Potential upgrade to AMD Ryzen

[Bill_Bright]

but as the OP directs, its better to get SSD for OS + everyday apps and documents, and HDD for games

Well, I guess I just don't agree with that. A hard drive is not "better" for games. Except for price per gigabyte a hard drive offers absolutely no advantage over an SSD.

Hard drives are mechanical devices. Therefore they are subject to wear and tear due to mechanical friction.
Hard drives are physically larger and heavier.
Hard drives consume more energy.
Hard drives generate more heat.
Hard drives are subject to damage easier due to abuse by kicks, knocks and drops.
Then of course, the slowest SSD can run circles around the fastest HD.​

There is no advantage to putting a game on a SSD - except for cost per gigabyte of storage space.

I see no reason to spend many $100s on a state-of-the-art CPU, many $100s on a modern graphics solution and another big chunk of change on RAM only to bottleneck them with a slow, legacy technology, hard drive.

I'm a strong proponent of quality cases as the foundation for a good computer. But I would rather cut corners with a cheap, budget case and get a SSD then get a hard drive for programs.

Static files (like tunes and videos, and backup images) okay. But not program files.

There no benefits in load times on SSD or its not entirely worthwhile?

What???

 

[kurosagi01]

Well, I guess I just don't agree with that. A hard drive is not "better" for games. Except for price per gigabyte a hard drive offers absolutely no advantage over an SSD.

Hard drives are mechanical devices. Therefore they are subject to wear and tear due to mechanical friction.
Hard drives are physically larger and heavier.
Hard drives consume more energy.
Hard drives generate more heat.
Hard drives are subject to damage easier due to abuse by kicks, knocks and drops.
Then of course, the slowest SSD can run circles around the fastest HD.​

There is no advantage to putting a game on a SSD - except for cost per gigabyte of storage space.

I see no reason to spend many $100s on a state-of-the-art CPU, many $100s on a modern graphics solution and another big chunk of change on RAM only to bottleneck them with a slow, legacy technology, hard drive.

I'm a strong proponent of quality cases as the foundation for a good computer. But I would rather cut corners with a cheap, budget case and get a SSD then get a hard drive for programs.

Static files (like tunes and videos, and backup images) okay. But not program files.
What???

Sorry forgot to quote peche comment on SSD,i was trying to say was wouldn't there be a faster load time if booting the game on a SSD over a mechanical HD. Which in essence yes there will be faster load time when loading games on a SSD which to me is worth it. Capacity i was looking at 240-480GB SSD which is plenty for me as i always uninstall games i finish.
As for Mikes comment i would but i9 will be expensive which is out of my budget and even if i did save for i9 its not really justifiable for my needs,if i was to work at home and do programming then perhaps it might be worth it but at this stage i mainly work in a office to do my programming.

 

[peche]

e? I have MSI Z97 Guard pro which can probably handle a small overclock bump?

that board will be able to OC that chip !

he GTX980ti cost equal amount to a new RX580 but if i can jump on 1070 instead then i will probably get 1070.

i'll skip amd ... get GTX 980ti or 1070 then ....

There no benefits in load times on SSD or its not entirely worthwhile?

you might have to read some posts again and decide it yourself, cuz for some people is useful, for others like me, gaming on SSD is worthless ... thats pretty personal,

Regards,

 

[Bill_Bright]

i was trying to say was wouldn't there be a faster load time if booting the game on a SSD over a mechanical HD.

Everything loads faster from an SSD vs mechanical HD.

 

[eidairaman1]

Everything loads faster from an SSD vs mechanical HD.

Yup but they still pitch a price. Best to have a 10K-15Krpm HDD for bulk.

 

[R-T-B]

Yup but they still pitch a price. Best to have a 10K-15Krpm HDD for bulk.

10K and 15K drives are nearly exclusively server stuff. You may as well buck up for an SSD if you are talking that kind of money.

 

[Flogger23m]

upgrade:
2x4GB ram: Great and wise upgrade!
Upgrade to GTX 1070 will be an epic win....
for the price tag on some SSD's and the performance they may shown on games the upgrade / change is not logic, better to add 1TB HDD for games, music and others...
Forget amd RX 580....

what did you decide about replacing your i5 for an i7 in the same socket / Generation ?

Load times are a good bit longer on HDDs and will introduce micro stutters as they fill up. Always been the case with my WD Black drives.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Yup but they still pitch a price. Best to have a 10K-15Krpm HDD for bulk.

No way! 10K drives are expensive (if you want a decent one). 15K are more so. And frankly, it really makes no sense to use 10K/15K drives for "bulk" storage. Bulk storage is for tunes, videos, and backups. You don't need high speed hard drives for that sort of data.

Western Digital 1TB 10K drive - $283 (with many costing $100s more)

Mushkin 1TB SATA III SSD - $269

Crucial 1TB M.2 SSD - $289

Why put up with the physical size, weight, heat, power consumption, not to mention high-pitched whine of 10K hard drives when you can spend the same kind of money (or less) for none of that? And note 15K drives cost more, generate more heat and drive dogs crazy.

I did find one WD 1TB 10K "bare" drive for $139. But frankly, I don't trust budget hard drives to store my data. Do you?

If $150, on top of the cost of the rest of the computer, is really a deal breaker, then go for a nice 7200RPM drive. But frankly, I look at costs strategically - how much is something going to cost me over the life the product? Is an extra $150 spread over 5+ years really a deal breaker? Not in my opinion - not when you also factor in less heat, less power consumption, less weight, "NO" noise, "NO" vibration, and of course, significantly improved performance.

 

[eidairaman1]

No way! 10K drives are expensive (if you want a decent one). 15K are more so. And frankly, it really makes no sense to use 10K/15K drives for "bulk" storage. Bulk storage is for tunes, videos, and backups. You don't need high speed hard drives for that sort of data.

Western Digital 1TB 10K drive - $283 (with many costing $100s more)

Mushkin 1TB SATA III SSD - $269

Crucial 1TB M.2 SSD - $289

Why put up with the physical size, weight, heat, power consumption, not to mention high-pitched whine of 10K hard drives when you can spend the same kind of money (or less) for none of that? And note 15K drives cost more, generate more heat and drive dogs crazy.

I did find one WD 1TB 10K "bare" drive for $139. But frankly, I don't trust budget hard drives to store my data. Do you?

If $150, on top of the cost of the rest of the computer, is really a deal breaker, then go for a nice 7200RPM drive. But frankly, I look at costs strategically - how much is something going to cost me over the life the product? Is an extra $150 spread over 5+ years really a deal breaker? Not in my opinion - not when you also factor in less heat, less power consumption, less weight, "NO" noise, "NO" vibration, and of course, significantly improved performance.

I think my velociraptor was less

 

[Bill_Bright]

Maybe, but clearly you put initial purchase cost alone above all else - as if nothing else matters. If cost is your only paramount concern, then that's fine and I have no wish to argue that point

But a couple $100 extra in initial purchase cost for something that brings years of extra, tangible benefits does not outweigh all those extra tangible benefits for me, and most other enthusiasts I know.

 

[Cvrk]

get GTX 980ti or 1070 then ....

Just the 1070.
that 980 is so old. I don't know how to explain or anything....but: new drivers make all the difference in the world. I've played, seen,and tested strong gpu's vs new low end ones,the new drivers did better on the new card,getting better results.
Ever since then, i was a fan of mid-range gpu's purchased more often (every year or 2 years), rather than buying high-end more expensive ones for an average of 3-4 years.
For example, i wont get a 1080 so expensive to keep it for 4 years. Even tho at 1080p gaming a gtx1080 will do fine for 4 years... But you dont get a gtx1080 to game at 1080p

Maybe, but clearly you put initial purchase cost alone above all else - as if nothing else matters. If cost is your only paramount concern, then that's fine and I have no wish to argue that point

But a couple $100 extra in initial purchase cost for something that brings years of extra, tangible benefits does not outweigh all those extra tangible benefits for me, and most other enthusiasts I know.

I agree so much. This is smart

 

[peche]

Just the 1070.
that 980 is so old

Well ... previuos video card: GTX 680 SSC 2GB no problems with her, brave and powerful video card. upgraded cuz there was the chance to upgrade with minor money investment, now i own GTX 980 4GB, solid enoug video card for 1 year moar, yes little peche will be upgrading video card maybe in 2018, why?
i game on 1080, (1920 X 1280)
my game list incluides serveral older games and some sagas to complete (Bioshock remastered for example and Far Cry ones for naming a few)
the amount of time i can game right now its pretty miminal, like 3 hours max per night, that means that mostly i play an hour or so,
and also the fact that the GTX 980 still have plenty horsepower to bring for the res am playing, makes me think i can milk the most of it!
So some older cards at the decent price can rock your world bro,

ver since then, i was a fan of mid-range gpu's purchased more often (every year or 2 years), rather than buying high-end more expensive ones for an average of 3-4 years.
For example, i wont get a 1080 so expensive to keep it for 4 years. Even tho at 1080p gaming a gtx1080 will do fine for 4 years... But you dont get a gtx1080 to game at 1080p

Well some people use to get what they need at the right price, some other rather to get the most for they money, me i like to pruchase for the future when related to computers.
If its a video card i always look at the used market 1st and look for "XX80" or "X80Ti" variants of previous generations, cuz they are the most complete chips for those generations so the money you possible have for a "XX60-XX70" card could be better used in a better GPU that can hold moar with you, this is just my point of view,

Regards.

