well_eek

Look man, I know that and don't need you taking a tone when asking questions, some of which came up because of things said here. Not everyone wants to or can throw a lot of money at possibly the wrong choice for them, especially when opinion is divided and solid numbers are missing. That doesn't tell me much as I don't even know at the bare minimum what cooler you're running and with what kind of fan curve - you could be running 45-60db jet engines for all I know with max fans/max pump. Good to know with cinie, thanks.

If I didn't want to OC right now to save noise/heat and to leave it as an option for later if needed. When people, like some here are talking about AMD beating Intel for gaming is it with PBO on, which is (like?) overlocking? I've seen people say these chips are OC'd out of the factory or set to be that way. Wondering if it's an effectively OC'd boosting AMD is what's besting Intel at times - like if Intel's short boost is considered stock this could be too? If AMD boots as long as there is thermal headroom will that make for more noise as it boosts and boosts until my cooler can't go faster? I thought of the 5800x due to people saying it had better die spacing, but it's also hotter by several accounts and that's not something I want to deal with. Is Ciniebenech r20 anyway representative of a heavy gaming load? Like a maxed AA title running a 1440p with all the bells and whistles my 3080 will afford e.t.c. It was also mentioned updates for mobos and there's where I stumble with AMD a little further - it seems some are good and some are really really bad depending on VRMs, Bios e.t.c. and that can change with each update, needing new settings per update/game. With Intel it's more ASUS keep to power limits and there are also other good boards if you turn off enhancements, but VRMs and bios aren't an issue from what I've seen in general. It was mentioned Intel didn't have update headroom on this socket but iirc Intel has one more on this socket and this was the last for AM4 (there was also that backlash when some AM4 boards wouldn't support the CPUs for a while and people turned on them). As a newcomer I'm worried I'd get carried away in the AMD hype and end up on unstable bios updates, mobos, endless tinkering, minor at time gains in some games and end up worrying about my settings and VRM temps like I see people posting about on Reddit a lot for the sake of a little bit of a cooler at times according to some chip vs Intel that seems more plug and play for a bit more of a power draw? A powerful but quiet system was the aim so I didn't have to upgrade for a long time - with bias updates being often I wonder if AMD boards will stop supporting the chip properly too vs Intel's stable updates. It's hard not knowing how games will go - they may favour Intel all of the time with the next launch or AMD might best them with their next update - right now it's pretty neck and neck depending on title it seems. Someone here said AVX wasn't an issue for AMD anymore, but I can't find numbers about issues. The just go old faithful and mentioned things in me is pulling me to Intel, but I don't want to make the wrong choice on a £800 (gpu+mobo) purchase. I'm finding reports of AMD drawing more power in multithread, so am worries again about heat. I'd love it to be the easier to cool, cooler running chip I've heard of but sadly Intel reviews always show temps, but AMD ones not nearly as much... Has anyone here gone AMD and regretted it over Intel or would change if they could/plan to?

By your own logic saying that AMD only need to be at 4.1 to beat Intel overclocked 5.2 how is it then that until now AMD couldn't beat Intel when they could run at 4.3? By that logic it would have been said using stock for gaming Intel wins, but if you boost a 3900 then it's 4.3 would outdo not only Intel's newer chips, but beat or at least match what they come out with next. Even a slightly OCd chip would have beaten the 9900k and the 10900k by that logic. You said you trashed AMD until now, but by your maths and logic the 3900 (which you would have trashed) is better than a 10900k and possibly whatever comes next - do you see how this is confusing? People were saying AMD needed more clock speed to try to match or best Intel, but if this was the case people wouldn't have said that and AMD would have gotten the best for gaming title a long time ago with Zen 2. 5.0 is 5.0 and 3.7 is 3.7 unless you know something I've never heard even from the likes of Gamers Nexus or from AMD fanboys (that's have had a field say with such info!)

Do you possibly have the numbers showing this for heat in gaming and standard multitasking loads? I've seen things differing greatly in write ups and then people linking AMDs own slide saying 86+is fine and expected even with cooling at base (no OC). Hot is still hot and all that. Ahh this is very confusing - isn't 3.7 still 3.7 on both? I saw people saying AMD needed to up their base clocks to compete for best gaming, which they did - but their boost numbers are lower and I still don't get how they'd be cooler if they always boost vs intel just sometimes from my understanding above. There's even someone in this thread also saying AMD runs hotter and why.

Differing takes on here too, even down to who runs hotter dang it. AMD reviews don't seem to focus so much on heat, which I always felt strange with such focus on Intel heat. I was thinking of going for the best/near the best now so I don't need to upgrade for quite some time and don't plan to OC right now (to keep the quiet), so that's why I was staying away from lower end units. I still don't get how two CPUs with the same base frequency, but one with a higher boost (Intel) could loose out ever in a mathematical sense. So AMD runs cooler according to some, but reading here too that it runs hotter - AMD speeds being more based on heat than Intel would mean I'd be having to run louder fans to get the clock speeds than with Intel? Would running stock mean Intel just gets it 20-60 second boost and be within wattage/power limits? Then OC would be running it at a higher clock at base indefinitely (running say 5.0 at all times rather than 3.7) (and needing more cooling) or is the OC just the boost can be 5.1 but unless you enable it the chip won't boost that high for the period? AMD from what I understand is always trying to boost (OC-ing effectively) based on thermal headroom at stock - is this true? It seems many leave Intel stock and many OC to something like 5-5.1 but almost everyone on AMD is chasing higher clocks at all times (an OC?) which the chip seems to want to do as default behaviour. Then people undervolt and do other things I don't really get.

Q1: Near the best performance (or the best given both are around the same price), but without buying into an architecture I'd regret with settings/mobo or much higher thermals e.t.c. Q2: I'd be gaming and multitasking things such as streaming media, browsing, discord (and photoshop at times and possible video editing on occasion, but not to a huge degree). Looking to be set for quite some time. Q3: Probably not if there isn't a significant reason to - from my understanding 4.0 isn't of much use with GPUs and will remain that way for some years to come? I wonder how Intel will bridge the gap with an 8 core and didn't know AMD might stay on this socket longer - really thought this was it. That's where I was running into problems with people's logic of power=heat as the numbers weren't stacking up. Looking to have a quiet system, so is part of why I'm looking to see if one really is easier to cool and worth the possible trade offs. So Intel is boosting at all times with an OC, or just sometimes stock (that big sudden power draw) and AMD is boosting when it can at all times from my understanding - OC'd by default almost, so more tinkering and issues because of it - is this right too? Thank you for your help

Can the only pro to Intel really be availability (which as mentioned isn't such an issue in my case) and still have people buying it? Of course not. AMD is also the same price or near.

To preface this I will say I have a 3080 STRIX OC due soon and I can buy whichever CPU due to circumstances. What are the pros and cons of going with either platform/CPU? First proper rig and new to this, but have read/watched a lot and am stuck and hoping for impartial pros and cons to help me choose. It's feeling like I'll be burnt to varying degrees going with either and would like to make the right choice. Read the smaller text for things I've found if you wanted to know more of where I'm coming from and am stumbling. Bonus question: Will AVX have an advantage on either? More games are using it I'm told and it's quite the draw I'm told. Extra: AMD seems daunting - bios issues, motherboard issues, vrm worries, infinity fabric, settings, either good/alright or terrible temps and countless threads of people reporting their temps and stats (being happy or very not) and settings - it seems like you have to tinker with it from the off and with every bios update, of which there are many more of, often for 'stability'. Possibly more for people who like to play with computers more than play games on them with a fanbase I'd have to deal with if I need help with any update/settings? (been spoken down to by many more AMD users than Intel by far). Intel seems simpler, has integrated graphics just incase, time proven stability in chip and many boards, but people are reporting it runs hotter or fine and draws more power in either single threaded or multi (depending where you look - possibly just at boost) and when it boosts it hits very high wattage (although is said to be awful or very good with the new gen). It also looses out in some games and people are saying (or hoping) it's a sign of things to come, but unsure given the new consoles and they are only going to use so many cores/threads. It may sound like I have a bias to some, but I don't - this is just what I've seen from a lot of looking around as someone new to the space and if AMD isn't the complicated minefield of issues for the sake of some extra frames at times (or a workbench) and is decently better in most gaming and is much cooler as people claim it is(although AMD don't seem to?), I'd prefer to put my investment there. I really don't want to be burnt either way by going into an architecture that will cause me issues in a machine I don't want to have to keep tinkering with and will last for many years without issue due to the choice and end up regretting stepping away from consoles.

Thank you very much, Chiyawa! The PS5/C9 combo was referring to console PS5 and the popular in this space LG C9 OLED TV, which is what I do most of my gaming on. You bought up a good point that they probably tested on an open bench and most don't say if the cooler was running run throttle 60+db to do this. AIO always turns to AOI with predictive typing for some reason, gah. I've never used an AIO myself but might have to for these newer chips then for less noise and to maintain thermals. I'll ask more specific questions in set places, thanks again

Hi! So this ended up long, if you're willing to bare with me I'd appreciate it - I tried to do as much research as I could, days and days of it over months and am stuck So I was going to build a PC before the current launches, but with the new CPUs and GPUs on the horizon and then COVID I ended up having to put it off. Fast forward many months and most of the new releases are out and I find out if I want a PC anytime not many many months from now I will have to buy a system though a site here in the UK to access build stock. So I know there is a stigma against not building your own PC, but I couldn't avoid it to get a system anytime soon and to be honest as I'm new to having a system worth this much and am not confident with my clumsy smol hands the idea of tech support and a swap/repair warranty as training wheels is appealing. I placed the order knowing I could swap out whatever I wanted up until the build date, which was waiting on the GPU and now I see it looks like that will be in very soon, so I must make all changes very quickly. This also restricts what I can choose for certain items sadly. When I placed the order the new AMD series hadn't come out, so I'd gone with: i9 10900k ASUS ROG STRIX 3080OC ASUS ROG STIRX Z490-E GAMING be quiet! Dark rock pro 4 Corsair MP400 2TB NVMe CorsVengLPX DDR4 3200 32GB Cosair RM850X PSU be quiet! Pure Base 500DX Monitor: thinking 1440p 144hz+ with a secondary for right now I'm however not happy with the build and torn on changing to AMD for the CPU (which I could do due to being able to use build stock) Things aren't so cut and dry to me with the new release and all the media I consumed months ago largely doesn't apply now (all those days of reading and watching, hardly relevant sob). I've read and watched a lot to try and be as well placed as I can without first hand experience, but still was struggling so first went to Reddit as the community is huge - however for every nice person I ran into, I ran into many more fanboys who make up specs, elitists and just general rude creeps. All of the worrying about specs and this led me to worrying I'll make the wrong choice and regret it heavily and feeling overwhelmed like maybe I should have stayed lonely on my console even though I put in weeks of research - some things just won't click and the uncertainty is getting me down. I actually forgot I had an account here from my brief look into mobos until I was woe-ing to a friend about the death of my excitement about this and she said she found here to be more friendly and knowledgeable, so here I am, hopeful. So I suppose I should say where I'm hoping to go with this build - this is my gift to myself so I can get back into PC gaming and join in with my friends years after my HP died and I wanted it to be great to near-ish the best (within financial sensibility) build that would serve me well, be great now and leave me 'middle of the pack' by the time I need to upgrade so I don't have to rebuy everything all at once again with urgency. I don't do things I see in videos like blender, but do use photoshop and will probably do a bit video editing all for pleasure. As I'm getting back into this I don't know what I'll end up playing exactly outside of LOL, OW, Witcher, FF Online, but looking to be able to max-near max quality AAA titles at 1440p at at least 144fps (seems to be the sweet spot from looking around but may go higher refresh) so I'm not faced with regret as I find games and new releases I want to play that are PC only or find I want to play on PC over my PS5/C9 combo, especially as time goes on and gamed get more demanding. Of course I'll also be using the most demanding of all - chrome and discord, video streaming in the background/on the other monitor. I'm looking to run a very quiet build without choking the system as I'm very sensitive to noise, but don't want to choke my new parts. Not planning to OC now, if ever - unless I needed to whilst waiting for un upgrade and it wouldn't make for a lot more noise. I'll go with biggest one first.....eep AMD I see being called the king of gaming, the coolest, the least power hungry and best now. Although I've only ever used Intel and most of the AMD tech doesn't make full sense to me, the many BIOS updates worry me e.t.c. means I'm more inclined to keep to what I know more of, I'd hate to miss out on this CPU if it's what people say it is. I also realise I have upgrade headroom of one more chip on this mobo, but not on AMD, which I'm keeping in mind too. However, my excitement about this chip hit a wall when I saw review numbers varying wildly and just not matching up to what I heard. Gamers Nexus, which so many seem to see as the go-to for reliability showed multiple AMD chips besting Intel in most games and being but behind on RDR:II, yet in other places I saw different stories, such as Hardware Unboxed showing Intel be in the lead mostly or match or be a bit behind. A site here saying the AMD series runs hotter on most, a site there saying Intel does. Anandtech shows at times the lower AMD chips besting Intel, but at other times 3-4 Intel chips besting all or most AMD chips and Intel being much more power hungry, Tech Power Up shows Intel besting AMD in most games at 1440p and the Intel chips being much cooler than the AMD chips even though AMD draws less max power and showing Intel at times drawing more than it should for gaming and AMD drawing more for other things. Other sites show the 5800x besting everything whilst being the hottest chip e.t.c. I could go on but you get the idea - a first time proper rig buyer like me is (and others in the comment sections of some websites) left wondering why AMD is being called the best for everything when the numbers are saying otherwise, but also not knowing where to go for reliable numbers on everything as it's varying wildly. I'd heard about AMD fanboys and have now seen them first hand - I can ask an innocent thing like this, just wanting the best chip, and be flamed for not just accepting the benchmark of "AMD is best at everything" over numbers or told to look at reviews that heavily fall onto their side. Another thing I really don't get is TOTAL POWER DRAWN = HEAT, THEREFORE INTEL WILL BE THE WORST CHOICE TO COOL, yet seeing AMD run hotter in multiple places in everything and in quite a bit in all. I'm seeing people say like HU said, that Death Standing and SS4 are newer games and favouring AMD, which could mean that is the way gaming is heading and I know the new consoles run on AMD, but still many console games are running better on Intel and then there's the 'what if Kojima's engine just like's AMD' and 'god, go I have to figure out which game uses which engine and see which favours which?'. I'm really lost here guys and gals - I've honestly looked at every reputable place I have found and been linked to buy am at a loss - am I missing something - are the words in AMDs favour but the numbers aren't to please the hoard - should I change - where is the best place to get reliable numbers that I could understand? From there it's looking like maybe I should get the i7 and upgrade next cycle if I want (if the heat isn't as it's shown in some places) or maybe the 5800x (definatley if it isn't drawing the mad heat I've seen it draw) - some also say it's better than the 5900x due to a not split...thing I forget the name of, yet it bests in benchmarks depending where you look. Or I stay with i9 vs 5900x. I'm also lost on how Intel boots a lot all for a short burst but it seems AMD is always boosting and have no idea how fidly that it or if I don't want to fiddle all the time Intel is my only option. Here it shows the i9 drawing the most watts but am unsure if that's the boosting behaviour that many turn off, and other sites show AMD drawing more doing single and/or multi loads but also that not translating to heat. I'm sorry this is so long, I figured if I went for more detail than less it would help people see where I'm so stuck and confused. Easier from here on! Thank you for staying with me in my decent into spec madness Motherboard: Needless to say this will change if I change to AMD, but I went with this as it was well reviewed and was ASUS, which seems to be the maker of choice for the series and have good UI. It has a chipset fan I just found out, but am told it can be taken out or stopped as it's not even needed for an OC- thoughts on this? Cooling: I saw Linus' video on air vs AOI and was feeling as chonky as they were that seemed the best for noise and thermals, especially if the 10th gen is cooler than 9th gen it seems (but again back to how is a lower power chip running hotter and what are the real thermal numbers and some charts show these are hotter chips) but now seeing the now infamous GN video it seems like to get the best thermals and low noise I should go for a 260-360 AOI to best even the D-15, which will match a 240. It also mentions bursted workloads being what gaming is, so where air would ramp up, an AOI wouldn't as fast or at all.There are no mentions of pump noise being too bad these days in reviews but consumer reviews seem to mention they hear it above fans or along with fans or they don't or if I put Noctua fans on an AOI (making for £££) to have the best most silent option. I had the be quiet there as it was more pleasing to the eye and apparently it's not that different to the Noctua D15, but some say smaller Noctua offerings are better and the be quiet isn't enough to run quietly on a higher temp chip. I saw things like this but people say I can stop the AOI getting louder for not much extra cooling, but I'm not certain. There is a video I lost showing a custom Noctua AOI that was cooler than the D-15 vs other AOIs and air coolers. I'd most likely top mount as an AOI to let fresh air in the front and to avoid tubes up. What are your takes on what to do for the best quiet option even under gaming load and when doing more basic multitasking? RAM: I went with 32gb of 3200, which I understand is a slight overclock but the best for Intel? For a top mounted rad or AOI it needs to be low profile and sadly the site I'm buying from only sells this as low profile ram - should I look to try get a Micron of Samsung b-die, or won't it really matter? Should I look to cheap out and then buy from another brand when it gets here, or won't it make much of a difference? I see many trash Cosair LPX, but many use it and rec it. PSU: Is this the best quiet (and can turn fans off when not enough load) PSU and kind? I'd worry more on wattage when I'm sure on the whole build. The case: The case, oh the case - it seems from a few places mesh fronted places are the best for noise normalised thermals - does this translate into what I'd call quiet operation as someone more sensitive? I was told they could order in Phanteks and Lian Li cases for me at point of sale, but now they are saying I have to choose from brands they stock. The 500DX has good reviews but won't fit an AOI of more than 240 at the top and putting it in the front ruins much of the point of the case it seems, so I'm torn? I'd love it is the H510 was not to hot and a little longer to fit my GPU. The Fractal Meshify 2 just came out, which is similar in size to the S2, but sadly still much bigger than the C, which would be perfect for me if it was just 1-2cm longer and I found myself thinking I would go 360 over 260 even if performance/noise if the same/a little worse just to take up space. Other popular options seem to be the TD500 from Cooler Master but it's very RGB and apparetly the big RGB fans aren't great for being quiet/not buzzy? The Cosair 400D Airflow I also see there too but plasticy esp in white. My brand options are Aerocool, Antec, ASUS, be quiet!, CiT, Cooler Master, Corsair, DEEPCOOL, Fractal Design, GameMax, MSI, NZXT, SaharaGaming, SilverStone, Tecware, ThermalTake, Zalman. What would you do based on cooling? I might be able to get them to get in a Lian Li or Phanteks at a push, but it seems iffy. I hate that I could spend a fortune on this thing and want to hide it. It looks like my best options are Meshify 2 and go AOI and have it be too big and try to make it not seem to empty or the 500DX and it be nice enough but have to keep to air if a big enough cooler will fit. I'd probably buy Noctua fans to run all case fans PWM too if it's worth it. Storage: Debating on switching to a 2tb Samsung for the features and longevity for a bit more money and buying 1-2 Samsung SSDs in Black Friday? You did it! You read it all, thank you~ Any help would be really appreciated, hopefully it made sense and the folks here can help me not dread the machine arriving and starting this journey

Yes, but was unsure if they only recognised certain codecs like some older guitar gear I used to work with did.

Thank you for looking further into this for me! It's nice to know if using on board audio I'd be slightly better off in general, but it still is a codec that isn't quite standard - won't software and hardware take issue with this? I'm unsure if desktop AMPs/DACs bypass this altogether though spdif/usb as I've only ever used phone ones.

Do you happen to have anywhere mentioning the VB version being supported in things? It seems to be a Gigabyte thing and the only post I found sort of about it was someone finding out the VB meant it didn't work with their hackintosh, so it seems it's different enough to cause issues.

That doesn't tell me anything of compatibility and drivers though...

When I google the codec it seems it's a Gigabyte only thing, which made me worry about drivers and compatibility. Would it mean I couldn't use the AMP/DAC of my choice as it might not recognise it to convert from?