Gaming CPU for Competitive CSGO

[Xenift]

My 6700 + 1060 6GB combo gives me 280 frames per second (260 at times.)

Basically doubling my refresh rate and thus allowing me to use "fast" VSYNC for low latency and no tearing.

[Finesse_Ck]

I was considering the 7700k myself as I already built one for someone I live with and it's really nice gaming setup @ 5ghz as well.  Now I elected to go with the ryzen 1700 for 249$ with a promotion which was quite the deal. I was eying the 6900k because I do like to stream+game and in my opinion is better to go with ryzen in that sense, where as just playing cs I'd probably build a reasonably priced i5 if that's all it was for. But yeah the 7700k does hold a lead and since it has higher clocks will yield better results in just gaming workloads, if you introduce streaming into the mix the 7700k doesn't hold any advantage of the 1700, side by side the 1700 is much better imo at the streaming+gaming workload as the 7700k sorta sucks in productivity imo.

 

I play+stream a lot of csgo, I have no issues with the 1700 oc to 3.9ghz I get the performance I need for my 144hz monitor and I can also stream the game at 720p/60 on Medium/Slower preset and still maintain the fps for my 144hz monitor just fine in both csgo/overwatch/sc2/eve online/dota the ryzen system has been a dream to use.

 

I really wouldn't recommend a 1700 for just gaming. However it'll game just fine for you, if your buying it for your workstation it'll game just fine for you. Ryzen being bad in gaming performance and it's single threaded performance is really really overstated, This is back in april with much slower speeds, the ryzen system performs just fine for content creators, if your streaming frequently I'd say the 1700 is a much better value than the 7700k, as the 1700 streams+games better in my experience, I've setup and c onfigured both aa 1700, 1600x and a i7 7700k recently and both systems are fine but a 4 - 4.1ghz oc'd ryzen 7 cpu will perform right next to a 5ghz oc 7700k....Obviously the 7700k has the lead but with higher ram frequencies 4ghz+ ryzen chips are right behind it, my fps in csgo is more than fine, it's 220-400 all the time for me, even when I introduce streaming 720p/60 I have a stable enough fps for my 144hz & 180hz monitor. 

 

I've built in used both a 1700 & 7700k pretty extensively, IF your just gaming on cs I wouldn't waste money on a 7700k, a i5 7600k would be just fine for a dedicated csgo gaming pc, hell my i5 4690k is still JUST fine for csgo and high refresh rates. IF your interested in streaming & content creation the Ryzen system would be better. I personally don't like the stream performance of a 7700k dropping 18% or so of it's frames to viewers, and any FPS advantage it holds in just gaming workloads is gone in gaming+streaming workloads. Also the ryzen am4 platform is going to be supported at the very least until 2020, We don't know about intel yet but I think ryzen is a lock for anyone looking for a future proof build, Imo I'll probably be upgrading to zen+ I'm really not biased towards either as I own and use both intel and amd, I've primarily strictly ran intel for several years, but my ryzen 1700 has been excellent for gaming+streaming workloads along with maintaining the fps for my 144hz & 180hz monitor setup so I mean take what you hear from people who are just going by videos with a grain of salt, Ryzen isn't bulldozer, there's been multiple scenarios where my 1700 outperformed the 7700k in single threaded benchmarks, ryzen isn't bad, Honestly the 7700k is worst at productivity than ryzen is at gaming.

 

I was aiming for a 6900k though as I enjoy streaming+gaming and I am typically always streaming/recording while I'm playing so I thought the 6900k was a better buy to me, a 5ghz 7700k holds no  performance over my 1700 in gaming+streaming workloads, in fact the higher average lows, 0.1% fps and higher core count greatly helps performance for streaming + gaming workloads. but then the 1700 on a promotion for 249$ came and I ordered and got my ryzen setup 2 weeks after launch, the 1700 does not outperform the 6900k obviously, but it's pretty damn close to it's performance for a fraction of the price, i get performance right around the i7 6900k, i7 5960x level, yet I only paid 250$ for my cpu, and I'm getting performance right around those1000$ cpu's and I also when overclocked get performance right at the 1800x level that's a 500$ cpu... the 1700 is the way to go for ryzen 7. Ryzen 5 I really love the price to performance of the ryzen 1600 it's a really solid chip and can even stream+game on that chip too. i5 quad cores are really underwhelming now imo now that ryzen 5 is out. Ryzen 5 6c/12t cpus are just fine for gaming, I built a 1600x for my brother and oc to 4ghz with the noctura cooler boy does that chip game really well, he only uses it for csgo and some other games like bf1, and all the AAA titles and it's a great chip for gamers imo.

 

The 1700 is a solid chip for content creators and gives you performance right around the 1000$ intel chips.

Just playing cs? I'd recommend an i5 or R5 or if you really needa go all out a 7700k will do just fine as well, at the end of the day it's really gonna come down to what your going to be doing, tbh you really can't go wrong with a ryzen 1600/1700 or even a i7 7700k/i5 7600k all those cpu's i've built in configured for someone/family/myself and they are all solid chips, I can assure you ryzen isn't nearly as bad as intel fanboys claim, and the 7700k is worst at productivity than ryzen is at gaming, yet we NEVER hear about that do we? No it's just the chip with no weaknesses, for content creation, it just got really affordable with the ryzen 1700, it performs great. But yeah generally i'd advise against ryzen 7 cpus if your just gaming, I'd look at the ryzen 5 (1600) and the i5 7600k for just gaming setups, since they are both good price to performance. 

[done12many2]

57 minutes ago, Finesse_Ck said:

Ryzen isn't bulldozer, there's been multiple scenarios where my 1700 outperformed the 7700k in single threaded benchmarks, ryzen isn't bad,

 

Please link us up.  I'm interested that you found multiple.  

 

Quote

i get performance right around the i7 6900k, i7 5960x level

 

Oh, you must be talking about stock clocks because you aren't matching my 5960x by a long shot.  

 

You're right though bud, the Ryzen chips are a great value, but no need to try to make it something it isn't.  

 

BTW, why are you using the old CPUz benchmark.  They changed it because it was exaggerating scores with certain chips.  The new one isn't nearly as fantastic at handing out high scores.   Also, nobody really uses CPUz to begin with.  

[Finesse_Ck]

lol some people are really ignorant. For real if your just playing csgo I'd argue to avoid going with either a R7 or i7. A i5 or hell imo I'd go with a Ryzen 1600 if your just gaming.

 

I currently use my Ryzen 1700 that I got on a promotion for 249$ for that price point, what I'm able to do in terms of Gaming+streaming is phenomenal, and as someone who's primarily playing CS:GO, Occasionally Pubg, overwatch, dota, sc2, etc. I really recommend the Ryzen 5 series for just gaming and maybe some light streaming? (preferably the 1600) since the X series aren't really worth it if you plan on overclocking, since XFR is disabled once you change the multiplier, sure there is binning, but even then there's no guarantee it'll overclock better than a non x series chip. The 1700 I personally loved out of the ryzen 7 series cpu's. It overclocks quite well if you compare it's stock 3.0ghz to oc's with the Stock wraith spire clocking in at around 3.8-3.9ghz. at 4ghz the thing benchmarks just as well as any oc'd 1800x. I was fortunate enough to get my 1700 to not exceed 1.41v with a corsair h100i v2 am clocked at 4.075ghz that's what 1000mhz more than stock clocks? that's not exactly a bad overclocker imo, sure the 1800x is 100mhz or so when overclocking but still....with my ram @ 2900 still on a budget prime b350-plus mobo. It does everything I need in terms of Gaming+streaming performance and that includes mainly csgo esea pugs 90% of my time gaming.

 

I have a 7700k in the room over, and any advantage in framerates It would have over my 1700 is out the door once you throw streaming into the mix, so for me there'd be no real gain. It's entirely dependant on what your going to be using the cpu for Just gaming? i wouldn't waste my money on a 7700k,although it does excel in strictly gaming workloads, But productivity (streaming+gaming) it's not as great imo as it suffers in productivity far more than ryzen struggles in gaming. IF you do go the Ryzen Route I urge you to buy a solid Samsung B die ram kit at least be aiming for 2666mhz as Ryzen's infinity fabric greatly benefits from faster ram. 

 

I personally think the Ryzen 5 cpu's are perfect for anyone looking to build a gaming pc, it's got an excellent price to performance, the 1600 is like the sweetspot imo, really solid cpu imo. I stream a lot and prefer having a power Ryzen 1700 cpu over the 7700k next room over from me, sure the 7700k has around a 7% lead or so in raw fps in just gaming workloads, but since I stream/record footage a lot, the 7700k doesn't really give me an edge, in fact content creation/streaming workloads seem to favor the Ryzen chips. So it's really up to what you need, my ryzen 1700 + RX570 is all I really need for streaming 720p/60fps Slower/slow cpu preset @ 4500 kbps ( i believe the 7700k can only go to faster before cpu usage is an issue) of my ESEA pugs and occasionally some overwatch/pubg. It handle's csgo just fine while streaming, maintaining the fps I need for 180hz monitor. I think it's a bit foolish to waste money on either a i7 7700k or any Ryzen 7 series chips for strictly gaming. I5's would be just fine for a game like csgo my old i5 4690k still performs well enough in that game to support a 144hz monitor...like it's not that demanding of a game despite being cpu intensive, my old old old i5 650 dual core with hyperthreading & gtx 750 ti still nets around 100-150 fps on 1080p in csgo. But I wouldn't listen to fanboys of either side (amd or intel) that are biased especially when they speak on 2 cpu's they have no experience using or only using one and not the other, the youtube scholars who watch 10 minutes of benchmarks and suddenly become an expert on cpu's lmao.... Idk I own both chips and they are both excellent, as someone who has only owned intel the past seven years ( since i mainly play cs) the ryzen 1700 I got for 249$ was totally worth it and maintains the fps for my 144hz monitor I have clocked at 180hz just fine while streaming the game and quite frankly that's all I need. Both chips are good but I'd advise you to get something other than the 7700k if content creation and streaming is important to you, as the 7700k doesn't really excel in gaming+streaming workloads, I was aiming for a 6900k before ryzen launched, and I pretty much have a 6900k with my 1700, performs right in the same ballpark as it, yet it's 700$ cheaper of a cpu. 

[Finesse_Ck]

On 6/10/2017 at 3:33 PM, done12many2 said:

 

Please link us up.  I'm interested that you found multiple.  

 

 

Oh, you must be talking about stock clocks because you aren't matching my 5960x by a long shot.  

 

You're right though bud, the Ryzen chips are a great value, but no need to try to make it something it isn't.  

 

BTW, why are you using the old CPUz benchmark.  They changed it because it was exaggerating scores with certain chips.  The new one isn't nearly as fantastic at handing out high scores.   Also, nobody really uses CPUz to begin with.

 

That was from back in april, at the time it was taken it wasn't outdated.

The 5960x & 6900k doesn't warrent 700$ more in performance compared to ryzen 7's. You act like the 5960x is leagues ahead of ryzen, which it's not. I'm strictly comparing the 7700k @ 5ghz I have built and have in my possession. A close friend of mine has a i7 5960x, solid chip, bit to rich for my blood tbh when I can get comparable performance with 300-400$ ryzen chips. The i7's going for 1000$ aren't worth 700$ more, that's just simply my opinion.

 

Alright still even with them changing benchmarks I'm just comparing the two chips I own in my possesion and built, the 7700k supremacy is greatly exaggerated by intel fanboys who don't use the chip. I'm more than happy with what I use the 7700k for, so sorry I'm not going by some youtubers take on it, It's from my personal opinion with both chips used, make ryzen something it isn't? It's right next to 6900k for 700$ cheaper. It's a great content creation chip, alas Streaming & gaming workloads. How is that pretending it's something it isn't?  Saying the Ryzen is comparable to 1000$ intel chips is not exaggerated at all. I'm curious though, have you built and used a ryzen chip? if not it's a mute point, sure the 1000$ intel chips may have a bit on it overall, but not 700$ worth, Strictly my experiences side by side with Both a 7700k & a 1700 both in my bedroom right next to each other with nearly identical components for the most part. Either way I'll call bs since you probably have zero experience with a ryzen chip and just talking out your ass or some youtube scholar. 

 

 

[done12many2]

Spoiler

lol some people are really ignorant. For real if your just playing csgo I'd argue to avoid going with either a R7 or i7. A i5 or hell imo I'd go with a Ryzen 1600 if your just gaming.

 

I currently use my Ryzen 1700 that I got on a promotion for 249$ for that price point, what I'm able to do in terms of Gaming+streaming is phenomenal, and as someone who's primarily playing CS:GO, Occasionally Pubg, overwatch, dota, sc2, etc. I really recommend the Ryzen 5 series for just gaming and maybe some light streaming? (preferably the 1600) since the X series aren't really worth it if you plan on overclocking, since XFR is disabled once you change the multiplier, sure there is binning, but even then there's no guarantee it'll overclock better than a non x series chip. The 1700 I personally loved out of the ryzen 7 series cpu's. It overclocks quite well if you compare it's stock 3.0ghz to oc's with the Stock wraith spire clocking in at around 3.8-3.9ghz. at 4ghz the thing benchmarks just as well as any oc'd 1800x. I was fortunate enough to get my 1700 to not exceed 1.41v with a corsair h100i v2 am clocked at 4.075ghz that's what 1000mhz more than stock clocks? that's not exactly a bad overclocker imo, sure the 1800x is 100mhz or so when overclocking but still....with my ram @ 2900 still on a budget prime b350-plus mobo. It does everything I need in terms of Gaming+streaming performance and that includes mainly csgo esea pugs 90% of my time gaming.

 

I have a 7700k in the room over, and any advantage in framerates It would have over my 1700 is out the door once you throw streaming into the mix, so for me there'd be no real gain. It's entirely dependant on what your going to be using the cpu for Just gaming? i wouldn't waste my money on a 7700k,although it does excel in strictly gaming workloads, But productivity (streaming+gaming) it's not as great imo as it suffers in productivity far more than ryzen struggles in gaming. IF you do go the Ryzen Route I urge you to buy a solid Samsung B die ram kit at least be aiming for 2666mhz as Ryzen's infinity fabric greatly benefits from faster ram. 

 

I personally think the Ryzen 5 cpu's are perfect for anyone looking to build a gaming pc, it's got an excellent price to performance, the 1600 is like the sweetspot imo, really solid cpu imo. I stream a lot and prefer having a power Ryzen 1700 cpu over the 7700k next room over from me, sure the 7700k has around a 7% lead or so in raw fps in just gaming workloads, but since I stream/record footage a lot, the 7700k doesn't really give me an edge, in fact content creation/streaming workloads seem to favor the Ryzen chips. So it's really up to what you need, my ryzen 1700 + RX570 is all I really need for streaming 720p/60fps Slower/slow cpu preset @ 4500 kbps ( i believe the 7700k can only go to faster before cpu usage is an issue) of my ESEA pugs and occasionally some overwatch/pubg. It handle's csgo just fine while streaming, maintaining the fps I need for 180hz monitor. I think it's a bit foolish to waste money on either a i7 7700k or any Ryzen 7 series chips for strictly gaming. I5's would be just fine for a game like csgo my old i5 4690k still performs well enough in that game to support a 144hz monitor...like it's not that demanding of a game despite being cpu intensive, my old old old i5 650 dual core with hyperthreading & gtx 750 ti still nets around 100-150 fps on 1080p in csgo. But I wouldn't listen to fanboys of either side (amd or intel) that are biased, Idk I own both chips and they are both excellent, as someone who has only owned intel the past seven years ( since i mainly play cs) the ryzen 1700 I got for 249$ was totally worth it and maintains the fps for my 144hz monitor I have clocked at 180hz just fine while streaming the game and quite frankly that's all I need. Both chips are good but I'd advise you to get something other than the 7700k if content creation and streaming is important to you, as the 7700k doesn't really excel in gaming+streaming workloads, I was aiming for a 6900k before ryzen launched, and I pretty much have a 6900k with my 1700, performs right in the same ballpark as it, yet it's 700$ cheaper of a cpu. 

 

Thanks for sharing your awesome experience, but I don't think you're addressing the right audience.  Admittedly, I didn't read anything past the first sentence as I felt it was yet another value related post.  Not to mention it like a bit much to read.  

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, Finesse_Ck said:

Oh, you must be talking about stock clocks because you aren't matching my 5960x by a long shot.  

 

You're right though bud, the Ryzen chips are a great value, but no need to try to make it something it isn't.  

 

BTW, why are you using the old CPUz benchmark.  They changed it because it was exaggerating scores with certain chips.  The new one isn't nearly as fantastic at handing out high scores.   Also, nobody really uses CPUz to begin with.

 

The 5960x & 6900k doesn't warrent 700$ more in performance compared to ryzen 7's. You act like the 5960x is leagues ahead of ryzen, which it's not. I'm strictly comparing the 7700k @ 5ghz I have built and have in my possession. A close friend of mine has a i7 5960x, solid chip, bit to rich for my blood tbh when I can get comparable performance with 300-400$ ryzen chips. The i7's going for 1000$ aren't worth 700$ more, that's just simply my opinion.

 

Alright still even with them changing benchmarks I'm just comparing the two chips I own in my possesion and built, the 7700k supremacy is greatly exaggerated by intel fanboys who don't use the chip. I'm more than happy with what I use the 7700k for, so sorry I'm not going by some youtubers take on it, It's from my personal opinion with both chips used, make ryzen something it isn't? It's right next to 6900k for 700$ cheaper. It's a great content creation chip, alas Streaming & gaming workloads. How is that pretending it's something it isn't?  Saying the Ryzen is comparable to 1000$ intel chips is not exaggerated at all. I'm curious though, have you built and used a ryzen chip? if not it's a mute point, sure the 1000$ intel chips may have a bit on it overall, but not 700$ worth, Strictly my experiences side by side with Both a 7700k & a 1700 both in my bedroom right next to each other with nearly identical components for the most part. 

 

FYI, you screwed that last post all up. 

[Finesse_Ck]

2 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

  Reveal hidden contents

lol some people are really ignorant. For real if your just playing csgo I'd argue to avoid going with either a R7 or i7. A i5 or hell imo I'd go with a Ryzen 1600 if your just gaming.

 

I currently use my Ryzen 1700 that I got on a promotion for 249$ for that price point, what I'm able to do in terms of Gaming+streaming is phenomenal, and as someone who's primarily playing CS:GO, Occasionally Pubg, overwatch, dota, sc2, etc. I really recommend the Ryzen 5 series for just gaming and maybe some light streaming? (preferably the 1600) since the X series aren't really worth it if you plan on overclocking, since XFR is disabled once you change the multiplier, sure there is binning, but even then there's no guarantee it'll overclock better than a non x series chip. The 1700 I personally loved out of the ryzen 7 series cpu's. It overclocks quite well if you compare it's stock 3.0ghz to oc's with the Stock wraith spire clocking in at around 3.8-3.9ghz. at 4ghz the thing benchmarks just as well as any oc'd 1800x. I was fortunate enough to get my 1700 to not exceed 1.41v with a corsair h100i v2 am clocked at 4.075ghz that's what 1000mhz more than stock clocks? that's not exactly a bad overclocker imo, sure the 1800x is 100mhz or so when overclocking but still....with my ram @ 2900 still on a budget prime b350-plus mobo. It does everything I need in terms of Gaming+streaming performance and that includes mainly csgo esea pugs 90% of my time gaming.

 

I have a 7700k in the room over, and any advantage in framerates It would have over my 1700 is out the door once you throw streaming into the mix, so for me there'd be no real gain. It's entirely dependant on what your going to be using the cpu for Just gaming? i wouldn't waste my money on a 7700k,although it does excel in strictly gaming workloads, But productivity (streaming+gaming) it's not as great imo as it suffers in productivity far more than ryzen struggles in gaming. IF you do go the Ryzen Route I urge you to buy a solid Samsung B die ram kit at least be aiming for 2666mhz as Ryzen's infinity fabric greatly benefits from faster ram. 

 

I personally think the Ryzen 5 cpu's are perfect for anyone looking to build a gaming pc, it's got an excellent price to performance, the 1600 is like the sweetspot imo, really solid cpu imo. I stream a lot and prefer having a power Ryzen 1700 cpu over the 7700k next room over from me, sure the 7700k has around a 7% lead or so in raw fps in just gaming workloads, but since I stream/record footage a lot, the 7700k doesn't really give me an edge, in fact content creation/streaming workloads seem to favor the Ryzen chips. So it's really up to what you need, my ryzen 1700 + RX570 is all I really need for streaming 720p/60fps Slower/slow cpu preset @ 4500 kbps ( i believe the 7700k can only go to faster before cpu usage is an issue) of my ESEA pugs and occasionally some overwatch/pubg. It handle's csgo just fine while streaming, maintaining the fps I need for 180hz monitor. I think it's a bit foolish to waste money on either a i7 7700k or any Ryzen 7 series chips for strictly gaming. I5's would be just fine for a game like csgo my old i5 4690k still performs well enough in that game to support a 144hz monitor...like it's not that demanding of a game despite being cpu intensive, my old old old i5 650 dual core with hyperthreading & gtx 750 ti still nets around 100-150 fps on 1080p in csgo. But I wouldn't listen to fanboys of either side (amd or intel) that are biased, Idk I own both chips and they are both excellent, as someone who has only owned intel the past seven years ( since i mainly play cs) the ryzen 1700 I got for 249$ was totally worth it and maintains the fps for my 144hz monitor I have clocked at 180hz just fine while streaming the game and quite frankly that's all I need. Both chips are good but I'd advise you to get something other than the 7700k if content creation and streaming is important to you, as the 7700k doesn't really excel in gaming+streaming workloads, I was aiming for a 6900k before ryzen launched, and I pretty much have a 6900k with my 1700, performs right in the same ballpark as it, yet it's 700$ cheaper of a cpu. 

 

Thanks for sharing your awesome experience, but I don't think you're addressing the right audience.  Admittedly, I didn't read anything past the first sentence as I felt it was yet another value related post.  Not to mention it like a bit much to read.  

I wouldn't say Ryzen is meant for just competitive csgo, but for gaming+streaming or any content creation needs it truly excels in. If I am just Playing a game the 7700k i have is obviously gonna have that 7-10% fps gain over it in just gaming, but I don't think the chip is worth just buying for gaming, I'd go with a ryzen 1600 or i5 7600k imo for just gaming. Leaning torwards the ryzen 5 1600, as I feel it's giving you a bit more value as quadcore i5's are kinda underwhelming now that Ryzen 5 series chips are out. Seriously the ryzen 5 chips are pretty solid, the 6c/12t models can even stream pretty decently it's an exciting time to be building new pcs right now

[done12many2]

20 minutes ago, Finesse_Ck said:

I wouldn't say Ryzen is meant for just competitive csgo, but for gaming+streaming or any content creation needs it truly excels in. If I am just Playing a game the 7700k i have is obviously gonna have that 7-10% fps gain over it in just gaming, but I don't think the chip is worth just buying for gaming, I'd go with a ryzen 1600 or i5 7600k imo for just gaming. 

 

The point of this thread has nothing to do with what's better.  It's an enthusiast sharing the results of his rig.  Guys like you are trying to make this a value related topic, therefore better justifying the lower cost Ryzen part, but the OP doesn't care about value.  He just wants the fastest thing he can afford.  It really is that simple.  He doesn't need saving or advice on how much smarter a Ryzen chip would have been.  

 

Apologies, I was in the wrong thread, not you.  

[Finesse_Ck]

But honestly my old i5 4690k still handles just gaming workloads just fine, I don't see that chip restricting me in terms of just playing  csgo, That chip has been of a great value to me, especially when you compare it to my even older i5 650 dual core with hyper threading lol, my old gtx  750 ti is in it  and I gave it away to someone as I had no need for it anymore, they play pubg/csgo/overwatch on 1080p just fine with that old thing, I can't believe it runs csgo so well some 7 years later. I think I used it last in 2010/2011? lol

[AvocadosGuac]

Get the i7 and a 1070. CSGO Gets boring after 2k hours played and you'll want to play some more demanding games.

[Finesse_Ck]

2 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

The point of this thread has nothing to do with what's better.  It's an enthusiast sharing the results of his rig.  Guys like you are trying to make this a value related topic, therefore better justifying the lower cost Ryzen part, but the OP doesn't care about value.  He just wants the fastest thing he can afford.  It really is that simple.  He doesn't need saving or advice on how much smarter a Ryzen chip would have been.  

Alright I stated depending on the workload of gaming+streaming or just gaming, it's all covered in there, so I don't  think I missed his point. I have both chips and he'll be more than pleased with either chip as there both solid, I just compared the different workloads one excels in over the other. Simply put strictly gaming workloads. As I already said what was fastest, I just gave my opinion of what would be a better price to performance, I understand the OP may not care for that, but at least he knows going into it. Nothing wrong with a recommendation  

[Finesse_Ck]

9 minutes ago, Jrock said:

Get the i7 and a 1070. CSGO Gets boring after 2k hours played and you'll want to play some more demanding games.

Disagree, I just think your playing cs wrong or burning yourself out on valve's matchmaking, which imo is borderline casual cs.  

 

I have like 7k spread across all my accounts. If your just pugging the game probably get's boring fast, sure. But if you play on esea/faceit/cevo I've enjoyed counter-strike since late 2004 on esea. Play on a team in leagues and stuff, that's where you'll truly enjoy cs, While yeah 2k hours of just pugging on matchmaking is sort of bland, you get to desired rank and that's it, it typically get's much harder once you start playing  IM/main level teams consistently, truly shines once you play with a team. I probably have played way to much cs over the years, but playing on a team and doing league play is the way to go, if you want to avoid burning out from grinding pugs. 

As for the gpu, yeah if your not going to be exceeding 1080p resolutions I really don't see a need to get something more powerful than a Gtx 1070, which imo is a very very great gpu imo. Also if your a 1280x960 stretched player I'd recommend the Nvidia gpu's as sometimes with the AMD cards the custom resolution tab in Radeon Settings may still not run 1280x960 @ 144hz+ properly, So if your dead set on staying 1280x960 and use high refresh rate monitors I'd steer clear of AMD cards. 

[done12many2]

On 6/10/2017 at 3:27 PM, Finesse_Ck said:

 

 

By the way.  You are using an outdated version of CPUz.  The benchmark in that version was known to falsely report high Zen architecture scores, which is exactly what your results are showing.  Download the latest version for a real comparison.  Secondly, nobody really uses CPUz's benchmark for comparison sake by itself as it's a garbage test.  

[Rmlk2ei]

15 hours ago, done12many2 said:

 

By the way.  You are using an outdated version of CPUz.  The benchmark in that version was known to falsely report high Zen architecture scores, which is exactly what your results are showing.  Download the latest version for a real comparison.  Secondly, nobody really uses CPUz's benchmark for comparison sake by itself as it's a garbage test.  

What would be a better software of benching CPU's? Rather than raw performance scores, maybe something that better represents real world performance?

[Droidbot]

1 hour ago, SlayerL0rd said:

What would be a better software of benching CPU's? Rather than raw performance scores, maybe something that better represents real world performance?

3DMark Firestrike for realworld perf

Cinebench for rendering/productivity performance