# I need a complete new system, what CPU should I get first.



## andiey (Oct 17, 2019)

I have an old system. Essential components are

i5 4670K
P8Z77 Deluxe
Corsair H60 AIO cooler
Corsair HX 850
Corsair Vengeance 1333 2 x 4GB
660 Ti

I play Battlefield V, For Honour, Final Fantasy XV and Company of Heroes II. Very slow all of these titles and never manage to get 60+ FPS.

I want to have a completely new system. To start with, what CPU should I get? Hopefully, the new system will be able to handle Cyberpunk 2077 at at least Very High settings along with all the above mentioned titles.

Have used AMD CPUs before and not very great experience so AMD needs not apply.

Thanks!


----------



## Hyderz (Oct 17, 2019)

do you have a budget or money is not a problem?


----------



## Melvis (Oct 17, 2019)

Since you dont like AMD and want to go with a dead platform then your only real choice of CPU is the 9900K, maybe the 9700K, otherwise there is a list of AMD CPU's to go with.


----------



## potato580+ (Oct 17, 2019)

you can upgrade to i5 FK 9th gen, its on good cost deal, and for the gpu i afraid you need to spend alot for cyber punk high/ultra preset, even curent gpu is struggle to run 1080p/2k on ultra preset 60hz on highend videgame triple A rated, other optional think you best bet is running on 4k but in medium preset, anyway for a temporary used i would recommend rx5700xt/rtx series


----------



## INSTG8R (Oct 17, 2019)

Melvis said:


> Since you dont like AMD and want to go with a dead platform then your only real choice of CPU is the 9900K, maybe the 9700K, otherwise there is a list of AMD CPU's to go with.


His loss ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## ne6togadno (Oct 17, 2019)

System Builder
					






					pcpartpicker.com


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 17, 2019)

andiey said:


> I have an old system. Essential components are
> 
> i5 4670K
> P8Z77 Deluxe
> ...


I completely understand where you are coming from with not wanting an AMD system.
Over the years AMD has been second rate and something like 2 years behind Intel.

But since 2016 AMD starting catching up and is now basically on par with Intel performance on gaming and it's actually superior in almost everything else.

The only really difference right now is Intel has very short lived platforms while AMD doesn't and AMD offers some features Intel does not yet offer.
For now I'd say the Ryzen 3600 on a B450 with 16gb 3200 with an Nvidia 1660 or 2060 and a 1tb M.2 nvme minimum.


----------



## Voluman (Oct 17, 2019)

Well, i will point to another direction, your gpu isnt so powerful and you can get a bit more if you can get 2x8gb 2133 Mhz ram.
If you can get 2x8gb 2133Mhz ram and better gpu for a decent price you dont need to migrate to new system.
Get a RX 570 or 580 or some gtx 1660 or used gtx 1060 6 gb / 1070. But yes, these just waste of time (money) if you decide to need a new system.


----------



## Solid State Soul ( SSS ) (Oct 17, 2019)

Intel 10th gen processors are going to be released in Q1 2020 with i5 to have support for hyper threading to be a 6\12 CPU. I would recommend you wait till then and upgrade, your system is still good enough to hold you on for a little longer


----------



## 64K (Oct 17, 2019)

Since you want a completely new system, to me that means new motherboard, CPU, RAM and GPU at least. Cyberpunk 2077 isn't scheduled to be released for 6 months and with a game the size and scope of Cyberpunk 2077 it may get delayed beyond April of next year but anyway you have some time to decide what you want to do before then but it sounds like you want to do something right now because you are having issues with the games you are trying to play right now.

The community will need to know what your budget is.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 17, 2019)

jmcslob said:


> I completely understand where you are coming from with not wanting an AMD system.
> Over the years AMD has been second rate and something like 2 years behind Intel.
> 
> But since 2016 AMD starting catching up and is now basically on par with Intel performance on gaming and it's actually superior in almost everything else.
> ...



Ryzen makes them 1st rate, only fx made them 2nd for performance only, but being stable was a plus.

A healthy oc or xeon and a gpu upgrade would do well for the current platform.


----------



## silentbogo (Oct 17, 2019)

andiey said:


> Hopefully, the new system will be able to handle Cyberpunk 2077 at at least Very High settings along with all the above mentioned titles.


You should probably wait for system requirements to be released. You don't wanna spend your cash only to find out that you need more.
Plus, by the time it gets released you'll get more options from both Intel and AMD.

Regarding your rig, I'd get rid of that 660Ti. Just get something like a used RX570 or GTX1060 just to get you comfortable 'till april. 
Also, you've probably mistyped your system specs: P8Z77 is LGA1155, and 4670K is LGA1150.


----------



## Chomiq (Oct 17, 2019)

You'll gain more from simply upgrading your gpu and potentially OC'ing your cpu. You want it to handle cyberpunk? Wait until it gets released. By then we'll probably have new hw offerings from every major manufacturer, be it gpu or cpu.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Oct 17, 2019)

andiey said:


> Have used AMD CPUs before and not very great experience so AMD needs not apply.


AMD isnt what it used to be even 5 years ago. They have gotten much better over the last few years. You can probably save a few hundred bucks by going AMD and getting very similar performance to that of an Intel build of equal value.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Oct 17, 2019)

andiey said:


> Have used AMD CPUs before and not very great experience so AMD needs not apply.


To be sure, I am an Intel fan. I don't know what you mean by "_not very great experience_" with AMD, but whatever that experience was, you should NOT let it influence your decision today. The fact is, both AMD and Intel make great and reliable CPUs. Complemented with a healthy chunk of RAM, decent motherboard, capable graphics card, and of course a quality PSU from a reputable maker all housed in a properly cooled, quality case, and either brand processor can make a great gaming rig.

Now if you just prefer Intel, then that is fine. I like Ford trucks and the color blue. But I sure would not turn down a red Chevy. 

Point being, you can't get a straight answer until you provide a budget. 

You say you want a completely new system so not sure the point of you listing those "essential components" - especially when we don't know your budget!

To me, a "completely new system" also includes a new monitor, keyboard, mouse and speakers too. So you need to be more specific. If you need a new monitor too, what size and how much are you willing to spend on it?

It would help to know what country you live in too!

Last, for licensing purposes, a new motherboard constitutes a new computer. If your current OS license is an OEM/System Builders license (as the vast majority are) you will need to include the cost of a new OS license in your budget too.


Chomiq said:


> You'll gain more from simply upgrading your gpu and potentially OC'ing your cpu.


??? Well of course it is impossible to know that when we don't know what the OP will be buying new. And we don't have a clue what the OP will be buying new because we don't know the budget. There are many processors out there much more capable than that current CPU - which may already be OC'ed. 

So I think we should all stop guessing until we know the facts to include the OP's budget and what the OP really means by "completely new system". At least the OP stated what the computer will be used for!


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 17, 2019)

@andiey
The difference between AMD and Intel CPU performance at this point isn't much. In fact, on a dollar per dollar basis, AMD CPUs will outperform Intel when using all cores and threads. But for gaming and single/dual threads, Intel performance will reign, if only by a couple % and due to clock speed.

The price difference between platforms isn't as much as some will say when you compare apples to apples. For example, The cost saved on the CPU will be spent on a generally more expensive X570 board and buying RAM to run in AMD's sweetspot (~3600 MHz). Sure, you can buy X470 or lower boards, but you miss out on anything X570 has to offer through the life of the CPU. So I say get X570 regardless. YOu can buy 3200 Mhz RAM for AMD, but you lose out on a couple percent performance as well. If you go AMD, GO AMD and get the platform as it should be run.

If upgrading is important, Z390 is 'dead' but 8c/16t processor will last for a few years at least and by then, who cares, you get another platform instead of trying to use something 5 years old and a CPU or two generation behind...I don't buy its longetivity considering....

Did you even list a GPU? That is quite important.... as Chomiq said, you will get more with a GPU than you will upgrading that CPU.
EDIT: I see, a GTX 660.. yikes. Old... Yeah, you'll get a significant upgrade with just a GPU....


----------



## Toothless (Oct 17, 2019)

No one gonna comment OP listed a 1155 board and a 1150 cpu for his specs?


----------



## bogmali (Oct 17, 2019)

OP stated his view about AMD so please respect that


----------



## Eskimonster (Oct 17, 2019)

If you dont want AMD, then the smart thing would be to wait until Intel gives us nxt generation. 2020


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 17, 2019)

Melvis said:


> Since you dont like AMD and want to go with a dead platform then your only real choice of CPU is the 9900K, maybe the 9700K, otherwise there is a list of AMD CPU's to go with.



a list of which constantly loses to Intel six core CPUs in gaming ...just saying the facts as both sides have their pros and cons


----------



## andiey (Oct 17, 2019)

I'm so sorry replying late, been down town to check out some case fans for the new build.

BIG THANKS to all of you replying so swiftly and with many relevant opinions, suggestions and advice. They are all very useful and constructive especially for those rthat esonate in my mind. Truly appreciate!!

It's been 3 months since I started researching and updating myself on the latest. My budget is basically dependent on what is good for the next 5 years. More importantly, some components which provides important resources like the motherboard, RAM kits and today's NVMe SSD are prioritized to a slightly bigger portions of the budget. Also, those components which have a longer life span will be allocated with a bit more dollars as well. Contrast to those, expendable items like the case and case fans should be as lowest costs as possible. To me, the concept about a case is just a framed box that contains the whole system and it's pretty much stationery in the sense that it won't be ported from one place to another like in a LAN party that very often. And as you are well aware that case fans wear off pretty fast so I would expect replacement every two years or so. Further to that, getting a cheaper case will make dumping it later less of a waste of money.  As to the PSU, it's the most critical part of the whole system and I intend to spend on something which has 10 years or at least 7 years warranty. Coolers is essential and I wish to get a decent AIO LCS something which assembles the H60 that has a life span of 5 years or so would be sufficient. In 5 years time, the whole rig should be quite outdated assuming most of the caps are melted down and either the Intel or the AMD chipset would have depreciated by so much that the overall productivity is pretty much 30% gone leaving a rather crippled and unstable piece of junk.

But I want to start with the right CPU first. Now you folks have almost convinced me about AMD. I do notice that AMD is getting very popular and positive comments keep popping up here and there, sort of all over the place. Even PS5 is going to deploy AMD Ryzen 3 upper class CPU and the Navi GPU and that I am curious; wanting to know if Navi has anything to do with AMD. I mention PS5 is because that is an implication which basically says future games will most probably follow the 8 core 16 threads architecture. Whether they initiate multi-threading or not (which I have seen 8700K gives no difference in both modes), these games are going to consume more power delivered by 8c16t operations and will be ported to the PC and PCs which are not up to the performance of 8c16t will be left without a chair when the music stops. If that is the trend, then choosing AMD at the present moment is no doubt, the most intelligent choice. The forward and backward compatibility of AMD CPUs and AM4 motherboards are also a great selling point from AMD. These merits are evident in many youtube vidoes that I've watched. However, with AMD systems, there are many issues to get sorted and need to be dealt with. Recently, I spotted an issue related to an AMD based build https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/ryzen-3700x-new-build-problem.3529260/page-2#post-21359291. I want to have a system which is "Good to go" once launched. A good example is like iPhone, it's all ready to go right out of the box. I don't like patching. Same case with Windows. Fixes and Updates every now and then. Back to AMD, playing around with motherboards' BIOS is a daunting experience. Intel offers a more convenient way to overclock and is trouble-free comparing to AMD. I enjoy spending time and effort to build a new system, but once that's done, I really don't want to get down to the nitty-gritty of *trouble shooting* BIOS issues, CPU issues or motherboard issues. In the above incident, JayzTwoCents discovered flashing the BIOS actually spoiled the original build which is something really irritating. Having said all that, IF a particular model of AMD is both stable and well established, I will certainly consider given their upgradability really is there.

Some of you has pointed out an upgrade to a better GPU is a great idea also. That is something I have not really realized so far. But here are my worries, RX 5500 is coming up and it is using PICe 4.0 and that is only available on X570 at the present moment. And my current system only supports PCIe 2.0, even I get an RX 590, it's not going to be fully utilized. So just upgrading the GPU is nonetheless a choice but it would be like baking a half-done cake. To make it clearer, do I get a 2060 now and dump it when RX 5500 comes out or get a RX 590 and wait for the RX 5500? Whichever way, that intermittent solution is going to be wasted. That's why I said in the beginning the budget is dependent on what is good.

I read through all of you folks responses and come up with an idea, which I don't know if it is good nor not: get a 1600X or i3 8100 and their compatible motherboards, put the best 1660 Ti in it, hook them up with a new 850W PSU, plug in some nice RAM kits and a lightning fast NVMe SSD, wrap it up with a very cheap case with 5 sides mesh(if there is one) and call that a day. I did watch a video where an 1600X coupled with a 2080 which makes Assassin Creed Odyssey running with 90+ FPS! Some of you are right on that, the CPU is less contributing in modern games than the GPU is. But on second thought, a slower CPU will cause longer loading time, is that correct?

Your opinions, suggestions and advices...


