Possible Build

[Orionsheart]

This is a possible build I am looking at doing : https://pcpartpicker.com/list/xBjXzM. Any suggestions or feedback would be appreciated.

Budget : Around $1000
Resolution: 1920x1080
Games / Settings Desired : Mostly WoW and D3 atm.
Any other intensive software or special things you do (Frequent video encoding, 3D modeling, etc) : None
Country : USA
Parts that can be reused : None
Do you need an OS? : Yes
Do you need peripherals (e.g. monitor, mouse, keyboard, speakers, etc)? : No

[Miyagie]

I would buy a Win 10 Key from Kinguin and make a usb bootable usb stick for your OS.
Instead of the 2400Mhz Ram sticks i would spend 27$ more for the 3200Mhz version.
Evo 850 is atm very expensive maybe go for a Trion 150.
http://www.outletpc.com/ao5197-ocz-t...-internal.html

And go for the 6GB version of the GTX 1060.

[moremana]

I would buy a Win 10 Key from Kinguin and make a usb bootable usb stick for your OS.
Instead of the 2400Mhz Ram sticks i would spend 27$ more for the 3200Mhz version.
Evo 850 is atm very expensive maybe go for a Trion 150.
http://www.outletpc.com/ao5197-ocz-t...-internal.html

And go for the 6GB version of the GTX 1060.

You gave your opinion but did not state why.

His build seems fine for WoW and D3, he doesn't need a 6GB card if thats all he is going to play, nor is 3200 MHz Ram going to benefit him at all on the Intel platform, 2400 is all that's needs.
@Orionsheart

Your build is fine if you have a soft spot for Intel. Have you considered a R5-1600 build? Maybe something like this.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor ($195.88 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock - X370 KILLER SLI/ac ATX AM4 Motherboard ($126.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Flare X 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory ($116.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung - 850 EVO-Series 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($107.88 @ OutletPC)
Storage: Western Digital - Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($48.44 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: EVGA - GeForce GTX 1060 3GB 3GB FTW+ GAMING Video Card ($214.99 @ B&H)
Case: Corsair - SPEC-03 Red ATX Mid Tower Case ($37.98 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: EVGA - BQ 600W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($55.98 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Asus - DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($18.69 @ OutletPC)
Operating System: Microsoft - Windows 10 Home OEM 64-bit ($89.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $1013.70
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-06-12 06:11 EDT-0400

Im not a AMD fan except on the lower tiers, however at this budget that 1600 can OC easily on the stock cooler to 3.8-3.9 GHz with a simple multiplier tweak and hang with the 7600 with 2 more cores and SMT. Much better price to performance than a 7600

[teamkiller]

You gave your opinion but did not state why.

His build seems fine for WoW and D3, he doesn't need a 6GB card if thats all he is going to play, nor is 3200 MHz Ram going to benefit him at all on the Intel platform, 2400 is all that's needs.
@Orionsheart

Your build is fine if you have a soft spot for Intel. Have you considered a R5-1600 build? Maybe something like this.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor ($195.88 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock - X370 KILLER SLI/ac ATX AM4 Motherboard ($126.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Flare X 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory ($116.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung - 850 EVO-Series 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($107.88 @ OutletPC)
Storage: Western Digital - Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($48.44 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: EVGA - GeForce GTX 1060 3GB 3GB FTW+ GAMING Video Card ($214.99 @ B&H)
Case: Corsair - SPEC-03 Red ATX Mid Tower Case ($37.98 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: EVGA - BQ 600W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($55.98 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Asus - DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($18.69 @ OutletPC)
Operating System: Microsoft - Windows 10 Home OEM 64-bit ($89.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $1013.70
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-06-12 06:11 EDT-0400

Im not a AMD fan except on the lower tiers, however at this budget that 1600 can OC easily on the stock cooler to 3.8-3.9 GHz with a simple multiplier tweak and hang with the 7600 with 2 more cores and SMT. Much better price to performance than a 7600

Mana is right on a lot of this. The only changes i'd make is drop to a b350 motherboard, that'll save $30.(The large trade off between x370 and B350 mostly comes down the features and lighting. The more noticeable trade off, this may be anecdotal but i have heard b350 motherboards do have a longer boot time. I have a b350 and will admit a lot of my boot time is bios) If you have a working computer and do'nt plan on using cds/dvds, save a little money, get an cheap flash drive instead of a disc drive (saves~10$)

With the saved money, either pocket it or, if you plan to overclock, get a higher TDP heatsink for your cpu. The stock cooler works great. But when your run all cores hard it will increase the longevity of the cpu.

Also, stick with the Flare X ram sticks do not get the Ripjaws V if you go ryzen. Ryzen is a bit of a jerk when it comes to compatibility. Most sticks will work, but only up to 2133 most of the time. That's unless you get sticks officially supported by your motherboard. I haven't seen a MoBo that doesnt support the Flare X mana showed.

[Thunderball]

I like your build actually. Dont listen to the people offering a R5 1600 - 7600K is far superior for what you're planning to do with this system (assuming you OC to at least 4.6, which should be pretty easy). This is what I would do:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i5-7600K 3.8GHz Quad-Core Processor ($228.49 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Zalman - CNPS10X Performa CPU Cooler ($37.98 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: ASRock - Z270 Pro4 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($113.33 @ OutletPC)
Memory: Team - Dark 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory ($102.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung - 850 EVO-Series 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($99.99 @ B&H)
Storage: Western Digital - Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($48.44 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: EVGA - GeForce GTX 1060 3GB 3GB FTW+ GAMING Video Card ($214.99 @ B&H)
Case: Cooler Master - MasterBox Lite 5 ATX Mid Tower Case ($49.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: SeaSonic - 520W 80+ Bronze Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($54.99 @ Amazon)
Other: Windows 10 @ Kinguin.net ($37.00)
Total: $988.19
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-06-12 10:26 EDT-0400

I'm not sure why would you need an optical drive in 2017, but if you decide to go with it SPEC-01 might be the best choice for someone who needs optical drives. I would change the PSU obviously, dont like FSP designs (which EVGA BQ is). Downgraded a mobo a little bit to get a better cooler (your losses here are mostly in a form of a worse audio chip on the Pro4). If you still can afford a Gaming K4 go with it, it's a pretty good board. As people have already pointed out get Windows 10 from Kinguin, dont forget buyer protection in case something goes wrong.

[moremana]

You recommend a 4 core cpu over a 6/12 core one for a lower price?

If it were a 7700k, yeah I would, but not a 7600.

[Thunderball]

You recommend a 4 core cpu over a 6/12 core one for a lower price?

If it were a 7700k, yeah I would, but not a 7600.

I didnt design Ryzen to suck that much in IPC (AMD did), and IPC is king for what OP is trying to do.

[moremana]

I didnt design Ryzen to suck that much in IPC (AMD did), and IPC is king for what OP is trying to do.

lol, it doesnt suck that much at wow and D3, the 10% he wont even see at 1080

[Thunderball]

lol, it doesnt suck that much at wow and D3, the 10% he wont even see at 1080

There are no advantages that outweight that 10-20%, what's the point then?

[Lathais]

I didnt design Ryzen to suck that much in IPC (AMD did), and IPC is king for what OP is trying to do.

Where do you get this idea that it sucks that much? Yeah, some early benchmarks showed it vastly under-performing, but after Microcode and BIOS updates for RAM speeds, it's really not all that far behind. The difference is negligible in most games and most monitors are not capable of displaying the FPS difference you might gain by going intel. Even in WoW, where IPC is king, we're talking less than 10% of a difference. That means that in those CPU bound situations where even a 7700k dips down to 55ish, the AMD might dip to 50ish. If you have V-Sync on, then there is still no visible difference there. If you are running some form of adaptive sync, yeah, the intel might be ~5 FPS better, probably more like 3-4 though. It's not as far behind as you think it is and as more games start optimizing for it and/or developing with AMD in mind(which they will seeing as major consoles use AMD CPUs now) it will only get better.

[zeropeorth]

The baseless AMD hate needs to stop. Prior to Ryzen, yes, AMD IPC was far behind for the last several years, but Ryzen took care of that. Although, I will disagree with 'more cores for less money, why not?' sentiment because we are talking Blizzard games who use a core and a half, and this person doesn't do any productivity. That makes a 4 core about perfect if they are doing anything in the background, or even a 2 core could work if they were sure they weren't going to expand to other games and wow never gets optimized for more cores or hyperthreading in the future; technically an i3 could work in this situation.

You could go i7 if you saved on other parts: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/cCNgjc

(before the comment is made, the 212+ is rated at 180W TDP and I used it to cool a 2500k @ 5-5.1 GHz for 5+ years)

or save a lot and have pretty similar performance for just WoW and D3 only

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/xXDkr7

Can go with this; the 1400 can OC to 3.8; yeah, its no 66/6700k, but the build is cheaper, so could upgrade to one of the ryzen chips that hit 4.0 for a bit better performance and still save some over the intel build. The RX580 outperforms both 3 and 6 GB versions of the 1060 for 1080 gaming, and the 4 GB matches the 3 GB pricing.

So, the choice comes down to how much of your budget you want to spend to get the extra 5-700 MHz from the intel chips (my 6700k only goes to 4.5 stable without going to uncomfortably high voltages), if you have any brand loyalty/preference, and what settings you are truly expecting realistically. If your monitor is 60 Hz, then the extra for the intel chips might be money wasted as you see no benefit running the game far above that, and without vsync or an adaptive sync, you are more likely to experience tearing.

As far as GPU ram usage; MMOs don't take up a lot. Now if you were doing modded games like elder scrolls, or GTA V seems to use quite a bit, then you might want to drop the idea of the 3 GB model; but FFXIV, which has much more intense graphics than WoW, doesn't even use 2 GB of VRAM nor does it use that much system ram. So; you also have absolutely NO use for 16 GB system ram either for WoW and D3. 4 GB is too little for just a couple games, but most run fine on it, so 8 GB will be more than enough for many years to come. There are videos on it, if you search.

People tend to get excited and overbuild or talk others into overbuilding ... I find PC enthusiasts similar to car enthusiasts. Sometimes the return on investment is so poor, but people are encouraged to go for the upgrade because of the passion being greater than common sense/realistic/tangible gains/returns. You see this a lot in PC forums along with the AMD/Intel/Nvidia fanatic wars.

[Thunderball]

Where do you get this idea that it sucks that much? Yeah, some early benchmarks showed it vastly under-performing, but after Microcode and BIOS updates for RAM speeds, it's really not all that far behind. The difference is negligible in most games and most monitors are not capable of displaying the FPS difference you might gain by going intel. Even in WoW, where IPC is king, we're talking less than 10% of a difference. That means that in those CPU bound situations where even a 7700k dips down to 55ish, the AMD might dip to 50ish. If you have V-Sync on, then there is still no visible difference there. If you are running some form of adaptive sync, yeah, the intel might be ~5 FPS better, probably more like 3-4 though. It's not as far behind as you think it is and as more games start optimizing for it and/or developing with AMD in mind(which they will seeing as major consoles use AMD CPUs now) it will only get better.

All those updates didnt change anything for IPC. They improved memory support and solved issued with SMT, that's about it. So the games that could utilize those threads can now do it more effectively, resulting in slightly better performance, the games that didnt utilize them before didnt magically start. I didnt say that it sucks that much, but it's 10-20% without anything outweighing that deficit.

The baseless AMD hate needs to stop. Prior to Ryzen, yes, AMD IPC was far behind for the last several years, but Ryzen took care of that.

Ryzen is still vastly behind on IPC, largely due to much lower clocks.

[Lathais]

Ryzen is still vastly behind on IPC, largely due to much lower clocks.

See, you prove how little you know with this statement right here. Lower clocks mean less cycles, not how much it can do in a cycle.

[zeropeorth]

All those updates didnt change anything for IPC. They improved memory support and solved issued with SMT, that's about it. So the games that could utilize those threads can now do it more effectively, resulting in slightly better performance, the games that didnt utilize them before didnt magically start. I didnt say that it sucks that much, but it's 10-20% without anything outweighing that deficit.



Ryzen is still vastly behind on IPC, largely due to much lower clocks.

Here: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/amd-ryze...view-4232.html

and here: http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-4-core...core-i7-7700k/

and here: http://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-perfor...e-gtx-1080-ti/

and here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/...ads-vs-four/16

and here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ng,4977-4.html

need I go on, or did this help you realize your error on IPC, Ryzen performance, and your anti-AMD bias?

What is even more amusing is some of these reviews/tests were months ago before bios and other optimizations. The IPC is VERY close. Some say is similar to broadwell, and intel IPC has a very low increase year to year. the 'lake' series are not great overclockers either in general. The silicon lottery is pretty harsh for these. 6700k get a common 4.5 GHz, look it up. Intel recently told 7700k owners to not overclock if they don't like running at 90C; and these are people with beefy coolers who paid extra for the unlocked core they are saying this to.

IPC = instructions per clock. So, IPC itself is very similar. Clock speeds aren't even that far off either. We are talking 500-700 MHz depending if you get a 1400 which seems to go to 3.8, or a higher end which seems to like 4.0. It isn't like 80%+ of the i5/i7s are going to 5.0; they are mid 4s and some a couple hundred higher if lucky; with $80-200 coolers. Since IPC is pretty much a non issue in the discussion now, clock speed is. Yes, WoW likes it since it is pretty much single threaded, but we aren't talking 3.2 vs 4.8 GHz here; and if you actually look at those benchmarks, the 1080 performance is pretty damn good, only a couple frames behind, which means the intel tax is not really worth it. avg frames in the 70s gg. If we move into other games, I can tell you that a 500 MHz increase in clock speed made almost no difference in the FFXIV: SB benchmark, 200 point on a score of over 12k; sort of sounds like margin of error; but that leverages multiple cores and HT/SMT, so it isn't cpu bottlenecked in the first place, I'm gpu bottlenecked with my 980ti as a few hundred on the gpu clock increased score 10x as much.

So, again, let's talk real numbers and stop the blind hate. Intel hadn't always been king of the hill. Several years ago, AMD was king. Just like ATi had that title over Nvidia in the past as well. Don't let short term memory and some false sense of brand loyalty cloud your judgment. They don't care. Competition is good, and that is what I support. I want at least two companies able to be competitive in the market, as it means we, as consumers, get better products, more innovation, at a faster speed, for lower prices. Intel admitted they were sitting on better tech in an interview, because they could. Now, they were caught napping and need to rush on their cycles and work on stuff they could've been all along. The 18 core is vaporware atm; and it will be priced over 2x that of threadripper. So let's just say AMD, the value leader, is now extending that value market into higher end products and the productivity arena.

Get that 6700k of yours up to the 5.0 I had my 2500k at, then we can start saying there is a significant core clock advantage between $330 i7 and a $200 1600; but maybe not so strong in the price to performance ratio on much else than single threaded games like WoW.

This is a budget build, no reason to not consider AMD. If this was a $3000+ build, then small advantages for 50% more cost become a more reasonable expenditure; so does looks, so getting a $330 7700k with the ASUS extreme boards with built in rgb watercooling block for $650 isn't much of an issue, as well as a ROG 1080ti.

Focusing on the user -needs- not our personal wants or biases is more important. Finding the minimum they need for what they want, then suggesting where they could spend more for tangible benefits while keeping a system well balanced is sound advice. Bashing legitimate options because you don't like a certain color isn't.

[Thunderball]

Here: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/amd-ryze...view-4232.html

and here: http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-4-core...core-i7-7700k/

and here: http://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-perfor...e-gtx-1080-ti/

and here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/...ads-vs-four/16

and here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ng,4977-4.html

need I go on, or did this help you realize your error on IPC, Ryzen performance, and your anti-AMD bias?

What is even more amusing is some of these reviews/tests were months ago before bios and other optimizations. The IPC is VERY close. Some say is similar to broadwell, and intel IPC has a very low increase year to year. the 'lake' series are not great overclockers either in general. The silicon lottery is pretty harsh for these. 6700k get a common 4.5 GHz, look it up. Intel recently told 7700k owners to not overclock if they don't like running at 90C; and these are people with beefy coolers who paid extra for the unlocked core they are saying this to.

IPC = instructions per clock. So, IPC itself is very similar. Clock speeds aren't even that far off either. We are talking 500-700 MHz depending if you get a 1400 which seems to go to 3.8, or a higher end which seems to like 4.0. It isn't like 80%+ of the i5/i7s are going to 5.0; they are mid 4s and some a couple hundred higher if lucky; with $80-200 coolers. Since IPC is pretty much a non issue in the discussion now, clock speed is. Yes, WoW likes it since it is pretty much single threaded, but we aren't talking 3.2 vs 4.8 GHz here; and if you actually look at those benchmarks, the 1080 performance is pretty damn good, only a couple frames behind, which means the intel tax is not really worth it. avg frames in the 70s gg. If we move into other games, I can tell you that a 500 MHz increase in clock speed made almost no difference in the FFXIV: SB benchmark, 200 point on a score of over 12k; sort of sounds like margin of error; but that leverages multiple cores and HT/SMT, so it isn't cpu bottlenecked in the first place, I'm gpu bottlenecked with my 980ti as a few hundred on the gpu clock increased score 10x as much.

So, again, let's talk real numbers and stop the blind hate. Intel hadn't always been king of the hill. Several years ago, AMD was king. Just like ATi had that title over Nvidia in the past as well. Don't let short term memory and some false sense of brand loyalty cloud your judgment. They don't care. Competition is good, and that is what I support. I want at least two companies able to be competitive in the market, as it means we, as consumers, get better products, more innovation, at a faster speed, for lower prices. Intel admitted they were sitting on better tech in an interview, because they could. Now, they were caught napping and need to rush on their cycles and work on stuff they could've been all along. The 18 core is vaporware atm; and it will be priced over 2x that of threadripper. So let's just say AMD, the value leader, is now extending that value market into higher end products and the productivity arena.

Get that 6700k of yours up to the 5.0 I had my 2500k at, then we can start saying there is a significant core clock advantage between $330 i7 and a $200 1600; but maybe not so strong in the price to performance ratio on much else than single threaded games like WoW.

This is a budget build, no reason to not consider AMD. If this was a $3000+ build, then small advantages for 50% more cost become a more reasonable expenditure; so does looks, so getting a $330 7700k with the ASUS extreme boards with built in rgb watercooling block for $650 isn't much of an issue, as well as a ROG 1080ti.

Focusing on the user -needs- not our personal wants or biases is more important. Finding the minimum they need for what they want, then suggesting where they could spend more for tangible benefits while keeping a system well balanced is sound advice. Bashing legitimate options because you don't like a certain color isn't.

Ok, let's not talk IPC (as I've used the term incorrectly), let's talk performance per core. Clocks: realistically we're talking about 1.2 GHz here. Average OC for a 7600K/7700K is 5 GHz (5.2-5.3 with delid), 3.8 GHz for R7. I dont care about hate, non-hate, innovation, industry leading. I dont care about all of that. All I care is performance in gaming scenarios. AMD loses on that so far. Doesnt mean that it's bound to stay this way forever but for now that's what we have.

This is a gaming build without any workstation workloads involved. Ryzen has an edge if the build is required to do both, it's not the case here. In this case there is nothing that outweights Ryzens lower performance per core. It also cannot afford faster memory that also gives Ryzen an edge.

[Denpepe]

Ok, let's not talk IPC (as I've used the term incorrectly), let's talk performance per core. Clocks: realistically we're talking about 1.2 GHz here. Average OC for a 7600K/7700K is 5 GHz (5.2-5.3 with delid), 3.8 GHz for R7. I dont care about hate, non-hate, innovation, industry leading. I dont care about all of that. All I care is performance in gaming scenarios. AMD loses on that so far. Doesnt mean that it's bound to stay this way forever but for now that's what we have.

This is a gaming build without any workstation workloads involved. Ryzen has an edge if the build is required to do both, it's not the case here. In this case there is nothing that outweights Ryzens lower performance per core. It also cannot afford faster memory that also gives Ryzen an edge.

op has a 1080p screen most likely 60 hz, it does not matter that intel can do 200 fps and AMD "only" 180 he will only see 60 which both CPU's can do in 99% of all use cases, the dips in wow on higly populated or badly optismised zones etc. will happen on all platforms and the differences there will be even less pronounced.

[Lathais]

Ok, let's not talk IPC (as I've used the term incorrectly), let's talk performance per core. Clocks: realistically we're talking about 1.2 GHz here. Average OC for a 7600K/7700K is 5 GHz (5.2-5.3 with delid), 3.8 GHz for R7. I dont care about hate, non-hate, innovation, industry leading. I dont care about all of that. All I care is performance in gaming scenarios. AMD loses on that so far. Doesnt mean that it's bound to stay this way forever but for now that's what we have.

This is a gaming build without any workstation workloads involved. Ryzen has an edge if the build is required to do both, it's not the case here. In this case there is nothing that outweights Ryzens lower performance per core. It also cannot afford faster memory that also gives Ryzen an edge.

You an't compare clock speed across architectures like that. A 2500k at 4.5ghz is not going to perform the same as a 7600k at 4.5ghz. The 7600k will be faster at benchmarks, even at the same clocks. So all we really have are benchmarks. Benchmarks show that the AMD is not that far behind.

Look at the Cinebench Single Thread benchmark here:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...review,10.html

The R5 1500x has a stock 3.7 turbo yet it beats the 2600k which is running at 3.6. Don't compare clock speed across architectures. It doesn't work.

Knowing that, all you really have to go by are benchmarks. Benchmarks show that the AMD chip is not really far behind. A few %. On a 60hz 1080p monitor, no one is going to see the difference between 100 and 90 FPS anyway, even if the differences were that large and they are not.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...review,18.html
In Hitman, you see the 1600@3.9 perform just 5FPS under the 4790k. You also see more evidence of clock speed not mattering. The 8c/16t 5960X is clocked at 3.5 factory turbo, yet out performs the 1600 clocked at 3.8. Obviously, this game utilizes the additional cores, so even though the clock speed is lower on the 5960X, it has 2 more cores, so performs better.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...review,19.html
In RotTR we see again, yeah, the 1600 is behind a bit, 19 FPS behind the "king" 7700k(which is being beat by CPUs with more cores/lower clocks, a trend that will likely continue in gaming) at 1080p. So assuming a 1080p 60hz monitor, no one is gonna tell the difference between the two. On the 1440p monitor, we are obviously limited by the GPU, so again, doesn't really matter.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...review,20.html
More games, same story. At 1080, yeah, intel has a slight edge, that 60hx monitors are not going to show. At 1440p, no difference to speak of.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...review,21.html
More games, this time, virtually no difference at 1080p as well and still no difference at 1440p.

So, as you can see, on top of you not knowing what the fuck you are talking about, thinking IPC and clock speeds are related and that clock speeds can be compared across generations, the AMD chips are not as far behind as you make them out to be. To WoWs point, where single core performance matters most, I direct you to look here:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages..._review,9.html

In the CPU-Z Single Core Perf score is only about 7% behind the "king" 7700k. Not this 10-20% you are always going on about. 7%. You can see from the other gmaing benchmarks the FPS is about the same behind on average at 1080p. So even if we take a worst case 10% behind scenario, that means in a raiding situation where you FPS drops to 55ish on the 7700k it would be 50ish on the 1600. Nothing to complain about when you are getting more cores, more threads and there is evidence future games will make more use of them.

[Thunderball]

-snip-

Of course I can compare clocks across architectures. The same way you can compare IPC across architectures.

Next. The games. All those reviewers benchmark games that noone actually plays. Noone plays Hitman, RotTR or Ashes, those are benchmark games, because they work well with a lot of cores/threads. Games people actually play are optimized for an average user, so a dual core processor. WoW, Overwatch, LoL, DotA 2, Minecraft, CS:GO - all those games simply cannot utilize the cores Ryzens have.

All of you guys constantly read the requests for builds here. Look at the games people are playing. Answering the question that always pops up: no, Ryzen release or AMD processors being in consoles doesnt mean developers are going to start optimizing for more cores and/or AMD architecture. It will take 3-5 years AT LEAST.

[Lathais]

Of course I can compare clocks across architectures. The same way you can compare IPC across architectures.

So a 2500k and a 7600k running at the same clock will perform the same? No, they won't. The 7600k will perform better. So comparing clocks across architectures does no good. 3.6 ghz in one arch may be just as good or better than 4.0 ghz in another arch. Just because the clocks are lower does not mean they do not perform as well. It just doesn't work that way. Sorry.

Again, for WoW, Overwatch, LoL, DotA 2, Minecraft, CS:GO, no, they won't use the additional cores. However, there also won't be a noticeable performance hit AND it's cheaper than the i5 or i7 alternatives. Already admitted a long time ago in this thread that a Pentium is fine for the OPs intended uses. Strictly talking about why i5's, whether locked or not, are simplt not worth it currently.

And yeah, 3-5 years at least before things are being optimized for AMD properly. No. Games are already optimizing for it. However, the 2500k launched in Q1 '11. 6 years ago. People that have them still question whether or not they should upgrade out of them as the gains are not that significant. I would expect a CPU to last at least 3-5 years because of that. So in 3-5 years when devs are taking advantage of it people that buy AMD today will be reaping the benefits and people who bought intel will be behind.

[Thunderball]

So a 2500k and a 7600k running at the same clock will perform the same? No, they won't. The 7600k will perform better. So comparing clocks across architectures does no good. 3.6 ghz in one arch may be just as good or better than 4.0 ghz in another arch. Just because the clocks are lower does not mean they do not perform as well. It just doesn't work that way. Sorry.

Not sorry, it's either Ryzen IPC is substantially worse and we agree on that, or we actually compare clocks. That's discarding the fact that A LOT of games basically only care about clocks.

Again, for WoW, Overwatch, LoL, DotA 2, Minecraft, CS:GO, no, they won't use the additional cores. However, there also won't be a noticeable performance hit AND it's cheaper than the i5 or i7 alternatives. Already admitted a long time ago in this thread that a Pentium is fine for the OPs intended uses. Strictly talking about why i5's, whether locked or not, are simplt not worth it currently.

If 30% isnt noticable than what is? Pentium is fine, but 4c is always better than 2c/4t. Then there are ofcouse clocks, which make a lot of difference for some games.

And yeah, 3-5 years at least before things are being optimized for AMD properly. No. Games are already optimizing for it. However, the 2500k launched in Q1 '11. 6 years ago. People that have them still question whether or not they should upgrade out of them as the gains are not that significant. I would expect a CPU to last at least 3-5 years because of that. So in 3-5 years when devs are taking advantage of it people that buy AMD today will be reaping the benefits and people who bought intel will be behind.

IPC difference between 2500K and a 7600K is about 25%. Then there are clocks. People want to see 50-100% difference (what they have been used to previously) but that doesnt happen anymore. Again, in 3-5 years people wont magically have a lot of 6+ core CPUs even if AMD sales will be record high for those years, just because how people upgrade their hardware.