Gaming PC? 7700K vs Ryzen 7 or wait for canon lake?

[erocker]

Coffeelake, Intel's 6 core CPU will be out next month. 4770k isn't holding you back. SLI doesn't work half the time.

https://www.techpowerup.com/235254/...re-cpus-on-coffee-lake-architecture-i5-lineup

 

[5DVX0130]

Coffeelake, Intel's 6 core CPU will be out next month. 4770k isn't holding you back. SLI doesn't work half the time.

https://www.techpowerup.com/235254/...re-cpus-on-coffee-lake-architecture-i5-lineup

Can you please provide source for that statement? Preferably directly from Intel.

Because all the available data is showing that CL is still months away, and the six core is just rumoured at this point.
I’d be a completely retarded decision on Intel-s part not to do it, but considering there is a 4/4 CPU on 2066 …

 

[erocker]

I posted a link. I read a previous article that said August. Now I'm just seeing Q4 2017. So, around August.. but Intel is due to release new mainstream stuff soon.

 

[Papahyooie]

Wait until something worth it comes along... Spend a big chunk of change on a 2% gain? No way. Save it for the next graphics card generation, IMO. None of the processors around today will provide a cost-effective upgrade for you for gaming. And I highly doubt intel's next gen will either. And if it does, then you've got the money. If it doesn't? Grab a gtx 1180.

 

[yotano211]

Stay with the 4770k and those sli 1080s and overclock the 4770k to hell and back.

 

[Vya Domus]

I really don't understand the point of waiting , are Intel's next gen 6-core parts going to be way faster than anything currently available for gaming ? I doubt it , there isn't any info suggesting that or that it is worth the wait. But then again we all have different standards for "way faster". And if you want more cores and future proofing, why not just go for Ryzen R7 or 6/8 core CPUs on Skylake-X or Skylake right now ? And this is 4K we are talking about , GPU plays a bigger role than in other circumstance.

 

[EarthDog]

7700k no contest.

Read one post after the OP in this thread...

+1

Yoy have sli, you want to push those cards. The 7700k does that. Though i dont like sli either, keep what you have and push it at 4k with a 7700k. You wont need the extra cores at 4k...

 

[qubit]

@zanatos I was going to suggest either 7700K or Coffee Lake with a nod towards the latter. However, I see you've got that Broadwell CPU, so the 7700K would pretty much be a sidegrade, hence definitely wait for CL. afaik CL will be something like 30% faster than Kaby Lake according to some rumour article I read the other day and that's definitely worth waiting for.

While Ryzen is good, as you say there are still issues with it and it's no faster than what you've got so that makes it pointless.

As far as high framerates at 4K, it's still worth investing in a CPU that can achieve as high a framerate as possible. This is because 4K 120Hz monitors are not that far off the horizon and graphics cards that can work at those framerates at 4K aren't a million miles away either. This is basically what I'm waiting for before doing a wholesale upgrade on my PC so that I enjoy the same framerates at 4K as I currently do at 1080p. It will be slightly less actually, because I have a 144Hz monitor now while the 4K ones are likely to be 120Hz.

If you want to wait until 4K120 becomes mainstream before upgrading, I think that's another viable option as your system is hardly bad as it is. It's ok to change out that 980 Ti SLI in the meantime though, perhaps when the Volta range comes out.

 

[zanatos]

To recap what i have read and thank you all for taking part in this, i value the feedback even from fanboys

1 For better FPS no matter what i7 7700K is the answer but it is just a small upgrade from i7 4770k, though better chipset and memory .

2 Ryzen 7 for gaming is not the best choice but the better choice for a pc in the next years. Though gaming at 4K won't make any difference, though still there are some issues, especially with memory

3 better to spend my money on better graphic cards..

4 Threadripper a NO GO! Zen 2 no idea... Cannon lake? lets wait and see.

I have decided to wait after reading all the above.

Why?
If upgrading from i7 4770K is not worth it? I will wait for something better.
I will not get the 1080 ti (unless it get a price cut when Vega arrives)

Now were I to get a new PC (which i might change my mind). I would go for i7 it is by far the best 4 core processor for gaming and i am not sure games will take advantage of 8 cores in the next 3 years.

PS the i7 6800K PC i have Broadwell-E has not left me satisfied...

 

[phanbuey]

also the 8700k might (*MIGHT*) be compatible with z270.

 

[eidairaman1]

Oc the 4770K

 

[Xzibit]

Take a sharpie to your 4770K and make it a 7770K. Better then a 7700K

 

[Komshija]

In your place I wouldn't upgrade, since i7 4770K is still quite a powerful CPU. When paired with dual GTX 1080's, it should rock even at 4K.

If you really plan to upgrade, than i7 7700K wouldn't the smartest idea. In other words going from a working 4770K to 7700K on the level from 1-10 (1 being the dumbest possible decision, white 10 the best), it would be 2. Therefore, Ryzen 7 1700X will be a lot better option.

 

[qubit]

I have decided to wait after reading all the above.

Wise choice.

 

[las]

In your place I wouldn't upgrade, since i7 4770K is still quite a powerful CPU. When paired with dual GTX 1080's, it should rock even at 4K.

If you really plan to upgrade, than i7 7700K wouldn't the smartest idea. In other words going from a working 4770K to 7700K on the level from 1-10 (1 being the dumbest possible decision, white 10 the best), it would be 2. Therefore, Ryzen 7 1700X will be a lot better option.

1700X will not deliver better gaming performance than a 4770K. OC'd 4770K + beats OC'd 1700X in gaming 9 out of 10 times. Going Ryzen for a system that solely will be used for gaming, is downright stupid and waste of money. If he did encoding or other tasks that scale well with cores, Ryzen might be worth considering, but for gaming alone, forget about Ryzen.

Ryzen's gaming performance is mediocre and only performs on par with Intel when the games are 100% GPU bound. Ryzen performs more like i5 than i7 in CPU bound games and often even i5 beats it. Hell sometimes even Pentium and i3 beats Ryzen. Ryzen gaming performance is hit and miss. It depends on game/engine.

4K/UHD will make games less CPU bound, if played at high IQ / maxed out settings. And there might be no difference between 4770K, 1700X and 7700K. Often SLI perform worse on AMD tho.

 

[HD64G]

At 4K res, no need to go with 7700K as the GPU(s) will determine the FPS performance. Moreover, as you are planning to go on SLI, a Ryzen R7 (1700X is a good choice) will be better imho, especially for new and future games, as DX12 and Vulcan make better use of more threads and SLI (as well as CF) needs more raw power from CPU and not only higher clocks.

 

[Cvrk]

Go for i7 7700k which is by far the best for gaming hands down.

What ? Hm ? Where?

It's more than FPS. Nowadays it's smoothness. Ryzen is like anal with lub: it's weird ,you don't know why it's good, confusing,and you still get the frames per second

 

[Vya Domus]

At 4K res, no need to go with 7700K as the GPU(s) will determine the FPS performance. Moreover, as you are planning to go on SLI, a Ryzen R7 (1700X is a good choice) will be better imho, especially for new and future games, as DX12 and Vulcan make better use of more threads and SLI (as well as CF) needs more raw power from CPU and not only higher clocks.

Actually DX12 no longer supports SLI or CF at the driver level because of underlying technology. SLI and CF have no future , multi GPU will probably change into something else and there is no guarantee how current HW will be supported.

Ryzen is like anal with lub: it's weird ,you don't know why it's good, confusing,and you still get the frames per second

That's an ANALogy I have never seen before.

 

[vega22]

the "4k" gaming part really does make the 77k point of the argument moot. at that res is it all about gpu power and it is not waiting for the cpu to hand it data.

i have haswell and skylake, tbh it is only the storage speeds and ram bandwidth that differentiate them. i'm sure down the road that will make a difference in usability of the systems but right now i can only tell during boot

if i was building a new system today i would buy into the am4 platform. mostly as it is new and will get updates longer than the already eol 270 platform. so down the road i would hope to only need to plug new bits into it and not have to replace it all as often.

 

[Vario]

If you could get a 5775C at ebay auction, they pop up every week or two, around $250, and sell the 4770K for a $225 buy it now, might be an option. Then you'd keep all the same ram and motherboard.

5775C is very good, the claim is it runs smoother in games because of the L4 cache 128MB EDRAM. Don't know really how that would match up to 7700K's greater single thread or the 1700's greater core count.

 

[dirtyferret]

Also, 7700K won't get better, but Ryzen very well may mature a bit more, also in gaming. In addition, in game engines that can use more than 4 cores, Ryzen will destroy the quad core, and I think it plausible that engines are going to do that more now, the movement has already started a few years ago.

This is one the biggest AMD fan boy delusions I have heard for years (well over a decade). What CPU or GPU chip matures over years as demands increase? I like the ryzen and have built many AMD gaming rigs (Athlon XP, Athlon X2, Athlon II, and Phenom II) but none of those chips...matured.

In fact I laughed at fools when they purchased the Phenom X 4 saying quad core gaming will be here soon, well it's here now how are those quads holding up...they mature yet? Then AMD pushed the whole Phenom II x6 yet their IPC were a let down compared to Phenom II x4. Well the Ryzen 1600 is a legit gaming CPU, I'm sure the Phenom II x6 is keeping right up with it right? Nope completely pointless within a few years of launch. Wait how about all those cores on the bulldozer CPUs? Wait why is everyone suddenly laughing???

By the time game engines clearly need six cores these Ryzen chips along with their current intel counterparts will serve you as well as AMD Phenom II and Intel Core 2 Quads do now...

 

[Vya Domus]

This is one the biggest AMD fan boy delusions I have heard for years (well over a decade). What CPU or GPU chip matures over years as demands increase? I like the ryzen and have built many AMD gaming rigs (Athlon XP, Athlon X2, Athlon II, and Phenom II) but none of those chips...matured.

In fact I laughed at fools when they purchased the Phenom X 4 saying quad core gaming will be here soon, well it's here now how are those quads holding up...they mature yet? Then AMD pushed the whole Phenom II x6 yet their IPC were a let down compared to Phenom II x4. Well the Ryzen 1600 is a legit gaming CPU, I'm sure the Phenom II x6 is keeping right up with it right? Nope completely pointless within a few years of launch. Wait how about all those cores on the bulldozer CPUs? Wait why is everyone suddenly laughing??

He is right , this has nothing to do with fanboy delusions. More cores and threads get more utilization as time passes from software. Take than Phenom example you mentioned. Try running GTA 5 on a Phenom x4 and on any other dual-core of the time and tell me what happens. I'll spoil it for you , it's not playable in any form or shape , meanwhile on a Phenom x4 it is. Yes it's not brilliant but a far cry from something like a Core 2 Duo.

And game engines already use more than 4 threads , let this myth die already.

Wait how about all those cores on the bulldozer CPUs? Wait why is everyone suddenly laughing??

I am , because I am still running games at 60fps on a 5 year old CPU at a fraction of the cost some people would have told me it was necessary to spend at that time.

 

[Vya Domus]

GTA 5 on one of these bad boys? really? I think you are full of crap...actually i know you are
http://www.bit-tech.net/reviews/tech/cpus/amd_phenom_x4_9850_9750_and_9550_b3_cpus/7/

Sure mate , solid arguments you got there , a review from 2008. Go check out some videos on youtube and see how it runs on those CPUs instead of posting something that has nothing to do with what I said and spare us the BS. Then we'll see who is full of crap. But I know you wont , you are more delusional than anyone here .

 

[Vayra86]

This is one the biggest AMD fan boy delusions I have heard for years (well over a decade). What CPU or GPU chip matures over years as demands increase? I like the ryzen and have built many AMD gaming rigs (Athlon XP, Athlon X2, Athlon II, and Phenom II) but none of those chips...matured.

In fact I laughed at fools when they purchased the Phenom X 4 saying quad core gaming will be here soon, well it's here now how are those quads holding up...they mature yet? Then AMD pushed the whole Phenom II x6 yet their IPC were a let down compared to Phenom II x4. Well the Ryzen 1600 is a legit gaming CPU, I'm sure the Phenom II x6 is keeping right up with it right? Nope completely pointless within a few years of launch. Wait how about all those cores on the bulldozer CPUs? Wait why is everyone suddenly laughing???

By the time game engines clearly need six cores these Ryzen chips along with their current intel counterparts will serve you as well as AMD Phenom II and Intel Core 2 Quads do now...

Thanks for pulling the fanboy card, you're one step away from the ignore button. And you'll be the first on it too then. Grow up a bit and try to bring arguments to the table, its a lot more fun & interesting that way.

https://arstechnica.com/information...ryzen-showing-just-what-can-and-cant-be-done/

There are multiple reasons 'aging' is a relevant argument. While I found it a bit of a nonsensical argument in terms of GPU (GCN DX 11 vs DX12 performance) because that was more a 'catch up' from a shit DX11 driver than anything else, in terms of a completely new CPU arch, this is definitely relevant because:

- Market shares make the rules. Intel has dominated the CPU market for several years now and games have been optimized around Core architecture and generally max out at 4 cores, because that was mainstream offering for over a decade now.
- Ryzen launched with several issues including memory related ones, and the architecture benefits from fast DDR4, in a number of (gaming) scenarios.
- Ryzen has been given some major gaming-related adjustments, see article link above, effectively proving what I'm saying, supported by actual numbers.
- As Ryzen gains market share, the business case for optimizing around it will become more and more sensible just like it had been for Intel Core. I'll also refer you to the 'odd' Cell processor in the PS3 and how games have evolved on that platform over time - these are clear indicators that optimizing for CPU architecture is definitely fruitful and is being done all over the place.

So, perhaps now you can see why I'm saying the 7700K has little left to gain over time, while Ryzen does.

Oh, and about gaming on old CPUs, remember the issue around No Man's Sky on older AMD processors and missing a compatibility bit? Exactly. That's how much we optimized around Intel Core by now. And another thing about Athlon/Phenom, that architecture was good enough to utterly wipe the floor with Intel's P4 and lasted a good while into the Core era as competitive products. If there is any CPU that aged well, its those.

 

[Jetster]

7700k. All day