Waiting for 8700K?

Would i be ok with gaming on the i7 7700K?

I heard the 8700K will not be out for quite some time

I love mine !

No doubt a realy good gaming CPU for single/double threaded games etc.

But I wouldnt buy it again, I'd go Ryzen 7 or more likely Threadripper.

Interesting BitMaster, what's your reason to go for Threadripper now instead of (Ryzen 7) / i7 7700k?

i7 8700K sure is interesting but will not help at all if ED can't spread their single thread on all 12. Staying with old 4 Core stuff is sensible for now.

i7 8700K sure is interesting but will not help at all if ED can't spread their single thread on all 12. Staying with old 4 Core stuff is sensible for now.

True!

If you mostly play DCS I would not upgrade CPU at this point. If I didn't burn my i5 2500k a couple years back I would've stuck with that. I think the best thing to do right now is to wait to see what happens in the next 1-2 years with multi core support in DCS.

Also since AMD seem to have pushed out some competitive products it might destroy the Intel monopoly and they might actually decide to develop something. Instead of selling essentially overpriced cosmetics. :D

should be out early next month, by why another new MOBO, they must get kick backs....

Mr burns when you say early next month do you mean early Oct or beginning of sept

Interesting BitMaster, what's your reason to go for Threadripper now instead of (Ryzen 7) / i7 7700k?

Because I have Adapter cards in my drawer ( Adaptec-SAS, Diva-ISDN etc.) which I actually want to use again but these need many more PCIe lanes. Also I wanna keep my 980GTX in my system when I upgrade to a new NVx080Ti next year or so. This Z270 is a 1-card expansion journey. It runs nice as it is but far away from a Workstation..that's more what I personally actually want.

As I also do data mining and more cores would be cool, along with more than 1 GPU..etc..but that is not needed for gaming, actually more cores = less peak GHz usually ( TDP ).

When new games support DX12 with mGPU that will be of relevance for gamers as well, right now

this is not needed for gamers imho and the Z270/7700k is a very good choice.

So you think i should rock the Ryzen 7

Ryzen series really is amazing.

The price/performance ratio is miles ahead of Intel.

Plus, when Ryzen 2 comes out, you wont have to buy a new motherboard since Ryzen 2 will also use AM4 socket.

Right now with Intel, you're just buying an overpriced 2012 product that requires a new motherboard every new "generation" because, WE WANT MONEY.

While AMD Bulldozer was a travesty, Ryzen truly is a kickass chip.

Ryzen series really is amazing.

The price/performance ratio is miles ahead of Intel.

 

Plus, when Ryzen 2 comes out, you wont have to buy a new motherboard since Ryzen 2 will also use AM4 socket.

 

Right now with Intel, you're just buying an overpriced 2012 product that requires a new motherboard every new "generation" because, WE WANT MONEY.

 

While AMD Bulldozer was a travesty, Ryzen truly is a kickass chip.

Which Ryzen should i get that will be good for dcs im not looking at oc

Which Ryzen should i get that will be good for dcs im not looking at oc

If gaming is going to be the main use of your new PC, then I would got with R5 1600/1600x series.

1600 has a bit slower clock speeds but comes with a very nice stock cooler. Can be OC'ed to 1600x clock speeds in most cases.

1600x has higher clock speeds but does not come with a cooler and is slightly more expensive.

If you do not plan to OC and can afford to spend a bit more, 1600x is a good choice. 6 cores, 12 threads.

If you wanna go a bit stronger, R7 1700x is a good choice.

Just make sure to get 3000 or 3200 Mhz RAM. :)

..or....X1900 Threadripper along with X399 mobo.

It got released today, features a XFR of 4.2 ( dont need to oc for DCS, actually you better dont ),

has 64 PCIe lanes, NVMe RAID/boot, Quad-Channel up to 3600MHz.

If I had the money to buy again/had to buy again, THAT was my pick today !!!

I disagree with the posts before. DCS relies on single thread and ryzen is oarticularily subpar in that section. DCS will 4un best on high clocked Intel CPUs.

Ryzen is agood for the money CPU no doubt but if you want to maximize DCS or even gonVR its nit the first choiceame goes for Threadripper which is irrelevant for gaming but a good work powerhouse if your apps can jtilize many threads.

There is a lot of emotional based recommendation biased going on all over the internet which has nothing to do with benchmarks and hard facts.

True but the trouble with those hard facts is that Ryzen is MUCH cheaper than Intel and closer performance wise than they have been in the past. Emotions aside, if it costs half as much but runs 90% that is a good recommendation in my book.. (But if you want absolute performance at any price then by all means go with Intel, but that advantage only lasts until the next revision comes and then your expensive Intel chip is just another expensive Intel chip)

Besides I like the competition and the innovation that competition will bring so my money went to a Ryzen 7 1800X and it has been a champ for me but I also do more with my machine than gaming so the extra cores are of more use to me too)

I love the Ryzen and highly recommend it.. (Everything is a compromise one way or other, you just have to decide what is more important to YOU)

Emotions aside, if it costs half as much but runs 90% that is a good recommendation in my book.. (But if you want absolute performance at any price then by all means go with Intel, but that advantage only lasts until the next revision comes and then your expensive Intel chip is just another expensive Intel chip) YOU)

And once next Intel revision comes you have to buy yet another expensive motherboard to go along with you new Intel chip.

No such problems with Ryzen since Ryzen 2 will also use AM4 socket. You can use the saved money to get yourself a better GPU or SSD. And since DCS 2.5 will put more strain on the GPU...

Right now, there is almost no point in getting an Intel. AMD has it beat at the moment.

Is this an AMD versus Intel thing or is Ryzen good? I havnt had an AMD system since i went Q6600 (I think - first dual core) and i7-2600k and I now have $2000+ for a new rig.

I agree with a new Mobo for a new chip it seems Intel must be getting kickback from the mobo manufacturers, sucks, not so much for me as I tend to stick to a chip for about 5 years and upgrade GPU.

Need to look at Ryzen now...you think competition is good but its also complicated :-)

Also, i read the 8000 was out in September, a year after the chip its replacing at the top of the line.

so lets say you disable all but 1 core on an intel cpu and on an AMD cpu, you set them both so they both give exactly the same performance...

to simplify things we'll set the intel cpu at 1ghz, in order for the AMD cpu to get the same performance it will need to be at 1.14ghz

add on top of that the fact that the intel cpus can also hit 4.8ghz easy, and amd cpus on average 3.8ghz, intel cpus are much faster than amd cpus.

so lets say you get lucky and get an intel cpu that'll hit 5GHz, the AMD cpu will need to hit 5.7ghz to get the same performance, and it can't.

the only time amd cpus really pull ahead are on heavily multithreaded things such as video editing, or the 5 or 6 games that actually make good use of it...

so then, what is better depends on the things you do... if core speed is important, then intel cpus are more than 30% faster(when overclocked)... once the 8700K comes out, that'll increase by another 3-5%

if more, slow cores is better for what you do, then AMD is better...

the 8700K will be a 6 core cpu, so the more core advantage will be even less of a thing.

Is this an AMD versus Intel thing or is Ryzen good?

Ryzen5/7 is extremely good. It crushes Intel i5/7 in multi-threaded apps, and you will save a couple hundred dollars on a CPU/MB combo.

Single threaded performance trails Intel by 10-15% depending on what is being used to benchmark (and relative OC's). Very few games take advantage of multiple cores. So if you want the highest single thread performance for gaming, and you are willing to pay a significant amount more for that 10-15%, then you will be happier with Intel.

If you stream, multi-task heavily with daily workloads, or run non-gaming apps that directly benefit from having as many cores/threads possible, you should really be looking at Ryzen.

so lets say you disable all but 1 core on an intel cpu and on an AMD cpu, you set them both so they both give exactly the same performance...

 

to simplify things we'll set the intel cpu at 1ghz, in order for the AMD cpu to get the same performance it will need to be at 1.14ghz.

It's a lot closer than that though. Put it up against a Skylake chip (6600k for instance) and the Ryzen is actually slightly faster. Against the kabylake cpu's, it's slightly slower on a clock per clock basis. The new 8700k coming soon is expected to have lower single thread performance compared to the 7700k. The only advantage of an i7 is pure clock speed, which does make a difference in DCS and BoS, there is no denying that. But this isn't a repeat of the FX8350 vs I7-2700k either.

In inycase, I don't recommend an AMD CPU for DCS VR, but I don't recommend an Intel CPU either. DCS is very poorly coded and simply does not have adequate performance in VR. It's barely passable on a 2d monitor with either CPU.

Would i be ok with gaming on the i7 7700K?

 

I heard the 8700K will not be out for quite some time

Absolutely you would be fine gaming on the i7-7700k for now and the next 3-4 years at least. It is a powerhouse for gaming and just general pc stuff.

If you can wait then by all means hunker down and see how the Coffee Lake series turn out before making a decision. My guess and it is only a guess is that Intel will release the i7-8700k and others later this year in November/December.

And in answer to your post question, yes I am waiting for the 8700k to come out before making a decision on which way to go either AMD or Intel. My i7-950 X58 rig is getting seriously long in the tooth but it has served me well over the last 6 years but now it is a big bottleneck for my 1070.

I may move to a TR early next year or so and pass this rig to my son...just need to wait for funds to materialize. No way I go Intel for my next rig with the "workstation" label. I need PCIe-lanes, cores, RAM and more than 6 Sata-3 conns. TR delivers all that for a fair price.

I play so little DCS meanwhile for many reasons that I dont build around DCS anymore.

4.2G with XFR is anything but slow as well ;)

Absolutely you would be fine gaming on the i7-7700k for now and the next 3-4 years at least. It is a powerhouse for gaming and just general pc stuff.

 

If you can wait then by all means hunker down and see how the Coffee Lake series turn out before making a decision. My guess and it is only a guess is that Intel will release the i7-8700k and others later this year in November/December.

 

And in answer to your post question, yes I am waiting for the 8700k to come out before making a decision on which way to go either AMD or Intel. My i7-950 X58 rig is getting seriously long in the tooth but it has served me well over the last 6 years but now it is a big bottleneck for my 1070.

I might hunker down, I have my PSU, Case and AIO water cooler for my flight sim rig. I might just get a laptop to play games on in mean time

Reasons to go with Threadripper:

1) AMD NVMe Bootable RAID will be possible with a motherboard firmware update soon. Intel: need to pay up for anything other than RAID0, and you also have to use Intel-branded SSDs.

2) Cheaper many-core, with the $999 threadripper you get 16 cores vs Intel's 10 cores. 60% more cores means much higher performance in multi-threaded apps, which will translate to much higher gaming performance once developers start incorporating multi-threaded optimizations (which WILL happen since enthusiasts are now buying things like Ryzen and TR much more often than previously with just Intel's 4 core). Intel: need to pay much higher prices for HEDT parts, and need to pay more for unlocking features, and need to pay more for more cores, and need to pay more for motherboards. AMD prefers to offer value instead of nickle-and-diming its customers.

3) 64 PCIe lanes (60 through CPU) is much better for storage transfer speeds, multi-GPU, 10-GigE ethernet, etc. Intel: severely limits the number of CPU PCIe lanes, and instead sends data more through the DMI.

The trajectories of Intel and AMD are very, very different, and I am more hopeful that AMD will push the boundaries farther than Intel, for higher performance, for less cost. Intel currently has better single-threaded performance, but it might not last forever. They're having a hard enough time getting their process nodes down to 10nm. There might be a better approach with just "gluing" dies together and weaving connections between them than just building higher core single die parts. NVIDIA seems to be evaluating this as an option to increase the number of cores on its chips.

Maybe we'll see more and more dies that are linked as the plans to shrink process nodes becomes harder and more expensive.

Go with AMD, and you'll have a socket (TR4) that can easily fit an updates Threadripper CPU in several years. Why go with Intel when they seem to change sockets and motherboard requirements every couple years so that they force customers to buy brand new motherboards?