Solved

i7 7700k or AMD Ryzen 7 1700 for 4k gaming?

Hello,
With CPU is better for 4k gaming? i7 7700k or AMD Ryzen 7 1700 (No overclocking)
Reply to ChristianPel
13 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about 7700k amd ryzen 1700 gaming
  1. in gaming the 7700k has got the lead.
    Reply to superninja12
  2. At 60Hz/fps they will perform the same, the limiting factor will be gpu and not cpu. 60Hz/fps 4k is no more CPU demanding than 60Hz/fps 1080p, all the extra work is on the gpu.

    For high Hz/fps gaming such as a 144Hz is when the i7 shows its muscle.
    Reply to sizzling
  3. Most benchmarks show a gaming advantage for 7700k. However those benchmarks intentionally put the botleneck on the cpu by using the most powerful GPU with a low resolution (1080p or lower). For 4k the botlenck will be in the GPU.

    If, besides gaming, you do other tasks that benefit from a higher number of threads go with 1700, otherwise go with the cheapest combo and save for GPU.
    Reply to aldaia
  4. Not this debate again... Sizzling is spot on, at 60 Hz neither will hold you back and should deliver plenty of power but at higher refresh rates like 100+ Hz the i7-7700K is the better choice for Gaming. You don't need to take my word for it look it up yourself. I'll provide a Digital Foundry gameplay test here below. In most cases they are closely matched with the 7700K leading the 1800X by a couple FPS at most but some games the 7700K just gives everything a beating, as you'll see in Witcher 3, the i7-7700K has a lead of over 10 FPS consistently. If you are buying as CPU purely for Gaming and nothing else the i7-7700K is the best pick ESPECIALLY if you are Gaming at higher refresh rates, if you do other workstation related tasks or applications that favour multi-threading you should very much look into the Ryzen 7's though as they are unchallenged in most instances there. At 60 Hz it's a rough patch, one could argue either side being the better pick but it ultimately won't matter a whole lot as both can handle 60 Hz equally, go for whatever's cheaper between them imo and use the save cash for a better GPU that'll be more relevant. The biggest argument towards the Ryzen is the higher core/thread count making it a more future-proof option but no one can guarantee that core/thread count utilisation will be adopted in Gaming that soon and for all we know it may not be relevant until both these CPUs are obsolete to begin with. Hope this helps :)

    Link: Digital Foundry CPU benchmarking Ryzen 1700/1700X/1800X vs i7-7700K > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDvk9_iTq6Y
    Link: Digital Foundry in-depth review and analysis on results > http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-review
    Reply to CRO5513Y
  5. Golden Blaster is not entirely wrong.
    However the way he said it is incorrect.

    The i7 will deliver more frames. Higher clock speeds, higher IPC and more than enough threads to play with. this won't change until games start using 10-12 threads from what we're a few years away. A year ago there was barely a game that used more than 4 threads, so the 8 of an i7 should have you covered.

    however if you're not just gaming but do some heavier multitasking (and I don't mean having Spotify or Teamspeak open in the background, but real multitasking) the load may be distributed over more cores causing in some games running smoother since you got some resources left.
    nonetheless this is a scenario that doesn't apply to the majority of people.

    Other than that I agree to these points made:
    * at 4k/60hz it doesn't matter.
    * the i7 is severely more expensive which given the above point is most likely not worth it
    * at higher refresh rates the i7 shows it's muscles
    * At multitasking Ryzen can give you more stable minimum FPS

    Highly disagree to Ryzen being more power efficient and also to Ryzen running on 30% while an i7 would max out. Even then you could be bottlenecked as all the FX8350 users know.
    Also I don't see the benefit in not getting the maximum performance out of my CPU. That's like ordering a premium steak but only eating half of it.
    Reply to Isokolon
  6. Golden Blaster said:
    Sorry but u guys need to check better real life performance benchmarks and tests. I predict next year or 1,5 the 7700k cant keep up with the full demand of its cpu used inside of games. We shall see :p Core speeds wont get higher in great numbers any time soon. Almost 75% of the games show smoother game play on ryzen, how do you deny facts? And o no not this discussion? You sound like someone who always used intel and it is ur god now. If ur matter of fps to real life experience is really that much of a different to ur above human logical brain than its just a lie you can barely notice anything.

    Also 4 threads fill up aint no problen for heavy games . 7700k is almost at its limits where ryzen has enough for a doubled performance request. 7700k hits temps on the lotteries that makes the ryzen laugh. Half a ryzen is asleep while a 7700k tries his hardest with the 10-20% fps leap o numbers but nit on real time performance . But as i said we shall see :)

    7700k under and on 1080p = God


    So you can see into the future can you? There is no facts that 8 threads aren't enough for modern games because they actually are. I'd like to know how you magically know how frequency and thread scaling will be in 1.5 years because there is no way on knowing. Of course thread counts will rise over time but i think you are overestimating the transition times. Just because Ryzen has 8C/16T does not mean games, the engines they are built on and the APIs they use will start being optimised to utilise all those cores and threads effectively anytime soon. As for real life performance benchmarks and tests, it's ironic you mention that since you are yet to provide a single source to your information.....

    And no Intel is not my god, as a matter of fact i dislike Intel as a brand for various reasons but that doesn't change the fact that the i7-7700K outperforms the Ryzen 1700 on average across many, many games. I suggest you research how core and thread scaling works, you said "7700K us almost at its limits where ryzen has enough for a doubled performance request". It does not work like that. Double cores does not equal double performance. There are many factors here and performance scaling with cores is dependant on things like the architecture, IPC, clock speeds and other variants on said CPU. If your logic was correct then explain how the FX-9590 a 4.7 GHz 8 Core CPU gets crushed by even a modern i5 or Ryzen 5 with less cores and speed? (Don't actually answer this i already know how..).

    "75% of games show smoother game play on ryzen" Nice i'll totally take your non-sourced word against Digital Foundry and other tech benchmarking sites.
    Reply to CRO5513Y
  7. Best answer
    All benchmarks I've seen so far put the 7700k ahead of every chip AMD has yet put out.
    If you got different evidence, please present it.

    A CPU should run close to max load at gaming. Unless you cap your FPS it will put out as many as it can. If you're not at high load this means you're bottlenecked.
    If it runs only at 30% load that means that either the GPU is bottlenecking (unlikely) or that the game doesn't use all the threads the CPU presents. This doesn't translate in superior performance though, quite the opposite.
    If you got an AMD FX8350 and play GTA V you'll get less FPS than with an i5 although the FX will only be at 50% load while the i5 is at 100%.
    This is because 4 of the threads of the FX are simply unused while the other 4 threads are maxed out. Due to the worse single core performance (and Intel is sadly still king when it comes to single core performance) all the threads of the FX don't matter.
    Ryzen made the gap smaller but it's still there.

    So having a 16T Ryzen sitting at 30% when gaming just means that you're only using 5 of it's 16 threads while the others go unused.
    That doesn't mean that your CPU isn't under full load. Those 5 threads are totally maxed out, the others just wasted.

    And no I'm not an Intel fanboy. I was running a Phenom II x4 955BE for 7 years and before an older AMD before that.
    When building an office pc for a family matter a few years ago I put in an Athlon.
    And if Ryzen was out a year ago I'd have gotten a Ryzen for myself. Since it wasn't I had to go with an i7. And yeah my CPU maxes out when playing BF1 while listening to music and having a 12 tabs browser open.
    But yes I get more FPS than the average Ryzen user when gaming. Not that it would matter at 60Hz.
    Reply to Isokolon
  8. Golden Blaster said:
    Sorry but u guys need to check better real life performance benchmarks and tests. I predict next year or 1,5 the 7700k cant keep up with the full demand of its cpu used inside of games. We shall see :p Core speeds wont get higher in great numbers any time soon. Almost 75% of the games show smoother game play on ryzen, how do you deny facts? And o no not this discussion? You sound like someone who always used intel and it is ur god now. If ur matter of fps to real life experience is really that much of a different to ur above human logical brain than its just a lie you can barely notice anything.

