Want to sell my Ryzen 1700 and get a 8700k. Is it stupid or greedy?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Dufus

Dufus

Senior member
Sep 20, 2010
675
119
101
@Rakanoth can understand your disappointment. I got a 6800k that was a lemon. OC was terrible and wasn't just one or two poor cores, they were all poor so couldn't even use Turbo Boost Max Technology. Ended up getting a 14 core chip instead at nearly half the price and while ST performance was not so great, MT performance blew the 6800k away. Only regret is I didn't get and 18 core with higher clocks. So yeah, if it upsets you then I say go ahead and hopefully you will get a good one.
 
Jan Olšan

Jan Olšan

Senior member
Jan 12, 2017
278
297
136
slashy16 said:
Sell the Ryzen and use the funds towards the 8700k before the ryzen has absolutely no resale value at all.
Click to expand...

Errr... what? I think you got tad ahead of reality there. Now, I would also love 1700s being sold for $50/piece everywhere, that would be lovely. So I kind of understand your youthful enthusiasm, but sadly wishful thinking never made the wishes happen, alas.

It's more likely that these won't drop to very low prices for years. While they don't provide high absolute (single-core) clock OC like i7-2600K, with the eight cores, they will probably represent something between a Core 2 Quad 6600 and i7-2600K in moral longevity. And prices of 2600Ks weven't funny as far as this spring at least, considering we're talking 6 years old chips with serious chance of high-vcore degradation from long-term OC.

Anyway I would probably not do this, it's too soon for upgrade and the difference is too small. I think putting money in something else would be more fun. VR headset, huge 4K screen, some silly-fast SSDs if it is for bragging rights (seriously speaking those probably only matter for benchmarks), or some non-PC/HW items actually. I would probably be interested in the VR helmets, I'd like to try the Everest simulation some day, the 8000s are fascianting but one doesn't really get the feel of what it is like being on it, from TV.
 
frozentundra123456

frozentundra123456

Lifer
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
Indus said:
Your said your vcore is 1.25v. That's the problem.

Raise it to 1.38 and see if you can get 3.95- 4.
Click to expand...
That is a big jump in voltage for an additional 250 mhz. Not sure it is worth it.
As to the original question, I most certainly would buy the 8700k over Ryzen (at least when price/availability clears up) as an original purchase, but not sure it is worth it as an "upgrade".
 
C

Crono

Lifer
Aug 8, 2001
23,720
1,501
136
Indus said:
Your said your vcore is 1.25v. That's the problem.

Raise it to 1.38 and see if you can get 3.95- 4.
Click to expand...

This. I assumed he's being stingy with the voltage based on past processor experience.Most Ryzen chips have no problem getting to 3.8 at least, though there are exceptions.

The temp is a little high, though, so maybe he held off on voltage bump because of that.
 
Last edited:
Indus

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
9,953
6,535
136
Yeah I wish I had the ASRock Taichi because my board doesn't have LLC. Yet I am stable at 3.9 @ 1.36 and it boots at 4.0 @ 1.39. Stable at 1.45.

If I had llc I could probably get it stable at 1.4.

But since he has the board, he should be willing to push that voltage up.
 
tamz_msc

tamz_msc

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2017
3,821
3,643
136
Most 1700s do 3.8-3.9GHz anyway, so I don't really see what the problem is. Depending on what games you play, I'd reckon a 1700 should easily do 120FPS with a 1080Ti, while an 8700K would do 140FPS, so it would be closer to your monitor refresh rate. But keep in mind that in some games it will be closer because you're playing them at 1440p.

You might want to try tightening your RAM timings for low latency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick
MajinCry

MajinCry

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2015
2,495
571
136
Coffee Lake is Kabylake with more cores, which is Skylake with a slightly higher base clock. So in single threaded performance, it's still only about ~10% faster outside of AVX code.

Gaming performance will be better, but unless you're playing horribly designed games (Fallout 4 biggest culprit, easy to go over 14k draw calls), it's going to be a negligible difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ranulf
E

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
As others have said, its your money and you shouldn't be guilty upgrading if it makes you happy, content etc.

From a strictly objective point of view, ST performance would be increased by about 40 - 45%, assuming you also don't get a lemon of a 8700K and it clocks to 5GHz like most other 8700Ks do (surely the tech gods won't be that cruel to dud you twice! :p)
MT performance would be in the order of 10 - 15% better, good to have, probably not noticeable except in benchmarks.
Gaming performance gains would vary a lot, some games would be GPU limited at 1440P even on a 1080 Ti, but on more CPU bound games you should see an appreciable increase in avg and minimum framerates.
 
R

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,582
162
106
Do the 45c & 75c take into account the temp offset, because that's unusually high for an OCed 1700 at 1.25v especially with a x62 Kraken?
 
  • Like
Reactions: coercitiv
C

Crono

Lifer
Aug 8, 2001
23,720
1,501
136
R0H1T said:
Do the 45c & 75c take into account the temp offset, because that's unusually high for an OCed 1700 at 1.25v especially with a x62 Kraken?
Click to expand...

I asked that, but then remembered the offset is only for X variants.
 
coercitiv

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
6,211
11,941
136
First things first, if the OP wants more from the system and his current CPU is not enough, go for the upgrade - just don't rush it. I think @Dufus highlighted the exact experience an enthusiast goes trough when the chip is bellow expectations.

Second... I'm a bit confused by the OP's current configuration in terms of voltage/temps. Voltage is on the low side, he has a sizeable AIO cooler, yet temps are already at 75C. Does it rise quickly to that temp or gradually as it should under AIO?
 
R

rgba

Junior Member
Jan 27, 2015
13
4
81
3.7 GHz @ 1.25V isn't that bad. My 1600 can only hit 3.7 GHz at 1.35V.
 
moonbogg

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,635
3,095
136
If its a troll, its a poor topic IMO. The 8700K is so fast and impressive that everyone wants one. Its not a controversial subject. Nothing even comes close to it from Intel or AMD. But yeah I guess with all the passion out there for CPU's lately I can understand a troll attempt. Makes sense.

EDIT: I just googled it. LOL you weren't kidding. Its all over the place. It might not be a troll attempt. If they are like me, they obsess pretty hard over hardware around the time of making a purchase and when new stuff comes out. They might be looking for as much input and stimulation on the subject as possible.
 
R

Rakanoth

Junior Member
Oct 6, 2017
16
4
51
I can't get past 1.3v on CPU because if I get past it, my CPU downclocks to 1.5GHz. If you google "downclocking to 1.5ghz", you will see lots of people experiencing the same. Also, my temps are already high. Overclocking Intel was easier. That is another reason that I am disappointed with my current setup. I might go for an 8700k and delid with it in order to get lower temps. But should I get 8600k instead of 8700k? Would it overclock better?
 
M

Madpacket

Platinum Member
Nov 15, 2005
2,068
326
126
Rakanoth said:
I am not a troll. I don't see why this thread should be locked. I asked this in other forums because I needed different views.
Click to expand...

Why not see if your 1700 has the Linux lock up bug, and if so, RMA it for a different 1700 from AMD? You may get a better overclock out of the new CPU.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom