x99 vs z270

[Terra Firma]

So first and foremost, i understand that x99 is entirely overkill for gaming. An i5 7600k would be where i would stop if i wanted to game. But aside from fairly heavy gaming (GTA V, Witcher, Ark occasionally) i also do editing on my computer, fairly heavy music recording and editing, and a video here and there. Might pick up on video soon, who knows. In my music editing i usually have pretty complex project files with plenty of plugins, and I'm looking to the future for recording live drums which means recording several tracks at a time.

My main question is, is going for even the cheapest x99 worth the extra cost for editing, and would i notice much difference on the gaming scope? Could i negate the differences by overclocking x99?

My understanding is that under these circumstances, i would definitely benefit from the x99, but i want to know if its really THAT much better to be worth the cost. 

 

Also, someone has suggested Ryzen but I know next to nothing about Ryzen as compared to Intel. I'm not opposed, but I'm a bit biased towards Intel. 

[rn8686]

R7 is better than X99, outperforms it (Or matches) and is much cheaper. 

[chris76816]

Go for Ryzen 7 1700. It's pretty much equivalent to the i7 6900k and is so much cheaper. 

[Terra Firma]

Okay, then apply to the context of the question. What's more worthwhile, an i7 7700k or whatever Ryzen has to offer? I saw comparisons on cpu.userbenchmarks that show the i7 as outperforming except for in multicore, which confuses me slightly on which is better for what. 

[rn8686]

2 minutes ago, Terra Firma said:

Okay, then apply to the context of the question. What's more worthwhile, an i7 7700k or whatever Ryzen has to offer? I saw comparisons on cpu.userbenchmarks that show the i7 as outperforming except for in multicore, which confuses me slightly on which is better for what. 

7700k is only really necessary if only gaming (Especially 144hz 1080p), but R7 will help you alot more for rendering (Still better than i5 for gaming). 

[chris76816]

4 minutes ago, Terra Firma said:

Okay, then apply to the context of the question. What's more worthwhile, an i7 7700k or whatever Ryzen has to offer? I saw comparisons on cpu.userbenchmarks that show the i7 as outperforming except for in multicore, which confuses me slightly on which is better for what. 

I7 is better purely for gaming but what multicore represents is video editing performance. Because you said you will be doing heavy video editing. The Ryzen 7 1700 will be a lot better for rendering and editing due to its larger amount of cores. 

[Terra Firma]

Just now, chris76816 said:

I7 is better purely for gaming but what multicore represents is video editing performance. Because you said you will be doing heavy video editing. The Ryzen 7 1700 will be a lot better for rendering and editing due to its larger amount of cores. 

Heavy music editing*, but alright I suppose, that's what I figured. What would be the benefits of the 1800x then? As opposed to the 1700?

[chris76816]

1 minute ago, Terra Firma said:

Heavy music editing*, but alright I suppose, that's what I figured. What would be the benefits of the 1800x then? As opposed to the 1700?

The 1800x is higher clocked whereas,  the 1700 can be overclocked to be equivalent to the 1800x so the 1700 is much better value. 

[Drak3]

It really depends on your editing workflow and software. You won't notice a significant difference between a 7600K (or 7700K) and a 5960X (or R7 1700) in recent games that favor single core performance over multiple core performance, and vice versa. They're all pushing FPS numbers high enough that we can't realistically distinguish between them at their averages, and the 7700K, 5960X, and 1700 all have tight enough frametimes and high enough minimums, that they give damn near the same experience.

But you will notice a massive difference editing if your software leverages higher core counts that the 1700 and X99 offer.

 

If you go with a 6 core on Intel's side, you can expect similar overlocks to the 4790K (around 4.7-4.8Ghz under good water cooling, 4.5GHz on an AiO or high end air cooler), which will give you 5% less performance per core than a 6700K ot 7700K at the same clock.

 

As for Ryzen vs Intel HEDT (X99), look into how your programs perform with dual vs quad channel memory, and if they benefit a good amount from clockspeeds higher than 4GHz.

2 minutes ago, Terra Firma said:

I saw comparisons on cpu.userbenchmarks that show the i7 as outperforming except for in multicore, which confuses me slightly on which is better for what.

The 7700K has approx. 5% better IPC, and the stock clock is 4.2GHz (Ryzen chips barely manage stable OCs of 4.1GHz), but it only has 4 cores. It'll have both better single core performance and quadcore performance, due to IPC and Clockspeed. A Ryzen octocore, such as the 1700, will get better multicore as it benches all cores on a CPU, and the 1700 has 8 of them, negating the IPC and clockspeed disadvantage.

1 minute ago, Terra Firma said:

What would be the benefits of the 1800x then? As opposed to the 1700?

1800X is higher clocked out of the box. That's it. Only get it if you don't intend on overclocking, as they both hit the same overclocks.

[Vandorlot]

1 minute ago, Terra Firma said:

Heavy music editing*, but alright I suppose, that's what I figured. What would be the benefits of the 1800x then? As opposed to the 1700?

Not too many benefits, mainly a faster base frequency

[Terra Firma]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

It really depends on your editing workflow and software. You won't notice a significant difference between a 7600K (or 7700K) and a 5960X (or R7 1700) in recent games that favor single core performance over multiple core performance, and vice versa. They're all pushing FPS numbers high enough that we can't realistically distinguish between them at their averages, and the 7700K, 5960X, and 1700 all have tight enough frametimes and high enough minimums, that they give damn near the same experience.

But you will notice a massive difference editing if your software leverages higher core counts that the 1700 and X99 offer.

 

If you go with a 6 core on Intel's side, you can expect similar overlocks to the 4790K (around 4.7-4.8Ghz under good water cooling, 4.5GHz on an AiO or high end air cooler), which will give you 5% less performance per core than a 6700K ot 7700K at the same clock.

 

As for Ryzen vs Intel HEDT (X99), look into how your programs perform with dual vs quad channel memory, and if they benefit a good amount from clockspeeds higher than 4GHz.

The 7700K has approx. 5% better IPC, and the stock clock is 4.2GHz (Ryzen chips barely manage stable OCs of 4.1GHz), but it only has 4 cores. It'll have both better single core performance and quadcore performance, due to IPC and Clockspeed. A Ryzen octocore, such as the 1700, will get better multicore as it benches all cores on a CPU, and the 1700 has 8 of them, negating the IPC and clockspeed disadvantage.

1800X is higher clocked out of the box. That's it. Only get it if you don't intend on overclocking, as they both hit the same overclocks.

Huh. Admittedly I sort of ignored Ryzen when it came out so I haven't learned too much about it, just sort of dismissed it. I really can't drop the money to rebuild for a while I expect but honestly I think you guys have just sold me on Ryzen. 

[Gaurav S Rao]

There is not really a huge point of buying a X99 mobo/cpu or a prebuilt while Ryzen is way cheaper and almost is similar in performance,imo Kaby Lake or Haswell-E or Broadwell-E are not really worth buying in my opinion,rather even FX Series CPU's can get some work done and some Phenom CPU's in the same matter,but not really recommended.People are wasting money on Intel stuff (except Pentium's and i3,Celeron's are useless,except if you want Core 2 Duo,Pentium Dual Core Performance with USB 3/Sata III or USB-C,m.2/Nvme,etc..) Rather than spending money on a 6900k and a GTX 1080 TI

Get a Ryzen 7 1700 and 2 GTX 1080 TI SLI