Wait for next gen Intel CPUs or buy now.

[RadiatingLight]

1 minute ago, Maximoose said:

Its not for minecraft, its for someone else.

We know. we kinda derailed the thread.

 

Get a 7700. K if you can fit it in the budget and your client is comfortable with OC'ing.

 

[themctipers]

Just now, RadiatingLight said:

Really!?!

Holy shit. How can text + metadata take so much CPU time

single. threaded.

java.

unoptimized.

third party tools

 

[Drak3]

Just now, themctipers said:

java.

I prefer Chai tea.

[Lt.Speirs]

Older games: i5 has a performance benefit, because of better single-threaded performance. But older games already run at way above 100fps with max settings (on decent graphics cards), so the performance gain over an Ryzen R5 is moot. There are certain games, that are badly optimized and still run at sub 100fps even with bleeding edge hardware (WoW anyone?), so for those titles it might be advantageous to get the i5. But should we really base our future hardware purchases on games that are literally over a decade old?

Current games: i5 is roughly equal to R5 (or has a slight advantage, depending on the game).

Future games: Pure speculation at this point. But if we look at the advancement of multit-hreading performance in games in the last years, it is safe to assume, that future games will benefit from more cores and thus giving the R5 an advantage.

[ARikozuM]

5 minutes ago, RadiatingLight said:

Really!?!

Holy shit. How can text + metadata take so much CPU time

They kept Minecraft to only one engine rather than splitting the engines for the game itself while another uses other cores for the rest.

[Ja50n]

If I had to buy now, for a pure gaming rig, it would be an overclocked i5-7600k. If it will be used for other intensive tasks, Ryzen 7 1700, which is very nearly the same cost as the i5 once motherboards are added. Distrust of AMD is going to cost a lot of money to get an equivalent Intel chip that can match AMD's multicore performance... X299 is pretty bad value and i7-7700k doesn't go much beyond the abilities of the i5-7600k...

 

Personally, I'm waiting for Ice Lake, or waiting for my 5GHz 2600K to explode... whichever comes first.

[RadiatingLight]

1 minute ago, woowie said:

i don't see you listing any facts, 

This shows that the 1600 is equal to the 7600 in gaming, and the hyperthreading and 2 more cores of the 1600 makes it better for video editing.

I assumed that it was common knowledge that a 1600 wouldn't bottleneck a 1070, and a 1070 > RX 480 clearly.

 

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, Ja50n said:

i7-7700k doesn't go much beyond the abilities of the i5-7600k...

Cache, and the 7700K's HTT gives a tangible benefit for most, if not all, streaming platforms, screen capture, and multitasking during gaming (music, online guides/videos, skype/discored/Steam chat).

Just now, ARikozuM said:

I doubt it. Intel vs AMD is usually just vapor in the winds. If you want to see a fight, talk about Nintendo offering better gaming at a Sony/Xbox conference. Chairs... will... fly... 

You don't have to crush my hopes and dreams like that.

[woowie]

Just now, RadiatingLight said:

This shows that the 1600 is equal to the 7600 in gaming, and the hyperthreading and 2 more cores of the 1600 makes it better for video editing.

I assumed that it was common knowledge that a 1600 wouldn't bottleneck a 1070, and a 1070 > RX 480 clearly.

 

well what if they are doing single threaded. not everyone edits video. 

[ARikozuM]

Just now, RadiatingLight said:

snip

Is there a benchmark that shows individual core usage? I hate seeing overall CPU usage since it could be core 1 at 100% with the other three at 0% showing 25%. 

[RadiatingLight]

Just now, woowie said:

well what if they are doing single threaded. not everyone edits video. 

in that case then a 7700K wins.

But most things are not single threaded.

 

for 144Hz+ gaming, most of what you call "rYZ3n FanBoiz" would recommend a 7700K

[RadiatingLight]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

Is there a benchmark that shows individual core usage? I hate seeing overall CPU usage since it could be core 1 at 100% with the other three at 0% showing 25%. 

I'm sure some exist, but I don't know of them off the top of my head

[ARikozuM]

15 minutes ago, RadiatingLight said:

in that case then a 7700K wins.

But most things are not single threaded.

 

for 144Hz+ gaming, most of what you call "rYZ3n FanBoiz" would recommend a 7700K

Almost everything is single-threaded. CAD is single-threaded, but can spread the workload over multiple cores. Gaming is mostly single-threaded, but (dependent on the engine) can use multiple cores.

 

Using multiple cores does not equal multi-threaded. 

[ARikozuM]

Just now, RadiatingLight said:

I'm sure some exist, but I don't know of them off the top of my head

It's alright. I just don't like overall as it gives a very skewed perception of CPU power. Like showing an RTS that uses two cores, it makes the hyperthreaded quad-core as twice as good as the non-HT quad-core because you're effectively drowning out the results with outliers.

[RadiatingLight]

Just now, woowie said:

 

you should listen to the swastika guy

I do.

However, my point is that gaming on a 1600 is the same as gaming on a 7600, and the 1600 beats it in most other things that people do that really matters.

But if someone uses single-threaded programs that work better on a 7700K, then by all means, get it.

[WkdPaul]

Thread cleaned.

 

Please be respectful of each other and follow the Community Standards;

 

Quote

• Ensure a friendly atmosphere to our visitors and forum members.
• Encourage the freedom of expression and exchange of information in a mature and responsible manner.
• "Don't be a dick" - Wil Wheaton.
• "Be excellent to each other" - Bill and Ted.
• Remember your audience; both present and future.