What CPU to buy?

[Thisapear]

Currently I have : RX 580 and I'm looking to buy a new CPU with a new motherboard (and also ram)

I was waitting for the coffee lake before making a decision. Since it was released, what should i buy?
(For 144hz gaming, I have a 144hz monitor)

Intel I7 7700k ?
Intel I5 8400 ?
Ryzen 1600 ?

else ?

[THEPASHKA]

I have i7 7700 non k sems good to me in gta on ultra usually only 40 45% used 

STOCK FAN IS WERRY LOUD AND GOES CRAZY UNDER LOW LOAD 

[Sanctorum]

12 minutes ago, Thisapear said:

Intel I7 7700k ?

No. That's just stupid, why would you buy a last gen CPU now?

 

12 minutes ago, Thisapear said:

Ryzen 1600 ?

Nope. Not for 144Hz gaming.

 

12 minutes ago, Thisapear said:

Intel I5 8400 ?

Better, but still not the greatest for 144Hz gaming. 8700k is your best bet, but an 8600k would be alright if the 8700k is too expensive for you.

[rn8686]

An 8700k would be ideal, but an 8400 (or 8600K) will work as its at least got an upgrade path. 

[Thisapear]

Will I see any big difference if my main goal is mostly gaming between a 8400 and a 8700k ?

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Thisapear said:

Currently I have : RX 580 and I'm looking to buy a new CPU with a new motherboard (and also ram)

I was waitting for the coffee lake before making a decision. Since it was released, what should i buy?
(For 144hz gaming, I have a 144hz monitor)

Intel I7 7700k ?
Intel I5 8400 ?
Ryzen 1600 ?

else ?

Definitely not a Core 2 Duo (it kills me inside here).

As painful this may be to say, Intel I5 8400 ...

I have been out of the loop for a while thought...

[Thisapear]

14 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

No. That's just stupid, why would you buy a last gen CPU now?

 

Nope. Not for 144Hz gaming.

 

Better, but still not the greatest for 144Hz gaming. 8700k is your best bet, but an 8600k would be alright if the 8700k is too expensive for you.

And the difference between 8700k and 8600k is major for 144hz gaming? or I won't even notice the difference

[Sanctorum]

6 minutes ago, Thisapear said:

And the difference between 8700k and 8600k is major for 144hz gaming? or I won't even notice the difference

You'll notice the difference, the 8700k is definitely better but an 8600k would do the job. You won't really notice much difference between the 8600k and 8700k until it comes to more demanding AAA titles, like BF1, PUBG, etc etc.

[Streetguru]

47 minutes ago, Thisapear said:

 

The Ryzen 5 1600 is the best value overall

 

not sure on coffee lake stock atm.

What's your budget?

The 8700K is the only coffee lake chip worth buying for now, and it'll perform like the 7700K for the most part.

R5 1600 will perform like the R7 chip in games as well.

I game at 144hz on Ryzen, it does the job perfectly fine for esports titles, and most AAA games will run at 100fps or better, but it's not the "best" for 144hz.
 

 

[Sanctorum]

20 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

The Ryzen 5 1600 is the best value overall

No, it isn't. The i5-8400 is cheaper and performs better in games. Considering OP is looking to game at 144Hz, Coffee Lake is the best value overall.

21 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

The 8700K is the only coffee lake chip worth buying for now

No it is not.

21 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

and it'll perform like the 7700K for the most part.

No, it will not.

21 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

I game at 144hz on Ryzen, it does the job perfectly fine for esports titles, and most AAA games will run at 100fps or better, but it's not the "best" for 144hz.

With AAA titles, the difference between an 8700k and Ryzen could be sitting at a constant 140(ish) FPS with the i7, vs 100-110FPS with Ryzen. That's a noticeable difference. Even the 7700k is 20-50% better than the R7 1700 for high refresh rate gaming, and the 8700k only improves on the 7700k, with even better frametimes thanks to the extra cores/threads.

[Streetguru]

3 hours ago, Sanctorum said:

 

Considering the i5 8400 maxes out at 4ghz turbo, and that's not it's all core turbo, it makes 0 sense to me to buy that over an R5 1600 which gives you considerably more multi-threaded performance, since both aren't getting past 4ghz the only real difference then is architecture.

Looking at this review a 1600X at stock is mostly neck and neck at 1080p, aside from a few cases, in addition you can OC ryzen to near 4ghz to increase your performance slightly to close any gap, something not really doable on the i5.

It's also not cheaper really because the cheapest Z370 board is $130 right now

The K parts are the only ones that make sense because they can hit 5ghz, but in most other cases you get more overall value out of ryzen with the extra threads, and the cheaper motherboards, and the stock coolers compared to the K parts.

The i3 8100 will be good once there are cheaper boards for it, and the 8700K is good if you want the absolute best 144hz gaming experience. Anything else really doesn't make sense with only pricey Z370 boards available.

It's going to depend on the person weather or not they'll notice 100fps vs 144fps average in AAA games.

 

the 8700K will perform like the 7700K in gaming, I'm not seeing any jump above 10fps on GN's benchmark results at least.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3076-intel-i7-8700k-review-vs-ryzen-streaming-gaming-overclocking/page-5

[Sanctorum]

Just now, Streetguru said:

since both aren't getting past 4ghz the only real difference then is architecture.

Yeah, good thing the 8400's IPC is significantly better and can't be compared to Ryzen clock for clock then.

 

1 minute ago, Streetguru said:

Considering the i5 8400 maxes out at 4ghz turbo, and that's not it's all core turbo, it makes 0 sense to me to buy that over an R5 1600 which gives you considerably more multi-threaded performance

Hmm, other than the hundreds of situations where you don't need better multi-threaded performance, but actually need better single core performance? Weird that, how different products make sense in different situations. Let me switch it around for you.

"Considering an R5 1600 maxes out at 3.6GHz, it makes 0 sense to buy that over an i5-8400 which gives you considerably more single core performance".

3 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

Looking at this review a 1600X at stock is mostly neck and neck at 1080p, aside from a few cases, in addition you can OC ryzen to near 4ghz to increase your performance, something not really doable on the i5.

What review? You've posted nothing with a Coffee Lake i5.

 

5 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

It's also not cheaper really because the cheapest Z370 board is $130 right now

So that makes $190 more expensive than $215?

 

6 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

The K parts are the only ones that make sense because they can hit 5ghz, but in most other cases you get more overall value out of ryzen with the extra threads, and the cheaper motherboards, and the stock coolers compared to the K parts.

lmfao, you're not even making sense here. Locked Intel SKU's don't make sense because unlocked SKU's don't come with a stock cooler? Great logic.

 

7 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

in most other cases you get more overall value out of ryzen with the extra threads, and the cheaper motherboards

So you just don't understand what value means then? First of all, i5-8400 + Z370 motherboard + 16GB RAM = $440.

Ryzen 5 1600 + decent B350 mobo + 16GB 3000/3200MHz RAM = $350-360.

 

Oops, looks like your value claim goes right out the fucking window, huh? Especially considering the i5's single core performance is better.

9 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

Anything else really doesn't make sense with only pricey Z370 boards available.

Yeah, they do.

 

9 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

It's going to depend on the person weather or not they'll notice 100fps vs 144fps average in AAA games.

No, it's not. Some people might not care, but those people don't tend to invest in high refresh rate monitors. 100 vs 144FPS is almost a 50% increase, you'd have to be legally blind to not notice that.

 

12 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

the 8700K will perform like the 7700K in gaming, I'm not seeing any jump above 10fps on GN's benchmark results at least.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3076-intel-i7-8700k-review-vs-ryzen-streaming-gaming-overclocking/page-5

Okay, so first of all the whole 10FPS thing is irrelevant. A 10FPS jump from 1000FPS to 1010 is nothing. A 10FPS jump from 5 to 15, is insane. So just giving pure FPS numbers like that is entirely meaningless.

Secondly, the 8700k is brand new, it has some optimisations coming for sure. It also appears hyperthreading isn't working great currently on the 8700k since we have a 50% increase in threads. Much like SMT with Ryzen was really iffy at first. 

Lastly, GPU is the bottleneck in a lot of these benchmarks, hence why last gen wuad core i5's are performing on par with the 8700k in the likes of BF1.

 

Now, take a look at the Warhammer benchmark. 8% avg FPS increase with 8700k over 7700k, 21% increase in 1% low performance, and a little over 20% increase in 0.1% lows.

 

On to Project Cars 2. 10% avg FPS increase, 12.5% 1% low increase, and 12% 0.1% low increase.

 

GTA V, pretty much a 10% increase across the board.

[Streetguru]

47 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

 

The review was here, need to find a few more, this one's pretty poor. I think they used a 1080, firestrike numbers add up, but I can't see it on the page, really hate that site. The end result being the CPUs perform pretty close. I'm sure hardware unboxed will come out with their CPU bottleneck test thing showing different tiers of GPUs with each.
 

https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel-core-i5-8400-review-benchmarks

looking at the cinebench numbers which are TOOTALLY the end all be all, Ryzen sits around 160 single threaded, while the i5 is at 170.

I mention stock coolers, because you can overclock Ryzen 5 with it's stock cooler, while you can't on intel, and if you get a K part you have to buy a cooler that's minimum $25 or so added to the cost.

I can finally start to see what you mean in this review by PC Gamer, however it's with a 1080ti so I'm not sure how many people will pair a $200 CPU with a $700 GPU, so a lower tier GPU as you mentioned will minimize the gap between the 2. Changing to 1440p which makes more sense for a 1080ti, is going to shrink the difference yet again.

Why I'd recommend it to most people, is because you have the option of heavier multi-tasking on Ryzen with it's 6c/12t, while you're "limited" to only 6c/6t on intel, and it doesn't sacrifice much gaming performance overall unless you get a top end GPU. That's not to mention AM4 should last a good while longer than 1151(300) in terms of dropping in a new CPU for an upgrade.

Besides that it appears that you save nearly $100 with Ryzen over Intel. That'd nearly bump you up from a 1060/580 to a 1070, depending on current pricing. Might need another $50 to actually get there.

http://www.pcgamer.com/intel-i5-8400-review-the-best-new-gaming-cpu-in-years/

[Sanctorum]

6 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

The review was here, need to find a few more, this one's pretty poor. I think they used a 1080, firestrike numbers add up, but I can't see it on the page, really hate that site. The end result being the CPUs perform pretty close. I'm sure hardware unboxed will come out with their CPU bottleneck test thing showing different tiers of GPUs with each.
 

https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel-core-i5-8400-review-benchmarks

looking at the cinebench numbers which are TOOTALLY the end all be all, Ryzen sits around 160 single threaded, while the i5 is at 170.

First of all, you never linked this article before. Hence why I said you never posted a review of any Coffee Lake i5, because you didn't.

Secondly, why are you talking about synthetic benchmarks as if they have any relevance?

 

Regardless, let's move on and talk about this article you yourself have linked, shall we? Especially as it seems you haven't read it yourself. Let me just quote your own source that contradicts the claims you have made first, and then I'll move on to actual performance.

 

"

With the new Coffee Lake processors, however, there is zero difference in gaming performance between either of the Core i5s and the top-spec Core i7. And that remains the case whether you’re running the chips at stock speeds or hitting 5GHz+ with the K-series CPUs. The performance of the 8400 is genuinely pretty stunning for a processor that’s supposed to cost less than AMD’s cheapest six-core Ryzen 5. Then there’s the fact that it’s capable of delivering gaming frame rates that are higher than either the i7 7700K and i7 7800K."

 

"Forget all the headline-grabbing overclocking figures, this is the Coffee Lake chip for gamers. "

 

"We’re going to see a whole lot of gaming machines built around the Core i5 8400 in the coming year, and rightly so. It’s a seriously powerful little gaming chip for the money"

 

"As I said earlier, if you need high-performance CPU power for $250 or less, then the K-series Coffee Lake and the six-core, 12-thread AMD Ryzen 1600, or 1600X, will be great shouts. But, for us gamers, it’s all about the Core i5 8400. It's an incredibly good value chip delivering unprecedented gaming performance for the money."

 

"The fantastic-value Core i5 8400 is the gamer's chip from Intel's 8th Gen Coffee Lake range, which is surprising considering the K-series i5 is capable of hitting 5.1GHz without issue. But overclocking gives you no extra gaming performance that the powerful extra cores Coffee Lake can't offer on their own."

 

Okay, so actual performance time.

Total War - 40% higher minimum FPS than Ryzen, 20% higher avg.

 

Hitman - 15% better avg, 20% better min. Although to be fair, minimum FPS seems to be super weird here.

 

Civ 6 - avg FPS is like a 7% improvement so not very exciting. However, take not of minimum FPS, 16% or so improvement, and it's literally 53FPS vs 60FPS so with an 8400, you won't even drop below monitor refresh rate if you're not a high refresh rate gamer.

 

So the i5 is a better option for anyone who intends to use their system only(or mostly) for gaming, but EPSECIALLY high refresh rate ganers.

19 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

I mention stock coolers, because you can overclock Ryzen 5 with it's stock cooler, while you can't on intel

Except that you were talking about the 8400 and then mentioned the fact that the 8600k doesn't include a stock cooler as if that's relevant to the 8400? It's not.

 

20 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

if you get a K part you have to buy a cooler that's minimum $25 or so added to the cost.

No it isnt. You can buy a cooler for like $5 if you really wanted. 

 

21 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

however it's with a 1080ti so I'm not sure how many people will pair a $200 CPU with a $700 GPU, so a lower tier GPU as you mentioned will minimize the gap between the 2.

Irrelevant. The 1080Ti is used to eliminate GPU bottleneck as much as possible to show which CPU is better. Regardless of the GPU being used, the 8400 IS better. Just that with low end GPUs, the GPU is more likely to become a bottleneck and the difference won't be as noticeable, if at all. That said, it is absolutely not a good reason to buy the CPU that is objectively worse for his needs. Especially considering the 580 is not a low end GPU anyway. Also OP is likely to upgrade GPU before CPU so even by next gen, when an RX 580 equivalent(in price) offers GTX 1080 or better performance, he's absolutely going to notice the difference between R5 and i5. So just because the i5 MIGHT not be as beneficial right now, doesn't mean it won't be better for OP.

 

25 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

Why I'd recommend it to most people, is because you have the option of heavier multi-tasking on Ryzen with it's 6c/12t

Again with this. JFC, stop. No one cares. Its irrelevant in this situation. Hence why different products make sense to different people. You wouldn't recommend an SUV to someone looking for a sports car. This is essentially what you're doing.

 

27 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

you're "limited" to only 6c/6t on intel

This just doesn't make sense, it's not even an argument. You're admitting the 6 threads with the i5 isn't a limitation.

 

28 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

and it doesn't sacrifice much gaming performance overall unless you get a top end GPU. 

But it does tho. Even in situations where it might not be as noticeable between i5 and R5, the i5 IS STILL BETTER.

 

29 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

That's not to mention AM4 should last a good while longer than 1151(300) in terms of dropping in a new CPU for an upgrade.

Okay, so for the last decade Intel have used the same socket for 2 generations and then moved on. Assuming we follow the same path, that means OP has the ability to upgrade to an 8600k, 8700k, or next gen unlocked i5/i7 if he wants. Upgradability is a moot point since there is an upgrade path either way. There's also the fact that even with an R5, any Ryzen upgrade won't benefit OP at all, at least currently. Then there's also the fact that by the time OP actually needs a new CPU, new sockets will be available from Intel AND AMD. 

 

32 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

Besides that it appears that you save nearly $100 with Ryzen over Intel. That'd nearly bump you up from a 1060/580 to a 1070, depending on current pricing. Might need another $50 to actually get there.

So, first, it's a $150+ increase from a 6GB 1060 to a 1070. Regardless, OP already has a GPU, and is looking for the best CPU for high refresh rate gaming(hint - it's a Coffee Lake i5 or i7).

 

Secondly, it absolutely is not a $100 price increase from an 8400 to R5 1600(x), regardless of how you look at it. There's literally no way you can skew the numbers to make it look like a $100 increase.

 

i5 8400 = $190

Z370 mobo = $120

16GB RAM = $130

$440 total

 

R5 1600 = $215

Decent B350 motherboard = $90

3000/3200MHz RAM = $150

$455 total

 

Even if you don't include RAM pricing, that's a $15 price increase for the i5, nowhere near $100. Oh, and the Z370 motherboard is more than likely going to be better quality than a decent B350 mobo AND have more features.

[Sanctorum]

39 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

http://www.pcgamer.com/intel-i5-8400-review-the-best-new-gaming-cpu-in-years/

I have no idea why you just threw this in at the bottom of your post but it's absolutely hilarious. I don't even have to look at the article to see that it already completely contradicts your claims. You're literally posting sources that are backing me up. So thanks I guess?

[just_dave]

I saw in-game comparison and R5 1600 performed same or slightly worse than 8600K in games.

[Chaos Gamer]

1 minute ago, dave_k said:

I saw in-game comparison and R5 1600 performed same or slightly worse than 8600K in games.

No, that is not entirely true, some games have a smaller margin but some games like tomb raider or gta 5 (open-world maybe) have a wider margin, and a 8600k performs the same as 1600 in productivity and also better in games, so the clear choice should be the 8600k. sorry but i have not read any other posts yet...

[just_dave]

Just now, Chaos Gamer said:

No, that is not entirely true, some games have a smaller margin but some games like tomb raider or gta 5 (open-world maybe) have a wider margin, and a 8600k performs the same as 1600 in productivity and also better in games, so the clear choice should be the 8600k. sorry but i have not read any other posts yet...

check here

[Streetguru]

17 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

I have no idea why you just threw this in at the bottom of your post but it's absolutely hilarious. I don't even have to look at the article to see that it already completely contradicts your claims. You're literally posting sources that are backing me up. So thanks I guess?

I mention it because it's using a 1080ti, which is going to eliminate any GPU bottleneck, so Yes the i5 is a good deal faster overall, with a top end GPU. at 1080p.

If you use a lower end GPU or game at 1440p, they will perform closer games, but you still have the option of making use of the multi-threading performance on Ryzen compared to the 8400. And Ryzen won't be bad at 144hz, just not the best. So it's a trade off, I recommend it on the off chance they do anything but gaming at any point really.

He has a 580, there won't be any major difference between the chips with that GPU, in most games.

A $9 cooler will not cool a 6 core K chip, you want a Hyper 212 Evo Tier at least, which is $25, that's why the K chips have that added cost.

Where in the Ryzen chips come with a decent stock cooler, and you can OC on any model to bring it's performance up.

You don't need 3200mhz RAM for Ryzen, but you'd want the fastest/cheapest RAM on either platform.

Looks like it's $400, likely a bit more for a "6" + 3 phase board that I'm OCing my 8 core on.
 

PCPartPicker part list: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/pKDxpb
Price breakdown by merchant: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/pKDxpb/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor  ($194.88 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock - AB350M Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard  ($59.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Crucial - Ballistix Sport LT 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2666 Memory  ($138.98 @ Amazon)
Total: $393.85
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-10-07 02:28 EDT-0400

[Chaos Gamer]

3 minutes ago, dave_k said:

check here

This is not always the case, i have seen countless videos and it seems that ryzen is about 15fps lower than intel on average, but in games like tomb raider and gta 5 there can be gaps of 40-60fps sometimes, i dunno why... I play games strictly on 144hz so i want every little increase

[just_dave]

1 minute ago, Chaos Gamer said:

This is not always the case, i have seen countless videos and it seems that ryzen is about 15fps lower than intel on average, but in games like tomb raider and gta 5 there can be gaps of 40-60fps sometimes, i dunno why... I play games strictly on 144hz so i want every little increase

Here you can see like 5fps difference in Rotr, some games favor Ryzen and some Intel.

Both CPUs are good choice but it should be taken in kind that Ryzen will come in cheaper at $200 for binned 1600X

[Sanctorum]

19 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

I mention it because it's using a 1080ti, which is going to eliminate any GPU bottleneck, so Yes the i5 is a good deal faster overall, with a top end GPU. at 1080p.

and I've already responded to this terrible point, so here's a copy and paste for you;

 

Irrelevant. The 1080Ti is used to eliminate GPU bottleneck as much as possible to show which CPU is better. Regardless of the GPU being used, the 8400 IS better. Just that with low end GPUs, the GPU is more likely to become a bottleneck and the difference won't be as noticeable, if at all. That said, it is absolutely not a good reason to buy the CPU that is objectively worse for his needs. Especially considering the 580 is not a low end GPU anyway. Also OP is likely to upgrade GPU before CPU so even by next gen, when an RX 580 equivalent(in price) offers GTX 1080 or better performance, he's absolutely going to notice the difference between R5 and i5. So just because the i5 MIGHT not be as beneficial right now, doesn't mean it won't be better for OP

19 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

If you use a lower end GPU or game at 1440p, they will perform closer games

Is OP gaming at 1440p?

 

19 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

but you still have the option of making use of the multi-threading performance on Ryzen compared to the 8400.

Jesus Christ. I've been over this like 12 times already. No one cares. Its irrelevant. OP does not need the improved multi thread performance of Ryzen. Stop continuously using this as an argument, it doesn't strengthen your point whatsoever.

 

19 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

And Ryzen won't be bad at 144hz, just not the best...

I recommend it on the off chance they do anything but gaming at any point really.

Mhm. And what does OP want again?

 

19 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

A $9 cooler will not cool a 6 core K chip, you want a Hyper 212 Evo Tier at least, which is $25, that's why the K chips have that added cost.

Okay, so first, I said $5, not $9.

Secondly, a $5 cooler will cool a 6 core i5. 

Thirdly, again you're using K SKU parts to try and strengthen your argument but we're not talking about an unlocked SKU, so your argument just falls apart before it's even started.

Regardless, a $5 cooler will absolutely cool an 8600k.

Oh, and lastly, no you do not want a 212 EVO, for any reason, it's a shit cooler.

19 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

Where in the Ryzen chips come with a decent stock cooler, and you can OC on any model to bring it's performance up.

So? This doesn't benefit OP at all.

 

19 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

You don't need 3200mhz RAM for Ryzen, but you'd want the faster RAM on either platform.

Except thats not true. RAM speed benefits Intel, sure, but not quite as much and Intel already performs well in games regardless of RAM speed. However, with Ryzen, it basically requires faster RAM for acceptable performance. Slower than 3000MHz will see fairly drastic drops in performance in many situations so the performance gap between an i5 and R5 becomes even greater(in favour of the i5).

 

19 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

Motherboard: ASRock - AB350M Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard  ($59.99 @ Newegg)

Nice meme. The cheapest, shittiest B350 board with 2 DIMM slots, that's hilarious.

[Streetguru]

26 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

Even if you don't include RAM pricing, that's a $15 price increase for the i5, nowhere near $100. Oh, and the Z370 motherboard is more than likely going to be better quality than a decent B350 mobo AND have more features.

The $120 board from MSI is one no should buy, the VRM is pathetic.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813144115&ignorebbr=1&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-PCPartPicker, LLC-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=

The gigabyte board appears to be in the same ball park
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813145041&ignorebbr=1&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-PCPartPicker, LLC-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=

ASrock lists a 10 phase, but I suspect it might be the same "6" phase design, with a not even doubled 3 phase. + 4
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157796&ignorebbr=1&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-PCPartPicker, LLC-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=

[Streetguru]

4 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

However, with Ryzen, it basically requires faster RAM for acceptable performance. Slower than 3000MHz will see fairly drastic drops in performance in many situations so the performance gap between an i5 and R5 becomes even greater(in favour of the i5).

Nice meme. The cheapest, shittiest B350 board with 2 DIMM slots, that's hilarious.

I need to know where you're seeing that.


I run an overclocked R7 1700 with the same VRM, it's fine, especially for the 6 core.

What $5 cooler, is going to cool a 6 core intel part?

[Sanctorum]

3 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

The $120 board from MSI is one no should buy, the VRM is pathetic.

 

1 minute ago, Streetguru said:

I run an overclocked R7 1700 with the same VRM, it's fine, especially for the 6 core.

This was just too funny. A shitty $60 mobo is fine for your unlocked 16 thread CPU but a $120 motherboard isn't good enough for a locked 6 core with no HT. Nice meme.

 

2 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

I need to know where you're seeing that.

Seeing what? 2 DIMM slots? On the motherboard. Good thing you've got upgradability with that AM4 mobo though, right? lmfao