I did an e8400 build that lasted about 4-5 years. I replaced it with a Haswell build that lasted 5 years; however I incrementally upgraded over the time.
Converted to all SSD, added AIO for noise, added more RAM, upgraded video card.
The motherboard I bought used and it did some great work for me.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Windows installing going p well
+3
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited August 2019
I only had Windows, Office, and a few programs on it. Some junk folders I can just pull over.
Oh my god this thing is fucking fast
So I've got
Ryzen 5 3600
16gb 3200 C16 DDR4
500GB NVME Samsung 970 EVO
1TB SSD Samsung 860 EVO
1 TB WD Blue
RTX 2060
Time to fire up some games I was having issues with
Edit: Daaaaaaamn. All chugginess in Apex is gone. All chugginess in Anthem is gone (too bad it's still bad). Everyone saying my i5 6500 wasn't the problem was cray
The Sapphire 5700s seem to be a small improvement on temps and audio but otherwise a wash on performance, a much better proposition in the US as well as the UK has a pretty hefty markup on the reference models.
I'm leaning towards the Sapphire RX 5700 XT Pulse, yeah. Will have to see what comes out in the near future -- there's rumors of a 5800 and 5900 coming in the near future.
My computer came back from the repair shop working. I was gaming for one glorious hour. Then as I started to install more games, the M.2 SSD vanished, so my PC doesn't boot
The Sapphire 5700s seem to be a small improvement on temps and audio but otherwise a wash on performance, a much better proposition in the US as well as the UK has a pretty hefty markup on the reference models.
I'm leaning towards the Sapphire RX 5700 XT Pulse, yeah. Will have to see what comes out in the near future -- there's rumors of a 5800 and 5900 coming in the near future.
Man that 2080ti is tempting.
Reading dozens of posts about how long the 1080ti's lasted for people makes me wonder if the 2080ti is gonna prove to be similar.
Man that 2080ti is tempting.
Reading dozens of posts about how long the 1080ti's lasted for people makes me wonder if the 2080ti is gonna prove to be similar.
Depends on how long it takes RT to become mandatory, because that thing's RT functionality, while the only really meaningful implementation right now, will likely be beaten firmly by cards a fraction of the price by the early 2020s.
Anyone have experience with overclocking monitors or using the different refresh rates? I have the Alienware AW3418DW that has some settings to overclock to 120hz, my question is that by default the computer will cap you at 60hz, I can change that to 100hz or even 120hz. If I leave it on 120hz, is that making performance worse, or will the rate always drop to whatever the gpu and cpu are capable of delivering up to that refresh rate? Does it make more sense or create a more fluid experience to put it to 100hz? I'm running a rtx 2080 not OC'd if that helps.
Is there any reason to choose a i7-9700K over a i5-9600K? There is a $100 difference in price. This would primarily be for gaming. No video encoding or the like.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Is there any reason to choose a i7-9700K over a i5-9600K? There is a $100 difference in price. This would primarily be for gaming. No video encoding or the like.
I dont think anyone in any position would ever recommend an i5 right now for anything.
Is there any reason to choose a i7-9700K over a i5-9600K? There is a $100 difference in price. This would primarily be for gaming. No video encoding or the like.
Is there any reason to take a 9600k over a 3600 right now, practically, unless you already own something with that socket? 5% percent difference, big woop. Same with the 3700x versus the 9700k.
Jeep-Eep on
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
Is there any reason to choose a i7-9700K over a i5-9600K? There is a $100 difference in price. This would primarily be for gaming. No video encoding or the like.
I dont think anyone in any position would ever recommend an i5 right now for anything.
Unless you are super budget conscious, I'd get the i7 all day. The extra cores will go a long way and keep you from needing a new cpu for some time.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Is there any reason to choose a i7-9700K over a i5-9600K? There is a $100 difference in price. This would primarily be for gaming. No video encoding or the like.
Is there any reason to take a 9600k over a 3600 right now, practically, unless you already own something with that socket? 5% percent difference, big woop. Same with the 3700x versus the 9700k.
I was assuming they weren't looking to change mobos.
But I mean, there's such a nil difference between Intel generations that if you're looking at a 9600k with a board change, I'd kind of agree and just go with a Ryzen 3600. If not, get the i7. i5's are just a bad decision right now.
Don't buy a desktop i5. the extra two cores on the i7 are worth it. It'd be better if Intel hadn't taken hyperthreading away from the i7, but alas....
But really, unless you absolutely have to have intel, there's almost no reason to buy any intel desktop processor right now. There are a couple very specific workloads that the i9-9900k makes sense, but the AMD Ryzen parts are just.... better.
Is there any reason to choose a i7-9700K over a i5-9600K? There is a $100 difference in price. This would primarily be for gaming. No video encoding or the like.
Is there any reason to take a 9600k over a 3600 right now, practically, unless you already own something with that socket? 5% percent difference, big woop. Same with the 3700x versus the 9700k.
I was assuming they weren't looking to change mobos.
But I mean, there's such a nil difference between Intel generations that if you're looking at a 9600k with a board change, I'd kind of agree and just go with a Ryzen 3600. If not, get the i7. i5's are just a bad decision right now.
No this would be with new mobos. I've been burned too many times by AMD. I realize that's not the enlightened view but I just don't have any confidence in their products. Especially with a new line. I'll take predictability over performance.
Currently I have i5-4670K. I've been monitoring my cpu and it's been bottlenecking on certain games. Pegging at a 100% while my GPU is at %40. So I've been thinking about small upgrade. The mobo I have is an 1150 so any upgrade I have to replace it and the memory too. So saving a $100 would be nice if there isn't any significant difference in game performance.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Is there any reason to choose a i7-9700K over a i5-9600K? There is a $100 difference in price. This would primarily be for gaming. No video encoding or the like.
Is there any reason to take a 9600k over a 3600 right now, practically, unless you already own something with that socket? 5% percent difference, big woop. Same with the 3700x versus the 9700k.
I was assuming they weren't looking to change mobos.
But I mean, there's such a nil difference between Intel generations that if you're looking at a 9600k with a board change, I'd kind of agree and just go with a Ryzen 3600. If not, get the i7. i5's are just a bad decision right now.
No this would be with new mobos. I've been burned too many times by AMD. I realize that's not the enlightened view but I just don't have any confidence in their products. Especially with a new line. I'll take predictability over performance.
Currently I have i5-4670K. I've been monitoring my cpu and it's been bottlenecking on certain games. Pegging at a 100% while my GPU is at %40. So I've been thinking about small upgrade. The mobo I have is an 1150 so any upgrade I have to replace it and the memory too. So saving a $100 would be nice if there isn't any significant difference in game performance.
i5 vs an i7?
There's a significant difference in game performance. Modern games use more than the 1-2 cores they used to.
I hate to admit it, but I was seeing my 4770k (w/ mild OC) pegged by Battletech before my upgrade. I thought I had at least another year because 2600k's were finally starting to show their age earlier this year. It could also be that the code for Battletech wasn't very optimized, as well.
Is there any reason to choose a i7-9700K over a i5-9600K? There is a $100 difference in price. This would primarily be for gaming. No video encoding or the like.
Is there any reason to take a 9600k over a 3600 right now, practically, unless you already own something with that socket? 5% percent difference, big woop. Same with the 3700x versus the 9700k.
I was assuming they weren't looking to change mobos.
But I mean, there's such a nil difference between Intel generations that if you're looking at a 9600k with a board change, I'd kind of agree and just go with a Ryzen 3600. If not, get the i7. i5's are just a bad decision right now.
No this would be with new mobos. I've been burned too many times by AMD. I realize that's not the enlightened view but I just don't have any confidence in their products. Especially with a new line. I'll take predictability over performance.
Currently I have i5-4670K. I've been monitoring my cpu and it's been bottlenecking on certain games. Pegging at a 100% while my GPU is at %40. So I've been thinking about small upgrade. The mobo I have is an 1150 so any upgrade I have to replace it and the memory too. So saving a $100 would be nice if there isn't any significant difference in game performance.
At this point, AMD is the more predictable option, as Intel is fairly regularly bleeding perf from all the damn security holes that keep on appearing as they haven't shitcanned Coffee Lake yet; better a rocky launch then a CPU that gets actively worse every few months.
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
Is there any reason to choose a i7-9700K over a i5-9600K? There is a $100 difference in price. This would primarily be for gaming. No video encoding or the like.
Is there any reason to take a 9600k over a 3600 right now, practically, unless you already own something with that socket? 5% percent difference, big woop. Same with the 3700x versus the 9700k.
I was assuming they weren't looking to change mobos.
But I mean, there's such a nil difference between Intel generations that if you're looking at a 9600k with a board change, I'd kind of agree and just go with a Ryzen 3600. If not, get the i7. i5's are just a bad decision right now.
No this would be with new mobos. I've been burned too many times by AMD. I realize that's not the enlightened view but I just don't have any confidence in their products. Especially with a new line. I'll take predictability over performance.
Currently I have i5-4670K. I've been monitoring my cpu and it's been bottlenecking on certain games. Pegging at a 100% while my GPU is at %40. So I've been thinking about small upgrade. The mobo I have is an 1150 so any upgrade I have to replace it and the memory too. So saving a $100 would be nice if there isn't any significant difference in game performance.
If you're dead set on intel, get the 9700k. don't get an i5 part.
But if the price does matter, I don't think we can stress enough how much a Ryzen 3600 or 3600X will run circles around a 9600k for the same or less money.
I don't think you'll find anyone here who would actually recommend buying an intel desktop part. AMD's products are better.
but again, if you're dead set on intel, go nuts, just get the 9700k. It's not like you're buying a bad part, it's just not the best product out there.
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Yeah the Ryzens have been kind of been put through their paces via the first 2 generations. It's a more mature platform and has gotten super strong recommendations from a lot of reputable sources.
Is there any reason to choose a i7-9700K over a i5-9600K? There is a $100 difference in price. This would primarily be for gaming. No video encoding or the like.
Is there any reason to take a 9600k over a 3600 right now, practically, unless you already own something with that socket? 5% percent difference, big woop. Same with the 3700x versus the 9700k.
I was assuming they weren't looking to change mobos.
But I mean, there's such a nil difference between Intel generations that if you're looking at a 9600k with a board change, I'd kind of agree and just go with a Ryzen 3600. If not, get the i7. i5's are just a bad decision right now.
No this would be with new mobos. I've been burned too many times by AMD. I realize that's not the enlightened view but I just don't have any confidence in their products. Especially with a new line. I'll take predictability over performance.
Currently I have i5-4670K. I've been monitoring my cpu and it's been bottlenecking on certain games. Pegging at a 100% while my GPU is at %40. So I've been thinking about small upgrade. The mobo I have is an 1150 so any upgrade I have to replace it and the memory too. So saving a $100 would be nice if there isn't any significant difference in game performance.
If you're dead set on intel, get the 9700k. don't get an i5 part.
But if the price does matter, I don't think we can stress enough how much a Ryzen 3600 or 3600X will run circles around a 9600k for the same or less money.
I don't think you'll find anyone here who would actually recommend buying an intel desktop part. AMD's products are better.
but again, if you're dead set on intel, go nuts, just get the 9700k. It's not like you're buying a bad part, it's just not the best product out there.
Is there any reason to choose a i7-9700K over a i5-9600K? There is a $100 difference in price. This would primarily be for gaming. No video encoding or the like.
Is there any reason to take a 9600k over a 3600 right now, practically, unless you already own something with that socket? 5% percent difference, big woop. Same with the 3700x versus the 9700k.
I was assuming they weren't looking to change mobos.
But I mean, there's such a nil difference between Intel generations that if you're looking at a 9600k with a board change, I'd kind of agree and just go with a Ryzen 3600. If not, get the i7. i5's are just a bad decision right now.
No this would be with new mobos. I've been burned too many times by AMD. I realize that's not the enlightened view but I just don't have any confidence in their products. Especially with a new line. I'll take predictability over performance.
Currently I have i5-4670K. I've been monitoring my cpu and it's been bottlenecking on certain games. Pegging at a 100% while my GPU is at %40. So I've been thinking about small upgrade. The mobo I have is an 1150 so any upgrade I have to replace it and the memory too. So saving a $100 would be nice if there isn't any significant difference in game performance.
If you're dead set on intel, get the 9700k. don't get an i5 part.
But if the price does matter, I don't think we can stress enough how much a Ryzen 3600 or 3600X will run circles around a 9600k for the same or less money.
I don't think you'll find anyone here who would actually recommend buying an intel desktop part. AMD's products are better.
but again, if you're dead set on intel, go nuts, just get the 9700k. It's not like you're buying a bad part, it's just not the best product out there.
Pretty much every review of the 3600 and 3600x seem to put it on par or around 10% behind the 9600k for gaming benchmarks. However, if you want to talk about stomping that's what the 9700k does to any of the aforementioned CPU's. This is for gaming only. If productivity stuff was of real importance then the 3600(x) is definitely the better buy and value overall in the sub-$300 midrange market. Intel still is the best CPU for pure gaming but AMD is very very close and offers a better overall value. So it really comes down to what a person is looking for in the CPU and their computer overall.
Is there any reason to choose a i7-9700K over a i5-9600K? There is a $100 difference in price. This would primarily be for gaming. No video encoding or the like.
Is there any reason to take a 9600k over a 3600 right now, practically, unless you already own something with that socket? 5% percent difference, big woop. Same with the 3700x versus the 9700k.
I was assuming they weren't looking to change mobos.
But I mean, there's such a nil difference between Intel generations that if you're looking at a 9600k with a board change, I'd kind of agree and just go with a Ryzen 3600. If not, get the i7. i5's are just a bad decision right now.
No this would be with new mobos. I've been burned too many times by AMD. I realize that's not the enlightened view but I just don't have any confidence in their products. Especially with a new line. I'll take predictability over performance.
Currently I have i5-4670K. I've been monitoring my cpu and it's been bottlenecking on certain games. Pegging at a 100% while my GPU is at %40. So I've been thinking about small upgrade. The mobo I have is an 1150 so any upgrade I have to replace it and the memory too. So saving a $100 would be nice if there isn't any significant difference in game performance.
If you're dead set on intel, get the 9700k. don't get an i5 part.
But if the price does matter, I don't think we can stress enough how much a Ryzen 3600 or 3600X will run circles around a 9600k for the same or less money.
I don't think you'll find anyone here who would actually recommend buying an intel desktop part. AMD's products are better.
but again, if you're dead set on intel, go nuts, just get the 9700k. It's not like you're buying a bad part, it's just not the best product out there.
Userbenchmarks just changed their rating system to weight single core more heavily over multicore, for the record. No idea if there's some marketing money behind that, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Posts
Well good thing they're invisible with the glass panel on.
And yeah I didn't have matching fans available. I might order some or I might not.
Well if you get some fans with RG... Oh wait.
I'm probably going to get some black Noctua fans tbh.
I want that shit to be gaudy and dark.
Converted to all SSD, added AIO for noise, added more RAM, upgraded video card.
The motherboard I bought used and it did some great work for me.
I feel attacked
Oh my god this thing is fucking fast
So I've got
Ryzen 5 3600
16gb 3200 C16 DDR4
500GB NVME Samsung 970 EVO
1TB SSD Samsung 860 EVO
1 TB WD Blue
RTX 2060
Time to fire up some games I was having issues with
Edit: Daaaaaaamn. All chugginess in Apex is gone. All chugginess in Anthem is gone (too bad it's still bad). Everyone saying my i5 6500 wasn't the problem was cray
That's 830 America bucks
I'm leaning towards the Sapphire RX 5700 XT Pulse, yeah. Will have to see what comes out in the near future -- there's rumors of a 5800 and 5900 coming in the near future.
EVGA is Nvidia only, right?
Yeah Nvidia only like sapphire for amd.
Reading dozens of posts about how long the 1080ti's lasted for people makes me wonder if the 2080ti is gonna prove to be similar.
― John Quincy Adams
Depends on how long it takes RT to become mandatory, because that thing's RT functionality, while the only really meaningful implementation right now, will likely be beaten firmly by cards a fraction of the price by the early 2020s.
https://www.techpowerup.com/258267/amd-sharkstooth-shows-up-on-geekbench-possible-zen-2-threadripper
Zen 2 threadripper looking terrifying for Intel. Really, Zen 2 seems to do better as you scale upwards.
Wait, really?! Is that sale still on, in store only?
Yeah in store clearance only
I slept on it and it's a great deal but it's literally double the price of the 5700 xt.
I think I'll have to stay strong.
edit: https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_alienware_aw3418dw.htm#gaming
Found the answer myself! Thanks me!
I dont think anyone in any position would ever recommend an i5 right now for anything.
Is there any reason to take a 9600k over a 3600 right now, practically, unless you already own something with that socket? 5% percent difference, big woop. Same with the 3700x versus the 9700k.
Unless you are super budget conscious, I'd get the i7 all day. The extra cores will go a long way and keep you from needing a new cpu for some time.
I was assuming they weren't looking to change mobos.
But I mean, there's such a nil difference between Intel generations that if you're looking at a 9600k with a board change, I'd kind of agree and just go with a Ryzen 3600. If not, get the i7. i5's are just a bad decision right now.
But really, unless you absolutely have to have intel, there's almost no reason to buy any intel desktop processor right now. There are a couple very specific workloads that the i9-9900k makes sense, but the AMD Ryzen parts are just.... better.
I have a 3600 and it absolutely rips through everything my i5 6500 was choking on.
When your CPU is pegged at 100% and you've got stuttering and your GPU is barely breaking a sweat.
No this would be with new mobos. I've been burned too many times by AMD. I realize that's not the enlightened view but I just don't have any confidence in their products. Especially with a new line. I'll take predictability over performance.
Currently I have i5-4670K. I've been monitoring my cpu and it's been bottlenecking on certain games. Pegging at a 100% while my GPU is at %40. So I've been thinking about small upgrade. The mobo I have is an 1150 so any upgrade I have to replace it and the memory too. So saving a $100 would be nice if there isn't any significant difference in game performance.
i5 vs an i7?
There's a significant difference in game performance. Modern games use more than the 1-2 cores they used to.
At this point, AMD is the more predictable option, as Intel is fairly regularly bleeding perf from all the damn security holes that keep on appearing as they haven't shitcanned Coffee Lake yet; better a rocky launch then a CPU that gets actively worse every few months.
If you're dead set on intel, get the 9700k. don't get an i5 part.
But if the price does matter, I don't think we can stress enough how much a Ryzen 3600 or 3600X will run circles around a 9600k for the same or less money.
I don't think you'll find anyone here who would actually recommend buying an intel desktop part. AMD's products are better.
but again, if you're dead set on intel, go nuts, just get the 9700k. It's not like you're buying a bad part, it's just not the best product out there.
An i5-9600k has the same number of cores, the same Ghz, the same price, and seems to have the same performance as a 3600x. What am I missing here? https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-9600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3600X/4031vs4041
Pretty much every review of the 3600 and 3600x seem to put it on par or around 10% behind the 9600k for gaming benchmarks. However, if you want to talk about stomping that's what the 9700k does to any of the aforementioned CPU's. This is for gaming only. If productivity stuff was of real importance then the 3600(x) is definitely the better buy and value overall in the sub-$300 midrange market. Intel still is the best CPU for pure gaming but AMD is very very close and offers a better overall value. So it really comes down to what a person is looking for in the CPU and their computer overall.
Frame timings. Watch the GN review of the 3600. Apparently the frame timings of games were erratic and caused tons of micro stuttering.
From 27 minutes on:
Also pls dont use Userbenchmarks