# Upgrade to 2700x or i7 8700?



## IcyRoadz (Apr 23, 2019)

Hi guys! I built my first build in January of 2017. My basic specs for my current build are:

PCPartPicker part list: https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/list/PMjLWX

*CPU*: Intel - Core i5-6600K 3.5 GHz Quad-Core Processor
*CPU Cooler*: Scythe - BIG Shuriken 2 Rev. B 45.47 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler
*Motherboard*: Asus - Z170I PRO GAMING Mini ITX LGA1151 Motherboard
*Memory*: Crucial - Ballistix Sport LT 16 GB (1 x 16 GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
*Video Card*: Zotac - GeForce GTX 1060 6GB 6 GB Mini Video Card
*Case*: Fractal Design - Node 202 HTPC Case w/450 W Power Supply

Of course, a few months after Ryzen came out and made me kick myself in the head with how shortsighted it was for me to build that build in Jan. However, I told myself I would hold onto my i5 and that it should be able to last me a while. Now it's 2019, from tests online and tests I've done at home the i5 6600k will bottleneck the RTX series and performs badly in games like Monster Hunter World and AC. So at this point I think it's time to upgrade my CPU at the very least, and maybe the GPU.

I tried looking on the used market for a i7 7700k, but they're all overpriced. I'm also Canadian which makes buying computer parts already more expensive than it needs to be. Right now, I'm trying to mostly see if I should save up money and then wait for the new AMD processors to drop, or if I should get an i7 8700k and call it a day.


*BUDGET *- For an upgrade to my CPU + GPU + MOBO, *I don't want to go over $1500 CDN,* but I also want something that's not going to get completely blown away in terms of core count/gaming performance for at least a while.

*PURPOSE OF THE BUILD *- I'm a Uni student. I play lots of AAA games, but a lot of the things I do are multitasking (i.e. having a game, heavy processing, tons of tabs open on firefox, musicbee and word open at the same time). So I'd say Gaming + Productivity, with the idea that I want to get into music production down the line.

*ITEMS YOU NEED/ALREADY HAVE *- I already have a *CPU Cooler (if I stay with Intel), Memory (that I hope I don't have to upgrade), SSD + HDD, Case, PSU and peripherals.*

*OVERCLOCK OR NOT? - *I don't care if I can't OC. I'm doing so right now with my 6600k and I don't really notice that much of a difference.

Thanks in advance for any help you can give!


EDIT: Forgot to mention that the main games I play are stuff like Total War, Crusader Kings 2, Sims 3/4, Civilization, Dishonored, XCOM, Watch Dogs, Far Cry, AC, etc etc. So a lot of strategy, RPG and simulation games, and I think those games are supposed to be hard on your processor?


----------



## HUSKIE (Apr 23, 2019)

Wait for the Ryzen 3


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 23, 2019)

IcyRoadz said:


> Of course, a few months after Ryzen came out and made me kick myself in the head with how shortsighted it was for me to build that build in Jan.


Zen 2 is coming in a few months and it should be a significant improvement over Ryzen 2###.


----------



## IcyRoadz (Apr 23, 2019)

HUSKIE said:


> Wait for the Ryzen 3





FordGT90Concept said:


> Zen 2 is coming in a few months and it should be a significant improvement over Ryzen 2###.



Alright then I'll wait! I wont get fooled again lol


----------



## TheMadDutchDude (Apr 23, 2019)

Yep, definitely another one that'll suggest waiting.

Also, a 7700K is nothing more than a 6700K with a bump in clocks. You'll gain HT, but that won't help too much with overall performance. You'll see a significant boost in core/thread heavy games with the AMD setup over another quad core.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 23, 2019)

Ryzen is a Modular platform too.

If anything buy the cpu, mobo after 3000 is out, the ram and other parts should be fine for your needs, thrn sell your 6600 and the lga mobo


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Apr 23, 2019)

Zen 2/Ryzen 3000 Vote here as well. The 6600K is a solid CPU it will get you by 2-3 more months.


