Curious about current processor scene.

[Queen Chrysalis]

Just now, Yoinkerman said:

i mean i guess but i'd definitely recommend an intel to someone who isn't that computer savvy and just wants a good gaming computer without fuss

People who aren't computer savvy won't notice the difference between 105 fps and 110 fps.  Heck, they probably won't even know how to turn off vsync or buy an adaptive sync monitor.  Also, anyone buying a 1080ti to open up the system to a cpu bottleneck should know these things.  

[Yoinkerman]

I'm not sure why you'd think that, gamers can be knowledgeable about games and settings and fps and not about computer hardware.  They don't go hand in hand.

[Jurrunio]

6 minutes ago, Queen Chrysalis said:

I am comparing the 2600s OC to the 8700 at base, due to it needing a more expensive mobo to OC while the 2600 can do so on a $50 b350.  The fact that performance at base is still even that close when one chip is about half the price of the other should be shocking.

8700 doesnt overclock at all on Z370, you can ask @Princess Cadence (who I believed got Z370 because other chipsets didnt exist)

 

Though I just checked, 2600 seems to take a big discount recently? It was $200+, now it's $170...

[Queen Chrysalis]

1 minute ago, Yoinkerman said:

I'm not sure why you'd think that, gamers can be knowledgeable about games and settings and fps and not about computer hardware.  They don't go hand in hand.

I mean I can hardly notice a 20 fps difference after 60.  I don't mean to sound like a fanboy, I really have tried to justify intel systems to myself in build designs, but it seems all lines of logic for a reasonable, budget-optimized system point back to AMD.  And budget optimization should apply to any system under $2500, otherwise you are sacrificing performance that could be had elsewhere.

[Queen Chrysalis]

Just now, Jurrunio said:

8700 doesnt overclock at all on Z370, you can ask @Princess Cadence (who I believed got Z370 because other chipsets didnt exist) tried.

 

Though I just checked, 2600 seems to take a big discount recently? It was $200+, now it's $170...

yup.  same price as an 8400.  AMD is doing everything they can to make the market competitive, but intel and NVIDIA continue to erode my faith in capitalism on a daily basis.  And I used to be a hardcore libertarian.

[Rainbow Dash]

I would go AMD Ryzen, just to replace my FX 8350. But on the other hand I have an i7-7700k sitting here already, so meh. The Ryzen is cheap enough that if I wanted a cheap computer to use for gaming and overclock for fun I would just get one. With Intel, overclocking is limited to Z chipset and they cost too much, along with a unlocked CPU. If Intel made the Z chipset motherboards like $50 and have all the CPU unlocked like AMD then there would be a huge competition. Though FSB overclocking is limited with locked CPUs on Z boards it makes almost no sense to buy a low end Intel CPU with a high end board.

[dizmo]

I'd go with Intel just because I've had problems with Ryzen, and frankly don't want to have to find the "holy grail" of RAM to make it perform to it's highest potential.

With Intel, I plug it in and it works. You know, the way PC hardware should be.

I also don't do anything that benefits that much from the extra threads.

[Mooshi]

ITT cartoon horses giving processor advice

[Queen Chrysalis]

Just now, Mooshi said:

ITT cartoon horses giving processor advice

More like in this forum. 

[Globox]

4 hours ago, Queen Chrysalis said:

I am comparing the 2600s OC to the 8700 at base, due to it needing a more expensive mobo to OC while the 2600 can do so on a $50 b350.  The fact that performance at base is still even that close when one chip is about half the price of the other should be shocking.

Since when can the 8700 be overclocked? I am assuming (please tell me if I'm wrong) that the "overclocked" benchmark numbers are when the turboboost is on. I mean, 2600's typically ovc to around 4.2 GHz, the all core turboboost for 8700 is 4.3. I doubt a 2600 of 4.2 will beat a 4.3 8700, hence the 10% difference in benchmark performance. Let's just compare them both from overclocked results from now on.

 

Please, I dont want to make false claims so correct me if I'm wrong.

[TheLaserCucumber]

5 hours ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

8700 non-K is equal to 8700K at stock speeds in performance, which is more or less a first for Intel.

The base clock of the 8700K is way higher and the K model has a higher boost

[Fullmental]

8 hours ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

8700 non-K is equal to 8700K at stock speeds in performance, which is more or less a first for Intel.

This actually used to be the norm, back in the Sandy Bridge days (and Ivy Bridge/Haswell for i5). Even Ivy Bridge and Haswell still had the same turbo clock between K and non-K processors in the i7 line. They only really made a significant difference in the Skylake/Kaby Lake generations.

[Queen Chrysalis]

21 hours ago, Globox said:

Since when can the 8700 be overclocked? I am assuming (please tell me if I'm wrong) that the "overclocked" benchmark numbers are when the turboboost is on. I mean, 2600's typically ovc to around 4.2 GHz, the all core turboboost for 8700 is 4.3. I doubt a 2600 of 4.2 will beat a 4.3 8700, hence the 10% difference in benchmark performance. Let's just compare them both from overclocked results from now on.

 

Please, I dont want to make false claims so correct me if I'm wrong.

I think there is a way to OC them a little bit, but I'm not sure how.  Ask Linus about it.