First cpu

[slimmypound23]

Hey everyone Im 15 and soon I'll be building my first desktop but I'm confused about the cpu - which one should I buy ?

I'd like for it to run cpu demanding games like Ashes of the singularity (I like it as a game) and other titles that eat cpus for breakfast at 60 fps 1080p maybe 1440p if I manage to get a 1440p card a monitor , I'd like for my cpu to last me 2 years like that (cpu heavy titles like ashes at 1080p 60fps ultra ) . I'm not certain about the budget though but I suppose that I could afford an 8700 (non k) max . Here are my other specs

1060 6gb / 580 8gb (not sure yet) - may be upgraded to next gen volta if my parents will agree

16gb ram 3000 

Anyways thanks in advance 

[LienusLateTips]

Wait 20 days for the new generation of Ryzen to come out! It's really nice for you, since the platform will last till 2020

[slimmypound23]

1 minute ago, JDE said:

Wait 20 days for the new generation of Ryzen to come out! It's really nice for you, since the platform will last till 2020

Thanks , but again how quickly does a cpu age ? If I bought a high end one (ryzen 160p/2600/i7 8700 they should last me for those 2 years right ?

[LienusLateTips]

Just now, slimmypound23 said:

Thanks , but again how quickly does a cpu age ? If I bought a high end one (ryzen 160p/2600/i7 8700 they should last me for those 2 years right ?

2600 is a mid range CPU, 2700 competes with the 8700. They'll do fine for many years, the i7 2600 from 2011 I believe still is considered a very good mid-range CPU.

[slimmypound23]

1 minute ago, JDE said:

2600 is a mid range CPU, 2700 competes with the 8700. They'll do fine for many years, the i7 2600 from 2011 I believe still is considered a very good mid-range CPU.

Sorry I thought that they are equal since both of them have 6 cores and 12 threads but cpus don't age that quickly do they?

[TheGlenlivet]

 

1 minute ago, slimmypound23 said:

Sorry I thought that they are equal since both of them have 6 cores and 12 threads but cpus don't age that quickly do they?

They do have the same core/thread count, but their performance is not identical.

CPUs don't age quickly.  Lots of old FX and Sandy Bridge (2011) stuff out there still being used for modern titles.

[slimmypound23]

Yea I mean I just want to play cpu intensive strategy games with no issues to be honest ,  like do you think a ryzen 2600/1600 or a 8700 will do that perfectly well till 2020 at 60 fps 1080p?

[Crunchy Dragon]

Just now, TheGlenlivet said:

 

They do have the same core/thread count, but their performance is not identical.

CPUs don't age quickly.  Lots of old FX and Sandy Bridge (2011) stuff out there still being used for modern titles.

More Sandy Bridge than FX, going by what I've seen recently. A fair few gaming rigs on my local listings are FX-based, people probably trying to sell them off for a Ryzen/Intel upgrade since the FX platform is obsolete.

 

OP: The best value gaming CPU you can get right now is the Core i7-8700(non-K). That CPU alone will last you a good 3-5 years at least. If you choose to go the Ryzen path, the Ryzen 2 equal to the R5 1600 would be a good option. It should be noted that the Core i7-8700K is the absolute best for gaming at this point in time.

[LienusLateTips]

7 minutes ago, slimmypound23 said:

Sorry I thought that they are equal since both of them have 6 cores and 12 threads but cpus don't age that quickly do they?

AMD focuses on slightly less performing, but more cores. Similar to Broadwell/Skylake level clock-for-clock for first gen Ryzen.

1 minute ago, slimmypound23 said:

Yea I mean I just want to play cpu intensive strategy games with no issues to be honest ,  like do you think a ryzen 2600/1600 or a 8700 will do that perfectly well till 2020 at 60 fps 1080p?

That's easy lol

[Crunchy Dragon]

1 minute ago, slimmypound23 said:

Yea I mean I just want to play cpu intensive strategy games with no issues to be honest ,  like do you think a ryzen 2600/1600 or a 8700 will do that perfectly well till 2020 at 60 fps 1080p?

Oh yeah, that'll do the trick. I have a Ryzen 5 1600 in my rig and it does really at 1080p 75Hz. The only real limitation in my rig is the GPU, which can't do much past 1080p Medium settings, going as low as 720p Lowest in PUBG.

[slimmypound23]

Just now, Crunchy Dragon said:

More Sandy Bridge than FX, going by what I've seen recently. A fair few gaming rigs on my local listings are FX-based, people probably trying to sell them off for a Ryzen/Intel upgrade since the FX platform is obsolete.

 

OP: The best value gaming CPU you can get right now is the Core i7-8700(non-K). That CPU alone will last you a good 3-5 years at least. If you choose to go the Ryzen path, the Ryzen 2 equal to the R5 1600 would be a good option. It should be noted that the Core i7-8700K is the absolute best for gaming at this point in time.

Thank you a lot could a ryzen 1600/2600 last me 2 years (Id rather spend less now and  get another midrange pc in 2 years rather than 1 for 4 years ?

[Crunchy Dragon]

Just now, slimmypound23 said:

Thank you a lot could a ryzen 1600/2600 last me 2 years (Id rather spend less now and  get another midrange pc in 2 years rather than 1 for 4 years ?

It would last you a lot longer than 2 years.

[TheGlenlivet]

1 minute ago, slimmypound23 said:

Thank you a lot could a ryzen 1600/2600 last me 2 years (Id rather spend less now and  get another midrange pc in 2 years rather than 1 for 4 years ?

Yes.

[LienusLateTips]

Just now, slimmypound23 said:

Thank you a lot could a ryzen 1600/2600 last me 2 years (Id rather spend less now and  get another midrange pc in 2 years rather than 1 for 4 years ?

If you are happy with it, you can stay on mid range for 3-4 years. Just upgrade the GPU every couple of years and you'll be fine for maybe even 5-6 years!

[slimmypound23]

Ok thanks everyone once I've decided which parts I'd like could I post them in the pc section?

[LienusLateTips]

Just now, slimmypound23 said:

Ok thanks everyone once I've decided which parts I'd like could I post them in the pc section?

The "New Builds and Planning" is the section you want to post in if you want people to evaluate all your components choices for your whole build.

[AngryBeaver]

7 minutes ago, JDE said:

2600 is a mid range CPU, 2700 competes with the 8700. They'll do fine for many years, the i7 2600 from 2011 I believe still is considered a very good mid-range CPU.

The new gen 2 ryzen is the same as gen 1. The biggest difference being the die shrink which is allowing for slightly higher clocks.

 

The problem from the leaks and reviews I have seen is that the overclock ceiling is still low and that the 4.35 boost on the 2800x is basically it. You can probably push it to 4.4ghz, but after that the voltage requirements to move higher will make the heat generation unreasonable outside of LN2.

 

There have been no IPC improvements so if you hold this chip next to an intel chip.. the intel chip will be between 15-20% faster clock for clock.

 

These will insure that the 6 core 8700k isn't beating the 2700x and 2800x in highly multi-threaded applications, but when it comes to gaming the 8700k will still hold a massive advantage. This is only compounded by the fact that pretty much all of the 8700k's i have seen can hit 5ghz if you have decent cooling for it (or delid)

 

Lets do some math :-D

 

8700k

5ghz x 1(ipc) x 6 (cores) = 30ghz (theoretical)

 

2800x

4.4ghz x .8(ipc) x 8 (cores)=  28.16ghz (Theoretical)

If we assume 15% ipc (best case scenario)

4.4 x .85(pc) x 8 (cores) = 29.92ghz

 

So if you overclock a 7800k to 5ghz, it now actually overtakes even the multi-threading capabilities of the 2800x

 

Now in a typical gaming scenario where only 4 cores are used things change even more. I will use the more modest 15% ipc numbers for this.

 

8700k

5ghz x 1 (ipc) x 4 (cores) = 20ghz

 

2800x

4.4 ghz x .85 (ipc) x 4 (cores) = 14.96 ghz

 

Herein lies the problem. They can increase the clock speed which does help close the gap, but the IPC deficit is going to hurt them and if they don't start making some massive improvements with it moving forward they will fall back to the bulldozer days where their architecture cannot be competitive.

[LienusLateTips]

1 minute ago, AngryBeaver said:

-snip-

 

You do realize they are coming out with a whole new architecture next year, right? They are already finished it, just waiting for GloFlo to speed up 7nm production.

[AngryBeaver]

16 minutes ago, JDE said:

You do realize they are coming out with a whole new architecture next year, right? They are already finished it, just waiting for GloFlo to speed up 7nm production.

There is so much nonsense going on with the naming conventions and misinformation on all these process shrinks. For the record there is no formal metric for measuring. Intel has proposed one, but no one will adopt it because it makes their current claims look bogus.

 

So yes AMD might be moving to a 7nm process in the future, but if their density is crap then it still might not give them an advantage over the current 10nm process on cannonlake. The intel 10nm process has REALLY good density.

[KarathKasun]

1 hour ago, AngryBeaver said:

The new gen 2 ryzen is the same as gen 1. The biggest difference being the die shrink which is allowing for slightly higher clocks.

 

The problem from the leaks and reviews I have seen is that the overclock ceiling is still low and that the 4.35 boost on the 2800x is basically it. You can probably push it to 4.4ghz, but after that the voltage requirements to move higher will make the heat generation unreasonable outside of LN2.

 

There have been no IPC improvements so if you hold this chip next to an intel chip.. the intel chip will be between 15-20% faster clock for clock.

 

These will insure that the 6 core 8700k isn't beating the 2700x and 2800x in highly multi-threaded applications, but when it comes to gaming the 8700k will still hold a massive advantage. This is only compounded by the fact that pretty much all of the 8700k's i have seen can hit 5ghz if you have decent cooling for it (or delid)

 

Lets do some math :-D

 

8700k

5ghz x 1(ipc) x 6 (cores) = 30ghz (theoretical)

 

2800x

4.4ghz x .8(ipc) x 8 (cores)=  28.16ghz (Theoretical)

If we assume 15% ipc (best case scenario)

4.4 x .85(pc) x 8 (cores) = 29.92ghz

 

So if you overclock a 7800k to 5ghz, it now actually overtakes even the multi-threading capabilities of the 2800x

 

Now in a typical gaming scenario where only 4 cores are used things change even more. I will use the more modest 15% ipc numbers for this.

 

8700k

5ghz x 1 (ipc) x 4 (cores) = 20ghz

 

2800x

4.4 ghz x .85 (ipc) x 4 (cores) = 14.96 ghz

 

Herein lies the problem. They can increase the clock speed which does help close the gap, but the IPC deficit is going to hurt them and if they don't start making some massive improvements with it moving forward they will fall back to the bulldozer days where their architecture cannot be competitive.

Ermahgerd, stop with the multiplying of GHZ.  It is literally the worst example in existence and should be killed with fire.

 

Say something like OP/s or FLOP/s, anything besides dragging that "multi-core multiplies my GHZ" bull out any longer.  Leave that idea where you found it, in the early 2000's.

[AngryBeaver]

1 minute ago, KarathKasun said:

Ermahgerd, stop with the multiplying of GHZ.  It is literally the worst example in existence and should be killed with fire.

 

Say something like OP/s or FLOP/s, anything but drag that "multi-core multiplies my ghz" bull out any longer.  Leave that idea where you found it, in the early 2000's.

They are theoretical Ghz or maximum compute power. It is a very over simplified way of doing it, but the results and numbers are still valid.

[KarathKasun]

Just now, AngryBeaver said:

They are theoretical Ghz or maximum compute power. It is a very over simplified way of doing it, but the results and numbers are still valid.

No, they are not and never have been.  Doing any procedure on multiple CPUs (or cores) does not multiply the speed (latency) on the operation, which is what GHz measures.  You CAN get more work done, but your latency is still limited by the cycle rate of the CPU (GHz).

[AngryBeaver]

22 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

No, they are not and never have been.  Doing any procedure on multiple CPUs (or cores) does not multiply the speed (latency) on the operation, which is what GHz measures.  You CAN get more work done, but your latency is still limited by the cycle rate of the CPU (GHz).

I am trying to give a basic easy to understand breakdown of the significance of the cpu frequency paired with the IPC improvements. So for that purpose this does that.

 

I guess i could have broke it down differently, but then I would have alienated people with that breakdown and made it more complex than most people would want to worry with. That being said for the purpose of my post it IS accurate information.

 

You might not agree with the way I chose to do it, but that does not make my point or the information provided false.

 

 

Btw the calculation for gflops is:

 

performance in GFlops = (CPU speed in GHz) x (number of CPU cores) x (CPU instruction per cycle) x (number of CPUs per node).

 

Since we are talking about single chip boards you can assume the numbers I gave above are gflops.

 

Also gflops can be even more inaccurate for a way of measurement because it can be influenced by instruction sets and a few other factors.