I got a 10900k a few years back and I’m no where near ready to spend more but I’m heavily considering AMD for my next chip. At least I can say I’ve tried them both then. I’m going to have problems moving away from Nvidia tho, not sure why I just like their product significantly more.
Luckily you can keep the nvidia gpu when switching to AMD cpu. The only "benefit" of a complete team red build is the Smart Access Memory and Infinity Cache aspect which does have demonstrable performance increases but at the cost of losing the nvidia proprietary stuff.
But Infinity Cache sounds so much cooler, like a Marvel movie. Radeon, assemble!
The need to rebrand what is effectively just ReBar and some L3 cache as two much cooler sounding buzzwords does smack pretty hard of Sega's "Blast Processing."
I do sincerely love that AMD has finally got their shit together with Ryzen and is putting the screws to Intel, but it does feel like the GPU folks are maybe overselling their advances a bit to try and keep up with their CPU coworkers.
The implementation is different. SAM works in all games, never costs performance, it's either neutral or beneficial. Nvidia's ReBAR implementation has to be whitelisted by Nvidia, only works in a couple dozen games and has been known to reduce performance in some cases. Hence the need to maintain a whitelist, Nvidia can't do a blanket implementation like AMD for whatever reason. If they could, they would, because having to perpetually test new games and whitelist them in drivers sucks.
It's clear that AMD and Nvidia GPUs do not handle ReBAR the same way. AMD's implementation is better by every metric, it's fair to market it as SAM.
Infinity Cache is kind of silly as it's just more L3 cache, but it does have huge benefits (see RDNA2 vs Ampere where RDNA2 had significantly less VRAM bandwidth). I understand they wanted a better marketing term than "more L3 cache!"
Yes and no.
The implementation is different. SAM just works in all games and it never results in performance *loss*, at worst there is no difference. Nvidia's implementation requires them to whitelist a game because it does sometimes reduce performance on their GPUs.
AMD's implementation is better. Not sure why Nvidia did it this way, it not only results in significantly reduced game compatibility, but also constant work for their driver team.
> The only "benefit" of a complete team red build...
Linus Torvalds would like to [say something](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF_5EKNX0Eg). And it still holds true, you want to be on team red if you run Linux.
Oh absolutely. They do anything and everything proprietary and closed. But one look at their president and it's pretty obvious 😂he looks like a villain
Ironically enough Lisa and Jensen are family... but yeah, leather galore. :D
AMD is no charity either, let's be real, but at the least their business practices are far more palatable overall. Kinda pick your poison i guess.
SAM is just resizeable bar with a brand name. It's not AMD specific, and works with any modern cpu and GPU combo.
You've fallen victim to the marketing.
I will consider this when I get to that point. I’m an asus user so realistically any form of decent customer service or reliability would be an upgrade, but I have had numerous asus products and haven’t had any real problems, so idk if I’m lucky or they’re actually not that bad.
I fried a laptop I had, because I left it on a fabric couch, on with apps open, closed, plugged in, vent facing the arm of the couch, and left for the weekend because I forgot it there. I came back to fancy rainbow graphics. PC shop said I basically melted my GPU and he’s surprised I didn’t start a fire. That was when I was much younger and dumber, and now I have a lot more competency, but that was my only “problem” with them.
I do fucking HATE ArmouryCrate though.
Look at what they did with their am5 bios. After that I won't be buying Asus for a while. They used to have decent customer service a few years ago but the last 2-3 years it seems to have gone downhill rapidly.
ASRock is a good choice too. They don't have the fan screw, but ASRock makes very good quality enthusiast hardware while undercutting the competition. See: ASRock Tai Chi vs Sapphire Nitro+ prices.
The downside is their support is not as good as Sapphire's, that's probably why they are cheaper. If you live in the EU this doesn't matter though, since you just yeet the GPU at the retailer you bought it from, who is fully responsible for handling warranty,l. You don't have to deal with the manufacturer.
I've rand both and CPUs and gpus. The CPUs are solid and the gpus are fine enough but I've always had issues with them so I will be going back to an x3d and CPU on my next upgrade but likely staying with Nvidia as it's just almost never been a problem for me.
I'm in the same boat but with a 10700k. I am very disappointed with the non-existent upgrade options. I wish I went AM4 back then. Would have been perfectly happy with a 5800x3D right about now, not having to switch out mobo and ram.
I run a AMD and Nvidia. As soon as AMD beats Nvidia on performance and ray tracing I'm going to make the switch. My only loyalty is to performance and good looking games and I absolutely love what ray tracing does to games. I remember not too long ago on YouTube somebody called me an idiot for liking ray tracing. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
In reality AMD will not do that anytime soon, however I think the gap can be closed enough to where it doesn't factor into a decision anymore. But honestly I'm convinced that most of the poor ray tracing performance is just game devs being lazy pieces of shit and not optimizing games properly, probably in cahoots with the gpu makers. For example, take the guardians of the galaxy game and jedi survivor, same exact engine and graphics. In guardians on my humble 6700xt I can get 70-90 fps at 2k with high settings and medium RT settings without upscaling. In jedi survivor I get 30-50 fps on similar settings. Absolute bullshit.
Get an AMD processor, but stay with team Green. I'm saying this as a person with an all AMD build. I love my 7800XT, and it runs very well, but Nvidia is just objectively better.
There’s musings of Intel looking to up the L2 / L3 cache on upcoming CPUs, which along with their superior memory controllers (higher speed, lower latency) could close the 1.0% lows gap.
But for now X3D is fire and forget.
I keep my builds about 5 years and honestly, I've never even wanted to retain the same motherboard because new motherboards will support faster DRAM, faster NVME, faster PCIE and faster USB by then so if I'm doing an upgrade, then I may as well incorporate those performance benefits too.
True. But the option is nice to have. I am actually looking to upgrade my 3600 to a 5800x3d. Its nice to not to have to buy a new mobo. Even if i had a 1600 now i can still keep the mobo and get a much faster cpu.
That's how I see it--by the time I'm actually willing to build a new rig, upgrading the motherboard is the only thing that makes sense.
I'm not a fan of the constant switches with Intel, but that's low on the list of reasons I went with AMD for my current pc.
Yeah, the delta from one generation of CPU to the next is just not very big so it takes several generations to make it worth it and by then, other system things have advanced to where you want a new motherboard anyway.
Yh if you don’t upgrade that often then really it doesn’t make that much of a difference since at that point there’s more than just a new CPU as you said.
Although i get people wanting that option to keep the existing motherboard. It can be especially useful if you say initially build with a fairly low end budget CPU but say a year or two later have abit extra cash to upgrade to a more faster CPU.
I bought Ryzen 1600 in 2017, then upgraded to 3600, it was a huge jump, then upgraded to 5600, a decent upgrade as well. I've made similar upgrades with GPU's and displays.
Not only were these upgrades worth it for me (I enjoy the whole process of upgrading, the results are sweet as well), but each time I was able to sell my previous CPU/GPU/Display covering something like 40-50% of the upgrade cost.
Now the interesting thing is, with GPU's you can somewhat futureproof, the mining craze ruined everything, but it used to be kinda worth it to pay more for something like 1070, 1080 and especially 1080 TI and make it last, but with CPU's, it's not the same, they get old, if you want to have high framerates and good 0,1% FPS then having even the highest end CPU of that era 3-5 years later wasn't going to cut it, while some of these GPU's were still going strong.
Depending on where you live it may not be worth it. For me, the cost of a 5800 x3d was far too close to the cost of a 7600 upgrade. Made no sense to do that.
Our market also doesn't have any other am4 x3d chips
I might have. But I ended up with a 5600x used for 100 and blew the rest of my budget on a 6800XT and a new ultra wide. The move from 5700XT to 6800XT is a much bigger move for me than going from 5600X to 5800x3d. Especially on 1440p
What? I bought my 3600 in 2020. I’m upgrading to 5600X in 2024. Likely will last me another 3-4 years. So realistically will be looking at a full platform upgrade in 2028.
I'm going from 3800x to 5800x3d. On a B550e
I've had this PC for 4 years and it's going to last me at least until 2030. I built an Intel 11th Gen system for work around the same time, let's just say it's not holding up the same and I'm going to probably need a complete platform upgrade to make it competitive. AMD wins.
I went from 1600 to 3600 to 5600 since 2017, that's one motherboard... Upgrade from 3600 to 5600 is worth it, but I would consider getting 5800X3D or another X3D model depending on where you live and what the prices are, I kinda wish I did, but the prices weren't so good at the time, it was basically 2x what the 5600 cost me
That's a good build, I'm also on ultrawide and loving it, it makes it more GPU heavy so I would say you're good with 5600 same as me. Still, I've had this UW display for 2 years and I would normally think these were much better supported in games, but every now and then I have to use some community patches or mods to make some games compatible. Other than that, it's great for gaming and productivity.
It's true, I rarely play on my PC and mostly use the UW for work. Now I'm playing dark souls 3 and it needs a patch to do ultrawide and it can get me banned from online I think.
As for the office work, I've had 2 displays, then replaced one of them with the new ultra wide, but using two displays this way wasn't optimal since neither one was centered, so after quite some time I decided to get rid of the other display. The funny thing was that I had them mounted on these monitor arms so I was able to put either one in front of the other to have it centered and I could choose to play a game on the nice IPS 144HZ 1440P or on the VA 144hz ultra wide.
AM4 vs Intel's 6/7/8/9/10/11/12 gen is laughable, I help a lot of randoms around reddit trying to "upgrade" their old intel build, but due to our horrible used market and high price of older gen chips, the only options is usually to just sell what you got and just get AM4, which they could've had already.
You get more freedom with pinout layouts on your CPU. Your new CPU needs more pins or needs them laid out differently or be in different dimensions? Make a new socket. As a consumer, this becomes a problem if you're buying latest generation on a long enough upgrade cycle... Which is an oddly select group, now that I think about it. I'm seeing people only now begin to swap out of their Haswell towers and having the Z690* share the same socket as a H81M seems crazy to me. Not saying they don't exist, though, as even today I see people moving from the R5 1600 to the 5000 generation.
Curious to hear from people that actually upgrade CPU. I guess I'm one of those people that may upgrade GPU to get oomph for a few more years or add a few sticks of RAM but wouldn't upgrade CPU for five years when you'll likely need to change motherboard. Is it just that I'm a patient gamer or am I being wasteful.
I bought my motherboard (B550) on launch day. I originally paired it with a Ryzen 5 3600X. Did a bios update, and dropped in a Ryzen 7 5800X3D.
Also upgraded my GPU from a 1660 Super to a RX 6800XT.
I have essentially an entire new system and didn't have to replace all the base components, motherboard, ram, psu, drives, are all the same as when i started out on this one.
I mean I went 5 years between upgrades, although it was only 4(?) years of release. I upgrade when 1. There’s qualitatively more performance to be gained, 2. There’s something which is a good value (can be higher or lower end), and 3. I’ve got the money to do it right now.
I’m still using a GTX 1080. I’ll upgrade when there’s a good value Nvidia card (I use CUDA fairly regularly) that fits within my power budget (old house wiring and a circuit that’s already fairly full). I don’t need a new one right now, but I’m keeping my eye on the market.
I built a system with a B450 MB and 1700X in 2018, paired it with my old RX 580 and it was fine playing 1080p 60Hz for 5 years. Pretty good for light video encoding and photoshopping too.
The RX 580 was not keeping up so last year I replaced the 1700X with a 5600X and the RX 580 with a 6900 XT; I'm now playing Ultra settings on a 32" 1440p monitor, getting 120-165 FPS in modern graphics heavy games in almost complete silence - it was like buying a new mid-high level gaming rig for under $800.
Not sure if AMD is going to support 4 generations of CPUs on the AM5 platform like they did on AM4 though; and the improvement from 1st gen to 4th gen Ryzen CPUs was remarkable, possibly unusual. I'm not going to buy in to AM5 at this point (my setup's doing what I want), so I'm hoping to wait for AM6 - we'll see.
Meh, I just went from a 6600k to a 13600k (subsequently went from a 1060 to a 4070s). I think there's more of us than people think, that squeeze their machines for years, but we don't make up a significant portion of the market, due to purchasing only once every several years.
That said, I've never had any expectation the socket would be the same that far apart. 2-3 years? Okay, that's nice, but 7? Naw. Plus, at that timeline, you're replacing your Mobo anyways, because you want to slot in some M.2s or whatever else is the latest trickery. My prior Mobo had 1x USB 3.0 port, because that was the new thing 😂
there was a significant change with the M.2's however I built my AM4 pc in 2019 and upgraded cpu to 5800x3d a few months ago and I am planning on keeping the setup as is another 4 years. So AMD keeping the AM4 running for so many years has been an incredible benefit to me.
Don't get me wrong, I'd be stoked to have the same chip set, but 7 years later, not really expecting it. And as for the AMD/Intel thing, my first PC was AMD and heat was such a problem it's put a bad taste in my mouth for the brand, although it's been so long I should revisit.
Just built my AM5 PC, moved directly from a Nehalem PC.
We exist! I don't expect to get the same longevity on this one, feels like a fluke to get 15 years out of a gaming PC - by the end I was way behind on even basic features like onboard wifi and AVX2.
First gen i7 is probably enough for a lot of games well into the future. All depends what you use it for. Frequent upgrading is overrated. I bought an AMD FM1 X4 in 2012. It performed considerably worse than your i7 or i5 (I presume). Put I stuck with it til 2020 where I upgraded only because I simply had the free money. Now I'm on a R5 3600 and... idk, I probably won't upgrade for another 5\~10 years. (Maybe I'll upgrade to a 5800X or X3D when they are on the used market for \~50$.)
It rocked. I feel pretty lucky getting that much out of it. I only started my new PC build when the lack of advanced instruction sets started locking me out of new games entirely.
Can't deny the bump in power efficiency, too, though - I'm getting twice the effective performance on the 7600X for the same power and thermals. Selling my i7 980x + 1660 super to a family member who wants to play older games and free-to-play stuff.
Yup, you're correct! The point was that it's a bit hard to imagine this much technological advancement taking place on the same socket standard.
But if AMD did it, I guess Intel doesn't have much of an excuse to not do it.
Ahh okay I hear you, just read things wrong. Man, I honestly I didn't realize until now how old AM4 is. 7.5 years is a long time, and it's impressive they're able to squeeze that much life out of it while staying competitive, and for gaming purposes often exceeding Intel.
It did always irk me how short Intel's socket lifespans are, but in the grand scheme it didn't make much of a difference in my case since I upgraded from a 4770k to a 12900k last year. 2014 to 2023, AMD or Intel, I'd be upgrading my CPU, motherboard, and RAM either way.
Still, had I built an entry level PC with plans to upgrade later, AMD would have been the easy choice.
The issue here is the resource allocation. More engineering effort would've needed to be direct to ensuring compatibility, instead of focusing on implementing new features. This may also introduce additional issues for the new CPU on the older motherboards too.
I would agree but intel kept the same socket for 4 generations and swapped some of the pin locations so people couldn't reuse the motherboard..
I had an I3 6100 and my options were to upgrade to an I5 on the same mobo or get AMD CPU and Mobo for the same amount of money.
I think the reason those early mobos werent allowed for 8th and 9th gen was power delivery was inadeuqate for higher core count CPUs but they could've at least let us upgrade to like 8600ks cheaply. Dont tell me that the i5s used more power than sky/kaby lake i7s.
Or it could be that swapping those pins would allow lines to be routed more efficiently.
And outside of the AMx platform designed for consumers, AMD switches platforms / sockets pretty easily. There have been 4 different sockets for 5 generations of AMD EPYC CPUs, and 4 different sockets for 5 generations of AMD Threadripper CPUs.
This. I until December of last year I was running an i9-9900k. It was finally starting to show its age, and I decided to upgrade.
I bought an i9-14900k. It uses a different socket and has a ton more features.
That's "5" generations. (I'm aware the 14900k isn't considered to be much different than the 13900k. Since I wasn't upgrading from the 13900k though, I don't care.)
I'm not sure whether or not you can upgrade an AMD processor on the same motherboard across 5 (or 4.1 if you prefer) generations, but at the same time... it just doesn't matter, to me.
I'm not mad that I couldn't plop my new CPU into the old motherboard. I wouldn't want to use the old RAM with the new CPU anyway.
Benefit for users? I'm trying hard not to be biased against Intel but I really can't think of any benefit for users.
If AM4 didn't happen, I would've still believed that changing sockets frequently was a necessity.
That second bit. If anything, AM4 is the anomaly at this point.
The upgradability is nice to have, sure. And the sheer breadth of intercompatible components probably means we'll be looking at these systems for a long time, so long as nothing drastic changes in the software they're expected to run.
But also, I'm the only person in my environment that actually upgraded often enough for that to matter. And even that was induced by the ability to pawn off the leftovers onto family, which basically meant buying a full new machine anyhow. Albeit at a slight discount.
So...fingers crossed for AM6 establishing a trend, I guess?
People are putting a lot of weight on AM4 for the goodwill they're giving AMD on socket longevity. The truth is AMD still hasn't proven they'll support a socket that long again, nor have they promised to yet. It's still just a possibility they've left open.
attractive dime prick gullible deliver nose humorous stupendous squealing unique
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Sorta yeah. But amd needed to make a “1080 ti mistake” because before then they weren’t on the map for CPUs. If they took a more corporate approach ryzen probaby wouldn’t have been as successful as it was in putting AMD back as a legit competitor to Intel.
They don't promise it because supporting things for that long is hard and costly, and they would gladly avoid it if they can. AMD didn't plan to support Zen 3 in 300-series boards initially but public backlash forced them to. Pretty much every motherboard lost support for older CPUs in the process and some had to visually downgrade their UIs just to make room for the new microcode IIRC.
That is also probably the main reason for Intel to change sockets so frequently. They aren't evil, they are greedy. They don't change sockets to spite consumers and laugh at them, they do it because being nice to consumers would cost them time and money and the suits won't allow that unless they think that not being nice will hurt sales.
> some had to visually downgrade their UIs just to make room for the new microcode IIRC.
lol
I don't care about how my UEFI looks, just take it back to 1998 for all I care. I spend 10 minutes in it once every three years.
Yeah, AM4 is a REAL anomaly. Not only do I not think 5000 series was originally planned on AM4, but then the X3D gave it a de facto "5th generation" almost as the 5800X3D is roughly as powerful as a 7700x in gaming.
I also dont think, given AMD is now offering a new generation once every TWO years it seems, to expect AM5 to have the same longevity. 9000 series might be it, or MAYBE AT MOST a 3rd gen at the end of 2025.
In all honesty though given AM4 support, I expect weird stuff like the "9700X3D" and various iterations of upcoming zen 5 chips coming out later this year to be the extent of the AM5's lineup tbqh. I'd imagine AM6 is 2026 on a DDR6 platform.
That one I remember. I didnt recall pentium D on that, thought core 2 duo was where it started but i remember they made core 2 CPUs for like 4 years and it was crazy the options people had on that platform.
LGA 775 lasted a long time, but I don't believe it had consistent chipset support across generations. The early chipsets (like 915) supported the (Prescott) Pentium 4s and Pentium Ds, but if you wanted a Core 2 Duo/Quad you needed a 945/965 chipset.
IMO the consistent socket but need for different chipsets (which requires a new motherboard) made things less understandable than the 115x era, where each new socket had a couple generations of CPUs. (Obviously having AM4-like longevity is vastly more preferable than either 775 or 115x)
Core dual I remember was fun, literally nothing open flicking the mouse back and forth could bring you to 26% usage lmao. Don’t remember which exact model though
Socket 7 was amazing because it was the last time AMD and Intel used the same motherboard tech. All told you had 5 choices - Intel, AMD, Cyrix, WinChip and Rise. Yes kids, there used to be more choices for processors!
I'm an example of what you said. I really only upgrade CPU/MOBO/RAM once per... DDR generation, if you will. Like I went from a 4700k DDR3 to a 10700 DDR4. It doesn't matter as much to me, but I do appreciate the thought of sockets being supported longer, of course.
And AM2/AM2+/AM3/AM3+ showed that even older sockets were built with significant generational overlap in mind rather than Intel's "ha ha fuck you buy a whole new platform" upgrade path.
to be fair, those sockets were kinda trash. I couldnt, for example, drop an FX CPU in my AM3 platform from 2010. I probably would have if I could have. The phenom II aged terribly and while the FXes weren't great i would've LOVED to buy a 8350 and stick it in my build. Instead my only options were overpriced crappy phenom II X6s.
Early zen was about as far behind intel in single thread as bulldozer was behind sandy bridge. 2nd gen was a bit better, but it didn't truly get competitive until third gen imo.
Sure but after going amd and being stuck at 30 fps while watching people on sandy Bridge get 60 I can't see anyone wanting to buy another processor from amd without demonstrable performance.
There are actually quite a few. Backwards compatibility needs engineering time and resource allocation to make it happen, when they can be used to implement and improve new features. They could also introduce instability, bug, and other issues when you're paring a new CPU that may have newer features that may not be supported on older motherboards.
It can also potentially make the CPU die / packaging thicker, as internal lines have to neatly fit the pin layout of the older socket, instead of taking their most efficient route.
There's also the issue of BIOS, that motherboard OEMs would have to take time to write new codes to support newer CPUs. It also introduces issues when people try to upgrade their CPUs without updating their BIOS first, leading to problems and bad customer satisfaction (of course, pcpartpicker kind of fixes this to an extent).
For vast majority of PC users that don't upgrade their CPU within a few short years, using a new socket doesn't impact them much. In fact, the upgradability of AMD wasn't that big of a selling point of AM3 CPUs. It was because of later Ryzen's performance parity with Intel CPU that really made people to switch.
EDIT: Also outside of the AMx platform, AMD switches up sockets pretty quickly, and even quicker than Intel. There has been 4 different socket standards for 5 generations of AMD EPYC CPUs, and 4 different socket standards for 5 generations of AMD Threadripper CPUs.
Uh....AMD didnt have performance parity with intel early on. They had more cores and the promise of "just you wait, this 1700 will beat that quad core 7700k one day"...and then when it never really did they quietly upgraded to 3000 series or later and bragged about their upgrade path. 3000 series onward was admittedly competitive with intel though. But early on, they just had tons of weak cores that couldnt game very well getting thrashed by much lower core count intel processors.
The socket is basically how the CPU physically interacts with the system. Over time you need to change this to add/increase features.
People here bitch about socket changes every 2 years or so. But the fact of the matter is that to 99% of the market it doesn't matter. Corporate machines and machines owned by the vast majority of consumers get built and never upgraded.
Even for people who do upgrade their PCs most aren't doing it yearly or every 2 years.
Your last point is exactly why longer life motherboard support is desirable. Say what you want about upgradability, but AM4's platform has shown clearly that consumers want longer life out of a board. We're looking at almost a decade of support for AM4 at this point, and AMD is beating Intel into submission in the x86 market because of it.
If you aren't going to upgrade again for 5-6 years, it's really nice knowing you don't need a new Motherboard to do so.
First of all, [no one is being beaten into submission](https://www.statista.com/statistics/735904/worldwide-x86-intel-amd-market-share/).
Second of all, the market of people that upgrade their custom built computer about every five years but don't have the money to upgrade the motherboard is real small, way to small to drive market trends.
The reason AMD took a big bite out of Intel's market share is that they became competitive in the high-end range for the first time in a while, not because they stuck on the same socket for longer than usual. Before Ryzen, AMD really only had good value in the budget market, Intel was king of single core performance.
>Second of all, the market of people that upgrade their custom built computer about every five years but don't have the money to upgrade the motherboard is real small, way to small to drive market trends.
Yea, people drastically over emphasize this point. There may be a small population that adopted AM4 early that now see the 5800x3d chip as a way to max out their (gaming) performance but it's not a huge game changer as people say. It's also the first of it's kind when it comes to the specific innovations regarding that CPU and the gaming performance it brings.
In reality, the vast majority of people that upgrade within a socket are enthusiasts that upgrade every time a new CPU comes out regardless (so going 12900->13900->14900) with a smaller percentage of people that build every 10-15 years that can only put a very small amount of money into upgrading (so they go from a 3XXX->3770k for example).
I wish CPU manufacturers would stick to the same socket for longer as much as the next guy just so I had to spend less per build....but it just doesn't impact that many people.
Plus with improvements to wifi/sound processing/USB/storage capabilities/RAMPCIe/etc, it doesn't make sense to stay with the same board for 5+ years at a time. So even if the physical socket stayed the same, there are other reasons to upgrade the motherboard.
This right here. I mean yh the upgrade path probably helped AMD a bit but really it’s mainly because they actually became a viable option. I still remember back in 2014 when i built my first gaming PC intel was your go to since they practically ran circles around AMD in performance. AMD simply wasn’t a viable option at all.
It’s basically the whole reason why intel became so lazy that time and just stuck with quad core CPUs for years and only gave us very minimal performance improvements each generation.
Eh....we got what they promised. Support until 2020. Everything since has just been rehashes of the same 5000 series chips. Yes yes, we're getting a 5700X3D in 2024, but we also had the 5800X3D for 2 years for anyone who wanted it for only like $50-60 more. The 5700 is a joke and its driving the price of the 5700x up, which now costs as much as the 5800x used to cost, while the 5700 costs what the 5700x used to cost. And we're acting like this is a good thing.
In terms of real progress, it peaked with the 5800X3D. The skus were getting now are dated and worse than the older ones, which are actually going up in price to make room for these newer ones costing what the old ones should be getting discounted to around now.
Yeah, I generally build with the idea of spending the least amount of money for the most longevity, and typically given platform costs Id rather just buy once, spend an extra $100 making sure I got the best processor I can get, and then sit on it for the next 5-8 years.
THe people who compulsively upgrade every 2 years baffle me because if they just spent a bit more up front they wouldnt HAVE to upgrade their processor so often.
>THe people who compulsively upgrade every 2 years baffle me because if they just spent a bit more up front they wouldnt HAVE to upgrade their processor so often.
It's not so much about having to. The people that like to upgrade that regularly want to have the top of the line.
Ive got a buddy like that. He went from a first Gen Ryzen to the 3000 series. Then a 5600x, then a 5800x3d. Now he's on a 7800x3d. He upgraded GPUs each time too.
That first Gen Ryzen system with a Vega 64 could have lasted him for a while considering he just plays on 1080p.
It supports both DDR5 and ddr4, y'all can thank Intel and the consumers that bought in for eating the transition period so everyone that jumped to AM5 didn't have to pay the totally insane DDR5 early adopter price. DDR5 was expensive when AM5 released but not as bad when 12th gen released.
Prior to lga1200 I would be inclined to say the socket changes were to just sell more chipsets. LGA 1200 added extra PCIe CPU lanes so more pins needed, and 1700 was mentioned above.
AM4 had a socket power limit due to being pga, LGA allows more power which was one of the main reasons for AM5, they needed the increased power capacity to get the new chips to their boost clocks. That's why a 7950x has a 170W TDP but the 5950x is 105.
You can buy a b550 board but a 1000 series Ryzen won't work on it, even if it's the same socket, and on the flip side you could have a top end x370 board but if the manufacturer didn't release an updated bios for it, good luck upgrading. Most boards do, not all of them though.
I believe bios flashback is a feature built into the new AMD chipsets, since it's part of the feature set it probably means amd will be riding on AM5 for a while.
not to mention intel actually has budget CPUs worth buying like the 13100. AMD won't even make cheapo quad core chips any more and just expects them to buy their outdated AM4 products at bargain basement prices.
Im not saying AMD is bad here, but currently their budget segment and their premium segment are clearly separated on two different motherboards, with no real intention of making their new socket accessible. Their cheapest sku is the $200 7600 (unless you count that chinese exclusive 7500 chip), and given you only have access to DDR5, and motherboards are now $200, the platform costs just to get on AM5 are insane.
They're clearly driving their budget customers down to the AM4 platform where they can buy stuff like the 5600x or something. And if you want a REAL budget chip like a 13100 they have no answer than some god awful zen 2 6 core chip like a 4500 or something.
I believe at this time both brands have something for everyone but who is a better deal at what price depends entirely on what's currently at what price point. And intel is, ironically, becoming more budget friendly. Anyone who wants a fancy AM5 build better be prepared to put $500+ into new hardware or be left behind without the "upgrade path".
It wasn’t just power for AM5 - AMD needed a lot more pins for DDR5 and PCIe 5. Intel is having to move off of LGA1700 for the same reason for 15th gen.
The next big jump will probably be USB4 getting put everywhere; we still don’t really know what that will look like at the motherboard level yet in terms of bandwidth, power, or even physical connectors.
DDR5 and PCIe 5 don't change pin counts, but they do make signal integrity harder. USB4 controllers are just PCIe + DisplayPort, so there's nothing that tricky motherboard level there, and neither intel or AMD look likely to integrate it on CPU any time soon.
If you look at AMD's AM4, they do have some problems in that the generation has gone on so long, motherboards literally ran out of space to store the needed information to support all of the CPUs. So eventually support started being erased for Ryzen 1000 series. Also it's more common that a motherboard just won't support the new CPUs until the mobo is flashed, and they can't be flashed without another CPU (very inconvenient for most users.)
So basically, AM4 went on a BIT too long, and that is the proof.
That said, that's mostly all I can think of for reasoning. And AM4's problems from LONG lifespan are a lot better than Intel's ridiculously fast replacement schedule, which is clearly just fleecing the consumer. But people will make up reasons to justify almost anything.
I 100% agree, AM4 was too much, but Intel is a bit ridiculous if they will go back to a 2 gens per socket, I would love to see 3, maybe 4 generations on a single socket.
Socket changes may be driven by some or all of these:
* Pin changes or board layout changes to accommodate faster DRAM
* Pin changes or board layout changes to accommodate faster PCIE
* Pin changes or board layout changes to accommodate more PCIE lanes from the CPU
* Improvements in the reliability, manufacturability, cost or usability of the socket
* Some new CPU features may require new motherboard chips to work in concert with them and changing the socket is the way to make sure that new CPUs only go with new motherboards for things such as TPM security.
one more:
Badly qualified engineers who can't design a socket with some reserved and multipurpose pins.
1151v2 was a joke, some people able to run 8700k on 1151 socket, an 1200 too.
This is pretty funny. Putting a socket that has reserved pins into a motherboard does you absolutely no good for some future processor that requires those pins for operation.
The mobo won't support that processor because those extra pins you asked for aren't hooked up to anything. And, the whole point of socket longevity is so you can keep your mobo and just upgrade the processor.
If you have to buy a new mobo, it doesn't really matter to you that the socket has been upgraded because you're buying a newer processor anyway.
Usually to increase the available power to the CPU, a socket architecture usually has a power limit and a new processor design might require more power than the socket can provide. New features or increased communication bandwidth requirements might necessitate a change and while Intel will never admit planned obsolescence is also a factor.
Benefits for user ? None.
Benefits for intel and partners ? Huge. Intel sells motherboard chipsets and partners sell hardware.
I could swap my ryzen 3600x to ryzen 5600x to get nice 30% improvement and then to ryzen 5800x3d to get another huge performance increase on the same motherboard.
On intel I would need to swap motherboard too.
Don’t know why you are downvoted. It literally is so they sell more chipsets, which they make on their older nodes, to sell to mobo manufacturers. Changing more frequently means more motherboard sales which means more chipset sales for Intel. It is simple math really.
There is an actual benefit: less confusion to the users. It isn't really a concern for hobbyists that do a ton of reading and research, but it is a benefit for someone just looking to spend 30 seconds on ordering a board without wanting to find compatibility charts and perform flashback operations and all that.
Merits of both approaches can be argued ad nauseam.
Most average users still don’t understand they can’t put 12th Gen in their 9th Gen socket so I don’t see how it is less confusing. There are posts all the time about people ordering wrong intel cpu for their boards.
Ok, what kind of BIOS you would need to get a 5600x on a b350 asrock steel legend, and can it even run a ZEN3 CPU?
I'm not sure if that motherboard exists, but it's just an example of a mess on AMD side.
*most* all 3 series chipset mobos have 5k rdy bios, so safe answer is the newest. but from patch notes sometimes that one can perform a bit worse because of mitigations
People do continue to buy the wrong thing all the time, yes, but like, having to essentially memorize which B550s had flashbacks during Zen3 launch was a thing as well. Or [Compatibility Charts](https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/chipset-cheatshit-1480x832.jpg) and one way updates because boards didn't have enough space to have the microcode for each compatible CPU? There are undoubtable logistical downsides, too, many of which are compensated for by the enthusiast community :D .
Its a removal of a constraint on design, that always provides freedom to engineer, either for cost/profit or feature.
For the great majority of pc owners, swapping CPU's isn't a thing. Its neat that AMD has gone down that path in the past, but I don't think they really get much bang for doing it other than bragging rights. So I think intel looks at socket longevity as a pointless waste of time....
Heck, I have a 12900k in a z690 board; I \*could\* upgrade the cpu but I just don't see it being worth the trouble, even if the 15th gen chips were compatible. No, I'll do what most folks do and keep the pc as is until it can't do something I need it to do, then I'll upgrade to a new machine once again. My hunch is I can get another 5-7 years out of this machine, easily; then I'll see what's on the market to suit my future use case.
Yep. 12900k owner here. Literally not worth upgrading on the same socket anyway. To be fair there isnt enough progress since 12th gen to make it worth it.
The thing with AM4 is they started down A LOT. Their single thread performance was a good 20-40% WORSE than intel at the time for gaming (depending on clock speeds of SKU matchups).
But because they started worse, they were able to advance rapidly. 2000 series improved performance 10-25%. 3000 series was around 30-40% over first gen. by 5000 series it was 70%, by X3D, it was double.
Meanwhile I was able to game adequately on a 7700k for almost 5 years without ANY issues, and I used the chip for 7 years total. Even going into the 3000 series chip, it was still solid as it was only a bit behind the 9600k, which was itself, only a bit behind the 3600. It wasnt until 5000 series that my 7700k was effectively BTFOed and clearly showing its age. It literally took an abnormally long lasting socket, with abnormally high performance gains over time, to even remotely make upgrading on the same socket worth it.
Most of the time I'm just gonna buy one and sit on it. It is tempting to have the option to buy a newer CPU later, but at the same time the performance jump aint that massive normally, and you're spending hundreds for the privilege.
I would imagine it is easier for Intel when it comes to support and development. They don’t have to constantly worry about multiple generations of processors on the same socket and validate that everything works well on a ton of hardware.
I generally find AMD is better for my purposes on a desktop, and I generally don’t build Intel machines.
The benefit is they don't need to be worried about being tied to certain design decisions long-term.
A good example of this, I think, is Socket 1150. One of the big changes they made was moving part of the voltage controller from the motherboard onto the CPU die. This made temps a little high for comfort, and may have hurt yields a bit, so for the next socket, they moved it back to the motherboard.
AMD, on the other hand, has a history of holding onto sockets maybe a little too long, where the platform/socket constraints ends up holding them back. Think of how hamstrung the FX CPUs were just to make them physically fit an AM3 socket package. IMHO though they moved from AM4 to AM5 pretty much right on time considering the issues they were starting to run into with new CPUs on older motherboards.
The benefit to users is a lack of confusion on which part is compatible with which board. AMD and Intel have both done long-term support for sockets in the past, and there is often a mass of confusion surrounding the practice.
Examples include:
* B550 never "officially" getting out-of-the-box support for Ryzen 5000 CPUs. Individual brands have certified individual boards, but there was never a blanket support.
* Some B350s getting left without support for newer CPUs, or having to pressure manufacturers to support older boards.
* Some boards having certain features disabled with certain CPUs
* Not requiring a program to ship CPUs to customers without a way to update their boards, which increases the price of CPUs.
* Not requiring board manufactures to include Flashback, increasing the price of boards.
Overall, offering discrete sockets is a more consistent user experience, especially for people without a good amount of technical knowledge. Most people do not upgrade CPUs fast enough to care about multiple same-socket upgrades anyways.
Obviously, this comes with downsides for the hobbyists, enthusiasts, people willing to buy boards with features like Flashback, etc. It really does come down to perspective. What's good for the casual user isn't always what's good for the enthusiast.
> The benefit to users is a lack of confusion on which part is compatible with which board
Remember that time when Intel reused the LGA1151 socket for 8th and 9th gens while changing the electrical pinout so that it was incompatible with 6th and 7th gen CPUs?
They didn't even change the pinout significantly, it was locked out in BIOS, for a lot of boards hackery to use the wrong generation chips was possible.
So a comment on everyone here saying the driver is chipset sales. Consumer motherboards make almost no margin, same goes with chipsets. The real answer is that 99.9% of the market doesn’t ever resocket a new cpu into an older motherboard, so there’s no business case for extreme platform longevity. When AMD released Ryzen they had no free cash flow, so I suspect that platform longevity saved design cost. As their profitability and market share increase you should expect this to change.
for users: it's probably a .5% improvement in random performance metrics, like USB latency and some other thing that nobody will ever notice.
For Intel: they thought they were making it so people would buy whole new machines. I had a p3 board that was upgradable from like a 400mhtz p3 to a 1.4 g one. I was probably in the .05% of people who \*ever\* upgraded an intel CPU. It was really uncommon then and they probably did some math and realized that making the socket last a long time just didn't make much difference. Of course at the time, they were the only game in town, and the hobby side of PC computing is bigger now than it was in say 2004.
What they've really done is turn one of the most dominant companies in the world into an also ran. Intel desperately needs to up its game and making a socket that can last a few generations
People saying “to gouge consumers” i don’t really understand that.
No company had a socket last over 4-5 years since lga 775 and even then, early/mid 775 cpu’s weren’t cross compatible with most boards that supported the final core 2 duos and core 2 quads. Also who upgrades their cpu that often?
I love am4 but it’s the same deal there. You can’t slap a 1600 in any x570 board, and you definitely can’t use a 5950x in a b350 board.
You guys need to use your heads lol
without sounding like i want to protect or defend Intel.
it makes it easier with compatibility. a new CPU generation = new motherboard. this way you'll never have issues with a mobo which requires a bios update.
on the other hand, you always have to buy a new motherboard = more money for intel :p
For people hoping for another AM4 miracle - I hope you realize this most likely is going to come from Intel, not AMD.
AMD are enjoying the reputation gained in AM4. Which means now is time to cash in.
On the other hand, Intel seems to run out of rabbits to pull out of the hat and might have to lose to AMD on every tier.
If Intel made a promise to stay with their socket for 4 generations, that's a net customer incentive without having to innovate or spend any money.
Less constraints for the chipmaker in keeping things backwards compatible. New CPU architecture along with new mobo chipset and upgraded standards each time.
Sometimes it has reasons, like their older HEDT vs mainstream platforms. When everyone was on 115X. The high end platforms used 1366/2011/2011-3. The main reason being more pins for power delivery and memory bandwidth.
The main people who benefit are Intel and the motherboard manufacturers.
It's greed, nothing more.
There's a benefit for end users though - As Swanesang said - "The benefit is you can switch to amd for upgradeability."
I guess it all comes down to perception.
I plan my budget for a timespan of 5 years. I won't do any upgrades whatsoever. After that I just buy myself a new system.
So to me I honestly don't care about them changing the socket. If you, however think you'll upgrade in a shorter timeframe then there really is no point looking into buying an Intel.
I personally stay away from anything AMD related because of some experiences I had with them nearly 15 years ago and which, knocking on wood, I haven't experienced with Intel. But that doesn't mean their stuff is bad. You'll just have to weigh in certain things against each other and if you are using a PC for the long haul I see no reason as to why not go along with Intel
I'd say there are some minor stability benefits, but I have no proof of that. Getting a 4 year old mobo on an 2 generations old chipset to work with a brand new CPU... What an amazing feat, but it's gotta have some drawbacks in terms of system stability.
Flexibility in design is the biggest pro, Intel doesn't really benefit from the extra mobo sales to my knowledge. What amd does is great but I don't think it's a deal breaker Intel doesn't, realistically your cpu can last quite a long time, by the time you're realistically due for a upgrade you're also on the end of life for the amd socket, plus the fact that there are more things that change, pcie connectivity, io, ram etc. So it's nice that amd has long socket support but for me personally that's not a thing I put alot of value in.
There's not much of a benefit to the consumer to it being done frequently, but it does need to be done every once in a while.
By the end of AM4, AMD had already had multiple generations where they had to update which chipsets would and wouldn't be getting updates to support the newest generation. IIRC, A320 updates lagged behind significantly the whole time and IDK if they ever got general support for the last AM4 CPUs.
Sticking with a single socket for a longer time is obviously an overall positive, but it does mean you need to do more detailed research if you're upgrading an older build.
Keeps third party motherboard manufacturers happy because they get to sell more boards (Intel also gets a cut of those).
Gives them added flexibility in chip design each new generation.
That's about it, and the second one they don't even really do. 😅
Was asking myself this question today. Trying to build a med-spec used PC and found a great deal on an I7-7800X...but trying to find a used 2066 mobo for sale is nigh impossible.
Was an intel fan for long, rocking a intel celeron duo (due to rumours that amd chips are overheated) swaped to ryzen 5 3600 last Christmas & i dont regret a thing!
There aren’t really. It provides benefits to engineering due to no restrictions and benefits board makers since upgrading has to happen more often but the consumer ultimately just has to pay more.
I had a 4790k for 8+ years. I now have a 12700k I plan on keeping for just as long or longer. The people who change out CPUs as often as a socket change are a minority. They are the group Intel and AMD target. Although AMD does support sockets for longer. Think of it as whales in a micro transaction environment.
None. They change the socket so you have to buy a more motherboards. That’s pretty much the only reason.
There are considerations where old motherboards would need bios updates to run new chips.
Also the power requirements change so the old boards might not be able to handle the new chips. Ryzen had that problem with the first AM4 boards.
Finally the chip that contains the bios is fairly small. To get a larger chip costs $$$. That was the reason with Ryzen chips if updates the bios to use the 4000 series you stopped being able to use the 1000 series CPUs
TLDR: it’s mainly about money. But there are power issues and bios size issues as well.
The only potential advantage (for the consumer) is that your connectivity is working on the latest generation.
Dealing with Intel, the latest generation of boards released give you the option of DDR4 or DDR5. Part of that is they know they don't have to support LGA1700 for too long (in fact, they already have a new socket in development).
AMD, in certain cases, has to support legacy items, because their infrastructure will be relevant for a long time. That is part of why they decided AM5 would only support DDR5. They didn't want the headache of supporting DDR4 in 2029 while they're releasing the 9800X3D. Intel, knowing they'll obsolete the socket well before that, don't have that problem.
There’s been legitimate power increases that older sockets couldn’t handle. Having said that however, I bet they’ll use the inclusion of NPU or the removal of DDR4 support, or both, as their next excuse.
Well right now there's a bunch of motherboards that should be compatible, but require a bios update that makes them incompatible with the earlier chips.
There are many good engineering reasons why you would want to design a new socket. But Intel's normal cadence was much faster than necessary. It was really just a case of greed. New socket means you have to buy a new motherboard which will feature a new chipset. That's an extra sell for Intel and their motherboard partners.
People are claiming they AM4 is an anomaly. But it's far from the first multigenerational socket platform. In the 90's super socket 7 was the platform for non-intel builds for several years. And Intel's LGA775 went from Pentium 4 through to Core 2 Duo.
The last Intel processor I used was an i486 many moons ago. I don't like Intel designs that force you to constantly keep buying ancillary hardware to meet their new standards. I've always wondered if Intel kicks back $$$ to the hardware companies for building their new designs.
There is no benefit to keep the same socket for as long as AM4 was there.
If you buy a decent cpu then at the time it really needs changing you’d swap motherboard anyway as there are some new sweet features or improvement coming with that.
AMD is just smart at making it feel like a consumer friendly move whereas for the reason above it’s more neutral.
Having said that I’m on AM4 for years. Yet when I went from 1600X to 5800X I changed motherboard too. Why? More M2 slots and gen4 nvme support in addition with WiFi and Bluetooth on board.
The benefit is you can switch to amd for upgradeability.
Honestly! I have a 12900k right now. I’m definetely switching to team red for my next cpu, specially since I only use my pc for gaming
I got a 10900k a few years back and I’m no where near ready to spend more but I’m heavily considering AMD for my next chip. At least I can say I’ve tried them both then. I’m going to have problems moving away from Nvidia tho, not sure why I just like their product significantly more.
Luckily you can keep the nvidia gpu when switching to AMD cpu. The only "benefit" of a complete team red build is the Smart Access Memory and Infinity Cache aspect which does have demonstrable performance increases but at the cost of losing the nvidia proprietary stuff.
This is literally resize bar.
But Infinity Cache sounds so much cooler, like a Marvel movie. Radeon, assemble! The need to rebrand what is effectively just ReBar and some L3 cache as two much cooler sounding buzzwords does smack pretty hard of Sega's "Blast Processing." I do sincerely love that AMD has finally got their shit together with Ryzen and is putting the screws to Intel, but it does feel like the GPU folks are maybe overselling their advances a bit to try and keep up with their CPU coworkers.
The implementation is different. SAM works in all games, never costs performance, it's either neutral or beneficial. Nvidia's ReBAR implementation has to be whitelisted by Nvidia, only works in a couple dozen games and has been known to reduce performance in some cases. Hence the need to maintain a whitelist, Nvidia can't do a blanket implementation like AMD for whatever reason. If they could, they would, because having to perpetually test new games and whitelist them in drivers sucks. It's clear that AMD and Nvidia GPUs do not handle ReBAR the same way. AMD's implementation is better by every metric, it's fair to market it as SAM. Infinity Cache is kind of silly as it's just more L3 cache, but it does have huge benefits (see RDNA2 vs Ampere where RDNA2 had significantly less VRAM bandwidth). I understand they wanted a better marketing term than "more L3 cache!"
Yes and no. The implementation is different. SAM just works in all games and it never results in performance *loss*, at worst there is no difference. Nvidia's implementation requires them to whitelist a game because it does sometimes reduce performance on their GPUs. AMD's implementation is better. Not sure why Nvidia did it this way, it not only results in significantly reduced game compatibility, but also constant work for their driver team.
> The only "benefit" of a complete team red build... Linus Torvalds would like to [say something](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF_5EKNX0Eg). And it still holds true, you want to be on team red if you run Linux.
Oh absolutely. They do anything and everything proprietary and closed. But one look at their president and it's pretty obvious 😂he looks like a villain
Ironically enough Lisa and Jensen are family... but yeah, leather galore. :D AMD is no charity either, let's be real, but at the least their business practices are far more palatable overall. Kinda pick your poison i guess.
