As of right now, the 7700k is the better choice for gaming.
We have actual data from reviews that says just that.
I'm not gonna buy something on the promise that it might perform better in the future.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AMD Ryzen Thread: Affordable Core Act
- Thread starter ·feist·
- Start date
As of right now, the 7700k is the better choice for gaming.
We have actual data from reviews that says just that.
I'm not gonna buy something on the promise that it might perform better in the future.
Delusibeta
Banned
I do find it ironic that the exact same argument used to defend Bulldozer's gaming performance is being resurrected to defend Ryzen's gaming performance. No, games didn't make use of Bulldozer's multithreading capabilities, there's zero reason to assume that they're going to use Ryzen 7's multithreading capabilities.
If AMD had any wit, they'd be fast tracking Ryzen 3s. On paper, that's going to be what 99% of the gaming PC market will need, no more.
If AMD had any wit, they'd be fast tracking Ryzen 3s. On paper, that's going to be what 99% of the gaming PC market will need, no more.
ethomaz
Banned
You are making a bet...
I'm being objective...
That is the different... I believe that you are betting in the wrong horse because even in the future 7700K will be ahead 1700X in gaming performance but that is my opinion because I can't proof how will be the future... neither you.
You are fighting an objective fact doing predictions/bets lol same happened before dozen of times with AMD supporters to excuse inferior gaming performance.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
No way I'd buy a 4 core/8-thread CPU like the 7700K in 2017 at their current prices and especially when the 8-core/16-thread Ryzen is the same price.
I don't own a Titan X and probably won't own a card on that level next year either so the gaming advantages at 1080p are lost on me. I mean 120 fps or 138 fps makes no odds to me in any case
To add to that, I even game on a 1440p monitor! So there would be no sense in it.
You know lads I keep telling ya but I had the foresight - as did Durante - to go for a 6-core CPU nearly 2 years ago now. But here we are with people trying to say 4-cores is the future if you're a gamer in 2017! Bwahaha.
No but if you can get a 7700K for $180 get one it's worth it then.
I don't own a Titan X and probably won't own a card on that level next year either so the gaming advantages at 1080p are lost on me. I mean 120 fps or 138 fps makes no odds to me in any case
To add to that, I even game on a 1440p monitor! So there would be no sense in it.
You know lads I keep telling ya but I had the foresight - as did Durante - to go for a 6-core CPU nearly 2 years ago now. But here we are with people trying to say 4-cores is the future if you're a gamer in 2017! Bwahaha.
No but if you can get a 7700K for $180 get one it's worth it then.
You're the one not being objective, we're already getting a glimpse of games that do make use of more cores/threads, yet you're ignoring the results from these.
There's more to CPUs than cores/threads, just because Ryzen has alot of cores/threads doesn't mean that it'll work out well in future games that use multiple cores/threads.
It could work out depending on how significant are the fixes/patches that AMD talks about though, but then again, if the most significant part of these fixes are game specific and not something for windows itself, Intel CPUs remain more future proof than AMD's, it's alot more likely to have more games that play to Intel's CPUs strengths than AMD's after all.
Let's not forget past games, PC gaming after all is not only about future games, but revisiting old games too. I don't see the releases of old console titles (especially from Japanese publishers) stopping any time soon, and these are more likely to want high single-threaded performance over multiple cores.
No way I'd buy a 4 core/8-thread CPU like the 7700K in 2017 at their current prices and especially when the 8-core/16-thread Ryzen is the same price.
I don't own a Titan X and probably won't own a card on that level next year either so the gaming advantages at 1080p are lost on me. I mean 120 fps or 138 fps makes no odds to me in any case
To add to that, I even game on a 1440p monitor! So there would be no sense in it.
You know lads I keep telling ya but I had the foresight - as did Durante - to go for a 6-core CPU nearly 2 years ago now. But here we are with people trying to say 4-cores is the future if you're a gamer in 2017! Bwahaha.
No but if you can get a 7700K for $180 get one it's worth it then.
Your 5820k that you bought 2 years ago is still a better gaming CPU than any Ryzen and overclocks better.
I guess people should buy that instead
D
Deleted member 59090
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah cheaper 6 and 4 core variants are coming in Q2.
Caffeine
Gold Member
i will keep an eye out thanks
Obviously 4 cores are not the future, but, currently the i7 7700K is more likely to have a better future than Ryzen 1700 at least.
TC McQueen
Member
Probably in the R3 to R5 range.
That is like saying 7700K has better future than 6800K. I'm torn about this.
(Assuming Ryzen gets more support/bugfix in bios and OS)
Many games did get multi-threaded eventually, BD just wasn't very good even when fully utilized.
R3 is not the answer. They need to fix all the software/bios issues first or R3 is DOA.
shark sandwich
tenuously links anime, pedophile and incels
R7 is not the best CPU for gaming. If you are building a pure gaming PC, you're better off with Kaby Lake.
As a competitor to Broadwell-E, that's where Ryzen really kicks ass. It's a CPU that's pretty good at gaming, has great multithreaded performance for content creation/HD game streaming/etc, and MAY be more future proof than a quad-core. And you get a HELL of a lot more bang for your buck with R7 than with Broadwell-E.
I think the 1600X will be a much more competitive gaming CPU. At that price point, it'll be competing directly with 7600K. It'll get almost identical gaming performance to the 1800X. And now you're choosing between 4c/4t and 6c/12t. And socket AM4 will almost certainly be more future proof than any Intel chipset.
As a competitor to Broadwell-E, that's where Ryzen really kicks ass. It's a CPU that's pretty good at gaming, has great multithreaded performance for content creation/HD game streaming/etc, and MAY be more future proof than a quad-core. And you get a HELL of a lot more bang for your buck with R7 than with Broadwell-E.
I think the 1600X will be a much more competitive gaming CPU. At that price point, it'll be competing directly with 7600K. It'll get almost identical gaming performance to the 1800X. And now you're choosing between 4c/4t and 6c/12t. And socket AM4 will almost certainly be more future proof than any Intel chipset.
the difference is that the ps4 and xbox one both have 8-core CPUs. 8 core cpus will likely become the norm .
Coldfriction
Member
The results of benchmarks are for a controlled test with limited variables. If you want to call something "the best", you have to define which variables it is objectively measuring better in. You can't say "the best" and not qualify the measurements used. As a purchase, is the 7700k "the best"? How do you answer that?
Because an opinion is a majority opinion doesn't mean it is an objective fact. Everyone can believe something wrong all together.
This is the AMD Ryzen thread, not the shitpost on Ryzen thread, why bother knocking it down here? You're trying to send a message for some reason I can't understand.
For everyone else above, Ryzen isn't Bulldozer, go reread some decent reviews. I tried hard to convince my brother-in-law to not build a Bulldozer machine, and he wouldn't listen. Now he won't build an AMD machine because of his experience.
Looks like I'd better stick to Anandtech, semiaccurate, overclock.net and the like for some intelligent thoughts about hardware.
Andalus0880
Member
I'm with Coldfriction on this. The narrative has been undeniably negative and skewed against Ryzen, and unjustifiably so. Ryzen has democratized high performance CPUs for the masses. You no longer have to hope, dream, or shell out a small fortune to achieve the level of computational performance equal to or better than a 6900K.
Ryzen is a brand new architecture, operating on a brand new platform, fabricated on a brand new process, it's quite literally days old. New platforms come with early teething issues which have to be positively addressed. As the facts slowly emerge, we're learning Windows doesn't schedule tasks properly; early BIOSes are bug ridden and cannibalize performance; game code, engines, and productivity software have all been generated using Intel's compilers and tool sets - in other words, no optimization whatsoever to take advantage of Ryzen's architectural strengths.
Those are the facts, and the reality is AMD is working hard to address them.
I can write endlessly about the nonsense I've witnessed in this thread, but I won't. My advice is to simply think critically about the information being disseminated and make informed purchasing decisions based on sound analysis and logical reasoning. No more, no less.
Ryzen is a brand new architecture, operating on a brand new platform, fabricated on a brand new process, it's quite literally days old. New platforms come with early teething issues which have to be positively addressed. As the facts slowly emerge, we're learning Windows doesn't schedule tasks properly; early BIOSes are bug ridden and cannibalize performance; game code, engines, and productivity software have all been generated using Intel's compilers and tool sets - in other words, no optimization whatsoever to take advantage of Ryzen's architectural strengths.
Those are the facts, and the reality is AMD is working hard to address them.
I can write endlessly about the nonsense I've witnessed in this thread, but I won't. My advice is to simply think critically about the information being disseminated and make informed purchasing decisions based on sound analysis and logical reasoning. No more, no less.
The argument was sound, but the timing was way off. If this graph is to believed then perhaps more cores are finally becoming important.
My 1700 arrives tomorrow -- will be doing a full build once I can get my hands on the EVGA 1080ti. Will be fun to compare to my 2500k PC. Will probably be a good two weeks until that happens though due to the GPU :-(
I think down the line, perhaps a year from now, I will have to get the fastest IPC for Cemu, whether that is Intel or AMD... Assuming I will need a very fast single core performance CPU to emulate BOTW.
I think down the line, perhaps a year from now, I will have to get the fastest IPC for Cemu, whether that is Intel or AMD... Assuming I will need a very fast single core performance CPU to emulate BOTW.
That's debatable. It certainly has a better present though if you all you care about is gaming performance.
opticalmace
Member
The argument was sound, but the timing was way off. If this graph is to believed then perhaps more cores are finally becoming important.
Is the 2500k at stock clocks?
longdi
Banned
Buying into 8 cores now is akin to buying i7 HT back in 2014. 4 cores/no-HT is enough now, but 8 cores/HT will last you longer.
Looking at the minimum FPS from techspot, i think gaming on a 60~90fps monitor, ryzen is good enough now.
It's just too bad AMD gloflo 14nm seems to be limited at 4ghz single core, not sure how r5 can overcome that.
But right now r7 1700 basically rendered Intel hedt line worthless in terms of value.
Intel 6 cores coffee lake should do the same to ryzen by years end if AMD cannot improve the 14nm core clocks.
Looking at the minimum FPS from techspot, i think gaming on a 60~90fps monitor, ryzen is good enough now.
It's just too bad AMD gloflo 14nm seems to be limited at 4ghz single core, not sure how r5 can overcome that.
But right now r7 1700 basically rendered Intel hedt line worthless in terms of value.
Intel 6 cores coffee lake should do the same to ryzen by years end if AMD cannot improve the 14nm core clocks.
Not really, the 6800K does... likely better than ryzen and maybe even the 7700K on multithreaded games (having a hard time finding results... so I can't say for sure <-<)
I have no idea what you're even trying to say anymore.
At the moment the 7700K is better than any of the Ryzen options when it comes to price/performance for gaming, and based on multithreaded games results, Ryzen's future doesn't look promising either. That's all there is to it.
It could change with the fixes/patches/optimization that AMD talks about, but these are the results we have right now, can't judge something based on promises of what it could be.
I was pretty interested in the 1600X to replace my very aging Phenom II X4 955, of course it was to be expected that Ryzen in general wouldn't beat the 7700K in games that prefer less cores, it's just the more multithreaded results that are unexpected and disappointing.
I could ask the same to you though. What's your purpose? Is it just to blindly defend Ryzen without looking at its faults?
I think everyone's aware of how good Ryzen is for heavily threaded productivity applications, but this is a gaming focused forum, so it's only natural that the discussion is focused more towards gaming, right?
Can't judge something based on promises, based on what it could be.
If I had to buy a CPU now, since I have a focus on gaming, I couldn't just go for a Ryzen CPU based on these promises when there's so many unknowns about this.
How much of a difference will it actually make? How many games will be affected? What about non-AAA games from less knowledgeable developers (especially japanese studios)? Right now Intel just feels like a safer option for a focus on gaming.
Ragnorok64
Member
So I don't typically watch the tech sphere hawkishly but this release seems to have people losing their minds out there. What the heck is going on?
Beerman462
Member
This is my take on the whole 7700K vs Ryzen argument that seems to have erupted. If you buy a 7700K at it's current price you are a fool. Ryzen is bringing 8, 6 and 4 cores down to lower price brackets. So even if the 1600X and 1500X don't topple the 7700K performance wise it will at least be close enough to force Intel to drop their prices.
Also current consoles are running 8 core Jaguars and as such even modest 4 core PC CPUs can keep up. What happens when they inevitably switch to Ryzen? Hell, Scorpio could have it this year. Either way we can probably expect a PS5 in late 2019 with Ryzen. It will be a lower power version with ? cores, but I personally wouldn't buy a 4 core CPU at this time.
Bottom line. Wait for 1600X/1500X and see how Intel moves, unless you just can't wait.
AMD hasn't remotely challenged Intel in almost 10 years. So you have unmitigated hype from AMD fans and damage control from Intel fans.
Also current consoles are running 8 core Jaguars and as such even modest 4 core PC CPUs can keep up. What happens when they inevitably switch to Ryzen? Hell, Scorpio could have it this year. Either way we can probably expect a PS5 in late 2019 with Ryzen. It will be a lower power version with ? cores, but I personally wouldn't buy a 4 core CPU at this time.
Bottom line. Wait for 1600X/1500X and see how Intel moves, unless you just can't wait.
AMD hasn't remotely challenged Intel in almost 10 years. So you have unmitigated hype from AMD fans and damage control from Intel fans.
IINM the 7700K smokes 6800K in nearly every game, even the well-threaded ones like BF1.
I was thinking more about titles like Watch Dogs 2 and Ashes of the Singularity, which seem to have a clearer preference for more threads. Titles like these kinda offer a glimpse to a more multi-threaded future, I think.
Ryzen is having disappointing results (taking into consideration its core/thread count) in games that like more threads though, that's the main issue.
But yeah, waiting really is the smarter thing to do.
I guess I'm on the "damage control" side, but I wouldn't call myself an Intel fan, taking into consideration all my desktops throughout the years had AMD CPUs.
Personally I just don't like blind fanboyism.
shark sandwich
tenuously links anime, pedophile and incels
Basically Ryzen gives you near Broadwell-E performance at a fraction of the price, but i7 7700K is still the best pure gaming chip. So you can easily spin it as either a failure or a success, depending on your personal perspective.
And we also have the age old debate whether you should do gaming benchmarks at low resolutions, where you're CPU-limited and so CPU performance differences are much more dramatic, or at high-resolutions, where you're almost entirely GPU-bound, but it's more similar to how someone buying a $350+ CPU is actually going to game.
DavidSwifty
Banned
Deffo going all AMD next build.
Cannot wait
Cannot wait
7700K is just 1fps margin of error with 6800K in WD2, beating it in Battlefield 1 which is very well-threaded like most DICE games.
The biggest unrelated problem with 7700K is Intel might release 6C Coffee Lake later this year. This makes anyone who bought the 7700K feel like a right dunce.
Beerman462
Member
Even though these games are well multi-threaded the current IPC and clock speed deficiencies might be to much for additional cores to over come. I expect some improvements with regards to bios and memory on Ryzen, but it will still fall behind Kaby lake.
I used AMD CPUS from K7 up until Sandy Bridge. Even then there was a $130 AMD CPU that I was close to pulling the trigger on, but Intel had twice the FPS on World of Warcraft. This made me buy the i52400 for $180 and I never regretted it. Last year I decided to upgrade and was pretty disappointed that I was still limited to 4c/4t in my price range. I went for the 6600K at $60 more than my old 2400 just to feel like I was getting a worthwhile upgrade. I guess CPU gaming performance has stagnated a bit. I'm hoping that Ryzen raises the base a bit.
The thing here is that buy eliminating the GPU you can see how your CPU might perform in the future. For example let's say you have a 7700K vs an 1800X 4 years from now and games have advanced to the point that the 7700K can maintain a solid 60fps on the latest game. If you take the current 20% or so average that Ryzen falls below 7700Ks you get dips to 48fps vs a solid 60fps. Personally I think this is a niche problem since if you are a true enthusiast you would buy a 1700 vs a 1800X for less and overclock it and also upgrade before this is an issue. Depending on the pricing a 4 year AMD cycle could be equal to or cheaper than a 5 tear Intel cycle.
Based on rumors, August.
Andalus0880
Member
Yes, focusing on gaming is fair. However, embellishing on the "poor" performance is not. From what I've seen, the gaming performance is competitive. There are three games of note which are extreme outliers - Civilizations 6, GTA V, and Watch Dogs 2 - that people continue to harp about as if they're the defecto gold standard of gaming performance. Posting and reposting results from those 3 games, I'm curious to know why BF1 and Doom results aren't being rehashed over and over again. Could it be that those games meet or exceed the 7700k?
Something as simple as switching from Win 7 to Win 10 yields a 17% uplift in performance. I don't believe it's a matter of wishful thinking that performance will improve drastically when these apparent bugs exist. Ryzen is leaving at least 1/5 of it's performance on the table for no other reason than an OS functioning improperly, and that's just **one** bug that needs to be addressed.
At least 17%. Curious if you've seen the load balancing on all cores when playing some of these benchmarked games? Ryzen cores are either completely un-utilized or vastly under-utilized, churning along at an anemic 30% or so. In other words, the CPU is barely breaking a sweat. How much performance will be gleaned once optimization takes its course is anyone's guess at this point. However, at GDC, several high profile devs and publishers have stated that early optimization was looking extremely positive and there was plenty of performance left untapped. AMD understands it needs to assume the initiative and "train" devs on how to exploit its architecture to the fullest. It's not a slew of vague and empty promises. AMDs CEO has pledged support for this endeavor and has signed partnerships with key devs to bring that pledge to fruition.
On techspot the 6900K beats the 7700K on Watch Dogs 2 while losing to it on Battlefield 1 (doesn't specify if it's DX11 or 12).
On gamersnexus the 6900K beats the 7700K on Watch Dogs 2, Ashes, and they tie on Battlefield 1 (doesn't specify if it's DX11 or 12).
On computerbase the 6850K and 6900K beat the 7700K on WD2, Ashes, BF1 DX11, but the 7700K comes out on top on BF1 DX12.
Couldn't find any direct comparison with the 6800K though.
About Coffee Lake, who knows if the desktop version is even coming this year, they could pull another Kaby Lake and target laptops first.
Computerbase, 1800X beats the 7700K on BF1 in DX11 but loses against the 7600K in DX12. Some other outlets show the 1800X losing against the 7700K but they don't specify the API (I assume DX12).
Personally I've been bringing up WD2 alot because people have mentioned it making use of all threads on a CPU, and benchmarks show Intel's own 8/10-core CPUs beating the 7700K, so it's a test where one would have expected Ryzen to shine.
Are those 17% all around or just in specific situations?
About AMD's commitment, that is why I've been saying that AMD has a chance to change the current first impressions when it comes to gaming with the 1600X release.
A CPU targetting a more gamer oriented price, that's the best chance they have to specifically cater to gamers and show the results of those optimizations.....if they can deliver them on time.
Maybe they pull a Broadwell and there isn't even a non-HEDT or Mobile variant! (yeah i know they made some OEM parts but seriously has anyone actually seen one?)
The plan for Coffee Lake 6 core is to targeted towards mobile first (I'm guessing release with new MacBook Refresh for back to school), the desktop part won't be dropping till 1H 2018.
Also, Coffee Lake was suppose to be Intel's first 10nm part but we all know that won't be the case.
I don't see Intel moving the 6 core Desktop part up because they make more selling mass amount of chips to Apple, Dell, etc. Skylake-X will be what Intel will be pushing hard around August or so.
Looking forward to 1900x which is hopefully on another companies process node.
Edit: I've not been this excited for comp in the market space for god knows how long. hahaha.
If anything they will be targeting mobile hard. Was already confirmed at a investor day we would get it this year, also that is when we found out it was not gonna be on their new 10nm process. Also, at CES Intel showed off a working chip.
Also, Coffee Lake was suppose to be Intel's first 10nm part but we all know that won't be the case.
I don't see Intel moving the 6 core Desktop part up because they make more selling mass amount of chips to Apple, Dell, etc. Skylake-X will be what Intel will be pushing hard around August or so.
Looking forward to 1900x which is hopefully on another companies process node.
Edit: I've not been this excited for comp in the market space for god knows how long. hahaha.
If anything they will be targeting mobile hard. Was already confirmed at a investor day we would get it this year, also that is when we found out it was not gonna be on their new 10nm process. Also, at CES Intel showed off a working chip.
lmao this guy is getting an extra 200mhz overclock (4.2ghz) on his 1700x after putting his pc to sleep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S93asfXAu9M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S93asfXAu9M
Yup, supposedly at stock.
Isn't 16 phase better? Also the Taichi looks pretty slick and the Wifi is a bonus even though I'd probably run it wired. Still, really whoever bakes their BIOS best first will probably get my money. Then again, who has the best long term BIOS support? Mayhaps Ryzen+ will function on the same board if AM3 history is any indicator.
Nydus
Member
By the end of the year? I waited since sandy and i want a new pc now. At the end of the year there could be an announcement for zen 2 in march 18 if we go by that thinking...
If you can, I would wait and see how things turn out with Ryzen once there are OS updates for it.
Some people are suggesting that Windows currently treats all threads as cores, and is not aware of the CCX structure of the CPUs where there can be a performance penalty moving between CCX complexes.
Both of these could potentially be having a noticeable impact in performance in certain applications/tests.
On the other hand, if you want something now, the 7700K still seems like the better choice for gaming.
Do you have a source for that?
Because that seems to be the new thing that AMD fans are pushing, and it doesn't seem to manifest at all in benchmarks.
cartman414
Member
My guess is ~$350, the price of mainstream i7-K.
Might be a slightly updated variant of 1151. (With older mobos needing BIOS update to use them.)
Given the lower heat envelope of the mainstream segment, I'm guessing they'll start a little lower clockwise. (Fingers crossed on OC not sucking.)
Also, just as Kaby Lake-X will debut with a 4 core 112W CPU this year, we'll see a 6 core Coffee Lake-X CPU perhaps a little later.
For one: https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comm...e_say/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=comment_list
You could also just Google it yourself. Such a concept, I know. Anyway, people also mentioned it in Joker's WD2 video whenever the 7700k hit the ceiling while 1800x didn't hit 100% at the time the 7700k did.
Anyway, I don't spend 100% of my time gaming anyway, so it's not really a big deal squeezing out a few more FPS. I'm just glad AMD brought something fruitful to market. It's been a while.
Risk Breaker
Member
So if you could get a 6900k for the same price as a 7700k, would you pass on it?
I know I really fucking wouldn't, and I don't think anyone would.
brain_stew
Member
Just watched the Gamer's Nexus R7 1700 review:
https://youtu.be/PcbdN7vdCuQ
They got it to 3.9-4ghz depending on workload and confirmed once again that this is the only Ryzen 7 CPU anyone should consist buying.
Still behind the stock 7700K when gaming of course but the benefits outside of gaming make it a great choice for mixed workloads.
https://youtu.be/PcbdN7vdCuQ
They got it to 3.9-4ghz depending on workload and confirmed once again that this is the only Ryzen 7 CPU anyone should consist buying.
Still behind the stock 7700K when gaming of course but the benefits outside of gaming make it a great choice for mixed workloads.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Your 5820k that you bought 2 years ago is still a better gaming CPU than any Ryzen and overclocks better.
I guess people should buy that instead
No because X99 is a dead platform unlike AM4.
This is why I still think there is potential once they put out some OS/EFI updates.
The R7 1700 is typically not as far behind in gaming from the 7700K, as the 7700K is from the R7 1700 in applications which can use all those cores - and it costs less.
I'm not convinced that it's going to end up a better buy for gaming than the 7700K, but I do think they'll be able to narrow the gap if what people have been saying about the way Windows 10 handles these CPUs right now is correct.
As always, my recommendation would be to wait and see if that happens, instead of buying one now and hoping for the best - assuming that you have the option to wait.
I intended to have built a new PC by now, but while I really want to replace my 2500K with something soon, I don't need to.
You just linked to a reddit comment thread instead of a source of information on the 7700K apparently stuttering in games.
I can't find anything about this supposed issue which is older than a week. (they were released over two months ago)
Delusibeta
Banned
Considering that the 360 was a tri core CPU and the PS3 was technically an 8 core CPU, and that neither became anywhere close to being normal, assuming that PC CPUs will follow console CPUs is a dumb assumption.
And besides, you wouldn't need 8 cores, you just need 8 threads. Which, again, is what Ryzen 3 will provide.