$700 Gaming PC

[jerubedo]

3 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

You mean the 144Hz Monitors that support Freesync??

Why would you get a screen that doesn't support Freesync, especially since there isn't really any additional cost.

144 FPS is still better.

 

4 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

And if the R3-1200 can pull 60fps or more or even the 6300, why aren't you recommending those?
Why stick with the 9100??? 

 

Because 60 is a lowly target. 100+ FPS for the win, literally. The 1200 won't come close to the 9100F in terms of average FPS.

 

5 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

In AC: Origins there are some Dips below 60fps with the i3-9100.

The only dip I saw below 60 was GPU bound. The live FCAT charts showed a spike on the GPU chart, not the CPU chart.

[Daniel Z.]

1 minute ago, jerubedo said:

Nope. That's where recent games come in. You all keep pointing to the same exact 5-8 games released over the course of the last 5 years. The most recent games do not display this behavior.

 

Right, they both don't stutter much. Now for averages! The 9100F wins.

 

The point was that no CPU can perform the best in all games. Every CPU has its own flaws that you can see in the same 1-3% of games.

 

Yeah, and $99 is 50% cheaper than the cost of the 2600 and the 9400F. The cold hard fact is that you don't make these huge arguments about 4c/4t with Ryzen. 

The 9100F is very similar to the 6500, there isn’t a reason to go from 6500 to 9100F. No one dislikes the 9100 because it’s Intel, we dislike it because it’s an inferior value compared to the 2600 or 1600. A 1200 is fine because it’s much cheaper at similar performance.

[Stefan Payne]

1 minute ago, trevb0t said:

As a note to upgradeability on the i3 9100F

If OP were to go in on a lower cost Z390 MOBO, there would always be an easy upgrade path to basically anything in the 8th and 9th gen Intel lineup.

A UD isn't a whole lot more than the B365M board listed in @jerubedo's build. This way if the OP wants an easy upgrade a year or 3 years from now, it's as simple as grabbing a 9700K or the likes on a good deal.

And what about the price of the CPU?
A 9900K is 500€, a 9700K is 375€.

The next, upcoming AMD CPUs are announced for 199€ for the lower end 6 Core, 329€ for the entry 8 Core...

 

In the last 10 years the upgrade path for Intel was just non existant as the CPUs stayed expensive, even used.

An i7-4770K or 4790K is still around 200€ - for a 6 Year old CPU that's rediculous...

 

[Stefan Payne]

2 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

144 FPS is still better.

Why??

What makes 144fps better than 120fps??

2 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Because 60 is a lowly target. 100+ FPS for the win, literally. The 1200 won't come close to the 9100F in terms of average FPS.

Why?

 

And if the 1200 delivers 80% of the 9100F, that's good because it cost only 60% of the 9100....

2 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

The only dip I saw below 60 was GPU bound. The live FCAT charts showed a spike on the GPU chart, not the CPU chart.

You've seen that the 9100 was at 100% load most of the time??
While the Ryzen was "only" at 75%??
That also means that there is some margin for example for background tasks...

[jerubedo]

2 minutes ago, Daniel Z. said:

No one dislikes the 9100 because it’s Intel, we dislike it because it’s an inferior value compared to the 2600 or 1600.

Is it, though? Even if we were to say that the 9100 was slightly slower, it's also 50% cheaper! Let's say it's 20% slower (which it's not). That still makes the better value the 9100. This is all for gaming, of course. It would mean you're getting 80% of the performance for 66% of the price.

 

4 minutes ago, Daniel Z. said:

A 1200 is fine because it’s much cheaper at similar performance.

See what I said above. It's the same thing!

 

[jerubedo]

Just now, Stefan Payne said:

Why??

What makes 144fps better than 120fps??

24 FPS. Every FPS counts. The higher the FPS, the quicker you can react.

 

1 minute ago, Stefan Payne said:

And if the 1200 delivers 80% of the 9100F, that's good because it cost only 60% of the 9100....

I can say the same thing about the 9100F compared to the 2600!!! 100% or more performance for 66% of the price. Even if we were to say it's 20% slower, that's 80% of the performance for 66% of the price. SAME FREAKING ARGUMENT.

 

3 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

You've seen that the 9100 was at 100% load most of the time??
While the Ryzen was "only" at 75%??
That also means that there is some margin for example for background tasks...

At a reported 75% load with SMT, the chip is competing for resources on each core, making the actual load closer to 100% on each core in actuality. So it won't help as much as you think.

[trevb0t]

17 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

And what about the price of the CPU?
A 9900K is 500€, a 9700K is 375€.

The next, upcoming AMD CPUs are announced for 199€ for the lower end 6 Core, 329€ for the entry 8 Core...

 

In the last 10 years the upgrade path for Intel was just non existant as the CPUs stayed expensive, even used.

An i7-4770K or 4790K is still around 200€ - for a 6 Year old CPU that's rediculous...

 

Right, but a used i7-3770K/4770K is still keeping up...

I am certainly interested in seeing what Zen2 gives us in gaming performance. I run Ryzen, I like my Ryzen...

But you can't say there's no upgradability to a 9100f. A 9700K is as big an upgrade as it is from a 1600 to a 3600X I'm sure. (again, we'll see. I hope it's drastic!)

A 9700K WILL stay relevant for 5 years if you want it to. Just like a 3770K and 4770K did and really still are.

 

You talk about a $110+80 1600 and Pro4 purchase to a $289 3600X upgrade like it's any different. We are talking about a $70ish difference between the original platform and upgrade included on both options if a decent i7 sale hits, and that's if the Pro4 will run Zen2. An 8700K is just as viable.

[Stefan Payne]

Just now, jerubedo said:

24 FPS. Every FPS counts. The higher the FPS, the quicker you can react.

So you're saying that because Intel is better in high fps gaming, every FPS counts.

Why don't you say so in the first place!

 

And no it doesn't.

The human brain is too slow for that, so you're talking about a Placebo Effect.

https://backyardbrains.com/experiments/reactiontime

https://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/statistics

 

And we're talking about what?

a 10% difference in Refresh Rate?

 

And you're forgetting the lag of the Electronics...

Claiming that that is important but not using a native VGA Monitor with a native VGA Card is kinda weird.

 

Because usually the frames on the screen are 2-3fps late + the lag of the Monitor electronics as well.

 

Just now, jerubedo said:

I can say the same thing about the 9100F compared to the 2600!!! 100% or more performance for 66% of the price. Even if we were to say it's 20% slower, that's 80% of the performance for 66% of the price. SAME FREAKING ARGUMENT.

The 2600 has more headroom for the future though, as the 9100F was loaded to 100%.

And where did you get 100% more performance? Any proof for your claim? 

The 2600 is by the way onls ~30% more or 30€...

 

So 129€ for the Ryzen 2600 vs. 99€ for the 9100.

Just now, jerubedo said:

At a reported 75% load with SMT, the chip is competing for resources on each core, making the actual load closer to 100% on each core in actuality. So it won't help as much as you think.

We're talking about AMD with an awesome SMT implementation, not Intel.

So your claim is to be proven.

[Daniel Z.]

5 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

24 FPS. Every FPS counts. The higher the FPS, the quicker you can react.

 

I can say the same thing about the 9100F compared to the 2600!!! 100% or more performance for 66% of the price. Even if we were to say it's 20% slower, that's 80% of the performance for 66% of the price. SAME FREAKING ARGUMENT.

 

At a reported 75% load with SMT, the chip is competing for resources on each core, making the actual load closer to 100% on each core in actuality. So it won't help as much as you think.

As someone who actually games on a 4 core i5 and not a 6 core 9700k, it’s not a good experience. I’m personally fine with a slightly worse experience so I don’t have to upgrade, but OP is looking to get a faster system. Going from a 6500 to a 9100F is a negligible benefit.

 

Also, your value calculations are wrong, you can’t compare the CPUs alone. We must compare the price of full systems. The system that I specced out with a 2600 and Vega 56 is a similar price to your i3 and 2060, making your “9100 is better value” argument completely

wrong. 

[jerubedo]

4 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

And no it doesn't.

The human brain is too slow for that, so you're talking about a Placebo Effect.

https://backyardbrains.com/experiments/reactiontime

https://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/statistics

 

And we're talking about what?

a 10% difference in Refresh Rate?

I am not even going to have this argument with you.

 

6 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

And where did you get 100% more performance? Any proof for your claim? 

I didn't say 100% more. I said 100% or more. As in equal to or greater.

 

8 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

The 2600 is by the way onls ~30% more or 30€...

I don't care what the price is in other countries. Here where it counts it's $150 for the 2600 and $99 for the 9100F.

 

 

[Stefan Payne]

4 minutes ago, trevb0t said:

Right, but a used i7-3770K/4770K is still keeping up...

And would you get a 4 Core/4T CPU new?
Or spend a slight amount more for a 6C/12T CPU??

4 minutes ago, trevb0t said:

But you can't say there's no upgradability to a 9100f. A 9700K is as big an upgrade as it is from a 1600 to a 3600X I'm sure. (again, we'll see. I hope it's drastic!)

Yes, I can. I just did.

Because there is nothing new for the socket, the upcoming 10 Cores are very unlikely running on the 300 series Boards.

And the Benchmarks that are popping up/known seem to point into the direction that a Ryzen 3600X is in MT as good as a Ryzen 2700X...

4 minutes ago, trevb0t said:

A 9700K WILL stay relevant for 5 years if you want it to. Just like a 3770K and 4770K did and really still are.

...and compete against 200€ AMD CPU while still retaining the 300-400€ pricetag?
Just like 3770K and 4770K did?
They lost around 50-80€ in all those years, while beeing outclassed by even 100€ CPUs by a mile.

And THAT was my point.

It just makes no sense to upgrade because when you need the upgrade, the CPUs you want to are still about the same as now - wich makes throwing out the Motherboard with it, a more interesting option because of that.

4 minutes ago, trevb0t said:

You talk about a $110+80 1600 and Pro4 purchase to a $289 3600X upgrade like it's any different.

The Price of the 3600X is announced for $249...

https://www.planet3dnow.de/cms/46987-dritte-generation-ryzen-matisse-kommt-am-7-juli/

4 minutes ago, trevb0t said:

We are talking about a $70ish difference between the original platform and upgrade included on both options if a decent i7 sale hits, and that's if the Pro4 will run Zen2. An 8700K is just as viable.

no, we don't.

We're talking about a rather small difference.

We could save $10 on the Board or spend 10 more.

And the CPU is 149,99.

AND comes with both The Division 2 Gold Edition and World War Z!

 

So the cost is more than negated with those two games!

And Division 2 is worth it.

 

[jerubedo]

8 minutes ago, Daniel Z. said:

Going from a 6500 to a 9100F is a negligible benefit.

It's up to a 15% increase in gaming performance.

 

8 minutes ago, Daniel Z. said:

Also, your value calculations are wrong, you can’t compare the CPUs alone. We must compare the price of full systems. The system that I specced out with a 2600 and Vega 56 is a similar price to your i3 and 2060, making your “9100 is better value” argument completely

wrong. 

You would only take into account the motherboard and CPU (and cooler if applicable). You saved money on your system by going with the $30 cheaper Vega 64 and with a few other parts. The motherboard for the 9100F is $10 more than the Pro4, which makes it a $40 difference, so 40% less instead of 50% less.

[Stefan Payne]

4 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

I am not even going to have this argument with you.

Because that are undeniable facts and your "moar FPS" Argument is moot because the reaction time of a human beeing is not good enough to benefit from it.

4 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

I didn't say 100% more. I said 100% or more. As in equal to or greater.

Prove it!

But you're wrong anyway because a Ryzen 5/2600 comes with two AWESOME Games, that, if you were to buy it, makes the CPU $16!

(now with Sale on EGS its $30)...

 

So the AMD is 1000% better because its so cheap!

 

4 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

I don't care what the price is in other countries. Here where it counts it's $150 for the 2600 and $99 for the 9100F.

...and the Ryzen comes with Division 2 Gold Edition (=Year 1 Pass), wich is $99 new and World War Z (wich is a mediocre MP Coop Zombie Shooter).

So even with only Division 2, the Ryzen 5 is practically only $50, so half the price of the 9100F, wich makes it a far better value.

[Daniel Z.]

8 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

It's up to a 15% increase in gaming performance.

 

You would only take into account the motherboard and CPU (and cooler if applicable). You saved money on your system by going with the $30 cheaper Vega 64 and with a few other parts. The motherboard for the 9100F is $10 more than the Pro4, which makes it a $40 difference, so 40% less instead of 50% less.

The Vega I used is a great card, with a much better cooler than the Dual 2060. Ram, storage, boards are similar, your PSU has less wattage, and the cases are both not good. So I don’t see how I “cheaped out on a few parts”

[jerubedo]

1 minute ago, Stefan Payne said:

Because that are undeniable facts and your "moar FPS" Argument is moot because the reaction time of a human beeing is not good enough to benefit from it.

It's just not true. But keep living in your fantasy world where everyone's brains react the same exact way. There's plenty of data on the matter if you care to look. It's like the same argument about the "human eye only being able to see 32 FPS" that was going around for ages. That was disproven and pilots have been shown to see in excess of 500 FPS.

 

3 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Prove it!

I already posted videos showing it come within 5% of the 9400F, which has already been shown to beat an OCed 2600x.

 

4 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

...and the Ryzen comes with Division 2 Gold Edition (=Year 1 Pass), wich is $99 new and World War Z (wich is a mediocre MP Coop Zombie Shooter).

So even with only Division 2, the Ryzen 5 is practically only $50, so half the price of the 9100F, wich makes it a far better value.

You still have to pay $150, out of pocket. Free games doesn't mean you pay less. You're just grasping at anything and everything at this point.

[Stefan Payne]

6 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

It's up to a 15% increase in gaming performance.

...in clockrate, wich usually translates into something like 5-7,5% more actual performance...

6 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

You would only take into account the motherboard and CPU (and cooler if applicable). You saved money on your system by going with the $30 cheaper Vega 64 and with a few other parts. The motherboard for the 9100F is $10 more than the Pro4, which makes it a $40 difference, so 40% less instead of 50% less.

...and forget the Games that Ryzen comes with...

 

As for the Motherboard, you can also go for the µATX B450M Pro4 wich is $10 cheaper for example, so that makes a $20 difference because you save on the Board.

And also you could account for the Games the CPU comes with as well...

[trevb0t]

15 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Yes, I can. I just did.

Because there is nothing new for the socket, the upcoming 10 Cores are very unlikely running on the 300 series Boards.

And the Benchmarks that are popping up/known seem to point into the direction that a Ryzen 3600X is in MT as good as a Ryzen 2700X...

Well that's great. But since an 8700K or even when compared at OC, a 9600K beats out a 2700X in FPS, and since this is likely the last CPU we will see on the socket, as their promise ends in 2020...

Then an 8700K or even a 5600K begin to look like a more solid upgrade than a 3600X. Now to match, we are taking a similar step up in price to the 3700X. It's $30 less than an 8700K currently, and WILL need a higher end B450/X470 series if you're not buying B500. So now we are arguing a whole different thing here, Stefan.

 

If the PC is just for gaming, then it is. I HOPE Zen2 beats out current gen Intel. I want to see that, and I want to upgrade to it myself, since I've got a board that will at least support a 3600X I am thinking.

But just saying something is out-classed doesn't mean it's out-classed. 

If he were doing workload processing on the side, both @jerubedo and I would be advocating Ryzen right now too.

 

The 9100F isn't a great chip. For gaming neither is the 1600. So really we are talking about putting a system that will need a better CPU in the future either way.

[jerubedo]

2 minutes ago, Daniel Z. said:

The Vega I used is a great card, with a much better cooler than the Dual 2060. Ram, storage, boards are similar, your PSU has less wattage, and the cases are both not good. So I don’t see how I “cheaped out on a few parts” 

I never said you cheaped out. That would be mean. I just said you saved elsewhere. As for the Vega 56, yes it trades blows with the 2060, but in the wake of the PS5 and next AMD cards supporting Ray Tracing, I'd want to have that. Also the 2060 is 7% faster than the 56 right now, and in certain games like Assassin's Creed Origins or GTA V, it's much faster:

 

 

 

[Daniel Z.]

1 minute ago, jerubedo said:

It's just not true. But keep living in your fantasy world where everyone's brains react the same exact way. There's plenty of data on the matter if you care to look. It's like the same argument about the "human eye only being able to see 32 FPS" that was going around for ages. That was disproven and pilots have been shown to see in excess of 500 FPS.

 

I already posted videos showing it come within 5% of the 9400F, which has already been shown to beat an OCed 2600x.

 

You still have to pay $150, out of pocket. Free games doesn't mean you pay less. You're just grasping at anything and everything at this point.

I doubt the average person has the reaction times and eyesight of a pilot. At the end of the day, the point is to find OP the best value. By getting a 9100F, we’re basically wasting 200 on a new CPU and board because it is barely an improvement from the 6500. I would never recommend a 4 core non-HT for anything but the cheapest builds, but even so, why not just get a 1200 then? We could even fit in a Vega 64 with that, just ignore how it will stutter awfully and become obsolete very soon.

[Vejnemojnen]

at least in my country, it's common to buy AMD Ryzen2600 with free games or AMD VGA-s with games, and sell the titles for a sound amount of cash. So, for instance, a 2600 real cost is around 110~euros..

[jerubedo]

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

...in clockrate, wich usually translates into something like 5-7,5% more actual performance...

There are some games which scale 100% with clock rate.

 

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

As for the Motherboard, you can also go for the µATX B450M Pro4 wich is $10 cheaper for example, so that makes a $20 difference because you save on the Board.

I'm already talking about the micro ATX board. They both are, actually.

[jerubedo]

Just now, Vejnemojnen said:

at least in my country, it's common to buy AMD Ryzen2600 with free games or AMD VGA-s with games, and sell the titles for a sound amount of cash. So, for instance, a 2600 real cost is around 110~euros..

You can't do that anymore. You need to have the hardware in your computer and detected by their program now in order to claim the games.

[Daniel Z.]

Just now, jerubedo said:

I never said you cheaped out. That would be mean. I just said you saved elsewhere. As for the Vega 56, yes it trades blows with the 2060, but in the wake of the PS5 and next AMD cards supporting Ray Tracing, I'd want to have that. Also the 2060 is 7% faster than the 56 right now, and in certain games like Assassin's Creed Origins or GTA V, it's much faster:

 

 

 

AMD cards nearly always age better though, as we have seen in the 280(x) and 960, R9 390 and 970, 7970 and 680, and 580 and 1060.

[jerubedo]

1 minute ago, Daniel Z. said:

AMD cards nearly always age better though, as we have seen in the 280(x) and 960, R9 390 and 970, 7970 and 680, and 580 and 1060.

This benchmark aggregate is from January 2019, so it's already aged.

[Stefan Payne]

Just now, jerubedo said:

There are some games which scale 100% with clock rate.

...wich is what you're really arguing with...

There are some games somewhere that somewhat show what you want them to show...

And you rate high FPS far too much, even though I've shown you that the human is too slow to benefit from it...

Just now, jerubedo said:

I'm already talking about the micro ATX board. They both are, actually.

Oh, since when is 69,99 $10 more than 79,99???