Doing my first build and I'm unsure if I should get the ryzen 5 or the i7 7700k

Doing my first build and I'm unsure if I should get the ryzen 5 or the i7 7700k

Other urls found in this thread:

tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review,4987-7.html
pcworld.com/article/3178844/components-graphics/nvidia-supercharges-geforce-directx-12-performance-with-new-game-ready-driver.html
hardocp.com/article/2017/03/22/dx12_versus_dx11_gaming_performance_video_card_review/11
pcgamesn.com/intel/intel-core-i3-7350k-review-benchmarks
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

depends on what you need senpai. Intel are best for concentrating a lot of force into 1 or 2 programs,
>vidya
>OBS
>LineIn or some such

Amd is great for multitasking.
>browser window
>VPN
>Media player
>photoshop

the question is more power or more threads.

of course, with all that in mind, a decent gpu and sound card will reduce load and make both chips more effective.

How come? I thought amd is suppose to have the upper hand once it comes to OBS.

If the 7700K is within your budget, you should buy the R7 1700 and overclock it to 4GHz. The R5 line has no benefits other than price.

well, it does, but if you are only running that, a game, and a sound application its better to get the clock speed for your games.

with either processor you should be using a watercooler.

Aha, unfortunately i dont have the money to buy 7700k. So either 1600 or i5..

You would have to be insanely stupid to get a i5 over a 1600.

Yes, the shills almost jewed me with the i5 and quick sync. Im getting the 1600.

:)

Alright user, I'm going to assume that you can afford a 1440p monitor.

We know that the R5 1600 will be behind the i7-7700K by about 10%. But when you're already above 100-130 FPS, does it matter ? Mind you, the R5 is a fresh CPU that performs excellently considering that no game till now has been developed with Ryzen-specific tuning.

Realistically the primary bottleneck is the GPU. If you're gaming at 1440p, the GTX 1080 + Ryzen 5 1600 will give you better performance than an i7-7700K system.

Better yet, get Vega if it'll be released soon. Put your money towards a freesync monitor. Your gaming experience at that price point will be unparalleled.

Anything more than 4 cores isn't really useful unless you're running specialized software. The extra cores end up being useless since they aren't really taken advantage of. That's why the 7700k is still only 4 cores, if software developers optimized for more than that Intel would make 6 and 8 core processors more.

>8 cores? What do you need 6 cores for? 4 cores should be enough for anyone!

You know even Intel is going to start offering 6 cores at non-insane prices, right?

Do you want high fps for a 120/144hz monitor? 7700k.
Do you have 60hz monitor, then you don't care and even a 70 dollar dual core pentium will be fine.

I'm not saying that 6 cores or 8 cores aren't useful, however they aren't really useful when you're using software that isn't optimized for using anything over 4 cores. Now if I was building something like a server with custom software and firmware then more cores would probably be better.

Sorry meant this
as a reply

that's assuming you're playing a cpu-intensive enough game that a ryzen cpu is the bottleneck
which is everything but likely, you don't buy a $325+ CPU to play at 720p low res unless you need absurdly high framerates (+300) for some reason

You might wanna see if allegations that Nvidia DX12 drivers are horrendously threaded before dropping much cash on a Ryzen+Nvidia build.

Intel+Nvidia isn't going anywhere, and Vega might end up doing better with an R5 or R7 than a GTX 1080.

Buying an Intel/Nvidia build right now is incredibly short-sighted and not future proof at all. Intel's already planning on a new socket in the near future, so you can forget upgrading your 4c/8t. And they might not even have 6c/12t for another year at the least. Nvidia's cards are terrible in DX12 and Vulkan and there doesn't seem to be any change to this any time soon.

E7-8893 v2, you're welcome

The only reason to get a Ryzen chip over a 7700k is because you hate Intel.

shoo shoo stinky shill

I need the "force" of my 7700k all the time. The latest Intel CPU's are basically perfected why fuck with ricing AMDs?

Says the guy that offers no real argument. 7700k beats the Ryzen chips in every test aside from number crunching benchmarks.

Seriously, it's the objective winner, but I can understand wanting a bit of variety in the CPU market.

>photoshop

The embarrassing thing is that Intel actually performs better in productivity suites.

tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review,4987-7.html

All of the benchmarks have the 7700k coming out well ahead of Ryzen chips.

>except for

Blender
LAAMP
and Encoding

But in Photoshop, Solidworks, and AutoCAD, the 7700k is better.

AMD stopped being good ages ago
Anyone shilling that garbage is a contrarian retard with buyers remorse or massive delusion

Literally this. Just go for Intel, shit just works. I've never had a single fucking problem with any of my i7 machines.

Amazing how all these shills showed up at once. Someone ring the shekel alarm?

Then what makes Intel better than Ryzen? It's dumb to pay more money for a chip that's not as good.

No shill here, but the i7 is pretty much the standard for computing now a days. Show me where a 6700K and 7700K ever gives problems?

Why does AMD still use pins on their CPU?

This What's the budget?

pins make for better contacts than LGA. You should only use LGA when density prevents you from using pins.

How's the performance on a 1700 vs a 7700k coupled with a 1050ti

>Former AMD engineer proved why they've been shit for years and verified many things we assumed
>hurr it's le shill meme
Hang yourself you contrarian virgin NEET

With a 1050ti you will never, in any case, be cpu limited with those cpus, so between the two pick the ryzen

It's not 2008 anymore, grampa

What about the the 1080ti cause i'm thinking of getting that soon.

If you're going that poorfag with your GPU you might as well just get a G4560 because you won't hit any CPU bottlenecks anyway.

See

Hey guys remember when everyone was asking about building a gaming PC and people were saying

>wait for Ryzen
>wait for Ryzen
>wait for Ryzen

And then it turns out that Ryzen isn't as good for gaming as an Intel chip

pcworld.com/article/3178844/components-graphics/nvidia-supercharges-geforce-directx-12-performance-with-new-game-ready-driver.html

what about this

I've been here for years and it's always the same with AMD shills, I was hoping they would compete but they've been getting BTFO worse and worse every generation

Marketing. DX11 is still faster in most of those games.

hardocp.com/article/2017/03/22/dx12_versus_dx11_gaming_performance_video_card_review/11

>using Stuttertel chips for gaming

Absolutely disgusting.

Of course it is, DX11 is less intensive.

They must not be stuttering too badly if they keep up a higher FPS than Ryzen chips.

R5 1500X + RX 480 = 1080p sweet spot

>lower average
>truly disgusting 0.1% frametimes
>higher FPS

What did... he mean... by this?

>corelets will never know what smooth gameplay feels like as they bounce up and down constantly

Sad!

...

I've never realized how important minimum frame rates are until recently. You won't notice a drop from 130 to 90, but you'll notice one from 70 to 45. If a game does not stay above 60 FPS at all times, you need to change something in your computer.

delet this

Get i5-7600K or i5-7350K if you only care about gaming performance. They almost as fast i7-7700 at stock and you easily catch-up with a little overclocking.

i7-7700K makes little sense since the HT on it is meant for heavy multi-threaded workloads and Ryzen 5 and 7 completely BTFO the i7-7700 at these kind of loads.

Because Ryzen introduces much needed competition and Intel might do some price cuts in response to it.

The performance difference isn't noticeable either. This isn't the Bulldozer versus Sandy Bridge era.

>Sup Forums-tards and Intel-shills are bloody idiots

Ryzen would be a better choice IMO because you know that Intel is going to abandon LGA1151 soon. AM4 is going to be around for awhile, so when all the kinks are ironed out in Ryzen you won't have to change motherboards.

What a retarded post. Literally recommending a dual core CPU in 2017. And not only a dual core, but a massively-overpriced one that gets destroyed by the lowest tier locked i5 available, which costs the same.

>With the Core i5 chip running some 1.4GHz slower than the 7350K it still manages to hit almost identical gaming frame rates while chewing through a chunk less raw power and with nearly half the peak operating temperature.

pcgamesn.com/intel/intel-core-i3-7350k-review-benchmarks

The 7350K is bait for the the most gullible retards around, just like the G3258 was, though at least the latter was priced appropriately.

Ryzen 5 without a doubt

thats beyond untrue

I7-7700K's gimmicks are HT, slight higher stock/turbo speed over the 7600K (Overclocking makes this pointless) and slightly more L3 cache (really meant for HT)

The gimmicks aren't worth the $80-100 premium over i5-7600K and 7350K unless you want the best single-threaded CPU performance and cost is no object.

7700K is becoming meme-tier mid-range CPU unless Intel does a price cut on it.

Single-threaded and dual-threaded performance is the only important criteria for gaming-fags

If you care about multi-threaded performance then you are going to be opting for i5 or Ryzen chips. I7-7700K is a sub-optimal choice at best under multi-threaded workloads.

Ryzen 5 is better than a stuttering 7700k housefire in literally every way.

>shills will never stop posting slavshit fake benchmarks

>slavshit benchmarks are bad
>let's post this IntelReport fake benchmark instead

Only 2 shekels for you, user. Sorry.

Got band new 7600K and it's running vcore @ 1.35 on auto, should I tone it down manually?

But the i7-7700k is the better CPU for gaming though.

I can play dota 2 @ 120fps on low on my 7700k igpu 4266 ram.

>RYZEN CPU

Let them dream, user. Let them dream.

hahaha
>all these corelet shills
hahaha

Get i7, ryzen is piece of shit 10fps slower on avr for same price as 7700k, and with nvidia card you will get even less fps due buggy drivers, you literally have no choice but to get i7 or i5

There is literally nothing future proof about ryzen, it has weak 8 cores while games will always need strong single perf which ryzen lacks. I7 7700k will be enough for 5 years so stfu pajeet, while you will have to upgrade that shitty ryzen twice in those 5 years since it will start bottlenecking your new GPU in 2 years.

>I7 7700k will be enough for 5 years

7700k is a stuttering piece of shit, everyone knows this

>I7 7700k will be enough for 5 years
>being a clinically retarded corelet for another 5 years
Intel shills are the most retarded people in the entire universe.

You'd be stupid to get a 7700k in this day and age. 6700k was the last moment to buy 4/8 without in this price category without being a retard. I'm on a 6600k and you can't multitask for shit with 4/4 @4.7ghz, nothing even slightly demanding can be ran alongside gaymes.
R5 1600 is the minimum if you don't want to get cucked more and more in the coming years. 5820k would be awesome too, but it's an X99 meme.

Gonna buy i5 7400, still thinking about amd though.

...

are you really retarded? buy ryzen

this guy fucking gets it

finally a functional brain on Sup Forums

n-no DELET
ryzen

You're a dumb sameposter so it's pretty funny how wrong you are about sound cards.

The low end ryzens look really good, but they ain't out.
The 7700k is overkill, even for gaming. For for a 7600k and OC it.

maybe he is some corelet who actually benefits 3 % from fast sound card

You're getting your information from 2002
Motherboards have dedicated sound processors on them.

this guy fucking gets it

finally a functional brain on Sup Forums

>weak 8 cores

Yep 25% less single core compared to an OCed i7-7700K is weak now. You heard it here first on Sup Forums - Intel shills and retarded gaymer kids

Hey, instead of starting a tantrum like a little baby you could drag out some benchmarks showing that sound cards improve FPS.
This will be hard as they don't exist past 2002.

Short answer, Intel

Long answer, some programs and mostly all games are not mature enough to make use of AMDs many cores. Intel still have stronger IPC thus having an edge over programs that use around 4 cores.

Worthy notes: who the fuck cares, if one is cheaper and performs almost the same why not? But if absolute performance is what you seek, it's often better to pay up.
6800K is MUCH cheaper than 6900K and have more threads than 7700K but is also slightly older thus lacking some instructions.
R5 lacks cores and since AMDs strength still is core count why gimp on it.

7700K and 1700x/1800/x are your most obvious choices if what you do is gaming and browsing most of the time.

What I really want to see is the low end Ryzen. Imagine a Ryzen 4 core- single thread performance of a 1800X with half the cores for $150.
That'd be a fucking no-brainer top buy right there.

wth do soundcards have to do with fps

I'm not gonna post benchmarks but you're right.
Some boards are faster, and also some boards have problems with ports and protocols.
VR headsets and such have had problems on some boards due to specific chipsets being used and some have bad support for older USB devices on USB3.1 and loads of other things.

Sadly Ryzen still use modules similar to the 8350s architecture so unlike Intel that use 4 real cores with one fake attached to each, AMD use half cores per L-cache (like the modules did) so even if you half the core count you're still having the same problem, two cores sharing a cache pipeline, so lower core Ryzens are nothing but gimped high core Ryzens.

Unlike Intels i7 -> i5 where you get the benefit of higher cache, but only lacks the HT threads.
So a 7700K with HT disabled is a 7600K with better cache performance.

A Ryzen 5 is a down scaled Ryzen 7 through and through sadly.

That's why you should go Ryzen 7 if you are to use AMD.

Soundcards are but one example of a chipset that can affect the overall motherboard stability, performance, interference etc.
But if you disable that and use the GPUs sound (through HDMI to receiver like I do) you at least take one part out that could lower performance/stability.
Just like many people disable COM ports/floppy ports they didn't need while overclocking for maximum stability.

Ryzen is complete shit compared to Intel

>photoshop

Ryzen is complete ass at photoshop

inb4 adobe are incompetent jews

Nah, that's just an image from a shill who lies

>Sadly Ryzen still use modules similar to the 8350s architecture so unlike Intel that use 4 real cores
You do realize how autistic you sound right?

Don't forget to remove this comment when you realize your mistake.

>java
You mean that bundle of pajeet code?

Your understanding of Ryzen's architecture is either outdated or you just don't understand it. The Ryzen 5 1600x and 1500x (6c12t) have access to the full 16 MB of L3 cache even though technically each physical core is a 2 MB component. The only thing that is disabled is one of the physical cores per CCX (3x3 configuruation). This isn't like Bulldozer arch at all where the FPU was shared between "cores." Not even close.

Only the lower end 1400 (4c8t) has the cache gimped with a total pool of 8 MB.

Don't forget to delete your comment when you realize how autistic it is to use the phrase "fake cores"