I'm about to buy 7700k. Is it truly the best gaming cpu for price/performance or is it just a meme?
>>62366673
it is
>>62366680
a meme?
I mean you definitely don't need a 7700k for gaming. At all. But sure, if you want it.
>>62366680
shit
get a ryzen 1600 instead.
Just get Ryzen. Cheaper CPU, cheaper motherboards, more cores (and this time they're actually fast) and it's not Intel.
>>62367010
I heard bad things about RAM compatibility. Suggestions?
>>62367604
easy and probably best price/performance: just buy the cheapest DDR4 RAM.
non-negligible performance bump while still keeping things reasonable: 3200 MHz RAM from your mobo's compatability list. might require updating mobo firmware and manually setting speeds/voltages.
you can go crazy with RAM overclocking but it's not really worth the effort unless you're into such things.
>>62366673
Best price/performance is 1600
Best overall is 7700K especially if you're looking to game at 1080p/1440p high refresh rate. Although keep in mind you need a fairly powerful 1080/1080ti GPU to do this as well.
>>62366673
>price/performance
7700k is at the top end of mainstream gaming desktop, which is nowhere near the price/performance "sweet spot".
That'd probably be Ryzen 1600 now. Now is a bad time to buy Kaby Lake - Coffee Lake comes out next month and obsoletes the socket.
Cofee Lake isn't expected to really change the overall price/performance sweet spot, although it might create a lower sweet spot around the 4 core Core i3 8100 - depending on the price of motherboards (because yes, you need new ones, grr).
>>62366673
Yep, 7700K is the best CPU you can buy right now for gaming.
Literally the only CPU that can run CEMU and Zelda BotW at 30FPS consistently.
Wait for the 8700K though, 6 cores and single threaded performance should be only a tiny slower than a 7700k if not the similar.
>>62367604
Samsung b-die theres a list on ribbit
>>62368859
>hey look at me i quoted everyone lmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>62368859
> Is it truly the best gaming cpu
Learn to read you ignoramus.
>>62368838
>Wait for the 8700K though, 6 cores and single threaded performance should be only a tiny slower than a 7700k if not the similar.
lol
"just wait for the next generation of intel cpus that will be slower than the current one and cost more!"
"don't look at competition either! AMD does not even have a 6 core cpu lol......"
>>62368877
>>62368884
>gaymen
>>>/v/
>>62368886
Why wouldn't you wait? are you that much of a retarded AMD shill that you couldn't even wait to see what Intel has to offer?
Wait for covffefe lake. 2 more cores at same price unless you already bough the motherboard.
>>62368886
>Buy 6 cores AMD CPU with 2014 performance similar to Haswell /Devil's Canyonn
or
>Buy 6 cores Intel CPU with performance similar to 2017 Kaby Lake.
Did you mommy dropped you as a baby?
>>62366673
for a 15% above 1600 and 10% above 1600x no it doesnt anymore
unless you are some of those meme fags that spams the 144hz meme literally the 0.5% of the 5% that uses anything above 60hz
>>62367010
>cheaper
>>62368911
The results are in for the 8700k and it's weaker than the 1600x by a little bit. So take your Intel shilling back to >>>/v/
>>62369017
>literally the 0.5% of the 5% that uses anything above 60hz
AMDfriends