So ... new PC - quite *when* to buy?

[Saracen999]

As some of you know, having answered numerous questions, I'm planning a new PC build/buy. I'm still going round the houses, not sure which way to jump, not helped by supply issues and when this is in stock, that isn't. So I'm still undecided between desktop/laptop, for instance. I had just about decided on the laptop route, mainly because if one item (the laptop) is in stock (and the Asus G15 I'm after currently appears not to be, due due soon) then by definition all are in stock. But then, if some parts fail, effectively it junks the whole machine, and that isn't ideal.

However, the several months that have gone past while I beggared about over this now raise another thought .... wait until next year for AM5 + Ryzen 6000 series + DDR5. That seems to be getting much nearer (Q2-2022 seems like a decent guess, from what I can tell) .... assuming that we can actually buy the bits, once officially released, of course.

So the current question bothering me?

Wait, or go AM4/Ryzen (probably 5900X) / DDR4 (decently quick but not for OC'ing particularly)?

Usage? Home personal use, gaming (want good frame rates but I'm not a dedicated or competitive gamer), photo editing, video editing/rendering, sound, etc. That lot is pretty much in order of priority starting with the least. Most important are photo and video editing which, as far as I can tell, don't require quite the same emphasis, hence looking for a strong all-rounder.

None of the above are business purposes. I'm prepared to set a decent budget for this, and am after a spec that gives me as much longevity as is realistic and reasonable, and want fairly high-end peformance as a result, but am not after a hairy-chested, muscle-bound, willy-waving leading edge spec.

Opinions?

[cheesemp]

To be honest Saracen the days when waiting for a new generation to see a big performance jump seem to be long gone. i.e. Will DDR5 make a big difference to performance when you have high speed DDR4 and a 5900X. I'm just giving my opinion but I'd say no. A 5900X with high speed DDR (i.e. 3600Mhz) is going to be super quick in everything you can throw at it.

I also think DDR 5 will have a big premium at the start (like DDR4 did!).

I've got a Ryzen 5500u laptop and a Ryzen 3600 desktop and with both I've struggled to really push usage outside of benchmarks. I rarely see either go near 50% usage! They just do everything I ask (Basic 3d modelling, ripping, playing games, video rendering). Heck the Ryzen 5500u is a super low power 6 core/12 thread chip and it just flies. If you need something now I wouldn't bother waiting. (I'd also add in Windows 10 support will probably start disappearing over the next couple of years so given your desire to avoid Windows 11 waiting probably isn't wise given how quickly old OS's get dropped nowadays).

[kalniel]

Wisdom says "tomorrow, always tomorrow".
Pragmatism says "get whatever does what you need it to do today, let tomorrow worry about itself"

[cptwhite_uk]

Honestly, even if there were a 20% improvement in IPC, I doubt you'd notice day to day. Get the 5900 now would be my advise.

[Kovoet]

Best thing I ever did was get my 5900x and I run 3733mhz DDR4. You will not be sorry. It shocks me how quick my PC starts up. Normally I stand when starting it up and by the time I'm in my chair it's up and running.
Gaming wise it has made a huge difference as well as using it in photoshop.
Be strong and make the move you will not be sorry.

[Saracen999]

I suspect both (three now, Kovoet beat me to the reply) the above posts are right, and it chimes with my own gut feel. DDR5 is, from what I can tell, a LOT faster, at least potentially, but now much differenc will it makr to me, in practice? My gut says not much.

Years ago, I remember being told (correctly) that SSD machines booted a lot faster than HD machines. But rsponse was yeah, but at a lot more cost, and besides, I switch on in the AM, go make my coffee, and come bac 5 minutes later. Why do I care if may machine took 5 minutes to boot, or did it in 5 seconds and then sat there for 4min 55 seconds, 'til I got back?

Of course, there's more to SSDs than that, but it's why I didn't (and still don't) much care about 15 second or 2 minute boot times. The same logic applies, I agree - even if 'next-gen' is much, MUCH faster, it only affects me if it makes a real-world difference, rather than just giving me benchmark scores.

I'm just curious if any of you lot, who know a whole load more than I do about this stuff (these days, at least) know any good reasons why I should care?

[DanceswithUnix]

..., but am not after a hairy-chested, muscle-bound, willy-waving leading edge spec.

Opinions?

and yet you chose a hairy chested 5900X

It's fine, just go with it.

Edit: In reality we don't really know how good DDR5 will be. We also don't really know when it will be available, and is the sort of thing that gets pushed back. DDR5 does seem to be more than just a speeding up of the memory interface, so should work better in heavily threaded workloads. But then AMD will be bringing out their 3D Vcache CPUs in the spring. That would negate some of the benefits of DDR5.

Meanwhile, my 3700X still feels quick.

[Kovoet]

Trust me bud the 5900x is good enough to last a few years yet. Hence why they are still pricey. I never thought I would ever go away from intel CPU's (does not mean I won't go back) but I'm bloody chuffed I did

[badass]

I'm with the consensus here. Get it now. I believe you mentioned earlier that you have no plans to upgrade it ever DDR4 memory will be fine
For more detail in my thoughts:

CPU: Looks likely that best case is a 20% boost. Whether AMD or Intel. To many unknowns around availability and cost however.
Memory: Massive increases in memory bandwidth only result in small performance gains. I remember the SDR-DDR transition with a literal doubling of bandwidth - everyone was amazed and impressed that memory could increase performance in the real world by 10%
However If you were looking to upgrade at some point in the future, then DDR5 makes a little more sense. Not for the memory specifically but for the fact the newer platforms that use DDR5 will have more future upgradability.
Much of the increase in performance through DDR is included in my 20% "best guess" on the CPU performance increases.
SSD: Meh. PCIe3 x4 is already no longer the bottleneck that storage was. Real world differenced for PCIE4 are limited to file copying. The rest is pointless benchmarks. I can't see how PCIe5 - particular early SSD's will be any better in the real world than a PCIE3 one, let alone PCIE4
Far more important is the flash memory type (I'd only consider TLC) and controller (DRAM or not etc)
Graphics: There will be the same shortages then as there are now except there will be some refresh GPU's launched. Small performance increases at most.

TBH, my "gutless" Core I5-10400F feels and behaves like it's not bottlenecking me at all and it's got less than half the cores and a lower IPC and clock speed than a 5900X does.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Considering you are upgrading from very old systems,I suspect anything recent is going to be a big upgrade. You could wait and see how Alderlake pans out in November and see if there are any Black Friday deals,but then we are getting closer to Christmas so there could be shortages of parts too,as demand will be higher.

[Saracen999]

I'm with the consensus here. Get it now. I believe you mentioned earlier that you have no plans to upgrade it ever DDR4 memory will be fine

...

Indeed I did. My last system lasted a dozen years or more, and I'm only really upgrading now because I'm planning on doing (or perhaps more accurately, playing at doing) several things that, while separate, overlap into new demands on a system, not least editing MUCH bigger photos, and probably 4k video. I'm not expecting to ever make that kind of demand leap again.

But one way of looking at that is, if AM5, Ryzen 6000 and DDR5 were to make a huge difference is to enhance that longevity by not being too impatient now.

I do take the point, and yeah, DwU, I guess the 5900X is fairly hairy-chested. It's a diminishing marginal returns thing, though. On a system that's likely to end up at about £2.5-3k, excluding large scale storage which is on the NAS, the difference between the 5900X and dropping a notch is pretty modest. The 5950X, on the other hand, seems like a lot more for what, to me, isn't critical. I'll go for at least 32GB, with an eye to perhaps increasing that, on the same logic. Ditto why I'm currently hovering on the edge of a 10GB LAN upgrade, though may drop it to 2.5GB.

I want it all to be somewhat hairy-chested, but not to a silly extent. It certainly isn't a case of 'money no object', but it is a case of being willing to go to about £3k, and even higher if I get convinced it's worth it.

[DanceswithUnix]

... , the difference between the 5900X and dropping a notch is pretty modest.

I totally agree, to the point that I am tempted to get one myself.

The facelift 5000 series (whatever they end up being called) are supposed to be out early next year. I take that to mean January, as that is a popular time to release new chippery where releasing just before Christmas hacks off the likes of Dell and HP by obsoleting the Christmas stock before the boxes are opened. But what are those CPUs going to cost? They are apparently the existing 5000 series chiplets which have always been designed to take these vcache die stacked on top. I imagine extra silicon and a 15% performance bump in gaming means bigger prices.

Those facelift parts will to some degree take the heat off AM5. AM5 I'm guessing is realistically a year off. Now there's being patient, but for me that would be out of the running.

The 5900X actually feels about right (as in nicely overkill), and you could have it now.

[badass]

Indeed I did. My last system lasted a dozen years or more, and I'm only really upgrading now because I'm planning on doing (or perhaps more accurately, playing at doing) several things that, while separate, overlap into new demands on a system, not least editing MUCH bigger photos, and probably 4k video. I'm not expecting to ever make that kind of demand leap again.

But one way of looking at that is, if AM5, Ryzen 6000 and DDR5 were to make a huge difference is to enhance that longevity by not being too impatient now.

I do take the point, and yeah, DwU, I guess the 5900X is fairly hairy-chested. It's a diminishing marginal returns thing, though. On a system that's likely to end up at about £2.5-3k, excluding large scale storage which is on the NAS, the difference between the 5900X and dropping a notch is pretty modest. The 5950X, on the other hand, seems like a lot more for what, to me, isn't critical. I'll go for at least 32GB, with an eye to perhaps increasing that, on the same logic. Ditto why I'm currently hovering on the edge of a 10GB LAN upgrade, though may drop it to 2.5GB.

I want it all to be somewhat hairy-chested, but not to a silly extent. It certainly isn't a case of 'money no object', but it is a case of being willing to go to about £3k, and even higher if I get convinced it's worth it.

10 Gb LAN can be cheaper than you think:

I have a copule of Ebay 10 GB SFP+ cards - IIRC they were £25 for the pair. I got some Multimode SFP+ modules for IIRC £25 each from fs.com and then just got an LC-LC fibre patch lead. Total cost was less than £100.
For an extra £125 you can get a 4 port SFP+ switch https://mikrotik.com/product/crs305_1g_4s_in that seems to work with multi gigabit (nBase-T/10 GbE) SFP+ Modules as well.

[Kumagoro]

The way I see it is, can you not do the things you want to now on your current one? If not why wait unless you are not going to do those things in the mean time. It is unlikely that the increase in processing power is going to enable you to do things that current ones cannot.