Having just skim-read this thread and the long old AM4 vs Intel (whatever they're on now... 1151?) and 1060 vs 1070 vs something in the future debate, I have to say I've always been of the mindset that you should get what is best today. The exception is if you know that something is coming out next week which you know it's going to totally obsolete anything around today - which in this case is quite unlikely! It has had happened a few times in the past 10 years but somehow I don't really see the next generation of GPUs absolutely sending the current ones into oblivion.
Intel has changed their socket a lot of times in the past 8 or so years, going from 1156 to 1155 and then to 1150 and 1151 (I think that order is correct), but truth be told I am using an i7 3770K from 2012 and don't feel the need to upgrade. To be fair, this setup is using DDR3 RAM so if I were going to upgrade at this stage I'd want a new motherboard and DDR4 RAM. AMD has also introduced several different sockets since 2010 for their high-end platforms, namely AM3, AM3+ and AM4 but have had backwards compatibility on their side. AM3+ lasted for about 5 or 6 years simply because AMD withdrew from the performance market for a few years - what's to say that AM4 wouldn't have come sooner than it did had AMD remained competitive with Intel between about 2013 and 2016 and we'd be looking at AM4+ or AM5 now? We don't know how long AM4 is going to stick around for or if their next socket will be compatible with AM4. Does it really matter that much at the end of the day? Chances are the Ryzen CPUs are good enough now to last you for a long time before you're going to need to upgrade, by which point you'll be looking for a new board anyway for some other reason or new must-have feature. I wonder how long I'll stay on LGA 1155 for.
The point is that you should probably get the GTX 1070 since right now it is better than the 1060 and if that means getting a Ryzen 5 rather than i5 then do it. I haven't looked thoroughly into it all as have been out of the loop for a little while but from what I gather they're pretty similar and as others have said, it's the graphics card that is key here. Get the best GPU you can afford and put the CPU second - but still get a decent one. For years we used to say an i5 with an NVIDIA GTX x80 card or AMD HD xx70 card (e.g. 5870, 6970, 7970 etc) was better than an i7 with a GTX x70 or an HD xx50 card. Technology changes so quickly that if you keep on waiting for the 'next big thing' then you'll be waiting forever rather than spending that time enjoying your system and playing your games. Also, just because something becomes previous generation doesn't immediately render it obsolete!
Number I usually hear is 2021 before AM5
I reckon I'll still be on LGA 1155 until about then. If things stay the way they've been for the past 7 years or so then an AM4 system will likely be usable after 2021. You will probably have upgraded from the 1070 by then if you're into gaming though.AMD has always stated that AM4 will last until DDR5 with a long life cycle. Number I usually hear is 2021 before AM5.
I reckon I'll still be on LGA 1155 until about then.
Yeah the Q9550 was good for a long time but there was a fair difference between the Core 2 Quad and the Core i processors, after all I think I remember seeing on Anandtech benchmarks that a Sandy Bridge i3 is comparable to a Core 2 Extreme QX9770, haha! The 3770K isn't an awful lot different to the CPUs of today.Yeah, I really didn't need to upgrade my 3770k for gaming, I don't see any difference with my 8700k, only upgraded because my guest gaming pc a q9550 build was just starting to struggle with new games.
So, I can give some insight here based on experience and not keyboard warrior my way through claiming that upgrading within the same socket later down the road isn't feasible.
Meanwhile a 1400 going to a 1700 or even the Zen refresh 2700 would be a noticeable jump. That's still economically viable to do 5 years down the line
The OP's needs and the performance goal won't be satisfied regardless of the build listed.
I went from a i7 920 to a server pull Xeon W3690.. 5 years into ownership
This isn't a unique situation. Claiming it is a unique situation doesn't actually make this a unique situation.lol, I think most people in this thread have had quite a lot of experience and nobody has once said that upgrading within the same socket isn't feasible, but in this unique situation it is unlikely to be wise.
Oh man, you are fox news'ing your way through this to make numbers work.$140 for the 1400 and then pay another $230 for 2600x, a total of $370, close to double the price for a 7% gaming improvement over a $190 8400, even with a cheaper second hand 2600x its not worth it.
For starters, I never said I purchased my i7 920 right when it came out. System was built in 2010, so I caught the mid to tail end of the nehalem line with the D0 stepping. Then, 5 years later, I decided I needed a performance boost on the cpu side and had the option of either going for a new build, or keeping the X58 platform. I kept the X58 platform and scavenged on eBay a server pull W3690 or X5690. I ended up sniping a W3690 for $120 off ebay. You'd be surprised how cheap server pulls are for Xeons on eBay.For starters, the guy that sold you a 2 year old 1000+ dollar cpu for $120 is either, a family member, a friend or a moron, may even be straight up BS, even now another 5 years later, 7 year after they launched, they are still selling for around 100 dollars.
Cool... do you have a particular need for the NVME bandwidth/speed besides running benchmarks on it to see how much faster the numbers are technically and stroking the ego? Day to day use, NVME drives vs SATA ssd drives, you won't see a noticeable difference in most use cases unless you whip out a timer and time it. You can argue Intel's optane drives are noticeable, and while they are very noticeable on random read/write and it's superior latency values, they aren't targeted to your average consumer... yet because of high price premiums.one of my biggest reasons for upgrading this time was NVME support
add in cards bro.in 2008 you likely didn't have usb3
Gee thanks for telling me that the X58 design predates USB3.0 and SATA3. It's almost as if none of these can be solved by pci-e add in cards. Which is almost always why I recommend against mATX boards.but in 2011 it was common for even cheap motherboards to have these
This isn't a unique situation. Claiming it is a unique situation doesn't actually make this a unique situation.
Oh man, you are fox news'ing your way through this to make numbers work.
Counting $140 on the 1400 if the OP's already going to buy this makes no sense
Ditching the GTX 1060 to go to a GTX 1070 is a $400 purchase. Which is essentially what YOU need to consider before claiming that it's only a 7% gaming improvement. Because then at that point, both system has a GTX 1070 in there and you're comparing solely on the difference of a 2600X vs a i5-8400.
Just like there's people out there who think the moon landings were fake. You do you.
For starters, I never said I purchased my i7 920 right when it came out. System was built in 2010, so I caught the mid to tail end of the nehalem line with the D0 stepping. Then, 5 years later, I decided I needed a performance boost on the cpu side and had the option of either going for a new build, or keeping the X58 platform. I kept the X58 platform and scavenged on eBay a server pull W3690 or X5690. I ended up sniping a W3690 for $120 off ebay. You'd be surprised how cheap server pulls are for Xeons on eBay.
Cool... do you have a particular need for the NVME bandwidth/speed besides running benchmarks on it to see how much faster the numbers are technically and stroking the ego?
add in cards bro.
Omnidyne disagrees, but agreed with you on this.
That's a tough decision. Those prices are high, and I'm not sure a Ryzen 5 1400 would be able to push a GTX 1070.
Each computer has a serious trade off.
Do you have any other options? Those computers aren't really spec'd appropriately.
But again, neither of those builds makes much sense.
Lol, it really isn't a unique situation. Many people come across the same dilemma of which PC to choose and based on what they want, it's a compromise. This is no different.Lol, This is a unique situation, every build has different user with different needs and budgets. Claiming it isn't a unique situation doesn't actually mean this isn't a unique situation.
Don't need to when you're already doing it.You wish.
The CPU's not free, but you'd rather add the cost of a 1400 in the upgrade to a newer CPU, but not consider the cost of the 8400 or the GTX 1060 in the i5 build.Wow, so this cpu is free then?
He will need to buy both cpu's right?
He can't afford the 2600x so he will need to buy a 1400 first and then upgrade, understand?
This is be more expensive than just buying the 7% slower 8400, we agree the computer isn't up to the task, so what will affect graphics performance the most, I would say a better gpu. He should be saving his money for future gpu upgrades, not cpu upgrades that only get him 7% more performance than if he just went with the 8400 from the start.
If you're talking about the i5-8400 + GTX1060, sure. The R5 1400 + GTX1070 only needs a CPU upgrade to achieve 144hz. Guess which one's cheaper to upgrade to achieve 144hz? Not the i5.I have stated that I would take the slower gaming pc now, but once a gpu upgrade has been done (we agree needs to be done for 144hz)
Debatable.the 8400 would end up being the faster gaming pc
Only if you believe the moon landings were fake.You may sink to personal attacks to try and prove your point, but I will not, I will just wish you a good day .
Jump from a i5-8400 to the i7-8700k is nowhere near as big as what I experienced nor the R5 1400 to R7 1700 (or R7 2700).The same could be possible with the 8700k,
Those are opinions with no hard evidence.this could extend the life of a gaming pc quite far past AM4.
Placebo effect?Games like Civ and StarCraft load so much faster
Placebo effect? You need to prove that beyond stating "night and day".the difference is like night and day.