• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Only upgrade every 4-6 years, worth it to go Ryzen 2700 + X470?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kolath

Junior Member
Sep 23, 2012
16
13
76
So my current gaming PC has been going for years (mostly for lower spec games like Rimworld, Civ6, The Witness) with the only update being a GeForce GTX 970 a year ago:

Core2Quad 6600 @ 2.9 GHz
Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3R
EVGA GeForce GTX 970
4 GB DDR2
Corsair 700W PSU

But it is time to finally get a new rig since this one has lasted (overclocked no less!) for 8 years.

Given that I have a pretty slow upgrade cycle, should I jump to the top with a Ryzen 2700 + X470 motherboard as that might provide greater longevity or stick with a Ryzen 1600 + X370?

Anticipated uses:
- Gaming
- Eventually add some VR
- Programming

My plan is to keep my current GPU until prices calm down a little (then maybe go to 2x GPU for VR in a year). I'll also grab 16 GB DDR4.

Budget: Ideally would like to spend not more than ~$800-1000 for case, cpu, mobo, psu, mem, windows 10 (everything but GPU)
 
Last edited:

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,826
1,342
136
So my current gaming PC has been going for years (mostly for lower spec games like Rimworld, Civ6, The Witness) with the only update being a GeForce GTX 970 a year ago:

Core2Quad 6600 @ 2.9 GHz
Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3R
EVGA GeForce GTX 970
4 GB DDR2
Corsair 700W PSU

But it is time to finally get a new rig since this one has lasted (overclocked no less!) for 8 years.

Given that I have a pretty slow upgrade cycle, should I jump to the top with a Ryzen 2700 + X470 motherboard as that might provide greater longevity or stick with a Ryzen 1600 + X370?

Anticipated uses:
- Gaming
- Eventually add some VR
- Programming

My plan is to keep my current GPU until prices calm down a little (then maybe go to 2x GPU for VR in a year). I'll also grab 16 GB DDR4.
Yes. As you hold on to your systems for a while, get the most current version instead of starting a generation behind.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,867
286
126
Yeah my last build was a 3570k and Z77. Just built a 8700k + Z370 this week. Great upgrade for me. I say upgrade to the latest stuff that catches your eye and you'll be good for a long while.

Is there a reason you aren't looking at the 8700k as well? I was looking solely at AMD systems and was anticipating going with a Ryzen 2700x but decided to stick with Intel for a couple of reasons. First in games the single core performance of the i7 helps in some tasks that don't take advantage of all the cores and threads. Second the easy overclocking to 4.7Ghz and even higher.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ken g6

eek2121

Golden Member
Aug 2, 2005
1,404
1,477
136
If you are still on a Core2Quad, I would definitely go for the 2700X. You'll notice a big difference. If you have the budget, I'd go for at least 16 gb of DDR4 3200CL14 RAM (though 32 does wonders for me), a 500+ gb Samsung 960 EVO NVME drive, and a 1080 or 1080ti. That would last you quite a while. The 2700X is a beast and can chew through pretty much anything, no overclocking needed.
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
6,937
2,441
136
From a core 2 quad, hell yes! (I actually have a core 2 quad and my ryzen 1st gen wipes the floor with it). And even a first gen ryzen will do. Personally I'd go for the 2nd gen motherboard and 2nd gen cpu

The best thing I like about my ryzen is something I have not had since the core 2 duo/ core 2 quad days.. put in a newer generation cpu into the same motherboard. I am planning on upgrading my cpu to 4th gen ryzen in 2 years if I feel an itch and I'm grateful for the option.

That said you will not regret going with ryzen 1st gen but the 2nd gen motherboard offers more memory speed compatibilty and 2nd gen cpu will hit 4.0 ghz for sure which was somewhat of a lottery on the 1st gen. Worth it imho.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: epsilon84

Kolath

Junior Member
Sep 23, 2012
16
13
76
Is there a reason you aren't looking at the 8700k as well? I was looking solely at AMD systems and was anticipating going with a Ryzen 2700x but decided to stick with Intel for a couple of reasons. First in games the single core performance of the i7 helps in some tasks that don't take advantage of all the cores and threads. Second the easy overclocking to 4.7Ghz and even higher.
cmdrdredd, I am also theoretically looking at the i7-8700k. I had started looking at Intel and then it looked like AMD in this round was offering slightly better bang for the buck (they always flip flop, before my C2Q I had an old Athalon). That said, if there's a good case for i7, I'm open to it. However, this time around I'm looking for good stock performance. I remember spending so many hours tweaking timings to OC my quad and this time around I'd rather just spend a little more money and save the time of overclocking.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,867
286
126
cmdrdredd, I am also theoretically looking at the i7-8700k. I had started looking at Intel and then it looked like AMD in this round was offering slightly better bang for the buck (they always flip flop, before my C2Q I had an old Athalon). That said, if there's a good case for i7, I'm open to it. However, this time around I'm looking for good stock performance. I remember spending so many hours tweaking timings to OC my quad and this time around I'd rather just spend a little more money and save the time of overclocking.
Honestly overclocking my 8700k was very easy once I understood what certain things were doing. You'll be good either way though. For gaming the difference is mostly in the GPU these days with a few outliers that show significant differences one way or the other between CPUs.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
21,766
10,015
136
For gaming with the latest stats at stock, it appears to be a wash. But for VR, programming, upgradability and multi-threaded use, its clear, the 2700x is your choice.
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,016
743
136
For gaming with the latest stats at stock, it appears to be a wash. But for VR, programming, upgradability and multi-threaded use, its clear, the 2700x is your choice.
Gaming is a wash? The 2700X is clearly behind in gaming, by about the same margin the 8700K is behind in multi-threaded throughput. Programming depends entirely on the compiler, and VR shows better performance on a 7700K compared to a R7 1700 https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2871-amd-vs-intel-vr-cpu-benchmarks-with-vive-and-rift?showall=1 so unless you have sources to prove that a 2700X beats a 8700K in VR gaming that is just a (wrong) assumption on your part.

Upgrade ability is a clear plus for the Ryzen platform, but rather meaningless for someone who upgrades every 4 - 6 years.
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,016
743
136
So my current gaming PC has been going for years (mostly for lower spec games like Rimworld, Civ6, The Witness) with the only update being a GeForce GTX 970 a year ago:

Core2Quad 6600 @ 2.9 GHz
Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3R
EVGA GeForce GTX 970
4 GB DDR2
Corsair 700W PSU

But it is time to finally get a new rig since this one has lasted (overclocked no less!) for 8 years.

Given that I have a pretty slow upgrade cycle, should I jump to the top with a Ryzen 2700 + X470 motherboard as that might provide greater longevity or stick with a Ryzen 1600 + X370?

Anticipated uses:
- Gaming
- Eventually add some VR
- Programming

My plan is to keep my current GPU until prices calm down a little (then maybe go to 2x GPU for VR in a year). I'll also grab 16 GB DDR4.

Budget: Ideally would like to spend not more than ~$800-1000 for case, cpu, mobo, psu, mem, windows 10 (everything but GPU)
I would definitely go for the Ryzen 2700 + X470 combo as it will be more 'future proof'. I think even in 4 years it will still be a competent CPU. The Ryzen 1600 is definitely the better value, but for longevity, the extra 2 cores and 4 threads will win out for sure, plus Ryzen 2700 is clocked higher out of the box, so there is that advantage as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whm1974

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
4,998
356
126
unless you are doing something heavy now, I'm not sure this sort of future proofing is worth it, just upgrade more often...
 
  • Like
Reactions: beginner99

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
52,200
7,041
126
unless you are doing something heavy now, I'm not sure this sort of future proofing is worth it, just upgrade more often...
Yeah. Almost anything modern is going to kick a Q6600's butt these days. It's quite old, in CPU years.

But if you're buying new, you might as well also buy the newest. So they say. So that means 2700X, 16GB of DDR4-3200 CAS14 RAM, and an X470 board.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
21,766
10,015
136
Gaming is a wash? The 2700X is clearly behind in gaming, by about the same margin the 8700K is behind in multi-threaded throughput. Programming depends entirely on the compiler, and VR shows better performance on a 7700K compared to a R7 1700 https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2871-amd-vs-intel-vr-cpu-benchmarks-with-vive-and-rift?showall=1 so unless you have sources to prove that a 2700X beats a 8700K in VR gaming that is just a (wrong) assumption on your part.

Upgrade ability is a clear plus for the Ryzen platform, but rather meaningless for someone who upgrades every 4 - 6 years.
I have seen in several reviews in the last 2 days, that it is a wash, but I won't argue that with you, since your mind is made up. And why are you bringing a 1700 benchmark into this discussion about a 2700x, they are considerably different.
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,016
743
136
I have seen in several reviews in the last 2 days, that it is a wash, but I won't argue that with you, since your mind is made up. And why are you bringing a 1700 benchmark into this discussion about a 2700x, they are considerably different.
I've seen more than 'several' reviews and they are most definitely not equal, but your mind is just as 'made up' as mine so will just agree to disagree with you.

I take it we are in agreement that programming performance is compiler dependant? I dont think a blanket statement claiming '2700X beats 8700K for programming' is useful nor accurate, because there are far too many variables to make such a claim.

I provided sources showing a 1700 being behind a 7700K for VR, as a counterpoint to your claim that a 2700X would beat a 8700K in VR gaming, which I found rather hard to believe without a credible source. May I ask how you came to that conclusion? VR is an extension of gaming, so logic dictates a 8700K should be better than a 2700X in that regard. Yes, a 2700X is faster than a 1700, but so is a 8700K against a 7700K. My point stands.
 
Last edited:

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,963
2,716
136
So here's the parts list:

Ryzen 7 2700X
Asrock X470 Master SLI/AC
GSkill Flare-X 3200MHz CL14 2x8GB
EVGA 650 G3

You still have 200$ left for your case and Windows. Stock performance with Ryzen 2 has been sorted out and even the 2700X is faster than last years flagship - the 1800X.

If you do go the Intel route, then the price-comparable route would be to choose the i7 8700(non-K), since if you're buying online you have to pay around 80$ more for the 8700K and a cooler to go along with it.
 

Revolution 11

Senior member
Jun 2, 2011
923
1
71
I would go for Ryzen at this point if just because the next gen consoles (PS4, next Xbox) coming in a few years will be using some form of Ryzen CPU. Having those extra cores and threads will help for games that are coded with those consoles in mind.
 

wahdangun

Golden Member
Feb 3, 2011
1,007
146
106
Gaming is a wash? The 2700X is clearly behind in gaming, by about the same margin the 8700K is behind in multi-threaded throughput. Programming depends entirely on the compiler, and VR shows better performance on a 7700K compared to a R7 1700 https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2871-amd-vs-intel-vr-cpu-benchmarks-with-vive-and-rift?showall=1 so unless you have sources to prove that a 2700X beats a 8700K in VR gaming that is just a (wrong) assumption on your part.

Upgrade ability is a clear plus for the Ryzen platform, but rather meaningless for someone who upgrades every 4 - 6 years.
Programming with intel cpu is problematic, because it's still have performance hit because patches and with VM too.

Even compiling simple program is affected.


EDIT: and its worst in Windows, my quad core Xeon workstation feel like dual core.
 
Last edited:

nOOky

Platinum Member
Aug 17, 2004
2,136
993
136
I would only say get the latest generation and go for 2700X or i7-8700K if you go the Intel route. You would probably not notice a difference between the two side by side. Myself I would still ditch the supplied AMD cooler and either go better air or liquid. Overclocking on my Intel was about a 1 minute process with the stability testing being time consuming, but done overnight. Not sure how well the the 2700X overclocks but it looks like it's more or less not a lot of headroom left.

I am thinking of upgrading the wife's AMD system (6300) and the 2700X offers great bang for the buck imho.
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,826
1,342
136
So here's the parts list:

Ryzen 7 2700X
Asrock X470 Master SLI/AC
GSkill Flare-X 3200MHz CL14 2x8GB
EVGA 650 G3

You still have 200$ left for your case and Windows. Stock performance with Ryzen 2 has been sorted out and even the 2700X is faster than last years flagship - the 1800X.

If you do go the Intel route, then the price-comparable route would be to choose the i7 8700(non-K), since if you're buying online you have to pay around 80$ more for the 8700K and a cooler to go along with it.
The only change there would be the memory. These DDR4 3600Mhz are priced the same, and just a bit faster.
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,922
1,541
136
In half a year Intel probably brings us 8 core lineup.
Notice how insane much difference getting a quad core core2 gave you vs eg selecting a faster dual core?
Years. And it was very debated back then. And most thought the faster dual cores was the way to go. Lots of dual core penryn was sold for gaming. It was just flat out wrong.
If you keep system for more than 3 years i would take the 2700x to get that extra total computational power even if the difference this time is far less. Go with the stock cooler and dont oc but get some 2x8gb 3200 or 3433 ram and run it at tight timings. As shown by computerbase and The Stilt.
If you oc the 8700k to 4.9 its probably a wash on the longer run. The 8700k is not so sensitive to fast ram and timings but needs a far better cooler. Anyway your new system will end up like a spacerocket vs your current bicycle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IEC and OTG
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
641
126
I definitely would consider Coffee Lake as well. The ryzen 2600 and i5 8400/8500 would also be a huge upgrade from a core 2 quad system, those might be worth considering. Gaming performance with the 8400 especially is close to the top of the line chips, and equal to the fastest ryzen chips, depending on what review you read. These cheaper chips would not be as "future proof" perhaps, but personally, I think 6 cores at close to 4ghz will be more than enough for a long time. Getting a cheaper cpu might allow you to get more/faster ram or a better gpu, as prices for both of those are way too high now.

BTW, most reviews show Coffee Lake stock equal to or a few percent ahead of Ryzen, with more overclocking headroom. That Anandtech review definitely is the outlier, although I cannot say categorically it is incorrect.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,867
286
126
Well, here is one example of where the 2700x wins most of the time. The 99% in games: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2110?vs=2109
There has been some talk in other threads about anandtech’s results not matching up with other sites. For example they show that an 8700k is slower than older intel cpus in some tests. Clearly something going on since so many other sites are showing intel to have an advantage in gaming due to single thread performance being a bit better and not every game using heavy multi threading.

I will say though that it appears that the motherboard used plays a significant role in 2700x performance numbers.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY