Ryzen R7 1700 or i7-7700 (Non-K)?

[AMDRadeonHD]

This debate has been a mess for a long time and I want you to say your opinion because I still can't decide between those two, Ryzen 1700 or i7 7700? I won't overclock, i rarely upgrade PC components (This means with the CPU upgrade I won't upgrade for a long time) I render videos with Sony Vegas Pro 13 in MainConcept AAVC .mp4 12 avg 24 max VBR, Two-pass, deblocking filter, 1080p60

R7 1700 with a B350 AM4 motherboard costs more than i7 7700 with a B250 motherboard
i7 7700 has alot less cores and threads and the usage is way bigger (Does that mean that it will soon struggle with stuttering?)
R7 1700 has alot more threads and cores and the usage is way lower
R7 1700 has up to 40fps less in ARMA III

I've seen that the R7 1700 has 10-30 minutes quicker rendering (I'm also gonna render some content for YouTube with MainConcept AAVC .mp4 12 avg 24 max VBR, Two-pass, deblocking filter, 1080p60)

I am very very bad at picking, I don't know if it's gonna be true that the games will soon use more than 4 cores and 8 threads, because, it was the same story for the Bulldozer CPUs and it didn't workout.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

For now the Intel chips will be the better Gamers , but AMD is making adjustments and they will get closer. But the A4's will be the rendering champs.

If gaming is more of a priority get the intel if not go with the AM4 RYZEN.

 

[lakimens]

R7 1700 is better for working, something that can use all cores.
7700 is better for gaming, something that can't use 8 cores, where higher clock speed will dominate.
We don't know when games are gonna use more cores, they're talking about it since a long time ago.
DX12 and Vulkan we're gonna use more cores and nothing came of it.

 

[AMDRadeonHD]

For now the Intel chips will be the better Gamers , but AMD is making adjustments and they will get closer. But the A4's will be the rendering champs.

I just want to know since I won't upgrade for a long time, will Ryzen R7 1700 hold up and get better overtime or will it fail like Bulldozer did, damn I really need a time machine...

 

[firefoxx04]

Bulldozer failed because it had piss poor single core performance. Ryzen is VERY close to Intel, just not better. Its a massive increase in performance compared to the previous FX line of chips.

Ryzen does just fine in games, way better than FX. Intel just does a little better.

When it comes to threaded performance, the AMD dominates Intel. The previous FX chips did not beat intel in any way shape or form except for only a few threaded workloads. Ryzen simply walks away when it comes to threaded tasks.

I would get the Ryzen, however, the i7 is simply fantastic as well. The real question is, which platform fits your budget and fulfills your feature requirements?

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

I think the AM4 will improve over time that's why I'm building with it next.

 

[Geekwad]

Games may not (and probably won't) make good use of more than 8-threads for a long time to come, but having extra resources...especially if this is your only machine...does allow for more background work or multitasking without worrying.

You can also split the difference and look at the 1600X too.

 

[Ditt44]

AMD. 1700 or 1600x. Either is a better mid to long-term choice. It sounds like the 1700 might be better for you if you are going to be set on that build for 5+/- years. More cores in 3 years are still more cores in 3 years as well as 5. Apps will change and start relying on more cores and threads.

As far as FPS go... define the context of "40" in ARMA III... is it 200 vs 160? or 70 vs 30? BIG difference and if the base line for the AMD is at least 60-75, does it really matter? And those numbers will only improve.

Just get the fastest RAM you can that is supported by your motherboard---or will be once the BIOS can support 3200+.

 

[AMDRadeonHD]

Games may not (and probably won't) make good use of more than 8-threads for a long time to come, but having extra resources...especially if this is your only machine...does allow for more background work or multitasking without worrying.

You can also split the difference and look at the 1600X too.

The i7 7770 upgrade will be 20$ over budget, the r7 1700 upgrade will be 70$ over budget, I could wait for 10-30 more minutes to render a video, I don't do crazy but I do multitasking, it will be my only machine, gaming at 1080p

I'm leaning towards i7 7700 but I'm afraid for future-proofing because I can't possibly know if it will struggle in the next 5 years with stuttering, I just can't accept 40fps less in ARMA III and I can't possibly know if the R7 1700 will be fixed overtime because I can't predict the future.

 

[AMDRadeonHD]

AMD. 1700 or 1600x. Either is a better mid to long-term choice. It sounds like the 1700 might be better for you if you are going to be set on that build for 5+/- years. More cores in 3 years are still more cores in 3 years as well as 5. Apps will change and start relying on more cores and threads.

As far as FPS go... define the context of "40" in ARMA III... is it 200 vs 160? or 70 vs 30? BIG difference and if the base line for the AMD is at least 60-75, does it really matter? And those numbers will only improve.

Just get the fastest RAM you can that is supported by your motherboard---or will be once the BIOS can support 3200+.

50-60 on foot and 35-45 on chopper with ryzen, 90-100 on foot and 70-80 on chopper with i7, most of the games are 20fps behind. The choice definitely cuts.

Link to the video with SMT on and off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPr6pp4WWfc

 

[Ditt44]

I think you keep answering your own question in cloudy terms And... what is your GPU? The AM4 is going to be your base socket for 5 years. You will have ample upgrade paths, starting next year. I see no reason to not buy an AM4 and then look at more RAM and a stronger GPU, depending on what you have at the moment and can upgrade to down the road. I would gladly sell a kidney to cut 30 minutes off any render time if that was a cornerstone of what I use my PC for.

And, back to FPS... don't think in terms of X vs Y in "40 FPS" but in %... how many percentage points lower does that "40" translate to?

***edit just saw your reply*** Then.... GPU.... ? what now and what can you afford later?

 

[AMDRadeonHD]

I think you keep answering your own question in cloudy terms And... what is your GPU? The AM4 is going to be your base socket for 5 years. You will have ample upgrade paths, starting next year. I see no reason to not buy an AM4 and then look at more RAM and a stronger GPU, depending on what you have at the moment and can upgrade to down the road. I would gladly sell a kidney to cut 30 minutes off any render time if that was a cornerstone of what I use my PC for.

And, back to FPS... don't think in terms of X vs Y in "40 FPS" but in %... how many percentage points lower does that "40" translate to?

I'll see about that 70$ over budget, right now I have i3-4160/2×4GB DDR3 1600/GTX 960 2GB and the next upgrade with one of those CPUs will be with the RX 480 8GB and 2×8GB DDR4 2400MHz (3000+ RAM costs alot more in my country, out of budget)

I'm planning to upgrade all of that in September. The AMD motherboard will be MSI B350M Gaming Pro and the Intel motherboard will be MSI B250M PRO-VD.