For Gaming i7-7700 or Ryzen1700?

[Sam25]

I'm considering an upgrade from my current i5-2500k to either an i7-7700 or a Ryzen 1700. My needs are purely gaming. I won't be streaming or recording gameplay, will just be playing single player campaign oriented titles.

Going by the above which should I pick up between the two? I also won't be overclocking so I believe the non-K version of 7700 will be suitable if I decide to go the i7 way?

Regards,
Sam25

 

[tamz_msc]

Is your 2500K overclocked? If it isn't then my recommendation would be to overclock it for the time being and then wait for Coffee Lake which would bring faster single-threaded performance and the possibility of HT in an i5.

If overclocking is a strict no-go and you absolutely cannot wait, then considering the the price difference between the non-K and the K version is only 25$ on Newegg, I would opt for the 7700K - the extra 800MHz will be a nice thing to have in games.

 

[richierich1212]

Yeah even if you're not overclocking get the 7700K + cpu cooler over 7700.

 

[faseman]

If I were buying today, right now, it would be Zen for sure. Games will almost certainly continue to become more threaded.

Personally I still regret buying 2500k over 2600k in 2011, as I would probably still be using a 2600k right now.

Ultimately it depends how long you expect a system to last. I chose 5820k last year as it has 12 threads. Should last me 5 to 10 years.

 

[Sam25]

Thank-you for the reply.

I'm located in India and the prices here are as follows:

i7-7700: $366
i7-7700K: $400

Ryzen 1700: $400
Ryzen 1600: $250

How is the Ryzen 1600 for a gaming rig?

 

[Sam25]

This is where it gets confusing with recommendations for both the 7700K and a Ryzen 1700. Which way do I go then? I plan on using the system for 4-5 years and then upgrading it again from that point on.

 

[beginner99]

Is your 2500K overclocked? If it isn't then my recommendation would be to overclock it for the time being and then wait for Coffee Lake which would bring faster single-threaded performance and the possibility of HT in an i5.

If overclocking is a strict no-go and you absolutely cannot wait, then considering the the price difference between the non-K and the K version is only 25$ on Newegg, I would opt for the 7700K - the extra 800MHz will be a nice thing to have in games.

This. Waiting another 3 month now doesn't hurt much and at worst you get 7700k performance for cheaper than now. If you don't OC and play single-player then the 7700k is probably the better choice over Ryzen 1700.

 

[richaron]

At the moment the i7 is clearly a better gaming CPU. But chances are as time goes by the more cores/threads of the Ryzen CPUs will start to become more important. So at the moment the 1600 might perform close to the 1700 (depending on the games), but it will be left behind in the future.

If you keep the system for another 5 years I would bet money the 1700 CPU will be clearly better gaming CPU by the end of it. When the 1700 and i7 achieve parity is anyones guess. Personally I would go Ryzen, but giving advice I would tell people to go with the i7 as a safe bet.

 

[beginner99]

This is where it gets confusing with recommendations for both the 7700K and a Ryzen 1700. Which way do I go then? I plan on using the system for 4-5 years and then upgrading it again from that point on.

For me it depends if you want to OC or not. The 1700 does have a pretty low base clock and without an OC it will be worse for single-player gaming especially if you are or want to go 120 hz+on the display side. Plus the 8 cores aren't really needed if you don't do multiplayer, don't encode or stream. Given this Ryzen7 1700 makes little sense. If you OC Ryzen5 1600 or else the 1600x (but here you also need a cooler if you don't already have one). 1600 or 1600x IMHO is probably the best bet for you but then also depends on your budget.

 

[richaron]

As far as waiting goes, you 2500K isn't super slow. It's best practice to wait until you need the extra performance (which you may already).

And if you want to upgrade the CPU in a few years time then the AMD system is your only choice.

 

[tamz_msc]

This is what you can expect in gaming - an average of a nice mix of games - some favoring single-threaded performance, some multithreaded, some better suited to one architecture over the other due to programming differences.

All things considered, the ability of the 7700K to drive larger frame-rates is something that is a much more important factor in multiplayer eSports titles, rather than single-player campaigns. Considering that the above test was done on a GTX 1080, your RX 480 would make the bars in those graphs bunch up more closely, and it is likely you'll not notice differences between these CPUs at 1080p or above in single-player games.

All things considered, if it was *MY MONEY* I'd take the 1600; you already got a cooler and the CPU is good for overclocking upto 3.8GHz if the need arises in the future, and you get the extra 2C/4T for longevity.

 

[Sam25]

I play on 1080p and that's what I will be staying at. All things considered then, if I don't OC then the 7700K should be good for the next 5 years? I really don't want to get into overclocking the processor. I would much rather get the processor, motherboard and memory... slap them in and be done with it. I don't want to tinker around with voltages and stability.

Also, as for my current H80 cooler it's the first generation one, not the H80i. Almost 6 years old now IIRC. Corsair will not be shipping the AM4 bracket for it for free since I'm in India. I'll need to shell out an additional Rs.2,000 INR (USD $30) to have them sell me one. Also, I don't think they are available here in India at the moment. I would then have to pick up something like a CM 212 Turbo Edition cooler.

 

[AtenRa]

I would go for the new AM4 platform + R5 1600X , you will be able to upgrade to a new R7 8 core Ryzen 2 in a couple of years from now.

 

[tamz_msc]

I play on 1080p and that's what I will be staying at. All things considered then, if I don't OC then the 7700K should be good for the next 5 years? I really don't want to get into overclocking the processor. I would much rather get the processor, motherboard and memory... slap them in and be done with it. I don't want to tinker around with voltages and stability.

Also, as for my current H80 cooler it's the first generation one, not the H80i. Almost 6 years old now IIRC. Corsair will not be shipping the AM4 bracket for it for free since I'm in India. I'll need to shell out an additional Rs.2,000 INR (USD $30) to have them sell me one. Also, I don't think they are available here in India at the moment. I would then have to pick up something like a CM 212 Turbo Edition cooler.

6 years is a long time for a first generation AIO liquid cooler. The good thing is that the 1600 comes with a good stock cooler that is very capable and whisper quiet as long as it isn't pushed too hard. Also, you can get a new cooler with the money saved. Did you know that you can get Noctua to ship the NH-U14S from Austria for a little over 6000 INR with Newegg India?

As far as I can see it, your decision boils down to whether the extra 150$ is justified in the long run, *IN YOUR OPINION*.

 

[krumme]

I play on 1080p and that's what I will be staying at. All things considered then, if I don't OC then the 7700K should be good for the next 5 years? I really don't want to get into overclocking the processor. I would much rather get the processor, motherboard and memory... slap them in and be done with it. I don't want to tinker around with voltages and stability.

Also, as for my current H80 cooler it's the first generation one, not the H80i. Almost 6 years old now IIRC. Corsair will not be shipping the AM4 bracket for it for free since I'm in India. I'll need to shell out an additional Rs.2,000 INR (USD $30) to have them sell me one. Also, I don't think they are available here in India at the moment. I would then have to pick up something like a CM 212 Turbo Edition cooler.

Probably No. 5 years is to long time for 4 cores. The new game engines that will drive your games in 3 years is made for dx12 and for more cores.
Its more safe to take the 1700.
You cant just look at current games. They are mostly made on the basis of a dx9 api and are eg often drawcall limited in many games.
For 5 years i wouldnt be in doubt. Its the 1700.
If you dont oc take the 1700x. And a cheap 350b asus asrock or msi motherboard.

 

[mohit9206]

Thank-you for the reply.

I'm located in India and the prices here are as follows:

i7-7700: $366
i7-7700K: $400

Ryzen 1700: $400
Ryzen 1600: $250

How is the Ryzen 1600 for a gaming rig?

Ryzen 1600 is all you need. No need to waste extra money on anything else.

 

[gx_saurav]

Thank-you for the reply.

I'm located in India and the prices here are as follows:

i7-7700: $366
i7-7700K: $400

Ryzen 1700: $400
Ryzen 1600: $250

How is the Ryzen 1600 for a gaming rig?

I am also from India. I built a Core i5 7500 based gaming PC in January only. Check it at gxsaurav.com

Ryzen will need 3000 MHz DDR4 RAM to work good which is very costly & hardly available in Indian market right now.

Things are costly in India and India is a warm country so prefer to keep a CPU with 65W TDP + Cooler Master Hyper 212 or 95W with Liquid cooling.

Since you already have a CPU cooler, see if it can be installed on Socket 1151 of Core i7 7th generation. I personally recommend the following config.

1. Core i7 7700K or 7700 depending on budget.
2. Gigabyte B250M-D3H. I am using the B150M Model.
3. 2 x 8 GB DDR4 2400 MHz RAM. Corsair, G.Skill or all are similar for non-overclocking usage. Get whatever you can find cheap.
4. Your current Liquid cooling kit if it fits.
5. Get a G-Sync/Freesync monitor based on what GPU you want to buy. This helps a lot.

Going with Ryzen is also a good idea but then you will need to pay more for all new components. If you can pay, then get Ryzen 1600X.

If Coffee lake is supported on Intel B150 chipset, I will upgrade to whatever 6C-6T or 4C-8T model is available at 65W TDP. If not, I will upgrade to a Core i7 7700 Non-K version which will easily last for 4+ years.

 

[krumme]

Btw if you dont oc you can also take the cheapest a320 boards if they are even out? You might get a am4 board for as low as 60usd for non oc.

 

[krumme]

If I were buying today, right now, it would be Zen for sure. Games will almost certainly continue to become more threaded.

Personally I still regret buying 2500k over 2600k in 2011, as I would probably still be using a 2600k right now.

Ultimately it depends how long you expect a system to last. I chose 5820k last year as it has 12 threads. Should last me 5 to 10 years.

