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

[Shou Miko]

Ryzen still got memory speed issues so buying 3200mhz or 4000mhz won't do much since most r stock around 2400/2666mhz if lucky.

If u wanna save some money go Ryzen 7 1700/1700X and otherwise go i7-7700k but be aware if u buy a board with H270 u still won't get any overclocking so do urself a favor and grap a board with Z270 and if u not planing to oc still use X.M.P and bump the little lady up to 4.5ghz and all cores and just forget about it.

 

[Vario]

Similar more core = more future proof arguments made for FX 8150 vs 2500K, and yet 2500K still very good performer to this day.

Buy whatever is the best for right now and in 3-4 years you will upgrade again anyway. The future proof thing is dumb when most people on this forum buy new rigs every 1-2 years. I am still sitting on my 2013 rig fully content with performance, btw.

If you aren't using more than 4C/8T buy the 7700K or keep your 4700K and if you are using more than 4 core then get the Ryzen or Intel HEDT

 

[las]

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

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.

 

[Durvelle27]

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.

Ryzen is hand down a smoother experience and the frames are more consistent

 

[BiggieShady]

but he already has a 4770K and cannonlake is like 6-8 months away.

Ah, the voice of reason ...

overclock the 4770k to hell and back.

Oc the 4770K

... and the corresponding solution.

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

Gaming on Ryzen is smooth as anal with lube. Can't beat the marketing slogan you came up with.

 

[Vario]

Smooth is really hard to quantify, anyone have a benchmark or are we just relying on placebo?

 

[las]

Ryzen is hand down a smoother experience and the frames are more consistent

No. Intel has better frametimes in the majority of games.
7700K have better minimums than any Ryzen. 7700K at 4.8-5.2 GHz destroys Ryzen in pretty much all games, regardless of clock. Only when a game is 100% GPU bound, the Ryzen setup will be comparable.

But you own a Ryzen CPU so you'll never accept the truth.

http://techreport.com/review/31546/where-minimum-fps-figures-mislead-frame-time-analysis-shines/2

7700K vs 1800X in GTA 5:
"Not only is the Core i7-7700K faster, but its frame delivery is more consistent—and our frame-time data bears that out."

 

[phanbuey]

Similar more core = more future proof arguments made for FX 8150 vs 2500K, and yet 2500K still very good performer to this day.

Buy whatever is the best for right now and in 3-4 years you will upgrade again anyway. The future proof thing is dumb when most people on this forum buy new rigs every 1-2 years. I am still sitting on my 2013 rig fully content with performance, btw.

If you aren't using more than 4C/8T buy the 7700K or keep your 4700K and if you are using more than 4 core then get the Ryzen or Intel HEDT

Correct... the argument of future proofing is to make myself feel better about my current platform *right now* when it's coming in at 4th place.

No. Intel has better frametimes in the majority of games.
7700K have better minimums than any Ryzen. 7700K at 4.8-5.2 GHz destroys Ryzen in pretty much all games, regardless of clock. Only when a game is 100% GPU bound, the Ryzen setup will be viable.

But you own a Ryzen CPU so you'll never accept the truth.

http://techreport.com/review/31546/where-minimum-fps-figures-mislead-frame-time-analysis-shines/2

7700K vs 1800X in GTA 5:
"Not only is the Core i7-7700K faster, but its frame delivery is more consistent—and our frame-time data bears that out."

There was a known a known bug with the GTA V engine where once you cross the 150 or so FPS threshold the game starts to stutter. Ryzen benched smoother because it was rendering below that, 7700K was much faster and kept teetering on that line.... also that review is old - 3/7 when ryzen was still a buggy mess.

That being said... at high rez and GPU bound scenarios Ryzen does very well:
http://www.legitreviews.com/intel-core-i7-7700k-versus-amd-ryzen-1700x-14-game-cpu-showdown_192508/5

I used to own a 6700K at 4.6ghz and 3200mhz ram and it definitely didn't destroy anything compared to ryzen - Fallout 4 is the only game. you're looking at minimal differences in gaming vs 4770K / 7700K / 1700 - although i definitely wouldn't get the 1700 if gaming was all i was doing.

 

[5DVX0130]

I think it's time to close this thread. Nothing further can be gained from it.
OP already made his decision, and now it's just progressing towards an AMD vs. Intel pissing contest.

 

[las]

Well, then lets check some other games..

Fact is, Ryzen is NOT more smooth. Ryzen owners are spreading this BS to justify the lower fps.

 

[Bill_Bright]

The future proof thing is dumb when most people on this forum buy new rigs every 1-2 years.

Most people? Not hardly. Some do, but most people don't have that deep of pockets. So for that reason future proofing is not dumb at all.

Correct... the argument of future proofing is to make myself feel better about my current platform *right now*.

That may be your reasoning, but not mine. Future proofing, or the idea behind it is just smart planning and smart buying so you don't have to replace something in 1 or 2 years due to your failure to plan ahead. While future proofing may require spending more up front, good planning results in lower costs over the long run.

I certainly don't get a new system that often (and I never buy, I build). I build a system I expect to last years (5 or more), but also so it can "evolve" through several upgrades so it can support my needs that long. So when I do build myself a new system, I buy components with the latest technologies just for future proofing - even if I cannot utilize that newest technology today. For example, my next motherboard and case will support the latest USB standard even if I don't currently have any devices to attach that support that latest standard. I always buy a little bigger PSU than I need to support unplanned future upgrades or additions.

Ryzen is hand down a smoother experience and the frames are more consistent

Nothing personal, but I always find "absolute" comments like this really silly, if not a bit naive. It is like saying Samsung is better than Apple or LG. Or Ford is better than GM. Those are silly and naive comments because it is saying every model produced by that company is better than every model produced by the other company and that is just not true.

And if you don't one brand, you are automatically a "fanboy" of the other.

And absolutes are particularly not true with CPUs because resulting performance and "smoothness" are the result of all sorts of different components working together in harmony - not just the CPU alone.

I think it's time to close this thread. Nothing further can be gained from it.
OP already made his decision, and now it's just progressing towards an AMD vs. Intel pissing contest.

I agree.

 

[BiggieShady]

progressing towards an AMD vs. Intel pissing contest

This batch of popcorn I'm making right now, better not be in vain!

 

[Durvelle27]

No. Intel has better frametimes in the majority of games.
7700K have better minimums than any Ryzen. 7700K at 4.8-5.2 GHz destroys Ryzen in pretty much all games, regardless of clock. Only when a game is 100% GPU bound, the Ryzen setup will be comparable.

But you own a Ryzen CPU so you'll never accept the truth.

http://techreport.com/review/31546/where-minimum-fps-figures-mislead-frame-time-analysis-shines/2

7700K vs 1800X in GTA 5:
"Not only is the Core i7-7700K faster, but its frame delivery is more consistent—and our frame-time data bears that out."

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

 

[phanbuey]

Yes yes... i want @las to post more pics from the same review on the 3 days after the release of a new platform. Don't shut the thread down yet...

Well, then lets check some other games..

Fact is, Ryzen is NOT more smooth. Ryzen owners are spreading this BS to justify the lower fps.

You're assuming that frametimes is WHY ryzen owners are sayinng that their systems are smoother... That's not the case, the systems feel smoother in games - not faster, but less variable... that variation may be caused by almost any component or piece of software in the system i.e. 1) windows deciding it feels like it wants to update, or index, or phone home to microsoft to tell them stuff about you they don't need to know... it could be 2) any of the 65-80 background processes taking a dump or 3) windows having to restart 3rd party drivers etc.

Point is, measuring frametimes on a bench setup (barebones, everything disabled, controlling for all variables) is very different than what most people run on their main gaming rig (youtube, skype, windows 10 with all services enabled, buggy mobo control software, mouse control software etc) ... my 6700K would bomb along at 200FPS then hitch for a second then go back - was it because the ryzen CPU was smoother or the 6700k was 'less smooth/less powerful'? Hell no, it was maybe because my shitty gigabit NIC driver acting up during a game (or something along those lines), and the OS had to take a couple high priority threads to put that sucker down and log the error.

Some (few) reviewers have noticed a smoothness difference and most have not... That makes me think that this is caused by variations in their system setups. I have personally noticed it as well but I would never claim that ryzen is a better gaming CPU - i would claim that it definitely is not as bothered by me leaving outlook and 15 tabs and skype and my streaming music open while I game as my 6700K was.

 

[Vario]

Most people? Not hardly. Some do, but most people don't have that deep of pockets. So for that reason future proofing is not dumb at all. That may be your reasoning, but not mine. Future proofing, or the idea behind it is just smart planning and smart buying so you don't have to replace something in 1 or 2 years due to your failure to plan ahead. While future proofing may require spending more up front, good planning results in lower costs over the long run.

I certainly don't get a new system that often (and I never buy, I build). I build a system I expect to last years (5 or more), but also so it can "evolve" through several upgrades so it can support my needs that long. So when I do build myself a new system, I buy components with the latest technologies just for future proofing - even if I cannot utilize that newest technology today. For example, my next motherboard and case will support the latest USB standard even if I don't currently have any devices to attach that support that latest standard. I always buy a little bigger PSU than I need to support unplanned future upgrades or additions.
Nothing personal, but I always find "absolute" comments like this really silly, if not a bit naive. It is like saying Samsung is better than Apple or LG. Or Ford is better than GM. Those are silly and naive comments because it is saying every model produced by that company is better than every model produced by the other company and that is just not true.

And if you don't one brand, you are automatically a "fanboy" of the other.

And absolutes are particularly not true with CPUs because resulting performance and "smoothness" are the result of all sorts of different components working together in harmony - not just the CPU alone.

I agree.

I don't have a problem with it, its just frequently I see the future proofing argument coming up and then the same poster one or two years later upgrading yet again before the stuff is even close to obsolete. You might as well just buy whatever is best for your circumstances now because odds are it will still be respectable even 6 years down the road and no one on these forums seems to ever go even 1/3 that long. The best buy anyone could have made was probably the i7 920, my father is still running one since 2010 and it handles just about anything easily 7 years later, and that's a processor that came out in 2008, he was late to the party when he bought it.

 

[Vya Domus]

I don't have a problem with it, its just frequently I see the future proofing argument coming up and then the same poster one or two years later upgrading yet again before the stuff is even close to obsolete. You might as well just buy whatever is best for your circumstances now because odds are it will still be respectable even 6 years down the road and no one on these forums seems to ever go even 1/3 that long. The best buy anyone could have made was probably the i7 920, my father is still running one since 2010 and it handles just about anything easily 7 years later, and that's a processor that came out in 2008, he was late to the party when he bought it.

If they upgrade often it doesn't mean the argument for future proofing doesn't exist.
And the point is that people get the wrong idea and think future proofing doesn't exist and they upgrade often just because they have been told to. It has an avalanche effect.

 

[Flow]

Bought my 2600k in 2011 with future proofing in mind. It sure delivered.
But I agree on the upgrade path most users will be every 3 years or so. Or skipping one or two generations.

As for maturing cpu's. Never seen one. They deliver from day 1 and wont get faster over time. Same as with videocards, also maturing over time due to improved drivers.
Unfortunately with every better driver, I have to lower my overclock and end up with the same benches as before. So no, there is no such thing as long term maturing.

 

[Bill_Bright]

and they upgrade often just because they have been told to.

Or just because they want to. And that's okay. I get the "itch" myself even though my 3 or 4 year old system is still more than able to meet my needs.

Future proofing relies on accurate predictions. The only real accurate prediction is that we are all going to die - some day. So future proofing really involves trying to accurately guess what you might need or want in the future, so your system will support it without having to buy all new.

For example, some day, you might want a M.2 SSD. So if shopping for a new motherboard now, best to look for one that natively supports M.2.

Frankly, I think future proofing applies most to those who build their own systems because we have much more flexibility when it comes to choosing the components we put inside. That pretty much means future proofing with notebooks is just marketing hype.

 

[EarthDog]

Futureproofing is the same with diy as it is with aio and laptops... consumers buy more than what is needed.

Its the same concept.. yes there is more flexibilty but we are all doing the same exact thing with the same parts... more this (ram/storage/power), faster that (cpu, ram, storage, gpu)... just, again, as you said less selection for non diy/more for diy.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Futureproofing is the same with diy as it is with aio and laptops...

The reason why I disagree with that is because it is relatively easy to upgrade a self-built PC (desktop/tower) with a different (or 2nd) graphics card, additional drives, more fans, different CPU, more RAM, etc. to keep the computer current without having to buy all new.

In many cases you cannot upgrade a AiO or notebook at all!

 

[Jetster]

Who the hell campares CPU results to anal sex? Can we just use PC jargon?

 

[EarthDog]

The reason why I disagree with that is because it is relatively easy to upgrade a self-built PC (desktop/tower) with a different (or 2nd) graphics card, additional drives, more fans, different CPU, more RAM, etc. to keep the computer current without having to buy all new.

In many cases you cannot upgrade a AiO or notebook at all!

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

 

[Vya Domus]

Or just because they want to. And that's okay. I get the "itch" myself even though my 3 or 4 year old system is still more than able to meet my needs.

Future proofing relies on accurate predictions. The only real accurate prediction is that we are all going to die - some day. So future proofing really involves trying to accurately guess what you might need or want in the future, so your system will support it without having to buy all new.

For example, some day, you might want a M.2 SSD. So if shopping for a new motherboard now, best to look for one that natively supports M.2.

Frankly, I think future proofing applies most to those who build their own systems because we have much more flexibility when it comes to choosing the components we put inside. That pretty much means future proofing with notebooks is just marketing hype.

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

 

[Vario]

Who the hell campares CPU results to anal sex? Can we just use PC jargon?

Yeah that is one the biggest puzzlers of this thread.

 

[mcraygsx]

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.