Time to replace 6 year old system?

[mackerel]

Even a 6 or 8 core AM4 part would blow that old thing out of the water. I was impressed with Zen 2 let alone Zen 3.

It depends on how you measure it. Zen 2 is about on par architecturally, and Zen 3 is a minor update on that. Late AM4's only minor advantage is higher single/low thread performance mainly from higher clocks, but is a big downgrade in every other way. I will not replace my old, end of life platform for a worse old, end of life platform. Even the 5800X3D is clearly beaten in gaming by ordinary current gen CPUs.

I personally wouldn't consider 6 cores for a main system, nor recommend it to anyone unless they literally have no money. Even 8 cores is the minimum which is why 7800X3D is giving me mild concerns, but I don't want to deal with the multiple CCX nonsense from higher AMD models. I hope AMD can get a CCX to 12 or 16 cores in a generation or two.

Now that Zen 4 is here and doing alright, I do not feel properly motivated to upgrade yet. I do have a Strix B660-i that I can use for an Intel build.. but damn 200w just to play a game is intense.

Zen 4 is starting to get interesting again, which is why I was looking at the 7800X3D. Ram performance is no longer a downgrade but a sidegrade. Doesn't really improve on what I have but at least it isn't a big step back. It also supports best in consumer class AVX-512, so it is at least vaguely comparable to my current system. This is the main reason I leaned towards Zen 4 over Whatever Lake, since Intel doesn't have AVX-512 support currently in consumer tier offerings. The cache is a nice bonus.

Combine the above, this is why my original plan was to see what the late 2024+ offerings from both sides will be before upgrading. Zen 5 should be interesting in general, and we will have the true next gen desktop offering from Intel.

The reason why I don't recommend MSI is because their BIOS team since the last 2 generations only releases what is necessary. They don't improve anything above the minimum (read, so it won't crash).

You've given me the biggest reason yet not to choose MSI.

Most brands care mainly about their top motherboards. Everything cheaper is skipped in BIOS tweaking and additional improvements. The same is for every brand.

I'm kinda surprised my low end Asus X299 is still getting updates. Mainstream boards that are newer than that have stopped long ago.

The cheapest mobos that feel high-end and actually work not much worse (or even better) are ASUS Strix. They also have good BIOS and additional options, voltages, and everything else that you can play with, and won't limit manual settings.

It might sound like confirmation bias but that range could be my next one, when I get around to it.

 

[Woomack]

X299 was never a low-end since even the cheapest X299 was HEDT. ASUS has the largest BIOS team, and they update more products, but mainly those that are popular and still under warranty.
I know there are problems with lower series motherboards (even TUF series), and not after a long time, but a few months after release. Typically, high ROG motherboards like Maximus or Crosshair have the longest support. Then Strix and later everything below. If the motherboard isn't popular or designed for enthusiasts, then ASUS tweaks the BIOS for 1-3 months after the premiere, and later, only critical updates are released.

Some Strix motherboards are very popular and not worse than the top line. Here you can see what is expected from ASUS motherboards to have longer support as it's more often updated by their dedicated BIOS team and focused by in-house overclockers - https://rog-forum.asus.com/t5/amd-600-series/x670-resource/td-p/901576 In short, it's a list that contains Strix B650E/X670E -A,-E,-F,-I, Crosshair Hero/Gene/Extreme and B650/X670 Creator. I'm surprised they care about the Creator series, as it was skipped before. This forum thread may contain beta BIOS releases that you won't find anywhere else. However, all B650/X670 motherboards are mature enough, so you probably won't find any beta version that gives more than the latest official one.

 

[mackerel]

X299 was never a low-end since even the cheapest X299 was HEDT.

I meant it was low end for X299. I think the Tuf mk2 I got was one of the cheapest X299 boards at the time. I don't think it cost much more than a similar Z motherboard of the time. Still getting bios updates after 6 years isn't bad, even if it is mostly vulnerability patches.

 

[freeagent]

So much hate for the 6 cores lol. I have one and was using it a few days ago, for me it was fine. I wasn’t telling you to buy AM4, I was just saying it would still be an upgrade. I said what I said about Zen because my first part was a 3600XT, then 5600X. Night and day in performance and operation. Not a little bump.

 

[Woomack]

I meant it was low end for X299. I think the Tuf mk2 I got was one of the cheapest X299 boards at the time. I don't think it cost much more than a similar Z motherboard of the time. Still getting bios updates after 6 years isn't bad, even if it is mostly vulnerability patches.

I know what you meant. X299 was really cheap compared to what we get now for the same price. Every X299 motherboard was a good base for a high-end PC. Now for the same price you get something low to mid series when we don't really have HEDT. It's hard to call desktop series CPUs and motherboards that cost $1k+ each for the cheapest option. X299 already had good power design and everything else. I highly doubt there is any real reason for modern motherboards to cost so much when most don't even have additional licenses for SLI or other technologies. There is also no reason to bump the price so high because of TB4 or 10GbE LAN. 10GbE LAN was in many X299 mobos at a reasonable price, and now "high-end" has 2.5GbE.
I guess if not the price then you would jump onto the workstation Xeons or Threadrippers, but the price is ridiculous. I was browsing available options with 8-channel RAM, but it's way too much to play around for a couple of days and pay for that for the next 3 years

So much hate for the 6 cores lol. I have one and was using it a few days ago, for me it was fine. I wasn’t telling you to buy AM4, I was just saying it would still be an upgrade. I said what I said about Zen because my first part was a 3600XT, then 5600X. Night and day in performance and operation. Not a little bump.

For me, the Ryzen 7600 is perfect for everyday use and gaming. I got 7800X3D only because I needed one spare CPU for storage and other tests (AMD is not limiting SSD bandwidth like Intel does), and I was curious how much better it is than the 7600. I can tell you that 7800X3D uses less power and heats up less, even though it has an additional 2 cores and more cache. I have no idea how they did that, but I see about 10W less and about 10°C less under higher load on the 7800X3D. I would get 6 core X3D if it was available. I heard that soon, there will be 5600X3D in stores. It's like AMD is investing in "old" technology, as it still sells surprisingly well.

 

[mackerel]

So much hate for the 6 cores lol. I have one and was using it a few days ago, for me it was fine. I wasn’t telling you to buy AM4, I was just saying it would still be an upgrade. I said what I said about Zen because my first part was a 3600XT, then 5600X. Night and day in performance and operation. Not a little bump.

AM4 would not be an upgrade FOR ME, for the reasons already given. It could give higher game fps in limited situations I don't care about, but it would be a big step down in general outside of that where I actually care. Games are using more CPU than ever and already I have one that fully maxes out 12 cores. It is just a generalisation since core count alone doesn't determine performance, but the price differential to an 8 core from 6 core isn't that much and I think is well worth it outside of very tight budget constraint builds. There, compromises to performance will have to be made regardless.

I guess if not the price then you would jump onto the workstation Xeons or Threadrippers, but the price is ridiculous. I was browsing available options with 8-channel RAM, but it's way too much to play around for a couple of days and pay for that for the next 3 years

The Intel ones are the obvious choice for me as their CPUs are more monolithic-like. AMD's chiplet approach doesn't work for me. I'm half debating if I should go crazy and get one if I manage to sell my share in a house, but the market is pretty slow at the moment so unlikely to be any time soon.

I heard that soon, there will be 5600X3D in stores. It's like AMD is investing in "old" technology, as it still sells surprisingly well.

More likely they have a bunch of working but low performance dies that can't be used in existing products, so they might as well recover some value by turning it into an even lower tier product. Actually, 5600X3D already exists, as a limited exclusive to one store in US. The rumoured models are 5500X3D and 5700X3D presumably to make use of the even worse silicon they have. I wouldn't expect them to be in volume either, and will be a similar limited release.

 

[freeagent]

or the reasons already given

You didn't give any, other than it would not be an upgrade for you. What you run has no effect on me, I was just sticking up for 6 cores lol. Its funny, you look at AM4 as a downgrade, the same as I look at X299.

 

[mackerel]

You didn't give any, other than it would not be an upgrade for you.

I did, but just for you I'll make it really clear:

AM4 advantages over X299:
Might offer higher CPU performance in some situations at same core count, where not constrained by limitations of the platform.

X299 advantages over AM4:
More PCIe lanes
More memory bandwidth, comparable to DDR5 consumer systems
AVX-512 support

Why AM5 is interesting:
DDR5 means it is a sidegrade to X299
Has AVX-512 support so that wont be a loss. It is a weaker implementation but likely would still come out ahead of X299 from higher running clocks.

AM4 would be memory bandwidth limited in some of my use cases. My first X299 CPU was a 6 core 7800X. It was faster than every AM4 CPU that was out at the same time for some of my use cases, even 16 core ones.

What you run has no effect on me, I was just sticking up for 6 cores lol. Its funny, you look at AM4 as a downgrade, the same as I look at X299.

What you run doesn't matter to me either. This thread is about my potential next system. You are welcome to start your own 6 core worshipping thread elsewhere.

Post magically merged: Nov 23, 2023

(AMD is not limiting SSD bandwidth like Intel does)

I missed this earlier. Got more details?

I tried looking it up, but all I found were the following but it is several years ago.

Platform Storage Face-Off: AMD Upsets Intel

We put AMD and Intel systems head-to-head to find out which platform provides the top performance with storage devices.

www.tomshardware.com

AMD vs Intel CPUs for Game Loading

Following up to last week's load time battle, instead of comparing storage with vastly different performance specs, today we're going to see how CPUs can make a...

www.techspot.com

 

[Woomack]

I missed this earlier. Got more details?

I tried looking it up, but all I found were the following but it is several years ago.

Platform Storage Face-Off: AMD Upsets Intel

We put AMD and Intel systems head-to-head to find out which platform provides the top performance with storage devices.

www.tomshardware.com

AMD vs Intel CPUs for Game Loading

Following up to last week's load time battle, instead of comparing storage with vastly different performance specs, today we're going to see how CPUs can make a...

www.techspot.com

PCIe 4.0 SSD on Intel chipsets can make around 7.0-7.1GB/s max. Top PCIe 4.0 SSD on AMD chipsets go up to 7.4GB/s+.
The same is with PCIe 5.0. ADATA Legend 970 seems to have ~1GB/s worse maximum bandwidth on Intel Z790 motherboards than AMD B650E/X670E. Joe had ~9GB/s typical maximum sequential bandwidth in CDM/ATTO in his review on GB Z790, I had ~10GB/s on ASUS X670E.

It doesn't matter much in most things as it's only maximum sequential bandwidth. It still counts for reviews and checking the maximum SSD performance.

 

[mackerel]

PCIe 4.0 SSD on Intel chipsets can make around 7.0-7.1GB/s max. Top PCIe 4.0 SSD on AMD chipsets go up to 7.4GB/s+.

I did find when testing Optane the operating CPU speed can impact the results, at least for random reads. Might be worth checking the CPU is not in a low power state when running the tests and seeing if that makes a difference.

I only have one 4.0 system right now. My two 4.0 SSDs are boot drives in 3.0 systems, so I can't recheck right now. I do keep eyeballing sales debating if it is worth updating one or more of these systems, but at the end of the day I don't really need it. I still have TBs of SATA SSDs spare.

 

[freeagent]

Wow no need to be a jerk about it.

I will see my way out

Edit:

I dont worship 6 cores, I have a 12core that is still pretty good, enjoy your build

 

[mackerel]

New information on my suspected "unstable" system. I now believe there was a power supply glitch that caused it. Why didn't I suspect this before? I had two systems running at the time. The other was still running like normal when I checked afterwards. It needs a login and doesn't auto-start software. If that had been affected too it would not be looking normal. So why do I think it is a power glitch? I resumed my PS5 for the first time in a while. I normally leave it in rest mode, which is kinda like sleep. It will complain if you remove power in this state, which is what I saw when I used it. Most likely explanation given this info is there were momentary glitches in power. For whatever reason, the PSU in the other system managed to hold on through those glitches, but neither the PC in question here nor the resting PS5 could do the same. So... I've been planning replacing a PC that isn't failing.

Panic over. I don't need to spend a load of cash in the short term and will see what's around when I'm ready.

I still *want* a new system, but I don't *need* it

 

[rainless]

New information on my suspected "unstable" system. I now believe there was a power supply glitch that caused it. Why didn't I suspect this before? I had two systems running at the time. The other was still running like normal when I checked afterwards. It needs a login and doesn't auto-start software. If that had been affected too it would not be looking normal. So why do I think it is a power glitch? I resumed my PS5 for the first time in a while. I normally leave it in rest mode, which is kinda like sleep. It will complain if you remove power in this state, which is what I saw when I used it. Most likely explanation given this info is there were momentary glitches in power. For whatever reason, the PSU in the other system managed to hold on through those glitches, but neither the PC in question here nor the resting PS5 could do the same. So... I've been planning replacing a PC that isn't failing.

Panic over. I don't need to spend a load of cash in the short term and will see what's around when I'm ready.

I still *want* a new system, but I don't *need* it

Meh... I didn't really NEED an RTX 4060 as it turns out...

...but I've got one now!

My problem was also power-related. Turned out to be my Corsair (lo how the mighty hath fallen... VS550 power supply being unable to keep up with the load. (My XFX 750, which had been sitting in a basement never used for 2 years, has no problem at all).

Still... when I thought about it... The upgrade fits my rhythm of getting a new card every other generation (960, 2060, 4060).

Now I'm looking at new CASES.

Kinda tired of looking at mine. I thought about new cpu... motherboard... BAH!

Too big a hassle when you don't really need it.

But there's ALWAYS a new case somewhere...

 

[mackerel]

My problem was also power-related. Turned out to be my Corsair (lo how the mighty hath fallen... VS550 power supply being unable to keep up with the load. (My XFX 750, which had been sitting in a basement never used for 2 years, has no problem at all).

To be fair, the VS line is/was their really cheap option. I think most people would recommend their CX line as a decent starting point.

 

[rainless]

To be fair, the VS line is/was their really cheap option. I think most people would recommend their CX line as a decent starting point.

I used to have a CX 750 watt. But I lost that (and 25% of my worldly possessions) in a fiasco down in Barcelona.

There's no excuse for the VS line. Cheap or not cheap... I've never had a power supply behave like that.

I used to have a really cheap, 15 dollar power supply from LightPower... even THAT performed better...

...until it blew up.

 

[freeagent]

The last Corsair PSU that I had was beat into submission by the system that it drove. I don't buy from that brand at all. Waste of money imo.

 

[EarthDog]

There's no excuse for the VS line. Cheap or not cheap... I've never had a power supply behave like that.

It failed. It happens. To best of them, even. You bought a step up from a fire hazard.

Was it out of warranty? I think they are 3 or 5 years. Not sure when you got it.

Waste of money imo.

I put Corsair squarely in the middle. Their HX/HXi, AX/AXi, line was/is top notch/Tier 1, and many are average, capable units (HX, RM) They have some duds too (VS, VX, CX).. but most lines do. You cant blindly pick like say Seasonic or Super Flower maybe, they're really no different than most with tier 1 line most average and a potato or two.

 

[freeagent]

I have a Seasonic Prime GX, cant drive my 3070Ti and 5900X without shutting off

And you are right.

 

[Woomack]

I put Corsair squarely in the middle. Their HX/HXi, AX/AXi, line was/is top notch/Tier 1, and many are average, capable units (HX, RM) They have some duds too (VS, VX, CX).. but most lines do. You cant blindly pick like say Seasonic or Super Flower maybe, they're really no different than most with tier 1 line most average and a potato or two.

I had no problems with earlier Corsair RM. At least I was pushing lower wattage (650W or something) units to the limits without problems. VS, VX, CX, or whatever else they have from lower series and older TX (which wasn't even so low series) are pretty average or even below average. I had some RMAs on them at work. It's a matter of who the OEM is, and Corsair has more than one and has been switching them in the last few years. I still have 1200W HX, which is 8 years or something, and it keeps nearly perfect voltages with i7 14700K + RTX4080. It's not even close to 1200W load, but no problems at all, and it runs passively at ~50% load.
The Corsair SF (SFX) series is great. I own 3 of them right now, 2 run 24/7. One used to run for 2 years before I replaced it (I still have it somewhere). I was pushing the 450W unit at over 450W load without issues. It's pretty much the best SFX series on the market, especially Platinum 80+ units.
From new series, Deepcool has some nice PSUs. FSP has great PSUs too, but sometimes fans are spinning too fast and make some noise (like in their SFX series). I had no problems with their new higher series. I also have Enermax D.F. 2 and D.F. X 1050/1200W in tests right now. Both run without issues at ~800W load and are quiet. However, I liked the aesthetics of their older series, like Platimax, more. I had only one problem with Enermax in maybe 15 years. It was Platimax D.F., which for some reason died one day. It's only electronics and happens even in the best series.

Pretty much everything from known brands that have "Japanese capacitors" in the general specs, 80+ Gold certification or higher, and is known to keep good soldering quality is worth recommendation nowadays. I haven't seen even one failed PSU in the last 2-3 years from brands that are at least above average. Many brands use OEMs, and some have their own designs.
There is no brand that would give a 5-10 year warranty on a bad product, and pretty much everything from the new Gold 80+ series has such a long warranty.

 

[mackerel]

Corsair CX series changed over the years. I forget the exact transition point but the later ones were considered decent entry level units, the early ones were not so good. I've owned many CX 450/550W wired and modular versions and never had a problem with them. Think it was the older 430W that didn't have such a great reputation. The 450/550 units were the go-to value offering without going too low, like VS.

Also keep it in perspective of the time they were commonly used. I think we're in the 2015-era give or take a few years. GPU power inflation hadn't taken off yet, and top end GPUs weren't pushing past 250W without OC. Consumer tier CPUs were up to around 100W class, so the 450W unit was fine for most non-OC consumer systems. I know at one point my early VR box had a 6700k and 980 Ti on a 450W, because my better PSUs wouldn't physically fit in an ITX case.

I have owned a couple HXi units (650, 1000) and like them for the monitoring ability. Also had an older TX750 which handled everything I threw at it including 3-way Crossfire, but that was from before efficiency was a thing so I sold it on as part of some system.