 

[stinzza]

you people that is telling the op to buy a 7700k rig over an ryzen say 1700 or 1600x since he dont overclock.. stop it.. be realistic here.. the 7700k has only 16 pcie lanes, if he say use one 4x ssd his grafikccard will only run 8x.. look at intel 8core parts.. you see that price.. yeah you gel 48 pci lanes an quad channel ram.. and a couple ov hundreds more hz... but come on.... you loose ca 10procent fps in 1080p but gain cores an exelent threaded performance... 4cores are out.. in with consoles with cores with more core and threaded optimyzed games lay a head of us..

 

[EarthDog]

you people that is telling the op to buy a 7700k rig over an ryzen say 1700 or 1600x since he dont overclock.. stop it.. be realistic here.. the 7700k has only 16 pcie lanes, if he say use one 4x ssd his grafikccard will only run 8x.. look at intel 8core parts.. you see that price.. yeah you gel 48 pci lanes an quad channel ram.. and a couple ov hundreds more hz... but come on.... you loose ca 10procent fps in 1080p but gain cores an exelent threaded performance... 4cores are out.. in with consoles with cores with more core and threaded optimyzed games lay a head of us..

It doesnt work that way...

1. The 4x pcie3.0 lanes for nvme come from the chipset.
2. 8x pcie 3.0 loses an average of 1%... feel free to look at TPUs own review on it.
3. More core optimzed games will matter in a few years... i wouldnt worry about a 4c/8t part for years.

 

[stinzza]

nr 1 is wrong.. you can have both.. but chipset nv disk has less bandwith and higher latencies then the other

 

[RealNeil]

I took apart an i7-4790K system and shelved it so I could try out a Ryzen 1700X build.
There isn't much real world difference in them except in heavy processing loads. I'm using it mainly for folding at home.
Gaming is almost the same on each setup using the same GPUs.
I had decided to sell the i7-4790K parts until I began folding on TPU's team. Now I plan to just set it up with a basic OS on it and let it fold 24/7.

Getting an i7 CPU for the system that you have now isn't such a bad idea, but if you want a big improvement, go with the best i7 or Ryzen that you can afford. If you have to wait a month or two to get better, then do that. It's worth it to do.

 

[EarthDog]

nr 1 is wrong.. you can have both.. but chipset nv disk has less bandwith and higher latencies then the other

You are correct. You can have both. You are right on that when situations arise that it uses the CPU lanes.

 

[stinzza]

the chipset doesnt use pcie lanes.. the pcie lanes are directly connected to the cpu

 

[phanbuey]

I took apart an i7-4790K system and shelved it so I could try out a Ryzen 1700X build.
There isn't much real world difference in them except in heavy processing loads. I'm using it mainly for folding at home.
Gaming is almost the same on each setup using the same GPUs.
I had decided to sell the i7-4790K parts until I began folding on TPU's team. Now I plan to just set it up with a basic OS on it and let it fold 24/7.

Getting an i7 CPU for the system that you have now isn't such a bad idea, but if you want a big improvement, go with the best i7 or Ryzen that you can afford. If you have to wait a month or two to get better, then do that. It's worth it to do.

I feel like the best Ryzen right now is the 4ghz 1700 from silicon lottery... if you buy a 1800x you will probably be stuck around 4Ghz on the current batch, and anything coming close to $500-$450 for the CPU and you may want to just pony up the extra cash to go x299 and 7820X for the extra OC and single thread performance.

 

[RealNeil]

I feel like the best Ryzen right now is the 4ghz 1700 from silicon lottery... if you buy a 1800x you will probably be stuck around 4Ghz on the current batch, and anything coming close to $500-$450 for the CPU and you may want to just pony up the extra cash to go x299 and 7820X for the extra OC and single thread performance.

I have only tried the Ryzen 1700X, and it's good for me and my uses. I also have an i5-6600K, a pair of X99 boxes, and an i7-6700K.
So I'm good to go for a long time.

I did just enter a contest to win a new ThreadRipper system, (at their release) and that would probably be pretty nice to have.