Intel i7 6700K - Retail Box CPU @ Amazon.it - £285.50
-115°Expired

Intel i7 6700K - Retail Box CPU @ Amazon.it - £285.50

20
Found 3rd Mar
Great price for an fully unlocked Intel i7 CPU, few % points slower than Kaby Lake 7700K, but it's around £50 cheaper, not half bad imo

Dispatched & Sold by Amazon.

Paid for in € with a fee free card, including shipping it comes in at €330.08, which translates to £284-286 depending on the card used, and Forex rate at the time of ordering/dispatch.

20 Comments

Ryzen decimates this. The 1700 is the new King Kong CPU of this decade, it will cost about £300ish after price gouging has finished and has twice as many cores and threads.

^^^lmao cores and threads forget performance

BigP50000

^^^lmao cores and threads forget performance


In a sense, if software and games were produced to take advantage of high numbers of process threads, the AMD would annihilate the high end intels.
Problem is, programming software to utilise lots of threads is complicated and makes it more difficult.
As lots of cores/threads becomes commonplace, software producers will have to get with the times and start making software take advantage of it.
Intel know this so dont bother (on their mainstream processors) to go more than 4 process threads (excepting the high end i7s which have quad/hex core+HT - 8/12 process threads respectively)
AMDs biggest advantage is the price to performance ratio compared to intels. The Ryzens have brought them right alongside intel after almost a decade, but at a cheaper price. Im sure everyone would love AMD to return to the Athlon XP days where they were out in front of intel, hoping their R&D can keep on track to make it so.

Great CPU on par with the 7700K

Chuggee

Ryzen decimates this. The 1700 is the new King Kong CPU of this decade, … Ryzen decimates this. The 1700 is the new King Kong CPU of this decade, it will cost about £300ish after price gouging has finished and has twice as many cores and threads.



​uhh might want to read reviews...

I'll pick Ryzen over this. Ryzen platform need few Windows system level updates and mobo bios updates to get full potential atm but it will get that support eventually. I don't care about extra 5-10 fps as long as they stay above 60. I play games 4K res @ 27 inch screen. Both BF1 & BF4 stay above 60fps as long as I turned off AA, everything else is ultra setting. With 156dpi I don't need AA at all.

mamboboy

​uhh might want to read reviews...



​Even taking gaming performance into account, most modern games run nicely at 1080p. Draw calls are the limiting factor, not render performance.

if you really want to get a decent i7, get an X99 setup instead, similar price, motherboard is a little more expensive. 5820K can be sourced from reliable people on OcUK or similar websites and the Tuning Plan can be bought from SCAN in case you're worried it has been heavily used. The best time to have bought an i7 was about a year ago when the 5820K was £300.
Edited by: "Chuggee" 4th Mar

Chuggee

Ryzen decimates this. The 1700 is the new King Kong CPU of this decade, … Ryzen decimates this. The 1700 is the new King Kong CPU of this decade, it will cost about £300ish after price gouging has finished and has twice as many cores and threads.


What? The 1700's MSRP is £330, there's no price gouging. The 1700X and 1800X are £400 and £500 respectively.

With the i7-7700K starting from £310 and having significantly better gaming performance than any of the Ryzens, there's simply no point in gamers choosing Ryzen at this point in time. (Personally, I'd spend the extra £25 on the 7700K over this 6700K, but I can get a great deal on a Z270 motherboard. For someone who can get a better deal on an old Z170 motherboard, I can see how this would make sense.)

But for some reason, this week HUKD has suddenly had a lot of people now commenting that they don't really use their PC for games so much anyway - apparently we've now become a site of bargain-hunting video editors. I wonder why...

Having twice as many cores and threads with similar performance to Intel for £50 extra. Hmm... that's a hard question. Cores/£ ratio might help there. The 4 core 8 thread i7 has no place in a desktop now thanks to Ryzen and Haswell-E.
Edited by: "Chuggee" 4th Mar

Chuggee

Having twice as many cores and threads with similar performance to Intel … Having twice as many cores and threads with similar performance to Intel for £50 extra. Hmm... that's a hard question. Cores/£ ratio might help there. The 4 core 8 thread i7 has no place in a desktop now thanks to Ryzen and Haswell-E.



The problem is that Ryzen is not close to the recent Intel processors for gaming. What is the point of spending more money on a product that is "better value" on paper if you're never going to use the features that make it better value, particularly if the product is actually worse at what you want to use it for?

For gaming the Intel processors are better value. For editing and other multi-core processes, the Ryzen is better value. It is a gamble to expect the gaming performance of Ryzen to match Intel processors in the future, plus it isn't useful for anybody that wants top gaming performance now.

BetaRomeo

What? The 1700's MSRP is £330, there's no price gouging. The 1700X and … What? The 1700's MSRP is £330, there's no price gouging. The 1700X and 1800X are £400 and £500 respectively.With the i7-7700K starting from £310 and having significantly better gaming performance than any of the Ryzens, there's simply no point in gamers choosing Ryzen at this point in time. (Personally, I'd spend the extra £25 on the 7700K over this 6700K, but I can get a great deal on a Z270 motherboard. For someone who can get a better deal on an old Z170 motherboard, I can see how this would make sense.)But for some reason, this week HUKD has suddenly had a lot of people now commenting that they don't really use their PC for games so much anyway - apparently we've now become a site of bargain-hunting video editors. I wonder why...



Just saying, as a person with a couple of xeons for 16 Sandybridge cores at 3ghz with hyperthreading, a gtx 970 and a 2560x1440 monitor, my CPUs go near idle while playing games, like 15% usage at most while my GPU is at 100% all the time.

Plus side is the extra cpu power comes in handy for streaming! Want to software encode a stream at native resolution? No problem, got a whole second cpu for that to run on! Most of the time I use that to reencode videos from h264 to h265 in the background.

Top gaming performance? I'd be gaming at GPU-bottlenecked resolutions like 4K if I wanted "top gaming performance". But anyhow, 1080p graphs:

http://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QYbL6UMJg6R82qsySn76jg-650-80.png

Ryzen gives you 93% of the performance of the i7-7700K ripoff pricing CPU. That's without any microcode updates to fix issues with SMT. Once SMT has been fixed, you can be sure to see equal or greater performance than without SMT. 93% at a CPU-bound resolution like 1080p. I'd rather play at 1440p and enjoy greater graphical fidelity than exponentially harder to push framerates. Gsync or Freesync smooth out gameplay, so that even 60fps is fluid at 1440p - no stuttering.

Here's an example of an application with perfect, ideal CPU scaling. Oh look, the 7700K is not so good here. Ryzen is 44% faster when an application is properly optimised and "fair". Cinebench is a fair test for all CPUs regardless of architecture or instruction sets, it uses all CPU power to the best of its' ability. This is what a properly optimised game should handle like (people like calling these tests synthetic because normal apps aren't optimised to the best of their ability due to time constraints).

http://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Cqd83mRu8aA8MihoFv6MqA-650-80.png

If I wanted a gaming CPU, I'd be waiting until 2Q 2017 when the 6 core variants are released, maybe Ryzen will put on a better show then too. At the end of the day, even without BIOS updates, microcode updates and code compiler optimisations, Ryzen is packing one hell of a punch against Intel. Good on the little guy.

Or I'd just have bought a 5820K when they were cheaper. DX 12 looks promising.


Edited by: "Chuggee" 4th Mar

Chuggee

Ryzen gives you 93% of the performance of the i7-7700K ripoff pricing … Ryzen gives you 93% of the performance of the i7-7700K ripoff pricing CPU. That's without any microcode updates to fix issues with SMT. Once SMT has been fixed, you can be sure to see equal or greater performance than without SMT.


Which Ryzen? The one that costs £10 more, £90 more or £190 more than the £310 7700K? I'm not sure of your definition of rip-off, but for me, paying more money for less performance is not smart.

Also, didn't you see the big drop in the minimum frame rates on Ryzen? That's where the end user will feel it most:

"In Rise of the Tomb Raider, running on DX11, Ryzen's average FPS matches that of the 7700K, with only the 10-core 6950X taking a significant lead. But the 99th percentile minimum FPS are as much as 20 percent lower compared to the 6900K. In DX12, the differences are less pronounced, but still there. Ryzen is 10 percent slower than a 6900K in average FPS, and a whopping 26 percent slower in minimum FPS."
- From Ars' review of the £500 1800X.

Chuggee

93% at a CPU-bound resolution like 1080p. I'd rather play at 1440p and … 93% at a CPU-bound resolution like 1080p. I'd rather play at 1440p and enjoy greater graphical fidelity than exponentially harder to push framerates. Gsync or Freesync smooth out gameplay, so that even 60fps is fluid at 1440p - no stuttering.


If people upgraded CPUs as often as GPUs, you'd have a point. Personally, as a gamer, I keep my CPUs far longer than my graphics cards. We'll have much better GPUs in a few years - from the tests we can see today, a 7700K makes more sense.

Chuggee

Here's an example of an application with perfect, ideal CPU scaling. Oh … Here's an example of an application with perfect, ideal CPU scaling. Oh look, the 7700K is not so good here. Ryzen is 44% faster when an application is properly optimised and "fair". Cinebench is a fair test for all CPUs regardless of architecture or instruction sets, it uses all CPU power to the best of its' ability.


Don't you realise that it's stupid to simply take synthetic tests at face value, as in the real world most applications aren't so optimised?

Chuggee

This is what a properly optimised game should handle like (people like … This is what a properly optimised game should handle like (people like calling these tests synthetic because normal apps aren't optimised to the best of their ability due to time constraints).


Oh, apparently you do. How odd to depend on a test that you then point out is worthless in practice.

Maybe we will have better Ryzen performance in six days, or six weeks, or six months, or six years. But then again, maybe not. Consider how long AMD has been promising competitive Linux support for their GPUs - it's been about six months away for nearly ten years now.

These companies are not your friends. Unless you're a fanboy, do not trust their promises.

I was talking about the price equivalent CPU, the R7 1700.

DX11 is old news. DX12 is the future. DX12 which scales across 6 cores efficiently, and potentially even more depending on the game engine. That's where the link to Cinebench came from, an application which scales efficiently over more than one or two cores is far better than one that is locked to one or two cores. Battlefield already does this, GTA V does it to decent extent, and quite a few more modern games do. DX12 wrapped games do not count as they simply use the DX12 wrapper - they aren't natively coded for the DX12 API, it's just DX11.2 in compatibility mode for DX12 only render situations. That's why performance is not far greater when using DX12 wrapped games, because it isn't native.

Also to the upgrading CPUs? All the more reason to get a futureproofed CPU with more than 4 cores. As I said before, modern games are starting to use more than 1 or 2 cores. Pair that with a decent GPU and a proper resolution like 1440p or 4K, and you have a system that is more than capable of lasting longer than a quad core one.

Synthetic tests are the "best" possible scenario, I used them as an aspiration. Of course games aren't optimised as well due to money, time or complexity. DX12 aimed to make that easier, who knows how that will work in the future. What is known, is that current AAA modern games are starting to finally expand core coverage beyond 1 or 2 cores.

This will be exactly the same scenario when users suggested that 8GB of RAM was plenty for gaming instead of 16GB. Sure 8GB is survivable on a lower end system, but 16GB is the new "standard".

I don't trust Intel or AMD. They both want to maximise profit margins whilst slowly pushing improvements. But at least AMD is doing it at a price that is highly competitive. That gives me incentive to purchase into Ryzen if I wasn't already invested in X99. I just wish there was a 3rd competitor. AMD has been sitting on the backburner for way too long.

Edited by: "Chuggee" 4th Mar

Chuggee

I was talking about the price equivalent CPU, the R7 1700.DX11 is old … I was talking about the price equivalent CPU, the R7 1700.DX11 is old news. DX12 is the future. DX12 which scales across 6 cores efficiently, and potentially even more depending on the game engine. That's where the link to Cinebench came from, an application which scales efficiently over more than one or two cores is far better than one that is locked to one or two cores. Battlefield already does this, GTA V does it to decent extent, and quite a few more modern games do. DX12 wrapped games do not count as they simply use the DX12 wrapper - they aren't natively coded for the DX12 API, it's just DX11.2 in compatibility mode for DX12 only render situations. That's why performance is not far greater when using DX12 wrapped games, because it isn't native.Also to the upgrading CPUs? All the more reason to get a futureproofed CPU with more than 4 cores. As I said before, modern games are starting to use more than 1 or 2 cores. Pair that with a decent GPU and a proper resolution like 1440p or 4K, and you have a system that is more than capable of lasting longer than a quad core one.Synthetic tests are the "best" possible scenario, I used them as an aspiration. Of course games aren't optimised as well due to money, time or complexity. DX12 aimed to make that easier, who knows how that will work in the future. What is known, is that current AAA modern games are starting to finally expand core coverage beyond 1 or 2 cores.This will be exactly the same scenario when users suggested that 8GB of RAM was plenty for gaming instead of 16GB. Sure 8GB is survivable on a lower end system, but 16GB is the new "standard".I don't trust Intel or AMD. They both want to maximise profit margins whilst slowly pushing improvements. But at least AMD is doing it at a price that is highly competitive. That gives me incentive to purchase into Ryzen if I wasn't already invested in X99. I just wish there was a 3rd competitor. AMD has been sitting on the backburner for way too long.




youtu.be/i2l…tkk

Chuggee

I was talking about the price equivalent CPU, the R7 1700.


