Is AMD Ryzen 3 3300X a good upgrade from i5 6500?

[Emzijs]

Hello!

I am decided to upgrade my PC since its been running for 4 years straight with the same hardware. I already upgraded the RAM, and the only logical step is to change CPU. Here are my current PC Specs:

Asus B150 motherboard
I5-6500 CPU
16GB of DDR4 Ram(3200mhz, but limited to 2400mhz)
Sapphire Radeon RX480 8GB OC+
SP NVME Drive


My main question is - is Ryzen 3 3300X a good upgrade from current CPU? How much of an FPS gain I might get in, for  example, CSGO and Assetto Corsa Competizione?

[Zalosath]

1 minute ago, Emzijs said:

Hello!

I am decided to upgrade my PC since its been running for 4 years straight with the same hardware. I already upgraded the RAM, and the only logical step is to change CPU. Here are my current PC Specs:

Asus B150 motherboard
I5-6500 CPU
16GB of DDR4 Ram(3200mhz, but limited to 2400mhz)
Sapphire Radeon RX480 8GB OC+
SP NVME Drive


My main question is - is Ryzen 3 3300X a good upgrade from current CPU? How much of an FPS gain I might get in, for  example, CSGO and Assetto Corsa Competizione?

If you change to Ryzen you'll need a new motherboard too.

 

The Ryzen CPU is worlds better though. 

[abcdefghivjklmnop]

Just now, Emzijs said:

Hello!

I am decided to upgrade my PC since its been running for 4 years straight with the same hardware. I already upgraded the RAM, and the only logical step is to change CPU. Here are my current PC Specs:

Asus B150 motherboard
I5-6500 CPU
16GB of DDR4 Ram(3200mhz, but limited to 2400mhz)
Sapphire Radeon RX480 8GB OC+
SP NVME Drive


My main question is - is Ryzen 3 3300X a good upgrade from current CPU? How much of an FPS gain I might get in, for  example, CSGO and Assetto Corsa Competizione?

Yes the 3300x is very good upgrade from your current cpu. But I would recommend you to first wait around for the b550 motherboards then buy the cpu and mobo.those 3200mhz ram sticks would improve your performance too since ryzen likes fast ram. 

[Mister Woof]

Given performance is about equal to an i7-7700k and has the same configuration, I don't think it's worthwhile to upgrade your entire platform when you can achieve that by trying to find a 6700k/7700k and slot it in your existing motherboard and get nearly the same results.

 

It's only worth it to change platforms if you upgrade to something much wider that will expand your capabilities, such as a 6/12 or higher chip.

[abcdefghivjklmnop]

7 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

Given performance is about equal to an i7-7700k and has the same configuration, I don't think it's worthwhile to upgrade your entire platform when you can achieve that by trying to find a 6700k/7700k and slot it in your existing motherboard and get nearly the same results.

 

It's only worth it to change platforms if you upgrade to something much wider that will expand your capabilities, such as a 6/12 or higher chip.

You havent counted in that the Ryzen has more cache, pci 4.0 support,higher frequency ram support and is waaayy cheaper than a i7 7700k even if you buy a motherboard with it.. Intel processors are way over priced right now than they should be. 

[Emzijs]

22 minutes ago, Zalosath said:

If you change to Ryzen you'll need a new motherboard too.

 

The Ryzen CPU is worlds better though. 

I am aware of MB change, and I am counting on it. My main question was ,is Ryzen 3 3300X a worthy upgrade. Thanks for your answer!

[Mister Woof]

15 minutes ago, abcdefghivjklmnop said:

You havent counted in that the Ryzen has more cache, pci 4.0 support,higher frequency ram support and is waaayy cheaper than a i7 7700k even if you buy a motherboard with it.. Intel processors are way over priced right now than they should be. 

All of that is nice, but upgrading the whole platform for small gains (which aren't really game changing) over an existing, slot-in option doesn't make sense.

 

If OP upgrades platforms at all, get a 6 core or better. It seems like a whole lot of effort compared to an existing easy alternative for no real gain.

 

I would recommend going for a 3600 minimum for this case. A 3300x is just a more effort 7700k replacement in your situation.

 

[Mister Woof]

16 minutes ago, Emzijs said:

I am aware of MB change, and I am counting on it. My main question was ,is Ryzen 3 3300X a worthy upgrade. Thanks for your answer!

See above.

 

3300x is a great chip for people who are upgrading from ancient hardware but imo for you the 3600 makes the most sense.

[Nena Trinity]

I do think you would gain more with a Ryzen 5 3600 or 1600AF(if findable) but ofc a 3300X is great now!

[papajo]

1 hour ago, Mister Woof said:

Given performance is about equal to an i7-7700k and has the same configuration, I don't think it's worthwhile to upgrade your entire platform when you can achieve that by trying to find a 6700k/7700k and slot it in your existing motherboard and get nearly the same results.

 

It's only worth it to change platforms if you upgrade to something much wider that will expand your capabilities, such as a 6/12 or higher chip.

@Emzijs It depends on TS, he will not only get a i7-7700k "equivalent" by changing into amd

he will get new tech as well (e.g PCIe gen 4 usb 3.2 etc) the ability to create a m.2 cache for his HDD and an upgrade path if he chooses the right chipset (its kinda foggy what will exactly happen to x470 b450 mobos but x570 and b550 ones will surely be compatible with the 4000 series) 

[Mister Woof]

22 minutes ago, papajo said:

@Emzijs It depends on TS, he will not only get a i7-7700k "equivalent" by changing into amd

he will get new tech as well (e.g PCIe gen 4 usb 3.2 etc) the ability to create a m.2 cache for his HDD and an upgrade path if he chooses the right chipset (its kinda foggy what will exactly happen to x470 b450 mobos but x570 and b550 ones will surely be compatible with the 4000 series) 

PCIE4 is mostly marketing right now as in real world usage it's not that useful for 99% of people. And if we're arguing about a $120 chip, it's unlikely he's going to be using or needing high speed PCIE4 storage.

 

M.2 cache for HDD is a bit overrated, as replacing with actual SSD storage (even inexpensive QLC SATA SSDs) is still advised for applications that need repeated quick access, and for deep storage of less-accessed files the M.2 cache is mostly useless anyway and standard hard drives work perfectly well.

 

USB can be achieved via inexpensive PCIE cards, if its that big a deal. But, my assumption is most likely not if we're talking about a gaming/general use PC.

 

Agree to disagree, I suppose. None of these features are bad, but I don't see them as deciding factors.

 

However, If you're going to go through all the effort of pulling shit out, make it count. Get a 6/12 chip at least.

 

So many times in my life I've chosen the more complex and time consuming route to accomplish a task, when I find that I could have got the same results with a simpler method. Replacing a powerful 4/8 chip takes 10 minutes and little to no effort, vs. replacing a powerful 4/8 chip with a motherboard, drivers, platform change, etc., could take hours.....and you achieve almost the same results but with features you may never use.

 

The 3300x is a great chip and I would recommend them to people who are looking for a mainstream CPU and are on much older platforms and with limited budget. If you can afford the $50 for the 3600, it's always worth it.

 

I suppose my point is, if you're going to go through the hassle of updating the whole platform and moving to AMD, make it worth your time to get something that you can't already get with little effort.

 

To put it bluntly, he'd be going through all this trouble for.....a little bit of clockspeed and hyperthreading, plus some shit he might not use. If it were me, I'd double my core count and add hyperthreading. But, that's me.

 

[papajo]

26 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

PCIE4 is mostly marketing right now as in real world usage it's not that useful for 99% of people. And if we're arguing about a $120 chip, it's unlikely he's going to be using or needing high speed PCIE4 storage.

 

Its not useless its more bandwidth per lane which has a variety of applications (e.g he could use two cheap m.2 SSDs on raid to have a very fast windows storage medium)  and is certainly future proof as hardware becomes faster and faster 

 

26 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

M.2 cache for HDD is a bit overrated, as replacing with actual SSD storage (even inexpensive QLC SATA SSDs) is still advised for applications that need repeated quick access, and for deep storage of less-accessed files the M.2 cache is mostly useless anyway and standard hard drives work perfectly well.

Again its not as bad as you portray it we are not talking about hybrid drives we are talking about specialized software that will use that m.2 mostly by determining user behavior, its ideal for situations e.g having a 2+ TB steam library on a cheap slow HDD and using an up to 256GB (over that you need to pay a license which is cheap imo for a permanent one time fee license) m.2 drive will make your library(and ingame loading times) feel its actually on a 2TB SSD instead of your slow HDD. 

 

26 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

USB can be achieved via inexpensive PCIE cards, if its that big a deal.

Which again you can use faster (e.g type C or thunderbolt compatible) and more of them if you have PCIe gen 4 support  + if its a deal but not that much of a deal to buy extra PCI adaptors you always will have the onboard ones available to you. 

 

26 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

Agree to disagree, I suppose. None of these features are bad, but I don't see them as deciding factors.

Well the upgradability alone is a decisive factor if op just buys a used i7 he will have to stick with it because its a dead end. 

 

26 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

However, If you're going to go through all the effort of pulling shit out, make it count. Get a 6/12 chip at least.

Not everybody has that budget some people just want to have the best bang for the buck now and save up towards a better upgrade in the future. Besides that this new 3200 chip is quite a catch for its money and will game very decently every new game out there and has 8 threads which means it will do good in multitasking as well. 

[Mister Woof]

7 minutes ago, papajo said:

Its not useless its more bandwidth per lane which has a variety of applications (e.g he could use two cheap m.2 SSDs on raid to have a very fast windows storage medium)  and is certainly future proof as hardware becomes faster and faster 

 

Again its not as bad as you portray it we are not talking about hybrid drives we are talking about specialized software that will use that m.2 mostly by determining user behavior, its ideal for situations e.g having a 2+ TB steam library on a cheap slow HDD and using an up to 256GB (over that you need to pay a license which is cheap imo for a permanent one time fee license) m.2 drive will make your library(and ingame loading times) feel its actually on a 2TB SSD instead of your slow HDD. 

 

Which again you can use faster (e.g type C or thunderbolt compatible) and more of them if you have PCIe gen 4 support  + if its deal but not that much of a deal to buy extra PCI adaptors you always will have the onboard ones available to you. 

 

Well the upgradability alone is a decisive factor if op just buys a used i7 he will have to stick with it because its a dead end. 

 

No everybody has that budget some people just want to have the best bang for the buck now and save up towards a better upgrade in the future. 

1. I disagree with the usefulness of PCIE4. Especially when we are discussing a system based on a $120 chip.

 

2. Having some experience with using both SSHDD and SSD/HDD setups, most of the advantage goes away unless you play the same game over and over again. Repeated switching of games negates most of the benefit until you play the same game again repeatedly. SATA SSDs, especially QLC drives, are super cheap and plentiful that to me, makes the hybrid setups an answer to a question nobody is asking.

 

3. Shrug - one would think if he cared about this, he would have an add-in card already. So I assume he has it or its not a priority.

 

4. Upgrading within socket to me is kind of silly. Not enough gains for the cost associated. Get the right CPU in the first place, and upgrade everything when you have to. If he had a 6700k instead, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Likewise, a 1700 purchased 3 years ago would have lasted fine, and I wouldn't consider upgrading that, either.

 

5. Best bang for the buck is subjective. I don't see simply adding SMT and some hypothetically useful features worthwhile of a complete platform upgrade. Get a 3600 or 3700x now, replace everything in 5 years. Or keep what you have, since objectively he just decided to upgrade "because it's been 4 years" without any quantitative reasoning for why, (performance bad, etc. etc.). 

 

[Emzijs]

36 minutes ago, papajo said:

@Emzijs It depends on TS, he will not only get a i7-7700k "equivalent" by changing into amd

he will get new tech as well (e.g PCIe gen 4 usb 3.2 etc) the ability to create a m.2 cache for his HDD and an upgrade path if he chooses the right chipset (its kinda foggy what will exactly happen to x470 b450 mobos but x570 and b550 ones will surely be compatible with the 4000 series) 

From what I've seen, some B450 motherboards can do overclocking. If B550 can do it, then I have no problem of switching platforms with option to upgrade later on in future

[Mister Woof]

Just now, Emzijs said:

From what I've seen, some B450 motherboards can do overclocking. If B550 can do it, then I have no problem of switching platforms with option to upgrade later on in future

That makes no sense to me. The idea of buying small now only so you can upgrade later is an exercise in loss.

 

Get a 3600 or 3700x now and push upgrading even later. Assuming you can afford it. If not, then keep what you got.

 

IMO.

[papajo]

12 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

2. Having some experience with using both SSHDD and SSD/HDD setups, most of the advantage does away unless you play the same game over and over again. Repeated switching games negates most of the benefit until you play the same game again repeatedly.

Again its not the same thing... the m.2 via AMD's StoreMI is not just using a small cache that will delete itself and it doesnt need an extra ssd/m.2 drive it can use your existing m.2 or ssd that has your windows on it (by partitioning some space) on a simple cache situation what happens is that elements that you run get stored on the cache (unless they are too big) that means even in the same game data that has not been stored previously (e.g by opening something inside a game you didnt open before) will not get cached in advance and once it gets cached it may ovewrite existing elements which then will need to get recached in the future 

 

StoreMI will cache stuff in advance and retain that data for future use unless you run out of memory but since you have the ability to store up to 256GB that means that you can run many huge (filesizewise) games without needing to recache 

 

12 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

3. Shrug - one would think if he cared about this, he would have an add-in card already. So I assume he has it or its not a priority.

Well maybe he would like to have it (that's one of the reasons I mentioned its up to TS) but wouldnt pay for that alone, having that coming along with an upgrade could be a welcome addition for him/her

12 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

4. Upgrading within socket to me is kind of silly. Not enough gains for the cost associated.

Current ebay prices put the i7 7700k at about 300$ 

 

AMD 3200x costs 120 + 100-200$ (depending on the bells and wistles ) for a decent b550,x570 mobo I see no extra costs causing an issue here. 

[Mister Woof]

1 minute ago, papajo said:

Again its not the same thing... the m.2 via AMD's StoreMI is not just using a small cache that will delete itself and it doesnt need an extra ssd/m.2 drive it can use your existing m.2 or ssd that has your windows on it (by partitioning some space) on a simple cache situation what happens is that elements that you run get stored on the cache (unless they are too big) that means even in the same game data that has not been stored previously (e.g by opening something inside a game you didnt open before) will not get cached in advance and once it gets cached it may ovewrite existing elements which then will need to get recached in the future 

 

StoreMI will cache stuff in advance and retain that data for future use unless you run out of memory but since you have the ability to store up to 256GB that means that you can many huge (filesizewise) games without needing to recache 

 

Well maybe he would like to have it (that's one of the reasons I mentioned its up to TS) but wouldnt pay for that alone, having that coming along with an upgrade could be a welcome addition for him/her

Current ebay prices put the i7 7700k at about 300$ 

 

AMD 3200x costs 120 + 100-200$ (depending on the bells and wistles ) for a decent b550,x570 mobo I see no extra costs causing an issue here. 

I wouldn't get the 7700k either at that price. The point is, the upgrade is too small to warrant a platform upgrade. Upgrading small now with the intent to upgrade later is what led the OP to the position he's in now.

[papajo]

1 minute ago, Mister Woof said:

I wouldn't get the 7700k either at that price. The point is, the upgrade is too small to warrant a platform upgrade. Upgrading small now with the intent to upgrade later is what led the OP to the position he's in now.

well if he had gone AMD he wouldnt be in that position though lol going to intel small was his mistake mainly  

 

and then what are you telling OP? to stay as he is without upgrading anything? lol he wants an upgrade so the options are buying a used i7 or going to AMD... 

[Mister Woof]

10 minutes ago, papajo said:

well if he had gone AMD he wouldnt be in that position though lol going to intel small was his mistake mainly  

 

and then what are you telling OP? to stay as he is without upgrading anything? lol he wants an upgrade so the options are buying a used i7 or going to AMD... 

Well if he had gone AMD in 2015 when Skylake came out he'd have an FX chip. That's a different rabbit hole but suffice to say he'd probably have upgraded when Ryzen 1000 launched.

 

I'm telling him to upgrade to a 3600 at least for the most out of his money.

 

3300x = can get almost same or could have got the same within existing platform

3600+ = can't get on current platform, makes platform upgrade more meaningful

[papajo]

1 minute ago, Mister Woof said:

I'm telling him to upgrade to a 3600 at least for the most out of his money.

So you contradict yourself since you just said that going through platform change is not worth the cost... unless the cost is bigger ? 

 

well he can upgrade now with less money having good enough CPU (which he also can overclock to squeeze some extra performance) 

 

And in the future he can upgrade even to a 64/128 thread CPU from the 3000 series or whatever the 4000 series will come up with. 

[Mister Woof]

5 minutes ago, papajo said:

So you contradict yourself since you just said that going through platform change is not worth the cost... unless the cost is bigger ? 

 

well he can upgrade now with less money having good enough CPU (which he also can overclock to squeeze some extra performance) 

 

And in the future he can upgrade even to a 64/128 thread CPU from the 3000 series or whatever the 4000 series will come up with. 

That's not a contradiction. I said that it was subjective. I also said it's not worth the time, effort, cost, for little gain.

 

The 3600 is 50% more resources than the 3300x for 22% more money. The 3300x is $220 over his existing CPU for....SMT and some clockspeed (25-30% more performance) and other useless shit. Value for the money, the 3600 is a better deal.

 

Can we address how if in 2015 he got AMD, he'd be in worse shape right now? (you brought this up, not me.)

[papajo]

23 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

Can we address how if in 2015 he got AMD, he'd be in worse shape right now?

No because its out of topic and pointless since we dont know when he bought his CPU + I was merely being sarcastic that's why I used the " " 

 

23 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

The 3600 is 50% more resources than the 3300x for 22% more money.

 

Not exactly TS is

 

a) asking about game performance 

 

b) Probably has a tight budget otherwise he wouldnt be interested in the 3300x in the first place or upgrade to a used intel CPU he would plain out ask what to get for X budget or whatnot

 

and  as far as games go  the two CPUs have virtually no difference

 

 

 + 4 cores are easier to OC than 6 cores 

 

Having said that I am not against TS getting a better CPU  I am just saying it makes sense to go with the 3300x if money is a concern (he wont lose anything in games he will have the same upgrade path and new features and he will save some money ) 

 

and frankly although I said I am not against getting a 3600 I gonna slightly change my tune now since thinking a little more about it while I am typing this post the 4000 series is on the line and prices for 3000 series will drop so that 50$ will end up buying "more power" in a future upgrade (+ if TS is not from the US price difference between 3 and 5 series of ryzens are even bigger in europe or other regions so he may need to spend more than just 50$ towards a 3600)

 

[Mister Woof]

Agree to disagree. We can argue back and forth all day. I will present arguments, and so will you. Ultimately I only presented my opinions, and you presented yours. This is the point of forums. 

 

I feel the 3600 offers wider applications. It is "future proof" in that if he decides to pursue other software, multitasking, etc, it is more capable.

OP, do what you wanna do. I feel if you are going trough the trouble, get the 3600. If you don't and get the 3300x instead, that's cool too.