On the fence, Ryzen 1700, or i7 7700k, not overclocking

TallPaul1878 · 31 Jul 2017 at 23:37

This thread needs to be locked.

OP asked a question 9 pages ago and was frightened off ever since.

prjwebb · 1 Aug 2017 at 06:49

voidshatter said:
Doesn't look like so for gaming

Gibbo said the 1600 is their best selling cpu currently. Also the 1600 is often trading the best seller spot with the 7700k on Amazon in multiple region sites.
I think to try and deny that they're gaining share just makes you look stupid.

Rroff · 1 Aug 2017 at 06:51

A survey going to June 2017 is barely going to show any movement from Ryzen sales anyhow - would be at least another 2-3 months before Steam's survey would start to show some kind of defined trend in regard to gaming CPUs affected by Ryzen sales.

Reeve · 1 Aug 2017 at 08:58

The last desktop I built had a 2500+ Barton in it and a HIS 9700 pro but I still occasionally lurk in other subforums especially this one since the release of Ryzen. This thread did not disappoint

I honestly hope AMD gain a lot of ground on Intel. It's never good for the consumer when one company dominates and the same goes for Sony/Microsoft in relation to the console market so best of luck to AMD.

voidshatter · 1 Aug 2017 at 19:12

TheRealDeal said:
There is always hope in this world that you can educate people to show that things are not as black and white as they seem.

Totally agreed! Though reality is not always ideal!

voidshatter · 1 Aug 2017 at 19:16

TheRealDeal said:
The op is not just a gamer though end of story.

There are many benchmarks other than gaming. For daily usage, Web Browser (e.g. Octane), WinRAR decompression (not compression), LaTex to PDF conversion, Photoshop layer alignment, Capture One exporting, etc many things heavily rely on single-thread performance. There's no way you can do job scheduling for such tasks to fully utilise 8 cores at the same time, not even 4 cores at the same time.

voidshatter · 1 Aug 2017 at 19:20

prjwebb said:
Gibbo said the 1600 is their best selling cpu currently. Also the 1600 is often trading the best seller spot with the 7700k on Amazon in multiple region sites.
I think to try and deny that they're gaining share just makes you look stupid.

I think it doesn't look wise to deny the steam hardware survey. These are statistics from people who actually play games, rather than running less relevant benchmarks.

voidshatter · 1 Aug 2017 at 19:25

Wrong post.. eidt

pete910 · 1 Aug 2017 at 19:27

Payed by post Void ?

Or just don't like AMD ?

prjwebb · 1 Aug 2017 at 20:06

He's just trying to hit 1000 posts so he can sell his Intel stuff in the MM and buy an AMD rig

voidshatter · 2 Aug 2017 at 00:57

Just noticed an interesting result: ThinkPad X1 Yoga OLED, as a laptop, featuring a low voltage version of Kaby Lake, the 7600U, with merely 15W TDP, running on battery, defeats the mighty 8-core Ryzen 1700, at the web browsing benchmark Octane 2.0, as shown below.

It appears that with Intel (even in a laptop as light as 1.3kg) it has a slight edge over Ryzen 1700 (in a desktop) for replying posts?

humbug · 2 Aug 2017 at 01:21

voidshatter said:
Just noticed an interesting result: ThinkPad X1 Yoga OLED, as a laptop, featuring a low voltage version of Kaby Lake, the 7600U, with merely 15W TDP, running on battery, defeats the mighty 8-core Ryzen 1700, at the web browsing benchmark Octane 2.0, as shown below.

It appears that with Intel (even in a laptop) it has a slight edge over Ryzen 1700 (in a desktop) for replying posts?

Riiiight according to your results your Tablet is as fast Intel's $1,000 6900K too.

Stop Trolling.

voidshatter · 2 Aug 2017 at 01:26

humbug said:
Riiiight according to your results your Tablet is as fast Intel's $1,000 6900K too.

Stop Trolling.

Why would you think it's trolling? It's just objective data. I am never a big fan of low frequency CPUs like the 6900K, 7800X or Ryzen. If I needed more than 4 cores I would have chosen the 7820X.

humbug · 2 Aug 2017 at 01:38

voidshatter said:
Why would you think it's trolling? It's just objective data. I am never a big fan of low frequency CPUs like the 6900K, 7800X or Ryzen. If I needed more than 4 cores I would have chosen the 7820X.

The the Intel 6900K runs a single thread at 3.7Ghz, that Tablet your trolling this thread with runs at 2.8Ghz.

Are you suggesting i buy a 2.8Ghz Intel CPU over a 3.7Ghz Intel CPU?

BTW how does that 2.8Ghz Tablet CPU keep up with a 3.7Ghz $1,000 Desktop CPU?

I'll stick with my 4690K thanks...

Aside from what you're posting here being so obviously nonsense and suspect it has nothing to do with the OP's questions or needs, its another opportunity for you to post cheery picked agenda driven and now madeup AMD vs Intel comparisons, its Trolling.

What i don't get is this, how on earth did not not see what was wrong with what you posted?

triss · 2 Aug 2017 at 03:11

voidshatter said:
Just noticed an interesting result: ThinkPad X1 Yoga OLED, as a laptop, featuring a low voltage version of Kaby Lake, the 7600U, with merely 15W TDP, running on battery, defeats the mighty 8-core Ryzen 1700, at the web browsing benchmark Octane 2.0, as shown below.

It appears that with Intel (even in a laptop as light as 1.3kg) it has a slight edge over Ryzen 1700 (in a desktop) for replying posts?

How is that relevant at all to the OP?

"So I'm really on the fence between Ryzen and i7 for my next build. Looking at the 1700, and the 7700k.

Its mostly for gaming (PUBG, Rocket League, Overwatch, maybe Fortnite etc). However I'm a software developer (mostly web), so will have various IDE's, GIT / db clients open etc.

Also its unlikely I will be overclocking. I haven't OC'd since my AMD Athlon about 12+ years ago, as more concerned with system longevity, stability, etc. I want this to last for at least 5 years, but current system (i7 950) is 7 years old.

My concerns with buying intel is my 7 year old rig is quad core, 7 years later it feels bad buying the same number of cores. I know single core performance is key for gaming, but still that has to be changing on newer games right?

My concerns with buying AMD is the stock core speed is only 3GHz, the same as my 7 year old i7. Even with all those cores, are they just going to go unused, and I'll regret the lower clock speed"

I'm at least 99% sure he's asking about building a new Desktop and therefore a 7600U isnt in the running.

voidshatter · 2 Aug 2017 at 07:30

humbug said:
The the Intel 6900K runs a single thread at 3.7Ghz, that Tablet your trolling this thread with runs at 2.8Ghz.

Are you suggesting i buy a 2.8Ghz Intel CPU over a 3.7Ghz Intel CPU?

BTW how does that 2.8Ghz Tablet CPU keep up with a 3.7Ghz $1,000 Desktop CPU?

I'll stick with my 4690K thanks...

Aside from what you're posting here being so obviously nonsense and suspect it has nothing to do with the OP's questions or needs, its another opportunity for you to post cheery picked agenda driven and now madeup AMD vs Intel comparisons, its Trolling.

What i don't get is this, how on earth did not not see what was wrong with what you posted?

Why so much hatred? It seems that you are the real troll here

If you so enjoy trolling, at least do your homework by a simple Google search. The tablet in question has a 7600U, which TurboBoosts for 3.9GHz and stays there until throttling. Tell me, without overclocking, can the Ryzen 1700 do that? Can low frequency CPUs like the 6900K do that (without TB3.0)? Simple fact is that these low frequency CPUs perform less as good for web browser performance, even worse than a 1.3kg tablet. As to the OP's concern, picking a low frequency CPU would have consequences of affecting daily usage.

voidshatter · 2 Aug 2017 at 07:32

triss said:
How is that relevant at all to the OP?

Then how is Cinebench relevant at all to the OP? As far as I concern, the OP has never listed any typical tasks he does in the same degree of optimisation of Cinebench to fully utilise 8C16T.

The OP clearly stated the following:

My concerns with buying AMD is the stock core speed is only 3GHz, the same as my 7 year old i7. Even with all those cores, are they just going to go unused, and I'll regret the lower clock speed

I'm pretty sure he will regret the lower clock speed when he finds out that it is even slower than a tablet.

jaffveyda · 2 Aug 2017 at 08:24

voidshatter said:
Why so much hatred? It seems that you are the real troll here If you so enjoy trolling, at least do your homework by a simple Google search. The tablet in question has a 7600U, which TurboBoosts for 3.9GHz and stays there until throttling. Tell me, without overclocking, can the Ryzen 1700 do that? Can low frequency CPUs like the 6900K do that (without TB3.0)? Simple fact is that these low frequency CPUs perform less as good for web browser performance, even worse than a 1.3kg tablet. As to the OP's concern, picking a low frequency CPU would have consequences of affecting daily usage.

Zombie reincarnation.

Roar87 · 2 Aug 2017 at 10:40

To the OP: I got a 7700k because it's the fastest CPU for gaming currently available, the vast majority of games require high single core performance, I did overclock mine though as well. My concerns with Ryzen were that the single thread performance wouldn't actually be much of an upgrade over my 2500k which was overclocker, plus to get the most out of a Ryzen chip you need very expensive memory that will clock past 2666mhz, where as with the 7700k I could just immediately go to 3200mhz memory with Corsair memory and have no issues. My concerns around the 7700k were heat related, but with my MSI Carbon Gaming motherboard my temps are around 60c on a h100 while gaming. I'm extremely happy with my choice and have no regrets. If in a few years games suddenly all perform better with 8+ cores then I'll just swap to a newer chip, but for now the 7700k is the best for gaming.

I play a lot of PUBG and my fps doesn't go below 100 btw.

I'm not a fan boy of either side also, I simply picked the objectively fastest CPU. If my budget was lower and it was between an i5 7600K and a 1600 Ryzen I would've gone with the Ryzen.

Reeve · 2 Aug 2017 at 12:50

Roar87 said:
To the OP: I got a 7700k because it's the fastest CPU for gaming currently available, the vast majority of games require high single core performance, I did overclock mine though as well. My concerns with Ryzen were that the single thread performance wouldn't actually be much of an upgrade over my 2500k which was overclocker, plus to get the most out of a Ryzen chip you need very expensive memory that will clock past 2666mhz, where as with the 7700k I could just immediately go to 3200mhz memory with Corsair memory and have no issues. My concerns around the 7700k were heat related, but with my MSI Carbon Gaming motherboard my temps are around 60c on a h100 while gaming. I'm extremely happy with my choice and have no regrets. If in a few years games suddenly all perform better with 8+ cores then I'll just swap to a newer chip, but for now the 7700k is the best for gaming.

I play a lot of PUBG and my fps doesn't go below 100 btw.

I'm not a fan boy of either side also, I simply picked the objectively fastest CPU. If my budget was lower and it was between an i5 7600K and a 1600 Ryzen I would've gone with the Ryzen.

OP wants the rig to last at least 5 years so I think swapping the processor out in a few years is not something he wants to resort to.

With Intel processors also increasing the core count I wouldn't bet against new/existing games starting to use more cores