notbBut how much would you have to spend on a GPU to make 7700K a bottleneck?
At that point it's not a budget CPU, but an unbalanced setup.

This should be a fine CPU for anything up to probably RTX2060 - independent of what games you throw at it. So it's well above "budget gaming".
Of course I'll change my mind completely if few months from now AMD launches their "RTRT" idea and it's CPU-based. ;)

a potato? Weve seen tests with 2080ti and down to rx 580... it's the game and cores and threads it needs for optimal fps, not really the gpu that is the factor. For example, you could throw a 8700k in at the same clocks as a 7700k and get better fps in titles that can use more than 4c/8t. IPC difference is negligible...

..and as was mentioned above it really. affects lows (as well as average).

I wouldnt buy a 4c/8t cpu today for AAA titles and expect it wont hold things back in some capacity.

ManofGodBottlenecks are not the important measurement but 1% and 0.1% lows are what matter.

Yeah, I don't think 0.1% lows matter to me at all. It's a stupid statistic. Have you ever honestly thought about it?
I mean, with a 1s time window, it's what you see once every ~17 minutes. I wouldn't spend $100 more on a CPU just for that.

I still don't understand why so few game reviewers provide a graph of fps during the whole benchmark.

sorry AMD, you're still 3y behind

EarthDoga potato? Weve seen tests with 2080ti and down to rx 580... it's the game and cores and threads it needs for optimal fps, not really the gpu that is the factor. For example, you could throw a 8700k in at the same clocks as a 7700k and get better fps in titles that can use more than 4c/8t. IPC difference is negligible...

I'm not saying you won't get more fps. I'm talking about optimizing the whole system.

For $500 you'll be able to pair that 3300X with a decent RTX2060 or 5600XT.
Sure, 8700K will give you more fps, but not in this price bracket.

I know some people feel bad just knowing that their GPU can do 100 fps in some game (they've seen it in a review, when paired with a 9900K) and they only get 80 fps with a much cheaper CPU, slower RAM etc.
They shouldn't. It's irrational.
The goal should be to get the best combination in budget. So for most it means the GPU will be underutilized.

EarthDogFor the extreme budget gamer.... unless i absolutely couldnt afford it, there is no way I'd buy a 4c/8t processor to play games. Too many AAA titles already today have a glass ceiling on them because of core/thread count.

So.. cool.. for extreme budget crowd... but I'd save up more money and get something with more c/t in 2020..

They're also good for like light gamers. People who play games but aren't serious about it and doesn't mind lowering details.

And personally i'm much more interested in how much performanve I can get for little money.

notbSure, 8700K will give you more fps, but not in this price bracket.

Move the goal posts back, please... I'm just talking about a glass ceiling. I also believe I mentioned if you can't afford it, you can't. But today there is a glass ceiling... I'd hate to see what that looks like in two years.

That isn't irrational at all...most people want to use 100% of what they bought is all. Next time you go buy a 12 pack, send me two since you don't care about using what you pay for. :p

Again, buying today, there is no way I would go 4c/8t if my budget allowed. That won't last but two years before you will want an upgrade (again it holds things back already).

FrickThey're also good for like light gamers. People who play games but aren't serious about it and doesn't mind lowering details.

And personally i'm much more interested in how much performanve I can get for little money.

Sure. I agree there... which is why I explicitly mentioned AAA titles (in order to head off posts like this, lol). Now you are talking about a different crowd of people too...most who play on a PC do so in order to use ultra settings and have it look better than consoles. The reality is, PC users only run less than ultra because of budget or competitive reasons. That is the ultimate goal, ultra.

More useless Cinebench to fool the idiots lol

The best CPU for this price. More performance than the 7700K that cost $453.22!

LindatjeThe best CPU for this price. More performance than the 7700K that cost $453.22!

Let's just call it a million for easier calculations.

AusWolfAMD has been great in Cinebench even with the last generation chips. Let's see what the 3300X can do in games and other applications before we jump to conclusins.

.

lol.

rih intel.....

EarthDogMove the goal posts back, please... I'm just talking about a glass ceiling. I also believe I mentioned if you can't afford it, you can't. But today there is a glass ceiling... I'd hate to see what that looks like in two years.

I don't understand how you use this phrase. Any hardware does this. You spend a lot upfront and you have to live with that performance, while games get heavier and people around you buy better stuff.
Well, you can always go cloud. That's one of the problems it solves. :)

That isn't irrational at all...most people want to use 100% of what they bought is all. Next time you go buy a 12 pack, send me two since you don't care about using what you pay for. :p

And they do. But most people treat computers as a whole package. A box that can do something. Sure, if you moved some component into a much more powerful PC, it would probably work better. But you won't. You have the set you can afford. And usually it's a laptop or an OEM desktop. So you use what you get, without upgrades.

You focus on a GPU as a gamer and you probably want to max it out.
But what about CPU? It's not running at 100%. Either it or GPU has to be the limiting part.
And what about your RAM? Is it always used in 100%?
And what about speakers? Are they always running at 100%? :p

It's true for all complex products. There's always some wasted potential. It's totally normal.

Again, buying today, there is no way I would go 4c/8t if my budget allowed.

And here it is! :)

That won't last but two years before you will want an upgrade (again it holds things back already).

Well, if you're limited by budget, it's quite normal to want to upgrade already after buying. Because there exist better options. But you can't afford it, so you have to accept it.
And of course a lot of people don't have this feeling. They use a PC until it's very unresponsive or starts to fall apart.

Sure. I agree there... which is why I explicitly mentioned AAA titles (in order to head off posts like this, lol). Now you are talking about a different crowd of people too...most who play on a PC do so in order to use ultra settings and have it look better than consoles. The reality is, PC users only run less than ultra because of budget or competitive reasons. That is the ultimate goal, ultra.

Confusion?
AAA titles are the most popular games (not the most demanding or... I'm not sure what).
These are exactly the titles that casual gamers play, almost exclusively. If you buy 2-5 games a year, you don't have to look beyond the top.

zmeulsorry AMD, you're still 3y behind

How is this anywhere outside the realm of advancement? There was a long period of time where a new budget CPU was still nowhere close to matching the performance of a 3 year old flagship product. For a long time, 4C/8T was the top tier, and budget CPUs were stuck at 2C/4T, at best. Intel wan’t doing this before Ryzen either.

notbI don't understand how you use this phrase. Any hardware does this. You spend a lot upfront and you have to live with that performance, while games get heavier and people around you buy better stuff.

I use it properly? Not sure what you are saying, lol. Cost isn't an issue, not part of the conversation (but is a limit of getting more, yes). These are great CPUs, but it will start you off behind the curve.... that's all.

notbAnd they do. But most people treat computers as a whole package. A box that can do something. Sure, if you moved some component into a much more powerful PC, it would probably work better. But you won't. You have the set you can afford. And usually it's a laptop or an OEM desktop. So you use what you get, without upgrades.

Where are you going with this? What do OEMs have to do with anything? We're talking people who are buying CPUs who have a choice of what CPU is going into the machine (which I guess you can choose CPU for an OEM as well - thinking about it more critically, it is those who buy OEMs and don't upgrade is who buying a 4c/8t CPU hurts more as they are less apt to upgrade as you said). :)

notbYou focus on a GPU as a gamer and you probably want to max it out.

Correct.

notbBut what about CPU? It's not running at 100%.
Either it or GPU has to be the limiting part.
And what about your RAM? Is it always used in 100%?

You don't want your CPU pegged when gaming in the first place... you'll likely stutter. RAM at 100%, also a problem. You know better than to use such poor examples.

Of course, either the GPU or CPU is the limiting part. But even if you have a mid-range card or flagship, depending on the game, if you pair it with a 4c/8t CPU, there will be an artificial limit on the game because of the CPU. Whereas, if you have a a CPU with more cores and threads you'll get more performance in some of those games because the CPU is holding things back... even if the GPU is running its typical 99%.

notbConfusion?
AAA titles are the most popular games (not the most demanding or... I'm not sure what).
These are exactly the titles that casual gamers play, almost exclusively. If you buy 2-5 games a year, you don't have to look beyond the top.

None. Often these games can be hard on the PC and use modern features which require more CPU and GPU horsepower. Obviously this is not a rule.

Look... all I am saying is that 4c/8t is a bit long in the tooth these days/what I would consider a bare minimum for gaming when buying new. The GPU should always be the item limiting FPS where possible.. :)

ZoneDymomeanwhile im STILL on a 2600k....and I call myself a pc enthusiast....smh

Imo, "enthusiast" shouldn't be defined by the rig someone has, but rather knowledge. I see people flexing on reddit, pcpp and other forums with $2-3k builds, yet they know s*** to nothing about the parts they own, let alone basic functionality, features etc.

I recall sometime back in one of the forums, someone mentioned that AMD chips depreciates a lot faster than an Intel chip and Intel chips have better value. I disagreed on the basis that Intel is not invulnerable to competitors' value proposition, especially when the Zen architecture basically catapult AMD to performance close to Intel. Now fast forward to this news, an i7 7700K is now relegated to a low end chip that competes with a Ryzen 3, and the value is probably out of the window for those who spent quite a substantial amount of money on this chip. Especially the fact that pre Coffee Lake chip's performance all got pounded hard by the many vulnerability patches from Intel.

LindatjeThe best CPU for this price. More performance than the 7700K that cost $453.22!

I think Intel made a good choice to EOL Kaby Lake.

EarthDogYou don't want your CPU pegged when gaming in the first place... you'll likely stutter. RAM at 100%, also a problem. You know better than to use such poor examples.

But GPU does the same thing. If you're maxing it out, a more complex scene will cause fps to drop.

So by that logic, I should probably get a GPU with decent headroom, but that means it won't be used in 100% most of the time. Oh no!

And it was such a simple case in the beginning.
I said: I have $500 on CPU and GPU. I'm getting an i3 with 2060 and play at 80fps.
You said: no, no, no. i3 doesn't make justice to a 2060. You should buy a more expensive CPU! So I listened to you. I spend countless hours reading reviews, asking on forums for the perfect set. In the end I still got a 2060 with an i5. And I wasted too much on the PC, so I had to cancel the next city break.
So great, I play on Ultra instead of High. Or at 90fps instead of 80fps. That literally changed my life.

Does it really have to be so complicated? Why did I have to spend so much time and money on choosing a gaming PC instead of on the actual gaming?

None. Often these games can be hard on the PC and use modern features which require more CPU and GPU horsepower. Obviously this is not a rule.

It doesn't matter. These are the most popular games. They're played by all kind of users: those with HEDT, those with cheap laptops, with Xbox One S.
Earlier you basically suggested people buy expensive stuff to play AAA titles, when this is opposite to what really happens.

People who spend a lot on PC probably also game a lot. So they either spend more time on the same games everyone else plays or they go for more titles - which forces them to look beyond the most popular games.

Also, at some point you said people use PCs to game on ultra. I believe you meant desktops (maybe: expensive desktops). People on average absolutely aren't as attached to "ultra" as guys on this forum.
And seriously, they don't upgrade. They buy a PC, they use it for 3-5 years, they buy a new one. So they won't be able to go for the highest settings in most demanding games - sooner or later.

notbBut GPU does the same thing. If you're maxing it out, a more complex scene will cause fps to drop.

So by that logic, I should probably get a GPU with decent headroom, but that means it won't be used in 100% most of the time. Oh no!

And it was such a simple case in the beginning.
I said: I have $500 on CPU and GPU. I'm getting an i3 with 2060 and play at 80fps.
You said: no, no, no. i3 doesn't make justice to a 2060. You should buy a more expensive CPU! So I listened to you. I spend countless hours reading reviews, asking on forums for the perfect set. In the end I still got a 2060 with an i5. And I wasted too much on the PC, so I had to cancel the next city break.
So great, I play on Ultra instead of High. Or at 90fps instead of 80fps. That literally changed my life.

Does it really have to be so complicated? Why did I have to spend so much time and money on choosing a gaming PC instead of on the actual gaming?

It doesn't matter. These are the most popular games. They're played by all kind of users: those with HEDT, those with cheap laptops, with Xbox One S.
Earlier you basically suggested people buy expensive stuff to play AAA titles, when this is opposite to what really happens.

People who spend a lot on PC probably also game a lot. So they either spend more time on the same games everyone else plays or they go for more titles - which forces them to look beyond the most popular games.

Also, at some point you said people use PCs to game on ultra. I believe you meant desktops (maybe: expensive desktops). People on average absolutely aren't as attached to "ultra" as guys on this forum.
And seriously, they don't upgrade. They buy a PC, they use it for 3-5 years, they buy a new one. So they won't be able to go for the highest settings in most demanding games - sooner or later.

Nothing I've said is incorrect.

EarthDogyou dont want a glass ceiling on some titles, you'll need to go higher than 4c/8t. 6c/12t or 8c/8t parts are the minimum I would go today for a system designed to play AAA titles.

EarthDogLook... all I am saying is that 4c/8t is a bit long in the tooth these days/what I would consider a bare minimum for gaming when buying new. The GPU should always be the item limiting FPS where possible.. :)

you can split hairs all you want. :)

ARFCore i7-7700K is 32% slower in CB R20 MC, and 58% slower in CB R15 MC.

Maybe this comes as a shock for you, but Cinebench does not equal to gaming performance.

Even a budget gamer should not buy 4c/8t at this point. Next gen consoles will make these chips obsolete. 6c/12t is bare minimum for a pc gamer that wants to play aaa games going forward.

Next gen consoles will get 8c/16t, altho with 1-2c reserved.

Maybe for an email + browsing rig these chips will be good...