• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ryzen 7 1700X vs Kaby Lake 7700k

T

tribeca600

Member
At the launch they were saying that Ryzen 7 is the fastest desktop processor and rivals Intel's flagship $1000 8-core i7-6900k.

However, looking at benchmarks I see the Ryzen 7 1700X can't even keep up with the budget $299 core i7 7700k 4-core. I understand that over 4 cores the Ryzen 7 is going to beat it but what percentage of usage is going to be over 4-cores? Virtually 90% of all use cases are going to be 4-cores or under so under current typical scenarios isn't the 7700k a better bet than the 1700X?

When you make a statement "fastest desktop processor" you are comparison apples to applies... you can't compare 8-core workload on Ryzen 7 vs 2-work workload on the Intel and say we are faster...LOL! You have to compare core per core performance.
 
Who says you have to compare per core performance? Why?
What if my cores are smaller and I can fit more?

Yes Ryzen 7 is the fastest desktop processor.
So is the i7/i9.

It depends on how you use the chip.

I'll say this before and I'll say it again..
If you don't understand why Ryzen is an amazing chip it was never for you. Go get your i7 (coffeelake hexacore/hedt or don't even bother getting an Intel cpu).

It was always known Ryzen was going to offer weaker cores, but more of them.

I can't in good conscious recommend you guy an i7 currently when coffeelake is around the corner.
 
This is a new era , We multi-task Every Thing.
single core - single thread is so '90's 😀
 
Single threaded performance is still king for what I do. But buying a quad core in 2017 is silly.

Intel's 6c coffee lake looks to be the best of both worlds; albeit expensive.
 
as I said, there are very few apps that effectively use multi cores... until that happens single core performance is more important

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 
I play games at 3440x1440 ultra settings. My fps on my overclocked Ryzen 1700 @ 4ghz is within 5% of overclocked 7700K in most games (some games like Ashes of the Singularity, the Ryzen is faster). For my video encoding and workflow in Premiere Pro, the Ryzen is much smoother and faster. Right now, you could say go quad core but back when dual core was a thing, people said the same thing about quad cores. Future proof yourself and get 8 cores, game developers will optimize for more cores in the future.
 
f453db580cd59f7d0c59270b2956f23e.jpg
This was

Outside of 1080P gaming, assuming you have a good GPU, the Ryzen is better at pretty well everything else and often close enough for it not to matter. Especially as we move into more of a multi-core era where everyone is heavily multi-tasking.

If you're already at 120 FPS but you need a few more and all you do is hardcore gaming, yeah the 7700K is probably better at the moment. For everything else or for mixed usage personally I would go with the Ryzen.
 
plan to use mostly for software development, web browsing, light video editing and productivity apps - word, excel etc. all simultaneously (I multitask a lot and need everything open and sometimes I fire off something background in my Eclipse then switch to the web etc)...

I don't play any games btw
 
Shlong said:
I play games at 3440x1440 ultra settings. My fps on my overclocked Ryzen 1700 @ 4ghz is within 5% of overclocked 7700K in most games (some games like Ashes of the Singularity, the Ryzen is faster). For my video encoding and workflow in Premiere Pro, the Ryzen is much smoother and faster. Right now, you could say go quad core but back when dual core was a thing, people said the same thing about quad cores. Future proof yourself and get 8 cores, game developers will optimize for more cores in the future.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Besides the only reason a lot of games and software don't benefit from more than 4 cores is because Intel has kept 6+ cores so unaffordable. Now that 6 or even 8 cores are within reach of your average consumer, games and other software will 100% start to take advantage of that.

Recommending a 4 core processor at this point is akin to recommending to a couple who intends to start a family that a 2 seater coupe is the most practical car for them to buy "because it's faster"
 
tribeca600 said:
plan to use mostly for software development, web browsing, light video editing and productivity apps - word, excel etc. all simultaneously (I multitask a lot and need everything open and sometimes I fire off something background in my Eclipse then switch to the web etc)...

I don't play any games btw
Click to expand...

Then the 1700x is a faster chip than the 7700. What was your point again?
 
The quad core i7 7700k is better for 1080p 144 Hz gaming. For everything else the R7 1700 kills it . For people who do serious work on their PC the R7 is a no brainer.
 
tribeca600 said:
I understand that over 4 cores the Ryzen 7 is going to beat it but what percentage of usage is going to be over 4-cores?
Click to expand...

I would say most usage will benefit from >4 cores.

When you are running a program, do you go into task manager and kill all non-dependent processes? If you don't (like 99.999% of the rest of the world), then if your program uses 4 threads, you'll see improvements with a 1700X.


Don't forget, benchmarks as reported in tech press are done in "clean environments", so not very reflective of real world use.
 
ManyThreads said:
f453db580cd59f7d0c59270b2956f23e.jpg
This was

Outside of 1080P gaming, assuming you have a good GPU, the Ryzen is better at pretty well everything else and often close enough for it not to matter. Especially as we move into more of a multi-core era where everyone is heavily multi-tasking.

If you're already at 120 FPS but you need a few more and all you do is hardcore gaming, yeah the 7700K is probably better at the moment. For everything else or for mixed usage personally I would go with the Ryzen.
Click to expand...
That picture makes me think that if the 7700K had 2 more cores, it would be a hell of a desktop chip. It's too bad Intel did not move earlier.
 
let's take for example content creation... I create videos using Windows Moviemaker sometimes, would I benefit from the additional cores since Moviemaker is not specifically designed to use multiple cores...
 
tribeca600 said:
let's take for example content creation... I create videos using Windows Moviemaker sometimes, would I benefit from the additional cores since Moviemaker is not specifically designed to use multiple cores...
Click to expand...

What are you currently using. If it is 4c8t, do an encode and see what the CPU usage is like if it's 100% then yes it would be faster on a Ryzen, if it's not, how close is it. Is it 25%, 50%, then no probably not. 75% probably and it would make the system more usable while it's doing it's job.

Great things about Ryzen is even when it's not utilizing all 8 cores it's faster because I can do other stuff. Lets say I am Handbraking something. If I had a 7700, if I set the affinity to cores. Games would be CPU bottlenecked and it would take forever for the handbrake job to finish. If I have a Ryzen I can set Handbrake to 4 cores and even 8 threads and play any game a 7700k can just only a little slower. At 4k like my desktop is it wouldn't even be slower.

It's why I like Ryzen. I can leave a bunch of VM's on and not have to worry about resources while I do other stuff.
 
If you're mostly gaming, get the 7700K. If you're mostly doing productivity tasks, get a Ryzen CPU. Or, if you have the money, you can get an Intel HEDT CPU and get top notch gaming and productivity performance without having to sacrifice anything.
 
Shlong said:
I play games at 3440x1440 ultra settings. My fps on my overclocked Ryzen 1700 @ 4ghz is within 5% of overclocked 7700K in most games (some games like Ashes of the Singularity, the Ryzen is faster). For my video encoding and workflow in Premiere Pro, the Ryzen is much smoother and faster. Right now, you could say go quad core but back when dual core was a thing, people said the same thing about quad cores. Future proof yourself and get 8 cores, game developers will optimize for more cores in the future.
Click to expand...

True. I remember the exact moment that mistake hit me hard. I made fun of my friend for having a "slower" quad core compared to my overclocked E8400 dual core. Then BF Bad Company 2 came out and I couldn't understand why I was getting dips in the teens when I had two GPU's in SLI, each of which were faster than my friend's single GPU he was running, and his FPS never fell below around 50. I said WTH. He said YOU NEED A QUAD. I said BAHA NOPE LIES. I stopped playing the game for months because it lagged so hard, then I got a 2600K and realized how wrong I was. I was exactly as wrong back then as quad core supporters are today.
 
tribeca600 said:
let's take for example content creation... I create videos using Windows Moviemaker sometimes, would I benefit from the additional cores since Moviemaker is not specifically designed to use multiple cores...
Click to expand...

LOL Windows Moviemaker hehehe - I think they used that to make Avatar?lol I think by now most realize Ryzen is the better choice - the fixation on gaming is vapor (unnoticeable while playing) and as time goes on Ryzen has legs with more multi-threaded games. The move to more cores seems to be accelerating.
 
ddogg said:
4 cores is slowly but surely going the way of the dodo. 8 cores is the new 4 cores and buying a quad now after the ryzen release doesn't really make sense.
Click to expand...

While there is undoubtedly a trend towards greater parallelism in general computing and gaming, quad cores are still very viable and will be for some time. I'd say probably another two or three years at the most until they become unviable, and probably another two or three years on top of that before they become obsolete. The thing is, CPUs like the 7700K which have extremely high clock speeds and high IPC can make up for the lack of the extra cores by using pure speed.

Much like how dual cores with SMT can still play many of the latest games these days, due to their high clock speeds and IPC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top