Solved

I7 7740x best mother board

All right.i am going to go for the 7740 for now.
So is there any like....m-atx mother boards?or it has to be atx.....
Reply to Bardebay
25 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about 7740x mother board
  1. I mean...ya,as the other thread I published,I will do 6k video editing with my red,but I mostly shoot with 4K.and I don't have a gigantic budget for i9...
    (Sorry computer...)
    Reply to Bardebay
  2. Why would you spend money on a cpu that close to everyone that reviews it says is a waste of money? If your going to get that, may as well get the Ryzen 1800x. Or maybe wait for Threadripper.

    But it's your money. So good luck.

    Oh and there are no micro atx boards
    Reply to urbancamper
  3. Best answer
    If you're doing video editing/rendering, don't get Intel. The processor you're talking about is 4 cores and 8 threads, while a similarly priced Ryzen CPU will have 8 cores and 16 threads, and its video editing performance will annihilate the 7740X. It's much better you get a 1700 and use the stock cooler. Even at stock frequencies it would beat the crap out of the 7740X. When doing video editing, more cores means more performance almost always. Considering you are editing in 4K, you need all the performance you can get, so its either Ryzen 7 or the overpriced 8 core 7820X, which costs $600(insert cash register sound here). So it's best you get the 1700 - better performance for lower costs.
    Reply to Shektron
  4. Reply to elbert
  5. elbert said:


    Hmm, I guess there just are not any at Newegg then. I stand corrected. That cpu is still a waste of money though.
    Reply to urbancamper
  6. 7740 is a shoehorned 7700k in the X299 board. 16 lanes pci express, dual channel ram. Lots of features will be disabled on the motherboard. The product makes no sense. Maybe if there was a mini ITX board like the dual channel X99 it would fit better.

    http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/X99E-ITXac/ 7740X would want a X299 version of this board. Where missing the extra pci express lanes and dual channel ram would not hurt.

    The EVGA MATX splits the lanes right, two 8x from the CPU, and the 3rd slot and m.2 off the PCH. But you can only add two sticks of RAM in slot 3 and 4. 1 and 2 will be empty
    Reply to kraelic
  7. Haha,yes is my fault that I didn't check the reviews.
    But thanks for the reply every one,I was also thinking is the i5-7640x good.
    AMD...I really like their cpu,but after hearing most of my friends saying that intel is so much better,then I think I probably got polluted.. :)
    What do you guys think, i7 7700k ori7-7740x?
    Reply to Bardebay
  8. The 7740X is a 7700K, except that it has to use motherboards that are 2-4x more expensive.

    AMD's FX lineup was pretty poor, but since Ryzen's release, AMD's chips are worth a look. The Ryzen 1700 is cheaper than a 7700K, and considerably faster for highly parallel tasks. Intel still wins for high-hz gaming (120+ hz monitors), but otherwise you may be better served with one of AMD's offerings.
    Reply to Ecky
  9. The overclocked R5 1600 is about on par with the 7600k overclocked to 5Ghz. Only thing is the Ryzen can be overclocked on the stock heatsink to 3.7~3.8Ghz. The 7600K or 7700K for that matter needs a $100 water cooler for 5Ghz. You should really consider the 1600 6 core or 1700 8 core. Price wise the blow Intel away.
    Reply to elbert
  10. I get it.so your suggestion is to buy ryzen 1700.all right,thank you.
    Reply to Bardebay
  11. You can get a 8 core 16 thread R7 1700 for the 4 core 8 thread 7740K price, and get an AM4 motherboard for 1/3 of an X299, both CPU would use a dual channel DDR4 ram kit. You can spend the difference from the motherboard alone for a starter gaming GPU like the 1050 TI, and if you drop back to the R5 1600 6 core 12 thread CPU, you can upgrade the GPU to a 1060 3GB. X299 is way too overpriced.
    Reply to kraelic
  12. This costs just about as much as the i7 7740X, but is wayyyy faster, cooler. Also added in a decent m-atx mobo

    PCPartPicker part list: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/FmrKM8
    Price breakdown by merchant: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/FmrKM8/by_merchant/

    CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($269.99 @ Amazon)
    Motherboard: Gigabyte - GA-AB350M-Gaming 3 Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard ($86.98 @ Newegg)
    Total: $356.97
    Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
    Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-07-15 02:36 EDT-0400
    Reply to XiPH3R
  13. The 7740 is a 7700K stuffed into a socket 2066 and oc'd by a whopping 100 MHz....

    If all you need is 4c/8t (still awesome for gaming, btw), get the 7700K and Z270...sand save $150 or so.....
    Reply to mdd1963
  14. mdd1963 said:
    The 7740 is a 7700K stuffed into a socket 2066 and oc'd by a whopping 100 MHz....

    If all you need is 4c/8t (still awesome for gaming, btw), get the 7700K and Z270...sand save $150 or so.....


    7700 bs ryzen 1700?
    What would be the difference?
    Reply to Bardebay
  15. Bardebay said:
    mdd1963 said:
    The 7740 is a 7700K stuffed into a socket 2066 and oc'd by a whopping 100 MHz....

    If all you need is 4c/8t (still awesome for gaming, btw), get the 7700K and Z270...sand save $150 or so.....


    7700 bs ryzen 1700?
    What would be the difference?


    7700K is only useful for very high refresh rate, like at or above 144 Hz. If you're doing anything other than gaming at that refresh rate, then Ryzen would be better. Ryzen 1700 has 8 cores, which means it would be better at multi-threaded tasks like video editing and games which love more threads. This will also mean it's more future-proof for games, since 8 cores can last quite some time before becoming insufficient. Also the more cores will help in multi-tasking, like streaming while gaming, or doing anything else while gaming in general.

    Meanwhile, the 7700K will only be useful for playing at 144 or greater FPS. You won't get any mind-blowing workstation performance, and multitasking would be pretty limited. Also, the 4 cores ain't gonna last much(pardon the American English there).

    So, in a nutshell - 1700 FTW :).
    Reply to Shektron
  16. As I heard ,more cores ,the better,isn't it?
    So even though is like 2.0GHZ,if is 10cores ,is it still legit?
    Reply to Bardebay
  17. Bardebay said:
    As I heard ,more cores ,the better,isn't it?
    So even though is like 2.0GHZ,if is 10cores ,is it still legit?


    Not really. 10 cores is a bit too much, plus the Skylake-X comes with a ton of issues and is really a waste of money. The CPU's overheat, the CPU and motherboard specification don't seem to agree with each other. Even on water cooling, an i9 7900X easily hits 100C when overclocked. Really, it's a very unstable platform, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Unless they really like to keep their chips on the edge of burning out.
    Reply to Shektron
  18. Bardebay said:
    As I heard ,more cores ,the better,isn't it?
    So even though is like 2.0GHZ,if is 10cores ,is it still legit?


    Number of cores really depends on how many threads the application you are running is optimized to use. Video editing can use all cores/threads. But if the cores are too slow they might get outdone by a faster but lower cores CPU. All depends on different variables.

    *I almost forgot to put in my 2 cents on your OP; the 7740 is not worth it. It's the same as a 7700K and motherboards are too expensive. If you're main focus is video editing then the go to option is Ryzen 7.
    Reply to MrN1ce9uy
  19. Bardebay said:
    As I heard ,more cores ,the better,isn't it?
    So even though is like 2.0GHZ,if is 10cores ,is it still legit?

    The Ryzen 1700 is 8 cores and legit. Get atleast a b350 so you can overclock it to 3.7Ghz on the stock cooler. Use the extra you would spend on getting a better GPU because the GPU is the real deal in gaming.
    Reply to elbert
  20. Shektron said:
    Bardebay said:
    As I heard ,more cores ,the better,isn't it?
    So even though is like 2.0GHZ,if is 10cores ,is it still legit?


    Not really. 10 cores is a bit too much, plus the Skylake-X comes with a ton of issues and is really a waste of money. The CPU's overheat, the CPU and motherboard specification don't seem to agree with each other. Even on water cooling, an i9 7900X easily hits 100C when overclocked. Really, it's a very unstable platform, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Unless they really like to keep their chips on the edge of burning out.


    I know we don't have a large sample size yet with 2066, but I'd like to point out that CPU failure is exceedingly rare with other modern Intel chips. Many 4790K's run 90-100c from the factory, and both Skylake and Kaby Lake run at very high temperatures even at stock clocks with a good cooler, but on this forum we only really hear about issues with FX CPUs. I haven't seen much evidence to suggest these high readings have any real-world harm, other than being a hindrance to overclocking much due to throttling.
    Reply to Ecky
  21. Thanks for all your replies.
    Now for the REAL question.who should we pick for solution?

    (LOL,non of our chat fit the category of "best motherboard for i7 7740x...)
    Don't worry,every one is going to say,"pick me!"
    :-)
    Reply to Bardebay
  22. Ecky said:
    Shektron said:
    Bardebay said:
    As I heard ,more cores ,the better,isn't it?
    So even though is like 2.0GHZ,if is 10cores ,is it still legit?


    Not really. 10 cores is a bit too much, plus the Skylake-X comes with a ton of issues and is really a waste of money. The CPU's overheat, the CPU and motherboard specification don't seem to agree with each other. Even on water cooling, an i9 7900X easily hits 100C when overclocked. Really, it's a very unstable platform, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Unless they really like to keep their chips on the edge of burning out.


    I know we don't have a large sample size yet with 2066, but I'd like to point out that CPU failure is exceedingly rare with other modern Intel chips. Many 4790K's run 90-100c from the factory, and both Skylake and Kaby Lake run at very high temperatures even at stock clocks with a good cooler, but on this forum we only really hear about issues with FX CPUs. I haven't seen much evidence to suggest these high readings have any real-world harm, other than being a hindrance to overclocking much due to throttling.


    So your point is that you don't mind keeping a CPU at 100C even on the most basic of overclocks and the most extensive of cooling setups? That sounds like a waste of money to me - expensive platform(much more so than the 4790K platform, BTW), expensive CPU, expensive cooler, and yet terrible temperatures. What's the point in spending half of your earnings on a PC and still have it throttle or run at bread toasting temps? I can understand the issue being on an old, unnecessarily extended platform like the FX, but on a new, expensive platform like X299? Definitely not a good bargain.
    Reply to Shektron
  23. Shektron said:
    Ecky said:
    Shektron said:
    Bardebay said:
    As I heard ,more cores ,the better,isn't it?
    So even though is like 2.0GHZ,if is 10cores ,is it still legit?


    Not really. 10 cores is a bit too much, plus the Skylake-X comes with a ton of issues and is really a waste of money. The CPU's overheat, the CPU and motherboard specification don't seem to agree with each other. Even on water cooling, an i9 7900X easily hits 100C when overclocked. Really, it's a very unstable platform, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Unless they really like to keep their chips on the edge of burning out.


    I know we don't have a large sample size yet with 2066, but I'd like to point out that CPU failure is exceedingly rare with other modern Intel chips. Many 4790K's run 90-100c from the factory, and both Skylake and Kaby Lake run at very high temperatures even at stock clocks with a good cooler, but on this forum we only really hear about issues with FX CPUs. I haven't seen much evidence to suggest these high readings have any real-world harm, other than being a hindrance to overclocking much due to throttling.


    So your point is that you don't mind keeping a CPU at 100C even on the most basic of overclocks and the most extensive of cooling setups? That sounds like a waste of money to me - expensive platform(much more so than the 4790K platform, BTW), expensive CPU, expensive cooler, and yet terrible temperatures. What's the point in spending half of your earnings on a PC and still have it throttle or run at bread toasting temps? I can understand the issue being on an old, unnecessarily extended platform like the FX, but on a new, expensive platform like X299? Definitely not a good bargain.


    (BURN BRAND NEW STUFF DOWN!)
    I agree,you have so much money,go buy iMac 5k or some Mac Pro!:)
    Reply to Bardebay
  24. Shektron said:
    [So your point is that you don't mind keeping a CPU at 100C even on the most basic of overclocks and the most extensive of cooling setups? That sounds like a waste of money to me - expensive platform(much more so than the 4790K platform, BTW), expensive CPU, expensive cooler, and yet terrible temperatures. What's the point in spending half of your earnings on a PC and still have it throttle or run at bread toasting temps? I can understand the issue being on an old, unnecessarily extended platform like the FX, but on a new, expensive platform like X299? Definitely not a good bargain.


    I'm not trying to say that 2066 is a good value (or not), just that we have evidence to suggest that, aside from throttling preventing high overclocks on all of the cores (and you could easily run fewer cores at higher turbo frequencies, like it does at stock), high temperature readings don't seem to do any practical harm.

    Back in ~2006 when Core2Duo hit the market, the wisdom of the day was to keep your CPU under 60c, or ideally, 50c, and many would spend excessive money chasing this arbitrary threshold. Fast forward a decade, and many of these same CPUs are running at 80-90c under dust-clogged stock coolers, and we're seeing the motherboards and power supplies dying of old age, with orphaned CPUs ending up on eBay still fully functional. So, although we know that lower temperatures improve leakage characteristics and slow electromigration in an absolute sense, I'd like to voice a bit of skepticism how much it matters in practice. I often see suggestions to throw tons of money at cooling on this forum which, if older chips are any indication, won't go toward any real gains.

    That said, I'm largely of the opinion that AM4 is a better value than Intel's HEDT for most things, that 1151 is a good recommendation for someone who wants a highly stable and bug-free platform or has no need for high core counts (mostly 7700K and G4560) or wants to use a system without a discrete graphics card, and that 2011v3 and 2066 are a tough sell except for very niche uses, the 7740K doubly so.
    Reply to Ecky
  25. Ecky said:
    Shektron said:
    [So your point is that you don't mind keeping a CPU at 100C even on the most basic of overclocks and the most extensive of cooling setups? That sounds like a waste of money to me - expensive platform(much more so than the 4790K platform, BTW), expensive CPU, expensive cooler, and yet terrible temperatures. What's the point in spending half of your earnings on a PC and still have it throttle or run at bread toasting temps? I can understand the issue being on an old, unnecessarily extended platform like the FX, but on a new, expensive platform like X299? Definitely not a good bargain.


    I'm not trying to say that 2066 is a good value (or not), just that we have evidence to suggest that, aside from throttling preventing high overclocks on all of the cores (and you could easily run fewer cores at higher turbo frequencies, like it does at stock), high temperature readings don't seem to do any practical harm.

    Back in ~2006 when Core2Duo hit the market, the wisdom of the day was to keep your CPU under 60c, or ideally, 50c, and many would spend excessive money chasing this arbitrary threshold. Fast forward a decade, and many of these same CPUs are running at 80-90c under dust-clogged stock coolers, and we're seeing the motherboards and power supplies dying of old age, with orphaned CPUs ending up on eBay still fully functional. So, although we know that lower temperatures improve leakage characteristics and slow electromigration in an absolute sense, I'd like to voice a bit of skepticism how much it matters in practice. I often see suggestions to throw tons of money at cooling on this forum which, if older chips are any indication, won't go toward any real gains.

    That said, I'm largely of the opinion that AM4 is a better value than Intel's HEDT for most things, that 1151 is a good recommendation for someone who wants a highly stable and bug-free platform or has no need for high core counts (mostly 7700K and G4560) or wants to use a system without a discrete graphics card, and that 2011v3 and 2066 are a tough sell except for very niche uses, the 7740K doubly so.


    You don't seem sure what stand you're taking here. I know that high temps might not affect CPU all that much, but when you're buying such an expensive CPU from Intel, people usually expect a nice fat overclock on it. Now, that might just change with X299, but it's still terrible value.
    Reply to Shektron
Ask a new question Answer

Read More

Intel i7 Motherboards ATX