|
teagone posted:I really only care about increasing my FPS in Overwatch. Currently I have an i5 4570, 8GB DDR3 1600, and a GTX 1060 6GB. My modest setup averages roughly 120 FPS with the "Ultra" graphic preset. Maybe. It looks like hyperthreading makes a difference on minimum framerates if techspot's benchmark isn't trash CPU side of the benchmark. So I mean you could also just throw money at an i7 haswell if you wanted. That being said if you're running at 2560x1440 a 1070 probably would also get minimum framerates up. MagusDraco fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Feb 15, 2017 |
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:31 |
|
|
teagone posted:I really only care about increasing my FPS in Overwatch. Currently I have an i5 4570, 8GB DDR3 1600, and a GTX 1060 6GB. My modest setup averages roughly 120 FPS with the "Ultra" graphic preset. With a 1060 you still have a heck of a lot of GPU power left on the table upgrade wise. The most important question is what resolution are you playing at?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 17:12
|
|
teagone posted:I really only care about increasing my FPS in Overwatch. Currently I have an i5 4570, 8GB DDR3 1600, and a GTX 1060 6GB. My modest setup averages roughly 120 FPS with the "Ultra" graphic preset. We don't have enough data yet to say one way or another.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
After 8 threads Overwatch sort of peaks, so you'll want more single core speed than 4c Haswell 3.6ghz. I'd say grab a 4790k if you have a z series board on the cheap when people rush to get aboard the Zen hype train in March.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
I would guess not since Overwatch doesn't seem CPU intensive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
A GPU upgrade is going to do by far the most for MORE FPS even at 1080- Just look at the linked benches, a gtx 1080 on a skylake chip at 3.5ghz (Which is close enough in IPC to the 3.6ghz i5-4570 as to not matter) is doing 220fps average. If you're playing on anything above 1920 * 1080 then the GPU will be relatively even more important. A CPU upgrade alone isn't doing to do nearly as much, even though it won't be nothing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:With a 1060 you still have a heck of a lot of GPU power left on the table upgrade wise. The most important question is what resolution are you playing at? 1080p and have no plans of going to 1440 or higher in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Why not just drop detail settings to high for now? That should push close to or above 144fps, enough to max out the vast majority of high refresh rate monitors. This is of course assuming your monitor can run at 144hz or a similar high refresh rate, if it's a standard 60hz screen this is all moot since that wouldn't be capable of displaying more than 60fps. Ryzen is so close to release it's probably best to wait and see how that family of CPUs performs across a wide range of benchmarks and real world applications before deciding on an upgrade path. Ryzen CPUs should be out by early March. And as said earlier, there may be a flood of good used Intel chips too after the Ryzen launch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
teagone posted:I really only care about increasing my FPS in Overwatch. Currently I have an i5 4570, 8GB DDR3 1600, and a GTX 1060 6GB. My modest setup averages roughly 120 FPS with the "Ultra" graphic preset. I vote for faster DDR3. Some 2133 CL9 sounds like it might be pretty good. never underestimate the ram!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Lube banjo posted:I vote for faster DDR3. Some 2133 CL9 sounds like it might be pretty good. never underestimate the ram! My mainboard only supports up to 1600MHz RAM unfortunately. Sashimi posted:Why not just drop detail settings to high for now? That should push close to or above 144fps, enough to max out the vast majority of high refresh rate monitors. This is of course assuming your monitor can run at 144hz or a similar high refresh rate, if it's a standard 60hz screen this is all moot since that wouldn't be capable of displaying more than 60fps. Yeah, I could drop the settings. My setup can easily push 200+ FPS if I set the graphics preset to "Low" which is what I should do for the competitive advantage, but I care about the game looking pretty more. My monitors are 60Hz, but I play with V-Sync off/Triple Buffering off/Reduce Buffering on in-game, and Pre-rendered frames set to 1/Fast Sync forced in the Nvidia profile for OW. Those settings give me virtually zero tearing despite having V-Sync off while I notch the ~120 FPS or so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Sashimi posted:Why not just drop detail settings to high for now? That should push close to or above 144fps, enough to max out the vast majority of high refresh rate monitors. teagone posted:My monitors are 60Hz
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
teagone posted:My mainboard only supports up to 1600MHz RAM unfortunately. If you just want hundreds of FPS then just buy more GPU. Yea you can certainly get more from a CPU OCed to 4.8ghz or much faster ram, but neither will be nearly as large an improvement as maxing out your GPU will.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:If you just want hundreds of FPS then just buy more GPU. Yea you can certainly get more from a CPU OCed to 4.8ghz or much faster ram, but neither will be nearly as large an improvement as maxing out your GPU will. That makes sense. I just didn't know if Ryzen would be a significant/considerable upgrade over my 4570 in terms of gaming performance. All the buzz got me excited. I got a 1060 so I could give my dad my old 970. I suppose I'll wait for Vega instead of jumping the gun on like 1070/1080 or something. ConanTheLibrarian posted:loving lol, buy better monitors if you're going to do anything. Why? With Fast Sync and OW's Reduce Buffering option that was added in a recent patch, I don't see why I need a 144Hz display right now. teagone fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Feb 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
You'd have to see it to appreciate it. Real 144hz screens are to die for if you're an FPS fan. If you have a costco near you they sell Acer XB270HUs and might have floor models you can check out, it's holy poo poo next level a far far far better upgrade than a 1060->anything else will be. Like, all the fancy sync options in the world aren't going to do anything at all for you, especially when you're already getting 120 fps. Buying anything but a better monitor is literally setting money on fire and or flushing it down the toilet. Gwaihir fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Feb 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Hmm. So would getting a 144Hz G-Sync monitor be the most optimal upgrade path in my situation? I looked up the XB270HU and that's a bit out of my price range, lmao. How about this one for $399 instead? https://www.amazon.com/Acer-Predator-XB241H-bmipr-1920x1080/dp/B01C05C1OK Or maybe this Dell G-Sync display for $389.99? https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01IOO4SGK/ref=twister_B01N5DR9U9?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1 Sorry for this slight thread derail btw.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Both of those are TN screens unfortunately, which is why they're much cheaper. Value for money wise, there's really nothing in your existing system worth changing- Just save up more till you can get the best monitor really. Yea you can upgrade more stuff, but you literally won't be able to see a difference with a 60hz monitor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
We also have a Display Megathread if you'd like to get more specific advice on displays. There's a lot to know! Like how you should totally buy Ultrawide and I'm not biased at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:Value for money wise, there's really nothing in your existing system worth changing Gwaihir posted:Buying anything but a better monitor is literally setting money on fire and or flushing it down the toilet. Alrighty, this is what I needed to hear. Thanks 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
teagone posted:Alrighty, this is what I needed to hear. Thanks If you do ever upgrade to a bigger monitor at 144hz/g-sync/2560x1440/etc then it'll be worth it to get a 1070 and new faster cpu and more ram, etc. So that'll be a thing. Or well just get a 1070 and let the cpu and stuff ride which is what I did and things are mostly fine. BF1 is dumb and busted on dx11 for me for reasons but I've kinda stopped playing it for now so whatever. Most games are fine even with an older quad core i5 (i5-3550 in my case).
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
havenwaters posted:If you do ever upgrade to a bigger monitor at 144hz/g-sync/2560x1440/etc then it'll be worth it to get a 1070 and new faster cpu and more ram, etc. Yeah. I guess depending on how well Ryzen benchmarks, I may just say gently caress it and do a whole new system build if I'm already budgeting for a higher end G-Sync display. Or maybe opt to go all in with AMD if Vega benchmarks well too. Divert monitor funds to GPU since FreeSync displays are cheaper. I wish time went by faster. teagone fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Feb 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
havenwaters posted:If you do ever upgrade to a bigger monitor at 144hz/g-sync/2560x1440/etc then it'll be worth it to get a 1070
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
havenwaters posted:If you do ever upgrade to a bigger monitor at 144hz/g-sync/2560x1440/etc then it'll be worth it to get a 1070 and new faster cpu and more ram, etc. On the flip side, upgrade the monitor first and you won't feel as much pressure to upgrade your GPU. A 1060 is still definitely pushing it for 1440p, but like, it'll work if you turn settings down to medium, and not maintaining a perfect 60fps matters a lot less when you have *Sync.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
I'm stuck on an H87 w/4590 and 8GB of ram with a 290X on a 144Hz monitor, I'm kind of feeling either the 4C/8T or 6C/12T Ryzen CPU's and a cheap X370 or B350 to get more performance. My understanding is that even in scenario's where something tops out at 8 threads, a 6C/12T will still perform better than the 4C/8T. Also hopefully moving to Vega 11 for good 1440p performance. My other option is moving to an i7 4790K if prices crumble.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:I'm stuck on an H87 w/4590 and 8GB of ram with a 290X on a 144Hz monitor, I'm kind of feeling either the 4C/8T or 6C/12T Ryzen CPU's and a cheap X370 or B350 to get more performance. My understanding is that even in scenario's where something tops out at 8 threads, a 6C/12T will still perform better than the 4C/8T. Also hopefully moving to Vega 11 for good 1440p performance. Well, no, not strictly speaking. If 8 threads is all it'll do, then throwing 12 threads at it does nothing. And typically you are giving up a (small) amount of IPC to move to the bigger processors. The small Intel processors are on Kaby Lake, the big processors are still on Broadwell/Haswell (but they do have quad-channel DDR4 which sometimes helps), and the smaller processors overclock better. So basically it comes down to something like 4.3-4.5 GHz Haswell++ versus ~4.7 GHz Kaby Lake in terms of single core performance. It's not a huge difference but the bigger processors are a bit slower per core. AMD in particular is really looking like its IPC/clockrate is going to underperform the big Intel chips, which underperform the small Intel chips. And so far, the 4C8T and 6C12T Ryzen chips haven't been shown to even keep up with the 8C16T Zen processors, which seem to be performing the best out of the bunch. There is often stuff going on in the background on modern systems though. For example, VR runs the positioning program at the same time, and that will eat a couple threads easily. Or browsers that are ticking away in the background. Or streaming. So just "game don't use more than 8 threads" doesn't necessarily capture the big picture of the system. A 5820K is a perfectly viable sidegrade versus an Intel 4C8T and costs about the same.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
 http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-processor-am4-ln2-cooling/ Way too much in this one article to unpack. * Samples to be distributed to journos at * Chip running on LN2 + X370, no cold bug in sight. * per-core OC? * AMD needs to fire their marketing teams, some regional offices sent out their review samples early.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:A 5820K is a perfectly viable sidegrade versus an Intel 4C8T and costs about the same. FaustianQ: Realistically if you have a Haswell CPU or newer Ryzen probably doesn't make much sense to buy unless you reaaaaallly need the threads. If you need to upgrade something look into a better monitor, GPU, RAM, or SSD. Maybe even better headphones or surround sound.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
i can't repeat it enough that this is not going to do anyone who isn't looking to do anything multicore-intensive favors as it's looking like a haswell that clocks anywhere between 2-10% worse, in which case you might as well stick with what you've got if you have haswell or go 5820k for the quad channel if you need it if you do things that rip threads, though 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 08:50
|
|
|
Per-core OC/Turbo seems interesting because the system could select the best performing core and utilise that for single threaded loads. Kind of like binning the single best core for OC/Turbo on the 8 core die, or the two best cores for 2-core boost, if that makes sense. (perhaps I'm outdated and CPUs already do this)
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Well, no, not strictly speaking. If 8 threads is all it'll do, then throwing 12 threads at it does nothing. And typically you are giving up a (small) amount of IPC to move to the bigger processors. The small Intel processors are on Kaby Lake, the big processors are still on Broadwell/Haswell (but they do have quad-channel DDR4 which sometimes helps), and the smaller processors overclock better. So basically it comes down to something like 4.3-4.5 GHz Haswell++ versus ~4.7 GHz Kaby Lake in terms of single core performance. It's not a huge difference but the bigger processors are a bit slower per core. What I was trying to figure is if 6 real cores plus two virtual threads will best 4 real cores and 4 virtual threads, my impression is yes so for an 8 thread workload, the 6 core will still outperform the 4 core assuming both have hyperthreading. A 5820K isn't on LGA1150 though, my top option is limited to a 4790K and gently caress the expense of moving to X99 2011-v3 socket which will dead AF within a year. Again, this is the attraction of moving to the AM4 platform to me, I can jump in at a low price and then easily move upwards in cost and performance if I so desire, and with AMD stating 4 years minimum support for AM4, that means low overall cost overtime as well. PC LOAD LETTER posted:You need a socket LGA 2011-v3 mobo though. Even the suspiciously cheap LGA 2011-v3 mobos run around $140. A i7-4790K could be a drop in upgrade for him with his current mobo. And Ryzen might kick the legs out of the resale market for older used CPU's and drop the 4790K's price down nicely for him too. It's kind of what I am hoping Ryzen does, although I still want a Ryzen build at some point. I have a top of the line monitor AFAIK, MG279Q 1440p 144hz Freesync (55-144hz range modded), I could get more RAM but I don't yet feel constrained by 8GB, I have a Samsung 850 512GB, an I use a Superlux HD681EVO. I mean I know the 290X is the weakness of the system, but my options are literally cheap Fury Nitro or wait till may and get Vega so besides changing CPU's and moving to DDR4 I think I'm kind of set  eames posted:Per-core OC/Turbo seems interesting because the system could select the best performing core and utilise that for single threaded loads. This is my impression of what XFR really is, it doesn't just increase clockspeed until it hits a thermal limit, it straight up attempts to clock the CPU automatically based on workload. So if your 8C/16T CPU is only using 4 threads, it'll downclock the 4 worst and slam the gas on the 4 best. So while manual OC might get you 4.0Ghz all core stable, XFR might get you 5.0Ghz on two cores or 4.5Ghz on 4. That might seriously justify the pricing on the X CPUs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 09:40
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:I mean I know the 290X is the weakness of the system, but my options are literally cheap Fury Nitro or wait till may and get Vega so besides changing CPU's and moving to DDR4 I think I'm kind of set
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:i can't repeat it enough that this is not going to do anyone who isn't looking to do anything multicore-intensive favors as it's looking like a haswell that clocks anywhere between 2-10% worse, in which case you might as well stick with what you've got if you have haswell or go 5820k for the quad channel if you need it Assassins creed syndicate  Somehow better than prime95 for stressing my old AMD FX CPU, uses all six cores too
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 10:09
|
|
|
While we're generally on the subject of upgrades, if I'm on Ivy Bridge can I expect to see even more benefits? Im planning to upgrade from an I5-3570k to the 1800x or 1700x for the fun of having a "enthusiast" cpu. What's mostly driving me to upgrade is that I'm 95% sure I may have damaged my PCI ports causing random graphics related chrashes at this point, and it's difficult to find a reasonably priced mobo for socket lga 1155. They cost about the same as new ones, and I'm unsure about the quality. I've been following the Ryzen leaks and rumours for quite some time now, but it's looking like recent benchmarks and discussion has been more sobering then compared the pure hype in the beginning. I'm excited for the amount of thread(rippers) because I'm genrally interested in streaming and video capturing which is cool! But I'm having second thoughts because there are comparable i7's out there to the 1800x for about 400-500 dollars arent there? Anyways thanks for reading!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
Toalpaz posted:While we're generally on the subject of upgrades, if I'm on Ivy Bridge can I expect to see even more benefits? Personally I'm currently using Sandybridge and I do actually do some stuff that will make use of 8 threads or more from time to time so either way I think I'll be happy. Even if I get a poo poo OC'er since my Sandybridge never liked going over 4.2Ghz without high volts. My old Z68 based ASUS mobo poo poo the bed going on 2-3yr ago and I happened to get one of the last available new Z77 boards which has been rock solid stable for me since and had native USB3.1 so platform wise AM4 won't be as big of a jump for me oddly enough. I'm currently thinking I'll go with the R7 1700X since even if I only get another 200Mhz out of it when overclocking I'll be tied with the R7 1800X which will save me $110 if the rumored prices are correct. Realistically they're probably really close in terms of binning so it'd probably overclock about the same as a R7 1800X anyways. Toalpaz posted:but it's looking like recent benchmarks and discussion has been more sobering then compared the pure hype in the beginning. Toalpaz posted:But I'm having second thoughts because there are comparable i7's out there to the 1800x for about 400-500 dollars arent there?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
Overclocking each core sounds like a fun problem, especially if each one has slightly different characteristics and it becomes a whole new aspect of the hobby tuning scene. March 2nd is the release date, not sure if that's been posted yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
The AM4 upgrade path would be one of the main selling points of Ryzen to me. Intels sockets seem so fragmented that I can't even be bothered to figure out which one would be "right" for me. My current homeserver/NAS/VM host/game streaming machine has a 4C/4T Haswell Xeon and I wouldn't mind more cores/threads but won't swap the mainboard for a socket that will be obsolete once again next year. Hopefully they'll support ECC/IOMMU with consumer cpus + workstation grade boards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
I'm very curious to see what Zen does to the resale market for Haswell i7 and above, i5 will be in the toilet is my expectation. The AM4 platform is a very compelling offer which should drive prices down across the board for resale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
eames posted:The AM4 upgrade path would be one of the main selling points of Ryzen to me. Intels sockets seem so fragmented that I can't even be bothered to figure out which one would be "right" for me. 2 sockets is hardly so fragmented that it's impossible to figure out rofl. (Unless you decide you really need a 4 socket home server packing 24 core chips that is)
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:2 sockets is hardly so fragmented that it's impossible to figure out rofl. Just starting with Socket 370 and counting on, there are 25 Intel CPU sockets listed vs 20 from AMD. Maybe that can be explained because Intel probably has used a couple more sockets in servers and notebooks which doesn't really count. I like AMDs socket naming and backwards compatibility better, anyone can tell that an AM3 socket device is better than an AM2 or 2+. I'm sure there are people out there who know the exact order of te 1150, 1151, 1155, and 1156 CPU sockets from Intel but that is simply not as easy as AM2 vs AM3. The big thing I like are the 2+ and 3+ versions as well since to my understanding most AM2 or 2+ parts are compatible with each other, and AM2+ motherboards can even take AM3 CPUs sometimes, I don''t Intel ever tried to achieve similar levels of compatibility. That point might very well be moot since there are still a lot of different AMD sockets, but it is at least easier for me to look at an eBay listing and know right away which socket is newer. I know there is also the argument that most people should want to buy a new motherboard at the same time as a new CPU, but I like scrounging ebay for old parts to try to squeeze some extra life out of my spare systems and I just like the underdog.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
 dude, the historical number of sockets on either platform has exactly zero relevance for someone contemplating a totally new PC and wondering what platform will best suit their needs. The only complication wrt to platform choice right now is that the replacement for the high end desktop line (X99/s2011) is slated for release in a few months, so if you want to build an intel 8core+ machine now is a poor time to do so. (Well, that, and if you really needed an 8 core machine all signs are currently pointing towards "wait until you can get zen because it will be half the price") Gwaihir fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:31 |
|
|
The problem with sockets in the past is that chipsets determined cpu compatibility. If AMD does away with this on AM4 then we are good to go. s478 and s775 lasted forever compared to the LGA1156, LGA1150, and LGA1151 which is likely being replaced for cannonlake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:46
|
|