Im confused, thats a very slippery slope. I dont think anyone wants a locked system. Usually its budget, competition doing bad part segmentation artificially, etc (yes both intel and amd)
Also instead of guessing we should be testing and validating if $100 more for a mobo on a budget cpu makes more sense, or if moving up a GPU/CPU tier is better. From my view, its obvious, save where you dont need to, so you can spend on the component you want. Quite extreme of you to compare this to a pre-built. Not only are prebuilts trash but
proprietary which have 0 upgradability. Thats very hyperbolic.
And I agree, I think thats fundamentally obvious. In my build for example, I couldve easily gotten a 12900K, slapped on a z790 at the time and called it a day. Would I be happy? No. Ive just now spent $1000 AUD which dont benefit my use case. I actually had the chance and thought about spending on a higher K sku cpu, but I looked at what I play, what resolution I use, and you then realise how games generally utilise the cores in a limited manner. Mainly using the fastest core for majority of the performance uplift, not the raw core count, which is how I narrowed to a 12400F baseline. Most games are not multi-threaded and dont heavily utilise all the cores. And no, The last of us, a fundamentally bad pc port is not a good argument, where CPU bogs down with texture decompression and is not scalable
As long as youre not running a slow, 4c/4t system, any modern 6c/12t will hold up nicely. Ultimately, getting the hardware that serves your needs matter more than having a system thats good at "crunching high numbers". I dont need a PC for production work, so spending 80% more for 35% performance uplift on a CPU/Mobo would be dumb, where extra money can be spent on a GPU or maybe PSU/higher tier CPU if needed.
Does it mean no one should not OC? ofc not, whatever you enjoy you should go for....as long as its not becoming dogmatic where if you dont "OC" or min max every small thing, you might as well buy a "prebuilt"
Regardless of what the original thread was about....you literally missed his point. You would generally be GPU limited a lot quicker than CPU limited. I dont think anyone would argue a newer architecture with a higher frequency wont be better. Whats more relevant is: "how quickly would you become CPU limited in your build?"
Generally if you're playing at 1440p-4k with the newest titles like: Plague tale, Hogwarts, Cyberpunk, RE4 Remake, DeadSpace, GoW, Witcer3Remake, Atomic Heart etc you are almost guaranteed to be GPU limited before cpu in almost all cases. Were not talking about the 1% with 4090, who might be CPU limited, but for most users, they are statistically likely to be GPU starved. Dont forget, most gamers have below 2060 class GPU and not everyone lives in EU/US where hardware prices are reasonable. Asia/LATAM pay a premium/tax with 0 support
Yes, if youre playing comp fps games, then youre more likely to be CPU limted at 1080p low settings on a 360hz monitor. But thats a different use case, and I dont think you even generally argued for that. I would wager for most, a 13600k is probably the most they will need. A 12600K would do, where the rest can be spent on better ram/gpu/monitor.
Well duh, I agree with you, even
@Gica would. Almost everyone would agree with you
If you can afford 1600$ USD or 1700 for AIB model 4090, you can afford that 13900ks, and a nice custom loop
I thought we were talking about budget gains, spending 100$ on mobo to uplift cheap locked cpus like 13400F? I know youre trying to use his example of 4090, but I think you missed his point, he was simply saying even when GPU bottlenecks are removed, the 10% uplift for 40% more price isnt worth it for most users
13400F is roughly $210 on PC part picker, 350AUD for me locally. The initial question was, does spending half the CPU cost to OC make sense. 100$ on the mobo for external clock, is 50% the price of the CPU. You can either see how much faster the 13400F is, or just buy a 13600K
I dont know how much faster a 5.2ghz 13400F is, and what the real world uplift is, but instead of % numbers to decide "how is money better spent on a GPU/CPU/MOBO?" this became a argument about locked systems
I would disagree, performance can be measured. Budget can be measured. If you tell most "your pc will be statistically 20% better, for 10% more money" they wont say: "sorry youre wrong, I prefer the 10% better for 20% more money"
I think you're more so referring to: satisfaction, which I agree is 100% subjective and depends on a person to person basis
Yea this thread is a mess. By the 2nd page its not obviously about the 12600K and became an OC/locked cpu threads. Which the 12600K never was
I replied due to a misconception about the SA voltage, which I now better understand. So this thread was still useful, since as people keep reading, theyll understand what bad readings are, and learn more about under-volting/over-clocking
I do mostly agree with you, OCing can be fun and a great way to spend an afternoon. I dont do it myself, but ive tried it here and there. Your view was valid, not sure why you did a whole tirade about OCing and then a weird pricing/perf argument
No one has unlimited money, so budget will always come up in any conversation. From OCing on enthusiast parts with water cooling, to Ocing cheap parts that were never designed to be. If you truly feel like talking about budget parts and undervolting are "fkin time wasted", then all I can say is: to each their own
stress 02.jpg
Clipboard01.jpg
I somewhat agree with you both: