Question Upgrade to 2700x or wait

baha_timimi

Distinguished
Mar 8, 2010
156
1
18,715
11
I have now i7 5930k.
dose it worth to upgrade to Ryzen 2700X or wait to 3XXX as Ryzen 7 3700X which have 12 core and 24 threads and new motherboard supporting PCI Express 4?
 
Reactions: valeman2012
Why do you want to upgrade that CPU ? Are you looking for more CORES and threads on a processor ? What's your purpose, gaming , video editing, rendering ? You already have a decent CPU, and it won't be as wise decision to upgrade to the RYZEN 2000 series as well, IMO.

Wait for next-gen. Or, are you looking for more PCI-E LANES from the CPU/PCH ?? PCI Express 4 might bring some improvements though.
 

baha_timimi

Distinguished
Mar 8, 2010
156
1
18,715
11
Why do you want to upgrade that CPU ? Are you looking for more CORES and threads on a processor ? What's your purpose, gaming , video editing, rendering ? You already have a decent CPU, and it won't be as wise decision to upgrade to the RYZEN 2000 series as well, IMO.

Wait for next-gen. Or, are you looking for more PCI-E LANES from the CPU/PCH ?? PCI Express 4 might bring some improvements though.
First purpose is better rendering machine with more cores and higher speed single core performance.
Second, is better game FPS. where my GPU is MSI gaming X 1080ti.
So, is it worth now to get 2700X and X470 MB and in future I can replace the CPU with Ryzen 3700X as example with the same X470 Motherboard.
Or wait until 7/7/2019 to get new platform as X570 Motherboard withthe new CPU.
 
In your particular case, waiting is the best alternative, as the core count for mainstream CPUs will go up with this new Ryzen generation. I'm not sure about the price points as it's only rumoured to be ~600 for the top end Ryzen, but that should still net you a 16c/32t monster for whatever you need (I hope!).

Cheers!
 
Reactions: baha_timimi

geofelt

Titan
From a gaming point of view, the 2700X will be comparable since the single thread performance is similar.
Rendering may be some 25% better.

If budget is not a problem, the i9-9900K is the best of both worlds.
For gaming, the single thread performance is some 35% better and the rendering capability will be some 45% better.
As to ryzen new gen, rumors abound but nobody knows what the processor capability will be, the price, or the capability.
And... what will be the intel response.

If you have a need now, upgrade now.
If you wait for the next best thing, you will wait forever.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
If you wait for the next best thing, you will wait forever.
Waiting for the next best thing when the next best thing is only incrementally better or cheaper makes little sense. Waiting for a paradigm shift in the market and performance per dollar on the other hand can be very well worth it unless your livelihood or sanity does hangs on getting a new system immediately. What is coming up this year from AMD is a rough doubling of performance per dollar, pretty difficult to pass on unless you absolutely have to buy now for whatever reasons.
 
Reactions: baha_timimi

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
@ InvalidError:
I hope you are right, but I have my doubts.
Depends on what you are looking at. I'm looking at launch MSRPs, $330 for the 1700 -> $300 for the 2700 -> ~$200 for the more pessimistic 3600 rumors I have seen. If you look at old vs new at current pricing, then $200 for discounted old vs $200 for new isn't as impressive.

There has to be a reason why older chips are being so heavily discounted and the most logical one is a substantial price point shift.
 
Reactions: baha_timimi
Even more. For people looking for a cost-efficient platform to do professional stuff, Ryzen is bringing a lot of good stuff with it. PCIe 4 and the extra lanes they'll have available in the 500 series chipset is amazing on its own right. If you wanted to run a plethora of drives without having to penalize the rest of the system, there you go. Music and Video editing enthusiasts will appreciate it immensely. That's not even talking about whatever new stuff they put in the Ryzen 3K series (besides more cores and slight IPC bump).

Waiting for people with the OP's needs is the absolute best answer. These 2-4 months of wait could mean they'll get a superb platform for not much money. It sounds strange, as it feels like they'll cannibalize Thread Ripper's niche, but I'd imagine they'll bump TR's platform a notch to keep it above.

Cheers!
 
Reactions: baha_timimi

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
it feels like they'll cannibalize Thread Ripper's niche
Only the part that does not care about extra memory, massive IO (3X as many usable CPU IO lanes as AM4), or a 12C24T+ AM4 CPU potentially being heavily bottlenecked by dual-channel DDR4 in anything beyond workloads with modest memory traffic. From what few TR memory performance scaling benchmarks I could find, it looks like TR 1950X suffers 20-50% performance penalties between 2x3200MT/s and 4x3200MT/s. Unless AMD pulled memory bandwidth miracles with Zen 2 (no doubt UMA will be of huge help in some TR1/2 worst cases), we'll need DDR5-4000 and up to get decent all-around performance out of dual-channel 16C32T.

IMO, for most people and workloads TR4 is really intended for, AM4 is a non-starter.
 
Only the part that does not care about extra memory, massive IO (3X as many usable CPU IO lanes as AM4), or a 12C24T+ AM4 CPU potentially being heavily bottlenecked by dual-channel DDR4 in anything beyond workloads with modest memory traffic. From what few TR memory performance scaling benchmarks I could find, it looks like TR 1950X suffers 20-50% performance penalties between 2x3200MT/s and 4x3200MT/s. Unless AMD pulled memory bandwidth miracles with Zen 2 (no doubt UMA will be of huge help in some TR1/2 worst cases), we'll need DDR5-4000 and up to get decent all-around performance out of dual-channel 16C32T.

IMO, for most people and workloads TR4 is really intended for, AM4 is a non-starter.
That is a fair assessment, but I'm willing to say that, even with the Dual Channel penalty, the whole platform will still be more cost efficient than TR's (as it currently is!). After Rome lands, I'm indeed expecting AMD to either drop TR or beef it a bit.

Cheers!
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
I'm willing to say that, even with the Dual Channel penalty, the whole platform will still be more cost efficient than TR's (as it currently is!).
When has HEDT ever been about being cost-efficient? HEDT has always been about conveniently packing more resources in a single system for atypically heavy consumer/prosumer usage and that convenience has always come at a premium. Same goes in the server space where you trade 5X the throughput at 10-20X the cost for the convenience and efficiency of consolidating operations on far fewer systems.
 
Reactions: baha_timimi
When has HEDT ever been about being cost-efficient? HEDT has always been about conveniently packing more resources in a single system for atypically heavy consumer/prosumer usage and that convenience has always come at a premium. Same goes in the server space where you trade 5X the throughput at 10-20X the cost for the convenience and efficiency of consolidating operations on far fewer systems.
It's always been about being cost efficient; you like burning money? X'D

It's just more of a "depends on the software you're running". You even mentioned as much :)

That is why, if you're just wetting your feet at the "pro-sumer shore", then Dual Channel might not be such a big deal over the additional platform cost (pure rendering, for example!). If you're making money with it, you start looking to the Intel X platforms and TR offerings.

Cheers!
 
Reactions: baha_timimi

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
That is why, if you're just wetting your feet at the "pro-sumer shore", then Dual Channel might not be such a big deal over the additional platform cost (pure rendering, for example!).
How much of a price difference is there between highest-end mainstream CPUs and equivalent same-generation HEDT CPUs? ~$100. ($500 for the Ryzen 1800X, $550 for TR1900X)
How much of a price difference is there between high-end mainstream motherboards and "entry-level" HEDT motherboards? ~$100.
How much of a price difference is there between memory sufficiently fast to enable an AM4 16C32T CPU to match its TR4 counterpart? Likely requires 4400+MT/s which currently costs $250+ extra for 32GB.

Once you factor in the much faster (and stupidly more expensive) memory required to bridge the gap between AM4 and TR4, TR4 should be a much safer and more cost-effective way of getting the most out of 16C32T Zen 2 CPUs, possibly even 12C24T ones depending on what Zen 2's quad-vs-dual and memory clock scaling looks like.

Rather than AM4 cannibalizing TR4, I'm actually expecting TR4 sales to go up with Zen 2 thanks to relatively affordable CPUs (I'm thinking $400-450 for 12C24T vs $300-350 on AM4) that greatly benefit from quad-channel RAM and eliminating the NUMA performance hiccups that turned many enthusiasts away from previous generations.
 
Reactions: baha_timimi

baha_timimi

Distinguished
Mar 8, 2010
156
1
18,715
11
Only the part that does not care about extra memory, massive IO (3X as many usable CPU IO lanes as AM4), or a 12C24T+ AM4 CPU potentially being heavily bottlenecked by dual-channel DDR4 in anything beyond workloads with modest memory traffic. From what few TR memory performance scaling benchmarks I could find, it looks like TR 1950X suffers 20-50% performance penalties between 2x3200MT/s and 4x3200MT/s. Unless AMD pulled memory bandwidth miracles with Zen 2 (no doubt UMA will be of huge help in some TR1/2 worst cases), we'll need DDR5-4000 and up to get decent all-around performance out of dual-channel 16C32T.

IMO, for most people and workloads TR4 is really intended for, AM4 is a non-starter.
So, is it possible the new 3000 AMD CPU's suffer from the performance of single to dual channel also like TR1950 first generation?
And , is 500 Motherboards series support DDR5?
 
How much of a price difference is there between highest-end mainstream CPUs and equivalent same-generation HEDT CPUs? ~$100. ($500 for the Ryzen 1800X, $550 for TR1900X)
How much of a price difference is there between high-end mainstream motherboards and "entry-level" HEDT motherboards? ~$100.
How much of a price difference is there between memory sufficiently fast to enable an AM4 16C32T CPU to match its TR4 counterpart? Likely requires 4400+MT/s which currently costs $250+ extra for 32GB.

Once you factor in the much faster (and stupidly more expensive) memory required to bridge the gap between AM4 and TR4, TR4 should be a much safer and more cost-effective way of getting the most out of 16C32T Zen 2 CPUs, possibly even 12C24T ones depending on what Zen 2's quad-vs-dual and memory clock scaling looks like.

Rather than AM4 cannibalizing TR4, I'm actually expecting TR4 sales to go up with Zen 2 thanks to relatively affordable CPUs (I'm thinking $400-450 for 12C24T vs $300-350 on AM4) that greatly benefit from quad-channel RAM and eliminating the NUMA performance hiccups that turned many enthusiasts away from previous generations.
Er... You're a bit off (edit: changed phrasing). Why compare Ryzen 1K to TR 1K at the same core count? TR currently maxes out at 16c/32T with the 2990WX at ~$1600 and then the 2950X at ~$900. The projected price for the 16c/32 (if it comes to exist) should be ~$600 (or less, I hope!). As TR is a quad channel, you necessarily need to buy 4 sticks vs 2 sticks with dual channel from mainstream. I can't remember the price difference between 4 and 2 sticks for the same capacity and speed, but there was a delta there. And the price difference between MoBos is not as significant, yes. Like I said, this is a comparison for the future, as the current Ryzens just don't touch the TR siblings in core count at the higher end offerings. When Rome hits, I'd imagine if TR gets a refresh they'll reach 32c/64t, but they will most definitely be more expensive than the 2990wx currently is and widen the gap for sure. As for comparing core-to-core ratios, the gap is less, yes, but still cheaper. nowadays, if you save $200 that means a bigger SSD, more RAM or even better cooling, so it's not a trivial saving that can increase performance on the side.

As for NUMA... I don't know... Microsoft doesn't have the best track record with it.

Cheers!
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
So, is it possible the new 3000 AMD CPU's suffer from the performance of single to dual channel also like TR1950 first generation?
And , is 500 Motherboards series support DDR5?
Yes, Ryzen 3000 may have a significant memory bandwidth bottleneck issue compared to ThreadRipper 3000 when looking at 12C24T and beyond.
No, 500-series AMD chipsets will not support DDR5. The memory controller is inside the CPU so the chipset ultimately does not matter. In all likelihood, you will need an AM5 motherboard (or whatever comes after AM4 if AMD decides to break socket numbering continuity) for DDR5 support and this will probably happen in 2021.

When Rome hits, I'd imagine if TR gets a refresh they'll reach 32c/64t, but they will most definitely be more expensive than the 2990wx currently is and widen the gap for sure.
The highest-end parts sure. But if you are worried about high-end AM4 cannibalizing low-end TR4, that would be high-end Ryzen 3 vs entry-level ThreadRipper 3 and if you want Ryzen to have a fighting chance against quad-channel, you will require far more (as in 100-200% more) expensive RAM, which quickly destroys AM4's cheaper platform and CPU advantage if you need more than 16GB of RAM as prosumers usually do. As for why I used the 1000-generation, this should have been obvious: there is no 8C16T ThreadRipper 2000 to line up with the Ryzen 2700, not enough benefit to be worth the trouble. As for how much the 16C32T CPUs might retail for, my guesses are $450-500 for AM4 vs $600 for TR4, so we're on the same page for TR4. We'll see whether this is the case when ThreadRipper 2 prices start melting.
 
So, is it possible the new 3000 AMD CPU's suffer from the performance of single to dual channel also like TR1950 first generation?
And , is 500 Motherboards series support DDR5?
It's tad early to speculate on on AMD's unreleased 12c/24 thread offerings...either advantages or shortcomings, if any.

And no one really expected intended dual channel RAM rigs not to take a hit running only a single stick of RAM, if that is what you are attempting to say by 'suffer from the performance of single to dual channel'

The 500 series boards are NOT DDR5.
 

ahm12

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2008
26
0
18,530
0
i decided to wait. i keep my computers for 6 years and keep upgrading graphics every 3 years. currently on 4670k with 1070

main reason pcie 4.0 gives room for upgrades for a long time. 2nd i want more pcie lanes . rumors are 40 pcie lanes. right now i dont like that sometimes if you attach 2nd m2 it disable pcie slots or runs on sata which disables some sata slots. not dealing with that nonsense .
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
main reason pcie 4.0 gives room for upgrades for a long time. 2nd i want more pcie lanes . rumors are 40 pcie lanes.
From the rumors I have spotted, at least 24 of however many "PCIe lanes" the X570 chipset might have are HSIO lanes, which means any ports hard-wired to any other function like USB3.57954525-genX and SATA are carved out of the PCIe budget. If you want PCIe x4 to every non-GPU slot and M.2, this is already 24+ lanes for an ATX board.

This is both the advantage and curse of having so many standards sharing similar if not identical LVDS signaling and encoding: with most lanes capable of doing multiple things, you can't ever have everything at once. Either the motherboard manufacturers hard-wire the lanes to a single function (they choose for you) or they put in switches that let you choose between feature A or B.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS