Інсталювати Steam
увійти
|
мова
简体中文 (спрощена китайська)
繁體中文 (традиційна китайська)
日本語 (японська)
한국어 (корейська)
ไทย (тайська)
Български (болгарська)
Čeština (чеська)
Dansk (данська)
Deutsch (німецька)
English (англійська)
Español - España (іспанська — Іспанія)
Español - Latinoamérica (іспанська — Латинська Америка)
Ελληνικά (грецька)
Français (французька)
Italiano (італійська)
Bahasa Indonesia (індонезійська)
Magyar (угорська)
Nederlands (нідерландська)
Norsk (норвезька)
Polski (польська)
Português (португальська — Португалія)
Português - Brasil (португальська — Бразилія)
Română (румунська)
Русский (російська)
Suomi (фінська)
Svenska (шведська)
Türkçe (турецька)
Tiếng Việt (в’єтнамська)
Повідомити про проблему з перекладом
Правила і настанови обговорень
Поскаржитися на цей допис
If you want to save some money you could get the Ryzen 5 1600X instead but then possibly that would need some fast DDR4 to be able to keep up with the 7600K and right now trying to get fast RAM on that platform may be troublesome so maybe not. The 7600K will likely run more games better than the Ryzen 5 1600X anyway.
Going with the 3 GB GTX 1060 may not be horrible either but I know everyone will suggest the 6 GB for you anyway.
The new RX 580 will be a bit cheaper than 480 to and is basically the same but at slightly higher clock, that and the GTX 1060 perform about on par with each other.
Personally maybe I would had gone Ryzen 5 1600X instead anyway and if RX 580 released soon enough then maybe that because if you get / have a monitor you can get FreeSync for less money than G-sync and get frames synchronised between monitor and graphics card that way for less money.
The thing with Ryzen though is that currently it give less FPS than Kaby lake / i5 K and i7 K, that's slightly less relevant with a weaker graphics card and at higher resolutions (=lower FPS due to the graphics card not able to keep up anyway) and faster RAM help but it may not help enough.. Arma 3 run way better on the Intel processors than on Ryzen, whatever that's still the case if locked to one CCX / with the upcoming Game mode in Windows 10 or with faster RAM I don't know but.
The only obvious thing is the 7600K though. I know differences are supposed to be small but in some cases it may keep up with the 6700K. Both platform benefits from fast RAM so as-long as the fast RAM work and doesn't make your machine unstable the faster RAM is better. If you don't get it to function properly at the higher speed though then I'm not 100% sure if it works just fine at a more standard speed so there's that. Motherboard manufacturers list RAM which should work so maybe one can be more safe that way. In a perfect world the only thing necessary to run the faster RAM would be to turn on XMP settings in BIOS and then be done with it.
Terrible performance in Arma 3 with Ryzen (lowest clocked processor but whatever):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yh9doMXt3I
3600 MHz DDR4 with Ryzen and gaming performance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZS2XHcQdqA
(But his way to get 3600 MHz to work isn't something you'd want to do.)
3 or 6 GB GTX 1060 doesn't matter all that much:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvNxTJjUZtw
RX 480 vs GTX 1060:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEw3CaNSbUo
Simulated Ryzen 5 1600X vs i5 7600K:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5cqOtWz5sU
But it may run better than that with faster RAM.
Advantage of going Ryzen 5 1600X: 6 cores.
Advantage of i5 7600K: You know it perform well in all games now.
Advantage of RX 580/480: FreeSync is.. basically free.
Advantage of GTX 1060: By now .. ~nothing I'd say. It's where GameWorks belong though. Bit lower power consumption?
I guess I'd suggest looking for supported fast RAM and getting sticks of that.
For PSU EVGA G2, G3, P2 if you feel ok paying that amount, SSD or HDD at first to be able to afford it? Cheaper case?
B350 or X370 board for Ryzen but if you want to run faster RAM than maybe the more expensive stuff run it better.
Z270 if you want to be able to overclock the 7600K which you will want to be able to if you're paying for it anyway.. I guess. 1600X is also overclockable but don't assume it will overclock well.
7600 = four cores, four threads
7700 = four cores, eight threads
1600X = six cores, twelve threads
Nowadays faster RAM may give more performance boost than an overclocked CPU so I guess non-K i5 on Z motherboard and fast RAM could also be an alternative.
Maybe a cheaper Ryzen 5 than 1600X with fast RAM do better than the 1600X with slow RAM too.
Yes waiting for the RX 580 might be worth it it will release in a couple of weeks. (I completely forgot about the RX 580 already)
The PS4 Pro would have something like the RX 480 but at a lower clock but the PS4 Pro cheat to get 4K output by rendering at a lower resolution and upscale or just render every second pixel and then take an average of the pixels around the non-rendered one to create more pixels and then possibly upscale that result.
The GTX 1060 and RX 480 is good for ~highest settings in around 60 FPS in 1080p for most games.
The GTX 1070 is more powerful and as such maybe you could assume 100 FPS there or support for 2560x1440 resolution instead.
GTX 1080 and 1080Ti is even more powerful so say for those who want to max a 144 Hz screen or have ~100 FPS in 2560x1440 or try to game in 4K where the 1080Ti may be able to average the 60s or so. Some games such as Doom run better so that you actually can play in 60 FPS in 4K with those cards.
RX 480 used to be slower than GTX 1060 in games but may perform better now. Nvidia had ShadowPlay for streaming which many loved but the AMD cards supposed on card video encoding too, GameWorks is an Nvidia product and that and PhysX is designed to run on their stuff but I think the GameWorks stuff work on AMD products too and PhysX on CPU but the performance hit may be slightly higher. On the other hand a monitor with G-sync support could cost $100-200 extra whereas FreeSync doesn't really cost more at all so there's money to be saved there with the AMD GPU instead. AMD have nothing which compete with 1070, 1080 and 1080Ti right now. RX 580 will likely perform a bit better but not enough and Vega is supposed to be better than RX 480/580 but it's not released yet so.. That doesn't really help.
I won't agree with anyone saying the Ryzen 5 1600X is better than the i5 7600K.
It's different.
You risk getting a lower game performance with the games of today there. You do have two additional cores though and faster RAM may help and there's always the possibility it will be better in the future and the difference may not be so large but it _IS_ large in Arma3 and Far Cry Primal. The Ryzen processor is enough to push the ~60 FPS in Far Cry Primal though so that may not matter all that much. If you'd do something like stream game-play with video encoded on the CPU then the Ryzen processor may be better because it's got 6 cores and 12 threads can be run at the same time vs the 4 cores and 4 threads on the Intel processor.
But the Intel processor is the safest choice and Nvidia sell the most cards now.
I personally would get the AMD card though as long as GTX 1060 is what you are considering because of FreeSync for nothing. For anything above AMD isn't an option right now so ..
And personally I might had taken the 1600X anyway with fast RAM and hoped.. But being well aware of that it may and will perform those than Intel in a bunch of titles. However I've got some confidence in myself when it comes to hardware, software and looking around for answers and trying to solve things whereas you likely just want to have a PC which work and be able to game on and then the i5 7600K may be the less worrying and troublesome choice because it will just work. Especially with standard RAM modules but maybe faster ones run just fine too and someone else would have to answer that. If they work just fine and doesn't really cost much more then definitely get the faster ones if you're getting a Z motherboard anyway because it will improve performance and everyone saying it won't are simply wrong and misinformed / sit on outdated "knowledge."7600K and 6600K should cost about the same. So just get the newest one.
Z270 may cost a tiny bit more than Z170 but you know the 7-series processors work with no BIOS update there and you get the latest and greatests specs so.
Ryzen 5 1600X some games like WILL run slower.
It may keep up with fast RAM and _MAYBE_ some day it will be better for games but unlikely right now.
It will be better for tasks which is easy to spread onto multiple cores though and it may be better if you want to run more things with your game.
And some would argue that it's not important to get the amount of FPS it can delivery in the games anyway because they are fine with lower FPS or would rather increase the resolution or whatever but that's kinda dishonest answers. More is better and the Intel chips simply run the games of today faster with no changes.
(UT3 ended up being 35% faster with an update for Ryzen and Dota2 I think gained about 20% of performance with one too so .. it could improve. But maybe not enough to make the Ryzen chip run Arma 3 as well as the 7600K anyway.)Basically the same thing but with a bit higher clock-rate so .. not all that important. If it get a price-cut too that's nice I guess.
R9 390/390X didn't really become cheaper than the 290/290X though.
i5-7600k
Rx 580
So for ram 16gb or 8b at what speed? Also is there a better motherboard for this set up without costing a ton more than the z270?
Z170 is the older one which older BIOSes only support the 6600K and such but one can upgrade the BIOS there to get 7600K support too. And new motherboard may already have the latest BIOS, but it's easier to just get the Z270.
I don't know if you want a mini-ITX build (one graphics card expansion slot only, just 2 memory card slots, but smaller and for smaller cases) or Micro-ATX (up to two graphics cards but you will unlikely use that, three addtional expansion slots over one card, four memory card slots, still a bit smaller for somewhat smaller cases) or ATX (the full size stuff with lots of expansion cards slots which you will unlikely use requiring a standard sized case), there's also E-ATX which is even larger.
If you get a smaller case and a non-stock CPU cooler you also need to make sure the case not only can hold the motherboard but also is wide enough to be able to hold your tower cooler or have support for water cooler radiators if you went that way, long enough to fit your graphics card (very likely) and that there's enough room for the PSU to house a longer one if you get one over 140 mm (160 mm almost all cases can likely fit, some small cases will use special size PSUs or SFX or some variation of SFX sized PSUs but that's kinda special.)
Gigabyte GA-Z270P-D3
For instance is a cheap ATX-sized Z270 motherboard, the Micro-ATX ones often are called Z270 with an M in their name.
You can see what RAM it supports here:
http://download.gigabyte.eu/FileList/Memory/mb_memory_ga-z270p-d3.pdf
I would suggest going with 2x8 GB, the Samsung brand RAM run better with Ryzen.
For a 16 GB kit it should in most of those cases likely have 16 in the name of the kit. I think DS kits work less with Ryzen so I'll try to avoid them and choose SS instead.
So maybe G.Skill F4-3600C17Q-16GVK or F4-3600C16D-16GVK for the really fast stuff but those are likely more expensive. (was 4 sticks so I failed.)
Oh this was 3400+ MHz, I thought 3200.. Maybe forget this content:
Hard to get SS, 8 GB / stick, 16 GB kit but yeah, Corsiar: CMK16GX4M2B3466C16 or CMK16GX4M2B3466C16R have the DS name but would be 16 GB kits I guess without having four memory sticks (SS 16 GB seem to have 4 GB / stick otherwise?)
3200 MHz
CMK16GX4M2B3200C16R (DS but whatever) and so on.
CMK16GX4M2B3200C16R = https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233867 = $125
CMK16GX4M2B3466C16 = https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233922&cm_re=CMK16GX4M2B3466C16-_-20-233-922-_-Product = $180
So as you see going from 3200 to 3466 MHz increase the price from 125 to 180 dollar so don't go there ..
However a normal 2400 MHz kit like this one = https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233970&cm_re=corsair_lpx_2400_2x8-_-20-233-970-_-Product = $117 so going up from $117 to $125 for 2400 MHz to 3200 MHz is just fine but going up to $180 for 3466 MHz is a different story.
On this 8 core 5960X with lots of cache getting the faster RAM doesn't really help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLg1YwH0QOA
Here you can see the improvement of faster RAM with the i5 6500, see the Witcher 3:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er_Fuz54U0Y
The difference with Ryzen however is enormous:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZS2XHcQdqA
.. but if you don't get that processor feel free to not care all that much I guess.
I don't feel comfortable recommending fast RAM (or doing so with Ryzen) to someone inexperienced because I know Swedish online seller Inet doesn't even mount systems with fast RAM for customers for stability reasons. Now whatever that mean that the faster RAM is unstable at standard settings or if it's just that the people ordering such systems assume to get the full speed of the RAM and they don't want to run into issues with lacking compatibility or possibly crashes due to that I don't know. I don't want to recommend something which make you run into issues though :/, but I would recommend faster RAM if I knew it absolutely worked!!
I'm somewhat suggesting the Ryzen 5 but since I know it doesn't keep up with the i5 in Arma 3 for instance with standard speed RAM I don't want to tell you to get that because I don't want to fool you to get inferior performance WHICH IT WILL HAVE FOR ALL WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, with faster RAM it could run better but maybe not good enough to keep up with or beat the i5 anyway and running fast RAM on Ryzen may just be complicated and hard and come with negative consequences so it's easier to just suggest something which work.
RX 580/480 I don't really would assume much worse performance than the GTX 1060 at-least and there you have the performance of FreeSync support as previously said. Do you already own a monitor? If you have a monitor and won't use either of FreeSync or G-sync then that's less relevant.
Get two memory sticks for dual-channel but not four to save slots for future use if you'd ever want more RAM. On Ryzen RAM run more stable with less slots occupied and not having "dual rank" or whatever it's called, or is that something else? I assume SS is single sided and DS is double sided? I don't know if the size listed in those memory lists are per stick or per side of the stick.
Overclocking on Ryzen 7 1700:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDJTHsKp7Jk
(3.0 - 3.7 GHz chip, the former with all cores the later with one, the Ryzen 5 1600X would be 3.6-4.0 GHz with +100 MHz XFR when possible but 6 cores rather than 8.)
His processor overclocks really well. Not typical.
The 1800X have run games closer to i5 than i7 performance but the i7 7700K has been the superior chip.
I don't know what videos you're talking about but if one want to show the Ryzen 5 winning all you need to do is to run CineBench multithreaded or many other well-behaving multi-threaded tasks and it will win due to the 6 cores.
However if lots of data are shared between the cores or not all cores are fully utilized because the tasks can't easily be distributed among them all or maybe just one core is utilized then the Intels chips may or will win.
As for any gaming benchmarks as long as the graphics card is hitting close to 100% load then I will consider the result stupid, "inaccurate" and possibly as an attempt to fool the viewer. The result of course is exactly what it show but if they use a weak graphics card or high resolutions and what not resulting in the graphics card being the benchmark rather than the CPU then you won't be able to tell which CPU could run the game better.
And on the other hand when it's done correctly and the CPU is the bottle-neck some people will ignore the actual result in FPS and conclude that "by the Ryzen only had 60% load whereas the Intel processor had close to 100%!", yeah, that's correct, because it's the average load. That lots of cores wasn't used or that the processing speed was limited due to poor cache and memory performance doesn't really solve or help anything though. The end result in the number of frames per second you got out is what you got regardless. And that's all that matter in that title right now.
I however don't want to exaggerate the value of it either because maybe one will want to increase the graphics settings to say ultra on the rx 480 or gtx 1060 and hence end up playing at a lower FPS value anyway. And in the future maybe FUTURE games will make good usage of the multiple cores however the CCX design is what it is and the dependence on fast RAM there is what it is too. It could prevent the processor from beating the i7 7700K in games in the future too. And there's LOTS of games already released and they perform as they do RIGHT NOW. Back when it was the i5 2500K vs the FX-8350 or so some people also thought the eight core could improve and have the performance crown in the future but the 2500K still have it. These two processors isn't the same and Intel will likely release a 6 core main-stream chip themselves too but if that one was out now I would had taken that over the 8 core AMD one simply from having just ONE piece of L3 cache instead without the CCX latency. AMD have likely designed the processor the way they have done it in part because they can "draw less wire" into the chip connecting everything but splitting it into two pieces and then connecting those two rather than connecting all cores and cache to everything else. Saved them space and if nothing else, but it has its disadvantage.
Future performance will be what it be and we can all speculate but what we know is how it is now and there the i7 7700K is the gaming king.
I would still I think take the 1600X over the 7600K but then being aware of its flaws and couple it with as fast RAM as possible trying to make the best out of it.
But it's so early and I haven't seen a single motherboard review even less so of the cheaper stuff..
I don't want him to run into troubles. I don't even know if when the RAM is included in the QVL it will definitely run at that speed and with no BCLK change or whatever.
https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/support/B350-TOMAHAWK.html#support-mem
G.Skill F4-3200C14D-16GFX DDR4 3200 3200 Samsung 1.35v SS 8GB √ √
G.Skill F4-3600C16D-16GTZ DDR4 3600 3200 Samsung 1.35v SS 8GB √ √
G.Skill F4-3600C17Q-32GTZ DDR4 3600 3200 Samsung 1.35v SS 8GB √ √
G.Skill F4-3600C15D-16GTZ DDR4 3600 3200 Samsung 1.35v SS 8GB √ √
G.Skill F4-3600C17D-16GVK DDR4 3600 3200 Samsung 1.35v SS 8GB √ √
G.Skill F4-3600C17D-16GTZ DDR4 3600 3200 Samsung 1.35v SS 8GB √ √
G.Skill F4-3600C16D-16GVK DDR4 3600 3200 Samsung 1.35v SS 8GB √ √
G.Skill F4-3600C16D-16GTZSW DDR4 3600 3200 Samsung 1.35v SS 8GB √ √
G.Skill F4-3600C17Q-32GVK DDR4 3600 3200 Samsung 1.35V SS 8GB √ √
G.Skill F4-3600C16D-16GTZKW DDR4 3600 3200 Samsung 1.35v SS 8GB √ √
G.Skill F4-3733C18Q-32GTZSW DDR4 3733 3200 Samsung 1.35v SS 8GB √ √
G.Skill F4-3733C18Q-32GTZKW DDR4 3733 3200 Samsung 1.35v SS 8GB √ √
G.Skill F4-3733C18Q-32GTZ DDR4 3733 3200 Samsung 1.35v SS 8GB √ √
G.Skill F4-4000C18D-16GTZ DDR4 4000 3200 Samsung 1.35v SS 8GB √ √
G.Skill F4-4000C19D-16GTZSW DDR4 4000 3200 Samsung 1.35v SS 8GB √ √
G.Skill F4-4000C19D-16GTZKW DDR4 4000 3200 Samsung 1.35v SS 8GB √ √
G.Skill F4-4000C19D-16GTZ DDR4 4000 3200 Samsung 1.35v SS 8GB √ √
G.Skill F4-4000C18Q-32GTZSW DDR4 4000 3200 Samsung 1.35v SS 8GB √ √
Galax HOF4CALCS3600K17LD162C DDR4 3600 3200 Samsung 1.35v SS 8GB √ √
If this:
$170 https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232194&cm_re=F4-3600C16D-16GTZ-_-20-232-194-_-Product
$110 https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813144018&cm_re=b350_tomahawk-_-13-144-018-_-Product
or
$120 https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813144028&cm_re=b350_tomahawk-_-13-144-028-_-Product
+ Ryzen 5 1600X or right now combined with the Ryzen 7 1700 for $420:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3416910
is running as it should with no issues whatsoever then fine by all means feel free to do it.
170+420 = 590 for 16 GB of 3600 MHz RAM runnable at 3200 MHzm Ryzen 7 1700, B350 mobo. Kinda become hard to build the rest of the machine for $410 but close ..
The Ryzen 5 1600X is supposed to be like $60 less or so right? Maybe it won't come with a cooler thought I don't know. The cooler stock cooler isn't horrible.
I think with functional RAM at 3200 MHz it will keep up very well.
The motherboard is more or less taken by random as a B350 board and MSI which claim to work with lots of RAM. The cheap Gigabyte boards may have had ALC 1220 audiochip and if those support the RAM too .. then fine. I'd personally take the better sound solution if everything else was equal (though I think there's more too it than just the chip too.)
Bunch of heavy threads about all Ryzen, here about VRM:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1624051/vrm-on-the-new-am4-motherboards/490
But I doubt someone who just want to get a gaming PC really want to care about which motherboards and crappy VRM or not. They just want it to work and run their games as they assume they will run.