- May 24, 2019
- 26
- 0
- 30
Question i7 3770 to i5 9600k?
- Thread starter WillianLozano
- Start date
ElectrO_90
Splendid
- Apr 17, 2007
- 5,109
- 451
- 27,140
geofelt
Titan
- Oct 9, 2006
- 56,061
- 4,859
- 174,240
9600K is a fine upgrade,
Your i7-7700 has a passmark rating of 9280 and a single thread rating of 2068.
The 9600K has a rating of 13505 and a single thread rating of 2681.
The single thread rating is most important for games.
Yes, you will need a X379/90 based motherboard as well as DDR4 ram.
Your i7-7700 has a passmark rating of 9280 and a single thread rating of 2068.
The 9600K has a rating of 13505 and a single thread rating of 2681.
The single thread rating is most important for games.
Yes, you will need a X379/90 based motherboard as well as DDR4 ram.
- May 24, 2019
- 26
- 0
- 30
I am getting a Z390 UD and 32gb with it, and its a i7-3770 not 7700. Am I good to go?
geofelt
Titan
- Oct 9, 2006
- 56,061
- 4,859
- 174,240
Edited a sloppy post.
The main difference between a i5-9600K, a I7-9700K and a I9-9900K is the number of threads they support.
That is 6/8/16 respectively.
All 3 will oc around 5.0.
Just how many threads are effectively used in YOUR games??
To get an idea, run a test with YOUR games using all 8 of your threads.
Then run the same test but disabling one thread so you are running with only 7,
I suspect you will notice no difference.
You can do this in the windows msconfig boot advanced options option.
You will need to reboot for the change to take effect. Set the number of threads to less than you have.
This will tell you how sensitive your games are to the benefits of many threads.
If you see little difference, your game does not need all the threads you have.
The main difference between a i5-9600K, a I7-9700K and a I9-9900K is the number of threads they support.
That is 6/8/16 respectively.
All 3 will oc around 5.0.
Just how many threads are effectively used in YOUR games??
To get an idea, run a test with YOUR games using all 8 of your threads.
Then run the same test but disabling one thread so you are running with only 7,
I suspect you will notice no difference.
You can do this in the windows msconfig boot advanced options option.
You will need to reboot for the change to take effect. Set the number of threads to less than you have.
This will tell you how sensitive your games are to the benefits of many threads.
If you see little difference, your game does not need all the threads you have.
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,759
- 4,553
- 142,790
While I agree in principal with the theory geofelt has laid out, I'm not so sure. That only covers today's games. Even the next version of CS:GO is slated to make the move from 2 thread optimized to 8 thread optimized, whenever they decide to release it. More and more games are using higher thread counts based solely on one fact, you get more work done on 2 slower cores vrs 1 faster core. The only way 1 5.0GHz core will ever get more work done than 2 cores is if both other cores (assuming same IPC) are at 2.49GHz or less. Which isn't going to happen either.
So if there's any plans to even consider moving to a 120Hz or faster monitor in the next 5 or 6 years that you'll have this cpu, and the current up usage of multiple threads, then either a Ryzen or i7 9700k is going to be of far more use than a solid 6core.
6 years ago, everyone said a quad core i5-3570k was good enough. Everyone who said that has since upgraded to Haswell and likely upgraded again to skylake/kabylake. I'm still pushing the i7-3770k I bought way back then, and can play anything on my 60Hz monitors seamlessly.
If you can budget it, get the i7, if not then Ryzen. I can't see the 9600k being of much use, as was the popular i5-7500, or even i5-8500. Software is surpassing their usefulness.
So if there's any plans to even consider moving to a 120Hz or faster monitor in the next 5 or 6 years that you'll have this cpu, and the current up usage of multiple threads, then either a Ryzen or i7 9700k is going to be of far more use than a solid 6core.
6 years ago, everyone said a quad core i5-3570k was good enough. Everyone who said that has since upgraded to Haswell and likely upgraded again to skylake/kabylake. I'm still pushing the i7-3770k I bought way back then, and can play anything on my 60Hz monitors seamlessly.
If you can budget it, get the i7, if not then Ryzen. I can't see the 9600k being of much use, as was the popular i5-7500, or even i5-8500. Software is surpassing their usefulness.
geofelt
Titan
- Oct 9, 2006
- 56,061
- 4,859
- 174,240
Since we are talking theory, there is something called "Amdahl's law"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law
From a programming point of view, any single app must be managed by a single master thread.
The effectiveness of multiple available threads is determined by the amount of parallelism that is logically possible in the app or game.
Multiplayer is perhaps one of the best examples for multiple threads where each participant's actions can be managed in a separate task and later combined by the master task.
Single player games are much easier to program using a single thread.
A game developer must expend extra programming and analysis to make use of many threads. It is not always possible.
Then, also, game developers want the largest possible audience for their games.
It is not in their best interest to require many threads for a game to run properly.
Good current statistics are hard to fine.
Here is one article from 2014 that shows little advantage inmore than 4 cores for quite a number of games.
www.dsogaming.com
I would like to see a more current study using current hardware and games.
Perhaps someone can post a link?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law
From a programming point of view, any single app must be managed by a single master thread.
The effectiveness of multiple available threads is determined by the amount of parallelism that is logically possible in the app or game.
Multiplayer is perhaps one of the best examples for multiple threads where each participant's actions can be managed in a separate task and later combined by the master task.
Single player games are much easier to program using a single thread.
A game developer must expend extra programming and analysis to make use of many threads. It is not always possible.
Then, also, game developers want the largest possible audience for their games.
It is not in their best interest to require many threads for a game to run properly.
Good current statistics are hard to fine.
Here is one article from 2014 that shows little advantage inmore than 4 cores for quite a number of games.
Report: Despite Claims, Most PC Games Are Still Unable To Take Advantage Of More Than 4 CPU Cores
Well, you gotta love developers. This past year, we’ve been hearing from a lot of teams that their games were taking advantage of more than four CPU cores. And you know what? We decided to put a lot of CPU-bound games to the test. The results are a bit disheartening – to say the least – …...
www.dsogaming.com
I would like to see a more current study using current hardware and games.
Perhaps someone can post a link?
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,759
- 4,553
- 142,790
There's actually all kinds of studies, but you have to gather the info piecemeal.
Here's just one example, if your claims of the 9600k - 9900k being the same thing except for core count and hyperthreading.
If you look at the differences of a 9600k at 5.2GHz and the 9900k at 5.2GHz, there's a sizable difference with both the minimums and average fps. Even stock values are quite different.
Adobe CC doesn't scale above 8 threads
That study was done 6 years ago. With software progression aimed at 8 threads, the 6 thread cpus were a stop-gap. Modern quad cores are failing miserably, no different than the core2duo, dual core Pentiums, even the I3's are pretty much useless for anything. They still work for simplistic tasks, but consumer demands for graphics and/or time saving have gone up, so software has become more open minded. The sheer intensity and workload of a single thread limited to few cores has created extra long code strings, it's actually easier and faster to take one of those long strings, split it in multiple parts to be used on multiple threads.
Faster workloads, less overall effort.
And you can find benchmarks just like these all day long. In fact I couldn't find any done on any simpler task or 4 thread or less game.
I will say that there's a sizable difference even in my Skyrim between my 3570k and 3770k, the amount of mods added (scripted mods, all cpu bound) just to remain above 60fps, the i5 is right at 70, the i7 is at 170 currently and has room for more.
Quads are toast. Hexa won't be far behind. The quad+HT will outlast the hexa as long as IPC allows. The 8700k will be around longer than the 9600k, but IPC will kill my 3770k long before that.
And of course, there's Murphy's Law, 'Anything that Can happen, Will happen, it's just a question of When'
Here's just one example, if your claims of the 9600k - 9900k being the same thing except for core count and hyperthreading.
If you look at the differences of a 9600k at 5.2GHz and the 9900k at 5.2GHz, there's a sizable difference with both the minimums and average fps. Even stock values are quite different.
Adobe CC doesn't scale above 8 threads
That study was done 6 years ago. With software progression aimed at 8 threads, the 6 thread cpus were a stop-gap. Modern quad cores are failing miserably, no different than the core2duo, dual core Pentiums, even the I3's are pretty much useless for anything. They still work for simplistic tasks, but consumer demands for graphics and/or time saving have gone up, so software has become more open minded. The sheer intensity and workload of a single thread limited to few cores has created extra long code strings, it's actually easier and faster to take one of those long strings, split it in multiple parts to be used on multiple threads.
Faster workloads, less overall effort.
And you can find benchmarks just like these all day long. In fact I couldn't find any done on any simpler task or 4 thread or less game.
I will say that there's a sizable difference even in my Skyrim between my 3570k and 3770k, the amount of mods added (scripted mods, all cpu bound) just to remain above 60fps, the i5 is right at 70, the i7 is at 170 currently and has room for more.
Quads are toast. Hexa won't be far behind. The quad+HT will outlast the hexa as long as IPC allows. The 8700k will be around longer than the 9600k, but IPC will kill my 3770k long before that.
And of course, there's Murphy's Law, 'Anything that Can happen, Will happen, it's just a question of When'
Last edited:
- Apr 22, 2009
- 43,160
- 409
- 131,790
The old i7-3770 is still a surprisingly good CPU for gaming depending on the type of games you play, at what rez, and what fps is acceptable to you. I have a Dell Optiplex with a i7-3770 that I stuck a mini GTX 1070 in. It's crazy what a great gamer the old Dell office machine is now.
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,759
- 4,553
- 142,790
Yep, it's why I never upgraded from my 3770k. There simply wasn't a need. I'm not a benchmark chaser where getting uber fps is important, it's honestly not. As long as minimums are above the monitor refresh, there's not an issue. Doesn't matter if I get 90fps and a 9900k gets 380fps, I have 60Hz monitors. So that's what I get, 60 visible fps. The difference between my i5 and i7 is night and day though in anything cpu intensive. The hyperthreading makes a world of difference.
- Jul 7, 2008
- 21,623
- 2,504
- 88,390
Some of the games I've played have tested to see the difference between HT off / on. Ghost Recon WL, FC5, Dying Light and Doom 2016, all of which showed a good increase between 10~20 frames more with HT. Doom 2016 was the only game that would pause every now and then on 4c with cpu at 95~100 usage. Other games didn't behave the same though despite being around the same usage level, I would assume because it's easier to get higher fps in Doom on the vulkan engine than the others, 120+, is probably too much for my cpu at 4c, with HT on, usage dropped and so did the pauses.
Gsync helps a lot, couldn't be happier with it. At 1440p high to v.high settings, no AA, fps in the heavier games i listed usually bounces between 60~90 min/max fps and video playback doesn't detract from the experience.
Gsync helps a lot, couldn't be happier with it. At 1440p high to v.high settings, no AA, fps in the heavier games i listed usually bounces between 60~90 min/max fps and video playback doesn't detract from the experience.
Last edited:
- Apr 22, 2009
- 43,160
- 409
- 131,790
Yep, agree. I had an i5-3570 in the old Dell originally. The i7-3770 made a noticeable difference. Enough that I picked up a used GTX 1070 mini to see how much difference. Like you, I only have 60Hz displays. And I can't tell any response difference once the frame rates get above 40-50 fps anyway. But that's just me.
- Oct 22, 2011
- 2,733
- 5
- 21,165
whats will be the main activity you will do on that rig ( high frame rate gaming, 60fps gaming, productivity work ?) ?
based upon your usage answers will vary
also post other parts specs, budget, expected life/usage ?
based upon your usage answers will vary
also post other parts specs, budget, expected life/usage ?
-Fran-
Glorious
- May 3, 2007
- 9,555
- 3,106
- 47,640
It will most definitely feel more of a side-grade than a proper upgrade. The i7 3770 is not a slow CPU, even if it is locked.
The i5 9600K is going to be struggling from day 1 with keeping up with everything that's happening thread-wise in a modern PC, just like your i7 3770 may be now. I wouldn't consider anything below a i7 8700K or i7 9700K as an upgrade for it, thinking longer term. Simplifying it a little, going from an i7 to an i5, even with all these years of difference, is going to be a side-grade at worst and a small upgrade at best. Keep also in mind Intel doesn't intend to keep the socket alive for more than 1 or 2 generations, so if you invest in 32GB or RAM, you'll be effectively locked from upgrading in a couple years to a new CPU or even platform. I'd strongly advice you just spend the shekles on a proper i7 upgrade. And AMD is indeed an option now, so if you're open to suggestions, hang in there until the 7th of July to see how the Ry3K series hold against the Intel lineup.
Also, @geofelt, Amdahl's law does not apply to systems, but algorithms. A system is composed of a plethora of sub-systems and each sub-system is composed by a plethora of algorithms. Unless your processing is depending on a single algorithm that cannot escale beyond 8 cores due to what-ever, then you'd be correct. For the 99% of stuff running in your PC, it does not apply on a daily basis as they're all independent systems that don't need information sharing. Plus, a PC runs more things than just games at any point in time.
Cheers!
The i5 9600K is going to be struggling from day 1 with keeping up with everything that's happening thread-wise in a modern PC, just like your i7 3770 may be now. I wouldn't consider anything below a i7 8700K or i7 9700K as an upgrade for it, thinking longer term. Simplifying it a little, going from an i7 to an i5, even with all these years of difference, is going to be a side-grade at worst and a small upgrade at best. Keep also in mind Intel doesn't intend to keep the socket alive for more than 1 or 2 generations, so if you invest in 32GB or RAM, you'll be effectively locked from upgrading in a couple years to a new CPU or even platform. I'd strongly advice you just spend the shekles on a proper i7 upgrade. And AMD is indeed an option now, so if you're open to suggestions, hang in there until the 7th of July to see how the Ry3K series hold against the Intel lineup.
Also, @geofelt, Amdahl's law does not apply to systems, but algorithms. A system is composed of a plethora of sub-systems and each sub-system is composed by a plethora of algorithms. Unless your processing is depending on a single algorithm that cannot escale beyond 8 cores due to what-ever, then you'd be correct. For the 99% of stuff running in your PC, it does not apply on a daily basis as they're all independent systems that don't need information sharing. Plus, a PC runs more things than just games at any point in time.
Cheers!
As a i7-3770 user, I can say that there are some games and applications that it clearly struggles with. Even with 16GB of RAM, it takes quite a while to load my Adobe Lightroom catalog, as well as switching between modules. I don't play many games, but it can hardly run Fallout76....specifically, freezes occasionally, periodic crashes, even with graphics turned all the way down.
I will be replacing the old workhorse in the near future as soon as some benchmarks are published on the new Zen2 CPUs.....any suggestions?
I will be replacing the old workhorse in the near future as soon as some benchmarks are published on the new Zen2 CPUs.....any suggestions?
- Jul 7, 2008
- 21,623
- 2,504
- 88,390
^crashings, freezes.., that's more related to an unstable system rather than the cpu struggling...
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,759
- 4,553
- 142,790
Most likely chipset drivers on the old mobo. My last bios/drivers set was October 2013, except Msi was kind enough to release updates for audio, Lan and a couple others specifically for Win10CE last year. Fallout uses the same engine as Skyrim, and mine is the cd-set, and currently at 170 scripted 2k/4k/8k mods and still doesn't blink. Even ran an enb for a while, still didn't blink. If fallout is freezing, it's either a driver issue or there's a corruption somewhere that's not getting resolved, a 3770 shouldn't have any issues with a base 2 core game.
dudeman509
Dignified
- Jan 23, 2015
- 4,076
- 35
- 17,040
3770k owner here; I recently upgraded the GPU (GTX 970 -> 1070ti) and notice that the CPU itself - at 4.2 - REALLY struggles in some modern games - Shadow of the Tomb Raider beats the snot out of it to the point it definitely holds it back in some areas of the game, as well as Battlefield V.
It's fine for day-to-day multitasking, but it's definitely nearing the end of its useful life for me. After playing the same game on a friend's 2700x and actually feeling the difference in frame rates panning around in the games, It's being replaced with a 3700x as soon as those come out.
It's fine for day-to-day multitasking, but it's definitely nearing the end of its useful life for me. After playing the same game on a friend's 2700x and actually feeling the difference in frame rates panning around in the games, It's being replaced with a 3700x as soon as those come out.
- Jul 7, 2008
- 21,623
- 2,504
- 88,390
There's no denying i7s from almost a decade a go are running out of legs, but those were some legs huh ;P
With games now, such as games you mentioned @dudeman509 there's so much more going on. Ya got more phsyics, ai, map loading, sound, multiplayer and whichever else, and with all of this going on ya have frame preparation on-top.
By upgrading to a more powerful gpu, in these types of games, it would be interesting to see where your fps limit sits before being too much for the cpu. Overclocking further may increase that limit.
Afaik, the primary core can affect it's brother and sister cores. The more resources you can help free from the primary core should in theory ( my half bum theory ) increase performance across the whole cpu.
Temporarily disabled unnecessary processes with winaero
Programs used during gaming like Discord, can help also by moving them to the last core using affinity.
With games now, such as games you mentioned @dudeman509 there's so much more going on. Ya got more phsyics, ai, map loading, sound, multiplayer and whichever else, and with all of this going on ya have frame preparation on-top.
By upgrading to a more powerful gpu, in these types of games, it would be interesting to see where your fps limit sits before being too much for the cpu. Overclocking further may increase that limit.
Afaik, the primary core can affect it's brother and sister cores. The more resources you can help free from the primary core should in theory ( my half bum theory ) increase performance across the whole cpu.
Temporarily disabled unnecessary processes with winaero
Programs used during gaming like Discord, can help also by moving them to the last core using affinity.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
-
Question Intent-Based Optimization Node — Boosting Performance Without Overclocking
- Started by DRMIOmega
- Replies: 13
Latest posts
-
-
-
Question Samsung Nvme SSD showing around 225gb of data written every day- Latest: SkyNetRising
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram