Upgrade from 3570K to newer CPU

[Laqweeta]

Anthem is a terrible game so just don't play that and skype. ^-^

[Temp name]

9900k or wait til ryzen 3000 series.

Seems out of his budget and he said he didn't want to wait

Anthem is a terrible game so just don't play that and skype. ^-^

People have different opinions.

[Puupi]

Seems out of his budget and he said he didn't want to wait


People have different opinions.

Well the lower budget options aren't that much of an upgrade compared to his current cpu really. Paying 200-300e for the cpu for virtually no difference is pointless, too.

[Temp name]

Well the lower budget options aren't that much of an upgrade compared to his current cpu really. Paying 200-300e for the cpu for virtually no difference is pointless, too.

A 9600k is a fairly significant upgrade, giving you 2 additional cores, all of which are faster, around 300mhz stock, more so OC'd. It performs around 40% better in all tasks
A 2600x is a slightly smaller upgrade per core, but gives you 3 times the threads, also a fairly significant upgrade, around 200mhz faster, with less OC headroom. It performs around 20% better in all tasks, with a massive additional jump in tasks that require lots of threads

[chazus]

Try Discord instead. Far more lightweight.

I'll try that out. It's not optimal but if that works, that might allow me to carry over for now.

Micro Center has

No Microcenter within a few hundred miles

Yeah but you do stream VIDEO (not of your gameplay but webcam) not just audio.
Skype video is rather demanding.

Okay, so yeah, if you want to fit me sending skype video into 'streaming' then yes.

- - - Updated - - -

9900k or wait til ryzen 3000 series.

9900K is waaaaayyy out of my budget and way more power than I need.

Well the lower budget options aren't that much of an upgrade compared to his current cpu really. Paying 200-300e for the cpu for virtually no difference is pointless, too.

Most of the options listed are a -significant- performance upgrade, in both single and multi thread.

I just don't feel like waiting for the new CPUs is going to 'gimp' me, really. Since nearly every build in the last few months is recommending them anyway.

[Bryntrollian]

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.

It's not video streaming, Anthem struggles to run on 4cores/4threads as is and trying to run processes in the background while doing so is asking too much of it.

[chazus]

Just get the 2700 then with a decent motherboard and RAM, and OC it to 2700x levels. Should be a decent investment for the future. Also you seem to play modern titles where threads matter, so it's not like you require a very high clock Intel. What's the GPU you want to pair with this? And the resolution you play?

I already have a 1060, and currently only playing 1080p. As much as I'd like to upgrade, it's just not in the cards within the next couple years, and I'm happy at 1080p.

[Erous]

Personally I'd take the 9600k. I went from a 5820k to the 9900k because I had coupons. If I knew my wife was going to allow a gpu upgrade a couple weeks later, I would've chosen the 9600k.

I've done quite a bit of research and the 6/6 full core with OC potential I feel is the best bang for the buck at that price point and for 1440p gaming. Games like Anthem and Wow for instance will love the architecture and the OC capabilities. For awhile there I was dead sold on the 2700x, but what turned me down was it's inability to OC properly.

To stay within budget, and for 1440p, I'd take the 9600 unless you want to completely future proof for 6 years and spend the exttcash on the 9900... bUT I feel your 1060 would bottleneck with the 9900 making yet another argument for the 9600.

I like you also didn't want to wait. The time frames are a moving Target and the new AMD architecture may not be as wow factor in it's first iteration as most are hoping it will be.

[chazus]

a method of transmitting or receiving data (especially video and audio material) over a computer network as a steady, continuous flow, allowing playback to start while the rest of the data is still being received.

Not that vague if you ask me.

"Streaming" generally refers to things like youtubers and streaming gameplay. It depends on the context, since "Skype" and "OBS streaming games on Youtube" are two very, very different things. Again, context is relevant, especially given the medium (MMOC Forum). That's why I asked what, specifically, we were referring to.

[pedja5]

Something like this should be enough for Anthem and rest of programs. These days 16GB of ram is minimum, and I would recommend you to buy 32GB.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 2700 3.2 GHz 8-Core Processor ($219.99 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: Noctua - NH-U12S SE-AM4 CPU Cooler ($59.90 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: MSI - B450 TOMAHAWK ATX AM4 Motherboard ($114.89 @ OutletPC)
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3200 Memory ($309.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $704.77
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-03-21 22:47 EDT-0400

[Kagthul]

Something like this should be enough for Anthem and rest of programs. These days 16GB of ram is minimum, and I would recommend you to buy 32GB.

Dear god, will you stop recommending that people buy 32GB of RAM?

You dont need that much unless you're doing pro level content creation.

[pedja5]

Most of modern games can easily take 16GB of ram. I've been playing World of Warcraft with 16GB ram and 1GB fixed page file until last 8.1.5 patch, then started getting "out memory" errors and game crashing. So 17GB of memory (16GB ram + 1GB page file) wasn't enough for World of Warcraft + Firefox + Skype. Anthem came out recently, it's probably more memory hungry.

[Kagthul]

Most of modern games can easily take 16GB of ram. I've been playing World of Warcraft with 16GB ram and 1GB fixed page file until last 8.1.5 patch, then started getting "out memory" errors and game crashing. So 17GB of memory (16GB ram + 1GB page file) wasn't enough for World of Warcraft + Firefox + Skype. Anthem came out recently, it's probably more memory hungry.

Then something is wrong with your computer, particularly if WoW is eating 16GB of RAM.

I can run WoW, Discord, Chrome with 20+ tabs open, and have a video playing in Chrome.. and im not even seeing 10GB used.

You've got a memory leak somewhere.

Lets see... just for shiggles, im currently playing Shadow of the Tomb Raider on my PC. Fired up Discord, connected to the channel my friends use... opened up Chrome and opened up all 30 tabs that are currently open on my Daily Driver, and loaded up a YouTube video (from LTT), and opened up a TV show from Sling (also in a Chrome window).

All that running...

13GB. And thats at 1440p, maxed out settings.

You do NOT need 32GB of RAM, even if you're streaming and running 20+ tabs + other applications.

My wife regularly runs WoW + Discord + streams.. and her rig only has 8GB of RAM. Zero issues.

You cant just fire up Task Manager and see how much RAM is allocated and call it a day. Applications wont dump memory out of RAM unless something makes them.

The only time not having enough RAM could possibly be an issue is if it has to constantly page stuff in and out of memory. Youll rarely see that happen even with 8GB of RAM.

Only some extremely poorly coded games or apps might have an issue with it.

[Temp name]

16gb is plenty for WoW.. This is with WoW, 4 chrome tabs, Discord, steam, and Lego Star Wars (don't judge me, it's great) running:

Yes I have 32gb, but unlike some people here, I need it sometimes for things that aren't games

[Triggered Fridgekin]

While 3600x will be better, 2600x won't be suddendly non-viable.

See you say this but I have no doubt in my mind that the same will happen now as what happened back when Ryzen initially stepped out of the woods where all the sudden people decided they were going to become heavy multitaskers, streamers and content creators who compressed 7zip files all day so lol at those ancient 4/8 and now 6/6 core processors which are going to all the sudden bottleneck.

When the 8/16 3600 releases just wait how long that extends to 6/12 and 8/8 processors. It's just not going to be enough anymore for my five open Chrome tabs, Discord and game! I'm a power user, you know?

Of course I am being a little hyperbolic...

[Coldkil]

See you say this but I have no doubt in my mind that the same will happen now as what happened back when Ryzen initially stepped out of the woods where all the sudden people decided they were going to become heavy multitaskers, streamers and content creators who compressed 7zip files all day so lol at those ancient 4/8 and now 6/6 core processors which are going to all the sudden bottleneck.

When the 8/16 3600 releases just wait how long that extends to 6/12 and 8/8 processors. It's just not going to be enough anymore for my five open Chrome tabs, Discord and game! I'm a power user, you know?

Of course I am being a little hyperbolic...

The fact most people are really convinced that more is good is baffling and i agree with your hyperbole.

Imho, i'd wait for the 3000 serie because while more cores now are not really useful for everyday usage, they will be "future-proof". We are used to basically 15 years of 4/4 or 4/8 at best and everything was designed to run on these configurations - with more cores available on the mainstream platforms maybe (keyword maybe) new software/games releases will make more use of such structures.

Anyway, even if it's too much stuff for normal use right now, the price/performance ratio is stellar so no real reason to not buy the 3600/3600x if anyone is going to build a new system.

[Temp name]

The fact most people are really convinced that more is good is baffling and i agree with your hyperbole.

Imho, i'd wait for the 3000 serie because while more cores now are not really useful for everyday usage, they will be "future-proof". We are used to basically 15 years of 4/4 or 4/8 at best and everything was designed to run on these configurations - with more cores available on the mainstream platforms maybe (keyword maybe) new software/games releases will make more use of such structures.

Anyway, even if it's too much stuff for normal use right now, the price/performance ratio is stellar so no real reason to not buy the 3600/3600x if anyone is going to build a new system.

As far as I know, Far Cry 5's engine doesn't run that well on <8 threads, with stutters being fairly common.

[Coldkil]

As far as I know, Far Cry 5's engine doesn't run that well on <8 threads, with stutters being fairly common.

That's exactly what i was thinking about. This situation was the exception before, will be the norm now given enough time.

[Temp name]

That's exactly what i was thinking about. This situation was the exception before, will be the norm now given enough time.

We don't know what the future brings, but as more and more people get more cores in their devices, game devs will probably take advantage of them. I can only hope it'll be slow enough that you won't feel hopelessly behind after 1-2 years

[Coldkil]

We don't know what the future brings, but as more and more people get more cores in their devices, game devs will probably take advantage of them. I can only hope it'll be slow enough that you won't feel hopelessly behind after 1-2 years

Agree. The jump we're seeing now is pretty huge, but as with 4/4 and 4/8 i assume that 8/8 and 8/16 will be the "norm" for quite a while. Or at least i hope.