Is it finally time for an upgrade? #strictly_gaming

[TZB]

Hi people,

I've been following LTT on Youtube for years now...finally decided to create an account here...mainly for the question I have been asking myself now for years...but also (hopefully) to give some decent advice once in a while.

First of all, I am 41, been gaming since the Commodore 64, have been overclocking and 'fiddling' with hardware as soon as pc's allowed it, and have been working in ICT for over 15 years now...so I am certainly down with the basics

 

Soo....current system:

-  i5 2500k @ 4.3GHz stable

- 4 x 4GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 @ 1600MHz, CAS 9

- Gigabyte Z68XP-UD3P motherboard (the reason I'm stuck at 4.3GHz)

- Zalman CNP9900 Max air cooler

- Samsung EVO 840 500GB SSD, plus 16TB storage

- 750W Bronze PSU

- Asus Strix GTX 1070

- Samsung 27" 1080p LCD

- recently changed my Antec twelve hundred (v1) to full RGB Thermaltake View 71 (midlife crisis I guess?)

 

Year after year, the upgrade virus takes hold of me....and year after year, I keep my 2500k as it still remains awesome for my  main goal - gaming (and movies), and I still do not have to bother about fps....my monitor is only 60Hz capable.

Apart from the yearly upgrade virus however (I have been able to keep it at bay with the purchase of the new case - almost forgot how fun it is to build a 'new' pc)....I am more and more thinking about getting a new monitor...1440p or 1080p with 144Hz  or something like that.

 

Upgrading now (Gigabyte Z390 Pro, i5-9600k, 16GB DDR4 @CAS 14) would cost me about 700 euro (probably less for you fortunate ones living in the US)....and I'm sure I'd be happy with that for the upcoming years...OC to 5GHz and sit back right? 

However...Intel is gonna launch the 10 series this year (I'm guessing at a decent price range to  compete with the current AMD awesomeness - 10 series will also have HT)....so...long story cut short, taking in account the 10 series will have a 1159 pin setup....would you guys wait for the 10 series, or go for the (recently  lowered in price) 9  series (would go for the 9600KF  in this case)?

 

PS: I am not interested in Ryzen...I  know what they can do, I know they have  more cores for the buck...as I love to overclock (and always seriously invest in cooling) and only need single core performance for the majority of the time, I will stick to Intel for now.

 

Thanks for your views in any case  ! 

 

 

[Jurrunio]

4 minutes ago, TZB said:

single core performance, I will stick to Intel for now. 

5-10% gain, max, sure.

 

Without knowing the budget, no further comments

[ZXR]

If you dont want ryzen, then I would say no, at least until Intel drops their prices significantly, if they ever do. Ryzen is incredibly priced at the moment including mobos and ram.

[TZB]

10 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

5-10% gain, max, sure.

 

Without knowing the budget, no further comments

Not when overclocking, seeing the Ryzens only getting up to 4.3GHz...or  am I wrong  with that statement? Budget is no issue, allthough I do tend to spend my money wisely...also why I'm doubting about the 9600k  instead of the i7 counterpart. Thanks for the reply though ! 

[TZB]

15 minutes ago, Zeddex said:

If you dont want ryzen, then I would say no, at least until Intel drops their prices significantly, if they ever do. Ryzen is incredibly priced at the moment including mobos and ram.

Ryzen is cheaper when you compare stock speeds yes, when  taking the cores and HT in consideration (maybe)...but overclocking does make a big difference....so ultimately, as Intel 'k' CPU's overclock way higher, they do have the best 'worth' imho - besides, Ryzen 2700x here is 245 euro, 9600KF is 195

[TZB]

Let's not forget -  at least judging the reviews I've been reading/watching....Ryzens go way up when it comes to both heat and Watts....I pay my electrical bills myself you know

[Jurrunio]

26 minutes ago, TZB said:

Not when overclocking, seeing the Ryzens only getting up to 4.3GHz...or  am I wrong  with that statement? Budget is no issue, allthough I do tend to spend my money wisely...also why I'm doubting about the 9600k  instead of the i7 counterpart. Thanks for the reply though !  

Zen2 doesnt have OC headroom in the CPU cores, it relies on memory OC. This is contrary to Intel side which memory helps only a tiny bit and most gains come from core and uncore overclocking.

 

I think hardware unboxed has OC'd comparisons between 9900k and 3900X

[191x7]

The thing is, you really should upgrade. That i5 is a severely bottlenecking factor.

 

What should you upgrade to? I'd say Ryzen if you want a new feature-filled bang for the buck platform.

If you want to go cheap, an i7 2600K or an i7 3770K (if the board supports it) would also alleviate some of the CPU->GPU bottlenecking.

If you want Intel&modern, the i5 9400f has some nice price/performance. Above that only i7 9700K or the stronger 8700K.

 

Modern-day i5-s with only 6 threads will become more obsolete than some 12-thread competition parts.

 

In terms of overclocking, with Sandy/Ivy/Haswell/FX it's a necessity, with modern parts it's a not-really-needed commodity.

 

Also, when overclocking modern-day Intel CPU-s the power draw goes through the roof, and the temperatures follow.

On the other hand, modern Ryzens do not even profit from overclocking (since they do it quite good on auto), run cooler and consume less power.

 

Don't forget, the Ryzen 5 3600 with it's 6 core 12 threads comes really near the i7 8700K and it doesn't need an extra expensive motherboard and cooling.

[TZB]

8 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

Zen2 doesnt have OC headroom in the CPU cores, it relies on memory OC. This is contrary to Intel side which memory helps only a tiny bit and most gains come from core and uncore overclocking.

 

I think hardware unboxed has OC'd comparisons between 9900k and 3900X

As mentioned, only gaming  here...and  memory oc (which can be done on a nice Intel mobo as well) gets you what? 2 fps? as you said...tiny bit....you're comparing 9900k and 3900x,  which are probably awesome beasts when multitasking, but as said....that's nothing  I am looking for.

[Dxer]

I am kind of guessing you are in the same boat as me.  I am getting older (51) and gaming isn't really something I do a whole lot of anymore.  

I had been on the Intel side since the Core2Duo (AMD before that) days when I believed it to be the best bang for your buck since O/Cing was incredible.  Then I ran

an I5-2500k for about 6 years until a component failed and I built a new machine 2 years ago.  I decided to give AMD a chance with the Ryzen 1600 

and I never regretted my decision.  For me, it was a nice and cost efficient upgrade with the extra cores and threads.  It still allowed me to play some

of the games I still play once in a while.  But really helped with photography and some light video work.  

 

So I believe with any processor you buy now days whether Ryzen or Intel, it will still have enough punch to breeze through any application you toss at it.  So just

look for the best bang for your buck.  The I5-9600k will definitely be a good single thread performer with a nice 5ghz o/c.  

[TZB]

Just now, 191x7 said:

The thing is, you really should upgrade. That i5 is a severely bottlenecking factor.

 

What should you upgrade to? I'd say Ryzen if you want a new feature-filled bang for the buck platform.

If you want to go cheap, an i7 2600K or an i7 3770K (if the board supports it) would also alleviate some of the CPU->GPU bottlenecking.

If you want Intel&modern, the i5 9400f has some nice price/performance. Above that only i7 9700K or the stronger 8700K.

 

Modern-day i5-s with only 6 threads will become more obsolete than some 12-thread competition parts.

 

In terms of overclocking, with Sandy/Ivy/Haswell/FX it's a necessity, with modern parts it's a not-really-needed commodity.

 

Also, when overclocking modern-day Intel CPU-s the power draw goes through the roof, and the temperatures follow.

On the other hand, modern Ryzens do not even profit from overclocking (since they do it quite good on auto), run cooler and consume less power.

 

Don't forget, the Ryzen 5 3600 with it's 6 core 12 threads comes really near the i7 8700K and it doesn't need an extra expensive motherboard and cooling.

Sorry, but my stock  3.3GHz is very not demanding when I  overclock  it 1 full GHz above stock....been running that  setup for years now....AMD is known for heat and power consumption. Also,  as mentioned, I am doubting between  buying now - i5 9600kf, or waiting for the 10 series...not  interested in an i7  2600k....which - if you can find them - are too expensive

I don't know why, when particularly stating not being interested in Ryzens, everyone goes Ryzen here  lol....is it my English (only 4th language)?

[TZB]

3 minutes ago, Dxer said:

I am kind of guessing you are in the same boat as me.  I am getting older (51) and gaming isn't really something I do a whole lot of anymore.  

I had been on the Intel side since the Core2Duo (AMD before that) days when I believed it to be the best bang for your buck since O/Cing was incredible.  Then I ran

an I5-2500k for about 6 years until a component failed and I built a new machine 2 years ago.  I decided to give AMD a chance with the Ryzen 1600 

and I never regretted my decision.  For me, it was a nice and cost efficient upgrade with the extra cores and threads.  It still allowed me to play some

of the games I still play once in a while.  But really helped with photography and some light video work.  

 

So I believe with any processor you buy now days whether Ryzen or Intel, it will still have enough punch to breeze through any application you toss at it.  So just

look for the best bang for your buck.  The I5-9600k will definitely be a good single thread performer with a nice 5ghz o/c.  

Thanks  for your reply ! I do not consider myself as 'getting older', 50 is the new 40 right  . I have been AMD as you until the Core2Duo....but still....the benchmarks prove it, Intel is still king (at stock speeds), so I'm not jumping back on the AMD wagon just yet....as mentioned, the 10 series Intel will  have a new pin count....that's why I'm doubting between buying a 9600kf now, or waiting for the 10 series which' pin  count will probably last for some evolutions  (And  yes, any  new cpu I buy will  fortunately be  better than the one I have, that's a given)

[Jurrunio]

12 minutes ago, TZB said:

As mentioned, only gaming  here...and  memory oc (which can be done on a nice Intel mobo as well) gets you what? 2 fps? as you said...tiny bit....you're comparing 9900k and 3900x,  which are probably awesome beasts when multitasking, but as said....that's nothing  I am looking for.

I mean single core benchmarks. At that point they represent the entire architecture, not their core count.

 

And also memory OC has a much bigger impact in gaming on Ryzen than Intel. Benefits to frame rate stability should not be ignored either.

[191x7]

3 minutes ago, TZB said:

Sorry, but my stock  3.3GHz is very not demanding when I  overclock  it 1 full GHz above stock....been running that  setup for years now....AMD is known for heat and power consumption. Also,  as mentioned, I am doubting between  buying now - i5 9600kf, or waiting for the 10 series...not  interested in an i7  2600k....which - if you can find them - are too expensive

I don't know why, when particularly stating not being interested in Ryzens, everyone goes Ryzen here  lol....is it my English (only 4th language)?

Ryzens aren't known for heat and power consumption. Coffee Lake is. Is it possible that you're basing your assumptions on outdated data? Ryzen is not FX. Coffe Lake is not Sandy Bridge.

 

Also, why are you returning to your i5 2500K in the conversation when we stated that it has nothing to do with MODERN DAY INTEL CPU-s. You get a huge gain overclocking that oldie-but-goldie. Overclocking a modern CPU doesn't bring a huge improvement, especially not if paired with a low to mid-range graphics card like the GTX 1070.

[191x7]

 

 

 

0

 Advanced issues found

▲

 

 

2

6 minutes ago, TZB said:

..., the 10 series Intel will  have a new pin count....that's why I'm doubting between buying a 9600kf now, or waiting for the 10 series which' pin  count will probably last for some evolutions  (And  yes, any  new cpu I buy will  fortunately be  better than the one I have, that's a given)

Well, wait for the new socket then. Why? Because you'll buy it AND WON'T UPGRADE for the next 7-8 years, just like with Sandy Bridge. Does not matter that the MBO would support a generation or two more since you'll wait with upgrading for 7-8 generations.

[TrainFan475]

I used to have an i7 6700k. Then I switched to a ryzen 5 2600x. Didn't notice any performance degradation whatsoever and It was cheaper

[Jurrunio]

Btw in max power draw when overclocked, 3900X doesnt go past 200w in Prime95. Compared to 8700k and 9700k which can already go past 200w. 9900k's above 250w, to the point of hitting the limit of the IHS...

[TZB]

4 minutes ago, 191x7 said:

Ryzens aren't known for heat and power consumption. Coffee Lake is. Is it possible that you're basing your assumptions on outdated data? Ryzen is not FX. Coffe Lake is not Sandy Bridge.

 

Also, why are you returning to your i5 2500K in the conversation when we stated that it has nothing to do with MODERN DAY INTEL CPU-s. You get a huge gain overclocking that oldie-but-goldie. Overclocking a modern CPU doesn't bring a huge improvement, especially not if paired with a low to mid-range graphics card like the GTX 1070.

ok that last part is a valid point, will  take that in account...but still, the benchmarks I have  seen (from valid  sources) have  shown overclocked AMD's way above the wattage  (don't know if that's a valid English word even) of  the Intel  overclocked cpu's....and yes, my  gpu sucks  nowadays....but that one will have  to do for now

[TZB]

2 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

Btw in max power draw when overclocked, 3900X doesnt go past 200w in Prime95. Compared to 8700k and 9700k which can already go past 200w. 9900k's above 250w, to the point of hitting the limit of the IHS...

thanks, seen plenty reviews....not  going for the 9700 nor the 9900...9600 stays nicely under that power load

[Bartholdi67]

If you do 144Hz 1080p I'd go with a new CPU.

If you go with 4k your GPU is still the limiting factor.

Check out this comparison:

 

[TZB]

2 minutes ago, Bartholdi67 said:

If you do 144Hz 1080p I'd go with a new CPU.

If you go with 4k your GPU is still the limiting factor.

Check out this comparison:

 

I know, seen all the reviews....not even gonna ask you for your choice of CPU....but thanks for the reply I guess....

[Blze001]

I mean, it sounds to me like you've already made up your mind about the 9600k.

[TZB]

1 minute ago, Blze001 said:

I mean, it sounds to me like you've already made up your mind about the 9600k.

The initial question was - go for the 9600k or wait for the 10600k...so yes, you're partially right - also I have mentioned not to be interested in Ryzen whatsoever....not my fault everyone is getting the Ryzen way here in their replies

[i_build_nanosuits]

whatever you do don't get a 9600K at this point for gaming...6 thread is NOT enough for some current games and future games will struggle real quick...get something better.

[TZB]

3 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

whatever you do don't get a 9600K at this point for gaming...6 thread is NOT enough for some current games and future games will struggle real quick...get something better.

so...your advise is to wait for the HT 10 series? BTW, I am not struggling with any current games....struggling meaning less than 60fps