Intel i5 or i7

I5 or i7

  • I5-8600K

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I7-8700

    Votes: 1 20.0%

  • I7-8700K

    Votes: 4 80.0%
  • Total voters
    5
  • Poll closed .
SquarePanties

SquarePanties

Having a big issue here wether I should get i5-8600k, i7-8700, or i7-8700k. I don’t plan on overclocking my cpu so I don’t know if I the K for i7 is worth it but if you could help me on this is basically the last thing I’m deciding on before I build my pc... Btw i5K-$237 i7-$298 i7K-$348
 
where is other button? LOL
 
i7-8700k, because the non-overclocked turbo speeds are also higher than the i7-8700, and the Ryzen CPUs don't do anything for gaming. You will use the extra IPC and clockspeed of the i7 before you'd use the extra cores of an R7.
 
8700k is faster in single threading. Intel will probably always have a faster single threaded CPU. GUess it really just depends on what you want and what you are going to do. To say that Ryzen does nothing for gaming makes no sense at all. Most of my usage is gaming and there isn't a game that I have played that hasn't pushed my 1800x to its limits. Except for maybe Escape from Tarkov, but it's not optimized yet. It runs like crap for everyone lol. Pubg wasn't optimized and now that it is I'm getting between 100-140 fps depending on the environment
 
I should say, Ryzen doesn't do anything over the faster six-core Intel CPUs. Additional slower cores won't make the cores that are being used any faster, and they're slower than the Intel six-core CPUs.

And as noted, that's not likely to change in the next few years.
 
For less than a 5 fps gain it's not worth it to me, Ryan in the No brainer for me. I almost went Intel until i saw how well Ryzen performed
 
I won't disagree with Ryzen for many consumer uses, but for gaming it's about smoothness, which is primarily related to single-core performance (which is the product of IPC and clockspeed) and measured in maximum frametimes.

If that's what you're trying to maximize, Intel is the way to go.
 
Forget what all these smart guys with money are saying. It all depends on the monitor. If you are gaming on an ultra wide or at 4k, your gpu and CPU has to match that performance. If you are doing 1080p at 60 Hertz, you can save thousands of dollars on your build. If you want the best of the best of the best, none of these chips are it anyway. You are better served building to the display you want to use and spending extra on good periferals.
 
Note that your CPU will essentially get less effective over time, because games will get more demanding. The monitor- and attached resolution and refresh rate- reflect a framerate, but that will go down over time.
 
Popas13 said:
Forget what all these smart guys with money are saying. It all depends on the monitor. If you are gaming on an ultra wide or at 4k, your gpu and CPU has to match that performance. If you are doing 1080p at 60 Hertz, you can save thousands of dollars on your build. If you want the best of the best of the best, none of these chips are it anyway. You are better served building to the display you want to use and spending extra on good periferals.
Click to expand...

4k is pretty much a waste of money for gaming right now
 
SilentGhost said:
I won't disagree with Ryzen for many consumer uses, but for gaming it's about smoothness, which is primarily related to single-core performance (which is the product of IPC and clockspeed) and measured in maximum frametimes.

If that's what you're trying to maximize, Intel is the way to go.
Click to expand...

I run pretty smooth :D
 
I spent the weekend dicking around AMD shit and have had trouble with it on other rigs I built with the intent on saving money. If time is money, I didn't save any money at all.

Intel all the way for this guy.
 
What was your AMD build specs?? I am about to build a seeder PC from spare parts and use an AMD proc...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top