AMD Ryzen 7 1700 305€ (~260£) + 6€ delivery (posibly refundable, ordered 1600 and it was send from uk warehouse, send them email with question why they charge me int post if they ship it from uk amd they refund me delivery charges...). Best price ever? :wink:
Top comments
Nexusfifth
6 May 175#36
I have both i7-6700k and ryzen 1700 in the house and I tested both myself (doom and andromeda) fhd 144hz monitor, 1080ti
- When having music in the background in real life I7 loses by about 10%, while spikes become significantly more frequent for i7
- 6700k does beat 1700 with just the game running but what most reviews seems to ignore are spikes, every so often the 6700k drops about 20% under "normal" fps you see in reviews. I have never seen this happening with 1700. So again if you like stable high frame rates 1700 is better...
- both cpus are overclocked (1700 to 3.8GHz and 6700 to 4.6GHz)
- other than this, outside of certain programming stuff where 1700 is miles ahead I can never feel the difference.
Generally I would say I am more of an Intel fanboy, as since I started building pcs I have never used an amd cpu until now.
I had a chance to get a new 7700k for 215£ or 1700 for 225£ (6700k rig is going to my brother) and I went with the latter even though I believed that for my use case (about 90% gaming and 10% programming) 7700k was a better cpu according to reviews simply because I don't like being ripped of by a greedy company because it doesn't have any competition (read intel) and after getting 1700 and doing tests myself I no longer believe that 7700k was better for my use case.
To summarise 1700 vs 6700k:
- I believe 1700 is more future proof than 6700k, with a lot more headroom for improvement being new architecture
- I really can't tell the difference between 110 and 120 fps, which is where most of the difference exists with just the game
- I prefer 110fps 100% of the time over 120% 99% of the time and weird and obvious frame drop below 90fps 1% of the time
- Better performance with background programmes running
- no useless integrated gpu taking over half the cpu
- you support an underdog who if they succeed will probably keep prices in check for both Intel and amd cpus in the future, also a company which doesn't have a history of ripping of their customers...
All this comes from someone who actually owns both cpus in question (I hope most people would agree that 7700k is barely better than 6700k) and is giving you first person experience with stuff I actually bought with my own money. (also I used the same cooler, case, psu and graphics card in both rigs.
You take from this what you want...
The_Hoff
5 May 175#10
You might want to check your misinformation, all R7 chips have 24 CPU PCIe lanes, most boards also add 8 Chipset lanes on top of that.
If you hate AMD, go buy an Intel chip and enjoy your house fire. This is excellent value.
The_Hoff
5 May 174#27
Doogeh
5 May 173#25
That is just flat out wrong.
There are already games that perform better on the 8C16T Ryzens than the 7700k.
How are the Intel CPU's better quality? is it the 20 degree delta T between their die and IHS?
Better arch for 1080p gaming, at the moment. sure. However the performance per watt of Ryzen is incredible, **** all over the current skylake and kabylake lineup. So the arch is just fine.
All comments (56)
GwanGy
5 May 171#1
Hella lot of cpus ..must be a render farm
dragonline77
5 May 17#2
ordered, do you think I could get them to ship a 1700 from the UK instead of waiting till may 17th,
Uncommon.Sense to dragonline77
5 May 17#3
Amazon are a funny bunch, I received one of my 1600's from UK the other from France, and the 1700 I ordered was from France but said it wasn't in stock, I just shrug my shoulders now. Can't figure it out. :smiley:
8 cores, but what applications or games use eight cores?
steve_bezerker to jasee
5 May 17#11
Hardly anything at the moment. Having so many cores is kind of a redundant feature. In terms of Price vs Performance though the Ryzen's are extremely good.
miawanyun to jasee
5 May 171#12
If a game supports multithreading the load is spread between all cores.
All Triple A games support all cores, like Doom, Prey ect. They will fully utilize all cores.
taras to jasee
5 May 17#15
I would avoid that type of question. as your computer runs an operating system, (normally windows) You may leave other programs open, then maybe game. - so how many cores do you need again..
Its never been about how many programs use x amount of cores.. its about how many u need above what you use your computer for.
rkl to jasee
6 May 17#38
Video encoders (e.g. HandBrake), 3D image renderers (e.g. Blender), Web servers (e.g. Apache), Excel, Photoshop, Web browsers (if you open 8+ windows/tabs), compressors/decompressors (e.g. 7-Zip), some games (these are getting more multi-threaded as the years progress), source code compilation (e.g. "make -j 8") and the majority of chess engines. So it's not as "niche" as you might think...
> If you are buying a CPU for gaming and you're looking to spend $300 on the CPU, there is no sane reason to buy anything but the i7 7700k.
I think right now and if you're *only* using your PC for gaming and nothing else, then I'd probably agree with this. However, if you do anything I listed above, then you'll find the 1700 gives the 7700K a very good run for its money in multi-threaded applications and is probably the better bet in the long term for this sort of use. It must be remembered that we're still in the early days of Ryzen - BIOS updates and game patches have already managed to close the Ryzen performance gap to the 7700K a fair bit already.
adv to jasee
8 May 17#47
The target audience is people using multiple apps at once, if you don't then this isn't for you , may as well get a ryzen 5 or i5
marcz
5 May 17#7
I had same, my 1600 wasn't in stock whe ordering from France for over week, then it comes from UK warehouse... git it for 176£. Amazon UK using brexit excuse to hike prices as many others...
hukd14
5 May 171#8
Protip: if you have, or are able to get, a credit card that has zero transaction fees for a different currency, change the card (in Amazon) to the "native" currency.
Amazon adds a bit extra to the GBP cost, basically charging you around 4.2% for the currency conversion. Your card won't. In this particular case, it looks like the saving would be around £11.
I use a pre-paid Monzo card for all my non-GBP purchases.
Chuggee
5 May 17#9
Not most games, that's for sure. Anyone who wanted a good value CPU with more than 4 cores bought the 5820K a few years ago at £300. Quad channel memory, 28 PCIe lanes (instead of Ryzen's 16) and Intel SpeedStep support when overclocked.
Ryzen is a decent architecture, but it's going to take a few months before the teething issues are sorted out. I don't think most users will be able to get more than 3.9GHz out of these CPUs though.
![Fresh Breakfast Meat Box (Using code) @ Campbells Meat [Haggis / Lorne Sausage / Bacon / Black Pudding & More]](/images/topics/208684_1.jpg)
![[Xbox One] Q. u. b. e: Director's Cut on Deals with Gold](/images/topics/208716_1.jpg)
Opening post
Top comments
- When having music in the background in real life I7 loses by about 10%, while spikes become significantly more frequent for i7
- 6700k does beat 1700 with just the game running but what most reviews seems to ignore are spikes, every so often the 6700k drops about 20% under "normal" fps you see in reviews. I have never seen this happening with 1700. So again if you like stable high frame rates 1700 is better...
- both cpus are overclocked (1700 to 3.8GHz and 6700 to 4.6GHz)
- other than this, outside of certain programming stuff where 1700 is miles ahead I can never feel the difference.
Generally I would say I am more of an Intel fanboy, as since I started building pcs I have never used an amd cpu until now.
I had a chance to get a new 7700k for 215£ or 1700 for 225£ (6700k rig is going to my brother) and I went with the latter even though I believed that for my use case (about 90% gaming and 10% programming) 7700k was a better cpu according to reviews simply because I don't like being ripped of by a greedy company because it doesn't have any competition (read intel) and after getting 1700 and doing tests myself I no longer believe that 7700k was better for my use case.
To summarise 1700 vs 6700k:
- I believe 1700 is more future proof than 6700k, with a lot more headroom for improvement being new architecture
- I really can't tell the difference between 110 and 120 fps, which is where most of the difference exists with just the game
- I prefer 110fps 100% of the time over 120% 99% of the time and weird and obvious frame drop below 90fps 1% of the time
- Better performance with background programmes running
- no useless integrated gpu taking over half the cpu
- you support an underdog who if they succeed will probably keep prices in check for both Intel and amd cpus in the future, also a company which doesn't have a history of ripping of their customers...
All this comes from someone who actually owns both cpus in question (I hope most people would agree that 7700k is barely better than 6700k) and is giving you first person experience with stuff I actually bought with my own money. (also I used the same cooler, case, psu and graphics card in both rigs.
You take from this what you want...
If you hate AMD, go buy an Intel chip and enjoy your house fire. This is excellent value.
There are already games that perform better on the 8C16T Ryzens than the 7700k.
How are the Intel CPU's better quality? is it the 20 degree delta T between their die and IHS?
Better arch for 1080p gaming, at the moment. sure. However the performance per watt of Ryzen is incredible, **** all over the current skylake and kabylake lineup. So the arch is just fine.
All comments (56)
http://www.pcgamer.com/intels-tells-core-i7-7700k-owners-to-stop-overclocking-to-avoid-high-temps/
All Triple A games support all cores, like Doom, Prey ect. They will fully utilize all cores.
Its never been about how many programs use x amount of cores.. its about how many u need above what you use your computer for.
> If you are buying a CPU for gaming and you're looking to spend $300 on the CPU, there is no sane reason to buy anything but the i7 7700k.
I think right now and if you're *only* using your PC for gaming and nothing else, then I'd probably agree with this. However, if you do anything I listed above, then you'll find the 1700 gives the 7700K a very good run for its money in multi-threaded applications and is probably the better bet in the long term for this sort of use. It must be remembered that we're still in the early days of Ryzen - BIOS updates and game patches have already managed to close the Ryzen performance gap to the 7700K a fair bit already.
Amazon adds a bit extra to the GBP cost, basically charging you around 4.2% for the currency conversion. Your card won't. In this particular case, it looks like the saving would be around £11.
I use a pre-paid Monzo card for all my non-GBP purchases.
Ryzen is a decent architecture, but it's going to take a few months before the teething issues are sorted out. I don't think most users will be able to get more than 3.9GHz out of these CPUs though.