SlaughterSmurf

I wouldn't bother with anything faster than an old GT 1030 or 750ti honestly that CPU isn't playing modern games with anything resembling playable performance anyways. Just look how stuttery this PC with a 6300 and a 1070 is. It's unplayable even when the average framerates are fine. This mirrors my experience trying to pair a GTX 1080 with a 3570k. Those old 2012 CPUs just don't cut the mustard anymore.

Yeah I did. Could it be the cooler is overloaded by the 1.45 volts the 8700 is getting to? I don't know...

Since you already have a Kaby Lake compatible motherboard go with the 7700k. It's only like 10% slower and it saves you over $100 in motherboard costs.

Arctic silver 5 can conduct so I'd spend the 5 dollars and get some Arctic Mx 4 to essentially remove the risk of damaging your card.

Yes you're being bottlenecked. Yes, less than 60 is probably to be expected at times. No, going for another 4 core chip doesnt make sense. 4 core chips are on their way out the door. If you want to spend i5 money, wait a month and get a 6 core chip for the same price. If you want it NOW then go Ryzen 5 1600 and overclock it to a fixed 3.8ghz on all 6 cores and be happy. In no circumstance is the 7600k the right choice for anyone.

You either want to get a use 4770 or 4790, go for a 6 or 8 core ryzen or get a coffee lake 8600k or 8700k. I5s right now aren't worth the upgrade.

Don't forget Vega 56 for good balance Nx 64 for ultra 60 if you find them at the right price and want free sync

Keep the 1600. 2 cores and 4 threads extra is worth the slight tradeoff in clockspeeds even if you aren't overclocking.

If you're playing esports games then both of these chips will deliver over 144fps.

The Gtx 1080 is about 25% faster than the 1070. At 450/500 you're paying 11% more. That's a deal. Go with the 1080

In various games including League of Legends, Fallout New Vegas, Fallout 4, and Borderlands 2 G-Sync is not working. I tried DDU and reinstalling drivers. I have my framerates capped to 142FPS via Rivatuner on my 144hz monitor (Asus ROG PG278Q). G-Sync is enabled in Nvidia Control Panel. I am using displayport with my GTX 1080. I also have a 2nd 720p monitor connected, but I don't play games on it. G-Sync works for the pendulum test. However in Fallout New Vegas it was just running at ~90fps according to Rivatuner and I was getting nasty tearing causing it to look horrible. What am I doing wrong?

Spend the extra $10 to get the 600W version.Then again I also wouldn't pair an i5 4460 with a GTX 1080 and 8GB of ram. It looks like you're set up for a mid range GTX 1060 system then randomly threw a 1080 in there. It looks very out of place in what is otherwise a solid mid range build. I mean with my 3570k at 4.4ghz I feel bottlenecked in most games with my 1080 @ 1440p. However to answer what you asked: it will probably work, the PSU will be running at 100% whenever you're gaming and if you OC the GPU you're really running in the red and may even break something. I would spend an extra 15% on the PSU for the peace of mind.

Yeah those are fine. The 290x/390x/290/390 are all designed to run at 95 degrees celcius.

Yes the 780ti is significantly better than the 960.

With a Ryzen 5 1600 I would go with a 1070 at 1440p.

Yeah but 6 real cores are better than 4 cores + 4 SMT threads. If games start being optimized for more than 4 cores (Some games already are) then the 1600 will be stronger.

That's a lot better of a deal than anything you posted in the other thread.

Source?

If they have a profit margin of 60% hopefully they just shrink that and keep prices the same for their 6 core varients. Right now a 7700k is only $25 more than a 1700, which would be worth it for me if the 8700k was only $25 more.

I mean to be fair knowing Intel's history we would have seen quad core i7's. Hopefully they actually are competitive this time.

If you really don't want to then why are you here?! Go have fun! If you're comfortable knowing that you'll be on an entry level chip as soon as 2-3 years, then go for it! Just know that the extra two months of waiting would put you at a mid to high end chip for much longer. Coffee lake is the biggest jump in performance since Sandy Bridge. If you're asking if it's worth it to wait two months? Yes it is. But if you don't want to and you're okay with having a less future capable PC, then go for it. It's not like the 7700k will become useless in 4 years. It just may struggle if you throw in a 1380 ti and try to run games at ultra settings.

I'm in the same situation as you. After a lot of deliberation and lots of forum questions I'm waiting for the 8700k. It will have 2 more cores and 4 more threads. Think about it this way: do you want to be using this PC in 4 years? If all of the top and mid range chips, i5, i7, Ryzen 5, and Ryzen 7 are ALL on 6+ cores, then games will take advantage of those extra cores. In 4 years, 4 cores will be an entry chip. Even in October, 4 cores will be an entry chip with only low end Ryzen 5's, Ryzen 3's, and i3's being quad cores. I wouldn't want to be stuck on a quad core even with hyperthreading in 4 years. Yes, waiting 2 months REALLY sucks. I hate it too. However, 2 months of waiting to get a better experience for 48 months? I'd take that sacrifice all day long.

I need a new PC, and I'm looking at Coffee Lake. However, right now, for the same price as a 7700k I can get a 6800k which is a 6 core 12 thread CPU. How would this be for gaming compared to a Ryzen 1700 or Covfefe Lake?

Battlefield 1, Ghost Recon Wildlands, Fallout 4, The Division. Big budget games targeted at beauty. Overwatch is an Esports game. They are meant to run great on even low end computers. Examples being Overwatch, Dota 2, League of Legends, Starcraft 2, ect.

Do bearings not wear out quicker?