Best cpu for just gaming

mmj_uk · 3 Mar 2017 at 09:08

Wait and see how Intel respond for now, even though Zen isn't all it was cracked up to be Intel aren't really competitive at current prices. They'll lose a lot of sales going forward as things stand.

SiDeards73 · 3 Mar 2017 at 09:08

Brazo said:
Ryzen doesn't come close to the op's requirements though as the 'best gaming CPU. The thread title wasn't the best AMD gaming cpu.

It's easy to pop out tin foil hats on and pretend the reviews out there are purposely flawed but sites such as tech report, toms hardware and guru3d have all been consistent. From toms

It’s hard to recommend the Ryzen 7 1800X over Intel's lower-cost quad-core chips for gaming

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,review-33811-12.html

I agree with that too, i wouldnt buy an 1800x for gaming, the 1700 however, is a clear winner. Especially when a 7700k running at 4ghz is hardly any different than it running at 5ghz in real world current gaming scenarios..... And ontop of that the 1700 is pretty much neck and neck in its current gimped state.

This is what many people are either failing to grasp or just flat out overlooking.

Brazo · 3 Mar 2017 at 09:12

SiDeards73 said:
I agree with that too, i wouldnt buy an 1800x for gaming, the 1700 however, is a clear winner. Especially when a 7700k running at 4ghz is hardly any different than it running at 5ghz in real world current gaming scenarios..... And ontop of that the 1700 is pretty much neck and neck in its current gimped state.

This is what many people are either failing to grasp or just flat out overlooking.

Yes but you say the 1700 is neck and neck? I'm assuming you mean with the 1800x?

I don't have benchmarks for the 1700 but I was giving AMD the benefit of the doubt and giving the 1700 the same performance as the 1800x.

It's irrelevant what the Kaby clocks at it's still faster by quite some margin (in some games) and therefore the best gaming cpu.

SiDeards73 · 3 Mar 2017 at 09:30

Brazo said:
Yes but you say the 1700 is neck and neck? I'm assuming you mean with the 1800x?

I don't have benchmarks for the 1700 but I was giving AMD the benefit of the doubt and giving the 1700 the same performance as the 1800x.

It's irrelevant what the Kaby clocks at it's still faster by quite some margin (in some games) and therefore the best gaming cpu.

Ok....

Martini1991 · 3 Mar 2017 at 09:36

I'm positive with Zen, but it's not neck and neck gaming in its current form at all (sure, you can find examples. But the same could be done for PD).
Zen doesn't need over selling, it just needs a logical approach.

passey89 · 3 Mar 2017 at 09:42

4790k is what about £180 used

7700k is about £550

Ryzen 1700 about £550

Just gaming is ryzen or a 7700k going to produce more than £300+ worth of extra performance?

Martini1991 · 3 Mar 2017 at 09:45

4790K is obviously the cheapest option, and gaming right now it's not going to any different I guess.

hornetstinger · 3 Mar 2017 at 09:48

sand_dune said:
Silly to buy a quad core CPU now. If there's a heavy background process while gaming it will screw your performance. With 8 cores you can do what you want and more. You can stream to twitch while playing, watching a twitch stream while playing or anything else. 4 cores will definitely be not optimal for some games in near future anyway.

I doubt games will use multi-core fully, bad coding etc.

wedrum · 3 Mar 2017 at 09:51

pop in a 4790k.
doing a full upgrade for gaming is outrageous.
OP at 1080p my 2500k at 4.8ghz smashes through any game.

Firestar_3x · 3 Mar 2017 at 09:53

Martini1991 said:
4790K is obviously the cheapest option, and gaming right now it's not going to any different I guess.

