• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

What do I do now 2600k....

silverfoxxxx

silverfoxxxx

silverfoxxxx

Associate
Joined
18 Jan 2009
Posts
143
After some thoughts on what to do now after the Ryzen launch?

My ageing 2600k is still 'fingers crossed' going strong at 4.5ghz but my ageing asus p67 pro has seen better days and I was hoping to bring my pc up to date.

Looking at some reviews that show 2600k in the graphs I'd gain a bit in games and loads in multi tasking.

Is it worth the upgrade, I mainly game at 144hz 1440p and VR but do some video encoding and media serving, with occasional streaming.

Or do I keep going waiting for the next platform, again.
 
I wouldn't necessarily wait for the next platform, your choices at the moment would be 7700k or 1700 ryzen, i'd probably hang on a few weeks until ryyzen has had any updates and motherboard supply has caught up and any bios issues sorted out.
 
I'm in the exact same position as yourself, leaning towards the 1700 as I think (and hope!) long term it's the better investment. Holding off for another month or so to see how the bugs are worked out and possibly consider the 1600X.
 
Same situation here, and I'm going for the 1700. I've always said to myself if I were to ever upgrade this chip i'd like to double the core count. Well, that time is now.
 
if you recording / streaming daily you should notice a nice difference in performance.if its only a occasional hobby now and again.you might aswell wait.
 
The 1700 would be better long term but hang on a while, its a brand new CPU with the inevitable Motherboard teething problems.
 
Ryzen 1700 is double the threads with better IPC, with performance in games likely to increase so I'd go for that personally.

Problem with the 7700k is that you're just gaining IPC and motherboard features, that would feel like an underwhelming upgrade for me.
 
so it seems the 1700 is the choice of most over the 1700x or 1800x. whats the difference between the 1700 and the 1700x? i still have the 2600k and it's still rocking most things
 
vectisitch said:
so it seems the 1700 is the choice of most over the 1700x or 1800x. whats the difference between the 1700 and the 1700x? i still have the 2600k and it's still rocking most things
Click to expand...

About £70 and higher out of the box Clocks, 3.4Ghz - 3.8Ghz vs 3.0Ghz - 3.7Ghz.
 
silverfoxxxx said:
Do we think intel will now put everything into their 6 core coffee lake to prove a point and that may become the new 2600k though?
Click to expand...
Rumour is the 6 core will become mainstream with Coffee Lake, but Q4 this year or Q1 next and IMO £400.

A bit too late tho, the 8 core is already mainstream and cheaper.
 
silverfoxxxx said:
Do we think intel will now put everything into their 6 core coffee lake to prove a point and that may become the new 2600k though?
Click to expand...

i think we find out if theyve been sandbagging or left in something to limit clockspeed in the post sandybridge cpu's. its possible they are in the same position as the pentium 3, 1ish ghz was really all she would do.

in terms of platform longjevity amd is normally better, but if they too can only gain 5% each refresh, its a moot point as its going to take along time to get to that x% point performance increase that us more froogle lot want :), and its unlikely intel is going to stick to a socket type tbh.
 
I'm on a 2500k at the moment and am also starting to think about upgrading, so I'm in a similar boat.

The 7700k would give you better framerates when gaming today, but the Ryzen chips will give you extra cores which will help with certain tasks such as various professional apps and streaming if you don't want to use quicksync.

However it's hard to tell what will offer better value in the longer term. Ryzen boards are supposedly running crappy rushed BIOSes so performance may improve in the coming months. Games in the future are also likely to be more highly multithreaded than they are today which may narrow the performance gap, or even reverse it. However games are probably still going to benefit from high IPC/Clocks on the main thread - meaning the 7700k may hold its own despite having fewer cores. Z270 also supports several technologies such as Octane which AM4 does not.

If you are desperate for cores it's an easy choice - go for Ryzen. But if you're like me and you're into gaming but also don't really want to be stuck with 4 cores for the next x years it's a much more difficult decision. Personally while I feel the upgrade itch, it is currently just an itch. I don't actually need to upgrade. The CPU, Motherboard and RAM are all getting old but none of them have died. With my Gtx 1070 I'm running games maxed out at 1080p at framerates I'm so happy with I'm usually super sampling to 1440p. That won't last forever but given that there is no product currently on the market that offers me a clear reason to upgrade I'm happy to continue waiting for now.


On a side note:

I'm not sure why neither Intel or AMD have thought of an ARM big.LITTLE inspired architecture for gaming CPUs. Games in the future will be able to utilise more cores but will fundamentally still have to place a high load on the main thread. However as core count increases it becomes harder to maintain high clocks - so there is a trade off. If you buy a CPU with more cores to better deal with the load which is parallelisable you are then less able to deal with the load which is single-threaded.

So why aren't there any CPUs with a beefy primary core with high IPC and clockspeed to deal with the main thread, supported by multiple smaller lower IPC and lower clocked secondary cores to deal with parallelisable tasks and background tasks?
 
Last edited:
Give it a couple months for AMD and there partners to sort out the teething issues that currently holding back Ryzen's new architecture, also the 1600x should be out by then. It will be interesting to see how the 6 core 1600x fares in gaming benchmarks against the more expensive 8 core 1700(x) my guess is there won't be much, if any difference.
 
I would wait TBH - in certain games your CPU will actually hold its own(or even slightly exceed) an R7 1800X at stock in its current state and in other gamer an R7 1800X will demolish it.

I personally would wait a month or two and see if the first Windows patches and improved BIOSes will make things better on the gaming front.
 
I'm in the same boat and very nearly decided to upgrade.

Reality for me is that my multi threaded usage whilst increasing is still quite limited and my OC'd 2600k is still more than adequate.
 
If i was you i would keep what you have unless you are starting to see issues in games VR or anything else you use the PC for.

I am still using a I7 950 @ 4ghz, 6GB of ram and a R9 390 8GB with no issues in games like the Dvision and Doom but i do play at 1080P.

I was thinking of getting a Xeon 5650X but i think the mobo is on its way out and pointless spending money on it if so.
 
I moved from a 4.8ghz 2700K to a 4.5ghz 5820K and the day to day difference is small for gaming. It is smoother but not dramatically so.

I suspect a Ryzen system would be similar performance wise. It's really not that exciting. So unless you're suffering in games or need more cores then I doubt it'd be worth it.
 
Only worth upgrading if you have an older i5 i reckon. Stick with what you have for another couple of years.

To be honest, cpu just isn't a huge influence on gaming these days. It's all in the gpu. I went from a 2500k to my current 6700k and whilst it's definitely smoother, it's hardly night and day difference on most games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom