Question Worthy upgrade from Ryzen 7 1700X?

[ibex333]

With my birthday coming up in January, I want to make myself a present, and future-proof my machine for gaming for at least another year.

I am running a Vega 56@64 right now, and I want absolutely no bottlenecks with that, or with any other card within the year 2020.

Don't want to go crazy and pay a lot. Need something budget, which will overclock well to match the performance of something better. I got a cool 3.9-4.0 GHz out of my 1700X, and I want to upgrade to something similar.

I want to hear some opinions on if I should even bother, because I mostly play @ 1080p with a rare 1440p. The 1440p games are mostly the old ones, like original Warhammer: Dawn of War and Starcraft 2. I play all modern AAA @ 1080p, 144Hz when possible.

I am in no hurry. If I should wait 1-2 months for something, I can do that.


Thanks very much.

 

[EXCellR8]

Are you looking to stay on AM4? I assume so in order to keep the cost down.

I went from a 1700 to a 3700X and there's no bottleneck with my Vega 64. I mean for the price it was a decent update but 1440p performance wasn't that much improved over the 1700. 1080p is likely a different story though. You could even go with the 3800 if you wanted; be set for another year or two.

 

[Topweasel]

To me a purchaser of the 1700x wanted a healthy core count going forward. A 3700x would be an upgrade. ~20% better CPU bottlenecked game play or so. But and this is a bit of stretch for some. I wouldn't (and haven't on my 1700) go with such a lateral move. My goal is to wait till the 4k series launches and get a 3950 at a discount. But I don't know if I would swap out my 1700 for just a 3700x.

 

[Kenmitch]

I believe all the 3xxx series will match that all core overclock by just enabling PBO. Single core clocks will exceed it. Pick your poison and game on!

 

[VirtualLarry]

3900X. 3700X would be an improvement in ST performance, but it would be more of a lateral move. The 3900X has good boost clocks, AND more cores than your 1700(X).

Or, if you ONLY want ST improvement (for games, for example), consider a 3600X ($200 at walmart.com). Due to better boost clocks, and IPC improvements (especially in the things that I do, like mining and DC work), the 3600(X) is basically as fast as the 1700(X) and 2700(X), even when they are overclocked to 4.0Ghz.

 

[happy medium]

A video card upgrade will give you more fps than a new cpu.

 

[Shmee]

For 1440p, I think above post makes sense. That or upgrade at the same time. You may want to wait until budget allows both a CPU upgrade and a GPU upgrade, as right now you seem pretty well balanced. Maybe wait for the big Navi/RTX 3080 to see and make a decision on new CPU and GPU.

 

[funboy6942]

Maybe this video will help you decide?

Here is a 1700x vs a 3600 non x in 1080p and 1440p.

And in not knowing what kind of budget you have to work on, looks like just upgrading to a $400 RTX 2060 isnt going to do you much good other then getting ray tracing, for that card is pretty much on par with your overclocked 54, so unless you have deep pockets right now, I could only say, and cannot believe Im saying this, but really upgrading your cpu to a 3700 or 3800x would be your best bet right now for that will cost about $250-$340 considering the RTX 2060 will set you back around $400 and get no gains what so ever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kP0j_PzS-4

Not sure if Id go with the 3800 IMO, for with this video it doesnt look like much of a gain vs the 3600X, UNLESS you do a lot of streaming or editing then the extra cores may come in handy for you, but if gaming, a 3600 or 3600x will get you 10-30fpps more then a 1700x whch would be a noticable gain in some that need that little push from being a slideshow. I myself cannot afford a 2060 at all, so for the moment Im gaming, on mostly older titles, some aaa ones, but I run at 4k with a GTX 1070 and a 1600(non x) with anti off and get about 35-60 fps in most of my aaa titles, and almost 100+ in my older games. Turning off anti at 4 will gain a lot more fps, and being at 4k you wont notice the jaggies pretty much at all. I have a 3600X coming myself to gain that 10-30fps more for myself, and after watching the videos I gave you, I may be looking to go Vega vs my 1070 if I can get one cheap enough latter on, for there is about a 20-40fps jump with that card coming from mine it looks to be.

Ryzen 7 3800X vs 3700X vs 2700X vs 2700 vs 1700X vs 1700 | 1080p 1440p Gameplay Benchmark Test

Ryzen 7 3800X @OC vs 3700X @OC vs 2700X @OC vs 2700 @OC vs 1700X @OC vs 1700 @OC | 1080p 1440p Gameplay Benchmark Test | RTX 2080 SUPER 8GB

www.youtube.com

 

[IEC]

A video card upgrade will give you more fps than a new cpu.

Average FPS, sure. But if there are CPU-bottlenecked situations where the minimum FPS is the problem, then a CPU upgrade will help.

That's assuming that the minimum FPS is a problem - which seems unlikely with a OC'd 1700X.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Any upgrade would require paying a good amount for modest gains - around 20% increase on a CPU and to gain 25% on the GPU you need at least a 2070 Super.

 

[dlerious]

I've been bouncing around on an upgrade here too. I've got the 1800X. The 3600(X) seemed like more of a side grade - I get IPC and clocks, but give up cores. I'm looking at 3800X-3900X right now. The 3900X looks more like a nice upgrade, but I don't know if I want to spend $500 again. For GPU I upgraded from Vega 64 to 1080ti a year ago. Buying new, I'd look at 5700XT or 2070 Super (1440p, 144Hz).

 

[gk1951]

Just upped my 2700x to a 3900x

 

[rwnrwnn7]

To me a purchaser of the 1700x wanted a healthy core count going forward. A 3700x would be an upgrade. ~20% better CPU bottlenecked game play or so. But and this is a bit of stretch for some. I wouldn't (and haven't on my 1700) go with such a lateral move. My goal is to wait till the 4k series launches and get a 3950 at a discount. But I don't know if I would swap out my 1700 for just a 3700x.

you've been writing here for 20 years, don't have a job?
do you still play children's games?

We have a policy of no personal attacks in the tech sub-forums.
If you cannot post respectfully in our forums, please post somewhere else.
You need to heed the warnings you have received.

Iron Woode
Super moderator

 

[DrMrLordX]

There were some sweetheart deals on 3800x chips around Black Friday. If you can find one of those, you can get some really nice all-core clocks. 3900x is great but the price is not so nice, and you may lose some clocks vs 3800x. It will be awhile before those four extra cores help you in many games.

Only reason I would consider a 3900x is if you can fit it into your budget and if you really need the extra memory write bandwidth. Plus it's harder to cool a 3900x. Matisse can get hot even with massive cooling capacity. Remember that!

 

[Makaveli]

There were some sweetheart deals on 3800x chips around Black Friday. If you can find one of those, you can get some really nice all-core clocks. 3900x is great but the price is not so nice, and you may lose some clocks vs 3800x. It will be awhile before those four extra cores help you in many games.

Only reason I would consider a 3900x is if you can fit it into your budget and if you really need the extra memory write bandwidth. Plus it's harder to cool a 3900x. Matisse can get hot even with massive cooling capacity. Remember that!

That is the reason I choose the 3800x Black Friday sale price was good and no price change on the 3900x

$439 CAD vs $699 CAD

 

[Dave2150]

Worth remembering that with the PS5 and XboxX* (whatever it's it's called) will be native 4K consoles, capable of 4k60. They'll be more powerful than the vast majority of gaming PC's out there.

This will push 4k to the masses just as previous consoles pushed 1080P back in the day.

1080P is very long in the tooth by now, 1440P is adequate, though about to be trumped by consoles. 4K should be the focus going forward, where CPU practically doesn't matter. 1080P will just be used by 'pro' gamers for CS and other pro gamer tournaments, where graphics don't matter.

Running 4k on my 6700K with a Radeon 7, no CPU to upgrade to for Gaming as 4C8T is not the bottleneck at 4k, the GPU is. I'd just get the best GPU you can afford. Personally, I'm looking forward to upgrade to 'big' Navi when it comes out next year, my Radeon 7 has served me well since February but 4K needs more power.

 

[moinmoin]

Worth remembering that with the PS5 and XboxX* (whatever it's it's called) will be native 4K consoles, capable of 4k60. They'll be more powerful than the vast majority of gaming PC's out there.

As the past couple console generations have shown, output resolution seldom equals actual render resolution used by the games. Expect only few games to actually make use of the full 4K60.

 

[Dave2150]

As the past couple console generations have shown, output resolution seldom equals actual render resolution used by the games. Expect only few games to actually make use of the full 4K60.

This was the case with the PS4 Pro for sure. The PS5 will be a different beast, and will me a much more capable 4k console.

The main point is, console gamers will be running 8C16T Zen 2 CPU's, powered by 2nd gen Navi with RT, which will be 4k60 capable. This is much more powerful than the average gaming PC today. Who wants to be running 1080P on a PC, when consoles gamers are enjoying a much more modern 4k? Even 1440P will be a downgrade from what the consoles are capable of.

Console optimisation also means developers will optimise the games to actually leverage the hardware available (this will increase over time). 1080P is meaningless in 2020, 1440P is not far behind.

 

[dreamgoat]

This was the case with the PS4 Pro for sure. The PS5 will be a different beast, and will me a much more capable 4k console.

The main point is, console gamers will be running 8C16T Zen 2 CPU's, powered by 2nd gen Navi with RT, which will be 4k60 capable. This is much more powerful than the average gaming PC today. Who wants to be running 1080P on a PC, when console gamers are enjoying a much more modern 4k? Even 1440P will be a downgrade from what the consoles are capable of.

Console optimization also means developers will optimize the games to actually leverage the hardware available (this will increase over time). 1080P is meaningless in 2020, 1440P is not far behind.

I know this is an old post but I would 100% disagree. FPS is also important. and 4k is meh unless you have a lot of money on pc to get a high FPS 4k monitor, is still up in the air. In my experience, I care about the smooth gameplay so I still stick between 1080p to 1440p because still offer high fps. Now if you're a console player and you're ok with 60 fps on new-gen consoles more power to you. 1080p nor 1440p aren't going out of style due to the fps and price.

 

[moinmoin]

Now if you're a console player and you're ok with 60 fps on new-gen consoles more power to you.

New-gen consoles go up to 120fps and also support VRR.

 

[dreamgoat]

@moinmoin You will need a tv that's about 2-3k USD that supports HDMI 2.1. If you can afford that then sure. The cheapest I found is the LGc9 is one. There are many variables a TV has to have to be able to do that, the cheapest TV I mention only a bare minimum of what you need. To play effectively you have to buy TV's being the cheapest one is 5-7k I believe to support a.l.l.m which are not in a lot of tv's right now. Probably would have to wait 1-2 years to go down in price because over half won't have these tvs.

 

[moinmoin]

The previous gen of consoles had/has a lifespan of 6+ years. Full support for the new HDMI 2.1 standard being in short and expensive supply now is as much a snapshot of the current time as is the new gen consoles and much of the freshly launched consumer electronics being constantly sold out. This obviously won't stay that way for the next half a decade.

 

[dreamgoat]

New-gen consoles go up to 120fps and also support VRR.

I have seen no evidence of that. Then again I was talking in a 4k environment. So far from what I saw it was hard to push to 60 fps. 4k + 120 fps in a console is just unreal, I can't even get that on a 1400 USD pc gaming rig. If you have benchmarks of that please link it I would love to see it.

The previous gen of consoles had/has a lifespan of 6+ years. Full support for the new HDMI 2.1 standard being in short and expensive supply now is as much a snapshot of the current time as is the new gen consoles and much of the freshly launched consumer electronics being constantly sold out. This obviously won't stay that way for the next half a decade.

Oh, yes. I totally agree. And with any new popular tech with limited supply scalpers will always be there to grief.

 

[undertaker101]

Depending on board, wait for a 5xxx supporting BIOS and get 5600x or a 5900x when they drop. I got a 5800x only because I managed to get BB to 'honor' my 10% off birthday coupon that expired unused despite multiple attempts to buy a 3080. A 5800x should be 399 or lower to make sense.

 

[moinmoin]

I have seen no evidence of that.

What's new with Gears 5 on Xbox Series X?

One of the trends we're seeing with this new generation of consoles is the arrival of visual updates for last generatio…

www.eurogamer.net

Of course it uses dynamic resolution scaling so the higher the refresh rate the fewer times it will hit actual 4K.