Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #1
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    16,258

    Upgrade from 3570K to newer CPU

    I've finally gotten to the point where my poor 3570K isn't strong enough to do what I want it to do. I'm getting input lag while running Anthem as well as Skype at the same time. It doesn't seem overclocking it seems to help, and it's known that Anthem uses a lot of CPU. I've been meaning to upgrade for some time but never really 'needed to' til now. I'm honestly not sure would benefit me most. Usually when I upgrade, I go with middle ground hardware. I'm running 1080p still and while I'd like to upgrade to 1440p or 144hz, I have no plans on it any time soon. I'm also aware I'll need to get DDR4 and a new board for whichever I choose. The 8350K is basically the new architecture of what I'm using now (4ghz, 4/4 Core/Thread). I don't know if the Ryzen's are worth it in this regard for this particular situation. My 3570K runs literally everything else just fine.

    i3-8350K $169 4/4 Core/Thread 4Ghz
    i5-9600K $259 6/6 C/T - 3.6-4.6Ghz
    R5 2600X $184 6/12 - 3.6-4.2Ghz
    R5 2600 $165 6/6 - 3.4-3.9Ghz
    R7 2700 $240 8/16 - 3.2-4.1Ghz
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

  2. #2
    None of the above, you wait for Ryzen 3000 coming out in the next ~3 months to get +2 cores for the price of their equivalent 2000 series.

    Its a terrible time to buy a CPU unless you fork out the money for a 9700K, aka 8core and over 4.5Ghz easy but 400$ so no.

    All the leaks for the last few months indicate Ryzen 3000 will turbo boost quite well,they all seem similar so the "fakeness" probability is low, even so they will probably manage a 4.5Ghz on the 3600X, which means 8core 4.5Ghz for 220$ on release or so.

    Or if you want even more, for 330$ as it always has been, the 3700X for 12cores.

    Obviously the prices are different,i am just following the usual price of the Ryzen release the last few years.

    I wouldnt throw my money on anything that cant go near 4.5Ghz in 2019 and is below 8 cores when 3000 series is so close.

    I am an Intel fanboy and i would buy the 9700K blindly if i had to build a PC now for myself because i can afford it (barely xD) but when the 3000s come out, unless Intel responds quickly i am gonna build Ryzen systems for the majority as i have the last ~8 months with the 2600X.

    The pricing of 2600X for 6 cores at averagely 4.3Ghz is simply too good for the average gamer, but that was until January, waiting game after that for the 3600X!

    If you cant wait, 9600K is the default option cause 4.5Ghz over 4.2Ghz (lets not count the IPC because "patched vulnerabilities")
    Last edited by potis; 2019-03-15 at 02:23 AM.

  3. #3
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    16,258
    I'd really rather not wait 3 months, as this is currently heavily inhibiting my ability to use my system. I skype often, and basically I can choose to not do that (nope) or just not play Anthem.

    My questions is pretty much, which of these is best price/performance? I don't know how well Ryzen handles Anthem vs Intel.
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    I'd really rather not wait 3 months, as this is currently heavily inhibiting my ability to use my system. I skype often, and basically I can choose to not do that (nope) or just not play Anthem.

    My questions is pretty much, which of these is best price/performance? I don't know how well Ryzen handles Anthem vs Intel.
    I'd really wait at this stage. There simply too much of an improvement in price/performance for what's coming. 3 months will pass really fast. I have a feeling you'll regret any of those purchase decisions if you decide to go for one. If you do, the 2700 seems like the best choice.

  5. #5
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    16,258
    Quote Originally Posted by CryotriX View Post
    I'd really wait at this stage. There simply too much of an improvement in price/performance for what's coming. 3 months will pass really fast. I have a feeling you'll regret any of those purchase decisions if you decide to go for one. If you do, the 2700 seems like the best choice.
    My 3570K lasted me 6 years. I really don't think it would make THAT much of a difference. Right not it's SUPER obnoxious to have to get on my hands and knees, unplug USBs, get up and plug them into my laptop, twice a day, just to run skype. It's really not something I want to do for another few months.
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    I've finally gotten to the point where my poor 3570K isn't strong enough to do what I want it to do. I'm getting input lag while running Anthem as well as Skype at the same time. It doesn't seem overclocking it seems to help, and it's known that Anthem uses a lot of CPU. I've been meaning to upgrade for some time but never really 'needed to' til now. I'm honestly not sure would benefit me most. Usually when I upgrade, I go with middle ground hardware. I'm running 1080p still and while I'd like to upgrade to 1440p or 144hz, I have no plans on it any time soon. I'm also aware I'll need to get DDR4 and a new board for whichever I choose. The 8350K is basically the new architecture of what I'm using now (4ghz, 4/4 Core/Thread). I don't know if the Ryzen's are worth it in this regard for this particular situation. My 3570K runs literally everything else just fine.

