Building a new comp

[Lathais]

nevermind.

[Deleted]

The i5 is around 25% faster per core in purely single physical core usage, that's fact. Whether this makes any difference at all to a 1070 driving 1080p75 is another matter. It will make a difference if you play wow but that's about it, anything else will be capped. For this reason, if you plan to game at 1080/1440p 16:9, have an appropriate GPU and just want 60hz-100hz, the flavour of current gen CPU doesn't matter. When you start to approach a threshold for gpu , and don't have adaptive sync available, ipc(clock) will net you more frametime stability. A 980/ti/1070 driving a 144hz freesync panel would be a good example of where I'd buy 4c Intel, I always oc.

Would I buy an i5 at this point, probably not, things are becoming more able to run on logical cores. Intel will produce cpu's with higher c/t counts and we have AMD to thank for that (and soldered IHS). I know some people haven't had that much time to spend with computers(I'm an old bastard), AMD have historically driven evolution in cpu architecture/instruction sets, whilst Intel refine processes. This isn't because Intel can't, it's just because they are lazy/greedy and need a kick in the arse to evolve the marketplace. If you have an interest in computers it's well worth having a look at the history of these two companies and their contribution to computing. AMD failed to gain domestic traction when it last had a fully fresh product because it failed to crack the likes of Dell, leaving it in a Betamax situation as far as oem penetration goes. If AMD had the budget for ipc development post Athlon64, and something better to fend off conroe with, the hardware and software we are using today would look very different.

If you game at 60-100hz and your GPU is adequate, buy Ryzen, it's a fine CPU, will perform very well with non-gaming applications and you are helping to ensure a healthy market in the future.

The basic situation with cpu and game performance is this, if you want to game at high refresh rates in current titles (even the one vulkan example) then having higher ipc/clock results higher average frames and less frametime variance, compared with lower per thread throughput. This remains a factor as game engines have yet to fully catch up with the API's at the low-level, and exists even when cpu utilistation is low. It's sad for me to admit that curently, Intel will just bring out 6c/12t lga1151 cpu's that oc to 5ghz, start soldering their IHS's, sell them at the same prices as their current equivalent offerings and be dominant in the enthusiasts scene again. AMD will have caused a shift in paradigm again, Intel will exploit the new paradigm.

[Deleted]

The i5 is around 25% faster per core in purely single physical core usage, that's fact.

Which type of facts are we talking about?

[Demona3]

So uh... I've been following my thread and the uh, argument back and forth. First off, I am so sorry! I didn't mean to cause anyone to be upset with each other. This is not my intention, as to I am building a computer and seeking a decent build.

With that stated, and uh, I'm a bit confused at this point as well; The i5 is actually performing better than an i7? Now I see i7X series https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...-792-_-Product - which I don't have a single clue about.

Sorry guys, I do like gaming, and I am playing off a slowly dying computer here. I would like to get something that is a little bit newer that is going to last several years.

Also, forgive me, I am not incredibly computer savvy and will most likely not be overclocking (as I don't fully understand it).

[Denpepe]

If you want the best current gaming CPU I would advise an i7 7700k.

The i7x series is mostly the same than the i7 7700k but on a different, more expensive platform and most of the extra features are uselss for the CPU you linked, you would need to use the 6 core or better ones to access those (ie quad channel ram, 28 ore more pcie lanes etc..) and those run slower which you can guess, game slower now depending on your resolution and refresh rate you may not even notice.

Ideally I would advise you to wait to see what coffee lake chips will bring to the table, but not sure when those will come out, should be later this year.

[Lathais]

Which type of facts are we talking about?

The fake news kind apparantly:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/31868...pu.html?page=2

Cinebench Single Threaded - 12% Behind
PoV-Ray Single-Threaded is about the same
Geek Bench Single Threaded is about 20% behind

So not sure where people keep getting this 25% behind thing when the worst offender is only 20. Also, these are synthetics. They have little bearing on actual gaming performance. In actual gaming performance:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/31868...pu.html?page=3

In Ashes of the Singularity, the Ryzen actually beats the i5. I know people will say that's not a game people actually play, it's just a benchmark game, but that's kinda the point. That's how games are going to utilize DX12 and Multi-cores going forward.

In Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands, yeah, the i5 is ahead. If you have the standard 1080p 60hx monitor which most people have though, the difference will not be displayed by your monitor, so it's a wash. If you do have a 144hz monitor, then yes, you'll see a 6.5FPS difference. Very little behind.

And that's the story you see in nearly all games. A difference that 90% of monitors out there can not even display and on those that can, worst case scenario, still close to 100 FPS and only a little bit behind. The exception to the rule is Rise of the Tomb Raider.

[Deleted]

The fake news kind apparantly:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/31868...pu.html?page=2

Cinebench Single Threaded - 12% Behind
PoV-Ray Single-Threaded is about the same
Geek Bench Single Threaded is about 20% behind

So not sure where people keep getting this 25% behind thing when the worst offender is only 20. Also, these are synthetics

Nope, that was was using a MIPS calc, which agreed is even less representative of real world performance than synthetics, but is fairly mathematically representative of how "fast" each core is; perhaps I should have qualified my "fact" with how that was reached. It is just that how fast each core is doesn't mean a great deal when you start involving anything else in the computer. The Pcworld tests are performed at stock clocks. I was presuming a value of 4ghz for ryzen and 5ghz for intel.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

to the OP, sorry you had to apologise for kicking us off

If you don't play first person shooters (and won't increase monitor refresh rate to 144hz+)then either i7 or a Ryzen 1500/1700 will serve you well. Ryzen is better value but is a younger, slightly less well threshed out platform, but if you don't mind flashing BIOS's occasionally (it's really easy now) a Ryzen 1700 will be considerably faster for tasks which will utilise all cores/threads.

If you will be getting a 144hz+ monitor then buy an i7 (or wait for coffeelake i7).

If you want a good resource for this stuff then Gamers Nexus on youtube is considerably more scientifically rigorous in their testing than the more showbiz channels.

[Kagthul]

So uh... I've been following my thread and the uh, argument back and forth. First off, I am so sorry! I didn't mean to cause anyone to be upset with each other. .

Oh, most of these disagreements are old.

People will not admit when they are wrong, even when provided with facts.

Those people quickly go on ignore for me.

The point i was getting at is that you should be building the computer for what you're going to use it for.

Ryzen is a better "general processor". It does not perform as well in gaming as an i5 or i7 would (because both of those CPUs can be clocked quite a bit higher which is what most games care about), but still performs "quite good". If you do anything else that uses lots of cores/threads, then Ryzen is a better all-around choice.

However, if you don't, and all you care about is gaming performance, than an i7 or i5 is a better choice. It doesn't matter if the Ryzen chip is better in tasks you do nt do, because you dont do them. No reason to take a hit to the performance of the thing you DO do, for a benefit you will literally never use.

So it really comes down to your choice on that - what DO you intend to use the computer for?

If it is JUST gaming, then i'd go with the i7 if you can afford it (slightly more future proof, and because of the binning process you're more likely to get a good overclocker) but the i5 is fine if you cant.

If you're going to use it for gaming AND other things that use CPU cores (video work, audio work, coding, heavy database use, etc) then Ryzen is better, bar none. Same price or cheaper, still has good gaming performance, and will beat the pants off the i7 in heavily threaded workloads.

But, again, if you're not doing those things, then that is irrelevant to you.

Similarly, if you were asking for an HTPC (for your living room) my suggestions would be diffferent entirely because i'd be suggesting a build specialized for what you're using it for.

As for Overclocking - dont let it scare you. In almost all cases, its literally changing some settings in a menu in the EFI (what used to be called BIOS). All modern CPUs will throttle and/or shut down if they are OCed too far, to prevent damage. Its pretty hard to damage them. For either platform.

[Fascinate]

I cant believe people are still arguing the case for i5's, games today are already showing 4 cores isnt enough for just that task let alone anything else you want to do now and in the future.

Also has anyone paid attention to gaming benchmarks with skylake x? They are lower than kaby lake across the board even at the same clockspeeds, because of the way they did the interconnects in the cpu's, same as ryzen. This means older games will run better on older architectures, but being a forward thinking person ryzen is the clear choice over mainstream intel even for gaming.

[Lathais]

I cant believe people are still arguing the case for i5's, games today are already showing 4 cores isnt enough for just that task let alone anything else you want to do now and in the future.

Also has anyone paid attention to gaming benchmarks with skylake x? They are lower than kaby lake across the board even at the same clockspeeds, because of the way they did the interconnects in the cpu's, same as ryzen. This means older games will run better on older architectures, but being a forward thinking person ryzen is the clear choice over mainstream intel even for gaming.

I tend to agree that for the most part the Ryzen is the better choice. It's about $25 cheaper and performs very similarly. If you are an enthusiast with a 1440p or 4K screen and a 1080/1080ti though, then I definitely see the benefits of intel. I do tend to partially agree with Kagthul in that if all you care about is gaming, then you should go with what's best for gaming. Here's where the caveat comes in though. In the next 4-6 years, which is around the average life of current CPUs, will the Ryzen be better? None of us really know for sure, so it's a gamble. Take a very slight hit in FPS now(that depending on GPU/Monitor you may or may not even be able to see) for the CHANCE that it will be better in future games. It's a gamble really, but one that I myself would take and recommend.

[Fascinate]

Actually the higher you go in res the less CPU matters.

I have said this since ryzen launch, only people that need be considering a 7700k over ryzen are actual competitive gamers with 240hz 1080 displays, that holds true to this day. i5 no one should be considering.

At 1440p or higher intels lead diminishes to almost nothing, but even at 1080p gaming were talking about 150 fps vs 135, those kind of differences. Anyone with a 1080p 60hz monitor none of this even matters, any cpu is going to be fine as long as GPU is up to the task of staying at 60 most of the time. Variable refresh rate displays also bolster the case for ryzen over mainstream intel, as you arent going to be noticing the FPS fluctuations while keeping all the benefits that come with double-triple the thread count.

