Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
The crashes could be one of dozens things. If you're otherwise happy with your performance, I'd maybe look into why it's crashing. Replacing hardware because you have crashes can get expensive fast. It's not always faulty hardware.
That being said, if you do decide you want to upgrade, check pricing on the 5800X in your locale because it usually isn't a good option for the reason that the 5700X is going to bring just about the same level of performance (it's like, just outside margin of error most of the time) and is usually cheaper. It's $20 to $25 cheaper right now.
If you want to step up above that, I'd consider the 5700X3D ($210, was $190 recently), although that will help a lot with the games but it (usually) won't help with the productivity side at all.
The 7600X is an interesting case because it needs a new board and RAM and I normally wouldn't suggest that for someone on AM4 since a 5000 series X3D can get you that level of performance... in games. So it depends on how much of an uplift you're looking for, and where. The 9000 series CPUs launch in a couple weeks into August, so before considering a platform change, you might want to wait for those and then seeing what your best options is.
this proves you are not bottlenecked by the CPU.....the GPU can NOT hit a 100% load if its bottlenecked....meaning your system is a balanced one.....a normal none x3d 5700x would be a massive upgrade but without a better GPU kinda a waste.....FYI i have a normal 5700x on a 3080 and LOVE IT.......
I would be trying to find out why its stuttering....one of the things that worked for me was turning off HDMI audio.....the little audio chip used in most GPUs for HDMI audio will cause stutter waiting on return communications even when its not in use.....turning this off helped me more then any settings change to get rid of stuttering.....
I only think sticking on AM4 is maybe worthwhile if you continue using your existing motherboard. LGA 1700 kills the AM4 stack from the 5600 all of the way up to at least the 5800x otherwise, and the Ryzen 3600 already has Ryzen 5500[www.techspot.com] levels of performance, which means the 3600x is better. You simply have nowhere to go that's worthwhile if you're replacing both the motherboard and the processor
Also, folks, he does photo editing, and a 3D v-cache chip like the 5700x3D isn't really a good fit because it's not going to do anything to help that. Might even hurt 'cause they're downclocked. Plus at $210 the 5700x3D is a bit too expensive anyway. If he's going to be investing in excess of $200 for a processor upgrade, I'd say he should buy a cheap D.D.R. 4 LGA 1700 motherboard for $90[www.amazon.com] and a 12600kf for $160[www.amazon.com]. Final total ends up being $250, and now you have a processor that performs about as well as a 5700x3D in games, and is going to retain at least that level of performance in photo editing if not more, considering that it also has 12 cores to help blast through photo editing tasks.
The 12600kf isn't quite as good as the 7600x but it comes close[technical.city] and the 7600x costs $200 all by itself right now. The $40 savings subsidizes almost half the cost of the new motherboard. Since the LGA 1700 still supports D.D.R. 4, he can bring forward his 64 gigabytes of R.A.M. too, which is why I selected a 4 slot motherboard (just in case he's using 4 8 gig modules).
Now talking about LGA 1700 isn't particularly responsible if we do not address the Raptor Lake Issues. 13000 series chips and 14000 series chips are experiencing stability issues. This is in part to hyper-aggressive turboing, and possibly in part due to a manufacturing defect.
Nobody's really sure which exact range of chips is affected by the manufacturing defect, other than the fact Intel said it was fixed in 2023, and 12th gen. chips are unaffected. This, combined with 13th gen chips having been proven to be particularly problematic[www.tomshardware.com], suggests to me that 14th gen chips are unaffected. I can't promise that myself, but if you have an upgrade path to 14th gen chips, that might be of somewhat of a compromise between just trying to stick with AM4 and the longevity of AM5.
Worst case scenario is that the 12600kf is going to be the only chip you use with that motherboard out of concern for the oxidation defect, but with the money you save on the processor and rebuying R.A.M., along with onset price deprications of older hardware as newer hardware gets released, The way I'm thinking is if Intel confirms 14th gen. chips are unaffected by the bug that's a nice bonus, but if not you can afford to treat it as a disposable system and buy an AM5 motherboard on a later chipset later down the line anyway, if you don't end up outright leapfrogging AM5 and saving money that way. If we get confirmation that 14th gen. systems are unaffected though, then you're possibly looking at reusing it at least once before moving onto the next platform.
As for a G.P.U. upgrade, I think the best option might be the 4070 Super if you really want to go through with it. A 3060 ti is still a halfway decent card though, so I'd tell you to hold off of upgrading it for now. Nvidia hasn't really been putting up much of a fight in the lower ranks this generation, and rumors have it that we're to be anticipating the RTX 5000 cards sometime in spring of 2025. If you can't wait that long, Intel Arc Battlemage cards have been announced for sometime this year. The rumor mill presently expects them in fall, which would likely put them ahead of black friday[www.guru3d.com], meaning we could see some near immediate big discounts.
The way I see it, AM5 is only worthwhile if you want to build a beefcake system that's likely out of your budget, and AM4 is only worthwhile for building the most basic entry level builds that underperform your current hardware. Alder lake chips (12400f and 12600kf specifically) cover the middle ground pretty well.
One final note is that this could all change very soon though because we're going to see Zen 5 processors launch in just a few days on the 31st[www.theverge.com], which will upset the market but I can't give purchasing advice based on events that haven't happened yet.
You might want to take a wait and see approach for now though.
TS should perhaps upgrade to the 5000X3D, yes even the humble 6C/12T 5600X3D, if he wanna reap the benefit of the extra cache for games (that do benefit from it). With my recent upgrade to the 5700X3D, I don't see a need to do any more upgrade that would not require a change to a completely new platform and hardware ..... as long as games run at pretty high PQ with acceptable and smooth framerate.
I wish people would stop this exaggeration that the X3D chips are like... poor on performance outside of gaming anyway. They're not. Compared to their baseline without v-cache, which is often a few hundred MHz higher, the performance that they lose from the loss in clock speed is often small (it typically falls under "measurable, but not discernible"). Going the other way, the additional performance they bring in games on top of their baseline without v-cache is far greater than what they lose in those other situations. Obviously, if you're GPU limited and/or not playing CPU heavy games, it might not always be discernible, but when it is discernible, it definitely is.
Is it important to know the particulars of how and where v-cache chips improve performance, and that it applies largely to games? Sure. You don't want to have a use case that is predominantly productivity and to buy one of them thinking it'll bring that level of performance. But is a v-cache chip bad for a mixed case user? No, not at all. At least, I'm a mixed case user, and I love mine. So much so, that I don't see myself going back to a lower cache chip anytime soon. But I also don't play the latest GPU demanding games at the highest resolutions while demanding the highest frame rates, and instead I play some pretty CPU heavy titles. So of course it's going to vary person to person.
Sorry for the mini-rant. I typically like your advice, but I get fluffed up a bit when I see people suggesting that the X3D CPUs are bad performers for general use or if you don't have a 100% gaming use case.
Also, my real recommendation was for either the 5700X, or to wait and move to AM5/LGA1851. The 5700X3D was mentioned more as an alternative because maybe they don't mind the extra gaming performance, and to show that it's not much more expensive than their initial choice, the 5800X. Basically, I was saying "between the 5700X being the same thing but cheaper, and the 5700X3D being much better (albeit it in games only) and not a whole lot more expensive, there's not much point to looking at a 5800X".
I'm not sure I agree on the LGA 1700 stuff though. I agree that I'd choose a 12600KF over AM4 right now on the budget end from the standpoint of someone who has neither platform, but for someone already on AM4, absolutely not. I'd either get a 5x00/5x00X3D, or sit on what I have and make a change when the performance uplift is larger.
I realized he mentioned that he bought the R.A.M. specifically for photo editing, but that means he's willing to invest into it, and if we are to assume that perhaps this system has been in use since 2019, then R.A.M. prices for D.D.R. 4 were much higher back then. You might've been paying as much for D.D.R. 4 as some of the more basic D.D.R. 5 right now, and even when D.D.R. 5 hit the market the cost of it as R.A.M. was astronomical, which is why the D.D.R 4 boards exist.
I wouldn't be surprised if this R.A.M. cost somewhere around the neighborhood of $160 when it was first bought, which is $130 more than it would cost to buy say 32 gigs of D.D.R. 4 ram now. Rebuying up all of that R.A.M. for AM5 is cost prohibitive at the moment.
In my mind right now the 5800x3D has always been too expensive for what it is. Yes, it's the best chip on the platform for gaming specifically, but the price to perf. hit. is too much compared to a 5700x considering that testing from last year show it as maybe performing 25% better than a 5700x at double the cost. It's a chip that might age more gracefully as others as tasks start using more cache,
It's a point well taken that I may have exaggerated the underperformance of the chip for photo editing tasks. I should have checked. It turns out that the 5800x3D holds up pretty well in photoshop benchmarks against the non-x3d namesake in terms of perf. The adobe benchmarks suggest they're just about equal, which is a better showing than I would have though. That suggests we might expect a 5700x3D to perform like a 5700x in photo editing.
Nevertheless, the 12600kf is a 10 core processor, and while this is a case where all cores aren't equal, the end result is that the 12600kf isn't performing like a 5800x family product in adobe benchmarks. It should be outperforming the 5950x in adobe, assuming the performance is equivalent to the 12600k according to Puget Systems[www.pugetsystems.com]:
Pugetbench for Photoshop v 0.93.3 scores:
12600k: 1211
5950x: 1185
5800x3d: 1182
5800x: 1175
Pugetbench for After Effect v0.95.2 Scores:
12600k: 1130
5950x: 1056
5800x3d: 986
5800x: 980
Pugetbench for Adobe Primiere Pro v0.95.5 scores:
12600k: 1130
5950x: 1003
5800x3D: 812
5800x: 831
(Yes, in that last benchmark, the 5800x3D loses to the 5800x here)
Puget Systems would be the best authority to defer to here if anybody is. They sell workstation computers to the professionals, so they specialize in this.
12600k underperforms the 5900x for once (1538 vs 1500), but it still outperforms the 5800x3D and 5800x by just about as much (1470 and 1460 are each chip's respective scores).
That's not all though. The 5800x3D takes a roughly 6% hit in Unreal Engine rendering vs the 5800x, and somewhere between 7% and 8% hit vs. the 5800x in cinebench R23 scores. 12600k should beat a 5800x in those tasks by a significant margin. Granted, I'm not going to give a detailed score breakdown since we have no reason to believe Cat is particularly interested in professional 3D model rendering or video editing.
Getting an AM4 Ryzen 9 class processor for photo editing is the better deal at the moment, since the 5900x all by itself costs about $260 right now. Ignoring a momentary dip down to closer to $220, (we had Prime day recently, and the 12600kf was down to $140 then if we want to make a comparison based on the greatest deals) that seems to be just about the nominal value.
Plus for the extra $10 the 5900x would coust, we can even swap out the motherboard I initially recommended for an Asrock Z690M Phantom Gaming motherboard[www.amazon.com], which is 50% off at Amazon right now ($100)
So the question is, if we're saying the 12600kf is equivalent to some of the better gaming and productivity chips of the platform, then how much is the extra versatility worth?
Of course, with that having been said, I'm working on some pretty shaky ground in suggesting that the 12600kf is equivalent to the 5700x3D in gaming too.
Mulling over Gamer's nexus review one more time the results are rather ambiguous to me since[gamersnexus.net], there are times when the 5700x3D outperfs. the 14600k or even the 14900k (shadow of the tomb raider) which beats the 12600k by proxy, although they are are relatively close in Final Fantasy ⅩⅣ. I'd guess it scales by core utilization, so older games with poorer multi-threading suffer.
Though speaking of G.N., it's worth briefly mentioning that the 5800x3D takes 19.2 minutes to render their logo, whereas it takes the 5800x 17, and the 12600k can do it in 16.3. Using the 5800x3D as (the v-cache rep. here, since it's counterpart isn't mentioned).
Well, I definitely don't want to be too hasty in dropping a perfectly good motherboard for no reason. I think some of us are a bit too hasty to recommend AM5 myself, since you have to invest pretty heavily into it. However, cat expressed an interest in a new motherboard anyway, so unless there is a change in plans, this situation is more like a new build than an upgrade anyway. The C.P.U. and the motherboard are usually the only parts of a build that are married to each-other (and the motherboard often wants a divorce).
Plus here's the way I see it:
$40 off of the price of the 12600kf compared to the 5700x3D subsidizes 40% of the Asrock z690m's cost. More like 45% of the motherboard cost if we're going with a $90 option. It's over half if we do go with the cheapest $70 option on P.C. partpicker.[pcpartpicker.com]
It's just about the same as if you spent $200 on the processor, and spent $60 on the motherboard, which not only isn't possible on LGA 1700. You can barely manage that on AM4. Also you'd get a comparatively worse motherboard for the price, since the actual discount is on the processor.
Moreover, if a drop-in C.P.U. replacement costs about same as a C.P.U./Motherboard replacement, and you get roughly the same performance anyway, you're better off with the latter. The new motherboard will likely have better features/build quality, and you free up the value of both of the products for resale rather than just one.
Alternatively, you'd be keeping your motherboard with a drop in replacement anyway, and if you keep your spare parts, then you're covered with backup parts in the case of either a C.P.U. or motherboard failure. With a simple drop-in replacement, if the motherboard fails for any reason then you can't use either C.P.U. and you'd have to buy a new one.
You're also one part closer to making a secondary box if you ever want to do that for any reason, which seems as if it could be highly economical if you rebuild the old computer Ship of Theseus style as you upgrade the main system and buy a new case. But that's a thought experiment outside the scope of the topic and I've gone on long enough here.
Plus perhaps it's a particularly bad idea considering what we're seeing on Raptor Lake, but the 12600kf is overclocking unlocked whereas the 5700x3D is locked down, which is the reverse of what we are normally used to seeing from A.M.D. and Intel competitors.
I played first descendant for example, CPU usage was high, Game was playable and my GPU was somewhat maxed out due to UE5 wanting more CPU resources.
ITs honestly up to you what youre doing to your PC. Im fine with my 3600 (legendary CPU btw) for now still. If youre doing More multitasking than normally, then yeah probably consider a 5800x or 5700x (which is on my mind as well since i already updated my b450 bios) .
And probably consider Disabling Microsoft crap you dont need. Windows 11 is infamous for that than how 10 did it.
The top performers (which the 5800X3D was in games when it released, and it's still holding well now) are typically not absolute value winners, and nobody suggested the 5800X3D to the thread starter, so I'm not sure how it being a poorer value than other options is relevant.
If that is in regards to me purchasing mine, the 5700X wasn't half its price when I bought mine, and the 5800X3D was $300 at the time (this was early 2023), and since I had a 3700X, a baseline Ryzen 5000 series wouldn't have appealed enough to me since that's only a one generation uplift. The 5800X3D is equivalent to two generations of performance uplift in gaming on average, and while that isn't usually worth it either, I made the change anyway because...
1. Sometimes it delivers gains above its average (this also goes the other way, of course). This tends to be true in CPU heavy titles, which I play a bit of (Minecraft is the primary one I was playing at the time).
2. It would allow me to extend the longevity of a platform I had already invested a lot into (see RAM comment above) if I decided I wanted to stick with it longer. My previous platform was with a 2500K, and I saw CPUs advance slowly after that point, so when I bought into my current platform and considered upgrade options, I expected I might be with it for a while too.
The irony is the 5800X3D convinced me so thoroughly that I'm considering upgrading to a 9800X3D when it launches if pricing and performance entices me to, but even if I do, that would be a conscious choice I'm making to upgrade earlier than necessary. I could certainly wait for Zen 6 or Zen 6 X3D if I wanted to do the more value move. At the time though, changing to the 5800X3D would have allowed me to stick with this longer if I decided I wanted to, while also enjoying higher performance in the meantime. To me, it was worth it.
But yes, for those on AM4, normally I'd suggest a 5700X or 5700X3D these days if one is concerned with value.
It's not surprising to me at all. The X3D CPUs are wild cards in gaming and don't stick to whatever baseline that synthetic single core benchmarks hold them to. People are still figuring this out when this has been the established behavior for these CPUs since they launched. There's multiple ways a CPU can be the limiting factor. Sometimes it's floating point performance or integer performance, or other times it's in the I/O and memory system. If it's the latter, cache may help. And often times, the entirety of the game isn't limited by the same thing, nor to the same extent, at every moment. Before, we didn't have "the same CPU, but more cache" so we never saw anything that diverged from the baseline as much. Now that such things exist, we do. Reality is variable like that, and you lose those finer details when you boil performance down to a single point of average for the sake of making a hierarchy.
One of the games you mentioned is an MMO. Those definitely tend to be CPU reliant. Simulation, strategy, RTS, and sandbox (like Minecraft) come to mind as some others that often are. But it's really game to game.
That's not the case here though, is it? A Core i5 12600KF and a motherboard isn't cheaper than a 5700X from what I'm seeing?
Maybe you're considering the 5700X3D, but I'd still take that over changing the platform, because from glancing at prices, you're probably only doing that with an incredibly cheap motherboard and then likely still having it cost a little more, and the 5700X3D may still be better in games, even if it's not all of them.
That's before the intangibles come into play, such as the effort of changing hardware, needing to move to Windows 11, and wondering if the RAM they know works on their current platform will work the same on the new one (not normally a concern, but since it's 64 GB, if that's four DIMMs and/or dual rank, it may be). None of those are major on their own, but they might swing me in favor of one option if both of them are close.
But overall, I just wouldn't even consider a platform change as on the table until it's offering bigger CPU big gains. The 12th generation isn't even close to that point over the Ryzen 5000 series (and compared to the X3Ds in gaming, it's not at all).