$450 for a cpu and mobo VR gaming

[ShayO]

Hi Guys!

So i sold my old cpu and mobo and saved some money and now i got $450 to replace them,

until now i had the Xeon e3-1230V5
current rig:
GPU:1080TI
RAM:16GB 2400 DDR4

COOLING:HYPER EVO 212

STORAGE: 500GB M.2 SSD

and now im debating between the i5 9600k and the 2700x, so i can know that 9600k =more core, higher fps (then the 2700x) but less threads and less performance in productivity and 2700X more threads less cores, less FPS and better performance in productivity but i do not do ANY video editing and the current performance of daily tasks are just fine with what i have now so i wont be feeling the difference either way, the thing is this...

since i am only playing VR (and my monitors are 60fps) i will only need up to 90FPS but then also i would like to max the resolution in games.

it might be a stupid question but, from my experience and what i know, the heavier the resolution and detail etc.. the lower FPS, SO chances are higher with the 9600k of keeping the FPS at 90 with higher resolution right?

Sadly my budget IS tight otherwise i would have dig out another $50, get a 8700k and a mobo and call it a day.

and the 9600k is cheaper but sadly there's nothing performance and budget wise in between, so its either about $380 for a 9600k or $500 for a 8700k.

Thoughts?

[mxk]

From what I remember the 9600k doesn't have much of an advantage in gaming. I personally think the 2700x is a better choice, because games will eventually start to use the 8 cores that the 2700x has, and the 9600k only has 6 cores. 

[ShayO]

1 minute ago, mxk. said:

From what I remember the 9600k doesn't have much of an advantage in gaming. I personally think the 2700x is a better choice, because games will eventually start to use the 8 cores that the 2700x has, and the 9600k only has 6 cores. 

Yea forgot to mention that on the post. i know that the 2700x has 4 cores 8 threads and games are being developed towards more threads then cores and shifting from 4 cores to 6 cores will take years but i guess if i will upgrade in 3 years then it wouldnt matter that much since seems like that right now the 9600k is delivering more FPS.

[XR6]

4 minutes ago, ShayO said:

9600k is delivering more FPS.

You'd get about 5 more FPS if you're lucky. Plus, the 2700X is much better for anything that isn't gaming. 

The difference for gaming is 'barely noticeable' at best.

The 2700X is also more futureproof.

Quote

i know that the 2700x has 4 cores 8 threads

It actually has 8 cores 16 threads. 

[mxk]

5 minutes ago, ShayO said:

 9600k is delivering more FPS.

Its barely any more. You won't notice it.

[mxk]

6 minutes ago, ShayO said:

i know that the 2700x has 4 cores 8 threads and games are being developed towards more threads then cores and shifting from 4 cores to 6 cores will take years but i guess if i will upgrade in 3 years

Games seem to be developing more towards core count. The shift from 4 to 6 is already happening.

[ShayO]

27 minutes ago, 1kv said:

You'd get about 5 more FPS if you're lucky. Plus, the 2700X is much better for anything that isn't gaming. 

The difference for gaming is 'barely noticeable' at best.

The 2700X is also more futureproof.

It actually has 8 cores 16 threads. 

actually in most videos of benchmarks i watched, it was 15-30 fps difference. the question is, since higher resolution means lower fps, the 9600k will be able to handle higher resolutions in games right?

[XR6]

2 minutes ago, ShayO said:

actually in most videos of benchmarks i watched, it was 15-30 fps difference. the question is, since higher resolution means lower fps, the 9600k will be able to handle higher resolutions in games right?

15-30fps? Haha, I wish. That's completely false. They're probably running benchmarks instead of actual gameplay.

The 9600k could handle 1440p60 with your GPU.

[mxk]

11 minutes ago, ShayO said:

actually in most videos of benchmarks i watched, it was 15-30 fps difference. the question is, since higher resolution means lower fps, the 9600k will be able to handle higher resolutions in games right?

actually, I have a feeling they were using more powerful graphics cards, and using gameplay, not benchmarks meant to compare things. Every time an update comes out for a game that tweaks and optimizes it, it makes a game benchmark insignificant (depends on the tweaks but the point still stands).

 

Powerful graphics cards are used in benches, to show the gap between CPU's so someone can see it on a graph.

[XR6]

5 minutes ago, mxk. said:

actually, I have a feeling they were using more powerful graphics cards, and using gameplay, not benchmarks meant to compare things. Every time an update comes out for a game that tweaks and optimizes it, it makes a game benchmark insignificant (depends on the tweaks but the point still stands).

 

Powerful graphics cards are used in benches, to show the gap between CPU's so someone can see it on a graph.

They could also have used different MSAA, resolution and FXAA settings too. Even the quality could've been adjusted between marks, who knows?

15-30fps is too much of a gap to seem like a legit difference, even with high end GPUs. 

[mxk]

Just now, 1kv said:

They could also have used different MSAA, resolution and FXAA settings too. Even the quality could've been adjusted between marks, who knows?

15-30fps is too much of a gap to seem like a legit difference, even with high end GPUs. 

exactlyyyyy. Those shitty comparison videos by randoms shouldn't be used my randoms

[ShayO]

a

2 minutes ago, mxk. said:

exactlyyyyy. Those shitty comparison videos by randoms shouldn't be used my randoms

 

3 minutes ago, 1kv said:

They could also have used different MSAA, resolution and FXAA settings too. Even the quality could've been adjusted between marks, who knows?

15-30fps is too much of a gap to seem like a legit difference, even with high end GPUs. 

Alright, 2700X it is then. now i just have to find a deal with a mobo for $465 (managed to get another $15 after opening this thread).

[XR6]

Just now, ShayO said:

a

 

Alright, 2700X it is then. now i just have to find a deal with a mobo for $465 (managed to get another $15 after opening this thread).

Well, it's 4am here and I have nothing else to do so I'll have a look too if that's alright.

I think it's possible to get one for $465.

[ShayO]

1 minute ago, 1kv said:

Well, it's 4am here and I have nothing else to do so I'll have a look too if that's alright.

I think it's possible to get one for $465.

I found one on newegg's ebay account with a

GIGABYTE X470 AORUS ULTRA GAMING AM4 AMD X470 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.1 HDMI

 

For $469
but i dont know if its a good mobo.

[XR6]

2 minutes ago, ShayO said:

I found one on newegg's ebay account with a

GIGABYTE X470 AORUS ULTRA GAMING AM4 AMD X470 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.1 HDMI

 

For $469
but i dont know if its a good mobo.

It's a decent board. I found the same thing but for $449.98 (that's without the discount on the board) on Newegg's website.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1681314506

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113499

[mxk]

2 minutes ago, ShayO said:

I found one on newegg's ebay account with a

GIGABYTE X470 AORUS ULTRA GAMING AM4 AMD X470 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.1 HDMI

 

For $469
but i dont know if its a good mobo.

no pls no get that.

[mxk]

Just now, 1kv said:

It's a good board. I found the same thing but for $449.98 (that's without the discount on the board) on Newegg's website.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1681314506

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113499

the board has a shitty VRM. Gigabyte did really bad on the x470 boards

[XR6]

Just now, mxk. said:

the board has a shitty VRM. Gigabyte did really bad on the x470 boards

Thanks for letting me know about that.

I found this MSI board for the same price: https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813144177

[mxk]

Are you going to overclock?

[ShayO]

2 minutes ago, 1kv said:

It's a decent board. I found the same thing but for $449.98 (that's without the discount on the board) on Newegg's website.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1681314506

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113499

First link didnt work

and the MSI one is $10 too much. the Gigabyte one is $129

[ShayO]

2 minutes ago, mxk. said:

Are you going to overclock?

eventually probably but i cant afford a better cooler so for now, no.

[XR6]

2 minutes ago, ShayO said:

First link didnt work

and the MSI one is $10 too much. the Gigabyte one is $129

It's $129 on sale. I calculated the price without sale (so $139.99) The MSI board and the CPU should come to $449.98

[mxk]

4 minutes ago, ShayO said:

eventually probably but i cant afford a better cooler so for now, no.

then don't get the gigabyte board. It's ass for overclocking. If you want to get a better board, which I recommend you do, then consider saving up more money so you can get a better cooler, too.

[ShayO]

2 minutes ago, 1kv said:

It's $129 on sale. The MSI board and the CPU should equal 449.98

For some reason i dont get the sale price to show. for my it shows full price of $139. also total with tax is $484.6 so $19 over budget.

[ShayO]

maybe? https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIADFR83A6053&Description=x470&cm_re=x470-_-9SIADFR83A6053-_-Product

i know its refurbished but.. is it a good board?