More like build another system since I'm looking at the MILO-08BH case.$500+ for a CPU, mobo, 16 GB RAM.
In your shoes I'd wait until I actually have a problem doing something that I want to do. Upgrading now because of possible future problems seems like a waste of money.
Well this wouldn't be anytime soon as I will need to save up some money first. Maybe Zen 2 will offer enough of a boost in IPC and clockspeed at 65W TDP to be worthwhile?
Maybe AMD shouldn't have gone with a CCX design to begin with? That said however Zen is a huge improvement over their previous architectures.It'd be nice if we saw a jump like we did with Phenom II. As it stands with Zen:
General performance is @ Haswell.
Draw calls (w/ fast DDR4) are @ Sandybridge.
Emulation is @ Ivybridge.
And there is a significant cross-CCX performance penalty.
Haswell made a big jump over Ivybridge in emulators, due to the cache speed being about 2x faster. Resulted in a 40% speed up. With draw calls, nobody knows why certain architectures perform better than others; Nehalem, clock for clock is a touch faster than Haswell at draw calls, IIRC. And Phenom II performs below Core 2 at draw calls, yet general performance is on par with Nehalem stock vs stock.
Yeah that the problem. CPU wise if you have at least an Sandy Bridge or later i5, it is hard for most users to justify upgrading to a better CPU, especially if said upgrade also requires replacing the motherboard and memory as well.AMD did a great job of almost catching up to intel with Zen, it's just that an i5-4670 is still good for gaming.
I'll probably upgrade in August once I see what Coffee Lake 6 core / 12 thread looks like compared to the 7700K and Zen. But until then I'm actually doing fine for gaming with my ancient i5-2500 (non-K).
I have a i5-4670 CPU with 16GB of ram and two 1TB SSDs, and I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to upgrade to a Ryzen 1700 CPU?
Unless he wants to do more video-editing. There, a Ryzen 1700 will blow away a 4C/4T Intel Core CPU, for the most part.Nope. Not yet.
I also have half a mind to start a Youtube channel, so that would mean doing some video editing.
Unless he wants to do more video-editing. There, a Ryzen 1700 will blow away a 4C/4T Intel Core CPU, for the most part.
I've had similar recent thoughts. Which is one reason that I dropped some coin on a Ryzen CPU+board last night. I only got a 1600 though, due to cost constraints, and plan on overclocking to 3.8, which I hear is usually doable, even on the stock cooler, maybe.
Yeah VL should see a considerable increase in performance over the Celerons he has been using. I hope he that has also picked out a suitable video card as well to go with it. Life is way too short to mess with bottom of the barrel hardware if you can afford better.BREAKING NEWS! STOP THE PRESS! VL BOUGHT A REAL CPU!
More like build another system since I'm looking at the MILO-08BH case.
The CCX "penalty" is mostly imperceptible. It shows up as a few % in some benchmarks. It's more of a desperate point of contention with AMD detractors than a real negative.Maybe AMD shouldn't have gone with a CCX design to begin with? That said however Zen is a huge improvement over their previous architectures.
got a 1600 though, due to cost constraints, and plan on overclocking to 3.8
The CCX "penalty" is mostly imperceptible. It shows up as a few % in some benchmarks. It's more of a desperate point of contention with AMD detractors than a real negative.
Kind of hard to make conclusions off one data point and one game.Well, no, not really. Draw call performance takes a large hit: http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/part-2-measuring-cpu-draw-call-performance.2499609/
I did try to get some real world performance measurements, by looking at Fallout 4, but the only user with a Ryzen who bothered to help out was Crono. With two CCX's, it performs worse than a Skylake i5, despite Fallout 4 having eight main threads. http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/ryzen-w-amd-gpu-performance-in-fallout-4.2501467/
If a user can give it two runs, the first with the game on one CCX, and the second with the game spread across both CCX's, there'd be a better picture.
Kind of hard to draw conclusions off one data point and game. Looking the performance to price ratio of the Ryzen 5 1600 and R7 1700, I would to have say that both of them offer the best value in CPUs right now.Well, no, not really. Draw call performance takes a large hit: http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/part-2-measuring-cpu-draw-call-performance.2499609/
I did try to get some real world performance measurements, by looking at Fallout 4, but the only user with a Ryzen who bothered to help out was Crono. With two CCX's, it performs worse than a Skylake i5, despite Fallout 4 having eight main threads. http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/ryzen-w-amd-gpu-performance-in-fallout-4.2501467/
If a user can give it two runs, the first with the game on one CCX, and the second with the game spread across both CCX's, there'd be a better picture.