I7 or RYZEN 7 gaming

[Chaos Gamer]

25 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Besides, response times are basically meaningless unless you find a review that measures it themselves. All companies measure it differently.

well, I've watched quite a few videos and I can see the ghosting in the ips panels. Is it actually visible?

[79wjd]

5 hours ago, Chaos Gamer said:

well, I've watched quite a few videos and I can see the ghosting in the ips panels. Is it actually visible?

On older or garbage IPS panels, sure. On modern ones that aren't crap, not from my experience. 

[Chaos Gamer]

Woah, I just stumbled across this monitor and it seems to have a lot of different names for the same model in different regions. From what I can see, this $300 gaming curved monitor (http://www.samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/curved/lc24fg70fqnxza-lc24fg70fqnxza/) should be better than much much costlier acer predator monitors or asus rog monitors. For $300 it has the world's first 1ms VA panel with quantum dot technology and a refresh rate of 144hz! It can produce better colors than ips panels. It looks great and the only disadvantage is no gsync, and I don't care about something so trivial!  And the price is super low for something this amazing!

[Zeitec]

On 10/09/2017 at 0:35 AM, Chaos Gamer said:

Wait, but isn't ips bad for fps games, those response times and blurs, and ips 144hz is costly

 

On 10/09/2017 at 0:41 AM, Chaos Gamer said:

so now i have to decide between ips 60hz and tn 144hz

Depends on the panel. My ROG Swift PG278Q is an older monitor but the TN is really really good. It's obviously not as good as an IPS panel, but I never find myself thinking about the fact that it's TN. However if it's between a bad TN and literally any IPS panel, take the IPS. Bad TN Panels are REALLY bad. Bad TN panels have colours more washed out than laundry done 3 times and viewing angles worse than the 3ds with 3d turned up to the max. It's really a bad experience. Check reviews. If a reputable review site says it's okay, then it's probably true. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 9/10/2017 at 9:31 AM, Chaos Gamer said:

but leaks suggest that it is $150 costlier than the 7700k

No, it doesn't. The news article you linked has EUR retail pricing from a Finnish leak. If the price in EUR was just an exchange rate conversion form the USD price (it almost never is, in most cases the European price is higher after the conversion), the relevant EUR price to convert would be around 419/1.2, depending on the VAT in the particular country.

So, if 419 EUR turns out to be true, that puts the 8700K in the USD 400-425 range.

[Chaos Gamer]

On 9/12/2017 at 7:44 PM, SpaceGhostC2C said:

So, if 419 EUR turns out to be true, that puts the 8700K in the USD 400-425 range.

That is the best piece of information I have heard today... thanks ;_; ...

[iiNNeX]

Just wait for 8700k, it will not be $500 lol

[akumaburn]

On 9/10/2017 at 3:03 AM, RadiatingLight said:

for a 144Hz monitor, the intel i7 processors are better.

however, the 8700K will be nowhere near $500. it might be $380USD at the very most.

 

750W is also MORE than enough for a system like that.

you could probably run it off a 450W PSU if you weren't overclocking, and a 550W PSU if you give both the GPU and CPU a decent overclock.

people wildly overestimate power draw.

(a system I recently built with a Ryzen 1500X + GTX 1070 only drew 200W under gaming load, link in sig for a gamersnexus video about power draw)

Don't forget to add 20-30% for capacitor aging.. so 700W if you calculate 550W. It's also better for efficiency that way.

[optimus4]

On 9/10/2017 at 2:59 AM, Chaos Gamer said:

I7-8700k ($505 approx) apparently costs more than Ryzen 7 1800x ($499) so I had to go back to square one and am wondering how much of a difference in fps does the I7 7700k and Ryzen 7 1700x have, with a GTX 1080 Ti. I want real gaming fps numbers from demanding AAA titles, and I know this is too much of an overkill but at 1080p preferably. I'm not too much into editing or whatever but I want cores too, future games may end up being more cpu intensive (Crysis 3, Forza Horizon 3). I'm getting a 144hz monitor and want to squeeze out every fps that the 1080 ti can give but if the differences are within 20-30 fps, I'm cool with Ryzen. And also is there a guarantee that future titles would get equal fps on Ryzen 7 as it gets with the I7-7700k?

Thanks in advance.

OMG OP, your opinions bounce around all over the place more than a rabbit. The way I see it, you want it all. And that's why you can't decide what you want to do.

 

I face the same dilemna as you but apparently am more decisive about it. I'm building a PC and have everything in place except for the CPU: 1080Ti GPU, AOC AGON 27" IPS 1440p 165Hz 4ms delay monitor, etc.

 

The more I hear and read about Coffee Lake as we await its release, the more inclined I am to go with the 7700K.

 

Here's why:

 

1) Gaming. That's what this PC rig is for. Here and now today, not 3 years later. I'll upgrade with another CPU and mobo then if need be (chances are Intel will make us all buy another mobo in 3 years' time with the new CPU anyway). I don't need a zillion cores to play games and handle streaming on the same PC. That's what my old PC is for (to handle streaming and recording gameplay). It's what most of the serious streamers do.

 

2) Pricing. Sure, Coffee Lake is better than the 7700K at multitasking (6 cores vs 4) and even 10-15% better at single thread apps. But are the new CPU and mobo worth the expected premium in price? For me, NO. I don't need super multiprocessing capabilities. I'm not a professional video editor or musician by trade. I render gameplay videos as a hobby for the fun of it.

 

3) Stability. Where others see the 7700K as a dead end CPU and mobo, I see it as the maturation and stabilization of a successful line of quad core CPUs. While Coffee Lake isn't Intel's first dance with hexacores, there are bound to be growing pains with it. I wasn't raised to be someone who pays good money to beta test other people's products. No, I'll let you and the other first adopters do that for me, thank you very much. In 3 years' time, I'll thank you and the others when I buy 3rd gen version of Coffee Lake and think fondly of all the moaning you did about Coffee Lake's problems over my morning cup of coffee.

 

4) Monitor. I just bought my first ever 27" IPS 1440p 165Hz monitor. So I'd be a fool not to buy a CPU that would maximize that investment (yes, buying a great monitor is a worthwhile investment and one that's likely to stay with you longer than any CPU). The 7700K is the best CPU to drive the 165 frames per second at 1440p resolution that I want for this monitor.

 

Again, this is for me. You have your own priorities to contend with. But for the love of God, at least establish those priorities before trying to determine what's the best product for you.

 

Hope this clarifies things for you.

[optimus4]

23 hours ago, akumaburn said:

Don't forget to add 20-30% for capacitor aging.. so 700W if you calculate 550W. It's also better for efficiency that way.

Good point. Still, with improvements (technical, pricing) in PSUs, one could always buy a better, more efficient PSU in the future if needed, rather than spending a premium for unneeded power now.

[Hybris5112]

I7 without question if you did more editing or other multithreaded tasks then its a bit easier to recommend a Ryzen but otherwise the age old formula of Gaming = Intel still holds.

[optimus4]

36 minutes ago, Hybris5112 said:

I7 without question if you did more editing or other multithreaded tasks then its a bit easier to recommend a Ryzen but otherwise the age old formula of Gaming = Intel still holds.

This. And just to be clear, when I think of editing, I think of professional video editors and the like adding customized shaders/effects/transitions, not YouTubers putting up 10 minute clips of them shooting the enemy in slow motion with rave music blaring. Same goes for multithreaded tasks, which is NOT having 30 FireFox tabs open while working on an excel spreadsheet and powerpoint presentation.

[Chaos Gamer]

On 9/14/2017 at 11:18 PM, optimus4 said:

I just bought my first ever 27" IPS 1440p 165Hz monitor.

You made a mistake there. Here is a much better, much cheaper monitor. It has the world's first 1ms corved VA panel with quantum dot technology (125% sRGB) so I guess it is on par with IPS panels. It has a 1800R curvature for long gaming sessions and an immersive experience and also 144hz. A better contrast ratio of 3000:1. 1ms is obviously better than 4ms, so lesser motion blur. Both have a 1440p resolution.It does not have G-Sync though. Here's the link

 https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824022583&cm_re=chg70-_-24-022-583-_-Product

 

Otherwise your reply was really helpful too, thanks. I guess I'll go with the 7700k.

On 9/15/2017 at 0:10 AM, Hybris5112 said:

I7 without question if you did more editing or other multithreaded tasks then its a bit easier to recommend a Ryzen but otherwise the age old formula of Gaming = Intel still holds.

 

On 9/15/2017 at 0:49 AM, optimus4 said:

This. And just to be clear, when I think of editing, I think of professional video editors and the like adding customized shaders/effects/transitions, not YouTubers putting up 10 minute clips of them shooting the enemy in slow motion with rave music blaring. Same goes for multithreaded tasks, which is NOT having 30 FireFox tabs open while working on an excel spreadsheet and powerpoint presentation.

Thanks for everyone who helped me choose the cpu, and unless the 8700k comes out with the same price tag as the 7700k, I may buy the 7700k...

[Sage_Masters]

Word on the street is the 8700 and 8700K will have the same price tags as 7700 but we have to wait and see what Intel says

[Chaos Gamer]

Ok then it seems that 8700k is about the same price and so I am going to get that.