CPU vs RAM for overall system smoothness

[ShrimpBrime]

Era of the mini computer, i remember auto shops having them for emissions testing before pcs with 95 replaced them

Yeah, that's what gramps was saying haha. Called it a mini PC. He had a smart phone at 90 years old when he passed away. Was always had a finger in technology somewhere.

Mini PC referred to, not the size of a large room for compute if I remember right. The Internet begins to thrive!!

 

[LastEntertainment]

Appreciate the responses.

I don't see anything wrong in buying things more potent than you minimally need. Headroom is nice. Of course sometimes you are limited in time, money, or whatnot so I added, "if within the budget."

This is not a gaming, nor is it a productivity build, and RAM runs JEDEC speeds in both scenarios rendering equal latency for both configurations, unless OP fiddles with BIOS settings which is not a given because I don't know their MO.
1.5 times better bandwidth makes for no difference in basic computing. Difference in gaming will also be minimal because these depend on latency much more than they do on the sheer b/w.

What really makes 7600K more compelling is the fact it has better architecture. MT at a subtle loss, ST with a significant advantage.

I agree but it seemed like in this case cheaper would just make more sense overall.

Oh 35 bucks is a no brainer!!
I'm with them guys then. i5 7600K. Almost perfect for GTX 980.
Maybe scavenge an 8700K or 8086K later if the board supports it.

It doesn't, it's 7th gen max. Unless there's some sort of hack.

After looking at CPU prices I noticed that 1st and 2nd gen. Ryzens are ridiculously cheap so might just go with those. AM4 having the longevity that it does, it might be the better option here. An R5 2600+motherboard would only be like $90 AND my 3200mhz RAM wouldn't be getting limited to only 2400mhz like with the i5.

 

[AusWolf]

Oh 35 bucks is a no brainer!!
I'm with them guys then. i5 7600K. Almost perfect for GTX 980.
Maybe scavenge an 8700K or 8086K later if the board supports it.

That's a no-go. 7000 series CPUs only work with 200-series chipsets, 8000 only with 300-series, even though the socket is identical. OP: This is something worth keeping in mind.

 

[Macro Device]

Unless there's some sort of hack.

There is and it doesn't require you to be much smarter than an ape but it takes some effort and is ugly sometimes.

 

[Princess Garnet]

In a vacuum, I'd rather have the second one for sure. It's faster, and has newer RAM, and you make it sound like you can outfit it with more RAM. Either would be fine though, and whether the second is "faster enough" for basic use to justify added expense is another story.

At a low cost of $35 though, I'd say that's low enough to make it the way to go regardless. The hesitation comes in because Windows 10 loses support in a year, and anything prior to the 8th generation on Intel's side isn't supported. So that Sky Lake CPU is just an unnecessary, albeit small, cost for what is a small, short term performance difference. In a year, they're both in the same spot.

So in my mind, I'd just use the existing Haswell system and get something newer that will be supported, whether that is now or later.

And yes, workarounds to install Windows 11 on unsupported hardware exists, but those are always going to be prone to not working. There's already some known instances where it won't (these namely involve some games using anticheat which mandate TPM to be enabled if Windows 11 if the OS, so these might not apply to your use case), but more could come. There's on again, off again rumors that Microsoft will stop updates for those PCs too. It "works", but it's not something I'd rely on for a primary daily driver, so to speak.