Upgrade now or wait?

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

They can have whatever increase in IPC they want, but they won't have the same clocks, so what you've given them with one hand you also forgot to take away with the other.
AMD do not need to match IPC to be ahead if they have a clock advantage.

Anyway, link me some of these phantom IPC gain proofs.
Fact is, the only Intel 10nm CPU in circulation is an absolutely dud. It was so bad that they had to give it a random designation whereby the CPUs above and below it in the logical classification of their CPUs were both better than it.

Why is it that we're supposed to believe nonsensical Intel claims, yet somewhat evidenced AMD claims are ridiculed?

 

[happy medium]

I've been researching an upgrade to my i5 2500 over the past month because it has gotten too long in the tooth for gaming and is capping my framerates. I'm considering a 9600k, but likely a Ryzen consisdering the logevity of the AM4 platform. But from what I'm hearing, the NEXT Ryzen will be a huge leap over what they're putting out now. I tend to make the big purchases around black friday and december for the lower prices, but if something huge is on the horizon, should I wait? Are their next generation processors poised to be release at the same time next year as their 2 series launched this year? Or are we looking until well into 2020 until the cpu spaces moves to 7nm?

Just grab a 2600k ,a drop in upgrade, overclock it, and wait for Intel 10nm/AMD 7nm cpu's late next year for a real nice upgrade.

A overclocked 2600k is more than enough ,and you can grab one for about $75.

That's what I'd do.

Here is a review with a 2600k stock and overclocked. Unless you need more than 80 to 100 fps a 2600k stock or overclocked is easily good enough.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1546-intel-2nd-gen-core-i7-vs-8th-gen/page2.html
Save your money till late next year for a killer upgrade.

 

[Sonikku]

There's always something new / better / faster coming, so if you are ready to build now, go ahead.

If you build an AMD system, and the next CPU they release is absolutely amazing, you simply have to update your BIOS. The Black Friday pricing on the 2600X you posted in your other thread is hard too pass up if you're ready for a new system.

My H77m mobo can't overclock.

 

[happy medium]

My H77m mobo can't overclock.

Look at the benchmarks. At stock the 2600k is fast enough.
Actually your 2500 should give you 60fps+ on just about any game also.

What gpu are you using?
A gtx1070 should be a good match for your cpu if you want to play at 1080p 60fps. Even a gtx1060 6gb would be good.

 

[Sonikku]

It should, but it doesn't. I get 20-30 fps in WoW. I can actually play it in 4k with a 1060 gtx and still not push the card to it's fullest. And yet, whether the resolution is 1080p or 4k, the framerate is the same.

 

[whm1974]

It should, but it doesn't. I get 20-30 fps in WoW. I can actually play it in 4k with a 1060 gtx and still not push the card to it's fullest. And yet, whether the resolution is 1080p or 4k, the framerate is the same.

Something is eating CPU cycles if you are getting framerates that low. My first guess would be that Windows is set to low power profile instead of performance and/or you have malware crippling your system.

 

[happy medium]

It should, but it doesn't. I get 20-30 fps in WoW. I can actually play it in 4k with a 1060 gtx and still not push the card to it's fullest. And yet, whether the resolution is 1080p or 4k, the framerate is the same.

Ok it seems WOW only uses 2 cores and it needs high IPC, and high ghz.

If that game is what your mainly upgrading for, you could get away with a cheaper upgrade .

The best cpu for you and that game would be a highly clocked INTEL 8600k.
It should easily clock to 5ghz, and that exactly what you need.

 

[whm1974]

Ok it seems WOW only uses 2 cores and it needs high IPC, and high ghz.

If that game is what your mainly upgrading for, you could get away with a cheaper upgrade .

The best cpu for you and that game would be a highly clocked INTEL 8600k.
It should easily clock to 5ghz, and that exactly what you need.

No he needs to find out what is killing his frame rates. WoW is an old game and should have much better performance than what is he getting.

 

[happy medium]

No he needs to find out what is killing his frame rates. WoW is an old game and should have much better performance than what is he getting.

It may be old but it will kill a good CPU.
https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20765927453

Looks like a $165 intel 8350k overclocked would be the best bang for the buck for this game.

This guy in the WOW forum said it best.
Quote,
"To understand what you are asking you have to know what WoW can actually use for hardware. WoW can only really fully use 2 CPU cores so the faster those 2 cores it is on the better WoW will run. Basically this means a i3-8350k and an i7-8700k both clocked at 5.0 GHz will perform exactly the same with WoW."

 

[whm1974]

It may be old but it will kill a good CPU.
https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20765927453

Looks like a $165 intel 8350k overclocked would be the best bang for the buck for this game.

This guy in the WOW forum said it best.
Quote,
"To understand what you are asking you have to know what WoW can actually use for hardware. WoW can only really fully use 2 CPU cores so the faster those 2 cores it is on the better WoW will run. Basically this means a i3-8350k and an i7-8700k both clocked at 5.0 GHz will perform exactly the same with WoW."

This strongly disagrees with him:
https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/world-of-warcraft-battle-for-azeroth-pc-performance-guide/

 

[Ranulf]

It should, but it doesn't. I get 20-30 fps in WoW. I can actually play it in 4k with a 1060 gtx and still not push the card to it's fullest. And yet, whether the resolution is 1080p or 4k, the framerate is the same.

Is this overall? In big cities, 5mans or in raids? 20-30 is too low for 1080p with even a 2500k. Even in cities or in 15+ man raids my fx8350 with rx 480 could top out at 40-50fps with dips down to 20-25fps in heavy spell effects fights at the end of Legion. Solo in my base or questing out in the world, I'm running at 80-110fps. You might want to double check shadow settings or the graphic settings overall. If you're using win10 and directx 12, swap back to dx11 too.

If WoW is your main game, that definately leans towards getting an intel chip for max ghz. I've done fine myself with the 8350 at 1080p, mostly at high settings I think but its been a few months since I've played.

 

[happy medium]

This strongly disagrees with him:
https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/world-of-warcraft-battle-for-azeroth-pc-performance-guide/

Actually it says exactly what I said. You need 2 fast intel cores not more cores likw the Threadripper in the article.
Quote from the article.
"
Digital Trends

• More
• Product Reviews
• News
• Videos
• Features
• Best Products
• Deals
• How To
• Español

MenuSearch
GAMING
Think ‘World of Warcraft: Battle for Azeroth’ can play on any PC? Think again.
By Matthew S. Smith — Posted on August 3, 2018 - 11:04AM
SHARE

World of Warcraft is 14 years old. Its success comes with challenges most games never face, and graphics are chief among them. Blizzard’s MMO released the same year as Battlefield Vietnam, Half-Life 2, and Gran Turismo 4. Load those games today, and you probably won’t like what you see.

Blizzard is in a running battle with its own art. Expansions like Battle for Azerothintroduce new worlds, but the game’s artists must refresh the old as well, selectively polishing what’s most important. That polish has consequences for performance. The game has new graphics features, new textures, and new character models with higher polygon counts. The latest expansion even upgrades the game with DirectX 12 compatibility, while ditching DirectX 9 support.

What do you need to run World of Warcraft’s latest incarnation, and what settings should you change to improve performance?
THE RESULTS ARE IN
Before we dive into specific recommendations, we need to set a baseline. How does World of Warcraft: Battle for Azeroth perform on a modern computer? Might modern systems struggle with it? Or can virtually anything run it?

We fired up one of our most powerful test rigs, packing an AMD Threadripper 1920X processor and 32GB of RAM, all slapped on an Asus ROG Zenith motherboard. We tested with a Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, GTX 1060, and GTX 1080 Ti. Of course, not everyone has such a powerful system, so we also tested on a Dell G3 gaming laptop. It had an Intel Core i5-8300H processor, Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 Ti graphics chip, and eight gigabytes of RAM.

Our test loop began in Kul’Tiras, a major city in the new expansion, and ended in the wilderness of Tiragarde sound.
The results weren’t what you’d expect.




That’s right. The laptop significantly outpaced the beastly Threadripper 1920X system at every resolution and every detail setting. We also saw small differences in performance between each video card. Strangely, the GTX 1080 Ti wound up slightly slower overall than the GTX 1050 Ti.
OLD MAN WARCRAFT
These are puzzling numbers, but they’re correct. We tested several times over and double checked every parameter we could imagine. This is how the game performs. The question is, why?

Blame its age.
World of Warcraft was released in 2004, which of course means its development began years earlier. At the time, most people were running Pentium III or AMD Athlon processors, and most developers believed that single-core processors running at insanely high speeds was the future. Dual-core processors weren’t found in gaming PCs. World of Warcraft, like its peers, was developed to make as much use of a single core as possible.

That doesn’t translate well to modern computers. There’s no shortage of games that make poor use of multiple cores, but World of Warcraftis exceptionally bad. It generally hammers just one core, leaving a few scraps of code to another three, and the rest remain untapped.
Our numbers make sense if you keep that in mind. Geekbench’s single-core test reached a score of 4,456 on the Dell G3 with its Intel Core i5-8300H processor. The AMD Threadripper 1920X hit a score of 4,364. Though its has fewer cores, the Core i5-8300H is quicker in single-core tasks, and that seems to be a deciding factor here.

We wanted to further confirm the result, though, so we took an even more direct route. We overclocked the Threadripper 1920X, upping the base clock from 3.





It’s fair to say World of Warcraft: Battle for Azeroth is CPU-bound, but that’s not the entire story. You can’t pair it with any processor and expect the best results. You’ll need a processor with fast cores. That means Intel hardware is likely your best bet, and you’ll want to give

This strongly disagrees with him:
https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/world-of-warcraft-battle-for-azeroth-pc-performance-guide/

read it again, your article says exactly what I said, a fast intel cpu with high core speed and IPC is best.

 

[whm1974]

A Coffee Lake Pentium w/ a 1050Ti should be able to run WoW just fine at 1080p.

 

[Spartak]

They can have whatever increase in IPC they want, but they won't have the same clocks, so what you've given them with one hand you also forgot to take away with the other.
AMD do not need to match IPC to be ahead if they have a clock advantage.

Anyway, link me some of these phantom IPC gain proofs.
Fact is, the only Intel 10nm CPU in circulation is an absolutely dud. It was so bad that they had to give it a random designation whereby the CPUs above and below it in the logical classification of their CPUs were both better than it.

Why is it that we're supposed to believe nonsensical Intel claims, yet somewhat evidenced AMD claims are ridiculed?

May I remind you AMD also makes a jump in process technology and still 'we' expect frequency gains? I give it to you that Intel has a higher bar to reach so frequency parity might be the best attainable with their next node.

If you're too lazy to jump over to the thread that discusses the next gen Intel architecture I'm sorry but I'm not going to feed you like a little baby. There's a first geekbench result that implies an IPC gain in the 10-15% range. Not exactly a 'phantom' proof as this is more then we have for Zen2.

Last of all, do you actually read what I write or is everyone not laughing away Intel's next gen efforts automatically anti-AMD? Put off your fanboy glasses boy and actually READ what I wrote. I'll repeat it here for you're comfort: I'm expecting Zen2 to have a much larger IPC increase then what most people right now assume.

Seriously what's wrong with some people? They read what they want to read instead of what someone actually writes.

 

[Sonikku]

No he needs to find out what is killing his frame rates. WoW is an old game and should have much better performance than what is he getting.

She.
And sadly, WoW runs on a toaster but runs well on nothing. It runs better on Intel, true. But keeping your framerate above 60fps in a raid is frankly impossible. Not even the 9600k that I at some point hope to take to 5ghz will be able to do that. But certainly 50ish fps in the most intense of situations is better than the 30 something I have now in those situations. I can almost keep an average of 60fps in world quests, but in raids and Boralas, forget it.

 

[happy medium]

She.
And sadly, WoW runs on a toaster but runs well on nothing. It runs better on Intel, true. But keeping your framerate above 60fps in a raid is frankly impossible. Not even the 9600k that I at some point hope to take to 5ghz will be able to do that. But certainly 50ish fps in the most intense of situations is better than the 30 something I have now in those situations. I can almost keep an average of 60fps in world quests, but in raids and Boralas, forget it.

Correct but keep in mind that a 8350k at 5.0 Will perform the same as the much more expensive 9600k at 5.0 .

Good luck.

 

[tamz_msc]

Intel isn't standing still (well...they have but not forever) and has reiterated they will be ready with 10nm 10th gen Core for the next holiday season.

Ice Lake, if it arrives on time for Holiday 2019, will be a laptop CPU at first.

AMD is rumored to have their Zen2 launch around the same time (19Q3 seems increasingly unlikely).

There is no rumor that points to consumer Zen 2 launching later than Q3 2019. People are making educated guesses based on past releases that it will launch in Q2 2019.

So this will put Zen2 not against Skylake&sons but the next gen that appears to have an IPC increase of around 10-15%.

There is one leaked Geekbench score that puts Ice Lake increase in IPC at around 5-8%. Clocks will certainly be lower in the final product because Intel itself claims that 10 nm won't be up to par with the latest iteration of 14nm.

 

[ericlp]

with the 1950X @ 450, what are you waiting for? Also, RAM is now at more reasonable prices.... Plus I'm sure you could pick up 1080ti for a great price. It's almost the perfect time for someone getting decent equipment for the best bang.

 

[Ranulf]

So, the age old question of build threads returns... does Sonikku live near a microcenter? Cause I'd find a way to upgrade from an i5 to the 8700k for $299.

https://www.microcenter.com/product..._Coffee_Lake_37_GHz_LGA_1151_Boxed_Processor/

 

[Asterox]

I've been researching an upgrade to my i5 2500 over the past month because it has gotten too long in the tooth for gaming and is capping my framerates. I'm considering a 9600k, but likely a Ryzen consisdering the logevity of the AM4 platform. But from what I'm hearing, the NEXT Ryzen will be a huge leap over what they're putting out now. I tend to make the big purchases around black friday and december for the lower prices, but if something huge is on the horizon, should I wait? Are their next generation processors poised to be release at the same time next year as their 2 series launched this year? Or are we looking until well into 2020 until the cpu spaces moves to 7nm?

As a said before, do not consider or buy any Intel 6/6 CPU.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...00k-and-possibly-9600k.2554023/#post-39573971

Best or logical option is to go on green route.

For next several days, well only 150$ for Ryzen 8/16 CPU is absurdly low price.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113429

 

[Sonikku]

If Ryzen had comparable single threaded IPC I would in a heartbeat.

 

[Guru]

Intel isn't standing still (well...they have but not forever) and has reiterated they will be ready with 10nm 10th gen Core for the next holiday season. AMD is rumored to have their Zen2 launch around the same time (19Q3 seems increasingly unlikely). So this will put Zen2 not against Skylake&sons but the next gen that appears to have an IPC increase of around 10-15%.
Since Core is already about 15% ahead Zen2 needs ~30% IPC increase for parity.

FWIW I think the ~13% IPC increase most people assume for Zen2 to be on the conservative side and based on what we already know I'm expecting something more in the 25-30% ballpark.

A 5GHz single core turbo seems unlikely for Zen2 so the 8th/9th gen Core will still be very competitive with the fastest Zen2 available late next year.

What are you talking about dude? Intel 10nm is expected in 2020 for mass production, Intel doesn't even have roadmap with major 10nm production, few smaller CPU's on 10nm, but ALL of their roadmaps show 10nm in 2020.

AMD are already shipping 7nm Zen 2 Epyc processors for the server market, in fact their Zen 2 design for the desktop market is already set, the only thing setting it back is the low availability of 7nm. They are literally using ALL 7nm wafers from TSCM for their Zen 2 servers and Vega 20 on 7nm. Until they can get enough 7nm wafers to put Ryzen 3 in production, they can not ship Ryzen 3. So we are talking about Q2 for Ryzen 3 release.

In fact even Zen 3 is deep into development, Zen 3 will come in 2020 on a 7+ nanometer process.

Core for core on the same set frequency Intel has maybe 1-4% IPC advantage, the biggest advantage for Intel is actually the lower memory latency which gives their processors about 2-6% more performance, so you are looking at about 3% to 10% overall advantage for the Intel processors for single threaded applications.

We've heard that AMD expects Zen 2 Epyc to have about 16% IPC improvement over Zen 1, if they can translate that to desktop, they will actually be ahead of Intel in terms of IPC.

In terms of the poster, you should wait if you can. I mean yeah, you are looking at about 6 months of wait time, but we are likely to see DDR5 support in the next gen Ryzen 3000 series, there are also rumors of potential PCI-e 5x support, so it will be worthwhile by the looks of it.

I mean either way you can't really go wrong, getting a 2600x or a 9600k is a solid choice, though personally I'd go with AMD as their AM4 platform will be supported up till Zen 3 for sure, maybe even Zen 4, so you are looking at a smooth upgrade path without buying new mobo and memory.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

DDR5 and PCIe5 won't be until Ryzen 4xxxx or even 5xxxx.
PCIe4 is coming with Epyc2, so it can also be expected for Ryzen 3xxxx.
PCIe5 and DDR5 are extremely likely to be on a new socket, so if you go the AM4 route then they aren't really part of the same discussion. Likewise, a PCIe4 Ryzen 3xxxx is going to need a new AM4 motherboard, which seems likely to be then only a single generation away from DDR5 support.
Zen 2 is predicted to be a huge improvement, but at least for the Ryzen series there will be questions about upgrade paths into the future. That being said, if you ever need to upgrade from an 8C CPU, it ain't likely to be in the short term.

 

[Ranulf]

1700x is $149 at Newegg for the next 5 days.

 

[Elfear]

1700x is $149 at Newegg for the next 5 days.

For today only, the 1700X is $127 through Newegg's Ebay store. Use the PICKFAST code through the Ebay app.

That is a screaming deal. I would pick up that chip with a good X370 or X470 board. You'll be able to drop in a Ryzen 3000 chip when they launch next year.