1700 or 7700K for Gaming?

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

Just now, edward30 said:

The 1700 is supposed to be a great chip, and will apparently hit a 4Ghz stable overclock. And you get the cooler. It's a great choice. 

 

I didn't read what you said above the bit at the bottom until just now. That comes down to optimization. And it is 7700 > 7700k < 1700.

what? youre using <> wrong

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

Just now, edward30 said:

9 > 7... I use these symbols a lot, as a programmer.

 

https://www.mathsisfun.com/equal-less-greater.html

so the 7700 and the 1700 are better?

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

Just now, edward30 said:

For the vast majority of people.

no one is buying an enthusiast chip not to OC

[SpaceGhostC2C]

OP, you have to understand that your original question isn't complete. While people may like blanket statements (like "get CPU X to do Y"), not all gaming is created equal: which GPU and which monitor you are going to use matters as well. To a first approximation, you could say the best gaming CPU is the cheapest CPU that allows the GPU you are going to buy/already have to work at its full potential.

The problem is, you may have the best GPU and therefore get the fastest CPU in most games (it is important to notice that results vary from game to game), and still none will work at 100% because your monitor is 1080p 60Hz. I mean, technically you can get them to 100% by generating 1200 FPS that will never be displayed and enjoy the tear fest, but if the idea is to enjoy the experience then they will be idling a lot  

 

So, bottom line: what you need to consider instead is which CPU is the best for the gaming you are going to do, including not just the titles you are going to play, but especially the monitor (i.e., the resolution and refresh rate) you are going to use, and the GPU that you are going to pair it with.

For example, The Witcher 3 in 1440p 144Hz with a GTX 1080ti will be best served by an overclocked 7700K. But if you are playing the new Doom at 1080p with an RX 470, everythign beyond a 1600 is wasting your money, and probably even that is overkill. Hell, even at 120Hz you are still fine with almost anything  

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

OP, you have to understand that your original question isn't complete. While people may like blanket statements (like "get CPU X to do Y"), not all gaming is created equal: which GPU and which monitor you are going to use matters as well. To a first approximation, you could say the best gaming CPU is the cheapest CPU that allows the GPU you are going to buy/already have to work at its full potential.

The problem is, you may have the best GPU and therefore get the fastest CPU in most games (it is important to notice that results vary from game to game), and still none will work at 100% because your monitor is 1080p 60Hz. I mean, technically you can get them to 100% by generating 1200 FPS that will never be displayed and enjoy the tear fest, but if the idea is to enjoy the experience then they will be idling a lot  

 

So, bottom line: what you need to consider instead is which CPU is the best for the gaming you are going to do, including not just the titles you are going to play, but especially the monitor (i.e., the resolution and refresh rate) you are going to use, and the GPU that you are going to pair it with.

For example, The Witcher 3 in 1440p 144Hz with a GTX 1080ti will be best served by an overclocked 7700K. But if you are playing the new Doom at 1080p with an RX 470, everythign beyond a 1600 is wasting your money, and probably even that is overkill. Hell, even at 120Hz you are still fine with almost anything  

no, you would get almost no tears with 1200 as they would be coming so fast your eyes couldnt see the differences between the small tears on your monitor. 
also, he wants the long upgrade path as well as a futureproof cpu and the 7700k just doesnt offer that. it also has higher minimums in cpu intensive games.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 minute ago, Nickathom said:

no, you would get almost no tears with 1200 as they would be coming so fast your eyes couldnt see the differences between the small tears on your monitor. 

That's not how tearing works. Your eyes have nothign to do, as you are not changing the speed of what you show to them: it is still 60 FPS. The only problem is that each frame will be a combination of pieces of different frames, and pushing FPS like crazy will only make it worse, not better.

 

5 minutes ago, Nickathom said:

also, he wants the long upgrade path as well as a futureproof cpu and the 7700k just doesnt offer that. it also has higher minimums in cpu intensive games.

It truly seems you haven't read my post. Or maybe you are just not replying to it in this part  

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

Just now, SpaceGhostC2C said:

That's not how tearing works. Your eyes have nothign to do, as you are not changing the speed of what you show to them: it is still 60 FPS. The only problem is that each frame will be a combination of pieces of different frames, and pushing FPS like crazy will only make it worse, not better.

no, it will gather 2-3 frames that come back to back, and with so many, those frames will be almost identical. so the tears will be pretty much unnoticeable. 

[SirFlamenco]

10 hours ago, Nickathom said:

no... just no.
7700k has lower minimums, which, in most peoples opinion, is worse as the screen is not smooth. 

Another AMD fanboy on damage control 

 

[TheDankKoosh]

On 6/8/2017 at 7:20 AM, SirFlamenco said:

Another AMD fanboy on damage control 

This is featuring a top tier graphics card and it doesn't even show minimums.

[SirFlamenco]

1 hour ago, TheDankKoosh said:

This is featuring a top tier graphics card and it doesn't even show minimums.

I don't see why the gpu would be a problem... now that was irrelevant. Oh and for the minimum, well you can clearly see that the 7700k is always over anyways LOL.

[Lt.Speirs]

The best answer selected, lol... Just goes to show how ill-informed and biased some people are.

 

I guess the OP didn't check @Nickathom signature. "Proud AMD fanboi" (that alone should discredit everything he's said).

 

The TLDR answer - if you're on a tight budget and more concerned about gaming, an i5 will suffice. If your priority is video editing and you're on a budget, then AMD is the best path. IPC wise, AMD is still lagging behind intel (that's not me being biased, that's a fact).

 

"Quad-cores are now the mainstay of enthusiast PCs and for good reason, since many games still don't make use of more than four threads. As such, Intel's overclockable quad-cores, such as the Core i5-7600K, usually offer the best performance you'll see in games, and there are many other tasks that do benefit from having at least four physical cores.

It's important to remember too that a lot depends on the game code and how well it utilises more than one thread. A lot of the hype around Ryzen was people expecting AMD's new CPUs to offer big increases in frame rates, and they were to be disappointed. Ryzen has some very strong sweet spots, but in reality, games are rarely CPU-limited these days, so it's little wonder that for the mainstream, Intel has focussed on quad-cores for a long time."

 

https://www.bit-tech.net/blog/2017/05/16/why-intel-needs-a-six-core-mainstream-cpu/

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2017 by Lt.Speirs

[TheDankKoosh]

26 minutes ago, SirFlamenco said:

I don't see why the gpu would be a problem... now that was irrelevant. Oh and for the minimum, well you can clearly see that the 7700k is always over anyways LOL.

99.9% of people won't be using a top tier gpu and will have something more realistic (570 for instance) so the extra minimum frames will be much better over the slightly higher average.

[The Benjamins]

18 hours ago, woowie said:

what u doing boi, with 52 chrome tabs

 

I average at 100+ tabs open on about 2-4 chrome windows, I usually start closing a few at 180.

 

18 hours ago, edward30 said:

I should of qualified -- if you have 16GB of RAM. Those chrome tabs mean nothing to your gaming performance.

 

Chrome uses 8-16GB along sometimes, I have 32GB

[Lt.Speirs]

@Nickathom What were you saying about minimums again?

 

Stay classy, fanboy.. LTT would be better off without people spreading false info.

 

 

 

 

"The Ryzen processors sell for a much lower price than Intel's Broadwell-E-based CPUs, earning them solid marks in value comparisons using workstation-class software. This same value story isn't applicable in games, though, where much cheaper Intel Kaby Lake-based CPUs are typically as fast or faster. The $240 Core i5-7600K beat all three Ryzen CPUs in several games, and the $350 Core i7-7700K nearly swept the table.

 

To complicate matters, AMD and its motherboard partners still have a lot of work left to get Socket AM4 platforms running stably. But it's happening as fast as firmware updates can be finalized. The company's recent announcement that a new power plan is forthcoming shows promise as well, though this probably should have been finalized before launch. And it's not clear if a modified profile simply optimizes for Ryzen's idiosyncrasies at the expense of, say, power consumption, heat, and noise.

 

While we're happy to have Ryzen doing serious battle with Broadwell-E for the hearts and minds of content creators, coders, and other professionals, our assessment of the gaming space suggests Ryzen 7 isn't currently the processor family to beat. Intel's Kaby Lake-based CPUs are definitely less expensive, and typically faster. Perhaps a rash of patches will change the way existing games treat Ryzen. Maybe developers are already rolling optimizations into their upcoming titles. And we definitely have high expectations for the Ryzen 5 and 3 line-ups, which should level AMD's strengths against Intel's mainstream processors using more evenly matched prices."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-vs-intel-kaby-lake-gaming,4977.html

[TheDankKoosh]

On 6/8/2017 at 3:02 PM, Lt.Speirs said:

@Nickathom What were you saying about minimums again?

 

Stay classy, Fanboy.. Ltt would be better off without people spreading false info.

This was most likely pre-updated ryzen, also spreading hate because someone likes a company is a petty thing to do. He isn't stating false information.

[Lt.Speirs]

2 minutes ago, TheDankKoosh said:

This was most likely pre-updated ryzen, also spreading hate because someone likes a company is a petty thing to do. He isn't stating false information.

 

I'm not hating him for liking a company (more power to him). I'm hating because he's spreading misinformation when everyone out there who's done their due diligence is basically refuting and contradicting everything he says.

[TheDankKoosh]

8 minutes ago, Lt.Speirs said:

 

I'm not hating him for liking a company (more power to him). I'm hating because he's spreading misinformation when everyone out there who's done their due diligence is basically refuting and contradicting everything he says.

all in all ryzen will be the better choice due to upgrades being available till zen 3 and the (what have been proven by many youtubers at this point) better minimums (oc'd).

[Lt.Speirs]

1 minute ago, TheDankKoosh said:

all in all ryzen will be the better choice due to upgrades being available till zen 3 and the (what have been proven by many youtubers at this point) better minimums (oc'd).

Well, like nick - all you have is your word with nothing to show for it.

 

Yet - I remain skeptical. Link these "youtube videos" that you speak of and in return, I'll refrain from posting any further and admit I was wrong.

 

 

[The Benjamins]

26 minutes ago, edward30 said:

My point was that memory usage, assuming you have enough memory besides to load your game, isn't going to affect your game performance.

well it depends, videos and flash can take some CPU power away, but mostly it is ram based.

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

6 hours ago, Lt.Speirs said:

The best answer selected, lol... Just goes to show how ill-informed and biased some people are.

 

I guess the OP didn't check @Nickathom signature. "Proud AMD fanboi" (that alone should discredit everything he's said).

 

The TLDR answer - if you're on a tight budget and more concerned about gaming, an i5 will suffice. If your priority is video editing and you're on a budget, then AMD is the best path. IPC wise, AMD is still lagging behind intel (that's not me being biased, that's a fact).

 

"Quad-cores are now the mainstay of enthusiast PCs and for good reason, since many games still don't make use of more than four threads. As such, Intel's overclockable quad-cores, such as the Core i5-7600K, usually offer the best performance you'll see in games, and there are many other tasks that do benefit from having at least four physical cores.

It's important to remember too that a lot depends on the game code and how well it utilises more than one thread. A lot of the hype around Ryzen was people expecting AMD's new CPUs to offer big increases in frame rates, and they were to be disappointed. Ryzen has some very strong sweet spots, but in reality, games are rarely CPU-limited these days, so it's little wonder that for the mainstream, Intel has focussed on quad-cores for a long time."

 

https://www.bit-tech.net/blog/2017/05/16/why-intel-needs-a-six-core-mainstream-cpu/

 

 

 

am4 does have much, much longer upgrade path, and an your four thread quote was bs. there are tons of games that use more than 4 threads, and that is why even a 7700 is not optimal. the minimums on the 7700 are lower than the 1700 in games that use more than four threads. all of the benchmarks that show ryzen having lower mins in those games are using shit ram, which i guess is a downfall of ryzen, but not enough to discredit it. 

also, i have a 6402p (6400 clocked 100 mhz higher) and it is not enough for tons of games. im constantly pegged at over 90% in games like andromeda and gta, so saying that a 4 core is enough is bs. if a game uses all of a 4 core 4 thread, the performance will obviously be better on a 4/8 cpu, but not as good if you just had 6 or 8 actual cores. you obviously read my signature, so why did you say that?

Edited June 9, 2017 by W-L
Moderation

[jjohnthedon1]

This thread is jokes lol 

 

so I had a 4790k at 4.9ghz 

then a 1600 and now a 1700 at 4ghz

 

my 1600 and 1700 are getting the same fps as my 4790k was at 1440p 144hz with my sli 980tis oced

 

some games the frame rates are better on the 1700 example rise of the tomb raider 

144hz compared to 115 in the benchmark after the last patch

 

more importantly tho if you turn off all of the monitoring software hands on personal experience ryzen is so much more smoother and consistent than a 4/8core i7 

 

there is is a blind test somewhere on the internet where all partisapents picked the ryzen systems over intell due to smoothness

 

@App4that also has gone from a i7 to a r7 chip and il leave him to explain his experiences 

 

here are the tombraider benches 

[Techicolors]

40 minutes ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

here is is a blind test somewhere on the internet where all partisapents picked the ryzen systems over intell due to smoothness

are you talking about this one?

 

 

[jjohnthedon1]

On 6/8/2017 at 6:52 PM, Technicolors said:

are you talking about this one?

Yeah this one

they all clearly say about hitches on system 1 and 3 the intel cpus 

and that with all the fps stuff off there was no real difference

 

the stuff at the end is real important about the ryzen pluses over intell 

 

this info really speaks for its self 

op please watch and everyone else for they matter as it hits the nail on the head  

[i_build_nanosuits]

if only ryzen could clock 4.5ghz+ then it will settle the argument...but as it stand the 7700K is quite a bit better in games and i think in 3-5 years from now it'll still be better to be honest...

 

[Lt.Speirs]

AMD worked on their most recent patch specifically for RottR and upped the performance. That's why you chose this particular game as a benchmark (well played, sir). The one game that gets a recent performance update (as of may 30th iirc) for ryzen CPU's and that automatically takes precedence over every other game out there, right? No - that's not how this works. Gamers play games.

 

As I've already said many times already. Gaming performance is going to be entirely dependent on the game engine and code, so naturally - certain engines will favor ryzen, and others intel. When looking at performance per price some tasks are better suited to run on amd, while others on intel. People saying ryzen is better "everywhere" (to any direction) is pure hyperbole and disingenuous at best.

 

Intel HEDT will definitely have higher clocks than AMD's HEDT - so it's cores vs IPC+clocks once again. We all know how that turned out...