Need advice on what to upgrade

[BeraGG]

Im looking for advice/help on what to upgrade in order to get a higher quality stream. My budget at the moment is ~500. My current build is:

CPU: Intel i5-6600k
GPU: MSI Radeon rx 480
Cooler: Corsair H80i v2
Ram: Hyper X ddr4 8g (x2)
128g SSD
2tb HDD
Power Supply: EVGA 750 G2

[Fascinate]

Im looking for advice/help on what to upgrade in order to get a higher quality stream. My budget at the moment is ~500. My current build is:

CPU: Intel i5-6600k
GPU: MSI Radeon rx 480
Cooler: Corsair H80i v2
Ram: Hyper X ddr4 8g (x2)
128g SSD
2tb HDD
Power Supply: EVGA 750 G2

You dont need anything man, thats a solid pc you got there. Assuming you are talking about streaming WoW, a older i5 is plenty for that. Bitrate is going to determine stream quality more than obs settings.

When i streamed to twitch i had a pc 5 years older than that and it looked great.

[BeraGG]

I appreciate the quick response! I guess I have to play a bit more with m settings. Seems like the quality going for might either be asking too much or something is off. I seem to drop a good amount of frames while playing. Thanks again!

[Fascinate]

I appreciate the quick response! I guess I have to play a bit more with m settings. Seems like the quality going for might either be asking too much or something is off. I seem to drop a good amount of frames while playing. Thanks again!

The standard out of the box obs settings should work well with your PC, id do a reinstall if you messed with a bunch of stuff

[Temp name]

Your system should be able to stream fairly well. Might wanna OC your CPU a bit though. If you did want to spend money, save up a bit more and get a new GPU when the Nvidia 2000 series launches, but it shouldn't be needed.

[Shakadam]

Streaming on an i5 is probably not the greatest experience. Streaming wants lots of threads and an i5 only has 4.
It''ll likely run the game on your end fairly well but the stream will probably have a lot of dropped frames unless you use a fairly low stream quality.

Best mainstream CPU for streaming is a 2700x. With a decent motherboard it's ~440$ total.
If you're streaming WoW you might wanna go for Intel instead, 8700k+motherboard is also ~440$ total. You already have a CPU cooler that should fit.

[MrPaladinGuy]

I appreciate the quick response! I guess I have to play a bit more with m settings. Seems like the quality going for might either be asking too much or something is off. I seem to drop a good amount of frames while playing. Thanks again!

Try controlling CPU affinity in Windows so OBS and WoW don't attempt to use the same physical core, it might help and is easy/quick to test. Maybe limit WoW to core 3 and 4, OBS to 2, and Windows will default random things to the first. The rest are virtual cores.

[Wermys]

Im looking for advice/help on what to upgrade in order to get a higher quality stream. My budget at the moment is ~500. My current build is:

CPU: Intel i5-6600k
GPU: MSI Radeon rx 480
Cooler: Corsair H80i v2
Ram: Hyper X ddr4 8g (x2)
128g SSD
2tb HDD
Power Supply: EVGA 750 G2

That 4 core cpu is killing you. Move up to a coffeelake build or ryzen 2 build. Also you need 16 gb a ram. GPU is ok, but there are deals to be had at the moment to upgrade that also especially if you go craigslist/ebay hunting. If you were just playing wow alone it would be fine, but when you introduce video encoding etc, your system will get bogged down because of resource issue. One thing you could try to do is just have a seperate capture card. Or better yet throw together som old parts and make a second pc for cheap that handle the streaming aspect.

[BeraGG]

Yea that’s kind of what I figured, was thinking about going for a complete cpu and motherboard overhaul and switching over to something like a Ryzen 7 1800x cpu and a Asus ROG B350-F motherboard

[Temp name]

Yea that’s kind of what I figured, was thinking about going for a complete cpu and motherboard overhaul and switching over to something like a Ryzen 7 1800x cpu and a Asus ROG B350-F motherboard

If you're going to get a Ryzen, at least get the newer gen Ryzen 2000 series. Won't comment on the mobo.

As for swapping to Ryzen in general: WoW really doesn't like Ryzen chips, and they generally trade per-core performance for more cores, which will hurt in games (generally)

[mauserr]

wait 4 i7 9700k better single & multi threaded per4mance than i7 8700k n ryzen 7 2700x even tho it as eite fewer threads than da ryzen n no yper threadin aint even jokin we dont no much yet but judgin by da benchmarks done on da 9700k da i9 9900k (8 core 16 threads yper threaded) will most likely absolutely shit on any consumer cpu on da market rite now swear on me mum

https://www.techradar.com/news/the-r...ore-benchmarks

its also soldered now so no more shitty blob under da ihs da oc capabilities shud be much better as well m8 der r reports of 53 ghz on air on all 8 cores (thats 2 more cores than 8700k) (not sure ow legit dat is some chinese guy did it) so dis chip is most likely goin 2 shit on everyfing

[Evildeffy]

Wait for i7-9700K - better single & multi threaded performance than i7-8700k and Ryzen 7 2700X even though it has EIGHT fewer threads than the Ryzen and no Hyper Threading.

Actually this isn't correct, whilst Single-Threaded performance depends upon speed and purely speed of a single core turbo, and from Skylake till now we have had 0 IPC increase, if you could clock it equally you would notice 0 difference.
Multi-threaded performance actually is slightly worse on a direct comparison between say a 7700K and an 8600K, the same linear and logical conclusion can be made with the 9700K.
If the 8700K is slower than a Ryzen 2700X in multi-threaded performance then the 9700K (if the 8C/8T keeps true) will not be faster either but slightly slower than the 8700K.

If you push OCs it likely will if the process is indeed better with OCing as presented, but remember that Intel did the same thing with samples of both Coffee Lake and Skylake-X to reviewers.

Though screaming "MORE POWERFUL BUT 8 LESS THREADS!!!11oneoneone" is rather lop-sided as context is required as well as logical thought processes leading to that statement as history can directly show you the difference between what is expected and what is hyped up to be.

It's also soldered now, so no more shitty blob under the IHS, the OC capabilities should be much better as well. There are reports of 5.3 GHz on air on ALL 8 CORES (that's 2 more cores than 8700k) (not sure how legit that is, some chinese guy did it), so this chip is most likely going to shit on everything...

As always this is still a rumour, hopeful rumours (and about bloody time rumours as well) but rumours nonetheless.

Don't expect 5.3 GHz on air on 8 cores on Air, either that or you might need a turbine fan to cool your PC.
Skylake-X (i7-7820X) with a much larger die, therefor also larger dissipation area, that is direct-die cooled cannot achieve that on normal cooling (not counting silicon frequency limits), a much smaller die on mostly the same process is unlikely to be able to do it either.

Don't get me wrong though, I likely intend to sell off my i7-8700K that is still sealed since October 2017 and grab an i9-9900K if it really is soldered etc.
I'm just not expecting it to do like you think (and/or hope) it does.

[mauserr]

Actually this isn't correct, whilst Single-Threaded performance depends upon speed and purely speed of a single core turbo, and from Skylake till now we have had 0 IPC increase, if you could clock it equally you would notice 0 difference.
Multi-threaded performance actually is slightly worse on a direct comparison between say a 7700K and an 8600K, the same linear and logical conclusion can be made with the 9700K.
If the 8700K is slower than a Ryzen 2700X in multi-threaded performance then the 9700K (if the 8C/8T keeps true) will not be faster either but slightly slower than the 8700K.

If you push OCs it likely will if the process is indeed better with OCing as presented, but remember that Intel did the same thing with samples of both Coffee Lake and Skylake-X to reviewers.

Though screaming "MORE POWERFUL BUT 8 LESS THREADS!!!11oneoneone" is rather lop-sided as context is required as well as logical thought processes leading to that statement as history can directly show you the difference between what is expected and what is hyped up to be.


As always this is still a rumour, hopeful rumours (and about bloody time rumours as well) but rumours nonetheless.

Don't expect 5.3 GHz on air on 8 cores on Air, either that or you might need a turbine fan to cool your PC.
Skylake-X (i7-7820X) with a much larger die, therefor also larger dissipation area, that is direct-die cooled cannot achieve that on normal cooling (not counting silicon frequency limits), a much smaller die on mostly the same process is unlikely to be able to do it either.

Don't get me wrong though, I likely intend to sell off my i7-8700K that is still sealed since October 2017 and grab an i9-9900K if it really is soldered etc.
I'm just not expecting it to do like you think (and/or hope) it does.

i dont no were u live but wer past rumors already n der were some sneaky benchmarks already done dat show da 9700k bein faster than da 2700x n da 8700k both in single n multithreaded per4mance i swear 2 christ

[Evildeffy]

I don't know where you live, but we're past rumors already, and there were some sneaky benchmarks already done that show the 9700k being faster than the 2700x and the 8700k both in single and multithreaded performance.

I live in a world called reality.
There are no official specs out yet even, only rumours.
But let me put it to you in a simple way for multi-threaded performance.

8600K @ 5GHz = ca. 1230 CineBench points
Assuming a linear increase (best case scenario) with 5GHz with 8 cores instead.
1230 * 133 = 1640 points.

Ryzen 7 @ 4GHz scores ca. 1780 points.

Would you mind explaining to me the extra free performance of 10% (and that's not even the optimized Ryzen 2700x) that you seemingly managed to pull from somewhere magical?

No-one argues single threaded being faster in AMD vs. Intel, but you should research your claims logically before making assumptions and hype stuff up.

[mauserr]

I live in a world called reality.
There are no official specs out yet even, only rumours.
But let me put it to you in a simple way for multi-threaded performance.

8600K @ 5GHz = ca. 1230 CineBench points
Assuming a linear increase (best case scenario) with 5GHz with 8 cores instead.
1230 * 133 = 1640 points.

Ryzen 7 @ 4GHz scores ca. 1780 points.

Would you mind explaining to me the extra free performance of 10% (and that's not even the optimized Ryzen 2700x) that you seemingly managed to pull from somewhere magical?

No-one argues single threaded being faster in AMD vs. Intel, but you should research your claims logically before making assumptions and hype stuff up.

https://www.techradar.com/news/the-r...ore-benchmarks

sure dude u cheeky cunt wile da 53 on air mite be shady because da supposed proof was taken wiv a camera belongin qualitywise in da 90s da soldered info is pretty much a given as 4 da multithreaded per4mance theres a benchmark in da geekbench database dat confirms wot is bein said i dont think u can fake dat m8

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/9677297

[Evildeffy]

https://www.techradar.com/news/the-r...ore-benchmarks

Sure, dude. While the 5.3 on air might be shady because the supposed proof was taken with a camera belonging qualitywise in the 90s, the soldered info is pretty much a given, as for the multithreaded performance, there's a benchmark in the Geekbench database that confirms what is being said... I don't think you can fake that.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/9677297

Let me ask you something very logical and simple.

Do you think the Coffee Lake Refresh (as it's called) has IPC increases (NOTE: IPC INCREASE != FREQUENCY INCREASE) where the underlying uArch is all the same?

There's so many entries in so many databes that can be faked, it's not even a contest to do so.

So provided I gave you logical calculus earlier in a programme that pretty much scales linearly with an OCed 5.0 GHz 6-core scoring roughly 1230 points .. how on earth do you propose Intel craps out another extra performance (10%+) to defeat that without increasing IPC (mind you I am counting OC as well!).

Also GeekBench does not actually have a linear multi-thread scaling, see any other comparison prior with Skylake-X and ThreadRipper.

Followed by the question: Is the Ryzen 7 2700X faster than the 1700X I linked earlier scoring 1780 points?
So if in a proper programme (CineBench/Blender/other similar programmes) the Ryzen 7 1700X is faster, 2700X is faster still .. how would this distance be covered?

Being excited for things is fine.. nothing wrong with that.
But temper your expectations and allow for logic to work it's magic.

[Shakadam]

Truly amazing upgrade right there /s

[Evildeffy]

Truly amazing upgrade right there /s

But but... I thought I lived in a fantasy land where Intel magically created uber wins out of thin air on the same uArch and process technology for people to blindly believe in!!!11oneoneoneshift+1

In all reality that seems like correct scaling but I'll wait for confirmation before I assume that to be the case.

Even though El Chapuzas Informatico has "leaked" prior pre-launch reviews with accurate numbers.

You would think I actually know a little of what I'm talking about.

[Temp name]

[IMG]https://cdn.sweclockers.com/artikel/bild/63895?l=eyJyZXNvdXJjZSI6IlwvYXJ0aWtlbFwvYmlsZFwvNjM4OTUiLCJmaWx0ZXJzIjpbInQ9b3JpZ2luYWwiXS wicGFyYW1zIjpbXSwia2V5IjoiZGEyYWQ3Njc2Y2RkZDJkNmNkNjJhZWQwZDQ2YmMzNzMifQ%3D%3D[IMG]

Truly amazing upgrade right there /s

Seems about right. Beating out the 6c/12t processor, losing to the 8/16.

We'll need to see how it works in games, and how well it OC's too though