So specifics. About two years back, I switched to building first PC and buying components separately ( mostly from online stores from EU, god bless cheap tech from Poland, and our stores here in Croatia).
So I bought, in order, Pallit Jetstream GTX 970, Kendomen Deepcool ( decent case, pretty cheap but with enough room, three ventilators and good airflow), classic WD blue 1TB and Asrock B150M Pro4 .
Instead of buying other components, I went into "waiting game", for prices to drop. Instead new generation of CPU/GPU's came out, RAM prices doubled, etc... I know, I know: really great timing.
Also recently I bought Seasonic Plus SSR-FX Gold 750w...I figure this should be enough power and has a 10 year warranty.
Typical PC for gaming, internet, videos...the usual. No streaming, editing, multi tasking, or intention of going for dual graphics card or overclocking ( if it nets me, only a few extra FPS?). Also playing on 1080p resolution with no intention of going 4k in future.
So my question is what to do with CPU? The way I see it, it comes down to three choices:
1. Use my current MBO, and buy Intel processor to go along with it. In that case which one is best( i5 6500, even if their prices are still the same)? Does any of last generation work with it? This would be cheapest, but less viable long term ( unless a next gen CPU's come in a year or two, so I can skip current gen).
2. Buy latest Intel CPU's ( probably i5-8400?) and new MBO for it.
3. Go for AMD CPU/MBO combination ( as I understand it, they draw more power, are better at multi core, but you don't need to change MBO for an upgrade( or it's more likely that will be the case)
Again, something, ideally 6 cores... and if more games if future would use more, I plan to upgrade to something better with a new GPU ( 1080 or AMD equivalent, if I catch a good price).
Also for RAM, which would be best option in either case? Will prices remain as it is, in nearby future?
Post by Unicephalon 40-D on Dec 15, 2017 8:27:13 GMT
I'd say sell the mobo and 970 if you can. Get new mobo without any bells and whistles (as plain as possible, less problems anyway) and i5-8xxx the 6 core.
16GB RAM is minimum I'd say. You have x64 OS, which takes around 1,5-2GB itself, if you have 8GB and game takes 7GB you'll lose performance to swapping. fex. MEASP can take 9GB of memory.
Get 1070Ti or 1070OC. It wont run 4k but it'll run 2k good.
(my setup is i7-4960X/16GB/1TB SSD/4TB HDD/1070OC )
[ LegendCNCD / AsariLoverFI ] Waiting for ME5 - Look's like sometime in 2186, everything went to hell. We got out just ahead of it! MEA & ME1 (>>>> 3 > 2) -- DAI > DAO > DA2 -- 3500h+ & maxed out all 02/2020 in MEAMP, APEX 137001+, DAIMP (560/728/200), ANTHEM, SW BF II - Drinking tears of MP lamers since DooM & Quake in 90's softknees.bandcamp.com/ Go go go! I will destroy you! Watch out! Enemies everywhere! You must die!
keep your current gfx card and get 16gb of ram, your gfx card will be good for another year or so and prices should have started to drop to realistic levels for things like the 1070ti
for the mobo /cpu config, your better off getting something like the amd r3 cpu today and this time next year upgrade it to the new version r5 or r7 cpu (the prices will drop around xmass time for zen+ cpus) since your not planning on running overclocks then a cheap b350 mobo will do the job.
also get an ssd at least 120gb for the OS and if your budget stretches that far then get a second one around 250gb in size to use as game storage for modern games
if your playing older games then your better off going down the intel processor route and any i5 cpu will do the job although to be honest thats just wasting money for a few more fps....
as to the ram specifics you want 2 x 8gb sticks, the larger ram will offset the lower gddr5 amount on your 970 card, and when paried with an ssd based page file (disable it on the spinning disk) will give you decent performance on medium settings in every current game at 1080p
my personal setup for ssd's is one 64gb one as the page file, a 250gb one as the OS drive, a 500gb one for origin games and a 250gb one for newer steam games with older steam library on a 2tb wd black drive, this has kept my performance higher even though i'm running an fx 8350 and 16gb of ddr3 ram its also cost me a lot less since most of the ssd's were auction listings on ebay (the OS drive i bought new during a lightening deal on amazon)
i also keep my OS drive relatively clean by shoving onedrive onto a spinner along with downloads folder because who needs to see the entire tb of data from one drive on the ssd ....
