I5 2500k to Ryzen 1600x

[Jupsik]

My friend and I are in the process of upgrading our slightly outdated computers and wanted final clarity on the upgrade path. The goal is to in essence upgrade the entire system, including eventually the screen (currently we're using some junk 1080p 60hz screens)

 

So far we both upgraded our old r9 280x gpu's to an Asus strix 1080ti, which is still paired with our old cpus, I'm running a FX 8320 and he is running an i5-2500k (both on stock, my 8320 needs a small up in voltage just to run stable without an overclock and he simply doesn't care about overclocking). It would ("totally surprisingly") seem that we're experiencing some bottle-necking from the CPU side. As in the fans on the gpu are generally not running (excellent silent gaming by the way). So the next step is to upgrade the cpu's. Our use scenario is generally gaming, with a ton of other things running at the same time on the second screen - e.g. skype, youtube for music, twitch (currently no intention to stream) etc. 

 

It is our understanding that for that particular use scenario the ryzen 1600x would be preferable to the i5 7600, or at least more future proof. The logic being that while for "pure" gaming the i5 would be better, the use of other programs in parallel would push the ryzen ahead. Is this understanding correct? 

 

Subsequently we're thinking of getting new screens. The question is either 4k 60hz or 1440p 144hz. Currently we're leaning slightly towards the 1440hz simply because of the claimed responsiveness. Would this affected the cpu choice in any way?  

[LHJKO]

get the 1600 if you wanna save some money also 144hz  monitors are amazing i would go with the 1440p 

[Grovers1]

I think i would go with ryzen here, although i would save a bit of money and get the R5 1600 instead of the 1600X you can just overclock it the same

[JoostinOnline]

You'd want a 1600, not a 1600X.  They're basically the same CPU, but the X version has been "pre-overclocked", for lack of a better/real word.  There's no reason to buy an i5 new now, but that doesn't mean your friend's isn't relevant.  Unless you plan on getting high refresh rate monitors (100Hz+), he could stick with his i5 for awhile without noticing any real difference.  You definitely need an upgrade though.

 

I doubt you're being bottlenecked.  You're using a 4K gaming card for 1080p gaming. Its resources just aren't being used.  If you want to be sure, run CPUID HWMonitor in the background while you play a game.  Check if your CPU core usages are 100%.

[Zyndo]

6 minutes ago, Jupsik said:

Subsequently we're thinking of getting new screens. The question is either 4k 60hz or 1440p 144hz. Currently we're leaning slightly towards the 1440hz simply because of the claimed responsiveness. Would this affected the cpu choice in any way?  

Refresh rate will affect your choice of CPU massively. For example, if you opt to do 4k 60hz, I would say to just keep your current I5 2500k, as that will be enough for 4k 60hz gaming (you may still choose to upgrade your FX if you wish), however if you opt to go for a 144hz panel, then both the i5 and FX cpu will likely leave you with some fairly notable CPU bottlenecking in a large portion of AAA titles.

 

That being said, if you're both looking for a platform upgrade, evolving to a Ryzen based system for any kind of 4k gaming would likely be beneficial for your systems (especially if you're okay with overclocking) and should yield a significant enough performance improvement if paired with a 144hz panel over your FX and current stock i5. That being said if you really want to milk the most out of a high refresh rate monitor, you're going to want nothing short of a 7700k, as that will give you the most potential frames across the board.

 

 

Also, I highly recommend just getting the R5 1600, rather than 1600x. the 1600 comes with a stock cooler (1600x doesn't) and can be easily overclocked with said stock cooler to perform as well or better than the 1600x. not a lot of sense in spending a lot more money if its not going to be any better IMO (maybe your friend could get the 1600x if hes certain he doesn't want to overclock, but its so easy to do)

[Shimejii]

go 1440p 144hz, ryzen 1600x or 7700k for CPU, if you are just gaming go 7700k.

[Bananasplit_00]

What about the 7700K though? Also don't get the 1600x, get the 1600 and overclock 

[Dabombinable]

2 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

What about the 7700K though? Also don't get the 1600x, get the 1600 and overclock 

Or the i7 2700K as a direct upgrade path from the  i5 2500K.....

[JoostinOnline]

2 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

What about the 7700K though? Also don't get the 1600x, get the 1600 and overclock 

Just a guess, but if that was in his price range, he'd be asking about a 1700 vs a 7700k instead.

[NoMercy]

23 minutes ago, Jupsik said:

My friend and I are in the process of upgrading our slightly outdated computers and wanted final clarity on the upgrade path. The goal is to in essence upgrade the entire system, including eventually the screen (currently we're using some junk 1080p 60hz screens)

 

So far we both upgraded our old r9 280x gpu's to an Asus strix 1080ti, which is still paired with our old cpus, I'm running a FX 8320 and he is running an i5-2500k (both on stock, my 8320 needs a small up in voltage just to run stable without an overclock and he simply doesn't care about overclocking). It would ("totally surprisingly") seem that we're experiencing some bottle-necking from the CPU side. As in the fans on the gpu are generally not running (excellent silent gaming by the way). So the next step is to upgrade the cpu's. Our use scenario is generally gaming, with a ton of other things running at the same time on the second screen - e.g. skype, youtube for music, twitch (currently no intention to stream) etc. 

 

It is our understanding that for that particular use scenario the ryzen 1600x would be preferable to the i5 7600, or at least more future proof. The logic being that while for "pure" gaming the i5 would be better, the use of other programs in parallel would push the ryzen ahead. Is this understanding correct? 

 

Subsequently we're thinking of getting new screens. The question is either 4k 60hz or 1440p 144hz. Currently we're leaning slightly towards the 1440hz simply because of the claimed responsiveness. Would this affected the cpu choice in any way?  

For CPU, get 1600.

 

For monitor, if you like fps game, 1440p 144hz, other games then 4k 60hz.

[MechPilot524]

I think pairing a 1080 Ti with a Ryzen 5/7 is a bit overkill, I feel like it's going to be a bottleneck. I know a 980 Ti paired with my "old" 4790K (running stock, admittedly) saw the i7 holding the Ti back more often than not. But the only way you can really get better is an i7-7700K, roughly a $100 upgrade. It's got better IPC, while it doesn't have as many threads many games don't seem to mind. It also seems you can get more from an overclock on Kaby Lake, as Ryzen doesn't seem to want to clock much higher than 4GHz for the casual overclocker (eg. have a decent aircooler, increase vcore to be no more than 1.45 and crank the multiplier).

 

If you do go Ryzen, I agree with most of the guys here: save yourself some cash and go for a 1600, non-X. The 1600X is binned, but from what I've seen on Youtube benchmarks, most Ryzens will make it to, at the least, around 4GHz, and in every other regard they're the same. Also, in case you're thinking of going Ryzen 7, the gains in gaming are minimal, it seems you really only gain in heavily threaded applications like video editing.

 

TL;DR: The only Intel CPU I think you should get is an i7-7700K, more expensive but arguably the best you can get. If you don't want to spend that much, a Ryzen 5 1600 is the only way to go.

[JoostinOnline]

2 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Or the i7 2700K as a direct upgrade path from the  i5 2500K.....

Also a very good suggestion.  Here's one for $160.

[Jupsik]

Thank you all, the feedback has been incredibly helpful. We'll likely upgrade to ryzen then and keep our options open on the 1600x vs 1600 aspect. 

[MechPilot524]

2 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Also a very good suggestion.  Here's one for $160.

Not a bad idea, but the Ryzen 5 1600 definitely outperforms the 2600k and enough so to justify the lesser performance per dollar. Admittedly, the latter's starting to show its age. I'd argue that a Ryzen 5 1600 could compete with Devil's Canyon (4790k) based on some of the benchmarks in the Gamer's Nexus one linked below, and I think Sandy Bridge (maybe even Haswell) and earlier would fall behind.

 

Benchmarks:

MultiTechnopark

Gamers Nexus

[JoostinOnline]

6 minutes ago, MechPilot524 said:

Not a bad idea, but the Ryzen 5 1600 definitely outperforms the 2600k and enough so to justify the lesser performance per dollar. Admittedly, the latter's starting to show its age. I'd argue that a Ryzen 5 1600 could compete with Devil's Canyon (4790k) based on some of the benchmarks in the Gamer's Nexus one linked below, and I think Sandy Bridge (maybe even Haswell) and earlier would fall behind.

 

Benchmarks:

MultiTechnopark

Gamers Nexus

The 2600k is a better overclocker, so it's still an option to save money.  Of course, if his friend still doesn't have any interest in overclocking it's a moot point.

[Bananasplit_00]

39 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Or the i7 2700K as a direct upgrade path from the  i5 2500K.....

yah thats pretty decent option. but they seemed to be wanting to move to a newer platfrom.

 

39 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Just a guess, but if that was in his price range, he'd be asking about a 1700 vs a 7700k instead.

possiably but i thought id mention it anyway.

 

 

[Jupsik]

The 1700 and the 7700k were in principle also within the price range, but for some reason we never really considered them. Mainly due to both the 7700k and the 1600x delivering "similar" performance and meeting our baseline of what we'd consider acceptable and the 7700k being in essence like 100 eur more than the 1600x, (even more if the cost of the mobo is considered).

Also partially because as we understand, the 7700k shines due to the over-clocks it can achieve. However we don't plan on overclocking. Thus, the performance difference between them is less than the price difference, making the 1600x better for us.