6700k or Ryzen for a new build

[Bigbamboozal]

I'm not going to even step into the ring to debate clocks and other super nosebleed fanboy stuff. I use a 6700k, liquid cooled, mild overclock to 4.2g.
I don't stream, I do game, and more than that I do a buttload of audio and video production with it. I've never experienced hardship because of my cpu choice.
It's never been slow, it handles as many tracks as I've ever thrown at it, with loads of power hungry plugins all at the same time and never so much as burps.
I've rendered massive video projects and not felt it was slow.
I can't speak for the other chip, but if it's comparable in any breath, I don't imagine you having any issues either way.
These guys will argue about it for months after you've already purchased and got on with making your content and gaming away... I just don't see your uses hitting the wall or even getting close enough to the wall for you to see it sweat.
Just imho, take it how you will. But from a working with it every damn day for music and video production, the 6700k hasn't let me down even when running HUGE projects.

[munkeyinorbit]

I'd probably lean a little closer to the 6700k, given your potential use-case

no

get the ryzen. only get intel if you ONLY game.

[Denpepe]

I'm not going to even step into the ring to debate clocks and other super nosebleed fanboy stuff. I use a 6700k, liquid cooled, mild overclock to 4.2g.
I don't stream, I do game, and more than that I do a buttload of audio and video production with it. I've never experienced hardship because of my cpu choice.
It's never been slow, it handles as many tracks as I've ever thrown at it, with loads of power hungry plugins all at the same time and never so much as burps.
I've rendered massive video projects and not felt it was slow.
I can't speak for the other chip, but if it's comparable in any breath, I don't imagine you having any issues either way.
These guys will argue about it for months after you've already purchased and got on with making your content and gaming away... I just don't see your uses hitting the wall or even getting close enough to the wall for you to see it sweat.
Just imho, take it how you will. But from a working with it every damn day for music and video production, the 6700k hasn't let me down even when running HUGE projects.

4.2 is not an overclock it's the base turbo frequency.

[Bigbamboozal]

4.2 is not an overclock it's the base turbo frequency.

Oops, 4.6. feel better now?
It's mild but I couldn't see much difference at higher clocks

[mrgreenthump]

Those people shouting from the roof tops, that games are still benefiting more from single core/thread performance.. You may want to check games released after 2016, almost every major title released from 2016 till now, have excellent multithreading support. In these games 1600 beats the 7600 more often than not and is a bit head on the overall score.

Now ofc there are still games that have old engines: WoW, Tomb raider, GTA V, D3, etc etc. In those cases 7600 is the clear winner, but there also needs to be some weight on if you are going to be playing these games 2 years from now. WoW players will probably still play WoW, but for what it is worth, I've had no problems raiding competitively with a R7 1700.


TL : DR(only gaming), if you play older titles with engines from 2015 or before and you will continue playing them for a long time. Intel will win, if not and you aren't going for the 7700K, get Ryzen. Or if you are on a really tight budget, get Pentium.

[pansertjald]

Those people shouting from the roof tops, that games are still benefiting more from single core/thread performance.. You may want to check games released after 2016, almost every major title released from 2016 till now, have excellent multithreading support. In these games 1600 beats the 7600 more often than not and is a bit head on the overall score.

Now ofc there are still games that have old engines: WoW, Tomb raider, GTA V, D3, etc etc. In those cases 7600 is the clear winner, but there also needs to be some weight on if you are going to be playing these games 2 years from now. WoW players will probably still play WoW, but for what it is worth, I've had no problems raiding competitively with a R7 1700.


TL : DR(only gaming), if you play older titles with engines from 2015 or before and you will continue playing them for a long time. Intel will win, if not and you aren't going for the 7700K, get Ryzen. Or if you are on a really tight budget, get Pentium.

You still go for the i7 7700k for gaming after 2016 titles. The i7 7700k is still the king of gaming

[mrgreenthump]

You still go for the i7 7700k for gaming after 2016 titles. The i7 7700k is still the king of gaming

And that differs from my post how? I specifically said if you aren't going to get a 7700K or pentium, go ryzen.

[Deleted]

The 30 fps is not even on ultra settings and it is not the GPU that is limiting here.

The game simply depends heavily on single thread performance because they were unable to split their main thread into multiple independent tasks or offload to the GPU.

Now that would certainly qualify as "badly made" if we were talking about the bazillion-th CoD clone.
However in this case it's a high fidelity civilian flight simulator, so I'm not sure how difficult it is to make that work.
I suspect it mainly has to do with the smaller development team and being a non-mainstream type of game, but of course it's also possible that this type of game doesn't lend itself to multi tasking like shooters do.

In any case I haven't seen any alternative that does it better, so I can either abandon this type of game and bask in the glory of the difference between Ryzen and i7 being unnoticeable, or admit that this game thrives on single thread performance and I need to get an i7 to get the best performance... although I'd love to get a 1700.

COD ghosts was the only real badly made COD game, the rest of them is fine, have you not seen those benchmarks, they perform pretty well on mid range machines.

Badly made games like Mafia 3? watchdogs, or most Ubishit games?

Most games can be bruteforced for 60 FPS on either CPU, as much as most PC ports aren't made well, not many of them constantly suffer from being around 30 FPS from mid settings and up, they actually do get 60 FPS and more on this class of hardware, so the point of the quote is null, the post was not which CPU yields the highest FPS, it was FPS being noticable around 30 FPS, extreme few games exhibit this issue and COD isnt that.

[pansertjald]

And that differs from my post how? I specifically said if you aren't going to get a 7700K or pentium, go ryzen.

Sorry miss read the part in the end. I read it as don't go for a Ryzen and not a i7 7700k

[Baelic]

no

get the ryzen. only get intel if you ONLY game.

I'd agree with you if OP was intending to do heavier video editing, but from the sounds of things his focus is primarily on gaming. That's my reasoning, anyway.

[Deleted]

COD ghosts was the only real badly made COD game, the rest of them is fine, have you not seen those benchmarks, they perform pretty well on mid range machines.

I think you misread what I was trying to say there: I meant games that are variations of the FPS theme, (just picked the CoD franchise as an example). Those games apparently can work well on multiple threads (see Battlefield), so any game that does not isn't up to par.

Other genres however may have different computational requirements, so calling them "badly coded" and suggesting a refund might not do them justice.

I do think they could do (somewhat) better, but unlike shooters where you can pick out of dozens of games, your options in the flight sim market are somewhat limited - and to my knowledge none of them do multi threading well.

[Deleted]

I think you misread what I was trying to say there: I meant games that are variations of the FPS theme, (just picked the CoD franchise as an example). Those games apparently can work well on multiple threads (see Battlefield), so any game that does not isn't up to par.

Other genres however may have different computational requirements, so calling them "badly coded" and suggesting a refund might not do them justice.

I do think they could do (somewhat) better, but unlike shooters where you can pick out of dozens of games, your options in the flight sim market are somewhat limited - and to my knowledge none of them do multi threading well.

Have you seen mafia 3, the game was launched with a locked 30 FPS target, did you remember watchdogs? someone literally rearranged some of the games coding and made it more stable by literally turning stuff on that the devs turned off for the PC release.

Its like any product, if its delivered bad yet ask for money, people get refunds or something else, just because its a flight sim, granted limited as it is, is still a valid blame.

On steam, getting a refund actually is justice, the developers are hit with a fee by valve, theres a reason why Arkham Knight was taken off sale on steam, it was literally costing them money.

Again, most games do not suffer the issue of constantly being 30 FPS with this class of hardware, on weaker hardware yes, this is the point I am getting at, and with a 60 Hz screen, no ones going to tell the difference with 90 FPS with Ryzen and 100 FPS on Intel, the scenario the poster I quoted is very unlikely unless they play Mafia 3 only.

[moremana]

Intel if your only going to game. End of story, a 7700k is king in the gaming department at this moment. (If your looking at the $220 range I would definitely go R5 1600 over a crappy quad core) Thats my opinion.

If you want some productivity out of your rig, Ryzen isnt a bad choice. I have a R7 1700 priced the same a 7700k, it plays wow just fine, I dont notice any difference unless I am watching a fps counter, and the differences arent that huge. I use that PC for work, when Im fuckin off with games I am using my Intel rig.

We dont know where the future is with games using more than 4 cores is going to be in 6/12/24/48 months from now less ~a few titles, all we can do is speculate and go by history.

Its a toss, the $330 market, i7 all the way, 4 cores 8 threads is a no brainer unless your doing content creation. $220 market R5 1600 is a good buy over the 7600k

[Deleted]

Have you seen mafia 3, the game was launched with a locked 30 FPS target, did you remember watchdogs? someone literally rearranged some of the games coding and made it more stable by literally turning stuff on that the devs turned off for the PC release.

Its like any product, if its delivered bad yet ask for money, people get refunds or something else, just because its a flight sim, granted limited as it is, is still a valid blame.

Well we know Mafia 3 was bad because there's similar games out there that did better.
For flight sims however there are no other games (to my knowledge) that achieve something similar with better frame rate and you can't really compare it to Battlefield - otherwise you could argue that the latter is bad and you should return it, because you can get 10000 fps playing Tetris.

Again, most games do not suffer the issue of constantly being 30 FPS with this class of hardware, on weaker hardware yes, this is the point I am getting at, and with a 60 Hz screen, no ones going to tell the difference with 90 FPS with Ryzen and 100 FPS on Intel, the scenario the poster I quoted is very unlikely unless they play Mafia 3 only.

You do realize that you're actually making a point for getting an Intel here right?

1) no ones going to tell the difference with 90 FPS with Ryzen and 100 FPS on Intel
2) when playing Mafia 3 you do notice Intel is better.

So even if you only play Mafia 3 occasionally overall you're better off with Intel in this scenario.
Unless of course you have other workloads where Ryzen is noticeably better than Intel.

[Maruka]

I have a 6700k with a mild overclock and i love it but if you went intel id prolly get the 7700k instead. That being said i know a lot of people here ship amd these days and i wouldnt argue against them. I dont think you can really go wrong with what you pick these days.

[Gray_Matter]

A default R5/R3 can never outperform a 6700K for any game out there, i wont even go the IPC way, i will go the pure Clock speeds way.

That is factually incorrect. This is a bench for Ashes of the Singularity.

Scratch that. I thought you were talking about an i5-7600K. You are correct. At the moment, there aren't any games where an R5 or R3 can beat an i7-6700K.

[Kagthul]

That is factually incorrect. This is a bench for Ashes of the Singularity.

Uhh.. that SUPPORTS his claim.

the OVERCLOCKED R5 doesn't even catch the STOCK 6700K. The STOCK R5 1600X gets absolutely curb-stomped.

It takes an R7 overclocked to the gills to beat it at stock.

Soooo... yeah. Not sure what you're on about here.

Edit:

And.. Ashes of the Benchmark, really?

Can we use some games people actually play?

[Gray_Matter]

Uhh.. that SUPPORTS his claim.

the OVERCLOCKED R5 doesn't even catch the STOCK 6700K. The STOCK R5 1600X gets absolutely curb-stomped.

It takes an R7 overclocked to the gills to beat it at stock.

Soooo... yeah. Not sure what you're on about here.

Edit:

And.. Ashes of the Benchmark, really?

Can we use some games people actually play?

Scratch that, I though he was talking about a 7600K.

[potis]

Scratch that, I though he was talking about a 7600K.

I am just talking about default CPUs.

This discussion escalated cause people keep going "OC this" "OC that" to bring the performance to "similar" levels.

The average consumer doesnt know how to plug a computer, they will OC?

Thats the point i was trying to make.

If they are gonna suggest a Ryzen, at least suggest the R5 1600X where the 4Ghz Turbo might actually match a 6700K.

[Deleted]

Well we know Mafia 3 was bad because there's similar games out there that did better.
For flight sims however there are no other games (to my knowledge) that achieve something similar with better frame rate and you can't really compare it to Battlefield - otherwise you could argue that the latter is bad and you should return it, because you can get 10000 fps playing Tetris.




You do realize that you're actually making a point for getting an Intel here right?

1) no ones going to tell the difference with 90 FPS with Ryzen and 100 FPS on Intel
2) when playing Mafia 3 you do notice Intel is better.

So even if you only play Mafia 3 occasionally overall you're better off with Intel in this scenario.
Unless of course you have other workloads where Ryzen is noticeably better than Intel.

I never said not get Intel, I said these types of CPUs for most games will not yield 30 FPS on average normally, games that suffer bad performance are in the minority to that extreme, if a game performs that badly, you simply punish the devs by refunding it.

If people buy and keep those games, it gives the devs more ammo to keep it up.

I stand by, the whole not noticing the FPS difference for 95% of the cases with these CPUs so even using your example of flight sim is niche, if you play a game that is badly made and need all the grunt you need, get the intel, though I am against people buying badly made games to start with though.

Though if games you play are flight sims and only use single thread, a 6700K is questionable it self, you can probably get the I3 7300K and clock the shit out of that.