Wait for LGA 2066?

[john_706]

Well the subject line says most if not all of my dilemma. I was hoping to make a 5-(10?) year build for gaming and home use and get rid of my 2010 system. I've never been able to afford playing anything new on max settings, so that is my goal for the next five years. What does everyone think would be the best solution? Should I wait for the new architecture or just build on an 1151 right now? I'm not really interested in AMD, so I haven't done much research into it, but if someone wants to make a case for it feel free. This isn't going to be a budget build, but I'm habitually frugal, so budget minded responses won't be discounted as I'll keep them in mind for future projects.

Please keep in mind I want responses to pertain to:
socket type pros/cons
longevity
performance
(limits on mobo architecture vs possible output)?

Last one feels a bit awkward, but take it as from someone less informed, an active imagination and that has done only enough research to be dangerous.

Thanks.

 

[Duncan_94]

Unless you actually need a 6/8/10 core CPU I would say go for a 1151 build.

 

[john_706]

Unless you actually need a 6/8/10 core CPU I would say go for a 1151 build.

I remember when I was considering my current piece, two cores was a base line and on the last leg of being phased out for a new standard. I know it's not the same right now, but do you think in the next five or possibly ten years quad cores will be a thing of the past? I think that's one of the issues I'm trying to dig through with this open-ended post.

 

[iamacow]

I'm still using a i7 3930k because its faster than the newest i7 7700k (multi-thread). AMD Ryzen 1700/1800x would be the only upgrade for me so i'm waiting the 2066 also. Rumors are is Intel is pushing it up to June instead of Q3 now.

It won't be cheap. I think the low end will be $450 for the CPU and $2000 for the high end.

 

[Duncan_94]

Unless you actually need a 6/8/10 core CPU I would say go for a 1151 build.

I remember when I was considering my current piece, two cores was a base line and on the last leg of being phased out for a new standard. I know it's not the same right now, but do you think in the next five or possibly ten years quad cores will be a thing of the past? I think that's one of the issues I'm trying to dig through with this open-ended post.

I would imagine that in 10 years the standard performance CPUs will be 6/8 cores at high clock speeds. The only reason I went with a 7700K is because I care about fps in games and not much else. If I could buy a 6/8 core CPU with clock speeds that rivaled the 7700K's I would have bought it.

 

[10tacle]

The only thing we can look into the future for is what has the past done. No question that more cores are being utilized in games is one of the future paths. Most games today still only optimized for 4 cores. Some games will take advantage of more cores like Assassin's Creed, but it's not *that* much more of an FPS boost. I do not see this shifting any time soon as coding for additional physical core use creates much more complex coding.

With that said, I'll say this: in the 20 years I've been building gaming PCs, I've never had one last 5 years, let alone 10, and keep up with new generation games. Now I do have an 8-year old Core 2 Quad PC that still does very well in Office applications and general use. But for gaming, it's way past its prime. My 6-year old Sandy Bridge build still runs as a decent backup gaming and productivity PC, but it's about to be put out as I replace my Devil's Canyon later this year looking for more productivity power in video editing specifically (and I'm still on the fence on Intel vs. AMD's Ryzen on that...I need to see how Ryzen plays out over the summer with more memory compatibility).

So while that's not an answer, I hope at least it gave you some other things to consider in your eventual decision.

 

[john_706]

I've never had one last 5 years, let alone 10, and keep up with new generation games. ... (and I'm still on the fence on Intel vs. AMD's Ryzen on that...I need to see how Ryzen plays out over the summer with more memory compatibility).

So while that's not an answer, I hope at least it gave you some other things to consider in your eventual decision.

Sorry if I was unclear. So I don't intend the build I build this year to be the end all for 5 years. The intent here is to make sure the processor that I base it off of doesn't have to be changed. For me, buying a processor is the first consideration in putting something together and the longevity of that processor determines how far the computer goes as a whole when new g-cards and the like come out. My point being, if one were to get a 2066 and invest my build into that architecture, am I looking at something that when I OC it later, will still handle the processing load of the future? Conversely, am I looking at something that will still surely bottleneck, therefore not justifying the extra expense? I think these are the more personal recommendations I'm looking for.

Anyway, thanks for the response! Even if you don't have a direct answer, I'm grateful for any response especially with useful info. I did list it as discussion and expect more opinions than concrete answers.

 

[mrobscura]

unless something new is literally about to be released theres no point in waiting since theres always going to be something new on the horizon. if you wait for x299, mainstream coffee lake 6 cores might come out offering better ipc than that the x299 chips. and after that desktop cannon lake... so on and so forth.

if you just want to game go with 1151 and a 7700k. if you really want 6 plus cores just go for x99 now and be content since x299 isnt likely going to offer much more for the average user.

 

[iamacow]

I would either get a Ryzen 1800X or wait for the X299. It is pointless to buy anything else since it is already becoming dated. I have gone through 1 video card a year on this i7 3930K and it still has the same FPS (or better) than every platform beside the X99 using the same video card. It just goes to show CPU are not that important anymore, but if you are in the market for buying a new system. You want the newest so waiting is ideal. June is so close!

 

[mrobscura]

since any decent cpu will cut it for gaming nowadays theres even less reason to wait. and everything is dated within 6-12 months. if you wait for this, then you might as well wait for that, and if you wait for that... youll never build a system.

but if you are mainly interested in gaming, go with a 7700k since whil ryzen is solid, its going to be a bottleneck sooner than the i7(gaming wise) based on what benchmarks show. considering it already holds back a 1080 at high refreshrate 1080p. of course you could always hope that the future will magically bring improved gaming performance for ryzen, but i wouldnt base purchases on hopes and dreams.

 

[iamacow]

There is a difference between waiting for best value and waiting because you want the "newest" thing and waiting for the next thing which is an infinite loop.

 

[john_706]

Thanks for all the input! To those that mentioned the infinite buy loop, yes I'm aware of that trap thanks. Specifically, I don't intend to wait and set the date to make my purchases sometime this year. So, to reiterate I am looking for the "best buy" in terms of longevity and then in terms of performance. Again, sorry if I was unclear.

I think the general questions have become more specific.

A) Is a x299 going to be that much better than 7700k and does it justify the cost? Should I wait for it's release?
B) AMD has a history of failure in terms of support and optimization; is purchasing a Ryzen 1800X now worth it considering this?

 

[mrobscura]

Thanks for all the input! To those that mentioned the infinite buy loop, yes I'm aware of that trap thanks. Specifically, I don't intend to wait and set the date to make my purchases sometime this year. So, to reiterate I am looking for the "best buy" in terms of longevity and then in terms of performance. Again, sorry if I was unclear.

I think the general questions have become more specific.

A) Is a x299 going to be that much better than 7700k and does it justify the cost? Should I wait for it's release?
B) AMD has a history of failure in terms of support and optimization; is purchasing a Ryzen 1800X now worth it considering this?

for gaming youll likely not see much difference between a 7700k and a x299 chip. but if you are going to do things that can take advantage of more cores/threads then x299 would be worth considering, though it likely wont offer much more than x99, so if you really just want a 6+ core intel chip you dont necessarily need to wait.

as for ryzen, again if you can take advantage of more threads/core in your workloads then its an excellent value, but when it comes to gaming i wouldnt base my purchase on what could happen in he future.

 

[iamacow]

No one knows how well the X299 will preform. the 4Core Kabylake-E is based on the i7 7700k so that probably won't be any better. However the 6-10 core ones most likely will exceeding anything currently available.

The only reason I would wait is to see what Intel has to offer. Otherwise I suggest buying the AMD 1700X today. That would be the best buy overall. Still 5-10fps lower than a i7 7700k in many games, but for Multi-thread it crushes Intel. So it depends on what you want to do. Strickly for gaming the i7 7700k is the best buy right now.

 

[Rjfloyd87]

I've been looking at doing a build myself. Been looking at everything from the Ryzen 1800x to the 6900k. Looking at the specs the new i7-7820x looks like a sweet spot. 3.6ghz-4.5 on an 8 core processor for $599. There's already some pretests on user benchmark 17% overall speed increase over the $900 6900k, and 24% over the Ryzen 1800x.

 

[hogg.alexander]

In all my years, I am 46 and my first computer was a Sinclair ZX81, my answer can be flung out quite quickly:-
1) you will not using the same rig in 10 years for the same purpose. Even if the CPU *could* still be going, the rig will not. And even if it could, incremental component level upgrades will sooner or later give rise a bottleneck *somewhere* that you won't want to tolerate. That is the way the market is *now*. I've had machines still alive after more than five years, but after five years (MAX) they're getting tired for certain games.
2) If you have the money, buy the best you can *now*. Do not wait, there will always be something significantly better 6-24 months from 'now'.
3) If you have a budget, search for value for money parts, not necessarily top-top best or bottom-bottom cheapest. On PC's, many of the cards I have had were not the very best of the generation but were good. After a certain point there are "diminishing returns" the more you spend. Taking a stroll down GPU memory lane (pun intended) some of the graphics cards I have used:-
Orchid Righteous 3D
Diamond Viper V330
Riva TNT 2 Ultra
GeForce 6600GT
GeForce 7600GT
GeForce 8800 Super+
ATI Radeon HD 3850
AMD Radeon HD 5770
GTX 9600 4GB OC
GTX 1060 6GB OC