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

[IRobot23]

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.

You won't convince him. You have to know that OP is still on 60Hz and he already has i7 4790K, which is decent CPU. So best CPU for OP? On 60Hz?...

IF OP decide to go with 144Hz then i5 8600K or i7 8700 may be very good decision. He will also need good GPU.
I think biggest transition would be from 60Hz to 144Hz, if he stays at 60Hz then every CPU upgrade is nonsense. With GPU upgrade and decent monitor he could simply enjoy new games even on older CPU.

 

[Zucker2k]

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

Based on price! Also says Ryzen 7 1700 is the "better option" over the 8700. I wonder how that one escaped you. Looks like you're recommending the wrong chip. I'm done here. The OP was clear as daylight, yet here you are, muddying the water.

Spoiler

https://www.anandtech.com/show/9793/best-cpus

@OP, check this out!

Spoiler

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html

 

[tamz_msc]

Based on price! Also says Ryzen 7 1700 is the "better option" over the 8700. I wonder how that one escaped you. Looks like you're recommending the wrong chip. I'm done here. The OP was clear as daylight, yet here you are, muddying the water.

Spoiler

https://www.anandtech.com/show/9793/best-cpus

You only think I'm muddying the water when I never even mentioned Ryzen at all. To clarify, I believe that Anandtech did the right thing to recommend both the R7 1700 and the i7 8700, but I don't believe their reasoning behind choosing the 1700 over the 8700.

My argument in favor of the 8700 is simply because of the marginal utility in paying more for overclocking, and I gave the data to back my claims.

You muddied the waters my bringing in AMD.

My stand is "overclocking is overrated, hence get the 8700".

 

[DaveSimmons]

To me, overclocking is fine for two cases:
- You can't afford or don't want to pay for a faster stock CPU
- You need or want more speed than any stock CPU offers

On a tight budget and don't mind overclocking, or have non-gaming needs for 8 cores? Ryzen

Can afford the faster speed and are fine with stock speed? 8700 non-K with 65 watt TDP goodness

Demand that last 5%? 8700K

I prefer simplicity and stability so the 8700 non-K is best for me. No occasional weirdness from a 99.9% stable overclock, no extra heat so easier to run quietly.

That's also why I often buy the top nvidia GPU at the time (I currently have a 980 TI, still fine for 1080p 60hz) and leave it at stock speed. No overclocking, no Crossfire or SLI. No 2-card driver issues.

 

[epsilon84]

@tamz_msc, why is it impossible to see that down the line, a 16% clockspeed advantage could become useful as GPUs get more powerful?

I only brought up my 2600K because it was, many years ago, like the 8700K of today.

Think of it like this, in 2011 the most powerful GPU was the Radeon 7970. Today it is the 1080 Ti. The 2600K has no trouble handling a 7970 even at stock speeds. However, it would be a big bottleneck for a 1080 Ti because the 1080 Ti is about 3x as fast as a 7970. Even adjusting for the lower overclocking headroom in a 8700K vs 2600K, I ask you this, what would run a 1080 Ti better, my 2600K @ stock (3.5GHz all core turbo) or at 4.0GHz, a 14% overclock?

The same logic will apply as GPUs advance in the years to come. In todays GPUs, you are right, except in outlier situations, there is minimal difference between a stock 8700 and 8700K @ 5GHz. Will that be the case in a few years time when GPUs are probably twice as fast as today? I doubt it.

 

[tamz_msc]

@tamz_msc, why is it impossible to see that down the line, a 16% clockspeed advantage could become useful as GPUs get more powerful?

I only brought up my 2600K because it was, many years ago, like the 8700K of today.

Think of it like this, in 2011 the most powerful GPU was the Radeon 7970. Today it is the 1080 Ti. The 2600K has no trouble handling a 7970 even at stock speeds. However, it would be a big bottleneck for a 1080 Ti because the 1080 Ti is about 3x as fast as a 7970. Even adjusting for the lower overclocking headroom in a 8700K vs 2600K, I ask you this, what would run a 1080 Ti better, my 2600K @ stock (3.5GHz all core turbo) or at 4.0GHz, a 14% overclock?

The same logic will apply as GPUs advance in the years to come. In todays GPUs, you are right, except in outlier situations, there is minimal difference between a stock 8700 and 8700K @ 5GHz. Will that be the case in a few years time when GPUs are probably twice as fast as today? I doubt it.

A 16 percent clock speed advantage will not translate into a drastically different experience in an era of stagnation in IPC, games becoming more multithreaded, and the adoption of higher resolution displays is picking up the pace.

1440p is almost 80 percent more pixels than FHD, and a GPU would have to be 80 percent faster than a 1080Ti to start being limited by the CPU at 1440p. That means something two generations into the future. You'll be incredibly lucky to see that 16 percent in games, that's not considering whether you've upgraded your monitor by then.

 

[moonbogg]

Buying a fast CPU today with hopes of leveraging the faster GPU's of tomorrow is something that technically works, but it doesn't matter. Why? Because by the time Volta Ti drops, fewer people will be concerned with getting 150fps in BF1, Assasin's Creed Origins or pretty much any other game out now. We will have moved on to newer games that require more GPU power, of course. Battlefield 2018 will be coming out, which will be my own focus. Volta will be the card for that game, but the game and the faster card will balance each other out.

These days, GPU performance increases and keeps pace with game GPU requirements. CPU requirements increase at a MUCH slower pace; a snail's pace really. Actually, more like a half dead snail's pace. Like a snail that some evil teenager poured salt all over. Like that.

When BF 2018 and Volta Ti come out, I promise I won't be like all, "OMG if only my CPU was faster I could be getting 200fps in BF1 right now with this Volta beast. LIFE SUCKS". I'll be playing BF 2018 at 100fps with a Volta Ti and won't care.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Come on guys. Those "best" cpu recommendations are based on price as well. How else would a pentium be rated as a "best" cpu. It depends on how one defines best, and what the OP wants, which really has seemed to have gotten lost. If by "best", one wants the absolute fastest cpu (which would be my definition of "best"), regardless of price, then the obvious answer is the 8700k. If one wants "best value", which is what Toms and Anand are talking about, the a case can be made for the 8700. I have to admit though, the "clockspeed doesnt matter" argument is a new one. Also ironic that for months we have been told to buy "x" cpu because it is "more future proof", but now we are being told that cpu doesnt really matter that much, and that 15% more clockspeed wont matter at some future date.

 

[Markfw]

Come on guys. Those "best" cpu recommendations are based on price as well. How else would a pentium be rated as a "best" cpu. It depends on how one defines best, and what the OP wants, which really has seemed to have gotten lost. If by "best", one wants the absolute fastest cpu (which would be my definition of "best"), regardless of price, then the obvious answer is the 8700k. If one wants "best value", which is what Toms and Anand are talking about, the a case can be made for the 8700. I have to admit though, the "clockspeed doesnt matter" argument is a new one. Also ironic that for months we have been told to buy "x" cpu because it is "more future proof", but now we are being told that cpu doesnt really matter that much, and that 15% more clockspeed wont matter at some future date.

Would it actually kill you to acknowledge that the 1700 could in some cases be the "best" for someone ? Right now you can get that CPU, and a good motherboard for less than the MSRP of the 8700K ($359) Yes, its not as fast, but it also does other things, and its pretty darn good at gaming, YOU CAN ACTUALLY BUY IT, and its less expensive.

 

[tamz_msc]

Come on guys. Those "best" cpu recommendations are based on price as well. How else would a pentium be rated as a "best" cpu. It depends on how one defines best, and what the OP wants, which really has seemed to have gotten lost. If by "best", one wants the absolute fastest cpu (which would be my definition of "best"), regardless of price, then the obvious answer is the 8700k. If one wants "best value", which is what Toms and Anand are talking about, the a case can be made for the 8700. I have to admit though, the "clockspeed doesnt matter" argument is a new one. Also ironic that for months we have been told to buy "x" cpu because it is "more future proof", but now we are being told that cpu doesnt really matter that much, and that 15% more clockspeed wont matter at some future date.

I didn't know that NVIDIA is going to release something in the next five years that makes 4K the next 720p. If they do then I wish them all the luck and damn you Intel - better get that graphene working to get me that 10 GHz or my GPU will be sad.

 

[ozzy702]

Would it actually kill you to acknowledge that the 1700 could in some cases be the "best" for someone ? Right now you can get that CPU, and a good motherboard for less than the MSRP of the 8700K ($359) Yes, its not as fast, but it also does other things, and its pretty darn good at gaming, YOU CAN ACTUALLY BUY IT, and its less expensive.

OP was pretty specific. $300-$400 Best Gaming CPU. The obvious answer to anyone attempting to be unbiased is the 8700k hands down.

If OP had said "I have X amount of money to spend on my system, please help me extract the most value/dollar spent" then Ryzen CPUs would of course be an option and a very good one at that. I'm pretty close to pulling the trigger on a Ryzen system to use as my media center. The value is superb and now the only question is, which CPU which is mainly a factor of if I'm going to XMR mine on it or not.

 

[Markfw]

OP was pretty specific. $300-$400 Best Gaming CPU. The obvious answer to anyone attempting to be unbiased is the 8700k hands down.

If OP had said "I have X amount of money to spend on my system, please help me extract the most value/dollar spent" then Ryzen CPUs would of course be an option and a very good one at that. I'm pretty close to pulling the trigger on a Ryzen system to use as my media center. The value is superb and now the only question is, which CPU which is mainly a factor of if I'm going to XMR mine on it or not.

Yes, I don't argue for gaming the 8700K is the best, but its almost unbuyable, newegg just had it for a few hours, but its OOS again.

 

[TigerMonsoonDragon]

Even though I'm an and fanboy in your case go coffelake.

 

[ozzy702]

Yes, I don't argue for gaming the 8700K is the best, but its almost unbuyable, newegg just had it for a few hours, but its OOS again.

Yep. Agreed. Availability sucks. I'm glad I picked mine up at $360 day one but have been trying to snatch one for one of my buddies with no luck at a reasonable price. We're probably still a few weeks out.

 

[LTC8K6]

8700K is still in stock at the egg.

 

[Reinvented]

8700K is still in stock at the egg.

Even if I had the money, I wouldn't buy it at that price. I'd wait till stock was plentiful before making any sort of purchase on a new build.

 

[Markfw]

8700K is still in stock at the egg.

well, it wasn't when I posted......But yes, I see its back

 

[CraptacularOne]

Why do these treads always devolve into fanboy wars? The reality of the matter is that if he were to get either a Ryzen or Intel CPU he wouldn't notice a difference at all. Both are great at gaming and both can multi task just as well. There is not a single thing out or coming even in the near future that will stress either of them so who cares?

He has the info, let him decide if he's even still reading this train wreck of a pissing contest in this thread.

 

[TahoeDust]

Yes, I don't argue for gaming the 8700K is the best, but its almost unbuyable, newegg just had it for a few hours, but its OOS again.

Come on man. I don't know anyone that wants one that has not been able to get one. I could buy one right this minute...and I could have bought one literally every day this week with minimal effort. Is it as readily available as other options, definitely not. But to say it is "almost unbuyable" is a misrepresentation of the situation.

I concede that it is still selling for over MSRP, and that does suck.

 

[Rifter]

Would it actually kill you to acknowledge that the 1700 could in some cases be the "best" for someone ? Right now you can get that CPU, and a good motherboard for less than the MSRP of the 8700K ($359) Yes, its not as fast, but it also does other things, and its pretty darn good at gaming, YOU CAN ACTUALLY BUY IT, and its less expensive.

The 1700 is a great CPU this i dont think is in doubt by anyone. But it is not the best for gaming in the $300-400 range. Its good, only 1-5% behind intel depending on resolution, but its not the absolute best.This would be the 8700(k). And there is nothing wrong with that, this is why i like that we have options.

But for a general purpose or professional use CPU the 1700 cant be beat, thats why i bought one.

 

[moonbogg]

8700K can't be bought unless going on Ebay and paying all those stingy twerps who sucked them all up just to flip them (so mad I missed the boat on that one).
And there are games where Ryzen can't deliver the higher FPS numbers. Its always playable with good performance no matter what though. Its not like the old days where a 66mhz CPU couldn't run Duke Nukem without lagging hard when the barrels exploded and you needed a 133mhz to get you there. Its not like those days anymore. Some games the Ryzen will let you sink well below 100 where Intel chips will keep you up higher near or past 100. Its not like barrel explosion lag or anything though.
I think people these days forgot what CPU lag looks like or they are too young to have any idea what CPU lag actually is. The entire screen slows down and jumps all over the place, OK? 10FPS or worse, got it? What it doesn't look like: "This Ryzen only gets 80fps in this game. What a POS CPU?"

 

[TahoeDust]

8700K can't be bought unless going on Ebay and paying all those stingy twerps who sucked them all up just to flip them (so mad I missed the boat on that one).

They were in stock for hours on newegg today and yesterday. About 9hrs out of the last 24. They'll probably be back in stock this afternoon.

 

[LTC8K6]

Even if I had the money, I wouldn't buy it at that price. I'd wait till stock was plentiful before making any sort of purchase on a new build.

I'm not telling you to buy one!

I'm delighted that I apparently snagged the only i5-8400 Amazon.com ever had for $187.00

Happy I have a Coffee Lake chip to play with.

 

[Kenmitch]

I'm with the 60Hz monitor makes it a senseless upgrade side of this pissing match. Guess at least look for benchmarks that show min fps with your cpus in question.

 

[Sulaco]

Thanks for everyone's input! I really appreciate it!

In the end, for my needs and what I'll be doing, I went ahead and got the 8700K, in stock at my local Microcenter.

Thanks again for all the advice, guys. It's much appreciated.