Should you spend extra on a higher end CPU to future proof your system?

[KarathKasun]

1 minute ago, xg32 said:

well it does, the game doesn't well on a 8600k ADS, 9900k chops right through it, also have a 3700x rig that does fine, 6/12 is the absolute minimum on that game to be smooth.

Ive seen it on a 9900k and it was still choppy.

[xg32]

5 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

Ive seen it on a 9900k and it was still choppy.

it's smooth for me, it's likely the thread count or the gpu itself, it's not the game itself causing the ADS lag, but a combination, but multiple reviewers have said no quad cores, so at least there's that.

[Chiyawa]

For me, get a good mother board. The rest can be upgrade if desired.

[Thready]

1 hour ago, Chiyawa said:

For me, get a good mother board. The rest can be upgrade if desired.

That's why I'm going with X570. 

[The1Dickens]

8 hours ago, SpookyCitrus said:

buy what you can afford while making sure it's on a platform that has a solid upgrade path,

I'd go with this plan, unless you need the tip-top power-house right away.

8 hours ago, SpookyCitrus said:

Pcie gen 5 won't be a thing for a while

Gen 5 spec is already ready. Gen 4 was ready forever and a day ago, but there was no real need to push it, since nothing really flooded Gen 3. From what I had read, Gen 4 is going to be fairly short-lived if NVMe storage rates continue like it has.

 

PCI Express Spec Release dates -- Gen 1: July 14, 2003; Gen 2: Dec. 20, 2006; Gen 3: Nov. 10, 2010; Gen 4: Oct. 5, 2017; Gen 5: May 28, 2019.

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

upgraded to r7 1700 from a i5 2500 purely for gaming / emulators, no regrets!

Futureproof? sure , the question is for how long do you expect.

ryzen 7 : 8~10yrs for my expectation at 1080p gaming

 

but on intel side its a definite not futureproofing, solely due to lack of support on motherboards. they just stop production shortly after a few yrs, leaving only the barebone "new" mobo, a very few to choose from .. 

[Gegger]

i mean if you are going to use your build for ONLY games, i'd just take a 3600 right now

but if you are getting into video editing and stuff like that, i'd somewhat future proof it

[Sorenson]

19 hours ago, 5x5 said:

7700K owners sure got future-proofed

is the 7700k as good as the 9700k? No. But it’s not a bad CPU just because the next year they released a CPU with two more cores. It is within 5-10 FPS of the 9700k in all the games, and in many cases well above 100fps. 

 

With hindsight can you really say you would choose a 4c/4t i5 over a 4c/8t i7 if it only saved you ~$100? 

 

[5x5]

1 minute ago, Sorenson said:

is the 7700k as good as the 9700k? No. But it’s not a bad CPU just because the next year they released a CPU with two more cores. It is within 5-10 FPS of the 9700k in all the games, and in many cases well above 100fps. 

 

With hindsight can you really say you would choose a 4c/4t i5 over a 4c/8t i7 if it only saved you ~$100? 

 

Still 50% slower than the next gen i7. Sugarcoat all you want, the 7700K owners got shafted hard. 

 

PS: nice use of the fake meme channel. 

[Lowbuget]

3 words that i absolutely hate 1. Future proof and 2.school

[Mister Woof]

Personal preference on but as someone who has bought i5s and got burned in the past - buy the best you can afford within reason.

 

Right now I would get a 3700x and would skip all the 6/12s, but I can't see the need for a 12/24.

[Thready]

16 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

Personal preference on but as someone who has bought i5s and got burned in the past - buy the best you can afford within reason.

 

Right now I would get a 3700x and would skip all the 6/12s, but I can't see the need for a 12/24.

Why skip those?

[Mister Woof]

10 hours ago, 5x5 said:

Still 50% slower than the next gen i7. Sugarcoat all you want, the 7700K owners got shafted hard. 

 

PS: nice use of the fake meme channel. 

Either way, even if they got a 7600k they have no upgrade path other than the 7700k. The 7700k at that time was still the best option and best value perspective given i5s are mostly useless now and there was no Ryzen.

 

Perhaps especially for Intel platforms, buy the best you can afford because upgrades aren't economically feasible due to resale prices and your upgrade path is more limited.

 

In this scenario the only good option would have been to get the 7700k to begin with, because the i5 now is a hard sell for resale and the 7700k costs basically the same.

 

9 hours ago, Thready said:

Why skip those?

Two years ago people said you only needed an 8600k, and the 8700k was pointless. I chose the 8700k for $100 more.

 

People are now saying 3600 is "enough". Keep in mind the 3600 is about even with an 8700k, which itself is already two years old.

 

Years ago I got an i5-4570 because a quad core 4/4 was "enough", but looking back I wish I spent the extra $200 on the 4770k, which I would still be using today.

 

People make choices based on previous experiences. In my experience, buying more than you need (to a point) is better than not buying enough and wishing you bought more.

 

Obviously it's a gamble and there are no certainties, but you roll the dice on the info you have.

 

Looking back, I have zero regrets.

[Brent744]

I typically rolled with an i5 or more recently Ryzen 5 as I never needed the extra cores. The i5's always suited my needs in gaming performance. The only reason I recently purchased a Ryzen 7 is because it went on sale at an unbeatable price.

[Zando_]

7 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

Years ago I got an i5-4570 because a quad core 4/4 was "enough", but looking back I wish I spent the extra $200 on the 4770k, which I would still be using today.

Was gonna chime in with this, the people who got 4c/8t i7s are having a much better time in newer titles than bois still on 4c/4t i5s. I'd say going for a new CPU now 6c/12t is the least you want, agree on a 8c/16t being the best for the long term. 

[Sorenson]

4 hours ago, 5x5 said:

Still 50% slower than the next gen i7. Sugarcoat all you want, the 7700K owners got shafted hard. 

 

PS: nice use of the fake meme channel. 

You're clearly biased so there isn't really much use arguing with you. But the channel is fine, and the 8700k is only "50% faster" in heavily multi threaded tasks. If user needs muli threading he isn't looking at i5's or r5s.

[Thready]

3 hours ago, Zando Bob said:

Was gonna chime in with this, the people who got 4c/8t i7s are having a much better time in newer titles than bois still on 4c/4t i5s. I'd say going for a new CPU now 6c/12t is the least you want, agree on a 8c/16t being the best for the long term. 

But what's the time span here when we start seeing full utilization of 8 cores on normal/gaming/ (in my case photo editing) stuff? I mean it's not happening overnight. 

[Mister Woof]

41 minutes ago, Thready said:

But what's the time span here when we start seeing full utilization of 8 cores on normal/gaming/ (in my case photo editing) stuff? I mean it's not happening overnight. 

No but you've got people still using 8 year old chips like the i7-2600 and are just now upgrading.

 

Those who got 2500s were pushed to upgrades far sooner.

 

Maybe in 5 years the difference between a 3600 and 3700x will be just as significant.

[5x5]

2 hours ago, Sorenson said:

You're clearly biased so there isn't really much use arguing with you. But the channel is fine, and the 8700k is only "50% faster" in heavily multi threaded tasks. If user needs muli threading he isn't looking at i5's or r5s.

How exactly am I biased? Because you don't like the facts that I am stating? The 8700K is a 50% uplift compared to the 7700K. The i5 9600K is also more powerful. And considering the time span, 7700K users got future proofed into oblivion

[Zando_]

Just now, 5x5 said:

How exactly am I biased? Because you don't like the facts that I am stating? The 8700K is a 50% uplift compared to the 7700K. The i5 9600K is also more powerful. And considering the time span, 7700K users got future proofed into oblivion

Yeah, newer CPUs are better. Doesn't make the 7700K shit, it still runs fine, hell I even have a buddy who pushes high refresh rate Destiny 2 (it likes more cores, is hard on CPUs with low IPC/clockspeed) with his 7700K and SLI 1080s with no issue. I wouldn't advise buying one now, but the people who bought them when they were the latest and greatest didn't get shafted at all, they're still solid CPUs. 

Saying the 8700K is 50% better than the 7700K is kinda misleading, it's only that much faster if something uses all the cores. On a per core basis I don't think the 8700K has much of an edge. Probably a very slight IPC boost (if any), and it clocks better on average. 

[Mister Woof]

47 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

Yeah, newer CPUs are better. Doesn't make the 7700K shit, it still runs fine, hell I even have a buddy who pushes high refresh rate Destiny 2 (it likes more cores, is hard on CPUs with low IPC/clockspeed) with his 7700K and SLI 1080s with no issue. I wouldn't advise buying one now, but the people who bought them when they were the latest and greatest didn't get shafted at all, they're still solid CPUs. 

Saying the 8700K is 50% better than the 7700K is kinda misleading, it's only that much faster if something uses all the cores. On a per core basis I don't think the 8700K has much of an edge. Probably a very slight IPC boost (if any), and it clocks better on average. 

IPC is pretty much identical except perhaps higher frequency potential.

 

That said I wouldn't have faulted anyone buying that over the FX-anything in January 2017.......

 

And then (2017) users of sandybridge or newer Intel i7s didn't buy 7700ks (or at least they shouldn't have). The 7700k wasn't for existing modern intel users, it was just a refresh for new PC buyers. Hell, at that time I had a locked haswell i5 and the 7700k wasn't enough for me to warrant an upgrade. But the 8700k? Sure.

 

And let's not forget that the 7700k still mostly stomps first gen Ryzen at gaming. It's only now at third generation taking a backseat.

 

But to apply this to the OP's question.....if it was January 2017, the hindsight best advice (aside from waiting) would have been to get the 7700k for $100 more than the 7600k, which is now the i3-8350k and only $160, and thereby having avoided most of the problems 4/4 i5s are facing now, and upgrade to Ryzen 4000 next year if needed (3+ year service life).

 

So, ergo, yes, you should spend more on a high end CPU to future proof your system as this specific example of history proves why you should.

 

[Thready]

4 hours ago, Plutosaurus said:

No but you've got people still using 8 year old chips like the i7-2600 and are just now upgrading.

Those who got 2500s were pushed to upgrades far sooner.

Maybe in 5 years the difference between a 3600 and 3700x will be just as significant.

Good point

Can we all be nice?

[Mister Woof]

3 minutes ago, Thready said:

Can we all be nice?

Sir, I protest! I am NOT a merry man!

[Turtle Rig]

On 9/17/2019 at 11:11 AM, 5x5 said:

Buy what you need now - not what you might need in a lucid dream on top of a mountain in 4 years

Not a good time black friday will come next thing you know its 2020 and we have all sorts of sh*T out lol.

[Thready]

Just now, Turtle Rig said:

Not a good time black friday will come next thing you know its 2020 and we have all sorts of sh*T out lol.

I'm probably going to wait until Black Friday to buy my Ryzen 3700x and x470 but my problem is that I need one with an already updated bios because i have no way of updating the bios on my own