Right Decision?

[MJTT12]

Ok I have have a dx4860 prebuilt computer by gateway.- i7 2600, 8 gb ddr3, gt 520. It has been running games slow so I wanted to build a new computer with a 7700k, z270, 16 gb ddr4 ram and a 1080 but I didn't want to throw out all of my money on a new computer so I bought a EVGA gtx 1060 sc and I will build a computer next year when the 1080ti has been out for around 6 months and build my computer then.

Have I made the right choice?

[Undertaker225]

Actually, I think that is very smart. However, I would not be sold on the build completely. Even if you do stay with the same components though, you will benefit from waiting. At the end of this quarter for the 2017 year, AMD will be releasing the Ryzen processors and everyone is speculating for Intel to retaliate with lower prices. Assuming that is the case, then you will have more money in your pocket either way and you can afford a 1080ti. This all being said, 6-month old Nvidia GPU's have been known to last for a good while, but the question then becomes, "how much will the price drop in six months and is it worth the wait.

[MJTT12]

2 minutes ago, Undertaker225 said:

Actually, I think that is very smart. However, I would not be sold on the build completely. Even if you do stay with the same components though, you will benefit from waiting. At the end of this quarter for the 2017 year, AMD will be releasing the Ryzen processors and everyone is speculating for Intel to retaliate with lower prices. Assuming that is the case, then you will have more money in your pocket either way and you can afford a 1080ti. This all being said, 6-month old Nvidia GPU's have been known to last for a good while, but the question then becomes, "how much will the price drop in six months and is it worth the wait.

My plan is to sell the card on ebay or craigslist to get a little bit of money for the build

[Undertaker225]

4 minutes ago, MJTT12 said:

My plan is to sell the card on ebay or craigslist to get a little bit of money for the build

If you are waiting 6 months from the release of an Nvidia card that has yet to be released, I think you are in the clear with those parts. That being said, I would look into AMD's lineup, supposed to be really good, even for Intel's standards.

[fjdhdhcyfhf]

TLDR: i would stay with the i7-2600 for another six months because it is still reasonable. GPU could do with an upgrade to at least a gaming edition of X60 like GTX1060. 

16 minutes ago, MJTT12 said:

Have I made the right choice?

yes

[Undertaker225]

1 minute ago, rrubberr said:

Let's not try to fool ourselves with that. Last I heard the consumer grade Ryzen was supposedly going to almost-sort-of match a 4790k or some other pitifully obsolete heap from three births of Christ ago. I would disagree with that, but then again, I'm a realist, and Intel spends twice AMD's market cap on R&D per week.

LOL! I am not so sure of that man. They compared the Ryzen chip to an overclocked chip. Which that being said, they admitted to restraining their hardware to certain limitations seeing as they were pre-release. Also, the i7-4790k is a very formidable cpu, even today. So maybe AMD won't equate to Intel's hardware quite yet. I believe all they need to do is get close, and that is what they are doing. Let's also be honest and admit that Intel is doing a lot of what Apple is doing with their business model, and that is handing us new hardware with old specs.

[Undertaker225]

1 minute ago, rrubberr said:

Sorry, I keep forgetting that I'm in that class of people that can scoff at the "Do You Need 128 GB of RAM" clickbait videos on LTT. Sure, I use a seven-year-old heap that is 1) literally twice as fast as a 6700k and 2) literally catches fire from time to time, but Intel isn't handing you any hardware with old specs, and I don't know what you even think you mean by that.

well just look at the improvements from the Skylake series to the Kabylake series. There is little improvement as far as speed. They introduce a few new technologies on top of it, but a lot of people speculate that they are hitting their physical limitations for hardware. 1.) No, I am not in that class of people. 2.) it's pretty universally sound to say that AMD had really shaken the hopes of many people to drive down the prices of processors. I don't see a problem with hope. That being said, I don't use 128 GB of RAM either. I don't use flashing lights, or water cooling. I am a minimalist that believes that you certainly can run a modern game on older graphics with decent FPS. Though I encourage the argument because I admit that there is always more to learn

[Undertaker225]

3 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

Of course they're hitting the physical limit, but that's shooting yourself in the foot and pointing out that there is improvement (whether or not it equates directly to speed). I'm also one of those people who doesn't use flashing lights, water cool, or get the latest video card just to have the latest (the Titan Z is 3-4 years old, too, and my CPU's are still on the 32 nm process, 32NM!!), because I don't give a hot diggity about what the mess looks like, as long as it's fast.

I respect that, however, you can't deny the major step forward that AMD is making here. You also can't deny the impact, whether larger or small, that AMD will put on the consumer CPU market.

[Undertaker225]

5 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

Of course I can't because the last improvement AMD did was celebrating the new millennium and helping with the 64-bit CPU architecture. Literally pushing out a Core 2 Duo would have been a major architectural improvement. The same goes to the last part of that. If Samsung licensed the x86 arch from AMD / Intel and released something even reasonably similar to an i7 2600 (which of course they could do, if they had the want or desire), that would be a major impact, because suddenly there would be TWO companies that have x86 CPU's that a consumer might actually buy, not just one.

Lol, I fear that you are just hearing one side and coming up with reasons to hate the other. Yes, what you say is true, but you are ignoring the impressive benchmarks with both the Ryzen CPU and Vega GPU comparing it to a Skylake CPU and another Nvidia GPU that I would like to say was a 1080 but don't quote me on that. That's a huge leap for a CPU manufacturer to make that has been out of the game for so long, leaving Intel to have almost a monopoly over the CPU market.

