AMD Ryzen 1700 vs. Intel Kaby Lakei7 7700k

AMD Ryzen 1700 vs. Intel Kaby Lakei7 7700k

I want to know pros and cons between the two, please no fanboy shitposting here, lets keep it civil and informative.

Other urls found in this thread:

rbt.asia/g/search/image/qSlEEtrozNhDYKGI_aL9TA/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>lets keep it civil and informative

Get ready.

ITS OVER AMD IS FINISHED

1700 much better at multithreaded performance
7700K slightly better at single threaded performance
1700 $50 cheaper, doesn't require OC capable motherboard to overclock
7700K has toothpaste under the lid which can lead to temp issues when OCing

That's about it

for the love of god just get amd for once, jesus fucking christ

7700K is better if you need 4 or less cores, 1700 if you need 8 cores. 1600 is better than both in value for most cases.

1700 = Sup Forums
7700k =

But doesn't almost everything benefit from higher single clocks? What applications benefit from multi thread?

Ryzen runs gentoo better.

Do you only run old application?

Yeah. There isn't much to debate, it's a choice whether you need more single-thread performance (Intel), more cores (AMD) or upgradeability (AMD).
Depends. Generally anything work-related benefits more from cores, while games and some programs might need better clocks (though newer games can use more cores too).

AMD is the poorfag brand that people will laugh at you for owning. Intel is the recognised market leader.

You decide.

>What applications benefit from multi thread?
3D rendering, music/video encoding, compiling are the usual. But aside from that, you can just do more stuff on your PC at the same time. And have more going on in the background.

Go away, Brian.

...and about the 'toothpaste', I've delidded more chips than I can remember, that shouldn't be a problem for me.

How are Ryzen thermals? Does it throttle often under load?

AMDead poojeet filth detected.

Ryzen is soldered, there aren't any issues with thermals.

Reminder to report shitposters.

>What applications benefit from multi thread?
even single-threaded applications benefit from other cores handling background tasks.

>throttle
It will throttle up or down depending on your cooling solution. For example if you have a good water or air cooling solution, the cpu will scale its performance up.

1700 is better

This. Even if you game mostly, if you keep a lot background tasks open- music (some players are pretty bloated), browser, chat applications, your game will thank you for dedicated threads available for those to be scheduled on rather than encroach on ones it would like to use.
Ryzen is impressively power efficient if you don't get too greedy with clock speed, just look at the TDP of the 1700. The other R7s are also great when you look at how much headroom they have for overclocking before they even match Has/Broadwell-E for stock power draw.
Power use is very much tied with thermals and reviews have found exact numbers to be very good. It should be no worse than Kabylake.

...

even for games ryzen 1700 is better for high resolution and new games. check benchmarks of 1440p games, or any resolution of doom and bf1.

7700k has better single thread performance(~25%) because of high clock speed (4GHz vs 5GHz).
1700 has MUCH better multithreaded performance (50+%) because of double the core count (4 vs 8). Unfortunately the adoption of more threads is still not there yet (you can thank Intel for that).
As such, the Ryzen is better for streaming while gayming, productive work.
The 7700k doesnt come with a stock cooler, suffers from high temps unless you delid. The 1700 comes with a decent stock cooler than will easily bring you to 3.8GHz, fairly quiet as well.
They bith consume around the same power when full load (the i7 takes a bit more when OCed)
The intel part is better for gaymin at high refresh rates (more FPS) and any applicaton that doesnt utilize more than 4 cores (most games, some adobe).
For anything else and futureproofing, get the ryzen 1700.

Deliding removes your warranty user, no sane person would delid their CPUs until warranty expires and they want to lenghten the CPUs lifespan by overclocking it after 2-3 years.

This is the one thing that makes me nervous, is AMD open about the quality of TIM they use? If it's anything like Intel, it'll be giving problems in a year or two, which is where delidding comes handy, Ryzen 7 hasn't been around long enough for people to start having TIM wear-out issues, what does AMD expect me to do when the paste eventually wears out and my thermals are shit, and how would they 'unsolder' the chip?

i7 has 80% more single core performance

It's soldered, there is no thermal paste.

What

Go away IMG_xxxx

Fuck off IMG_xxxx

Wow nice cherry picked benchmark.
If the i7 was really 80% ahead in single thread then it wouldnt be getting destroyed so badly in multithreaded by even the 6 core ryzens.

He's been spamming this shit with misleading bullshit for months rbt.asia/g/search/image/qSlEEtrozNhDYKGI_aL9TA/

wow thats truely despicable.

Just repaste with black silicon and they'll be none the wiser. I got a chip that had some strange power use issues, (issues existed before i delidded, i did it because my 'PC expert' friend convinced me it was the paste) got it replaced no problems.

Replace i5 for the Pentium

The Ryzen 1700 comes with a pretty good cooler, while the 7700k does not come with any cooler. Something to figure when consider the price/performance value of both chips.

yeah Pentium seems to hold up

>Trying to outjew the jews

While we're at that, remember about delidding. Intel already told their goyim that they shouldn't overclock (at least not before soldering), while 1700 has plenty headroom for it.

are you dumb?
there's no TIM

1700 has theoretically more computational resources per core than Kaby Lake; the IPC is about the same as Kaby Lake/Skylake-X, if not slightly more. It also has more L3/L2 cache, and straight up more cores (much faster >10 thread programs). The uop stage is also superior on Zen despite being the same width. SenseMI also has some small advantages, but not as tangible (XFR, voltage gating, perceptron based BP), and can contribute to small performance bumps in certain cases. It consumes less power at stock but can be OC'd to meet the same performance of 1800X.

The 7700k has faster data/memory latencies, Zen uses L3 as a victim cache. IF also constrains communication outside of the CCX and thus has double the minimum latency of Kaby Lake in those situations (some including games with many shared resources paged in L3). 7700K is also capable of higher clock rates (related to process). Zen hits a voltage wall at 1.45V near 4-4.1GHz. 7700k also has an IGP which can be used for QuickSync, decode, or as a host GPU for passthrough.

Platform-wise, AM4 will last longer (newer, also has 4yr lifetime), Ryzen is capable of 20 PCIe lanes excluding PCH vs Kaby Lake's 16. B350 & X370 are both capable of OCing, XMP, and CrossFire, only Z270 is. 1151 has Thunderbolt (3).

You only need a 7700k if you're going for max frames on a 144hz display but even then it's debatable if you'll actually notice the difference between 120 and 135fps. The Ryzen is just a better all around CPU and excels at a larger variety of tasks than the 7700k. If all you care about is gayming then feel free to get the 7700k but don't skimp on the cooler.

Oh, and the 7700K does come with a cooler. It does have full AVX2 acceleration which is both a blessing for performance and a curse for power consumption and heat. Of course, clocking higher leads to higher single threaded performance; Zen is prefetcher limited in many cases although it has been greatly improved since Bulldozer.

Anything embarassingly parallel has the best advantages for multithread (rendering blocks, particle simulation, FFT), though a lot of these could be offloaded to GPUs. Multiprocess also does incredibly well, which is good for multitasking, server applications e.g. Apache, compilation. Threaded programs which utilize many mutexes also benefit strongly from Ryzen if they can saturate all the cores.

1700 and 1700X both offer incredible value.

>Oh, and the 7700K does come with a cooler
Say what?

lmao

Sorry, I meant the 1700 comes with a cooler.

It's basically a gamble wether or not you believe games will use moar coars in the future.
A safer bet is buying a dirt cheap 1600 for now and buy Zen2 for same motherboard if it's actually a thing.

With the 7800X at $389, how do you justify paying as much for a 7700k?
You can't even overclock it, because Intel says so.
Wait, you can't oc a 7800X ether.
In fact, I'd really like to see aircooling tests on this shit.

For gaming - 7700k
For anything else - 1700

awful advice
>if you do X that does well even on a $50 CPU, spend $350~ on this CPU + cooler
>other, spend $300 on this other CPU

The 7800x needs an expensive as fuck motherboard

7700k is objectively better for gaming. Any amount of shilling won't change that. If the pc is built primary for gaming, 7700k is a better choice.
If, however, the pc is built for work, productivity, etc. ryzen is better, since it is a jack of all trades.

>I'd really like to see aircooling tests on this shit

Ryzen 5 1600 on B350 mb is dirt cheap.
You don't even need a cooler to oc, because it's in the box.
If you're not doing 144Hz fag gayming, it's totally unnecessary to buy a 7700k.

No amount of saying "objectively" will make your opinion become fact. The truth is that unless you have a bare minimum of a 120Hz monitor, which of the two you buy is irrelevant. The only place where the 7700K wins out is pushing incredibly high average framerates, whilst losing out on minimums in the process.

>If you're not doing 144Hz fag gayming
>fag
I really enjoy how defensive and rationalization driven Sup Forums is

I game at 60Hz, because I fucking play at 4K.
In fact, I could fucking run a core 2 duo and it wouldn't make a difference.

7700k for short term and 1700 for long term, even then the 1700 is still really good now

>I bought a 144Hz monitor and am uncertain that I made the right decision

1700: cooler, uses less power, better performance for tasks using >4 threads, no igpu, maor corez
7700k: better performance for

1080p 144hz was a mistake.

he said nothing wrong nigger

1 second of lower frames per 5 minutes or 300 seconds of 20%+ fps?
And this is in typical games. In many of older games (arma, wow, any other mmo, and multiplayer shit, csgo, dota, hots, sc, etc. etc.) the difference might be up to 100%. In vast majority of those 7700k shows way higher minimums as well as averages.
People don't play only doom and gta.

You don't need to defend your purchase here, dude. Don't be like high school girls, chill.

>ryzen
Cheaper, modern, less heat and better at everything but single thread performance.

>intel
Outdated overpriced cpu which is better only at single thread performance.

If you buy anything but ryzen, consider yourself as intel fanboy at this point.

...

>If you buy anything but ryzen, consider yourself as intel fanboy at this point.
Except for 7900x. Both higher multithread than ryzen, and higher singlethread than 7700k. And don't even start about value. HEDTs are for people who can afford expensive things.

Like googling that wouldn't have been hard. You wanted to shit post, gz...

Well I'm not going back.
I was the first one to say 4K was shit and needed too much graphics power.
But I bought a monitor on sale, and the image quality is just way more of a plus to me than more hertz.
Last time I was doing high hertz anyway was Quake 3 on CRT monitors, and thre's just not been anything like it since.

Is your name Fagpiss the Fanboy?

so does overclocking...

>no 6 core 12 threads

this image is fucking garbage

I just said that Sup Forums is defensive and rationalization driven and to prove me wrong anons went full rationalization mode.
I like this place.

...

I know, I lost the 6 core version can someone post it

Way to just regurgitate what every website and thread has ever said...

now 8c/8t is missing

for fucks sake man

Threadripper is likely to change the game up again.

>i9 rebranded i7 for 1000$
I am afraid this is out of price range for OP and once thread ripper will come, it will be obsolete too.

Lulldozer is not worth putting on that list.

1080p now just feels like 320x200 on quake back when I got my Voodoo2.
I don't fucking care that it runs smoother.

I guess if can't fucking wait for threadripper and need a nuclear 400w bomb for $999

was looking for discussion among current users, most discussion forums are months old and Ryzen has apparently seen improvements. If you have nothing useful to add then don't shitpost.

How are 10 cores with single thread way beyond anything ryzen can do will be obsolete? Threadripper will add cores but lose in single thread. Thus 7900x is the best buy balance wise in the hedt market

...

>How are 10 cores with single thread way beyond anything ryzen can do

*once overclocked
*throttles at stock on 280mm CLC

Good luck with that. Hope you have a beefy custom water loop to go with your $1000 CPU and $300 motherboard.

I'll just sit and wait for Intel processors to be cheaper and more powerful than Ryzen Processors. Maybe I'll finally get a successor Xeon 1650 chip for up to half the cost and more powerful than even the Ryzen threadripper.

You better grow eyes the back of your head, Intel's gonna make a comeback.

>He thinks anyone buying HEDT gives a flying fuck about single core

Threadripper XFR to 4.1 GHz isn't far off from i9's boost to 4.5 GHz anyway.

We will see what will amd marketing office comes with when final product is released.

And honestly 1K$ cpu is targeted at rich fanboys or servers anyway. The choice of what to buy will really depends on lot of factors we dont know yet.

And we both know that if you are fanboy, you will buy it anyway.

That sounds like something fanboy would say. If you need cpu NOW, you buy ryzen. If you dont need it, why do you even bother watching specs?

>Intel's gonna make a comeback.
In 4 years. When their new arch comes out. Maybe.

The real puzzling thing to me is, why the fuck doesn't ryzen provide 32 pci-e lanes?
On paper, there's no reason they should not.

Ryzen isn't HEDT though, it's consumer-grade. Also it precludes memory bottlenecked benchmarks as the X299 parts are quad channel; Ryzen is dual channel. As expected, clocking higher and having higher memory bandwidth results in higher single thread results, it should not be surprising. There will be people who buy the i7 7900X, but I feel that it's not a justified purchase when the i7 7820X comes rather close behind it for $200 more than the 1800X. The i7 7800X is interesting as well.

I don't think X299 is as bad as we purport, but it certainly isn't a big step up. Threadripper with Quad Channel memory and 3GHz+ DDR4, 60 PCIe lanes, and clocking in around 3.5GHz will be extremely competitive above the i7 7820X in both single core and multithread.

EPYC should honestly be pretty much a no-brainer for non-AVX applications. Pricing on the Platinum Xeons (E7/high end E5 equivalent) are going to be $12000 or possibly higher (assuming this 34C/68T part exists) while performing on par with the 7601.

Soon I'll start saving $1200 and say it takes a year or two, by then intel will make a 180 and leapfrog AMD, and that's where my money will go.

>7700k shows better minimums

hahahaha

oh wait... you're serious? her let me laugh harder

HAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHA

hoo boy

7700k. AMD is objectively garbage.

Put your trip back on, dead.

Sounds like a plan. A bit strange hobby, but if it makes you happy, go for it!

Literal fanfiction. Enjoy justifying that $350 quad core you purchased in fucking 2017, user. You definetly didn't make a bad call and surely won't regret it terribly inside a year. :^)