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...

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.

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.

Hella lot of cpus ..must be a render farm

ordered, do you think I could get them to ship a 1700 from the UK instead of waiting till may 17th,

Or get a 7700k :laughing:

http://www.pcgamer.com/intels-tells-core-i7-7700k-owners-to-stop-overclocking-to-avoid-high-temps/

The old haven't received or empty box

8 cores, but what applications or games use eight cores?

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...

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.

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.

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.

Exactly right. Anything capable of DX12/Vulkan in addition.

But titles like Watchdogs 2, Battlefield 1 etc all thread very well.

It's like Groundhog day in these threads...

price jump to 330€.

16 3.0 lanes for the slots which admittedly is a problem if you have a another GPU, WiFi card, an Audio card. With HBM 2.0, anything less than x16 is going to hinder streaming performance.

Not that this comment is any way relevant. He is obviously meaning practical application of 8 cores of which there is none since these CPU's cannot bench higher than Quad Cores 6 and 7th Gen intels.

To answer his question - There isn't any point in using 8 cores when you can achieve the same results (often better) with 4.

In the future hyper-threading will be a big thing, but as of right now it's essentially redundant.

Thats only if you talking about gaming point of view. Use adobe premier or software which boost on all cores for rendering and you got big difference against 8 vs 4 core. Also gaming problem of ryzen processors are only in 1080p, really you invest in high end processor and get 1080p monitors?

You're correct about rendering being much faster, about 125% than a 6700k for example. But in terms of gaming the Ryzen falls pretty flat, which is what the previous guy mentioned about using it well in BF1 and WD2, both benching higher on intels.

Again, on 1080p only. Get your graphic card to do a work! 1440p with GTX1080 (or ti) and you got almost same FPS. And future proof CPU...

Not entirely future proof though,It's only a matter of months before intel CPU's accomodate 8 cores at better architectural quality (and affordability, because they already exist) and considering the price of the Ryzen's most people are still better off paying for the 6th gen intels for a better quality CPU.

No matter how you spin it, a GTX 1080Ti Intel i7 7700k will always outbench a Ryzen 1700 GTX 1080Ti, 1080p through to 4k.

Do you mean 25% faster, or more than double as you implied?
There are myriad apps which use more than 1 core, or 2 , or 4 .. (so 8 or 12 is good, 16 is nice, 32 is v nice) so yes beyond gaming more cores is more power.
Gaming itself tends to be 80-90% GPU , even more so on 1440 and above

on 1080p yes, 1440 & above - faster by few frames.. Also if your thing are benchmarks, then you cant be converted... In real life, gaming isn't much different and you wouldnt experience big difference side by side if you got good graphic card... For multi cpu application ryzen eat easily intel's 4 cores.. Any its only going to be better and better in few months time..

Jesus. That is a lot of CPU for the money!

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.

I've never understood that 1080P belief. All of the reviews of Ryzen 7 show it trailing far behind the 7700K in 1440P, too. The only source for the "1080P" myth that I've been able to find is a comment by Lisa Su: "Ryzen is doing really well in 1440p and 4K gaming when the applications are more graphics bound."

That's Lisa Su, CEO of AMD, by the way. :smile: Now, what kind of a person would ignore the benchmarks and simply take her word as gospel...?

Meanwhile, over in the real world (where the Party isn't devoting their workday to changing the past to fit the facts they want), we get:






And while you may be more GPU-limited today, I'd wager that the majority of people upgrade their graphics card more often than their CPU/motherboard/RAM, so while you may not be feeling Ryzen's squeeze today, you probably will with the GTX 1270.

So, Ryzen: more future-proof for games? Sure, I'd agree that the 1800X will probably be matching the 7700K in the vast majority of new titles in 2022. But not this year, and not next year, and that's a sentiment shared by the professionals.

So if you disagree, it might be useful to share with us why you know better than they do. :man:

(Of course, I'm only talking about gaming. Ryzen's excellent value for non-gamers.)

Well, I talk about real word, not enthusiasts fanatic gamers who chasing highest fps possible just because its better, even they dont see much difference between 60 and 120 fps.. For me its just benchmark theory.. If game title is good, I can enjoy it even in 30fps...

I don't know why these deals constantly descend into fanboyism.

Irrespective of price/cores/performance and any other crap you want to mention the cold hard fact is the i7 7700k is the best gaming processor on the market.

I waited and waited and waited for Ryzen and when it came it hit the bar instead of putting it into an open goal past the Intel goalie. So I went with an i7 7700k and a (now) GTX 1080ti. Why? Because its the best on the market.

Looking at getting this CPU come summer time (new build in summer), should I buy now or wait? Would this go down in price any more by then?

Back up to €329, will certainly be interested if it drops back to the price quoted in the deal :smiley:

Bearing in mind the official advice from Intel is that you should not OC their unlocked CPU's now as they decided to put lovely low grade TIM across all of their range.

You can cherry pick all you like. The door swings both ways, choice is a fine thing.

I bought something on amazon.fr and paid international shipping but how do you know it it shipped from a UK warehouse? And how do you message them in French?

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...

No its fanboyism. All I ever see on here is AMD will pummel Intel into the dirt with the 'next update' or it wipe the floor with Nvidia 'when Vega is released'

By all means people can buy whatever the hell they like. Its when they come on here and spew blatant lies to back up their love of a label that it becomes a problem.

All you do is game on your PC apparently, you're prepared to make huge concessions in other areas of compute I guess Ryzen doesn't benefit you.

I'll happily give up my 10fps for the benefits of the chip.

Just make sure you don't OC your 7700k :laughing:

Yep all I do is play games. Because you know me so well....right?

Whilst you, the supercilious AMD PC God, and the many others who have seen the light are busy streaming on twitch and encoding video software at lightning speeds all whilst playing The Witcher 3 on 1440p Ultra settings on an Acer Predator X34 and the CPU is registering at a supercool 25 degrees on HWMonitor.

Far fetched? Probably but no more so than some of the fanboy rubbish you have posted on this thread.

1. I never said anything feels better, I reported the stats I obtained and I stand behind them, I went into this expecting 6700k to be better
2. No their methodology still isn't good, I am aware that fps will vary according to what is currently on display and the numbers will scale similarly, what does not happens to ryzen is very sudden drops when the image barely changes so there is no reason for that to happen to 6700k...
3. even accepting the fact ryzen is worse off by 10-20% I gave you two good reasons (or sane if you insist why someone would buy ryzen over i7)
1. if you want something in the background i7 is worse,
2. you are supporting better prices in the future, for everyone (even ungrateful intel fanboys, tell me when were you last able to get i7 7700k for 210£ before ryzen?)...
3. significantly better prospects for longevity and support, hell if I want to upgrade in 4 years I can simply buy a new cpu, not also a new motherboard...
Would I pay 10% of the framerates in the 100s for this, yes and I did...

Anyway, I have had a chance to compare the cpus and could have easily swaped the 1700 for 7700k and save 10£ in the process and I did not and would not do it again because for my use case after playing around with both this was better...

There is so much misinformation.

Excel, Photoshop, Web Browsers with '8+ windows/tabs, and depending on the compile, are all faster with the i7.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/7.html

I don't know where you got the idea that having 8 tabs means you are using 8 threads of a CPU, but it doesn't. We Browsers are extremely single threaded and most of the time, 99.9% of the time, web pages are not even touching the CPU.

There is a case for software rendering, but seriously, few people use software rendering when hardware rendering is very good, much faster, and doesn't tax the CPU much at all.

There is so much focus on things like video rendering, but I would imagine the vast majority of users don't touch blender, and if they do, maybe once in a blue moon.

Just think of your own use cases and fire up the CPU resource monitor and see how much you see it being used, you'll be shocked at how little CPU is used for almost everything you do.

It says 330 euros for me...

Post #29 my precious little thing.

You're a gamer, you got Intel... that's fine. If that's all you use your PC for you made the right choice for you. No need to come across all teary eyed :laughing:

I didnt go for 1700, i believe 1600 is best priced ryzen. paid 170 quid. 3.9Ghz 2 cores less, and half price less with stock cooler then i7 7700k. Would add vega or 1080 and its more than satisfying for most games. Isnt really 60-80fps enough for you to enjoy gaming?

This is a joke, because somehow AMD have convinced enough people into this same comment.

Background applications are offloaded.

There is this thought that background tabs on Chrome, MS Word, and Excel all use a CPU while they are not being used! This isn't the case for any CPU, Ryzen or Intel.

Most of these apps do *nothing* while they aren't being actively used. And frankly, context switching into an app that was offloaded will *always* favor a higher IPC CPU, with better RAM/CACHE.

Multi Threaded CPU usage is not for 'background applications' it is meant for tasks that actively use multiple CPUs. Rendering, Encoding, Decompression.

If you are playing a game while extracting a ZIP file... If you are streaming a game with software encoding, if you are.... Searching a very large excel file? Refreshing a tap in Chrome?

I mean, none of that is likely, but streaming.

I never said background apps... I said multiple apps at once.

Really good comment! It's nice to see a comment that makes sense :smiley:
Thanks for sharing your real life experience, very interesting! :smiley:

Ryzen and high core counts are such a bad idea that Intel are hurriedly rushing out X299 to counter AMD's forward thinking.

Maybe they've all got it wrong and we should just roll back to dual core machines after all :smiley:

I would dislike this comment if I could...

30fps for vast majority of games is enough for a really decent experience. 60fps is where you want to be, anything more is really nice, but not that noticeable, but I would take a better quality game at 30fps over that anyday.

Ignore the spec snobs and enjoy the games...

But that comment is wrong still!

It's not about "using multiple apps" as the foreground app/active app is the only one consuming CPU.

"Using multiple apps at once" is pretty much exactly what I was discussing. Most 'multiple app' usage does not take advantage of the multi cores.

You're an idiot. So my VMware running in the background whilst I game uses no CPU at all. Neither does Plex server streaming a film to another device... Moron