Guru3D.com Forums

Go Back   Guru3D.com Forums > Hardware > General Hardware
General Hardware Want to talk about anything Hardware related? This is the place, you can discuss it here.



View Poll Results: what CPU to get?
i7 7700k 12 37.50%
R7 1700 OC to what ever it is stable.. 20 62.50%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
i need help new PC build...
Old
  (#1)
MKube402
Master Guru
 
MKube402's Avatar
 
Videocard: 2x RX 480 4gb
Processor: Intel i7 2600K 3.4ghz
Mainboard: ASRock Ex4 Gen3 <<dying
Memory: Ripjaws X 16GB
Soundcard: On board sound
PSU: corsair 850w
Default i need help new PC build... - 03-07-2017, 02:32 | posts: 235 | Location: Buffalo New York

ok well as some may know my PC is failing i was going to get a 7700k and then was told to wait for Ryzen that made sense.. now seeing the bench marks it looked like Ryzen was not going to be the top dog in Gaming but did do extremity well in content creation.. witch is what i expected
now i am going to be spending a lot of money and i am trying to not have some kind of buyers remorse if i pic 1 over the other. so i am trying to ask you guys my main thing is games but i want to get in to streaming on you tube maybe twitch..

so the 2 CPUs i have to pic from are the i7 7700k or the R7 1700

parts that will be carried over.
Screen res is 1080p
Corsair Hydro Series H115i
2x XFX RX 480 in crossfire
16GB of DDR4
2x 500GB SSD
1 2TB HDD
Main storage is on my file server..

Last edited by MKube402; 03-07-2017 at 17:39.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#2)
thatguy91
Ancient Guru
 
Videocard: XFX RX 480 RS 4 GB
Processor: i5-3570K
Mainboard: Asrock Z77 Extreme6
Memory: DDR3-2400 2x8GB
Soundcard: ALC898 + Microlab FC-730
PSU: Enermax Platimax 750W
Default 03-07-2017, 06:09 | posts: 6,217 | Location: Australia

Ryzen would be the choice of the two I think. It still has potential once the Windows schedulur update is released, updated microcode an bioses allowing for faster RAM speed, and the performance CPU driver.

Zen+ will be released in maybe a year, you can just drop in and replace you current Zen. Per clock it is said to perform better (supposedly), but mainly it will likely clock a lot higher due to process improvements. Coffee Lake may be able to be a direct drop in for the i7-7700K, and a 6-core available (in response to Ryzen), but the 6 core will likely be more expensive and there will probably be a new socket as well. Coffee Lake is just an modified and updated Kaby Lake, it isn't likely to perform much better apart from a clock boost. The overclocking performance may be similar though.

The additional benefit of Ryzen is that the current board may support the processor coming out after Zen+. This is a bit of a mystery at the moment. It is still Zen, but the first major update to it. It is said to be getting the AM4+ board, so I guess you would have the option of upgrading the board and CPU, etc, but the cooler would remain the same.

Just remember there are lots of trolls on the internet who are anti-Zen. Even if Ryzen outperforms their socket 2011 processor that cost significantly more, they will still bag out Zen to justify their pro-Intel stance.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#3)
Geryboy
Maha Guru
 
Geryboy's Avatar
 
Videocard: 1080 GameRock 2088/11000
Processor: i7 6700k 4.6GHz @ 1.29V
Mainboard: MSI Z170A M7
Memory: RipjawsV 3G 2x8 GB
Soundcard: SBZ->TV_Adap.3.0->OPN1
PSU: Seasonic SS-1250XM
Default 03-07-2017, 07:51 | posts: 2,252 | Location: Munich

right now best gaming cpu is a 4 core hyperthreading intel , z170 or z270.

can't see into the future but if you buy intel now, I would be surprised if you had a real problem 2 years from now.

The transision from 2 to 4 cores in gaming took a very long time, and only the last year or so 4 cores were significantly faster, based on that trend I would go 4 cores now, with HT that is.

edit: I bought my cpu a year ago or so, and would pick the same, obviously the slightly better 7700k this time, if I had the choice. There's no real evidence devs will pick up on more cores anytime soon.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4)
MKube402
Master Guru
 
MKube402's Avatar
 
Videocard: 2x RX 480 4gb
Processor: Intel i7 2600K 3.4ghz
Mainboard: ASRock Ex4 Gen3 <<dying
Memory: Ripjaws X 16GB
Soundcard: On board sound
PSU: corsair 850w
Default 03-07-2017, 14:57 | posts: 235 | Location: Buffalo New York

Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguy91 View Post
Ryzen would be the choice of the two I think. It still has potential once the Windows schedulur update is released, updated microcode an bioses allowing for faster RAM speed, and the performance CPU driver.

Zen+ will be released in maybe a year, you can just drop in and replace you current Zen. Per clock it is said to perform better (supposedly), but mainly it will likely clock a lot higher due to process improvements. Coffee Lake may be able to be a direct drop in for the i7-7700K, and a 6-core available (in response to Ryzen), but the 6 core will likely be more expensive and there will probably be a new socket as well. Coffee Lake is just an modified and updated Kaby Lake, it isn't likely to perform much better apart from a clock boost. The overclocking performance may be similar though.

The additional benefit of Ryzen is that the current board may support the processor coming out after Zen+. This is a bit of a mystery at the moment. It is still Zen, but the first major update to it. It is said to be getting the AM4+ board, so I guess you would have the option of upgrading the board and CPU, etc, but the cooler would remain the same.
well what ever i get will have to last well in to what ever socket will be supported next... i try to holed on to my PC and only do CPU/motherboard upgrades till it brakes or i cant stand it..
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#5)
insp1re
Newbie
 
insp1re's Avatar
 
Videocard: Palit Jetstream 780GTX
Processor: i7 2600k 4.6ghz@1.38v H20
Mainboard: ASRock Fatal1ty z68
Memory: HyperX 1600@1.56
Soundcard: X-Fi Fatal1ty Champion
PSU: Corsair TX 850Watt
Default 03-07-2017, 16:14 | posts: 27 | Location: Smashing your stack..

i used to always go amd, but for the past few years the longetivity of intel and its overclocking has got me hooked.

Still on my 2600k i havent had any struggle running anything, id stick with intel for the forseeable. why not just pick up another board and overclock to 4.6? unless its the pci ex lanes you are wanting.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6)
MKube402
Master Guru
 
MKube402's Avatar
 
Videocard: 2x RX 480 4gb
Processor: Intel i7 2600K 3.4ghz
Mainboard: ASRock Ex4 Gen3 <<dying
Memory: Ripjaws X 16GB
Soundcard: On board sound
PSU: corsair 850w
Default 03-07-2017, 16:26 | posts: 235 | Location: Buffalo New York

i have all so seen people testing ryzan CPUS say they have more consistent FPS with out micro freezes or drop outs, they where just more stable even though there is an over all drop in FPS over the 7700k... I would think more stable FPS is more important then raw FPS.... IMO
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7)
Geryboy
Maha Guru
 
Geryboy's Avatar
 
Videocard: 1080 GameRock 2088/11000
Processor: i7 6700k 4.6GHz @ 1.29V
Mainboard: MSI Z170A M7
Memory: RipjawsV 3G 2x8 GB
Soundcard: SBZ->TV_Adap.3.0->OPN1
PSU: Seasonic SS-1250XM
Default 03-07-2017, 16:29 | posts: 2,252 | Location: Munich

don't know what to think of that, with my setup and gsync there's nothing like stutters on my end.

not sure what people are saying and if it isn't a misconception or some kind of fanboy gibberish.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8)
insp1re
Newbie
 
insp1re's Avatar
 
Videocard: Palit Jetstream 780GTX
Processor: i7 2600k 4.6ghz@1.38v H20
Mainboard: ASRock Fatal1ty z68
Memory: HyperX 1600@1.56
Soundcard: X-Fi Fatal1ty Champion
PSU: Corsair TX 850Watt
Default 03-07-2017, 16:33 | posts: 27 | Location: Smashing your stack..

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKube402 View Post
i have all so seen people testing ryzan CPUS say they have more consistent FPS with out micro freezes or drop outs, they where just more stable even though there is an over all drop in FPS over the 7700k... I would think more stable FPS is more important then raw FPS.... IMO
i'd still skip the first gen of a new product regardless of the results, but thats just me.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9)
Kaarme
Master Guru
 
Kaarme's Avatar
 
Videocard: Sapphire 390
Processor: i5 6600K
Mainboard: Asus Z170 Pro Gaming
Memory: HyperX DDR4 16GB
Soundcard: Lead Audio LA-100 DAC
PSU: EVGA G2 750W
Default 03-07-2017, 17:24 | posts: 560 | Location: Finland

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geryboy View Post
right now best gaming cpu is a 4 core hyperthreading intel , z170 or z270.
Considering the OP is currently running a Sandy Bridge, "right now" isn't necessarily his only priority.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geryboy View Post
can't see into the future but if you buy intel now, I would be surprised if you had a real problem 2 years from now.
How about beyond that? Basic games seem to have a recommendation for an i7 these days. AAA titles have had a 4-core requirement for many years now. The consoles already have more cores (albeit slower), but lazy ports would be depending on a core number more than core speed, which bring us back to basic games recommending an i7 with 8 threads. That's today. How will it be a few years from now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geryboy View Post
The transision from 2 to 4 cores in gaming took a very long time, and only the last year or so 4 cores were significantly faster, based on that trend I would go 4 cores now, with HT that is.
It took such a disgustingly long time because Intel's top 3 priorities are: 1) Money, 2) Cash, 3) Dough. Once upon a time Intel was a company that also had a vision and ambition to develop technology, but for many years now it only wants to milk cashcows. In other words, nobody could code for more cores because practically nobody had more cores. If Intel had had its way, we would still be running 4-cores mainstream in 2030. Who knows, smartphones might have become stronger than desktop PCs...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geryboy View Post
edit: I bought my cpu a year ago or so, and would pick the same, obviously the slightly better 7700k this time, if I had the choice. There's no real evidence devs will pick up on more cores anytime soon.
I had to build this PC a year ago. Now I would most definitely go for AMD. Either this 8-core or a bit later a 6-core. Devs already use more cores. It has been seen in Guru3D reviews as well.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#10)
MKube402
Master Guru
 
MKube402's Avatar
 
Videocard: 2x RX 480 4gb
Processor: Intel i7 2600K 3.4ghz
Mainboard: ASRock Ex4 Gen3 <<dying
Memory: Ripjaws X 16GB
Soundcard: On board sound
PSU: corsair 850w
Default 03-07-2017, 17:36 | posts: 235 | Location: Buffalo New York

Quote:
Originally Posted by insp1re View Post
i used to always go amd, but for the past few years the longetivity of intel and its overclocking has got me hooked.

Still on my 2600k i havent had any struggle running anything, id stick with intel for the forseeable. why not just pick up another board and overclock to 4.6? unless its the pci ex lanes you are wanting.
i was going to get a replacement 1151 motherboard but all the motherboards i see on Ebay are reconditioned shipped from china $120.. i have a buyer for my 2600k and it is an excuse i can use on the wife to upgrade..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geryboy View Post
don't know what to think of that, with my setup and gsync there's nothing like stutters on my end.

not sure what people are saying and if it isn't a misconception or some kind of fanboy gibberish.
JayzTwoCents, bitwit, and Paul's Hardware i believe made mention that the games had over lower FPS but ran smooth as silk..

Quote:
Originally Posted by insp1re View Post
i'd still skip the first gen of a new product regardless of the results, but thats just me.
yeah that is a good point as they may have newer revs that fix the shortcomings of low IPC and lack of overclocking..
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#11)
Geryboy
Maha Guru
 
Geryboy's Avatar
 
Videocard: 1080 GameRock 2088/11000
Processor: i7 6700k 4.6GHz @ 1.29V
Mainboard: MSI Z170A M7
Memory: RipjawsV 3G 2x8 GB
Soundcard: SBZ->TV_Adap.3.0->OPN1
PSU: Seasonic SS-1250XM
Default 03-07-2017, 18:33 | posts: 2,252 | Location: Munich

@ Karame you totally exaggerate the impact of 6+ cores right now( less than 10% in only a handful of games) and the gap between 2 cores and 4 cores only increased significantly in the last max 2 years.

there's simply no evidence that devs will invest their time into using more cores in the near future since people have to upgrade their mobo with their cpu, win 10's free upgrade is tied to the mobo and requires a new license, too. Upgrading a cpu is less frequent for consumers and I simply can't see how the focus will be shifted towards 6+ cores.

Even HT benefits aren't really a game changer.


There's simply no trend and a massive jump to those new cpus that would make a ryzen more future proof now...

@ MKube , well yeah sure ryzen can be smooth @ frame time, so is my skylake, I would try to look at other benchmarks, the claim that 7700k has some kind of spikes seems strange to me.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#12)
Kaarme
Master Guru
 
Kaarme's Avatar
 
Videocard: Sapphire 390
Processor: i5 6600K
Mainboard: Asus Z170 Pro Gaming
Memory: HyperX DDR4 16GB
Soundcard: Lead Audio LA-100 DAC
PSU: EVGA G2 750W
Default 03-07-2017, 19:20 | posts: 560 | Location: Finland

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geryboy View Post
@ Karame you totally exaggerate the impact of 6+ cores right now( less than 10% in only a handful of games) and the gap between 2 cores and 4 cores only increased significantly in the last max 2 years.
Yes, right now. Right now you don't need more, but most heavier games already use all 4 cores. Once again, the OP is running a machine from half a decade ago. Well, already back then the recommendation started to shift to 4 cores for AAA titles, and we all know the recommandation is closer to how the game is meant to be played, not the minimum requirement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geryboy View Post
there's simply no evidence that devs will invest their time into using more cores in the near future since people have to upgrade their mobo with their cpu, win 10's free upgrade is tied to the mobo and requires a new license, too. Upgrading a cpu is less frequent for consumers and I simply can't see how the focus will be shifted towards 6+ cores.
More and more games all the time are console ports, and unfortunately they are lazy ports far too often. I'm currently playing Atelier Sophie, a game with graphics quality that looks 10 years old, but it's recommending a fricking i7. Why? I reckon it's because it was optimised for more cores (PS4) and thus it benefits from the multiple threads of i7 even if it barely uses a fraction of the total power. On the other hand properly made for PC games are scalable. Having more cores would thus bring smoother or better gameplay.

How could you ever have too many if they still perform well enough per core?
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#13)
Geryboy
Maha Guru
 
Geryboy's Avatar
 
Videocard: 1080 GameRock 2088/11000
Processor: i7 6700k 4.6GHz @ 1.29V
Mainboard: MSI Z170A M7
Memory: RipjawsV 3G 2x8 GB
Soundcard: SBZ->TV_Adap.3.0->OPN1
PSU: Seasonic SS-1250XM
Default 03-08-2017, 02:48 | posts: 2,252 | Location: Munich

^yeah you still say the same thing over and over again, still isn't proof that he will benefit from ryzen for games in the next 2 years.

alot of people bought x99 6 cores for games here and haven't gotten their moneys worth.

you can spend 50% more on a ryzen instead of a i5, but you can only speculate if that will be worth anything, right now there are no trends.

it's his money, right now single thread performance and game performance don't really speak for a ryzen and the future will not change drastically imo.

console port doesn't mean anything, the jaguar in the consoles has such weak cores, that any 4 core will keep up with no sweat. I can imagine a i3 blowing away that stoneage jaguar.

btw @i3 check out how a i3 skylake is doing in games nowadays, was even better than a 8370 across the board.

I think it's not realistic to assume that anything above 4 cores will happen, since the user base will stick with 4 cores for a long time and that is always the focus. most people might only switch to a 4 core ryzen since 300+ for cpu is too much for them.

Last edited by Geryboy; 03-08-2017 at 02:54.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#14)
Kaarme
Master Guru
 
Kaarme's Avatar
 
Videocard: Sapphire 390
Processor: i5 6600K
Mainboard: Asus Z170 Pro Gaming
Memory: HyperX DDR4 16GB
Soundcard: Lead Audio LA-100 DAC
PSU: EVGA G2 750W
Default 03-08-2017, 09:26 | posts: 560 | Location: Finland

You are rocking a GTX 1080? Isn't a 1060 enough for everybody? Most people don't have anything even near Nvidia 1080 level of power, so no game can make use of it, right? I mean, no studio would make a game that would benefit from that power because so few people have them.

Such silly logic.

I'm pretty sure the Intel 6-core owners here are perfectly happy with their decision, although some might feel even more power would be nice. I'm not happy with my i5, but I couldn't put more money in, and the price gap to i7 was ridiculous. But then again, I'm not exactly a heavy gamer and do other stuff as well that would scale 100% with more cores, like compiling, rendering, video encoding, etc.

I have said it a dozen times already in various threads here over the years, but the fact so relatively few programs/games require more than 4 cores is because Intel refused to give the masses more. If the coders can use more, they will if the application benefits from it. I'm not much a programmer, but even my simple productions are multi-threaded (even if only using 2). If a pitiful amateur like me can do that, the real professionals can use all available no problem.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#15)
AsiJu
Ancient Guru
 
AsiJu's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA 980Ti SC+/Xtreme IV
Processor: i5-4690K @ 4.7GHz/1.305V
Mainboard: ASRock Z97 Pro3
Memory: HyperX DDR3-2400 24 GB
Soundcard: X-Fi Titanium + Z906
PSU: Tt. Toughpower XT 875 W
Default 03-08-2017, 09:46 | posts: 3,275 | Location: Finland

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geryboy View Post
...win 10's free upgrade is tied to the mobo and requires a new license...
Not true if upgraded from retail version, have switched mobo myself after upgrading to Win 10 and no problems with activation after.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geryboy View Post
...I think it's not realistic to assume that anything above 4 cores will happen, since the user base will stick with 4 cores...
It's not realistic to assume anything above 4 cores wouldn't happen. AMD is making 4+ cores a lot more affordable now and it's definitely the future.
The sooner people adapt 4+ cores as standard the sooner it's present.

Already there are games which benefit from and can use more than 4 threads so why wouldn't there be more of them?

If I built a system now I'd definitely get a 6 or 8 core CPU. In fact planning on doing a Ryzen build later once 6 core R5 are out.
(Before you ask no, I'm not aiming for 6 core because I think 8 cores is a waste, I'm waiting for 6 cores because it's cheaper / still 12 threads )
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#16)
Geryboy
Maha Guru
 
Geryboy's Avatar
 
Videocard: 1080 GameRock 2088/11000
Processor: i7 6700k 4.6GHz @ 1.29V
Mainboard: MSI Z170A M7
Memory: RipjawsV 3G 2x8 GB
Soundcard: SBZ->TV_Adap.3.0->OPN1
PSU: Seasonic SS-1250XM
Default 03-08-2017, 10:02 | posts: 2,252 | Location: Munich

look guys stop screwing around, a 6+ core is giving nothing more than 5- 10 fps in a handful of games. and in some, due to lower oc ,alot less fps.

I get that you're saying more cores will happen, but WHEN? Right now there's NOTHING going on, and whatever you wish to think, not everybody is going to buy a ryzen, or a x99.

in 2 years most poeple will still have 4 cores, and that is a realistic statement. Just because there's a 8 core cpu for 350$ isn't going to make 6+ core mainstream, keep dreaming.

you keep telling me that the next game is just around the corner that will skyrocket with alot of cores, but no dev is gonna code a decent multithreaded game, even today 4 cores aren't used properly by most games.

You guys know what trend means? and that there's no sign in the industry that devs will go that extra mile right now without tools to make it easier for them?
Using multiple cores isn't simply a switch you press when programming, the whole 1st step needs to take into account such things.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#17)
wantobe
Member Guru
 
wantobe's Avatar
 
Videocard: Crippled 970
Processor: 3570k@4.5
Mainboard: Gigabyte Z77 UD4
Memory: Kingston 2x4gb 1600
Soundcard:
PSU: XFX 650W
Default 03-08-2017, 10:45 | posts: 72 | Location: UK

I am having the same dilemma but why I am leaning towards Ryzen because:
Even though I am happy with my current CPU performance it is not an option to leave whatever background apps running before launching AAA games to enjoy top performance without any stutters, heck even Heroes of the Storm runs smoother with everything closed.
There was a period of time when I could have whatever running in the background and running any game without any struggles, but not any more, 4 cores is just not enought any longer to have that pleasure.
I don't know how better your i7 copes in environment like that and maybe all I need is 7700k but a thought of having 8 cores - 16 threads AND AM4 socket which can be kept for future CPU just sways me towards it. And maybe I am being too optimistic but I really hope that with time Ryzen through updates can up their minimum fps more or less.
And at the end of the day, the more people will adopt 8c/16t the sooner developers will utilize them. So in my opinion it is a gamble where I may loose a little bit but potentially win a lot.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#18)
AsiJu
Ancient Guru
 
AsiJu's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA 980Ti SC+/Xtreme IV
Processor: i5-4690K @ 4.7GHz/1.305V
Mainboard: ASRock Z97 Pro3
Memory: HyperX DDR3-2400 24 GB
Soundcard: X-Fi Titanium + Z906
PSU: Tt. Toughpower XT 875 W
Default 03-08-2017, 10:47 | posts: 3,275 | Location: Finland

@Geryboy

I don't think anyone here is saying everyone should buy a Ryzen (or Intel equivalent) but Ryzen did take one big step towards making 4+ more mainstream.

In that respect anyone building a new system now should definitely go for 4+ cores for future proofing imo.

I don't agree there's nothing going on, newer releases like WD 2 are already showing good scaling on more than 4 cores so it's definitely coming.
When it's a norm well that's anyone's guess but like said the sooner people adapt more cores the sooner they will be used by devs (Hilbert said this in his reviews of Ryzen as well).

Agree that it's not just flicking a switch or just around the corner (again, don't think anyone implied it is) and for truly proper threading the game needs to be written for 8+ threads from the ground up.

But consoles already work that way so surely PC gaming will (easily) follow.

One example from 2010. I bought Ghostbusters for PC and had a Core 2 Duo build at the time.
Decent build but the game ran very choppy even if my GPU was way above recommended spec. Everyone was saying it's just a crappy port.

Once I got a Core i5 while keeping the same GPU the game ran at a solid 60 fps all of a sudden.
I did check CPU usage both before and after and it was maxed out on C2D during framedrops while i5 had a relatively even usage between cores and around 50-60 % on average iirc.

Granted an isolated example but in fact GB wasn't a lazy port but it simply expected to have at least 4 CPU threads to work with, already back then.
Metro 2033 was another game which showed a huge perf boost with a CPU upgrade at the time.

Last edited by AsiJu; 03-08-2017 at 10:49.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#19)
Geryboy
Maha Guru
 
Geryboy's Avatar
 
Videocard: 1080 GameRock 2088/11000
Processor: i7 6700k 4.6GHz @ 1.29V
Mainboard: MSI Z170A M7
Memory: RipjawsV 3G 2x8 GB
Soundcard: SBZ->TV_Adap.3.0->OPN1
PSU: Seasonic SS-1250XM
Default 03-08-2017, 11:31 | posts: 2,252 | Location: Munich

the point I'm making is right now you get worse performance in todays games and older games and emulators, and a big question mark for the future.

That's not a very clear choice for me.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#20)
AsiJu
Ancient Guru
 
AsiJu's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA 980Ti SC+/Xtreme IV
Processor: i5-4690K @ 4.7GHz/1.305V
Mainboard: ASRock Z97 Pro3
Memory: HyperX DDR3-2400 24 GB
Soundcard: X-Fi Titanium + Z906
PSU: Tt. Toughpower XT 875 W
Default 03-08-2017, 13:03 | posts: 3,275 | Location: Finland

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geryboy View Post
the point I'm making is right now you get worse performance in todays games and older games and emulators, and a big question mark for the future.

That's not a very clear choice for me.
Fair enough and to each his own.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#21)
Kaarme
Master Guru
 
Kaarme's Avatar
 
Videocard: Sapphire 390
Processor: i5 6600K
Mainboard: Asus Z170 Pro Gaming
Memory: HyperX DDR4 16GB
Soundcard: Lead Audio LA-100 DAC
PSU: EVGA G2 750W
Default 03-08-2017, 13:03 | posts: 560 | Location: Finland

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geryboy View Post
the point I'm making is right now you get worse performance in todays games and older games and emulators, and a big question mark for the future.

That's not a very clear choice for me.
The game performance was showing abnormality compared to the excellent performance in other applications. There's no doubt it will be fixed if not perfectly, at least partially.

Like I said before, the OP is still using some 6 years old CPU. If he's going to use this for half a decade as well, it's hard to see why he should get one that's perfect right now, but not years from now. If 3 years from now bigger titles really start to benefit from 6 physical cores, it's going to annoy him if he got 4, especially when he's doing streaming and other stuff in the background.

Nvidia conquered the market because GPUs are sold for the situation right now, but CPUs should last a bit longer. It'd be weird to replace 4c/8t with 4c/8t half a dozen years later. It should be weird in anyone else's but Intel's opinion.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#22)
kastriot
Master Guru
 
kastriot's Avatar
 
Videocard: Z-AMP.extr-GTX980 1.5GHz
Processor: X5650@4GHz
Mainboard: Asus P6T Deluxe V2
Memory: Avexir&GSkill 24GB
Soundcard: Sound Blaster Z
PSU: Corsair HX850
Default 03-08-2017, 13:14 | posts: 522 | Location: Kosovo/Pristina

Find some cheap 2nd hand mobo and wait until september..
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#23)
MKube402
Master Guru
 
MKube402's Avatar
 
Videocard: 2x RX 480 4gb
Processor: Intel i7 2600K 3.4ghz
Mainboard: ASRock Ex4 Gen3 <<dying
Memory: Ripjaws X 16GB
Soundcard: On board sound
PSU: corsair 850w
Default 03-09-2017, 01:07 | posts: 235 | Location: Buffalo New York

I'm kind of wondering what will game's even need more then 4 cores any how? it seems like it would be harder to have to program all that stuff and 90% of the games are ports it seems.. i guess the deciding factor is do i really want to stream online...?
thanks for the help ill have to watch and see for the next few weeks if they fix the Simultaneous multi threading OS stuff. I think that is holding there CPU back a bit...
as of right now I think the 7700k would be the safest bet for me.. but ill keep an eye out for any improvements. i am not making the purchase till April

Last edited by MKube402; 03-09-2017 at 12:21.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#24)
dudecat64
Ancient Guru
 
Videocard: POWERCOLOR PCS+ R9 380 4G
Processor: Intel Core i5 4460
Mainboard: GIGABYTE Z97X-GAMING 7
Memory: DDR3 4 x 4gigs
Soundcard: Onboard sound blaster
PSU: COOLER MASTER G750M
Default 03-09-2017, 02:55 | posts: 3,676 | Location: nystate

As long as the keep porting games from playstation and xbox they will start to use the cores available. Remember both ps4 and xbox one are multicore sytems. But if all he is doing is gaming it makes no sense to jump on ryzen right now or near future. His best bet would be i7. I don't see the i7 not handling games anytime in near future as more and more games are depending on graphics cards nowadays anyways. Even at 1080p graphics cards make or break the games. The i7 is very powerful quad core that will last many many more years.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#25)
Geryboy
Maha Guru
 
Geryboy's Avatar
 
Videocard: 1080 GameRock 2088/11000
Processor: i7 6700k 4.6GHz @ 1.29V
Mainboard: MSI Z170A M7
Memory: RipjawsV 3G 2x8 GB
Soundcard: SBZ->TV_Adap.3.0->OPN1
PSU: Seasonic SS-1250XM
Default 03-09-2017, 04:33 | posts: 2,252 | Location: Munich

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaarme View Post
The game performance was showing abnormality compared to the excellent performance in other applications. There's no doubt it will be fixed if not perfectly, at least partially.

Like I said before, the OP is still using some 6 years old CPU. If he's going to use this for half a decade as well, it's hard to see why he should get one that's perfect right now, but not years from now. If 3 years from now bigger titles really start to benefit from 6 physical cores, it's going to annoy him if he got 4, especially when he's doing streaming and other stuff in the background.

Nvidia conquered the market because GPUs are sold for the situation right now, but CPUs should last a bit longer. It'd be weird to replace 4c/8t with 4c/8t half a dozen years later. It should be weird in anyone else's but Intel's opinion.
get out of here with no doubt and surely fixed, you don't know that, wtf?
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright (c) 1995-2014, All Rights Reserved. The Guru of 3D, the Hardware Guru, and 3D Guru are trademarks owned by Hilbert Hagedoorn.