Yes, I was giving Ryzen the benefit there - so seeing the 1700X and 1800X being clearly outperformed by the 7700K suggests that the 1700 will be, too. Unless you're saying that the 1700 is faster than the 1700X and 1800X..?

Chuggee

DX11 is old news. DX12 is the future. DX12 which scales across 6 cores … DX11 is old news. DX12 is the future. DX12 which scales across 6 cores efficiently, and potentially even more depending on the game engine. That's where the link to Cinebench came from, an application which scales efficiently over more than one or two cores is far better than one that is locked to one or two cores. Battlefield already does this, GTA V does it to decent extent, and quite a few more modern games do. DX12 wrapped games do not count as they simply use the DX12 wrapper - they aren't natively coded for the DX12 API, it's just DX11.2 in compatibility mode for DX12 only render situations. That's why performance is not far greater when using DX12 wrapped games, because it isn't native.


I don't think you meant to write "GTA V" there...? GTA V doesn't scale well across multiple cores. Besides...

https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/03/Ryzen-Benchmarks-Stock.018-1440x1080.png

Chuggee

Also to the upgrading CPUs? All the more reason to get a futureproofed … Also to the upgrading CPUs? All the more reason to get a futureproofed CPU with more than 4 cores.


I'm really not going to take the time here to explain what threads are. o_O

Chuggee

Synthetic tests are the "best" possible scenario, I used them as an … Synthetic tests are the "best" possible scenario, I used them as an aspiration.


You certainly did.

I remember similar aspirations at the time of the Bulldozer launch.

Chuggee

This will be exactly the same scenario when users suggested that 8GB of … This will be exactly the same scenario when users suggested that 8GB of RAM was plenty for gaming instead of 16GB. Sure 8GB is survivable on a lower end system, but 16GB is the new "standard".


I wouldn't put together a system with less than 16GB of memory anymore, either, but... http://www.techspot.com/article/1043-8gb-vs-16gb-ram/page3.html

Are you judging this based on looking at Windows RAM usage, perhaps? Or just not talking about gaming? Again, theory =/= practice.

Still, I just wish the 480 was a more popular card - the AMD cards hit the CPU a lot more than Nvidia cards. It would have been interesting to see how much Ryzen was affected by that. The only test I could find for that was this one, where an old 4c/4t (t = thread, worth Googling if you're not sure) i5-3570K beats out a Ryzen 1700: pcworld.com/art…e=2

I also found this, seems to paint Ryzen in a brighter light than all the other "professional" publications. https://youtu.be/BXVIPo_qbc4

Not sure why all the other major sites are not doing tests like these. Watch_Dogs 2 is a brutal game to run on a modern multicore CPU from the looks of it.
Edited by: "Chuggee" 4th Mar

Chuggee

I also found this, seems to paint Ryzen in a brighter light than all the … I also found this, seems to paint Ryzen in a brighter light than all the other "professional" publications. https://youtu.be/BXVIPo_qbc4Not sure why all the other major sites are not doing tests like these. Watch_Dogs 2 is a brutal game to run on a modern multicore CPU from the looks of it.



This is one review out of dozens that do say ryzens gaming speed doesn't compare to a 7700k. It's hardly surprising before coding and firmware updates are complete. I would wait a few months and the actual performance is well documented.

However many other people here miss the point completely. The CPU is rarely the bottleneck in most games and the marginal difference the 7700 confers compared to a ryzen is not in doubt. The real question is why is it more important for a processor to have 250fps on over watch than 200?

Ryzen is unoptimised but will only improve. Don't forget console gaming drives most big AAA games and consoles are all based on AMDs 8core processor APUs.

For a pure gamer Ryzen is not the best choice and don't try and pretend it is. However once major games start coming out with better core optimisation it will be highly advantageous. The only problem is that gpus will take years to catch up to that level.

Lots of reasons to buy this over a ryzen based system. It's a stable platform without issues and there's a lot of software that requires a intel based CPUs. Emulation and older games require fewer cores but stronger ipc so Dolphin, Cemu etc are better.
I've been waiting since my 1090t for games to utilise all my cores and only a few take advantage of it. I think I noticed garden warfare 2 maxing out my fx8350 but this is rare.
After six odd years waiting for these 8 core games I'm a little jaded over the prospect of them turning up in the next couple of years. I would love a decent 8 core so I could split it into a two machine setup but at £500 I would expect higher single core performance.

Ryzen if you use your pc for production and maybe some light gaming.
I7 7700k if you only play games.
Personally I'm a gamer and don't multitask much so Intel wins for me.
Others will have different requirements. Go check Gamers Nexus for detailed review of Ryzen. 1700 is where the value is at if you do video production and on a budget.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text