The 7950X has an IGPU!

[DanceswithUnix]

The likes of Scan are listing the CPUs as more expensive than my original post, but AMDs shop is out of stock, where as Scan are in stock...

Amazon are listing the 7900X as £579, but then you can get a 5950X for £530.

I'm looking at building a machine at work, and the 5900X at £408 is probably the front runner. I (or at least the company) could stomach the extra £180 for the AM5 part, but my that ECC DDR5 isn't cheap and I want 64GB of it. Then there's the lack of Asus or Asrock B650 motherboards to take that ECC ram.

Even allowing for needing a GPU, AM4 is just so much cheaper even though I would love the extra performance and longevity of AM5. Maybe on the next build...

[Saracen999]

Scan seem to have stock for those that can take early adopter pricing:

7700X for £429
7900X for £595

https://www.scan.co.uk/shop/computer...3645/3644/3643

Motherboards are a bit scarce on Scan, but should start at £320 for an Asrock X670E or Asus TUF X670E board when in stock.

Cheapest atm is an MSI board for £350:

https://www.scan.co.uk/products/nda-...-32-gen2x2-atx

The 7900X (which is where I was looking) is a bit of an ouch, compared to 5900X. Mobo? Not so much. I was at a bit under £300 for a 570X with the features I want, anyway.

Don't forget DDR5 pricing though, and of a spec to get what you want from the respective CPU. It's better than it was but still a premium over DDR4.

I guess it comes down to what I want v. what I need. Realistically, what I need is probably a rung or two below what I was planning on for 5000, so .... WTF? Do what I want.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The 7900X (which is where I was looking) is a bit of an ouch, compared to 5900X. Mobo? Not so much. I was at a bit under £300 for a 570X with the features I want, anyway.

Don't forget DDR5 pricing though, and of a spec to get what you want from the respective CPU. It's better than it was but still a premium over DDR4.

I guess it comes down to what I want v. what I need. Realistically, what I need is probably a rung or two below what I was planning on for 5000, so .... WTF? Do what I want.

The Core i5 13600KF looks very solid in non-gaming scenarios:
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/th...#post-35946657

In many cases the Core i5 13600K matches or beats a Ryzen 7 7700X or Ryzen 9 5900X in video and image editing benchmarks.

It is also compatible with motherboards which use DDR4 and you loose about 10% by using DDR4 in most cases:
https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/...dr5_showdown/1

The Core i5 13600KF is around the £350 mark.

[[GSV]Trig]

Intel have really been bringing the goods with the i5 in the last few years..

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Intel have really been bringing the goods with the i5 in the last few years..

They have been great the last few generations. Once the B560 dropped in price,the Core i5 10400F and Core i5 11400F were excellent competition to the more expensive Ryzen 5 3600X and Ryzen 5 3600.

Then AMD jacked the pricing up of the Ryzen 5 5600X,and the Core i5 12600KF was a lower price(IIRC) and was faster. Then AMD lost interest with the sub £200 market and the Core i5 12400F was another excellent CPU.

Now the Core i5 13600KF thoroughly beats a Ryzen 5 7600X and makes the Ryzen 7 7700X look a bit silly. The Core i5 13400 is apparently a rebadged Core i5 12600K too(maybe without the K part).

It looks like AMD ignored the Intel meme cores at their peril,and they became the meme themselves!

[Saracen999]

The Core i5 13600KF looks very solid in non-gaming scenarios:
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/th...#post-35946657

In many cases the Core i5 13600K matches or beats a Ryzen 7 7700X or Ryzen 9 5900X in video and image editing benchmarks.

It is also compatible with motherboards which use DDR4 and you loose about 10% by using DDR4 in most cases:
https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/...dr5_showdown/1

The Core i5 13600KF is around the £350 mark.

Yup, but .... Win 11. Scheduler. No-go area for me. If it's a choice of paying the extra or putting up with that, I'll pay up. Am I being .... subborn? Maybe. Aw hell, yes. But I don't like some aspects of Win 11, one of which is menu bar on the bottom, and I also don't feel inclined to have to run 3rd party tools to bypass MS's arrogant decisions. So no Win 11 here. It took me long enough to concede to use W10.

[DanceswithUnix]

Don't forget DDR5 pricing though, and of a spec to get what you want from the respective CPU. It's better than it was but still a premium over DDR4.

Given the amount of ECC ram I am after, ISTR it was about £350 for DDR4 ECC vs about £750 for DDR5 ECC. I think that was the game over moment for AM5 for this build.

Yup, but .... Win 11. Scheduler. No-go area for me. If it's a choice of paying the extra or putting up with that, I'll pay up. Am I being .... subborn? Maybe. Aw hell, yes. But I don't like some aspects of Win 11, one of which is menu bar on the bottom, and I also don't feel inclined to have to run 3rd party tools to bypass MS's arrogant decisions. So no Win 11 here. It took me long enough to concede to use W10.

I'm starting to hear some quite spicy swearing from people trying to use Win 11. I only use Windows to launch games, so I'm usually not bothered by what version I run but I think I'll stick with 10 for now (he says typing in the comfort of Fedora Linux )

[DanceswithUnix]

Intel have really been bringing the goods with the i5 in the last few years..

Demonstrating once again that they only come up with good product when they they are forced to by a competitor and can no longer farm us like captive factory hens for money.

[Saracen999]

Given the amount of ECC ram I am after, ISTR it was about £350 for DDR4 ECC vs about £750 for DDR5 ECC. I think that was the game over moment for AM5 for this build.

I'm wavering between 32GB and possibly 64GB, and not bothered about ECC, so it's still a cost hit for DDR5, but to nowhere near the same extent. Also, my current main 'desktop' system (i.e. not the new laptop) is DDR2 and IIRC, Core Q9400S (Q6600 era, but the low TDP 'mobile' version), so it's not like I can even reuse existing DD4, 'cos I don't have any to reuse. So, I'm buying RAM for this system, whether DDR4 or DDR5. It wouldn't be the same calculation for anyone upgrading, that has suitable DDR4.

...

I'm starting to hear some quite spicy swearing from people trying to use Win 11. I only use Windows to launch games, so I'm usually not bothered by what version I run but I think I'll stick with 10 for now (he says typing in the comfort of Fedora Linux )

Interesting. I haven't really paid much attention to Win11 mutterings, good or bad, because I don't see a compelling case for me (stress, "me") to switch. I'm not suggesting there is, or isn't, a good case for anybody else. But purely personally, I am now (very reluctantly) off Win 7 for all but a legacy use or two (hardware) and most of my legacy needs have retired, whn I did.

So, I've brought my other needs into line with Win10. Audio software is, my photo stuff (ACDSee and Serif's Affinity Photo), backup (Macrium Reflect, plus the QNAP stuff in the NAS), media player (MediaMonkey Gold), FileCommander, etc, are all quite happy on Win11. So are the 'free' tools, like Libre, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc. And most of what else I do is on a Linux system already.

So .... when Win10 support dies (2025, if they stick to schedules) my plan is simply to move the Win10 machine behind my airgap, and ONLY do anything requiring internet access on the Linux system.

I don't feel I'm going to need Win11 in the way I ended up needing Win10. Those applications I mentioned above, well, if/when new versions come out needing W11, I'll just stick with the current versions. They're all feature-complete for what I need, and I don't see my needs expanding along with new features. "Want", up to a point? Maybe. But "need"? Nope. I've already declined to upgrade ACDSee from the 2022 version I paid for just before they brought out 2023 (about 3 weeks later, and wanted an upgrade fee for), so I just don't plan on upgrading anything that either requires a fee or needs Win11, unless I find a major bug in something. I don't plan on upgrading to anything that requires Win11, period.

The position of Win11's menu bar gets right up my snoot. Could I cope with the change? Sure. But I've been using my menu bar at the top just about my whole damn computing life, since GUI's were invented (on Windows). I like it where I like it, and am NOT changing because MS want me to. They can go bleep themselves.

Is it a world-ending issue? Hardly. Could I get round it with a GUI-changer tool? Yup. But I've engaged awkward git mode over it, dug my heels in and am being a stubborn ol' coot. I'm simply not willing to concede on this one, even if the result is taking this new 'primary' machine, and this new laptop, behind an airgap and only using Linux on anything net-facing.

