CPU For GTX 1070 / 1080 ?

[daveybrat]

OP, you really shouldn't buy anything at this point in time. With Ryzen 2 launching in a few weeks i'd recommend waiting it out.

Look at the benchmarks for the new cpu's and X470 motherboards before committing to anything yet.

 

[IRobot23]

While some of us may have preferences for one CPU vendor over another, please keep the discussion on the technology at hand, and refrain from using "fanboy" type comments, and unnecessary flaming/baiting.
Moderator VirtualLarry

I haven't mentioned it in that post. Keep showing old benchmarks is not the best thing to do, also saying that R5 1600X is not capable of 144Hz.... at they and of the day people will talk that AMD ryzen is not for gaming, people will thing that ST is super important and that problem with CCX is hugest problem for ryzen and I heard much more. You are saying that "fanboy" is not word to use it here, but spreading wrong information it is. Same goes for skylake X, when you OC and setup build, it will be almost as fast as i7 8700K.

OP has few Options :
1. Going for the best of the best i7 8700K (delid) + OC (i5 8600K is also great option). Since he stated that is not technical person maybe this option is not best for him.

2. Wait for R5 2600X or get i7 8700.
(R5 2600X advantage over i7 8700, well it will run cooler, less power, but even with fast ram you will see around ~10% lagg behind i7 8700 in games. Intel and MS still didn't fix security flaws and they might do and you might see i7 8700 lagging behinds AMD then).

3.If you like FPS games, I would suggest you to get 144Hz monitor no matter what. This is real game changer.

 

[UsandThem]

but spreading wrong information it is.

2. Wait for R5 2600X or get i7 8700.
(R5 2600X advantage over i7 8700, well it will run cooler, less power, but even with fast ram you will see around ~10% lagg behind i7 8700 in games. Intel and MS still didn't fix security flaws and they might do and you might see i7 8700 lagging behinds AMD then).

Just to play devil's advocate here, but since the 2600X isn't out yet, so how do we know it is 10% slower and cooler with less power?

AT this point, Ryzen gen 2 is a bunch of "what ifs" and "maybes".

 

[IRobot23]

Just to play devil's advocate here, but since the 2600X isn't out yet, so how do we know it is 10% slower and cooler with less power?

AT this point, Ryzen gen 2 is a bunch of "what ifs" and "maybes".

I am just taking R5 1600X as higher clocked. .

OP is using 60Hz, maybe he should switch to 144Hz (that was game changer for me).
1. R5 1600X MT = i7 8700 MT clock per clock .. Ryzen 2 will push clocks a bit higher. (unless you gonna use AVX512)
2. I5 8400 has around same multithread performance as R5 1500X and i7 7700K.

Anyway, game are moving forward to more realistic physics and so on... games will like those threads.

I bought R7 1700 and C6H ( Yes I am fan of AMD, yet I switched to Intel after FX disaster) . If I had to choose again, I would probably wait to see how well does pinnacle ridge and then choose between i7 8700/K and R7 2700X. If I would be in a hurry I would choose i7 8700/K, but since he is using 60Hz maybe I would go for a deal with R5 1600 and 144Hz monitor. If his budget isn't big deal then i7 8700 + 144Hz monitor would do great. With decent 3200MHz DRAM he will enjoy every second.

A year ago everyone was saying that buying i5 7600K and overclocking it to 5GHz is better than ryzen at 3,8GHz... but now those guys are recommending i5 8400 3,8GHz.

 

[epsilon84]

Just to play devil's advocate here, but since the 2600X isn't out yet, so how do we know it is 10% slower and cooler with less power?

AT this point, Ryzen gen 2 is a bunch of "what ifs" and "maybes".

Exactly. At this point, if the OP is willing to play the waiting game, then I don't see any problem with waiting to see what a 2600/2600X will deliver.

But it is still an unknown quantity. If that French magazine was correct, then power consumption actually goes up slightly with Ryzen 2, not by a lot but the 2700X was drawing about 10% more than a 1800X, for example. Anyhow, that is only one source, and I will wait for full reviews before drawing any conclusions on performance and power draw.

 

[epsilon84]

A year ago everyone was saying that buying i5 7600K and overclocking it to 5GHz is better than ryzen at 3,8GHz... but now those guys are recommending i5 8400 3,8GHz.

Thats called progress. I don't know who you mean by 'everyone' but I sure wasn't recommending a 7600K over a Ryzen. There is a reason people recommend an i5 8400 for gaming, because at that price point, it provides the best gaming performance for the price. With the imminent release of the H and B series motherboards, plus significant savings on DDR4 2666 compared to the pricier DDR4 3200 LL sticks, I don't see what the problem is? It provides about ~90% the gaming performance of a 8700/8700K at a much lower price, so it's a good value for most gamers, except those running a 1080 Ti in which case I would definitely recommend a 8700K.

If your argument is that the 8400 is not a 'futureproof' chip, then yes, I agree, it likely won't age as a 6C/12T CPU for heavily threaded titles in the future. But we are likely talking a matter of years, not months, until we reach that point.

 

[rainydayfund]

Thanks everyone for providing with their thoughts/insights , it has really been helpful.

I created 2 thread , since on the first one i did not mention about my display clearly nor did i considered about getting 1070 instead of 1060 at an early stage.

So what I concluded from both the thread is, since i would be gaming on 32" TV IPS 1920x1080@60Hz , my best option would be :

Either 8600K + 1060/1070.
Or , Ryzen 2600X + 1060/1070.

I would be calling the shot once i get sure of ryzen's 2600X performance. If i'm not satisfied with it, i would go with 8600K.

The only thing i'm concerned about now is ,would 1070 cause me with display issues on 32" TV IPS 1920x1080@60Hz ? If it would then i will go with 1060. (The answer to this part from both the threads has been bit confusing so far - Apologies , just trying to understand )

 

[epsilon84]

Thanks everyone for providing with their thoughts/insights , it has really been helpful.

I created 2 thread , since on the first one i did not mention about my display clearly nor did i considered about getting 1070 instead of 1060 at an early stage.

So what I concluded from both the thread is, since i would be gaming on 32" TV IPS 1920x1080@60Hz , my best option would be :

Either 8600K + 1060/1070.
Or , Ryzen 2600X + 1060/1070.

I would be calling the shot once i get sure of ryzen's 2600X performance. If i'm not satisfied with it, i would go with 8600K.

The only thing i'm concerned about now is ,would 1070 cause me with display issues on 32" TV IPS 1920x1080@60Hz ? If it would then i will go with 1060. (The answer to this part from both the threads has been bit confusing so far - Apologies , just trying to understand )

I would advise the i7 8700 over either the 8600K or 2600X if you can afford the extra $50, but yes waiting for official reviews is a good idea if you can wait a month. Just keep in mind that with a GTX 1060, you won't see any difference between the CPUs as you will be mostly GPU limited. With a 1070, you may notice small differences, but its really from a GTX 1080 and up (especially the 1080 Ti) that you will truly see any appreciable differences between CPUs.

 

[dlerious]

Hardware Unboxed is a nice benchmark site. You can check the games you're interested in to see what you'll get from different GPUs. Here's Farcry 5 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbDrICp5gsM .

Are you using an actual TV? The input lag may not be the best for FPS games.

 

[ondma]

Just to play devil's advocate here, but since the 2600X isn't out yet, so how do we know it is 10% slower and cooler with less power?

AT this point, Ryzen gen 2 is a bunch of "what ifs" and "maybes".

The answer is clear. 8400 for budget gaming, otherwise, 8700 or 8700k. Yes, ryzen 2 will have slightly faster clockspeeds, but even the 8400 is faster than ryzen overclocked to 4ghz. *Maybe* the reduced latency (on Ryzen 2) will work some kind of magic, but preliminary leaked benchmarks dont seem to indicate it.

 

[epsilon84]

The answer is clear. 8400 for budget gaming, otherwise, 8700 or 8700k. Yes, ryzen 2 will have slightly faster clockspeeds, but even the 8400 is faster than ryzen overclocked to 4ghz. *Maybe* the reduced latency (on Ryzen 2) will work some kind of magic, but preliminary leaked benchmarks dont seem to indicate it.

Pretty much this, though I can see the argument for choosing 2600 over a 8400 if you overclock, especially if the 2600 can overclock close to 4.5GHz, or even 4.3GHz. It would be very close to the ST performance of the 8400 while being significantly higher in MT, so future games will likely run better on the 2600.

For non overclockers the 8400 paired with DDR4 2666 and a budget B/H series motherboard still makes the most sense from a price/performance perspective.