Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I doubt there will be many. Add that the stock levels of the 8700 are non-existent then the whole question you posture becomes moot.Has anyone bought a Ryzen 1700 and overclocked it then regret that you could have bought the i7 8700K instead ?
Has anyone bought a Ryzen 1700 and overclocked it then regret that you could have bought the i7 8700K instead ?
I do regret it, but only in retrospect - I thought Intel's response wouldn't happen until 2018. I built my system in July.
However, I'm more interested in the 8700 rather than the 8700K.
True, however...Technically intel hasnt responded. Have fun finding these mythical coffee flavored hunks of silicon. I got like retardedly lucky to find mine.
Enjoy your 1700 as it will and has been delivering for many. Plus zen2 should really brinf the IPC up higher and you will have a good upgrade path.
*Further edit: I'm still having issues running my ram at 2933. I rolled the dice on this, and went with 2x16gb 3200mhz with Samsung B-die, rather than the safer 2x8gb or 4x8gb setups. This choice was made because I almost always throw more ram into a system after about 2 years.
I could get it to run P95 with no problems, but whenever the videocard was engaged, the system would immediately blue screen after a few seconds. So I'm running it at 2667 (which is technically beyond AMD spec still). This was on 1.0.0.5, haven't had the chance to flash her to 1.0.0.6 yet.
If memory serves, TR is a lot more forgiving with ram configurations than Ryzen. OTOH I chose the most difficult 2 stick configuration, short of getting Hynix memory.Hrrmm On my Threadripper 1950x I found that enabling Enhanced Core Performance, I think it was something like that from AUto to Enabled, and suddenly my ram just works wonderfully. I can't remember the exact setting but it was purely by chance.
Maybe, but it didn't work.The OP seems like a weak attempt to start a flame war thread.
True, however...
The system it replaced was a gaming laptop with a i7-4800MQ, which could hold it's 3.7ghz turbo indefinitely. Effectively, I sidegraded to a processor that simply had more cores, over something that had higher CS/IPC (7700k).
Basically I built my Ryzen system with the prediction that Intel would not have 6c/12t parts for a year.
I'm sure I could build a 8700 system sometime between now and next July - which means my bet failed.
Of course I am interested in what Zen2 has to bring to the table. However this future Zen2 would have to bring a clockspeed/IPC gain of about 20% over a overclocked Ryzen 7 for me to be interested.
*Further edit: I'm still having issues running my ram at 2933. I rolled the dice on this, and went with 2x16gb 3200mhz with Samsung B-die, rather than the safer 2x8gb or 4x8gb setups. This choice was made because I almost always throw more ram into a system after about 2 years.
I could get it to run P95 with no problems, but whenever the videocard was engaged, the system would immediately blue screen after a few seconds. So I'm running it at 2667 (which is technically beyond AMD spec still). This was on 1.0.0.5, haven't had the chance to flash her to 1.0.0.6 yet.
The only thing I tried was increasing the voltage to the memory controller? It was recommended by AMD's OC guide as it supposedly helped with ram that was running out of official spec.definitely would recommend updating the bios first but have you tried disabling gear down mode and DDR power down state in the bios? i found that fixed most of my stability issues with ram similar to what you're having. may or may not work, could also mess with sub voltages and crap but most of that's over my head so i'm not going to suggest anything specific for that.
My x58 system is finally starting to break down, and I'm in the market to build either a Ryzen or Coffee Lake system. My machine is primarily used for gaming.
After pricing out a 8600k system and a 1700x system, they both came out pretty equal. I had to account for a cooler purchase for the Ryzen system as my current cooler is compatible.
Which direction would you lean IF availability wasn't an issue, and both systems would cost roughly the same?
On a day to day basis can you take advantage of more than 6 cores with your PC or what you plan to do with it? If so go Ryzen, if not go 8600k. In the end you're talking about 6 cores/6 threads vs 8 cores/16 threads, 8600k wins in gaming and light threaded usages while the ryzen will thrive in heavily threaded workloads.
If he can swing the extra money, and doesn't plan to OC, I think a 8700 is a better buy. There are games out there that are sensitive enough where there is a tangible difference between 6c/6t and 6c/12t.He's primarily gaming so sounds like a 8600K is the right purchase for him.
If he can swing the extra money, and doesn't plan to OC, I think a 8700 is a better buy. There are games out there that are sensitive enough where there is a tangible difference between 6c/6t and 6c/12t.
I'd chalk down most of the difference to the extra threads.I plan on overclocking, so maybe I swing for the 8700k. I thought I read that the additional L3 cache in the i7 also improve game performance over the i5 and Ryzen.
Has anyone bought a Ryzen 1700 and overclocked it then regret that you could have bought the i7 8700K instead ?
Not possible to buy an 8700k at anywhere near the same price, let alone back in March when I got the 1700. Even now it's not worth the extra money for less threads. Gaming, along with everything else, is moving to more threads, not less, so I think 8c/16t is more future proof. Plus I know I'll be able to upgrade this chip to a next gen one and not get shafted by a new socket, unlike with the 8700k. 8700k seems almost a sucker bet, tbh, unless you only play older games at low resolution and get frustrated if it doesn't run 200fps.
If I'm not mistaken, there are some architectural reasons prior to Ryzen as to why AMD processors couldn't fully leverage their core advantage. Something to do with the scheduler, effectively making the 8c part operate more similarly to a 4c part.Been hearing this BS for many years, things are moving to more threads. Picked up an 8 core AMD 8350 back in 2014, clocked to 4.6ghz as I have it today. There are still a lot of use cases for single thread performance, I almost never see all of my threads used. A lot of productivity programs are still, and always will be, single threaded. A lot of games will struggle to realistically use more than 4 threads. I plan on getting an 8700k for the single thread performance, that AMD simply cannot touch. I can't imagine the game that would perform better on a ryzen setup vs an 8700k, two more cores doesn't make up for the difference in per thread performance. When your computer sits and you're waiting on something, THAT is when you notice it. You don't notice 190 vs 200fps.
I will continue to wait for my 8700k for my main machine. My ryzen 1700x works great for my plex server, but not for my main pc. If Intel offered me a 4c/8t cpu @ 6ghz, I would pick that up instead.
If I'm not mistaken, there are some architectural reasons prior to Ryzen as to why AMD processors couldn't fully leverage their core advantage. Something to do with the scheduler, effectively making the 8c part operate more similarly to a 4c part.
In anycase...
There are many use cases for single thread performance. But the issue with simply having faster clocks/IPC gains on a single thread is that it is diminishing returns. In your theoretical example, a 6ghz Intel would be 20% faster than a 5ghz Intel. But that 20% will only manifest itself if there are no other bottlenecks, and there are plenty.
At some point, to get real gains, you need to start tapping into more threads. You say that a lot of games struggle to use more than 4 threads, and that is generally true. However I think the question that then needs to be asked is, do those games really give you a tangible benefit going from 4ghz to 5ghz.
IMO if you need single thread performance one of the first things you need to figure out is how much performance do you need?
Do you need 5ghz? Is 4ghz enough (Ryzen)? If 4ghz is enough, can you afford more threads?
Conversely if you need more threads then it becomes:
How many threads do I really need? If <6 threads are needed (i7-8), can I benefit from higher clocks or afford higher clocks?
Also a key question is, system longevity, how long do you expect the system to last? I asked myself these questions when the debate between the Q6600 vs the E8400 happened years ago. Based on my own use case, I made the correct call with going with the much slower Q6600 - and I kept my system running for several years after all my online buddies had thrown their heavily OC'd E8400 to the curb.
I agree that the 8700/8700K is very attractive, but it is also a much more expensive chip/setup. I would not, however, not jump on a theoretical 4c 6ghz processor - when I evaluated a 7700k vs a Ryzen 7, there wasn't a doubt in my mind which one suited me better.
*I realize there are differences in terms of IPC between a KL/CL and Ryzen, and a Ryzen running at 4ghz is still slower than an Intel.
Also, not everyone had the budget to buy a server computer and gaming machine. In my case, I retire old machines to server duty, which means that I already have a retirement plan for this Ryzen in ~4 years. Currently server duty is relegated to a gaming laptop.
Good points. I had actually planned on retiring this machine as my server, and building my new pc...but I needed the server upgrade before the 8700k could be bought. I actually had my q6600 before this at 3.85ghz for years, was a great chip! That motherboard burst into flames however...
The funny thing is with the 1700x system, I still see the same slow downs doing specific tasks (usually pdf and autocad related) and while they are quite a bit faster on the ryzen system than my 8350, they are still slow, and they are still only pegging a single thread. I have not overclocked it, but it does go to 3.9 on its own with a single heavy load. So for me personally, I know for a fact that I am still single thread limited for my workloads.
I've lived with the 8350 for three years now, and could stomach giving my file server a 1700x while I sat on this, so obviously I am patient with my upgrades. I expect the 8700k will last me three years easy.
Gaming I'm not worried at all. If that was my primary concern, I probably would have just stuck with a Ryzen! I plan o ngetting a 1440 display and a 1080 ti so the cpu won't matter either way for that front. The reality is I don't game as much as I could in years past, so I can't let that be the deciding factor for my pc. AS mentioned previously, my work from home is more important, and I am limited by single thread performance.
Finally to be clear because I feel like I didn't come across correctly initially, I think for a lot of people Ryzen is a great value, even for actual gamers (who the hell builds a ryzen system to play 1080p or less anyway and is cpu limited?)
I only tested mine up to 3.2ghz, at that point it was borderline thermal throttling. I refused to increase my fan speeds because I built it to be silent - had whatever 120mm tower Noctua had at that time. Also didn't like how OCs at the time pegged it, which meant idle temps went way up.I actually had my q6600 before this at 3.85ghz for years, was a great chip! That motherboard burst into flames however...
My last attempt with the Ryzen showed me it MIGHT be stable 3.9ghz @ 1.45v. Which is a pretty big jump from 3.8ghz @ 1.32v. Given the much greater heat generation, I doubt I'll push this chip past 3.7ghz when I finally decide to run an OC. So yeah, I'm somewhat limited in single thread as well. But I wasn't expecting to run an OC greater than the turbo clocks anyways - good thing since it looks like I lost the lottery.I have not overclocked it, but it does go to 3.9 on its own with a single heavy load.
/raises hand(who the hell builds a ryzen system to play 1080p or less anyway and is cpu limited?)
/raises hand
I stuck in a GTX 1080Ti and am just waiting for a good deal on a 1440p 144hz IPS.
Been hearing this BS for many years, things are moving to more threads. Picked up an 8 core AMD 8350 back in 2014, clocked to 4.6ghz as I have it today. There are still a lot of use cases for single thread performance, I almost never see all of my threads used. A lot of productivity programs are still, and always will be, single threaded. A lot of games will struggle to realistically use more than 4 threads. I plan on getting an 8700k for the single thread performance, that AMD simply cannot touch. I can't imagine the game that would perform better on a ryzen setup vs an 8700k, two more cores doesn't make up for the difference in per thread performance. When your computer sits and you're waiting on something, THAT is when you notice it. You don't notice 190 vs 200fps.
I will continue to wait for my 8700k for my main machine. My ryzen 1700x works great for my plex server, but not for my main pc. If Intel offered me a 4c/8t cpu @ 6ghz, I would pick that up instead.
Truth is, though, at 1080 resolution, while you may see differences due to CPU, you won't be "limited" in that the fps differences won't make any gameplay or visual quality differences/raises hand
I stuck in a GTX 1080Ti and am just waiting for a good deal on a 1440p 144hz IPS.
I'm waiting for monitors to standardize on syncing technology before I jump. I never bought a Freesync or Gsync monitor as I don't want to be locked into a particular ecosystem. So, whilst the 1070 is overkill for what I play at 1080p it wouldn't be at 1440p. Unfortunately, inexpensive non-vendor-lock tech is progressing less rapidly than I hoped so I'm in the 1080p ranks until that situation changes.
Truth is, though, at 1080 resolution, while you may see differences due to CPU, you won't be "limited" in that the fps differences won't make any gameplay or visual quality differences