[Newbie question] Intel i7 7700 or Ryzen 7 1700

[xsimplyjosh]

Newbie question but my first post, LTT seems like a friendly and critical community to ask this question.  

What do I intend to use the computer for: equal parts 50% workstation 50% gaming. Workstation involves lightroom/photoshop as i do photography. Videography also i use adobe premiere pro cc. Gaming. I play counter strike GO, League of Legends, Dota2, mass effect on maxed out settings... [Edit: looking at more games later on in future primarily fps based]
Reason why i said equal parts is i don't relatively lean towards one side or the other too much as I feel the way I operate the computer seems balanced between the two of them.

 

Currently I have a gtx 1080 asus on shipment. and I'm upgrading from my 1st built pc [i5 3550, 16GB ram ddr3 1.6GHz] to a new one and im upgrading part by part. First GPU then PSU [nonmodular to modular. god i hate nonmodular setups willing to pay extra cost for that added benefit of tidyness]

 

Given the two CPU chips advertised above in the title, I'm allowing this thread to attract a lot of comments/criticisms/etc these chips are very competitively priced near to each other [Ryzen 7 1700 @ 439aud, intel i7 7700 [non K] @ 429aud from where i live. So the difference from a skeletal perspective doesnt look like alot +/- 10$, however I've been using intel in the past and I'm unsure of ryzen as i've never touch based on AMD platforms before as a whole.

Budget isn't an issue, it's my 2nd upgrade and i would like to go further on a more improved setup.

 

ideally i want the computer to last around 10 years or so if at best but at 6-8 years is technically still okay. i dont really play the yearly upgrade game as it will be too expensive for such investment*

 

so...

Which of these chips is better for my purposes described above? because i'm stuck in this dilemma. Essentially which chip is suitable will also dictate my motherboard and ram [which is relatively easy to pick since they use new ddr4 and new chipsets iirespectively].

 

skeleton of my upcoming build:

ram: typically 16GB ddr4, 2133-3000MHz depending on which price cheapest but not an issue.

cpu: above

gpu: asus strix 1080 11GBps variant [Not the Ti] [on shipment]

psu: 750w 80+ plat

case: n/a

monitor: most likely a 1440p144Hz monitor at a nice price. haven't seen much use with 4k as of yet as for production i feel is sufficient with 1080p. but might consider later on.

mobo: [depends on cpu choice as above]

storage: sorted, using old ones since they still function well after 6 years+ and no need to buy more.

 

any help/criticism/comments is seriously welcomed. Thank you.

 

- Josh

[Dodgeyou]

If you doing anything more then gaming, as you said above, the Ryzen 1700 will be much better of a choice 

[LienusLateTips]

RYZEN 7!!!!

OC too.

[xitywampas]

With Adobe Premier more everything is better. More cores, more clock, more RAM, more SSD. It just depends on your budget and what parts you already have.

[Guest]

Ryzen 

[Cyracus]

get the 1700, a decent b350 mobo (or x370 if you intend to sli at some point) and 3000+ MHz ram because it really affects ryzens performance. Also AMD has committed to am4 for the consumer product line for 4 years so there should be an upgrade path available vs intel who likes to change their socket every couple years

[sazrocks]

*sigh* Everyone here just recommending ryzen without looking at the programs. It pains me to say so, but for your purposes, the 7700k (not the 7700.) might actually be better. I would check out these awesome benchmarks by Puget systems, and evaluate which is better for you based on what settings and tools you use.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-2017-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-907/

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-CC-2015-8-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-910/

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CC-2017-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-909/

A word of warning, however. These benchmarks are from now. It is very possible that adobe might update their software to utilize many cores properly, at which point a 1700 would likely pull ahead. Also, games are beginning to utilize many cores more and more. However, it is hard to say where this will bring us in 5 years, let alone 10. And besides that, IMHO 10 years is unrealistic to expect out of a computer, especially one with only a top end consumer processor. It is up to you whether you wan the extra future proofing (1700), or the immediate not-insignificant performance bump from fewer faster cores (7700k).

[Microsoft Master]

5 minutes ago, sazrocks said:

*sigh* Everyone here just recommending ryzen without looking at the programs. It pains me to say so, but for your purposes, the 7700k (not the 7700.) might actually be better. I would check out these awesome benchmarks by Puget systems, and evaluate which is better for you based on what settings and tools you use.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-2017-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-907/

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-CC-2015-8-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-910/

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CC-2017-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-909/

A word of warning, however. These benchmarks are from now. It is very possible that adobe might update their software to utilize many cores properly, at which point a 1700 would likely pull ahead. Also, games are beginning to utilize many cores more and more. However, it is hard to say where this will bring us in 5 years, let alone 10. And besides that, IMHO 10 years is unrealistic to expect out of a computer, especially one with only a top end consumer processor. It is up to you whether you wan the extra future proofing (1700), or the immediate not-insignificant performance bump from fewer faster cores (7700k).

I agree because intel is more efficently at doing mulit-tasking and no one realises what there looking for by factoring in everything.

[sazrocks]

Just now, Microsoft Master said:

I agree because intel is more efficently at doing mulit-tasking and no one realises what there looking for by factoring in everything.

What? Ryzen is far better at multitasking than a 7700k

[LienusLateTips]

8 minutes ago, sazrocks said:

*sigh* Everyone here just recommending ryzen without looking at the programs. It pains me to say so, but for your purposes, the 7700k (not the 7700.) might actually be better. I would check out these awesome benchmarks by Puget systems, and evaluate which is better for you based on what settings and tools you use.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-2017-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-907/

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-CC-2015-8-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-910/

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CC-2017-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-909/

A word of warning, however. These benchmarks are from now. It is very possible that adobe might update their software to utilize many cores properly, at which point a 1700 would likely pull ahead. Also, games are beginning to utilize many cores more and more. However, it is hard to say where this will bring us in 5 years, let alone 10. And besides that, IMHO 10 years is unrealistic to expect out of a computer, especially one with only a top end consumer processor. It is up to you whether you wan the extra future proofing (1700), or the immediate not-insignificant performance bump from fewer faster cores (7700k).

 

Just now, Microsoft Master said:

I agree because intel is more efficently at doing mulit-tasking and no one realises what there looking for by factoring in everything.

Adobe has always been more single threaded. What do you expect?

[xitywampas]

6 minutes ago, sazrocks said:

*sigh* Everyone here just recommending ryzen without looking at the programs. It pains me to say so, but for your purposes, the 7700k (not the 7700.) might actually be better. I would check out these awesome benchmarks by Puget systems, and evaluate which is better for you based on what settings and tools you use.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-2017-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-907/

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-CC-2015-8-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-910/

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CC-2017-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-909/

A word of warning, however. These benchmarks are from now. It is very possible that adobe might update their software to utilize many cores properly, at which point a 1700 would likely pull ahead. Also, games are beginning to utilize many cores more and more. However, it is hard to say where this will bring us in 5 years, let alone 10. And besides that, IMHO 10 years is unrealistic to expect out of a computer, especially one with only a top end consumer processor. It is up to you whether you wan the extra future proofing (1700), or the immediate not-insignificant performance bump from fewer faster cores (7700k).

Intel is better in Adobe Premier right now. Maybe not in the future. And there is other software. That's the problem. But not everyone is getting the same results

https://www.pugetsystems.com/pic_disp.php?id=41990&width=800&height=800

They have the Intel's blazing away at 40% higher.

 

This guy shows way less difference in Premier and shows a dramatic advantage for the 1800x in some other software.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGDf_iKp03s

 

This is a time of uncertainty in CPU selection and everyone has a favorite. So like I said.  You want lots of cores, high clocks and lots of RAM. That's the important part. You decide $450 8 core HT @4.0Ghz+ or $350 4 core HT @4.2Ghz+. That's your best choices unless you want to add several hundred for a better Intel.

 

 

[LienusLateTips]

Here's my POV of this. I use this graph in general:

 

To add onto that, I recommend 7th Generation Intel® Core i7 Processors for Adobe.

[xitywampas]

4 minutes ago, JDE said:

Here's my POV of this. I use this graph in general:

 

To add onto that, I recommend 7th Generation Intel® Core i7 Processors for Adobe.

I love it. And I agree.

[LienusLateTips]

1 hour ago, xitywampas said:

I love it. And I agree.

It was on AMD's Twitter a couple of days ago. Love how they admit Intel is better in some situations.

[mapegl]

37 minutes ago, JDE said:

It was on AMD's Twitter a couple of days ago. Love how they admit Intel is better in some situations.

They are aware of what they made and proud of it. AND being honest about the performance people can expect is a good move. Nobody will be extremely disappointed or anything like that. 

 

I mean I know that my 1600 wasnt an upgrade for gaming compared to my previous i5, but I shine in productivity now....well my cpu shines. I shine while celebrating the performance.  

[xsimplyjosh]

Wow just came back , thank you for all the suggestion and opinions I am slowly reading them one by one & will reply to each [if needed].

Just goes to show there's more than what meets the eyes.

[xsimplyjosh]

3 hours ago, Dodgeyou said:

If you doing anything more then gaming, as you said above, the Ryzen 1700 will be much better of a choice 

i think is more of a balance between the two purposes [Productivity/Gaming] ... thats my issue... i will still Have a bit of time to tinker, because im essentially going this upgrade cycle step path one step at a time not all at one go...

gpu > monitor > Cpu/mobo/ram [all in 1 go since i see it as 1 entire block]... so this allows me abit of time to read more. but i really appreciate everyones input in time, i don't want to say one person is wrong because they all help me in this short time duration and each opinion is valauble.

 

3 hours ago, Cyracus said:

get the 1700, a decent b350 mobo (or x370 if you intend to sli at some point) and 3000+ MHz ram because it really affects ryzens performance. Also AMD has committed to am4 for the consumer product line for 4 years so there should be an upgrade path available vs intel who likes to change their socket every couple years

Yea I don't follow the socket changing game every year so I'm bound to be stuck to the one processor for 6-7 years minimum... i mean i managed to survive on ivybridge for this long  .

 

3 hours ago, sazrocks said:

*sigh* Everyone here just recommending ryzen without looking at the programs. It pains me to say so, but for your purposes, the 7700k (not the 7700.) might actually be better. I would check out these awesome benchmarks by Puget systems, and evaluate which is better for you based on what settings and tools you use.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-2017-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-907/

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-CC-2015-8-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-910/

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CC-2017-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-909/

A word of warning, however. These benchmarks are from now. It is very possible that adobe might update their software to utilize many cores properly, at which point a 1700 would likely pull ahead. Also, games are beginning to utilize many cores more and more. However, it is hard to say where this will bring us in 5 years, let alone 10. And besides that, IMHO 10 years is unrealistic to expect out of a computer, especially one with only a top end consumer processor. It is up to you whether you wan the extra future proofing (1700), or the immediate not-insignificant performance bump from fewer faster cores (7700k).

interesting looking at this now... [i will update this reply when i have gone thru it.] Yea I did edit my original post 10 years would be amazing if i can even get up to that, it was just some wording by my mistake and I was aware of it...

 

1 hour ago, JDE said:

It was on AMD's Twitter a couple of days ago. Love how they admit Intel is better in some situations.

thats the thing, if a processor was so ideal that it'd fit everyone's need without having a certain compromise there wouldn't be this [dillema that im facing] today but i like that graph, did see it a few days ago... but the 2nd one was amazing considering amd's 1800x is 1/2 the price of a 6900k here o_o [In Australia]

Edited June 22, 2017 by xsimplyjosh
Added abit of extras, grammar correction

[Asiram]

Trusting AMD/Intel slides and using them as reference to actual performance is the worst thing you could have done. Read real world benchmarks, not the false advertisement by each companies.

[xitywampas]

1 minute ago, Asiram said:

Trusting AMD/Intel slides and using them as reference to actual performance is the worst thing you could have done. Read real world benchmarks, not the false advertisement by each companies.

That graph was just a ending note to a long discussion.