Ryzen 7 1700 vs. Core i7-7820X, 8-Core Royal Rumble!

[humbug]

yes specially amd titles with amd hardware

but kidding aside pubg wont be optimized that much.it will a little but basically whatever is the quickest now will be the quickest forever in it.

He used a 1080TI FE, its in the description.

30 to 40% upgrade in performance after patch.

 

[Blindchance]

yes specially amd titles with amd hardware

but kidding aside pubg wont be optimized that much.it will a little but basically whatever is the quickest now will be the quickest forever in it.

Err, how this makes Rise of The Tomb Raider an AMD title? The benchmark was run with a Geforce card and the game was tragically unoptimised for Ryzen at the start.

I don't have deep enough knowledge of programming and compilers to even question if this division between AMD and Intel titles would make sense beyond issues with single core/multi core performance, scheduling problems and using virtual cores over real ones. I think this is a matter of pure luck and the fact games don't often take advantage of multiple threads as it is a difficult / often impossible to code.

I agree that as long Intel is faster at single thread performance this will always give it an advantage over AMD CPU's with similar number of cores, even in applications which take advantage of multiple threads. I don't think AMD strategy even aims to win against Intel in that area. They were always comfortable with being a close second.

 

[Fire_fly]

I'm stuck trying to decide between the two platforms. I have about 1K to spend so the price performance is not at the top of my list of considerations. However saving money is not a bad thing and going the AMD route is about £250 - £300 cheaper, depending on if I want to gamble on getting Samsung b-die memory that should fit under my large air cooler.

The confusing be it, looking at the benchmarks from different sites they seem to be all over the place. In some the 7820x hammers the 1700 whilst in others the 1700 is giving similar performance to the 7820x. Then there are the platform issues with x299 counterbalanced be the 1700 having no guarantee that it will reach to the magic 4GHz (having had a look around on various forums it seems a lot of the newer one are capping out at around 3.8) is making me hesitant to want to jump in with either one. All the while I'm sat with a 3570k getting increasingly ****** off with the CPU induced FPS drops in BF1.

 

[Doobedoo]

I'm stuck trying to decide between the two platforms. I have about 1K to spend so the price performance is not at the top of my list of considerations. However saving money is not a bad thing and going the AMD route is about £250 - £300 cheaper, depending on if I want to gamble on getting Samsung b-die memory that should fit under my large air cooler.

The confusing be it, looking at the benchmarks from different sites they seem to be all over the place. In some the 7820x hammers the 1700 whilst in others the 1700 is giving similar performance to the 7820x. Then there are the platform issues with x299 counterbalanced be the 1700 having no guarantee that it will reach to the magic 4GHz (having had a look around on various forums it seems a lot of the newer one are capping out at around 3.8) is making me hesitant to want to jump in with either one. All the while I'm sat with a 3570k getting increasingly ****** off with the CPU induced FPS drops in BF1.

It's a no brainier. Support AMD now to help them make more money to develop their cpu tech, in order to gain more market share. Unlike Intel you will have an upgrade path so in a year or 2 years time you can upgrade again with zen 2 or 3, rather than having to shell out for yet another new motherboard.

Amd is close enough for it not to matter a great deal in real worlds terms whilst also expanding what it is possible for you to do as games continue to use more of the resources available to them, also allowing you to be able to use your pc for productivity reasons should you need to due to more cores for your money.

In an ideal world we would like to see market share at 50-50, that way both companies remain firmly on their toes and less likely to see an opportunity to take advantage of their customer base. Sometimes it's more than just about a few percent performance gain here or 10 percent there. Look where we are today, it's great for us to finally have choices again, for the technology to move forwards rather than just prices moving up.

Just my take on it and ultimately people can do what they want I just think it makes more sense to support Amd right now than to just follow the herd.

 

[gavinh87]

I'm stuck trying to decide between the two platforms. I have about 1K to spend so the price performance is not at the top of my list of considerations. However saving money is not a bad thing and going the AMD route is about £250 - £300 cheaper, depending on if I want to gamble on getting Samsung b-die memory that should fit under my large air cooler.

The confusing be it, looking at the benchmarks from different sites they seem to be all over the place. In some the 7820x hammers the 1700 whilst in others the 1700 is giving similar performance to the 7820x. Then there are the platform issues with x299 counterbalanced be the 1700 having no guarantee that it will reach to the magic 4GHz (having had a look around on various forums it seems a lot of the newer one are capping out at around 3.8) is making me hesitant to want to jump in with either one. All the while I'm sat with a 3570k getting increasingly ****** off with the CPU induced FPS drops in BF1.

