Upgrading 4790k

A

arr4ws

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
6,671
Im in the process of upgrading a 4790k setup . Z97 mobo , 16 gb 1866 DDR3 . Gpu is a 2070

Tought about a 2600x or even 2700x.

im open to all suggestion and comment!

thanks
 
That is a decent Pc, why do you want to upgrade?
Take a trip with that money, or something
 
I'm about to swap my 3770k box out for a Ryzen 2600. Should be a decent improvement.

Plan to repurpose the 3770k though.


Do what feels right for you OP. There will be some cost to your upgrade being you can't reuse ram or motherboard, but you can recoup some cost by selling what you can't use.

All depends on your budget
 
arr4ws said:
i feel some bottleneck at 144hz , cpu is maxed out . Dont plan on overclocking.
Click to expand...

if 144hz gaming all you plan ondoing, then AMD is the wrong way to go. There's a 15% IPC difference between Intel Skylake and AMD at the same clocks, and Intel parts have about 10% faster turbo boost when maxed-out on air or water.

9600k = 4.6 GHz turbo.
2600x = 4.2 ghz turbo.

i7 8700k = 4.7 GHz turbo
2700x = 4.3 GHz turbo.

The total performance difference in games using 6 major threads or less (most of them) is 25% higher on the Intel parts. And AMD will only match Intel's performance in games that scale to 12-16 major threads, thanks to the hyperthreading.

Until Zen 2 is released, you will probably see no performance improvement, depending on the game. The 2600x has similar single-thread performance to your 4790k stock.

What game are you playing, if you could tell us that?
 
Last edited:
defaultluser said:
if 144hz gaming all you plan ondoing, then AMD is the wrong way to go. There's a 15% IPC difference between Intel Skylake and AMD at the same clocks, and Intel parts have about 10% faster turbo boost when maxed-out on air or water.

9600k = 4.6 GHz turbo.
2600x = 4.2 ghz turbo.

i7 8700k = 4.7 GHz turbo
2700x = 4.3 GHz turbo.

The total performance difference in games using 6 major threads or less (most of them) is 25% higher on the Intel parts. And AMD will only match Intel's performance in games that scale to 12-16 major threads, thanks to the hyperthreading.

Until Zen 2 is released, you will probably see no performance improvement, depending on the game. The 2600x has similar single-thread performance to your 4790k stock.

What game are you playing, if you could tell us that?
Click to expand...

BFV , some apex, witcher 3 , gtaV , overwatch. Want to get into the division 2.
 
I went from 4790k to r5 2600 overall id say its a slightly better sidegrade….

you get ddr4, you get more cores, games seem a bit more stable (ie, pubg style games with a lot of things going on) but ultimately theres little performance difference as far as frames are concerned...

however, I will say, I can easily record gameplay video without any stutter or frame skips, and the videos come out crystal clear (using x.264 software) and without affecting gameplay.....
something that wasn't possible on my 4790k....
 
DigitalPanhandler said:
I went from 4790k to r5 2600 overall id say its a slightly better sidegrade….

you get ddr4, you get more cores, games seem a bit more stable (ie, pubg style games with a lot of things going on) but ultimately theres little performance difference as far as frames are concerned...

however, I will say, I can easily record gameplay video without any stutter or frame skips, and the videos come out crystal clear (using x.264 software) and without affecting gameplay.....
something that wasn't possible on my 4790k....
Click to expand...

Agreed, if you're the multitasking type, adding 2 more cores with hyperthreading will improve performance. But that's only if you're doing more than just gaming, and some other major task is stealing your processor cycles and causing frame drops.

If you're just gaming then the peak single-thread performance on at least six cores is more important for your minimum frame time than anything else.

Hey, look Ma, a brand new SIX MAJOR THREAD video game. where a $190 Intel Core i5 decimates every Ryzen processor in existence.

2018-11-25-image.png


The 9600k trades blows with the 2600x in most productivity apps, so again, if you're not trying to do something major while gaming then there is no major benefit to adding hyperthreading on a 6-core processor.

The world won't benefit from more than six major threads for awhile, as a Zen 2 8-core/16 thread processor (rumored for the new 2020 consoles) will not be cheap. The first PC game with (minor) 6 thread support was Fallout 4, and you know how long that took to become the standard with six major threads (even though we had two consoles with exactly the same 8-core CPU). You're getting 5 years minimum of 30% faster performance over the 2600x before the 2600x can possibly catch up to the 9600k (with perfect HT scaling). But the 2600x will never be faster then the 9600k in games.
 
Last edited:
The 9600k is a nice gaming cpu I was tempted to upgrade my rig with one when it first came out. I decided to wait to see what AMD brings to the table. I think though if I was to upgrade I'd be tempted to pony up for the 9700k for the extra 2 cores.
 
defaultluser said:
Snipped
Click to expand...
while I agree, intel is faster in most all cases...I think the performance ultimately is minimal...… and also I generally don't understand some of this dudes numbers...…. I do like referencing this video cause it explains a lot of what I experienced from both systems...



additionally both are really referencing 1080p which benefits a faster single core..... but again I find the performance gains minimal...

(was looking for a benchmark video showing 1440p or greater performance, but im coming up empty handed...so we will leave that be...)

Especially when you throw in the prices.... about a 100$ difference....

however you do run into amds issue with memory compatibility....not really that big of a issue, just more work involved to ensure a satisfying outcome (read: working as expected)

ultimately id say if money is no object, just go with what you want..... either way with a 2000 series amd, or newer intel, you probably wont be dissatisfied....
 
Yeah, if AMD can bring 256-bit AVX2 to the table for Zen 2, it can close that performance gap in game like this.

I mean, just look at that massive gap between the i3 7350k and the Pentium G5400. Even when you scale their speed to the same value, the i3 enjoys a 30% performance advantage, all thanks to the new dense AVX code in BFV. That is going to increase with each release.
 
DigitalPanhandler said:
while I agree, intel is faster in most all cases...I think the performance ultimately is minimal....
Click to expand...

Did you even read the rest of this thread?

FROM THE ORIGINAL POSTER:

i feel some bottleneck at 144hz , cpu is maxed out . Dont plan on overclocking.
Click to expand...

Can you show me how you won't notice the difference between 109 fps and 147 fps when you are aiming for 144 fps (30% performance gap)? Or how the 90 vs 70 fps min won't matter (again, 30% performance gap)?

The 4790k he already owns matches the 6700k, and that is 15% slower than the 7700k. Because single-thread AVX performance matters in this and future games, and the Ryzen 1.0 has 128-bit AVX units, to save die space.

We can talk about random youtube videos all day long, but unless you show consistent results from multiple reviewers telling me otherwise, I'm more inclined to believe a major website (the picture above is from TechSpot's multiplayer BFV CPU test)
 
Last edited:
I wont argue this, I put my information out there based on MY experiences with MY hardware (4790k GTX 1070, 16gb DDR3 VS r5 2600 gtx 1070ti and 16gb ddr4)

I was simply offering OP some personal experience for him to make his decision.... ALONG WITH notes of what he may encounter, such as memory compatibility....

FROM my experience, both my 4790k with 1070, and my 2600 with 1070ti, perform exactly the same, gameplay wise, until I start doing any sort of media creation..... then the 4790k falls flat, I also referenced a video showing the same thing with the 9600k


what are my references for my personal experience? BFV, APEX, PUBG, OBS, Blender
(I will admit I dislike BFV, and for that matter any BF games.....I bought it simply based on the hype and to give it a try....)
 
Last edited:
DigitalPanhandler said:
I wont argue this, I put my information out there based on MY experiences with MY hardware (4790k GTX 1070, 16gb DDR3 VS r5 2600 gtx 1070ti and 16gb ddr4)

I was simply offering OP some personal experience for him to make his decision.... ALONG WITH notes of what he may encounter, such as memory compatibility....

FROM my experience, both my 4790k with 1070, and my 2600 with 1070ti, perform exactly the same, gameplay wise, until I start doing any sort of media creation..... then the 4790k falls flat, I also referenced a video showing the same thing with the 9600k


what are my references for my personal experience? BFV, APEX, PUBG, OBS, Blender
(I will admit I dislike BFV, and for that matter any BF games.....I bought it simply based on the hype and to give it a try....)
Click to expand...

Well yes, but where did the OP mention streaming at all?

Most of the time, when you're trying to hit the magical 144hz, you don't try to stream on the same machine.

Even you admit the the 2600 is a sidegrade fro peak performance. You've already mentioned it, I've already agreed with you, and I don't understand why you continue to post it.
 
defaultluser said:
Well yes, but where did the OP mention streaming at all?

Even you admit the the 2600 is a sidegrade fro peak performance. You've already mentioned it, I've already agreed with you, and I don't understand why you continue to post it.
Click to expand...
Well lets just drop it then, since apparently I was wrong to offer personal experience on the matter...




granted this is with a gtx 2070, not the gtx 970 the OP has.....the 2600 is fairly neck and neck with the 9600k


and again, im not claiming the intel isn't faster, hands down it is, but for a 100$ difference in price, the question being, will you really notice the difference when its so close to the target fps?

if it was 90fps vs 160...sure..... when its 137-143 to 160-200... not really.....yes...but probably not noticeable....

like I said, if money is no object, go intel, assuming you never intend on doing anything other then load the game and play.... on that note, go ahead and upgrade the gpu too.. :D


additionally, none of these benchmarks of indicative of what OP will experience, cause simply put you are hard pressed to find a benchmark with a gtx 970 and i5 9600k or r5 2600, ive seen 970 r5 2600 bfv, pulling 61fps multiplayer where as ive seen a i5 8600k and 970 pulling 70fps.... (not sure if settings in game were the same) and yes, I realize I said 8600k, its what I intended to say, because I havnt found a 9600k with 970 to offer comparable experience...

nor if said settings were what OP uses....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top