Coffee lake having 6c/12t should be evidence enough for people to stay away from kaby lake, again something i have been saying since the beginning.

[Demona3]

Oh, most of these disagreements are old.

People will not admit when they are wrong, even when provided with facts.

Those people quickly go on ignore for me.

The point i was getting at is that you should be building the computer for what you're going to use it for.

Ryzen is a better "general processor". It does not perform as well in gaming as an i5 or i7 would (because both of those CPUs can be clocked quite a bit higher which is what most games care about), but still performs "quite good". If you do anything else that uses lots of cores/threads, then Ryzen is a better all-around choice.

However, if you don't, and all you care about is gaming performance, than an i7 or i5 is a better choice. It doesn't matter if the Ryzen chip is better in tasks you do nt do, because you dont do them. No reason to take a hit to the performance of the thing you DO do, for a benefit you will literally never use.

So it really comes down to your choice on that - what DO you intend to use the computer for?

If it is JUST gaming, then i'd go with the i7 if you can afford it (slightly more future proof, and because of the binning process you're more likely to get a good overclocker) but the i5 is fine if you cant.

If you're going to use it for gaming AND other things that use CPU cores (video work, audio work, coding, heavy database use, etc) then Ryzen is better, bar none. Same price or cheaper, still has good gaming performance, and will beat the pants off the i7 in heavily threaded workloads.

But, again, if you're not doing those things, then that is irrelevant to you.

Similarly, if you were asking for an HTPC (for your living room) my suggestions would be diffferent entirely because i'd be suggesting a build specialized for what you're using it for.

As for Overclocking - dont let it scare you. In almost all cases, its literally changing some settings in a menu in the EFI (what used to be called BIOS). All modern CPUs will throttle and/or shut down if they are OCed too far, to prevent damage. Its pretty hard to damage them. For either platform.

My computer is used primarily for gaming. Granted, I don't game 24/7 =P. I appreciate your explanation on the chips. I am literally clueless when it comes to putting together computers. I just want something that will be nice, last me several years, and not lag the living crap out of me when I play haha.

I was reading up a little bit on the new coffee lake chip coming out and just wonder if I should just wait to get that. I like the builds people here have given me thus far, but hesitant to hit that "buy" button. The money I have stated at beginning of my post is already in the bank, so I'm working with what I have. I can possibly go a little higher, but prefer not to.

[pansertjald]

My computer is used primarily for gaming. Granted, I don't game 24/7 =P. I appreciate your explanation on the chips. I am literally clueless when it comes to putting together computers. I just want something that will be nice, last me several years, and not lag the living crap out of me when I play haha.

I was reading up a little bit on the new coffee lake chip coming out and just wonder if I should just wait to get that. I like the builds people here have given me thus far, but hesitant to hit that "buy" button. The money I have stated at beginning of my post is already in the bank, so I'm working with what I have. I can possibly go a little higher, but prefer not to.

If it's just for gaming, then the i7 7700k is the clear winner here and i don't see any reason to wait for Coffe lake, when we don't know if it's gonna be good or not.

Go with the i7 7700k build that was linked in the thread and you will have one hell of a gaming rig. BUT if you like the RGB stuff then go for a gigabyte aorus motherboard. The gigabyte aorus RGB boards has more RGB and has way more settings for it

[Kagthul]

My computer is used primarily for gaming. Granted, I don't game 24/7 =P. I appreciate your explanation on the chips. I am literally clueless when it comes to putting together computers. I just want something that will be nice, last me several years, and not lag the living crap out of me when I play haha.

I was reading up a little bit on the new coffee lake chip coming out and just wonder if I should just wait to get that. I like the builds people here have given me thus far, but hesitant to hit that "buy" button. The money I have stated at beginning of my post is already in the bank, so I'm working with what I have. I can possibly go a little higher, but prefer not to.

Im waiting for Coffee Lake, myself.

the new i5 will be six cores (no hyperthreading) which is more than enough for gaming. Should be out in Sept, Oct at the latest (as it is already showing in benchmarks as builders log them in).

[Logwyn]

So uh... I've been following my thread and the uh, argument back and forth. First off, I am so sorry! I didn't mean to cause anyone to be upset with each other. This is not my intention, as to I am building a computer and seeking a decent build.
.

You have to expect it. Its like little boys on the playground saying their father will kick the other guys fathers butt. Its almost as bad as people into cars arguing Chevy vs Ford.... or people arguing if the Hulk would kill Batman

[teamkiller]

Im waiting for Coffee Lake, myself.

the new i5 will be six cores (no hyperthreading) which is more than enough for gaming. Should be out in Sept, Oct at the latest (as it is already showing in benchmarks as builders log them in).

If you can wait, this. If you need now, either ryzen 5 1600 or intel i7 7700k. Just note, the ryzen build will be at least 150$ cheaper. This is money that could be pushed into a better GPU. Overall i recommend you wait. For two reasons, first being coffee lake. Warning about coffeelake is it could have the same problem as the X299 platform, it performs worse in gaming than the 7700k on the x270 (so wait for benchmarks to come out). Second reason being that the GPU market is still over priced.