It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Phasmid: PC versions were designed for 4 cores rather than 8 because that's what Intel was selling as their top consumer chip for 11 (!) years from Core2Quad until the 7000 series; and Intel has been the dominant chip maker sales wise over that entire period. There has been a fundamental shift in the past two years though, and people who bought 7600ks in 2017 are having problems with newer games now because they want more than 4 cores even if those cores are strong. The 7600k holds up pretty well in average fps, but in some games has awful microstutter and 1% fps values because of the cores having to queue tasks; and inconsistent frame rate is way more noticeable than a somewhat lower but consistent rate.

I would not be buying a 6 core non HT Intel chip and expect it to last well. 4c/8t chips were top line from 2010 to 2017, now they're barely above entry level two years later even for Intel let alone AMD. I'd be looking at a bare minimum of 8 threads for a chip to last. I'd expect 6 core chips like the 8600k to hit problems with task queuing fairly soon just like the 7600k has. That won't make them instantly obsolete of course, but still...

I have a 1700 so I'm a bit biased- though I plan on upgrading at some point anyway- but I'd expect it to last far better than 8600k will. It doesn't clock that high, but then the console chips will be lucky to hit 3 GHz no matter what the rumours say. 7nm uses less power, but the chips are also smaller so the heat density goes up and they will have a 5700 equivalent set of Navi cores + DXR hardware to cool as well.
People who bought 7600k in 2017 were uninformed at best, I'm sure there are some satisfied costumers but the only use case I can think for a 7600k (gaming related) is emulation. To unleash all the power they can, the motherboards are kinda expensive and for the same price range, we could actually build a much superior system.
In my market the 9600k has no place, unless for very specialized uses (there were/are some compatibility issues with Ryzen on older stuff as well). The 9400f is 70 euros cheaper on the CPU alone. (funny thing - the i3 9350kf is the same price as the i5 9600kf and both more expensive than the Ryzen 2700 LMFAO )

Rant: I find it funny because usually the very same people (generalizing :D )arguing the AMD counterparts with slower per thread but more threads overall are not good buys for gaming, due lower fps, are the same that don't recomend 7600k, instead a 7700 non-k, for better long term.

Regarding games using cores, as I've stated before, even old games uses 8 threads or more. Although they don't use them very efficiently, the same as most modern games (most tasks wait for the first thread anyway). Usually multiplayer games are the ones needing beefier CPU's, like Battlefield 1, but single player with a lot of bots can be pretty demanding as well. Except Assassins Creed, aka. "Ubisoft trash" that needs a NASA computer to run above 30fps.
avatar
Phasmid: CPU <-> CPU comparisons between consoles and PC work decently, it's the GPU comparisons that usually don't work due to console GPUs being built into the system board as opposed to AIBs in expansion slots for PC. xbox1x has a 570 equivalent GPU but is '4k capable' which a 570 really isn't on PC and it does perform better overall than the 570, but the 1x does also 'cheat' (eg chequerboard upscaling) extensively to achieve 4k in almost all cases.
Mostly we cannot compare PC partsbdirectly with console hardware. They are made different, programmed different and run different, one exemple is the Ram/Vram and how the calculations are shared.
However, a good metric to compare both systems is efficiency to play any game at rougly the same visual quality and performance (any engineer with probably tell you the same). Surprising the consoles still hold up pretty ok in this day and age.
I expect the next Console iteration to fall in the same ballpark regarding power consumption as the PS4/XBox One, With so much imprived technology we can expect it will need a freaking 2000 euros and 2x less efficient pc to play the games games on comparable "visual quality" (20% of that power will be used to run Win10 alone :P )
avatar
ThorChild: The parts were:

Case: Fractal Design Core 500
Mobo: MSI B450I GAMING PLUS AC
CPU: Ryzen 5 1600 (65W) @ 3.2Ghz (on a discount a few months back, just £120 and what pushed the build)
RAM: 16GB(2x8) Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 MHz C16
PSU: Seasonic FOCUS Plus Gold 550W
SSD: Samsung MZ-76E500B/EU 500 GB 860 EVO
DVD: ASUS DRW-24D5MT
avatar
Gede: I really like your build. How happy are you with it? Is it silent in all situations? Do you find the case too big for your desk top?
Technically it all works (it boots and the bios gives me it's data and all the parts seem happy (RAM@3000Mhz) etc). I have yet (still!) to put an OS on it though. My current PC (i5 3350P) is still good enough, so the above build was mostly because i wanted a new PC that could STILL run Windows 7 fine, even after MS strong-arming people to W10. Like to find an upto date system build that will run without Windows 10 is not easy.

So the above build WILL run fine on Win 7 (what it was designed for in terms of hardware picks and the W7 drivers for that) and hopefully the dual-boot with Linux Mint i plan to use. That is the plan, but the OS part has not been installed yet.

As for desk space it will eventually replace the current i5 system, which was built in a m-iTX Antec ISK-600 case, so the foot print is pretty much exactly the same, so no problems on size. The Core 500 is just a better all round case than the older ISK-600 (it has dust filters etc). Temps look fine and i'm not expecting any changes in noise levels over my old build. Not silent (as it has fans) but 'near silent' as i won't add too many fans (no water cooling block or massive GPU etc). It was built around low TDP, and that in itself offers a pretty quiet system.

I doubt i will change from 1080p gaming, i have no need as that is plenty 'big enough' for my needs, so the specs are fine for that imho.

According to info i have been able to find that Ryzen 1600 build will be around 3-4x as powerful as my current system (maybe a little more if i go for something like a 1660Ti for GPU) which is more than good enough as i mostly play older games.

If you wanted current gen gaming at Ultra etc, you could look at a newer CPU+Mobo and good GPU, but probably have to give up W7 for W10 etc.
Post edited November 17, 2019 by ThorChild
avatar
Dark_art_: Regarding games using cores, as I've stated before, even old games uses 8 threads or more. Although they don't use them very efficiently, the same as most modern games (most tasks wait for the first thread anyway). Usually multiplayer games are the ones needing beefier CPU's, like Battlefield 1, but single player with a lot of bots can be pretty demanding as well. Except Assassins Creed, aka. "Ubisoft trash" that needs a NASA computer to run above 30fps.
It's not about running them though, or even average framerate. It's about one percent lows and hiccups in gameplay. Lots of videos and articles lately showing this issue in newer games like Control, Red Dead 2, etc. I would guess this only gets quickly worse with new consoles coming, even if the games keep putting 4 core processors in the minimum requirements.
When planning my current pc I made a list with a lot of CPU candidates and then started striking out those that I had better not get. Intel's 9500 and 9600 (with or without F/K) were struck out because I also was afraid of buying 6cores/6threads. The cheap 9400F stayed on longer as a possible cheap route with a shorter life span for the pc.
Athlon 3000G review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y3KiIlHODQ
avatar
Themken: ...cheap route with a shorter life span...
I could never do this. If I buy something I make sure it lasts me 5+ years. It must be the extra stress that literally keeps me procrastinating and getting it done, over the course of a month or so. For example I should have reinstalled windows on my current build for almost a year now, but whenever the weekend comes, I realize I won't be able to do it all in one sitting, and I end up playing something for the duration of what little time I have. If I were to have a day or two of continuous time, to devote entirely to assembling a new system and installing and migrating all the software and documents I'd need I could power through it. But who has that much free time?

My current build took me about two weeks of slowly tinkering around with it until I got everything I wanted just right. But that was me having plenty of free time. Most of that time was spent on cable management, but I'm so proud about how it turned out. I've seen some professional yoututbe reviewers talking about cable management, whose end systems looked worse than mine.
avatar
MadalinStroe:
I can understand as I also prefer to build a system that lasts a while. I got fed up with changing all the time before 2009.

Funny with cable management as for some it is easy to see how they must go to fit and reach and others struggle with trying over and over again until it is acceptable. I suggest trying out with only the other end of the cables attached first to see whether it will work.

--------
The Athlon 200 series were too expensive for what they did. Sad to see the 3000G is barely better but higher clocks should mean better response while surfing. It is not meant for gaming, which PainOfSalvation's linked review sure drove home.
Post edited November 21, 2019 by Themken