I'm just planning on sticking with 1080p/60fps gaming, plenty

the i5 will be fine and i'm using an overclocked 4690k with absolutely no issue in games but i'd recommend going for the similarly priced r5 1600 as it offers much more (6 cores, 12 threads) as opposed to the 4 cores 4 threads of the i5. it won't have a massive difference in games but overall you'd save some money as the ryzen platform is cheaper and it even comes with a good cooler unlike the i5 but in the long term you'd be better off with the higher core count. also multitasking and using editing/production software will be much faster on the r5 1600.

the gtx 1060 6gb is probably the best mainstream mid-range gpu there is. good choice and no problem there.

Seems alright to me. I personally am an AMD guy and would recommend a RX 580 8GB, but if you plan to stick to Nvidia that combo will do fine. If you can hold out till then, you should wait for Volta's 1X60 card

>>385254598
>>385254746
Alright, thank you for the information. I really appreciate it.

Wait for Nvidia Volta GV106 GTX 2060

There is no reason to buy an i5 right now. Ryzen options beat them in terms of performance and pricing. The only time you would be buying Intel until something changes is if you absolutely need 144hz (i7 7700k) or you think your house might look better as cinders (X-series)

Ryzen 1700 is on sale on Amazon for $270, that's what you'd pay for a 7600k+Evo212. The Spire is a perfectly fine cooler to do the light OC you'd need to surpass any i5 for anything but single core performance, which again is only going to matter for you if you want to push 144hz without dropping a frame, though that's not to say Ryzen is bad in that department at all. End of the day: 4c/4t vs. 8c/16t for the exact same price. Zen is an actual decent tech, unlike Bulldozer, and just shits on Intel in terms of price/perf.

>>385254146
>Is an i5 7600k 3.8ghz and a GTX 1060 6GB a decent combo to satisfy this with a bit of margin for error?
it will satisfy and exceed all your needs in spades.

Been playing with i5 2500 + 560ti since 2011, and it's still getting the job done at 1080p/60fps. Planning to grab a 1060 myself soon, just to get those few new games to run better on above Low-Med settings.

Yes. Pretty sure 1060 and 580 prices are still inflated right now though. You can get deals on 580s to where they are nearly the price they should be on newegg though if you buy one of their 580+1700x combo deals.

>>385254891
>buying AMD CPUs
>ever
I thought people already knew better at this point...

>>385254891
I should also mention you'd need better than an Evo212 in order to achieve really great single core performance on the 7600k as well. AM4 is also a lot newer a socket than LGA 1151.

>>385255092
AMD has been gaining some fine market share so I guess something has changed

>>385254950
>hey guys i'm playing 1080 60 with cheap cpu and card just fine
>at lowest settings possible
fucking retard

>>385254958
Well scratch that looks like those deals have since sold out, but they do still have some 580+mobo deals.

i wouldnt buy a 4 thread processor desu, 1600x is a bit worse for most games but it has 8 more threads

>>385254891
>1080p/60fps
>ryzen 1700

is this bait? that's insanely overkill. the r7 processors should only be bought for production as there is basically no difference between them and the r5 series in games and the r5 is like 100-150 bucks cheaper

>>385255092
You know /g/ will rightly defend Athlons til the day they die, right? Bulldozer sucked, no shit. Ryzen doesn't, at all.

The only shit /g/ loves more than Athlons would be 2500k, and that's not only because it's a great CPU that's still perfectly usable but also because of the vocal market share. Give Ryzen a few years and it will be just as loved.

>>385255204
AMD products are like McDonald's meals: cheap and quick. For poorfags wanting to just get started with PC gaming with mere pocket change, it's hard to get better deals than with AMD components.

You do, however, usually get what you pay for. In this case, it tends to result poor reliability, the legendarily bad driver support (or lack of it), and other, more sophisticated issues caused by the makers' attempt to merely bruteforce things via upping core / memory count, rather than improving the HW architecture and software.

>>385255427
I've had my share of Athlons in the past decade or so. It's no wonder those machines failed in the end.

>>385255295
R7 1700 is the exact same price on Amazon as i5 7600k+an Evo212. I made the comparison only in terms of pricing. Would an OC R5 1400 trade blows with the 7600k, and you'd save $100? Sure, but it would be a lot (A LOT) more in favor of the 7600k. Would I rather spend an extra $100 to get the 1700? Fuck yes I would, any day. That's not a lot of cash for a lot of headroom.

Of course, since AM4 is newer, buying a cheaper Zen and waiting for Zen2 doesn't outright suck, but it's still a question of ~$100 for a better cooler, 4c/8t more than the 1400 and better binning. Again: same price as 7600k+Evo212. Seems reasonable.

>>385255269
0 reason to buy 1600x over 1700 with the 1700 on sale for $270. Spire is a perfectly fine cooler.

Wait for Intel Core i5 8600K Coffee Lake 6 cores for the same price as 7600K

>>385255810
the 7600k and 212 is like 50 bucks cheaper still. there is no logical reason for OP to buy the 1700 when the 1600 exists and is more than enough for his needs.

>>385254146
Yes, go for it.
Just avoid the small, single fan GTX 1060s, those get pretty hot.

>>385254598
i bought a ryzen and it didnt come with a cooler. the point is moot, because i bought a cpu fan, but dont feed OP false information.

>>385255269
>1600x is a bit worse for most games but it has 8 more threads
So what if it's worse in most games?

>>385256448
every ryzen cpu without the X comes with a cpu cooler. don't be stupid. only retards buy the X ryzen cpu's anyway.

So is there any real reason to buy the 1060 over the 1080 if I'm trying to future proof for about 5 years?

>>385255650
I don't have problems with my 580. Never had an AMD CPU so I can't really say anything about that.

>>385256726
Future proofing GPUs is silly, there's way too much advancement for them still

>>385256807
like said many times in the past, you can say what you want about their GPUs, but AMD CPUs have always been catastrophic.

>>385256223
If the 1700 wasn't $60 off on Amazon, I'd agree with you. So in general, yes. Right now, no. @ $330 it is very much closer to enthusiast pricing, where $260 (to me) is just so painfully close to the 1600's pricing that I said why not? That said, I DEFINITELY do not (nor does he) need the extra processing power, but I'm cool with $50 for better binning, better cooling (maybe it's just the additional LED feature, not positive there), two more cores, and four more threads. That's me and my $50. Maybe I'm just defending my purchase? Somewhere in the middle, I'd guess.

Either way, the answer is not a 4 core Intel processor. Buying a 4 core Intel on the 1151 platform just isn't something I'd do right now. Is the 7600k bad? Fuck no. The only worse decisions (not on the table, but I digress) on the market are from Intel: the unlocked i3 and x299 i5 option--shit so dumb you have to wonder why it even exists at all let alone in 2017.

>>385256726
there's no point in future proofing. A 5 year old $500 card performs worse than a current $160 card

if you're considering buying a gtx 1080, you better put it to use with a monitor with high resolution or refresh rate, otherwise it's just a waste of money

>>385256726
Depends on your budget and what tech you have on hand. If you don't have a high res/refresh monitor and money is a thing then there's no reason to go with the 1080. Do you just want to 1080p/60hz? 1060 or 580 max, with those being as "future proof" as you're going to get. Anything more than that and you're losing price/perf but not extravagantly so. Just, if you don't need the perf then why pay the price, unless you're getting a great deal? I know the 1050 ti can do 1080p handily though, but the extra ~$100 for a 1060 would be well spent. Not so much with the extra ~$250+ for a 1070, which would lead us full circle back to the 1080; miners have caused the pricing of 1070's to be so close to the 1080's that the performance gains from that margin far favor the 1080 (ditto availability). That was probably more info than you needed, but whatever, I know when I was doing market research I wanted all the info I could get.
I mean, I love deals, but you won't find one on a GPU any time soon.