[SOLVED] Should i upgrade ryzen 5 2600x to an i5 9600K?

[Hiper1995]

Hello,
Specs: Ryzen 5 2600x
Mobo: B350 tomahawk
GPU: 1070 TI
Ram: 16 gb 3200 cl16
550W PSU

So, lately i have been struggling with this CPU. I have been forced to OC because B350 motherboard doesnt support xrf2/precision boost overdrive of 2600x and it was giving me constanly 3.9 ghz and low performance.
Right now the max i can OC the 2600x is 4.1 ghz all cores (in games) and 4GHz if i want to make it stable at prime95 tests and such (1.39 volts, 1.1 soc, anything lower than that crashes my pc, probably i lost a bit at the cpu lottery) - Stock cooler
Also this mobo is not so good at temp management/ram overclock and so on, i like experimenting and pushing every component to its limit and i feel like mobo is holding me back a bit as well.

Is upgrading to 9600k and a good z390 mobo for OC worth it? (planning to OC this baby to 5.1-5.2 ghz with a beefy NH15 cooler
I play mostly games and usual PC activity, i dont do video editing and stuff like that, mostly when i play i dont keep other stuff open in the background as well.

Also, i plan to upgrade to a 240 hz monitor over my current 144, playing only FPS games (cs go, valorant, MW2, battlefield) and i was thinking a better framerate would help a bit

The upgrade(after i sell mobo and cpu) will cost me 400 euro(I5 9600K, good z390mobo and Noctua nh50 cooler)

Is it worth it? Should i expect some above average improvement? If i do this i dont plan to upgrade my pc in the next 2-3 years, so future proofing is not an issue here

 

[johnrob]

I think upgrading is a bad idea. Z490 and the i5 10600k will be here in a matter of weeks, and it's basically an i7 8700k but for less money (6 core 12 thread, 4.2ghz base 4.8ghz turbo) so if you HAVE to upgrade wait for that.

Other than that though, $400 when combined with the price you could get from your used 1070ti ($200-300?) could get you a 2070 super or maybe even a 2080 super.

with the CPU upgrade you might get an additional 5-10% fps, the GPU upgrade will get you 15% minimum. if you opt for the 2080 super you're probably at 33% or more fps.

 

[Phaaze88]

Is it worth it? Should i expect some above average improvement?

Yes and no.
No because the 9600K will choke on games that can use all of it's core/threads, unlike the Ryzen cpu you currently have. A 5.2ghz OC won't fix that physical limitation.

 

[King_V]

Also, i plan to upgrade to a 240 hz monitor over my current 144, playing only FPS games (cs go, valorant, MW2, battlefield) and i was thinking a better framerate would help a bit

This move would be a colossal waste of time. The human eye can't distinguish those speeds.

 

[johnrob]

This move would be a colossal waste of time. The human eye can't distinguish those speeds.

that's not true, having owned a 1440p 144hz and a 1080p 240hz, there is a very distinguishable difference.

 

[King_V]

There's a very distinguishable difference between those two monitors in terms of resolution, panel display quality, etc.

Also, how could you tell? What hardware were you using that you played at 240Hz and the PC was able to maintain that frame rate?

 

[mdd1963]

I do not fully understand the CS:Go crowd's insistence that the game is hardly playable unless at 160 fps or so....; I only know many insist it, and, complain when FPS drop below that amount...(for whatever reason)...(The better GPUs and CPUs get 300-500 fps in the game)

 

[johnrob]

There's a very distinguishable difference between those two monitors in terms of resolution, panel display quality, etc.

Also, how could you tell? What hardware were you using that you played at 240Hz and the PC was able to maintain that frame rate?

Just about any current gen GPU and CPU combo can run CS:GO at 300+ fps at 1080p without too much fiddling with settings.

without diving too far into the physiology behind it, a faster display will always provide a smoother and more immediate response to what you're seeing. Not to mention a 240hz display is almost double the speed of a 144hz display and it's 4 times as fast as a 60 hz panel.

For games where reaction time is necessarily part of the game, movement being recognized by your brain twice as fast is a huge deal.

 

[King_V]

I will believe that when a legitimate study, double-blind, reproducible, can prove that gamers, on the SAME system, can tell what refresh rate and how many frames/second they're playing at when someone else is setting the refresh rates.

I have no doubt that someone can tell the difference between 60hz and 120 or higher. I do not at all believe that people can see and respond FAR faster than the fastest human reaction time on record. 12ms is the number, as I recall (maybe 13), which comes to around 85fps.

 

[johnrob]

I will believe that when a legitimate study, double-blind, reproducible, can prove that gamers, on the SAME system, can tell what refresh rate and how many frames/second they're playing at when someone else is setting the refresh rates.

I have no doubt that someone can tell the difference between 60hz and 120 or higher. I do not at all believe that people can see and respond FAR faster than the fastest human reaction time on record. 12ms is the number, as I recall (maybe 13), which comes to around 85fps.

All things between two systems being identical, a 240hz display will show a visual stimulus 3ms before a 144hz display shows the same. What's more it will show 3 still images before the 144hz display can display 2, meaning you're 3 frames into tracking movement before the 144hz display even shows you movement.

 

[Third-Eye]

Is it worth it? Should i expect some above average improvement? If i do this i dont plan to upgrade my pc in the next 2-3 years, so future proofing is not an issue here

No, if you wait for Ryzen 4000, it will be a cheaper upgrade and you will likely get close to the same fps compared to Intel. You can even keep using the same motherboard you have now. Upgrade your GPU to at least an RTX 2070 Super or equivalent RTX 3000 series.

I will believe that when a legitimate study, double-blind, reproducible, can prove that gamers, on the SAME system, can tell what refresh rate and how many frames/second they're playing at when someone else is setting the refresh rates.

I have no doubt that someone can tell the difference between 60hz and 120 or higher. I do not at all believe that people can see and respond FAR faster than the fastest human reaction time on record. 12ms is the number, as I recall (maybe 13), which comes to around 85fps.

Even if you don't have higher than 60fps, having a 120-240hz refresh rate is still going to give you a huge advantage over a 60Hz monitor. You can't see the fps, but you can see how smooth it is. 60fps being displayed at 240hz means the same frame is being displayed 4 times in the same amount of time as on 60Hz. It's sort of like how black flies react to something attacking it, by flying away before the incoming attack happens.

Once you get at least a 75-90Hz monitor, you will never want to go back to 60Hz. Even just 75Hz is a pretty dramatic difference.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

i would sy you should do bios update and replace the r5-2600X with a R7-3700X

 

[King_V]

Even if you don't have higher than 60fps, having a 120-240hz refresh rate is still going to give you a huge advantage over a 60Hz monitor. You can't see the fps, but you can see how smooth it is. 60fps being displayed at 240hz means the same frame is being displayed 4 times in the same amount of time as on 60Hz. It's sort of like how black flies react to something attacking it, by flying away before the incoming attack happens.

Once you get at least a 75-90Hz monitor, you will never want to go back to 60Hz. Even just 75Hz is a pretty dramatic difference.

Oh, I'm not questioning that 120 or more is going to give an advantage over a 60.

Note, however, that OP currently has a 144Hz monitor, and plans to upgrade from 144 to 240. It was in response to that that I made the unpopular comment.

 

[Phaaze88]

The thread's being derailed a bit...

Not to mention a 240hz display is almost double the speed of a 144hz display and it's 4 times as fast as a 60 hz panel.

Err, considering that more people can tell the difference between 60-120 compared to 120-240, I'm pretty sure the scaling isn't linear...

 

[iHemoX3]

Hello,
Specs: Ryzen 5 2600x
Mobo: B350 tomahawk
GPU: 1070 TI
Ram: 16 gb 3200 cl16
550W PSU

So, lately i have been struggling with this CPU. I have been forced to OC because B350 motherboard doesnt support xrf2/precision boost overdrive of 2600x and it was giving me constanly 3.9 ghz and low performance.
Right now the max i can OC the 2600x is 4.1 ghz all cores (in games) and 4GHz if i want to make it stable at prime95 tests and such (1.39 volts, 1.1 soc, anything lower than that crashes my pc, probably i lost a bit at the cpu lottery) - Stock cooler
Also this mobo is not so good at temp management/ram overclock and so on, i like experimenting and pushing every component to its limit and i feel like mobo is holding me back a bit as well.

Is upgrading to 9600k and a good z390 mobo for OC worth it? (planning to OC this baby to 5.1-5.2 ghz with a beefy NH15 cooler
I play mostly games and usual PC activity, i dont do video editing and stuff like that, mostly when i play i dont keep other stuff open in the background as well.

Also, i plan to upgrade to a 240 hz monitor over my current 144, playing only FPS games (cs go, valorant, MW2, battlefield) and i was thinking a better framerate would help a bit

The upgrade(after i sell mobo and cpu) will cost me 400 euro(I5 9600K, good z390mobo and Noctua nh50 cooler)

Is it worth it? Should i expect some above average improvement? If i do this i dont plan to upgrade my pc in the next 2-3 years, so future proofing is not an issue here

Go ryzen buddy

 

[Hiper1995]

Thank you all for the responses !

1) I reconsidered regarding the purchase. 1070 Ti is doing a fine job for now, considering i only play 1080p. The most likely scenario is that i will upgrade to a RTX 3070 since 2070 super is around 30% improvement, which is not really worth the money right now ( expensive as hell in my country), Ampere should be around 60-70% improvement for the same investment.

2 ) Regarding monitor, i want to buy a 240 hz monitor for 2 reasons:
-Colors of my current 144 hz monitor are crap, they are in fact so crap that i actually cant distinguish players in certain situations in cs go, and am so done tinkering and experimenting with colors on this one(i think i spent more than 50 hours just on this subject)
-240 hz as a bonus, since the upgrade will only cost me 100-120 $ because i can sell my current monitor for a hefty price.
If we are on this subject, anyone has any opinions on this monitor? https://www.amazon.co.uk/AOC-AG251FZ-Widescreen-Multimedia-1920x1080/dp/B01MXTEJ7A

3) Regarding CPU, i am a 'perfectionist guy' when it comes to gaming, even if my system is insane or not, when i play i have everything closed, everything optimized to the extreme just to make sure i have the best experience when i play. Considering this, and that i dont really care about video streaming/editing and so forth( i only play games, basic pc usage and programming ) should i aim for 10600k when it launches or wait until september for the red team to nuke the blue team?

 

[Phaaze88]

since 2070 super is around 30% improvement over my 1070Ti

That has to be in a specific game for you to make that claim... across a wide range of titles, the gain isn't nearly that high. It's closer to 10-15%.

Ampere should be around 60-70% improvement for the same investment.

Considering how overinflated the 20 series is VS the 10, and how AMD is still unable to compete with them at the high end, those expectations are a TAD high.
-1080Ti launched at 700USD, 2080Ti launched at 1200USD... a 71% markup... and depending on the reviews you checked out, it wasn't even 30% faster than the former... big WTFlag there.
-"But 20 series has RTX.", you might say. That's no excuse for a 70% markup and mediocre performance uplift for what it offers. The higher end was the worst of it, but all of the 20s were jacked up.
-The 2080 Super is basically a 1080Ti with RTX and faster memory... almost 2 and a half years later! Some people bought 2nd hand 1080Tis for GTX 1080 prices or less. Pretty pointless product at first, though still not as bad as the 2080Ti.
-If AMD fails to bring the competition to Ngreedia at the high end again, they will be free to choose their price, and there will be nothing you can do but bend over - no lube - and give them your money.

Regarding CPU, i am a 'perfectionist guy' when it comes to gaming, even if my system is insane or not, when i play i have everything closed, everything optimized to the extreme just to make sure i have the best experience when i play. Considering this, and that i dont really care about video streaming/editing and so forth( i only play games, basic pc usage and programming ) should i aim for 10600k when it launches or wait until september for the red team to nuke the blue team?

You wait. Give it like a month after launch so enough people have time to review it. Avoid being an early adopter. That said, I don't expect much from the Blue Team.
Ever since Skylake(6xxx) and all it's refreshes, it's been:
7xxx - more speed, more power, more heat
8xxx - more speed, more power, more heat
9xxx - more speed, more power, more heat
10xxx - I figure you get it by now...
They need to get off their current 14nm architecture - they're trying, but it's been a struggle.

As for your monitor issue: if you have an issue with color reproduction, you don't get another TN monitor; that's their downside.
What you're looking for are either IPS or VA.

If we are on this subject, anyone has any opinions on this monitor? https://www.amazon.co.uk/AOC-AG251FZ-Widescreen-Multimedia-1920x1080/dp/B01MXTEJ7A

That's a TN. You'd best pass.

 

[Hiper1995]

Thanks for the response.
Should this monitor be better then? https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-27-Inch-Curved-Monitor-LC27RG50FQNXZA/dp/B07TGMC29J

I like it way more than the AOC one, the colors the size the curved shape,everything, the only downside that put me off is that this one has 4ms response time, and since i play 90% of the time FPS games, i fear that even if its 240 hz, it wont behave the best in the games that i play.
What is your opinion on this?

Thanks !

 

[Phaaze88]

Should this monitor be better then? https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-27-Inch-Curved-Monitor-LC27RG50FQNXZA/dp/B07TGMC29J

For colors, yes. It's a VA panel.
BUT~!

I like it way more than the AOC one, the colors the size the curved shape,everything, the only downside that put me off is that this one has 4ms response time, and since i play 90% of the time FPS games, i fear that even if its 240 hz, it wont behave the best in the games that i play.
What is your opinion on this?

You are absolutely right on this!
Because of the 4ms response time, it is not a true 240hz monitor. I don't remember the exact math behind it - I haven't reviewed the info enough to get it to stick in my head yet.
It'll be closer to 200-220hz. Whether you'll actually notice this though, depends on how familiar you are with the 240hz refresh rate already.

 

[Hiper1995]

For colors, yes. It's a VA panel.
BUT~!


You are absolutely right on this!
Because of the 4ms response time, it is not a true 240hz monitor. I don't remember the exact math behind it - I haven't reviewed the info enough to get it to stick in my head yet.
It'll be closer to 200-220hz. Whether you'll actually notice this though, depends on how familiar you are with the 240hz refresh rate already.

Thanks,1 more question please, if you got the time, i have to go pick up a monitor in like 2 hours and i have been searching the web for some info regarding both the monitors.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-27-crg5-240hz-gaming-monitor/5 check page 4

This is a preety comprehensive review of the Samsung monitor, and they claim that its actually faster in response time and input lag that some 240 hz TN 1ms monitors out there. I checked some other reviews as well, and most people said that they compared screens with same 240 hz 1ms and this one actually felt faster !

Now, i know that the advertised 4ms/1ms blabla is marketing gimmick and the actual input lag and speed of the monitor depends on multiple factors, so after reading a bit about this, would you recommend me to get the Samsung one or still get the AOC one? (no money for IPS 240 hz 1ms panel, and this 2 monitors right now are the best available in my country)

Thanks a ton, i am waiting for your response before deciding on the purchase !

 

[Phaaze88]

You should check the 2nd and 4th comments in that link you posted.
Looks like it's not great for anything other than eSports titles, which are easy to achieve 240fps on.

If what you've gathered from those 2 comments isn't a deal breaker, then that monitor should be fine.

 

[Hiper1995]

You should check the 2nd and 4th comments in that link you posted.
Looks like it's not great for anything other than eSports titles, which are easy to achieve 240fps on.

If what you've gathered from those 2 comments isn't a deal breaker, then that monitor should be fine.

I checked them now, looks like Gsync on this monitor is subpar to say the least. Well i do plan to play other than Esport games in the future, and i never actually bothered to care about Gsync, just raw usage with as much as possible fps was fine for me.
But i saw in those comments that the image is quite bad without Gsync on this one, and with Gsync on its still bad because most games cant reach even close to 240 FPS without seriously sacrificing settings..

Decisions decisions.

Well, there is 1 affordable insane monitor that i would insta buy, but its available only in USA right now, not sure if it will be available in the foreseeble future at Amazon EU
https://www.adorama.com/msiom251rx....0Mo3ERUki2rPSdSyXL2M0&utm_source=rflaid914457

240 Hz 1ms IPS with good Gsync at 350$? holy <Mod Edit>

 

[Phaaze88]

How about this one?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B083S89GJR

 

[Hiper1995]

Looks good, cheers for your help.

I wish you a great day !

 

[Phaaze88]

No problem!