Consistent Minimum CPU requirement

[SammyGoad]

5 hours ago, noobadin said:

Just save your money and get a 6c/12t or 8c/16t processor whenever you can afford it. Spending money on minimal processor upgrade seems kind of pointless. It's also worth noting that the recommended hardware specifications from developers are all over the place. Some of them are spot on others are way off in both directions. I would never use those to judge whether or not you need to upgrade. 

honestly I feel like if there isnt a sub $200 new cpu/mobo combo, my money would be better spent on a 1060, 970 or the like, Im not going to get almost anything for an old i5, but my GPU would fetch half the cost of a new upgrade card. 

[NoMercy]

Seriously dont get a R3. At least get a R5, otherwise just stay at what you have right now. 

Get a 1400.

[SammyGoad]

3 minutes ago, NoMercy said:

Seriously dont get a R3. At least get a R5, otherwise just stay at what you have right now. 

Get a 1400.

Lets consider for a moment that AM4 will be the standard for AMD for a few more process generations, When I upgrade to Ryzen 3, im not buying an amazing performance boost, I'm buying an upgrade path. I think the problem with the analogy of R3 to bulldozer is that the whole architecture is plagued by bad ipc and there is little upgrade path. With R3, $109(rumored) gets me in the door of a new generation without paying crazy intel tax or being forced down to like a pentium in their price range. 

[NoMercy]

16 minutes ago, SammyGoad said:

Lets consider for a moment that AM4 will be the standard for AMD for a few more process generations, When I upgrade to Ryzen 3, im not buying an amazing performance boost, I'm buying an upgrade path. I think the problem with the analogy of R3 to bulldozer is that the whole architecture is plagued by bad ipc and there is little upgrade path. With R3, $109(rumored) gets me in the door of a new generation without paying crazy intel tax or being forced down to like a pentium in their price range. 

But why not just save up?

 

I think your current system is still playable.

You are investing into something that gain little to no performance improvement.

 

I only think R3 is suitable for those who currently have no PC at all, and have tight budget. They can have a PC to use right now and still able to upgrade later. However you already have a PC, especially your PC performance is so close to R3.

 

It is for building new system, not for upgrade. Unless your system is pentium 4 or something.

[Damascus]

7 hours ago, MyName13 said:

ddr5 and pcie 4/5,

Both won't even be in manufacturers hands until around 2020 and it almost certainly won't make a huge difference for at least a generation or two, a 1080 tI saturates about 4-5 pcie lanes right now so it's highly unlikely that pcie 3.0 will be unusable anytime soon (plenty of Sandy bridge mobos runs x16 2.0 and it doesn't hurt them at all)

 

Also, Sandy bridge locked i7's are wonderful but the i5's not so much.

[SammyGoad]

2 hours ago, Damascus said:

Both won't even be in manufacturers hands until around 2020 and it almost certainly won't make a huge difference for at least a generation or two, a 1080 tI saturates about 4-5 pcie lanes right now so it's highly unlikely that pcie 3.0 will be unusable anytime soon (plenty of Sandy bridge mobos runs x16 2.0 and it doesn't hurt them at all)

 

Also, Sandy bridge locked i7's are wonderful but the i5's not so much.

background, my car got broken into and laptop stole, needed new pc, bought dell workstation on surplus from school with i5 2500 and have been slowly upgrading, the i5 is the last part left from that pc and its only $100 or less to upgrade. do you think i7 2600 will be better than r3?

[Damascus]

16 minutes ago, SammyGoad said:

i7 2600 will be better than r3

Yep.  But the 2600 will only outperform in high core count tasks.

 

Stop trying to justify wasting your money and save up for an r5 1600.  The 2600 is already running into a few issues with its lower IPC, clocks and dated interfaces.  You will regret the r3 almost immediately, IPC gains from intel have been about 2-5% per generation since Sandy bridge meaning you will be gaining, AT MOST, a grand total of about 5-10% per clock.

 

Buy a 1200 + mobo now for $150 and replace it in a year (when games start REALLY needing cores) or get a 1600 in 3 months for 210 that will last you 3-5 years.

 

Cost per year?

R5 1600

$210 / 5

$42 per year

 

R3 1200

150 / 1

$150 for one year of use before you need to spend another 150 on a better cpu.

[He_162]

14 minutes ago, Damascus said:

Yep.  But the 2600 will only outperform in high core count tasks.

 

Stop trying to justify wasting your money and save up for an r5 1600.  The 2600 is already running into a few issues with its lower IPC, clocks and dated interfaces.  You will regret the r3 almost immediately, IPC gains from intel have been about 2-5% per generation since Sandy bridge meaning you will be gaining, AT MOST, a grand total of about 5-10% per clock.

 

Buy a 1200 + mobo now for $150 and replace it in a year (when games start REALLY needing cores) or get a 1600 in 3 months for 210 that will last you 3-5 years.

 

Cost per year?

R5 1600

$210 / 5

$42 per year

 

R3 1200

150 / 1

$150 for one year of use before you need to spend another 150 on a better cpu.

Or up to 180 - 220$ (R5 1600)

I agree in your posts entirety, well said.

[SammyGoad]

28 minutes ago, Damascus said:

Yep.  But the 2600 will only outperform in high core count tasks.

 

Stop trying to justify wasting your money and save up for an r5 1600.  The 2600 is already running into a few issues with its lower IPC, clocks and dated interfaces.  You will regret the r3 almost immediately, IPC gains from intel have been about 2-5% per generation since Sandy bridge meaning you will be gaining, AT MOST, a grand total of about 5-10% per clock.

 

Buy a 1200 + mobo now for $150 and replace it in a year (when games start REALLY needing cores) or get a 1600 in 3 months for 210 that will last you 3-5 years.

 

Cost per year?

R5 1600

$210 / 5

$42 per year

 

R3 1200

150 / 1

$150 for one year of use before you need to spend another 150 on a better cpu.

im just gonna stick with what I got already then, thanks that math is pretty useful. I just wanted to highlight how terrible it is to try and quantify cpus aganist eachother since its impossible for sites like cpu boss  and other to do direct comparisons of cpus years apart with meaningful accuracy.

[Damascus]

Honestly you have a good year of life left on that cpu.  I actually recommend you save up until Nvidia Volta comes out and upgrade to a zen2/zen+ cpu + mobo and a gtx 2060/2070 (probably equivalent to a 1080 and 1080 ti respectively)

 

Basically if you can wait 1 year you will be able to get a gpu about as powerfull as a 1080 ti and a chip that will last for ages.

[MyName13]

6 hours ago, Damascus said:

Yep.  But the 2600 will only outperform in high core count tasks.

 

Stop trying to justify wasting your money and save up for an r5 1600.  The 2600 is already running into a few issues with its lower IPC, clocks and dated interfaces.  You will regret the r3 almost immediately, IPC gains from intel have been about 2-5% per generation since Sandy bridge meaning you will be gaining, AT MOST, a grand total of about 5-10% per clock.

 

Buy a 1200 + mobo now for $150 and replace it in a year (when games start REALLY needing cores) or get a 1600 in 3 months for 210 that will last you 3-5 years.

 

Cost per year?

R5 1600

$210 / 5

$42 per year

 

R3 1200

150 / 1

$150 for one year of use before you need to spend another 150 on a better cpu.

Instead of stupid combinations like 110$ CPU and 150$ motherboard it would be better to buy 1600 and A320 motherboard.By the way hexa cores won't be required as long as consoles have crappy jaguars, expect developers to require more than 4 cores after maybe 4 years from now.

[SammyGoad]

12 hours ago, MyName13 said:

Instead of stupid combinations like 110$ CPU and 150$ motherboard it would be better to buy 1600 and A320 motherboard.By the way hexa cores won't be required as long as consoles have crappy jaguars, expect developers to require more than 4 cores after maybe 4 years from now.

Consoles, the saviours of low spec pc gamers

[MyName13]

1 hour ago, SammyGoad said:

Consoles, the saviours of low spec pc gamers

Eh, they are the saviours of most (average) gamers (console gamers too), it's great for them but obviously not for those who invest huge amounts of money into pc gaming (which is why investing insane amounts of money into a PC is ridiculous since everything is ported from far far weaker consoles).

[asand1]

Use your birthday money and get an i7 2600. 4c/8t @3.4ghz will keep you happy for 3 or 4 years while you save or get a job and can build something three years newer with a higher budget.

[SammyGoad]

5 minutes ago, asand1 said:

 get a job 

 

WHAT THE FUCK, these babyboomers always on my back about being unemployed....jk I do work but I have a crippling fear of spending money(I literally once spent an hour and a half once in a grocery store worrying about buying lunch) and want to be as thrift as possible without falling into that valley where its just wasting money(ie the $69 computer)

 

UPDATE: I JUST MADE $30 SELLING A STEAM CONTROLLER,I COULD AFFORD A SINGLE STICK OF DDR4 RAM NOW

[asand1]

I'm a Gen Xr FYI Lol.

 

I assumed you were a teenager possibly too young to work yet. At any rate, i7 2600 would do you well. Ryzen would be better, but not enough to justify the extra expense.

[SammyGoad]

59 minutes ago, asand1 said:

I'm a Gen Xr FYI Lol.

 

I assumed you were a teenager possibly too young to work yet. At any rate, i7 2600 would do you well. Ryzen would be better, but not enough to justify the extra expense.

No just a lazy college grad, if the high end ryzen 3 chips kill it in game performance I may reconsider

[scottyseng]

On ‎7‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 11:35 PM, SammyGoad said:

Im just a thrift fiend, I feel like if I can just get a i7 2600k (4c/8t) for $100 that will last me a few years, I can focus more on graphics cards which play a bigger role in most games.

Yeah, I had this question a while ago...However, you have a locked motherboard. A 2600 would be a boost, but it would be a bandaid fix. If you had a Z77 / Z67 board however, the 2600K / 2700K are still viable today.

 

I had a 2500K (4.6 GHz) and it worked well, but I wanted just a bit of boost for day to day multitasking so I grabbed a 2700K (4.9 GHz) and it's been great to be honest. I was too cheap to have to buy new DDR4, a new motherboard, and the CPU (I would've went for 7700K, but that cost of upgrade...). However, when I upgraded last summer, there was no Ryzen 3 / 5. This makes it tougher for you.

 

Personally though, my 2500K and 2700K keeps up just fine with my 1070 / 980 Ti.