Core components upgrade advice

AlexTrickle

AlexTrickle

AlexTrickle

Associate
Joined
30 Jul 2007
Posts
996
Location
Surrey
So I feel its finally time to move on and upgrade from my beloved i5 2500k - I remember the Sandybridge release fondly as one of the few big jumps in CPU performance/architecture in recent history!

So my current setup is in my signature!

I'm looking at a core upgrade so cpu/mobo/RAM/CPU cooler but open to other upgrades if they fit within budget.

Primary uses: Gaming, movie streaming and hopefully streaming myself on twitch soon.

I have a budget of around £800 with maybe a little bit of flexibility for good reason.

Personal preferences:

I like to have everything colour co-ordinated so an RGB motherboard would be preferable.
Onboard WiFi is also preferable.

Would a M.2 drive given significant boost over my current SSD?

Thanks,

Alex
 
After doing a little research I've arrived with a potential build as follows:

My basket at Overclockers UK:

Total: £845.46
(includes shipping: £10.50)



​

Any comments/suggestions/changes?

Edit: Found some bad reviews about the 960 Evo 250GB - but I know nothing about M.2 drives. So whats the best performer for around the same money?
 
Here's a couple of Ryzen alternatives if you were/are interested.

I've chosen the 1700/X as it ha 8 cores/16 threads and makes it an excellent streaming CPU - really recommend you take a look at user reviews regarding this.

Note: I've assumed you need a single card solution but if not you would need the more expensive x370 motherboards for sli/crossfire.

Example 1.

I've added the 1700X as they're better binned and will usually clock better - unfortunately they don't come with a stock cooler, hence the Alpenfohn (You would need a better cooler for attempting larger clocks - they do RGB ones).

I've also swapped out the M.2 (feel free to put it back) - as for a bit more money you can have double the storage with no real life speed difference. Alternatively you could add the 250GB equivalent and save another £90.

I normally choose Gigabyte boards - but noticed you like Asus and this is the latest Asus B350 flavoured board.

My basket at Overclockers UK:

Total: £854.88
(includes shipping: £10.50)



​

Example 2.

Below is the 1700 which comes supplied with stock Wraith cooler - which is excellent, even for a moderate clock.

Also added a 250Gb SATA SSD to show how cheap you could do a build for same performance when clocked...

My basket at Overclockers UK:

Total: £672.93
(includes shipping: £10.50)



​
 
Last edited:
I think the many reason I've not considered Ryzen is they seem more focused on multicore performance similar to the new Skylake-X processors.
As gaming fps is my main priority I've seen benchmarks generally saying that the new i7 7740X and the i7 7700K are the best gaming CPUS.

I then chose the slightly older 7700K as the 7740X requires generally pricier X299 motherboards.

However I will admit I don't know much about Ryzen's gaming performance compared to the 7700K?
 
AlexTrickle said:
I think the many reason I've not considered Ryzen is they seem more focused on multicore performance similar to the new Skylake-X processors.
As gaming fps is my main priority I've seen benchmarks generally saying that the new i7 7740X and the i7 7700K are the best gaming CPUS.

I then chose the slightly older 7700K as the 7740X requires generally pricier X299 motherboards.

However I will admit I don't know much about Ryzen's gaming performance compared to the 7700K?
Click to expand...
Generally spending so much money for new rig with 4 cores is pointless. Whether you choose intel or AMD you should go for 6 cores if you want to have future proof PC and you are willing to spend £350 on a CPU. I think on the 21st of August Intel is going to show their new series (successor to 7700k) which will probably include 8700k, 6 core CPU for similar price. It will be faster than Ryzen 6 core (in my guess slightly better performance to 7700k), which costs around £200. Since you don't mind spending more, 8700k would be the way to go.

On the other hand, you can spend less on Ryzen and saved money put on better graphic card which would always beat intel's CPU and weaker GPU by a lot. For gaming CPU is not going to make much difference if you are buying average GPU. You won't see those differences in fps that you see in reviews (they use powerful GPU in those).

As for Ryzen, it is loosing in gaming in max fps but minimum fps is very close to intel or better, which gives really smooth game experience.
 
AlexTrickle said:
I think the many reason I've not considered Ryzen is they seem more focused on multicore performance similar to the new Skylake-X processors.
Click to expand...
When AMD "locked design specs" of Zen1 architecture about two years ago they were aiming to maximize energy efficiency instead of using every trick to improve performance.
Of course manufacturing process optimized for mobile CPUs with its clock speed limit doesn't help either.
Upgrade option of Zen2 made with 7nm node optimized for desktop CPUs is likely going to offer good single thread performance improvement.

Upgradeability lacked by Intel with their motherboards/socket machine keeping ticking despite of CPU Tick-Tock breaking down.
I mean Cannon Lake next year is already getting newer motherboards than Coffee Lake, which is just Kaby Lake with extra cores.


And especially if you're going to stream games then more cores is good for handling that extra background load with least effect to game.
All reviews use clean OS install for testing so effect of even normal installed background stuff of normal PC doesn't necessarily show in those.
And it's good bet good amount of playability affecting frame rate drops come from all background software and Windows processes.


PS. Sandy Bridge wasn't big change. Core 2 was heck lot bigger after NetBurst/Pentium 4 fiasco.
 
haszek said:
Generally spending so much money for new rig with 4 cores is pointless. Whether you choose intel or AMD you should go for 6 cores if you want to have future proof PC and you are willing to spend £350 on a CPU. I think on the 21st of August Intel is going to show their new series (successor to 7700k) which will probably include 8700k, 6 core CPU for similar price. It will be faster than Ryzen 6 core (in my guess slightly better performance to 7700k), which costs around £200. Since you don't mind spending more, 8700k would be the way to go.
Click to expand...

Hmm interesting, I have been out the loop for a while and didn't realise the successor to the 7700K was coming so soon. Or is that just announcement and actual release will be many months away?

Also regarding Ryzen - I see a reasonable price difference between the 1700 and the 1700X but only 100mhz stock clock difference? Does the X also represent better overclocking capabilities?
 
AlexTrickle said:
Hmm interesting, I have been out the loop for a while and didn't realise the successor to the 7700K was coming so soon. Or is that just announcement and actual release will be many months away?

Also regarding Ryzen - I see a reasonable price difference between the 1700 and the 1700X but only 100mhz stock clock difference? Does the X also represent better overclocking capabilities?
Click to expand...
It is an announcement but taking experience from previous CPU releases, they were available within like 2 weeks in shops.

Gaming wise 1600 would be enough (same performance as 1700) and has a cooler (saves some money). Between 1700 and 1700x there might be a slight chance that 1700x will achieve higher OC (100mhz so not much, you won't notice it during normal use), but again you have cooler with 1700.

If you want to overclock Ryzen yourself definitely 1600 or 1700 is the way to go
 
I'm looking at the AMD "Overclocked" bundles on ocuk and even an 8pack overclocked bundle is only 200mhz above stock speeds?

My basket at Overclockers UK:

Total: £860.45
(includes shipping: £10.50)



​

Compare that with an Intel overclocked bundle where the CPU is overclocked by 600mhz above stock speeds?

My basket at Overclockers UK:

Total: £810.49
(includes shipping: £10.50)



​

Do Ryzens just not overclock very much? The reason I ask is core speeds tend to have a bigger impact on gaming than number of cores so the higher stocks combined with even higher ocs just make Intel seem far more appealing?
 
Just to note bundle for intel you posted has only 8GB of ram.

Yes intel overclocks higher due to more developed architecture. AMD is new one, first revision and next one will overclock higher (motherboard socket for AMD is supposed to work for 3 generations of CPUs, so there is future for it).

From AMD you can expect 3.8-4.0 (on all cores), from intel 4.8-5.0. CPU specification shows boost speeds which is not for all cores (2 cores only). That's why overclocking to 3.9 on ALL cores is something nice to have.

It is correct that speeds affect gaming but under condition, you need to have > 100fps. So if you have weak graphic card or your monitor has only 60-75hz refresh rate, you won't see any differences between CPUs and even if you overclock to 5.0Ghz.

What extra cores will give you, you can have other software in the background (chrome, YT, twich, radio, monitoring software, fan control software etc, whatever) and those cores will keep your gaming fps stable. There are few reviews online that show comparison how fps drop on intel while streaming and more cores win in every test, so like you said you are planning to stream Ryzen with more cores will give you better experience, more smooth, with lower fps drops.
 
If you are streaming then Ryzen is the obvious choice. It should give you enough gaming fps anyway (this will depend more on your video card), and then the extra cores/threads for streaming trumps current Intel mainstream offerings. The minimum fps stats for Ryzen are also very good and a lot closer to equivalent Intel minimum fps, than the max fps figures. Minimum fps more important than max fps imo.

There's a reason why upcoming Intel CoffeeLake will have more cores/threads. While core speed currently tends to have the bigger impact on gaming performance, we're now at a turning point where games are starting to and should continue to make use of more cores/threads.
 
Hmm thanks, some useful food for thought.

Is there virtually no reason to go for the 1700X over the 1700? Struggling to see that the extra £70 is justified by only a 100mhz stock clock increase haha?

I might be starting to be swayed towards Ryzen and now considering between the 1600 and 1700 - the money saved on the 1600 would allow headroom to upgrade my gfx card maybe to a 1070.

Side note: There seems a lot less variety in AMD AM4 motherboards - struggling to find any competent ones with WiFi! The only board I've found is the £319 ROG Crosshair VI Extreme which is overkill!

Edit: What are the main difference between the B350 motherboards and the X370 motherboards?
 
Last edited:
The 1700X are binned better - so better 'potential' overclocks (Very little real life performance gains).

The 1700 is the bang for buck CPU in the Ryzen 7 range - especially as it comes with a quality stock Wraith cooler.
 
1600X currently a better choice than 1600, if you can afford the extra plus an additional CPU cooler. Because feedback coming in is indicating the current 1600s being sold aren't clocking as well as the 1600s sold at launch and for a few months after. With a 1600X you have a better chance of clocking all cores to 4.0GHz. And even if not, the first two (I think) cores will boost to 4.0GHz already.
 
Ok appreciate all the advice, I have specced around with some Ryzen based builds but if I go down a CPU upgrade I will wait to see Intel's announcement.

However, I am now considering keeping my 2500k (or upgrading cpu/mobo 2nd hand through the MM) and using the bulk of my funds for a 1080Ti.

I only have one 1080p monitor and would be looking to play all games at 100fps+ would my CPU then bottleneck the 1080 Ti?
 
AlexTrickle said:
Ok appreciate all the advice, I have specced around with some Ryzen based builds but if I go down a CPU upgrade I will wait to see Intel's announcement.
Click to expand...
Makes sense.
AlexTrickle said:
However, I am now considering keeping my 2500k (or upgrading cpu/mobo 2nd hand through the MM) and using the bulk of my funds for a 1080Ti.

I only have one 1080p monitor and would be looking to play all games at 100fps+ would my CPU then bottleneck the 1080 Ti?
Click to expand...

Upgrading second hand makes economic sense - there are some great buys to be had on the MM. Or even keeping the 2500K and adding a heavy clock if you haven't done so already.

The 1080Ti on a 1080p monitor is excessive - a GTX 1070 would be more than enough and give you FPS in your back pocket for future releases. I certainly wouldn't go above a GTX 1080 - even for plus/plus FPS...

And yes, the 1080Ti would be bottlenecked by the 2500K - less so by a GTX 1070 (i have one paired with a 2500K at 4.5GHz at 1440p gaming). It's relative though as you would have nothing to compare it with...

But a stronger CPU would give you better performance gains when paired with either card/s...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom