R5 1600x or i7 7700?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Solution
theonerm2
Ryzen 5 1600X is the more powerful chip because of its extra cores. It will win in any CPU intensive task leveraging the extra cores/threads. As Ryzen becomes more popular (And it will) developers will start optimizing games for Ryzen's new architecture. You see, Ryzen is new. Intel's CPU isn't that new. It's still carrying over some of the stuff from earlier generations so the optimizations in place still work on the Intel part. Had Intel done something completely new like when they made the Pentium 4 for example the older parts would be a little faster in gaming than the new parts. Take for example the Pentium III beating the early Pentium 4. People still bought the Pentium 4 though. I know people said the FX series would get better...
Sort by date Sort by votes
the 1600 isnt future proof. you cant go based off promises of future performance. go by the info available now, and right now the 7700k is simply the better cpu for gaming, even in thread heavy games. its highly unlikely ryzen is suddenly going to become he better chip(gaming wise). the same things were said about the fx chips as well. if ryzen is weaker now for gaming chances are its only going to get weaker going foward like any other cpu.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


The Ryzen is using 30-40 % while the 7700 is using 80-100% workload in benchmarks obviously the ryzen has still much to offer.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


What you are saying makes no sense at all if a core is running at 40% it is obviously not running at 100% it has nothing to do with promises it has to do with benchmarks, technical facts and logic.
Intel has no innovations anymore they just keep stacking up all kinds of speeds and memory so obviously games are well optimizied for that at the moment when there was no innovation for such a long time now with the ryzen its a completely new technology which obviously needs some finetuning and the utilization of 100% of its power.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
it makes perfect sense. theres no guarantee that games will suddenly make better use of ryzen. some reports are that its architectural and theres simply nothing that can be done about ryzens weaker gaming performance, and others, such as amd, want people to believe its about optimization. but even in that case theres no guarantee its going to happen. considering... can it even be done? and even if the answer is yes, will devs bother? especially considering the market is dominated by intel 2-4 core chips. not to mention the lack of single core performance which always play a role. this same crap was said about the fx chips as well. they were excellent in multi threaded workloads but struggled in gaming, but just wait, people said... and here we are years later and they are even weaker than i3s in gaming. lol even if the day comes that games/devs can take advantage of all this hypothetical ryzen power thats just lying dormant, waiting for its moment, the chips will be obsolete anyway.

you can push ryzen if you want and base things on hopes and dreams, but ill advise people to look at actual real world performance observable right here, right now. ryzens are good chips and if you do more than gaming and can take advantage of its advantages, then go for it, its an excellent value. but for gaming the 7700 is simply the better choice.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I7 7700k is only 26% faster single core speed and 17% faster quad core speed then the 2500k in OC userbenchmark after 6 years of developement! Obviously there is a limit to their stacking up all kinds of speeds and memory which shows right here. The way to go is obviously more cores.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
Intel, in no way, is a better value nor a smarter buy. Period. I don't care how many games it beats Ryzen at, the wins, by and large, are so mathematically irrelevant that it is a poor economic choice to buy Intel. To argue that 160 frames on Intel "crushes" 152 on AMD is absurd. I am not going to cite benchmarks, we have all seen them and if users post questions that are evident that they haven't read/researched, then it's on them.

You can easily read up on a number of review sites latest testing with the R5s and see that they indeed are the better choice all-around. Where an AMD chip gets beat, it is literally irrelevant real-world percentages. Yes, the percentage difference between 75FPS for Intel and 50FPS for AMD is more than 160 vs 150 but really... The PC ecosystem is so dependent on all of your components that you can hardly do fair arguments from one build to the next unless all the variables are the same if not within fractions of one another.

Basing choice on 'hopes and dreams' is a better bet now than ever. Did you ever consider the fact that Intel has virtually stagnated in performance is 1. because there was no competition and 2. because they can milk the public for essentially continuing to add 'sprinkles' to your ice cream every other bite? Intel stagnated due to no competition... developers stagnated because the ecosystems couldn't support bigger and better games/apps.... it's like when species are trapped on small islands, they shrink over time because there are not enough resources to support 'larger' versions.

Give developers the tools and ecosystem to do MORE and they will do MORE. "More" is "More". Always. Do developers wants to build shoe-box sized games? No. They want to build bigger, more dynamic and more compelling games that are immersive. Imagine where we'd be if AMD had been competitive and in the game the last six years! VR could itself be commonplace. 12-core CPUs might be the baseline.

I call 'shenanigans' on blind Intel blather that is clearly shown to be surpassed in every meaningful way by AMD at this point. "Gaming" is not the the pinnacle achievement goal for ANY of these CPU makers. If anything, gamers are the cow that's being milked. Repeatedly. By Intel.

/rant
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
In gaming purely, the i7-7700k beats Ryzen 5. That was the question, and that question has been answered.

And that's coming from the most neutral person you're going to find, Ditt44.

Everything else really is as irrelevant as they can be. Right now, the i7-7700 is the better processor for gaming. There is really nothing else to discuss around this. If your topic was more about the Intel i5, I'd agree. But with the i7-7700, with 8 threads, It's still superbly powerful.

Only the future will tell if 12 to 16 threaded processors will be better. Right now, the future does not exist, neither can it be predicted. We have to focus on suggesting components now.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
Ryzen 5 1600X is the more powerful chip because of its extra cores. It will win in any CPU intensive task leveraging the extra cores/threads. As Ryzen becomes more popular (And it will) developers will start optimizing games for Ryzen's new architecture. You see, Ryzen is new. Intel's CPU isn't that new. It's still carrying over some of the stuff from earlier generations so the optimizations in place still work on the Intel part. Had Intel done something completely new like when they made the Pentium 4 for example the older parts would be a little faster in gaming than the new parts. Take for example the Pentium III beating the early Pentium 4. People still bought the Pentium 4 though. I know people said the FX series would get better with time and it did as games started to utilize more of its cores but it still wasn't that good. The FX series was never that great and people knew it. But this CPU is beating Intel's best in CPU intensive tasks and that's something the FX series never did. There's real hope for Ryzen to be a great gaming chip for new games. Current and older games as of today aren't likely to improve but new games are likely to take better advantage of Ryzen. I can almost guarantee that Ryzen will win in future games. In most cases for gaming though the CPU is less important anyway. I say buy the cheaper CPU if it means you can get a better GPU and your results will be better regardless. Ryzen is only about 1 fps or less behind the Core i7 7700K in 4K gaming. And it's behind a bit at 1080p but not so far behind that it matters. Ryzen is the better all around CPU in my opinion. If you're buying a super powerful GPU with Ryzen and playing at 1080p then yes it's a waste but that's also true of intel.
 
Upvote 2 Downvote
Solution
I had a choice between the ryzen 7 1700 and an i7 7700 non k, a msi b250m bazooka, Powercolor Rx480 4gb and gskill ddr4 2400mhz 2x8gb . I went with the intel as they were the same price. I can tell you now im very happy with my choice. I play battlefield 1 extensively and in 1080p ultra.i have had no scenario were frames ever dipped below 70 its always 88 up to 100fps on all maps. It plays beautifully. My choice was based in now and not future promises. I had an amd phenom ii x6 1075t 6core pc and that thing just got slower. I love my new build and i know i will MAYBE upgrade my whole mobo in 7 years. These i7s stay powerful forever. Just look at gaming benchmarks of an old i7 920 playing battlefield and you will see its still a beast. But on the other hand. These ryzen 5 1600s look awesome. They olay battlefield 1 the same. So probably go for a ryzen. They arent bad at all and ive seen a few benchmarks in YouTube of them playing battlefield 1 and they so it beautifully. Go for the Ryzen 1600. They also run much cooler than my i7. I reach 70 degrees Celsius on my cpu with the stock cooler while playing battlefield. I think the ryzen wil stay around 49 to 50 degrees.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
"Just look at gaming benchmarks of an old i7 920 playing battlefield and you will see its still a beast."

So you think its a positive thing that the 7700k is only about 25% better then the 2500k? Most people would rather want innovation which improves the speed by much more and Ryzen is going to achieve this.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If you care most about the average and maximum framerates get the 7700 and you will be great but if you care most about smoothness of gameplay then get the 1600x ryzen on average is the smoothest experience especially if you are planning to overclock because obviously the 1600x is unlocked though if you are over clocking I would recommend a 1600 because there is no guarantee that 1600x will overclock any higher than the 1600
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Greetings!
Technically what you say is incorrect. Its not that Ryzen isn't optimized for gaming but rather games are not optimized for more than 4 cores. This is because since Intel has been a monopoly in the market gaming developers have programmed games to use max 4 cores because the best CPUs on the market for gaming have always bean i5 and mainstream i7 4c/8th! This actually is same even before Ryzen because i7 2011v3 also have always bean inferior to i7 4c/8th like Kaby-Lake 7700K for exp. So even if you put to comparison i7 7700k vs i7 6900K dhe i7 7700K wil beat the 6900k easily because of the 4 core optimization in today games. Now the reason why Ryzen will get better with time and 7700K will retire like Core 2 series did in the past is because since AMD destroyed Intel with Ryzen the entire industry is changing with Intel starting to produce 6 core i7 for exp. And the FX series cannot be compared to Ryzen simply because at the time FX was a disappointment and Ryzen is a piece of beautiful technology and a true innovation. So if you say Ryzen is not a good cpu for gaming is the same as saying Intel 6900K 6950K , 6800k etc are not good for gaming. Since Intel dictated the market these years blame it no them 😉 . Don't get me wrong im not a fan of AMD i frankly don't give a damn neither for amd or intel but just pointing out the true facts
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom