Mister Woof

They both have good and bad boards, and both have done questionable things from the business ethics perspective at some point. Pick based on individual motherboard review/spec and pricing and hope you don't ever need to rely on warranty. This goes for all of the manufacturers.

As someone who's been using an 8700k for years, you'll almost never see anything over 4.3ghz in anything meaningful. There is a perceivable gain in performance going from the stock 4.3ghz all-core to at least 4.7ghz; beyond that, it's not that much nor worth spending to achieve. If as you say, you don't know the BIOS, it's possible or likely you've been running with too much voltage and at too much heat for a while, leading to chip degredation. If it works now, just leave it be or else try to see how much voltage you need for 4.7ghz all-core. Otherwise, just hold out until 13th gen and upgrade. The 8700k still works fine but it is aging.

Buying DDR5 now to future proof at an expensive rate is not really future proofing; all you'd be doing to "future proof" is by buying a DDR5 motherboard in hopes in the "future" you'll be able to put in faster DDR5 than we presently have...which is more money on top. Given most DDR5 isn't really better than existing high-end DDR4, you're better off saving the difference vs. marked up DDR5 and putting it towards a platform upgrade....in the future. The money you saved by not buying marked up DDR5 now + the fact you'd need to buy new fast DDR5 in "the future" anyway is probably better off spent just upgrading..."in the future."

Yep, this is why we ended up getting the 12600KF at $265. At the time we ordered it, the 12400F more expensive than the 12400 (which itself was $220) so we just figured a slightly higher boost and some E-cores was worth the extra $40

I've used them all, and for the most part you just need to look up specific model reviews. ASRock seems to be the worst overall of late.

I paired a 12600k with an ASUS PRIME B660-A D4 (this is the full size ATX version for $139.99) and it seemed to perform quite well. I don't use it daily (it was for my BIL) but he reports no problems. It is going to be stock operation forever, so I found no need to get the Z690. If the full-size ATX is as good as the B660M-A D4 I expect no issues, as I doubt he'll ever see a scenario more punishing than a 1 hour CBR23 loop.

just try it. there's no harm to you.

I mean it depends. If you want the 5800x so you have more room "to grow" you aren't going to get as much out of your current board is its' only PCIE3, and future GPU's will need PCIE4 to work well in all likelihood. So getting the 5800x for that reason is pointless, especially since the 5600x gets you 98% of the way there. If you get the intel system, you get both slightly better performance on a newer PCIE4/5 platform which gives you more room to grow GPU-wise later. That said, it's also much more expensive and spending 500bp now for a 12700k/b660 instead of just 250bp for a 5600x now and then when it is too slow upgrade to the newer stuff later probably makes more sense. I only see two routes here that make sense: 5600x platform switch to intel out of those, the 5600x makes the most sense

Yes, you need a new motherboard. You'd need a b660 at least for either, and in the States, a 12600k is $265 and the cheapest I'd pair with it without overclocking is the ASUS Prime B660-A which i've personally used and is $140. If that is the same-ish where you live, you'd be out roughly double the cost in a 12600k and 2.5x the cost on a 12700F vs the 5600x drop in. Performance differences in games is single digits generally at 1440p.

Dropping in the 5600x is easiest and most benefit vs. cost/effort. You also won't really have to worry about driver conflicts as it should just slot in, maybe a BIOS update/reset and that's it. How much is a 5600x vs how much is a 12600k/z690 or 12700f/b660?

If you're gonna get a new motherboard just go with Intel You're overthinking this. You have a low end mobo, and you're budget limited because you say you don't want to buy a cooler. And yet you still want to get the 5800x over the 5600x without real reason. Either just get a 5600x and drop it in cooler and all, or switch platforms to a 12700f/b660. But then you'd still probably want to get a better cooler anyway. Which brings you right back to overspending your budget, or getting a 12400 instead, which isn't really much better than the 5600x, which is the cheapest route. 5600x is the route to success here. You've survived on the 1600 all this time, which is like Haswell-level performance. I think if you got a 5600x you'd be surprised at how much better it is and it will def. hold you over for years given your current system experience.

The intel system would get your PCIE4, which might matter in the next generation of graphics cards depending on which one you get. It seems like high end cards will need it for maximum output, and lower end cards will because the trend is using limited implementations. e.g. PCIE4x4 or x8. Which on a B450 would only be PCIE3x4 or x8 and then performance tanks. Personally, if it's just gaming, I'd grab a 5600x instead for $259 if you're in the USA https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-5600x/p/N82E16819113666?Description=5600x&cm_re=5600x-_-19-113-666-_-Product&quicklink=true If you get a 3060ti/3070, PCIE3 will be fine since they are x16 cards, and you'll get maximum performance of them out of a 5600x even on that board. Gaming won't be really noticeably different on a 5600x or 5800x really, but will be WORLDS better than the 1600. And the 5600x should be fine on the stock Wraith Spire.

Depends more on the game, but I wouldn't hold my breath on a first gen Skylake IMC pulling off 4000mt/s+ memory easily

Hyperthreading is the deciding factor. Go with the i7.

Still sems so strange to me how something that is just public health became a political stance.

Based on what I know I would get the VISION. Gaming performance should be about the same, but the 3 fan card is likely way cooler and quieter. Plus it looks cool AF vs

Price? Personally, I feel the KO sucks. I have the 3070 version and it's hot and loud. It seems like a riced up DUAL, which is the basic model. I would def. get a 3-fan card over it if you have the opportunity and the price difference isn't that significant. Plus the VISION looks sick.

That still doesn't solve spotty PCIE4 support and with B550 costing only ten(s) of dollars more...no reason to really choose B450. Original opinion stands.

B450 doesn't officially support PCIE4(some can, but it's limited and at mercy of future BIOSes removing), so yeah, in a way. Also, it generally doesn't support as fast of memory. How much difference there is depends on what you're doing. Personally I would not pair a 5000x chip with B450 unless you already have the motherboard.

Can't speak for 3900x, but 8700k been at 1.38v since 2017

you're gonna see small dips from time to time, that's just the way it works. Here's an older framtime graph, but you can see here all the CPUs dip at some point. Keep in mind ~16ms = 60fps, and 4MS = over 200. So at some point along this plot, all of these CPUs here drop to below 60fps sometimes.

does rocket league stutter?

is your game installed on an ssd or hard drive also, keep in mind a LOT of console ports (like RDR2) kinda...suck in the optimization department. PC is often an afterthought. An example is Detroit Become Human. Runs great on PS4. Runs like poop on a high end gaming PC.....despite the PC being several orders of magnitude more powerful.

IMO yeah just play and don't worry about it. Some games are gonna just stutter; other times it can be memory related, or others it can be frame caps, it really depends. There's also always going to be a small amount of low fps....it just happens on every system. It's why reviewers include 1% and .1% lows in their metrics. Do you have a specific game where it happens?