I7 7700 non-k vs ryzen 1700 for the long run?

[iLoveGTA]

So what do u guys think i should take? Ryzen 7 1700 or i7 7700 non k? Not planning to overclock but saw a vdo on youtube that almost 5-10 fps and sometimes 20 fps more on the 7700 non-k against ryzen 7 1700.
Now here's my question
If more cores and threads are better for gaming, why 7700 with 4cores/8threads gets more fps against a 1700 (which has double the cores and threads than a 7700) 8core/16threads? I'm planning to buy any one of these cpu_s and im mostly going to GAME. And i heard future games will be needing more than 6+ core and 12+ threads. And saying that, here's another question.
How come i7 7700 non-k would get less fps against a ryzen 1700 in FUTURE even though ryzen 1700 gets 5-10 less fps having 8core/16thread (which is double the cores and threads of a 7700) even on TODAY's games? Please clarify this, having a headache thinking what to choose. And yes, i want to game on that cpu for more than 4-5 years or more. So that i do not have to think about cores and threads in the future to play games. Just want to upgrade the graphics card after then with the same cpu i'm buying. (only if it lasts long i hope)
Help me with this guys. Thank u

 

[Supahos]

Noone knows when the switch to more cores being necessary will happen. Basically I look at the two cpus like this. With a 1070 or less as a gpu it doesn't really matter, both will perform well enough you'll never notice a difference. When you get into the 1080 or 1080ti it's gets more interesting. At 4k, once again CPU no longer matters, but when you get into 144hz monitors at 1440p/1080p it matters more.

Both CPUs will work fine now any for years to come, the majority no CPU gamers are doing so on a dual core, don't think for a second MOST games are going to need 6c12t in 3 years, most game makers will not exclude half the potential market by making it impossible to run on low tier Computer

 

[TrAAst]

4-5 years is a long time to predict in the tech world. That's why feature proofing is a dreaded word.
The i7 7700 performs better today because games don't utilize all of the the R7 1700s 16 threads, and the i7 has faster cores and faster clock speeds. Games might/will do in the future, but how long that'll take is impossible to say.

The cheaper R5 1600 has the same performance as the R7 1700 today, again, because games don't utilize more threads. Games has started to utilize more than 4 threads the last years and that took like a decade before they did, largely because of the consoles are now using 8 cores, so game developers has been forced to optimize for that.
As a rule of thumb, you should buy what's good today, rather than spending 50% more on something that will not benefit you for god knows how long. The CPU might be obsolete before you get full use of it, look at the fx8000 series for instance.

I'd pick between the R5 1600 or the i7 7700 if they are similarly priced. Take a look at benchmarks for the games you're playing and make a decision based on that.

 

[guanyu210379]

I7 7700k is faster but the performance is not that lot faster and the performance is actually very near to R5 1600.
If I had to choose between i7 7700k and R5 1600 for the same price, I would choose I7 7700k without much thinking.
However, the price gap between R5 1600 and I7 7700k is quite huge and this gives me no reasons at all to pick I7 7700k over R5 1600.

About...for long run...nobody can really tell but other stuffs than gaming can already use more cores. I am already really looking at those R7 1700 to replace my E3-1231V3 for working purposes.

 

[Supahos]

Actually looking at a non k 7700 the Gap is much smaller. It only hits 4.0ghz at full load which puts it only 8-9% ahead of a oced 1700. Of you're not going to oc stay away from a 1700, if you are it's probably the way to go