So CPU for gaming

[ManiaKsLV]

i5 7600k and Asus Z270F is what i looking at now... Ryzen is too expensive for me now. Or there is good R7 1700 + unknown motherboard?

or better i7 7700 (not K) withsome B250 mobo?

[Techicolors]

what is your GPU? 

 

what games are you intending to play?

 

desired resolution and frame rate? 

[SeanAngelo]

13 minutes ago, ManiaKsLV said:

i5 7600k and Asus Z270F is what i looking at now... Ryzen is too expensive for me now. Or there is good R7 1700 + unknown motherboard?

or better i7 7700 (not K) withsome B250 mobo?

i5 is fine. whats your gpu?

[ManiaKsLV]

9 hours ago, Technicolors said:

what is your GPU? 

 

what games are you intending to play?

 

desired resolution and frame rate? 

I have 1080p monitor... r9 380 4gb gpu. 60fps gaming... later gpu upgrade...

9 hours ago, SeanAngelo said:

i5 is fine. whats your gpu?

R9 380 4g msi

[App4that]

Ryzen sucks at gaming. A 7500 or 7600k would be great. 

[The Sloth]

8 minutes ago, App4that said:

Ryzen sucks at gaming. A 7500 or 7600k would be great. 

a 7700k would be the best cpu for gaming if op can afford it, i5 can be a bottleneck at some games especially with a better gpu if OP decides to upgrade. 

[ManiaKsLV]

3 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

a 7700k would be the best cpu for gaming if op can afford it, i5 can be a bottleneck at some games especially with a better gpu if OP decides to upgrade. 

but i7 7700 with not z270 board but B250? i7 7700k is way out of buget.... its almost i5 7600k +mobo

[The Sloth]

Just now, ManiaKsLV said:

but i7 7700 with not z270 board but B250? i7 7700k is way out of buget.... its almost i5 7600k +mobo

7700 with a non oc board would be better. 

[App4that]

1 minute ago, nerdslayer1 said:

7700 with a non oc board would be better. 

No, can't agree. The Z270 board should be the priority, as it has better features for gaming. Better to have a 7600k now, and upgrade down the road than be stuck in a locked CPU. 

[ManiaKsLV]

Just now, App4that said:

No, can't agree. The Z270 board should be the priority, as it has better features for gaming. Better to have a 7600k now, and upgrade down the road than be stuck in a locked CPU. 

I like Asus Z270F the most what i can offer. I was too much in hype train with AMD. maybe wait for R5? Because i need this PC for 2-3 years at least.

[VicBar]

2 hours ago, App4that said:

Ryzen sucks at gaming. A 7500 or 7600k would be great. 

*R7 sucks at gaming

FTFY

8 Cores are not meant for gaming yet anyway, it's meant to compete with the 7700, but with the 6900

Comback when R5 dissapoints, not before.

[App4that]

Just now, ManiaKsLV said:

I like Asus Z270F the most what i can offer. I was too much in hype train with AMD. maybe wait for R5? Because i need this PC for 2-3 years at least.

Problem with Ryzen, is the Ryzen architecture. That won't go away dropping a few cores. 

 

Asus is good stuff. 

[Brooksie359]

3 minutes ago, App4that said:

Problem with Ryzen, is the Ryzen architecture. That won't go away dropping a few cores. 

 

Asus is good stuff. 

Yes but it's more about pricing. If you can't get a i7 and need the extra threads then the ryzen 4c/8t will be an appealing option if it's in their price range. The problem right now is the main benefit of getting a r7 cpu is that you are paying for the extra cores but having a decrease in single threaded performance which isn't appealing to someone who doesn't need an 8 core. Now if you are comparing a r7 chip to a 8 core like the 6900k then it starts to look appealing because it may not have as good of gaming performance but for alot of the tasks that are multi-threaded they are relatively equal but the r7 cpus are much less. Now the same thing will go with lower end ryzen cpus. They will offer performance that is a little bit less that the Intel counter part but for much less. Now the question will be how much less and what the price delta is. 

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yes but it's more about pricing. If you can't get a i7 and need the extra threads then the ryzen 4c/8t will be an appealing option if it's in their price range. The problem right now is the main benefit of getting a r7 cpu is that you are paying for the extra cores but having a decrease in single threaded performance which isn't appealing to someone who doesn't need an 8 core. Now if you are comparing a r7 chip to a 8 core like the 6900k then it starts to look appealing because it may not have as good of gaming performance but for alot of the tasks that are multi-threaded they are relatively equal but the r7 cpus are much less. Now the same thing will go with lower end ryzen cpus. They will offer performance that is a little bit less that the Intel counter part but for much less. Now the question will be how much less and what the price delta is. 

But if the trade off is gaming performance, it's not worth it. Might as well save money and get a Intel i5.

 

You can't say the problem is games not utilizing cores, then think dropping cores will help. kabylake beats Broadwell-E because of it's architecture. 

[Brooksie359]

Just now, App4that said:

But if the trade off is gaming performance, it's not worth it. Might as well save money and get a Intel i5.

 

You can't say the problem is games not utilizing cores, then think dropping cores will help. kabylake beats Broadwell-E because of it's architecture. 

That's not for you to decide if it's worth it. If you want to spend the extra money for the improvement then you can but not everyone thinks that way. I mean if that were the case then why not always save up for a 7700k as it get the in game performance. Also then why not save up for a more expensive graphics card? The point being that just because you can get something better doesn't always mean you should. Saving money is a factor some people so I wouldn't go saying it isn't worth when neither you nor I even have all the information yet. 

[ManiaKsLV]

Z270F from Asus and i5 7600k looks the best deal for me. i know that i7 7700k is much better but its 130 euros more expensive.

[App4that]

6 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

That's not for you to decide if it's worth it. If you want to spend the extra money for the improvement then you can but not everyone thinks that way. I mean if that were the case then why not always save up for a 7700k as it get the in game performance. Also then why not save up for a more expensive graphics card? The point being that just because you can get something better doesn't always mean you should. Saving money is a factor some people so I wouldn't go saying it isn't worth when neither you nor I even have all the information yet. 

Um, the cheapest Ryzen CPU the 1700. Is more expensive than a 7700k. 

 

Try again. 

[Brooksie359]

11 minutes ago, App4that said:

Um, the cheapest Ryzen CPU the 1700. Is more expensive than a 7700k. 

 

Try again. 

The cheapest r7 not cheapest ryzen cpu. How about you try again....

[App4that]

5 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

The cheapest r7 not cheapest ryzen cpu. How about you try again....

*sigh*

 

Only the SR7 launched, the SR5 is Q2...

[Brooksie359]

Just now, App4that said:

*sigh*

 

Only the SR7 launched, the SR5 is Q2...

Op had originally asked if they should wait for the r5 series. Do you even remember what your original argument was? It was about lowering core count won't do anything so idk why you are acting like we weren't talking about the r5 and r3 series

[App4that]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

Op had originally asked if they should wait for the r5 series. Do you even remember what your original argument was? It was about lowering core count won't do anything so idk why you are acting like we weren't talking about the r5 and r3 series

Because the R5 isn't out, and just like the R7 it will not perform in game. 

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, App4that said:

Because the R5 isn't out, and just like the R7 it will not perform in game. 

OK saying the r5 isn't out yet as a reason is just dumb as they had asked if they should wait. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.

[corevo]

10 hours ago, App4that said:

No, can't agree. The Z270 board should be the priority, as it has better features for gaming. Better to have a 7600k now, and upgrade down the road than be stuck in a locked CPU. 

What features make the Z270 board a priority? 

[ManiaKsLV]

4 hours ago, corevo said:

What features make the Z270 board a priority? 

I think z270 when K chips.... B250 when non K chips.

[Princess Luna]

17 hours ago, ManiaKsLV said:

i5 7600k and Asus Z270F is what i looking at now... Ryzen is too expensive for me now. Or there is good R7 1700 + unknown motherboard?

or better i7 7700 (not K) withsome B250 mobo?

Definitely the locked i7 7700, it will cost you the same since the b250 board is half the price of the z270, and you can just use the stock cooler which will suffice, the locked i7 is superior to any overclocked i5, its hyper-threading helps A LOT in multi-threaded applications while games are getting better and better at using more cores, the whole purpose of Vulkan and DX12 is to increase how well it divides work so it can rely less on single core performance.

 

so in the end you will have a better performing processor that will last longer for the same price of overclocking the i5, this is a rule running around here for a while, Intel made the cost of overclocking so high it is not worth it unless you are going full enthusiastic with a -E chip or the flagship unlocked i7.

 

Here do check out how the 6700 already beats a highly overclocked 6600k in gaming showing how Hyper-Threding is indeed weighting more than that slight higher core frequency nowadays:

 

 

And a very high end gaming rig can rely on a single GPU, you can do close to what I did... I already have insane results in gaming while I did manage to cheap up quite the dollar in the build making it possible, sli also is a thing that makes better sense on the highest end because the motherboards capable of it are a lot more expensive and you do need a much beefier power supply too to support two graphics cards.

 

Cheers