My 5 year old, high end-ish rig is still quite relevant today. WTH, manufacturers ?!?

[dizmo]

21 minutes ago, Dr. FunFrock said:

Well I kinda did. Calling the 5820k mid-tier is kind of an understatement, but calling it extreme high end is definitely too much. You could already spend more than twice the money at that time for the very top of the line core i7. The 5820k, 5930k and 5960x were a bit special in that they shared the lga 2011-v3 socket with the current gen Xeons, which intel doesn't do anymore. So yeah the motherboards were kind of expansive, but they also packed quite a lot more features than the boards that were available for 4xxx series CPUs.

 

When I initially my reasonning was that GTX 900 series were going to get replaced so I'd better go for a cheap one and replace it later, which I did. That allowed me to save a bit of money for the CPU and MoBo, which in the end I definitely don't regret. I think the initial cost was about 1100Eur for the complete system, CPU + Mobo + HDD (I bought the ssd later) + AiO 120*240mm watercooling + PSU + Case + 16GB RAM (threw in an extra stick later) and a GTX 960 2GB. The specs you gave me would cost about the same where I live, without any of all that extra stuff, and except for the GPU which would be about infinitely better even if downgraded to a 2060 it doesn't look like much of an upgrade to me...

No, you didn't. The HEDT platform is far from mid tier. When there's only two CPUs that are better than the one you have, then yeah, you're in the high end. I mean hell, even the acronym for the platform your on spells it out for you in black and white. Sure, there were more expensive options, but there were also much cheaper ones that would have netted the same results depending on what you were doing.

 

No, the 2060 wouldn't be an upgrade for you, but it does give the same performance. You also get added features (regardless if you want them, they're there), as well as getting significantly more RAM.

 

If it only cost you 1,100, what on earth were the values you put into your OP?

 

[KarathKasun]

1 minute ago, Nena360 said:

I barely paid anything for my MSI 970 Gaming board... XD

I have one of those too, it has killed 3 CPUs. <_<

[Nena Trinity]

3 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

I have one of those too, it has killed 3 CPUs. <_<

Wha?!! OwO (mine has been fine since 2014, tough I slapped a small fan on its VRM!)

[majin_sam]

10 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

I came from a Gigabyte 990FX-UD7, a $300 board when it was new.  The CPU choked with SLI/Crossfire so bad it wasnt even funny.  FX would have been fine if Intel had just released a clock boosted Core 2 type of chip, but by the time FX launched 2nd gen i7s were available.  It was two years too late for what it was.

 

If FX launched in place of the Phenom II x6, it wouldnt look so bad.  But that is not what happened.

If Vishera just wasn't a terrible arch...

[KarathKasun]

Just now, Nena360 said:

Wha?!! OwO (mine has been fine since 2014, tough I slapped a small fan on its VRM!)

I was pumping lots of voltage through the IMC, its regulation was likely not as tight as the UD7 and spikes eventually killed the CPUs.

[Nena Trinity]

Just now, KarathKasun said:

I was pumping lots of voltage through the IMC, its regulation was likely not as tight as the UD7 and spikes eventually killed the CPUs.

MSI 970 AM3+ is not designed for FX-9000 series or heavy OCed 8000 chips but no wonder you fried it! DX

[KarathKasun]

Just now, majin_sam said:

If Vishera just wasn't a terrible arch...

Not terrible, just... outdated by the time it launched.  It was supposed to launch when the X6 did, and actually performed decently VS 1st gen Core i series stuff.  Sandy totally demolished it though.

 

SB was just a totally new ball game in per clock performance.

[KarathKasun]

4 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

MSI 970 AM3+ is not designed for FX-9000 series or heavy OCed 8000 chips but no wonder you fried it! DX

Wasnt a heavy OC on the cores.  One of them was an FX 4100 even.  The regulation window is just trash on that board and you have to stay an extra 50-100mv away from "safe" limits.

 

Its whole reason for being released was the FX 9000 series of chips.  FX 9000 series is even on its qualification list.

[Nena Trinity]

1 minute ago, KarathKasun said:

Wasnt heavy OC on the cores.  One of them was an FX 4100 even.  The regulation window is just trash on that board and you have to stay an extra 50-100mv away from "safe" limits.

 

Its whole reason for being released was the FX 9000 series of chips even.  FX 9000 series is even on its qualification list.

No not even the MSI 990FX Gaming was saying you could put that it... x-x

[majin_sam]

40 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

Well I picked the Athlon x4 860k then upgraded to 880k and had regrets later on my secondary rig, may upgrade it to Ryzen 3000 x-x

880k from 860k is hardly anything!

[Nena Trinity]

2 minutes ago, majin_sam said:

880k from 860k is hardly anything!

Yup... x-x (got a nice CPU cooler tough)

[majin_sam]

41 minutes ago, Dr. FunFrock said:

Well I kinda did. Calling the 5820k mid-tier is kind of an understatement, but calling it extreme high end is definitely too much. You could already spend more than twice the money at that time for the very top of the line core i7. The 5820k, 5930k and 5960x were a bit special in that they shared the lga 2011-v3 socket with the current gen Xeons, which intel doesn't do anymore. So yeah the motherboards were kind of expansive, but they also packed quite a lot more features than the boards that were available for 4xxx series CPUs.

 

When I initially my reasonning was that GTX 900 series were going to get replaced so I'd better go for a cheap one and replace it later, which I did. That allowed me to save a bit of money for the CPU and MoBo, which in the end I definitely don't regret. I think the initial cost was about 1100Eur for the complete system, CPU + Mobo + HDD (I bought the ssd later) + AiO 120*240mm watercooling + PSU + Case + 16GB RAM (threw in an extra stick later) and a GTX 960 2GB. The specs you gave me would cost about the same where I live, without any of all that extra stuff, and except for the GPU which would be about infinitely better even if downgraded to a 2060 it doesn't look like much of an upgrade to me...

5820k lies between a 1600 and 2600. On the curve, objectively, it's going to be mid-tier.

[RejZoR]

You're in the same boat as me. I was already super hyped for Ryzen 3900X, but after digging around a bit, my gaming framerate is just 10-15fps lower on 5820K compared to 3900X running at stock speeds. 5820K stock is 3.6GHz when single thread turbo and 3.4GHz on multithread. Mine is running at 4.5GHz all core and I have a golden sample that achievs that at just 1.175V. Which essentially closes the gap to single digits. I don't need absurd computation power so 6 cores and 12 threads at those clocks are plenty. Memory is quad channel so I have plenty of that too and it's 32GB total capacity. I already have GTX 1080Ti so I run basically everything in triple digit framerate as is.

 

So, total platform upgrade, 3900X, 32GB RAM and X570 board would cost me 1000€. And in the end I'd ultimately make nearly zero performance improvement for my needs (mostly gaming, ocassional data compression and encoding of videos and music). As much as I'd love to go with AMD, it's just a waste of money in my case. I'll rather buy new graphic card in coming years with the difference I'll save up here by not upgrading CPU.

 

I really overbuilt my system back then and it shows. It's 4-5 years old now and it's still running everything I throw at it with ease.

[majin_sam]

3 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

Yup... x-x (got a nice CPU cooler tough)

Lolol right? 

[majin_sam]

2 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

You're in the same boat as me. I was already super hyped for Ryzen 3900X, but after digging around a bit, my gaming framerate is just 10-15fps lower on 5820K compared to 3900X running at stock speeds. 5820K stock is 3.6GHz when single thread turbo and 3.4GHz on multithread. Mine is running at 4.5GHz all core and I have a golden sample that achievs that at just 1.175V. Which essentially closes the gap to single digits. I don't need absurd computation power so 6 cores and 12 threads at those clocks are plenty. Memory is quad channel so I have plenty of that too and it's 32GB total capacity. I already have GTX 1080Ti so I run basically everything in triple digit framerate as is.

 

So, total platform upgrade, 3900X, 32GB RAM and X570 board would cost me 1000€. And in the end I'd ultimately make nearly zero performance improvement for my needs (mostly gaming, ocassional data compression and encoding of videos and music). As much as I'd love to go with AMD, it's just a waste of money in my case. I'll rather buy new graphic card in coming years with the difference I'll save up here by not upgrading CPU.

 

I really overbuilt my system back then and it shows. It's 4-5 years old now and it's still running everything I throw at it with ease.

You guys are justifying that processor hardcore

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, majin_sam said:

You guys are justifying that processor hardcore

Well, this is the reality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfUpJ9VAMbs

 

Mind you, test runs 5820K at stock (3.4-3.6GHz) just like 3900X. Mine runs at 4.5GHz on all cores. Do the math with almost 1GHz clock boost on top of result from the video. I'm talking gaming, the rest isn't all that important how long it takes. 3900X can't be clocked any higher than it already is. It's not justification, it's just common sense. Pissing 1000€ to improve framerate in single digit is just idiotic thing to do no matter how good Ryzen 3000 is otherwise.

[Nena Trinity]

I am fairly sure the OP point kinda stands, buying more cores wont hurt in the long run!

[Deadsies]

Sorry but the very core of this thread is comparing HEDT parts to mainstream so don’t think you can make any points from it.

 

If it was your 5 year old HEDT vs whatever Zen 2 threadripper will be then you got yourself a thing worth talking about. 

[RejZoR]

12 minutes ago, Deadsies said:

Sorry but the very core of this thread is comparing HEDT parts to mainstream so don’t think you can make any points from it.

 

If it was your 5 year old HEDT vs whatever Zen 2 threadripper will be then you got yourself a thing worth talking about. 

And results would be the same, except the price gap would be even larger. Threadrippers were never faster than mainstreams in single thread operations and gaming. Same will apply for Zen 2. Also at the time I was buying 5820K, it wasn't anything absurdly expensive compared to higher end mainstream platform. Motherboards were more expensive because of more PCIe and quad channel. And you spent more on RAM if you wanted to run quad. I spent around 1000€ on 5820K, X99 board and 32GB RAM. When drawing a line, it was same expense as 3900X system would be now.

[NumLock21]

Almost all parts HEDT or mainstream parts will last for quite a while. I'm still using my X99 build, and I don't see the need to do any major upgrades for a very long time.

[AndreiArgeanu]

Well intel's been keeping their high end i7 with 4 cores and 8 threads and make you overpay for them that is until ryzen appeared. Anyway a high end rig is supposed to last around 5 years or so. Also the i7 8700k is 30% more powerful and the 9th gen one being 35% more powerful than the stock i7 5820k but also remember that the processor you have has a buttclenching 140W tdp so you probably water cooled it or have some kind of beefy cooler on it.

[snoopunit]

i didn't read much of the replies, but I felt like I could weigh in here. I'm running a system with a 4820k at stock clocks (x79 mobo), quad-channel DDR3, a 2.5" boot ssd, 2x hdd in raid0 using win 10 storage spaces and a gtx 970

 

i pieced this thing together from second hand parts after my amd phenom II x6 system died. I would still be rocking the AMD chip if the mobo hadn't crapped out on me. 

 

I did buy a razer laptop a few years ago when kaby lake cpus were just coming out, but the performance I was expecting in my head just didn't translate to my use case. 

 

now i'm a cheap bastard when it comes to just about everything, but I don't see a need to update my rig any time soon. sure DDR4 and higher core-count CPUs are out, but they won't make me any better at rocket league or GTA V. I might consider a hardware solution to GTA's loading times, but even then I would sit on it for a while.

 

IMHO if you don't have a specific NEED for a new piece of hardware that is proven to solve that requirement, i don't see any reason to upgrade. 

[TheNaitsyrk]

I mean yes, your rig is still relevant, but laptop CPU are starting to outpace you. 9750H or even 8750H gets 1250 in Cinebench R15 and so is your CPU (more or less)

GTX 1080 is still REALLY good. That I'll agree on.

 

I remember when I had my 6800K. That one didn't exactly age well. Thank God I got rid of it. Couldn't even get 4.3Ghz out of it properly.

 

TBF. If it runs porn and plays music it's NASA to most people.

[Giganthrax]

PCs aren't getting massively better for games mainly because 99% of AAA games today are made primarily for consoles, and consoles have crappy hardware. Once the next generation of consoles rolls in, we may see some serious jumps in graphical fidelity and therefore system requirements.

 

For actual professional productivity tasks like 3D design, video rendering, and so on, new PC parts are massively better than even the ones from 2-3 years ago. Just look at the differences in productivity tasks between Ryzen 3xxx and Ryzen 1xxx CPUs. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, Giganthrax said:

PCs aren't getting massively better for games mainly because 99% of AAA games today are made primarily for consoles, and consoles have crappy hardware. Once the next generation of consoles rolls in, we may see some serious jumps in graphical fidelity and therefore system requirements.

I wouldn't even be sure about that. If a majority of the market is still running last gen hardware, that's what they'll still be targeting.