upgrade question

[BladeTurbo]

Hi, i was doing some research on whether i could upgrade my cpu and learned that i could upgrade up to an i9-9900. right now i am running an i5 9400F with 32gb ram and an rtx 2060 (i plan to upgrade this later). should i upgrade to an i7 or i9?

[Illusion of Progress]

De Hollandse Ezel の投稿を引用：

even in the k6-2 days you went amd cause it was more banfg for buck imtel still was better just also much more expensive.. amd owning the perfornamce crown.. a new reality to me too.

It's not the first time AMD has had the advantage.

The Athlon, Athlon XP, and Athlon 64 (and X2) were either matching or exceeding Intel's Pentium III, Pentium 4, and Pentium D of the time.

Then Intel came out with the Core 2 and surpassed them and they never caught back up until a few generations into Ryzen.

The FX (not the original ones based on Athlon 64) was AMD's Netburst. It was AMD's lowest point, like the Pentium 4 was Intel's.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Intel didn't exactly jump back on top with Core2Duo and Core2Quad. What helps Intel at this point in time is OEMs were not selling AMD CPU based prebuilds, only the "mom & pop" shops were. And Intel had the entire Laptop market concerned for quite some time. And because of this it was also terrible for many years with crap such as mobile versions of Pentium D, Celeron and C2D. They were all quite terrible at beat. But AMD had nothing to compete with.

At that time my friends and I were on Athlon64 Desktops and needed a better system, we switched over to AMD Opteron which was easy and affordable to get your hands on at Computer Trade Shows. Those were very good systems

[antoniobennett72]

I'm guessing you are targeting 1080 so unless you are getting a great deal I think the 9900 is too big a spend circumstantially.

I feel you might be setting yourself up for a constant desire to upgrade and losing value at every turn.

You spend the 250ish for the 9900 and get full capacity from the 2060 but you are already looking to upgrade it and any upgrade worth doing will probably put you back to where you are again or worse of a bottleneck but then you will need a full platform upgrade.

I think you should stick it out and stack a bit more.
If you are very unhappy with the current performance then maybe the 9700 to get you through but it probably won't feel super worth it and if it is going to seriously slow down the full platform upgrade then don't if you tolerate it at all.

Battle through for a few more months and you can probably upgrade in place with a 7600, a solid mother board, and 32GB of DDR5 6000 cl30 for about $500 though you might be best served to go ahead and update the PSU at the same time. 600 is a bit borderline and I bet that unit is getting old so more like 600-650.

I think this route sets you up for the future far better.
A significant performance increase now and sets you up for another upgrade in place down the line too so you can potentially get a ton of longevity out of the build for not a huge amount of money at any given time and not a ton altogether as you look at the total lifetime cost.

I might even delay the GPU upgrade until the 50 series to balance out the spending if I had to in order to play the long game.

In a year or 15 months you have a very current box that might be a good daily driver for near a decade with a CPU upgrade in a few years or more depending if AMD allows three generations this time and another GPU upgrade after the next console generation drops and ride until the wheels come off or your ship comes in.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

If the Motherboard can handle it, a 9700K would be perfectly fine.

Given the entire system is fairly terrible, if you can make it all work on a low budget you should be fine. But if you need, let's say a new PSU to make room for a beefier CPU and GPU; then you might as well save up more money and just do an entirely new build.

[Dutchgamer1982]

Illusion of Progress の投稿を引用：

De Hollandse Ezel の投稿を引用：

even in the k6-2 days you went amd cause it was more banfg for buck imtel still was better just also much more expensive.. amd owning the perfornamce crown.. a new reality to me too.

It's not the first time AMD has had the advantage.

The Athlon, Athlon XP, and Athlon 64 (and X2) were either matching or exceeding Intel's Pentium III, Pentium 4, and Pentium D of the time.

Then Intel came out with the Core 2 and surpassed them and they never caught back up until a few generations into Ryzen.

The FX (not the original ones based on Athlon 64) was AMD's Netburst. It was AMD's lowest point, like the Pentium 4 was Intel's.

I bought an amd thunderbird...
and I remember those pentium 4's being better and more stable.. but costing so much more you just would not consider it.

and in the early x64 era I stuck to x32 as long as possible.. as older games did conflict with multi cores.. so that amx64 lead.. was to me a reason to stick with intel...
-> so it was not as clear a lead..
intel still outperformed amd in single core performance in that early x64 era which to some users did matter.

I jumped straight from the last p4 ever made.. to an core2.

today amd outperforms intel on basicly every platform..laptop. workstation, singlecore, multicore.. and the old issue of "intels have far less blue screens of death" as offices are basicly build for intel.. and will just keep running as they needed hardly any cooling compared to those much hotter amd chips.. is also not true anymore...

intel may be not as far behind as amd was during fx.. but that amd has taken the crown.. truelly is an historic milestone...

[Illusion of Progress]

We must have been in different realities, both then and now.

For one, no, AMD does not outperform Intel in every category right now. And I say that preferring AMD right now. They certainly outperform Intel in gaming and especially when cost is factored in, but minus situations where the cache of the X3D is benefiting, Intel holds higher per core performance. And AMD has a lot of models without cache so you can't just pretend those don't exist. Overall, they are close today. Gamers/enthusiasts are going to prefer AMD but pretending like Intel is outperformed everywhere is just wrong.

This same discrepancy (higher power draw, lower IPC but higher clock speeds, higher cost) was present all those years ago... except with the addition that Intel's IPC was actually bad back then, so it's odd to me that you call the situation present now as a blowout for AMD, but not call a more advantageous situation for AMD as a time when they were ahead. This "historic milestone" is actually historic because it already happened before.

The Athlon covered three different types which were around in the same time the Pentium 4 was. The Thunderbird was the earliest, so using it as the comparison point is cherry picking. Not that it matters. The earliest Pentium 4 was a massive disaster. It was slower than the outgoing Pentium III (which the Thunderbird matched well) and needed expensive RDRAM. Saying the Pentium 4 did well here is wrong.

The Pentium 4 was also up against the Athlon XP earlier and the Athlon 64 later.

The Pentium 4 certainly wasn't better than either of those. While Northwood (especially upper 2.x GHz, 800 MHz FSB models) was decent-ish, that was the best it came to matching the competition, and its future after that was one where the power and heat got higher, the IPC went even lower (Pentium 4 already started running slower clock for clock than Pentium III), and AMD was cheaper.

The idea behind Netburst was to sacrifice IPC and compensate with clock speed. Intel's famous for announcing 10 GHz ambitions with it. And then that all came crashing down and it started running into serious thermal issues between 3 GHz to 4 GHz. The later Pentium 4 based on Prescott (which was so different it deserved being called something else, like a Pentium 5), or nick-named "Preshot", was yet again slower clock for clock than Northwood. A 2.8 GHz Prescott was slower than a 2.8 GHz Northwood, despite having twice the cache. Oh, and it used more power and ran warmer, again. I actually had 2.8 GHz variants of both and I remember that experience.

This is where Intel famously dropped developing Netburst and went back and used the Pentium III as a base for Core/Core 2.

The Pentium 4 was to Intel what the GeForce FX/5000 series was to nVidia, or what the FX/Bulldozer/Piledriver/whatever was to AMD. This was their lowest point.