Upgrade. I'm so confused.

[gunnerzz1008]

Hi all. I've been wanting to upgrade for a while but have stuck it out waiting to the Ryzen chip. Well now its arrived, i'm super confused as to which path to follow...

Currently running @1080p with:

FX8320 @4.2Ghz
MSI 970a-G46
Asus Stryx 970
16GB Hyper Furyx DDR3

So I was going to go for the Rysen 1700 and OC. But actually I don't think I need 8 cores anymore. I used to use my rig for Uni work, rendering CAd work etc. Now Its mainly gaming.

So I've been looking into the Intel stuff, and TBH its always confused me, they have so many!

But it's looking like a show down between these three:

R7 1700 vs i7 6700K vs i7 7700K

Now any of these is a substantial upgrade to what I currently have and it will be a whole system upgrade regardless. I'm leaning towards the 7700K, but I have zero Intel knowledge & experience.

Help?

 

[Martini1991]

I'd go for the ryzen, although I'd wait a month to see how the SMT issues progress.

As much as a 7700k is a better gamer right now for the majority of games, the gulf in potential performance between the 1700 and 7700K is too much to ignore.

 

[humbug]

I'd go for the ryzen, although I'd wait a month to see how the SMT issues progress.

As much as a 7700k is a better gamer right now for the majority of games, the gulf in potential performance between the 1700 and 7700K is too much to ignore.

This or wait for AMDs 6 and 4 core CPU's, the 6 core shiny is likely to be priced like an Intel i5.

 

[eddiew]

This or wait for AMDs 6 and 4 core CPU's, the 6 core shiny is likely to be priced like an Intel i5.

I'm inclined to do this myself. Seen a spec sheet somewhere that had the 1600x with a slightly higher base clock and equal boost clocks to the 1800x - which in my mind says good silicon and more thermal headroom for overclocking. Could turn out to be a very nice compromise of cores vs clocks

 

[Panos]

I'd go for the ryzen, although I'd wait a month to see how the SMT issues progress.

As much as a 7700k is a better gamer right now for the majority of games, the gulf in potential performance between the 1700 and 7700K is too much to ignore.

According to AMD, Microsoft has promised to patch the Windows 10 shortly.

Funny enough, those using Windows 7, don't have SMT issues..... On the contrary in many games the performance is 30% higher than in Windows 10.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It depends on the games - if you intend to play stuff which is more lightly threaded and is very CPU limited due to this,I would get a Core i7 7700K.

If not get the R7 1700 or the R5 1600X when it is released.

According to AMD, Microsoft has promised to patch the Windows 10 shortly.

Funny enough, those using Windows 7, don't have SMT issues..... On the contrary in many games the performance is 30% higher than in Windows 10.

Not all,sadly.

 

[koooowweeee]

I wouldn't buy anything with less than 6 cores personally. CPUs last a long time so why not future proof it that little bit more?

I'm rocking a 5650x it's a beast

 

[ubersonic]

According to AMD, Microsoft has promised to patch the Windows 10 shortly.

Funny enough, those using Windows 7, don't have SMT issues..... On the contrary in many games the performance is 30% higher than in Windows 10.

IIRC it wasn't until Windows 8 that CPU level drivers/etc came in. So Windows 7 is less affected by being in "dumb mode" because it always is so was designed for that.

 

[gunnerzz1008]

I wouldn't buy anything with less than 6 cores personally. CPUs last a long time so why not future proof it that little bit more?

I'm rocking a 5650x it's a beast

Well my 8320 had lasted me this long, and I bought that shortly after release.

 

[Jumper118]

I think the 6 core ryzen will be the best middle ground. It should oc a little higher than the 8 core and still have good multi thread performance for future.

 

[Harlequin]

Whats interesting is how the FX83xx cjips have actually improved compared to intel - what you have is now beating its competition - the 2500k and is near a match for the 2600k i7 (its competition back in the day). whereas when new - it was roundly slated

 

[rs155]

gunnerzz1008, have you found something that the 8320 does not run?. i did find the clocking mine to 4.4 or 4.6 made a big diff to the minimum frames i was getting

 

[gunnerzz1008]

gunnerzz1008, have you found something that the 8320 does not run?. i did find the clocking mine to 4.4 or 4.6 made a big diff to the minimum frames i was getting

I think my motherboard is the bottleneck for overclocking. Can't up the voltages without BSOD.

It is starting to struggle in BF1. And when recording ganeplay in most AAA games the frames have started dropping more than they used to.

However, on the whole it's still holding its own.

 

[Martini1991]

Whats interesting is how the FX83xx cjips have actually improved compared to intel - what you have is now beating its competition - the 2500k and is near a match for the 2600k i7 (its competition back in the day). whereas when new - it was roundly slated

The fx83's came out after ivy bridge. And frankly I'd still take a 3570K over one.
Sure the fx83's give better comparable performance now, I can't deny that. But it wasn't worth waiting 4 years for.
The fx81's are crap still (came out after sandy)

 

[humbug]

Whats interesting is how the FX83xx cjips have actually improved compared to intel - what you have is now beating its competition - the 2500k and is near a match for the 2600k i7 (its competition back in the day). whereas when new - it was roundly slated

You've been watching AdoredTV, can't post it here because of profanity in it that breaches OCUK rules, which is a shame because its an excellent video, fantastic insight.

Ryzen - The Tech Press Loses The Plot

 

[Caracus2k]

You've been watching AdoredTV, can't post it here because of profanity in it that breaches OCUK rules, which is a shame because its an excellent video, fantastic insight.

Ryzen - The Tech Press Loses The Plot

they guy has some merit to his argument but few people will buy an inferior cpu to an alternative in the here and now on the speculative hope that it will scale better in years to pass. He also misses the point that the amd cpu's apparent increase in relevant performance re say a 2500k is due to the suite of games used in the benches he cites making more use of more cores/ threads then the ones used previously.

But assuming that this trend will continue going forward is misguided as anyone with a passing knowledge of Amdahl's or Gustafson's law would realise. Simple put for most consumer tasks we are rapidly approaching the point where the ability to use more cores effectively is coming into direct conflict with the loss of performance caused by the lower core speed required for cpu's with more cores based on the same architecture. This relationship has been true for some years with there being tension between core count and core speed (q6600 vs e8xxx series anyone?) in terms of overall performance. The trend has been for more cores to offer more 'future proofing' if sometimes less performance in there here and now especially on older less multi threaded titles. However somewhere around where we are now with consumer cpu's like the current Ryzens models is likely to be the quite close to the theoretical optimum and many people may be better of holding out to see what AMD's hex core offering offer in the way of core speed to compare against the current octo cores.

 

[humbug]

they guy has some merit to his argument but few people will buy an inferior cpu to an alternative in the here and now on the speculative hope that it will scale better in years to pass. He also misses the point that the amd cpu's apparent increase in relevant performance re say a 2500k is due to the suite of games used in the benches he cites making more use of more cores/ threads then the ones used previously.

But assuming that this trend will continue going forward is misguided as anyone with a passing knowledge of Amdahl's or Gustafson's law would realise. Simple put for most consumer tasks we are rapidly approaching the point where the ability to use more cores effectively is coming into direct conflict with the loss of performance caused by the lower core speed required for cpu's with more cores based on the same architecture. This relationship has been true for some years with there being tension between core count and core speed (q6600 vs e8xxx series anyone?) in terms of overall performance. The trend has been for more cores to offer more 'future proofing' if sometimes less performance in there here and now especially on older less multi threaded titles. However somewhere around where we are now with consumer cpu's like the current Ryzens models is likely to be the quite close to the theoretical optimum and many people may be better of holding out to see what AMD's hex core offering offer in the way of core speed to compare against the current octo cores.

Actually Gibbo said the 1800X is outselling the 7700K.

 

[Caracus2k]

Actually Gibbo said the 1800X is outselling the 7700K.

and where the hell did I mention the 7700k? I suggested waiting to see what AMD ryzen hex's have to offer as they will be out shortly!

its also not that surprising that a newly released product is outselling one on the market for a few months (assuming gibbo didn't say it was outselling it at the same point in its release cycle? - I haven't seen the quote in question?)

 

[humbug]

and where the hell did I mention the 7700k? I suggested waiting to see what AMD ryzen hex's have to offer as they will be out shortly!

its also not that surprising that a newly released product is outselling one on the market for a few months (assuming gibbo didn't say it was outselling it at the same point in its release cycle? - I haven't seen the quote in question?)

I guess you don't think many people are buying the 7700K either then?

If you're not talking about the 7700K them its even more wrong given that the 7700K is one of Intels best selling mainstream CPU's.

 

[EvilFranky]

He also misses the point that the amd cpu's apparent increase in relevant performance re say a 2500k is due to the suite of games used in the benches he cites making more use of more cores/ threads then the ones used previously.

He doesn't need to, that's his point?