Worthy upgrade from 4690k, Ryzen 7?

[Snickerzz]

So right now I'm running a 4690k @4.3ghz. I mostly play games and I know the intel CPU's are generally slightly better at pure gaming. But with Ryzen I was thinking about the 2700 vs Intel 9600k/9700k, with all the extra cores would I benefit if I have a lot of background tasks while game? I usually have chrome/youtube, discord, telegram, etc open. I don't do any video editing or workstation stuff. Just gaming and multitasking. What do ya guys think? 

[Raudi_]

Just now, Snickerzz said:

So right now I'm running a 4690k @4.3ghz. I mostly play games and I know the intel CPU's are generally slightly better at pure gaming. But with Ryzen I was thinking about the 2700 vs Intel 9600k/9700k, with all the extra cores would I benefit if I have a lot of background tasks while game? I usually have chrome/youtube, discord, telegram, etc open. I don't do any video editing or workstation stuff. Just gaming and multitasking. What do ya guys think? 

Ryzen would be a perfect upgrade from the i5, I just upgraded from a 4770 to a 4790k to a 7820x. Going from Haswell to something more recent is quite mind blowing tbh.

[aezakmi]

Those programs usually hog your RAM not your CPU so I'd say you're good to go, unless you notice lag or framerate drops on games

[Sakkura]

Maybe wait for 3rd gen Ryzen. Should make it an actual upgrade in singlethreaded performance, alongside of course the big multithreaded upgrade.

[Fasauceome]

a ryzen 5 is more appropriate for general multitasking than a ryzen 7. 6 cores 12 threads is pretty killer.

[Brooksie359]

I would wait for ryzen 3000 series as based on the benchmarks done so far the single threaded performance gap has basically been closed and gaming performance should be much improved. As always wait for third party reviews but it looks to be quite promising. 

[Brooksie359]

3 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

a ryzen 5 is more appropriate for general multitasking than a ryzen 7. 6 cores 12 threads is pretty killer.

More and more games are becoming core hungry so 6 cores won't be as great for multitasking as an 8 core for those games. 

[Fasauceome]

1 minute ago, Brooksie359 said:

More and more games are becoming core hungry so 6 cores won't be as great for multitasking as an 8 core for those games. 

It's hardly to the point where 12 threads isn't enough for AAA games and discord, and we don't know when that would be.

Can't future proof!

[TrigrH]

28 minutes ago, Snickerzz said:

So right now I'm running a 4690k @4.3ghz. I mostly play games and I know the intel CPU's are generally slightly better at pure gaming. But with Ryzen I was thinking about the 2700 vs Intel 9600k/9700k, with all the extra cores would I benefit if I have a lot of background tasks while game? I usually have chrome/youtube, discord, telegram, etc open. I don't do any video editing or workstation stuff. Just gaming and multitasking. What do ya guys think? 

id go for an i7 4790k.

[Brooksie359]

5 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

It's hardly to the point where 12 threads isn't enough for AAA games and discord, and we don't know when that would be.

Can't future proof!

I think Assasins creed Odyssey would have to disagree with you. There is also the newest tomb raider. Games are coming out now that actually benifit from more than 6 cores already and that isn't even bringing into account multitasking. I see this being even more prominent in future games now both Intel and AMD having 8 cores on the mainstream platform and more on the way. 

[Snickerzz]

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

Maybe wait for 3rd gen Ryzen. Should make it an actual upgrade in singlethreaded performance, alongside of course the big multithreaded upgrade.

 

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

I would wait for ryzen 3000 series as based on the benchmarks done so far the single threaded performance gap has basically been closed and gaming performance should be much improved. As always wait for third party reviews but it looks to be quite promising. 

Seems these will be dropping mid2019. Think i'll wait for these and see how they perform. Thanks guys!

[JoostinOnline]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

More and more games are becoming core hungry so 6 cores won't be as great for multitasking as an 8 core for those games. 

Not really. Most games still don't use 6 cores. Until 8 cores is mainstream it's unlikely that games will actually use them.

[NPDPdev]

I would wait for Ryzen 3000 to drop. Given Ryzen's history of extremely competitive pricing and the recently leaked benchmarks, I would seriously expect the value of Ryzen 3000 series chips to be considerably better than their Intel counterparts. Since R3k's single-core performance supposedly has much improved and you won't be doing a ton of multi-tasking (keep in mind, R5 3xxx will have 8 cores instead of 6), I believe that the Ryzen 5 3600(X) would be sufficient for your needs.

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

Not really. Most games still don't use 6 cores. Until 8 cores is mainstream it's unlikely that games will actually use them.

I literally named 2 games that do. Games have becoming increasingly multithreaded and once the new consoles come out you can bet that games will start to be developed with 8 core Zen processors in mind. 

[JoostinOnline]

56 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I literally named 2 games that do. Games have becoming increasingly multithreaded and once the new consoles come out you can bet that games will start to be developed with 8 core Zen processors in mind. 

You realize hundreds of games are released every year, right? Two exceptions doesn't mean much. One of those is probably only because of the DRM.

 

None of us know the future, but if history tells us anything then it will be many years before mainstream adoption. Multi-threading on a CPU isn't an easy process to divide up for games. When dual cores came it, it took many years for them to be adopted into game development. It was the same with quad cores, and we're seeing the same trend in hexacore. There's no reason to believe that it will change until most gamers have at least hexacore CPU's. Developers program a game with a mainstream system in mind, and then sometimes add tweaks that will improve performance on the high end.

 

[Brooksie359]

4 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

You realize hundreds of games are released every year, right? Two exceptions doesn't mean much. One of those is probably only because of the DRM.

 

None of us know the future, but if history tells us anything then it will be many years before mainstream adoption. Multi-threading on a CPU isn't an easy process to divide up for games. When dual cores came it, it took many years for them to be adopted into game development. It was the same with quad cores, and we're seeing the same trend in hexacore. There's no reason to believe that it will change until most gamers have at least hexacore CPU's. Developers program a game with a mainstream system in mind, and then sometimes add tweaks that will improve performance on the high end.

 

Most of Ubisoft newer games hammer cores and I don't expect this to change. I only names a few but there are many more where that came from. 

[JoostinOnline]

2 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Most of Ubisoft newer games hammer cores and I don't expect this to change. I only names a few but there are many more where that came from. 

There really aren't. The few exceptions are usually because of aggressive DRM, rather than the game actually utilizing it. Other than that it's something that was clearly added afterwards. Similar to how 2008-ish games will go full throttle one one core and lightly use a second. Dual core was just being adopted as mainstream, thus the shift.

 

Take a look at the latest Steam hardware survey. You have to design threading with certain expectations. Designing it for four cores (with optimizations for more later) gives you a target audience of roughly 70%. Designing it for 6 cores means only roughly 10% of people will meet the minimum requirements.

 

I don't think you appreciate just how difficult multi-threading is.