Potential upgrade options?

I'm with the guys on this one. Grabbing an R5 1600(x) is a solid move... it'll hold up for years and just get better as things evolve.

Your GPU is fine for now. Just hang tight and see what they drop next. Skip a generation of chips; you don't need to rush it.

And that ASUS monitor is killer. 2k, IPS, G-sync... plus that 165Hz mode option. Pretty sweet...

I've managed to push my i5 3570K up to 4.5GHz using a Vcore of 1.265V, and after running Prime95 for about six hours, it’s holding steady. Even under the MiniHeat test, the temperature peaks at around 77C, which I suppose is acceptable. At this point, I think I'll just leave the rest of the build as is and focus on picking up a monitor and a GPU. I already mentioned which monitor I have my eye on, though I'm feeling a bit skeptical about some reports regarding "backlight bleed." I don't quite grasp what that entails technically, nor why people claim you have to swap out several units before stumbling upon a "perfect" one, but if that's how the industry works, so be it...

On that note, I'm still stuck in indecision regarding the graphics card. Should I grab a gtx 1070, a GTX 1080, or maybe the 1080ti? Or is it wiser to just hold out and wait for the 2070?

I haven't caught up on every single post from start to finish—just scanning through quickly—but did I see correctly that you're running two gtx 970 cards in SLI? If that's the case, I wouldn't jump straight to a gtx 1070 unless you already have a buyer lined up to pay about $1600-$567 for a single gtx 970. I actually sold mine a month ago and managed to get $533 if my memory serves me right, which let me move up to a 1070. The performance jump is huge, obviously, but since I'm still on a 1080p monitor, my Core i5-4670k processor ends up being the bottleneck 😁 in certain games. Once I save up enough cash, I'm planning to upgrade to a higher resolution monitor—that way the graphics card can really focus on the resolution, since 1080p is honestly just a cakewalk for it... and it'll give my i5 some room to breathe. So, I'll say it again: if I understood you right about having those two gtx 970 cards in SLI, just hang onto them for a while longer... UNLESS you happen to have a buyer ready to drop $3000-$1067 for the pair.

Regarding the processor situation, I find myself in complete agreement here:

When looking at gaming performance across the board, you’re honestly still making a smarter play with a Core i7-7700K, or frankly, even a Core i5-7600K. As things stand, the entry-level Ryzen option—the 1700—is sitting right at the same price point as the i7-7700K, which is a bit of a letdown considering it isn't even the chip we’d suggest if you're hunting for the absolute best value in gaming. If you want to be practical, the Core i5-7600K is practically neck-and-neck with the 7700K but comes in at around $240, which saves you nearly $100 compared to that 1700. Plus, once you start pushing the overclocking, you can hit those 4.9 or 5.0GHz marks; and honestly, until we see a massive wave of titles actually demanding more than four cores, this remains your most logical path forward.

Any thoughts on this?

Ryan Gonzalez4 said:Regarding the processor situation, I find myself in complete agreement here:

When looking at gaming performance across the board, you’re honestly still making a smarter play with a Core i7-7700K, or frankly, even a Core i5-7600K. As things stand, the entry-level Ryzen option—the 1700—is sitting right at the same price point as the i7-7700K, which is a bit of a letdown considering it isn't even the chip we’d suggest if you're hunting for the absolute best value in gaming. If you want to be practical, the Core i5-7600K is practically neck-and-neck with the 7700K but comes in at around $240, which saves you nearly $100 compared to that 1700. Plus, once you start pushing the overclocking, you can hit those 4.9 or 5.0GHz marks; and honestly, until we see a massive wave of titles actually demanding more than four cores, this remains your most logical path forward.

Any thoughts on this?

Kimberly Gomez34 said:To follow up on that point -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE7s...tu.be&t=28m11s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH6R...tu.be&t=17m20s

The guy gave a perfect explanation here.

Kimberly Gomez34 already posted some solid links, check those out.

TL;DR — Ryzen 5 offers better futureproofing. If you want top-tier performance and you're a hardcore gamer, there's no question: go with the 7700K.
If you need a compromise because an i7 isn't in the budget, then grab a Ryzen 5 since it's much better for the long haul than an i5.

Those extra 4 threads really matter when a CPU can actually be pushed. Take GTA V, for example. The i5 starts stuttering. In certain scenes where there's a lot to render, the FPS drops to ridiculous levels, like 6-7 FPS. Sure, that’s the minimum FPS and doesn't represent average performance, but it tells you everything about the game's overall smoothness. The guy also pointed out that this isn't just a statistical fluke or a random background process eating up CPU cycles; he tested it repeatedly and kept hitting the same numbers.

So, if you can't swing the i7, don't settle for the i5. Currently, Ryzen gives you roughly the same performance—except in cases where games specifically favor Intel (though that trend is dying down)—but it provides better longevity thanks to the extra threads. You can also see the CPU load in the video. The i5 might give you 90 FPS compared to Ryzen's 80, but it's doing it while pulling about 25% more CPU load. That should tell you enough. 🙂

comments;

Nobody here is actually recommending the Ryzen 7 1700 for pure gaming. That Quote : The New Guy is clearly outdated—it’s from before the Ryzen 5 series even hit the shelves.

Ever since the Ryzen 5 dropped—especially the 1600 model which, when paired with an overclockable motherboard, ends up cheaper than an i5 7600K—buying those unlocked i5s just feels pointless.

They aren't nearly as capable as the i7s. They have zero headroom for when game requirements inevitably ramp up, meaning their performance is going to lag behind everything else.

Look, with the Ryzen 5 1600, you're getting 6 cores and 12 threads at 3.9GHz for less cash than what you'd drop on an i5 7600K plus a board and all that.
That Ryzen has way more breathing room to prevent performance dips in demanding titles compared to the i5 7600K.

P.S.

The Ryzen 7 isn't bad for gaming, and it might be a solid pick if you're streaming, but honestly? Since the price is sitting right near the i7 7700K, there's no logic in buying it for pure gaming. It's for people using the CPU for work who also want decent, stable gaming performance similar to what you'd get from a Ryzen 5.

Just a heads-up: if you're aiming for that 4.8-5GHz sweet spot with an Intel Core i7-7700K, you're looking at pairing it with a Z270 motherboard and a high-end cooler. That setup is going to cost you roughly double what you'd spend on a Ryzen 5 1600 paired with a B350 board and a budget cooler—especially since the Ryzen 5 1600 typically averages around 3.9-4GHz anyway.

Yeah...

AMD Ryzen 5 1600
ASRock AB350M Pro4

2 $203
_______________________________________________

ASUS PRIME Z270-A
Intel Core i7-7700K 4.2
Enermax ETS-T50-AXE

4 $247

Kimberly Gomez34 said:Just a heads-up: if you're aiming for that 4.8-5GHz sweet spot with an Intel Core i7-7700K, you're looking at pairing it with a Z270 motherboard and a high-end cooler. That setup is going to cost you roughly double what you'd spend on a Ryzen 5 1600 paired with a B350 board and a budget cooler—especially since the Ryzen 5 1600 typically averages around 3.9-4GHz anyway.

With all due respect, this feels more like a theoretical ceiling than a realistic average.
(AMD recommends the same 1.35V maximum CPU voltage for long-term overclocks.)
So far, anyone managing to hit 4GHz has had to push well beyond 1.35V.

We aren't talking about what might happen in a perfect world; we're talking about what actually makes sense for longevity and stability. Theoretically, you could crank the Vcore up to +1.5 v, but how much life is that actually leaving in the silicon? If anyone happens to have some solid data or technical articles on the subject, feel free to drop them here. Thanks.

To be honest, I’m still struggling to reach a definitive conclusion regarding these processors; I follow everyone's arguments, but weighing them against each other to declare a winner is proving to be quite difficult...

Most of them should hit 3.8GHz at 1.35V without much trouble. Honestly, the stock cooler is designed enough to handle that combo.

It’s actually pretty nice that we finally have some real options to consider in the mid-to-high-end range.😬

If I were picking, I'd probably go with the Ryzen 5 1600 paired with a GTX 1080 or maybe an equivalent Vega card. Though, I guess you aren't in a massive rush for a new CPU since that 3570K overclocked to 4.5GHz still has some life left in it.

Maybe just sell off your current GTXice setup. You won't see a huge jump where your SLI setup was scaling well, but generally speaking, dealing with a single card is way less of a headache.😛

Kimberly Gomez34 says Intel recommends up to 1.45v, not 1.35v. That's incorrect info.

When it comes to overclocking, almost any Ryzen chip can hit 3.9GHz, so that’s pretty much standard. For a prime example of what these chips can do, look at Sn4k3 over on the hardware forums; his 1600X is pulling 4030-4070MHz at just 1.308v (depending on which stress test you run). He’s even hitting 4.1GHz at roughly 1.355 - 1.36v, which is incredibly efficient for those speeds. Once he gets his water cooling bracket installed, he'll likely push for 4.2GHz. Right now, he's just running it on a basic air cooler.😁

Regardless, the situation with Kimberly Gomez34 is tricky because you already have a solid rig. A meaningful upgrade is going to be a massive hit to your wallet... It's an expensive game to play. Like smartic mentioned, it might be smarter to stick with your current CPU and instead focus your budget on a high-quality monitor or hunting for a deal on an RTX 3080 or maybe some Radeon cards.