Single thread performance more important?

[TheELF]

Basically, OP, the only reason that you would want to make that (down)grade to the i3, would be if you were a huge StarCraft II player. That's pretty-much literally the only reason to go with a higher-clocked dual-core Intel CPU these days.

There is a crap ton more reasons for cheap intel dual cores(not necessarily the i3-7350k since that's an expensive one) ,like all you do is web browsing,but you are smart enough to have discovered ublock/js-blockers instead of running hundred of miners in your browser,and watching movies - x/h265 4k? (netflix 4k) - no prob qsv does it, you only need a mobo with proper output for 4k.
And as long as you stick to well coded multithreaded games you will get high FPS in those as well,no matter if other CPUs with GPUs costing thousands of dollars manage some 10-20% better FPS...
Not to mention all the single threaded games, with SC 2 maybe being the best known but certainly far from the only one,and all the emulations.
Video trans/coding, 3d rendering, file encryption...all of this can be done through a cheap GPU many times faster then any CPU -from any company-
(mainstream market) could do it,actually even intel's iGPU is pretty good at that stuff.
Actually there is zero reason for a home user to go with a many core CPU other then the "privilege" to be able to state to belong to the PCMR.

OP has no reason to change now that he did build his system already.

 

[Thunder 57]

Actually there is zero reason for a home user to go with a many core CPU other then the "privilege" to be able to state to belong to the PCMR.

Try playing BF1 with 64 players on a map with a 2C4T CPU and get back to me. Even 4C4T can suffer at times.

 

[TheELF]

Try playing BF1 with 64 players on a map with a 2C4T CPU and get back to me. Even 4C4T can suffer at times.

Yeah yeah,always the same arguments...
Why isn't fortnite having any issues? That one has 100 players at the same time..
Why doesn't any other multiplayer game with 64+ players have any issues other then the one that is designed for handicapped console cores?
Why do you have FPS drops in fallout 4 even on 16thread ryzen in some areas?This one doesn't even have multiplayer not even one other player.

Why is BF1 even any argument for a home user system?

 

[Roger Wilco]

Basically, OP, the only reason that you would want to make that (down)grade to the i3, would be if you were a huge StarCraft II player. That's pretty-much literally the only reason to go with a higher-clocked dual-core Intel CPU these days.

Pretty much this. But there are other RTS games from 2010-2015 that absolutely hammer a single core. Rome: Total War 2 (which apparently is still getting expansions) is quite similar. My PC is primarily a SC2 box. A 7350K would be extremely similar in performance to my 7700K, or an 8700K for that matter.

With that being said, Ryzen's single core grunt should be plenty for your needs, and the extra cores/threads will always be nice. Unless you do lots of RTS gaming and you need high FPS?

 

[Thunder 57]

Yeah yeah,always the same arguments...
Why isn't fortnite having any issues? That one has 100 players at the same time..
Why doesn't any other multiplayer game with 64+ players have any issues other then the one that is designed for handicapped console cores?
Why do you have FPS drops in fallout 4 even on 16thread ryzen in some areas?This one doesn't even have multiplayer not even one other player.

Why is BF1 even any argument for a home user system?

I am a "home user" and I play BF1? I guess it depends on your definition of home user. Maybe a better term would be something like "basic computing"?

 

[ondma]

i3 7350K is 2C/4T, no matter how high you OC it it won't matter in new games. R5 1500X is a beast for this i3.

Did *you* even read what the OP stated? He never mentioned gaming at all.

 

[SPBHM]

I could see the i3 7350 being interesting if you can OC it to near 5GHz and you are really only using 1-2 threads, like running some emulator or something...

but for regular use not really... i5 8400 makes more sense.
also the Ryzen at 3.9GHz is going to be close enough for ST most of the time

 

[IRobot23]

Did *you* even read what the OP stated? He never mentioned gaming at all.

I did. And I still don't know why would be ST so important for browsing and listening to music.

 

[whm1974]

I did. And I still don't know why would be ST so important for browsing and listening to music.

Why not have both decent ST and MT performance anyway? Never know when the OP use case might change.

 

[wilds]

Why not have both decent ST and MT performance anyway? Never know when the OP use case might change.

OP already does?

 

[UsandThem]

I did. And I still don't know why would be ST so important for browsing and listening to music.

Everyone knows that music listening is better on 8700k than a 1500X.

I think the OP just has a bit of the "upgrade bug", or as in this case, the "side-grade bug". Seriously OP, is your computer not doing something for you use that warrants different hardware?

 

[VirtualLarry]

I mean, I sympathize with the OP, a little bit. I did something similar, I went from some Core2Quad rigs, well, a bunch of intermediate machines, and then some Skylake G4400 dual-cores, on ASRock Z170 boards, that let me "Sky OC" them, to 4.3+ Ghz. They were quite speedy! Which, at the time, was a good and semi-necessary thing, as Firefox wasn't yet multi-threaded, like it is now.

But that was a holdout, and now that it IS multi-threaded, I'm much happier with my Ryzen R5 1600 6C/12T CPUs, for pretty-much everything.

 

[scannall]

I mean, I sympathize with the OP, a little bit. I did something similar, I went from some Core2Quad rigs, well, a bunch of intermediate machines, and then some Skylake G4400 dual-cores, on ASRock Z170 boards, that let me "Sky OC" them, to 4.3+ Ghz. They were quite speedy! Which, at the time, was a good and semi-necessary thing, as Firefox wasn't yet multi-threaded, like it is now.

But that was a holdout, and now that it IS multi-threaded, I'm much happier with my Ryzen R5 1600 6C/12T CPUs, for pretty-much everything.

*rubs crystal ball* I see a Threadripper in your future Larry. ;-)

Threadripper Mining

 

[whm1974]

*rubs crystal ball* I see a Threadripper in your future Larry. ;-)

Assuming that he can quite buying low end hardware long enough to buy one.

 

[scannall]

Assuming that he can quite buying low end hardware long enough to buy one.

It'd likely be an 8 core, but it'd still rock. ;-)

 

[IRobot23]

I mean, I sympathize with the OP, a little bit. I did something similar, I went from some Core2Quad rigs, well, a bunch of intermediate machines, and then some Skylake G4400 dual-cores, on ASRock Z170 boards, that let me "Sky OC" them, to 4.3+ Ghz. They were quite speedy! Which, at the time, was a good and semi-necessary thing, as Firefox wasn't yet multi-threaded, like it is now.

But that was a holdout, and now that it IS multi-threaded, I'm much happier with my Ryzen R5 1600 6C/12T CPUs, for pretty-much everything.

Then get a 16C threadripper, so you can surf on firefox, cause it is multithreaded now. /joke

Yep, even games scale pretty well with 6 threads.

 

[epsilon84]

Like everyone else has said, stick with your 1500X. You're not likely to notice the ST advantage of a 7350K except in niche usage cases, but when you actually need the cores/threads, you'll be regretting a downgrade to an old gen i3 with only 2C/4T.

 

[whm1974]

Like everyone else has said, stick with your 1500X. You're not likely to notice the ST advantage of a 7350K except in niche usage cases, but when you actually need the cores/threads, you'll be regretting a downgrade to an old gen i3 with only 2C/4T.

I agree. I can't see going with less then 4 cores at this time, and six or eight if one can afford them.

 

[Christopher Bohling]

Thanks to everyone for their advice. Guess I was just second guessing my decision because of all the YT tech videos I watch. I do have a nice fast SSD as my boot drive although I've been considering getting an Samsung NVME. Based on what I've seen so far, I don't think it would make a big difference for me considering how fast my system is right now. Thanks again.

Were you actually experiencing any sort of noticeable "lagginess" with the 1500X?

Like I said earlier in the thread, realistically any current-gen CPU is going to have more than enough single-core performance for basic desktop use. You're much more likely to run into memory or storage limitations.

 

[whm1974]

Were you actually experiencing any sort of noticeable "lagginess" with the 1500X?

Like I said earlier in the thread, realistically any current-gen CPU is going to have more than enough single-core performance for basic desktop use. You're much more likely to run into memory or storage limitations.

Indeed, on my second SSD I'm using for gaming I'm out of space for large games. I'm reserving the storage left for SSD maintenance functions.

 

[Christopher Bohling]

Indeed, on my second SSD I'm using for gaming I'm out of space for large games. I'm reserving the storage left for SSD maintenance functions.

Even outside of storage space, general speed of a system is hugely improved with an SSD ofc.

At work I'm running an Optiplex with an i7-4790, 8GB DDR3-1600, and a 5400RPM hard drive. My workflow mostly involves Access, Excel, and a bit of video encoding using Handbrake. I am almost never limited by the CPU. I'm constantly running out of RAM and pushing my HDD to 100% utilization though.

 

[whm1974]

Even outside of storage space, general speed of a system is hugely improved with an SSD ofc.

At work I'm running an Optiplex with an i7-4790, 8GB DDR3-1600, and a 5400RPM hard drive. My workflow mostly involves Access, Excel, and a bit of video encoding using Handbrake. I am almost never limited by the CPU. I'm constantly running out of RAM and pushing my HDD to 100% utilization though.

who's bone headed bean counter(s) decision was it to buy crippled highend i7 based systems with limited memory and freaking slow harddrives? I thought that time is money in the business world?

 

[Christopher Bohling]

who's bone headed bean counter(s) decision was it to buy crippled highend i7 based systems with limited memory and freaking slow harddrives? I thought that time is money in the business world?

[Ron Swanson voice]

I work for the government

[/Ron Swanson voice]

 

[whm1974]

[Ron Swanson voice]

I work for the government

[/Ron Swanson voice]

So i7 systems with highly crippled specs are considered good enough for government work?

 

[Christopher Bohling]

So i7 systems with highly crippled specs are considered good enough for government work?

Yeah I really don't know why they gave me this PC.

To be clear, I am a library facilities manager and at least according to my position description, there's absolutely nothing in my job that would require more power than an i3. All I really need to do the core functions of my job is Outlook and a couple of pieces of legacy ILS software that are Windows 95 era and I'm sure they don't benefit from extra threads lololol.

But over time due to mission creep and my own interest I've taken on quite a bit of work handling digitization and digital archive management, so that involves a lot of encoding video sources into standardized types. I've also been assigned to help out with some basic database management tasks using Access, which seems to be a RAM hog.

I guess I should probably stop complaining on the internet and instead just ask....