Help deciding CPU: R5-1600X or i7-7700?
- Thread starter cofasix
- Start date
The R5 1600x is the better value, the additional cores extend its future potential. Head to head the 7700 is a tiny bit ahead in gaming benchmarks, but it's so insignificant there's no way to tell the difference. AMD sticks with the same CPU socket for years, so upgrading the CPU later is more economical than Intel.
I'm currently running a Intel Haswell CPU from 2014, it's still an amazing gaming CPU. When I feel the need to upgrade I'll swap over to AMD, unless at the time Intel produce something pretty special. Right now though AMD give you more for your money.
I'm currently running a Intel Haswell CPU from 2014, it's still an amazing gaming CPU. When I feel the need to upgrade I'll swap over to AMD, unless at the time Intel produce something pretty special. Right now though AMD give you more for your money.
Upvote
0
I agree!
I have a old I7 2600k which would bottleneck my gtx 1070 if it wouldn't be so much overclocked (4.4 GHz, 4.9 GHz if reduced to 2 cores without HT for older single core games).
The new Intels have a pretty high turboboost but in my opinion Intels only argument over the new AMD's is the rockstable overclocking potential with good temperature and reliability. If the question is non-k i7 vs amd ryzen I would go for AMD!
Addition: if you want a non-oc CPU a look at the xeons doesn't hurt
I have a old I7 2600k which would bottleneck my gtx 1070 if it wouldn't be so much overclocked (4.4 GHz, 4.9 GHz if reduced to 2 cores without HT for older single core games).
The new Intels have a pretty high turboboost but in my opinion Intels only argument over the new AMD's is the rockstable overclocking potential with good temperature and reliability. If the question is non-k i7 vs amd ryzen I would go for AMD!
Addition: if you want a non-oc CPU a look at the xeons doesn't hurt
Upvote
0
PicoBp
#26 | HSRC - Banzaaaiii Touring Car Crew
The 7700 is superior in single core (and hence gaming) performance. It's also more efficient. Ryzen is not really optimal for gaming, more suited for workstation purposes where the core count can be put to good use.
If you have the budget and gaming is the real goal, go for the 7700. For an all-rounder (gaming, workstation, content creation, streming), the 1600X is better value.
Regarding bottlenecks, my i7-4790 can compromise the performance of the overclocked 1070 Founders Edition in my rig, depending on the game. And since the 1600X is close to the single core performance of that, you might not be able to fully utilize the GPU in all circumstances.
If you have the budget and gaming is the real goal, go for the 7700. For an all-rounder (gaming, workstation, content creation, streming), the 1600X is better value.
Regarding bottlenecks, my i7-4790 can compromise the performance of the overclocked 1070 Founders Edition in my rig, depending on the game. And since the 1600X is close to the single core performance of that, you might not be able to fully utilize the GPU in all circumstances.
Upvote
0
What are you guys doing, if anything to properly utilize hardware?
How does an I7-4790 bottleneck a 1070?
Christ!...I have my OS on a Samsung 840 EVO tied to the faster of two controllers on my motherboard.
The I7-3820@3.8GHz (released in 2012) is fed by 32 GB of DDR3 and.running with an O/Ced 1070.
Nothing is bottlenecked.
Upvote
0
Try to achieve 144 stable fps and look how it goes (full AI grid in Assetto Corsa for example). Of course you need to turn down graphics to achieve that on the GPU side but the problem is, that you can't turn down the CPU side.
When speaking of stable 60 fps the i7 of course doesn't bottleneck!
Upvote
0
PicoBp
#26 | HSRC - Banzaaaiii Touring Car Crew
Try rFactor2 with AI, CPU limited. AC with 20+ AI, CPU limited. R3E, CPU limited. Even pCARS is CPU limited, where I'd expect the GPU to hold back things if quality is turned up too much. Oh, not to forget ARMA III, one of the worst.
For a well balanced example, The Division runs with an even CPU/GPU load.
Believe me, I'm frustrated as well. But this is the case with a fresh Win10, just as it was with a clean Win7 install. And the only "casual" component in my config is the motherboard, but that shouldn't count at all.
Upvote
0
Here are two benchmark with every setting turned to max.
One is using the RIFT as primary display and the other, the monitor as primary display.
In neither, is the CPU remotely close to being the bottleneck.
The CPU usage is 59% when using the screen and 43% when the RIFT is primary.
In both, the game is 'fluid' smooth.
I typically look to the passing scenery at the side of the track as a reference.
There is no skipping, no loss frames and this is with a processor released in 2012.
RIFT
AC VERSION: 1.14.4 (x64)
POINTS: 7869
FPS: AVG=53 MIN=39 MAX=79 VARIANCE=1 CPU=43%
LOADING TIME: 22s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (1920x1080)
OS-Version: 6.2.9200 () 0x100-0x1
CPU CORES: 8
FULLSCREEN: OFF
AA:4X AF:16X SHDW:4096 BLUR:12
WORLD DETAIL: 5 SMOKE:1
PP: QLT:5 HDR:1 FXAA:1 GLR:5 DOF:5 RAYS:1 HEAT:0
SCREEN
AC VERSION: 1.14.4 (x64)
POINTS: 15389
FPS: AVG=105 MIN=40 MAX=155 VARIANCE=4 CPU=59%
LOADING TIME: 16s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (1920x1080)
OS-Version: 6.2.9200 () 0x100-0x1
CPU CORES: 8
FULLSCREEN: OFF
AA:4X AF:16X SHDW:4096 BLUR:12
WORLD DETAIL: 5 SMOKE:1
PP: QLT:5 HDR:1 FXAA:1 GLR:5 DOF:5 RAYS:1 HEAT:1
One is using the RIFT as primary display and the other, the monitor as primary display.
In neither, is the CPU remotely close to being the bottleneck.
The CPU usage is 59% when using the screen and 43% when the RIFT is primary.
In both, the game is 'fluid' smooth.
I typically look to the passing scenery at the side of the track as a reference.
There is no skipping, no loss frames and this is with a processor released in 2012.
RIFT
AC VERSION: 1.14.4 (x64)
POINTS: 7869
FPS: AVG=53 MIN=39 MAX=79 VARIANCE=1 CPU=43%
LOADING TIME: 22s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (1920x1080)
OS-Version: 6.2.9200 () 0x100-0x1
CPU CORES: 8
FULLSCREEN: OFF
AA:4X AF:16X SHDW:4096 BLUR:12
WORLD DETAIL: 5 SMOKE:1
PP: QLT:5 HDR:1 FXAA:1 GLR:5 DOF:5 RAYS:1 HEAT:0
SCREEN
AC VERSION: 1.14.4 (x64)
POINTS: 15389
FPS: AVG=105 MIN=40 MAX=155 VARIANCE=4 CPU=59%
LOADING TIME: 16s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (1920x1080)
OS-Version: 6.2.9200 () 0x100-0x1
CPU CORES: 8
FULLSCREEN: OFF
AA:4X AF:16X SHDW:4096 BLUR:12
WORLD DETAIL: 5 SMOKE:1
PP: QLT:5 HDR:1 FXAA:1 GLR:5 DOF:5 RAYS:1 HEAT:1
Upvote
0
I had the same thought but then I see fps drops with GPU load at 20% (lowered settings) with too many AC Apps for example.
Of course it's kind of "bad programming" if the Hardware isn't used on it's full extend but we can't do anything about it and when I deactivate Hyperthreading or lower the CPU Clock the FPS decrease is even bigger.
I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that their is some hidden CPU Bottleneck (or RAM or Mainboard whatever but CPU Clock has influence).
But hell no I won't buy a new CPU just because my old i7 2600k doesn't get fully used
Upvote
0
I had the same thought but then I see fps drops with GPU load at 20% (lowered settings) with too many AC Apps for example.
Of course it's kind of "bad programming" if the Hardware isn't used on it's full extend but we can't do anything about it and when I deactivate Hyperthreading or lower the CPU Clock the FPS decrease is even bigger.
I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that their is some hidden CPU Bottleneck (or RAM or Mainboard whatever but CPU Clock has influence).
But hell no I won't buy a new CPU just because my old i7 2600k doesn't get fully used
Not saying it's the case here...but some guys buy good hardware and then just go home and plug everything up with little regard for optimization, as long as things work.
Whenever I build a computer, I do a substantial amount of research on things like controller speed etc...
I then attach faster drives to those and things like DVD-ROM and slower harddrives to the others.
I also keep the drivers and firmware up to date for everything.
In addition, I keep the OS drive properly maintained and the registry free of junk.
Every step you take toward a properly operating PC helps during gaming.
That said: If I had to chose between the two processors mentioned by the OP, I'd take Jeremy Ford's advice...but also look at maximum optimization during the build.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
100% agree! Well I always built my PCs since I'm young boy and therefore know about the controllers, dual channel, ram timings, bandwidth etc.
In my case it might be the "only" 1600 MHz memory speed or some cache speed/bandwidth that can't keep up. OR it's just the engine that can't take too many high intensity apps. There my wisdom ends
Upvote
0
Lots of really useful APPS exist for AC, but they usually come at a massive penalty.100% agree! Well I always built my PCs since I'm young boy and therefore know about the controllers, dual channel, ram timings, bandwidth etc.
In my case it might be the "only" 1600 MHz memory speed or some cache speed/bandwidth that can't keep up. OR it's just the engine that can't take too many high intensity apps. There my wisdom ends
Try turning them all on, then do a benchmark...then turn them all off and do the same benchmark and you'll generally see massive gains in 'fluidity'.
Upvote
0
PicoBp
#26 | HSRC - Banzaaaiii Touring Car Crew
Don't forget that overall CPU usage is the sum of all your cores, you can still be limited by an overloaded single core, which is usually the problem. Your benchmark shows the full settings, taxing the GPU a bit more than me, as I have FXAA, heat haze and blur off. My goal is to never dip below 75fps (my monitor's refresh rate).
Here's my benchmark. Looks normal, doesn't it? More points than yours, higher CPU usage, better fps.
But let's check the CPU core loads and GPU usage during the first half of the benchmark (before the cars spread out):
On the first shot, the GPU is only running at 61% load, while the 2nd physical core is at 98%, overall CPU usage is a bare 20%. So the CPU is holding back the GPU from performing to full capacity.
Below that is a bit later, GPU at 79% (cars started to spread out), 1st physical CPU core running at 95%, overall 21% CPU load. Once again, the GPU can't use all its power, as it is waiting for the CPU.
That, my friend, is the schoolbook example of a CPU bottleneck. And it drives me crazy, being an IT guy for a living. My CPU is not throttling, all cores work on max clock speeds, the system runs off an SSD, and all is nice and clean. It is what it is, the single core performance of the 4790 can't counter the lack of proper multi-threaded optimization.
P.S.: Before you ask what my issue is with those fps numbers, try to run an offline race against 19 AI. Or just jump on a server with 20+ cars and check at the start of the grid. It can drop down to 45fps due to CPU load. Can't watch the replay of the same race without dipping below 60fps. And it's not the graphics card that can't render more frames, in those situations the GPU usage drops to the levels of 20-40%. There go my dreams of properly driving a 144Hz monitor with this system.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
