad for consumers.

[jjohnthedon1]

Things will start using more cores as coffe lake will be introducing 6 cores on there consumer platform because amd has basically forced them to do so 

which is a good thing

i tell have to make a 6/12t cpu at the 200 pound price point now 

[ripper101]

3 hours ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

Things will start using more cores as coffe lake will be introducing 6 cores on there consumer platform because amd has basically forced them to do so 

which is a good thing

i tell have to make a 6/12t cpu at the 200 pound price point now 

Does your PC feel less snappy with a 1600?

[jjohnthedon1]

2 hours ago, ripper101 said:

Does your PC feel less snappy with a 1600?

Nope it's even more responsive 

especial when already running a program 

[Princess Luna]

On 27/04/2017 at 8:53 PM, App4that said:

How are people still blindly suggesting the 7700k even though it's no where near the performance of the 1600 for way more money? 

I'm feeling worse about my i7 7700 by the day with the 1600/1600x amazing performances for its cost, now I can only imagine how pissed i5 7600k owners must feel...

[Kenrou]

2 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

I'm feeling worse about my i7 7700 by the day with the 1600/1600x amazing performances for its cost, now I can only imagine how pissed i5 7600k owners must feel...

No reason to, 6700k/7700k are still better purely for gaming then a 1600+. Now if we add multitasking the picture changes completely, 1600+ for price/performance all the way.

[App4that]

On 4/29/2017 at 11:49 AM, Kenrou said:

No reason to, 6700k/7700k are still better purely for gaming then a 1600+. Now if we add multitasking the picture changes completely, 1600+ for price/performance all the way.

Not saying @Princess Cadence should feel bad, the 7700k is still a good CPU.

 

But no, purely gaming the Ryzen CPUs are better. 

[ripper101]

49 minutes ago, App4that said:

But no, purely gaming the Ryzen CPUs are better. 

 

 

You say for gaming the Ryzen CPUs are better?