To upgrade or not to upgrade (would I really notice a difference?) That is the question.

[PLAfiller]

Light office work and gaming usage as you said is a bad combo IMO . It means, "I don't really need much, but PC is my hobby and the upgrade bug is bitting me". For office work, your PC is fast as your slowest component. In the past that was HDDs, but I see you already have an SSD, so I'd say if you want even faster there, get better ssd may be NVME/U2 drive etc.... For gaming as you pointed most often than not it's the GPU that is being upgraded. Looking at your system, I'd say just keep the $1000 and do something else. Sign up for skydiving, jump off a bridge, have fun

 

[lexluthermiester]

Okay, so I'll start off by saying that I'm currently satisfied with my current systems performance. But I also want to say that while saying the previous statement, I have never actually used a more powerful system than my current system. So while I may be satisfied, that maybe because I don't know just how fast CPUs and RAM have gotten these days. So if I was to upgrade to something along the lines of a i9 system, would I actually tell a difference between my current system and the i9? I do some gaming, but the 1070 is my performance limiting factor there (RTX is just too damn expensive for my wallet). I also do some minor office work. Other than that, my computer just sits and crunches for WCG (yes, I know a i9 would help WCG performance)

Current system specs-
Processor i7 3930k@4.2ghz (+4.5GHz @ 1.38v capable)
Motherboard ASUS Rampage IV Black Edition
Cooling Deep Cool Assassin
Memory 16gig DDR3 1600
Video Card ASUS Dual GTX 1070
Storage 500GB WD Blue SSD, 2TB Seagate Hybrid SSHD
Display HP ZR30W 30" 2560*1600
Case SilverStone Fortress FT04
Power Supply XFX 750W XXX edition
Software Windows 10 Pro 64 bit

Is it actually worth the $1000 it would cost me to upgrade to a i9? Or how about something like a 2700X for a cost of $800?

My 2 cents(and maybe this has been said, TLDR), no, not worth it. Your PC is very decent. Your CPU is good for gaming and will be for at least another year or so, especially with the OC you've got it at. You would benefit from a GPU upgrade much more greatly. 2080 or 2070 would kick ass for your setup.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Ride that 3930K into the sunrise


(former proud 3930k owner)

 

[Vayra86]

Rule of thumb for hardware upgrades

When in doubt, its not worth it. Even if you manage to convince yourself otherwise post-purchase.

 

[cucker tarlson]

your motherboard, cpu and ram could be sold for a decent price. afterwards you could get an r7 1700 with board and ram for a relatively low cost. you wont gain much single core performance but you will get a good bump in multi core. in all honesty you should wait. prices are bound to drop after zen2. i know somebody who has a system similar to yours and it does just fine.

What exactly in his use scenario would require him to sell a 12t cpu in favor of a 16t one with slower single core performance?
For a regular user single core is still the main factor,you need 8 cores only when 6 aren't cutting it anymore.

 

[newtekie1]

We havent been in a situation like this, where AMD will be in top, in years....

And we still haven't really.

Yet in DIY market with AMD nearly on top, all they do is introduce another SKU at a higher price &/or retire the previous SKU. They do not & probably will not reduce their CPU prices even if AMD beats them hands down with a 12/16 core zen2 chip. The sad part is people still bought their overpriced chips even when the supply was down last year. The mindfactory numbers tell the story which I guess most publications have missed - with increasing core counts AMD have greatly reduced the cost/core however Intel still demands & gets a huge premium even with their locked parts.

If AMD does release processors that are truly significantly better than Intel, I guarantee you those processors will be outrageously priced.

 

[EarthDog]

And we still haven't really.

We'll see. I would be surprised if Zen 2 doesn't take the IPC crown as well as cores/$. It all depends on the clock speeds and if Zen 2 will scale closer to what speeds Intel can reach.

If AMD does release processors that are truly significantly better than Intel, I guarantee you those processors will be outrageously priced.

If you mean priced a lot closer to Intel, I agree. If you mean more, hell to the N.O.

... well it depends on what "significantly better" means. IPC? Clocks? Both? If overall performance is close in IPC and clocks are close, they will still undercut Intel. If IPC is better but clocks still lower, still doubtful. If both clocks are higher and IPC, I seem the still undercutting, if only by a tiny margin. I do not see them flipping the script in their first leg up.

 

[newtekie1]

We'll see. I would be surprised if Zen 2 doesn't take the IPC crown as well as cores/$. It all depends on the clock speeds and if Zen 2 will scale closer to what speeds Intel can reach.

There is only so much you can do with an architecture, so I don't expect they will surpass Intel in IPC. What I'm hoping Zen2 brings is higher clock speeds, that will being AMD's single core performance closer inline with Intel. But they also need to bring efficiency more inline with Intel too.

If you mean priced a lot closer to Intel, I agree. If you mean more, hell to the N.O.

You seem to forget history. When AMD has the lead, they gouge just like Intel.

... well it depends on what "significantly better" means. IPC? Clocks? Both? If overall performance is close in IPC and clocks are close, they will still undercut Intel. If IPC is better but clocks still lower, still doubtful. If both clocks are higher and IPC, I seem the still undercutting, if only by a tiny margin. I do not see them flipping the script in their first leg up.

If they can release a processor that overall is better than Intel, meaning at least match Intel's offerings in some areas, but better in some other areas, so overall better, then AMD will price it higher than Intel. History has shown this to always be the case. When AMD doesn't have competition, they jack the prices up.

 

[EarthDog]

There is only so much you can do with an architecture, so I don't expect they will surpass Intel in IPC. What I'm hoping Zen2 brings is higher clock speeds, that will being AMD's single core performance closer inline with Intel. But they also need to bring efficiency more inline with Intel too.

Correct... but they are not that far behind.

Efficiency wasn't a talking point, but I'll bite and agree (not that Intel is making headway with the 9900K and how it sucks down power compared to its TDP).

You seem to forget history. When AMD has the lead, they gouge just like Intel.

I didn't forget history at all. That was over 15 years ago though. I am sure they will raise prices if the performance is there, but they won't go past Intel.

If they can release a processor that overall is better than Intel, meaning at least match Intel's offerings in some areas, but better in some other areas, so overall better, then AMD will price it higher than Intel.

No they won't.

Ping me when it releases and let's chat then.

 

[trog100]

for gaming purposes a better graphics card would improve things and there isnt much point in waiting for one of those..

trog

 

[newtekie1]

I didn't forget history at all. That was over 15 years ago though. I am sure they will raise prices if the performance is there, but they won't go past Intel.
No they won't.

Ping me when it releases and let's chat then.

You have no basis to say they won't. HIstory shows they will, and history tends to repeat itself. AMD isn't just some magically nice guy company. And you really only have to go back about 5 years to see them outright gouging on products when they had the lead.

 

[hat]

I think there might be a lot to look forward to with Zen 2. Not only is the architecture going to be buffed, but it's going to be built on TSMC's 7nm process. Don't forget that all we've seen so far has been done with a process that isn't normally used for high performance processors.

Really the Zen Achilles heel is going to be that compartmentalized design made to easily scale up or down. It's easy to scale, but the inherent latency in such a design bogs the whole thing down.

 

[cucker tarlson]

I think there might be a lot to look forward to with Zen 2. Not only is the architecture going to be buffed, but it's going to be built on TSMC's 7nm process. Don't forget that all we've seen so far has been done with a process that isn't normally used for high performance processors.

Really the Zen Achilles heel is going to be that compartmentalized design made to easily scale up or down. It's easy to scale, but the inherent latency in such a design bogs the whole thing down.

we'll see what happens,but if amd's 7nm still lags behind unlocked i5's in gaming then amd owes ppl an explanation why exactly we need two dies and two ccx's for a sixcore in 2019.

 

[EarthDog]

You have no basis to say they won't. HIstory shows they will, and history tends to repeat itself. AMD isn't just some magically nice guy company. And you really only have to go back about 5 years to see them outright gouging on products when they had the lead.

And you have little basis to say what happened almost 2 decades ago with CPUs will happen again.

Just ping me when they are out... we'll agree to disagree for now instead of jamming our opinions down each other's throats.

 

[hat]

If I'm not mistaken, you get 8 cores from a single Zen 2 CCX. It's Zen 1 with two (quad core) CCX modules to make a six core.

The separate chipset die is what worries me. There's going to be more latency there than with a monolithic design which incorporates all that in a single die with the CPU cores.

 

[R0H1T]

There is only so much you can do with an architecture, so I don't expect they will surpass Intel in IPC. What I'm hoping Zen2 brings is higher clock speeds, that will being AMD's single core performance closer inline with Intel. But they also need to bring efficiency more inline with Intel too.



You seem to forget history. When AMD has the lead, they gouge just like Intel.



If they can release a processor that overall is better than Intel, meaning at least match Intel's offerings in some areas, but better in some other areas, so overall better, then AMD will price it higher than Intel. History has shown this to always be the case. When AMD doesn't have competition, they jack the prices up.

AMD's already pretty close to Broadwell level IPC in CB, that's before the spectre+meltdown impact. Pretty sure SKL isn't much of a leap from Broadwell, what AMD needs right now is higher clocks & they can certainly exceed "core" IPC. If rumors are true about *cove being totally different from core then Intel might well take the IPC crown back, but remember this uarch has been refined over 15+ years & AMD hasn't even tapped into Ryzen over 2 generations. It isn't AMD that needs to be worried over the next couple of years, it is Intel hence the insane clocks everywhere!

 

[Vario]

Biggest thing to give you a boost is possibly an NVME drive. I just got a PM981 1TB for $100, there are good deals out there if you hunt for them. Could try that on a PCIE card and see if that scratches your speed itch. If it doesn't you could carry it forward into the next build.

If you have trouble getting smooth frame rates at your choice of resolution and graphic setting, upgrade the graphics card. Sooner or later you should get off the SandyE, the modern Intel does have much faster instructions per clock. People still pay a lot for your hardware on the used market, you could make back some of the cost of the upgrade.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Ride that 3930K into the sunrise


(former proud 3930k owner)

That's Sunset Freedom

 

[FreedomEclipse]

That's Sunset Freedom

Im currently 7hrs ahead on the other side of the world - Trust me, its sunrise

 

[Bill_Bright]

Unless each processor maker only made one processor each, there is no way one can claim Brand A (as in the entire brand) is better or "on top" than Brand B. With each maker producing many processors, it is impossible for each processor from Brand A to be better than every processor from Brand B.

Plus, no processor is best in every task thrown at it. Even when it comes to games, no processor is best at every game on the market today.

And "best" is a subjective term anyway. Some feel "best" is all about the money - which gives the most bang for the money. Others don't care about money. Some feel "best" is higher clock speeds. Others look for lower power consumption and heat. Others base "best" on the integrated graphics - even if planning to use a graphics card!

Some feel blue is just better than red. For sure my blue F150 is better than any red Chevy or green RAM.

Finally, the processor is just one component in a computer. Depending on the task at that moment, even the best processor can be bottlenecked by an insufficient supply of RAM, weak graphics solution, slow drives, or even poor case cooling.

The only fair comparison is to pick two specific processors and compare them performing the primary task or tasks that specific user will be doing with that computer.

***

And when it comes to money, I think it is important (1) to look at the entire package and (2) to factor in the costs over the life of the computer. The CPU is just one component. You can spend the same amount on comparable motherboards. And the graphics card, RAM, drives, PSU, case, cooler, keyboard, mouse, monitor(s), speakers, and Windows all cost exactly the same, regardless if using with an AMD or Intel processor. So let's say you spend $200 more for Brand B processor - spread that out over 36 or even 60 months and you are talking pennies per day - less than that if you later sell the processor on eBay.

Yeah, everything costs too much. But considering my first "PC" came with a 33MHz 486 and "more than I will ever need" 16MB of RAM and "bigger than I will ever need" 250MB hard drive for "only" $2570.00, not sure complaining about prices these days means much at all.

 

[Vario]

I noticed a big improvement from my 3770K to my 8600K but at the same time I also went from DDR3 1600 CL9 to DDR4 3200 CL14 still using the GTX 770 2GB. Further improvement 6 months later selling the 770 2GB going to a 1060 6GB and even further improvement going to a NVMe 970 Pro 512GB from a Seagate 600 240GB SATA SSD. All those upgrades were noticeable for me. I don't know how each quantified to an exact frame rate improvement because I didn't do a before and after, but games such as GTAV were noticeably smoother and latency free.

 

[John Naylor]

It's kinda like asking "what vehicle should I buy " w/o mentioning how many passengers, what climate, how many miles you drive and what types of motoring you do". Obviously a soccer mom's needs differ from an engineer / architect who has visit muddy job sites ... or a plow driver who has to get to work in the worst weather ... or a salesman who puts on 60k miles a year.

It's all about what you do ..... we generally recommend the following for those where budet isn't really a big deal:

Gamer + normal Office Suite / Browsing etc - Intel i5 / it if need the extra for other needs,
Above plus 25 - 40% workstation apps that benefit from extra cores ... surprisingly, it's not a lot - Ryzen
Workstation type apps (video editing, animation, rendering, etc) - Intel workstation CPUs

 

[BarbaricSoul]

Damn, this CPU/MB combo was money well spent. I never would have thought 5 years ago when I built this system that in 2019 when asking if I should upgrade, I would get responses like

I'd chuck that money into savings instead.

i know somebody who has a system similar to yours and it does just fine.

I'd wait for now, the system is still pretty balanced.

Looking at your system, I'd say just keep the $1000 and do something else.

Your PC is very decent. Your CPU is good for gaming and will be for at least another year or so, especially with the OC you've got it at.

Ride that 3930K into the sunrise

Not bad for a 5 year old system built with used parts.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Damn, this CPU/MB combo was money well spent. I never would have thought 5 years ago when I built this system that in 2019 when asking if I should upgrade, I would get responses like







Not bad for a 5 year old system built with used parts.

Yeah your system is still pretty solid but in videos I could find a Ryzen 1600X seems about on par with a 4.5ghz 3930k not a bad place to be really a 2080 or higher would still be a nice upgrade for 1600p gaming.

Also for those saying intel doesn't lower prices they must have forgot how much an 8 core intel cpu was before the 1800X came out.

 

[BarbaricSoul]

a 2080 or higher would still be a nice upgrade for 1600p gaming.

not at $700 and ^

Also for those saying intel doesn't lower prices they must have forgot how much an 8 core intel cpu was before the 1800X came out.

I remember. Hell, I paid $360 to @Nordic for my current 3930k used and after the release of the 4930k. Pretty sure the R4BE cost me $400 and the RAM was from my previous 2600k system