Advice before upgrading to 6600K, (on budget)

[mahavishnuuuu]

Hi, I'd love some advice on upgrading my PC. The original build from a few years ago was a slim budget one with a H97 mobo, i3-4170, 600w BeQuiet PSU, 2x4GB HyperX DDR3, 2 salvaged SSD's and a free GPU from my brother - Radeon HD6950 1GB. It served me well for playing League and other non demanding games very well. I swapped the old GPU for a 1050 TI the other day, but noticed quickly that I must be having a CPU bottleneck, because in an old game like Red Orchestra/Rising Storm 1 on high settings only pushed the 1050 TI to only  40% but the CPU to above 70% or more on 2 cores + 2 hyperthreaded and I couldn't even get a soild 50 fps. Rising Storm 2 though, I get a solid 60 on custom settings, most lighting effects etc on high, and some detail settings on medium, with GPU working around 90% at all times, and CPU about the same, which tells me with my limited understanding that there's less of a bottleneck in this newer game?

What I'm wondering now is, will I ironically nottleneck the 1050 TI by getting a 6600K for overclocking to around 4 Ghz? Worst case  I can sell the 1050 and get a 1060 a bit later.

 

New build would be:

OC Mobo - 

6600K + Cooler @ 4 Ghz

1050 TI 4 GB

Old BeQuiet L8 600W PSU (Should still be good)

DDR4 RAM 8 Gb (never go over 6-7 usage )

Old SSD's

 

Thoughts?

 

Thanks heaps,

Simon

[Princess Luna]

To begin with the i3 8100 is fairly comparable to the i5 6600 ~ i5 7500 which is enough CPU horse power for a GTX 1060 but you'll be in a better platform for future upgrades as the i5 8400 already is on pair with the much more expensive i7 7700k

[cj09beira]

i would try to get a ryzen 6 core, as 4 core cpus are starting to show their weaknesses 

[Froody129]

Just get a used 4770/90 and have the same performance. Or as said above go 1600 or 8400. Depends what you want to spend really

[mahavishnuuuu]

9 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

To begin with the i3 8100 is fairly comparable to the i5 6600 ~ i5 7500 which is enough CPU horse power for a GTX 1060 but you'll be in a better platform for future upgrades as the i5 8400 already is on pair with the much more expensive i7 7700k

Thanks, I'm looking at the 8400 now, makes a lot of sense, and it's €184 here now.

[mahavishnuuuu]

20 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

To begin with the i3 8100 is fairly comparable to the i5 6600 ~ i5 7500 which is enough CPU horse power for a GTX 1060 but you'll be in a better platform for future upgrades as the i5 8400 already is on pair with the much more expensive i7 7700k

So would you say the 8400 would be running okay with the 1050 Ti, or will it be bottlenecking it? Depending on the games I guess...

[Princess Luna]

Just now, mahavishnuuuu said:

So would you say the 8400 would be running okay with the 1050 Ti, or will it be bottlenecking it? Depending on the games I guess...

an i5 8400 can Fully utilize the GTX 1050 Ti, you will use all of its full potential in whatever game you try out.

[mahavishnuuuu]

Thanks everyone for your time. I'm reconsidering this budget build, and will post another thread with the new one for your much valued input! 

Cheers

[Emberstone]

6 hours ago, cj09beira said:

i would try to get a ryzen 6 core, as 4 core cpus are starting to show their weaknesses 

If he’s gaming he should go Coffee Lake. Honestly, Ryzen’s single-thread performance isn’t that much better than the Haswell i3 unless he gets a good overclock, so many current and older games wouldn’t see much of an FPS increase.

 

I had an even older CPU with worse single-thread performance and was still disappointed by Ryzen in the end with a 4.0 GHz overclock and 2933 MHz memory.

 

However, something like an i5-8400 will ensure he doesn’t have to touch that PC for a good long time if he’s gaming. He also won’t have to deal with still rampant compatibility issues on Ryzen regarding memory speed.

 

(Not trying to hate on AMD; I still spent $600 upgrading to their platform. It just didn’t work out as I had hoped, and I don’t want someone else to feel burned like I did if they just want to play games.)

[cj09beira]

7 minutes ago, Emberstone said:

If he’s gaming he should go Coffee Lake. Honestly, Ryzen’s single-thread performance isn’t that much better than the Haswell i3 unless he gets a good overclock, so many current and older games wouldn’t see much of an FPS increase.

 

I had an even older CPU with worse single-thread performance and was still disappointed by Ryzen in the end with a 4.0 GHz overclock and 2933 MHz memory.

 

However, something like an i5-8400 will ensure he doesn’t have to touch that PC for a good long time if he’s gaming. He also won’t have to deal with still rampant compatibility issues on Ryzen regarding memory speed.

 

(Not trying to hate on AMD; I still spent $600 upgrading to their platform. It just didn’t work out as I had hoped, and I don’t want someone else to feel burned like I did if they just want to play games.)

i would trade the higher fps for the lack of stutters any day everyday, the problem with 4 core cpus is that although they give you high fps they run at near 100% which means you cant do much at the same time, and at least for me i do loads of stuff at the same time, (eg: right now i am replying to you while watching D. Peterson and mining crypto)

if i add a game to that my i5 cant do it. 

could you also elaborate on your gaming problems, how severe are they, do you run a high frequency monitor, did you get stutters before, do you get them now?

[Emberstone]

6 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

i would trade the higher fps for the lack of stutters any day everyday, the problem with 4 core cpus is that although they give you high fps they run at near 100% which means you cant do much at the same time, and at least for me i do loads of stuff at the same time, (eg: right now i am replying to you while watching D. Peterson and mining crypto)

if i add a game to that my i5 cant do it. 

could you also elaborate on your gaming problems, how severe are they, do you run a high frequency monitor, did you get stutters before, do you get them now?

The i5-8400 is a six-core though, so he wouldn't be dealing with the issues that something like an i5-7600K would have if he went that route.

 

Anyway, I'll pull a quote of mine from a different thread where I talked about my performance issues:

Quote

Heroes of the Storm saw some benefit going to Ryzen, but it wasn't enough to justify a brand new platform. Guild Wars 2 sees heavier dips during world events on Ryzen than my 980X did, and I've had to crank settings down in order to not sit at 15 fps during Tequatl or Auric Basin, but has a higher average out in the world. Destiny 2 (while not relevant in a gaming sense because it's Destiny 2, the point still stands) actually performs flat-out better on the 980X once I overclock it to 4.0 GHz. World of Warcraft's framerate is higher on average with Ryzen, but I see a lot more dips below 60 fps in raids than I used to which makes the experience pretty jarring and inconsistent like Guild Wars 2's is.

 

The only games I can think of that absolutely run justifiably better on my Ryzen setup are Doom 2016 and Overwatch, which both have exceptional multithreading support. MindBlankTech showed that Ryzen would actually outperform a 7700K in Overwatch at higher memory frequencies. On Ultra the lowest average I've gotten is like ~180 in Overwatch and I usually average around 200 in ordinary games, so the performance there is fantastic.

It was a matter of only a few games actually running better, and several either ran worse due to optimization problems (Destiny 2) or had greater FPS drops than I had on my previous platform, though they had higher averages.

 

The overall change in performance wasn't enough to justify the cost of upgrading at all, so I trashed it and just went for the best this time around instead of trying to cut corners and save money. And yes, I use a 144 Hz monitor.

[cj09beira]

18 minutes ago, Emberstone said:

The i5-8400 is a six-core though, so he wouldn't be dealing with the issues that something like an i5-7600K would have if he went that route.

 

Anyway, I'll pull a quote of mine from a different thread where I talked about my performance issues:

It was a matter of only a few games actually running better, and several either ran worse due to optimization problems (Destiny 2) or had greater FPS drops than I had on my previous platform, though they had higher averages.

 

The overall change in performance wasn't enough to justify the cost of upgrading at all, so I trashed it and just went for the best this time around instead of trying to cut corners and save money. And yes, I use a 144 Hz monitor.

i was more preaching "dont get a 4 core" than ryzen only.

so your problems are mostly with older games wich is interesting, as you seemed to be in a situation where ryzens weakness shine the brightest, by using old games and high frame rates.

i am probably going to get a ryzen+ cpu when they arrive, hopefully the increased frequency will be enough for the games i play (i have an 80 hz panel so not terribly demanding) and also have enough power for some good hwbot.org points

[mahavishnuuuu]

I'm actually thinking going all in and getting an 8700K with ASRock z370 Killer SLI(maybe should get a higher end one but costs a fortune..) and a 1070 Ti instead of the budget build, because I know I'll just get annoyed in a few years when I'll need to upgrade again. When it's time to upgrade and I if I haven't overclocked the CPU already, I'll do that and toss in another 1070 Ti in SLI (Hopefully I will have won the lottery by then) Checked a video just now with 1070 Ti SLI performance against the 1080 and it looked really promising for a few years, running most games on ultra. Sounds bueno?