Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Looking for general direction on where to go for a new gaming build


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Punkrulz

Punkrulz

  • Members
  • 94 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:45 PM

Posted 18 March 2017 - 07:17 PM

Hey guys,

 

I've come here in the past for some great advice for a system build, so I'm back to doing it again! I'm looking to build a gaming computer capable of high-ultra settings for 2560x1440p resolution. I will be running games off of my Dell 27" S2716DG display.

 

My current system:

 

  • CPU - Intel i5-2500k (stock speed)
  • Motherboard - Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3 LGA 1155
  • Case - Corsair Carbide 500R
  • Memory - 16gb
  • PSU - Corsair TX650
  • Video - MSI GeForce GTX 970

I'm looking for a decent build that could last me at least another 5 years, somewhere between the budget of $1200-$1500 (I'm open to a little wiggle room). Here are the following questions I'm asking while I research parts (and part listings are appreciated!)

 

  1. What is the current benchmark gaming CPU? I know this is where most of my money is going to sadly. Is it the Intel i7-7700k? Or another? Should I wait for the Ryzen 5 to come out?
  2. If shopping for the  7700k, I keep seeing that the Z270 motherboards are the ones to get. Any recommendation on motherboard?
  3. I am pretty sure I want to go the modular PSU route this time. Any recommendations there? Best brands?
  4. So i'm thinking that if I build this machine, I may get the GPU last. I know the 1080's just came out, but with my 970 I might be able to swing by on that for a little bit until the prices of the new cards drop. I'm leaning towards nVidia, especially because I'm running a Dell 27" GSync display.
  5. I also want to upgrade my SSD. 128gb isn't cutting it anymore, and I at least want to double that if not more.

 

Any thoughts, questions, or suggestions are appreciated!!!



BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 699 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:45 AM

Posted 18 March 2017 - 08:29 PM

The Asus Z270A Prime is $169 on Amazon, it is SLI capable, has a pair of M.2 slots, 6 SATA ports, etc., and I am very happy with it....! 

 

(The Noctua DH15 cools the 7700K to about 23C at idle, and max 59C is all I've seen under stress tests/cpuburn at stock clocks)


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#3 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,481 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:12:45 AM

Posted 19 March 2017 - 01:30 PM

1. For 5 years, i7-7700K won't be alternative. Right now Ryzen 7 1800X is best choice with that budget. Consider it this way: you want rig for 2022. Quad cores came out 2007 and Playstation 4/Xbox one (with 8 core CPU) 2013. Even Ryzen 5 is much better long term solution than i7-7700K.

2. Ryzen needs AM4 motherboard.

3. How old is current PSU?

5. NAND flash prices are quite high right now, so it's upto you how much you want to pay. Another question is M.2 or SATA. For gaming, SATA should be enough.

#4 Punkrulz

Punkrulz
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 94 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:45 PM

Posted 19 March 2017 - 04:33 PM

1. For 5 years, i7-7700K won't be alternative. Right now Ryzen 7 1800X is best choice with that budget. Consider it this way: you want rig for 2022. Quad cores came out 2007 and Playstation 4/Xbox one (with 8 core CPU) 2013. Even Ryzen 5 is much better long term solution than i7-7700K.

2. Ryzen needs AM4 motherboard.

3. How old is current PSU?

5. NAND flash prices are quite high right now, so it's upto you how much you want to pay. Another question is M.2 or SATA. For gaming, SATA should be enough.

 

Isn't the Ryzen not as good for gaming though? Also, my current PSU is the Corsair Enthusiast Series TX650. Thanks for the tips with the SATA drive, I'll stick with a standard SSD for gaming and avoid the M.2.



#5 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 699 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:45 AM

Posted 19 March 2017 - 05:52 PM

Much conjecture out there that Ryzen 7 (or, miraculously, a Ryzen 5 which is a Ryzen 7 with 2 or 4 cores disabled) is somehow more 'future proof', and, 'will be better on future games , or, present games after optimizations/BIOS updates, Windows OS tweaks', etc...

 

But the cold hard facts today are that, meanwhile, even the fastest Ryzen processor lags behind the 7700K in framerates for every single gaming title ever produced by between 8-19% in average framerates at 1080P, and, admittedly slightly less at 1440P, but, is still defeated by the 7700K ...in...every...single ....game... ever produced ....period.

 

If you think that will change, or, you love staring at/winning multithreaded Cinebench/Handbrake benchmarks, get a Ryzen. If you desire to decode/rip videos/ livestream your games, and do Bitcoin mining while gaming, Ryzen might have an advantage in some multitasking scenarios. But, until the gaming pendulum swings wildly is some another direction, the i7-7700K still reigns.


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#6 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 699 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:45 AM

Posted 19 March 2017 - 06:08 PM

at 1440P, your framerate equation will be 70-80% determined by the GPU; the 970 is now matched by the GTX1060, so is now considered a tad slow or overtaxed for 1440 gaming on newer/newest games, especially at high/ultra settings.

 

Your largest framerate increase will still come with a newer GTX1080 vice from a new MB/CPU/RAM...; in fact, for the cost of an 1800X cpu, mainboard, and DDR4 RAM,  you could likely get a 1080Ti

 

(A decent cooling solution, and your existing CPU might be good for an OC to 4.5 GHz or so, like most 2500k processors; I'd go for water cooling, or, a large Noctua DH15)


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#7 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,481 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:12:45 AM

Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:41 AM

Isn't the Ryzen not as good for gaming though? Also, my current PSU is the Corsair Enthusiast Series TX650. Thanks for the tips with the SATA drive, I'll stick with a standard SSD for gaming and avoid the M.2.

 

Ryzen is more than good enough for gaming and indeed better than 7700K. This whole "Ryzen is bad for gaming" BS campaign run by Intel biased websites is achieved only with unrealistic scenarios, like $500 CPU combined with $800 GPU and 1080p resolution etc. Many gamers agree that Ryzen run many games more smoothly than 7700K.
 

Much conjecture out there that Ryzen 7 (or, miraculously, a Ryzen 5 which is a Ryzen 7 with 2 or 4 cores disabled) is somehow more 'future proof', and, 'will be better on future games , or, present games after optimizations/BIOS updates, Windows OS tweaks', etc...
 
But the cold hard facts today are that, meanwhile, even the fastest Ryzen processor lags behind the 7700K in framerates for every single gaming title ever produced by between 8-19% in average framerates at 1080P, and, admittedly slightly less at 1440P, but, is still defeated by the 7700K ...in...every...single ....game... ever produced ....period.


As previously said, these cold hard facts are achieved with unrealistic testing scenarios. Also test systems have no internet connection, no antivirus, no background programs, clean Windows install. These "facts" also do not tell anything about smoothness. Ryzen runs games more smoothly even if simple FPS graphs show otherwise. Those benchmark results do not reflect on real gaming situation because running demo is different thing than gaming.

So Ryzen is indeed better for gaming than 7700K.

And who cares about few percentages? Looking back, every time "more cores" option has always been much better at long term: Athlon64 X2 vs Athlon 64, Core 2 Duo vs Core 2 Quad, Phenom II X2 vs Phenom II X4, i3 2120 vs i5-2500K etc etc. Every time "more cores" option has proven to be much better for long term. This time is no exception. Nobody cares about 8-19% slower gaming running timedemos on unrealistic scenarios. Combine games and streaming, then 7700K is at least 90% slower than Ryzen useless.

As always before, more cores option is long term solution and less faster cores is very short term solution. So Ryzen is much better long term solution.
 

If you think that will change, or, you love staring at/winning multithreaded Cinebench/Handbrake benchmarks, get a Ryzen. If you desire to decode/rip videos/ livestream your games, and do Bitcoin mining while gaming, Ryzen might have an advantage in some multitasking scenarios. But, until the gaming pendulum swings wildly is some another direction, the i7-7700K still reigns.


Ryzen have advantage in virtually all multitasking scenarios. Also Ryzen has good build quality, 7700K has high TDP, small core and crappy paste under HS, so I'm not very surprised if we see tons of broken 7700K's in couple of years. I wouldn't take risk.


Edited by Drillingmachine, 20 March 2017 - 07:42 AM.


#8 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 699 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:45 AM

Posted 20 March 2017 - 08:18 PM

The old 'crappy paste under sink' song again...; but, to be fair, you are partially correct, folks did indeed get a 20C drop in temps after reapplying new quality thermal compound between core and heat spreader, but, gained little to no additional headroom on overclocking. Still stuck at only 5-5.1 GHz, and, still defeating Ryzen 1800X in every gaming title at every resolution. (As for your 'crappy TDP'. are you referring to Intel's claimed 91 watt TDP to Ryzen 1800X 95 watt? (It has already been proven via Kill-o-watt meters that a Ryzen 1800X under full load draws 30 more watts of power than an OC'd 7700K under load, so, not sure where you even think you are headed with power claims and/or rated TDP claims here)

 

But as to the AMD's superior heat spreader quality, apparently it's so much better to have a soldered on heat spreader on a cpu with a grand total of ....50 MHz overclocking headroom such as the 1800X, I see...?

 

You can continue to claim Ryzen is superior, even 'for gaming', and then find vague rationalization reasons for it's 5-19% performance deficit... if you wish.

 

(I am not claiming "Ryzen sucks at gaming", not even close; in fact, it performs *in gaming* as well as perhaps a hypothetical 7700K underclocked to perhaps 3.9 GHz or so, which is not bad at all. But it is slower...in gaming.....period. If you find links that support Ryzen vaulting to the top when a given antivirus solution is run, post the link to said results, vice speculating that the 7700K will somehow not be able to handle the load as well...)

 

But, until they begin to perform as well as the 7700K, or, almost as well for substantially cheaper, it will be hard to recommend them solely as a gaming processor. Certainly, the 1800X, at $150 more and 10% less gaming performance (on average) does not vault to the top of most folks 'should buy' list...."FOR GAMING"


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#9 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,481 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:12:45 AM

Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:40 AM

The old 'crappy paste under sink' song again...; but, to be fair, you are partially correct, folks did indeed get a 20C drop in temps after reapplying new quality thermal compound between core and heat spreader, but, gained little to no additional headroom on overclocking. Still stuck at only 5-5.1 GHz, and, still defeating Ryzen 1800X in every gaming title at every resolution. (As for your 'crappy TDP'. are you referring to Intel's claimed 91 watt TDP to Ryzen 1800X 95 watt? (It has already been proven via Kill-o-watt meters that a Ryzen 1800X under full load draws 30 more watts of power than an OC'd 7700K under load, so, not sure where you even think you are headed with power claims and/or rated TDP claims here)

But as to the AMD's superior heat spreader quality, apparently it's so much better to have a soldered on heat spreader on a cpu with a grand total of ....50 MHz overclocking headroom such as the 1800X, I see...?


This is not about overclocking but about durability. Small core, high power consumption, high temperatures. Not good combination. That crappy paste is used to make CPU break faster. Any data about how long 7700K will last on heavy use? We know that after few years. I wouldn't take risk.

Since 2003 until Ryzen, no AMD CPU is drawing more power on stock than rated TDP. On Ryzen CPU may exceed TDP limit if cooler is good enough, that is called XFR. Without XFR I doubt Ryzen power consumption would exceed TDP.
 

You can continue to claim Ryzen is superior, even 'for gaming', and then find vague rationalization reasons for it's 5-19% performance deficit... if you wish.
 
(I am not claiming "Ryzen sucks at gaming", not even close; in fact, it performs *in gaming* as well as perhaps a hypothetical 7700K underclocked to perhaps 3.9 GHz or so, which is not bad at all. But it is slower...in gaming.....period. If you find links that support Ryzen vaulting to the top when a given antivirus solution is run, post the link to said results, vice speculating that the 7700K will somehow not be able to handle the load as well...)
 
But, until they begin to perform as well as the 7700K, or, almost as well for substantially cheaper, it will be hard to recommend them solely as a gaming processor. Certainly, the 1800X, at $150 more and 10% less gaming performance (on average) does not vault to the top of most folks 'should buy' list...."FOR GAMING"


Once again, gaming is totally different thing than timedemo benchmarks. Also 7700K is faster on timedemo benchmarks run on current games. How about games next year? On some games 7700K is already loaded near maximum and playing next year's games it will be much slower compared to Ryzen 1800X than today.

Have you seen any reviews where test systems are using realistic scenarios, eg. antivirus on, not clean Windows install etc? I cannot remember any. Why not? Because low core CPU's look better that way. I remember that overclocked Pentium G 3258 was excellent gaming CPU. But now many modern games refuse to run unless CPU supports at least 4 threads :devil:

Also I see no point comparing FPS results in percentages. If Ryzen runs game at 300 FPS minimum, I really don't care of 7700K runs same game at 600 FPS minimum, that is 100% meaningless difference.

Ryzen 7 1800X is aimed against i7-6900K, remember that 6900K is also slower than 7700K on gaming. But in three weeks Ryzen 5 1600X is launched and then we hardly need to discuss this. Ryzen 5 1600X is essentially 6-core version of 1800X. So basically Ryzen 5 1600X vs 7700K:

- Ryzen is better for everything else than gaming unless software is low threaded
- Ryzen has much better build quality
- Ryzen is much better for future games
- Ryzen runs games more smoothly (less slowdowns)
- Ryzen offer 5-19% slower FPS on timedemos
- Ryzen 1500X is 29% cheaper than 7700K (249 vs 350)
- Ryzen motherboard platform is much better than LGA115x

So while we can argue between Ryzen 7 1800X and 7700K for gaming mainly because 1800X is much more expensive, Ryzen 5 1600X offers about same gaming performance with much lower price and power consumption. Waiting for Ryzen 5 1600X is very highly recommended if gaming only is main purpose. If doing something other, then 1800X is already excellent choice.



#10 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 699 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:45 AM

Posted 25 March 2017 - 04:54 AM

Ryzen has been out for less than a month, and you are touting or at least implying it's long term durability advantages as compared to Intel, which actually has many users running their 2600K at 4.6 Ghz since 2011, 6700K at 4.8-4.9 GHz for 18 months, etc.? Honestly....?

 

(I will grant you this. however; I've seen a handful of modern title gaming benchmarks with Ryzen equipped with higher speed memory, up through 3600 MHz, and, Ryzen has allegedly now surpassed the 7700K in a few games already....; I would have bet money on that not happening for a year or more. If they can continue that sort of progress, I would have to reevaluate their utility in gaming systems. I honestly look forward to that happening!)


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users