Gaming PC CPU

[Perismaz]

Hey guys! I wanna build a gaming PC this summer and im between a 1700 ryzen or a 7600k-7700k. I mainly gaming i dont render videos and im not a content creator. Will games in the future run better to a CPU with more cores and threads or the 7700k is a nobrainer? Take in mind that i will now change my CPU again for about 5 years. I would like to hear answers with a proper argument. 

[RadiatingLight]

for games, the 7700K is better, however, it's almost always worth it to get a Ryzen 5 1600, which is cheaper, and getting a better GPU, as neither the 1600 or 7700K will bottleneck any modern GPUs. (other than maybe 1080Ti at 1080p, but that's unreasonable anyway)

[HKZeroFive]

Games prefer fewer, faster cores and I'd expect that trend to continue for the next few years.

 

There's something called Amdahl's Law which essentially says more cores doesn't necessarily equate to better performance... or in other words, performance doesn't scale linearly with more cores and it's more so a case of diminishing returns. So by the time performance does scale linearly, both processors will be irrelevant.

 

So no, the R7 1700 won't magically surpass the i7-7700K when it comes to gaming performance. Hence, why I would pick the i7-7700K.

[MaxBunny]

5 minutes ago, Perismaz said:

Hey guys! I wanna build a gaming PC this summer and im between a 1700 ryzen or a 7600k-7700k. I mainly gaming i dont render videos and im not a content creator. Will games in the future run better to a CPU with more cores and threads or the 7700k is a nobrainer? Take in mind that i will now change my CPU again for about 5 years. I would like to hear answers with a proper argument. 

See http://wccftech.com/intel-i7-7700k-owners-flood-forums-with-overheating-complaints/

 

If you're running the 7700k at stock then there's no reason to get it over a Ryzen. It's kind of a flop for a desktop processor and broadwell/coffee-lake are preferable to it, albeit at a much more unreasonable cost.

[RadiatingLight]

Just to clarify, the 1700 isn't better than the 1600 in games, since games don't use more than 6c/12t anyway.

[Perismaz]

5 minutes ago, RadiatingLight said:

Just to clarify, the 1700 isn't better than the 1600 in games, since games don't use more than 6c/12t anyway.

1700 has a higher clock though. so its better for games

 

[RadiatingLight]

1 minute ago, Perismaz said:

1700 has a higher clock though. so its better for games

 

Ryzen 7 1700 - 3.0Ghz base clock, 3.7 Ghz boost clock

Ryzen 5 1600 - 3.2Ghz base clock - 3.6 Ghz boost clock.

Although the boost is higher on the 1700, the base is higher on the 1600, and these differences are negligible anyway. if you get either of these CPUs, it's very wise to overclock to 3.9Ghz anyway.

[Perismaz]

3 minutes ago, RadiatingLight said:

Ryzen 7 1700 - 3.0Ghz base clock, 3.7 Ghz boost clock

Ryzen 5 1600 - 3.2Ghz base clock - 3.6 Ghz boost clock.

Although the boost is higher on the 1700, the base is higher on the 1600, and these differences are negligible anyway. if you get either of these CPUs, it's very wise to overclock to 3.9Ghz anyway.

so, 1600,1700,7600k or 7700k ?

[Brooksie359]

7 minutes ago, Perismaz said:

1700 has a higher clock though. so its better for games

 

Base and boost don't mean squat. You need to overclock the cpus to get the full potential anyways. That is honestly the main reason ryzen is such a good cpu is because they all are overclockable and come with a nice cpu cooler.

[Brooksie359]

3 minutes ago, Perismaz said:

so, 1600,1700,7600k or 7700k ?

I'd say either the 7700k or the 1600. The 1700 is a great cpu but it wouldn't really help for gaming. The two extra cores won't really hurt but it's kinda a waste of money unless you need 8 cores like me.

[Perismaz]

1 minute ago, Brooksie359 said:

I'd say either the 7700k or the 1600. The 1700 is a great cpu but it wouldn't really help for gaming. The two extra cores won't really hurt but it's kinda a waste of money unless you need 8 cores like me.

i dont need them thats the truth, but i some ppl say that in the future games will use more cores and threads. and im not sure what to do

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, Perismaz said:

i dont need them thats the truth, but i some ppl say that in the future games will use more cores and threads. and im not sure what to do

Most benchmarks show that dx 12 and other apis don't gain anything from more than 6 cores 12 threads. That being said if you wanted to play a really cpu intensive game while doing something else on another monitor the 2 extra cores would be beneficial. I mean the if you have the money and don't mind spending more you can go with the 1700 and it will help if you want to multitask while playing cpu intensive games. But I mean really cpu intensive games because the 1600 can already multitask. Honestly getting 2 more cores for the price difference between the 1600 and the 1700 isn't a bad deal.

[Brooksie359]

8 minutes ago, Perismaz said:

i dont need them thats the truth, but i some ppl say that in the future games will use more cores and threads. and im not sure what to do

Also the 7700k is still the best if you are purely gaming. That may change with dx 12 but nobody knows for sure. If you aren't going for high fps you won't see a difference between the 7700k and the 1600 and 1700

[RadiatingLight]

29 minutes ago, Perismaz said:

so, 1600,1700,7600k or 7700k ?

the 7700K is the best CPU on that list, but the 1600 is not far behind in gaming, and realistically won't bottleneck anything unless you're gaming at 144Hz+

I'd recommend the 1600, so you can use the $120+ you saved by getting it to upgrade your GPU.

1600 + 1080 > 7700K + 1070

1600 + 1080Ti > 7700K + 1080

Etc.

[Cyracus]

the 4core 4thread i5 is a relic, the 7700k may have temperature issues if you don't opt to delid and replace the tim, but it is currently the king for gaming cpus, the 1600 is the spot to go with ryzen if gaming is the only goal, the x varients are just factory OC'd chips you can easily match with their non-x variants. And games are shifting toward using more cores/threads, but the 7700k (and ryzen for that matter) is extremely unlikely to become useless in a few years, for example a 2600k with a good OC is still a very capable gaming chip

[RadiatingLight]

28 minutes ago, Perismaz said:

i dont need them thats the truth, but i some ppl say that in the future games will use more cores and threads. and im not sure what to do

The main competition here is between the 1600 and 7700K

 

Ryzen 5 1600:

Pros:

• Cheaper
• 6 Cores
• Comes with a cooler
• Motherboard is cheaper

Cons:

• Weaker single core performance compared to an OC'ed 7700K
  • 4Ghz is top OC
  • Broadwell level IPC - gets beat by skylake by a few percent
  • Single core performance ends up similar to a 7700 (no OC) but gets easily beaten in purely single threaded apps by the 7700K @ 4.9-5Ghz
• RAM Overclocking difficulties before AGESA 1.0.0.6 - Still some lingering issues with 3Ghz+ clocks

 

Intel 7700K

Pros:

• Very fast single core performance
  • Better IPC than Ryzen by a few percents
  • up to 5Ghz overclock.
  • Single core performance ends up being >25% better
• Mature platform

Cons:

• more expensive
• motherboard is more expensive
• doesn't come with a cooler

 

Your choice - I'd highly recommend the Ryzen 5 1600

[Nena Trinity]

For a short term CPU the i7 is better but for the future I would pick R5 since it has more cores!

[Perismaz]

On 18/6/2017 at 11:01 AM, RadiatingLight said:

The main competition here is between the 1600 and 7700K

 

Ryzen 5 1600:

Pros:

• Cheaper
• 6 Cores
• Comes with a cooler
• Motherboard is cheaper

Cons:

• Weaker single core performance compared to an OC'ed 7700K
  • 4Ghz is top OC
  • Broadwell level IPC - gets beat by skylake by a few percent
  • Single core performance ends up similar to a 7700 (no OC) but gets easily beaten in purely single threaded apps by the 7700K @ 4.9-5Ghz
• RAM Overclocking difficulties before AGESA 1.0.0.6 - Still some lingering issues with 3Ghz+ clocks

 

Intel 7700K

Pros:

• Very fast single core performance
  • Better IPC than Ryzen by a few percents
  • up to 5Ghz overclock.
  • Single core performance ends up being >25% better
• Mature platform

Cons:

• more expensive
• motherboard is more expensive
• doesn't come with a cooler

 

Your choice - I'd highly recommend the Ryzen 5 1600

sorry for the late answer but i had some buiseness to do. Thanks for ur time and effort.
I think i will buy a 1600 or 1600x
do they have any difference? i will manually oc them anyway to 3.9 at least.
also should i choose the cheaper b350 or a x370 mb? I wont sli or crossfire, and all i want to know if there is any difference in oc among these two cheapsets. Sorry for my english btw. 

[RadiatingLight]

6 minutes ago, Perismaz said:

sorry for the late answer but i had some buiseness to do. Thanks for ur time and effort.
I think i will buy a 1600 or 1600x
do they have any difference? i will manually oc them anyway to 3.9 at least.
also should i choose the cheaper b350 or a x370 mb? I wont sli or crossfire, and all i want to know if there is any difference in oc among these two cheapsets. Sorry for my english btw. 

1600X is a factory overclocked 1600.

if you're OC'ing manually, there's no reason to get the 1600X

(although @MageTank mentioned something about the IMC being different IIRC, so maybe check in with him)

B350 and X370 boards, chipset wise, OC the same. however, B350 boards are more low-end, and in turn have less phases, leading to less stable power deliver. it has nothing to do with the chipset, but everything to do with the premium-ness of the board (premium boards have the X370 chipset anyway) however, Ryzen doesn't really guzzle power, so a good B350 board will definitely take you to 3.9Ghz.

the only boards I'd recommend avoiding are the ultra-low-end B350 boards, some of which are simply an A320 with a different chipset (so shitty overclocking)

[Ordinarily_Greater]

On June 18, 2017 at 2:24 PM, RadiatingLight said:

Ryzen 7 1700 - 3.0Ghz base clock, 3.7 Ghz boost clock

Ryzen 5 1600 - 3.2Ghz base clock - 3.6 Ghz boost clock.

Although the boost is higher on the 1700, the base is higher on the 1600, and these differences are negligible anyway. if you get either of these CPUs, it's very wise to overclock to 3.9Ghz anyway.

Is it true that more cores on a cPU makes it harder to overclock?

[Ordinarily_Greater]

On June 18, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Perismaz said:

Hey guys! I wanna build a gaming PC this summer and im between a 1700 ryzen or a 7600k-7700k. I mainly gaming i dont render videos and im not a content creator. Will games in the future run better to a CPU with more cores and threads or the 7700k is a nobrainer? Take in mind that i will now change my CPU again for about 5 years. I would like to hear answers with a proper argument. 

Surprises will come, either games needing more cores and threads, we will be surprised when some games need 980Ti as minimum requirements. And we can not guess and totally sure if our guessing is right.

[RadiatingLight]

7 hours ago, Ordinarily_Greater said:

Is it true that more cores on a cPU makes it harder to overclock?

Depends.

since Ryzen uses seprate CCXs, it shouldn't change anything

for intel though, it is harder to get a higher OC on a monolithic die.

[Ordinarily_Greater]

1 minute ago, RadiatingLight said:

Depends.

since Ryzen uses seprate CCXs, it shouldn't change anything

for intel though, it is harder to get a higher OC on a monolithic die.

But can intel i5-6600K surpass Ryzen 5 1600 3.8GHz while the intel in 4.5 GHz?

[RadiatingLight]

3 minutes ago, Ordinarily_Greater said:

But can intel i5-6600K surpass Ryzen 5 1600 3.8GHz while the intel in 4.5 GHz?

no

7600K was at 4.7 in this vid

 

[Ordinarily_Greater]

5 minutes ago, RadiatingLight said:

no

7600K was at 4.7 in this vid

 

 The ryzen seems relaxing since it is only 50% of use in witcher three