The reviews I've seen all the put the 1700 either level or just behind the 7820x. Certainly not that far ahead to justify the price increase!
You are right about 4ghz, 3.8-4ghz is a more reasonable expectation. The 1800x can do this much easier but the price increase simply isn't worth 1-200mhz either.
The money saved on the 1700 could be put towards a much better GPU or monitor.

This all sounds very pro AMD, but for the cost it cannot be beat at the moment.
Coffelake is coming soon but will probably be a 1 cpu motherboard much like the z270 was.
Whatever road you take will provide better performance than your i5. Have you considered the 1600?

 

[Panos]

My mate just got a 7820x setup and all seems good so far. The only bug so far is in 3dmark Firestrike Standard. His Graphics score is much lower than it should be. The new chipset does not seem to like 1080p and holds back the 1080ti. His graphics score should be around 29k with a 1080ti boosting just over 2000mhz but it's only 24k. We ran Ultra and at max OC we managed around 7600 graphics score so all is good at 4k. This should be fixed in a future bios and with new chipsets these bugs happen.

For those playing below 4k i would probably hold off to see how this plays out. Should have tried out Firestrike extreme to see how that went down but wanted to try out some games.

Is not the chipset nor the CPU. Is the damn Nvidia drivers which are still optimised for the ring topology and NV hasn't bothered to do anything with it 5 months later, hence both Ryzen and SkylakeX fps is suffering.
Wait for the Vega reviews next week to show the issue clearly, were the newer CPUs perform as they should and do in all non gaming benchmarks (both KabylakeX/SkylakeX and Ryzen/Threadripper) and hope the outcry is big enough for NV to pull the finger to do something. As they did with the TXp drivers yesterday, when they realised they cannot leave the VEGA FE run rampant at the computing market.

That is why the 6900K, 7700K etc are performing so much faster than the rest in non GPU bound resolution (1080p), and you wont find any AMD GPU used on benchmarks for any of those CPUs at all but one..

Have an interesting read here also

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6aqfc0/amd_4c8t_underperforming_scenario_single_card_vs/

 

[Blindchance]

I'm stuck trying to decide between the two platforms. I have about 1K to spend so the price performance is not at the top of my list of considerations. However saving money is not a bad thing and going the AMD route is about £250 - £300 cheaper, depending on if I want to gamble on getting Samsung b-die memory that should fit under my large air cooler.

The confusing be it, looking at the benchmarks from different sites they seem to be all over the place. In some the 7820x hammers the 1700 whilst in others the 1700 is giving similar performance to the 7820x. Then there are the platform issues with x299 counterbalanced be the 1700 having no guarantee that it will reach to the magic 4GHz (having had a look around on various forums it seems a lot of the newer one are capping out at around 3.8) is making me hesitant to want to jump in with either one. All the while I'm sat with a 3570k getting increasingly ****** off with the CPU induced FPS drops in BF1.

Welcome on my boat two months ago. I was getting increasingly obsessed with Ryzen vs 7700k vs 7820x benchmarks. There is not hiding that 7700k gives the highest gaming performance on the market right now unless you do stuff like recording your gaming for Youtube / streaming in the background. If you use your PC exclusively for gaming I would either go for 7700k or Ryzen 1600 to save some cost.

If for some reason you need multicore performance whatever for virtualisation (Vmware/VirtualPC etc.), rendering or streaming gameplay I would consider AMD Ryzen 7 and Intel 7820x. 7820x will offer slightly better performance over Ryzen in majority of cases and much better in some edge cases. There are games which simply prefer single core performance over anything else. The worst case scenarios I have heard about are games like Arma 3 or GTA V. Both poorly optimised, but also both demanding a lot from the CPU in terms of what needs to be displayed on the screen in the same time.

The question is how much you care about squeezing as much frames as possible from the games you play. Please understand that Ryzen won't deliver a sub standard gaming performance, it simply won't be as good as 7700k, depending on a game anywhere between 10 % to 25 % behind in those edge cases.

I like the idea of an 8 core CPU as it offers me the flexibility I need and the future ability to upgrade to 7nm Zen2 and Zen3 using the same motherboard is a nice bonus for me. Also I didn't mind that free gaming chair coming from OCUK with Ryzen 1700x and 1800x

Consider also that many of those benchmarks use 7700k OC'ed up to 5 GHz, if you really want to stick to air cooling, you will see even smaller advantage over Ryzen. You probably want to confirm that with others, but at those frequencies a lot of 7700k need watercooling or even deliding to deal with the extra heat. On other hand from what I understand Ryzen can easily be OC'ed to approx. 4 GHz and cooled with the best air cooling options out there or mainstream AIOs while maintaining reasonable temps around 70 C.

I'm afraid that this is a decision you will have to make by yourself and suffer from a potential buyer's regret. I would watch the benchmarks I have linked. Consider the games you usually play an try to find some hard data from multiple sources before you make the final decision. I would also consider stuff like what FPS and resolution you play at and what GPU you want to pair your CPU with. If you are crazy at 144 Hz 1080p gaming, 7700k might be the best option. If you don't mind dipping under 144 FPS in titles which rely on high IPC consider Ryzen5/7.

 

[Fire_fly]

It's a no brainier. Support AMD now to help them make more money to develop their cpu tech, in order to gain more market share. Unlike Intel you will have an upgrade path so in a year or 2 years time you can upgrade again with zen 2 or 3, rather than having to shell out for yet another new motherboard.

Amd is close enough for it not to matter a great deal in real worlds terms whilst also expanding what it is possible for you to do as games continue to use more of the resources available to them, also allowing you to be able to use your pc for productivity reasons should you need to due to more cores for your money.

In an ideal world we would like to see market share at 50-50, that way both companies remain firmly on their toes and less likely to see an opportunity to take advantage of their customer base. Sometimes it's more than just about a few percent performance gain here or 10 percent there. Look where we are today, it's great for us to finally have choices again, for the technology to move forwards rather than just prices moving up.

Just my take on it and ultimately people can do what they want I just think it makes more sense to support Amd right now than to just follow the herd.

As much as I want to see the underdog do well and all that i'm trying to keep things to a performance standpoint. Oddly enough had I had a lower budget I would have gone with a 1700 / 1600 as they offer a lot better performance, especially when looking forward in time, than the quad core i5s / i7s. It's just that I have a had a bit of good news with an extended job contract that i have been able to increase my budget and be able to afford x299.

Also call me a cynical ******* but I am totally untrusting of what comes out of the mouths of PR people when regards to future support, I've been burnt too many times. I honestly don't expect a current motherboard to work with 7nm zen. I think they will release AM4+ CPUs citing architectural differences so they don't work with older motherboards whilst claiming that are are still technically supporting socket AM4. But that is just my 2p

The reviews I've seen all the put the 1700 either level or just behind the 7820x. Certainly not that far ahead to justify the price increase!
You are right about 4ghz, 3.8-4ghz is a more reasonable expectation. The 1800x can do this much easier but the price increase simply isn't worth 1-200mhz either.
The money saved on the 1700 could be put towards a much better GPU or monitor.

This all sounds very pro AMD, but for the cost it cannot be beat at the moment.
Coffelake is coming soon but will probably be a 1 cpu motherboard much like the z270 was.
Whatever road you take will provide better performance than your i5. Have you considered the 1600?

I have a 980ti and a 1440p 144Hz gsync display, so not a huge amount to upgrade there as any bigger GPU will just get held back by the CPU and I can't afford to get a worthwhile CPU and GPU upgrade at the same time.

Is coffee lake still scheduled to be out this month or has it been pushed back?

As above, if i was budget limited i would have already bought the 1600, for the money it is a fantastic chip, but i have the budget to get something better and that is where the problems start.

One a different note, do you know of any low profile RAM that will guarantee 3200Mhz on zen? I have a large air cooler that limits RAM height and was hoping to carry it over to, well save a bit cash (and I quite like the big orange lump). All of the Zen compatible RAM I have seen has the large heatspreaders on it so means spending extra on an AIO.

 

[gavinh87]

As much as I want to see the underdog do well and all that i'm trying to keep things to a performance standpoint. Oddly enough had I had a lower budget I would have gone with a 1700 / 1600 as they offer a lot better performance, especially when looking forward in time, than the quad core i5s / i7s. It's just that I have a had a bit of good news with an extended job contract that i have been able to increase my budget and be able to afford x299.

Also call me a cynical ******* but I am totally untrusting of what comes out of the mouths of PR people when regards to future support, I've been burnt too many times. I honestly don't expect a current motherboard to work with 7nm zen. I think they will release AM4+ CPUs citing architectural differences so they don't work with older motherboards whilst claiming that are are still technically supporting socket AM4. But that is just my 2p



I have a 980ti and a 1440p 144Hz gsync display, so not a huge amount to upgrade there as any bigger GPU will just get held back by the CPU and I can't afford to get a worthwhile CPU and GPU upgrade at the same time.

Is coffee lake still scheduled to be out this month or has it been pushed back?

As above, if i was budget limited i would have already bought the 1600, for the money it is a fantastic chip, but i have the budget to get something better and that is where the problems start.

One a different note, do you know of any low profile RAM that will guarantee 3200Mhz on zen? I have a large air cooler that limits RAM height and was hoping to carry it over to, well save a bit cash (and I quite like the big orange lump). All of the Zen compatible RAM I have seen has the large heatspreaders on it so means spending extra on an AIO.

AMD have confirmed that this socket will support future CPU's 4 years I believe they said.
Coffeelake is supposed to be this month I believe the i7 is 6c12t and likely to be a dead end platform and an upgrade from that will have you buying a new motherboard. I guess you need to work out is 6c is enough to tide you over until you upgrade again.
The problem you run into here is 1600 right on with the 7800x and the 1700 is 10% behind the 7820x in gaming. If you want the absolute best you are looking at a delidded 5ghz+ 7700k. How long 4c8t will hold out is uncertain but again, its a dead end upgrade.
The only reliable way to get 3200mhz on ryzen is samsung b die, so flare x or gskill rgb and the like.

My opinion would be get ryzen or wait for coffeelake and hope that 6cores are going to be enough until you upgrade again.
The x299 is overpriced for gaming and brings little to none advantage over ryzen, gets hot and the power consumption is significant.
As for the 7700k, anyone buying a 4c8t now needs to have a good think about the way games are starting to use more threads.

 

[DONOHUE07]

I'm stuck trying to decide between the two platforms. I have about 1K to spend so the price performance is not at the top of my list of considerations. However saving money is not a bad thing and going the AMD route is about £250 - £300 cheaper, depending on if I want to gamble on getting Samsung b-die memory that should fit under my large air cooler.

The confusing be it, looking at the benchmarks from different sites they seem to be all over the place. In some the 7820x hammers the 1700 whilst in others the 1700 is giving similar performance to the 7820x. Then there are the platform issues with x299 counterbalanced be the 1700 having no guarantee that it will reach to the magic 4GHz (having had a look around on various forums it seems a lot of the newer one are capping out at around 3.8) is making me hesitant to want to jump in with either one. All the while I'm sat with a 3570k getting increasingly ****** off with the CPU induced FPS drops in BF1.

I would say the 1700(or save even more money and go for the 1600), it's not that far behind the Intel counterpart, and you have an upgrade path for the next 3 generations, that alone has made my mind up

 

[hyperseven]

AMD have confirmed that this socket will support future CPU's 4 years I believe they said.
Coffeelake is supposed to be this month I believe the i7 is 6c12t and likely to be a dead end platform and an upgrade from that will have you buying a new motherboard. I guess you need to work out is 6c is enough to tide you over until you upgrade again.
The problem you run into here is 1600 right on with the 7800x and the 1700 is 10% behind the 7820x in gaming. If you want the absolute best you are looking at a delidded 5ghz+ 7700k. How long 4c8t will hold out is uncertain but again, its a dead end upgrade.
The only reliable way to get 3200mhz on ryzen is samsung b die, so flare x or gskill rgb and the like.

My opinion would be get ryzen or wait for coffeelake and hope that 6cores are going to be enough until you upgrade again.
The x299 is overpriced for gaming and brings little to none advantage over ryzen, gets hot and the power consumption is significant.
As for the 7700k, anyone buying a 4c8t now needs to have a good think about the way games are starting to use more threads.

what the fact that they are not, give some facts and figures about all these games optimised to use more than 4c8t.

Why should developers invest time coding for the minority market share of gaming PC configurations?

 

[Fire_fly]

Welcome on my boat two months ago. I was getting increasingly obsessed with Ryzen vs 7700k vs 7820x benchmarks. There is not hiding that 7700k gives the highest gaming performance on the market right now unless you do stuff like recording your gaming for Youtube / streaming in the background. If you use your PC exclusively for gaming I would either go for 7700k or Ryzen 1600 to save some cost.

Same thing happening here ever since x299 launched.

