[SOLVED] At least how much, in % is considered a worthwhile upgrade?

[Phaaze88]

I'm just curious of others' preferences.
Currently running a 7820x, but was looking at the 9900k, but from what I've seen so far, it's less than a 20% increase, and skylake-x is supposed to be slow due to the mesh bus.

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-9900K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-7820X/4028vs3928 (not taking userbenchmark to heart, but use it as a reference anyways)

Result

www.3dmark.com

https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_core_i7_7820x-749-vs-intel_core_i9_9900k-890

So, looks like I'll be waiting to see what Intel's 10nm chips, or Ryzen 3xxx can do... because nothing more can be done with 14nm - 9900k(f) is the last, or SHOULD BE, of it's kind.

TL;DR: At least 30% for me to consider an upgrade. I most likely won't even notice a 10-15% difference.

 

[Eximo]

I agree, nothing about an i7-7820x that needs replacing. You would also be dropping down to dual channel memory.

I'm satisfied with half that many cores for my gaming needs. If you use it for work, maybe consider a 16 core Ryzen 3000 chip when they come out. Should be reasonable priced and match up well in terms of clock frequency / IPC.

 

[Phaaze88]

I agree, nothing about an i7-7820x that needs replacing. You would also be dropping down to dual channel memory.

I'm satisfied with half that many cores for my gaming needs. If you use it for work, maybe consider a 16 core Ryzen 3000 chip when they come out. Should be reasonable priced and match up well in terms of clock frequency / IPC.

We'll find out once they launch. Perhaps they won't be as disappointing as Radeon VII was.
Some folks - not me - were expecting 2080ti performance for half the price. It's on par with the 2080, so that's nice. But when the 2080 is on par with a 2 year old card(1080ti), it doesn't appear as nice.

Anyway, cpus! So uhh, I think 16 cores is a bit overkill for me, at the moment. Plus, that many cores is definitely going to need to be watercooled - I'm sticking with air.
But I am interested to see what Zen 3000 delivers. Intel doesn't have anything else beyond the 9900k until they get their 10mn going.

 

[Eximo]

I agree, nothing about an i7-7820x that needs replacing. You would also be dropping down to dual channel memory.

I'm satisfied with half that many cores for my gaming needs. If you use it for work, maybe consider a 16 core Ryzen 3000 chip when they come out. Should be reasonable priced and match up well in terms of clock frequency / IPC.

We'll find out once they launch. Perhaps they won't be as disappointing as Radeon VII was.
Some folks - not me - were expecting 2080ti performance for half the price. It's on par with the 2080, so that's nice. But when the 2080 is on par with a 2 year old card(1080ti), it doesn't appear as nice.

Anyway, cpus! So uhh, I think 16 cores is a bit overkill for me, at the moment. Plus, that many cores is definitely going to need to be watercooled - I'm sticking with air.
But I am interested to see what Zen 3000 delivers. Intel doesn't have anything else beyond the 9900k until they get their 10mn going.

Only real disappointment with Radeon VII is the price, we can mostly blame Nvidia for that one though, clearly the market is willing to bear it. That and the HBM pricing. You may also be thinking of AMD's promises for Navi. They stated GTX1080 performance at half the price. So RX600 series, a Polaris die shrink, or whatever they decide to call it is supposed to be that. This is just a Vega die shrink effectively. I don't think they will follow through completely, but maybe an RTX2060/GTX1660Ti competitor.

 

[Phaaze88]

I agree, nothing about an i7-7820x that needs replacing. You would also be dropping down to dual channel memory.

I'm satisfied with half that many cores for my gaming needs. If you use it for work, maybe consider a 16 core Ryzen 3000 chip when they come out. Should be reasonable priced and match up well in terms of clock frequency / IPC.


Only real disappointment with Radeon VII is the price, we can mostly blame Nvidia for that one though, clearly the market is willing to bear it. That and the HBM pricing. You may also be thinking of AMD's promises for Navi. They stated GTX1080 performance at half the price. So RX600 series, a Polaris die shrink, or whatever they decide to call it is supposed to be that. This is just a Vega die shrink effectively. I don't think they will follow through completely, but maybe an RTX2060/GTX1660Ti competitor.

That in itself is a problem though - the 1080 is how old now? A brand new card/cpu delivering the performance of another that is almost a few years old?
The more budget oriented consumers will likely pick it up though, assuming reasonable pricing, as you said.
Ryzen has been impressive though, with one caveat: ram speed. Even with their already great value, some people who didn't research it beforehand, or were misinformed, get cheaper, slower ram...

While Radeon VII wasn't too bad, the entire 20-series launch was the bigger disappointment!

 

[punkncat]

To directly answer the question, it is typically 'understood' that seat of the pants feel isn't realized until 30% or better anywhere aside from bench numbers and maybe a frame here or there. Recommends around seem to indicate to wait at least 4 generations on Intel to bother, unless you are stepping up from a lower tier to higher tier proc, say i3 to i7, etc.

I certainly wouldn't be looking to replace that 7th gen x

 

[Phaaze88]

To directly answer the question, it is typically 'understood' that seat of the pants feel isn't realized until 30% or better anywhere aside from bench numbers and maybe a frame here or there. Recommends around seem to indicate to wait at least 4 generations on Intel to bother, unless you are stepping up from a lower tier to higher tier proc, say i3 to i7, etc.

