Is it reasonable to pair the R5 1600 with a GTX 1080 Ti?

[taskdask]

Knowing that Vega is probably just around the corner now, I'm still wondering if it's reasonable to pair the R5 1600 with a GTX 1080 Ti. The alternative is to go with the i7 7700K, but how much of a difference in gaming performance am I looking at then generally? Between 5-20% FPS difference if I'm not mistaken, right?

I'm looking to be gaming at 1440p, preferably 60-100+ FPS. Haven't decided on whether I should go 144Hz or Ultrawide yet...

 

[boosted1g]

For pure gaming build, go with i7 7700, for anytiing else CPU intesive then get Ryzen.

 

[Insomniac Jack]

It's pretty much preference with that choice. Like you said Ryzen is a bit slower but excels at streaming, video, and other multithreaded tasks. If you're just concerned with gaming performance the 7700k is faster but as stated only by about 5 to 20% depending on the game. If you go with Ryzen make sure to go with the fastest memory you can buy as that effects performance due to the CPU architecture.

 

[taskdask]

It's pretty much preference with that choice. Like you said Ryzen is a bit slower but excels at streaming, video, and other multithreaded tasks. If you're just concerned with gaming performance the 7700k is faster but as stated only by about 5 to 20% depending on the game. If you go with Ryzen make sure to go with the fastest memory you can buy as that effects performance due to the CPU architecture.

I'm familiar with the Ryzen <3 RAM "issue". I'm able to get my hands on a kit of 2x8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200Mhz CL16 for a relatively cheap price, so that is nice!

I think this all comes down to me being worried that I would have a disappointing experience when gaming if I go with R5 1600 rather than the i7 7700K, but since I'm coming from a PC that can barely handle Civ6 on minimum settings, I'm sure the experience will be quiet satisfying regardless... Probably just a case of me overthinking as usual!

 

[Insomniac Jack]

It's pretty much preference with that choice. Like you said Ryzen is a bit slower but excels at streaming, video, and other multithreaded tasks. If you're just concerned with gaming performance the 7700k is faster but as stated only by about 5 to 20% depending on the game. If you go with Ryzen make sure to go with the fastest memory you can buy as that effects performance due to the CPU architecture.

I'm familiar with the Ryzen <3 RAM "issue". I'm able to get my hands on a kit of 2x8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200Mhz CL16 for a relatively cheap price, so that is nice!

I think this all comes down to me being worried that I would have a disappointing experience when gaming if I go with R5 1600 rather than the i7 7700K, but since I'm coming from a PC that can barely handle Civ6 on minimum settings, I'm sure the experience will be quiet satisfying regardless... Probably just a case of me overthinking as usual!

I'm running a Ryzen 1700x and I'm definitely not disappointed. The FPS I'm seeing with my GTX 1080 might be 10 FPS lower than a 7700k system. To put that into perspective I'm maxed out at 144FPS in Prey at 1440p resolution. I'm definitely not noticing the difference at those speeds. Not to mention with the set up that you want I'm guess you're either going for 1440 or 4k and if that's the case the gap closes to almost zero between the 2 chips because it's GPU bound at that point.

 

[taskdask]

It's pretty much preference with that choice. Like you said Ryzen is a bit slower but excels at streaming, video, and other multithreaded tasks. If you're just concerned with gaming performance the 7700k is faster but as stated only by about 5 to 20% depending on the game. If you go with Ryzen make sure to go with the fastest memory you can buy as that effects performance due to the CPU architecture.

I'm familiar with the Ryzen <3 RAM "issue". I'm able to get my hands on a kit of 2x8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200Mhz CL16 for a relatively cheap price, so that is nice!

I think this all comes down to me being worried that I would have a disappointing experience when gaming if I go with R5 1600 rather than the i7 7700K, but since I'm coming from a PC that can barely handle Civ6 on minimum settings, I'm sure the experience will be quiet satisfying regardless... Probably just a case of me overthinking as usual!

I'm running a Ryzen 1700x and I'm definitely not disappointed. The FPS I'm seeing with my GTX 1080 might be 10 FPS lower than a 7700k system. To put that into perspective I'm maxed out at 144FPS in Prey at 1440p resolution. I'm definitely not noticing the difference at those speeds. Not to mention with the set up that you want I'm guess you're either going for 1440 or 4k and if that's the case the gap closes to almost zero between the 2 chips because it's GPU bound at that point.

Thank you, that's quite reassuring! I'm not having a brain fart if I remember that there's no gaming difference between R5 1600 and R7 1700, right?

Edit: Just realized I'm overthinking again... And you already answered this by mentioning that it's GPU bound at those resolutions. I must be really tired.

 

[Insomniac Jack]

It's pretty much preference with that choice. Like you said Ryzen is a bit slower but excels at streaming, video, and other multithreaded tasks. If you're just concerned with gaming performance the 7700k is faster but as stated only by about 5 to 20% depending on the game. If you go with Ryzen make sure to go with the fastest memory you can buy as that effects performance due to the CPU architecture.

I'm familiar with the Ryzen <3 RAM "issue". I'm able to get my hands on a kit of 2x8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200Mhz CL16 for a relatively cheap price, so that is nice!

I think this all comes down to me being worried that I would have a disappointing experience when gaming if I go with R5 1600 rather than the i7 7700K, but since I'm coming from a PC that can barely handle Civ6 on minimum settings, I'm sure the experience will be quiet satisfying regardless... Probably just a case of me overthinking as usual!

I'm running a Ryzen 1700x and I'm definitely not disappointed. The FPS I'm seeing with my GTX 1080 might be 10 FPS lower than a 7700k system. To put that into perspective I'm maxed out at 144FPS in Prey at 1440p resolution. I'm definitely not noticing the difference at those speeds. Not to mention with the set up that you want I'm guess you're either going for 1440 or 4k and if that's the case the gap closes to almost zero between the 2 chips because it's GPU bound at that point.

Thank you, that's quite reassuring! I'm not having a brain fart if I remember that there's no gaming difference between R5 1600 and R7 1700, right?

Edit: Just realized I'm overthinking again... And you already answered this by mentioning that it's GPU bound at those resolutions. I must be really tired.

lol yeah it happens and it's pretty easy to get lost in the benchmarks. At 1440 there is still a gap between the 7700k and Ryzen but it's much smaller than at 1080p. There's basically no gap between the 1600 and the Ryzen 7 chips in gaming. It's the same architecture minus 2 cores. Just OC the chip up in the 3.7 to 3.9Ghz range and you'll have zero issues. If you do go with the 7700k you're not exactly making a bad choice either though. I just prefer the simplicity of AMD over Intel. Intel like to limit your upgrade paths by changing the socket every couple of years and theres too many SKU's of chips to choose from. AMD has the Ryzen which will all use the same AM4 platform.

 

[taskdask]

It's pretty much preference with that choice. Like you said Ryzen is a bit slower but excels at streaming, video, and other multithreaded tasks. If you're just concerned with gaming performance the 7700k is faster but as stated only by about 5 to 20% depending on the game. If you go with Ryzen make sure to go with the fastest memory you can buy as that effects performance due to the CPU architecture.

I'm familiar with the Ryzen <3 RAM "issue". I'm able to get my hands on a kit of 2x8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200Mhz CL16 for a relatively cheap price, so that is nice!

I think this all comes down to me being worried that I would have a disappointing experience when gaming if I go with R5 1600 rather than the i7 7700K, but since I'm coming from a PC that can barely handle Civ6 on minimum settings, I'm sure the experience will be quiet satisfying regardless... Probably just a case of me overthinking as usual!

I'm running a Ryzen 1700x and I'm definitely not disappointed. The FPS I'm seeing with my GTX 1080 might be 10 FPS lower than a 7700k system. To put that into perspective I'm maxed out at 144FPS in Prey at 1440p resolution. I'm definitely not noticing the difference at those speeds. Not to mention with the set up that you want I'm guess you're either going for 1440 or 4k and if that's the case the gap closes to almost zero between the 2 chips because it's GPU bound at that point.

Thank you, that's quite reassuring! I'm not having a brain fart if I remember that there's no gaming difference between R5 1600 and R7 1700, right?

Edit: Just realized I'm overthinking again... And you already answered this by mentioning that it's GPU bound at those resolutions. I must be really tired.

lol yeah it happens and it's pretty easy to get lost in the benchmarks. At 1440 there is still a gap between the 7700k and Ryzen but it's much smaller than at 1080p. There's basically no gap between the 1600 and the Ryzen 7 chips in gaming. It's the same architecture minus 2 cores. Just OC the chip up in the 3.7 to 3.9Ghz range and you'll have zero issues. If you do go with the 7700k you're not exactly making a bad choice either though. I just prefer the simplicity of AMD over Intel. Intel like to limit your upgrade paths by changing the socket every couple of years and theres too many SKU's of chips to choose from. AMD has the Ryzen which will all use the same AM4 platform.

That's exactly what I'm thinking! I'm hoping AMD will release a higher clocked 6c/12t CPU in the future that I can throw my money at if it offers pretty much any kind of gaming improvement. Only question right now is whether I should brace myself and wait yet another month to purchase all the parts in anticipation of Vega. Rumor has it that the release date will be announced at 31st of May!

 

[Insomniac Jack]

Yes I've heard that Vega is set to release around June so May 31st makes sense. It's a tough question to answer. On the 1 hand the 1080Ti is a beast and should last many years but it's not cheap. On the other hand we have Vega. Who knows how it will perform. I'm hoping it'll match the 1080ti for a cheaper price but you never know. I'm saving money now for either a Vega or a 1080ti to replace my GTX1080. I was very sad when the 1080ti release 2 weeks after I put my system together. I have high hopes for Vega but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[taskdask]

Yes I've heard that Vega is set to release around June so May 31st makes sense. It's a tough question to answer. On the 1 hand the 1080Ti is a beast and should last many years but it's not cheap. On the other hand we have Vega. Who knows how it will perform. I'm hoping it'll match the 1080ti for a cheaper price but you never know. I'm saving money now for either a Vega or a 1080ti to replace my GTX1080. I was very sad when the 1080ti release 2 weeks after I put my system together. I have high hopes for Vega but I'm not holding my breath.

Ouch! Just two weeks later? Must've been seriously frustrating! I agree on Vega. My bet is that the top tier card (if there are several) will perform somewhere in between GTX 1080 - 1080 Ti, probably at a price that is somewhere in between those cards as well.

 

[Insomniac Jack]

To me I honestly may just stick with Nvidia just because of the support software. I like how the Geforce experience runs and optimizes games with the explanations of what each effect does and what hardware it affects. I'm not sure if AMD has a similar system. I also prefer to have the fastest GPU I can get. I can compromise a bit on the CPU but the GPU I want raw speed.