7700k or 1700x

[Brooksie359]

Just now, Dzzope said:

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.

the gtx 1080ti is faster than the titan XP. are you thinking about the titian xP? also you are correct that it likely wouldn't matter at 4k but that doesn't mean that it wont matter in the future when they want to upgrade the gpu. all in all the i5 is just bad compared to the i7 especially if you like to do more than one thing at once like i do. 

[Dzzope]

9 minutes ago, Jacob Canale said:

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

It's your call man.. but remember that when benchmarks are made, parts a re purposly put in the worst possible situations to show any weakness.

 

In terms of gaming, thats putting Huge hardware to work on low res..

 

For the best all-round system, I'd go ryzen 6 core.. many cores, decent clocks and low price.

 

For pure gaming, Intel is still king but i7 is still not worth the premium over the i5..

 

All your choice though at the end of the day and you're only getting random folks off the interwebz opinions.

[Dzzope]

4 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

the gtx 1080ti is faster than the titan XP. are you thinking about the titian xP? also you are correct that it likely wouldn't matter at 4k but that doesn't mean that it wont matter in the future when they want to upgrade the gpu. all in all the i5 is just bad compared to the i7 especially if you like to do more than one thing at once like i do. 

See.. Linus calling the newer TitanX the XP confuses people.. in the video he says he uses a TitanXP.. which is the newest Nvidia chip above the 1080ti.

[Shiv78]

13 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

the gtx 1080ti is faster than the titan XP. are you thinking about the titian xP

Titan XP =  Titan X (Pascal) slightly older and slower than 1080Ti

Titan Xp = Titan Xp (legit name this time) slightly newer and faster than 1080Ti 

[done12many2]

1 hour 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 felt the same way a couple of years ago when I built my x99/5960x rig.  Unfortunately, there has been very little progress in multi-threaded apps/games.  I'm back to z270 for daily use/gaming, but I kept my 5960x in case some miracle happened in the near future.  

 

I'll be replacing x99 with x299 when it drops, but I doubt that multi core will matter more then single core then either. 

[79wjd]

9 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

I felt the same way a couple of years ago when I built my x99/5960x rig.  Unfortunately, there has been very little progress in multi-threaded apps/games.  I'm back to z270 for daily use/gaming, but I kept my 5960x in case some miracle happened in the near future.  

 

I'll be replacing x99 with x299 when it drops, but I doubt that multi core will matter more then single core then either. 

I don't know if it (multithreaded vs. single threaded) will ever (within reason) matter more, but in terms of pure power a 5960x/1700 is far ahead of a 7700k. I think we're still a few years out, but a 7700k is already pulling ahead of a 7600k, so it's just a matter of time. For people who upgrade every few years, it won't matter, for those who hold out (at least in terms of CPU upgrades) 5+ years, I think the 1700 will be advantageous and I think within a year or two they'll at least be equal. Most people upgrade less frequently than every five years or so, so my prediction is something like this: a 7700k will hold a lead for a year or two, then we'll have two years of equivalency, and then a 1700 will pull ahead.

 

Of course, at that same time, IPC improvements will still lend to CPUs with fewer cores the same benefits over a 7700k, but that's something else -- I'm simply talking about current CPUs and their lifetime, to which I think going Intel at this point (other than a G4560) is shortsighted. Ryzen basically outperforms everything other than a 7700k and the 7700k doesn't have enough of a performance advantage to warrant the significantly weaker future potential whereas a 7700k is already near 100% load in games.

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

I don't know if it will ever (within reason) matter more, but in terms of pure power a 5960x/1700 is far ahead of a 7700k. I think we're still a few years out, but a 7700k is already pulling ahead of a 7600k, so it's just a matter of time. For people who upgrade every few years, it probably won't matter, for those who hold out (at least in terms of CPU upgrades) 5+ years, I think the 1700 will be advantageous and I think within a year or two they'll at least be equal. Most people upgrade less frequently than every five years or so, so my prediction is something like this: a 7700k will hold a lead for a year or two, then we'll have two years of equivalency, and then a 1700 will pull ahead. Of course, at that same time, IPC improvements will still lend to CPUs with fewer cores the same benefits over a 7700k, but that's something else. 

 

Agreed.  Long-term platform (5 years+), definitely go with Ryzen or equivalent Intel chip if that's your thing.

 

I'm hoping that Skylake X has enough improvement to further close the single threaded gap between my current x99 rig and my z270 rig.  I really like having the extra cores, but for daily use and gaming, my z270 rig consistently steps all over my x99 rig.  I like a snappy feeling system. 

 

A 12 core chip be be nice, but I hope it'll turbo high during low core use scenarios.  

 

 

[rockford007]

I was struggling with the same question. Planning to build a PC. I will hardly play game but will do lot of processor intensive works, like 3Ds Max, Vray rendering, premier pro after effect video editing, davinci color grading, photoshop, lighroom batch processing, using remote desktop, multiple monitor and windows etc and more often than not all simultaneously. Having said that will Ryzen 7 (1700x)  be my better choise? even tho the overclocking is not as crazy as 7700K!?

[done12many2]

13 minutes ago, rockford007 said:

I was struggling with the same question. Planning to build a PC. I will hardly play game but will do lot of processor intensive works, like 3Ds Max, Vray rendering, premier pro after effect video editing, davinci color grading, photoshop, lighroom batch processing, using remote desktop, multiple monitor and windows etc and more often than not all simultaneously. Having said that will Ryzen 7 (1700x)  be my better choise? even tho the overclocking is not as crazy as 7700K!?

 

Ryzen 7 or equivalent Intel 8 core would serve you well.  Hell, if you have the budget, a 6950x might even be nice.

 

At this stage in the game, I'd also consider waiting to see what x299 and Skylake X will bring. 

 

 

[Brooksie359]

42 minutes ago, rockford007 said:

I was struggling with the same question. Planning to build a PC. I will hardly play game but will do lot of processor intensive works, like 3Ds Max, Vray rendering, premier pro after effect video editing, davinci color grading, photoshop, lighroom batch processing, using remote desktop, multiple monitor and windows etc and more often than not all simultaneously. Having said that will Ryzen 7 (1700x)  be my better choise? even tho the overclocking is not as crazy as 7700K!?

You are basically the poster child for those who could benefit form ryzen 7. All of those tasks are quite multi-threaded meaning that having twice as many threads with the ryzen 7 is alot more important than the improvement in single threaded performance of the i7 7700k. It better to have 8 pretty fast workers than 4 really fast workers if you always use those extra 4 workers. 

[othertomperson]

19 hours ago, RadiatingLight said:

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

Well 144 Hz is demonstrably not handled by a 1600, and like I said you are assuming that it is possible for all software to be parallel enough for a 6 core to consistently beat a faster quad core. We've been waiting the best part of a decade for this to happen and we've got as far as quad cores sometimes benefiting from hyperthreading.

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

Well 144 Hz is demonstrably not handled by a 1600, and like I said you are assuming that it is possible for all software to be parallel enough for a 6 core to consistently beat a faster quad core. We've been waiting the best part of a decade for this to happen and we've got as far as quad cores sometimes benefiting from hyperthreading.

I don't think "sometimes" is fair. More and more recent games are starting to benefit from it. Even now a 7700k gets closeto 100% load in BF1 while a 1700 sits far lower. So while it's obviously not guaranteed and there are obviously issues with scaling with threads, I think in the long run a 1700 has a lot more potential than a 7700k. 

[othertomperson]

2 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

I don't think "sometimes" is fair. More and more recent games are starting to benefit from it. Even now a 7700k gets closeto 100% load in BF1 while a 1700 sits far lower. So while it's obviously not guaranteed and there are obviously issues with scaling with threads, I think in the long run a 1700 has a lot more potential than a 7700k. 

How long is "in the long run"? If you're talking another 5 years then it may as well not exist -- you'll be upgrading again before you see that benefit. It's one thing to benefit from four cores with more efficient hardware scheduling (SMT), it's another to have 8 or even 16 simultaneous, independent threads running in parallel, not tripping over eachother and somehow not relying on user input constantly in an entirely interactive medium.

 

It lends itself to specific genres -- a prime example is RTS. A massive RTS like Ashes of the Singularity with lots and lots of Things happening at once, most of which not dependant on eachother or the player lends itself both to multithreaded CPUs and Asynchronous Compute. Most games don't.

[79wjd]

Just now, othertomperson said:

How long is "in the long run"? If you're talking another 5 years then it may as well not exist -- you'll be upgrading again before you see that benefit. It's one thing to benefit from four cores with more efficient hardware scheduling (SMT), it's another to have 8 or even 16 simultaneous, independent threads running in parallel, not tripping over eachother and somehow not relying on user input constantly in an entirely interactive medium.

 

It lends itself to specific genres -- a prime example is RTS. A massive RTS like Ashes of the Singularity lends itself both to multithreaded CPUs and Asynchronous Compute. Most games don't.

I'm thinking the 7700k will maintain a slight advantage for another year or so, then a couple years of equality and then then 1700 will have the advantage. Of course, for people who upgrade frequently (every three years) it won't matter either way, but there are a lot of people who upgrade far less frequently -- every 5+ years. 

[othertomperson]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

I'm thinking the 7700k will maintain a slight advantage for another year or so, then a couple years of equality and then then 1700 will have the advantage. Of course, for people who upgrade frequently (every three years) it won't matter either way, but there are a lot of people who upgrade far less frequently -- every 5+ years. 

People said this about Bulldozer. By the time it happened quad cores were beating it in multithreaded tasks like CInebench.

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

People said this about Bulldozer. By the time it happened quad cores were beating it in multithreaded tasks like CInebench.

I'm not saying a new (in three/four years) quad core won't beat a 1700. I'm saying that a 1700 will beat a 7700k. I'm specifically just talking about long-term performance of these two specific CPUs.

 

Also, Bulldozer was at a much greater deficit from day one in single threaded performance. 

[othertomperson]

2 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

I'm not saying a new (in three/four years) quad core won't beat a 1700. I'm saying that a 1700 will beat a 7700k. I'm specifically just talking about long-term performance of these two specific CPUs.

 

Also, Bulldozer was at a much greater deficit from day one in single threaded performance. 

True. Ultimately when (if) games are optimised for it, it should perform like a 5775C at worst since the extra threads aren't going to take any performance away (apart from where clock speed is concerned), I just don't think it's wise to purchase a multithreaded part on the assumption that it will see 100% utilisation any time soon. Speaking as someone who did just this in 2011 and is still waiting for that gamble to pay off six years later, I think a wait and see approach makes more sense than writing off quad cores that are objectively better at this task right now.

[79wjd]

7 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

True. Ultimately when (if) games are optimised for it, it should perform like a 5775C at worst since the extra threads aren't going to take any performance away (apart from where clock speed is concerned), I just don't think it's wise to purchase a multithreaded part on the assumption that it will see 100% utilisation any time soon. Speaking as someone who did just this in 2011 and is still waiting for that gamble to pay off six years later, I think a wait and see approach makes more sense than writing off quad cores that are objectively better at this task right now.

Well, a wait and see approach doesn't do you much good if you're buying something today. But I think it's very important to realize that Ryzen is very different than Bulldozer, just look at the following (extrapolated from Anandtech's Bulldozer review in 2011).

 

• 8150 @ 4.6ghz -- 5000 CB R10 ST
• 2500k @ 4.2ghz -- 7500 CB R10 ST
• 8150 @ 4.6ghz -- 25,900 CB R10 MT
• 2500k @ 4.2ghz -- 25,900 CB R10 MT

 

The 2500k has 50% single threaded performance advantage while the the two perform nearly identically in multithreaded workloads. Compare that to a 1700 where the 1700 currently has a 30% multithreaded performance lead and a 25%~ single threaded performance deficit. Not to mention the fact that a 1700 is a lot more powerful compared to a 7700k than an 8150 was compared to a 2500k (in terms of raw specs): 

• 7700k (4c/8t) vs. 1700 (8c/16t)
• 2500k (4c/4t) vs. 8150 (4c/8t kind of)

[othertomperson]

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

Well, a wait and see approach doesn't do you much good if you're buying something today. But I think it's very important to realize that Ryzen is very different than Bulldozer, just look at the following (extrapolated from Anandtech's Bulldozer review in 2011).

 

• 8150 @ 4.6ghz -- 5000 CB R10 ST
• 2500k @ 4.2ghz -- 7500 CB R10 ST
• 8150 @ 4.6ghz -- 25,900 CB R10 MT
• 2500k @ 4.2ghz -- 25,900 CB R10 MT

 

The 2500k has 50% single threaded performance advantage while the the two perform nearly identically in multithreaded workloads. Compare that to a 1700 where the 1700 currently has a 30% multithreaded performance lead and a 25%~ single threaded performance deficit. Not to mention the fact that a 1700 is a lot more powerful compared to a 7700k than an 8150 was compared to a 2500k (in terms of raw specs): 

• 7700k (4c/8t) vs. 1700 (8c/16t)
• 2500k (4c/4t) vs. 8150 (4c/8t kind of)

If you're buying something today you should buy whatever is best for what you are using it for today. Buying a CPU in the belief that games which eventually use engines which are starting development now in the hope that at some vague point in the future it will be utilised effectively is, imo, nonsensical.

 

I know that Ryzen is different from Bulldozer, but the arguments in its favour are not. It's like anyone who bought a 5960X for gaming, hoping that one day its 8 cores would be utilised by mainstream games -- I don't see the difference beyond price, and there are still better things out now for the money when it comes to gaming. What you are advocating is nothing short of gambling. While it may or may not pay off in the long term (and you have literally no way of knowing if or when this may be), at least buying a fast quad-core now will certainly pay off immediately.

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

If you're buying something today you should buy whatever is best for what you are using it for today. Buying a CPU in the belief that games which eventually use engines which are starting development now in the hope that at some vague point in the future it will be utilised effectively is, imo, nonsensical.

 

I know that Ryzen is different from Bulldozer, but the arguments in its favour are not. It's like anyone who bought a 5960X for gaming, hoping that one day its 8 cores would be utilised by mainstream games -- I don't see the difference beyond price, and there are still better things out now for the money when it comes to gaming. What you are advocating is nothing short of gambling. While it may or may not pay off in the long term (and you have literally no way of knowing if or when this may be), at least buying a fast quad-core now will certainly pay off immediately.

I'd argue with your first part if the future potential wasn't so much greater for the 1700 and if the 7700k wasn't already being pushed to near full load. 

 

The arguments may be the same, but the situation is entirely different as Ryzen isn't a steaming pile of crap. Ryzen performs better in multithreaded workloads and is, on paper, much more powerful than Bulldozer ever was in relation to Sandy Bridge. Buying a 5960x for gaming is different though since you were paying quite a hefty premium and getting worse performance whereas with a 1700 (or 1600), you're paying the same (or less) and getting slightly worse performance but far more potential performance. 

 

It is a gamble, but you're gambling a small amount now for a large amount in the future. 

[ripper101]

23 hours 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. 

Is this an actual thing or is this just another argument that AMD fanboys use in the YouTube comment section to try and give their underperforming card an edge (like "drivers will fix this in the future" "this will perform better when more games need more cores"). Serious question, not meant to offend or have you argue me as I am trying to decide between a 1700 or 7700k for myself. I don't do any rendering or streaming, but I do game. The answer should be obvious if I don't do much productivity but when I see people like yourself say that these CPUs will perform possibly better than a 7700k with time.

[othertomperson]

17 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

I'd argue with your first part if the future potential wasn't so much greater for the 1700 and if the 7700k wasn't already being pushed to near full load. 

 

The arguments may be the same, but the situation is entirely different as Ryzen isn't a steaming pile of crap. Ryzen performs better in multithreaded workloads and is, on paper, much more powerful than Bulldozer ever was in relation to Sandy Bridge. Buying a 5960x for gaming is different though since you were paying quite a hefty premium and getting worse performance whereas with a 1700 (or 1600), you're paying the same (or less) and getting slightly worse performance but far more potential performance. 

 

It is a gamble, but you're gambling a small amount now for a large amount in the future. 

Your sentence says more than I think you meant it to. It's the entire point of CPU benchmarks to push the CPU as hard as possible. The fact that the 7700k when not GPU bound can sit at 100% utilisation is a good thing. It's not a good thing that essentially no game can make use of all of a 1700. Once again, if it turns out that the limitations of writing software with so many interdependence -- both on other threads and the user themselves -- mean that it is simply infeasible for games to max out 16 logical processor cores at a time then the situation for the 1700 will never improve. This "future potential" will never be realised. I think the assumption that every task can be made infinitely parallel and so justify more cores as an investment is an assumption based on a lack of understanding and wishful thinking. Especially when due to the specific Zen architecture itself, using more than 4 of these cores at a time comes with an order of magnitude increase in latency every time data needs to be transferred between them.

 

I don't see the difference in your second paragraph. When you buy a 1700, 1700X, or 1800X you are paying either the same amount or much more for something that is worse on the promise that at some nondescript time in the future it will suddenly be better. With a 5960X you are buying something that doesn't so as well as a 4790k on the promise that sometime -- maybe a decade from now, maybe never at all -- it will benefit from having double the core count in mainstream games.

 

I really don't see the value of Ryzen 7 for gamers. Ryzen 5 is another story because it's largely at price/performance parity with the cheaper i5s and games very much do make use of 4 cores and SMT, but when the 1700 and 7700k are basically the same price, for me it's a no-brainer which to go for. Unless you are going to use those extra cores right now, the i7 makes much more sense.

 

3 minutes ago, ripper101 said:

Is this an actual thing or is this just another argument that AMD fanboys use in the YouTube comment section to try and give their underperforming card an edge (like "drivers will fix this in the future" "this will perform better when more games need more cores"). Serious question, not meant to offend or have you argue me as I am trying to decide between a 1700 or 7700k for myself. I don't do any rendering or streaming, but I do game. The answer should be obvious if I don't do much productivity but when I see people like yourself say that these CPUs will perform possibly better than a 7700k with time.

There's logic to it, but it's flawed imo. The 1700 genuinely does have much more computational performance than the 7700k. The problem is that this comes from its core count, rather than per-core performance. For a game to be able to utilise this, games would have to be monumentally more parallel than they are currently, in ways that I'm struggling to see being possible from a software perspective. Games are so complex, and have so many calculations that are dependant on eachother, and then also depend on user input as well. The potential is theoretically there, but even if it is possible I can see it taking five years or more before we see Ryzen 7 actually gets full utilisation in most games.

[79wjd]

20 minutes ago, ripper101 said:

Is this an actual thing or is this just another argument that AMD fanboys use in the YouTube comment section to try and give their underperforming card an edge (like "drivers will fix this in the future" "this will perform better when more games need more cores"). Serious question, not meant to offend or have you argue me as I am trying to decide between a 1700 or 7700k for myself. I don't do any rendering or streaming, but I do game. The answer should be obvious if I don't do much productivity but when I see people like yourself say that these CPUs will perform possibly better than a 7700k with time.

Considering I'm running an Intel system and I don't see what I reason I have to fanboy, and if Coffee Lake launches with a 6c/12t i7, then I'd wholeheartedly suggest an i7 over a 1700. 

 

But, imo the loss of performance today is worth the much greater potential in the future. Of course I'm betting on games becoming more multithreaded and I'm also looking at the 3-5 year window, <3 years and the 7700k is no doubt going to be better. 

 

I think there both sides of the argument are equally valid and neither is right or wrong, I would just personally take the risk on the 1700 as it has so much more room to grow and that future growth doesn't cost that much right now. 

17 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

I don't see the difference in your second paragraph. When you buy a 1700, 1700X, or 1800X you are paying either the same amount or much more for something that is worse on the promise that at some nondescript time in the future it will suddenly be better. With a 5960X you are buying something that doesn't so as well as a 4790k on the promise that sometime -- maybe a decade from now, maybe never at all -- it will benefit from having double the core count in mainstream games.

 

in ways that I'm struggling to see being possible from a software perspective. Games are so complex, and have so many calculations that are dependant on eachother, and then also depend on user input as well.

 

The potential is theoretically there, but even if it is possible I can see it taking five years or more before we see Ryzen 7 actually gets full utilisation in most games.

I don't think the 1800x makes any sense, and would never recommend an 1800x over a 7700k if gaming is the intention -- it doesn't make sense to pay so much more for future potential when current performance is worse. However, at the same price point I think things are different. Again, I admit it's a gamble, but imo it's one that's worth taking, it's a small tradeoff now for a potentially much larger benefit in the future. 

 

People said the same thing not too long ago about quad cores as well. While I agree that there are limits with scaling and data dependencies, I think it's naive to think we'll never go past 4c/8t in terms of gaming, and I expect that within three years or so we'll start to see games benefit a lot from more cores (certainly a lot more than they're negatively impacted by lower single threaded performance now). In my mind it's a gamble either way -- get a 7700k and better performance today at the expense of a much longer life/future performance or get a 1700 and take the small performance hit now and bet that games will leverage the extra power. If the future potential was equivalent then I would agree that the 7700k is the better choice, but the future potential is so much greater. 

[ripper101]

9 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Considering I'm running an Intel system and I don't see what I reason I have to fanboy, and if Coffee Lake launches with a 6c/12t i7, then I'd wholeheartedly suggest an i7 over a 1700. 

1

When is coffee like rumored to be released? 

[othertomperson]

4 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Considering I'm running an Intel system and I don't see what I reason I have to fanboy, and if Coffee Lake launches with a 6c/12t i7, then I'd wholeheartedly suggest an i7 over a 1700. 

 

But, imo the loss of performance today is worth the much greater potential in the future. Of course I'm betting on games becoming more multithreaded and I'm also looking at the 3-5 year window, <3 years and the 7700k is no doubt going to be better. 

 

I think there both sides of the argument are equally valid and neither is right or wrong, I would just personally take the risk on the 1700 as it has so much more room to grow and that future growth doesn't cost that much right now. 

I don't think the 1800x makes any sense, and would never recommend an 1800x over a 7700k if gaming is the intention -- it doesn't make sense to pay so much more for future potential when current performance is worse. However, at the same price point I think things are different. Again, I admit it's a gamble, but imo it's one that's worth taking, it's a small tradeoff now for a potentially much larger benefit in the future. 

 

People said the same thing not too long ago about quad cores as well. While I agree that there are limits with scaling and data dependencies, I think it's naive to think we'll never go past 4c/8t in terms of gaming, and I expect that within three years or so we'll start to see games benefit a lot from more cores (certainly a lot more than they're negatively impacted by lower single threaded performance now). In my mind it's a gamble either way -- get a 7700k and better performance today at the expense of a much longer life/future performance or get a 1700 and take the small performance hit now and bet that games will leverage the extra power. If the future potential was equivalent then I would agree that the 7700k is the better choice, but the future potential is so much greater. 

I don't see the 7700k as a gamble in the same way. You're buying something with known performance, and you know how its performance will continue. A 1700 has known performance now, and may or may not improve in the future. For me the value of a 1600 is still in the ability for intensive background activities to be running during game, and we are going to see 6 core utilisation far sooner than 8 core.