FORGIVE ME -- New Gaming Rig, Intel 7700k v Intel 8700k v Ryzen 1600x

[Topweasel]

And of course everyone forgets to mention that Ryzen often has higher min FPS despite having lower AVG fps. But hey let's not let that complicate a good discussion on why Ryzen is an "awful gaming CPU".

Regardless, to get back on topic . . . OP should just get the 8700k, it's what's hot today. Okay?

Exactly.

If I was purchasing I'd probably get the 1600x, cheaper, good enough, has better upgrade options for the future, and I wouldn't feel dirty about purchasing it. But honestly if someone asked me to recommend one of the 3 as a gaming CPU, it would obviously be the 8700.

The 7700 is capped in gaming, it will never do any better than it is right now and debatably struggle quicker than either of the other two as time goes on. The 1600x is a good chip, this type of it's system is it's sweet spot. But it doesn't have the oomph to compete with a similarly core'd Intel alternative in the long run. It's singular advantage is more forward facing, which is getting the 1600x to buy a Zen+ next year or a Zen 2 in '19. The 8700 has everything the 1600x has, clocks higher, does everything faster. It's the obvious king here.

 

[epsilon84]

Well and 1080p gaming is misnomer as well. CPU bottlenecked gaming. Which is what people don't do except in edge cases of super high frame rate ultra competitive shooters like CSgo (again not CSgo in particular just the actual Pro-gamer portion of it). That's the framing everyone is missing when referring to gaming. It matters if you are building a new machine now for whatever reason to keep an eye out for gaming CPU's but there is almost no difference in any Sandybridge or later IPC CPU when played how people actually play their games which is GPU bottlenecked.

So you are speaking on behalf of all gamers now? So it's either pro gamers who need uber high frame rates and regular gamers who are all apparently completely GPU bottlenecked? It's that black and white? Then I must be in no mans land, since I actually tweak my in game settings to get a good balance of IQ vs frame rate rather than just blindly throwing everything at ultra with max AA or whatever my GPU can handle.

I value IQ but I also value high framerates (I mostly play fps games so it helps with aiming) Since there always has to be a bottleneck somewhere (or we would have infinite framerates) certain games will naturally be more CPU bound or GPU bound. Resolution and IQ settings obviously play a big part here in determining which side of the curve you fall into.

 

[epsilon84]

And of course everyone forgets to mention that Ryzen often has higher min FPS despite having lower AVG fps. But hey let's not let that complicate a good discussion on why Ryzen is an "awful gaming CPU".

Regardless, to get back on topic . . . OP should just get the 8700k, it's what's hot today. Okay?

I honestly haven't seen this occur in the 8700K (or general CFL) reviews that I've seen, so if you have links showing where Ryzen consistently has higher min framerates than CFL despite a lower average framerate, I would like to see it.

GamersNexus are one of the few sites that include 1% low and 0.1% lows in their fps charts, and CFL consistently gets higher average AND minimum framerates:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...vs-ryzen-streaming-gaming-overclocking/page-5

 

[Topweasel]

So you are speaking on behalf of all gamers now? So it's either pro gamers who need uber high frame rates and regular gamers who are all apparently completely GPU bottlenecked? It's that black and white? Then I must be in no mans land, since I actually tweak my in game settings to get a good balance of IQ vs frame rate rather than just blindly throwing everything at ultra with max AA or whatever my GPU can handle.

I value IQ but I also value high framerates (I mostly play fps games so it helps with aiming) Since there always has to be a bottleneck somewhere (or we would have infinite framerates) certain games will naturally be more CPU bound or GPU bound. Resolution and IQ settings obviously play a big part here.

No naturally games are going to be GPU bound. It's not me speaking for all gamers. Not trying to be a dick. But the fact is even if you are that special snowflake even if you are adjusting IQ to get decent frame rates, which most people do. All players not trying to win a live stream of CSgo, are going to be GPU bound and it easy to see why. When you take away a GPU bound setup all these CPU's even a 3 year old i3 is going to supply you with more than enough ooomph to keep the frame rates high enough for comfortable playback (100+ FPS). Once you start setting the graphics to the point you drop below that you have traded over to being GPU bound which means that the CPU could send more but the GPU isn't keeping up (again purely in terms of framerate) once you do that all CPU's equal out. Obviously there are outliers games that do require more CPU power for non graphics during game play. But the ones that push the CPU are the ones that use more cores, the ones that use more cores runs better on a 1600x than a 7700 and so on. The 8700 obviously beats a 1600x in all of these cases. But the point still stands unless you are dropping the IQ to the point where the only thing that matters is CPU performance all of these CPU's perform the same.

 

[epsilon84]

No naturally games are going to be GPU bound. It's not me speaking for all gamers. Not trying to be a dick. But the fact is even if you are that special snowflake even if you are adjusting IQ to get decent frame rates, which most people do. All players not trying to win a live stream of CSgo, are going to be GPU bound and it easy to see why. When you take away a GPU bound setup all these CPU's even a 3 year old i3 is going to supply you with more than enough ooomph to keep the frame rates high enough for comfortable playback (100+ FPS). Once you start setting the graphics to the point you drop below that you have traded over to being GPU bound which means that the CPU could send more but the GPU isn't keeping up (again purely in terms of framerate) once you do that all CPU's equal out. Obviously there are outliers games that do require more CPU power for non graphics during game play. But the ones that push the CPU are the ones that use more cores, the ones that use more cores runs better on a 1600x than a 7700 and so on. The 8700 obviously beats a 1600x in all of these cases. But the point still stands unless you are dropping the IQ to the point where the only thing that matters is CPU performance all of these CPU's perform the same.

No need to get personal. Not trying to be a dick? Then don't be one.

Seriously, have a look at this data and tell me CPU performance doesn't matter in games:
In the context of this thread, how anyone can suggest a 1600X over a 7700K or 8700K is beyond me, based on the performance being shown here. They most certainly do not 'perform the same' as you claim

 

[krumme]

I honestly haven't seen this occur in the 8700K (or general CFL) reviews that I've seen, so if you have links showing where Ryzen consistently has higher min framerates than CFL despite a lower average framerate, I would like to see it.

GamersNexus are one of the few sites that include 1% low and 0.1% lows in their fps charts, and CFL consistently gets higher average AND minimum framerates:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...vs-ryzen-streaming-gaming-overclocking/page-5

Honestly who cares about 8700?
A 7700k is just as fast. Just look at the benchmark you post. Min or average. Same for 99% of reviews out there. No difference. You go tell me what this fuzz is about.

 

[epsilon84]

Honestly who cares about 8700?
A 7700k is just as fast. Just look at the benchmark you post. Min or average. Same for 99% of reviews out there. No difference. You go tell me what this fuzz is about.

Please look at the thread title.

New Gaming Rig, Intel 7700k v Intel 8700k v Ryzen 1600x

 

[krumme]

Please look at the thread title.

New Gaming Rig, Intel 7700k v Intel 8700k v Ryzen 1600x

Ahh ok didnt see that. Forgive me.
Then clearly get a 7700k. According to 99% of the benchmark A 8700k is only 0 to 2 % faster than a 7700k and sometimes slower. Please look at AT test.
And not even available. Heck a 8700 is most often much slower than a 7700k. 8700k is also hotter.

 

[Topweasel]

No need to get personal. Not trying to be a dick? Then don't be one.

Seriously, have a look at this data and tell me CPU performance doesn't matter in games:
In the context of this thread, how anyone can suggest a 1600X over a 7700K or 8700K is beyond me, based on the performance being shown here. They most certainly do not 'perform the same' as you claim

Note 2 things.

1. I specifically didn't recommend a 1600x
2. Those are not GPU bound gaming. Which wasn't my point. People set their IQ to as high as they can while maintaining good frame rates. So unless you are suggesting that 146 FPS in Total Warhammer, 90 in Project Cars, and 107 in GTA V are not good frame rates then your point is moot. In all likelihood the IQ would be raised to the point where the system hovers between 50-75 FPS in games. That means that it is GPU bound and generally all CPU's would be equal. But then again we can go in other directions and I can show cases of GPU bound gaming where the CPU still impacts performance. You are not going to like the results though.

 

[Markfw]

My 2 cents.... On all those charts above, the 1600x NEVER went below 60 fps, and isn't it the least expensive (including motherboard) of the 3 ? Would you notice a difference ? I am not a gamer, I just read that if you never get below 60 fps, you will not even see any difference.

So my point is, that if someone is on a limited budget, wouldn't that be fine ?

 

[Phynaz]

My 2 cents.... On all those charts above, the 1600x NEVER went below 60 fps, and isn't it the least expensive (including motherboard) of the 3 ? Would you notice a difference ? I am not a gamer, I just read that if you never get below 60 fps, you will not even see any difference.

So my point is, that if someone is on a limited budget, wouldn't that be fine ?

OP isn't on a limited budget. Buy if you really want to go with the "AMD - it's good enough" argument again...

 

[Markfw]

OP isn't on a limited budget. Buy if you really want to go with the "AMD - it's good enough" argument again...

You didn't answer my question. "Would you notice a difference ? " when you NEVER go below 60 fps.

 

[Arachnotronic]

You didn't answer my question. "Would you notice a difference ? " when you NEVER go below 60 fps.

I would; I game on a 144hz display. High refresh rate is becoming more popular, so it’s better to spend a little more to not be bottnecked down the line.

Also even if you don’t game at a high refresh rate, higher FPS (even beyond your monitors’ refresh rate) can help reduce input lag which helps improve the responsiveness of the game.

 

[epsilon84]

You didn't answer my question. "Would you notice a difference ? " when you NEVER go below 60 fps.

Quite honestly, there is no exact answer. The answer is - it depends. On a standard 60Hz monitor, probably not so much. If you are are running higher refresh rate gaming monitors then the difference is more obvious. It also depends on the user. Some people swear to not notice the difference above 60fps, while you have others who can see the difference between 144fps and 240fps (the new standard for high end gaming monitors).

 

[DrMrLordX]

I honestly haven't seen this occur in the 8700K (or general CFL) reviews that I've seen, so if you have links showing where Ryzen consistently has higher min framerates than CFL despite a lower average framerate, I would like to see it.

I was talking about older i7s since people were so keen to say that Ryzen was 2012's gaming CPU. 4790k, 6700k, etc. And I was more talking about the 1800x on good RAM, which is what drags up the minfps so much on that platform. I don't think you'll see the 8700k @ 5 GHz losing many minfps benchmarks. Anything is possible though.

"Would you notice a difference ?

No, since my monitor is 60Hz only. Though I would notice minfps dropping below 60 from time to time.

 

[epsilon84]

Note 2 things.

1. I specifically didn't recommend a 1600x
2. Those are not GPU bound gaming. Which wasn't my point. People set their IQ to as high as they can while maintaining good frame rates. So unless you are suggesting that 146 FPS in Total Warhammer, 90 in Project Cars, and 107 in GTA V are not good frame rates then your point is moot. In all likelihood the IQ would be raised to the point where the system hovers between 50-75 FPS in games. That means that it is GPU bound and generally all CPU's would be equal. But then again we can go in other directions and I can show cases of GPU bound gaming where the CPU still impacts performance. You are not going to like the results though.

This is where I would agree to disagree with you - if I were getting min framerates close to 60fps in games (and I do, my current 2500K @ 4.5GHz is showing its age) I most definitely would NOT increase settings any higher just to make my system more GPU bound. Yes, I'm one of 'those' gamers who will rather run at 'high' at 100fps avg/60fps min rather than 'Ultra' at 70fps avg / 40 fps min. Often the difference in IQ is slight, and quite honestly I can't tell any difference during actual gameplay - I actually play the games rather than stand still to marvel at the wonderful scenery

As I said earlier, I prefer a mixture of IQ and framerates because I play mostly twitch fps games and I prefer my framerates high. You sound more like a gamer who likes to max out IQ settings to the highest (reasonably) playable settings, which as you say would be 50 - 75fps avg (too low for me personally) which as a result often makes the game more GPU bound. There is no right or wrong way to game, so each to their own

 

[Markfw]

I was talking about older i7s since people were so keen to say that Ryzen was 2012's gaming CPU. 4790k, 6700k, etc. And I was more talking about the 1800x on good RAM, which is what drags up the minfps so much on that platform. I don't think you'll see the 8700k @ 5 GHz losing many minfps benchmarks. Anything is possible though.



No, since my monitor is 60Hz only. Though I would notice minfps dropping below 60 from time to time.

Min fps was 67....

 

[DrMrLordX]

Yeah I know, just saying. There are some titles like Fallout4 which will dip below 60 on my overclocked 1800x which kind of sucks. But then the engine for that game is old and messy. So it is not a really good example of a modern gaming engine.

 

[StinkyPinky]

I'm a huge fan of AMD, but with the greatest of respect, there really is only the 8600/8700 k models to consider if you want a high end gaming system. They will usually clock to 5+ and have high IPC. Heck there are some people getting 8600ks to 5.4.

Of course, most people don't just use their pcs for gaming and if productivity comes into it then clearly ryzen makes a much better case, especially if compared to the 8600k

 

[epsilon84]

I was talking about older i7s since people were so keen to say that Ryzen was 2012's gaming CPU. 4790k, 6700k, etc. And I was more talking about the 1800x on good RAM, which is what drags up the minfps so much on that platform. I don't think you'll see the 8700k @ 5 GHz losing many minfps benchmarks. Anything is possible though

Fair enough, I thought you were referring to CFL due to the thread topic.

High speed DDR4 does indeed increase mins (and avgs) on the Ryzen platform, but even so it's really only enough to bring an overclocked R7 up to par with a stock 4790K: https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2867-intel-i7-2600k-2017-benchmark-vs-7700k-1700-more/page-3 (they include DDR4-3466 results for the 1700X @ 3.9GHz)
Overclock the 4790K to 4.5GHz+ and it'll pull away from Ryzen and the 'status quo' is restored.

So from a strictly objective POV, AMD is still behind Intels 2014 i7 in gaming. It *is* approximately equivalent to a 2012 era Ivy Bridge 3770K, perhaps a bit faster at stock but with both at max O/Cs there wouldn't be much difference between them. This is not 'framing' AMD in any way, Ryzen is no Bulldozer but it's gaming still lacks a bit compared to Intel, and there is no point sugarcoating that fact.

So in the context of this thread, the 1600X would only make sense if the OPs budget was tight and going for a 8700K + Z370 mobo will compromise the available budget for the GPU.That doesn't seem to be the case though, so the 8700K is the logical choice (once its actually available ) because the 7700K is on a dead end platform, plus who in their right minds would buy a 7700K when a 8700K is around the same price?

 

[VirtualLarry]

I honestly haven't seen this occur in the 8700K (or general CFL) reviews that I've seen, so if you have links showing where Ryzen consistently has higher min framerates than CFL despite a lower average framerate, I would like to see it.

GamersNexus are one of the few sites that include 1% low and 0.1% lows in their fps charts, and CFL consistently gets higher average AND minimum framerates:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...vs-ryzen-streaming-gaming-overclocking/page-5

That TechDeals video on YT, that was linked in another thread, comparing the i7-8700 (K and non-K) CFL, with the Ryzen 7 1700 (OC and non-OC), showed that in a couple of games, higher mins for Ryzen. I think that they were both DirectX 12 games. Running on a 1080ti.

 

[Topweasel]

This is where I would agree to disagree with you - if I were getting min framerates close to 60fps in games (and I do, my current 2500K @ 4.5GHz is showing its age) I most definitely would NOT increase settings any higher just to make my system more GPU bound. Yes, I'm one of 'those' gamers who will rather run at 'high' at 100fps avg/60fps min rather than 'Ultra' at 70fps avg / 40 fps min. Often the difference in IQ is slight, and quite honestly I can't tell any difference during actual gameplay - I actually play the games rather than stand still to marvel at the wonderful scenery

As I said earlier, I prefer a mixture of IQ and framerates because I play mostly twitch fps games and I prefer my framerates high. You sound more like a gamer who likes to max out IQ settings to the highest (reasonably) playable settings, which as you say would be 50 - 75fps avg (too low for me personally) which as a result often makes the game more GPU bound. There is no right or wrong way to game, so each to their own

It doesn't take maxing out IQ to bring on a GPU bottleneck. Let's say you in your example which you choose benchmarks that highlighted the largest delta between the 8700/7700K CPU's. Noting the Project Cars bench has an issue because that delta is abnormally large for what we know of as the performance delta. That Project cars delta being what it is, if you increased your IQ to bring the system down to your comfort spot 100/60FPS. You are right in the Window of the 1600x, which means that at your given IQ settings, in your given game, the two CPU's would be indistinguishable. Why because you brought the the GPU bottleneck down to a point that that the two CPU's would be performing the same. That is in a non-Fallout 4 worst case scenario in performance delta's.

That's always been my point. If you buy a game and you decide where you want to sit in performance. You buy a GPU and CPU to give you that performance. You generally are running with enough eye candy to put the more expensive item (the GPU) to real work. When you do that most CPU's will look the same. When you get a game later that can't run as well, you don't get another CPU. You get a new GPU. Maybe it's twice as good, in the old games you set the IQ higher in the newer game you set the IQ again to maintain your performance window you are looking for. In all likelihood your new settings will recreate the same situation as before which is again a GPU bottlenecked setup that will equalize a lot of CPU's.

Even with a only for gaming system. CPU choice doesn't matter nearly as much as all of the posts imply based on CPU bottlenecked testing.

 

[Dribble]

All the "it's good enough" posts don't really cut it.

I bought a i2500k in 2012 that was way beyond what was required to be "good enough" at the time and guess what it's still "good enough" in 2017, where as the lesser cpu's from that time are not. Being as a cpu upgrade normally involves a new cpu/mb and memory it's a long term investment for most people. You buy with an eye to the future.

Hence if you are into gaming and can afford it get a coffeelake as it has the best combo of core count and the single core performance to last. All this "well you could get Ryzen it's good enough" talk is just silly.

 

[Topweasel]

All the "it's good enough" posts don't really cut it.

I bought a i2500k in 2012 that was way beyond what was required to be "good enough" at the time and guess what it's still "good enough" in 2017, where as the lesser cpu's from that time are not. Being as a cpu upgrade normally involves a new cpu/mb and memory it's a long term investment for most people. You buy with an eye to the future.

Hence if you are into gaming and can afford it get a coffeelake as it has the best combo of core count and the single core performance to last. All this "well you could get Ryzen it's good enough" talk is just silly.

Note I didn't say it would be good enough for anyone other than myself in the thread. Don't read the last post and assume that is what the post was in regards to. It was a post that someone suggested a Ryzen isn't a good 1080p CPU and that isn't true. It's not a 1080p vs. 4k, discussion it's super high frame rate gaming 100+ Hz gaming. That doesn't mean Ryzen is a better suggestion and I specifically recommended a 8700k. But there are a lot of aspects that go into choice including budget, upgradability, personal feelings on companies involved and so on. It's good to make sure all the information is available. That information includes how you run games. If you are purchasing a 1080ti for the best graphics ever you are competing against increased CPU usage. If you go lower on graphics then it matters even less because even without the IQ you are getting closer and closer to a GPU bottleneck at even these "review settings".

So it's not that Ryzen is "good enough" it's that people over value CPU performance when building systems. Sometimes convincing people to pay extra for resources that would lead to a better system purely because when you remove the GPU bottleneck (which people don't really do) a CPU is quicker.

That said if you are looking for getting the best components. Money doesn't matter as much. The 8700k is easily the best solution. But who knows if saving a $100 means getting a NVME drive over a SSD. A 1080 over a 1070. And so on its worth knowing that the actual impact in actual use case is relatively small if non existent.

 

[Markfw]

All the "it's good enough" posts don't really cut it.

I bought a i2500k in 2012 that was way beyond what was required to be "good enough" at the time and guess what it's still "good enough" in 2017, where as the lesser cpu's from that time are not. Being as a cpu upgrade normally involves a new cpu/mb and memory it's a long term investment for most people. You buy with an eye to the future.

Hence if you are into gaming and can afford it get a coffeelake as it has the best combo of core count and the single core performance to last. All this "well you could get Ryzen it's good enough" talk is just silly.

Well, I usually don't like car analogies, but I will give this a shot.

So lets say I get a 2017 Corvette ZR1, but my buddy says "well thats good, but the Ferrari (pick your favorite) is the best, so don't settle for good enough". Seriously, thats what I hear you saying, and thats just silly.