I have discounted the 7700k as think it will start running into the same issues the i5s are having now with lack of available threads in games (especially when other tasks are happening in the background). I also play a slightly odd mix of games, a lot of BF1 but also older RTSs like Supreme Commander so i want something with plenty of threads for future games but with good single thread performance for these older RTSs. That is why I was looking at the 7820x. It would be mostly for gaming but I am starting to do bits of video and image editing for work, but that is still a very secondary concern.

Also I didn't mind that free gaming chair coming from OCUK with Ryzen 1700x and 1800x

????

AMD have confirmed that this socket will support future CPU's 4 years I believe they said.

As earlier, i just don't believe them. I think they will just try to wiggle out of it on some technicality, its not something i have against AMD as I have seen too many companies do it in the past. Maxwell full Async driver support and Fury x "Overclocker dream" spring to mind.

The only reliable way to get 3200mhz on ryzen is samsung b die, so flare x or gskill rgb and the like.

That could be a problem as they all look quite tall. Ideally they need to be below 40mm in height.

 

[gavinh87]

what the fact that they are not, give some facts and figures about all these games optimised to use more than 4c8t.

Why should developers invest time coding for the minority market share of gaming PC configurations?

The bf1 screenshot that shows the 7700k at 100% is one.
Take a look at this video

Doom (vulkan) Showing 32 thread usage albeit not all cores are at 100% usage but it shows its capable of using them also could be because of a GPU bottleneck, I imagine in SLi or a faster gpu in the future would show cpu usage increase.
Ashes of the singularity using 16 threads
The division showing 32 thread usage
Metro 2033 can use 32 threads
F1 2016 uses 16 threads
Ghost recon wildlands 16 threads
From my own testing overwatch uses between 6 and 8 depending on whats going on.

 

[hyperseven]

The bf1 screenshot that shows the 7700k at 100% is one.
Take a look at this video

Doom (vulkan) Showing 32 thread usage albeit not all cores are at 100% usage but it shows its capable of using them
Ashes of the singularity using 16 threads
The division showing 32 thread usage
Metro 2033 can use 32 threads
F1 2016 uses 16 threads
Ghost recon wildlands 16 threads
From my own testing overwatch uses between 6 and 8 depending on whats going on.

less than ten games out of how many released, the adoption rate is not there yet.

 

[gavinh87]

less than ten games out of how many released, the adoption rate is not there yet.

Look at the release dates, none of them are old are they?
There are bound to be more, this just happened to be a video I remember.
This is the way things are heading, as GPU's get faster a 4 core 5ghz isn't going to cut it. We need more cores and game developers are seeing that.
Vulcan is going to start being used a lot more, did you see that video? x2 ancient xeons are beating the 5ghz i7.

 

[DarkHorizon472]

Look at the release dates, none of them are old are they?
There are bound to be more, this just happened to be a video I remember.
This is the way things are heading, as GPU's get faster a 4 core 5ghz isn't going to cut it. We need more cores and game developers are seeing that.
Vulcan is going to start being used a lot more, did you see that video? x2 ancient xeons are beating the 5ghz i7.

You are right, this is similar to several years ago when it moved from dual to quad core. Four core cpu's while fine now are getting to their limits now with newer games and productivity software increasingly making more use of multiple cores. If you take bf1 as an example i5's are starting to struggle.

 

[Blindchance]

Blindchance said: ↑
Also I didn't mind that free gaming chair coming from OCUK with Ryzen 1700x and 1800x
????

I was lazy this time around and paid to get it assembled by OCUK, they offer a "free" Nitro Concepts chair with 1700x and 1800x in their Ryzen configurator:

http://imgur.com/FbA3AQP


P.S. Is it only me or the IMG tag is broken on this forum?

When it comes to your heatsink height problems, this is the reason why I went for AIO this time around. Air cooling solutions size is getting excessive if you want to use them on even slightly OC'ed systems.

 

[Fire_fly]

I was lazy this time around and paid to get it assembled by OCUK, they offer a "free" Nitro Concepts chair with 1700x and 1800x in their Ryzen configurator:

http://imgur.com/FbA3AQP

Ah, nice offer but I don't need a full system.

When it comes to your heatsink height problems, this is the reason why I went for AIO this time around. Air cooling solutions size is getting excessive if you want to use them on even slightly OC'ed systems.

I went with big air for the bullet proof reliability and the noise, and it gives similar levels of performance to most 240mm AIOs. The problem is if i have to get an AIO then that is about another £100 and looking at the video in the OP I can get some slower RAM for x299 without hurting performance, that price gap is starting to shrink.