Upgrading from Haswell 4770k?

GTiPUG · 22 Aug 2017 at 11:36

HaroldSaxon said:
Yeah, i'd agree that isn't the right term to describe Ryzen - maybe if you are playing Intel Biased games at 1080p high refresh rate... but that's a pretty niche usage case!

That's kind of what I figured, bit unfair! I definitely think there was a ring of fanboyism to it so I guess I'll never get a response

HaroldSaxon · 22 Aug 2017 at 13:42

GTiPUG said:
That's kind of what I figured, bit unfair! I definitely think there was a ring of fanboyism to it so I guess I'll never get a response

Yeah, you get the same on both sides unfortunately. I'm just glad that there is some competition, although I hope AMD can keep up with Intel for Ryzen1.5 and Ryzen2 if Coffeelake ends up being good. I do wish I had a threadripper machine at work though!

Glanza · 22 Aug 2017 at 13:51

I'm switching from my 4770k rig tomorrow over to a Ryzen 1700 . I game at the same res so I'm not chasing max fps numbers and would rather future proof with more cores currently. It'll be interesting to see how the switch is regarding the cores not being maxed at 100% unlike my 4770k currently does.

Cooper · 22 Aug 2017 at 13:57

At least you can be sure of one thing going AMD Ryzen, you won't have to change your motherboard everytime they release an improved Ryzen CPU over the next 3-4yrs, unlike the greedy bar stewards at Intel, in collusion with the Mobo manufacturers.

All Ryzen needs to be a truly worthy CPU IMO is for them to reach 4.5Ghz.

Jeps · 22 Aug 2017 at 15:36

Glanza said:
I'm switching from my 4770k rig tomorrow over to a Ryzen 1700 . I game at the same res so I'm not chasing max fps numbers and would rather future proof with more cores currently. It'll be interesting to see how the switch is regarding the cores not being maxed at 100% unlike my 4770k currently does.

Keep us updated on how it goes! I've been considering the move but not really sure its worth it.

Doogles · 22 Aug 2017 at 18:20

GTiPUG said:
I think "poor offerings" is a bit harsh? From what I've seen, there's not really any significant advantage to Intel right now? Unless you're fanboying I guess?

Not fanboying but know how a 3770k is on par with a R3 1200 which has been out for over 5 years now...

passifid · 22 Aug 2017 at 19:16

Doogles said:
Not fanboying but know how a 3770k is on par with a R3 1200 which has been out for over 5 years now...

And a 2007 Xeon is probably on par with or beats a modern i3 esp on multi threaded workloads however as we both know comparing old high end to modern low end is silly. Now I have never owned a and CPU so I can't really be a fanboy but it seems like at the moment except for vr and 144hz ryzen is giving intel a hard time.

Doogles · 22 Aug 2017 at 19:39

passifid said:
And a 2007 Xeon is probably on par with or beats a modern i3 esp on multi threaded workloads however as we both know comparing old high end to modern low end is silly. Now I have never owned a and CPU so I can't really be a fanboy but it seems like at the moment except for vr and 144hz ryzen is giving intel a hard time.

Thing with the 3770k is how it would beat a 1200 in both single and multi-threaded workloads, unlike that 2007 xeon

passifid · 22 Aug 2017 at 19:46

Doogles said:
Thing with the 3770k is how it would beat a 1200 in both single and multi-threaded workloads, unlike that 2007 xeon

and it's 10years older not 5? Also the gtx titan Kepler beats the 1050ti in gaming and workstation performance :')

Doogles · 22 Aug 2017 at 21:03

passifid said:
and it's 10years older not 5? Also the gtx titan Kepler beats the 1050ti in gaming and workstation performance :')

Titan was £1000 at launch compared to the £280 price tag of the 3770k, not really a fair argument. It's obvious how stagnated the CPU area.

passifid · 22 Aug 2017 at 21:17

Doogles said:
Titan was £1000 at launch compared to the £280 price tag of the 3770k, not really a fair argument. It's obvious how stagnated the CPU area.

I agree but using example of old hardware as why current offerings are not good is a bad idea. The current i7 7700 is bad compared to a r7 and all the way down the stack. You can't use second hand as an example. I bought a 4770k and at the time it was much better than and but now it's changed.

Phage · 23 Aug 2017 at 09:18

If you need a detailed look at 4770k to a 1700x in BF1, I did excatly that posted the results here.
http://forums.hexus.net/cpus/376546-4770k-4-3-1700x-3-8-bf1.html

Glanza · 23 Aug 2017 at 10:39

Phage said:
If you need a detailed look at 4770k to a 1700x in BF1, I did excatly that posted the results here.
http://forums.hexus.net/cpus/376546-4770k-4-3-1700x-3-8-bf1.html

Good write up that.

opethdisciple · 23 Aug 2017 at 10:57

If you do end up buying current gen Ryzens I think the consensus is to buy the 1700 if you want 8 cores or the 1600x if you want the 6 core variant. You don't need any of the other SKU's as they all clock within similar margins. Only benefit buying a 1700x over a 1700 might be for a higher % chance of a better binned chip. But the difference would probably be no more than 100Mhz once overclocked.

Plus over the next 2-3 years I do expect games to start using more and more cores. So 8 cores will became the standard in my opinion.

I bought a 1700 and don't regret my decision.

Only disappointing thing with Ryzen is the ram situation. It's still a bit finicky.

james_2k · 23 Aug 2017 at 11:07

Wouldn't bother swapping from a 4770k unless you have a specific area in which it is deficient. I made the jump over to the 7900x which i only did as i broke my 4770k, somehow, while messing with the bare die mount

passifid said:
I agree but using example of old hardware as why current offerings are not good is a bad idea. The current i7 7700 is bad compared to a r7 and all the way down the stack. You can't use second hand as an example. I bought a 4770k and at the time it was much better than and but now it's changed.

Fanboy Rubbish, sorry

Phage · 23 Aug 2017 at 11:11

Glanza said:
Good write up that.

Cheers

passifid · 23 Aug 2017 at 14:25

james_2k said:
Wouldn't bother swapping from a 4770k unless you have a specific area in which it is deficient. I made the jump over to the 7900x which i only did as i broke my 4770k, somehow, while messing with the bare die mount

Fanboy Rubbish, sorry

Fair play didn't know I was a fanboy considered I currently own 4 Nvidia GPUs and 2 intel systems and 0 AMD CPU or GPUs.

However I've not suggested buying anything new only if he is going to go ryzen. There is no reason for him to be getting 93 degrees on a 4770 and probably needs a better cooler or a remount

james_2k · 23 Aug 2017 at 14:42

I didn't say you were a fanboy, i said the post you made was a fanboy rubbish

and yes, yes he does.

malachi · 24 Aug 2017 at 12:16

opethdisciple said:
If you do end up buying current gen Ryzens I think the consensus is to buy the 1700 if you want 8 cores or the 1600x if you want the 6 core variant. You don't need any of the other SKU's as they all clock within similar margins. Only benefit buying a 1700x over a 1700 might be for a higher % chance of a better binned chip. But the difference would probably be no more than 100Mhz once overclocked.

Plus over the next 2-3 years I do expect games to start using more and more cores. So 8 cores will became the standard in my opinion.

I bought a 1700 and don't regret my decision.

Only disappointing thing with Ryzen is the ram situation. It's still a bit finicky.

We all thought that back in 2012 when the 8320 and 8350 came out. Here are are today and still many games support no more than 4 cores.

opethdisciple · 24 Aug 2017 at 13:02

malachi said:
We all thought that back in 2012 when the 8320 and 8350 came out. Here are are today and still many games support no more than 4 cores.

Times are changing tho. Ryzen has made multicore for the masses and games such as BF1 have started to choke on 4 core CPUs.