• 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

humbug said:
Yeah, now with the platform matured across 30 games with a GTX 1080TI @ 1080P the 7700K at 4.9Ghz is 9% faster than the 4Ghz Ryzen 1600...

PS: who feels sorry for the 7800X? :D
Click to expand...

Nn8XRb9.jpg
 
Rroff said:
With the overall difference in smoothness and less slowdowns to minimums, etc. absolutely.
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention that because the minimums and frame times on the i7 are worse than on ryzen. Yet some people here think averages are everything.
 
gavinh87 said:
Funny you should mention that because the minimums and frame times on the i7 are worse than on ryzen. Yet some people here think averages are everything.
Click to expand...

Haven't really looked at that in detail with Ryzen - depends what the nature of the minimum are though properly presented frametimes should show what kind of impact that has.
 
gavinh87 said:
Funny you should mention that because the minimums and frame times on the i7 are worse than on ryzen. Yet some people here think averages are everything.
Click to expand...

I've had the 1800X and now the 7700k and minimum frametimes were lower or more consistent for me on the 7700k.
 
voidshatter said:
Nope. For gaming, Ryzen has less value than Pentium G4560.
Click to expand...

OP says he'll be using it for things other than gaming though.

I wouldn't like to do any software dev on a G4560. Fire up a VM and an Android emulator and see how far a G4560 gets you!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mort said:
So I'm really on the fence between Ryzen and i7 for my next build. Looking at the 1700, and the 7700k.

Its mostly for gaming (PUBG, Rocket League, Overwatch, maybe Fortnite etc). However I'm a software developer (mostly web), so will have various IDE's, GIT / db clients open etc.

Also its unlikely I will be overclocking. I haven't OC'd since my AMD Athlon about 12+ years ago, as more concerned with system longevity, stability, etc. I want this to last for at least 5 years, but current system (i7 950) is 7 years old.

My concerns with buying intel is my 7 year old rig is quad core, 7 years later it feels bad buying the same number of cores. I know single core performance is key for gaming, but still that has to be changing on newer games right?

My concerns with buying AMD is the stock core speed is only 3GHz, the same as my 7 year old i7. Even with all those cores, are they just going to go unused, and I'll regret the lower clock speed.
Click to expand...

It's a tricky one this. If you were overclocking it would be easy to recommend the 1700 I think. Not overclocking moves it closer to the 7700K as it's in quite a high state of tune out of the box.

If you don't mind closing other apps I'd recommend the 7700K for the short term. It'll be quicker in many recent games and the single threaded performance will be great for running gulp tasks, node, and pretty much anything browser or JavaScript / TypeScript based. Other languages however may lose out on compilation if they can use multiple threads. Running VM's and docker etc may lose out too over the 1700.

However I'd be very tempted by the 1700 as that's where my money would probably go. You could leave databases, docker, vm's etc open and I don't think that would phase it playing games on top too as long as you have a lot of ram. In isolation many games will be slower but not by much. You said this is sticking around for 5 years so by then this situation may well be reversed. JavaScript and TypeScript will be slower in isolation. Maybe not if you have a ton of development apps open though.

I think it's a bit of a trade off, 7700K for now, 1700 for the long term.
 
I would keep clear of 4 core cpu's now if you are upgrading for the long term. They suffer in gaming performance due to other processes using a core causing fps to drop. For 6 or 8 core cpu's this is much less of a problem.

The concern on overclocking depends on how high you go. My 1700 is overclocked to 3.675ghz and hits a max of 1.2v. Using the stock AMD cooler max temps in low 50c. On my motherboard all I did was change the cpu multiplier and leave the rest on auto, set ram to 2933 and adjusted fan profile slightly.

voidshatter , you should get your own YouTube channel called an objective look on why I really hate ryzen and love intel unconditionally:)
 
voidshatter said:
Nah, "hate" is a word carrying too much weight :) I'd rather say it's just "doubt", since no objective data can suggest Ryzen to be a good choice for most games yet.
Click to expand...

Despite hardware unboxed showing the 1600 just 9% behind at 1080p with a 1080t over 30 games.
Some people have their fingers in their ears.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom