Return to Level1Techs.com

7700k vs 1700:Agonizing over my 7700k purchase

cpu
choices

#61

I'm familiar with Mindfactory, I found the best deals there when I was helping friends to choose upgrades on a budget.
It's not that I hate ASUS, I've told you before that I believe ASUS products are the highest quality, but here you must pay the highest premium price for their products. I can also tell you that the Customer Service is the worst I've ever had when I made a warranty claim.
As to websites there are very many here to comparative shop, however I almost always purchase from here:


#62

I suspect that a large reason why many games are now taking advantage of 8 cpu threads is because the xbox one and ps4 have 8 cpu threads. The PS4 Pro released last year, and the Xbox Scorpio which hasn't even been released yet have 8 cpu threads. So I doubt we're going to see most developers all of a sudden optimizing for 16 cpu threads. Also, i haven't really been impressed with AM4 motherboards yet, they seem way overpriced for what they're offering. If I was going to build a PC today, as much as it kills me to say it, I would probably get a 7700k.


#63

The same mainboard model I just bought for AM4 is approximately $130 less than it's Intel counterpart.


#64

well, i can't comment unless you mention the boards specifically..


#65

Not at the current prices. $350 for a quad core and $150-200 for an EOL socket is a hard sell when all the Intel system offers is higher clock speed.

If socket 1151 was getting a 6 core 12 thread Kabylake chip then paying the extra for the Z270 system would make sense but as things stand a unlocked Intel quad core system is a non starter when AMD are offering so much more performance for less money.


#66

Let me answer that with:


#67

looking now, the prices definately look a lot nicer. Last time i was looking, it must of been too close to launch, all the prices were super inflated


#68

I don't see a difference between pricing on Newegg vs Alternate or Mindfactory.
That is all pretty even and Asus does not charge more then other vendors for AM4 boards.

So unless you finally show something different my conclusion is this:
Your claim of Asus charging premium for AM4 stuff does not hold up. At all.


#69

OK, I see.
The site has countless examples of what we call the "ASUS Tax".
But the reason they can charge so much is because their customers are fanatically loyal.
So loyal, that if ASUS produced a Toaster Oven, they would pay twice what it is worth.


#70

You say all they offer is higher clock speed, but that could be rebutted with "all ryzen offers is more cores". That by itself isnt a great argument.

A dead socket however is a much better argument. Thing is though that it relies on believing that Ryzen 2 will clock significantly better (and therefore attractive to me), that intel wont have a comparable offering, and that no new killer motherboard features will be coming.

As for Ryzen 2 clocks, I dont think anyone can even speculate about that.

For intel offerings, if a 6 core is coming up, I think at least vs current Ryzen cores, itll pretty handily win in most ways. especially considering for pure multi-threaded performance the 7700k is about on par with the 1600x

The last thing is about motherboard features changing, and that, If im not forgetting anything is probably actually probably the safest thing to assume wont happen since pci4 is a while off and pci3 isnt a problem at all, and I dont think theres any new usb on the Ryze. This is a good argument in Ryzens favour on the budget side of things actually and one that isnt mentioned much.

Ontop of that, I also will eventually need another board so that makes some amount of sense as well.

So, back to my situation, it seems the only actual pluses that Ryzen has for me, is perhaps an increase in gaming performance in 2-4 years when I plan to have a different cpu in probably 2, not having to get a new motherboard if Ryzens next gen is appealing to me or more head room for other tasks while gaming, which is where most of the choice making this thread is about comes from.

Currently, the most cpu intensive game I can think of (bf1 multiplayer), uses about 70-90% cpu time. Considering youtube browsing and my systems regular background tasks take up about 10% when not in focus, thats probably going to start eating into gaming performance if a game comes along that maxes out my cpu.

That, is where Ryzen might really start looking like the better option with the extra cores.

So, its really back to, how significantly will games change in ~ 2 years, because with most games I play, my cpu usage is sitting around a comfy 50% and the higher clock speed is a healthy boost to performance. I mean it is 25% higher clocks.

What would really be able to change my mind right now is if someone had a properly done write up or video review of Ryzen vs Intel (particularly the 7700k) in multitasking while gaming.

It was also mentioned that building with Ryzen is attractive as a novelty of something new, but I couldnt care less about that, or supporting a multibillion dollar company or anything like that. I just want the best thing for my situation.


#71

The current rumor is that Intel will be offering "mainstream" parts on x99 (or whatever it is now) that are only 4 cores and only dual channel memory support. Basically making the high end platform more accessible to the masses. Add that and an assumed price drop of their high end cpus with the next generation, and you have their response to Ryzen. It basically extends their HEDT line down to the mainstream and more or less relegating their "mainstream" platforms to the low end (Unless there is some overlap between the two platforms which would be dumb). So more or less, they are phasing the HEDT into the mid/high level desktop which is basically waht Ryzen is. Now, compare that with the rumors of AMD launching a secret higher end platform soon (with 16 core parts and whatnot) and you have a rather interesting situation where they both have two platforms, but Intels reaches from the HEDT down the the mainstream, leaving a separate one for the low end, and AMD's reaches from teh low end to a budget HEDT with a separate HEDT. Different approaches to the problem.

All of that to say that no, Intel doesn't really have an answer to Ryzen. They are adopting their existing line up to cover the hole that AMD exposed in the market (the budget HEDT that crosses gaming and productivity). That leaves some questions such as whether or not the low end of the x99 parts will be able to clock as well as the mainstream parts now. 5ghz on x99 is basically unheard of, but pretty common on Z170. So will there be something for you from Intel in the future? Possibly. Will there be something for you on the platforms that are currently available? I don't think so. Unless you are happy with the 7700k (which is no doubt a great part). I just am not a fan of how quickly Intel phases out their chipsets (and some other business practices), so they aren't really an option for my money, but are definitely a good option, with some definitive wins over AMD in certain areas.


#72

I very seriously doubt that has anything to do with Ryzen. 4 cores on x99 doesnt at all solve any problem... in any way really. People who buy X99, want more features, more cores. As far as the rumours go, that 4 core isnt special, it just goes on the more expensive, hedt motherboard line.

What might solve it however, is if the plan was to bring say, 6 cores of kabylake or next lake out to mainstream or even x99/299 with those nice clock speeds, but that i7 just seems out of place and unrelated by itself.


#73

I've been following the launch of Ryzen for similar reasons. In the end I think it mostly doesn't matter, both are excellent choices.

A R7 is going to be a bit better for things like heavy video editing and working with multiple virtual machines. A 7700k is going to be better for games and tasks which are not as heavily multi-threaded (eg image editing is faster on 7700k). But either machine is still going to be great at the other tasks as well.

My recommendation is to just spend time gaming or something instead of rebuilding your machine. A 1700 isn't going to be better for gaming than your 7700k, it's likely going to be worse. (Even if it's at a level where you don't really notice it.)


#74

really i don't see any significant single threaded gains from Intel happening until they use a smaller manufacturing process. I think the 7700k will be the last high end 4 core CPU, maybe 1 more after it if Intel is just too slow to react. I can still see like r5's with it; but man, especially with no one knowing how much Ryzen will benefit from software optimizations and eventually their next update; i don't see how Intel can bank on high end 4 cores anymore. Also, gaming CPUs is a tiny market, and Ryzen is pretty solid in everything other than mobile. Intel can't just sit back and rely on their performance in gaming and horribly threaded software.


#75

Atatax what you're saying makes sense if you assume intel doesn't want 4 cores to remain the standard for gaming.

I don't know enough of how intel works with enterprise/creative software devs to comment on that.

But from the gaming market perspective it seems like they wouldn't want to increase cores considering the pricing structure they want to maintain. Looking at what AMD is putting out their margins must be very good right now at intel on cpus. So as long as intel dominates gamers rigs 4 cores will remain the standard.

Only way I see this changing in the short term is if AMD pays for it to change. Or figures out another way to put pressure on intel to up core count. (consoles maybe?)


#76

the thing is, 8 threads is already the standard. The xbone and ps4 have 8 cores. The 7700k spanks the 7600k, the 2600k spanks the 2500k in gaming. I5s are going to need hyperthreading to compete with r5s. Then what sets i7s apart? More cores. Also, more cores means more sales. How many people are hanging onto their 2600k? There has been little to no reason to upgrade your gaming cpu for the last 6+ years if you bought an i7. Desktop CPU sales have been shrinking every year since i think Sandy Bridge. To increase sales, Intel needs to increase cores.


#77

For so long all one had to do was to mention Bulldozer, Piledriver, Vishera etc. and Intel fans would moan about the Power Consumption leading up to the Zen launch. Now these same folks who act as sockpuppets scream about low overclocking with Ryzen.
What is ironic, is that it t'was the pursuit of exceptionally low power consumption that has limited the overclocking headroom of Zen!


#78

I guess it makes sense in the short term to do that. But it seems like they're playing into AMD's hands if they push up the cores and try to maintain their margins. Lining up their 6 cores with AMDs isn't going to be pretty from a value perspective

Might be giving up massive marketshare in an attempt to get people using your CPUs to upgrade. Only problem being they might upgrade to your competitors product


#79

I think it will, if Intel maintains the more powerful cores, then why would someone get 8 cores with the performance of Intels 6 in multi threaded applications and worse single threaded.

Its like right now, where 4 vs 8 is still a decisive issue, but with even more cores on the intel side.

That is assuming though, that intel keeps that core performance advantage.


#80

That doesnt sound like a very reasonable viewpoint.

the FX line has been universally panned by everyone, AMD and Intel fans alike. To pretend that 1, it was a fan based opinion or 2, that AMD makes their big decisions based on that, is pretty out there.

There are far more factors.

For one, would using GF even allow them to go for higher clocks? Secondly, If they did actually have the choice as opposed to just trying to build the best they could, why wouldnt they also strike a balance between power consumption and draw given that the mobile market very much so has been out of reach for AMD in a lot of ways due to power consumption previously.

With Ryzen, they can finally start looking like a premium option in laptops again.