Gaming CPU Needed

[This kid builds pc]

5 hours ago, Damascus said:

That's actually why I quit on ryzen in the first place there are only like 3 good mobos and 2 of those are high-end ATX-EATX boards.  There aren't any good options for mATX

I mean most to all x370 boards I’ve tried are great, but if they release some good x470 micro atx boards I might pick one up.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

Gaming PCs are mostly built around GPUs and screens. If you are going to use, say, a 1080p display and a GTX 1060 6GB, any modern unlocked quad'core, or any modern hexa-core whatsoever, will be just fine, it will be a matter of how far above 100FPS you can go most of the times.

If your monitor is 1080p and 60Hz, then practically anything newer than Core 2 - Phenom II will work.

If we are talking of 144Hz "I want no dips to 143FPS at all" paired with a much more powerful GPU to do so, then things get more demanding on the CPU side and the choice needs to be more precise (probably something like Skylake unlocked CPUs and above, and probably mostly Intel CPUs for now).

[WallacEngineering]

@DerBobby

 

Alright man, lets cut through the stupid arguments and make some sense out of all this.

 

Intel - Better at frames thanks to higher IPC and clock speeds

 

Ryzen - Better at multitasking, especially for the price with the extra cores and threads. Also, its not TOO far behind on gaming than Intel, and still pushes 100+ frames on most games as long as youve got good, high speed RAM.

 

Ok, now that that crap is settled, lets go over the pecking order.

 

When Ryzen lauched, it was designed to target the Intel 7000 series, and it did just that. The i7 7700K remained the supreme gaming commander but the Ryzen 7 1800X proved to be a worthy advisary. Coming up ever so slightly short on the games, but packing TWICE the Cores and Threads, the 1800X smashed the 7700K to smithereens for anybody who had any common sense. The tiny gains in gaming held by the 7700K where NOWHERE near justifiable.

 

Fast forward a bit and Intel jumps on the 6-Core bandwagen with the 8000 series. Lets face it, they needed to. Ryzen was smashing Intels face in and they needed to answer back with the new gaming King: The i7 8700K. Its a serious beast and kicked Ryzens face right back in where they came from. The extra 2 Cores and 4 Threads gave gamers a good reason to choose Intel once again.

 

Fast Forward to today. Today would be a really, REALLY bad time to build a new system. Not only are GPU prices still somewhat high, but the Ryzen 2000 chips are less than 30 days from launch, so you have no idea if that shiny new 8700K of yours will immediately have its head curb-stomped by Ryzen 2000.

 

I think Ryzen 2000 will be an exact repeat of Ryzen 1000 versus Intel 7000, with Intel just leading ahead in gaming on the 8700K in sheer frames, and the Ryzen 2700X absolutely smashing Intel just about everywhere else, especially for the price.

 

So your best option? Wait a bit longer. Wait for Ryzen 2000 and see how it does, THEN make your decision.

 

Me? Ive got a Ryzen 5 1600X, its a great gaming CPU, and can push 100+ frames like its 1800X big brother, just with fewer cores. I LOVE this CPU, its perfect, everything I had dreamed of.

 

Would I call myself AMD biased? No, Ive owned plenty of Intel-based systems and I loved them too.

 

When Ryzen came out, I saw the opportunity to strike at the tyrant and monopoly that was Intel, and I took it. We all know they had WAYYYYYY too much power. So until the Global Market Share levels out a bit more, I support team RED.

 

There you go, if you have any questions, just ask.

 

 

[Damascus]

14 hours ago, WallacEngineering said:

but the Ryzen 2000 chips are less than 30 days from launch, so you have no idea if that shiny new 8700K of yours will immediately have its head curb-stomped by Ryzen 2000

While I see the 2700(x) being fantastic zeppelin dies have a few huge limiting factors. 

1. They won't achieve full performance while using all cores (or just more than 1 ccx)
2. They are severely clock limited (will get better over time)

These two in particular mean that Intel will have the lead at least until 2020 and that is nothing to minimize.

[WallacEngineering]

2 hours ago, Damascus said:

While I see the 2700(x) being fantastic zeppelin dies have a few huge limiting factors. 

1. They won't achieve full performance while using all cores (or just more than 1 ccx)
2. They are severely clock limited (will get better over time)

These two in particular mean that Intel will have the lead at least until 2020 and that is nothing to minimize.

True that. As I stated, Intel will still lead, but the sheer frame difference? Not all that much Im sure. Im wating for the 7nm+ Zen 3 CPUs of 2020-2021 myself for my ultimate build. That 7nm barrier is going to be a tough son of a gun to overcome, so it looks like the best time to build a PC is right around the corner

[DarkSmith2]

4 hours ago, WallacEngineering said:

True that. As I stated, Intel will still lead, but the sheer frame difference? Not all that much Im sure. Im wating for the 7nm+ Zen 3 CPUs of 2020-2021 myself for my ultimate build. That 7nm barrier is going to be a tough son of a gun to overcome, so it looks like the best time to build a PC is right around the corner

It depends how you WANT it to see. Current Ryzen Gen had up to 40% less FPS in games. 

