i3-8350k and 1070 ti Combo bottleneck?

[AlwaysFSX]

Just now, JoostinOnline said:

Of course you can overclock the 1080 too.

See what I linked, OC'd 1070 Ti performs similar to OC'd 1080.

[JoostinOnline]

6 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

See what I linked, OC'd 1070 Ti performs similar to OC'd 1080.

Thanks.  I've updated my build.

[Somnax]

Just go Ryzen. R5 1600 and GTX 1070 ti build $1222

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/QYYVM8

[JoostinOnline]

Just now, Somnax said:

Just go Ryzen. R5 1600 and GTX 1070 ti build $1222

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/QYYVM8

Coffee Lake > Ryzen > Kaby Lake.

[Somnax]

Just now, JoostinOnline said:

Coffee Lake > Ryzen > Kaby Lake.

Not for the price. And especially not if he is going to be on a crappy monitor. He can fit in a good monitor into his budget in this build.

[JoostinOnline]

Just now, Somnax said:

Not for the price. And especially not if he is going to be on a crappy monitor. He can fit in a good monitor into his budget in this build.

Absolutely for the price lol.   Where have you been?  He also insists on ASUS parts, so that build doesn't even work.

[Somnax]

imo if you're not going for an esports machine, or if you don't have a 1080 ti in your build, just go ryzen and put the money elsewhere. 8400 is as high as I'd go with coffee lake unless the first two points aren't true.

[Somnax]

Just now, JoostinOnline said:

Absolutely for the price lol.   Where have you been?  He also insists on ASUS parts, so that build doesn't even work.

I'm sure once he shows his dad the price is $400 less his dad will stop being so weird.

[Somnax]

4 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Absolutely for the price lol.   Where have you been?  He also insists on ASUS parts, so that build doesn't even work.

He could go 8400 stock cooler and a cheap z370 board and be on the same budget as well. Then put the $400 towards a monitor that is worth a damn so his pc won't be asleep.

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, Somnax said:

He could go 8400 stock cooler and a cheap z370 board and be on the same budget as well. Then put the $400 towards a monitor that is worth a damn so his pc won't be asleep.

And he could get a used PC from 1985 and spend $1790 on a monitor.  There are endless options.  Thanks for pointing it out.

 

His budget is $1600-$1800USD for a COMPUTER.

[Somnax]

1 hour ago, TheRedWarrior said:

Do you mind making up a pcpartpicker list? I need a monitor too though. 1080p 60hz is fine.

https://pcpartpicker.com/user/TheRedWarrior/saved/TqmFdC

This is the current build.

 

1 minute ago, JoostinOnline said:

And he could get a used PC from 1985 and spend $1790 on a monitor.  There are endless options.  Thanks for pointing it out.

 

His budget is $1600-$1800USD for a COMPUTER.

And while he may consider 1080p 60hz "fine" I would never recommend someone spend 1600 on a pc and have a trash monitor. He would have a better experience going with a less expensive build and having a good monitor.

[Somnax]

1080p 144hz tn ~$250

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/rkphP6/asus-monitor-vg248qe

 

1080p gsync 180hz tn (I wish they would make a high refresh rate gsync ips 1080p monitor) ~$400

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/pHGj4D/asus-rog-swift-pg248q-240-180hz-monitor-rog-swift-pg248q

 

1440p gsync 165hz tn ~$600

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/cdcMnQ/asus-rog-swift-pg278qr-270-2560x1440-144hz-monitor-pg278qr

 

1440p gsync 165hz ips ~$600 (Aoc, haven't seen reviews on this one, but it is entry level for these specs)

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/scM323/aoc-ag271qg-270-165hz-monitor-ag271qg

 

1440p gsync 165hz ips from asus (~$750-800 holy crap these things are still expensive.)

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/XvfmP6/asus-monitor-pg279q

[TheRedWarrior]

6 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

Of course you can overclock the 1080 too.

Yeah but honestly im just looking for stock 1080 performance or a bit more for the 50 bucks cheaper.

 

[Zeitec]

7 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

I don't know why it has to be ASUS (you could save like $250 by going with other brands), but here:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i7-8700K 3.7GHz 6-Core Processor  ($414.89 @ B&H)
CPU Cooler: Corsair - H100i v2 70.7 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler  ($109.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Asus - ROG Strix Z370-H Gaming ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($163.88 @ OutletPC)
Memory: G.Skill - Trident Z 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory  ($174.87 @ OutletPC)
Storage: Samsung - 960 EVO 250GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive  ($117.49 @ OutletPC)
Storage: Western Digital - Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($43.78 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Asus - GeForce GTX 1070 Ti 8GB ROG STRIX Video Card  ($484.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: NZXT - S340 (Black/Red) ATX Mid Tower Case  ($64.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Power Supply: EVGA - SuperNOVA G3 750W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply  ($83.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $1658.86
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-11-10 00:45 EST-0500

 

You can change the case to whatever.

I don't believe that for a second.  Quad-cores are still mainstream, and will be for many years.  Developers aren't going to abandon their main market.

The mid range chips for both sides are now 6 cores. All of them. There are no more mid range quad core chips in the new product line from Intel or AMD. Quad core chips are low end now. I wouldn't invest in a quad core machine unless I were building a budget gaming box with say a 1060. A 1070 can be put in there too, but the pgrade path would be limited as anything above a 1070 would bottleneck even an 8350k at 4.8ghz.

[Princess Luna]

The i3-8350k is a rebranded i5-7600k, it is sufficient and due to the higher achievable frequency I consider it an even better pick than the i5 8400 especially with z370 chipset being the only option yet.

 

 

Obviously though the i5 8600k would be the best pairing CPU.

[Zeitec]

1 minute ago, Princess Cadence said:

The i3-8350k is a rebranded i5-7600k, it is sufficient and due to the higher achievable frequency I consider it an even better pick than the i5 8400 especially with z370 chipset being the only option yet.

 

 

Obviously though the i5 8600k would be the best pairing CPU.

 

There are some really cheap Asus Z370 boards that are only "technically" overclocking capable that are only like $10 more than the non OC motherboards will be that would run an 8400 just fine. You need at least an Asus Z370A and a really beefy 240mm liquid cooler to clock the 8350k to like 4.8ghz in order to match the 8400's performance. I still think the 8400 is the better value unless you're doing something likek Emulation which is truly single core.

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, Zeitec said:

the

My way is having mind the desire for the i7 8700k down the road, you already get the right cooling to OC on the money saved by going i3 which is sufficient, also makes it easier to justify the i7 down the line.

 

Motherboard wise just get a MATX format to save money if you have no need for the extra pci-e entries.

[TheRedWarrior]

Yeah, this seems like a pretty fair option, still looking into the 8400 though.

[JoostinOnline]

On 11/10/2017 at 7:19 AM, Zeitec said:

The mid range chips for both sides are now 6 cores. All of them. There are no more mid range quad core chips in the new product line from Intel or AMD. Quad core chips are low end now. I wouldn't invest in a quad core machine unless I were building a budget gaming box with say a 1060. A 1070 can be put in there too, but the pgrade path would be limited as anything above a 1070 would bottleneck even an 8350k at 4.8ghz.

It doesn't matter.  Most people aren't going to buy a new CPU for a long time.  If games start focusing on 6 core CPU's, very few people will buy them.  Games have JUST started to use hyper-threading, and it's been around since 2002.  When dual-cores became the low end CPU's, it was many years before games used more than one core.  It was the same with the move from dual-core to quad-core.

 

Developers never focus on what's new.  There's very little money in that.  They focus on what's common.  The vast majority of people will have quad-core CPU's for a long time.

[ARikozuM]

36 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Games have JUST started to use hyper-threading, and it's been around since 2002.

Game engines don't support hyper-threading (there are games that are hindered with HT/SMT), they support cores and the OS will assign the physical cores, and the HT/SMT core to provide scheduling, that were asked for. As it stands, we're still only using quad-cores (meaning the HT chips will use 8 logical cores) with very few using more at the moment. This is not expected to change next year or the year after as engines currently in use have not had time to develop for those core counts. I would expect late-2018, early-2019 to be the first wave of true hexa-core games with dual-core and quad-core support while 2020 will be hexa-core as the base configuration. 

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

Game engines don't support hyper-threading (there are games that are hindered with HT/SMT), they support cores and the OS will assign the physical cores, and the HT/SMT core to provide scheduling, that were asked for. As it stands, we're still only using quad-cores (meaning the HT chips will use 8 logical cores) with very few using more at the moment. This is not expected to change next year or the year after as engines currently in use have not had time to develop for those core counts. I would expect late-2018, early-2019 to be the first wave of true hexa-core games with dual-core and quad-core support while 2020 will be hexa-core as the base configuration. 

There are quite a few new games that do better when HT is enabled, at least according to benchmarks.  The workload is spread out across all eight logical cores, where as a quad core will run at 100% constantly.

 

I think 2020 is more than a little ambitious.  I'm not saying that I don't think games won't make use of 6 cores by then.  I just mean I don't think they'll expect them.  Games take years to develop, so any AAA game by 2020 will likely only have had 6 core support patched in, not built in from the start.  Right now, two of the cores are pretty much ignored besides what's going on in the background.  I would say at least 2024 before hexacores are what quad-cores are now.  Dual cores aren't really supported, more like "accepted".

 

To be clear, I wouldn't recommend someone buy a quad-core right now if they can afford better.  Hexa-core is where it's at.  There's just no reason to panic about your new i7-7700k to be low-end anytime soon.

[Zeitec]

4 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

There are quite a few new games that do better when HT is enabled, at least according to benchmarks.  The workload is spread out across all eight logical cores, where as a quad core will run at 100% constantly.

 

I think 2020 is more than a little ambitious.  I'm not saying that I don't think games won't make use of 6 cores by then.  I just mean I don't think they'll expect them.  Games take years to develop, so any AAA game by 2020 will likely only have had 6 core support patched in, not built in from the start.  Right now, two of the cores are pretty much ignored besides what's going on in the background.  I would say at least 2024 before hexacores are what quad-cores are now.  Dual cores aren't really supported, more like "accepted".

 

To be clear, I wouldn't recommend someone buy a quad-core right now if they can afford better.  Hexa-core is where it's at.  There's just no reason to panic about your new i7-7700k to be low-end anytime soon.

What are you talking about? Games use six cores right now. Like today they use six cores. There is a reason the 1600x trades blows with the 7600k in gaming despite having much weaker cores. The reason is because games use six cores. There is a reason the i5 8400 beats the much higher clocked 7700k in gaming almost universally. It's because games use six cores. Assassins Creed Origins scales to 16+ threads. Threadripper 1920x beats the 1800x in Origins. This game exists today. Multicore optimization isn't a mystical maybe of the future. It's happening today, and it's only increasing. 

[JoostinOnline]

15 minutes ago, Zeitec said:

What are you talking about? Games use six cores right now. Like today they use six cores. There is a reason the 1600x trades blows with the 7600k in gaming despite having much weaker cores. The reason is because games use six cores. There is a reason the i5 8400 beats the much higher clocked 7700k in gaming almost universally. It's because games use six cores. Assassins Creed Origins scales to 16+ threads. Threadripper 1920x beats the 1800x in Origins. This game exists today. Multicore optimization isn't a mystical maybe of the future. It's happening today, and it's only increasing. 

Umm, not really.  I don't think you understand how architectures work.  Coffee Lake and Kaby Lake have more differences than core counts.  A CL i3 is better than a KL i5, even with the same core count and frequency.  The 1600x isn't even close to the 7700K.  I don't know where you got that idea.

 

The reason Origins is an outlier is because of their shit programming.  The DRM is totally using up one core, and it's tanking performance since the game essentially only gets three cores.  The DRM is an additional two programs, and Windows is letting them use a whole core.  Any other game and you'll find that a high frequency quad core is better than a low frequency hexacore, and IPC is very important.  If you were to disable two cores on an 8700k, it would still perform much better than a 7700k at the same clock speeds.

 

You sound like the FX fanboys for the past six years.

