Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Usually, if your software demands keep relative pace with the times, then it's generally sometime within that 5 to 10 year window where you'll start more and more running into limitations (if your software demands stagnate, then you can basically keep using it indefinitely, at least until it loses support). You're in that time frame and will be pushing beyond it in a couple years. So if you're looking at newer software on demanding game engines coming out now, yeah, some of it's likely going to want more than that. That CPU and GPU both represent sub-low end performance by now. On the plus side, I'd say 9 and 8 years on the CPU and GPU respectively isn't anything to be disappointed about.
For new games, the era of quad core CPUs is well passed. The consoles are all on 8/16 CPUs now (one core is reserved for the OS), although 6/12 CPUs almost always do just as well. In many cases, 6/6 CPUs run a bit better than 4/8. That being said, there are some UE5 games that have 4/8 CPUs as their minimum requirement. I'm not sure how well they'll run, but they are listed, so there's that.
Yeah. Pretty much any AAA title released today i wont be able to use on this machine. Sad. As you said though. I had a fair amount of time on this with what was available. Indies are relatively modest in spec requirements as well. As long as they stay away from Unreal 5 that is. Ha.
Unfortunately, my system was built around the quad core so i cannot just swap the chip for better. ah well....
5800Xs were going for ~$120 a couple days ago, but I think they're back up to ~$160 now.
The 12600KF (seems to be ~$135) and 12700KF have been good value choices in the last many months, but the latter seems to be above $210 now so I'd personally pass on it in favor of the former. The 12400F is ~$110 if you need something absolutely cheap without compromising performance too much (I wouldn't go below the 12th generation Core i5 at this point).
If you need a new platform on the cheap, any of those CPUs should easily see you through this console/game engine generation, and possibly longer.
You can then put the rest of what you're willing towards a GPU upgrade, which might see some price drops (some already are) in the coming months with new stuff expected at the start of next year.
for how bad fx was and how long it took amd to release ryzen, amd did push intel to do better and lower prices
between 3rd and 7th gen i series, intel had no cpu competition other than themselves
Mesh support starts at gtx 1630 and up. I would recommend at least the rtx 2060 here.
I greatly appreciate your feedback on this matter. If i do anything, it will be a system to last another 10 years, hopefully. From what i can see, considering the limitations of Consoles and how they are relatively new, I guess i would build a system around a 12 core. Which seems likely since the processors are relatively inexpensive compared to overall expenditure. 2000 dollars seems a reasonable investment for 10 years. I know that Sony is trying to push PS5 Pros. I don't know their* specs but i imagine they can't be hitting 12 cores in the thing.
Not to put you to work. Do you have a recommendation on a Machine Spec to last me into and a little beyond the next gen?
Microcenter did me proper my current build, not taking into consideration the massive tech advancements the subsequent years. It would be good to see other's opinions.
I don't need prices or anything. Just a simple list of hardware. Cheers! :D
How can i tell if my system can support the RTX? I never thought the GPU could go beyond CPU capabilities. - meaning, what does it matter how fast the GPU if the CPU cannot transfer data just as fast.
--- Nevermind. I looked it up. Although that is a feasible thing to do, i dont think i would be comfortable chancing my Processor being "out of date" with today's CPU expectations.
We can expect a substantial jump in system requirements in about 4 years or so when ps6 comes out.
We were a bit lucky this time due to ps4 cross gen games and very weak xbox series S but real next gen games like Wukong, The Last of Us or Final Fantasy 16 are very demanding already.
I think it’s just a lot to ask from a gaming PC to comfortably lasts 10years.
That being said, I don't know if I see a massive jump in four years, at least not a necessary one, because the reality is the games will have to be made playable on the hardware most people have if they want to sell it, and there will probably be a "blend period" where games are cross-generation as opposed to actually next generation. Yeah, maybe "X game can be hard to run" and "you might have to dial down some settings" or "you have to use upscaling" or whatever will be true, but things like that have always been the case. As hardware gets older, it won't remain as relatively performant, so you will have to make concessions. That's just reality.
The current consoles, which I'd say are possibly are over halfway through their life cycle, have an APU that is "sort of" an underclocked Ryzen 7 3700X for the CPU side with a Radeon RX 6700 (non-XT) on the GPU side. There's other differences, like the CPU lacks some registers and cache, and the GPU lacks clock speed so it might be closer to a 6650 XT in ways, and so on, but this stuff is never 1:1 anyway. The whole thing actually exists as a PC kit and it's just called the "AMD 4700S", and it actually performs rather poorly on the PC side (again, the whole "this isn't 1:1" disclaimer). It gives an idea where the current consoles stand though. What's the tough part is that they have 16 GB is very fast shared RAM (for system and VRAM purposes, and most is used for VRAM) and very fast storage. They are also fixed hardware so the console games get precompiled shaders; the PC games can't and thus don't. This is why shader compilation stutter will always be worse on a PC regardless of how much power you throw at it.
Don't focus too much on core count. The Ryzen 5 5600 outperforms the Ryzen 7 3700X, and the Ryzen 5 7600 outperforms the Ryzen 7 5800X, and so on. Now I'd generally recommend an 8 core CPU today if you want some longevity (or just extra performance), but the reality is newer 6 cores often do outperform older 8 cores, so 12 is overdoing it. Sure, maybe future consoles have more cores but they already have had 8/16 CPUs for years and you don't see that being the bare minimum on the PC side five years later, so... you'll be fine with 8/16 for a while yet. Maybe there's consideration for going with 8/16 over 6/12, but 12+ cores brings some issues.
On AMD's side, the 12 and 16 core CPUs are two CCDs instead of one, and latency increases when dealing with that. That doesn't matter for "linearly scaling" multi-threaded productivity, but it does for "real time" applications like games. The 12 core in particular is even worse as the CCDs are 6 cores instead of 8, so it has to cross that point sooner. The Ryzen 7 X3D models outperform them.
On Intel's side it's a bit different because Intel adopted a hybrid approach starting with the 12th generation, where there's faster "performance" cores, and slower "efficient" cores. Intel actually doesn't offer above 8 performance cores at all (the 10th generation Core i9 was the exception, as those were 10/20 affairs). And even "just" the Core i5 is 14 cores (6 performance cores and 8 efficient cores) and 20 threads. If you're wondering "wait, why 14 cores and 20 threads", the reason the thread count isn't doubled is because only the performance cores have Hyper-threading; the efficient cores don't. And if you think it's confusing now... Hyper-threading is now dead as Intel has dropped it with their current stuff. It's no longer needed because adding more efficient cores does more for that sort of situation. The 14th generation is the last to have Hyper-threading. The two generations after that, both out now (but one is mobile only), lack it.
If you wanted to buy a reasonably performance PC that will last a while (but ten years is pushing it), then $2,000 more than gets that. I'd even suggest reigning that in some hundreds, and then putting those extra hundreds that you didn't spend (plus additional savings added to it over time) towards a GPU upgrade in four to six years. Asking a CPU plus GPU to last ten years is gambling, but maybe if you allow for a later GPU upgrade and go heavy on the RAM up front, the chances of making it reasonably to at least seven to eight years vastly improves.
The 9000 series X3D may launch soon enough that I'd wait on that. Intel's Core Ultra 200 series seems like it may fail to impress, especially in gaming (good efficiency, and good general performance and productivity though). Intel's own claims are that it might be ~5% slower than the 7800X3D in gaming, and that's about to be replaced by the 9800X3D. Wait for benchmarks on this and for the 9800X3D to release to make your choice. I hate the "just wait" advice everyone gives for stuff half a year out, but since this all happening really soon and you're wanting to make it last as long as possible... yeah, wait a bit.
Knee-jerk answer, I'd say your best solution would be looking at a 9800X3D, at least 32 GB DDR5 RAM (go with 64 GB if you're serious about the longevity, but keep it to two DIMMs, not four, because driving four DIMMs without speed penalty isn't happening on DDR5), and then the best GPU you can get. Motherboard brand, chipset, RAM brand, and storage are intangibles that depend on preference and your situation. For the GPU, something like a RTX 4070 or RX 7800 XT or better. If you do that, and accept the GPU might want upgraded in four to six years... then maybe it lasts close to ten years. But you're always gambling when you try and build for the very long future. "There is no such thing as future proofing" after all.
dont waste the money on a 12 core system for just gaming.....get a AM5 based system and know you will be able to upgrade in a few years without issues.....if you need a 12 core in the coming years dropping one in will be a joke.....DO NOT WASTE MONEY ON INTEL.....you will just be locked to a platform that cant be upgraded over GREED....like you are now......
oh and if the intel fanboys get their panties in a bunch....remind me of the intel platform that was updated for 7 years with some of the best gaming CPU's being dropped at the end of the cycle.....I'll wait....and so will you......as its NEVER HAPPENED.......