7700K VS Zen 1700/1800X For gaming??

lltfdaniel · 21 Feb 2017 at 22:01

I'd take the 1700x over the 7700k, but if benchmarks prove otherwise i wouldn't at the moment.

old gamer · 21 Feb 2017 at 22:06

muon said:
7700k is only $339 vs 1700X $389.

Save only $40.

He said 7700k for £299 plus he's already got the motherboard

melmac · 21 Feb 2017 at 23:19

Boomstick777 said:
Anyone with a realistic idea on whether the 7700K would outperform Zen for gaming?

Got a decent price on a 7700K and it would be a slot in upgrade, i.e no need to change motherboard.

However will Zen outperform this chip in gaming? I would expect Zen to be better in more workstation type programs as it has the extra cores but gaming wise?

I doubt you would be able to tell the difference between them in games.

Sampsy · 21 Feb 2017 at 23:38

As others have alluded to the 7700k will likely be the best choice for gaming today as the Ryzen chips likely have lower IPC and potentially clock speed as well. Every game is different but for the most part if you have a quad core it's really more IPC / Clocks you need rather than more cores - for now at least.

However... the vast majority of people buy a new gaming PC with the hope that it will last them a few years. While 4 cores is enough today that might change - and is perhaps likely to. Both the PS4 and XB1 have Octacores and as such games designed for them will be designed to use up to 8 cores. Further, several newer AAA games are close to maxing out every core on a 7700k. IPC doesn't look like it's going anywhere fast so if those devs want to continue increasing the complexity of their games they will also need to think about utilising more cores. Of course I don't actually know how many games in the next few years will utilise more than 4 cores but I feel the industry is moving in that direction.

Nichrome · 21 Feb 2017 at 23:53

Why don't you wait for actual benchmarks and reviews? Arguing over not yet released product is just pointless.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 21 Feb 2017 at 23:55

Hints are indicating Ryzen has a better SMT implementation than Intel is using in Skylake.

Remember,it looks like the 4C/8T Ryzen CPUs will be priced around the same as the Core i5 7400 and Core i5 7500. Many here are conveniently ignoring the fact,that those CPUs run at well under 4GHZ,and the 4C/8T Ryzen parts will have close to 4GHZ Turbo and XFR too:

https://ark.intel.com/products/97147/Intel-Core-i5-7400-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz
https://ark.intel.com/products/97123/Intel-Core-i5-7500-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_80-GHz

Is these parts which are going to look much worse than the Core i7 7700K. If AMD SMT also scales better than what Intel has currently,even if AMD losses against the Core i7 7700K in ST games,it will claw it back in MT games anyway.

Either way the unlocked Core i5 parts are going to look overpriced it appears.

Kaapstad · 22 Feb 2017 at 00:14

OP wait for the reviews.

Zethor · 22 Feb 2017 at 13:59

If this leak is real, just wait for the massive intel price drops..

http://www.game-debate.com/news/223...-1700x-intel-thrashed-on-price-to-performance

Poneros · 22 Feb 2017 at 15:31

I'm willing to bet good money the Intel mainstream line won't drop more than 10%, if that. Remember only the 8c/16t Ryzen CPUs are launching in March. Even then, I think Intel has enough brand power for this not to make much of a dent. They'll be fine, they're still faster core for core than Ryzen.

ubersonic · 22 Feb 2017 at 16:05

Spyhop said:
The sensible option for OP would be to take the 7700K now, then when the time comes that you actually need 10 or more threads for gaming, get a 2nd or 3rd revision Zen setup

How the hell is "spend more to get less, then when you need more you can spend even more to get the one you should have bought in the first place" the sensible option?

Kaapstad · 22 Feb 2017 at 16:14

ubersonic said:
How the hell is "spend more to get less, then when you need more you can spend even more to get the one you should have bought in the first place" the sensible option?

If the basic Ryzen 1700 is a good clocker it could be a real 7700k killer.

diamount · 22 Feb 2017 at 16:18

Poneros said:
I'm willing to bet good money the Intel mainstream line won't drop more than 10%, if that. Remember only the 8c/16t Ryzen CPUs are launching in March. Even then, I think Intel has enough brand power for this not to make much of a dent. They'll be fine, they're still faster core for core than Ryzen.

Brand power? When I think of 'brand power' brands like Apple and Samsung come to mind. People have only been going with Intel because they simply offered better performance - not because of brand loyalty, especially on the consumer market.

Alexrose1uk · 22 Feb 2017 at 16:20

No, it's brand recognition, even non-techies often recognise the Intel logo, the little sound effects they've used etc, AMD doesn't have that.

And that's been the way for the last decade or two. AMD have a chance here to do something massive and majorly boost thier market presence. Hopefully they will be able to make this tree bear fruit.

ubersonic · 22 Feb 2017 at 16:27

diamount said:
Brand power? When I think of 'brand power' brands like Apple and Samsung come to mind. People have only been going with Intel because they simply offered better performance - not because of brand loyalty, especially on the consumer market.

Don't mean to be rude but are you new? Back in the Athlon XP days when AMD had it's genitals lodged firmly in Intel's throat customers were still buying Intel over AMD by a fearsome ratio due entirely to their brand power.

Nelly · 22 Feb 2017 at 16:40

ubersonic said:
Don't mean to be rude but are you new? Back in the Athlon XP days when AMD had it's genitals lodged firmly in Intel's throat customers were still buying Intel over AMD by a fearsome ratio due entirely to their brand power.

He's been on these forums nearly a year longer than you have anyway, so I doubt he's new lol.

Not entirely down to brand power >> https://www.extremetech.com/computi...for-unfair-and-damaging-practices-against-amd

diamount · 22 Feb 2017 at 16:49

ubersonic said:
Don't mean to be rude but are you new? Back in the Athlon XP days when AMD had it's genitals lodged firmly in Intel's throat customers were still buying Intel over AMD by a fearsome ratio due entirely to their brand power.

The market has changed substantially since then and the consumer CPU market really isn't a large part of their revenues now. Those who want cheap and powerful CPU's will be clued to the news regarding Ryzen, make no mistake.

ubersonic · 22 Feb 2017 at 16:50

Nelly said:
He's been on these forums

Yeah I meant to computers not the forum obviously.

SniperDude · 22 Feb 2017 at 16:55

I'm going to jump to AMD if anything because I feel like Intel is just taking the mick since sandy bridge with its massive prices and lower quality (due to corner cutting TIM).... It's looking like AMD are competing again and Intel really do need taking down a peg or 2.

Kaapstad · 22 Feb 2017 at 16:55

ubersonic said:
Don't mean to be rude but are you new? Back in the Athlon XP days when AMD had it's genitals lodged firmly in Intel's throat customers were still buying Intel over AMD by a fearsome ratio due entirely to their brand power.

I was one of those people buying intel in those days, I knew they were crap CPUs for performance but back then I still wanted to stick with the industry standard.

Daaaveee · 22 Feb 2017 at 16:57

Kaapstad said:
If the basic Ryzen 1700 is a good clocker it could be a real 7700k killer.

This is what we need to look at IMO. 8c/16t at decent clock speeds, IPC within 5% or so of kabylake, it will be a real winner and with that core count will last a good while. Looking forward to the reviews.