Ryzen 7 1700 vs. Core i7-7820X, 8-Core Royal Rumble!

Blindchance · 2 Aug 2017 at 11:02

A great review. It shows nice Ryzen performance gains thanks to higher frequency RAM:

It looks like my decision to get Ryzen was a sound one. I was extravagant and bought more expensive Ryzen 1800x, yet I still saved 300 quid over Intel 7820x. If Zen2 delivers some amazing performance in 2018/19 I might upgrade the CPU to 7nm.

In case you have missed it the reviewer did a similar review comparing AMD Ryzen 1600 with Intel i7-7800x:

jaffveyda · 2 Aug 2017 at 11:04

Blindchance said:
A great review. It shows nice Ryzen performance gains thanks to higher frequency RAM:

It looks like my decision to get Ryzen was a sound one. I was extravagant and bought more expensive Ryzen 1800x, yet I still saved 300 quid over Intel 7820x. If Zen2 delivers some amazing performance in 2018/19 I might upgrade the CPU to 7nm.

In case you have missed it the reviewer did a similar review comparing AMD Ryzen 1600 with Intel i7-7800x:

No, you have made a mistake, you should go for Intel at all cost.

Simon Belmont · 2 Aug 2017 at 11:08

jaffveyda said:
No, you have made a mistake, you should go for Intel at all cost.

Why is that?

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 2 Aug 2017 at 11:09

Simon Belmont said:
Why is that?

I think he is being sarcastic.

Simon Belmont · 2 Aug 2017 at 11:10

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I think he is being sarcastic.

Oh, still too early for me lol

jaffveyda · 2 Aug 2017 at 11:11

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I think he is being sarcastic.

Yes, it was a sarcasm. I don't blame you Blindchance for your decision, I went for R5 1600 myslef

After having Intel for numbers of years.

gavinh87 · 2 Aug 2017 at 11:19

Simon Belmont said:
Why is that?

To keep void out of this thread.

Blindchance · 2 Aug 2017 at 13:15

jaffveyda said:
Yes, it was a sarcasm. I don't blame you Blindchance for your decision, I went for R5 1600 myslef After having Intel for numbers of years.

I don't particularly care about the brand. My old rig was built around 3570k, two before that around AMD CPUs.

I didn't want a 4 core CPU this time around, despite OCe'd Intel's 7700k still delivering the highest possible performance in games. You can see in quite a few games that 7700k is reaching its limits, reaching 100 % utilisation on multiple cores. Another thing is that I don't use my PC only for gaming. On other hand Intel's X299 platform looks like an overpriced disappointment. I was tempted by 7820x as it has the best performance vs price ratio and slightly less problems with temperatures unlike 7900x. In the end I went for Ryzen, the performance gap is fairly small with few exceptions which mainly use game engines stuck in the past. Also I'm hoping that the new Zen2 7nm CPUs will use the same AM4 socket. That should allow for an easy upgrade, if the new CPU lined up in late 2018/2019 really blows Ryzen out of the water.

~>Dg<~ · 2 Aug 2017 at 13:25

as with anything its what your view is on cpus.are you after value or do you want the best performance available.some people dont mind paying more if its faster.

for eg i benched a 7900x the other day in pubg against my 5820k @4.6 the 7900x was 30 fps up on it.that isnt a small jump.thats massive.ryzen chips is either same as mine fps wize or so close in pubg or slower.so while the value isnt there for intel chips.the fastest chips you can buy are still intel for most things.

Glanza · 2 Aug 2017 at 14:32

~>Dg<~ said:
as with anything its what your view is on cpus.are you after value or do you want the best performance available.some people dont mind paying more if its faster.

for eg i benched a 7900x the other day in pubg against my 5820k @4.6 the 7900x was 30 fps up on it.that isnt a small jump.thats massive.ryzen chips is either same as mine fps wize or so close in pubg or slower.so while the value isnt there for intel chips.the fastest chips you can buy are still intel for most things.

PUBG is still an optimized mess of a game though and not one I'd personally use as a decent benchmarking figure.

jaffveyda · 2 Aug 2017 at 14:38

Blindchance said:
I don't particularly care about the brand. My old rig was built around 3570k, two before that around AMD CPUs.

I didn't want a 4 core CPU this time around, despite OCe'd Intel's 7700k still delivering the highest possible performance in games. You can see in quite a few games that 7700k is reaching its limits, reaching 100 % utilisation on multiple cores. Another thing is that I don't use my PC only for gaming. On other hand Intel's X299 platform looks like an overpriced disappointment. I was tempted by 7820x as it has the best performance vs price ratio and slightly less problems with temperatures unlike 7900x. In the end I went for Ryzen, the performance gap is fairly small with few exceptions which mainly use game engines stuck in the past. Also I'm hoping that the new Zen2 7nm CPUs will use the same AM4 socket. That should allow for an easy upgrade, if the new CPU lined up in late 2018/2019 really blows Ryzen out of the water.

I struggled for months to make the decision, I had the money to go down intel route even with the X99 platform but in the AMD sway me with price to performance. Price difference went for holiday budget.

Blindchance · 2 Aug 2017 at 14:45

~>Dg<~ said:
as with anything its what your view is on cpus.are you after value or do you want the best performance available.some people dont mind paying more if its faster.

for eg i benched a 7900x the other day in pubg against my 5820k @4.6 the 7900x was 30 fps up on it.that isnt a small jump.thats massive.ryzen chips is either same as mine fps wize or so close in pubg or slower.so while the value isnt there for intel chips.the fastest chips you can buy are still intel for most things.

Personally I would go for 7820x over 7900x. I had no problem with spending extra money on 7820x, however in the case of 7900x the performance to price ratio is even more out of whack when you compare against Ryzen. I simply don't need that extra multicore performance for double price.

My decision was based on as much on benchmarks of X299 and AM4 platforms as a roll of a dice. The gap is so small, that I simply felt like AM4 being more future-proof thanks to Zen2/Zen3 compatibility is a good choice as any to go for AMD again.

The small performance gap between AMD and Intel is good for all of us. AMD competitive pricing keeps Intel in check, just compare Intel 8 core CPUs pricing from the last generation to the new offering! This also means both companies will try harder to deliver higher performance and push for more innovation

jaffveyda · 2 Aug 2017 at 14:50

The small performance gap between AMD and Intel is good for all of us. AMD competitive pricing keeps Intel in check said:
Competition is a good thing, especially for us consumers.

TheRealDeal · 2 Aug 2017 at 14:51

My mate just got a 7820x setup and all seems good so far. The only bug so far is in 3dmark Firestrike Standard. His Graphics score is much lower than it should be. The new chipset does not seem to like 1080p and holds back the 1080ti. His graphics score should be around 29k with a 1080ti boosting just over 2000mhz but it's only 24k. We ran Ultra and at max OC we managed around 7600 graphics score so all is good at 4k. This should be fixed in a future bios and with new chipsets these bugs happen.

For those playing below 4k i would probably hold off to see how this plays out. Should have tried out Firestrike extreme to see how that went down but wanted to try out some games.

Blindchance · 2 Aug 2017 at 14:52

Glanza said:
PUBG is still an optimized mess of a game though and not one I'd personally use as a decent benchmarking figure.

It is, both Ryzen and 7820x were shown to deliver average performance at best:

~>Dg<~ · 2 Aug 2017 at 15:09

Glanza said:
PUBG is still an optimized mess of a game though and not one I'd personally use as a decent benchmarking figure.

doesnt matter if its unoptimized or not.its the same for all cpus.the funny thing is a 7600k is probably one of the best bang for buck performance chips but it doesnt get mentioned much.it actually beats ryzen chips in most games across the board.i wouldnt by one myself though.if on a budget id get a ryzen chip until coffee lake chips are out soon.

gavinh87 · 2 Aug 2017 at 15:15

~>Dg<~ said:
doesnt matter if its unoptimized or not.its the same for all cpus.the funny thing is a 7600k is probably one of the best bang for buck performance chips but it doesnt get mentioned much.it actually beats ryzen chips in most games across the board.i wouldnt by one myself though.if on a budget id get a ryzen chip until coffee lake chips are out soon.

Thats because 4 cores are limiting faster gpus in half decent engines.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 2 Aug 2017 at 15:18

It doesn't really help that the cost of a Core i5 7600k and even a basic cooler is still more than the Ryzen 5 1600,and the motherboards for overclocking start at a lower base price.

Blindchance · 2 Aug 2017 at 16:09

~>Dg<~ said:
doesnt matter if its unoptimized or not.its the same for all cpus.the funny thing is a 7600k is probably one of the best bang for buck performance chips but it doesnt get mentioned much.it actually beats ryzen chips in most games across the board.i wouldnt by one myself though.if on a budget id get a ryzen chip until coffee lake chips are out soon.

Actually this is not true. "It might be the same for all CPUs" would be closer to the truth. As the case of Rise of the Tomb Raider and Ryzen shown, there are platform specific optimisation developers can implement when compiling the binary:

~>Dg<~ · 2 Aug 2017 at 17:10

yes specially amd titles with amd hardware

but kidding aside pubg wont be optimized that much.it will a little but basically whatever is the quickest now will be the quickest forever in it.