Intel Core i7-7700k versus AMD Ryzen 1700X 14 Game CPU Showdown

Jump To:

Gaming Performance Showdown AMD Ryzen 1700x vs Intel i7-7700K

We have been reading and seeing a lot of performance and testing done on the latest AMD CPU, the Ryzen 7 1700X.  After it was released, people were quick to find that there was a significant difference in performance between running the system in a Balanced power plan vs High Performance power plan; the trade off is the amount of power they consume and the High Performance plan keeping the system in a full speed state.  Recently AMD released the fix to the Windows plan, allowing users to run the AMD Ryzen process in a Balanced power mode without sacrificing performance.

Ryzen 1700x Vs Intel i7-7700x

Legit Reviews took a quick look at the new AMD Ryzen Balanced plan a couple weeks ago, and we did see a performance increase in a couple of games.  We decided to expand the testing to fourteen games and 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme putting the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X against the Intel Core i7-7700k.

The AMD Ryzen is based on the new “Zen” microarchitecture design meant to be used for high performance gaming, while still supporting content creation.  AMD has plans to stick with the Zen design for several years, as they are already discussing the next generation Zen 2 and Zen 3 products.  The initial release of the Ryzen processors features the Ryzen 7 1700, Ryzen 7 1700X, and Ryzen 7 1800X.  All of these are nearly identical with a few differences.  Each of them has 8 cores, and supports up to 16 threads.  The biggest difference comes in the clock speeds with the Ryzen 7 1700 having a base clock of 3.0GHz with a 3.7GHz Boost, Ryzen 7 1700X has 3.4GHz with a 3.8GHz Boost, and Ryzen 7 1800X features 3.6MHz with a 4.0GHz Boost.  The Ryzen 7 1700 also includes the AMD Wraith Spire cooler, while the others do not as AMD assumes people would prefer to use third party CPU coolers or liquid coolers.  The final difference is the inclusion of AMD XFR (Extended Frequency Range) on the -X processor models.  XFR allows the CPU to boost the processor dynamically in 25MHz steps getting the highest possible clock speed for a specific task.

Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake Processor

The Intel Core i7-7700k was the first flagship processor from Intel based on their Kaby Lake architecture.  The initial release of the Kaby Lake i7 processors, Intel released three models for different purposes, one for mobile, power users, and then an enthusiast class.  The Core i7-7700k is the enthusiast class and has the highest clock speeds and overclocking capabilities.  The Core i7 processor features 4 cores, with 8 threads and has a base clock speed of 4.2GHz with a 4.5GHz.

Let’s take a quick look at the two new test systems we will use in this round of testing.

Jump To:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  Next »
  • Ricardo Monteiro

    That 970 is bottlenecking the heck out of those CPUs. If a 1070 or 1080 were used maybe a different picture would be painted here. Anyway, everybody should know that Ryzen is meant to be used for working and not just “gaming”. Besides you get a socket that will last you 4 years. After 4 years you will be able to buy and use the lastest AMD CPU. Now that is worth buying. Screw Intel, the money whore.

  • ali alpsoy

    What about software performance? Example : studio max , after effects, cinema 4d, etc.

  • Psyclon

    I decided for my Ryzen 1700X over the i7-7700K when I saw a benchmark that would be pro i7 ironnically:

    They played THE WITCHER in 4K on both CPU and the results were:
    i7-7700K = 140 fps = 95% CPU usage
    Ryzen 7 1700X = 105 fps = 30% CPU usage

    I was going to get a GTX1080 anyways, but I am a video editor and oh my god, the Ryzen is really a surprise. And judging from many reviews and opinions, many were literally surprised how good the Ryzen 7’s are (each one has their strength: 1700 low power consumption and price, 1700X power/cost and 1800X can reach 4.0 GHz easily). Not just “okay, they are good”, but really SURPRISED. So am I.

    I was first going to get an i7 again. You know, the last AMD we really liked was the K6-2 350 Mhz in 1999. Then there was the Athlon 2000+ in 2001 or so. Which was “Meh”. Then I had one in a cheap Acer laptop. It was “Meh…….”.

    So, my i7-3770 became a senior and video editing (let alone rendering), video games and several tabs in a browser with content meant 50°C CPU Temp. When ordering my custom PC (I hate building PCs with a passion…) the Ryzen systems had still 0 reviews, and I was ALMOST getting another i7, despite I am a “content creator” and gamer by roughly 50/50. THANK GOD the shop screwed up and I ordered from a different store – meanwhile I learned about the Ryzen.

    And, oh my god, I love my Ryzen 1700X. The core clock is the same compared to my i7 3770 in most of the cases, but the overall improvement is incredible. Rendering videos and still work with the PC with zero performance issues (you know, before it was like “Don’t touch the PC while rendering, else it takes 3 days”), sometimes the monitor changes resolution and the program has loaded already where before I could see the loading screen and such. Monitoring Temps and Load in the Taskbar, I can do what I want during my day, the Temps never exceed 65°C under full load. All the tiny things I got used to before (e.g. scroll trough a video project, loading screens in smaller programs, waiting times of several seconds that are no gone) changed to a pleasure: I hit play on my video editor and it starts to preview hundreds of filters and image stabilizers while running a Youtube video, encoding and demuxing a Let’s Play-Playlist in jDownloader (ressource-hoggin Java!) and guess what: All just keeps running as if it’s the only program open. CPU Usage: 75%-83%. 60°C. So much money for my buck, the AM4 boards are also not obsolete like intel’s permanent change of sockets every year…

    On my Ryzen’s side there is a GTX1080, and the combo of this great octacore and a potent GPU makes gaming as well as video editing super pleasent.

    Also, this is now totally cheesy, but I “feel” better with a Ryzen in my PC. Intel’s way of indirectly ripping me/us off with high CPU prices and chipset/socket changes and the general “Hurr Durr, stick to 4 cores/8 threads or pay €1.000+” bullshit pissed me off. I really wanted more cores but was not willing to pay for an artificial increase of price dictated by intel, as if they want to fake awesomeness for their 8-cores trough a high price tag.

    The German magazine c’t – which is highly credible – says the very high end home user CPU Threadripper beats intel easily in all departments: Price, benchmarks, daily usage, TDP… I am glad that, unlike intel, AMD let the average customer profit from their new CPUs as well.

    AMD, you pulled yourself right in front of my sight. Considering the Ryzen 3 for my brother’s low-fi multimedia/college PC now. Good job.

  • hutjeflut

    what a utter horrible review/benchmark comparison… in general reviews here are good but this one… Why are you testing everything on medium to high quality while every gamer knows the cpu intencive tasks happen on ultra settings… you need to test every game on ultra thats not only where the beauty of the game is thats where the cpu really matters. retest and dont fool people into thinking more cores actualy matter for now.

    Gamers go intel 7700k if you do other work with the pc consider a ryzen but be aware you lose game performance period.

  • Ryan Velting

    Pricing is not accurate on this article. You can get a 1700x right now for $340 BUT I only paid $279.99 for my i7 7700k and with better itx boards available for intel chips right now I am going to stick with my i7. I would love to see more options for Ryzen maybe in the next generation. Ryzen itx boards don’t even have M.2. I am no fan boy but right now (for me) there are far more options and benefits to sticking with my i7; would love to see this change

  • foo bar

    What kind of review discredit’s itself so massively at this time testing with 2 year old GTX970. It is basically testing Video card limitations which invalidates any conclusion you can draw. Yet the AMD fanboys can see facts for what they are.

    With newer GPUs you can see the Ryzen is bottlenecking the video and this problem will only get worse which each iteration of GPU advancement. Here legit reviews very own to provide valid data on this:

    The author can’t see any difference at 2560×1440 or higher is exactly because the GPU is submerging and distinction because of the GTX970 limitation. And who in the right mind is going spend $350 on a cpu just to have the GPU bottleneck hanging over their heads. The old excuse about how 1080P or eve 720P is not realistic scenario, pairing a 2 year old GTX970 with this kind of build is even more nonsensical.

    BTW I have that very EVGA GTX 970 SC, and I am happily using it in i7-2600K and getting roughly the same performance as I would with the overprice R7-1700X. Video card bottleneck is all the same regardless of platform. LOL!

  • superdonkey

    all these tests will be gpu limited so these benchmarks dont mean much.

  • bobbo

    Are you people literally too retarded to see there’s a massive GPU bottleneck occurring ?

    • The_Countess

      which is the case 95% if not 99% of the time on the average gamers PC.

      there is no value in testing high powered graphics cards on low resolutions, yet most reviewers seem very fond of it.

  • Darkside
  • Đenan Hajrović

    Very nice, if the oc was a bit better on zen it would be a clear winner

  • EZ for RYZEN , BOYS

  • jason

    The trick here is proper RAM speed for Ryzen which Legitreviews has done. Ryzen thrives on higher clocked RAM due to the way the core complex’s internal bus functions, believe its somehow reliant on RAM speed. That and the recent BIOS improvements for RAM performance… all add up to quite a lot.

    • jalebi Singh

      Latency isn’t a big issue for Ryzen because of the layout, only bandwidth is. Intel is the opposite. Latency is important to Intel and not bandwidth. The ram on the market is currently more suitable for Intel.

      • Marcus

        As of today though Ryzen is just as sutiable for memory. AMD release AGESA with support of memory up 4000mhz. My ram is running at 4000mhz and I benchmark in games as good as intel.

        • delta33

          what ram and motherboard are you using?

    • foo bar

      So the plan is to spend $50 for the CPU and then another $100 or $200 more for you low cas-latenecy(CL) RAM just so you can be on par with Intel. Really? If you were going to do that and totally blow your budget and change up the whole situation why not just go with the i7-7820x. None of the Ryzen’s can keep up with this one, single core, multicore, or gaming or workstation workload.

      The reason you go with a i7-7700k is because want a CPU under $300, like $280 at microcenter, and you do NOT need to drop ridiculous money on some super fancy low CL RAM.

  • Terry Perry

    -I have a 970 and it will not do 4K alone i had to get 2 just to work 3800 and the coil wine was horrible. Good at 2500 Fantastic. In MY research for 4K. YOU need 2 high end cards like 1080 or 1080TI. PLUS a REAL 6 core and at least 16-32 G ram. Then you can run those Monster 55-75′ 4K all out.My Problem with AMD are there Bios and Drivers there NEVER as Good as Nvidia or Fast as Intel. But AMD Prices do make up for there mistakes. I have the old 9650 and 6350 BUT my I-7 and I-5 Destroy them in Speed.But i paid Double and MORE for them.

  • Patrick Wise

    The reality here is that almost all the games are GPU bound, with the exception of one game running at 100+ fps. That doesn’t invalidate the review at all. Instead it demonstrates that there’s not much point spending a fortune on a CPU for gaming (unless, perhaps, you’re extremely dedicated to very large and complicated turn based strategy games like big Civ V or Civ V1 maps where the difference is measured in time, not fps). Spend your money on a good GPU instead.

    • foo bar

      In short a $280 i7-7700k with cheaper memory is more than adequate compare to spending $350 on the 1700x and then $100 more per 16GB of RAM for the low CL stuff. Or better yet if you want a budget build, the i5-7600K at $180 will be even more bang for the buck even if max performance is lowered.

      But it is really nonsensical to go spend big money of CPU and then bottleneck with a 2 year old GTX970. LOL.

      • Patrick Wise

        You can do just fine with a cheaper AMD chip as well. I don’t know you would need either the more expensive 1700x or the 16GB of “low CL stuff” RAM. You’re going to find that, for any given performance level, the AMD chip will be cheaper, and that, at any given price, the AMD chip will perform better.

        As you noted, though, it’s hardly worth spending extra money on either Intel or AMD chip if you’re bottlenecked by the GPU (unless you don’t particularly care about games, in which case the benchmarks are irrelevant anyway).

    • foo bar

      The whole idea that AMD is cheaper is utter nonsense, at every performane level, Intel is actually priced more competitively than AMD. See:

      The i5-7600K is at $190, and the equivalent R5-1600x is at $230.
      And you can see the i5-7600K overall performs better:

      And the R5-1500x is like the non-K i5-7600 is $180, while still performing worse. AMD has provided no impetus for a real price war with Intel. They are just eagerly taking money from the AMD fanboys eager to bend over.

  • SeepMan

    Especially since I’m gonna be gaming at 1440p, I now know Ryzen is the one to get.

  • Jay Jardin

    Where’s is the O/C?!!

  • Antonis Damigos

    Just always look the perfomance/cost ratio. It is a good thing that amd finally catches up with intel in order to increase the competitiveness and lower the price of electronics. We consumers should not care if intel or amd wins in benchmark but should care if our wallet wins. I had cpu’s from both companies and loved them.

    • foo bar

      What we need is price war between Intel and AMD. For years AMD has failed on its purpose, and it is still failing with Ryzen priced higher than Intel. You do NOT start price war by pricing at par or higher, especially when there is weakness.

      AMD being the second option, being later to the game than Intel, means unless they win across the board, they do NOT get to price at par, and certainly not at a higher price. Right now the ryzen vs intel, is a performance level similar to Barton/T-Bird/Thoroughbreds vs P4 back in early 2000s. What AMD do back then to win? Those AthlonXP2800 were like $80 when competing P4s were $200. So the top Ryzen can be no more than $250 since the i7-7700K is at $280 right now, and all the other needs to lower than that.

  • ngoy 39

    I’m trying to figure out how someone decided to benchmark a 4 core cpu against an 8 core CPU when the 6 core Intel chip is $15 more. Exactly what was the point of this article? Price? The 6 core Intel platform is almost the same price. I thought maybe something about the balanced power plan making a difference in the benchmarks but there are no charts showing the difference.

    • Antonio Amigo

      it’s to compare gaming performance from each companies CPU. it’s not to compare core for core. the 7700 is the gaming cpu kind ATM, not the 6 core Intel chip. Also, the 1700x is 8 cores, not 6 cores so what would be the point of using a 6 core Intel if you’re going to compare core vs core.

    • jalebi Singh

      The motherboards for LGA 2011 age very expensive

    • The_Countess

      intel’s 6 core is lower clocked then the 7700k, and it’s platform will be extremely expensive if the x99 is any indication (180 euros was the cheapest motherboard i could find for x99)

  • Streetguru

    Probably more relevant to do 1060/580 and a 1080ti for showing how it scales without a GPU bottleneck at 1080p

  • Lickitylick

    The thing is this. It’s obvious the review scared away from running anything at low settings nor did any of the games use optimized settings that would tax a CPU. I like Ryzen, but this is not the right way to review it. Especially not a CPU like the 7700K when everyone knows the IPC would produce much higher FPS than Ryzen on a CPU-bound game running at… say 640×480 (we are testing right?) Other than that liiiitle thing, your review format looks pretty good. You might have thrown in a comparison CPU that everyone already owns… like 2600K or 5820K.

    • Alexander Yordanov

      Low settings lower the number of draw calls (and in some games – physics calculations) games need. Low settings isnt how a CPUs are tested.

      An optimized, special setting that is neither Ultra nor Low is often the most CPU demanding. Almost never low settings though.

      • Lickitylick

        That point could be easily made if the CPU utilization were shown. We just have no idea how much of the processor or GPU was actually used.

        • Alexander Yordanov

          Unfortunately, CPU utilization is not as linear as that. So in reality only the game/engine developer and AMD/Intel engineers know EXACTLY where the CPU stands in certain games.

          You see, GPU and CPU utilization is not quite as cut and dry as people think it is. Ryzen’s synthetic and prosumer benches show it actually really is VERY powerful, but in all honesty I think it is just too new and games arent making good use of it (or to be fair AS good of a use as they could, Ryzen is powerful enough for all modern and all games except ARMA and STALKER 😛 ).

    • ltkAlpha

      Tests comparing R7s to the 7700K at 1080p driving high end GPUs are all over the place and we know how that looks, there’s no argument there. Admittedly, the angle presented here could have been framed better and the 970 was a bit of an odd choice to pair with these particular CPUs, but the results are still useful.

  • ltkAlpha

    First of all, a disclaimer – I’m running a 6700K and I recently bought an 1080 Ti (yeah, I don’t have a family to support I hadn’t bought a new machine for years and I went all out, I wanted the best). Hardly on Team Red, I think you’ll agree.

    With that out of the way – you can’t have it both ways, Intel fans. When all the initial Ryzen tests came out and people asked why we’re mostly seeing tests on 1080p one of the arguments was that over 90% of gamers use that resolution (and, of course, higher resolutions create an equalizing GPU bottleneck).
    Well, over 90% of gamers don’t use 1080s or 1080 Tis either. Most people are and will remain graphically bottlenecked. And then, as we can see here and elsewhere, the picture changes.
    So I for one welcome this type of test using something more mainstream – 970s, 1060s, RX 570s and 580s etc. It’s an aspect of reality that complements the previous conclusions and I see no legitimate issue in showing it to people.

    • Streetguru

      I just hope you’re using that 1080ti on a 1440p 144hz or 4k 60hz display

      • ltkAlpha

        Asus MG279Q. Seemed like a good idea at the time…

        • Sandcat

          I have the same. Brilliant monitor.

        • Streetguru

          Don’t worry about that as long as it was cheap, the free-sync implementation only goes to like 90Hz unless they’ve fixed it, not even worth using really.

        • Dezr

          You can easily use CRU to change that to 57-144hz for the freesync range. And saying freesync is not even worth using really just because it doesn’t go above 90 (most AAA titles are below that anyway) is just an inane statement

        • Streetguru

          It’s still a good display, at launch it only went to 90hz with free-sync, so why bother when you want to get the full 144hz out of your display that other free-sync displays provide.

          I guess there’s a firmware update for it now though?

      • To Be or Blah

        apparently people buy 1080ti/Titan Xp and 300+$ CPU to play at 720p low settings. At least thats what “reviewers” claim.

        • Roy Vijfvinkel


        • Lixxon

          no joke, the ones i know with a 1080ti plays on 1080p … they dont see the benefit of 4k

  • Greg Bryett

    So many haters, lol…..
    Ryzen performance is improving slowly, I have seen less latency and better memory performance since the latest batch of AGESA releases and bios updates. My swap from 4790K at 4.6Ghz to Ryzen 1700 at 4.0Ghz has seen no real changes to my gaming at 2560×1440 with a GTX 1080, however time taken for video encoding/rendering and Photoshop manipulation have improved by a multiple of 4-6. While gaming is part of what I do with my PC, it is not everything and Ryzen for me has been a good upgrade. If all I wanted to do was game at 1080 I’d likely buy a games console.

    • jdwii

      I also did that same exact swap except i bought the 1700 i had the 4790K at 4.7Ghz before it

      • not-a-fanboi-honest

        4790k @ 4.8 to 1800x at 3900 solid and still testing higher.

  • Rodger Tallywacker

    Enjoying the hilariously salty Intel fangirls in the comments. Don’t worry, guys – you can still sell that overpriced quad core housefire on eBay and get most of your money back. There are plenty of other suckers out there!

    • Patrick Wise

      That’s only because legitreviews made the mistake of having “realistic scenarios”. What they’re supposed to do is run games on low resolution and quality settings so they become CPU bound at 100+ fps, then point out the the Intel chip gets 140 fps to the AMD one’s mere 125 fps, and for only twice as much money.

      • Francisco Enrique Perez Abreu

        There’s plenty of that bullshit 720p everything low reviews.

        Not a “mistake” to have a REAL scenario, just like the majority would play or use their machine, so you know what your experience is gonna be, which is more important than “what can do your CPU in something that you will not do”

        • BuckRogers

          Aye, the low res low settings benchmark is about 20 years out of date. It was intended to be a judge of future gaming performance in the long lived singlecore era. It’s indicative of nothing and was conceived when I was rocking 3dfx cards.

          The most recent judge of future gaming performance has been more cores, hence 8C Bulldozer being faster than 4C Sandybridge in gaming today.

    • Darkside

      Hahahah so true, now they all RIP INferior, INferior fanboys and other 5cum…

      • Shane O Brien

        Grow up you pathetic little peasant.

        • Darkside

          Did i asked you fnck1ng VVh0re ?

        • Shane O Brien

          Shhh back to the cotton fields with you

        • Darkside

          Go 7uck your moma b1atch

        • Troll&Roll

          Looool just found this comment section and man… you nazi poser are really amazing… So, fat, with your d1ck in your hand fapping hard watching shema|e p0rn… nice.. I bet tou cuum in your own mouth!!! Baaaaaah…. ” huuu look at me, I’m so radical with batman in my avatar, talking about hitler and jews while I crave an Arss fck… So lame… dont forget to wash the cuumm of you teeth before you go to bed 😀 Loser..

        • Radical Vision

          Wh0re if you say this sh1t$ in my face, you will see how much radical im worm. I use this avatar, as my avatar, it represents me in the best way, no need of real pictures..
          About the rest you did say, seems you have never got girlfriend, and never have been with a women in your life, this is why you say this re7arded things..
          And even better you can`t say them in my face, i will brake you psychically and mentally, simply because compared to me you are one piece of $h1t, and scum, now die from cancer…..

        • Troll&Roll

          Yeah right, litlle boy… Oh sorry, your r a not a litlle boy any more… How is it to be behaving like a child with a few gray hairs? Dont worry, if you promisse not to be a pseudo-homofobic, racist, xenophobic, and also… Wait for it.. A super nazi poser that dosent understand sh1t about what he’s talking about.. We will all forgive you. Even in america….

        • Radical Vision

          Die from cancer ape…

        • Francisco Enrique Perez Abreu

          Butthurted on the sight lol

      • Sir Yescob

        Damn! You Sir are a badass with that 3l1te typing. I hope that some day i can be as edgy as you online.

  • Amet Monegro

    There´s some GPU bottleneck but looks like RYZEN goes well on mid-end cards and lower
    sub-980/R9 390X cards (580/1060 6G/480/570/470/1060 3G etc etc)

    • To Be or Blah

      same happens with higher end cards at their proper resolutions.

  • Skylake

    My Asus crosshair with 1800x (4.0Ghz) still lags behind our 7600K (stock) in all the latest UBI titles I’ve played.

    • To Be or Blah

      too bad you have neither of those.

    • Anonymous

      How much speed you have your memory running at?

    • Julio Cesar

      Hard to believe

    • Marcus

      I have the exact same board and 1700 overclocked to 4ghz and memory at 3200mhz. It was built as a worksation and it either stands toe to toe or exceeds my 7600k. Update your bios to AGESA and profit. Memory speed for ryzen in games is VERY IMPORTANT.

  • techguy

    GTX 970.

    Yeah… You don’t really understand how CPU testing works, do you?

    • realjjj

      Or maybe you’ve seen so many idiotic tests that you have no idea what you are talking about.
      The best kind of testing in any area is a real world scenario.

      When you test at high FPS you don’t highlight anything , you just create artificial bottlenecks, alter the load profile and render the data irrelevant.
      Flawed methodologies promoted by incompetent reviewers ,that’s what you are asking for.

      • techguy

        Tell me – why are the results of this comparison different than literally every other 7700k/Ryzen comparison on the planet, even including questionable ones from no-name AMD shills on youtube like joker and mindblank?

        Did Legit Reviews get a magical Ryzen chip that automatically overclocks to 5GHz on the AIO cooler used in testing? Does it have an HBM L4 cache on-board? You explain the results to me in a way that doesn’t result in the answer “because they used a relatively slow GPU and thus shifted the bottleneck to the GPU”. I’ll give you a gold star if you can do so convincingly and without resorting to ad hominem.

        Good luck!

        • Jordan

          Probably because the 1700x is automatically overclocking to its max potential out of the box where as the 7700k is cable of being pushed over 5hz yet the didn’t bother doing that in this review.

        • Stacey Bright

          5Ghz is not a standard supported frequency of the 7700K. 4.5 is with-in spec and covered under warranty, which holds true for Ryzen’s XFR as well. These test are equal from an out of the box perspective.

        • Lukeh

          Not to mention not all 7700k’s can hit 5GHz and many run so hot at that speed that you need to delid them and replace the garbage Intel claims to be thermal paste.

