Is AM5 a reliable choice?

[jeffpmaxs6]

I finally piece my AM4 build together. Tested and proven. Booted right up and seem ready to game right out of the box. I just installed Adrenalin and was on my way. : / This is the least I’ve ever done and not even a hic up, so no complaints.

My bro needs a new pc and he might stick with a 24” monitor. The latest AM5 build would be $600 more just for the cpu/gpu, but if price isn’t a concern, what about tested and proven? Performance wise I don’t think there will be much difference over 200fps and if there is any difference I’d say in more favor of a negative one. Don’t know if something will pop or, just need to keep up on drivers. Baa, one driver is all you should ever need. Unless hardware is like games send it out fix it after problems discovered.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Yes but those are supplied by MS through WinOS / Windows Updates; you want the Official Drivers.

Especially the AMD supplied AMD Ryzen Chipset Driver

[AmaiAmai]

If you expect EXPO, you will have to research the RAM kits you are planning to use. All I can say is stay away from DDR5 Samsung as it's very bad with Ryzen 7000 with some worse on certain boards (MSI) than others (Asrock).

That issue likely won't be fixed without a microcode update as certain RAM kits don't really operate at their reported frequency or latency, so you will always run into a RAM error on POST and get a yellow or red light.

Again, seems to be SAMSUNG memory at EXPO frequencies post vSoC patches.

Other than that, no issues with the platform.

[jeffpmaxs6]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Illusion of Progress:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย jeffpmaxs6:

Lol. Thank you for your service, we need testers. I didn’t update my BIOS or any drivers and not really sweating it. AM5 I might be though.

I mean, the platform has been out for over half a year now so I'm pretty sure if there was anything you could infer as of right now, it's that there's nothing to it because if there was, you would know otherwise.

Issues are either unknown, or they are known.

And with AM5, the only issue that's cropped up so far is with the SoC voltage getting too high on Expo and damaging the voltage sensitive X3D CPUs. So if you have an X3D chip, and if you're using Expo, and simply make sure your BIOS is up to date, double check your SoC voltage to make sure it's staying below 1.25C to 1.3V, and then you're set and can forget it.

There's nothing else with AM5 to worry about.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย jeffpmaxs6:

Well I have a 5800x3d – 6950xt. Good enough for me and should be good enough for him. He probably just wants bragging rights over me, but I’m doing the lag work. Lol. Budget would be 3k, but 2.2k after a decent monitor. All the other parts will add up and maybe make the choice more clear. Especially if he wants shiny lights and water cool. Cause he could spend more, just not sure where and if he would notice it. And it sounds like your'er saying the same. He’s currently using a i7 2600k- 980ti, which I just upgraded from myself. 11 yrs out of the AM4 would be nice. Lol.

With a budget that high, you should definitely be able to do/be looking at the 7800X3D or Intel's 13th generation (13600K or 13700K).

I was almost the same; used a 2500K for nine years and then went with the 3700X and a lot of RAM with the hopes that it would last me if I needed it to, and if an attractive option comes for an upgrade before that, I'd take it. That attractive option did come along and it was the 5800X3D. Pretty substantial upgrade both times (I play Minecraft which is hard on CPUs). I couldn't think of being back on Sandy Bridge now; it's so slow now, but it did last me a long time (now I just need to ditch this Pascal). In a way though, I hope I'm not on this one for ten years because that would probably mean CPU progress probably slowed (or they copy the GPU market and prices go up so price/performance stalls even if performance goes up). It's picked back up the last three or so years though so here's hoping it continues.

AM5 was just coming out when I started piecing my AM4 together. I had the 6950xt paired with my i7 2600k on Win7 and all my games ran better and delayed me from finishing the build. BF2042 didn’t feel optimized though and was night and day difference once I used the 5800x3d. And that was with just installing the driver for the card to use Adrenalin.
That Expo must be AM5. I check my SoC volts @ 1.8 showing in the info, so I tried to update my BIOS, but had no luck. But, I notice other readings where the SoC was just over 1. I don’t know why I couldn’t update the BIOS. I did what they said and tried other suggestion with no luck. I’m not worry, let the roof burn, but does discouraged me if the mobo has to be updated to prevent a burnt chip. And why I went with AM4 in the first place.

As for AM5 stability. I was kind of looking at the new cards as if they were AM5 too. Lol. So any card red flags I wrongly placed that under AM5 too. Sounds like finding the right mobo and ram for AM5 is important. If not skipping AM5 all together or back to Intel. I was suppose to be done after my AM4 build, but bro wants a PC now. I’m a little wiser now though, so thanks all.

[jeffpmaxs6]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย AmaiAmai:

If you expect EXPO, you will have to research the RAM kits you are planning to use. All I can say is stay away from DDR5 Samsung as it's very bad with Ryzen 7000 with some worse on certain boards (MSI) than others (Asrock).

That issue likely won't be fixed without a microcode update as certain RAM kits don't really operate at their reported frequency or latency, so you will always run into a RAM error on POST and get a yellow or red light.

Again, seems to be SAMSUNG memory at EXPO frequencies post vSoC patches.

Other than that, no issues with the platform.

EXPO, say what. What’s that new for AMD vs Intels Xmp. I like tested and proven. AM5 seems you have to shift thru the sand to find gold, until everyone gets with the program. My AM4 mobo is MSI and As Rock gpu, but don’t sound like a clear winning going with AM5. I like my AM4 build. Boot no problem and who needs sticking updated drivers, because this PC was ready to rock out of the box. No hic up or anything. The only problem I had was trying to update the BIOS. Lol I might just stick with this is the best time to build AM4 since the prices are hitting rock bottom.

[jeffpmaxs6]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Bad 💀 Motha:

Yes but those are supplied by MS through WinOS / Windows Updates; you want the Official Drivers.

Especially the AMD supplied AMD Ryzen Chipset Driver

I think you help guide my on my AM4 built, getting 6950xt paired with the 5800x3d. I love it. Not to be difficult, but what is updating the AMD chipset driver going to do? I use to install drivers, but that was to get stuff to work and it seems everything is working with out installing drivers. I’ve been reading the forums and it seems the only peepes with problems are the ones that update every sticking driver. ; ) My PC was perfect and the only problem I had was trying to update the BIOS. Lol. I did check my SoC reading though. Updating the drivers are on my do list, but with everything working it’s not a high priority. Not to be an idiot, but if something’s going to fry would get my attention.

[jeffpmaxs6]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Bad 💀 Motha:

Yes but those are supplied by MS through WinOS / Windows Updates; you want the Official Drivers.

Especially the AMD supplied AMD Ryzen Chipset Driver

Well since there’s no AMD driver in uninstall programs, I decide to install it. Now off to 4k ultra to see if any change. ; )

[PopinFRESH]

For the budget, as it stands right now if you're building it with current options then I'd second going with an Intel build vs an AM5 build personally.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/khJ4Xy

^ just under $3200 with an Alienware AW3423DW 34" Ultrawide 21:9 3440x1440 175Hz QD-OLED display. Alternatively, get a bit cheaper display and swap the RTX 4070 for an RTX 4080.

EDIT: Also it doesn't make much sense to upgrade and build a reasonably capable gaming PC like you're noting if they are just going to keep an older 24" 1080p 60Hz display. You are going to be pretty much CPU bound in most games at 1080p so it doesn't make much sense getting a higher-end GPU if you aren't also upgrading to a newer display.

After using one for a while, I'd much prefer doing a 21:9 ultrawide 3440x1440p100+ display vs a 16:9 4K 100Hz+ display. We are now getting to a point where more games are now correctly supporting ultrawide displays.

[jeffpmaxs6]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย PopinFRESH:

For the budget, as it stands right now if you're building it with current options then I'd second going with an Intel build vs an AM5 build personally.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/khJ4Xy

^ just under $3200 with an Alienware AW3423DW 34" Ultrawide 21:9 3440x1440 175Hz QD-OLED display. Alternatively, get a bit cheaper display and swap the RTX 4070 for an RTX 4080.

EDIT: Also it doesn't make much sense to upgrade and build a reasonably capable gaming PC like you're noting if they are just going to keep an older 24" 1080p 60Hz display. You are going to be pretty much CPU bound in most games at 1080p so it doesn't make much sense getting a higher-end GPU if you aren't also upgrading to a newer display.

After using one for a while, I'd much prefer doing a 21:9 ultrawide 3440x1440p100+ display vs a 16:9 4K 100Hz+ display. We are now getting to a point where more games are now correctly supporting ultrawide displays.

Thanks for taking the time with the PC list. For my bro I’m thinking either AM4 or 4080. He’ll probably like the later, since the numbers are close to 4090. lol. He has a 120hz NV monitors, so yeah time for something better. Probably a 24” ips with g-sync or freesync. I like oled, but thinking of dropping down to 24” myself for less screen to cover. What’s CPU bound when the cpu is at 100 use? For me @1080 or 1440p the gpu is at 99% in BF. Using ultra settings. With monitors 240hz and above I’m thinking of chasing the fps to match. I have a 5800x3d – 69850xt and don’t think it’s over kill if chasing high fps or if bro steps up higher. If anything I would think it would help its life span.

[PopinFRESH]

Personally I just can't go back to a 24" display. An ultrawide 32" 21:9 is essentially the same size as a 27" 16:9 display, but wider.

I'm not sure I follow the "between either an AM4 or 4080"? One is a CPU socket / platform and the other is a GPU model.

The only thing to really note about doing an AM4 build at this time with a 5800X3D is understanding it is a dead-end platform which as some others noted, and I concur with, isn't that big of a deal if you (or your brother) intend to keep the build for a reasonable amount of time as-is. By the time you'd want to upgrade your CPU, etc. you'll likely need (or at least want) to also replace the motherboard as well anyway.

Right now between AM5 systems the motherboards are still a bit on the pricey side for the various sets of features. While they do appear to have addressed the voltage issue with EXPO, I'd still be somewhat gunshy with getting a first-gen AM5 platform after those issues.

For the budget you could definitely do a nice build with a nice AM4 board, 5800X3D, 32GB DDR4 3600MT/s, a nice PCIe Gen4 NVMe SSD, and an RTX 4080 with a new monitor.

Also, in regards to being CPU bound yes essentially that is when your CPU is the limiting factor and can't complete the parts of the game/renderer to keep pace with the GPU. It is really going to be dependent upon the game but even fairly entry-level gaming systems now are able to do 1080p with higher quality settings without issue. If you really want to stick to 1080p then you can also still use DSR (or equivalent) to essentially achieve the opposite of what DLSS/FSR are trying to achieve. e.g. Rendering a game at a higher internal resolution and then scaling it down to 1080p.

IMO, you're both building fairly higher-end gaming PCs which are much better matched to a "2K" / "2.5K" display at a 120Hz - 200Hz VRR.

If your main gaming use case is competitive FPS games, then I can see why you're thinking about 1080p the way you're describing. Otherwise, for most other games and all around gaming quality I'd look at 3440x1440 or 2560×1440 monitors that are 144Hz+ with Gsync compatible VRR.

[emoticorpse]

I have a question for OP. Let's say AM5 was reliable and the whole "melting/blowing up cpus" never happened.

How would you be measuring or comparing going Intel vs going AMD again?

Would it be like 50/50? or like 40/60 favoring Intel? or favoring AMD?

[Illusion of Progress]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย jeffpmaxs6:

That Expo must be AM5.

Yes, Expo is just AMD formally having an equivalent to XMP. It's doesn't change a whole lot because AMD stuff could still read the XMP profiles because the motherboard manufacturers implemented their own things to do so, and gave them varying names (like DOCP for Asus, EOCP for Gigabyte, etc.), but they couldn't use the XMP trademark on non-Intel boards so AMD just came up with their own.

But anyway what I was saying was that when using Expo (or when using higher memory speeds) it raised the demands on the IMC, which in turn forced it to be given more voltage. This higher voltage was the issue.

AMD stated it should be below 1.3V (I'd find 1.25V more comfortable, but either way). It was when the SoC voltage got to 1.4V and 1.45V on the X3D CPUs that they were burning out in fast order. And there also supposed issues with transient spikes pushing this higher (towards 1.45V to 1.5V) or even some boards (namely, Asus) giving way more voltage than was set, both of which were exaggerating the issue.

But there's no major issues with AM5 besides this, and it's been addressed as far as I know. As I said, if you go with AM5 and get the X3D CPUs in particular, then just ensure the BIOS is recent and that SoC voltage is running below 1.25V to 1.3V, and there's no concerns.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย jeffpmaxs6:

I check my SoC volts @ 1.8 showing in the info, so I tried to update my BIOS, but had no luck.

Ehhh? Double check that because it might be some other voltage. Your SoC voltage should not be that high and I'd be surprised if it wasn't frying itself long ago if it were. There's no reason to believe it's that high, especially on AM4. It should be around 1V to 1.1V on AM4 in my experience. I'm running a somewhat heavy memory configuration and even mine is just under 1.1V at 1.088V.

[jeffpmaxs6]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย PopinFRESH:

Personally I just can't go back to a 24" display. An ultrawide 32" 21:9 is essentially the same size as a 27" 16:9 display, but wider.

I'm not sure I follow the "between either an AM4 or 4080"? One is a CPU socket / platform and the other is a GPU model.

The only thing to really note about doing an AM4 build at this time with a 5800X3D is understanding it is a dead-end platform which as some others noted, and I concur with, isn't that big of a deal if you (or your brother) intend to keep the build for a reasonable amount of time as-is. By the time you'd want to upgrade your CPU, etc. you'll likely need (or at least want) to also replace the motherboard as well anyway.

Right now between AM5 systems the motherboards are still a bit on the pricey side for the various sets of features. While they do appear to have addressed the voltage issue with EXPO, I'd still be somewhat gunshy with getting a first-gen AM5 platform after those issues.

For the budget you could definitely do a nice build with a nice AM4 board, 5800X3D, 32GB DDR4 3600MT/s, a nice PCIe Gen4 NVMe SSD, and an RTX 4080 with a new monitor.

Also, in regards to being CPU bound yes essentially that is when your CPU is the limiting factor and can't complete the parts of the game/renderer to keep pace with the GPU. It is really going to be dependent upon the game but even fairly entry-level gaming systems now are able to do 1080p with higher quality settings without issue. If you really want to stick to 1080p then you can also still use DSR (or equivalent) to essentially achieve the opposite of what DLSS/FSR are trying to achieve. e.g. Rendering a game at a higher internal resolution and then scaling it down to 1080p.

IMO, you're both building fairly higher-end gaming PCs which are much better matched to a "2K" / "2.5K" display at a 120Hz - 200Hz VRR.

If your main gaming use case is competitive FPS games, then I can see why you're thinking about 1080p the way you're describing. Otherwise, for most other games and all around gaming quality I'd look at 3440x1440 or 2560×1440 monitors that are 144Hz+ with Gsync compatible VRR.

I have a decent 27” ips monitor now, just g-sync vs freesync. I have a dead psu fan and 230mm case fan and a side that doesn’t close due to the size of the heat sink. The monitor isn’t priority right now, but on a wish list.

It would be a simpler for me to build the same pc as mine, plus for helping trouble shoot. I learn enough to build my AM4 and now it’s like starting over again.. I already figure he could build a pc just over $2000 or closer to $3000. Guess it will come down to show me the money. If going Nv, then I would be leaning towards Intel. He originally wanted Intel and a 4090. But, who doesn’t.

I already have a 1440p 144hz g-sync and have an ideal of the performance and @ 1080. The minimum for smooth gaming maybe 60 fps, but I think 175 fps would be a better target if a new build.. And if a 240hz monitor the fps to match. Off hand I don’t see too many fps being a problem. Yeah this would be for getting busy on-line. Smaller screen in less mouse movement too. If my 19” crt didn’t lose its color and pop I probably use that when I wanted to bring pain. It would be after getting whipped with ultra settings and now time to take the gloves off. I game 24 yrs on PC I’m not a total noob. Thing is having what you got running the best it can. I also think 1080 would perform better then 1440. Maybe not so much on a top notch monitor and hardware, but ultra might have some glitch. If not, then maybe a certain game might. If still good, then I’d say the 1440 will come unglued at some point before the 1080. lol. It’s what the pros use. More pluses for me going 24”, but the main reason would be for less screen to cover with my eyes. So going larger would be out for me.

[jeffpmaxs6]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย emoticorpse:

I have a question for OP. Let's say AM5 was reliable and the whole "melting/blowing up cpus" never happened.

How would you be measuring or comparing going Intel vs going AMD again?

Would it be like 50/50? or like 40/60 favoring Intel? or favoring AMD?

I didn’t even know they were blowing up, until I ask. Lol. I knew I went with tested and proven AM4 for some reason. ; ) Peeps talk about my **** like it’s dead. Lol. I seen some red flag and they were actual the higher up cards. I related the new cards as being AM5. lol And my 6950xt as AM4. So ops. It’s up to my bro, I would build the exact same pc as mine. Could save a lot that way, plus easy to trouble shoot if we have the same pc. I should just build one and not ask him if he wants it faster then mine. Lol. And then do the leg work. Lol.

I started off with AMD and once I switch a P4 I was sold. I only had one Ati card the 9800 Pro. I bought BF1942 but didn’t play it, because it was jaggy looking and looked jaggy and old game. That was using a Nv card when Ati was better with AA, and once I played 1942 with the ATi card it was like a new game all smooth. Lol I think there was a house missing a roof in BF2 and had to wait for a driver. Lol.

Outside of that AMD has always been a good cpu for gaming, if not they wouldn’t have made it, but they had their supporters with their sup up cars competing against raw horse power. Intel would be more beginner friendly and AMD for more advance user. Intel/Nv can be reliably, but so can AMD. I wanted to buy a 2090, which was a wish I could have card at the time. Then BFV came out with ray tracing and cripple the cards. I wasn’t paying top for a card that was over kill, or crippled with ray tracing. Intel was having security issues with HT cpus and I wasn’t paying top dollar for their top of a line.

So it would be 50/50 for me. If price performance was identical I’ll probable go Intel/Nv. But, they screw up to. I hand pick my hardware, so tested and proven is what I look for. Chips burning up don’t help, but intel chips could be burning up too Idk. I wouldn’t blindly buy anything. I don’t want to be the tester.

[emoticorpse]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย jeffpmaxs6:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย emoticorpse:

I have a question for OP. Let's say AM5 was reliable and the whole "melting/blowing up cpus" never happened.

How would you be measuring or comparing going Intel vs going AMD again?

Would it be like 50/50? or like 40/60 favoring Intel? or favoring AMD?

I didn’t even know they were blowing up, until I ask. Lol. I knew I went with tested and proven AM4 for some reason. ; ) Peeps talk about my **** like it’s dead. Lol. I seen some red flag and they were actual the higher up cards. I related the new cards as being AM5. lol And my 6950xt as AM4. So ops. It’s up to my bro, I would build the exact same pc as mine. Could save a lot that way, plus easy to trouble shoot if we have the same pc. I should just build one and not ask him if he wants it faster then mine. Lol. And then do the leg work. Lol.

I started off with AMD and once I switch a P4 I was sold. I only had one Ati card the 9800 Pro. I bought BF1942 but didn’t play it, because it was jaggy looking and looked jaggy and old game. That was using a Nv card when Ati was better with AA, and once I played 1942 with the ATi card it was like a new game all smooth. Lol I think there was a house missing a roof in BF2 and had to wait for a driver. Lol.

Outside of that AMD has always been a good cpu for gaming, if not they wouldn’t have made it, but they had their supporters with their sup up cars competing against raw horse power. Intel would be more beginner friendly and AMD for more advance user. Intel/Nv can be reliably, but so can AMD. I wanted to buy a 2090, which was a wish I could have card at the time. Then BFV came out with ray tracing and cripple the cards. I wasn’t paying top for a card that was over kill, or crippled with ray tracing. Intel was having security issues with HT cpus and I wasn’t paying top dollar for their top of a line.

So it would be 50/50 for me. If price performance was identical I’ll probable go Intel/Nv. But, they screw up to. I hand pick my hardware, so tested and proven is what I look for. Chips burning up don’t help, but intel chips could be burning up too Idk. I wouldn’t blindly buy anything. I don’t want to be the tester.

Lol, i don't think they're blowing up. I was being funny, heh.

[jeffpmaxs6]

Well if a chip or mobo stops working what’s the metaphor matter. I’ll ride the wheels off software and hardware, but there are no wheels.