 

Also, seeing as you seem knowledgable, There is this forum that seems relatively neglected that I was trying to solve but was unable to, I was wondering if you had time to give it a look:

 

 

[Undertaker225]

3 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

GPU's I don't care about, the r9 series was fine, and the HD 79xx before that, and the rx 480 kind of made sense from a price standpoint at first, and the Fury X was only *pretty* disappointing. CPU's are a different story, and it's much harder to bounce back from that. The reason, at least in part, that I'm not impressed is that nothing in the past 10 years has really impressed me, and that sentiment is not reserved to AMD, but at least Intel has both had a product and consistently shrunk the process size, AMD has done neither.

 

I mean, as we've established, I use reasonably obsolete hardware, and there is literally nothing in my machine that hasn't blown past "end of life" status, but when I can still accidentally set my resolution slider in BF1 to 200% while using a 4k display, and only be mildly concerned about the framerate, the concept of being 'impressed' with anything that is 'shiny' and 'new' doesn't really make sense across the spectrum.

 

Yes they've hit a wall, and yes, I was laughing my *expletive* off in the early 90's when people were saying that somebody had a CPU die that was less than a MICROMETER, the same as we laugh at 1 nanometer today, but at least people like Intel and IBM are both still TRYING to push the line. We can agree, the FX series of CPU's was not pushing any envelopes last year..

The FX series was hardly pushing any lines when they first released. That's why Ryzen was, and still is, such an excitement for the community. And when talking VR, new technology really does play a role in all of this, in my opinion at least, it's the difference between getting motion sickness and enjoying your experience.

[Undertaker225]

1 minute ago, rrubberr said:

Let's not talk about VR, I like to think of that garbage how Linus said it: that his son was more interested in Wii motion controls than in a VR headset. That being said, though, my expectations of AMD hyping itself to no end on this product, which still isn't really competitive with Intel's offerings, are a No-Man's-Sky esque conclusion that ends in them being acquired by Samsung or Intel or Nvidia. 

1.) VR is not an amazing thing because of what it is right now but because of what it can become. Which is also in a sense scary, depending on if you were born within the turn of the millennia or if you hold older values.

 

2.) Just like VR, AMD is not so hyped because of what they have accomplished with this processor currently, but because of what it means for the consumers' money, and what it means for the future or processors. 

 

IF AMD can get close to Intel in performance, then it would mean a great deal for the advancement of the CPU. Intel, for the first time in almost a decade (or more), would have reason to invest all of their energy in real innovation. not tiny jumps in speed.

[Undertaker225]

3 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

I'm not one of those old diaper wearing fools that thinks the government is making you a homosexual by strapping screens to your face, don't worry.

 

That being said, Ive always been interested in technical achievements, and that probably is because Im from a different time. Back in ye' olde' days, the 'cool thing' was shrinking the process, which was partly due to the speed gains and power efficiency improvements, and I guess that has carried over to today. The thing is, AMD fulfills neither of my criteria for being impressive. There is no speed boost over what you can buy now, and I can pretty safely say that they aren't going to be beating out Intel on die size ("real men own their own FABs").

 

Going back to that whole "older values" thing, I don't believe that Intel has been monetizing on some conspiracy where they marginally increase speed to save 'real' progress for later. I think Intel is absolutely terrified right now, because physics is finally catching up with them, and if they stagnate for 5 years because all they can do is add cores, lower clock speeds, and try to sell you on a 5% performance increase, then AMD will catch up and almost certainly drive prices and thus margins through the floor for them. I would bet money that they and IBM are giving it their 110%, because at this point, the paranoia over the perceived stagnation in the x86 market is bordering on the ones in decades past that ended up in everyone having a custom architecture (PA-RISC, ARM, SUPER-H, POWER, etc. ; all were created out of this fear), and Intel has never really put credence in anything but x86; this constitutes another battle in which they will almost invariably loose.

That is most definitely an interesting claim. First off, I was not claiming that you were old school, in fact I was admitting to not being up to par with these kids nowadays. That being said, quantum computing is another market that is in the up and comings. Whereas it is just theory right now, they are making pretty good leaps and strides in doing so. Now I know what you are going to say, probably something on the lines of "You would need a super computer the size of a huge industrial complex". Yes, this is true, but let's look back at the days where a computer was exactly that and no one could fathom it fitting in a person's pocket!

 

Some other people that I have talked to believe that there is not a race for another architecture, but perhaps a medium that can be used in supplement to or in conjunction with silicon. I have heard only rumors of using organic mediums but I also wouldn't say that these rumors or theories were few and far between. It's an interesting world and a lot of development in this day in age. We are at a fold in the era of technological advancement:

 

We either succeed phenomenally, or fall in the wake of our predecessors.

[Undertaker225]

1 minute ago, rrubberr said:

I'm from the days of large industrial complex sized computers (okay, not exactly, but reasonably close), and apparently IBM has 1 nm transistors in a laboratory environment, but if we want to hop on the weird-quotes train, I'll leave this:"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed," and that's exactly what I think of Ryzen and the AMD comeback.

Remember my Username. And we will talk after the release of AMD's Ryzen. I will have no problem admitting I am wrong if that is the case. However, all they need to do is get close enough.  Other than that, it was a great conversation and I thank you for indulging me