The subject of bottlenecks!

[Guest Kloaked]

19 minutes ago, Mud_89 said:

I also don't see them even reaching Intel, let alone beat them. BUT seeing how cheaper AMD CPUs for gaming as compared to Intel are, and yes still considering the lower performance, I wouldn't say it's a TERRIBLE price-performance ratio. It's more than decent. When it comes to Nvidia GPUs older than the 1070, AMD CPUs do carry the weight and deliver good performance for down to as much as half the price of rival Intel CPUs. Of course your performance degrades to say 20-25%? That's a good deal for a budget.

 

I was actually looking at 6700K with Z170 chipset. I'd rather use base frequency than OCing, therefore I'd still worry about the 7600K bottleneck though. But OCing is also a good option to consider to go cheaper I guess.

It is terrible, especially if you want to play games at a decent frame rate. AMD's current CPUs will give you such a poor minimum frame rate, which is why so many people recommend just about any Intel CPU, even locked ones. It's not just an performance degradation, you get bad performance for your money. A current i3 can do better than an 8350.

 

If you're getting an unlocked CPU, you should overclock it. Otherwise you should just get a locked one.

7 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

yes because Ryzen COULD bring something better to the market but seeing as noone outside of AMD and some motherboard manufacturers CQ testers noone knows how Ryzen performs nor the price. it COULD be better or terrible, even though its less then a month to release we know barely anything outside of that there will be an 8c/16th with a base clock of 3.4GHz that preforms about the same as the I7 6900K at stock speeds and that all Ryzen chips are unlocked

Even if the CPU performs well, I'm willing to bet my left pinky that it's not worth waiting for.

[Bananasplit_00]

10 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

It is terrible, especially if you want to play games at a decent frame rate. AMD's current CPUs will give you such a poor minimum frame rate, which is why so many people recommend just about any Intel CPU, even locked ones. It's not just an performance degradation, you get bad performance for your money. A current i3 can do better than an 8350.

 

If you're getting an unlocked CPU, you should overclock it. Otherwise you should just get a locked one.

Even if the CPU performs well, I'm willing to bet my left pinky that it's not worth waiting for.

im going to say that there will be a 8c/16th model that is good value but i would say the hexa cores if there are any would be better value seeing as Intel dosent really have anything there exept for the super high end. hope they dont screw up pricing basically

[Guest Kloaked]

1 minute ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

im going to say that there will be a 8c/16th model that is good value but i would say the hexa cores if there are any would be better value seeing as Intel dosent really have anything there exept for the super high end. hope they dont screw up pricing basically

If it matches Intel it's going to cost a little bit. There's really no getting around it. I hope you're right though.

[Bananasplit_00]

1 minute ago, Kloaked said:

If it matches Intel it's going to cost a little bit. There's really no getting around it. I hope you're right though.

yah the top end model is competing against a $1000 CPU, its going to be around $800-$900 but the lower end ones could be quite interesting tho i doubt the higher end quadcores will be any good value

[belfouf]

On 06/02/2017 at 3:57 PM, Mud_89 said:

Yea my aim is to go minimum 60 fps at 4K. This score is pretty low-ish...

then spend lot of money into GPU, not CPU. FX8350 or Zen or even maybe G4560 (then upgrade to whatever later)

http://www.techspot.com/review/1325-intel-pentium-g4560/

[Xandaaa]

On 2/6/2017 at 6:28 AM, Alaradia said:

i'm talking about intel wise not amd amd will bottle neck but even as far back as a 2770k wont bottle neck

rly? a 2770k? and for the love of god OP don't even say 'fx'. but ya wait for zen pls

[Xandaaa]

12 minutes ago, belfouf said:

then spend lot of money into GPU, not CPU. FX8350 or Zen or even maybe G4560 (then upgrade to whatever later)

http://www.techspot.com/review/1325-intel-pentium-g4560/

what? no. NOT fx 8350, YES ryzen, HELL NO a fucking pentium for a TIAN XP, and yo uclearly didn't read the post. He won the titan, which gives him more budget to put on the cpu, like a LOT more budget.

[Mudzie]

1 hour ago, Xandaaa said:

and for the love of god OP don't even say 'fx'. but ya wait for zen pls

haha the FX is getting a lot of hate. By now I think I got the picture
After looking into it more this processor is not an option for high end gaming, especially with the GTX series.

On the other hand I'm getting more positive (and hopeful) feedback on Ryzen and Zen. I can wait and see what comes out of these two.

 

1 hour ago, belfouf said:

then spend lot of money into GPU, not CPU. FX8350 or Zen or even maybe G4560 (then upgrade to whatever later)

http://www.techspot.com/review/1325-intel-pentium-g4560/

I'd stay away from Pentium for gaming... Rather go Core! After all I'd rather keep the option of overclocking when needed. And I think by now everyone already established that the FX isn't a viable option, especially for high end GPUs as I said before.

[Xandaaa]

4 hours ago, Mud_89 said:

haha the FX is getting a lot of hate. By now I think I got the picture
After looking into it more this processor is not an option for high end gaming, especially with the GTX series.

On the other hand I'm getting more positive (and hopeful) feedback on Ryzen and Zen. I can wait and see what comes out of these two.

 

I'd stay away from Pentium for gaming... Rather go Core! After all I'd rather keep the option of overclocking when needed. And I think by now everyone already established that the FX isn't a viable option, especially for high end GPUs as I said before.

hmmm maybe a 6600k? is that within ur budget man? its a bit of a more expensive option but it is perfect for any gaming

[Mudzie]

19 hours ago, Xandaaa said:

hmmm maybe a 6600k? is that within ur budget man? its a bit of a more expensive option but it is perfect for any gaming

The 6600K would actually save me about a 100€ in comparison to the 6700K, and it's good for gaming. But the problem with the i5 series is that they are known for noticeably bottlenecking the highest GTX GPUs. However since they aren't as bad as the FX series, they are still a good lower budget option to start with.

[Mudzie]

Thank you all guys for your feedback, it was seriously helpful. After looking at what you suggested and researching a bit here's the deal:

 

Core i7-7700K vs. 6700K

i7-7700K and 6700K are a bit too expensive for my budget now, but they remain an option for the future.

 

Honestly, (at 350€) 6700K is more than enough. 7700K (at 364€) is too much since I don't have heavy workload like heavy multitasking, gaming and streaming at the same time, or heavy rendering and what not. Therefore, I can set the stage for a Z170 chip for now in order to upgrade to 6700K later rather than having a more expensive Z270 system that I don't really need.

 

With the Titan X bottleneck being the main question here, both will have the least influence out of the options I have.

 

Core i7 vs. i5

Between i7 and i5, the i5-6600K (at 247€) fulfills my minimum requirements and can deliver good frame rates at 4K when combining forces with the Titan X. Heavy CPU games like Cities Skylines might not run as smooth, but as I said before, anything above 30 fps works great for me. I don't mind dropping the resolution either. Plus I'm more of a FPS and stealth/adventure kind of gamer, not much strategy and MMO.

 

So for 100€ less, I don't care about hyperthreading or the extra cache the i7 offers, and the bottleneck is not gonna be devastating. With the i5-6600K I can go for the z170 platform already now.

 

AMD vs. Intel

It's clear that AMD's FX series is a lower budget option on the expense of a worse bottleneck for the Titan. Doesn't matter how it looks on paper, i5 is better in performance! Also if I go AM3+, I need a total restructure even if I decide to go with the Ryzen. So FX is a total fart! Most of you here also made sure that it stinks 

 

Now since I have time, I WILL wait to see what the Ryzen brings. It surely sounds promising. (and I just realized that I though Ryzen and Zen are two different series ).

 

If the Ryzen's price tag is parallel to the i7s', I would ONLY consider it an option if its performance significantly supersedes them. Being all new and so, I wouldn't trust it on the long run as much as I trust the good ol' Core. If it's cheaper, it becomes more attractive. But honestly I don't think its price will be similar to the i5, otherwise something would be really wrong.

 

So bottom line is

for now, with what we have, the i5-6600K looks like my best bet for performance/budget with a possibility of an upgrade to an i7 down the line. But I'll wait for Ryzen before I build a Z170 system and realize maybe I'd like to go AM4 sometime in the near future.

 

Oh and what I say about i5-6600K and Z170 also applies to i5-7600K and Z270 since the price difference is low.

 

PS: I almost sold my Titan X to build a GTX 1080 machine. I just couldn't do it! I couldn't!