I certainly wouldn't be looking to replace that 7th gen x

4 gens... unless Intel manages to wow us with 10mn?
... Looking forward to it, but not expecting much. Although AMD is currently stoking a fire under their seat!

Guess I'll use some of that extra money to finally replace my last HDD.

 

[Eximo]

That in itself is a problem though - the 1080 is how old now? A brand new card/cpu delivering the performance of another that is almost a few years old?
The more budget oriented consumers will likely pick it up though, assuming reasonable pricing, as you said.
Ryzen has been impressive though, with one caveat: ram speed. Even with their already great value, some people who didn't research it beforehand, or were misinformed, get cheaper, slower ram...

While Radeon VII wasn't too bad, the entire 20-series launch was the bigger disappointment!

AMD isn't trying to compete directly with Nvidia. If in October you can get GTX1080/RTX2070 like performance for $350 instead of $500 it will be people buying now that will have the regrets like always.

May of 2016 so just about three years on the GTX1080. However, old but gold, and not just because I have one. Launch price of $699 (I waited for the AIB cards and paid $650). And still basically good for 1440p gaming, plenty of people still using 980Ti as well.

Pretty much what you pay for an RTX2080, so in that regard, nothing has really changed other than the launch of the TI card at the same time (which has the same price as the Titan Xp at launch, and is actually significantly better this time around. relatively). If they had released the RTX2080 at ~$500 which is where the 1080Ti forced the 1080 to go that would be a different matter. So maintaining price, increasing performance as usual. Would have made no sense due to their over production of Pascal GPUs to go with the lower prices. If they had undercut everyone while forcing them to buy Pascal chips to get Turing they would have had a riot. They could have shipped all the Pascal GPUs to Asia, but I think lack of demand really hit them in the face too quickly.

And don't get me started on my long winded talk about inflation. When AMD and Nvidia were more properly competing with the R9-290 and GTX970 (other way around that time, Nvidia was the one undercutting) that artificially kept GPU prices a lot lower than they ought to be. Fury never really took off as a competitor to the 980Ti either. I am amazed we are just now seeing such high prices. I expected about $50-100 every generation after Kepler.

 

[InvalidError]

How much of a performance improvement is worth upgrading a system for is a very personal thing. I don't bother with a whole-system upgrade for less than a 100% gain for a similar or lower total cost than my current system. My previous upgrade from C2D to i5 was a 150-200% upgrade, my next one will be to a Ryzen 3600 or better which should be 100-150% faster in stuff that can make use of the extra cores and threads or non-trivial multi-tasking.

 

[Phaaze88]

How much of a performance improvement is worth upgrading a system for is a very personal thing. I don't bother with a whole-system upgrade for less than a 100% gain for a similar or lower total cost than my current system. My previous upgrade from C2D to i5 was a 150-200% upgrade, my next one will be to a Ryzen 3600 or better which should be 100-150% faster in stuff that can make use of the extra cores and threads or non-trivial multi-tasking.

WOW.
You are quite the patient one... kudos!

 

[punkncat]

TBH, before I found out how much I enjoy doing builds, I was much along the same line. I was totally cool on a Pentium D for a long time before I sprung for a 4th gen i5.

 

[InvalidError]

WOW.
You are quite the patient one... kudos!

If you mean patience in terms of waiting after my PC, my i5 is still fast enough to play all the games I can be bothered to play well enough for my taste and get everything I need to do on a regular basis done in a sufficiently timely manner, no patience required there - I upgraded from the C2D mainly because I was RAM-bottlenecked (C2D was maxed out at 8GB, the stuff I was doing on it didn't even fit in 16GB on the i5 so I bumped that up to 32GB weeks later), not CPU-bottlenecked. If you mean patience in terms of fighting off the upgrade itch, my upgrade itch is still mostly notable for its absence. Waiting is easy when nothing on the market is at a price-performance level I can get excited about.

 

[Phaaze88]

TBH, before I found out how much I enjoy doing builds, I was much along the same line. I was totally cool on a Pentium D for a long time before I sprung for a 4th gen i5.

I got hooked while building my first pc back in May, 2015. 3570k + GTX 680. I have since moved to my current setup, as well as built a pc for my mother, brother - with the 8086k I won, and my uncle - while I didn't build his laptop, I did help pick out the parts.
I've had the itch for a while, but there appears to be nothing worthwhile to bother tinkering with...

If you mean patience in terms of waiting after my PC, my i5 is still fast enough to play all the games I can be bothered to play well enough for my taste and get everything I need to do on a regular basis done in a sufficiently timely manner, no patience required there - I upgraded from the C2D mainly because I was RAM-bottlenecked (C2D was maxed out at 8GB, the stuff I was doing on it didn't even fit in 16GB on the i5 so I bumped that up to 32GB weeks later), not CPU-bottlenecked. If you mean patience in terms of fighting off the upgrade itch, my upgrade itch is still mostly notable for its absence. Waiting is easy when nothing on the market is at a price-performance level I can get excited about.

I see now that it wasn't a matter of patience, but you actually needed to.
Hopefully Ryzen 3xxx delivers!