Gaming/coding build advice

[Wubbajack]

Hi guys,

 

I've recently been thinking of putting some parts together and build a new rig. It's primary use is going to be gaming, secondary use is coding with (lots) of virtualisation going on.

The theme that I'm going for is straight black and white with not too much going on in terms of lighting. Any lighting should be as subtle as possible.

 

Here are the parts I've got in mind for this particular build:

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-7700K 4.2GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($329.99 @ B&H) 
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler  ($34.99 @ Newegg Marketplace) 
Motherboard: MSI Z270 SLI PLUS ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($129.89 @ OutletPC) 
Memory: Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory  ($122.89 @ OutletPC) 
Storage: Crucial MX300 525GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($149.99 @ Amazon) 
Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 1080 8GB Video Card  ($509.99 @ Amazon) 
Case: Phanteks ECLIPSE P400 TEMPERED GLASS ATX Mid Tower Case  ($79.99 @ Amazon) 
Power Supply: Corsair RMx 550W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply  ($79.99 @ Newegg) 
Case Fan: NZXT RF-FNV2-140 50.0 CFM  140mm Fan 
Case Fan: NZXT RF-FNV2-140 50.0 CFM  140mm Fan 
Total: $1437.72
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-04-22 14:10 EDT-0400

 

I've selected an 7700k because I'm not sure I'm going to be overclocking, but having the higher IPC and thread-count opposed to an i5 should be enough to cover both my use cases.

Now I know a Ryzen 7 1700 could potentially be a good alternative, but again the overclocking inexperience and the bench results I've seen so far have me doubting whether it's a good choice.

 

Looking forward to your suggestions!

 

 

 

[PCGuy_5960]

5 minutes ago, Wubbajack said:

Now I know a Ryzen 7 1700 could potentially be a good alternative, but again the overclocking inexperience and the bench results I've seen so far have me doubting whether it's a good choice.

Since you will be doing a lot of virtualization, I wouldn't recommend a Ryzen CPU because Intel's virtualization tools are superior. (AFAIK)I think that you should spend a bit more for an X99 system, because those 6 cores will help you out with VMs.

[PCGuy_5960]

This would be better for your needs:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K 3.3GHz 6-Core Processor  ($407.89 @ B&H) 
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($24.88 @ OutletPC) 
Motherboard: ASRock X99 Extreme4 ATX LGA2011-3 Motherboard  ($154.98 @ Newegg) 
Memory: Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory  ($122.89 @ OutletPC) 
Storage: Crucial MX300 525GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($149.99 @ Amazon) 
Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 1080 8GB Video Card  ($509.99 @ Amazon) 
Case: Phanteks ECLIPSE P400 TEMPERED GLASS ATX Mid Tower Case  ($79.99 @ Amazon) 
Power Supply: Corsair RMx 550W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply  ($79.99 @ Newegg) 
Case Fan: NZXT RF-FNV2-140 50.0 CFM  140mm Fan 
Case Fan: NZXT RF-FNV2-140 50.0 CFM  140mm Fan 
Total: $1530.60
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-04-22 14:23 EDT-0400

[Wubbajack]

That's not too bad of a price bump. It's worth thinking about. The 5820k seems to be holding up against the current line-up of intel PC's. Any advice on it's future-proofnes?

[Zyndo]

13 minutes ago, Wubbajack said:

Now I know a Ryzen 7 1700 could potentially be a good alternative, but again the overclocking inexperience and the bench results I've seen so far have me doubting whether it's a good choice.

what resolution and refresh rate do you intend to game at? if you're a 60hz kind of guy, then there is going to be no real difference between Ryzen and Kaby Lake in a gaming scenario, and between Kaby and Ryzen in a workstation scenario (not sure how virtualization works or what it even is, but if it scales well with cores/threads, Ryzen will smoke it in this area).

And then as far as a X99 platform goes.... well if you're willing to invest in an X99 platform, 1800x should be able to beat Intel competition pretty well at its pricepoint.

[PCGuy_5960]

2 minutes ago, Wubbajack said:

Any advice on it's future-proofnes?

Futureproofing is a myth TBH. But it should last you 3-5 years depending on how picky you are

[Wubbajack]

Just now, Zyndo said:

what resolution and refresh rate do you intend to game at? if you're a 60hz kind of guy, then there is going to be no real difference between Ryzen and Kaby Lake in a gaming scenario, and between Kaby and Ryzen in a workstation scenario (not sure how virtualization works or what it even is, but if it scales well with cores/threads, Ryzen will smoke it in this area).

And then as far as a X99 platform goes.... well if you're willing to invest in an X99 platform, 1800x should be able to beat Intel competition pretty well at its pricepoint.

I'm running a 1440p monitor at 60hz. In terms of budget/price-point, the 1800x would be over budget. I'd rather take my chances with the silicon lottery and spend some time in learning how to get a proper overclock  I have no idea how Ryzen would perform when running a couple of virtual machines but it seems Intel's got the upper hand there.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, Zyndo said:

not sure how virtualization works or what it even is, but if it scales well with cores/threads, Ryzen will smoke it in this area

Intel has better virtualization tools and some VM programs require Intel CPUs to work...(AFAIK) I wouldn't really recommend an AMD CPU for virtualization unless you are sure that the program that you are using even supports AMD CPUs 

3 minutes ago, Zyndo said:

And then as far as a X99 platform goes.... well if you're willing to invest in an X99 platform, 1800x should be able to beat Intel competition pretty well at its pricepoint.

Not in gaming, X99 is 10-20% faster than Ryzen depending on the game

[Wubbajack]

2 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Futureproofing is a myth TBH. But it should last you 3-5 years depending on how picky you are

Haha 3-5 years future-proof enough for me, I'm not the sort of person who sits on their hardware for longer than two to three years.

[Zyndo]

Just now, Wubbajack said:

I'm running a 1440p monitor at 60hz. In terms of budget/price-point, the 1800x would be over budget. I'd rather take my chances with the silicon lottery and spend some time in learning how to get a proper overclock  I have no idea how Ryzen would perform when running a couple of virtual machines but it seems Intel's got the upper hand there.

if you can afford a 5820k, then you can afford an 1800x. If you can afford a 7700k then you can easily afford a 1700 or 1700x. Whether or not you think you want Ryzen in your system is a different story.... but as far as price goes you can DEFINITELY afford it, if you can afford those intel counterparts.

 

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Not in gaming, X99 is 10-20% faster than Ryzen depending on the game

That might only apply if you are playing a game at a high refresh rate.... which wont matter because hes using a 60hz panel. an i5 7500 could play at 60hz just fine, anything more than 60fps isn't going to matter. If he had a 144hz panel then it could make a HUGE difference which CPU he chooses, and thats why I asked him what his monitor is.... but as far as a 1440p 60hz panel goes, he will notice no gaming performance difference between an R7 1700, R7 1800x, 5820k, or 7700k. they will all perform the same. So then it becomes a question of which one performs best for his other needs (which is virtualization). I do not know what virtualization is, how it works, what its good for, or anything like that.... but assuming its the kind of thing that scales incredibly well with more cores (which it likely is) then a 1800x, which has 33% more threads than a 5820k (and only slightly lower clockspeeds), should be the way to go IMO.

[Wubbajack]

@PCGuy_5960 So it basically boils down to if you want to have decent virtualization an intel CPU with > 4 cores is recommend, no Ryzen. Would a 7700k still be OK for this sort of thing? The PC is mainly going to be used for gaming so investing in X99 kind of feels like adding on to the budget with minimal gains, but I could be wrong of course!

[Wubbajack]

2 minutes ago, Zyndo said:

if you can afford a 5820k, then you can afford an 1800x. If you can afford a 7700k then you can easily afford a 1700 or 1700x. Whether or not you think you want Ryzen in your system is a different story.... but as far as price goes you can DEFINITELY afford it, if you can afford those intel counterparts.

 

That might only apply if you are playing a game at a high refresh rate.... which wont matter because hes using a 60hz panel. an i5 7500 could play at 60hz just fine, anything more than 60fps isn't going to matter. If he had a 144hz panel then it could make a HUGE difference which CPU he chooses, and thats why I asked him what his monitor is.... but as far as a 1440p 60hz panel goes, he will notice no gaming performance difference between an R7 1700, R7 1800x, 5820k, or 7700k. they will all perform the same. So then it becomes a question of which one performs best for his other needs (which is virtualization). I do not know what virtualization is, how it works, what its good for, or anything like that.... but assuming its the kind of thing that scales incredibly well with more cores (which it likely is) then a 1800x, which has 33% more threads than a 5820k (and only slightly lower clockspeeds), should be the way to go IMO.

What about investing in a 1700 (non-x) and overclocking it? From the benchmarks that I've found it seems that you can get it up to the same level as a 1700x and sometimes even an 1800x with some more tweaking and using the right memory.

 

Do you have any experience with a Ryzen system? I'm eager for some real-world use cases which are a bit harder to find

[PCGuy_5960]

2 minutes ago, Wubbajack said:

Would a 7700k still be OK for this sort of thing?

Sure! If you get a 5820K you will have 6 cores so you will be able to do the more things while running VMs, if you don't really care about that, then get the 7700K

[PCGuy_5960]

5 minutes ago, Zyndo said:

I do not know what virtualization is, how it works, what its good for, or anything like that.... but assuming its the kind of thing that scales incredibly well with more cores

The only problem is that some VM applications require an Intel CPU to even work and Intel's virtualization tools are much better than AMD's (AFAIK) so I wouldn't say that Ryzen is the way to go

[Zyndo]

32 minutes ago, Wubbajack said:

What about investing in a 1700 (non-x) and overclocking it? From the benchmarks that I've found it seems that you can get it up to the same level as a 1700x and sometimes even an 1800x with some more tweaking and using the right memory.

 

Do you have any experience with a Ryzen system? I'm eager for some real-world use cases which are a bit harder to find

No, my one and only system was built about a year ago and features  6700k and is solely a gaming machine. there are TONS of people buying Ryzen though, and you can look on youtube for any benchmarking scenarios or programs you need. And yes, the only reason an R7 1700 isn't a 1700x or 1800x is usually because during the biining process it didn't mean some specification or requirement. Often times A lower R7 can overclock to near the performance of its higher R7 counterparts (or even to their levels) without much issue... the only thing being they will generate more heat and consume more power in order to stay there, which is why they were binned out at lower prices/specifications in the first place, since they don't want to be shipping them too hot for their stock coolers to handle.

 

 

29 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

The only problem is that some VM applications require an Intel CPU to even work and Intel's virtualization tools are much better than AMD's (AFAIK) so I wouldn't say that Ryzen is the way to go

You keep saying "As Far As I Know"... I'm not even saying you're wrong. What I'm saying is the OP should do his homework and not rely on the uncertain testimony of one stranger on the internet. as far as performance per dollar goes, the R7 1700 SMASHES the 7700k or 5820k goes in any core scaling situation.... so he should do his own homework to see if his workloads are capable of scaling with what the 1700 has to offer. If you are right that it DOESN'T, then absolutely a 7700k is plenty good, and an X99 system is better.... but I see no reason it shouldn't. and even if "intel's virtualization tools are much better" (which feels like a copy/paste at this point considering how much you've said it in exactly the same way), they would have to be nearly twice as good as AMD's to make a 7700k as good as a 1700 (assuming 100% scaling with potential CPU performance).... which is severely unlikely.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 hour ago, Zyndo said:

intel's virtualization tools are much better

They are more widely used in virtualization programs. I do agree that the OP should do a bit of research because if the program he uses can take advantage of more cores and supports AMD CPUs, the 1700 is much better.

BTW, I had an AMD CPU and I tried to run the Android Emulator in Android SDK and I just couldn't because it needed Intel's VT-d (or VT-x, I don't remember) this is why I keep on saying that Intel is much better for virtualization.

1 hour ago, Zyndo said:

the R7 1700 SMASHES the 7700k or 5820k goes in any core scaling situation

The 7700K, yeah. The 5820K? Nah, it is 20-25% faster depending on the workload. (and in AVX workloads, the 5820K is on par if not faster)

[Zyndo]

5 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

The 7700K, yeah. The 5820K? Nah, it is 20-25% faster depending on the workload. (and in AVX workloads, the 5820K is on par if not faster)

20-25% faster for less overall cost is a win IMO. certainly fits my definition of "smash"... but I will concede that it certainly wouldn't be amazingly better in every scenario.

[PCGuy_5960]

13 hours ago, Zyndo said:

20-25% faster for less overall cost is a win IMO. certainly fits my definition of "smash"...

But the 5820K is 15-20% faster in games, so it "smashes" the Ryzen CPU in games  TBH, they are equal, it depends on your usage. If you use multithreaded applications, you get the 1700. If you mostly play games(but also use a few multithreaded applications), get the 5820K.

[Wubbajack]

I've actually been checking out a lot of videos and benchmarks of the 1700 compared to the 7700k and from what I can tell is that when you pair it up with the aorus ax370 gaming 5 you can (with an oc to 3.9ghz) get similar performance to a 7700k. Even when the 7700k is oc'd, in real world use the differences are negligable.

 

when it comes to virtualization it peforms as you would expect, from what I can find. I'm still a bit on the fence though, will let you guys know what its going to be. Thanks for all the good advice!