• 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.

Ryzen 7 1700 vs i7 7700k for gaming

I sold my skylake very early in the game before Ryzen came out - No regrets at all! I got 5.0 Ghz, a lucky chip, not that I ran that 24/7 but 4.8 was comfortable. But it meant nothing to me when you have a 4k monitor!

taken from an debate on andtech -

Actually there is no difference between Intel AMD at 1440p with any graphics card.
And no practical difference at 1080p either since probably 99% of the people using that resolution are running 60 Hz monitors which can NEVER display more than 60fps

What was your point again ? all the way -
 
GAC said:
the problem is if you check the dates like the above video they are all a month or more ago. id be interested to see where ryzen stands now with its updated memory bios tweaks.
Click to expand...

Just read HardOCP's most recent analysis.

https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/05/26/definitive_amd_ryzen_7_realworld_gaming_guide/1

Seems its only behind by 9-10 fps or so at 1080P but above 60. I think considering the upgrade path I will most likely go for Ryzen and a 1080Ti/ Vega. Crossing my fingers it works out.
 
It does seem that 1080p 144 Hz and emulator boxes are the only real market for Kaby Lake right now, aside from those with excess cash.
 
More and more games are using more and more cores. Be mad to buy a 4 core intel now. Ryzen all the way.

The only time buying a 7700k makes sense if you plan to play 1 very specific game (e.g. FSX) where single core Ghz is the most important factor.

For a balanced rig or general gaming rig it has to be Ryzen.
 
Without a doubt, agree with beany bot and shaz12 - a lot of the 7700k vs ryzen 1700 gaming is futile now, even in the earlier stage it was only 1080p

as I stated in another post from myself here at ocuk - by someone at anandtech -

Thursday, June 01, 2017
Actually there is no difference between Intel AMD at 1440p with any graphics card.
And no practical difference at 1080p either since probably 99% of the people using that resolution are running 60 Hz monitors which can NEVER display more than 60fps

What was your point again ?

Which is what i have believed in from day 1
 
Last edited:
Panos said:
Yes and yes. 3200Mhz is better also.
On Ryzen CPUs higher speed ram affects performance directly due to Infinity Fabric.
The difference between 2133 to 3000 is something like 15% in pure gaming FPS
Click to expand...

i think i dropped a booboo going for the 2666 corsair vengeance. Both sticks have gone kaput and i am borrowing a 2166 8gb stick from a friend, and the difference is notable.
 
Chrisc said:
i think i dropped a booboo going for the 2666 corsair vengeance. Both sticks have gone kaput and i am borrowing a 2166 8gb stick from a friend, and the difference is notable.
Click to expand...

Is because Infinity Fabric runs at half the ram speed. That's the communication between the two 4core CCXs that make the CPU.

AMD with AGESA 1006 supports up to 4000mhz ram. (higher speeds to follow)
But some mobo manufacturers went cheap supporting up to 3200 and that bit flaky at best.

So don't be surprised new motherboards coming out now, and especially the Ryzen 9, show much higher performance than on current boards.
Look the brand new B350 strixx. It beats the CH6 in performance with what some could call a good margin. Going head to head with what seems the best performance x370 board. The MSI Titanium

While the threadripper benchmark AMD showed last week a 2.77x better perf than the 8core CPUs.
And that extra 0.77 perf could be coming from quad channel ram and/or better board
 
Panos said:
Is because Infinity Fabric runs at half the ram speed. That's the communication between the two 4core CCXs that make the CPU.

AMD with AGESA 1006 supports up to 4000mhz ram. (higher speeds to follow)
But some mobo manufacturers went cheap supporting up to 3200 and that bit flaky at best.

So don't be surprised new motherboards coming out now, and especially the Ryzen 9, show much higher performance than on current boards.
Look the brand new B350 strixx. It beats the CH6 in performance with what some could call a good margin. Going head to head with what seems the best performance x370 board. The MSI Titanium

While the threadripper benchmark AMD showed last week a 2.77x better perf than the 8core CPUs.
And that extra 0.77 perf could be coming from quad channel ram and/or better board
Click to expand...

Now that is interesting! Cheers
 
What sort of Games are that CPU intensive? Reason I ask is because everything I throw at my PC the CPU is not breaking a sweat and the GPU is maxed out. Makes me think the whole arguement is null and void because neither CPU would be maxed out for me anyways?

My CPU was OC'd to 4.8, but I've put it back down to 4ghz because I can't see the point of OC'ing when it's only like 50-60% used at 4.0ghz anyways. Addmitedly I only play FPS so maybe that's why, but for me either CPU should be fine?

This is with 6700k and 1080ti at 2560x1080 btw
 
Strategy games are the most CPU intensive. A lot of older games though can barely use more than 1 core, and so these will always do best with higher IPC, even on an i3 or something.

Most FPS games aren't particularly intensive and you have to create stupid scenarios (720p, lowest settings) to get any real difference.
 
Guru said:
What sort of Games are that CPU intensive? Reason I ask is because everything I throw at my PC the CPU is not breaking a sweat and the GPU is maxed out. Makes me think the whole arguement is null and void because neither CPU would be maxed out for me anyways?

My CPU was OC'd to 4.8, but I've put it back down to 4ghz because I can't see the point of OC'ing when it's only like 50-60% used at 4.0ghz anyways. Addmitedly I only play FPS so maybe that's why, but for me either CPU should be fine?

This is with 6700k and 1080ti at 2560x1080 btw
Click to expand...


BF1 Multi player, TESO at Cyrodil, strategy games like CK2 and Stellaris on high speeds, even The Division on any multiplayer instance like DZ or last man standing.
The list is long. (inlc benchmarks)

There are many games that use more than 4 cores. I had a 6700K @ 4.8Ghz and moved to 1700X @ 4Ghz and due to motherboard issue and no supply, downgraded to 6800K @ 4Ghz. (waiting for Ryzen9 9800 atm)

The latter two are much faster on all games I play, even on WOT which is a single thread game compared to the 6700K @ 4.8Ghz.
And mainly the latter due to the cores do not compete with each other for background services.

Since I use TS and usually a browser streaming internet radio.

On 6700K WOT was running on core 2 at 100% constantly and the rest of the cores were on medium to heavy load.

On 1700X was running on core 5 and on 6800K is running on core 4. Both those cores never exceed 60% usage while gaming, while the load of all other services is spread.
Hence my FPS went sky high to 120fps almost constantly. From high 80s it was before.

Clearly 4 core is not enough today, when you do more than one thing at the same time, even if that involves gaming.
Yes on review benchmarks the picture is different, but when you put music on, TS/whatever, and actually play a game, not run a scripted test, the performance on 6+ CPUs is much better.
And everything much smoother.
 
Last edited:
Ah fair enough, it was BF1 I was running where my CPU wasn't being taxed that hard compared to the GPU. I couldn't imagine I would get a higher FPS regardless of the CPU because the GPU was maxed out. I can't comprehend how my FPS could go up when my GPU is already at 100%
 
Panos said:
Is because Infinity Fabric runs at half the ram speed. That's the communication between the two 4core CCXs that make the CPU.

AMD with AGESA 1006 supports up to 4000mhz ram. (higher speeds to follow)
But some mobo manufacturers went cheap supporting up to 3200 and that bit flaky at best.

So don't be surprised new motherboards coming out now, and especially the Ryzen 9, show much higher performance than on current boards.
Look the brand new B350 strixx. It beats the CH6 in performance with what some could call a good margin. Going head to head with what seems the best performance x370 board. The MSI Titanium

While the threadripper benchmark AMD showed last week a 2.77x better perf than the 8core CPUs.
And that extra 0.77 perf could be coming from quad channel ram and/or better board
Click to expand...

I hadn't considered that being where the extra performance came from but it make sense.
 
I am on ryzen and loving it for games. I also can't believe how much of a difference the 2133 default DRAM speed hits when compared to my system at 3333. Apparently this is point where diminishing returns hit but I suspect 3333, which is now easy on B-die and 1.0.0.6, is quite a bit faster than the 2933 hardOCP tested at.

I also wonder whether they should've focused more on minimums for the 1440p and 4K scenarios. The 2600k comparison is interesting but I've just moved from a Xeon 5670 at 4.5ghz, which is only one generation behind sandy bridge (I think) and 2 extra cores and the ryzen is an indescribably better gaming experience. It's not just the average frames but I think the minimums and the 'jitter' which is seriously impressive. Little things like alt tab are instant too which seems a silly thing to be pleased with but it just demonstrates how much better the system feels with the extra cores. I suspect the minimums and wider experience is what panos is describing in his 6700/1700/6800 comparison.

I would go 7700k for 1080p high refresh screens and possibly 1440p for low detail high refresh. If you're a heavy FPS gamer above all else there's no debate. Otherwise the 8 core experience absolutely kills it for me.
 
Is the 1700x really worth the extra £££ over the 1700. If I go r7 instead of r9, then it's between these 2 paired with a gaming 5 mobo
 
Panos said:
Is because Infinity Fabric runs at half the ram speed. That's the communication between the two 4core CCXs that make the CPU.

AMD with AGESA 1006 supports up to 4000mhz ram. (higher speeds to follow)
But some mobo manufacturers went cheap supporting up to 3200 and that bit flaky at best.

So don't be surprised new motherboards coming out now, and especially the Ryzen 9, show much higher performance than on current boards.
Look the brand new B350 strixx. It beats the CH6 in performance with what some could call a good margin. Going head to head with what seems the best performance x370 board. The MSI Titanium

While the threadripper benchmark AMD showed last week a 2.77x better perf than the 8core CPUs.
And that extra 0.77 perf could be coming from quad channel ram and/or better board
Click to expand...

This is the first I've seen this. Do you have any more info?
 
Guru said:
What sort of Games are that CPU intensive? Reason I ask is because everything I throw at my PC the CPU is not breaking a sweat and the GPU is maxed out. Makes me think the whole arguement is null and void because neither CPU would be maxed out for me anyways?

My CPU was OC'd to 4.8, but I've put it back down to 4ghz because I can't see the point of OC'ing when it's only like 50-60% used at 4.0ghz anyways. Addmitedly I only play FPS so maybe that's why, but for me either CPU should be fine?

This is with 6700k and 1080ti at 2560x1080 btw
Click to expand...
Although an older game it's still played a lot. FSX is entirely CPU intensive. Everything is loaded through and drawn by the CPU. Even shadows are drawn by the CPU. it's actually a good stress test for CPUs lol. My cpu core 0 is at 100% nearly all the time while in FSX. THE GPU only really handles AA. And even then, only if you force it to in software such as Nvidia inspector.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom