In very limited game scenarios, yes 980 Ti will see a marginal improvement, according to the video linked below. I don't know if you might consider it worth while though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWcsaociTjE
In very limited game scenarios, yes 980 Ti will see a marginal improvement, according to the video linked below. I don't know if you might consider it worth while though.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
[quote="RAGEdemon"]For the foreseeable future, it looks like the best desktop performance chip for low thread count gaming will be an OC 7700k. Maybe with the advent of Ryzen, Intel will reconsider its future plans.
If you fellas want to wait, that that's great. Patience is a virtue! But it seems very unlikely that we will get any gaming grade chips better than kaby lake for quite some time, and if one does come out, waiting might just have been a waste of time as during that time you could have been plying most games at 60FPS locked.[/quote]
I agree with this line of thinking. Best chip today for the foreseeable future is definitely the 7700K. Nothing on the Intel or AMD radar suggests anything new will be better for gaming.
If you are thinking of waiting, another factor to consider is Win7 support. I still recommend Win7 for 3D gaming, because it's a more stable platform.
Win10 is getting force fed updates like Anniversary Edition, now expected twice a year. Microsoft has apparently given up on QA and is relying upon the unreliable Insider Program to find bugs, and it's been a mess.
On Win7, it's end of life, which means- no changes except security patches. This is exactly what I want. I want to spend my time playing games, not figuring out yet another incompatibility or glitch. Maybe you actually enjoy finding workarounds to problems, but I can guarantee that Win7 will net you more actual gaming time.
Why this is important here- The latest chipset from Intel does not support Win7. There are no chipset drivers, because Microsoft wants to force you to Win10.
So if you buy a new 7700K, and a Z270 chipset, you are stuck with Win10 forevermore, and all the attendant bleeding edge problems.
However.... if you buy a motherboard that supports the Z170 chipset, you can still run Win7, and a 7700K at the same time.
The only major feature you give up is Optane support, but you can always move your CPU to a new board at anytime anyway.
Z170 chipset boards will be around for about another 6 months, and harder to find after that. If you like the idea of fewer problems to solve on Win7, you will want to carefully consider moving to 7700K now.
RAGEdemon said:For the foreseeable future, it looks like the best desktop performance chip for low thread count gaming will be an OC 7700k. Maybe with the advent of Ryzen, Intel will reconsider its future plans.
If you fellas want to wait, that that's great. Patience is a virtue! But it seems very unlikely that we will get any gaming grade chips better than kaby lake for quite some time, and if one does come out, waiting might just have been a waste of time as during that time you could have been plying most games at 60FPS locked.
I agree with this line of thinking. Best chip today for the foreseeable future is definitely the 7700K. Nothing on the Intel or AMD radar suggests anything new will be better for gaming.
If you are thinking of waiting, another factor to consider is Win7 support. I still recommend Win7 for 3D gaming, because it's a more stable platform.
Win10 is getting force fed updates like Anniversary Edition, now expected twice a year. Microsoft has apparently given up on QA and is relying upon the unreliable Insider Program to find bugs, and it's been a mess.
On Win7, it's end of life, which means- no changes except security patches. This is exactly what I want. I want to spend my time playing games, not figuring out yet another incompatibility or glitch. Maybe you actually enjoy finding workarounds to problems, but I can guarantee that Win7 will net you more actual gaming time.
Why this is important here- The latest chipset from Intel does not support Win7. There are no chipset drivers, because Microsoft wants to force you to Win10.
So if you buy a new 7700K, and a Z270 chipset, you are stuck with Win10 forevermore, and all the attendant bleeding edge problems.
However.... if you buy a motherboard that supports the Z170 chipset, you can still run Win7, and a 7700K at the same time.
The only major feature you give up is Optane support, but you can always move your CPU to a new board at anytime anyway.
Z170 chipset boards will be around for about another 6 months, and harder to find after that. If you like the idea of fewer problems to solve on Win7, you will want to carefully consider moving to 7700K now.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Adding my personal experience to bo3b's insight: I was running 7700K on a Z270 on Windows 7. ASUS seems to have provided the necessary drivers for everything to work - except the kaby-lake integrated GPU which we of course don't use. I had chanced upgrading to Windows 10 for other reasons.
Z170 would be a great choice - preliminary performance figures for Xpoint don't seem to be much better than NVMe SSDs. The other advantage of Z270 boards was the ability to clock AVX instructions at a lower speed than standard core. I thought this was a great idea as I had thought that AVX would come into play only while encoding, which I rarely did.
As it turns out, AVX is starting to be used by modern games too - The Witcher 3 and Mankind Divided both use AVX and had lowered my CPU core every time I loaded the game up. It took me quite some testing to narrow down the cause, as I was under the impression that games did not use AVX.
As it stands, I clocked AVX to the same speed as my normal Core Clock (Normal was 52,52,51,51 multipliers on 4 cores - AVX multipliers were 300MHz less), and my system while gaming with both games has been extremely stable - no crashes what so ever.
Moral of the story - the only reason to get Z270 boards was XPoint support and AVX down-clocking for stability purposes. My personal conclusion is that these features should not be deciding factors in your purchase. If you can get a Z170 for compatibility reasons or for a significantly lower price compared to Z270, then you should go for that without hesitation.
EDIT:
Bonus video I had been looking for; the importance of fast RAM:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frNjT5R5XI4&feature=youtu.be
Adding my personal experience to bo3b's insight: I was running 7700K on a Z270 on Windows 7. ASUS seems to have provided the necessary drivers for everything to work - except the kaby-lake integrated GPU which we of course don't use. I had chanced upgrading to Windows 10 for other reasons.
Z170 would be a great choice - preliminary performance figures for Xpoint don't seem to be much better than NVMe SSDs. The other advantage of Z270 boards was the ability to clock AVX instructions at a lower speed than standard core. I thought this was a great idea as I had thought that AVX would come into play only while encoding, which I rarely did.
As it turns out, AVX is starting to be used by modern games too - The Witcher 3 and Mankind Divided both use AVX and had lowered my CPU core every time I loaded the game up. It took me quite some testing to narrow down the cause, as I was under the impression that games did not use AVX.
As it stands, I clocked AVX to the same speed as my normal Core Clock (Normal was 52,52,51,51 multipliers on 4 cores - AVX multipliers were 300MHz less), and my system while gaming with both games has been extremely stable - no crashes what so ever.
Moral of the story - the only reason to get Z270 boards was XPoint support and AVX down-clocking for stability purposes. My personal conclusion is that these features should not be deciding factors in your purchase. If you can get a Z170 for compatibility reasons or for a significantly lower price compared to Z270, then you should go for that without hesitation.
EDIT:
Bonus video I had been looking for; the importance of fast RAM:
;feature=youtu.be
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
[quote="RAGEdemon"]Adding my personal experience to bo3b's insight: I was running 7700K on a Z270 on Windows 7. ASUS seems to have provided the necessary drivers for everything to work - except the kaby-lake integrated GPU which we of course don't use. I had chanced upgrading to Windows 10 for other reasons.[/quote]
Ah, very good to know. I thought it was weird that no one seemed to try to run Win7 on Z270, and at least force the Z170 drivers to load. The chipsets are damn near identical, just like the CPUs.
Very good to know that the ASUS at least is supporting the drivers, even if Intel was bought off. That makes the timing less critical for buying next gen hardware. Also, it's PC, so it's pretty likely someone will figure out a way. The best part of PC- freedom. Now under attack by our friends in Redmond.
Thanks for the direct experience info, very helpful.
Ryzen data just released. Amazing results. Single core IPC and performance matches i7-6900K. Freakin' impressive. Only cherry picked results from AMD (Cinebench single thread). More results when the embargo lifts on March 2.
I don't think that changes the picture materially. 7700K will be maybe 10% faster than that, and can be OC as well, and is going to be more mature/stable. Still, kudos to AMD.
RAGEdemon said:Adding my personal experience to bo3b's insight: I was running 7700K on a Z270 on Windows 7. ASUS seems to have provided the necessary drivers for everything to work - except the kaby-lake integrated GPU which we of course don't use. I had chanced upgrading to Windows 10 for other reasons.
Ah, very good to know. I thought it was weird that no one seemed to try to run Win7 on Z270, and at least force the Z170 drivers to load. The chipsets are damn near identical, just like the CPUs.
Very good to know that the ASUS at least is supporting the drivers, even if Intel was bought off. That makes the timing less critical for buying next gen hardware. Also, it's PC, so it's pretty likely someone will figure out a way. The best part of PC- freedom. Now under attack by our friends in Redmond.
Thanks for the direct experience info, very helpful.
Ryzen data just released. Amazing results. Single core IPC and performance matches i7-6900K. Freakin' impressive. Only cherry picked results from AMD (Cinebench single thread). More results when the embargo lifts on March 2.
I don't think that changes the picture materially. 7700K will be maybe 10% faster than that, and can be OC as well, and is going to be more mature/stable. Still, kudos to AMD.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Can you explain me why using Windows 7 with a 7700K + Z270 can be a problem if people don't care about IGP drivers and good exploitation of Turbo Boost 3.0?
I really want to use this stable OS for gaming.
Can you explain me why using Windows 7 with a 7700K + Z270 can be a problem if people don't care about IGP drivers and good exploitation of Turbo Boost 3.0?
[quote="RAGEdemon"][quote="mihabolil"][quote="RAGEdemon"]
[/quote]
[/quote]
The internet seems to be going crazy for the 4 extra cores. It's strange that people just don't understand that those extra cores will never be utilised unless they are doing rendering or encoding.
When it comes to gaming, and especially 3D vision gaming due to the CPU core limit bug, IPC and clock speed are king. A higher than 4 Core Count is, unfortunately, a distant concern, as much as I would want to think otherwise.
Even if the 3D Vision CPU core limit bug is fixed, the vast majority of games, especially AAA games are designed for the PS4 and XBOne (and then ported to the PC) - These are designed for consoles on which games only have access to 7 very weak cores barely comparable to virtual cores. Let's call them '3 real cores'. This means that all modern games (except a very small handful such as BF1) even in the next 5 years (until the new generation consoles come out), will be optimized for and limited to '3 cores' (6 'virtual' cores). This means that getting anything above a 4 core HT CPU for gaming for the next 5 years is going to be useless.[/quote]
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/
Pretty good cpu benchmark on recent games for flat gaming. They even used 720p in order to eliminate gpu bottlenecking. Its in German but very easy to understand the results for us who dont speak the language. Cpu's are at stock clocks. That means 7700k single thread performance is in its own class but it still cant keep up with 6850k(6c/12t).
I dont know, while its clear what i would buy if i'd upgrade for 3d vision, its a different tale when it comes to flat gaming. Games like watch dogs 2, F1 and shadow warrior 2 shows pretty good cpu scaling beyond those 4c/8t cpu's. It would be very difficult to decide between ryzen and 7700k for flat gaming. If the ryzen single thread performance is really around haswell level, i would probably go for ryzen. Id put my money on engines becoming much more multi-thread friendly in the future.
EDIT: The article came today, maybe they'll add ryzen benchmarks too when the nda is over.
The internet seems to be going crazy for the 4 extra cores. It's strange that people just don't understand that those extra cores will never be utilised unless they are doing rendering or encoding.
When it comes to gaming, and especially 3D vision gaming due to the CPU core limit bug, IPC and clock speed are king. A higher than 4 Core Count is, unfortunately, a distant concern, as much as I would want to think otherwise.
Even if the 3D Vision CPU core limit bug is fixed, the vast majority of games, especially AAA games are designed for the PS4 and XBOne (and then ported to the PC) - These are designed for consoles on which games only have access to 7 very weak cores barely comparable to virtual cores. Let's call them '3 real cores'. This means that all modern games (except a very small handful such as BF1) even in the next 5 years (until the new generation consoles come out), will be optimized for and limited to '3 cores' (6 'virtual' cores). This means that getting anything above a 4 core HT CPU for gaming for the next 5 years is going to be useless.
Pretty good cpu benchmark on recent games for flat gaming. They even used 720p in order to eliminate gpu bottlenecking. Its in German but very easy to understand the results for us who dont speak the language. Cpu's are at stock clocks. That means 7700k single thread performance is in its own class but it still cant keep up with 6850k(6c/12t).
I dont know, while its clear what i would buy if i'd upgrade for 3d vision, its a different tale when it comes to flat gaming. Games like watch dogs 2, F1 and shadow warrior 2 shows pretty good cpu scaling beyond those 4c/8t cpu's. It would be very difficult to decide between ryzen and 7700k for flat gaming. If the ryzen single thread performance is really around haswell level, i would probably go for ryzen. Id put my money on engines becoming much more multi-thread friendly in the future.
EDIT: The article came today, maybe they'll add ryzen benchmarks too when the nda is over.
[quote="helifax"]Based on my testing I didn't notice any difference in using 1 or 2 SLI bridges (ribbons).
This is ofc on 980Ti... Is there a reason to use 2 SLI bridges if you are not going 3x or 4x SLI?[/quote]I have the new High bandswidth one from MSI.
[img]https://www.evetech.co.za/repository/ProductImages/SLI-BRIDGE-IN-SHINING-ARMOR.jpg[/img]
[img]http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2016/06/bridge_comparison_3dmark_firestrike_ultra-100667996-large.png[/img]
[img]http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2016/06/bridge_comarison_far_cry_primal_4k-100667994-large.png[/img]
[img]http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2016/06/bridge_comarison_middle_earth_4k_avg-100667992-large.png[/img]
[img]http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2016/06/bridge_comarison_rainbow_six_siege_4k-100667993-large.png[/img]
[img]http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2016/06/bridge_comarison_the_division_4k-100667995-large.png[/img]
[img]http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2016/06/bridge_comparison_the_division_ultra_5k-100667990-large.png[/img]
[img]http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2016/06/bridge_comparison_middle_earth_5k-100667991-large.png[/img]
helifax said:Based on my testing I didn't notice any difference in using 1 or 2 SLI bridges (ribbons).
This is ofc on 980Ti... Is there a reason to use 2 SLI bridges if you are not going 3x or 4x SLI?
Those benchmarks are again for Pascal not Maxwell... So irrelevant to my question;)
I did actually find one video running 980Ti SLI and the new HB connector is useless.
Only game that improved was Fallout4. BUT you can get the same improvement with 2 Soft SLI bridges on the 980Tis
Again, this is for 980TI not 1080! It seems the HB sli works very good for Pascals;) but does nothing for Maxwell!
Those benchmarks are again for Pascal not Maxwell... So irrelevant to my question;)
I did actually find one video running 980Ti SLI and the new HB connector is useless.
Only game that improved was Fallout4. BUT you can get the same improvement with 2 Soft SLI bridges on the 980Tis
Again, this is for 980TI not 1080! It seems the HB sli works very good for Pascals;) but does nothing for Maxwell!
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
[quote="coffeeonteacup"]
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/
Pretty good cpu benchmark on recent games for flat gaming. They even used 720p in order to eliminate gpu bottlenecking. Its in German but very easy to understand the results for us who dont speak the language. Cpu's are at stock clocks. That means 7700k single thread performance is in its own class but it still cant keep up with 6850k(6c/12t).
I dont know, while its clear what i would buy if i'd upgrade for 3d vision, its a different tale when it comes to flat gaming. Games like watch dogs 2, F1 and shadow warrior 2 shows pretty good cpu scaling beyond those 4c/8t cpu's. It would be very difficult to decide between ryzen and 7700k for flat gaming. If the ryzen single thread performance is really around haswell level, i would probably go for ryzen. Id put my money on engines becoming much more multi-thread friendly in the future.
EDIT: The article came today, maybe they'll add ryzen benchmarks too when the nda is over.[/quote]
That's a great article, and computerbase.de is highly reputable. I saw it today over at reddit's r/hardware that masterotaku and I also frequent.
Indeed, for 2D gaming, the 6900k benchmarks are superb. I indeed hope that Ryzen 1700X and 1800X are comparable.
If you're in the market for a 1700X, IMO, I would try go for the 1800X purely for the overclocking headroom @ 20% extra $, because the 1700X has obviously been binned lower than 4GHz due to it's limited clocking potential; whereas the 1800X is the highest binned, and in effect 'limitless'. For 3D Vision, clock speed should help a great deal.
The article does mention that Ryzen will be added to these results, and I am really looking forward to comparing 3D vision results with Ryzen systems on this board.
It's too bad about the 3D vision core limit :(
Pretty good cpu benchmark on recent games for flat gaming. They even used 720p in order to eliminate gpu bottlenecking. Its in German but very easy to understand the results for us who dont speak the language. Cpu's are at stock clocks. That means 7700k single thread performance is in its own class but it still cant keep up with 6850k(6c/12t).
I dont know, while its clear what i would buy if i'd upgrade for 3d vision, its a different tale when it comes to flat gaming. Games like watch dogs 2, F1 and shadow warrior 2 shows pretty good cpu scaling beyond those 4c/8t cpu's. It would be very difficult to decide between ryzen and 7700k for flat gaming. If the ryzen single thread performance is really around haswell level, i would probably go for ryzen. Id put my money on engines becoming much more multi-thread friendly in the future.
EDIT: The article came today, maybe they'll add ryzen benchmarks too when the nda is over.
That's a great article, and computerbase.de is highly reputable. I saw it today over at reddit's r/hardware that masterotaku and I also frequent.
Indeed, for 2D gaming, the 6900k benchmarks are superb. I indeed hope that Ryzen 1700X and 1800X are comparable.
If you're in the market for a 1700X, IMO, I would try go for the 1800X purely for the overclocking headroom @ 20% extra $, because the 1700X has obviously been binned lower than 4GHz due to it's limited clocking potential; whereas the 1800X is the highest binned, and in effect 'limitless'. For 3D Vision, clock speed should help a great deal.
The article does mention that Ryzen will be added to these results, and I am really looking forward to comparing 3D vision results with Ryzen systems on this board.
It's too bad about the 3D vision core limit :(
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
I wanted now to post the same link as coffeeonteacup.
Result are very interesting. It shows that new games use effectively more core.
MY dilema is: is the 3Dvision core cap proven? Because I have a feeling now that this is just valid for a few games with Poor optimization like GTA V, Withcer 3 (which also in the computerbase.de show it can only count till 4)
I wanted now to post the same link as coffeeonteacup.
Result are very interesting. It shows that new games use effectively more core.
MY dilema is: is the 3Dvision core cap proven? Because I have a feeling now that this is just valid for a few games with Poor optimization like GTA V, Withcer 3 (which also in the computerbase.de show it can only count till 4)
Intel i7 8086K
Gigabyte GTX 1080Ti Aorus Extreme
DDR4 2x8gb 3200mhz Cl14
TV LG OLED65E6V
Avegant Glyph
Windows 10 64bits
[quote="joker18"]I wanted now to post the same link as coffeeonteacup.
Result are very interesting. It shows that new games use effectively more core.
MY dilema is: is the 3Dvision core cap proven? Because I have a feeling now that this is just valid for a few games with Poor optimization like GTA V, Withcer 3 (which also in the computerbase.de show it can only count till 4)
[/quote]For me it's going to be an upgrade either way. More cores and higher ipc because my i7 is soo ancient.
I'd probably opt for more cores, but you are actually getting good single core performance with your i5.
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-1700x-benchmarks-leaked-beats-kaby-lake-ipc/
[img]http://cdn.overclock.net/a/a1/900x900px-LL-a1a26d0c_AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-vs-Intel-Core-i7-6900K-gaming-performance.png[/img]
not sure if this is real.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1623898/youtube-ltt-amd-ryzen-7-official-launch-all-the-details-tests/310
joker18 said:I wanted now to post the same link as coffeeonteacup.
Result are very interesting. It shows that new games use effectively more core.
MY dilema is: is the 3Dvision core cap proven? Because I have a feeling now that this is just valid for a few games with Poor optimization like GTA V, Withcer 3 (which also in the computerbase.de show it can only count till 4)
For me it's going to be an upgrade either way. More cores and higher ipc because my i7 is soo ancient.
Apparentky this was taken fro ma chinese site before being tkaen down.
"From Reddit
"This was from a Chinese site that briefly put up their review and they took it down ASAP.
I got this from their data:
Well above Haswell IPC, better than Broadwell too. We're at Skylake and Kabylake IPC with those scores.
Lets see if Ryzen can OC to 4.5ghz, that would be a PERFECT dream come true scenario. High IPC 8/16, high clocks!
Translation: "It looks like Ryzen 1700X is the fastest 8 core CPU now. We will do more tests to follow up!"
Archived review before it was taken down"
http://www.overclock.net/t/1623764/reddit-r7-1700x-benchmarks#post_25858805
with a link to the reddit post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5vaqxt/ryzen_7_1700x_benchmark/?st=IZFEVMA5&sh=eeb4912f
[quote="GibsonRed"]http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/matthew-wilson/overclockers-get-their-hands-on-ryzen-7-1800x-set-new-cinebench-world-record/[/quote]Yeah, i;m most likely going Ryzen. Most likely doesn't have single thread performance of kaby lake (but who knows). It will be a massive upgrade over my i7 860. It's just the Quantum leap I was looking for.
Yeah, i;m most likely going Ryzen. Most likely doesn't have single thread performance of kaby lake (but who knows). It will be a massive upgrade over my i7 860. It's just the Quantum leap I was looking for.
Usually depends on the game, but witcher 3 for example it's pretty much mandatory to have the mod that turns hairworks off on geralt.
i7-4790K CPU 4.8Ghz stable overclock.
16 GB RAM Corsair
ASUS Turbo 2080TI
Samsung SSD 840Pro
ASUS Z97-WS3D
Surround ASUS Rog Swift PG278Q(R), 2x PG278Q (yes it works)
Obutto R3volution.
Windows 10 pro 64x (Windows 7 Dual boot)
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
I agree with this line of thinking. Best chip today for the foreseeable future is definitely the 7700K. Nothing on the Intel or AMD radar suggests anything new will be better for gaming.
If you are thinking of waiting, another factor to consider is Win7 support. I still recommend Win7 for 3D gaming, because it's a more stable platform.
Win10 is getting force fed updates like Anniversary Edition, now expected twice a year. Microsoft has apparently given up on QA and is relying upon the unreliable Insider Program to find bugs, and it's been a mess.
On Win7, it's end of life, which means- no changes except security patches. This is exactly what I want. I want to spend my time playing games, not figuring out yet another incompatibility or glitch. Maybe you actually enjoy finding workarounds to problems, but I can guarantee that Win7 will net you more actual gaming time.
Why this is important here- The latest chipset from Intel does not support Win7. There are no chipset drivers, because Microsoft wants to force you to Win10.
So if you buy a new 7700K, and a Z270 chipset, you are stuck with Win10 forevermore, and all the attendant bleeding edge problems.
However.... if you buy a motherboard that supports the Z170 chipset, you can still run Win7, and a 7700K at the same time.
The only major feature you give up is Optane support, but you can always move your CPU to a new board at anytime anyway.
Z170 chipset boards will be around for about another 6 months, and harder to find after that. If you like the idea of fewer problems to solve on Win7, you will want to carefully consider moving to 7700K now.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Z170 would be a great choice - preliminary performance figures for Xpoint don't seem to be much better than NVMe SSDs. The other advantage of Z270 boards was the ability to clock AVX instructions at a lower speed than standard core. I thought this was a great idea as I had thought that AVX would come into play only while encoding, which I rarely did.
As it turns out, AVX is starting to be used by modern games too - The Witcher 3 and Mankind Divided both use AVX and had lowered my CPU core every time I loaded the game up. It took me quite some testing to narrow down the cause, as I was under the impression that games did not use AVX.
As it stands, I clocked AVX to the same speed as my normal Core Clock (Normal was 52,52,51,51 multipliers on 4 cores - AVX multipliers were 300MHz less), and my system while gaming with both games has been extremely stable - no crashes what so ever.
Moral of the story - the only reason to get Z270 boards was XPoint support and AVX down-clocking for stability purposes. My personal conclusion is that these features should not be deciding factors in your purchase. If you can get a Z170 for compatibility reasons or for a significantly lower price compared to Z270, then you should go for that without hesitation.
EDIT:
Bonus video I had been looking for; the importance of fast RAM:
;feature=youtu.be
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
Ah, very good to know. I thought it was weird that no one seemed to try to run Win7 on Z270, and at least force the Z170 drivers to load. The chipsets are damn near identical, just like the CPUs.
Very good to know that the ASUS at least is supporting the drivers, even if Intel was bought off. That makes the timing less critical for buying next gen hardware. Also, it's PC, so it's pretty likely someone will figure out a way. The best part of PC- freedom. Now under attack by our friends in Redmond.
Thanks for the direct experience info, very helpful.
Ryzen data just released. Amazing results. Single core IPC and performance matches i7-6900K. Freakin' impressive. Only cherry picked results from AMD (Cinebench single thread). More results when the embargo lifts on March 2.
I don't think that changes the picture materially. 7700K will be maybe 10% faster than that, and can be OC as well, and is going to be more mature/stable. Still, kudos to AMD.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
I really want to use this stable OS for gaming.
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/
Pretty good cpu benchmark on recent games for flat gaming. They even used 720p in order to eliminate gpu bottlenecking. Its in German but very easy to understand the results for us who dont speak the language. Cpu's are at stock clocks. That means 7700k single thread performance is in its own class but it still cant keep up with 6850k(6c/12t).
I dont know, while its clear what i would buy if i'd upgrade for 3d vision, its a different tale when it comes to flat gaming. Games like watch dogs 2, F1 and shadow warrior 2 shows pretty good cpu scaling beyond those 4c/8t cpu's. It would be very difficult to decide between ryzen and 7700k for flat gaming. If the ryzen single thread performance is really around haswell level, i would probably go for ryzen. Id put my money on engines becoming much more multi-thread friendly in the future.
EDIT: The article came today, maybe they'll add ryzen benchmarks too when the nda is over.
i7 4790K @4.8Ghz / 2x 1080 8GB SLI @2000Mhz / 16GB @2400Mhz
Just click:
My 3D videos and crosstalk test pattern
3DVision Fixes:
HelixMod Site
Universal fix for UnrealEngine 4 Games
Universal fix for Unity Games
Universal fix for FrostBite 3 Games
Universal fix for TellTales Games
Compability Mode Unleashed
Please donate if you can:
-----> Donations to 3DVision Fixers
.
I did actually find one video running 980Ti SLI and the new HB connector is useless.
Only game that improved was Fallout4. BUT you can get the same improvement with 2 Soft SLI bridges on the 980Tis
Again, this is for 980TI not 1080! It seems the HB sli works very good for Pascals;) but does nothing for Maxwell!
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com
(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)
That's a great article, and computerbase.de is highly reputable. I saw it today over at reddit's r/hardware that masterotaku and I also frequent.
Indeed, for 2D gaming, the 6900k benchmarks are superb. I indeed hope that Ryzen 1700X and 1800X are comparable.
If you're in the market for a 1700X, IMO, I would try go for the 1800X purely for the overclocking headroom @ 20% extra $, because the 1700X has obviously been binned lower than 4GHz due to it's limited clocking potential; whereas the 1800X is the highest binned, and in effect 'limitless'. For 3D Vision, clock speed should help a great deal.
The article does mention that Ryzen will be added to these results, and I am really looking forward to comparing 3D vision results with Ryzen systems on this board.
It's too bad about the 3D vision core limit :(
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
Result are very interesting. It shows that new games use effectively more core.
MY dilema is: is the 3Dvision core cap proven? Because I have a feeling now that this is just valid for a few games with Poor optimization like GTA V, Withcer 3 (which also in the computerbase.de show it can only count till 4)
Intel i7 8086K
Gigabyte GTX 1080Ti Aorus Extreme
DDR4 2x8gb 3200mhz Cl14
TV LG OLED65E6V
Avegant Glyph
Windows 10 64bits
I'd probably opt for more cores, but you are actually getting good single core performance with your i5.
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-1700x-benchmarks-leaked-beats-kaby-lake-ipc/
not sure if this is real.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1623898/youtube-ltt-amd-ryzen-7-official-launch-all-the-details-tests/310
"From Reddit
"This was from a Chinese site that briefly put up their review and they took it down ASAP.
I got this from their data:
Well above Haswell IPC, better than Broadwell too. We're at Skylake and Kabylake IPC with those scores.
Lets see if Ryzen can OC to 4.5ghz, that would be a PERFECT dream come true scenario. High IPC 8/16, high clocks!
Translation: "It looks like Ryzen 1700X is the fastest 8 core CPU now. We will do more tests to follow up!"
Archived review before it was taken down"
http://www.overclock.net/t/1623764/reddit-r7-1700x-benchmarks#post_25858805
with a link to the reddit post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5vaqxt/ryzen_7_1700x_benchmark/?st=IZFEVMA5&sh=eeb4912f
i7-4790K CPU 4.8Ghz stable overclock.
16 GB RAM Corsair
ASUS Turbo 2080TI
Samsung SSD 840Pro
ASUS Z97-WS3D
Surround ASUS Rog Swift PG278Q(R), 2x PG278Q (yes it works)
Obutto R3volution.
Windows 10 pro 64x (Windows 7 Dual boot)