Given how cheap these are getting, is it worth going from my 2600 to a 2700 or 2700x? I built my PC in October of last year. It’s pretty strictly a web browsing HTPC gaming rig, and it’s paired with a 1070 FTW and 16gb of ram.
I’m probably not going to be doing any streaming, editing, or rendering, so it’d pretty much be an e-peen upgrade. Just wondering if it’d be worth it for a rig I don’t wanna f with for several years aside from maybe the GPU since my ultimate goal is high refresh 1440p or 1600p ultrawide gaming on max settings.
I only plan on upgrading the ram when the standards for capacity shift again, but I already know I’ll need a different GPU for my graphics goal. Currently waiting on Navi and I really hope it delivers, but that’s off topic, so I digress.
Short answer nope not really at all.
I would suggest to wait for the upcoming Ryzen 3000 cpu’s.
The 2600 should still be decent for gaming.
Of course with a 2700X that will boost a little bit higher,
you might see a marginal jump in the high fps numbers.
But in my opinion that doesn’t really improve your overall gaming experience.
Gotcha. So, even with R3k, going past an R5 won’t really do anything for me as far as my current use-case, and most of my improvement will be in the GPU selection.
Yeah kinda, al though that depends on what your gaming goals are.
If you are looking for gaming at higher resolutions like 4K,
and you are looking for to buy a higher end gpu.
Then the cpu would still not being that much of a limiting factor.
Because at 4K gaming even with a 2080Ti you are still a bit gpu limited.
But if you are looking for competitive gaming highest fps scores at 1080p / 1440p,
with a higher end gpu like a RTX2080 / RTX2070 Ti.
Then the upcoming Ryzen 3000 cpu’s might be worth waiting for.
Still there isn’t much known about those new upcoming cpu’s what their base and boost clocks will turn out to be.
I want to game at 3440x1440 or 3840x1600 or 3840x1200 on at least high presets with a few tweaks and 100hz refresh rate on demanding titles. I don’t want to dip out of variable refresh range, either, so 1% lows would have to be 50FPS or above.
Ideal would be more or less max settings at those resolutions and above 50fps 1% lows. Only things that wouldn’t be maxed are AA, motion blur, and DOF. I probably wouldn’t have to throw in resolution upsampling on the first two, either, but it’s still possible, at least for the third resolution. Plus, at least in Watch Dogs 2 at 1440x900, it looks better overall with scaling cranked and AA minimum than AA maxed and scaling at normal.
I would suggest to stick with what you currently have.
A 2700X will be a marginal improvement at best for a GTX1070
Your best improvements will lay in a better gpu.
And maybe the new upcoming Ryzen 3000 cpu’s ¨If¨ their base and boost clocks,
turn out to be significantly better then the current Ryzen2000 cpu’s.
But that is yet to be seen.
I don’t believe in rumours, so yeah it’s better to wait and see when the new hardware will be presented.
Well im allways a big proponent of the e-peen, but honestly no, it’s not really worth it.
Recently i upgraded my main rig from the 1st gen 6 core to 8 core 1st gen, overall there’s not really much, unless i am doing some very specific work like Handbrake or, bitbake e.g. multi threaded work, and even there it’s not revolutionary, deffinetly not 25%, but as im working with 1st gen ryzen i got the upgrade for the price of a stick of chewingum, and i had abit of fu… you money so figured meh why not, and dont regret it, but my price was less then half of the price of the 2700(x).
No one knows for sure when Zen2 will even be out yet, let alone Zen2+
My 2c. Stick with what you have unless you can offload your 2600 cheap, especially right now as 3xxx is due Real Soon and will hopefully offer either IPC or clock speed improvement and may change the behaviour regarding core to core latency that is a bit of a Ryzen performance bottleneck.
Pretty much, but here’s the thing:
Zen 1000 was a leap forward, zen 2000 is small tweaking, to the point it’s not worth upgrade from zen 1000
Zen 3000 will be a leap forward. Zen 4000 will just be small refresh tweak, to the point it won’t be worth upgrading from 3000…
Then there are rumors of quad SMT (1 core 4 threads) for ZEN 3 (5000) and so on… So yeah, giant leap forward, then a small step improving things here and there.
Both. It’s on 7nm… If the rumors are true it will push past 4GHz base and it will spank the competition, including zen 1000 and 2000 series.
7nm may or may not improve clock speed, we’re hitting a wall around 4.x due to thermals (yes, intel are hitting 5… just… with 14nm++++, can’t do it with 10nm).
Power will be better, clocks… to be disclosed. May be better but i would not bank on it as a 100% given just yet.
It will be more power efficient and more dense, but that means more cores generating heat in the same space… so yeah. We may be at the point where the increase in density makes the heat problem worse than the increase in efficiency can make things better…
So, AMD is taking a page from Intel’s Tick-Tock plan, then. Okay, so since I started out on a Ryzen 2000, should I hold out for 4000 since 4000 series will also be the last of AM4, apparently or get a 3000 since 4000 won’t be that much better.
In general, I’m looking to not touch my PC for a while. I don’t need to always be on the cutting edge and I’m kinda along the thought pattern of building at the peak of the generational tech available and upgrading every 2-3 years GPU(depending on how often they’re deciding to release new stuff given the hiatus between 10 series and RTX) and every 4-6 years for CPU and ram.
It’s not really a new thing for AMD to be fair…
Phenom 2 was update on Phenom 1, 8350 was update on 8150, Athlon 860K was update on the Athlon 760K FM2, same with the GPUs… RX500 is update on the RX400 series…
Ryzen 2000 is good enough to last a few years without really needing an upgrade. And when it finally needs an upgrade AM4 will be dead platform. I am running 1700X and I don’t see absolutely no reason to even consider more powerful CPU neither in IPC nor multi thread performance.
Well, yeah, that’s true, but, IIRC AMD has been tits up since the I series until just recently with Ryzen. The same has been true since, what, the 500 or 600 series Nvidia cards? I’m praying Navi and the 9th gen consoles get them back in the game like Ryzen did, but the rumor mill is slowly pointing towards our greatest hopes being false once again.
If the rumors of 16core 32 thread Ryzen 3000 are true, I would go for 16core Ryzen 4000, since it will be just an improved 3000 with higher clocks and maybe a bit better IPC, and that should boost the performance in so many things.
But honestly, 2600 is just fine now.
I would say a solid no. There are a lot of rumors since last year about Ryzen 3k CPU’s.
Wait and see what they actually are. It still may not be worth it . If the rumored 5.0Ghz or close to that is true then your gaming might get a small bump on a GTX1070. Everything else your doing if fine with a 2600. Perhap overclock it if you haven’t.
Gaming wise a new video card would yield the best bang for the buck money wise but only if navi is good and cheap. It will will bring down Nvidia pricing as well if you want to stick to Nvidia.
Still a 1070 is nice card and could go another year fine.
Buy hardware that is currently available WHEN you need it.
Right now if you’re on a 2600(x), you’re good unless your workload is heavily multi-threaded.
Forgetting Ryzen 3000 series for a second… as it doesn’t exist just yet…
If you know your workload is heavily threaded then yes, a 2700(x) will get you up to ~25% more throughput, in situations where you are 100% CPU bound, AND the workload scales almost perfectly with more threads. But… for HTPC, browsing and gaming… 6 cores is currently “enough”.
The big win you might get (given that your workload won’t scale well beyond the 6 cores you already have) unless games start using more cores heavily (and they will in the future - not so much just yet) is from an architecture update. 2700(x) is the same arch…
Also, remember:
Hardware is always* cheaper in the future. If you don’t need a 2700x today, but want to buy one in 12 month’s time - buy then. It will be cheaper. Buying high end now to try and future proof a PC is normally a mistake - unless you can make use of it today. Or if you just want the better machine for e-peen or whatever other reasons (and that’s a fine and valid reason, but it doesn’t make it “worth it” from an objective viewpoint).
edit:
save for wierd occurrences like earthquakes causing factory closures, unexpected high demand for components, etc.
