Question CPU recommendation for HyperV

[contitego]

I am looking into upgrading a few parts in my current PC (AMD Ryzen 7 3700X ). I run a single-gen2 HyperV virtual machine for personal programming projects/learning. Mostly Go and Ruby. I don't game much, so I am not overly worried about FPS. I may end up eventually running Linux on bare metal.

I was looking at these Intels: 13700 (non-k), 14700K, 14900k (probably overkill), and the following Ryzens: 7900, 7900x, or 7950x (also overkill).

Leaning towards the 14700k, but open to suggestions.

 

[Math Geek]

it's mostly about the number of cores/threads than anything else.

i went with a 5900x as i use a bunch of vm's at one time and needed enough cores to spread around. for just a single vm you won't need as much.

do you use the vm at the same time as the rest of the pc? or do you use the vm by itself until you turn it off?

if you use it along your regular pc use, then you'll want enough cores to complete all the work being done. for just the vm usage with the pc sitting idle, then you really only need a couple extra cores over the vm's needs.

add up the max you'll be asking your pc to do at once and pick a cpu accordingly.

ram is the same way. you want enough for each vm to have all it needs, and for the pc itself to still have what it needs. i have 64 gb which is enough for what my vm's need and for the pc to keep doing its work as well.

so same thing, add up the needs for the max usage you'll put the pc into and buy accordingly.

you're not so much worried about how fast each core is so just going top end is a waste of cash really.

 

[mdd1963]

I am looking into upgrading a few parts in my current PC (AMD Ryzen 7 3700X ). I run a single-gen2 HyperV virtual machine for personal programming projects/learning. Mostly Go and Ruby. I don't game much, so I am not overly worried about FPS. I may end up eventually running Linux on bare metal.

I was looking at these Intels: 13700 (non-k), 14700K, 14900k (probably overkill), and the following Ryzens: 7900, 7900x, or 7950x (also overkill).

Leaning towards the 14700k, but open to suggestions.

The likely most cost effective upgrade would be jumping from an 8c/16t 3700X to a 5900X (12t/24t) or 5950X (16c/32t) cpu, assuming your mainboard supports it with any semi-recent BIOS, as most available AM4 mainboards did. (For your stated existing use-case, but a single VM within HyperV, only you can decide if you truly even need more and faster cores allocated over what even your existing 3700X offers) Good luck which ever way/path you choose to proceed.

 

[contitego]

it's mostly about the number of cores/threads than anything else.

i went with a 5900x as i use a bunch of vm's at one time and needed enough cores to spread around. for just a single vm you won't need as much.

do you use the vm at the same time as the rest of the pc? or do you use the vm by itself until you turn it off?

if you use it along your regular pc use, then you'll want enough cores to complete all the work being done. for just the vm usage with the pc sitting idle, then you really only need a couple extra cores over the vm's needs.

add up the max you'll be asking your pc to do at once and pick a cpu accordingly.

ram is the same way. you want enough for each vm to have all it needs, and for the pc itself to still have what it needs. i have 64 gb which is enough for what my vm's need and for the pc to keep doing its work as well.

so same thing, add up the needs for the max usage you'll put the pc into and buy accordingly.

you're not so much worried about how fast each core is so just going top end is a waste of cash really.

Currently the VM is always running. Same in the future. I thought the 14900k would be overkill due to cost/number of cores.

 

[contitego]

The likely most cost effective upgrade would be jumping from an 8c/16t 3700X to a 5900X (12t/24t) or 5950X (16c/32t) cpu, assuming your mainboard supports it with any semi-recent BIOS, as most available AM4 mainboards did. (For your stated existing use-case, but a single VM within HyperV, only you can decide if you truly even need more and faster cores allocated over what even your existing 3700X offers) Good luck which ever way/path you choose to proceed.

Thanks. Under $1000 , im fine doing an upgrade of a few parts. Micro Center has a fee decent bundles.

 

[Math Geek]

i went from a 3600x to the 5900x and can't imagine needing more cores at this point.

dropped right into my b450 mobo and i haven't looked back. very cost effective since you won't need a new mobo for the upgrade. keep in mind the software allocates whatever resources you give to the vm the whole time it is running and the rest of the pc can't use it until the vm is closed and the resources released.

something like a 5900x would be overkill but at less than $300, it sure is hard to pass up !! you will see a speed increase as i did upgrading from the 3600x. its not twice as fast or anything, but i could tell the difference right away.

that's the way i'd go for now and in a few years a full platform upgrade could be looked into if you decide you need it.

 

[mdd1963]

(price for hypothetical 5900X upgrade even a tad lower for a while, BTW!)

AMD's Ryzen 9 5900X is now 50% off for Black Friday, delivering an excellent upgrade for socket AM4 users

Still a very potent 12-core chip that's awesome for productivity applications

www.tomshardware.com