I have I7 4770k will Ryzen 5 1600 or the x model bee a good upgrade ?

[DKsDEVIL]

HI
I am long time Intel user
the new Ryzen looks like a good cpu on the tests
cant finde any good 4770k vs 1600 vs 1600x results
pc is fore gaming and streaming,
any info will be welcome

 

[scannall]

HI
I am long time Intel user
the new Ryzen looks like a good cpu on the tests
cant finde any good 4770k vs 1600 vs 1600x results
pc is fore gaming and streaming,
any info will be welcome

It's a solid CPU. If you're just gaming, you probably won't notice a lot of difference. But you wouldn't notice much going to a 7700k either. However, if you are gaming and streaming the 1600 will make a much bigger difference. If you have a Microcenter near you, the 1700 is $269, plus their combo deals.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Unless you are doing heavily multi-threaded work, no. For gaming or lightly threaded tasks, it is a downgrade or at best a side-grade, especially if you have a decent overclock on the 4770k.

 

[AtenRa]

I dont even consider it as an upgrade over my 4.4GHz Core i7 3770K , I would wait for 6-Core CoffeLake or Ryzen+ next year.

 

[SPBHM]

if you are streaming with software encoding you might get a nice gain,
for just gaming (and likely gaming and streaming using the nvidia enconder for example) the 4770K OC should be better.

 

[formulav8]

gaming and streaming

The 6-core should be quite noticeable if you're software streaming while gaming. Especially your min frames and frame times IIRC. The 1600x would be solid.

 

[2is]

More of a side-grade. Not worth the investment of a new CPU and board IMO

 

[Ratman6161]

I upgraded from a mildly overclocked 2600K to a mildly overclocked R51600. It the 1600 seems to be a bit of an upgrade on single core and a big upgrade on processes that can take advantage of the higher core/thread count. So compared to your 4770K I'd say sit tight with what you have unless you think you will benefit from more cores/threads. In single threaded tasks your 4770K should have an advantage.

Are you looking for a bargain/value CPU? Or is performance your #1 priority? Just how cost sensitive are you. Intel's 6 core, 12 thread CPU's are not that far off. Probably just a couple of months. At that point, the math will change. I would expect that an i7-8700 will beat my R51600 in pretty much everything. But the R51600 can be had under $200 today, and I can see the price going down when Intel releases the 8th gen desktop chips in the fall. At that point, I think it will be Intel if you want the absolute best performance and are willing to pay the price or AMD if you are looking for decent performance at a cheap price.

Unless you really want to or need to build now, this is one of the few times I'd say wait and see unless...unless you already know that you want the path that says I want 6 cores/12 threads at a cheap price and already know I won't want to pay $<Insert your guess at Intel pricing here> for the 6/12 i7-8700. For me, 6/12 for cheap was exactly what I wanted so I went with the R51600.

 

[IEC]

Depends on how often you will be streaming, and if you use OBS or other software streaming solution.

If you use your graphics card's hardware streaming you won't notice a difference. If you stream all the time and use OBS and want to use a slower preset... then more cores definitely helps.

 

[slashy16]

HI
I am long time Intel user
the new Ryzen looks like a good cpu on the tests
cant finde any good 4770k vs 1600 vs 1600x results
pc is fore gaming and streaming,
any info will be welcome

I would wait for the 8700K which should arrive in a couple months. It will be the ultimate gaming\streaming chip.
The ryzen will be a downgrade for every task that's not multi-threaded. I am also in the market for a CPU upgrade
but, there isn't any good options right now. It's a choice between a 2013 IPC class chip with lots of cores(ryzen) or
a high IPC chip that could use two more core(7700k). I will definitely be buying the 8700k unless AMD has a
higher IPC/clocked ryzen on the way.

 

[kirbyrj]

You have to look at the whole picture. Ryzen 1600 is going to be 90% of the 8700k at 60% of the price. Likewise, the X299 processors would be 125% of the processing power at 200% of the price.

*Numbers pulled out of my ass, but you get the idea. Figure out what your budget is and plan accordingly.

 

[Ratman6161]

So the statement I mde in a previous post still holds true.

You have to look at the whole picture. Ryzen 1600 is going to be 90% of the 8700k at 60% of the price. Likewise, the X299 processors would be 125% of the processing power at 200% of the price.

*Numbers pulled out of my ass, but you get the idea. Figure out what your budget is and plan accordingly.

I'm assuming that the i7-8700 will essentially take over the 7700K's position in the lineup. Right now, my local Microcenter has the $7700K for $300. On NewEgg its $339. Intel is currently listing it's "Recommended Customer Price" as $339 to $350. So its easy to conclude that the 8700K will start out at a minimum of $350 and probably more to start with. Microcenter has the 1600 for $190 and bundled with a motherboard for $250. They've got 16 GB of DDR4 3200 for $145. So with the 1600 you could also get a motherboard and RAM for not much more than just the cost of the i7-8700 CPU. That said I think there is no doubt an 8700K will easily beat an R5 1600 in pretty much everything.

