(Hypothetically) sell me on either 7700k or Ryzen.

File: XBiB70m.jpg (528KB, 400x1499px) Image search: [Google]

528KB, 400x1499px

>>59611190
(literally) read reviews and kys you kissless virgin faggot.

Just wait for the 1600X. It'll have 6 cores and the best single-threaded performance AMD will offer this year.

>>59611190
extremely easy choice

are you a gaymen fag? get an i3 7350k and gtfo >>>/v/
will you use you pc for something that will use more than 8 threads? get the ryzen

>>59611225

I have done hours of research boyo, but neither one looks to be objectively better.

So far it seems that 7700k is king in ST, as its IPC is slightly better than that of Ryzen, and it clocks much higher, but it obviously gets stomped by Ryzen in anything thats decently threaded.

Some questions that i have

How much, if anything, will scheduler updates and architectural optimizations improve Ryzen's ST performance? Adding to this, will that 1ghz still matter that much if these points get improved on?

When will Intel release its mainstream 6 core i7? If this happened next year this would make 7700k a corelet and "obsolete" as a high end chip.

Will the 1ghz difference play a bigger role in the future as games get more taxing, or would they start to offload more of the workload on more threads instead of dumping it all on 4 threads max?

All of this remains unanswered, granted a lot of prediction and guessing needs to be made, but they are still important factors to consider

>kys

Y-you too.

>>59611190
just buy the 7700k holy shit

>>59611225
projecting much

>>59611190
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700/3647vs3915

>>59611438

That doesnt translate to performance in gaymes though

>>59611639
Assuming no GPU bottleneck you are looking at a difference of 15-20 FPS, but both will be well above 100 FPS anyway.

>>59611673
who gives a shit, the closer minumum frames are to 144 the better
>hurr 144hz
>durr hurr
>durr

>>59611695
Intelfag like to stare at sky, ground and wall

>>59611695
Anything above 120 FPS is basically the same shit, mr. E-Sports pro gaymurr.

>>59611717
I dont give a shit what its named, as long as it performs the best for what i paid for it

It could be called j!zzMasters cumguzzler xtreme for all i care.

>>59611719
>what is tearing
>what is input lag

I actually use a 1st gen 120hz right now though.

Also, it just looks and feels better the higher hertz you have.

File: 1490657075055.png (514KB, 500x498px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 500x498px

>>59611673

In some games im seeing much bigger differences. Tbh with all the jewing thats going on from both sides i find it hard what to trust and what not to trust in these benchmarks, but so far the 7700k seems to consistently outperform Ryzen in every benchmark, where as Ryzen seems to either slightly fall behind or get completely stomped depending on the benchmark. Im willing to accept the former but the latter will be a dealbreaker.

Like i said here >>59611375
i hope its just an issue with software not being optimized, but im not sure if its a good idea to buy based on ifs and maybes.

>>59611746
That is an RTS which is always going to perform better under a CPU with better single threaded performance.

>Enjoy buying a new motherboard every time you want to upgrade your Jewtel CPU. Meanwhile we will just drop a new processor in and go.

>>59611375
If you want to DUDE 100% GAYM ONLY
without multi-tasking with your 26' Widescreen 1440x2160 monitor then get the i7 7700k.
However if you want to game at slightly lower frame rates with 10fps less(as I've seen) in 90% of the time,
while jacking off with your weeaboo Dragon dildo/fleshlight to your favorite animoos in your desk while working on SonyVegasPro then get Ryzen.


In all seriousness, I've seen some game benchmarks with 3200 RAM reach i7 7700k performance.
They might be fake (this is /g/) but nevertheless Ryzen is more diverse and holds the best value.
Even if falldozer was shit, from which I got an i5 at the time of it.

>>59611190
>gaymen?
i7 7700k
>pretending to actually use all 8 cores
R7 1700

File: 1489507441726.png (96KB, 630x758px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 630x758px

>>59611746
Stop posting this deceiving shit. One shitty single threaded game is not a good example.

>>59611772

Isnt that the point of these benchmarks though? If Ryzen is almost more than two times slower in SC in real world applications then that means its not a good gaming CPU (yes its not made for gaming but many people both game and create content, so its still important). I can understand lagging behind a bit but this is a massive difference.

Mind you im not saying it IS a bad gaming CPU, im just wondering if its a matter of software optimization or an inherent SC shortcoming

Ryzen seems pretty good now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZS2XHcQdqA

That is just a single review, but food for thought.
Probably going to wait until the mobo, ram, and Windows 10 developers have gotten a good grip on things.

>>59611790

I want to multitask as well, which is why im even considering Ryzen. 4c/8t struggles with even streaming, im thinking it probably wouldnt do too well with anything else running in the background

>>59611719
I don't really agree, but I think 120hz is a much better framerate to be aiming for than 144hz.

It's a perfect multiple of 60, 30, and 24, so anything designed to run only at one of those refresh rates runs smoothly on a 120hz monitor.

>>59611877
I can get a Ryzen r1700 for $278.70 in Newegg if you want.
Just if you're interested

If you're only gayming then get a 7600k. You don't need an i7 for games and the money you save is better spent towards a better GPU. If you're going to be streaming or doing any non-gaming task as well then get Ryzen.

>>59612088

I was looking at the 1700x actually. How can you get it that cheap? Newegg employee?

Im interested but im not sure how it would work out with customs, im in Europe so i might end up getting jewed really hard in import taxes.

>>59612101

Would a 7600k really cut it? From the looks of it games will start to use more cores in the very near future

>>59611375
>How much, if anything, will scheduler updates and architectural optimizations improve Ryzen's ST performance?
I think even even AMD engineers couldn't tell you that right now.
And from the consumer standpoint, it could be ranging from spetacular, paradigm shifting stuff, to absolutely nothing.

>tfw [email protected]
>tfw I need something faster for PS3 emulation.

7700K looks very tempting as of right now but I need something even more faster.

>>59611877
>4c/8t
>struggles in streams

Tell me about it, I have a 4690, it cant stream, no ifs ands or buts, it literally just isnt capable of it. Im wondering if my 8350 i have laying around would beat it in streaming.

>>59611375
It depends what you do with your PC.

