add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube
cocacobra
  • 19 months ago

Hello,

I've recently started streaming a little and I want better quality and to be able to play games without CPU maxing at 100% while streaming. My CPU is 6 years old and to be fair I can still play AAA titles on medium and sometimes on high so shoutout to AMD FX8350 that thing's a beast. I'm trying to keep it relatively low cost, so most bang for my buck is nice but I want the option to upgrade further in the future Heres current build https://pcpartpicker.com/list/4mrbRJ Heres the new one I'm thinking of https://pcpartpicker.com/list/vp2sV6

I was also looking into hardware streaming encoders but they seem a tad out of the price range. I don't have an extra PC laying around to do a capture card sort of thing, but I mean I guess I could make a whole new one and use my current one for that. Don't think that would be cost effective. Let me know what you guys think.

Comments

  • 19 months ago
  • 2 points

Sounds good but the new AMD processors run better with faster memory. You will also need to get a AM4 bracket to use the hyper 212 about 10 bucks on Ebay.

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/MYH48d/corsair-memory-cmk16gx4m2b3000c15

  • 19 months ago
  • 1 point

Is there a noticeable difference? I've read that speeds on RAM are almost negligible but I guess a 600mhz jump could be significant. Can you elaborate?

  • 19 months ago
  • 1 point

Depends on if the extra performance is worth the small amount more for the memory. https://tekeverything.com/ryzen-ram-test-2400mhz-vs-3000mhz/

  • 19 months ago
  • 1 point

Interesting! The question now becomes $20 worth a consistent 4fps. If I go with the 2400mhz now, the mobo will default to the slower speed if I get 3000mhz later correct? So if I go with the cheap ones now and I want to upgrade later it would only make sense to get the 2400mhz.

  • 19 months ago
  • 2 points

Sure, you can buy slow memory now and toss it / sell it later. You wouldn't want to mix old and new, of course, since the combo runs at the speed of the slowest.

You might even be able to push the 2400 sticks a notch or two in clock rate; you won't get 3000 but you might get close to 2666 or something if you're lucky.

  • 19 months ago
  • 2 points

It will always default to the lower speed. You will need to use manual entries or XMP profiles.

Buying 2400 now then upgrading to 3000 really don't make good since.

If your fairly PC savey then you can overclock the 2400 memory probably to 2933 with voltage increase and timing changes.

  • 19 months ago
  • 2 points

I don’t advocate starting slow but sometimes cash flow is king.

  • 19 months ago
  • 1 point

Both right I might just separate with the cash so I can have the opportunity to add 2 more higher speed sticks later on if necessary. Maybe even just one who knows!

  • 19 months ago
  • 1 point

Any thoughts on switching the r7 1700x to r5 2600, save like a hundred bucks and have comparable (if not better) CPU. Benchmarks seems to favor 1700x a tiny bit but it doesn't look like real application supports that.

  • 19 months ago
  • 2 points

the r7 1700 is plug and play for streaming, if you use a r5 2600 or 1600 you'll need to do a little configuring what programs are using however many cores.

  • 19 months ago
  • 1 point

I thought I knew a decent amount about computers but how on earth do you assign what programs use which cores? Got a link? Thanks for the help

  • 19 months ago
  • 2 points

Google for processor affinity Windows 10. Unless the program itself supports some sort of CPU affinity setting, it's something that you would have to do each time you run the program.

My gut inclination without doing more research is that you would likely be better off with the 1700. Wait a generation, save some cash, and upgrade it to whatever 8-core Zen 2 comes out in a year or so.

  • 19 months ago
  • 1 point

Wouldn't the programs automatically use as much from a CPU as needed and if one core hits 100% shouldn't it auto select the next core? I just watched a video and it's neat that you can do that. Probably should put OBS on the last 4 cores

If I'm going to wait a year to upgrade why would I spend the extra $80 bucks on a processor that I'm going to only use for a year? Not trying to be rude just doesn't seem logical to me.

[comment deleted]
  • 19 months ago
  • 1 point

Just as kschendel mentioned processor affinity mate, it’s the same with intel and a 8700K you need to do a little core juggling but I know from experience the 1700 is just plug in and away you go. I have a R7 1700, my mrs has a R5 1600 and my work pc is a threadripper 1920X (don’t buy one for gaming it’s a waste) and when she streams she needs to do some core management, when I do I just turn it on.

  • 19 months ago
  • 1 point

I actually tried this and still couldn't stream for example Overwatch on low. Which I thought was weird considering I can stream monster hunter world better than OW. I have no idea why but when I stream using videocard the quality just goes to the trashcan. I'm guessing it has to do with drivers/weaker gpu.

  • 19 months ago
  • 2 points

Honestly streaming is weird sometimes, without actually being there and doing some testing I wouldn't even like to attempt to guess at the problem. If you want to run gaming and streaming off one system like I said throw a R7 1700 in and don't use Nvenc to render use your cpu it will run bob on, or as you said in op use your existng system as a stream box just throw in a HD60 pro and you're off to the races.

[comment deleted]
  • 19 months ago
  • 1 point

It is annoying OBS does what it pleases.

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
  • 19 months ago
  • 1 point

A micro ATX board looks dinky in a full tower and the 1700X has better performance not the even talk about the 2 less cores. For streaming that will be a huge performance hit.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-2600-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X/620vs3915

[comment deleted]
  • 19 months ago
  • 1 point

I don't know what the choice is here. I feel like the jump in performance from Ryzen 5 2600 to 1700x just isnt worth the price difference at all. Surely I'd get more benefit by putting that money to a different use. I am not overclocking anything, I usually avoid it. I like ATX size because installation is easier and more slots the better imo. Plus I'd rather have ATX for the 20 extra bucks.

[comment deleted]
  • 19 months ago
  • 1 point

Agreed, I like it when people are flexible with their recommendations!

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube