Samuel Castillo49 said:Is Supernet just some Canadian retail chain too?
Timothy Kim60 said:It should be our go-to shop. It's fine.
Ours are perfectly fine.
I've picked up various components from them a few times, and once I even grabbed some kitchen gear. They don't actually have a retail storefront. If you're picking up your order yourself, you basically head over to their office in Manhattan and they just lug the stuff out from the warehouse. It’s a bit weird, honestly, but they're professional enough and everything goes smoothly.
I reckon most of them just make their move through direct shipping and B2B deals.
For some people, getting an extra 30% FPS is the goal, even if they can't actually see the difference. To them, productivity gains don't matter because who cares if a video render takes 3 hours instead of 4?
But then you've got the other crowd. For them, a 20% faster render is way more important than a 30% bump in FPS. That 20% saves you actual hours every single day, whereas extra frames don't save anyone any time.
The 2700X is noticeably faster than the 1600X or the 8600K when it comes to that kind of work. Whether that gap matters... well, that's up to the buyer.
Overall, the 1600(X) and 2600(X) are solid best buys and great all-rounders since they give you that jump to 7nm.
I wasn't talking about how the fans look, just their performance, value, and reliability.
I wouldn't hold out for the next Intel chips. The new ones are basically just an i7 9700K (8 cores, no Hyperthreading) and an i9 9900K (8 cores with Hyperthreading). Since the 8700K (6c/12t) is already overpriced, both of those will be even more out of reach for your budget.
The i5 9600K is just a rebranded 8600K with slightly higher stock clock speeds—but if you're overclocking, that doesn't even matter. I'd go with the 8600K instead. The price is pretty much standard right now, and I doubt it'll drop. Given how the 8700K is priced, things might actually go up.
It all depends on what they're actually looking for.
If this video editing thing is just a hobby that takes an hour or two—nothing professional where time equals money and gaming FPS is the priority—then go with the 8600K. It’s definitely the better gaming chip.
On the flip side, the 2700X can shave significant rendering time off compared to an i5. On heavy workloads, that could mean being finished hours earlier. Of course, that depends entirely on which software is being used.
I’d also think about the monitor setup. If they're aiming for high resolution, the i5 and Ryzen will perform similarly; however, the i5 wins if they want to push 120Hz+.
Then again, for streaming, Ryzen is way ahead of the i5.
Regarding cooling, that Corsair performs about the same as a solid air cooler, but it'll likely be louder (fans hitting over 1500RPM for sure). Liquid cooling looks sexy, sure, but in 99% of cases, an AIO isn't any better than air. Custom loops are a whole different animal—intense, expensive, and a massive headache.
Ryzen 2700 and 2700X aren't worth it for gaming. They perform basically the same as a 2600X—which is already trailing behind an i7—but they cost way more than a Ryzen 5.
As for the 8700K, you can't really call it "not worth it." It’s legitimately a tier above Ryzen when it comes to gaming performance.
But looking at current prices, especially for the i7 series, I’d personally stick with a Ryzen 2600 or 2600X.
Those new Intel 8-core chips are going to be overpriced. Wouldn't count on them.
It looks sexy, sure, but you’re looking at a difference of maybe a few degrees max. You'll likely get the same overclock or maybe just a 100MHz bump. Plus, water cooling is louder than a decent air cooler that costs under $100, whereas you're looking at at least $150 for water to get similar performance.
An i7 8700K paired with air cooling and 16GB of RAM should land right around the same price point as your suggestion, but honestly, it’s a much better deal.
It’s not some scam. They sell what they sell. We live in a capitalist society—everyone has the right to ask whatever they want for their used processor.
If a shop wants to list an i7 8700 for $4.00, that's their business, just like someone trying to offload a piece of junk graphics card for $267.
P.S.
You can't slap an AMD Ryzen into an Intel motherboard, so we aren't talking about interchangeable products here.
P.S.
An i5 6500 and an AMD Ryzen aren't compatible, so it's not the same thing.
It’s not that complicated, though picking up a Ryzen 5 2600X is definitely the easier move.
The 2600X comes with the Wraith Prism cooler, which actually outperforms the Wraith Stealth, so you won't be forced to swap it out immediately. It's more than adequate and should handle the boost clocks just fine, but hey, you can always grab something beefier down the road if you feel like it.
If you actually enjoy messing around with overclocking, just grab the Ryzen 1600x and a decent cooler. Bump it up to maybe 3.9GHz—most people can hit that easily—and you’re basically right where you'd be with a 2600 pushed to 4.2GHz. Overclocking isn't rocket science. Tweak a few settings in the BIOS and you're done.
On the flip side, if you want zero hassle, go with the 2600 or 2600X. The 2000 series has better auto-boost out of the box. Honestly, with the 2600X, you don't even really need to overclock; the single-threaded boost is already higher than what most people manage across all cores, and the all-core boost is pretty close to an overclock anyway.
Regarding coolers, if memory serves, the Ryzen 1600x doesn't come with one. The Ryzen 1600 includes a solid Wraith Spira, which explains why it costs the same as the 1600x despite being the "weaker" chip on paper. You could just take the 1600, stick with the stock cooler, and still overclock to about 3.8-3.9 GHz. There isn't much real difference in overclocking potential between the 1600 and the 1600x. The Ryzen 2600 comes with that flimsy Wraith Stealth. It handles stock speeds fine, but if you have the cash, I'd suggest spending a little more on something better.
Kimberly Gomez34 said:Exactly, Xeon processors. You can grab one of these with free shipping and it won't even cost you $333. Plus, you don't even need to bother with a BIOS update—these Xeons use the exact same socket as an i7 4770 or a 4790. The only real differences are that some lack integrated graphics, they might clock a few hundred MHz higher or lower, and they support ECC memory alongside standard RAM.
Regarding the GPU, Megan Moore60—look for the longest warranty possible. Don't settle for just one year if you can snag two or more. With that in mind, this Gigabyte Gaming G1 model makes the most sense.
If Customs hits him with import taxes, those $333 are going up by 30%. It might end up costing more than a damn steak dinner.
Megan Moore60 said:Hey everyone, I was browsing through some GPU listings and wanted to get your take—which of these do you think offers the best bang for my buck here?
GTX 1070 Armor OC 8GB - $733 bought back in Jan 2018, I'll have to double-check the warranty status
As for the CPU, my focus is strictly on gaming performance. You guys mentioned that the AMD Ryzen 1600 tends to lag a bit behind an i7 in terms of raw power, so if I'm willing to shell out an extra couple hundred bucks for a better processor, which way should I lean? Or more generally, what’s considered the absolute "best buy" right now for a budget around $600 max?
It would also be a total nightmare if the CPU or GPU turned out to be one of those models known for sounding like a jet engine because they run so hot (kind of like my old card 😁), especially since once I finish this upgrade, I really don't plan on sinking any more money into this rig for quite a while.
Thanks in advance for the help, and sorry if I'm being a bit of a pest! hehe
Sure, the AMD Ryzen 1600 might lag behind a modern i7, but compared to the i7 generation your motherboard uses, it's better—at least in heavy titles. In lighter games, the old i7 might hold its own, but that's irrelevant.
The real issue isn't choosing between an i7 or a Ryzen. It's whether you want to swap just the chip or overhaul the entire platform. That price gap exists mainly because the first option forces you to buy a new motherboard and RAM too.
An Intel Core i7 4770 is still solid and could handle demanding titles for quite a while longer. You should be able to find one for under $500. A fair price is around $333; anything higher is just a "brand tax" or a markup for something hard to find.
If you're buying new, the AMD Ryzen 1600(X) or 2600(X) are the actual best buys.
The issue is they're incredibly rare on the used market—you might find a couple of listings on eBay if you're lucky.
Most people holding onto one don't actually need an upgrade, so they aren't selling. Plus, anyone still running that socket is hunting specifically for this chip because it's the only decent upgrade left.
Back in the day, an i5 was a solid step up, but now? They're pretty weak. That's why they're sitting there priced at hundreds of dollars, sometimes even an Intel Core i7 1000 or more.
I guess sellers are just banking on some clueless buyer who sees "i7" and decides to drop a massive amount of cash, or they're just leaving themselves room to haggle instead of actually dropping the price below everyone else.
crimsonstag84 said:I guess the Ryzen 1600X would crush the i7 4770 in just about everything, though maybe the gap isn't quite as huge when you're actually gaming. That GTX 1070 is a pretty solid deal, too.
If all they care about is gaming, the difference is negligible. Yeah, they're overpriced, but if you aren't looking to drop a fortune on a whole new platform, this is a cheap way in: roughly $333 compared to over $667.
Using a 256GB SSD to speed up your HDD works pretty well. It’s fast enough if you're mostly running the same programs and hitting the same files, all while keeping your full HDD capacity available.
But if you're constantly loading entirely new stuff? You probably won't see much of a difference.