But, we should also keep in mind that AMD doesn't even position the R5's against the i7's. The R51600 is actually currently priced below an i5 7600. The 8700K will be priced like an R7-1800X. So to a large extent 1600 Vs 8700K isn't really the right comparison.

I'll stick with what I said in a previous post. You should get the 8700K if you want the best performance and the R5 if you want 6 cores/12 threads for cheap. Or you could go somewhere in between and get an R7. Microcenter has a bundle with an R7 1700 and x370 motherboard for $390 or a 1700x combo for $20 more (keeping in mind that with AMD the "lesser" versions can still be overclocked where with Intel, you have to go to the top part to get a "K).

There are all kinds of variations in price/performance that are not all that clear cut unless you already know you want the best and are willing to pay for it. If you are in that crowd, the 8700K should be a pretty clear choice. It also matters what you will be doing with your system as differnt choices come out on top in different tasks.

 

[eddman]

Ryzen 1600 is going to be 90% of the 8700k at 60% of the price.

A vanilla 1600 will be about 70-75% of an 8700K with both under full load. That gap will be bigger with lower number of threads.

An 8600 would be a better comparison.

 

[SPBHM]

indeed 8700K should have an easy time in terms of performance with the massive clock advantage, but also the prices are not even comparable, now 8600K vs 1600 is something to look at, much higher ST at max OC (or even stock with the high turbo), but no SMT, prices are also a lot closer.
gaming should be easy for the 8600 to win, but streaming, not sure.

 

[slashy16]

You have to look at the whole picture. Ryzen 1600 is going to be 90% of the 8700k at 60% of the price. Likewise, the X299 processors would be 125% of the processing power at 200% of the price.

*Numbers pulled out of my ass, but you get the idea. Figure out what your budget is and plan accordingly.

I agree with this mostly. The part I can't get over with Ryzen is its poor IPC. Nearly every task I run on my 3770k@4.5ghz will be faster than ryzen. It doesn't make sense to invest in a ryzen build when the majority
of everyday tasks will be slower and in the case of gaming significantly slower. The 8700k on the other hand appears it will be the best gaming/streaming CPU when it comes out unless AMD can counter with a 6 core that runs at 4.7+ghz. I would buy that in a heartbeat.

 

[gammaray]

I will tell you the truth, if you are a gamer, the 4770k will perform a LOT better. Then again, it depends which video card you own and if you game beyond 1080p.

the Ryzen 1600 is no upgrade over a 4770k, it's a downgrade.

 

[USER8000]

I agree with this mostly. The part I can't get over with Ryzen is its poor IPC. Nearly every task I run on my 3770k@4.5ghz will be faster than ryzen. It doesn't make sense to invest in a ryzen build when the majority
of everyday tasks will be slower and in the case of gaming significantly slower. The 8700k on the other hand appears it will be the best gaming/streaming CPU when it comes out unless AMD can counter with a 6 core that runs at 4.7+ghz. I would buy that in a heartbeat.

I have a Core i7 3770, My mates Ryzen 5 1600 seemed faster in many cases and did not seem "slower" even when compared to a mates Xeon E3 1230 V3. This was with a quick few tests with my GTX1080.Even looking at the Hardware.fr tests,the Ryzen 5 1600X gaming should be roughly similar to a Core i7 4770K(not the Core i7 4790K) in gaming and that is with 2400MHZ DDR4,and not the high speed RAM and later BIOSes which improved support,and like with Skylake also adds a decent amount to performance.

Also outside of gaming,I do quite a bit of photography and I looked at some of the results for Lightroom and DxO Optics,and a Ryzen 5 1600X absolutely destroys my Core i7 3770. Lightroom is not even that multi-threaded - so there is obviously something missing in Ivy Bridge which is not helping as Kaby Lake seems OK.

People seem to forget SB to Haswell was not really that big an improvement. The move to Skylake and Kaby Lake was much bigger in a number of games,primarily due to the fantastic memory controller on those CPUs which can run very high speed RAM.

 

[slashy16]

I have a Core i7 3770, My mates Ryzen 5 1600 seemed faster in many cases and did not seem "slower" even when compared to a mates Xeon E3 1230 V3. This was with a quick few tests with my GTX1080.Even looking at the Hardware.fr tests,the Ryzen 5 1600X gaming should be roughly similar to a Core i7 4770K(not the Core i7 4790K) in gaming and that is with 2400MHZ DDR4,and not the high speed RAM and later BIOSes which improved support,and like with Skylake also adds a decent amount to performance.

Also outside of gaming,I do quite a bit of photography and I looked at some of the results for Lightroom and DxO Optics,and a Ryzen 5 1600X absolutely destroys my Core i7 3770. Lightroom is not even that multi-threaded - so there is obviously something missing in Ivy Bridge which is not helping as Kaby Lake seems OK.

People seem to forget SB to Haswell was not really that big an improvement. The move to Skylake and Kaby Lake was much bigger in a number of games,primarily due to the fantastic memory controller on those CPUs which can run very high speed RAM.

There is a massive difference between a 3770 and 3770K @ 4.5. I currently have a 990x @ 4.4ghz for my work(no games) computer and I will definitely be replacing it with Ryzen.

 

[USER8000]

Just to clear up any confusion,I personally wouldn't change over to Ryzen 5 1600 from a Core i7 4770K for gaming,but for streaming it might maintain more consistent performance,but ideally I would be looking at a Ryzen 7 1700 in that case with decent speed RAM.

It might be worth looking at Coffee Lake too,but it depends on how many threads the streaming software will use.

There is a massive difference between a 3770 and 3770K @ 4.5. I currently have a 990x @ 4.4ghz for my work(no games) computer and I will definitely be replacing it with Ryzen.

No there isn't - mine is running at all cores Turbo of 3.9GHZ under an AIO water cooler. That is 15% and in games overclocks rarely scale in a linear fashion and I have mates who have Haswell and Skylake Core i7s too. It comes from having quite a few friends who are geeks and work in the computing industry. The mate who has a Ryzen 5 1600 hasn't even overclocked it that much - no wonder when with an RX580 normally in the rig he is probably more GPU limited anyway. I think you really like hyperbole TBH.

Hardware.fr and HT4U puts the Ryzen 5 1600X as around the same performance as Core i7 4770K(around 10% lower than a Core i7 4790K) for gaming and that is running with 2400MHZ/2667MHZ RAM,and I would argue HT on the Ryzen 5 1600 is doing less for games than the extra cores too. HT actually caused regressions in some games(IIRC)at launch in games such as Total War,F1 2016,Project Cars and Watch Dogs 2. However,I believe there were fixes were some of these so early reviews might not be fully indicative of performance either,especially with the poor memory support at launch.

Would I upgrade to a Core i7 4770/4790K from what I have probably not,but it hardly makes the CPU slow.

Most gamers don't even own Core i7s,if you look at the Steam stats,and probably don't even overclock so by forum logic most have an abacus!

I also think you don't seem to have read how much Ryzen,Skylake and Kaby Lake gain from faster 3GHZ+ DDR4,especially when there is a huge thread on this forum by The Stilt and even members on here,showing results with higher speed RAM(compared to lower speed RAM).

Edit to post.

Just realised the other mate I did the quick comparison with had a Xeon E3 1245 V3,not the E3 1230 V3. Know a few others with higher clocked Haswell Core i7s,and one or two on Skylake ones,but didn't have a chance to try and compare those rigs.

 

[slashy16]

I agree with what you have said and I guess it comes down to what we are all doing in our day to day tasks. We have a ryzen 5 1600(ddr4 2133) at work and outside of large MT loads have been mostly unimpressed. It doesn't mean I don't like the chip but, extra cores with a lower ipc isn't a great trade off. I admit I could be biased with my 3770k as it's the first chip since my celeron 300a that's lasted
as long as it has.

 

[VirtualLarry]

We have a ryzen 5 1600(ddr4 2133) at work and outside of large MT loads have been mostly unimpressed.

DDR4-2133? No wonder, you're choking that poor thing. Buy it some 3200 RAM, and watch it fly.

 

[gammaray]

how many fps at 1080 are we talking about from 2133 to 3200?

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'm curious how "at work" translates to "FPS @ 1080P". You are allowed to game at work?

 

[Velvet thunder]

A lot of you are talking out of your arses with no hands on experience with both, just spewing things you have read else where

I had a 4790k at 4.9ghz and went over to a 1700 at 4ghz

In just strictly gaming at 1440p with sli 980tis I got a 5/10 percent performance increase across the board and 30 percent better minimums in all of my tested games.

Now your all thinking wtf this is bull crap.

Most reviews test on a clean install of windows with only games installed

It's that's your setup cool w/e

But for the rest of us with antivirus software steam open normal programs installed.

Ryzen just creams ahead

Yes on a clean INstall of windows my 4790k would have been 5 percent faster in games

But on a normal system ryzen is king by far

When it comes to recording and streaming ryzen is also the king by a much wider margin

For me I have 3 screens
Netflix on one Facebook ext
Monitoring programs open
Skype and a game on my main screen
That's all just typical stuff to have open nothing extream or taxing

4790k overwatch 1440p low setting 230 fps
1700 same settings 270 fps

Even in single threaded games my 1700 wins hands down

If you only game on one monitor on a clean install of windows with nothing running at all in the background then a oced to shit haswell CPU will serve you 5 percent better

If your everyone else ever ryzen will be at least 10 percent better in gaming and 30 to 50 percent better at everything else.

I know op is on about the 1600 but it would still be an upgrade as far as I am concerned

Then once you factor in that haswell and kaby lake platforms are both now dead with no future CPU releases and ryzen am4 will be with us for the next 3 releases from amd it's a no brainer

There are a lot of intel fanboys on hear so I'm ready for y'all

Ps I still hav my 4790k and if it were better id still be using it