Question Are people full of it about the i7 7700k? (2019)

[AndrewCRX]

I feel like so many people are BSing me about how great the i7 7700k is. I sometimes see it hit 100% in some titles and I've read before (Correct me if I'm wrong) that it's not good to go over 80% or so because it have something to do with it using more so the hyperthreading than the actual cores? Confusing for me. If I got a 500+ dollar ryzen not the cheap junk, or perhaps an i9 9900k would it be a huge improvement? The extra cores and the more theoretical horse power would give everything more room to breath in a sense and in my mind that would mean everything would be smoother OVER the i7 7700k. Am I correct? Please explain if you can, I know you people are smart and I respect your opinions. Thank you.

 

[kerberos_20]

if you just playin game, while doing nothing else around (youtube, obs, whatever) then it doesnt matter if it eats 100% cpu as long game is playable

 

[AndrewCRX]

if you just playin game, while doing nothing else around (youtube, obs, whatever) then it doesnt matter if it eats 100% cpu as long game is playable

I understand that mindset. I'm asking if in the applications (Games) that I see the CPU usage while using rivatuner going to 100% for brief moments, while playing Battlefield 5 Conquest mode for instance, would I be better served and get better performance with a higher core count CPU? I'm not looking to just get by. I'm looking for the best solution to get the highest framerates at 1440p and 144hz. I am really asking is if it really is worth the extra effort, is there REALLY a difference is smoothness and consistency?

 

[InvalidError]

I am really asking is if it really is worth the extra effort, is there REALLY a difference is smoothness and consistency?

Is there a difference? Sure. Will the difference be enough for the expense to feel justifiable to you? Everyone is different, only you can answer that question for yourself.

Back in my broke-student-days, I was happy playing games at 20-30fps. Then I got to save some money and upgrade to something able to more consistently hit 50+fps and can't imagine going back. After that came my current PC which can manage 60fps in most stuff I care about and wouldn't go back once more. Would I be even happier if I upgraded to something capable of doing 90+fps? Probably. Would it make enough of a difference to justify the $1000+ I'd have to spend to get there? Probably not, so I'm not going to bother with it until sufficiently powerful CPUs, GPUs and monitors become much cheaper.

 

[sizzling]

What gpu do you have? The best FPS are achieved with a 9700k or 9900k but at 1440p you are going to need a 2080Ti to really be able to utilise that extra performance. Occasional 100% cpu is not a major issue.

 

[AndrewCRX]

Is there a difference? Sure. Will the difference be enough for the expense to feel justifiable to you? Everyone is different, only you can answer that question for yourself.

Back in my broke-ass-student-days, I was happy playing games at 20-30fps. Then I got to save some money and upgrade to something able to more consistently hit 50+fps and can't imagine going back. After that came my current PC which can manage 60fps in most stuff I care about and wouldn't go back once more. Would I be even happier if I upgraded to something capable of doing 90+fps? Probably. Would it make enough of a difference to justify the $1000+ I'd have to spend to get there? Probably not, so I'm not going to bother with it until sufficiently powerful CPUs, GPUs and monitors become much cheaper.

I'm totally rooting for you. Maintaining and building my PC is a hobby of mine, and I like to spend the extra money I have to upgrade my system and am continually fascinated by everything performance related. Once I moved to 144hz and experienced a 'liquid glass' type of smoothness, I have since pursued the idea of what I could upgrade to achieve a stable line on the rivatuner graph (Haha).

I must say I detect an air of smugness and disdain towards PC culture I guess you could call it? The act of pursuing more performance at a high cost.

"Would it make enough of a difference to justify the $1000+ I'd have to spend to get there? Probably not, so I'm not going to bother with it until sufficiently powerful CPUs, GPUs and monitors become much cheaper."

Do you not have a job?

 

[AndrewCRX]

What gpu do you have? The best FPS are achieved with a 9700k or 9900k but at 1440p you are going to need a 2080Ti to really be able to utilise that extra performance. Occasional 100% cpu is not a major issue.

I have a 1070 GTX SSC EVGA card. I suspect it's getting long in the tooth. I have a 1440p 144hz monitor with Gsync and sometimes... I just don't see it happening. I preordered Modern Warfare and am excited, but I feel some sorrow at the idea of having to turn down the render resolution, as I have to do in so many of the newer titles to achieve at least 100 FPS stable. 60 FPS is for chumps let's face it, 100 FPS or bust, and I really don't know if the 1070 has it. Suggestions?

 

[USAFRet]

Do you not have a job?

Having a job does not automatically justify spending $1000+ on minimal PC performance gains.

$1000 on PC parts, or $1000 on new gutters for the house?
hmm.....

 

[AndrewCRX]

Having a job does not automatically justify spending $1000+ on minimal PC performance gains.

$1000 on PC parts, or $1000 on new gutters for the house?
hmm.....

How would he know they're really minimal gains if he's most likely never tried the parts he's bashing? As per usual in many cases of this strange bitter undertone towards more advanced hardware, in the case of 4 cores vs 6 or perhaps 8. I'm talking about sustaining a higher more consistent framerate for 144hz and if a higher core count would actually help in that regard and you're talking about gutters for roofs and he's talking about college.

 

[AndrewCRX]

Is there a difference? Sure. Will the difference be enough for the expense to feel justifiable to you? Everyone is different, only you can answer that question for yourself.

Would it make enough of a difference to justify the $1000+ I'd have to spend to get there?

Also this quote is such BS. A $400 CPU (6 or more cores) plus a great midrange graphics card would be $800 bucks, with tax let's say low 9. So again you're being bitter about the price.

 

[USAFRet]

How would he know they're really minimal gains if he's most likely never tried the parts he's bashing?

By reading reviews and experiences of other people.

If that performance gain is worth it to you, then go for it.
You're the only one who can make that determination.

It may not be worth it for everyone. Even those of us with jobs..

 

[AndrewCRX]

By reading reviews and experiences of other people.

If that performance gain is worth it to you, then go for it.
You're the only one who can make that determination.

It may not be worth it for everyone. Even those of us with jobs..

I was asking if there was a performance gain. And all I get are snarky remarks. I wanted to know what kind of performance gain I could expect. More consistent framerate? This site kinda sucks guys. I know you're moderators but come on guys, this is just such BS.

 

[logainofhades]

What do you have now, that this is even a concern?

 

[USAFRet]

I was asking if there was a performance gain. And all I get are snarky remarks. I wanted to know what kind of performance gain I could expect. More consistent framerate? This site kinda sucks guys. I know you're moderators but come on guys, this is just such BS.

And just about everyone said yes, there is a performance gain.
Just that it might not be magical or worth whatever the actual cost is.

 

[AndrewCRX]

What do you have now, that this is even a concern?

I have an i7 7700k at 4.7 Ghz. I play BF5 and in the 64 player matches I feel a stutter, and when I use rivatuner it shows 100% usage in some moments. It really kinda sucks for me because I want everything to be super smooth. I want to have a total powerhouse for a great price and not have to worry about CPU usage for a long time.

 

[InvalidError]

Do you not have a job?

I graduated a long time and got plenty of change in my bank account. At this point, my main reason for not upgrading is in protest: 15 years ago, you could get double the performance for half the price every three to four years (a bit like SSDs' $/GB right now) whereas today, seven years into my current PC, I still can only get about twice the performance while spending ~20% extra. I am severely disappointed with how slow progress has been over the past 10 years and still have no plan to upgrade until I run into a brick wall of some sort.

And then there is all the micro-transaction, lootbox, season pass, etc. BS in modern games that completely disgusts me, which is a large part of why gaming only accounts for something like 5% of my computer time excluding the months where I bother with having an active WoW sub.

In other words, upgrading my PC specifically for gaming is a remote concern. Last time I upgraded my CPU was so I could go from 8GB RAM to 32GB because the stuff I work on often requires over 16GB RAM (had to upgrade to maintain my sanity) and the last time I upgraded my GPU was because AMD dropped driver support for my HD5700, which meant no chance of driver bugs (some of which likely caused by having only 1GB of VRAM) that annoyed me ever getting fixed.

 

[USAFRet]

I have an i7 7700k at 4.7 Ghz. I play BF5 and in the 64 player matches I feel a stutter, and when I use rivatuner it shows 100% usage in some moments. It really kinda sucks for me because I want everything to be super smooth. I want to have a total powerhouse for a great price and not have to worry about CPU usage for a long time.

So then go for it!
Your wallet and game performance is the only thing that matters.

 

[EndEffeKt_24]

This is a very interesting and entertaining topic. Thanks for the read.
We got derailed by some sort into the question of which performance increase is worth its money. I think at one point in life its about the money you really have at hand to spent at hardware and later maybe you got the funds but your perspective on gaming as a hobby and not a center-of-life has changed and you value "liquid glass" -like gameplay differently. Maybe because you now know how hard you worked for that money you got.

I just build a new rig and despite working for serveral years and having the money for any consumer-hardware available my new pc consists 50% of used parts I got for a good deal on ebay. Because I got the impression thst especially gpu prices are inflated right now. I mean +800 euro for a gpu cmon...
On the same rig I spent 600 euro on a custom water loop, because I always wanted one. Interests are subjective.

On the rather boring primary topic: Yes there are better cpu than the 7700k. But in 1440p you will need substantial gpu horsepower to be limited by that cpu. Lets say a 5700xt.
If you got the bug and really want to build a new rig, hhen go for it. Cheers

 

[mdd1963]

No one claimed the 7700K would not be at/near 100% busy in many titles, and, it was pretty much proven 2 years ago that it indeed lacks the thread count for sufficient gaming AND streaming...

Certainly no one would advocate buying 7700K today (it costs the same as an R7-3700?), with Ryzen 5-3600 being faster and $150 less expensive...

(Perhaps you are reading too many '7700K is great' articles from early/mid 2017?)

That being said, I don't stream, and, am still quite happy with my 7700K, and certainly am not feeling any 'must upgrade now' sensations, but, again, would not advise anyone buy one as a starting point in 2019. (If they were $100, and IF it worked on a Z390, they'd still make good alternatives to anything less than the R5-1600, IMO, but, alas, all those aforementioned 'ifs' are strikeouts)

R5-3600, 3700, I7-9700, i9-9900K/KF....choose one, and pdds are any gamer would be happy for at least a few years....

 

[mdd1963]

My own 7700K is also at 4.7 GHz, but, i personally feel no stutter. (Only play BF1, Doom, CSGO) (Did not feel any the first 12 months or so when at stock clocks , either)

(Many folks have gotten stutter going for too high of a RAM clock, which introduces some hitching....;try a more conservative 2666 MHz to 3200 MHz)

You'd also want to be sure you are not throttling, as evidenced by temps anywhere near 100C, as certainly dropping to 800 MHz would decimate the gaming experience...

(MY own 7700K games at about 68C at 4.7 GHz on all cores; Prime95/small FFTs/no AVX2 hits about 75-76C, so I went no higher than 4.7 GHz)

nothing can be done about 100% usage, however, not in the newer games..; but that is not a cause of anything, or even a symptom.

 

[boju]

@AndrewCRX

This video may interest you. BF1 is pretty much up there with 5 in terms of intensity. Hopefully it helps you figure out how to make the most out of your current cpu and game play while deciding on an upgrade.

 

[RodroX]

Core i7 7700K should be enough for all games today. Of course if you look at the CPU usage while gaming and you see it over 50% all the time, then yes, the 4 cores are not enough so it use the HT ones. Is this enough for you, or for what you wana see on the screen, it seems not.

If you ask me: "I have all the money in the world, What should I buy to be future proof (lets say 3~ 5 years)?. I would say go with atleast an 8 cores CPU with HT or SMT enable.
Is it necesary for today to get the best performance even in games that are not out yet, probably not really. A Ryzen 5 3600/X or a Core i7 9700/K should be able to get you there, atleast today and surely the next year too.

But it all depends, always, like everything in life, it all depends (in your case it depends on the resolution and refresh rate your aiming for).

Since you explainned, that you want to be able to play at 1440p@144Hz disaply and get close to that magical FPS number, you will need to pair that strong CPU (either Ryzen 7 3700X, Ryzen 9 3900X, or Core i9 9900K/KS - I would skip the Core i7 9th gen, since they don't come with HT) with a powerfull GPU, probably the one already suggested an RTX 2080TI.

Now, will this upgrade make every single game work flawlessly over the next 3 years or more, imposible to know. But for now, those are the main parts to get there.

Keep in mind, as mdd1963 worte, CPU and GPU are only two parts of a bigger ecosystem, Motherboard, Cooler, PSU, RAM and Storage are also important, and even if they only add a small percentage to the FPS counter, 1 weak link in the chain can make everything work like crap.

 

[logainofhades]

I have an i7 7700k at 4.7 Ghz. I play BF5 and in the 64 player matches I feel a stutter, and when I use rivatuner it shows 100% usage in some moments. It really kinda sucks for me because I want everything to be super smooth. I want to have a total powerhouse for a great price and not have to worry about CPU usage for a long time.

Then I would not go with anything less than an R7 3700x.

 

[Irisena]

Back then, 7700k is the king. nothing (with reasonable price) could beat it, and everything run smoothly with that. It was when Intel is still king, and AMD is just the budget option. Nowadays games have moved from 4 cores to 6+ cores. Games like BF1, Division 2, etc. will run better with 4+ threads (given that you have good GPU to match that). So yeah, some people still stuck on how powerful their 4c systems are nowadays, but the industry are slowly, and surely leaving that behind. If you want to upgrade now though, 9900k is a good option if you have the standard 2400mhz RAM, as Intel CPUs don't really care about what RAM you have. but if you have good RAM (3200mhz or more), then I suggest to go AMD ryzen 3700.

 

[Phaaze88]

I have an i7 7700k at 4.7 Ghz. I play BF5 and in the 64 player matches I feel a stutter, and when I use rivatuner it shows 100% usage in some moments. It really kinda sucks for me because I want everything to be super smooth. I want to have a total powerhouse for a great price and not have to worry about CPU usage for a long time.

1440p 144hz monitor, 7700K OC, stutter in BF5 multiplayer... how many sticks of ram are you equipped with?