really the best advice is to look shit up and see what suits your needs both today and for the next few years, no matter what happens your going ot replace that gfc card if your playing games, and you need a cpu, amd offers a relatively cheap /.simple upgrade path you just eject the current cpu and slam a new one into the same socket so its more about price and what your willing ot pay both today and in the next few years, what i outlined above is partly how to space things out so theres no monster outlay (aside from the ram price) today
if your planning ot wait a couple of months before building then sell the 9780 today wait and see what price ram drops to now that Samsung has finally started making some more chips and look at your cpu/mobo /ram options when the time comes to build, especially as you know for certain that amd will be releasing its new range of am4 cpu's starting in February and will likely combo deal mobo/ram/cpu during the first week of release.... otherwise everything stands if your building it to play on over the next few days /
I second buying two SSDs. One for the OS and one for new Games and especially for modded Bethesda games. I didn't realize how big an impact an SSD made not only for loading times but also loading in-game assets. Modded FO4 on SSD runs with almost no stuttering and ok fast travel loading times. On a regular HD it can take several minutes for certain textures to load after fast travel, and I had frequent stutter when I ram through Boston because the environment doesn't load fast enough. I thought it was solely dependant on GPU vRAM but nope. Got a GTX 1070 with plenty memory and the difference is quite shocking. Takes three times as long to fast travel on a slow hard drive...
Of course it all depends on which games you intend to play and how pretty it needs to be.
I'd keep the 970 for 1080p.
I'd go for an i-7 7700K or maybe an affordable hexacore. I bought the 2014 4790K in 2015. I'm still happy with it but then again it wasn't cheap in my country (350€). But cheaper than Skylake.
My entire gaming only PC cost 1500€ without monitor withe the 970 back then. Doesn't have to cost that much of course.
I'm not really up to date about new CPUs. I only looked up the Ryzen cards and was not impressed.
amd will be releasing its new range of am4 cpu's starting in February and will likely combo deal mobo/ram/cpu during the first week of release.... otherwise everything stands if your building it to play on over the next few days /
So their new cpu lineup is coming up in ( about) two months? Any info on what kind of improvement we're talking about here? One, thing though...do you need to buy overclock-able MBO for it, like with Intel? And did AMD improve on "issues with drivers" ( far as I know, most games usually run a bit better on Nvidia/Intel). Would rather go with AMD, Intel honestly always seemed major douchebags. I'm terrible with timing when it comes to buying tech, so that means doing the opposite of what gut tells me. So better wait a month or two.
amd will be releasing its new range of am4 cpu's starting in February and will likely combo deal mobo/ram/cpu during the first week of release.... otherwise everything stands if your building it to play on over the next few days /
So their new cpu lineup is coming up in ( about) two months? Any info on what kind of improvement we're talking about here? One, thing though...do you need to buy overclock-able MBO for it, like with Intel? And did AMD improve on "issues with drivers" ( far as I know, most games usually run a bit better on Nvidia/Intel). Would rather go with AMD, Intel honestly always seemed major douchebags. I'm terrible with timing when it comes to buying tech, so that means doing the opposite of what gut tells me. So better wait a month or two.
there are reviews online about some of the "leaks" about the upcoming line up for overclocks its worthwhile getting a decent mobo if you planning on running it stock then any am4 mobo will do, if you think you might want to go down to overclock route in a couple of years then to be honest its better to get a new mobo in a couple of years rather than buying one today in order to use it in a few years, one of hte biggest problems people hit when trying to oc old hardware is its worn out electronically so it makes things 10x more difficult
as to exactly what specs are out the pricing core counts and stock speeds have bene released by amd already for the ryzen 7 line up and at the top end the 2800x is a monster coming in at the same price as the 1800x released at.... and according to one news source it generated higher scores in their benchmark runs than the 8700k (not sure i believe that though, intel has always had higher IPC which is half the reason why their cpu's were always stupidly overpriced)
just because your paranoid doesn't mean there not out to get you!
i'm dyslexic and grammatically challenged if you spot a mistake its because auto correct has messed up:)
If you want to keep the Asrock B150M Pro4, you're pretty much stuck with quad-core. So just keep an eye on any good Skylake or Kaby Lake CPU deals. Good deals are becoming rarer though.
If you don't want to keep the mobo, you have a lot more options like Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7.
The worst thing you did was probably buying that GTX 970 and letting it collect dust for two whole years. Rather than saving a couple dollars, you should really just finish building that computer and put it to good use.
If you don't want to keep the mobo, you have a lot more options like Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7.
The worst thing you did was probably buying that GTX 970 and letting it collect dust for two whole years. Rather than saving a couple dollars, you should really just finish building that computer and put it to good use.
So specifics. About two years back, I switched to building first PC and buying components separately ( mostly from online stores from EU, god bless cheap tech from Poland, and our stores here in Croatia).
So I bought, in order, Pallit Jetstream GTX 970, Kendomen Deepcool ( decent case, pretty cheap but with enough room, three ventilators and good airflow), classic WD blue 1TB and Asrock B150M Pro4 .
Instead of buying other components, I went into "waiting game", for prices to drop. Instead new generation of CPU/GPU's came out, RAM prices doubled, etc... I know, I know: really great timing.
Also recently I bought Seasonic Plus SSR-FX Gold 750w...I figure this should be enough power and has a 10 year warranty.
Typical PC for gaming, internet, videos...the usual. No streaming, editing, multi tasking, or intention of going for dual graphics card or overclocking ( if it nets me, only a few extra FPS?). Also playing on 1080p resolution with no intention of going 4k in future.
So my question is what to do with CPU? The way I see it, it comes down to three choices:
1. Use my current MBO, and buy Intel processor to go along with it. In that case which one is best( i5 6500, even if their prices are still the same)? Does any of last generation work with it? This would be cheapest, but less viable long term ( unless a next gen CPU's come in a year or two, so I can skip current gen).
2. Buy latest Intel CPU's ( probably i5-8400?) and new MBO for it.
3. Go for AMD CPU/MBO combination ( as I understand it, they draw more power, are better at multi core, but you don't need to change MBO for an upgrade( or it's more likely that will be the case)
Again, something, ideally 6 cores... and if more games if future would use more, I plan to upgrade to something better with a new GPU ( 1080 or AMD equivalent, if I catch a good price).
Also for RAM, which would be best option in either case? Will prices remain as it is, in nearby future?
Thanks for any help.
First off let me say that Asrock Motherboards can be hit or miss. Asrock sometimes arrive DOA or work for a bit then quit or if very luck you get one that works for awhile. Would advise turning in the motherboard for a motherboard by either ASUS or GIGABYTE. Don't let MSI fool you -they skimp on the cold state transistors -at least they did since I last check about a year ago.
As to processor if you want 6 cores you will want something better than the Intel i5 6500 -only 4 cores. Yes your thought about the i5-8400 is valid however it may not hold in the long run as more games begin to use more threads.
If you go with Intel I would advise either: Intel Core i5-8400 (2.8 GHz) [6 Cores/6 Threads]-65W Intel Core i7-8700K (3.7 GHz) [6 Cores/12 Threads]-95W
If you go with AMD I would advise either: AMD FX-6350 (3.9 GHz) [6 Cores/6 Threads]-125W AMD FX- 8370 (4 GHz) [8 Cores/8 Threads]-125W -though it only works well if you under-clocked it. AMD Ryzen™ 5 1600X (3.6GHz) [6 Cores/12 Threads]-95W
As to graphics the GTX 970 will work perfectly fine for 1080p. NOTE: Despite what others have: INTEL CPU & NVIDIA Graphics combinations and AMD CPU & RADEON Graphic combinations seem to have more graphical troubles. Than the CPU/Graphical combination of a Nvidia Graphics Card and a AMD CPU -which at least for me have had less FPS drops than most others experience. At least I never had troubles with Arkham Knight at its original launch date -was perfectly smooth but I digress.
As to Hard Drives WD Blue 1 TB is a very good choice -very rare to get a failure. Be careful if you decide to get a WD Black -those usually have a 50/50 chance of being good or a lemon/DOA. A second hard drive however -maybe a 500GB one would a be good idea. Set half this second drive to be a page file -increase system performance boost -instead of using troubling SSD's. If you do plan to use a Solid State Drive -recommend against using for the OS -they can fail -and unlike normal when they do fail they fail completely. Normal Hard drives can allow data to be recovered while the solid state drives ALL data is gone -unless that has changed.
As to ram price is not so much by ram chip but by the size and speed of the chip. As speeds and size increase expect prices to increase. As long as the chips match the speed and size you are looking for and are reliable brands then almost any will work. Just make sure that you try to buy ram chips in pairs -lets just say they work better that way. Though if you get very cheap ram -expect it to die and maybe kill your whole computer. I would recommend one of the four brands listed below: G.Skill, Corsair, Crucial and Kingston -listed by usually descending price order.
Hope this helps or if more questions feel free to ask.
So specifics. About two years back, I switched to building first PC and buying components separately ( mostly from online stores from EU, god bless cheap tech from Poland, and our stores here in Croatia).
So I bought, in order, Pallit Jetstream GTX 970, Kendomen Deepcool ( decent case, pretty cheap but with enough room, three ventilators and good airflow), classic WD blue 1TB and Asrock B150M Pro4 .
Instead of buying other components, I went into "waiting game", for prices to drop. Instead new generation of CPU/GPU's came out, RAM prices doubled, etc... I know, I know: really great timing.
Also recently I bought Seasonic Plus SSR-FX Gold 750w...I figure this should be enough power and has a 10 year warranty.
Typical PC for gaming, internet, videos...the usual. No streaming, editing, multi tasking, or intention of going for dual graphics card or overclocking ( if it nets me, only a few extra FPS?). Also playing on 1080p resolution with no intention of going 4k in future.
So my question is what to do with CPU? The way I see it, it comes down to three choices:
1. Use my current MBO, and buy Intel processor to go along with it. In that case which one is best( i5 6500, even if their prices are still the same)? Does any of last generation work with it? This would be cheapest, but less viable long term ( unless a next gen CPU's come in a year or two, so I can skip current gen).
2. Buy latest Intel CPU's ( probably i5-8400?) and new MBO for it.
3. Go for AMD CPU/MBO combination ( as I understand it, they draw more power, are better at multi core, but you don't need to change MBO for an upgrade( or it's more likely that will be the case)
Again, something, ideally 6 cores... and if more games if future would use more, I plan to upgrade to something better with a new GPU ( 1080 or AMD equivalent, if I catch a good price).
Also for RAM, which would be best option in either case? Will prices remain as it is, in nearby future?
Thanks for any help.
First off let me say that Asrock Motherboards can be hit or miss. Asrock sometimes arrive DOA or work for a bit then quit or if very luck you get one that works for awhile. Would advise turning in the motherboard for a motherboard by either ASUS or GIGABYTE. Don't let MSI fool you -they skimp on the cold state transistors -at least they did since I last check about a year ago.
As to processor if you want 6 cores you will want something better than the Intel i5 6500 -only 4 cores. Yes your thought about the i5-8400 is valid however it may not hold in the long run as more games begin to use more threads.
If you go with Intel I would advise either: Intel Core i5-8400 (2.8 GHz) [6 Cores/6 Threads]-65W Intel Core i7-8700K (3.7 GHz) [6 Cores/12 Threads]-95W
If you go with AMD I would advise either: AMD FX-6350 (3.9 GHz) [6 Cores/6 Threads]-125W AMD FX- 8370 (4 GHz) [8 Cores/8 Threads]-125W -though it only works well if you under-clocked it. AMD Ryzen™ 5 1600X (3.6GHz) [6 Cores/12 Threads]-95W
As to graphics the GTX 970 will work perfectly fine for 1080p. NOTE: Despite what others have: INTEL CPU & NVIDIA Graphics combinations and AMD CPU & RADEON Graphic combinations seem to have more graphical troubles. Than the CPU/Graphical combination of a Nvidia Graphics Card and a AMD CPU -which at least for me have had less FPS drops than most others experience. At least I never had troubles with Arkham Knight at its original launch date -was perfectly smooth but I digress.
As to Hard Drives WD Blue 1 TB is a very good choice -very rare to get a failure. Be careful if you decide to get a WD Black -those usually have a 50/50 chance of being good or a lemon/DOA. A second hard drive however -maybe a 500GB one would a be good idea. Set half this second drive to be a page file -increase system performance boost -instead of using troubling SSD's. If you do plan to use a Solid State Drive -recommend against using for the OS -they can fail -and unlike normal when they do fail they fail completely. Normal Hard drives can allow data to be recovered while the solid state drives ALL data is gone -unless that has changed.
As to ram price is not so much by ram chip but by the size and speed of the chip. As speeds and size increase expect prices to increase. As long as the chips match the speed and size you are looking for and are reliable brands then almost any will work. Just make sure that you try to buy ram chips in pairs -lets just say they work better that way. Though if you get very cheap ram -expect it to die and maybe kill your whole computer. I would recommend one of the four brands listed below: G.Skill, Corsair, Crucial and Kingston -listed by usually descending price order.
Hope this helps or if more questions feel free to ask.
Mmm, thanks.
I'll grab I5 8400 plus whatever MBO comes out for it, soon. Ryzen seems mentioned more as "future proof", but way I see it better to have something good now, than possibly better tommorow.
"You may keep the rooster away from the hens, but you can't stop him from ******* the chicken". “Find your chill.” Genghis Khan
I'll grab I5 8400 plus whatever MBO comes out for it, soon. Ryzen seems mentioned more as "future proof", but way I see it better to have something good now, than possibly better tommorow.
Technically I build for the future. Built my current machine in 2015 and I believe it will be able to handle any game til 2020 at least.
But then again I don't game at 1080p -not even 720p. I usually go with the lowest resolution possible -800x600 or 1024x768 work perfectly fine for me.
I'll grab I5 8400 plus whatever MBO comes out for it, soon. Ryzen seems mentioned more as "future proof", but way I see it better to have something good now, than possibly better tommorow.
Technically I build for the future. Built my current machine in 2015 and I believe it will be able to handle any game til 2020 at least.
But then again I don't game at 1080p -not even 720p. I usually go with the lowest resolution possible -800x600 or 1024x768 work perfectly fine for me.
If you go with AMD I would advise either: AMD FX-6350 (3.9 GHz) [6 Cores/6 Threads]-125W AMD FX- 8370 (4 GHz) [8 Cores/8 Threads]-125W -though it only works well if you under-clocked it. AMD Ryzen™ 5 1600X (3.6GHz) [6 Cores/12 Threads]-95W
At least point, I would never recommend an AMD FX CPU.
Plus OP already has a B150 mobo. Going from that to an AM3+ platform would actually be a major downgrade.
If you go with AMD I would advise either: AMD FX-6350 (3.9 GHz) [6 Cores/6 Threads]-125W AMD FX- 8370 (4 GHz) [8 Cores/8 Threads]-125W -though it only works well if you under-clocked it. AMD Ryzen™ 5 1600X (3.6GHz) [6 Cores/12 Threads]-95W
At least point, I would never recommend an AMD FX CPU.
Plus OP already has a B150 mobo. Going from that to an AM3+ platform would actually be a major downgrade.
for older games it would certainly but not so much the case with newer ones, the older i5 cpu's that would run on his mobo cant keep up with the fx cpu's in the multi threaded workloads of new games especially if its running at stock speeds and the fx 8 series cpu is running at stock with the 4.2GHz clock (which by default hits all cores to 4.2 not just 2 cores) the point where fx is loosing is in games that are pre 2016 since there designed to run on 2 cores and intel had higher ipc although at stock speeds there actually running slower than the FX so realistically shouldn't outperform it either (that they do is down to dodgy coding to hamstring performance on amd cpu's which a simple bios tweak fixed anyway)
but regardless the op's request was to recommend a 6 core or better cpu, the only intel cpu's that fit that bill are the 8th gen lineup and none of those will run on his mobo, so that then becomes a case of is he planning to play old games or focus on new ones only, if the latter then just get whatever is cheapest that fits the bill (i.e. ryzen) that will also grant the cheap upgrade patch for the next few years, or stick to the fan boi path of anthill and a new mobo with every new cpu (which is their current roadmap) because despite rinsing the same sockets there changing the pinout on them and keeping the same series number (just to confuse the shit out of people)
if i had the money i would build an intel pc based on the 7700k and a single 1070ti for older and current games, if i wanted something to use for anything else i would either wait until may 2018 to start looking (when intels next i7 range is due out) or buy a cheap ryzen cpu and decent mobo today and upgrade that sucker in a few weeks when zen2 drops, either way your getting spanked on ram prices but it all comes down to use case and budget, my old fx is still going so i dont absolutely need to replace my pc, which means i can wait another year or two before i jump on that bandwagon again (hopefully) but the only reason i dont is cashflow/
just because your paranoid doesn't mean there not out to get you!
i'm dyslexic and grammatically challenged if you spot a mistake its because auto correct has messed up:)
At least point, I would never recommend an AMD FX CPU.
Plus OP already has a B150 mobo. Going from that to an AM3+ platform would actually be a major downgrade.
for older games it would certainly but not so much the case with newer ones, the older i5 cpu's that would run on his mobo cant keep up with the fx cpu's in the multi threaded workloads of new games especially if its running at stock speeds and the fx 8 series cpu is running at stock with the 4.2GHz clock (which by default hits all cores to 4.2 not just 2 cores) the point where fx is loosing is in games that are pre 2016 since there designed to run on 2 cores and intel had higher ipc although at stock speeds there actually running slower than the FX so realistically shouldn't outperform it either (that they do is down to dodgy coding to hamstring performance on amd cpu's which a simple bios tweak fixed anyway)
Yep. AMD processors seem to work far better at multi-tasking than Intel. Doubt I could run FOUR games, 3 video and 3 editing programs -encoding and saving, having music running, 15 folders, 50 internet tabs on an Intel processor... without the Intel processor locking up -and that is on a light work load day.
but regardless the op's request was to recommend a 6 core or better cpu, the only intel cpu's that fit that bill are the 8th gen lineup and none of those will run on his mobo, so that then becomes a case of is he planning to play old games or focus on new ones only, if the latter then just get whatever is cheapest that fits the bill (i.e. ryzen) that will also grant the cheap upgrade patch for the next few years, or stick to the fan boi path of anthill and a new mobo with every new cpu (which is their current roadmap) because despite *reusing(?)* the same sockets there changing the pinout on them and keeping the same series number (just to confuse the shit out of people)
Exactly why I said what I said. Also in my opinion Intel should not use an universal architecture design in there generational line CPU Sockets for it can indeed get confusing.
if i had the money i would build an intel pc based on the 7700k and a single 1070ti for older and current games, if i wanted something to use for anything else i would either wait until may 2018 to start looking (when intels next i7 range is due out) or buy a cheap ryzen cpu and decent mobo today and upgrade that sucker in a few weeks when zen2 drops, either way your getting spanked on ram prices but it all comes down to use case and budget, my old fx is still going so i dont absolutely need to replace my pc, which means i can wait another year or two before i jump on that bandwagon again (hopefully) but the only reason i dont is cashflow/
Yep. I agree. Except as already said I do way to multi-tasking for Intel processors to work without issue. My computer is built like a tank and will work till 2020 without issue and it better. No way am I going to replace 5-2TB HDs', 950W Gold Antec PSU, 24GB RAM, 13 Fans, Trippled Fanned Graphics card, motherboard and CPU at one time!
At least point, I would never recommend an AMD FX CPU.
Plus OP already has a B150 mobo. Going from that to an AM3+ platform would actually be a major downgrade.
for older games it would certainly but not so much the case with newer ones, the older i5 cpu's that would run on his mobo cant keep up with the fx cpu's in the multi threaded workloads of new games especially if its running at stock speeds and the fx 8 series cpu is running at stock with the 4.2GHz clock (which by default hits all cores to 4.2 not just 2 cores) the point where fx is loosing is in games that are pre 2016 since there designed to run on 2 cores and intel had higher ipc although at stock speeds there actually running slower than the FX so realistically shouldn't outperform it either (that they do is down to dodgy coding to hamstring performance on amd cpu's which a simple bios tweak fixed anyway)
Good luck finding a game where an FX CPU can outperform a quad-core Skylake or Kaby Lake CPU.
If 6-core is the main criterion, Ryzen 5 is the obvious choice over FX.
but regardless the op's request was to recommend a 6 core or better cpu, the only intel cpu's that fit that bill are the 8th gen lineup and none of those will run on his mobo, so that then becomes a case of is he planning to play old games or focus on new ones only, if the latter then just get whatever is cheapest that fits the bill (i.e. ryzen) that will also grant the cheap upgrade patch for the next few years, or stick to the fan boi path of anthill and a new mobo with every new cpu (which is their current roadmap) because despite rinsing the same sockets there changing the pinout on them and keeping the same series number (just to confuse the shit out of people)
I try to look at everything from a fairly practical point of view, nanotm. Maybe you didn't understand what my point was but let me explain it more clearly before you accuse me being a "fan boi."
When you want to change your motherboard, the only reasonable thing to do is to do an upgrade. The B150 mobo that OP has already supports the fastest Kaby Lake CPU (i7 7700K and i5 7600K). To get a new mobo would usually cost you around $100, so the reasonable thing to do is to invest on a platform that is clearly superior and more future-proof than the old mobo. Otherwise, you're just wasting a good $100.
Now you ask yourself, is getting an AM3+ and an AMD FX CPU a clear upgrade over the Kaby Lake i5 and i7 that OP's mobo supports? Obviously it isn't.
Therefore, the only thing that makes sense is either OP keeps the B150 mobo and build the PC with an i5 or i7 CPU with that extra $100 that he "saves," or OP gets an AM4 mobo and build the PC with a Ryzen 5 or 7 CPU.
Doubt I could run FOUR games, 3 video and 3 editing programs -encoding and saving, having music running, 15 folders, 50 internet tabs on an Intel processor... without the Intel processor locking up -and that is on a light work load day.
Whoa. Calm down.
If you want to make up random stuff and have a fan boi war, you can do it yourself.
So why did you get a GTX 970 and 24GB of RAM in the first place when what you play is mainly 90s games?
The 64-bit OS'es can always use RAM. And I don't mean that in the meaning that they're "bloated" or need lots of memory. No. But they use leftover RAM to speed up the running of the computer considerably.
RAM is hardly a cost consideration. You don't really gain many % performance by buying exotic RAM. The industry standard -level is always the best value and quite cheap. The consideration for RAM is the hardware support and memory standard. You can have too much RAM, in the meaning that may experience problems.
Sufficiently understood and mastered Magic is indistinguishable from Technology. Those who can't, don't know how hard it is. No, I won't bend a knee. I have no guilt for things I never did. You're not a victim of something that never happened to you. Google is Satan.
The rising RAM prices is the main thing that keeps me from building new PCs. I mean I can afford them but I just don't feel like paying double of what they were worth a year ago.
If you stick with your B150 MoBo and you go for a kaby lake processor (7th gen) over a skylake (6th gen), which you should, as they are cheaper and perform better, plus they're newer, it probably won't work unless you update the MoBo's drivers, and you wont be able to without a skylake processor (a store/technician could do it for you).
That said, I think something like an i5-7500/7600, the B150, 8/16 GB RAM and the gtx 970 would be a balanced PC for 1080p 60FPS.
but regardless the op's request was to recommend a 6 core or better cpu, the only intel cpu's that fit that bill are the 8th gen lineup and none of those will run on his mobo, so that then becomes a case of is he planning to play old games or focus on new ones only, if the latter then just get whatever is cheapest that fits the bill (i.e. ryzen) that will also grant the cheap upgrade patch for the next few years, or stick to the fan boi path of anthill and a new mobo with every new cpu (which is their current roadmap) because despite rinsing the same sockets there changing the pinout on them and keeping the same series number (just to confuse the shit out of people)
I try to look at everything from a fairly practical point of view, nanotm. Maybe you didn't understand what my point was but let me explain it more clearly before you accuse me being a "fan boi."
When you want to change your motherboard, the only reasonable thing to do is to do an upgrade. The B150 mobo that OP has already supports the fastest Kaby Lake CPU (i7 7700K and i5 7600K). To get a new mobo would usually cost you around $100, so the reasonable thing to do is to invest on a platform that is clearly superior and more future-proof than the old mobo. Otherwise, you're just wasting a good $100.
Now you ask yourself, is getting an AM3+ and an AMD FX CPU a clear upgrade over the Kaby Lake i5 and i7 that OP's mobo supports? Obviously it isn't.
Therefore, the only thing that makes sense is either OP keeps the B150 mobo and build the PC with an i5 or i7 CPU with that extra $100 that he "saves," or OP gets an AM4 mobo and build the PC with a Ryzen 5 or 7 CPU.
Does that make sense? I hope it does.
he cant put a 7th gen cpu in that mobo its not compatible without first using a 6th gen cpu......
the only 7th gen cpu worth getting is the 7700k the only 6th gen cpu worth getting is none cos there all junk....
he stated he has no intention to overclock (wise given that he would need to delid and replace intel's factory standard toothpaste to not be throttling constantly)
at stock speeds even the 7700k is beaten by the fx8350 (a cpu that predates it by several years) intel's "higher ipc" is only worth a damn if your overclocking and pair it with high speed ram or forget to change the default nb setting in the fx cpu and dont use 1866 ram in xmp profile (yes that means you have to enter the bios and change 2 things during setup)
the i7 7700 is actually better for non overclock use and its got worse performance than the fx8350 does at stock settings....
all this means that the fx option is viable unless you play older games, if your playing older games then even a crappy i5 2600 (none k) will beat any amd cpu because of intel and games company collusion (theres literally a file in games that runs an intel cpu checker program to see which brand of cpu is used and then sets a core affinity at 50% on a single core for each thread of the game making it laggy no matter what gpu your pairing it with when amd is detected(yes this has been proven and intel is fighting off multiple anti trust suits about it for the last few years, whilst games companies have quietly stopped doing this on more modern games)
since the op's choice is use the existing mobo with a 6th generation cpu he might as well save time and effort and grab an i5 6600 and slap that in there or buy completely new, if he wants to go the new route its a choice of by an already obsolete intel offering or get something from amd thats supported through 2020 with new iterations scheduled for release every 12 months ....
either way he will need new ram, but on an immediate basis might as well get a second hand mobo/cpu combo from older generation to tide him over until the next cpu refresh is released
just because your paranoid doesn't mean there not out to get you!
i'm dyslexic and grammatically challenged if you spot a mistake its because auto correct has messed up:)
he cant put a 7th gen cpu in that mobo its not compatible without first using a 6th gen cpu......
It still doesn't change the fact that going to an AM3+ mobo from a B150 mobo is a huge downgrade. OP can also borrow a 6th gen i5 and i7 CPU from someone and update the BIOS to support the 7th gen i5 and i7 CPU.
the only 7th gen cpu worth getting is the 7700k the only 6th gen cpu worth getting is none cos there all junk....
Nonsense. The performance difference between the two generations is way less than 10%. They are almost identical.
he stated he has no intention to overclock (wise given that he would need to delid and replace intel's factory standard toothpaste to not be throttling constantly)
I never mentioned overclock either. Why are you bringing it up? Also, only the most hardcore overclockers would delid a CPU. 6th gen and 7th gen i5 and i7 CPUs can comfortably run on aircooling without throttling. I don't know where you get the idea that the stock thermal compound that makes them throttle constantly. They don't and they work just fine.
at stock speeds even the 7700k is beaten by the fx8350 (a cpu that predates it by several years)
No, it doesn't. Please explain to me how the 7700K is beaten by the FX 8350 when almost all benchmarks show otherwise.
intel's "higher ipc" is only worth a damn if your overclocking and pair it with high speed ram or forget to change the default nb setting in the fx cpu and dont use 1866 ram in xmp profile (yes that means you have to enter the bios and change 2 things during setup)
Do you even know what you are talking about? IPC is just IPC. A CPU is not worth a damn to overclock without high speed RAM because it has a higher IPC? Where do you get that idea from? Don't use 1866 RAM in XMP profile? You're not making any sense.
the i7 7700 is actually better for non overclock use and its got worse performance than the fx8350 does at stock settings....
Okay sure. I've never said that OP has to use an 7700K or overclock, but a 7700 still performs better than the FX 8350 at stock settings.
all this means that the fx option is viable unless you play older games, if your playing older games then even a crappy i5 2600 (none k) will beat any amd cpu because of intel and games company collusion (theres literally a file in games that runs an intel cpu checker program to see which brand of cpu is used and then sets a core affinity at 50% on a single core for each thread of the game making it laggy no matter what gpu your pairing it with when amd is detected(yes this has been proven and intel is fighting off multiple anti trust suits about it for the last few years, whilst games companies have quietly stopped doing this on more modern games)