• 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

~>Dg<~ said:
intel isnt about value.amd is. people keep making it their key debate. when its not intels selling point.they offer the quickest cpu.for whatever they sell it for because it is the fastest.in that sector.

people might not think the 10 percent gaming difference is worth the extra but its quite a bit especially on minimums which matters the most.that makes for a very different gaming experience.

currently the 7700k is the best cpu for gaming across the board wont be soon though.
Click to expand...
You're talking about a single CPU that isn't value for money. That's true but Intel has an entire line-up of CPUs, none of which can be claimed to be the fastest at anything except the i7-7700K.

Anyone suggesting to buy the i7-7700K to anyone that doesn't already have a GTX 1080 Ti or better is just off their rocker - you'll get far more bang for your buck upgrading the GPU in a build than picking the i7-7700K over the R5 1600 (and even then the latter will likely have more gaming longevity).
 
wam7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

2600K doesn't equate to a 4820K though its not night and day different - slightly higher IPC clock for clock and the quad channel can make a difference in some multi-threaded application.

I use a variety of systems day to day don't really notice any particular difference in terms of general workload - sure if you have something encoding or compiling that can use any number of cores there will be a difference and/or higher framerates, etc. but in terms of the scenarios people often talk about with gaming + background tasks + music + video, etc. I don't see any slowdown or odd stutter that isn't also present on like a 5820K, etc.

EDIT: What I don't know off the top of my head is whether the 4770K would feel a bit different in that regard dunno how much difference the architectures make but my 3610QM, making allowance for the lower frequency, also holds up pretty well under similar circumstances.
 
humbug said:
*snip
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.
*snip
Click to expand...

No! You are NOT borrowing it!!!!

Damn 4 core pea........

:p
 
Rroff said:
2600K doesn't equate to a 4820K though its not night and day different - slightly higher IPC clock for clock and the quad channel can make a difference in some multi-threaded application.

I use a variety of systems day to day don't really notice any particular difference in terms of general workload - sure if you have something encoding or compiling that can use any number of cores there will be a difference and/or higher framerates, etc. but in terms of the scenarios people often talk about with gaming + background tasks + music + video, etc. I don't see any slowdown or odd stutter that isn't also present on like a 5820K, etc.

EDIT: What I don't know off the top of my head is whether the 4770K would feel a bit different in that regard dunno how much difference the architectures make but my 3610QM, making allowance for the lower frequency, also holds up pretty well under similar circumstances.
Click to expand...

Its not that the 4770 cannot do it, its just slower.
Coming out of overwatch to discord and back in again is probably 3 seconds slower, not much but definitely noticeable.
 
8 core 16 thread chip on a better platform for £260 or a 4 core 8 thread chip for £340 on a dead end socket. Pretty simple choice.
 
jigger said:
8 core 16 thread chip on a better platform for £260 or a 4 core 8 thread chip for £340 on a dead end socket. Pretty simple choice.
Click to expand...

But £80 on a dead platform with a chip which won't age as well, performs 0.2% better in some games at 1080P and below when combined with a 1080Ti! It's worth it just to have bragging rights!

*Yes I know it is more like 10% on average.
 
muon said:
But £80 on a dead platform with a chip which won't age as well, performs 0.2% better in some games at 1080P and below when combined with a 1080Ti! It's worth it just to have bragging rights!

*Yes I know it is more like 10% on average.
Click to expand...

Most people who have a 1080ti won't be gaming at 1080p, putting a 1080ti with either Intel or AMD at 3440x1440 there is minimal differences between gaming fps however more headroom with the extra cores for running other things at the same time.
 
muon said:
But £80 on a dead platform with a chip which won't age as well, performs 0.2% better in some games at 1080P and below when combined with a 1080Ti! It's worth it just to have bragging rights!

*Yes I know it is more like 10% on average.
Click to expand...

High fps gaming the 7700 rules.


 
RavenXXX2 said:
High fps gaming the 7700 rules.


Click to expand...

Interesting list of games benchmarked attempting to show a niche benefit case for the 7700K. Games and settings selected where FPS is likely to hit 150+ FPS at 1080p. I'll be interested in knowing how many such gamers exist.

Overwatch
DOTA2
Doom
Rocket League
Battlefield 1

Only 5 games compared to the 30 games that Techspot have done (posted previously in the thread). Gamersnexus article is below if you don't want to watch video linked above. Only a few scenarios actually show a benefit above 10% for the 7700K even in this review.

No one is doubting that the 7700K scores higher, but the gap is not significant other than really DOTA2 at all resolutions and BF1 at 1080p and below.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3009-amd-r7-1700-vs-i7-7700k-144hz-gaming

Jump straight to the tables in the article above. I'll put the overwatch example below as a demonstration of an irrelevant gap at 1080p. The same is true for Doom and Rocket League where the lowest resolution they tested was 1440p because 1080p just hit the frame cap.
overwatch_1080p_144hz.png

overwatch_1440p_144hz.png
 
Last edited:
Interesting, but with my experience between the 1800x and the 7700k, the 7700k gave me lower and more consistent frame times.
 
gavinh87 said:
Even in bf1?
Click to expand...


Don't own that particular game yet but in a few games like GTA 5 online, the Divison, Dirt 4, Assassin's Creed Syndicate, Far Cry Primal and a few others the frame times were better and more even on the 7700K and this was maxed out at 4K with two 1080 Ti's. The Division is very hard on the CPU.

It's the reason I sent the 1800X back in favour of the 7700K.

In Bioshock infinite I had nothing but issues with Ryzen, never did fix it. Popped my Intel board in and the 7700k along with the same Windows 10 install and it fixed that issue immediately.

Frame time issues with the 1800X on Bioshock Infinite, look at those 400ms+ frame time spikes!

Never did fix it, different res, different drivers, disabling SMT which worked for a few mins then the spikes returned.

lpmYAme.jpg


7700K silky smooth. Spikes at the beginning is just the game/map loading

gD8VDmY.jpg
 
LOL,Bioshock Infinite runs fine on a FX6300 with a GTX660,so I think it must be some issue on the driver side with your SLI GTX1080TI.

I even tried it on a A6 3670K and an HD5850 and it ran!! :p

Remember,ROTR??

Plus even though a Core i7 7700K that would be the best CPU for FO4,which I do play,at £300+ its a waste of money,as I tend to keep my platforms for at least 3 to 4 years,which I would argue is what many people do. Sure forum enthusiasts will upgrade every year or two,but that is not really practical for most people!

I upgraded to SB when it first game out with a Core i3 2100,so that is how long I have been on socket 1155 - so my only chance of ever getting SKL/KL is if the CPU and mb was relatively cheap.

What is the likelihood once Coffee Lake is out all the Core i7 7700K and more importantly the Core i5 7600K benchmarks will be dropped within a year just like all those pesky GTX1060 3GB ones?? :p

Edit!!


Thats quite an intensive part too. One GTX1080TI at 4K though.

Plus if you are really that worried about getting Intel only,then you should be waiting for Coffee Lake,and especially when the Z390 motherboards are released at the end of the year.

6C/12T at a similar price to a Core i7 7700K with similar single core performance - that sounds like a decent combination there!

Second Edit!!

Even Nvidia are now recommending Ryzen and Threadripper:

https://www.pcgamesn.com/nvidia/nvidia-battlebox-pc
https://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/10series/battlebox/

On one of the Nvidia webpages they even did a Ryzen build IIRC.

So methinks,that if that is the case Nvidia will be working on those optimisations over the next few months which is good news for AMD!! :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom