Opinions on this upgrade.

[ace]

Greetings fellow citizens of the master race.

I have a build I am currently sorting out and since I have been out of the PC tech game since 2007 ish it would mean a lot if you fine people would let me know if this is a good upgrade or not.

My current build is:

Intel Core i7 930 @2.80GHZ

6GB DDR3 @59MHz

Gigabyte Technology Co X58A-UD3R

GTX 560Ti 1023MB




What I am planning on getting:

AMD RYZEN 7 1700 - 8 core/16 threads, 65W TDP

GIGABYTE AB350 GAMING 3 AM4 MOTHERBOARD

16GB Crosair DDR4, 3200MHz 2 x 288 DIMM, Vengence

128GB INTEL 600P SERIES, M.2 (2280) PCIe 3.0

MSI GEFORCE GTX 1080 Ti Duke 11G OC 1645MHz 352-BIT

750W CROSAIR CX750M MODULAR ATX PSU 80 PLUS BRO



I want this biuld to give me at the very least 60fps on all ( especially Rise of the Tomb Raider, Doom 4, Farcry series etc) games on a 1080p resolution with all settings maxed out. Being an animator and designer, I am a sucker for games at their top quality and the highest fps possible. I may move to 2k gaming in a few years but not for a while.


I also want this build to help me out with Motion Graphics, video editiing and 3D animation.


what do you guys reckon?


Thanks so much!

[Omega]

Big Boom Boom님이 먼저 게시:

Bad_Motha님이 먼저 게시:

CX750M is roughly $78

EVGA SuperNova G3 650W is roughly $75, and Gold Rated

$89.99 ON SALE. Price is $109.

CXM is $89.99.

Still totally worth the $20 extra.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Big Boom Boom님이 먼저 게시:

Bad_Motha님이 먼저 게시:

CX750M is roughly $78

EVGA SuperNova G3 650W is roughly $75, and Gold Rated

$89.99 ON SALE. Price is $109.

CXM is $89.99. Not 50% more expensive but the G3 is still 25% more expensive.

You're in another country; cause none of those prices are correct.

For lord's sake, DO NOT buy CX, it's junk

[Big Boom Boom]

Omega님이 먼저 게시:

Big Boom Boom님이 먼저 게시:

$89.99 ON SALE. Price is $109.

CXM is $89.99.

Still totally worth the $20 extra.

Which the RM650x is only another $10 extra ($119) for 3 years warranty more than EVGA G3.

Arguably the CX750M is hard buy either way.

Bad_Motha님이 먼저 게시:

Big Boom Boom님이 먼저 게시:

$89.99 ON SALE. Price is $109.

CXM is $89.99. Not 50% more expensive but the G3 is still 25% more expensive.

You're in another country; cause none of those prices are correct.

For lord's sake, DO NOT buy CX, it's junk

Using NEWEGG US price. Sure, you're not in the US?

The price in Australia is even more skewed. CX750M = $129, EVGA G3 650W = $189. YVMW.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Omega님이 먼저 게시:

OP is never going to run at 3000mhz either. He will be running at 2933mhz.


Sorry.. just nitpicking .. I will leave now..

No-one has said he'd run at 3000 MHz on Ryzen either.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism님이 먼저 게시:

Omega님이 먼저 게시:

OP is never going to run at 3000mhz either. He will be running at 2933mhz.


Sorry.. just nitpicking .. I will leave now..

No-one has said he'd run at 3000 MHz on Ryzen either.

He put 3200 for the RAM in the OP; thats why I was saying just get 3000

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Bad_Motha님이 먼저 게시:

Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism님이 먼저 게시:

No-one has said he'd run at 3000 MHz on Ryzen either.

He put 3200 for the RAM in the OP; thats why I was saying just get 3000

Yeah. I have no problem with buying 3200 or 3000 branded RAM sticks.
My point was related to the "he will be running at 2933 MHz", we already know that in the case of 3000 MHz branded RAM sticks. They are still called that because of 3000 MHz XMP profiles I suppose.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Yes, WE (as tech community folks) know this... however many users are un-aware.
So it's always best to give users a heads-up if they are un-aware of such factors.
To help ensure they have this understanding before they purchase.
This kind of thing is simply due to how "Intel XMP RAM Profiles" get translated on AMD Chipsets. This is always subject to change over time, as coding gets updated, and BIOS updates for the various Motherboards are then released.

[ace]

Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism님이 먼저 게시:

I don't know how good the B350 boards are with Ryzen and with OC (which I think one should do with Ryzen 7 1700), back when I read about it people thought the VRM was weak even on many X370 boards), the board I've considered has been the X370 Prime Pro from ASUS (not in that order but google it ..), that's much more expensive than B350 though.

I think the i5 8400 + Z370 is a better choice than Ryzen 7 1700 + X370 for gaming and for saving some money, then again since you used the B350 you'll drop the price and the Ryzen 7 1700 will get close to the i5 8400 in price and it will have better multi-threaded performance especially overclocked. As for how good the B350 board is though .. Also how fast can it run the RAM?
It's of course fine supporting AMD and competition.

Does the RAM work in 3200 or 2933 or not at all on the motherboard in question? Ryzen is a bit more picky with RAM than Intel.

Graphics cards don't have the best prices right now and the Nvidia models has been out for quite some time, of course if you want to buy right now none of that matter.

If you got GTX 1080Ti then maybe i7 8700K would make even more sense though it would cost even more money, but it's the one which can push the GTX 1080Ti the furthest as is.

60 FPS you could in most cases likely get with about the i3 8100 + GTX 1060 .. Not necessarily maxed out and not in Arma 3 but otherwise ..

For your creative stuff the i7 8700K would be a better option than i3 and i5 and it can and can not outperform Ryzen 7 depending on task.

I think GTX 1080Ti is way too much for 60 FPS 1080p gaming. I think one guy who tested the GTX 970 in WQHD (what you call 2K) got more or less the 60 FPS experience in Destiny 2 with that ..
Ryzen 5 or i5 8400 and GTX 1070 or Vega 56 likely bring you where you say you want to be. If you buy something more powerful you of course get something more powerful :), and getting 144+ fps in 1080p may be nice too? =P

There's at-least one 165 Hz G-sync IPS WQHD screen available and with the GTX 1080Ti and i7 8700K that should make a nice Quake Champions setup.. Vega 56 and an equivalent Freesync screen would be cheaper though. Maybe the Samsung C32HG70 for instance.

Didn't answered the PSU part and didn't even look at it but yeah EVGA G2, G3, Corsair RMx, AX, HX, higher tier Seasonic and so on are good PSUs.

I would like to thank you for making me hit my head on the wall multiple times.

The moment you suggested the i7 8700K. I have been endlessly researching the difference between the i7 and the Ryzen 7. So far from what I have collected is that the i7 is better for gaming but the Ryzen is better for multipurpose tasks like rendering and editing since it has more cores.

Am I on track with this? Is the i7 have good value for money?

Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism님이 먼저 게시:

Bad_Motha님이 먼저 게시:

He put 3200 for the RAM in the OP; thats why I was saying just get 3000

Yeah. I have no problem with buying 3200 or 3000 branded RAM sticks.
My point was related to the "he will be running at 2933 MHz", we already know that in the case of 3000 MHz branded RAM sticks. They are still called that because of 3000 MHz XMP profiles I suppose.

Do you reckon switching to 3000Mhz RAM sticks costs less and is all I will ever need for a while? I may want to move from 16BG to 32GB in the future or even sooner.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Cassius님이 먼저 게시:

I would like to thank you for making me hit my head on the wall multiple times.

The moment you suggested the i7 8700K. I have been endlessly researching the difference between the i7 and the Ryzen 7. So far from what I have collected is that the i7 is better for gaming but the Ryzen is better for multipurpose tasks like rendering and editing since it has more cores.

Am I on track with this? Is the i7 have good value for money?

If you view i7 8700K benchmarks then on some pages they are simply wrong because ASUS when you used faster RAM with XMP by default overclocked all cores to the maximum turbo core frequency for a single core, as in 4.7 GHz for all cores whereas what it should turbo up to is 4.3 GHz. That has also given some temperatures of 90+ degrees which you shouldn't get at the normal turboed mode but get because ASUS likely increase the voltage quite a bit to make sure it will function to run at 4.7 GHz using all i7 8700Ks (the Turbo boost isn't guaranteed either, if you get a poor chip or have a weak cooler or so it could boost less.)

Sweclockers has pretty low results so they can't have run it at 4.7 GHz and I trust them, but it's in Swedish so .. Then again charts doesn't really depend on language.
1700 can be overclocked and maybe you intend to do so? If so I would compare with the 1800X instead, then again 8700K seem to be capable to hit 5 GHz so that will make that stronger too.
https://www.sweclockers.com/test/24482-intel-core-i7-8700k-i5-8600k-och-i3-8350k-coffee-lake/8#content

Cinebench R15 one thread:
i7 8700K: 205
i5 8400: 175
Ryzen 7 1800X: 164
Ryzen 7 1700: 145

Multi-threaded:
Ryzen 7 1800X: 1626
Ryzen 7 1700: 1424
i7 8700K: 1416
i5 8400: 958

X264 first pass happen faster. 8700K just ahead of 1800X.
X264 second pass take longer time. 1800X about 10% ahead of 8700K.

7-zip compression: 8700K a bit ahead of 1800X.
Blender Island: 1800X a bit ahead of 8700K.
Photoshop Lightroom export: 8700K a tiny bit ahead of 1800X.
Luxmark Hotel Lobby: 8700K 10+% ahead of 1800X.
Vera crypt: 8700K just ahead of 1800X.
3D Mark Firestrike Total: 8700K 10+% ahead of 1800X, physics they are basically the same at.

Battlefield 1: 8700K well ahead of 1800X.
... but that's in 720p medium on a GTX 1080.
... in 1080p Ultra using a GTX 1080 everything from Ryzen 5 1600 and up reach about the same result because then the performance is limited by the graphics card at at-least 110 FPS..

Witcher 3: Massive lead for 8700K at 720p medium and a pretty small one at 1080p Ultra.
Fallout 4: Pretty massive lead for the 8700K there to in 720p medium, 106 FPS low on 8700K and 81 FPS low on 1800X. But do people need 100+ FPS in Fallout 4? In 1080p Ultra it's 82 vs 59 FPS low so actually still quite a large difference for that title.
Total war: Warhammer in 720p medium massive lead for 8700K. In 1080p Ultra the 1800X actually beats it but the i5 8400 beat both by a large margin so I would assume it's a poor test and the 8700K happened to have a larger drop for some reason.
Civ VI benchmark: Ryzen 7 1800X win both.
Power consumption: Both idle, X264 and Blender the 8700K use less.
Energy efficiency Blender: 8700K just head of 1700, 1800X almost 20% behind.


I know for a fact that Ryzen got simpler AVX/FPU units, i have the impression that in multi-threaded tasks using other instructions the 8 cores make it somewhat ahead of Intel 6 cores, on the other hand at single-threaded tasks the Intel chip clock higher and have a tiny tiny bit higher IPC resulting in better performance, and then there's AVX loads and some video loads where the Intel chip get ahead.

I think the Ryzen chips are excellent chips for multi-threaded tasks and even for gaming if you don't have the best graphics card and don't play at low resolutions with low settings in many cases you won't hit the limits. However I would take the 8700K myself if I were given a choice between the two without paying for them. Now the B350 + Ryzen 7 1700 is different because that's $150-$200 cheaper as well, which matter, then again the i5 8400 would also be $200 cheaper. The Ryzen 7 1700 you'll likely be able to overclock up to 1800X performance but even if you do as seen above that's not necessarily enough and the 8700K can be overclocked further too most likely basically making it catch up in the multi-threaded loads it was worse at and then outperforming even more in the other loads. But it's a more expensive chip. Not vs 1800X but vs 1700. :)

I think the best value chip is the i5 8400 but that's for gaming, for multithreaded tasks it will be worse.

Cinebench multi: i5 8400 958, R7 1700: 1424
X264 2nd pass: i5 8400 23, R7 1700: 30,8.
7-zip: i5 8400: 24.4k, R7 1700: 28.9k
And so on.
Then again gaming:
Total war: Warhammer 720p medium on a GTX 1080 (unlikely):
i5 8400: 244 FPS avg, 167 FPS low.
R7 1700: 182 FPS avg, 114 FPS low.
But I'm pretty sure you'd be ok with 114+ FPS in TW:WH too? Also with the OC to 1800X performance:
R7 1800X: 196 FPS avg, 128 FPS low.
So OC it actually beat the i5 8400 there.

I haven't checked how well they overclock on B350 boards and haven't considered B350 myself because of what I've read about VRM and RAM OC but I know people have overclocked on B350 too so there's that. If you compare Ryzen 7 1700X + X370 vs i7 8700K + Z370 then the 8700K start to look like the better alternative. But by going Ryzen 7 1700 + B350 you're saving so much money.

There's also an i7 8700 which would had removed like $50 more, I guess also come like a cooler like the Ryzen 7 1700 but not as good one and if the B360 boards which didn't supported OC were also out and cost close to B350 money then the i7 8700 would had looked pretty nice. But since one need to get the more expensive Z370 boards as is .. I guess you get i7 8700 + Z370 for the same money as R7 1700 + X370. Or about that.

Next Zen refresh will run on the same boards (cannon lake for Intel too) but that's irrelevant I guess if you buy one of the higher tier products because then you'll keep it longer than until February =P. Maybe the AMD boards got better connectivity. The ASRock Z370 Extreme 4 and the ASUS Prime X370-Pro I guess may cost pretty much the same? Those are supposed to be boards with pretty good VRM and both have ALC1220 so ~the stuff I'd look for but they are much more expensive than B350.

I feel even i3 8100 and Ryzen 5 1600 are nice options right now though and whatever you choose I guess you'd end up with something you'd be pretty happy with. Hopefully :)
Personally I will have a hard time wanting to sink $800 into a graphics card.. Maybe I'll have good processor and bad graphics until the next gen stuff, or go like i7 8700K + GTX 1060 though that make no sense to others while waiting and then upgrading the next time to like "GTX 2070" or whatever. It's hard :)

Cassius님이 먼저 게시:

Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism님이 먼저 게시:

Yeah. I have no problem with buying 3200 or 3000 branded RAM sticks.
My point was related to the "he will be running at 2933 MHz", we already know that in the case of 3000 MHz branded RAM sticks. They are still called that because of 3000 MHz XMP profiles I suppose.

Do you reckon switching to 3000Mhz RAM sticks costs less and is all I will ever need for a while? I may want to move from 16BG to 32GB in the future or even sooner.

If you want 32 GB I think you should look at Intel or Threadripper rather than Ryzen.

I don't think 3000 MHz cost much less than 3200 MHz and if 3200 MHz was supported and didn't cost much more that's what I would get for Ryzen. However on B350 motherboard you may not get over 2666 MHz anyway so .. The problem is this:
http://download.gigabyte.eu/FileList/Memory/mb_memory_ga-ab350-gaming3.pdf
Check the memory socket support 4 column.
CMD32GX4M4A2800C16 ver 5.20 for instance you could run 4x8GB of for a total of 32 GB, but it's rarely supported and that's 2133 MHz memory.
Seem like 4 of these worked:
http://www.memory4less.com/v-color-8gb-ddr4-pc19200-td8g16c17-uh
And that's 2400 MHz at-least, but the list doesn't have faster RAM than that?

So it's X370 for 2933 or 3200 MHz RAM. Or Intel or Threadripper.

Ryzen run better with fast RAM though so the results with B350 and 2133 MHz DDR4 may not be the same as with X370 and 3200 MHz DDR4. So that complicate things even further for you =P

None of it will be terrible at-least, all better options than what was available before Ryzen =P

For gaming alone the i7 7700K has become cheaper and is bundled with two games at-least somewhere and it do well in gaming though bad in the productivity tasks relative high core count Ryzen and the 8th gen Intel. Here in Sweden Gigabyte give you €20 or €40 steam wallet if you buy their Z370 boards, €40 only for a very expensive one. That doesn't have the same value as the rest but ..
AMD also have their more expensive Vega bundles which offer a discount on Ryzen + motherboard and a monitor and offer some games too. I don't know where it can actually be bought though.

Since I don't have the productivity issue an hate my slow processor for gaming i5 8400 or i7 8700K is likely what I would had picked up. Then again the OC Ryzen 7 1700 even beat that in TW:WH!! .. ;D

Oh, seem like Sweclockers didn't used the fastest RAM?
https://www.sweclockers.com/test/24482-intel-core-i7-8700k-i5-8600k-och-i3-8350k-coffee-lake/7#content
Then maybe the stuff above isn't good enough anyway ;D

Maybe this isn't something which interest you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zulzlWgOg5k
Boot Windows:
SSD: 14s
HDD + Optane 2nd time (anything inbetween or not?): 28s
HDD + Optane 1st time: 1m23s
HDD alone: 1m42s
Launch Premiere Pro: Fastest on SSD but HDD + Optane 2nd time just behind, the others much slower.

And so on.

32 GB Optane drive cost like 60% of 256 GB SSD or so so pretty expensive then again if it allow a 4 TB HDD with pretty good performance vs 4 TB SSD .. But I doubt it boost all that well if you launch content from all over that 4 TB HDD.

(Optane support is only on Intel right?)

[Big Boom Boom]

112 fps in total War Warhammer is in your dream. Certain scenes are killer and you get like 25 fps with Intel i7 OC. Not sure how Ryzen will fare, nobody bother to test them even though they claim min fps is all you should look at.

Even without close up scenes, watching 10,000 vs 10,000 can still slow down significantly into 40 fps.

Also you sure R7 beat i5-8400 there? 244 AVG 167 low is way above what OC R7 1800X 196 AVG 128 low in your own post.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Big Boom Boom님이 먼저 게시:

112 fps in total War Warhammer is in your dream. Certain scenes are killer and you get like 25 fps with Intel i7 OC. Not sure how Ryzen will fare, nobody bother to test them even though they claim min fps is all you should look at.

Even without close up scenes, watching 10,000 vs 10,000 can still slow down significantly into 40 fps.

Also you sure R7 beat i5-8400 there? 244 AVG 167 low is way above what OC R7 1800X 196 AVG 128 low in your own post.

oh sorry obviously not. Compared with the R7 1700 then. It ends up being a lot of numbers and lines.

So i5 8400 faster in the game. More as expected. But slower in other tasks.

[Big Boom Boom]

It's a budget i5, compare it to R5 1600X in term of task. Due to game engines, there's not much sense to buy R7 over R5 1600/X for gaming anyway.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Big Boom Boom님이 먼저 게시:

It's a budget i5, compare it to R5 1600X in term of task. Due to game engines, there's not much sense to buy R7 over R5 1600/X for gaming anyway.

Right now yes but branding doesn't mean anything. It can keep up with the i7 7700K. For gaming purposes right now it's better than Ryzen.

[upcoast]

Big Boom Boom님이 먼저 게시:

It's a budget i5, compare it to R5 1600X in term of task. Due to game engines, there's not much sense to buy R7 over R5 1600/X for gaming anyway.

Looking through the post OP wants multi core use too, so here we go again with the intel vs amd gaming argument.

For the OPs uses an R7 1700 OC could serve his uses but with that said if he can wait for early next year the Ryzen II should be available.

[PepuroniPeetsa]

Good build, you don't need a 1080 Ti for 1080p. If it's 1080p144hz then that's a different story. If you want 1080p, a 1060 or 1070 will get the job done just fine.