I know thats why I tried to point out the "Why?". Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.Unfortunately the new and upcoming Threadripper CPU's aren't backwards compatible with previous gen motherboards.
If you change CPUs evern more often than you change socks, perhaps you should buy a better CPU to start with. I would have been fine with an i3 back when I put my current i5-3470 together but I knew I wouldn't get more than 2-3 years out of the i3 before the upgrade itch would set in, so I decided to spend $40 or so extra to get the i5 instead. Most people who spent the ~$50 extra to get a Ryzen 1600 instead of a 1200-1500 will have very little reason to upgrade before AM5 comes along. (Well, very little reason aside from older Ryzen chip prices crashing down as new chips launch, unlike Intel's chips which are seemingly immune to depreciation and competition.)I would go AMD sounds like your wanting a PC that's good all around not just gaming also with AMD they build for same am4 socket so down the road if you want a new cpu you don't have to buy a whole new mb unlike Intel who changes sockets like we change socks
I built my new system with the ryzen 5 3600 but in 2 years if I need or want a way more powerful CPU more then likely the am4 will still be the amd format unlike Intel which will probably have 10 different sockets by then minimumIf you change CPUs evern more often than you change socks, perhaps you should buy a better CPU to start with. I would have been fine with an i3 back when I put my current i5-3470 together but I knew I wouldn't get more than 2-3 years out of the i3 before the upgrade itch would set in, so I decided to spend $40 or so extra to get the i5 instead. Most people who spent the ~$50 extra to get a Ryzen 1600 instead of a 1200-1500 will have very little reason to upgrade before AM5 comes along. (Well, very little reason aside from older Ryzen chip prices crashing down as new chips launch, unlike Intel's chips which are seemingly immune to depreciation and competition.)
Nope, AMD said it would support AM4 for four years and 2020 is the fourth year, which means 4000-series is the most AM4 is likely to ever see. Whatever product from 2021 and beyond you upgrade to will almost certainly require next-gen socket.I built my new system with the ryzen 5 3600 but in 2 years if I need or want a way more powerful CPU more then likely the am4 will still be the amd format
Well you got a good point there about expend a bit more for more longevity. I always tell about this to my costumers and to people who consult me about buying PCs and or Notebooks.If you change CPUs evern more often than you change socks, perhaps you should buy a better CPU to start with. I would have been fine with an i3 back when I put my current i5-3470 together but I knew I wouldn't get more than 2-3 years out of the i3 before the upgrade itch would set in, so I decided to spend $40 or so extra to get the i5 instead. Most people who spent the ~$50 extra to get a Ryzen 1600 instead of a 1200-1500 will have very little reason to upgrade before AM5 comes along. (Well, very little reason aside from older Ryzen chip prices crashing down as new chips launch, unlike Intel's chips which are seemingly immune to depreciation and competition.)
That is assuming you can be bothered to sell your old system in the first place. I don't. When I upgrade my main system, the old one replaces the living room PC, the old living room PC becomes the new spare I dump old hardware in so I can still use it if needed, the old spare goes in the back of a closet with whatever other old PCs I still am keeping around for things like retro PC gaming until I decide to get rid of them.Intel's chips been immune to depreciation was a good thing the last 8 years, but right now is a double edge weapon. By the time you figure out you need a new CPU, you will be able to sell your old part for more than a Ryzen counterpart.
Even mATX ... I have a great case that I really like but it only fits mATX and smaller MBs. I also need optical audio outputs, -- don't really want to buy a soundcard. My current AM4 B450 mATX MB has it (MSI Mortar)There's only one thing that bothers me about Ryzens and my future plans for a new platform. I really would prefer my next build to be mITX, and for AMD, that's dismal.
If you take games and average them out it's 6-8% overall average (across games - some games actually prefer Ryzen, i.e. CSGO) with 2080ti @ 1080p according to Steve Burke from Gamer's Nexus. If you buy a 2080 non-super or less, that will shrink a fair bit. If you get a 1440p monitor that difference will be less. If you spend time tweaking the RAM that will become less.AMD doesn't have this possible future issue with already providing 6+6 or 8+8 cores/threads but currently all gaming benchmarks show them roughly 10 percent behind Intel which is freakin' huge, it's like a generation of difference.
Excellent points. I was just about to type up a similar post. I'd like to add that the argument against the 9600k should also apply to 9700k IMO. A year ago people were making the same "enough threads for gaming" argument for the 6c/6t 8600k (and not long before that for the 4c4t I5's) that they make for the 9700k now . If longevity is a concern the odds that the 9700k starts coming up short on threads in gaming in the near future are a pretty good based on how things have gone in new games the last few years.If you take games and average them out it's 6-8% overall average (across games - some games actually prefer Ryzen, i.e. CSGO) with 2080ti @ 1080p according to Steve Burke from Gamer's Nexus. If you buy a 2080 non-super or less, that will shrink a fair bit. If you get a 1440p monitor that difference will be less. If you spend time tweaking the RAM that will become less.
You have to take the gaming benchmarks with the caveat that this is in an exaggerated scenario.
Also note that 10% less than say 160fps, is 144. Since your monitor is 144 hz the difference in that case is zero percent.
So maybe to determine the actual difference you can expect let's have you assume a specific card, the games you like to play, and the settings you like to use. Is 144fps your target FPS for anything you play and do you adjust settings / resolution to try to stay over that?
From there you can get a better idea if the 10% difference you are seeing (or the 6-8% average across a suite of games) will actually apply to you or not. Most people don't experience that difference because they like to use high quality AA, or AO, or some ultra quality game settings, which makes the GPU bottleneck again, eliminating the CPU from the equation for the most part.
Reviewers do a pretty horrible job at disclaiming that your results will be different unless you have the exact setup and settings that they use to purposefully induce CPU bottleneck as badly as they can. But they are aware of it - this is why Steve Burke (from GN), and PCWorld actually recommends Ryzen for most gamers needs (particularly the 3600 for its extreme bang for buck).
And yes 9600k should NOT be an option -- not enough threads and this results in bad 1% lows even though average FPS might still be high ... which segues into my next point ... average FPS isn't as important as strong 1% lows. R5 3600 is generally superior to 9600k for gaming for this reason, even if 9600k can produce higher averages.
I'd take higher 1% lows over higher average FPS any day of the week. I can't stand microstutter ...
Anyway, a few more considerations for you ...
Please explain? What is dismal about mITX on AM4? There are a several excellent AM4 ITX mobos. The Asus ROG Strix x570-I gaming for example has the best VRM ever put on an ITX motherboard that I'm aware of. Given the limitations of all ITX motherboards I'm not sure what else there is to complain about besides the VRM. Perhaps you meant MATX? If that's the case I agree 100%.There's only one thing that bothers me about Ryzens and my future plans for a new platform. I really would prefer my next build to be mITX, and for AMD, that's dismal.
As a software developer myself, I would say over the years that developers have gotten lazy with more memory and now more cores - in my early days I remember counting clock cycles and trying to keep memory size down to minimum. I remember my first program I wrote ever and it was in assembly language and it was so close to 8086 or 8088 bytes that I had to fill it out - it was terminal emulator program.But doesn't AI of other people/creatures/items in a game, if there are more of them, lend itself well to multiple cores/threads?
I am a software developer, but don't work in anything remotely like gaming, so I'm out of my element on that point?
That gives you way more budget to devote to the graphics card which will make all the difference in gaming performance and will make up for not matching Intel's 5ghz boost frequency. Not to mention smoother game play and better FPS 1% lows due to Ryzen's superior multicore performance. It's a no brainer. Intel is really only applicable to 144hz or higher 1080p gaming. For everything else, Ryzen is the best choice.Have to agree with the consensus, Ryzen gives you the best value for your dollar and living near a micro center amplifies that factor with their $80 price for the 1600 and $115 for the 2600 compared to $130 for the i5-9400f - already that's a free high-performance 500gb SSD you can bundle into your build if you go with the 1600. Micro Center is a love / hate relationship, love their prices when I visit and hate my empty wallet when I leave!
Not to mention the additional discount they'll give you on a motherboard if you purchase a CPU and motherboard at the same time.Have to agree with the consensus, Ryzen gives you the best value for your dollar and living near a micro center amplifies that factor with their $80 price for the 1600 and $115 for the 2600 compared to $130 for the i5-9400f - already that's a free high-performance 500gb SSD you can bundle into your build if you go with the 1600. Micro Center is a love / hate relationship, love their prices when I visit and hate my empty wallet when I leave!
It just shows how good thing proper competition is. Intel had it their way far too long, we can only be sorry that Motorola and Cyrix are no longer in CPU business and Arm is going their own way.@CountMike
lol poor Linux, doesn't seems to find the way to talk bad about AMD.
Im glad AMD can keep this momentum going, this is the best thing that can happend to us, consumers. Not only we have a huge landscape of products to pick and fill out our needs, but also at very reasonable prices.
Im not an AMD fan boy but let me said this please, man they are doing a really good job!
Lets hope with and for the new Ryzen 4xxx they can make a twist on the 7nm process node so its not that hard to get more "very good" chiplets from each CPU wafer.
A fair assessment, but do consider this in regards to your "four year" longevity cycle - which I think is a very valid number, I always want at least three or more years out of CPUs. The consideration is that the landscape of how games are, or are not, multi-threaded may change in that time-frame.If you are after a high refresh rate 1080p or 1440p I would still look to Intel in the 9700K as for gaming it is still right up there with a lot of headroom when overclocked which it does with ease to 5GHz all core. AMD is a good option if you are no to worried about some FPS loss at the top end but if you want the max FPS a 9700K coupled to a RTX 2080 is a mighty gaming combination.
As to which platform will give you the best upgrade path I just would not worry about that as ny the time you look to upgrade next, Intel's 10nm will be battling AMD's new CPU's in the 4000 series so you will be doing a full update any way and this setup will see you through 4 years at least.