PC upgrade 2018 advice needed

wiredotter14 said:Ultimately, it all comes down to what they actually want to achieve.

If this video editing is just a hobby that takes up a few hours here and there—nothing professional where time is literally money—and the priority is maximizing gaming FPS, then honestly, the 8600K is the better bet since it holds the edge in pure gaming performance.

On the other hand, a 2700X can shave significant time off rendering tasks compared to an i5, which, for larger projects, could mean finishing several hours sooner. Of course, that really depends on which specific software suite is being utilized.

I would also suggest considering the monitor setup.
If we are talking about high resolutions, the i5 and the Ryzen will essentially perform the same; however, if the goal is hitting those 120Hz+ refresh rates, the i5 pulls ahead.

Conversely, if streaming is part of the equation, the Ryzen is significantly more capable than the i5.

Regarding cooling, that Corsair unit offers performance comparable to some higher-end air coolers, though it’ll likely be louder—I’d wager those fans are pushing well over 1500RPM.
Liquid cooling definitely adds a certain "sexy factor" to a build, but in 99% of cases, an AIO isn't actually any better than a solid air cooler. Custom loops are a completely different beast, but that is an intense and incredibly expensive hobby.

https://www.techradar.com/news/best-cpu-coolers

I don't know, I find those air cooler blocks to be hideously ugly; if I were building it, I'd always go with liquid. As for the CPU, I think I'll wait a bit longer to see how the new Intel i5 series shakes out.

When it comes to the actual PC usage, I'll be spending way more time gaming than doing any kind of content editing that would necessitate an AMD chip. I'm looking at HD or maybe 2K resolution at most.

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.

wiredotter14 said:It all boils down to what their actual goal is.

If they're just doing some casual video editing that takes an hour or two—nothing professional where time equals money—and high gaming FPS is the priority, then the 8600K is the better move since it's objectively stronger for gaming.

On the flip side, a 2700X can slash rendering times compared to an i5, which could mean saving hours on larger projects. Of course, that depends entirely on which specific software they're running.

I’d also consider the monitor setup.
If they're aiming for high resolution, the i5 and Ryzen will basically perform identically; however, if they want to push 120Hz+, the i5 wins out.

Conversely, for streaming, Ryzen is significantly better than the i5.

Regarding cooling, that Corsair performs similarly to high-end air coolers, though it'll likely be louder (those fans are probably spinning north of 1500RPM).
Liquid cooling adds a "sexy factor," sure, but in 99% of cases, an AIO isn't any better than air cooling. Custom loops are a whole different beast, but that's an intense and expensive hobby.

If that's the mindset, then the 1600x is the true "future best buy" for $417. It isn't much worse for productivity tasks (let's not get too nitpicky), yet it's roughly 80% cheaper. Gaming performance will feel virtually identical if they plan on pairing it with an rtx 2070, because at most, that card will beat a gtx 1080, and it'll definitely trail a 1080Ti. Keep in mind that you need a very specific scenario to even notice a difference between top-tier CPUs in gaming—we're talking 1080p resolution at 144Hz or 240Hz paired with a gtx 1080Ti (or an rtx 2080/2080Ti), and even then, not every game qualifies. Most people wouldn't even pair those GPUs with a 1080p monitor anyway. Even in a 1080p setup, most users wouldn't actually feel the difference without running benchmarks and an FPS counter.

It really just depends on what you prioritize.

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.

If you ask me, I would personally opt for the 2600/x; any remaining funds would be much better spent on upgrading the GPU or perhaps investing in a higher-quality monitor. In my estimation, a Ryzen 5 provides more than enough power for rendering tasks, so there really isn't a need to overdo it.

In my opinion, there’s really no point in picking up a 2600 if the 300-$133 ends up costing more than those 1600X
models.

Timothy Kim60 said:Honestly, even the 2600 isn't worth it if the 300-$133 price tag beats out the 1600X

For gaming, the 2600X holds its own. The boost clock stays high enough on a few cores that it actually outperforms the 1600 by about 10%—which you'll definitely notice.

But let's look at the math—pairing a 1080 Ti with 1080p resolution? You're looking at nearly a 33% markup just for a minor processor refresh. In fact, the 2600 x is actually more expensive—almost $200 compared to the 1600 x ($407 versus $606). Honestly, there's zero logic in paying that kind of premium. For that much extra cash, you could practically grab a decent motherboard or an extra 8GB of RAM instead. Paying nearly double for an Intel Core I5 9600 k 3.7 is even worse in my opinion, especially since the price hasn't even dropped significantly after the recent market shifts
.
Bottom line: picking up that 1600 x for $407 is really the only move that makes sense (unless a 2600 pops up within the $100-$$50 range). Then, down the road, once you've saved up some real money, you can jump straight to Zen 2 or Zen 3
.

Look, I’m comparing CPU bottlenecks because it actually matters. If they decide to swap out the GPU for an RTX3080 down the line, it's going to show.
Or if they're aiming for 1080p high refresh gaming. Plus, VR is just more demanding than your standard gaming setup—higher refresh rates and all that.

Obviously, the 1600 or 1600X is the immediate best buy. I’d grab one myself. But that doesn't mean the 2600 x offers nothing.

Personally? I'd grab a 1600, pair it with a solid air cooler, and call it a day. At least I'd know I could eventually drop a 7nm chip onto the same motherboard later on.
As for the GPU, I'd just spend whatever is left in the budget, whether that's a GTX1070Ti, 1080, 1080Ti, or an RTX2070, 2080...

Intel Core I5 9600 k 3.7-4.6GHZ 9MB 6 Core 6 Threads $410
Intel Core I5 8600K 3.6-4.3GHZ 9MB 6 Core 6 Threads $380

It’s really not that big of a deal; you won't even notice those extra $30 missing from your bank account. Honestly, I think I've finally made up my mind on which processor to pull the trigger on 😁 Since there is an additional 21% discount applied to the $410 price tag, we are looking at roughly $733 for the I5 9600 k

I don't think it's worth it, personally... either go all in with a 9700K or just grab a Ryzen 5.

crimsonstag84 said:Honestly, it’s probably not worth the jump... either commit to the 9700K or just pivot to a Ryzen 5.

It doesn't really track for me, especially since UserBenchmark doesn't show any massive performance gaps, yet you definitely feel the sting of that price $417 difference. As for those Intel chips, the more I crunch the numbers, the less appealing AMD looks to me. So, "go big," huh? If we're playing that game, why stop short of an i9 9900K? 😛 Since the socket remains the same, you're essentially future-proofing for a potential CPU swap down the road anyway. An i5 isn't exactly a disaster if you approach the build with some pragmatism.

With prices for i7s going crazy lately, it’s actually a decent enough deal. Honestly, I wouldn't drop that kind of cash on a processor without AT&T.

A $30 difference—assuming that's the actual sale price—isn't much since it's the exact same chip. You won't notice any performance gap unless you're running it at stock frequencies.