If you find yourself playing a lot of single threaded CPU bound games (CSGO, LoL, Arma) then I would say go for the 7700K, or even a 7600K if you really don't do any highly threaded work.

If you happen to do any sort of compiling on the daily, rendering videos and/or 3D models, or running VMs pretty much constantly, then I would go for the 1700. In most games, you will be GPU bound. In games where this is less apparent, you should still be seeing enough performance to matter (you will likely still be getting 300+fps in CSGO and LoL anyway).

If you only game but also happen to stream it, go with the 1700 100%.

>>59612522
when you hear people say that it's because they want to jew you out of more money than what makes sense to spend on a processor.
case in point, my build from 2013 features an i7 because people were parroting the same bullshit back then too
i'd be fifty dollars richer if i'd have trusted my gut instead of the dude at microcenter

File: The lake, the lake, the lake is on fire.png (1MB, 1110x5110px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1110x5110px

Only buy Intel if you get a good price on fire extinguishers.

>>59615151
just build a 2nd pc for stream capture. its really not hard

>>59611746
They've already said they are working on a patch to improve performance on ryzen.

>>59615196

>cpu is shit for a given task
>"its okay goyim, just buy a second one to alleviate your performance woes!"

>>59615196
I already have a 2nd PC built, thats what my 8350 is in. I'm just wondering how much a difference is between a 4690 and an 8350 if im streaming gaymse. I understand the 8350 will give less FPS, but that might be balanced out by not shitting the bed as soon as i stream.

>>59615212

Test it and find out.

>>59615155
But csgo uses all of my 4 cores

>>59611877
>I want to multitask as well

Then the discussion is over. A year ago, i was considering building an entirely new config and i was used to read everywhere, here included, that a 6600k was enough for gaming.
Now since Ryzen is out, anything below 7700k is shit because only pure fps at 1080p matters. It's beyond ridiculous. You want any kind of multi-tasking ? Just go for the 1700 and overclock, same price as the 7700k (even lower sometimes), 8c/16t.

If budget isn't an issue, you might want to look at the 1800X, i'm not really sure what's the point of the 1700X yet.

I'm personally still waiting for the ITX Ryzen motherboard though

>>59615343
itx is autism tier

>>59615343

> point of the 1700X yet.

To make the 1700 look better value and the 1800x worse value. The only real point of both the 1700x and 1800x is the chance (and its certain for the 1800x) of hitting 4ghz - not all 1700 chips will currently break that barrier.

File: 1489055994310.jpg (811KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

811KB, 2560x1440px

>>59611190
flabby or flat, decide for yourself

>>59615391
>muh 2133 mhz memory

If you want a cpu primarily for gaming, and if you are posting on 4chan you most likely do, you can save money and just get a 1600x if the simulated benchmarks are anything to go by.

File: IMG_1826.jpg (521KB, 960x686px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 960x686px

>>59611190

>>59611190
/g/ is an AMD board dude, you're only gonna get Ryzen shills no point asking here

>>59615406
MSI B350 Tomahawk $80, decent OC'er
1600x $250

will have this >>59615391 performance due to 6 4.0Ghz zen cores.

File: INTEL BTFO.png (73KB, 1247x1194px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1247x1194px

>>59611375
>king in ST
kekeroni

>>59615417
>doesn't understand how screen tearing works
Sounds like an intelfag to me

File: why would you need 100 fps, the human I can see over 60, consoles use 30 fps, I remember when locked 20 fps was buttery smooth.png (123KB, 240x286px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 240x286px

>>59615488

File: 12343151.jpg (532KB, 1765x992px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 1765x992px

>>59615429
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/amd-zen-thread-inc-am4-apu-discussion.18665505/page-734
>X370 won't overheat like the B350s

>if i push 3.7+ with anything above 1.35v+ start seeing high 80's + 90's this was similar results of the asus b350 prime board too
>Like you 4ghz at 1.4v was sending VRM over 125C. MSI Tomahawk B350.
>Gigabyte AB350m Gaming 3, thankfully I had an old Antec Spot Cool laying around and fitted that, under stress now, the VRM's dont go over 80oC, only reason ive not pushed beyond 3.9ghz, is I cant get a straight answer out of how much voltage is going to my chip, my bios says 1.225v and AIDA64 says 1.36v, you dont want to know what hardware info says, and CPU-z just doesnt work because im running RAID.
>Most I've seen was 116c on my ab350 gaming 3, as reported by easytune software. 3.9ghz 1.46v encoding video for around 45 mins or so, if it had run longer the temp might get higher still. But this is with all my case fans at full blast though so it sounds like a plane taking off.

>>59615488
what are you on about

>>59615563
>>Like you 4ghz at 1.4v was sending VRM over 125C
>1.4v
duh, the heck is he using though? 1800x 1700?

>>59615363

I need a small case for transportation. Still trying to find what's the point of bigger size if you don't SLI.

>>59615384

What's the point of making the 1800x look worse value ? Isn't it supposed the flagship ?

>>59615663
theory is there is not many 1800x compared to worse binned 1700/1700x
someone buys it - good, no, better sales for other parts
they make huge margins on these either way

>>59615663
The flagships are always worst value, because some cucks spend whatever it takes to get to refer to their purchases as "flagship". See 6950K, 1080Ti, Titan X, R9 Fury, fucking anything thats "flagship". no matter how ridiculous it is, "flagship" always comes with a huge premium.

>>59612133

Not worth it at all with import and shipping.

It's not 278$, but Amazon.fr is selling the 1700x for 350€ for EU. Perfect if you were going to use a non-stock cooler anyway

>>59611190
just gaymen?
i5 7600k 5GHz.

real work + gaymen?
r7 1700

here is the argument for both cpus.

>7700k out of the box has higher performance in games without tinkering.
>dont need 3000mhz+ ram for it to compete.
>ITX mobos are really fucking great at the moment.

>1700 has 8 fukin cores
>with some overclocking surpasses the [email protected] in almost all games and most non game related work.


The downside to the cpus.
>7700k is hot as hell
>1700 requires good ram so its more expensive, but worth it imo.
>am4 is still a new platform so expect weekly bios updates (which bring massive performance boosts.

and recent reviews shows it beating the 7700k and we might see better performance the coming months.

>>59616084
/thread

Intel is CIA

>>59615257
can't see more than 4 cores anyways, there's no reason to buy more

>>59615649
better cooling; more funs to blow fun through the case, and more fun in the case to start with

>>59616084
>ram
>more expensive
yea, like $10 to the cheapest 16GB kit.

>>59611190
You should buy the R5 1500X, it's 4C8T just like the i7 7700K, which is also a 4C8T for less money!!!

>>59616645

It's not just that, you need a good quality Samsung made memory for it to reach 3200+ in AMD mobos at the moment.

Not all 3200 will be able to reach that speed in Ryzen mobos without tweaking to their latencies.

>>59611190
So AMD got fucked in the ass the past 10 or so years.
How did they suddenly manage to catch up? Industrial espionage?

>>59611190
7700K is a literal fucking scam. Save your money and get 6700K/Z170 instead over it. Don't get jewed, IPC gains are literally zero (and they still will be with Coffee Lake).

>>59617274
may as well get 1700 then, 6700~=1700 on stock

>>59617201
>How did they suddenly manage to catch up? Industrial espionage?
Combination of good management and good engineers. Also actual engineers in management.

>>59617201
Intel has been pretty stationary since sandy bridge.

No risk = little reward = incremental refinements
Additionally they have had simply no need to constantly bring the latest and greatest every week since they owned it all.
I am very sure Intel has a superior architecture in the pipeline, and they are standing by to see if they genuinely need it or not.

>>59617342
>I am very sure Intel has a superior architecture in the pipeline
Eh, no. They just started hiring engineers, so expect new arch in 2020 at very best.

>>59617365
They just hired VERY valuable validation staff two month before ryzen. It's another itanium in 2021.

>>59617390
f!=h

>>59616645

im looking at the prices in Norway, i for one would only purchase Samsung B-Die 4266mhz. seeing as how well the cpus scale from 2133 to 3200, i can imagine the performance will increase another 15-20% running 4266mhz.

but even here there B-die samsung sticks are like $50++ more than the normal 2133mhz

G.Skill TridentZ DDR4 4266MHz CL19 8GB 383$
G.Skill RipjawsV DDR4 2666MHz CL15 8GB 71$

still worth it imo. the 1700 overclocked to 4.1 with 4266 (if any mobo can even handle that) would crush the 7700k IPC and gaming.

and it would decimate the 6900k and probably be close to the 6950k in very threaded applications.

Intel CEO == male
AMD CEO == female

..

>>59617464
>Intel CEO == incompetent bean counter
>AMD CEO == actual fucking engineer

>>59611190
Simple,
If your case has a window, get the Kaby Leek for 122 fps pro gayman.
If you have a mature computing area instead of a "battlestation" get the raisin 1700 and a more refined resolution

prove me wrong

>>59617451
3200 is the highest strap so far, zen+ might fx the issue anyways

>>59617274
A 7700K is within 65-70% of the 1800X in MT workloads.
50% more cores would bring it above the 1800X.

>>59617495
50% more cores will turn it into gigantic housefire.

>>59617486
it won't because the issue doesn't comes from the cpu

>>59617506
the ccx interconnect problem currently requiring the fast ram for performance.

File: AMD.png (16KB, 441x495px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 441x495px

>>59617495
>50% more cores means 50% more performance
Where have I heard this line of logic?

File: Stock baby.png (366KB, 2560x1400px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 2560x1400px

>>59617451
>probably be close to the 6950k
Already is
Hell, this is at stock clocks with 3200MHz RAM

>>59617506
that's better, memory controller is easier to improve than whole core

>>59617451

>383+383 ram = 766
>766+ 329 for 1700 = 1092 dollars

Might as well get the 6900k in then

Intel is really fucked up at this moment solely because shills simply ignore every intel cpu below 7700k while comparing to Ryzen. Their BOTTOM LINE for benchmarks is 7700k. Other than that 6850k 6900k etc. So they simply killed off i5 and i3 themselves completely. If intel suddenly decides to release i7s as 6c/12t CPUs, this will completely kill skylake and kaby lake. They are simply fucked up either way.

File: 3EAB81D000000578-0-image-a-11_1490602709679.jpg (146KB, 962x669px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 962x669px

Buy Intel and you support Israel.

File: 2017-03-28_05h41_24.png (139KB, 778x588px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 778x588px

>>59611746
nice benchmark poojeet

>>59617594
>Where have I heard this line of logic?
Not from Gene Amdahl, that's for sure.

>>59617643

Why? the 1700 overclocked is superior.

>>59617741
1080p
nothing hitting over 65 fps
all my what

It's simple. If you're a srs gaymer and ruyn hundreds mods on games like skyrim, play arma etc. get a 7700k. Otherwise 1700 all the way.

>>59617926
very high preset got msaa x4
funny part: 7700K sucks in all games when you get msaa to more than x2

>>59615257
You may have multi-threading enabled in the game, but generally you get higher framerates from disabling it if you have solid single threaded performance.

>>59617495
Great, but until they have a Skylake-e platform, it won't matter.

>>59611190
At that price point you but the CPU for at least 5 years.

8core/16threads vs 4core/8threads

There's no comparison. Ryzen all the way.

>>59617495

imagine a 7700k derived 8/16 cpu.

you would need a 1000w platinum psu just to run it, you would have had to use two watercooled kits ontop of each other, one to cool the cpu and one block to cool the first block.

temps would still rise to 120c on load.

>>59618488
>>59617553
With that rad it can cool as good as 3x480mm or 4x360mm

>>59617762

My point was more that Ryzen stops being a cheaper 6900K alternative when the amount of money you have to pay to get it to match the 6900k's single core performance in gaymes brings it to right about the same price.

>>59611190
>should I buy a Ferrari or a Bugatti
I dont need a R7 1700 or a 7700K, why should I even buy it?
I have a i5 and the performance is all I need. My CPU never permanently exceed 55% workload.

>>59611835
it's not "almost more than two times slower" by any stretch of the imagination

you are looking at roughly 10% less across the board, with some outliers either making Ryzen win or lose hard than usual

>>59618687
this is more of a "Motorbike vs SUV" debate

>>59618638
fyi difference between 2933 and 3200 is pretty small
3000 16gb memory costs only about $120 and it works on all boards unlike 3200 which doesn't yet, most likely will since other boards have support for modules that more expensive don't

>>59611190
Now: 7700K
Future (2-3 years): Ryzen

/v/: 7700K
/g/: Ryzen

(the second one was a joke)

File: 1488915545091.jpg (273KB, 1032x774px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1032x774px

>>59617495
>50% more cores

>>59611375
>but neither one looks to be objectively better.
>twice the core count
>not looking objectively better
corelet detected

File: 1489100922662.png (246KB, 882x758px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 882x758px

>>59617691
SHUT UP

>>59618843

7700k is clearly superior in single core. 1ghz is a significant difference when IPC is equal.

The question is HOW significant is it. So far 7700k stomps Ryzen in most games, but is it because of the faster clocks, CCX latency/scheduler issues or poor software optimization? Im hoping its the latter one because if the results we're seeing now are conclusive then Ryzen failed pretty badly.

Im still probably gonna get Ryzen though as i think its just issues with the scheduler and poor optimization for Ryzen, but if it ends up being hardware related im never buying anything AMD again.

>>59615563
>Most I've seen was 116c on my ab350 gaming 3
Did you subtract the 20 degrees from the 1700x/1800x?

>>59617201
JIM KELLER
I
M

K
E
L
L
E
R

>>59611190
Do you want the best cpu of today, or the best cpu of tomorrow. If you want the best cpu of today, buy a 7700K. If you want the best cpu of tomorrow, buy a 1700.

>>59618975
>as i think its just issues with the scheduler
But its been proven to be not the issue.

>poor optimization for Ryzen
Yeah, most stuff isn't optimized for 8 shitty cores, it's instead optimized with a couple of good cores in mind.
This has always been the case and it will take a long time before that changes, not only in the future games, but also in the fact that there is thousands games out right now that will never be optimized for ryzen, so we are talking years and years before shit that needs lots of cores becomes a significant part of the market

>>59612522
BF1 utilizes more cores / hyperthreading to a large extent

>>59619771
>so we are talking years and years before shit that needs lots of cores becomes a significant part of the market
Face it, most intel fans don't WANT that to become part of the market.

>>59611190
>1700
Good all round performance, will handle anything you throw at it.

>7700K
Great in games, mediocre at everything else.

File: it was the intel shills1.jpg (8KB, 374x59px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 374x59px

>>59619820
>i-its the intel jews! It's all their fault!
>ryzen would be good, but intel fans don't want it to be
No fuck off. You can't blame consumers of a different brand to all the faults of the world.

>>59619771

>But its been proven to be not the issue.


Source?

Also with optimization i was talking about poor optimization for the Ryzen architecture/core, not poor threading. Something clearly is going wrong when Ryzen matches Kaby Lake IPC yet gets stomped in games by margins that would be impossible by a 1ghz difference.

>>59615092
Why don't you sell your 4690K and buy the 7700K? Right now you can sell it at almost the same price you bought it

>>59619858
I wasn't attempting to assign blame. What I said was what I meant, most intel FANS (not just people who use their products) do not want games which take advantage of more coars to be a significant part of the market because it would put them at a disadvantage.

I don't know how that might affect the likelihood of it happening or not, but people do tend to cater to the more vocal group regardless of if they are a majority or minority. We'll just have to wait and see.

File: 04b02ee2ef6b313d9dd849d644ee5ad2.png (174KB, 696x678px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 696x678px

>>59611190
AMD has amada

>>59619887
>Source?
You mean besides AMD them selves stating that the scheduler is working correctly?
Let me ask you this, you think the scheduler is causing problems with the two CCX and threads hopping back and forth correct?

>Also with optimization i was talking about poor optimization for the Ryzen architecture/core
If ryzen gets popular enough to have a huge market share, then many years later they might optimize for it, I honestly think it will take no less than 5 years for that.

>>59618975

>7700k is clearly superior in single core. 1ghz is a significant difference when IPC is equal.

actually it has worse IPC.
clock for clock ryzen beats it.
but the 7700k volcano can oc to 5ghz.

>So far 7700k stomps Ryzen in most games

thats factually false. with recent updates and 3200mhz ram being used, it beats the 7700k except for in fallout4 and far cry primal.

>>59619988
>thats factually false. with recent updates and 3200mhz ram being used, it beats the 7700k except for in fallout4 and far cry primal.
Post at least 4 different sites with benchmarks to confirm this.
Because I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't basing all your conclusions on one youtube video from either a proven fake or a literal who.

>>59618975
>7700k is clearly superior in single core.
it has superior clocks, if ryzen was a 5ghz housefire then it would rape intel in both single core and multicore, however AMD just wants to go for IPC right now

>>59619964

I havent heard about that yet.

>Let me ask you this, you think the scheduler is causing problems with the two CCX and threads hopping back and forth correct?

Yes, that is what i would guess. If apps kept all their threads on one CCX as much as possible that should in theory reduce the CCX latency to zero as most apps dont use more than 8 threads anyways.

I think 5 years is an exaggeration. We're already seeing huge improvements with bios updates. Tbh if i can get anywhere within 10% of 7700k performance in games im ok with it, but anything past 15% is going to be a dealbreaker for me.

>>59619999
Not that guy but I can believe it
I just think people are having such a hard time getting high enough RAM speeds that it's not so relevant
If it takes more work to get there than even reviewers are willing to spend, can we still do anyhting with it?

>>59618687
I didn't need it either but I bought a r1700 and b350 motherboard.
I can at least say I'm set for at least 4 to 5 years.

>>59620041
>I havent heard about that yet.
Check it, AMD themselves made a statement about windows scheduler working fine.

>Yes, that is what i would guess. If apps kept all their threads on one CCX as much as possible that should in theory reduce the CCX latency to zero as most apps dont use more than 8 threads anyways.
Well, it's just so happens people have tested the difference between keeping cores on different ccx and keeping 4 cores on one ccx and disabling the rest and doing test so see how much of a difference the ccx cores make.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhj6CvBnwNk
Here you go.

>I think 5 years is an exaggeration
I think it's very realistic in terms of when will there be enough games that make the ryzen worth it over the competition. Keep in mind there has to be optimizations, lots of new games made to even slightly out weight all the games released up to this point.

>>59619988
>actually it has worse IPC.
>clock for clock ryzen beats it.
You know when most people say IPC they mean per thread or sometimes per core. Technically you are right, but also wrong since the other anon is obviously talking about per thread IPC.

>>59620103

So the CCX latency seems to not be an issue, which is good news.

On the first game tested (F1 2016) the avg FPS of the 7700k seems to be about 25% higher than Ryzen at the same core count. This is consistent with the 1ghz increase in clock speed between Ryzen and 7700k, which is 25% higher than the 4ghz of Ryzen. Synthetic benchmarks are consistent with this result.

Something to consider though is that clock speed increases dont tend to scale 1:1 with performance increases, this points at either poor software optimization, or in the case of synthetic benchmarks that cross CCX latency is an issue after all, as afaik (and i may be wrong here) these benchmarks are run in multi core and divided by the core count to reach an SC score.

Considering all this is fairly accurate that sets me back to my original position. Is it worth it to trade in 25% of SC performance for 8 extra threads? Will this gap in SC performance only become more important in the future as games become more taxing, or will multi thread become more of a factor?

Too many questions, too little answers. Whatever way im looking at it i feel that i will at least slighlty regret my choice regardless of what i choose.

>>59618749
>(the second one was a joke)
It wasn't, though.

>>59620386
>So the CCX latency seems to not be an issue, which is good news.
You kidding me?
>It's the ccx fault, once they fix that the performance will be good
>actually ccx doesn't effect it that much here is proof
>oh good news
How is it good, it means what you see is what you get, you won't get some performance boost in the future, there is nothing to fix.

>>59620492

You dont get it brah. If 4+0 performs the same as 2+2 then it means that cross CCX latency doesnt impair performance. That means that the only other possible explanation is that the issue is software optimization, which CAN be fixed.

Im hoping no one is expecting a 4ghz equal IPC CPU to outperform a 5ghz CPU, all i was hoping for was that Ryzen would come within 10% or so of 7700k SC performance.

Though you shouldnt have overlooked my other points, CCX could be an issue after all. The point is that there are too many variables right now to make a good decision, its a gamble either way. Im just trying to figure out which is the better gamble.

>>59620567
>That means that the only other possible explanation is that the issue is software optimization, which CAN be fixed.
Yeah, except that also means that only new games down the line made with ryzen in mind will work better and there is no fix for all the games already made or that will recently be made.
It literally means the only performance gain you will see is in game that will come out years later.

Just bought the 1700X for 350€. Buying 4 cores in 2017 feels wrong. Going to wait a while for a mobo though, hope everything will be sorted in a month.

>>59621307
>Buying 4 cores in 2017 feels wrong.
Good goy, seems the marketing is getting to you.

>>59621286
Doesnt matter, as it runs old stuff fine anyway

>>59621286
yeah, you see, the only argument about ryzen being bad for games, since it's good right now, is that it wouldn't be able to handle better GPUs
which is disproved by 1080ti and whole xeon line of intel from 6 years back.

>>59611375
If that's your take from hours of reviews you're an idiot.

Gamer? Buy the 7700k
Do alot of production that relies on cpu power and is heavily multithreaded? get the r7 1700

>>59621521

>f that's your take from hours of reviews you're an idiot

Would like to hear your arguments on that


>Gamer? Buy the 7700k
Do alot of production that relies on cpu power and is heavily multithreaded? get the r7 1700

Thats an oversimplification. Plenty of people out there who do both, or want to multitask as well, which the 7700k wont do very well while maxing out modern games.

>>59621618

Fucked up the reply, this was ment for >>59621552

>>59621477
>Doesnt matter, as it runs old stuff fine anyway
Except it runs old and current stuff(and the next stuff for at least a couple of years) worse than 7700k.

If you have a nice custom cooling solution and patience to bench it right, get the 1700

Otherwise just get the 7700k

>>59611746
>1920x1080
Why do reviewers bother with this outdated resolution?

>>59623862

>1920x1080?
>why you want 1280x1024?
>640x480 is fine

>>59623862

Pretty sure this is bait but ill bite as there are people who geniunely believe this.

Resolution doesnt matter for CPU benchmarks, infact lower resolutions are better for testing CPU performance as the CPU will be the bottleneck at those resolutions. Its useless to run a CPU benchmark at 1440p for example as performance at that resolution will be bottlenecked by the GPU, aka it would be a GPU bench instead of a CPU bench.

If i have a significant backlog in games released these few years, is the 7700k a better choice? Considering the R7 for "future proofing" and multitasking but if it will never be optimized for current and older games im not sure if its a good idea to get it.

>>59623862
>>59623929
You are aware that more than half of people use either 1920x1080 or lower?
Calling it outdated is kinda silly when so many people use it and want to know how things perform on that rez.
Plus again what the other guy said. >>59623983

>>59619999

What proven fake video? Show one example of a faked bench

>>59619999
the Ryzen reviews have been all over the place so it's plausible that most haven't gotten it to peak performance yet

>>59620148

Never heard anyone refer to cores or threads as IPC.

Instructions per clock.

>>59620386

Check the same test running on 3200mhz ram.

>>59611190
7700k here is almost 70 euros cheaper here

>>59620386

You have raised some really good points desu. I was sure that i was gonna get Ryzen but now im kinda doubting it. 25% single core is a big difference.

>>59611190
Ryzen is useless because literally all common programs like firefox, photoshop, etc.. utilize only one core or two at best

>>59626370

Where can i find it?

>>59627681

>what is productivity
>what is multitasking

Kys

>>59611375
Intel doesn't really have a reason to release a six core for consumers yet, until software starts taking better advantage of four cores I don't see six cores anytime soon.

File: smug.png (13KB, 640x712px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 640x712px

"Ryzen" sounds cool, like some kind of ninja name like "gaiden", however 7700k sounds like you own some super rare space metal, like check out my 7700 carrot gold CPU. Then people would go shitdamn, where the fuck did that come from, thats impossible! But at the end of the day ayy em dee has cooler names like opteron for example, like its an autobot from transformers. You should pick the one that sounds cooler, so when people ask what your computer has you'll score more cool points.

File: 196-630.1488454549.png (46KB, 630x424px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 630x424px

>>59611746
One thing I find fascinating about Ryzen is how fantastic the frametimes are. Even when it's getting completely smoked by the 7700K in terms of averages in a game like Total Warhammer, it seems to offer a much smoother experience.

>>59611190
>I will be doing something that benefits from many cores along with gaming
Get the 1700
>I will be solely gaming and am willing to pay extra for a small performance benefit and to look good in speccy threads
Get the 7700k
>I will be solely gaming
Get the 7600k
>I will be solely gaming and am on a tight budget
Wait for 4c/8t ryzen

Is the socket 1151 a dead upgrade path? Panicing because I got a 7600k as a gaymen upgrade and I dont want to buy a whole new platform again when I want to upgrade, and I hear the new line later this year will be much better than the 7600k.

TLDR; is my 7600k gonna suck shit for gaming and is 1151 a dead platform

>>59630211
Most likely. Coffee Lake exists and has been rumoured to be LGA1151, but we don't actually know that for sure, nor if there'll even be CL desktop chips since it seems focused on mobile, whether they'll have more than four cores even if there are, or if Intel will be even bigger kikes and make it the same socket, but requiring a new chipset (just like they made Broadwell incompatible with Z87 boards, despite using the same socket).

AM4 is the only current socket with a guaranteed long future. LGA2011-v3 is confirmed dead and LGA1151's future is unknown.

>>59611190
Do you only game alone like a virgin autist on your meme-tier 144hz monitor? (and never do game-streaming)

>if so then the 7700K is for you.

Do you use your computer for LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE BESIDES GAMING AND/OR DO YOU STREAM GAMES ONLINE WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF YOU ACTUALLY INTERACTING SOCIALLY WITH ANOTHER HUMAN BEING?

>Then get the 1700 and a b350 and overclock to around 3.7-3.8ghz get a 3200mhz rated ram-kit and get on with your life you stupid basement dwelling faggot.

Seriously the Ryzen chip slaps the shit out of that intel quad core in every task and activity that is even remotely social/profitable and might give you a chance at getting laid.

>>59630473
Well fuck me that's what I get for being impatient. At least I got a z270 motherboard so hopefully it won't be a new car. If I have an upgrade path in coffee lake I'll be satisfied, not that want to upgrade immediately, but I definitely don't want to AM3+ myself again.

Then again the 7600 seems to be a way better buy than any FX series was.

>>59611790
>he thinks its only 10 fps

lol

>>59630565

>streaming gaymes for other virgin autists to watch will get you laid

Kekked

how true is any of this?

https://youtu.be/RZS2XHcQdqA

>>59631117
Well, his results speak for themselves. It's hard to accuse him of being an AMD shill either when his previous videos showed much lower performance. As of right now, it's the only video showing Ryzen paired with memory that fast, and is recent enough to have Windows and motherboard firmware updates that weren't available at launch.

One thing we do know for sure at this point is that the 'Infinity Fabric' interface between the two CCXs runs at whatever speed your RAM does, so faster memory massively speeds up that as well, which results in better gaming performance. Besides a couple of outliers like Rise of the Tomb Raider and Far Cry: Primal, most recent tests using 3200MHz+ RAM have put performance very close to the 7700K.

>>59631279

My problem with his tests are the fact that he ran them on a 1070. I would prefer these tests to be run at 720p with a gtx 1080 (Ti) prevent any kind of GPU bottlenecking. That should give a true CPU performance comparison

File: maxresdefault.jpg (59KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1280x720px

>>59631000
{autistic screeching}

>>59631117
the memory subsystem is weird as fuck and RAM dependent which is a negative and a positive. It means that with slow RAM the Ryzen chip is slow but with faster RAM the speed goes up

A guy managed to get stable 3600mhz DDR4 running with a 4.0ghz Ryzen 1700X and discovered that it was nipping at the heels of a 5.0ghz clocked 7700K in most gaming benchmarks even at 1080p

Because of this crazy qwirk its obvious that the next gen Ryzen chips will be modified to support the fastest RAM kits they can get away with to max single thread. They also need to boost the bandwidth of the connect between the CCX's

>>59631516
Current Ryzen is low power in part since it skimps on internal bandwidth, which is possible since it has narrower AVX than Broadwell and newer CPUs.

If Zen+/Zen2 adds 256b AVX, it will need 64B data lanes instead of 32B, including the Infinity Fabric between CCXs. For normal integer work this will be extreme overkill, and it will make higher clocked CCX links a lot less relevant.

Of course, a lot of people also think that AMD will push heterogeneous compute (= Vega-based APU) hard and punt of AVX, so who the fuck knows.

>>59631476

>implying that youtube got him laid

Kys

>>59629797
underrated

>>59631643
he stood in front of a cart as a hot dog vender before youtube. A girl that attractive would never have had anything to do with him if he stayed in that job.

>>59611190
>6900k uses 140 watts
>slower in X264 handbrake
>hotter then the sun

ryzen

>8 cores, 16 thread
>half the price
>beats 6900k at encoding
>runs less hotter then the sun

why bother? you can't use anything below win 10 on either of those 2 chips anyway.

I bot lots of games simultaneously, do I get intel or ryzen?

>>59611190
AMD aren't mega jews, gives you more cores at the same price with 90% of the single threaded performance, gap to be closed with updates and better RAM support

>>59631967
You can use lower than 10, MS has just kneecapped updates if it detects that you're running ryzen. If you use a paravirtual VM, you can make it call itself whatever the hell you want.

>>59615212
Haven't streamed, but i can record on it in 720p without dipping below 30fps

File: 1467844749574.jpg (277KB, 1616x2048px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1616x2048px

>>59619932
Does anyone have the "do it for her" image with Amada?

>I want to protect that smile

>>59615567
the middle frame on the bottom has only her tearing but if it was screen tearing the whole panel would be off

>>59632508
this one needs an edit of Ryzen

>>59631516
so if this works in the r5 1600/x does that mean even those cpus will come close to the 7700k?

>>59626292
Jokers.

I want amada to ream my pooper!
Singed Intel shill.

>>59631516
>A guy managed to get stable 3600mhz DDR4 running with a 4.0ghz Ryzen 1700X and discovered that it was nipping at the heels of a 5.0ghz clocked 7700K in most gaming benchmarks even at 1080p
With what video card though.

>>59611190
The only downside to Ryzen is how fucked up memory support is. They support 64gb of RAM but any dual-sided dimms are limited to 2666.

I have 32gb of ram 2x16, it was supposed to be 3200 but I guess I'll run 2666 until May and hope the magic memory update fixes everything.

File: accursed lynx.jpg (46KB, 565x600px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 565x600px

Guys, help me out here.

I've been trying to decide between Ryzen and Kaby Lake. But my 2500k is just perfect for 1080 and i can't find a reason to upgrade. Also i don't want to go through the trouble of changing my Sandy Bridge tattoo.

pls halp geeksquad my computer is break

File: 1449602307645.jpg (101KB, 601x601px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 601x601px

>>59634308
If you don't have a reason to upgrade, you shouldn't. There's always newer and better waiting behind the corner. The next generation of Ryzen is even faster so you can wait until then if you want. They keep using the same socket though so it's possible to get one now and still get one later, but that's a bit much.

Anyway, if you have tons of cores and two monitors it's like you have two computers in one. You can give it anything and it won't choke. That might be a reason you wanted.

When I'm reading what I wrote here just now I feel like a shill but I just bought 1700X for myself two days ago and I also have two monitors.

>>59634308
unless to need faster than 60FPS you have no reason to upgrade.

If you wanted to do video editing or music production or anything like that or even video game streaming then all of those tasks favor the Ryzen chips.

the only advantage Kaby lake has is maximum single thread when overclocked and that only matters if you are a fat fuck who cannot stand the idea of 120fps on your 144hz monitor when you can have 138 fps.

File: ryzenishere.png (68KB, 768x834px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 768x834px

is this normal core usage in adobe premiere?

>>59631424
>That should give a true CPU performance comparison
>That should give a true CPU single threaded performance comparison
ftfy.
You're forgetting that the Ryzen CPU have twice the core count, the maximum potential performance is way higher.

>>59633365
Yes, the Ryzen 5 and 7 are the same die underneath, so they will have identical single threaded performance (if they are clocked the same).

>>59617712
You support Israel if you buy AMD too.

>>59619932
mfw amada litererally translated to loved in my language.

>>59635833
>the maximum potential performance is way higher.
>AMD makes a 100 core pentium 1 CPU
>everything runs like shit on it except special cases
>But look guys, its not using 92 cores, sot he maximum potential performance is way higher, now everybody just has to redo every single application on earth to use shit tons of cores and it's a good cpu
>think of the future anon buy the 100 core cpu today
>just feels wrong buying less than 90 core cpu in 2017

>>59636067
>future
>by the time the "future" comes, Intel has released their own 6/8core CPU with proper single-threaded performance
>inb4 lul waitfag
>inb4 it happens
>inb4 "b-but AMD did it first though"

>>59636067
>AMD makes a 100 core pentium 1 CPU
They didn't though, its really close already and gaining.

>>59636099
stop it with the shit memes and write like a normal person.

>>59636143
>They didn't though.
No shit? You understand I am exaggerating to highlight the problem with that sort of thinking.
If the situation was where almost all applications that people use scale amazingly with cores and intel comes out with it's duo core in 2017. I would be shitting on the ideas just as much. Intel going in that situation "w-well everything is just optimized for lot of cores and not for single efficient cores, we will be working with developers to bla bla fix it later"
I would say it's as retarded to expect that a lot of new applications would drastically change to fit that processor.
Same thing for AMD.
Again, it will take at least 5 years for ryzens core advantage to kick in if it does at all.

To put it as short and as simply as possible.
If you are using things that already need lot of cores like video rendering and so on. Then get a CPU that has lots of cores.
If you are using apps that don't take advantage of cores like games, then don't expect everything to change(both future games and past games) to suddenly work better on your CPU.

This fucking core meme was here more than 6 years ago, where people were hyping the FX series and muh cores and look how that turned out.
>b-but ryzen is better than FX
If you are comparing fx and ryzen then yes, if you are comparing the 7700k and ryzen then no.

>>59636240
Games will never start taking advantage of moar coars unless people start actually buying processors with them.

>>59636378
>Games will never start taking advantage of moar coars unless people start actually buying processors with them.
That is correct. How ever I am not the kind of person who will throw money away just to make something more popular.
Same situation with VR.

>>59636429
>Same situation with VR.
Good thing I don't want games to take advantage of current state VR.

File: thinking-face.png (53KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 256x256px

Is it possible to multitask with the 7700k? Im looking to run some shit in the background while im gayming, would my gayming performance take a hit this way? At most i would have a video render running the background, maybe some tabs and discord.

>>59636931
this with premiere pro running 1080p 60fps video. It uses anywhere from 47-65% CPU usage. You can plenty of processing power left. Hell I could render 2 videos at once.

pic related
>>59635786

>>59636931
Rendering a video in the background will kill gay men performance on a quad core. An R7 chip would be much more suitable for that kind of workload (or an Intel HEDT one, if you want to pay twice as much for the same performance). JayzTwoCents recently did a video where he was doing a ton of shit in the background on an 1800X at gay men at the same time, and performance was still great.

>>59611190
7700k is for if you're a manchild and only game
1700 is for if you actually run useful shit and still works for gaming on the side

>>59616003
1080ti is not that bad a value
TitanX is always a shitty value

>>59636963
>>59636970


Looks like doing this on a 7700k would indeed kill gaming performance.

I would just get Ryzen if i didnt have a significant backlog in games. I havent had a system in a while and am looking to catch up on current and older titles, which the 7700k would be better at since current games are optimized for Intel architectures. Am looking to hit 120fps at those games, would Ryzen be able to do that, or should i just get the 7700k and upgrade to Zen+ when its out?

>>59637036
>Am looking to hit 120fps at those games

Ryzen can do that, but I suggest you look up gaming benchmark for whatever game you will be playing. I bought Ryzen for content creation not gaming.

>>59637036
for high refresh rate you are better off with i7, as long as your main goal is gaming.

File: 1480406576692.png (655KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

655KB, 1920x1200px

>>59632508

>>59629797
Best post of thread so far.

File: benchmarks.png (2MB, 2000x1686px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1686px

>>59637507
>or high refresh rate you are better off with i7

*if the only games you play are Rise of the Tomb Raider and Far Cry: Primal

>>59637630

This just looks like a GPU bottleneck.

It would be amazing if faster ram made Ryzen catch up with the 7700k but im not willing to believe it until i see a test run at 720p with a GTX 1080 to eliminate any kind of GPU bottlenecking.

ryzen has pins on the CPU instead of the motherboard.

fuck that shit.

>>59629797
Good point mah man, good point.

>>59636931
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSYuEopnCfI

>>59637751
>Intel CPU is slower
>must be a bottleneck

If there was a GPU bottleneck, the averages would be identical. Not to mention the fact that it would have nothing to do with the fact that Ryzen's 1% and 0.1% lows are so much higher, providing a much smoother experience. And even if there WAS a GPU bottleneck, it'd still demonstrate that not only is Ryzen perfectly fine for high refresh rate gaymen based on the titles there well above 100fps, but indeed preferable due to much higher minimums. Enjoy the silky smooth experience of bouncing from 54fps to 124fps on the 7700K.

>>59637751
>This just looks like a GPU bottleneck.
It would have identical averages.
On there other hand difference between 3600 ram and 3200 is less than 5%, I don't think it will scale much higher from 4Ghz RAM, it probably will be possible on rev B boards, because clearly memory controller is not the issue.

>>59611190

Gaymen: 7700k
Productivity: 1700

>>59638179
>It would have identical averages.
Not unless only the 7700k has higher averages and the only one getting bottle necked.
But hey, if you bottleneck only one cpu, then it's not a bottle neck XD

>>59638119

Performance seems very close in most games, even the 1% and 0.1% lows are close except in Crysis where the 7700k lags behind significantly.

I hope you're right but the results so far have left me skeptical. Is there anyone else who has done high speed ram tests on ryzen (preferably low res with a 1080 or better)

7700k is a nuclear reactor at half the core count

Get the Ryzen

>>59611228
Someone with a brain, finally.

>>59611375
you should do more research

>>59611746
>memory clocks for intel 3200
>memory clocks for ryzen 2133

anyone have terraria benchmarks? let's get some games that actually matter going

Are there benchmarks of Ryzen running in 2+2 mode @ 4ghz and 3200 mhz ram? Wondering how the 1500 will stack up.

>>59621552

>Do a lot of production
>Don't buy 1800

Who the fuck does actual work with a PC and buys non-top end parts? Time is money, you're pissing it away by buying the weaker option.

>>59611190
Is that a screenshot from a linux tech tips video?

>>59644278

Same here. Would also like to see a 4+0/one CCX bench with 3200 mhz ram to see if ram speeds have any benefit when cross CCX latency isnt an issue.

>>59615212
8350 is VERY dependent on HT, CPU-NB and memory clocks, keep that in mind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0zvk1llJlc

>>59637758
at least you can fuck _something_ with ryzen

The i7 is deprecated.

If you are going to game or other single-thread intensive work, an i5 is the best choice because an i7 won't perform much better if at all, and it is more expensive.

If instead you are most interested in high performance such as compiling, training neural nets, rendering etc, then you should go with the ryzen due to more cores and thus better performance. Again is i7 the worse choice.

>>59611228
>not waiting for the $70 gpu disabled athlon ryzen with single ccx

>>59645157

Hyperthreading increase multi core perfomance by 40%+ according to benchmarks, i wouldnt disregard it like that

>>59611190
R7 1700 is better bang for your buck and better at multitasking.

I7 7700K is better for games but much more expensive.

File: 1374257780288.gif (2MB, 187x155px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 187x155px

>>59647228
>R7 1700 is better bang for your buck and better at multitasking.

>I7 7700K is better for games but much more expensive.
>but much more expensive.

>>59647185
At i7 prices, the 1700 would serve you better if you need that. Cheaper boards, to boot.

>>59647238
Depends on location.

>>59647300
Uhuh. List the locations where it's cheaper.

>>59647326
amazon.de

>>59647238
>I7 7700K

It is much more expensive in some locations and others is just a bit more expensive.

The bottom line is that unless you are building a strictly gaming rig, with no need of streaming games, then the I7 7700K is technically better. But IMO it's much better in multi threaded applications that for most people the R7 1700 is the better choice. The 1700 is a Workstation CPU at heart and if you are doing any form of video editing, rendering or even streaming games then it is much better.

File: but ryzen is cheaper cried the shills.jpg (537KB, 1540x1832px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 1540x1832px

>>59647376
>>59647457
>but its more expensive
>no it's not here is proof
>well that doesn't even matter what are you a corlet bro, are you a poorfag, think of the future

>>59637758
>less shit that can go wrong with the main thing that dies & has issues
>fuck that shit
it's good to not have pins on motherboards, they already have too many fucking issues

>>59647509
7700 is locked, unless there are 270 boards with the same "bug"?

>>59647633
Nah, I just put it there to show how much the jew tax is on overclocking the 7700

>>59611190
To me sell you something you have to want something, this is the basics of selling. You get what you want or I make you believe that you want.

Just look at this Ryzen R7 1700, the amount of core/threads is inimaginable, you have to do a lot of things to keep them busy, but you noticed that the frequency clocks arent that high, I know, but I have a great deal here, the right amount of cores/threads with blazing fast clockspeed so you can do everything at maximum velocity. Make your choice, wich one is more of your personality, it is a win win situation.

File: 198d275c04f054dc4c755f95aa86928853f6d0533297136f4c66f5a7171c2693.jpg (72KB, 900x575px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 900x575px

>>59629797

>>59648853
I want this to be reversed
>Giant loli
>small milf controlling said loli

>>59638972
>The same GPU
>perfoms significantly worse on one
>IT MUST BE A BOTTLNECK GOY
The only bottleneck here is the 7700k

File: fuckenhelll.gif (2MB, 245x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 245x180px

>>59649372
CPU 1 Has the average of 200 and min of 100
CPU 2 has average of 110 and min of 100
GPU bottle neck cuts down the framerate to 120fps on both systems
CPU 1 now shows 100-120
CPU 2 now shows 100-110
>amd fan sees no bottle neck
This is an example, but surely you understand the simple logic behind it. OR do you not know how bottle-necks work and are retarded to boot?

>>59611190
i7 = gaming, higher frame rates.

1700 = higher minimum frame rates in gaming, ProSumer workstation.