    Also 4 threads fill up aint no problen for heavy games . 7700k is almost at its limits where ryzen has enough for a doubled performance request. 7700k hits temps on the lotteries that makes the ryzen laugh. Half a ryzen is asleep while a 7700k tries his hardest with the 10-20% fps leap of numbers but not in real time performance . But as i said we shall see :)

    7700k under and on 1080p = God

    Ryzen cools with a smaller heatdink+cooler what do yiu mean not efficient?


    Care to link any evidence for your claims? Every benchmark I have seen shows the 7700k giving not only higher average fps but higher 1% and 0.1% which are what impact smooth game play.

    You sound a lot like those who used to bang on that the FX8xxx series would beat Intel once games were optimised for them and were a more future proof buy. That day never came and the FX series just got further and further behind and turned out to be a bit of a lemon.

    Buying hardware on a hunch is always a bad idea in my view. Buy what gives the best performance in todays benchmarks for a given budget. Then sit back and enjoy.
    Reply to sizzling
  9. sizzling said:
    Golden Blaster said:
    Sorry but u guys need to check better real life performance benchmarks and tests. I predict next year or 1,5 the 7700k cant keep up with the full demand of its cpu used inside of games. We shall see :p Core speeds wont get higher in great numbers any time soon. Almost 75% of the games show smoother game play on ryzen, how do you deny facts? And o no not this discussion? You sound like someone who always used intel and it is ur god now. If ur matter of fps to real life experience is really that much of a different to ur above human logical brain than its just a lie you can barely notice anything.

    Also 4 threads fill up aint no problen for heavy games . 7700k is almost at its limits where ryzen has enough for a doubled performance request. 7700k hits temps on the lotteries that makes the ryzen laugh. Half a ryzen is asleep while a 7700k tries his hardest with the 10-20% fps leap of numbers but not in real time performance . But as i said we shall see :)

    7700k under and on 1080p = God

    Ryzen cools with a smaller heatdink+cooler what do yiu mean not efficient?


    Care to link any evidence for your claims? Every benchmark I have seen shows the 7700k giving not only higher average fps but higher 1% and 0.1% which are what impact smooth game play.

    You sound a lot like those who used to bang on that the FX8xxx series would beat Intel once games were optimised for them and were a more future proof buy. That day never came and the FX series just got further and further behind and turned out to be a bit of a lemon.

    Buying hardware on a hunch is always a bad idea in my view. Buy what gives the best performance in todays benchmarks for a given budget. Then sit back and enjoy.


    Well he is right about one thing they do run on 50% not 30 idk why and nobody can tell me .... why these chips don't run at 100%
    Reply to Greg_101
  10. It will be VERY nice to see what happens (gaming results comparisons) if/when AMD can crank out 6c/12t Ryzens at 4.2 and 4.5 GHz...
    Reply to mdd1963
  11. mdd1963 said:
    It will be VERY nice to see what happens (gaming results comparisons) if/when AMD can crank out 6c/12t Ryzens at 4.2 and 4.5 GHz...


    Well I'm craving the new thread ripper for streaming but can anyone explain why it says 16 core 32 threads but when the chip is cracked open it has 32 cores and 64 threads I'm completely lost for a first and would really like to know ...
    Reply to Greg_101
  12. Greg_101
    The threadripper you speak of that was recently delidded is still 16c/32t only 2 of the 8 core "modules" are functional the other 2 on top simply help support the massive heatspreader (lid)
    Reply to Dreedmat
  13. Dreedmat said:
    Greg_101
    The threadripper you speak of that was recently delidded is still 16c/32t only 2 of the 8 core "modules" are functional the other 2 are on top simply help support the massive heatspreader (lid)

    So what they pick up when the others get to hot?
    Reply to Greg_101
Ask a new question Answer

Read More

Gaming Intel AMD CPUs 4K Best Buy