wanted to know if this is a okay setup?

[KarathKasun]

32 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

Games don't typically increase their CPU requirements by much, it's why an i7 2600K is still a pretty viable gaming CPU. Ryzen/Coffee Lake are going to be fine for gaming for a good while.

 

As for overclocking, I would recommend the i7 8700 over the 8600K any day, but that's spending a good amount of money on a cooler and possibly delidding, for just a bit more fps yet again.

CPU's are only good far a long time if you buy higher end at the right time.  CPU demands have gone up tremendously in the past ~5 years, just ask someone still using FX to play modern games.  At launch the difference between the i7 2600k and FX 8150 in gaming was ~20% (up to 50% in some games), today that is the difference between 40 an 50 fps in .1% lows (a performance metric that FX has trouble with in heavily multi-threaded games and is more noticeable than you would think).

 

I don't like Intel as a company, but their parts have a proven history of performance in games.  Ryzen mirrors the FX launch in many ways, just without the massive outliers the FX had.  Its a bit slower in games at stock settings and a bit faster in highly threaded tasks.  With overclocking (on both) Intel stretches its gaming lead and mostly closes the MT gap.  If AMD can finally get clocks sorted for the next refresh it will match Intel core for core and comparing the two will be purely academic.

 

Delidding is not required for ~5ghz in many cases with CL, as long as temps in the 80's don't upset you. 

[Streetguru]

29 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

 

The difference between the i7 2600K and FX chips was pretty massive, The difference between Ryzen and Coffee Lake, is like 15% on average. Ryzen is nothing like FX, because Ryzen is actually good and has plenty of room to grow in the coming years, much like the core series has grown.

Such as with 6/8 core per CCX designs, for 12/16 cores on the desktop with further improved IPC/Memory support. Ryzen 2 is a great sign of things to come on that front.

[DocSwag]

10 hours ago, Streetguru said:

That's an Athlon X4 950, which has almost half the performance of an intel core at the same speed.

If you look towards the end of the video where they make the human comparison they use a 1200

10 hours ago, Streetguru said:

Ryzen is about 90% of coffee lake at this point. The other one's aren't exactly just 10% either. As they said at the end of the video, they're pretty close, and that was only first gen Ryzen.

But you buy it for the better platform over a bit more fps as I stated earlier.

But what if they DON'T want to do anything else? Right now you're basing your WHOLE Ryzen recommendation off of "MAYBE one day they'll do something that benefits from more cores." But that isn't certain. You DON'T KNOW if that's going to happen. And even if it does, it's highly likely that OP will spend more time gaming than doing that other thing, making that extra multi core performance not worth it considering the gaming performance deficit.

 

The chances that OP will end up getting more benefit from the more threads in the future is much smaller than the known benefit of better gaming performance for Covfefe lake. You can't base your whole recommendation off of an "if." That's like saying someone should get a mini van over a sedan because they might need the space in the future. But what about all the benefits it has, that you KNOW you're going to make use of?

[ChernobilChuck]

Just my opinion but the 960 pro seems a bit of an overkill i would go for something like the 960 evo, most likely you couldn't tell the difference between them and the evo would save you like 60$ (at least in my country thats the difference between them).

[Streetguru]

4 hours ago, DocSwag said:

 

If your whole focus is just gaming, then why not get an i3 8350K over the 6 core i5 8400/8500? At 5ghz or above the i3 is going to be faster in a lot of games, surely that means it's better right? and it's not a good idea to consider the entire package, or any future options extra cores/threads might give you?

Just look at that massive jump in fps for Civ 6!

[DocSwag]

1 hour ago, Streetguru said:

If your whole focus is just gaming, then why not get an i3 8350K over the 6 core i5 8400/8500? At 5ghz or above the i3 is going to be faster in a lot of games, surely that means it's better right? and it's not a good idea to consider the entire package, or any future options extra cores/threads might give you?

Just look at that massive jump in fps for Civ 6!

Because certain games suffer from only having 4 cores, potentially leading to much lower 1% and 0.1% lows. And to push an 8350k to 5 GHz that requires a $100+ mobo and $50+ cooler on top of the CPU, leading to a total cost of around $325, whereas an 8400+B360 mobo would run around $250.