6700k or Ryzen for a new build

[Deleted]

if a game performs that badly, you simply punish the devs by refunding it.
If people buy and keep those games, it gives the devs more ammo to keep it up.

Given that there are no alternatives I'd really be punishing myself there, especially since the developers may then decide that instead of building a complex simulation that is hard to sell, they'll start building another FPS or sports game clone where they can sell a re-skin every year as new game - but hey it runs at 200 fps on Ryzen....

I stand by, the whole not noticing the FPS difference for 95% of the cases with these CPUs so even using your example of flight sim is niche, if you play a game that is badly made and need all the grunt you need, get the intel

Which is what I've been saying right from the beginning

Though if games you play are flight sims and only use single thread, a 6700K is questionable it self, you can probably get the I3 7300K and clock the shit out of that.

7350K. Maybe - depends on the silicon lottery, though.
Although you'll probably see some multi-threaded games suffering from it, so a CPU with great overclocking capabilities and 4+ cores is the safer bet IMHO.

[Deleted]

Given that there are no alternatives I'd really be punishing myself there

Hey, there are games I would play that developers produce, but I do actively boycott products when its not produced to a certain standard so this is normal, I simply will not give someone money if they half arsed it.

I know the feeling of this statement but a dev either does it properly or imo don't bother at all, and trust me, there have been a number of games I have been looking forward to and fell short on quality assurance, so they simply don't get my money.

That last statement you made though, I disagree as most modern games perform strongly enough with this class of hardware that most people won't be able to distinguish the 2, if a game is made badly, well I've covered this already.

Both of the CPUs listed are safe bets in this thread.

[Deleted]

Hey, there are games I would play that developers produce, but I do actively boycott products when its not produced to a certain standard so this is normal, I simply will not give someone money if they half arsed it.

I think that's a pretty bold statement to make considering nobody else offers better performance. Besides multi threaded performance isn't the deciding metric I would apply to a game. ymmv.

[Deleted]

I think that's a pretty bold statement to make considering nobody else offers better performance. Besides multi threaded performance isn't the deciding metric I would apply to a game. ymmv.

Again, most games produce decent performance to the point the deciding factor between these cpus, the standard of performance is 60 FPS, both these cpus do that for most games.

Performance is an important factor for games, its an aspect of quality assurance, and quality is based on a standard, these 2 CPUs in this thread will not drop and sustain to 30 FPS for most games.

You are simply not getting this, you are applying the most niche damn thing to override the difference between 30 for one platform - 37 FPS for another, most games do not suffer this.

[Deleted]

Again, most games produce decent performance to the point the deciding factor between these cpus, the standard of performance is 60 FPS, both these cpus do that for most games.

Most games solve different gaming problems. Maybe the realistic flight sim problem could be solved better, but at this point it's speculation.

You are simply not getting this, you are applying the most niche damn thing to override the difference between 30 for one platform - 37 FPS for another, most games do not suffer this.

I think you're the one misunderstanding what I'm trying to say:

1) Look at *your* use cases
2) See if there is any among them where you care about the different CPU performances (in my case single thread performance for x-plane)
3) select accordingly

So instead of focusing on those 170 vs 180 fps comparisons, look at the stuff where you really notice the performance differences.

This could be a ~30 fps game that favors single thread performance (intel) or your rendering program where extra cores save you a lot of time (ryzen).

[Kagthul]

Scratch that, I though he was talking about a 7600K.

Even then, it's not a runaway. Both OCed, the 7600K (only 4 cores/4th) is only about 1.5 fps behind, and has better lows, and very similar at stock speeds between the two... and the Ryzen is 6c/12th.

Not exactly a blowout, all things considered.

Which is not to denigrate the Ryzen part. It's still a good part.

[Evildeffy]

Even then, it's not a runaway. Both OCed, the 7600K (only 4 cores/4th) is only about 1.5 fps behind, and has better lows, and very similar at stock speeds between the two... and the Ryzen is 6c/12th.

Not exactly a blowout, all things considered.

Which is not to denigrate the Ryzen part. It's still a good part.

Would you mind linking that last part as in just about every test I've seen the Ryzen often has considerably better lows vs. the 7600K.
Stock and Overclocked.

[Kagthul]

.. why would i link something that is literaly on the previous page?

go look.

[moremana]

@MrPaladinGuy

You sir, need to hang with me. I agree with everything you say!

I just try not to be brash, but there is a few people on MMO that will argue just to argue.

OT, I cant get OT, this thread is cancerous and probably scared the OP away.

OP i5 or 1600? get the 1600, i7 or 1600, get the i7. End of topic, end of discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

You still go for the i7 7700k for gaming after 2016 titles. The i7 7700k is still the king of gaming

I think thats what he said...?

[pansertjald]

@MrPaladinGuy

You sir, need to hang with me. I agree with everything you say!

I just try not to be brash, but there is a few people on MMO that will argue just to argue.

OT, I cant get OT, this thread is cancerous and probably scared the OP away.

OP i5 or 1600? get the 1600, i7 or 1600, get the i7. End of topic, end of discussion.

- - - Updated - - -



I think thats what he said...?

and you didn't bother to read my reply