Possible Build

[zeropeorth]

If IPC is similar, then to some extent you can compare clocks ...

YOUR i7-6700k, in your signature ... 4.6 GHz. MY i7-6700k ... 4.5 GHz. So tell me, if this 'average' OC is 5 GHz, why aren't we both running at it? Average would mean there are two people running at about 5.5 GHz to counter our two cpus. Mean/Median will be about 4.5-4.7 GHZ for these 'lake' processors. Average, probably about the same, because for every person that goes to 5, there are going to be plenty who own these that don't even OC them.

Delidding? wtf, this person isn't going to be delidding. You are really reaching.

Most R7 go 4.0 before the optimizations over the last few months. We are literally talking 500 MHz, not 1.2 GHz. A 1400 goes 3.8 GHz, so 700. Even if we use the 4.7 I can get mine to at high voltages I wouldn't run for hours on AND the 1400, we still have under 1 GHz difference.

Final Fantasy XIV: Stormblood benchmark. A game people are actually playing. An MMO. Benchmark score with stock 6700k (4.0 GHz, 4.2 GHz turbo) 12705. Benchmark score with 6700k at 4.7 GHz 12910. Score at stock clock but gpu core +175 and mem +500 13741; cpu 4.7, gpu core and mem OC 14000. A stronger cpu gets small results at a certain point, then you need to focus on gpu. At 4 GHz, diminishing returns rears its face, and my 980ti needs to pick up the pace. If I had a 1080ti, then maybe I'd see a bit more results from the cpu speed. But, now let's add FPS results to this ... completely stock, 85.744 fps, cpu oc 86.842, gpu oc 92.848, both oc 94.236. Cpu oc gave 1.1 to 1.4 fps; 500 MHz difference, gpu 7.1-7.4 fps.

Your lust to try and piss on Ryzen shows you leaning towards fanboyism, not reason or even giving a shit what is best for the OP, who plays on a 1080p @ 60 Hz monitor and can actually save some money and get the exact same -tangible- results.

READ the games the OP is playing, not what other posters play ... WoW and D3, @ 1080p @ 60 Hz. No requests or requirements for Ultra setting in Mythic raiding. On a relatively tight budget for a full build.

You care not about the actual performance the OP requires, instead trying to persuade blue team for the wrong reasons. If you think dual core is all they need with maximum clock speed, why the hell haven't you suggested the 4.2 GHz i3 7350k with hyper threading for $150? You say games are optimized for the 'average user with a dual core processor' This person ONLY plays WoW and D3, why recommend a cpu that is 70-180 more expensive?

Now, let's add your 3-5 years to develop for more cores; well, Ryzen just released and 3 years from now will be using the same socket, so they could upgrade using the same mobo to a then current day cpu ... what do you think we are going to be able to do with our z170 mobos? Hell, the z270 might be done for already.

'ryzen needs faster memory' ... and you can afford it because you can get the cpu and mobo cheap, and prices for say 2800 speed, where return on investment is pretty damn good, are also not much more than the 2200 speeds. You don't need 4200 speed ram. Look for the most affordable, highest speed with the lowest latency ratio. That will get you the best results.

I do read requests here, and I see the same baseless Ryzen bashing for budget builds, as the person making suggestions can't wrap their head around building for a purpose, not for themselves.

You have 2-3k to spend and a 1440p+ 144 Hz+ monitor? 7700k and a 1080ti. You have 1k or less and using a 1080p 60 Hz monitor? playing a poorly optimized 14 year old game? Ryzen 1400-1600 or i5 non-k, a RX580 or 1060. Build for the person, not for your bias.

Ryzen doesn't have to be 'the best' raw performance to be the best for a build. Price to performance and usable performance are the metrics in a budget build using a 60 Hz 1080p monitor, and the $700 Ryzen build, being within 1-5% of the $1000 intel build, will be just as good 5 years from now, except they can take that $300 and upgrade the cpu on the same boad then, and not have to buy a new one to be up to date on IPC/clock. Just like, a 2500k/2600k @ 5 GHz will run WoW nearly as good as a 6700k @ 4.5 GHz because Intel IPC gains in the last 6 years has been so minimal that it is barely able to breach the raw performance and consistency of sandy bridge.

But please come back with LNG cooled 'lake' cpus running 1440p 144 Hz in mythic raids with ultra plus console command increases ... because delidded LNG is definitely for the person with $1000 to spend to play WoW and D3

[Lathais]

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.

No, we don't agree on that. You say substantially, I say slightly. Yes, some games you can get in increase by increasing clock speed. However, that's increasing clock speed WITHIN THE SAME ARCHITECTURE. 3.6 on one arch may be equivalent to 4.0 on another arch. yes, OCing either Arch will get benefits, of course. But you can't directly compare clock speed of CPUs across architectures like you are doing. If you could, the a 2500k and a 7600k would run the same at the same clock. They don't.

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.

Where are you getting 30%?!?!?! You've been saying 10-20% while I've linked single threaded benchmarks that show it's close to 7%. Now you're jumping to 30%?!?!?!? You have no idea what you are tlaking about and continue to prove it.

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.

Yeah, I agree, kind of. You're right, people that continue to cling to intel like it's VASTLY better than AMD and continue to buy i5s or i7s will not magically have 6 core CPUs. People that do spend less money now on a R5 1600 will though. I am not saying people will magically have them. I am saying the people that take that slight ~7% hit that will not even be noticeable on most monitors, while spending less than an i5/i7, WILL have 6-core CPUs though and be in a better position than anyone you bought an i5/i7 today.

[Thunderball]

No, we don't agree on that. You say substantially, I say slightly. Yes, some games you can get in increase by increasing clock speed. However, that's increasing clock speed WITHIN THE SAME ARCHITECTURE. 3.6 on one arch may be equivalent to 4.0 on another arch. yes, OCing either Arch will get benefits, of course. But you can't directly compare clock speed of CPUs across architectures like you are doing. If you could, the a 2500k and a 7600k would run the same at the same clock. They don't.

2500K and 7600K dont run the same on the same clock because IPC difference between the two is massive. If you're saying that Ryzen's IPC deficit is minimal then the only thing that separates it from achieving equal performance per core is clocks.

Where are you getting 30%?!?!?! You've been saying 10-20% while I've linked single threaded benchmarks that show it's close to 7%. Now you're jumping to 30%?!?!?!? You have no idea what you are tlaking about and continue to prove it.

That's the difference in those games (at least in Overwatch, LoL and DotA 2). Granted, that's only true with GTX 1060/RX 480/580, if you go higher i5 can bottleneck your card (1070 for Overwatch, 1080 for others).

Yeah, I agree, kind of. You're right, people that continue to cling to intel like it's VASTLY better than AMD and continue to buy i5s or i7s will not magically have 6 core CPUs. People that do spend less money now on a R5 1600 will though. I am not saying people will magically have them. I am saying the people that take that slight ~7% hit that will not even be noticeable on most monitors, while spending less than an i5/i7, WILL have 6-core CPUs though and be in a better position than anyone you bought an i5/i7 today.

Why would they buy something that is gives them less performance, still has adoption problems and costs the same? It's simply counterintuitive.

[moremana]

LOL, QFT, he doesnt get it.

OP, Ignore all the Intel Bias from one person. There is only one person supporting that idea and argues just to argue.

Everyone else has given you solid advice and reasoning for it.

If you, yourself are a Intel person, go with your build. If your open to other possibilities, give Ryzen a try.

[Karon]

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.

The 850 and the Trion cost the same while the 850 has more capacity, 10k more RIOPS and are Samsung SSDs (extremely reliable)

[Miyagie]

The 850 and the Trion cost the same while the 850 has more capacity, 10k more RIOPS and are Samsung SSDs (extremely reliable)

148$ = 179$ good to know.

[Karon]

148$ = 179$ good to know.

I just checked the german Amazon site there the difference is 1€ so yeah.

On us Amazon it's 158, not 148.

Please provide links instead of being a sassy c.

[Salty Maud]

Le sigh this thread already..

...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

True, assuming you can effectively utilize 12 threads which is not true for the given use case scenario. Better on paper, yes, but not in practice this time.

YOUR i7-6700k, in your signature ... 4.6 GHz. MY i7-6700k ... 4.5 GHz. So tell me, if this 'average' OC is 5 GHz, why aren't we both running at it?

Because 5GHz is not the average OC for skylake, but it is for kabylake. Given that i have personally built only 4 kabylake systems, my hands on experience is limited, but every single 7600k and 7700k i have touched reached that 5GHz without melting, one example did 5.1GHz. Then again i am just a nickname on the interwebs, what reason do you have to believe me.

Back to the actual topic. Since WoW specifically was mentioned, i am gonna strongly suggest going the intel route. 6C12T provides no benefits whatsoever over 4C4T when it comes to WoW, all this game cares about is singletreaded performance. Yes, WoW can and will put lesser load to additional threads but when (not if) the main thread completely saturates the core it is occupying you will be dealing with a single thread performance related bottleneck. In the open world CPU is rarely an issue and with higher graphical settings (especially view distance+AA) GPU will be the limiting factor, but raids are a completely different story. There is not a single CPU currently that can guarantee stable 60FPS in raids, if performance in raids is of any concern to you, i would not even consider the Ryzen options, they are not the right tool for this job.

In D3 there should be no meaningful difference between 7600k and R5 1600.

If you would now reveal that you actually plan to stream regularly and render videos on the side (or you spend more time running simcraft than actually playing the game), i would consider the ryzen option, but unless you have legitimate use for excess threads there is no reason to sacrifice per core performance for them.

The build in the OP seems adequate, you could tweak it a little here and there but overall it is adequate. Maybe invest a bit more on a better cooler, kabylake can get hot, not sure if 212 evo will allow you to reach the peak OC your CPU is capable of without uncomfortably high temps and/or noise.

[Deleted]

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

IMO that makes some sense for the profile the op has provided: WoW and D3.
Even the 7600K beats the 1500 for single thread performance: 3.6 vs 4.2 Ghz - that's a 17%% clock advantage, so with the better IPC it's definitely more than 20% faster.

Sure, whenever all cores are utilized the R5 will run circles around the i5, but in WoW that's just not happening and for D3 I think both CPUs can spit out frames faster than the monitor limit.

So he'll get better performance in WoW (raiding) and a similar experience in D3 - if that is all that matters then the i5 is a reasonable choice.
For other applications/games it's different of course.

[Fascinate]

WoW does not scale linearly like that...

Its a nearly 13 year old game, you dont build a PC around a game like that...


Ryzen is on haswell or slightly higher IPC levels, do you really think anyone is going to notice the difference between a 4690k and a 7600k in WoW?


Once you think about it in that sense, ryzen is the no brainer (which it should have been to you in the first place). i5's are a dying breed, if you are building a PC in 2017 you made the wrong choice if you bought an i5.

[Salty Maud]

Even the 7600K beats the 1500 for single thread performance: 3.6 vs 4.2 Ghz - that's a 17%% clock advantage, so with the better IPC it's definitely more than 20% faster.

It was suggested that r5 1600 could be overclocked to 3.9GHz (sounds about right), but 7600k can probably reach 5GHz, overclocked the difference would reach 28%. What comes to IPC, there is not really much of a difference, as far as i am concerned kabylake and zen are close enough to be considered comparable. R5 1600 has 2 more cores and SMT, but both of these things are irrelevant in case of wow.

Its a nearly 13 year old game, you dont build a PC around a game like that...

Why not though? If you know you will be mainly playing wow, why not take that into consideration when building a new gaming rig basically for wow?

i5's are a dying breed, if you are building a PC in 2017 you made the wrong choice if you bought an i5.

True, the concept of 4C4T is starting to age, but it still has it's uses. If you bought a slower, high thread count CPU for single thread performance bound workloads, you made the wrong choice. Ryzen has its uses as well, but this is exactly the wrong use case scenario to use ryzen for.

[Fascinate]

Why not though? If you know you will be mainly playing wow, why not take that into consideration when building a new gaming rig basically for wow?


True, the concept of 4C4T is starting to age, but it still has it's uses. If you bought a slower, high thread count CPU for single thread performance bound workloads, you made the wrong choice. Ryzen has its uses as well, but this is exactly the wrong use case scenario to use ryzen for.

i5's are dead. You either buy a 7700k or ryzen. 7700k will be a relevant gaming CPU for a far longer period of time due to hyperthreading. WoW is still so incredibly popular we could see a dx12 patch, making more efficient use of CPU's.

[Deleted]

i5's are dead. You either buy a 7700k or ryzen.

Why, if you don't need either?

7700k will be a relevant gaming CPU for a far longer period of time due to hyperthreading.

Absolutely, but again if that is not your usage profile, why care about that.

WoW is still so incredibly popular we could see a dx12 patch, making more efficient use of CPU's.

Maybe, maybe not. And even then it may not turn WoW into a multi core wonder.

[Fascinate]

The problem with the line of thinking you guys are using is the assumption WoW is going to scale linearly with clock speeds, its not anything like that in reality. Its an old ass game that is designed to play on a vast array of machines, and is not optimized to take advantage of bleeding edge hardware.

If there was a magic bullet that made WoW run smooth in every raid boss you would have heard about it by now, people with 5ghz 7700k's still have laggy boss fights...

[Lathais]

2500K and 7600K dont run the same on the same clock because IPC difference between the two is massive. If you're saying that Ryzen's IPC deficit is minimal then the only thing that separates it from achieving equal performance per core is clocks.

Along with other things. Different architectures function differently. Just because clock speed is lower does not mean the CPU is slower.

That's the difference in those games (at least in Overwatch, LoL and DotA 2). Granted, that's only true with GTX 1060/RX 480/580, if you go higher i5 can bottleneck your card (1070 for Overwatch, 1080 for others).

Please, show me benchmarks, and not early ones that show this. I am seeing something different:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-14.html
Not seeing a 30% difference in Overwatch there. Not even close. In fact, the 1600 would likely be in between to 1500X and the 1600X, which is right where the 7700K is, a chip that costs over $100 more. Also, look at those FPS numbers. 200+. People don't have monitors that can display the difference between 268 and 275 FPS. So that difference is nowhere near 30% and is also not a difference a monitor is capable of displaying. If you are gonna make ridiculous claims, please provide benchmarks to back them up. I have given you becnhmarks. If you can not provide benchmarks and keep making absurd claims then you have proven yourself to be nothing more than a intel troll fanboy.

Why would they buy something that is gives them less performance, still has adoption problems and costs the same? It's simply counterintuitive.

Because it doesn't give less performance like you seem to think. In fact, in the game of your choice, Overwatch, the 1600X is outperforming the 7700k!!! You call that less performance? Yeah, it had a few adoption problems. intel has never had adoption problems before?


Edit:

Found this guys benchmarks as well, at stock clocks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4dU-TVzsxA

On a WoW Flight Path test:

R5-1600

Min: 54.68
Max: 65.19
Avg: 59.94

I5-7600k

Min: 55.81
Max: 60.10
Avg: 57.96

wtf is this? The 1600 with it's lower clock speed has a higher min, max and average on a flight path test. Yeah, the Ryzen sure is getting less performance isn't it? During that flight path, the i5 was just barely staying above 60. The R5 averaged almost right at 60. Which one do you think looked smoother? The one that stayed at or above 60 more often. Now really though, it's a negligible difference. ~2 FPSdifference at averages, very similar mins and ~5 FPS at max. We're talking about a ~8% difference, in AMDs favor here. So much for AMD being 30% behind.

Second Edit:
https://imgur.com/a/8lsaR
A whole slew of benchmarks, from multipole sources such as linus, Paul's hardware..... There's an Overwatch in there for youThunder. Yup, huge 30% difference there. Plain as day. Oh....wait. Nope. R5 1600 is only 3FPS below the 7700k. Weird huh?

[Fascinate]

GTA 5 is the only real outlier i have seen in the past 3 months, its 100% an optimization issue. When i say optimization i dont mean not using enough cores, i mean its actually not recognizing/taking advantage of ryzens architecture properly.

My 1700 smokes my old overclocked 2500k in overwatch, much higher min fps which is what really matters in a GPU bound game like that.

[Salty Maud]

You either buy a 7700k or ryzen. 7700k will be a relevant gaming CPU for a far longer period of time due to hyperthreading. WoW is still so incredibly popular we could see a dx12 patch, making more efficient use of CPU's.

Paying extra for hyperthreading (7700k) gives no better performance in wow. While i agree that 7700k is a better CPU (there is nothing to debate really, 7700k gains hyperthreading and loses nothing over 7600k), it is not the most sensible purchase if you intend to play wow and want good value for your purchase. DX12 patch is possible, but i would not count on it, even less for it to fix the poor multithreading. Would need basically a complete engine rewrite to make wow properly multithreaded, integrating dx12 alone will not solve the issue.

The problem with the line of thinking you guys are using is the assumption WoW is going to scale linearly with clock speeds, its not anything like that in reality. Its an old ass game that is designed to play on a vast array of machines, and is not optimized to take advantage of bleeding edge hardware.

If there was a magic bullet that made WoW run smooth in every raid boss you would have heard about it by now, people with 5ghz 7700k's still have laggy boss fights...

Actually, it does. Where CPU performance matters in wow, your FPS scales almost perfectly linearly with your clocks. I challenge you to drop your clocks by 25%, do a quick boss (lfr is good for testing this quickly) and report back with your findings. I can almost guarantee that you will see a 20-25% drop. Yes, wow could run on a potato in the past, but it has become more demanding over the years. Like you (and i previously) said, there is currently not a single CPU that can guarantee stable 60FPS in raids. Therefore it is even more important to not buy the wrong CPU for this task, you would like to minimize dips below 60, right?

[Fascinate]

Paying extra for hyperthreading (7700k) gives no better performance in wow. While i agree that 7700k is a better CPU (there is nothing to debate really, 7700k gains hyperthreading and loses nothing over 7600k), it is not the most sensible purchase if you intend to play wow and want good value for your purchase. DX12 patch is possible, but i would not count on it, even less for it to fix the poor multithreading. Would need basically a complete engine rewrite to make wow properly multithreaded, integrating dx12 alone will not solve the issue.


Actually, it does. Where CPU performance matters in wow, your FPS scales almost perfectly linearly with your clocks. I challenge you to drop your clocks by 25%, do a quick boss (lfr is good for testing this) and report back with your findings. I can almost guarantee that you will see a 20-25% drop. Yes, wow could run on a potato in the past, but it has become more demanding over the years. Like you (and i previously) said, there is currently not a single CPU that can guarantee stable 60FPS in raids. Therefore it is even more important to not buy the wrong CPU for this task, you would like to minimize dips below 60, right?

No, it doesn't. Ive tested this in the past, its not 1:1 scaling. The second part of my post is what you should pay more attention to, the game plays how it plays no matter what hardware you are on (within reason here).

I am also surprised you dont understand 60 FPS in a raid does not feel like 60 FPS out questing, for example. We arent going to see any dramatic gains in WoW until we get a new client that can handle draw calls better, not even a 10ghz i5 can overcome the current WoW engine.

[Salty Maud]

No, it doesn't. Ive tested this in the past, its not 1:1 scaling. The second part of my post is what you should pay more attention to, the game plays how it plays no matter what hardware you are on (within reason here).

Then our results contradict each other. Whatever the case, your suggested solution is to buy the CPU that performs worse for the intended use, "because we wont be able to sit at stable 60FPS anyway". That is backwards thinking if you ask me.

I might actually test the scaling per clocks again now to have up to date results, last time i tested it was in EN. I'm not expecting any surprises though.

not even a 10ghz i5 can overcome the current WoW engine

The funny thing is, a 10GHz i5 actually might, but a 10GHz i5 sadly does not exist.

[Fascinate]

Then our results contradict each other. Whatever the case, your suggested solution is to buy the CPU that performs worse for the intended use, "because we wont be able to sit at stable 60FPS anyway". That is backwards thinking if you ask me.

I might actually test the scaling per clocks again now to have up to date results, last time i tested it was in EN. I'm not expecting any surprises though.


The funny thing is, a 10GHz i5 actually might, but a 10GHz i5 sadly does not exist.

Please do, and be sure to post results

Bottom line here is WoW will play on a toaster, either choice is perfectly fine. I just like to steer people towards ryzen as its the better overall product at the majority of price points.

BTW you still glazed over the most important part of my post, the game plays how it plays no matter what hardware you are on. Ive played this game going on 12 years now, the only time i had a "wow" moment (pun not intended) was back when i upgraded from 512mb of ram to 2gb, that was in 2007 i believe. No hardware upgrade that ive had since then has given me the same effect, the game is tuned to play on very low end hardware to allow as many people to play as possible. You are going to have the same experience in WoW spending 500 dollars on a machine that you will spending 2 grand.

Edit: Id just like to add again 60 FPS in a raid=60 FPS in another spot in the game. You can have 80 FPS in a raid and the game can still feel choppy. This is a WoW thing, not mmo. FFXIV for example plays smoother than WoW does in densely packed areas with lower FPS. If you were around at the launch of ffxiv you would have noticed this, 35 fps in that game still felt good.