Difficult decision - Ryzen CPU choice - 3700X or wait for 5700G?
Hi all,
I am in the process of upgrading my 15-year-old PC and I am unsure which I should wait for the new Ryzen 5700G or buy a 3700X (I do have a graphics card, though)?
One thing I am quite disappointed is that the 5700G only offers PCIe 3.0 instead of PCIe 4.0, I wonder why? Do you?
Your help and advice are always appreciated.
Thanks.
Re: Difficult decision - Ryzen CPU choice - 3700X or wait for 5700G?
I have had a R7 1700 and upgraded that to a R5 3600 (less threads).
Both processors are amazing value but I didn't notice much change and my preference for value would remain the 1700
having said all this I wouldn't invest in a 3700x now, try and save for a cheap good maybe second hand 5800x and you will be set for half a decade maybe more.
If you really can't afford 330 for a 5800x, the next best value is a 3600 at 145-150, unless you see a 3700x under 185
Re: Difficult decision - Ryzen CPU choice - 3700X or wait for 5700G?
Some idea of what you are using the PC for would be useful in trying to help. Compared to a 15 year old PC anything new will be a big upgrade o in someways you can't go far wrong.
Why have you singled out those parts?
Overall, the 5700G seems poor value unless you really want the integrated graphics. For gaming with a GPU, the 5600X is faster. As a workhorse, the 3700X is often faster thanks to the 5700G having a smaller cache.
Limiting the 5700G to PCIe 3 seems short sighted of AMD. I expect they did it to keep the heat down in a chip really designed for laptops, but even in laptops people will want a PCIe4 SSD now. It makes sense for graphics though, a 5700G is unlikely to be paired with a GPU fast enough that PCIe4 could make a difference (though even that changes if a low end GPU doesn't have enough ram on it).
Re: Difficult decision - Ryzen CPU choice - 3700X or wait for 5700G?
those two chips are very very different. Why are you limiting your choice to just those two and not one of the 5000 series?
Re: Difficult decision - Ryzen CPU choice - 3700X or wait for 5700G?
A Core i9 10900 can be had for around £280:
https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/int...-cache-3762250
Also,I would suggest looking at a Core i5 10400/11400 with a B560 motherboard. They are not far off a Ryzen 5 5600X and are far cheaper.
Re: Difficult decision - Ryzen CPU choice - 3700X or wait for 5700G?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAT-THE-FIFTH
That is assuming you get one of the good B560 boards, they're more variable than AM4. IMO with ryzen widely available at retail (e.g. scan has 3700X for £250, and 5600X, 5800X, and 5950X in stock) intel systems are a lot less attractive
Re: Difficult decision - Ryzen CPU choice - 3700X or wait for 5700G?
If I were the OP my CPU suggestions would be:
1.)Core i5 10400F/11400F if you don't mind a 6 core. They are faster than a Ryzen 5 3600,and split the difference with a Ryzen 5 5600X,but especially in the case of the Core i5 10400F is much cheaper.
2.)Core i7 10700F/10700/10700K,is better than a Ryzen 7 3700X. If you can get one of the deals from Amazon EU with the Ryzen 7 3700X for around £200,its worth it. At around £250 the Core i7 10700 series will be faster overall in gaming.
3.)If you don't mind spending over £300,I would get a Ryzen 7 5800X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xlucine
That is assuming you get one of the good B560 boards, they're more variable than AM4. IMO with ryzen widely available at retail (e.g. scan has 3700X for £250, and 5600X, 5800X, and 5950X in stock) intel systems are a lot less attractive
https://i.imgur.com/44URWEr.png
Remember,Hardware Unboxed on purposes uses low airflow scenarios as an extreme test - if you use an air cooler there is additional airflow over the VRMs. Blender is also far more taxing than most games.
The MSI B560 PRO-VDH Wifi is under £100:
https://www.scan.co.uk/products/msi-...gen2-micro-atx
https://www.scan.co.uk/products/msi-...b-32-gen2micro
It can run a Core i9 10900K fine at its default all core speed of 4.2GHZ and the VRM temperatures are fine,but only has issues if you want to overclock it. The £130 Gigabyte Aorus PRO seems fine,if you want to run the CPU over 4.5GHZ:
https://www.cclonline.com/product/34...xoCCEYQAvD_BwE
A Core i9 10900 is less of an issue than a Core i9 10900K,especially for gaming. I would rather have a Core i9 10900 over a Ryzen 5 5600X,as it will last longer,ie,10 cores vs 6 cores. The Core i5 10400F/11400F are just better for gaming overall than a Ryzen 5 3600.
The reality is under £200 AMD isn't really competitive anymore. I have both a Ryzen 7 3700X and a Core i5 10400F,and in most reviews a tweaked Core i5 10400F will match or slightly beat a Ryzen 7 3700X. Will the Ryzen 7 3700X last longer....sure,but it costs more.
It also gets worse with older games. A tweaked Core i5 11400F isn't much slower than a Ryzen 5 5600X unless its niche scenarios,ie,some Esports games. Then there were the deals on the Core i7 10700 for closer to £200 a while back.
Its a shame these deals are starting to dry up! :(
https://static.techspot.com/articles...ch/Average.png
That is from Hardware Unboxed/Techspot too. You can literally get a Core i5 10400F,an aftermarket CPU cooler and the MSI B560 PRO-VDH Wifi almost less than the cost of a Ryzen 5 5600X.
MSI are even doing cashback now:
https://www.cclonline.com/content/ca...he-heat-lp.jpg
So a Core i5 10400F,MSI B560M PRO-VDH and a CM Hyper 212 EVO V2,comes to around £231.
You could argue AMD has better upgradeability - but then I suspect Ryzen 9 CPUs will hold their value.
Re: Difficult decision - Ryzen CPU choice - 3700X or wait for 5700G?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DanceswithUnix
Some idea of what you are using the PC for would be useful in trying to help. Compared to a 15 year old PC anything new will be a big upgrade o in someways you can't go far wrong.
Why have you singled out those parts?
Overall, the 5700G seems poor value unless you really want the integrated graphics. For gaming with a GPU, the 5600X is faster. As a workhorse, the 3700X is often faster thanks to the 5700G having a smaller cache.
Limiting the 5700G to PCIe 3 seems short sighted of AMD. I expect they did it to keep the heat down in a chip really designed for laptops, but even in laptops people will want a PCIe4 SSD now. It makes sense for graphics though, a 5700G is unlikely to be paired with a GPU fast enough that PCIe4 could make a difference (though even that changes if a low end GPU doesn't have enough ram on it).
I have to say that I would only consider a 5700G if building a mini PC, but does a PCIe4 SSD make sense in a laptop with the increased power consumption of - at least the faster - drives? Although I guess a faster drive could race to idle faster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAT-THE-FIFTH
While there are major caveats with low-resolution gaming benchmarks, the can provide an indication of future performance.
On the Anandtech bench with the 5600X vs 10700 (non K, Anandtech don't have 10400 results):
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2676?vs=2658
some of the more CPU bound tests like Civ see huge differences.
https://i.imgur.com/9z3e27X.png
Since the OP keeps their system even longer than me a 5000 series might be worth it.
Re: Difficult decision - Ryzen CPU choice - 3700X or wait for 5700G?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kompukare
While there are major caveats with low-resolution gaming benchmarks, the can provide an indication of future performance.
On the Anandtech bench with the 5600X vs 10700 (non K, Anandtech don't have 10400 results):
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2676?vs=2658
some of the more CPU bound tests like Civ see huge differences.
https://i.imgur.com/9z3e27X.png
Since the OP keeps their system even longer than me a 5000 series might be worth it.
Civilisation VI is turned based,so not sure what you are trying to show here,and AT results are weird. It is also one of the few strategy games which actually seems to have gotten Zen2 optimisations. CFL and Zen2 trade blows in the game.
https://overclock3d.net/gfx/articles...175348928l.jpg
https://hexus.net/media/uploaded/202...94530997b3.png
https://i.imgur.com/j1ibLa2.png
A Ryzen 5 5600X has the same performance a Ryzen 9 5950X if you look at AT bench:
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2020/2868
Turn time in seconds is the more accurate benchmark and there is not much between them. If anything it shows you a tweaked Core i5 10400F is amazing value for money for Civilization VI.
The game does not thread well,and that is not how things are going. So are you now saying a Ryzen 5 5600X is going to last as long as Ryzen 5 5950X in gaming....do you really believe this??
The other issue is also the use of very high end GPUs at very low resolutions,and the assumption games won't just use more taxing settings in the future. So there is another question about GPU limitations,especially one you enable RT,which is going to become more and more commonly used.
As I said later in the thread these are my suggestions:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAT-THE-FIFTH
If I were the OP my CPU suggestions would be:
1.)Core i5 10400F/11400F if you don't mind a 6 core. They are faster than a Ryzen 5 3600,and split the difference with a Ryzen 5 5600X,but especially in the case of the Core i5 10400F is much cheaper.
2.)Core i7 10700F/10700/10700K,is better than a Ryzen 7 3700X. If you can get one of the deals from Amazon EU with the Ryzen 7 3700X for around £200,its worth it. At around £250 the Core i7 10700 series will be faster overall in gaming.
3.)If you don't mind spending over £300,I would get a Ryzen 7 5800X.
Plus a Core i9 10900 would be my choice every day of the week over a Ryzen 5 5600X under £300. With 10C it will actually have a decently long lifespan. If the OP is upgrading once every 10 years,its 8 cores as a minimum,or 6C if they are very budget constrained.
Its what I have done for the last 10+ years - given up a bit of single core performance if I can get more cores and threads. Q6600 over an E8400,Xeon E3 1230 V2/Core i7 3700 non-K over an overclocked Core i5 2500K,Ryzen 5 2600 vs i5 8400,Core i5 10400 vs Ryzen 5 3400G, and Ryzen 7 3700X vs Ryzen 5 5600X. It's also helped by the fact some of my non-gaming workloads favour more threads,and I paid less for the higher thread count CPUs,as people got dazzled by the gaming results of the lower core count CPUs. In the end all of those choices not only gave me a decent lifespan,I also got a decent secondhand price for them,as by then games were threading better too.
Plus with so many games optimised for Intel CPUs still,not everything is a slam dunk outside a few E-Sports games where Zen3 does well.
Just look at big releases such as CB2077 and RDR2,where Intel isn't really slower.
Many people suggested the Ryzen 7 3700X over the Core i5 10600K for gaming,despite the latter having faster cores. The advice was because games will thread better,so Intel will have more issues in the future with less cores. I remember all the people suggesting getting an E8400 over a Q6600,and I told them the Q6600 will last longer and it did.
This is my experience too - more cores and threads tends to lead to a more consistent experience.
Having used both a Ryzen 5 2600,Ryzen 5 3600 and a Core i5 10400F myself,a Ryzen 7 3700X has more consistent performance especially when doing stuff like video capture during gaming,or running background tasks when gaming.
People are falling into the massive trap I have seen over the last 15 years,at intergenerational periods in consoles.We literally went from 4C/4T CPUs being fine to 6C/12T CPUs being the sweetspot,with the Jaguar generation of consoles,which use 8 Atom class cores.
The Core i5 7600K thrashed the Ryzen 5 1600 in 2017,but in 2020 that was not the case anymore. The difference between CFL/RKL and Zen3 is far less.
Most games are still developed with the old consoles in mind. What do you think is going to happen when console games move entirely to properly using the new consoles?? They have double the threads and at least 3X the single core performance of the previous generations.
