is AM4 still worth to get or AM5 the better option?

[raz]

the title...

[Illusion of Progress]

Kobs님이 먼저 게시:

Faiyez님이 먼저 게시:

You'll probably be kicking yourself soon if you build am4 now that AM5 costs are lower across the board.

That i agree with but I wasn't about to change a perfectly good platform that has a substantial value just for modernization sake which is why I upgraded instead of switching
Still don't agree with the "budget" side of it

That's the big difference though. You were already on AM4. So was I. For us, upgrading was the obvious better choice.

But it's different from those not already on AM4. For those not already on it, AM4 is hard to recommend unless you're going with the 5500 or 5600/X (or maybe 5700X). Not because AM4 isn't good enough in performance. It's because once you go above the 5600 or 5700X, it starts leaning towards equaling or favoring going with AM5 because the 7600 really isn't far behind (or sometimes ahead of) even the 5800X3D in games, while outperforming it outside games, and the cost is similar. Maybe less since the 7600 won't need as good of cooling as an X3D would justify. When price/performance gets close, go with the newer platform. AM5 just can't match the absolute price floor of AM4 yet with something like the 5500/5660, hence it's most viable for budget price ranges.

I think you might be mixing up "AM5 is starting to replace AM4 for those buying a new platform" with "AM4 owners have to upgrade".

[Tonepoet]

AM4 is fine enough for people who are already on the platform and want to continue using their present motherboards, or have some special need for something like an x300 deskmeet or trying to run bare metal Windows 98 on a modern unsupported platform (since people have had better luck with that with A.M.D. than Intel). The 5900xt could a particularly interesting addition to the lineup for such people, given that it gives them a few more cores to work with (16 instead of the previous maximum of 12), and is poised to be equivalent to the 13700k according to A.M.D.

Otherwise, I probably wouldn’t start investing into it now except maybe for alow budget Ryzen 5500 or 4700 based build. I think the 5500 in particular might be the best price to performance processor on the market at its current pricing, and you’ll have difficulty finding LGA 1700 motherboards for under $80. Maybe the 5700x3D is worthwhile too since I hadn’t thought too deeply about that other than noting that it’s significantly cheaper than the 5800x3D (esp. since It can presently be bought for under $200[www.amazon.com]) and only has about 5% less performance[gamersnexus.net].

Otherwise, once we’re looking at $80 motherboards and $120 processors we’re starting to look at the 12400f maybe being good enough for now if not quite as good as you can get with AM4 with better forward looking upgradeability, and the 12600kf slaughters everything from the 5800x down for about the same price as a 5700x, and the potential to possibly upgrade to 14th gen. Intel chips is more appealing than whatever rehash chips A.M.D. might throw our way..

You can’t even justify AM4 vs L.G.A. 1700 on the grounds of D.D.R. 4 R.A.M. being cheaper than D.D.R. 5 since you have your choice of either on L.G.A. 1700, so long as you don’t mind being locked in. I’d say the better choice would be to go with D.D.R. 5 so you can bring it forward anyway.

The 5800x3D isn’t worth the price if you’re just entering the platform. Reviews I’ve seen from over a year ago suggest it only has about a 25% boost in real world performance over the 5800x for double the price. Given that it’s like double the price, that’s not a good trade-off, especially since you can have worse performance sometimes due to the 3D v-cache chips being underclocked and overclocking locked to deal with how destructive excess heat can be to them.

Maybe those reviews of the 5800x3D are outdated? Much of ta 3D V-cache chip’s potential is locked behind it’s 3D v-cache, which is functionally similar to R.A.M. A game that optimizes more of that v-cache is going to do better. When 3D v-cache first dropped, it allowed for an unimaginable amount of extra cache that wouldn’t have been well optimized for in existing games, whereas now they might at least consider optimizing for that huge amount.

Still, even if you’re willing to bank on 3D v-cache being generally better for your specific workloads, $320 is a bit dear of a price in my opinion when you can buy a 7800x3D instead for maybe $360 tops. Am5 just has more forward motility for upgrades, and while D.D.R. 4 might not not be an option on that socket, you’re going to have to regard your AM4 gear as throwaway equipment anyway. But we’re also possibly not considering the 7800x3D anymore since the 9900 series processors will close the gap between traditional processing power and the extra v-cache (at least until the 9000 series v-cache chips are released) with preference likely being more contingent upon workload spread and pricing.

It also needs to be considered LGA 1700 is going to be the last intel platform that has D.D.R. 4 support, and AM5 already dropped D.D.R. 4., and that the price difference between D.D.R. 5 and D.D.R. 4 isn’t necessarily all that large.

You can get a couple of cheap D.D.R. 5 modules for just $50[www.amazon.com] whereas a couple of decent D.D.R. 4 modules might cost you 30.[www.amazon.com] It’s a bit of a similar story with 32 gig kits. You’re looking at $50 for D.D.R. 4, and $70 with entry level D.D.R. 5[www.amazon.com]

At those prices, I’m thinking it’s better just to get buying the D.D.R. 5 over with. AM5 already abandoned D.D.R. 4, and Intel announced LGA 1851 will be abandoning D.D.R. 4 too. So the next time you motherboard hop, you’re going to have to get rid of your D.D.R. 4, whereas D.D.R. 5 will likely be relevant for many future motherboard generations to come, and even if D.D.R. 6 comes out by the time you decide you’re ready to pull the trigger, you might just decide to jump forward to the last D.D.R. 5 compatible platform to lower your cost investment, especially if Intel decides to do a repeat of what they did with LGA 1700 and give us the option to use previous generation R.A.M. to help mitigate against the cost.

In consideration of the abandonment of D.D.R. 4, you also have to consider that whatever amount of D.D.R. 5 you decide to buy today is potentially an investment towards double the amount with a second matching kit if for some reason 16 or 32 gigabytes of R.A.M. proves to be insufficient in the future, whereas D.D.R. 4 likely isn’t. Granted, the cheapest stuff you can grab be far from the best D.D.R. 5 and may hold your system back from reaching its fullest potential, but never in all of my years have I seen a spec. sheet specify a calibur of R.A.M. to match. Sufficient quantity has always been the first priority. Of course, you’d need to buy a 4 slot motherboard to take advantage of this, unless you decide to coast along on single channel for a while but eh, it’s not as if those are particularly hard to find.

Maybe if Newegg starts giving away AM4 motherboards again or the prices shake up for clearance, that'll change the cost dynamic but for now, I probably wouldn't be looking to start on AM4. I will, however upgrade my existing AM4 system from the 3600x I previously bought years ago, when the time is right.

[A&A]

Tonepoet님이 먼저 게시:

AM4 is fine enough for people who are already on the platform and want to continue using their present motherboards, or have some special need for something like an x300 deskmeet or trying to run bare metal Windows 98 on a modern unsupported platform (since people have had better luck with that with A.M.D. than Intel). The 5900xt could a particularly interesting addition to the lineup for such people, given that it gives them a few more cores to work with (16 instead of the previous maximum of 12), and is poised to be equivalent to the 13700k according to A.M.D.

This AMD test is an example of pure marketing because it was tested with the RX6600 at 1080p.

[skOsH♥]

I would go am5 simply because ddr5. A really good kit of those will lift your system well

[AbedsBrother]

If building from scratch, AM5. If you already have AM4, 5800X3D (gaming) or 5950X (productivity) should be good cpus for a while.

[UserNotFound]

AM4 is fine IF you're on an older AM4 CPU, as upgrade path is simply a change of CPU. Recently, I'd snagged an R7 5700X3D (couldn't justify the price difference for the 5800X3D) which replaced the R9 5900X in my gaming rig. I sold my R9 3900X in my 2nd rig, and installed the 5900X in it, so I think I'd be good for the next few years.

But, IF you're on a older platform than AM4, or its Intel equivalent, then yes, AM5 would be a good upgrade path since there's support for newer AMD CPUs in the immediate or near future.

[Lord Flashheart]

hey님이 먼저 게시:

the title...

Am4 is still good for a cost effective option.

My suggestion for Am4 would be the 5700X3D, a decent motherboard with good onboard sound (ASUS?) and mediocre speed 32GB+ of memory. For gaming , the huge CPU cache means memory speed & latency is not a big issue.


If you want AM5, then it will cost you quite a bit more. There are new AM5 motherboards out soon, Maybe wait for them for future compatibility.
.

[Lord Flashheart]

Kobs님이 먼저 게시:

A&A님이 먼저 게시:

AM4 for budget builds is good.

Mine is an AM4 and the processor alone is worth $1000+

That is what you maybe paid for it.
Maybe check the price of it now. A Ryzen 9 5950X as a guess?