Overclock.net banner

What would you choose?

780 views 23 replies 11 participants last post by  allikat 
#1 ·
Out of curiosity, boredom and some self serving interest I wanted to see what CPU/platform others might choose if they were in my position and their reasons why or any changes they would personally make. Coming from a 2500K, prices are Australian. Essentially I want to get as many opinions as possible so they can help me form my own decision.
Basically I'm just asking you all to do my thinking for me lmao
tongue.gif
and I will greatly appreciate it
biggrin.gif
.

R7 1700 8 core/16 thread - $435
MoBo - Gigabyte AX370 Gaming 5, $319
RAM - 16GB FlareX 3200mhz, $299

$1053 Aud.

i7 7700k 4 core/8 thread- $479
MoBo - Gigabyte Z270X Gaming 5, $289
RAM - 16GB Corsair Dominator 3200Mhz, $289

$1057 Aud.

i7 7800X 6 core/12 thread - $559
MoBo - Gigabyte x299 Gaming 3, $459
RAM - 16GB Corsair Dominator 3200Mhz, $289

$1307 Aud.

Or wait for CoffeeLake.

Or wait for ThreadRipper.
 
See less See more
2
#3 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by oobymach View Post

Instead of ryzen 7 go with r5 1600x, better single core performance and better for gaming and everyday tasks, it's the cpu I'm eyeballing for a future build.
All Ryzen CPUs generally overclock to 3.8-4.0GHz so unless you aren't overclocking, buying a lower core count model because it has higher base clocks makes no sense. Go for the 1700.

To OP: I also came from a 2500K system and am really enjoying Ryzen. All those extra cores really come in handy if you do anything more than gaming, especially if you do other stuff while gaming.
 
#4 ·
the 7700K build will be the absolute best for games and single threaded programs but the ryzen is not far behind. If your not doing any video rendering or streaming to twitch i personally would swap out the 7700K for a 6700K (7700k has heat issues and the 6700k is able to match its clock with no effort) then i would overclock it a bit and completely blow away the other 2 builds for games. But like i said it depends on what you plan to do.

Bottom line is if your strictly a gamer go for a 6700k, if you do rendering or workstation stuff go with ryzen.
 
#5 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by philhalo66 View Post

the 7700K build will be the absolute best for games and single threaded programs but the ryzen is not far behind. If your not doing any video rendering or streaming to twitch i personally would swap out the 7700K for a 6700K (7700k has heat issues and the 6700k is able to match its clock with no effort) then i would overclock it a bit and completely blow away the other 2 builds for games. But like i said it depends on what you plan to do.

Bottom line is if your strictly a gamer go for a 6700k, if you do rendering or workstation stuff go with ryzen.
This isn't true at all most 7700k are easily able to hit 5GHz while almost no 6700k will hit 5GHz without a ton of voltage and a ton of cooling.
 
#6 ·
To be honest this runs contrary to almost everything I have recently read regarding reviews and benchmarks of the processors.

Im jumping from a 3570k myself. i'm going with a 1600x most likely. Its 200$USD for me since i live next to a microcenter. I guess your prices may vary but I"m pretty confident the ryzen is the better option in almost any scenario, and is the most "future proof" if youre like me and dont like to do frequent upgrades and instead prefer a rig to last X years and then build a new one.
 
#7 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim86 View Post

This isn't true at all most 7700k are easily able to hit 5GHz while almost no 6700k will hit 5GHz without a ton of voltage and a ton of cooling.
Yeah, and for 5GHz on a 7700K you need liquid nitrogen, at stock most are hitting the upper 80's under load with water coolers.
 
#9 ·
If the 2500k is no longer good enough for your uses, I'd go for an R7 or an R5 if you want to save a bit. A quad core for more money than an 8 core is insane, and makes no sense for the vast majority of use cases (even many people who only game) in my opinion.

Waiting for Coffee Lake and Thread Ripper is not a bad idea either.
 
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim86 View Post

You don't need LN2 for 5GHz on a 7700K tons of people are hitting under 80c on at 7700K with a AIO. Not sure where you are getting this info but this is very inaccurate.
do some research bud, heat is such an issue intel engineers are telling people not to overclock because heat.
 
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim86 View Post

Keep telling yourself that if you honestly believe that you are delusional yes I know few people having thermal issues but claiming LN2 is mandatory for 5GHz is rediculous you have any proof to that claim?
only one delusional one here is you, the proof is on the internet. its up to you to believe it. http://www.overclock.net/t/1629611/pcgamer-intel-tells-core-i7-7700k-owners-to-stop-overclocking-to-avoid-high-temps may have been exaggerating with LN2 but considering loads of people are throttling at stock with AIO coolers hitting 5ghz won't be easy without top end custom loops.
 
#15 ·
They say that about every CPU they manufactures just to cover their butts. You know you're dead wrong that is why you're back peddling. Jayz2cents tested a 7700K at 5.0GHz with about 10-15 AIO coolers everyone was able to keep his CPU within a reasonable temperature. My Skylake 6700K runs at 4.9GHz on water without a delid. I highly doubt Intel would now suddenly switch to a lower grade TIM or loosen manufacturing tolerances on its IHS just for Kabylake.
 
#16 ·
Right now, I'd say either the 1700 or the 7700K will be great ones to move up to, leaning more towards the 1700. What the 1700 loses in per-core performance more than makes up in multithread when compared to the 7700K. And since the die is soldered to the IHS, you won't have to worry about delidding to achieve lower temps. It might not be a big deal right now, but knowing that you don't have to fool around with your chip to get lower temps is pretty nice. Also, I really don't see poorer single-thread performance being a big deal. As resolution increases, cpu bottleneck decreases. At 4K, they're essentially equal.

Coffee Lake and X299 are pretty uninteresting to me. While people have been begging for Intel to release a mainstream 6 core, Ryzen diluted that a good bit. Having temperature issues due to a non-soldered IHS sounds like a headache as well. While X299 is actually a really good platform, Intel messed it up. Their chips have paste under the IHS, motherboard heatsinks are doing a poor job at cooling the mosfets (mainly concerns highly overclocked 8+ core chips, watch der8auer's newest video for more info), and their lineup seems really confusing to me, though that really doesn't matter when you have your eyes set on a particular model. I just hope that the unreleased i9 chips are soldered and that the motherboard vendors released revised heatsinks to keep the heat down on the fets. No point in getting a board with a great vrm design if you can't even cool them.

Threadripper is the most interesting platform to me. It really reminds me a lot of X79 when it first released. X79 was the platform that just seemed over the top and had all of the right things going for it when it came out. A coherent processor lineup, all of which performed very well (and was soldered
tongue.gif
), quad channel memory, pcie 3.0, 40 pcie lanes, etc. It really ticked all of the boxes, and it wasn't too much more expensive than P67 when you considered what you got. Most of the people who were on 2500Ks and similar have upgraded to Haswell or newer by now, but I still see a good bit of users on X79. X399 gives me the same feeling. We have processors with a bunch of cores, quad channel DDR4 offers more than enough bandwidth, 64 pcie lanes is absurd, and the other features it has will allow it to stay relevant for a long time. Single-thread performance may be a concern, but I think it's safe to say that games and applications will only continue to utilize more cores. 12-16 is still a lot, though. I can see an 8 or 10 core being a very successful chip for X399.

And about the 7700K 5GHz deal, 4.8-5.0 is pretty common on 7700Ks, but replacing the TIM with liquid metal and using at least upper-tier mainstream cooling (a la D15 with faster fans, 240/280 asetek coolers, swiftech custom AIOs) is pretty much mandatory if you want acceptable temps. Other than that, I agree that 5.0 is out of reach on a non-delidded chip unless you have a good custom loop. Intel's response seems like damage control to me. If the IHS was soldered, nobody would be complaining about high temperatures since the temps wouldn't be high to begin with. You fix the temperature problem, and you have yourself a processor that you can safely overclock without running into thermal problems. That means users won't report any temperature related problems which would cause Intel to do what they did here recently.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: kd5151
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by airisom2 View Post

Right now, I'd say either the 1700 or the 7700K will be great ones to move up to, leaning more towards the 1700. What the 1700 loses in per-core performance more than makes up in multithread when compared to the 7700K. And since the die is soldered to the IHS, you won't have to worry about delidding to achieve lower temps. It might not be a big deal right now, but knowing that you don't have to fool around with your chip to get lower temps is pretty nice. Also, I really don't see poorer single-thread performance being a big deal. As resolution increases, cpu bottleneck decreases. At 4K, they're essentially equal.

Coffee Lake and X299 are pretty uninteresting to me. While people have been begging for Intel to release a mainstream 6 core, Ryzen diluted that a good bit. Having temperature issues due to a non-soldered IHS sounds like a headache as well. While X299 is actually a really good platform, Intel messed it up. Their chips have paste under the IHS, motherboard heatsinks are doing a poor job at cooling the mosfets (mainly concerns highly overclocked 8+ core chips, watch der8auer's newest video for more info), and their lineup seems really confusing to me, though that really doesn't matter when you have your eyes set on a particular model. I just hope that the unreleased i9 chips are soldered and that the motherboard vendors released revised heatsinks to keep the heat down on the fets. No point in getting a board with a great vrm design if you can't even cool them.

Threadripper is the most interesting platform to me. It really reminds me a lot of X79 when it first released. X79 was the platform that just seemed over the top and had all of the right things going for it when it came out. A coherent processor lineup, all of which performed very well (and was soldered
tongue.gif
), quad channel memory, pcie 3.0, 40 pcie lanes, etc. It really ticked all of the boxes, and it wasn't too much more expensive than P67 when you considered what you got. Most of the people who were on 2500Ks and similar have upgraded to Haswell or newer by now, but I still see a good bit of users on X79. X399 gives me the same feeling. We have processors with a bunch of cores, quad channel DDR4 offers more than enough bandwidth, 64 pcie lanes is absurd, and the other features it has will allow it to stay relevant for a long time. Single-thread performance may be a concern, but I think it's safe to say that games and applications will only continue to utilize more cores. 12-16 is still a lot, though. I can see an 8 or 10 core being a very successful chip for X399.

And about the 7700K 5GHz deal, 4.8-5.0 is pretty common on 7700Ks, but replacing the TIM with liquid metal and using at least upper-tier mainstream cooling (a la D15 with faster fans, 240/280 asetek coolers, swiftech custom AIOs) is pretty much mandatory if you want acceptable temps. Other than that, I agree that 5.0 is out of reach on a non-delidded chip unless you have a good custom loop. Intel's response seems like damage control to me. If the IHS was soldered, nobody would be complaining about high temperatures since the temps wouldn't be high to begin with. You fix the temperature problem, and you have yourself a processor that you can safely overclock without running into thermal problems. That means users won't report any temperature related problems which would cause Intel to do what they did here recently.
I don't think the temperature issue with X299 is as bad as people thought it was going to be. Only seems to be effecting high core count CPUs in AVX512 loads where its pulling a lot of power. You cannot deny the raw performance from that platform 7820x scoring 2300 in Cinebench at stock speeds is nuts. I probably will be upgrading my 6700K rig to x299 this month. I'm not really as optimistic about TR as I was Ryzen due to it just being more relatively weak Ryzen cores. Relative to x299 core performance that is.
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim86 View Post

I don't think the temperature issue with X299 is as bad as people thought it was going to be. Only seems to be effecting high core count CPUs in AVX512 loads where its pulling a lot of power. You cannot deny the raw performance from that platform 7820x scoring 2300 in Cinebench at stock speeds is nuts. I probably will be upgrading my 6700K rig to x299 this month. I'm not really as optimistic about TR as I was Ryzen due to it just being more relatively weak Ryzen cores. Relative to x299 core performance that is.
you are short 2 cores for that cinebench score at stock.
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim86 View Post

I don't think the temperature issue with X299 is as bad as people thought it was going to be. Only seems to be effecting high core count CPUs in AVX512 loads where its pulling a lot of power. You cannot deny the raw performance from that platform 7820x scoring 2300 in Cinebench at stock speeds is nuts. I probably will be upgrading my 6700K rig to x299 this month. I'm not really as optimistic about TR as I was Ryzen due to it just being more relatively weak Ryzen cores. Relative to x299 core performance that is.
Well, I think the temperature issue is pretty bad. But I won't completely blame the vendors for their heatsink designs as Intel did push up the launch a couple months. In those 60 or so days, they could have done more thermal testing and recognize the issue before releasing the boards. I guess the one good thing about the situation is that the vendors know about the temperature problems and are working on replacement heatsinks (Well, Asus is, not sure about the others), and SiliconLottery will be selling pre-delidded processors on their site. I guess this is Intel's version of AMD's microcode updates. It'll work out in the end.

I won't deny that Intel gave us a great performing architecture for X299, but you're paying for it. Ryzen has a 400Mhz advantage over Ivy bridge per core, so at 4.0, it performs like my 4930K at 4.4 in single thread. That single threaded performance really isn't bad at all, especially if you're gaming at 4K. And while the 7900X will slap around the 1900 whenever it releases (It does have a Ghz lead over it when overclocked, possibly more), I'm sure it will also cost quite a bit less, possibly close to half. The 16 core chip will cost $150 less than the 7900X, and there's no way 5GHz will overcome a 6 core deficit.

While not as strong as Skylake, Ryzens cores are actually pretty good Imo. Otherwise, Intel wouldn't have lost 10% market share to AMD.

EDIT: that 2300 score belongs to the 7900X (well, ~2150). The 7820X scores around 1750 stock.
 
#20 ·
The only time people are running into thermal limits are during AVX512 loads which causes the CPU to draw 350-400W when overclocked which is going to be hard for any cooler to effectively cool that amount of heat concentrated into such a small area. 5GHz over 6 extra cores will easily overcome in any single threaded application which are plentiful still today I'd say 95 percent of most desktop users are using single threaded applications and won't benefit with extra cores as much as IPC advantage.
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim86 View Post

The only time people are running into thermal limits are during AVX512 loads which causes the CPU to draw 350-400W when overclocked which is going to be hard for any cooler to effectively cool that amount of heat concentrated into such a small area. 5GHz over 6 extra cores will easily overcome in any single threaded application which are plentiful still today I'd say 95 percent of most desktop users are using single threaded applications and won't benefit with extra cores as much as IPC advantage.
Well, it's primarily the FFT sizes that determine the power draw, but the mosfets aren't outputting the same amount of heat the processor is. The fets might create 45w of heat when stressed. It is possible to dissipate that amount of heat while having good temps by using a functional heatsink design.

Single threaded and multi threaded performance are equally important to me, but if I had to choose between the two, I would rather have better multi-threaded performance. If someone is after single-threaded performance, then the 7700K is where the value is at since only one or two cores will be used in those cases.

Based off of what I've read, people generally associate single threaded performance with either Cinebench single core scores or games that use one or two cores. For the latter, resolution is a large variable. At 4K, a 4GHz 1700 and a 5GHz 7700K are practically equal. Smaller resolutions do favor the higher clockspeed, but even then, we're not taking about the 20-30% differences you see in cinebench results. Many processor reviews have made that clear.
 
#22 ·
I think people also underappreciate the performance boost you see from more cores if you do a lot of alt tabbing, run lots of tabs in chrome/firefox/etc at once, or like to have a lot of crap open at once as well.

This is more real world scenario than benchmarks, which is what I generally prefer. Anyone can have a big benchmark-dick, but who cares how high you score if your PC doesn't "feel" faster than the previous.

To be honest the only reason i'm upgrading from my 3570k is because the motherboard is half dead (dead PCIE ports no fun) and since the socket itself is dead, Im not going to invest in either an old super expensive motherboard (expensive because of stock limitations) or a refurbished board. I'd rather just build a new one and future proof it as much as possible. This current pc lasted about 5 solid years with very few problems, I like my rigs to last at least that long and not be bottlnecked CPU wise.

Again I'm not even really bottlenecked CPU wise, its just the socket is dead so its time to move on.

This is all just my stance (obviously). I have only ever used Intel cpus but I have ZERO brand loyalty because thats what gets people to spend more money on worse products half the time.

Actually I lied a bit I do have some brand loyalty to eVGA (although I haven't bought one of their GPUS in my past 2 builds?) only because they gave me a lifetime warranty on an 88GT and i STILL CAN SEND THAT BABY IN FOR A NEW ONE. I did it the other year, just to have a new 88GT in my closet incase anything happened (which it did, but theres no way I have a dead 7850 AND a dead, brand new from the factory right out of the box 88GT. Only common in that equation is the board, and the old power supply I had used, which has since been replaced with a Corsair 750 HX) Thats pretty awesome to me, too bad they dont do that anymore even for a higher price point.
 
#23 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim86 View Post

The only time people are running into thermal limits are during AVX512 loads which causes the CPU to draw 350-400W when overclocked which is going to be hard for any cooler to effectively cool that amount of heat concentrated into such a small area. 5GHz over 6 extra cores will easily overcome in any single threaded application which are plentiful still today I'd say 95 percent of most desktop users are using single threaded applications and won't benefit with extra cores as much as IPC advantage.
Holy jesus, 350-400Watts, really? That's immense!
 
#24 ·
If you just game, go Intel. If you do other stuff, especially other stuff while you game, then Ryzen's extra cores for the same price are a bargain. Sure, the cores are a little slower and won't clock so high, but you won't notice it in most games, unless you're streaming, then those extra cores to handle the stream encoding will help a LOT.

I came from a 2600k to a Ryzen 5 1600, and I'm VERY happy with it. I just wish that older intel sockets had more support with replacement boards, or I'd still be rocking Sandy Bridge.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top