News Ryzen 7 7700X Edges Past Core i9-12900K In New Benchmark

[LuxZg]

So either I somehow wrote in a different language than English, reading got exponentially harder all of a sudden, or you misunderstand what I said on purpose (or didn't read at all...), because I got a seriously hard time wrapping my head around where your problem even is. I kinda rule out one and two since I clearly wrote in English and others understood me, too. Anyways. Here we go.

First. Neither of those boards even match my qualifier, namely, 5 years or older.

Second, the 500 chipaet it literally AMDs latest, so it doesn't count at all, ever, in this context. Again, since that didn't seem to connect, I am talking about upgrading from the first or maybe second CPU generation of Ryzen CPUs on a first generation board to the latest generation.

Third, if that isn't enough, "not utilizing the CPU to its fullest" does not mean only the raw performance of the CPU itself, but also stuff like connectivity. Some modern graphics cards will have huge performance losses, and future ones, if rumors are true, might have, too. Why? They only use 8 instead PCIe lanes, and those old boards have PCIe 3.0, which, again, causes problems. Unfortunately times two, those vards that exist today are also cards you would expect in a cheap system like this, just for the double ouch. However, you will also lose access to PCIe 4.0 M.2 SSDs, which can be an issue for some users, and possibly also fast RAM plus OC depending on the board. That's a lot of cuts.

Fourth and last, are you seriously proposing slapping a high-end CPU on a board with crappy VRMs like these?

How much watts can an A320 motherboard really handle in practice and which CPU should be used maximally? | Practical test and VRM analysis | igor´sLAB

Active euthanasia is highly controversial, only that many end users deliberately hide it when choosing the motherboard. After a thick CPU and graphics card, the space for the substructure is often…

www.igorslab.de

I mean you can, I guess, if you don't mind your great shiny new CPU dying after a year or two, or your board. Pretty zure that anyone who even considers bying one of those does, though. If you want your CPU to thrive, get a board with more than 6 crappy power phases. AKA one that isn't trash.

I can't currently check any more specs etc for those boards since my mobile connection is agonizingly slow this morning for some reason, but what I have seen so far is more than enough I need to k ow to steer far, FAR away from those cheap trash boards... and that doesn't even have anything at all to do with what I was even talking about in my post.

Also, again because you apparently didn't get that, either. Boards with good features will be far too expensive for anyone with a small wallet.

Next time you start insulting I'm reporting you. Even if it's wrapped in insinuations.

And you should've read everything I wrote, as second board is 320 chipset. Ok so by BIOS releases it's "only" 2018 board, not 5 years old, sorry! And I did specifically say buying board with good features, and with AMD all these new boards will be PCIe 5.0. What else do you lose on early AM4 boards? USB 3.2 2x2 or whatever they call it these days. Plug a 20$ PCIe card 6 years later and you have it. The PCIe 4.0 was short lived and is an exception so far. Plus 5.0 SSDs and GPUs will be go on for years as it's getting harder to saturate, so when 6.0 comes in several years those 5.0 cards and drives will still feel fresh. Even today 3.0 NVMe is competitive to 4.0 in real world due to random performance.

And yeah, my phone surfing is hard as well, so I didn't bother searching for THE oldest AM4 board, I went to what's selling now and both cheapest boards I looked supported all CPUs.

So to save your time and mine, here is first result from Google, article about upgrading 2017 MBO (220$ back then) with 2022 CPU (only 5600):

Upgrading to Ryzen 5 5600 from Ryzen 5 1600: How Much Faster?

This is a benchmark session, as usual, where we'll be taking an old Ryzen 5 1600 system and upgrade it with the Ryzen 5 5600 to see what's what on gaming.

www.techspot.com

Good enough for me.

Will that happen for everyone? IDK and I don't care. But there is a good chance that buying a B650E motherboard in late 2022/early 2023 will eventually run Zen 6, at full speed, and even keeping "only" PCIe 5.0 shouldn't matter at all. Certainly more so than buying Intel system in same timeframe and expecting to run Meteor/Arrow/Lunar Lake CPU in what was Alder/Raptor Lake generation.

As for tight budgets, there's also people that have money but don't want to overspend. So let's see, 800$ for AM5/Zen4/DDR5 in let's say Jan 2023, then 300$ for just Zen 6 CPU in Jan 2026, and you have very good system all the way to 2029. Total 1100$. Alternative, buy DDR4 AL/RL system, spend just 550-600$ for lower initial performance, then upgrade in 2025 for let's say Lunar Lake buying again lower end system for 500-550$ (to keep budget at 1100$) and having to upgrade again in 2027? Or buy 1100$ system with Raptor Lake and try to keep going till 2029? I know which I'd choose (everything else being roughly equal).

Anyway, I'm not telling you what to do, so don't get annoyed so much. Forums are to discuss, not to force your opinion on someone. And we went off topic. Point was just to say that performance and feature set being roughly equal, there are only a few things perhaps swaying some buyers opinions. And some people see upgradability as a perk, some don't, that's all, so some may be swayed to AM5, some will look for other stuff to tilt the scale one way or the other.

Edit: multiple phone typos and stuff

 

[KyaraM]

Next time you start insulting I'm reporting you. Even if it's wrapped in insinuations.

And you should've read everything I wrote, as second board is 320 chipset. Ok so by BIOS releases it's "only" 2018 board, not 5 years old, sorry! And I did specifically say buying board with good features, and with AMD all these new boards will be PCIe 5.0. What else do you lose on early AM4 boards? USB 3.2 2x2 or whatever they call it these days. Plug a 20$ PCIe card 6 years later and you have it. The PCIe 4.0 was short lived and is an exception so far. Plus 5.0 SSDs and GPUs will be go on for years as it's getting harder to saturate, so when 6.0 comes in several years those 5.0 cards and drives will still feel fresh. Even today 3.0 NVMe is competitive to 4.0 in real world due to random performance.

And yeah, my phone surfing is hard as well, so I didn't bother searching for THE oldest AM4 board, I went to what's selling now and both cheapest boards I looked supported all CPUs.

So to save your time and mine, here is first result from Google, article about upgrading 2017 MBO (220$ back then) with 2022 CPU (only 5600):

Upgrading to Ryzen 5 5600 from Ryzen 5 1600: How Much Faster?

This is a benchmark session, as usual, where we'll be taking an old Ryzen 5 1600 system and upgrade it with the Ryzen 5 5600 to see what's what on gaming.

www.techspot.com

Good enough for me.

Will that happen for everyone? IDK and I don't care. But there is a good chance that buying a B650E motherboard in late 2022/early 2023 will eventually run Zen 6, at full speed, and even keeping "only" PCIe 5.0 shouldn't matter at all. Certainly more so than buying Intel system in same timeframe and expecting to run Meteor/Arrow/Lunar Lake CPU in what was Alder/Raptor Lake generation.

As for tight budgets, there's also people that have money but don't want to overspend. So let's see, 800$ for AM5/Zen4/DDR5 in let's say Jan 2023, then 300$ for just Zen 6 CPU in Jan 2026, and you have very good system all the way to 2029. Total 1100$. Alternative, buy DDR4 AL/RL system, spend just 550-600$ for lower initial performance, then upgrade in 2025 for let's say Lunar Lake buying again lower end system for 500-550$ (to keep budget at 1100$) and having to upgrade again in 2027? Or buy 1100$ system with Raptor Lake and try to keep going till 2029? I know which I'd choose (everything else being roughly equal).

Anyway, I'm not telling you what to do, so don't get annoyed so much. Forums are to discuss, not to force your opinion on someone. And we went off topic. Point was just to say that performance and feature set being roughly equal, there are only a few things perhaps swaying some buyers opinions. And some people see upgradability as a perk, some don't, that's all, so some may be swayed to AM5, some will look for other stuff to tilt the scale ome way or the other.

Again, the people that upgradeability matters most for are people on tighter budgets for whom 800 bucks is almost an entire machine already. In fact, the only people I talked with about this matter are people who are on tight budgets. So yes, it does indeed matter to them if they have to spend 800 or 550 on the system. Also, modern CPUs are powerful enough that you can expect a much longer use time than in the past. My measly 7600k held out, on stock configuration until very recently, for 6 years, and is still in use on a secondary system. That thing has 4 cores and threads and can barely hold a candle against even just Intel e-cores, let alone full cores. Meanwhile, my current CPU has 8 very powerful cores with HT and 4 less powerful ones that in itself, again, aren't that much behind my old CPU. I can barely describe how huge the performance discrepancy is here. Still, said old CPU held out until today and plays even games like Elden Ring or HZD, and seeing how slow the increase in requirements for gaming is for CPUs, I don't expect to switch this one out until 2030. Huh. Beat your calculations by a year there for less costs already. It will be a while until that beast is obsolete. You need neither Raptor Lake nor Raphael in games for the foreseeable future, at least not for any practical resolutions. But if you want to upgrade, at least do it in full and not half-backed. Also, looking at pricing, you might not even get such a good CPU for the price...
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-7000-retailer-pricing-shows-fair-premium-over-ryzen-5000

However, I bought a highend chip there, which again is something people on tighter budgets usually don't do. The situation is different if you can't afford this, but then, if even the smallest AMD CPU will likely be very expensive, and obsolete quicker than a higher-end chip.

Btw, the 5600X is a low-end chip. If that is good enough for you, and the 7600X as well which will likely sell for more than the comparable Raptor Lake i5's, then the Raptors should be as well. Which will be around 130 for the board plus 300 (as a guess) for the CPU plus, what, 70 for the RAM, tops? Yeah, it really doesn't matter for the total cost if you upgrade on the same board or seitch out both, except one is initially cheaper, which again is the important part for people on a budget. And I have my doubt, looking at the current market, that the 8600X or 9600X or however they will be called launches for 300 bucks... not in the current market climate, and I expect that to either stagnate or get worse, not better the next couple years...

Edit: And again, nominal compatibility doesn't really count. If you want a strong CPU, don't buy a trash A-series board, and better don't expect it to run future CPUs for more than a year without blowing out. If you want a B650E board, be prepared to spend a lot.

 

[TerryLaze]

As for tight budgets, there's also people that have money but don't want to overspend. So let's see, 800$ for AM5/Zen4/DDR5 in let's say Jan 2023, then 300$ for just Zen 6 CPU in Jan 2026, and you have very good system all the way to 2029. Total 1100$. Alternative, buy DDR4 AL/RL system, spend just 550-600$ for lower initial performance, then upgrade in 2025 for let's say Lunar Lake buying again lower end system for 500-550$ (to keep budget at 1100$) and having to upgrade again in 2027? Or buy 1100$ system with Raptor Lake and try to keep going till 2029? I know which I'd choose (everything else being roughly equal).

You are making the argument to get a $300 AMD cpu, that would be the 7600x which is a 6 core CPU and you are calling that good, while you call the equivalent $300 intel CPU low end while the 12th gen $300 12600k has 6 cores plus 4 e-cores and the 13th gen 13600k will probably have 6+8...
It would be similar if not higher initial performance for intel, and again at least mid range system for the upgrade.
$300 is the lowest for AMD cpu so that is by default the low end AMD system, by performance again it will probably be at the same level as the mid range 12600k.
The 12600k is about 35% faster than the 5600x so if the 7600x is 35-40% faster than the 5600x it will still be only on par with the 12600k not the 13600k.

 

[-Fran-]

Uhm... I bought my 2700X in 2019 and now I have a 5900X, keeping the X470 board and DDR4 RAM. I haven't upgraded anything else and I don't think I will anytime soon. That's a good 3 years of massive CPU performance jumps for little cost, keeping everything else equals. They've been £300 jumps: 2700X (£280) -> 3800XT (~£300) -> 5900X (£365). That is several generations of performance uplifts, quantifiable ones at that, without much extra cost over the initial purchase.

I did save money (I think?) and I see people with 9th or 10th gen not being too happy about missing on Alder Lake performance, even if they paid a hefty sum back then.

I don't understand why there's this discussion about keeping the same socket for several generations being a bad thing or trying to argue against it... I really don't understand it. Hell even Intel just acknowledged that developing Raptor Lake on the same platform as Alder Lake actually LOWERED their time to market (here) in one of their official slides.

Bonkers, I tell you, BONKERS.

EDIT: Pig tails mess with formatting, lel.

Regards.

 

[Nighthawk117]

I don't understand why there's this discussion about keeping the same socket for several generations being a bad thing or trying to argue against it... I really don't understand it

It's not that it's bad it's just it can be hit or miss whether it works without issue. It's not uncommon to see stability issues with the newer 5000 series CPU's on older motherboards and you do miss out on certain features.

Intel's support of two generations on one socket is so hopeless it's not worth doing for most people.

 

[TerryLaze]

I don't understand why there's this discussion about keeping the same socket for several generations being a bad thing or trying to argue against it... I really don't understand it.

Uhm... I bought my 2700X in 2019

They've been £300 jumps: 2700X (£280) -> 3800XT (~£300) -> 5900X (£365).

Well your counter argument is that zen makes more financial sense because then you are forced (or able, same difference) to buy a 300 pound cpu each year...
How much slower in multithreaded is the 2950x compared to the 5900x you have now?
Because that would be one buy at a much lower price overall without having to send your system to the shop for a week, and paying extra money each time, or risking destroying your system, if you are a noob.

And now you would do a natural upgrade to zen 4.

 

[-Fran-]

It's not that it's bad it's just it can be hit or miss whether it works without issue. It's not uncommon to see stability issues with the newer 5000 series CPU's on older motherboards and you do miss out on certain features.

Intel's support of two generations on one socket is so hopeless it's not worth doing for most people.

Missing out of PCIe4 on 300 and 400 series chipsets is a fair trade off in my book. It's not like AMD is preventing me from swapping my X470 for a B550 or X570 if I want PCIe4, but it's a choice I appreciate having if I just want more CPU grunt and nothing else. Similar with Intel's DDR4 and DDR5 split, although you do need a new motherboard. If someone with Alder Lake wants to swap to DDR5 from DDR4, they just need a new motherboard and RAM and they get to keep everything else. I like having choices.

What bugs me about Intel is not so much not being capable of doing it, but they not wanting to do it. Look at all the kerfuffle with Z290 and onwards. That's just depressing.

Regards.

 

[-Fran-]

Well your counter argument is that zen makes more financial sense because then you are forced (or able, same difference) to buy a 300 pound cpu each year...
How much slower in multithreaded is the 2950x compared to the 5900x you have now?
Because that would be one buy at the same-ish price overall without having to send your system to the shop for a week, and paying extra money each time, or risking destroying your system, if you are a noob.

And now you would do a natural upgrade to zen 4.

If you're putting the 2950X in the same category as the 5900X, I'm sorry to say, but that's a hard straw man or you're completely ignorant. As I bought a 2700X initially, why are you assuming I want an HEDT-type PC? Why that HUGE leap in logic? Are you the type to crossshop a Xeon plat workstation and a Core i5? :jackiechanhands:

Also, that final tidbit: "risking destroying your system if you're a n00b"... I mean, if you'er a DYI'er, why would building a new PC be less risky than just swapping out the CPU? I'm super curious on how you're going to argue that one.

Regards.

 

[TerryLaze]

If you're putting the 2950X in the same category as the 5900X, I'm sorry to say, but that's a hard straw man or you're completely ignorant. As I bought a 2700X initially, why are you assuming I want an HEDT-type PC? Why that HUGE leap in logic? Are you the type to crossshop a Xeon plat workstation and a Core i5? :jackiechanhands:

You were talking about quantifiable performance uplifts, so what were you talking about?!
The 5900x reached the performance of the 2950x (probably, that's why I was asking how close they are) so you must have some need for HEDT-type performance so why would that need not have existed a few years ago?!

Also, that final tidbit: "risking destroying your system if you're a n00b"... I mean, if you'er a DYI'er, why would building a new PC be less risky than just swapping out the CPU? I'm super curious on how you're going to argue that one.

Because I already explained it in the post I made, a lot of people send their system to the shop to be upgraded.

 

[-Fran-]

You were talking about quantifiable performance uplifts, so what were you talking about?!
The 5900x reached the performance of the 2950x (probably, that's why I was asking how close they are) so you must have some need for HEDT-type performance so why would that need not have existed a few years ago?!


Because I already explained it in the post I made, a lot of people send their system to the shop to be upgraded.

If I wanted "threaded" performance, I wouldn't have gotten the 5900X, but the 5950X and I would've gone with ThreadRipper 1K. That's why your logical leap is so absurd to me.

As for the second assumption: I can tell you, a lot people here doesn't. I won't disagree there (about people using shops)*, but even so, I do not see how just swapping the CPU is riskier than changing the whole PC. Sure, it implies downtime over just getting a FULL PC from scratch, but unless you do exactly that, a DYI'er will at least keep the case, so there will be downtime anyway.

I'll stop here; you're seriously pulling straws here. Hard.

Regards...

 

[Nighthawk117]

Missing out of PCIe4 on 300 and 400 series chipsets is a fair trade off in my book. It's not like AMD is preventing me from swapping my X470 for a B550 or X570 if I want PCIe4, but it's a choice I appreciate having if I just want more CPU grunt and nothing else. Similar with Intel's DDR4 and DDR5 split, although you do need a new motherboard. If someone with Alder Lake wants to swap to DDR5 from DDR4, they just need a new motherboard and RAM and they get to keep everything else. I like having choices.

I agree it's nice to have the choice.

What bugs me about Intel is not so much not being capable of doing it, but they not wanting to do it. Look at all the kerfuffle with Z290 and onwards. That's just depressing.

With the exception of the 9900K's high power consumption, to me cross compatibility with 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th gen should have been easier than Ryzen 1000 to 5000 as they are basically the same CPU's and even the platforms barely changed.

 

[KyaraM]

If I wanted "threaded" performance, I wouldn't have gotten the 5900X, but the 5950X and I would've gone with ThreadRipper 1K. That's why your logical leap is so absurd to me.

As for the second assumption: I can tell you, a lot people here doesn't. I won't disagree there (about people using shops)*, but even so, I do not see how just swapping the CPU is riskier than changing the whole PC. Sure, it implies downtime over just getting a FULL PC from scratch, but unless you do exactly that, a DYI'er will at least keep the case, so there will be downtime anyway.

I'll stop here; you're seriously pulling straws here. Hard.

Regards...

I think Terry alludes to people who are not DIY, which is actually the majority, and who will therefore pay someone else to switch out the CPU. I play tech support for quite a few people around me, and it's quite astounding how many don't even know what hardware they even run, and even less ever did more than clean their PC once in a while. If at all...

Even I don't like messing with the CPU, and I got quite a bit more experience there than the average Joe. I can't even explain why, exactly.

 

[TerryLaze]

If I wanted "threaded" performance, I wouldn't have gotten the 5900X, but the 5950X and I would've gone with ThreadRipper 1K. That's why your logical leap is so absurd to me.

If you didn't wanted "threaded" performance then why did you go with an AMD CPU in the first place? And were did you get quantifiable performance uplifts from following CPUs if not in multithreaded?!
The 8600k was beating the 2700x left and right in non threaded performance especially with a modest overclock.

The only reason to have gotten a 2700x would have been multithreaded....or extremely heavy bias against a company.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,5571-10.html

 

[-Fran-]

If you didn't wanted "threaded" performance then why did you go with an AMD CPU in the first place? And were did you get quantifiable performance uplifts from following CPUs if not in multithreaded?!
The 8600k was beating the 2700x left and right in non threaded performance especially with a modest overclock.

The only reason to have gotten a 2700x would have been multithreaded....or extremely heavy bias against a company.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,5571-10.html

Because I saw they were keeping their promise and just accepted the risk. Go compare the 8600K performance to the 5900X if you want.

I knew the 2700X wasn't the fastest, but that wasn't the point. I could have gotten the 2600X or similar, but I did like the 8-cores of it.

Regards...

 

[LuxZg]

Just to be clear, this will be my last comment. I wanted to point that I said "lower" not "low end" as 800$ system will usually be higher than 550$ system. Likewise, if we talk 550$ systems then NO, 12600K wasn't a 550$. And 5600X in 2022 isn't 800$ either. Mixing info from different time periods and mashing them together to somehow make argument won't do. I was talking about close future where we will have a bunch of competitive systems released literally side by side, where we can fully expect that same price range to be very close in performance. So when I say 800$ yes I say 7600X. And you say that's "low end" because it's lowest model of Zen 4 on release. So when Nvidia releases RTX4090 in October I guess it will be low end part as well :-/ anyway, we can expect 7600X to be fighting 13600K. And don't be unrealistic expecting 13600K to be 40% faster, sorry. Anyway, whatever model names end up being, 300$ Intel will go vs 300$ AMD. Then we have AMD "new expensive boards" but those will just cost same as Intel of equivalent rank. But to OC K model you'll need Z board right, probably, while B board should be same as X board as physical chip is exactly the same, all you get with X boards is more connectivity. So unless you need 4 M.2 drives and 20 USBs you'd be throwing money away. So we have same-ish 300$ CPU, same-ish priced MBO, but AMD will be DDR5, PCIe 5.0 both on GPU slot and M.2, and Intel will be DDR4 and limited to just x15 5.0 lanes. So just right there you are getting "lower" system, as RAM will lose you 10% and PCIe will make you less future proofed right at start. Anyway, you'll save 70$ on RAM for 16GB, so close to 150$ for 32GB. So that Intel is 650$ vs 800$ AMD. Want 550$ Intel you'll need to go with lower model, so maybe 13600 and can get cheaper non-Z board. That loses you more performance. And makes your board even less future-proof. Can you use that till 2030? Sure! Enjoy. But not what I had in mind. If you want roughly same performance and same features at start, you will pay roughly same price. And then in 3-4 years you can A) say fck it all I'll keep this till 2030 B) spend another 800$ to get up to speed or C) MAYBE upgrade just CPU for another 300$. I'm all for "maybe".

But honestly, the way news are coming someone buying new PC in 2023 will be either buying mid-high range and have a choice of roughly equivalent Raptor vs Zen 4 platforms, or buying lower-low/mid system and that will be DDR4 and Alder (or 13000 Alder respin) vs Zen 3 that will keep selling. Low(er) end system is stuck anyway on both sides. High/mid-high will be stuck on Intel socket but have at least some future on AM5. At the same time we have enough things to compare not even looking at platform longevity. I expect price/perf to be generally close or equal. Some wins, some losses, but we need proper reviews for that, so if someone will pick exact apps they get swayed here or there. Then we have PCIe 5.0, and if recent rumors are true RTX may be 5.0 after all, so if they also want M.2 5.0, there's really only one choice in 2023. Some will still want a bit less power draw, because more power also means more money spent on PSU and cooling, not just heat in room or lower power bills. It will be interesting pitting different builds one vs other. In all of these I see AMD having slight advantage. And then you add that "maybe upgradeable to Zen 6/3D" etc. So that is just one piece of pro and cons. Not the be-all/end-all argument, just one of a dozen. But hey, let's just wait for reviews and proper comparisons. It's tiring revolving around same old same old without proper facts and numbers. I'm certainly done here, and more so talking old platforms when we have newcomers around the corner.

 

[KyaraM]

Just to be clear, this will be my last comment. I wanted to point that I said "lower" not "low end" as 800$ system will usually be higher than 550$ system. Likewise, if we talk 550$ systems then NO, 12600K wasn't a 550$. And 5600X in 2022 isn't 800$ either. Mixing info from different time periods and mashing them together to somehow make argument won't do. I was talking about close future where we will have a bunch of competitive systems released literally side by side, where we can fully expect that same price range to be very close in performance. So when I say 800$ yes I say 7600X. And you say that's "low end" because it's lowest model of Zen 4 on release. So when Nvidia releases RTX4090 in October I guess it will be low end part as well :-/ anyway, we can expect 7600X to be fighting 13600K. And don't be unrealistic expecting 13600K to be 40% faster, sorry. Anyway, whatever model names end up being, 300$ Intel will go vs 300$ AMD. Then we have AMD "new expensive boards" but those will just cost same as Intel of equivalent rank. But to OC K model you'll need Z board right, probably, while B board should be same as X board as physical chip is exactly the same, all you get with X boards is more connectivity. So unless you need 4 M.2 drives and 20 USBs you'd be throwing money away. So we have same-ish 300$ CPU, same-ish priced MBO, but AMD will be DDR5, PCIe 5.0 both on GPU slot and M.2, and Intel will be DDR4 and limited to just x15 5.0 lanes. So just right there you are getting "lower" system, as RAM will lose you 10% and PCIe will make you less future proofed right at start. Anyway, you'll save 70$ on RAM for 16GB, so close to 150$ for 32GB. So that Intel is 650$ vs 800$ AMD. Want 550$ Intel you'll need to go with lower model, so maybe 13600 and can get cheaper non-Z board. That loses you more performance. And makes your board even less future-proof. Can you use that till 2030? Sure! Enjoy. But not what I had in mind. If you want roughly same performance and same features at start, you will pay roughly same price. And then in 3-4 years you can A) say fck it all I'll keep this till 2030 B) spend another 800$ to get up to speed or C) MAYBE upgrade just CPU for another 300$. I'm all for "maybe".

But honestly, the way news are coming someone buying new PC in 2023 will be either buying mid-high range and have a choice of roughly equivalent Raptor vs Zen 4 platforms, or buying lower-low/mid system and that will be DDR4 and Alder (or 13000 Alder respin) vs Zen 3 that will keep selling. Low(er) end system is stuck anyway on both sides. High/mid-high will be stuck on Intel socket but have at least some future on AM5. At the same time we have enough things to compare not even looking at platform longevity. I expect price/perf to be generally close or equal. Some wins, some losses, but we need proper reviews for that, so if someone will pick exact apps they get swayed here or there. Then we have PCIe 5.0, and if recent rumors are true RTX may be 5.0 after all, so if they also want M.2 5.0, there's really only one choice in 2023. Some will still want a bit less power draw, because more power also means more money spent on PSU and cooling, not just heat in room or lower power bills. It will be interesting pitting different builds one vs other. In all of these I see AMD having slight advantage. And then you add that "maybe upgradeable to Zen 6/3D" etc. So that is just one piece of pro and cons. Not the be-all/end-all argument, just one of a dozen. But hey, let's just wait for reviews and proper comparisons. It's tiring revolving around same old same old without proper facts and numbers. I'm certainly done here, and more so talking old platforms when we have newcomers around the corner.

Uh... actually, you could build a system with a 12600k for 550$/€. The F-version has an MSRP of 265$ one of the cheaper, but not the cheapest Z690 boards, the MSI PRO Z690-A, has an MSRP of 240$, but sold for less pretty quick; got mine in January for 195$ or so. DDR4-3200 RAM in 16GB goes for 50 bucks. Even when using the MSRP of that board, which dropped pretty much immediately, I arrive at 555$; almost a perfect match to your requirement. And again, the board went down quickly. Plus, that is still a high-end chipset, B660 is both cheaper and almost as good, plus more than enough for most people so it is an option, and you can opt for a 12700 with it, even, for more multi-thread performance at similar price. The 5600X launched to an MSRP of 300$ and stayed above that for quite some time, so there goes your argument... btw, the 12400 is in the same ball park as the 5600X in terms of performance for again a lower price. So it's not even a fair comparison here. Also, it has been shown that there isn't that much difference between DDR4 and DDR5 RAM for Alder Lake, and likely also for Raptor. So you can totally so that, and as a bonus, the board I use comes in a DD5 version, too. So 300 CPU, 200 board, are 500, 130 for RAM lands you at 630 if you really want DDR5-6000 RAM which you likely won't need.

The rest of your argumentation is complete bulls, I'm sorry... I'm not even gonna bother reply to that.