7700k or Ryzen 1700 with a GTX 1080TI?

Jonno02 · 24 Apr 2017 at 16:59

Hi guys,

Almost finished upgrading my full system. I've got a GTX 1080ti on order but I'm completely stumped with the processor. Most of my usage is gaming, which leans me towards the 7700k, but I also like to minimise and browse the internet whilst maps load, so that leans me towards the 1700.

With a card like a 1080ti, would the processor (either of these) really matter that much?

RavenXXX2 · 24 Apr 2017 at 17:03

1080p high refresh rate gaming then 7700k, 1440p and above then 1700.

Davanius · 24 Apr 2017 at 17:23

With a 1080ti I doubt you are gaming in 1080p so if not, it would be the 1700.

gavinh87 · 24 Apr 2017 at 17:24

Im using 144hz with ryzen, a slight loss of performance now will more than make up for itself when games start needing more than 4 cores. BF1 already has the i7 pegged at 100% and this affects the smoothness.
I play overwatch a lot and alt tab in almost every load/wait screen and its flawless, much quicker than the haswell i7 it replaced.
i7 IS the cpu to go for if max frames is what you are after. Ryzen is the one to go for if you want longevity and better minimum frames and a platform that will improve and can upgrade. The i7 is a dead end route.

Jonno02 · 24 Apr 2017 at 17:45

Yup, will be 1440p 144hz

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 24 Apr 2017 at 18:22

What CPU do you have now??

haszek · 24 Apr 2017 at 18:36

For 144hz I would personally go for i7, but wouldn't buy it now if new chipsets/cpus are gonna be in August. Wouldn't pay full price for kaby if refresh is in 3 months.

I went for ryzen as I play in 4k 60hz so for me there is no difference in fps, but r7 has better performance overall.

Jonno02 · 24 Apr 2017 at 19:37

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
What CPU do you have now??

4770k. Doing a full system upgrade, last thing is the processor!

Would be a 1700, wouldn't stretch to 1700x.

teppic · 24 Apr 2017 at 19:55

The i7 is at its limit, the 1700 has a ton of headroom. I'd go for the 1700 overclocked every time - you may lose a couple of fps in some existing games in comparison but you're unlikely to notice it, and people are reporting better minimums.

Jonno02 · 24 Apr 2017 at 20:14

People are talking about the 1700 and not 1700x, right?

gavinh87 · 24 Apr 2017 at 20:28

Jonno02 said:
People are talking about the 1700 and not 1700x, right?

Yep, although once overclocked there is no difference. In fact all 3 are pretty much the same chip with the 1800x able to hit same or higher frequencies with less voltage. The difference between say 3.9-4 is negligible anyway

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 25 Apr 2017 at 12:12

Jonno02 said:
4770k. Doing a full system upgrade, last thing is the processor!

Would be a 1700, wouldn't stretch to 1700x.

TBH,I would stick with what you have and if you have not overclocked the CPU,I would overclock it.

malachi · 25 Apr 2017 at 13:21

I would stick with the CPU you have now. Unless you are doing heavy number crunching then you are wasting your money upgrading the 4770K. Especially with the prices of DDR4 at the moment.

texxx74 · 25 Apr 2017 at 16:56

malachi said:
I would stick with the CPU you have now. Unless you are doing heavy number crunching then you are wasting your money upgrading the 4770K. Especially with the prices of DDR4 at the moment.

I also have 4770k @4.4Ghz with 1080ti and it rocks, I stay put for the moment.

Brazo · 25 Apr 2017 at 18:19

Despite what the AMD fanboys will tell you an intel quad core is perfectly capable of loading a game and running a web page (and even a lot more besides).

Stick with your your Haswell it is superior to the Ryzen in Gaming applications.

gavinh87 · 25 Apr 2017 at 18:31

Brazo said:
Despite what the AMD fanboys will tell you an intel quad core is perfectly capable of loading a game and running a web page (and even a lot more besides).

Stick with your your Haswell it is superior to the Ryzen in Gaming applications.

As a haswell and ryzen owner I can tell you that whilst the i7 can do it, its nowhere as responsive. In fact on the i7 bf1 wont even load a map if it is minimized, it needs to be the main program open.
As for superior, I can tell you it isn't. They are on par for the most of it, ryzen just has extra headroom for other stuff.

DarkHorizon472 · 25 Apr 2017 at 18:50

To give an example my 1700 at stock in BF1 is at 33% in game when my RX480 GPU is maxed out, playing at 1080p. It is very smooth and hits a max temp of 53c in game.

I bought it as I saw things moving on from 4 cores and also for a bit of future proofing since AMD is keeping the AM4 socket for a few years. Eventually when needed I will overclock it and update the cooling.

Jonno02 · 25 Apr 2017 at 19:59

Brazo said:
Despite what the AMD fanboys will tell you an intel quad core is perfectly capable of loading a game and running a web page (and even a lot more besides).

Stick with your your Haswell it is superior to the Ryzen in Gaming applications.

My 4770k is lightly overclocked and it does suffer when minimised on BF1. Maps load extremely slowly if the game isn't the focused window.

DragonQ · 25 Apr 2017 at 20:08

Jonno02 said:
Hi guys,

Almost finished upgrading my full system. I've got a GTX 1080ti on order but I'm completely stumped with the processor. Most of my usage is gaming, which leans me towards the 7700k, but I also like to minimise and browse the internet whilst maps load, so that leans me towards the 1700.

With a card like a 1080ti, would the processor (either of these) really matter that much?

Depends what kinds of games you play and how much longevity you'd like to get out of the system. If you're gonna upgrade again in year or two, or play a lot of GHz-hungry games that don't use lots of threads, the i7-7700K will probably be better overall. Otherwise, R5 1600 or R7 1700.

For BF1 the two are identical at 1440p with a high end GPU, although the internet is awash with people claiming the R7 1700 is far better in heavy multiplayer matches.

ALXAndy · 25 Apr 2017 at 21:29

Jonno02 said:
My 4770k is lightly overclocked and it does suffer when minimised on BF1. Maps load extremely slowly if the game isn't the focused window.

Yup that's probably because the game is hogging your CPU cores.

It's a crying shame that there is no benchmark for multi tasking, because I can tell you the more cores you have the better Windows 10 behaves. I don't have a Ryzen, either, before any one calls me a Fanboy I'm rocking a 8c 16t Xeon.

Edit, what am I saying. There is a benchmark for it. Asus Realbench paints a pretty good picture with its heavy multitasking test.