Upgrade to Ryzen 5 3600 or wait for Ryzen 4000?

[Arvaos]

Currently have a i7-4770k and RTX 2060 Super.

I noticed some deals on Ryzen 5 3600 processors at the moment, haven't been following processor news in the past year.

Upgrade for Ryzen 3000 or wait for Ryzen 4000?

[pasa]

emoticorpse の投稿を引用：

pasa の投稿を引用：

When the 3000 series got issued the 2600 price dropped to almost half (!!!). Similar may happen for the 4000 debut. Unless the deal you see is in a similar range, or you are in a hurry I suggest to wait then see whether it's better to get the new thing or the older one at mass discount.

Yeah, but if he buys a 3000 cpu when the 4000 is out, he's probably going to consider upgrading because he knows something better is out.

That would be a pretty dumb approach. There is always something better out. And if you happen to buy the single item on the top of the list atm, that will buy you just a few weeks.

You purchase that you need and what you can afford -- wherever that is in the range of what is available.

For example we did actually buy several 2600 and 2600X cpus early this year because it is up to the intended purpose and was the best bang/buck at that moment we had to buy something. While the official MSRP of those was the same as for the 3600 the actual price in the shop differed bigtime, way beyond the performance diff.

A similar situation may come up at any time due to deals and random price swings as manufacturing and shipment misaligns with demand.

As CPUs are used for many years -- like OPs current one is probably beyond 5 and looks for replacement only now, the something-better-out-there is a ridiculous approach, don't you think?

[pasa]

hawkeye の投稿を引用：

ANACHRONiSM の投稿を引用：

This is nonsense.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i3-10320/15.html

you need to learn more about tech
why does the i3 win? even in ACO which people often say here benefits from amd cores
because it has faster threads

Is that useful data? Normally I would think that +- 5% difference is not significant and can be ignored for practice. With that, almost the whole table s equivalent to the marked I3.

[emoticorpse]

pasa の投稿を引用：

emoticorpse の投稿を引用：

Yeah, but if he buys a 3000 cpu when the 4000 is out, he's probably going to consider upgrading because he knows something better is out.

That would be a pretty dumb approach. There is always something better out. And if you happen to buy the single item on the top of the list atm, that will buy you just a few weeks.

You purchase that you need and what you can afford -- wherever that is in the range of what is available.

For example we did actually buy several 2600 and 2600X cpus early this year because it is up to the intended purpose and was the best bang/buck at that moment we had to buy something. While the official MSRP of those was the same as for the 3600 the actual price in the shop differed bigtime, way beyond the performance diff.

A similar situation may come up at any time due to deals and random price swings as manufacturing and shipment misaligns with demand.

As CPUs are used for many years -- like OPs current one is probably beyond 5 and looks for replacement only now, the something-better-out-there is a ridiculous approach, don't you think?

Since you put it that way, you might have a point. I still wouldn't underestimate someone's desire for some new gear when reality isn't what their expectations were. Especially out of desperation and poorly guided efforts to bump up performance. I don't know if that's him but it might be.

[Arvaos]

ANACHRONiSM の投稿を引用：

RyReps の投稿を引用：

https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/asus-b450-f-amd-ryzen-5-3600-bundle-50-possible-cashback-25799-upfront-from-aria-3509077

This is the deal I was referring to.

Asus ROG STRIX B450-F GAMING ATX AM4 Motherboard and AMD Ryzen 5 3600 3.6 GHz 6-Core Processor for £208 with cashback.

How is this deal?

Does the board have the features that you need/want? Is there a cheaper alternative that does as well, or is this a really good deal in your market? I don't speak pound and the UK market is different from what I'm used to.

Edit: Also, are you actually going to get the cash back on that deal, or is there a chance you'll get screwed?

It is an incredible deal and they will honour the terms of the Cashback.

I will also be pairing this with my current RTX 2060 Super to play games at high to very high settings at 1920x1080.

My understanding is that while the 4000 series will come in Q3, it will a while before they are in the £100 to £150 price range.

[Arvaos]

Rogue の投稿を引用：

RyReps の投稿を引用：

Currently have a i7-4770k and RTX 2060 Super.

Your upgrade path involves replacing the CPU, motherboard, and RAM either way.

In theory, the longer you wait, the better the upgrade will be. If cost is a factor, track prices for the parts you plan to buy and buy them when they are cheap enough.

There is always new hardware on the horizon so you don't want to wait indefinitely, but Zen 3 is slated for release by the end of 2020, so I would probably wait for that.

That is true but it could be 12 months until they are cheaper and have a lot of availability.

I will consider an upgrade in a year if next gen games require 8 cores and a new GPU.

[Cave Yeti Supreme]

RyReps の投稿を引用：

It is an incredible deal and they will honour the terms of the Cashback.

I will also be pairing this with my current RTX 2060 Super to play games at high to very high settings at 1920x1080.

My understanding is that while the 4000 series will come in Q3, it will a while before they are in the £100 to £150 price range.

Just to reiterate, unless there's another board (cheaper B450/better B550) that meets your needs/wants in terms of features available from wherever you can find a reputable seller, then perhaps that's a good way to go.

Otherwise, I wouldn't be terribly concerned about future upgrades. Barring something unexpected, most likely only one more generation of chips will be released on AM4, that's Ryzen 4000. I personally wouldn't wait until end of '21, or more likely '22, to buy if I needed an upgrade now.

[Autumn_]

hawkeye の投稿を引用：

ANACHRONiSM の投稿を引用：

This is nonsense.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i3-10320/15.html

you need to learn more about tech
why does the i3 win? even in ACO which people often say here benefits from amd cores
because it has faster threads

Please link a source that shows frametimes, or at the least 1% and .1% lows.

Without those, the numbers are quite meaningless, and doesn't show the actual performance (if it's a stutterfest or not.)

[Cave Yeti Supreme]

Autumn_ の投稿を引用：

hawkeye の投稿を引用：

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i3-10320/15.html

you need to learn more about tech
why does the i3 win? even in ACO which people often say here benefits from amd cores
because it has faster threads

Please link a source that shows frametimes, or at the least 1% and .1% lows.

Without those, the numbers are quite meaningless, and doesn't show the actual performance (if it's a stutterfest or not.)

I've been itching to counter with the GN article on streaming between 6 thread and 12 thread CPU's, but he hasn't bothered coming up with good data from a reputable source to back up his claim.

[Illusion of Progress]

It seemed like a really silly attempt at dismissing Ryzen anyway. Most modern and current CPUs are pretty close to one another when it comes to IPC, so the differing factors are core count, clock speed, and price. Intel often has a slight advantage in IPS (instructions per second) because of higher clock speeds, but you pay for it (not just in direct CPU cost, but in power draw, heat, and cooling needed). So, saying "the Core i3 is as good or better than a mid-upper range Ryzen in games, and would you buy a Core i3?" without actually filling in the rest, but suggesting that you probably wouldn't buy a Core i3 and that therefore Ryzen is a bad buy, is therefore a silly framing of things.

Not only that, but in 2020, quad core CPUs (SMT or not) should really only be considered under low needs and/or strict budget limitations at the cost of longevity (such as upgrading from pre-Ryzen or a Core 2 Duo or something with light or limited threading games or something). The OP is already on a decent quad core and looking to upgrade so I'm not even sure why Core i3 was brought up. Who would not only make a lateral change, but pick the more expensive route in doing so?

Also not sure why the 9th generation Intel lineup was suggested. The Core i7 10700K is a cheaper Core i9 9900K, and the Core i5 10600K is a better Core i7 8700K (the Core i7 9700K is an awkward place, having two more cores but four less threads, so I see it trading places compared to the other two as it ages, but I'd rather have a 6 core/12 thread part). Of course, this is going off of MSRP; used finds, price gouging, or local pricing differences MAY make an older CPU a good deal, but I wouldn't set out to buy one by default.

As far as I see it, OP should basically be looking at either a Core i5 10600K, Core i7 10700K, Ryzen 5 3600X, or Ryzen 7 3700X. The amount willing to be spent, and how much greatly diminishing value for a small gaming performance increase is justified, determines whether Intel is a good choice or not. Else, AMD works about as well and is much cheaper. Either of these four CPUs will be fantastic for the role and a good upgrade; less shouldn't be looked at, and more is probably (key word) not needed. Whether you want 6 or 8 cores right now depends on how much safer you want it to be at not aging as fast (IMO, there's an argument to be made that 8 cores are warranted for those making purchases now, but 6 cores will be fine for a while as well).

[r.linder]

Illusion of Progress の投稿を引用：

It seemed like a really silly attempt at dismissing Ryzen anyway. Most modern and current CPUs are pretty close to one another when it comes to IPC, so the differing factors are core count, clock speed, and price. Intel often has a slight advantage in IPS (instructions per second) because of higher clock speeds, but you pay for it (not just in direct CPU cost, but in power draw, heat, and cooling needed). So, saying "the Core i3 is as good or better than a mid-upper range Ryzen in games, and would you buy a Core i3?" without actually filling in the rest, but suggesting that you probably wouldn't buy a Core i3 and that therefore Ryzen is a bad buy, is therefore a silly framing of things.

Not only that, but in 2020, quad core CPUs (SMT or not) should really only be considered under low needs and/or strict budget limitations at the cost of longevity (such as upgrading from pre-Ryzen or a Core 2 Duo or something with light or limited threading games or something). The OP is already on a decent quad core and looking to upgrade so I'm not even sure why Core i3 was brought up. Who would not only make a lateral change, but pick the more expensive route in doing so?

Also not sure why the 9th generation Intel lineup was suggested. The Core i7 10700K is a cheaper Core i9 9900K, and the Core i5 10600K is a better Core i7 8700K (the Core i7 9700K is an awkward place, having two more cores but four less threads, so I see it trading places compared to the other two as it ages, but I'd rather have a 6 core/12 thread part). Of course, this is going off of MSRP; used finds, price gouging, or local pricing differences MAY make an older CPU a good deal, but I wouldn't set out to buy one by default.

As far as I see it, OP should basically be looking at either a Core i5 10600K, Core i7 10700K, Ryzen 5 3600X, or Ryzen 7 3700X. The amount willing to be spent, and how much greatly diminishing value for a small gaming performance increase is justified, determines whether Intel is a good choice or not. Else, AMD works about as well and is much cheaper. Either of these four CPUs will be fantastic for the role and a good upgrade; less shouldn't be looked at, and more is probably (key word) not needed. Whether you want 6 or 8 cores right now depends on how much safer you want it to be at not aging as fast (IMO, there's an argument to be made that 8 cores are warranted for those making purchases now, but 6 cores will be fine for a while as well).

The i5-10600K is in a weird place because in a lot of countries it costs around/literally twice as much as the Ryzen 5 3600 but isn't THAT much better to really be concerned about... The only real difference is being obsessive enough over the framerate counter that you're willing to pay way more than you should just to play games at a framerate you don't even need to run it at.

For example, in Canada, the 3600 is only 230$ while the 10600K is 400$... Pretty bad deal for a 6 core 12 thread processor that could get creamed (at least in price/performance value) by the upcoming Ryzen 5 4600 very easily, and a bad value considering the 6 core standard is inevitably not going to last nearly as long as the 4 core standard did. Really, the 10700K is a more valuable chip because it's basically a 9900K but not as expensive, and will last a fair bit longer.

What most users don't realise is that benchmarks to measure FPS are typically done with the most powerful gaming GPU available at the time of the benchmark, so while you're going to see a large difference with a 2080 Ti, most users right now are using a 2060 SUPER at best, which actually means less of an FPS gap than what benchmarks lead people to believe, depending on the game.

So TL;DR Intel's chips really only make sense if you have the money to blow on some of the best hardware available. Otherwise, there's no purpose because AMD offers a considerable value.

[Illusion of Progress]

Agree on personally thinking 8 core CPUs are a better option for longevity. I think the 4 core CPUs lasted as long as they did despite consoles having more cores/threads partly because the consoles had CPUs with much lower IPC AND clock speed (won't be nearly as true this time around), and partly because that was more or less the upper end for a long time with Intel's stinginess to give more; you had a choice of a good quad core at most (or hex core if really paying for it by going HEDT) or a much weaker option in AMD pre-Ryzen. Games mostly didn't need it, and the few that did, still worked fine enough on a quad core (even sans SMT like the Core i5 2500K) most of the time.

And yeah, pricing REALLY changes, well... everything. I'm pretty sure the Core i5 10600K is just having huge availability/price gouging issues? Here in the US, at least near me/from what I'm finding, it seems commonly found prices are somewhat like so... (Micro Center prices in parenthesis, but not everyone has one nearby, luckily I did.)

6/12 - Ryzen 5 3600 ~$160 ($155)
6/12 - Ryzen 5 3600X ~$210-220 ($200)
6/12 - Core i5 10600K ~$450+ ($270) Unless you have a Micro Center nearby, seems there's serious availability/price gouging issues with this one at the moment
8/16 - Ryzen 7 3700X ~$280 ($260)
6/12 - Core i7 8700K ~$350 ($N/A as 8th generation isn't carried)
8/8 - Core i7 9700K ~$360 ($330)
8/16 - Core i7 10700K ~$410 ($400)
12/24 - Ryzen 9 3900X ~$420 ($400)
8/16 - Core i9 9900K ~$450+ ($430) No point as the Core i7 10700K is a slightly cheaper equivalent
10/20 Core i9 10900K ~$570+ ($600) Like the Core i5 10600K, if not more so, it is hard to find and often price gouged
16/32 - Ryzen 9 3950X ~$690+ ($670)

I'm leaving out the non-K Intel chips and some others (like the Ryzen 7 3800X, as well as all the XT variants of Ryzen), but those are the important ones IMO at the 6 to 12 core range.

I would say that NORMALLY, it's actually the other way around here in that it's the Core i7 10700K that's a harder recommendation over AMD between the two, presuming you can find the Core i5 10600K at it's sane/normal price. But the problem is, even if you do, the Core i5 makes little sense too, given that the Ryzen 7 3700X is around the same price. If you ignore that, though, the price gap is more understandable between the 6 core parts than it is the 8 core parts. So I'd say the Core i7 is actually the one that's actually in a weird spot (funny enough, it's one of the three that seems to suffer availability/price gouging issues the least, and this "bad value" aspect may be why).

But, despite all these issues, if you absolutely want the performance edge (and are doing just gaming, no workloads that will benefit from the extra parallelization) and have a high budget, the Intel has a place; it makes more sense to spring for the Core i7 over a Ryzen 9 in that case, and that is why it's probably the one Intel CPU that makes most sense for gaming. The Core i5 is much more attractively priced (again, normally, if you can find it), but I agree with you that 8+ cores are the better buy if longevity is a concern so I'd either skip it for the Ryzen 7 3700X or spring for the Core i7, especially since the Core i5 just seems hard to find and price gouged. I actually wonder if a similar thing may be happening in Canada because the 10600K isn't SUPPOSED to be like this. I would have equally loved to go with the Core i7 10700K but the Ryzen just made way too much sense over it at that sort of pricing arrangement.