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Oct 17, 2019)

I was hesitant to go for AMD but ended up with a 3600 and I'm very happy with it. I avoided AMD all through the bulldozer years and have always focused on framerate consistency and smoothness on my setups as I mostly play competitively.

From intel the only thing I would really consider right now would be 10th gen, hard to recommend anything specific at the moment because we don't know the models or pricing, but probably a 6c12t at the very least. I would say don't bother trying to future proof yourself especially when it comes to CPU and GPU power, the best future proofing will be on the motherboard. So either X299 if you think you would want to go up to ~18c later, otherwise on the mainstream platform you would be able to get to 10c20t. You can always get the CPUs second hand for cheap.

On the specific issues you mentioned: JayzTwoCents made a horribly misleading video as he used a pre-production motherboard which he had problems with. If you want to have the best guarantee of 0 trouble as far as motherboard support you would be looking for X570. Issues I've seen are mostly confined to the 400 series boards (see my friend's experience as an example: https://forums.thefpsreview.com/threads/editorial-are-socket-amd-bioss-too-fat.525/page-2#post-2988), they seem to mostly be related the capacity of the BIOS ROM, X570 boards have larger ROMs to work around this. That said, I haven't had any problems with my X470 board, so it's more down to the motherboard manufacturer to do it right.

Only thing I've had to play with is memory overclocks, everything else runs pretty close to maxed out straight from the box, so as easy as dialing in CPU OCs is on intel, going AMD completely bypasses CPU OCs altogether.

Same thing with CPU upgrades goes for AM4, I would honestly just get a 3600 for now, everything I play runs 144hz very smoothly on it, if I feel I need more multicore performance I can always swap it out down the road. A 1600(x) or 2600(x) would be the choice for a 60hz max build.

GPU wise there is plenty of choice, if you want something cheap as a hold-over I would just look for second hand cards: Polaris or 970/980 around $100, 1060 6GB around $120-150, 1070/1070Ti/1080 around the $120-250 mark...

CPU usage in games really depends on the title and the framerate, if you are trying to get 144 or 240hz almost any game needs a very good CPU even if it doesn't need a very powerful GPU. Loading times will mostly depend on your storage not CPU.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 17, 2019)

andiey said:


> I'm so sorry replying late, been down town to check out some case fans for the new build.
> 
> BIG THANKS to all of you replying so swiftly and with many relevant opinions, suggestions and advice. They are all very useful and constructive especially for those rthat esonate in my mind. Truly appreciate!!
> 
> ...



Any computer needs bios adjustment, what most dont understand it is always a good idea to clear cmos first before turning psu on and then go into bios, load optimized defaults, save defaults and restart, then update the bios, restart then clear cmos and load optimized defaults, save again, then tweak



eidairaman1 said:


> Any computer needs bios adjustment, what most dont understand it is always a good idea to clear cmos first before turning psu on and then go into bios, load optimized defaults, save defaults and restart, then update the bios, restart then clear cmos and load optimized defaults, save again, then tweak



My AMD builds have been non problematic, my 2nd P4 had slong with a few others I assisted building were.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Oct 17, 2019)

well,intel definitely has some nice gaming cpus like 9700k,but amd offers good performance at half price with 3600.your choice.


----------



## Tomgang (Oct 17, 2019)

About AMD. I feel where you came from performance whise. Before ryzen, amd chips whas like to me. Phenom and phenom 2 slow and there later FX series dit not impresse me. However as Intel has been stuck on 14 NM cpu design since late 2014 and by that only gained small performance boost and with that amd with ryzen has manage to al most match Intel in game performance and out performe Intel in many other task with there latest ryzen 3000 series.

With that said, the cheap upgrade is to swap your i5 4670K out with a core I7 4790K and overclock the crap out of it and then upgrade that old gpu. But beware I7 4790K can as other older hardware be overpriced at some places. So take time to chack prices if you go this route. 

For new upgrade path, don't go for less than 6 cores and 12 threads. Games likes threads and cores these days more than ever. So either go for a used I7 8700K or a Ryzen 3600 for minimum. Optimum would be 8 cores/16 threads so i9 9900K or ryzen 3700X. I will not recommend I7 9700K as I have seen games make this cpu peak at 100 % load now and then. Reason is that it might have 8 cores but also only 8 threads and as said before games like threads these days and can take advantage of hyper threading/SMT. So a 6 core/12 thread cpu will perform better than a pure 8 core cpu in some games. Test has even shown that dissable ht/smt even on cpu with 12 cores can negative effect game performance not by much, but there can be a loss of a few fps. Piont don't bay a pure 8 core cpu with out ht/smt.

There are also Intel comet lake, but besides a few ekstra cores I don't think it will offer much higher performance gain over i9 9900K as comet lake is still a 14 nm node and ryzen 3000 is 7 nm node just to a comparison. The ekstra performance from comet lake over coffee lake/9000 series will mostly come from higher clock speed and not from better IPC.

Now i have given my opinion. But the choice is yours.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Oct 17, 2019)

Having used a pretty fast 4790k before, anything skylake and newer is a massive upgrade as far as game performance goes... These older intel chips are also horribly overpriced on the second hand market imho.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 17, 2019)

Tomgang said:


> About AMD. I feel where you came from performance whise. Before ryzen, amd chips whas like to me. Phenom and phenom 2 slow and there later FX series dit not impresse me. However as Intel has been stuck on 14 NM cpu design since late 2014 and by that only gained small performance boost and with that amd with ryzen has manage to al most match Intel in game performance and out performe Intel in many other task with there latest ryzen 3000 series.
> 
> With that said, the cheap upgrade is to swap your i5 4670K out with a core I7 4790K and overclock the crap out of it and then upgrade that old gpu. But beware I7 4790K can as other older hardware be overpriced at some places. So take time to chack prices if you go this route.
> 
> ...



Phenom 2 wasn't slow.

The only FX worth having were the 8320/50/70 or 9370/9590.


----------



## Tomgang (Oct 17, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> Phenom 2 wasn't slow.
> 
> The only FX worth having were the 8320/50/70 or 9370/9590.



Maybe not slow in its self. But slow compared to intels offer at that time.

Neither Phenom or FX/Bulldozer impressed me at all and that's whas one of the reasons I chose Intel and X58 back them over amd as there cpu offer where no match for X58. First with Ryzen 3000 amd got my attention again and I am planning to upgrade to a Ryzen 9 3950X cpu in fact.


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Oct 17, 2019)

Having used a 3570K and an fx 8350 for several years, I can say that my r7 2700 is  a huge improvement. 3700 would be even better for amd route. I have a platform to that will last me many years aside from gpu/hdd or ssd/ram upgrades if choose to do so.


----------



## Lionheart (Oct 18, 2019)

bogmali said:


> OP stated his view about AMD so please respect that



I don't respect it, it's close minded asf.


----------



## freeagent (Oct 18, 2019)

Here in Canada a 3800X is 489 and tax, and the 9700K is 10 bucks more. The 3900x is 709 and tax and the 9900K is 639.. Second gen Ryzen is cheap, but the boards aren't if you want something nice. x570 boards are just as expensive if not more so than nice Intel boards. Yeah if you go with a cheap 6 core and b450 you can have some savings, but at the cost of running a b450 board.


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Oct 18, 2019)

I'd just get a new GPU and see how it treats you. The 660 Ti is by no means a barn burner. Anything modern from the RX 570 on up will give you way more frames. If it still isn't good enough, build a new rig and take the GPU with you.


----------



## Hyderz (Oct 18, 2019)

How about this?
Theres always gonna be new stuff releasing around the corner, id recommend you change your gpu maybe to a rx570,580 or 1660 if you want nvidia.
Then when Cyberpunk 2077 released build your new rig, sell your old parts including the recent purchased gpu and get something faster?


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Oct 18, 2019)

Buying new cards and selling them shortly after is a great way to lose money... If you want to spend little for a short term solution get used stuff, cheaper and tends to lose less value.


----------



## Boni (Oct 18, 2019)

IMHO, Ryzens still have a bit lower IPC then it's Intel counterparts. If you want a workstation or light server, I'd dare say Ryzen is better. However, if you want to play on 240HZ screen in 4K, I'd say go with Intel. For most people, ryzen is currently optimal choice.

On the other hand, your CPU still isn't obsolete and can handle a lot of things. All you basically need is a GPU, as strong as you can get.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 18, 2019)

Buy used rx 570/580 or 1060/1660 class GPU and you are good. Cyberpunk shows up then you decide what upgrades you need.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Oct 18, 2019)

Boni said:


> IMHO, Ryzens still have a bit lower IPC then it's Intel counterparts. If you want a workstation or light server, I'd dare say Ryzen is better. However, if you want to play on 240HZ screen in 4K, I'd say go with Intel. For most people, ryzen is currently optimal choice.
> 
> On the other hand, your CPU still isn't obsolete and can handle a lot of things. All you basically need is a GPU, as strong as you can get.


Per core IPC doesn't really do much for games, it's mostly in branch prediction, cache, and memory performance.

Depends a lot on the games too, CS:GO for example runs way smoother on zen2 than anything intel, in a few rare examples zen2 struggles to get much better than half the minimum framerates, but in the vast majority of cases it in single digit %... The 9700/9900k (OCed to hell) is probarbly going to be the winner for 240Hz, but never in value. The value proposition is honestly too bad to consider it unless you are looking at a specific game that doesn't run well on zen2.

Haswell 4c4t isn't enough for 144Hz in a lot of games, it has nowhere near enough multicore power to push the likes of BFV at high framerates.


----------



## andiey (Oct 18, 2019)

Again, thanks a million to all of your responses, they are really up to the point and very helpful!



Hyderz said:


> How about this?
> Theres always gonna be new stuff releasing around the corner, id recommend you change your gpu maybe to a rx570,580 or 1660 if you want nvidia.
> Then when Cyberpunk 2077 released build your new rig, sell your old parts including the recent purchased gpu and get something faster?


Great idea!  It also depends on the games which I play. If I skip Cyberpunk 2077, I can still be very happy with the new rig.
Selling in my region is difficult, besides, who will want an old Sandy Bridge CPU?



Boni said:


> IMHO, Ryzens still have a bit lower IPC then it's Intel counterparts. If you want a workstation or light server, I'd dare say Ryzen is better. However, if you want to play on 240HZ screen in 4K, I'd say go with Intel. For most people, ryzen is currently optimal choice.
> 
> On the other hand, your CPU still isn't obsolete and can handle a lot of things. All you basically need is a GPU, as strong as you can get.


This is entirely factual about the IPC. Intel prevails in this department. I don't need a workstation for video editing, I just use it for word, excel and powerpoint.
But what worries me using Intel is that for Multiplayer games, I wonder if less threads will actually affect the smoothness of the gaming experience. If it jerks alot, then I will be regretting.
I didn't say at the beginning, I play on 1040 because I intend to keep my $120 BenQ which is a cheap device. Therefore, I wonder if high end CPU really affect the FPS in 1080 gaming sessions.
Thanks for the heads up. I'll try getting a strong GPU, it makes sense in this video 










GorbazTheDragon said:


> Per core IPC doesn't really do much for games, it's mostly in branch prediction, cache, and memory performance.
> 
> Depends a lot on the games too, CS:GO for example runs way smoother on zen2 than anything intel, other games zen2 struggles to get much better than half the minimum framerates. Though with a few caveats the 9700/9900k (OCed to hell) is going to be the winner for 240Hz, but never in value. The value proposition is honestly too bad to consider it unless you are looking at a specific game that doesn't run well on zen2.
> 
> Haswell 4c4t isn't enough for 144Hz in a lot of games, it has nowhere near enough multicore power to push the likes of BFV at high framerates.


No wonder I only get ~24 FPS at High settings in BFV.  I game at 1080 and intend to keep it that way, so I don't need 4K support.  I know that will affect the GPU requirement, but even so, I guess I need a very fast GPU like 1660 Ti.  It's not the top notch card I know. But getting a top notch one will be a waste if it wears off quickly.  Not a problem with money really, but it sounds very crazy to get a 2080 Ti at $1450!


----------



## andiey (Oct 18, 2019)

Summarizing all you folks recommendations and advice, I have decided NOT to procure used parts. There are 2 reasons mainly:

1) Quality assurance; it is very hard to tell the actual condition of the part, how to test and RMA is not possible in case the results turn out to be negative.
2) Hard to justify the price of the items; a used i7 might be pricey than a brand new i3 9100F. And the prices vary greatly.

I have decided to go for a NEW system, with some room for future upgrade. The scale of the upgrade will be platform dependent. What I mean is two options are being considered, one being the AMD platform, the other is the INTEL's.

The route is based on the justifications of price, upgrade-ability and the game genre which I play mostly.

I appreciate the idea of going for AMD because of its future proofing more or less, and the backward compatibility offer which I think is a genius strategy by AMD. The PS5 and XBOX's deployment of Ryzen CPUs also affect my decision here. As mentioned in previous thread, politically future games will be driven by these two game vendors. 8c16t definitely is the trend to go beginning in the fall of 2020, that is a little more than a year and a half away.  BUT, there is still some time here and maybe AMD will offer more flexible chips and chipsets during this 18 months. Therefore, a more balanced approach is to select a CPU which is just less than 50% of usage across most of the AAA titles predominately BFV, The Honor and FFXV. I would also be looking at some other up coming AAA titles most notably the COD.  After watching over 50 videos in the last 3 months, I have observed that even a 1600X can reserve much room when running at Ultra settings coupled with a high end GPU Like the RTX 2080 under 1080 gaming environment. This highly suggests that modern games are more GPU dependent rather than CPU bounded.

It is also undeniable that Intel 9th gen is sort of coming to an end. The lethal factor is the frequent release of next generation products and the minute difference between consecutive generations. The difference between the 8th and 9th gen CPUs aren't really significant. And the removal of additional thread evident in the i7 9700K is hard to comprehend.  The attitude of Intel also displays to the community an impression that we should all spend more to get additional cores and threads if you want to gain more FPS. Otherwise you're not left with much choices. This arrogance has caused some frustration and dissatisfaction within the community and further divides the factions. At the same time, the horsepower delivered by Ryzen 3 line of CPUs has catalyzed the shift towards the AMD side, some die-hard Intel fans have in fact defected. BUT, still if you want a pure gaming machine, Intel's proprietary IPC really has its superiority over AMD's, at least for the time being. And the base and boost clock frequencies still prevails.  Tens of side-by-side YouTube video game benchmarks show that highest FPS is dominated by Intel at the same core clock.

Integrating all of you folks positive recommendations, I have therefore drafted up the followings


AMD - B450 platformAMD - ZX570 platformIntel - B365 platformIntel - Z390 platformRyzen 3 3200G 3.6-4Ghz 4 C/4T 12nmRyzen5 3400G 3.7-4.2Ghz 4 C/8T 12nmCore i3-9100F 6M Cache up to 4.20 GHzCore i5-9400F 9M Cache up to 4.10 GHzStock Cooler Wraith SpireStock Cooler Wraith SpireCorsair H60 120mm AIO (2018)Corsair H60 120mm AIO (2018)Asus ROG Strix B450-F GamingAsus ROG Strix X570-F GamingAsus ROG Strix B365-F GamingAsus ROG Strix Z390-E GamingCorsair Vengeance LPX 3000 CL15 (Black) 2 x 8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000 CL15 (Black) 2 x 8GBCorsair Vengeance LPX 3000 CL15 (Black) 2 x 8GBCorsair Vengeance LPX 3000 CL15 (Black) 2 x 8GBCorsair RM 750WCorsair RM 850WCorsair RM 750WCorsair RM 750W_Please recommend good NVMe and case__Please recommend good NVMe and case__Please recommend good NVMe and case__Please recommend good NVMe and case_


Please comment and advise.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 18, 2019)

Honestly, I'd go 3600 Ryzen with X470 board. Why 570 ? You wont use the 4.0 PCIe anyway. The difference in performance between 470 and 570 boards is none existent.
Not sure why people suggest 570 board for Ryzen 3000 as a must with arguments, because you ditch feature. (If you are not going to use the features why even bother) The price difference in the 470 and 570 board department is noticeable and it would make a difference when purchasing GPU.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 18, 2019)

Well, you more or less have the idea. Though you may be digging into the minutia a bit.

The amount of cores and threads for gaming doesn't matter much past 6c/6t. 8c/16t CPUs don't show much if any at all benefit to games. With AMD inside the PS5, you are right to think games will be ported over for sure. However, UTILIZING (not using) all the cores and threads will still take a while. I've said it before here and I will say it again. Hex cores have been out from AMD for 8 years or so, Intel just slightly less... and in that time, just now is a 6c/12t a sweetspot. It will take years again (3-5) for 8c/16t to be notably behind the curve. By that time, guess what, it's CPU upgrade time anyway.

I surely wouldn't start with an APU on the AMD side, and no way would I go B365 with an intent to upgrade to presumably a chip that can overclock (B365 cannot overclock).

But dude, we are deep in the minutia now, honest. An AMD platform based on X570 and Zen2 with at least a 6c/12t CPU Ryzen 3 will be a great games for 3-5 years. Intel the same, but slightly higher FPS at 1080p. X570 gives you an upgrade path... which is great if you are sure you are going to take it. Who knows what the CPU landscape will look like in 3-5 years performance wise. 



ratirt said:


> (If you are not going to use the features why even bother)


Because you lose it for the entire life of the CPU... the extra lanes can help, especially with multiple NVMe which is the way storage is going. I'd also make a wager that X470 and down won't take Zen2+ or Zen3  / be upgradeable which then makes that 'advantage' over the intel platform go away.


----------



## freeagent (Oct 18, 2019)

ratirt said:


> Honestly, I'd go 3600 Ryzen with X470 board. Why 570 ? You wont use the 4.0 PCIe anyway. The difference in performance between 470 and 570 boards is none existent.
> Not sure why people suggest 570 board for Ryzen 3000 as a must with arguments, because you ditch feature. (If you are not going to use the features why even bother) The price difference in the 470 and 570 board department is noticeable and it would make a difference when purchasing GPU.


I thought if you went with a 3700x and up the vrm from any decent 570 board would be much better than 370/470? Don’t you need those high end vrm for the higher end CPUs? Because now I’m starting to get confused


----------



## ratirt (Oct 18, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Well, you more or less have the idea. Though you may be digging into the minutia a bit.
> 
> The amount of cores and threads for gaming doesn't matter much past 6c/6t. 8c/16t CPUs don't show much if any at all benefit to games. With AMD inside the PS5, you are right to think games will be ported over for sure. However, UTILIZING (not using) all the cores and threads will still take a while. I've said it before here and I will say it again. Hex cores have been out from AMD for 8 years or so, Intel just slightly less... and in that time, just now is a 6c/12t a sweetspot. It will take years again (3-5) for 8c/16t to be notably behind the curve. By that time, guess what, it's CPU upgrade time anyway.
> 
> ...


Sure but you have to consider one thing. You want to get the top-notch thing offering the best of the best you can get. It is same story as some people here stating and arguing to buy 9900K because it is the best at gaming. The OP doesn't want the best. He wants to play 1080p Cyberpunk in the future (like 6 months for now). He doesn't need all these lanes because he is not going to use them anyway. The NVMe drives for the 570 are not that great now since they are still need some work. Why pay so much for the x570 board when the performance gain is none? To brag that you have one? 
In the future the boards will be cheaper and OP will be able to swap the board with x570 for less that's for sure.  Also it may be worth it then with all the features and stuff it has to offer but also with the product line that will use all of these features.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 18, 2019)

ratirt said:


> Sure but you have to consider one thing. You want to get the top-notch thing offering the best of the best you can get. It is same story as some people here stating and arguing to buy 9900K because it is the best at gaming. The OP doesn't want the best. He wants to play 1080p Cyberpunk in the future (like 6 months for now). He doesn't need all these lanes because he is not going to use them anyway. The NVMe drives for the 570 are not that great now since they are still need some work. Why pay so much for the x570 board when the performance gain is none? To brag that you have one?
> In the future the boards will be cheaper and OP will be able to swap the board with x570 for less that's for sure.  Also it may be worth it then with all the features and stuff it has to offer but also with the product line that will use all of these features.


I do? Huh. Interesting.

My motto is to get the best you can/want to afford. If that is an APU on mid-range chipsets, so be it.

I'm not talking speed on NVMe drives, but COUNT. Speeds will get there. 

There isn't a performance gain on the platform (who said that?? lol).

You say in the future boards will be cheaper.... but we saw X570 go UP in price by a fair amount over X470..... so, are you sure about that? Also, wouldn't buying an X570 board down the line (even used) then cost MORE than getting one board up front? That doesn't make sense at all to me...


----------



## ratirt (Oct 18, 2019)

freeagent said:


> I thought if you went with a 3700x and up the vrm from any decent 570 board would be much better than 370/470? Don’t you need those high end vrm for the higher end CPUs? Because now I’m starting to get confused


Why would you need better VRMs for 3700x when this one is 8c16t just like 2700x? you may need better VRMs if you go 3900x or 3950x but that is it. OP doesn't want to go 3900x but instead 3200g so why the hell he should buy x570 board for so much? 3700x can run on a X470 board no problem. Why do you guys keep misinterpret or confuse other members?  

Watch these videos below and tell me what is the reason for the OP to go with x570 for a person who plays few games not looking for top of the top products to brag about few more FPS?


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 18, 2019)

ratirt said:


> Why would you need better VRMs for 3700x when this one is 8c16t just like 2700x? you may need better VRMs if you go 3900x or 3950x but that is it. OP doesn't want to go 3900x but instead 3200g so why the hell he should buy x570 board for so much? 3700x can run on a X470 board no problem. Why do you guys keep misinterpret or confuse other members?
> 
> Watch these videos below and tell me what is the reason for the OP to go with x570 for a person who plays few games not looking for top of the top products to brag about few more FPS?


So uhhh, get a previous gen board, neuter the upgrade path by both compatibility and the possibility of a lesser VRM which also could dissuade an upgrade to a 3900x/3950x in a few years... interesting...........

... not a path I would take with the future in mind.

BUt hey.. to each their own... opinions are like assholes...everyone has one (and some are one, LOL - not saying that last part to anyone here, note!).


----------



## ratirt (Oct 18, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I do? Huh. Interesting.
> 
> My motto is to get the best you can/want to afford. If that is an APU on mid-range chipsets, so be it.
> 
> ...


Yes I'm sure about that. The PCIe 4.0 costs the chipset as well cause it is something new. But the price will drop down eventually. More boards will be available and demand will drop. The Cyberpunk is going to be released in April (if not later) If you think that  the price of the X570 boards will not drop down till then or at least stay the same then at least please tell me why because I simply can't see it happening.
If the performance is the same why would you recommend X570 board? For the features? The OP is not going to use the features because he wants to game only not brag about the system he has.



EarthDog said:


> So uhhh, get a previous gen board, neuter the upgrade path by both compatibility and the possibility of a lesser VRM which also could dissuade an upgrade to a 3900x/3950x in a few years... interesting...........
> 
> ... not a path I would take with the future in mind.
> 
> BUt hey.. to each their own... opinions are like assholes...everyone has one (and some are one, LOL - not saying that last part to anyone here, note!).


You can get the 3900 and 3950 working with the X470 boards with no problem. Depending on the board of course. Buy a decent x470 and you are all good with 3900X. There is no compatibility issue with 3000 series Ryzen on X470 board? Where do you get that one from?
If the OP buys a 3600X or 3700X with X470 board, tell me, how long this set up will last considering gaming?  Cause I think at least 2 years with no problems. The only concern is the GPU.
Remember what the OP wants and adjust your knowledge and suggestions.



EarthDog said:


> BUt hey.. to each their own... opinions are like assholes...everyone has one (and some are one, LOL - not saying that last part to anyone here, note!).


For me an opinion is like an ass, everyone has its own.


----------



## 64K (Oct 18, 2019)

andiey said:


> No wonder I only get ~24 FPS at High settings in BFV.  I game at 1080 and intend to keep it that way, so I don't need 4K support.  I know that will affect the GPU requirement, but even so, I guess I need a very fast GPU like 1660 Ti.



A 1660 Ti is an excellent choice for 1080p gaming. Of the 21 games W1zzard benched in the review below all of them averaged way over 60 FPS except Assassin's Creed Odyssey and Ghost Recon Wildlands but those 2 are either very demanding or poorly ported. Battlefield V averaged 97 FPS and these games are being benched at the highest settings. That looks good for the near future as well because even though games always get more demanding you will probably be fine.

I can only guess what Cyberpunk 2077 will require but I think you will probably be in good shape with a 1660 Ti for that game when it does release. Possibly you might need to turn down some settings but a lot of times there's really not a noticeable difference between ultra and high settings anyway.

If I were going to buy a 1660 Ti then this is what I would get:









						MSI GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Gaming X 6 GB Review
					

The MSI GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is the company's most premium offering based on the new NVIDIA Turing chip that lacks ray-tracing features, designed to woo gamers under the $300-mark. Twin Frozr 7 and other premium MSI exclusives dress up this factory-overclocked card that sits quiet when idling.




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 18, 2019)

ratirt said:


> There is no compatibility issue with 3000 series Ryzen on X470 board? Where do you get that one from?


Compatibility in future upgrades to the next gen CPUs. I doubt X470 will play nice with Zen3 (like I said earlier).

Yeah, so you have to spend for a decent X470 board to potentially support a 3900/3950x upgrade in a few years which puts you right back into X570 territory but without an upgrade path (to next gen so we're clear) so many are talking about nor the possibility of using any of the features and what it brings (I never mentioned performace, to be clear.....again). Now, it is possible, but that value proposition goes away a bit...





			https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wmsTYK9Z3-jUX5LGRoFnsZYZiW1pfiDZnKCjaXyzd1o/htmlview?sle=true
		




ratirt said:


> Remember what the OP wants and adjust your knowledge and suggestions.





ratirt said:


> For me an opinion is like an ass, everyone has its own.


LOL, really? Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha Muaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!


Anyway, OP, good luck to you... this thread is getting a bit ridiculous with all the people talking in circles and cutting off the face to spite the nose.


----------



## ne6togadno (Oct 18, 2019)

System Builder
					






					pcpartpicker.com


----------



## ratirt (Oct 18, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Compatibility in future upgrades to the next gen CPUs. I doubt X470 will play nice with Zen3 (like I said earlier).


It has never been proven that the X570 will be compatible with gen 3 Ryzen as of now. So what you are suggesting to the OP Is wait for 3rd Gen Ryzen to show up? And when it does wait some more?
The only rational option here for casual gaming is 3000 series ryzen 6c/8c with X470 mobo. What you are saying is buy X570 because Ryzen 3rd gen is behind the corner? There will be X670 boards why not wait for those as well when 3rd gen Ryzen arrives? I don't think OP is going to upgrade when Ryzen 3rd gen is released next year. All the OP want's is to play Cyberpunk 1080p 144Hz screen. He wont need 3rd gen ryzen for that.


----------



## Hyderz (Oct 18, 2019)

+1 on ryzen 3600


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 18, 2019)

ratirt said:


> It has never been proven that the X570 will be compatible with gen 3 Ryzen as of now. So what you are suggesting to the OP Is wait for 3rd Gen Ryzen to show up? And when it does wait some more?
> The only rational option here for casual gaming is 3000 series ryzen 6c/8c with X470 mobo. What you are saying is buy X570 because Ryzen 3rd gen is behind the corner? There will be X670 boards why not wait for those as well when 3rd gen Ryzen shows up? I don't think OP is going to upgrade because Ryzen 3rd gen is going to be released next year all he want's is to play Cyberpunk 1080p 144Hz screen. He wont need 3rd gen ryzen for that.


I'm not suggesting anything like that... just looking at the big picture. Some people are screaming UPGRADE PATH UPGRADE PATH, but, we don't really know. If AMD continues their trend, I would guess X570 will work with Zen2+/Zen3 (or w/e they will call it), yes. It isn't a leap of faith to think that.

All I am suggesting is since he seems to keep the PC for a while, to get the best he wants to/can afford. This, to me, means building on the X570 platform and Ryzen 3 series CPU. This way he starts off on the curve and if he wants to upgrade using AMD in 3-5 years, he can do so with either Zen2 CPU or Zen2+/Zen3 (likely). But as I said earlier... who knows what the CPU landscape will look like then. I don't like to 'lock' myself in to any platform, personally as today (finally!) we have two good options to choose from. Price, performance, and value will all change in the coming years... which is why I don't really buy the benefit of an upgrade path for many users.

Why limit yourself because you want to play one specific game now (myopic thinking there, no)? What if he wants to play other games in the next 3-5 years? 

... though, maybe I am mixing up another thread too... who knows. It's coffee time.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Oct 18, 2019)

Not exactly sure how the APUs snuck into your builds, those 3000 series APUs are built on zen+ not zen 2... My advice would be either wait for intel 10th gen or get AM4+ryzen 3600. If you want to start out with something cheaper any of the 2000 or 1000 series chips will be fine, but I wouldn't bother going down to the quad cores. Were it not for the state of intel's security patches I would have recommended Z390+8700k if you could find a good deal, but I can't in good faith recommend that to anyone.


----------



## freeagent (Oct 18, 2019)

ratirt said:


> Why would you need better VRMs for 3700x when this one is 8c16t just like 2700x? you may need better VRMs if you go 3900x or 3950x but that is it. OP doesn't want to go 3900x but instead 3200g so why the hell he should buy x570 board for so much? 3700x can run on a X470 board no problem. Why do you guys keep misinterpret or confuse other members?
> 
> Watch these videos below and tell me what is the reason for the OP to go with x570 for a person who plays few games not looking for top of the top products to brag about few more FPS?



Sorry, still learning. Last I dealt with and was over 10 years ago, crash course. At work atm no time for vids will have to wait


----------



## andiey (Oct 18, 2019)

ratirt said:


> Honestly, I'd go 3600 Ryzen with X470 board. Why 570 ? You wont use the 4.0 PCIe anyway. The difference in performance between 470 and 570 boards is none existent.
> Not sure why people suggest 570 board for Ryzen 3000 as a must with arguments, because you ditch feature. (If you are not going to use the features why even bother) The price difference in the 470 and 570 board department is noticeable and it would make a difference when purchasing GPU.


If my knowledge is correct, the up coming RX 5500 is PCIe 4.0.   X570 is damn expensive, but if one is willing to get the RX 5500 given its price, the price difference between X470 and X570 becomes less of a concern.



EarthDog said:


> Well, you more or less have the idea. Though you may be digging into the minutia a bit.
> 
> The amount of cores and threads for gaming doesn't matter much past 6c/6t. 8c/16t CPUs don't show much if any at all benefit to games. With AMD inside the PS5, you are right to think games will be ported over for sure. However, UTILIZING (not using) all the cores and threads will still take a while. I've said it before here and I will say it again. Hex cores have been out from AMD for 8 years or so, Intel just slightly less... and in that time, just now is a 6c/12t a sweetspot. It will take years again (3-5) for 8c/16t to be notably behind the curve. By that time, guess what, it's CPU upgrade time anyway.
> 
> ...



Excellent notion! I have to say you nearly read my mind!

Thanks for the heads up on 6c/6t and the analysis of the Hex cores history.  In fact, it is logical for Intel to remain "seemingly behind" AMD in expanding the number of threads. For a giant chip manufacturer, they have teams of specialists to design CPUs since the beginning of time. They must have a very good reason NOT to rush to higher threads and more cores architecture. AMD is just cramping up and as I said in my previous thread, AMD always gives people an impression that they like giving out unfinished products.  Really, patching and frequent updates isn't the kind of thing I am after; perhaps some people think otherwise and enjoy that experience but definitely not my cup of tea.

If ever I go for AMD, X570 is almost a must. Unlike Intel, the Ryzen 3000 line of CPUs is designed for forward and backward comparability.  Therefore, instead of a Tomahawk which provides less features, a more feature rich mobo is all you need to run the 3000 series of CPUs with some really fast peripheral components. X570 provides sufficient resources for NVMe that's the first thing. Next would be the PCIe 4.0 Gfx cards as 5500 starts to roll. X470 is feasible but given the minute price difference, why not go for the latest to save all the hassle of a BIOS update.

You're just right on that life span thing; lasting for 3-5 years is all I am asking for for this new rig I am going to build. I don't think the Battlefield series of games will start using over 6 threads in their next release simply because they have to change too many coding.  The Honor is the best developers I would say because the game is so optimised that it totally disregards what CPU is running it. As long as your graphics board is not some kind of junkie, it's not impossible for one to get 60+ FPS in 1080 even talking about the 9400F, a rather entry level CPU. Sadly, in reality The Honor team is the only one which I know about who offers such high professional ethics in their masterpiece. My Ivy Bridge has been running almost everyday for the last 5 years and it is still going well actually just a bit behind in FPS on some AAA titles. That's why I intend to build out of the 9100 because I am beginning to realize that modern games don't really use the CPU that much. Perhaps I should get the Z390 board, just to leave some room to replace the 9100 with the i7 9700K when its price drops. I am assuming that most motherboards are designed to last. Possible upgrade would be 9100->9600K->9700K when games really demand more threads within the next 5 years.  Meanwhile I really need to spend more wisely on a premium graphics card.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 18, 2019)

Well...

1. Your perception on amd is outdated. This isnt the days of phenom and fx. Zen architecture, specifically zen+ and zen2 compete with Intel and are not incomplete. 
2. BF V is a title at that limit already. It can use 6-8c evenly.
3. Your Iisred intel upgrade path is ridiculous . Stop nickle and diming yourself. Go 9400 or w/e and then at least 9700k if not 9900k. Then look at the next platform in 5 years.

GL to you.


----------



## andiey (Oct 18, 2019)

ratirt said:


> Sure but you have to consider one thing. You want to get the top-notch thing offering the best of the best you can get. It is same story as some people here stating and arguing to buy 9900K because it is the best at gaming. The OP doesn't want the best. He wants to play 1080p Cyberpunk in the future (like 6 months for now). He doesn't need all these lanes because he is not going to use them anyway. The NVMe drives for the 570 are not that great now since they are still need some work. Why pay so much for the x570 board when the performance gain is none? To brag that you have one?
> In the future the boards will be cheaper and OP will be able to swap the board with x570 for less that's for sure.  Also it may be worth it then with all the features and stuff it has to offer but also with the product line that will use all of these features.


Thanks for your thoughtfulness,  you're just helping me to save some money after all, really appreciate!

I don't like getting second hand parts so naturally I don't expect too much of selling, I presume when you say swapping you meant "trade-in"? 

About the top-notch thing, I am willing to spend more on intelligent choices which is what I meant in my previous threads. If ever they gave you a misleading message, apologies.

9900K definitely is the KING at this moment, and surely it is going to last for a pretty long period of time.  In fact, a good i7 7700K which is a 4c/8t once nearly premium CPU and it is still doing great. The situation will repeat for 9900K in say the next 7 to 8 years. I am sure, it will be able to break the 60+ barrier compared with 9600K which surely will be more confined by then.  I guess that extra dollar spent is like an insurance or future proof.  However, I am beginning to see that the days when games which are CPU heavily-bounded is long gone. That practically means that the need for a powerful CPU to supplement the GPU's operation is no longer there, we should be glad about that frankly. I might be just trolling, Intel has been "lazy" for the last few years probably is due to that.  The finale is I don't need that much insurance. First, as far as the game genre I am indulging in presents not immediate demand for a 9900K.  Second, things keep changing and in 2 years time, 9900K will be well remembered as the previous KING of gaming CPU; I guess I might consider catching up by then.

About X570, here is what I know about: the extra lanes will be used by NVMe and the RX 5500 which is coming up at any minute now.  Yes I admit that my draft looks a bit uneven but X570 is worthy of the money because it is really future proof.



ratirt said:


> Why would you need better VRMs for 3700x when this one is 8c16t just like 2700x? you may need better VRMs if you go 3900x or 3950x but that is it. OP doesn't want to go 3900x but instead 3200g so why the hell he should buy x570 board for so much? 3700x can run on a X470 board no problem. Why do you guys keep misinterpret or confuse other members?


X570 is really expensive. I intent o build a 3200G or 3400G or 3600 on X570 is because I might upgrade the CPU later to 3950X in the end. Mobo is future proof to a certain extent.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 18, 2019)

Not sure why you are getting hung up on the RX5500 and the PCIE4 bandwidth, the 5500 is not going to use any of it, 3 is more than enough for what that card will be needing with bandwidth to spare.​


----------



## andiey (Oct 18, 2019)

64K said:


> A 1660 Ti is an excellent choice for 1080p gaming. Of the 21 games W1zzard benched in the review below all of them averaged way over 60 FPS except Assassin's Creed Odyssey and Ghost Recon Wildlands but those 2 are either very demanding or poorly ported. Battlefield V averaged 97 FPS and these games are being benched at the highest settings. That looks good for the near future as well because even though games always get more demanding you will probably be fine.
> 
> I can only guess what Cyberpunk 2077 will require but I think you will probably be in good shape with a 1660 Ti for that game when it does release. Possibly you might need to turn down some settings but a lot of times there's really not a noticeable difference between ultra and high settings anyway.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link.  I also have the feeling that 1660 TI can last for the medium term. Also I am considering the RX 5700 which is a bit more expensive than the 1600Ti and I am trying to figure out if I ever have the need for that given 1660 Ti can suffice my game's demand.

Oh, did I mention that I m expecting Very High settings. I gave up Epic or Ultra settings, well more precisely I can compromise for that.  But if 1660 Ti can't run Cyberpunk 2077 at 60+ at Very High, I would be a bit let down.



GorbazTheDragon said:


> Not exactly sure how the APUs snuck into your builds, those 3000 series APUs are built on zen+ not zen 2... My advice would be either wait for intel 10th gen or get AM4+ryzen 3600. If you want to start out with something cheaper any of the 2000 or 1000 series chips will be fine, but I wouldn't bother going down to the quad cores. Were it not for the state of intel's security patches I would have recommended Z390+8700k if you could find a good deal, but I can't in good faith recommend that to anyone.


The security issue will plague the Intel community for 10th gen CPUs, it just won't simply go away. So if ever that is the reason why people are stopping themselves from getting Intel's CPUs, it's rather a pathetic situation.  I hope it will get sorted in the end, but maybe not in the near future.

8700K is a good CPU but it is not available anymore.

Maybe I start with a 8100 or 9100F + Z390 and wait for the price of 9700K to drop. I probably won't go for 9600K because it's just an i5.



EarthDog said:


> Well...
> 
> 1. Your perception on amd is outdated. This isnt the days of phenom and fx. Zen architecture, specifically zen+ and zen2 compete with Intel and are not incomplete.
> 2. BF V is a title at that limit already. It can use 6-8c evenly.
> ...


You're right. 9600K is a bit not in the picture because of its price.   Start with 9400F and jump right up to 9700K in a year or 2,  that money spent on 9400F can well justified.  

Check this video: 9400F + RX 570 gets avg 70 FPS










He is GPU limited. He needs a better GPU.


----------



## jayjr1105 (Oct 18, 2019)

I didn't read every single post in the thread but my vote is for a R5 3600 and a B450 Motherboard.  I'd suggest a MSI B450 Gaming Plus for $85 and can be BIOS flashed without a CPU (I think).  It has ample VRM's for even a stock 3900x.  Pair it with 3200-3600 RAM at the lowest timings you feel comfortable spending money on but several 3600 kits of 16GB are ~$90 right now.

Yes the 9900K is gaming king but if you play at 1080p and with settings on high/ultra AND you don't spend more than $500 on GPU, you'll never know the difference


----------



## andiey (Oct 19, 2019)

Thanks folks.
I just borrowed a RX 570 from my Cousin. BF V now worked GREAT! ~58 @ Ultra, I can't believe my eyes.

Now it is as clear as the white blue sky: modern games almost don't depend on the CPU! This is an 7 years old CPU and it can play BF V at Ultra!!

Now I finally believe those videos showing a i3 8100 + RX 580 makes 90+ in BF V; to b honest previously I thought that was a make-up/fake.

So, why would I buy a high end Intel CPU now? An i3 8100 just costs about $125


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Oct 19, 2019)

3600 is only marginally more and has better upgrade paths, a Ryzen 1600 would be the cheaper option.


----------



## jayjr1105 (Oct 19, 2019)

andiey said:


> Thanks folks.
> I just borrowed a RX 570 from my Cousin. BF V now worked GREAT! ~58 @ Ultra, I can't believe my eyes.
> 
> Now it is as clear as the white blue sky: modern games almost don't depend on the CPU! This is an 7 years old CPU and it can play BF V at Ultra!!
> ...


You couldn't be more wrong.  New games crave CPU power, ESPECIALLY BF games.  Also, i3 8100 is a terrible purchase.  Only 4 core 4 threads for $125.  You can get a Ryzen 2600 for that with 6 core 12 threads.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Oct 19, 2019)

andiey said:


> Now it is as clear as the white blue sky: modern games almost don't depend on the CPU!


That depends on the game. Many modern games are very CPU intensive. In fact, the gaming industry is a primary factor driving the ever increasing demand for 12 (and more) core processors.


----------



## MrPotatoHead (Oct 19, 2019)

Guy's obviosuly a big Intel/anti-AMD fan from his posts, disregards anything AMD whilst blowing smoke outta intel's butt at every chance he gets, let him get his 6c/6t Intel which no game is going to want more of (cue next gen consoles all running 8c/16t AMD chips) in the next 5 years and pay more for it than an equivalent AMD CPU with more threads, troll post /thread


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Oct 19, 2019)

andiey said:


> I have an old system. Essential components are
> 
> i5 4670K
> P8Z77 Deluxe
> ...


Simply no choice to make a 9700k or 9900k.

Why so many pages for a fan of intel.


----------



## Mac2580 (Oct 19, 2019)

I also generally prefer Intel CPU's over AMD. If I was upgrading right now I would go for the 9900K. If I couldnt afford it, I wouldnt consider an Intel CPU at all. The Ryzen CPU's are far better value long term IMO. The extra threads will surely come in handy a few years down the line. Honestly, I would go for a GPU first. You mentioned that you were surprised by your CPU doing 58FPS, im pretty sure that the RX570 or Ram was the bottleneck and that the CPU is capable of around 70FPS in that title without overclocking.


----------



## (*^^*) (Oct 19, 2019)

andiey said:


> I have an old system. Essential components are
> 
> i5 4670K
> P8Z77 Deluxe
> ...



I used to use an antique similar to you before. I think if you use a better product, you will have a good experience no matter what you use.  It is a story about an unexpected failure or an initial failure.  I don't know who the initial failure is.  Stop thinking.  If you just want to play the game titles you are enjoying without stress, you can use GTX1660ti or RTX2060 SUPER.  I think that GPU bound is better than bottleneck, so the CPU is close to the top of core i5 or i7.  All you have to do is arrange the motherboard, memory, and storage according to these power supply units.  Please note that the core i series, like AMD, may not be compatible with previous generation motherboards and younger new CPUs, so investigating and purchasing them will reduce stress.  Later, Intel heard that the core i3.5.7 series was abandoned and production discontinued.  How long can I buy this story if it is true?  Also, I think it is necessary to pay attention to price fluctuations.  Lastly, AMD was surprised that it was almost the same as Intel's game performance since the third generation.  Approximately the same price or less.  It is even more surprising that it is strong for uses other than games.  In addition, the latest AMD Ryzen 3000 series is happy to run on the previous generation motherboard.  Akihabara in Japan sells B450 for around $ 70, but if you buy it together with the latest Ryzen CPU, you get a discount of $ 70.  I regret when I tried AMD, but I want to respect the challenge.  AMD Ryzen has caught up with Intel.  If you try it, I think it was the current timing.  .  But if you only have a game, you can make a good choice on Intel!  I hope you can do what you want!


----------



## Dan848 (Oct 20, 2019)

I did not read most of the replies.   I did read all of your posts and concluded that what you stated is what you are leaning toward, and in part, that includes quality components, and the right components that will project your build to last 5 years or more.

I started working in the computer industry about 35 years ago and used computers prior to that.    Over the decades I have enjoyed working with hardware and hardware diagnostics.    I have also enjoyed fringe work from overclocking to delidding CPUs.    I have found that no one person has all of the answers and that has lead me to a never ending quest for knowledge regarding computers from technical manuals to watching YouTube videos.   I have diagnosed, repaired, designed or built everything from servers to HEDTs.

With that out of the way and with your gaming / compute needs in mind with an emphasis on gaming, I suggest you purchase the most expensive CPU that you can afford.    Because you will not be tinkering with the BIOS very much, if any including no overclocking, I suggest you purchase an i9 9900, not the K version, you will not be overclocking so you can save some money there.    You also should get a high quality motherboard.    I am not going to get into the pros and cons of every board here, that would take a two hour video and I am not going to type a book.    So, I suggest the Gigabyte Z390 Gaming Ultra, the reason is it has a great hardware to utilize four DIMMs or sticks of RAM, something that not all motherboards support, it also has very good VRMs and makes proper use of them to provide outstanding stability.    You may prefer B die RAM however it is not needed with that CPU, just good 3000 to 4000 RAM with lower, tighter, timings, though the most expensive is not needed.    CAS 16 for 3200 or CAS 18 3600 RAM is fine, here again I will not get into specifics as this comment will be long enough as it is.   There are several good options here.    I suggest you start with four sticks of 8GB Crucial Ballistix or G.Skill Flare X if you think you may switch to AMD in the future and want to carry over the RAM with absolute confidence it will work.    Two generations from now AMD is supposed to support DDR5 however I suspect it and DDR-4 will be supported with Ryzen 4.    I have used both Crucial and Flare X for years.

There are a number of good quality power supplies on the market.    I suggest a 650 watt Corsair or 650/660 watt Seasonic silver or higher 80 PLUS rating for either PSU.    Many people argue that the higher 80 PLUS rating is a waste of money because it may not pay for itself with lower power bills due to better efficiency.    However, those people may not realize that a higher 80 PLUS rating requires higher quality components, and that is my reasoning, quality.    It is that quality that ensures a cleaner supply of electricity to the computer and long life.

Storage.    Intel 2TB 660p NVMe SSD.   It is relatively inexpensive and fast.

Video card:     MSI RTX 2080 Gaming X     To game at high FPS expect to replace one component within five or six years of computer use, the video card.    When the Nvidia 5080 or AMD counterpart becomes available it will probably be time to upgrade that single component.

CPU cooler:    For an eight to 12 core CPU, Noctua U-12S or U12A, the latter cools a little better and clears sticks of RAM better, both rival or outperform 240mm water cooling, and water coolers come with the possibility of the impeller going bad or other possible problems.

Case:    I suggest a high airflow mid tower that uses large fans and with the dimensions required to install a moderately large high quality CPU air cooler and a high quality large video card.    Large coolers provide better cooling and yield longer life to the CPU and GPU.

A note about motherboards for AMD, get a high end X570.    You do not need the most expensive, however lower end boards are fine for low to mid range Ryzen 3000 series CPUs, however, as you add more stress through a higher core count quality boards yield less headaches, in fact I expect $140 motherboards to not function properly or fail with a Ryzen 3900X.    Always look to the future.

Regarding Intel motherboards.    The 10000 series motherboards next year will have a higher pin count, which will necessitate a different MB and more importantly the silicon will be new which means teething problems.   Expect to be a beta tester for Intel if you purchase a 10000 series CPU and motherboard early on.    The higher pin count should facilitate higher clocks and more cores more effectively, just be careful about early adoption.

Why get a high end CPU?    For future games.   Some games use eight cores or threads currently with a few that can use more.    If you want to make sure you are purchasing a computer that will last five years you need to look into the future of gaming.

It is true that four cores and eight threads are for the most part fine for today, however not for the future.    It is highly likely next generation gaming consoles will use 64 bit eight core AMD CPUs.    That means game creators will be writing code for those systems and many of those games will be  ported over to PCs, which in turn, means utilization of more cores.

To some degree I face the same dilemma that you find yourself in regarding a CPU.    I am currently using an i7 7700K overclocked to 4.8GHz, it will do 5.2GHz but found the extra MHz is not needed for gaming at the moment.    For example, while playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare beta, with all graphics maxed out except shadows, I was averaging around 225 FPS with the 7700K and my MSI RTX 2080 Gaming X at 1080p.    I have a 165Hz 1080p 32 inch monitor.

Finally, regarding a computer I am under the impression that you are not constrained by finances as you indicated in your above post, if so, please let me know.  Also please take into consideration that I place great emphasis on high quality hardware.

You should be able to find information on much of the above through google searches or on YouTube.    Please disregard any errors in grammar and spelling because I did not proof read this.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Oct 20, 2019)

andiey said:


> Thanks folks.
> I just borrowed a RX 570 from my Cousin. BF V now worked GREAT! ~58 @ Ultra, I can't believe my eyes.
> 
> Now it is as clear as the white blue sky: modern games almost don't depend on the CPU! This is an 7 years old CPU and it can play BF V at Ultra!!
> ...



It's the cat mouse game bud.

No matter what you buy today, it's dated tomorrow. Literally (just about)....

So you've proven yourself, you don't need a big bad i 9900K Beast. Will you get higher frame rates, yes.
The question becomes budget. Lasting 5 years ect. Well to help realize that in 5 years, your hardware will likely be just fine and do it's job, but the video card will also then be a generation or two old. So again, you'll be in the same exact spot your in now..... 

There are so many good configurations of hardware. You could litterally buy two mid ranged gaming cards, run SLI or Crossfire and make some good frame rates. This path of upgrade is getting what you can afford now, upgrade it cheaper a year later down the road, get higher frame rates at some less percentage of costs....

So a few titles can run 8 cores up on a load. So any 8 core cpu is going to suit your needs. In 5 years, it won't be likely that games will use 16 threads while both AMD and Intel support SMT and HT.  

In reality, it's much easier to help you build with a solid number to work with... what's your true budget?


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Oct 20, 2019)

MrPotatoHead said:


> Guy's obviosuly a big Intel/anti-AMD fan from his posts, disregards anything AMD whilst blowing smoke outta intel's butt at every chance he gets, let him get his 6c/6t Intel which no game is going to want more of (cue next gen consoles all running 8c/16t AMD chips) in the next 5 years and pay more for it than an equivalent AMD CPU with more threads, troll post /thread


He prefers the stutterfest experience of high 50s FPS i guess (x

I remember my first laptop playing BF3 I did everything in my power to get stable 60+ FPS, but I guess some people think differently.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 20, 2019)

MrPotatoHead said:


> Guy's obviosuly a big Intel/anti-AMD fan from his posts, disregards anything AMD whilst blowing smoke outta intel's butt at every chance he gets, let him get his 6c/6t Intel which no game is going to want more of (cue next gen consoles all running 8c/16t AMD chips) in the next 5 years and pay more for it than an equivalent AMD CPU with more threads, troll post /thread


Some people have just used Intel for years and years and rightly or wrongly, good or bad just feel safer for going with something that they know and that has treated them good in the past, I don't translate a preference for Intel as anti AMD, just someone set in their ways thinking they are playing it safe and sadly some people just don't want to change but that's their choice.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Oct 20, 2019)

Tatty_One said:


> Some people have just used Intel for years and years and rightly or wrongly, good or bad just feel safer for going with something that they know and that has treated them good in the past


I just had a similar conversation on another site about PSUs (Corsairs specifically). I said, brand loyalty is pretty much human nature. I think most of us are that way - going both ways. That is, we stick with brands that have served us well, but we also avoid brands that didn't.

But that's not always the best policy - especially in competitive markets where brands continually "leap-frog" over each other, taking turns being in the lead.

And of course, markets change, as do company leaderships and policies. Corsair is certainly not the only company that used to be untouchable, but sat on their laurels and either changed in a bad way, or didn't change and adjust then failed to keep up with the competition. Intel was king and thought they were invincible. Then AMD leap-frogged over it. It took over 10 years for Intel to leap-frog back into the lead and for sure, AMD is constantly nipping at their heels again - with some models leading in their class. 

That, of course, is all good for promoting and creating incentives for competition. And competition is always good for us consumers. 

I added, 





> All I am saying, if you are shopping for a new PSU, its okay to look at Corsairs. But just do your homework before buying. Not all Corsairs are the best in their class. Check the competition too.


IMO, that holds true for CPUs too.



Tatty_One said:


> I don't translate a preference for Intel as anti AMD


For some, I agree. But clearly some pick Company A's product just because they hate Company B.



Mac2580 said:


> The Ryzen CPU's are far better value long term IMO.


Better "value"?  I have a problem with statements like this. What does "value" really mean? I think it is different for everyone. Yes, most Intels cost more compared to the AMD in that class. But the CPU is just one component in the computer. Factor in the cost of the motherboard, RAM, case, PSU, drives, cooler, monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, Windows and application licenses, then spread those costs over the 3 - 5 year (or longer) life expectancy of the computer, and is the "value" that much different?


----------



## Komshija (Oct 20, 2019)

I wouldn't upgrade the CPU. Certainly not for gaming because i5 4670K is still more than good. Rather upgrade GPU to RX 590 or RX 580. Bear in mind that RX 580 is almost *twice *as powerful as GTX 660 Ti, while RX 590 is about 2,2 times more powerful than GTX 660 Ti.


----------



## andiey (Oct 20, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I'm not suggesting anything like that... just looking at the big picture. Some people are screaming UPGRADE PATH UPGRADE PATH, but, we don't really know. If AMD continues their trend, I would guess X570 will work with Zen2+/Zen3 (or w/e they will call it), yes. It isn't a leap of faith to think that.
> 
> All I am suggesting is since he seems to keep the PC for a while, to get the best he wants to/can afford. This, to me, means building on the X570 platform and Ryzen 3 series CPU. This way he starts off on the curve and if he wants to upgrade using AMD in 3-5 years, he can do so with either Zen2 CPU or Zen2+/Zen3 (likely). But as I said earlier... who knows what the CPU landscape will look like then. I don't like to 'lock' myself in to any platform, personally as today (finally!) we have two good options to choose from. Price, performance, and value will all change in the coming years... which is why I don't really buy the benefit of an upgrade path for many users.
> 
> ...


You're right. Originally, I played flight simulations games. But at some stage, the development of hardcore flight simulations staled and the quality requires extreme hardware to chase up, I finally gave it up. I never regret my doing so, even up to today. A 10 years old flight simulations, was running 29 FPS and everyone was saying that's already very good. Today, I ran it with my 3570K + RX 570, it finally gives me 60+ FPS but then my enthusiasm about flight sim has long gone.

Today I find Intel very good and for the last 10 years so. But maybe at some stage I 'll be fed up with it and change to AMD. You never know.

EarthDig is right. I am keeping the PC for at least 5 years just like I do to my current rig as it is so robust. In fact, recent generations of Intel CPU lack such perseverance as those produced 7 to 8 years ago. They are not improving very much and if they continue to do so, not only me but many will begin to shift to AMD. That said, AMD's effort in working together with board manufacturers are not very well coordinated. Their BIOS are hard to manage. They have heat dissipation issues with their Ryzen 3 CPUs. But nonetheless, X570 offers a future path for preserving the money you spend today. Imagine I start with 2700X / X570, given motherboard longevity, I can put a 3600X and remove the 2700X from the X570 next month. Then next year when Star Citizen comes out I may replace the 3600X with the 3950X on the same board! That is something Intel can't offer.  Apart from that, M.2 drives can fit with the PCIe 4.0 on the X570 and Radeon 5500 is coming with PCIe 4.0, all that Intel can't do anything with their 9th gen motherboard.

But then when Intel announce 10th Gen in December, everything will be changed.  What impact it will be on AMD is yet to be seen, but you never know, so like EarthDog I won't confine myself to one choice only.
I could build 2 PC if I want to.


----------



## Vario (Oct 20, 2019)

I5-8400 or i5 9400 - $120 (used off eBay or open-box etc, these parts don't go bad, I typically see examples going $100 to $130)
ASRock B365M Phantom Gaming 4 LGA 1151 - $80
GSkill DDR4 3000CL15 2x8 16GB - $70.
MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro 2TB NVMe - $220
GTX 1660TI - $280
Seasonic Focus Plus Gold 650 - $120
Fractal Design Focus G - $55
Arctic Freezer 34 - $30
Total: $975


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Oct 20, 2019)

At least with Corsair you can be pretty sure they will provide you a decent unit (assuming you have the sense not to buy a CX for 3 way SLI or a w3175x) and that they generally honour their warranty. You definitely aren't guaranteed to be getting something significantly worse for the money, and you can expect them not to say "hey you can only run half the wattage through that unit" 5 years down the line because there was some flaw with it.

The main reason I can't at all seriously recommend intel right now is that I don't think we can reasonably expect there not to be any more major security flaws (with more performance eroding fixes). I don't really see how you can feel "safer" with their products any more...

I've stuck with intel until pretty recently because their parts were objectively significantly better than any of the Ryzen parts for one of my main uses (x-plane), but at some point you just can't keep living on misinformation or non non-logic and take a step back...


----------



## andiey (Oct 20, 2019)

jayjr1105 said:


> You couldn't be more wrong.  New games crave CPU power, ESPECIALLY BF games.  Also, i3 8100 is a terrible purchase.  Only 4 core 4 threads for $125.  You can get a Ryzen 2600 for that with 6 core 12 threads.


Have you ever used Intel system before?  I have used Intel, then AMD and lastly back to Intel.  Intel platforms are easy to manage and relatively trouble free.



Bill_Bright said:


> That depends on the game. Many modern games are very CPU intensive. In fact, the gaming industry is a primary factor driving the ever increasing demand for 12 (and more) core processors.


I see the trend, so one has to fix his/her requirement or more precisely, expectations. If you play 1080 today and want to play 4K 3 months later after the whole rig is upgraded, then you are going to spend unlimited money. Honestly I don't have that money. I am happy with 1080 and 1440 doesn't move me at all. My desk doesn't support that much space either so, I feel being lucky about that.



Mac2580 said:


> I also generally prefer Intel CPU's over AMD. If I was upgrading right now I would go for the 9900K. If I couldnt afford it, I wouldnt consider an Intel CPU at all. The Ryzen CPU's are far better value long term IMO. The extra threads will surely come in handy a few years down the line. Honestly, I would go for a GPU first. You mentioned that you were surprised by your CPU doing 58FPS, im pretty sure that the RX570 or Ram was the bottleneck and that the CPU is capable of around 70FPS in that title without overclocking.



You're absolutely right about the 70FPS as I saw another video which has teh 3570 overlocked to 4.5! He must be using some sort of custom water cooling. IT really runs at 70+ FPS. Amazing.

In fact I am open to all options. I just happen to have read too many threads about temperature problems, BIOS issues and instability of the new 3000 CPUs which makes me very worried about building a system out of the AMD CPUs. I do not mind to spend $1000 to build a system which works just out of the box with the minimal post-sales effort because I am not a PC expert in any way. And I wish to have that overclock capability sort of a reserved features and it better be one-click only thingy to work with, don't ask me to check the timings, latency, speed of a RAM kit to accomplish a few hundred MHz boosts just for getting 5 to 6 additional FPS no matter that is a Intel or an AMD CPU.

If it works, I am more than willing to spend that sum of money and sure I will be happy with it for the next 3 to 4 years to come. But if it works like sh?t or trash, not even 1 pence I would like to throw into it. That's my objective and expectations.

I don't like others saying that this is a troll. And I like to say that I come here with no other intentions but to gather some opinions and suggestions as part of my research for my next build, either it be an Intel or AMD I really don't quite see which one is yet. But I would appreciate some respects from others and try not divide the community.



Dan848 said:


> I did not read most of the replies.   I did read all of your posts and concluded that what you stated is what you are leaning toward, and in part, that includes quality components, and the right components that will project your build to last 5 years or more.
> 
> I started working in the computer industry about 35 years ago and used computers prior to that.    Over the decades I have enjoyed working with hardware and hardware diagnostics.    I have also enjoyed fringe work from overclocking to delidding CPUs.    I have found that no one person has all of the answers and that has lead me to a never ending quest for knowledge regarding computers from technical manuals to watching YouTube videos.   I have diagnosed, repaired, designed or built everything from servers to HEDTs.
> 
> ...


Your opinions and suggestions are the most constructive ones.
Since you've mentioned Gigabyte Motherboard which I see it being used in many many build YouTube videos. Which aspect is most recommendable about this model? How is ti compared with Asrock and Asus?
For PSU I have the same thought as you, and I intend to get 750W for a higher ceiling, playing safe.
I am surprised you didn't recommend 3000 MHz/CL 15, why?

About M.2, what do you think about the Sabrent?

As to the Gfx card, I have the following thinking, please comment. As you might agree with me that motherboards are relatively lasting compared to other components inside the PC. The second would be the CPU, RAM kit the third and M.2 the fourth. Now I like to say the Gfx is the hottest apart from the VRMs. Is that will die faster? So if I purchased the top model, and it doesn't last for say 2 years then it would be a big waste wouldn't it?



ShrimpBrime said:


> It's the cat mouse game bud.
> 
> No matter what you buy today, it's dated tomorrow. Literally (just about)....
> 
> ...


I see your point.  As far as a graphics card goes, it will either fail due to persisting heat or outdated one way or the other. So I am pretty much prepared to get that replaced every two to two and a half years as part of the maintenance just like the case fans and the AIO LCS.

The best strategy seems to be dividing the budget into two parts. One for parts that comparatively have longer lifespan. The other is for shorten lifespan ones.



GorbazTheDragon said:


> He prefers the stutterfest experience of high 50s FPS i guess (x
> 
> I remember my first laptop playing BF3 I did everything in my power to get stable 60+ FPS, but I guess some people think differently.


Actually in my test yesterday, the audio stutters. But I am sure a brand new system will have that removed.



Bill_Bright said:


> I just had a similar conversation on another site about PSUs (Corsairs specifically). I said, brand loyalty is pretty much human nature. I think most of us are that way - going both ways. That is, we stick with brands that have served us well, but we also avoid brands that didn't.
> 
> But that's not always the best policy - especially in competitive markets where brands continually "leap-frog" over each other, taking turns being in the lead.
> 
> ...



You're right about the competition between AMD and Intel.   Frankly, if it is not deem necessary, I will not purchase either of them.  My GPU died this morning; checker pattern for 1 minute then blank screen not signals.  PSU has been activating Anti-Surge 3 times in the last two weeks. out of the 6 USB ports at the back panel, one is sluggish I would pronounce it dying practically.  But then give Reuben (I gave each of my build a name) a break, it has been keeping me a company for the last 5 years and 10 months now. Everything has a season.

I will miss my 3570K if one day it sudden dies. It is a great CPU. And I will miss this P8Z77 Deluxe too, it's a great board. I will keep the 3570K. And I don't really feel any 9th gen Intel CPU is my thing. Objectively speaking, AMD has real problems. Has AMD ever consider how many people are and will be building their own PC and use them on a daily basis for gaming?  Make life easier for these people if that is possible because a certain percentage of them are not computer experts. And fix the thermal issues and the BIOS if she wants more Intel users to switch over to AMD.  And if Intel is going to use that bl**dy sales strategy as if saying "If you don't choose Intel you really have no other choices",  I will have no hesitation AT ALL, to switch to AMD in a heartbeat! I really will do that by building 2 systems and compare them.

There are really nothing worth buying right now.



GorbazTheDragon said:


> At least with Corsair you can be pretty sure they will provide you a decent unit (assuming you have the sense not to buy a CX for 3 way SLI or a w3175x) and that they generally honour their warranty. You definitely aren't guaranteed to be getting something significantly worse for the money, and you can expect them not to say "hey you can only run half the wattage through that unit" 5 years down the line because there was some flaw with it.
> 
> The main reason I can't at all seriously recommend intel right now is that I don't think we can reasonably expect there not to be any more major security flaws (with more performance eroding fixes). I don't really see how you can feel "safer" with their products any more...
> 
> I've stuck with intel until pretty recently because their parts were objectively significantly better than any of the Ryzen parts for one of my main uses (x-plane), but at some point you just can't keep living on misinformation or non non-logic and take a step back...


Have you seen some back streets PSU possibly importd from China, they are ony 60% of their claimed wattage. So a 650W practically works like a 390W!!

The best thing to do is to keep exchanging information between AMD and Intel so we all know which one is better and which one has something the other doesn't. Above all, we vote by paying the cheque for either one or both to pressure them to make better products.

At the present moment, unless one has immediate needs to build a new system, otherwise neither AMD nor Intel worth the money!!!


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Oct 20, 2019)

andiey said:


> Have you seen some back streets PSU possibly importd from China, they are ony 60% of their claimed wattage. So a 650W practically works like a 390W!!


I have and I've disassembled a lot of them as well, though I've never heard of or seen one with a Corsair badge on it...

As for the rest, I don't see where you get the idea there are mass problems with BIOSes, temperatures, or instability... As I think I mentioned earlier in the thread there have been some *isolated* issues with a few boards on specific BIOSes, but from what I've seen a lot have also been resolved in the first few months after release.

I've run my 3600 with both the stock cooler and my U14s and have had way better temperatures than I've had on any recent intel parts... Nothing like the struggle that is cooling a 7700k at even a modest 1.31-1.35v or having to delid my 4790k to get 300MHz more...

As for stability, I haven't had a problem with *any* CPU from any side in ages... Beyond stuff like DoA parts I haven't heard of it either, so I don't know where you are getting that idea from...


----------



## jayjr1105 (Oct 20, 2019)

andiey said:


> Intel platforms are easy to manage and relatively trouble free.


Can we just stop the thread now.  Just lock it please before the stupidity gets out of hand.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Oct 21, 2019)

Originally I thought this was a troll post but after reading more of the Op comments a slight lack of knowledge about the current PC landscape seems more accurate. 

What I would recommend if like you mentioned money is not an issue. 







A 2080S would obviously make the most sense replacing the Titan Xp.

The 3900X gets my nod though if I had to recommend one of my CPU over the others for 3 reasons. 

1. Run's much cooler than the 9900k with a similar cpu heatsink.
2. Much better overall platform. (pcie gen 4/16 core future upgrade compatibility)
3. Faster at everything but gaming but unless you also plan to buy the 2080 ti in the 3rd build of my screenshot that is irrelevant and the only scenario where the 9900k makes sense. 

To a lesser degree this all applies to the 3700X vs the 9700k and the 3600 vs the 9600k your're getting substantially more general purpose cpu power at a typical less than 5% difference in gaming

like many I've  used intel for over a decade in all my main PC but over the last 3 years nearly every PC I've done for people with limited budgets (800-$1200) have been ryzen because both in performance and predicted longevity they have been better than intel at below $300 since launch pretty much. Now with Ryzen 3000 intel has 2 mainstream cpu that make sense a 9700k or 9900k with the locked version not making a whole lot of sense to me unless they're $50-100 cheaper. I would worry about the 9700k longevity considering it only has 8 threads and therefore would not recommend it but in 3 years if it is still doing well awesome. To me even before the 3600 the 8600k/9600k was mostly dead as a recommendation due to the fact that in some game engines it really struggles with 1% lows and I expect that to only get worse with time. The 2600 is a much safer bet with all GPU up to a 2070S and lets be real most people buying a  sub $200 CPU are not buying a $700+ gpu. The 3600 kills the i5 lineup although I expect intel to add hyperthreading on their next i5 although it's pretty sad that AMD is the only reason intel seems to be making any progress as of late with price/performance.  


The 9900k is an awesome CPU on the other hand but like I mentioned before it really only makes sense paired with a 2080 ti because with a 2080 tier gpu or lower you're paying a lot for little to no gain over a 3700X. 

Anyways that is my 2 cents.


----------



## yotano211 (Oct 21, 2019)

potato580+ said:


> you can upgrade to i5 FK 9th gen, its on good cost deal, and for the gpu i afraid you need to spend alot for cyber punk high/ultra preset, even curent gpu is struggle to run 1080p/2k on ultra preset 60hz on highend videgame triple A rated, other optional think you best bet is running on 4k but in medium preset, anyway for a temporary used i would recommend rx5700xt/rtx series


He cant upgrade with his current motherboard, and cyberpunk is not even out yet, it wont come out until next year. Dont give out horrible advise.


----------



## yotano211 (Oct 21, 2019)

potato580+ said:


> huh say what, read the title description before spat nonsense, however since when i give an advise...its not advise its litteraly sugestion, i dont say he must or indeed buy an intel 9th, end of story im out, this is just a waste of time
> offtopc:i just realize theres few ingnorant or imbecile try to pull the string recently  but worry not, im cool as always, bloop


I meant to say that he cant upgrade to 9th gen intel cpu with this current mobo, he would have to get a new mobo and ddr4 memory, his current memory is ddr3. 
But I dont even think the OP knows what he wants.


----------



## potato580+ (Oct 21, 2019)

yotano211 said:


> I meant to say that he cant upgrade to 9th gen intel cpu with this current mobo, he would have to get a new mobo and ddr4 memory, his current memory is ddr3.
> But I dont even think the OP knows what he wants.


okey its good worry not cheers


----------



## yotano211 (Oct 21, 2019)

potato580+ said:


> okey its good worry not cheers


I thought your post said he can upgrade to 9th gen with his current mobo. 
I dont even think he said his budget. I wont bother with this anymore.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 21, 2019)

andiey said:


> Have you ever used Intel system before? I have used Intel, then AMD and lastly back to Intel. Intel platforms are easy to manage and relatively trouble free.


I think he is not saying Intel platforms are troublemakers but there are games that use more than 4c4t. Honestly I would never go 4c8t nowadays. 6c is absolute minimum and to be more on a secure side I'd go 6c12t that is why suggestions for the system go with 3600 Ryzen.  Besides, you wont have any trouble with Ryzen. What you have to remember, it's a new platform so it's obvious there migh be some Bios updates for the boards and driver updates. For the past 10 years with Intel it was stable but also stagnation. New release bringing nothing new just a little bump in speed that's all.
My suggestion is simple. Look around what's in the market and pick your platform. I suggest 6c12t and with the GPU, 1080p 144FPS, 1660 nor rx 580 will push that much so depends how much cash you want to spend for the GPU. I suggest Ryzen cause it has better value and is cheaper from intel with what it offers in the same price range in general, offers more cores and maybe you will be able to buy better graphics. It is hard to say you are upgrading your platform and you go with 4c4t/8t CPU considering your current one. 
Look at the price point for Intel and AMD platforms and pick one. I'd also wait till next year with the purchase of the platform. You can still buy GPU you want now unless you want to wait as well. But if 1660Ti or rx 580 suits your needs go and buy it now. It will work with your current platform well.


----------



## andiey (Oct 21, 2019)

ratirt said:


> I think he is not saying Intel platforms are troublemakers but there are games that use more than 4c4t. Honestly I would never go 4c8t nowadays. 6c is absolute minimum and to be more on a secure side I'd go 6c12t that is why suggestions for the system go with 3600 Ryzen.  Besides, you wont have any trouble with Ryzen. What you have to remember, it's a new platform so it's obvious there migh be some Bios updates for the boards and driver updates. For the past 10 years with Intel it was stable but also stagnation. New release bringing nothing new just a little bump in speed that's all.
> My suggestion is simple. Look around what's in the market and pick your platform. I suggest 6c12t and with the GPU, 1080p 144FPS, 1660 nor rx 580 will push that much so depends how much cash you want to spend for the GPU. I suggest Ryzen cause it has better value and is cheaper from intel with what it offers in the same price range in general, offers more cores and maybe you will be able to buy better graphics. It is hard to say you are upgrading your platform and you go with 4c4t/8t CPU considering your current one.
> Look at the price point for Intel and AMD platforms and pick one. I'd also wait till next year with the purchase of the platform. You can still buy GPU you want now unless you want to wait as well. But if 1660Ti or rx 580 suits your needs go and buy it now. It will work with your current platform well.


Thanks for your advice. After this lengthy discussions with so many replies I'm getting somewhere now, I didn't have any idea what to get at the beginning that's true. Really appreciate all of your replies.

I can understand why you recommend Ryzen from a technical point of view.  Price/Performance is really hard to justify somehow. Set aside non-technical factors, Intel has brought in some 4c/4t and 6c/6t chips which are less mentioned. For instance, you can o/c an i3-8350K to 5.0GHz sticking to 1.35V threshold. If you play LoL you won't actually find any difference between an i3 and i5 running the same clock speed. I think that's where Intel finds her edge, she invest in clock speed which is what delivers the horsepower.

Anyhow, thanks to all who have provided so much information and some insights.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Oct 21, 2019)

andiey said:


> If you play LoL you won't actually find any difference between an i3 and i5 running the same clock speed.


You can give league of legends any hardware and it will tank like nothing else in teamfights...

The clock speeds mean nothing when the zen2 core has more throughput per cycle and completes many common operations in less cycles than the intel counterparts...

Just to give you an idea of the throughput of the cores



The top 7700k score was at 5GHz, the 3600 boosts to ~4075-4100 during cinebench. I get very close to 50% extra performance (same performance per core) on the zen 2 part...


----------



## ratirt (Oct 21, 2019)

andiey said:


> Thanks for your advice. After this lengthy discussions with so many replies I'm getting somewhere now, I didn't have any idea what to get at the beginning that's true. Really appreciate all of your replies.
> 
> I can understand why you recommend Ryzen from a technical point of view.  Price/Performance is really hard to justify somehow. Set aside non-technical factors, Intel has brought in some 4c/4t and 6c/6t chips which are less mentioned. For instance, you can o/c an i3-8350K to 5.0GHz sticking to 1.35V threshold. If you play LoL you won't actually find any difference between an i3 and i5 running the same clock speed. I think that's where Intel finds her edge, she invest in clock speed which is what delivers the horsepower.
> 
> Anyhow, thanks to all who have provided so much information and some insights.


Remember the clock speed is done for now. It will not get any faster actually now you will see lower clocks with every new gen of processors. Perf/value the Ryzen is king in my opinion. Going with I3 now would be a downgrade for you. Don't look only for frequency. It's been 10 years since no improvement in core department so the frequency was valued more. Now the things are different. I wouldn't go for a CPU because the frequency is high. I'd rather look for the cores available. This is the future and believe me there are many people here, who bought I7 7700k and now they are saying it was a bad idea. Think about that. It may look like the I3 is fast enough now but think for how long these 2c/4c will be enough when there are games already using 6c. It is only matter of time when developers start utilizing more cores cause they wont be able to count on frequency boost cause this is not happening.



andiey said:


> Thanks for your advice. After this lengthy discussions with so many replies I'm getting somewhere now, I didn't have any idea what to get at the beginning that's true. Really appreciate all of your replies.
> 
> I can understand why you recommend Ryzen from a technical point of view.  Price/Performance is really hard to justify somehow. Set aside non-technical factors, Intel has brought in some 4c/4t and 6c/6t chips which are less mentioned. For instance, you can o/c an i3-8350K to 5.0GHz sticking to 1.35V threshold. If you play LoL you won't actually find any difference between an i3 and i5 running the same clock speed. I think that's where Intel finds her edge, she invest in clock speed which is what delivers the horsepower.
> 
> Anyhow, thanks to all who have provided so much information and some insights.


This is actually a good comparison. Watch the video. You have I3 8350K vs 7700K paired with GTX 1060.









Both CPUs are doing well but one of them is basically done for. I3 8350K's utilization is reaching 100%. It is becoming a bottleneck and these games are not the brand new ones which means the I3 is losing ground in games now. It can't keep-up with the 1060. If you get 1660 or 1660 Ti it will not be able to handle it. Imagine what will happen in like 3-6 months with new games? I know for a fact there are games the 7700K struggles. Since you want to play 1080p 144hz monitor, the I3 is the worst you can get. You will need more power with your CPU.

Here you have I5 9600k vs 3600 Ryzen paired with 2080. (Don't look at the first game cause it is crap and shows GPU utilization 50% on both and Hitman as well.) but you have BF 5 here.









I5 9600k 6c6t. Sooner or later it wont be enough. If you insist on Intel processor I'd go 9700k at least but as you know that comes with a price so you tell me which platform is better


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 21, 2019)

As this is going to be predominantly a gaming rig with a realistic competitive lifespan of 3-5 years I personally see little point in going 3900X or even 9900K, I would probably suggest a CPU up to either a 3700X or a 9700K but it seems that the OP is swamped in the scope of what is on offer, if I was building a complete new build from pretty much scratch today, personally, despite my last 6 CPU's being intel I would likely opt for the 3700X solution, likely matched with a good B450 board, that way in my logic you get a balanced system in terms of both price and performance.  If, like the OP (currently), I wanted to stay intel for whatever reason I would likely go 9700K with a mid ranged Z390 board but @andiey ……… here is the thing, you will pay more for likely no noticeable performance difference.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 21, 2019)

Over 90 posts in... dude has PLENTY of information to make an informed decision. It's up to him at this point really...


----------



## Vario (Oct 21, 2019)

I suggested a build above that would accomplish the budget gamer aspect.








						I need a complete new system, what CPU should I get first.
					

I'm not suggesting anything like that... just looking at the big picture. Some people are screaming UPGRADE PATH UPGRADE PATH, but, we don't really know. If AMD continues their trend, I would guess X570 will work with Zen2+/Zen3 (or w/e they will call it), yes. It isn't a leap of faith to think...




					www.techpowerup.com
				



i5 8400/9400 are quite cheap, you can get one for $100 to $130 off eBay if you time it right.  Pair it with a B365M Phantom Gaming, which can be had for $80.  I haven't felt the need for more cores or threads in the past 2 years.  When I do feel that need for more cores or threads, I'd just do a new system at that time, might be a few more years at this rate.  Buy for today, not for four years from now.  Videocard is more important for gaming long term than the CPU, too much attention is being paid to a part that doesn't matter much for his needs.  ~$120 cpu will give you the same performance in game as any of the $300 options people are spitting out in this thread.  You can buy a B365 motherboard, 16GB ram, i5 6 core CPU, and a heatsink fan for the same price as a $300 CPU.


----------



## tiggywombat (Oct 21, 2019)

I moved from an 8 year old ivy bridge i7-3770 system to a Ryzen 5 3600 recently. However, I've always thought of Intel's system to be easier to use and their drivers are also dead simple to use, along with better driver support vs AMD. But my experience building the new Ryzen system was pretty good, I didn't OC, there were no issues after reinstalling Windows. All I did was go into BIOS to enable XMP and tweak my RAM speeds a bit.

Price/performance wise, AMD is the king right now. Both Intel and AMD give you really smooth and responsive systems. As people have said, AMD has really caught up to Intel, especially with Ryzen 3rd gen. But if you have the money and strongly prefer Intel, a new Intel 9th gen system will also give you a really smooth system that will last you 5 years at least. It's all up to your preference really, and how much money you are willing to spend.


----------



## andiey (Oct 22, 2019)

Some of you are right. 
Running 3570K at stock Turbo 3.6GHz, average FPS was 60
After o/c to 4.2GHz (just one click in the BIOS), average FPS was nearly 90 FPS, a delta of nearly 30 FPS.

30/600 = 5 FPS per 100 MHz gain.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 22, 2019)

andiey said:


> Some of you are right.
> Running 3570K at stock Turbo 3.6GHz, average FPS was 60
> After o/c to 4.2GHz (just one click in the BIOS), average FPS was nearly 90 FPS, a delta of nearly 30 FPS.
> 
> 30/600 = 5 FPS per 100 MHz gain.


Yep. No surprise here. When I had my 3770k and OC it, I did get a boost in FPS as well.


----------



## andiey (Oct 22, 2019)

ratirt said:


> Yep. No surprise here. When I had my 3770k and OC it, I did get a boost in FPS as well.


Would that apply to current Intel gen and Ryzen 3000 CPUs?


----------



## ratirt (Oct 22, 2019)

andiey said:


> Would that apply to current Intel gen and Ryzen 3000 CPUs?


Sure it would although that also depends on the game. 3000 series Ryzen do not OC well. It is better to leave the boosting to the processor but you can OC ram speed depending on what speed you will get with your build. Moving from 3000Mhz to 3600Mhz makes a difference. The sweet spot I think is still 3200Mhz 3444Mhz. For intel you need a processor with unlocked multiplier. On the other hand the Modern CPUs are powerful enough so the OC will not give you that much but that also depends on the processor you will get and the graphics card and resolution you will use. There's few variables in that equation.


----------



## andiey (Oct 22, 2019)

Looks like Intel does better running this game: Star Citizen

Maybe a 6c6t will do


----------



## ratirt (Oct 22, 2019)

andiey said:


> Looks like Intel does better running this game: Star Citizen
> 
> Maybe a 6c6t will do


Sure. You know that this game has been in development for a long while now (8 years i think) and never been finished. There are games where Ryzen is faster than Intel. You should not be judging a processor with 1 game. It can be something you consider cause for instance you play the game the most but that's basically it. It is always your call which platform you will pick for yourself.
6c6t will do but remember that games will no longer depend on boosts frequency cause this is not happening. The performance must come from something else. Core and threads utilization is the next step in performance gain when the new, more powerful GPUs show up and would require more processing power. 6c6t may not be sufficient. For Certain games 6c is a bare minimum now. Utilization of more core is becoming an upward trend. Think about that when you pick the platform which you want to use for 2-4 years.


----------



## andiey (Oct 22, 2019)

ratirt said:


> 6c6t will do but remember that games will no longer depend on boosts frequency cause this is not happening. The performance must come from something else. Core and threads utilization is the next step in performance gain when the new, more powerful GPUs show up and would require more processing power. 6c6t may not be sufficient. For Certain games 6c is a bare minimum now. Utilization of more core is becoming an upward trend. Think about that when you pick the platform which you want to use for 2-4 years.


I believe ray tracing will be one of the most demanding factor or CPU hungry, because GPU just can't handle that vast calculations and iterations involved in the algorithm. Not to mentioned curved objects are to be dealt with.

The question is: how long before that will eventually happen...that's why buying anything right now is so difficult.

Gamer Meld say in one his video that Intel will not produce 7nm chip until 2022. Does it mean Intel 10th gen is still just a refresh of the 9th Gen?


----------



## ratirt (Oct 22, 2019)

andiey said:


> I believe ray tracing will be one of the most demanding factor or CPU hungry, because GPU just can't handle that vast calculations and iterations involved in the algorithm. Not to mentioned curved objects are to be dealt with.
> 
> The question is: how long before that will eventually happen...that's why buying anything right now is so difficult.
> 
> Gamer Meld say in one his video that Intel will not produce 7nm chip until 2022. Does it mean Intel 10th gen is still just a refresh of the 9th Gen?


I wouldn't worry about RT as of now. It is cool and looks good but I don't think this is mainly what you should concern yourself with when buying a graphics card. BTW RT is mostly taxing for graphics not CPU.


----------



## andiey (Oct 22, 2019)

ratirt said:


> I wouldn't worry about RT as of now. It is cool and looks good but I don't think this is mainly what you should concern yourself with when buying a graphics card. BTW RT is mostly taxing for graphics not CPU.


Then could you explain to me what the CPU "extra" cores and threads are there for and how do future games use them?

By the way, I really love to try this cooler in my build, though I am a believe in AIO LCS

Noctua NH L9i

Maybe I would try setting this one up!










Actually, my current rig is entirely a duplicate of Linux video about Bitfenix Prodigy video back in 2012.


----------



## 1000t (Oct 22, 2019)

If you want to build a PC to play CB 2077 wait until they release recommended specifications for it. Then choose components according to that, availability at the time, your region and your budget.

Also, current raytracing offerings are really limited and we don't know if other implementations will be more or less CPU demanding that nVidia's.


----------



## Rahnak (Oct 22, 2019)

andiey said:


> Then could you explain to me what the CPU "extra" cores and threads are there for and how do future games use them?


Having a 4c CPU you should be very familiar with stuttering. Until last week I was using a 2500k and I don't play all the latest and greatest, but still, a lot of the games I did play were stuttering. I would say the bare minimum for today is a 6c (or a 4c/8t, I guess).

Also, if you're worried about AMD not being trouble free, I don't think you have much to fear at this point. I didn't have any issues building mine.


----------



## Hyderz (Oct 22, 2019)

Rahnak said:


> Having a 4c CPU you should be very familiar with stuttering. Until last week I was using a 2500k and I don't play all the latest and greatest, but still, a lot of the games I did play were stuttering. I would say the bare minimum for today is a 6c (or a 4c/8t, I guess).
> 
> Also, if you're worried about AMD not being trouble free, I don't think you have much to fear at this point. I didn't have any issues building mine.



i had the i5 3570k with gtx980 first game i encountered with stuttering was Deus Ex Mankind Divided, oc it to 4.2ghz made the stutters a bit less but still there. Oc boosted my average fps to around 65fps


----------



## ratirt (Oct 22, 2019)

andiey said:


> Then could you explain to me what the CPU "extra" cores and threads are there for and how do future games use them?


Well mostly it is like resources that can be utilized when needed. It is hard for me to tell you how they will be utilized in future games cause that is for the developers to decide and this one is quite complicated.
In a simple way to explain this. You are familiar with Cross fire and SLI. Consider 2 cards in SLI like 2 cores. If a game can utilize the 2 cards in SLI you get more FPS right? You can get 2 mid range cards and get the performance of one high end card or around or better performance that depends on the scaling. It is kinda like with cores. Instead of one core boosting to high frequencies you get 2 cores. Spread the workload among the cores and threads to feed the GPU and to keep up with the data flow. (scaling also matters here). If the CPU is not fast enough, the FPS will drop despite the GPU power and just as you OC the CPU the FPS will go up just like you've noticed.
Of course, just like SLI or crossfire implementations could suck in games or games don't support multiGPU same goes for CPU core utilization. Well more less that is the way to go with the understanding but do not quote me. This is just an example for you to understand this more-less.


----------



## andiey (Oct 22, 2019)

Hyderz said:


> i had the i5 3570k with gtx980 first game i encountered with stuttering was Deus Ex Mankind Divided, oc it to 4.2ghz made the stutters a bit less but still there. Oc boosted my average fps to around 65fps



Despite I have RX 570 for the time being and boosted 3570K to 4.2GHz, BF V still stutters at the cut-scenes.

I don't favour any one of the current CPUs from both sides.


----------



## kapone32 (Oct 22, 2019)

andiey said:


> Despite I have RX 570 for the time being and boosted 3570K to 4.2GHz, BF V still stutters at the cut-scenes.
> 
> I don't favour any one of the current CPUs from both sides.



As the 3570K is a quad core CPU you are getting that because you are probably at 95-100% CPU usage.


----------



## andiey (Oct 22, 2019)

Something which I do not understand. 
When you compare the AMD and Intel side by side, AMD 3700X vs Intel 9700K, both running at stock speed
You can see the clock speed of Intel is faster, and CPU usage of Intel is higher whereas that of AMD is lower; and 9700K is having a higher FPS
question is: why AMD CPU cores don't chase up to achieve a higher FPS; a low CPU usage means the core are not working hard?


----------



## kapone32 (Oct 22, 2019)

andiey said:


> Something which I do not understand.
> When you compare the AMD and Intel side by side, AMD 3700X vs Intel 9700K, both running at stock speed
> You can see the clock speed of Intel is faster, and CPU usage of Intel is higher whereas that of AMD is lower; and 9700K is having a higher FPS
> question is: why AMD CPU cores don't chase up to achieve a higher FPS; a low CPU usage means the core are not working hard?



It basically comes down to optimization for the specific game. The 9700K is just a 8 core CPU and the 3700x is seen in Windows as 16 threads.


----------



## andiey (Oct 22, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> It basically comes down to optimization for the specific game. The 9700K is just a 8 core CPU and the 3700x is seen in Windows as 16 threads.


So the game is not optimzed to use more threads (virtual cores) of the AMD...is that what you are saying?


----------



## robot zombie (Oct 22, 2019)

andiey said:


> So the game is not optimzed to use more threads (virtual cores) of the AMD...is that what you are saying?


Yes that is part of it. Additionally many staple tasks in games just can't be parallelized... as in they have to take place in sequence and simply can't be spread out to run simultaneously. Not everything can be scaled that way


----------



## Eskimonster (Oct 22, 2019)

If intel had threads activated on 9700k id get that one, since they dont.
go AMD.


----------



## andiey (Oct 22, 2019)

I really don't know.  Nothing worth buying right now.
If going for AMD, I guess the most favourable choice is 3700X
But AMD really has problems


----------



## ratirt (Oct 23, 2019)

andiey said:


> I really don't know.  Nothing worth buying right now.
> If going for AMD, I guess the most favourable choice is 3700X
> But AMD really has problems


This stuff has been fixed, There's new AGESA update released already and it does fix the boosting problems an all other stuff. This video is not relevant at this point now. You need to update the Bios with the new AGESA software. If you buy the board after New Year, you won’t have to do anything because board makers will have it done for you. Besides boost problems, doesn't mean the CPU doesn’t work, it's just not boosting to it's advertised speed. Anyway, this is fixed.


----------



## andiey (Oct 23, 2019)

ratirt said:


> This stuff has been fixed, There's new AGESA update released already and it does fix the boosting problems an all other stuff. This video is not relevant at this point now. You need to update the Bios with the new AGESA software. If you buy the board after New Year, you won’t have to do anything because board makers will have it done for you. Besides boost problems, doesn't mean the CPU doesn’t work, it's just not boosting to it's advertised speed. Anyway, this is fixed.


That is not my worries. As I said before, why consume has to wait for and do such "correction" for the manufacturers?! That's my point! Again, it has proved my point that AMD always deliver unfinished products, scare me, makes me feeling lack of safety.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 23, 2019)

andiey said:


> That is not my worries. As I said before, why consume has to wait for and do such "correction" for the manufacturers?! That's my point! Again, it has proved my point that AMD always deliver unfinished products, scare me, makes me feeling lack of safety.


Are you familiar with the software delivery process? You get Beta test alpha test etc.? This is kinda like that. Of course, there are tests performed before release to find bugs and flaws. The problem is that the environment these devices or software will be tested varies. Not everything can be predicted. Every new technology released consist of learning curve and bugs fixing. For instance, you get OS like Windows 10. Even though the company is huge and has a lot of experience, the patches for the new windows 10 are coming out. They could release it daily but they prioritize and release those in cumulative updates for example. You may mention that Intel doesn't have that learning curve with new Gen processors. Well that is partly true. There are some fixes and improvements in gen-to-gen Intel product. The other thing is that despite the new instructions sets and shrinks, the gen-to-gen improvement is a same processor and since the core, number wasn't so important few years back. AMD Ryzen is totally something new. People may argue that Ryzen has some bulldozer inside but the arch and idea of the components working inside the CPU are totally different. Intel and AMD both improve upon something already invented and/or discover and implement something new.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 23, 2019)

After 5 full pages it appears that the OP may now wait and to be honest the thread has stood still for some time so it's closed, thanks to all.


----------

