Upgrading Ivy i5

[ZothOmmog]

Hello.

 

So basically as the title says I'm looking into upgrading my current rig, it all began when I went into a craze for a new monitor, that then led to a new graphics card, that then led to that I'm getting the sweet bottleneck in some games.

 

This is my current rig:

 

CPU
    Intel Core i5 3570K @ 3.40GHz    34 °C
    Ivy Bridge 22nm Technology
RAM
    16.0GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 933MHz (10-11-10-30)
Motherboard
    ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. SABERTOOTH Z77 (LGA1155)    32 °C
Graphics
    3440x1440 @75Hz
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080

 

Now don't get me wrong, it works perfectly fine however I've noticed due to it's age that some things aren't working as smoothly as nowadays computers do, it might just be the monitor though.

 

So now I've been looking at the KabyLake i7-7700K as an upgrade but now that Ryzen is out I'm like really unsure if it is at all a sane decision going for the i7 which in my country is only 50€ cheaper than the 8 core R7 1700X and for me it sounds like that I wouldn't really go down in performance when comparing those two processors in games at 3440x1440.

 

Oh and I mostly play games but I also do somewhat multitasking and look at media in various forms(movies, music, youtube, etc.).

 

I just want people's honest opinions.

 

Oh and my budget is kind of limitless but under 1000€ wouldn't hurt.  

[light-v]

If you play at 3440x1440 your GPU is definitely gonna be the bottleneck so you won't gain a huge performance boost over your current CPU. I've seen some benchmarks showing an Ivy Bridge outperforming a Ryzen 7 although it's pretty exceptional. Maybe consider upgrading if you want to do cpu intensive tasks or have modern features. Oh and RGB also 

[toastythomas]

Intel Core i5-7600k

[PCGuy_5960]

17 minutes ago, ZothOmmog said:

So now I've been looking at the KabyLake i7-7700K as an upgrade but now that Ryzen is out I'm like really unsure if it is at all a sane decision going for the i7 which in my country is only 50€ cheaper than the 8 core R7 1700X and for me it sounds like that I wouldn't really go down in performance when comparing those two processors in games at 3440x1440.

The 7700K wipes the floor with the 1700X in gaming applications. For gaming, the 7700K is the best CPU to get!

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, toastythomas said:

Intel Core i5-7600k

The 7700K is quite a bit better...

[toastythomas]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

The 7700K is quite a bit better...

I'm not saying it's not. His needs only really require an i5. He can save $100 and only lose a little performance. His daily workload is more GPU intensive than CPU intensive.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, toastythomas said:

I'm not saying it's not. His needs only really require an i5. He can save $100 and only lose a little performance. His daily workload is more GPU intensive than CPU intensive.

True. But the 7700K is better for gaming as well.... And he said that this is a gaming PC.....

[ZothOmmog]

3 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

The 7700K wipes the floor with the 1700X in gaming applications. For gaming, the 7700K is the best CPU to get!

Yes but I still think it sounds weird to buy the 7700K that has less cores and threads but more clock than the 1700X, that's my only point.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, ZothOmmog said:

Yes but I still think it sounds weird to buy the 7700K that has less cores and threads but more clock than the 1700X, that's my only point.

You want this PC for gaming, right? You don't need 8 Cores and 16 threads for gaming. Additionally, Ryzen doesn't perform well in games. If you want the best gaming performance, get the 7700K...

[Technomancer__]

in your case i would choose the 1070x as it will perform almost the same and ryzen is not optimized yet so latter on it will make less direrence.

since you are a 1440p resolutions you should be gpu bound rather than cpu.

 

i am going to buy the 1700x for myself. i game and also use it for productivity and streaming its the perfect fit

[ZothOmmog]

4 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

You want this PC for gaming, right? You don't need 8 Cores and 16 threads for gaming. Additionally, Ryzen doesn't perform well in games. If you want the best gaming performance, get the 7700K...

Well let's say that gaming would land at a steady 75%, so yes mainly it would be gaming but I've seen the benchmarks and in most cases there wasn't really a big difference between the 7700K and the 1700X but I've noted your recommendation.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, Ethocreeper said:

in your case i would choose the 1070x as it will perform almost the same and ryzen is not optimized yet so latter on it will make less direrence.

Ryzen's poor gaming performance cannot be attributed to lack of optimization... It is an architectural issue and it is very hard to fix...

2 minutes ago, Ethocreeper said:

since you are a 1440p resolutions you should be gpu bound rather than cpu.

Next generation GPUs will be 2x more powerful though..... 

 

BTW guys, what makes you think that an 8 core 16 thread CPU is meant for gaming? Ryzen is a productivity CPU!

[ZothOmmog]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

BTW guys, what makes you think that an 8 core 16 thread CPU is meant for gaming? Ryzen is a productivity CPU!

Well don't tell me that you are on Intel Core i7-5820K with a GTX 1060 and you are only doing productivity related tasks?

 

3 minutes ago, Nicholatian said:

And before there’s any more nonsense OP, @ZothOmmog, let me tell you one thing: Don’t be rushed by people on the forum, or fall into FUD spread by obvious fanboys like the one above. Sit down, take your time, look at the numbers, and buy something nice when it’s time to click that button. Far too many forum users would love more than anything to rush you into some bad decision out of their irrational preferences and brand loyalties and none of it makes any sense. You have the power to make the right decision here.

Oh yes but the thing is I've kind of waited already 6-7 months for this build, and I'm slowly but surely loosing it, or that is what it feels like..

[RagnarokDel]

25 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

You want this PC for gaming, right? You don't need 8 Cores and 16 threads for gaming. Additionally, Ryzen doesn't perform well in games. If you want the best gaming performance, get the 7700K...

That's irrelevant he's gaming at ultrawide 1440p. His bottleneck is always going to be GPU. a 1600, 1700 or even the 1400 are going to be plenty.

11 minutes ago, Nicholatian said:

But honestly, it’s all beside the point anyway. Intel’s hold on gamers will die when AMD releases competitors to the quad core realm in a couple of months anyway.

It's not even a couple months at this point. They're releasing in April.

 

 

[PCGuy_5960]

18 minutes ago, Nicholatian said:

I’d hardly call this “wiping the floor”, or these gaming results (since you so gratuitously assume gaming is all the OP cares about):

Look at 1080p benchmarks... 4K benchmarks don't show CPU performance AT ALL.

[PCGuy_5960]

13 minutes ago, ZothOmmog said:

Well don't tell me that you are on Intel Core i7-5820K with a GTX 1060 and you are only doing productivity related tasks?

I game at 1080p right now. However, I will get a 1080 in a few months

[PCGuy_5960]

21 minutes ago, Nicholatian said:

I’d hardly call this “wiping the floor”, or these gaming results (since you so gratuitously assume gaming is all the OP cares about):

 

21 minutes ago, Nicholatian said:

Please, stop trolling. Nobody thinks it’s funny or worth taking seriously, and you’re hurting the reputation of the community with this kind of nonsense. It makes us all look about as stupid as the Coke vs. Pepsi crowd.

 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, Nicholatian said:

Do you read? I thought you did, ‘cause you even reacted to the post above saying the OP is working at 1440p ultrawide. 1080p performance isn’t all that relevant unless you’re on 1080p.

Oh Really....? Next Generation GPUs will be 2x more powerful. Then, Ryzen will struggle to keep up at 1440p just like it does right now at 1080p...

[toastythomas]

@OP here's my last bit of wisdom. Go Intel if you're going to game more than anything else. Go AMD if you're going to be utilizing those cores. Encoding, streaming, etc. 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, Nicholatian said:

Congratulations on your kindergarten math, man.

Just one question... HOW POWERFUL IS THE 1080 Ti? As powerful as a 980 SLI. And Volta is supposed to be even more of an upgrade than Pascal is... So, a 2080 Ti (Or however they call it) will be as powerful as a 1080 SLI...

2 minutes ago, Nicholatian said:

If you want to continue shilling Intel, I couldn’t really care less at this point.

Stop assuming that I am an Intel fanboy because of my profile picture. I have it because it is blue, OK?

[PCGuy_5960]

22 minutes ago, Nicholatian said:

snip

Look, if the OP said that he would be rendering or doing a lot of heavy multitasking, I would have recommended the R7 CPU. But he is mostly gaming and the 7700K is better. Here is an explanation of why Ryzen's gaming performance is subpar (not bad):

Ryzen is not a "simple" 8 core die, it is a single die with dual quad core CCXs. The latency between cores on different CCXs is very high compared to the latency between cores on the same CCX. (Almost 3x higher). This is from PCPer's article:

Quote

While it was not our reason for performing this test, the results may provide a possible explanation for the relatively poor performance seen in some gaming workloads. Multithreaded media encoding and tests like Cinebench segment chunks of the workload across multiple threads. There is little inter-thread communication necessary as each chunk is sent back to a coordination thread upon completion. Games (and some other workloads we assume) are a different story as their threads are sharing a lot of actively changing data, and a game that does this heavily might incur some penalty if a lot of those communications ended up crossing between CCX modules. We do not yet know the exact impact this could have on any specific game, but we do know that communicating across Ryzen cores on different CCX modules takes twice as long as Intel's inter-core communication as seen in the examples above, and 2x the latency of anything is bound to have an impact.

This issue can be fixed if games are optimized to use up to 8 threads that belong to cores that are on the same CCX, so that the exchange of data between CCXs can be avoided. 

Anyway, @ZothOmmog, you can't go wrong with either of them. The 7700K will be better for gaming while the 1700X will ABSOLUTELY crush the 7700K in multitasking and productivity....

EDIT: Get the 1700 though... The 1700X is not worth the price premium....

[RagnarokDel]

29 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

 

3440x1440 = 4 953 600 pixels

1920x1080 =2 073 600 pixels

2 880 000 more pixels to display. or 138% more pixels

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, RagnarokDel said:

3440x1440 = 4 953 600 pixels

1920x1080 =2 073 600 pixels

2 880 000 more pixels to display. or 138% more pixels

Yes. Right now, there isn't much difference. But my concern is that Ryzen will bottleneck future GPUs (if the OP decides to upgrade). And this will be the case unless developers put some serious work into optimizing for Ryzen....

[RagnarokDel]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Yes. Right now, there isn't much difference. But my concern is that Ryzen will bottleneck future GPUs (if the OP decides to upgrade). And this will be the case unless developers put some serious work into optimizing for Ryzen....

Future games will work better with 8 core/16 Thread processors. Regardless of it they're optimized specifically for Ryzen, there's already games that scale beyond 4 cores and it's just going to become more so as we approach a wall in terms of single-threaded performance.

[PCGuy_5960]

7 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

Future games will work better with 8 core/16 Thread processors. Regardless of it they're optimized specifically for Ryzen, there's already games that scale beyond 4 cores and it's just going to become more so as we approach a wall in terms of single-threaded performance.

No, no.... Ryzen needs "special" optimization because it uses a very different CPU design:

32 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Ryzen is not a "simple" 8 core die, it is a single die with dual quad core CCXs. The latency between cores on different CCXs is very high compared to the latency between cores on the same CCX. (Almost 3x higher). This is from PCPer's article:

Quote

While it was not our reason for performing this test, the results may provide a possible explanation for the relatively poor performance seen in some gaming workloads. Multithreaded media encoding and tests like Cinebench segment chunks of the workload across multiple threads. There is little inter-thread communication necessary as each chunk is sent back to a coordination thread upon completion. Games (and some other workloads we assume) are a different story as their threads are sharing a lot of actively changing data, and a game that does this heavily might incur some penalty if a lot of those communications ended up crossing between CCX modules. We do not yet know the exact impact this could have on any specific game, but we do know that communicating across Ryzen cores on different CCX modules takes twice as long as Intel's inter-core communication as seen in the examples above, and 2x the latency of anything is bound to have an impact.

This issue can be fixed if games are optimized to use up to 8 threads that belong to cores that are on the same CCX, so that the exchange of data between CCXs can be avoided. Or if games use more than 16 threads, threads that need to talk to each other shouldn't be on different CCXs...

Edited March 15, 2017 by PCGuy_5960