And yeah, I am aware that I could save some money if I would go for last gen motherboard and CPU, with it being plenty good in particular for gaming. But around the mid-range, the price difference is usually not that big, and PCIe 5.0 for M.2 SSD is quite tempting to go for straight away.
I kind of doubt PCIe 5.0 is going to make much of a difference for gaming, or most other desktop usage scenarios, for that matter. At least for current games, any difference in load times is going to be imperceptible over a 4.0 or 3.0 NVMe drive, and even a SATA SSD will tend to perform rather similar. Maybe that will change as some games start to utilize SSD-focused asset loading, but I have doubts that a 5.0 drive would provide any significant gaming performance benefits over a 4.0 one anytime soon, as a game wouldn't sell if it performed poorly on the vast majority of modern gaming systems. And at least initially, I would expect 5.0 drives to carry a large price premium, where you would probably be better off spending the money on another drive with double the capacity instead, or putting it toward some other part of the system that will have a more direct impact on performance.
Also if the CPU runs at max temp @ stock already then where's the headroom for overclocking, I'm sick amd tired of Chip manufacturer pumping the wattage and temps to the absolute limit.
Overclocking CPUs is generally no longer all that practical. They tend to have so little overclocking headroom that any gains to be had will be imperceptible, and in many cases the processors will perform better in lightly-threaded workloads at stock settings. And that's a good thing. Power and temperature are now intelligently tracked across the processor using numerous sensors, and clock speeds and voltages are managed precisely to get the most out of the hardware while keeping everything within limits deemed safe by the manufacturer.
The manufacturer does not care about the consumers products' lifespan.
As a matter of fact, earlier upgrades/repairs -> higher profits.
You genuinely can't put faith in companies doing the right thing, you just can't.
Just from an ewaste and logical perspective, running at lower than 85C will certainly not decrease the processors lifespan.
Again, take into consideration that other components will also run at much higher temps. It wouldn't be surprising to find out that VRM clocking at 115C which would be shy just 5C of the avg max. temp.
You do you people, but there's a good reason why people don't recommend approx. > 85C.
You rarely hear about CPUs failing under normal use. They are probably one of the most durable components in a system. And if there were reports of widespread processor failures, obviously that would look bad on the company and affect future sales, so it would be something they would want to avoid.
And any existing temperature limit recommendations are based on older hardware that generally didn't have such fine-tuned tracking and control of temperatures and voltages across the processor.
The number of people who need a faster CPU or a high end GPU has to be really limited by now.
Other than professionals that actually save time/money on a CPU/GPU intensive task, who is really in the market for a new PC at the moment?
There is a limited market for people who spend 5000$ a year on PCs so they can brag about running games with extreme RTX settings when the same games look great at high settings/low RTX.
This is going to affect AMD/Intel/NVidia profits.
Intel fans needing a significant bump in performance have had good options with Alder Lake and DDR4 boards for a year now.
Most people won't even notice the difference from 13th gen, even if it is theoretically much faster.
AMD fans have had cheap upgrades to Ryzen 3000 and Ryzen 5000 for three years now.
Most people won't notice the difference between a Ryzen 3600 and a 7950.
There were significant increases from Ryzen 1xxx and 2xxx and 3xxx/5xxx in real world situations, but anyone needing an upgrade probably jumped on 5600/5700 or sales on 5800x
Anyone who needed a GPU upgrade for 1080p or 1440p gaming has had options for 6 months now
With FSR2/DLSS2, mid range cards have been good enough for 4k gaming at high settings
Anyone who had an AMD 580/Nvidia 1060/1070 and felt a need to upgrade probably upgraded once 6600/6700/3060TI/3070 became available at close to MSRP.
While I generally agree, the bad graphics card pricing since the beginning of last year has likely delayed many system builds. And while GPU prices have been "better" in recent months, they still aren't exactly "good", especially considering these cards will be replaced by newer, faster models relatively soon. You still can't find a 3060 Ti for the card's intended $400 MSRP. Most 3060 (Non-Ti) cards are priced at that level or higher, despite being around 20-25% slower. Likewise, the 3050 Ti is priced roughly where the 3060 was intended to be, despite it being around 30% slower than that card. The pricing of these cards is still kind of bad. And anything around the $200 range or below is no faster than cards that were the same price or less several years ago. There isn't much incentive to upgrade until people can get more performance within a price range compared to what they already have. Retailers and manufacturers are reluctant to drop prices of the hardware more than they have to following last year's crypto shortage, but are likely to give in eventually, and I think there are a decent number of people waiting on either additional price drops or the next-generation of hardware before building or upgrading a system.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram