Doing my first build and I'm unsure if I should get the

depends on what you need senpai. Intel are best for concentrating a lot of force into 1 or 2 programs,
>vidya
>OBS
>LineIn or some such

Amd is great for multitasking.
>browser window
>VPN
>Media player
>photoshop

the question is more power or more threads.

of course, with all that in mind, a decent gpu and sound card will reduce load and make both chips more effective.

>>59738616
How come? I thought amd is suppose to have the upper hand once it comes to OBS.

>>59738471
If the 7700K is within your budget, you should buy the R7 1700 and overclock it to 4GHz. The R5 line has no benefits other than price.

>>59738808
well, it does, but if you are only running that, a game, and a sound application its better to get the clock speed for your games.

with either processor you should be using a watercooler.

>>59739017
Aha, unfortunately i dont have the money to buy 7700k. So either 1600 or i5..

>>59739129
You would have to be insanely stupid to get a i5 over a 1600.

File: IMG-20161027-WA0003.jpg (11KB, 280x280px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 280x280px

>>59739148
Yes, the shills almost jewed me with the i5 and quick sync. Im getting the 1600.

:)

File: Better_build.png (112KB, 2293x517px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 2293x517px

>>59738471
Alright anon, I'm going to assume that you can afford a 1440p monitor.

We know that the R5 1600 will be behind the i7-7700K by about 10%. But when you're already above 100-130 FPS, does it matter ? Mind you, the R5 is a fresh CPU that performs excellently considering that no game till now has been developed with Ryzen-specific tuning.

Realistically the primary bottleneck is the GPU. If you're gaming at 1440p, the GTX 1080 + Ryzen 5 1600 will give you better performance than an i7-7700K system.

Better yet, get Vega if it'll be released soon. Put your money towards a freesync monitor. Your gaming experience at that price point will be unparalleled.

Anything more than 4 cores isn't really useful unless you're running specialized software. The extra cores end up being useless since they aren't really taken advantage of. That's why the 7700k is still only 4 cores, if software developers optimized for more than that Intel would make 6 and 8 core processors more.

>>59740755
>8 cores? What do you need 6 cores for? 4 cores should be enough for anyone!

You know even Intel is going to start offering 6 cores at non-insane prices, right?

>>59738471
Do you want high fps for a 120/144hz monitor? 7700k.
Do you have 60hz monitor, then you don't care and even a 70 dollar dual core pentium will be fine.

>>59740755
I'm not saying that 6 cores or 8 cores aren't useful, however they aren't really useful when you're using software that isn't optimized for using anything over 4 cores. Now if I was building something like a server with custom software and firmware then more cores would probably be better.

>>59740802
Sorry meant this
>>59740960
as a reply

>>59739017
that's assuming you're playing a cpu-intensive enough game that a ryzen cpu is the bottleneck
which is everything but likely, you don't buy a $325+ CPU to play at 720p low res unless you need absurdly high framerates (+300) for some reason

>>59740541
You might wanna see if allegations that Nvidia DX12 drivers are horrendously threaded before dropping much cash on a Ryzen+Nvidia build.

Intel+Nvidia isn't going anywhere, and Vega might end up doing better with an R5 or R7 than a GTX 1080.

>>59742091
Buying an Intel/Nvidia build right now is incredibly short-sighted and not future proof at all. Intel's already planning on a new socket in the near future, so you can forget upgrading your 4c/8t. And they might not even have 6c/12t for another year at the least. Nvidia's cards are terrible in DX12 and Vulkan and there doesn't seem to be any change to this any time soon.

>>59738471
E7-8893 v2, you're welcome

The only reason to get a Ryzen chip over a 7700k is because you hate Intel.

>>59742262
shoo shoo stinky shill

>>59738616
I need the "force" of my 7700k all the time. The latest Intel CPU's are basically perfected why fuck with ricing AMDs?

>>59742322

Says the guy that offers no real argument. 7700k beats the Ryzen chips in every test aside from number crunching benchmarks.

Seriously, it's the objective winner, but I can understand wanting a bit of variety in the CPU market.

>>59738616

>photoshop

The embarrassing thing is that Intel actually performs better in productivity suites.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review,4987-7.html

All of the benchmarks have the 7700k coming out well ahead of Ryzen chips.

>>59742375

>except for

Blender
LAAMP
and Encoding

But in Photoshop, Solidworks, and AutoCAD, the 7700k is better.

AMD stopped being good ages ago
Anyone shilling that garbage is a contrarian retard with buyers remorse or massive delusion

>>59742424
Literally this. Just go for Intel, shit just works. I've never had a single fucking problem with any of my i7 machines.

>>59742424
>>59742375
>>59742262
Amazing how all these shills showed up at once. Someone ring the shekel alarm?

>>59742462

Then what makes Intel better than Ryzen? It's dumb to pay more money for a chip that's not as good.

>>59742462
No shill here, but the i7 is pretty much the standard for computing now a days. Show me where a 6700K and 7700K ever gives problems?

>>59742511
Why does AMD still use pins on their CPU?

>>59738471
This >>59738856
What's the budget?

>>59742567
pins make for better contacts than LGA. You should only use LGA when density prevents you from using pins.

>>59738856
How's the performance on a 1700 vs a 7700k coupled with a 1050ti

>>59742462
>Former AMD engineer proved why they've been shit for years and verified many things we assumed
>hurr it's le shill meme
Hang yourself you contrarian virgin NEET

>>59742595
With a 1050ti you will never, in any case, be cpu limited with those cpus, so between the two pick the ryzen

>>59740755
It's not 2008 anymore, grampa

>>59742636
What about the the 1080ti cause i'm thinking of getting that soon.

>>59742595
If you're going that poorfag with your GPU you might as well just get a G4560 because you won't hit any CPU bottlenecks anyway.

>>59742684
See
>>59742115

Hey guys remember when everyone was asking about building a gaming PC and people were saying

>wait for Ryzen
>wait for Ryzen
>wait for Ryzen

And then it turns out that Ryzen isn't as good for gaming as an Intel chip

>>59742701
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3178844/components-graphics/nvidia-supercharges-geforce-directx-12-performance-with-new-game-ready-driver.html

what about this

>>59742816
I've been here for years and it's always the same with AMD shills, I was hoping they would compete but they've been getting BTFO worse and worse every generation

>>59742839
Marketing. DX11 is still faster in most of those games.

https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/03/22/dx12_versus_dx11_gaming_performance_video_card_review/11

File: 54.7.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>59742816
>using Stuttertel chips for gaming

Absolutely disgusting.

>>59742986

Of course it is, DX11 is less intensive.

>>59743022

They must not be stuttering too badly if they keep up a higher FPS than Ryzen chips.

>>59738471
R5 1500X + RX 480 = 1080p sweet spot

>>59743039
>lower average
>truly disgusting 0.1% frametimes
>higher FPS

What did... he mean... by this?

File: forhonor4cpux5ums.png (103KB, 582x1048px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 582x1048px

>corelets will never know what smooth gameplay feels like as they bounce up and down constantly

Sad!

>>59743039

I've never realized how important minimum frame rates are until recently. You won't notice a drop from 130 to 90, but you'll notice one from 70 to 45. If a game does not stay above 60 FPS at all times, you need to change something in your computer.

File: Intel1.png (246KB, 882x758px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 882x758px

>>59743154
delet this

>>59738471

Get i5-7600K or i5-7350K if you only care about gaming performance. They almost as fast i7-7700 at stock and you easily catch-up with a little overclocking.

i7-7700K makes little sense since the HT on it is meant for heavy multi-threaded workloads and Ryzen 5 and 7 completely BTFO the i7-7700 at these kind of loads.

>>59742816

Because Ryzen introduces much needed competition and Intel might do some price cuts in response to it.

The performance difference isn't noticeable either. This isn't the Bulldozer versus Sandy Bridge era.

>/v/-tards and Intel-shills are bloody idiots

Ryzen would be a better choice IMO because you know that Intel is going to abandon LGA1151 soon. AM4 is going to be around for awhile, so when all the kinks are ironed out in Ryzen you won't have to change motherboards.

>>59743893
What a retarded post. Literally recommending a dual core CPU in 2017. And not only a dual core, but a massively-overpriced one that gets destroyed by the lowest tier locked i5 available, which costs the same.

>With the Core i5 chip running some 1.4GHz slower than the 7350K it still manages to hit almost identical gaming frame rates while chewing through a chunk less raw power and with nearly half the peak operating temperature.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel/intel-core-i3-7350k-review-benchmarks

The 7350K is bait for the the most gullible retards around, just like the G3258 was, though at least the latter was priced appropriately.

>>59738471
Ryzen 5 without a doubt

>>59743893
thats beyond untrue

>>59744152

I7-7700K's gimmicks are HT, slight higher stock/turbo speed over the 7600K (Overclocking makes this pointless) and slightly more L3 cache (really meant for HT)

The gimmicks aren't worth the $80-100 premium over i5-7600K and 7350K unless you want the best single-threaded CPU performance and cost is no object.

7700K is becoming meme-tier mid-range CPU unless Intel does a price cut on it.

>>59744112

Single-threaded and dual-threaded performance is the only important criteria for gaming-fags

If you care about multi-threaded performance then you are going to be opting for i5 or Ryzen chips. I7-7700K is a sub-optimal choice at best under multi-threaded workloads.

>>59738471
Ryzen 5 is better than a stuttering 7700k housefire in literally every way.

File: 1489756579597.png (5KB, 518x230px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 518x230px

>>59743141
>>59744762
>shills will never stop posting slavshit fake benchmarks

>>59744789
>slavshit benchmarks are bad
>let's post this IntelReport fake benchmark instead

Only 2 shekels for you, anon. Sorry.

Got band new 7600K and it's running vcore @ 1.35 on auto, should I tone it down manually?

>>59742636
But the i7-7700k is the better CPU for gaming though.

>>59742595
I can play dota 2 @ 120fps on low on my 7700k igpu 4266 ram.

>>59742816
>RYZEN CPU

Let them dream, Anon. Let them dream.

hahaha
>all these corelet shills
hahaha

>>59742595
Get i7, ryzen is piece of shit 10fps slower on avr for same price as 7700k, and with nvidia card you will get even less fps due buggy drivers, you literally have no choice but to get i7 or i5

>>59742115
There is literally nothing future proof about ryzen, it has weak 8 cores while games will always need strong single perf which ryzen lacks. I7 7700k will be enough for 5 years so stfu pajeet, while you will have to upgrade that shitty ryzen twice in those 5 years since it will start bottlenecking your new GPU in 2 years.

File: 1490577476119.jpg (45KB, 960x610px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 960x610px

>>59748172
>I7 7700k will be enough for 5 years

>>59743022
7700k is a stuttering piece of shit, everyone knows this

File: 1489160516428.png (245KB, 800x612px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 800x612px

>>59748172
>I7 7700k will be enough for 5 years
>being a clinically retarded corelet for another 5 years
Intel shills are the most retarded people in the entire universe.

You'd be stupid to get a 7700k in this day and age. 6700k was the last moment to buy 4/8 without in this price category without being a retard. I'm on a 6600k and you can't multitask for shit with 4/4 @4.7ghz, nothing even slightly demanding can be ran alongside gaymes.
R5 1600 is the minimum if you don't want to get cucked more and more in the coming years. 5820k would be awesome too, but it's an X99 meme.

Gonna buy i5 7400, still thinking about amd though.

File: rSRaFDs0REc.jpg (83KB, 1506x302px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1506x302px

>>59742424
>>59742375
>>59742347
>>59742262

>>59749163
are you really retarded? buy ryzen

>>59738657
this guy fucking gets it

finally a functional brain on /g/

>>59749560
n-no DELET
ryzen <333

>>59749614
You're a dumb sameposter so it's pretty funny how wrong you are about sound cards.

The low end ryzens look really good, but they ain't out.
The 7700k is overkill, even for gaming. For for a 7600k and OC it.

>>59749688
maybe he is some corelet who actually benefits 3 % from fast sound card

>>59749702
You're getting your information from 2002
Motherboards have dedicated sound processors on them.

>>59749714
this guy fucking gets it

finally a functional brain on /g/

>>59748172
>weak 8 cores

Yep 25% less single core compared to an OCed i7-7700K is weak now. You heard it here first on /g/ - Intel shills and retarded gaymer kids

>>59749746
Hey, instead of starting a tantrum like a little baby you could drag out some benchmarks showing that sound cards improve FPS.
This will be hard as they don't exist past 2002.

>>59738471
Short answer, Intel

Long answer, some programs and mostly all games are not mature enough to make use of AMDs many cores. Intel still have stronger IPC thus having an edge over programs that use around 4 cores.

Worthy notes: who the fuck cares, if one is cheaper and performs almost the same why not? But if absolute performance is what you seek, it's often better to pay up.
6800K is MUCH cheaper than 6900K and have more threads than 7700K but is also slightly older thus lacking some instructions.
R5 lacks cores and since AMDs strength still is core count why gimp on it.

7700K and 1700x/1800/x are your most obvious choices if what you do is gaming and browsing most of the time.

>>59749806
What I really want to see is the low end Ryzen. Imagine a Ryzen 4 core- single thread performance of a 1800X with half the cores for $150.
That'd be a fucking no-brainer top buy right there.

>>59749802
wth do soundcards have to do with fps

>>59749802
I'm not gonna post benchmarks but you're right.
Some boards are faster, and also some boards have problems with ports and protocols.
VR headsets and such have had problems on some boards due to specific chipsets being used and some have bad support for older USB devices on USB3.1 and loads of other things.

>>59749820
Sadly Ryzen still use modules similar to the 8350s architecture so unlike Intel that use 4 real cores with one fake attached to each, AMD use half cores per L-cache (like the modules did) so even if you half the core count you're still having the same problem, two cores sharing a cache pipeline, so lower core Ryzens are nothing but gimped high core Ryzens.

Unlike Intels i7 -> i5 where you get the benefit of higher cache, but only lacks the HT threads.
So a 7700K with HT disabled is a 7600K with better cache performance.

A Ryzen 5 is a down scaled Ryzen 7 through and through sadly.

That's why you should go Ryzen 7 if you are to use AMD.

>>59749831
Soundcards are but one example of a chipset that can affect the overall motherboard stability, performance, interference etc.
But if you disable that and use the GPUs sound (through HDMI to receiver like I do) you at least take one part out that could lower performance/stability.
Just like many people disable COM ports/floppy ports they didn't need while overclocking for maximum stability.

File: ryzen-14-game-average.png (72KB, 601x830px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 601x830px

>>59738471
Ryzen is complete shit compared to Intel

File: ryzen-photoshop.jpg (79KB, 701x479px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 701x479px

>>59738616
>photoshop

Ryzen is complete ass at photoshop

>>59749978
inb4 adobe are incompetent jews

>>59750039
Nah, that's just an image from a shill who lies

>>59749882
>Sadly Ryzen still use modules similar to the 8350s architecture so unlike Intel that use 4 real cores
You do realize how autistic you sound right?

>>59750099
Don't forget to remove this comment when you realize your mistake.

>>59749560
>java
You mean that bundle of pajeet code?

>>59749882
Your understanding of Ryzen's architecture is either outdated or you just don't understand it. The Ryzen 5 1600x and 1500x (6c12t) have access to the full 16 MB of L3 cache even though technically each physical core is a 2 MB component. The only thing that is disabled is one of the physical cores per CCX (3x3 configuruation). This isn't like Bulldozer arch at all where the FPU was shared between "cores." Not even close.

Only the lower end 1400 (4c8t) has the cache gimped with a total pool of 8 MB.

>>59750110
Don't forget to delete your comment when you realize how autistic it is to use the phrase "fake cores"

>>59750091
source https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-2017-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-907/

do your own benchmarks if everything is fake, shill

>>59750113
Things is, Ryzen is 8+8, 4+4, 3+3 2+2 instead of 16, 8, 6, 4.
Two cores are always using a part of the cache instead of having one cache pipline for itself.
Hence why I brought up the 8350 that also have cores battling for the use of cache.

>>59739214
good choice, I got the 1700 and have 0 regrets

if you want the highest gayming fps right now, get the 7700k.

if you want a more future-proof system which will most likely cause a bottleneck later than the 7700k will and which comes with a socket that's supported for several years to come, get a ryzen 1600 or 1700.

>>59750161
>https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-2017-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-907/

Not in depth enough
Into the trash it goes

File: 1491049774726.jpg (90KB, 450x357px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 450x357px

>>59750167
It's like comparing apples and oranges anon
Sure, they're both fruit. But they are considerably different

File: image.jpg (43KB, 630x384px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 630x384px

>>59749978
photoshop is a complete ass at multithreading.

>>59750167
sharing cache is a benefit. sharing the floating point unit was bulldozer's achilles heel.

>>59750190
Still, Ryzen's problems is that they have more core count than piplines to L cache.

Ryzen 7 1800X

L1 Data 8x32KB 8-way (once per core, half for each "thread")
L1 Inst. 8x64KB 4-way (even though it's 8+8 "core" it's only having a quarter of it.)
L2 8x512KB 8-way ((once per core, half for each "thread")
L3 2x8MB 16-way (1 per "core/"thread"")

7700K

L1 Data 4x32 8-way (twice per core, one for each thread)
L1 Inst 8x32 8-way (twice per core, one for each thread)
L2 4x 256KB 4-way (4 cores)
L3 8MB 16-way (4 per core, two for each thread)

>>59750237
Two cores battling for one cache memory is bad, but cores sharing each others cache is indeed good.

File: daddy.png (588KB, 679x453px) Image search: [Google]

588KB, 679x453px

>>59738471
You have not told us what kind of stuff you will be using this pc for anon. here are some examples, is it:
A: for gaming?
B: for image/video editing/streaming?
C: for CAD/3D modeling and animation?
D: for number crunching/programming?
What graphics card will you be pairing with this?
What monitor are you using and what is its hz?

We need details to give you a solid answer anon.

>>59750182
provide alternative benchmarks

conduct your own benchmarks and publish them

or kys useless redshill

you probably dont need an i7

>>59750340
>hurr durr you cant criticize anyone unless you are against me!
Great conclusion Ol' blue

>>59750449
>poorly made strawman instead of arguement
wew lad
why don't you give it a go instead of bitching about it? If you are so confident in success than provide your own benchmarks and provide your computer specs+benchmark tools used.

>>59750167
>Two cores are always using a part of the cache instead of having one cache pipline for itself.
I can't find anything to verify that what you're saying is an actual limitation to the Zen architecture. Cross CCX latency and threads bouncing between CCX has been widely speculated to be the obvious reason for any Ryzen struggles.

>>59750697
Well latencies do raise when you have to use the same cache for instructions.

>>59743893
If you're going that route why not get a 4 core 8 thread ryzen that's going to be 90% as good in gaming workloads as the i5/i7 while retaining the multithread performance of the i7 and costs less than $200. Then buy a better gpu with the savings. Frankly an extra $150 on gpu buys more for games than on cpu. you'll also end up with as good or better a system for productivity this way. The better GPU gives huge bonuses with gpgpu enabled tasks like photoshop. Ryzen isn't so far behind on a single core/thread performance basis that it isn't viable.

The current i series only really makes sense in dedicated high framerate gaming or really high budget builds

File: 1469877426690.png (124KB, 358x272px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 358x272px

>>59738616
>7700k
>OBS
>x264
>better

>>59739017
Yeah, because x264 taking two of your four cores definitely won't matter at all. :^)

File: 1469693257470.jpg (24KB, 308x302px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 308x302px

>>59742605
>Do a provocative two-liner without any evidence
>Get assblasted when people refute it
>Make up some more bullshit

Is 1440p worth adopting or should I just wait until 4k becomes the standard? 1440 seems like an intermediate resolution like 1050p and I don't want to waste my time on a soon to be outdated resolution.

>>59742329
>I have a multitasking operating system but I literally do not multitask
>I told all of my services not to multitask either

File: 1392594938240.jpg (7KB, 211x290px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 211x290px

>tfw stuck with a FX-8350 and a shitty 2012 motherboard that can hardly overclock.

>overclocked my R7 1700 to 3.9ghz @ 1.75v with the stock cooler
>processor was cheaper than intel's 7700K
>not forced to waste money on a custom cooler or god forbid use a shit tier intel stock cooler

based

>>59752893
1.375v*

>>59752340
4k will never be standard

1440 is fine

>>59752893
But what motherboard are you using? Do you need to buy a VRM heatsink for it?

>>59738616
I love how you people make it seem that you NEED 54309857349058 cores to do something as simple as multitasking and the the 7700k wouldn't be up to the task effortlessly.

This is so utterly ridiculous it hurts.

My 7700k idles at 30-35c and hits 75c under load at stock speeds with a h110i water cooler. What a piece of shit. You pretty much have to delid.

>>59742462
Amazing how all these shills showed up at once to defend ryzen. Did someone say ryzen is objectively worse than 7700k?

>>59752935
Ended up getting the ASRock X370 K4 motherboard.

>>59748908
Ryzen is a slow and overpriced piece of shit, everyone knows this

i7 7700K is a very valid choice vs R7 and R5.
5.0 overclocks and 8 threads means it is great for most things, especially if you don't want to wait for developers, MS, AMD, etc. to maybe optimize their stuff to run better.

The i5 is useless now though. If you think buying a 200$ 4 thread CPU in 2017 is worth it, you are dead delusional, unless you exclusively play competition level CSGO or something.

Also, unless something unforseen happens, the 1600X will perform like a 1800X in all games since it sports the same clock speeds (best voltage binning) and it still has a ton of cores and threads.
The 1600 will probably also be as potent as the 1700 for overclocking.
I don't expect any higher oveclocks than on the R7s, but still these will be extremely attractive choices for general use.

File: burninghouse1.jpg (174KB, 1100x733px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1100x733px

>>59752979
>5ghz

What are the chances Intel owns stock in electricity companies?

>>59743154
How the fuck did 6900K outperform the 7700K?

>>59752940
Go ahead and try to encode a CPU intensive game like BF1 at a low bitrate with good x264 quality on a 7700k and get back to me with how that works out. That's literally doing two normie as fuck things at once that make the 7700k choke on a bag of dicks.
>effortlessly
How about no.

>>59742454
>>59742424
Yup. Have had an i7-4770k since it was launched and have had 0 issues

>>59753076
more cores.

>>59753076
twice the cores and cache

>>59738471
Ryzen 5 is for budget only. If you have to consider it you might as well get Intel. The only real choice is if you want a budget 6900k or not.

>>59742244
>155W for 6 cores
kek

File: 1443370713510.jpg (45KB, 600x808px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x808px

>trying to meme people into Ryzen
>2017
Shiggy

File: 1456077166762.png (171KB, 374x347px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 374x347px

>>59755810
>Ryzen 5 is for budget only
>if you can't afford intel you should consider intel
What??

>>59750277
The L1$ and L2$ are per core, not shared!

What is shared is each 4 core module has fast access to to their direct attached 8MB L3 and a slower access to the other module's 8MB L3. Ryzen is showing superior, to Intel, cache performance when inside a single ccx despite being twice the size, it's the snooping into the other ccx that causes performance hits due to high interconnect latency. (which has been shown to be affected by the memory/controller speed).

>>59749969
>>59749978
Kill yourself, shill.

>>59756830
>amd shills upset people post proof
Really makes you think...

>>59755899

>outperforms equal priced intel in pretty much anything except some games

There is literally no reason to buy intel processors anymore except if you're a retard from /v/, but in that case get back to your containment board >>>/v/.

FUCKER

>>59738471
>1700x for $350.
>Call it $300 since you save $50 on mobo costs
Why would you buy any thing else?

> tfw you want to upgrade your CPU but your i7-2600k is still so powerful

Ryzen gen 1 is full of bugs and has some flaws.

You are pretty much beta-tester with limited selection of motherboards.

Zen+ I think is gonna be factually good.

With Intel you will have a carefree life, no need to tweak anything at all.

Problem is that the 1155 socket will be replaced soon, so no Coffee Lake CPUs to upgrade for you.


If you have a Haswell CPU, do not upgrade now.

>>59759137
>since you save $50 on mobo costs

Lol what? Only decent boards are the ones with X370 chipsets and the decent ones among those starts with 150€+

What the fuck are you idiot talking about?

Selecting a good mainboard is way more crucial than on a Intel system, as well as selecting single ranked high clocked RAM.

In the end it adds up to the costs.

Don't fucking come up with that old nostalgia that AMD is cheaper than Intel.

>>59759585
But if you the cooler thats another 30-40$ you save. And if you count the 4 extra cores you get to intel thats another 200$ you save.
So in reality 1700x costs 60-70$, you have to be a shill to claim you should buy intel in this case over the ryzen.

>>59753076
because it isnt
>MUH GAYMENG

>>59759680
No you retard, the shills like yourself, will suggest to buy CPU X without knowing what the persons will use it for mainly.

Fuck off

>And if you count the 4 extra cores you get to intel thats another 200$

Ok, ignored. I guess you are really not the brightest to make such a naïve fallacy.

>>59738471
just get a 1700, a good X370 mobo and overclock it

>>59759739
>Intel shill trying to accuse others of shilling
Nice try schlomo

File: Oh+my+god+i+m+crying+why+the+hell+is+_4dbbf1eef4b5bbc0e271f7444437b063.jpg (7KB, 229x220px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 229x220px

AMD supporters must suffer from some sort of schizophrenia.

Totally disconnected from reality, ignoring facts, even ignoring statements made by AMD regarding many things.

>muuh gayming

>the 7700k actually does very well in many many productive softwares and in some even better than the 8-core Ryzen

>b-but Intel paid the software developers to make it worse for AMD systems

>anyone who buys Intel is giving away too much money, AMD is cheaper, I swear!

>Ryzen gen 1 is actually very picky and requires a good Mainboard and very high quality ram to get the best out of it

>hahaha, are you poorfag? Why don't you buy the most expensive board and ram?


Seriously makes you think whether you are talking to some schizo guys, which would make sense.

Anyone with brain will know what he will use the CPU for and buying accordingly.

>>59759856
found the redditor

>>59759856
>reddit: the post

>>59759887
Nope, the redditors are mostly AMD shills.

Stop falseflagging, you AMD redditor

AMD shills are very active on reddit, while the Intel reddit is quite inactive.

>>59759887
>>59759902
Highly ironic, since the reddit shitters that invaded this board to shill for AMD literally admitted they are here to shitpost and we can't do anything about it.

>>59759856
>Totally disconnected from reality, ignoring facts, even ignoring statements made by AMD regarding many things.
Kinda like feminists say normal women have "internalized oppression" when they say that modern feminism is cancer.
AMD shills are very much like feminists, even if AMD themselves will say it outright, they will just pretend to themselves that they were forced at gunpoint to give a pubic statement that doesn't align with their narrative "muh poor AMD everybody is out to get us and it's literally the fault of everybody else"

>>59759924
t. newfag to new to remember when this board shat on nvidia in the same way it does windows

>>59750277
The cache is a limitation but ryzen still multicore outperforms the shit of Intel.

>>59749978
>It's AMD's fault Adobe can't into multithreading

currently using an x220

how's my build /g/ https://pcpartpicker.com/list/GB4yRG

>>59760243
of course goyim

>>59760304
That ram and the power supply are a bit overpriced

>once again Intel did not use high quality thermal interface material underneath the heatspreader. The experiment was a success in one way, the temperatures dropped 25.28%, from 91C to 68C.

Was going to upgrade to a 7700k but since Intel is still Jewing on the TIM I said fuck that. I'll wait and see what the 7740k brings. If they unfuck themselves and use proper TIM i'll get one. If not i'll just wait for Ryzen 2 and get the 2800x or whatever.
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/01/19/intel_kaby_lake_i77700k_cpu_delid_relid_results
https://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/Living-dangerously-delidding-your-i7-7700k

File: asus-pg279q-hero1-800x533-c[1].jpg (88KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 800x533px

What gpu + cpu combo should I get to play World of Warcraft at 144 fps at all times on ultra on a 27 inch 1440p 144hz monitor?

>>59762150
Sadly that's impossible. Wow runs only on one thread, so it is heavily CPU bottlenecked. I had it drop to 20fps at times with a [email protected]+1080Ti at 4K. CPU utilization was at 100% on one thread and GPU dropped to 15%. Feels bad.

>>59762174
So is a 144hz pointless for this game? Should I save my money and get something like 100hz?

>>59762192
If you only play wow then yes it is pointless. Might be nice for other games tho. Or maybe you can delid a 7700K and try to get it to 5.5GHz or more.

>>59762192
Just get an Rx 480 and 60hz monitor and turn on v-sync.

>>59762414
No.

>>59762397
Well that's a bummer. Yea I've been meaning to get into other PC games. Not necessarily much of an open world RPG fan. Mainly into competitive stuff so I might end up playing something that would take advantage of the full 144hz.

>>59748172
>i7 will be enough
AAAAAHAHAHAHAHA
http://imgur.com/a/o4yDR

>>59738616
T H R E A D S
H
R
E
A
D
S

>>59762986
>6600, not even 7700k
>vs 1800x a 500$ cpu
Gee goy, with that mindset why not pay for a 10 core intel cpu at 2000$ clearly you don't care about price, or performance.

>>59738471
#richkidsproblems

>>59740541
Did you add a cooler to the 1600 just to inflate the price?
why

>>59759856
nice reddit

File: Zen_microarchitecture.svg.png (39KB, 576x576px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 576x576px

>>59749882
> Sadly Ryzen still use modules similar to the 8350s architecture so unlike Intel that use 4 real cores with one fake attached to each, AMD use half cores per L-cache (like the modules did) so even if you half the core count you're still having the same problem, two cores sharing a cache pipeline, so lower core Ryzens are nothing but gimped high core Ryzens.

> Unlike Intels i7 -> i5 where you get the benefit of higher cache, but only lacks the HT threads.
> So a 7700K with HT disabled is a 7600K with better cache performance.

> A Ryzen 5 is a down scaled Ryzen 7 through and through sadly.

> That's why you should go Ryzen 7 if you are to use AMD.

why are you a faggot

>>59759856
t. reddit

File: 1489122339460.png (495KB, 1070x601px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 1070x601px

>>59752972
You sound upset over the fact that 7700k is a stuttering housefire abortion that's complete garbage in everything except a few games.