What would be better for me; Ryzen 1700x or i7 7700k for 1440p 165hz monitor
- Thread starter ts2fe
- Start date
Solution
Isokolon
Judicious
- Jul 24, 2016
- 6,369
- 112
- 34,390
the 7700k
the 7700k reaches higher frame rates and would be preferable for a 165Hz monitor, especially if you're not multitasking (which renders the additional threads of the Ryzen somewhat obsolete)
the 1700X struggles to deliver 165fps in AAA titles so far.
however it might age better.
the 7700k reaches higher frame rates and would be preferable for a 165Hz monitor, especially if you're not multitasking (which renders the additional threads of the Ryzen somewhat obsolete)
the 1700X struggles to deliver 165fps in AAA titles so far.
however it might age better.
Sakkura
Illustrious
- Aug 22, 2011
- 8,129
- 3
- 37,965
There are a lot of things the 1700X does better than the 7700K. But 165Hz gaming is not one of them. If your GPU is up to the task, the 7700K will pull ahead.
(if your GPU is NOT up to the task, well - you should spend more money there rather than on the CPU)
(if your GPU is NOT up to the task, well - you should spend more money there rather than on the CPU)
Gon Freecss
Reputable
- Apr 28, 2015
- 448
- 0
- 4,810
The i7 is by far better. Games aren't meant to be handled by many threads, and the i7 has the perfect number of threads.
What's your graphics card?
What's your graphics card?
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,741
- 4,559
- 142,790
The release of BF4 was a game changer, literally. Prior, the 4c/4t i5 was all that was really warranted as games didn't use more than 4 threads, concentrating on high IPC and clock speeds since the vast majority of users had everything from Athlon x4's, c2d, c2q, i5's and fx Cpus etc. Very few had i7's. With BF4 abilities bounced through the roof, where even the fx 8350 came in barely under i7 performance, game developers are turning out higher thread count, with less emphasis on ipc/click speeds. Gta:V, BF1, Starwars Battlefront, Witcher 3 all enjoy considerably better fps on an i7 vrs an i5, based solely on available threads. This trend is not going to go away anytime soon. It's to the point where AAA titles need 8 threads for best performance and the 4t i5's are suffering, only the lga1151 having any measure of real success due to high IPC/clocks powering the treads through. (or i5K OC over 4.x GHz). Currently, the i7-7700k is king for games and max fps, the Ryzen lower IPC holding it back as games are only using @ 8t, when games follow production models and start using more than @ 8t, the i7 will take second place, beat by the high core Ryzens and 2066 cpus. AMD gambled on this scenario years ago with the FX Cpus and unfortunately was a great idea, way too early, game developers would have lost big $$ if Intel was cut out since fx Cpus originally faced many c2d/c2q/pentium users, so maintained high single thread usage to keep market sales high. BF4 pretty much heralded the Doom of the 4t cpus, that includes the i5's, any serious gamer now requiring 8t minimum.
So while today the i7-7700k is currently king, that may or may not change tomorrow. It's a gamble you must decide yourself, and decide just exactly how much performance you can eek out. On the flip-side, the i7 has highest max frames, but it's minimum frames that really dictate playability, and the Ryzen is right behind the i7 there, often at least tied or within just a few fps, so you'll actually get smoother game play overall with a Ryzen pumping out 120-130fps consistently vrs an i7 pumping out 125-165fps. Games like CS:Go are currently high single thread use, and extremely popular still, but scuttlebutt has it that the next release in the CS line will have multi thread support, so look for 4+ thread usage possible. With this trend, it's entirely possible the next Battlefield release could have 16t use potential.
Just my 2¢.
So while today the i7-7700k is currently king, that may or may not change tomorrow. It's a gamble you must decide yourself, and decide just exactly how much performance you can eek out. On the flip-side, the i7 has highest max frames, but it's minimum frames that really dictate playability, and the Ryzen is right behind the i7 there, often at least tied or within just a few fps, so you'll actually get smoother game play overall with a Ryzen pumping out 120-130fps consistently vrs an i7 pumping out 125-165fps. Games like CS:Go are currently high single thread use, and extremely popular still, but scuttlebutt has it that the next release in the CS line will have multi thread support, so look for 4+ thread usage possible. With this trend, it's entirely possible the next Battlefield release could have 16t use potential.
Just my 2¢.
- Sep 10, 2006
- 7,885
- 140
- 35,640
At this time the i7 7700K will be your best choice and from awhile to come.
However down the road (however long that may be) the games will be updated to handle more threads.
But by that time the I9's will also be out for awhile along with the new generation of graphics cards.
So in the end I doubt you will be under powered in games with an I7 7700K and 1080Ti for awhile yet.
And once the newer generations of graphics cards are out and things calm down all you would have to do is swap out the graphics card if you felt the need.
I personally ran a 1st generation I7 870 for 7 years and only had to upgrade the graphics card to keep up with the newer games at good frame rates.
So unless you run benchmarks all the time and want to keep up with the latest and greatest 100% of the time and have unlimited money to burn that I7 7700K will last for a long time to come.
I just did the exact same thing and chose to go with the i7 7700K and have zero regrets with my choice. I am going to enjoy my new machine for years to come.
However down the road (however long that may be) the games will be updated to handle more threads.
But by that time the I9's will also be out for awhile along with the new generation of graphics cards.
So in the end I doubt you will be under powered in games with an I7 7700K and 1080Ti for awhile yet.
And once the newer generations of graphics cards are out and things calm down all you would have to do is swap out the graphics card if you felt the need.
I personally ran a 1st generation I7 870 for 7 years and only had to upgrade the graphics card to keep up with the newer games at good frame rates.
So unless you run benchmarks all the time and want to keep up with the latest and greatest 100% of the time and have unlimited money to burn that I7 7700K will last for a long time to come.
I just did the exact same thing and chose to go with the i7 7700K and have zero regrets with my choice. I am going to enjoy my new machine for years to come.
bharat2284
Reputable
- Jun 6, 2014
- 75
- 0
- 4,660
Ryzen lower IPC holding it back as games are only using @ 8t, when games follow production models and start using more than @ 8t, the i7 will take second place, beat by the high core Ryzens and 2066 cpus.
Are you kidding? I think intel fans do not know ryzen offers IPC close to Kabylake. Please see the benchmarks yourself. Btw considering you are only playing games i7 would be better choice for current gen games. But when games start to use more cores higher core counts would come in handy as clarkjd said
Are you kidding? I think intel fans do not know ryzen offers IPC close to Kabylake. Please see the benchmarks yourself. Btw considering you are only playing games i7 would be better choice for current gen games. But when games start to use more cores higher core counts would come in handy as clarkjd said
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,741
- 4,559
- 142,790
Ryzen cpus have roughly equivalent IPC to Haswell cpus. Now think. If a game can make use of 16 threads, same as production apps can, what's going to be the better cpu? An i7 kabylake 8t or a i7 Haswell 16t. So no, I'm not kidding. When that happens, and it will sooner or later, again, the Ryzen cpus greater core/thread count will pay off dividends. They already do, with some production apps, the R7 1700 is double the i7-7700k ability. BF4 already proved it. The lowly FX 8350 with its lackluster ⅔ IPC was barely beaten by the i7-4790k, matching thread for thread, only the Intel IPC giving it the win. The FX beating even the i5-4690k simply due to its lack of threads, IPC couldn't save it. Following BF4, you have Battlefront, Witcher 3, gta:V and other games optimized for multiple thread usage, less emphasis on IPC, so just how long is it going to be before games make use of 16t? probably not long if amd has anything to say about it. When that happens, the only Intel cpu's that'll topple the Ryzens will be the next generation Intel i7's and the 2066 cpus that'll match the Ryzens threads yet still have better IPC. It's a gamble, always is when guessing what happens next, but games like CS:Go are already putting serious consideration into breaking away from high single thread/IPC reliance and coding for 8t optimization.
synphul
Champion
- Mar 11, 2011
- 9,477
- 7
- 54,965
Games may evolve to use more threads, some have. However nothing is a sure thing. We're coming up on the second anniversary of win10, the os that was supposed to change everything with dx12. It's been in the works longer than that, been in the rumor mill for years. Still waiting for dx12 to actually benefit anything, in nearly every comparison 'old' dx11 is still beating it out. In spite of the exponential performance gains and draw calls and all that on all the graphs, the reality doesn't match the theory. Maybe eventually but holding one's breath could be problematic.
There also needs to be a legitimate need for heavier threading. If a game as it's built looks, runs, plays well on a couple of cores/threads, there's little advantage to making it more complex for the sake of 'progress'. If that were the case we'd all be driving 8wd tactical looking vehicles to the store for groceries. Is it doable? Sure. Does it have benefits in some cases? Yes. Is it needed for everything just to say it's being done - no. Much in the same way solitaire on windows didn't need to be 128bit with dual 12c cpu's.
As things stand even in the most recent hardware market, if games truly went this route of requiring 32 threads where will that leave gamers? Choosing between 2 amd ryzen models and $1000+ intel cpu's? That should play out well. That kills the ryzen 5 chips, the yet to be released ryzen 3 chips, i5's, i3's and pentiums. Hope cpu's like amd's threadripper come with a payment plan. Shopping centers condensing their parking spaces to only fit motorcycles and cutting out cars and trucks wouldn't be an advantageous move and shuttering such a huge stock of gaming hardware out there by making games so 'complex' they run poorly on everything else will have the same effect.
There also needs to be a legitimate need for heavier threading. If a game as it's built looks, runs, plays well on a couple of cores/threads, there's little advantage to making it more complex for the sake of 'progress'. If that were the case we'd all be driving 8wd tactical looking vehicles to the store for groceries. Is it doable? Sure. Does it have benefits in some cases? Yes. Is it needed for everything just to say it's being done - no. Much in the same way solitaire on windows didn't need to be 128bit with dual 12c cpu's.
As things stand even in the most recent hardware market, if games truly went this route of requiring 32 threads where will that leave gamers? Choosing between 2 amd ryzen models and $1000+ intel cpu's? That should play out well. That kills the ryzen 5 chips, the yet to be released ryzen 3 chips, i5's, i3's and pentiums. Hope cpu's like amd's threadripper come with a payment plan. Shopping centers condensing their parking spaces to only fit motorcycles and cutting out cars and trucks wouldn't be an advantageous move and shuttering such a huge stock of gaming hardware out there by making games so 'complex' they run poorly on everything else will have the same effect.
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,741
- 4,559
- 142,790
We started out with single core pentium, graphics were terrible (comparatively), then came dual core. Things got better. Was that way for a few minutes. Then the quads started showing up and graphics got immensely better, the cpu wasn't fighting itself for space to process OS working with game running. Then graphics took a major jump. Ppl wanted realism in their games. A car that actually looked like a car, not a blocky thing from minecraft. Faces had to look real, movement, actions, explosions etc. There's enough complexity in modern AAA titles that even with needed speeds, a cpu like the pentium G3528 is hammered for anything other than solitaire. Not enough threads. Even the Playstation consoles use a 1.8GHz 8 core cpu, gets a lot more work done than a higher speed, lower thread cpu. It's going to get to the point where the AAA titles are so complex with minor details that you'll not be playing a game as much as immersing yourself in an interactive movie. Gamers are demanding that level of realism. So that's what the devs are building. Pushing 8 short threads simultaneously vrs 8 threads worth of single thread code in series is a huge time-saver, and has a huge impact on fps and the sheer amount of details available for the gpu to process. The info in any given thread might be nothing more than a freckle on a dudes nose, but pushed through at the same time as the freckle on his forehead makes for less time needed than adding up every single freckle in a row. A 16t cpu could push 64 freckles on a face in the same time a 1t can push 2 in a row.
Games are evolving, no stopping that, but instead of condensing the parking lot to accommodate motorcycles and cut out cars and trucks, the parking lot is now 2 or 3 or 10 stories tall, so there's plenty of room for any vehicle. Might only use 1 or 2 stories mostly, but when Christmas hits, or Black Friday, there's room enough for everyone without ppl waiting in line down the street.
Games are evolving, no stopping that, but instead of condensing the parking lot to accommodate motorcycles and cut out cars and trucks, the parking lot is now 2 or 3 or 10 stories tall, so there's plenty of room for any vehicle. Might only use 1 or 2 stories mostly, but when Christmas hits, or Black Friday, there's room enough for everyone without ppl waiting in line down the street.
Rakanyshu
Distinguished
- Jan 10, 2015
- 429
- 22
- 19,115
All helpfull and full of analogies, the thing is yes i7 7700k still offers a bit more fps than any ryzen at 1080p (at higher resolution GPU is the limiting factor) the real competition here for Just gaming should be the r5 1600. Vs i7 7700k as all ryzen oc at the same speed. So its still a budget comp instead a performance one. If i were the op i Would check specific games benchmarks and decide base on it, so far i dont see any ryzen beating i7 7700k on even battlefield or witcher 3 or any other AAA game mentioned before. But the upper han is by marginal fps so i Would recomend the r5 1600. 1700 and up makes no sense for Just games as You would have spent more money Just to have a few iddle cores. There is no Suchitepéquez thing as future proof once games demand more cores threads you would want to upgrade your whole system.
Rak is right so the question is 250-300 ryzen 1600(x) or $400 Intel i7-7700k
Stock 1600x pretty good but what's the point of buying x370 board when OC not much better than just stock 1600x on cheap board or b350??
But i7 k must get z170 z270 and after market fan almost $700-800+ for this (cdn here by the way)
So my question is more like how much better is i7/270/fan -$700-800 than 1600(x)/b350/fan - 450-550
1600@ $259 with the decent spire by the way... can get cheap b350 board for 100 so you can even get 1600with fan and board for like 360 which is cheaper than i7-7700k which is like 400-450cdn no fan
Stock 1600x pretty good but what's the point of buying x370 board when OC not much better than just stock 1600x on cheap board or b350??
But i7 k must get z170 z270 and after market fan almost $700-800+ for this (cdn here by the way)
So my question is more like how much better is i7/270/fan -$700-800 than 1600(x)/b350/fan - 450-550
1600@ $259 with the decent spire by the way... can get cheap b350 board for 100 so you can even get 1600with fan and board for like 360 which is cheaper than i7-7700k which is like 400-450cdn no fan
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question New installed W11 on sdd, D drive (HDD) goes to the 100% in seconds
- Started by Emily_Vin
- Replies: 8
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram