Ryzen 7 or the 7700k?

I can get either for the same price. I predominantly game. Which one would be my best choice?

 

Long term: 8c/16t Ryzen 1700 @ the price of i7.
Short term: i7 4c/8t.

 

Do you have a long term predictor?

 

From what I hear the R7 1700 typically does 3.9GHz at best (with rare exceptions of course), meanwhile it's not that uncommon to expect 5GHz out of a 7700K with the right motherboard and settings, so 4.8GHz is probably a safe bet.

At the same price I think it makes a lot more sense to take 8 cores at 3.8-3.9GHz versus 4 cores at 4.7-5GHz unless you're sure you have programs which aren't properly multi-threaded that need as much clock speed and IPC as they can get. Even then it'd be a bitter choice to make. When DX 12 finally becomes commonly used and things are properly coded it should be a nice boost for Ryzen.

The only things I can think of that truly makes use of such high per core performance due to usually dumping most their load on 1 to 2 threads are emulators, which I often use, so I'm left with a tough choice to make unless the next round of AMD chips up their maximum potential clocks a chunk. Honestly I think I'd just keep waiting until AMD offer the single threaded performance I need, now that I know AMD will eventually offer what I need, I don't want to give Intel another cent.

Anyway, back to what you need, unless you want to run things at very high frame rates at the end of the day so long as you OC your chip it's not going to make much of a difference in games based on what I've seen so far. But as the others have said, for now the 7700K wins in games, in the future who knows, but if things go right DX 12 should power up Ryzen somewhat.

 

What resolution do you game at?
Do you intend to overclock?
What style of games do you play the most?
Will you be using the GTX 770 in your sig or a different GPU?

I don't think either one is a "wrong" choice, but depending on how you answer the above questions would influence my recommendation.

 

Yes,6/8 cores will be mainstream,not only enthusiasts.
Because Amd have consoles market they will push 6/8 cores in future gaming development.
Intel will need to lower prices of the future 6/8 cores,not for actual obsolete tech.

Windows 10/7 need an update for Ryzen.

Lets remember Mantle do Vulkan & DX12.Little steps do a great future.

 

You say that but we've had quad core cpus for 10 years now and hey ho, they're still king in gaming. Nobody knows what future brings. I for one buy for now, not for future. Maybe that's just me.

It's the same with gpus, people recommend the 480 over the 1060 and they have done so for almost a year now but the fact is the 1060 still beats the 480 in quite a lot of games. The 480 hasn't taken over at all.

 

When Intel wiil launch the new cpus,who knows when maybe this year,they will forget about 2c/4t ,because the pressure is too much on 4c or 8c level.
Tick-toc is gone,maybe Intel will give us a new architecture next year.

You'll be happy to have an 8 cores CPU,but you will wait to give you Intel another 5-10% on 4c/8t?

Quad-core was good,but we need to improve and evoluate to the next level.Game devs will do that.

RX 480 is good for the money can buy.

 

Quad core was good? Quad core still is good. It beats 8 cores.

 

Ryzen is the future. Get the 1700

 

Dude, the future is today.

 

I will better not comment on this thread because obviously it's heavily biased (by other posters, not OP).

 

Swapped my 3930K @ 4.4 for R7 1700 @ 4.0. No regrets.

 

Personally, I would wait. I want to buy a Ryzen chip myself but the sleep bug for example is just one thing that throws me off. I want to give AMD/Microsoft/Vendors another half year or so to flesh out firmware/software issues. Part of me feels AMD could have stress-tested their new microarchitecture better during the R&D phase but it's easier said than done; however to my credit - they did rush things looking back. Jim Keller didn't seem to stay with the company that long and in my opinion if his work had been 100% finalized there would have been more push for better Quality Control on this new platform. I feel as if Skylake, Broadwell-E, Kabylake - all had roles to play. In short - Intel's fast and aggressive business model might have pushed AMD to act prematurely. Whatever the reason for the bugs - AMD was at a RC stage, but I would advise OP to wait. Check the Vendor's support page for the motherboard you're eyeballing time to time for UEFI updates/revisions. Read the notations on them. See if any of them address current Ryzen issues as time goes buy. (some already have - ie memory / stability issues) ASUS PRIME B350-PLUS for example. Just saying, better to be on the side of caution in the event that AMD doesn't patch these current bugs via motherboard firmware patches or OS-side updates and rather it becomes a Phenom Gen 1 / Gen 2 issue & people have to wait until revision 2 to appear on the market. Which wouldn't be cool at all..

 

So guys should i still wait a little bit more for ryzen to mature?

 

That would be a good idea.
Or maybe wait for next iteration of ryzen next year.

 

Once mobo's mature and the bugs get worked out I'll be looking at the ryzen way as it's 60 bucks cheaper than the Intel 17 7700K

 

Hmm, gaming is OK on my ZEN k17
3.85GHz and 4.02Ghz
Games Tested (no FPS Bench, just eye+ Reshade show FPS):

BF1 70FPS/BF4 74FPS Great experience (~74FPS constant, not observed dips in BF1 DX11 + reshade)
Heroes VII = smooth as butter
Homefront 2 = smooth as butter 61FPS cap
DeusEx MkD (build in bench) = 40/50/61 (i have here 61FPS cap)
Rainbow6 Siedge = smooth as butter 61FPS cap

8/16 RLZ :banana:

 

They said that about bulldozer too. Ryzen may indeed be 'the future', but chances are when the future arrives, people will feel the upgrade itch yet again.. and a ryzen v2 shows up. And that will be the new future.. until the next chip comes along .

 

Currently, the 7700k is the better bet for gaming only.

BUT

That could change. Zen has quite a few early issues, buggy bios etc - so who knows in a couple of months.

If I was in the same position, and could wait, I'd wait to be sure