• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Current CPUs for 1440p gaming

Rubakai83

Rubakai83

Rubakai83

Associate
Joined
12 Oct 2018
Posts
4
Hi all,

Having severe decision paralysis on deciding on my CPU right now and would be grateful for some advice. I'm building a rig that will mostly be used for 1440p 27inch gaming (around £1100). I understand that GPU is the main factor here but I dont want to have to replace the CPU too soon as it begins to throttle the build. I am also aware that intel CPUs are a bit ridiculous right now but lets pretend they are back to their normal price.

The Intel 8400 was my original choice as it gives me a bit of saving where I could then maybe stretch to 1080. Worried though this may "throttle" the system a bit to soon, where the 8600k I can overclock (would probably mean a 1070 though)?

I would go for the AMD 2600 for even more savings but then I think that would need upgrading even before the 8400?

I have been planning this for a while and I cant be bothered to wait for the 9th generation to become realistic, so thought I'd stick 8th gen?

Thanks for any feedback.
 
Rubakai83 said:
Hi all,

Having severe decision paralysis on deciding on my CPU right now and would be grateful for some advice. I'm building a rig that will mostly be used for 1440p 27inch gaming (around £1100). I understand that GPU is the main factor here but I dont want to have to replace the CPU too soon as it begins to throttle the build. I am also aware that intel CPUs are a bit ridiculous right now but lets pretend they are back to their normal price.

The Intel 8400 was my original choice as it gives me a bit of saving where I could then maybe stretch to 1080. Worried though this may "throttle" the system a bit to soon, where the 8600k I can overclock (would probably mean a 1070 though)?

I would go for the AMD 2600 for even more savings but then I think that would need upgrading even before the 8400?

I have been planning this for a while and I cant be bothered to wait for the 9th generation to become realistic, so thought I'd stick 8th gen?

Thanks for any feedback.
Click to expand...

Why would the 2600 need replacing before the 8400? the 2600 is a 6c 12t chip while the 8400 is 6c 6t chip, so with the AMD chip you are getting another 6 SMT cores ontop.... as we move towards a more multithreaded world, the 6c 8400 will lose a lot of ground to the 2600....

For me its a no brainer, you want to say some cash, go for one of the 2600 or 2700x bundles OCUK are doing and lob the rest of the cash towards a 1080 or a Vega 64, what Screen do you currently have? if you have a G-Sync screen then go for Nvidia 1080.. if you are buying a Screen buy a 27" AMD Freesync screen (which will be cheaper than Nvdia G-Sync) and pair it with a Vega 64. At 1440p your less CPU bound anyhow as the GPU is going to be doing a lot more of the gruntwork for you.

Right now, Intel chips are a joke at the price they are, there is absolutely zero reason to consider one over an AMD chip if gaming at 1440p or above really, especially if your budget constrained.. it should not even be a question to ask imho.
 
SiDeards73 said:
....Right now, Intel chips are a joke at the price they are, there is absolutely zero reason to consider one over an AMD chip if gaming at 1440p or above really, especially if your budget constrained.. it should not even be a question to ask imho.
Click to expand...
This is the only common sense approach to the current situation. All the recent reviews and benchmarks I've seen all show that at 1440p+ there is very little difference - if at all between the mid-high range CPU's. There is no way that I can see where you will have to upgrade a 2600 before a 8400.
 
i would go for the 2600 as its half the cost of the 8400 and whatever motherboard you choose it will take the next gen processors as well,

bottleneck at 1440p wont be a problem with a 1070 or better, at that resolution the stress will be more on the card ant not so much the cpu.

the 2600 is every bit as good as the 8400 and puts over £100 into your hands for other components
 
Thanks all, happy to go with the 2600 if thats the general consensus. Would this be still the case if 8400 was back to being below £200 mark in the future?
 
R5 2600(X) would be the optimal choice right now if you're just gaming I reckon. R7 2700(X) would be better if you do other heavily threaded workloads too.
 
Rubakai83 said:
Hi all,

Having severe decision paralysis on deciding on my CPU right now and would be grateful for some advice. I'm building a rig that will mostly be used for 1440p 27inch gaming (around £1100). I understand that GPU is the main factor here but I dont want to have to replace the CPU too soon as it begins to throttle the build. I am also aware that intel CPUs are a bit ridiculous right now but lets pretend they are back to their normal price.

The Intel 8400 was my original choice as it gives me a bit of saving where I could then maybe stretch to 1080. Worried though this may "throttle" the system a bit to soon, where the 8600k I can overclock (would probably mean a 1070 though)?

I would go for the AMD 2600 for even more savings but then I think that would need upgrading even before the 8400?

I have been planning this for a while and I cant be bothered to wait for the 9th generation to become realistic, so thought I'd stick 8th gen?

Thanks for any feedback.
Click to expand...

Freesync 1440 monitor, vega 64 and AMD 2600 setup and you'll be hard pushed to see any visual difference between that and an intel/nvidia setup
 
DragonQ said:
Not sure I'd go for a monitor that only goes up to 75 Hz.
Click to expand...


depends on age I think I have both a 75 and a 144hz and if I'm being honest I can;t really tell much of a difference.. There is some but not enough for me to actually shell out another 500 on a monitor.
 
Rubakai83 said:
I would go for the AMD 2600 for even more savings but then I think that would need upgrading even before the 8400?
Click to expand...

id go for the 2600 because in a couple of years you could just drop in the 3600/4600 zen 2.5 part if you need the extra cores and performance.
 
subbytna said:
My basket at Overclockers UK:
Total: £982.55 (includes shipping: £12.60)
​
Click to expand...

I built almost that exact setup but 1070ti for someone - handles any game we tried at 1440p no hassle - though honestly didn't really distinguish itself from my 4820K and 1070 (albeit my CPU and GPU are overclocked).

While I won't spend my own money on AMD - I'd recommend the 2600 over the 8400 every time for other people at current prices especially if not hardcore gaming.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
While I won't spend my own money on AMD - I'd recommend the 2600 over the 8400 every time for other people.
Click to expand...

Lol I think you'll get some flak that admission. Fair enough though if you're a fan of Intel hardware. I'm a fan of AMD but I do currently own Intel and Nvidia as AMD just weren't competitive at the time of purchase.

Disclaimer: I do now own a 1900X, bargain. Just need the motherboard and RAM.
 
Troezar said:
Lol I think you'll get some flak that admission. Fair enough though if you're a fan of Intel hardware. I'm a fan of AMD but I do currently own Intel and Nvidia as AMD just weren't competitive at the time of purchase.

Disclaimer: I do now own a 1900X, bargain. Just need the motherboard and RAM.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of Intel hardware. I don't like AMD's history of running their mouth or hyping up products or tech they've subsequently under-delivered on or abandoned. Especially when they mock other companies but then don't produce themselves. (Also some history after they left a friend of mine holding the bag over some promotional stuff).

Some of Intel's latest stuff like the 9900 launch BS is pushing me towards having to flip a coin come next upgrade mind - their latest statement over the launch controversy is so far up their own behind it is unreal.
 
Rroff said:
Especially when they mock other companies but then don't produce themselves. (Also some history after they left a friend of mine holding the bag over some promotional stuff).
Click to expand...

You refer to "Poor Volta" here, yet you strongly believe it was about gaming and not computing......
(and the only Volta gaming GPU we saw, wasn't that much different than the 1080Ti, especially if you consider the size of the chip and extrapolate the "much smaller" sized xx80 Volta what could have perform like)

Have a look here
https://twitter.com/angstroms/status/988395865927766021

Cifar10 benchmarking ROCm 1.3 on AMD vs CUDA9 and cuDNN7 on NV GPUs. (ROCm now is 1.8)
Do you see the 3 best performing cards? The V100 costs 20 times more than the Vega 64 and was NV top Volta offering.
And not having specialized "Tensor Cores", doesn't stop the Vega to do matrix multiplication quite fast.
 
Panos said:
You refer to "Poor Volta" here, yet you strongly believe it was about gaming and not computing......
Click to expand...

Not specifically no.

But LOL - that poor Volta thing was part of the Radeon Rebellion marketing - part of content aimed at gamers:

p1UFw0w.png


It specifically named RX cards not compute hardware.

Trying to rewrite history to make it about compute LOL that is delusional.

But no my complaints go much further back than that - including the PR they did with Dice leading upto the 290 and Fury series launches where they were smearing nVidia and claiming nVidia wouldn't be able to catch up for 2 or more generations LOL... kind of ironic how things turned out.

Panos said:
(and the only Volta gaming GPU we saw, wasn't that much different than the 1080Ti, especially if you consider the size of the chip and extrapolate the "much smaller" sized xx80 Volta what could have perform like)
Click to expand...

AMD probably didn't know exactly what nVidia intentions were with Volta at the time of that marketing - a lot of people including industry insiders thought the next gaming range would be on Volta - I was pretty much a lone voice saying it wasn't going to be the case back then. The Volta Titan has a lot of additional functionality for compute and non-gaming use that theoretically would have been removed or fused off allowing for higher clocks and/or keeping much of the Titan's gaming performance on a much smaller die or adding in more gaming relevant functionality to increase performance.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom