Which one should I get Ryzen or i7?

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

On 4/29/2017 at 10:43 PM, TwinDenis said:

What if you add a double fan water cooler?

Are you able to get one of them and benchmark?

Hmm or.... lets just ask while you have had all those opened up while playing overwatch, did you have any issues at all on your city while playing the mmo game? Was it smooth?

By the way check my previous post if you will.

 

Overclocking will go up with more cooling capacity

 

I'll probably forget

 

I do not play my mmo when i play OW. but the time when i alt+tab back in there was no problem. 

 

On 4/29/2017 at 9:42 PM, TwinDenis said:

I found some components from the local store which are available

 

How does this sound as a build?   - - - - - - - - ->

 

MSI Motherboard B350M Gaming Pro (B350/AM4/DDR4) <--- Change to a tier 2/3 X370 board

Corsair CPU Cooler Hydro H55 Quiet 8 

Corsair Desktop RAM Vengeance LPX 16GB Kit 3000MHz DDR4 <--- Just make sure its a samsung b die for lesser headaches

AMD CPU Ryzen 7 1700X (AM4/3.80 GHz/20 MB) <---- drop to a 1700 and get a better cooler with the price difference

Corsair PSU CS Series 750 W 80+ Gold CS750M Modular 

Corsair Carbide Spec­03 Red Midi Tower <---- I'd change it to a more updated case

 

Already Own:

Samsung 850EVO SSD

GIGABYTE GTX980 4OC

 

 

[Denis_Twin]

6 hours ago, DrMikeNZ said:

They are the same silicon. The 1700 has been downclocked to push it into a lower TDP bracket. All of the Ryzen processors hit a wall at very similar clocks, and overclocking the 1700 will yield near identical performance. You should be able to get to 3.8 GHz on the stock cooler while blindfolded. While the 1700 on average may need a little more voltage to reach the same clocks as the 1700X, the difference is less than the margin of error.

 

Not sure about the other games, but SC2 is a terribly optimised game, and while it can be very CPU heavy, it will be pegged by single threaded performance.

 

5 hours ago, XCalinX said:

I'd go with Ryzen, I have a 1800x and a 6700k and I prefer the Ryzen. yeah you will lose a bit in gaming, but it won't be that much especially since you have an older GPU.

 

4 hours ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

For your price point I'd get a 1600 and a top board as the am4 platform is gona be around for a while 

the 1600 kills my 4790k in streaming and actually gets the same fps in gaming 

 

i think that is the best option for the money you want to spend 

better board now then get the top CPU at there end of line in 2020 

thats what I'm going to do 

so if get such system, Im covered in gaming and multitasking? So.... why is everyone just going heads down on the 7700k if the ryzens are better?

Im curious...

And besides, to be perfectly honest gtx980 is not THAT much of an old gpu and besides we are looking for 2 options, 1 option would be the future proof and the 2nd option would be the as much future proof and able to cover all needs for the value for money.

Even I can put any machine to their knees but there is no need to do this in a realistic situation, even our brain has multitasking limits and computers nearly reached those.

Point of the matter is I am looking to buy the best there is in which I will never see any problems in games (considering the current releases of course) while not spending a fortune for it, that is why I am considering r7 and i7 (7 on both, coincidence? I think NOT) but I am not interested in r5 or below, yes I am that guy who wants the best there is for the right price, I know intels are overpriced (especially xeons which I own one but for gaming the build is bad.... especially with the dell precision t3600 motherboard I have) So yeah, the r7 series sounds very lucrative and if it is nearly as good as the i7 for single core (since I play A LOT of mmos) then sure.

 

I am even looking for budget yet effective gaming builds for my friends as well, ryzens are very lucrative for those as well but for me I would pay something a little extra to have it kinda future proof.

[jjohnthedon1]

18 minutes ago, TwinDenis said:

 

 

so if get such system, Im covered in gaming and multitasking? So.... why is everyone just going heads down on the 7700k if the ryzens are better?

Im curious...

And besides, to be perfectly honest gtx980 is not THAT much of an old gpu and besides we are looking for 2 options, 1 option would be the future proof and the 2nd option would be the as much future proof and able to cover all needs for the value for money.

Even I can put any machine to their knees but there is no need to do this in a realistic situation, even our brain has multitasking limits and computers nearly reached those.

Point of the matter is I am looking to buy the best there is in which I will never see any problems in games (considering the current releases of course) while not spending a fortune for it, that is why I am considering r7 and i7 (7 on both, coincidence? I think NOT) but I am not interested in r5 or below, yes I am that guy who wants the best there is for the right price, I know intels are overpriced (especially xeons which I own one but for gaming the build is bad.... especially with the dell precision t3600 motherboard I have) So yeah, the r7 series sounds very lucrative and if it is nearly as good as the i7 for single core (since I play A LOT of mmos) then sure.

 

I am even looking for budget yet effective gaming builds for my friends as well, ryzens are very lucrative for those as well but for me I would pay something a little extra to have it kinda future proof.

Because fan boys

 

get 1600 do u wanna pay 100 more for a 7700k for 5 fps and worse streaming and multi tasking performance ? 

 

No no you don't do be an idiot and don't fall for the fan boys 

[Denis_Twin]

22 minutes ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

Because fan boys

 

get 1600 do u wanna pay 100 more for a 7700k for 5 fps and worse streaming and multi tasking performance ? 

 

No no you don't do be an idiot and don't fall for the fan boys 

Going by that logic arent you amd fanboys? thats what blue boys say. And its a pointless discussion. So furthermore be it as it may I know amd has good pieces and trustworthy, intel as well, at this point according to people here ryzen is the best because of its price/value but performance for me in games is important (I mentioned raids and node wars since there I lag like no other) you say 1600? Okay hmm, maybe for my friend but if I can add a few bucks to get something noticeably better then why not, I do not plan on replacing the machine for some years (nearly 10 years at least but it depends, I dunno the rate in which they release stuff for pc).

[DrMikeNZ]

52 minutes ago, TwinDenis said:

so if get such system, Im covered in gaming and multitasking? So.... why is everyone just going heads down on the 7700k if the ryzens are better?

Ryzen isn't better in all applications. It does not clock well, so performs poorly in single threaded applications, and requires two cycles to complete an AVX2 workload so halves its performance compared to Intel in some workstation tasks, and can suffer in workloads where cross thread communication is heavy due to the CCX design speed/latency etc. 

The architectures are different, so there are strengths for AMD and strengths for Intel. Depending on what you intend to do, one processor could be the better choice over the other. More often than not though, Ryzen is the better choice for gamers/streamers/mainstream consumers who are willing to work through the teething pains and mostly play modern well optimised games.

[Denis_Twin]

3 minutes ago, DrMikeNZ said:

Ryzen isn't better in all applications. It does not clock well, so performs poorly in single threaded applications, and requires two cycles to complete an AVX2 workload so halves its performance compared to Intel in some workstation tasks, and can suffer in workloads where cross thread communication is heavy due to the CCX design speed/latency etc. 

The architectures are different, so there are strengths for AMD and strengths for Intel. Depending on what you intend to do, one processor could be the better choice over the other. More often than not though, Ryzen is the better choice for gamers/streamers/mainstream consumers who are willing to work through the teething pains and mostly play modern well optimised games.

my intent is to just play mmorpgs on ultra  with butter smooth performance, to put it bluntly thats what I will be doing. Multitasking is always welcome of course as per every computer. I am not sure what you are talking about but if you say ryzen is not the better choice for mmorpgs then I would go with something else. I just want to play those games with stability/performance and max settings.

[jjohnthedon1]

33 minutes ago, TwinDenis said:

Going by that logic arent you amd fanboys? thats what blue boys say. And its a pointless discussion. So furthermore be it as it may I know amd has good pieces and trustworthy, intel as well, at this point according to people here ryzen is the best because of its price/value but performance for me in games is important (I mentioned raids and node wars since there I lag like no other) you say 1600? Okay hmm, maybe for my friend but if I can add a few bucks to get something noticeably better then why not, I do not plan on replacing the machine for some years (nearly 10 years at least but it depends, I dunno the rate in which they release stuff for pc).

Well I have both and the ryzen 1600 chip is better than the 4790k 

In gaming the extra cores on the 1800x don't make a difference in gaming when both clocked at 4ghz so there is no point 

and 6/12 is a monster at everything 

 

so really up to you but the 1600 is the best gaming chip as far as I am concerned for the money right now 

[Denis_Twin]

18 minutes ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

Well I have both and the ryzen 1600 chip is better than the 4790k 

In gaming the extra cores on the 1800x don't make a difference in gaming when both clocked at 4ghz so there is no point 

and 6/12 is a monster at everything 

 

so really up to you but the 1600 is the best gaming chip as far as I am concerned for the money right now 

why does the manufacturer sets the base clocks as 3ghz by the way?

[jjohnthedon1]

21 minutes ago, TwinDenis said:

why does the manufacturer sets the base clocks as 3ghz by the way?

Same as intel setting the 5820k to 3.2 

 

it's so they can guarantee the chips will run at that speed rest is silicon lottery 

[Denis_Twin]

9 minutes ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

Same as intel setting the 5820k to 3.2 

 

it's so they can guarantee the chips will run at that speed rest is silicon lottery 

what do you mean?

[jjohnthedon1]

1 minute ago, TwinDenis said:

what do you mean?

You have been talking a big game 

I need the best, gona build shit for my mates

what a pc to last ten years

 

you don't buy a Ferrari if you don't no how to drive

 

how can you be talking such a big game and not know what the silicon lottery is

 

intell and amd both guarantee there chips at a low clock rate and it's all luck if you can oc any more than that 

[Denis_Twin]

4 minutes ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

You have been talking a big game 

I need the best, gona build shit for my mates

what a pc to last ten years

 

you don't buy a Ferrari if you don't no how to drive

 

how can you be talking such a big game and not know what the silicon lottery is

 

intell and amd both guarantee there chips at a low clock rate and it's all luck if you can oc any more than that 

because I do not need to, I come here asking for what to buy and there is an obvious reason for that, doesnt make sense for me to ask if I knew all those things.

people suggest 1700 mostly and I ask for many technical questions so I learn a bit more, in the end I will pay for it and no one else so I have to choose the best I can afford.

[jjohnthedon1]

1 hour ago, TwinDenis said:

because I do not need to, I come here asking for what to buy and there is an obvious reason for that, doesnt make sense for me to ask if I knew all those things.

people suggest 1700 mostly and I ask for many technical questions so I learn a bit more, in the end I will pay for it and no one else so I have to choose the best I can afford.

Get the 1700 it will last longer because of the extra cores which is the way amd and Intel are moving too now 

 

no CPU will last you 10 years 

 

but you won't be disappointed in either 

 

 

[Denis_Twin]

1 hour ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

Get the 1700 it will last longer because of the extra cores which is the way amd and Intel are moving too now 

 

no CPU will last you 10 years 

 

but you won't be disappointed in either 

 

 

but can you guarantee that it should work smoothly in the games I listed? I have heard that in 7700k from a friend that it works fine with no issues but will the ryzen perform as such? If you tested it then I would like to know more in detail about it, thank you

[DrMikeNZ]

5 hours ago, TwinDenis said:

why does the manufacturer sets the base clocks as 3ghz by the way?

Efficiency and stability.

Increased frequency increases the required voltage for stability. And can take more time to validate stability, and this process would be expensive to validate each CPU at the higher clocks.

The power draw of the processor is approximately proportional to the voltage squared multiplied by the frequency, and as a result power draw can increase dramatically. Additionally, in many applications increasing frequency can lead to diminishing returns where bottlenecks elsewhere (cache etc) limit overall performance.

 

For example, my 6900K running at 3.2GHz drew 47W under load, and got 1322 score in cinebench. Increasing to 4.0 GHz increased load power draw to 140W and got 1575 cnebench score. For most people the performance at stock would be satisfactory and much easier to keep cool. Not everyone would consider a 20% improvement in performance at a 200% power draw increase worthwhile.

 

2 hours ago, TwinDenis said:

but can you guarantee that it should work smoothly in the games I listed?

No guarantees. My Ryzen is tied up for the next 4 weeks so cannot do any testing at this time.

[Emberstone]

Man, this thread is kind of a mess.

 

Ryzen will give you better performance while multitasking across multiple applications or games. It won't deliver the raw framerates that a 7700K will, but it will still provide a very smooth experience. I would expect no less of a six or eight core processor these days. As someone who owns an R5-1600X, I can personally vouch for Ryzen's performance.

 

However, the 7700K is a better "brute force" processor due to its insane clock speeds. It will net you better raw performance in games, but will dip a bit more than Ryzen will if you decide to do things like render in the background or stream. If the best gaming performance is what's most important to you, then get a 7700K and overclock the snot out of it. I saw games like WoW, Guild Wars 2, and Starcraft 2 being thrown around in this thread, and these games are all notoriously badly optimized and single-threaded. The 7700K will probably get around 15% higher framerates than a 1600X or 1800X will in these titles. I also regularly play GW2, and can say that it dips to around 20 fps during world bosses like Auric Basin or Tequatl with my 1600X (though it seems that, no matter how good your PC is, low fps always seems to be the case. GW2's optimization is really bad and doesn't fully utilize a 1600X, let alone an R7).

 

Instead of listening to the various opinions in this thread, check out Ryzen vs. 7700K benchmarks from people like Hardware Unboxed, Paul's Hardware, LinusTechTips, Gamers Nexus, BitWit, etc. on YouTube to get a more realistic picture of what these processors can do for you in games. I know that LTT and BitWit have streaming performance and quality comparisons while gaming as well, if you want to see what the performance loss is on both when doing some heavy stuff in the background.

 

I own Starcraft 2. I can go ahead and run a 1v1 bot match while benchmarking with Fraps to let you know what the performance is like on a stock 1600X. Since Starcraft 2 is extremely single-threaded and the 1600X uses the same out-of-the-box clock speeds as an 1800X, I can let you know what its performance is like on Ryzen's best. I highly doubt the two processors would run the game differently given the nature of the game's optimization; if it doesn't care about using all of my six cores, it won't care about using eight cores.

[Speaker1264]

17 hours ago, TwinDenis said:

By the way those websites do not ship in my region (I contacted them) and the cost for similar components here in the locals is around 1100 euro (yeah...)

I wasn't sure where you lived, but there is an EU version of pcpartpicker with EU retailers.  Also you didn't specify in the OP what region or what type of cash, such Euros or USD or whatever.  And you said 500 bucks for the CPU alone.  So if the additional cost of other required parts come above what you initially intended that is your fault for not being clear in the OP.  Also I am done helping you.  Enough of my time and others have been wasted trying to help you, and all you can do is keep asking the same questions.  Obviously no answer is good enough for you.  There is enough material in this thread and online to decide what is best for you.  Do your research and pick something.  Stop wasting people's time.

[Emberstone]

To continue my last post, here's the performance from my last 1v1 match in Starcraft 2 on fully maxed settings at 1080p on a stock Ryzen 5 1600X (same clocks as an 1800X):

 

Minimum: 86 fps

Average: 117 fps

 

This is a pretty good indicator of how it'll run on an R7 since Starcraft 2 doesn't even care about all six cores in my R5, so hopefully that helps you out.

[Denis_Twin]

5 hours ago, Emberstone said:

To continue my last post, here's the performance from my last 1v1 match in Starcraft 2 on fully maxed settings at 1080p on a stock Ryzen 5 1600X (same clocks as an 1800X):

 

Minimum: 86 fps

Average: 117 fps

 

This is a pretty good indicator of how it'll run on an R7 since Starcraft 2 doesn't even care about all six cores in my R5, so hopefully that helps you out.

Thanks, much appreciated, How about stuttering or any other issues though? I assume it was on unit limit, if you want to pressure it further you can do 2v2 Ai on max settings on unit limit (which is a very cpu heavy job).

 

Assuming you did that, it is impressive and wow...... your gw2 got to 20fps?! this is crazy... but going with that, I would assume that 7700k has similar performance in these games correct? (10% perform increase or so is not too much to begin with). All I got from all the posts is that the ryzen gives 2 things while i7 gives 1 thing but very slightly better. 

TL;DR of what I understood (correct if wrong):

7700k has roughly 10% better performance in games

Ryzen has roughly 40% better performance in multitasking 

 

6 hours ago, DrMikeNZ said:

Efficiency and stability.

Increased frequency increases the required voltage for stability. And can take more time to validate stability, and this process would be expensive to validate each CPU at the higher clocks.

The power draw of the processor is approximately proportional to the voltage squared multiplied by the frequency, and as a result power draw can increase dramatically. Additionally, in many applications increasing frequency can lead to diminishing returns where bottlenecks elsewhere (cache etc) limit overall performance.

 

For example, my 6900K running at 3.2GHz drew 47W under load, and got 1322 score in cinebench. Increasing to 4.0 GHz increased load power draw to 140W and got 1575 cnebench score. For most people the performance at stock would be satisfactory and much easier to keep cool. Not everyone would consider a 20% improvement in performance at a 200% power draw increase worthwhile.

 

No guarantees. My Ryzen is tied up for the next 4 weeks so cannot do any testing at this time.

So I will be running the ryzen at 3.00ghz? hmm, my current one is 3.6ghz quad, I believe it is a xeon e5-1620 but seeing the costs and everything to replace broken pieces, if I add a few bucks I get the newest components so I will do that.

Lets see.... what if I had the ryzen OCed at 4ghz, is it stable enough? I bet you didnt have the chance to test but its good.

[DrMikeNZ]

1 minute ago, TwinDenis said:

So I will be running the ryzen at 3.00ghz?

No, I was able to overclock my R7 1700 to 3.8GHz while maintaining only 65-75W power draw under load. There is no reason to not OC Ryzen to 3.7-3.8 GHz. Getting to 3.9-4.0 GHz can require more effort, voltage, and increased power draw though. The chips hit a wall around that clock speed which results in exponential increase in required voltage.

 

6 minutes ago, TwinDenis said:

Lets see.... what if I had the ryzen OCed at 4ghz, is it stable enough?

No idea, depends on the chip and how lucky you are with the silicon lottery. I haven't pushed to 4 GHz on my R7 1700, stopped at 3.8GHz as it was getting diminishing returns on performance and wasn't able to get stable at or above 3.825 GHz with reasonable voltage and it just wasn't worth me putting in anymore effort.

 

As my R7 1700 made itself available by ballsing up and corrupted the process again, I had to kill the task and restart the system. I had a quick chance to test SC2 with 1 AI, and then a custom 9 AI FFA before I restarted the workflow process.

Spoiler

First I started a quick casual test match against 1 AI, near the end I spammed units to fill up the unit count, and frames dropped a little down to 50-60 fps but was still fine. A couple of stutters were observed with >200ms frame times, but nothing too concerning.

 

Second I started a custom match against 9 AI, the frames dropped to 8-50 fps in late-game. Stuttering was noticeable with a few >400 ms frame times, and 50-200ms frames occurring regularly. It was a little unpleasant but still playable, this is a pretty extreme case pushing the game much farther than is sensible.

This performance is not unique to Ryzen, similar performance has also been observed on my Intel systems.

(flat portion near start was due to the game being paused)

 

 

[Emberstone]

2 hours ago, TwinDenis said:

Thanks, much appreciated, How about stuttering or any other issues though? I assume it was on unit limit, if you want to pressure it further you can do 2v2 Ai on max settings on unit limit (which is a very cpu heavy job).

Just realized I'm a complete idiot. All I did was a standard 4-Gate and just bumrushed the Hard AI to end the game in 15 minutes ._.

 

This time I intentionally supply capped to 200/200, did a few skirmishes with the AI as it tried to fight me in order to simulate a game with smaller fights, then ended the game with a 200 supply army. Here is the benchmark for that:

 

Minimum: 41 fps

Average: 102 fps

 

Overall, it was fairly smooth. Even as the fps dipped when the 200 supply army started attacking at the end, it wasn't stuttery. It was still a consistent framerate. I can't say for certain what a 7700K would be here; you'd have to do some looking around. My guess is it would stay closer to 50 or 60 in the most stressful parts of a game. If I overclocked my 1600X to 4.0 GHz (I know it can; it's stable at 1.33v. Silicon lottery, boys!), you could expect around 10% better framerates overall.

 

As for Guild Wars 2, it only dips like that during large fights, like world bosses (which can sometimes have hundreds of people at once). Everywhere else is 60+. No matter your system though, you will dip pretty badly in world bosses. It's an issue that can't really be fixed due to the game's engine. Even when I overclocked to 4.0 GHz, it made no noticeable difference in the gameplay experience when doing Tequatl.

 

I hope I'm sounding as unbiased as possible. I don't think there's a game out there where Ryzen beats a 7700K. More or less it just comes down to what you want/expect from your PC for your money. Ryzen gives flexibility, while the 7700K gives the best gaming performance money can buy right now (around 10-20% better depending on the game). Ryzen's performance will probably get better in the future as developers have the ability to optimize for it now, though. However no one can say for certain what gains there are to be made, if any.

[Denis_Twin]

2 hours ago, DrMikeNZ said:

No, I was able to overclock my R7 1700 to 3.8GHz while maintaining only 65-75W power draw under load. There is no reason to not OC Ryzen to 3.7-3.8 GHz. Getting to 3.9-4.0 GHz can require more effort, voltage, and increased power draw though. The chips hit a wall around that clock speed which results in exponential increase in required voltage.

 

No idea, depends on the chip and how lucky you are with the silicon lottery. I haven't pushed to 4 GHz on my R7 1700, stopped at 3.8GHz as it was getting diminishing returns on performance and wasn't able to get stable at or above 3.825 GHz with reasonable voltage and it just wasn't worth me putting in anymore effort.

 

As my R7 1700 made itself available by ballsing up and corrupted the process again, I had to kill the task and restart the system. I had a quick chance to test SC2 with 1 AI, and then a custom 9 AI FFA before I restarted the workflow process.

 

How do you know if the chip is not stable when you overclock? I mean what are you using to tell if your OC is good or not?

I am only familiar with very basic overclocking (if it doesnt start, play with settings ) but really now... how?  

 

1 hour ago, Emberstone said:

Just realized I'm a complete idiot. All I did was a standard 4-Gate and just bumrushed the Hard AI to end the game in 15 minutes ._.

 

This time I intentionally supply capped to 200/200, did a few skirmishes with the AI as it tried to fight me in order to simulate a game with smaller fights, then ended the game with a 200 supply army. Here is the benchmark for that:

 

Minimum: 41 fps

Average: 102 fps

 

Overall, it was fairly smooth. Even as the fps dipped when the 200 supply army started attacking at the end, it wasn't stuttery. It was still a consistent framerate. I can't say for certain what a 7700K would be here; you'd have to do some looking around. My guess is it would stay closer to 50 or 60 in the most stressful parts of a game. If I overclocked my 1600X to 4.0 GHz (I know it can; it's stable at 1.33v. Silicon lottery, boys!), you could expect around 10% better framerates overall.

 

As for Guild Wars 2, it only dips like that during large fights, like world bosses (which can sometimes have hundreds of people at once). Everywhere else is 60+. No matter your system though, you will dip pretty badly in world bosses. It's an issue that can't really be fixed due to the game's engine. Even when I overclocked to 4.0 GHz, it made no noticeable difference in the gameplay experience when doing Tequatl.

 

I hope I'm sounding as unbiased as possible. I don't think there's a game out there where Ryzen beats a 7700K. More or less it just comes down to what you want/expect from your PC for your money. Ryzen gives flexibility, while the 7700K gives the best gaming performance money can buy right now (around 10-20% better depending on the game). Ryzen's performance will probably get better in the future as developers have the ability to optimize for it now, though. However no one can say for certain what gains there are to be made, if any.

Thats right, good job!  okay so... hmm by the way what is silicon lottery? I am familiar with the concept of individual products being better manifuctured but not with what you mean by that (did you buy a better version or something? if so, where?, I would give it a shot if it is a tested piece that can overclock well)

Of course if I can reach 4.1+ ghz  in a octacore I will be more than happy considering the architecture being better of course (or equal to)

My reason for asking so many questions is that I also am interested in helping 3-4 friends of mine build their own computers so in this thread you help more than just me, grateful.

I am the only one of the bunch who is streaming (as a hobby, nothing too much).

From my understanding the small % you lose in raw single core you get it back in multitasking and then-some which is why the people in the forum suggest the ryzen (for now).

Of course my only concern is with those mmos that are cpu intensive, then again I remember heroes of the storm and starcraft2 (same engine) running at 4 cores on my cpu so that means it utilizes the cores, so according to some if you have a beefy memory you can reach the 7700k while maintaining better multitasking capabilities (which sounds awesome).

According to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKGJshXgOwU&t=1174s

1700 is the best choice out of the r7 just because they are cheaper for what you get (value for money).

So that is sorted out (I guess).

Moving on, according to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZcCqnE5mRw

In black desert online in cities or in combat the guy on the video said their ryzen is smoother (less stutter) than their i7 which according to their claims it was way more stuttery in combat (same as my old xeon if I could guess).

 

 

[dennisbun]

Im too lazy to read all of the threads but if you ever wonder why the ryzen is stuck at around 4Ghz while still keeping up with the 5Ghz 7700k you should watch this

 

Well its for GPU, but more or less its the same.

 

And yeah the games you mentioned are not optimized for multiple threads so they would be better with a cpu with a faster single thread. But I believe that more modern games would benefit from the extra core from the ryzen. That being said your 3D modelling would also benefit from it.

[Droidbot]

6 minutes ago, dennisbun said:

-snip-

that's just called IPC, basic concept. 

 

hilariously the thing keeping Ryzen at 4Ghz under air/water is thermals due to the new manufacturing process

[Denis_Twin]

6 minutes ago, dennisbun said:

Im too lazy to read all of the threads but if you ever wonder why the ryzen is stuck at around 4Ghz while still keeping up with the 5Ghz 7700k you should watch this

 

Well its for GPU, but more or less its the same.

 

And yeah the games you mentioned are not optimized for multiple threads so they would be better with a cpu with a faster single thread. But I believe that more modern games would benefit from the extra core from the ryzen. That being said your 3D modelling would also benefit from it.

Enlightening indeed, from my understanding the only way to measure the latest systems are only benchmarks and power consumption (assuming both versions of the a unit are as optimized as possible) as he said, they try to either go higher in clock speeds with less work or having it work more in lower speeds.

So this is what I got from the video. If I know I wont stutter in normal-low (not too badly) optimized games that are released in both cases, then yeah 1700 would be the way to go since everyone here agrees, we came to this conclusion.

Question though, it is stuck to me that how can the 3ghz speed caught up with the 4.2 speed cpu? (I saw the video but still the difference seems big in speed... or is it not?)

 

Thanks