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

[hapkiman]

IF you are nearby MICROCENTER, you can get 7700k for $299 and Maximus IX HERO for around $189 in combo deal. You are correct Z270 is really stable and fantastic platform which will last you for a long time. 7700K overclocks very well with minimal effort.

Man - that's a good deal.

 

[Komshija]

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.

That's why I said that sticking with i7 4770K would be the best option.

The differences between Ryzen 7 1700X and i7 7700K in games will be marginal, mostly due to i7's higher clocks. In the near future we can expect games which will be able to utilize more than 4 cores.

Saying that Ryzen isn't suitable for gaming is a total nonsense. Some Intel CPU's will beat Ryzen's in most games, but that's only because they are clocked higher. The differences will be marginal and unnoticeable in the real world. For instance, is it really so much important to have 87 FPS in game instead of 82 or 158 vs 150 FPS and can you spot the difference? I don't think so, despite I know there are people who will claim the otherwise.

What I was saying later is that if OP was to pick between i7 7700K and Ryzen 7 1700X, later will be a lot better option. It's more future proof and if anyone plans live gaming and streaming, Ryzen will be the only logical choice, since i7 6700K (and, logically, ~7% more powerful i7 7700K) has major problem during live gaming and streaming on the same PC.

 

[Vayra86]

I don't have to accept your truth when I have first hand experience

That's what devout Christians say too

Worth a thought

 

[Melvis]

Go with AMD and save yourself some money for a better GPU

 

[EarthDog]

7700k is still faster which is what most said to get.

 

[Cvrk]

This is something Ryzen buyers have claimed since release. Ryzen is not more smooth. Frametimes are generally better on Intel, and this is a fact.

People claim this to justify the lower fps on Ryzen. I've tried several Ryzen builds and they were definitely not smoother than Intel.

I don't know you. And you don't have much credability here on forum,cuz of your low stars (and all that). Can you show the builds you made ? A youtube channel ? Something ? I would love to see for myself. I am not 100% if to buy a Ryzen, so your suggestions are well placed, as long as you have proof.

 

[EarthDog]

LOL, stars = post count. Post count DOES NOT = knowledge...

That said, a link would be great, but not because he has a lack of posts.....

 

[Shou Miko]

7700k is still faster which is what most said to get.

That's why I am still with my Skylake i7-6700K and I haven't "upgraded" to a Kaby Lake i7-7700k

 

[the54thvoid]

Look! lots of graphs.

I'd argue that no, Ryzen is not smoother than a 7700k but in general, the top Ryzen chips perform more smoothly than most of Intel's lines (albeit, older ones)

But again, for gaming, 7700k is king.

 

[Papahyooie]

Why spend that money on what is basically a side-grade? You'll get +5% performance at most. If the computer is for gaming, then spend that money on games. Or like I said earlier, save it for something that actually gets you a return on investment.

 

[Vya Domus]

It's 4K in case you people have missed it. What hopes do you have to reach fps in the hundreds to need something like a 7700K or smooth single digit frame times. You are going to be 100% GPU bound. Hell , even a g4560 or Ryzen 3 will get you 60fps at 4K in majority of the games.

And by the way , higher fps = more time spent below a certain frame time value by default in most cases. And that simply does not tell the whole story , you still don't know how much it varies and that's what produces "smoothness".

 

[EarthDog]

He's also running SLI, in case that was missed. SLI needs CPU horsepower to push it to the fullest.

 

[CraZyNoMaD]

B350 mobo + Ryzen 1600 + GTX1070 + 8x2 DDR4 3000 Mhz RAM + 600W PSU + case enough.

 

[Vya Domus]

He's also running SLI, in case that was missed. SLI needs CPU horsepower to push it to the fullest.

Of course it does , but Nvidia's drivers and multitheraded , hence you actually need more cores ideally , it's cross fire that needs single thread performance the most. Point is , there is no need to go crazy with CPU power at 4K even with SLI in mind.

 

[ASOT]

Ryzen all the way,in 2017 is not that good ideea to get 4c/8thr ...even IF is i7 7700K

For long run Ryzen smash i7 ..Option are wait or Ryzen

 

[hapkiman]

The OP made up his mind three pages ago people. You all can stop flaming about Intel vs AMD now.

 

[phanbuey]

The OP made up his mind three pages ago people. You all can stop flaming about Intel vs AMD now.

 

[the54thvoid]

/thread

 

[Bill_Bright]

upgrading is different than what i thought the original context was... buying new.

The original context is about buying a new "PC". Not a notebook or AiO (which is basically a notebook with an integrated desktop type monitor). The point being, PCs can much more easily be upgraded and "evolve" to extend their life span (future proofing) than notebooks and AiOs, which often cannot be upgraded at all.

Even when you "wanted to" you still could have been influenced by dumb ass and biased opinions. Don't tell me you haven't seen plenty such cases or have been subject to such happenings yourself. I sure have

Of course I have - not sure about the dumb ass side (because I typically do my homework), but certainly by my own biases.

For example, I "prefer" Gigabyte motherboards because Gigabyte has treated me great. And I prefer Intel CPUs. So when I build a new computer for me, I almost always automatically look first at Gigabyte Intel boards even though there may be a better ASUS or MSI AMD board out there for my needs.

But regardless, I still look for a "current" board with the most recent technologies that will carry me as far into the future as possible even if I don't need those features today.

And most importantly, my biases that favor Gigabyte and Intel do not, has not, and will not stop me from choosing an AMD board from a different maker. My point is, my biases dictate how I will start my search for new parts. But my biases do not dictate what I buy - for the most part. There are always exceptions.

 

[Vya Domus]

The original context is about buying a new "PC". Not a notebook or AiO (which is basically a notebook with an integrated desktop type monitor). The point being, PCs can much more easily be upgraded and "evolve" to extend their life span (future proofing) than notebooks and AiOs, which often cannot be upgraded at all.
Of course I have - not sure about the dumb ass side (because I typically do my homework), but certainly by my own biases.

For example, I "prefer" Gigabyte motherboards because Gigabyte has treated me great. And I prefer Intel CPUs. So when I build a new computer for me, I almost always automatically look first at Gigabyte Intel boards even though there may be a better ASUS or MSI AMD board out there for my needs.

But regardless, I still look for a "current" board with the most recent technologies that will carry me as far into the future as possible even if I don't need those features today.

And most importantly, my biases that favor Gigabyte and Intel do not, has not, and will not stop me from choosing an AMD board from a different maker. My point is, my biases dictate how I will start my search for new parts. But my biases do not dictate what I buy - for the most part. There are always exceptions.

But that's the thing , most people don't do their homework and buy whatever they are told to and later own they develop a bias. I sure have my biases as well but these are biases that I have figured out by myself with a solid thought process , hence they are not as much biases as they are "arguments" for one thing over another. Just because people like you and me can go past mindless biases , doesn't mean we are a majority.

 

[Gin]

HI I am thinking of getting a new GAMING PC (100% used for gaming and of course media watching).

I have waited until now and i have 3 options.
My PC will be used for GAMING 100% at 4K with 2 1080 (already own them).

Option 1: Go for i7 7700k which is by far the best for gaming hands down. THe Z270 is an awesome platform and i will have the stability i need though if suddenly 6 cores and 8 cores become mainstream in 3 4 years my PC will be obsolete having only 4 cores.

Option 2: Go for Ryzen 7 specifically the 1700x model. Ryzen is not the best for gaming but at 4K it seems there are NO differences. The problem is that it is still not stable enough, Memory issues.. I have no need for productivity applications. I am inclined on this to help AMD.

Option 3: wait for other platforms...
A: Threadripper? Threadripper looks promising but at €700 i won't partake. The value is not there
B: Cannonlake? 6 cores? This looks promising but when? My current pck is a i7 4770K and i would like an upgrade
C: Zen 2? No idea....

4K doesn't need 7700K or Ryzen, only powerful GPUs.

 

[Bill_Bright]

But that's the thing , most people don't do their homework and buy whatever they are told to and later own they develop a bias.

While true, not sure that is fair. Consumers should not have to become a computer expert to ensure they get exactly what they need at the best price. Just a consumers should not need advance mechanical engineering degrees to buy the best car for their needs.

And it really is a different ballgame for those buying factory built systems compared to those who build their own. There are just too many variables for a one-size-fits-all solution.

 

[ASOT]

Then close thread hapkiman IF is forbiden to reply

 

[Vayra86]

Look! lots of graphs.

I'd argue that no, Ryzen is not smoother than a 7700k but in general, the top Ryzen chips perform more smoothly than most of Intel's lines (albeit, older ones)

But again, for gaming, 7700k is king.

With unlimited FPS (no sync/limit) its very easy to see why Ryzen could be perceived as smoother: the variance between min and max FPS is much smaller. To the human brain, smoothness is not perceived as high fps, but low frame time variance. Just looking at 99th percentile doesnt even cover that entirely because it only covers the stutter, or the bottom-end of performance; the 7700K dropping to 60 fps is going to be perceived as less smooth when the previous frames were at 120+ fps.

Other than that these numbers dont lie. On the other hand, Ryzen is rarely ever seen below 60 fps @ 1080p, so again, the practical use for this 7700K is almost entirely within the gaming niche of high refresh, while Ryzen is a jack of all trades AND master of heavy, threaded workloads.

 

[phanbuey]

With unlimited FPS (no sync/limit) its very easy to see why Ryzen could be perceived as smoother: the variance between min and max FPS is much smaller. To the human brain, smoothness is not perceived as high fps, but low frame time variance. Just looking at 99th percentile doesnt even cover that entirely because it only covers the stutter, or the bottom-end of performance; the 7700K dropping to 60 fps is going to be perceived as less smooth when the previous frames were at 120+ fps.

Other than that these numbers dont lie. On the other hand, Ryzen is rarely ever seen below 60 fps @ 1080p, so again, the practical use for this 7700K is almost entirely within the gaming niche of high refresh, while Ryzen is a jack of all trades AND master of heavy, threaded workloads.

So true... Even with the high-refresh TVs that try to smooth out the picture and it goes from 30 to 120 momentarily then down again... Bothers me quite a bit.