 

I mean an overclocked 2600k also delivers close to the same FPS as an 8700k IF you dont use anything above a GTX1070 or playing on 1440p+

True downside is very visible in Online Multiplayer Games and such that are very CPU-Bound when played on 1080p. It all depends on your point of view and the games you play.

 

In competitive gaming where FPS matters - Ryzen dissapointed. If you are playing just for fun 60Hz Monitor or 1440p and above your Graphics Card will matter a whole lot more then your CPU until Graphic Cards are getting much faster. So to speak current Ryzen will age much faster then Coffeelake in gaming. But thankfully AMD is aware of that from begin with so they atleast ensure compatibility on AM4 for the next Ryzen gens. I dont expect anything from AMD, just wishing them the best that they can "really" compete with Intel in the future.

 

I mean even if we see +400Mhz in April, then AMD finally arrived at what stage compared to Intel? Haswell gaming performance? Maybe Skylake/kabylake stock gaming performance while being OC'ed to max? Making those nonK 4C8T CPUs (4790, 6700, 7700) obsolete.. but thats it, still more then one step behind ;[

[WallacEngineering]

8 hours ago, DarkSmith2 said:

It depends how you WANT it to see. Current Ryzen Gen had up to 40% less FPS in games...

And this matters to 95% of people because? Like I said already, Intel is better, I never said they werent. But 95%+ of us are totally fine with not even 60 FPS. Ive been totally fine on my old GTX 670. Honestly, the response seems instantaneous wirh absolutely 0 input lag (or so it feels like). Ive never had a smoother gaming experience than on the 1600X, and Im pretty sure that everyone who isnt a tournament player for IRL cash prizes will agree.

 

Nobody even needs 100 FPS. Hard core gamers will tell you that they feel a difference at 100+ FPS versus 60 but 99% of them are just blowing smoke. Gaming on my 4K Samsung TV in "gaming mode" (disables motion rate, other picture enhancements, lowers input lag) at 60Hz feels EXACTLY the same as gaming on my buddie's ROG 144Hz Ultra-Wide (besides the evtra field of view in Ultra-Wide, man what a difference that is!). The input lag and responsiveness seems to be identical, even when talking fast-paced games such as BF1 and other FPS along with Forza Motorsport. The differences are simply to small for a human being to actually detect.

 

Always remember: Technically speaking, the human eye cannot see faster than 30-35 FPS. As long as you have a solid FPS with your GPU and dont experience massive frame drops, then 60Hz TV gaming is fine on CERTAIN TVs (My Samsung MU6500 is fantastic at it in gaming mode).

 

The point is, Ryzen is fine at gaming, most games it can nearly hit that 144Hz ultimate target, and thats just the first generation. Intel has had 8 generations of i7 to mature, so the comparison is simply unfair. Ryzen's second generation will undoubtedly max out even the fastest displays. So if you want to try to explain to me why 200 FPS suddenly matters, please do so so I can laugh. Competitive players can even easily deal with 100 Hz displays, so Ryzen has already hit that level. Basically, it does what it needs to. Honestly, at this point any performance improvement in gaming from either side is just unnecessary and is nothing but a random bonus. Sure, the 8700K can do 200+ FPS, but the 2700X will undoubtedly be capable of 180 FPS. Whooptie-freaking-doo, it doesnt matter when the fastest your display gets is 144Hz.

[docomeister]

On 21.03.2018 at 9:56 AM, DerBobby said:

Hey guys,

 

what is better for a gaming PC? An Intel CPU or a Ryzen CPU? And do you also know a good motherboard for the CPU that you would recommend?

Thanks  

I've only read the post highlited as Best Answer, and I can already tell that you managed to trigger a bunch of people here  And that might be a little  more than you actually came here to ask for. While the rest of the posts in the thread might as well be very informative, I understand that you just want a decent CPU for gaming, nothing more, so I'm just here to suggest that, while basically any medium tier recent gen CPU will do you just fine for the next years, you might want to go with AMD on this one on consideration of the AM4 platform being newly released, and AMD promising to keep it alive at least until 2020, with new CPU generations coming to it in the next years (starting with the 2x00 that will be released very soon). Besides, if you're on a moderate budget, you might want to invest in a decent video card as well, and while Ryzen CPUs are quite decent all round, their lower prices will leave you just a bit more cash to spend in there.

 

Good luck, whatever your decision might be

[WallacEngineering]

1 hour ago, docomeister said:

I've only read the post highlited as Best Answer, and I can already tell that you managed to trigger a bunch of people here

Lol right? On another note guys, no matter your preference, be on the look out for the 7nm and 7nm+ CPUs of 2020-2021. Since we are fully doubling transisters, we can expect to see some MAJOR performance increases from both sides. I fully expect a 10-Core/20-Thread Ryzen 7 4700X clocked around ~5GHz with a ~5.5GHz boost, and probably an 8-Core/16-Thread i7 11700K clocked at ~5.3GHz with possibly as high as a 6GHz boost.

 

2020-2021 is looking to be a SERIOUS year for CPU performance. Expect both AMD and Intel to go all out on their FINAL Silicon-Based CPUs as we hit the 7nm barrier and computer scientists are forced into coming up with a completely new way of computing or manufacturing CPUs, as furthering CPU performance as things currently stand becomes a physical IMPOSSIBILITY.

 

For more info on the 7nm barrier, visit my thread in my signature.

[DarkSmith2]

5 hours ago, WallacEngineering said:

Always remember: Technically speaking, the human eye cannot see faster than 30-35 FPS. As long as you have a solid FPS with your GPU and dont experience massive frame drops, then 60Hz TV gaming is fine on CERTAIN TVs (My Samsung MU6500 is fantastic at it in gaming mode).

LUL, educate yourself, PLEASE.

 

The human eye doesnt see in FPS and there is no limit. The human eye sees through light, well light triggers the impulse to your nerves.

Quote

The structure of the human eye is so complex that it’s hard to believe that it’s not the product of intelligent design, but by looking at the eyes of other animals, scientists have shown that it evolved very gradually from a simple light-dark sensor over the course of around 100 million years. It functions in a very similar way to a camera, with an opening through which the light enters, a lens for focusing and a light-sensitive membrane at the back.

The amount of light that enters the eye is controlled by the circular and radial muscles in the iris, which contract and relax to alter the size of the pupil. The light first passes through a tough protective sheet called the cornea, and then moves into the lens. This adjustable structure bends the light, focusing it down to a point on the retina, at the back of the eye.

The retina is covered in millions of light-sensitive receptors known as rods and cones. Each receptor contains pigment molecules, which change shape when they are hit by light, triggering an electrical message that travels to the brain via the optic nerve.
 

 

You said the human eye cannot see faster than 30-35FPS well, so lets assume someone is controlling your room light and set the light to turn on and off 30-35 per second. Will you notice a flicker? OFC you would because thats why 50hz light bulbs got invented, most people were annoyed by the massive flicker.

 

The reason why these low FPS/Hz numbers and "the human eye can not see X(put random number in here)FPS" came up from begin with is recording technology. Because you can get a butter smooth watching experience at 24FPS while watching movies. But this effect is due to the recording technology which also records "native/natural" motion blur, this doesnt excist in Video games and is therefore a whole different story.

 

I can instantaneously differientiate between 60fps and 100+fps on a 144hz Monitor, the massive amount of blur below 100FPS while moving is enough to tell, letting alone the about twice as high input lag. But you might say everyone is different and some notice a difference and some dont and ill agree on that. If i put my grandma in a chair letting her play csgo she might not even notice that she is the one moving the character when touching the mouse.

 

5 hours ago, WallacEngineering said:

And this matters to 95% of people because?

Because you can get a CPU that can do current Ryzen gaming performance for $29. Its always performance -> price with high diminishing returns. And point of view.

[docomeister]

2 hours ago, WallacEngineering said:

Lol right? On another note guys, no matter your preference, be on the look out for the 7nm and 7nm+ CPUs of 2020-2021. Since we are fully doubling transisters, we can expect to see some MAJOR performance increases from both sides. I fully expect a 10-Core/20-Thread Ryzen 7 4700X clocked around ~5GHz with a ~5.5GHz boost, and probably an 8-Core/16-Thread i7 11700K clocked at ~5.3GHz with possibly as high as a 6GHz boost.

 

2020-2021 is looking to be a SERIOUS year for CPU performance. Expect both AMD and Intel to go all out on their FINAL Silicon-Based CPUs as we hit the 7nm barrier and computer scientists are forced into coming up with a completely new way of computing or manufacturing CPUs, as furthering CPU performance as things currently stand becomes a physical IMPOSSIBILITY.

 

For more info on the 7nm barrier, visit my thread in my signature.

I mean, this is worthy of a thread of its own. Not that it's off topic (which it is, kinda, but then again, look at the post just above mine, lol), but it'd be interesting to find out more about what the future has in store. Also considering the timeline you're mentioning here, it kinda syncs up well with the life span AMD proposed for its AM4 platform. Now this makes me wonder whether I should even bother upgrading my 1500X for an 1800/2800X, since I'm quite satisfied with it considering my current needs, or just wait a few years for a new platform. Might consider upgrading to 2800X AS FAST as possible, before my CPU loses too much of its value. However, I'm not expecting spectacularly high gains in gaming performance, so I still strongly believe that for anyone looking to build a new rig for a moderate budget TODAY, going with any medium tier Core i5 or Ryzen 5 processor from the very last generation (or even couple of gens in case of Intel) is the way to go. However, if your long term plans foresee the possibility of an upgrade in 2019/20, AMD seems like the better option, as you can buy a very strong motherboard today for a moderate price ($150~170) that will provide compatibility, features and expansion for a long while, and will still likely have full support and warranty in 2020, when we could project AMD releasing a fourth generation of Ryzen CPUs, possibly still on AM4. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure we can't expect anything like this from Intel in this timeframe.

 

EDIT: I did not notice the part about you already having a thread on this topic, LOL!

[DarkSmith2]

28 minutes ago, docomeister said:

I mean, this is worthy of a thread of its own. Not that it's off topic (which it is, kinda, but then again, look at the post just above mine, lol)

whats wrong about my post? Its full of facts.

[WallacEngineering]

1 hour ago, docomeister said:

I mean, this is worthy of a thread of its own...

Oh indeed it is, I was not trying to take away from this thread lol. Always fun watching fan boys go ballistic, its hilarious lol.

 

Ya I wouldnt upgrade. Wait for Zen 3/Zen 2+ (whatever it ends up being) and get yourself a tasty 7nm+ CPU that could last you for well over a decade as silicon comes to a hault and we explore new options.

 

45 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

whats wrong about my post? Its full of facts.

Not really, no $29 CPU could hold a candle to Ryzen. My GF has a $60 Pentium, its WORTHLESS at gaming, cant even pull 60 FPS with my GTX 980 because its a damn dual core with no hyperthreading. Its a stupid CPU.

 

And you know what I mean about seeing FPS. Dont play dumb, you know damn well that we can tell when frams drop below 20 FPS for a reason

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, docomeister said:

However, if your long term plans foresee the possibility of an upgrade in 2019/20, AMD seems like the better option, as you can buy a very strong motherboard today for a moderate price ($150~170) that will provide compatibility, features and expansion for a long while, and will still likely have full support and warranty in 2020, when we could project AMD releasing a fourth generation of Ryzen CPUs, possibly still on AM4. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure we can't expect anything like this from Intel in this timeframe.

EDIT: I did not notice the part about you already having a thread on this topic, LOL!

You have a point, but we don't know what will be out by then, everyone rides on that AM4 is going to last but it doesn't mean AMD won't have new chipsets or DDR5 with Zen2+ or Zen3. There is already X470 coming out for AMD and Intel is rumored to be coming out with an 8 core.

18 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

Oh indeed it is, I was not trying to take away from this thread lol. Always fun watching fan boys go ballistic, its hilarious lol.

 

Ya I wouldnt upgrade. Wait for Zen 3/Zen 2+ (whatever it ends up being) and get yourself a tasty 7nm+ CPU that could last you for well over a decade as silicon comes to a hault and we explore new options.

 

Not really, no $29 CPU could hold a candle to Ryzen. My GF has a $60 Pentium, its WORTHLESS at gaming, cant even pull 60 FPS with my GTX 980 because its a damn dual core with no hyperthreading. Its a stupid CPU.

And you know what I mean about seeing FPS. Dont play dumb, you know damn well that we can tell when frams drop below 20 FPS for a reason

I know it's getting off topic but I doubt Intel or AMD would just let their tech be stagnant until they rush to find a new substrate to replace silicon,if they don't have something planned already as both have roadmaps several years out.  I think we'll see things like more dies on a single processor become more mainstream, putting stronger iGPUs into their processors and leverage those for accelerating workloads,or a theory i'd like to see would be ARM cores integrated for ultra low power use when you're just doing basic tasks.

Edit-  Well you can't expect a $60 cpu to be decent for gaming? Those chips aren't meant for anything more intensive than daily browsing or office use.

[DarkSmith2]

1 hour ago, WallacEngineering said:

And you know what I mean about seeing FPS. Dont play dumb, you know damn well that we can tell when frams drop below 20 FPS for a reason

as i said i can also tell when it drops below 100. below 60 isnt in any kind smooth to me at all. Gsync or Freesync would be able to change that i guess.

Currently anything above 100FPS isnt much noticeable, but i would like to test a 240hz Monitor in csgo to see if i can actually notice any difference to a 144hz monitor. In that game the difference between 60hz and 144hz is very huge for me.

 

If i would be playing Hearthstone i wouldnt care either, but even in World of Warcraft playing below 40-50FPS in huge raids feels and looks like a diashow, thats one reason why i upgraded from my 2600k. While being overclocked to its max.(4800mhz) it has beaten Ryzen pretty clearly in most of the games that i play. And you know how old it is and that its getting sold for below $120.