Will an i5-8400 Pair Well Enough With A Vega 64?

[DWait]

I currently have an RX 580 and i5-8400 with 16GB of RAM. I wanted to upgrade my GPU and I was wondering, before I bought it, if an i5-8400 will pair well enough with the Vega 64. I know it's comparable to a GTX 1080 and I was going to buy a Nvidia card but I remembered I have a FreeSync monitor. I don't really want to go to the trouble of buying the card, selling the monitor, ordering a new one and waiting for so long without a good monitor to pair the new card with. Anyway, I found someone on Craigslist who is going to sell me a 750W power supply and the Vega 64 for my RX 580 and $270. Seems like a great deal. What do you guys think? 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Ryan_Vickers
removed "urgent" from title

[Ashiella]

Just now, DWait said:

I currently have an RX 580 and i5-8400 with 16GB of RAM. I wanted to upgrade my GPU and I was wondering, before I bought it, if an i5-8400 will pair well enough with the Vega 64. I know it's comparable to a GTX 1080 and I was going to buy a Nvidia card but I remembered I have a FreeSync monitor. I don't really want to go to the trouble of buying the card, selling the monitor, ordering a new one and waiting for so long without a good monitor to pair the new card with. Anyway, I found someone on Craigslist who is going to sell me a 750W power supply and the Vega 64 for my RX 580 and $270. Seems like a great deal. What do you guys think? 

It would work together just fine, games like battlefield 5 are just starting to use up to 6 cores. Disregarding R6S which uses up to 16 because its a thug.

[GDRRiley]

well what PSU is it, there is many horible 750W. 

The i5 won't bottleneck it in most cases.

[DWait]

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

well what PSU is it, there is many horible 750W. 

The i5 won't bottleneck it in most cases.

Not sure. I am about to ask the guy now. It seems like he is very knowledgeable and nice enough to where it probably wont be some no name trash. At least, I hope.

[DWait]

6 minutes ago, Ashiella said:

It would work together just fine, games like battlefield 5 are just starting to use up to 6 cores. Disregarding R6S which uses up to 16 because its a thug.

That's funny I didn't know that R6S is like the game I play most right now lmao.

[Streetguru]

6 minutes ago, DWait said:

 

Wait for a cheap used 1080/ti or Vega 7nm, or find a really cheap Vega 56 like $299 cheap?

But neither free-sync or g-sync are worth worrying about, free-sync is just a nice "free" bonus for AMD, and G-sync is never worth the money. You can use an nvidia GPU with a free-sync display without any issues.

 

Your CPU only bottlenecks your refresh rate/max fps and that CPU is fine for even 144hz gaming

[Streetguru]

Just now, DWait said:

That's funny I didn't know that R6S is like the game I play most right now lmao.

 

7 minutes ago, Ashiella said:

It would work together just fine, games like battlefield 5 are just starting to use up to 6 cores. Disregarding R6S which uses up to 16 because its a thug.

Even if a game uses more cores that doesn't mean it's max fps is affected by the CPU

 

more of the work is likely only being done on Core 0 and Core 1 if you look at a task manager for instance.

[Ashiella]

3 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

 

Even if a game uses more cores that doesn't mean it's max fps is affected by the CPU

 

more of the work is likely only being done on Core 0 and Core 1 if you look at a task manager for instance.

The load is usually spread over all my cores, my motherboard is kinda gimping my cpu and gpu so the usage on both ranges from 70-80%, although I have seen it reach a steady 99% before with all cores under full load

[DWait]

13 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

Wait for a cheap used 1080/ti or Vega 7nm, or find a really cheap Vega 56 like $299 cheap?

But neither free-sync or g-sync are worth worrying about, free-sync is just a nice "free" bonus for AMD, and G-sync is never worth the money. You can use an nvidia GPU with a free-sync display without any issues.

 

Your CPU only bottlenecks your refresh rate/max fps and that CPU is fine for even 144hz gaming

Yeah I'm considering it. It just seems like such a great deal for only $270.

[JoostinOnline]

26 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

But neither free-sync or g-sync are worth worrying about, free-sync is just a nice "free" bonus for AMD, and G-sync is never worth the money.

That's highly subjective. A frame rate that doesn't match the refresh rate looks pretty bad to me.

[Streetguru]

21 minutes ago, Ashiella said:

The load is usually spread over all my cores, my motherboard is kinda gimping my cpu and gpu so the usage on both ranges from 70-80%, although I have seen it reach a steady 99% before with all cores under full load

It may seem like that, but that doesn't exactly increase performance.

 

like even if a game shows that every thread of a 1950X is being used to 10%, an 8700K is still going to outperform it.

Maybe ass creed unity is the only example where more cores are actually helping noticably, though it's still slower than intel parts there.

 

16 minutes ago, DWait said:

Yeah I'm considering it. It just seems like such a great deal for only $270.

Vega 64 for $270? What kind of scam are you about to fall into lol, that's a $400 GPU easily

Buy it if it's not a scam for sure

 

2 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

That's highly subjective. A frame rate that doesn't match the refresh rate looks pretty bad to me.

Most people don't seem to care, and you could just run your display at 100hz with fast sync/enhanced sync to get rid of screen tearing and still have over 60hz without adaptive sync.

The only time I ever turned free-sync on was to check it with the windmill demo

 

[DWait]

2 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

It may seem like that, but that doesn't exactly increase performance.

 

like even if a game shows that every thread of a 1950X is being used to 10%, an 8700K is still going to outperform it.

Maybe ass creed unity is the only example where more cores are actually helping noticably, though it's still slower than intel parts there.

 

Vega 64 for $270? What kind of scam are you about to fall into lol, that's a $400 GPU easily

Buy it if it's not a scam for sure

 

Most people don't seem to care, and you could just run your display at 100hz with fast sync/enhanced sync to get rid of screen tearing and still have over 60hz without adaptive sync.

The only time I ever turned free-sync on was to check it with the windmill demo

 

Like I said, I am buying the card for $200 and giving him my RX 580 which can be an additional $120-150. His original asking price was 350. I am also buying the power supply off of him for $70. So $270 plus whatever he sells that RX 580 for.

[Streetguru]

1 minute ago, DWait said:

Like I said, I am buying the card for $200 and giving him my RX 580 which can be an additional $120-150. His original asking price was 350. I am also buying the power supply off of him for $70. So $270 plus whatever he sells that RX 580 for.

That's a pretty alright upgrade, if it's a reference Vega 64 just watercool it eventually with that cheap EK fluid gaming kit

 

also undervolt it to like 1150mV in Wattman when you get it, free performance.

[JoostinOnline]

3 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

Most people don't seem to care, and you could just run your display at 100hz with fast sync/enhanced sync to get rid of screen tearing and still have over 60hz without adaptive sync.

The only time I ever turned free-sync on was to check it with the windmill demo

I find that 60fps@60hz looks better than 100fps@144hz.  The stuttering bothers me most as much as tearing. So like I said, it's subjective.

[Streetguru]

7 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

I find that 60fps@60hz looks better than 100fps@144hz.  The stuttering bothers me most as much as tearing. So like I said, it's subjective.

But if you can only get 100fps just lower the refresh rate of the monitor to the fps you're getting, then consider one of the not V-sync options from AMD/Nvidia to get rid of screen tearing.

[Shiftstealth]

1 hour ago, Streetguru said:

Wait for a cheap used 1080/ti or Vega 7nm, or find a really cheap Vega 56 like $299 cheap?

But neither free-sync or g-sync are worth worrying about, free-sync is just a nice "free" bonus for AMD, and G-sync is never worth the money. You can use an nvidia GPU with a free-sync display without any issues.

 

Your CPU only bottlenecks your refresh rate/max fps and that CPU is fine for even 144hz gaming

I think you should state that the Free-sync, G-sync portion is your opinion. Lots of people such as myself have a hard time playing games without it anymore.

[DWait]

24 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

That's a pretty alright upgrade, if it's a reference Vega 64 just watercool it eventually with that cheap EK fluid gaming kit

 

also undervolt it to like 1150mV in Wattman when you get it, free performance.

Yeah that's one thing that has scared me if the heat output. Not sure how I feel about that to be honest.

[Ashiella]

35 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

It may seem like that, but that doesn't exactly increase performance.

 

like even if a game shows that every thread of a 1950X is being used to 10%, an 8700K is still going to outperform it.

Every thread being used to 80-90% ...

And not to mention, when I had my 7700k @ 5.1ghz my framerate was lower than with my 1700 @ 4ghz by about 10-20 on average..

[Streetguru]

16 minutes ago, DWait said:

Yeah that's one thing that has scared me if the heat output. Not sure how I feel about that to be honest.

It's perfectly fine unless you start pushing insane overclocks, probably closer to 200-250W undervolted with a gaming load

 

11 minutes ago, Ashiella said:

Every thread being used to 80-90% ...

And not to mention, when I had my 7700k @ 5.1ghz my framerate was lower than with my 1700 @ 4ghz by about 10-20 on average..

Might just be an ubisoft thing

 

 

19 minutes ago, Shiftstealth said:

I think you should state that the Free-sync, G-sync portion is your opinion. Lots of people such as myself have a hard time playing games without it anymore.

I've asked a few people now if they even notice screen tearing, in regards to them about to buy G-sync at $100+ more than a free-sync display, and they usually say no, or have to ask what it is.

[Shiftstealth]

17 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

It's perfectly fine unless you start pushing insane overclocks, probably closer to 200-250W undervolted with a gaming load

 

Might just be an ubisoft thing

 

 

I've asked a few people now if they even notice screen tearing, in regards to them about to buy G-sync at $100+ more than a free-sync display, and they usually say no, or have to ask what it is.

Oh yeah, FreeSync Vs G-Sync yeah. I thought you meant omitting both. I can certainly tell a difference when there is no version of it. FWIW i'm fairly certain the G-sync laptops actually use Freesync.

[Streetguru]

5 minutes ago, Shiftstealth said:

Oh yeah, FreeSync Vs G-Sync yeah. I thought you meant omitting both. I can certainly tell a difference when there is no version of it. FWIW i'm fairly certain the G-sync laptops actually use Freesync.

They do, Nvidia hates freedom so much they screw all of their desktop GPU customers out of cheaper adaptive sync.

You can use free-sync with an nvidia GPU if you pass the signal through a Ryzen APU though, or hack it to think it's a "mobile G-sync" display as Wendell at Level 1 Techs tried once.

[JoostinOnline]

1 hour ago, Streetguru said:

But if you can only get 100fps just lower the refresh rate of the monitor to the fps you're getting, then consider one of the not V-sync options from AMD/Nvidia to get rid of screen tearing.

What are they? Fast Sync is the only one I'm aware of and all that really does is toggle V-Sync on and off. You still get stuttering if the frame rate is lower than the frame rate.

 

[Streetguru]

4 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

What are they? Fast Sync is the only one I'm aware of and all that really does is toggle V-Sync on and off. You still get stuttering if the frame rate is lower than the frame rate.

 

Right with Fast Sync and Enhanced Sync you have to stay above your monitor's refresh rate, which is why you'd want to drop it down to 100hz or so, rather than turning it on at 144hz.

[Ashiella]

10 hours ago, Streetguru said:

Might just be an ubisoft thing

In one of the "Mid-season reinforcements" They had tried optimizing the game for high core count cpus and optimize cpu timings and how it utilized it and when, how it worked with windows to tell it to "Fuck off im more important". During the test patch they ran into the problem of low core count cpus 4-8 threads not performing well anymore but cpus like mine were just going insane, so they had to tone it back a bit and make it a little more dependent on the first 4-8 threads but still utilizing the others if given the opportunity. It's the only game I've seen do it. So yeah, It's a Ubi thing. (Also other games utilizing the same Engine of Anvil NEXT 2.0 dont have this optimization so it's game-specific to siege.  )