1700 or 7700K for Gaming?

[W-L]

Thread cleaned, keep things strictly on topic or move things along. 

 

[App4that]

2 hours ago, Lt.Speirs said:

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...

How is it a hyperbole when it's true? A 1600 is better everywhere than a 7600k, a 1700 is better everywhere than a 7700k. If you want Optane, buy Intel. If you like Intel, buy Intel. It's your money.

 

But facts are facts Bro. 

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

Just now, App4that said:

How is it a hyperbole when it's true? A 1600 is better everywhere than a 7600k, a 1700 is better everywhere than a 7700k. If you want Optane, buy Intel. If you like Intel, buy Intel. It's your money.

 

But facts are facts Bro. 

ok but no. just no. ive been on your side, and id rather have a 1700 over a 7700, but no. the 7700k does not lose to the 1700 in all games.

[App4that]

Just now, Nickathom said:

ok but no. just no. ive been on your side, and id rather have a 1700 over a 7700, but no. the 7700k does not lose to the 1700 in all games.

Yes, that is true. But the graphics card will have more impact than a CPU. Hold both up as CPUs and the Ryzen win, for now. 

 

This is also purely at the same price point.

 

I was more commenting on the Hyperbole claim, which is false. 

[Lt.Speirs]

25 minutes ago, App4that said:

Yes, that is true. But the graphics card will have more impact than a CPU. Hold both up as CPUs and the Ryzen win, for now. 

 

This is also purely at the same price point.

 

I was more commenting on the Hyperbole claim, which is false. 

Nope.

 

Quote

How is it a hyperbole when it's true? A 1600 is better everywhere than a 7600k, a 1700 is better everywhere than a 7700k. If you want Optane, buy Intel. If you like Intel, buy Intel. It's your money.

 

Again, it's your word with no proof.

 

Definitely not everywhere else. I have no idea what you're on about here. Vectorizable tasks still perform better on intel with even half the cores. With 18 it'll be more than 2x better. With cannon-lake there will be avx512 which will only widen the gap making amd cpus for vectorizable tasks entirely irrelevant.

 

Claims ryzen is better across the board on everything. That's absolutely hilarious, mate.

 

 

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

Just now, Lt.Speirs said:

Again, it's your word with no proof.

 

 

Definitely not everywhere else. I have no idea what you're on about here. Vectorizable tasks still perform better on intel with even half the cores. With 18 it'll be more than 2x netter. With cannon-lake there will be avx512 which will only widen the gap making amd cpus for vectorizable tasks entirely irrelevant.

 

Claims ryzen is better across the board on everything. That's absolutely hilarious, mate.

 

 

it is kinda dumb that he said that, but ryzen is a better buy, even if it is worse in performance, which it isnt by far. the upgrade path and the better multitasking make up for it.

[App4that]

12 minutes ago, Lt.Speirs said:

Nope.

 

 

Again, it's your word with no proof.

 

Definitely not everywhere else. I have no idea what you're on about here. Vectorizable tasks still perform better on intel with even half the cores. With 18 it'll be more than 2x better. With cannon-lake there will be avx512 which will only widen the gap making amd cpus for vectorizable tasks entirely irrelevant.

 

Claims ryzen is better across the board on everything. That's absolutely hilarious, mate.

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Nickathom said:

it is kinda dumb that he said that, but ryzen is a better buy, even if it is worse in performance, which it isnt by far. the upgrade path and the better multitasking make up for it.

 

 

 

Hyperbole:exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

 

So can we be serious, should we continue to wave our dicks around until the mods come back?

 

[App4that]

I was very carefull to say that this is at the same pricepoint. The 18 core CPU that Intel hasn't even talked with their motherboard manufacturers is not at the same pricepoint as any Ryzen CPU. For that matter only the 7640k and 7740k are, two CPU that don't even use the features avalible on the motherboards you have to buy to use them.

 

At the same pricepoint, Ryzen performs better. 

 

If you have a counter example, make sure it's a recent one. Not the same old launch benchmarks that are not relevant. 

[Lt.Speirs]

3 hours ago, App4that said:

 

 

 

 

Hyperbole:exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

 

So can we be serious, should we continue to wave our dicks around until the mods come back?

 

Why are you quoting what it is? I'm not a simpleton, mate. People like you that have been saying Ryzen is superior in everything - those are hyperbolic statements. Please don't twist shit around for the sake of it.

 

Are you done? Because it's almost like you want to argue for the sake of arguing.

[App4that]

7 minutes ago, Lt.Speirs said:

Why are you quoting what is it? I'm not a simpleton, mate. People like you that have been saying Ryzen is superior in everything are hyperbolic statements. Please don't twist shit around for the sake of it.

Is saying Ryzen performs better at the same price point as Intels offering a hyperbole, no it's not. Why I included the deffinition so you could see it's not. I honestly shouldn't have to explain to you why it's not, so I won't.

 

Offer a counter example that's not outdated and is relevant. I can offer proof of the performance increases over improvements in bios. I'm more than happy to have an adult conversation with you, I tire of dick waving. 

 

Olive branch example.

 

Deus Ex Mankind Divided.

4790k @4.7GHz

DX11 with 2 980ti in SLI at 1440

62.9fps

 

My 1700X @3.8GHz (older bios)

60.8fps

@3.9GHz and 3333MHz RAM (Latest bios)

64fps

 

[Lt.Speirs]

3 hours ago, App4that said:

Is saying Ryzen performs better at the same price point as Intels offering a hyperbole, no it's not. Why I included the deffinition so you could see it's not. I honestly shouldn't have to explain to you why it's not, so I won't.

 

Offer a counter example that's not outdated and is relevant. I can offer proof of the performance increases over improvements in bios. I'm more than happy to have an adult conversation with you, I tire of dick waving. 

 

Olive branch example.

 

Deus Ex Mankind Divided.

4790k @4.7GHz

DX11 with 2 980ti in SLI at 1440

62.9fps

 

My 1700X @3.8GHz (older bios)

60.8fps

@3.9GHz and 3333MHz RAM (Latest bios)

64fps

 

It's your statements with zero proof. That's why I have a hard time believing such blatant bias. Do you have any nonpartisan sources? Something that isn't entirely anecdotal? If so, post them. Sample size matters because there's tons of variables involved. Most, if not all benchmarks out there were conducted long ago. You're obviously well aware of this - as am I... But I'm still not taking your "word" for it because that would be ridiculous.

 

Maybe once DF gets around to updating this video I'll be vindicated.

 

Personally: I don't have time, resources, hardware, nor the energy to conduct the tests myself. As far as I'm concerned, you're in the minority with such claims. You're basically implying AMD's IPC is superior which is completely false.

 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

I used to worry about upgrade path, then I realised my upgrade cycle was outside socket/cpu cycles anyway.  If you only upgrade every 5 years or more then upgrade path is not really a big deal.  

 

As far as which one to get, without a frame counter and/or side by side comparison you probably couldn't tell which one was in your system anyway so get the cheapest.  

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I used to worry about upgrade path, then I realised my upgrade cycle was outside socket/cpu cycles anyway.  If you only upgrade every 5 years or more then upgrade path is not really a big deal.  

 

As far as which one to get, without a frame counter and/or side by side comparison you probably couldn't tell which one was in your system anyway so get the cheapest.  

this is different. were talking a chip that is built of a process HALF the size of the current ryzens. they will be much better

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Nickathom said:

this is different. were talking a chip that is built of a process HALF the size of the current ryzens. they will be much better

Better than what though?  You can bet your arse there will be something different, bigger and better in 5 years time. There are no guarantees that am4 will have CPU's worth changing to and if they do there is no guarantee that it will be fully optimised on current day motherboards (just look at the am2 v AM2+ boards). Nor is their any guarantee that other tech (ram, ssd) won't change significantly enough to make it a bigger desire by then either. 

 

Personally my advice is always buy the best you can now and enjoy it now, no one knows what tomorrow will bring, especially not in the tech industry.  

[Lt.Speirs]

As I stated and expected all along.

 

Quote

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.

 

 

The most relevant and recent benchmarks I could find. It's not digital foundry but it's better than posting something anecdotal with zero proof to ones claims.

 

Quote

Ryzen performs better at the same price point as Intels offering

 

Sorry, you're still wrong. They trade blows.

 

@App4that Have at it!

 

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2017 by Lt.Speirs

[App4that]

14 hours ago, Lt.Speirs said:

As I stated and expected all along.

 

 

 

The most relevant and recent benchmarks I could find. It's not digital foundry but it's better than posting something anecdotal with zero proof to ones claims.

 

 

Sorry, you're still wrong. They trade blows.

 

@App4that 

 

Yeah until you see he was only at 2933MHz on the RAM. RAM doesn't mean much for Intel, it's everything to Ryzen. This is the improvement on bios I keep bringing up, I was stuck at 2933MHz too, until the lates bios. Now I'm at 3333MHz easy. That jump in RAM speed was where my fps jump up in every game. 

 

But you're not objective here, you proved it when you were looking to be "vindicated". You're looking to win an argument, not talk about hardware. 

[App4that]

3 minutes ago, edward30 said:

Ryzen's dependence on top tier ram kits is hardly a point in its favor... 

You don't need top tier RAM, just fast. 3200MHz kits are not expensive, and pretty much the norm. Overclocking past the XMP profile is where the latest bios help out. 

[Lt.Speirs]

43 minutes ago, App4that said:

Yeah until you see he was only at 2933MHz on the RAM. RAM doesn't mean much for Intel, it's everything to Ryzen. This is the improvement on bios I keep bringing up, I was stuck at 2933MHz too, until the lates bios. Now I'm at 3333MHz easy. That jump in RAM speed was where my fps jump up in every game. 

 

But you're not objective here, you proved it when you were looking to be "vindicated". You're looking to win an argument, not talk about hardware. 

Lol, of course... Just admit the fact that you were wrong in the first place, and move on. It's really not a big deal.

[App4that]

12 minutes ago, Lt.Speirs said:

Lol, of course... Just admit the fact that you were wrong in the first place, and move on. It's really not a big deal.

Wrong about what? 

 

Here, You don't seem like an idiot so this should clear things up.

 

I am not saying that for all Ryzen, Ryzen is better than Intel. I'm saying for some Ryzen, Ryzen is better than Intel so as to be able to call it better. 

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

On 6/7/2017 at 7:12 PM, edward30 said:

That doesn't make sense. The game can consume whatever it pleases (and hopefully the threading is done properly), because chrome is going to be negligible.

 

On 6/7/2017 at 7:05 PM, edward30 said:

Negligible difference. My CPU usage went from 5 to 6% with a 4k video, and those other 51 tabs will happily sit in the background idle.

yeah what? i have a 6400, basically an underclocked 7700 with no threads. since my cpu usage is low, the threads wouldnt matter. the tabs at the top are what you see in tas manager as well, i dont have any other tabs of chrome open.

[jjohnthedon1]

18 hours ago, App4that said:

Wrong about what? 

 

Here, You don't seem like an idiot so this should clear things up.

 

I am not saying that for all Ryzen, Ryzen is better than Intel. I'm saying for some Ryzen, Ryzen is better than Intel so as to be able to call it better. 

Can I bench you as we have very similar systems too see the difference in ram speed as I'm at 2933 and saw Benches  with 3600 that were only 2 fps higher

[App4that]

3 hours ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

Can I bench you as we have very similar systems too see the difference in ram speed as I'm at 2933 and saw Benches  with 3600 that were only 2 fps higher

Yeah, list the game and setting and I'll let you know if I have it. 

[jjohnthedon1]

3 hours ago, App4that said:

Yeah, list the game and setting and I'll let you know if I have it. 

Ok dude  

will be in the week sometime as the gf is coming down tomorrow 

[Goildzy]

On 6/8/2017 at 2:20 PM, SirFlamenco said:

Another AMD fanboy on damage control 

 

Lol those r all 1080p resolutions, get teched or go game again.

On 6/8/2017 at 9:22 PM, 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.

Same story as up.

On 6/8/2017 at 9:33 PM, 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/

 

 

 

Hello gamer.

On 6/8/2017 at 10:02 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.

 

 

 

 

 

"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

Source=Toms hardware=instant false information. I got banned for trolling there providing information that comes from years and years experience. TH seems to be very biased, and those results you post are different from what i see. Watch some real things dude, 

 

 

 

To answer the OP:

I see the madness broke loose. 

Ryzen is in any ways better than the 7700k. It maybe have a 5-10% gaming drawback in fps also in the low fps, on and below 1080P. 7700k Is a good choice on 1080p.

Still, would you care for numbers? Also, with a GTX 1080 you can easily game on 1440p+, this will be good for ryzen and closing the gap more. 

7700k is allready at max limits in heavy games, where ryzen despite the lower clockrate (1 GHZ!!!!!!!!!!!) has alot of headroom.

For some reason ppl love gaming on CPUS today and not GPU bound?!

I would advice you to use 16 gb ram tho its the new basic IMO. Ignore what other people say (they are gamers mostly). A nice set of 3k 3200 mhz will be sweet.

Also ignore people who deny that more cores is better. These are the same people that said:,, Why on earth do we ever need Dual cores. Why on earth do we ever need quad cores. Why on earth do we ever need 8 threads. Why on earth do we need ETC ETC.'' The point is they are wrong and you can check that by opening your eyes, all those nay sayers are now running quad cored 7700k's or 2500k or 6700k, you get my point.

 

An OC'ed 1700 would be my pick too! Keep in mind that Ryzen is a new chip, cheap too and delivers 5% less below 1080p (gaming wise) with almost 1-1,2 ghz less core speed. Also the 1151 socket is at his end. Be aware with older games etc, they prefer single threads more, or stuff like emulators, these simply arent optimised for Ryzen.

 

Ow and this guy here says:,, 7700k Opens things faster". But i dont get his point. My snapdragon 801 opens apps faster than my Apple SE yet my SE is ALOT FASTER than my 801. This is cause my 801 has a 2,5ghz processor but thats basicly all it does, opening apps faster. Great so i have no clue what his point is. 

Have fun building and dont cheap out around ur gtx1080.

[Goildzy]

On 6/10/2017 at 4:43 PM, jjohnthedon1 said:

Can I bench you as we have very similar systems too see the difference in ram speed as I'm at 2933 and saw Benches  with 3600 that were only 2 fps higher

Offtopic but......cool build   i love how you use the 980TI. Can you tell me bit bout your performance? Nice pick on the board and monitor! My build will be something like that with the 1080TI or whatever the future will bring this summer. How do you do at 1440p on heavy gaming? Lol why did u get the 1600 too? To test between both? JEEZ stop making me so curious.