So, having steadfastly refused to even install and run MS PC Health Checker when they kept pestering me to d/l anf run it, the arrogant bleeps installed it ANYWAY in the latest update [B]that I had deferred for 4 x 7 days. So, I immediately uninstalled it again. I also got rid of the stupid Bing weather thing they installed on my toolbar without asking. I DO NOT want their bleeping garbage on my toolbar, and things like Bing anything, I don't want at all.

It's that kind of thing that has turned me from a solid user of MS stuff to not touching anything I don't have to use if it's from MS. Including switching to Libre, and no longer Office (Prof) that I've been using for, well, since switching from Wordstar DOS version back in the Middle Ages.

To be blunt about it, I really don't care how good Win11 is, or isn't. There are other things I don't like about it, and some I do, but nothing that overrides my detestation over their attitude and high-handedness. The above plan, I feel, gives me a perfectly acceptable (to me) route to ignore Win11 permanently, so I intend to do exactly that. I get that my method won't suit lots of (younger) users with different, especially business, needs but it'll work just fine for me.

Hence .... any Intel CPU requiring Win 11 is a non-starter for me. I did give it a lot of thought. No really, I did. But my conclusion was that nothing 12th Gen offered was convincing and while 13th Gen looks to be a very marked improvement, and except for my stance over Win11, a solid competitor for AMD 7000, I still see nothing convincing. Is a 13900K better than a 7950X? Maybe. They certainly trade blows. For most people, that presumably aren't in awkward git mode, probably a hard choice.

But, having ruled out Win11, it effectively rules out 13th Gen no matter how fast the 13900K is, or good value the 13700K is, leaving me with AMD 7000, and for preference, 7900X. Bolt that into a solid mobo, a decent wedge of DDR5, and an <undecided> video card and I have a system WAY faster even than this 'ere laptop which, truth be told, is plenty fast enough (5900X, 32GB, RTX3080, etc, (in mobile versions, obviously)).

If I'm being totally honest, this system (if I ever get off my chuff and order something) is rather a vanity project anyway. I certainly could cope with the lappy. Just don't want to. And given that, I'm not giving in to MS pressure to go Win11 on grounds of sheer bloody-mindedness .... I mean, principle.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yup, but .... Win 11. Scheduler. No-go area for me. If it's a choice of paying the extra or putting up with that, I'll pay up. Am I being .... subborn? Maybe. Aw hell, yes. But I don't like some aspects of Win 11, one of which is menu bar on the bottom, and I also don't feel inclined to have to run 3rd party tools to bypass MS's arrogant decisions. So no Win 11 here. It took me long enough to concede to use W10.

There is probably support in Linux now. But's its clear the lower end AMD Zen4 CPUs are not worth the money,especially since the Ryzen 7 7700X is getting matched or beaten in lots of the image editing/video editing software now by a lowly Core i5 13600K/Core i5 13600KF. Together with overpriced motherboards,and the fact the Intel CPUs perform almost the same on much cheaper motherboards with DDR4 RAM,its quite clear why AM5 sales are terribad.

I wouldn't touch the Ryzen 5 7600X and Ryzen 7 7700X with a bargepole with how much they cost. In fact they cost more per core than a Ryzen 9 7950X! Maybe since you talk about a Ryzen 9 it might be somewhat less terribad,but the lower two are just AMD doing an Nvidia. A Ryzen 7 5700X is under £250,and the overpriced Ryzen 7 7700X is nearly £200 more. You can easily do a Ryzen 7 5700X,32GB of DDR4 and a decent ATX B550 motherboard for around £450. You could even go lower than that.

I looked on CCL Computers and the Ryzen 7 7700X with the cheapest mATX B650 motherboard I found and 32GB of 6000MHZ DDR5 is £825. With an ATX motherboard you are paying more.

The Ryzen 7 5700X is barely 20% to 30% slower in image editing and video editing benchmarks. At best the Ryzen 7 7700X is around 30% faster in games with an RTX4090 at 1080p. When you get to qHD and 4K the lead narrows. All for costing 83% more.

If you are going with Zen4 just please ignore the Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 options.

[Saracen999]

My choice really is/was 5900X on X570. Then, 7000 arrived so I'm thinking, maybe 7900X. I don't personally feel inclined to go either 5950X or 7950X. It's not purely a performance thing, but power, heat, and 'bang per buck'.

I know, weird that I rule out 5950X on bang per buck, but then look at 7900X and probably X690 (not E, from what I've seen) and, of course, DDR5. It's not so much about what they cost, as not feeling the need to go quite cutting edge.

I'm not looking at R5 or R7, really, whether 5000 or 7000, either.

There is a logic to that .... sorta. When I started this 'project', 7000 was a distant thought. I looked ar R5, R7 and R9 in the 5000, and settled on the 5900X as being the one. I'm not budget-constrained enough for that, or the 5950X for that matter, to be a non-starter. But, if I'm doing this at all, I'm going pretty high up. By the time I spec the whole system, it starts to look like £2500-ish, give or take. This was also previous to the GPU price drops.

Now, I reckon I can stick pretty close to that £2500 on 7900X, etc, because GPUs have dropped.

But more than that, the difference between total price if I go R5/R7 over R9 is a modest proportion of the total given that I need RAM, a good M.2 SSD (probably 1TB), a nice case, good cooler (air preferably, probably Noctua NH-D15 and yeah, I'm aware of issues mounting that on 7900X) etc. So, if I'm looking £2500-ish, plus or minus say £300, that variation, in the scheme or getting near £3k, isn't the determining factor. I'd rather spend £3k and feel happy with it, than £2500 and feel I skimped, because this is intended to be the last time I do a system purchase. And £500 difference, really .... I don't much care.

I'm not made of money, but the last few years have been .... weird. Firstly, Covid put a large dent in holiday plans, saying a mint in the process. Secondly, we've abandoned plans for a new (probably EV) car, any time soon. Various things have changed, some of which you know privately, and we just aren't doing the mileage at the moment, and probably won't any time soon. Long, boring story in that. But put those together and this project, which was already an 'indulgence' .... well, for a few hundred quid either way on the total cost, I will just get what I decide I want and the value for money of R5 or R7, whether 5000 or 7000, is not in my consideration. There's a LOT of umm'ing and ahh'ing already done, and that bit of it? Already done it, decided on 5900X as, more grunt for a last time purchase than 5000 R5/R7, asnd 5950X, just not feelin' it.

So, 5900X, then.

Intel? Non-starter due to Win11 reasons above. But .... due to the software listed above, and a few others like my genealogy stuff, going fully Linux isn't an option, either. There's gonna be a Windows system or two here, for the foreseeable, and what I can shift to Linux I already have., pretty much.

So where I am is 5900X/X570/DDR4, but wondering whether to switch to 7900X/X670/DDR5 .... or not. It's going to cost a fair bit more but, again, in the total project cost, not an insurmountable amount.

Then, ahhhh .... 4090? I'm tempted. But .... it really would be an extravagence. Do I need it? No. But temptation beckons. Realistically, 4080 is more like it. Again, probaly don't need it but, what the hell. And I can probably go the 7900X route with the 4080 for about the same cost as the 4090 with the 5700X, etc. And yup, the £2500 went up a bit, either way.

That's how I got here. Really, choosing 5900X or 7900X, with the platform difference that implies, and 4080 or 4090. I don't especially want to go back to putting R5/R7 even in 7000 in the mix because, for the difference between 7600X or 7700X and 7900X, I'm going 7900X is I go 7000 at all.

Oh, and yeah, depending on where I end up, a suitable PSU too, obviously. Planning on Seasonic, so I'd just go up a size or two if need be. SSD is probably 1TB 980 Pro, and I might slap in a second one for games though not necessarily 980 Pro. Dunno yet, and that can be done later.

This stuff is hard to rationalise. Not everything is .... consistent. I mean, money no object => 7950X but, not feeling it. Yet, considering 4090? Well yeah, considering but but, honestly, stuggling to 'feel' that, too.

Given that it's probably the last time I do this I don't want to scrimp over budget for a relatively modest sum, but I also don't want to go right to the top of a range unless I see a point. I don't think I do on 4090, despite a nagging "aw hell, why not" at the back of my mind. It would be utterly extravagant. Hell, the 4080 isn't exactly a budget card. A few years ago I'd have LOL'd at the notion of anything like this spec BUT .... this is a system designed, really, with being the last time I do this. There is a kinda logic to the process, but it's also at least 50% "because I want to".

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The problem is one of the RTX4080 cards,ie,the 12GB one is basically a rebadged RTX3060/RTX3060TI replacement. Nvidia is doing another Turing MK1!

If you are getting an SSD,look at a Seagate FireCuda 530 2TB because it has very high TBW,and it's more orientated towards productivity than gaming IMHO.

WRT,to Zen4 only the Ryzen 9 7900X and Ryzen 9 7950X make some sense,when you factor in all the other costs. The bottom two are overpriced and underwhelming IMHO.

[Saracen999]

The problem is one of the RTX4080 cards,ie,the 12GB one is basically a rebadged RTX3060/RTX3060TI replacement. Nvidia is doing another Turing MK1!

If you are getting an SSD,look at a Seagate FireCuda 530 2TB because it has very high TBW,and it's more orientated towards productivity than gaming IMHO.

WRT,to Zen4 only the Ryzen 9 7900X and Ryzen 9 7950X make some sense,when you factor in all the other costs. The bottom two are overpriced and underwhelming IMHO.

Yup, I meant the "proper" 4080. Even before the fuss started, and IIRC ended in the 12GB one being "unlaunched", I'd already decided that for the £20/$20 difference, the 16GB was a no-brainer (at least, for me) for that jump.

My logic is, right now, even 8GB would do me but, as this system is supposed to last me a long time, the extra 4GB (over 12) adds a margin of leeway to games getting more demanding. And if they don't, on a system like this, £20 make zero real difference.

The Seagate? Sure. Hadn't spent much time on the SSD. Already have a 980 Pro, but I'm open to options and the new board/mobo, if I go 7000, may possibly benefit. Maybe.

On the lower 7000 chips, I wouldn't dispute your conclusion. My only input to that question is ... hadn't even looked at them as I'm looking 7900X. Or 5900X.

[[GSV]Trig]

Haha, yes, there is that, competition is good, for the end user at least, shareholders not so much...

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yup, I meant the "proper" 4080. Even before the fuss started, and IIRC ended in the 12GB one being "unlaunched", I'd already decided that for the £20/$20 difference, the 16GB was a no-brainer (at least, for me) for that jump.

My logic is, right now, even 8GB would do me but, as this system is supposed to last me a long time, the extra 4GB (over 12) adds a margin of leeway to games getting more demanding. And if they don't, on a system like this, £20 make zero real difference.

The Seagate? Sure. Hadn't spent much time on the SSD. Already have a 980 Pro, but I'm open to options and the new board/mobo, if I go 7000, may possibly benefit. Maybe.

On the lower 7000 chips, I wouldn't dispute your conclusion. My only input to that question is ... hadn't even looked at them as I'm looking 7900X. Or 5900X.

Even the proper RTX4080 16GB is probably really an RTX4070 - Nvidia has introduced an AD103 die where the 104 used to be,so have messed up the normal tiers!

More VRAM is useful to have.

[Saracen999]

Even the proper RTX4080 16GB is probably really an RTX4070 - Nvidia has introduced an AD103 die where the 104 used to be,so have messed up the normal tiers!

More VRAM is useful to have.

Which is why I'm waiting to see 3rd party tests before deciding 4090 (or more likely, not 4090). Essentially, how much bang per buck I get from going 4000 over the still available 3000.

But I have to say, with the exception of quantity of memory, all I really care about is the degree of bang, not what it uses to do it. In no small part, this is because I don't have the patience to try to sort out the respective hardware spec's and to unobfuscate nVidia marketing and naming conventions. I just wait 'til several of the usual culprits have done a shedload of testing and concluded which are gems and which are .... not.

Then try to find the 'gem' in stock somewhere reputable, at a relatively non-stupid price.