MegaVoltz

Hahaha this topic is so relatable for everyone.
Honestly though,  I would just recommend talking to her in person more. Lol.

Try. You will thank yourself later.

Thread cleaned.
 
Let's stay on-topic.

The psu is worse quality though. By a fair amount.
 
The fan rpm difference is gonna be so little you probably won't notice. If anything the fan itself will make more of a difference.

-AdoredTV is known to be amd biased
-even if you say that these results are correct, this just proves my point. By the time Ryzen might catch up to a 7700k, you're probably gonna be looking at an upgrade. Which means that, while you owned it, the 7700k would always have been winning.
 
Thats not to mention a 2500k has much more overclocking headroom than the 8370 so once overclocked the 2500k would win

There is no proof whatsoever that Jim is biased.
There is also no proof your source for the other video is reliable.
I would still recommend a 1600 over a 7700k because it costs $100 less as well as having much stronger multi-threaded performance. The 1600 is faster than the 7700k in pure multi-threaded performance than the 7700k is over the 1600 in single-threaded performance.
Sure, if OP wants to buy into a dead platform and spend $100 more for it, it's his stupid decision for listening to your recommendation of a 7700k.
Basically the 1600 will have a bigger impact on performance in games that use more cores, and the 7700k will have a bigger impact in games that love single-threaded performance. IMO most of the time games are struggling on the 7700k due to something, it's normally the amount of cores. The IPC and clock speeds of the 1600 aren't that far behind the 7700K however the multi-threaded performance of the 1600 pulls FAR ahead of the 7700K due to the 2 extra cores and 4 extra threads.
 
What if OP wants to stream while gaming? The 1600 is better.
However if you try to stream in high-quality while playing modern triple-A games, the 7700k drops frames and bogs down the entire experience.
What if he wants to save money? The 1600 is better.
The 7700k costs $100 more.
What if he wants to edit videos or do 3D modeling/animation? The 1600 is better.
The 7700K falls far behind here.
What if he wants lower power consumption? The 1600 is better.
The 7700k consumes about 50% more power.
What if he wants upgradeability and future-proofing? The 1600 is better.
The 7700k is currently sitting on top of a dead platform with no CPUs releasing for it anytime in the future.
What if he wants to overclock on $80-100 motherboards without spending a fortune? The 1600 is better.
The 7700k doesn't even come with a cooler, and you need to spend upwards of $150 to get a good board to overclock on. FAR more expensive if you factor that into the cost.
What if he wants an overall cheaper platform? The 1600 is better.
Again, the 7700k costs more, the motherboards cost more, and the liquid (or high end air) coolers cost far more than the 1600 and motherboard.
7700K - $330, + good overclock-capable motherboard - $150, + noctua nh-d15 - $90 = 570
1600 - $210, + good overclock-capable motherboard - $90, + stock cooler - $0 = 300
 
Nearly double the price for 30-40% more single-threaded performance on average.
That's insanity!
IMHO OP should either buy the R5 1600 now, or wait for Coffee Lake. The 7700K is NOT worth it unless you ABSOLUTELY need the FASTEST (currently) gaming CPU on the market right now. IMO there's far too many sacrifices to be made to buy this CPU. Let me name a few.
 
-No cooler included.
-$100-120 more expensive than it should be.
-You spend way too much for an overclock-capable motherboard.
-Much less multi-threaded performance than its competition.
-Dead platform, not compatible with new CPUs.
-Stuttery mess if streaming in high-quality while gaming.
-Power consumption a bit too high for my liking.
 
However there ARE some pros.
-Beastly single-threaded performance.
-Can overclock insanely high, sometimes as far as 5 ghz on a high-end liquid cooler.
-Still not terrible at video editing and rendering.
-Thunderbolt 3 compatible.
That's about it.
 
Conclusion:
While the 7700K pulls away in gaming and purely single-threaded applications, the lead simply isn't enough to justify the high price tag, dead platform, and many other compromises that come with it. The 1600 is far better value offering a solid lead in multi-threaded performance, darn well good-enough single-threaded performance, and all the other pros I mentioned earlier, at a much lower price than the competition.
1600 > 7700K
 
 
 

There is no proof whatsoever that Jim is biased.
There is also no proof your source for the other video is reliable.
I would still recommend a 1600 over a 7700k because it costs $100 less as well as having much stronger multi-threaded performance. The 1600 is faster than the 7700k in pure multi-threaded performance than the 7700k is over the 1600 in single-threaded performance.
Sure, if OP wants to buy into a dead platform and spend $100 more for it, it's his stupid decision for listening to your recommendation of a 7700k.
Basically the 1600 will have a bigger impact on performance in games that use more cores, and the 7700k will have a bigger impact in games that love single-threaded performance. IMO most of the time games are struggling on the 7700k due to something, it's normally the amount of cores. The IPC and clock speeds of the 1600 aren't that far behind the 7700K however the multi-threaded performance of the 1600 pulls FAR ahead of the 7700K due to the 2 extra cores and 4 extra threads.
 
What if OP wants to stream while gaming? The 1600 is better.
However if you try to stream in high-quality while playing modern triple-A games, the 7700k drops frames and bogs down the entire experience.
What if he wants to save money? The 1600 is better.
The 7700k costs $100 more.
What if he wants to edit videos or do 3D modeling/animation? The 1600 is better.
The 7700K falls far behind here.
What if he wants lower power consumption? The 1600 is better.
The 7700k consumes about 50% more power.
What if he wants upgradeability and future-proofing? The 1600 is better.
The 7700k is currently sitting on top of a dead platform with no CPUs releasing for it anytime in the future.
What if he wants to overclock on $80-100 motherboards without spending a fortune? The 1600 is better.
The 7700k doesn't even come with a cooler, and you need to spend upwards of $150 to get a good board to overclock on. FAR more expensive if you factor that into the cost.
What if he wants an overall cheaper platform? The 1600 is better.
Again, the 7700k costs more, the motherboards cost more, and the liquid (or high end air) coolers cost far more than the 1600 and motherboard.
7700K - $330, + good overclock-capable motherboard - $150, + noctua nh-d15 - $90 = 570
1600 - $210, + good overclock-capable motherboard - $90, + stock cooler - $0 = 300
 
Nearly double the price for 30-40% more single-threaded performance on average.
That's insanity!
IMHO OP should either buy the R5 1600 now, or wait for Coffee Lake. The 7700K is NOT worth it unless you ABSOLUTELY need the FASTEST (currently) gaming CPU on the market right now. IMO there's far too many sacrifices to be made to buy this CPU. Let me name a few.
 
-No cooler included.
-$100-120 more expensive than it should be.
-You spend way too much for an overclock-capable motherboard.
-Much less multi-threaded performance than its competition.
-Dead platform, not compatible with new CPUs.
-Stuttery mess if streaming in high-quality while gaming.
-Power consumption a bit too high for my liking.
 
However there ARE some pros.
-Beastly single-threaded performance.
-Can overclock insanely high, sometimes as far as 5 ghz on a high-end liquid cooler.
-Still not terrible at video editing and rendering.
-Thunderbolt 3 compatible.
That's about it.
 
Conclusion:
While the 7700K pulls away in gaming and purely single-threaded applications, the lead simply isn't enough to justify the high price tag, dead platform, and many other compromises that come with it. The 1600 is far better value offering a solid lead in multi-threaded performance, darn well good-enough single-threaded performance, and all the other pros I mentioned earlier, at a much lower price than the competition.
1600 > 7700K
 
 
 

This you say, as he has uploaded videos about some "AMD Master Plan," as well as having way more videos about AMD than about Nvidia or Intel.
When it comes to sources, it's more about proving them to be unreliable, rather than to be reliable. And I've given evidence above that indicates AdoredTV is AMD biased.
Completely untrue, just look at the OCed 7700k vs OCed 1600x

I said that my REAL recommendation is wait a month for the 8700k, not get a 7700k...
 
You say the 1600 IPC and clock speed aren't that far behind 7700k. 7700k has an ~10% IPC advantage and when OCed a 25% clock speed advantage which gives it an approximate 37.5% single threaded performance advantage. That can't be taken lightly.
And when exactly did OP say they want to stream?!? You're basically saying "the 1600 is better because for something that OP is not doing it's better." That makes no sense at all, not to mention if OP did want to stream they could always use NVENC for encoding instead, which is pretty close to h.264 when it comes to quality.
This is very untrue. When it comes to editing videos, with something like premier, I would actually rate an OCed 7700k better. Premier has some portions that are somewhat multi threaded but other portions that are very single threaded. And considering, as I proved earlier, that the 7700k beats the 1600 in single core by more than the 1600 beats it in multi core, I think the 7700k is better.
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CC-2017-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-909/
As for 3D modeling and animation, a lot of programs out there (AutoCAD, maya, etc.) are EXTREMELY single threaded.
Source for that?
Upgrade-ability I already addressed with the 8700k. As for future proofing... You need to give a better definition for that. Because if we're looking at who's gonna have better gaming performance for the next 3-4 years, that's the 7700k...
You were saying?
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/WN98TW/gigabyte-ga-z270p-d3-atx-lga1151-motherboard-ga-z270p-d3
Doesn't come with a cooler, yeah that's a point for Ryzen. But $150 for a good board to overclock with? If you're deeming a $150 board the bare minimum for 7700k overclocking, then I think it's fair to say you need at least a $150 board to OC Ryzen. According to your logic.
First off, you're price comparison is heavily weighted in your favor. You chose a pretty good z270 board compared to a mediocre b350 board. If we even that comparison out we end up with a $100-$110 motherboard. As well, you DON'T need a friggin D15 for the cpu cooler!!! Something like a Cryorig H7, which is $35, would do. Factor in those and the price comes down to around $475 ish, a far cry from your outrageous $570 number.
And that's why I said, my REAL recommendation is WAIT for the 8700k!
Here let me adjust that for you:
           The Ryzen 5 1600 is a CPU that offers excellent performance/$ and gives you outstanding gaming performance for the money, while also being capable of streaming and potentially being used for prosumer tasks. However, if you want the best possible gaming performance while ignoring everything else and have the money for it, the 7700k is the best gaming cpu money can buy today, so if you want a beastly gaming pc the 7700k is a good option (though it's worth noting that unless you have zero patience, you should wait one month for the 8700k).
 
Much better.

Thank you! Happy to see someone here has some sense.

PROOF? No one has the slightest bit of proof.
He only focuses on AMD because they actually innovate. NVidia and Intel never innovate. They simply milk old architectures by rebranding GPUs over and over again. Just look at what they did with Ryzen!
Also, what do you mean non-reputable? He doesn't fake benchmark numbers, and makes good points. He just tends to focus on AMD.
Intel is a scummy, crooked company who has cheated and lied their way into first place in the CPU market. They don't deserve first place. They don't even deserve to exist after the crimes they committed. They paid Dell more and more every quarter in the 90s to ONLY sell THEIR CPUs. I don't care whether Intel has better price to performance CPUs in general (they don't BTW), I just hate them as a company and will never buy from them. AMD deserves credit for innovation and originality. Intel never had an original idea in its entire despicable existence as a "company".
 

PROOF? No one has the slightest bit of proof.
He only focuses on AMD because they actually innovate. NVidia and Intel never innovate. They simply milk old architectures by rebranding GPUs over and over again. Just look at what they did with Ryzen!
Also, what do you mean non-reputable? He doesn't fake benchmark numbers, and makes good points. He just tends to focus on AMD.
Intel is a scummy, crooked company who has cheated and lied their way into first place in the CPU market. They don't deserve first place. They don't even deserve to exist after the crimes they committed. They paid Dell more and more every quarter in the 90s to ONLY sell THEIR CPUs. I don't care whether Intel has better price to performance CPUs in general (they don't BTW), I just hate them as a company and will never buy from them. AMD deserves credit for innovation and originality. Intel never had an original idea in its entire despicable existence as a "company".
 

Thank you! Happy to see someone here has some sense.

The Ryzen platform is fairly mature at this point, the drivers and ram support have just gotten SO much better.
The only choices I would recommend for your CPU are the r5 1400, 1600, r7 1700, or 1800x if you want a seriously future-proof machine, and the only graphics cards I would recommend right now are the GTX 1050 ti, 1060 3/6gb, 1070 or 1080. The 1080 Ti for me is just not worth it as GPU technology advances so quickly that the card is left in the dust 2-3 years from now. Remember the 780 ti and 980 ti? They didn't last long, the 980 ti got replaced with a 1070. A 1070. Just shows how quickly generations improve. If anyone bought a 1080 Ti they will regret it big time once the 20XX series comes out.
Remember it is always better long-term to go for a better CPU even if that means cheaping out on your graphics card. Reason for that being GPU technology advances FAR quicker than GPU technology. An 11 year old CPU (C2Q Q6600) can still play GTA V at 1080p with 30-45 fps depending on your settings. An 11 year old graphics card can NOT. A budget graphics card from 5 years ago can barely play Witcher 3 at 720p lowest settings, with stutters below 15 fps. It simply isn't playable. This is a fine example of a video card going obsolete.
However a now 6 year old CPU is still chugging along (i5 2500k). This is due in part to Intel's crappy incremental generational performance improvements, also due in part to the fact that Moore's Law is coming to an end. You can buy that CPU for $60, overclock it to 4.5GHz on the STOCK COOLER (with very reasonable temps!), and have essentially an i5 7400. If a $60 (used) CPU can rival a near-$200 CPU then I'd say that's a good indication that CPU performance progression is more or less slowing down. GPU performance progression is faster than it ever was.
That's why you should buy the 1700 over a cheaper option. You will thank yourself in 5 years.

Why don't YOU come up with a part list then mr. omniscient

Good choice, I have nothing wrong with you going with it  
AMD isn't "innovating" with Ryzen. They're catching up to Intel after being HORRIFICALLY behind them for the last half decade. 
 
"Nvidia never innovates". That's completely untrue. Did you not see what they did with Maxwell? They didn't even get a node shrink and they achieved nearly TWO TIMES better performance/watt, which is absolutely insane. Meanwhile, AMD is over on the side with Vega coming a whole YEAR after the gtx 1070/1080 and they're still HORRIFICALLY losing to Nvidia when it comes to perf/watt and perf/mm^2.
 
Intel isn't slowing down innovation per say. On the mobile side they've made huge improvements over the last few generations, especially when it comes to graphics. It's just that, at this point, you need a TON more transistors in order to only get a small IPC improvement. I recall hearing somewhere that something like double the transistors would only get you around 2x IPC, whereas 15 years ago you would've gotten around a 100% IPC jump.
 
I don't deny that Intel is a scummy company and has done scummy things in the past, but a) AMD has done scummy things in the past (just look at them LYING about Llano in order to get their stock to go up) and b) all I want is the best performance my money can buy, and I don't see a reason not to go with Intel if they're offering better performance for what I want.
But what if they want the BEST performance possible? And if you're calling JDE an Intel fanboy that's just insane. They've recommended Ryzen and AMD GPUs in the past, that doesn't make sense that they're a fanboy.
Guess what, you can't get a 1600 to 4 ghz with the stock cooler either!
Pentium G4560? And 7700k/8700k if you want best possible performance.
 
Plus he focused on AMD WELL before Ryzen was even ANNOUNCED.
Very likely? Yeah where did you get that from?
 
Yeah, I'm definitely "very likely" to be streaming in 4 years even though I have no interest in it whatsoever. Your point makes zero sense at all.
 
You're basing your argument purely on an "if," whereas mine is on a definite known.
I literally just proved that it's not double the price dude...
That is true. But what I'm saying is, if you're looking at the next 3-4 years, the 7700k is more "future proof" than the 1600 since for the next 3-4 years it is highly likely that the 7700k will continue to be a better gaming cpu. Which makes it more "future proof".
Regardless, you put it way too far out of context in order to "prove" your point.
You also ain't getting 4 ghz out of the 1600 with the stock cooler.
Because, if OP wants best possible gaming performance right now and CAN'T wait, the 7700k is still the best choice. For someone willing to wait I recommend the 8700k but for someone that can't the 7700k is the best choice.
I totally agree with this.
 
You don't seem to understand that I find the 1600 to be an excellent choice, with the 7700k being the best choice for people who want the BEST possible gaming performance. That's my stance on it.

I don't really know much about new amd cpu but if u say u maybe know

This will be the one and only mention, keep the comments related to the topic on hand and do not start a flamewar.
 
https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/965477-community-standards/
 

Haven't you noticed it's already started? He/she is already calling us fanboys.

cough cough COVFEFE LAKE cough cough

You seem to have conveniently left out this paragraph.
 

If you want this to last 3-4 years, go for the R5. It has more cores, and games are quickly optimizing for more and more cores. In addition to that, next year AMD is coming out with Zen 2 and after that Zen 3 and maybe even Zen 4. The old motherboards will all be compatible so you have a solid upgrade path.

1700 over 1600 for gaming pc? Why get a 212 evo when stock is just as good? Mobo with NO VRM heatsinks+Ryzen 8 core getting OCed is a disaster waiting to happen, and why oh why a NEX psu?!?
Yes r7 will win in the future, but the question is how far in the future?
 
Even say r7 starts winning in 3-4 years. By that time, the 7700k will have been beating the 1700 for 3-4 years. After 5 years or so you'll probably be looking at a CPU upgrade. So the 7700k enjoys a lead for 3-4 years and the 1700 MAYBE for 1-2 years? How is that worth it?
An 1800x for a CPU recommendation?!?
 
Intel isn't having "crappy generational improvements" in the grand scheme of things. We've hit the point where even if you double the amount of transistors maybe you'll get 10-15% more ipc. Intel isn't throttling improvement on the ipc side of things, they're just hitting a wall.
Yeah they'll start developing for more cores but read above, by the time that happens Ryzen will have been losing for a clipped of years.
 
Also, I would like a source for 8350 beating 2500k.

i don't care about your magical crystal ball, until we see legit evidence that the 1700 starts beating the 7700k in more games, the 7700k is better in games, end of story.
14:57, even the dual core+HT G4560 beats the FX 8370, the 2500k still performs much better in games.

Someone is recommending R7 for pure gaming and I and @herman mcpootis are disagreeing with it.
 
(also worth noting is I think a 1600 would be a better choice for op over a 1700 or 7700k anyways since at the budget we're looking at op would be better off spending the money on the gpu)

1200 is more future-proof, because it offers an upgrade path all the way to an 8-core 16-thread on the AM4 platform. B250 is essentially dead, new CPUs are not coming out for it, and the most amount of cores available on that platform is 4. You're much better off going with Ryzen in any scenario at this point, pretty much none of Intel's CPUs are worth considering except the g4560 at $60. IMO it isn't worth it at its $80 price currently.
If you plan on overclocking, I would definitely go with the 1300X as it normally overclocks a lot higher and costs only 20 bucks more.