Upgrading from 3770k to X299 (7820X) - what do you think?

H

Havik

New member
Hi guys! First post here so, hello!

I've been trying to get advice on this for a little while using r/buildapc and things but every post I make just gets flooded with 'it sux get ryzen' over and over. Which is lovely and all but not very constructive or useful ... and from looking around here, it seems you guys are a bit more level headed :D

I'm moving on from a 3770k rig and my primary uses are gaming, streaming (hobby), video production/rendering (work) and programming (work).

For these reasons I've been looking for high clock speeds and a good core count. My original idea was to go for the 7820X but I decided to wait and see how TR was and honestly, I found it a bit disappointing. Sure it's amazing at multi-treaded stuff but the gaming side of it is rather average (not that I expected anything else, but I had hoped for a miracle!).

So that throws me back towards X299. The higher clock speeds and IPC give it that gaming edge. The 3770k is still a beasty gaming CPU (Mines 4.8GHz with an aio comfortably) so I want to make sure I'm upgrading that experience.

And in walks the 7820X. I was looking at the 7900X too but the £400 difference is rather large and I'm not sure I can justify that really. The lower PCI-E lanes (28) doesn't really bother me that much - I don't plan on ever going SLI so 16x is all I need for the GPU. Leaving me more than enough for one or two M.2 drives (correct me if I'm wrong here!). 8 cores 16 threads should be more than enough for gaming + streaming with a good frame rate. I have a G-Sync 3440x1440 widescreen so like my juicy frames.

I have a GTX 1080 + a load of SSDs/HDDs + EVGA 850 Supernova PSU + Phantex Enthoo Evolv that will be coming across, so with that in mind, this is what I am planning on purchasing: Screenshot of purchase list from overclockers

Couldn't find all the parts on pcpartpicker hence the screenshot from overclockers.co.uk wishlist. Hope that is alright :D

There is a slightly faster SSD for another £150 but for the 200mb/s increase in read/write that doesn't seem worth it. Seems more a case of they're just the top top top chips so they charge a premium for them if you reeeaally want them.

As for the RAM - there are also slightly faster kits but is that really necessary? I'm coming from the old times where RAM speed doesn't really effect things that much. I've heard mixed things about DDR4.

I'm off out to a BBQ for the next few hours so won't be around to reply quickly - but I'll be back later and interested to know your thoughts! If I missed anything or you want any more info - let me know.

Thanks in advance, see you later ^_^
 
The reason people keep telling you to go Ryzen is because that is where all of the value is. Yes, Intel still make some fast chips that clock high but they represent appalling value for money. The fastest gaming CPU is still the 7700k. However, you also mention video production and rendering, and that is where Ryzen shines. So it's not surprising people are telling you to go Ryzen.

Unfortunately you are going to be pretty much told the same thing here, get a Ryzen 1700.

It's not just other forums, or us, or reviewers, this is a worldwide thing. Going Intel means you are prepared to pay too much money for the performance.

Also, at the resolution you game at there will be a 5FPS difference or so. If you were on 1080p or even 1440p then yes, I could understand, but if your 3770k is still good enough it's because of your resolution. You are almost guaranteed to be GPU bound at that resolution with a 1080.

If you want to go Intel that's fine of course. It's your money and you need to be happy with what you buy, but just know it's pretty crazy to pay that for an 8 core CPU when you can get one for around £300 that will only have a slight clock speed defacit and because the Ryzen has better "HT" (it's actually called SMT but it's better than HT) you won't lose that much.
 
Havik said:
I have a G-Sync 3440x1440 widescreen so like my juicy frames.
Click to expand...
When looking at reviews, forget about 1080p gaming, with that monitor the gaming results between AMD and Intel is much less. And with alle these ned CPUs cumming with a lot of cores, the games will also shift to support the cores.

The problem is, that most reviews is 1080p gaming, cus that is where you se a difference. It makes no sense to bench 1440p, cus they will all be more or less the same, as the limiting factor is the GPU. But if you don't know this fact, it look like intel will be the better option.

And if you are a 1080p gamer, the 7700k is the fastest option, but the ryzen 1700 would make more sense.
In your case look at what you need for rendering, and pick from that.
I would go 1700 or get a threadripper depending on that kind op money you want to spend :)
 
Like the others have said, at 1440P, all but about 3 or 4 games will see any difference between the Intel and Ryzen platform. And as new games are released, you will probably going to see better performance on the Ryzen system due to the core count and superior hyper threading. You could probably also do well with a 1600X with 6 cores if you wanted to save money for other items to put in the system.
 
Hilariously a couple of those games benched were faster on Ryzen, thanks to the SMT over HT.

Honestly mate if you are looking to spend a king's ransom on a CPU board and ram (which you are) then aim higher up the stack. A reviewer pointed out yesterday that "Yes, the 1950x is expensive, but you won't be replacing it for ten years or more".

So yes, if you are dead set Intel I would be ready to invest. But even that is dangerous, because we haven't seen the response to Threadripper yet. And it could well involve drops on the lower end chips like you are looking at.

Intel have to do something. They are beaten.
 
Difference here has been that you guys are giving actual responses with reasoning and thoughts - so I appreciate that, thanks! I was literally just getting replies of 'just get Ryzen loool' to my questions (I was asking about PCI-E lane differences, cooling, all that kinda stuff to help me make an informed decision). I know Ryzen is better value for money - hence why I've been looking at it. But those fanboy comments don't help anybody (and they'll just jump back over to Intel when Intel hit back and then back to AMD again after etc etc).

Aaaannnnnnnyway...

AlienALX/Korreborg/BigDaddykong: Gaming wise. I actually play my competitive FPS games in 1080p since I don't like to move my head much and like everything in a small space in-front of me. But use the full resolution for other things (Witcher/Metro/CoH etc). I've been finding the FPS in games to be 'alright' with the 3770k in this 1080p res - (currently I mostly play PUBG which isn't the most optimized thing in the world so that probably has more of an effect than anything else).

I'd like quad channel memory really which limits me to x299 and x399 and the option go to 8+/10+ core in the future (either later TR or i9 chips from this year or later years if the sockets carry over. I know TR is going for 4 years which isn't bad). The price difference drops a lot when looking at TR vs i9, motherboards are basically the same price between them both and power consumption is a lot closer (TR is higher on paper but ... that's on paper).

Price for price, looking at the 7900x and the 1950x, the 7900x is on par with the 7700k in most games for performance and not that far behind the 1950x in multi-threaded applications (Due to its higher clocks and IPC I assume). This is one of the reasons that put me back on the fence a bit. I don't mind sacrificing some cores for 10 more FPS in games (considering MT performance isn't that wildly different). Gaming is a big part of my life so naturally I favour that side more, but still need that MT stuff for work :<

As for budget stuff (should have mentioned this in the first post sorry!), I'm not too limited. I'm focusing more on pure performance than price/performance which is why I've been checking out the 7820X. It's not THAT absurdly priced compared to the TR parts (the 8 core TR will be the same price as the 7820X assuming the $550 rumoured. I'm in the UK so we end up paying a lot more for tech stuff than in the US annoyingly. 7820X is $600 in the US, but £550 in the UK!).

So, assuming that pricing is correct (previous ones have been), it means I'll pay basically the same for an 8 core TR or Skylake-X system, and in that case the Skylake-X should be better. The next step up is the 1920X / 7900X. 7900X is faster in most benchmarks but costs me an extra £200, so I can save £200 by going 1920X but I lose out in single core and most multi-threaded applications + it actually uses more power than the 7900x, probably because it's got 2 more cores to power. Meaning I could skip the 1920X and spend the same as 7900X, still lose on single core stuff but mostly win on MT. This would basically put the whole thing down to a simple 'do I want more focus on SC or MC', since everything else in roughly the same.

Which makes me wonder if going 7900X/1950X rather than 7820X/1900X isn't a bad idea? Since price difference/performance wise it's still not that much .

Sorry for the essays - I'm just trying to make a good decision here and I don't think it's as clear cut at the 'top top top' end as it is at the 'top top' end. Ryzen 7 vs i7 I think is pretty clear cut - go Ryzen. But with TR/Skylake-X.. I'm not sure.

I'm not too bothered about 'future proofing' beyond 4/5 years as I tend to upgrade every 4/5 years anyway since I like to refresh things and PC stuff is another hobby of mine. Hence the upgrade now, I'm just over 5 years!

And yeah, I'd like to wait and see if Intel drops their prices at all as they genuinely may do, but I've already been waiting/looking into this for a good few weeks so I'm starting to bounce around on my chair. I'd like to make a final decision today/tomorrow if I can. Regardless of if I go 7820X or 1900X, or 7900X/1950X, it'll be a good upgrade from my current system and I'll be happy with it.

(This post may sound like I'm defending Intel and not AMD, but that's because I feel most people are currently on the AMD hype-train so overlook the negatives when it comes to Ryzen/TR but take note and mention all of the Skylake-X ones. So I feel it's only fair if I try and bring everything I've found to the table. Info I've found from my own research though so, I could easily be wrong :p )
 
1. Going 1080p on that monitor = You need to get a kick to the nuts :nutkick:
:rollinglaugh:
In PUBG you can get a better field of view ;)

2. I don't get the 10fps remark. You game on a G-sync monitor, and unless you are gaming professionally 120 or 140 fps won't make a difference (Or even 140 vs 200).
The important point is, that until the start of this year, everything gaming related was max 4 cores/8 treads.
Now its 6/8 core+ = The game developers will start to go in that direction. PUBG next update (or the resent one) will bring 6+ core support, so it has already started.
Just look at the Cinebench score to se the potential for a difference, as things get optimized.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9JR_v-4BaQ

3. the prices look insane right now, i think its just the retailers trying to make money on the first movers :D Personally im waiting on the i7-8700k, to see its performance. 6 core/12 tread and 4GHz+ clocks looks pretty nice :)
 
I was struggling to think of a second word so just threw 'thoughts' in there... experience is a much better one :P

1080p is because I can't run the game at native with high settings (I got fed up of playing on low and having it look crap). I play in 1080p windowed so just have discord/obs etc in the other parts of the screen, so it's not a total waste :)

The other reason for going 16:9 is the streaming/recording. More people complain than like a 21:9 stream/video due to the letterboxing. So I just took a hit and switched to playing in 16:9.

The 10FPS remark is mostly just because I like numbers. Gaming is my 'more important' thing on the PC so I look for the biggest numbers there. Not exactly rational, but I can't help it! (I'm also top 30 solo rank in EU and NA and top 20 duo in EU so, maybe I will go professional once a proper regular comp scene starts ;) )

I've just watched some videos/reviews on the 7820X after some bios changes and it's gained even more frames on the TR's - and reduces heat issues (although that VRM stuff was blown waaaay out of proportion and caused by a completely non-standard use case).

I've watched that video about 3 times ha. My past week has consisted of me pretty much watching/reading review after review over and over again just hoping I'd have an epiphany telling me what to do. Spoiler: It never came.

Yeah the 8700k will be interesting. I can't see it beating the 7700k in games though due to it being 6 core (And the PC Mark 8700k results seem to suggest this is the case - although who knows how accurate those are). If they can grab 7700k+ performance out of 6 cores though then they'll 100% be on to a winner.

I think I'll grab the 7820X though ... it's going to beat the 1900X clearly from looking at how it compares to the others and that's only £50 cheaper. There's never a good time to upgrade after all, can't wait forever...

...but, I'll sleep on it first just incase :D
 
Didn't get that your were a "massive" streamer :) I dont think the 7820x is a bad choice :) But what about getting a nice gaming rig, and use you current rig as a stream box.
Even a 7900x will take a FPS hit for streaming a game, so in this way you can isolate the gaming, so you have the best possible "experience" :D
 
I'm by no means a massive streamer haha! But I try to keep people happy from the start :D I ended up grabbing the 7820X today. A dedicated streaming PC is something I've been wondering about but I'd like to try doing it with one machine first if I can. Just less things to worry about (+ then I can sell my 3770k rig to get some money back). Will just have to test and see what is best :)

Thanks for the replies and input! Here's to hoping it works out ok :D
 
If you are gaming at 1440P or above then Ryzen makes sense as the gaming performance in the majority of things is on par with a 7700K and in some instances better, In some games at 1080P Ryzen also surpasses a 7700K but you need high speed memory for this and the workload type situations is up there with X99/X299.

Much better value for money than Intel AND you can simply replace the chip with Zen2 when AMD bring it out and reuse your motherboard, Something Intel generally don't do.

WAZYgsM.png


IsewU9q.png
 
Cast aside the rhetoric, Dicehunter.
I can tell you form experience having upgraded from a top end 6700k/msi z170 titanium to 7800x/ msi x299 gaming 7 thats its made a discernible difference to minumum frame rates. I`m getting a constant butterly smoooth 80-85 fps with no dips on rainbow six at 3440 x 1440p. With my 6700k I would get dips to 45 fps.
A nice 20-50% even distribution amongst 6 cores.
 
kully1972 said:
Cast aside the rhetoric, Dicehunter.
I can tell you form experience having upgraded from a top end 6700k/msi z170 titanium to 7800x/ msi x299 gaming 7 thats its made a discernible difference to minumum frame rates. I`m getting a constant butterly smoooth 80-85 fps with no dips on rainbow six at 3440 x 1440p. With my 6700k I would get dips to 45 fps.
A nice 20-50% even distribution amongst 6 cores.
Click to expand...

What rhetoric ? Performance is performance, I don't care if it's team red, Green or blue, I go for numbers not brands when it comes to CPU's.

The 1800X has been shown to equal a 6900K in gaming, that alone made it an attractive proposition to me not even mentioning the multi core performance for rendering etc...

VH8UchZ.jpg
 
kully1972 said:
Who is going to be playing at 720/1080p in a high end machine?...meaningless numbers
Click to expand...

Epic Facepalm......... ^_^

The reason CPU's are benchmarked at such a low resolution is so that the GPU is pretty much taken out of the equation, As you go higher in resolution the CPU becomes less of the "bottleneck" so to say, And more of the workload is put on the GPU, That's why you can pair a 1080 Ti, 4K monitor and a non Hyperthreaded quad core like an R3-1200 and see roughly the same results had you paired that setup with a 10 core when running games at 4K, For example, A 6950X and R3-1200, Both running games at 4K, The performance is pretty close at that resolution -

7TIbF2I.png
 
Last edited:
Yes I know its engineered to bottleneck CPU but this begs the question in the real world with high end res/ cards does it really make any difference?
All Im saying is the x299 chipset is a solid choice for gaming as far as im concerned.
 
kully1972 said:
Yes I know its engineered to bottleneck CPU but this begs the question in the real world with high end res/ cards does it really make any difference?
All Im saying is the x299 chipset is a solid choice for gaming as far as im concerned.
Click to expand...

No one is saying that the X299 chipset wouldn't be good for gaming ^_^

OP asked a question and I provided a viable alternate choice, Simplez, Mountain out of a molehill :p
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Advise on my proposed build please
Replies
4
Views
445
AlienALX
AlienALX
Dicehunter
Health issue
Replies
8
Views
181
NeverBackDown
N
AlienALX
Building my dream N64. More in depth than you would think (and me !)
Replies
11
Views
1K
AlienALX
AlienALX
P
Do some people never learn from the past?
Replies
2
Views
759
Pugsport
P
R
New Monitor Recommendations
Replies
5
Views
542
RobCharles1981
R
Back
Top