7700k rig or R7 1700?

[Fascinate]

So i know ill be building, getting a decent chunk of money back for taxes. I know the 7700k is the smart choice, but it just feels so underwhelming compared to ryzen now. I am going to assume the leaks are correct and 1700's hit around 4ghz on all cores, which isnt bad tbh considering base clock is 3ghz. On the other hand i could get a 7700k that is almost guaranteed 4.9ghz on all cores, maybe even get a golden chip that hits 5.1 or 5.2.

I dunno its a hard choice, i clearly dont have any use for 8 cores 16 threads right now but i keep a PC for 6-7 years it seems and i just dont know what call to make.

[Chickat]

You need to wait and see how high Ryzen Overlocks. Also depends on if you need more than 4 cores. Ryzen MIGHT be better because 8 cores might be more mainstream in r ot 6 years, but wait a few more weeks to get good benchmarks first.

[Jtbrig7390]

Wait for benchmarks to come out.

[Fascinate]

Ya ill definitely be keeping a keen eye out on the 28th. But lets say the leaks are correct and the 329 dollar r7 1700 hits 4.0-4.1 ghz on all cores, what would everyones choice be between it and a 7700k build? I am not interested in the 1700x, xfr i feel is a fluke and not necessary to someone who knows their way around a bios.

[Linkedblade]

I would wait a bit until after we get some more specs and live performance info on ryzen before i made a purchase like that. And i would take the 7600k or 1600X. That extra $100 or so and invest it on a better gpu.

[Fascinate]

I would wait a bit until after we get some more specs and live performance info on ryzen before i made a purchase like that. And i would take the 7600k or 1600X. That extra $100 or so and invest it on a better gpu.

That was my original plan, but its going to be 2 months at least before we see the 1600x. And im definitely not going with another i5, its served me well for 6 years but i feel going forward 4c 8t is going to be the bare minimum for newer titles.

[Chickat]

That was my original plan, but its going to be 2 months at least before we see the 1600x. And im definitely not going with another i5, its served me well for 6 years but i feel going forward 4c 8t is going to be the bare minimum for newer titles.

Can you not wait 2 more months?

[Fascinate]

Can you not wait 2 more months?

Meh id only be saving 70 bucks, ive kinda decided to go with the R7 lineup if i do go AMD. I think we have all the info about r7 (or pretty close) the hard choice is deciding between it and 7700k. ~1ghz higher clock speeds or 4 more cores 8 more threads, that's really what it boils down to i guess. Also the fact intel can run super fast memory, but that is less of a concern.

[Chickat]

Meh id only be saving 70 bucks, ive kinda decided to go with the R7 lineup if i do go AMD. I think we have all the info about r7 (or pretty close) the hard choice is deciding between it and 7700k. ~1ghz higher clock speeds or 4 more cores 8 more threads, that's really what it boils down to i guess. Also the fact intel can run super fast memory, but that is less of a concern.

While the i7 could be better atm for gaming, in 4 years maybe the 1700 will be. Its going to be a hard choice either way. Hoping the Ryzen chips clock to the 4.5ish range.

[Fascinate]

While the i7 could be better atm for gaming, in 4 years maybe the 1700 will be. Its going to be a hard choice either way. Hoping the Ryzen chips clock to the 4.5ish range.

Exactly thats why i cant decide lol. I keep my PC's so long, that is what makes r7's so appealing even if they are at a disadvantage for the most part right now in games.

[MrPaladinGuy]

Wait for more benchmarks/people to get it and test.

[Chickat]

Exactly thats why i cant decide lol. I keep my PC's so long, that is what makes r7's so appealing even if they are at a disadvantage for the most part right now in games.

They are likely going to be better in every day computing, so that may play a factor too?

[Fascinate]

Wait for more benchmarks/people to get it and test.

Of course i will do this, but i am already assuming the leaks are correct and they are very mediocre overclockers. If we assume that, what would you guys do with 1200 bucks a 7700k rig or R7 1700?

[MrPaladinGuy]

Of course i will do this, but i am already assuming the leaks are correct and they are very mediocre overclockers. If we assume that, what would you guys do with 1200 bucks a 7700k rig or R7 1700?

I'd wait.

/10 char

[Triggered Fridgekin]

I'm definitely going to wait and see about the rest of their lineup with focus on the 6/12 series. If anything, it'll give me a more stable budget to put towards a decent board or graphics card. Worst case scenario is it under performs and I throw they money in to a 7700K.

Of course i will do this, but i am already assuming the leaks are correct and they are very mediocre overclockers. If we assume that, what would you guys do with 1200 bucks a 7700k rig or R7 1700?

If you're referring to the Canard PC leak it should be noted that their review used an under-clocked engineering sample.

[ovm33]

If all you're going to be doing is gaming, and don't want to get an i5 and don't want to wait, then get the 7700k.

The 1700 will be about at least 5-10% lower in IPC when compared to the 7700k. At base frequencies. There's a reason AMD isn't comparing single core performance... The 7700k is going to be the better gaming chip. Especially in MMO's (which is how I assume you got here.) Banking on the extra 4c/8t possibly being utilized in the future isn't enough of a selling point for me if all I care about is gaming.

Now if you were willing to wait for the next round The 4c/8t 1400x at $199 is a very compelling option in my book. Sure, you're still losing the IPC but at around $150 less you could turn the savings into a major gpu upgrade. Or a bunch of pizza.

The disruptive force of Ryzen is what you're getting for the price. Not what you're actually getting.

[Fascinate]

There is no question the 7700k is the better gaming CPU i realize this, i just feel for the same or less money the 1700 gives you more value. I mean, do i really need 165 fps if im getting 150 etc etc? Crystal ball would be handy right now lol. Who knows, maybe WoW gets a dx12 patch in 3 years to take advantage of a ton more cores?

[MyndZero]

Personally I feel like AMD's weakest point has been single core performance and that's been a big reason why they've always been so far behind Intel. It looks like they may have that sorted out now and judging by what we've seen they are outperforming Intel for half the price (on the very high end in this example), but we need to see other benchmarks once it's actually out.

I remember they did a BF1 4k demo with an AMD cpu against Intels beastly 6900k ($1.5k?) and AMD was outperforming it as the only different was the CPUs, well we found out it wasnt the R7 1800 CPU in that test, it was the 1700 and it still outperformed it even with gimping themselves on purpose!

I'd probably lean towards the R7 but I'm also a bit bias lol. I just feel like AMD may finally be 'back', but more importantly and I've felt this for a while, I think Microsoft is also better optimising their OS to make use of AMD hardware a lot better lately (if your in Win10) so I just think it's on the up ultimately.

[Deleted]

I am not interested in the 1700x, xfr i feel is a fluke and not necessary to someone who knows their way around a bios.

You don't know that, the X chips could be better binned ones and OC better or they could be just more expensive and not better at all. Just wait for the benchmarks there is absolutely no point in divagation about it until we get the data.

[Darkstrike]

7700k is getting slaughtered in multithreading by R7 1700 , even if 7700k is 10-15% faster in single thread perfomance it wont make any major diference.New games will make better use of more cores,most games are console ports, AMD cpus and gpus are used in PS and XBOX. Also r7 1700 is 65W vs 91W (7700k) TDP. Going with RYZEN is the best option atm. Not to mention you need to delidde 7700k to OC it.