Should I upgrade from an FX 8350 to an i7 7700k?

[semichaud1]

Hi,

I currently have an FX 8350 and GTX 1070 (and 16 GB of system RAM).

Based on my research online an i7 7700k has 75% higher performance than the FX 8350.

What do you think? Do you have a better suggestion that an i7 7700k?

In some games like Mass Effect Andromeda and Deus Ex Mankind Divided I get large frame rate dips (from 60 down to 10 fps) and microfreezing in Arkham Knight when moving around in the game world, despite running the games at default graphics settings and 1440p (or lower), and Windows power options on High Performance. So, I installed ParkControl on my PC two days ago and ran it as admin and maxed out all cpus at 100% and disabled the scaling frequencies etc. Andromeda and Mankind Divided run without fps drops now. Haven't tested Arkham Knight yet. The thing is my system meets the RECOMMENDED system requirements for these games so why the fps drops? It looks like windows or the bios is downscaling the cpu performance for some reason. Task manager performance shows all cores active at 50 to 60% when running those games. My PC is also dust free. I clean it every month.

Will buying a better cpu and an intel cpu instead of amd fix those fps drops in games for which my system meets the recommended requirements?

Thanks.

 

[semichaud1]

Well your motherboard is low end, so that's why you're getting framerate drops. It's probably not worth putting more money into AM3+ so if you can upgrade to something modern, it's best to do so. As for what to upgrade to, if you don't want to wait for the Ryzen refresh chips, then the Ryzen bundle you linked isn't too bad, and it would be cheaper than the Intel options. If you had a 144Hz monitor and were playing certain CPU heavy games, then getting the 8600k and overclocking it as high as possible might be worthwhile. For most other situations, it's not really worth spending a lot extra for an i5 8600k over an R5 1600. I wouldn't bother with the i7 7700k unless you can get it for really cheap, it's on a dead platform and 4 physical cores is now kind of on the low end these days, though it does have hyperthreading to make up for that a bit.

Do keep in mind the bundle does not include RAM, and since all modern platforms are DDR4 only, you will have to get new RAM, you can't carry your old sticks over. That's going to increase your costs by a fair bit as RAM is quite expensive right now and you really need 8GB of it at bare minimum, with 16GB being beneficial in some gaming scenarios, but often too expensive these days to be worth getting if you don't have the money to spare.

Thanks for the advice!

The funny thing is that my current motherboard was part of the bundle with the fx 8350 when I bought them from amazon a few years ago. Makes me question the bundles on amazon i'm looking at now. I will need to research the motherboard too then.

I'm a bit apprehensive now with amd cpus. I've always owned amd and i've always had problems when running games. Now whether those are attributable to amd cpus, i can't tell, but there is also the fact that it seems to me the majority of people online prefer intel cpus. I'm trusting that it's because they have had great performance from intel cpus. So I'm a bit apprehensive about buying the ryzen 5 bundle.

I've got a 2560x1440, 60 hz Acer pc monitor. I prefer gaming at highest graphics settings possible with a target of 50-60 fps at 1440p. That's why I got the gtx 1070. Because i read articles about how it's the sweet spot for 1440p 60 fps gaming since 2017.

Yes, I've noticed that the bundles don't include ram. I plan to research the ram once i'm decided on the cpu. I will also research the motherboard and make sure it's suitable for the cpu i'm buying. You were not kidding about the price of ddr4 rams, lol. I just checked on amazon and one 8 gb stick is close to 100 pounds. I plan to get at least a minimum of 16 gb. I thought ram slots were backwards compatible but i just checked online and indeed ddr4 is not backwards compatible.

At the moment, my salary is the highest it's ever been in my life and i'm living with my uncle's family for the next few months so i don't have to spend on rent. So now would be the time for me to buy the best cpu, motherboard and ram i can.

The ryzen 5 1600 does have 12 threads though. I also need to make sure i get a cpu with high single core performance, as i've been explained in this thread, so i can avoid fps drops in games. How is the single core performance of the ryzen 5?

This page (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-ryzen-5-1600-1600x-vs-core-i5-7500k-review) says:
"Across the titles tested, the majority show a stock i7 outperforming an overclocked i5. Single-core performance is still important but the takeaway is that more processing cores and threads trump frequency, with the majority of modern game engines favouring more than four cores. The rest of the review effectively writes itself then: what Ryzen 5 lacks in clocks, it makes up for with many more threads. Both Ryzen 5 1600 and 1600X have six full cores and 12 threads, available for the same ballpark money as the i5's basic four cores and four threads."

So apparently my issue in Andromeda or Arkham Knight is not due to the single core performance of my fx 8350 because games favour higher core count and threads instead of core frequency, according to that review.

Right now I'm leaning towards a ryzen 5 1600 because of the price of the bundle and the core and thread count but an i7 7700k or i5 8600k will give me higher perofmance according to comparisons i've looked at online.

Decisions, decisions.

The problem with the FX CPUs is still single core performance, partly because of your low end board causing throttling, partly because even when working properly, the FX CPUs per core performance was quite poor, and is only about half as fast as current Intel and AMD chips. It also doesn't help that the FX CPUs aren't really true 8/6/4 core CPUs due to shared resources in the design eg. each pair of cores shares a floating point unit. The FX 8350 really is more like a quad core with hyperthreading than an actual 8 core CPU. Bottom line is, even in a games with absolutely perfect scaling across all 8 'cores', the FX 8350 might only just barely match a modern 4 core 4 threaded chip like the R3 1200 or i3 8100, and most games don't offer that perfect scaling and thus perform worse than on those aforementioned CPUs.

AMD's current CPUs do have good enough single core performance to run games at 60FPS. Ryzen's gaming achilles heel is when you get into high refresh displays eg. 144Hz or 240Hz, and if you have one of those monitors Intel's higher per core performance does start to factor in more, if you have a high end GPU eg. GTX 1070 or better. When you're targeting very high framerates with a very fast GPU, Intel will offer better framerates, though how much better varies depending on game and the resolution you're running. Intel's big advantage in per core performance mostly comes from higher clockspeeds, Intel's unlocked chips can be overclocked up to around 5.0GHz, AMD's current chips cap out at 4.0GHz maximum, so AMD is at a 20% clockspeed disadvantage compared to Intel when overclocked and that combined with AMD doing a bit less work per clock cycle than Intel gives Intel the edge in per core performance. AMD counters this primarily by throwing more cores or threads onto their chips compared to similarly priced Intel chips, which helps more for productivity applications but less so for games.

I see. So because the ryzen 5 1600 would be good in terms of single and multi core performance, and for the price of the bundle, it's currently what I will most likely buy. I will wait a bit to see if anyone else would like to suggest another cpu on this thread.

Thanks!

 

[jaslion]

Well your motherboard is low end, so that's why you're getting framerate drops. It's probably not worth putting more money into AM3+ so if you can upgrade to something modern, it's best to do so. As for what to upgrade to, if you don't want to wait for the Ryzen refresh chips, then the Ryzen bundle you linked isn't too bad, and it would be cheaper than the Intel options. If you had a 144Hz monitor and were playing certain CPU heavy games, then getting the 8600k and overclocking it as high as possible might be worthwhile. For most other situations, it's not really worth spending a lot extra for an i5 8600k over an R5 1600. I wouldn't bother with the i7 7700k unless you can get it for really cheap, it's on a dead platform and 4 physical cores is now kind of on the low end these days, though it does have hyperthreading to make up for that a bit.

Do keep in mind the bundle does not include RAM, and since all modern platforms are DDR4 only, you will have to get new RAM, you can't carry your old sticks over. That's going to increase your costs by a fair bit as RAM is quite expensive right now and you really need 8GB of it at bare minimum, with 16GB being beneficial in some gaming scenarios, but often too expensive these days to be worth getting if you don't have the money to spare.

Thanks for the advice!

The funny thing is that my current motherboard was part of the bundle with the fx 8350 when I bought them from amazon a few years ago. Makes me question the bundles on amazon i'm looking at now. I will need to research the motherboard too then.

I'm a bit apprehensive now with amd cpus. I've always owned amd and i've always had problems when running games. Now whether those are attributable to amd cpus, i can't tell, but there is also the fact that it seems to me the majority of people online prefer intel cpus. I'm trusting that it's because they have had great performance from intel cpus. So I'm a bit apprehensive about buying the ryzen 5 bundle.

I've got a 2560x1440, 60 hz Acer pc monitor. I prefer gaming at highest graphics settings possible with a target of 50-60 fps at 1440p. That's why I got the gtx 1070. Because i read articles about how it's the sweet spot for 1440p 60 fps gaming since 2017.

Yes, I've noticed that the bundles don't include ram. I plan to research the ram once i'm decided on the cpu. I will also research the motherboard and make sure it's suitable for the cpu i'm buying. You were not kidding about the price of ddr4 rams, lol. I just checked on amazon and one 8 gb stick is close to 100 pounds. I plan to get at least a minimum of 16 gb. I thought ram slots were backwards compatible but i just checked online and indeed ddr4 is not backwards compatible.

At the moment, my salary is the highest it's ever been in my life and i'm living with my uncle's family for the next few months so i don't have to spend on rent. So now would be the time for me to buy the best cpu, motherboard and ram i can.

The ryzen 5 1600 does have 12 threads though. I also need to make sure i get a cpu with high single core performance, as i've been explained in this thread, so i can avoid fps drops in games. How is the single core performance of the ryzen 5?

This page (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-ryzen-5-1600-1600x-vs-core-i5-7500k-review) says:
"Across the titles tested, the majority show a stock i7 outperforming an overclocked i5. Single-core performance is still important but the takeaway is that more processing cores and threads trump frequency, with the majority of modern game engines favouring more than four cores. The rest of the review effectively writes itself then: what Ryzen 5 lacks in clocks, it makes up for with many more threads. Both Ryzen 5 1600 and 1600X have six full cores and 12 threads, available for the same ballpark money as the i5's basic four cores and four threads."

So apparently my issue in Andromeda or Arkham Knight is not due to the single core performance of my fx 8350 because games favour higher core count and threads instead of core frequency, according to that review.

Right now I'm leaning towards a ryzen 5 1600 because of the price of the bundle and the core and thread count but an i7 7700k or i5 8600k will give me higher perofmance according to comparisons i've looked at online.

Decisions, decisions.

The problem with the FX CPUs is still single core performance, partly because of your low end board causing throttling, partly because even when working properly, the FX CPUs per core performance was quite poor, and is only about half as fast as current Intel and AMD chips. It also doesn't help that the FX CPUs aren't really true 8/6/4 core CPUs due to shared resources in the design eg. each pair of cores shares a floating point unit. The FX 8350 really is more like a quad core with hyperthreading than an actual 8 core CPU. Bottom line is, even in a games with absolutely perfect scaling across all 8 'cores', the FX 8350 might only just barely match a modern 4 core 4 threaded chip like the R3 1200 or i3 8100, and most games don't offer that perfect scaling and thus perform worse than on those aforementioned CPUs.

AMD's current CPUs do have good enough single core performance to run games at 60FPS. Ryzen's gaming achilles heel is when you get into high refresh displays eg. 144Hz or 240Hz, and if you have one of those monitors Intel's higher per core performance does start to factor in more, if you have a high end GPU eg. GTX 1070 or better. When you're targeting very high framerates with a very fast GPU, Intel will offer better framerates, though how much better varies depending on game and the resolution you're running. Intel's big advantage in per core performance mostly comes from higher clockspeeds, Intel's unlocked chips can be overclocked up to around 5.0GHz, AMD's current chips cap out at 4.0GHz maximum, so AMD is at a 20% clockspeed disadvantage compared to Intel when overclocked and that combined with AMD doing a bit less work per clock cycle than Intel gives Intel the edge in per core performance. AMD counters this primarily by throwing more cores or threads onto their chips compared to similarly priced Intel chips, which helps more for productivity applications but less so for games.

