Its not fair to judge it this way considering that Ryzen has 16 threads while 7700K has 8, most games use 4 cores so if you see it as 4/16 that would equal to 25%. I do however agree that Ryzen is truly impressive and will be in my next build.
Projetx7 yeah I agree from a technical point of view, but I compare price/performance, and from that perspective both the i7 7700 and the Ryzen 1700 play in the same league. So I guess that Intel will see itself exposed to many, many more "unfair" comparisons. At least until they catch up with AMD in terms of production process (what Intel likes to refer to as "glued together CPUs") and more importantly the node leadership which intel currently seems to be losing to Samsung/GloFo/IBM/AMD...
Ive been saying this since 2004. Remember. It was Amd that gave us 64bit computing whilst Intel was just pumping cache on tired architecture to screw consumers.
Well even if on and if I had 70fps vs 90fps with intel it’s not worth the extra price nvida gpus are better due to technology atleast they make something like ray tracing but as I understand amd will have ray tracing and the same technology so does dropping 5fps for amd since consoles mainly want to have 4K 60fps at ultra settings lol 😂
Yeah, it goes to show that most games barely require more than 2 cores. 50% load on the i7 and 25% on ryzen both means only 2 cores need to be fully utilized . . .
I still choose the AMD 1700X instead of the Intel Core 7700K. AMD is more affordable, performance in editing programs and how long it has more than 60 FPS in games i'm happy.
They have really done wonders with Ryzen in terms of optimization. Gaming performance is practically on par with the i7 7700k which is a far shot from what it was on release(Like 20-30% behind in most cases). I honestly wouldn't have expected this. 8 Cores 16Threads for 4-6W in the difference over 4C/8T is phenomenal.
Larry Smith its around 2-20 frames behind in these benchmarks tho, but yeah it was far worse on launch gotta hand to amd, they really did tried their best.
Its more bios and agesa updates that ironed out the memory performance kinks, infinity fabric runs at half speed of ram. Imagine 4000mhz DDR4 in a improved ryzen or more with a 2-3ghz infinity fabric. almost IPC perfect with 5ghz+ i7.
honestly, the only reason to go with a 7700k is when planning to play at 144hz... but even then you have to delid the thing to keep it under 90 degrees at 5ghz
ultra settings are dumb... a 1070 is plenty for 1080p 144hz when paired with a 7600k @5ghz.. a 1080ti with a 7700k @5ghz should be enough for 1440p 144hz... although keep in mind that the difference in fps between Ultra and High is too big and cant be justified by the minimal visual difference it provides
Surely Best All Round Processor is AMD. And that's the real purposes of Computer. IPC is good but in the long run apps are more fashionable in Interface and needs more memory and processing power, thats where the more core counts. And ppl are more likely into dual monitors these days. Intel need to glue their asses together.
agreed gaming is only a small part in the grand scheme of what computing is about, and even games are finally adapting to core count. which makes intel a very hard sell because it's inferior in almost everything except single threading and compression. not worth 140 bucks more to me, oh wait, the 7700k dropped from 380 to 320 in 2 months... yeah, still not worth 100 bucks extra. :D
Alexander Rewijk AMD surely is the hero of these century by deliver us from the nightmare of locked processor, I3's 2 cores and from I5 +100 - 400mhz lineups.
JaCk MeOff those fps wont matter when for basically the same price you're getting both a gaming and productivity cpu, ryzen is the jack of all trade. Yes, if you're planning to only play games intel is the way to go but for rendering, virtual machines, professional app and streaming is an exelent cpu with good performance in almost every situation.
Oynuyor> Cinebench score, like all pure benchmark programs, is not indicative of real world performance. Everyone who is technically knowledgeable knows this. And the video rendering argument is simply laughable coming from you. Many amd fanboys trying to justify their purchase and pretending like they have a super cpu in their pc's now have tried it and invariably the number of videos they have on their channel is abysmally low even non existent. In your case your 1 video uploaded 3 years ago doesn't give you a workload that justifies the additional cores. Your computer would perform better with a chip from intel.
Intel is faster in games, but not by much, but when the Intel is running a game and something else interrupts the game, like for example an application running up more cpu usage, the game stutters and or slows down a little. Hence why less cores and faster core performance is not always better, which is why I should have waited another couple months before I bought a 7700k and went with Ryzen.
I feel you, I've been AMD in most of my prior systems, Athlon 965 Black Edition, 6300 then 8350, and while all good in their day I always looked at Intel and knew they were superior, so in my latest build I hung on to pay a bit more to get i7 7700K, MSI 1070 Quicksilver 8GB OC, 16GB Corsair Vengeance @ 3000mhz. Don't get me wrong, it's a beast system for my needs but I kinda feel guilty as I pretty much dismissed AMD and the new Ryzens due to past experiences and the reputation Intel have always had for superiority. I made a mistake in my opinion as I've always admired AMD's efforts but jumped ship just as they came good. See you in 2 years AMD, keep it up.
Dude did you miss phenom 2 man those quad cores were so good for single core performance games like world of warcraft and they were dirty cheap. My x4 945 phenom 2 overclocked to 4ghz with auto overclock in bios easy man that little cpu was so great i think i barley paid 100 bucks for it and it ran everything.
All These People In The Comment Box Are Just Broke🤣🤣They Think Intel Using High Cpu Power But Not Giving Performance,So Listen Now The CPU Power Usage Is Not Coming From Intel Rather Than It Is Coming From The Gpu Which Is Using The CPUs Power
Thank you for showing CPU values as well. So many people have this misconception that using 100% CPU is a good thing when it clearly isnt! I cant recommend any CPU that has less than 6 cores now simply because if you want to have something like google chrome open when gaming you will max out your CPU in most high end games! Not to mention that Ryzen 1700 is 8 cores 16 threads for only $300, that is an incredible value and will allow you to do many things. From gaming to game development,streaming and video content creation! Its just not worth it to buy an intel CPU for maybe 10 more fps. Great video!
Games don't use all cores. If you we're to do this 100% fair you'd either have to factor in each single cores load (*probably* also 100% on AMD) or not count the cores on the AMD cpu that the game can't use. Now if you were to look for future-proofing or heavy multitasking more cores could be helpfull, the downside to it is singlecore performance will drop to offset too much heat production (or if not done, cause thermal throttling). All in all high cpu usage means all is used which might mean bottleneck, but low cpu usage means either the cpu is doing fine and has nothing more to do *or* is at 100% at x cores but application can't use another core for said process so still bottleneck, but this time caused by the application. It's just not easy to compare unequal things and usually the numbers may mean something entirely different than what is thought at first glance.
I wasnt speaking to only games. I am using a i7 3770k with gtx 980 FE. When playing Ubisoft games ie Ghost recon wildlands or Watchdogs 2 they use all of my cores and threads. Causing a loss in frames due to 100% cpu usage. Even in some less demanding games like The long dark. Having google chrome open while watching a video maxes out my cpu causing loss of frames. Thats why I recommend 6 cores atleast so if you like to do anything while you game you will have plenty of cpu usage left for those tasks and your game will get what it needs to run at full speed. Most games do not use all cores but they are using more and more every year. Most games use up to 4 cores now. Especially AAA title games. So if your wanting to do anything else other than game and your willing to lose 10 fps on average but still have 60 fps if you have a decent gpu in most games then cores are where its at. besides a 6 core amd costs less than a quad core intel. So its a win win!
And to ask you how long is this AMD CPU will last? i have Q6600 intel for 11 years now and it still runs at 4 Ghz overclocked , for witch AMD you can say that? AMD is still shit and selling lower price garbage for you to last you 3-4 years, i dont buy PC to change it every 2-4 years i buy it to last 10 or more years then i change i dont want to waste money every year !!! like AMD so good luck with your AMD ill stick to intel
Dig Into Gaming Hmm... I have Intel and AMD CPUs that are well over 10 years old and none of them have failed yet. One shouldn't worry about lifespan, unless you take things to extreme levels in terms of overclocking.
The problem with games is that they're not optimized to use more than 4 cores, this was already issue back when Vishera CPUs came around and that was in 2011, game devs could potentially use the extra cores to lets say, render stuff offscreen, or or just preloading the next location, I don't see this being problematic as mainstream gaming already uses 16GBs or ram.
they are starting to. but keep in mind there is also room for multitasking, as well as productivity.. this cpu sets you up for that. with the new apis they take advantage even more so of the extra cores.. idk ryzen makes the most sense overall to me.
welll we have tomb raider(not properly implemented but they are working on it) crysis 3 a few others i forgot the name too. and doom.. basically any dx 12 or vulkan game.. also that rts.. thief did it too when it was using mantle... so yea its a slow adoption but the new apis will be adopted(just like all the others have been) and the new apis are designed to be more scaleable.. there are a few dx 11 games that do better with more cores but its only like 2 lol... this isnt like 2010.. amd was way too early on the multi core game.... its definitely the way we should head and are heading(not just games bur apps in general are utilizing it better. also workflows and multitasking on systems is becoming more common) honestly 4 cores is becoming a bottleneck one way or another... so yea i would jump on the 6 and up train before you get stuck on the next equivalent to a dual core =P even if its an old xeon rig.
Of course it makes more sense if you are upgrading. But there's no reason to blind ourselves with thinking developers will push their games into a platform that doesn't have the broadest available customer base. Most people buying games from steam are running 4 cores or less. If you already have a system that does what you want it to there's no reason to upgrade, then I'd much rather wait until I actually need to. But if you don't have a system, then I would definitely consider buying a 1700 Ryzen CPU.
Some ppl might interpret this as intel being the winner in the fps department but what I see is that low CPU usage for the Ryzen chip compared to intel making it the obvious choice for streamers!
Intel has AMD beat on power consumption but not by much. If the purpose is just gaming there are cheaper CPUs out there that can get the job done without bottlenecking a graphics card. When it comes to productivity, and if you consider both CPUs are in the same price point, AMD is the clear winner. You just have way more head room with the 8 cores. even if they are slightly slower and more power hungry. The thing to consider now is that this is the first generation of Zen architecture. It's only going to improve from here on out.
The AMD chip always has a lower load than the intel chip but the intel chip has a bit better fps. I prefer the chip not be under a lot of load and the AMD chip seems to handle that very well
Intel has better frame rates for gaming. AMD wins at multi-tasking, editing & live-streaming for better CPU efficiency. Once you get to over 80 FPS, you really can't notice the difference - even with the average difference of 28 FPS when playing Grand Theft Auto V, you still can't notice the difference... therefore AMD wins!
@@thedamntrain5481 not to offend but1st amd has best processors, 2nd amd processors is good for gaming and for edition , intel is only for gaming, 3rd amd processors have more cores and more threads with a low price and finally intel processors heat up, and amd has like 4 more fps than intel and ryzen is more faster
Laurențiu Derecichei 1700 lowered clock and coming wraith cooler + 65 W tdp . 1700x higher clock without wraith cooler and 95 W tdp. For me I dont need to AMD stuck cooler because I have NZXT X42 liquid cooler I will buy 1700x which give you more stable overclock and can achieve same performance as Ryzen 1800x.
Daryl keam Actually AMD cpus cooler than intel as I have FX with NZXT X42 liquid water the temp never ever goes over 42C and ideal temp is 14C same thing with gpu r9 270 lowest temp is 31C and maximum temp is 60C . It's depending on many situations like how big case you have and how air flow inside the case.
what i notice was that AMD had slightly lower fps but it was using between 20-30% percent less of cpu power then intel which means the games were not properly optimized or not optimized for ryzen CPU
50% usage is because games can't use all them cores and won't do for another 10 years, FX boys still waiting for that magic update to use all cores that get the same usage PMSL
Keep in mind that it's running on stock and Intel are famous to stock their k series low. So low that my 6600k on stock refuses to get over 40 degrees passive cooled. 3.5 was the stock and some manage a stable 4.5 without heat issues, only high voltage instability.
Idiots... Intel *OBLITERATED* Ryzen in games, regardless of opinions. And higher usage of Intel is cos half cores on AMD were never used at all by the game, nor they will be in near future.
How much AMD A9 proceser heat . Heat Like A4 (I have Used A4 .Heat like winter Heater ) or very low heat in Movies Internet Music Photo editing and Video editing..... Please Tell me which Amd processer dont heat too much. I am UsiNg Hp Intel Pentium Quad core prosessor (5 years old now) Still very very less heat but i want new one. Budget Range about 21000 ₹ (Sorry for Bad English )
Very nice Video. You can notice, that some games do support 8 cores much better (look at CPU usage). Those games dont have that big of a gap in FPS. Other games only seem to use 4 cores (much lower CPU usage on Ryzen) with a bigger FPS difference.
With the recent popularisation of multicore CPUs on PC and consoles I would honestly not buy 7700k today. Yes it offers better performance now if you just game, but its clear this CPU is close of becoming a bottleneck for future titles with its limited core and thread numbers. If you do anything except gaming or just want to be slightly more future proof a 6 core or 8 core are good choices. Ryzen will also force Intel to stop ripping of customers and charging 1k per 8 core CPU. 7800x/7820x with their flaws (Intel clearly rushed release there in response to Ryzen) are great examples of that.
Both of these CPUs should be able to use 100% of any GPU on the market ATM, and in most cases the GPU is the determining factor for your in game framerates. So this isn't a competition for AVG framerates because those are variable, but rather a competition for CPU load while playing these games. In that case the Rysen is the clear victor. That's not to say that the intel is worse at playing games, honestly either of these PCs can play any game on the market no problem. It's just that the Ryzen has more headroom for multitasking and future proofing.
what everyone is missing is the fact that yes intel cpu's are usually more expensive but that's an 8 core 16 thread processor that is on par or slightly under par on gaming and just slightly over par on multitasking and editing against a 4 core 8 thread processor. It's has twice as many cores and threads and it's only slightly better in certain situations and still under par in other aspects and everyone is blown away? Wtf? Intel cpu's are expensive for a reason. Comparing an 8 core to a 4 core and having such similar results should not be praised. I wanna see a quad core 8 thread AMD cpu matching the performance of the 7700k, then I'll be impressed.
Your video is very good. Thank you for your work I still have a question about the video music. Where did you get this music from? You said this is by audionatix "Big Car Theft ". But that can not be, the title in the portal sounds different!
Great review pretty much equal, even though the i7 7700k is clocked 25% higher. It would be much more interesting if you did a R5 1500x vs i7 7700k, though I believe you had the cut down 8MB L3 cache R5 1400 which lowers performance per clock by 7-15% in comparison to the 1500x.
Thank you so much for your support! And yes, I only had the R5 1400. I'd love to test the 1500X, but right now I need to focus on the upcoming Ryzen 3 launch. Also I need to sell my AMD RX 550 and NVIDIA GT 1030 GPUs in order to get some money back in. Spent way too much the last couple of months. Haha! :P
Ryzen 3 is going to be cool, I would suggest to get the cheaper model if you are buying it youself as in this case the cache and everything, except the clock speeds will be identical, but you will save 20-25 euro and since the process node is the limiting factor of Ryzen and NOT temperatures when overclocking, you can easily simulate the higher clocked and both should overclock equally as high. :)
Yes, I will be selling my Ryzen 3 CPU at a lowered price. If you live in Europe I can sell you that one once I'm done with testing. Also, should you have any interest in the Ryzen 5 1400, that one is still up for sale. However, you can have it for 129 Euros instead of 159 Euros (new). :)
+MzNToS Good choice, as long as it gets the job done. Ryzen runs cool with the stock coolers, so it will last a long time. :) Get the 100-110$ Ryzen 3, it will be the same as the more expensive 125-135$ model, just lower clocked and if you are choosing a quad core for a server, that means that it will be plenty.
@@captainoblivionthicc1004 not to offend but1st amd has best processors, 2nd amd processors is good for gaming and for edition , intel is only for gaming, 3rd amd processors have more cores and more threads with a low price and finally intel processors heat up, and amd has like 4 more fps than intel and ryzen is more faster
I have 2 Intel rigs. When I game I use vsync 60fps. So there is no advantage for Intel here. There even close without vsync here. Thank you amd for bringing these great processors to us. & Being a consumer friendly company.
Well ryzen reminds me of the 2500k 5years ago then for 250bucks you had a super cpu now it is still a super cpu but 5years later amd steps up with software and efficiency and gives you now the best performance for the price while still having headroom for more optimisation in a short period of time. Intel became victim of there own abuse of kapitalism wich is for us a very good thing:Dwhen my 2500k stops my system has a welcome home place for a ryzen 7 combo ;) and later on a new gpu perhaps:)
is not fx vs 2500k anymore , this time 2 and 4 cores are dead.... my e5470 already stutter in games that my 8120 with 5-15 lower fps is not , this time is for good!
I just bought a new PC with a 7700k, and while I kind of wish I had got a 1700x instead, I don't think I need to worry about it right now. I don't render videos or run a bunch of programs while I'm gaming, so I'm not going to be worrying about upgrading for probably a year or two or until games start becoming more dependent on multi-core CPU power. If you're strictly a gamer, you'll be fine with a 4 core CPU for the time being, but think about upgrading someday.
You can render videos and run a bunch of programs while you play. I do that on a 6600k @ 4.5ghz, so im sure you can do it on a 7700K, just it takes like 20 seconds longer to render that 4k video, who cares, unless you're doing it all day, day in and day out, and streaming works fine. Before Ryzen everyone streamed in i5 and i7s and they were fine. I care more about 5 10 or 15 extra fps in games, and i certainly care more about playing GTAV Online with 40 more fps than i would with a Ryzen. Absolutely. Testing also suggests that having both parts OCed makes the gaming gap grow and the production difference get reduced, since the 1700 averages 10% OCs, while both 7600 and 7700Ks pull around 20% OCs and can hit, perhaps cross 5 Ghz. Theres nothing to upgrade to if you're using 6700k or 7700k unless youre a professional and need the higher productivity rate for work.
I know that, that's why I'm not planning on upgrading right now. I just have a feeling that games will start becoming much more CPU intensive and taking advantage of more cores, which is why I might upgrade in a year or two. Not necessarily to a 1700x though, as it wouldn't be worth it and there will be better CPUs out then, most likely even some Intel cards with 6 or 8 cores.
Thats something we will have to see. So far, nothing is indicating that, new releases are all behaving as usual, and can run even on the modest 65$ G4560, sometimes onpar with the 7700K, so the requirements don't seem to be growing at any visible rate. Even BF1, one of the most demanding games and multithreaded appeaser, sees the 7600K beat a 1600X. Plus, same predictions were made 5 years ago when amd released the FX series, where every other fanboy would tell you "see you in 12 months when games require more cores than you even have". Its 2017 and the FX series never got to use them, they're relics nowadays. Ryzen are better than FX were, but a purpose for this many cores/threads still needs to appear.
Hey, consider this plz. (1.) Speed up the areas we waste time watching the tests happening. (2.) Give us MORE time as in like 3x longer for the RESULTS! Yes, that means (what seems like) the 1 or 2 MICRO seconds should become long enough for a 7th grader to read it twice, PLUS a little Brain time (2-5sec) depending on the info we need to take in & process in our sometimes laggin' noodles! Appreciate the work & effort, but it becomes wortless when we dont have long enuf to even pause it (w/ a remote control), alone Learn from all the tine & effort you put in. - Thank You
I bought Ryzen since 90% of my time is focus on working like editing, rendering etc. and the others for casual gaming. The Ryzen is not really that bad for gaming at all. Just want to have the best of both worlds.
€ 344 vs € 419, that's € 75 less, 17.8% of the AMD value. However if you compare i7-7820x vs Ryzen 1800x, that's 640 € vs 529, 111 more, just 17,34% of the Intel value. My conclusion is that Ryzen is interesting for performance ratio price in the current midrange, and Intel is more recommended in the high range,
Ryzen: hhhhmmm! Child's play. Intel: Maximum effort.. Wow!! at 20-50% CPU usage it can keep up with Intel and though Crysis 3 is almost 4years old it's still a beast of a game Ryzen@60% and Intel@86% CPU usage.. Impressive!!
Wait, wait! you have to make the benchmarks FAIR ! Like intel does their benchmarks! Downclock the intel to match the AMD clock then do the benchmark. That is how intel does it and that is the right way ! XD Can't wait to get my DIY glue together CPU kit from AMD ;)
Intel using CPU %40-60 between - AMD %20-35 Between very good :) Intel is ahead of processor usage. Intel puts too much load on the processor... AMD is working under less load. Almost the same performance in games. But AMD ahead on the workstation.
I seriously hate biased people in the comments. They form their opinions based on what they are already fans of and not what they may recognize as better. That's a problem.
don't kid yourself. it's aiming for your money. lots of it. if you have any, that is. If you can buy the same computing power at half the price, any smart person should go for it. it's why AMD is trumping intel right now in the enthusiast market. check out gamer's nexus report.
btw, i both have intel and AMD and I've never had any quality nor reliability issues with AMD. you sound like a fanboy. Not saying go buy AMD. I'm saying go buy the processor that offers the best value. just right now, it's clearly AMD.
@@nabahznznznsn3645 well that dont make it better, if you see the comparison the AMD has a little bit less FPS's but it only uses 22% of cpu while intel was using 48% cpu to give an extra 7 FPS's wich to me it seems that on the AMD case the GPU was the one choking the perfermance
Quite interesting comparison! Great job. I am wondering why Ryzen had such a low CPU usage, I wish we had the GPU usage % data as well for a better comparison. If I were to guess it, there are still some driver tweaking left to be done or maybe some programs or games were not optimized for that processor's instructions. But still that's just a guess. Again, awesome work.
people saying intel has less core and thread as a computer science student and engineer i would say that processor is not a car that increasing hp will give more power it works on a whole different concept and intel has better register management and insturction set optimized for the processor, that is the reason it performs better than amd
Why did you compare intel and amd processors with game benchmarks ? Only the beginning is useful... And for the temperature, is it the same cooling method ?
AMD was truly impressed me with Ryzen. I used to always pick Intel except a Athlon x4 620 that I'm still using today. That Athlon is very outdated even when OC at 3.25Ghz and is bottlenecking my GPU so I was thinking about building a new PC with a i5, but after seeing what Ryzen is capable of I'm definitively going with AMD again.
Both these chips are selling for $340 at Newegg right now. I'd personally go for the 1700X. It's practically the same as the 7700K in gaming but kicks the i7 in the nuts in other things. Seriously, if both chips run a game above 100fps, who cares if Ryzen is 150fps and i7 is 200fps? Yes Intel is faster but will you notice the difference? But when you do other things and the Ryzen machine completes the task in half the time it takes an i7 to do the same thing, the real world difference in performance is truly useful.
ben dover It didn't really beat ryzen. Beating in terms of fps isn't really a thing right now. The intel CPU can reach upto 70%-100% load in no time while the ryzen CPU chills at 30%-40%. When you're using a ryzen cpu, you can play a game, open multiple tabs on chrome, play a video on MPC etc. On intel, well... nvm
ben dover because in editing the multi threading from AMD comes into play. Intel only excel in single thread shit. Which you see it performs better I. Games and what not. But like it was stated earlier. You can run multiple apps and still game just fine on AMD. As for Intel the only thing you can do is game or you'll see your FPS drop. AMD can stream, record, game and have minimum if not any FPS drop. In a sense multi threading is ahead of the time right now. Or should I say AMD. Once games are optimized to use multiple cores and GPU AMD will really mop the floor with Intel.
Ryzen fucking shreds everything I've thrown at it. I can't even say a single bad thing about it. I am so glad I went with the 1700 instead of Intel 7700K. My 1700 is overclocked to the performance of a 1700X.
@@captainoblivionthicc1004 not to offend but 1st amd has best processors, 2nd amd processors is good for gaming and for edition , intel is only for gaming, 3rd amd processors have more cores and more threads with a low price and finally intel processors heat up, and amd has like 4 more fps than intel and ryzen is more faster
Here's the new version of this comparison: ua-cam.com/video/hzIGD9qJsaQ/v-deo.html
Ryzen runs the games at 25-30% CPU load, while performing on par with the higher clocked 7700K. Truly impressive.
Its not fair to judge it this way considering that Ryzen has 16 threads while 7700K has 8, most games use 4 cores so if you see it as 4/16 that would equal to 25%. I do however agree that Ryzen is truly impressive and will be in my next build.
Projetx7 yeah I agree from a technical point of view, but I compare price/performance, and from that perspective both the i7 7700 and the Ryzen 1700 play in the same league.
So I guess that Intel will see itself exposed to many, many more "unfair" comparisons. At least until they catch up with AMD in terms of production process (what Intel likes to refer to as "glued together CPUs") and more importantly the node leadership which intel currently seems to be losing to Samsung/GloFo/IBM/AMD...
it means, you can have more/heavier stuff in the background if you need it for some reason.
Gabor> And there you said it "for some reason" which means that for 90% of gamers that means there is no reason.
I was here, I watched, Ryzen was the winner for me.
I was a Intel Fanboy. But since 2017 i say AMD is the smart peoples choice!
Ive been saying this since 2004. Remember. It was Amd that gave us 64bit computing whilst Intel was just pumping cache on tired architecture to screw consumers.
@@fokthewef damn bruh i was too, an intel fanboy and thought that amd is shit but now holy shit they're good af n i cant wait for the 3000 series
Well even if on and if I had 70fps vs 90fps with intel it’s not worth the extra price nvida gpus are better due to technology atleast they make something like ray tracing but as I understand amd will have ray tracing and the same technology so does dropping 5fps for amd since consoles mainly want to have 4K 60fps at ultra settings lol 😂
@@jonathanoxlade4252 so which is better amd or intel?
@@stev367 amd!
anyone notice the CPU usage?
Which pretty much makes his point
He tests games at 1080p and Ultra an we didn't see the GPU load.
Yeah, it goes to show that most games barely require more than 2 cores.
50% load on the i7 and 25% on ryzen both means only 2 cores need to be fully utilized . . .
Yeah, AMD like 25% usage and Intel 60 % usage ..... I would expect more from Intel CPU!
TejkoRubix TejkoRubix that's because AMD has more cores. Not because intel is worse.
I still choose the AMD 1700X instead of the Intel Core 7700K. AMD is more affordable, performance in editing programs and how long it has more than 60 FPS in games i'm happy.
I'm sorry you couldn't afford the i7 :(
Wait for 4 or 5 years, see if your AMD powered PC still runs or not. Cheers, Intel user.
@@Cambaudio i can buy 2 i7 7700K if i want, but i'm smart people who value money the most
They have really done wonders with Ryzen in terms of optimization. Gaming performance is practically on par with the i7 7700k which is a far shot from what it was on release(Like 20-30% behind in most cases). I honestly wouldn't have expected this.
8 Cores 16Threads for 4-6W in the difference over 4C/8T is phenomenal.
Larry Smith its around 2-20 frames behind in these benchmarks tho, but yeah it was far worse on launch gotta hand to amd, they really did tried their best.
games run smoother on the right.
yep exactly thats what i was thinking the whole video!!!
1 fps difference in tomb raider. faster in crysis iirc.
Its more bios and agesa updates that ironed out the memory performance kinks, infinity fabric runs at half speed of ram. Imagine 4000mhz DDR4 in a improved ryzen or more with a 2-3ghz infinity fabric. almost IPC perfect with 5ghz+ i7.
I think AMD is Still better cause fps are stable and CPU is making less process than intel...
The FPS is stable on both and Intel has better fps but your right the ryzen is "making less process than intel"
loothill Kevaz Yess amd is better
Yess i think you right, the CPU AMD work better , Intel work hard to get un stable fps
honestly, the only reason to go with a 7700k is when planning to play at 144hz... but even then you have to delid the thing to keep it under 90 degrees at 5ghz
sekketsu gr I think the limitation was gpu not the CPU. You wanna play at 144hz you need a gtx 1080 I think.
you need an equally powerful cpu to push 144hz
gtx 1080 wont push 144hz on ultra settings even on 1080p lmao, you need like 1080ti sli to get 144hz in every game at 1080p on ultra settings.
Angus U name one game that's actually cool in the sense and can run 1080p ultra settings at 144hz on gtx1080.
ultra settings are dumb... a 1070 is plenty for 1080p 144hz when paired with a 7600k @5ghz.. a 1080ti with a 7700k @5ghz should be enough for 1440p 144hz...
although keep in mind that the difference in fps between Ultra and High is too big and cant be justified by the minimal visual difference it provides
Have bought and built a Ryzen system...never looked back since
The development is fantastic....
Surely Best All Round Processor is AMD. And that's the real purposes of Computer. IPC is good but in the long run apps are more fashionable in Interface and needs more memory and processing power, thats where the more core counts. And ppl are more likely into dual monitors these days. Intel need to glue their asses together.
Bonclay oh my that last pun...amazing
agreed
gaming is only a small part in the grand scheme of what computing is about, and even games are finally adapting to core count.
which makes intel a very hard sell because it's inferior in almost everything except single threading and compression.
not worth 140 bucks more to me, oh wait, the 7700k dropped from 380 to 320 in 2 months...
yeah, still not worth 100 bucks extra. :D
Alexander Rewijk AMD surely is the hero of these century by deliver us from the nightmare of locked processor, I3's 2 cores and from I5 +100 - 400mhz lineups.
aint no fanboy but i see more fps on intel wtf?
JaCk MeOff those fps wont matter when for basically the same price you're getting both a gaming and productivity cpu, ryzen is the jack of all trade. Yes, if you're planning to only play games intel is the way to go but for rendering, virtual machines, professional app and streaming is an exelent cpu with good performance in almost every situation.
Awesome comparison... I hope to find time and patiently edit videos like this and upload them... Awesome work...
Thank you very much for your kind words!
man.... that 1700x is a beast
Intel always wins.
look at cinebench and rendering video looollll you're just a funboy
yeah for pro, not for gamers
Oynuyor> Cinebench score, like all pure benchmark programs, is not indicative of real world performance. Everyone who is technically knowledgeable knows this.
And the video rendering argument is simply laughable coming from you. Many amd fanboys trying to justify their purchase and pretending like they have a super cpu in their pc's now have tried it and invariably the number of videos they have on their channel is abysmally low even non existent. In your case your 1 video uploaded 3 years ago doesn't give you a workload that justifies the additional cores. Your computer would perform better with a chip from intel.
lol i think u need glasses
I always check the comments to see what the experts have to say. Great video btw!
Fer ddsc Intel for gaming Ryzen for streaming and editing
Intel is faster in games, but not by much, but when the Intel is running a game and something else interrupts the game, like for example an application running up more cpu usage, the game stutters and or slows down a little. Hence why less cores and faster core performance is not always better, which is why I should have waited another couple months before I bought a 7700k and went with Ryzen.
I feel you, I've been AMD in most of my prior systems, Athlon 965 Black Edition, 6300 then 8350, and while all good in their day I always looked at Intel and knew they were superior, so in my latest build I hung on to pay a bit more to get i7 7700K, MSI 1070 Quicksilver 8GB OC, 16GB Corsair Vengeance @ 3000mhz. Don't get me wrong, it's a beast system for my needs but I kinda feel guilty as I pretty much dismissed AMD and the new Ryzens due to past experiences and the reputation Intel have always had for superiority. I made a mistake in my opinion as I've always admired AMD's efforts but jumped ship just as they came good. See you in 2 years AMD, keep it up.
you mean H2 2018 to Q1 2019 when 7nm zen2 is scheduled to be released?
Dude did you miss phenom 2 man those quad cores were so good for single core performance games like world of warcraft and they were dirty cheap. My x4 945 phenom 2 overclocked to 4ghz with auto overclock in bios easy man that little cpu was so great i think i barley paid 100 bucks for it and it ran everything.
Sorry, yeh I forgot the comma between Athlon and the 965, which was a Phenom II, and it was awesome.
I still have a family rig running a phenom II 965, and it performs great, but it doesn't do gaming anymore. It survived well longer than I assumed.
All These People In The Comment Box Are Just Broke🤣🤣They Think Intel Using High Cpu Power But Not Giving Performance,So Listen Now The CPU Power Usage Is Not Coming From Intel Rather Than It Is Coming From The Gpu Which Is Using The CPUs Power
Thank you for showing CPU values as well. So many people have this misconception that using 100% CPU is a good thing when it clearly isnt! I cant recommend any CPU that has less than 6 cores now simply because if you want to have something like google chrome open when gaming you will max out your CPU in most high end games! Not to mention that Ryzen 1700 is 8 cores 16 threads for only $300, that is an incredible value and will allow you to do many things. From gaming to game development,streaming and video content creation! Its just not worth it to buy an intel CPU for maybe 10 more fps. Great video!
Thanks for your positive feedback!
Games don't use all cores. If you we're to do this 100% fair you'd either have to factor in each single cores load (*probably* also 100% on AMD) or not count the cores on the AMD cpu that the game can't use.
Now if you were to look for future-proofing or heavy multitasking more cores could be helpfull, the downside to it is singlecore performance will drop to offset too much heat production (or if not done, cause thermal throttling).
All in all high cpu usage means all is used which might mean bottleneck, but low cpu usage means either the cpu is doing fine and has nothing more to do *or* is at 100% at x cores but application can't use another core for said process so still bottleneck, but this time caused by the application.
It's just not easy to compare unequal things and usually the numbers may mean something entirely different than what is thought at first glance.
I wasnt speaking to only games. I am using a i7 3770k with gtx 980 FE. When playing Ubisoft games ie Ghost recon wildlands or Watchdogs 2 they use all of my cores and threads. Causing a loss in frames due to 100% cpu usage. Even in some less demanding games like The long dark. Having google chrome open while watching a video maxes out my cpu causing loss of frames. Thats why I recommend 6 cores atleast so if you like to do anything while you game you will have plenty of cpu usage left for those tasks and your game will get what it needs to run at full speed. Most games do not use all cores but they are using more and more every year. Most games use up to 4 cores now. Especially AAA title games. So if your wanting to do anything else other than game and your willing to lose 10 fps on average but still have 60 fps if you have a decent gpu in most games then cores are where its at. besides a 6 core amd costs less than a quad core intel. So its a win win!
And to ask you how long is this AMD CPU will last? i have Q6600 intel for 11 years now and it still runs at 4 Ghz overclocked , for witch AMD you can say that? AMD is still shit and selling lower price garbage for you to last you 3-4 years, i dont buy PC to change it every 2-4 years i buy it to last 10 or more years then i change i dont want to waste money every year !!! like AMD so good luck with your AMD ill stick to intel
Dig Into Gaming Hmm... I have Intel and AMD CPUs that are well over 10 years old and none of them have failed yet. One shouldn't worry about lifespan, unless you take things to extreme levels in terms of overclocking.
Why many games was tested with dx11? Ryzen have better performance with dx12
The problem with games is that they're not optimized to use more than 4 cores, this was already issue back when Vishera CPUs came around and that was in 2011, game devs could potentially use the extra cores to lets say, render stuff offscreen, or or just preloading the next location, I don't see this being problematic as mainstream gaming already uses 16GBs or ram.
they are starting to. but keep in mind there is also room for multitasking, as well as productivity.. this cpu sets you up for that. with the new apis they take advantage even more so of the extra cores.. idk ryzen makes the most sense overall to me.
looking at ryzen almost completely keep up and use less cpu says alot about its potential for growth when it comes to games being built around it.
that's what people were saying back in 2010... still waiting for developers to take advantage of more than 4 cores.
welll we have tomb raider(not properly implemented but they are working on it) crysis 3 a few others i forgot the name too. and doom.. basically any dx 12 or vulkan game.. also that rts.. thief did it too when it was using mantle... so yea its a slow adoption but the new apis will be adopted(just like all the others have been) and the new apis are designed to be more scaleable.. there are a few dx 11 games that do better with more cores but its only like 2 lol...
this isnt like 2010.. amd was way too early on the multi core game.... its definitely the way we should head and are heading(not just games bur apps in general are utilizing it better. also workflows and multitasking on systems is becoming more common) honestly 4 cores is becoming a bottleneck one way or another... so yea i would jump on the 6 and up train before you get stuck on the next equivalent to a dual core =P even if its an old xeon rig.
Of course it makes more sense if you are upgrading. But there's no reason to blind ourselves with thinking developers will push their games into a platform that doesn't have the broadest available customer base. Most people buying games from steam are running 4 cores or less. If you already have a system that does what you want it to there's no reason to upgrade, then I'd much rather wait until I actually need to. But if you don't have a system, then I would definitely consider buying a 1700 Ryzen CPU.
Intel:only game (4core..)
AMD:MULTI(play game while opening internet,skype,etc..)
건박 its either playing game or being on google or just buy two monitors
No
AMD is supposed to be cheaper
succ
Some ppl might interpret this as intel being the winner in the fps department but what I see is that low CPU usage for the Ryzen chip compared to intel making it the obvious choice for streamers!
Catfish Jenkins you the cpu usage how about the power consumption
Intel has AMD beat on power consumption but not by much. If the purpose is just gaming there are cheaper CPUs out there that can get the job done without bottlenecking a graphics card. When it comes to productivity, and if you consider both CPUs are in the same price point, AMD is the clear winner. You just have way more head room with the 8 cores. even if they are slightly slower and more power hungry. The thing to consider now is that this is the first generation of Zen architecture. It's only going to improve from here on out.
the fact that a quadcore cpu uses nearly as much power as a octacore is just sad for intel.
Arti c TDP might be lower but power consumption is higher with ryzen at least that's what I have seen from benchmarks.
Oxaile thats how powerful thats 4core is vs to that 8core..
The AMD chip always has a lower load than the intel chip but the intel chip has a bit better fps. I prefer the chip not be under a lot of load and the AMD chip seems to handle that very well
5 Intel fan boys are really butt hurt today...
now there are 21
Elite Dangerous Club more than 10000000
? Intel draws less power, costs less, and hase more fps overall oO
Yes but that doesn't apply to 95% of gamers so for the majority, intel is obviously the better choice
no we are not as the video does not represent the truth true compare intel vs amd 2017 amdvsintel2017 . blogspot . com thanks
Intel has better frame rates for gaming. AMD wins at multi-tasking, editing & live-streaming for better CPU efficiency.
Once you get to over 80 FPS, you really can't notice the difference - even with the average difference of 28 FPS when playing Grand Theft Auto V, you still can't notice the difference...
therefore AMD wins!
With with 3 fps...
@@thedamntrain5481 not to offend but1st amd has best processors, 2nd amd processors is good for gaming and for edition , intel is only for gaming, 3rd amd processors have more cores and more threads with a low price and finally intel processors heat up, and amd has like 4 more fps than intel and ryzen is more faster
@@faboxtech amd is always best value for performance, finally someone who agrees.
Using red font would be better for overlay. Can't see yellow numbers in the bright white sky in games.
Using red font is hell to read when you're in the dark parts in-game
R7 1700 is only 260 dollars on amazon right now
1700 or 1700x ? whats the difference
Laurențiu Derecichei 1700 lowered clock and coming wraith cooler + 65 W tdp . 1700x higher clock without wraith cooler and 95 W tdp. For me I dont need to AMD stuck cooler because I have NZXT X42 liquid cooler I will buy 1700x which give you more stable overclock and can achieve same performance as Ryzen 1800x.
Fuck amd their products get to warm.
Daryl keam Actually AMD cpus cooler than intel as I have FX with NZXT X42 liquid water the temp never ever goes over 42C and ideal temp is 14C same thing with gpu r9 270 lowest temp is 31C and maximum temp is 60C . It's depending on many situations like how big case you have and how air flow inside the case.
Sayed Moh'd Sayed Jawad yeah well i read that sort of things on populair revieuw sites. After 5 october coffee lake launch+benchmarks i choose. Cya
jesus those cpu usage numbers are not a good sign for the intel longevity even if it is slightly faster.
Ritchie the AMD chip is always 15 to 25% lower usage on average it indicates that the intel chip will probably it cpu bottleneck first.
You don't know shit, stop talking.
Exactly, Intel will bottleneck pretty soon in newer games, specially ones that make use of more cores.
Yeah I mean, 40% usage on an i7-7700K in an intensive CPU game (BF1), so much bottleneck manyw0w.
compared to ryzen 25%, it will botteneck much sooner.
what i notice was that AMD had slightly lower fps but it was using between 20-30% percent less of cpu power then intel which means the games were not properly optimized or not optimized for ryzen CPU
It is amazing how these guys came back on the market. They really did a good job. Well done AMD!
Intel CPU usage is Higher than AmD And still its not giving so higher FPS than AmD so the winner is AMD make video AMD vs Navida
It's Nvidia dude
Nvidia forever!
Indian Gamer Arnadeep lol
Amd :50% usage
Intel: 80%
Amd ftw
50% usage is because games can't use all them cores and won't do for another 10 years, FX boys still waiting for that magic update to use all cores that get the same usage PMSL
clearly amd get lowest TDP with low cpu usage.
good bye intel, i going to cheating 😭
6 core gaming is the future, we have been stuck with Intel's shit 4 core for way too long. Time for an actual change this time
Keep in mind that it's running on stock and Intel are famous to stock their k series low. So low that my 6600k on stock refuses to get over 40 degrees passive cooled. 3.5 was the stock and some manage a stable 4.5 without heat issues, only high voltage instability.
Idiots... Intel *OBLITERATED* Ryzen in games, regardless of opinions. And higher usage of Intel is cos half cores on AMD were never used at all by the game, nor they will be in near future.
AMD fanforever 💜
Bcoz it's makes technology affordable
20% cheaper for 20% lesser performance?
@@BLOODYHACKER you a dumbass
@@BLOODYHACKER amd usage is less then intel so thats why fps is lower then intel.
How much AMD A9 proceser heat . Heat Like A4 (I have Used A4 .Heat like winter Heater ) or very low heat in Movies Internet Music Photo editing and Video editing.....
Please Tell me which Amd processer dont heat too much.
I am UsiNg Hp Intel Pentium Quad core prosessor (5 years old now) Still very very less heat but i want new one.
Budget Range about 21000 ₹
(Sorry for Bad English )
Both CPUs are great!!!
Very nice Video.
You can notice, that some games do support 8 cores much better (look at CPU usage).
Those games dont have that big of a gap in FPS.
Other games only seem to use 4 cores (much lower CPU usage on Ryzen) with a bigger FPS difference.
Anyone use PC just for gaming? I don't think so... You will notice that AMD is much better when it's come in over all and 24/7 working on that PC...
I do pretty much i only game and for some browsing an i7 4770 is totally ovetkill an Pentium souls be the same dir Browsing 😂😂😂
Thanks for your work! This is one of the best comparission on the youtube!
With the recent popularisation of multicore CPUs on PC and consoles I would honestly not buy 7700k today. Yes it offers better performance now if you just game, but its clear this CPU is close of becoming a bottleneck for future titles with its limited core and thread numbers. If you do anything except gaming or just want to be slightly more future proof a 6 core or 8 core are good choices. Ryzen will also force Intel to stop ripping of customers and charging 1k per 8 core CPU. 7800x/7820x with their flaws (Intel clearly rushed release there in response to Ryzen) are great examples of that.
There is no game who use more than 4 core man ;)
So technically if u just wanna play it's much better to get a 7700k
I am agreed with anis1630 .
how to get to Summit Ridge? Just cross the Kaby Lake
That's gold!
nice, love my 1700 @ 3.8ghz whats the max temp you get with that cryorig a40 I got same one.
jason lindquist i have r7 too can you tell me your vcore and how to oc it on b350 strix board bios
Lol i have i5 4.6ghz
Both of these CPUs should be able to use 100% of any GPU on the market ATM, and in most cases the GPU is the determining factor for your in game framerates. So this isn't a competition for AVG framerates because those are variable, but rather a competition for CPU load while playing these games. In that case the Rysen is the clear victor. That's not to say that the intel is worse at playing games, honestly either of these PCs can play any game on the market no problem. It's just that the Ryzen has more headroom for multitasking and future proofing.
and my laptop even drops frames to play this video lol
Lol
what everyone is missing is the fact that yes intel cpu's are usually more expensive but that's an 8 core 16 thread processor that is on par or slightly under par on gaming and just slightly over par on multitasking and editing against a 4 core 8 thread processor. It's has twice as many cores and threads and it's only slightly better in certain situations and still under par in other aspects and everyone is blown away? Wtf? Intel cpu's are expensive for a reason. Comparing an 8 core to a 4 core and having such similar results should not be praised. I wanna see a quad core 8 thread AMD cpu matching the performance of the 7700k, then I'll be impressed.
Reaction from Intel since Ryzen is out, more cores, pentium is becoming the new i3 (2cores 4 threads), the new i3 get 4cores.
Good job AMD.
Your video is very good. Thank you for your work
I still have a question about the video music. Where did you get this music from? You said this is by audionatix "Big Car Theft ". But that can not be, the title in the portal sounds different!
not answer... :-/
Great review pretty much equal, even though the i7 7700k is clocked 25% higher.
It would be much more interesting if you did a R5 1500x vs i7 7700k, though I believe you had the cut down 8MB L3 cache R5 1400 which lowers performance per clock by 7-15% in comparison to the 1500x.
Thank you so much for your support!
And yes, I only had the R5 1400. I'd love to test the 1500X, but right now I need to focus on the upcoming Ryzen 3 launch. Also I need to sell my AMD RX 550 and NVIDIA GT 1030 GPUs in order to get some money back in. Spent way too much the last couple of months. Haha! :P
Ryzen 3 is going to be cool, I would suggest to get the cheaper model if you are buying it youself as in this case the cache and everything, except the clock speeds will be identical, but you will save 20-25 euro and since the process node is the limiting factor of Ryzen and NOT temperatures when overclocking, you can easily simulate the higher clocked and both should overclock equally as high. :)
Yes, indeed. You're right. I'm planning on buying the cheaper model. :)
Yes, I will be selling my Ryzen 3 CPU at a lowered price. If you live in Europe I can sell you that one once I'm done with testing. Also, should you have any interest in the Ryzen 5 1400, that one is still up for sale. However, you can have it for 129 Euros instead of 159 Euros (new). :)
+MzNToS
Good choice, as long as it gets the job done. Ryzen runs cool with the stock coolers, so it will last a long time. :)
Get the 100-110$ Ryzen 3, it will be the same as the more expensive 125-135$ model, just lower clocked and if you are choosing a quad core for a server, that means that it will be plenty.
Intel: Better performance, High CPU Usage
AMD: Decent Performance, Medium CPU Usage
I think its balanced
AMD Is The Cheapest And Fastest .Better....
Hoter better faster :3
@@DomsedCZ but h100i and it smokes intel by a lot. I prefer intel for CPU and AMD for graphics.
yes i know this is song for amd fans :D "hoter better faster"
@Sam K
Yeah
Manik Sen Official ooh you mean better is who gives less fps
But, CPU usage on amd is lower than intel. So, if the cpu usage on 2 CPU was same, AMD more greater than intel
When you have 0 knowledge about hardware
i think the guy playing on AMD is a better gamer
Oh crap! I was the one playing on the Intel system. :(
LOL!
:)
i figured it ..while u guys were riding horse in witcher 3 ...... i guess
Good catch! I'm actually really a pretty bad gamer. Probably because I very rarely have time to game. Haha! :D
that's a valid point...and accepted
very nice and helpful video keep it up!!!
Sir, next time use Radeon for the Ryzen for comparison.. AMD combo..
GOING TO BUY A PC WHICH OF THESE PROCESSOR IS BETTER?
Intel! We need more core and lower price! Thanks AMD for sent that message to Intel!
That 5 minutes difference on rendering video will save your life on tight deadlines.
If you want less power consumption, go with R7 1700.
Jinu Mathers If you want better framerate and overall a faster cpu go for INTEL
Milan van der Vliet yeah go ahead and spread more shit around intel fanboy
wolfieg intel is better its just the price every famous gamer uses intel
@@captainoblivionthicc1004 not to offend but1st amd has best processors, 2nd amd processors is good for gaming and for edition , intel is only for gaming, 3rd amd processors have more cores and more threads with a low price and finally intel processors heat up, and amd has like 4 more fps than intel and ryzen is more faster
I love that review... You are best... Thanks for your video, can i recomended this video in my channel, with your link in recomended videos?
Check out the new, updated version featuring the Intel i7-8700K Coffee Lake CPU here: ua-cam.com/video/gNRNFM5Tsak/v-deo.html
Intel is bigger brand and I prefer it.
yeah especially after the whole controversial kernel leak bug, that fucks up intel CPU
hi can you gift me one of them today is my birthday i wish you gift one of them. thank you +Nicolas11x12 English
Nicolas11x12 English Intel Kaby Lake = Ryzen Threadripper, not 7...
I have 2 Intel rigs. When I game I use vsync 60fps. So there is no advantage for Intel here. There even close without vsync here. Thank you amd for bringing these great processors to us. & Being a consumer friendly company.
Well ryzen reminds me of the 2500k 5years ago then for 250bucks you had a super cpu now it is still a super cpu but 5years later amd steps up with software and efficiency and gives you now the best performance for the price while still having headroom for more optimisation in a short period of time. Intel became victim of there own abuse of kapitalism wich is for us a very good thing:Dwhen my 2500k stops my system has a welcome home place for a ryzen 7 combo ;) and later on a new gpu perhaps:)
Hold on for the second gen Ryzen if you can. Those will have better optimizations.
2500k was some CPU though. Even my friend still rocks one.
is not fx vs 2500k anymore , this time 2 and 4 cores are dead.... my e5470 already stutter in games that my 8120 with 5-15 lower fps is not , this time is for good!
really? everything here works fine and as expected and no hell here ;)
Rusu .Alin And then you realise that the best performing gaming cpu is 4-core.
I just bought a new PC with a 7700k, and while I kind of wish I had got a 1700x instead, I don't think I need to worry about it right now. I don't render videos or run a bunch of programs while I'm gaming, so I'm not going to be worrying about upgrading for probably a year or two or until games start becoming more dependent on multi-core CPU power. If you're strictly a gamer, you'll be fine with a 4 core CPU for the time being, but think about upgrading someday.
You can render videos and run a bunch of programs while you play. I do that on a 6600k @ 4.5ghz, so im sure you can do it on a 7700K, just it takes like 20 seconds longer to render that 4k video, who cares, unless you're doing it all day, day in and day out, and streaming works fine. Before Ryzen everyone streamed in i5 and i7s and they were fine.
I care more about 5 10 or 15 extra fps in games, and i certainly care more about playing GTAV Online with 40 more fps than i would with a Ryzen. Absolutely.
Testing also suggests that having both parts OCed makes the gaming gap grow and the production difference get reduced, since the 1700 averages 10% OCs, while both 7600 and 7700Ks pull around 20% OCs and can hit, perhaps cross 5 Ghz. Theres nothing to upgrade to if you're using 6700k or 7700k unless youre a professional and need the higher productivity rate for work.
I know that, that's why I'm not planning on upgrading right now. I just have a feeling that games will start becoming much more CPU intensive and taking advantage of more cores, which is why I might upgrade in a year or two. Not necessarily to a 1700x though, as it wouldn't be worth it and there will be better CPUs out then, most likely even some Intel cards with 6 or 8 cores.
Thats something we will have to see. So far, nothing is indicating that, new releases are all behaving as usual, and can run even on the modest 65$ G4560, sometimes onpar with the 7700K, so the requirements don't seem to be growing at any visible rate. Even BF1, one of the most demanding games and multithreaded appeaser, sees the 7600K beat a 1600X.
Plus, same predictions were made 5 years ago when amd released the FX series, where every other fanboy would tell you "see you in 12 months when games require more cores than you even have". Its 2017 and the FX series never got to use them, they're relics nowadays. Ryzen are better than FX were, but a purpose for this many cores/threads still needs to appear.
Intel For Game, And Amd For Editing videos
Indo bro
Iky 240 bru India
Dean Tisnam what you say dude
Iky 240 indigo
Dean Tisnam i realy dont enderstan you speak.
Hey, consider this plz. (1.) Speed up the areas we waste time watching the tests happening. (2.) Give us MORE time as in like 3x longer for the RESULTS! Yes, that means (what seems like) the 1 or 2 MICRO seconds should become long enough for a 7th grader to read it twice, PLUS a little Brain time (2-5sec) depending on the info we need to take in & process in our sometimes laggin' noodles! Appreciate the work & effort, but it becomes wortless when we dont have long enuf to even pause it (w/ a remote control), alone Learn from all the tine & effort you put in. - Thank You
Nice to know that i can buy 2 these for one Intel price :)
saroksts just find a good website dont but your shit from amazon i got an i7 for just the same prize as an ryzen 5 no joke
Milan van der Vliet I'm pretty sure that's an old processor.
Rully Harto no its a i7 8700k
I bought Ryzen since 90% of my time is focus on working like editing, rendering etc. and the others for casual gaming. The Ryzen is not really that bad for gaming at all. Just want to have the best of both worlds.
€ 344 vs € 419, that's € 75 less, 17.8% of the AMD value. However if you compare i7-7820x vs Ryzen 1800x, that's 640 € vs 529, 111 more, just 17,34% of the Intel value. My conclusion is that Ryzen is interesting for performance ratio price in the current midrange, and Intel is more recommended in the high range,
Can't wait to get my Ryzen 1700 for my channel!
Ryzen: hhhhmmm! Child's play.
Intel: Maximum effort..
Wow!! at 20-50% CPU usage it can keep up with Intel and though Crysis 3 is almost 4years old it's still a beast of a game Ryzen@60% and Intel@86% CPU usage.. Impressive!!
and even tho crysis 3 is using more cores on the amd cpu its utilization is still really low compared to the intel. good job amd.. finally. :)
Crazy, when gaming the intel is pushing out 2-7 frames more, but using double the cpu.
Wait, wait! you have to make the benchmarks FAIR ! Like intel does their benchmarks! Downclock the intel to match the AMD clock then do the benchmark. That is how intel does it and that is the right way ! XD
Can't wait to get my DIY glue together CPU kit from AMD ;)
Crispy K and disable the extra cores AMD have
Intel using CPU %40-60 between - AMD %20-35 Between very good :)
Intel is ahead of processor usage.
Intel puts too much load on the processor...
AMD is working under less load.
Almost the same performance in games.
But AMD ahead on the workstation.
loook at price to performance ratio
I seriously hate biased people in the comments. They form their opinions based on what they are already fans of and not what they may recognize as better. That's a problem.
Get the R5 1600 or 1700 they are the best allround cpus you can get, plus they come with a good cooler that will let you get them up to 3.8-3.9GHz.
Can't wait for Ryzen+ in March :)
Check out my new INTEL VS AMD 2018 video!
ua-cam.com/video/EqbXKK2lDW0/v-deo.html
Nicolas11x12 English so did you upload this video on amd or intel
Remember, stock clocks favour the Ryzen system as they don't overclock as dramatically.
Intel is aiming for the quality an reliability " not performance.
don't kid yourself. it's aiming for your money. lots of it. if you have any, that is. If you can buy the same computing power at half the price, any smart person should go for it. it's why AMD is trumping intel right now in the enthusiast market. check out gamer's nexus report.
btw, i both have intel and AMD and I've never had any quality nor reliability issues with AMD. you sound like a fanboy.
Not saying go buy AMD. I'm saying go buy the processor that offers the best value. just right now, it's clearly AMD.
Intel really is for "PURE GAMING". Choose AMD only for multiple tasks but you can also game if you want to, but you can do the same for Intel.
so an AMD is the best option ?
No is intel
@@nabahznznznsn3645 why you say that?
@@LogitechXibanga because my CPU is intel
@@nabahznznznsn3645 well that dont make it better, if you see the comparison the AMD has a little bit less FPS's but it only uses 22% of cpu while intel was using 48% cpu to give an extra 7 FPS's wich to me it seems that on the AMD case the GPU was the one choking the perfermance
@@LogitechXibanga im going to buy this cpu
Quite interesting comparison! Great job. I am wondering why Ryzen had such a low CPU usage, I wish we had the GPU usage % data as well for a better comparison. If I were to guess it, there are still some driver tweaking left to be done or maybe some programs or games were not optimized for that processor's instructions. But still that's just a guess. Again, awesome work.
135 fps on gta v? Nice br
people saying intel has less core and thread
as a computer science student and engineer i would say that processor is not a car that increasing hp will give more power
it works on a whole different concept and intel has better register management and insturction set optimized for the processor, that is the reason it performs better than amd
Tldr. No reason to get kaby lake.
ryzen 3 ftw
GL HF COFFEE LAKE
Why did you compare intel and amd processors with game benchmarks ? Only the beginning is useful... And for the temperature, is it the same cooling method ?
AMD is best 😎😎😎
AMD was truly impressed me with Ryzen. I used to always pick Intel except a Athlon x4 620 that I'm still using today. That Athlon is very outdated even when OC at 3.25Ghz and is bottlenecking my GPU so I was thinking about building a new PC with a i5, but after seeing what Ryzen is capable of I'm definitively going with AMD again.
Tank god i choosed ryzen :D
noob
noob
probably the best Comparison in YT
AMD in 2020- yeah laugh at me now!
Intel is like Apple and amd is samsung
Both these chips are selling for $340 at Newegg right now. I'd personally go for the 1700X. It's practically the same as the 7700K in gaming but kicks the i7 in the nuts in other things.
Seriously, if both chips run a game above 100fps, who cares if Ryzen is 150fps and i7 is 200fps? Yes Intel is faster but will you notice the difference? But when you do other things and the Ryzen machine completes the task in half the time it takes an i7 to do the same thing, the real world difference in performance is truly useful.
Amd much better
Hey dude, on which one of those laptops runs GTA 5 better?
1- Lenovo B51-35 AMD A8-7410 4x 2.50 Ghz. 16 GB RAM DDR3L. AMD Radeon R5 M330, 2 GB VGA.
2- Samsung. intel R Core TM. i7- 3610 Qm 2.3 Ghz. 8 GB Ram, Vga AMD Radeon HD 7670M - 2 GB. intel R HD Graphics 4000.
Why is it all the other comparisons vids i7 beats the ryzen. In everything expect editing... this shit is like ford and chevy hate one love the others
ben dover It didn't really beat ryzen. Beating in terms of fps isn't really a thing right now. The intel CPU can reach upto 70%-100% load in no time while the ryzen CPU chills at 30%-40%. When you're using a ryzen cpu, you can play a game, open multiple tabs on chrome, play a video on MPC etc. On intel, well... nvm
Intel amateur is jealous bicosse he lost.
1700x’s default frequency is much lower than 7700k and i think recent games are still not perfectly optimized for more than four cores.
ben dover amm ryzen wins on cpu usage and temp... so i guess amd wins
ben dover because in editing the multi threading from AMD comes into play. Intel only excel in single thread shit. Which you see it performs better I. Games and what not. But like it was stated earlier. You can run multiple apps and still game just fine on AMD. As for Intel the only thing you can do is game or you'll see your FPS drop. AMD can stream, record, game and have minimum if not any FPS drop. In a sense multi threading is ahead of the time right now. Or should I say AMD. Once games are optimized to use multiple cores and GPU AMD will really mop the floor with Intel.
Ryzen fucking shreds everything I've thrown at it. I can't even say a single bad thing about it. I am so glad I went with the 1700 instead of Intel 7700K. My 1700 is overclocked to the performance of a 1700X.
4-5 fps for 150-200$ hmmmmm...
Don't buy intel
@legendary/Gaming Legendaries !! intel core i7-9700k is 409$ but ryzen 7 2700x is 279$. 409-279=130$ *do math*
AMD Radeon R5 M430 2 GB or Intel HD 620 which one do you recommend for Filmora VIDEO EDITOR AND GTA 5? i5 7200u 8GB DDR4 256 SSD LAPTOP CONFIG
Sooooo, not only AMD is cheaper, but also more powerful for both gaming, and production software like rendering and video editing? Time to go AMD
Kras Silver Fang AMD is better for content creation but worse for games.
Intel destroys ryzen when gaming but for editing ryzen is better
Milan van der Vliet did you see the cpu usage? Rip intel 60% while ryzen has 30%
@@captainoblivionthicc1004 not to offend but 1st amd has best processors, 2nd amd processors is good for gaming and for edition , intel is only for gaming, 3rd amd processors have more cores and more threads with a low price and finally intel processors heat up, and amd has like 4 more fps than intel and ryzen is more faster
GTA is the only game where Intel has a noticable lead. If you are a normal person 90 FPS to 95 FPS is unnoticeable.
amd is the best yeeeeeeeeeaaaaaa
What you learned from this is that you buy Intel for gaming or buy AMD for working.
Dont let this distract you from a fact that these games are optimized for intel . Developers haven't coded for ryzen yet