atavax

you're reading comprehension is lacking. This is what I was saying. You previously said and that is incorrect. As you just correctly said, it is hard to get games to run well on multiple threads. Progress isn't being done to get games to run well on fewer threads, the work is being done to get games to run well on more threads. So, you agree, it will make games use available cores more efficiently. Thats what i said. I didn't say it will make games use all 22 xeon cores.

1) one common CPU intensive thing people often run is streaming, where CPU encoding is visually superior and extremely CPU taxing. 2) you have it backwards, optimization is creating more threads, which means taking advantage of more cores. Its what the entire industry is trying to do. DX12 and Vulcan are the newest APIs and are supposed to make taking advantage of multiple cores easier. It is easy to write a long line of code and do everything from left to right. It is more difficult to split that code up into smaller chunks that can all be done at the same time through multiple cores. This is what people are striving to make easier.

First benchmarks are done are biased in favor of lower core count CPUs. Most people do not have zero things running other than the game. The more things running in the background, the more the higher threaded CPUs will be utilized. 2nd, benchmarks are showing the performance of games today. If you buy a cpu today, both a high end 4 core and 8 core will perform exceptionally well. The question is more down the line, how well will either perform. And this is a difficult question to answer. Yes, we're moving towards parallel programing, but we've been doing that for like 8 years now, and with still little to show for multiple cores. It does seem like, after we get to 7nm its going to be a very long time until we see any smaller of a process, and we're seeing the desktop market shrink, so i doubt we're going to see either company focus too much on the gaming segment. So i doubt we're going to see huge single threaded performance gains in the next 5 years. With no significant single threaded gains, while developers still need to push out better products, they could be forced into utilizing more cores or using the CPU even less than they do now. So i think if you get a high core count CPU and stick a high end air cooler or an AIO and overclock it close to what lower core CPUs nowadays are doing, you're going to be safe in gaming whether the trend becomes more about using many threads or utilizing a single powerful thread.

overall i think people are overly optimistic about it. I still think i'm probably going to buy one, but It isn't going to blow Intel away. Infact for gaming which is what most people need a high end CPU for, I wouldn't be surprised if Intel was still king. So far the leaked benchmarks still show Ryzen solidly behind in single threaded performance.We still have no idea how well it will overclock, maybe you'll get the 1800x to 5.2Ghz, but i think 4.2Ghz-4.6Ghz is probably more likely to be the ceiling. I'll be happy if i get a 1800x and am able to overclock it to 4.6Ghz with an AIO.

For single threaded applications Kaby lake will probably be slightly better than Ryzen. Ryzen is a drastically different/new architecture and there will probably be problems at launch.

alright, also just keep in mind that AMD's boards are expected to be cheaper, so don't just look at the cpu prices when they come out.

wait for Ryzen benchmarks. But i imagine a lot will depend on what you call performance. Also, keep in mind that Ryzen mobos will likely be cheaper than Intel counterparts because more of things are built into the cpu with AMD. Like I think in all likelihood, the 7700k will be the best option if you only game and find single threaded performance the most important. But even that is tricky because i mean, you don't really need to have good cpu to get good fps in gaming, so should you be that concerned with single threaded performance? If you do streaming or some kind of rendering or encoding that uses all your cores, i'd be shocked if a Ryzen R7 or R5 wasn't the best choice. For future proofing, i'd head towards Ryzen as well, just because parallel programming is becoming more popular and i think more programs will take advantage of those additional threads during the lifetime of the cpu.

will have to wait for benchmarks, but am planning to upgrade soon. I currently have a 2600k will probably get either the 1800x or 1600x

basically the rate at which CPUs can get faster slowed down drastically because of the heat faster CPUs create. So to make CPUs better, they instead switched to adding cores. So instead of doing 1 thing quickly, it can do 2 things quickly with 2 cores or 4 thing quickly with 4 cores. The way this is most beneficial for gaming is sometimes you don't close every program before opening your game and also something you stream your gaming and then you have your voice chat open, and you have your web browser will open, and then window is running an updater in the background, and so you have a lot of things actually running in addition to the game, and when you have a high number of cores, this minimizes the amount this will slow down your game. But like, if you make sure to have everything closed but your game, there isn't really a benefit to having more than 2 cores.

its going to be interesting to see just how well they overclock. Especially like the highest initial clock 8 core vs the lowest. How much overclocking potential are you really getting for paying the extra $180 for the same core count.

disappointed by the clock speeds on the sub 8 core cpus. Lower cores usually means higher clock speeds but nothing even matches the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X's base or turbo speed.

Might be the first time Intel and AMD are working on the same size process. Intel has clearly been shifting their focus away from desktops over the last 5 years, while AMD has been working on a CPU to target high end desktop for the last 6 years and their efforts will finally materialize in less than a month. If you won't consider Ryzen, you lie and you don't care about money. We haven't seen third party benchmarks but a sub $500 underclocked Ryzen chip is outperforming a $1,100 Intel chip in AMD benchmarks. If you care about money, you have to take that type of thing into account. Maybe it was manipulated and real world performance won't match that, but there is also a possibility that it wasn't.

So a little over 6 years ago, Intel came out with Sandy Bridge. Sandy Bridge was a game changer. CPUs are very complex and it takes many years to come up with a completely new architecture and AMD is just finally launching its response to the new architecture end of Fenbruary and will be available beginning of March. So for the last 6 years, Intel was the only thing to recommend. A lot of people now have brand loyalty for Intel, not only because for the last 6 years they have been the only thing to buy, but that because if you bought a high end Intel CPU, you had no need to upgrade for 6 full years, which is damn impressive for enthusiasts. The problem is the reason why you have no need to upgrade was Intel hasn't really focused on improving performance on Sandy Bridge. In the last 6 years they haven't made any significant improvements and have been focusing on segmenting the market and making as much money as possible off of Sandy Bridge. Also, a main advantage Intel has had in the past is they're used smaller processes; but Intel has been stuck on 14nm and will be stuck on 14nm for at least 1 more generation after Kaby Lake, and AMD will also be on 14nm. AMD will most likely provide something better than Intel in less than a month, if you are building a PC soon, wait for it.

the only thing that i'm really aware of that you want to look for overclocking is VRMs. A higher number means more stable power, and when overclocking, you typically have the power closer to a dangerous amount, so the more stable you want your power. You want at least 8 VRMs for overclocking, and unfortunately usually they don't list how many the motherboard has in its specs, you have to visually look at the board and count. They're usually both above and to the left of the cpu, when you have the motherboard oriented so the rear ports are to the left. Looking at the asrock professional gaming i7 z170, there appears to be 13. So should be fine for overclocking.

I would remove the cooler replace it with your old one and test that and if the problem is resolved, i would guess it is psu related as the new pump is drawing more power because its obviously not temp and temp issue and its not like a cpu cooler is doing anything but drawing power and cooling. If the problem persists when you have the old cooler back in place, i'm guessing you either loosed something or damaged something accidentally when installing new cooler and would unplug and then replug everything. Also its important when checking connections, don't just visually check them or push down, but unplug and then replug them.

it doesn't need to be like all copper either. Maybe just like the heat pipes being copper would look cool.

well, yeah, but i imagine most coolers will support it after it comes out.

i welcome cool looking air coolers as well. i'll probably be getting a Zen CPU and who knows, maybe cooling won't be that important

I typically don't bother much with aesthetics, the LED lights don't do anything for me, but i really do love the look of copper or bronze metal. I see that most of asrock's "super alloy" line has a bit of copper showing and i'm curious if there are any AIOs i can match with it.

yeah, i ninja edited the OP to clarify, don't have room for a larger rad than 240mm. And the P series is getting kind of expensive. Maybe, i'm probably waiting for Zen, and will probably depend on how much money i have and how much money i spend on other parts when i upgrade my pc.

I'm trying to get the best cpu cooling for no more than $300 and i don't have room for anything larger than a 240mm radiator. I was thinking about getting the EK-kit S240 and then replacing the standard radiator with the XE variant (if i have enough room, yet to measure). 4 main questions 1. How can i be sure that there is a place to mount the pump/resevoir in my case? 2. If I buy the kit and get a different radiator, is this going to make things significantly more complicated for installation? is everything preassembled? am i going to need to buy more fittings or tubes? 3. Is there a more money efficient way to get a similar result? Should I just wait for either the MLC series AIO to come out or the XLC version to be in stock? 4. What is maintenance going to be like? Do i have to replace the fittings every couple years? Are the fittings in some AIOs permanent and while others built for custom loops less permanent and more prone to eventually leaking?

no, i did not mention only 2 classes for TF2 who can potentially take out only part of the other team. Any class other than medic can. Primarily in competitive tf2 its scout, demo, soldier, and medic. Any can take out the entire other team, although that is not common. It is very common even at the highest levels for a single soldier or demo to take out 3-4 people by himself. Battles don't seem very dynamic, if a team has a significant tactical advantage in a fight, they come out on top, it seems less about good execution. Even in scenarios with ultimates, that was like 30 seconds in the making at the very least. Its not like omg, that 4k came out of nowhere, it came from you having to charge your ultimate for awhile and then being able to unleash it.

In TF2 you most certainly can, maybe not as a medic, but as most other classes and its not even uncommon at the highest levels for a demo or a soldier to get the drop and get 2-4 kills by themselves. I'm not saying Overwatch isn't a good FPS. I prefer fps that is more dynamic, where battles aren't decided until they're over.

That is completely false. To be good at any team based multiplayer shooter you are heavily reliant on your team. No good CSGO, TF2, or Quake CTF player would just run and gun and hope not to die, all of them require a massive amount of coordination and teamwork to be any good. You could be the best death matcher in the world at CSGO and if you didn't work well with your team no decent team would want you. Overwatch does not require more teamwork.

right, i just wanted to clarify that the problem i voiced with Overwatch was not that it wasn't as skillful as other fps or that it didn't demand the same skills as classic fps. But that the combat didn't feel as dynamic, that in a 1v4, the 1 could actually win in good fps but not in Overwatch.