Is this the best I can get for $2000. Wife gave me the green light!!!!:)))))))

[ZED]

Lets try this again



What the .... do you think I mean when I said Smoking it, that means to destroy it, obliterate it, beat it badly. Its like when I said it wouldn't destroy it at said function you try to walk your statement back and say it was "faster" in video rendering. I get what you said, I'm just not sure If you understand that Smoking something means the same thing as obliterate. Why Post that crap about Video Rendering in Red as If that was what we were even having the disagreement on.

Look I love talking about tech, but I really hate talking to people who any time they are presented with an alternative view which has EMPIRICAL DATA TO BACK It gets offensive and tries to discredit said DATA without proving why Its wrong. Kaby lake is a small upgrade over skylake mainly due to a bit more overclocking room/stock frequency boost, and a few platform improvements.

Also they use a different freaking test at Tomshardware.com.......I'm beating my head against a wall here

Well, I thought you meant in general and did not take into account that I specifically mentioned in video rendering. Moreover, you got attached specifically to that sentence, which alone without previous sentence can have a completely different meaning or loose the point. If you go back to that comment and reread it then you will notice that by all means I did not mean that you now have to run and buy i7 7700k if you run on i7 6700k. In general they have little performance difference but tests showed that there is a huge gap when it comes to video rendering. So, I just wanted to point out that if you are a professional who renders video's on daily basis then it makes sense to upgrade from i7 6700k to i7 7700k. Also, tests showed that i7 7700k OC 5 Ghz is indeed faster than 5950x in video rendering.
Also, I perfectly understand the meaning of "smoking". Once again, I thought you meant in "general" and missed my point about video rendering.

Why are you taking the data that I presented as an offense? I simply pointed out other sources that got different results in benchmarking. Since I read TomsHardware as well, I can tell that there is not much different in testing methods in the sources that I provided. They all use similar test environments, tools and methods. Some may vary but not significantly. My main point, if you still have not noticed, is not to argue who is right or wrong, but I just want to point out that you can't rely only on one source. This is the reason why I posted those video's. However, it seems that for some reason you got upset with that and took it as an offense that I'm trying to prove that you are wrong. By all means, I'd like you to go back to the post where I mentioned JayzTwoCents and I'd like you to find where I was trying to prove that you are wrong? I simply said that the TomsHardware site might have done something wrong in their tests since other sources are getting different results. Moreover, if you reread the post then you will notice that "I'm curious to see more tests" rather than rely on single source.

Yes, KabyLake is a small upgrade over Skylake. Didn't I say that too?

What is so different in TomsHardware from OC3D for example? Or guru3d? Or GamersNexus? Or any other reputable reviewer?

[ZED]

For the source pool, lets throw in another reputable source, Anandtech.
Here is something interesting to read about overclocking i7 7700k by Anandtech.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10968/...ce-champion/11

As you can see they also were getting high temperatures at stock speeds and OC speeds. However, look at the table they provided with different frequencies and voltage. You will notice that they used a different method in Overclocking and setting BLCK and Voltage from what OC3D or guru3d did. You see, this is the reason why I like to look at multiple sources and then compare rather than just rely on a single source.
Btw, if you watch OC3D video then you will see that he pointed out that at stock settings some BIOS's might go crazy with voltage. Moreover, he pointed out that some motherboards that he tested with stock vs updated BIOS he was getting different results. He then added that a manual intervention may be required to correct this issue, which also GamersNexus did in his tests.

[Velozzity]

my whole issue with your responses in the thread was how it started off. You didn't ask what the issue was with the test I linked, you only assumed it was a rumor or an invalid test, and stated as such. I linked other sites where they came to same general conclusions that Kaby Lake wasn't worth it unless starting fresh pre haswell. We've beaten the hell out of this thread already, and I'm really tired of postulating that X must have not been right on Y website so thats why My Opinion isn't supported. Lets give it a few weeks. At a minimal we can agree that Kaby Lake is an upgrade over Skylake albeit how much time will tell. We can also agree that there are some Platform (read motherboard) things such as more pcie lanes, xpoint memory, etc that might be used further down the road that can push a person towards Z270 when comparing against z170. Temps, volts, what stress test, none of that crap really matters for a majority of the gamers out there as long as they can play their games smoothly and it just works. In that regard Kaby Lake is a winner, the finer points only matter to extremists who want to push their systems to the bleeding edge of which I think we are the very small minority and the OP probably isn't even relatively close to being one. I will leave this thread for those who actually buy Kaby Lake to give their opinions, and hope it works fine for them.

[ZED]

my whole issue with your responses in the thread was how it started off. You didn't ask what the issue was with the test I linked, you only assumed it was a rumor or an invalid test, and stated as such. I linked other sites where they came to same general conclusions that Kaby Lake wasn't worth it unless starting fresh pre haswell. We've beaten the hell out of this thread already, and I'm really tired of postulating that X must have not been right on Y website so thats why My Opinion isn't supported. Lets give it a few weeks. At a minimal we can agree that Kaby Lake is an upgrade over Skylake albeit how much time will tell. We can also agree that there are some Platform (read motherboard) things such as more pcie lanes, xpoint memory, etc that might be used further down the road that can push a person towards Z270 when comparing against z170. Temps, volts, what stress test, none of that crap really matters for a majority of the gamers out there as long as they can play their games smoothly and it just works. In that regard Kaby Lake is a winner, the finer points only matter to extremists who want to push their systems to the bleeding edge of which I think we are the very small minority and the OP probably isn't even relatively close to being one. I will leave this thread for those who actually buy Kaby Lake to give their opinions, and hope it works fine for them.

Ofcourse I only assumed that something was wrong in the test that TomsHardware did. That is the reason why I went on to look on to other sources and see and compare results. So far I noticed that tests are different due to motherboard and BIOS versions. I believe that as time goes on manufacturers will release updates on BIOS and we will see different results with more stable OC. This is why I mentioned in one of my posts that it is too early to decide what Kaby Lake is really capable of. However, so far it shows that there is no difference in gaming and upgrading from Skylake to Kaby Lake is not worth it. Same story was with Skylake when it first came out. For example, there were some issues running Prime95 on ASUS motherboards and ASUS had to release a BIOS update to fix stability issues that it had running Prime95. I think the same thing happened with Gigabyte boards as I recall.

I'd like to point out this comment that you posted in the other thread " If on Ivy Bridge or Older, upgrade. If Haswell or Newer, stay where you are and see what Ryzen has in store."
I totally agree on this based on the information we gathered so far and never neglected that upgrading from i7 6700k to i7 7700k is not worth it.

[ZED]

Also, I am planning to upgrade my i5 6600k and this is why I do a lot of research at the moment to see the difference between i7 6700k and i7 7700k.

[xXxDEATHxXx]

/me Gets popcorn lol

[Velozzity]

/me Gets popcorn lol

lmao, can't wait for the reviews of Ryzen to come out so we can nitpick the hell out of them too hahah....JK...but seriously I think Ricen was 4.9751147% faster on Gigaherpityderp 2.0 test than Slobby Pond(Thats Intels Code Name for their OMFG its faster than lightning series Processors), However in Buttermybreadinthemornin 3.0 Slobby Pond just destroys Ricen with a combined score of 999999999999999999999.9. Hope this helps you pick a processor.... :)

Also, I am planning to upgrade my i5 6600k and this is why I do a lot of research at the moment to see the difference between i7 6700k and i7 7700k.

I think next year Intel is going mainstream with 6 core processors, hopefully they will be top dog and over 4ghz stock. If I was in your shoes and Ryzen didn't end up being competitive with Skylake/Kaby Lake i'd probably wait for that.

[ZED]

I think next year Intel is going mainstream with 6 core processors, hopefully they will be top dog and over 4ghz stock. If I was in your shoes and Ryzen didn't end up being competitive with Skylake/Kaby Lake i'd probably wait for that.

Well waiting for a year is a bit too long, don't you think? If it was like 4 - 6 month then yeah. Moreover, I already was waiting for 6 month to do that upgrade. Besides it's not a fact that Coffee lake will be out in January... So, it could be even more than a year from now on. And perhaps if AMD will show some sort of good competition with their Ryzen lineup and bring something better next year and bring back good old Athlon 64 days then I will simply rebuilt the system and go with AMD just like in good old days when AMD Athlon 64 rekt Intel.

[Velozzity]

Well waiting for a year is a bit too long, don't you think? If it was like 4 - 6 month then yeah. Moreover, I already was waiting for 6 month to do that upgrade. Besides it's not a fact that Coffee lake will be out in January... So, it could be even more than a year from now on. And perhaps if AMD will show some sort of good competition with their Ryzen lineup and bring something better next year and bring back good old Athlon 64 days then I will simply rebuilt the system and go with AMD just like in good old days when AMD Athlon 64 rekt Intel.

Well the one good thing about the 7700k in your predicament is it will fit in your motherboard, assuming you don't want or need Z270. About waiting more than 6 months, I tend to make my decisions so that they will last more than 2+ years, I broke that rule with my last Processor (4670k) and passsed it down to my son early, and at time of purchase tried both Haswell E (cus alot of sites were recommending it for so called future proof due to more cores and abiltity to put Zeons in it down the road) and Skylake (I had a 7700k for a day, returned it mainly due to a motherboard feature that I considered a negative, and no discernible difference in performance in gaming) I feel at the time I was sorta in your shoes, had bought an I5 and wanted an I7. But ultimately it's your decision and you should do what makes you happy or you will regret it. I feel though lots of times we enthusiasts make choices based on Wants not Needs and what we have works perfectly well but money has a way of burning holes in our pockets so we got to have the newest toys.

[ZED]

Well the one good thing about the 7700k in your predicament is it will fit in your motherboard, assuming you don't want or need Z270. About waiting more than 6 months, I tend to make my decisions so that they will last more than 2+ years, I broke that rule with my last Processor (4670k) and passsed it down to my son early, and at time of purchase tried both Haswell E (cus alot of sites were recommending it for so called future proof due to more cores and abiltity to put Zeons in it down the road) and Skylake (I had a 7700k for a day, returned it mainly due to a motherboard feature that I considered a negative, and no discernible difference in performance in gaming) I feel at the time I was sorta in your shoes, had bought an I5 and wanted an I7. But ultimately it's your decision and you should do what makes you happy or you will regret it. I feel though lots of times we enthusiasts make choices based on Wants not Needs and what we have works perfectly well but money has a way of burning holes in our pockets so we got to have the newest toys.

I used to have 3+ year rule but I broke it. I've done so many upgrades since 2015, that I think the only parts that I did not touch so far is CPU, SSD, PSU. Everything else was replaced. Yes, even case and motherboard. And I did upgrade my GPU 3 times in one year period. Perhaps, maybe next year I may end up just building a completely new system with more higher end parts. But until then my i5 6600k is slightly bottlenecking GTX 1070 in some games. It's not that noticeable but sometimes is getting annoying. So, I thought to get i7 7700k or if I find i7 6700k dirt cheap (since now it seems that in gaming there is literally no difference between these chips) and use it for a year and then build a new rig next year.

[Velozzity]

In my previous post I meant to say 6700k, not 7700k, at the time I had no time machine to allow me to purchase said processor and take it back.

[Mouselad]

this is another good option for a monitor. 1ms refresh rate, 144hz

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HY7PAUC?

[A_goat]

It was on sale for $225 original price was $500.

How about liquid coolers. I'm definitely going to overclock the processor so like everyone else I don't want heat to be an issue, but I never had a straight up gaming rig and liquid cooling just seems dangerous if anything were to fail. I know tons of people have liquid cooled rigs but does it really help enough to take the chance?

You can still overclock on air. You do not need watercooling by any means. If you have the case to fit one, they do make massive air coolers that will compete with the best AIO water coolers. However, I hate the look of having a big ol hunk of metal sitting on my mobo so I prefer watercooling. There are many benefits to both... so really, its up to your choice aesthetically.
Even with a cheap $30 air cooler, you will be able to get a decent overclock out of any chip. You can get similar results to a $30 air cooler by buying a $60 water cooler.

If you want to push your mobo and cpu to its absolute limit and find its breaking point, you will need at least a 240mm water cooler, or a massive double tower air cooler.
Double tower air coolers can be found for $80. 240mm+ watercoolers are usually over $100