Worth the swap?

Valve1138

n00b
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
31
Points
8
Current gaming rig:

Intel Core i7-3770K
Geforce GTX 1070
16GB RAM
1tb SSD

I have a Ryzen 5 1600 and 16GB of RAM that is need of a motherboard to work.

It's time to format the gaming rig, been since I built it 6 or 7 years ago.

Games I play currently, Cities Skylines, Fallout 4, Skyrim, might pick up The Outer Worlds.

This is hooked up to a 55" 4k TV that I run at native res.

Is it going to be worth it to pick up a motherboard and slide over to a Ryzen gaming rig? I don't think I would lose any performance, and since I have to format anyways.

Thoughts?
 
Yes I tbink it would be. A 1600 overclocked to 4.0 would be a pretty decent upgrade over your old 3770 considering you'd just have to cough up the cash for a motherboard.

I'm running a 1600x at 4GHz myself and am pretty pleased with it.
 
That 1600 should overclock to 3.8 for sure....

Outside of the extra cores, I'd consider it more of a side-grade BUT still worth it overall.

(Personally, I'd sell the 1600 and put that cash towards a 3600 = much higher IPC, more worthwhile upgrade)
 
You're running at 4K? you're probably display limited to 60 fps (visible) anyway. I'd do the upgrade since it might well improve min fps; I wouldn't put money into a more capable CPU than the 1600 unless you're going to change on the display end.
 
You probably won’t notice a big difference if that 3770K was overclocked. I’ve noticed maybe a couple games being a bit smoother with my 2600X, but I wouldn’t expect any real FPS gains.
 
Valve1138 said:
I grabbed a new motherboard with Amazon points.

Gonna stick with the 1070.
Click to expand...

1070 is basically a 980 Ti..

It should treat you well for some time.

BUT again, I'd get a 3600 and sell that 1600 or you won't see noteworthy gains in most situations. (esp gaming)
 
i would sell everything and build a X99-F8 + Xeon E5 1660 v3. I think this the de facto bang for the buck system at this moment.
 
Valve1138 said:
I'm fine with not seeing any noteworthy gains.

Maybe if there's a good Black Friday situation I'll grab a faster CPU. But for now, I'm good.
Click to expand...

You need a faster GPU for 4K. Your CPU is far less important on that front.
 
Stoly said:
depends on what he plays, and looking at the list of games, I think its ok.
Click to expand...
" Fallout 4, Skyrim, might pick up The Outer Worlds."

That's not gonna work at 4k60fps. Especially not TOW.
My RTX2070 had problems with that.
 
Stoly said:
depends on what he plays, and looking at the list of games, I think its ok.
Click to expand...

Not really. I don't think people understand just what it takes to run 4K and how demanding it is. I've been running 4K for years. I've run it on everything from an GTX 1080 Ti on up and I'll tell you that none of the cards short of the RTX 3080 are truly enough for it. Even RTX 2080 Ti's struggle with 4K a lot of the time. There is also a mountain of benchmark data including tests I've conducted myself which clearly show that at 4K you are far more GPU dependent than CPU dependent. The biggest difference in your CPU's at that resolution are going to be your 1% lows and your minimum FPS. Generally, averages will be very similar across all the upper end CPU's and even many of your more mid-range offerings.

A 3770K is pretty long in the tooth at this point, but a Ryzen 5 1600 is not going to be a substantial upgrade for him. The original Ryzens were only about as fast as Haswell CPU's from Intel when it came to gaming. Haswell wasn't a huge jump from Ivy Bridge. As a result, its not going to amount to much if anything in games. Therefore, regardless of the game I'll stand by the statement that a GPU upgrade would be far more impactful here.
 
Hey OP, if your TV supports 1440p, you can always try falling back to that for demanding games. My 1070 struggled mightily at 4k, I played more 1440p on action games.

CPU wise, that looks like a side-grade. But the good news is, depending on the mobo you bought, you can upgrade later on the same board. Maybe.

Like Dan_D said, you're GPU limited at this point. But considering how hard it is to score a GPU right now (even the used market is pretty dry), the 1070 is plenty fine as a stopgap. When the 3080's start flowing again, the used market for 2080's might open up, maybe some deals to come.
 
Dan_D said:
Not really. I don't think people understand just what it takes to run 4K and how demanding it is. I've been running 4K for years. I've run it on everything from an GTX 1080 Ti on up and I'll tell you that none of the cards short of the RTX 3080 are truly enough for it. Even RTX 2080 Ti's struggle with 4K a lot of the time. There is also a mountain of benchmark data including tests I've conducted myself which clearly show that at 4K you are far more GPU dependent than CPU dependent. The biggest difference in your CPU's at that resolution are going to be your 1% lows and your minimum FPS. Generally, averages will be very similar across all the upper end CPU's and even many of your more mid-range offerings.

A 3770K is pretty long in the tooth at this point, but a Ryzen 5 1600 is not going to be a substantial upgrade for him. The original Ryzens were only about as fast as Haswell CPU's from Intel when it came to gaming. Haswell wasn't a huge jump from Ivy Bridge. As a result, its not going to amount to much if anything in games. Therefore, regardless of the game I'll stand by the statement that a GPU upgrade would be far more impactful here.
Click to expand...

I think I do, given that's what I game at.
Sure I can't run most recent games at 4K (and I don't want to play buggy games, thankyou very much), but from the list presented, sure, not at the highest settings, but still.

I concur that at 4K the GPU is more importan than the CPU
 
I've found 4K previously was only really viable, talking 60hz monitor using either a SLI or CFX setup and if the game actually scaled with the setup. Most of the time it was going to a lower resolution making sure the GPU did the scaling vice the monitor (which normally was terrible). Still think the older AMD cards scaled much more cleanly than Nvidia from a visual sense but no real hard data or tests. Today with DLSS with Nvidia gives you some good options, well limited to a small crop of games, using less powerful cards to display at 4K. What AMD has upcoing to compete is totally not known for those outside of AMD and few select few, if it can or if it is more universal and automatic or what quality level it produces and what performance.
 
Picked up a Ryzen 5 5600X, popped it into my B450 motherboard. Worked straightaway, I updated drivers and BIOS before the swap. Windows gave no ****s.

Still rocking the 1070ti. Not paying scalpers for a 3060ti or 3070. I'd like to get a 3070. Got the $$$ for it.

Looking at a new 4k monitor too. I'd get something that has both USB C and Displayport so I can have both my gaming rig and MacBook Pro connected to it, with the Mac charging off it.
 
noko said:
I've found 4K previously was only really viable, talking 60hz monitor using either a SLI or CFX setup and if the game actually scaled with the setup. Most of the time it was going to a lower resolution making sure the GPU did the scaling vice the monitor (which normally was terrible). Still think the older AMD cards scaled much more cleanly than Nvidia from a visual sense but no real hard data or tests. Today with DLSS with Nvidia gives you some good options, well limited to a small crop of games, using less powerful cards to display at 4K. What AMD has upcoing to compete is totally not known for those outside of AMD and few select few, if it can or if it is more universal and automatic or what quality level it produces and what performance.
Click to expand...

In the past that was the case. It was often doable with an RTX 2080 Ti, but only with some concessions or DLSS. With the RTX 3090, I simply max out games and don't worry about it. I'm getting 90+ FPS in the things I play at 4K now. Cyberpunk 2077 not withstanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top