R7 1700 or i7 7700 non-K ?

[Princess Luna]

Just now, VWolv said:

yes i well aware of that, so maybe i will go with Flare X PC25600 and ASRock Fatal1ty AB350 Gaming K4 ?

Sounds decent enough to me

[Mister_Shots]

1 hour ago, VWolv said:

yes i well aware of that, so maybe i will go with Flare X PC25600 and ASRock Fatal1ty AB350 Gaming K4 ?

Try and get a X370 mobo for R7 1700 also, 2666-3000 MHz is great for ryzen.

[DocSwag]

7 hours ago, MyName13 said:

 

But we know that low clocks are because of crappy manufacturing process and it will certainly be improved with Zen 2.Besides, I keep seeing how Zen performs around 30% worse in some workloads and especially in gaming (clock for clock) when compared to sky/kaby/coffee lake so I wonder why some consider it's on haswell level in terms of performance.

Not necessarily. I have no doubt that glofo 14nm contributes to the lower clock speeds (it seems, in general that it is a lower clocking process than the competition), but the architecture probably also contributes to that (I have no doubt that if AMD built a CPU with as long a pipeline as bulldozer that Zen would clock much higher).

 

Where are you seeing this 30% worse at equivalent clocks?

[MyName13]

5 hours ago, DocSwag said:

Not necessarily. I have no doubt that glofo 14nm contributes to the lower clock speeds (it seems, in general that it is a lower clocking process than the competition), but the architecture probably also contributes to that (I have no doubt that if AMD built a CPU with as long a pipeline as bulldozer that Zen would clock much higher).

 

Where are you seeing this 30% worse at equivalent clocks?

In gaming there's sometimes even more than 30% difference, however I don't remember where I've seen that big difference in other workloads but I do know that r3 1200 performs like i3 7100 in most things, a quad core simply shouldn't perform like a dual core (even in blender).r3 1200 needs a 0.7 ghz overclock to have performance close to i5 7400 (3.8 ghz vs 3.0 ghz).It's also strange how r5 1600, with 6 cores working at 3.3 ghz, performs like a quad core i7 7700k (4 cores working at 4.4 ghz) in workloads that use all the cores.

[DocSwag]

5 hours ago, MyName13 said:

In gaming there's sometimes even more than 30% difference, however I don't remember where I've seen that big difference in other workloads but I do know that r3 1200 performs like i3 7100 in most things, a quad core simply shouldn't perform like a dual core (even in blender).r3 1200 needs a 0.7 ghz overclock to have performance close to i5 7400 (3.8 ghz vs 3.0 ghz).It's also strange how r5 1600, with 6 cores working at 3.3 ghz, performs like a quad core i7 7700k (4 cores working at 4.4 ghz) in workloads that use all the cores.

But these aren't clock for clock comparisons...

 

This isn't strange at all. The 1200 needs the OC because otherwise the 7400 has a 27% clock speed boost. The 1600 needs the OC because otherwise the 7700k has a 33% clock speed boost which lets it make up for the fact that it has 33% less cores.

[MyName13]

25 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

But these aren't clock for clock comparisons...

 

This isn't strange at all. The 1200 needs the OC because otherwise the 7400 has a 27% clock speed boost. The 1600 needs the OC because otherwise the 7700k has a 33% clock speed boost which lets it make up for the fact that it has 33% less cores.

But 7400 has 3.3 GHz all core boost, that's not 27% (that would be 3.8 ghz),in that case the difference is 15% (3.8 vs 3.3) which is probably the difference in IPC.I completely forgot the turbo boost.According to TPU, r5 1600 performs maybe few percent better than i7 7700k (4.4 ghz all core boost) at 3.8 ghz or the same, this is strange.r5 can do far more cycles (23% more) in a second than the i7 and yet it performs the same.

[DocSwag]

Just now, MyName13 said:

But 7400 has 3.3 GHz all core boost, that's not 27% (that would be 3.8 ghz),in that case the difference is 15% (3.8 vs 3.3) which is probably the difference in IPC.I completely forgot the turbo boost.According to TPU, r5 1600 performs maybe few percent better than i7 7700k (4.4 ghz all core boost) at 3.8 ghz or the same, this is strange.r5 can do far more cycles (30% more) in a second than the i7 and yet it performs the same.

Not following your logic at the end there. Could I see these tests so I could figure out what's going on?

[MyName13]

2 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Not following your logic at the end there. Could I see these tests so I could figure out what's going on?

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1600/6.html

Video encoding and blender rendering for example (as far as I know these tests use all the cores), the difference should be even larger in applications like Photoshop and some Ms office software .

[DocSwag]

5 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1600/6.html

Video encoding and blender rendering for example (as far as I know these tests use all the cores), the difference should be even larger in applications like Photoshop and some Ms office software .

Ah I see.

 

I'm assuming then that video encoding uses most cores but doesn't scale perfectly across them, which explains the difference being smaller. You can see this evidenced in the 1700x taking a bit longer for h.265 than half the 1500x.

 

Photoshop and office are generally quite single threaded hence the 7700k leading by a lot. 

[VWolv]

On 10/19/2017 at 3:47 AM, Mister_Shots said:

Try and get a X370 mobo for R7 1700 also, 2666-3000 MHz is great for ryzen.

Is it really a good choice to chose X370 for R7 1700 ?, i will use Flare X 3200 MHz

[xsimplyjosh]

i would probably wait out for the non-OC chipset mobos come out befoer buying a 8700 non K or something along those lines... just because it wouldnt be wise to pair a locked chip to a mobo w/ oc potential.

 

that being said, it depends on what you do more often... more editing => ryzen on a % basis. more gaming => intel on a % basis... high fps gaming? => intel is the no brainer due to higher clock spds. don't care about fps but want a steady 60 on 4k or something... then maybe ryzen.

 

these are just my opinions.

[MyName13]

1 hour ago, xsimplyjosh said:

i would probably wait out for the non-OC chipset mobos come out befoer buying a 8700 non K or something along those lines... just because it wouldnt be wise to pair a locked chip to a mobo w/ oc potential.

 

that being said, it depends on what you do more often... more editing => ryzen on a % basis. more gaming => intel on a % basis... high fps gaming? => intel is the no brainer due to higher clock spds. don't care about fps but want a steady 60 on 4k or something... then maybe ryzen.

 

these are just my opinions.

Except i7s are as good (or better) as r7 CPUs in video editing with far better single core performance.I don't understand why everyone says that r7 is better in some things when i7 is far better.

[Simon771]

Neither.

Get 8600k instead.

 

Better multicore performance than i7 7700k, better single core performance than Ryzen or Intel 7th generation.

Also it cost less than Either Ryzen or i7 7700.

[Phentos]

On 10/18/2017 at 11:13 AM, VWolv said:

R7 1700 + 1080 non Ti or i7 8700 + 1070 ?

What resolution? Do you have or are you planning on buying a high refresh rate monitor?

 

If you are using a 60hz monitor of any resolution and plan on using it for a while yet, either CPU is more than sufficient. If you want to go 100hz+ 1080p then I recommend the 8600K or the 8700 over the 7700 with the 1070. If you're wanting to do 1440p at 100hz+ then I'd recommend saving up more money.

[VWolv]

4 hours ago, xsimplyjosh said:

i would probably wait out for the non-OC chipset mobos come out befoer buying a 8700 non K or something along those lines... just because it wouldnt be wise to pair a locked chip to a mobo w/ oc potential.

 

that being said, it depends on what you do more often... more editing => ryzen on a % basis. more gaming => intel on a % basis... high fps gaming? => intel is the no brainer due to higher clock spds. don't care about fps but want a steady 60 on 4k or something... then maybe ryzen.

 

these are just my opinions.

 

3 hours ago, MyName13 said:

Except i7s are as good (or better) as r7 CPUs in video editing with far better single core performance.I don't understand why everyone says that r7 is better in some things when i7 is far better.

yeah i want to take 8700 non K one, but non OC mobos still isn't out and i need to buy my pc on november 4 so yeah i'm on tight choice right now

Just now, Phentos said:

What resolution? Do you have or are you planning on buying a high refresh rate monitor?

 

If you are using a 60hz monitor of any resolution and plan on using it for a while yet, either CPU is more than sufficient. If you want to go 100hz+ 1080p then I recommend the 8600K or the 8700 over the 7700 with the 1070. If you're wanting to do 1440p at 100hz+ then I'd recommend saving up more money.

i planning on 1080p 75hz, nothing to insane

[VWolv]

But what do you all think about Ryzen PRO ?

[MyName13]

3 hours ago, VWolv said:

But what do you all think about Ryzen PRO ?

Why would you need it?Those are CPUs for companies.For 60/75 Hz gaming even the Pentium g4560 is good enough, i3 8100 would be far better and i5 8400 would be a long term purchase.

[VWolv]

Just now, MyName13 said:

Why would you need it?Those are CPUs for companies.For 60/75 Hz gaming even the Pentium g4560 is good enough, i3 8100 would be far better and i5 8400 would be a long term purchase.

Ah i see, thanks for the clarification.

 

I mostly use it for rendering videos, photoshop, cinema 4D, and  Unity you see.. i'll hope there will be a new budget MB for Coffee Lake before this November 3 so i can go with the i7 8700 or i7 8700K (Which mostly i think i will go with the Non-K) but if not then i'll choice R7

[VWolv]

If any of you kind enough, can you guys make pcpartpicker list for coffee lake build with budget around $1500 (which will be around $1700 in my country) include or not included 75hz monitor ?

[Mister_Shots]

On 20/10/2017 at 12:14 PM, VWolv said:

If any of you kind enough, can you guys make pcpartpicker list for coffee lake build with budget around $1500 (which will be around $1700 in my country) include or not included 75hz monitor ?

Are you in Canada?

[Mister_Shots]

On 20/10/2017 at 12:14 PM, VWolv said:

If any of you kind enough, can you guys make pcpartpicker list for coffee lake build with budget around $1500 (which will be around $1700 in my country) include or not included 75hz monitor ?

I built 2 systems:

Intel: https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/user/Mister_Shots/saved/#view=6gBvVn

AMD: https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/user/Mister_Shots/saved/#view=6gBvVn

Either of these will be fine for content creation and gaming. I chose the 6600k because I've seen it outperform (despite it having 6 less threads) the 1600 many gaming and workload tests but with the difference being in price. Take your pick. AMD will have lower performance for a lower price. Your choice :).

[Mister_Shots]

Just now, Mister_Shots said:

I built 2 systems:

Intel: https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/user/Mister_Shots/saved/#view=6gBvVn

AMD: https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/user/Mister_Shots/saved/#view=6gBvVn

Either of these will be fine for content creation and gaming. I chose the 6600k because I've seen it outperform (despite it having 6 less threads) the 1600 many gaming and workload tests but with the difference being in price. Take your pick. AMD will have lower performance for a lower price. Your choice :).

Made a mistake this was the AMD one: https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/user/Mister_Shots/saved/#view=R9ckTW

Sorry for that!