Is a 2600X a good upgrade for me? ( I game at 130hz 16:10)

[M300843499]

[App4that]

No, for gaming you're better off with a 8400 or 8600k if you want to overclock. 

[stealth80]

With a Fury it will be decent. The 8700k/8600k only really pulls ahead of the 2600X/2700X in gaming at 1080P with a 1080ti - however if you want to remain at 1080P and pick up one of the newer more powerful Nvidia 11XX series later this year, then go with Intel, otherwise either is fine

[M300843499]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

No, for gaming you're better off with a 8400 or 8600k if you want to overclock. 

Do you own or know of any excellent boards for the 8600K?

 

Thanks by the way

[App4that]

1 minute ago, stealth80 said:

With a Fury it will be decent. The 8700k/8600k only really pulls ahead of the 2600X/2700X in gaming at 1080P with a 1080ti - however if you want to remain at 1080P and pick up one of the newer more powerful Nvidia 11XX series later this year, then go with Intel, otherwise either is fine

Even with a 1070ti the Intel CPUs run away with it. I saw a difference with a 980ti. Depends on the game though.

 

2 minutes ago, M300843499 said:

Do you own or know of any excellent boards for the 8600K?

 

Thanks by the way

The ASUS (I'm a ASUS fanboy) Z370 Prime or Strix is a good board. If you want the best a Maximus X Hero. 

[M300843499]

Just now, App4that said:

Even with a 1070ti the Intel CPUs run away with it. I saw a difference with a 980ti. Depends on the game though.

 

The ASUS (I'm a ASUS fanboy) Z370 Prime or Strix is a good board. If you want the best a Maximus X Hero. 

I want to OC and need lot's of USB ports.

 

 

[M300843499]

Scratch this, i will make a new thread for an entire new build.

 

Thanks all

[stealth80]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

Even with a 1070ti the Intel CPUs run away with it. I saw a difference with a 980ti. Depends on the game though.

 

a Fury isn't anywhere near a 1070ti though, and a 1070ti aint far from a 1080, to be fair, a 1070ti at 1080P would be the point I would consider 8600k the switching point (unless you need the threads of the 2600/x for editing etc) 

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

a Fury isn't anywhere near a 1070ti though, and a 1070ti aint far from a 1080, to be fair, a 1070ti at 1080P would be the point I would consider 8600k the switching point (unless you need the threads of the 2600/x for editing etc) 

Resolution matters, but doesn't remove the disparity. Even at 1440 there's a difference. Plus, as you said moving forward the Coffee lake CPU won't hold back a future card. 

 

 

[xg32]

the 8600k bottlenecks games at 120hz (literally 100% load on all 6 cores) on some modern AAA titles (i own both 8600k and 8700k), so ur choices should be between the 8700k (best for gaming), 2700x (10% slower on the 8700k on some games) or 2600x (budget)

[Canada EH]

If I were you I would buy a refurbished pc with a 4th gen intel.

 

reuse your ram because ram is expensive these days, so your ram (16GB) plus the ram already in the pc (4GB or 8GB) = lots of ram (20GB or 24GB)

 

reuse what you can your hdd/sdd plus whatever comes with the system

 

then spend more money on a graphics card

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, M300843499 said:

I want to OC

ok nevermind then

[wasab]

Can you see above 60 FPS? 

[M300843499]

Just now, wasab said:

Can you see above 60 FPS? 

60hz looks like 30FPS, it's that big of a difference, but i'm all for higher quality imagery though!

[stealth80]

7 minutes ago, App4that said:

Resolution matters, but doesn't remove the disparity. Even at 1440 there's a difference. Plus, as you said moving forward the Coffee lake CPU won't hold back a future card. 

 

 

Nah it will, were getting to the point now where the real top end GPU development (IPC if you will) is way ahead of the improvements were getting with CPU's. If you think about the difference between say a 4790k and an 8700k in gaming is (4 generations, 2 tocks) is MUCH smaller than the gain of a 780GTX to a 1080GTX, we generally see 30 - 50% improvement from the card jumps on new releases aka 780 > 980 > 1080, and rumour has is that 1180 will be + 51% on a 1080(non ti). Even an 8700k @ 5.3ghz is gonna hold back that at 1080P of course, its gonna be worse on anything less including Ryzen

 

The real answer is the developers need to lever the best from multicore CPU's now theyre becoming mainstream - it shouldn't be difficult considering consoles have been 8 cores for what 5+ years now? Otherwise to get the best from our GPU's were all gonna need minimum 1440P panels. 

 

Imagine what a 1180ti is gonna be like if the next CPU gen only increases IPC by 5% or less again ... 

[Pasi123]

Why don't you just get a 6-core Xeon and overclock it? Something like X5660, X5670, X5675 is still pretty good for gaming.

 

 

 

[M300843499]

2 minutes ago, Pasi123 said:

Why don't you just get a 6-core Xeon and overclock it? Something like X5660, X5670, X5675 is still pretty good for gaming.

 

 

 

Exact same arch and exact same IPC, i would gain nothing.

[TrueMegaManiac]

1080 Ti + R7 1700 @3.95Ghz here, and unless my G-Sync screen culls frames above 165Hz there's no noticeable bottleneck on my end. My ram is pretty mediocre even at 2800Mhz, CL15. A 2600X would be a better gaming cpu than mine for pure gaming especially if you pair it with good 3200Mhz or higher memory.

That said those old Xeons are certainly hardy beasts for how long in the tooth they've gotten. It'll be 2025 and there'll still be folks clinging to X58.

[Pasi123]

8 minutes ago, M300843499 said:

Exact same arch and exact same IPC, i would gain nothing.

You would get 2 more cores and almost same game performance as the R5 2600 for a lot cheaper. IMO it would be really stupid to upgrade from X58 to anything worse than i7-8700K.

 

Edit: CPU-Z benchmark on my X5670 @ 4.32GHz

[M300843499]

Just now, Pasi123 said:

You would get 2 more cores and almost same game performance as the R5 2600 for a lot cheaper. IMO it would be really stupid to upgrade from X58 to anything worse than i7-8700K.

I won't lie the E5640 is great, the extra cores though are simply of no use to me, there is already no bottleneck with the CPU, it however is bottlenecked by the crap memory latency in order to achieve such high overclocks (over 4.2ghz requires RAM at 1300mhz bringing performance down) and memory latency has caused juddering and stutter vs a lower CPU clock at better RAM speeds. Plus i have no idea if this X58 board will last another couple of years, it already was bought with a sooty PCI-E slot like something was burnt, but cannot complain was a steal.

 

PCSX2 struggles in the games i want to emulate like GT4, SOTC & MGS

[App4that]

21 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

Nah it will, were getting to the point now where the real top end GPU development (IPC if you will) is way ahead of the improvements were getting with CPU's. If you think about the difference between say a 4790k and an 8700k in gaming is (4 generations, 2 tocks) is MUCH smaller than the gain of a 780GTX to a 1080GTX, we generally see 30 - 50% improvement from the card jumps on new releases aka 780 > 980 > 1080, and rumour has is that 1180 will be + 51% on a 1080(non ti). Even an 8700k @ 5.3ghz is gonna hold back that at 1080P of course, its gonna be worse on anything less including Ryzen

 

The real answer is the developers need to lever the best from multicore CPU's now theyre becoming mainstream - it shouldn't be difficult considering consoles have been 8 cores for what 5+ years now? Otherwise to get the best from our GPU's were all gonna need minimum 1440P panels. 

 

Imagine what a 1180ti is gonna be like if the next CPU gen only increases IPC by 5% or less again ... 

I agree we'll see better use of core going further, but by far the most common CPU out there for gaming is a 4c. Developers shouldn't focus on a niche group, but the average. Why I don't see the focus being on single core speed changing over the next 5 years any more than it has in the last. 

[M300843499]

27 minutes ago, App4that said:

I agree we'll see better use of core going further, but by far the most common CPU out there for gaming is a 4c. Developers shouldn't focus on a niche group, but the average. Why I don't see the focus being on single core speed changing over the next 5 years any more than it has in the last. 

Let us hope some big miracle breakthrough happens, CPU's are boring these days.

[App4that]

Just now, M300843499 said:

Let us hope some big miracle breakthrough happens, CPU's are boring these days.

Kinda hard to, software is decades behind hardware, why optimization is so bad. we could live out the next 5 years not having anything change, and still see games and other software improve normaly. Right now developers don't have to bother, the hardware just brute forces it. Why Ryzen had an issue, Ryzen has to be faster than Intel to be even, because the people writing the software you use are used to working with it. If Intel made sume JUGE breakthrough, they'd be in the same position. 

 

Horrible analogy. Say tomorrow Ford comes out with a new way to drive a car that's way better. The adoption rate of this marvel would depend on peoples willingness to learn how to drive again. So, it being better, has to fight with people liking what they know. 

 

Honesly, I see none of this mattering in 10 years. Everything will be streemed, you won't need or care about hardware. "PC" gamers will come to be like console gamers and fight over software, not hardware.

 

But, I digress.