GTX 1060 3GB and i3 6100 vs FX 8320.

[Biggus Nickus]

Hello,
I'm thinking of upgrading my setup.
Currently I have a GTX 1060 paired with an FX 6300 and I can see that it is time to upgrade my CPU.
My question is,is the i3 6100 a better choice or go for the 8320?Will there be bottlenecks?
Also,how is the i3 on the gaming side?
I will also buy a new mobo with 1151 socket and DDR3 DIMMs since anything above is very expensive for me.
I also consider buying an i5 6500 afterwards.
So is the i3 a reliable choice for games or should I just save up and go for the i5?

[upcoast]

Автор сообщения: vadim

Автор сообщения: upcoast

Go with the Ryzen 1600 then, i5s are hitting %100 usage in games like BF1 i5 is nearing it's end.

i5 slightly faster than Ryzen 1600 in the games and we have no reasons to think that situatuin will change in the future. But Ryzen much faster in majority other applications (heavily threaded).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JypkqwpOtNI

I'd still go for a Ryzen 1600 over an i5 at this point.

[vadim]

I also prefer Ryzen 1600 over i5-7500, but not because it could be better in games. It worse. but it better in almost all other areas.

[vadim]

On other hand, lets look at raw computing power: Ryzen-1600 (6*2*4*2*3.2) = 307.2 GFLOPS, Core i5-7500 (4*2*2*8*3.4) = 435.2 GLOPS. I mean single precision (32-bit) GFLOPS. DP GFLOPS would be halved. If future games will need more power and will be better parallelized...

[4K_240hz_MLED]

Автор сообщения: Cloud Boy

Автор сообщения: upcoast

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JypkqwpOtNI

I'd still go for a Ryzen 1600 over an i5 at this point.

but why Ryzen is 100% used up in this benchmark ( see top line of the overlay)....??

does that means Ryzen can't even keep up with intel even with it's 6 core fully used up...??

And you still seem to be arrogant towards me. Oh how the tables have turned!

[🦜Cloud Boy🦜]

Автор сообщения: vadim

But Ryzen much faster in majority other applications (heavily threaded).

i Don't think Ryzen is faster in other Applications. because most of the Applications still uses only first 2/4 cores, that includes video editing, sound editing etc.

Ryzen might be faster only in multitasking, That means doing multiple major Task at the same time. such as gaming while streaming at high resolution.

But if i do one individual task at a time ( which most people do), then intel is always faster than Ryzen, does not matter it's gaming or in Applications. because intel's single core power is much higher.

[King_BR0K]

Ryzen is better at rendering video, Intel is better at gaming

[Big Boom Boom]

Encoding video uses 2/4 cores? Handbrake uses all cores, it's even part of Realbench stress test to stress all cores. Do you even edit video?

[vadim]

Автор сообщения: Big Boom Boom

Encoding video uses 2/4 cores? Handbrake uses all cores, it's even part of Realbench stress test to stress all cores. Do you even edit video?

Encoding is highly parallel task, because of that in some video encoding (transcoding) tests Ryzen 1800x loses to i7-7700k. Not much, however.

Look at mentioned above Handbrake: http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph11170/85887.png
This is only one test, however. In others Ryzen 1800x will win. In the tests where AVX instruction set was used, i7-7700k was relatively on par with Ryzen 1800x, despite 1800x has twice more cores and costs more. In the same tests 6-core i7-7800 crushes Ryzen to dust.
But when the test uses codecs without AVX support, the situation is inverted - octacore Ryzen crushes quadcore Intel.