Should I upgrade, or keep what I have?

[JesseStillwell]

Hello everyone,

 

This is my current situation with my PC.

 

When I built this PC in late 2014 this is what I had.

 

CPU: i7 4790k

Cooler: Corsair H105 240 AIO

Mobo: z97 MSI Gaming 7

GPU: EVGA GTX 770 2GB.

PSU: Corsair HX750

RAM:G.Skill TridentX 16GB (8x2) 2400mhz DDR3

Sound Card: Creative Sound Blaster Zx 116dB PCIe Gaming Sound Card with 600 ohm Headphone Amp and Desktop Audio Control Module

SSD: Samsung 840 256GB Sata

HDD: Western Digital Blue 1TB (this is less than 1 year old)

 

I used this for gaming and as my home studio PC for production.

 

I had it shipped to where I relocated last June and the Mobo was dead. Unfortunately I had to swap with the only thing I could find which was an AsRock H81M-VG4 R3.0. This board is crap IMO. I had to roll back the BIOS in order to overclock it. There is no XMP or manual adjustments for the RAM speed, so my Ram is currently clocked at 1333 or 1600. Also, there are only 2 RAM slots. I always had plans to up it to 32GB when necessary.

 

The other day I came home and booted up the PC and was getting RAM error saying slot B isn't working please reseat the RAM and try again. I did this and it wouldn't boot. After a few more tries it booted. Then I got an error saying that RAM slot A was the problem. Reseated that one and the error went back to B. I finally got it to boot off both sticks. I know the RAM is good because both sticks worked if I used only one slot. I haven't restarted it since then. I usually just put the PC to sleep at when I leave my house or go to bed. I only shut it down when I leave for more than a day or two.

 

Should I buy a new MSI z97 Gaming 5 or 7? I would also be able to upgrade to 32GB of RAM if I wanted, and I have access to a free GTX 1060 6GB.

 

What would you guys do?

 

I have to work in Revit from time to time at home for my job and this software is single thread dependant. The 4790k still is pretty high on the charts for single thread performance. Therefore an AMD system is probably not gonna work for me despite the great price to performance on those builds.

 

If I was to buy a new PC I would wait a few months and possibly build an i9 9900k with a 2070Ti or something similar along these lines.

 

Thanks for any recommendations, and thank you for taking the time to read my thread.

[MeatFeastMan]

A gpu is the big thing that you should focus on first. Change that to something like a 1660ti, vega 56 or rtx 2060. That fits well with the 4790k. Then just play the waiting game until a significant improvement comes along (Zen2 or Intel 10nm).

[KarathKasun]

Re-seat CPU, clean the RAM slots, freshen up what you have with some maintenance.

 

Then wait until around May-June.  AMD is supposed to be launching some parts with higher clocks around that time.  Regardless of which brand you end up going with, this should bring prices down a bit.

[JesseStillwell]

1 minute ago, MeatFeastMan said:

A gpu is the big thing that you should focus on first. Change that to something like a 1660ti, vega 56 or rtx 2060. That fits well with the 4790k. Then just play the waiting game until a significant improvement comes along (Zen2 or Intel 10nm).

I have access to a free 1060. I don't game that often, and only at 1080p.

[JesseStillwell]

2 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

Re-seat CPU, clean the RAM slots, freshen up what you have with some maintenance.

 

Then wait until around May-June.  AMD is supposed to be launching some parts with higher clocks around that time.  Regardless of which brand you end up going with, this should bring prices down a bit.

I have done this already. I finally managed to get it to boot with both sticks.

 

I might play the waiting game, but I doubt I will be able to build and AMD rig. Single thread performance is what I have to have for work.

[KarathKasun]

2 minutes ago, JesseStillwell said:

I have done this already. I finally managed to get it to boot with both sticks.

 

I might play the waiting game, but I doubt I will be able to build and AMD rig. Single thread performance is what I have to have for work.

AMD ST performance is pretty much equal to intel at the same clocks (~4ghz Ryzen core is roughly the same as a ~4.1ghz intel core).  Current AMD chips are roughly equal to or slightly better than what you have in ST, but cant OC as far.

[JesseStillwell]

5 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

AMD ST performance is pretty much equal to intel at the same clocks (~4ghz Ryzen core is roughly the same as a ~4.1ghz intel core).  Current AMD chips are roughly equal to or slightly better than what you have in ST, but cant OC as far.

Sorry, but AMD's single thread performance doesn't hold a candle to that of Intel's. My 4790k has much better single thread performance than a 2700x, and it even beats a threadripper.

 

See here https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

[JoostinOnline]

3 minutes ago, JesseStillwell said:

Sorry, but AMD's single thread performance doesn't hold a candle to that of Intel's. My 4790k has much better single thread performance than a 2700x, and it even beats a threadripper.

 

See here https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

That's a pretty dumb comparison. That's like expecting a Xeon to have high single core performance.

 

Intel mainly wins out in single thread tests because of their higher clock speed, but it's not that big of a difference.

 

[KarathKasun]

7 minutes ago, JesseStillwell said:

Sorry, but AMD's single thread performance doesn't hold a candle to that of Intel's. My 4790k has much better single thread performance than a 2700x.

 

See here https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

Sorry but you are not listening.  Ryzen is primarily behind as of now because of clocks, not IPC.  Current data is showing new R5 CPUs at parity with i9 9900K CPUs in ST and MT... clocks are expected to be 4.6ghz to 5ghz.

[JesseStillwell]

13 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

That's a pretty dumb comparison. That's like expecting a Xeon to have high single core performance.

 

Intel mainly wins out in single thread tests because of their higher clock speed, but it's not that big of a difference.

 

It's a totally reasonable comparison for the software I have to work in. All the primary functions of the software are single threaded. I have seen comparisons and AMD builds trying to use Revit and it's not good, unless your only job is rendering the architect's files.

Edited March 15, 2019 by JesseStillwell

[KarathKasun]

Just now, JesseStillwell said:

It's a totally reasonable comparison for the software I have to work in. All the primary functions of the software are single threaded. I have seen comparisons and AMD builds trying to use Revit and it's not good, unless your only job is only the architect's files.

Take your comparison and add 25% to AMD's scores.  That is what has been shown in demos to the tech press.

[JesseStillwell]

4 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

Sorry but you are not listening.  Ryzen is primarily behind as of now because of clocks, not IPC.  Current data is showing new R5 CPUs at parity with i9 9900K CPUs in ST and MT.

Could you please show me the site that shows this? I am very interested in seeing it.

[KarathKasun]

 

It is a AMD demo, so grain of salt for sure.   The demo chip is compared to 9900k and has the same number of cores and threads.  Core 9000 series and Ryzen get similar speedups from going ST to MT, meaning that ST and MT performance is comparable in a test like this.

[JoostinOnline]

7 minutes ago, JesseStillwell said:

It's a totally reasonable comparison for the software I have to work in. All the primary functions of the software are single threaded. I have seen comparisons and AMD builds trying to use Revit and it's not good, unless your only job is only the architect's files.

No, I'm saying the models you chose to compare are dumb. Power can either be used for higher clock speeds or for higher core counts. Generally speaking, the higher the core count, the lower the clock speed. You compared a quad core to a hexacore CPU. Lots of dual cores easily win single threaded benchmarks when compared to high core count alternatives from the same generation.

 

There is no AMD equivalent to the 4790k because they aren't competing with that. It's far more appropriate to compare a 2600 to an 8400.

[KarathKasun]

2 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

No, I'm saying the models you chose to compare are dumb. Power can either be used for higher clock speeds or for higher core counts. Generally speaking, the higher the core count, the lower the clock speed. You compared a quad core to a hexacore CPU. Lots of dual cores easily win single threaded benchmarks when compared to high core count alternatives from the same generation.

 

There is no AMD equivalent to the 4790k because they aren't competing with that. It's far more appropriate to compare a 2600 to an 8400.

TBH, for a single thread workload, current Ryzen chips all top out at the same clock speed.  So they all perform the same.

[JoostinOnline]

Just now, KarathKasun said:

TBH, for a single thread workload, current Ryzen chips all top out at the same speed.  So they all perform the same.

That's part of what I'm saying. Ryzen 3000 series is rumored to fix whatever is causing that cap but there's no hard evidence that it's true.

[KarathKasun]

15 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

That's part of what I'm saying. Ryzen 3000 series is rumored to fix whatever is causing that cap but there's no hard evidence that it's true.

Well, matching a 9900k with the same number of cores/threads is evidence.  Granted, we don't know clocks for that demo chip.  If we were to look at OC results from the 2700X @ 4.4ghz (~1950 CB R15), the score (~2050 CB R15) corresponds to clocks in the 4.6ghz range for all core turbo on the 3000 series.

 

Also going to point out that my 25% figure was a bit low.  CB R15 score of ~2050 is ~33% faster than R7 2700X at stock.  If single core boost performance is also ~30% higher, the PassMark score should be in the 2900 range.

[MeatFeastMan]

2 hours ago, JesseStillwell said:

I have access to a free 1060. I don't game that often, and only at 1080p.

Well in that case, just use the 1060 and give it until next generation to upgrade.

[JesseStillwell]

4 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

No, I'm saying the models you chose to compare are dumb. Power can either be used for higher clock speeds or for higher core counts. Generally speaking, the higher the core count, the lower the clock speed. You compared a quad core to a hexacore CPU. Lots of dual cores easily win single threaded benchmarks when compared to high core count alternatives from the same generation.

 

There is no AMD equivalent to the 4790k because they aren't competing with that. It's far more appropriate to compare a 2600 to an 8400.

Yes, I agree with you. I never argued about clock speeds vs cores. All I said was that I needed single core performance. I don't care if it's a quad core or not. The newest i9 9900k has the best single thread performance and it's an 8 core cpu. I don't care about the fact that is't an 8 core cpu not.

 

I don't care about Intel or AMD, I just need single thread performance, and whoever can fill that role will get my dollars.

 

If I was building a gaming PC or video editing machine then I would go with a 2700x no doubt, but unfortunately I'm not.

[JoostinOnline]

45 minutes ago, JesseStillwell said:

Yes, I agree with you. I never argued about clock speeds vs cores. All I said was that I needed single core performance. I don't care if it's a quad core or not. The newest i9 9900k has the best single thread performance and it's an 8 core cpu. I don't care about the fact that is't an 8 core cpu not.

 

 

The fact that you don't understand this is a problem though. The 4790k only wins in single thread performance because it can reach much higher clock speeds.

 

The i9 9900k is not a good CPU, and it's a horrible value if you are running single threaded. Clock for clock it's performance is the same as an i3-9350k, and you won't get the shitty cooling and power problems that come with trying to run 8 cores at 5GHz.

[jerubedo]

3 hours ago, JesseStillwell said:

Yes, I agree with you. I never argued about clock speeds vs cores. All I said was that I needed single core performance. I don't care if it's a quad core or not. The newest i9 9900k has the best single thread performance and it's an 8 core cpu. I don't care about the fact that is't an 8 core cpu not.

 

I don't care about Intel or AMD, I just need single thread performance, and whoever can fill that role will get my dollars.

 

If I was building a gaming PC or video editing machine then I would go with a 2700x no doubt, but unfortunately I'm not.

Yep, this 100%. @JoostinOnline & @KarathKasun It doesn't matter for a consumer WHY something performs better for what software they're wanting to use, all that matters is that it does.  Sure, AMD is held back by it's clock speeds, and sure they also sport a higher core and thread count than Intel at several price ranges, but the sheer facts are that many consumers have the need for single or dual core performance. Developers still make software that favors the combination of higher IPC and higher clock speeds. A majority of gaming loads are still this way, even though the future will eventually bring a shift towards utilizing all available threads, but we aren't there yet. We're only seeing a handful of games right now that are doing just that. But gaming aside, a lot of software exists in the world where the core functions rely on single threaded performance. AMD might catch up on Ryzen 3000, but take their own demo with a mountain of salt. Only time will tell. We'll know soon enough.

[KarathKasun]

2 hours ago, jerubedo said:

Yep, this 100%. @JoostinOnline & @KarathKasun It doesn't matter for a consumer WHY something performs better for what software they're wanting to use, all that matters is that it does.  Sure, AMD is held back by it's clock speeds, and sure they also sport a higher core and thread count than Intel at several price ranges, but the sheer facts are that many consumers have the need for single or dual core performance. Developers still make software that favors the combination of higher IPC and higher clock speeds. A majority of gaming loads are still this way, even though the future will eventually bring a shift towards utilizing all available threads, but we aren't there yet. We're only seeing a handful of games right now that are doing just that. But gaming aside, a lot of software exists in the world where the core functions rely on single threaded performance. AMD might catch up on Ryzen 3000, but take their own demo with a mountain of salt. Only time will tell. We'll know soon enough.

Im saying wait for May, when Ryzen 3000 launches.  If AMD gets to ~5ghz, and equals i9-9900k performance for less money, prices will drop or you will have an equal performance AMD part for less.

 

I don't care what brand OP goes with, just saying that competition will drop prices at the very least.

[jerubedo]

Just now, KarathKasun said:

Im saying wait for May, when Ryzen 3000 launches.  If AMD gets to ~5ghz, and equals i9-9900k performance for less money, prices will drop or you will have an equal performance AMD part for less.

Yep, that I can get behind. Although wasn't their launch rumored for July? Did we ever get anything official in that regard? 

[KarathKasun]

7 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Yep, that I can get behind. Although wasn't their launch rumored for July? Did we ever get anything official in that regard? 

I dont think anything official is out, but I expect very solid leaks in May at minimum.  Launch is supposed to in the beginning of 2H 2019.

[JoostinOnline]

6 hours ago, jerubedo said:

doesn't matter for a consumer WHY something performs better for what software they're wanting to use,

Strongly disagree with that. It matters a lot if you're going to make an informed decision. That could lead to buying a 9900K for single thread performance, despite it being no different than an overclocked 9350k.

 

For the record, I never recommended upgrading.