which will be best for gtx 1060? i5 4590 or i7 4770

[Viziér]

i want to upgrade my cpu

[CursedPanther]

Get the 4770. You'll need every bit of the juice now that we're officially in 2019.

[r.linder]

If you're going through the trouble of upgrading your CPU, you're better off not upgrading to a CPU that's 5 generations behind, especially since neither are overclockable. You're stuck with what you get, and 4th gen CPUs will likely struggle with the current generation of Nvidia GPUs, so you would be essentially trapped in Pascal.

You're better off going for a Ryzen 5 2600 on a B450 board if you want to upgrade because the performance will be better and you'll have a CPU that can properly handle newer GPUs.

[Autumn_]

Originally posted by Escorve:

If you're going through the trouble of upgrading your CPU, you're better off not upgrading to a CPU that's 5 generations behind, especially since neither are overclockable. You're stuck with what you get, and 4th gen CPUs will likely struggle with the current generation of Nvidia GPUs, so you would be essentially trapped in Pascal.

You're better off going for a Ryzen 5 2600 on a B450 board if you want to upgrade because the performance will be better and you'll have a CPU that can properly handle newer GPUs.

Or maybe see if AMD launch their new Ryzen 3000 series at CES (1 week away.)

That should provide a good boost if the leaks turn out to be correct.
(6core12threads for 100 dollars, not including mobo/RAM)


Upgrading to a dead platform is pointless, you're going to see a minor gain compared to what the 2000/3000 series could do.
The 2000 series was pretty much on par with 8th gen (with 3,400mhz RAM), and the 3000 will get much better performance, so it should beat the current gen of Intel CPUs.

If you're tight on cash, then this would prolly be the best route for you.

[hawkeye]

The 4770 is 30% better than the 4590 multi-threaded. There is a 4790k which is a lot better than both the 4590 and 4770 but they are in demand so are expensive. A 4770 would be good enough for most games at 1080p with a 1060 i.e. above 60fps.

[7DAYS_VLAD [RU[]

neither one, i7-8700K. No point buying long outdated Cpus. And if your Mainboard doesnt support, then you know what needs to be changed aswell.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by Autumn:

Originally posted by Escorve:

If you're going through the trouble of upgrading your CPU, you're better off not upgrading to a CPU that's 5 generations behind, especially since neither are overclockable. You're stuck with what you get, and 4th gen CPUs will likely struggle with the current generation of Nvidia GPUs, so you would be essentially trapped in Pascal.

You're better off going for a Ryzen 5 2600 on a B450 board if you want to upgrade because the performance will be better and you'll have a CPU that can properly handle newer GPUs.

Or maybe see if AMD launch their new Ryzen 3000 series at CES (1 week away.)

That should provide a good boost if the leaks turn out to be correct.
(6core12threads for 100 dollars, not including mobo/RAM)


Upgrading to a dead platform is pointless, you're going to see a minor gain compared to what the 2000/3000 series could do.
The 2000 series was pretty much on par with 8th gen (with 3,400mhz RAM), and the 3000 will get much better performance, so it should beat the current gen of Intel CPUs.

If you're tight on cash, then this would prolly be the best route for you.

Mm, forgot about CES.

What I'm really excited for is Ryzen 9, as the 3850X is rumored to have 16C32T, 4.3 base and 5.1 max for slightly less than a 9900K. That would at least close the gap between AMD and Intel for a little bit again.

[Guydodge]

Originally posted by Autumn:

Originally posted by Escorve:

If you're going through the trouble of upgrading your CPU, you're better off not upgrading to a CPU that's 5 generations behind, especially since neither are overclockable. You're stuck with what you get, and 4th gen CPUs will likely struggle with the current generation of Nvidia GPUs, so you would be essentially trapped in Pascal.

You're better off going for a Ryzen 5 2600 on a B450 board if you want to upgrade because the performance will be better and you'll have a CPU that can properly handle newer GPUs.

Or maybe see if AMD launch their new Ryzen 3000 series at CES (1 week away.)

That should provide a good boost if the leaks turn out to be correct.
(6core12threads for 100 dollars, not including mobo/RAM)


Upgrading to a dead platform is pointless, you're going to see a minor gain compared to what the 2000/3000 series could do.
The 2000 series was pretty much on par with 8th gen (with 3,400mhz RAM), and the 3000 will get much better performance, so it should beat the current gen of Intel CPUs.

If you're tight on cash, then this would prolly be the best route for you.

more cores kinda means nothing in gaming at the moment and 4 strong cores is much better than 6 weak cores and AMD over inflates its GHZ so no it will not beat INTEL.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by Guydodge:

Originally posted by Autumn:

Or maybe see if AMD launch their new Ryzen 3000 series at CES (1 week away.)

That should provide a good boost if the leaks turn out to be correct.
(6core12threads for 100 dollars, not including mobo/RAM)


Upgrading to a dead platform is pointless, you're going to see a minor gain compared to what the 2000/3000 series could do.
The 2000 series was pretty much on par with 8th gen (with 3,400mhz RAM), and the 3000 will get much better performance, so it should beat the current gen of Intel CPUs.

If you're tight on cash, then this would prolly be the best route for you.

more cores kinda means nothing in gaming at the moment and 4 strong cores is much better than 6 weak cores and AMD over inflates its GHZ so no it will not beat INTEL.

For the price, it will, especially around this time as Intel has had a shortage in stock, causing prices to be a little bit higher than normal. The cores aren't weak, and you clearly haven't used a Ryzen CPU.

Also, the point of Ryzen kind of flew right over your head; it's cheaper for one, but the better chips like the 2700X are better than Intel for content creators and streamers for the price.
Ryzen 9 3850X, assuming they release it at CES or afterwards, will destroy the 9900K which was Intel's ultimate answer to Ryzen because it's rumored to be a 16 core 32 thread chip clocked at 4.3~5.1 GHz, and the sources are usually accurate. Combining that with the fact that Ryzen 3000 is supposed to be at least 10nm, the same process as Cannon Lake, will affect performance differences between that upcoming series and Intel's current generation. It will force them to respond to Ryzen again.

[Autumn_]

Originally posted by Escorve:

Originally posted by Autumn:

Or maybe see if AMD launch their new Ryzen 3000 series at CES (1 week away.)

That should provide a good boost if the leaks turn out to be correct.
(6core12threads for 100 dollars, not including mobo/RAM)


Upgrading to a dead platform is pointless, you're going to see a minor gain compared to what the 2000/3000 series could do.
The 2000 series was pretty much on par with 8th gen (with 3,400mhz RAM), and the 3000 will get much better performance, so it should beat the current gen of Intel CPUs.

If you're tight on cash, then this would prolly be the best route for you.

Mm, forgot about CES.

What I'm really excited for is Ryzen 9, as the 3850X is rumored to have 16C32T, 4.3 base and 5.1 max for slightly less than a 9900K. That would at least close the gap between AMD and Intel for a little bit again.

With the IPC gains it's leaked to be having, it will beat the i9-9900k.
Because with the right memory (3,400mhz with tight timings, 'HA' I know.), the 2700x (clocked at 4.2ghz) can rival the i7-8700k overclocked to 5ghz, within just a few FPS.

And they're going to be improving the infinity fabric, and IPC, and boosting clockspeeds.
Even if just half of that is true, then it will beat the i9-9900k, for cheaper, while providing 2x the cores.
At that point, it's basically stealing in todays market.

Originally posted by Guydodge:

Originally posted by Autumn:

Or maybe see if AMD launch their new Ryzen 3000 series at CES (1 week away.)

That should provide a good boost if the leaks turn out to be correct.
(6core12threads for 100 dollars, not including mobo/RAM)


Upgrading to a dead platform is pointless, you're going to see a minor gain compared to what the 2000/3000 series could do.
The 2000 series was pretty much on par with 8th gen (with 3,400mhz RAM), and the 3000 will get much better performance, so it should beat the current gen of Intel CPUs.

If you're tight on cash, then this would prolly be the best route for you.

more cores kinda means nothing in gaming at the moment and 4 strong cores is much better than 6 weak cores and AMD over inflates its GHZ so no it will not beat INTEL.

In games like GTA, 6 slightly slower cores will perform better than 4 faster ones.
And the case is the same with a few other games.
But that's dedicated to just games, and games now are all using 4 cores, so if you want to do anything else at the same time then you're pretty much ♥♥♥♥♥♥.

But, like I said above, AMD will be improving Infinity fabric, IPC and clockspeeds, so it should beat Intel for at least a couple (COUPLE = 2) of years before they catch up, and beat it.
Which is a good thing, because it means there is competition. Unlike with the FX series Intel was allowed to pull off the same ♥♥♥♥, and let the market stagnate, that's why we saw quadcore parts for so long.
(Inb4 >games didn't need that many cores.)

And, what do you mean AMD overinflates it's Ghz? You mean marketing ploys?
Because it doesn't, and this is a leak, to take it 100% is retarded. Plus at this point there have been multiple sources that have said the same thing, and that it should launch at CES, so it's got a little more to back it up, however, I still don't believe it 100% until I see it.
But I don't doubt they'll pull something good off.

Originally posted by Escorve:

Originally posted by Guydodge:

more cores kinda means nothing in gaming at the moment and 4 strong cores is much better than 6 weak cores and AMD over inflates its GHZ so no it will not beat INTEL.

For the price, it will, especially around this time as Intel has had a shortage in stock, causing prices to be a little bit higher than normal. The cores aren't weak, and you clearly haven't used a Ryzen CPU.

Also, the point of Ryzen kind of flew right over your head; it's cheaper for one, but the better chips like the 2700X are better than Intel for content creators and streamers for the price.
Ryzen 9 3850X, assuming they release it at CES or afterwards, will destroy the 9900K which was Intel's ultimate answer to Ryzen because it's rumored to be a 16 core 32 thread chip clocked at 4.3~5.1 GHz, and the sources are usually accurate. Combining that with the fact that Ryzen 3000 is supposed to be at least 10nm, the same process as Cannon Lake, will affect performance differences between that upcoming series and Intel's current generation. It will force them to respond to Ryzen again.

It will be 7nm. (But it's about equal to 10nm iirc.) it's stupid to use their mesuring metrics, because each company uses it's own, and it's all just marketing at the moment.

And if I'm recalling correctly, Intels first 10nm chip will perform worse than their 14++++(Ad infinitum)
So if they do adopt 10nm, it will put them behind a bit until they get 10nm+, which should yeld decent results.
So that means if Ryzen 3000 series is better than 8/9th gen, then it's going to be 1 year or more of Ryzen power.
Which, even though AMD would be in power, I don't think they'd price hike like Intel does.
This would mean Intel actually has to innovate, which is a brilliant thing, this leads to a good fight between the two, and that's how we progress.
Markets should never stagnate, otherwise they turn into what we've had for the past, idk, 6+ years? Where it was only Quadcores, only recently has ♥♥♥♥ started to change, and that was because Ryzen was better than Intel expected it to be. FORCING them to ''improve'' their products.


Regardless of all of that, I'm exited for CES, I always love events like this, even if the AMD leaks turn out to be half true, doesn't matter, something else should make up for it.

I wonder if Intel will have 42core 5Ghz CPU under a chiller this time?

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Intel doesn't really have to change how it does things, cause a majority of those who use a PC for any sort of pro work, would never buy into what AMD offers

[hawkeye]

Originally posted by Guydodge:

more cores kinda means nothing in gaming at the moment and 4 strong cores is much better than 6 weak cores and AMD over inflates its GHZ so no it will not beat INTEL.

I agree with this. I used to do IT system performance management as part of my job. The difference in maximum performance between intels and ryzens is very large at the moment. The reason why framerates can be similar are (a) gpu performance limitations and (b) program performance limitations.

Here is a chart of single-thread stock speed performance.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

top intel gaming cpu - 2900
top ryzen gaming cpu - 2200
(the ryzen is slower than 4th gen intels and not much faster than 2nd gen intels)

Here is a chart of multi-threaded stock speed performance
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

top intel gaming cpu - 20,135
top ryzen gaming cpu - 17,276
(the ryzen is 50% better than the 4th gen solely because it is 8x2 but the interl 4th gen is 4x2. Twice as many cores but only 50% faster.)

So let's look at gaming.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3421-intel-i7-9700k-review-benchmark-vs-8700k-and-more

These charts are self-explanatory. Even the 4th gen i7 holds its own against ryzen.

Imagine what would happen if intel started producing 6 or 8 core 2nd or 4th gen cpus.

So when people say get a ryzen I say "why?" I've already got a cpu that I bought in 2010 that can play games in 4k at 60fps. Annual cost of ownership works out at $40. 3 macca's meals and large milk coffees where I live. (edit - excluding the 4 gpu's bought in the same period).

Why can my 2010 cpu do this? Because it has a single-thread speed as good as a ryzen 2600.

The reality is that gaming is more about gpu than cpu. Widescreen ,1440p, 4k, 144hz - they are more dependent on gpu than cpu. If your monitor is 60hz and you have any i7 then all you need is a reasonable gpu, because there is no noticeable difference between a game running at 100fps and 60fps on a 60hz monitor.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by hawkeye:

Originally posted by Guydodge:

more cores kinda means nothing in gaming at the moment and 4 strong cores is much better than 6 weak cores and AMD over inflates its GHZ so no it will not beat INTEL.

I agree with this. I used to do IT system performance management as part of my job. The difference in maximum performance between intels and ryzens is very large at the moment. The reason why framerates can be similar are (a) gpu performance limitations and (b) program performance limitations.

Here is a chart of single-thread stock speed performance.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

top intel gaming cpu - 2900
top ryzen gaming cpu - 2200
(the ryzen is slower than 4th gen intels and not much faster than 2nd gen intels)

Here is a chart of multi-threaded stock speed performance
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

top intel gaming cpu - 20,135
top ryzen gaming cpu - 17,276
(the ryzen is 50% better than the 4th gen solely because it is 8x2 but the interl 4th gen is 4x2. Twice as many cores but only 50% faster.)

So let's look at gaming.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3421-intel-i7-9700k-review-benchmark-vs-8700k-and-more

These charts are self-explanatory. Even the 4th gen i7 holds its own against ryzen.

Imagine what would happen if intel started producing 6 or 8 core 2nd or 4th gen cpus.

So when people say get a ryzen I say "why?" I've already got a cpu that I bought in 2010 that can play games in 4k at 60fps. Annual cost of ownership works out at $40. 3 macca's meals and large milk coffees where I live. (edit - excluding the 4 gpu's bought in the same period).

Why can my 2010 cpu do this? Because it has a single-thread speed as good as a ryzen 2600.

The reality is that gaming is more about gpu than cpu. Widescreen ,1440p, 4k, 144hz - they are more dependent on gpu than cpu. If your monitor is 60hz and you have any i7 then all you need is a reasonable gpu, because there is no noticeable difference between a game running at 100fps and 60fps on a 60hz monitor.

That's hardly a fair comparison when you're using the statistic that Ryzen is not known for. Intel's i9-9900K was the only one actually able to beat the 2700X's multi-core performance (which is what makes Ryzen better for streamers and content creation) as i7s couldn't.

Also saying that they compare only to 4th gen is complete ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. 1st gen had the IPC of 4th gen Intel, and 2nd gen varies between 6th and 8th. If your claims were true, Intel wouldn't have released Coffee Lake in a rush to keep their customers from being dazzled by AMD.
They were afraid, and they still are; that's why they released the 9900K as their new flagship, removed HT from i7s, added more cores across the board, started soldering their IHS again, and really started to push clock rates higher. Intel knows that AMD is gaining up on them, and they used shady tactics to make it look like the 9900K was twice as powerful as the 2700X when its only around 20% faster but costs about 40% more, not counting the cost of a Z390 chipset, a GPU that won't be bottlenecked, etc.

Intel only exists as the top-end, anything from low to high, AMD reigns supreme for the cost. At least for now, as the Ryzen 9 3850X will demolish the 9900K and force Intel into a corner where they have no choice but use more shady tactics and release a new i9 with just as many cores and better IPC. 3850X is EXPECTED to equal the 9900K's IPC which removes the necessity for a 9900K if it proves true.

[InfinityJosh]

4770 is a good buy for 1080p coupled with a GPU until GTX 980/1060/RX580 even nowadays.
I own a 4771 (slightly better) and can say I have no issues with a RX 580 4GB, 8 GB RAM DDR3 1600 and a B85 G43 MB.
If you can find for a decent price you won't have to buy new MB, RAM and CPU.
Keep in mind DDR4 RAM over DDR3 won't be a huge upgrade (one of the reason because 4th gen i7 is still good is because DDR4 RAM holds back new CPUs with higher latency and bad optimization).

[CursedPanther]

Originally posted by Bad 💀 Motha:

Intel doesn't really have to change how it does things, cause a majority of those who use a PC for any sort of pro work, would never buy into what AMD offers

Which isn't wrong straightly speaking as of this moment. I think Intel still hoards over 95% of commercial server processor market share and it's the sector that brings in the majority of the income for the company.

Having that said, AMD is making a real comeback and it isn't really up to Intel to deny it anymore.

[Talby]

Originally posted by CursedPanther:

...AMD is making a real comeback and it isn't really up to Intel to deny it anymore.

Completely true, just feels like we are witnessing a redux of the P4 vs Athlon 64 from back in the day. Good times, once again.