Discussion in 'Tech Talk' started by Footheboss, Jun 22, 2018.

  1. Grettings. Pleas give me your recommendations on a new cpu/motherboard. I would like to stay between 400-700 for the two combined. I currently have a gtx1080 if that matters. Of course I play the BF series and pubg so I imagine those will be the most demanding. Streaming also would be fun but I'll still be limited in that area I'm sure. Thanks in advance!
    Antivanity likes this.
  2. AMD Ryzen 2? I have not looked into it but I know they are supposed to be looking pretty amazing.
    Footheboss likes this.
  3. my high-quality/performance picks would be:
    + like you're on a Russian hotel mattress - won't effect your framerate. pair with high Mhz RAM with low cas latency (3200 c14, 3600 c15) for best result.
    ...likely a slightly higher framerate, esp in older games. streaming won't be difficult. wouldn't run this CPU w/o a good 240mm AIO at minimum...280/360 push/pull if you shoot for 5Ghz OC. vulnerabilities keep gettin exposed, & patches are starting to add-up to measurable perf losses.
  4. Good shit! This is fun lol
  5. This is what I have and what I would suggest.

    I assume you're not on DDR4 yet? This would be the same list but with RAM. <--Thats the first time I've seen RAM under $150 in a long time for that capacity.

    My CPU hits 5.1ghz @1.42 volts. Temps were in the 80's during AIDA64 with just 2 140mm fans in pull. Though I run it at stock speeds as nothing really needs that right now.

    If streaming isn't a priority, I suggest the Intel chip over the AMD chip, its still a faster chip across all games except for like 2. Though the Intel chip will have no issues streaming at all.

    In PUBG, I get a pretty consistent 130fps @1440p, in Rainbow 6 Siege, I pull in a consistent 144fps. BF4 is the same story as RB6S, I have frames capped at 144, no dips below it. (I am running a 1080Ti as well)

    Games still don't really care about core count. Its still based on clock speed. At stock speeds, the 2700x and 8700k are almost identical in gaming. When they are both OC'd, the 8700k pulls far ahead.

    Rumors are saying Intel is dropping an 8 core to replace the 8700k later this year. You could wait but I wouldn't. The security patches are relatively optional. If you don't upgrade your BIOS, you don't get the security. The big ones that everyone talks about aren't an issue to the everyday consumer as the person trying to infect your PC would need direct physical access to your PC in order to infect it. From the testing I've seen, the patches don't really affect gaming but they do change SSD speeds. Its really up to you on it but I haven't done them and I've had no issues.
    #6 Army126, Jun 23, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2018
    Footheboss likes this.
  6. the difference in avg framerate between stock 8700k & 2700X at 1440p is about 3%, and 5Ghz / 4.2Ghz OC stretches that to 7%. the latest benchmark i've seen included older games (like GTA) that are still favored by a lot of peeps (like myself), which the 8700k wins by a much wider margin than the titles under 2yrs old (well-documented). if you're still on a 1080p monitor & don't plan to upgrade, then the Intel CPU looks even better ...but even then it's kinda pointless cause both chips are faster than 144fps with a 16mo old GTX1080ti. spose a CSGO pro player with a 240hz screen may argue, but can't really go wrong with either CPU. to me, it comes down to heat, history, & ethics.

    as for RAM, modern DDR performance is considered "good" when True Latency calculates out to less than 10ns (clock cycle time X number of clock cycles = true latency). basic rule of thumb; take the speed (2400), remove the zeros (24), divide by 2 (12)... that is the CAS/CL number you want to look for, and any lower is even better. if the CAS/CL is higher, it's slow RAM & not a very good match for a performance PC build. the CPU waits extra clock cycles to get info from the memory, but grandma will never notice on AOL.
    this is an example of the lowest acceptable RAM i'd put in a performance system:

    fyi Foo... Army & i don't agree on tech, lol
    Footheboss likes this.
  7. The difference in RAM is even more negligible on gains than the differences between CPUs. CAS Latency is much more important than clock speed on RAM, the kit I provided in my example is CAS 14, yours was 16. The kit I picked can be overclocked to that 3000mhz and will most likely have tighter timings than the GSkill kit. The difference between all the speeds in RAM with gaming is about 2%. Not worth the extra money. I run a 32GB 2133mhz kit on my system without any issues.

    With the CPU debate, it comes down to longevity for me. Intel chips from 2012 are still relevant in gaming these days. Performance per core is still favored on the Intel side, though much lower than it was with the FX chips. Will the current AMD chips be relevant in 5 years? I'm willing to bet a shitload of money that the Intel chips will be.

    There's also options like this company for Intel chips... . @Operationurmom bought an i5-8600k from them, guaranteed to hit 5ghz and came delidded which drops temps significantly. They offer the same 1 year warranty as Intel provides. You pay a premium but it removes the headache of delidding yourself and gives assurance on clock speeds.

  8. That video will give a good idea on why going with "fast RAM" is waste of money. Especially now, since RAM prices are high.
  9. the RAM i linked can also be OC'd, like any decent RAM, no different than what you posted... except the example i gave starts with a better clock/latency ratio (usually also indicates better quality die on the PCB, just like binned CPUs). gains from speed and/or latency are highly code dependent ...some games/apps don't care, some care quite a lot... i could post Firestrike results to prove RAM does nothing at all, or Timespy charts to show a massive difference. there's a breaking point for value, absolutely, but i'd argue that $160 vs $140 (+14%) for a significantly faster module isn't that point.

    ...value is an interesting argument to make when the water-cooled OC 8700k adds 7% avg to your framerate, while adding $160 ($40 CPU +$120 cooling) in system costs (+51%). far worse against a 2600X.

    relevancy over time...
    old games ran great on 1 core cause that's what was avail to the market. modern titles make use of more avail cores/threads, & it's logical to presume the trend continues (esp with the clock, IPC, & die-shrink brick wall). frame-time variances are also a major selling point of having more cores/ much smoother. post-Sandy chips didn't offer much reason to upgrade cause Intel didn't need to beat anyone... developers code around what CPUs are mainstream at the time... those are the only two reasons why a 5-7yr old CPU is still decent in gaming. it's not magic that kept the 2600k relevant.

    lol, Linus... now ya got me! /s
    bubblegum channel that consistently borks benchmarks: 3 games & 4 apps, seemingly chosen at random Sandra bandwidth or latency tests at all? even Maxxmem results would be ok. zero mention of what timings they used too, which is half the discussion. 9mins i'll never get back...