6C/12T CPUs are going to progressively get worse and worse - IMHO people suggesting a Ryzen 5 5600X to last 5 years over a Core i7 10700 I don't think its going to happen,especially with minimums. What happens when you have games like MS Flight Simulator,gets major updates which start moving more functions to more threads? This is what the latest update does.
6 core CPUs are a budget option at under £200. The Ryzen 5 5600X,costs as much as a Core i5 10400F,B560 motherboard and Hyper 212 cooler on its own. The Ryzen 5 5600X has also a useless stock cooler - AMD downgraded it to the Wraith Stealth. In the end £221 against nearly £400,ie,£250 Ryzen 5 5600X,£100 B550 motherboard and a £25 CPU cooler?
That is literally the cost of a decent 16GB 3600MHZ DDR4 kit,and a 1TB NVME SSD.
My Core i5 10400 cost me a whole £103 due to a damaged boxed. A Ryzen 5 5600X was £280 at the time,ie,2.8X more expensive.
6C is great if you are on a budget,but not at a premium price. Its great if you want to run older games,or upgrade very quickly. Remember all the people criticised overpriced CPUs such as the Core i5/Core i7 when the Ryzen 5 CPUs,had lower per core performance but more threads?
People can't just flip-flop on core count arguments,just because AMD is now charging more per core and is faster per core. That would mean,people are admitting buying AMD before Zen3 over Intel was a bad move. Or even buying a Phenom II over a Core2 because the latter was faster per core too!
Re: Difficult decision - Ryzen CPU choice - 3700X or wait for 5700G?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kompukare
I have to say that I would only consider a 5700G if building a mini PC, but does a PCIe4 SSD make sense in a laptop with the increased power consumption of - at least the faster - drives? Although I guess a faster drive could race to idle faster.
My work laptop is basically a desktop replacement engineering workstation, so yeah a really fast SSD is nice.
More to the point, a lot of these things are tick box comparisons for corporate buyers. Machine A has more features than B, so pointy haired boss specifies A even if B is actually a better fit for the person using it.
Re: Difficult decision - Ryzen CPU choice - 3700X or wait for 5700G?
I actually on purpose used a lower performance DRAMless drive for my laptop,because it also consumed much less power than some other faster drives. So that meant more battery life. When I was abroad in a hot place,it had the added advantage of not nearly running as hot as the previous drive(was around 5C~10C cooler). But the most I tend to do on it is office tasks,and the odd bit of gaming. Might be different if I am transcoding 4K video! ;)
Re: Difficult decision - Ryzen CPU choice - 3700X or wait for 5700G?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DanceswithUnix
My work laptop is basically a desktop replacement engineering workstation, so yeah a really fast SSD is nice.
More to the point, a lot of these things are tick box comparisons for corporate buyers. Machine A has more features than B, so pointy haired boss specifies A even if B is actually a better fit for the person using it.
Fair enough.
I had always though tick box exercises were to bamboozle normal customers, hadn't realised they were also for the pointy haired ones. Makes sense, as the Dilbert's boss types certainly seem to be easy to bamboozle!
Was looking at (used) workstation laptops, and it's a pity that corporate buyers don't seem to appropriate the tick box of more SoDIMM slots. With new machines I guess it seldom makes a big difference but used buyers when the laptop is a few years old being able to fill four SoDIMMs, install multiple drives, or even replace the CPU is great.
Re: Difficult decision - Ryzen CPU choice - 3700X or wait for 5700G?
Re: Difficult decision - Ryzen CPU choice - 3700X or wait for 5700G?
Mine is Ryzen 3700x still happy with it. Brought it for £250 in March this year. Upgraded from old Sandybridge i7 2700K.:)
Re: Difficult decision - Ryzen CPU choice - 3700X or wait for 5700G?
My generic advice to the OP would be to consider exactly waht you'retrying to achieve. If you're upgrading a 15-yr old PC, it sounds as if you're a bit like me and regard the PC as a tool to get the job done, and not a hobby thing you wantto tweak and tune to play with. For instance, if I upgrade my garden fork and spade, it will only be for a really good reason. And I did recently, the reason being that the old ones (inherited when Dad uopgraded his, about 40 years ago) final gave up and rusted into a heap.
Until then, they dug holes as well as any new-fangled for and spade would, but having gone to the great garden-implement in the sky, my net problem was .... how 'good' should the replacement be? The answer was to look at comparative cost, and available budget.
I ended up with a rather nice, quality-branded stainless steel set that will no doubt outlive both my ability and inclination to dig holes ... and the inclination is already minimal. ;) The point was that while I could get an okay but reloatively cheap set, and the stainless steel ones were, oh I don't even remember, the £30-£40 difference didn't really matter hat much and I decided I just wanterd the 'better' ones and £40 isn't going to impact elsewhere on my lifestyle.
So it is with a new PC. I'm upgrading something like a 15-yr old one too, and I'm working out what I need, what I want, and how much I'm willing to spend above minimum, to indulge the 'want' bit.
So I'm bearing in mind a couple of principles :-
- diminishing marginal gain, and
- payback over a long period.
If I planned to upgrade evry year or so, I'd aim at maximum bang for buck sufficient to do for now. But as I do't plan on upgrading again soon, or indeed probably ever, I'm looking at my budget on a 'per year' basis, not a 'cost right now' basis.
Adain, an example. About 25 years ago, I wanted a new car. Obviously, it had to be something I could afford to both buy and run, and that is diofferent for all of us. I could buy a decent new .... whatever, say Ford, and upgrade every three or four years, but I don't do a huge mileage an wanted something nice. I bought a BMW M3. It was £40k-ish (with options, security and a rather tasty sound system) and I still have it. If I work out the depreciation over 25 years years, and add running costs (a bit higher than an average Ford but not as much as you might think) and compare to the costs of changing a ho-hum for every few years, it's been very cheap motoring, and I've spent 25 withs with an M3, not a Ford. For me, in my circumstances, a win-win despite the initial cost being much higher.
And so it is with the PC.
Diminishing marginal gain? If you don't know what I mean, thn fort most things and anything technology-related (computers, cameras, hi-fi, whatever) you can achieve a ntoiceable improvement by going up 'a step' and initially, the cost is modest. Going from £100 speakers to £200 speakers is very noticeable, but to get much gain from £1000 speakers is going to cost MUCH more.
Ditto processors. The higher up you go, the more it gets expensive to go up another step. My processis to go as high as I can, bearing in mind my payback is over many years, without it getting silly. This has to be in the context of overall budget, and for me, that meant a 5800X is okay but a threadripper .... I don't have the need but I do have better uses for the difference in cost. In short, I can buy a £5000 PC, or a £2000 PC, a £2500
camra and still have £500 left o er for indulgences. For me, the latter makes sense but for someone else, they may be willing and able to spend much more, or much less.
So if you are planning on this PC lsting the next 15 years (again) I'd advise buying the best you can afford right now, and rationalising the extra cost as being over 15 years, whereas buying a compromise might be cheaper right now but will probably cost a lot more (like changing Fords) over time.
If, repeat if you plan on this PC lasting you years, buy the best PC/mobo you can afford and re-use bits you can, like GPU. Using your existing GPU costs you £0, and sure, might be sub-optimal but signs are the graphics card market is starting to implode and return towards normal so maybe budget on uopgrading GPU when availability has stablised and pricing normalised a bit.
I thought about the 'G' processors but for me, with video encoding and photo applications high on my driver list for doing this, it's a compromise too far. For other people, with other needs, they make a lot of sense. Only you can decide whic is best for you but given I'm going for long term use, yes, things like PCIe 4 was a significant factor.
