[SOLVED] Upgrading 2600K...do I also need to upgrade Graphics Card?

[hogan773]

I have been rocking a 2600K system with 8GB RAM since 2011. A couple years ago my GPU died so I got a "good value" GTX 1050 with 2GB GDDR5 at the time. That rig can still play COD MW for my son but of course he is always interested in "more" and "better" whatever

I have been getting ready to scratch my own itch on getting a new mobo and CPU. Would get a Ryzen 3700X although have been waiting patiently for several months to see what is announced on Ryzen 4000 front.

My question is, what kind of lift would I get by JUST upgrading to a Ryzen 3700X or better, and using my current GTX 1050? Would the much faster and better CPU allow for much better graphics settings or will the 1050 still be the bottleneck?

 

[COLGeek]

The GTX 1050 will work fine with the Ryzen, but will obviously not allow the Ryzen to perform at its full potential (for gaming). For general use, the GTX 1050 is fine.

 

[hogan773]

Right, I guess my question is, if my current gaming experience is "100" index, will the change to new Ryzen up that significantly to "200" or "300" or whatever even with the same GTX 1050? Or is the most lift in gaming coming from the GPU? I would assume that in my current rig, the 2600K is actually a bottleneck vs a 1050 but maybe I am wrong and the 1050 is still the limiting factor on gaming settings?

 

[COLGeek]

Performance depends on the game and whether the game is CPU or GPU heavy. There is no single answer to your question.

I would not suspect that a 2600k bottlenecks a GTX 1050. That is really an entry level GPU, in comparison to "gaming" GPUs. The 2600k was not a slouch in its day (but is getting a bit long in the tooth by today's standards).

The 2GB of memory on your GPU will hold you back as well. Higher graphics settings use more memory. Modern games like a lot of GPU memory ( I would not recommend a new GPU with less than 8GB of memory today).

 

[hogan773]

ok thanks that is helpful. So basically it sounds like I won't see some incredible new gaming performance JUST by putting in a Ryzen 3700X plus 16GB RAM, vs my 2600K with 8GB RAM. So if I am going to do this upgrade, then I should plan on spending another $150 or more for a more modern graphics card. I will probably still have a problem spending $300, $400, etc for a killer GPU. I always want to get a good "value" card at any given time, something that will run well and costs less than $200.

 

[COLGeek]

You can get a lot of performance out of a Radeon RX 580 or 590 (w/ 8GB), for not a lot of money.

What make/model is your current PSU? That, too, could be a limiting factor if you intend to re-use the one you have now.

 

[hogan773]

You can get a lot of performance out of a Radeon RX 580 or 590 (w/ 8GB), for not a lot of money.

What make/model is your current PSU? That, too, could be a limiting factor if you intend to re-use the one you have now.

It is a 375W, I think it was EarthGreen or Green something. Antec I think? I don't remember exactly.

I was hoping that with a lower TDP CPU, I could get by with same PSU. I honestly forget if my PSU has the separate power cable for a GPU. I know I picked the 1050 at the time because it was the best card for the money that could just run off the motherboard power rather than a separate power feed from the PSU and then I didn't even need to worry about it.

Is there any synergy between AMD/AMD on CPU/GPU? Meaning, if I am going with Ryzen, should I focus on Radeon rather than GeFORCE? Or does it not matter at all and you can mix and match exactly the same

 

[beorn]

I have been rocking a 2600K system with 8GB RAM since 2011. A couple years ago my GPU died so I got a "good value" GTX 1050 with 2GB GDDR5 at the time. That rig can still play COD MW for my son but of course he is always interested in "more" and "better" whatever

I have been getting ready to scratch my own itch on getting a new mobo and CPU. Would get a Ryzen 3700X although have been waiting patiently for several months to see what is announced on Ryzen 4000 front.

My question is, what kind of lift would I get by JUST upgrading to a Ryzen 3700X or better, and using my current GTX 1050? Would the much faster and better CPU allow for much better graphics settings or will the 1050 still be the bottleneck?

I also had a 2600K build since 2011. It was fine with my 760 GTX but was definitely a bottleneck on my 2060 RTX which I got a few months ago. Since doing a new 3900X build, the card performs better definitely, maybe 20%. So I doubt you really have a significant bottleneck with a 1050, maybe 10% tops, presuming that the 2600K is overclocked. Mine ran at 4.5 ghz for a good 9+ years and I sold it a month ago

 

[hogan773]

I also had a 2600K build since 2011. It was fine with my 760 GTX but was definitely a bottleneck on my 2060 RTX which I got a few months ago. Since doing a new 3900X build, the card performs better definitely, maybe 20%. So I doubt you really have a significant bottleneck with a 1050, maybe 10% tops, presuming that the 2600K is overclocked. Mine ran at 4.5 ghz for a good 9+ years and I sold it a month ago

I have been babying the 2600K and always just ran it at 4.2ghz and voltage around 1.24. Like owning a 911 and never driving it above 55

 

[jasonf2]

As far as perceivable difference in normal day to day use the processor upgrade itself will do very little for you unless you are doing some heavy trans coding or equivalent. For gaming performance you will be better off upgrading the video card. Also if you still have a spin drive upgrade to an SSD at least on your boot drive. The SSD will give you the most perceivable performance increase while the video card will relate directly to FPS. (Upgrading to a SSD from a rust drive is kind of a magical experience that will make an old computer feel like new.) A CPU (and your older PCI bus) will bottleneck you some but honestly the perceivable performance hit isn't as bad as most will lead you to believe. Somewhere around the I7-920-960 era cpu's became powerful enough coupled with an SSD that boot times and basic load times reached a point that even gross increases in processing power are difficult to perceive. I like to explain it like this. If a given computer can do a given task in 500 milliseconds and processing power is doubled it can then complete the task in 250 milliseconds. While it is impressive on paper as a 100% increase in performance a human has a real problem perceiving a 250 millisecond change in the task completion. I build a new personal computer about every 5-7 years and run top shelf hardware. The last two cycles have been underwhelming in the "feel" department until I run something like a video trans code or computation intensive task. Then they are pretty impressive. Reading your post you also need to check current GPU card prices. A hot GPU is 1500 with a "good" one running $500.

 

[InvalidError]

Thing to keep in mind with GPU bottlenecks is that until your graphics details and resolution hit lowest everything, you can always push more FPS at the expense of lower details and resolution. This is a convenient method for determining how much further your current CPU could potentially push a faster GPU.

 

[hogan773]

As far as perceivable difference in normal day to day use the processor upgrade itself will do very little for you unless you are doing some heavy trans coding or equivalent. For gaming performance you will be better off upgrading the video card. Also if you still have a spin drive upgrade to an SSD at least on your boot drive. The SSD will give you the most perceivable performance increase while the video card will relate directly to FPS. (Upgrading to a SSD from a rust drive is kind of a magical experience that will make an old computer feel like new.) A CPU (and your older PCI bus) will bottleneck you some but honestly the perceivable performance hit isn't as bad as most will lead you to believe. Somewhere around the I7-920-960 era cpu's became powerful enough coupled with an SSD that boot times and basic load times reached a point that even gross increases in processing power are difficult to perceive. I like to explain it like this. If a given computer can do a given task in 500 milliseconds and processing power is doubled it can then complete the task in 250 milliseconds. While it is impressive on paper as a 100% increase in performance a human has a real problem perceiving a 250 millisecond change in the task completion. I build a new personal computer about every 5-7 years and run top shelf hardware. The last two cycles have been underwhelming in the "feel" department until I run something like a video trans code or computation intensive task. Then they are pretty impressive. Reading your post you also need to check current GPU card prices. A hot GPU is 1500 with a "good" one running $500.

Thanks that is helpful. I have had a 250GB Samsung Evo 850 for several years now. It is running pretty full. Would I see a notable improvement with today's latest SSDs in terms of speed or is Evo 850 going to be "similar"?

I can tell you I'm not spending $1500 on a GPU.....I will just keep the 1050 if that is the case. Is that COVID-based supply interruption price inflation or something?

 

[hogan773]

Thing to keep in mind with GPU bottlenecks is that until your graphics details and resolution hit lowest everything, you can always push more FPS at the expense of lower details and resolution. This is a convenient method for determining how much further your current CPU could potentially push a faster GPU.

So yeah, I guess I really don't even NEED to upgrade my 2600K according to the earlier post. I am just getting the itch to redo my PC and I've been excited by the recent Ryzen products.

In terms of gaming, Call of Duty looks perfectly smooth and fine to my eyes when he plays it on the 2600K/GTX 1050. He claims that seeing "in the distance" is worse than in could be. I will have to look and see what settings the game runs itself at. It looks plenty detailed to me but I'm sure there is always better. We can render the light reflecting off the sweat on the zit on some enemy's nose I suppose if that somehow impacts the game........for a trip down memory lane I was watching some videos of old late 70s and early 80s home games. Dr J vs Bird 1-on-1 anyone????

 

[COLGeek]

It is a 375W, I think it was EarthGreen or Green something. Antec I think? I don't remember exactly.

I was hoping that with a lower TDP CPU, I could get by with same PSU. I honestly forget if my PSU has the separate power cable for a GPU. I know I picked the 1050 at the time because it was the best card for the money that could just run off the motherboard power rather than a separate power feed from the PSU and then I didn't even need to worry about it.

Is there any synergy between AMD/AMD on CPU/GPU? Meaning, if I am going with Ryzen, should I focus on Radeon rather than GeFORCE? Or does it not matter at all and you can mix and match exactly the same

To step up to a higher performing GPU, you would need to upgrade your PSU as well.

Ryzens work equally well with both AMD and Nvidia GPUs.

 

[InvalidError]

To step up to a higher performing GPU, you would need to upgrade your PSU as well.

Or wait for the 3050-3060. The EarthWatt series are generally decent as long as they've got airflow. Only problem I had with mine was a clogged intake filter until its fan died. I happened to have a spare PSU I could put in until I got around to ordering a replacement fan and ended up forgetting to order a new fan for it so I can have another spare PSU ready to go again.

 

[mact]

I have been rocking a 2600K system with 8GB RAM since 2011. A couple years ago my GPU died so I got a "good value" GTX 1050 with 2GB GDDR5 at the time. That rig can still play COD MW for my son but of course he is always interested in "more" and "better" whatever

I have been getting ready to scratch my own itch on getting a new mobo and CPU. Would get a Ryzen 3700X although have been waiting patiently for several months to see what is announced on Ryzen 4000 front.

My question is, what kind of lift would I get by JUST upgrading to a Ryzen 3700X or better, and using my current GTX 1050? Would the much faster and better CPU allow for much better graphics settings or will the 1050 still be the bottleneck?

I have a 2600K and a 3770K each on an Asus Z77 mobo and using AMD RX 400-series cards and recently built an AMD 3700X with an Asus X570 mobo. I don't see any real difference in them, although I am definitely NOT a gamer.

The biggest difference I do see is the x570's pci-e Gen 4.0 slots and twin M2 slots, wherein a pair of Sabrent "Rocket" Gen 4 NVME drives hit 5500 Mb/s and an old AHCI Samsung 951 in a Gen 3 adapter cruises at over 2000 and a Kingston AHCI Predator tops 1700. The AHCI drives in the 2600K ran about half that speed. At present, the AMD is using an RX460, but I have an RX5500 that will be going in soon, both have 4GB ram, feeding 3 monitors. Used mostly for DTP.

 

[jasonf2]

Thanks that is helpful. I have had a 250GB Samsung Evo 850 for several years now. It is running pretty full. Would I see a notable improvement with today's latest SSDs in terms of speed or is Evo 850 going to be "similar"?

I can tell you I'm not spending $1500 on a GPU.....I will just keep the 1050 if that is the case. Is that COVID-based supply interruption price inflation or something?

It will be similar. A new drive will have better throughput numbers, particularly on the write side but you won't get the latency reduction, so it will feel pretty similar. That is unless you are low enough on capacity to cause issues with windows. Not a performance thing, an update thing. The GPU price increases were due to miners running stock cards in their rigs a couple of years ago. Supply disappeared and cards manufactures raised prices. But after supply came back (mining has moved on from GPUs for the most part) the prices never came back down. In fact we have by tendency seen a pretty sharp increase per generation for the last couple of cycles. It looks like this one will be the first in a while that things will have come down a little bit, but certainly not to the pre-mining jump.