7700k or 1700x

[Jacob Canale]

Doing mostly gaming. 1700x will be less convenient for my price point. What do you think. 

[Slottr]

7700k.

[robin_GameZiseFX]

For gaming I7 7700k

for rendering and using many software 1700x

 

[TheCatShuriken]

7700k. 

[79wjd]

The 7700k has a slight advantage now (in gaming), but the the 1700 (non-x) is much more powerful and so the long-term potential is far in favor of the 1700. 

[Shiv78]

What resolution do you game at? What GPU are you getting? What are your upgrade plans, or is this a fresh rig? Any professional work/rendering/vid editing?

[Dzzope]

7600k for gaming, if streaming etc too, 1700x.. 7700k does not fit as a logical choice.

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

The 7700k has a slight advantage now (in gaming), but the the 1700 (non-x) is much more powerful and so the long-term potential is far in favor of the 1700. 

potentail is ther but idk if we will ever see it be a better performer in games than the 7700k. the single core performance is still key to game performance so the 7700k still seems like the better choice for pure gaming. now f you are doing other tasks the 1700 is definitely going to shine and give a reason to consider it but i wouldn't suggest it unless they plan on use the extra cores. 

[Shiv78]

1 minute ago, Dzzope said:

7600k for gaming, if streaming etc too, 1700x.. 7700k does not fit as a logical choice.

Are you OK?

7700K is and always has been a logical choice... 7600K doesn't make sense as a locked i7-7700 performs better in games and pro work than an OC'd 7600K.......

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, Dzzope said:

7600k for gaming, if streaming etc too, 1700x.. 7700k does not fit as a logical choice.

The 7600k has horrible minimums compared to a 7700k or any Ryzen CPU for that matter. 

[Jacob Canale]

1 minute ago, Shiv78 said:

What resolution do you game at? What GPU are you getting? What are your upgrade plans, or is this a fresh rig? Any professional work/rendering/vid editing?

Gonna be buying a 4k monitor. Getting a 1080 ti

[RadiatingLight]

@jjohnthedon1 has had some really good gaming experience on Ryzen.

 

unless your're strictly locked to only gaming, and will never do anything else, I'd reccomend a Ryzen.

[79wjd]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

potentail is ther but idk if we will ever see it be a better performer in games than the 7700k. the single core performance is still key to game performance so the 7700k still seems like the better choice for pure gaming. now f you are doing other tasks the 1700 is definitely going to shine and give a reason to consider it but i wouldn't suggest it unless they plan on use the extra cores. 

I would be seriously surprised if the 1700 doesn't pull ahead in the long run. Single threaded performance is important, but it's only a matter of time before more cores really start to help -- and even now Ryzen can have better minimums than a 7700k. 

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, Dzzope said:

7600k for gaming, if streaming etc too, 1700x.. 7700k does not fit as a logical choice.

the 7700k gets better performance in games and has better minimums especially in some of the cpu intensive games. i would say there is definitely a reason t get the 7700k over the 7600k. 

[RadiatingLight]

Just now, Jacob Canale said:

Gonna be buying a 4k monitor. Getting a 1080 ti

at 4K a 1600 should be plenty.

 

get a Ryzen 1600 and be happy.

[Dzzope]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

the 7700k gets better performance in games and has better minimums especially in some of the cpu intensive games. i would say there is definitely a reason t get the 7700k over the 7600k. 

Not when both are overclocked to the same level.. Hyper Threading provides no benefit in the VAST majority of games vs spending $100 more on GPU.

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, Jacob Canale said:

Gonna be buying a 4k monitor. Getting a 1080 ti

at 4k the gpu will be the bottleneck so you wont have to worry about the cpu as much. that being said you will want a better cpu for future gpu upgrades when the cpu performance will matter more. 

[Brooksie359]

Just now, Dzzope said:

Not when both are overclocked to the same level.. Hyper Threading provides no benefit in the VAST majority of games vs spending $100 more on GPU.

they are getting a 1080ti and you obviously haven't looked at game benchmarks recently. 

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, Dzzope said:

Not when both are overclocked to the same level.. Hyper Threading provides no benefit in the VAST majority of games vs spending $100 more on GPU.

 

 

You're right, in the "vast majority" of games it doesn't matter, but in newer games it's starting to really show a difference in many. 

[Brooksie359]

3 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

I would be seriously surprised if the 1700 doesn't pull ahead in the long run. Single threaded performance is important, but it's only a matter of time before more cores really start to help -- and even now Ryzen can have better minimums than a 7700k. 

i have the 1700 and would be really happy if that were the case but i'm not holding my breath. 

[Jacob Canale]

I think I'm gonna go with the 7700k based on the majority. 

[Emberstone]

9 minutes ago, RadiatingLight said:

at 4K a 1600 should be plenty.

 

get a Ryzen 1600 and be happy.

At 4K you'll be far more GPU-bound than CPU-bound, which lets you save some cash on the CPU. An overclocked 1600 would be a pretty good fit. To be honest, you wouldn't even be "cheaping out" on the CPU in that case either. The 1600/1600X are pretty strong CPU's. They just don't have the brute-force single-thread performance that the 7700K has. When the extra cores are taken into account though, it has a pretty noticeable advantage over the 7700K.

 

The extra cores will also make the PC more versatile for other tasks besides gaming and also increase performance while recording or streaming, if that's your thing.

 

At lower resolutions, I would definitely recommend the 7700K though.

[othertomperson]

1 minute ago, RadiatingLight said:

at 4K a 1600 should be plenty.

 

get a Ryzen 1600 and be happy.

Now that 4K 144 Hz is a thing, it probably makes more sense to consider a longer term CPU than that. 

 

The 7700k makes sense on available evidence. The 1700 does have a lot of potential, but to me it seems a hefty assumption that games even can be parallel enough to take advantage of 16 logical cores. It's a noble goal to have, but just from a practical viewpoint not all software lends itself to that when you have so many inter-dependant constraints.

 

There's also the issue that multithreading and per-core performance are not the only things holding Ryzen back. If they were then you'd expect the 6900k and the 1700 when clocked the same to perform the same, but the 6900k pulls ahead despite the same core count and similar IPC.

[Dzzope]

6 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

they are getting a 1080ti and you obviously haven't looked at game benchmarks recently. 

Yes I have.. when testing a CPU they will always put the cpu as the bottleneck in the system.. that video is perfect example.. Using a TitanXP (faster than a 1080ti) at 1080p thus driving frames at a rate you will not see for many years at 4k is not a real-world example. In this extreme synthetic situation yes, a 7700k is better but look at the same tests in 4k high settings and there will be little to no difference.

[RadiatingLight]

1 minute ago, othertomperson said:

Now that 4K 144 Hz is a thing, it probably makes more sense to consider a longer term CPU than that. 

 

The 7700k makes sense on available evidence. The 1700 does have a lot of potential, but to me it seems a hefty assumption that games even can be parallel enough to take advantage of 16 logical cores. It's a noble goal to have, but just from a practical viewpoint not all software lends itself to that when you have so many inter-dependant constraints.

 

There's also the issue that multithreading and per-core performance are not the only things holding Ryzen back. If they were then you'd expect the 6900k and the 1700 when clocked the same to perform the same, but the 6900k pulls ahead despite the same core count and similar IPC.

IMO the 1600 is just as much of a long-term CPU as the 7700K.

more cores will eventually utilize 6 cores and 12 threads, so in the future a 1600 may be better than a 7700K

 

4K 144Hz should still be easily handled by a 1600