What (WoW) computer would you prefer - POLL

[Video Games]

Nothing with amd, that's for sure.

[moremana]

I swear this conversation happens on every single pc build thread.

That is because there is no reason to leave Ryzen out. The value is based on the user. It does not hurt to recommend a cpu that is more than capable of playing the game especially at a better price. You may not like AMD, but that is your opinion, state why you dont like it and let the user take your thought for what it is , a opinion.

For wow specifically i would not consider anything AMD has to offer due to their lower clocks and wows reliance on singlethreaded performance

That statement alone makes it look like your Intel biased, (I wont use the word fan boy) and that's ok. But your throwing Ryzen to the crap pile simply because Intels IPC a just a smidge better. Some one has to be better, that doesn't make the other obsolete.

When you make statements like a fan boy (I did not call you one), your opinion isn't taken seriously.

By the way, I prefer Intel, but it is what it is, the Ryzen rig I have is just as good and the 8c/16t cpu was less than my 7700k 4c/8t

[Salty Maud]

You may not like AMD, but that is your opinion, state why you dont like it and let the user take your thought for what it is , a opinion.

I have no preference. I buy whatever offers the best performance for what i intend to do with it, though that might actually mean that i would prefer intel in this case.

It does not hurt to recommend a cpu that is more than capable of playing the game especially at a better price.

That's why i mentioned 8350k and 7600k. Both (presumably in the case of 8350k) better for this specific task, both cheaper than the 1600(with or without X) found in the OP builds. If savings are what you're after, just get a r3 1200 and hope it reaches 3.9-4GHz.

That statement alone makes it look like your Intel biased ... When you make statements like a fan boy (I did not call you one), your opinion isn't taken seriously.

But i thought i explained the reason in the very same sentence.

[Lathais]

That's why i mentioned 8350k and 7600k. Both (presumably in the case of 8350k) better for this specific task, both cheaper than the 1600(with or without X) found in the OP builds. If savings are what you're after, just get a r3 1200 and hope it reaches 3.9-4GHz.

Well, as you say, on the 8350k it's just presumably. We don't know the price and you have to consider that since it's an intel k-series will not have a cooler and the average cost of the motherboard to pait with it will be more expensive than a B350. So your talking out your ass here as there is no way you can know which will be cheaper without knowing actual retail pricing of both coffee lake AND it's motherboards.

For the 7600K, why in the world are you comparing a 4c.4t to the 1600, a 6c/12t. Compare it to the 1200, which is also a 4c/4t and you'll see, AMD is the much cheaper option.

[Kagthul]

the average cost of the motherboard to pait with it will be more expensive than a B350. .

Uhh... yeah, not so much. The "lower end" Z-series boards come in right around the same price as B350. I can grab a Z270 board for ~80$-90$.

its not a super significant difference, and like the B350 boards (which are "lower end" than the X370 boards), they perform just fine.

Otherwise... yeah. Why anyone is comparing the 7600K to the R5 1600, i have no idea. It may be a thing when Coffee Lake launches and the i5 will be hexacore (but still without HT/SMT), but right now.. the i5 line from Intel is pretty well obsolete from a price/performance perspective, and the i3s were ALREADY obsoleted by Intel themselves.

Intel's only real place right now is the very bottom end (grabbing a Pentium-G 4560 + H110 (which do ship already compatible with KL these days - just check before you order) board is still significantly cheaper even than an R3 1200 + B350), and the very high-end gaming enthusiast (where you're less concerned about cost/performance ratio and more concerned about pure performance, and the i7 7700K still rather handily outperforms the Ryzen lineup for gaming.

If you're doing any kind of productivity, though, or looking for a mid-range system, there's literally no reason to buy an Intel chip right now. Ryzen is better at the top of the low-end all the way through the bottom of the high-end.

Coffee Lake may swing the calculation some depending on how well it OCs and where Intel brings the price points in, but im not super hopeful.

Ill still probably be using the six-core i5 from Coffee Lake for my new build, but that's because i DONT heavily multi-task on my PC and only use it to game (having a Mac for daily-driver and productivity work) and the extra clock speed will be useful for me there. If i was using my PC as my sole/working computer... Ryzen or MAYBE the i7 8700K.

[Salty Maud]

Well, as you say, on the 8350k it's just presumably. We don't know the price and you have to consider that since it's an intel k-series will not have a cooler and the average cost of the motherboard to pait with it will be more expensive than a B350. So your talking out your ass here as there is no way you can know which will be cheaper without knowing actual retail pricing of both coffee lake AND it's motherboards.

True, and i thought i passingly mentioned that 8350k is presumably better and cheaper. It's supposed to be the 7350k successor (with 4 cores this time) so i expect similar pricing, but that is merely an educated guess at this point.

For the 7600K, why in the world are you comparing a 4c.4t to the 1600, a 6c/12t. Compare it to the 1200, which is also a 4c/4t and you'll see, AMD is the much cheaper option.

Like i again mentioned the 1600(with and without X) was selected to the builds in the OP and 7600k should offer better performance for similar price. Considering we are talking about a rig to play wow, you are right, we should be talking about 1200 instead of 1600, and i already mentioned 1200 as a cost saving option. They are not really comparable though, one OCs to 3.8-4.0GHz while being considerably cheaper, the other reaches 4.9-5.1GHz while being more expensive. It's not really a contest, rather a choice between price and performance.

I tend to argue that if the performance difference is not going to be perceivable, what does it matter if it is there? Yes, even for WoW only.

And yet my framerate drops below 60 time to time in raids thanks to ST perf bottleneck (as in 100% util while seeing <50% GPU util) and if i am foolish enough to set the settings to 10, below 50 while flying in the world. Admittedly i am running skylake at 4.6GHz so i'm not running cutting edge myself, but it's relevant considering my 6700k is somewhere between ryzen and 7600k when it comes to wow perf. Anything below 60 is noticeable is what i would say, and the 20% or so performance delta between amd and intel in this regard should make a noticeable difference.

- - - Updated - - -

If you're doing any kind of productivity, though, or looking for a mid-range system, there's literally no reason to buy an Intel chip right now.

Offtopic, but that's a nasty generalization. The two most important things i do with my PC is raiding and "productivity" tasks. It just happens to be so that i am productive in the field of graphical design and my tools (mainly photoshop, illustrator and indesign) also have a single thread performance preference.

Coffee Lake may swing the calculation some depending on how well it OCs and where Intel brings the price points in, but im not super hopeful.

Taking into account what i just said, yes, this is me as well. I might be interested in 8700k if, and only if it manages to cram in those 6 cores without sacrificing any per thread performance, +2 cores at the cost of lower clocks (assuming identical IPC) is not something that benefits my needs. I'm fearing they might not be able to accomplish that though.

[Deleted]

And yet my framerate drops below 60 time to time in raids thanks to ST perf bottleneck (as in 100% util while seeing <50% GPU util) and if i am foolish enough to set the settings to 10, below 50 while flying in the world. Admittedly i am running skylake at 4.6GHz so i'm not running cutting edge myself, but it's relevant considering my 6700k is somewhere between ryzen and 7600k when it comes to wow perf. Anything below 60 is noticeable is what i would say, and the 20% or so performance delta between amd and intel in this regard should make a noticeable difference.

My base Ryzen sounds exactly the same here. I just set the game to 10 in the game world though. Framerate stays high in most areas and it feels smooth. Coming from the I7 37700k it feels better. I dont have to worry about background software either.

The 20% performance differential is another thing you need to backup as that is not what benchmarks are producing. Dont just make stuff up, it will only annoy people. The difference is very small right now and getting smaller. In real world usage people will struggle to find differences. Which is why reviewers are recommending the Ryzen over the i intels. Not to mention the price, ease of use, motherboards etc.

[Salty Maud]

The 20% performance differential is another thing you need to backup.

Derived from 2 simple known facts: Cinebench R15 single core scores and difference in clocks when IPC is comparable. Nobody really benchmarks wow (techpowerup used to, and their testing methodology was completely useless, they don't even do that anymore) so we can't exactly look at benchmark charts, but it can be easily verified that performance in wow is bound by single thread performance and thus we can refer back to CBR15 single core score and the difference of clocks.

[Deleted]

Derived from 2 simple known facts: Cinebench R15 single core scores and difference in clocks when IPC is comparable. Nobody really benchmarks wow (techpowerup used to, and their testing methodology was completely useless, they don't even do that anymore) so we can't exactly look at benchmark charts, but it can be easily verified that performance in wow is bound by single thread performance and thus we can refer back to CBR15 single core score and the difference of clocks.

How is WOW so bound to single thread, to the point that Ryzen, Skylake and previous intel chips are bad choices? It cant be ok to say you should only buy a Kaby Lake K unlocked CPU with half the cores and double the price?

[moremana]

I have no preference. I buy whatever offers the best performance for what i intend to do with it, though that might actually mean that i would prefer intel in this case.

That's why i mentioned 8350k and 7600k. Both (presumably in the case of 8350k) better for this specific task, both cheaper than the 1600(with or without X) found in the OP builds. If savings are what you're after, just get a r3 1200 and hope it reaches 3.9-4GHz.

But i thought i explained the reason in the very same sentence.

I get what your saying, we just dont know how long he plans on waiting. If he is in need at this moment or can he wait until Coffee comes out.

What the OP is looking for, and wanted is some guidance to what build we would recommend of the 3 he obviously took time to layout, or what changes be made and we all got caught up in the "opinion" game again.

I do think that the 7600k is obsolete in any current PC build at the moment.

- - - Updated - - -

they're all shit.

I see this reply took some thinking to come up with.

[Thunderball]

How is WOW so bound to single thread, to the point that Ryzen, Skylake and previous intel chips are bad choices? It cant be ok to say you should only buy a Kaby Lake K unlocked CPU with half the cores and double the price?

Unfortunately for WoW a lot of stuff that makes a modern processor good flies out of the window: SMT (HT), higher core counts, memory access optimizations, instruction sets support - all of those go out of the window. The only thing you have left is single core performance, and Intel has much better single core performance right now. Yes, it wont translate into a crazy difference ingame, but there is no point in buying stuff that will perform worse, even if you cannot notice it.

And no, there is no double price.

[Lathais]

Like i again mentioned the 1600(with and without X) was selected to the builds in the OP and 7600k should offer better performance for similar price. Considering we are talking about a rig to play wow, you are right, we should be talking about 1200 instead of 1600, and i already mentioned 1200 as a cost saving option. They are not really comparable though, one OCs to 3.8-4.0GHz while being considerably cheaper, the other reaches 4.9-5.1GHz while being more expensive. It's not really a contest, rather a choice between price and performance.

And yet my framerate drops below 60 time to time in raids thanks to ST perf bottleneck (as in 100% util while seeing <50% GPU util) and if i am foolish enough to set the settings to 10, below 50 while flying in the world. Admittedly i am running skylake at 4.6GHz so i'm not running cutting edge myself, but it's relevant considering my 6700k is somewhere between ryzen and 7600k when it comes to wow perf. Anything below 60 is noticeable is what i would say, and the 20% or so performance delta between amd and intel in this regard should make a noticeable difference.

First of all, you can't compare clock speeds across architectures like that. Yes, the intels clock much higher. That doesn't really mean anything though as clock speed is only half of the single core performance equation. Yes, the single core performance is slower and yes that matters for WoW.

It's nice that you admit that your intel drops below 60 in certain situations. Yes, the AMD will as well, and yes, it will be 20% lower. So if you drop to 50 the 1200 will drop to around 40. So what you are telling me is you are going to see the difference between 40 and 50 FPS? Do you have V-Sync on? If the intel could keep WoW above 60, you'd have a point. It can't. No CPU can. For just about anything else you do on your PC the Ryzen is a better choice and it's less expensive. If you want to spend more money to optimize for an old game that you are not gonna see the difference with V-Sync on anyway, go for it. Not something I am going to recommend to people though.

- - - Updated - - -

Uhh... yeah, not so much. The "lower end" Z-series boards come in right around the same price as B350. I can grab a Z270 board for ~80$-90$.

First, please, I'd like to see these Z270s for $80-90. I'm not seeing them on pcpartpicker myself.

Second, was talking about the 8350k there. I thought it was confirmed that Coffee Lake is a new socket and will not work on Z270. Am I mistaken?

[Thunderball]

Second, was talking about the 8350k there. I thought it was confirmed that Coffee Lake is a new socket and will not work on Z270. Am I mistaken?

Yes, it's confirmed that it's the same socket and that 6 core parts will only work on 300 series boards. Nothing else. I would guess that 6 core parts descend from HEDT chips and therefore use FIVR, which requires different power circuitry.

[Evildeffy]

Yes, it's confirmed that it's the same socket and that 6 core parts will only work on 300 series boards. Nothing else. I would guess that 6 core parts descend from HEDT chips and therefore use FIVR, which requires different power circuitry.

Unlikely as it's an uArch that is refined from Kaby Lake so there is no HEDT equivalent development therefore it cannot descend from HEDT.
Followed by the fact that not "6 core parts will only work on 300 series boards" but Coffee Lake itself, meaning all of them.

The power envelope remains within 95W therefore there is also no need for different power circuitry.

The prototype boards have all been the 200 series boards for these CPUs as well meaning the following:

The only reason the CPUs are not backward compatible is due to firmware lockout so Intel can introduce a new chipset.
Granted there may be extra features the chipset will support that Z270 won't but none of them would "cripple" the chipset or CPU.

Having said that Intel got a shitton of flack for doing the same of X299 and Kaby Lake-X but the difference in degrees of features is pretty huge on this comparison.

And Kaby Lake-X is literally an LGA1151 die and even PCB stuck on an LGA2066 PCB, along with still lacking that FIVR that Skylake-X DOES have.
And they even got that pinout to work in firmware.. so Intel is artificially holding it back, nothing more nothing less.

That said even though I do not think the 8700K's leaks are true (unless Intel is going to ignore it's own TDP rating) it is a very interesting CPU to see.
7700K in Hexa-core format if correct... that's interesting regardless.

[Thunderball]

Unlikely as it's an uArch that is refined from Kaby Lake so there is no HEDT equivalent development therefore it cannot descend from HEDT.
Followed by the fact that not "6 core parts will only work on 300 series boards" but Coffee Lake itself, meaning all of them.

According to this article it's not all of them. Also, Intel is not doing tick-tack-toe anymore, so no architectural improvements over Skylake, only node improvements.

The power envelope remains within 95W therefore there is also no need for different power circuitry.

Doesnt mean anything, Ryzen 7 1700 is 65W while 1700X and 1800X are both 95W TDP. AMD just slapped a Tdie offset onto the latter two.

And Kaby Lake-X is literally an LGA1151 die and even PCB stuck on an LGA2066 PCB, along with still lacking that FIVR that Skylake-X DOES have.
And they even got that pinout to work in firmware.. so Intel is artificially holding it back, nothing more nothing less.

Holding back what? Motherboard by allowing the usage 2 channel memory controller equipped CPUs on a 4 channel motherboard? CPU by installing it to a LGA2066 substrate? Yes, LGA2066 boards work with both FIVR equipped chips and chips that dont have it, but that doesnt mean Z270 boards can work with FIVR. I mean it's probably not a system logic level problem, but you have to make a new board for sure.

That said even though I do not think the 8700K's leaks are true (unless Intel is going to ignore it's own TDP rating) it is a very interesting CPU to see.
7700K in Hexa-core format if correct... that's interesting regardless.

AMD does it, why wouldnt Intel do it aswell? Intel could absolutely fit a 6core into 100W TDP range with 7700K-like clocks by slapping some solder under the lid, but I guess it's not their way.

[Kagthul]

First, please, I'd like to see these Z270s for $80-90. I'm not seeing them on pcpartpicker myself.

Second, was talking about the 8350k there. I thought it was confirmed that Coffee Lake is a new socket and will not work on Z270. Am I mistaken?

No, it is not a new Socket, but they will not work on Z270 (because of changes in the chipset and power delivery)

Which is meaningless, since the new Z370s will slot in at exactly the same price points, just like the 270s did for the 170s did for the z97s did for the z87s...

oh look, first result:

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/WN9...rd-ga-z270p-d3

85$.

Though for the money i'd get the miTX board right below it from ASRock, as that has built in BT and WiFi, which you'd spend more than 15$ on in an add-in card or USB dongle for the ATX board.

- - - Updated - - -

So if you drop to 50 the 1200 will drop to around 40. So what you are telling me is you are going to see the difference between 40 and 50 FPS?

Uh... fuck yes i will. Easily. Fluctuations of 10fps are EXTREMELY noticeable and annoying. And i have absolutely SHIT eyesight. The fact that you CANT see 10fps fluctuations (especially below 60-75fps, where it is WAY more noticeable) is kind of alarming, really. I cant imagine having eyesight that bad, given how bad mine already is.

[lordmatthias]

For a pure wow build intel chips will be faster (and any other game for that matter that isn't properly multi threaded), even the i3 you have listed beats out both the AMD chips you have listed by about 15% (thread/thread). When you step up to the i5 7600k compared to the Ryzen 1600x the i5 performs about ~24% faster (again per thread). Even to this day a lot of games are programmed to only make use of a couple cores that does appear to be shifting though and when you start looking at games that can make sure of the extra cores is when you really start seeing the ryzen shine as the 1600x is ~ 41% faster than the 7600k and ~222% faster compared to the 7100.

I don't know how long it is going to take for developers to fully make the switch to truly multi-threaded coding but I can say from my perspective I think I would probably only consider buying a chip with less than 6-8 cores this last go around because it is clear that this is where manufacturing is going to go for the time being and coding will follow at some point reasonably soon.

One additional note I don't have a lot of experience with the new chips but if you plan to I would also take a look at what overclocking looks like because most of the time that can change the whole game especially looking at the single threaded performance.

[Lathais]

No, it is not a new Socket, but they will not work on Z270 (because of changes in the chipset and power delivery)

Which is meaningless, since the new Z370s will slot in at exactly the same price points, just like the 270s did for the 170s did for the z97s did for the z87s...

oh look, first result:

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/WN9...rd-ga-z270p-d3

85$.

Though for the money i'd get the miTX board right below it from ASRock, as that has built in BT and WiFi, which you'd spend more than 15$ on in an add-in card or USB dongle for the ATX board.

- - - Updated - - -



Uh... fuck yes i will. Easily. Fluctuations of 10fps are EXTREMELY noticeable and annoying. And i have absolutely SHIT eyesight. The fact that you CANT see 10fps fluctuations (especially below 60-75fps, where it is WAY more noticeable) is kind of alarming, really. I cant imagine having eyesight that bad, given how bad mine already is.

Wow, your really on today aren't you. I don't remember Z270 being the same price as Z170. I remember people buying Z170s still because they were chepaer then having issues when the did not have a CPU with which to flash the BIOS so it would work with their new CPU. Maybe I'm wrong, but I specifically remember that exact scenario playing out multiple times. People still bought Z170 because they were cheaper, not the same price as Z270. This is also STILL the case as the cheapest Z170 you can get is $67.99. The cheapest Z270 I see is $99.99.

Funny, when I click that link, the cheapest I see is $100. Even if it is $85:
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/sfc...erboard-ab350m
That's only $60.

No, I won't see it, because I'll have V-Sync on and they'll both be 30 FPS to me at that point. That's also if, and it's a pretty big if, it's really 20% behind. It's not really that far behind at all, so even if you like seeing screen tearing the difference will not be that much.


EDIT: Ok, this morning, I do actually see an $85 Z270 Board. It was not there yesterday and it's a mini-ITX, I think the ASRock one you were talking about. However, there is still the fact that B350s are $60 so yes, they ARE less expensive. In addition, I doubt Z370 will be the same price as Z270. Just as Z270 was and still is slightly more expensive than Z170, Z370 will be more expensive then Z270.

[moremana]

Yo guys....wtf happened to the OP?

Moremana looks around..."he was a here a while ago."

[Salty Maud]

Yo guys....wtf happened to the OP?

I would not be entirely surprised if he only made the thread so that we can argue about whether sky is blue and if it even matters. That is all that seems to happen in these threads.