Should I upgrade from an FX 8350 to an i7 7700k?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

semichaud1

Honorable
Aug 4, 2013
132
0
10,680
Hi,

I currently have an FX 8350 and GTX 1070 (and 16 GB of system RAM).

Based on my research online an i7 7700k has 75% higher performance than the FX 8350.

What do you think? Do you have a better suggestion that an i7 7700k?

In some games like Mass Effect Andromeda and Deus Ex Mankind Divided I get large frame rate dips (from 60 down to 10 fps) and microfreezing in Arkham Knight when moving around in the game world, despite running the games at default graphics settings and 1440p (or lower), and Windows power options on High Performance. So, I installed ParkControl on my PC two days ago and ran it as admin and maxed out all cpus at 100% and disabled the scaling frequencies etc. Andromeda and Mankind Divided run without fps drops now. Haven't tested Arkham Knight yet. The thing is my system meets the RECOMMENDED system requirements for these games so why the fps drops? It looks like windows or the bios is downscaling the cpu performance for some reason. Task manager performance shows all cores active at 50 to 60% when running those games. My PC is also dust free. I clean it every month.

Will buying a better cpu and an intel cpu instead of amd fix those fps drops in games for which my system meets the recommended requirements?

Thanks.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
J

jaslion

Splendid
Dec 17, 2012
6,425
0
22,160


Your fx 8350 has low single core performance and thats why it struggles in all those game. Don't go for a 7700k when you can get a ryzen (zen+ launches soon) or 8400/8600 of which both are better a better choice than the 7700.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
S

semichaud1

Honorable
Aug 4, 2013
132
0
10,680


Thanks for the reply! Which Ryzen cpu would you suggest? Something that will not bottleneck my GTX 1070.

The Ryzen 7 1800X is 65% faster than the FX 8350. But the i7 7700k is 75% faster and 30 pounds cheaper.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-vs-AMD-FX-8350/3916vs1489
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=i7+7700k
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=ryzen+7+1800x&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aryzen+7+1800x

Also, I thought modern games used more than one core. Why is a low single core performance relevant when it comes to my fps drops? Also when I game, task manager performance shows all cores active and running at around 60% and the graph does not show any spike.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
captaincharisma

captaincharisma

Glorious
Oct 13, 2004
10,963
76
45,290


most modern games are still working off one core but there are some that use 2

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
J

jaslion

Splendid
Dec 17, 2012
6,425
0
22,160


Well andromeda and divided are mostly quad core games. So your 8 cores are not being used. Also usually certain cores do certain things for the game and when lets say core 2 which calculates physics overloads the whole game chugs (therefore single core performance is important).

If task manager says 25% cpu activity for a dual core game but it's spread over multiple then it's still only using 2 cores just spread around all cores (this is happening more and more to have an even load if other applications need a certain core for something).

A 7700k isn't a smart buy since it gets outperformed by a i5 8600k. The z370 platform same as the ryzen platform has a future but the 100 and 200 series boards are at their end.

Unless you can get a 7700k + decent z270 board + decent cooler for cheaper than a 8600k + cooler + board (quite a bit cheaper thats what I mean here) then get the 7700 otherwise the 8600k is the way to go. Zen is getting a boosted refresh soon which should up their single core performance by a decent amount to almost match intels 8000 series again.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
13thmonkey

13thmonkey

Titan
Jan 10, 2006
24,798
350
75,790


Sorry, have to call that out as BS.
 
Upvote -1 Downvote
J

jaslion

Splendid
Dec 17, 2012
6,425
0
22,160


This is false quite a few already use 6+. 4 core useage became a very common sight a bit after the launch of the ps4 and xbox one.

Games just use core 1 more since this acts like a divider core. It controls all the core function and spreads other functions to other cores. This is already being worked away to make better use of the paralelization of cpu cores and therefore having less performance problems and being able to push graphics,physics, animations, particle effects, shadow calculations,... more.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

semichaud1

Honorable
Aug 4, 2013
132
0
10,680


I see, but looking at the minimum system requirements for Mass Effect Andromeda, for example, the minimum cpus that can run the game are a Core i5-3570 3.4GHz (4 cores, 4 threads) and FX-6350 (6 cores, 6 threads).

http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=5581&game=Mass%20Effect%20Andromeda

The funny thing is that the recommended cpu for Andromeda and Mankind Divided is the fx 8350 and I have an fx 8350 and get constant fps drops when moving around the game world. Were they using a magical fx 8350? Sorry, I'm a bit angry at those developers for listing the fx 8350 as THE recommended cpu and then the game runs like sh** when I actually use the same cpu they recommend, lol.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
J

jaslion

Splendid
Dec 17, 2012
6,425
0
22,160


They just put whatever they want there.
Like "the fx 8350 has an average fps of 50 but often drops to single digit framerates but then spikes up to the 70's again sir."
Other person: "good enough."

Or ok we tested it on an i7 3770 and it runs good. Whats the best the other side has? O an fx 8350. Eh that will probably run.

I always look at performance reviews first to see how it behaves since min and recommended specs are usually bs and we don't know what recommended gives us. They could've just been like ok with an core 2 duo and hd 3450 you can rung the game at 360*240 at 24 fps and that would be their recommended specs.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

semichaud1

Honorable
Aug 4, 2013
132
0
10,680


I did check the i5 8600k and it's only 6% faster than the i7 7700k. I'm factoring the price of the cpu + a motherboard. i5 8600k motherboard bundles are 100 pounds more expensive than i7 7700k bundles.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-8600K/3647vs3941
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=i7+7700k+motherboard+bundle&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Ai7+7700k+motherboard+bundle
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=i5+8600k+motherboard+bundle+no+ram&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Ai5+8600k+motherboard+bundle+no+ram
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

semichaud1

Honorable
Aug 4, 2013
132
0
10,680


Yes, I know. Thanks. I decided to only mention cpu here to make it more simple when discussing comparisons but in fact I am looking at bundles on Amazon when taking into account the total cost for my upgrade.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
13thmonkey

13thmonkey

Titan
Jan 10, 2006
24,798
350
75,790


We get a surprising number of people wanting to swap the CPU only, and then getting surprised into buying the rest of the system.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

semichaud1

Honorable
Aug 4, 2013
132
0
10,680


Lol, yes. I've thought about this a lot and have been wondering for the past year why bother spending money and upgrading because of the very issue you mention here. Also I would expect in a game that when you lower settings the game runs better. So, for example, in Andromeda the game auto-detect setting sets the graphics on ultra. I then play the game like this on default settings and it lags. I then lower the graphics settings from ultra to medium and restart the game and again the sharp fps drops are there. Lowering the resolution also does not improve this. You would think that lowering the settings would remove, or at least reduce the bad performance. But instead the drops are still there. The only difference is that in between drops the game runs at a higher fps. Lol. It's also the same thing in Mankind Divided and Arkham Knight. Witcher 3 runs like perfection though.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

semichaud1

Honorable
Aug 4, 2013
132
0
10,680


Lol. Yeah, I can imagine.

It's now my 7th build since 2009.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

semichaud1

Honorable
Aug 4, 2013
132
0
10,680


Yeah in that sense single core performance is a must, as well as the total number of cores.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
madmatt30

madmatt30

Titan
Ambassador
Jan 1, 2013
24,574
650
91,240
Ryzen 1600 (which is overclockable - I would honestly wait 4 or 5 weeka for the refresh chips thpugh) or an i5 8400 (which isn't but doesn't need to be) are your sensible goto options on a value aspect.

They're both massive upgrades over an fx cpu .

That said you ahould be able to frame lock at 50fps on virtually every game you mentioned which leads me to believe you have throttling issues.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

semichaud1

Honorable
Aug 4, 2013
132
0
10,680


I'm willing to spend more in order to future proof a bit more my build.

The i7 8700 is listed as the best overall choice for gaming in q1 2018.

I have had the fx 8350 for about four years and before that I also had an amd cpu. I'm a bit disappointed with amd cpus and would like to try an intel. Everyone seems to praise intel cpus. If intel can remove senseless fps drops in games that would be enough for me.

Regarding the throttling, why would it be happening? I clean my entire pc, monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers and external hdds every month. I use CompuCleaner which is an electrical blower. When I game I have no other programming running and I always deactivate as many start up programs as possible. Maybe thermal paste but I think the bios or windows is dynamically adjusting cpu performance. My bios settings are on default and windows power options are set to high performance. I downloaded ParkControl and it was showing frequency scaling DC set to 5%. I disabled the scaling and set it to 100%. This got rid of the fps drops. I just played Andromeda now and there is no fps drop. For now. Anyway, I think it's time to get a new cpu (with motherboard and ram). Will have to reinstall windows and all updates. A pain.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
J

jaslion

Splendid
Dec 17, 2012
6,425
0
22,160


Thats because of the weak cpu. If the cpu can't keep up the other parts can't perform to their fullest.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

semichaud1

Honorable
Aug 4, 2013
132
0
10,680


Makes sense. But how come on the ps4 the same game does not seem to do that. Consoles having weaker cpus than an fx 8350 can run those games without the fps dropping to 10. Yes, the game is programmed with console hardware in mind but surely the same game on pc does not require a cpu with a single core performance much higher than a console single core performance.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Supernova1138

Supernova1138

Illustrious
Mar 22, 2011
5,340
54
37,690


What motherboard do you have? The FX 8350 is very power hungry and as a result tends to throttle on the low end AM3+ boards eg. all MicroATX boards, all 760 chipset boards (Gigabyte GA-78LMT-USB3 being the only possible exception due to actually having heatsinked VRMs even then it's marginal sometimes it works okay sometimes not) and lower end 970 chipset boards, eg. ASRock 970 Extreme3, ASUS M5A97 LE. The FX 8350 wound up being pulled from the CPU support lists of a lot of these low end boards or had a note saying a top down blower cooler was required to provide extra cooling to the VRMs to try to prevent throttling.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

semichaud1

Honorable
Aug 4, 2013
132
0
10,680


I've got a M5A78L-M-USB3-ASUS-2101.

Quick update on that throttling situation: I went into the bios and set the ram frequency from auto to 1867 mhz, which is the corresponding frequency for my Fury HyperX ram sticks (2 x 8 gb). I've been playing Andromeda for an hour now and noticed that the fps drops were reduced by 98%. Meaning they are still there but: 1. they do not drop as low as 10 fps like before but only to around 25, and 2. they last a split second whereas before they lasted for 2 to 3 seconds. I'm no longer using ParkControl and my windows power options is still set to high performance.

I am very happy with these results. However, I still want to upgrade my cpu, motherboard and ram. I think the i7 7700k motherboard bundle is a good choice for me:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=i7+7700k+motherboard+bundle&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Ai7+7700k+motherboard+bundle

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-8600K/3647vs3941

But online they recommend pairing a i5-8400, Ryzen 5 1600 or i5-8600k with a gtx 1070, which is the gpu I currently have.

https://turbofuture.com/computers/Best-CPU-Graphics-Card-Combo-for-the-Money

The Ryzen 5 bundle is quite a good price:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/3-2Ghz-3-6Ghz-X370-PRO-Motherboard-Pre-Built/dp/B077NNFPBW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1517012790&sr=8-2&keywords=Ryzen+5+1600+motherboard+bundle

But I would not mind spending extra on the i7 7700k. The difference in performance between the i7 and i5 8600k (recommended as top cpu to pair with a gtx 1070) is only a 5% increase with the i5 but the bundle costs 100 pounds more!

What should I buy? The i7, i5, ryzen 5 or another cpu you recommend.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Supernova1138

Supernova1138

Illustrious
Mar 22, 2011
5,340
54
37,690
Well your motherboard is low end, so that's why you're getting framerate drops. It's probably not worth putting more money into AM3+ so if you can upgrade to something modern, it's best to do so. As for what to upgrade to, if you don't want to wait for the Ryzen refresh chips, then the Ryzen bundle you linked isn't too bad, and it would be cheaper than the Intel options. If you had a 144Hz monitor and were playing certain CPU heavy games, then getting the 8600k and overclocking it as high as possible might be worthwhile. For most other situations, it's not really worth spending a lot extra for an i5 8600k over an R5 1600. I wouldn't bother with the i7 7700k unless you can get it for really cheap, it's on a dead platform and 4 physical cores is now kind of on the low end these days, though it does have hyperthreading to make up for that a bit.

Do keep in mind the bundle does not include RAM, and since all modern platforms are DDR4 only, you will have to get new RAM, you can't carry your old sticks over. That's going to increase your costs by a fair bit as RAM is quite expensive right now and you really need 8GB of it at bare minimum, with 16GB being beneficial in some gaming scenarios, but often too expensive these days to be worth getting if you don't have the money to spare.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

semichaud1

Honorable
Aug 4, 2013
132
0
10,680


Thanks for the advice!

The funny thing is that my current motherboard was part of the bundle with the fx 8350 when I bought them from amazon a few years ago. Makes me question the bundles on amazon i'm looking at now. I will need to research the motherboard too then.

I'm a bit apprehensive now with amd cpus. I've always owned amd and i've always had problems when running games. Now whether those are attributable to amd cpus, i can't tell, but there is also the fact that it seems to me the majority of people online prefer intel cpus. I'm trusting that it's because they have had great performance from intel cpus. So I'm a bit apprehensive about buying the ryzen 5 bundle.

I've got a 2560x1440, 60 hz Acer pc monitor. I prefer gaming at highest graphics settings possible with a target of 50-60 fps at 1440p. That's why I got the gtx 1070. Because i read articles about how it's the sweet spot for 1440p 60 fps gaming since 2017.

Yes, I've noticed that the bundles don't include ram. I plan to research the ram once i'm decided on the cpu. I will also research the motherboard and make sure it's suitable for the cpu i'm buying. You were not kidding about the price of ddr4 rams, lol. I just checked on amazon and one 8 gb stick is close to 100 pounds. I plan to get at least a minimum of 16 gb. I thought ram slots were backwards compatible but i just checked online and indeed ddr4 is not backwards compatible.

At the moment, my salary is the highest it's ever been in my life and i'm living with my uncle's family for the next few months so i don't have to spend on rent. So now would be the time for me to buy the best cpu, motherboard and ram i can.

The ryzen 5 1600 does have 12 threads though. I also need to make sure i get a cpu with high single core performance, as i've been explained in this thread, so i can avoid fps drops in games. How is the single core performance of the ryzen 5?

This page (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-ryzen-5-1600-1600x-vs-core-i5-7500k-review) says:
"Across the titles tested, the majority show a stock i7 outperforming an overclocked i5. Single-core performance is still important but the takeaway is that more processing cores and threads trump frequency, with the majority of modern game engines favouring more than four cores. The rest of the review effectively writes itself then: what Ryzen 5 lacks in clocks, it makes up for with many more threads. Both Ryzen 5 1600 and 1600X have six full cores and 12 threads, available for the same ballpark money as the i5's basic four cores and four threads."

So apparently my issue in Andromeda or Arkham Knight is not due to the single core performance of my fx 8350 because games favour higher core count and threads instead of core frequency, according to that review.

Right now I'm leaning towards a ryzen 5 1600 because of the price of the bundle and the core and thread count but an i7 7700k or i5 8600k will give me higher perofmance according to comparisons i've looked at online.

Decisions, decisions.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Supernova1138

Supernova1138

Illustrious
Mar 22, 2011
5,340
54
37,690


The problem with the FX CPUs is still single core performance, partly because of your low end board causing throttling, partly because even when working properly, the FX CPUs per core performance was quite poor, and is only about half as fast as current Intel and AMD chips. It also doesn't help that the FX CPUs aren't really true 8/6/4 core CPUs due to shared resources in the design eg. each pair of cores shares a floating point unit. The FX 8350 really is more like a quad core with hyperthreading than an actual 8 core CPU. Bottom line is, even in a games with absolutely perfect scaling across all 8 'cores', the FX 8350 might only just barely match a modern 4 core 4 threaded chip like the R3 1200 or i3 8100, and most games don't offer that perfect scaling and thus perform worse than on those aforementioned CPUs.

AMD's current CPUs do have good enough single core performance to run games at 60FPS. Ryzen's gaming achilles heel is when you get into high refresh displays eg. 144Hz or 240Hz, and if you have one of those monitors Intel's higher per core performance does start to factor in more, if you have a high end GPU eg. GTX 1070 or better. When you're targeting very high framerates with a very fast GPU, Intel will offer better framerates, though how much better varies depending on game and the resolution you're running. Intel's big advantage in per core performance mostly comes from higher clockspeeds, Intel's unlocked chips can be overclocked up to around 5.0GHz, AMD's current chips cap out at 4.0GHz maximum, so AMD is at a 20% clockspeed disadvantage compared to Intel when overclocked and that combined with AMD doing a bit less work per clock cycle than Intel gives Intel the edge in per core performance. AMD counters this primarily by throwing more cores or threads onto their chips compared to similarly priced Intel chips, which helps more for productivity applications but less so for games.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom