Pemalite said:
Biggerboat1 said:
Would you say that the 2600, as Bofferbrauer2 is suggesting would be a good compromise? (especially if the OC is a realistic option...)
|
Overclocking is always a realistic option with AMD.
The 2600 will win in lightly threaded scenario's once overclocked, no question against a stock R7 2700/i5 8400. - But it's heavily threaded performance will probably come up short against the 2700... Which is expected with a 25% reduction in core/thread counts.
I would still go with the 2700 personally, even if it meant a reduction in the GPU performance. (Which you will likely swap out for a faster one in a couple years anyway.)
That's not to say the 2600 is a bad chip, far from it... But I am of the mind of buying the best CPU you can afford, because these days they tend to last 7-10 years in a rig where you replace a GPU far more often... My 6-core i7 3930K chip in another PC from 2011 is still playing the latest games at max settings for instance.
**********
Or you could take it in the complete opposite direction and grab the Ryzen 3 2200G. 3.9ghz is good with those chips... And then upgrade to the Ryzen 7 3000 series when it releases, which should increase clocks, core counts and IPC across the entire board later this year. (Also AMD's first 7nm CPU's.)
...Should also be a drop in replacement. win win.
|
The reason I was questioning whether it would be realistic to OC the 2600 is due to the tiny case I'm going for (and the inherent thermal issues) - as I wrote a couple of posts back the case can handle an OC'd i5-4670 with a decent low-profile cooler. Do you think that indicates that the 2600 (or other AMD CPU) would be ok, or are they more prone to heating issues when OC'd than intel's chips?
Another option is to drop the RTX 2060 into my current big-rig (i5-4670K oc'd @ 4.2) to replace my SLI GTX 660s and wait until the 3000 series release before moving to the mini-ITX machine... I'm reading that they're due to launch mid-year...
