Final Verdict i7 7700K OR Ryzen 1700 (plz see details)

[Matthias_]

Hi,

I am torn between a i7 7700k or Ryzen 1700, However.. The choice not only relies in the cpu itself but in other factors.

I live in Syria where choices of hardware are very few. I can only choose between two mobos for these CPUs.
i7 7700k comes with Asus Z270F Gaming Strix
Ryzen 1700 comes with Asus x370 Prime Pro (yea Asus monopoly)

Not only that but the prices are too close:
i7 7700k 400$ and mobo is 250$
Ryzen 1700 366$ and mobo is 232$ (prices are black market as we dont have ebay, amazon etc here)

I will be using the setup for gaming and general use, i don't render videos or do streaming.
My favorite games are somewhat not AAA titles except for GTA5, but mainly world of tanks and crossout.
My main concern is the great hype about Ryzen being more future-proof and gaming capable than the 7700k.
Rest of setup is Asus RX480 strix, fsp 750w gold psu, and will have 16gig ram for any of the cpus and corsair h80 v2 aio cooler for the 7700k.

Final verdict which should i choose, keeping in mind i dont want to upgrade till at least two years (might switch the gpu later for a 1070 strix).

Thank you

 

[TeamRED]

Go for the Ryzen 1700 and X370 Prime MoBo!

 

[SgtScream]

If you have a higher 144hz refresh rate monitor go 7700k. The 7700k beats out Ryzen in single core performance. That whole thing you stated with future proofing ryzen, they said the same thing about the Phenom II, bulldozer's and Pile Drivers. Either way your cpu is going to be close to outdating in 5 years. But if you want the most value for the money go Ryzen, just make sure you have at least 3000mhz memory to make full use of the system.

 

[atomicWAR]

I would go Ryzen. Even now Ryzen and Intel are very close in games, at launch this was not so true. But devs have patched, micro-code has been updated and things got better. While for the time being Intel may enjoy a slight lead at 1080P it is not the gulf it was at launch. Plus many games are going DX12 and multicore. In the past 4 threads was all you really needed. Now there are games using 8+ threads like The Witcher 3, The Division, Rise of the Tomb Raider...then you got the 16+ thread games like BF1, Watch Dogs 2, GTA V, Ghost Recon Wildlands. Point being the number of threads games use is growing from the 4 it use to be to as many as 20 now. granted the titles you play, except GTA V, are super well threaded. But if your looking for future proof, a 4C/8T CPU is not someplace I would be looking. My new recommended gaming CPU spec is 6C/12T (last year this time it was 4C/8T). So ultimately the choice is yours. Hope this helped.

 

[lumineZ]

Right now the 7700k is the best for gaming.
Down the road only game developers know that.

 

[atomicWAR]

Right now the 7700k is the best for gaming.
Down the road only game developers know that.

That is not universally true. At 1080P with 144hz then you have a point. Drop the refresh rate to 120hz and/or kick up the resolution to 1440P/4K then Intel and AMD are neck and neck.

 

[loki1944]

Overall, i7 7700K for gaming.

[/url][/img]

[/url][/img]

Those are from Jarred Walton's review 9 days ago.

 

[lumineZ]

Right now the 7700k is the best for gaming.
Down the road only game developers know that.

That is not universally true. At 1080P with 144hz then you have a point. Drop the refresh rate to 120hz and/or kick up the resolution to 1440P/4K then Intel and AMD are neck and neck.

1080p and 1440p Intel is better, 4k they are neck and neck since that is more of a GPU dependent resolution.
And the reason I sayd Intel atm is the better one is simple because 85% of the users out there either game at 1080p or 1440p at 60Hz. And at that the Intel is better right now, but like I sayd down the road I have no clue.

If you ask me 4k or soooo overrated unless you are sitting at a massive 150+ inch projector or TV. Maybe if you got a 65 inch and are only sitting 1 meter away.
And the people who game at that resolution is few.

 

[RaDiKaL_]

I'd say Ryzen, sure, the i7-7700k pulls around 10 more fps on games but that's something you won't really notice, investing that much money on a socket that is already dead it simply makes no sense, whereas Ryzen platform will allow you to directly plug in a new CPU if you need to up until 2020.

 

[4745454b]

At those prices, get the AMD CPU. The 7700 is faster/better, but not worth the extra money. Make sure you update the bios when you get the board.

 

[Matthias_]

1- Best DDR4 modules i found in the market are some micron chip 2400mhz, not sure if that will cut it with the Ryzen.

2- My monitor is Asus MG28uq 4k with 60-75hz max refresh rate freesync, and i'm hoping to play at 4k or 2k resolution.

3- I'm not sure if more AMD processors will be reaching the market here as Intel is far more famous, even reselling intel is much easier than AMD - which is a problem i'm facing now trying to sell the RX480 for a 1070.

4- I'm also interested in, though not fully confident, of the potential of Intel Optane memory as it can only be compatible with Z270 chipset. That i would have to post a new thread as i'm thinking of buying a 16gig optane memory with a Seagate barracuda 2TB to replace my SSD as boot drive - again not sure.

5- Final question/note:
If decided to buy Ryzen, Would the Prime Pro mobo be competitive to the Z270 F Gaming features-wise?
Can Ryzen's stock cooler OC the cpu to 4-ish Ghz as i can't find any aftermarket coolers for AM4 socket?
And wouldn't the 7700k 5-ish OC'd speed beat Ryzen speeds in single-core intensive games, thus justifying Intel as better choice for game? I have been gaming at 3200mhz for the last 3 years and don't know really is CPU speed is main factor at gaming.

Thanks again

 

[4745454b]

1) It's not like going to 3200MHz ram is going to double your scores. If 2400 is all you have, run with it. I haven't seen any hard numbers, but from what I remember you are looking at ~10% difference or less depending on the task. Some of that might be able to be made up by OCing the ram.

2) I'd be more worried about your 480 at 4K than your CPU.

4) I wouldn't worry about Optane. There are many special feature things out there that people don't use. And I'm not convinced on it's usefulness.

5) As for motherboard features, see above. There are many things on boards, not all of them are used by everyone. As long as the board supports what you need/want, who cares if the z270F does more? Buy for what you need, not what exists. As for the cooler aren't they normally universal? My hyper 212+ came with the ability to cool both AMD and Intel CPUs. The sockets change, but the mounting system for both haven't changed in years. I could see someone selling a cooler that only comes with the Intel backplate and not the AMD one. But most aftermarket coolers will work on both.

 

[Matthias_]

1) Some of that might be able to be made up by OCing the ram.

5) As for the cooler aren't they normally universal? My hyper 212+ came with the ability to cool both AMD and Intel CPUs. The sockets change, but the mounting system for both haven't changed in years. I could see someone selling a cooler that only comes with the Intel backplate and not the AMD one. But most aftermarket coolers will work on both.

I'll read more about OC'ing the ram, i have no idea. I saw that Ryzen mobo supports a lot of ram frequencies which seems hopeful.

The only aftermarket coolers i found support up to AM3+ and latest 1151 sockets. There's one that caught my attention, the Corsair H80i v2, which corsair says they provide AM4 bracket on demand but i highly doubt the reseller have that because he only sells Intel products. I found only one mobo and Ryzen cpu at one reseller in the whole darn country but he doesn't sell aftermarket coolers. Ambient temperature in my room is around 30 to 32, and this is my concern if i attempt to OC Ryzen on stock cooler.

 

[4745454b]

Shoot, I just remembered AMD changed the AM4 socket slightly. You will need special AM4 coolers. Not sure if this list helps or not.

https://www.mwave.com.au/blog/2017/2/27/amd-ryzen-am4-cpu-coolers-compatibility-list

If you need to factor in the cost of the cooler then it might become a better idea to get the 7700. Consider total system cost vs CPU or board cost. If Ryzen saves you money then go for it. If in your country they are ~ the same cost, I'd get the 7700K.

 

[Matthias_]

Shoot, I just remembered AMD changed the AM4 socket slightly. You will need special AM4 coolers. Not sure if this list helps or not.

https://www.mwave.com.au/blog/2017/2/27/amd-ryzen-am4-cpu-coolers-compatibility-list

If you need to factor in the cost of the cooler then it might become a better idea to get the 7700. Consider total system cost vs CPU or board cost. If Ryzen saves you money then go for it. If in your country they are ~ the same cost, I'd get the 7700K.

The list definitely helps, ty. I can dig in more and ask resellers if they would order one specifically. If not, i might stick to the 7700k since the cooler is already available. And this is the main point i wanted answers to take into consideration. Deep down i know Ryzen is best choice, but there aren't enough support for it where i live. If i chose the 7700k eventually, i'm sure i will get a Ryzen in two years if not next year. Soon as i am sure there are hardware support for the Ryzen upgrade. The 30$ difference between the CPUs becomes almost marginal to me, because i've allocated a huge budget for the project. Money isn't my main concern. I just want stable quick and capable rig to play 3 to 4 games only. Not fan of the whole Witcher 3, Tomb Raider genre and can't even buy BF1 unless it makes it to steam (which is almost impossible). This place is a true prison and under every economic sanctions one could think of.

If i can't safely OC the Ryzen with stock cooler, and can't find an aftermarket one, Ryzen is no choice

 

[4745454b]

AMD already did a good job with Ryzen. I'm not sure how much more they can get out of this gen. I know people are saying "future proof" and "wait for developers to use more of it", but they said the same thing about the 8320/8350. At this point it's nearly as good as the 7 series from Intel, and that's still pretty good. I would gladly give up 10% performance for a cheaper overall platform. But as you pointed out if you can't get a good cooler, or you live in a country where the prices are the same, it's just not worth it to try and make the Ryzen platform make sense. The 7700 is faster overall for gaming so don't feel bad buying it. For a gaming rig it's one of the best CPUs out there.

 

[Matthias_]

AMD already did a good job with Ryzen. I'm not sure how much more they can get out of this gen. I know people are saying "future proof" and "wait for developers to use more of it", but they said the same thing about the 8320/8350. At this point it's nearly as good as the 7 series from Intel, and that's still pretty good. I would gladly give up 10% performance for a cheaper overall platform. But as you pointed out if you can't get a good cooler, or you live in a country where the prices are the same, it's just not worth it to try and make the Ryzen platform make sense. The 7700 is faster overall for gaming so don't feel bad buying it. For a gaming rig it's one of the best CPUs out there.

I don't wanna extend this thread even more, you might be getting bored of replying
I saw this while looking, it compares CPUs on the exact game for which i wanted to do the upgrade in the first place.
https://youtu.be/lbY_pEG1EZE

I currently have i5 4460 which has 3.2 base clock and 3.4 turbo clock, and i have been seeing very poor performance even at low settings at 1080p - keeping in mind he is using the same gpu i have.
Seems like the main upgrade i should be focusing on is CPU clock speed.
So, basically, a Ryzen 1700 would have 3.0ghz base clock and i 3.7 is the highest stable clock i could feel comfortable OC'ing under stock cooler.
i7 7700k out of the box comes with 4.2ghz base clock, 4.5ghz turbo and can be OC'ed to 5.0ghz with water cooler.

In these specific circumstances, me being focused on upgrading for 1 or few other similar games, i think i would benefit more from CPU clock speed than i would from higher number of cores/threads. I don't wanna end up feeling bad cause i didn't see the performance i was hoping for, like i did when upgraded my r9 280 to a RX480 when the game i want to play benefits more from CPU clock speed.

I'm sure Ryzen is the perfect upgrade for 90% of people, but to me 3.0 and 3.7ghz won't be much of an upgrade from a 4460 3.2 speeds, right?

 

[atomicWAR]

Right now the 7700k is the best for gaming.
Down the road only game developers know that.

That is not universally true. At 1080P with 144hz then you have a point. Drop the refresh rate to 120hz and/or kick up the resolution to 1440P/4K then Intel and AMD are neck and neck.

1080p and 1440p Intel is better, 4k they are neck and neck since that is more of a GPU dependent resolution.
And the reason I sayd Intel atm is the better one is simple because 85% of the users out there either game at 1080p or 1440p at 60Hz. And at that the Intel is better right now, but like I sayd down the road I have no clue.

If you ask me 4k or soooo overrated unless you are sitting at a massive 150+ inch projector or TV. Maybe if you got a 65 inch and are only sitting 1 meter away.
And the people who game at that resolution is few.

LOL as a 4K user I would agree with you for the most part on 4K being overrated. That said I am on a 55" sitting 3-4ft away. For me heavy AA is still a must when using a big screen. IF your a big jaggies guy like me actually at 3-4 feat/ .9 -1.21 meters you'll need 4x AA or more from about 37" or so (go lower and the AA can go down). 4K as a small panel user, really just gives you faux 2x AA when it is actually not on. That image that looks a hair better than 1440P with 2x AA on and takes an extremely high end rig to make 60FPS max/near max ultra settings 16x filtering 4-8X AA 60HZ/FPS or better. 4K really does help image in big panels but on small ones I am less convinced it is worth it when things like high levels of AA on 1440P can give you a similar image for less cost. Cost to performance ratio for 4k isn't cheap. In time it will be worth it but right now it is a little overrated for small panel users. Big panel users...then it become very attractive.

As for Ryzen on 1440P i still think it can be attractive. If a gamer, like me, is big on smooth lines and uses high levels of AA (say 4-16x). You GPU is going to still be your bottleneck. Only if your aiming for pure 144hz/FPS does Intel become more attractive. 120hz and down at 1440P (or any resolution) things are far more even between CPUs. As to your quote most gamers use 1080P/1440P 60hz...the second you go 60hz there is zero difference between the CPUs both are 60hz capable. It is only 144hz where Intel has a solid lead.

 

[James Mason]

[video="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oRLSotvcpA"][/video]

 

[Chad_40]

I'm gonna say you will not be disappointed either way sir!

 

[Matthias_]

[video="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oRLSotvcpA"][/video]

I'm not sure if your post is directed to me or other people's replies..
I watched this video just two hours ago, and about 10 other comparisons.
Anyway, my monitor is only capable of 60-75hz with freesync which i intend to use. I'm 70% decided on the 7700k, despite Ryzen being the best future-proof multi-tasking cheaper solution, for one fact that is clock speed.
As i mentioned above, i couldn't find aftermarket coolers for Ryzen and i live in a hot area no A/C. I don't wanna risk OC'ing over 3.7ghz with stock cooler despite what many claim to have reached 3.9 on stock cooler. Ambient temp must be taken into account.
7700k sounds a better choice for me cause the couple video games i'm doing the upgrade for heavily use single\double core hence rendering the 14 other threads a minor factor. I also need high clock speeds over 4.0ghz - and i'm planning on water cooling to OC the 7700k to around 4.7ghz
The above video i posted, the tester is using the same gpu i have now but i'm not getting 30% of that performance with my i5 4460 3.4ghz turbo clock speed on the same game i'm focusing on. Which leaves only one variable, clock speed. Ryzen's un-OC'ed speeds won't do much upgrade over my current setup clock-speed-wise.

Thanks for replying

 

[atomicWAR]

@james mason

Great video had seen it myself and one reason I was pointing out at 120hz or less Intel and AMD are basically equal. 144hz is where Intel shines for gaming ATM. At 60hz there is no reason to even have a conversation between the two in regards to gaming performance.

 

[atomicWAR]

OP

If you have other workloads than gaming or your gaming work load is IPC sensitive over multi-core then Intel is a better choice. They still have an edge there no question. If your workload is multi threaded/ gaming at 120HZ or less AMD becomes more attractive. It sounds like your needing the single core IPC though so Intel is the right call in that use case. Keep in mind for gaming though if your monitor is 75HZ more than 75FPS won't help you, all those other frames are lost. I only say this because you didn't say which workload was IPC sensitive.

 

[4745454b]

Why are you worried about 5.0GHz on the 7700 vs 3.7GHz on the Ryzen CPU? You have two cars, one can hit 6000RPM on the engine and the other can hit 5000RPM. Which car is faster? There isn't enough information to figure out which car is faster, because RPM isn't a useful measure of speed. The same is true with CPU frequency. As shown from your own link, the CPU with the lowest clock speed gave the highest minimum frame rate, and basically tied in the others. As your own link shows, there is basically no difference in those CPUs.

 

[mdd1963]

I'm always at a loss when folks select advocate a cpu already 20-50% slower in peak/average/min gaming performance now......, and then seem fairly certain it will somehow get better...'later'.

Admittedly one of the worst case disparity charts, but, it is at 1080P...

http://media.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2017/CPUs/7700k/144hz/dota2-1080p-144hz.png