    i3-8350K $169 4/4 Core/Thread 4Ghz
    i5-9600K $259 6/6 C/T - 3.6-4.6Ghz
    R5 2600X $184 6/12 - 3.6-4.2Ghz
    R5 2600 $165 6/6 - 3.4-3.9Ghz
    R7 2700 $240 8/16 - 3.2-4.1Ghz

    If you can wait till Summer that would be your best bet. If you can't then depends on budget. If you want to pick something up cheap head to Microcenter grab a Ryzen 1600 and MB for about 150 dollars total. You can always upgrade your cpu during the summer selling your 1600 for probably 50 bucks then and just slot in the newest Ryzne processor. Only thing you would need to do is update the BIOS and that is rather painless.
    Last edited by Wermys; 2019-03-15 at 04:45 AM.

  7. #7
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    16,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Wermys View Post
    If you can wait till Summer that would be your best bet. If you can't then depends on budget. If you want to pick something up cheap head to Microcenter grab a Ryzen 1600 and MB for about 130 dollars total. But otherwise just wait.
    I'm... pretty sure the 1600 is gonna be worse than my 3570K. My budget doesn't really matter. Below the $260 mark for the CPU, basically. I don't need an i7 or the higher end R7s.
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    I'm... pretty sure the 1600 is gonna be worse than my 3570K. My budget doesn't really matter. Below the $260 mark for the CPU, basically. I don't need an i7 or the higher end R7s.
    Read the above post to explain why. But the 3570k is not faster then a 1600. The performance isn't close unless its single threaded and overlocked to around 4.6 or so. That I am positive of. The 1600 is definitely faster. And as I said you can just sell it second hand later this summer fairly painlessly. The point is to buy the CPU then swap it in the summer. It will be good enough until then when you will be able to pick something up at a far less expensive price that will be equal to whatever Intel has currently.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    I'm... pretty sure the 1600 is gonna be worse than my 3570K. My budget doesn't really matter. Below the $260 mark for the CPU, basically. I don't need an i7 or the higher end R7s.
    I dont know that it would be worse than your 3570K. My basement tennant was running a 3570K (a rig i sold him) until recently; for X-mas i fronted him the money for a good B450 board and a 1600 from Microcenter (which were on deep sale at the time, though not as deep as the current one, more on that in a minute).

    It was a pretty solid upgrade for him just because games are now starting to actually use 4 real cores, so the additional 2 cores and SMT really helped background tasks. With a relatively inexpensive aftermarket cooler (you may even be able to use the one you have, if you can get the AM4 brackets for it), the 1600 is a solid CPU - you should be able to get a stable 4Ghz all-core on it. And given that the 3XXX series wasnt particularly great at OCing (my old rig/buddies old rig only got to about 4.2 stable)

    Now, its not going to be a huge leap in performance above your 3570K for the game itself - because Anthem, quite honestly, is a poorly optimized piege of dog feces as far as the software is concerned. I didn't get particularly great perfomrance out of it on a 1080Ti and an 8600K @ 4.8Ghz.

    Its performing poorly because its a garbage fire.

    But swapping to the 1600 WILL get you 2 more real cores + 6 SMT threads which will free up your background resources greatly.

    Now, the reason i suggest the 1600 (but only if you live near a Micro Center):

    Right now, its on sale for 79.99 AND it still has the 30$ off a compatible motherboard promotion. You can get a really good ASRock B450 board for 69.99 (so 39.99), getting you out the door for less than 130$ on the CPU AND the motherboard, after tax.

    You can use this for now, and when the Ryzen 3 parts come out in the summer, if they are bees knees... you can just buy one and with a BIOS update, drop it into your B450 board and call it a day, and you're only "out" the 80$ you spent on the 1600. And can probably resell it for a few bucks. Itll be better in the short term because youll have more CPU resources to throw around, freeing up the stuff running in the background (and this is really and "Anthem is shit" problem you're having), AND in a few months you can throw in a (if rumors are to be believed) MUCH better Ryzen 3 part in just a few months.

    Now, if you dont live near a Micro Center.. then meh. I'd go with the 9600K or if you can find it cheaper, the 8600K is literally the same chip as the 9600K. If you dont think the R5 1600 is going to be any better than your 3570K, then there is no reason to believe that the 2600 will be any better since its basically the same performance at the same clocks. The performance difference between Ryzen 1 parts and Ryzen 2 parts was margin of error at the same clocks.

    I run everything just fine at 1440p high refresh G-sync with my 8600K and they pretty much all will reliably hit 4.8-5ghz with very little tinkering (same with the 9600K). Mine is at 4.8 simply because i got it there at stock voltage and decided to just no b other trying to push it to 5. Anthem still ran like unmitigated ass though. Just so you're aware.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Wermys View Post
    Read the above post to explain why. But the 3570k is not faster then a 1600. The performance isn't close unless its single threaded and overlocked to around 4.6 or so. That I am positive of. The 1600 is definitely faster.
    There are literally no benchmarks that support this.

    Clock for clock, they are the same speed. Ryzen's IPC was about at Sandy/Ivy Bridge levels. The main advantage the 1600 has is the extra cores and threads, which, for most games, aren't relevant. Its only relevant in this particular case because Anthem is a huge-ass pig and isn't leaving any resources in the background to run other stuff.

    For most games, though, you'd not see a performance uplift going to a Ryzen cpu at the same clock speeds as an Ivy Bridge CPU. Only in the few games that make good use of more than 4 cores, which are vanishingly rare.

    Going forward, this will change, as we are now starting to see games that WILL fully utilize four cores, leaving a quad-core without SMT or HT in the lurch (which is what he's seeing with Anthem).
    Last edited by Kagthul; 2019-03-15 at 05:10 AM.

  10. #10
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    16,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Kagthul;50959944Its performing poorly because its a garbage fire. [/quote
    ......Yeeeeaaah. I really can't bank on "hope they fix it soon".

    Now, if you dont live near a Micro Center.. then meh. I'd go with the 9600K or if you can find it cheaper, the 8600K is literally the same chip as the 9600K.
    I was aiming for the 9600K since it's the same price as the 8600K, pretty much. I just need something soon, and want to get the best performance I could get, something that'll last a good number of years but obviously not forever.
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

  11. #11
    The Insane Granyala's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arkon-III
    Posts
    17,841
    Why the hell would you get input lag from using skype?
    Are we talking video stream of your gameplay here?

    Voice chat alone shouldn't even make a dent in CPU taxation. If you do not stream video and get the lags only while voice comm I would look at the software side of things, sth is off in your system. A 3570K, esp overclocked, isn't THAT weak.

  12. #12
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    16,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Granyala View Post
    Why the hell would you get input lag from using skype?
    Are we talking video stream of your gameplay here?

    Voice chat alone shouldn't even make a dent in CPU taxation. If you do not stream video and get the lags only while voice comm I would look at the software side of things, sth is off in your system. A 3570K, esp overclocked, isn't THAT weak.
    Anthem uses ridiculous CPU. It's pretty much maxing out my system as it is. Any other game is just fine, it's a known issue. Skype video uses CPU, as far as I'm aware, and it just can't manage the both of them.
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

  13. #13
    Please wait Temp name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Under construction
    Posts
    8,969
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    ......Yeeeeaaah. I really can't bank on "hope they fix it soon".

    Now, if you dont live near a Micro Center.. then meh. I'd go with the 9600K or if you can find it cheaper, the 8600K is literally the same chip as the 9600K.
    I was aiming for the 9600K since it's the same price as the 8600K, pretty much. I just need something soon, and want to get the best performance I could get, something that'll last a good number of years but obviously not forever.
    9600k/2600x would be my suggestions. Depends if you want more powerful cores or more threads. Games generally want the power, other stuff generally the threads

  14. #14
    The Insane Granyala's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arkon-III
    Posts
    17,841
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    Anthem uses ridiculous CPU. It's pretty much maxing out my system as it is. Any other game is just fine, it's a known issue. Skype video uses CPU, as far as I'm aware, and it just can't manage the both of them.
    So you ARE talking about streaming video.
    Okay.
    Yeah I did notice that when playing Witcher III. It was definitely less laggy w/o a video stream running in the background but it didn't bother me that much.
    I also run a 3570K OC'd to 4.6.

  15. #15
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    16,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Granyala View Post
    Are we talking video stream of your gameplay here?
    No
    Quote Originally Posted by Granyala View Post
    So you ARE talking about streaming video.
    I'm confused now. Whenever people say "streaming video" that could mean all kinds of things. Usually it's referring to sending video to a video stream, like in your first post. Some people call watching a youtuber "streaming". Some people call Netflix "streaming". The word is super vague. Anyway, no, I'm not streaming my gameplay, I'm just talking to my girl on skype while playing.
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    No

    I'm confused now. Whenever people say "streaming video" that could mean all kinds of things. Usually it's referring to sending video to a video stream, like in your first post. Some people call watching a youtuber "streaming". Some people call Netflix "streaming". The word is super vague. Anyway, no, I'm not streaming my gameplay, I'm just talking to my girl on skype while playing.
    But video, not audio only, correct?

    Skype is a real pig when it comes to video. Well, its a real pig regardless. But video is terrible.

    Try Discord instead. Far more lightweight. See if it helps any.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Its also wortj noting that for most games, high clock speeds arent required to get excellent performance. Only a few engines really demand high clocks (mostly MMOs and other secure client-server games). And, as you increase resolution, CPU becomes less of a bottleneck. Really any modern CPU that can hit 3.6-4.0ghz will be completely fine. Thats why id still suggest the R5 1600 if youre newr a Microcenter. The extra 8 threads will alleviate the issue youre currently having, the total cost right now is absurdly low, and if Ryzen 3000 series chips turn out to be super awesome, youre ready to go with only minimal fuss and a fairly minor loss on the 1600.

    Otherwise, the 9600K will be solid for some time to come.

  17. #17
    The Insane Granyala's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arkon-III
    Posts
    17,841
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    I'm just talking to my girl on skype while playing.
    Yeah but you do stream VIDEO (not of your gameplay but webcam) not just audio.
    Cut your video feed and the lags should go away.

    Skype video is rather demanding.

  18. #18
    Please wait Temp name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Under construction
    Posts
    8,969
    Quote Originally Posted by Kagthul View Post
    But video, not audio only, correct?

    Skype is a real pig when it comes to video. Well, its a real pig regardless. But video is terrible.

    Try Discord instead. Far more lightweight. See if it helps any.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Its also wortj noting that for most games, high clock speeds arent required to get excellent performance. Only a few engines really demand high clocks (mostly MMOs and other secure client-server games). And, as you increase resolution, CPU becomes less of a bottleneck. Really any modern CPU that can hit 3.6-4.0ghz will be completely fine. Thats why id still suggest the R5 1600 if youre newr a Microcenter. The extra 8 threads will alleviate the issue youre currently having, the total cost right now is absurdly low, and if Ryzen 3000 series chips turn out to be super awesome, youre ready to go with only minimal fuss and a fairly minor loss on the 1600.

    Otherwise, the 9600K will be solid for some time to come.
    Even if you're going with a 1600, I'd still say to get a decent b450 board rather than b350 for the superior vrm. Especially if you plan on upgrading to a 3000 series chip

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Temp name View Post
    Even if you're going with a 1600, I'd still say to get a decent b450 board rather than b350 for the superior vrm. Especially if you plan on upgrading to a 3000 series chip
    Micro Center has a good ASRock mATX B450 board for 69.99 (so 39.99 after the combo discount). Im actually picking up this combo today, to use as a replacement for my aging HTPC. 127$ out the door after taxes for the CPU/MoBo.

  20. #20
    Must agree fully with the B450 route.

    It's undeniable that more cores is becoming mainstream and with this software/games will start to be developed with this in mind. Asa apossessor of an 8600k, i'm not even sure 6 cores is actually THAT futureproof. It's still to be a long way ahead for sure, but CPUs in the end are not going to be replaced that often until damaged/faulty.

    Ryzen is the way to go if you look at the price/performance ratio. Intel definetely needs to step up its game (but actually mid tier builds with intel or AMD are actually trading blows in terms of both price and performance - though you're going to get a non-K Intel CPU).

    I'm gonna tell you to wait for the 3000 serie. Though if you absolutely don't want to wait it's up to you choosing one of the following routes:
    - get a 2600x and be fine for quite a bunch of time. While 3600x will be better, 2600x won't be suddendly non-viable.
    - if you don't mind spending more money or juggling a little, buy a 1600 now for cheap and then upgrade for a 3600x.

    From what you're saying though, i suppose you're going with the 2600x. It's a really good deal and you're not going to miss the 3600x imho.
    No one wants to choose. Everyone wants everything.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •