Help me decide!

[SfaceTimmy]

AMD or Intel. Want it to last 7+ years. Main usage is gaming, work, school, and other everyday tasks. Will overclock sometime in the future. 

Let me know which is best, also if you can make it any cheaper, or want to make changes do so and let me know. 

Thanks!

 

https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/list/cFrYNQ

 

Or 

 

https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/list/y7Bh3b

[Mio85]

What's your budget? If you're mainly gaming, then get a new Coffee lake chip. For the price you can't beat the gaming performance.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X/3937vs3958

 

The 8700k OC's much higher than the 2700x. It is the much smarter choice if you're looking at gaming.

If you're looking at future proofing, the extra ryzen cores won't help. Look at AMD's old FX line of chips, they had more cores but they actually lasted just as long as intel's quad cores. Because the quad cores had a usable core clock.

[Crunchy Dragon]

21 minutes ago, Mio85 said:

If you're looking at future proofing, the extra ryzen cores won't help.

Until games start to need more cores and threads, then the Ryzen 5 lineup makes a lot of sense.

[Streetguru]

28 minutes ago, SfaceTimmy said:

=

8 cores are more fun than 6 cores.

 

You should just get a GTX 1070ti with current pricing most likely.

[Mio85]

1 minute ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Until games start to need more cores and threads, then the Ryzen 5 lineup makes a lot of sense.

It's possible, but like I said about the FX line-up. The extra cores didn't help much, since by the time they became useful the chips were barely able to push 30 fps.

[SfaceTimmy]

2 minutes ago, Mio85 said:

It's possible, but like I said about the FX line-up. The extra cores didn't help much, since by the time they became useful the chips were barely able to push 30 fps.

 

27 minutes ago, Mio85 said:

What's your budget? If you're mainly gaming, then get a new Coffee lake chip. For the price you can't beat the gaming performance.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X/3937vs3958

 

The 8700k OC's much higher than the 2700x. It is the much smarter choice if you're looking at gaming.

If you're looking at future proofing, the extra ryzen cores won't help. Look at AMD's old FX line of chips, they had more cores but they actually lasted just as long as intel's quad cores. Because the quad cores had a usable core clock.

I hear you, but at the same time I am still rocking the FX- 6300 oc to 4.3Ghz, with a GTX 760 and its not that bad. Thought I think the i7 would oc better, with AMD its playing silicon lottery at time. 

[Mio85]

1 minute ago, SfaceTimmy said:

 

I hear you, but at the same time I am still rocking the FX- 6300 oc to 4.3Ghz, with a GTX 760 and its not that bad. Thought I think the i7 would oc better, with AMD its playing silicon lottery at time. 

Honestly, either of them would be fine. Especially if you plan on playing at 60 fps.

[SfaceTimmy]

8 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

8 cores are more fun than 6 cores.

 

You should just get a GTX 1070ti with current pricing most likely.

I would, but I just one to go overkill so it will last longer!

[Crunchy Dragon]

2 minutes ago, Mio85 said:

It's possible, but like I said about the FX line-up. The extra cores didn't help much, since by the time they became useful the chips were barely able to push 30 fps.

The FX lineup was garbage anyway, they just couldn't compete with Intel's quad cores in performance.

 

The extra cores didn't help much, but I'm not aware that the FX 8350 for example actually had 8 physical cores. There's a lot of conflicting reports online, the best one I can find is that the FX 8xxx chips had 4 modules, each module containing 2 cores. Rather than Intel's design at the time for the i5s that each had 4 modules, each module containing a single core. AMD's 2012 FX design looked like this:

Spoiler

Windows Task Manager(as well as CPU-Z to my knowledge) will report 4 cores, 8 threads.

There is a rather extensive thread on Tom's Hardware about this topic that you can read, it's actually pretty interesting: http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1798367/true-amd-8350-cores-cpu.html

[SfaceTimmy]

1 minute ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

The FX lineup was garbage anyway, they just couldn't compete with Intel's quad cores in performance.

 

The extra cores didn't help much, but I'm not aware that the FX 8350 for example actually had 8 physical cores. There's a lot of conflicting reports online, the best one I can find is that the FX 8xxx chips had 4 modules, each module containing 2 cores. Rather than Intel's design at the time for the i5s that each had 4 modules, each module containing a single core. AMD's 2012 FX design looked like this:

  Reveal hidden contents

Windows Task Manager(as well as CPU-Z to my knowledge) will report 4 cores, 8 threads.

There is a rather extensive thread on Tom's Hardware about this topic that you can read, it's actually pretty interesting: http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1798367/true-amd-8350-cores-cpu.html

 

3 minutes ago, Mio85 said:

Honestly, either of them would be fine. Especially if you plan on playing at 60 fps.

I know both builds are good, but if you were going to make this overkill and last 10 years whats your final system?

[Streetguru]

6 minutes ago, SfaceTimmy said:

I would, but I just one to go overkill so it will last longer!

That isn't how GPU's work... you're better off saving your money because faster than 1080ti GPUs are coming near the end of the year

 

Also you probably want X470 so you can get StoreMI
 

 

[Mio85]

3 minutes ago, SfaceTimmy said:

 

I know both builds are good, but if you were going to make this overkill and last 10 years whats your final system?

Well, we don't really know. Either way you're not going to get amazing performance with either of these systems 10 years from now. Especially with our technological progression rate.

Both of these systems will last about the same time in terms of usable gaming performance.

[Crunchy Dragon]

1 minute ago, SfaceTimmy said:

 

I know both builds are good, but if you were going to make this overkill and last 10 years whats your final system?

I doubt any current CPU will last 10 years. Games are advancing, and are speculated to start using more threads to run.

 

I personally wouldn't choose Ryzen for my endgame-tier overkill gaming rig, but I probably wouldn't choose an 8700K either. I might go the crazy route and grab a Xeon. Most are clocked high enough that they can run modern games,  and they've got the cores to keep up. I honestly can't say, the future of technology especially is very unpredictable.

 

The best word I can think of to describe this field is "fluid". Constantly changing, never really staying still, never really predictable.

[GirlFromYonder]

49 minutes ago, SfaceTimmy said:

I would, but I just one to go overkill so it will last longer!

games are slowly becoming more multicore. I would say ryzen because then you can also slot in a ryzen 4000 series chip in your x470 mobo too. 

 

this will help in knowing which mobo to get for ryzen

There is also one for b350