I am putting together a build. I have a 3700x in my possession but want to level up. I am debating returning my 3700x and going to a 3900x now instead and calling it a day for this build(no further cpu upgrade) or use the 3700x for now and then upgrade to a new or used 5900x in a year or so. The 5900x are not available now and the price is just ridiculous. What should be a $550 cpu is selling for over 1k by some sellers. Any chance this will drop into the $400 range used in a year? I don’t want to pay much more than this. Having a realistic information about this will give me an idea if going to a 5900x is affordable for me. Thanks.
[SOLVED] Any chance the price of the 5900x will come down in a year?
- Thread starter TechGuy75
- Start date
Solution
- Jan 1, 2013
- 24,574
- 650
- 91,240
I'd say best case scenario it's going to come down to rrp which is $549
This isn't the AMD of old, that cpu has virtually no real competitor now from intel, unfortunately that means I doubt you'll be getting a bargain anytime soon.
xravenxdota
Reputable
- Aug 26, 2017
- 435
- 66
- 4,990
Funny thing is.Here the 10900k are more expensive than the 5900x.Problem is that who ever's infront can charge wtf ever they want and people will flock to buy it regardless of fan boyz or brand loyalty.
yes, i think you are right, thats what I was adraid of. This build has been a pain in the butt. some parts have too many options and its hard to make a decision (ex: motherboards) and other parts are simply unaffordable or unavailable when you do make a decision. I want to up my processor a bit but I dont wwnt to pay more than double. I think realistically I will look into a 3900x. I can get it for roughly $170 more than I spent for a 3700x. Do you think, given the price difference, it is worth it? How much more performance am I gaining?
I had/have the 10850k on my list of possible cpus. However, I dont like the fact that it runs hot and I need to spend a good amount on a cooler. Some reviewers say you only need a $50 to $100 cooler and you will be fine, but I have read threads where people have done that with good case air flow and are experiencing thermal issues. This makes me feel that the 10850k is not worth the chance....
- Dec 30, 2016
- 21,138
- 5,552
- 104,690
Intel's 10th gen cpus have rather conservative power limits and don't actually run that hot because of them.
The problem is with people and the vendors raising or removing those power limits Intel implemented to get extra performance, and then all hell breaks loose on those chips - figuratively speaking.
Intel already knows they burn up, which is why they put those power limits there in the first place... and although those limiters are the chips' folly, they still perform quite well with them.
Some motherboards - usually the fancier, more expensive models - run with tweaked settings out of the box.
There's also some software apps that will make the cpu run faster without even asking you - Msi's Dragon Center and Asus' AI Suite are 2 of them.
- Dec 30, 2016
- 21,138
- 5,552
- 104,690
I wouldn't. Between Skylake(6xxx) and Comet Lake(10xxx), the performance gained at the cost of higher power and thermals has only gotten worse.
Gone are the days where one could overclock a Core i5 with a Cooler Master Hyper 212; you try that with a 10th gen, and you're gonna be in some trouble. XD
Heck, once I'm off X299, I'm leaving OC'ing alone - well, I already dropped gpu OC'ing.
If all I have to do is put a bigger cooler on a cpu/gpu and it'll boost on its own to land within a few % of what others did manually, I've got less of a reason to mess with it, but I'm no min-maxer.
Those few %s of fps will be unnoticeable to me anyway, so I wouldn't care.
We already have access to gpus that do this; Nvidia's gpus have been like this since the 10 series. I don't know if AMD's Navi gpus do it - I really need to read up on that.
Oops, I almost forgot! Here:
View: https://imgur.com/YwqWtBb
Power tables for 10th gen. 10850K shares the same limits with the 10900K.
What do you guys think of going from 3700x to 3900x? Is it worth it? How much of a performance gain is it? It would be roughly $170 more for me to make the upgrade. I plan on keeping my build for several years so I dont dropping a couple bucks more if I need to
Nemesia
Splendid
- Nov 6, 2019
- 5,781
- 1,245
- 23,390
Do you only play games on your system? Going from a 3700X to a 3900X is wasting money if you only play games. Both run games exactly the same.
The 3700X 8 cores 16 threads is more than enough to play games for a while and it's still good on workstation stuff because of it having 8 cores.
The only real reason to upgrade to a 3900X is if you do editing / encoding etc or if you want to do virtualisation like some VM's or a few instance of Bluestacks. For games you won't even see a difference.
Do not upgrade yet and when you can get a 5800X or 5900X at affordable prices get it.
I always get a chuckle out of the fact that people want to spend $500-$800 on a CPU but only $50 on a cooler. I have a quality cooler and a case with a good airflow and my temps are better than fine and I haven't even manually OCed yet I'm just running the one click BIOS OC right now at 5.1+ghz...
Absolutely they do....
For me it was easy... I wanted a solid CPU to do everything that I do which is more than just gaming... and $500 for the 10900k was a lot less than the $1300+ the scalpers want for the 5950x. Similar scalper upcharge on the other AMD chips so Intel was the easy decision... and a much better value because it was in stock at retail price... unlike AMD.
Ok, so no over clocking for me with the 10850k. So, if there is no overclocking with this chip, or very little provided by default from your mobo, would I have to worry about thermal issues with a decent air cooler, like lets say the noctua dh15?
- Oct 6, 2014
- 21,392
- 2,036
- 104,240
- Dec 30, 2016
- 21,138
- 5,552
- 104,690
As already mentioned above: depends on what you're doing on PC and how much difference in performance you expect to call it "worth" upgrade. The worst case would be if you don't notice difference at all (money thrown away).
So, where you won't notice difference (as non-pro user): gaming, internet browsing, image editing, document/spreadsheet editing, compressing/decompressing relative small amount/size of files, etc... In short: if you consider yourself as normal/average PC user, then you won't notice performance difference between 3700X and 3900X.
Cases where you will notice differences are: video editing, compressing/decompressing big (GB-sized) files, modifying Windows install.wim/esd files, rendering 3D content, etc... In short: if you do stuff on your PC, where you need to "wait and wait" for several minutes (hours?) for job to be done, then you will appreciate the difference -especially if you do such stuff almost daily.
I had 3700X and upgraded to 5900X. And honestly, I see no difference in "normal" PC use. Truth is, 3700X is very good performer even for "heavier" jobs!
3900X or 5900X? Well, I decided for 5900X and I don't regret. It's about 30% faster than 3900X (for stuff I do) and much faster than 3700X of course.
To summarize: Only upgrade if you know for sure that you will benefit by having more cores.
Heh... yep. I watched that video when I was researching my build. I considered an air cooler... really did. The truth of the matter is though I just thought the Z73 display was cool... and had great success with nearly 4 years and no issues with the x62 280mm... so I was like "ok, f&#^ it, I'll get the Z73." LOL
Another thing is the fact air coolers are just so massive... just wasn't for me.
- Dec 30, 2016
- 21,138
- 5,552
- 104,690
I used to be pro air cooler... I've become more flexible now: It's nice to have options.
I have to disagree with that last part though. I still haven't figured out how folks can say that. I've got on hand:
Alphacool Eisbaer Aurora 360
Fractal Design Celsius S36
Noctua NH-D15S
Thermalright Silver Arrow IB-E Extreme Rev B. and True Spirit 140 Power
The hybrid coolers are even bigger. Heck, I can at least handle the air coolers with one hand - can't do that with those hybrids.
If you could take a NH-D15's towers and bend them flat - that's pretty much a radiator.
Then there's the tubing and the cpu block.
Last edited:
ok, thanks for the good info. You broke it down well. But what about as the years move on, wont more software slowely start to make use of more and more cores? I do plan on keeping the machine for several years. 3900x, my attempt to “future proof” a bit.
It's all about types of software. Most of software, that is processing big amount of data (de-compressing files, re-encoding movie files, rendering 3D data, etc.), already uses all cores available. So, the more cores/threads you have, the sooner the job will be done -that's the situation today and will be in future.
Windows itself is fully multi-threaded. But as I mentioned in previous post, in "daily work", here we can't notice difference between 6 and 12 cores -that is, each of 6 cores is fast enough for things to happen instantly.
Games are kinda special case.. They benefit of multi-cores too, of course. But there's diminishing return: if having more than (say) 6 cores/12 threads, we don't get much speed increase anymore. That's because end result is limited by GPU. GPU just can't keep up with data delivered by CPU (called "GPU bottleneck"). As for now, R5 3600X seems to be good enough for most games (see here).
It also depends on type of game, though. In (far) future, I can imagine "complex real time simulation" games which will then benefit of having more cores -but that shouldn't influence your decision much.
My advice... I assume you don't do much of stuff mentioned in first paragraph, so: keep 3700X -trust me, you won't miss anything. And use the money (you just saved) for fast M2 SSD or.. there's sure something you wish
.Ok, in few years, maybe you'll start making movies or whatever. But at that time, you can jump straight to 5900X for the same price.
My advice... I assume you don't do much of stuff mentioned in first paragraph, so: keep 3700X -trust me, you won't miss anything. And use the money (you just saved) for fast M2 SSD or.. there's sure something you wish
Ok, in few years, maybe you'll start making movies or whatever. But at that time, you can jump straight to 5900X for the same price.
Right, I dont do much of the stuff mentioned in your first paragraph. Maybe compress or decompress files once in a while.
ok, how about stuff like:
- compiling of code, especially .net code/ whole mvc websites in visual studio
- running an instance of sql server and oracle?
- possibly running linux in a vm
- encoding my music from cd to flac or mp3
As for first three types of work... I never did any of them, so I can't tell from my experience. But yes, it would be of benefit having more cores, I think. Is hard to say how much of benefit, though.
Database server, for example... it all depends on amount of data, type of data and how many clients simultaneously work on that data. I mean, it can be 3 users who do complex work on some 3D simulation or 15 users working on stock/cashflow in some store -but you know all that. What I am saying is, it makes no sense to pay for cores for CPU to idle -and for "small business" server, 3700X should be enough.
Encoding music... here every "fast" 4C/8T CPU is enough. I know that encoding single title only takes 2-3 seconds (never measured). Still, I did an experiment just now:
I took 6 channel DTS audio file from almost 2 hours long movie ( DTS file had size of 1.7GB!). Conversion to 6ch AC3 (Dolby Digital) file took about 3 minutes (on 5900X). How long would it take on 3700X? About the same! -because converter used only 2 cores (not heavy loaded). It was the same case when I converted 6ch DTS to 2ch flac file.
It seems that audio conversion just isn't that kind of data that would depend on core count.
Database server, for example... it all depends on amount of data, type of data and how many clients simultaneously work on that data. I mean, it can be 3 users who do complex work on some 3D simulation or 15 users working on stock/cashflow in some store -but you know all that. What I am saying is, it makes no sense to pay for cores for CPU to idle -and for "small business" server, 3700X should be enough.
Encoding music... here every "fast" 4C/8T CPU is enough. I know that encoding single title only takes 2-3 seconds (never measured). Still, I did an experiment just now:
I took 6 channel DTS audio file from almost 2 hours long movie ( DTS file had size of 1.7GB!). Conversion to 6ch AC3 (Dolby Digital) file took about 3 minutes (on 5900X). How long would it take on 3700X? About the same! -because converter used only 2 cores (not heavy loaded). It was the same case when I converted 6ch DTS to 2ch flac file.
It seems that audio conversion just isn't that kind of data that would depend on core count.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
News US sanctions transform China into legacy chip production juggernaut — production jumped 40% in Q1 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 32
-
Question New pc build r9 7900x3d rtx 4080 super no post only ram rgb turns on- Started by Harvey Durward
- Replies: 5
-
RTX 4070 vs RX 7900 GRE faceoff: Which mainstream graphics card is better?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 71
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram