-X-

Yes, but my concern is the possible unsuccessful bios update that could corrupt the bios or windows and make the board useless, that's extra cost to fix/replace it that could go into a useful upgrade or generation jump.

I did think about the 5700X or 5800X as well, but for work even the 5800X is just halfway between the 2700X and 5900X and the 5900X is at good price currently. The 5800X3D is the same price as 5900X so it's really a choice between gaming or productivity there. I was mostly weighing the positives and negatives between upgrading to 5900X or jumping to 7900X. What I've concluded so far If upgrading to 5900X: + double the performance (work) for a good price + leaves enough budget room for 64/128gb RAM (also useful for work) - (As I found out) Possibly a bios update can cause windows to break and in one example someone was unable to even reinstall windows (on a TUF X470) or it can - cause windows to deactivate and seemingly make it a problem to reactivate Or if I go for a jump to 7900X + huge performance boost overall (and especially for work) + jump to a new generation (besides a possible CPU upgrade in the next 2-3 years it's a jump from PCIE 3.0 to 4.0 so the M.2 and RX7800XT wouldn't be bottlenecked by 3.0) - assured deactivation of windows (hopefully not creating any problems, it's really not the time to reinstall and set everything up again) - more expensive

Actually I made a mistake, 2409 isn't the newest update for TUF B450 Pro Gaming but it's the first one to support Ryzen 5000 while the latest is 4401. The 2409 is from December 2020. so it should be safe. Thanks!

Most stuff I do benefits from more cores, but of course 7900X is better all around for a platform jumping price

Primarily for work (2D/3D renders, 3D modelling, simple video editing), gaming as well but it's lower priority. The 7900X is definitely a better choice for both due to far better single core perf. but as I mentioned it's still a new platform full of problems and it's also a lot more expensive, so the performance increase doesn't follow the price increase compared to an AM4 upgrade (while jumping to AM5 should mean another few generations of upgrades).

Planning on upgrading, first (cheaper) choice is changing my Ryzen 7 2700X for a Ryzen 9 5900X, second (expensive) switching to Ryzen 9 7900X. Does the newest version (2409) support Ryzen 2700X? A thread on Reddit says 2000 runs on it, but double checking if there are possible problems not mentioned there. I don't want the update to fail and ruin the board. All it says on the 2409 update is "1. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1.2.0.B 2. Update AMD 5000/3000 Series CPU fTPM version, please back up Bitlocker recovery key before updating this version BIOS." While if I go for the 7900X and TUF Gaming B650 Plus I'd still rather update the bios due to the possible frying of Ryzen 9s on Asus motherboards, but at least it has a USB flash option and it's just the 7000 series on it currently Also an additional question, what are thoughts on jumping to 7000 right now with all the problems vs doing a cheaper upgrade in my case from 2700X to 5900X? And yes I'm specifically aiming for 5900X (5950X costs a lot more than the performance difference) as it's primarily for work and gaming comes second (also the 5800X3D costs the same as the 5900X here, so it's a simple choice choosing between a work CPU and gaming CPU). For less than half the price of a 7000 jump (7900X + TUF B650 Plus + 32GB DDR5) you get 5900X + 64GB DDR4 (even going for 128GB would be around half the price).

About 95C where it won't fry itself especially during summer Just watched a vid from Tech Yes City undervolting a 7950X, but he used Ryzen Master instead of going into bios, does it make any difference or any pros and cons for doing it through the app?

So even without an undervolt or temp limit it should be fine? First idea was to upgrade to 5900X as a cheaper upgrade on AM4 so the PS120SE was a choice for that one, but found an ok price for 7900X + TUF B650 so weighing in the options. Of course if I can get it stable and maybe a limit to 85-90C that'd be great, I assume how far you can undervolt differs from cpu to cpu?

Is the Phantom Spirit 120 SE capable of cooling the 7900X under multi core workload? Some tests conclude that most air coolers can't keep the 7900X under 95C while others recommend coolers like the Dark Rock 4 Pro and AK620 and the PS120SE seems to be close to them in cooling performance overall.

I'm leaning more towards the TUF from the start, as good as the Nitro+ performs since the TUF has a better build quality, better cooling (as some test show there's a 10C degree difference between the TUF and Nitro+ 7800XT which can make the difference between working hot and thermal throttling during summer) I feel it's a safer choice. Also I'm an Asus fan so unless the Nitro+ price drops by a lot I'll probably go for the TUF I thought about the 5800X3D, regular 5800X, 5950X and 5900X and for work the 5900X seems like the best choice since it's a lot cheaper than the 5950X while not performing nearly as less as it costs, but it also performs better where I need it than the 5800X3D (and 5800X) while being just 10 euros more at most. I also thought about a 7800X3D or 7900X/7950X but besides being more expensive since they're newer it would also cost me a lot (about 3-4 times more) to switch from AM4/DDR4 to AM5/DDR5 so it'll probably be when 9000 or 10000 (or whatever they number them) is out.

That's why my choice is down to Asus vs Sapphire, had a great experience with everything from Asus over the years and Sapphire has been AMD's top quality partner for so long and specifically the Nitro+ seems very solid.

1440p 60hz not planning on switching to 4k anytime soon, the 7800XT seems to handle it without a problem and even 4K in some cases. I thought about going for the 7900XT but even the reference models cost a lot more than TUF or Nitro+ 7800XTs while Asus, Sapphire or MSI 7900XTs are almost twice the price. Aside from costing more than the extra power and VRAM it brings, I'm looking to fit a Ryzen 9 5900X (it's primarily for work, gaming shouldn't be a problem) but all that brings the need for a new cooler and a new PSU etc.

Planning an upgrade, my original choice was the TUF RX7800XT (upgrading from a Strix RX480 OC) and I prefer Asus overall, but the Sapphire Nitro+ seems to be another great option (and it's a similar price more or less depending on the store). Looking at tests the performance is similar (haven't found a direct comparison between the 2 from a single source), biggest differences I've noticed are the temperatures - Nitro+ around 63C while gaming and TUF around 57C while gaming from the same source - and the TDP difference stated on Versus.com - Nitro+ 288W vs TUF 263. Besides that, probably the most important difference (for me) is the case fan header, the Nitro+ has one and the TUF doesn't (currently using a case fan connected to the GPU since the Strix 480 has 2 headers for case fans). If I missed any differences feel free to point them out! I'm looking to hear thoughts and experiences if someone used either of the 2 versions or in general how this generation of TUF and Nitro+ compare in terms of cooling and overall quality. It's a GPU that should (hopefully) last 4-5+ years so I'd prefer going with the better quality one that can handle everyday use and probably high temps during summer (for reference, my current Strix RX 480 OC goes up to 80-86C during summer due to weather, otherwise it stays around 55-65C at 100%). Also interested how TriXX compares to GPU Tweak, especially for controlling case fans. Thanks in advance.

I'm looking into an upgrade as well, 99% chance I'm going with an RX7800XT which (currently) rivals the 4070 and seems to perform great on 1440p (also using 1440p). I don't know how it's price compares where you live, here it's around 40-50 euros difference between the cheapest 6800 and 7800XT, but also for example the TUF 6800XT is around 40 euros more than the TUF 7800XT so it seems like a better choice.

That's what confused me, I read that the 5900X can go up to around 142W stock so I didn't give it a second thought with the TUF B450. I'm sure OC'ed drawing up to 200+W would fry the board quickly. I do have room for 2x 140mm above the board, though it would create a lot of pressure keeping the air in since only one 120mm would be an exhaust in the rear. Unless the rear top fan was exhaust and forward top was intake and maybe somewhat follow the airflow of the CPU fans pushing rearward, or it's just a stupid idea Aren't the 7000 Ryzen chips with the offset cores? Or did I miss something on the 5900X?

Not yet, but it is what I'm set on upgrading to. The 5950X cost a lot more than the performance gain compared to 5900X while the 5700X/5800X are noticeably lower in performance for "professional" use (which is the main reason I'm upgrading). True this isn't something I considered as I thought the TUF B450 can handle it given the supposedly better VRMs and the heatsinks it has, paired with a common vertical cooler instead of a mobo facing one like the stock. Also, I don't plan on OCing the 5900X. I'd definitely be looking into better cooling and probably an X570, but currently I wanted a solid upgrade for work without stretching the budget, otherwise I would be looking into a complete upgrade to 7900X/7950X. So the PS120SE is the best choice with PA120SE after it, if so I'll probably go for PS120SE (unless they're out of stock )

Upgrading GPU and CPU: Strix RX480 8GB OC > > > TUF RX7800XT Ryzen 7 2700X > > > Ryzen 9 5900X 16GB DDR4 > > > 32GB DDR4 (Kingston Fury) (x2 sticks) Looking for a good cooler (without breaking the budget) for the Ryzen 9 5900X, currently using an LC Power LC-CC-95 for the Ryzen 7 2700X and it's been doing a good job for it's price (35-41C idle > 50-55C gaming > 75-86C 3D rendering, 3D modelling, 2D graphics...), but it's probably not a good choice for a 5900X under heavy workload. I'm interested in opinions and/or suggestions/recommendations, I've picked out a few coolers that fit my budget. Looking at tests even on Ryzen 7000 series the temps seem ok , but I'm also interested in the quality and reliability of these coolers (a broken cooler won't cool ). Current case is a Fractal Design Define R4 (2x 140mm front intake, 1x 120mm rear exhaust, 1x 120mm floor intake). (with current lowest prices) - THERMALRIGHT Peerless Assassin 120 SE - 43 euros - CoolerMaster Masterair Ma612 Stealth - 54 euros - Thermalright Phantom Spirit 120 Se Argb - 56 euros - DEEPCOOL AK620 black - 72 euros - BE QUIET! Dark Rock Pro 4 - 74 euros Peerless Assassin 120 SE keeps good temps in some tests and it's the most budget friendly in the list, but if I can't rely on it's quality to survive the 5900X during heavy work it's probably worth paying more for one that can handle it. I'm also not a fan of cheap AIO's so it's why I'm mostly looking into air coolers, unless there's a reliable and overall good AIO in this price range. Thank you in advance

MSI and Corsair do seem like safe choices for a quality PSU, I'd probably go for one of them for now, but also how does the Gigabyte 1000W compare in terms of quality? Reviews are saying it's solid with some drawbacks, but a lot of people are holding onto Gigabyte's last PSU series being terrible and this one doesn't seem to be anyone's favorite (like the MSI for example). Quality aside, the Gigabyte 1000W does get a 10 year warranty but only in one store and the rest give 3 years (some 5), while the MSI (Corsair seems to be unavailable in stores atm) gets a 10 year warranty in every store. It's not a problem to buy it with the 10 year warranty, but the fact that no one else is giving 10 years is discouraging.

Upgrading GPU and CPU: Strix RX480 8GB OC > > > TUF RX7800XT Ryzen 7 2700X > > > Ryzen 9 5900X 16GB DDR4 > > > 32GB DDR4 (Kingston Fury) Currently have a Cooler Master B600 600W PSU and I'll need a new one for the RX 7800XT, 850W is recommended (minimum 750W but I'd rather have extra room), but of course I'm looking to get the most reliable PSU for the least money I can. I would probably go with any Cooler Master 850W 80+ Gold but they're above my budget (unless everything else available would be a bad choice), currently have these few picked out as options and I'm interested in opinions and open to suggestions (just keep the suggestions in this or similar price range - Be Quiet 850W System Power 10 BN330 80+ Gold - Gigabyte GP-P850GM 80+ Gold - LC Power 1000W LC1000M V2.31 80+ Gold - MSI 850W MPG A850GF 80+ Gold - Gigabyte 1000W GP-UD1000GM 80+ Gold These 5 are placed in ascending price order, around 42 euros in difference from BeQuiet and Gigabyte 1000W with the rest in between Another 2 options are - Corsair RM850x 850W V2 80+ Gold (priced somewhere in the middle of the first 5) - Cooler Master Cooler Master MWE 80+ Bronze V2 MPE-7501-ACABW-BEU 750W - cheapest on this list (but I would still go with 850W) Thanks in advance

I've been usign a Kingston Hyper X Fury 120gb SATA SSD as my system drive, it's time for an upgrade to a larger SSD so naturally going for M.2 now. My choice mostly comes down to Samsung 980 Pro 500GB or Kingston Fury Renegade 500GB, but the price difference and great reviews for the Fury Renegade make it my top choice. Coming from a SATA SSD minor speed differences don't matter so much, it's already a huge jump. What matters is reliability to be used as a system drive and to install programs on it to get the most from M.2 speeds, but of course at a certain budget. The mobo is an Asus TUF B450 Pro Gaming with 2 M.2 slots but both are PCIE 3.0 so I won't get the full speed on it anyway. What are your thoughts on the Kingston Fury Renegade (500GB) overall and to be used as the main system drive (and for programs)? Thanks in advance!

I'm looking to replace my Xiaomi Mi A2 Lite, after some research these 2 (Redmi Note 10 Pro 128/6GB and Samsung A52 128/6GB) seem like the best choice for my budget. The price difference is around 50 euros (the A52 being more expensive) and both seem to be great phones overall, but each having it's pluses over the other. My pros and cons of the phones: Note 10 Pro: Pros: - Bigger battery (5020mah vs 4500mah) - Bigger camera sensor (108mpx vs 64mpx and better more realistic color tones than A52) - *Top placed 3.5mm jack (vs bottom) - Maybe the side/button fingerprint scanner (vs the under screen one, but A2 Lite has it on the rear so haven't used the other - one thing I got from tests is it unlocks faster than A52) - Dual SIM plus dedicated SD card slot (I use the SD card slot and having an open second SIM slot is nice, but not a deal breaker alone) - IR blaster - *Supposedly better display (both are Super AMOLED and besides 120hz on Note 10 Pro vs 90hz on A52 I've heard/read that Note 10 Pro's screen looks better and is also brighter (max 1200nits vs max 800nits on paper but also from real usage by the reviews)) - Slightly faster CPU? In comparison tests it doesn't seem to be any difference or slight at best - *Supposedly better quality and also louder speakers? - 33W fast charger - *Cheaper! Cons: - *Unstable MIUI? There's always some negative experiences for everything but I've noticed a lot of complaints on MIUI especially around 12.5 and 13 (I'm on Android One so I never used MIUI) - *Less update support on Xiaomi in general compared to Samsung, the Note 10 Pro being last years model it says on Xiaomi's site that it'll get updates until 2024. or about up to Android 13 and MIUI 14 - *No OIS - Slightly bigger than A52 (not a huge difference but still - not a deal breaker) A52: Pros: - *Better camera software and OIS (most tests show the A52 making just slightly better pictures and videos with better stabilized videos and photos especially noticeable in night photos and recording, only downside are cooler almost blue-ish tones compared to Note 10 Pro's more realistic tones) - *Cleaner and more stable OS? (No adds or other bloatware like MIUI, but I don't know how much or if it's even a problem on MIUI) - IP67 rating (vs IP53 on Note 10 Pro, probably not the most important but still nice) - *Longer update support (it says the A52 should get updates to Android 14 and a year of security updates after that) - Smaller than Note 10 Pro Cons: - *Smaller battery - Slower fingerprint sensor - *Bottom placed 3.5mm jack - No dedicated SD card slot (probably not a deal breaker now, but it's nice to have) - *More expensive - 25W charger (I also read that the 25W charger doesn't come with the A52, is that true?) What are your opinions or experience with either of these phones? And I decided to go with last year's models due to this year's models we downgraded (Note 11 Pro having heating problems, weaker CPU and no 4K recording on the stock camera app all with a higher price and the A53 reviews are negative on the CPU but they also removed the 3.5mm on it so that's a deal breaker) and the almost 3rd option would be the A52S 5G but it's another 50 euros up from A52 which is going quite far from my planned budget and I'm not sure if a faster CPU and 120hz is worth it (mobile gaming isn't relevant for me, anything I'd play makes no difference on any of these 3). Thanks in advance!

If you're going to do video editing, streaming/recording and similar maybe a Ryzen 7 3700/3700X or a Ryzen 5 5600/5600X would be a better choice (if it fits your budget), as well as the motherboard if it can fit in your budget the Gigabyte B550M Aorus Pro is a great choice.

If you're planning on playing in 4k you might want something higher tier than the GTX 1650, it's usually a 1080 aiming for 4k or something newer like a 2070 or the RTX3000 series (or AMD's Vega 56, Vega 64, RX5600, RX5700, RX6600, RX6600XT etc.). Good luck

Are the onboard Ryzen graphics usable on B550 motherboards? Some companies for example list Ryzen support "5000/ 4000G / 3000..." and I read on some posts from 2020. that Ryzen 5th gen integrated GPUs aren't usable on some or most B550 motherboards. Specifically asking about the Ryzen 5 5600G on mobos like the Asus Prime B550M-K or Gigabyte Aorus Pro B550M if the Vega GPU is usable on them. Thanks in advance

I had a hard drive failure and I need to get a new one, decided to expand the storage while I'm at it and going from a 1TB (500gb was for games 500gb for storage) I'm looking to get a seperate 1TB for games/programs and a 2TB for storage. Due to a limited budget and specific needs the choice mostly comes down to 4 HDDs (1 for games/programs one for storage). The one for games/programs I don't need to be anything fast like an SSD or NVMe, the budget let's me choose between a 256gb SSD, 120gb NVMe or a 1TB HDD and anything under 1TB doesn't do it. The one for storage also due to budget limitations is mostly around 2TB HDDs and not high class professional storage models and an SSD/NVMe is far from the 2TB I need. The one for storage has to be as reliable as it can for the price. Currently the choice is between these: Games/programs HDD: Western Digital Blue 10EZEX 7200rpm 1TB vs Seagate Barracuda Pro ST1000LM049 7200rpm 1TB Storage: Western Digital Blue 20EZRZ 5400rpm 2TB vs Seagate SkyHawk ST2000VX015 (?rpm) 2TB I've always used Western Digital (Blue), I decided to research the difference between their Seagate equivalents in case they have advantages over WD's Blue and Green series and among the mixed reviews and experiences that vary from extremely good/bad experiences from both WD and Seagate the thing that is most common is that Seagate compared to WD is generally faster but at the cost of reliability. As I said there are good/bad and great/horrible stories for both brands, but the most frequent is that Seagate has faster but less reliable HDDs while WD has slower but more reliable HDDs. A bit of info that caught my attention is that Seagate HDDs aside from being less reliable in general, tend to fail suddenly and the chances of saving any files from them are quite low to none. I also read that WD has a different type of head for reading that doesn't physically touch the disk while the head in Seagates has physical contact, true or not the low reliability of Seagate is still a common comment everywhere ignoring the way the head reads the disk. So, which of this is more or less true? What would you suggest between these and maybe another choice (the choice between brands is low where I live, I think there are some Toshiba HDDs though I haven't looked them up and I'm not sure how available are any other brands for mechanical drives). The WD Blue 2TB 20EZRZ as I know is the old WD Green drive which was for storage purpose and I currently have that one, though I've got it a bit more than a year ago. The HDD for games/programs would probably be fine as either the WD Blue or Seagate Barracuda Pro (though the small speed difference isn't that important, a more reliable drive would be just a bit nicer), but the HDD for storage absolutely has to be the most reliable for that price range, the speed can be as slow as it needs like the usual 5400rpm but the files have to be as safe as possible (that's why the info that Seagate isn't as reliable and that the files can't be saved as easily or at all in case of a failure and the general bad reputation they have on reliability is pushing me away from buying Seagate for storage, but I'd like to hear thoughts about this) Thank you