FX to Ryzen upgrade?

[GeneralJim25]

At this time, I have an FX 8120 oc'd to 3.7. The rest of my rig is 8 GB ram at 1666 MHZ, and a 4 GB RX 480. I have an H80i slapped on the FX with 2 fans in push/pull as well for good measure. At this time, the system performs phenomenally in Doom. 1080p average 110-120 fps.

If you had to consider one of the Ryzen processors the next natural step up from the 8120, which would it be? Im considering the 1500X as it is around the same price point, but I dont want to get it if it would be a step down performance wise.

Also planning on trying to get a higher res monitor than 1080p. Atleast 1440p, or maybe even 4k, so I would want a CPU that would be able to handle it fairly well.

 

[HEXiT]

there's about a 30% performance bump over the fx with ryzen clock for clock. so its a worthy upgrade. although i would day go for the 1600 or 1600x if you can stretch your budget.

 

[GeneralJim25]

there's about a 30% performance bump over the fx with ryzen clock for clock. so its a worthy upgrade. although i would day go for the 1600 or 1600x if you can stretch your budget.

So even being a lower amount of cores, the 6 core 1600X would still fair better?

 

[Isokolon]

1600X is barely worth it. Same chip as the 1600, 1600 can be easily oc to 1600X levels.
Depending on your budget the 1600 or 1700 are the CPUs I'd look into.

There's next to no correlation between CPU and resolution. Higher resolution stresses primarily the GPU.

With a Ryzen CPU you'll also need a new mainboard and new RAM.

 

[GeneralJim25]

1600X is barely worth it. Same chip as the 1600, 1600 can be easily oc to 1600X levels.
Depending on your budget the 1600 or 1700 are the CPUs I'd look into.

There's next to no correlation between CPU and resolution. Higher resolution stresses primarily the GPU.

With a Ryzen CPU you'll also need a new mainboard and new RAM.

My thing is, Im not entirely sure if the FX 8120 is holding the 480 back in anyway, which is why im worried about going to a higher resolution. But good to know lol That was the exact same advise I was given when deciding between the 8120 and 8150 when they launched

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

there's about a 30% performance bump over the fx with ryzen clock for clock. so its a worthy upgrade. although i would day go for the 1600 or 1600x if you can stretch your budget.

So even being a lower amount of cores, the 6 core 1600X would still fair better?

the Ryzen is 6c/12t - so 12 threads can work simultaneously. Comparing to the FX8120 is a little different. The FX has 4 modules, each module has two integer cores and shared resources. You could describe it as being the equivelant of Intels 4 core CPU with Hyper threading. The Ryzen is NOT a drop down. It will beat the pants off the FX in every way,and is a worthy upgrade.

 

[caqde]

If you want to see how much faster the Ryzen chips are compared to the FX series KitGuru benchmarked them against the FX8370 stock and Overclocked to 4.62Ghz. Even at 4.62Ghz the Ryzen 1500X Stock beat the FX-8370 so a 30% boost is inaccurate compared to the FX chips. There are a few exceptions one being 7-zip, but using the older Bulldozer Architecture and the low 3.7Ghz clockspeed (For Bulldozer based chips). Even the Ryzen 1400 would be a speed boost. I would pick a 1500X or 1600 both are very fast and come with a decent stock cooler that can typically handle 3.6-3.8ghz overclocks.

The reason Zen is faster is because if you check the Architecture you will notice that a Zen core looks similar to a full Bulldozer Module except all the resources are available to a single core. This gives Zen a much higher single core IPC also given that Zen has SMT capabilities the resources of that core can be utilized by two threads allowing that core to be better utilized. AMD likely realized that Bulldozers chips were left largely underutilized during typical use and when they created the Zen arch decided that this was the best way to make a chip fast and efficient. And as we can see it is a very successful design.

Link to the KitGuru article -> https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-5-1500x-4c8t-cpu-review/all/1/

 

[Vici0us]

R5 1600 is a major upgrade over 8120. You wouldn't need R7 1700 since 1600 will be able to handle all your needs.

 

[GeneralJim25]

Ok cool guys, thanks for all the information! Now lets tweak the scenario a bit based on what ive been told. R5 1600... Will this cpu cause a bottleneck at all if I decide to get another 4 GB RX 480/580? Im going to assume it shouldnt, but I dont want to say it wont absolutely considering these matters are not necessarily my strong suit lol

 

[Isokolon]

It always depends on the resolution.
At 1080p/60Hz a CF Rx580 would maybe bottleneck. But I mean..who does that even.

At 1440p or 2160p it won't.

 

[GeneralJim25]

It always depends on the resolution.
At 1080p/60Hz a CF Rx580 would maybe bottleneck. But I mean..who does that even.

At 1440p or 2160p it won't.

Now Im super confused. Why would it bottleneck at the lower resolution? I figured the bottleneck would come from the higher resolutions

 

[Vici0us]

It always depends on the resolution.
At 1080p/60Hz a CF Rx580 would maybe bottleneck. But I mean..who does that even.

At 1440p or 2160p it won't.

Now Im super confused. Why would it bottleneck at the lower resolution? I figured the bottleneck would come from the higher resolutions

Because at higher resolutions that's where your GPU plays the bigger role and games become more GPU dependent rather than CPU.

 

[DSzymborski]

Multi-GPU solutions just aren't very good unless you're talking about a scenario where it's performance you *can't* get from a single card, like say, SLIed 1080tis. The 4 GB of VRAM is likely to start to be an issue on crossfired 480s on the increasingly rare number of games in which the second GPU's performance scales up all that well.

 

[caqde]

It always depends on the resolution.
At 1080p/60Hz a CF Rx580 would maybe bottleneck. But I mean..who does that even.

At 1440p or 2160p it won't.

Now Im super confused. Why would it bottleneck at the lower resolution? I figured the bottleneck would come from the higher resolutions

The reason it "Bottlenecks" at the lower resolution is because more frames are able to be drawn by the GPU. At a lower resolution the GPU has less work to do to create a frame so theoretically it is able to draw more frames at a time. To feed the GPU these frames the CPU needs to handle the simulate the games world to find out where everything should be and then send the correct assets and location information to the GPU for the world to be drawn.

 

[GeneralJim25]

It always depends on the resolution.
At 1080p/60Hz a CF Rx580 would maybe bottleneck. But I mean..who does that even.

At 1440p or 2160p it won't.

Now Im super confused. Why would it bottleneck at the lower resolution? I figured the bottleneck would come from the higher resolutions

The reason it "Bottlenecks" at the lower resolution is because more frames are able to be drawn by the GPU. At a lower resolution the GPU has less work to do to create a frame so theoretically it is able to draw more frames at a time. To feed the GPU these frames the CPU needs to handle the simulate the games world to find out where everything should be and then send the correct assets and location information to the GPU for the world to be drawn.

Ahhh ok, that makes more sense then what I was thinking