[SOLVED] Would it really make a difference if I upgraded from the i7 4790K to the R5 3600?

[wilbarker5]

I can probably guess there are hundreds of questions about the new ryzen cpus since they seem like absolute bargains.

I am just wondering is it really worth it to upgrade from what I have now to the R5 3600? From research the performance increase is 20 odd percent, is that worth the new motherboard/ram/cooler, etc?

My target goal is to get 1080p 144hz while gaming.

I would also be open to suggestions to help me reach 144fps or so.

Specs:

GPU: Nvidia GTX 1060
CPU: i7 4790K
RAM: 16 GB DDR3 1600 MHz

Thanks!

 

[SHMILY]

It means you will buy a new new platfrom. And gtx1060 can not handle all games @144hz
I have seen several videos that the new 3700X can perfectly play any games 1080P 144HZ

 

[wilbarker5]

It means you will buy a new new platfrom. And gtx1060 can not handle all games @144hz
I have seen several videos that the new 3700X can perfectly play any games 1080P 144HZ

I mean ultimately I would prefer to stick with my CPU for a while, but im just wondering what might be best to suit the requirements. Maybe I am asking the wrong questions, because perhaps i just need a GPU upgrade more like.

(I don't own a 144hz monitor yet, but I am wanting to get that before I get an upgrade of a sort)

 

[SHMILY]

Maybe you just need a NEW GPU. But it determined by what games you play.
4790K not weak I think it is equal to 9400F

 

[mamasan2000]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na2u7Pz7tcI

i7-4790K seems to be on par or beating R5 2600. So I would compare that to recent Ryzen 3600 reviews.
Looks like your GPU is the bottleneck. He uses a 980Ti and gets pretty decent FPS.
As long as you do nothing else when you play games, CPU should be enough (no streaming etc).
At least it has hyperthreading but 4 cores is becoming a limiting factor.

 

[wilbarker5]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na2u7Pz7tcI

i7-4790K seems to be on par or beating R5 2600. So I would compare that to recent Ryzen 3600 reviews.
Looks like your GPU is the bottleneck. He uses a 980Ti and gets pretty decent FPS.
As long as you do nothing else when you play games, CPU should be enough (no streaming etc).
At least it has hyperthreading but 4 cores is becoming a limiting factor.

Well I’ve been playing battlefield 5 I do feel as if my gpu might be the issue. GPU wise I was debating on either getting a vega 56 or an rtx 2060? Or maybe even the new amd 5700 (not XT) or the rtx 2060 super?

Also that video and description has given me good insight.

 

[Karadjgne]

Cpu = fps. Not gpu. Gpu just has to put on screen whatever the cpu gives it according to resolution and detail settings. An i7-4790k is well capable of pushing a 144Hz monitor.

The actual amount of fps is determined by the game code and strength of the cpu. Some games like CSGO are easy to get 300fps. I can get that on vanilla skyrim on an i7-3770K. Once you add mods (cpu bound scripted) that changes. With over 170 mods, it's enough drain on my cpu I'm down to 90fps.

Fps has nothing to do with the gpu. Fps is fps. If the gpu is weak, it can't put all the frames up that it gets. If it's strong enough, it will. But it cannot ever add fps over whatever the cpu gives it.

 

[mamasan2000]

If the GPU is bottlenecked, it is easy to see. Launch MSI Afterburner, turn on overlay (On-Screen Display or OSD), check GPU Utlization in your favorite games. If it is not pegged at 95-99%, CPU is the bottleneck (turn off vsync so fps isn't capped at 60 hz).
You can also turn on CPU utilization. If you go to Monitoring in MSI AB, click on all the CPUx usage you see. If CPU is pegged at like 90%+ on all threads, 4 cores ain't cutting it. Time to plan an upgrade.

But if CPU is sitting at something like 40% total usage, GPU is holding back your FPS.
At a certain point, the CPU will become the bottleneck so don't think you can get a 2080Ti or something crazy like that and expect a 4th gen i7 to feed it.

Think of it like this:
CPU feeds the GPU. If the CPU doesn't feed fast enough, the GPU doesn't have anything to chew = low fps.
Same is true if the CPU feeds the GPU more than it can chew = low fps.
You need a balance.
Where that line goes exactly can only be deduced, from benchmarks etc. The "sad" part about most youtube reviewers is that they don't sit on 4th gen Intels when they bench so it can be harder to find.

Here is an example:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47prNqYm7_M

Notice how the 4790k system gets less FPS in most games? CPU is the bottleneck.
I would say Vega 64 is a too good GPU for that CPU.

 

[WaffelFalafel]

Here's what UserBenchmark has to say between the two CPUs

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3600/2384vs4040

The 3600 is the clear victor according to these results. However, you would need to invest in an entirely new system in order to utilize the extra performance offered by the 3600, save perhaps your PSU and case. Ultimately, I think that if what you want is to feel a difference in your games, you would be best off simply upgrading your GPU. The ASUS Dual 1660 Ti is going for $250 right at the moment

https://www.newegg.com/asus-geforce...&ranSiteID=8BacdVP0GFs-7N9xJuijDP4vrmH1PlSb1A

That would meet your goal of 144FPS 1080p, provided you turn down the graphics in most games to high rather than ultra. Or you could hunt around for a deal on a used GTX 1080, that would also work excellently. In any case OP, happy gaming.

 

[wilbarker5]

If the GPU is bottlenecked, it is easy to see. Launch MSI Afterburner, turn on overlay (On-Screen Display or OSD), check GPU Utlization in your favorite games. If it is not pegged at 95-99%, CPU is the bottleneck (turn off vsync so fps isn't capped at 60 hz).
You can also turn on CPU utilization. If you go to Monitoring in MSI AB, click on all the CPUx usage you see. If CPU is pegged at like 90%+ on all threads, 4 cores ain't cutting it. Time to plan an upgrade.

But if CPU is sitting at something like 40% total usage, GPU is holding back your FPS.
At a certain point, the CPU will become the bottleneck so don't think you can get a 2080Ti or something crazy like that and expect a 4th gen i7 to feed it.

Think of it like this:
CPU feeds the GPU. If the CPU doesn't feed fast enough, the GPU doesn't have anything to chew = low fps.
Same is true if the CPU feeds the GPU more than it can chew = low fps.
You need a balance.
Where that line goes exactly can only be deduced, from benchmarks etc. The "sad" part about most youtube reviewers is that they don't sit on 4th gen Intels when they bench so it can be harder to find.

Here is an example:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47prNqYm7_M

Notice how the 4790k system gets less FPS in most games? CPU is the bottleneck.
I would say Vega 64 is a too good GPU for that CPU.

Last response was incorrect with the BF5 information, didn't have ALL of the data to show.

So this is resident evil 2 just in the lab area at the beginning.

Im playing at high (8gb) aswell, most settings high, FXAA+TAA

Also question: is the CPU8 just the amount of threads in the CPU?

Note: in bf5 i think like the CPU was getting used quite alot.

This is me just casually playing BF5 too.

Settings: mixture of ultra, high and medium.

 

[SgtScream]

Sure there will be a difference in performance when it comes to benchmarks. However it depends on what you use your system for, weather it'd be gaming or production. If you're getting adequate performance now then you won't notice that much of a difference. However if you aren't getting adequate performance for the use/task, then the upgrade and improvement in benchmarks would be noticeable. In that screen shot you are gpu bound which wouldn't change going to a new platform.

 

[wilbarker5]

Sure there will be a difference in performance when it comes to benchmarks. However it depends on what you use your system for, weather it'd be gaming or production. If you're getting adequate performance now then you won't notice that much of a difference. However if you aren't getting adequate performance for the use/task, then the upgrade and improvement in benchmarks would be noticeable. In that screen shot you are gpu bound which wouldn't change going to a new platform.

I added a BF5 screenshot too.

What does GPU Bound mean aswell? Does that basically mean the GPU is the problem?

 

[SgtScream]

BF5 is VERY processor intensive and would warrant an upgrade if you play that game regularly. If you rarely play it then it wouldn't justify the cost. GPU bound meaning it is at full load. That's what I strive for to make sure i'm getting the most out of my graphics card, but there will always be a limiting factor dependent on the hardware being used and the task at hand.

 

[wilbarker5]

BF5 is VERY processor intensive and would warrant an upgrade if you play that game regularly. If you rarely play it then it wouldn't justify the cost. GPU bound meaning it is at full load. That's what I strive for to make sure i'm getting the most out of my graphics card, but there will always be a limiting factor dependent on the hardware being used and the task at hand.

So GPU bound is a good thing of a bad thing? Yeah i have always had some kind of ideas that my cpu might be getting slower or essentially just not keeping up as much anymore.

 

[SgtScream]

So GPU bound is a good thing of a bad thing? Yeah i have always had some kind of ideas that my cpu might be getting slower or essentially just not keeping up as much anymore.

It also depends on your monitor's resolution and refresh rate. If you are only getting 60-80 fps on a 144hz 1080p panel for example at 100% gpu load. That is a problem. The goal is to match FPS with your monitors refresh rate, or get as close to it as you can. As resolution increases, so does gpu load.

 

[wilbarker5]

It also depends on your monitor's resolution and refresh rate. If you are only getting 60-80 fps on a 144hz 1080p panel for example at 100% gpu load. That is a problem. The goal is to match FPS with your monitors refresh rate, or get as close to it as you can. As resolution increases, so does gpu load.

From the sounds of it if I were to meet this criteria I would require a better GPU perhaps? or maybe both CPU and GPU essentially a new PC all together.

 

[-Fran-]

Uhm... For games exclusively, you won't feel a massive difference going from the i7 4790K (assuming OC'ed) to a Ry3600.

You have an adequate amount of RAM, so games are not really struggling for memory nor using disk for it, plus your GPU is going to become your first component to bring down performance.

Now, as for general tasks, it would be an upgrade, definitely. If you intend on streaming, or doing something a bit more than just gaming exclusively, then it might not be a bad idea to switch.

So, in short, I don't think you need to upgrade the whole thing. Just get a new GPU if you think it's not giving you enough FPS'es or try OC'ing the CPU if you haven't already.

Cheers!

 

[SgtScream]

From the sounds of it if I were to meet this criteria I would require a better GPU perhaps? or maybe both CPU and GPU essentially a new PC all together.

Sure all is possible. It depends on the hardware being used, including the monitor and the task (in your case game) at hand. I run Blackops 4 at 3440x1440p which is almost but not quite as demanding as 4k and i'm able to more than match FPS to my ultrawide's 100hz refreshrate. I had to configure a fps limiter in game to ensure gsync stays enabled.

 

[wilbarker5]

Sure all is possible. It depends on the hardware being used, including the monitor and the task (in your case game) at hand. I run Blackops 4 at 3440x1440p which is almost but not quite as demanding as 4k and i'm able to more than match FPS to my ultrawide's 100hz refreshrate. I had to configure a fps limiter in game to ensure gsync stays enabled.

I think I will focus on a new GPU for now, and see how that plays out, I usually upgrade my system over time rather than just buy outright new PCs etc. Like my CPU may struggle in some areas but overall it still holds up suprisingly well for old it is, compared to maybe the 3600 or 2600. My goal is just 144hz with 1080p really so maybe GPU upgrade is the one to go for, its just a matter of which GPU exactly.

Was looking at maybe the vega 56 or rtx 2060...or maybe even the 5700 (non xt) or the 2060 super when it comes out.

My CPU could perhaps last a year or two longer before it is probably a must to upgrade it to something significant.

 

[SgtScream]

Uhm... For games exclusively, you won't feel a massive difference going from the i7 4790K (assuming OC'ed) to a Ry3600.

You have an adequate amount of RAM, so games are not really struggling for memory nor using disk for it, plus your GPU is going to become your first component to bring down performance.

Now, as for general tasks, it would be an upgrade, definitely. If you intend on streaming, or doing something a bit more than just gaming exclusively, then it might not be a bad idea to switch.

So, in short, I don't think you need to upgrade the whole thing. Just get a new GPU if you think it's not giving you enough FPS'es or try OC'ing the CPU if you haven't already.

Cheers!

It depends on the game. For new games like Battlefield it will be a night and day difference going from an i7 4790k to the 3600x. This is because the game can utilize more than 4 cores. The 3600x is being bench marked within 10% of the i9 9900k at only half the cost. These types of multicore demanding games will shortly be the norm and would absolutely justify the cost and upgrade.

 

[-Fran-]

It depends on the game. For new games like Battlefield it will be a night and day difference going from an i7 4790k to the 3600x. This is because the game can utilize more than 4 cores. The 3600x is being bench marked within 10% of the i9 9900k at only half the cost. These types of multicore demanding games will shortly be the norm and would absolutely justify the cost and upgrade.

Not upgrading is 0 cost

I'm willing to say, even though the CPU will be used to 100%, it won't be terrible to the point where the 1060 will be bottlenecked nor a potential replacement around the price range.

Cheers!

 

[SgtScream]

I think I will focus on a new GPU for now, and see how that plays out, I usually upgrade my system over time rather than just buy outright new PCs etc. Like my CPU may struggle in some areas but overall it still holds up suprisingly well for old it is, compared to maybe the 3600 or 2600. My goal is just 144hz with 1080p really so maybe GPU upgrade is the one to go for, its just a matter of which GPU exactly.

Was looking at maybe the vega 56 or rtx 2060...or maybe even the 5700 (non xt) or the 2060 super when it comes out.

My CPU could perhaps last a year or two longer before it is probably a must to upgrade it to something significant.

I agree that this is a good idea. You can upgrade the gpu now and determine performance then purchase Ryzen if warranted, especially after black friday as Ryzen always drops their prices around that time. What graphic card do you have now?

 

[wilbarker5]

I agree that this is a good idea. You can upgrade the gpu now and determine performance then purchase Ryzen if warranted, especially after black friday as Ryzen always drops their prices around that time. What graphic card do you have now?

I usually upgrade around christmas time or if I have the money, around August time. So perhaps a better version of ryzen might exist by the time its next year? Perhaps Zen2+ or whatever lol.

 

[Karadjgne]

The cpu pre-renders the frames, so that sets the hard fps limit. Then it sends that fps to the gpu. The gpu finish renders and puts the info on screen according to detail settings and resolution.

So, if the cpu pre-renders 150fps, and you get 100 on screen, you're gpu bound. You can try lowering settings, and thats less work for the gpu, so the frames get finished faster and on screen fps goes up. But even if moving from ultra to medium gets you that 150fps, a move to low will not go past that cpu limit. With a strong enough gpu for the task, you'll get all 150fps at any detail, but a move to 1440p or 4k will drastically drop that again. At 4k/60Hz, even a pre-coffeelake i5 doesn't have too many issues, as any game is gpu bound, even with the strongest gpus

 

[mamasan2000]

@Willbarker5
Your CPU is a 4 core, 8 thread CPU, it has hyperthreading and monitoring programs reflect that. So they will show 8 'cpus'. You have 4 physical cores and 4 virtual.
More info: https://www.howtogeek.com/194756/cpu-basics-multiple-cpus-cores-and-hyper-threading-explained/
So the 4 virtual cores function is basically to feed the 4 physical cores. More efficient use of resources.

Sidenote: On the consumer side, currently there is only like 6 cores, 12 threads (2 threads per core) but IBM for example has CPUs with 4 or 8 threads per physical core (SMT4/SMT8). Probably coming soon to consumer-chips.
I give it 2-3 years. IBM Power9 for anyone interested.

So, yes, you are CPU-bound on BFV but GPU-bound on Resident Evil. Replace the 'bound'-part with a more powerful one and your FPS will increase.