7700k/ 7600k vs Ryzen

[Editie]

Im thinking on upgrading my current build.

 

CPU - AMD FX  8320 @ 4.1Ghz

GPU - MSI GTX 1070

 

 

Im thinking on upping my CPU as for a refresh and to future proof. I mainly play Dota 2 and am running a 144hz monitor. I also tend to stream sometimes using obs with Nvidia NVENC (Just my personal preference.

 

What new cpu would best fit my needs @ playing mainly dota 2 @ 144hz. With also streaming 3 - 4 times a week.

 

Other games I play are - PUBG, Rust and so on but i dont stream them titles.

 

Im looking at the 7700k/7600k and Ryzen. 

 

If anyone could point my in the right direction with also possibly a build. I have a build in mind for the intel side. Which is on the pcpartpicker link.

 

I have a cooler and psu which will be fine as for why I havent included it in the pcpartpicker. 

 

PC PART PICKER BUILD.

[Vegetable]

Well streaming+gaming would do better on a Ryzen 1600(x) even though straight up gaming would be a tiny bit better on the i7 7700k. Also remove the 7600k from anything close to your "want to buy" list. Its just a crappy deal a new i3 is the same thing. 

[Editie]

Just now, Vegetable said:

Well streaming+gaming would do better on a Ryzen 1600(x) even though straight up gaming would be a tiny bit better on the i7 7700k. Also remove the 7600k from anything close to your "want to buy" list. Its just a crappy deal a new i3 is the same thing. 

Any benefit going 1700(x)?

[1234vietnam]

2 minutes ago, Editie said:

Any benefit going 1700(x)?

2 more cores. 

[Editie]

1 minute ago, Prqnk3d said:

2 more cores. 

I mean like any drastic increase in performance sorry.

[1234vietnam]

3 minutes ago, Editie said:

I mean like any drastic increase in performance sorry.

not in gaming, the 1600x is generally a little bit faster as it has higher clock speeds

[Editie]

Just now, Prqnk3d said:

not in gaming, the 1600x is generally a little bit faster as it has higher clock speeds

Thank you for your input!

[Mira Yurizaki]

If you need faster frame rates, the i7-7700K will beat out most Ryzen SKUs for the games you've picked out. Though I would see if you can get an i7-8700 or even an i5-8400.

[Editie]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

If you need faster frame rates, the i7-7700K will beat out most Ryzen SKUs for the games you've picked out. Though I would see if you can get an i7-8700 or even an i5-8400.

Sure bearing in mind I play dota 2 on minimal game settings as its easier for me, Even though i can run it fine on Ultra. Will consider the above.

[Mira Yurizaki]

3 minutes ago, Editie said:

Sure bearing in mind I play dota 2 on minimal game settings as its easier for me, Even though i can run it fine on Ultra. Will consider the above.

Yeah, higher FPS is more reliant on higher IPC performance than per-core performance. And Intel currently has better IPC performance.

[Editie]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

Yeah, higher FPS is more reliant on higher IPC performance than per-core performance. And Intel currently has better IPC performance.

Streaming isnt a regular thing to add, Also while using Nvidia NVENC, I lose at most 5 or so fps. Will consider your suggestion. 

[Tytan64]

DOTA 2 is able to use multi threads. I get about 160fps on ULTRA with my R7 1700 overclocked to 4GHz. If I were you, I'd go with the R5 1600(X) because it is enough for what you want to do, it's cheaper than the Intel stuff and you'll get at least two iterations of CPUs in the future for that socket.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Editie said:

Im thinking on upgrading my current build.

 

CPU - AMD FX  8320 @ 4.1Ghz

GPU - MSI GTX 1070

 

 

Im thinking on upping my CPU as for a refresh and to future proof. I mainly play Dota 2 and am running a 144hz monitor. I also tend to stream sometimes using obs with Nvidia NVENC (Just my personal preference.

 

What new cpu would best fit my needs @ playing mainly dota 2 @ 144hz. With also streaming 3 - 4 times a week.

 

Other games I play are - PUBG, Rust and so on but i dont stream them titles.

 

Im looking at the 7700k/7600k and Ryzen. 

 

If anyone could point my in the right direction with also possibly a build. I have a build in mind for the intel side. Which is on the pcpartpicker link.

 

I have a cooler and psu which will be fine as for why I havent included it in the pcpartpicker. 

 

PC PART PICKER BUILD.

Go with 1600 and a decent x370 board cause the 7700k is on a dead platform AM4 will last to 2020

 

Or if you can afford a 8700k go with that nothing else makes sense

[Stefan Payne]

4 hours ago, Editie said:

I mean like any drastic increase in performance sorry.

if the software uses it, it is possible to get way more performance..

4 hours ago, Prqnk3d said:

not in gaming, the 1600x is generally a little bit faster as it has higher clock speeds

its the same shit with E8600 and Q9550 or Phenom II/955BE...

At the time the E8600 was better but pretty soon the Q9550 kicked the ass of the dual Core one and lasted way longer.

 

Its the same shit now, more cores -> longer lifetime.

 

And 4 Cores with or without SMT isn't something you should ever consider if you have to pay more than around 150 bucks or so.

[xg32]

Depends on your budget there are 2 efficient builds imho, just ditch the idea of the 7700k or 7600k

 

r5 1600/r7 1700, use the stock heatsink, use a cheap but efficient b350 board with the stock cooler and oc to 3.7/3.8ghz total cpu+motherboard+heatsink cost should be about 275usd-350usd

 

i7 8700, use a decent mid range z370 board, buy a hyper 212 evo or a h7 as cheap heatsink, total motherboard+cpu+heatsink=550usd (this is the build id go with for futureproofing)

 

Ryzen single core performance is way too low to be futureproofed or to even game reliably at 120hz, any build that I did consider ryzen with ended up being a budget build (r5 1600+1060 3gb 8gb ram for 1080p gaming)

[Stefan Payne]

3 hours ago, xg32 said:

Ryzen single core performance is way too low to be futureproofed 

That's bullshit because nobody cares no more about 'single core Performance', what counts is the multi core performance.

Especially since modern consoles have 8 cores, games will be optimized for that. 

 

Its cores that mattered in the past, always those CPUs with less cores needed to be replaced sooner than later!
It was true from Single to Dual Core, it was true from Dual to Quad Core, and it will be true today...

[xg32]

26 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

That's bullshit because nobody cares no more about 'single core Performance', what counts is the multi core performance.

Especially since modern consoles have 8 cores, games will be optimized for that. 

 

Its cores that mattered in the past, always those CPUs with less cores needed to be replaced sooner than later!
It was true from Single to Dual Core, it was true from Dual to Quad Core, and it will be true today...

I really wanted to go ryzen but it just can't game at 120-144hz consistently, reason being ryzen's low single-threaded performance, it's actually weaker than sandy bridge, a 6 year old cpu. Every benchmark I've seen on ryzen screams 60fps gaming for now and the future, which leads to budget builds only (for gaming)

[JoostinOnline]

23 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

That's bullshit because nobody cares no more about 'single core Performance', what counts is the multi core performance.

Especially since modern consoles have 8 cores, games will be optimized for that. 

 

Its cores that mattered in the past, always those CPUs with less cores needed to be replaced sooner than later!
It was true from Single to Dual Core, it was true from Dual to Quad Core, and it will be true today...

Single core is just as important. A Ryzen 1700 has 8 cores and 16 threads, but it still couldn't keep up with the 4 cores and 8 threads of a 7700k.

[Zeitec]

41 minutes ago, xg32 said:

I really wanted to go ryzen but it just can't game at 120-144hz consistently, reason being ryzen's low single-threaded performance, it's actually weaker than sandy bridge, a 6 year old cpu. Every benchmark I've seen on ryzen screams 60fps gaming for now and the future, which leads to budget builds only (for gaming)

Get a locked 8700 for the same cost as a 7700k, throw on a $30 cooler like a Cryorig H7, and call it a day. It gives you 90% of the single threaded performance of a 5.0ghz 7700k with 85% of the multithreaded performance of a 4.0ghz Ryzen 7 CPU. It's the best all around CPU at that price point and it's a great value for gamers who want a PC for the next 3-5 years with streaming capabilities. 

[Stefan Payne]

1 hour ago, JoostinOnline said:

Single core is just as important. A Ryzen 1700 has 8 cores and 16 threads, but it still couldn't keep up with the 4 cores and 8 threads of a 7700k.

because 3,0Ghz (3,7GHz Max) vs. 4,2 (4,5GHz max)?
Why withhold important facts?! Why lie by omission?!

 

And in later tests, with DDR4-3200 Memory, the Ryzen 1700 looks pretty good - because there were improvements for the software and also BIOS versions.

 

What you also should mention is that the performance can increase if you disable one CCX for older games. Something you don't see on most sites as well.

[xg32]

1 hour ago, Zeitec said:

Get a locked 8700 for the same cost as a 7700k, throw on a $30 cooler like a Cryorig H7, and call it a day. It gives you 90% of the single threaded performance of a 5.0ghz 7700k with 85% of the multithreaded performance of a 4.0ghz Ryzen 7 CPU. It's the best all around CPU at that price point and it's a great value for gamers who want a PC for the next 3-5 years with streaming capabilities. 

already went with the 8600k and 8700k with my 2 builds, but before i built, i tried my best to justify a ryzen build, i just couldn't.

 

And now there are b350 boards already dying, and a majority of the bugs/weird stuff i see are from ryzen, not coffee lake, there's also a few that are surprised at how slow the r7 1700 is, most goes 3.7/3.8 without problem, but some1 sweared that his 1700 doesn't clock past 3.6. 

[Zeitec]

11 minutes ago, xg32 said:

already went with the 8600k and 8700k with my 2 builds, but before i built, i tried my best to justify a ryzen build, i just couldn't.

 

And now there are b350 boards already dying, and a majority of the bugs/weird stuff i see are from ryzen, not coffee lake, there's also a few that are surprised at how slow the r7 1700 is, most goes 3.7/3.8 without problem, but some1 sweared that his 1700 doesn't clock past 3.6. 

I mean b350 boards were never meant to OC Ryzen 7. They were meant for basic 3.7ghz Ryzen 5 overclocking and stock Ryzen 7. If people were buying the cheapest boards available and expecting to run the most expensive consumer level AMD CPUs on them for years then IDK what to say. 

[JoostinOnline]

28 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

because 3,0Ghz (3,7GHz Max) vs. 4,2 (4,5GHz max)?
Why withhold important facts?! Why lie by omission?!

What the hell are you talking about? Frequency directly relates to single core performance.  The frequency is the number of clock cycles per second of a core.  Throwing more cores at a game won't make it run faster.

 

I can't tell if you're a troll, or just ignorant.

[Stefan Payne]

31 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

What the hell are you talking about?

That you are NOT mentioning the frequency and saying that the Intel Chip is far superior - wich it is only because of the higher clocks it can archieve, not because the architecture is so much better wich it is not.

Because both are about equal, depending on the task. WIth single thread the intel might be a bit faster but the Ryzen has a better SMT implementation than Intel thus gaining more from it than Intel can.

 

Quote

Frequency directly relates to single core performance.  The frequency is the number of clock cycles per second of a core.  Throwing more cores at a game won't make it run faster.

well, d'oh...

Except for big architecture differences like Core 2 Duo vs. Netburst. Netburst was way higher clocked than Core 2 Duo but Core 2Duo was faster - even at 3.6GHz vs, 2.4GHz...

 

But that's not the case here.

Here both are equally good, just that one of those is able to archieve higher clockrates while the other is more efficient.

 

Why don't you talk about energy efficiency no more?

Was a big point when Bulldozer came out!
But now it seems irrelevant. Well, figures...

 

That is the obvious point you did not mention when talking about both of the CPUs, you just stated that one is far superior but did not mention that the clockrate is around 50% higher. And for that higher clockrate the difference isn't that great, is it?!

 

And when we are talking about streaming a game, the Intel is worse than the AMD, way worse....

[JoostinOnline]

3 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

That you are NOT mentioning the frequency and saying that the Intel Chip is far superior - wich it is only because of the higher clocks it can archieve, not because the architecture is so much better wich it is not.

 

well, d'oh...

Except for big architecture differences like Core 2 Duo vs. Netburst. Netburst was way higher clocked than Core 2 Duo but Core 2Duo was faster - even at 3.6GHz vs, 2.4GHz...

 

But that's not the case here.

Here both are equally good, just that one of those is able to archieve higher clockrates while the other is more efficient.

 

Why don't you talk about energy efficiency no more?

Was a big point when Bulldozer came out!
But now it seems irrelevant. Well, figures...

 

That is the obvious point you did not mention when talking about both of the CPUs, you just stated that one is far superior but did not mention that the clockrate is around 50% higher. And for that higher clockrate the difference isn't that great, is it?!

An

I didn't say it was far superior, and I never even mentioned the architecture.  You're mad over imaginary arguments.  I thought you were a troll, but now I realize you're just an idiot.

 

Kids, this is why you don't do drugs.