        • Steven Kean

          We didn’t do any overclocking with the processors, these are both run at stock settings. Overclocking results always vary, so we didn’t focus on that at this time. The Intel would be used its boost to 4.5 while the Ryzen would be used its XFR. The scores posted ate the scores we received over multiple runs of each game. We even questioned several of the scores, so we ended up running them multiple times. Its possible that the difference between stock balanced power vs amd Ryzen power could be belong the scores with faster power management,

        • fumz

          Hi Steven,

          This is non-responsive. At issue isn’t overclocking; rather, a gpu bottleneck created by using a 970.

        • ELLAS

          GPU Bottleneck? With a 970? R U Kidding LOL

        • fumz


          yes ellas, a gpu bottleneck with a 970. what part of that is confusing you?

        • bobbo

          ^ literally retarded

        • Lukeh

          He was running medium quality in most of the tests. A 970 should be able to run most of those games at 1080P at medium.

        • Cohen

          You didn’t do any CPU testing either, you were testing the GPU in your benchmarks.

        • Ghazanfar A. Khan

          Yeh right. CPU testing is more important. cpu testing can not be done in gaming. we have seen cpu testing and Ryzen beats the crap out of Skylake processors in real world cpu testing. Those who buy $380-$500 processor usually use gpu with it for gaming.

        • Cohen

          The problem is that you automatically start defending Ryzen when I didn’t say anything about which one was better or worse. That says more about your bias than anything.

          I commented on the fact that this benchmark is useless because it doesn’t test the CPUs it tests the GPU.
          Which part about the GPU being bottleneck in these tests is difficult to understand.

        • A certain someone

          But you know that he is right. The 7700K can’t even come close to 1700 when you do the CPU intensive test. That mean, however you put it, 1700 is way more powerful than the 7700K. Just game is not optimized to use all of the resources. Heck, even in single threaded game, the core i3 can beat the crap out of same clocked core i5. That doesn’t mean the i3 is faster!!!

        • Cohen

          Again, you are jumping to defend for no reason. Where did I say Ryzen was slower? where did I claim the 7700K is better?
          If Ryzen is faster in gaming then lets see it in the benchmarks. These benchmarks don’t show anything at all because BOTH processers are being restricted by the 970.

          Instead of deflecting to try and protect AMD, which seems rather silly considering both intel and AMD are corporations, try to discuss the testing method which would be more beneficial for everyone.

          Do you agree that there is a GPU bottleneck in these benchmarks?

        • Adam Baldwin

          If the benchmarks were testing the GPU, then there wouldn’t be any difference in the benchmarks.

          The mental gymnastics surrounding Ryzen gaming benchmarks is astounding. The only logical reason to benchmark games is to find real-world performance with one configuration versus another. It literally does not matter one bit what the bottleneck is, what matters is the resulting performance.

          If you want to complain about something, complain about what a poor benchmark average FPS is. Or maybe the fact that games themselves serve as very poor indicators of CPU performance.

        • BuckRogers

          That’s why this article was named “Intel Core i7-7700k versus AMD Ryzen 1700X 14 Game CPU Showdown”.
          A gaming comparison. Which is what most people reading this review would be looking for. Except for you.

        • Lukeh

          Lol so you game with a cpu bottleneck? Are you planning a max-FPS system @ 720P with low graphics quality? Afraid your upcoming CPU purchase might bottleneck your GTX 1060? At some point these benchmarks become irrelevant to anybody other than a CSGO tool that thinks he needs 400FPS to be competitive or a fangirl upset that their brand of choice didn’t have better bar graph results than the competition.

        • ELLAS

          Ryzen Optimizations. Most sites re-testing Ryzen show similar results. Denial is a bad thing, you should stay away from it.

        • disqus_GB8lUuziuG

          “even including questionable ones from no-name AMD shills on youtube like joker and mindblank?”


          “I’ll give you a gold star if you can do so convincingly and without resorting to ad hominem.”

          Multiple layers of EPIC fail here.. LOL thanks for the laugh.

        • bobo

          Because every benchmark that shills AMD intentionally has a massive gpu bottleneck because the morons eat it up, people are linking this article as fact over many other unbiased reviews, it’s pathetic.

    • To Be or Blah

      yeah, the most popular gaming GPU in the world…..and faster than what 95% of PC gamers have. Courtesy of steam survey.

    • Cohen

      All users whether they prefer one brand or the other should be calling out bad testing when they see it. Tests like this help no one at all.

      • The_Countess

        tests that show how ryzen vs i7 compare in real world gaming scenario’s help no one? you kidding?

        what helps no one is testing a stupid expensive card on extremely low settings that no user will EVER use. the resulting workload is completely and utterly useless as it has no bearing on the real world, and no it doesn’t, at all, indicate future performance.

    • Han Solo

      yes. because you have to test with a 1080ti ON 720p AND 1080p. yay

  • Dante

    Neck and neck in gaming and Ryzen beats it pretty handily in most non gaming suites. Winner, Ryzen.

    • Martin Vest

      Not only that, but you can get the same results with slightly overclocked Ryzen 1700, instead of the 1700X, and cheaper.

      • Bill

        But wait there’s more™

        If you buy a 1700 now you get the limited edition RGB cooler that actually works fairly well for overclocking! And I’m just getting started, having a AM4 motherboard means you will continue to get 4 years worth of CPUs on the same socket, thats FOUR MORE YEARS FOR YOUR MOTHERBOARD. Did I mention that all of the CPUs are unlocked? What about them all being soldered so you don’t need to delid them buying a delid kit and voiding warranty? What about the CHILDREN?

        • Marcus

          My 1700 has been amazing. Paid $300 and overlclocked with water cooling (super low temps) to 3.9ghz at 1.25v and it smashes in games and productivity.

        • BuckRogers

          I have a 1700 in a Node202 and love it. It’s paired with a GF1060FE and 960 Pro 1TB and I can’t imagine a system that I could be more pleased with. I also have an 1800X that I’m selling if anyone is interested, didn’t quite work out great in my Node202 but I love both of these CPUs.

    • Kirk Lazarus

      Once again another comparison where the reviewer uses a slower graphics card with the latest and fastest gaming CPU’s from both companies which make both platforms look equal because of a gpu bottleneck. Throw in a GTX 1070 or 1080 and the Ryzen 1700 falls behind.

    • Sandy Kerr

      Hardly. The i7 is at least a year older than the Ryzen. Besides, AMD is always running into trouble with games (crashing, performance issues, missing particle effects) since the Phenom II CPUs. I had both the Phenom II and the FX-8350 and the latter was really bad for gaming; missing particle effects and low performance in Skyrim SE, the infamous black blob issue with Mass Effect 1, missing particle effects with ME3, crashes and stability issues with Assassins Creed Origins – just to name a few things. So Intel is defnitely the winner for me here.
      Plus, both CPUs for the same price? Only a fanboy’s gonna take the lower quality (aka AMD) for the same money an Intel can be bought for. I had AMD for 17 years and I really had enough with the whacky performance and instabilities. I bought an i7 for my newest rig (only 3 weeks old now) and I’m in heaven. THATs the important stuff for me to know, not if AMD and Intel are almost identical when it comes to speed. There are more important things to look out for than that.

      • Wesley Hodges

        Weird, my Phenom II 955 has never had any such issues with games.

  • realjjj

    Maybe you messed up the graphs(inverted results) and your conclusion certainly doesn’t reflect the numbers but in your numbers Ryzen is ahead in 77% of tests so the conclusion should be that the 7700k struggles.
    14 games x 3 resolutions for each and AMD is ahead in 33 tests while Intel wins in 9.

    • Skylake

      7600K is able to push 1080 where 1800x cant. thus this $199 CPU offers slight better average fps @ 1440p and this is with shadowplay on most of the time. I am desperately looking forward to better bios and ram compatibility to justify the downgrade to 1800x at least in high end gaming system. My 1800x+Crosshair VI reminds of me early days of X99 platform.

      • Michele Del Becaro

        if you already a good cpu why are u thinking for a change?

        • A certain someone

          I doubt he have all those processors. I think he play game on Intel/AMD iGPU. It’s just way cool to show off like that. Even I have an imaginary 6950X system with quad Titan Xp

      • Marcus

        Not true as of today. BIos with AGESA will get memory speeds up to 4000mgz. My ryzen rig (1700 4ghz 3200mhz ram) either matches the 7700k or exceeds it. Plus it plows through workloads like a $1000 intel cpu.

  • MonteCristo

    Thank you!