Is it finally time for an upgrade? #strictly_gaming

[greenhorn]

I guess it all depends on whether you are still getting the performance you need out of your current setup. If yes, I would suggest waiting for a few months since there will be new product launches in September/October. Since AMD managed to launch very competitive products (which might get even more competitive once BIOS/driver issues are ironed out), Intel will need to launch new substantially improved products.
I therefore expect to see many products with great price to performance ratios to be available by then.

[TZB]

1 hour ago, 191x7 said:

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.

haha you have a point sir....no answer to my initial request, but you're making sense

[TZB]

4 minutes ago, greenhorn said:

I guess it all depends on whether you are still getting the performance you need out of your current setup. If yes, I would suggest waiting for a few months since there will be new product launches in September/October. Since AMD managed to launch very competitive products (which might get even more competitive once BIOS/driver issues are ironed out), Intel will need to launch new substantially improved products.
I therefore expect to see many products with great price to performance ratios to be available by then.

that's indeed the issue....since I want to upgrade my monitor....the new socket may go for several itinerations....that's why I'm doubting to get the 9 series....instead of waiting for the 10 series

[191x7]

26 minutes ago, TZB said:

haha you have a point sir....no answer to my initial request, but you're making sense

How about a non-overclockable i7 with an H or B board? Better than an overclockable i5, especially in the long-run.

[Mister Woof]

Lots of old wives tales seem to be going on in this thread about AMD and Intel of old that hold little relevance today.

 

OP - yes, upgrade to a 3600 or 3700x. The gains will be significant in single threaded tasks as well as night and day in multithreaded tasks. You don't need to worry about overclocking. 

 

Also, no matter how much you OC a 4/4 part, it will get drops and bad fps lows at times, especially in new games, no matter what resolution you play at.

 

 

 

[Deadsies]

Just 6 cores is going to look low budget as F in like 2 years. 

 

 

 

[Mister Woof]

41 minutes ago, Deadsies said:

Just 6 cores is going to look low budget as F in like 2 years. 

 

 

 

In terms of hardware options, maybe.

 

Software will take more than 2 years to require more than a 6/12 for a smooth experience.

 

He it took em over a decade to get over 4/4.

[Deadsies]

1 minute ago, Plutosaurus said:

In terms of hardware options, maybe.

 

Software will take more than 2 years to require more than a 6/12 for a smooth experience.

 

He it took em over a decade to get over 4/4.

Who said anything about 12 threads?

[paulmohr]

I honestly wouldn't expect much in the way of pricing, especially on the new stuff. I bet there new flagship stuff is going to be pricy. They might cut prices on the older stuff once the new stuff comes out though. Desktop processors are small part of intels market and not where most of their money comes from. I doubt they are overly concerned with competing with AMD on that front. I just don't think they care that much about desktop gamers. They also know there are plenty of Intel die hards that will buy the stuff anyway regardless of what their competition is. And if they follow the trend overclocking on the new stuff might not be as good as some of the older stuff, just like with amd. A super high clock speed doesn't always equate to the best performance. Especially if you are also worried about efficiency and power consumption. We won't know any of this until they actually release the product and it gets tested though.

 

Another thing to consider is that gaming is for the most part moving towards multi core performance, not single core. So that advantage is going to go away eventually, it is getting pretty close now.

 

As for the monitor I would just ask myself if the increase in refresh rate and resolution would make my gaming better for the type of gaming I do. Like do you do comptetitive shooter or other types of stuff where it would actually help you be better. For me the answer would be no. None of the games I play need more than 60 fps at 60hz. And even if they did I am not good enough that it would make a difference lol. I am sure for others, possibly you that would not be the case and it might make a difference.

 

If it were me I would be more concerned about the over all system and not just the cpu. I would conentrate on a better video card ( especially if you want higher resolutions where they become more gpu bound then cpu) a better motherboard, better ram and possibly faster SSD's. Then get a cpu that can take advantage of it all. I wouldn't sacrifice the others for the sake of a really fast cpu unless I was doing things that relied on a fast cpu and I was making money from it. And then for the most part anymore more cores would be better for that too unless you were a running program optimized for single core performance. And I think you said somewhere you take cooling serious? So I would assume you are on a custom water cooling loop. If not that is something I would consider as well. Remember, you said budget wasn't an issue lol.

 

And to actually answer your question. If your current system works and you don't have any issues with it I would wait until Intel releases their new stuff and people test it to see what it will actually do. If it doesn't measure up and/or the prices are stupid high chances are the older stuff will go down in price and you can get one of those. You win either way. It would also give you more time to save up for upgrades.

 

Then again, being that your job is in IT I don't know why you would listen to anything I have to say lmao. You have probaby forgetten more than I know at this point. Oh, and I will be 54 next month so I remember when calculators and VHS were high tech. Computers and the internet were still science fiction.

[FellTheSky]

i had a 6700k at 4.7 ghz. Now i have a ryzen 3600. Do i notice a performance deficit in gaming?

 

Absolutely. 6700k was much much better. Ofc it depends on the games you play. Grimdawn, dota 2, starcraft 2, custom games. Very noticeable on all of them (144hz monitor) . But i dont play much now days and i really need render, compression and decompression. And dont have much cash ( the change didnt cost me more than 30 us$). 

 

[Zando_]

I had an 8600K (same chip pretty much) and at 5Ghz that lad kept up with SLI 1080s easily (99% scaling in Battlefront 2015 since that game ran the smoothest on the GPUs, ran at 1080p and DSR for 1440p and 4K, even at 4K that combo pushed 130-144fps). A 9600K at the same speed should be awesome. If that's what you want then go for it, there's always gonna be something better just around the corner. If it's not within 2-3 months of launch I'd just go with what's out now. 

 

As for all the peeps recommending AMD, it's because their Ryzen platform has been really great so far, and the Zen 2 chips are competing with Intel's flagships easily. Problem there is I've only seen benches vs stock Intel chips. If you're going for performance, the 9000 series on Intel's side usually OCs to 500-600Mhz faster than the Ryzen offerings, which should give it an advantage in gaming. They cost more (at least in the US market), but Intel chips didn't magically become garbage because of Zen 2. If you're comfortable on Intel and don't want to move to AMD, there's no need to. 

[FellTheSky]

5 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

snip

not only cpu oc, but memory aswell

 

I cant get my ryzen stable at 3733 mhz (memory) The best i could do now at 1.5v is 3600ram at 14-18-17-28-84-1t . Yet my 2016 6700k ran at 4266 24/7 with exceptional scores and 38 ns latency. In the games i play (or used to) the difference was night and day as you never were GPU bound 

 

Im not switching back to intel, but i wont deny what its right in front of my eyes. If all you care is gaming, and you really really need the extra framerate, you'll be better of buying intel. Sadly i dont think they will lower prices

[Mister Woof]

1 hour ago, Deadsies said:

Who said anything about 12 threads?

There's only really two CPUs that are even 6 core non SMT; and frankly I can't support getting either of those for any reason really.

 

[Mister Woof]

28 minutes ago, FellTheSky said:

i had a 6700k at 4.7 ghz. Now i have a ryzen 3600. Do i notice a performance deficit in gaming?

 

Absolutely. 6700k was much much better. Ofc it depends on the games you play. Grimdawn, dota 2, starcraft 2, custom games. Very noticeable on all of them (144hz monitor) . But i dont play much now days and i really need render, compression and decompression. And dont have much cash ( the change didnt cost me more than 30 us$). 

 

That's fair, but the OP is on a non HT sandybridge chip at much lower frequency.

 

He won't experience the same thing you are.

[191x7]

Here's someone that went from an i5 2500K and a GF 1070 to a Ryzen 3600...

Might be good to ask him how he's doing and how the system behaves.