On the fence, Ryzen 1700, or i7 7700k, not overclocking

[TallPaul1878]

Poor OP. All he wanted was a bit of validation over his next CPU purchase.

Now people are arguing about Pentiums and Xeons.

Where are the mods when you need them.

 

[gavinh87]

You don't get the most out of your £500-600 GPU with 1700 either, since in most games you get lower fps than 7700K does.

10% average loss, as I've previously said it more than makes up for that in other tasks.

Sensible to you, but there are always options like the 7820X, which you can buy binned & delidded for about £400 in other countries.

Thats convenient isnt it? Buy a cpu from another country, have its warranty voided and having to running in on high end cooling. Why aren't we all doing this?

 

[KiNgPiN83]

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.

I read the first and last couple of pages of this and it hurt my mind... So here is my experience: (It may help??)

I purchased a 1700, 1080 GTX, 16GB Ram and a CH6 with the view to clocking it faster. However i'm currently running it at stock but not really encountering any issues playing anything at 1080p. (Monitor limited) This machine also doubles up as my laser cutter PC so i also do a lot of Illustrator, Photoshop, laser cutting, playing music, watching tutorials etc etc at the same time and it handles everything that is open perfectly without issues. (2 monitors for anyone wondering how all that runs at once. ) Because of this i've resisited the urge to clock it as i may well have this PC for a good 5+ years. This was coming from a FX8350 rig with 8GB ram, 2 x 280x's etc.

Also PUBG went from completely unplayable to 60fps+ even in the most hectic places.

 

[humbug]

wow.......

 

[humbug]

@voidshatter everyone agrees the 7700K is the better gaming option, in fact its the best gaming option.

However, its £350, for $150 less than that the Ryzen 1600 with 90% the gaming performance is a very good alternative, and its better at a lot of other things outside of gaming.

The Ryzen 1600 is just a brilliant all rounder full stop, the bonus is its not much money.

But yes despite all of that the 7700K is still king for gaming, no one disagrees and even if they do so what? don't be so defensive of the chip. its crazy.

 

[voidshatter]

10% average loss, as I've previously said it more than makes up for that in other tasks.

Thats convenient isnt it? Buy a cpu from another country, have its warranty voided and having to running in on high end cooling. Why aren't we all doing this?

The Xeon E7-2850 will lose 35% frequency to the Ryzen 1700, and according to your logic it more than makes up for that in whatever tasks plus streaming at the same time for two additional streaming platforms (you do realise that in other countries there are far more streaming platforms than twitch?), for 16% the price of the Ryzen 1700.

Buying from other countries is not as difficult as you think. CPUs generally don't die as often as graphics cards or motherboards do.

 

[humbug]

Sensible to you, but there are always options like the 7820X, which you can buy binned & delidded for about £400 in other countries.

Add shipping costs, taxes and you're back up to £500... for a CPU that has 0 game performance advantage over the £200 Ryzen 1600.

 

[voidshatter]

@voidshatter everyone agrees the 7700K is the better gaming option, in fact its the best gaming option.

However, its £350, for $150 less than that the Ryzen 1600 with 90% the gaming performance is a very good alternative, and its better at a lot of other things outside of gaming.

The Ryzen 1600 is just a brilliant all rounder full stop, the bonus is its not much money.

But yes despite all of that the 7700K is still king for gaming, no one disagrees and even if they do so what? don't be so defensive of the chip. its crazy.

I even added this picture into my bookmark since you keep quoting price performance ratio again and again...

 

[humbug]

I even added this picture into my bookmark since you keep quoting price performance ratio again and again...

The G4560 is a great budget CPU if all you do is play games, what does that have to do with anything i have said?

PS: try and fine one....

 

[voidshatter]

Add shipping costs, taxes and you're back up to £500... for a CPU that has 0 game performance advantage over the £200 Ryzen 1600.

Buying from retailers in e.g. China you pay £24.26 for shipping via ParcelMonkey (DHL), and since it's a delidded CPU without the original box (just the same as the pre-binned and delidded CPU you get from OcUK), it's possible to declare with favourable commercial invoice for less VAT. It will end up significantly cheaper than buying from elsewhere.

0 game performance advantage over the Ryzen 1600? Are you sure you know the TurboBoost frequency of the 7820X?

 

[humbug]

Buying from retailers in e.g. China you pay £24.26 for shipping via ParcelMonkey (DHL), and since it's a delidded CPU without the original box (just the same as the pre-binned and delidded CPU you get from OcUK), it's possible to declare with favourable commercial invoice for less VAT. It will end up significantly cheaper than buying from elsewhere.

You mean fiddle the tax man? and what about warranty? and what about the fact that it still cost more than twice as much as the Ryzen 1600 for no gaming befit over it at all?

Also, if you would purchase a 7820X like that, why not save on the Ryzen 1600 and get 'it' like that instead.

Your whole argument is full of long straws.

 

[gavinh87]

Void you are boring me now, welcome to the block list.

 

[voidshatter]

You mean fiddle the tax man? and what about warranty? and what about the fact that it still cost more than twice as much as the Ryzen 1600 for no gaming befit over it at all?

Also, if you would purchase a 7820X like that, why not save on the Ryzen 1600 and get 'it' like that instead.

Your whole argument is full of long straws.

It's not fiddle the tax man, it's a 20% VAT calculated on top of £400, which is a significantly cheaper price than that is set in the US. It would cost $930 USD + 20% import VAT if you buy pre-binned and delidded from the US retailer.

As I said, CPUs don't die as easily as motherboards or graphics cards do.

