Desktop Upgrade, Need Advice!

[Swiftnsilent]

Hey all,
I am looking to upgrade my current (6+ year old) computer to something more modern, but on a budget
and that has room to grow. My primary use is WoW, some other games I'd like to play but can't currently (Shadow of Mordor,
Saints Row 3, etc.). I would like to play at 1080p 30fps, and in time upgrade to 1080p 144hz 60fps.
I also need to do some of my work on the computer which is very CPU and thread intensive. The build is
hopefully a good foundation that I can upgrade over a couple years with better and more RAM, a SSD, and a better GPU eventually.
I just want a sanity check that this build meets my requirements and seems worth it for my around $600 budget. Thank you for your time.

I want to use the following components from the old computer to save money:
1) Case
2) Power Supply (Corsair CX600, recently bought)
3) DVD Drive
4) Hard Drive
5) Ram (4GB *2, DDR3 1333MHz)
6) OS (Transfer License, I have the info of original license)

The rig that I am looking at would include buying

$150 - MSI GTX 1050Ti (Currently: AMD Radeon 6670)
$300 - i7 7700K (Currently AMD-FX 4100)
$140 - ASUS Prime Z270-K
$35 - Hyper 212 EVO Cooler/Fan

Is there anything I left out? Do you see a problem with using the old computer's RAM? Thanks again!

[abracmike]

i7 7700k requires DDR4 or DDR3L ram.
DDR3 won't work

[Kagthul]

i7 7700k requires DDR4 or DDR3L ram.
DDR3 won't work

I actually think that even DDR3L wont work; IIRC, one of the few substantive (if you can call it that) chsnges from Skylake to Kaby Lake was the removal of DDR3L support due to using a different IMC. And i dont think Z270 supports it either - or maybe ive got it backwards, and KL still supports it but Z270 doesnt, so youd have to be using a KL CPU in a Z170 board. Dunno. Either way, the OP is looking at new RAM, and even if it did support it... theres ZERO reason to get anything other than DDR4.

[Swiftnsilent]

I actually think that even DDR3L wont work; IIRC, one of the few substantive (if you can call it that) chsnges from Skylake to Kaby Lake was the removal of DDR3L support due to using a different IMC. And i dont think Z270 supports it either - or maybe ive got it backwards, and KL still supports it but Z270 doesnt, so youd have to be using a KL CPU in a Z170 board. Dunno. Either way, the OP is looking at new RAM, and even if it did support it... theres ZERO reason to get anything other than DDR4.

Thanks both for the input, I will add on 8gb of Corsair Vengeance LPX DR4 3000MHz RAM. Other than that does this build look good? I have been recommended elsewhere to check out the ryzen 5 1600... but I feel like it would have significant worse performance in WoW compared to the i7 7700K.

[Swiftnsilent]

I actually think that even DDR3L wont work; IIRC, one of the few substantive (if you can call it that) chsnges from Skylake to Kaby Lake was the removal of DDR3L support due to using a different IMC. And i dont think Z270 supports it either - or maybe ive got it backwards, and KL still supports it but Z270 doesnt, so youd have to be using a KL CPU in a Z170 board. Dunno. Either way, the OP is looking at new RAM, and even if it did support it... theres ZERO reason to get anything other than DDR4.

Thanks both for your inputs! I will buy Corsair 8GB DDR4 3000MHz RAM for the new computer. Other than this, do you see any other issues with this build price and performance wise taking into account the budget. I had someone recommend a Ryzen 5 1600 build instead which is much cheaper and can be used to buy a better GPU... but I'd think that would perform much worse in WoW since WoW is very CPU intensive and the i7 7700K is a better CPU. Thoughts?

[abracmike]

I actually think that even DDR3L wont work; IIRC, one of the few substantive (if you can call it that) chsnges from Skylake to Kaby Lake was the removal of DDR3L support due to using a different IMC. And i dont think Z270 supports it either - or maybe ive got it backwards, and KL still supports it but Z270 doesnt, so youd have to be using a KL CPU in a Z170 board. Dunno. Either way, the OP is looking at new RAM, and even if it did support it... theres ZERO reason to get anything other than DDR4.

No arguments there.
Just going by ark, the 7700 will take DDR3L, I didn't look into boards that support it.
Either way, you're right about that though. New ram required, may as well go DDR4.

Side bar, could also consider an i5 8600k since the price is the same, and that *might* work out better in heavily threaded apps being 6C/6T vs 4C/8T

[Lathais]

Side bar, could also consider an i5 8600k since the price is the same, and that *might* work out better in heavily threaded apps being 6C/6T vs 4C/8T

Could also possibly go with a Ryzen. Since his work makes use of the extra threads it could be worth it and they really are not that far behind for gaming. I'd at least consider it in this use case.

[abracmike]

Could also possibly go with a Ryzen. Since his work makes use of the extra threads it could be worth it and they really are not that far behind for gaming. I'd at least consider it in this use case.

True.

I didn't pitch it because I don't know off-hand the effects of various ram speeds with the Ryzen platform.

(Seen enough debates about it, and don't know if it's an overblown issue or there's actually some merit to it)

Also seen enough debates about Intel > AMD to not even want to attempt the suggestion currently, but something along the lines of a Ryzen 5 1600 or Ryzen 7 1700 would probably work nicely too, X version in either case if budget allows)

[Lathais]

True.

I didn't pitch it because I don't know off-hand the effects of various ram speeds with the Ryzen platform.

(Seen enough debates about it, and don't know if it's an overblown issue or there's actually some merit to it)

Also seen enough debates about Intel > AMD to not even want to attempt the suggestion currently, but something along the lines of a Ryzen 5 1600 or Ryzen 7 1700 would probably work nicely too, X version in either case if budget allows)

From what I have seen, they do perform better(usually meaning you can push the OC further) with faster RAM. Also, I would recommend against the X versions myself. The X versions are the EXACT SAME silicon as the non-X versions. It's not binned or anything AFAIK. The only difference is, the X's come OCed and you have to OC the non-X's yourself. So if you are going to manually OC anyway, save the money and don't get the X. I always recommend manual OCing so I never recommend the X's.

[abracmike]

From what I have seen, they do perform better(usually meaning you can push the OC further) with faster RAM. Also, I would recommend against the X versions myself. The X versions are the EXACT SAME silicon as the non-X versions. It's not binned or anything AFAIK. The only difference is, the X's come OCed and you have to OC the non-X's yourself. So if you are going to manually OC anyway, save the money and don't get the X. I always recommend manual OCing so I never recommend the X's.

Thanks for the addtional info!
Always helpful to learn new things.

[Evildeffy]

From what I have seen, they do perform better(usually meaning you can push the OC further) with faster RAM. Also, I would recommend against the X versions myself. The X versions are the EXACT SAME silicon as the non-X versions. It's not binned or anything AFAIK. The only difference is, the X's come OCed and you have to OC the non-X's yourself. So if you are going to manually OC anyway, save the money and don't get the X. I always recommend manual OCing so I never recommend the X's.

Not entirely true.

The X variants are the better bins of the non-X variants.
This is why you often see the 1700/1600 hitting 3,9GHz more commonly than the X-variants which often hit 4,0 - 4,1GHz.

There is a binning difference between them, though the range of differences is not large as it's often between 200MHz from Bad to Good.