7700k vs Ryzen 1700 for new PC?

[RickvLogchem]

Hi everyone,

 

So in a few weeks I'll finally be building my first PC and I was pretty sure about getting a 7700k... But then I read all the stories about people's 7700k's having ridiculous temp spikes of up to 90 degrees Celsius and Intel being ridiculous about said issue. My question right now would be what's best for me... I'd mainly use my PC for gaming, university work (reading, writing, having lots of tabs open etc.) and possibly some content creation.

 

Option 1 would be to go for a 7700k, paired with an Asus Z270 Code mobo and the NZXT Kraken X52 for cooling. 

Option B would be to buy a Ryzen 1700, which I'd probably pair with a Crosshair VI Hero from Asus for (unfortunate) lack of the Code mobo for Ryzen chips and, again, the X52 cooler. 

 

What would be the best option for what'll be, for the most part, a gaming PC? Also, for additional info, this'll be paired with a 1080ti and a 3440x1440p ultrawide monitor. Thanks in advance!

[DocSwag]

How much content creation, and is it guaranteed that you'll be doing it?

[RickvLogchem]

1 minute ago, DocSwag said:

How much content creation, and is it guaranteed that you'll be doing it?

No, not guaranteed and it won't be heavy content creation. Just some minor YT stuff for giggles.

[Zando_]

Ryzen 7 will beat out the i7 for multitasking and video editing. The i7 is slightly faster in games and brute power applications that don't support multiple threads. But you can OC the Ryzen to over 4GHz in most cases, and that's 4GHz + over 8 cores and 16 threads (That'd be well over a grand on Intel's side). 

[WolfoftheShadow7465]

seems like you primarily game, if thats the casee then go 7700k because it is faster in gaming, but if you find yourself doing content creation often enough then go r7 1700

[kreechrr]

7700k and the Ryzen 7 1700 will both seem the same on even a 100Hz 3440x1440 display (I can attest). 7700k will have looser frametimes usually but higher overall FPS. 1700 seems to have higher lows, but at the cost of less optimized games getting less FPS. Ryzen seems to do best with 1440p or 4K. If higher resolution is your exclusive gaming experience, don't overlook Ryzen. If you want most performance possible at time of build, stick with C6H. Otherwise, if you are less concerned with immediate memory speed support, the K7 is a great way to save $50.

No 1080p game I have played on my Ryzen build went under 100 FPS Avg.

also I get 180Hz in Rocket League on my 1080p display too on my 1700 so I don't see skipping out on a great growth potential CPU for the highest FPS in 1080p. 

[DocSwag]

15 minutes ago, RickvLogchem said:

No, not guaranteed and it won't be heavy content creation. Just some minor YT stuff for giggles.

If so it doesn't sound like that's a thing you're putting as a priority or anything, so I think an i7 is a better choice. As @Jorgen297 said, just get a 6700k or delid a 7700k instead.

16 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

Ryzen 7 will beat out the i7 for multitasking and video editing. The i7 is slightly faster in games and brute power applications that don't support multiple threads. But you can OC the Ryzen to over 4GHz in most cases, and that's 4GHz + over 8 cores and 16 threads (That'd be well over a grand on Intel's side). 

Even then, in gaming an OCed 7700k beats a 1700 by 10%

[DocSwag]

1 minute ago, Create585 said:

7700k and the Ryzen 7 1700 will both seem the same on even a 100Hz 3440x1440 display (I can attest). 7700k will have looser frametimes usually but higher overall FPS. 1700 seems to have higher lows, but at the cost of less optimized games getting less FPS. Ryzen seems to do best with 1440p or 4K. If higher resolution is your exclusive gaming experience, don't overlook Ryzen. If you want most performance possible at time of build, stick with C6H. Otherwise, if you are less concerned with immediate memory speed support, the K7 is a great way to save $50.

No 1080p game I have played on my Ryzen build went under 100 FPS Avg.

also I get 180Hz in Rocket League on my 1080p display too on my 1700 so I don't see skipping out on a great growth potential CPU for the highest FPS in 1080p. 

The only reason that's the case is because at higher resolutions the bottleneck tends moves to the GPU. However, in the future when (it's not a question of if but when) OP upgrades their GPU that bottleneck will begin to be noticeable.

[Zando_]

Just now, DocSwag said:

If so it doesn't sound like that's a thing you're putting as a priority or anything, so I think an i7 is a better choice. As @Jorgen297 said, just get a 6700k or delid a 7700k instead.

Even then, in gaming an OCed 7700k beats a 1700 by 10%

Yup. The i7 is really at the top of the gaming market, for those who want the absolute in gaming performance. It will also be great in any other applications, but the Ryzen 7 will edge it out (and I prefer Intel, but have been looking into Ryzen lately as it has better $$$ to perfromance ratios). 

[kreechrr]

1 minute ago, DocSwag said:

The only reason that's the case is because at higher resolutions the bottleneck tends moves to the GPU. However, in the future when (it's not a question of if but when) OP upgrades their GPU that bottleneck will begin to be noticeable.

With the BIOS and microcode updates it is possible for Ryzen to increase performance with time. Which is, I get, speculation. So take that into account OP. And I wasn't disagreeing that for max FPS, 7700k is clearly king. The 1700, however, is far from fully optimized only 2 months after launch . Also a thing to be considering.

[kreechrr]

3 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

Yup. The i7 is really at the top of the gaming market, for those who want the absolute in gaming performance. It will also be great in any other applications, but the Ryzen 7 will edge it out (and I prefer Intel, but have been looking into Ryzen lately as it has better $$$ to perfromance ratios). 

I had a 7700k and thankfully ditched it for the 1700 since FPS isn't the entire picture and Intel doesn't seem to care if you pay more to overclock... if your 7700k hits 90c at idle, "maybe don't overclock?"

 

Which I just find irritating. That's a personal gripe though.

[RickvLogchem]

Thanks for all the replies. So far, it seems that both options would do very well in gaming. I still have a few more weeks until I pull the trigger and purchase all the parts, so I'll think about both options. I'll probably skip the 7700k and get a 6700k instead if I choose to opt for Intel unless they fix the temp issues (which I doubt). Otherwise, the 1700 seems like a great option as well, I just hope we'll get to see some nicer looking mobo's for AM4. (The Hero is the best looking one right now imo, but it still doesn't come close to the way some Z270 mobo's like the Code, Formula or Supercarrier look imo).

[done12many2]

10 minutes ago, Create585 said:

I had a 7700k and thankfully ditched it for the 1700 since FPS isn't the entire picture and Intel doesn't seem to care if you pay more to overclock... if your 7700k hits 90c at idle, "maybe don't overclock?"

 

Which I just find irritating. That's a personal gripe though.

 

I have a 5960x that when overclocked easily outperforms Ryzen chips at their max ambient overclocks.  I also have a 7700k.  Hands down, the 7700k is far better for gaming and daily use then my 5960x overclocked.  

 

A 7700k is a very snappy chip for daily use.  Things just snap an pop as you'd expect from a modern CPU.  Don't get me wrong, my 5960x is no slouch and does well in the 4.7 to 4.8 GHz range, but it still can't compare to the 7700k in 90% + of my daily use cases.

[RickvLogchem]

2 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

I have a 5960x that when overclocked easily outperforms Ryzen chips at their max ambient overclocks.  I also have a 7700k.  Hands down, the 7700k is far better for gaming and daily use then my 5960x overclocked.  

 

A 7700k is a very snappy chip for daily use.  Things just snap an pop as you'd expect from a modern CPU.  Don't get me wrong, my 5960x is no slouch and does well in the 4.7 to 4.8 GHz range, but it still can't compare to the 7700k in 90% + of my daily use cases.

So I assume you've had no temp issues with your chip then? I have no idea how widespread these problems are but they seem quite severe (chips even at stock randomly ramping up to 90 degrees C etc.) hence my OP. If it's a very rare issue, I'd be fine with it but I obviously wouldn't want there to be, say, a 50/50 chance of ending up with a faulty chip...

[XCalinX]

I'd go for the 1700. I have a 1800x and a 6700k and I honestly prefer the 1800x. (the 1800x is just a factory overclocked 1700 so if you're into overclocking you can get the same performance as the 1800x with the 1700). The i7 wins in gaming. But, the difference is pretty small and in multithreaded tasks like content creation and stuff like Cinebench the Ryzen just leaves the i7 in the dust.

[kreechrr]

14 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

I have a 5960x that when overclocked easily outperforms Ryzen chips at their max ambient overclocks.  I also have a 7700k.  Hands down, the 7700k is far better for gaming and daily use then my 5960x overclocked.  

 

A 7700k is a very snappy chip for daily use.  Things just snap an pop as you'd expect from a modern CPU.  Don't get me wrong, my 5960x is no slouch and does well in the 4.7 to 4.8 GHz range, but it still can't compare to the 7700k in 90% + of my daily use cases.

Yeah having had a 6900k build I agree, clock for clock, you see marginal improvement with the years old x99 platform. X299 may surprise us, but I doubt intel is THAT bothered by Ryzen. Ryzen is value, intel is still leading in performance. I had issues with my 7700k, which was delidded, but not anywhere to the 90c I have seen reported by others. Mine was more 70c-75c spikes when idle. Still, personally I try keeping as many components below 75c as possible as I am more assured that thermal degradation is less of an issue. Plus, like it or not, core count is more of the future than clockspeed. Parallel computing is more efficient and produces better results. But there's still optimizations to be had with Ryzen so my TL;DR is as follows;

 

 

 

If you need the absolute best FPS and can't wait for BIOS improvements, game optimizations, etc.; go intel. If you are a patient person, go Ryzen. 

[done12many2]

14 minutes ago, RickvLogchem said:

So I assume you've had no temp issues with your chip then? I have no idea how widespread these problems are but they seem quite severe (chips even at stock randomly ramping up to 90 degrees C etc.) hence my OP. If it's a very rare issue, I'd be fine with it but I obviously wouldn't want there to be, say, a 50/50 chance of ending up with a faulty chip...

 

My current chip is delidded because I run clock speeds in excess of 5 GHz (see signature).  

 

However, I have binned dozen upon dozen of 7700k chips and none of them had 90c random temps at stock speeds.  Most of the issues with these reports seem to stem from people not running the correct voltage or pushing the chip to the highly desired 5 GHz mark without proper cooling solutions.  

 

When the 7700k first released, many of the boards were delivering improper voltage amounts to the chips, which was later fixed with BIOS updates.  Growing pains that all chips have. 

 

As you can see from the statistic threads below, the average overclock for a 7700k is roughly 400 MHz higher then that of the 6700k.  Everyone is pushing things harder then they've ever been pushed and a lot of drama is emerging from those who are happy with their results.  Someone started the 5 GHz expectation and now if someone doesn't reach that, they complain publicly about it. 

 

http://www.overclock.net/t/1621347/kaby-lake-overclocking-guide-with-statistics/0_100

 

http://www.overclock.net/t/1570313/skylake-overclocking-guide-with-statistics/0_100

 

As a long time user of a highly overclock 8 core x99 platform, I wouldn't dare argue that more cores isn't great because it is.  The only problem is that in the 2 years I've had my 5960x, multi-threaded development has been so slow and software/games taking advantage of more cores just isn't moving along as fast as we'd have hoped.  This lack of movement has been going on for a lot longer then 2 years.  

 

This is what prompted me to build a lower core count, higher IPC/clock speed rig.  It just works better for daily use.  

 

1 minute ago, Create585 said:

Yeah having had a 6900k build I agree, clock for clock, you see marginal improvement with the years old x99 platform. X299 may surprise us, but I doubt intel is THAT bothered by Ryzen. Ryzen is value, intel is still leading in performance. I had issues with my 7700k, which was delidded, but not anywhere to the 90c I have seen reported by others. Mine was more 70c-75c spikes when idle. Still, personally I try keeping as many components below 75c as possible as I am more assured that thermal degradation is less of an issue. Plus, like it or not, core count is more of the future than clockspeed. Parallel computing is more efficient and produces better results. But there's still optimizations to be had with Ryzen so my TL;DR is as follows;

 

 

 

If you need the absolute best FPS and can't wait for BIOS improvements, game optimizations, etc.; go intel. If you are a patient person, go Ryzen. 

 

Nobody can argue that Ryzen isn't the best value out there!

 

[kreechrr]

Just now, Create585 said:

Yeah having had a 6900k build I agree, clock for clock, you see marginal improvement with the years old x99 platform. X299 may surprise us, but I doubt intel is THAT bothered by Ryzen. Ryzen is value, intel is still leading in performance. I had issues with my 7700k, which was delidded, but not anywhere to the 90c I have seen reported by others. Mine was more 70c-75c spikes when idle. Still, personally I try keeping as many components below 75c as possible as I am more assured that thermal degradation is less of an issue. Plus, like it or not, core count is more of the future than clockspeed. Parallel computing is more efficient and produces better results. But there's still optimizations to be had with Ryzen so my TL;DR is as follows;

 

 

 

If you need the absolute best FPS and can't wait for BIOS improvements, game optimizations, etc.; go intel. If you are a patient person, go Ryzen. 

But my experience running a 7700k rig at 5GHz and a 1700 rig at 4GHz and limited to 2400MHz ram, the difference is negligible IMO.

[kreechrr]

Also, remember PC building is meant to be a FUN experience and often too many builders are so loyal to branding they forget to have fun! (self included on occasion)

[done12many2]

Just now, Create585 said:

Also, remember PC building is meant to be a FUN experience and often too many builders are so loyal to branding they forget to have fun! (self included on occasion)

 

Haha.  You're spot on with that!

[RickvLogchem]

7 minutes ago, Create585 said:

Also, remember PC building is meant to be a FUN experience and often too many builders are so loyal to branding they forget to have fun! (self included on occasion)

Haha yeah I suppose. Well, this is my first ever build and I'm building it 100% for fun so no need to worry about that  Also, I have no loyalty towards any brand whatsoever, my doubt about certain parts stems more from wanting my build to be the best I can make it, I have no issue going with either Intel or AMD, whatever gives me the best (most fun) experience 

[jjohnthedon1]

1 hour ago, RickvLogchem said:

Hi everyone,

 

So in a few weeks I'll finally be building my first PC and I was pretty sure about getting a 7700k... But then I read all the stories about people's 7700k's having ridiculous temp spikes of up to 90 degrees Celsius and Intel being ridiculous about said issue. My question right now would be what's best for me... I'd mainly use my PC for gaming, university work (reading, writing, having lots of tabs open etc.) and possibly some content creation.

 

Option 1 would be to go for a 7700k, paired with an Asus Z270 Code mobo and the NZXT Kraken X52 for cooling. 

Option B would be to buy a Ryzen 1700, which I'd probably pair with a Crosshair VI Hero from Asus for (unfortunate) lack of the Code mobo for Ryzen chips and, again, the X52 cooler. 

 

What would be the best option for what'll be, for the most part, a gaming PC? Also, for additional info, this'll be paired with a 1080ti and a 3440x1440p ultrawide monitor. Thanks in advance!

Code update hasn't been announced for ryzen for and mobo biases with it will be ready end of the month 

[kreechrr]

31 minutes ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

Code update hasn't been announced for ryzen for and mobo biases with it will be ready end of the month 

Gigabyte confirmed microcode updates with their next bios. 1005 from 1004a. Was almost 1006 according to the Gigabyte tech I talked to but "AMD confirmed 1005" for this next release.

[jjohnthedon1]

2 hours ago, Create585 said:

Gigabyte confirmed microcode updates with their next bios. 1005 from 1004a. Was almost 1006 according to the Gigabyte tech I talked to but "AMD confirmed 1005" for this next release.

Asus confirmed 1006 apparently I saw on another sight although I'm not sure how the numbers work 

 

please explain if you do

[ripper101]

14 hours ago, done12many2 said:

 

 

14 hours ago, Create585 said:

 

 

I've almost decided on the 7700k for my upgrade but the only thing scaring me away from it is the temperatures. I don't really want to de-lid a CPU for obvious reasons (I also don't overclock).