 

[voidshatter]

@voidshatter everyone agrees the 7700K is the better gaming option, in fact its the best gaming option.

However, its £350, for $150 less than that the Ryzen 1600 with 90% the gaming performance is a very good alternative, and its better at a lot of other things outside of gaming.

The Ryzen 1600 is just a brilliant all rounder full stop, the bonus is its not much money.

But yes despite all of that the 7700K is still king for gaming, no one disagrees and even if they do so what? don't be so defensive of the chip. its crazy.

I agree that the AMD platform has a longer life-cycle (or longer upgrade path) for the same motherboard. The advantage is that we don't have to take out the motherboard each time we upgrade. We only need to replace the CPU and resit the heatsink. That's a lot easier than replacing the motherboard as well.

However, despite AMD honouring the socket for years, there will always be other new things coming out, e.g. increased number of M.2 slots, increased number of USB-C/Thunderbolt 3, increased memory OC etc, which will continue to surface with newer motherboards. It is usually more likely that the end-user might feel itchy to upgrade the motherboard as well. Thus I don't think the longevity of motherboard is as strong as you described.

 

[humbug]

I agree that the AMD platform has a longer life-cycle (or longer upgrade path) for the same motherboard. The advantage is that we don't have to take out the motherboard each time we upgrade. We only need to replace the CPU and resit the heatsink. That's a lot easier than replacing the motherboard as well.

However, despite AMD honouring the socket for years, there will always be other new things coming out, e.g. increased number of M.2 slots, increased number of USB-C/Thunderbolt 3, increased memory OC etc, which will continue to surface with newer motherboards. It is usually more likely that the end-user might feel itchy to upgrade the motherboard as well. Thus I don't think the longevity of motherboard is as strong as you described.

Did you actually read what you quoted before replying to it?

What i said had nothing to do with motherboards.

 

[voidshatter]

Did you actually read what you quoted before replying to it?

What i said had nothing to do with motherboards.

My apology if you never said anything about motherboard longevity. I mistook you from @Journey's posts.

 

[DarkHorizon472]

I agree that the AMD platform has a longer life-cycle (or longer upgrade path) for the same motherboard. The advantage is that we don't have to take out the motherboard each time we upgrade. We only need to replace the CPU and resit the heatsink. That's a lot easier than replacing the motherboard as well.

However, despite AMD honouring the socket for years, there will always be other new things coming out, e.g. increased number of M.2 slots, increased number of USB-C/Thunderbolt 3, increased memory OC etc, which will continue to surface with newer motherboards. It is usually more likely that the end-user might feel itchy to upgrade the motherboard as well. Thus I don't think the longevity of motherboard is as strong as you described.

The upgrade issues you mention are true of any motherboard but the difference is AMD has confirmed a longer period of compatibility. My previous pc was a socket 1156 which originally came with a two core i3, I swapped this for a four core i5 once performance became an issue and later overclocked the i5 plus its RAM.

The restriction the 7700k has is it four core and intel are about to produce a new slot making any upgrades require a new motherboard. New games and apps are now able to use more than four cores. Games like bf1 are now starting to max out the 7700k which is hitting performance. It is still a very good cpu but it's limits are becoming more apparent. All it takes is something in the background to use one of the four cores and performance in bf1 dives, a six or more core cpu is not affected in this way.

 

[TheRealDeal]

@voidshatter everyone agrees the 7700K is the better gaming option, in fact its the best gaming option.

However, its £350, for $150 less than that the Ryzen 1600 with 90% the gaming performance is a very good alternative, and its better at a lot of other things outside of gaming.

The Ryzen 1600 is just a brilliant all rounder full stop, the bonus is its not much money.

But yes despite all of that the 7700K is still king for gaming, no one disagrees and even if they do so what? don't be so defensive of the chip. its crazy.

I would say it's the best gaming chip for the majority right now but is it the best buy for people right now. As cores get used more and more i for see it being a poor buy for those that keep cpu's for a long time. As you know i bought my I7 on the fact that i thought threads would come in to play later. At the time people in the spec me threads were saying I5 is all you need. Well i proved myself right as the I5 is long gone and this thing is still going pretty well in threaded games.

I would take a 6/12 over a 4/8 any day and will speak to those who wouldn't in a few years when they are forking out again.

When i upgrade i will definitely be looking at more cores than threads again as i feel that's what gives long life in this field. If only Ryzen could hit higher speeds i would jump on one now as i think Ryzen+ and whatever Intel hit back with will be the correct time. Wish my PC had a slightly newer Intel setup as the wait would be far easier.

 

[voidshatter]

As you know i bought my I7 on the fact that i thought threads would come in to play later.

i7 920 @ 4GHz: 7428 for multi-thread and 1606 for single-thread
i7 7700K @ 5GHz: 14481 for multi-thread and 2872 for single-thread
Ryzen 1700 @ 3.9GHz: 17961 for multi-thread and 1853 for single-thread

Number of cores is not the only parameter to determine performance. Architecture would also play an important role.

 

[TheRealDeal]

i7 920 @ 4GHz: 7428 for multi-thread and 1606 for single-thread
i7 7700K @ 5GHz: 14481 for multi-thread and 2872 for single-thread
Ryzen 1700 @ 3.9GHz: 17961 for multi-thread and 1853 for single-thread

Number of cores is not the only parameter to determine performance. Architecture would also play an important role.

Where did you get these benchmarks from. Without that i can't reply properly. From what i have seen max oc which usually varies between both on Cinebench you are looking at 25-30% single threaded. Double the cores and the 1700 has a distict advantage for threaded games in the future.