Solved

i7 7700k for gaming

How long until an i7 7700k become inadaquete for gaming? How longs when its 4 cores and
8 threads simplay are not enough?

Shoudl I invest in a Ryzen 1700 or 1700x instead?
Reply to Atreyo Bhattacharjee
13 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about 7700k gaming
  1. that questions been asked since i first got a 2600k

    that was 6 years ago

    yet a 2600k can still handle modern games no problem
    Reply to mcnumpty23
  2. Best answer
    It depends. Due to unoptimized 1080p gaming, I would suggest you wait a bit before getting ryzen. The 7700K will keep its title as the king of gaming for a very long time.
    Reply to GamingEnthusiast420
  3. Ryzen won't overtake the 7700k in gaming performance full stop unless there's some magical game that can utilize more than 8 threads.
    Reply to Chugalug_
  4. Chugalug_ said:
    Ryzen won't overtake the 7700k in gaming performance full stop unless there's some magical game that can utilize more than 8 threads.

    According to the recent roundup of 11 games here on Tom's Hardware, Ryzen 7 CPUs were able to beat the entire Intel lineup on Deus Ex MD by a significant margin, and edge out Intel's competition on Middle Earth @ 1440P. On top of that 3DMark gives a huge advantage to Ryzen CPUs both in Physics tests and draw calls per second. Whether that actually ever translates into real game performance remains to be seen, but there's no doubt the potential is there.

    There's no doubt however that over a wide range of games the 7700K is the superior gaming CPU, and that gap is even bigger when both CPUs are OC'd due to the extra headroom on the 7700K. But there are already occasional games which play better on the Ryzen 7 CPUs, and I'd expect (speculating here) that we'll see more of those over time and particularly if (big "if") developers can properly code for the Ryzen architecture.

    Just to be clear, I agree that right now the 7700K is the best pure gaming CPU, particularly when paired with a high end GPU and 120hz + display. Ryzen 7 makes more sense if you do other tasks that make use of the extra cores.
    The Ryzen 5 lineup will be interesting because they could well (speculating again now) offer similar gaming performance to the Ryzen 7 CPUs (which are roughly equivalent to an i5 7600K at stock over a broad range of games), while offering more cores and saving money over the 7700K.
    Reply to rhysiam
  5. Note that the only real situations where the Ryzen 7 CPUs win for the most part are in specific DX12 benchmarks by small margins for the most part.
    It struggles in terms of FPS drops and stability though, although this may just be attributed to poor optimization on AMD's part due to the complicated architecture.
    However it gets melted by even a 6800k in near everything else.
    Rendering = Fantastic
    Gaming = Mediocre
    Reply to Chugalug_
  6. Chugalug_ said:
    Note that the only real situations where the Ryzen 7 CPUs win for the most part are in specific DX12 benchmarks by small margins for the most part.
    It struggles in terms of FPS drops and stability though, although this may just be attributed to poor optimization on AMD's part due to the complicated architecture.
    However it gets melted by even a 6800k in near everything else.
    Rendering = Fantastic
    Gaming = Mediocre

    Sorry, but that's just massively overstating the issues with Ryzen gaming wise.

    FPS drops and stability? That's just not accurate. Minimums are generally absolutely fine. There are a couple of games that look rough, but generally, it's a solid gaming CPU.

    Here on Toms, BF1, BF4 and Middle Earth all saw Ryzen basically matching (or within a couple of %) of Intel CPUs.
    The Division again sees Ryzen matching the entire Intel lineup - though 7700K manages about 10% more on the minimums
    Deux Ex sees Ryzen beating the entire Intel lineup in minimums and average by 10% or more.
    Civ 6 and GTA V see Intel maintaining around 10-15% better on average and minimums. That would put it roughly equivalent to something like an i5 7500 - which is hardly a bad gaming CPU.

    Really the only "melting" is from Ashes, RoTR and Project Cars.

    With respect, your statement that Ryzen gets "melted" even by a 6800K is most games is simply inaccurate.

    To be clear, I'm not for a second suggesting that Ryzen is the superior gaming CPU, it's clearly not. But you're overstating the issues. Even Gamers Nexus who gave one of the more critical reviews of the 1800X, saying it's a "hard pass" for gamers, nonetheless put Ryzen's gaming performance in the ballpark of a modern Intel i5 (their review is titled, "An i5 in Gaming, i7 in production"). At $500 an 1800X is a very poor proposition for a gaming CPU. However at $220, the Ryzen 5 1600 is much more interesting.
    Reply to rhysiam
  7. The sad truth is that AMD's ryzen 7 is another tragic loss to the AMD formula. Great in potential, but ends up losing. Ryzen minimum benchmarks are within %10, but that percentile is so heavily emphasized on that it plants a seed of doubt in the uneducated mind of first-time PC builders looking for a solid chip.
    And thus, like most other AMD products, they become cheap alternative to those with low budgets.
    Reply to GamingEnthusiast420
  8. Well there was a solid 10% difference in the benchmarks I saw at launch, that qualifies as melted in my books.
    I can tell you hands on though I experienced quite a bit of stuttering in Overwatch and Doom, both of which I tested with a 1700X.
    Deus Ex is a DX12 native title in which Intel actually nets less than in DX11. It isn't at the stage where it can be considered a better API over something like Vulkan, and given AMD has put all their eggs in one basket with DX12 despite the lack of DX12 ready titles out, it points to the 7700k as the better CPU overall.
    Hopefully AMD fix these issues soon, Ryzen 5 could be potentially good, we'll see. :P
    Reply to Chugalug_
  9. Chugalug_ said:
    Well there was a solid 10% difference in the benchmarks I saw at launch, that qualifies as melted in my books.
    I can tell you hands on though I experienced quite a bit of stuttering in Overwatch and Doom, both of which I tested with a 1700X.
    Deus Ex is a DX12 native title in which Intel actually nets less than in DX11. It isn't at the stage where it can be considered a better API over something like Vulkan, and given AMD has put all their eggs in one basket with DX12 despite the lack of DX12 ready titles out, it points to the 7700k as the better CPU overall.
    Hopefully AMD fix these issues soon, Ryzen 5 could be potentially good, we'll see. :P



    Well, thats just the sad truth unfortunately. I'm surprised to hear about stuttering in Doom, especially since its running Vulkan. Ryzen 5 will hopefully be better optimized, but will probably fall short to intels top CPUs in that price range such as the 6600K and 7600K.
    Reply to GamingEnthusiast420
  10. Chugalug_ said:
    Well there was a solid 10% difference in the benchmarks I saw at launch, that qualifies as melted in my books.
    I can tell you hands on though I experienced quite a bit of stuttering in Overwatch and Doom, both of which I tested with a 1700X.
    Deus Ex is a DX12 native title in which Intel actually nets less than in DX11. It isn't at the stage where it can be considered a better API over something like Vulkan, and given AMD has put all their eggs in one basket with DX12 despite the lack of DX12 ready titles out, it points to the 7700k as the better CPU overall.
    Hopefully AMD fix these issues soon, Ryzen 5 could be potentially good, we'll see. :P

    10% difference = melted? Really? I don't think that's helpful rhetoric for a difference that would be extremely difficult to pick even in a side-by-side blind comparison.

    With respect, I can't take one person's subjective perception of stutter with any weight. No reviews that I've read have mentioned any such issues. Detailed, objective analysis of frame times here on TH and elsewhere show that while Ryzen doesn't perform quite as well, minimums are solid and there isn't massive variation on frame times that would be perceptible as stutter.

    I can see where GamingEnthusiast is coming from, that the lower than expected performance of Ryzen in gaming has been a bit of a PR disaster for AMD and could entrench the perception that they should only be considered if you can't afford proper CPU, meaning Intel. Surely the forums here exist precisely to help people make solid, educated decisions and get the right components for their particular needs. For OP's case, for a gaming only CPU, particularly if he/she has or will get a ~144hz display, then for sure the 7700K is a better pick. But let's not get carried away with the anti-Ryzen anti-AMD trash talk. I really don't want another half decade of no competition and boring CPU releases.
    Reply to rhysiam
  11. rhysiam said:
    Chugalug_ said:
    Well there was a solid 10% difference in the benchmarks I saw at launch, that qualifies as melted in my books.
    I can tell you hands on though I experienced quite a bit of stuttering in Overwatch and Doom, both of which I tested with a 1700X.
    Deus Ex is a DX12 native title in which Intel actually nets less than in DX11. It isn't at the stage where it can be considered a better API over something like Vulkan, and given AMD has put all their eggs in one basket with DX12 despite the lack of DX12 ready titles out, it points to the 7700k as the better CPU overall.
    Hopefully AMD fix these issues soon, Ryzen 5 could be potentially good, we'll see. :P

    10% difference = melted? Really? I don't think that's helpful rhetoric for a difference that would be extremely difficult to pick even in a side-by-side blind comparison.

    With respect, I can't take one person's subjective perception of stutter with any weight. No reviews that I've read have mentioned any such issues. Detailed, objective analysis of frame times here on TH and elsewhere show that while Ryzen doesn't perform quite as well, minimums are solid and there isn't massive variation on frame times that would be perceptible as stutter.

    I can see where GamingEnthusiast is coming from, that the lower than expected performance of Ryzen in gaming has been a bit of a PR disaster for AMD and could entrench the perception that they should only be considered if you can't afford proper CPU, meaning Intel. Surely the forums here exist precisely to help people make solid, educated decisions and get the right components for their particular needs. For OP's case, for a gaming only CPU, particularly if he/she has or will get a ~144hz display, then for sure the 7700K is a better pick. But let's not get carried away with the anti-Ryzen anti-AMD trash talk. I really don't want another half decade of no competition and boring CPU releases.



    I wouldn't call it boring. The FX 8350 was a gem for its time if you ask me.
    Reply to GamingEnthusiast420
  12. rhysiam said:
    Chugalug_ said:
    Well there was a solid 10% difference in the benchmarks I saw at launch, that qualifies as melted in my books.
    I can tell you hands on though I experienced quite a bit of stuttering in Overwatch and Doom, both of which I tested with a 1700X.
    Deus Ex is a DX12 native title in which Intel actually nets less than in DX11. It isn't at the stage where it can be considered a better API over something like Vulkan, and given AMD has put all their eggs in one basket with DX12 despite the lack of DX12 ready titles out, it points to the 7700k as the better CPU overall.
    Hopefully AMD fix these issues soon, Ryzen 5 could be potentially good, we'll see. :P

    10% difference = melted? Really? I don't think that's helpful rhetoric for a difference that would be extremely difficult to pick even in a side-by-side blind comparison.

    With respect, I can't take one person's subjective perception of stutter with any weight. No reviews that I've read have mentioned any such issues. Detailed, objective analysis of frame times here on TH and elsewhere show that while Ryzen doesn't perform quite as well, minimums are solid and there isn't massive variation on frame times that would be perceptible as stutter.

    I can see where GamingEnthusiast is coming from, that the lower than expected performance of Ryzen in gaming has been a bit of a PR disaster for AMD and could entrench the perception that they should only be considered if you can't afford proper CPU, meaning Intel. Surely the forums here exist precisely to help people make solid, educated decisions and get the right components for their particular needs. For OP's case, for a gaming only CPU, particularly if he/she has or will get a ~144hz display, then for sure the 7700K is a better pick. But let's not get carried away with the anti-Ryzen anti-AMD trash talk. I really don't want another half decade of no competition and boring CPU releases.


    I'm not talking smack to AMD, i'm stating my experience.
    Stutter is quite literally all visual perception given nearly all benchmarks are averages, you won't find any different elsewhere unless they include minimums which I can't find.
    Not choosing to take into account one person's information over another's is called bias, best to accept stuff on equal grounds and come to terms with it, even if you might not think the same way.
    Anyway in conclusion, get the 7770k. :P
    Reply to Chugalug_
  13. Chugalug_ said:
    I'm not talking smack to AMD, i'm stating my experience.
    Stutter is quite literally all visual perception given nearly all benchmarks are averages, you won't find any different elsewhere unless they include minimums which I can't find.
    Not choosing to take into account one person's information over another's is called bias, best to accept stuff on equal grounds and come to terms with it, even if you might not think the same way.
    Anyway in conclusion, get the 7770k. :P

    With respect, if you haven't seen any benchmarks that include minimum FPS for Ryzen, then I really have to question why you're claiming to be providing an informed opinion on Ryzen's gaming performance. Most the reviews I've seen include minimums, or 1%/0.1% lows. Both the launch review and recent "11 games tested" article here on TH goes ever further. They provide minimums for every benchmark as well as noting the discrete frame time breakdown for every game, AND plots of FPS over time too. Analysis of those metrics should expose symptoms that are perceived as stutter. However, aside from the general lower than expected FPS (which is accurate and well documented), there are no significant frame pacing issues or dips that I've seen. Nor have any been noted (either through objective data, or subjective experience) in any review that I've seen. I'll gladly look at any other data you have to contrary.

    I'm not dismissing your experience because I don't like it - that would indeed be bias - I'm dismissing it because it runs counter to the objective data released by multiple reputable and independent review sites. You say you can't find those reviews though (including at least two here on TH), which I find a little perplexing.

    But for sure, if you want a top end pure gaming CPU it is 7700K all the way.
    Reply to rhysiam
Ask a new question Answer

Read More

CPUs Gaming Intel i7 Intel AMD