1700X or 7700K

I am torn between these two processors.

I want play games, use MS office, do photoshop+illustrator, blender and browse Sup Forums.

1700X or 7700K?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=39nk02EROPI
hwbot.org/newsflash/4335_ryzen_platform_affected_by_rtc_bias_w88.110_not_allowed_on_select_benchmarks
twitter.com/AnonBabble

7700k.
Mainly because Ryzen mobos are completely unavailable right now.

1700x

1700x

>blender
1700x

Nothing that you mentioned, aside from blender, can push either of those chips. Your decision should be based on that. Aka you should go with the 1700X

>MS office
1700x
>blender
1700x
>games
literally same thing as 7700K, people argue about 0.5ms rendering times
>photoshop+illustrator
this one is tricky, after effects gets a huge boost while normal work is on par with haswell

what about i7 7700k vs r7 1700
still the ryzen?

excel can, ryzen is accountant dream

> games
> photoshop
you need a 4c/8t

AMD are idiots with not shilling first thing the 4c/8t chips
Intel knows how to shill to the masses for free memes

1700 is cheaper and you can OC it to 3.9 making it 1700x, its even better value if you OC
more sane option

7700k faster overclocks, depends on your GPU too. If you have a good GPU like a 1070 or 1080 then the CPU doesn't really matter.

True, I misspoke. I was assuming that OP wouldn't be doing accounting/finance work since he wants to use blender and play games

1.) Noboday mentioned after effects

2.) Its not a huge boost. 99% of the ",huge boosts" are literally gains of 10% and often less

Decide for yourself

>CPU doesn't really matter.
between the two? next 2 years it doesn't.
also ryzen upgrade cost is smaller
am4 until 2020.

the i7 7700k is an insane value if you also want a space heater

>next 2 years
that stupid meme has to go. CPUs will become even MORE irrelevant with the newest GPU APIs. They do not make CPUs more important, they make them LESS important.

Sure, they do claim to multithread better on the CPU stage but that's a minor optimization most developers did not need, the most important advantage of Vulkan et al is batch commands and that's purely offloading to GPUs/VRAM.

hey, just like in games!

1700x

I guess we can tell those server owners to throw away their xeons and use Quadros instead

Read the OP again. You are offtopic. Change the subject more.

>talking about game APIs
calm down

He also mentioned blender rendering
>inb4 ray-tracing on the GPU

Just gonna leave this here

>delidlake

Just gonna leave this here.

7700k is a much better all around value today.

I've got a similar use case as you.

Photoshop/Lightroom, some random games, DaVinci Resolve and Google/Libre docs and shitposting.

The few gains are outweighed by medicore to poor all around performance.

But then again some think CPUs age like good cheese which I think is bullshit. Long story short go look at benches and ask yourself where most of your time will be spent. I'm more often in Lightroom and PS so I wanted that perf. And considering GPU acceleration my increasing focus on editing and rendering video will still be as fast and as able as anything else on the market.

no point in getting the 7700K unless you have autism

Sorry Poojets, you tried at least

...

...

...

>7700K
>autism

What are the benefits if I am on the spectrum?

>3.5mbits/s
>presumably fast preset
useless benchmark

It's a game aka real life scenario unlike cinebench

youtube.com/watch?v=39nk02EROPI

Blender pushes it into the 1700x's favor if he's working alot on it. Rendering times are going to be cut dramatically if he goes for the 8c/16t.

>Main use is games
7700K
>Main use is Blender
1700X

There

It's a streaming test, m8. The fact that the parameters aren't really defined to a reasonable degree makes this a useless test.

After reading all posts here, and some articles it seems the 7700k is better for gayming and the ryzen is better for everything else.
but shouldn't be both more or less a good choice for the next 3 or 5 years?

Either works. I guess if you can get Ryzen, support the underdog for competition's sake...

all gaming arguing boils down to half millisecond in average, it's that high fps we are talking about

you wouldn't know the difference either way

Supposedly gaming performance improves if you disable SMT and all but two cores on the 1700X. Which might point to bugs in Windows' scheduler when it comes to dealing with Ryzen's architecture.

...

Isn't 3.5Mbps the maximum Twitch allows, as such the test is absolutely and perfectly reasonable, as it evaluates the highest quality setting for the by far largest streaming site?

...

Reminder that 90% of benchmarks are invalid due to discovered RTC bug.


hwbot.org/newsflash/4335_ryzen_platform_affected_by_rtc_bias_w88.110_not_allowed_on_select_benchmarks

Kill yourself.

lol, ryzen keeps looking better and better

good thing I bought my r7 1700

...

Why are you posting this? It's already been proven that Joke downclocked his 7700k to 4.0GHz in order to get those numbers

bitrate isn't the only thing you can adjust when encoding to x264, you know

there are quality presets, which are independent from the bitrate

the higher-quality the preset is - the more CPU will get hammered, with the trade-off being higher quality video at the same bitrate

You know that test was debunked right?

Funny no one gave pause for thought when that is literally the only bench being posted around that shows such results

>It's already been proven
it wasn't, nobody else claimed what aussie fag in tanktop did
that aussie butthurt was confirmed though

...

So you hypothesize that Ryzen would allow you to use a slower and higher quality preset? Any results to back that up or is it pure theory?

Have you taken into account the fact that 99th percentile FPS on Ryzen is below 60 even with the fast profile? That's already bad since you can no longer provide a perfectly smooth 60FPS stream, do you actually want to reduce it further by increasing rendering load even more?

>rendering
Brain fart, I mean encoding

seeI don't know, it's like everyone was asked not to test streaming with it any decent game.

>number of 500hz monitors: 0
>number of 400hz monitors: 0
>number of idiots who think this matter then: atleast 1

I've heard Ryzen systems maintain a higher minimum FPS compared to intel because background processes don't interrupt as much. However, I've heard this on Reddit posts and not anywhere reputable.

That said, if it's true that would be a definite consideration. I don't care about 100fps vs 120fps as much as I'd care about dipping to 50 fps vs 60 fps

Everyone is testing DotA 2 because AMD put on a ridiculous demo at one of their events where the Intel system was dropping frames to the point where it was a stuttery mess while the Ryzen system was smooth. No idea what settings they were running, but the actual DotA 2 streaming benchmarks don't quite seem to match.

Post a timestamp or some shit for that video, I'm not going to watch 26 minutes of some random dude playing BF1 to hear what he has to say. I skipped through and couldn't see any sort of benchmark result charts or a comparison to a 7700K in the same scenario.

>Games
Babby Lake
>MS Office
Your toaster
>Photoshop/Illustrator
Ryzen, but either will be fine.
>Blender
Ryzen for renderring shit.
>Browse Sup Forums
Your toaster

Also a 1700X/1800X is just a factory overclocked 1700. Dont bother with the X's.

Ultimately it depends on how much time you spend doing the things you mentioned.

>Everyone
you post only one graph everyday though- nobody tested streaming
you know why? because everyone knows it doesn't affect 8 core at all

An R7 1700 OC'd ya fool

no stutter
7700K has very rare every 2-5 minutes stutter

Absolute pwer and performance absolutely matters. Your blinded by your faggot games and can't see those FPS results are demonstrating the absolute power of the CPU.

But sure good enough right? That's been AMD's mantra for years.

Theyre the same in games.

Its a max of 10 fps slower on the 1700 while still being above 100 fps. So if you have a 60hz monitor it doesnt matter get the cheaper one. If you have 144hz, thats a GPU bottleneck, and neither CPU is a bottleneck anymore for the GPU so again it doesnt matter.

I have never posted this graph before and in fact it's not even me who posted it ITT.

I said "Everyone" because in the post I replied to you said
>it's like everyone was asked not to test streaming with it any decent game
>everyone

>I've heard Ryzen systems maintain a higher minimum FPS compared to intel because background processes don't interrupt as much.

Well MS has Game Mode coming down the pipe. So it might actually be an interesting feature.

I guess its time to start including FPS on loading screens. I guess we reall do need to see that 4200 FPS.

mfw I'm getting a 6900K for $545 from an Intel insider.

Otherwise I would go with the 1800x

nobody tested streaming, people just tested x264 encode, and it fantastic for that
for x265 not so good

>So if you have a 60hz monitor it doesnt matter get the cheaper one
That is my problem.
The r7 1700 is the same price as the i7 7700k here.
And almost everyone who tries to be objective says they are almost the same.[spoiler] I cannot decide fuck my life[/spoiler]

95w vs140w
300USD board vs 200 USD board
500 vs 545

whatever floats your boat though

find motherboard you like for both
and go with cheaper board+cpu that fit it

literally retarded

I'm afraid of being an early adopter. The mobos may be faulty as fuck. No?

Also i can OC the 6900k with NH-D15 to perhaps 4.1GHz. So it will perform better than the 1800x.

BTW this build will be for Adobe After Effects and Premiere Pro work. Not gay-m.

mobos seem to be fine for normal use
6900 doesn't benefit as much from OC over 1800x unless you go way overboard to 4.4
count in power cost over the years, ryzen idle is x3 lower than 6900k and load ~20% lower
after OC it skyrockets as far as I know for 6900k

think about operating costs , you do it for yourself my guess, not for company where bill can be written off

>nobody tested streaming
What? But there's a benchmark posted right above. In any case, offline video encoding or even live transcoding of an existing file and with a sizable buffer are quite different from game livestreaming, especially when you have to capture the game at the same time. Latency and how well the capture process itself performs are much more important in that scenario, you can't simply look at some offline x264 benchmark and conclude that Ryzen should have excellent game livestreaming performance because it has excellent offline x264 encode performance.

For instance if the image capture part of the chain performs poorly for whatever reason all the x264 prowess in the world may not help.

PS CC obviously has shitty parallelism.

To be honest, it's really painful to say no to such an amazing deal: $545 for 6900K. Well, there is an additional $50 shipping cost too.

What do? :(

your deal user, but dollars are saved by the cents

Sounds like you need a 1700 then, if you arent planning to upgrade so soon, then the longevity of the AM4 platform will reduce upgrade cost unless you really hold until AM5. Also moar corez will only get better as time goes on, just not sure how much better and how soon.

Only if there were some 1800x benchmarks for After Effects...

It's all about gaming these days. I only found 1 single website reviewing 1800x with AE.

Maybe I should wait a bit for people to test this new AMD tech and make sure I don't fuck up?

I make a living with my PC. After Effects / Premiere Pro are my sources of income. So... you understand how I don't want to fuck this up. 6900K / x99 is a tested tech...

should go full autism and just get entry level Naples t b h fa am.

>1700X
Why the X? Why not the 1700?

This

I really hope LinusTechTips does a review of streaming with the 7700k vs. Ryzen. That stupid AMD demo got me tripped up and now I don't know what to believe.

I guess I could just do 720p60 and for sure get good streams regardless of processor. 1080p60 with good quality would be awesome but I don't know if the 7700 can do it.

nice advice but even then we speak about a 10 euro difference.

i'm coming from an i7 860 from 2009, and i'm trying to get a cpu that lasts me about 4 years without major fps drops while gayming.
The other shit i'm doing is CAD but that works even on my old system.
>Also moar corez will only get better as time goes on, just not sure how much better and how soon.

Is it even a safe thing to say that it gets better with better optimization or is it a maybe scenario?

I think i'm doing a coin toss.

>1080p60 with good quality would be awesome but I don't know if the 7700 can do it.
it can't, it was tested
it has no headroom at all

Filthy dumb poonigger scum.

Not to be a dick but do you have a link to a source that isn't AMD?

>but even then we speak about a 10 euro difference.
flip a coin then

7700K

I backed out of a 1800X pre-order. AMD has done a great job with these chips, but it's the next generation that will be the one I buy.

It seems like people believe that only 'X' are overclockable.

Non X ryzen processors can OC. Lots of them getting ~4.0 gHz

people tried it, I have no benchmarks

I know.

The AMD demo is bullshit, I've done Steam IHS with software encoding on a 4790K and plenty of games ran at 1080p60 30Mbps. It's not quite the same since the latency requirements are very strict and more CPU-heavy games definitely drop under 60 sometimes, but even with the low latency required for an interactive stream it was nothing like AMD's stutterfest of a demo. If FPS dropped it was simply less smooth, I never had shitloads of dropped frames like their "demo" did.

That being said I have switched IHS over to GPU encoding anyway, it does benefit from the hardware acceleration.