----------



## kastriot (Apr 23, 2019)

Wait for Zen 2.


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 23, 2019)

Because of your limited budget, I'd say go with the 2700X if you can't afford the K version i7 8700


----------



## Splinterdog (Apr 23, 2019)

So Zen 2 = Ryzen 3?
It gets confusing when you're my age.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Apr 23, 2019)

Splinterdog said:


> So Zen 2 = Ryzen 3?
> It gets confusing when you're my age.



Correct

1800X Ryzen Gen 1
2700X Ryzen Gen 1 +
3xxxx  Ryzen 2


----------



## cucker tarlson (Apr 23, 2019)

tbh a 7700k is a good option if you can find it cheap, e.g. ryzen 2600 price.
if not though then don't bother.



TheMadDutchDude said:


> You'll gain HT, but that won't help too much with overall performance. You'll see a significant boost in core/thread heavy games with the AMD setup over another quad core.


so threads help amd significantly but won't help intel?


----------



## Eskimonster (Apr 23, 2019)

Im playing on I-7 3770k, (4 cores/8 threads)  i cant deside what to buy, if i go amd , i feel like im compromising the longevity of my pc. Every intel i had lasted for years and years.
No amd ever did that for me.


----------



## IceShroom (Apr 23, 2019)

Splinterdog said:


> So Zen 2 = Ryzen 3?
> It gets confusing when you're my age.


Zen2= Ryzen 3000 Series CPU.
Ryzen 3= 1200, 1300X, 2200G, 2200U,2300U, 3200U
not confusing if you think one is architecture name and another one is Product name.
Zen = Ryzen 1000 Series CPU, Ryzen Threadripper 1000 Series, Ryzen 2000 Series APU, EPYC 7000 Series, Ryzen Embedded, EPYC Embedded
Zen+ = Ryzen 2000 Series CPU, Ryzen Threadripper 2000 Series, Ryzen 3000 Series APU
Zen2 = Ryzen 3000 Series CPU


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Apr 23, 2019)

I say upgrade your GFX now and determine if that solves your problem or if you need to go further.
At some point you become less CPU dependent and more GFX dependent.
Maybe something like a 2560x1440 144hz monitor and the GFX.


----------



## TheMadDutchDude (Apr 23, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> so threads help amd significantly but won't help intel?



No, not in that sense. I meant that he can get more cores and threads for the same amount of money as a lesser option on the Intel side. Of course I don’t mean that AMD is better at threading (although they are, from my knowledge).


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Apr 23, 2019)

CPU upgrades rarely do much.  Look at this chart and see that overall, the i5-7600K is only 11.1% slower than the i7-9900K, on a GTX 1080 Ti.  Maybe add the second stick of RAM?  This might help when you game with all those tabs open.


----------



## Mats (Apr 23, 2019)

Wait for Matisse.

That's the codename for the upcoming 7 nm AMD Ryzen 3000 CPU. Just want to point it out since it's not being used much, even though it's pretty much the only name that's not easily mixed up with other names.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Apr 23, 2019)

TheMadDutchDude said:


> No, not in that sense. I meant that he can get more cores and threads for the same amount of money as a lesser option on the Intel side. Of course I don’t mean that AMD is better at threading (although they are, from my knowledge).


true,but there's no equivalence between more cores and faster ipc.
7700K at 5GHz is still gonna beat 2600X hands down and in most cases 2700X and come out on top overall.
this is at stock
https://www.computerbase.de/2018-04/amd-ryzen-2000-test/4/

plus it can take +4000 memory no problem.

I know ryzen offers unprecedented thread/$ value but go easy,games still prioritize single core performance and probably always will.


----------



## Mats (Apr 23, 2019)

*Or will it be Ryzen 4000?* 

I wouldn't be surprised if AMD wants to distance the new CPU's from the upcoming/last generation 12 nm 3000G APU's.


----------



## Chomiq (Apr 23, 2019)

Mats said:


> *Or will it be Ryzen 4000?*
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if AMD wants to distance the new CPU's from the upcoming/last generation 12 nm 3000G APU's.



If anything, they'll use the 3xxx naming scheme to *boost* the sales of their 12nm 3000G APU's.


----------



## king of swag187 (Apr 23, 2019)

For gaming, i7 8700,Much faster in games and better upgrade path as of yet (until Ryzen 3000 can prove otherwise)


----------



## cucker tarlson (Apr 23, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> If anything, they'll use the 3xxx naming scheme to *boost* the sales of their 12nm 3000G APU's.


exactly.



king of swag187 said:


> For gaming, i7 8700,Much faster in games and better upgrade path as of yet (until Ryzen 3000 can prove otherwise)


imo there's no need to pay the premium price for intel's i7 chips unless you're going for the best gaming performance available with an oc'd K-chip.
8600k/9600k oc can probably match that 8700 in gaming at lower price.
here 8700 non-K costs the same as 2700x and while it's gonna be faster than 2700x it still costs 25% more than 8600k/9600k which will easily catch up and even run faster in single-thread heavy games.
9600k + spend that extra 25% on faster ram is a much better option.


----------



## king of swag187 (Apr 23, 2019)

They usually will assuming you can get em to 5ghz+, which should be easy enough. Used 8700K's are going for peanuts anyways, so they're a nice option as well.


----------



## Mats (Apr 23, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> If anything, they'll use the 3xxx naming scheme to *boost* the sales of their 12nm 3000G APU's.


Still, lots of people seem confused about it, AMD messed it up when naming the first Ryzen APU's.


----------



## TheMadDutchDude (Apr 23, 2019)

Are they? I’d like to know where...


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Apr 23, 2019)

Mats said:


> Still, lots of people seem confused about it, AMD messed it up when naming the first Ryzen APU's.


Not really.
The first group were still the A-8/A10 product lines which were a continuation from the 7850/70k APU's.
AMD has been keeping the APU's one generation behind on AM4 since the beginning of AM4


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 23, 2019)

thebluebumblebee said:


> CPU upgrades rarely do much.  Look at this chart and see that overall, the i5-7600K is only 11.1% slower than the i7-9900K, on a GTX 1080 Ti.  Maybe add the second stick of RAM?  This might help when you game with all those tabs open.



As long as we don't measure and calculate min. FPS in these charts and weigh them appropriately these summaries tell you nothing about actual gaming performance. People don't run a reviewers' test bed, they run a PC with all bells & whistles and inefficiencies, they add mods to games, they run multiple applications etc. etc. yadayada

Its clear as day that any quad core CPU these days without HT/SMT is going to be felt in overall gaming experience. It doesn't feel smooth, even if the overall perf gap is just a few %. If it has HT, it lasts a whole lot longer, but really, the age of 4 physical cores is just about coming to an end. 6~8 is where its going to be at for any reasonably future proof gaming platform.

Another consideration is too many cores also don't pay off. The i5-K was always a great gaming choice exactly because of that; a sweetspot in core count and frequency potential. Today that still flies for Intel's recent i5-Ks. But the benefit of HT/SMT is getting greater and even some games do like it. With both competitors now pushing CPUs with solid SMT you can rest assured more will be done with it.

Get a 6/6 or 8/8 core CPU for gaming. 6/12 or 8/16 if you like doing lots of other stuff alongside it or if you want it to last longer than 4-5 years and still be a top performer. History repeats and timing is always key, as you've experienced first hand.


----------



## king of swag187 (Apr 23, 2019)

"Only 11.1% slower"
Assuming 100fps for the 9900K, thats 88.9 FPS for the QC. And most *newer *games are benefitting from more cores as it it is, so the gap is going to widen even more.


----------



## bug (Apr 23, 2019)

IcyRoadz said:


> Alright then I'll wait! I wont get fooled again lol


Eh, there's always something else just around the corner (e.g. Ice Lake after Zen2). But Zen2 is worth waiting for. Even if it somehow ends up a disappointment (all evidence to the contrary so far), you will still be able to get one of the CPUs you mentioned in the OP for cheaper.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Apr 23, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> The i5-K was always a great gaming choice exactly because of that; a sweetspot in core count and frequency potential. .


buying a 4c/4t i5 from 6600k onwards was a bad choice imo.even in the era of 4670/4690,2015 and later, one should've seen it coming.my 3570k was already sweating like a pig once I got a 980Ti,overclocked it and paired with a 144hz display.


----------



## Viruzz (Apr 23, 2019)

Wait for Ryzen2.
I got 9900k on day one and brand new z390 mobo [z390 Master] that still in a box and im uing my old z370 [Gaming 7], was buying water cooling parts, even new case imported from USA and ton of otehr stuff imported from all around the world to assemble new PC [including tons of rainbow puke], But now when im two months before Ryzen2 and 16C/32T at 4.7ghz-5ghz [hell, even if its 4.5ghz ill buy 16c/32t is no joke at this speed] may be a reality ill be waiting and ill buy one instantly if its real and i wont be sorry that my old CPU is half year old and my new motherboard was never used


----------



## crispysilicon (Apr 23, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> As long as we don't measure and calculate min. FPS in these charts and weigh them appropriately these summaries tell you nothing about actual gaming performance...



This. A better CPU is all about getting the minimums up and the variance down.


----------



## Splinterdog (Apr 23, 2019)

So Zen is just short code for Ryzen really isn't it?


----------



## Mats (Apr 23, 2019)

jmcslob said:


> Not really.
> The first group were still the A-8/A10 product lines which were a continuation from the 7850/70k APU's.
> AMD has been keeping the APU's one generation behind on AM4 since the beginning of AM4


The first AM4 APU's (non Ryzen) had different model numbers. I don't mind that they (or other models) were one generation behind.
The 2400G etc. should have been called 1400G, because it's made in 14 nm process, and closer to the first generation Ryzen 1000 CPU's (while still a little bit different).


----------



## IceShroom (Apr 23, 2019)

Splinterdog said:


> So Zen is just short code for Ryzen really isn't it?


No.
AMD's Athlon Brand has K-7 to Bulldozer to Zen CPU.
Future Ryzen could have different architecture than Zen and it variation.


----------



## Splinterdog (Apr 23, 2019)

IceShroom said:


> No.
> AMD's Athlon Brand has K-7 to Bulldozer to Zen CPU.
> Future Ryzen could have different architecture than Zen and it variation.


Well, it was worth a shot.


----------



## Vario (Apr 23, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> As long as we don't measure and calculate min. FPS in these charts and weigh them appropriately these summaries tell you nothing about actual gaming performance. People don't run a reviewers' test bed, they run a PC with all bells & whistles and inefficiencies, they add mods to games, they run multiple applications etc. etc. yadayada
> 
> Its clear as day that any quad core CPU these days without HT/SMT is going to be felt in overall gaming experience. It doesn't feel smooth, even if the overall perf gap is just a few %. If it has HT, it lasts a whole lot longer, but really, the age of 4 physical cores is just about coming to an end. 6~8 is where its going to be at for any reasonably future proof gaming platform.
> 
> ...


The way I see it, when the time comes that my i5 6 core isn't enough, that will be a legit reason to upgrade the whole platform.  Right now, it handles everything I do flawlessly.  If I can't afford to replace the whole platform at that time, it is likely that the 8700K, 9700K, or 9900K will be affordable on the used market and I can sell the 8600K to make back some of the cost.  I think in 4-5 years though, I would just as soon get a whole new machine.

I think the OP should wait a few months to see what the Zen 2 offering is, and then probably at that time the 9900K 9700K or 8700K will drop in value and that would be the thing to get.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 23, 2019)

Vario said:


> The way I see it, when the time comes that my i5 6 core isn't enough, that will be a legit reason to upgrade the whole platform.  Right now, it handles everything I do flawlessly.  If I can't afford to replace the whole platform at that time, it is likely that the 8700K, 9700K, or 9900K will be affordable on the used market and I can sell the 8600K to make back some of the cost.  I think in 4-5 years though, I would just as soon get a whole new machine.
> 
> I think the OP should wait a few months to see what the Zen 2 offering is, and then probably at that time the 9900K 9700K or 8700K will drop in value and that would be the thing to get.



I do this much the same way, but I did find that i5's without HT went 'obsolete' quite a bit faster than their i7 alternatives. Given the total additional cost on a whole build (especially over the course of 4-5 years which is a reasonable time to expect out of it IMO) its very much worth going a bit bigger than 'bare minimum' for good gaming. Go big on the basics and you can safely keep dropping in GPUs for a looong time. And its easier to resell, yes even after 4-5 years. Haswell i7's still worth a pretty good bit of cash these days. The 8th gen 6-cores and better CPUs will probably do better on 2nd hand market, because they're the earliest Intel hexacores and performance has been stalling, especially on gaming's pivotal single thread. This, much like Turing's launch irt Pascal, keeps the value of older parts high.


----------



## dirtyferret (Apr 23, 2019)

just my two cents, I have an OC 7600k and 8600k and I see little if any difference in them while gaming.  If the OP has a GTX 1060 then I doubt he will see any benefit going from an OC 6600k to any other CPU (with that GPU) in gaming unless he is also streaming.


----------



## John Naylor (Apr 23, 2019)

1.  Display resolution is always an important part of the selection process, given you hgave a 1060, Im going to assume 1080p.

2.  Seeing the 1060, if you staying at that level, I don't see anything bottlenecking a 1660 Ti which is about 40-50% faster than the 1060

3.  There's nothing on ya list that really warrants any extra cores, and with gaming being a priority, and looking at what's out there now.... I'd be focusing mostly on this:

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_9600K/images/relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png

4.  Many hard core gamers like to use i7's and then turn off Hyperthreading while gaming.  My youngest son's box, college student,  has multiple BIOS profiles ... the one he games with has a higher OC as turning off HT it runs about 7C cooler.  To do stuff where the cores are beneficial, his other profile is 0.1GHz lower OC but HT is enabled.

5.  RAM does not have much impact on gaming and when it does, it's mostly with regard to minumum fps.  This is not to say (and it often is) that it has no impact.   Some games are ... F1 and STALKER series are 2 that stand out.   For most games it is not a big factor, provided of course you have enough.


----------



## kkarab (Apr 23, 2019)

Dear OP,
10 months i had to sell my beloved pc > Asus x99 Pro-USB3 (2011-3) / Xeon e5-2667v3 ES@3GHz (8c/16t/35MB L3 cache) / 64GB DDR4@3200MHz (8x8GB) / GTX 980ti 6GB / Samsung 850 512GB SSD / 4x 4TB HDDs.
I bought an MSI Gaming Laptop (15 inch) with a good discount with specs > i7-7700HQ @3.4GHz (4c/8t/6MB L3 Cache) / 8GB DDR4@2400MHz (1x8GB) / GTX 1050ti 4GB / Samsung 960 128GB M.2 SSD / 1TB HDD.

I was very disappointed from the downgrade although my Xeon usage was never above 25% even when playing games and having other programs running in the background.
   Half the cpu, half the gpu, a quarter of the ram, a quarter of the ssd (although high speed) and all that at same Full HD resolution (1080p).
I struggled up until christmas with the new machine mainly watching Netflix and playing POE and War Thunder. Everything seemed so slow and FPS was well below 60 with mostly everything turned on. Even loading was taking too much time (especially in POE).
Decided to upgrade the RAM and SSD and bought the cheapest kit of 32GB DDR4@2400MHz (2x16GB) and 512GB M.2 Sandisk X600. Performance in games is up 30-40% and everything is loading superfast and smooth. POE is loading in record time and FPS is hovering steadily above 90.

So, do not think for 1 minute that your cpu is under-performing. You are using only 1 dimm of ram > running a single ddr4 channel and trying to multitask.
The first thing to do (whatever path of upgrading you follow) is to buy and install a second stick of 16GB ram with exactly the same specs as the one you already have.
You will be amazed by the increase in raw performance. Ram prices have dropped significantly.
The second thing is to safely overclock your cpu. I bet that after the ram upgrade you WILL NOTICE higher performance in games by bumping up your cpu speed.

Just saying...


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Apr 23, 2019)

kkarab said:


> So, do not think for 1 minute that your cpu is under-performing. You are using only 1 dimm of ram > running a single ddr4 channel and trying to multitask.
> The first thing to do (whatever path of upgrading you follow) is to buy and install a second stick of 16GB ram with exactly the same specs as the one you already have.
> You will be amazed by the increase in raw performance. Ram prices have dropped significantly.
> The second thing is to safely overclock your cpu. I bet that after the ram upgrade you WILL NOTICE higher performance in games by bumping up your cpu speed.
> ...


I meant to say something about that...
Definitely no matter what you do pickup another same as possible stick of ram.
And again....I'd do a monitor and a GFX card capable of 1440p 144hz.
I think the 4 Intel cores you have should be enough for 1440 on most anything..today
If you're able to hit 420-450 single thread on the CPU-Z benchmark you are doing good enough...imo


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Apr 23, 2019)

I think you just want to wait to see what AMD brings. Even if you decide to stay with Intel, I think AMDs next move will only help drive down Intel prices. Even now, I can get a 6 core i5 for $159 today. I can only imagine what I could get for $159 after Zen 2 arrives.


----------



## Bones (Apr 23, 2019)

AMD all the way here - Either the current lineup or waiting until July 7th (If you can wait) to see what that brings would be a good call. 

An Intel can do the job too but with the $$ saved by going AMD you can get something else with the savings such as a better GPU, more RAM for the system...... In other words the AMD will do it and let you get a little more from your budget for the build.


----------



## king of swag187 (Apr 24, 2019)

But then you'd be bottlenecked by the CPU. If OP only wanted to game, he should only consider intel. Given that he wants to game and also use his system for productivity tasks, and considering his budget, he should go for a high core count intel, no point in saving $50 for a GPU at the budget he's at.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 24, 2019)

king of swag187 said:


> But then you'd be bottlenecked by the CPU. If OP only wanted to game, he should only consider intel. Given that he wants to game and also use his system for productivity tasks, and considering his budget, he should go for a high core count intel, no point in saving $50 for a GPU at the budget he's at.



Only if that gaming is predominantly at high refresh rates or in very heavily singlethread-CPU-limited games. >60~75hz / FPS gaming is perfectly fine on AMD/Ryzen. Even first gen. In terms of gaming performance on the newer gen, we have yet to see the numbers, but its reasonable to expect a 10% gain across the board, and more so in single thread limited scenarios as clock speeds get a nice bump. That will minimize Intel's dominance for specifically high refresh gaming. This way out-of-context argument of 'Intel offers the gaming CPU' will evaporate very soon. It only truly applies to a rather small niche of enthusiasts. The vast majority won't be able to tell you if they gamed on Ryzen or Core.

There is much greater benefit to be had, at equal budget, from a Ryzen setup if there are other productivity tasks. Additional cores are a force multiplier, a faster single thread is just a little cherry on top of OK performance. Thát is what you're looking at here.

Also there is _always_ a bottleneck and if your use case is more than just gaming, Intel is certainly not the most cost effective choice. What it comes down to, is whether the additional cost is worth the payoff. And with Intel (high core) CPUs, that is highly situational at best.


----------



## R0H1T (Apr 24, 2019)

Bones said:


> Either the current lineup or waiting until July 7th


Is this the rumored date, for zen2 release?


----------



## Mats (Apr 24, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> Is this the rumored date, for zen2 release?


Yes, or sooner. May 27th is most likely the release date, but when it will be available is less known. I'd guess second half of June.


----------



## Bones (Apr 24, 2019)

IcyRoadz said:


> EDIT: Forgot to mention that the main games I play are stuff like Total War, Crusader Kings 2, Sims 3/4, Civilization, Dishonored, XCOM, Watch Dogs, Far Cry, AC, etc etc. *So a lot of strategy, RPG and simulation games*, and I think those games are supposed to be hard on your processor?



@king of swag187 Did you bother to look at the games the OP said they play?
There it is.



king of swag187 said:


> But then you'd be bottlenecked by the CPU. If OP only wanted to game, he should only consider intel. Given that he wants to game and also use his system for productivity tasks, and considering his budget, he should go for a high core count intel, no point in saving $50 for a GPU at the budget he's at.



To the point - I don't believe his needs for gaming are as demanding as many out there and Ryzen2 is very close to current Intel stuff anyway, not to mention they will save WAY MORE than just $50, something I found out earlier when planning this build. Also with the other planned useage they will be fine, Ryzen can handle it with ease.

I was wondering at first whether to go Intel or an AMD which I quickly decided on AMD due to the insane price difference if doing a complete build which I was. From that point I had to decide on a TR or Ryzen, which Ryzen won out and the rest is history.

If it costs twice as much I expect twice as much in return but that's not the case between the two.

I know as fact a high core count Intel build is priced sky-high in comparision to an AMD build along the same lines and the performance difference between the two isn't that much, sometimes overlapping based on exactly what you would be doing if speaking of a standard desktop build, 2700x vs an i7 8700..... Which is the case here.

And before accusations of "Fanboy" start up I've been running Intel with the last two or even three builds and based on cost decided AMD was the way to go as described above. Probrably will be from now on until Chipzilla finally drops prices to a more competitve level or for some weird reason AMD goes crazy with prices vs Intel.

It will get the job done and do it well for less.
Go AMD with this build, save some dough and enjoy is all I can say to the OP.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Apr 24, 2019)

I just built a Ryzen 5-1600 system for $400 with the idea of upgrading it when the next lineup comes out.
I have an 8700k system to test it against, that at the time cost $2400 to build. (maybe $1900 today)
Both are 6c/12t systems.
The 8700k just stomps the Ryzen system in nothing that is important.
In gaming the Ryzen does as well at 1080p as the 8700k does at 1440p
No amount of cores will help that the difference is in single core performance and Ryzen is close but not close enough at 1440/4k... But I think if the next series is a just  a mere 10% better then I don't see the point in paying for the Intel premium.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Apr 24, 2019)

A 2700/Mobo/2080 build for around 1500 Cad vs a 8700/Mobo/2070 build is way more Appealing to me.

Also if the 6 core 3000 series comes even closer to intel in terms of overall gaming performance/productivity he could save even more.
The 2000 series can be 15-20% faster in some games over the 1000 series so it should be pretty safe to expect at least 10%.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 24, 2019)

Bones said:


> @king of swag187 Did you bother to look at the games the OP said they play?
> There it is.
> 
> 
> ...



kos inept opinion doesn't matter


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Apr 24, 2019)

Bones said:


> @king of swag187 Did you bother to look at the games the OP said they play?
> There it is.
> 
> 
> ...


Intel will often price compete on the equivalent AMD CPU, but it always seems like you have to drop more on the equivalent Intel motherboard. Whenever I price a build for kicks, I end up noticing the net price disparity pretty quick.


----------



## Bones (Apr 24, 2019)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> Intel will often price compete on the equivalent AMD CPU, but it always seems like you have to drop more on the equivalent Intel motherboard. Whenever I price a build for kicks,_ I end up noticing the net price disparity pretty quick_.



As I did when my build was initially planned.

The chips and boards are more expensive for an Intel, with DDR4 being as high as it is (Prices are falling but it's still expensive), it just makes sense to save anywhere you can. 
The performance difference isn't enough to justify one being that much more in cost over the other, most of the difference seen is in synthetic benchies and such, nothing that really matters to the everyday person.


----------



## Vario (Apr 24, 2019)

jmcslob said:


> I just built a Ryzen 5-1600 system for $400 with the idea of upgrading it when the next lineup comes out.
> I have an 8700k system to test it against, that at the time cost $2400 to build. (maybe $1900 today)
> Both are 6c/12t systems.
> The 8700k just stomps the Ryzen system in nothing that is important.
> ...



The price difference between a Ryzen 5 1600 and a 8700K is about $200.  The remaining $2000 is a luxury not necessary for running an Intel based platform.  There are budget 1151 boards, budget DDR4, etc.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Apr 24, 2019)

@IcyRoadz 
My 2 cents, save your money and upgrade your CPU later as the one you have is not shabby. You need a better GPU. Focus on that. Find a used GTX 1070(ti) or 1080(ti) to kick your gaming into high gear.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Apr 25, 2019)

Vario said:


> The price difference between a Ryzen 5 1600 and a 8700K is about $200.  The remaining $2000 is a luxury not necessary for running an Intel based platform.  There are budget 1151 boards, budget DDR4, etc.


I got my 1600 at MicroCenter for $80 with an ASRock B450 Pro4 ATX $75 -$30 combo discount...$125 for both....Really Can't wait for the new Ryzen....I'm good to buy after July 4t
You could definitely do an 8700k build for $1000 easy. with 16gb ddr4 3000...970 EVO-500gb...Z390..Air cooled...1660ti-In the US at a MicroCenter/Amazon/Newegg


----------



## Vario (Apr 25, 2019)

jmcslob said:


> I got my 1600 at MicroCenter for $80 with an ASRock B450 Pro4 ATX $75 -$30 combo discount...$125 for both....Really Can't wait for the new Ryzen....I'm good to buy after July 4t
> You could definitely do an 8700k build for $1000 easy. with 16gb ddr4 3000...970 EVO-500gb...Z390..Air cooled...1660ti-In the US at a MicroCenter/Amazon/Newegg


I love those microcenter deals!  Hell of a deal for that price.  The i7 cheapest setup might be 1151 H310 or B360 for ~$60 with a used $300 8700K for comparison.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 25, 2019)

Vario said:


> I love those microcenter deals!  Hell of a deal for that price.  The i7 cheapest setup might be 1151 H310 or B360 for ~$60 with a used $300 8700K for comparison.



Thats how I got a 8350 and my Sabertooth.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Apr 26, 2019)

Vario said:


> The way I see it, when the time comes that my i5 6 core isn't enough, that will be a legit reason to upgrade the whole platform.  Right now, it handles everything I do flawlessly.  If I can't afford to replace the whole platform at that time, it is likely that the 8700K, 9700K, or 9900K will be affordable on the used market and I can sell the 8600K to make back some of the cost.  I think in 4-5 years though, I would just as soon get a whole new machine.
> 
> I think the OP should wait a few months to see what the Zen 2 offering is, and then probably at that time the 9900K 9700K or 8700K will drop in value and that would be the thing to get.


Agreed, the only somewhat reasonable reason (lol, what a phrase) to wait for Zen2 is that if it will get close enough to coffee lake in single thread, the latter might get some price cuts.
Then again, if it relatively sucks, many people who are currently holding out on hopes of its performance will go Intel and prices can go up again just like last year...


----------

