System Build Feedback

[GhostDog]

Hey guys, I'm getting ready to put together a new gaming build, and I'm weighing two different configurations. The first is more basic:

 

GPU: Zotac GTX 1060 6 MB 192B | $260

CPU: i5 7600 w/ stock fan | $220

Mobo: ASRock H270 Pro4 ATX | $90

SSD: Samsung Pro EVO 250 GB | $130

HDD: WD Blue 1TB 7600RPM | $50

RAM: Corsair Vengeance DDR4 2400 2x4GB | $70

 

The second has a bit more horsepower:

 

GPU: Zotac GTX 1060 6 MB 192B | $260

CPU: i5 7600K | $240

CPU Heatsink: Scythe Mugen 5 | $45

Mobo: ASRock Z270 Extreme4 | $155

SSD: PNY CS2030 480 GB | $180

HDD: WD Blue 1TB 7600RPM | $50

RAM: Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3200 2x8GB | $125

 

The way I see it, for the second build I would be spending about $250 more for more overall system capacity (in the form of an additional 230GB SSD capacity, an additional 8 GB RAM, and around a 4.8 GHz OC capability). However, I'm wondering if I would gain more in the end by taking that money and plumping it into a GTX 1080. Thoughts?

 

Edit: I'll be gaming at 1080p for the time being.

Edited June 3, 2017 by GhostDog

[cichlidfan]

I would not consider building a machine with only 8GB of RAM at this point in time.

[GhostDog]

Okay, I think I'm trying to compromise in the wrong places, and I should build around a sensible cpu/gpu pair. On reflection, it seems better to either stay with an i5 7500/GTX 1060 6GB 1080p setup for ~$1K USD or go with a i5 7600K/GTX 1070 1440p setup for ~$1.3K USD. How about these two options:

 

GTX 1060 Rig

 

GPU: Zotac GTX 1060 6 MB 192B | $260

CPU: i5 7500 w/ stock fan | $200

Mobo: ASRock H270 Pro4 ATX | $90

SSD: Intel SSD 660p 512GB | $180

HDD: WD Blue 1TB 7600RPM | $50

RAM: G.Skill DDR4 2400 2x8GB | $110

 

GTX 1070 Rig

 

GPU: MSI GeForce GTX 1070 8GB 256-bit | $370

CPU: i5 7600K | $240

CPU Heatsink: Scythe Mugen 5 | $45

Mobo: ASRock Z270 Pro4 ATX | $120

SSD: PNY CS2030 480 GB | $180

HDD: WD Blue 1TB 7600RPM | $50

RAM: Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3200 2x8GB | $125

 

Edit: The price difference is a bit narrower than I thought ~$300

Edited June 4, 2017 by GhostDog
update SSD in GTX 1060 configuration; changed mobo to Z270 in GTX 1070

[Demon_]

You can't overlock a CPU with a H270.

 

 

i5 7600K. I don't own one but I think the GTX 1060 6G is enough for 1080 lines.

Edited June 4, 2017 by Demon_

[GhostDog]

Per the ASRock website, the H270 uses UEFI bios with built-in OC options.

 

http://asrock.pc.cdn.bitgravity.com/Manual/H270%20Pro4.pdf

[Demon_]

Page?

 

 

https://ark.intel.com/products/98090/Intel-H270-Chipset

[Demon_]

It's by the base clock, the overclocking possibility (range) is extremely low, compared to

the CPU multiplier. It's a no go..

Edited June 4, 2017 by Demon_

[GhostDog]

Ah, thanks for the heads up. The Z270 Pro4 then ($110 USD).

[Konovalov]

Have you not considered a AMD Ryzen based system such as a R5 1600. You could build a system around this with considerably cheaper CPU/motherboard combo than a Z270 Intel i5-7600k based one. The extra cash saved you could then put towards a more powerful GPU such as a GTX1070 8GB card.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GhostDog]

Have you not considered a AMD Ryzen based system such as a R5 1600. You could build a system around this with considerably cheaper CPU/motherboard combo than a Z270 Intel i5-7600k based one. The extra cash saved you could then put towards a more powerful GPU such as a GTX1070 8GB card.

 

I have. Here's my take:

 

Price and Features

 

1. Currently, an R5 1600X (which is the unlocked competitor chip to the i5 7600K) is actually the same price as an i5, and sometimes even more expensive than an i5 (only by about $10, but still)

 

2. If you account for the built in WiFi on the ASRock X370 Killer SLI, the AM4 board that has the same features as the Z270 Pro4, they're about the same price. However, the WiFi data rate for the X370 (433 Mbps) is slower than the Intel 8265 BT/WiFi module (867 Mbps) that's available for the Z270, and the X370 lacks MU-MIMO support, which is something that I want/need for my specific WiFi router.

 

3. The X370 top supported memory speed is only 2666Mhz, vs 3200MHz+ for the Z270, which makes a measurable difference when you're overclocking. Compare the performance of Corsair Vengeance LPX 2666 with the 3200 model for example:

 

2666: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/corsair-vengeance-ddr4-2666-overclocking,4011.html

3200: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/corsair-vengeance-lpx-16gb-ddr4-3200,4354.html

 

Performance

 

1. The real advantages of a 4 core, 8 thread GPU are in applications like video encoding and 3d rendering, which are not a major focus for me.

 

2. As expected, the i5 has superior single-thread performance, which makes the difference for the majority of modern games. In particular, the i5 is consistently superior for the kinds of games that I typically play, namely simulations and RTS games. Some other kinds of games that benefit from more threads may see comparable performance from the R5 however. (see http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2875-amd-r5-1600x-1500x-review-fading-i5-argument/page-4).

 

3. The i5 overclocks to a much higher frequency than the R5, which translates to better DCS performance (see https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=157374)

 

For my money and purposes, the i5 is a much better overall value. YMMV.

 

For ease of comparison, here's a couple of PCPartpicker lists for an i5 and comparable R5 system:

 

i5 7600K

 

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/VhGwf8

 

R5 1600X

 

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/kqrn4C

 

Edit: I wouldn't actually use the Intel 600p (it's a dog performance-wise). My preferred SSD, the PNY CS2030 480 GB, wasn't on the parts picker list.

Edited June 6, 2017 by GhostDog
4 cores not 12 cores!

[BitMaster]

Nahhh, that not reading the numbers correct.

 

When you look at R5/R7 vs 7700k the Intel still wins, with a 1GHz cycle plus it gets 5-10% more. So in reality, clock for clock, the Ryzen is better, more efficient, PER CYCLE. Just Intel has a few more cycles per second to just break more than even.. a little bit more.

 

Tbh...I'd screw those 5-10% and get the cores instead. Minimum FPS is better with more cores, future is multi-core..

 

With a good R5-1600X 3.6-4G you can compete with a 7700k. The GPU counts far more now in DCS imho.

[GhostDog]

Nahhh, that not reading the numbers correct.

 

When you look at R5/R7 vs 7700k the Intel still wins, with a 1GHz cycle plus it gets 5-10% more. So in reality, clock for clock, the Ryzen is better, more efficient, PER CYCLE. Just Intel has a few more cycles per second to just break more than even.. a little bit more.

 

Tbh...I'd screw those 5-10% and get the cores instead. Minimum FPS is better with more cores, future is multi-core..

 

With a good R5-1600X 3.6-4G you can compete with a 7700k. The GPU counts far more now in DCS imho.

 

The numbers that I looked at don't reflect that. In any case, I can't evaluate which CPU is "better" in the abstract. I chose the platform that seemed more suitable for me and my purposes, based on the data.

[Konovalov]

Tbh...I'd screw those 5-10% and get the cores instead. Minimum FPS is better with more cores, future is multi-core..

 

With a good R5-1600X 3.6-4G you can compete with a 7700k. The GPU counts far more now in DCS imho.

 

 

That has become my view. I game at 1440p which really does l vel out he CPU playing field and as you said DCS relies more on a good GPU rather than just heavily on the CPU. I would rather have 6-8 cores to get me through the next 5 years rather than being stuck with the big standard 4 cores that Intel have shoved down our throats for the last decade. And the sexy temptation of a 5Ghz CPU clock speed just ain't all that anymore. In any case at least there is a real choice now instead of the boring get a i5 or i7 K CPU.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk