1000€ Budget, need help for a new system.

[Yamato]

Hey Guys, my PC died on me, and I want to build a new one. I have 1000€ saved and would be willing to spend that much. I don't need any peripherals, only my 1TB Hard Drive can be reused. I also don't need an Operating System. I live in Germany. I hope you guys can help me out. Thank you in advance.

[the boar]

Resolution
Games / Settings Desired
Any other intensive software or special things you do (Frequent video encoding, 3D modeling, etc)

you provided good info, but these ones are very important before we can help as well!

[Yamato]

Hello! My bad. All I really want is to run World of Warcraft on high/maxium settings. And running some applications in the background, like Discord or Teamspeak, listening to music. I don't really play anything else besides WoW in my free time. I don't really know what you mean with Resolution, like 1080p? No video encoding or 3D modeling, or anything of that sort.

[Thunderball]

Wait for monday.

[Yamato]

Help would still be appreciated, thanks to everyone who'd be willing to help out.

[Kagthul]

The reason people were saying "wait" was because Intel was due to announce their new 8th gen CPus on monday, which they did...

But the new desktop SKUs wont be available until early October.

So if you have to have a computer NOW, something with AMDs Ryzen is probably your best bet. IF you could wait for Coffee Lake CPUs in October, id recommend the new i5 8600K, as it will six cores and likely overclock easily to 5+ghz.

However, the Ryzen 5s are quite good, and if you have to have a machine up and running ASAP, are far better price/performers than any of intels current chips in the i5-range.

Heres an example system:

PCPartPicker part list: https://de.pcpartpicker.com/list/TBjfbj
Price breakdown by merchant: https://de.pcpartpicker.com/list/TBjfbj/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor (€199.99 @ Amazon Deutschland)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG - H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler (€39.09 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Motherboard: Asus - PRIME B350M-A Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard (€77.40 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Memory: Corsair - Vengeance LED 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2666 Memory (€143.83 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Storage: Seagate - FireCuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Hybrid Internal Hard Drive (€72.96 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Video Card: Zotac - GeForce GTX 1060 6GB 6GB AMP! Edition Video Card (€304.99 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Case: Fractal Design - Core 1100 MicroATX Mini Tower Case (€41.32 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Power Supply: be quiet! - Pure Power 10 CM 600W 80+ Silver Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply (€77.60 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Total: €957.18
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-22 19:46 CEST+0200

You can swap the Firecuda hybrid for an SSD if you want, and drop to the CPU down to the R5 1400 (which is 4 cores/8 threads, instead of 6 cores/12 threads on the R5 1600 - still plenty solid for gaming) to save some cash.

GPU prices are inflated, but you may be able to snipe an RX 580 or 570 at MSRP if youre quick (Amazon.de showed 2 580s in stock at MSRP when i was doing the build, but who knows if they are still there).

[Yamato]

Thank you so much.

[Thunderball]

Note, if this is mostly WoW PC you shouldnt consider Ryzen. Even the current generation Intels have a big advantage in WoW.

[Lathais]

Note, if this is mostly WoW PC you shouldnt consider Ryzen. Even the current generation Intels have a big advantage in WoW.

An advantage, yes. I would not call it a big advantage though. Ryzens IPC is pretty much on par with Haswell, and with OCs, it can reach the same stock clocks as a 4690K pretty easily. Are you telling me that intels current stuff is that far ahead of a stock 4690K? Sure, there are improvements and they are better, but not massively. When it's also far less expensive, it's may not be better performance, but it sure as hell is a better price/performance ratio.

[Thunderball]

An advantage, yes. I would not call it a big advantage though. Ryzens IPC is pretty much on par with Haswell, and with OCs, it can reach the same stock clocks as a 4690K pretty easily. Are you telling me that intels current stuff is that far ahead of a stock 4690K? Sure, there are improvements and they are better, but not massively. When it's also far less expensive, it's may not be better performance, but it sure as hell is a better price/performance ratio.

Stock 4690K? Yes, combining IPC and clock about 20-25%.

[Lathais]

Stock 4690K? Yes, combining IPC and clock about 20-25%.

I'll agree with about 20% on single threaded in Cinebench. However, the difference in Games, even WoW, is not the same as the difference in Cinebench. It's far less. Even if it is 20% though:

Assuming the user already has a CPU Cooler they can carry over from a previous build:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i7-7700K 4.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($315.00 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Gigabyte - GA-Z270-HD3 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($96.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $411.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-24 10:11 EDT-0400

Yet the Ryzen, that yes, could be as much as 20% behind in performance is:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1400 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($156.39 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte - GA-AX370-Gaming ATX AM4 Motherboard ($91.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $248.37
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-24 10:12 EDT-0400

Even going with a higher quality motherboard, about 40% Cheaper.

Once you add in a cooler to the intel and if you drop to a B350 for the Ryzen:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1400 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($156.39 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock - AB350 Pro4 ATX AM4 Motherboard ($73.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $230.37
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-24 10:14 EDT-0400

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i7-7700K 4.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($315.00 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG - H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($34.89 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte - GA-Z270-HD3 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($96.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $446.87
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-24 10:15 EDT-0400

You end up paying over 90% more for possibly 20% more performance in WoW. While intel may wear the performance crown, AMD wears the price/performance crown hands down. That's value. For just about everything else the difference is just not there or in Ryzens favor. Just does not make any sense at all. IF that possible 20%(I still say it's less than that in actual games) is worth that much more cost to you, sure, knock yourself out. Buy a 7700k. For me, my 4690K still runs just fine, so will any Ryzen system. Not worth spending $450 for a 20% increase IMO. If I was gonna spend $450 on my PC, I'd spend it on a graphics card, not the CPU. Same thing when comparing a Ryzen Build to an intel build. The $200 or so saved can get you up to the next tier graphics card or go up in frequency or resolution on monitor. If you go for a higher resolution monitor, the difference in performance between AMD and intel shrinks too. Better GPU and/or Monitor is a better investment IMO.

fex.:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i7-7700K 4.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($315.00 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG - H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($34.89 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte - GA-Z270-HD3 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($96.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory ($127.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung - 850 EVO-Series 500GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($149.99 @ B&H)
Video Card: MSI - GeForce GTX 1060 6GB 6GB GT OCV1 Video Card ($264.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Corsair - 200R ATX Mid Tower Case ($69.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: SeaSonic - 520W 80+ Bronze Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($53.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $1113.81
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-24 11:40 EDT-0400

Slightly over OPs budget, could drop to a lower tier graphics card to get it within budget if he had to, or he could do this:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1400 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($156.39 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock - AB350 Pro4 ATX AM4 Motherboard ($73.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory ($127.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung - 850 EVO-Series 500GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($149.99 @ B&H)
Video Card: Gigabyte - GeForce GTX 1070 8GB Windforce OC Video Card ($424.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Corsair - 200R ATX Mid Tower Case ($69.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: SeaSonic - 520W 80+ Bronze Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($53.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $1057.32
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-24 11:41 EDT-0400

Still slightly over budget, but it's less over budget than the intel build and has a GTX 1070 in it.

So, in short, to say that Ryzen should not even be considered is ludicrous. If you want the best price/performance ratio, then Ryzen absolutely should be at least considered. If performance is all you care about and spending nearly twice as much for what is really about a 10-15% difference in games, which outside of WoW your monitor is likely not capable of displaying that 10-15% difference, then go for it, spend a disproportionate amount of more money for more performance. So before making a comment like:

Note, if this is mostly WoW PC you shouldnt consider Ryzen. Even the current generation Intels have a big advantage in WoW.

I beleive it should be prefaced with, "If performance is your only consideration." Yes, if performance is your only concern, Ryzen should not be considered. However, if budget is also a concern, then Ryzen absolutely should be considered.

[Thunderball]

I beleive it should be prefaced with, "If performance is your only consideration." Yes, if performance is your only concern, Ryzen should not be considered. However, if budget is also a concern, then Ryzen absolutely should be considered.

If budget is a concern Intel still wins. You dont need an i7 for WoW.

[Lathais]

If budget is a concern Intel still wins. You dont need an i7 for WoW.

Maybe on an extreme budget. Budget does not mean really low budget though. A budget can be $500 or $1500. If my budget was $1000, the two systems listed above are both decent choices. Personally, with $1000 budget, I'd rather have a R5 1500+GTX 1070 than a 7700K+GTX 1060.

Unless on an extreme budget and needing to go with a G4560 and a 1050ti, there is a cheaper AMD option. Yes, you will have up to 20% less performance in WoW, but you can save quite a bit. Since we already proved i7's can be nearly half as much, let's do the same for an i5 with a budget of let's say $1000-1200.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i5-7600K 3.8GHz Quad-Core Processor ($223.64 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG - H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($34.89 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte - GA-Z270-HD3 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($96.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-3000 Memory ($82.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung - 850 EVO-Series 500GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($149.99 @ B&H)
Video Card: Gigabyte - GeForce GTX 1070 8GB Windforce OC Video Card ($424.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Corsair - 200R ATX Mid Tower Case ($69.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: SeaSonic - 520W 80+ Bronze Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($53.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $1137.46
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-24 15:19 EDT-0400

A fairly basic i5 build with a GTX 1070.

Let's see what we get with the same budget with AMD:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 3 1200 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor ($109.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock - AB350 Pro4 ATX AM4 Motherboard ($73.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-3000 Memory ($82.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung - 850 EVO-Series 500GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($149.99 @ B&H)
Video Card: Gigabyte - GeForce GTX 1070 8GB Windforce OC Video Card ($424.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Corsair - 200R ATX Mid Tower Case ($69.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: SeaSonic - 520W 80+ Bronze Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($53.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $965.92
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-24 15:20 EDT-0400

Wow. Look at that. Same number of cores and everything. Yeah, it's gonna be 20% Slower in Single Threaded applications like WoW, but it's $170 cheaper! We can use that to increase the graphics card like so:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 3 1200 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor ($109.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock - AB350 Pro4 ATX AM4 Motherboard ($73.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-3000 Memory ($82.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung - 850 EVO-Series 500GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($149.99 @ B&H)
Video Card: Gigabyte - GeForce GTX 1080 8GB WINDFORCE OC 8G Video Card ($514.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Corsair - 200R ATX Mid Tower Case ($69.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: SeaSonic - 520W 80+ Bronze Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($53.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $1055.91
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-24 15:21 EDT-0400

Now, for still less than the intel system, you get a GTX 1080.

Please, feel free to tell me I'm wrong by posting me an intel system that is cheaper than an AMD system with the same number of cores/threads. You can save $150-200 by going AMD or use that money saved to get better stuff elsewhere in your build, like a graphics card that will be a much more noticeable difference or a monitor with a higher refresh rate so you can actually see the extra FPS you are getting or a higher resolution monitor so everything just looks better. Yes, you'll have slightly less performance in single threaded applications. intel is the single threaded performance king. AMD is the price/performance ratio at all levels except extremely small budgets. If you want value, then it's wise to at least consider AMD. If all you care about is performance and money means nothing to you, then by all means build intel. If money has value to you though, AMD should at least be a consideration.

Even at that though, for about $50 more than a G4560 build you can get an R3 1200 build that can be OCed putting on par with the G4560, even in single threaded application, and you have 4 real cores instead of 2 cores and 4 threads. Yeah, for WoW, they would perform identically, so the G4560 wins this price/performance war. In anything else that will make use of more cores, the AMD will win though.

Let's lay it out for the hell of it:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Pentium G4560 3.5GHz Dual-Core Processor ($78.89 @ B&H)
Motherboard: ECS - H110M4-C23 Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($40.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-3000 Memory ($82.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital - Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($46.88 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: EVGA - GeForce GTX 1050 2GB ACX 2.0 Video Card ($113.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Fractal Design - Core 1000 USB 3.0 MicroATX Mid Tower Case ($27.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: SeaSonic - 520W 80+ Bronze Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($53.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $445.71
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-24 15:40 EDT-0400

$445 build that will play WoW great. Amazing value, almost can't be beat.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 3 1200 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor ($109.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock - AB350M Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard ($59.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-3000 Memory ($82.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital - Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($46.88 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: EVGA - GeForce GTX 1050 2GB ACX 2.0 Video Card ($113.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Fractal Design - Core 1000 USB 3.0 MicroATX Mid Tower Case ($27.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: SeaSonic - 520W 80+ Bronze Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($53.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $495.81
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-24 15:41 EDT-0400

$50 more and you get a system that can be OCed and has 4 real cores. In addition, you are on a platform that if 3-4 years from now you want to get better than 4 cores, you can drop in whatever AMD releases next and have likely have an 8c/16t system that can be OCed without having to buy a new motherboard. That's a lot of value for that $50 more. The motherboard to upgrade from a G4560 to whatever intel has at the time will likely cost around $100, so in the long run, your $50 ahead. Since the AMD CPU at that time will still likely be cheaper(with less performance) than it's intel counterpart, that's even more money ahead in the long run.

I'd still probably choose the intel if I had a sub-$500 budget myself, but it's at least something to consider. That's all I am saying. You, and plenty of other people, always say that AMD should not even be considered if the system is for WoW. I wholeheartedly disagree. It should at the very least be considered. It is not up to me or you if $150-200 is worth more to a person building a system than a possibly 20% increase in performance in limited games in limited situations. That is up to the person spending the money, not me or you, so I will continue to offer both options while clearly stating that yes, the AMD system will have slightly worse performance in raids and other CPU bound situations in WoW.

[Thunderball]

Maybe on an extreme budget. Budget does not mean really low budget though. A budget can be $500 or $1500. If my budget was $1000, the two systems listed above are both decent choices. Personally, with $1000 budget, I'd rather have a R5 1500+GTX 1070 than a 7700K+GTX 1060.

Unless on an extreme budget and needing to go with a G4560 and a 1050ti, there is a cheaper AMD option. Yes, you will have up to 20% less performance in WoW, but you can save quite a bit. Since we already proved i7's can be nearly half as much, let's do the same for an i5 with a budget of let's say $1000-1200.

If it's a WoW build I'd rather have 7600K+1060. No reason to go for more. If it's a general gaming build that heavily depends on the titles and resolution. R5 1400 wont be able to pull 100% GPU load of the GTX 1070 in all titles at 1080p (and the usual usecase for 1070 in a 1080p system is going for 144Hz, which entirely depends on the CPU), and for WoW any i5 will beat it handily while costing cheaper. All of that is done assuming the end user overclocks the CPU in both cases, if that's not the case ocked i5 is the winner.

Wow. Look at that. Same number of cores and everything. Yeah, it's gonna be 20% Slower in Single Threaded applications like WoW, but it's $170 cheaper! We can use that to increase the graphics card like so:

Two problems here. 1) Gaming performance entirely depends on single thread performance, even if a game can utilize more threads. 2) R3 1200 wont be able to fully utilize a GTX 1070. Sure, Ryzen 3 is 2x cheaper, but noone makes you buy a 7600K - you can buy a 7400 + B250 board, effectively neglect any price difference, and still have better gaming performance. Yes, you cannot overclock a 7400, but as it turns out Ryzen 3 cannot close the performance gap even with an overclock.

Buying a 1080 with an R3 is a compete waste of money, even if it's not 1080p.

Please, feel free to tell me I'm wrong by posting me an intel system that is cheaper than an AMD system with the same number of cores/threads. You can save $150-200 by going AMD or use that money saved to get better stuff elsewhere in your build, like a graphics card that will be a much more noticeable difference or a monitor with a higher refresh rate so you can actually see the extra FPS you are getting or a higher resolution monitor so everything just looks better. Yes, you'll have slightly less performance in single threaded applications. intel is the single threaded performance king. AMD is the price/performance ratio at all levels except extremely small budgets. If you want value, then it's wise to at least consider AMD. If all you care about is performance and money means nothing to you, then by all means build intel. If money has value to you though, AMD should at least be a consideration.

Even at that though, for about $50 more than a G4560 build you can get an R3 1200 build that can be OCed putting on par with the G4560, even in single threaded application, and you have 4 real cores instead of 2 cores and 4 threads. Yeah, for WoW, they would perform identically, so the G4560 wins this price/performance war. In anything else that will make use of more cores, the AMD will win though.

I'll make it simple. Gaming performance is defined by single threaded performance, even if a game can utilize multiple threads. Also, you have to overclock Ryzens to get your value out of it, and most users wont do that, even if it's ridiculously easy and needed hardware is there. Basically you only go AMD if you can afford a Ryzen 5+decent B350 board, but cannot afford a i7, for WoW the situation is obviously very simple: you go Intel no matter what.

[Lathais]

R5 1400 wont be able to pull 100% GPU load of the GTX 1070 in all titles at 1080p (and the usual usecase for 1070 in a 1080p system is going for 144Hz, which entirely depends on the CPU), and for WoW any i5 will beat it handily while costing cheaper. All of that is done assuming the end user overclocks the CPU in both cases, if that's not the case ocked i5 is the winner.

I have no idea where you get this BS from. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9vqOGv5b98

In most games, it absolutely does use 97-99% of the GPU. In the game that it doesn't, let's look at GTAV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWRnEYASk8k

See how his 6700K has similar GPU usage? It's not that the AMD can't pull enough from the 1070 or whatever nonsense you think happens. It's just that the game doesn't make full use of the GPU.

Two problems here. 1) Gaming performance entirely depends on single thread performance, even if a game can utilize more threads. 2) R3 1200 wont be able to fully utilize a GTX 1070. Sure, Ryzen 3 is 2x cheaper, but no one makes you buy a 7600K - you can buy a 7400 + B250 board, effectively neglect any price difference, and still have better gaming performance. Yes, you cannot overclock a 7400, but as it turns out Ryzen 3 cannot close the performance gap even with an overclock.

Buying a 1080 with an R3 is a compete waste of money, even if it's not 1080p.

1) Yeah, I agree, for WoW. For other games, it does not matter as much, just look at benchmarks:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/...3_1200/12.html

In BF1 at 1080p, since someone with an R3 1200 is likely at 1080p, the difference between the 1200 and the 4560 is pretty small. Since you can OC that 1200 to 3.8 prett easily, you can see it will likely be better than the 4560, especially since that is a game that DOES make use of more core well

Civ6? Again, a game that relies on CPU pretty heavily and the stock 1200 beats the 4560. You can OC the 1200 and do even better.

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, the difference between the two is minimal. 3 FPS. OC the 1200 and I bet it wins.

Dishonored 2, stock 1200 beats the G4560. Once again, the 1200 can be OCed and perform even better.

Doom, difference is marginal at best. 1.1 FPS, which again, when you OC that 1200, it's gonna win.

I can go on and on.


2) Again with this BS. Just look at the previous benchmarks at the higher resolution where the GPU has to work more. There is almost no difference. The GPUs produce pretty much the same results no matter what CPU is driving them.
Here are some more:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/...3_1200/13.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/...3_1200/14.html
Again, especially at 4k where the GPU is really working it's hardest, there's almost no difference in the different CPUs. Any of them are capable of driving the 1080, so they are certainly capable of driving a 1070. I wish you would stop saying this BS all over the place because it is obviously false, yet I see you say it all the time.

I'll make it simple. Gaming performance is defined by single threaded performance, even if a game can utilize multiple threads. Also, you have to overclock Ryzens to get your value out of it, and most users wont do that, even if it's ridiculously easy and needed hardware is there. Basically you only go AMD if you can afford a Ryzen 5+decent B350 board, but cannot afford a i7, for WoW the situation is obviously very simple: you go Intel no matter what.

I'll make it even simpler. No, CPU is mostly irrelevant except in certain games like WoW, Civ6 and Dishonored 2. In WoW, yes, an intel CPU will always outperform an AMD, but not by much. In Civ 6, Ryzens are the clear winner. The games AI takes a lot of CPU power, so the more cores really help. In other games where the CPU is not a factor, there is almost no difference. It has nothing to do with how well the CPU can drive the GPU, it just has to do with how the games utilize the hardware. Single Core performance means less and less lately, except for WoW and other older games.

Even for WoW though, the difference is minimal, look at about the 5 minute mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-YYwvL1T2E
Yes, flightpaths are absolutely a CPU Bound situation. Due to the height you are flying at, you can see rather far and due to the speed you are moving, new terrain has to be loaded pretty quickly. That's a lot of draw calls which puts you in a CPU Bound situation. test it for yourself if you do not believe me. You can see from this guys benchmarks, there is almost no difference in the Max FPS, which we would expect as that's the GPU. For the average FPS(these are not Ultra settings) all three stay comfortably above 60. The Min FPS is where it gets interesting. Yes, the 1700X dropped to 44 and the 4690K only dropped to 56 while the 4790K had some sort of hiccup and dropped to 5. They all dropped below 60 though, and, excluding an apparent fluke on the 4790K, none of them dropped below 30FPS. With V-Sync, there is not gonna be a difference AT ALL between these CPUs, except for the fluke on the 4790K.

The difference is not what you make it out to be. Any 4 core CPU can get the most out of any GPU. You don't need a 7700k to push a 1080ti.

From now on, if you are going to make crazy statements I implore you to please give some data or sources to back it up. If you are right and I am wrong I would love to know that. However, I simply see you make statements with no proof to back them up.

[Thunderball]

I have no idea where you get this BS from. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9vqOGv5b98

In most games, it absolutely does use 97-99% of the GPU. In the game that it doesn't, let's look at GTAV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWRnEYASk8k

See how his 6700K has similar GPU usage? It's not that the AMD can't pull enough from the 1070 or whatever nonsense you think happens. It's just that the game doesn't make full use of the GPU.

Maxxed out settings, completely unrealistical usecase. Essentially the same thing as increasing the resolution. Also, second guy uses different settings apparently, he has up to 2x FPS difference in GTAV, 6700K is faster, but not by that much. CPU utilization is also much lower, about 40% lower on average (and that's assuming other cores that are not being shown in the second video have the same load, which is not always the case). There are some titles were you're going to see 150+ FPS with maxxed settings, but those are usually pretty light, and wont even need the optimization to utilize all cores.

Where does my information come from? Last week I tested a new PC (unfinished as of now) for a client using my own 1070. His rig has an R5 1500X and he's contemplating on a videocard. He wants to play all modern FPS titles @ 1080p/144Hz (including Destiny 2, good luck to him with that if he chooses GTX 1060). His CPU is obviously not OC'ed yet, but I doubt that will make a significant difference.

1) Yeah, I agree, for WoW. For other games, it does not matter as much, just look at benchmarks:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/...3_1200/12.html

In BF1 at 1080p, since someone with an R3 1200 is likely at 1080p, the difference between the 1200 and the 4560 is pretty small. Since you can OC that 1200 to 3.8 prett easily, you can see it will likely be better than the 4560, especially since that is a game that DOES make use of more core well

Civ6? Again, a game that relies on CPU pretty heavily and the stock 1200 beats the 4560. You can OC the 1200 and do even better.

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, the difference between the two is minimal. 3 FPS. OC the 1200 and I bet it wins.

Dishonored 2, stock 1200 beats the G4560. Once again, the 1200 can be OCed and perform even better.

Doom, difference is marginal at best. 1.1 FPS, which again, when you OC that 1200, it's gonna win.

I can go on and on.

I have a serious problem with those kinds of tests. It's completely unrealistic to test Ryzen 3 with GTX 1080. Obviously, 4c/4t part is going to extract more FPS out of GTX 1080, than a 2c/4t part. That's one, two - the percentage of people who overclock is still very small (sub 20%). Also, I didnt argue that R3 1200 is a superior CPU for a general gaming PC. It should be, it's more expensive, and the whole platform is even more so.

2) Again with this BS. Just look at the previous benchmarks at the higher resolution where the GPU has to work more. There is almost no difference. The GPUs produce pretty much the same results no matter what CPU is driving them.
Here are some more:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/...3_1200/13.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/...3_1200/14.html
Again, especially at 4k where the GPU is really working it's hardest, there's almost no difference in the different CPUs. Any of them are capable of driving the 1080, so they are certainly capable of driving a 1070. I wish you would stop saying this BS all over the place because it is obviously false, yet I see you say it all the time.

Setting higher resolution/increasing graphics settings = benchmarking GPU. Of course if GPU is the bottleneck you wont see any difference. People usually want more FPS though, so resolution and settings will come down, making the CPU work.

Even for WoW though, the difference is minimal, look at about the 5 minute mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-YYwvL1T2E

Looks like a GPU bottleneck. You're right though, you dont need a 7700K to push a GTX 1080Ti, R5 1600@3.9/6700K@4.5+/4790K@4.5+ would be enough (4770K would be enough too, but those usually dont reach 4.5). That's assuming 1080p and decently optimized games, if resolution goes up or/and the game cannot use CPU resources CPU requirements go down.

[Lathais]

Setting higher resolution/increasing graphics settings = benchmarking GPU. Of course if GPU is the bottleneck you wont see any difference. People usually want more FPS though, so resolution and settings will come down, making the CPU work.

So wait a second here. You think that when you lower the resolution and the GPU has less to do, suddenly the CPU has more to do? Why would turning the resolution down make the CPU have to work more? That just doesn't make any sense at all. You turn settings down, and the system has to do less work, not more.

[Thunderball]

So wait a second here. You think that when you lower the resolution and the GPU has less to do, suddenly the CPU has more to do? Why would turning the resolution down make the CPU have to work more? That just doesn't make any sense at all. You turn settings down, and the system has to do less work, not more.

Yes. Usually if GPU can do more CPU can do more aswell. If GPU is capped and CPU is not then the CPU is irrelevant, it cannot give you more FPS. Other option is bottleneck in communication interface between CPU and GPU (aka draw calls bottleneck, that's what typically happens with WoW): both GPU and the CPU can do more work but the application cannot utilize them because it's either 1) not optimized to be able to take advantage of the resources available, for example trying to assign all the workload to one CPU core; 2) using resources inefficiently, for example is emulating an API that the hardware is not designed for; 3) both.

[Deleted]

poor OP, obviously not very tech savvy and his thread turns into a specifics battle :P.

has anyone considered recommending him a system cheaper then €1000 since its his savings and just wow should be able to get away with it?