Two Years Later: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X vs. Intel Core i7-7700K

[Julio Franco]

With 3rd-gen Ryzen set to hit stores very soon, we're warming up to that launch by revisiting some heated CPU battles from the past couple of years that can bring further context to current owners of these processors. Today's shoot out is between the first-gen Ryzen 7 1800X flagship and Intel's competing Core i7­-7700K quad-core.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1863-two-years-later-ryzen-1800x-vs-core-i7-7700k/

 

[144hzGamer]

I7 7700k is still such a great gaming CPU.

I guess the "games will utilize more threads in the future" argument back in 2017, still doesnt pay off on this case. Who went with the 7700k did the right thing. By the time 99% of the games ask for 16 threads, 1800x is obsolete anyway and it's time to buy a new CPU.

Similar thing will happen with 9700k for example. Beast gaming CPU. Some folks will tell you that you need 12 cores soon. And in 3 years we will be here watching 9700k flying through every game ez pz.

Great article as usual, enjoyed the reading.

 

[Fuzzy Dunalap]

I7 7700k is still such a great gaming CPU.

I guess the "games will utilize more threads in the future" argument back in 2017, still doesnt pay off on this case. Who went with the 7700k did the right thing. By the time 99% of the games ask for 16 threads, 1800x is obsolete anyway and it's time to buy a new CPU.

Similar thing will happen with 9700k for example. Beast gaming CPU. Some folks will tell you that you need 12 cores soon. And in 3 years we will be here watching 9700k flying through every game ez pz.

Great article as usual, enjoyed the reading.

I agree with that, with one cavet. Next generation consoles are coming out soon.

Let's see how those ports are treated..

 

[avioza]

Nice, 1800x crushing it in workload applications. That's the main reason I went with Ryzen, the fact that its great for gaming too is just a plus.

Ten or so frames less in a couple games I don't play anyway was of no importance to me.

 

[LogiGaming]

Nice, 1800x crushing it in workload applications. That's the main reason I went with Ryzen, the fact that its great for gaming too is just a plus.

Ten or so frames less in a couple games I don't play anyway was of no importance to me.

Mind you, this test has GPU bottleneck situations (even with a RTX 2080ti at 1080p ultra settings, there are 100% GPU usage scenarios on most of the games tested). If he tested Apex Legends, Counter Strike, Dota, Black Ops 4, Quake Champions, Pubg, Battalion etc with low/medium settings 1080p, I am sure the differences would be even higher. These are the most played games according to twitch, except quake, that´s why I mentioned them. The 7700k is a great gaming CPU and feeds a 165hz/240hz very well.

I was surprised that it performed better on Assassins Creed wich uses a lot of threads, and Battlefield V too. Wasn´t expecting those results against a 8c 16 t processor. It completly destroys the theory that you should always opt for more core count instead of raw IPC performance.

Also I might add, pairing 3200 CL14 ram wasn´t the best decision imo. By 2017 those sticks cost a lot of money, but that´s not the biggest issue here; On the first months, maybe first year, using 3200 CL14 on Ryzen platform was a challenge, Most boards simply wouldn´t accept that speed and latency, 3000mhz was the max for some time.

 

[Tmill]

Why isnt the security packages applied before running this test... meaning ht disabled on the Intel chip... etc. Your running this test is if these chips arent security concerns with these settings.... let's apply all the patches... and settings... then run it... guarantee the 7700k wont even be usable!

 

[LogiGaming]

Why isnt the security packages applied before running this test... meaning ht disabled on the Intel chip... etc. Your running this test is if these chips arent security concerns with these settings.... let's apply all the patches... and settings... then run it... guarantee the 7700k wont even be usable!

The security patches do not affect gaming a single bit, you have plenty of benchmarks showing that. Plus, you are not forced to disable HT on the 7700k, I still don´t know where that idea came from honestly. This is not a server CPU used on Linux.

 

[Tmill]

Ht has to be disabled to close the latest security issue... it's actually the only way to close it. And yes ht will and does effect gaming.

 

[avioza]

If he tested Apex Legends, Counter Strike, Dota, Black Ops 4, Quake Champions, Pubg, Battalion etc with low/medium settings 1080p, I am sure the differences would be even higher.

I have no doubt you are correct.

Should I ever get the desire to play one of those older titles I will be stuck with the more than sufficient (for me, though admittedly less) frames Ryzen is providing to play them.

The improved workload performance is of greater importance to me these days, I guess we are both happy with our purchases then =)

 

[LogiGaming]

Ht has to be disabled to close the latest security issue... it's actually the only way to close it. And yes ht will and does effect gaming.

"Intel does not recommend disabling HyperThreading in every case, instead recommending customers should “consider how they utilize SMT for their particular workloads, guidance from their OS and VMM software providers, and the security threat model for their particular environment.”

"Intel is not recommending that Intel® HT be disabled, and it’s important to understand that doing so does not alone provide protection against MDS."

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/mds.html

You are not forced to disable HT entirely and the patches do not do that., That´s just an extra measure specially on servers/UNIX based system. We are talking about an entertainment home user scenario here.

If the patches really disabled HT, then this benchmark was pointless, I agree.

 

[144hzGamer]

I have no doubt you are correct.

Should I ever get the desire to play one of those older titles I will be stuck with the more than sufficient (for me, though admittedly less) frames Ryzen is providing to play them.

The improved workload performance is of greater importance to me these days, I guess we are both happy with our purchases then =)

Best productivity cpu still nowadays for 100€. Cant beat those things.

 

[Tmill]

"Intel does not recommend disabling HyperThreading in every case, instead recommending customers should “consider how they utilize SMT for their particular workloads, guidance from their OS and VMM software providers, and the security threat model for their particular environment.”

"Intel is not recommending that Intel® HT be disabled, and it’s important to understand that doing so does not alone provide protection against MDS."

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/mds.html

You are not forced to disable HT entirely and the patches do not do that., That´s just an extra measure specially on servers/UNIX based system. We are talking about an entertainment home user scenario here.

If the patches really disabled HT, then this benchmark was pointless, I agree.

Of course Intel says that... the zombie land issue which they renamed to mds to lighten up the scare on the consumers can be executed in windows as well. Of course they dont want you to disable ht because everyone will sue them as it turns off the extra thread capacity. It's time we hold Intel accountable as they've known for a decade... that's why the issue was correct in the i9 9900k finally!

 

[Misagt]

Work load is my main concern anyway so I'm very happy having gone with Ryzen CPU, gaming is secondary these days.

 

[dirtyferret]

These reviews are great, keep it up Steve.

 

[TechZombie]

Nice, 1800x crushing it in workload applications. That's the main reason I went with Ryzen, the fact that its great for gaming too is just a plus.

Ten or so frames less in a couple games I don't play anyway was of no importance to me.

Mind you, this test has GPU bottleneck situations (even with a RTX 2080ti at 1080p ultra settings, there are 100% GPU usage scenarios on most of the games tested). If he tested Apex Legends, Counter Strike, Dota, Black Ops 4, Quake Champions, Pubg, Battalion etc with low/medium settings 1080p, I am sure the differences would be even higher. These are the most played games according to twitch, except quake, that´s why I mentioned them. The 7700k is a great gaming CPU and feeds a 165hz/240hz very well.

I was surprised that it performed better on Assassins Creed wich uses a lot of threads, and Battlefield V too. Wasn´t expecting those results against a 8c 16 t processor. It completly destroys the theory that you should always opt for more core count instead of raw IPC performance.

Also I might add, pairing 3200 CL14 ram wasn´t the best decision imo. By 2017 those sticks cost a lot of money, but that´s not the biggest issue here; On the first months, maybe first year, using 3200 CL14 on Ryzen platform was a challenge, Most boards simply wouldn´t accept that speed and latency, 3000mhz was the max for some time.

While I agree with most of your points, I pulled my order when I built my Ryzen 1800x system. February of 2017, 16gb kit of G.SKILL TridentZ 3200 CL14 was $135 shipped from Newegg and ran at that speed out of the box on my Gigabyte board.

 

[TopFun]

Its a great article, Thanks for writing this up. Perfect to see that Ryzen blow's Intel out-of-everything!

Its also hilarious to read some of the comments of the audience about how i7-7700k is great for gaming, Intel's Marketing strategy is the only thing left standing between them and oblivion with their attitude!

A process fabricated on a 7nm node will be more efficient, no matter what anything or anyone says! The heat that is generated by the 14nm Intel node is prone to throttling, hence, reducing the hardware life whereas AMD has a big win for now and the next 5 years.

IPC advantage with Intel is solely because of their presence in the top enthusiast market for almost a decade where they revamped the same design and kept on selling a similar architecture since core i7-920 all the way till i9-9900k and because of their adaptability and marketing they are in business! AMD will simply get on top of the food chain in the next 5 years and nothing FANBOY's say or do will help the business, only if INTEL becomes competitive by reducing the prices or go 5nm, otherwise Intel at the moment is a completely bad investment!

 

[144hzGamer]

Its a great article, Thanks for writing this up. Perfect to see that Ryzen blow's Intel out-of-everything!

Its also hilarious to read some of the comments of the audience about how i7-7700k is great for gaming, Intel's Marketing strategy is the only thing left standing between them and oblivion with their attitude!

A process fabricated on a 7nm node will be more efficient, no matter what anything or anyone says! The heat that is generated by the 14nm Intel node is prone to throttling, hence, reducing the hardware life whereas AMD has a big win for now and the next 5 years.

IPC advantage with Intel is solely because of their presence in the top enthusiast market for almost a decade where they revamped the same design and kept on selling a similar architecture since core i7-920 all the way till i9-9900k and because of their adaptability and marketing they are in business! AMD will simply get on top of the food chain in the next 5 years and nothing FANBOY's say or do will help the business, only if INTEL becomes competitive by reducing the prices or go 5nm, otherwise Intel at the moment is a completely bad investment!

Well people only talk about facts. Intel is superior for games. AMD is superior on productivity and price vs performance. It is what it is. There is no "superior" product. Everyone is different and look for different products.

Go tell Adobe Premiere users to buy AMD... Go tell Blender users to buy Intel...

 

[Shadowboxer]

The 7700k is clearly the winner if you’re a gamer and the 1800x is clearly the winner if you’re doing something like 3D modelling. I do find it amusing how techspot demonstrate in graphs that the 7700k bests the 1800x in most games at min and average frame rate then concludes that they are matched, no techspot, your own results show the 7700k is faster. Also, I’m pretty certain memory support for 3200 memory on Ryzen was limited at launch and the prices for such stuff was through the roof at the time.

I’m a gamer and it’s an obvious win for the cheaper 7700k for what I care about. If you paid the extra for an 1800x for a gaming machine in 2017 you made the wrong choice. In other uses however, it’s still a clear win for the 1800x, something which better compares with like a 5820k I think.

I also find it amusing that people are screaming about the security vulnerabilities that Intel found in its own chips and announced to the community themselves. So far no one has ever used them, the resources required to mount such an attack is vast, making targeting single users absolutely zero sense whatsoever. It’s a big issue for enterprise customers buying server hardware but it’s laughable to think a home user is going to be bothered by it. And finally, we all use far more unsecured platforms all the time. If you use an android phone and are on here telling people that they shouldn’t use Intel for security flaws then you are a hypocrite as your Android phone is not only an order of magnitude more vulnerable than an Intel based system but potentially has more sensitive information on it as well.

 

[Lounds]

So 5% faster in games on average but nearly twice as slow in productivity test. Also if you was buying a higher end CPU such as the 7700k and 1800X would you be gaming at 1080p, I'm looking at monitors and I'm either gonna go for a 27" 1440p or a 32" 4k display, I want more pixels in my games.

 

[144hzGamer]

So 5% faster in games on average but nearly twice as slow in productivity test. Also if you was buying a higher end CPU such as the 7700k and 1800X would you be gaming at 1080p, I'm looking at monitors and I'm either gonna go for a 27" 1440p or a 32" 4k display, I want more pixels in my games.

You want pixels, other gamers want hertz. Is nice to have options for everyone. Tomb Raider at 1440p is amazing. But Apex Legends at 240hz is also amazing.

 

[Markoni35]

You should do the gaming benchmarks while recording the screen. Maybe additional cores would help AMD do a better job, since it can use extra cores for video compression and manipulation, without interfering with the gaming part.

I mean, assuming that screen recording uses CPU for video compression. Could be that GPU media processor will do all the job, in which case CPU cores won't matter.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

The 7700k is clearly the winner if you’re a gamer and the 1800x is clearly the winner if you’re doing something like 3D modelling. I do find it amusing how techspot demonstrate in graphs that the 7700k bests the 1800x in most games at min and average frame rate then concludes that they are matched, no techspot, your own results show the 7700k is faster. Also, I’m pretty certain memory support for 3200 memory on Ryzen was limited at launch and the prices for such stuff was through the roof at the time.

I’m a gamer and it’s an obvious win for the cheaper 7700k for what I care about. If you paid the extra for an 1800x for a gaming machine in 2017 you made the wrong choice. In other uses however, it’s still a clear win for the 1800x, something which better compares with like a 5820k I think.

I also find it amusing that people are screaming about the security vulnerabilities that Intel found in its own chips and announced to the community themselves. So far no one has ever used them, the resources required to mount such an attack is vast, making targeting single users absolutely zero sense whatsoever. It’s a big issue for enterprise customers buying server hardware but it’s laughable to think a home user is going to be bothered by it. And finally, we all use far more unsecured platforms all the time. If you use an android phone and are on here telling people that they shouldn’t use Intel for security flaws then you are a hypocrite as your Android phone is not only an order of magnitude more vulnerable than an Intel based system but potentially has more sensitive information on it as well.

I guess you completely missed the blurb at the end where the Techspot staff noticed a hitching effect on intel, while the AMD rig was buttery smooth despite the slightly lower framerate.

avg/min graphs dont tell the whole story, and you just make a fool of yourself thinking you caught Techspot in a lie when they adequately explained WHY they think the 2 chips are even.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

I7 7700k is still such a great gaming CPU.

I guess the "games will utilize more threads in the future" argument back in 2017, still doesnt pay off on this case. Who went with the 7700k did the right thing. By the time 99% of the games ask for 16 threads, 1800x is obsolete anyway and it's time to buy a new CPU.

Similar thing will happen with 9700k for example. Beast gaming CPU. Some folks will tell you that you need 12 cores soon. And in 3 years we will be here watching 9700k flying through every game ez pz.

Great article as usual, enjoyed the reading.

I agree with that, with one cavet. Next generation consoles are coming out soon.

Let's see how those ports are treated..

People were saying that 5 years ago when the PS4/xbone came out. "ooohhh, the next consoles have 8 cores, lets see how well games use threads this next generation before writing off the FX series as worthless"

Games are not inherently multi threaded, unless they are multiplayer games, even then they often are not CPU restricted. The next generation will likely still have 8 cores, and games will continue to largely use 1-2 main threads and 1-4 additional threads for offloaded work.

 

[Shadowboxer]

I guess you completely missed the blurb at the end where the Techspot staff noticed a hitching effect on intel, while the AMD rig was buttery smooth despite the slightly lower framerate.

avg/min graphs dont tell the whole story, and you just make a fool of yourself thinking you caught Techspot in a lie when they adequately explained WHY they think the 2 chips are even.

Technically Techspot haven’t lied. Their own graphs demonstrate the 7700K is faster...

Why do people have such trouble reading basic graphs? Here is a tip, when it comes to framerates, the higher number is better...

 

[No1Spank]

I benched the 1700X and 1600 Ryzen's in 2017, the 7700K easily blew them both away in most benchmarks then and still would now (except cinebench and X265). In games the like PUBG and Fallout 4 the Ryzen wasn't even close to a 7700K and was easily beaten by my 4670K. Even my FX6300 was better in PUBG. Admittedly I knew how to fully optimize all those CPU's, the gen 1 Ryzen was hobbled by it's memory controller. At the time my benchmarks for Ryzen were some of the fastest in the UK, I even did pretty well in a HwBot Ryzen competition so my testing was fair. Most people can't extract the full potential of Intel from that era or the FX series or they would realize early Ryzen was overall a very poor and overpriced product. I paid £385 for the 1700X, £180 for the 1600 after price reductions and £265 for the 7700K.
In 2024 the 7700K is £100 used which is overpriced considering a Ryzen 3 3100 is only £35 and beats the 7700K in every benchmark and is generally better for gaming especially as it doesn't suffer the horrendous temperature fluctuations. Quad core is still good enough for gaming, in fact Starfield runs best if you switch your other cores off in my recent tests. I've got a Ryzen 3700X and an i9 10900K but I generally don't see many advantages having all those cores in games for the most part. Even editing basic 1080p videos doesn't really call for more than a quad core.
In 2017 the 7700K was definitely the CPU to have and will still serve it's users well. However the 8700K is more than just an upgraded version with 2 extra cores. The silicone is far superior, mine will still overclock as well as the day it was new where the 7700K has noticeable degradation. Paste under the IHS is superior and temperatures are much more stable while matching or bettering the maximum frequencies on all cores. I have delided the 7700K, no real reason to bother on the 6 year old 8700K. A gen 1 Ryzen in 2024 is basically eWaste, my 1600 was quickly relegated to an office box and I RMA'd the 1700X almost straight away and got my money back. Gen 3 Ryzen is everything Gen 1 promised and currently the best value used CPU's available.