Ryzen 1700 vs 1600

[lolggez]

Im going to build a PC for 1080p gaming 150+ fps stable on medium to high settings and I was wondering a ryzen 1700 + gtx 1070 or a ryzen 1600 + gtx 1080. I play PUBG, GTAV and Overwatch.

 

[kanewolf]

1600. Higher clock and fewer cores. You don't need 8 cores for gaming.

 

[lolggez]

1600. Higher clock and fewer cores. You don't need 8 cores for gaming.

But wouldnt a 1600 bottleneck sometimes?

 

[kanewolf]

Higher clock speeds will generally bottleneck less. If you are concerned about CPU bottlenecks while gaming, then you should buy an Intel 7700k CPU.

 

[Ecky]

If the extra cores are unused (and most games won't use them), they won't contribute at all to performance. Most games are only now starting to use more than 4 threads, making ~8 the sweet spot for pure gaming. Having a few more (10-12) is not a bad idea if you're doing something very intensive in the background such as streaming.

 

[lolggez]

Higher clock speeds will generally bottleneck less. If you are concerned about CPU bottlenecks while gaming, then you should buy an Intel 7700k CPU.

Thanks, think Im gonna decide on a 1600 + 1080 hopefully get it up to 3.9ghz

 

[sizzling]

If high fps gaming is your aim the i7 is a much better choice.

 

[10tacle]

If high fps gaming is your aim the i7 is a much better choice.

At 1080p that's a fact. At 1440p or 4K there's no difference as both resolutions stress the GPU more than the GPU even if the game is CPU responsive.

 

[sizzling]

If high fps gaming is your aim the i7 is a much better choice.

At 1080p that's a fact. At 1440p or 4K there's no difference as both resolutions stress the GPU more than the GPU even if the game is CPU responsive.

It happens to a lessor extent at 1440p if using something like a 1080Ti or sli setup. For 4k agree gpu's are just not strong enough to drive the fps high enough for the i7 to show its benefits. Also with no 4k 144Hz monitors yet it doesn't matter.

 

[Ecky]

If high fps gaming is your aim the i7 is a much better choice.

At 1080p that's a fact. At 1440p or 4K there's no difference as both resolutions stress the GPU more than the GPU even if the game is CPU responsive.

It's not so much that there's a difference at 1080P and 4K - 60hz is 60hz. Both i7 and Ryzen are easily capable of 60fps in most modern games, so at 60hz you're not going to care which you have. The reason there's a difference is that there really aren't any 120, 144 or 165+hz 4K screens, and Ryzen is not as capable of hitting these framerates as an i7. At 4K, you'd have to make significant graphical sacrifices in very demanding games to hit 165fps, but that's not to say it isn't possible, or that you wouldn't get those framerates in older games at 4K.

If you wanted to do 144hz gaming at 4K in older games, an i7 would be clearly better for that, provided you're willing to drop graphical quality to hit those framerates, or have deep enough pockets to get enough GPU power.

 

[10tacle]

^^Well of course it depends on the game too. Tom Clancy's The Division will respond to faster CPU core architecture at 1440p:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1700x_review,19.html

Tomb Raider, Hitman 2, and FC Primal however hit a wall at 1440p no matter the CPU:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1700x_review,17.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1700x_review,16.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1700x_review,18.html

 

[Ecky]

^ If you were to drop graphical quality in those games a little, you'd see the the CPUs start to spread apart. I personally have no interest in 60+ hz gaming, but some do, and will drop graphical quality to get from, say, 80fps to 144.