Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

AMD Announces Ryzen 7000 Series - Launching This Fall

LAwLz
 Share

1 hour ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

It seems AMD has plans to do some revealing of more details during the summer, so I'm sure you will get a better understanding from AMD on this topic before launch. But it makes sense to future proof yourself by buying a better motherboard, even if anti-future proofing has become the newest fad (saying there is no such thing as future proofing).

It's not a "fad" (I've been saying it for over 12 years), and there really is no such thing as "future proofing", especially not with something like a motherboard.

You can spend a small fortune on "future proofing" your PC, and it can still end up being obsolete at the same time as someone who spent 1/4 of the money on their PC.

 

I thought my motherboard was fairly "future proof" when I bought it. Turns out the SATA Express port I valued so much was a dead standard, USB improved a ton over the last couple of years, AMD decided to not support putting newer processors in it even though the socket is the same, one M.2 slot was not enough, the beefy power delivery was never needed, and the dual NIC I also valued a lot when I bought it was fairly useless because I only ended up using one port, and the other one was actually broken but I only discovered that after the warranty had run out.

Oh, even the HDMI port on the motherboard is outdated now. It wouldn't be able to drive the screen I got since it's only HDMI 1.4 that maxes out at 24Hz 4K.

 

In essence, I ended up spending more money than I needed, for features I ended up not needing, and the features I do want today (like multiple M.2 slots) were not included.

The same thing can happen to you.

 

"Future proofing" by spending more money than necessary, in the hopes that you cover some unknown future use case for yourself, is basically gambling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It's not a "fad" (I've been saying it for over 12 years), and there really is no such thing as "future proofing", especially not with something like a motherboard.

You can spend a small fortune on "future proofing" your PC, and it can still end up being obsolete at the same time as someone who spent 1/4 of the money on their PC.

 

I thought my motherboard was fairly "future proof" when I bought it. Turns out the SATA Express port I valued so much was a dead standard, USB improved a ton over the last couple of years, AMD decided to not support putting newer processors in it even though the socket is the same, one M.2 slot was not enough, the beefy power delivery was never needed, and the dual NIC I also valued a lot when I bought it was fairly useless because I only ended up using one port, and the other one was actually broken but I only discovered that after the warranty had run out.

Oh, even the HDMI port on the motherboard is outdated now. It wouldn't be able to drive the screen I got since it's only HDMI 1.4 that maxes out at 24Hz 4K.

 

In essence, I ended up spending more money than I needed, for features I ended up not needing, and the features I do want today (like multiple M.2 slots) were not included.

The same thing can happen to you.

 

"Future proofing" by spending more money than necessary, in the hopes that you cover some unknown future use case for yourself, is basically gambling.

 

Your personal experience is obviously personal to you, and that's what has shaped your opinion on the matter. We will have to agree to disagree on this one as I have made investments in parts before that had the opposite effect (lasted a long time) and that's why for me I think certain parts are still able to be "future proofed".

 

Nevertheless, I still see your opinion on the matter, as there is definitely a certain level of uncertainty in regards to how long something will last with technology rapidly changing. 

 

With that said, I don't think it's necessary to be so militantly anti-future proof; as there is some level of sureness that comes with buying certain parts that will allow you to know how long they might last before they have to be replaced (keyword being might). Not saying there aren't instances where this isn't the case, but there definitely are some instances where it is. 

 

I'm sorry in your experience you found that you made an investment (your motherboard) that turned out to be a gamble instead, and provided no extension in usefulness. However, there are people who will agree with me and people who agree with you. So it's simply a difference of opinion based on experience. 

Spoiler
Spoiler

                                                                                 Mentioned on 09/30/20    in  TechLinked @ (1:54)              

                                                                 Mentioned on 10/07/20    in  TechLinked @ (1:59)

         Mentioned on 10/16/20    in  TechLinked @ (4:06) 

      Mentioned on 10/21/20    in  TechLinked @ (1:22)

     Mentioned on 12/30/20    in  TechLinked @ (0:14)

    Mentioned on 12/30/20    in  TechLinked @ (2:17)

   Mentioned on 05/18/22    in  TechLinked @ (4:25)

  Mentioned on 05/20/22    in  TechLinked @ (0:13)

 Mentioned on 05/25/22    in  TechLinked @ (5:24)

Mentioned on 06/08/22    in  TechLinked @ (1:20)

Mentioned on 06/20/22    in  TechLinked @ (3:54)

Mentioned on 06/27/22    in  TechLinked @ (3:52)

Mentioned on 08/10/22    in  TechLinked @ (3:50)

Mentioned on 08/13/22    in  TechLinked @ (1:16)

 

Currently Playing:

Fortnite

Path oExile

Call oDuty: Warzone

Mirror's Edge Catalyst

 

                       🌕              

                                               Eye of Providence (HP OMEN 17-ck1111nr)

CPU12th Gen Intel Core i7-12700H 14c/20t GPU: NVIDIA Geforce RTX 3060 ~ GA106 Memory: 16GB DDR5 @4800MHz SSD: 1TB PCIe Gen4 NVMe M.2 (OS/Programs/Apps/Games) HDD1: WD Elements 4TB External (Backup/Additional Storage) Monitor: 17.3” Full HD (1080p) IPS Micro-Edge Anti-Glare Low Blue Light 144Hz Display Mouse: Artic White Roccat Kone Pro Mouse Mat: Corsair MM350 Premium Headset: Corsair VØID Stereo Gaming Headset OS: Windows 11 Home

                                                                         

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

-snip-

This entire post reads like "I bought a lottery ticket once and won, so clearly it is a good investment to buy lottery tickets. Just because you lost money does not mean everyone will".

 

Also, just because your parts "lasted a long time" does not mean you made a wise choice in spending more to get something "more future proof".

it would only have be a wise choice if a lower end part would have caused you to upgrade significantly sooner than you otherwise would have.

 

 

Buying a motherboard for 200 dollars and using it for 5 years might seem like it was "future proof". But if a 150 dollar motherboard would have served you just as well for those 5 years then you wasted 50 dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, LAwLz said:

This entire post reads like "I bought a lottery ticket once and won, so clearly it is a good investment to buy lottery tickets. Just because you lost money does not mean everyone will".

 

Also, just because your parts "lasted a long time" does not mean you made a wise choice in spending more to get something "more future proof".

it would only have be a wise choice if a lower end part would have caused you to upgrade significantly sooner than you otherwise would have.

 

 

Buying a motherboard for 200 dollars and using it for 5 years might seem like it was "future proof". But if a 150 dollar motherboard would have served you just as well for those 5 years then you wasted 50 dollars.

 

Well neither of us are going to convince the other to change their opinion on the matter clearly, but I'm sorry you can't see my perspective on it; as I'm able to see yours despite disagreeing with it. 

Spoiler
Spoiler

                                                                                 Mentioned on 09/30/20    in  TechLinked @ (1:54)              

                                                                 Mentioned on 10/07/20    in  TechLinked @ (1:59)

         Mentioned on 10/16/20    in  TechLinked @ (4:06) 

      Mentioned on 10/21/20    in  TechLinked @ (1:22)

     Mentioned on 12/30/20    in  TechLinked @ (0:14)

    Mentioned on 12/30/20    in  TechLinked @ (2:17)

   Mentioned on 05/18/22    in  TechLinked @ (4:25)

  Mentioned on 05/20/22    in  TechLinked @ (0:13)

 Mentioned on 05/25/22    in  TechLinked @ (5:24)

Mentioned on 06/08/22    in  TechLinked @ (1:20)

Mentioned on 06/20/22    in  TechLinked @ (3:54)

Mentioned on 06/27/22    in  TechLinked @ (3:52)

Mentioned on 08/10/22    in  TechLinked @ (3:50)

Mentioned on 08/13/22    in  TechLinked @ (1:16)

 

Currently Playing:

Fortnite

Path oExile

Call oDuty: Warzone

Mirror's Edge Catalyst

 

                       🌕              

                                               Eye of Providence (HP OMEN 17-ck1111nr)

CPU12th Gen Intel Core i7-12700H 14c/20t GPU: NVIDIA Geforce RTX 3060 ~ GA106 Memory: 16GB DDR5 @4800MHz SSD: 1TB PCIe Gen4 NVMe M.2 (OS/Programs/Apps/Games) HDD1: WD Elements 4TB External (Backup/Additional Storage) Monitor: 17.3” Full HD (1080p) IPS Micro-Edge Anti-Glare Low Blue Light 144Hz Display Mouse: Artic White Roccat Kone Pro Mouse Mat: Corsair MM350 Premium Headset: Corsair VØID Stereo Gaming Headset OS: Windows 11 Home

                                                                         

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

Well neither of us are going to convince the other to change their opinion on the matter clearly, but I'm sorry you can't see my perspective on it; as I'm able to see yours despite disagreeing with it. 

Feel free to argue your point if you want. I will listen to you, but unless you come up with some decent arguments (and no, "it worked for me once" is not a decent argument) then I will continue to view spending more to "future proof" a PC as a poor way of gambling.

 

 

I mean, let's look at your claims so far:

1) You claimed that "anti-future proofing" is a new fad. It is not. Saying that future proofing is stupid has been a thing for decades now. I have personally been saying it for longer than a lot of Linus' viewers have even been alive.

2) You said that it makes sense to "future proof yourself" by buying a more expensive motherboard if you are going with AM5. In particular, you said that buying a more expensive motherboard will make sense if it has PCIe 5.0. Completing ignoring that we don't know the price difference yet, when PCIe 5.0 graphics cards will come out, and if PCIe 5.0 will even be useful in the comping years. Hell, we don't even know how long people will keep their AM5 motherboards.

3) You claim to have made "investments" into "future proof" hardware that has paid off before. Which hardware did you buy and how did it pay off?

4) You claim that with some parts (I assume motherboards since that's what we are talking about) we can be fairly sure how long they will last if we "invest" into more expensive tiers. 

 

 

This is not something where you can just go "well I have had my experience so we have to just agree to disagree".

You are telling people to spend more money than they might need, and when I confront you that this might be bad advice you just brush it off. I think you are doing a big disservice to this forum by painting people who say "don't spend more than you need in the hopes that it might pay off in the future" as just "following a fad".

 

 

And no, my motherboard purchase did not "turn out to be a gamble" just because it turned out I paid more for features I didn't need.

Trying to "future proof" your PC by spending more money than you need is ALWAYS, by definition, gambling. It doesn't turn into "gambling" just because it ended up being a bad gamble. It is always gambling, and in some rare cases you might get lucky and "win". According to yourself, it happened to you, and as a result you seem to not understand the risks vs rewards. 

 

I estimate, and I am estimating based on over a decade of helping people build hundreds of PCs, writing tens of thousands of posts, and reading hundreds of thousands of posts, that in 9 out of 10 cases, people waste money by trying to "future proof" their PC. You might be one of the lucky 10% that it turned out well for, but that does NOT mean it is good advice to tell people "yeah, just gamble with your money. It might pay off".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Feel free to argue your point if you want. I will listen to you, but unless you come up with some decent arguments (and no, "it worked for me once" is not a decent argument) then I will continue to view spending more to "future proof" a PC as a poor way of gambling.

 

 

I mean, let's look at your claims so far:

1) You claimed that "anti-future proofing" is a new fad. It is not. Saying that future proofing is stupid has been a thing for decades now. I have personally been saying it for longer than a lot of Linus' viewers have even been alive.

2) You said that it makes sense to "future proof yourself" by buying a more expensive motherboard if you are going with AM5. In particular, you said that buying a more expensive motherboard will make sense if it has PCIe 5.0. Completing ignoring that we don't know the price difference yet, when PCIe 5.0 graphics cards will come out, and if PCIe 5.0 will even be useful in the comping years. Hell, we don't even know how long people will keep their AM5 motherboards.

3) You claim to have made "investments" into "future proof" hardware that has paid off before. Which hardware did you buy and how did it pay off?

4) You claim that with some parts (I assume motherboards since that's what we are talking about) we can be fairly sure how long they will last if we "invest" into more expensive tiers. 

 

 

This is not something where you can just go "well I have had my experience so we have to just agree to disagree".

You are telling people to spend more money than they might need, and when I confront you that this might be bad advice you just brush it off. I think you are doing a big disservice to this forum by painting people who say "don't spend more than you need in the hopes that it might pay off in the future" as just "following a fad".

 

 

And no, my motherboard purchase did not "turn out to be a gamble" just because it turned out I paid more for features I didn't need.

Trying to "future proof" your PC by spending more money than you need is ALWAYS, by definition, gambling. It doesn't turn into "gambling" just because it ended up being a bad gamble. It is always gambling, and in some rare cases you might get lucky and "win". According to yourself, it happened to you, and as a result you seem to not understand the risks vs rewards. 

 

I estimate, and I am estimating based on over a decade of helping people build hundreds of PCs, writing tens of thousands of posts, and reading hundreds of thousands of posts, that in 9 out of 10 cases, people waste money by trying to "future proof" their PC. You might be one of the lucky 10% that it turned out well for, but that does NOT mean it is good advice to tell people "yeah, just gamble with your money. It might pay off".

 

Clearly you are trying to turn this into a heated debate that is not necessary, as it appears you are not only extremely opinionated on the subject but very passionate about it.

 

I've already argued my point, and you have seemed to brush it off yourself too and then repeated what you have said in previous posts. This is why I’m trying to let the discussion end as it’s not going to be productive to either of us or to anyone reading since you are dead-set on your opinion. I also think there's quite a bit of miscommunication going on, especially as to what the definition of future proofing actually is (I get to that eventually in this post).

 

But to address some of your questions/concerns:

 

I know people have been anti-future proof for a while, but you hear it more now from Tech YouTubers. 

 

I don't necessarily believe that buying a more expensive motherboard is necessary, I believe I claimed buying a better motherboard is a good investment. But of course better does not always translate to more expensive. You have also made some claims that I didn't specifically say. When all I said originally was, "it makes sense to future proof yourself by buying a better motherboard". Somehow you translated that to "buying a more expensive motherboard will make sense if it has PCIe 5.0. Completing ignoring that we don't know the price difference yet, when PCIe 5.0 graphics cards will come out, and if PCIe 5.0 will even be useful in the comping years. Hell, we don't even know how long people will keep their AM5 motherboards." I don't recall any of this being said on my part, all I said was buying a better motherboard is a good investment.

 

But to clarify, if the TDP/PPT increases are to be anything to go by, and AM4's life cycle is anything to go by as well. Investing in a better motherboard that possibly allows you to upgrade to a higher than 16c/32t part in the future could be useful. Especially if it is well built. If these future higher core products have higher clock speeds too, then it makes sense to go with a higher quality motherboard that would support those products better (for numerous reasons, that I'm sure you know). I do believe that this is a gamble as you claim, but it is a gamble that can be calculated to some extent. Because the fact of the matter is some of these predictions are being made based on information we have right now, and obviously as we get closer to Zen 4's launch we will have much better clarification on these facts.

 

Some hardware I bought (that's paid off) for my last rig before I bought my current setup was: a higher quality Z68 1155 motherboard (that ran flawlessly for 10 years without issues on multiple chips), faster and more 2133MHz memory (when people were still claiming that memory has no effect on performance), Corsair H100 AIO CLC Cooler (also ran for 10 years without needing to be replaced, when warranty only lasted 5 years) and kept the temps on my 2500k, 2600k, and delidded 3770k chilly. When I originally built the machine there were some recommendations to skimp on some of these parts to save money (lower quality motherboard, slower/less memory, air cooler); as there were claims that spending more wouldn't affect performance. But I ended up going against some of these recommendations, because if you searched hard enough you could indeed find conflicting information on different recommendations. Of course correlation does not mean causation and as you say I could have simply gotten lucky, but it also could have been good results from calculated research.

 

Well, you are not necessarily sure how long they will last if you invest into more expensive tiers, but the saying "you get what you pay for" exists for that exact reason. It might not always be the case, and of course when you're on a budget allocating funds to different areas is important. However, being frugal or thrifty doesn't automatically mean don't make intelligent purchases.

 

Again, I never said spend more money than you need. I don't know where you got that idea from simply stating, "it makes sense to future proof yourself by buying a better motherboard". I'm sorry you think I'm doing the forum a disservice by having a difference of opinion than you, but I never said don't spend more than you need. All I said was buying a better motherboard can be useful based on the information we have regarding AM5. For instance: a fad that existed for the longest time was not investing in higher speed memory. Now not so much. For many years I tried my hardest to teach people the benefits of faster memory, even for gaming and other areas of computing. Generally speaking, despite the amount of data or facts I presented, people still were hard to convince because Tech Tubers would have their tests (that often times were flawed) that showed that higher speed memory doesn't affect performance. Eventually as time went on, more Tech outlets had better reviews/benchmarks that corroborated my claims. However, that took many years before that started happening. So what I mean by following a fad, is that the groupthink mindset is privy to error. 

 

I understand the risks vs. the rewards quite clearly, I think you personally have made some risks though that turned out not to reward you and as a result you have a negative opinion because of it. I do understanding that attempting to future proof your PC is always a gamble, but it can be a calculated gamble if you play your cards right. This is really the only point I'm trying to get across to you. 

 

Lastly, I don't think I ever told anyone to "just gamble your money, it might pay off". If at any moment I have seemed to come off that way, I truly apologize, as that was not my intention. Also, I would like to additionally add that claiming only 10% of people who attempt to future proof their PCs have a positive outcome is disingenuous. Looking at the Steam Hardware Survey is one of the easiest ways to see that people generally stay on the same platform for a decade before they upgrade. This sort of shows that it is possible to make calculated decisions with your parts purchasing that allows you to last longer before you have to upgrade (the true definition of future proofing, IMO). Plus, not to knock your experience, but I've been building computers since I was 12, I'm 34 now. I've also been a part of many forums/message boards, and have read thousands of posts and posted thousands of times myself, and to be honest, the amount of people I've seen wasting money on attempting future proofing really is non-existent. As there is always someone on the forum/message board who swoops in and tries to help the person out by allocating their funds better. Which if you think about it is in many aspects similar to future proofing. They are helping someone to put their money in a different area so it doesn't have to be upgraded sooner. This is really all I mean by future proofing. I don't mean you have to spend more money in order to get a better result. I simply mean allocate the funds better so you don't have to upgrade the computer as soon as if the funds were allocated inappropriately. 

 

Hope this helps clear up our disagreements, and again I apologize for the original miscommunication. 

Spoiler
Spoiler

                                                                                 Mentioned on 09/30/20    in  TechLinked @ (1:54)              

                                                                 Mentioned on 10/07/20    in  TechLinked @ (1:59)

         Mentioned on 10/16/20    in  TechLinked @ (4:06) 

      Mentioned on 10/21/20    in  TechLinked @ (1:22)

     Mentioned on 12/30/20    in  TechLinked @ (0:14)

    Mentioned on 12/30/20    in  TechLinked @ (2:17)

   Mentioned on 05/18/22    in  TechLinked @ (4:25)

  Mentioned on 05/20/22    in  TechLinked @ (0:13)

 Mentioned on 05/25/22    in  TechLinked @ (5:24)

Mentioned on 06/08/22    in  TechLinked @ (1:20)

Mentioned on 06/20/22    in  TechLinked @ (3:54)

Mentioned on 06/27/22    in  TechLinked @ (3:52)

Mentioned on 08/10/22    in  TechLinked @ (3:50)

Mentioned on 08/13/22    in  TechLinked @ (1:16)

 

Currently Playing:

Fortnite

Path oExile

Call oDuty: Warzone

Mirror's Edge Catalyst

 

                       🌕              

                                               Eye of Providence (HP OMEN 17-ck1111nr)

CPU12th Gen Intel Core i7-12700H 14c/20t GPU: NVIDIA Geforce RTX 3060 ~ GA106 Memory: 16GB DDR5 @4800MHz SSD: 1TB PCIe Gen4 NVMe M.2 (OS/Programs/Apps/Games) HDD1: WD Elements 4TB External (Backup/Additional Storage) Monitor: 17.3” Full HD (1080p) IPS Micro-Edge Anti-Glare Low Blue Light 144Hz Display Mouse: Artic White Roccat Kone Pro Mouse Mat: Corsair MM350 Premium Headset: Corsair VØID Stereo Gaming Headset OS: Windows 11 Home

                                                                         

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like future proofing is often an argument on what the term actually means more then anything.
A solid platform is what future proofs a system, not the components. Not to mean high end, but just making it so it can stay relevant, not necessarily competitive with the high end of the future. 

Take AM5, spending the money for pci5 is a good investment, not because you are spending more now, but because a gpu in 7 years will be less bottlenecked. Its about minimizing bottlenecks, not eliminating them. 

My 2600k with a p67 is still relevent today as the platform was solid, it has seen 4 gpu upgrades and only with the last one was I significantly cpu and PCIe bound in benchmarks. It has seen many storage and ram upgrades over time because the platform allowed for it. 

Future proofing only fails when you buy top end parts thinking the parts will stay relevant for longer, that is the misconception that needs to stop being spread around. Buying a 3080ti is not future proofing your build as you can just swap that for cheap in a single generation. Saying future proofing is stupid is only valid when you give it this invalid definition. Its the platform swap that costs a lot of money because that requires swapping, well the CPU and RAM, at that point you might as well just build a whole new PC. 

A high end AM5 board IS a good future proof purchase, probably better then p68, because CPU, RAM, GPU, Storage, all can be upgraded piecemeal as you like 5 to 10 years down the road and still be relevant. Sure it wont compete with the brand new 2000 dollar computer in 5 years, but... who cares? you are not spending 2 grand, you are buying parts as needed. Going a bit extra on the PSU is a good future proof idea because its cheaper to spend 150 on a PSU then 100 dollars today, and 150 dollars tomorrow when that new 450W GPU is standard wattage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

Clearly you are trying to turn this into a heated debate that is not necessary, as it appears you are not only extremely opinionated on the subject but very passionate about it.

Stop that. This debate is necessary because you are giving poor advance to people which may cause them to waste money.

Also, I would argue that you turned this into a heated debate by dismissing people and saying they are just following fads. I am just responding to your insults and bad advice.

 

 

 

14 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

I've already argued my point

You have provided 0 arguments for your point. All you have said is "it turned out good for me", and that's it. You didn't even give any details about it.

 

 

14 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

it’s not going to be productive to either of us or to anyone reading since you are dead-set on your opinion.

It's not an opinion.

Also, I hope that this is productive because other people reading this might realize what bad advice you are giving. I believe it is important to debunk these types of claims before they become common, because once a lot of people hear bullshit they themselves will start repeating it, and once that happens it becomes incredibly hard to convince people that they are wrong.

 

 

14 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

I don't necessarily believe that buying a more expensive motherboard is necessary, I believe I claimed buying a better motherboard is a good investment. But of course better does not always translate to more expensive.

I feel like you are trying to backtrack your previous statements now.

If you are buying a cheaper product that is superior, then you are not "investing" or "future proofing" your PC. You are just buying what makes sense. Since you have multiple times used the word "invest", you are implying spending more money than necessary in order to gain a profit in the future. That is what invest means. Spending money in order to make a profit later. It's not an "investment" to buy something cheaper than you intended to. 

 

Buying a cheaper product that is superior is just good advice and should always be done, regardless of any kind of "future proofing" argument.

 

 

14 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

I don't recall any of this being said on my part, all I said was buying a better motherboard is a good investment.

Which implies "buy a motherboard with things you don't need because you might in the future, even if it's more expensive".

 

 

14 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

But to clarify, if the TDP/PPT increases are to be anything to go by, and AM4's life cycle is anything to go by as well. Investing in a better motherboard that possibly allows you to upgrade to a higher than 16c/32t part in the future could be useful. Especially if it is well built. If these future higher core products have higher clock speeds too, then it makes sense to go with a higher quality motherboard that would support those products better (for numerous reasons, that I'm sure you know). I do believe that this is a gamble as you claim, but it is a gamble that can be calculated to some extent. Because the fact of the matter is some of these predictions are being made based on information we have right now, and obviously as we get closer to Zen 4's launch we will have much better clarification on these facts.

This entire argument hinges on a lot of assumptions.

1) That current AM5 motherboards will support future CPU generations. If history has taught us anything then it's that we should not assume this. AMD was caught trying to back out of supporting more than 3 generations on AM4 motherboards, and only partially reversed that because of massive backlash and broken promises. They might not do this again.

 

2) That mid-range motherboards will not support these higher TDP parts. We have zero evidence of this. In fact, with AM4 we have seen that even fairly low end motherboards have no problem supporting and even overclocking the highest end parts. So if anything, we have evidence that suggests this will not be the case. That you will have no problem getting a low or mid range motherboard and then upgrade your CPU in the future.

 

3) That people will want to upgrade their CPUs without upgrading their motherboards. First of all, I think people upgrade their CPUs way too often as it is. I think a large portion of people on this forum only upgrade their CPUs as often as they do because they follow a bunch of influencers that convinces them that buying things is cool. I think that is very unhealthy and promotes mindless "consumerism". Second of all, I think the people that this type of mindless consumption appeals to will want to upgrade their motherboards too. We are constantly seeing improvements on the motherboard front, and by the time people want a new processor they probably want a new motherboard too. (Please note that I deliberately wrote "want" and not "need").

 

 

I am glad to see that you acknowledge that this is gambling you are advocating for. You seem to think that it is a well calculated gamble, but as you can see from my arguments above, I think you are just stacking assumption on assumption on assumption, and calling it "calculated".

 

 

14 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

Some hardware I bought (that's paid off) for my last rig before I bought my current setup was: a higher quality Z68 1155 motherboard (that ran flawlessly for 10 years without issues on multiple chips), faster and more 2133MHz memory (when people were still claiming that memory has no effect on performance), Corsair H100 AIO CLC Cooler (also ran for 10 years without needing to be replaced, when warranty only lasted 5 years) and kept the temps on my 2500k, 2600k, and delidded 3770k chilly. When I originally built the machine there were some recommendations to skimp on some of these parts to save money (lower quality motherboard, slower/less memory, air cooler); as there were claims that spending more wouldn't affect performance. But I ended up going against some of these recommendations, because if you searched hard enough you could indeed find conflicting information on different recommendations. Of course correlation does not mean causation and as you say I could have simply gotten lucky, but it also could have been good results from calculated research.

So your evidence is essentially "I spent a lot of money on parts, and they lasted a long time, so therefore you should spend a lot of money because they last a long time"?

Again, this is just assumptions on your part.

You are assuming, or at the very least heavily implying, that a less high end motherboard would not have ran flawlessly for 10 years. We have no evidence of this. The lower end motherboard might have worked just as well.

You are assuming the higher speed memory was worth the higher price compared to a cheaper and slower kit. We don't know this. At least not with the info you have provided. A cheaper kit might have worked just as well for your use.

You are assuming, or implying, that another cooler would not have lasted past the warranty. That it was because of the high price that it lasted so long. We have no evidence for this.

 

You seem to think that these claims are evidence of something, but they aren't. You have not proven anything. All you have done is post a bunch of assumptions that have zero evidence to support them.

For all we know, you didn't even get lucky. You might have just been ripped off because you feel for a bunch of marketing. You bought an expensive motherboard that lasted 10 years, and for no apparent reason seem to attribute it lasting 10 years to the fact that it was expensive. You have no reason to believe it lasted that long because it was expensive, yet for some reason you do.

 

 

14 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

Well, you are not necessarily sure how long they will last if you invest into more expensive tiers, but the saying "you get what you pay for" exists for that exact reason. It might not always be the case, and of course when you're on a budget allocating funds to different areas is important. However, being frugal or thrifty doesn't automatically mean don't make intelligent purchases.

An idiom is not evidence. You can't just say "you get what you pay for" as evidence for why you should spend more money than necessary on something.

Also, I often find that "you get what you pay for" is not true. I also find that this contradicts what you said earlier about how better products might not be more expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times, same old banter.

 

The damn hardware was obsolete before you purchased it.

So "Future Proof" is a BS term that should be swept under the carpet.

 

Can hardware last a long time = yes. Modern hardware typically has a 100,000 hour meantime before failure (MTBF). 

 

SURE buy the Ryzen 7000...... 

 

But you already know what lies ahead. 

 

Ryzen 8000 Granite Ridge (desktop) expected in late 2024 

 

Spoiler

I am not ShrimpBrime. ok yes I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

Again, I never said spend more money than you need. I don't know where you got that idea from simply stating, "it makes sense to future proof yourself by buying a better motherboard". I'm sorry you think I'm doing the forum a disservice by having a difference of opinion than you,

Stop trying to frame this as we simply having different opinions that are equally valid. You advised people to gamble with their money and pre-emptively insulted people who would make counterarguments, by saying they were just following a fad.

That is what I have a problem with. I don't have a problem with you having a different opinion. I have a problem with people giving bad advice and insulting those who might give better advice. That is what you did, and why I have a problem with your posts in this thread.

 

 

18 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

I never said don't spend more than you need.

You implied that by saying people should "future proof yourself by buying a better motherboard", "you get what you pay for" and saying that people should "invest" in motherboards. Hell you even said people should "buy a better motherboard".

 

You have at multiple occasions making comparisons without defining what you are comparing, but that coupled with statements like "you get what you pay for" and "investment" implies that you are advising people to buy a more expensive motherboard that they had originally planned.

 

 

Let's look at it this way. Let's pretend that someone was looking at a VW Polo and a VW Golf but wasn't sure which one to buy. The Polo is a cheaper version of the Golf for those not interested in German hatchbacks. 

If I told that person:

"Well, you get what you pay for".

"You should see a car purchase as an investment".

"When I bought a car I bought the better built one, and as a result it lasted longer and I saved money in the long run.". 

 

Would you really go "well, LAwLz never directly said that they believe the Golf is a better buy, and LAwLz was totally not trying to steer that person into buying the more expensive Golf over the Polo."

That is what you are doing right now. You are heavily implying that people should buy more expensive motherboards and then going "well I technically never said it".

 

 

18 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

All I said was buying a better motherboard can be useful based on the information we have regarding AM5.

Except that is not "all you said". I am not sure what information we got regarding AM5 that indicates that buying a "better motherboard" (again, this implies a more expensive tier of motherboard) can be useful for the people reading this thread.

 

 

 

18 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

For instance: a fad that existed for the longest time was not investing in higher speed memory. Now not so much. For many years I tried my hardest to teach people the benefits of faster memory, even for gaming and other areas of computing. Generally speaking, despite the amount of data or facts I presented, people still were hard to convince because Tech Tubers would have their tests (that often times were flawed) that showed that higher speed memory doesn't affect performance. Eventually as time went on, more Tech outlets had better reviews/benchmarks that corroborated my claims. However, that took many years before that started happening. So what I mean by following a fad, is that the groupthink mindset is privy to error. 

1) I still think higher frequency RAM is often times a waste of money, and the same money is better spent elsewhere or just saving it for future upgrades.

 

2) Have you ever considered that the previous statements regarding RAM speeds were correct, and the reason why we are seeing different advice now is because things have changed? Maybe it wasn't so much the tech Youtuber's that changed their methodology, but rather than the CPUs we have today compared to several years ago require more memory bandwidth to feed properly? Because that is what I believe happened. For example the infinity fabric is tied to the memory clock. This did not use to be the case with QPI and HyperTransport for example, since those had their own clock domains.

So this could just be a case of "a broken clock being right twice a day". 

 

3) High speed memory is important for some things, but not important for others. Generalizing it in this way is bad and can be very misleading.

 

4) There are some fairly obvious sweet spots with RAM, where you get significant performance increases going from X to Y, but from Y to Z you might barely get any difference. For Ryzen, this has generally been around DDR4-3600. Lower than that and you might have missed the price:performance sweet spot. Higher than that and you might actually end up with worse performance because you need to configure clock domain crossing, and that comes with roughly a 9ns latency penalty. Higher numbers are not always better.

 

 

 

18 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

I think you personally have made some risks though that turned out not to reward you and as a result you have a negative opinion because of it.

Nope, my personal experience did not have any affect on my views on "future proofing". Again, I have been against frivolously spending more money than necessary because "it might be useful in the future" for decades.

 

I brought up my own motherboard as an example just to show how needs might change. I didn't buy the particular motherboard I use because it had SATA Express, or dual NICs. It just happened to have those and it turned out I never needed them. There are plenty of posts of me saying "future proofing is generally a myth" years and years before I decided to buy this particular motherboard.

 

 

18 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

Also, I would like to additionally add that claiming only 10% of people who attempt to future proof their PCs have a positive outcome is disingenuous. Looking at the Steam Hardware Survey is one of the easiest ways to see that people generally stay on the same platform for a decade before they upgrade. This sort of shows that it is possible to make calculated decisions with your parts purchasing that allows you to last longer before you have to upgrade (the true definition of future proofing, IMO).

Again, this assumes that only higher tier products last that long.

A large portion of those people in the steam hardware survey probably has low end motherboards, and they serve them just as well as a high end motherboard would have done.

You really need to stop assuming that cheaper products won't last as long.

 

Also, does the Steam hardware survey really show that people "stay on the same platform"? By platform I assume you mean socket or chipset. In my mind, it is equally likely that the Steam hardware survey shows that people just don't upgrade their PCs at all that often. If you remember, one of your arguments was that people should buy more expensive motherboards because it allows them to upgrade to future CPUs. 

 

 

 

18 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

Hope this helps clear up our disagreements, and again I apologize for the original miscommunication. 

I think it cleared up some but I strongly disagree with several of your claims and assumptions. I think we have both made some rather sweeping generalizations on a topic that have a lot of nuances.

 

I would also like to apologize for being rude. I hope you read this far, but I wouldn't be surprised if you see how long this post is and just ignore it.

Hope we can agree on other things in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time "future proofing" is barely relevant is when competition is stagnant... so from like Sandy Bridge to Ryzen gen 1. Then the pendulum swung from Intel to AMD. This is really the first generation in a while decade where Intel and AMD have been cross competitive for varying workloads.

 

Suggesting to buy a high end mobo on a first generation of a socket, when early adopters of the X370 were shafted by AMD until recently is insane. Especially when we don't know what Intel has with 13th gen.

5950x / ASUS X570 Dark Hero / 32GB 3600mhz / EVGA RTX 3080ti Hybrid / Dell S3422DWG / Logitech G815 / Logitech G502 / Sennheiser HD 599

2021 Razer Blade 14 3070 / S21 Ultra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Guest 5150 said:

 

But you already know what lies ahead. 

 

Ryzen 8000 Granite Ridge (desktop) expected in late 2024 

2 years without a new lineup of CPUs - sounds like AMD is getting Ryzen confused with Radeon!

 

But seriously, Intel's roadmap shows they are expecting to release 15th gen in early 2024 and 16th gen in early 2025... Is AMD seriously going to let Intel have two whole generations basically uncontested? I believe rumors are that we'll get some 3dVCache stuff for Zen 4 at some point in 2023, but given that - at least with the 5800X3D - this technology only improved single-core performance (with multi-core performance often being worse than with the 5800X) I can't see this being enough to keep Zen 4 competitive against 2-3 different generations of Intel CPU. Heck, given what we've discussed in this thread already it doesn't sound like Zen 4 is going to be a clear winner when compared to 13th gen!

 

Zen 5 better be an amazing upgrade if they're doing this...

My PCs:

Quote

Timothy: 

i7 4790k

16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3

ASUS GTX 1060 6GB

Corsair Carbide 300R

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tim0901 said:

Is AMD seriously going to let Intel have two whole generations basically uncontested?

Sure why not. They let Intel lead for 2 decades.... The R&D just was never there.

 

Spoiler

I am not ShrimpBrime. ok yes I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Guest 5150 said:

Sure why not. They let Intel lead for 2 decades....

Which completely destroyed their reputation as a CPU manufacturer not only with consumers but with their industry partners as well. I still to this day have trouble encouraging my non-techy friends to buy AMD products because of their old reputation as the cheap brand. On top of that they lost their fabs (spun off as Global Foundries), their stock price was through the floor and for a while they were on the brink of complete bankrupcy. What happened last time is exactly why I'm worried.

 

If Zen 5 was originally designed to be competitive against 2023's 14th gen (given its original intended release date) but instead ends up pitted against 15th/16th gen when it arrives a year late, we could end up with it being an uncompetitive flop unless Zen 5 pulls out all the stops. The last thing anyone wants is another Bulldozer.

My PCs:

Quote

Timothy: 

i7 4790k

16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3

ASUS GTX 1060 6GB

Corsair Carbide 300R

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, tim0901 said:

Which completely destroyed their reputation as a CPU manufacturer not only with consumers but with their industry partners as well. I still to this day have trouble encouraging my non-techy friends to buy AMD products because of their old reputation as the cheap brand. On top of that they lost their fabs (spun off as Global Foundries), their stock price was through the floor and for a while they were on the brink of complete bankrupcy. What happened last time is exactly why I'm worried.

 

If Zen 5 was originally designed to be competitive against 2023's 14th gen (given its original intended release date) but instead ends up pitted against 15th/16th gen when it arrives a year late, we could end up with it being an uncompetitive flop unless Zen 5 pulls out all the stops. The last thing anyone wants is another Bulldozer.

I don't think we have to worry about another bulldozer flop, but anything could happen.

 

Intel and AMD game quite comparatively to each other when focusing on the desktop market, a mere 10% of income. High end processors are like 15% sold of all desktop cpus, mainly low end to mid ranged pre-built sell the most. 

 

The server market is where we'd like AMD to succeed for funding future technology. Same thing for Intel.

 

We focus on performance in the wrong areas sometimes. 

 

AmD has focus and will stay focused on efficiency as best as possible. You want the server to cost less to run, even if it's a sacrifice of 10% IPC and maybe more. Just depends on who crunches the numbers for a project. 

 

Spoiler

I am not ShrimpBrime. ok yes I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tim0901 said:

2 years without a new lineup of CPUs - sounds like AMD is getting Ryzen confused with Radeon!

 

But seriously, Intel's roadmap shows they are expecting to release 15th gen in early 2024 and 16th gen in early 2025... Is AMD seriously going to let Intel have two whole generations basically uncontested? I believe rumors are that we'll get some 3dVCache stuff for Zen 4 at some point in 2023, but given that - at least with the 5800X3D - this technology only improved single-core performance (with multi-core performance often being worse than with the 5800X) I can't see this being enough to keep Zen 4 competitive against 2-3 different generations of Intel CPU. Heck, given what we've discussed in this thread already it doesn't sound like Zen 4 is going to be a clear winner when compared to 13th gen!

 

Zen 5 better be an amazing upgrade if they're doing this...

I don't think we can speculate too much on how things will stack up. I mean, things are not looking that good for Zen 4 based on this presentation, but who knows. Maybe it will be better than expected. Maybe Intel will mess up in some way.

 

In any case, the roadmaps for these things are laid out well in advance. Maybe AMD didn't expect Intel to release such a good product as Alder Lake? Judging by the issues Intel had moving past 14nm and their very incremental upgrades in the past maybe AMD thought that "with Ryzen 5000 we will have the performance crown, so then we can take it easy for a couple of years, Intel will take their time to respond anyway"? I don't really think that's what happened but who knows.

 

These things are very complicated. We also have to remember that AMD are not fully in control of their own destiny. A lot of their products are co-developed with TSMC, and are very dependant on where they are with their manufacturing process. If Zen5 is built around a certain process node, and that node have had delays, then that will affect the shipping date of AMD's processors. AMD has been working on Zen5 since sometime in 2017-2018. Perhaps their original plans were to ship it in 2023 but it got delayed to 2024 or 2025 because of things outside of AMD's control? The rumor right now is that AMD can't get a big enough allocation of the N3 node.

 

 

With a bit of luck, both AMD and Intel will continue to be competitive and leap-frogging each other. These last 5 or so years have been fantastic for CPUs and I hope it continues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, starsmine said:

Take AM5, spending the money for pci5 is a good investment, not because you are spending more now, but because a gpu in 7 years will be less bottlenecked. Its about minimizing bottlenecks, not eliminating them. 

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

PCIe generation has not really mattered so far, so I don't see why we should expect things to be different with PCIe 5.0.

The difference between PCIe 2.0 and PCIe 4.0 when paired with an RTX 3080 is about 4%

 

That means that a motherboard from 2007 do not significantly hinder the performance of a high end graphics card in 2022. The CPU will for sure hinder performance, but the PCIe generation or motherboard will not.

If things continue in the same trend (which is a big IF), a PCIe 4.0 motherboard bought today will not be a bottleneck even if you decide to keep it until the year 2037, which I think we all know won't happen. It will get replaced long before that.

In other words, you will want to upgrade your CPU and motherboard long before PCIe 4.0 becomes a limiting factor.

 

That's not to say PCIe 5.0 is useless. It might be beneficial. But buying PCIe 5.0 because you think it will not bottleneck future graphics card in gaming goes against everything we have seen in the last ~20 or so years.

All historical evidence we got today state that PCIe generation does not matter if you use your PC for gaming. Gaming is simply not that PCIe-bandwidth intense.

 

 

And before someone mentions DirectStorage, please note that the SSD in the Xbox Series and PS5 tops out at around 2.4GB/s. That's equivalent to PCIe 2.0 x5. Games will not be designed around needing more than 2.4GB/s of bandwidth, and even old and severely outdated motherboards can handle that with ease. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

All historical evidence we got today state that PCIe generation does not matter if you use your PC for gaming. Gaming is simply not that PCIe-bandwidth intense.

Agree with that, but for non-gaming uses it may be more of a factor. Some compute applications I've used in the past were pretty bus intensive. Didn't affect single cards but someone more motivated than me running dual on consumer system would notice it.

 

Also PCIe gen lifespan aren't exactly predictable. Who knows how the industry moves. 3.0 stayed around what felt like forever 8 years or so. 4.0 is relatively short being leading edge in PC systems for just over 2 years. 

 

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

And before someone mentions DirectStorage, please note that the SSD in the Xbox Series and PS5 tops out at around 2.4GB/s. That's equivalent to PCIe 2.0 x5. Games will not be designed around needing more than 2.4GB/s of bandwidth, and even old and severely outdated motherboards can handle that with ease. 

That sounds a bit low so I had to check. While I see that figure for the Xbox, the PS5's internal SSD is rated at 5.5 GB/s although I see an interesting comment only half the channels of the controller are "prioritised" for games, whatever that means. PS5 recommended added SSD is 5GB/s minimum.

 

Even if game devs pick the lowest system as a baseline to optimise for, doesn't mean we wont see benefits from going beyond that. Think most of us run far more than is barely needed in many areas when it comes to gaming.

 

 

BTW A few words on future proofing, I'd tolerate it if it were called future resistance. See it like the difference between water proofing and water resistance, and the similar confusion there. Personally I just buy a system for what it is at the time. By the time comes to upgrade, I'd want all the new stuff anyway rather than limp along with an ancient mobo that might still work.

TV Gaming system: Asus B560M-A, i7-11700k, Scythe Fuma 2, Corsair Vengeance Pro RGB 3200@2133 4x16GB, MSI 3070 Gaming Trio X, EVGA Supernova G2L 850W, Anidees Ai Crystal, Samsung 980 Pro 2TB, LG OLED55B9PLA 4k120 G-Sync Compatible
Streaming system: Asus X299 TUF mark 2, i9-7920X, Noctua D15, Corsair Vengeance LPX RGB 3000 8x8GB, Gigabyte 2070, Corsair HX1000i, GameMax Abyss, Samsung 970 Evo 500GB, Crucial BX500 1TB, BenQ XL2411 1080p144 + HP LP2475w 1200p60
Gaming laptop: Lenovo Legion, 5800H, DDR4 3200C22 2x8GB, RTX 3070, SK Hynix 512 GB + Crucial P1 TB SSD, 165 Hz IPS 1080p G-Sync Compatible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I don't think we can speculate too much on how things will stack up. I mean, things are not looking that good for Zen 4 based on this presentation, but who knows. Maybe it will be better than expected. Maybe Intel will mess up in some way.

Well indeed - it is all speculation at this time. Intel could very well have another process node delay and at some point they're moving to using 3rd party fabs for part of their production so it'll be very interesting to see how that goes down. All we can do is wait and see at the end of the day. I'm also very interested as to how Apple is going to fit into all of this, as there haven't been many reliable rumors surrounding M2 - at least that I've seen. Apple Silicon has undeniably been very successful for Apple, but it'll be interesting to see how things develop now that competition is back on the table.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

In any case, the roadmaps for these things are laid out well in advance. Maybe AMD didn't expect Intel to release such a good product as Alder Lake? Judging by the issues Intel had moving past 14nm and their very incremental upgrades in the past maybe AMD thought that "with Ryzen 5000 we will have the performance crown, so then we can take it easy for a couple of years, Intel will take their time to respond anyway"? I don't really think that's what happened but who knows.

I really do wonder if Alder Lake caught AMD off guard by bringing an overly competitive product to the table - maybe they expected more teething issues from the hybrid cores? I agree though that I doubt it was a "we can take it easy" kind of situation, maybe it was a "we can afford to spend time making more low-level changes to better set up for future development" kind of thing? Zen 4 could well have a lot more changes under the hood than we know about that, while not manifesting as performance improvements today, may be crucial to the development of Zen 5 and beyond. This could explain where they managed to get the higher clocks from for example.

 

This was essentially what Intel did with Ice Lake after all - it wasn't a particularly interesting release at the time (not helped that they didn't release many SKUs) but it was their first architecture to support PCI-E gen 4 and the Sunny Cove cores designed for it used Intel's first new core architecture since Skylake. These cores of course eventually evolved to become the Golden Cove P-Cores in Alder Lake. Lakefield was a similar test platform for Foveros and hybrid cores - that CPU was a technological marvel back in 2019. A real glimpse as to how CPUs would develop in the coming years.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

These things are very complicated. We also have to remember that AMD are not fully in control of their own destiny. A lot of their products are co-developed with TSMC, and are very dependant on where they are with their manufacturing process. If Zen5 is built around a certain process node, and that node have had delays, then that will affect the shipping date of AMD's processors. AMD has been working on Zen5 since sometime in 2017-2018. Perhaps their original plans were to ship it in 2023 but it got delayed to 2024 or 2025 because of things outside of AMD's control? The rumor right now is that AMD can't get a big enough allocation of the N3 node.

Yes - it's not necessarily AMD's fault. I believe N3 was also delayed a few months because of yield issues, further pushing back when AMD will get their share. That being said, why couldn't AMD get a big enough allocation? If this node was so critical to their product, why did they not secure capacity earlier? Seems like a pretty stupid mistake to make, but this could of course be out of AMD's control as well - TSMC seems to have been giving Apple special treatment for the last few years by allowing them to buy up all of their initial 5nm capacity, so it could be something similar here. As far as I'm aware however the truth isn't public information.

 

There is of course the possibility that the release that was originally meant to be "Zen 5" gets skipped and instead we get the "Zen 5+" style iteration that would have followed it, just rebranded. Intel basically did this as well - they pretty much skipped Palm Cove entirely to focus on Sunny Cove when it became apparent that 10nm wouldn't be ready in time for a full release. If AMD were to do the same then they wouldn't be behind on their roadmap at all. But of course to call this speculation is being kind - I'm just rambling and throwing ideas at the wall at this point.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

With a bit of luck, both AMD and Intel will continue to be competitive and leap-frogging each other. These last 5 or so years have been fantastic for CPUs and I hope it continues.

Fingers crossed!

My PCs:

Quote

Timothy: 

i7 4790k

16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3

ASUS GTX 1060 6GB

Corsair Carbide 300R

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, porina said:

BTW A few words on future proofing, I'd tolerate it if it were called future resistance. See it like the difference between water proofing and water resistance, and the similar confusion there. Personally I just buy a system for what it is at the time. By the time comes to upgrade, I'd want all the new stuff anyway rather than limp along with an ancient mobo that might still work.

I think I prefer future resistance as well, but just like water resistant the phrase wouldn't be interpreted any differently to how it is today.

 

I also don't care for it personally, but that's because I keep my PCs for a long time - I am still rocking a 4790K after all. Even if my motherboard did support the next 4-5 generations of CPUs, I wouldn't buy an 8th or 9th gen CPU as a drop-in upgrade at this point. An 8700K costs as much as a 12400F on the second hand market (while a 9700K or 9900K costs more than it) despite the i5 performing better than any of them. I'd much rather make a full platform swap than go for that level of upgrade as the highest-end components (aka the meaningful upgrades) for any given platform end up being massively overvalued on the used market.

My PCs:

Quote

Timothy: 

i7 4790k

16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3

ASUS GTX 1060 6GB

Corsair Carbide 300R

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I think it cleared up some but I strongly disagree with several of your claims and assumptions. I think we have both made some rather sweeping generalizations on a topic that have a lot of nuances.

 

I would also like to apologize for being rude. I hope you read this far, but I wouldn't be surprised if you see how long this post is and just ignore it.

Hope we can agree on other things in the future.

 

I read both of your posts, I'm not ignoring it, I just don't believe addressing each of your points in your replies will be useful from this point on. I think the conversation ran its course and we got as much as we are going to get out of it. 

 

I accept your apology for being rude, and also hope in the future we can agree on other things. 🙂

Spoiler
Spoiler

                                                                                 Mentioned on 09/30/20    in  TechLinked @ (1:54)              

                                                                 Mentioned on 10/07/20    in  TechLinked @ (1:59)

         Mentioned on 10/16/20    in  TechLinked @ (4:06) 

      Mentioned on 10/21/20    in  TechLinked @ (1:22)

     Mentioned on 12/30/20    in  TechLinked @ (0:14)

    Mentioned on 12/30/20    in  TechLinked @ (2:17)

   Mentioned on 05/18/22    in  TechLinked @ (4:25)

  Mentioned on 05/20/22    in  TechLinked @ (0:13)

 Mentioned on 05/25/22    in  TechLinked @ (5:24)

Mentioned on 06/08/22    in  TechLinked @ (1:20)

Mentioned on 06/20/22    in  TechLinked @ (3:54)

Mentioned on 06/27/22    in  TechLinked @ (3:52)

Mentioned on 08/10/22    in  TechLinked @ (3:50)

Mentioned on 08/13/22    in  TechLinked @ (1:16)

 

Currently Playing:

Fortnite

Path oExile

Call oDuty: Warzone

Mirror's Edge Catalyst

 

                       🌕              

                                               Eye of Providence (HP OMEN 17-ck1111nr)

CPU12th Gen Intel Core i7-12700H 14c/20t GPU: NVIDIA Geforce RTX 3060 ~ GA106 Memory: 16GB DDR5 @4800MHz SSD: 1TB PCIe Gen4 NVMe M.2 (OS/Programs/Apps/Games) HDD1: WD Elements 4TB External (Backup/Additional Storage) Monitor: 17.3” Full HD (1080p) IPS Micro-Edge Anti-Glare Low Blue Light 144Hz Display Mouse: Artic White Roccat Kone Pro Mouse Mat: Corsair MM350 Premium Headset: Corsair VØID Stereo Gaming Headset OS: Windows 11 Home

                                                                         

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

PCIe generation has not really mattered so far, so I don't see why we should expect things to be different with PCIe 5.0.

The difference between PCIe 2.0 and PCIe 4.0 when paired with an RTX 3080 is about 4%

 

That means that a motherboard from 2007 do not significantly hinder the performance of a high end graphics card in 2022. The CPU will for sure hinder performance, but the PCIe generation or motherboard will not.

If things continue in the same trend (which is a big IF), a PCIe 4.0 motherboard bought today will not be a bottleneck even if you decide to keep it until the year 2037, which I think we all know won't happen. It will get replaced long before that.

In other words, you will want to upgrade your CPU and motherboard long before PCIe 4.0 becomes a limiting factor.

 

That's not to say PCIe 5.0 is useless. It might be beneficial. But buying PCIe 5.0 because you think it will not bottleneck future graphics card in gaming goes against everything we have seen in the last ~20 or so years.

All historical evidence we got today state that PCIe generation does not matter if you use your PC for gaming. Gaming is simply not that PCIe-bandwidth intense.

 

 

And before someone mentions DirectStorage, please note that the SSD in the Xbox Series and PS5 tops out at around 2.4GB/s. That's equivalent to PCIe 2.0 x5. Games will not be designed around needing more than 2.4GB/s of bandwidth, and even old and severely outdated motherboards can handle that with ease. 

yet we have cards like the 6500 that show a significant difference.
image.thumb.png.0b974afa629756fb03a1bd875ae1bba3.png

Dont assume people who buy hardware like this are buying the top end cards. the 6500xt looses HALF its performance when in a 2.0 x4 PC due to bandwidth limitations. 

and yes Direct storage will be a thing 5 to 7 years down the road to consider with bandwidth. regarless of what the series X and ps5 are doing with it. 

I have to agree with Porina, perhaps we should just change terms to future resistant as people keep claiming future proof to be something its not, and never has been. (like there are some people who think regenerative breaking on electric cars literally means the breaks regenerate and dont need to be swapped)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, starsmine said:

yet we have cards like the 6500 that show a significant difference.

The 6500 is the exception, and it's only the exception because it is only electrically wired for PCIe x4. 

If it had the full x16 lanes then it would not have been a problem. The reason why it is PCIe x4 limited is because AMD took a laptop part and stuck it in a desktop package, in an attempt to cut corners.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, starsmine said:

Dont assume people who buy hardware like this are buying the top end cards. the 6500xt looses HALF its performance when in a 2.0 x4 PC due to bandwidth limitations. 

I did not assume people buy top end cards. I used a top end card as an example because those will be more PCIe limited than other cards. If any card is PCIe limited, it will be a top end card (except the 6500 which is crippled, because AMD designed it that way, but it is the only exception to this).

 

 

2 hours ago, starsmine said:

and yes Direct storage will be a thing 5 to 7 years down the road to consider with bandwidth. regarless of what the series X and ps5 are doing with it. 

and by that point you probably want to upgrade your motherboard anyway. Besides, as I said, even the things from several years ago is more than enough to keep up with that. The bandwidth requirements isn't that high compared to what PCIe, even older versions, offers.

The reason why I brought up the series X and PS5 is because that's what developers will target. They will not design games that require more than what those consoles offers. DirectStorage is not something that will really benefit from having more than the game was designed for either. 

 

 

2 hours ago, starsmine said:

I have to agree with Porina, perhaps we should just change terms to future resistant as people keep claiming future proof to be something its not, and never has been. (like there are some people who think regenerative breaking on electric cars literally means the breaks regenerate and dont need to be swapped)

8 hours ago, porina said:

I'd tolerate it if it were called future resistance

8 hours ago, tim0901 said:

I think I prefer future resistance as well

Changing the term from "future proof" to "future resistance" does not really change any of the issues I have with the idea of "future proofing".

 

The issue I got with "future proofing" is that people use the term when trying to justify buying more expensive things than they need, and that is bad. You will rarely if ever save money by buying higher tier components than you need, in an attempt to extend the life of the PC. Buying a motherboard (or any other component) with features you don't need today, but might need 5 years down the line, is almost always a bad use of money, regardless of what we call it. 

 

Buy what you need, when you need it. Nothing more, and nothing less.

That is the only advice that has time and time proven to be a good use of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, porina said:

Agree with that, but for non-gaming uses it may be more of a factor. Some compute applications I've used in the past were pretty bus intensive. Didn't affect single cards but someone more motivated than me running dual on consumer system would notice it.

Yes but we are on a forum where most people only use their PCs for games or similar workloads. The advice I give applies to 99/100 of users here. I don't feel like adding a disclaimer for those things and I assume people who do run those workloads are smart enough to see that my posts do not apply to them.

 

 

8 hours ago, porina said:

Also PCIe gen lifespan aren't exactly predictable. Who knows how the industry moves. 3.0 stayed around what felt like forever 8 years or so. 4.0 is relatively short being leading edge in PC systems for just over 2 years. 

Yes I know, which is why I added several disclaimers about how the future is unpredictable. But that is also exactly why I believe it is such a waste of money to buy more than you need, in the hopes that it might be useful in the future. All we can do is look at historical data and trends to try and gauge how things will progress, and right now all evidence points towards PCIe 5.0 being essentially useless for gamers for at least the next 10 years.

Gaming simply do not need that much PCIe bandwidth. There are far bigger limiting factors.

 

 

8 hours ago, porina said:

That sounds a bit low so I had to check. While I see that figure for the Xbox, the PS5's internal SSD is rated at 5.5 GB/s although I see an interesting comment only half the channels of the controller are "prioritised" for games, whatever that means. PS5 recommended added SSD is 5GB/s minimum.

The SSD in the Series X is significantly slower than the one in the PS5.

But these peak numbers are also fairly unrealistic. The real world performance of these drives are significantly lower than the peak numbers. In reality, even PCIe 2.0 x4 will be more than enough to keep up with the speeds necessary for gaming. (If PCIe 2.0 x4 M.2 slots were a thing).

 

I mean, it of course depends on how the game is designed, but let's say we start getting more games without loading zones, and instead content is constantly loaded from the SSD as needed. That would result in fairly random and low queue depth reads. The WD Black 850 is about as high end of an SSD you can get these days. At 4kB reads at low queue depth it gets about 450MB/s reads. That is not even enough to saturate a PCIe 2.0 x1 connection.

There will probably be situations where things are more sequentially read when gaming, especially if the developers plan things out carefully, but there will be several other bottlenecks in the way long before the PCIe connection becomes an issue, for gaming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought this was an interesting find while browsing Twitter (AMD Ryzen 7000-series "Raphael’" CPUs could boast a maximum frequency limit/clock speed of 5.85GHz):

 

FT8gyF4UUAEiTMb.thumb.png.59e293299fc3d609b545b0bf92a54d72.png

 

 
Quote

Regarding frequency targets, the game demo showing 5.55GHz maximum frequencies was also not with the final version. While Angstronomics is aware of an Ordering Part Number (OPN) that is fused for a 5.85 GHz Fmax, we will have to wait and see what the retail stepping fuses will be set at.

 

https://www.angstronomics.com/p/computex-beyond-the-coverage?s=w

https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/zen-4-5-85-clock-speed

 

That's right up there with the supposed clock speeds of Raptor Lake! 😎

Spoiler
Spoiler

                                                                                 Mentioned on 09/30/20    in  TechLinked @ (1:54)              

                                                                 Mentioned on 10/07/20    in  TechLinked @ (1:59)

         Mentioned on 10/16/20    in  TechLinked @ (4:06) 

      Mentioned on 10/21/20    in  TechLinked @ (1:22)

     Mentioned on 12/30/20    in  TechLinked @ (0:14)

    Mentioned on 12/30/20    in  TechLinked @ (2:17)

   Mentioned on 05/18/22    in  TechLinked @ (4:25)

  Mentioned on 05/20/22    in  TechLinked @ (0:13)

 Mentioned on 05/25/22    in  TechLinked @ (5:24)

Mentioned on 06/08/22    in  TechLinked @ (1:20)

Mentioned on 06/20/22    in  TechLinked @ (3:54)

Mentioned on 06/27/22    in  TechLinked @ (3:52)

Mentioned on 08/10/22    in  TechLinked @ (3:50)

Mentioned on 08/13/22    in  TechLinked @ (1:16)

 

Currently Playing:

Fortnite

Path oExile

Call oDuty: Warzone

Mirror's Edge Catalyst

 

                       🌕              

                                               Eye of Providence (HP OMEN 17-ck1111nr)

CPU12th Gen Intel Core i7-12700H 14c/20t GPU: NVIDIA Geforce RTX 3060 ~ GA106 Memory: 16GB DDR5 @4800MHz SSD: 1TB PCIe Gen4 NVMe M.2 (OS/Programs/Apps/Games) HDD1: WD Elements 4TB External (Backup/Additional Storage) Monitor: 17.3” Full HD (1080p) IPS Micro-Edge Anti-Glare Low Blue Light 144Hz Display Mouse: Artic White Roccat Kone Pro Mouse Mat: Corsair MM350 Premium Headset: Corsair VØID Stereo Gaming Headset OS: Windows 11 Home

                                                                         

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share



×