1600x vs 1800x or 7800x or Coffe Lake?

[jstores]

I'm thinking of getting an Amd CPU because I'm going to be building a pc. I want to game and multitask at the same time, but I probably won't stream or photoshop. I'm deciding between an amd 1600x vs a 1800x. Saving about $200 would be nice. What is their performance similarities? I've asked for a good CPU and people recommended me a 1700. How does a 1600x, a 1700, and a 1800x (stock) perform when compared to a 7700k? How do they perform over clocked compared to 7700k? Should I also consider the 7800x or the new coffee lake cpus that are coming out? I would like to game and multitask without too much bottlenecking on a pny 1080ti. The resolution will be 1440p @144hz but is an adaptive sync (free sync) monitor. So do you guys think I should stick to amd or maybe even go for intel , or maybe even wait for coffee lake 6 core i7 CPUs? P.S My main goal is to game and multitask without too much bottlenecking. (. Or Wasting a 1080ti's potential/performance.)

 

[geofelt]

Here is a recent test of a number of games, comparing a I7-7700K and a I7-7800X.
The test used a GTX1080ti.
For lesser cards the result might be different.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1445-core-i7-7800x-vs-7700k/
The takeaway is that the I7-7700K is as good or better across the board.
The higher clock rate of the 7700K is more important than the 4 added threads of the 7800X.
For gaming, I expect tat the i7-7700K will be better than ryzen 1700/1800 because the 4/8 extra threads for ryzen will not overcome the slower ryzen individual core performance.


If your main use is heavily multithreaded apps, then ryzen is very good.

As to coffee lake, we do not know price, performance, or when.
It is likely to be more of a ryzen many thread competitor than a gaming cpu.

Bottom line....... I7-7700K today

 

[marko55]

You want to game and multitask at the same time, and you're gaming at higher resolutions, and with a freesync monitor, I'd go Ryzen all day long. While the 7700K may net you an extra 10 FPS, your FPS on an 1800X will still be very high and as resolution goes up above 1920x1080 you're tolling your GPU more than CPU.

If you want to save a few bucks you can got with a 1700X if you're OK with running at 3.9 or 3.95 vs 4.0 on an 1800X or "maybe" getting OC'd over 4.0 but its by far not guaranteed you'll be able to.

A 1600X would even be arguably a better choice for your situation than a 7700K and would certainly give you better multitasking capability at a great price.

 

[mdd1963]

I'd think a 1600X would be plenty, use the cost savings to get a GTX1080 instead of a GTX1060Ti...

 

[jstores]

I'd think a 1600X would be plenty, use the cost savings to get a GTX1080 instead of a GTX1060Ti...

I already ordered a gtx 1080ti. Do you think the 1600x is a bottleneck for a 1080ti? Should I go with a ryzen 1800x?

 

[jstores]

You want to game and multitask at the same time, and you're gaming at higher resolutions, and with a freesync monitor, I'd go Ryzen all day long. While the 7700K may net you an extra 10 FPS, your FPS on an 1800X will still be very high and as resolution goes up above 1920x1080 you're tolling your GPU more than CPU.

If you want to save a few bucks you can got with a 1700X if you're OK with running at 3.9 or 3.95 vs 4.0 on an 1800X or "maybe" getting OC'd over 4.0 but its by far not guaranteed you'll be able to.

A 1600X would even be arguably a better choice for your situation than a 7700K and would certainly give you better multitasking capability at a great price.

Do you think that for minimizing bottlenecking, would there be a significant bottleneck for the 1600x or even the 1800x?

 

[marko55]

Neither of those will bottleneck your GPU per say. Each will feed your GPU the same given the max clock speeds of each being the same on their cores. Granted, a 7700K would feed a little more throughput to your GPUs, in tune of around 10-15 more FPS in real world gaming on average. That said, the gap will close if you manually clock your 1600X or 1800X to 4.0GHz. At your resolution you're starting to put more toll on your GPU than CPU so I'd expect the intel and AMD offerings to be about even in gaming FPS at that point.

 

[jstores]

Neither of those will bottleneck your GPU per say. Each will feed your GPU the same given the max clock speeds of each being the same on their cores. Granted, a 7700K would feed a little more throughput to your GPUs, in tune of around 10-15 more FPS in real world gaming on average. That said, the gap will close if you manually clock your 1600X or 1800X to 4.0GHz. At your resolution you're starting to put more toll on your GPU than CPU so I'd expect the intel and AMD offerings to be about even in gaming FPS at that point.

Thanks for replying. Do you think it'd be wise to save money and get the 1600x and overclock it over the 1800x?

 

[marko55]

It won't. Ryzen won't OC like Intel chips can. The ryzen core basically caps at 4.0 and your odds of hitting even that are pretty much limited to the "x" ryzen chips, but mainly the 1600 or 1800. Don't count on getting over 4.0. So it really comes down to core count. In the end if you can afford the 1800x grab it. Just get a good board to compliment it.

 

[mdd1963]

I'd think a 1600X would be plenty, use the cost savings to get a GTX1080 instead of a GTX1060Ti...

I already ordered a gtx 1080ti. Do you think the 1600x is a bottleneck for a 1080ti? Should I go with a ryzen 1800x?

R5-1600 has been doing just fine in assorted gaming benchmarks. Enjoy that rig, a GTX1080 rocks!

 

[Ditt44]

The 1600X is more than enough. I have one and I think the price alone makes it a better option than the 1700 or 1800 series. Use the savings on faster G. Skill Flare-X RAM @3200. You will be able to OC that CPU close to 4.0 without issue.

Don't fall for the Intel is better FPS crap... it's insignificant for the vast majority of users in day to day productivity and gaming. These same people drive around in jacked up pick-up trucks with simulated man parts hanging off of their bumpers (or wish they could).