Fx-8350 Upgrade

[D-J97]

Hi all, 

Been looking at this for a while but need to see what other people think. Wanting to upgrade my PC from my fx-8350 @4.8GHz to ryzen 5, but don't know whether to go for 1400 or 1600. With having a family and a house to run I don't have the option of just "saving up" and will be planning to do this with my birthday money at the end of the month. This also means I don't really have the option of waiting till Zen+ but I don't think it'll make that much difference anyway. I'm running a 980ti hybrid (horrible overclocker, not stable at anything above stock speeds even with bios voltage/power mods) running games like assassins creed (playing through the series) project cars 2, maybe farcry 5 when it comes out and pubg when I can afford it. Obviously the 1600 will be better but will the 1400 be sufficient? Any advice is appreciated, sorry for the long post and no potato.

[mikat]

They test games with a 1080ti and at 1080p so the performance difference will be smaller because you have a less beefy gpu. If you game at higher resolutions the gap will close even further because the higher the res the more work the gpu does and the cpu has to do less

[AlTech]

7 minutes ago, D-J97 said:

Hi all, 

Been looking at this for a while but need to see what other people think. Wanting to upgrade my PC from my fx-8350 @4.8GHz to ryzen 5, but don't know whether to go for 1400 or 1600. With having a family and a house to run I don't have the option of just "saving up" and will be planning to do this with my birthday money at the end of the month. This also means I don't really have the option of waiting till Zen+ but I don't think it'll make that much difference anyway. I'm running a 980ti hybrid (horrible overclocker, not stable at anything above stock speeds even with bios voltage/power mods) running games like assassins creed (playing through the series) project cars 2, maybe farcry 5 when it comes out and pubg when I can afford it. Obviously the 1600 will be better but will the 1400 be sufficient? Any advice is appreciated, sorry for the long post and no potato.

The 1600 is a far better investment. I fully expect quad core CPUs like the 1400 to become minimum requirements for 2018 and 2019 games. 

 

And the 1600 will be better than the FX8350 in both Single Threaded and Multi-Threaded workloads.

[D-J97]

Oh and just to let you know, I'm currently playing at 1050p though plan to upgrade to 1080p or higher within the next year, thanks

[AlTech]

Just now, D-J97 said:

Oh and just to let you know, I'm currently playing at 1050p though plan to upgrade to 1080p or higher within the next year, thanks

Are you planning to play at 60Hz, 120Hz or 144Hz?

[i_build_nanosuits]

An AMD FX with a GTX 980ti? wow...get ready for a really nice performance boost...your CPU is holding your graphics card by a whole bunch, i would try to swing for the R5-1600 as it will last you much longer before you need to upgrade again..

[Jurrunio]

I'd say 1600 because it will stay relevant for more time. 1400 isnt much better than my overclocked 2600k, which can use at most a gtx 1080 (20% faster than 980ti) without running into CPU bottlenecks often. If you want the chip to be good for more years, get the 1600.

[D-J97]

Sorry guys didn't see these replies, @mikat yes I saw that but didn't feel like it quite answered my question, as he says its a little less clear which to go for from a purely gaming perspective. Hence why I came to the forums to get a bit more specific answer for my use case. @AluminiumTech to be fair the 1400 will be better than my fx in single and multi workloads ? my issue is, for purely gaming, is it really worth getting the 1600? It is ONLY £35 more, but from the benchmarks I've seen at 1080p it only amounts to about an extra 10 frames (game dependant)

[Aeternalis]

21 minutes ago, D-J97 said:

Sorry guys didn't see these replies, @mikat yes I saw that but didn't feel like it quite answered my question, as he says its a little less clear which to go for from a purely gaming perspective. Hence why I came to the forums to get a bit more specific answer for my use case. @AluminiumTech to be fair the 1400 will be better than my fx in single and multi workloads ? my issue is, for purely gaming, is it really worth getting the 1600? It is ONLY £35 more, but from the benchmarks I've seen at 1080p it only amounts to about an extra 10 frames (game dependant)

10 Extra right now, yes, but more cores will start to be used in gaming. It's better to spend the 35 now instead of much more than that a while down the line.

[AlTech]

 

29 minutes ago, D-J97 said:

@AluminiumTech to be fair the 1400 will be better than my fx in single and multi workloads ? my issue is, for purely gaming, is it really worth getting the 1600? It is ONLY £35 more, but from the benchmarks I've seen at 1080p it only amounts to about an extra 10 frames (game dependant)

Games which are multi core aware will definitely run better on the 1600. And the fact that it's only 35 GBP extra makes it even more worth it.

 

And besides, the R5 1400 is being discontinued anyways. It's successor was just announced.

[D-J97]

47 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Are you planning to play at 60Hz, 120Hz or 144Hz?

Ideally 120Hz, though it depends what I can get my hands on second hand at the time, more than likely would be 60Hz

42 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

An AMD FX with a GTX 980ti? wow...get ready for a really nice performance boost...your CPU is holding your graphics card by a whole bunch, i would try to swing for the R5-1600 as it will last you much longer before you need to upgrade again..

Yeah, I upgraded from a gtx 680 so that was a great boost, and I've noticed the fx struggling, it still does pretty good but I feel like its time for the upgrade, but with me not going top end hardware I don't want to spend more than I need to for now

42 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

I'd say 1600 because it will stay relevant for more time. 1400 isnt much better than my overclocked 2600k, which can use at most a gtx 1080 (20% faster than 980ti) without running into CPU bottlenecks often. If you want the chip to be good for more years, get the 1600.

I only plan for it to last 1-2 years before upgrading again, if it wasn't for the newer technologies I'd have an old 2500k ?

[AlTech]

Just now, D-J97 said:

I don't want to spend more than I need to for now

I only plan for it to last 1-2 years before upgrading again, if it wasn't for the newer technologies I'd have an old 2500k ?

May I ask why?

 

And given this new information, if you just need an AM4 platform CPU to last 1-2 years before another upgrade, a Ryzen 3 2200G or a Ryzen 5 2400G should fit the bill nicely.

[NelizMastr]

5 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

May I ask why?

 

And given this new information, if you just need an AM4 platform CPU to last 1-2 years before another upgrade, a Ryzen 3 2200G or a Ryzen 5 2400G should fit the bill nicely.

You'd have to hold off until april, though. Chances are the R5 2600 will be announced then etc. etc.

[D-J97]

4 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

May I ask why?

 

And given this new information, if you just need an AM4 platform CPU to last 1-2 years before another upgrade, a Ryzen 3 2200G or a Ryzen 5 2400G should fit the bill nicely.

Because personally I just prefer amd to Intel, but zen isn't the best platform for overclocking, and that's really my favourite part of PC's, I spent months trying to get my 8350 to hit 5GHz, eventually did it when winter rolled around after lapping my CPU and installing sp120 fans in push pull and using 1.65 volts (I really wanted 5GHz), the ryzen 3 doesn't seem powerful enough and I can't really afford to wait for zen+ as the money would probably end up getting spent elsewhere and I'd have no upgrade at all, I just want the platform upgrade till a better overclocking architecture comes around, plus the obvious performance benefit

[AlTech]

7 minutes ago, NelizMastr said:

You'd have to hold off until april, though. Chances are the R5 2600 will be announced then etc. etc.

OP only wants a CPU for 1-2 years before upgrading again.

 

The R3 2200G and R5 2400G were already announced and are available starting in February.

 

If Op wants to buy a new CPU in 1 year or 2 then it doesn't make sense to go for a 2600

[AlTech]

2 minutes ago, D-J97 said:

Because personally I just prefer amd to Intel, but zen isn't the best platform for overclocking, and that's really my favourite part of PC's, I spent months trying to get my 8350 to hit 5GHz, eventually did it when winter rolled around after lapping my CPU and installing sp120 fans in push pull and using 1.65 volts (I really wanted 5GHz), the ryzen 3 doesn't seem powerful enough and I can't really afford to wait for zen+ as the money would probably end up getting spent elsewhere and I'd have no upgrade at all, I just want the platform upgrade till a better overclocking architecture comes around, plus the obvious performance benefit

Well, in that case, I'd just say wait for Ryzen 2nd gen Desktop CPUs or just buy the 2nd gen R5 2400G APU.

 

Ryzen 2nd gen should overclock better than the first generation.

[Jurrunio]

If it's just 1 or 2 years I'd rather save the money, or just get Intel's Haswell chips. No guarantees on how far future Zen based CPUs can overclock.

[D-J97]

2 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Well, in that case, I'd just say wait for Ryzen 2nd gen Desktop CPUs or just buy the 2nd gen R5 2400G APU.

 

Ryzen 2nd gen should overclock better than the first generation.

Oh I didn't know they'd be released in February, just done a little research, though price is yet to be seen but that's definitely something to look at, thank you for that

4 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

If it's just 1 or 2 years I'd rather save the money, or just get Intel's Haswell chips. No guarantees on how far future Zen based CPUs can overclock.

Problem with Intel is there is no upgrade path in terms of future architecture, plus the frame time/lag spike problem Intel CPU's seem to have (more so than ryzen)

[AlTech]

Just now, D-J97 said:

Oh I didn't know they'd be released in February, just done a little research, though price is yet to be seen but that's definitely something to look at, thank you for that

The APUs are coming in February. The APUs are 2200G (4c/4t) and 2400G (4c/8t). There is no 6 core APU planned at this time apparently.

 

The CPUs are coming in April. The CPUs probably are 2300X, 2500X, 2600, 2600X, 2700, 2700X, 2800X. - This probable CPUs list is pure rumors but the APUs were confirmed and announced at CES.