The fact is that it's not worth it to ugprade your computer today.
If you have a 5 year old CPU right now and you upgrade, your single core performance will only increase in real world applications by about 10-20%. If you buy AMD, even less.
You wont even feel this increase, why waste your money on it?
I upgraded because I do work that requires running several virtual machines simultaniously. More cores is godsend for this.
Are you sure I shouldn't upgrade?
Because MEGATASKING and THREADRIPPING > you.
Good thing I upgraded from an original Phenom, huh?
Well yeah, Ryzen is a sidegrade, unless you have a use case for those extra cores.
Still handy to have a cheap ass replacement available when your old rig blows up, which is what happened to me.
Sandy Vag owners are always so delusional about how well their chip "holds up". A stock 7700K is at least 43% faster than an overclocked 2600K in a CPU-heavy title. Perhaps more, since it's clearly hitting a GPU bottleneck there, given overclocking it does nothing.
Apparently upgrading is not worthwhile when AMD is winning
really makes you think
Do I upgrade if I have actual 5 y/o CPU Intel core 2 duo E7300
how about you stop posting GAYming benchmarks
nobody cares about ur MTG collection either, btw
There's this new video game I want to play. Their recommended hardware has an i7 5820k listed. Minimum is an i5 2500k.
Yes.
Absolutely. I went from a C2D E8400 to a R7 1700 about a month ago.
The fuck is this?
What GPU are they running that it requires so much fucking juice?
Usual benchmark scenario : 1080p ultra with 1080ti.
they are lying
it's a game with a lot of independent entities doing stuff in a single loop. Games like that are more CPU heavy
I want to see them run those processors through a Universe Sandbox benchmark
So what does the author mean by not to upgrade? due to some random shit.
All I know the market right now isn't stable and I should wait
Probably not. Look at PUBG. It uses a shitload of RAM and a very large amount of your CPU. That game is running on UE4 same as PUBG.
Who the fuck owns a C2D in 2017, seriously?
Even a FX8350 would have been an upgrade.
If you're poor, don't try to Intel.
I have done some reaserch and it seems this game suffers from multi threading problem where one core is at 100% others linger at 20%.
Atilla had no such problem and ran on 2700k just as well as 6700k.
>market right now isn't stable
The fuck is that even mean?
Unless you have a first gen FX processor. The jump from an 8150 to a 6800k let me play Dark souls 3 on the same GPU no issue.
Don't lie to people.
Well there's still coffee lake around the corner.
At this point, they'll most likely ship already delided, but with the option of applying the provided horse semen as TIM
And that's pretty much why I decided to stay on the X58 platform and drop in a Westmere-EP for $50.
if anything, x299 kaby Lake should show you that Coffee Lake is going to be very hot and highly clocked chip with little to no improvement done to it,
even 6700k is better than 7700k for gaming right now because it's more stable in games like GTAV.
They have to keep it under 95 watts. It's just low clocked. It will still get stupid hot due to jizz TIM, though. videocardz.com
7800X is housefire material, though. (140W power pull).
They'd better pull a miracle to put it below 95.
Because I NEED 8 cores for shitposting and anime
>Atilla had no such problem and ran on 2700k just as well as 6700k
Some more of that sweet Sandy Vag delusion. An overclocked 2600K was 10% slower than a stock 4790K, let alone a 6700K or 7700K.
Ok, captain what do I buy ryzen or choose intel i5 the non-overclockable edition because I don't do that shit
>RAM prices through the roof due to ((((flooding))))
>GPU market hike due to miners prices all time high
>CPUs have not advanced as much and cost 4x as much as a cpu slightly weaker than it
Really no reason to upgrade right now, we're almost in 1980s computer prices
Well I'd go for a R5 1600.
You get a fucking cooler with it that is actually ok.
With a B350 MB you can oc it if you choose to.
If you don't want to oc, wait for coffee lake 4 cores, or 1600x, but you won't have a cooler.
>shows stock 2700k being 13% slower than OC'd 4770k
>An overclocked 2600K was 10% slower than a stock 4790K,
Actually OC 2600k is exactly on par with stock 4790k
I have an amd fx 8350, oc'd to 4.2 ghz, because of motherboard being somewhat semi functional.
Should I upgrade?
No
I'm fine with not getting a stock cooler if I can get a decent one under 50$ and coffee lake is new shit coming up? is it op?
>motherboard being somewhat semi functional
Yes, unstable motherboard is worst thing that can happen to your PC.
It's stable, but got a little bit damaged when a psu blew up (someone on csg told me to go for an evga 650nex because the almost never blow up, it blew up), the top pcie x16 isn't entirely functional, and the vrms get pretty toasty.
well a 10-20% increase is definitely noticeable.
But I still agree with you, for most people its just worth it to upgrade your PC. Especially if you dont do gaming or editing. Although personally I think this is a good thing. More attention should be put towards making better software rather than better hardware. Constant hardware revamps and changes just put more pressure of software companies to make "1 size fits all" products and usability/productivity ends up taking a backseat to compatibility
Cofee lake should be better than what's available now, but who knows, we're talking about intel here.
I wouldn't a 7600, that's fore sure.
I went 1600x because I didn't want to bother overclocking it.
1600 comes with a cooler and is overclockable.
That's almost 100$ lower platform cost for something very similar.
Coffee Lake S is turning out to be a $350 1600X with jizz TIM under the lid. >listening to /csg/ on quality control
You fucked up, bro.
Also worth mentioning, future Zen processors will work on current motherboards.
If I upgraded right now to a 1800X I'd get a increase of 70% in singlethreaded performance and 500% on multithreaded, so shut up, you don't know what everyone has
I will go for a 1600 with stock cooler seems pretty nice to me for at least 3 years
Yeah it's good.
You should at least 3.7 Ghz, which is the default turbo on 1600x for all cores+XFR.
It's supposed to be 3.6Ghz, but I've never seen it do that. Just 3.7 or 4.1 Ghz single threaded.
>exactly on par
>2600K (4.5GHz) - Avg: 36.4, Min: 34
>4790K (stock) - Avg: 40.6, Min: 37
>10% slower
>exactly on par
Can you Sandy Vag fags possibly get any more delusional? Literally making things up and ignoring objective benchmarks at this point.
good thing my first desktop is a 6700k. it will be a while before i upgrade it
Oh yaa, difference is pretty big.
cpu.userbenchmark.com
HAHA jokes on you I have a shitty apu nahassamapetilan from 2012 and it's absolute shit compared to a r5!
>1 game
Wow you sure showed him.
you mean
>Exactly the same game
The secret is that most people who browse Sup Forums f.e.x. don't really need to upgrade when they are gaming on FHD 60Hz monitor. The people who should upgrade their ten year old market computers don't browse Sup Forums.
I exchanged my i5-6600k for 1600X and RX480 even though last game I played was Pillars of Eternity on 6600k iGPU.
>A10-7850K is actually best gaming CPU
Amazing how games that are properly GPU bound, are working exactly the same on any CPU
How much for that side grade?
>same game
Nope.
That's not even the same game, you retarded fuck.
Kill yourself.
you sure showed him with that gpu bottleneck
k
>2160p
A better example would be Tomb Raider 2013, where every CPU performs exactly the same at 1080p.
>more than 60fps
good enough for me m8
what use are 187 fps exactly?!
>Sandy Vag
>sandybridge in productive tasks
My non k 7600 completely beats out my 2500k. Stay delusional.
That cpu was outdated right off the get go. Yes.
Should I upgrade Sup Forums?
Yes.
Sup Forums, should I upgrade?
Battle of the botnet modules...
>CPU-heavy title
the total war series is de facto multicore game benchmark but it still only targets 4c8t and single core performance is still critical, that's why the 7700k stock shits over the 7600k overclocked to 4.7ghz but the 2600k stock is the same as the 2500k at 4.5ghz (which is a MASSIVE overclock on that chip just fwiw) and more importantly why everything else is shitting over the 6900k(3.2/3.7ghz 8c16t), arguably even the 1700x at 3.9ghz shits over the 6900x at 4.4ghz as it's only 15fps in 1% low and average (see your pic compared to mine)
the best highest overclocked 4c8t will always do better in those games which is always going to be the best non-hedt i7, maybe once i5s get hyperthreading the total war games will be bloody playable on average machines
>Perhaps more, since it's clearly hitting a GPU bottleneck there, given overclocking it does nothing.
20fps better in average and 30% better fps in 1% low is nothing now?
>20fps better in average and 30% better fps in 1% low is nothing now?
He was talking about the 7700K, dumbdumb. Did you actually even read the post you were replying to? I'm sceptical based on your rambling.
>when you got a 2500k and a 780TI
What do I even buy
for gaming i used to run a fx 8350 and got 60fps on the game i played and then i bought the i7 7700k now i get 100+fps it was worth it.
If you're on 1080p, nothing. Wait a couple of years until you can do 1440p at 144hz or 4k at 60 without taking out a loan to buy the required graphics card and monitor.
I turn off all the cores except the one I'm using
...
Because I'm not a 12 year old child who only use my PC as a video game console so single core performance means very little to me over multi core performance
i had faith in coffee lake rill i saw the 7800x benchmarks and its terrible performance then found out about the switch from ring bus to mesh
these issues will follow coffee lake and will have worse performance in games then the 7700k better off buying a 1700 now or wait for zen+
>tfw using old hardware with gentoo, CLI only
Comfy as fuck. I only have 2GB of RAM, but I only ever need more if I were to try and compile hueg graphical programs (web browsers, libreoffice, etc.)
Since they're CLI programs I can use my Pentium and it feels instant.
Too bad most websites either don't work or are read-only on the CLI. No unicode is slightly annoying sometimes. Probably the worst thing is being stuck with so few colors.
>Implying
No, Coffee Lake S is just Kaby Lake with more cores and less clocks. It does not have the shitty mesh or cache changes. However this doesn't automatically make it worth waiting for. You could get an 1600X and have basically the same performance for $100 cheaper.
Lucky 777
If intel manages to fix their core to core latancy, coffee lake might be ok.
But their current chips have hit a HUGE wall
why do people still post day 1 benchmarks of ryzen?
This
If you check the threads on reddit et al if you upgrade from something like a phenom the performance increase from a mid-range Ryzen alone is beyond measure
Of course you could also look up benchmark comparisons on CPUboss but OP would have to have an IQ above 60 to be able to do that
tfw 2400.
Haswell i5 4570 sees a roughly 6% difference between it and its Kaby Lake counterpart (assumed i5 7400).
I got one, as well as the rest of the computer, yesterday for $60. I'm very interested in Ryzen, but honestly, why should I shell out the extra money for unnecessary power that I'm probably not going to utilize?
I5 4570 and a 4gb RX 460 gets a consistent 40-60 fps on medium settings. Low will probably get a stable 60.
I've been using a Pentium E5700 for the past 6 years or so.