fevgatosIt makes sense that AMD offers "better" motherboard upgradability. It took them 4 generations and 7nm to catch up to skylake cores from 2015 built on manafacturing technologies from the middle ages (14nm). An Intel user didn't need to upgrade, he just bought an 8700k back in 2017 and kept it until alderlake ;)

Meanwhile, an AMD user kept upgrading just to end up where the Intel user was 3 years ago. LOL

No he can keep upgrading to pretty much the same level of performance as Intel's NEXT generation platform with their five year old platform , nice.

99.9% nice.

TheoneandonlyMrKNo he can keep upgrading to pretty much the same level of performance as Intel's NEXT generation platform with their five year old platform , nice.

99.9% nice.

What do you mean? It took AMD 3 years to catch the 8700k in gaming and every other latency dependant workload. The intel user doesn't need to upgrade (although he has the 9900k option) at all in the meanwhile, so whether or not z370 was upgradable is irrelevant. Plus, when you are buying a zen 3 you are already paying for a motherboard, you are just not getting one. Im still laughing at the launch MSRP of the zen 3 cpus, and don't even get me started on the actual street pricing. You could buy an Intel CPU + mobo and still have spare cash...

fevgatosWhat do you mean? It took AMD 3 years to catch the 8700k in gaming and every other latency dependant workload. The intel user doesn't need to upgrade (although he has the 9900k option) at all in the meanwhile, so whether or not z370 was upgradable is irrelevant. Plus, when you are buying a zen 3 you are already paying for a motherboard, you are just not getting one. Im still laughing at the launch MSRP of the zen 3 cpus, and don't even get me started on the actual street pricing. You could buy an Intel CPU + mobo and still have spare cash...

Riiiiiighhht.

99.9% better in whole world I'm guessing.

If I bought zen3 I already have 3 motherboards it would fit in, two in use soooo, there's that.

TheoneandonlyMrKRiiiiiighhht.

99.9% better in whole world I'm guessing.

If I bought zen3 I already have 3 motherboards it would fit in, two in use soooo, there's that.

And youll still end up paying for a new motherboard anyways when buying Zen 3, you just won't be getting any. 300$ MSRP for 6 core cpu in 2020, LOL

fevgatosAnd youll still end up paying for a new motherboard anyways when buying Zen 3, you just won't be getting any. 300$ MSRP for 6 core cpu in 2020, LOL

What, why, I have three, a x470,x570 , b550 so what are you on about at all.

Lol, ,,, ,. wtaf I'm not 5 this convo is done , your marked as the biased fool you are, bye now.

john_That's what you understood? Really? Or are you intentionally giving a irrelevant explanation to build an easy argument? Try to be less melodramatic when it does NOT suits you. You where so melodramatic all this time about Alder Lake's superiority and now you downplay the significance of a faster CPU in YOUR case?
And I didn't say "insert an 11900K in the Z490". I said "insert an Alder lake". Can you?

You are testing in on Z490 I assume.
Are you in the video making industry or are you trying to find excuses where AV1 decoding and probably encoding is what maters most in this world?

So 20-30W in video playback plays a huge role, but 100W difference in multicore does not? Nice.
Still trying to find specific cases and then come to general conclusions I see. Of course we mention but at the same time exclude/downplay cases where the competition is having the advantage.

And we are back to 12900K vs a 2 years old CPU. We have a lot of tests to do you say, still a few lines above AV1 decoding and encoding is what people are doing 24/7 I guess. The alpha and the omega in today's usage. Right....

As you say, YOU. NOT everyone else.
I didn't got the car example, but no reason to explain yourself here. I am pretty sure you will grab one line of my post (you have plenty to choose), distort it and build a new argument about why Alder Lake is the best option.

1. You don't seem to understand that it doesn't take many years to upgrade your processor if you choose it correctly.

2. I'm just a home user, and the integrated graphics in intel is free. Without it, a video card costs more than a motherboard.

3. As the tests indicate that alder lake is more energy efficient even in games, amd remains only with the advantage in heavy loads exclusively in comparison to 12900K / 5950X. 12600K crushes everything from AMD to performance / watt.

4. Intel is a good choice, AMD is just as good. To justify that intel is a bad choice because a motherboard smells only of fanboism. Buy 5800X3D or 5950X for your 5 year old B350,... good choice, yeahhh, right. :laugh:

fevgatosSkylake core 14nm = 2015. A 6700k has a faster core for sure than a 2xxx zen. Therefore, yes it did took them 4 years and a vastly more advanced node. I don't know why you are arguing with stuff that are pretty much universally agreed upon. Even zen 2 was pretty atrocious when it come to latency dependant workloads, it was getting molested by skylake, that's why I said it took zen 3 to universally beat the skylake core from 2015

And this is where a big problem arises for those who want AMD processors. Because they directed most of the silicone to the big integrators, AMD's aspirants under 300 euros bought in 2020 and 2021 processors launched in 2017 and 2018. Because only these were on the market. Compatible motherboard trap has worked flawlessly in these two years, expensive new processors and old ones destroyed by intel in terms of performance / price (eg 1600AF versus 10400F, or 1300 versus 10100F)

fevgatosWho cares about IPC, lol. If one CPU is running at 1 mhz and the other at 5ghz, NOBODY cares about the IPC but about the actual performance. The skylake cores ARE faster than the zen 2 cores.

Then why does my R3 3100 score higher in Cinebench at 3.9 GHz than my i7 7700 did at 4.2 GHz?

I join another forum where people love getting all angry with each other. Calm down and just be nice. Peace, love and unity.

AusWolfThen why does my R3 3100 score higher in Cinebench at 3.9 GHz than my i7 7700 did at 4.2 GHz?

Are you suggesting that the 3100 is better than the 7700? Because if you are, you are horribly mistaken.

Gica1. You don't seem to understand that it doesn't take many years to upgrade your processor if you choose it correctly.

2. I'm just a home user, and the integrated graphics in intel is free. Without it, a video card costs more than a motherboard.

3. As the tests indicate that alder lake is more energy efficient even in games, amd remains only with the advantage in heavy loads exclusively in comparison to 12900K / 5950X. 12600K crushes everything from AMD to performance / watt.

4. Intel is a good choice, AMD is just as good. To justify that intel is a bad choice because a motherboard smells only of fanboism. Buy 5800X3D or 5950X for your 5 year old B350,... good choice, yeahhh, right. :laugh:

Look, it's boring. Replying to you is boring. Not to mention that I don't have any interest in trying to remember what you where saying a few pages ago, because you keep using your arguments from different perspectives all the time. You just post A that suits you now, while you where insisting on B a couple of pages back. Boring.

Look what you are doing in here.

1. You start saying that choosing the right processor can cover you for years. That implies that no matter the (typical) improvements in IPC, frequency, number of cores, features in a period of, let's say 3-5 years, the correct CPU from 3-5 years ago, will be more than enough. But it is YOU who insists in promoting Alder Lake as the ONE and ONLY option. So, is someone covered for years with a good old CPU, or is the BEST, from your point of view, the ONLY accepted option?

You contradict yourself. I know what you implying, but your logic contradicts with itself, because at the same time you try to pass the idea that a platform doesn't need to offer compatibility for more than 2 generations. This agony of yours to support that, makes you contradicting not just from post to post, but in the same post.

2. You are a home user, but just a page ago you where insisting that AV1 support is EVERYTHING that matters. The ONLY thing that matters when looking at a GPU.
Again you contradict yourself. When it suits you, you take ONE feature and make it like being everything that matters. When it suits you, you are a simple user, happy with a mid range CPU 2 generation old, happy with a joke iGPU in that CPU, happy with any Intel iGPU that it performs badly in 3D.

3. There you go again, with crushing everything from AMD. How about your i5? Does 12600K crushes it too or the Intel sticker is a great feature that averts crushing?

4. And here you try to make it look like you are the objective and the others are the ones trying to hurt little cute Intel platform. The thing is that you are laughing at the possible, sticking a 5950X or even a 5800X3D on a B350 board. If AMD wasn't supporting that, you would be laughing at the fact that you can't use 5000 series CPUs on a 300 series board. Now you laugh at having the possibility to do that. I can understand you. But I have better things to do than deal with your frustration seeing that someone with such an old board can have so many options.

But you know what?
I know what it will make you super happy.
Just go and buy that 12600K that crushes everything from AMD and stick it in your Z490 motherboard.

Oh....wait....

john_Just go and buy that 12600K that crushes everything from AMD and stick it in your Z490 motherboard.

Oh....wait....

That's the point. He doesn't need to. That 12700f + a shiny new motherboard costs as much as a 3d on its own. :)

So mobo upgradability is USELESS when with every zen 3 CPU you have to pay for a motherboard included in the CPU cost.

fevgatosAre you suggesting that the 3100 is better than the 7700? Because if you are, you are horribly mistaken.

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm stating it. Like I said, I've had both (and I still have the 3100), so I'm talking from experience, not from online spec sheets and reviews.

Don't get me wrong, they're both great CPUs, but the 3100 is slightly faster, uses less power and is easier to cool.

AusWolfI'm not suggesting anything. I'm stating it. Like I said, I've had both (and I still have the 3100), so I'm talking from experience, not from online spec sheets and reviews.

So you are stating that the 3100 is faster / better than the 7700? Nope. I mean, you are the only person on the planet suggesting it so....

fevgatosSo you are stating that the 3100 is faster / better than the 7700? Nope. I mean, you are the only person on the planet suggesting it so....

I... have... had... both... CPUs... Which part don't you understand? It's not a suggestion. It's a statement from my own experience.

AusWolfI... have... had... both... CPUs... Which part don't you understand?

And...that....is....the.....case.....for.....every......reviewer.....out.....there.....therefore.....your.....argument.....is.....meaningless and irrelevant.

Which part don't you understand?

fevgatosAnd...that....is....the.....case.....for.....every......reviewer.....out.....there.....therefore.....your.....argument.....is.....meaningless and irrelevant.

Which part don't you understand?

My own experience is irrelevant. What people I've never met tell me in their online reviews is. Wow.

Besides, what reviews are you talking about? I don't think anyone has ever reviewed the 7700 non-K.

Edit:
This is the 7700K, mind you. The non-K is 3-500 MHz slower, but uses about the same power.

AusWolfMy own experience is irrelevant. What people I've never met tell me in their online reviews is. Wow.

That's not at all what im saying. Your own experiences are relevant. But ONLY to you. You can't demonstrate your experience to me, therefore it doesn't do anything. You know why? Cause I can claim I had them both and the 7700 is faster. Doesn't get us anywhere. That's why there are reviewers doing this professionally.


Nobody has to review the 7700 non k. You can make assumptions based on the 7700k. Gnexus has it running circles around the 3100, being as far as 30% up in gaming. If you are telling me that the 300mhz difference between the k and the non k are going to cover a 30% difference, im calling bs

fevgatosThat's not at all what im saying. Your own experiences are relevant. But ONLY to you. You can't demonstrate your experience to me, therefore it doesn't do anything. You know why? Cause I can claim I had them both and the 7700 is faster. Doesn't get us anywhere. That's why there are reviewers doing this professionally.

Personally, I find that CPU reviews show very different results from my own experiences. For example, everybody loves the R5 3600, but I couldn't for the love of God keep it cool for the brief time I had mine. I don't have a big tower cooler, nor a case that can fit one, but that's the way reviews are usually made. Reviews demonstrate a generic use-case, or just plain test-bench results, which are very far from my own. So to me, 3600 reviews are irrelevant.

Bottom line: you choose what is relevant for you. You can listen to reviews, you can listen to people's individual experiences on the forum, or a bit of both. If you completely disregard what other people have experienced first-hand, then I really don't know why you are here. Reading reviews without ever visiting any forum should be enough for you.

fevgatosNobody has to review the 7700 non k. You can make assumptions based on the 7700k. Gnexus has it running circles around the 3100, being as far as 30% up in gaming. If you are telling me that the 300mhz difference between the k and the non k are going to cover a 30% difference, im calling bs

IMO, gaming reviews are inherently flawed, because you don't necessarily experience a 30% performance bump. When I test a CPU for gaming, I check how much my GPU is loaded. I dare to say that the vast majority of CPUs on the market nowadays are good enough for gaming.

The reason I'm saying that the 3100 is better than the 7700 is because it performs similarly in games, slightly better in synthetics, but consumes way less power and is easier to cool. There is more than peak performance to what makes a CPU a good CPU.

AusWolfIMO, gaming reviews are inherently flawed, because you don't necessarily experience a 30% performance bump. When I test a CPU for gaming, I check how much my GPU is loaded. I dare to say that the vast majority of CPUs on the market nowadays are good enough for gaming.

The reason I'm saying that the 3100 is better than the 7700 is because it performs similarly in games, slightly better in synthetics, but consumes way less power and is easier to cool. There is more than peak performance to what makes a CPU a good CPU.

You are exactly proving my point right here. Ill set aside the notion that it consumes way less power and is easier to cool, cause that's not exactly the case but it isn't relevant either.


So we kinda agree that although the 7700k / non k is up to 30% faster in gaming, you won't notice cause they will both be gpu bound is what you are saying. GREAT, that was my point. The moment you decide to upgrade your GPU, suddenly your 3100 will be a major bottleneck and youll need to upgrade your CPU as well, which is not the case with the 7700 cause, as we already agreed on, it is 30% faster. And that is why mobo upgradability is relevant to AMD users, cause they need to keep upgrading their CPU to match / surpass where Intel was 3 years ago. That is EXACTLY what I said a couple of posts ago. AMD CPU's didnt offer longevity until Zen 3. And you'd know that if you tried to play eg. cyberpunk with RT on a Zen 2 CPU. It was a horrible experience compared to an 8700k. Basically, not a single non Zen 3 CPU can run cyberpunk with RT on without drops to the 30-40ish range.

fevgatosYou are exactly proving my point right here. Ill set aside the notion that it consumes way less power and is easier to cool, cause that's not exactly the case but it isn't relevant either.

It is exactly the case, and it is very relevant. When I bought my 7700, I immediately had to buy a small AIO for it because the factory cooler was intolerably loud and didn't keep it from reaching throttling temps. This didn't happen with the 3100. I still have it in my HTPC with the factory cooler that has no problem keeping it cool and quiet. If it is not relevant to you (because you have a big tower on all your CPUs or something), that's your choice.

fevgatosSo we kinda agree that although the 7700k / non k is up to 30% faster in gaming, you won't notice cause they will both be gpu bound is what you are saying.

We agree on the K, but not on the non-K. I personally didn't feel it any faster than the 3100. I also used my 3100 with a 5700 XT for a brief period of time (while my 5950X was still on pre-order), and it was fine. Games are mostly GPU-bound anyway, so an FPS difference beyond perceptible levels (which differ on an individual basis) is irrelevant. I don't give a damn if my games run at 60 or 80 FPS, let alone 200 or 250 that you usually read about in CPU reviews.

fevgatosThe moment you decide to upgrade your GPU, suddenly your 3100 will be a major bottleneck and youll need to upgrade your CPU as well, which is not the case with the 7700 cause, as we already agreed on, it is 30% faster.

30% is nothing. In situations where the 3100 is a major bottleneck, the 7700 is too. We didn't agree on it, btw.

fevgatosAnd you'd know that if you tried to play eg. cyberpunk with RT on a Zen 2 CPU. It was a horrible experience compared to an 8700k. Basically, not a single non Zen 3 CPU can run cyberpunk with RT on without drops to the 30-40ish range.

I played it with RT off on my 3100 with a GTX 1650. It wasn't great (thanks to the 1650), but it was fine. My average FPS wasn't sky high, but there were no drops. RT works on the GPU, so I don't know what that has to do with the topic.

So what's the difference between sockets again?

AusWolfIt is exactly the case, and it is very relevant. When I bought my 7700, I immediately had to buy a small AIO for it because the factory cooler was intolerably loud and didn't keep it from reaching throttling temps. This didn't happen with the 3100. I still have it in my HTPC with the factory cooler that has no problem keeping it cool and quiet. If it is not relevant to you (because you have a big tower on all your CPUs or something), that's your choice.


We agree on the K, but not on the non-K. I personally didn't feel it any faster than the 3100. I also used my 3100 with a 5700 XT for a brief period of time (while my 5950X was still on pre-order), and it was fine. Games are mostly GPU-bound anyway, so an FPS difference beyond perceptible levels (which differ on an individual basis) is irrelevant. I don't give a damn if my games run at 60 or 80 FPS, let alone 200 or 250 that you usually read about in CPU reviews.


30% is nothing. In situations where the 3100 is a major bottleneck, the 7700 is too.


I played it with RT off on my 3100 with a GTX 1650. It wasn't great (thanks to the 1650), but it was fine. My average FPS wasn't sky high, but there were no drops. RT works on the GPU, so I don't know what that has to do with the topic.

RT is majorly heavy on the CPU as well. With RT off it's fine on every CPU, the moment you activate RT it's a s***show with any pre zen 3 amd cpu.

30% is not nothing. Say you have a GPU that produces 30 fps , the 3100 can get up to 50 and the 7700 can get up to 70. When you upgrade that GPU, your 3100 will bottleneck it to 50, while the 7700 might potentially max it out. I don't see how 30% is irrelevant. It's basically the difference between a zen 2 and a zen 3 cpu. Are you saying zen 3's performance increase is irrelevant?

fevgatosRT is majorly heavy on the CPU as well. With RT off it's fine on every CPU, the moment you activate RT it's a s***show with any pre zen 3 amd cpu.

For now, let me disagree, but you piqued my interest, so I'll test it later.

fevgatos30% is not nothing. Say you have a GPU that produces 30 fps , the 3100 can get up to 50 and the 7700 can get up to 70. When you upgrade that GPU, your 3100 will bottleneck it to 50, while the 7700 might potentially max it out.

That's not how it works. Games are nearly always GPU bottlenecked. They're only not when you have an extremely weak CPU or you use extremely low graphics settings. In other scenarios, the CPU is mostly responsible for your FPS dips, which you may or may not notice (or care about) depending on several factors.

30% is irrelevant, because it isn't perceptible beyond acceptable performance levels (60 or 78 FPS), but it isn't enough to make an unplayable experience more enjoyable (20 or 26 FPS). I usually say that if an upgrade doesn't give you at least 2x performance, then it's not worth it (unless you make money on it).

I still don't understand why you think that the 7700 is 30% faster than the 3100. The review that I linked shows a 7% difference between the 3100 and the 7700K in gaming with 40% more power consumed.

fevgatosI don't see how 30% is irrelevant. It's basically the difference between a zen 2 and a zen 3 cpu. Are you saying zen 3's performance increase is irrelevant?

It's irrelevant for a generational upgrade. It is very relevant for upgrading from a 2-3 generations old system. This is why I don't complain about Intel's new sockets, for instance.

I'll just drop it here

www.techspot.com/review/2478-amd-ryzen-5600-upgrade/

Having said that, with the ability to acquire a new Zen 3 CPU for as little as $175 as a drop-in upgrade, we suspect this will be an offer that's simply too good to ignore for many. It sure would be nice if Core i5-7600K owners on their expensive Z270 motherboard had the ability to drop in the Core i5-12400F, heck, even a 10th-gen part would be amazing, but no, they got nothing but a sharp stick in the eye when Intel released the 8700K just nine months later.

AusWolfFor now, let me disagree, but you piqued my interest, so I'll test it later.

You can disagree, but that just makes you wrong! I have a 3090 so I can test it without any gpu bottlenecks and im telling you, RT puts a major strain on CPUs.

AusWolfThat's not how it works. Games are nearly always GPU bottlenecked. They're only not when you have an extremely weak CPU or you use extremely low graphics settings. In other scenarios, the CPU is mostly responsible for your FPS dips, which you may or may not notice (or care about) depending on several factors.

30% is irrelevant, because it isn't perceptible beyond acceptable performance levels (60 or 78 FPS), but it isn't enough to make an unplayable experience more enjoyable (20 or 26 FPS). I usually say that if an upgrade doesn't give you at least 2x performance, then it's not worth it (unless you make money on it).

I still don't understand why you think that the 7700 is 30% faster than the 3100. The review that I linked shows a 7% difference between the 3100 and the 7700K in gaming with 40% more power consumed.

Games are not nearly always GPU bottlenecked. Frankly, im not even sure what that means. They are gpu bottlenecked when your GPU is the bottleneck. There WILL come a point, that unless you upgrade your CPU, it WILL become the bottleneck cause you upgraded your GPU. That point will come sooner with a slower CPU, meaning that you can keep a faster CPU for 1 generation more. I don't understand why this is even contestable, it's just purely based on logic and match.

Im not sure which review you are talking about, gnexus has a review of the 3100 and it shows - in non gpu bound games, a 30% difference in performance between the two cpus

john_I'll just drop it here

www.techspot.com/review/2478-amd-ryzen-5600-upgrade/

THANK YOU. That exactly proves my point. It took them 3 years and a 50% price increase to give us 100% increase in gaming performance and a 30% increase in multithreaded performance. That's worse than the the worst years of Intel. An apt comparison is between an i5 4670k and an i7 8700k. 3 years apart and a 50% price difference, they have way bigger differences than the amd parts have with each other. AMD is worse than the worst years of Intel, LOL