i5 4690k to Ryzen5 3600? Worth it?

[FnG]magnolia · 22 Jul 2019 at 10:42

Looking for thoughts on this. I have an i5 4690k clocked to 4.4Ghz, 16 gigs of DDR3 ram, 32" gsync monitor @ 144/165Hz, and a GTX1070. I probably use the PC for 20% desktop activity, 30% music recording and production and 50% games.

Does a move to Ryzen make sense? What is bottle necking what (if anything)? I don't really want to go down the top end Intel route and I'm aware I'm maybe getting slightly sucked in to the many good reviews the new Ryzen chips are getting but what's a sensible approach here? Sell my Intel stuff and swap or hang on for a while?

Thoughts?

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 22 Jul 2019 at 10:45

[FnG]magnolia said:
Looking for thoughts on this. I have an i5 4690k clocked to 4.4Ghz, 16 gigs of DDR3 ram, 32" gsync monitor @ 144/165Hz, and a GTX1070. I probably use the PC for 20% desktop activity, 30% music recording and production and 50% games.

Does a move to Ryzen make sense? What is bottle necking what (if anything)? I don't really want to go down the top end Intel route and I'm aware I'm maybe getting slightly sucked in to the many good reviews the new Ryzen chips are getting but what's a sensible approach here? Sell my Intel stuff and swap or hang on for a while?

Thoughts?

Some DAW tests here:
http://www.scanproaudio.info/2019/0...00x-dawbench-tested-3-is-it-the-magic-number/

The Ryzen 5 3600 overclocked to 4.2GHZ is faster than a 4.6GHZ Core i5 9600K.

~>Dg<~ · 22 Jul 2019 at 10:50

in games a 3600 is about the same as a i5 8600k. benchmarks here for the games comparision of a 8600k vs 3600 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8j_pxkP4O4&list=PLuu_I_zbLYxvigO5mZtrghKSDAIhAB_Au

some from your cpu overclocked at 1080 it wont be much difference in games at all. handful of fps in games.

Gengar · 22 Jul 2019 at 13:00

I was in a similair boat. 4670K @ 4.4Ghz, 16Gb DDR3, 1080ti. I have just purchased a 3600X and some 16Gb DDR4. Not decided on the motherboard yet - will leave that decision another week or 2. Probably go B450 once some of the reported bios issues have been sorted.
I am not expecting a massive uplift in gaming performance but I couldnt justify going 9600K / 9700K for same or more money and be upgrading into a platform that is going no where.

jigger · 22 Jul 2019 at 13:12

Yeah a 3600 is significantly faster. Good upgrade.

Drollic · 22 Jul 2019 at 13:18

80% combined isn't quite enough. 82% though and it's suddenly worth it given nobody knows your financial situation?

ExoMale · 22 Jul 2019 at 13:43

more cores, newer platform, so its a win win of an upgrade

wellibob · 22 Jul 2019 at 14:12

Absolutely do it. AMD are killing it atm and I've no sympathy for Intel atm either. I own several machines and if I was buying again Id get another Ryzen build (currently a 3600 on a b450 tomahawk) Also look at the 3700 or if money allows 3900.

~>Dg<~ · 22 Jul 2019 at 14:42

whats sympathy got to do with performance? if you want to chuck money at amd do it. on actual performance vs his chip over clocked its a nats hair difference for quite a bit of money. look at the video i posted in games. the 3600 is basically a i5 8600k in gaming. so take the bias out of it would you upgrade from a i5 already overclocked to another i5 ? no. not for just gaming.

video benchmark of his chip stock vs stock 3600

gaming wise not much in it especially when his chip is overclocked. id wait for next revision of these amd chips too be honest.

8600k vs 3600 stock most 8600k willl clock close to 5ghz. overclocked 8600k is faster than a 3600 by quite a bit in games. 3600 is just about level at stock.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 22 Jul 2019 at 16:08

Regarding gaming performance the Ryzen 5 3600 is more or less the same performance as the Ryzen 5 3600X. Both have similar or greater performance compared to a Core i7 4790K:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8qMZFI6Mz0

However,as I mentioned before the Ryzen 5 3600 destroys the Core i5 9600K when it comes to DAW benchmarks.

It can even get close to a Core i7 9700K in some scenarios.

The Core i5 4690K overclocked to 4.4GHZ will still be significantly slower than a 4.6GHZ Core i5 9600K.

dbilsborough · 22 Jul 2019 at 21:37

I just made that upgrade, and the main benefit is being able to do something on the 2nd monitor whilst gaming - BFV for example would stutter along as the CPU was at 100% on all 4 cores with no extra horsepower for even YouTube. The whole PC is far more responsive generally too

stoke1863 · 22 Jul 2019 at 21:57

so i changed from 4690k to 3700x and for gaming honestly.... at 1440p with Vega 64 there is only a tiny bit of difference, this is just where game development is right now.

You shouldn't ever try to "futureproof" but id hedge my bets once PS5 and NextXbox are out and are using AMD 8 cores, game engines will start to switch over and the older 4 core chips will start to suffer.

For me right now the best thing is that i can play Football manager while watching youtube in a side by side window with no slowdown on the youtube video at all!

on the 4690k the video would slow down to like 5 fps if the game started processing.

[FnG]magnolia · 23 Jul 2019 at 00:26

Thanks for the input all, much appreciated. It doesn't sound too compelling albeit the DAW figures are of note. I don't dual screen and the increased gaming performance appears marginal so I think I'll wait for a while.

Grim5 · 23 Jul 2019 at 00:35

stoke1863 said:
so i changed from 4690k to 3700x and for gaming honestly.... at 1440p with Vega 64 there is only a tiny bit of difference, this is just where game development is right now.

You shouldn't ever try to "futureproof" but id hedge my bets once PS5 and NextXbox are out and are using AMD 8 cores, game engines will start to switch over and the older 4 core chips will start to suffer.

For me right now the best thing is that i can play Football manager while watching youtube in a side by side window with no slowdown on the youtube video at all!

on the 4690k the video would slow down to like 5 fps if the game started processing.

I think the number of cores on consoles is irrelevant.

Consoles already have 8 cores and yet 8 cores on a desktop cpu is of little use.

What is going to change is the performance level of the console. Next gen consoles will have a cpu 5 times faster than the current ones. Game developers will be able to make games with more particle effects, more ai and npcs on screen, more environment destruction etc. these new effects and design will require more cpu power and then high core desktop cpus may be of more use.

Remember that currently, PC gets very little AAA exclusives. Most AAA games are multiplatform and therefore designed around the limitation of the consoles 2.0ghz laptop APU. Moving from that to a 3ghz ryzen 3700 for next gen machines opens up a whole raft of changes developers can now make.

I kinda feel sorry for anyone who is having to upgrade right now, it's a tricky time trying to balance future proofing and value for money. Luckily, I won't be upgrading my 8700k anytime soon and by the time I do, we'll know exactly what desktop CPU is required for next gen games

arc@css · 23 Jul 2019 at 00:40

Productivity, yes, but for gaming, not so much. Probably smoother though.

Orange Nexus · 23 Jul 2019 at 06:43

dbilsborough said:
I just made that upgrade, and the main benefit is being able to do something on the 2nd monitor whilst gaming - BFV for example would stutter along as the CPU was at 100% on all 4 cores with no extra horsepower for even YouTube. The whole PC is far more responsive generally too

4 cores struggled back in BF3. Really depends on how balanced the system is. Won't be as bad if with a 1070.

welshrat · 23 Jul 2019 at 08:42

Difference is huge with the correct software, My sons PC which has an overclocked 2500k really struggles with BF5 and is a bit of a stutterfest but on my old Ryzen 2600 it was so smooth. Just upgraded to a 3700X but keeping the 2600 in the loft for a new system for him at xmas.

HangTime · 23 Jul 2019 at 11:58

Not worth it IMO. I'd be wanting 3700x minimum as an upgrade from that.

That said, at least DDR4 prices have come down a lot recently. When I upgraded to the Zen1 it was £150 for 16GB 3000mhz and in hindsight it was probably just me having an upgrade itch after about 5 years on a 3570k rather than actually a value for money upgrade when you take cpu+mobo+ram into consideration.

emodan · 23 Jul 2019 at 13:52

I went from an overclocked i7 4790k @ 4.8ghz to an overclocked 3600 @4.2ghz and whilst my FPS hasn't shot up due to playing at 1440p it has eliminated the frame drops I would see on a regular basis.

Everything feels much more smooth in all the games I play and that's with an RTX 2080.

Terrorfirmer · 23 Jul 2019 at 14:37

emodan said:
I went from an overclocked i7 4790k @ 4.8ghz to an overclocked 3600 @4.2ghz and whilst my FPS hasn't shot up due to playing at 1440p it has eliminated the frame drops I would see on a regular basis.

Everything feels much more smooth in all the games I play and that's with an RTX 2080.

This. While the 4790K is still a very good CPU due to the extra threads, really ****** me off when I see people claiming it's not worth going from older 4c/4t i5's to newer tech. They suck in the latest games. Try playing BFV online, or the newest Assassins Creed single player, and you'll quickly realise how obsolete they are.