20% of Futu Online a Good Time to Upgrade My Gaming PC?

FabMan on 04/10/2017 - 12:37
Last edited 08/10/2017 - 13:32 by 1 other user

My system works well, but greed is getting the better of me. Since my GPU maxes out games at a solid 60fps on the monitors resolution, I thought I should get a better monitor. Once I have a better monitor I know my frame rates will be held back by my CPU and my motherboard cannot support a faster CPU without getting slightly better on the silicon lottery.

Current System:

  • HP 1920 x 1200 @ 73Hz (OC monitor)
  • Intel i5-750 @ 4.0Ghz (can overclock to 4.4Ghz if aircon is on)
  • ASUS P7P55D-E PRO (USB 3.0 but terrible SATA 3)
  • G. Skill 2 x 4GB @ 1600Mhz
  • HIS AMD Vega 56 8GB (just got this)
  • CM 690 II Advanced (too big for my current desires)
  • Corsair 650 watt (decent 7 year old PSU)
  • 2 x SSDs (Samsung 840 and Crucial MX400)
  • 2 x HDD in RAID 0

Considering:

  • ASUS MG279Q 2560 x 1400 @ 144Hz ($711 is the cheapest??? So much money)
  • Ryzen 1700 @ 4.0Ghz (I don't want Intel, this looks like the best option)
  • AM4 Motherboard (I don't know)
  • RAM 2 x 8GB @ 3200Mhz
  • HIS AMD Vega 56 8GB
  • Case (smaller one)
  • PSU (not sure)
  • 1 x M.2 NVME
  • 1 x SSD
  • 1 x HDD

Any thoughts on this kind of system?

Thanks

Computing

Comments

  • Axelstrife on 04/10/2017 - 12:55

    Don't Buy Ryzen 1700 expecting to 100% get 4ghz i didn't win the lottery so my OC is 3.8ghz at 1.35v which isnt very good.

    • FabMan on 04/10/2017 - 13:02

      If I don't get 3.9Ghz or above, I will be disappointed, I won't be able to help it. That is only because the amount of people that have hit 3.9Ghz, not because it should work. But thanks for that, I might lower my exceptions…

      • Axelstrife on 04/10/2017 - 13:14
        +1

        Tbh i haven't tried for 3.9 i suppose i could raise my volts and try but im happy with the amount of heat 72c max load with my Cryorig H7 Quad Lumi (case wouldnt fit 240mm aio or notuas large cooler)
        https://i.imgur.com/DtPQiPf.png
        My cinebench multicore scores, the lowest was ran with chrome and two three tabs open.

  • Ryanek on 04/10/2017 - 15:28

    The 1600x can beat the 1700 here. At $284 delivered at Newegg the 1600x is the better price performer.

    • Axelstrife on 04/10/2017 - 16:51
      +1

      Higher clock speeds
      1600x 3.6ghz
      1700 3.0ghz

      Compare Ryzen 1800x with Ryzen 1600x they both have the same clock speeds and Ryzen 1700 can overclock to 1800x clock speeds.

      EDIT: Just going to add my Ryzen 1700 Overclocked to 3.8GHZ Fire strike score here.
      https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22493728?

      Take a look at My physics score and now take a look at Ryzern 1800x and Ryzern 1600x.

    • FabMan on 04/10/2017 - 16:52

      The 1600 can be better for gaming, but I decided for the 1700 as I don't think 1600 is a worth while upgrade.

      My reasoning is that games that have low thread count won't perform that much better than my current system, going by benchmarks. Those games that utilise high number of threads will run much better and a 1700 will be the better choice.

      If I did get a 1600x to enjoy better gaming now the AM4 platform can be upgraded during the next Zen CPU release to take advantage of multi threaded games then.

      • Beanvee on 04/10/2017 - 18:59
        +1

        The amount of games that utilise maximum available threads is slim. https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2016?vs=2017

        I'd say the only reason to get the 1700 over the 1600 is productivity, but if you're not using your PC for work then you're basically just throwing away $100.

        • FabMan on 04/10/2017 - 19:04
          -1

          In that case I'm better off not upgrading my entire system for sub 30% performance.

          You also know that link you referenced keeps the CPUs at their default speeds, I would overclock any CPU I got so they should at least match it performance.

        • Ryanek on 05/10/2017 - 08:53

          I agree with this. OP is better off spending that 100 in other areas of the build.

        • Xizor on 06/10/2017 - 12:42

          If you intent to overclock then 1700 is surely better than 1600..?

    • Baron-K on 05/10/2017 - 06:04

      Don't know if price has changed but Newegg 1600x is $282 + $27.35 postage = $309.35 AUD
      Amazon currently has it for $199.99 USD + $6.75 USD Shipping & Import Fees Deposit to Australia
      or approx $263.06 AUD delivered at the time of posting.
      https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-1600X-Processor-YD160XBCAEW…

  • AlienC on 04/10/2017 - 16:12

    For your monitor have you considered a very small 4k TV?

    Tv's have come a long way it might actually be better overall for your budget?

    Just find a small 30-36" screen size with chroma subsampling 4:4:4 and you should be good to go.

    Can use the extra budgeting on your cpu or motherboard or other parts.

    • FabMan on 04/10/2017 - 16:41
      +1

      Hey, thanks for the suggestion.

      I have actually considered a 4K screen but I've decided against it due to the relative low refresh rate, higher latency and lack of FreeSync. I also do not think Vega 56 is powerful enough for 4K at a minimum 60fps.

      • AlienC on 04/10/2017 - 16:52

        Main reason I like 4 tv's is the productivity factor and option to stream 4k content from YouTube and otherwise.

        Yes it doesn't have 144hz or FreeSync or G-Sync.. yet but the other benefits are there.

        I guess ultimately it depends on how specific you want your monitor to be.

        As for input lag we are making some progress.

        Check this out

        https://youtu.be/hEtU_yewa8o

        Linus Tech Tips - Finally A TV For Gaming? -LG Nano Cell

        • FabMan on 04/10/2017 - 16:54

          Evetually i'll be getting a 4K TV… once the kids don't need a play room, it'll be my media room.

        • AlienC on 04/10/2017 - 17:00
          +1

          @FabMan: same I am just trying to kill two birds with one stone so am looking at 4k tv's for the use case of almost anything.

          Once I have that setup I might start looking at gaming specific monitor offerings but for me it's 4k TV priority.

  • Changskies on 05/10/2017 - 01:12

    no. 8th gen intel (forgot which one) i5 has 6 cores with decent default clock for 250 usd. if not, this might slightly push ryzen down in price.

  • FabMan on 05/10/2017 - 14:39

    Just benchmarked my i5-750 (4Ghz) on Rise of the Tomb Raider and got an average of 104fps at 1080p and Very High settings. Against systems with new CPUs and Vega 56 they are getting 112fps, so about 8% difference.

    Benchmarked FireStrike Ultra and got 4400s, new systems with Vega 56 are getting 4600s, so about 5% difference.

    So it doesn't seem worth it, until I benchmarked Total War: Warhammer… Jebus, that game must be CPU intensive because there is almost 50% differene. So if a game doesn't utilise more than 4 threads, an upgrade isn't worth it, that is why I was considering a 1700, for those newer games with better multi-threaded support.

    To those people really think 1600 is better, do you think a 8700K is a better option as it will have 6 cores that run faster than the 1600.

    • FabMan on 06/10/2017 - 10:59

      Ashes of Singularity: Escalation. Against a Core i7-7820X @ 4.3 Ghz there is 38% difference. That CPU though is faster per core and has two more cores than a Ryzen 1600.

  • FabMan on 08/10/2017 - 01:38

    Intels 8700K looks much better than Ryzen 5 1600 or 7 1700 for gaming. It is a shame as I want to support AMD but considering the prices of the CPUs, the 8700K is the better option. Only significant benefit of Ryzen is the ability to upgrade the CPU on the AM4 platform at a later date, but the Ryzen sequel would have to be significantly faster to match 8700k per core performance. Only the Ryzen 7 1700 makes sense to me as at least I'd have 2 extra cores against the 8700k that could benefit in future games with greater multi-threaded support.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join