• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

3770k to 1800X

If you do productivity work the upgrade will be massive.

Gaming at this point is an unknown as its brand new. Motherboard vendors are still ironing out BIOS issues. right now the gaming performance for the most part is not as high as a 7700K, yet sometimes its also higher.
Having said that those reviewers with those result are using at GTX 1080 or Pascal TX and useing low res and low setting to get to those results, of course in reality even with Ryzen not yet properly optimised is still plenty fast enough to match the 7700K at settings where people do actually run their games.

Windows will get a Ryzen patch soon, Motherboard vendors will get the BIOS performance where it should be but for now IMO you should wait, not just for the game performance fixes but in a couple of months there will be 4C-8T and 6C-12T CPUs out, the 6C-12T will probably cost the same or less than your 3770K was and completely humiliate it in performance and power efficiency.
 
It depends on the games - newer ones which use more cores will deffo be an upgrade. Ones which use less cores - it might not be any faster,in its CURRENT state.

Personally best to wait a month or two,and see what a few updates will bring.
 
I will let you know, you have the same cpu mobo and ram as me, still working fine but I need something new to play about with, but I would go with a 1700 and save the money
 
Thank you for the helpful and informative replies guys. I'm looking forward to seeing how Ryzen performance improves in gaming with the patching/optimisation and BIOS updates. old_gamer, thank you - that would be fab.

It's great to have AMD properly back in the game after all these years!

Hopefully, I can look forward to a nice upgrade in 2-3 months time :p
 
Wait for the Ryzen 5 1600x 6c/12t Q2 as the in between. If it can attain 4.2-4.3 as opposed to 3.9-4.1 for the majority, it should make for a very good value gaming chip. I don't know if it's official, but apparently AMD have already stated not to expect higher clocks with lower core counts, unlike with a lot of Intel offerings. I'd imagine with some BIOS updates and patching, if 4.3-4.5 is attainable on the 1600x, a lot of people would jump ship. Probably not going to happen though. It should be ahead of haswell-e and broadwell-e at that, and at a vastly cheaper cost when factoring in both chip and board. Skylake-x 6 cores at what looks Q3 this year will likely be better still, but offer far less value for money.
 
Drollic said:
Wait for the Ryzen 5 1600x 6c/12t Q2 as the in between. If it can attain 4.2-4.3 as opposed to 3.9-4.1 for the majority, it should make for a very good value gaming chip. I don't know if it's official, but apparently AMD have already stated not to expect higher clocks with lower core counts, unlike with a lot of Intel offerings. I'd imagine with some BIOS updates and patching, if 4.3-4.5 is attainable on the 1600x, a lot of people would jump ship. Probably not going to happen though. It should be ahead of haswell-e and broadwell-e at that, and at a vastly cheaper cost when factoring in both chip and board. Skylake-x 6 cores at what looks Q3 this year will likely be better still, but offer far less value for money.
Click to expand...

I think possibly there won't be higher clocks with the 6-core. Partly because we don't see that with the Intel chips, the 6/8/10 all clock similarly.

But also because of the design of Zen, if less cores will give more clockspeed, it'll only be in a situation where you turn off a whole CCX. So that'll be the 4 cores only.
 
Drollic said:
Wait for the Ryzen 5 1600x 6c/12t Q2 as the in between. If it can attain 4.2-4.3 as opposed to 3.9-4.1 for the majority, it should make for a very good value gaming chip. I don't know if it's official, but apparently AMD have already stated not to expect higher clocks with lower core counts, unlike with a lot of Intel offerings. I'd imagine with some BIOS updates and patching, if 4.3-4.5 is attainable on the 1600x, a lot of people would jump ship. Probably not going to happen though. It should be ahead of haswell-e and broadwell-e at that, and at a vastly cheaper cost when factoring in both chip and board. Skylake-x 6 cores at what looks Q3 this year will likely be better still, but offer far less value for money.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking AMD is right and we wont see really any higher clocks on the 4,6 cores. The 4 cores will be quite interesting unless they are quite cheap they will lose on max core speed and not have the advantage of the r7 line up of throwing more cores at the problem. R7 1700 imo unless the 6 core is really well priced will be the best out of the Ryzen bunch overall.
 
This would be a very interesting test. I'm in the same boat and i'm sure a lot of us decided not to upgrade from the 3770k as performance gains were marginal.

However, this is a good few years old now and we're all getting that upgrade itch that needs scratching. :D

Good luck early adopters, i really hope AMD is on to a winner!
 
From my own testing, my 1700 is on par at 3.0 as my haswell was at 3.7. (locked xeon)
Although the overclock scaling is not that impressive for me, so far the 1700 is performing almost the same at 3.0 as it is at 3.8 (in games)
I've only tested overwatch and dirt rally and heaven benchmark so far. But for me you'll be looking at a minimum of haswell performance with double the cores for heavier threaded games. I will check out BF1 later.
 
I have a 3770k @4.4ghz but have ordered the 1700 and a asrock gaming fatality motherboard. cant wait to change platform, I want a newer motherboard with newer features. Im not expecting much of a difference in FPS gaming but secretly hoping minimum fps may go up but just want a change... Im expecting it to be a bumpy ride but lifes a roller coaster anyway and im looking forward to the ride!
 
I'm pretty much set on holding out with my 3770k unless there's some gains through optimisation. If so, I'm hoping the 1600x comes in at around £280 max and does a few hundred mhz more. If none of that happens, I'd rather spend more money and wait for skylake x on x299.
 
I am waiting on my Hero VI to get here on Wednesday. I decided to move off my 3700K @ 4.5ghz because I wanted an updated chipset with M.2 support. I also stream, so having the extra cores will be a big benefit to me.
 
I have jumped from an i7 6700 to the R7 1700:

Cinebench_R15_i7_6700.png

3800_1_2_2.png


Gaming wise l see no difference atm :) Single core the i7 6700 is faster by 7 points in CINEBENCH, however the R7 1700 is double the multicore score when clocked to 3.8Ghz.

So you will see an improvememnt imo if you switch to the R7 1800X in both single thread and multi thread.
 
Keep your 3770k if you are primarily focused on gaming... It will be a smoother system if you were to upgrade but the 3770k has got plenty left in the tank as a cpu for gaming rig.
 
made the jump from 3770k to 1700 couple days ago. So far the gaming results are better than I expected, average framerate is generally just a few fps difference from my 3770k at 4.7Ghz. This is with my 1700 running at 3.9ghz ram at 2933 cl15. So basically the gaming performance remains the same but I also now have a huge multithreaded advantage.

R7 1700 3.9ghz 16Gb DDR4 2933 CL15
Gigabyte AB350 Gaming 3
GTX 1070 at 1947 core 4000 mem

3770K was running at 4.7Ghz with 16Gb DDR3 at 1866mhz CL10, Same GTX1070 of course.

Here are the game results that I tested, all at max possible settings at 1080p and 2x smaa/2x TXAA where applicable. I also included stock 1700 stock results for the ones that I've benched. Hope this helps:

Heaven Benchmark:

3770K 4.7: min. 9.2 avg. 122.8 max: 270
1700 3.85 (forgot to rerun at 3.9): min. 32.6 avg. 121.7 max: 257.4

R7 1700 3.0 2133 cl15: avg. 115.8

Rise of the Tomb Raider:

3770K 4.7:
Mountain Peak 100.96 (min. 48.09 max 168.12)
Syria 68.82 (min. 26.42 max 99.84)
Geothermal 74.91 (min. 50.90 max 108.61)
Overall 82.32

1700 3.9:
Mountain Peak 101.32 (min. 49.11 max 172.23)
Syria 70.50 (min. 25.42 max 92)
Geothermal 71.32 (min. 41.37 max 99.17)
Overall 81.67

R7 1700 3.0 2133 cl15: Overall 69.49

Far Cry Primal:

3770K 4.7: min. 63 avg. 74 max: 81
1700 3.9 : min. 57 avg. 72 max: 83

R7 1700 3.0 2133 cl15: avg. 63

Rainbow Six Siege:

3770K 4.7: Overall min. 62.8 avg. 90.4 max: 139.9
1700 3.9 : Overall min. 63.6 avg. 91.3 max: 131.3

Dirt Rally:

3770K 4.7: min. 71.98 avg. 94.66 max: 127.31
1700 3.9 : min. 72 avg. 93.89 max: 125.52

R7 1700 3.0 2133 cl15: avg. 92.81



As you can see from the above games, the average frames in these situations are within negligible level. So the conclusion is same as others have said really, that if you mostly play older titles that favours 4 cores or less, especially when you are running 144hz or higher refresh rate where the max fps really does count. Then the older gen i7 still have the raw power to really drive the fps. if you play newer titles at higher resolution when GPU matters more then you'll find the rysen, overclocked at least, will not dissapoint. But it has to be overclocked to really shine.

Sorry no 640x480 benches :p
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
It depends on the games - newer ones which use more cores will deffo be an upgrade.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

When I had first dual core Athlon 64 X2 4400+ back in 2005, I had it 200MHz OCed it to matched Athlon 64 X2 4800+ performance and loved it.

But 3 years later when GTA IV came out, it was the first Windows game took full advantage of quad core CPUs recommended Intel Quad Q6600, Phenom X4 or triple core Phenom X3 CPUs accorded to GTA IV system requirements. When I ran GTA IV benchmark first time with Athlon 64 X2 4400+ and GTX 260 and I was so shocked to see the result.... 18 fps!!! :eek:

It ran like slideshow! I texted my mate about GTA IV and posted about my issue on NVNEWS forum, people believed GTA IV bottlenecked my 3 years old dual core Athlon 64 X2 4400+ CPU and told me that I need to upgrade to quad core CPU. I agreed with their advice and days later I upgraded my PC to Phenom X4 9950, ran GTA IV benchmark and I was amazed to see the result... 45 fps! :D Ran very smoothly on quad core CPU. A month later or so I bought Phenom II X4 940 when it launched and sold Phenom X4 9950.

Right now there is absolutely no reason to upgrade to 6 and 8 cores CPUs as there are no games take full advantage of 6 and 8 cores CPUs yet! GTA IV came out back in 2008, maybe we will see first game to take full advantage of 6 or 8 cores CPU 10 years later in 2018 when Intel launch Coffee Lake for mainstream.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom