Bijit

i dont recommend it at all, there will alwyas be instability mixing ram... its kinda the worst thing to do , unless u know secondary timings + tetriary timings  its kinda pointles to do
 
just stick with the same model ram
 
its because even if first timings are the same on ram kits, secondary and tetriary timings are not thus never 100% stable

yeah it will affect some but not too much, for editing its more about the amount of ram rather then bandwidth
 
8gb vs 16gb would be quite big in editing tho,  and 32gb might even benefit

ppl who buy 8700ks are like most likely gamers, just doing light work , desktop stuff ect, u wont notice a crap difference, this is true   but if u do memory bandwidth intensive stuff, ( that doesnt mean oh this program uses 10gb ram )  ul have a huge differnece

I don't agree that it is a BIG loss... I have tested this thoroughly on my systems and the difference is not THAT great, depends on your usage of course. But if the OP is only talking a month or 2 to save up for another stick, I don't see that being a problem.

i agree, i bought an i7 8700k with 8gb C12 ram stick a week ago, and ive been testing it, performance is really fine, but Physics test in 3Dmark is kinda low (around 7700k performance), but Cinebench has the correct score (1500), so i have no idea what kind of performance im losing until i get a second stick. 

but you should be really fine until you get a second stick

performance loss it not in raw fps alone, its alot of things
 
also on lowend rigs it shouldnt matter that much as the ram bandwidth is high enough for those,  but high end rigs u deffo want more sticks , more is better
 
example, in games where 2 sticks stutter ya game 4 sticks can be absolutely smooth  ( black desert for example )
 
if someone is building a system witha 8700k and 3200mhz ram, they want performance,  and they dont want to compromise on it   ,   also i have tested these things since pentium 1/2   and its been a performance hit for many years to have 1stick

ram is not about benchmarking numbers or raw fps, its about stutter , loadtimes , overal input delay . system responsivness  and way more...
 
eventhough u can gain fps from better ram, that is only in scenarios where the BANDWIDTH is a bottleneck at that moment
 
u could create a big bandwidht bottleneck and still have the same benchmarking results, however in some games where u ned the bandwidth u can get fps drops, especially the minfps ... or just start to get stutter or input delay

yes, if u buy the exact same model  / kit of ram they will 99,99% of the time run in dual channel,  however getting 4sticks would give u 2x dual channel , instead of quad channel  , 2x dual channel has 10-15% improvement in bandwidth on 1x dual channel ( same for single to dual )   but, the amount of core per stick reduces, which would greatly improve ur system responsiveness and smoothness

i know that, im just stating that there is definitly a performance loss, for example i expected much better performance with music production, so im hoping a second stick would fix that

i'm not talking about fps at all... I couldn't care less about gaming performance personally. I am talking about overall system usage, I have noticed very little difference.

the loss in responsiveness is actually rather big, especially if u play poorly optimized games
 
il give ya an example, on a game like black desert online , a port or any poor game ,  ur minfps might be 20-30fps due to hitching/stuttering with 1stick,  with 2sticks the stuttering might still be there, less but still a low minfps of 30-35 ,   with 4 , it could be 60steady due to the hitching gone
 
however, fps gains from ram is not really somthing u can benchmark, as benchmarks dont overflow the system with rendering objects, as where a game such as blackdesert online would,   short said, in known benchmarks u wont see the differnece, however in poorly optimized games +system responsiveness u will notice it... if u only play good optimized games such as bf1 , cod series, crysis and what not  ( their actually good optimized trust me ) then ur safe...  then there iwll be just a slight performance loss
 
if u love these games like sword art online, ps4 ports to pc,  ( final fantasy xiii and what not ) ,  black desert online, aura kingdom, tera online, and all these poor optimized games... u will benefit hugely from it by going to 2 or even 4 sticks

read latest post

Yeah and as I said.. couldn't care less about gaming.

yes im also not a huge gamer, just casual, i bought it for music production which is all about latency, cant wait to see what the difference is with the second stick.
 

i dont think you will notice a difference with windows responsiveness and browsing etc etc, but ram can be a huge bottleneck for other things, when your ram is not fast enough and the CPU needs to wait for the ram to deliver, thats when you get hiccups and sttutering, its all about what youre using your PC for, its not gonna affect everything, and ofc the faster your CPU is, the more performance loss youre gonna see

for example an i9-7980XE with one stick of ram.......... oh boy

1stick is a big performance loss compared to 2  ,  and 4 even has its benefits on 2,    itsbecause each core gets assigned to a ramstick, if u have 1stick with lkie 8cores, all those 8cores must access the ramstick at once thus limiting speed and bandwidth
 
its recommended to have a minimum of 2sticks,  wether its 2x4 or 2x8     and if u like ur rig even more responsive/smooth  its recommend to have 4stcks

Yes 1 stick is fine, will run no problems. As for a second stick in the future, I highly recommend you to get the exact same SKU to save problems.

yes it will work
 
yes it will overclock.

Interesting choice between 7800X and 1950X since they're different price brackets and core/clock configurations. Did you mean 7900X?
 
I went 7800X myself, as I wanted a bit more cores than 4, but without limiting my clock. Currently settled on a 4.3 basic overclock, and I've tested to 4.9 which is at the limit of my current cooling. I need a delid to really push further.
 
1950X overclock or not will get you a ton of threads at lower (but not low) clock, and will be a throughput monster for the right task.
 
Personally I wouldn't put too much hopes on either side for long term upgradability. On Intel side, look at X99, how long that's been around. You had Haswell-E and Broadwell-E on it. Expect similar on X299, with Skylake-X and the real Kaby Lake-X as next generation (based on KL-EP not KL-S that current chips are). On AMD's side, your guess is as good as any.

Now that it is the 10th, I would seriously get a Threadripper 1950X because I watched a video from Paul's hardware, and the difference was significant in performance.

Wasn't the 4c/8t i3 proven fake?
 
If true then go clean yourselves up 7700k owners because you've been FUCKED. i7 -> i3 in 8 months
 
EDIT: The i3 has 4 threads not 8. Leak is false 

Ryzen is hitting a frequency/voltage wall at around 3.9-4.0 GHz, and pretty much all but the cheapest of B350 boards can already hit that frequency. Get B350 if SLI isn't on your mind (you can still CF) and you can do without 2 extra USB3.1 ports X370 provides.

Being realistic both motherboards will overclock the same as the limiting factor here is the processor cap at 4ghz regardless... as stated unless you'll SLI or needs the extra PCI-e slots you probably can stick to the b350 and save a couple of bits.

b350.

Go with the B350 if you don't need to SLI or crossfire and then a nice air or AIO cooler
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835146059&cm_re=NZXT_Kraken-_-35-146-059-_-Product

There's no real benefit from X370 for a "normal use" overclock (3,8-3,9 costantly). It's more about the IO and PCI-E. So if you're on a budget, go for the B350. Your money would be much better spent on a good AIO.