11 ms·

Micro Center is selling Intel i7 7700k for $299 Those 4 cores are stronger than the first 4 cores of the 1700X or the 1800X. If you are a gamer, then most if n

Micro Center is selling Intel i7 7700k for $299 Those 4 cores are stronger than the first 4 cores of the 1700X or the 1800X. If you are a gamer, then most if not all of your games will use 4 or less cores. Why pay more money for worse gaming performance? https://www.techpowerup.com/230638/amd-ryzen-benchmarks-leaked-amazing-multi-core-and-single-core-performance https://www.techpowerup.com/230638/amd-ryzen-benchmarks-leak...

yeukhon 10y ago
Not sure, but some gamers are youtubers and they need to process videos. What about having an extra core or two for handling recording and playing live? Those cost serious real time processing.
- Synaesthesia 10y ago
  Extra cores might help with that, Intel Quicksync might be even better or some GPU based video encoding.
  - rasz_pl 10y ago
    Quicksync is a marketing bullet point. Nobody sane uses this crap because quality is abysmal. Its bad for streamers (they usually run second PC just for stream compression), and bad for archiving video(quality again).
- aaronmdjones 10y ago
  When I'm streaming, I let my GPU do the video capture and compression for me (Nvidia NVEnc). You can do this with ShadowPlay if you feel like hurting yourself, but Open Broadcaster Studio supports it too.
michaelmrose 10y ago
This post is pretty full of bad logic and could benefit from comparative benchmarks in place of supposition. - One retailers sale price on one chip is a poor way to judge the relative value of 2 entire lines of products. - the Intel i7 7700k is normally north of 350 which is what a lot of retailers are selling it for. There is no reason to suppose that one retailers temporary sale right now ought to be compared to the projected sale price of amd chips. -This price is without cooler/paste amd 1700 includes both for 329 so most would end up paying almost 400 for Intel $70 more if you include the next item. - Historically Intel motherboards have been more expensive and have been worthless as far as upgrading even to the very next generation of cpu. Amd motherboards are often upgradable. - It would be more reasonable to compare it to the 1700 which has uses 2/3 the power to run twice the cores with substantially better multi core performance as much as 40% better in fact. http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-gaming-performance-benchmarks-leak/ http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-gaming-performance-benc... While single core performance isn't quite as good if you followed pc gaming you would in fact know that either chip is going to be more than enough to keep up with any mid and most high end gpu setups you could throw at it. In summary going Intel on your next mid to low high end gaming rig will probably cost you slightly more, use a lot more power, give you substantially worse performance and no better gaming performance.
jdietrich 10y ago
FTA: “With our overclocked 1800X sample cooled by the Noctua unit AMD provided in the reviewer’s kit we managed to surpass the 7700K in single threaded performance and the temperatures were great." The 7700k might be a reasonable value choice for gaming today, but I have little doubt that the extra four cores of the 1800X will come into play quite soon. Not so long ago, the same argument applied to dual vs quad core processors. Game developers didn't start optimising for four cores until there were a significant number of users with quad core processors. We're also yet to see the performance of the hex-core and quad-core Ryzen parts. At $199, the 4c/8t 1400X could demolish the 7700k.
- untoreh 10y ago
  Core count seems also to be partially fall into the classic chickenegg problem. Intel has shown no interest in increasing core count below enthusiast grade segment. Most people buy max quad cores because that's what Intel offers, games keep whatever they can split into more cores below 4
redtuesday 10y ago
Doesn't seem to be the case for modern games [0]. And this comes from a side which sometimes is called NvidiaBase or IntelBase. With the consoles having 8 (slow) cores, and Mantel/Vulkan and DirectX 12 emerging this will probably get more pronounced over time. Especially when Unreal 4, Unity and Cryengine optimize for more threads which means even indie games should take advantage of more cores. btw: the 65 watt tdp Ryzen R7 1700 for 329 dollar is matched against the Intel i7 7700k and has double the cores. Yes it will be slower in single thread applications like ARMA 3 (having only Broadwell IPC and being clocked lower), but even at stock you will have better performance in modern games (where the GPU is more important anyway). [0] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerbase.de%2F2017-02%2Fcpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test%2F&edit-text= https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev...

yeukhon 10y ago

Not sure, but some gamers are youtubers and they need to process videos. What about having an extra core or two for handling recording and playing live? Those cost serious real time processing.

Synaesthesia 10y ago
Extra cores might help with that, Intel Quicksync might be even better or some GPU based video encoding.
- rasz_pl 10y ago
  Quicksync is a marketing bullet point. Nobody sane uses this crap because quality is abysmal. Its bad for streamers (they usually run second PC just for stream compression), and bad for archiving video(quality again).
aaronmdjones 10y ago
When I'm streaming, I let my GPU do the video capture and compression for me (Nvidia NVEnc). You can do this with ShadowPlay if you feel like hurting yourself, but Open Broadcaster Studio supports it too.

michaelmrose 10y ago

This post is pretty full of bad logic and could benefit from comparative benchmarks in place of supposition. - One retailers sale price on one chip is a poor way to judge the relative value of 2 entire lines of products. - the Intel i7 7700k is normally north of 350 which is what a lot of retailers are selling it for. There is no reason to suppose that one retailers temporary sale right now ought to be compared to the projected sale price of amd chips. -This price is without cooler/paste amd 1700 includes both for 329 so most would end up paying almost 400 for Intel $70 more if you include the next item. - Historically Intel motherboards have been more expensive and have been worthless as far as upgrading even to the very next generation of cpu. Amd motherboards are often upgradable. - It would be more reasonable to compare it to the 1700 which has uses 2/3 the power to run twice the cores with substantially better multi core performance as much as 40% better in fact. http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-gaming-performance-benchmarks-leak/ http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-gaming-performance-benc... While single core performance isn't quite as good if you followed pc gaming you would in fact know that either chip is going to be more than enough to keep up with any mid and most high end gpu setups you could throw at it. In summary going Intel on your next mid to low high end gaming rig will probably cost you slightly more, use a lot more power, give you substantially worse performance and no better gaming performance.

jdietrich 10y ago

FTA: “With our overclocked 1800X sample cooled by the Noctua unit AMD provided in the reviewer’s kit we managed to surpass the 7700K in single threaded performance and the temperatures were great." The 7700k might be a reasonable value choice for gaming today, but I have little doubt that the extra four cores of the 1800X will come into play quite soon. Not so long ago, the same argument applied to dual vs quad core processors. Game developers didn't start optimising for four cores until there were a significant number of users with quad core processors. We're also yet to see the performance of the hex-core and quad-core Ryzen parts. At $199, the 4c/8t 1400X could demolish the 7700k.

untoreh 10y ago
Core count seems also to be partially fall into the classic chickenegg problem. Intel has shown no interest in increasing core count below enthusiast grade segment. Most people buy max quad cores because that's what Intel offers, games keep whatever they can split into more cores below 4

redtuesday 10y ago

Doesn't seem to be the case for modern games [0]. And this comes from a side which sometimes is called NvidiaBase or IntelBase. With the consoles having 8 (slow) cores, and Mantel/Vulkan and DirectX 12 emerging this will probably get more pronounced over time. Especially when Unreal 4, Unity and Cryengine optimize for more threads which means even indie games should take advantage of more cores. btw: the 65 watt tdp Ryzen R7 1700 for 329 dollar is matched against the Intel i7 7700k and has double the cores. Yes it will be slower in single thread applications like ARMA 3 (having only Broadwell IPC and being clocked lower), but even at stock you will have better performance in modern games (where the GPU is more important anyway). [0] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerbase.de%2F2017-02%2Fcpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test%2F&edit-text= https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev...