Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

MegaVoltz

Member
  • Content Count

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards

This user doesn't have any awards

1 Follower

About MegaVoltz

  • Title
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    US
  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

987 profile views
  1. Multi-threaded performance falls FAR behind Ryzen. That will impact stuff like streaming, video editing and rendering, and having stuff open in the background while gaming. Even in games, the 7700K won't be the best for long. 8700K/Zen 2 will beat the stuffing out of it in future games. Coffee Lake is rumored to be coming next month, Zen 2 is coming sometime next year.
  2. I just wish Intel would come out with a cheap CPU that offered a happy medium between single-threaded and multi-threaded performance for your money and wasn't trash.
  3. I agree with most of your points, not looking to start a war here. The 7700k isn't a bad CPU and you won't have a bad experience with it. If it was $200 and didn't have no upgrade path I'd recommend it. However you're spending a lot of money for it and you make quite a few sacrifices for that extra performance.
  4. 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 p
  5. Thank you! Happy to see someone here has some sense.
  6. 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 per
  7. CXM is even more expensive than that. Also, what if I was upgrading to an r7 1700 and a 1080 ti, both overclocked with 16 gigs of ram and a bunch of peripherals, monitors, hard drives, fan controllers and stuff? I calculated it on CoolerMaster's psu wattage calculator and it came to slightly over 540 watts. It has all the features I want. Fully sleeved black cables, 80+ bronze rating, 600 watts, a solid review on johnnyguru, "Performance (40% of the final score) - while the 600 BQ was not the best performer I have ever seen, it didn't do a half bad job at all, I re
  8. 50 less watts and non-modular while being only one tier higher and more expensive? I'd rather go with the 600BQ.
  9. The EVGA BQ series is one tier above the 500/600B though. I simply can't AFFORD the higher-end ones.
  10. The 1600 costs less than 1/3rd less while being ~20% less powerful in single-threaded performance than the 7700k. It would be a VERY good deal nonetheless even without the countless other advantages of a 6-core 12-thread processor.
  11. Yes LOL no, obviously having more wattage is better if you plan to not upgrade your power supply for a while. It also lets the fan run at a lower speed due to not using all of the PSU's wattage.
×