I have it the same way. Got a 3570k and regretted not getting a 3770. It could have saved me a new system this year to a 1700.
At that time there was no difference in gaming at same freq and often ht even regressed perf a tad. Man.
Now we are on the verge of dx12. Its the most stupid time to skimp on the cores. All new gameengines is going one way. More threads.

 

[tamz_msc]

Re:RAM, as long as you're not looking for Samsung B-die chips, like the GSkill TridentZ 3200MHz CL14, the difference between regular 2400MHz and 3000MHz CL15 or CL16 is not that much if you're going to buy from the GSkill RipJawz/ Corsair Vengeance LPX lineup.

 

[nitromullet]

This is what you can expect in gaming - an average of a nice mix of games - some favoring single-threaded performance, some multithreaded, some better suited to one architecture over the other due to programming differences.

All things considered, the ability of the 7700K to drive larger frame-rates is something that is a much more important factor in multiplayer eSports titles, rather than single-player campaigns. Considering that the above test was done on a GTX 1080, your RX 480 would make the bars in those graphs bunch up more closely, and it is likely you'll not notice differences between these CPUs at 1080p or above in single-player games.

All things considered, if it was *MY MONEY* I'd take the 1600; you already got a cooler and the CPU is good for overclocking upto 3.8GHz if the need arises in the future, and you get the extra 2C/4T for longevity.

Looking at that graph and the performance of the 4C/8T Sky/Kaby Lake i7's I'm thinking the best bet is to wait for 6C1/2T Coffee lake. If Intel can maintain decent clock speeds these chips are going to be the ones to beat. Considering the price of a 6800K is ~$400 I don't imagine that 6C/12T CFL will be higher than that, and it will have high IPC, a decent number of cores, and work on the relatively cheap Z370 (and most likely Z270) motherboards .

Ryzen is certainly good for the money, but it's really only about on par with Haswell IPC. Plus, it seems to be finicky with RAM, while at the same time very dependent on RAM speeds to get the best performance. (there is actually a measurable difference between DDR4 3200 and DDR4 2933). I get sucked into hype somewhat, and I've been tempted to get a Ryzen rig to replace my aging Haswell i5 rig, but I just can't bring myself to pull the trigger before seeing what Coffee Lake has to offer.

 

[tamz_msc]

Looking at that graph and the performance of the 4C/8T Sky/Kaby Lake i7's I'm thinking the best bet is to wait for 6C1/2T Coffee lake. If Intel can maintain decent clock speeds these chips are going to be the ones to beat. Considering the price of a 6800K is ~$400 I don't imagine that 6C/12T CFL will be higher than that, and it will have high IPC, a decent number of cores, and work on the relatively cheap Z370 (and most likely Z270) motherboards .

Ryzen is certainly good for the money, but it's really only about on par with Haswell IPC. Plus, it seems to be finicky with RAM, while at the same time very dependent on RAM speeds to get the best performance. (there is actually a measurable difference between DDR4 3200 and DDR4 2933). I get sucked into hype somewhat, and I've been tempted to get a Ryzen rig to replace my aging Haswell i5 rig, but I just can't bring myself to pull the trigger before seeing what Coffee Lake has to offer.

If you're on Haswell and mostly satisfied with ST performance, then upgrading to Ryzen is not that big of an improvement, unless you plan to use the extra cores.

For some, as long as they can get the best gaming performance, that's all that matters. Personally I'd rather have more cores than extra FPS that won't be noticeable unless you play with FRAPS on anyway.

 

[coercitiv]

Ryzen will need 3000 MHz DDR4 RAM to work good

The same can be said about Kaby Lake as well: there is a reason most of the benchmark results you see in reviews are obtained using DDR4 3000+ memory.

In fact memory speed is so important for these Skylake based CPUs that going from 2133-2400Mhz RAM to 3000-3200Mhz RAM will easily compensate for as much as 500-1000Mhz in CPU speed in a i7 6700K. See this post for a benchmark example or this video from Digital Foundry on RAM scaling for the 7600K.

So make no mistake, 3000Mhz+ RAM is "needed" on both platforms just as badly. And to put this example in the context of your geolocation, using fast RAM will enable same performance for lower CPU clocks, which in turn will bring temperature down considerably. I would say fast RAM is mandatory in warm countries.

 

[Shmee]

OP: I would wait for coffee lake, or for something more affordable, consider the Ryzen 6 cores CPUs. Getting a 1600 or 1600X should save you a lot of money, even in India.

That said, if you want more performance from Intel, you could get a Kaby lake 7700k now, and upgrade later possibly for coffee lake, or wait for coffee lake to come out, and make a decision on that versus AMD offerings at that time.

Lastly, you mention 1080p, but are you playing at high refresh rate? For just 60Hz screen, I think the cheaper AMD Ryzen 5 CPUs should be fine.

 

[SPBHM]

the big advantage I see for the 7700K is that it can be a lot faster on emulators and poorly optimized heavy games (like Arma games and so on), and it will be good for everything else, 1700 might struggle a bit with those but it's quite good overall.