CPU for pure gaming build...in the $300-$400 range?

[epsilon84]

Yeah, but i5 8600K is 280$ while i7 8700K is 400$ and R5 1600 is 200$.

Why not getting GTX 1080Ti + 1440P 144Hz monitor instead?

As the saying goes, you get what you pay for. The Intel chips are more expensive because they are faster. The 8600K/8700K is in a different tier of performance to Ryzen when it comes to gaming, especially when paired with a 1080 Ti.

I think any Ryzen CPU with a 1080 Ti is a mismatch unless you game at 4K. Even at 1440P there is a difference (though much smaller compared to 1080P) and anyone who is building a 1080 Ti gaming rig is obviously not on a tight budget - so why would you pair it with the slowest tier CPU? And yes, thats what Ryzen is, the budget CPU choice for gamers. A 1600 is a good match for a GTX 1060 or 1070 class card, its probably even good enough for a GTX 1080 if overclocked to 4GHz but pairing it with a 1080 Ti is not a good combination IMO

I honestly believe Ryzen is a bit overhyped as a gaming CPU on these forums - as frozentundra said you will always get a Ryzen recommendation regardless of the situation - as seen perfectly by this thread. As the OP is looking to spend $300 to $400 on a CPU strictly for gaming, this is obviously 8700/8700K territory, Ryzen just isn't fast enough in terms of IPC and clockspeed to challenge the top tier CFL (or even Kaby Lake) chips at gaming.

 

[ozzy702]

As the saying goes, you get what you pay for. The Intel chips are more expensive because they are faster. The 8600K/8700K is in a different tier of performance to Ryzen when it comes to gaming, especially when paired with a 1080 Ti.

I think any Ryzen CPU with a 1080 Ti is a mismatch unless you game at 4K. Even at 1440P there is a difference (though much smaller compared to 1080P) and anyone who is building a 1080 Ti gaming rig is obviously not on a tight budget - so why would you pair it with the slowest tier CPU? And yes, thats what Ryzen is, the budget CPU choice for gamers. A 1600 is a good match for a GTX 1060 or 1070 class card, its probably even good enough for a GTX 1080 if overclocked to 4GHz but pairing it with a 1080 Ti is not a good combination IMO

I honestly believe Ryzen is a bit overhyped as a gaming CPU on these forums - as frozentundra said you will always get a Ryzen recommendation regardless of the situation - as seen perfectly by this thread. As the OP is looking to spend $300 to $400 on a CPU strictly for gaming, this is obviously 8700/8700K territory, Ryzen just isn't fast enough in terms of IPC and clockspeed to challenge the top tier CFL (or even Kaby Lake) chips at gaming.

All this. In under a year we'll have the 1080ti successor and the differences between a max OC 8700k and max OC 1700/1700x/1800x will be even more pronounced as the GPU bottleneck is removed. Most people upgrade their GPU 2-3x faster than their CPU, if money isn't your priority and performance is, there is no reason to go anything but 8700k.

If money is tight and you can't swing some extra cash at your machine for top tier performance then by all means go Ryzen, that's precisely what I'm building for a friend on a budget right now and the 1600 is a phenomenal value.

 

[IRobot23]

It doesn't make sense, you are pushing i7 8700K for 60Hz monitor.

OP:
Buy 144Hz monitor. I would stick with i7 4790K since it is good CPU and DDR4 is pretty much overpriced.

 

[ozzy702]

It doesn't make sense, you are pushing i7 8700K for 60Hz monitor.

OP:
Buy 144Hz monitor. I would stick with i7 4790K since it is good CPU and DDR4 is pretty much overpriced.

Who says he'll have a 60hz monitor forever? His question was "what $300-$400 CPU to buy for strictly gaming". If OP wants to know how to build a complete system as intelligently as possible at a certain price point he can certainly start a thread for just that.

 

[IRobot23]

Like i said:
- He has already good CPU for gaming even 144Hz.
- DDR4 price is in the sky
- Get 144Hz monitor. If he will fell that his CPU is to slow for him then he can simply upgrade.
- There is absolutely no point of upgrading his CPU on 60Hz monitor.

We have competition now. Next year pinnacle with higher frequencies and then 7nm (Intel or AMD). I would suggest him to upgrade to 144Hz monitor, decent one, for black Friday and new GPU + SSD. Unless he goes full in and buy 144Hz 500-600$(1440p@27inch) + i7 8700K 400$ + decent GPU (1080TI) 700$.

And about future-proof, Intel or AMD can simply push 15-20% IPC improvement and maybe even higher clocks.

 

[ozzy702]

Like i said:
- He has already good CPU for gaming even 144Hz.
- DDR4 price is in the sky
- Get 144Hz monitor. If he will fell that his CPU is to slow for him then he can simply upgrade.
- There is absolutely no point of upgrading his CPU on 60Hz monitor.

We have competition now. Next year pinnacle with higher frequencies and then 7nm (Intel or AMD). I would suggest him to upgrade to 144Hz monitor, decent one, for black Friday and new GPU + SSD. Unless he goes full in and buy 144Hz 500-600$(1440p@27inch) + i7 8700K 400$ + decent GPU (1080TI) 700$.

And about future-proof, Intel or AMD can simply push 15-20% IPC improvement and maybe even higher clocks.

In general I don't disagree (well, except the IPC improvement which even on AMD's side best case scenario will be 10% with another 10-15% clock bump)(also DDR4 is expected to stay high throughout 2018), but at the same time, that wasn't his question and your recommendation for Ryzen is absurd given the frame question.

 

[IRobot23]

In general I don't disagree (well, except the IPC improvement which even on AMD's side best case scenario will be 10% with another 10-15% clock bump)(also DDR4 is expected to stay high throughout 2018), but at the same time, that wasn't his question and your recommendation for Ryzen is absurd given the frame question.

All I said he can go with Z370 or AM4 and with AM4 best for gaming is R5 1600/X. Better to keep few $ for 7nm, but I said that he has good CPU even for 144Hz and its better to buy new GPU for 1440p 144Hz gaming.

 

[DooKey]

In that price range and since you want it for gaming it's an easy choice to recommend the 8700K.

 

[TahoeDust]

Only the reddest of the red army would recommend Ryzen for a "Pure Gaming" $300-$400 CPU. It would be akin to someone recommending intel for a "Budget Content Creation" machine.

 

[IRobot23]

Only the reddest of the red army would recommend Ryzen for a "Pure Gaming" $300-$400 CPU. It would be akin to someone recommending intel for a "Budget Content Creation" machine.

Okay.
Buy i7 8700K .

 

[tamz_msc]

Still there is no point in getting the 8700K over the 8700 if gaming is to be the main objective, overall the difference just isn't there even if you overclock the 8700K to 5GHz.

All this. In under a year we'll have the 1080ti successor and the differences between a max OC 8700k and max OC 1700/1700x/1800x will be even more pronounced as the GPU bottleneck is removed.

Not this again.

 

[VirtualLarry]

If money is tight and you can't swing some extra cash at your machine for top tier performance then by all means go Ryzen, that's precisely what I'm building for a friend on a budget right now and the 1600 is a phenomenal value.

That's pretty-much the truth.

 

[Zucker2k]

Still there is no point in getting the 8700K over the 8700 if gaming is to be the main objective, overall the difference just isn't there even if you overclock the 8700K to 5GHz.



Not this again.

A 5GHz 8700K will last well into the "gaming" future though.When Volta drops, we'll have to revisit this question. I see the same mistake being repeated with the 1600x recommendation for pure gaming. You essentially have a chip that's stuck at 4GHz and barely maxing a 1080Ti now. Where's the overhead for 3 - 4 years down the line like those on 2500K and 2600K who're upgrading to coffeelake now?

 

[Zucker2k]

That's pretty-much the truth.

It's actually irrelevant, in the context of the thread. Best gaming cpu at $300 - $400, may the real gaming chip please stand up! Ryzen? Please!

 

[epsilon84]

If you are looking to extract maximum fps on a high end gaming rig, it makes total sense to go a 8700K over a 8700.

Lets say you budget $1500 - $2000 on a top end gaming build. The $50 - $100 price difference is not that great in terms of the overall system cost.

5GHz vs 4.3GHz is an additional 16% of overhead, it might not be useful in the majority of todays games (BF1 and PUBG being exceptions) but will be useful as games get more demanding

 

[DaveSimmons]

If you are looking to extract maximum fps on a high end gaming rig, it makes total sense to go a 8700K over a 8700.

Lets say you budget $1500 - $2000 on a top end gaming build. The $50 - $100 price difference is not that great in terms of the overall system cost.

5GHz vs 4.3GHz is an additional 16% of overhead, it might not be useful in the majority of todays games (BF1 and PUBG being exceptions) but will be useful as games get more demanding

True if you plan to delid and overclock. Since I don't, the K is a waste of money over a plain 8700 for me.

 

[ozzy702]

True if you plan to delid and overclock. Since I don't, the K is a waste of money over a plain 8700 for me.

You can easily hit 4.7-4.9ghz with an 8700k without delid and on a mid to high end air cooler. Gaming my temps never go above 60F and I'm only in the 70's under heavy benchmarking (AVX). Yes, 5ghz and above takes a lot of juice and pushes the chip hard, but the 8700k is still worth the extra money to have the overhead of all core 4.7-4.9ghz for those that are comfortable overclocking. If you're not then yes, the 8700 is a great CPU.

24/7 mine is running at 4ghz with a -100 offset and seems to be extremely power efficient. When I want to game I pop the OC profile on and run her hard!

 

[ozzy702]

Still there is no point in getting the 8700K over the 8700 if gaming is to be the main objective, overall the difference just isn't there even if you overclock the 8700K to 5GHz.

Not this again.

Feel free to follow up in a year. We'll see which one of us is correct.

 

[tamz_msc]

You essentially have a chip that's stuck at 4GHz and barely maxing a 1080Ti now.

Again looking at 720p benchmarks I see.

5GHz vs 4.3GHz is an additional 16% of overhead, it might not be useful in the majority of todays games (BF1 and PUBG being exceptions) but will be useful as games get more demanding

On average the overclock nets you 5% more "headroom" at 720p, like I said before when I posted the TPU graphs on the previous page. When games get more demanding, they'll be more demanding on the GPU, not the CPU, like the trend has been in this console generation.

Do you actually believe that overclocking the CPU results in a significant performance uplift in average FPS across different games in this day and age? Tests have shown over and over again that the gains are marginal on the 6700K/7700K, stock vs OC, and now with the 8700K as well.

 

[epsilon84]

Again looking at 720p benchmarks I see.

On average the overclock nets you 5% more "headroom" at 720p, like I said before when I posted the TPU graphs on the previous page. When games get more demanding, they'll be more demanding on the GPU, not the CPU, like the trend has been in this console generation.

Do you actually believe that overclocking the CPU results in a significant performance uplift in average FPS across different games in this day and age? Tests have shown over and over again that the gains are marginal on the 6700K/7700K, stock vs OC, and now with the 8700K as well.

Again looking at 720p benchmarks I see.

On average the overclock nets you 5% more "headroom" at 720p, like I said before when I posted the TPU graphs on the previous page. When games get more demanding, they'll be more demanding on the GPU, not the CPU, like the trend has been in this console generation.

Do you actually believe that overclocking the CPU results in a significant performance uplift in average FPS across different games in this day and age? Tests have shown over and over again that the gains are marginal on the 6700K/7700K, stock vs OC, and now with the 8700K as well.

In CPU bound games, yes the extra clockspeed makes a difference. Its hard to benchmark MP games like BF1 and PUBG because every round is different and you will never get truly accurate scores but all things being equal 5GHz will definitely provide higher min fps compared to 4.3GHz.

Games will become more intensive on both the CPU and GPU front - if future games only needed additional GPU power then we could theoretically run a 8700K forever... Obviously that is not the case. There will come a day when the 8700K will be considered mainstream tier performance wise, the same way my 2600K, whilst being bleeding edge in 2011, is now running games about as well as a KBL i5. Oveclocking my 2600K helps keep it relevant in todays games. In a few years time the 8700K will be in a similar situation, and that is when the additional clockspeed will be most useful.

 

[tamz_msc]

In CPU bound games, yes the extra clockspeed makes a difference. Its hard to benchmark MP games like BF1 and PUBG because every round is different and you will never get truly accurate scores but all things being equal 5GHz will definitely provide higher min fps compared to 4.3GHz.

Games will become more intensive on both the CPU and GPU front - if future games only needed additional GPU power then we could theoretically run a 8700K forever... Obviously that is not the case. There will come a day when the 8700K will be considered mainstream tier performance wise, the same way my 2600K, whilst being bleeding edge in 2011, is now running games about as well as a KBL i5. Oveclocking my 2600K helps keep it relevant in todays games. In a few years time the 8700K will be in a similar situation, and that is when the additional clockspeed will be most useful.

Battlefield 1 and other Frostbite games don't care about clock speeds after a certain point, PUBG is an early access game that doesn't even merit consideration.

You are assuming the kind of games that the OP might play and not looking at the overall picture. Has he said that all he plays is Arma 3? Sure then I'll happily recommend him the 8700K and tell him to overclock. No, he specifically said that he plays pretty much anything and everything - so it makes absolute sense to tell him about the average picture, which is that a non-K 8700 will not be more than 5% slower than the 5.0GHz 8700K, at 720p.

Which is basically a non-issue, no matter how you try to spin it by egging him on to the unlocked chip, when he's clearly said that he's going to game at 1440p for the next two years.

 

[TheELF]

so it makes absolute sense to tell him about the average picture, which is that a non-K 8700 will not be more than 5% slower than the 5.0GHz 8700K, at 720p.

Today it's 5% avg,and 720p might still be bottlenecked by the gpu unless you have benches where they analyse it and show gpu usage.
So tomorrow that 5% might turn into 10 or even the full 16% mentioned earlier.
And also as mentioned earlier, higher minimums in every game might be enough of a selling point for anybody to choose the faster CPU.

Yes he will be more then ok with the non-k model,but the k model will be better if he want's to spend the extra money.

 

[tamz_msc]

Today it's 5% avg,and 720p might still be bottlenecked by the gpu unless you have benches where they analyse it and show gpu usage.
So tomorrow that 5% might turn into 10 or even the full 16% mentioned earlier.
And also as mentioned earlier, higher minimums in every game might be enough of a selling point for anybody to choose the faster CPU.

Yes he will be more then ok with the non-k model,but the k model will be better if he want's to spend the extra money.

Like you yourself said, even 720p might be a GPU bottleneck, so at realistic resolutions of 1080p and above, it will be even more of a GPU bottleneck. I doubt that even if he stays on 1440p for the next five years, he'd still not be bottlenecked by whatever CPU he has to such an extent that his future GPU would underperform significantly. Also drawing from the Sandy Bridge experience isn't very useful because the days of 30-40% overclocks are over, given how turbo works these days.

 

[Zucker2k]

Like you yourself said, even 720p might be a GPU bottleneck, so at realistic resolutions of 1080p and above, it will be even more of a GPU bottleneck. I doubt that even if he stays on 1440p for the next five years, he'd still not be bottlenecked by whatever CPU he has to such an extent that his future GPU would underperform significantly. Also drawing from the Sandy Bridge experience isn't very useful because the days of 30-40% overclocks are over, given how turbo works these days.

What's the best gaming chip today?

 

[tamz_msc]

What's the best gaming chip today?

Best != fastest. So Anandtech is right in saying that that crown belongs to the i7 8700(non-K).