7700k vs 1700:Agonizing over my 7700k purchase

Hardware Hub CPU
,
1

So, I after waiting with my 6500 and 1070, decided to get the 7700k after the launch week Ryzen benches and reviews came out.

I however, am indecisive as hell and still am trying to decide whether it was the right choice over the 1700.

To make it worse, or better I guess, as Im in the returns period on Amazon, I could totally return the 7700k for the 1700 with no problems.

Here is what makes this choice harder than it might appear at first.

  1. I plan to eventually build a free nas with the old i5 6500, or give it to someone else, so another motherboard would eventually be purchased anyways (taking away the price advantage of just using the 7700k in my current motherboard as I am doing now)

  2. I already have a big fat noctua nh 15s (which I can also return, but I hate stock fans anyways)

Why am I agonizing?

Well,

  • I eventually plan to get a better monitor with freesync or at the very least 1440 with a nice refresh rat better than my current typical, bog standard, run of the mill, prototypical 1080p monitor.

  • I currently use 2 monitors (1 1080p and 1 900p) and play all my games with borderless windowed mode to accommodate quick switching

  • I often do light multi tasking (just youtube or forums in the background (~30-50 tabs))

  • Switching to the 7700k, was easy as pie given that its just a bios update and processor swap away. Switching to the 1700 might have me reinstalling windows (which anyone who has over 100 programs knows is absolute hell and takes for ever (literally hours in my case)). This makes the 7700k also far more convenient.

The biggest point of contention though is my current use case. Im not sure, whether or not having so much of chrome open, takes away the ~5-25% gaming advantage (looking at 1%s/frame times mainly because average means nothing if its jerky) the overclocked 7700k generally seems to have over the 1700 overclocked.

No one seems to test things like this. Usually, for reference, my background stuff usage stays when idle between 5-10% at the most, which I dont think is all that far off from a pretty stock windows config. It does jump when Im actually browsing and clicking, but I dont consider that a problem since Im not paying attention to the game while clicking on the other screen.

Now, something else I considered is future proofing, but given that even in the most multi threaded games out today, the 7700k wins for the most part, I think in 2 or so years, when I think il probably upgrade to 6 core intel mainstream if it happens (or Ryzen 2 if they get their clocks up), I dont think games will change quickly enough in that direction to invalidate my purchase.

All that being said, id love some opinions. Given this channel seems to like evidence based approaches, Ive come
hear in the hopes that the forum will be similar in atmosphere.

2

Your current 7700K is still a decent choice.
I dont see much reasons to return it for a worse performing Ryzen chip in gaming.
Since you dont mention anything about any productivity workloads.
Going with the 1700 Ryzen only really makes sense if you do some content creation or any other type of productivity workloads.
And next to that some gaming.

But if gaming is the main focus, the 7700K is still king.

5 Likes
3

As an AMD guy, I am going to say from what you describe as your current use you are fine with the 7700k. I am running a 1700 and it is beautiful. I got it for the future proofing in the sense that it should last 4 years. If you want the 7700k to last 4 years it can on games. But if you ever plan on doing video encoding or running Virtual Machines while gaming as I do. I suggest the 1700. The 1700 is a little better for future use compared to a 7700k for the 4 additional cores and 8 additional threads. It is up to you ultimately. If you plan on just gaming even 4 years from now keep the 7700k. The thing is you'll be giving up upgradability. AMD went as far as to say am4 will be supported until ddr5 and pcie 4.0 are released. So Future use might be AMD because you could upgrade your cpu and keep your current motherboard. But I am kind of biased towards AMD. AMD is known for keeping a socket for 2 to 4 years.

I would say if you only ever game keep the 7700k. If you plan on streaming using the same computer, video edit, running vm, or anything else that you would consider thread heavy you should get 6 cores like i7 x99 or 8 core ryzen am4.

So look at a 5820k or 1700 they run in the same ball park. The 5820k has slightly better single core performance where as the 1700 destroys it in multitasking/multithreaded performance. My 5820k gets a little more than 1100 in cinebench. My 1700 gets about 1700.

Sorry for my sloppy response, I have been up for 19 hours and have taken a adavant to help relax because I have been trying to sleep for the past 2 hours.

4

I was going to get the 7700k instead of ryzen 1700... my final choice was I wanted to get into unreal4 editor. And my gaming though some may not consider light gaming, I can sacrifice the little bit of fps etc for gaming to get some worthy running time in unreal editor. I tried running unreal editor on a core 2 duo 3.0 oc to 3.6... and after a rediculous wait on some render time on a wood texture, my deciding factor was more cores... Had I not decided to do any editing of such I would have gone with the 7700k.

1 Like
5

Also i would like to add to this.

If topic starter does concider to switch to Ryzen for gaming.
Then in my opinion it might be interesting to concider the R5-1600X instead.
Because in alot of games, the 1600X once overclocked performs very close to the 1700X.
With a few exceptions depending on the gpu and resolution used.
But yeah the 7700K overall performs better in most games.

2 Likes
6

I am in agreement about the 1600x, even though I don't have one. It could be said it is a toss up between a 1700 from jet.com for 280 USD but then again the 1600x would go down even cheaper from jet.com The 1700 is almost guaranteed 3.8ghz where as the 1600x is guaranteed 4.0ghz. The 1700 has 2 additional core 4 additional threads in total. The 1600x would allow you to save something like 50 dollars and then that 50 dollars could go to a more expensive x370 board or better video card or even food for dinner. In 2 or 3 years upgrade the cpu to a 16core cpu or any that have better single core performance. Higher clock speed maybe?

If you want a six core intel cpu do it today. A 5820k is the same price from some places as a 7700k. In some places the 7700k is more expensive. At microcenter currently the 5820k is 320 USD. If you get a 7700k now you are buying into a new cpu and mobo. I guarantee z270 wont be supported two years from now unless intel takes a queue from amd. Buying a 6 core now will save you money in the future instead of having bought an expensive system today and one 2 or 3 years from now. That means you would have bought a cpu mobo today and a cpu mobo tomorrow. It makes less sense in the future use idea. If you buy it now it should last until 2020 with out an upgrade until atleast then. The 5820k was released in 2014 and can out perform a 6800k, last summers release.

PS. The 16 core might not ever exist for am4 might be a different socket, but if they did do this I would be the first to jump on it as I was on the 1700 on launch day.

1 Like
7

I already have a z170 mobo though.

Also, to add something to this post, Its the smoothness im really worried about. In bf1 multiplayer for example, computerbase has the 1700 winning on the smoothness front looking at their charts. In fact they have it smoother on a few games.

Then, I look at games like fallout 4, where Ryzen seems to fall on its face not even achieving 60 fps averages according to purpc.pl and Im conflicted even on the gaming front.

Now, L1techs has a video out showing hitches in gta5 (which to be fair, I dont play), and Im worried more like that may surface before sunday where I can no longer return.

I really worry too much.

8

I am gonna wait for Ryzen 2 or Ryzen 3 like when Phenom came out then Phenom II came out and was much better.
Ryzen is gonna be around 3 or 4 years with minor upgrades.
7700K is an awesome cpu, way way better then my 8320e :slight_smile:

2 Likes
9

+1

First gen buyers buy first gen. Intel at this point offers very mature tech. There will be some headaches for techies with this batch of Ryzen. All depends on use case scenario though.

I don't know whether or not there will be a Ryzen 2 soon, although probably the next production batch of Ryzen will have an optimized casing, with a thin solder layer for less thermal capacitance in the casing. That'll boost the performance of the next production batches of Ryzen chips quite a bit I think. Also, as always with new AMD platforms, mobos really need to catch up. There have been lots of UEFI updates, but the UEFI is getting a bit cluttered and chaotic with all those updates, and there are some mobo hardware roadblocks, so next gen models of mobos would be nice. For users who want all of the features of Ryzen, it's probably a good thing to wait until next year to upgrade their systems. By then it will be balling.

10

I'd take a Ryzen 8 core system over anything, but for gaming I'd probably have saved the $350 and stuck with the 6500.

11

The 7700k is going to game better, the 1700 is going to perform better in productivity workloads. Your mainly gaming. Easy choice 7700k. If this was a workstation, I'd go 1700, but its not. 7700k it is then.

12

The 6500 was painfully stuttery in bf1

13

$350 is a lot of money to solve stutter in BF1. Maybe Ryzen is the way to go as the 7700 will probably see the same problem in a years time.

I'd be tempted to build the NAS and upgrade the system desktop a 1700.

1 Like
14

Dont you think a year is a bit fast for that to rear itself?

I was thinking itd really start showing up in 2-4 years when id probably upgrade again.

15

I think you will be fine and happy with whatever you go with at those levels.

The only reason I personally would go am4 is I am fairly certain there will be revised versions or perhaps an r9 range somewhere down the line which should be drop in replacements on the existing boards... (unless its am3+ all over again :frowning:) but that is a bet I am willing to take with my own money, not anyone elses though.

16

I thought all the rumours said their HEDT equivalents (12+cores) would run on a separate and new socket

17

I don't think so. We've had the console pushing 8 cores for a while (2013) and 8 cores desktops for even longer. I think it's safe to say most games engines will be very well optimised for 8 cores and 16 threads.

18

Thats the thing isnt it though.

Consoles have had multiple cores even from the ps3/xbox 360 days and the 7700k still is winning in games right now even vs intels 6900k

19

Buyer's remorse is strong. I generally don't tend to get upset over it in instances like this. Just plan to stick with your 7700K for the next few years and see where it takes you. Only upgrade if you really need the extra power.

A year ago, I bought an R9 Nano, to take with me to LAN Syndicate. Cost me nearly $500, and less than 6 months later, R9 Fury Nitros were going for half that. Did I get a bit of buyer's remorse? Yes, but given the sheer power-to-weight ratio the Nano provides, and that I was building a tiny ATX case for my main machine, I don't think I'd sell the Nano, even though it basically cost twice as much as an equivalent card would have. It's a damned quick little card.

1 Like
20

Well who had nearly uncontested control of the market for the past few years? Who has the funds to dump into these game dev teams?

With AMD taking a large chunk of the market now (relatively speaking) there should be more development geared towards utilizing multiple cores. Ryzen has been a complete game-changer for AMD's CPU business. Now how long it will take before this comes to fruition? I've no idea. But it most certainly will happen.

Now, your 7700k is a fantastic processor that can hold its own with productivity and even moreso with gaming. So you should be fine for years to come. Just because it may not be the best at something doesn't mean it's not good. That's like saying the Veyron sucks now because there's a new Bugatti out that's a little faster.