First high end gaming build

[Seniga1]

Hi, i'm writing from Argentina, well, as the title says I'm about to build my first high end gaming pc, the idea is to build something capable of VR gaming so i'm going for an Asus GTX 1070 Strix and a 2TB hard drive for sure.
 

I'm not sure about the motherboard, I'm thinking in getting a Gigabyte z170x gaming 5 and a SSD, or go with an Asus Maximus VIII Hero (does the better audio and LAN worths it?) and no SSD for now. 
With the CPU i'm sticking with an i5 6500, or maybe a 6600k? What do you think? around U$80 difference between them 

PSU, i found a XFX pro XXX 650W in good price so i'm going for it

Ram, 2x8gb 2666mhz avexir, as far as I know, more than 2666 is worthless, right? 

 

Well, those are my doubts so i'm open for suggestions, thanks for reading and sorry for the english! 

[ARikozuM]

I'd get the Gigabyte and SSD. If you can spring for the 6600K, it'll be worth it. RAM speeds don't matter much once you use a dGPU.

[Shiv78]

2 minutes ago, Seniga1 said:

With the CPU i'm sticking with an i5 6500, or maybe a 6600k? What do you think? around U$80 difference between them 

 

Get a 6700K and a less fancy mobo, or 6600K and get a 240GB SSD

[Seniga1]

Just now, Shiv78 said:

Get a 6700K and a less fancy mobo, or 6600K and get a 240GB SSD

i7 for gaming? there is a U$120 difference...

[ARikozuM]

Just now, Shiv78 said:

Get a 6700K and a less fancy mobo, or 6600K and get a 240GB SSD

If the 6500 and 6600K are 80 apart, imagine the 6500 and the 6700K...

[Trollbot]

Just now, Seniga1 said:

i7 for gaming? there is a U$120 difference...

Yeah, don't get an i7 for gaming. That's a total waste of money. Yes, people, it has a higher number. That doesn't necessarily make it better for gaming.

[Seniga1]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

If the 6500 and 6600K are 80 apart, imagine the 6500 and the 6700K...

between the 6500 and the 6700k, around 200...

[Shiv78]

1 minute ago, Seniga1 said:

i7 for gaming? there is a U$120 difference...

My bad, where I live (NJ) you can usually get a 6700K for $70-80 (sometimes less) more than a 6600K. Get a 6600K, Gigabyte mobo, and squeeze in a 120 or 240GB SSD

[HKZeroFive]

2 minutes ago, Trollbot said:

Yeah, don't get an i7 for gaming. That's a total waste of money. Yes, people, it has a higher number. That doesn't necessarily make it better for gaming.

If you want better performance in CPU-intensive games, higher minimum framerates and more consistent framtimes, then a i7 makes sense. Don't know why people think it has no effect on gaming.

[ARikozuM]

Just now, HKZeroFive said:

If you want better performance in CPU-intensive games, higher minimum framerates and more consistent framtimes, then a i7 makes sense. Don't know why people think it has no effect on gaming.

He's saying it. Performance-dollar ratio is better on i5, though.

[Trollbot]

Just now, HKZeroFive said:

If you want better performance in CPU-intensive games, higher minimum framerates and more consistent framtimes, then a i7 makes sense. Don't know why people think it has no effect on gaming.

Because Hyper-Threading Technology has no significant impact on the vast majority of games, even after years of people claiming that might change down the road.

[Seniga1]

What about the gaming 5 vs an Asus z170A? 

 

[HKZeroFive]

6 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

He's saying it. Performance-dollar ratio is better on i5, though.

No, he's not.

6 minutes ago, Trollbot said:

Because Hyper-Threading Technology has no significant impact on the vast majority of games, even after years of people claiming that might change down the road.

Yes, it does... Look at BF1, Fallout 4, Crysis 3, GTA V, The Witcher 3...

[ARikozuM]

Just now, Seniga1 said:

What about the gaming 5 vs an Asus z170A? 

 

I'd go with Asus, but see which board has more USB and SATA ports and features.

[Trollbot]

4 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

No, he's not.

 

Yes, it does... Look at BF1, Fallout 4, Crysis 3, GTA V, The Witcher 3...

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/gaming-benchmarks-core-i7-6700k-hyperthreading-test.219417/

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

No, he's not.

 

Yes, it does... Look at BF1, Fallout 4, Crysis 3, GTA V, The Witcher 3...

The majority of those games do better on higher clocks with TW3 being a "maybe".

[HKZeroFive]

3 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

The majority of those games do better on higher clocks with TW3 being a "maybe".

Do I really have to link you that The Witcher 3 video again where the i7 4790K didn't present a bottleneck for the GTX 1070 and the i5 4690K did? At the same clocks?

 

You guys seem to forget that your minimum framerate determines your performance. Not average.

 

6 minutes ago, Trollbot said:

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/gaming-benchmarks-core-i7-6700k-hyperthreading-test.219417/

Because a GTX 780Ti removes the possibility of the GPU being the bottleneck...

 

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/battlefield-1-beta-cpu-scaling-performance.2485172/

 

http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page5.html

 

http://www.techspot.com/review/1180-overwatch-benchmarks/page5.html

 

[ARikozuM]

Just now, HKZeroFive said:

Do I really have to link you that The Witcher 3 video again where the i7 4790K didn't present a bottleneck for the GTX 1070 and the i5 4690K did? At the same clocks?

You're also delivering the bottleneck at 1920x1080 where the 1070 isn't aimed.

[Trollbot]

4 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

You guys seem to forget that your minimum framerate determines your performance. Not average.

 

Because a GTX 780Ti removes the possibility of the GPU being the bottleneck...

 

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/battlefield-1-beta-cpu-scaling-performance.2485172/

 

http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page5.html

 

http://www.techspot.com/review/1180-overwatch-benchmarks/page5.html

 

I'm completely willing to admit that, as I indicated previously, there are a select few games that can and will benefit from Hyper-Threading. There is also the question, of course, as to how much of that difference in these benchmarks can be attributed to Hyper-Threading, how much to cache, and how much to clockspeed. Let's also take a look at the question of value. With the price difference, you could simply buy a better video card and get better results than burning money for an i7 that might improve performance on a handful of ultra-modern titles.

[HKZeroFive]

7 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

You're also delivering the bottleneck at 1920x1080 where the 1070 isn't aimed.

Yes, because the 1080p 144Hz gaming demographic doesn't exist...

3 minutes ago, Trollbot said:

I'm completely willing to admit that, as I indicated previously, there are a select few games that can and will benefit from Hyper-Threading. There is also the question, of course, as to how much of that difference in these benchmarks can be attributed to Hyper-Threading, how much to cache, and how much to clockspeed. Let's also take a look at the question of value. With the price difference, you could simply buy a better video card and get better results than burning money for an i7 that might improve performance on a handful of ultra-modern titles.

I'm not disputing the fact that normally a better GPU would be a better buy but it's not hard to see that clock speed doesn't match up to the extra threads and in some cases, we can see that even an i5 4690K (overclocked) cannot hold up with the likes of a GTX 1070. And like I said, it's not the average framerate, it's the minimum framerate that determines your performance. And I would say it's more than a handful of games...

After all, didn't you say an i7 makes no difference at all?

[Trollbot]

5 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

Yes, because the 1080p 144Hz gaming demographic doesn't exist...

I'm not disputing the fact that normally a better GPU would be a better buy but it's not hard to see that clock speed doesn't match up to the extra threads and in some cases, we can see that even an i5 4690K (overclocked) cannot hold up with the likes of a GTX 1070. And like I said, it's not the average framerate, it's the minimum framerate that determines your performance. And I would say it's more than a handful of games...

After all, didn't you say an i7 makes no difference at all?

Firstly, I said "no significant impact on the vast majority of games." Please use an actual quote rather than deliberately misquoting me and removing it from context. Secondly, there are as many, if not more, games that demonstrate lower performance with Hyper-Threading enabled. My philosophy has always been that, if I'm going to spend more money on something, I expect a performance increase across the board, not slightly better performance in some titles, slightly worse performance in others, and zero performance difference in others. This attitude encourages people to waste their hard-earned money while having unrealistic expectations of their performance gains.

[ARikozuM]

9 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

Yes, because the 1080p 144Hz gaming demographic doesn't exist...

I'm not disputing the fact that normally a better GPU would be a better buy but it's not hard to see that clock speed doesn't match up to the extra threads and in some cases, we can see that even an i5 4690K (overclocked) cannot hold up with the likes of a GTX 1070. And like I said, it's not the average framerate, it's the minimum framerate that determines your performance. And I would say it's more than a handful of games.

 

The 980 Ti and 1070 are 3440x1440 cards and should be benchmarked as such. There is also the advantage of DSR for those who do game at 1080@60 (which is the standard). I'm not disagreeing with the i7 being the better CPU, it just doesn't provide the best performance for the money spent as the 100 could be put towards a better GPU, SSD, case, etc. Having these constant conversations about bottlenecks is lackluster as we're justifying someone using an i5 to take the 1060 rather than the 1070 and using it to it's fullest b/c that 1060 isn't going to hit 144hz at Ultra.

[HKZeroFive]

1 minute ago, Trollbot said:

Firstly, I said "no significant impact on the vast majority of games." Please use an actual quote rather than deliberately misquoting me and removing it from context. Secondly, there are as many, if not more, games that demonstrate lower performance with Hyper-Threading enabled. My philosophy has always been that, if I'm going to spend more money on something, I expect a performance increase across the board, not slightly better performance in some titles, slightly worse performance in others, and zero performance difference in others. This attitude encourages people to waste their hard-earned money while having unrealistic expectations of their performance gains.

You understand what I meant. Perhaps I should have used this quote instead where you said an i7 was a 'total waste of money'.

1 hour ago, Trollbot said:

Yeah, don't get an i7 for gaming. That's a total waste of money. Yes, people, it has a higher number. That doesn't necessarily make it better for gaming.

Onto your second point... it has been consistently shown that an i7 has given a boost in performance. Tell me, if you're referencing that TPU thread when you say i7s 'demonstrate lower performance', I suggest finding other benchmarks where the GPU isn't the bottleneck...

 

I'll be happy to tag a few forum members to share their experiences with i5s and i7s.

 

16 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

The 980 Ti and 1070 are 3440x1440 cards and should be benchmarked as such.

Thats highly subjective...

16 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

There is also the advantage of DSR for those who do game at 1080@60 (which is the standard). I'm not disagreeing with the i7 being the better CPU, it just doesn't provide the best performance for the money spent as the 100 could be put towards a better GPU, SSD, case, etc. Having these constant conversations about bottlenecks is lackluster as we're justifying someone using an i5 to take the 1060 rather than the 1070 and using it to it's fullest b/c that 1060 isn't going to hit 144hz at Ultra.

Where in this thread have we mentioned or specified a budget? The whole argument is centered on the fact that whether or not a 'i7 is a total waste of money'. Not whether or not a 'i7 is necessary at this specific price point'.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, HKZeroFive said:

Where in this thread have we mentioned or specified a budget? The whole argument is centered on the fact that whether or not a 'i7 is a total waste of money'. Not whether or not a 'i7 is necessary at this specific price point'.

From OP: With the CPU i'm sticking with an i5 6500, or maybe a 6600k? What do you think? around U$80 difference between them.

[HKZeroFive]

5 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

From OP: With the CPU i'm sticking with an i5 6500, or maybe a 6600k? What do you think? around U$80 difference between them.

Within the context of the thread, you know I'm referring to @Trollbot's claims and not to OP. If it makes you feel any better, I'm not suggesting that OP should get a i7 due to the price gaps between it and the i5.