Does CPU matter when choosing a GPU upgrade?

[An0maly_76]

  

19 hours ago, pauloforte said:

Thanks a lot all for the great input!

I'm going to probably hold off on buying anything until after the summer, I think: GeForce Now is gonna have to do the trick to quench the gaming thirst. And in the meanwhile I'll research a bit more in order to either get a new system or a beefy card.

Cheers

I don't know what kind of display you have, but if it can operate at 60 hz, it might be better to just limp on the 4690K's iGPU with Vertical Synchronization and the like enabled to stabilize its output until a more substantial budget is reached. You can do much better in one shot, IMO.

 

That said, we all have our opinions. I really don't understand all the salivating and hype here about the anticipated AM5, a platform that has already overshot its initially estimated release date of 2021, and has yet to be released. Even more baffling is the use of this as-yet unreleased platform to dissuade those in need of upgrade from utilizing a proven platform with quite a bit of service life left.

 

I think one thing that kinda smacks some people in the face all at once is that as long as it runs and it works, they don't realize just how far behind their platform can be, or even far behind even one or two generations or socket designs can leave them. OP's 4960K is the LGA1150 socket, which was introduced in 2013, nine years ago, on which the last Pentium-branded processors were based. The 4960K itself was released in 2014, eight years ago, stats show it was discontinued in 2017. Since then, LGA1151, introduced in 2015, has come and gone.

 

Quite frankly, OP, your 4960K's 3.9 Ghz would be plenty in today's market -- if it had more cores. The average gaming processor today has six or eight cores, yours has four. It might still be good for setting up a firewall, but if you remember the Lethal Weapon movies, in today's gaming world, this would sum up the the 4960K's thoughts...

 

 

I have seen talk here of the AM4 being a dead-end platform as rumors circulate about AM5's impending release. But let's be real, folks. Sure, the AM4 has been around since 2017. In which time Intel has discontinued one platform and ridden the wave of another that is about to break as the LGA1700 becomes more popular and commonplace.

 

Sources show the LGA1200 platform was released in 2020. At two years old, with Intel's release of the LGA1700 platform and their pattern of here today, gone tomorrow, LGA1200 is likely being eyed or even slated for discontinuation as we speak. The Intel crowd call the AM4 a dead platform, but what about the fact that the 12100F is STILL a 4-core processor, made for an obsolete and discontinued socket design? Pot and kettle, I say. In contrast, the AM4 platform has at least three processors available with 8+ cores -- processors that have yet to breathe hard with current gaming demands. Dead-end platform, indeed!

 

First and foremost, brand-new technology always has at least three drawbacks. First, new designs almost always have bugs or glitches, regardless of how many hours of testing and revisions are involved. I always say if it's getting the job done, if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. But obviously, OP's 4690K isn't getting the job done to their satisfaction anymore. Second, it is usually not that affordable when first released. From where I sit, Intel isn't always cheaper anymore. Who here realistically thinks that anyone will be able to touch an AM5 build for less than $10,000 if / when it is released? Which brings me to my third point -- supply, which always impacts pricing.

 

Folks, we have been in a semi / superconductor shortage that perpetuated ridiculous pricing on existing hardware when it was expected to drop. Obviously, it didn't. Hell, it took me three months of searching to get my hands on a 5900X for my AM4, and I paid top dollar for it! Only six months later are prices dropping even slightly -- something I don't look to continue. Fourthly, with current-platform resources as-yet untapped, (the 5900X, 5950X and 5800X3D are a good example of this) I seriously doubt the AM5 is going to be worth the money for a good few years yet. It has yet to be released, so no one in the consumer market actually KNOWS ANYTHING about it, only press releases. Forgive the indelicacy, but it's a lot like masturbation without the payoff.

[GuiltySpark_]

45 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

  

I seriously doubt the AM5 is going to be worth the money for a good few years yet. 

I'll be honest i'm not entirely sure where you're getting this idea. It makes very little sense to suggest a brand new AM4/Zen3 platform for long term use today. There is absolutely zero upgrade path, none, they're not making any more chips for that board so an investment makes less than zero sense. In a couple years when you want to upgrade, 5950x and 5800x3D will not be considered an "upgrade", really. 

 

I loved the platform too but I built it a year and a half ago when Ryzen 5000 launched, in that time we've moved on and 12th gen makes more sense to build today. Tomorrow? Definitely still not AM4 with nothing available to upgrade to.

 

It will still be available as AMD has made clear but its just not a smart purchase anymore if you're trying to get the most for your money.

[An0maly_76]

14 minutes ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

I'll be honest i'm not entirely sure where you're getting this idea. It makes very little sense to suggest a brand new AM4/Zen3 platform for long term use today. There is absolutely zero upgrade path, none, they're not making any more chips for that board so an investment makes less than zero sense. 

 

I loved the platform too but I built it a year and a half ago when Ryzen 5000 launched, in that time we've moved on and 12th gen makes more sense to build today. Tomorrow? Definitely still not AM4 with nothing available to upgrade to. In a couple years when you want to upgrade, 5950x and 5800x3D will make even less sense over 5900x.

 

It will still be available as AMD has made clear but its just not a smart purchase anymore if you're trying to get the most for your money.

With all due respect, who's to say that the 5900X/5950X will even need upgrading in a couple years? Consumer market gaming is not likely to fully utilize even the 5800X3D for a while yet. And I would hardly suggest anyone blow their wad on a brand new platform with ZERO consumer market testing. Even the Zen3 had some quality control issues initially. Like I said, most gaming processors today are only six or eight core -- the Zen3s far surpass that. No offense to OP, but there is a huge difference between continuing with the best of the best in a currently produced and proven platform, and clinging to a socket design with no support or current production. I honestly don't think the performance of the AM5 will be worth it for a while because current gaming has not even fully utilized the best Zen3s yet.

Edited May 25, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised

[GuiltySpark_]

25 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

With all due respect, who's to say that the 5900X/5950X will even need upgrading in a couple years?

It won't, not if you're looking at it like as a "need" scenario. Personally I upgrade because I enjoy hardware and its a hobby, not for any necessity but that's besides the point here. 

 

Lets forget AM5/Zen4 for a minute, the point still stands that 12th gen is out right now and in the majority of cases is a far better buy than any Zen3 chip, especially on the budget front. You seem very proud of your 5900x system and your decision to purchase it, as I was of my 5800x system, but that doesn't dissuade me from making suggestions to others a year and a half later to purchase into it when faster, cheaper options have since been released and are well accepted/tested.

 

Perfect example, 12700k is cheaper today on Amazon than 5900x and outperforms it in nearly every single scenario. Its a no brainer, as they say.

[An0maly_76]

14 minutes ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

It won't, not if you're looking at it like as a "need" scenario. Personally I upgrade because I enjoy hardware and its a hobby, not for any necessity but that's besides the point here. 

 

Lets forget AM5/Zen4 for a minute, the point still stands that 12th gen is out right now and in the majority of cases is a far better buy than any Zen3 chip, especially on the budget front. You seem very proud of your 5900x system and your decision to purchase it, as I was of my 5800x system, but that doesn't dissuade me from making suggestions to others a year and a half later to purchase into it when faster, cheaper options have since been released and are well accepted/tested.

 

Perfect example, 12700k is cheaper today on Amazon than 5900x and outperforms it in nearly every single scenario. Its a no brainer, as they say.

12700k is an LGA1700 and will require a new board anyway in OP's case. Even if it did not, it's not that much smarter a buy from where I sit. Maybe compared to the 5950X, currently the last word in Zen3, and overkill at the moment. But I expect that to change in the future, and compared to the 5900X...

 

 

10% faster and perhaps 7% cheaper? That's not that big of a gap to me. We can all give our opinions, but it is ultimately OP's decision. All this "Ford vs Chevy" style bickering is pointless. And when you get right down to it, that really is all it is in most cases... groupies from their respective camps pointing out the shortcomings of the competition and the merits of their preferred brand. But I stand by my thoughts that the potential of Zen3 has yet to be fully tapped, and I doubt Zen4 will be be as reliable and stable in the beginning of its tenure. Nor do I expect it to be as affordable. Not exactly an ad man's dream, would you say?

[GuiltySpark_]

Userbenchmark. Sigh... 

 

Groupies, specifically brand groupies I have a problem with as I know that many people do this, however what i'm arguing for is the complete opposite. Buying what gives you the best return for your money, plain and simple. 

 

My only camp is my wallet. Observe benchmarks and general reviews, purchase accordingly. 

[An0maly_76]

  

22 minutes ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

Userbenchmark. Sigh... 

\My only camp is my wallet.

 

While I somewhat agree with the userbenchmark sentiment, when one reaches the upper echelons of hierarchy within a given platform, one finds it harder to find real-world benchmarks and testing. Linus gets a lot of new stuff as a freebie, if only for review, and when some of these videos are discussing hardware that costs $10,000-$60,000, I think I'll stick with what I know works.

 

If it cost me $2500 to build a top-shelf Zen3, I can only imagine a brand-new Zen4 / AM5 will cost at least 2-3x that when first released. Especially since they are rumored to only support DDR5 RAM, which alone is 3x the cost of DDR4. But you label the AM4 a bad buy, while saying your only camp is your wallet? I'm just saying, AM5 is not going to be the bargain buy you may expect for at least a few years. Which is why I would have chosen AM4 for my recent build even if AM5 had been available.

 

And yes, wallet is a good thing to consider. However, you have said that you like hardware and suggest you upgrade as a hobby, not necessarily due to need. That is hardly the status quo for many of us. I found no comparable Intel package that would be any cheaper for OP, hence I recommended the package I did. Whether OP waits for AM5, waits for a more budget-minded 12th-gen package, or goes all in with an AM4, the cold, hard truth is that their current platform is truly dead-end and and much closer to dead than the AM4.

 

I actually looked at Intel before buying my 5900X. The whole reason I bought my 5900X was that MSI, in their endless buffoonery, stated that the B450M Bazooka in my previous rig supported a 5900X through BIOS update. If I had known that this was in error (which MSI tried to cover up, citing the age of my board), I would certainly gone a slightly different direction on my build. And while it would have been cheaper to do so, I am glad that I wound up with the package I did, though I wish the price waves had crested a bit before purchasing. Ninety days later, I could best the same build with faster RAM, a 3070ti and possibly a faster M.2 for about the same or less. Oh, well. Buyer's remorse is a fool's errand -- no one knows what pricing or anything else is going to do until it happens. The only certainties in PC hardware are as follows:

 

Today's hardware is never worth the same in six months.

Tomorrow's hardware is unproven.

Yesterday's hardware can still have a lot of life left in it, and can be an unrealized gem per the first certainty.

 

To elaborate on the "Ford vs Chevy" style bickering... My next thought sums it up perfectly, I think.

 

GM and Ford have both released revolutionary new engine platforms several times in the past 15 years. None have been without their problems when new. And that is exactly why I never buy the newest PC hardware available. Electronics are much more fickle.

Edited May 25, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[An0maly_76]

3 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

  I seriously doubt the AM5 is going to be worth the money for a good few years yet.

2 hours ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

I'll be honest i'm not entirely sure where you're getting this idea. It makes very little sense to suggest a brand new AM4/Zen3 platform for long term use today. There is absolutely zero upgrade path, none, they're not making any more chips for that board so an investment makes less than zero sense.

Here's one place I'm getting this idea, and the guy makes a lot of valid points, most of which echo my own sentiments.

 

[pauloforte]

I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion. I really am. I haven't been looking at the CPU space at all because my system has been fine for my needs until a few months ago, and I've only been looking at GPUs, so this has been utterly informative.

3 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

  

I don't know what kind of display you have, but if it can operate at 60 hz, it might be better to just limp on the 4690K's iGPU with Vertical Synchronization and the like enabled to stabilize its output until a more substantial budget is reached. You can do much better in one shot, IMO.

 

I have recently upgraded to a 24" 1080p 144Hz 1ms display. That should already give you an idea where my priorities lie when looking for a PC: I don't need the greatest, just something that allows me to enjoy spending a couple hours a day gaming. I have been using my PC with the iGPU since the card died. I'm not gaming like I used to - Geforce Now has been my fix for the time being.

3 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

  

I think one thing that kinda smacks some people in the face all at once is that as long as it runs and it works, they don't realize just how far behind their platform can be, or even far behind even one or two generations or socket designs can leave them. OP's 4960K is the LGA1150 socket, which was introduced in 2013, nine years ago, on which the last Pentium-branded processors were based. The 4960K itself was released in 2014, eight years ago, stats show it was discontinued in 2017. Since then, LGA1151, introduced in 2015, has come and gone.

 

Quite frankly, OP, your 4960K's 3.9 Ghz would be plenty in today's market -- if it had more cores. The average gaming processor today has six or eight cores, yours has four. It might still be good for setting up a firewall, but if you remember the Lethal Weapon movies, in today's gaming world, this would sum up the the 4960K's thoughts...

(...)

Sources show the LGA1200 platform was released in 2020. At two years old, with Intel's release of the LGA1700 platform and their pattern of here today, gone tomorrow, LGA1200 is likely being eyed or even slated for discontinuation as we speak. The Intel crowd call the AM4 a dead platform, but what about the fact that the 12100F is STILL a 4-core processor, made for an obsolete and discontinued socket design? Pot and kettle, I say. In contrast, the AM4 platform has at least three processors available with 8+ cores -- processors that have yet to breathe hard with current gaming demands. Dead-end platform, indeed!

 

2 hours ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

I'll be honest i'm not entirely sure where you're getting this idea. It makes very little sense to suggest a brand new AM4/Zen3 platform for long term use today. There is absolutely zero upgrade path, none, they're not making any more chips for that board so an investment makes less than zero sense. In a couple years when you want to upgrade, 5950x and 5800x3D will not be considered an "upgrade", really. 

 

I loved the platform too but I built it a year and a half ago when Ryzen 5000 launched, in that time we've moved on and 12th gen makes more sense to build today. Tomorrow? Definitely still not AM4 with nothing available to upgrade to.

 

It will still be available as AMD has made clear but its just not a smart purchase anymore if you're trying to get the most for your money.

Consider I am not planning on upgrading for another, let's say worst-case, 5 years. Even if I would choose the state-of-the-art, barely released innovative platform today, what do you think the chances are that in at least 5 years I would have a compelling upgrade for that same platform which gives me again the same time-span? Maybe the chances are not minimal, but why should I bank on that? Especially when the "old" platform isn't bottlenecking my system and possesses all the features I do require.

This is why I never looked at upgrade paths or at how "dead" a platform is - unless of course new architectures have new features which I can see with some confidence being a game-changer within those years.

When I got the 4690k, in 2014, loads of people classified that as overkill at the time because "games don't utilize more than a couple cores"... Fast-forward 8 years and I'm compelled to get a whole new architecture, so where's that overkill now? Where's the upgradeability now? It did the job by getting me this far: no complains. I never felt that awesome CPU was holding me down (except for the latest months maybe), even if it was using a relatively old platform for its time even. But would it be fair to expect to have a meaningful upgrade at this moment?

There is undoubtedly a difference in the way we define "need to upgrade". Even in my case, "need" is relative: I want to have a PC which I don't need to worry about for the next 5 years at least. I want to be able to spend a couple hours a day playing my growing games library - which features mostly not very demanding games - at not very demanding settings. Heck, I still have to play The Witcher 3, and the last 2 Tomb Raiders... My most played game this last couple years was Anno 1800... I play Overwatch and Doom. Only recently I got into CoD Warzone (no comments, friends play it, it's for the social aspect...) and that's where I felt my PC's age. But otherwise the only reason I'm considering upgrading my whole PC to current generation technology is the fact that it will allow me to not worry about compatibility for another 5 years.

[GuiltySpark_]

No matter what you buy, you'll have a faster system. That's really all I can say anymore it seems. Just thought I'd give you advice on what makes the most price/performance sense that's available today but ultimately you can do whatever you want.

[pauloforte]

Well of course: if I just wanted a faster system than what I have now, my choices would be very easy. I'd just get whatever is available now.

But I want something that is still relevant in 5 years (if anyone can even guarantee that)

[CT854]

6 minutes ago, pauloforte said:

But I want something that is still relevant in 5 years (if anyone can even guarantee that)

 

Genuine question - if you're not upgrading because you want more performance and you're fine with an R9 270X's performance, what are you hoping to get out of buying a new card? What does "still relevant in 5 years" actually mean to you?

 

The camp where people are telling you that a 1650S is sufficient basically rests on this question. Don't spend more than you need to based on what you're expecting out of your system.

[pauloforte]

1 minute ago, CT854 said:

 

Genuine question - if you're not upgrading because you want more performance and you're fine with an R9 270X's performance, what are you hoping to get out of buying a new card? What does "still relevant in 5 years" actually mean to you?

 

The camp where people are telling you that a 1650S is sufficient basically rests on this question. Don't spend more than you need to based on what you're expecting out of your system.

Still relevant in 5 years means that in 2027 it can play a brand game at minimum 1080p 144 Hz (at least those are the settings I use now so I'm already being conservative in assuming those won't be more demanding in 5 years) with acceptable performance (= at least 60 fps).

 

It just seems to me counter-productive to buy anything less than latest gen - assuming it fits my budget - if I'm expecting it to milk it for as long as possible. A 1650S had its prime in 2019 (I think), so wouldn't it start suffering earlier than a 30-series card?

I know I mentioned my ageing games library and The Witcher 3 and Anno and such but wouldn't it be a complete waste of money to realize 2 years from now that I want to play some brand new game but can't and come to the conclusion that I didn't make the right investment?

My current rig gave me no regrets ever, and that's what I want from such a large investment. I don't mind paying a bit more when I know I won't have any regrets on it for many years to come.

[CT854]

2 minutes ago, pauloforte said:

It just seems to me counter-productive to buy anything less than latest gen - assuming it fits my budget

This isn't necessarily true, but I can see where the sentiment comes from.

 

For reference, I had an i5-4690K/GTX 970 before I upgraded to my current rig. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was the fact that during lockdown, I played a lot of Assassin's Creed: Odyssey, but struggled at higher resolutions which was unacceptable to me since it was such a visually stunning game. I ran that combination for a while, about 5-6 years by the time I ran that PC. If you want to target something like that, then I can see how the RTX 3070 is a good choice.

 

I agree with the above comments about bottlenecking being a concern with your CPU. Ask yourself this -- can you see yourself upgrading platforms at some point in the next few years? And yes, this includes AM4, even possibly buying used at a discount (which is possible for Zen 3 once Zen 4 drops). If the answer is yes, then absolutely a 3070 would be a fine choice. But if the answer is no, you'd pour money into a 3070 that you'll see age much more quickly than it should because of bottlenecks.

[An0maly_76]

Don't get me wrong, GS -- there's nothing wrong with experiencing new tech and upgrading whenever you like. It's just prudent to remember that not everyone has that luxury.

[GuiltySpark_]

20 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

Don't get me wrong, GS -- there's nothing wrong with experiencing new tech and upgrading whenever you like. It's just prudent to remember that not everyone has that luxury.

Sure, but I'm not seeing how that's really even part of the discussion, the OP is talking about upgrading either now or in the near future. Their system is 8 years old.. they've waited plenty of time.

This conversation just keeps going off the rails into topics not even really of concern. My only concern was what to buy if he was buying today, plain and simple. 

[Aragorn-]

One point not mentioned thats worth considering. Due to the architectural differences and the way the driver/scheduler works, AMD cards seem less hard on the CPU than their nvidia counterparts. I dont fully understand it, but its been shown a few times that in CPU limited situations, the AMD card tends to do better, sometimes significantly so.

 

As such, i'd be seriously considering a 6700xt over the 3070.

 

As for the general idea of a fast GPU and slow CPU, taken to extremes is ofcourse not ideal. But buying a card now to last you the next 5+ years, i dont see the issue there. If you buy a low end GPU now (say a 1650), you'll have low performance in everything. If you buy the good GPU now, you'll have good performance in some titles and crap performance in others, but i can be absolutely sure that at no point would the 3070 (or 6700xt) perform worse than the 1650 would, and in CPU limited titles you can often crank up the eye candy for zero framerate impact.

 

I personally ran a 2600x alongside a 6900xt for a year. Many folks shouted about how it would be awful. It wasnt. I could run 4k high details in all the games i play no bother. Some titles had the odd bit of stuttering and things but it was a significant step up from the Vega.

[VesperMoirai]

If you go into it knowing your GPU won't be fully utilized to its best until you upgrade then it should be fine. Newer features are always better to have. A 290x vs a 3070 is a huuuuuge difference. You might not get all of the performance benefits. But it will most certainly be better than that CPU paired with a 290x.