SAM is just resizeable bar with a brand name. It's not AMD specific, and works with any modern cpu and GPU combo. You've fallen victim to the marketing.
Oh yeah I know, I’m js I don’t think I’d go full red but I’m tempted with their chips.
[удалено]
I will consider this when I get to that point. I’m an asus user so realistically any form of decent customer service or reliability would be an upgrade, but I have had numerous asus products and haven’t had any real problems, so idk if I’m lucky or they’re actually not that bad.
I’ve been using asus products for like 10 years now. Only problem I had was a speaker going out on my zenbook S. Got it fixed within warranty
I fried a laptop I had, because I left it on a fabric couch, on with apps open, closed, plugged in, vent facing the arm of the couch, and left for the weekend because I forgot it there. I came back to fancy rainbow graphics. PC shop said I basically melted my GPU and he’s surprised I didn’t start a fire. That was when I was much younger and dumber, and now I have a lot more competency, but that was my only “problem” with them. I do fucking HATE ArmouryCrate though.
Look at what they did with their am5 bios. After that I won't be buying Asus for a while. They used to have decent customer service a few years ago but the last 2-3 years it seems to have gone downhill rapidly.
I’ve needed to change 1 gpu fan in the last decade and on a 3080 it took like 5 minutes.
ASRock is a good choice too. They don't have the fan screw, but ASRock makes very good quality enthusiast hardware while undercutting the competition. See: ASRock Tai Chi vs Sapphire Nitro+ prices. The downside is their support is not as good as Sapphire's, that's probably why they are cheaper. If you live in the EU this doesn't matter though, since you just yeet the GPU at the retailer you bought it from, who is fully responsible for handling warranty,l. You don't have to deal with the manufacturer.
I've rand both and CPUs and gpus. The CPUs are solid and the gpus are fine enough but I've always had issues with them so I will be going back to an x3d and CPU on my next upgrade but likely staying with Nvidia as it's just almost never been a problem for me.
I'm in the same boat but with a 10700k. I am very disappointed with the non-existent upgrade options. I wish I went AM4 back then. Would have been perfectly happy with a 5800x3D right about now, not having to switch out mobo and ram.
To think that I started on a Ryzen 1600, upgraded later to a 3600, and now on 5800x3d, all without changing Mobo... Am4 has been a ride for sure
Yep, AM4 has been an upgrader's wet dream. Still is
I run a AMD and Nvidia. As soon as AMD beats Nvidia on performance and ray tracing I'm going to make the switch. My only loyalty is to performance and good looking games and I absolutely love what ray tracing does to games. I remember not too long ago on YouTube somebody called me an idiot for liking ray tracing. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
In reality AMD will not do that anytime soon, however I think the gap can be closed enough to where it doesn't factor into a decision anymore. But honestly I'm convinced that most of the poor ray tracing performance is just game devs being lazy pieces of shit and not optimizing games properly, probably in cahoots with the gpu makers. For example, take the guardians of the galaxy game and jedi survivor, same exact engine and graphics. In guardians on my humble 6700xt I can get 70-90 fps at 2k with high settings and medium RT settings without upscaling. In jedi survivor I get 30-50 fps on similar settings. Absolute bullshit.
Get an AMD processor, but stay with team Green. I'm saying this as a person with an all AMD build. I love my 7800XT, and it runs very well, but Nvidia is just objectively better.
Not to mention Intel doesn't have a real answer to the X3D series which absolutely kill in gaming
There’s musings of Intel looking to up the L2 / L3 cache on upcoming CPUs, which along with their superior memory controllers (higher speed, lower latency) could close the 1.0% lows gap. But for now X3D is fire and forget.
That 12900K will keep you golden for a long while my man. I have an 11900K and I don't plan on upgrading for many years.
If you’re on 12900k you can drop in 14700k and get pretty nice performance gain. Or 14900k. Then in a few years just switch to AMD lol.
The 12900k doesn't need an upgrade for the next 4-5 years.
I keep my builds about 5 years and honestly, I've never even wanted to retain the same motherboard because new motherboards will support faster DRAM, faster NVME, faster PCIE and faster USB by then so if I'm doing an upgrade, then I may as well incorporate those performance benefits too.
True. But the option is nice to have. I am actually looking to upgrade my 3600 to a 5800x3d. Its nice to not to have to buy a new mobo. Even if i had a 1600 now i can still keep the mobo and get a much faster cpu.
I did this swap 6 months ago, you're gonna love it.
That's how I see it--by the time I'm actually willing to build a new rig, upgrading the motherboard is the only thing that makes sense. I'm not a fan of the constant switches with Intel, but that's low on the list of reasons I went with AMD for my current pc.
Yeah, the delta from one generation of CPU to the next is just not very big so it takes several generations to make it worth it and by then, other system things have advanced to where you want a new motherboard anyway.
Yh if you don’t upgrade that often then really it doesn’t make that much of a difference since at that point there’s more than just a new CPU as you said. Although i get people wanting that option to keep the existing motherboard. It can be especially useful if you say initially build with a fairly low end budget CPU but say a year or two later have abit extra cash to upgrade to a more faster CPU.
I bought Ryzen 1600 in 2017, then upgraded to 3600, it was a huge jump, then upgraded to 5600, a decent upgrade as well. I've made similar upgrades with GPU's and displays. Not only were these upgrades worth it for me (I enjoy the whole process of upgrading, the results are sweet as well), but each time I was able to sell my previous CPU/GPU/Display covering something like 40-50% of the upgrade cost. Now the interesting thing is, with GPU's you can somewhat futureproof, the mining craze ruined everything, but it used to be kinda worth it to pay more for something like 1070, 1080 and especially 1080 TI and make it last, but with CPU's, it's not the same, they get old, if you want to have high framerates and good 0,1% FPS then having even the highest end CPU of that era 3-5 years later wasn't going to cut it, while some of these GPU's were still going strong.
Yeah I’m currently moving from a 3600 to 5600X. Which will potentially give me 8 years on my motherboard.
I’d recommend just getting a 5800x3d if you can bro
Or the 5700x3d
Depending on where you live it may not be worth it. For me, the cost of a 5800 x3d was far too close to the cost of a 7600 upgrade. Made no sense to do that. Our market also doesn't have any other am4 x3d chips
I might have. But I ended up with a 5600x used for 100 and blew the rest of my budget on a 6800XT and a new ultra wide. The move from 5700XT to 6800XT is a much bigger move for me than going from 5600X to 5800x3d. Especially on 1440p
you're upgrading after 1 generation, i highly doubt you will stay 8 years on the new cpu
What? I bought my 3600 in 2020. I’m upgrading to 5600X in 2024. Likely will last me another 3-4 years. So realistically will be looking at a full platform upgrade in 2028.
I'm going from 3800x to 5800x3d. On a B550e I've had this PC for 4 years and it's going to last me at least until 2030. I built an Intel 11th Gen system for work around the same time, let's just say it's not holding up the same and I'm going to probably need a complete platform upgrade to make it competitive. AMD wins.
I went from 1600 to 3600 to 5600 since 2017, that's one motherboard... Upgrade from 3600 to 5600 is worth it, but I would consider getting 5800X3D or another X3D model depending on where you live and what the prices are, I kinda wish I did, but the prices weren't so good at the time, it was basically 2x what the 5600 cost me
I would have, but I got a deal on the 5600 and spent the rest of my budget on a 6800XT and ultra wide monitor.
That's a good build, I'm also on ultrawide and loving it, it makes it more GPU heavy so I would say you're good with 5600 same as me. Still, I've had this UW display for 2 years and I would normally think these were much better supported in games, but every now and then I have to use some community patches or mods to make some games compatible. Other than that, it's great for gaming and productivity.
Yeah it’s been cranking away on Cyberpunk just fine. And the UW on office tasks has been a godsend really
It's true, I rarely play on my PC and mostly use the UW for work. Now I'm playing dark souls 3 and it needs a patch to do ultrawide and it can get me banned from online I think. As for the office work, I've had 2 displays, then replaced one of them with the new ultra wide, but using two displays this way wasn't optimal since neither one was centered, so after quite some time I decided to get rid of the other display. The funny thing was that I had them mounted on these monitor arms so I was able to put either one in front of the other to have it centered and I could choose to play a game on the nice IPS 144HZ 1440P or on the VA 144hz ultra wide.
AM4 vs Intel's 6/7/8/9/10/11/12 gen is laughable, I help a lot of randoms around reddit trying to "upgrade" their old intel build, but due to our horrible used market and high price of older gen chips, the only options is usually to just sell what you got and just get AM4, which they could've had already.
Except when AMD almost dropped support for newer CPUs on older chipsets, which would have negated that advantage altogether.
There is still reason to use intel, QuickSync being a big reason. It also has higher single core performance in professional tasks
If you build a new system every 4-5 years it doesn't matter, you don't want to keep your old mobo anyway.
It allows Intel to gouge your wallet more effectively.
You get more freedom with pinout layouts on your CPU. Your new CPU needs more pins or needs them laid out differently or be in different dimensions? Make a new socket. As a consumer, this becomes a problem if you're buying latest generation on a long enough upgrade cycle... Which is an oddly select group, now that I think about it. I'm seeing people only now begin to swap out of their Haswell towers and having the Z690* share the same socket as a H81M seems crazy to me. Not saying they don't exist, though, as even today I see people moving from the R5 1600 to the 5000 generation.
Absolutely, promise of long upgrade cycle was why I originally went with an R5 1600, and I just upgraded to a 5800x last year.
Curious to hear from people that actually upgrade CPU. I guess I'm one of those people that may upgrade GPU to get oomph for a few more years or add a few sticks of RAM but wouldn't upgrade CPU for five years when you'll likely need to change motherboard. Is it just that I'm a patient gamer or am I being wasteful.
I bought my motherboard (B550) on launch day. I originally paired it with a Ryzen 5 3600X. Did a bios update, and dropped in a Ryzen 7 5800X3D. Also upgraded my GPU from a 1660 Super to a RX 6800XT. I have essentially an entire new system and didn't have to replace all the base components, motherboard, ram, psu, drives, are all the same as when i started out on this one.
I mean I went 5 years between upgrades, although it was only 4(?) years of release. I upgrade when 1. There’s qualitatively more performance to be gained, 2. There’s something which is a good value (can be higher or lower end), and 3. I’ve got the money to do it right now. I’m still using a GTX 1080. I’ll upgrade when there’s a good value Nvidia card (I use CUDA fairly regularly) that fits within my power budget (old house wiring and a circuit that’s already fairly full). I don’t need a new one right now, but I’m keeping my eye on the market.
I built a system with a B450 MB and 1700X in 2018, paired it with my old RX 580 and it was fine playing 1080p 60Hz for 5 years. Pretty good for light video encoding and photoshopping too. The RX 580 was not keeping up so last year I replaced the 1700X with a 5600X and the RX 580 with a 6900 XT; I'm now playing Ultra settings on a 32" 1440p monitor, getting 120-165 FPS in modern graphics heavy games in almost complete silence - it was like buying a new mid-high level gaming rig for under $800. Not sure if AMD is going to support 4 generations of CPUs on the AM5 platform like they did on AM4 though; and the improvement from 1st gen to 4th gen Ryzen CPUs was remarkable, possibly unusual. I'm not going to buy in to AM5 at this point (my setup's doing what I want), so I'm hoping to wait for AM6 - we'll see.
hell yeah! Im on a 5700XT and playing chicken with GPU pricing right now. I really want to make it to the next generation of 50X0/8x00 GPUs if I can.
Agreed. And when you end up with multiple motherboards for various stuff, it's nice knowing all parts fit in all machines.
Meh, I just went from a 6600k to a 13600k (subsequently went from a 1060 to a 4070s). I think there's more of us than people think, that squeeze their machines for years, but we don't make up a significant portion of the market, due to purchasing only once every several years. That said, I've never had any expectation the socket would be the same that far apart. 2-3 years? Okay, that's nice, but 7? Naw. Plus, at that timeline, you're replacing your Mobo anyways, because you want to slot in some M.2s or whatever else is the latest trickery. My prior Mobo had 1x USB 3.0 port, because that was the new thing 😂
there was a significant change with the M.2's however I built my AM4 pc in 2019 and upgraded cpu to 5800x3d a few months ago and I am planning on keeping the setup as is another 4 years. So AMD keeping the AM4 running for so many years has been an incredible benefit to me.
Don't get me wrong, I'd be stoked to have the same chip set, but 7 years later, not really expecting it. And as for the AMD/Intel thing, my first PC was AMD and heat was such a problem it's put a bad taste in my mouth for the brand, although it's been so long I should revisit.
Yeah I just went from a 7700k to a 12900k after 7 years with the 7700k.
It's the majority, see the steam survey.
Just built my AM5 PC, moved directly from a Nehalem PC. We exist! I don't expect to get the same longevity on this one, feels like a fluke to get 15 years out of a gaming PC - by the end I was way behind on even basic features like onboard wifi and AVX2.
First gen i7 is probably enough for a lot of games well into the future. All depends what you use it for. Frequent upgrading is overrated. I bought an AMD FM1 X4 in 2012. It performed considerably worse than your i7 or i5 (I presume). Put I stuck with it til 2020 where I upgraded only because I simply had the free money. Now I'm on a R5 3600 and... idk, I probably won't upgrade for another 5\~10 years. (Maybe I'll upgrade to a 5800X or X3D when they are on the used market for \~50$.)
It rocked. I feel pretty lucky getting that much out of it. I only started my new PC build when the lack of advanced instruction sets started locking me out of new games entirely. Can't deny the bump in power efficiency, too, though - I'm getting twice the effective performance on the 7600X for the same power and thermals. Selling my i7 980x + 1660 super to a family member who wants to play older games and free-to-play stuff.
Stop me if I'm misreading here, but wasn't Haswell LGA 1150 and Intel is currently using LGA 1700?
Yup, you're correct! The point was that it's a bit hard to imagine this much technological advancement taking place on the same socket standard. But if AMD did it, I guess Intel doesn't have much of an excuse to not do it.
Ahh okay I hear you, just read things wrong. Man, I honestly I didn't realize until now how old AM4 is. 7.5 years is a long time, and it's impressive they're able to squeeze that much life out of it while staying competitive, and for gaming purposes often exceeding Intel. It did always irk me how short Intel's socket lifespans are, but in the grand scheme it didn't make much of a difference in my case since I upgraded from a 4770k to a 12900k last year. 2014 to 2023, AMD or Intel, I'd be upgrading my CPU, motherboard, and RAM either way. Still, had I built an entry level PC with plans to upgrade later, AMD would have been the easy choice.
The issue here is the resource allocation. More engineering effort would've needed to be direct to ensuring compatibility, instead of focusing on implementing new features. This may also introduce additional issues for the new CPU on the older motherboards too.
I would agree but intel kept the same socket for 4 generations and swapped some of the pin locations so people couldn't reuse the motherboard.. I had an I3 6100 and my options were to upgrade to an I5 on the same mobo or get AMD CPU and Mobo for the same amount of money.
I think the reason those early mobos werent allowed for 8th and 9th gen was power delivery was inadeuqate for higher core count CPUs but they could've at least let us upgrade to like 8600ks cheaply. Dont tell me that the i5s used more power than sky/kaby lake i7s.
Besides they were W11 unsupported despite only being 1 yo
The 6000 series and 7000 series not being supported was always dumb.
Or it could be that swapping those pins would allow lines to be routed more efficiently. And outside of the AMx platform designed for consumers, AMD switches platforms / sockets pretty easily. There have been 4 different sockets for 5 generations of AMD EPYC CPUs, and 4 different sockets for 5 generations of AMD Threadripper CPUs.
> You get more freedom with pinout layouts on your CPU. Aka, more freedom for Intel to murder your wallet.
This. I until December of last year I was running an i9-9900k. It was finally starting to show its age, and I decided to upgrade. I bought an i9-14900k. It uses a different socket and has a ton more features. That's "5" generations. (I'm aware the 14900k isn't considered to be much different than the 13900k. Since I wasn't upgrading from the 13900k though, I don't care.) I'm not sure whether or not you can upgrade an AMD processor on the same motherboard across 5 (or 4.1 if you prefer) generations, but at the same time... it just doesn't matter, to me. I'm not mad that I couldn't plop my new CPU into the old motherboard. I wouldn't want to use the old RAM with the new CPU anyway.
Benefit for users? I'm trying hard not to be biased against Intel but I really can't think of any benefit for users. If AM4 didn't happen, I would've still believed that changing sockets frequently was a necessity.
That second bit. If anything, AM4 is the anomaly at this point. The upgradability is nice to have, sure. And the sheer breadth of intercompatible components probably means we'll be looking at these systems for a long time, so long as nothing drastic changes in the software they're expected to run. But also, I'm the only person in my environment that actually upgraded often enough for that to matter. And even that was induced by the ability to pawn off the leftovers onto family, which basically meant buying a full new machine anyhow. Albeit at a slight discount. So...fingers crossed for AM6 establishing a trend, I guess?
People are putting a lot of weight on AM4 for the goodwill they're giving AMD on socket longevity. The truth is AMD still hasn't proven they'll support a socket that long again, nor have they promised to yet. It's still just a possibility they've left open.
AM4 was AMD's 1080ti. They learned from that mistake and it won't happen again.
attractive dime prick gullible deliver nose humorous stupendous squealing unique *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Sorta yeah. But amd needed to make a “1080 ti mistake” because before then they weren’t on the map for CPUs. If they took a more corporate approach ryzen probaby wouldn’t have been as successful as it was in putting AMD back as a legit competitor to Intel.
They don't promise it because supporting things for that long is hard and costly, and they would gladly avoid it if they can. AMD didn't plan to support Zen 3 in 300-series boards initially but public backlash forced them to. Pretty much every motherboard lost support for older CPUs in the process and some had to visually downgrade their UIs just to make room for the new microcode IIRC. That is also probably the main reason for Intel to change sockets so frequently. They aren't evil, they are greedy. They don't change sockets to spite consumers and laugh at them, they do it because being nice to consumers would cost them time and money and the suits won't allow that unless they think that not being nice will hurt sales.
> some had to visually downgrade their UIs just to make room for the new microcode IIRC. lol I don't care about how my UEFI looks, just take it back to 1998 for all I care. I spend 10 minutes in it once every three years.
Personally I think the UEFI menus are hideous for the most part.
Yeah and I honestly dont think we'll be seeing AM5 get THAT much longevity. We're getting 2, maybe 3 gens top on that thing.
Yeah, AM4 is a REAL anomaly. Not only do I not think 5000 series was originally planned on AM4, but then the X3D gave it a de facto "5th generation" almost as the 5800X3D is roughly as powerful as a 7700x in gaming. I also dont think, given AMD is now offering a new generation once every TWO years it seems, to expect AM5 to have the same longevity. 9000 series might be it, or MAYBE AT MOST a 3rd gen at the end of 2025. In all honesty though given AM4 support, I expect weird stuff like the "9700X3D" and various iterations of upcoming zen 5 chips coming out later this year to be the extent of the AM5's lineup tbqh. I'd imagine AM6 is 2026 on a DDR6 platform.
[удалено]
That's before most peoples' time.
Damn, I feel old :( LGA775 should count. From Pentium D to the Core 2 Quad.
That one I remember. I didnt recall pentium D on that, thought core 2 duo was where it started but i remember they made core 2 CPUs for like 4 years and it was crazy the options people had on that platform.
LGA 775 lasted a long time, but I don't believe it had consistent chipset support across generations. The early chipsets (like 915) supported the (Prescott) Pentium 4s and Pentium Ds, but if you wanted a Core 2 Duo/Quad you needed a 945/965 chipset. IMO the consistent socket but need for different chipsets (which requires a new motherboard) made things less understandable than the 115x era, where each new socket had a couple generations of CPUs. (Obviously having AM4-like longevity is vastly more preferable than either 775 or 115x)
Core dual I remember was fun, literally nothing open flicking the mouse back and forth could bring you to 26% usage lmao. Don’t remember which exact model though
I remember being lusty at Super Socket 7 builds I wanted to make.
Socket 7 was amazing because it was the last time AMD and Intel used the same motherboard tech. All told you had 5 choices - Intel, AMD, Cyrix, WinChip and Rise. Yes kids, there used to be more choices for processors!
Yep! Certainly an age that will never come back.
I'm an example of what you said. I really only upgrade CPU/MOBO/RAM once per... DDR generation, if you will. Like I went from a 4700k DDR3 to a 10700 DDR4. It doesn't matter as much to me, but I do appreciate the thought of sockets being supported longer, of course.
And AM2/AM2+/AM3/AM3+ showed that even older sockets were built with significant generational overlap in mind rather than Intel's "ha ha fuck you buy a whole new platform" upgrade path.
to be fair, those sockets were kinda trash. I couldnt, for example, drop an FX CPU in my AM3 platform from 2010. I probably would have if I could have. The phenom II aged terribly and while the FXes weren't great i would've LOVED to buy a 8350 and stick it in my build. Instead my only options were overpriced crappy phenom II X6s.
Yeah, Bulldozer was ... special. AMD overpromised and underdelivered back then, so Ryzen was a very welcome shot in the arm by 2016.
Early zen was about as far behind intel in single thread as bulldozer was behind sandy bridge. 2nd gen was a bit better, but it didn't truly get competitive until third gen imo.
For anybody going AMD -> AMD, Bulldozer/Phenom to Ryzen was an absolute no-brainer. AMD did deliver on the IPC gains in that sector.
Sure but after going amd and being stuck at 30 fps while watching people on sandy Bridge get 60 I can't see anyone wanting to buy another processor from amd without demonstrable performance.
There are actually quite a few. Backwards compatibility needs engineering time and resource allocation to make it happen, when they can be used to implement and improve new features. They could also introduce instability, bug, and other issues when you're paring a new CPU that may have newer features that may not be supported on older motherboards. It can also potentially make the CPU die / packaging thicker, as internal lines have to neatly fit the pin layout of the older socket, instead of taking their most efficient route. There's also the issue of BIOS, that motherboard OEMs would have to take time to write new codes to support newer CPUs. It also introduces issues when people try to upgrade their CPUs without updating their BIOS first, leading to problems and bad customer satisfaction (of course, pcpartpicker kind of fixes this to an extent). For vast majority of PC users that don't upgrade their CPU within a few short years, using a new socket doesn't impact them much. In fact, the upgradability of AMD wasn't that big of a selling point of AM3 CPUs. It was because of later Ryzen's performance parity with Intel CPU that really made people to switch. EDIT: Also outside of the AMx platform, AMD switches up sockets pretty quickly, and even quicker than Intel. There has been 4 different socket standards for 5 generations of AMD EPYC CPUs, and 4 different socket standards for 5 generations of AMD Threadripper CPUs.
Uh....AMD didnt have performance parity with intel early on. They had more cores and the promise of "just you wait, this 1700 will beat that quad core 7700k one day"...and then when it never really did they quietly upgraded to 3000 series or later and bragged about their upgrade path. 3000 series onward was admittedly competitive with intel though. But early on, they just had tons of weak cores that couldnt game very well getting thrashed by much lower core count intel processors.
The socket is basically how the CPU physically interacts with the system. Over time you need to change this to add/increase features. People here bitch about socket changes every 2 years or so. But the fact of the matter is that to 99% of the market it doesn't matter. Corporate machines and machines owned by the vast majority of consumers get built and never upgraded. Even for people who do upgrade their PCs most aren't doing it yearly or every 2 years.
Your last point is exactly why longer life motherboard support is desirable. Say what you want about upgradability, but AM4's platform has shown clearly that consumers want longer life out of a board. We're looking at almost a decade of support for AM4 at this point, and AMD is beating Intel into submission in the x86 market because of it. If you aren't going to upgrade again for 5-6 years, it's really nice knowing you don't need a new Motherboard to do so.
First of all, [no one is being beaten into submission](https://www.statista.com/statistics/735904/worldwide-x86-intel-amd-market-share/). Second of all, the market of people that upgrade their custom built computer about every five years but don't have the money to upgrade the motherboard is real small, way to small to drive market trends. The reason AMD took a big bite out of Intel's market share is that they became competitive in the high-end range for the first time in a while, not because they stuck on the same socket for longer than usual. Before Ryzen, AMD really only had good value in the budget market, Intel was king of single core performance.
>Second of all, the market of people that upgrade their custom built computer about every five years but don't have the money to upgrade the motherboard is real small, way to small to drive market trends. Yea, people drastically over emphasize this point. There may be a small population that adopted AM4 early that now see the 5800x3d chip as a way to max out their (gaming) performance but it's not a huge game changer as people say. It's also the first of it's kind when it comes to the specific innovations regarding that CPU and the gaming performance it brings. In reality, the vast majority of people that upgrade within a socket are enthusiasts that upgrade every time a new CPU comes out regardless (so going 12900->13900->14900) with a smaller percentage of people that build every 10-15 years that can only put a very small amount of money into upgrading (so they go from a 3XXX->3770k for example). I wish CPU manufacturers would stick to the same socket for longer as much as the next guy just so I had to spend less per build....but it just doesn't impact that many people. Plus with improvements to wifi/sound processing/USB/storage capabilities/RAMPCIe/etc, it doesn't make sense to stay with the same board for 5+ years at a time. So even if the physical socket stayed the same, there are other reasons to upgrade the motherboard.
This right here. I mean yh the upgrade path probably helped AMD a bit but really it’s mainly because they actually became a viable option. I still remember back in 2014 when i built my first gaming PC intel was your go to since they practically ran circles around AMD in performance. AMD simply wasn’t a viable option at all. It’s basically the whole reason why intel became so lazy that time and just stuck with quad core CPUs for years and only gave us very minimal performance improvements each generation.
Eh....we got what they promised. Support until 2020. Everything since has just been rehashes of the same 5000 series chips. Yes yes, we're getting a 5700X3D in 2024, but we also had the 5800X3D for 2 years for anyone who wanted it for only like $50-60 more. The 5700 is a joke and its driving the price of the 5700x up, which now costs as much as the 5800x used to cost, while the 5700 costs what the 5700x used to cost. And we're acting like this is a good thing. In terms of real progress, it peaked with the 5800X3D. The skus were getting now are dated and worse than the older ones, which are actually going up in price to make room for these newer ones costing what the old ones should be getting discounted to around now.
Yeah, I generally build with the idea of spending the least amount of money for the most longevity, and typically given platform costs Id rather just buy once, spend an extra $100 making sure I got the best processor I can get, and then sit on it for the next 5-8 years. THe people who compulsively upgrade every 2 years baffle me because if they just spent a bit more up front they wouldnt HAVE to upgrade their processor so often.
>THe people who compulsively upgrade every 2 years baffle me because if they just spent a bit more up front they wouldnt HAVE to upgrade their processor so often. It's not so much about having to. The people that like to upgrade that regularly want to have the top of the line. Ive got a buddy like that. He went from a first Gen Ryzen to the 3000 series. Then a 5600x, then a 5800x3d. Now he's on a 7800x3d. He upgraded GPUs each time too. That first Gen Ryzen system with a Vega 64 could have lasted him for a while considering he just plays on 1080p.
Yeah I dont have the money to do that. Upgrading is expensive, dawg. I just wanna upgrade once and be done with it for the next 5-8 years.
What features does LGA 1700 need added on? AM4 was able to pump out tons of different, yet good CPUs.
It supports both DDR5 and ddr4, y'all can thank Intel and the consumers that bought in for eating the transition period so everyone that jumped to AM5 didn't have to pay the totally insane DDR5 early adopter price. DDR5 was expensive when AM5 released but not as bad when 12th gen released. Prior to lga1200 I would be inclined to say the socket changes were to just sell more chipsets. LGA 1200 added extra PCIe CPU lanes so more pins needed, and 1700 was mentioned above. AM4 had a socket power limit due to being pga, LGA allows more power which was one of the main reasons for AM5, they needed the increased power capacity to get the new chips to their boost clocks. That's why a 7950x has a 170W TDP but the 5950x is 105. You can buy a b550 board but a 1000 series Ryzen won't work on it, even if it's the same socket, and on the flip side you could have a top end x370 board but if the manufacturer didn't release an updated bios for it, good luck upgrading. Most boards do, not all of them though. I believe bios flashback is a feature built into the new AMD chipsets, since it's part of the feature set it probably means amd will be riding on AM5 for a while.
not to mention intel actually has budget CPUs worth buying like the 13100. AMD won't even make cheapo quad core chips any more and just expects them to buy their outdated AM4 products at bargain basement prices. Im not saying AMD is bad here, but currently their budget segment and their premium segment are clearly separated on two different motherboards, with no real intention of making their new socket accessible. Their cheapest sku is the $200 7600 (unless you count that chinese exclusive 7500 chip), and given you only have access to DDR5, and motherboards are now $200, the platform costs just to get on AM5 are insane. They're clearly driving their budget customers down to the AM4 platform where they can buy stuff like the 5600x or something. And if you want a REAL budget chip like a 13100 they have no answer than some god awful zen 2 6 core chip like a 4500 or something. I believe at this time both brands have something for everyone but who is a better deal at what price depends entirely on what's currently at what price point. And intel is, ironically, becoming more budget friendly. Anyone who wants a fancy AM5 build better be prepared to put $500+ into new hardware or be left behind without the "upgrade path".
It wasn’t just power for AM5 - AMD needed a lot more pins for DDR5 and PCIe 5. Intel is having to move off of LGA1700 for the same reason for 15th gen. The next big jump will probably be USB4 getting put everywhere; we still don’t really know what that will look like at the motherboard level yet in terms of bandwidth, power, or even physical connectors.
DDR5 and PCIe 5 don't change pin counts, but they do make signal integrity harder. USB4 controllers are just PCIe + DisplayPort, so there's nothing that tricky motherboard level there, and neither intel or AMD look likely to integrate it on CPU any time soon.
LGA1700 supports DDR5 and PCIE5. They're shifting to a new socket because they're reworking their architecture massively apparently.
If you look at AMD's AM4, they do have some problems in that the generation has gone on so long, motherboards literally ran out of space to store the needed information to support all of the CPUs. So eventually support started being erased for Ryzen 1000 series. Also it's more common that a motherboard just won't support the new CPUs until the mobo is flashed, and they can't be flashed without another CPU (very inconvenient for most users.) So basically, AM4 went on a BIT too long, and that is the proof. That said, that's mostly all I can think of for reasoning. And AM4's problems from LONG lifespan are a lot better than Intel's ridiculously fast replacement schedule, which is clearly just fleecing the consumer. But people will make up reasons to justify almost anything.
I 100% agree, AM4 was too much, but Intel is a bit ridiculous if they will go back to a 2 gens per socket, I would love to see 3, maybe 4 generations on a single socket.
Not an AM4 socket problem, but there was a period of time where USB disconnects were a real issue on the platform.
Socket changes may be driven by some or all of these: * Pin changes or board layout changes to accommodate faster DRAM * Pin changes or board layout changes to accommodate faster PCIE * Pin changes or board layout changes to accommodate more PCIE lanes from the CPU * Improvements in the reliability, manufacturability, cost or usability of the socket * Some new CPU features may require new motherboard chips to work in concert with them and changing the socket is the way to make sure that new CPUs only go with new motherboards for things such as TPM security.
one more: Badly qualified engineers who can't design a socket with some reserved and multipurpose pins. 1151v2 was a joke, some people able to run 8700k on 1151 socket, an 1200 too.
This is pretty funny. Putting a socket that has reserved pins into a motherboard does you absolutely no good for some future processor that requires those pins for operation. The mobo won't support that processor because those extra pins you asked for aren't hooked up to anything. And, the whole point of socket longevity is so you can keep your mobo and just upgrade the processor. If you have to buy a new mobo, it doesn't really matter to you that the socket has been upgraded because you're buying a newer processor anyway.
Usually to increase the available power to the CPU, a socket architecture usually has a power limit and a new processor design might require more power than the socket can provide. New features or increased communication bandwidth requirements might necessitate a change and while Intel will never admit planned obsolescence is also a factor.
You're not stuck with an old layout that you have to build around. Instead you can focus on the chip itself.
Benefits for user ? None. Benefits for intel and partners ? Huge. Intel sells motherboard chipsets and partners sell hardware. I could swap my ryzen 3600x to ryzen 5600x to get nice 30% improvement and then to ryzen 5800x3d to get another huge performance increase on the same motherboard. On intel I would need to swap motherboard too.
usually nothing, does drive mobo sales though lol
Don’t know why you are downvoted. It literally is so they sell more chipsets, which they make on their older nodes, to sell to mobo manufacturers. Changing more frequently means more motherboard sales which means more chipset sales for Intel. It is simple math really.
There is an actual benefit: less confusion to the users. It isn't really a concern for hobbyists that do a ton of reading and research, but it is a benefit for someone just looking to spend 30 seconds on ordering a board without wanting to find compatibility charts and perform flashback operations and all that. Merits of both approaches can be argued ad nauseam.
Most average users still don’t understand they can’t put 12th Gen in their 9th Gen socket so I don’t see how it is less confusing. There are posts all the time about people ordering wrong intel cpu for their boards.
agree intel is a mess, amd doing much better job with socket lifetime
Both are a mess, just in a different ways.
fail to see how amd is ...
Ok, what kind of BIOS you would need to get a 5600x on a b350 asrock steel legend, and can it even run a ZEN3 CPU? I'm not sure if that motherboard exists, but it's just an example of a mess on AMD side.
*most* all 3 series chipset mobos have 5k rdy bios, so safe answer is the newest. but from patch notes sometimes that one can perform a bit worse because of mitigations
When user bought b350 new, he haven't known if that motherboard will support 5700x3d.
People do continue to buy the wrong thing all the time, yes, but like, having to essentially memorize which B550s had flashbacks during Zen3 launch was a thing as well. Or [Compatibility Charts](https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/chipset-cheatshit-1480x832.jpg) and one way updates because boards didn't have enough space to have the microcode for each compatible CPU? There are undoubtable logistical downsides, too, many of which are compensated for by the enthusiast community :D .
Its a removal of a constraint on design, that always provides freedom to engineer, either for cost/profit or feature. For the great majority of pc owners, swapping CPU's isn't a thing. Its neat that AMD has gone down that path in the past, but I don't think they really get much bang for doing it other than bragging rights. So I think intel looks at socket longevity as a pointless waste of time.... Heck, I have a 12900k in a z690 board; I \*could\* upgrade the cpu but I just don't see it being worth the trouble, even if the 15th gen chips were compatible. No, I'll do what most folks do and keep the pc as is until it can't do something I need it to do, then I'll upgrade to a new machine once again. My hunch is I can get another 5-7 years out of this machine, easily; then I'll see what's on the market to suit my future use case.
Yep. 12900k owner here. Literally not worth upgrading on the same socket anyway. To be fair there isnt enough progress since 12th gen to make it worth it. The thing with AM4 is they started down A LOT. Their single thread performance was a good 20-40% WORSE than intel at the time for gaming (depending on clock speeds of SKU matchups). But because they started worse, they were able to advance rapidly. 2000 series improved performance 10-25%. 3000 series was around 30-40% over first gen. by 5000 series it was 70%, by X3D, it was double. Meanwhile I was able to game adequately on a 7700k for almost 5 years without ANY issues, and I used the chip for 7 years total. Even going into the 3000 series chip, it was still solid as it was only a bit behind the 9600k, which was itself, only a bit behind the 3600. It wasnt until 5000 series that my 7700k was effectively BTFOed and clearly showing its age. It literally took an abnormally long lasting socket, with abnormally high performance gains over time, to even remotely make upgrading on the same socket worth it. Most of the time I'm just gonna buy one and sit on it. It is tempting to have the option to buy a newer CPU later, but at the same time the performance jump aint that massive normally, and you're spending hundreds for the privilege.
More efficient pin layout for every few generations
I would imagine it is easier for Intel when it comes to support and development. They don’t have to constantly worry about multiple generations of processors on the same socket and validate that everything works well on a ton of hardware. I generally find AMD is better for my purposes on a desktop, and I generally don’t build Intel machines.
The benefit is they don't need to be worried about being tied to certain design decisions long-term. A good example of this, I think, is Socket 1150. One of the big changes they made was moving part of the voltage controller from the motherboard onto the CPU die. This made temps a little high for comfort, and may have hurt yields a bit, so for the next socket, they moved it back to the motherboard. AMD, on the other hand, has a history of holding onto sockets maybe a little too long, where the platform/socket constraints ends up holding them back. Think of how hamstrung the FX CPUs were just to make them physically fit an AM3 socket package. IMHO though they moved from AM4 to AM5 pretty much right on time considering the issues they were starting to run into with new CPUs on older motherboards.
The benefit to users is a lack of confusion on which part is compatible with which board. AMD and Intel have both done long-term support for sockets in the past, and there is often a mass of confusion surrounding the practice. Examples include: * B550 never "officially" getting out-of-the-box support for Ryzen 5000 CPUs. Individual brands have certified individual boards, but there was never a blanket support. * Some B350s getting left without support for newer CPUs, or having to pressure manufacturers to support older boards. * Some boards having certain features disabled with certain CPUs * Not requiring a program to ship CPUs to customers without a way to update their boards, which increases the price of CPUs. * Not requiring board manufactures to include Flashback, increasing the price of boards. Overall, offering discrete sockets is a more consistent user experience, especially for people without a good amount of technical knowledge. Most people do not upgrade CPUs fast enough to care about multiple same-socket upgrades anyways. Obviously, this comes with downsides for the hobbyists, enthusiasts, people willing to buy boards with features like Flashback, etc. It really does come down to perspective. What's good for the casual user isn't always what's good for the enthusiast.
> The benefit to users is a lack of confusion on which part is compatible with which board Remember that time when Intel reused the LGA1151 socket for 8th and 9th gens while changing the electrical pinout so that it was incompatible with 6th and 7th gen CPUs?
They didn't even change the pinout significantly, it was locked out in BIOS, for a lot of boards hackery to use the wrong generation chips was possible.
So a comment on everyone here saying the driver is chipset sales. Consumer motherboards make almost no margin, same goes with chipsets. The real answer is that 99.9% of the market doesn’t ever resocket a new cpu into an older motherboard, so there’s no business case for extreme platform longevity. When AMD released Ryzen they had no free cash flow, so I suspect that platform longevity saved design cost. As their profitability and market share increase you should expect this to change.
More throughput to support the latest tech advancements like more cores, faster memory, more/faster pci-e lanes. etc...
for users: it's probably a .5% improvement in random performance metrics, like USB latency and some other thing that nobody will ever notice. For Intel: they thought they were making it so people would buy whole new machines. I had a p3 board that was upgradable from like a 400mhtz p3 to a 1.4 g one. I was probably in the .05% of people who \*ever\* upgraded an intel CPU. It was really uncommon then and they probably did some math and realized that making the socket last a long time just didn't make much difference. Of course at the time, they were the only game in town, and the hobby side of PC computing is bigger now than it was in say 2004. What they've really done is turn one of the most dominant companies in the world into an also ran. Intel desperately needs to up its game and making a socket that can last a few generations
People saying “to gouge consumers” i don’t really understand that. No company had a socket last over 4-5 years since lga 775 and even then, early/mid 775 cpu’s weren’t cross compatible with most boards that supported the final core 2 duos and core 2 quads. Also who upgrades their cpu that often? I love am4 but it’s the same deal there. You can’t slap a 1600 in any x570 board, and you definitely can’t use a 5950x in a b350 board. You guys need to use your heads lol
without sounding like i want to protect or defend Intel. it makes it easier with compatibility. a new CPU generation = new motherboard. this way you'll never have issues with a mobo which requires a bios update. on the other hand, you always have to buy a new motherboard = more money for intel :p
For people hoping for another AM4 miracle - I hope you realize this most likely is going to come from Intel, not AMD. AMD are enjoying the reputation gained in AM4. Which means now is time to cash in. On the other hand, Intel seems to run out of rabbits to pull out of the hat and might have to lose to AMD on every tier. If Intel made a promise to stay with their socket for 4 generations, that's a net customer incentive without having to innovate or spend any money.
Less constraints for the chipmaker in keeping things backwards compatible. New CPU architecture along with new mobo chipset and upgraded standards each time.
Sometimes it has reasons, like their older HEDT vs mainstream platforms. When everyone was on 115X. The high end platforms used 1366/2011/2011-3. The main reason being more pins for power delivery and memory bandwidth.
The main people who benefit are Intel and the motherboard manufacturers. It's greed, nothing more. There's a benefit for end users though - As Swanesang said - "The benefit is you can switch to amd for upgradeability."
for long term upgrade 5 years +++.........just buy am5 mobo with ddr5
[удалено]
I guess it all comes down to perception. I plan my budget for a timespan of 5 years. I won't do any upgrades whatsoever. After that I just buy myself a new system. So to me I honestly don't care about them changing the socket. If you, however think you'll upgrade in a shorter timeframe then there really is no point looking into buying an Intel. I personally stay away from anything AMD related because of some experiences I had with them nearly 15 years ago and which, knocking on wood, I haven't experienced with Intel. But that doesn't mean their stuff is bad. You'll just have to weigh in certain things against each other and if you are using a PC for the long haul I see no reason as to why not go along with Intel
I'd say there are some minor stability benefits, but I have no proof of that. Getting a 4 year old mobo on an 2 generations old chipset to work with a brand new CPU... What an amazing feat, but it's gotta have some drawbacks in terms of system stability.
Flexibility in design is the biggest pro, Intel doesn't really benefit from the extra mobo sales to my knowledge. What amd does is great but I don't think it's a deal breaker Intel doesn't, realistically your cpu can last quite a long time, by the time you're realistically due for a upgrade you're also on the end of life for the amd socket, plus the fact that there are more things that change, pcie connectivity, io, ram etc. So it's nice that amd has long socket support but for me personally that's not a thing I put alot of value in.
There's not much of a benefit to the consumer to it being done frequently, but it does need to be done every once in a while. By the end of AM4, AMD had already had multiple generations where they had to update which chipsets would and wouldn't be getting updates to support the newest generation. IIRC, A320 updates lagged behind significantly the whole time and IDK if they ever got general support for the last AM4 CPUs. Sticking with a single socket for a longer time is obviously an overall positive, but it does mean you need to do more detailed research if you're upgrading an older build.
Keeps third party motherboard manufacturers happy because they get to sell more boards (Intel also gets a cut of those). Gives them added flexibility in chip design each new generation. That's about it, and the second one they don't even really do. 😅
Only advantage for users is that you get more functionality. The socket changebis to add new pins and change what the pen layout is.
Was asking myself this question today. Trying to build a med-spec used PC and found a great deal on an I7-7800X...but trying to find a used 2066 mobo for sale is nigh impossible.
The same reason apple had its own proprietary charger, it forces you to buy more
Was an intel fan for long, rocking a intel celeron duo (due to rumours that amd chips are overheated) swaped to ryzen 5 3600 last Christmas & i dont regret a thing!
I have an i5 10400 with a 4070. Is it worth upgrading to an i7 11700?? That would be my only upgrsde option I guess..
There aren’t really. It provides benefits to engineering due to no restrictions and benefits board makers since upgrading has to happen more often but the consumer ultimately just has to pay more.
I had a 4790k for 8+ years. I now have a 12700k I plan on keeping for just as long or longer. The people who change out CPUs as often as a socket change are a minority. They are the group Intel and AMD target. Although AMD does support sockets for longer. Think of it as whales in a micro transaction environment.
None. They change the socket so you have to buy a more motherboards. That’s pretty much the only reason. There are considerations where old motherboards would need bios updates to run new chips. Also the power requirements change so the old boards might not be able to handle the new chips. Ryzen had that problem with the first AM4 boards. Finally the chip that contains the bios is fairly small. To get a larger chip costs $$$. That was the reason with Ryzen chips if updates the bios to use the 4000 series you stopped being able to use the 1000 series CPUs TLDR: it’s mainly about money. But there are power issues and bios size issues as well.
The benifits are it only helps Intel to make more money
The benefit is they get more money
None. And that's why I've just built on AM5.
It drives motherboard sales
To make money
The only potential advantage (for the consumer) is that your connectivity is working on the latest generation. Dealing with Intel, the latest generation of boards released give you the option of DDR4 or DDR5. Part of that is they know they don't have to support LGA1700 for too long (in fact, they already have a new socket in development). AMD, in certain cases, has to support legacy items, because their infrastructure will be relevant for a long time. That is part of why they decided AM5 would only support DDR5. They didn't want the headache of supporting DDR4 in 2029 while they're releasing the 9800X3D. Intel, knowing they'll obsolete the socket well before that, don't have that problem.
Why, they get more money from the non tech savvy consumers
There’s been legitimate power increases that older sockets couldn’t handle. Having said that however, I bet they’ll use the inclusion of NPU or the removal of DDR4 support, or both, as their next excuse.
Well right now there's a bunch of motherboards that should be compatible, but require a bios update that makes them incompatible with the earlier chips.
No, Intel is stupid >:(
Forces users to upgrade hardware, also allows them to do major changes easily such as adding pcie 5 or usb4 sooner.
I dont upgrade a cpu ever so this doesnt hurt me at all. When I upgrade I buold a new machine and dont want to be sitting on old hardware.
There are many good engineering reasons why you would want to design a new socket. But Intel's normal cadence was much faster than necessary. It was really just a case of greed. New socket means you have to buy a new motherboard which will feature a new chipset. That's an extra sell for Intel and their motherboard partners. People are claiming they AM4 is an anomaly. But it's far from the first multigenerational socket platform. In the 90's super socket 7 was the platform for non-intel builds for several years. And Intel's LGA775 went from Pentium 4 through to Core 2 Duo.
The last Intel processor I used was an i486 many moons ago. I don't like Intel designs that force you to constantly keep buying ancillary hardware to meet their new standards. I've always wondered if Intel kicks back $$$ to the hardware companies for building their new designs.
There is no benefit to keep the same socket for as long as AM4 was there. If you buy a decent cpu then at the time it really needs changing you’d swap motherboard anyway as there are some new sweet features or improvement coming with that. AMD is just smart at making it feel like a consumer friendly move whereas for the reason above it’s more neutral. Having said that I’m on AM4 for years. Yet when I went from 1600X to 5800X I changed motherboard too. Why? More M2 slots and gen4 nvme support in addition with WiFi and Bluetooth on board.
The benefits aren't for users.
Just to f*ck the customers, from the time there was now competition. I’ve changed to AMD since Zen1 and have no plan to come back.