Like i've said, put in a 4690k, even cheaper still.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/5

SniperDude · 3 Mar 2017 at 09:56

Same issue....... I only play battlefield 1 an 4 for the most part at 1440p 144hz I have a 1800x on order and a gigabyte gaming 7 motherboard

I'm in 2 minds should I get a delided 7700k save some money.... Or stick it out

Martini1991 · 3 Mar 2017 at 10:03

Firestar_3x said:
Like i've said, put in a 4690k, even cheaper still.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/5

You'd be silly not to gain more threads from an upgrade these days.

old gamer · 3 Mar 2017 at 10:09

SniperDude said:
Same issue....... I only play battlefield 1 an 4 for the most part at 1440p 144hz I have a 1800x on order and a gigabyte gaming 7 motherboard

I'm in 2 minds should I get a delided 7700k save some money.... Or stick it out

i know what you mean, i thought about canceling my 1700x and getting a 7700k but i have this gut feeling to stick with amd

Brazo · 3 Mar 2017 at 10:25

SiDeards73 said:
Ok....

Please post a credible source!

pieman109 · 3 Mar 2017 at 10:27

Personally, if just for gaming, I'd hang fire and wait and see what the 4c/8t and 6c/12t R5 ryzens have to offer. They're closer in spec to the 7700k (the 1300 and 1400, 4c/8t, versions are the closest, with the 1500 and 1600 versions having 6c/12t). I reckon these "might, should, hopefully" overclock higher than the 1700/1800 skus due to having less cores, taking them closer to the performance of the 7700K and the 1300/1400 spec cpus will be cheaper than the 7700K also. If it overclocks well, I think the 1500/1600 range is the most promising due to the extra 2 core and 4 threads.
Pure speculation on my part I know but I reckon its worth waiting and see how these lower skus do when released. You never know, they might get up to 4.5ghz or maybe 4.7ghz with reasonable temps and, if they do, they could match or beat the 7700k at 4.8ghz-5.0ghz, you never know.

Brazo · 3 Mar 2017 at 10:27

hornetstinger said:
I doubt games will use multi-core fully, bad coding etc.

You say bad coding but I've yet to find a game that needs more cores. If my 8 threads are being barely stressed what's the point of having 16?

hornetstinger · 3 Mar 2017 at 10:28

Brazo said:
You say bad coding but I've yet to find a game that needs more cores. If my 8 threads are being barely stressed what's the point of having 16?

Exactly. I have a quad, and could upgrade to a hex but is it worth it?

Brazo · 3 Mar 2017 at 10:29

passey89 said:
4790k is what about £180 used

7700k is about £550

Ryzen 1700 about £550

Just gaming is ryzen or a 7700k going to produce more than £300+ worth of extra performance?

A 7700k is about £330 new or £280 second hand. Is it with an extra £100 I now hear you say?

Probably not...

Brazo · 3 Mar 2017 at 10:30

pieman109 said:
Personally, if just for gaming, I'd hang fire and wait and see what the 4c/8t and 6c/12t R5 ryzens have to offer. They're closer in spec to the 7700k (the 1300 and 1400, 4c/8t, versions are the closest, with the 1500 and 1600 versions having 6c/12t). I reckon these "might, should, hopefully" overclock higher than the 1700/1800 skus due to having less cores, taking them closer to the performance of the 7700K and the 1300/1400 spec cpus will be cheaper than the 7700K also. If it overclocks well, I think the 1500/1600 range is the most promising due to the extra 2 core and 4 threads.
Pure speculation on my part I know but I reckon its worth waiting and see how these lower skus do when released. You never know, they might get up to 4.5ghz or maybe 4.7ghz with reasonable temps and, if they do, they could match or beat the 7700k at 4.8ghz-5.0ghz, you never know.

Think there's been hype and speculation already..:

SniperDude · 3 Mar 2017 at 10:40

old gamer said:
i know what you mean, i thought about canceling my 1700x and getting a 7700k but i have this gut feeling to stick with amd

I really can't make my mind up because of lack of information

People on here say that it's better at 1440p but never link the source of this information all I'm seeing is 1080p or 4k