Ryzen up and running...

[Gambit21]

Ryzen 1700

I made the right decision.

This build was the hardest decision that I've made when choosing parts - ever.

Hours...and hours.....and hours...and days and days of research, pouring through info and developing my ability to discern the real info from the BS.

 

Coming off of several Intel builds over the past years, I haven't had an AMD chip since the "Gigahertz Wars" back in the early and mid 2000's where I built 2 AMD systems

in a row...since clearly they had had the answer. Power, bang for the buck - no reason to build an Intel machine.

 

Since then it's been all Intel for me, up to my last rig which was an i5 2500K.

I was looking at an i7 77000k build, but the absolutely LOUSY increase in performance for such a time interval over my i5 and dead-end socket didn't have me doing back-flips.

Hiromachi mentioned Ryzen, which sent me down the rabbit-hole of research....I wasn't even considering AMD. I was making assumptions about their performance based on no research, as others clearly have.

 

There's a LOT of bullshti out there people...a lot. Fanboyism, Bias, ignorance, straight up misinformation and data manipulation.

The lower res 1080p bench-marking is part of the problem, but more on that below.

 

Without typing a tome - these Ryzen chips are the best thing we've seen in a lot of years - by quite a margin.

Absolutely beastly workstation power - beastly gaming power.

 

Overclocked +25% easy peasy.

Memory is not currently running as fast as it should, but I expect that to be sorted in another few Bios updates.

I'm not experienced with memory overclocking, so I'm opting not to mess with it right now and wait for some updates first.

 

I've seen some ignorant "AMD cant' compete" statements, which could not be further from the truth.

In point of fact, it's becoming clear that not only can they compete - if Intel doesn't get their act together, they're going to find themselves

in the same position there were in the early 2000's.

This chip TROUNCES the i7 in it's workstation duties...my own benchmarks back this up.

 

If I'd gone with Intel...I'd have serious buyers remorse soon, if not already.

So most of you are not content creators like me, doing 3D renders and such that seriously stress your CPU.

What then? Well for BoS it's smooth as butter...but BoS isn't that demanding honestly....we have quite a bit of headroom still from what I can tell.

What about more demanding titles?

 

"I only use my PC for games...so I'm going Intel!"

Think about the future, and what Intel has shown us the last few years...squat basically.

 

I'll just leave this right here.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvdSnEbL50

 

Thanks Hiromachi

Edited May 12, 2017 by Gambit21

[99th_WorfWorf]

Thanks been looking at the new AMD chip myself.  I'll probably pull the trigger when the next line of Raedon Video Cards come out and they work all the kinks of the mobo and memory for the Ryzen.  Once again thanks for the report.

 

Worf

[BeastyBaiter]

It will probably cost $3,000 though, given how Intel likes to price. Regardless, I normally shop in the $200-$250 range for a CPU. Given 4 core 4 thread CPU's are rapidly approaching obsolescence, I don't see myself buying another one. So unless Intel bumps their core/thread count higher for the I3/I5/I7 line, I'll be going with AMD next time around. 6 cores with 12 threads seems like the sweet spot for gaming and general workload much like 4 cores and 4 threads was a few years ago when I built my current system. Currently I have an I5-4690. I think I might wait another year before doing the next major rebuild, so Intel does have time to react. But from what I keep hearing, it looks like Intel plans to pull an AMD and shoot themselves in the foot instead.

[Gambit21]

Bios should get another update here before the end of May.

 

The Asus rog Crosshair VI that I'm running is more or less dialed in the bios department, another update or 2 and I'm expecting to

get my Trident DDR4 3200 RAM running at advertised speed. I bumped it to 2666 last night with 16 16 16 34 timings and all is well.

 

When I tried to go higher manually, it wouldn't boot and I had to reset.

There are presets in the bios for different frequencies, 3200 included (with a lower CPU overclock) that I haven't tried yet.

I'm waiting for another bios update before I mess with memory again.

 

The Asus AI suite makes overclocking the CPU a snap - I highly recommend this board.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqT4SnTaP0c

[CanadaOne]

Ryzen 1700

I made the right decision.

 

. . .

 

Glad you are enjoying your new build.

 

I admit to being undecided about my upgrade, which I can finally (mostly) afford to do. A Ryzen 1500X or even a 1600 would be just lovely, but an Intel CPU would allow me to upgrade incrementally over the summer and end up with a really good rig.

 

The end result is a build in the 1500x or i5 range, with a 1060 card and a good SSD. That will be a monstrous upgrade from my ancient dual-core CPU and GTX 950.

 

Decisions, decisions.

[Gambit21]

You'll be happy either way I think.

[Gambit21]

A small improvement with the recent bios update.

I'm running the 1700 @ 3.8ghz on the stock cooler with some headroom left I think if I wanted to get more aggressive about it.

[Albino]

Thanks for the info Gambit. Good to get an opinion from a respected community member.

 

How does BOS scale across the cores? Does it utilise more than 4? And is it maxing out all used cores? I'd consider the 8 core 16 thread chips for my next build if BOS scales well.

 

I like to believe that addition AI planes in BOS will scale well with increased cores counts.

 

Regards

 

Albino

[Lusekofte]

I heard only good things about the Ryzen, but it is always accompanied with anti Intel attitude, witch honestly make me sceptical. I had no idea there is a war going on in that area of user based communities.

I also read about the i9 comping, and that is great. 

But for me , having a lazy i7 2,8 ghz and coping very well in BOS and DCS. It is more a question about is it worth it?

I think if you are not going for XP 11 and P3D and such civilian simulator stuff, but flying BOS and DCS , it is more a question of getting the maximum out of the games for as long as possible for a minimum of money. That is the relevant question in BOS and DCS community.

 

So my question is.

 

A Ryzen 1700 + gtx 1070 GPU would do for VR in DCS and BOS better than a Intel 4.0 ghz with the same GPU or at least about the same for less money?

 

And thank you for the review

[ZachariasX]

 

 

A Ryzen 1700 + gtx 1070 GPU would do for VR in DCS and BOS better than a Intel 4.0 ghz with the same GPU or at least about the same for less money?

 

If you are really CPU limited, then the latest (higest clocking) i7(meaninglessnumber)K will probably be a tad faster. But you would want a CPU that overclocks, so in you would have to be looking at the K series Intel chips to have the fastest clock speeds. If you remain with stock clocks, the Ryzen would be good and very competitive, if board, BIOS and drivers are up to quality. Then again, it is a bit of a gamble how high you can clock the Ryzen.

 

For BoX with the 1070, I wouldn't expect noticeable differences between Intel and AMD. But if you're using your computer for other things than gaming as well, the Ryzen is a far more capable than the Socket 1151 solutions from Intel. You would need in minumum a 6800K from Intel to have the same power. That one sety you back (currently, as I can see) $100 more. Expect Intel prices to fall.

 

For practical purposes, I would compare the 1700 Ryzen to the 6800K and judge on how much you have to spend to put together a rig. Lower price wins.

 

The upcoming Epyc (server variant of the Ryzen) will be a beast with up to 32 cores, 8 memory channels and 128 lanes of PCI-Express. You really can do SLI there and connect as many SSD as you like. Not just connect one GPU and that was it with all your PCI-Express lanes from the CPU and everything else has to be funneled through DMI and the chipset, basically a meagre 4 lanes PCI-Express 3.0. First impressions indicate that it trashes everything Intel has in about every category. Finally, we have competition again. 5 years of hardly any performance increase in CPU (those 10% form one i7 to the next are nothing more than homeopatic...) there is a change now. A drastic one.

[ZachariasX]

I also read about the i9 comping, and that is great.

 

It's not. It is just a neutered Skylake-EP, called Skylake-X for the enthusiast market that Intel doesn't really care for. They plan to charge you a ridiculous price for it though. As individual cores don't clock that high on these cpu's they are a waste for games that usually are happy with 4 cores and love high clock speed. Intel made even ridiculous ad campaigns for their obscenely priced 6900K: "You get more FPS while encoding video in the background." I wonder what drugs they were on when presenting that in public.

 

For games, if it has to be Intel, fastest are higest clocking 4 core CPU's on socket 1151. They are good for games. But if you really need computing power as well, they fall drastically short of the Ryzen.

Edited May 19, 2017 by ZachariasX

[ZachariasX]

 

 

having a lazy i7 2,8 ghz and coping very well in BOS and DCS. It is more a question about is it worth it?

Depends. If you are still somewhat happy, I'd say don't buy yet and save for Christmas. Once Epyc is out as well, Intels pricing scheme, at least for consumers like us (large vendors never pay "list prices" for their Xeons, not remotely so) will definitely crumble. A 6800K has no justification for $450 USD anymore when you get the Ryzen for more than $100 less. As soon as AMD can ramp up production, you get a lot more CPU for your money.

[A_radek]

I heard only good things about the Ryzen, but it is always accompanied with anti Intel attitude, witch honestly make me sceptical. I had no idea there is a war going on in that area of user based communities.

I also read about the i9 comping, and that is great.

But for me , having a lazy i7 2,8 ghz and coping very well in BOS and DCS. It is more a question about is it worth it?

I think if you are not going for XP 11 and P3D and such civilian simulator stuff, but flying BOS and DCS , it is more a question of getting the maximum out of the games for as long as possible for a minimum of money. That is the relevant question in BOS and DCS community.

 

So my question is.

 

A Ryzen 1700 + gtx 1070 GPU would do for VR in DCS and BOS better than a Intel 4.0 ghz with the same GPU or at least about the same for less money?

 

And thank you for the review

If that is an old 920 or 930 your running, those are golden they more often than not OC happily to 3.8 ghz with a an ok air cooler. So if your considering VR, read up on OC:ing that old thing and if successful get yourself a 1070. You'll end up with enough performance to enjoy il2 in VR without turning off all eye-candy, even on a busy multiplayer server. Asw will kick in when close to the ground but not long enough to ruin the experience. I currently run that exact rig so this is not speculation.

 

The 2.8ghz/3.8 ghz difference is very noticeable in il2 VR, with many planes nearby. Having the hud enabled will significantly lower performance though.

 

I know pairing a 1070 with such an old cpu/motherboard is not ideal. But for il2 it works. so upgrading it all, although better, would not be as cost effective.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/4oiba9/gigabyte_gtx_1070_g1_benchmarked_on_6_year_old_pc/

 

Not a VR benchmark but still worth a skim through.

Edited May 19, 2017 by a_radek

[=VARP=Cygann]

I have yet to see the software that justify more then 4 cores (8 threads in parallel execution). Marketing is one thing, current needs another.

 

I do wish to see performance increase per core until software changes in a way to truly utilize 16 cores and whatever is Intel/AMD PR going to dish out soon as 'must have'.

 

Making software that truly does things in parallel (do not mix with simple async) introduces all sorts of synchronization and thread safety issues making many tasks to run slower then they would have on a single thread. My point, when building gaming rig, stick to the best cost-performance/core CPU. 99% of gamers won't need to worry about number of cores for a long time (probably, I can't predict future, obviously, in order to back this claim with certainty).

 

Bottom line, don't pick by brand, definitely not by marketing, or even 'enthusiasm' of those that payed big money for something (those will always praise it, alternative is to feel bad about their spend), just pay attention do the various tests for various sources and then calculate in your real needs along with money in your pocket and make your decision from that.

[Gambit21]

 

Bottom line, don't pick by brand, definitely not by marketing, or even 'enthusiasm' of those that payed big money for something (those will always praise it, alternative is to feel bad about their spend), just pay attention do the various tests for various sources and then calculate in your real needs along with money in your pocket and make your decision from that.

Well then we're exactly the same.

 

If you haven't seen software that takes advantage of all those cores, then you're not using 3D software such as Cinema, Blender etc.

I think you just mean "I haven't seen a game which justifies more than 4 cores" which is a much narrower perspective and completely different.

Thanks for the info Gambit. Good to get an opinion from a respected community member.

 

How does BOS scale across the cores? Does it utilise more than 4? And is it maxing out all used cores? I'd consider the 8 core 16 thread chips for my next build if BOS scales well.

 

I like to believe that addition AI planes in BOS will scale well with increased cores counts.

 

Regards

 

Albino

Honestly I doubt it's maximizing/coded to maximize all those cores, but I haven't run CPUID or similar while BoS is running yet.

It's when I hit the render button in Blender or Cinema that all those cores go to work and make the Intel chip look silly.

 

If you're just a gamer, you have nothing to lose by going with Intel right now except perhaps your upgrade path, and possible performance in future games.

That one remains to be seen. See video above.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Gambit21

[Albino]

Cheers for the AdoredTV YouTube link Gambit. Fascinating to watch!

 

I'm not in the market for a rig for a few more years, perhaps when VR Gen2 is out

 

Albino

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

32 cores on single chip is nothing new, Intel and others had it build years ago and was utilized for many professional applications. But as for home PC (prise) there were no need for that horsepowers. Thanks to overall progress and that high end computing technology finally is being adopted in mass market Pc's, today home grown graphics amators/students can have hardware and tools to do they job at home PC in practical means - which is great as can sell or express your creativity broadly.

[ZachariasX]

32 cores on single chip

 

Four chips on a single module, actually. It helps keeping yield rate up. 32 core, 64 threads is something Intel comes up only now with the alleged Skylake ‘Purley’ flagship. And that you can buy CPUs of that kind now for much less than new Mercedes is also new.

 

But yes, since the Westmere and SandyBridge types they offered more than a dozen cores. Since 2012ish basically. But that was far, far away from the realms of the more "casual" user. And that is about to change today. Finally. We will use these cores same as we used the 2nd, the 3rd and the 4th.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

In 2012 SPARC T5 had 16 cores with 8 threads per core on single chip.

[ZachariasX]

In 2012 SPARC T5 had 16 cores with 8 threads per core on single chip.

These were cool indeed. But as said, those were far, far away from the dektop. "FPGA far" from the desktop. Like the IBM Power 7 and 7+ in 2010 and 2012. Today, you can expect a lot more computing power for your desktop than those delivered. I think AMD made a smart move to use four dies instead of one huge die, as it makes the chip module (that's what it basically is) much cheaper.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

 

 

These were cool indeed. But as said, those were far, far away from the dektop. "FPGA far" from the desktop. Like the IBM Power 7 and 7+ in 2010 and 2012. Today, you can expect a lot more computing power for your desktop than those delivered. I think AMD made a smart move to use four dies instead of one huge die, as it makes the chip module (that's what it basically is) much cheaper.

 

Of Course never argue about it or didn't have different opinion :-)

[ZachariasX]

Of Course never argue about it or didn't have different opinion :-)

I guess it's more than good enough for me that there are very interessting producs coming up. Thank God for the new competition delivered by AMD. Finally. It's just good news for us consumers what is happening now.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

I have yet to see the software that justify more then 4 cores (8 threads in parallel execution). Marketing is one thing, current needs another.

There are games that already take advantage of that: https://imgur.com/a/s7Img#RuPbBGH

It's not big but I dont think one should expect any bigger, CPU simply is not a limiting factor this days. It's most of the time about the gpu.  

[CanadaOne]

Aside from the idea that "more is more and more is better", what is the "realistic" sweet spot for a CPU/core count to run BOS?

 

The question assumes you have a 1060 range video card or better, and are playing at 1080p.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

4 is enough but much important is clock.

[CanadaOne]

4 is enough but much important is clock.

 

Will BOS use all four - or more - if available?

[ZachariasX]

There are games that already take advantage of that: https://imgur.com/a/s7Img#RuPbBGH

It's not big but I dont think one should expect any bigger, CPU simply is not a limiting factor this days. It's most of the time about the gpu.

 

Depends. In my experience, for instance in P3D you can see the balance between CPU and GPU load. When logging their respective loads, you can see when going lower over dense sceneries (ORBX are notorius for that) how you CPU core running the fiber thread is maxed out while the GPU even might start to clock down. This CPU core basically defines your max FPS as it is very easy to max it out with exagerated settings. Using large, highest res. textures and high screen resolution will put the limiting load on your GPU. You can switch to windowed mode and scale your window in flight sn check FPS. As you make the window smaller, FPS go up until the CPU has become the bottleneck. Then making the window smaller even more will give you no more FPS. With normal settings but lots of nice textures, you can expect *on average* that a 1080 will be on balance with a high clocked 4 core i7. You need to balance CPU and GPU. If one is high end, so should be the other.

[BeastyBaiter]

Will BOS use all four - or more - if available?

 

Don't think so, but you have to remember there are about 50 other things also running while playing BoS or any other game. This is on a "clean" windows system not running a firewall or virus protection. BoS will use 4 threads, having only 4 threads means that BoS, Windows, TrackIR, controllers, steam and so on all have to share. Obviously that cuts into BoS's and any other game's performance. Prime example is patch Tuesday, this is traditionally when every Windows machine on the planet auto updates. Try playing a game then with an I5. If it has any serious CPU load, your fps will tank. On my I5-4690, Fallout 4 is totally unplayable during a windows, steam or game update. I mention this as I've mostly been playing FO4 lately, but it applies to most games I play, including BoS.

 

If your system is running more than 4 cores/threads, then you can have 4 of them assigned to just the game and let everything else share the other cores/threads. The result is better real world performance despite a slightly inferior theoretical single thread performance. My next system will have no less than 6 physical cores and 12 threads for that reason.

[ZachariasX]

There are games that already take advantage of that: https://imgur.com/a/s7Img#RuPbBGH

It's not big but I dont think one should expect any bigger, CPU simply is not a limiting factor this days. It's most of the time about the gpu.  

Would be nice to see how they did it with clock speeds. I'm guessing they just activated cores for the respective game and top clock speeds are the same when actvating more cores. If they did it such, then it becomes clear that after 4 cores/8 threads CPUs become inefficiant as max clock speeds start to drop in order to keep thermal power within limits. 15 % higher clock speeds of the 4 core CPU equal a 6 core CPU. It means you pay a lot more for hardly any added FPS. In this sense, these charts would be misleading then.

 

If you look at Intel's offerings, you can see that the highest clocked CPU's can't reasonably be used for dual GPU (that should be a requirement for the label "high end"), as that would require 32 PCIe 3.0 lanes. But then you are still missing some for your m.2 SSD's. In this sense, Intel does not have any reasonable high end gaming offerings anymore. It has suitable and fast solutions if you're fine with 4 cores/8 threads and a single GPU. If you need more, you'll be spending almost 10x as much only to get a questionable real world increase of performance due to the much lower clock speeds of the 10+ core CPUs that feature 44 PCIe lanes.

 

Thankfully, AMD doesn't neuter their CPUs in that fashion. I wouldn't be surprised if they blew Intel right out of the water performance whise, especially with the Epyc variant of the Ryzen. If you care to learn more about Intels upcoming blessings in the flavor of the i9 and their Optane drives, you can read here:

http://semiaccurate.com/2017/05/30/intel-announces-x-series-without-details/

[C6_lefuneste]

A small improvement with the recent bios update.

I'm running the 1700 @ 3.8ghz on the stock cooler with some headroom left I think if I wanted to get more aggressive about it.

 

Can you give us some fps numbers ? How many fps did you gain with the Rizen in BoS ?

Edited May 31, 2017 by lefuneste

[Livai]

Can you give us some fps numbers ? How many fps did you gain with the Rizen in BoS ?

 

Here from someone who running the Ryzen System (1800x + FuryX)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8JFU62S3Y

 

 

Will BOS use all four - or more - if available?

 

Yes, you can see it at 3:50 above looking the video. Han, said the game is multithread based!

 

4 is enough but much important is clock.

 

Not according to Han. He said:

 

BoS is a multithread game.

 

This answer makes clear that the game use multi-threaded rendering. Short said: " Not only the clock matters "

 

Edited May 31, 2017 by Livai

[Gambit21]

Can you give us some fps numbers ? How many fps did you gain with the Rizen in BoS ?

 

Aside from the fact that it wipes the floor with my i5 (or an i7 7700k for that matter) in Blender, Cinema and other work related tasks...

I have a new 4k IPS panel @ 60hz. So I'm banging up against that 60fps on that monitor with this processor and GTX 1080...which is perfect.

 

BoX is not something that stresses the processor much in my experience, in fact games in general do not.

I think people that only game with their PC's have an unrealistic understanding of what 'stressing a processor' means.

Do 3 or 4 hour, or better yet overnight render in a 3D program...now you that processor is really under load.

Games...pffttt. Not so much.

[KpaxBos]

 

 

This answer makes clear that the game use multi-threaded rendering. Short said: " Not only the clock matters "

 

Mutli-thread in programing does not imply a real use of mutl-core cpu.

BUT not only the clock matters is a truth

 

Have fun

[BeastyBaiter]

Well you can manually tell windows to give a program only 1 CPU core or CPU thread and have that program put all application threads it creates onto that single CPU thread. But that's not how the system is intended to be used and you have to go out of your way to do it. Back on topic, I think I'll pull the trigger on a new system. The limitations of my old I5-4690 are really starting to grate on me (can't play games while updating other games, some hardware issues with the Mobo (can't reboot, only hard shut down) and other odds and ends). Currently have the following in my newegg shopping cart, any suggestions are welcome. Do keep in mind I'm on a budget though, this setup is $865 USD, including a $25 discount for getting the CPU, Mobo and RAM as a combo deal.

 

CPU: R5 1600X (plan to do a 4.0GHz clock on all cores all the time, hence the X model since it effectively guarantees this is possible)

CPU Cooler: Deepcool GAMMAXX 400 (https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835856005)

Mobo: MSI B350 Tomahawk (https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813144018)

RAM: G.Skill TridentZ RGB PC3400 (https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232476) This item is on MSI's QVL list for the Tomahawk, supposedly works out of box at 3200.

Main Drive: Samsung 960 EVO 500GB NVME (https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147594)

OS: Win 10 Home

GPU: Reusing MSI RX480 8GB Gaming X

PSU: Reusing Corsair RM750X

Other: Arctic Silver thermal paste

 

My current system is:

CPU: I5-4690 (3.5-3.9GHz)

RAM: DDR3 PC2400

Mobo: Biostar Z87X

Main drive: Crucial 256GB SSD (SATA 3)

OS: Win 10

GPU: RX480 obviously

 

I plan to move the 256GB SSD to my laptop, since 5400 RPM laptop HDD's are pure torture. The rest will be sold or trashed.

Edited June 2, 2017 by BeastyBaiter

[CanadaOne]

Nerd porn.

 

And I'm all for it...

 

[ZachariasX]

[...]  Currently have the following in my newegg shopping cart, any suggestions are welcome. Do keep in mind I'm on a budget though, this setup is $865 USD, including a $25 discount for getting the CPU, Mobo and RAM as a combo deal.

 

CPU: R5 1600X (plan to do a 4.0GHz clock on all cores all the time, hence the X model since it effectively guarantees this is possible)

CPU Cooler: Deepcool GAMMAXX 400 (https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835856005)

Mobo: MSI B350 Tomahawk (https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813144018)

RAM: G.Skill TridentZ RGB PC3400 (https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232476) This item is on MSI's QVL list for the Tomahawk, supposedly works out of box at 3200.

Main Drive: Samsung 960 EVO 500GB NVME (https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147594)

OS: Win 10 Home

GPU: Reusing MSI RX480 8GB Gaming X

PSU: Reusing Corsair RM750X

Other: Arctic Silver thermal paste

 

My current system is:

CPU: I5-4690 (3.5-3.9GHz)

RAM: DDR3 PC2400

Mobo: Biostar Z87X

Main drive: Crucial 256GB SSD (SATA 3)

OS: Win 10

GPU: RX480 obviously

 

I plan to move the 256GB SSD to my laptop, since 5400 RPM laptop HDD's are pure torture. The rest will be sold or trashed.

A reasonable system (just for single GPU) as an upgrade. I'm not sure though that you would notice much difference in everyday use. If you notice something, then it will be most likely due to the faster SSD. Also not sure if you get more FPS in BoX, as your current CPU will hardly be maxed. You will certainly notice the difference when peforming CPU intensive tasks like video and 3D rendering.

 

If you want to make your system "feel" fast, invest primarily in fast storage. Look for CPUs that have dedicated PCIe lanes besides the ones reserved for the GPU and do not hook them up on the bottlenecked chipset that has a mere 4x PCIe 3.0 for everything that it hooks up to the CPU. This puts Socket 1151 in a clear place with only 16 lanes for the GPU and then an equivalent of 4x PCIe3.0 for all storage, USB, Network...  High clocked CPUs help for high FPS, this is true, but for the entire rest, the top 20% or so cock speed is meaningless.

 

But a lot is happening in the market as we speak. AMD just anounced their Ryzen Threadripper with Socket TR4 and 4 DDR4 Channes, along with 64 PCIe lanes from the CPU. Good enough for quad SLI with x16 PCIe 3.0 GPU connection.

[CanadaOne]

A reasonable system (just for single GPU) as an upgrade. I'm not sure though that you would notice much difference in everyday use. If you notice something, then it will be most likely due to the faster SSD.

 

If you want to make your system "feel" fast, invest primarily in fast storage.

 

 

I put a 250GB Samsung 850 EVO in my prehistoric rig and it definitely brought it up a level. $150 well spent.

[BeastyBaiter]

A reasonable system (just for single GPU) as an upgrade. I'm not sure though that you would notice much difference in everyday use. If you notice something, then it will be most likely due to the faster SSD. Also not sure if you get more FPS in BoX, as your current CPU will hardly be maxed. You will certainly notice the difference when peforming CPU intensive tasks like video and 3D rendering.

 

If you want to make your system "feel" fast, invest primarily in fast storage. Look for CPUs that have dedicated PCIe lanes besides the ones reserved for the GPU and do not hook them up on the bottlenecked chipset that has a mere 4x PCIe 3.0 for everything that it hooks up to the CPU. This puts Socket 1151 in a clear place with only 16 lanes for the GPU and then an equivalent of 4x PCIe3.0 for all storage, USB, Network...  High clocked CPUs help for high FPS, this is true, but for the entire rest, the top 20% or so cock speed is meaningless.

 

But a lot is happening in the market as we speak. AMD just anounced their Ryzen Threadripper with Socket TR4 and 4 DDR4 Channes, along with 64 PCIe lanes from the CPU. Good enough for quad SLI with x16 PCIe 3.0 GPU connection.

 

The update isn't for BoS (BoS runs flawlessly as is), it's for other games where I constantly smash into a CPU wall at 100% CPU usage with 40% GPU usage and FPS in the 30's. This happens in the majority of games I currently play in certain areas/situations. The I5 just can't keep up with my RX 480. I could get an I7-7700k instead, but buying 33% less CPU at $100 greater price just rubs me the wrong way. I also do a lot of non-gaming stuff which will take full advantage of the extra cores, threads and cache offered by the R5-1600x.

[ZachariasX]

The update isn't for BoS (BoS runs flawlessly as is), it's for other games where I constantly smash into a CPU wall at 100% CPU usage with 40% GPU usage and FPS in the 30's. This happens in the majority of games I currently play in certain areas/situations. The I5 just can't keep up with my RX 480. I could get an I7-7700k instead, but buying 33% less CPU at $100 greater price just rubs me the wrong way. I also do a lot of non-gaming stuff which will take full advantage of the extra cores, threads and cache offered by the R5-1600x.

The 1600X is a great choice if you're on a tighter budget and is definitely a big step up from your current one. But as sims use a ton of peripherals, why not go for a 370 mainboard instead of your 350? One tends to use every plug avialable and USB hubs are an invitation for trouble often enough.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Zacharias is right, consider getting X370 rather than B350. Why ? You plan to overclock to 4.0 Ghz, those B350 motherboards will let you do that but they dont have all that much power phases and what is more they do not have sufficiently built heatsinks, there is plenty of materials all over the net where people have shown how high temperatures can power phases reach on motherboards.