Should I switch to a Desktop?

[henriquebr97]

Hello!
I have a gaming laptop that I've bought in 2015 and, with the games nowadays getting more demanding, hardware-wise, I've been thinking about switching to a gaming desktop, which, at least here in Brazil, is way cheaper than a laptop (even though it's still not cheap, per se) and it's easier to upgrade in the future. What I want to know is if it's worth it to do this right now, i mean, will my laptop still be able to run new games (like Assassin's Creed: Origins) without having to use low quality settings...
Here's my Laptop's specifications:

• 
  Intel Core I7 Haswell - 4720HQ 2.6 GHz, 6 MB Cache (3.60 GHz w/ Max Turbo)
  16 GB HyperX Impact DDR3 (1600 MHZ)/(2 x 8 GB)
  SSHD 1 TB com 8 GB SSD Seagate
  NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M GPU (4 GB)

I'll really apreciate it if someone can help me with this!

 

[Supahos]

Honestly never upgrade for the future. If it's tolerable now, in the future more performance for less money will be possible. Always is. Hang on as long as you can then make the switch. That system should be solid today and for a bit more.

 

[henriquebr97]

Honestly never upgrade for the future. If it's tolerable now, in the future more performance for less money will be possible. Always is. Hang on as long as you can then make the switch. That system should be solid today and for a bit more.

That's a good point! Thank you very much!

 

[Themastererr]

A desktop using a 6 year old platform coupled with a modern GPU would outperform your Laptop. Laptops have completely awful performance per dollar. Of course it's worth it to make the switch.

CPU technology hasn't changed for 8 years and it's not changing anytime soon. GPU's are in the best spot they have been for many years. Now is the time to upgrade.

Get yourself a used/new Intel quad core "K" setup and buy a new GPU. You'll be ripping through frames like nobodies business. Stay away from Ryzen and locked Intel CPU's if this is a straight gaming P.C

 

[Supahos]

Lol nice advice when you have zero idea of his budget. Also unless you're using a 1080 or 1080ti for 1080p you'll never see the fps diffence between a 1600 and a 7700k (even then it's debatable if 120 fps is noticiably less than 140 or something)

 

[Themastererr]

Lol nice advice when you have zero idea of his budget. Also unless you're using a 1080 or 1080ti for 1080p you'll never see the fps diffence between a 1600 and a 7700k (even then it's debatable if 120 fps is noticiably less than 140 or something)

Um, what? A Ryzen 1600 would severely bottleneck a GTX 1080, nevermind a 1080ti.

Single thread performance is everything for gaming. There was just a post from another member not even 30 mins ago who upgraded his P.C from an Intel 3770K+GTX 970 to a Ryzen 1700+ GTX 1080 and he now has less frames and doesn't understand why. What's the answer? Ryzens poor single thread performance which is a result of low clock speeds. The intel 7700k can hit 4.8Ghz with ease and 5ghz with some tuning.

I really don't want to rip in you to too hard because I'm not sure how much experience you have with P.C's but you're wrong man. Sorry.

 

[Supahos]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-7820x-skylake-x,5127-4.html

Paul would disagree. Has a 1600x/1800x and a 7700k in the mix. You may get a few less frames here or there but it's hardly a slaughter

 

[Themastererr]

He barely overclocked the 7700k and the games used are not popular titles. There's really no room for argument. Intel CPU's have much higher single thread performance and are better for a gaming platform.

Content creation on a budget, sure, go for Ryzen.

 

[Supahos]

You also apparently missedred my original post. And it's only a bottleneck at 1080p with a 1080

 

[Themastererr]

You also apparently missedred my original post. And it's only a bottleneck at 1080p with a 1080

You're one of those P.C enthusiasts who think what you want is what everyone wants. Some people need 60fps@1080p, some people need 144fps@1080p. Some need 200-300Fps. Bottlenecking by resolution makes no sense

The difference in price between the Ryzen 1600 and 7600k is 40$....You're really going to cheap out 40$ and get a vastly inferior product. How does that make sense in any capacity?

 

[Supahos]

No the difference is around $100 which is another tier of gpu in most cases. You can max out ryzen on a $75 board and don't need a cooler to get 3.8-3.9 usually. The 7600k basically doesn't make sense anymore, nor does anything else in the Intel line up other than the g4560 or 7700k

 

[Themastererr]

No the difference is around $100 which is another tier of gpu in most cases. You can max out ryzen on a $75 board and don't need a cooler to get 3.8-3.9 usually. The 7600k basically doesn't make sense anymore, nor does anything else in the Intel line up other than the g4560 or 7700k

https://www.memoryexpress.com/Category/Processors - 40$ dude.

A 75$ board are you nuts. Link me this 75$ that is deemed safe for overclocking. The difference between the 7700k and 7600k is zero in gaming unless you're planning on streaming with it. The 7600k actually hits 5Ghz easier as it produces less heat.

 

[Supahos]

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor ($197.43 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock - AB350 Pro4 ATX AM4 Motherboard ($73.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $271.41
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-23 20:26 EDT-0400

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i5-7600K 3.8GHz Quad-Core Processor ($223.64 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG - H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($34.89 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Asus - PRIME Z270-A ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($149.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $408.52
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-23 20:27 EDT-0400

Okay actually it's more of a difference.

And no a 7600k isn't just as good as a 7700k in newer titles. Some even the 6 core x99 chips beat a 7700k and a couple of cherry picked ones the 6900k beat em all.

 

[henriquebr97]

Guys, no need to argue! I really appreciate both your answers!
I'm still not sure of what I'm going to do, but I'll only be able to get a new Desktop if I manage to sell my Laptop, so I think that if I find someone who'll buy it for a fair price I'll take it as a sign from the universe that I should do the upgrade! hahah
Anyway, both of you really helped and I'm sure I'll use your tips when I actually get to build my PC!

 

[Supahos]

It's okay he was just a troll anyways. Not a good one. I still wouldn't upgrade unless you feel like you're lacking today. But it's certainly cheaper to build a competent rig from a desktop than buy a laptop

 

[cryoburner]

You're one of those P.C enthusiasts who think what you want is what everyone wants. Some people need 60fps@1080p, some people need 144fps@1080p. Some need 200-300Fps. Bottlenecking by resolution makes no sense

Bottlenecking by resolution actually makes sense. Increasing resolution substantially increases load on the graphics card, but typically not the CPU. If your graphics card can only push 60 fps at your chosen resolution, then it doesn't really matter if one CPU could potentially handle 120 fps in the game, while another might only get 100. In either of those cases, performance will be almost entirely limited by the graphics card, and either option would perform nearly identically. This is especially relevant at high resolutions like 4K, where even a 1080 Ti will struggle to hit 60 fps with high settings in demanding games. And of course, most monitors, and all current 4K monitors, operate at 60Hz, so they don't actually update what they're displaying more than 60 times per second, and it mainly just matters that the CPU can reliably maintain that level of performance.

Also, considering that even Intel will be moving to 6 cores for their i5 and i7 desktop processors soon, it stands to reason that games will begin benefiting more from those extra cores before long. Currently, most developers don't build their games to make full use of more than four cores, because that's what the vast majority of gaming systems have. Over the next few years, we'll likely see an increasing number of examples of games where having more than a four thread processor makes a difference. The i5s of today will be the equivalent of i3 processors in a couple months.

Also, graphics card prices have increased greatly during the last few months due to cryptocurrency miners, and SSD and RAM prices have stagnated this year due to a flash memory shortage, so I wouldn't exactly say that "now is the time to upgrade". If someone has a capable enough system for the time being, they might be better off waiting some months to see how Intel's next generation of processors turns out, and hopefully for these component shortages to start recovering.