• 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

Radeon85 said:
SLI doesn't seem to play nicely with ryzen.

Considering where AMD came from though they have done an incredible job with ryzen overall. Huge props to those engineers.

Still needs tweaking though but it's so nice to see Intel sweat a bit :D
Click to expand...

Both SLI and CF have been a bit lacking of late - I was an early adopter and advocate of multi GPU but the rise of more advanced use of DX11 and DX12 seem to have put a dent in it.

SLI tends to favour low latency, high frequency systems as well - it was at its best with the NF200 chipset boards that shortcut a lot of transactions.
 
We are in a slightly odd place at the moment where the four core intel mainstream platform is dominant on frequency and the ryzen platform dominant on cores. To get the best of both you're looking at the £580 8 core intel CPU on x299 which is going to need a £300 board and £300 worth of quad channel memory and at least £120 of AIO cooling to hit the frequency.

I am hoping that ryzen "2" will up the frequency ante and run on x370. If it does I think this platform will win out the mainstream for sure. But even from a current state value perspective unless you're on 1080p high refresh I'd take a 1600 b350 setup any day of the week over a z270 7600k.
 
Radeon85 said:
Some games no but some games I did.

The division loads faster with ryzen but overall runs far smoother on the 7700k, the park extraction I was getting quite a few frame drops on ryzen. 7700k runs silky smooth, the 4790k had no such issues either.

GTA 5 flying was stuttery over the city on the 4790k, 1800x was silky smooth but in the desert my 4790k was silky smooth and the 1800x was running at a lower frame rate around 45 to 50fps and dropping frames. The 7700k is silky smooth everywhere and pushing the 2x 1080 Ti's harder even maxed out at 4k. Odd that as the 1800x and GPU'S had tons of power left to play with.

Beam NG drive runs better on the 7700k but that game is 100% single threaded.

Forza horizon demo ran at a constsnt 60fps maxed out at 4k (no aa) on a single 1080 Ti with my 4790k, the 1800x just couldn't do that. Dipped to the very low 50's a lot of the time. The 7700k the frame rate instantly went back to 60fps and never dropped.

Far cry primal is mainly single threaded but at your main base once the area is heavily populated even the 4790k was struggling to hit 60fps and was usually around the low 50s. The 1800x was worse hitting 43fps. 7700k had no issues maintaining 60fps though. This was also maxed out at 4k.

All this is on the same clean windows install. If gaming is the main priority then the 7700k is the best option for now. Even at 4k the 7700k is pushing my cards harder as it should be.

I have tons of games on steam, origin and uplay but Intel just runs better overall.
Click to expand...


do you ever play last stand in the division? that seemed to be the most effected when I tried my ryzen setup vs the 7700k.

especially when it was dz3? the one with the shopping mall where everyone rushes B, all the effects/abilities going off and both teams colliding caused loads of lag/stutters on the ryzen system that I couldn't replicate with the Intel setup, sometimes it would just feel like I've dropped to 20fps for a few seconds then jump up, yet my 7700k manages a solid 100fps.
 
My 4790k ran at 60fps about 90% of the time maxed out at 4k on LS, a few dips but never below 50fps.

The 1800x and the 7700k stock run LS at 60fps flawlessly.
 
Not so much a 7700k vs a 1700 but 6 cores really should be the minimum now.
Here is one of my own shots, on my 8c 16t ryzen. If this was with a quad core, it would be choking.
I have shots showing upto 67% usage. That is 17% more than any quad core has to offer.


14vh8jt.png
 
You need a break down of thread utilisation to be able to compare against a different core count but also there can be other aspects like core to core communication between threads which can have implications for instance there could be inefficiencies there on CPUs with very high core counts that aren't so bad on CPUs with lesser cores.
 
Rroff said:
You need a break down of thread utilisation to be able to compare against a different core count but also there can be other aspects like core to core communication between threads which can have implications for instance there could be inefficiencies there on CPUs with very high core counts that aren't so bad on CPUs with lesser cores.
Click to expand...

Come on, we've seen many examples of quad cores being pegged at 100%.
I don't doubt there are inefficiencies with my CPU but the fact is I will have plenty left in the tank after a quad has reached its max.
Six core is the new quad.
 
gavinh87 said:
Come on, we've seen many examples of quad cores being pegged at 100%
Click to expand...

Yeah but you can't just assume from a package CPU utilisation read out how well something will run on any other CPU/system especially not a set percentage like 17% over.

For instance the 7700K has almost 50% higher per core performance than any of the big 6+ core CPUs in a good number of situations so if there are 1-2 threads even in a heavily multi-threaded environment that can take advantage of it that will totally change how it could potentially run on that CPU versus a CPU that was just a 6+ core scaled down with same per core performance.
 
Rroff said:
Yeah but you can't just assume from a package CPU utilisation read out how well something will run on any other CPU/system especially not a set percentage like 17% over.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, that 17% may well translate to 5%. But in this game, it is still requiring more than a 8t CPU has to offer. There are many examples of this.
 
gavinh87 said:
Fair enough, that 17% may well translate to 5%. But in this game, it is still requiring more than a 8t CPU has to offer. There are many examples of this.
Click to expand...
Another reason that comparison is not valid is because there are often one or two threads that are more demanding than the rest. These are the "critical path threads" if you like, and it's very possible in some circumstances that these running faster outweighs the fact that other threads are running slower due to not having extra cores to run on. So even an 8-core sitting at 60% doesn't necessarily imply a quad core will be slower in that particular game.
 
DragonQ said:
Another reason that comparison is not valid is because there are often one or two threads that are more demanding than the rest. These are the "critical path threads" if you like, and it's very possible in some circumstances that these running faster outweighs the fact that other threads are running slower due to not having extra cores to run on. So even an 8-core sitting at 60% doesn't necessarily imply a quad core will be slower in that particular game.
Click to expand...

Not slower, I have no doubt a 7700k will have better frames here. But it will be sat at 100% (in certain areas). When faster GPU's come along that quad won't be able to feed it fast enough.
 
My 6700k struggles in games if I have Twitch running. I basically can't watch streams and play games at the same time, which is a shame!
 
Weird no problem with my setup (4820K/GTX1070) having twitch 1080p on my 21:9 monitor while playing on my main 2560x1440 display.

Couple of years back or so with my 780 on the same system I'd triple box Eve Online clients on the main screen while having twitch running on the 2nd monitor to watch tournaments, etc. there was some slowdown but nothing like struggling.
 
gavinh87 said:
Not so much a 7700k vs a 1700 but 6 cores really should be the minimum now.
Here is one of my own shots, on my 8c 16t ryzen. If this was with a quad core, it would be choking.
I have shots showing upto 67% usage. That is 17% more than any quad core has to offer.


14vh8jt.png
Click to expand...

What software are you running to get that info onscreen?
 
Rroff said:
Weird no problem with my setup (4820K/GTX1070) having twitch 1080p on my 21:9 monitor while playing on my main 2560x1440 display.

Couple of years back or so with my 780 on the same system I'd triple box Eve Online clients on the main screen while having twitch running on the 2nd monitor to watch tournaments, etc. there was some slowdown but nothing like struggling.
Click to expand...

ive had 3 games running at once on my pc before (dark souls 1, 2 and 3) all at 60fps, had them all open in 1920x1080 Windows so I could get some screenshots/short videos for some montages.

I think I normally have every launcher (auto on start-up) so steam/origin/battle.net/uplay/GOG, with corsair link, sound blaster studio, several internet tabs and a bunch of other stuff running even at 100fps in battlefield 1 I don't go past 75-80% at its peak.
 
Ryzen is great and all, but only buy if you like tweaking and futzing about in the BIOS, and flashing BIOS every other day.

If you want something you screw together and just use, then go for the 7700K every time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom