2700k @4.7ghz ok with 1080 ti?

nightrider1470 · 16 Sep 2017 at 10:02

This will only be used for gamestream via shield TV and single player VR games via steam.

Just wondering if you vision much bottleneck?

jigger · 16 Sep 2017 at 10:06

You will need fast RAM and will be bottlenecked to some level. How much of a bottleneck will depend on the game, but a quad core and Pascal card probably isn't going to be great for VR.

nightrider1470 · 16 Sep 2017 at 10:54

If I upgraded to 6 core rysen, would all games make use of the 6 cores,? Or is it dependant on how the game is coded?

Brazo · 16 Sep 2017 at 11:33

jigger said:
You will need fast RAM and will be bottlenecked to some level. How much of a bottleneck will depend on the game, but a quad core and Pascal card probably isn't going to be great for VR.

Your absolutely right it won't be great. It will be the best.

if your primary focus is VR gaming, the Core i7-7700K really can’t be beaten. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/oculus-rift-vr-cpu-performance,review-34008-13.html

If not pascal then what? Wait for Volta?
http://www.babeltechreviews.com/rx-vega-64-liquid-10-vr-games-vs-the-gtx-1080-gtx-1080-ti/6/

Brazo · 16 Sep 2017 at 11:35

nightrider1470 said:
If I upgraded to 6 core rysen, would all games make use of the 6 cores,? Or is it dependant on how the game is coded?

Depends how the game is coded. Only a tiny fraction of current games will support more than four cores. However if you wish to multi task at the same time as gaming then more cores will be beneficial.

jigger · 16 Sep 2017 at 11:44

The system is taking a lot of additional data from the heaset and Nvidia will also be passing off some additional processing to the CPU.

A Ryzen 6 core will be faster than the 2700K across the board and you should have around 60% more processing power. If the game engine and Nvidia card can leverage all that performance under VR remains to be seen.

AndreiD · 16 Sep 2017 at 15:35

jigger said:
The system is taking a lot of additional data from the heaset and Nvidia will also be passing off some additional processing to the CPU.

A Ryzen 6 core will be faster than the 2700K across the board and you should have around 60% more processing power. If the game engine and Nvidia card can leverage all that performance under VR remains to be seen.

According to that Tomshardware VR review linked above, an 1800X is about on par with an i3 6320 in most of those VR games... Single core performance seems to matter most.

@nightrider1470 I had an i7 2600K at 4.7Ghz previously and I think you are fine with the Sandy Bridge for one more gen. I went to a Ryzen 7 1700 and it was more or less a regression in a lot of games.
I'd say wait for Zen 2 or maybe see if the Coffee Lake i7 has any attractive discounts later down the road.

jigger · 16 Sep 2017 at 15:46

AndreiD said:
According to that Tomshardware VR review linked above, an 1800X is about on par with an i3 6320 in most of those VR games... Single core performance seems to matter most.

@nightrider1470 I had an i7 2600K at 4.7Ghz previously and I think you are fine with the Sandy Bridge for one more gen. I went to a Ryzen 7 1700 and it was more or less a regression in a lot of games.
I'd say wait for Zen 2 or maybe see if the Coffee Lake i7 has any attractive discounts later down the road.

Yes when it should be about 5x the performance. VR is very immature.

mistersprinkles · 16 Sep 2017 at 19:39

If you want a new CPU wait for the Intel 8700K Coffee Lake 6 core mainstream CPU and buy that with some fast DDR4 and a decent board. Overclock it, and be happy

.

As a gamer, it is the right choice for you.

Brazo · 17 Sep 2017 at 07:54

jigger said:
Yes when it should be about 5x the performance. VR is very immature.

its also about using that power effectively. A truck has 300hp a caterham 140hp. Which is faster? The truck is Ryzen!

Doobedoo · 17 Sep 2017 at 10:47

Brazo said:
its also about using that power effectively. A truck has 300hp a caterham 140hp. Which is faster? The truck is Ryzen!

Sort of get your analogy but it's not quite as simple as that. A truck needs that sort of power because it needs to pull a load. If they both have to pull a 10t load then the truck will win every time.

What about a a 190bhp R1 vs a 190 bhp caterham? The bike wins easily because it's much lighter revs higher and puts the power down quicker.

Most of the vr titles that I an make out in that test a few posts back, look like budget indie titles that likely only use one core so obviously Intel has the advantage as we know. Like with normal games a lot of the newer, bigger titles will likely spread the load out across multiple cores. Intel will likely still have the advantage but not so much.

You want more than 4 cores ideally just to allow for the cpu to breath a little just like non vr pc gaming.

Brazo · 17 Sep 2017 at 11:03

Doobedoo said:
Sort of get your analogy but it's not quite as simple as that. A truck needs that sort of power because it needs to pull a load. If they both have to pull a 10t load then the truck will win every time.

What about a a 190bhp R1 vs a 190 bhp caterham? The bike wins easily because it's much lighter revs higher and puts the power down quicker.

Most of the vr titles that I an make out in that test a few posts back, look like budget indie titles that likely only use one core so obviously Intel has the advantage as we know. Like with normal games a lot of the newer, bigger titles will likely spread the load out across multiple cores. Intel will likely still have the advantage but not so much.

You want more than 4 cores ideally just to allow for the cpu to breath a little just like non vr pc gaming.

Yes it's about matching the correct application to the correct cpu. The caterham wouldn't be much good at hauling a load down the M1.

I suppose what I'm saying is single core speed is just as important if not more so than 4corr plus because most applications are set up for it. It's no good Jigger moaning that an 8 core cpu can't keep up with a 2 core cpu in VR any more than it is him moaning a truck can't keep up with a caterham around a race track! It's like he expects the applications to be optimised for Multicore when clearly that's not going to happen any time soon.

Doobedoo · 17 Sep 2017 at 11:15

Brazo said:
Yes it's about matching the correct application to the correct cpu. The caterham wouldn't be much good at hauling a load down the M1.

I suppose what I'm saying is single core speed is just as important if not more so than 4corr plus because most applications are set up for it. It's no good Jigger moaning that an 8 core cpu can't keep up with a 2 core cpu any more than it is moaning

I can't pretend that I'm that up to date with vr because it's not something that particularly interests me, but from what I seen of the games list in that link above, then yes it does seem likely that they are single threaded predominately. How long for though? You would have to presume that as popularity rises so will the bigger aaa games become more popular, and thus start to spread the load better.

His current cpu will likely be enough for now and something like a 1600 will be plenty for now and with a bit of headroom for future development. If you want the best of both world then the 8700k will be great now and will last for a few years.

Depends if he feels he needs more performance and how much he's willing to spend to get it. Personally I would skip coffee lake and either wait for zen 2 or Ice lake. Imo that's the smart thing to do as long as your able to wait. I certainly wouldn't be buying a 4core unless it was really cheap.

AndreiD · 17 Sep 2017 at 11:55

@nightrider1470 Here are some gaming benches comparing a 4.7Ghz i7 2600K to current CPUs (Ryzen included, with various memory speeds and overclocks):
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2867-intel-i7-2600k-2017-benchmark-vs-7700k-1700-more/page-3
They're using a EVGA 1080 FTW there, but it does show the 4.7Ghz Sandy to be pretty nippy even nowadays.

Doobedoo · 17 Sep 2017 at 12:36

So all the latest cpu's supply enough grunt to comfortably play games at decent farm rates, the 2600k is performing admirably.

Not sure it shows the i3 out performing the ryzens as said in previous threads though.

So the choice is the op's. Keep your current cpu for a little longer, perhaps until Zen 2 or Icelake as I said, or upgrade to a coffee lake or ryzen. They will all do the job for you but it depends on exactly what you require.

AndreiD · 17 Sep 2017 at 12:41

The i3 thing is for VR games based on the Toms review posted earlier in this thread.

But yeah, I agree with you, waiting for Zen 2 or Cannon/Ice Lake would be the way to go, but it's up to OP in the end.

Brazo · 17 Sep 2017 at 13:55

Doobedoo said:
I can't pretend that I'm that up to date with vr because it's not something that particularly interests me, but from what I seen of the games list in that link above, then yes it does seem likely that they are single threaded predominately. How long for though? You would have to presume that as popularity rises so will the bigger aaa games become more popular, and thus start to spread the load better.

His current cpu will likely be enough for now and something like a 1600 will be plenty for now and with a bit of headroom for future development. If you want the best of both world then the 8700k will be great now and will last for a few years.

Depends if he feels he needs more performance and how much he's willing to spend to get it. Personally I would skip coffee lake and either wait for zen 2 or Ice lake. Imo that's the smart thing to do as long as your able to wait. I certainly wouldn't be buying a 4core unless it was really cheap.

It's a gamble at the end of the day. Do I switch to more than 4 cores and 'hope' the majority of software catches up before that cpu becomes redundant or do I stick with a faster 4 core now and enjoy better experience in current software but perhaps lose out if software starts to use more than 4 cores. I say starts. I'm aware a tiny percentage does but in the grand scheme of things it hasn't stated yet.

Of course there are those who need more than 8 cores even now for multi tasking etc but my argument conveniently ignores those

Doobedoo · 17 Sep 2017 at 14:02

Brazo said:
It's a gamble at the end of the day. Do I switch to more than 4 cores and 'hope' the majority of software catches up before that cpu becomes redundant or do I stick with a faster 4 core now and enjoy better experience in current software but perhaps lose out if software starts to use more than 4 cores. I say starts. I'm aware a tiny percentage does but in the grand scheme of things it hasn't stated yet.

Of course there are those who need more than 8 cores even now for multi tasking etc but my argument conveniently ignores those

The obvious answer is to stick with what already fits your purpose. It's only those upgrading now or in the future that recommending more than 4 cores comes into play.

The 7700k although a very good cpu is being replaced by a 6 core equivalent, that in it's self tells you where the market is heading. If someone wants to buy a four core cpu then fine it's up to them, but its value should be measured in relation to the new 6 core equivalents imo.

jigger · 17 Sep 2017 at 14:23

Brazo said:
Yes it's about matching the correct application to the correct cpu. The caterham wouldn't be much good at hauling a load down the M1.

I suppose what I'm saying is single core speed is just as important if not more so than 4corr plus because most applications are set up for it. It's no good Jigger moaning that an 8 core cpu can't keep up with a 2 core cpu in VR any more than it is him moaning a truck can't keep up with a caterham around a race track! It's like he expects the applications to be optimised for Multicore when clearly that's not going to happen any time soon.

So what non X86 CUP and code would you segest?

jigger · 17 Sep 2017 at 14:31

Brazo said:
It's a gamble at the end of the day. Do I switch to more than 4 cores and 'hope' the majority of software catches up before that cpu becomes redundant or do I stick with a faster 4 core now and enjoy better experience in current software but perhaps lose out if software starts to use more than 4 cores. I say starts. I'm aware a tiny percentage does but in the grand scheme of things it hasn't stated yet.

Of course there are those who need more than 8 cores even now for multi tasking etc but my argument conveniently ignores those

VR needs lots of processing power. How you get that power is immaterial but it's clear the VR market needs a lot of development and huge amount of money. The new engine API's also have to be intergrated.