add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

** What CPU for has the best value - performance - future proof ? **

Munar4real

2 months ago

Ryzen7 2700x vs Ryzen7 3700x vs Ryzen9 3900x I have made 3 options. The only difference is the MOBO and CPU.

My plan is to stick with the build for 3+ years without further upgrades (maybe GPU). Trying to balance value with performance and future proof specs. I have listed them as Mid, Mid-High, and High end build.

Mid End: https://pcpartpicker.com/user/Munar4real/saved/#view=8XYMcf $1453.88

Mid-High: https://pcpartpicker.com/user/Munar4real/saved/#view=kH86RB $1654.87

High End: https://pcpartpicker.com/user/Munar4real/saved/#view=vjNK4D $1944.87

I plan to game, music production (hobby), minor Blender use (<5% usage), and CAD solve. Looking for at least 8 cores, wondering if the performance increase are worth the differences in price.

My gut feeling is that I won't need to upgrade the high end for significantly more time that the other options, but the mid end provides great value for current day applications.

Also if you have a suggested change please let me know. Such as using the Mid-high MOBO with the High end CPU.

Comments

  • 2 months ago
  • 5 points

High end today is mid-end tommorrow which is low-end the next day. Future proofing might have been something in the Sandy - Bridge to Kaby Lake era where improvements were somewhat iterative/diminishing. With Intel and AMD now playing tit for tat we are going to be treated to multicore multithread behemoths. Who knows where it will settle down? 128 cores? Build a computer today, best you can afford, use it and enjoy it. Replace old chipset with new when and if circumstances require it. You might get 1 year use out of it before changing, you might get 10 years. This is up to you.

I would go for the Ryzen 9 3900X build myself. If you have the dough, splash it on the best you can afford. Gaming is one application, particularly if streaming, where you will be glad you chose the 3900X. If not streaming, Gaming performance levels out somewhat with the 3700X. The 2700X is a bit behind but not at all shabby.

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

Dead Links - permission denied.

There's no such thing as future proofing a PC, new technologies come out all the time.

By the end of this year, DDR5 is scheduled to be released, hardware support soon to follow.

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

Links are private. There's no such thing as future proof, as others have said. The only thing you can do is get the best setup for the amount of money you are comfortable spending.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Looking back on whose upgrading, and when.... Folks who bought $330 i7's with hyperthreading in the sandy/ivy/haswell era have often had the option to keep those machines in service for ~5-8 years, because performance has remained acceptable. The extra ~$130 over the price of the i5 they could have gone with, does appear to have added ~1-4 years of useful life to systems on average.

Started seeing WAVES of people on PCP wanting to upgrade out of their i5-3570/4460/6500/7500 type systems over the last few years, meanwhile, lots of people still running their i7-2600K/3770K/4770K/6700K/7700K systems.

The point is, a higher end CPU (as well as having enough RAM or willingness to upgrade it) does seem to extend the useful life of a machine. If a $2000 machine lasts you 6 years, while the $1500 machine lasts 4 years, then the extra $500 will not have been a waste.

On the other hand, buying into the midstream of the market every 3-4 years has it's benefits as well. There's no right/wrong answer here, though it would make sense to "tune" the entirety of a build for the intended life of the machine. For a 3-4 year build, maybe 16-32GB RAM is appropriate. Maybe for a 5-7 year build, we should consider 32-64GB RAM. With RAM being so cheap right now (DDR4 finally reaching commodity level maturity), I'd be tempted to outfit a 3900X build with 64GB RAM to really lock in the long haul.

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

My apologies, I uncheck the private box and save it but for some reason it reverts back. The links should work now. Thanks for all the advice.

I can afford the high end but am not sure if it's more wise to save for future upgrades or go full out now.

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

If gaming is going to be the main feature and you are not investing in 240Hz or 300Hz panels (i.e. you can live with frame rates between 60 and 165fps) your main up-gradable for the foreseeable future will be the GPU. While faster and better CPU's, particularly with DDR5 Ram, are inbound, if you are gaming, an i9-9900K or Ryzen 9 3900X will date slower than the rendering power required by the GPU. If you have a moderately powerful rig right now, stick until next gen AMD/Intel launch. If you do not have a high performing PC there is no sense in waiting. Buy and build now and keep an eye on benchmarks in future titles for upgrading your GPU. Moore's law is pretty much dead, shrinking transistors is hitting quantum tunnelling effects, the CPU advancements as we know it will be settle to steady state in next 3 or 4 years.

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

Thank you for your advice and input.

From my understanding, it sounds like the Ryzen 9 3900X is a good idea because it wont be able to be fully utilized until applications and programs start demanding more performance?

I feel like now, with common usage of most people, we are not even going to be fully utilizing Ryzen's 8 cores (both 2700k and 3700k) for at least a year or 2. In regards to games and programs, excluding video renderings.

But I also do not understand the development in game improvements. Based on the next PlayStation and Xbox gen, it seems like games might be developing to take use of the 8 cores and may demand higher power systems. Maybe games and software are improving faster, causing systems to become outdated sooner?

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

If you avoid typical "Workstation" loads many would argue you do not need more than 6 - 8 cores. Many Workstation tasks, rendering, modelling etc scale with cores. I work in R&D and simulation models I have even a 28 core overclocked W3175X is too slow and I highly doubt new Threadripper will help improve things much either. If you do not work in these areas a processor with more than 8 cores right now is overkill. But... things change and evolve. Software and game development teams, once the median is 6-8 core hyperthreaded processors, will likely scale their applications.

The CPU for the Playstation 5 will be slow compared to high end desktop models. If we assume 35W TDP max, it will be a down clocked 2700X or 3700X. The coding models/function calls will not be the same for Windows. Consoles have been 8 core CPU's for years (well two blocks of four, weird architecture) and most gaming ports use 2-4 cores. That said we should anticipate that 6-8 thread/core usage will be common in future as ownership of such chips becomes common. It makes it easier for teams responsible for porting - less code to tweak.

Matching core counts to tasks in a one to one manner is not optimal since our PC's are always running dozens of background tasks. If you choose a 12 core Ryzen 9 3900X it is not a terrible idea even though many would consider it overkill.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube