R5 3600 upgrade?

[ManofGod]

Ok, I have been toying with the idea in the thread title and would like your opinion please. This is what I have:

R5 2600 at 4.0 GHz, Asrock B450 Fatality Gaming mITX, MSI RX 5700 Reference Card and an MSI 1440p 144hz 27 inch monitor.

R5 1600 at 3.9 Ghz, Asrock AB350 Fatality Gaming mITX, MSI Vega 56 Reference Card and a MSI 1080p 144hz 27 inch monitor.

R7 1700 at 3.7 Ghz, Asrock Taichi X370, Powercolor RX580 and a 43 inch Samsung 4k TV as a monitor.

I was thinking of picking up the 3600, swapping the 2600 with that, swap the 1600 with the 2600, swap the 1700 with the 1600, since I get 200 or so Mhz better clock speed with it and then sell my 1700. What do you guys think?

So far, I have seen reviews that say it is probably worth it for gaming and definitely worth it for productivity. However, what do you guys think, since I am not sure if spending the $200 is worth it or not. Oh, and I have 16GB of ram in each computer and plenty of SSD space in each one.

 

[defaultluser]

It's up to 20% faster performance in everything. Whether that is worth $200 to you is your call.

The performance difference between the 2600 and 1600 is a lot smaller, and really not worth it (under 5%). And the 1700 is faster than the 1600, even with a tiny 200mhz (5%) clock difference. it's got 8 cores, and is thus 30% faster in productivity apps.

 

[ManofGod]

It's 20% faster performance in everything. Whether that is worth $200 to you is your call.

The performance difference between the 2600 and 1600 is a lot smaller, and really not worth it (under 5%). And the 1700 is faster than the 1600, even with a tiny 200mhz (5%) clock difference. it's got 8 cores, and is thus 30% faster in productivity apps.

i agree that it is up to me. I presently own all 3 of those builds and will for a long while. As for the 3600, what do you think personally? Also, I can swap the 2600 in the place of the 1600, since I game at 1080p 144hz on that computer.

 

[defaultluser]

i agree that it is up to me. I presently own all 3 of those builds and will for a long while. As for the 3600, what do you think personally?

It's not like you have to rush off and buy, unless you have a game holding you up on performance? Your 1700 8-core should scores identical to the 3600 in higher thread count applications, so not much of a gain there.

Why not wait until they are on sale next year? Then you could afford a 3700x, which is the future of console gaming (and will give you 50% higher performance over your 2600 in threaded applications)?

For processors, it's never worth it to jump by 20%, because that's barely noticeable.

Also, I can swap the 2600 in the place of the 1600, since I game at 1080p 144hz on that computer.

They have the exact same architecture, just slightly higher clocks.. If they are overclocked and are only 100mhz apart, they are indistinguishable.

You are splitting noise hairs at this point, a pointless Progress Quest for the sake of having the best numbers, while having no clue how little those numbers mean.

 

[ManofGod]

It's not like you have to rush off and buy, unless you have a game holding you up on performance? Your 1700 8-core should scores identical to the 3600 in higher thread count applications, so not much of a gain there.

Why not wait until they are on sale next year? Then you could afford a 3700x, which is the future of console gaming (and will give you 50% higher performance over your 2600 in threaded applications)?

For processors, it's never worth it to jump by 20%, because that's barely noticeable.




They have the exact same architecture, just slightly higher clocks.. If they are clocked 100mhz apart, they are indistinguishable.

You are splitting noise hairs at this point, a pointless Progress Quest for the sake of having the best numbers, while having no clue how little those numbers mean.

Well that, and I always love to upgrade. Chances are, I will probably wait, thanks.

 

[DrDoU]

hold off till they work the bugs out and buy a 8 core processor or what ever you choose. i'm just waiting and will probably buy a 3700x or maybe wait for the next round of zen processor's

 

[defaultluser]

Well that, and I always love to upgrade. Chances are, I will probably wait, thanks.

Yeah, Zen 2 is tempting for new buyers, but it's s still overpriced for the "value" upgrade crowd.

The only time I up[graded a processor in recent years was from a Core i3 3225 to a used Core i5 3570k. It got me almost 20% faster single-thread, and moving from 2 to 4 cores meant 70 faster performance in multithreaded apps, and last year I picked it up for half the $120 extra it would have cost me on release.

That's the kind of "upgrade" you should look for - since the core race is still going strong, you should aim to add more cores each time you upgrade.

 

[gerardfraser]

I swapped out a 2600X to 3600X and some games gained a few FPS and other nothing at 1440P. I would swap it again ,so price difference did not bother me.

I did quick search on the youtube Ryzen 2600 Vs Ryzen 3600 with AMD RX5700 @1440P with a Ryzen 1700X tossed in on CPU bench of game.

 

[somebrains]

Recording or streaming at decent bitrate go 8 core.

If you are just playing, do nothing until next year when 3700x is slated for eol.
The games I play can have a 50+ FPS spread depending on where you look on the map at a given time so 1700x or 2600 the only way I can tell what is “better” is by watching the game footage.
A few years after 8core consoles we might see enough change in gaming to warrant looking toward core ct, but not right now.

 

[crazycrave]

This was a replacement for 1600 and I only put the RX 570 8Gb to get it stable on a new board I flashed .. Sometime happen on upload with audio so I don't know there but I really like how it plays GTA V with that cheap video card and wonder how much v ram can you make this game push ? as I try to learn this game with key board driving skills lol .



= unlocked sync

 

[somebrains]

Can you turn down/off quality settings to get that framerate up?
If I was that low cpu use vs gpu pegged, it'd freak me out.

If the choice was to buy a 3600 or sell the rx and see whatever I could get for $250-300, gpu upgrade is what I would have gone for keeping the 1600.

There is stuttering, I ended up swapping out my 2600 for a 1700x and that went away.

 

[somebrains]

You "push" ram by overclocking it, or do you mean crank up quality settings so it fills it.

Totally confused by what you're trying to do.

 

[defaultluser]

Can you turn down/off quality settings to get that framerate up?
If I was that low cpu use vs gpu pegged, it'd freak me out.

If the choice was to buy a 3600 or sell the rx and see whatever I could get for $250-300, gpu upgrade is what I would have gone for keeping the 1600.

There is stuttering, I ended up swapping out my 2600 for a 1700x and that went away.

Well, yes: certain games like Battlefield 5 are famously limited to just 6 cores, while others (Source Engine games like Apex Legends) are almost unlimited, so adding 2 more cores can have a significant effect (depending ion the game!)

Or if you encode video for live streaming, that can add additional overhead to multiplayer gaming.

These games with better per-core scaling will keep growing in number. That is one of the reasons I recommend you always grab more cores when you upgrade.

 

[dragonstongue]

I am very very happy with my 3600 purchase, no problems to report, if anything, I seem to be getting above regular stable settings vs others using same/similar chip in the motherboard I am using (pre-beta current Bios/Agesa v13 version instead of 12 (2nd release after initial launch version) where current offering is v14 (just downloaded to a USB..not 100% sure I want to screw with something working, though, I would <3 my Wifi back was either MSFT update or the "not official" Agesa version "caught" by MSFT so the WiFi "shafted"...

either way, 3600 is a damn fine chip, 2600 also "was" and still is in it's own right.

as for the 8 core over 6 faster (for most part) .. beyond some outliers or streaming and high FPS etc, I would say 1700 over 3600 is "a loss", but 2600 vs 1700 likely puts the 1700 back in "better light" given they are actual able to "gain" from overclock, where 2600 and 3600 are very end of wall as it stands.

best of luck and hope "idea" bears fruit
(also, GTA V for a test thingy, probably not best IMO, maybe as part of your test stuff, sure however, a 1700 not stutter but a 2600 does, says something amiss with setting/tuning...yes 2 cores matter, though with the speed "gain" 2600 and 1700 should be "neck and neck" beyond high res stream AND play..then 2 core (4 thread) world to "gain" even if a hair "slower" least it has extra muscle when need)

though I personal still on fence when "get as many cores possible, that is where things are going"

took YEARS before single to dual became "worth it" dual to quad almost same time, 4 to 8 core (quadruple threads) absolute some things can/will take advantage of...IMO seems the 6 core 12 thread chips are the "new" quad cores from what ~6-8 years back (time flies, hard to tell) most part, the extra core/thread seem extra cost little gain that one cannot "tweak" get near same good chunk less $

o7

 

[ManofGod]

It's up to 20% faster performance in everything. Whether that is worth $200 to you is your call.

The performance difference between the 2600 and 1600 is a lot smaller, and really not worth it (under 5%). And the 1700 is faster than the 1600, even with a tiny 200mhz (5%) clock difference. it's got 8 cores, and is thus 30% faster in productivity apps.

I am very very happy with my 3600 purchase, no problems to report, if anything, I seem to be getting above regular stable settings vs others using same/similar chip in the motherboard I am using (pre-beta current Bios/Agesa v13 version instead of 12 (2nd release after initial launch version) where current offering is v14 (just downloaded to a USB..not 100% sure I want to screw with something working, though, I would <3 my Wifi back was either MSFT update or the "not official" Agesa version "caught" by MSFT so the WiFi "shafted"...

either way, 3600 is a damn fine chip, 2600 also "was" and still is in it's own right.

as for the 8 core over 6 faster (for most part) .. beyond some outliers or streaming and high FPS etc, I would say 1700 over 3600 is "a loss", but 2600 vs 1700 likely puts the 1700 back in "better light" given they are actual able to "gain" from overclock, where 2600 and 3600 are very end of wall as it stands.

best of luck and hope "idea" bears fruit
(also, GTA V for a test thingy, probably not best IMO, maybe as part of your test stuff, sure however, a 1700 not stutter but a 2600 does, says something amiss with setting/tuning...yes 2 cores matter, though with the speed "gain" 2600 and 1700 should be "neck and neck" beyond high res stream AND play..then 2 core (4 thread) world to "gain" even if a hair "slower" least it has extra muscle when need)

though I personal still on fence when "get as many cores possible, that is where things are going"

took YEARS before single to dual became "worth it" dual to quad almost same time, 4 to 8 core (quadruple threads) absolute some things can/will take advantage of...IMO seems the 6 core 12 thread chips are the "new" quad cores from what ~6-8 years back (time flies, hard to tell) most part, the extra core/thread seem extra cost little gain that one cannot "tweak" get near same good chunk less $

o7

Well, for gaming, what do you think about swapping the 1600 and 1700 around? By putting the 1600 in the X370 Taichi, I should be able to get 4.0 GHz and the 1700 at 3.7 GHz would be used with the Vega 56 instead at 1080p 144hz.

I am not really concerned with the RX 580 running on my 4k tv since none of the cards run at 4k all that well, except for older games. (That and there is no freesync on that Samsung 4k tv.)

 

[dragonstongue]

1600 for 1700 if 2 extra core + thread helpful, why not..otherwise, I would stay 1700 maybe voltage tune (if wants)

my one brother is stock 1700 with 1070 and/or 1080Ti with zero issues..I imagine 1600 will play "nearly as well" better/worse, only test will tell....

---------------------

1600 "perfect" for watts and performance "budget gaming" sort of speak IMO
1700 similar but work performance ability as well (maybe keep power down bit so u gain 2 extra core 4 extra thread .. I believe at this point, Ryzen 1xxx are as "tuneable" as they likely ever will be (min as well exotic .. I could very well be wrong)

anything from 2k or 3k Ryzen line follows similar path, to me that is
i.e the "new" quad core are the 6 cores especially the 36xx range, pretty much made "moot" for the average person (gamer) to go above this...truly...UNLESS absolute need more oomph to drive more things (at same time)

I believe 38/39xx are "more focused" on this aspect, at least as good game/stream performance AND chunk left over (help keep power/temps down..though...not everyone has $300+ to throw on CPU alone when the one saves $50 works "just as good" for MOST...

I just did update from v13 (unoffical prior to release current spec v14 MSI version for x570 edge)

I pretty much lost ALL ability for manual set memory, even one notch higher..which sux, but I did get back my Wi-Fi using exact same installer I did over 3 Bios/Agesa versions (not had dayt 1 version, mine stock was v10 (first 1003a version best I can tell) went abb (v12) was yanked and current replace is not exact same as prior to yank, v14 is current ABBA or whatever AMD etc calling such....not 100% sure "how good it is" but, was major pain in the arse....

net seems final work, and my Bios update seems "settle in" but ONLY when more or less default/auto or it "freaks out" and wants to restore Win10 among other wonky things)

I kind of liked running my 3200 memory "tuned" to 3600 speed...still fast chip, and cool running ^.^

 

[crazycrave]

Can you turn down/off quality settings to get that framerate up?
If I was that low cpu use vs gpu pegged, it'd freak me out.

If the choice was to buy a 3600 or sell the rx and see whatever I could get for $250-300, gpu upgrade is what I would have gone for keeping the 1600.

There is stuttering, I ended up swapping out my 2600 for a 1700x and that went away.

If cpu usage is high then it's almost not enough cpu for the job is my understanding on the subject

and if gpu usage is low then it's waiting for a faster cpu as some frames may need more time to complete .

You "push" ram by overclocking it, or do you mean crank up quality settings so it fills it.

Totally confused by what you're trying to do.

The meaning was game usage as to be an 8Gb card and it's using 4.6Gb at 1080p now , so it can take more textures like RD 2 has texture packs .

 

[somebrains]

I mean as a new Zen2 owner I'd be annoyed that my gpu useage was pegged and my CPU useage was that low going by your osd output.

 

[ManofGod]

1600 for 1700 if 2 extra core + thread helpful, why not..otherwise, I would stay 1700 maybe voltage tune (if wants)

my one brother is stock 1700 with 1070 and/or 1080Ti with zero issues..I imagine 1600 will play "nearly as well" better/worse, only test will tell....

---------------------

1600 "perfect" for watts and performance "budget gaming" sort of speak IMO
1700 similar but work performance ability as well (maybe keep power down bit so u gain 2 extra core 4 extra thread .. I believe at this point, Ryzen 1xxx are as "tuneable" as they likely ever will be (min as well exotic .. I could very well be wrong)

anything from 2k or 3k Ryzen line follows similar path, to me that is
i.e the "new" quad core are the 6 cores especially the 36xx range, pretty much made "moot" for the average person (gamer) to go above this...truly...UNLESS absolute need more oomph to drive more things (at same time)

I believe 38/39xx are "more focused" on this aspect, at least as good game/stream performance AND chunk left over (help keep power/temps down..though...not everyone has $300+ to throw on CPU alone when the one saves $50 works "just as good" for MOST...

I just did update from v13 (unoffical prior to release current spec v14 MSI version for x570 edge)

I pretty much lost ALL ability for manual set memory, even one notch higher..which sux, but I did get back my Wi-Fi using exact same installer I did over 3 Bios/Agesa versions (not had dayt 1 version, mine stock was v10 (first 1003a version best I can tell) went abb (v12) was yanked and current replace is not exact same as prior to yank, v14 is current ABBA or whatever AMD etc calling such....not 100% sure "how good it is" but, was major pain in the arse....

net seems final work, and my Bios update seems "settle in" but ONLY when more or less default/auto or it "freaks out" and wants to restore Win10 among other wonky things)

I kind of liked running my 3200 memory "tuned" to 3600 speed...still fast chip, and cool running ^.^

Ok, thanks. I will thinking of putting the 1700 in the AB350 Fatality gaming board with my Vega 56 for better 1080p 144hz gaming. Then I could just keep the 1600 with my RX580 in my X370 Taichi board. I just like messing around, swapping things around and testing.

 

[crazycrave]

I mean as a new Zen2 owner I'd be annoyed that my gpu useage was pegged and my CPU useage was that low going by your osd output.

I understand now your meaning now lol .. newegg offered the 3600 for $189 last week and kind of says maybe Black Friday will be a better price coming and kind of makes you wonder why the sale if AMD is having issues getting 7nm from TSMC

 

[ManofGod]

1600 for 1700 if 2 extra core + thread helpful, why not..otherwise, I would stay 1700 maybe voltage tune (if wants)

my one brother is stock 1700 with 1070 and/or 1080Ti with zero issues..I imagine 1600 will play "nearly as well" better/worse, only test will tell....

---------------------

1600 "perfect" for watts and performance "budget gaming" sort of speak IMO
1700 similar but work performance ability as well (maybe keep power down bit so u gain 2 extra core 4 extra thread .. I believe at this point, Ryzen 1xxx are as "tuneable" as they likely ever will be (min as well exotic .. I could very well be wrong)

anything from 2k or 3k Ryzen line follows similar path, to me that is
i.e the "new" quad core are the 6 cores especially the 36xx range, pretty much made "moot" for the average person (gamer) to go above this...truly...UNLESS absolute need more oomph to drive more things (at same time)

I believe 38/39xx are "more focused" on this aspect, at least as good game/stream performance AND chunk left over (help keep power/temps down..though...not everyone has $300+ to throw on CPU alone when the one saves $50 works "just as good" for MOST...

I just did update from v13 (unoffical prior to release current spec v14 MSI version for x570 edge)

I pretty much lost ALL ability for manual set memory, even one notch higher..which sux, but I did get back my Wi-Fi using exact same installer I did over 3 Bios/Agesa versions (not had dayt 1 version, mine stock was v10 (first 1003a version best I can tell) went abb (v12) was yanked and current replace is not exact same as prior to yank, v14 is current ABBA or whatever AMD etc calling such....not 100% sure "how good it is" but, was major pain in the arse....

net seems final work, and my Bios update seems "settle in" but ONLY when more or less default/auto or it "freaks out" and wants to restore Win10 among other wonky things)

I kind of liked running my 3200 memory "tuned" to 3600 speed...still fast chip, and cool running ^.^

Well, I swapped and so far, using the 1700 in games, over the 1600, is sometimes better and sometimes a little worse but not by much. Since I have them both, I figured it would be fun to just screw around and find out.

 

[somebrains]

I'm off the 2600 and on a 1700x just bc BO4 is slamming my 6-core after that last zombie foggy update. I seem to be sensitive to game updates, nothing is worse than figuring out why your snipes don't hit one week after a month of lasering everyone across the Blackout map.

Then I noticed you do want the extra 2-cores when recording.

My 1080ti rarely gets taxed, and MW beta was a cleaner less resource intensive experience even playing Ground War.

 

[tangoseal]

I have a 3600 and its a literal monster of a CPU.

I also have a 3900x and I cant tell the difference in gaming between the two at all.

 

[crazycrave]

I have a 3600 and its a literal monster of a CPU.

I also have a 3900x and I cant tell the difference in gaming between the two at all.

I don't think a lot of people understand 32Mb of L3 is unheard for $200

 

[readeh]

Just put two ryzen systems together yesterday.
One with a R7 1700x and the other with a R5 3600x and they honestly run great! I played Apex last night on the 1700x at 1440p and it was keeping my 1080ti at an almost constant 165 fps with very few dips to 155 fps that wasn't noticeable at all which is weird because on my 7700K I can feel immediately when i drop 3-5 fps on a 165hz monitor which is almost feels a little like "microlag". I actually think I have higher minimum fps with the 1700x as well.
Overall an incredibly smooth experience on the R7 1700x which eventually will be paired with a EVGA gtx 1070 FTW when I get it back from RMA.

I came home from vacation Monday and found out my 2080ti had been fried, although my system worked when taking out the GPU and plugging displayport directly in the motherboard.. Figured I'd just throw a 1070 in it instead but it instantly fried that card as well lol.. Tough week! But honestly really impressed with the ryzen build now that my main build is dead.

 

[tangoseal]

Just put two ryzen systems together yesterday.
One with a R7 1700x and the other with a R5 3600x and they honestly run great! I played Apex last night on the 1700x at 1440p and it was keeping my 1080ti at an almost constant 165 fps with very few dips to 155 fps that wasn't noticeable at all which is weird because on my 7700K I can feel immediately when i drop 3-5 fps on a 165hz monitor which is almost feels a little like "microlag". I actually think I have higher minimum fps with the 1700x as well.
Overall an incredibly smooth experience on the R7 1700x which eventually will be paired with a EVGA gtx 1070 FTW when I get it back from RMA.

I came home from vacation Monday and found out my 2080ti had been fried, although my system worked when taking out the GPU and plugging displayport directly in the motherboard.. Figured I'd just throw a 1070 in it instead but it instantly fried that card as well lol.. Tough week! But honestly really impressed with the ryzen build now that my main build is dead.

Frying GPUS ouch. bad mobo? PSU?

The 1700x is probably feeling smoother than the 7700k due to the extra 8 threads of the 8 core AMD. The 7700k is so yesteryear and is so obsolete moving forward. The days of single threaded game engines are over. AMD has seen to that with the release of really high core count consumer CPUs as well as next gen consoles having 8 plus cores minumum. Even console to PC ports are going to be multithreaded. Also the 3rd Gen Zen cores are faster in single thread overall than the 7700k. This is proved time and time again in benchmarks.

Thus the 7700k should be sold right now to get the most money for it that you can. Otherwise its just another quad core that isn't going to hang with the big boys any longer.

The r5 3600 is going to be about 25-30% faster if not more core for core due to the highly refined architecture and process over the 1st gen Ryzen.

For instance my 3900x 12 core is faster at literally EVERYTHING, including benchmarks than my 2950x Threadripper was. It turns higher benchmarks and far superior gaming performance with 8 less threads due to the insanely increased cache and 7nm refined arch.

In respect to the 3600 amd, as another member said, they dont think people understand what getting 32MB of l3 cache is for $200. They have no damn idea how much a value that is.

 

[somebrains]

Black Friday deals better be good this year, otherwise I'll go Zen2 when Zen2+ or zen3 is announced and you guys dump your current builds.
Also B550 got leaked on a couple sites in oem HP skus.

 

[sirmonkey1985]

Frying GPUS ouch. bad mobo? PSU?

The 1700x is probably feeling smoother than the 7700k due to the extra 8 threads of the 8 core AMD. The 7700k is so yesteryear and is so obsolete moving forward. The days of single threaded game engines are over. AMD has seen to that with the release of really high core count consumer CPUs as well as next gen consoles having 8 plus cores minumum. Even console to PC ports are going to be multithreaded. Also the 3rd Gen Zen cores are faster in single thread overall than the 7700k. This is proved time and time again in benchmarks.

what is with everyones fixation of next gen consoles being multi-threaded.. uh welcome to 2005 when the xbox 360 was released with a tri-core cpu and games were still being released with single and dual thread only engines other than a handful of games... welcome to 2013 when the xbox 1 and ps4 were released with an 8 core processor that guess what, the same handful of game dev's in 2005 that released games that actually used all 3 cores on the xbox 360 are the still the only developers releasing games that used the 7 available cores on the xbox 1.. yup that's right nothing changed..

consoles don't drive thread usage in the gaming industry, they hold them back because the processor is never the limiting factor of consoles.

 

[tangoseal]

Edit* sorry for typos and there are many. Used cellphone and big meat beaters lol

what is with everyones fixation of next gen consoles being multi-threaded.. uh welcome to 2005 when the xbox 360 was released with a tri-core cpu and games were still being released with single and dual thread only engines other than a handful of games... welcome to 2013 when the xbox 1 and ps4 were released with an 8 core processor that guess what, the same handful of game dev's in 2005 that released games that actually used all 3 cores on the xbox 360 are the still the only developers releasing games that used the 7 available cores on the xbox 1.. yup that's right nothing changed..

consoles don't drive thread usage in the gaming industry, they hold them back because the processor is never the limiting factor of consoles.

Umm the fixation is because of the announcement by everyone in the console industry that they are moving to high thread count cpus.

The new ps5 is purported to have 2080 like gpu performance. So how does one achieve that with a single core?

The new xbox is rumored to have like 4x the power of the one x.

Ps5 will have full RT capability and is based on an 8 core Ryzen custom cpu.

Those are the two big boy consoles.

So care to argue against the industry?

Minimum requirements for any 2019 AAA title is a quad core cpu. Never used to be that way. We know running minimums suck. Were not in 2017 where Intel and AMDs lack ofninnivation stagnated the market.

Anyways you took one single point from my response to the OP, fixated on it, and managed to derail the whole point of the response.

And lastly if everyone is fixated on consoles moving to really high thread dependency on contemporary graphics features then maybe your the one stuck in 2005 and need to update your understanding of the changing environment. AMD has completely altered the CPU landscape by moving the focus from high single thread performance to incredible MT and SMT performance and now look at Intel moving to high thread count cpus as well. Before Ryzen consoles had to be single threaded in many titles because that was the current paradigm. AMD changed that paradigm. For once Intel has to keep pace with AMD and consoles are buying silicon from AMD. So who's leading the charge? ST or MT?

 

[ManofGod]

Yeah, the odd thing is, the 1700 at 3.7 Ghz and a Vega 56 with 64 bios, when running Shadow of the Tomb Raider at 1080p Highest settings, only gets about 43% GPU usage. (This is in the built in benchmark.) My RX 5700 with 2600 at 4.0 GHz gets about 50% GPU usage with the benchmark. Now, at 1440p, it is 99% usage with both systems. I would have to say that even a 9900K at 5Ghz is not going to get 99% usage in Shadow at 1080p highest settings, which is really odd.

 

[tangoseal]

Yeah, the odd thing is, the 1700 at 3.7 Ghz and a Vega 56 with 64 bios, when running Shadow of the Tomb Raider at 1080p Highest settings, only gets about 43% GPU usage. (This is in the built in benchmark.) My RX 5700 with 2600 at 4.0 GHz gets about 50% GPU usage with the benchmark. Now, at 1440p, it is 99% usage with both systems. I would have to say that even a 9900K at 5Ghz is not going to get 99% usage in Shadow at 1080p highest settings, which is really odd.

There was alot of odd games performance with AMD when the game specifically had that big ass Intel endorsement on its intro splash screens. Ever notice that? Almost like it was planned that way or paid to be that way.

 

[readeh]

Frying GPUS ouch. bad mobo? PSU?

The 1700x is probably feeling smoother than the 7700k due to the extra 8 threads of the 8 core AMD. The 7700k is so yesteryear and is so obsolete moving forward. The days of single threaded game engines are over. AMD has seen to that with the release of really high core count consumer CPUs as well as next gen consoles having 8 plus cores minumum. Even console to PC ports are going to be multithreaded. Also the 3rd Gen Zen cores are faster in single thread overall than the 7700k. This is proved time and time again in benchmarks.

Thus the 7700k should be sold right now to get the most money for it that you can. Otherwise its just another quad core that isn't going to hang with the big boys any longer.

The r5 3600 is going to be about 25-30% faster if not more core for core due to the highly refined architecture and process over the 1st gen Ryzen.

For instance my 3900x 12 core is faster at literally EVERYTHING, including benchmarks than my 2950x Threadripper was. It turns higher benchmarks and far superior gaming performance with 8 less threads due to the insanely increased cache and 7nm refined arch.

In respect to the 3600 amd, as another member said, they dont think people understand what getting 32MB of l3 cache is for $200. They have no damn idea how much a value that is.

My 7700K is definitely still faster than the 1700x, but it's not by much and I'm not sure how long a quad core will be viable, especially not with a 2080ti. I'll most likely upgrade the 1700x and throw whatever ryzen 4000 cpu in when it releases(if there is support for it) and have that as my main instead of the 7700k. Still very impressed by ryzen and the price of a 1700x now is incredible cheap and still a great performer.. Definitely cheap for a good budget gaming PC. Only thing I'm missing from Ryzen is higher clocks, but hopefully they will be improved with the next gen.

 

[somebrains]

Just bc next gen consoles are shipping with an 8-core doesn't mean PC games can just cut the min spec to follow.

We are going to see a 4-core low for some time, even if Intel/AMD gave up on making anything smaller than a 6-core 12 thread today it's behoove a pub to support previous platforms that aren't eol.

 

[Bankie]

I upgraded from a i5-6600k to a 1700x a few months after they were released and found that it was quite often a noticeable downgrade in gaming. Ended up returning it to MicroCenter and picked up a 7700k for like $250, set the bios to auto-OC it to 4.8Ghz, and got an immediate large increase in almost everything (The only thing that was even close was BF1).

If you look at recent benchmarks the 1700x is substantially slower than the 7700k in most games. In most instances the 1700x will be near the bottom of the pack (of recent CPUs) while the 7700k ends up in the middle of the pack at worst but near the top with the 8700k/9700k at times. In some games it falters on 1% lows (BFV mainly) but in everything else it's just as fast or faster than even the 3600x. This is assuming the 7700k is at 4.8Ghz or above.

 

[bucks2145]

I have a 3600 and its a literal monster of a CPU.

I also have a 3900x and I cant tell the difference in gaming between the two at all.

Completely agree with this.

However, for me it wouldn't be worth the money quite yet to upgrade what he has. If anything I'd bump up to something with more cores.

 

[somebrains]

What ^ said unless you are framerate sensitive or stream/record while you play.
If I just want to kill chase my 2600 is better than the 1700x.
My old 7820x beat either Ryzen option in any use case.

You have to take the game build you play most into account when considering upgrades bc some games certainly favor cores over frequency when you fire up OBS.

 

[crazycrave]

I don't know if micro code from flashing a board for Gen 3 helps the others in memory speeds as 2933Mhz was all you could get to run stable on Gen 2 .. so I wonder if that improved for the 2000 series ?

 

[sirmonkey1985]

I don't know if micro code from flashing a board for Gen 3 helps the others in memory speeds as 2933Mhz was all you could get to run stable on Gen 2 .. so I wonder if that improved for the 2000 series ?

Gen 1 had the memory issues with hynix beyond 2933, gen 1.5(zen+) didn't have any issues with hynix up to 3200 but did beyond that even if you update to zen 2 bios those are a limitation of the memory controllers. gen 2(zen 2) has no memory issues what so ever across any of the brands and doesn't matter if it's b350/x370/b450/x470 it'll be able to run at least up to 3600. some of the better quality boards will be able to do 3800+.