Ryzen vs i7 7700k
Ryzen vs i7 7700k
bazzingabear :
atomicWAR :
you won't reach 4.5GHZ even when using just four cores, though that's doable. A 1700x won't surpass an i7 7700K in gaming right now. The real concern is whether it can keep up in the future—six months, a year, or longer. In the long run, I think the 1700X will be the stronger choice for gaming. Titles like BF1, Ghost Recon Wildlands, and Watch Dogs 2 demand all your cores and threads. I notice many complaints from i5 users about getting bottlenecked in BF1, especially in multiplayer. Some i7 users have even complained about high CPU usage near 100% in BF1. As more games consume every thread a CPU provides, an 8C/16T chip seems increasingly appealing over time.
Currently the situation suggests the i7 7700k is more suitable for gaming. Its CPU performs better with higher IPC, outpacing Ryzen in this aspect. While only a few games are fully optimized for the i7’s eight threads and even fewer for its sixteen threads in a 1700x configuration, certain titles with optimizations for Ryzen come close to the i7. For now, on Arpil 25 2017, the i7 remains the stronger choice for gaming. It's uncertain if this trend will continue in 2018 or 2019.
You won't reach 4.5GHZ even when using just four cores, though that's feasible. Currently, an 1700x will struggle against an i7 7700K in gaming at the moment. The real concern is whether it can keep up in the future. In the long run, the 1700X seems more suitable for gaming. Titles like BF1, Ghost Recon Wildlands, and Watch Dogs 2 demand full utilization of your cores and threads. Some users, especially those with i5 models, report feeling bottlenecked in BF1, particularly in multiplayer. I've also noticed complaints from i7 users about high CPU usage in BF1. As more games consume every thread a CPU provides, an 8C/16T processor becomes increasingly appealing over time. Personally, I'd lean toward Ryzen if you're aiming for 2-4K gaming. The performance gap at 2K is around 10%, and at 4K it narrows to about 5%. At higher resolutions, Ryzen chips perform significantly better. After considering AMD briefly, the i7 7700K still holds an edge in gaming right now. Early tests also suggest SLI Intel may scale better with two GPUs than AMD does. Although many believe driver issues are the main factor, the performance difference remains. The key question is whether you intend to use SLI, play at lower resolutions (1080P or less), and plan to upgrade your PC soon. If yes, go with Intel. But if you want to extend your system's lifespan, opt for higher resolutions. Don't rely on SLI or wait for driver updates to resolve the issue. AMD could be a better option depending on your needs.
Current 1700 chips still can't surpass the 4.1 barrier. The challenge isn't only about fewer cores but also the pipeline design that enables the 7700k to achieve such high clocks and maintain IPC. It doesn't simply win because the 7700k offers the best performance per core available right now. Therefore, the 7700k remains superior in pure gaming situations for some time.
The 1700x provides greater raw computation power, but this capability won't be fully leveraged during games soon. The main limitation is that games aren't entirely parallelizable due to their reliance on temporal data.
Both CPUs are strong, and the fps improvement is significant—often reaching 20-40fps over 120fps. Unless you need that extra fps boost above 120, the difference won't be noticeable. If you value more parallel processing or just prefer additional cores, the R7 1700 becomes the better choice.
The performance expectations are still limited, even with just four cores. A 1700x will not surpass an i7 7700K in gaming right now, especially in the short term. The main concern is whether it can keep up in six months or a year. In the long run, I think the 1700X will be the better choice for gaming. Titles like BF1, Ghost Recon Wildlands, and Watch Dogs 2 demand full utilization of every core and thread. Many users, especially those with i5 models, report feeling bottlenecked in BF1, particularly in multiplayer. Some even mention i7 users experiencing high CPU usage near 100% in BF1. As more games consume every available thread, an 8C/16T CPU becomes increasingly appealing over time. Personally, I’d lean toward Ryzen if you plan to play at 2-4K resolutions. The difference is noticeable—around 10% at 2K and closer to 5% at 4K. At higher resolutions, the Ryzen chip performs significantly better. After considering AMD briefly, the i7 7700K still holds an edge in gaming right now. Early tests also suggest SLI Intel may scale better with two GPUs than AMD does. While most reviewers think driver issues are the main factor, the performance gap remains. The decision depends on your plans: if you want to stay in the game at 1080p or higher and plan to upgrade soon, Intel is likely the safer bet. If you aim for longer-term use and higher resolutions, AMD could be worth considering.
bazzingabear :
atomicWAR :
you won't reach 4.5GHZ even when using just four cores, though that's possible. Currently, an 1700x won't surpass an i7 7700K in gaming performance in the near future. The real concern is whether it can achieve this in six months or a year or longer. In the long run, I think the 1700X will be the superior choice for gaming. Titles such as BF1, Ghost Recon Wildlands, and Watch Dogs 2 demand every core and thread you have. I notice many complaints from i5 users about being limited in BF1, particularly in multiplayer. I've also seen some i7 users expressing similar issues with near 100% CPU usage in BF1. As more games consume every available thread, an 8C/16T CPU seems increasingly appealing over time. Personally, I'd lean toward the Ryzen, especially if you're aiming for 2-4K gaming. At 2K, the performance gap is around 10%, and at 4K it's closer to 5%. The key is that higher resolutions make Ryzen chips significantly better. After considering AMD briefly, the i7 7700K still leads in gaming right now. Some early tests suggest SLI Intel may scale better with two GPUs than AMD does. Although most reviewers think the issue lies in drivers and should be resolved, the performance difference remains noticeable. The question is whether you intend to use SLI, play at lower resolutions (1080P or less), and plan to upgrade your PC soon. If yes, go with Intel. But if you aim to keep your system long-term, opt for higher resolutions, avoid SLI, and be patient for driver updates. AMD could still be a good option depending on your needs.
Not OP, but in the same boat. If I were focusing on 1080p @ 144 Hz for gaming, would you say the i7 7700K offers more benefits than Ryzen?
Currently, yes, an i7 7700K should provide better frame rates, particularly above 120 FPS. Below that threshold, performance is similar. Still, it's hard to predict how this will change in a few years. Based on my instincts and industry knowledge, a Ryzen 8C/16T CPU would likely be more advantageous in a year or so. I'm not certain, but developers appear very satisfied with Ryzen and its higher core/thread count. Intel's upcoming mainline chips are rumored to be 6C/12T for i7s and 6C/6T for i5s. If true, future Intel processors combined with more threads will make gaming more efficient. Games like BF1, Ghost Recon Wildlands, and Watch Dogs 2 are among the first to utilize multiple threads, making this a significant factor.
The current scenario suggests an i7 7700K could offer improved frame rates, particularly above 120 FPS. Below that threshold, performance remains similar. However, predictions for the future are uncertain. Based on my understanding and past experience, a Ryzen 8C or 16T CPU might perform better in about a year or so, though I’m not certain. I don’t think Dev is overly optimistic about Ryzen’s advantages in core and thread count. Intel’s upcoming mainline chips are expected to have 6 cores/12 threads for i7s and 6 cores/6 threads for i5s. If accurate, this could make gaming more efficient with higher thread counts. BF1, Ghost Recon Wildlands, Watch Dogs 2 are among the first titles using over four threads in games. Thank you for the helpful reply. I found an article that supports your thoughts: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/03/...-matter/3/ It would be fascinating to see how the gaming industry adjusts to new cores and threads.