[Zeitec]

Just now, JoostinOnline said:

Umm, not really.  I don't think you understand how architectures work.  Coffee Lake and Kaby Lake have more differences than core counts.  A CL i3 is better than a KL i5, even with the same core count and frequency.  The 1600x isn't even close to the 7700K.  I don't know where you got that idea.

 

The reason Origins is an outlier is because of their shit programming.  The DRM is totally using up one core, and it's tanking performance since the game essentially only gets three cores.  The DRM is an additional two programs, and Windows is letting them use a whole core.  Any other game and you'll find that a high frequency quad core is better than a low frequency hexacore, and IPC is very important.  If you were to disable two cores on an 8700k, it would still perform much better than a 7700k at the same clock speeds.

 

You sound like the FX fanboys for the past six years.

No, a a higher clocked quad core does not beat a lower frequency hexacore in every game aside from Origins. Look at literally every launch review of the 8400. It's 4.0ghz beats the stock 7600k, the overclocked 7600k, and often the stock 7700k in most games from 2016 or 2017 in most reviews. Examples)

 

1) PC Gamer: Literally every gaming benchmark has the 8400 beating the 7600k.

2) Toms Hardware: Literally every gaming benchmark has the 8400 beating or performing identically (GPU Bottleneck) when compared to the 7600k. 

3) Anandtech: Literally every gaming benchmark except one scene in tomb raider has the i5 8400 beating every quad core

4) Gamers Nexus: Literally every gaming benchmark except Project Cars has the 8400 beating a 4.7ghz 7600k.

 

Six cores are utilized by many games today. I'm not going to say every game does, because that would be lying in order to push a narrative. The only narrative I'm interested in is the true narrative that games are using more cores. Because they are. I can definitely agree that a 4c/4t chip is more than fine for today. I don't think it's ideal, but it's fine. The 7700k will probably be a good CPU for the next few years. By 2020 I expect the 7600k to be what the G4560 is today. It can game, but not comfortably. The 7600k is a low-low mid range CPU by today's standards. That's an objective fact. It is essentially an i3 8350k. If you think it will take game makers 7+ years to adapt to the mainstream platform then IDK what to tell you. I mean the Q6600 came out in 2007. If it took 7 years to adapt then games wouldn't have used 4 cores until 2014. We both know games used 4 cores way before then. 

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, Zeitec said:

No, a a higher clocked quad core does not beat a lower frequency hexacore in every game aside from Origins. Look at literally every launch review of the 8400. It's 4.0ghz beats the stock 7600k, the overclocked 7600k, and often the stock 7700k in most games from 2016 or 2017 in most reviews. Examples)

 

1) PC Gamer: Literally every gaming benchmark has the 8400 beating the 7600k.

2) Toms Hardware: Literally every gaming benchmark has the 8400 beating or performing identically (GPU Bottleneck) when compared to the 7600k. 

3) Anandtech: Literally every gaming benchmark except one scene in tomb raider has the i5 8400 beating every quad core

4) Gamers Nexus: Literally every gaming benchmark except Project Cars has the 8400 beating a 4.7ghz 7600k.

 

Six cores are utilized by many games today. I'm not going to say every game does, because that would be lying in order to push a narrative. The only narrative I'm interested in is the true narrative that games are using more cores. Because they are. I can definitely agree that a 4c/4t chip is more than fine for today. I don't think it's ideal, but it's fine. The 7700k will probably be a good CPU for the next few years. By 2020 I expect the 7600k to be what the G4560 is today. It can game, but not comfortably. The 7600k is a low-low mid range CPU by today's standards. That's an objective fact. It is essentially an i3 8350k. If you think it will take game makers 7+ years to adapt to the mainstream platform then IDK what to tell you. I mean the Q6600 came out in 2007. If it took 7 years to adapt then games wouldn't have used 4 cores until 2014. We both know games used 4 cores way before then. 

This is exactly why I said you didn't think you understand architecture, and it looks like I was right.  You're comparing apples and oranges with CL and KL, or Ryzen and KL.  You totally ignored what I tried to explain to you, so I'm just going to drop it.