should i go for gtx 1080 i7 or Ryzen

[FoxAxe]

so i originaly thought i was going to get this set GTX 1080 intel i7 7700k but if i get ryzen 5 1600 (non x) i could get gtx 1080ti which is better?

(i would be running the amd stock cooler and in the intel set i would be running thermalright macho rev.b)

the rig is purely for gaming at 1080p and i would like it to last 4-5years with the newest games at high/medium

[Daniel Z.]

I think as both Intel and AMD will have higher core CPUs at a lower price that multithread games will be more common. In that case the 1600 age better than the 7700k

[Zando_]

Just now, Daniel Z. said:

I think as both Intel and AMD will have higher core CPUs at a lower price that multithread games will be more common. In that case the 1600 age better than the 7700k

Plus, a 1080 Ti will make a much bigger difference in gaming at a high res than an i7. 

[TristanK]

I would go for Ryzen and 1080TI...7700K is still better in games but you ll get a bigger boost if you take a better gpu and ryzen than a better cpu and 1080

[SteveGrabowski0]

8 minutes ago, FoxAxe said:

so i originaly thought i was going to get this set GTX 1080 intel i7 7700k but if i get ryzen 5 1600 (non x) i could get gtx 1080ti which is better?

(i would be running the amd stock cooler and in the intel set i would be running thermalright macho rev.b)

the rig is purely for gaming at 1080p and i would like it to last 4-5years with the newest games at high/medium

Are you running a 144 Hz panel?

[FoxAxe]

Just now, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Are you running a 144 Hz panel?

im going to

 

[Zando_]

Just now, FoxAxe said:

im going to

 

What res? If you want 144Hz, then a 7700K or Ryzen 7 1700 may be better. Though the 1600 should be fine, since it's still got a solid clock speed and amount of cores. 

[SteveGrabowski0]

Just now, FoxAxe said:

im going to

 

OK, then a 1080 Ti makes some sense. I was thinking you were talking on a 60 Hz panel since you didn't mention high refresh rate gaming, in which case a 1080 Ti would have been lunacy.

[FoxAxe]

Just now, Zando Bob said:

What res? If you want 144Hz, then a 7700K or Ryzen 7 1700 may be better. Though the 1600 should be fine, since it's still got a solid clock speed and amount of cores. 

which one would be more future proof

and im not going to get ryzen 7 1700´becouse im using the money from i7 7700k to get the TI

 

[TristanK]

Just now, FoxAxe said:

which one would be more future proof

and im not going to get ryzen 7 1700´becouse im using the money from i7 7700k to get the TI

 

ryzen 1600 and 1080ti

[Zando_]

Just now, FoxAxe said:

which one would be more future proof

and im not going to get ryzen 7 1700´becouse im using the money from i7 7700k to get the TI

 

The 1600 has more cores/threads, so you'll get a more stable fps, and higher mods and lows. The 7700K wins in raw power though, since it's got a massive clock speed when overclocked, and gives you a higher max fps. I'd go with the 1600, since the 1080 Ti will make a much larger difference. 

[Moress]

I would go for a 7700k/1080 if you're planning on trying for 144hz. Ryzen chips have a hard time getting that high of FPS consistently.

[SteveGrabowski0]

19 minutes ago, FoxAxe said:

which one would be more future proof

and im not going to get ryzen 7 1700´becouse im using the money from i7 7700k to get the TI

 

Future proof is something pretty hard to call. GPU are never future proof. For instance, the king of the hill GTX 780 Ti from late 2013 was found to be roughly on par with the low end GTX 1050 Ti from late 2016 in new games in a GamersNexus benchmark (great youtube channel if you haven't heard of them). I wouldn't throw a lot of money at future proofing on gpus. And while cpu has been something you actually could future proof on for a while (eg an i7-2600k from early 2011 is still a great gaming cpu in mid 2017) there is no guarantee anything you buy with less than 8 cores is going to be high end by 2020, since in 2019 or 2020 we could see a new console generation using 7nm Ryzen chips. Since consoles pretty heavily skew development money, being they control a larger part of the market and are also lowest common denominators, if PS5 and XBox Whatever use octacore Ryzen chips (which have high IPC and should have good clockspeeds too at a really low power consumption once on 7nm) it could make everything below the R7 1700 and octacore i7s look pretty pedestrian. I'd guess the next gen of consoles will probably use Ryzen quadcores with their HT turned on though as a cost cutting measure, especially since they'll need strong gpus since 4k will be the norm by then.

 

tldr version ; I'd get the 1080 Ti and the R5 1600, but don't expect 5 years of 100+ fps gaming out of any gpu.

[FoxAxe]

25 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Future proof is something pretty hard to call. GPU are never future proof. For instance, the king of the hill GTX 780 Ti from late 2013 was found to be roughly on par with the low end GTX 1050 Ti from late 2016 in new games in a GamersNexus benchmark (great youtube channel if you haven't heard of them). I wouldn't throw a lot of money at future proofing on gpus. And while cpu has been something you actually could future proof on for a while (eg an i7-2600k from early 2011 is still a great gaming cpu in mid 2017) there is no guarantee anything you buy with less than 8 cores is going to be high end by 2020, since in 2019 or 2020 we could see a new console generation using 7nm Ryzen chips. Since consoles pretty heavily skew development money, being they control a larger part of the market and are also lowest common denominators, if PS5 and XBox Whatever use octacore Ryzen chips (which have high IPC and should have good clockspeeds too at a really low power consumption once on 7nm) it could make everything below the R7 1700 and octacore i7s look pretty pedestrian. I'd guess the next gen of consoles will probably use Ryzen quadcores with their HT turned on though as a cost cutting measure, especially since they'll need strong gpus since 4k will be the norm by then.

 

tldr version ; I'd get the 1080 Ti and the R5 1600, but don't expect 5 years of 100+ fps gaming out of any gpu.

if i only want the 60fps would I get 4-5 years of usage 1080p screen on new games (estimate)

[SteveGrabowski0]

6 minutes ago, FoxAxe said:

if i only want the 60fps would I get 4-5 years of usage 1080p screen on new games (estimate)

I think it would be a huge mistake to buy a $700 gpu when it's such massive overkill for 1080p 60 fps. Normally I'd suggest buying a $350 gpu, selling it for maybe $100 to $150 in 3 years, and buying another $350 gpu then. But the ether boom killed off the $350 GTX 1070, so that might not be a reasonable path for a couple of months.

[dude49]

Ryzen all the way

[PCGuy_5960]

For 144Hz, get a 7700K with a 1080.