6700k or wait for AMD Zen?

[ProfChibbs]

Title says it. I am building a new PC and I was wondering whether I should get an Intel core i7 6700k or wait for early 2017 for AMD's zen line. My GPU is a GTX 1080. I just need pros and cons of each one, really. Thanks!

[johnt]

2 minutes ago, ProfChibbs said:

Title says it. I am building a new PC and I was wondering whether I should get an Intel core i7 6700k or wait for early 2017 for AMD's zen line. My GPU is a GTX 1080. I just need pros and cons of each one, really. Thanks!

Go with the 6700k. It's available. It can be found for reasonable prices. It kills 6, 8, and 10+ core processors in gaming.

 

Avoid AMD at all cost. They haven't produced a superior product compared to the competition in over a decade... and their business model and reputation is unlikely to change with the Zen.

 

Go for something proven or wait to have your heart broken and be disappointed. Your choice.

[Guest]

Why not wait for 7700k kaby lake?

[The Belgian Waffle]

Go 6700k. Zen is too hyped up. And it's probably going to melt everything.  

[doomsriker]

Never wait. Present satisfaction trumps future uncertainty. 

[ProfChibbs]

2 minutes ago, JohnT said:

Go with the 6700k. It's available. It can be found for reasonable prices. It kills 6, 8, and 10+ core processors in gaming.

 

Avoid AMD at all cost. They haven't produced a superior product compared to the competition in over a decade... and their business model and reputation is unlikely to change with the Zen.

 

Go for something proven or wait to have your heart broken and be disappointed. Your choice.

One of my reasons for opting for the intel processor is because I acknowledge their CPU reliability so thanks for the reply!

[ProfChibbs]

1 minute ago, The Belgian Waffle said:

Go 6700k. Zen is too hyped up. And it's probably going to melt everything.  

Yeah true, thanks

 

1 minute ago, doomsriker said:

Never wait. Present satisfaction trumps future uncertainty. 

I agree so thanks for the response! 

[masterkickass7]

7 minutes ago, ProfChibbs said:

Title says it. I am building a new PC and I was wondering whether I should get an Intel core i7 6700k or wait for early 2017 for AMD's zen line. My GPU is a GTX 1080. I just need pros and cons of each one, really. Thanks!

no point for 6700k if your mainly gaming rendering the hyper threading helps alot if your primarily gaming 6600k or zen 

[johnt]

3 minutes ago, doomsriker said:

Never wait. Present satisfaction trumps future uncertainty. 

Agree. And based on Intel's historic pricing, the 6700k's price is unlikely to be affected by the 7700k or the Zen (definitely not the Zen).

[ProfChibbs]

Just now, JohnT said:

Agree. And based on Intel's historic pricing, the 6700k's price is unlikely to be affected by the 7700k or the Zen (definitely not the Zen).

Good to know, Thanks

 

[johnt]

3 minutes ago, ProfChibbs said:

One of my reasons for opting for the intel processor is because I acknowledge their CPU reliability so thanks for the reply!

Well don't misunderstand me. AMD makes very reliable products. But their only method of competition is pricing... not performance.

[NTDaws]

by a skylake xeon lol, jk though I would do that. GO WITH A 6700k, you will regret not going with it at all costs.

[ProfChibbs]

Just now, JohnT said:

Well don't misunderstand me. AMD makes very reliable products. But their only method of competition is pricing... not performance.

Yeah I think that the hype for zen may (MAY) drop the actual popularity, mainly because of the performance and overheating AMD has

[Mr.Meerkat]

39 minutes ago, ProfChibbs said:

overheating AMD has

Overheating? What AMD CPU and GPU overheats?

[johnt]

15 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

Overheating? What AMD CPU and GPU overheats?

None "overheat," but their entire line generally runs warmer than the competition

[Mr.Meerkat]

1 minute ago, JohnT said:

None "overheat," but their entire line generally runs warmer than the competition

Their FX CPUs consumed more power so fair enough point but their GPUs never consumed more power (if we only compared the flagships).

The 780ti consumed just as much power as a 290X and the Fury X consumed just as much as a 980ti. Just because the 290X reference cooler was worse than useless doesn't mean AMD chips run hot...

[johnt]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

Their FX CPUs consumed more power so fair enough point but their GPUs never consumed more power (if we only compared the flagships).

The 780ti consumed just as much power as a 290X and the Fury X consumed just as much as a 980ti. Just because the 290X reference cooler was worse than useless doesn't mean AMD chips run hot...

I thought the 290x was hovering around 95 C at full load?

 

[johnt]

Just to follow up, the 200-series seems to be where AMD received this crispy, hot reputation. The 290x runs around 95 C under load, and well over 40 C at idle. The 780ti and 980ti are both over 10 C cooler at idle and under load.

 

Edit: Forgot the link http://www.anandtech.com/show/9306/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti-review/16

[Mr.Meerkat]

8 minutes ago, JohnT said:

I thought the 290x was hovering around 95 C at full load?

 

13 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

Just because the 290X reference cooler was worse than useless

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/R9_290X_Tri-X_OC/28.html

Ignore the Asus DC2 one as only 3/5 heatpipes touched the die thus they ran hotter than any other custom cooled card (and the AMD+powercolor ones are just reference coolers)

 

CBA getting more links for you but custom cooled 290X were no hotter than a 780ti custom cooled so you know...

 

edit: another good one http://techreport.com/review/26092/custom-cooled-radeon-r9-290x-cards-from-asus-and-xfx-reviewed/3 (the HIS is the reference cooler this time, which the article states anyway)

[Mr.Meerkat]

5 minutes ago, JohnT said:

Just to follow up, the 200-series seems to be where AMD received this crispy, hot reputation. The 290x runs around 95 C under load, and well over 40 C at idle. The 780ti and 980ti are both over 10 C cooler at idle and under load.

Sigh, do people not understand what a reference cooler is and how Asus is shite at making GPU coolers?

 

What's this? The fury X runs cooler than the 980ti? That must mean the 980ti is shit and must be avoided!

that's what you sound like  

[johnt]

Sorry I forgot to post my source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9306/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti-review/16

[johnt]

4 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

Sigh, do people not understand what a reference cooler is and how Asus is shite at making GPU coolers?

Are you getting stressed out? 

[Mr.Meerkat]

Just now, JohnT said:

Are you getting stressed out? 

Nah, it's just that you're being a tad ignorant , AMD are known for their extremely shitty reference coolers and Nvidia's aren't that much better so...you know...

Also:

OMG the Fury X is running cooler underload than the 980ti! Everyone must buy AMD! Nvidia cards run so much hotter than AMDs! (also note how the 7970 reference is running cooler than the reference 680).

[308626_1454182724]

Imho just wait out for Zen and see what it offers. I am hoping it's good since AMD is keeping this like top-secret information about Zen. Why do you think Intel will be selling an overclockable i3 kaby lake? Because Zen. Amd has been dying for the past 10 years in the cpu market and I'm hoping they are gonna get off their asses and do something useful for us since currently it's just a monopoly...

[johnt]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

it's just that you're being a tad ignorant

Wouldn't be the first time! 

 

But I'd argue against that. Crappy coolers are part of the design. It's not like they made the best cooling solution they possibly could. If the cards were designed to run hotter because AMD (and others) chose to poorly design the cooler, that doesn't mean we should compare AMD's best coolers against Nvidia's reference and call them equal. From my understanding, the chart from Anandtech compares reference to reference (in this case). I recall AMD went on record to say that 95 C is a safe operating temperature for the 290-series, which means that during development, they decided to target 95 C based on the performance they were trying to achieve. The 95 C operating temps are not by accident - it was designed. That is a big difference.

 

Whatever AMD did between the 7970 and 290x was great, except when it came to the cooling. Yes the cards have the potential to run cooler, as you arguing, but the issue is that most available cards were running quite warm compared to the reference designs from the competition. An argument could be made that every GPU can have a better cooler.