Looking to build new pc

[baddagger]

Hey all, i'm looking at doing a new build mostly for gaming, however i still use the PC for some multitasking when doing research for work also run emulators such as GNS3 and also researching will have a lot of you-tube videos and a lot of webpages up that can be all that the same time.

Right now not sure to go Intel or AMD, I want something in the manner that Ill be able to do 4k gaming and also strong for VR gaming as well.

I have been looking at the AMD Ryzen 1600x, i do realize that a 4 core is better for gaming , however with the extra 2 cores will give me a little more room for ability to handle when i have the emulators running and 20-30+ different webpages open at once.

This build is not per say a budget build but at the same time not looking to just wast money such as throwing down an extra 200-300 for a cpu that might only have an extra couple frames of performance boost, where i could that extra money for a better graphic card or something. So I want to more go the root of something that is higher but not be foolish with wasting money

I' in no way looking for people to give me a list of what to do and just buy it, i'm more having the issue with the cpu because a lot of the bench marks I've seen at not constant from test to test. Also where i know AMD did some bio updates for the cpus and getting better results because of the updates and a lot of the benchmarks do not include that because they where done before the updates.

 

[caddi daddi]

let's see, 4K gaming will take a titan-p or 1080TI or vega 64 or 1080s in sli or vega 56 in crossfire.
to feed those you'll need more cpu.

- - - Updated - - -

well, we do need to know the refresh rate of your monitor

 

[baddagger]

I was figuring I would need to go with a Titian ti aswell. But also was thinking for the time being at least get the CPU and mobo figured out and use my 2 old radeon 6950 in crossfire and wait a couple months for prices of gpus to come back down a little or wait to see if nvidia is going to be releasing there next gen cards and just wait for them so I'm not buying a year old tech gpu wise if I'm going to be spending 700+ for a gpu rather spend it on the new and improved, was waiting for vega but for the cost of one and the performance it gives for that don't even match the titan

 

[Byórðæįr]

your cpu used to decide what options the mother boards would have been you notice that 399 and 299 chips have the same toys, for a gaming system that does 4k your looking at needing to keep the graphics card saturated with data. Most gpu in the top two tiers can use the data far faster than the cpu can get it to them.

AMD top tier is the Socket sTR4 chips which have quad memory and 16 threads at 3.8 GHz. There next one down is the AM4 which is a dual channel chip and runs pretty much all their other modern chips so if going AMD you have to decide if you can budget for a 600 dollar cpu, and be locked into the sTR4 or if you get the dual threaded cpu fast enough. for gaming 3.5 is usually fast enough with twelve cores.

Intel top tier is LGA2066, which have quad memory and 36 cores at 3.5 GHz. The next one down is LGA 1151 which is dual channel.


Having a lot of web pages up means more about having a lot of system memory. I had to take two ram strips out temporarily and had to drop from up to four rows down to two rows. I don't do that except when looking for information but if you can get 32 gigabytes of memory you should be fine for most uses.

So most of the old benchmarks were with pre-compiled loops and low level optimization. So that they use four cores and have the cpu hit the same series of stores. The cpu was doing the work log but not the most efficient way possible. When they don't do it that way every thing else you have running can slow down the benchmark. You have enough cores going unused most of the time when you do need them for gaming they are open and the system is not swapping tasks out of memory to make room for the game. You want cheaper what ever your doing is going need those same registers all the time. Under utilized cores are like under utilized psu they run cooler and last longer. run code through every bit of the cpu at the time the whole system crawls to halt and crashes more often when the cpu runs out of hands to hold the data being swapped and crashes when it needs to pick on one more hand ful but does not have a hand to pick it up with.

The reverse has down sides as buying multicore and never having anything use the cores is expensive and wasteful. I would focus on the mother board limits you to a dual memory artecture or quad. Even in the old DDR4 gpu days we found that quad channel memory is faster and significantly so when working in graphics. Which leaves you with the choice of sTR4 or LGA 2066.

Which gives you the option to run the cheaper high end cpus as a starting point, but several people have found that the kaby lake high end cores are faster than the low end sky lake cores. (I am going ignore the fact the kaby lake was a more expensive core than the skylake in question) so you really want to target 3.5 GHz or faster with at least 8 core x16 thread, for 4k. Where that leaves is likely more research.

I am building a 4K workstation next month that can be used as my gaming rig, and right now you can get ips/mva panels that do 4k with 100 hertz or ips/mva 10 bit color at 4k but not both and the displays that can have been pushed back past christmas. I am still trying to decide what to buy in the mean time as my 10 bit display is dying. Ten bit looks better but some of the gsync and free sync monitors at the higher refresh rates are very smooth. But I use a titan x paired with 3970x that pushes enough to the gpu that 99% of the time is good enough but the old addage of every thousand dollars of cutting edge gear you put in gets you another year of second best, is still holding me good enough for most things. Rendering is taking too long, some physics are taking too long but my system is still faster than a lot of workstations I could use at companies in many industries that are nice rigs. proven technology and all that.

But I would for a 4k system start looking at the curved displays in the 32 to 40 inch range and see what is available when you have the money and start figuring out if you need HDR10 or if you simply want a fast screen refresh rate and eight bit color. the HDR10 spec calls for 4k and the ROG Swift PG35VQ which meets all the specs is running into mkg issues. Seeing is believing through. There are dozen 27 to 40 inch screens that come close. So you might want to consider what display you are saving for as 4k on a 1800r screen is going to require fast memory, a decent under laying mother board, and wide fast cpu. hopefully this helps.

 

[deathman20]

let's see, 4K gaming will take a titan-p or 1080TI or vega 64 or 1080s in sli or vega 56 in crossfire.
to feed those you'll need more cpu.
- - - Updated - - -
well, we do need to know the refresh rate of your monitor

4k Monitor Refresh rate I think is limited to 60FPS if not mistaken right now. Even then that can be hard pressed to hit that in some games even with 2 cards! Mind you a 1080ti or Titan-P will give you the best it can to get to those speeds if your looking at maxing out settings ingame. SLI/Crossfire is a crap shoot to get either negative return or maybe higher return then 1 card in games.

Now as for the CPU. Yes in benchmarks CPU can play a big roll in things. Heck between AMD and Intel in actual games there still can be a pretty decent difference (Intel Leading) but with Ryzen that has narrowed up. As for speed wise and performance Intel would be the way to go, weather you go Quad or more really its up to you but for gaming I do not think there is a current advantage of going with anything more then 4 cores/8 threads. Only game that I've seen in some benchmark tests that performed better (31 to 38FPS) from quad to 8 core was TotalWar withwise it was all within 1FPS at most. If your doing things that could use the extra cores then by all means go for it. Though having 20-30 web tabs open at once yes I can see it using some extra CPU power. If your doing Video Recording during gaming, yes more cores can/will help.

VR Gaming so far its like standard gaming for CPU requirements, might change in the future but right now its doable with a quad setup with HT. Recently upgraded from a 2500k to 6700k (quad to quad w/ HT). In some instances yes it was a great boost in performance but others, its ok get a little more horse power thanks to the improvements made. If still wanting to keep it in the standard desktop segment, wait for the 8700k with 6 core w/ HT to come out, few extra cores at the same cost as a 7700k. Ryzen, look at it but check out some gaming benchmarks comparing it to Intel to see the difference. Hoping Ryzen 2 or 3 gets really close to Intel with their performance in games for some serious competition as the CPU market could use a nice shake up.

 

[||Console||]

One thing the Ryzen does do do very well the 1% low FPS . The max fps and avg are lower than intel but some times the low's are better.

 

[EarthDog]

If gaming is your primary use, go intel. You will need a 1080ti or titan xp. Vega 64 wont cut it.

Quads arent 'better' than hex for gaming... in fact, if i was you, id wait for coffee lake and look at 8600k or something like that. If you want to save $100 or so, go Ryzen.

 

[wingman99]

I would wait for the Coffee lake i7 8700k, it has 6 cores and 12 threads also purchase a GTX 1080ti for 4K.

 

[Byórðæįr]

4k Monitor Refresh rate I think is limited to 60FPS if not mistaken right now. Even then that can be hard pressed to hit that in some games even with 2 cards! Mind you a 1080ti or Titan-P will give you the best it can to get to those speeds if your looking at maxing out settings ingame. SLI/Crossfire is a crap shoot to get either negative return or maybe higher return then 1 card in games...

So unless you have to have a display today most of the 4k is limited to 16 million colors (8 bit) or 60 Hz refresh or both of those limitations. There are several freesync (requires vega cards) and it looks like from every thing people are saying is that the HDR10 monitors that support 100 Hz to 240 Hz with g-sync are January at the soonest. The company making the panels got the design down but quality control issues and increased demand for some of the materials going into the high end displays made things interesting. But Acer, Asus, and Aoc all have really nice panels they showed off at gamescom this year and those would require a 1080 or Titan X or Titan X pascal version, to have the raw processing power. I have not used sli really for gaming since the 8800 GTX days and it was not that greatest back then since most games caused some glitch, so if you can afford to get a card fast enough to cover the screen with a single card it has always been agreed that a single card is available it is better the issue was that many times those single cards simply did not exist. This AOC Agon AG353UCG or their forty inch version is likely what I am going to buy once they are avalible but if you are looking at amd videocards the samsung's monitors are really nice too.

 

[Tír na nÓg]

If you're looking for 4K gaming then don't go for AMD processors, because I had a pretty bad experience when playing the latest Resident Evil. It stopped at one point again and again. I later checked the root cause for this, I got to know that this particular glitch was only coming in AMD processors. So, I switched to Intel i7-6700k, and now 4K gaming is no issue for me. I would recommend you going through these gaming PCs that are the best from budget ranging between $600 to $2500. I hope it helps.

^ Sources for the glitch? Which AMD processors? FX, Ryzen?


Those pre-built PC are well overpriced compared to a custom build.

Edit: source found. Issue was happening with Phenom II CPU's adn is fixable. Nothing to worry with Ryzen. 4K gaming and VR gaming works very well with Ryzen, even Ryzen 3, as the bottleneck is the GPU and not the CPU at such a high resolution.

Going Intel for 4K gaming is totally unacurrate and makes zero sense. Rather put more money in a 1080 ti going Ryzen5 than grabbing a 7700/6700k and a 1070...

Bunch of benchmqrks there:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11658/the-amd-ryzen-3-1300x-ryzen-3-1200-cpu-review/12

 

[Tír na nÓg]

If gaming is your primary use, go intel. You will need a 1080ti or titan xp. Vega 64 wont cut it.

Quads arent 'better' than hex for gaming... in fact, if i was you, id wait for coffee lake and look at 8600k or something like that. If you want to save $100 or so, go Ryzen.

E_D, for 4K gaming, there is no difference between high end Intel and Ryzen...3 in most cases. Same goes for VR. Even 99th percentile results are very close (been surprised myself as I went through a sh1tload of benchmarks to get the configurqtion that would play VR and 4K games at the lowest price. Result?

Ryzen3 [email protected], on a b350 chipset MoBo with 2x8GB 2666 DDR4 and a 1080 ti. Ended up with a config in the $/€1300 range (including 1080 ti, PSU, 500GB SSD, cooler, case...) that would give the same output@4K/VR than a 7700k platform for 400 bucks less.

 

[EarthDog]

There is no way in hell id pair a quad core ryzen with a 1080ti. There is no way id buy a quad core intel now either for gaming... unless budget forced me to.

Honestly a 7700k would be best. I thought i read VM, but now see emulators.

Anyway, 4k and results depend on the title really, but youre mostly correct. A lot more is on the gpu surely, but there are improvements with higher clocked and higher ipc cpus with flagship level cards on some titles.

Avg the same minumum more for intel
https://www.techspot.com/review/1478-destiny-2-pc-benchmarks/

Just one i picked out. Link me what youve read so i can check it out.

 

[Tír na nÓg]

There is no way in hell id pair a quad core ryzen with a 1080ti. There is no way id buy a quad core intel now either for gaming... unless budget forced me to.

Honestly a 7700k would be best. I thought i read VM, but now see emulators.

Anyway, 4k and results depend on the title really, but youre mostly correct. A lot more is on the gpu surely, but there are improvements with higher clocked and higher ipc cpus with flagship level cards on some titles.

Avg the same minumum more for intel
https://www.techspot.com/review/1478-destiny-2-pc-benchmarks/

Just one i picked out. Link me what youve read so i can check it out.

Sure, here is Anandtech review (trustworthy! ):
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11658/the-amd-ryzen-3-1300x-ryzen-3-1200-cpu-review

Edit: one more trustworthy website :
http://www.overclockers.com/amd-ryzen-3-1200-and-1300x-cpu-review/

Edit: note that depending on games, sometimes intel i ahead in terms of 99 percentile, sometimes that Ryzen 3.

 

[Tír na nÓg]

If I was a gamer only (actually I am not even a gamer!), I'd rather grab a Ryzen3+1080ti ($200 CPU+Mobo) than a 7700k+1070 ($500 CPU+mobo). I could enjoy 60FPS Ultra@4K and max settings in VR, while being very limited with the 1070.

Could always throw a R7 in the mix afterward.

 

[EarthDog]

Thanks for the links. Id love to see a 7700k in there....considering it is 500mhz faster. Id also like to see it on a 1080ti as well... its 25%+ faster than 1080... and see what changes that may bring. I saw they did the same thing with higher ryzen cpus but still only put it against a i5 7500.

For sure though, a 1080ti is a must for 4k gaming. Im just a fellow that wants every last % out of my card and AMD just cant do it. If budget allows, Intel is a no brainer for me.

As i wished earlier.

A lot more is on the gpu surely, but there are improvements with higher clocked and higher ipc cpus with flagship level cards on some titles.

 

[Tír na nÓg]

I totally agree on Intel (8700k, yummy!) when budget is not a constraint. If it is, Ryzen (even entry level $100 one) does a very good job on very high resolutions, and if a choice on where to spend the money has to be made, Ryzen 3 is no brainer IMO. With the possibility to upgrade to a much more powerfull machine by swapping the CPU only.

Found a couple extra:
https://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_3_1200_and_1300x_review,15.html

Extensive gaming benchmarks with minimum FPS. Except on a couple of games (Civilization, heavily CPU bound and hitman, where the low core count impacts IMO), the difference is marginal(0/2fps@4k for minimum fps).
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_3_1300X/15.html

 

[EarthDog]

I would still never start with 4c/4t unless i absolutely has to.


Anyway, we dont even know this dude's budget.

edit: Just saw what you threw in there, the TPU links.. its a couple % here and there in most titles, several in a rare few. Like I said, I prefer not being held back at all when the budget can do it. 4K, better pay to play is my take. Every single FPS counts there too. ;0

 

[Tír na nÓg]

... Anyway, we dont even know this dude's budget.

You read my mind, lol!

 

[Konfl1kt]

I would advise 2K gaming. Because Monitors with refresh rate higher than 60 are not available шт 4K. Already spoke about it here.
Also I think one 1080ti is not enough for 4K gaming. I have 1080ti with 7700K (5Ghz) and I have only 60-80 FPS on ultra 2K in WildLands. ~100FPS in Desteny2 (Beta). In 4K resolution I will get 30-40 / 50 FPS.
Good luck!

 

[EarthDog]

You mean 2560x1440? 2k is 2048x1080.

At 4k, AA isnt really needed or can be turned down helping FPS.