[SOLVED] Save for Ryzen, or buy Intel now?

mangaman

Reputable
Jun 13, 2015
494
37
4,990
73
I've been thinking of upgrading my PC to a Ryzen CPU for quite awhile now, but that cost much more money than just upgrading my current CPU. Currently, to upgrade my system to a Ryzen 5 2600 would be around $270. While just upgrading my Pentium G3258 to an Intel i5 4690k would be around $80. My question is, should I wait and save for a Ryzen, or just upgrade my current CPU right now?

To upgrade my system to a Ryzen, I'll need install Windows 10. Which will be a bit tedious and time consuming to get all of my games transferred. However, the Ryzen 5 2600 has much more cores and threads than the i5 4690k, as well as having much less security vulnerabilities.

On the other hand, the i5 4690k is a much cheaper option than the Ryzen and there is in need to reinstall my OS. Pretty much just swapping out the CPU's. However Intel's track record of security has not been so great recently with their CPU's. Sure many of these security vulnerabilities can be patched very easily, but who's not to say that more might be found in the near future?

I'm just conflicted, should I save for Ryzen, or just buy an i5 now? My main games being played are Witcher 3, Flight Simulator, Cities Skylines, BeamNG and Yakuza 0.
 
I would say upgrade to the i5. It is still a good CPU. The 270X will still be ok for games for a bit. As far as performance goes it still falls between the GTX 1050 and 1050 Ti. Plus the i5 would give you the option of upgrading that to something like a GTX 1650 Super a little later on, which would make for a very reasonable 1080p high settings machine.

Save up after that and upgrade again in another 2 years or so when the Ryzen 4000 series is mature or the 5000 series comes out. There is also the possibility Intel will get it together and release another awesome generation between now and future upgrade.

In my opinion you need an upgrade now, and even something like a 2200g is only going to be on par with a Haswell i5 for a lot more cost to you.
 

delaro

Splendid
Herald
For the games you listed, an i5 4690K would be fine but if you want AAA gaming with High settings or better and stay above 60 fps then you want to move past it. Both AMD and Intell will have a new crop of CPU's out within 12 months so your options and prices will open up further if you wait.
 
Dec 8, 2019
69
5
35
0
I have a similar dillema ! But if you are not willing to wait until next gen AMD, THE RYZEN 4000 SERIES ( July-August), then I belive you should at least go for a Ryzen 5 3600 or even better the 3600X or Ryzen 7 2700X, if you are on a budget.
Otherwise, just save a bit more and go straight for Ryzen 7 3700X( It kicks ass for games, on pair with I7 9700K or even better in some titles), which is what I will probably do as well. 😊

P.S - Also, watch some reviews and compare the AMD processors u want with your Intel pick 💪
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
But if you are not willing to wait until next gen AMD, THE RYZEN 4000 SERIES ( July-August), then I belive you should at least go for a Ryzen 5 3600 or even better the 3600X or Ryzen 7 2700X, if you are on a budget.
If OP is hesitant to upgrade CPI+MoBo+RAM for $270, I believe it is a very safe bet that he does not have $200+ to spend on the CPU alone.

What's your current GPU? It would affect my recommendation.
Instead of making a recommendation based on what he owns, you should make a recommendation on what he may plan to own. I'd base my own recommendation on desired frame rate in the most CPU-intensive game OP expects to play. GPU does not matter much since you can always drop details to get better frame rates until you can afford the GPU upgrade... unless you are already bottomed out there.
 
Reactions: TJ Hooker

DSzymborski

Glorious
Moderator
If OP is hesitant to upgrade CPI+MoBo+RAM for $270, I believe it is a very safe bet that he does not have $200+ to spend on the CPU alone.


Instead of making a recommendation based on what he owns, you should make a recommendation on what he may plan to own. I'd base my own recommendation on desired frame rate in the most CPU-intensive game OP expects to play. GPU does not matter much since you can always drop details to get better frame rates until you can afford the GPU upgrade... unless you are already bottomed out there.
I just want to see if his GPU is such that he'd actually see a short-term benefit from a platform upgrade rather than a cheaper one. Plus, if it's a very low-end GPU, it's very likely that a GPU upgrade would be more beneficial.
 
I've been thinking of upgrading my PC to a Ryzen CPU for quite awhile now, but that cost much more money than just upgrading my current CPU. Currently, to upgrade my system to a Ryzen 5 2600 would be around $270. While just upgrading my Pentium G3258 to an Intel i5 4690k would be around $80. My question is, should I wait and save for a Ryzen, or just upgrade my current CPU right now?
You should go with an i7,if possible a k one,that way you won't have any issue with any new games for years to come.
 
