how much better is this cpu compared to mine

[kaitlin4599]

so currently i run an X5675 overclocked to 4.41Ghz alongside a 1660Ti and 48gb ram if i upgraded to say a ryzen 2600x at stock speeds how much better would the ryzen cpu be in games currently i play assassins creed odyssey and average 80fps with most things on low and or medium with AA low or off if set to high or ultra i average 20-40fps

dont wanna upgrade if it isnt gonna net me performance gains in games when compared to my X5675 i do play other games as well

 

[Alaric]

Probably not enough to make the investment in mobo, CPU, and DDR4 anywhere close to worthwhile financially. I could be wrong, so I'm open to correction.

 

[caddi daddi]

knowing the resolution of your monitor would help also.

 

[kaitlin4599]

knowing the resolution of your monitor would help also.

1280x1024

 

[UltraTaco]

There are plenty of benchmarks around for that particular set up, besides, playing high or ultra + AA, you'll be more gpu bound anyways, and that 1660ti doesn't have much power to do 100+ fps. I doubt you'll benefit from faster cpu. Maybe minimum dips will be a little higher than what you have with x5675

You're right in the ballpark with that card's max capability, regardless of cpu.

View attachment 206786

 

[Zerileous]

Just to clarify, 1080P is not 1280x1024. Maybe invest in a new monitor instead?

 

[EarthDog]

1280x1024

A very cpu bound res if it is truly that low.... a new cpu would benefit a lot. That current cpu, though it's a 4.4, is a shed load slower than a 9 year newer ryzen 3

There are plenty of benchmarks around for that particular set up, besides, playing high or ultra + AA, you'll be more gpu bound anyways, and that 1660ti doesn't have much power to do 100+ fps. I doubt you'll benefit from faster cpu. Maybe minimum dips will be a little higher than what you have with x5675

You're right in the ballpark with that card's max capability, regardless of cpu.

killing me...

She's at a lower res and not reaching the fps listed taco...

 

[ShrimpBrime]

A very cpu bound res if it is truly that low.... a new cpu would benefit a lot. That current cpu, though it's a 4.4, is a shed load slower than a 9 year newer ryzen 3

I figure might get double the FPS with a system upgrade on that 1660ti.
Saw significant gains with my brothers GTX 980 from his 1366 monster space heater to my rig 2700X.

Then some one grabs the conversation on the bottle neck.

 

[UltraTaco]

ED, it's obviously a 5x4 ratio she mentioned. Nowadays most benchmarks are 16x9. 1080 is not that far off. It's not like she's running 720p. Besides, she's averaging 20-40, it's a little on the lower side, but close enough..

 

[bignazpwns]

I mean you will see some gains....But at what cost. cpu, mobo, memory. Is it going to be really worth the price?

 

[kaitlin4599]

I mean you will see some gains....But at what cost. cpu, mobo, memory. Is it going to be really worth the price?

bignaz considering the fact that my computer just crashed while sitting at a 5% idle watching a youtube video yes it will be worth it

 

[ShrimpBrime]

bignaz considering the fact that my computer just crashed while sitting at a 5% idle watching a youtube video yes it will be worth it

Depending on the board you have, you'll be upgrading the Sata and USB also.

 

[bignazpwns]

Consider the 3600? They are the same price and the 3600 for the money is an amazing CPU. If I was picking between the 2700x and the 3600 I would go with the 3600.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Consider the 3600? They are the same price and the 3600 for the money is an amazing CPU. If I was picking between the 2700x and the 3600 I would go with the 3600.

I think there's a big core count difference, that's the thinking on that one.

2700X is a fine processor though. No complaints from me. However I did buy it at the beginning of the year....

 

[bignazpwns]

I think there's a big core count difference, that's the thinking on that one.

2700X is a fine processor though. No complaints from me. However I did buy it at the beginning of the year....

Even in multicore the 3600 is not that much slower. Some benchmarks I see the 3600 is very close and others it's slightly faster. But single core the 3600 blows past it. And the 3600 is not as sensitive to memory speed.


Same price 3600 all day long I won't even think about it. But if you can get the 2700x on sale. Only way I would consider a 2700x is if I'm on the used market and I can pick one up for $130 or lower.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Comparing to what she's running now, we've also talked her into a much needed monitor upgrade.
It seems the core count to price difference may be a better choice for some people? Sacrifice 12% per core IPC for the gain in thread count.

Really is a tough choice for people on budgets, and then finding out other hardware on the system needs upgrades too.....
That's her choice, I think we've shown her the differences. Kaitlin must choose to her needs and budget. If she's willing to sacrifice a few percent for thread gains, more power to her. That's where I'm sitting.

Even if she got a 2600X, it will be a vast improvement over the current hardware.

 

[kaitlin4599]

Comparing to what she's running now, we've also talked her into a much needed monitor upgrade.
It seems the core count to price difference may be a better choice for some people? Sacrifice 12% per core IPC for the gain in thread count.

Really is a tough choice for people on budgets, and then finding out other hardware on the system needs upgrades too.....
That's her choice, I think we've shown her the differences. Kaitlin must choose to her needs and budget. If she's willing to sacrifice a few percent for thread gains, more power to her. That's where I'm sitting.

Even if she got a 2600X, it will be a vast improvement over the current hardware.

i agree any cpu would be better then my X5675 i can always upgrade in a few years

 

[EarthDog]

ED, it's obviously a 5x4 ratio she mentioned. Nowadays most benchmarks are 16x9. 1080 is not that far off. It's not like she's running 720p. Besides, she's averaging 20-40, it's a little on the lower side, but close enough..

No, it isn't.

Let's math...

1280x1024 = 1.3M pixels...
1920x1080 = 2.0M pixels

That's over 50% more pixels to render. If 50% is "not far off" and "close enough", I'm concerned who taught you math.

An average of 80 FPS between low and medium when that results shows between 97-143 FPS. Even if it was all medium and 17 FPS off... that's 17 FPS or over 21% improvement........... at minimum. If using the 143 number.......56% increase. So it will be somewhere between there.

 

[UltraTaco]

Well, it's been a few years, but you're right, there is little bit of difference. I stand corrected.

 

[kaitlin4599]

No, it isn't.

Let's math...

1280x1024 = 1.3M pixels...
1920x1080 = 2.0M pixels

That's over 50% more pixels to render. If 50% is "not far off" and "close enough", I'm concerned who taught you math.

An average of 80 FPS between low and medium when that results shows between 97-143 FPS. Even if it was all medium and 17 FPS off... that's 17 FPS or over 21% improvement........... at minimum. If using the 143 number.......56% increase. So it will be somewhere between there.

earthdog i have decided to go with a 3600 just nee dhelp picking out a decent mobo would a B450 tomahawk be ok?