Upgrade FX8320 tips?

[Deleted member 178884]

Just because a new processor comes out doesn't mean you have to buy it. And subsequently, have to buy a new motherboard for it. You would be a fool to upgrade that frequently.




Grow up.

You grow up, Stop throwing puny insults and back your evidence, Your clearly a fanboy and butt-hurt because your 8600k got crushed in price to performance and angry your chipset is about to be thrown in the bin - You can't upgrade to a 8700k because the performance difference is small

As mentioned previously, I don't upgrade my main PC too often because of the prices down here in Argentina, but when there's an economic window we all grab the chance. The RX580 for example, which I bought in December, has now doubled in price.
Anyway, I'm going for the Ryzen 2600X because I only upgrade every five years or so and it's worth going for the extra oomph as well, since I only go to the UK every two years.
Newegg is considerably cheaper than Novatech.
AMD RYZEN 5 2600X 6-Core 3.6 GHz (4.2 GHz Max Boost) Socket AM4 95W YD260XBCAFBOX Desktop Processor
ASUS ROG Strix X470-F Gaming AM4 AMD X470 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.1 HDMI ATX AMD Motherboard
Either
CORSAIR Vengeance RGB Pro 16GB (2 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3000 (PC4 24000) Desktop Memory Model CMW16GX4M2C3000C15
Or (depending on QVL)
HyperX Predator 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4 3000 RAM (Desktop Memory) CL15 XMP Black DIMM (288-Pin) HX430C15PB3K2/16

If I have any spare cash I may go for a larger SSD to boot from too.The 250Gb Samsung EVO seems to fill up without me looking.

Great job OP, 10/10 for choice and ignore the anti - ryzen fanboys.

Can you not offer reasonable arguments without resorting to ad hominem?



Sounds fair go for it.

You've clearly never seen this, Ryzen is better and that's that. The only reason I go with intel is because of single core performance - Hence the 7740x purchase as my turn-based games obliterate anything without massive single core performance.

PM me Vario - Explain how you can spend less on a power supply because your cpu uses 11watts less under full load? - Telling me to grow up and you've provided no further explanation upon this, Feel free to message me.

Can you not offer reasonable arguments without resorting to ad hominem?

Well go and call Ryzen users idiots for upgrading to ryzen 2? You seem to be clueless and offer no valid arguments which is sad really. Stop fanboying a brand and getting someone to jump onto a dead chipset which is only 1-10fps ahead - The OP can't afford to waste money and fools like you are misinforming him - As long as he achieves 60fps minimum it doesn't matter, Your reported for misinformation.

 

[Splinterdog]

No one is giving out misinformation as far as I'm concerned and we all come on here to get a kind of consensus, together with opinions from other sources, throw it all in the mixer and make a decision.
It's not a light decision when choosing a combo (essentially a new build from AM3 to AM4) for around £500, especially when I intend it to last three or four years.
It's a lot of money, yet the general view from the many sources I've looked at, is that my upgrade from an FX8320, dare I say mid-range, is to a Ryzen 2600 (2600X in my case).
I'm not a fanboy of Intel or AMD, but generally speaking, when the budget is tight, it's AMD over Intel or Nvidia.
In this case, not only am I getting a CPU at a good price,but also a powerful one with a certain amount of future proofing.
I'm not the least concerned by a few FPS here or there, but if I can achieve a steady 60 in my favourite games at high or even ultra at a push, where the eye probably doesn't even notice much of a difference anyway, I'll be perfectly content.

 

[Tatty_Two]

@Xx Tek Tip xX I think he told you to "Grow up" because of your Intel fanboi comment, for me you make some good arguments, however you need to take a deep breath and take a step back, you are at the virtual equivalent of "nose to nose" and it rarely ends well so I will insert a door lock to this thread for you.

 

[eidairaman1]

@Xx Tek Tip xX I think he told you to "Grow up" because of your Intel fanboi comment, for me you make some good arguments, however you need to take a deep breath and take a step back, you are at the virtual equivalent of "nose to nose" and it rarely ends well so I will insert a door lock to this thread for you.

Nose to nose someone gets headbutted lol.

Anyways vote with your wallet is all I can say.

 

[RealNeil]

No one is giving out misinformation as far as I'm concerned and we all come on here to get a kind of consensus, together with opinions from other sources, throw it all in the mixer and make a decision.

It's kind of a collective hive intelligence with all of us participating. I really enjoy the back and forth too.

I think that you'll like the parts that you've chosen.

 

[Splinterdog]

It's kind of a collective hive intelligence with all of us participating. I really enjoy the back and forth too.

I think that you'll like the parts that you've chosen.

Yeah, roll on August and striding out of Heathrow.

 

[RichF]

DDR5 has come up at least twice to justify buying an Intel platform.

DDR5 is rumored to focus more on power efficiency (targeting the server market) and, by the time it's mature, DDR4 will have had plenty of time to be fully optimized (hopefully, with a return to sane pricing). I would not worry, at all, about DDR5 at this point unless you're looking into purchasing servers. Even if DDR5 is decent enough it will likely take a long time to be priced well and have enough performance (versus latency) to make it compelling.

The socket "upgrade" issue on Intel is the bigger issue.

 

[Splinterdog]

DDR5 has come up at least twice to justify buying an Intel platform.

The socket "upgrade" issue on Intel is the bigger issue.

Maybe one day Intel will dump those awful push pins that started with LGA 775.
Of all the machines I've fixed over the last fifteen years, it's always been the push pins that have caused me problems. Not so with AMD sockets which simply couldn't be easier.
I absolutely loathe those push pins.

 

[Vario]

Well I took my own advice and bought a i5 8400 for $135 and a Z370 Extreme 4 for $129.99. It was just too cheap to pass up.

 

[jormungand]

My last rig was a fx8350, cant say that was bad but neither that was great, i was on a tight budget too, but after reading so much about ryzen 1st gen ram bios stuff and more i decided to go intel, even knowing that the socket changes like baby pampers, but my main purpose is gaming. Waited for a nice deal at newegg and grabbed what i have now for $600 including ghost recon wildlands( cpu+mobo+ram). No regrets here going back to intel. Anyway do your own research and decide by yourself and yourself alone, is your money. I could have been right now blaming myself for choosing ryzen. But i got what i wanted and payed for.

 

[AlwaysHope]

As a first gen ryzen owner, definitely grab the second gen - the improved boost clocks make manual overclocking almost pointless, while keeping wattages much lower

Unless you're going for 144hz refresh rates in demanding games, a 2nd gen ryzen will be more than enough, with upgradability built in for CPU's for a few more years

Edit: as for AM3+ performance, oh god was it terrible. I'd take a sandy bridge over AM3/3+ any day, despite the AMD boards often having better features.

Gaming @ 1080P/60Hz single monitor has been good enough for my needs & with value for money wise, high end mobos from Asus are most OC friendly AM3+ boards ever created. World record for highest clockspeed x86 chip established on Asus board with FX-8350!

https://rog.asus.com/articles/overclocking/8-79ghz-fx-8350-is-the-fastest-ever-cpu/

That's what I call bang for your buck!

Just because a new processor comes out doesn't mean you have to buy it. And subsequently, have to buy a new motherboard for it. You would be a fool to upgrade that frequently.

Grow up.

Well said, depreciation in value with cutting edge x86 desktop market is understated. They drip feed tech to enthusiasts, & most of us just suck it up like sheeple. There are other priorities in life like putting a roof over one's head.. etc.. but that' just my opinion.

 

[las]

For 60 fps/Hz gaming it does not matter much (altho higher fps means lower input lag).
For 120-240fps/Hz gaming the i5-8600K is going to pull ahead, in some games by a good margin. Even when compared to 2700X at 4.2 GHz on all cores.
i5-8600K at ~5 GHz is going to be alot faster.

Even i5-8400 beats 2700X in pretty much all games. Again, if you're CPU limited.

Performance/value-wise, I'd go B350/B450 + 2600X. Or 2600 if you wants to OC. I would not cheap out and buy 1st gen Ryzen because from my experience high memory speed is much harder to optain on 1st gen compared to refresh chips. I'd go for 3200/CL14 mem.

Notice the CPU performs better with 6 cores and 6 threads.

HT ON clearly wins in BF1. Depends on game. HT/SMT is not a must for gaming tho.
If you're streaming, using voicecom or doing stuff while gaming, you'll see the benefit.
HT will help going forward.

Look at 2500K vs 2600K in games today. Or 6600K/7600K vs 6700K/7700K. HT saves the day for quads. No HT means alot lower avg fps and way more fps dips.

I have alot worse performance in newer and demanding games when I disable HT on my 6700K @ 5 GHz.
Same thing will happen for the hexa i5's over time. Around 2020 we'll see next gen consoles with at least 8 Zen cores and I expect games to instantly be more multithreaded.

 

[Vayra86]

Was going to quote and respond to a lot of the comments here but for once I'll let it slide

Great choice OP you won't be dissappointed... ignore the 'Intel better for gaming' nonsense, because that only matters at high refresh these days. With Ryzen 1 you could still make the case for Intel but with Ryzen 2 and its improved XFR, you really can't. Ryzen just offers a lot more bang, OC's to the limit out of the box, and seems faster clock-for-clock than Intel in quite a few games nowadays.

Intel really only has one spot in the gaming world and that is when you go for an overclock and want the highest min. FPS numbers you can get on a (very) fast GPU. Clearly a different niche and many people completely forgot about that across 3 pages.

 

[GlacierNine]

Maybe one day Intel will dump those awful push pins that started with LGA 775.
Of all the machines I've fixed over the last fifteen years, it's always been the push pins that have caused me problems. Not so with AMD sockets which simply couldn't be easier.
I absolutely loathe those push pins.

1 - They're LGA sockets, they don't have pins. They have sprung contacts.

2 - The reason you've never fixed an AMD socket is because it's the CPUs that get damaged in a PGA socket. I assure you, plenty of PGA CPUs have died as a result of damaged pins.

3 - More to the point - A PGA CPU in it's packaging must be handled with a great deal more care than an LGA CPU in it's packaging. An LGA motherboard is easier to damage than a PGA motherboard, but it's less likely to meet any kind of force or be dropped in the first place, because it's a much larger physical object. An included plastic cover on any LGA motherboard also easily protects against damage to the contacts.

LGA is not a whole heap better than PGA, but for consumer use, LGA makes far more sense to use. Especially given things like thermal paste drying out and forming a "glue". There's a reason enthusiasts sooner or later end up learning about the "AMD Wiggle".

 

[Vya Domus]

The socket type is literally the last thing one should worry about.

 

[eidairaman1]

1 - They're LGA sockets, they don't have pins. They have sprung contacts.

2 - The reason you've never fixed an AMD socket is because it's the CPUs that get damaged in a PGA socket. I assure you, plenty of PGA CPUs have died as a result of damaged pins.

3 - More to the point - A PGA CPU in it's packaging must be handled with a great deal more care than an LGA CPU in it's packaging. An LGA motherboard is easier to damage than a PGA motherboard, but it's less likely to meet any kind of force or be dropped in the first place, because it's a much larger physical object. An included plastic cover on any LGA motherboard also easily protects against damage to the contacts.

LGA is not a whole heap better than PGA, but for consumer use, LGA makes far more sense to use. Especially given things like thermal paste drying out and forming a "glue". There's a reason enthusiasts sooner or later end up learning about the "AMD Wiggle".

Blow dryer and twist method, intel 423, 478 suffered from damaged pins due to the cheap compound they used on their stock hsf.

By the way he was talking about the stupid mounting method intel went with for lga parts.

The socket type is literally the last thing one should worry about.

Considering Advanced Micro Devices had been using lga for skt C32/G34 and I believe skt 1207. It is just now getting to us via TR4/SP3r2.

 

[Splinterdog]

1 - They're LGA sockets, they don't have pins. They have sprung contacts.

2 - The reason you've never fixed an AMD socket is because it's the CPUs that get damaged in a PGA socket. I assure you, plenty of PGA CPUs have died as a result of damaged pins.

3 - More to the point - A PGA CPU in it's packaging must be handled with a great deal more care than an LGA CPU in it's packaging. An LGA motherboard is easier to damage than a PGA motherboard, but it's less likely to meet any kind of force or be dropped in the first place, because it's a much larger physical object. An included plastic cover on any LGA motherboard also easily protects against damage to the contacts.

LGA is not a whole heap better than PGA, but for consumer use, LGA makes far more sense to use. Especially given things like thermal paste drying out and forming a "glue". There's a reason enthusiasts sooner or later end up learning about the "AMD Wiggle".

I wasn't talking about the pins in the socket, but the heatsink fixing push-pins.
Maybe this picture will help clarify what I was moaning about.

 

[GlacierNine]

I wasn't talking about the pins in the socket, but the heatsink fixing push-pins.
Maybe this picture will help clarify what I was moaning about.
View attachment 103920

Oh, right.

Yeah those are garbage.

 

[Splinterdog]

Gaming @ 1080P/60Hz single monitor has been good enough for my needs & with value for money wise, high end mobos from Asus are most OC friendly AM3+ boards ever created. World record for highest clockspeed x86 chip established on Asus board with FX-8350!

https://rog.asus.com/articles/overclocking/8-79ghz-fx-8350-is-the-fastest-ever-cpu/

That's what I call bang for your buck!





Well said, depreciation in value with cutting edge x86 desktop market is understated. They drip feed tech to enthusiasts, & most of us just suck it up like sheeple. There are other priorities in life like putting a roof over one's head.. etc.. but that' just my opinion.

If you've got the disposable income, then why not?
On the other hand, upgrading from AM3 to AM4 is an expensive business because you have to change three key components - CPU, motherboard and RAM - which isn't something most of us can afford to do every year at around £500 for this upgrade.
Anyway, I expect this Ryzen upgrade to last me at least three to four years and if anything, I'd probably upgrade the GPU later, although I'm perfectly happy with the RX580 for now.

 

[Vario]

I wasn't talking about the pins in the socket, but the heatsink fixing push-pins.
Maybe this picture will help clarify what I was moaning about.
View attachment 103920

Much hatred for those. They often do not exert enough pressure. Usually you get one install with them before they are worthless. For this i5 8400 I built a few days ago, I just used my old PHTC12DX instead.

If you've got the disposable income, then why not?
On the other hand, upgrading from AM3 to AM4 is an expensive business because you have to change three key components - CPU, motherboard and RAM - which isn't something most of us can afford to do every year at around £500 for this upgrade.
Anyway, I expect this Ryzen upgrade to last me at least three to four years and if anything, I'd probably upgrade the GPU later, although I'm perfectly happy with the RX580 for now.

That is a reasonable time frame, might be more like 5-6 years if you upgrade the graphics card midway through.

 

[Splinterdog]

Much hatred for those. They often do not exert enough pressure. Usually you get one install with them before they are worthless. For this i5 8400 I built a few days ago, I just used my old PHTC12DX instead.



That is a reasonable time frame, might be more like 5-6 years if you upgrade the graphics card midway through.

Agreed, which highlights the argument of getting the best you can afford during a major upgrade. I think for most of us, a GPU upgrade come much more often that CPU/mobo.
My most significant upgrade of recent years was in 2010 when I upgraded from a Pentium 4 3.2Ghz to a Phenom II x 4 965 and the GPU from a Leadtek Winfast 6800GT (AGP) to a Sapphire 5770.
That was a big bump, leading to a Sapphire 9750, MSI GTX 970 (one hell of a card!) and now the RX580.

Much hatred for those. They often do not exert enough pressure. Usually you get one install with them before they are worthless. For this i5 8400 I built a few days ago, I just used my old PHTC12DX instead.

I've always found them hit and miss, but when those pins break...
A nice backplate bracket and some solid fixings for an after-market cooler is the best route to take.
On my other rig, the Phenom 965 (although it's not Intel socket) I'm using a Cooler Master V6 which even in 35c ambient, never lets me down.
It's a very dusty garage

 

[Splinterdog]

If I were you, I wouldn't bother with locked i5s.
Either go with 8600K or 2600X. It all comes down to your budget. If you played CSGO I would suggest to get Intel, but since that's not the case it's up to you.
Just bare in mind that with AM4 you at least get one more generation of upgrades (Ryzen 3000 and possibly 4000), while with Intel you get the slight possibility of upgrade, but most likely not.

I'm trying to see the benefits of Ryzen 2600X over 2600, but the general consensus seems to be that there's very little for the £50 difference in price which I could put to good use on something else.
Sorry for the double post

 

[kurosagi01]

Not sure if you ordered yet but if you're based in UK have you seen this deal?
Going by the discussion you're looking at amd.
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/amd-...-group-ram-free-240gb-ssd-bu-01f-am.html#t=a1

 

[cucker tarlson]

Not sure if you ordered yet but if you're based in UK have you seen this deal?
Going by the discussion you're looking at amd.
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/amd-...-group-ram-free-240gb-ssd-bu-01f-am.html#t=a1

with current ssd prices, this entry level ssd is not anything special. he'd better get a proper ssd if he needs one.

 

[newtekie1]

I wasn't talking about the pins in the socket, but the heatsink fixing push-pins.
Maybe this picture will help clarify what I was moaning about.
View attachment 103920

After building a few AM4 systems, I actually prefer Intel's push pins to AMD's system. The push pins are easy to install, and they work. The only down fall to the push pins is when you have to remove the heatsink after it has been on installed for a long period of time. It is almost impossible to re-use the cooler, because the white parts stay spread out and won't go back through the holes in the motherboard very easily.

Having to remove part of the mounting mechanism to put on the stock cooler is more a pain than the push pins ever were.

I'm trying to see the benefits of Ryzen 2600X over 2600, but the general consensus seems to be that there's very little for the £50 difference in price which I could put to good use on something else.
Sorry for the double post

IMO, the 2600X isn't worth the cost over the standard 2600. This is especially true if you are overclocking. But even at stock, the 2600X is less than 2% faster than the 2600 in games @1080p.

I'd save the money and put it into DDR4-3200 instead of the DDR4-3000.