Changing i7 4930K to R7 1700X

-Sapphire-

Prominent
May 9, 2017
7
0
510
Greetings!

I'm planning to upgrade my current system and thinking about r7 1700x.

Current system specs

CPU: i7 4930k
RAM: 16GB 1866MHz
Storage: 256 GB Samsung 850 Pro,180 GB Intel 520, 2x640GB HDD, 2X1Tb HDD
Video: GTX 1060 6GB

Main usage scenarios for this build are:

Development in Visual Studio (very large projects) building,deploing e.t.c
CAD applications like AutoCad 2017
3D modeling in Blender and 3D MAX
Virtualization platfom via VMWare Workstation for old PLC (Programmable logic device) IDEs in Windows XP and other systems for development purposes (Linux,Windows Server)
Gaming sometimes

Will I get any performance boost in my usage scenarios with this upgrade? Does upgrading to Ryzen from 2011 worth the money?

 
Solution
Ryzen's individual cores are not much faster than your 4930K's (maybe 10%?) but you'd be getting 33% more cores too. I'm not familiar with how well-threaded all of these are, but here is a semi-educated guess:

Visual studio - it will depend on what compiler you're using. Many are still single-threaded and will leave Ryzen's extra cores unused.

AutoCad - as I understand, it is largely not multithreaded, and a dual core would (in most cases) do just as well as an 8-core CPU for this.

Blender / 3D MAX - both of these scale very well with extra cores.

VMWare - depends on how many VM's you're running, but it's a good idea to have a real core for each one.

Gaming - Will benefit more from Ryzen's slightly better performance per...
Ryzen's individual cores are not much faster than your 4930K's (maybe 10%?) but you'd be getting 33% more cores too. I'm not familiar with how well-threaded all of these are, but here is a semi-educated guess:

Visual studio - it will depend on what compiler you're using. Many are still single-threaded and will leave Ryzen's extra cores unused.

AutoCad - as I understand, it is largely not multithreaded, and a dual core would (in most cases) do just as well as an 8-core CPU for this.

Blender / 3D MAX - both of these scale very well with extra cores.

VMWare - depends on how many VM's you're running, but it's a good idea to have a real core for each one.

Gaming - Will benefit more from Ryzen's slightly better performance per clock than the extra cores. Games are only recently starting to make effective use of more than 4 threads (8 being about the sweet spot), so moving from 12 to 16 would make little difference.

However, if storage performance is important to you, you'd now have the option of using fast M.2 SSDs, which can exceed the throughput allowed by SATA by several times.

If you didn't use Blender or 3D MAX, an i7 7700K would seem a far superior option, but at least some of what you do would take advantage of Ryzen's extra threads.
 
Solution


Faster is the wrong term,in fact the cores are much slower at executing commands,they do have a larger number of commands available per core though for parallel number crunching.
Ryzen5-Dolphin.png
 


Faster is exactly the right word. Multiple independent testing shows Ryzen to be somewhere between Haswell (4th gen) and Broadwell (5th gen) performance per clock for most things. Dolphin is an outlier because it can use Intel's 256-bit AVX2 instructions - Ryzen's AVX pipeline is only half as wide as Intel's.

clock-cb15-1.png


clock-cb15-2.png


Ryzen's problem is that it doesn't clock as high as Intel's more recent chips, but its default clockspeeds are very similar to the OP's 4930K's.

85880.png


85881.png
 

YoAndy

Reputable
Jan 27, 2017
1,277
2
5,665
The big difference here is that the i7 7700k hits past 5ghz and is the fastest quad core processor in the world and Ryzen only overclocks to 4ghz

Intel core i7 24,780 User Benchmarks
Best Bench: 123% Base clock 4.2 GHz, turbo 5.1 GHz (avg)
Worst Bench: 89% Base clock 4.2 GHz, turbo 2.15 GHz (avg)
SPEED RANK: 1st / 956 processors
Gaming
Gaming 100% UFO
Desktop
Desktop 100% UFO
Workstation
Workstation 74% Battleship

Ryzen 2,611 User Benchmarks
Best Bench: 101% Base clock 3.75 GHz, turbo 3.75 GHz (avg)
Worst Bench: 77% Base clock 3.4 GHz, turbo 3.45 GHz (avg)
SPEED RANK: 13th / 956
Gaming
Gaming 88% Aircraft carrier
Desktop
Desktop 87% Aircraft carrier
Workstation
Workstation 97% Nuclear submarine
 

Gon Freecss

Reputable
Apr 28, 2015
448
0
4,810
You're wrong. Ryzen's gaming performance is Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge level on average. His Ivy Bridge-E chip would be faster than an identically configured Ryzen chip at the same clock-speeds at gaming. Also, to add to this, the i7-4930K clocks up to 4.4-4.6GHz on average. The average 1700X clocks up to 3.8-4.0GHz on average.

When it comes to computing performance, Ryzen goes from Ivy Bridge to Haswell level on average. So there's that.
 

-Sapphire-

Prominent
May 9, 2017
7
0
510


Hm.. Does 4930k and X79 platform capable of using NVMe SSD via PCI x4 cards? Or it's only for newer chipsets?

 

Spring1898

Prominent
Apr 24, 2017
61
0
660
It seems like a very subjective upgrade at this point. You may gain performance in some areas but may lose it in others.

Unless the added speed of NVME M.2's is that important to you, the gains of a system wide upgrade would be more pronounced after the next cycle from Intel and Ryzen, Skylake X and Zen2.
If it was me, I would wait for the next generation and save for an extra nice build.

The other option is upgrading to Ryzen now (I would go with the 1700 to save money and simply overclock it to 4ghz) and upgrade the processor when Zen2 is released (which is in theory supposed to be compatible with the same motherboards as Zen1, and even if not, Zen motherboards are not terribly expensive)