The i7 still has HT so 8 logical cores, it's not a complete slouch. I'd agree if it were between an i5 and Ryzen though.
-
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.
On the fence, Ryzen 1700, or i7 7700k, not overclocking
- Thread starter Mort
- Start date
The i7 still has HT so 8 logical cores, it's not a complete slouch. I'd agree if it were between an i5 and Ryzen though.
Why so much hatred? It seems that you are the real troll hereIf 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.
Because he's not building a tablet, He building a desktop so giving information about What he isnt building is a waste of time
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Shares in fire extinguishers?
AMD Ryzen 5 Six Core 1600 3.60GHz £189
Asus Prime B350-Plus AMD B350 £99
Team Group Dark Pro 8GB (2x4GB) DDR4 PC4-25600C16 3200MHz £80
That comes to a total of £368
Intel Core i7-7700K 4.2GHz £350
So for £18 more than the cost of the 7700K alone you get all that you need on the Ryzen side, the CPU, A good Motherboard and the high speed memory.
On the Intel side you still have £200 to spend bringing the price up to £550, for what? for 10%.
Edit, the 7700K doesn't even come with a cooler, so add another £30 for that.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
Assuming you can overclock to 4ghz of course, majority will probably hit a voltage wall at about 3.9
Still a bargain though.
Still a bargain though.
Realistically double the price of the RAM as you aren't using 8gb for gaming in 2017, and you aren't guaranteed a 4ghz clock on the Ryzen chip, what 30 games are those by the way? I don't play 30, I play about 3-5 at any one time
Who isn't using 8gb for gaming in 2017? My other half does and she has had 0 issues with games.
Yeah but if you're considering buying a 7700k or a high end Ryzen chip and are looking at a few years ahead, you wouldn't advise getting 8gb. I struggled with 8gb 12 months ago if I wanted to do things alongside playing a game, such as having Twitch open on my second monitor, which is pretty common these days.
Its the same difference, you would also need 16GB for the 7700K, its not guaranteed to run at 4.9Ghz and even then it will not even do that on anything less than an £80 cooler where as the 1600 will do 3.9 on its stock cooler which is universally recognised as good and quiet.
So if you want to throw overclocking and 16GB of Ram into into the mix the 7700K system now costs £700 and the Ryzen 1600 £430 for the same 10% performance difference.
I paid £600 for my system, £147 mobo, £306 7700k and £136 for the RAM. The reason I picked the 7700k was because it was 10% faster for £100~ more, when you consider the fact you need the more expensive Samsung ram to get 3200mhz on a Ryzen system
That is £43 less than the 7700K costs now and £200 more than the Ryzen system.
You do not need the Samsung IC's to run at 3.2Ghz, before BIOS updates the Samsung IC's had the best chance, now it doesn't matter for 3.2Ghz, i have seen some run at 3.6Ghz and they were not Samsung IC's.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,466
- Location
- Planet Earth
Well £200 could be spend on a better card - that is bascially the difference between say a £250 to £280 RX580/GTX1060 and probably a very good GTX1070 or maybe a GTX1080.
Yeah, i don't get why people are so pushy with the 7700K, for 10%.
If you have money to burn and are going to get all the most expensive stuff anyway yeah absolutely..... but if like the remaining 95% on a budget the Ryzen 1600 opens up all sorts of opportunities you would not have going down the 7700K rout.
Like getting a GTX 1070 instead of the GTX 1060, upgrading your existing screen, a nice new case + an NVMe drive, and so on......... or just save £200, take the kids on a weekend out.
Some people behave like the 7700K is the only CPU anyone is allowed to buy.
Also, Z270 is a dead end platform, you can't upgrade it later on, the AM4 platform is designed for 3 to 4 generations of Ryzen CPU's
Last edited:
I tend to concur, plus it's not just cost to take into consideration. Most of the dedicated gamers that I know personally tend to have other stuff running along side i.e. streaming or recording. In this scenario then it is a no brainer. If some of you guys would just press Ctrl-Shift-Esc to see how much stuff is running in the background then you might realise the more cores running at a high IPC then the better.
Personally I keep my gaming PC fairly optimised and close down stuff I don't need before gaming.
Most of my gaming is with friends, so thats Discord used, Skype is always running too, and my Thunderbird Email client, there is often some one in our group who wants to share a link so i'm Alt Tabbing out a lot with multiple Browser tabs open, usually Youtube.
Yes that really takes its toll on my CPU, it doesn't like it and you can feel that and see it in the OSD,
One of my gaming friends does the same while software streaming through OBS, FFFFFFFF about with his server and FFFFFF knows what-else... his CPU does all that effortlessly, its a Ryzen 1700X.
Its like AMD have just turned up and said, this is multitasking, welcome to the Twenty First Century this SSSSSSSSS is real easy really.
This is me, discord chat and voice running. Numerous gaming clients like steam origin etc, amazon music playing and a load of alt tabbing during map loads.
Something that my 4700 stuggled with, now its no bother at all with minimal delay when reopening full screen games.
My 4820K has zero problems handling even multiple games + voice comms + additional programs, music and web-browser - I dunno what some people do with their systems to see so much slowdown when multi-tasking :s
I'm going off my own experience, same SSD same amount of ram - albeit ddr3 vs ddr4 but ryzen is much, much faster when alt tabbing between fullscreen programs/games.
I believe you are missing the point; it is not so much the 'slowdown' it is the difference between using both systems! I had a 2600K (equates to your 4820k) which ran at 5Ghz and I did not notice any slow down or feel it was slow when using it. When I went to a 3930K at 4.5Ghz even though it was 10% slower in single threaded performance the system as whole was much more responsive and fluid when it came to any kind of multitasking. The odd stutter I had during gaming was eliminated etc. Once I started using things that started to tax all 6 cores then it was nearly ~40% faster.