Need guidance on CPU upgrade

[Frikken]

I'm looking to upgrade my CPU to something more modern (specs below). My current one isn't bad, but it is starting to show its age, particularly with running programs at 100% usage even after virus/malware checks & reinstalling Windows. I just need better and more reliable performance. Main usage will be gaming (modern games), video editing, photo editing, programming (web), and digital art.

 

Currently I'm looking at moving over to AMD with the 1800x. The higher core count and way better multi-core performance is very tempting. However, in wanting to be relatively future-proof, I'm also considering saving up a bit more to go for the i7-8700k, as it seems nearly double the performance of my current chip.

 

That being said, cost is where I really run into issues. I can't just upgrade the CPU and be fine. This upgrade to a newer generation of hardware means I'll be shelling out tons on a new motherboard and DDR4 RAM. After pricing out the Intel upgrade, I'm looking at about $1k in upgrades just for a few components, while the AMD upgrade is around $700.

 

Which one is really worth the plunge? I'm leaning more towards AMD since it's still faster and much cheaper, but the Intel tempts me for longer usage and not needing to upgrade for a while.

 

Current specs

• CPU: i5-4670K
• Motherboard: ASRock Fatal1ty H87
• RAM: 2x G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB
• GPU: Gigabyte GTX 970 4GB
• Case: NZXT H440 Red
• PSU: Corsair HX850 850W
• Cooling: NZXT Kraken
• Operating System: Windows 10 Pro

[PCGuy_5960]

10 minutes ago, Frikken said:

Currently I'm looking at moving over to AMD with the 1800x

Get a 1700 instead, it's a lower clocked 1800X and you can easily overclock it to 3.9-4GHz (or 3.7-3.9 if you are using the stock cooler).  

 

Although a used 4790K would be a good option if you want something cheaper.

[Herman Mcpootis]

3 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Get a 1700 instead, it's a lower clocked 1800X and you can easily overclock it to 3.9-4GHz using the stock cooler.  

the stock cooler's decent, but i don't think it's THAT good

[katoptrys]

The X variants of the Ryzen chips aren't worth it. Go for a 1700, and overclock it manually, you'll get about the same results plus a pretty decent cooler. 

[Frikken]

10 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Get a 1700 instead, it's a lower clocked 1800X and you can easily overclock it to 3.9-4GHz (or 3.7-3.9 if you are using the stock cooler).  

 

Although a used 4790K would be a good option if you want something cheaper.

I'm looking for at least 6 cores and something modern, so the 4790k is not an option. As for the 1700, how close is it to the 1800x? Factoring in overclocking for both, is there a significant difference?

[johnukguy]

The 1700/1700X are not far off the 1800's at all and really there is no justification for the 1800X. If you are looking at  the Ryzen 1700 right now, and are in the US near a Microcenter or a Staples, you can get a 1700X for $230 or $209 respectively.

 

[Droidbot]

3 hours ago, Frikken said:

I'm looking for at least 6 cores and something modern, so the 4790k is not an option. As for the 1700, how close is it to the 1800x? Factoring in overclocking for both, is there a significant difference?

Zen hits a massive OC wall at 4Ghz. Some lucky chips are getting to 4.1 and 4.2 but that's rare and requires a lot of volts. 

 

1700 is much better value when OC'd

[Frikken]

1 hour ago, johnukguy said:

The 1700/1700X are not far off the 1800's at all and really there is no justification for the 1800X. If you are looking at  the Ryzen 1700 right now, and are in the US near a Microcenter or a Staples, you can get a 1700X for $230 or $209 respectively.

 

I don't live near any of those stores so my options are limited to online stores (Current PC shops in my town charge insanely high prices).

1 hour ago, Droidbot said:

Zen hits a massive OC wall at 4Ghz. Some lucky chips are getting to 4.1 and 4.2 but that's rare and requires a lot of volts. 

 

1700 is much better value when OC'd

After looking into it, I definitely see that they're pretty close. I think I might be going with that or the 1700x as it's only $10 more

[brob]

6 hours ago, Frikken said:

...

Currently I'm looking at moving over to AMD with the 1800x. The higher core count and way better multi-core performance is very tempting. However, in wanting to be relatively future-proof, I'm also considering saving up a bit more to go for the i7-8700k, as it seems nearly double the performance of my current chip.

...

 

Ryzen does not have "way better multi-core performance". There is not data to support the suggestion that Ryzen is much better at thread switching. Nor is there any data to suggest that Ryzen performs better than same-core count Intel cpu. Ryzen 7 cpu do have more cores than Intel. But Intel cores have higher IPC.

 

An i7-8700K is going to provide higher performance in gaming and other lightly threaded apps like photo editing.

 

[johnukguy]

Have you been living under a rock for the last year?
 

 

[Frikken]

15 hours ago, brob said:

 

Ryzen does not have "way better multi-core performance". There is not data to support the suggestion that Ryzen is much better at thread switching. Nor is there any data to suggest that Ryzen performs better than same-core count Intel cpu. Ryzen 7 cpu do have more cores than Intel. But Intel cores have higher IPC.

 

An i7-8700K is going to provide higher performance in gaming and other lightly threaded apps like photo editing.

 

The better multi-core performance is in comparison to my current CPU, not the 8700k. I acknowledged in that quote that the 8700k would be a more expensive but faster chip that would last me longer, but as I said the downside was the massive increase in cost.

6 hours ago, johnukguy said:

Have you been living under a rock for the last year?

This kind of comment is unnecessary. You could have just linked the video and been fine, but you chose to be rude for no reason. To answer your question, I work 2 jobs and see almost no free time to sit around and watch tech videos unless I'm specifically looking to upgrade. I didn't need to upgrade until now, therefore I didn't keep up with the latest trends.

[brob]

41 minutes ago, Frikken said:

The better multi-core performance is in comparison to my current CPU, not the 8700k. I acknowledged in that quote that the 8700k would be a more expensive but faster chip that would last me longer, but as I said the downside was the massive increase in cost.

...

I guess I misunderstood the comment.

 

Is your current motherboard BIOS one of the ones that allows overclocking?

 

[Frikken]

12 minutes ago, brob said:

Is your current motherboard BIOS one of the ones that allows overclocking?

 

Yes, and mine is overclocked to 4Ghz. But it's just not performing as well as it used to, whether that's due to wear or the increased resource usage many programs have now. Things like Chrome will frequently run at 100% usage and trying to play games with something like Twitch or Youtube is a nightmare. Photoshop and Premiere are pretty sluggish too, which never used to be the case. That's why I want to get something that can handle multi-tasking, but it's a question of which is the better investment for the price.

[brob]

2 minutes ago, Frikken said:

 

Yes, and mine is overclocked to 4Ghz. But it's just not performing as well as it used to, whether that's due to wear or the increased resource usage many programs have now. Things like Chrome will frequently run at 100% usage and trying to play games with something like Twitch or Youtube is a nightmare. Photoshop and Premiere are pretty sluggish too, which never used to be the case. That's why I want to get something that can handle multi-tasking, but it's a question of which is the better investment for the price.

 

Odd that Chrome would run the cpu at 100%. Is system drive an ssd and is it getting full?

[Frikken]

10 minutes ago, brob said:

 

Odd that Chrome would run the cpu at 100%. Is system drive an ssd and is it getting full?

It is an SSD, but It's strictly for important programs and still has around 50GB left (500GB capacity)

[brob]

Just now, Frikken said:

It is an SSD, but It's strictly for important programs and still has around 50GB left (500GB capacity)

 

You might check your ssd performance. If for example the ssd is a Samsung 840 Evo, it might need a firmware update to handle a bug that impacted performance as the drive filled up.

 

As to which cpu to switch to, if possible I would wait a bit longer. I expect there will be some realigning of products by both AMD and Intel in the first part of next year.

 

[Dreaper]

23 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

-snip-

 

23 hours ago, Frikken said:

-snip-

I have a 4790k for sale that i could get you

[johnukguy]

On 11/21/2017 at 7:08 AM, Frikken said:

 

 

On 11/21/2017 at 7:08 AM, Frikken said:

 

This kind of comment is unnecessary. You could have just linked the video and been fine, but you chose to be rude for no reason. To answer your question, I work 2 jobs and see almost no free time to sit around and watch tech videos unless I'm specifically looking to upgrade. I didn't need to upgrade until now, therefore I didn't keep up with the latest trends.

Are you 12 years old or something?  I don't care what excuses you make for being technically ignorant. Grow up and stop whining.