4790k to R7 1700X comparison *updated*

[App4that]

First off this is a real world comparison to the 4790k I own and a 1700X I just purchased. I was not looking for an improvement in fps, I'm a computer science major and have neded to step up with my CPU for awhile, the R7 offered that chance. I'm doing this comparison for anyone out there who might be interested. 

 

Both used the same two 980ti in SLI running at stock settings. Everything else was shared, anything new is listed.

Both are overclocked as far as they were stable.

Both ran on the Windows Creator build using Game mode enabled. 

 

4790k build

4.7Ghz at 1.25v

16g of KLEVV running@ 2333MHz

MPOWER Z97 motherboard

H105 AIO

 

1700X build

3.8GHz at 1.3v

16g of Triden-Z running@ 3000MHz

Crosshair X370 motherboard

Kraken X62 AIO

 

All games were run at 1440p, using the mix of high to ultra setting I use to play them.

Only games with benchmarks that recorded the average, low, and high fps were used, if the game had multiple API each was tested.

 

Games tested

• Dues Ex Mankind Divided
• Ashes of the Benchmark, I mean Singularity
• Far Cry Primal
• Rise of the Tomb Raider
• War Thunder

Each game was run 3 times, the best average is listed along with it's min and max.

 

Dues Ex

4790k

DX11 Ave 62.9 Min 49.8 Max 79.8

DX12 Ave 66.3 Min 47.6 Max 95.7

1700X

DX11 Ave 60.8 Min 45.7 Max 78.8

DX12 Ave 61.5 Min 48.3 Max 86.1

 

AotS (single card score in DX11, multi in DX12)

4790k 

DX11 Ave 57.6 Min 46.7 Max 70.3

(unplayable the stuttering and pop in was so bad, but I recorded one pass in DX12)

DX12 GPU 99.6 CPU 85.4

1700X

DX11 Ave 51.1 Min 42.2 Max 61.1

(here DX12 was smooth as glass, but look at the fps)

DX12 GPU 57.4 CPU 56.6

 

Far Cry Primal

4790k

Ave 80 Min 57 Max 95

1700X

Ave 60 Min 47 Max 71

 

ROTTR

4790k

DX11 Ave 92.85 Min 44.15 Max 134.95

DX12 Ave 141.82 Min 51.27 Max 198.38

1700X

DX11 Ave 89.04 Min 27.82 Max 122.25

DX12 Ave 93.76 Min 34.64 Max 129.88

 

War Thunder (Tank CPU benchmark)

4790k

Ave 118.1 Min 101.7

1700X 

Ave 82.6 Min 71.7

 

Conclusion

In every game I lost fps, in some cases the maximum fps was less than the average using the 4790k. So I'm pissed, right?

Here's where things go sideways. When I first tested Dues Ex I thought I must have messed up on the settings because the lighting was so much better, and I've been recently playing that game.

You can check my tag on Steam, same name. This holds true for each game save Far Cry that ran the same. I actually worked for the developer of War Thunder. I used it because I know that game better than any.

The texture flickering, gone. The shimmering, all but gone. So I'm left scratching my head on this one. 

 

Leave some thoughts if you'd like, but no wars please. 

 

*update, I had a bad stick of RAM. Finally died and got replacement RAM. Corsair Vengeance LPX running at 2933 just lake the last. All DX11 number match the 4790k, so hit the limit of the SLI. DX12 didn't change*

 

@PCGuy_5960 @MEC-777 @Cool_BoyD^-^

[3 Lions]

The 1700X was never meant to be a gaming CPU, it was designed for content creation hence the 8 cores and 16 threads. 

[genexis_x]

Wait for games optimization

[Orangeator]

1 minute ago, LinusTechTipsFanFromDarlo said:

The 1700X was never meant to be a gaming CPU, it was designed for content creation hence the 8 cores and 16 threads. 

Beat me to it. For a computer science major you should know that the 1700X was never even advertised as a gaming CPU. It is a work horse that has twice the multi-threaded performance than the 4790k. Run Cinebench with both these CPU's and let me know which one finishes first. Edit a video with these and let me know which was a better experience/faster. Do virtually any multi-tasking and let me know which is better.

[App4that]

1 minute ago, LinusTechTipsFanFromDarlo said:

The 1700X was never meant to be a gaming CPU, it was designed for content creation hence the 8 cores and 16 threads. 

Yep, why no regrets. I got some work done last night and oh my god. Just wow is this thing fast. I know the exact amount of Facebook posts I can make while X is unpacking. It's faster than I can load Facebook now LOL. My productivity just went up, while my Facebook time just crashed. 

[Zaki_Owais]

3 minutes ago, LinusTechTipsFanFromDarlo said:

The 1700X was never meant to be a gaming CPU, it was designed for content creation hence the 8 cores and 16 threads. 

"The 1700X was never meant to be a gaming CPU" don't believe that crap,dude.Use it as you  want.

[3 Lions]

Just now, Zaki_Owais said:

"The 1700X was never meant to be a gaming CPU" don't believe that crap,dude.Use it as you  want.

I'm only telling the truth, you can't argue with the truth. 

[App4that]

Guy/Gals

 

I know the intent of the 1700X, I use it for that and oh my god is it worth the money.

 

This is a gaming comparison. A somewhat weak 1700X up against a strong 4790k. This is for those like me that use their rig for both. 

[The Sloth]

5 minutes ago, Zaki_Owais said:

"The 1700X was never meant to be a gaming CPU" don't believe that crap,dude.Use it as you  want.

lets get some 44 core Xeons to test out your theory. different CPUs specialize in different things. 

here a ryzen cpu getting close to a 7700k in gaming, while having a better minimum. 

[FakeNSA]

1 minute ago, Zaki_Owais said:

"The 1700X was never meant to be a gaming CPU" don't believe that crap,dude.Use it as you  want.

However, this is why the 4790k gave superior fps. Because it was designed as a single thread processing beast.

[LooneyJuice]

Honestly, I wouldn't be fussed about the min/max numbers. Take Haswell-E or Broadwell-E even compared to Devil's Canyon and up, especially when overclocked. You're just investing in more raw processing power. Now, that may help when it comes to general fluidity, but it's mostly an asset if you're encoding, working on vid production and the like. I'd say this is pretty reasonable considering you're comparing to an OC'd 4790k. Not to mention everyone being up in arms regarding the mystical "CPU bottlenecking". Bottlenecking imo implies an impedance according to a certain flow rate. I.E. you need a target framerate for reference. If you can do as much or more than what your panel can output, or what you really need, I don't really see the problem.

[Guest]

Curious: why did you get the X?

[UglyDuckiling]

4.1ghz on the non X version, can you not go any higher?

[imreloadin]

6 minutes ago, LinusTechTipsFanFromDarlo said:

The 1700X was never meant to be a gaming CPU, it was designed for content creation hence the 8 cores and 16 threads. 

What confuses me is that the quality of the gameplay with the 1700X went up compared to the 4790K. The FPS was higher with the 4790K but the quality was less. Frames per second doesn't do much if it's causing weird artifacts or is a bitchy mess in my opinion...

[Zaki_Owais]

3 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

lets get some 44 cores xeons to test out your theory. different CPUs specialize in different things. 

here a ryzen cpu getting close to a 7700k in gaming, while having a better minimum. 

I have a 7700k.You broke my heart,dude

[App4that]

1 minute ago, deXxterlab97 said:

Curious: why did you get the X?

Was 10 bucks more than the 1700 so spent the 10 bucks.

 

1 minute ago, UglyDuckiling said:

4.1ghz on the non X version, can you not go any higher?

Nope, gave up at 1.4v. Just an unlucky pull. But at 3.8 I haven't found the basement of voltage yet, 

[Princess Luna]

6 minutes ago, LinusTechTipsFanFromDarlo said:

I'm only telling the truth, you can't argue with the truth. 

That is the same silly thing as saying you can not game on a Quadro P6000, just because something wasn't designed precisely for a task it doesn't mean it can not operate fine enough on such task.

 

@App4that after that 100+ personal feed talk you end up not tagging me too I feel excluded now.

 

Anyways your fidings are pretty much line up with mine, the 1800x is a tiny behind the 7700 in fps at all games tested but destroys the 7700 on sony vegas and other heavy multi-threaded applications.

 

Both are excellent processors but ryzen takes the lead since it offers a bit more functionality in the end.

[App4that]

Just now, Princess Cadence said:

That is the same silly thing as saying you can not game on a Quadro P6000, just because something wasn't designed precisely for a task it doesn't mean it can not operate fine enough on such task.

 

@App4that after that 100+ personal feed talk you end up not tagging me too I feel excluded now.

 

Anyways your fidings are pretty much line up with mine, the 1800x is a tiny behind the 7700 in fps at all games tested but destroys the 7700 on sony vegas and other heavy multi-threaded applications.

 

Both are excellent processors but ryzen takes the lead since it offers a bit more functionality in the end.

Sorry, just tagged a few that asked me to today. Blame my memory leak. 

[The Sloth]

Just now, Zaki_Owais said:

I have a 7700k.You broke my heart,dude

not really, different CPUs have different roles, comparing a gaming focus CPU( very high IPC) to a 8 core monster seems bit unfair, since ryzen beat the i7 7700k at everything other than gaming, OP did this test to show the improvements ryzen had with updates. the 7700k still is the best all around consumer CPU for now, especially for pure gaming focus builds. i must admit, i am really excited for the future, hopefully, everyone can have a good 6 or 8 core cpu for cheap. 

[Zaki_Owais]

3 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

not really, different CPUs have different roles, comparing a gaming focus CPU( very high IPC) to a 8 core monster seems bit unfair, since ryzen beat the i7 7700k at everything other than gaming, OP did this test to show the improvements ryzen had with updates. the 7700k still is the best all around consumer CPU for now, especially for pure gaming focus builds. i must admit, i am really excited for the future, hopefully, everyone can have a good 6 or 8 core cpu for cheap. 

You fixed my heart,dude

[App4that]

1 minute ago, nerdslayer1 said:

not really, different CPUs have different roles, comparing a gaming focus CPU( very high IPC) to a 8 core monster seems bit unfair, since ryzen beat the i7 7700k at everything other than gaming, OP did this test to show the improvements ryzen had with updates. the 7700k still is the best all around consumer CPU for now, especially for pure gaming focus builds. i must admit, i am really excited for the future, hopefully, everyone can have a good 6 or 8 core cpu for cheap. 

+100 right here^

 

I named my build T-Rex, because it is. Compared to the 4790k which is small and fast, the 1700X is a lumbering giant, why I'm not heart broken about the overclocking bad luck. Put something in the jaws of the 1700X, and you'll understand

[MEC-777]

50 minutes ago, App4that said:

The texture flickering, gone. The shimmering, all but gone. So I'm left scratching my head on this one. 

This is what I find most interesting. Mainly because of the existence of this long-lived thread...

 

 

[App4that]

1 minute ago, MEC-777 said:

This is what I find most interesting. Mainly because of the existence of this long-lived thread...

 

 

I know, I made fun of them too. I shouldn't have. I can't explain the difference, in Deus Ex the game just looks, deeper. More real. I really thought I had hit a unwanted setting because of how it looked and the fps. 

 

Also how applications open and especially close it way better. I can't wait to see if some issues I've had with VR are resolved. Honestly more important to me than the overclocking that doesn't do anything for productivity.

[3 Lions]

33 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

That is the same silly thing as saying you can not game on a Quadro P6000, just because something wasn't designed precisely for a task it doesn't mean it can not operate fine enough on such task.

I didn't say the 1700X couldn't game, I said that it wasn't really designed for gaming. 

[App4that]

Just now, LinusTechTipsFanFromDarlo said:

I didn't say the 1700X couldn't game, I said that it wasn't really designed for gaming. 

Look at it this way. The 4790k is a Mustang, the 1700X a F250. No one expects a F250 to beat a Mustang in a race, just getting close is impressive.