I see. So because the ryzen 5 1600 would be good in terms of single and multi core performance, and for the price of the bundle, it's currently what I will most likely buy. I will wait a bit to see if anyone else would like to suggest another cpu on this thread.

Thanks!

Both the ryzen 1600 and i5 8400 are solid choices. The 8400 does have a bit better single core performance compared to the 1600 but you can minimize this difference with a simpel 200 mhz oc on the ryzen (make sure you have a b350 board since most b320's are kinda bad and don't allow ocing).

 

[semichaud1]

Both the ryzen 1600 and i5 8400 are solid choices. The 8400 does have a bit better single core performance compared to the 1600 but you can minimize this difference with a simpel 200 mhz oc on the ryzen (make sure you have a b350 board since most b320's are kinda bad and don't allow ocing).

Thanks for the advice. Especially on the motherboard. I couldn't find the i5 8400 on Amazon though. I'll check other vendors but I'm not familiar with buying any pc parts other than with Amazon.

Amazon is selling this board as part of a ryzen 5 1600 and 16 gb ram bundle, is it good for gaming in your opinion:
https://www.kitguru.net/components/motherboard/luke-hill/gigabyte-ab350-gaming-3-motherboard-review/

 

[jaslion]

Both the ryzen 1600 and i5 8400 are solid choices. The 8400 does have a bit better single core performance compared to the 1600 but you can minimize this difference with a simpel 200 mhz oc on the ryzen (make sure you have a b350 board since most b320's are kinda bad and don't allow ocing).

Thanks for the advice. Especially on the motherboard. I couldn't find the i5 8400 on Amazon though. I'll check other vendors but I'm not familiar with buying any pc parts other than with Amazon.

Amazon is selling this board as part of a ryzen 5 1600 and 16 gb ram bundle, is it good for gaming in your opinion:
https://www.kitguru.net/components/motherboard/luke-hill/gigabyte-ab350-gaming-3-motherboard-review/

It's one of the best boards out for ryzen atm.

 

[semichaud1]

Both the ryzen 1600 and i5 8400 are solid choices. The 8400 does have a bit better single core performance compared to the 1600 but you can minimize this difference with a simpel 200 mhz oc on the ryzen (make sure you have a b350 board since most b320's are kinda bad and don't allow ocing).

Thanks for the advice. Especially on the motherboard. I couldn't find the i5 8400 on Amazon though. I'll check other vendors but I'm not familiar with buying any pc parts other than with Amazon.

Amazon is selling this board as part of a ryzen 5 1600 and 16 gb ram bundle, is it good for gaming in your opinion:
https://www.kitguru.net/components/motherboard/luke-hill/gigabyte-ab350-gaming-3-motherboard-review/

It's one of the best boards out for ryzen atm.

Nice! I'm aiming to save up to get this bundle then. Thanks again.

 

[semichaud1]

I just want to post the following in case anyone else struggles with fps drops like I was. So after a life time (lol) of fps drops in games, I tried different things: lowering graphics settings, including resolution, setting Windows power options to high performance, using ParkControl to make sure all cores are running at 100% and no frequency scaling is active and manually setting the ram frequency in the bios. In the end none of those worked. Yesterday, I remembered seeing blue and black ram slots on my motherboard during every monthly cleaning of my pc. I decided to read about those from the manual of my motherboard. It turns out unless you have identical ram set up on MATCHING colours, the ram sticks will not function in dual channel. So I read the manual again more thoroughly and did some research on the internet about those colour-coded ram slots on my motherboard, and installed both identical ram sticks (8 gb ddr3, same manufacturer, same brand, same frequency) on the blue slots as recommended by the manual. All, microfreezing and fps drops have now disappeared from Andromeda, Arkham Knight and Mankind Divided. Absolutely all. I'm going to play Arkham Knight from scratch after completing Andromeda, just for the fun of enjoying a microfreezing-free experience for once in my pc gaming life. So happy.

Having this thread, though, has made it clear to me on what my next upgrade should be. A Ryzen 5 1600.

Thank you all!

 

[madmatt30]

I just want to post the following in case anyone else struggles with fps drops like I was. So after a life time (lol) of fps drops in games, I tried different things: lowering graphics settings, including resolution, setting Windows power options to high performance, using ParkControl to make sure all cores are running at 100% and no frequency scaling is active and manually setting the ram frequency in the bios. In the end none of those worked. Yesterday, I remembered seeing blue and black ram slots on my motherboard during every monthly cleaning of my pc. I decided to read about those from the manual of my motherboard. It turns out unless you have identical ram set up on MATCHING colours, the ram sticks will not function in dual channel. So I read the manual again more thoroughly and did some research on the internet about those colour-coded ram slots on my motherboard, and installed both identical ram sticks (8 gb ddr3, same manufacturer, same brand, same frequency) on the blue slots as recommended by the manual. All, microfreezing and fps drops have now disappeared from Andromeda, Arkham Knight and Mankind Divided. Absolutely all. I'm going to play Arkham Knight from scratch after completing Andromeda, just for the fun of enjoying a microfreezing-free experience for once in my pc gaming life. So happy.

Having this thread, though, has made it clear to me on what my next upgrade should be. A Ryzen 5 1600.

Thank you all!

Sounds a good outcome.
Although matching sticks in matching slots is always recommened for optimal performance (there is actually a fair boost in memory throughput) it should not actually affect stability though having them in mismatched slots.

I wonder if one of the slots (or maybe one of the memory channels) on the board has an actual issue - maybe faulty.

BUt yeah an upgrade to ryzen is always going o be a big step up.

I went from an 8350 running at 4,4ghz to a ryzen 1700 running at 3.8ghz & it just completely obliterates it in every single way.
In some scenarios there is a 100% fps increase on the ryzen ,nothing Ive played ever drops below 60fps.

The ryzen 1600 would do exactly the same,I only have the 1700 becasue I was an early adopter before ryzen 5 was actually available.

Also ryzen + is due soon(april) ,which has a drop in die size & an increase in base clocks over the first iteration.

 

[semichaud1]

I just want to post the following in case anyone else struggles with fps drops like I was. So after a life time (lol) of fps drops in games, I tried different things: lowering graphics settings, including resolution, setting Windows power options to high performance, using ParkControl to make sure all cores are running at 100% and no frequency scaling is active and manually setting the ram frequency in the bios. In the end none of those worked. Yesterday, I remembered seeing blue and black ram slots on my motherboard during every monthly cleaning of my pc. I decided to read about those from the manual of my motherboard. It turns out unless you have identical ram set up on MATCHING colours, the ram sticks will not function in dual channel. So I read the manual again more thoroughly and did some research on the internet about those colour-coded ram slots on my motherboard, and installed both identical ram sticks (8 gb ddr3, same manufacturer, same brand, same frequency) on the blue slots as recommended by the manual. All, microfreezing and fps drops have now disappeared from Andromeda, Arkham Knight and Mankind Divided. Absolutely all. I'm going to play Arkham Knight from scratch after completing Andromeda, just for the fun of enjoying a microfreezing-free experience for once in my pc gaming life. So happy.

Having this thread, though, has made it clear to me on what my next upgrade should be. A Ryzen 5 1600.

Thank you all!

Sounds a good outcome.
Although matching sticks in matching slots is always recommened for optimal performance (there is actually a fair boost in memory throughput) it should not actually affect stability though having them in mismatched slots.

I wonder if one of the slots (or maybe one of the memory channels) on the board has an actual issue - maybe faulty.

BUt yeah an upgrade to ryzen is always going o be a big step up.

I went from an 8350 running at 4,4ghz to a ryzen 1700 running at 3.8ghz & it just completely obliterates it in every single way.
In some scenarios there is a 100% fps increase on the ryzen ,nothing Ive played ever drops below 60fps.

The ryzen 1600 would do exactly the same,I only have the 1700 becasue I was an early adopter before ryzen 5 was actually available.

Also ryzen + is due soon(april) ,which has a drop in die size & an increase in base clocks over the first iteration.

Sweet! Can't wait to upgrade my pc. For now I am happy to play Arkham Knight for the first time without stutters and microfreezing. Played for almost two hours last night. Really smooth gameplay. Granted it's 30 fps but that's another issue/controversy lol.

 

[Spank1]

If you are running a low end board the VRMs are most likely worn and throttling the CPU, it happened to me with an FX8120. Cheapest short term option is a 2nd hand 990FX board like a Sabretooth they can be had for as little as £50 on ebay.

Avoid gen 1 Ryzen, I'm on my 2nd had the 1700X on ROG Hero first now got a 1600 R5 on B350 MSI. They will be better but not as good as Intel.

Cheapest viable Intel option would be a i5 4670K Haswell on a Z87 board which should set you back between £150 & £200 if it's a ROG board. It will bottleneck that card a bit like your FX though bit Haswell i7 is much dearer.

Going new the cheapest decent buy if you want to overclock would be i3 8350K, if not 6 core i5 8400 is good. For me the i7 8700K is too expensive, I'd rather hold on for the next gen or next gen Ryzen.

 

[semichaud1]

If you are running a low end board the VRMs are most likely worn and throttling the CPU, it happened to me with an FX8120. Cheapest short term option is a 2nd hand 990FX board like a Sabretooth they can be had for as little as £50 on ebay.

Avoid gen 1 Ryzen, I'm on my 2nd had the 1700X on ROG Hero first now got a 1600 R5 on B350 MSI. They will be better but not as good as Intel.

Cheapest viable Intel option would be a i5 4670K Haswell on a Z87 board which should set you back between £150 & £200 if it's a ROG board. It will bottleneck that card a bit like your FX though bit Haswell i7 is much dearer.

Going new the cheapest decent buy if you want to overclock would be i3 8350K, if not 6 core i5 8400 is good. For me the i7 8700K is too expensive, I'd rather hold on for the next gen or next gen Ryzen.

Thanks. So should I buy a Ryzen 5 1600?

The thing I don't get is how come those same games on PS4, for example, don't have sharp fps drops. I mean if the game on pc requires a more powerful cpu than my fx 8350, does it not make sense that if I lower the settings to medium or low those fps drops should disappear, just like on consoles? Or is low settings higher than console settings? How come the PS4 single core cpu performance is better than my fx 8350 single core performance? It doesn't make sense!

 

[Spank1]

A PS4 uses a Jaguar CPU which is essentially an FX 8 core. The programming language is RISC (reduced instruction set code) and makes use of the clustered formation of the cores so works better for a console than Intels offerings. Also new consoles have adaptive resolution control which drops the resolution down from 4K to keep the frame rate at 30fps. Settings are locked on consoles but are probably inbetween medium and high.

I don't rate Ryzen myself but 1600 is the best one value wise of current gen. I'd wait for the new ones to come out and get an X470 board if you are sticking with AMD.

Why not get a 2nd hand 990FX board in the mean time and learn how to overclock, the Sabretooth has really strong VRM's and are cheap enough. If you can get your HT link, northbridge and memory set right as well as upping the cpu clock (which should easily be at 5ghz on an 8350) you will get significanty better performance and hopefully have fun learning too.

My mate sold me his R9 390 last year for £140 then bought his GTX 1070. I was running an overclocked i5 4670K and getting almost as good performance as him with his GTX and i7 4790K. I'd say that with my overclocked 7700K now running the 390 I've probably got a faster gaming setup than him.

I use 3dmark Vantage to set up my PC's for gaming, if they can get a good score there and complete the bench it is usually good and stable for normal use. I don't bother with stress test programs anymore as they needlessly cut short the life of components.

 

[semichaud1]

@Spank1, fair enough but why does the very website of the company that made the game recommend an FX 8350? https://www.masseffect.com/buy/system-requirements

Do they recommend fps drops?

 

[13thmonkey]

There was nothing better from AMD at the time, they could not have said, "don't bother if you have an AMD system." so they put the best that AMD had, and it wasn't great. But they do throttle at quite low temps, so you could have a temp issue.

 

[semichaud1]

There was nothing better from AMD at the time, they could not have said, "don't bother if you have an AMD system." so they put the best that AMD had, and it wasn't great. But they do throttle at quite low temps, so you could have a temp issue.

According to HWMonitor lowest cpu temp is 68 degrees C and highest 72.

Should I just get a console then? Playing a da** game should not be that hard. If Andromeda is running on a regular xbox one with a weaker cpu than mine (FX 8350) it should be able to run better on at least lowest settings using an FX 8350. This is just ridiculous.

 

[13thmonkey]

There was nothing better from AMD at the time, they could not have said, "don't bother if you have an AMD system." so they put the best that AMD had, and it wasn't great. But they do throttle at quite low temps, so you could have a temp issue.

According to HWMonitor lowest cpu temp is 68 degrees C and highest 72.

Should I just get a console then? Playing a da** game should not be that hard. If Andromeda is running on a regular xbox one with a weaker cpu than mine (FX 8350) it should be able to run better on at least lowest settings using an FX 8350. This is just ridiculous.

That's too hot, throttling starts at 61c, assuming we are talking about the same temp.

 

[semichaud1]

There was nothing better from AMD at the time, they could not have said, "don't bother if you have an AMD system." so they put the best that AMD had, and it wasn't great. But they do throttle at quite low temps, so you could have a temp issue.

According to HWMonitor lowest cpu temp is 68 degrees C and highest 72.

Should I just get a console then? Playing a da** game should not be that hard. If Andromeda is running on a regular xbox one with a weaker cpu than mine (FX 8350) it should be able to run better on at least lowest settings using an FX 8350. This is just ridiculous.

That's too hot, throttling starts at 61c, assuming we are talking about the same temp.

There are other games like Witcher 3 where the temperature is the same but the game never has fps drops down to 10 fps, like in Andromeda. Heck Arkham Knight doesn't do that either. Even Shadow of War. Anyway, the next cpu motherboard bundle I'm buying has a wraith cooler. I don't know if that will be enough.

 

[semichaud1]

There was nothing better from AMD at the time, they could not have said, "don't bother if you have an AMD system." so they put the best that AMD had, and it wasn't great. But they do throttle at quite low temps, so you could have a temp issue.

According to HWMonitor lowest cpu temp is 68 degrees C and highest 72.

Should I just get a console then? Playing a da** game should not be that hard. If Andromeda is running on a regular xbox one with a weaker cpu than mine (FX 8350) it should be able to run better on at least lowest settings using an FX 8350. This is just ridiculous.

That's too hot, throttling starts at 61c, assuming we are talking about the same temp.

I just put a big normal fan blowing at full speed on my cpu and the temps are the same and the game still has fps drops. I really really envy console gamers right now.

 

[madmatt30]

You never let us know your full setup mate??

The whole thread is impossible for me to read on mobile because of all the long quote boxes.

What model is your actual motherboard ???

Hwmonitor is awful for reading temps btw.
Use hwimfo instead
Use amd overdrive to check thermal margins while running the inbuilt stress test.

If at any point you hit a 0c thermal margin & the clock speeds drop to 1400htz then throttling is your issue.


I can run andromeda at a locked 50fps with an oc fx6300 & a gtx 970 btw so the issue is.not just down to the the fx chip having weak single core performance.

 

[semichaud1]

Lol. I'm not the one who programmed this website. The quotes add themselves when you click reply to a post.

I did mention my motherboard on my post on 27 January 2018 00:32:55. It's a M5A78L-M-USB3-ASUS-2101.

GPU: GTX 1070
RAM: HyperX Fury 8 GB DDR3 1866 MHz CL10 DIMM x 2
CPU: Corsair CX750M
Internal HDD: 1 TB Samsung HD103SJ
Monitor: Acer K2 K272HULB 27" Wide Quad HD IPS Black

 

[madmatt30]

Lol. I'm not the one who programmed this website. The quotes add themselves when you click reply to a post.

I did mention my motherboard on my post on 27 January 2018 00:32:55. It's a M5A78L-M-USB3-ASUS-2101.

GPU: GTX 1070
RAM: HyperX Fury 8 GB DDR3 1866 MHz CL10 DIMM x 2
CPU: Corsair CX750M
Internal HDD: 1 TB Samsung HD103SJ
Monitor: Acer K2 K272HULB 27" Wide Quad HD IPS Black

Yeah mate,im back on desktop & I see it now.
I own the same board running a 6300@4,4ghz.

Probably pulling the same kind of power though the vrm set as a stock 8350 in all honesty.
I do have a big pallas cooler cooling cpu aswell as vrm's though.

That board is capable of running an 8350 in my experience as long as you're using downblowing cooler & not a tower cooler.
What cooler are you using??

It has some really iffy power saving features though & pumps excess voltage imo at stock settings.

You should do what I said,download amd overdrive & install it.

https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/amd-overdrive

download cpu-z
run it ,leave it onscreen on the cpu tab

https://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html

download intel burn test (just unzip the file to a folder on desktop - doesnt need installing)

http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/intelburntest.html

run overdrive ,put it on the cpu status tab.

run a test on intel burn test.

If you get thermal margins below 0c & clock drops to 1400mhz on any core then you are thermal throttling.
Let us also know core voltage shown on cpu-z WHILE the stress test is running.

There are workarounds to stop this,I know this motherboard like the back of my hand.

 

[semichaud1]

Thanks! I actually installed AMD Overdrive last night and used it and all thermal margins for the 8 cores were around +5 degrees C while I played Andromeda. I also have cpuz. I'll do some more testing and monitor the core voltage. I use the cooler that came with the cpu. Don't know the brand.

I just ordered a Ryzen 5 1600, motherboard and ram bundle. Will that start to overheat too?

 

[madmatt30]

^ no, for starters the ryzen 1600 comes with THE best stock cooler ever produced.
Its a 65w cpu & is very efficient - no meam feat considering its close to twice as powerful as an 8350 but consumes half the power at stock.

Vice versa the boards , there isn't a b350 board out there that won't run a ryzen 5 at 4ghz (if the cpu is able) with no issue at all.

What combo did you go for ??

 

[Spank1]

The M5A78L-M-USB3 is a budget board and not man enough to handle an 8 core unless it is an E version, I destroyed one of these with an FX 8120 myself and had exactly the same problems.
Bought a Sabretooth to replace it no more problems and excellent overclocks, 5 years on I still use the board to overclock CPU's on LN2.

With the problems that have been happening the board is already on the way out.

Any AM4 board will be ok with a 1600 Ryzen run at stock speeds, cable tie a fan to the VRM's if you are worried or overclocking.
Hopefully the bundled ram is at least 2800mhz, it makes a big difference on the Ryzen.

 

[agello24]

no upgrade to a ryen 5 1600. it beats the i7 in a lot of programs. its slow in games, cause the ryzen line was not out for testing on for most of the games now. the ryzen 6 is cheaper too.

 

[semichaud1]

^ no, for starters the ryzen 1600 comes with THE best stock cooler ever produced.
Its a 65w cpu & is very efficient - no meam feat considering its close to twice as powerful as an 8350 but consumes half the power at stock.

Vice versa the boards , there isn't a b350 board out there that won't run a ryzen 5 at 4ghz (if the cpu is able) with no issue at all.

What combo did you go for ??

I bought this bundle a few days ago:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/ADMI-COMPONENT-BUNDLE-AB350M-GAMING-Motherboard/dp/B073FPPX3R/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1518020419&sr=8-2&keywords=ryzen+5+1600+motherboard+bundle

It's earily silent. Even in modern pc games with everything maxed out. My FX8350 was making a lot of noise as soon as you started a game and when idle it would still make noise (fan).