Return to Level1Techs.com

7700k vs 1700:Agonizing over my 7700k purchase

cpu
choices

#21

Since 2013 the console have been using PC hardware and the PC games industry has adopted the console style API. Back around the time of PS3 and Xbox 360 we had a very different scenario both in hardware and software than what we have today.
We might as well refer to the all the highend gaming platforms as the same industry and I don't see the overclocked i7 quad core PC side of the market reversing the trend and driving the ecosystem. It was just you mentioned spending $350 to solve the stuttering issue that will probably return shortly. Maybe I'm wrong though.


#22

Firstly, I dont think AMD has quite lunged forward in the cpu marketshare race. on Amazon, Intel by far leads on the hourly updated best sellers list for example.

Itll probably claw its way back from the (22% I think) it has, but I dont think its going to be to the point where devs completely change whatever it is theyre doing. Especially when you consider that intel has also had 8 cores + for quite some time too and we're still seeing a hyperthreaded 4 core win.

It was just you mentioned spending $350 to solve the stuttering issue that will probably return shortly.

Why would it shortly return?


#23

I think I've pointed that out already.


#24

For now it is guaranteed to but the problem is it will be expensive probably closer to 1000 dollars. I was just hypothetically saying 2 years from now on the same socket it might be available for that am4 socket.


#25

1600X is certainly not a guaranteed 4Gh OC as only 2 cores boost to that speed at stock. This allows AMD to have substandard cores that will not clock uniformly. Both CPUs have an "All Core Boost" of only 3.7ghz which is all we can expect.
In fact, a recent TPU review only got 3.9 at "sensible" volts.
AMD is giving out assurances to reviewers that is different from what the public gets, and as a result there is confusion.


#26

I can only agree with this.

Like i said above the 7700K is still king in gaming.
Untill intel launches their next generation platform that is.
I dont see any logical reason why he should return the 7700K.
With Ryzen he also gonne need to buy a new motherboard, which adds more to the cost,
for less gaming performance, it just doesnt make any sense in that perspective.
But if he has plans to do some productivity workloads,
Then it basiclly is a diffrent story.
But then i would rather suggest that topic starter waits for Skylake-X or Kabylake-X.


#27

Well, At some point in the future (maybe a few months), il be buying another anyways for a nas.


#28

Alright. I didn't know that. I learn things everyday on these forums.


#29

Well intel is going to launch X299 new HEDT platform soon.
Rumors are going, that we probablly gonne be introduced to it at Computax in June.
So if you really have upgrade plans, and you might need more cores in future.
Then i would say just wait for that and see what they have to offer.
From a productivity point of view we currentlly cannot deny that Ryzen is the bang for buck king over X99 in terms of price to performance.
But for mainly gaming X99 shouldnt really be concidered atall.
Because thats where the 7700K is simply king.


#30

Getting the 1600x would eliminate all the bonuses of the 7700k in gaming and also eliminate all the bonuses of the 1700 in headroom so I dont see how that would be at all a good upgrade.


#31

Not sure what kind of headroom you are refering too?
Switching to Ryzen will be a downgrade for gaming anyways.
Nomatter if you go with the 1600X or 1700, or whatever.
Most games dont really benefit from 8 cores atall.
Maybe a very few exceptions, but that depends on the gpu used and resolution aswell.
R7 cpu´s are mainlly interesting for content creators, and productivity stuff.
For gaming they dont really have that much to offer.
THe R5-1600X will perform very similar to a 1700 in the vast majority of the games.
They do perform fine dont get me wrong, but you dont need 8 cores 16 threads to play a game.
Thats why the 7700K is pretty much ontop of any gaming benchmark chart.
And as far as the future is concerned, there isnt really anything usefull to say about that.

Like i pointed out a couple of times.
Switching to Ryzen in your specific case only makes sense,
if you are doing some productivity stuff or content creation with cpu rendering and that sort.
Or if you plan to play with multiple VM´s in the future, if they ever get those iommu groupings fixed on am4.
Otherwise X299 will be more interesting for virtualization most likely.


#32

I agree that the 7700k is the best for gaming.

It is kind of circular though,if people keep only buying quad cores then the majority of games will only ever be optimized for quad cores.

Chicken and egg.

I personally would go for the 1600 or 1700 as from what I have seen the real world observable difference is not really noticable, once you are north of 100 fps its all good and I would have plenty of fuel left in the tank for when games (hopefully) start using the extra cores.


#33

Yes basiclly.

Thats why i say from the current Ryzen line of cpu´s,
the R5-1600X basiclly offers the best value for money wenn it comes to gaming on AMD´s side of things.
Because in the vast majority of the current games, it performs very close to its R7 counter parts for just a fraction of the price.
So that makes the 1600X sorta kinda a sweetspot chip for budget minded gamers on AMD's side.
Because most games dont really benefit much from 8 cores / 16threads.

Still since topic starter allready purchased a 7700K, and allready having a Z170 board.
I just dont see much reasons to switch to Ryzen right now.

But of course that is just my opinion.


#34

@AUSBHub How much RAM do you have in your system?


#35

If only we can get these professional reviewers and PR Fan Club shills to stop parroting each other's misinformation and set the record straight!


#36

How?

I know.

Thats why Im thinking

Pros for 1700: More cores for background tasks Cons for 1700 worse for gaming

Pros for 7700k: Faster gaming Cons for 7700k: Less cores for background multitasking

Pros for 1600: Nothing Cons: :Worse at gaming than 7700k and 1700 (though less so) and worse at multi tasking than 1700.

There is no real reason id get that over either the 7700k or 1700. Saving 100 bucks for a worse experience is not what I want.


#37

16gb of only 2400, but this is on the upgrade list as well eventually depending on whether or not I return the 7700k


#38

7700k owner reporting in. I wish I would have went for the 1700. Yeah you take a hit in games to the tune of about ~20 fps (roughly speaking it doesnt matter as long as youre above your refreshrate anyway). If you ever plan to do anything else beside gaming on it, youll have that much more oomph.

What do I know though. I'm just a guy mashing keys on the internet.


#39

KEEP MASHING THEM KEYS!

Preferably in allcaps :smiley:


#40

I returned my ryzen 1700 for a 7700K.

The platform was just too unstable. Ryzen 2 might be cool, but until then, I am sticking with intel.