Ryzen 5 2600+1080ti vs 8700k+1080?

[Jumper118]

Same price for both systems with 16gb of 3200mhz memes

 

Which would you go for? 

[wujoh]

i would go for the 8700k and the 1080

[uncfan07]

What will you be doing with the system? Gaming? Productivity? What monitor are you using

[Jumper118]

mainly games 1440p 75-100hz depending if 75hz monitor can oc to 100hz. 

[gbergeron]

5 hours ago, Jumper118 said:

Same price for both systems with 16gb of 3200mhz memes

 

Which would you go for? 

If you intend to keep the cpu for 2-3 generation of GPU and upgrade the gpu everytime you can, go intel.

If you gonna keep this pc 3 years or less and rebuild new etc.. go 1080ti ryzen

[porina]

8700k+1080, replace 1080 with next gen top end Ti. Nice.

 

If I had to go red cpu 2700X no question.

[Jumper118]

7 minutes ago, gbergeron said:

If you intend to keep the cpu for 2-3 generation of GPU and upgrade the gpu everytime you can, go intel.

If you gonna keep this pc 3 years or less and rebuild new etc.. go 1080ti ryzen

 

3 minutes ago, porina said:

8700k+1080, replace 1080 with next gen top end Ti. Nice.

 

If I had to go red cpu 2700X no question.

would not upgrade the gpu for a while. would stick with the same hw for a 2-3 years until upgrading to 4k. 

[porina]

5 minutes ago, Jumper118 said:

would not upgrade the gpu for a while. would stick with the same hw for a 2-3 years until upgrading to 4k. 

If pure gaming, no intention of high fps display, I'd lean towards faster GPU in that case. Let you max out the eye candy for longer.

[Jumper118]

1 minute ago, porina said:

If pure gaming, no intention of high fps display, I'd lean towards faster GPU in that case. Let you max out the eye candy for longer.

games, interwebs, teamspeak/discord. no streams or videos  

 

I am thinking:

2600+1080ti

  -better performance now

 - better upgrade path for cpu so board/ram can be reused.

 

8700K+1080

 -no cpu upgrade path but can just put a faster gpu in without upgrading cpu as well

 - if going to 144hz 1400p rather than 4k in future this would be better for high fps

[porina]

24 minutes ago, Jumper118 said:

I am thinking:

That about sums it up... you say CPU upgrade path... but how far might that go? 8 cores maybe not going to change a huge amount, and Ryzen 3000 who knows. 

 

Path could be assumed more limiting on Intel side, you might or might not be able to use the fabled 8 core on existing mobo.

[Jumper118]

4 minutes ago, porina said:

That about sums it up... you say CPU upgrade path... but how far might that go? 8 cores maybe not going to change a huge amount, and Ryzen 3000 who knows. 

 

Path could be assumed more limiting on Intel side, you might or might not be able to use the fabled 8 core on existing mobo.

you never know, 7nm 8 core ryzen might do 4.6-4.8ghz and give a massive boost in performance with navi v2 gpu  

[porina]

Just now, Jumper118 said:

you never know, 7nm 8 core ryzen might do 4.6-4.8ghz and give a massive boost in performance with navi v2 gpu  

Or they might be stuck around low 4.x GHz but just at lower power consumption... says the person still using a stock 6700k on main system even though I have choice of 1700 that can scrape 4.0 if I like extra heating, or 7800X that doesn't throttle at 4.8... if I can just overcome the switching pain.

 

I think I'd buy for now, worry about the future when it happens.

[ravenshrike]

1 hour ago, Jumper118 said:

mainly games 1440p 75-100hz depending if 75hz monitor can oc to 100hz. 

Then it doesn't matter. Ryzen 2 can't push 144+hz, but 75-100 it does just fine.

[DarkSmith2]

8700k + GTX1180/1170?

[Queen Chrysalis]

14 hours ago, porina said:

If I had to go red cpu 2700X no question.

Why?  First off, the x is pointless and anyone who knows anything about ryzen knows that. Secondly, the 2600 is so much better of a value.  Its 140 dollars less than the 2700x (110 less than the 2700) and only has two fewer cores, which is not even remotely a big deal. 

-Same exact cores

-Same core per core performance

-Way cheaper

-Loses very little relative performance, (only noticeable in applications that use all 8 cores (and the 2600 still does VERY well in said applications, the 2700 just does a little better, but not 110 dollars better)).

[Queen Chrysalis]

To answer OP's question,  Go with the 1080ti.  Your priorities for a gaming computer should be:

1-GPU

2-Relevant Monitor

3-CPU that won't bottleneck the GPU

4-RAM speed

5-Amount of RAM

6-Everything else

 

And the 2600 is almost identical to the 8700k at 1440p

[Brooksie359]

12 minutes ago, Queen Chrysalis said:

To answer OP's question,  Go with the 1080ti.  Your priorities for a gaming computer should be:

1-GPU

2-Relevant Monitor

3-CPU that won't bottleneck the GPU

4-RAM speed

5-Amount of RAM

6-Everything else

 

And the 2600 is almost identical to the 8700k at 1440p

Was just about to say that at 1440p the gap is quite small.

[porina]

38 minutes ago, Queen Chrysalis said:

Why?  First off, the x is pointless and anyone who knows anything about ryzen knows that. Secondly, the 2600 is so much better of a value.  Its 140 dollars less than the 2700x (110 less than the 2700) and only has two fewer cores, which is not even remotely a big deal. 

-Same exact cores

-Same core per core performance

-Way cheaper

-Loses very little relative performance, (only noticeable in applications that use all 8 cores (and the 2600 still does VERY well in said applications, the 2700 just does a little better, but not 110 dollars better)).

At time of writing I was considering overall performance not just for upper mid fps gaming. See my later response for gaming consideration, where I would go 2600+1080Ti, but that is driven more by the GPU than the CPU which is more a by-product.

 

With 2000 series CPUs, the price gap between X and non-X has narrowed a lot compared to 1000 series. The incremental cost is not significant any more, so might as well get the better binned part. 2700X is still cheaper than 8700k (I think, not checked recently).

 

I recognise people don't have unlimited budgets, but it is a mistake considering components in isolation. Consider value diluted over total system cost.

[Queen Chrysalis]

5 minutes ago, porina said:

At time of writing I was considering overall performance not just for upper mid fps gaming. See my later response for gaming consideration, where I would go 2600+1080Ti, but that is driven more by the GPU than the CPU which is more a by-product.

 

With 2000 series CPUs, the price gap between X and non-X has narrowed a lot compared to 1000 series. The incremental cost is not significant any more, so might as well get the better binned part. 2700X is still cheaper than 8700k (I think, not checked recently).

 

I recognise people don't have unlimited budgets, but it is a mistake considering components in isolation. Consider value diluted over total system cost.

If you think like that for every component, the system grows by $200 in cost.  Ever part you buy should have some thought toward cost/benefit.  And the $140 difference between the 2700x and the 2600 could buy you a 500GB SSD.  Yes it is cheaper than the 8700k, yes either would be a better purchase than the 8700k, but I think having cores 7 and 8 is not worth the extra $140, especially when those are the two least used cores.

[DildorTheDecent]

20 hours ago, Jumper118 said:

Which would you go for? 

Surely you can do better by rummaging through the trays of processors and shelves of GPUs?

[i_build_nanosuits]

i would get the 8700K and GTX 1080

Faster CPU will pay in the long run, and a GPU upgrade is an easy fix, and in a couple years from now you'll likely be able to get a card that is much faster than a 1080ti for much less money, and the 8700K will not hold it back, but the Ryzen CPU will...since it's already significantly impacting the performance of a 1080ti in current games.

[DarkSmith2]

im just saying this, i do love my 8700k @5ghz.

 

Im only playing on 1080p with a GTX970 so im GPU bottlenecked when playing any recent title on good quality settings.

But the difference between ultra/high and a mix of low/medium settings got so minimal, new games doesnt look bad with low settings anymore like they did a few years ago. Yea some do look different i agree, but most doesnt look bad and are optimized to run best at the lowest settings.

 

The more you move away from ultra settings the more you'll get from having a faster CPU in comparisson to a faster GPU. Its up to you, if you are that "ultra"-setting player maybe even gameworks stuff full on, get the bigger GPU, because even using a non-OC'ed sandybridge CPU would show no difference in FPS in a fully GPU bottlenecked scenario like 1440p Ultra++. But the time will come, when you have to turn down settings to get sufficient FPS and a GPU upgrade alone may not help with a Ryzen CPU in the future. The same way it behaved with FX-Series CPU's.

[Biggerboot]

Some of this decision comes down to the type of gamer/user you are.  I really like the 8700k + 1080 combo, since the better IPC has more real world benefits, and I like going heavier on the CPU so I only have to worry about a GPU upgrade later. 

But, a 2600 isn't going to be holding back a 1080ti in most cases, especially if you're doing 1440p@60hz.  So if the question is, which one is going to get you better gaming performance today, probably the R5+1080 ti in most cases.  Then instead of upgrading the GPU later on, maybe the CPU. 

But you can't really go wrong with either.

[Queen Chrysalis]

2 hours ago, DarkSmith2 said:

im just saying this, i do love my 8700k @5ghz.

 

Im only playing on 1080p with a GTX970 so im GPU bottlenecked when playing any recent title on good quality settings.

But the difference between ultra/high and a mix of low/medium settings got so minimal, new games doesnt look bad with low settings anymore like they did a few years ago. Yea some do look different i agree, but most doesnt look bad and are optimized to run best at the lowest settings.

 

The more you move away from ultra settings the more you'll get from having a faster CPU in comparisson to a faster GPU. Its up to you, if you are that "ultra"-setting player maybe even gameworks stuff full on, get the bigger GPU, because even using a non-OC'ed sandybridge CPU would show no difference in FPS in a fully GPU bottlenecked scenario like 1440p Ultra++. But the time will come, when you have to turn down settings to get sufficient FPS and a GPU upgrade alone may not help with a Ryzen CPU in the future. The same way it behaved with FX-Series CPU's.

Man my 8150 still got a stable 60 in PUBG at High with a gtx 1080.  Also, I'll take ultra settings and ultra MSAA over meme frames any day.  

[DarkSmith2]

18 minutes ago, Queen Chrysalis said:

Man my 8150 still got a stable 60 in PUBG at High with a gtx 1080.  Also, I'll take ultra settings and ultra MSAA over meme frames any day.  

yea ofc, if you are a gamer thats prioritizing cranked up visual effects and image quality only while standing still instead of while moving, 60hz and the highest resolution possible are your go to. On which resolution are you playing? A 8150 should bottleneck a GTX1080 quite alot unless you are playing at 4k. I guess even at 4k you are missing out alot of FPS that another CPU would deliver. I bet you wont get any FPS more with a 1080 than with a 1070.

 

Everyone has its own favourites. I would prefer 1080p240hz gaming, unfortunately pubg is fps capped. So for this specific game i would use something like DSR if i would have a capable GPU. But this is only one game.