Dec 8, 2019
69
5
35
0
If OP is hesitant to upgrade CPI+MoBo+RAM for $270, I believe it is a very safe bet that he does not have $200+ to spend on the CPU alone.


Instead of making a recommendation based on what he owns, you should make a recommendation on what he may plan to own. I'd base my own recommendation on desired frame rate in the most CPU-intensive game OP expects to play. GPU does not matter much since you can always drop details to get better frame rates until you can afford the GPU upgrade... unless you are already bottomed out there.
U did not pay atention to his thread !!! He asked if he should wait and save more or buy now !

My advice is to wait !

With only 270$ budget, you should not upgrade at all ! I mean really? A high performance CPU alone would cost that much. Not toention the GPU, which if u want to " settle down " fpr 2-3 years and play games at high-ultra settings in 1080p, at this moment, you will need at least a 2070 Super - 650$ (In my country) !!!

I own a GTX 1060 6GB and I'm already turning down some details and can barely get High settings to have a semi-smooth gaming experience. So be warned !

And about that budget? You best stick with what you have now and invest later, rather then buying a shitty CPU and down the road regret it

Frankly? if you dont wanna wait for a solid build, just buy the i5 and with a proper GPU, you'll be fine ! At 80$, an i5 is clearly the winner here . . .

What is your current GPU ???
 

mangaman

Reputable
Jun 13, 2015
494
37
4,990
73
What's your current GPU? It would affect my recommendation.
If OP is hesitant to upgrade CPI+MoBo+RAM for $270, I believe it is a very safe bet that he does not have $200+ to spend on the CPU alone.


Instead of making a recommendation based on what he owns, you should make a recommendation on what he may plan to own. I'd base my own recommendation on desired frame rate in the most CPU-intensive game OP expects to play. GPU does not matter much since you can always drop details to get better frame rates until you can afford the GPU upgrade... unless you are already bottomed out there.
U did not pay atention to his thread !!! He asked if he should wait and save more or buy now !

My advice is to wait !

With only 270$ budget, you should not upgrade at all ! I mean really? A high performance CPU alone would cost that much. Not toention the GPU, which if u want to " settle down " fpr 2-3 years and play games at high-ultra settings in 1080p, at this moment, you will need at least a 2070 Super - 650$ (In my country) !!!

I own a GTX 1060 6GB and I'm already turning down some details and can barely get High settings to have a semi-smooth gaming experience. So be warned !

And about that budget? You best stick with what you have now and invest later, rather then buying a shitty CPU and down the road regret it

Frankly? if you dont wanna wait for a solid build, just buy the i5 and with a proper GPU, you'll be fine ! At 80$, an i5 is clearly the winner here . . .

What is your current GPU ???
Ok since everyone is asking, my current GPU is an AMD R9 270x XFX Double D edition. Bought it back in 2015 when it was brand new. I watched some videos with it paired up with an i5 4670k, as well as a Ryzen 5 2600. Both CPU's with the R9 270x get around 40-60FPS with a mixture of medium/high settings in many of the games that I listed.

However, no one is mentioning the security vulnerabilities in the Intel processors, as well as the patches affecting gaming performance. Should these be a major concern?
 
Dec 8, 2019
69
5
35
0
Ok since everyone is asking, my current GPU is an AMD R9 270x XFX Double D edition. Bought it back in 2015 when it was brand new. I watched some videos with it paired up with an i5 4670k, as well as a Ryzen 5 2600. Both CPU's with the R9 270x get around 40-60FPS with a mixture of medium/high settings in many of the games that I listed.

However, no one is mentioning the security vulnerabilities in the Intel processors, as well as the patches affecting gaming performance. Should these be a major concern?

Security shouldn't be a concern unless you work for NASA, Homeland, CIA, or something similar :) Lol

U worry too much over nothing.

As for the GPU, well, if u are happy with playing the games u mentioned to medium-high, then you are fine. In any case, I would strongly recommend you rather change the GPU then the CPU.

An i5 would do wonders with the games you mentioned, I played those on my i5 6600 at ultra settings(specially The Witcher 3, Im a big fan) on a 1060 6GB without any problems.

So my opinion is this: Buy the i5 which u said is 80$ and save the 190$ to buy at least a RTX 1660, which is now around 300$-ish

U will be able to play with this config pretty much about anything at high-ultra, provided you are willing to turn down some shadows and some AA
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
However, no one is mentioning the security vulnerabilities in the Intel processors, as well as the patches affecting gaming performance. Should these be a major concern?
No concern whatsoever for most people. The exploits are mostly hypothetical - they are technically possible under laboratory demonstration conditions but unlikely to be practical under real-world conditions where thousands of background processes are generating tons of side-channel noise. The big scare is for server farms who have to worry about liabilities from hypothetical success.
 
Dec 8, 2019
69
5
35
0
Well said
Security shouldn't be a concern unless you work for NASA, Homeland, CIA, or something similar :) Lol

U worry too much over nothing.

As for the GPU, well, if u are happy with playing the games u mentioned to medium-high, then you are fine. In any case, I would strongly recommend you rather change the GPU then the CPU.

An i5 would do wonders with the games you mentioned, I played those on my i5 6600 at ultra settings(specially The Witcher 3, Im a big fan) on a 1060 6GB without any problems.

So my opinion is this: Buy the i5 which u said is 80$ and save the 190$ to buy at least a RTX 1660, which is now around 300$-ish

U will be able to play with this config pretty much about anything at high-ultra, provided you are willing to turn down some shadows and some AA
How much RAM do you have? Are you on a 60Hz Display, or higher?
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
The G3258 is a 2c/2t cpu. While it does have plenty of speed, it has next to no ability. You are looking at games like Witcher 3 that have a definite affinity for high thread cpus, it'll use 8 if it can. With that kind of backlog, a 2/2 is going to get swamped, and fps will be in the toilet, regardless of clock speeds or IPC.

A step up to a 4690k would be a considerable amount of stress relief, but even then won't be as much in ability overall that a move to a 4770/4790/4790k/ Xeon E3-1240v3 to E3-1270v3 would be. OC (if possible) on the 4690k can add a few more frames, but overall a 4c/8t cpu will fare better, especially in thread heavy online multi-player games.

Would I move? Yes, I'd move, and continue saving up for Ryzen, but I'd also shop around for other options, as even a K series 4/4 isn't going to be of that much general help overall.
 
Reactions: Zadkhiel
I would say upgrade to the i5. It is still a good CPU. The 270X will still be ok for games for a bit. As far as performance goes it still falls between the GTX 1050 and 1050 Ti. Plus the i5 would give you the option of upgrading that to something like a GTX 1650 Super a little later on, which would make for a very reasonable 1080p high settings machine.

Save up after that and upgrade again in another 2 years or so when the Ryzen 4000 series is mature or the 5000 series comes out. There is also the possibility Intel will get it together and release another awesome generation between now and future upgrade.

In my opinion you need an upgrade now, and even something like a 2200g is only going to be on par with a Haswell i5 for a lot more cost to you.
 

delaro

Splendid
Herald
You should go with an i7,if possible a k one,that way you won't have any issue with any new games for years to come.
$110+ for the non K

For what he plays now moving to an i7 doesn't benefit him as much as moving to an i5. There is nothing from that list that will make heavy use of more than 4 cores. If he is limited on funds going with an I5 and a better GPU together would be the way to go.
I would strongly recommend you rather change the GPU then the CPU.
Flight Simulator 2017 uses 1 Core at 1GHZ+ "CPU dependant"
Flight Simulator 2018 and beyond will make good use of a 4 Core CPU "Mostly CPU dependant 60/40 split"
Cities: Skylines Uses a max of 3 Cores "CPU dependant"
BeamNG Recommends 4 Cores but it will use up to 6 Threads "CPU dependant" but most limit it to 4 Cores since it has performance issues going beyond.
Yakuza 0 Scales well with up to 4 Cores
Witcher 3 is Optimized around 4 Cores

I disagree, with what he lists he would benefit more from upgrading the CPU first over the GPU. Witch 3, for example, will give him something like a 10 FPS gain by just a CPU swap and be a much smoother experience.

As far a GPU goes he can find an RX570 for $114 with a free game and that's something like 80% faster over what he has now if he decided to do both.
 
As far a GPU goes he can find an RX570 for $114 with a free game and that's something like 80% faster over what he has now if he decided to do both.
I also agree that something in that performance range would be an extremely beneficial upgrade. I recommended the 1650 Super, but something like an RX 580 or an RX 5500 XT would work really well with the 4690K... that said, the RX 570 would cost the least and has pretty much cornered the market on budget GPUs right now, it is just also at the bottom end of that performance and price range, I feel like something with a little more power would serve him better.
 
Yeah, right - the i7 he wants to buy is already lower than some games' minimal specs. 6 physical cores is now the minimum.
Minimum guideline for building a brand new PC, maybe. It could be argued. However, that is not a fact. The fact is that an Athlon 200GE with a budget GPU can run many modern games and that is a 2c/4t CPU. The 2200G is a solid budget gaming option. People with older i5 systems, myself included, are having no issues playing newer games. Saying a 6 core CPU is the new minimum is doing nothing more than making people think they need to spend even more money.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
People with older i5 systems, myself included, are having no issues playing newer games.
Depends on what you call "no issues" here. Game benchmarks between 4C4T and 4C8T/6C6T or higher CPUs are nearly unanimous about more threads and/or cores yielding smoother overall experience even if the average frame rate is unchanged or even slightly worse.

Can you still play most current games on 4C4T? Sure. But it is becoming increasingly sub-optimal.
 
Depends on what you call "no issues" here. Game benchmarks between 4C4T and 4C8T/6C6T or higher CPUs are nearly unanimous about more threads and/or cores yielding smoother overall experience even if the average frame rate is unchanged or even slightly worse.

Can you still play most current games on 4C4T? Sure. But it is becoming increasingly sub-optimal.
I won't argue with that. I'm simply saying that a 4c/4t CPU is still viable. Optimal is for people with money. As long as I can play with a reasonable frame rate I'm happy. My next upgrade is at least a year away, and for now I'm ok with things. So, if people are on a budget, a 4 core CPU is still a usable option.
 

delaro

Splendid
Herald
Depends on what you call "no issues" here. Game benchmarks between 4C4T and 4C8T/6C6T or higher CPUs are nearly unanimous about more threads and/or cores yielding smoother overall experience even if the average frame rate is unchanged or even slightly worse.

Can you still play most current games on 4C4T? Sure. But it is becoming increasingly sub-optimal.
No, not quite a unanimous agreement.

2C to 4C.. Huge advancement in FPS and smoothness.
4C to 6C.. Large advancement but not as much as 2C to 4C
6C to 8C+.. Mixed, some API's show a large gain, some show a little gain and others reflect very little difference.

It really depends on if the API was programmed for PC or was it a port.

API's that are designed around a PC make better use of a wider range of hardware, Low to Medium settings are pretty solid across hardware that is 5-7 years old. Ports, on the other hand, don't take this into account and run like crap on even mid-range hardware 2-3 years old. Unfortunately, developers are getting lazy and porting more instead of adapting to an option that allows them to develop around both platforms simultaneously.
 

mangaman

Reputable
Jun 13, 2015
494
37
4,990
73
I won't argue with that. I'm simply saying that a 4c/4t CPU is still viable. Optimal is for people with money. As long as I can play with a reasonable frame rate I'm happy. My next upgrade is at least a year away, and for now I'm ok with things. So, if people are on a budget, a 4 core CPU is still a usable option.
No, not quite a unanimous agreement.

2C to 4C.. Huge advancement in FPS and smoothness.
4C to 6C.. Large advancement but not as much as 2C to 4C
6C to 8C+.. Mixed, some API's show a large gain, some show a little gain and others reflect very little difference.

It really depends on if the API was programmed for PC or was it a port.

API's that are designed around a PC make better use of a wider range of hardware, Low to Medium settings are pretty solid across hardware that is 5-7 years old. Ports, on the other hand, don't take this into account and run like crap on even mid-range hardware 2-3 years old. Unfortunately, developers are getting lazy and porting more instead of adapting to an option that allows them to develop around both platforms simultaneously.
So I'm guessing a 2C to a 6C would be an extreme jump in advancements. While my pentium is great, it definitely struggles in Cities Skylines and BeamNG. Witcher 3 just stutters randomly, so I can't even play that until I upgrade the CPU for a better one.

Yeah, right - the i7 he wants to buy is already lower than some games' minimal specs. 6 physical cores is now the minimum.
Never mentioned an i7. I did say an i5 4690k as an upgrade option. However, many 4th gen i7s still do just fine and are not a lower spec component in some games. Many games do just fine on 4 cores, but 6 is recommended if you want better performance and a bit of future proofing.
 

delaro

Splendid
Herald
So I'm guessing a 2C to a 6C would be an extreme jump in advancements. While my pentium is great, it definitely struggles in Cities Skylines and BeamNG. Witcher 3 just stutters randomly, so I can't even play that until I upgrade the CPU for a better one.
Nothing you listed will make use of more than 4 cores, BeamNG for example usually gets worse and you have to restrict it down to 4. A G3258 was good for high frame time variance issues when it came out so you know it wasn't going to age well at all.

Never mentioned an i7. I did say an i5 4690k as an upgrade option. However, many 4th gen i7s still do just fine and are not a lower spec component in some games. Many games do just fine on 4 cores, but 6 is recommended if you want better performance and a bit of future-proofing.
Futureproofing yes, overclocked 4770k or 4790k generally perform really close to an i7 8700K or a Ryzen 2700X so yes you could be good for another 2-3 years of Medium to High settings and even Ultra in some titles. The issue here is those run $150+ and now your not far off from just replacing the entire platform with something that has much more upgrade potential for another 4-5 years. :unsure:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS