Just upgraded to 7900X3D, can't tell the difference (not in games).

[Assimilator]

It may sound like heresy, but my Windows 10 installation has been chugging along just fine since at least 3, or maybe 4 total system swaps, including various Intel and AMD platforms.

I'm too lazy to reinstall everything, so as long as I don't get any errors or other oddities, I'm gonna leave it.

My current Windows 10 install suffered through 3 different AM4 motherboards and 3 different AM4 CPUs, and various combinations thereof, before being reused on my current Threadripper - and zero issues. I'm old enough to remember when swapping out any component basically necessitated a full reinstall, so I really appreciate that Windows today kinda just shrugs its shoulders at being transplanted lock, stock and barrel.

 

[freeagent]

I can tell when I use my X3D first, even after a chipset reinstall. Windows tries to boost harder with cores on CCD2 rather than CCD1 like it normally would.

But I do agree, I went from Z77 to AM4 and it was ok.

 

[Zach_01]

Unless OP gets back and respond somehow, maybe like what was the expectation on those everyday simple tasks accompanied by specifics I'm considering this thread trolling.

 

[Chicken Patty]

bro did you even read the thread title

I did! Did you read my entire post, or just until 5800X3D?

I basically said that going 7000 series while a big difference for me in gaming but basically everything else I did not notice much difference. Overall I did notice the 7000 series more snappy to use in every day tasks. I just went into a bit more detail on my upgrade path and the differences I saw along the way.

 

[Shadowjump]

Hahaha, I’m here, guys! Just didn’t have a chance to reply yet.

Oh, my GPU is a watercooled 3080 Ti.

First off, I’m not trolling anyone! I’m not expecting a massive performance gain, just that tiny bump in daily tasks – like installing new apps, extracting files, updating drivers, and copying files between NVMEs (I mean, 2.5GB/s from one KC3000 to another?).

When I upgraded from a Core 2 Duo E8500 to an E8600, yeah, I didn’t notice much. But moving from a Ryzen 1700 to a 2700X? Definitely felt it. And again from the 2700X to a 3700X, and then from the 3700X to the 5900X – each time, there was that little extra boost. Even if Gen3 vs Gen4 NVME isn’t night-and-day in real life, a faster boot time by even a second is something you notice!

Now I’ve gone from Gen3 to Gen4 NVME, DDR4 to DDR5, and a CPU that’s clocking an extra 600-700MHz more than my last one – so where’s that tiny boost?

Perhaps CPUs have just gotten so fast that these incremental gains aren’t noticeable in daily tasks anymore?

I’m not complaining, just trying to figure out why I didn’t get that extra little bump I was expecting.

 

[Marcus L]

Hahaha, I’m here, guys! Just didn’t have a chance to reply yet.

Oh, my GPU is a watercooled 3080 Ti.

First off, I’m not trolling anyone! I’m not expecting a massive performance gain, just that tiny bump in daily tasks – like installing new apps, extracting files, updating drivers, and copying files between NVMEs (I mean, 2.5GB/s from one KC3000 to another?).

When I upgraded from a Core 2 Duo E8500 to an E8600, yeah, I didn’t notice much. But moving from a Ryzen 1700 to a 2700X? Definitely felt it. And again from the 2700X to a 3700X, and then from the 3700X to the 5900X – each time, there was that little extra boost. Even if Gen3 vs Gen4 NVME isn’t night-and-day in real life, a faster boot time by even a second is something you notice!

Now I’ve gone from Gen3 to Gen4 NVME, DDR4 to DDR5, and a CPU that’s clocking an extra 600-700MHz more than my last one – so where’s that tiny boost?

Perhaps CPUs have just gotten so fast that these incremental gains aren’t noticeable in daily tasks anymore?

I’m not complaining, just trying to figure out why I didn’t get that extra little bump I was expecting.

Play games, see the difference, be happy/

 

[Shadowjump]

Play games, see the difference, be happy/

I'm happy in any case! Thing is I don't have time to play games. I mean, I will install 20 games and play 2 of them, like 5 minutes a day on my main rig.

I will end up playing on my laptop like I always do... And I hate laptops! Especially for gaming!

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Yeah, this is true. I reckon it's probably why Microsoft declaring pre-2017 machines unsupported on Windows 11 stings so much, despite the fact that those are already 7 years old themselves. On one side, it's reasonable from many standpoints, but also unreasonable in ones that I suppose people care about the most - their devices work, and do the job, why replace them?

I built and Ivy Bridge E system for barely any money at all. I game, I photo edit, I web browse. Heck, I even run VMs sometimes. Every time I look at the cost to go modern, it’s just not a worthwhile investment for me. No matter how good you have it, you can always push your gear past its abilities and feel that disappointment. Or, you can spend a big chunk of cash to later realize that it got you nothing of substance based on your use case.

 

[Macro Device]

faster boot time by even a second is something you notice!

You? Maybe. Me? Definitely not.
I'd prefer being much more patient and upgrading once your system doesn't do your tasks well enough. Until then, these minor boosts are just a waste of effort more than anything else. Money is of low concern since you can cashback almost everything by selling your old stuff. You mentioned using a Ryzen 1700. It's still a great CPU for basic tasks. Imagine upgrading to a 9700X from there, skipping all those generations in between. This would be night and day.
You apparently have tasks way too easy for upgrades to matter. Relax and enjoy your super fast PC.

P.S. Someone mentioned Sandy Bridge as an OK daily driver and I can tell you, it's not that great. AVX support is just a tick rather than actual thing in this generation. Budget Haswell i5s are faster web browsers than literally anything you can slot into your LGA1155 board. Ivy Bridge is all the same. So I'd say today's bare minimum is an i5-4xxx @3 GHz.

 

[mb194dc]

Op noticing the diminishing returns for sure. If you don't play at 1080p or less and have a 4090... You won't notice much.

Even if you're doing productivity stuff, only a few use cases actually gain enough time savings to make upgrading worth it now.

Wondering how long the charade we see with reviews showing gains that don't represent pretty much any real world use can can continue.

 

[Shadowjump]

You are right. I have to get over it. Perhaps all these years I just wanted the latest so I could have the best performance in case I needed it.

When I had time to play a lot, I always wanted to run games at max settings and if I couldnt, I would not play them.
For example Crysis wouldn't run smooth with a 8800 GTX, I waited till I had SLi GTX 280. Cyberpunk was running with some settings on medium with a GTX 1080 Ti to get descent FPS. Played it when I got the 3080 Ti.

Now I don't have time to play and when I do, I play on my laptop.

I should grow up on my upgrade habits. it ll be good for my pocket.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

You? Maybe. Me? Definitely not.
I'd prefer being much more patient and upgrading once your system doesn't do your tasks well enough. Until then, these minor boosts are just a waste of effort more than anything else. Money is of low concern since you can cashback almost everything by selling your old stuff. You mentioned using a Ryzen 1700. It's still a great CPU for basic tasks. Imagine upgrading to a 9700X from there, skipping all those generations in between. This would be night and day.
You apparently have tasks way too easy for upgrades to matter. Relax and enjoy your super fast PC.

P.S. Someone mentioned Sandy Bridge as an OK daily driver and I can tell you, it's not that great. AVX support is just a tick rather than actual thing in this generation. Budget Haswell i5s are faster web browsers than literally anything you can slot into your LGA1155 board. Ivy Bridge is all the same. So I'd say today's bare minimum is an i5-4xxx @3 GHz.

A Sandy or Ivy Xeon workstation is way better than the desktops of back then, since they capped out at 4C/8T. Those old Xeons go up to 12 cores, up to 4GHz, up to 30MB L3, and all offer quad channel memory. The 2667v2 is fantastic, 8C/16T with 25MB L3 and boosts to 4.0GHz, still quite respectable, and you can get one for $20-30. It will lose every benchmark, but if you’re gaming on a razor thin budget, I don’t know how you beat that value. Plus ECC DDR3 is so cheap—you can grab 128GB of it for under $50.

 

[Macro Device]

I don’t know how you beat that value.

It's indeed a very great value but this is a very old platform and original boards are in for their swan songs sooner rather than later and Huanan boards are just pure lottery. I'd rather spend a couple dozen dollars more and get a Ryzen 5500/i5-10400F system or something similar so it's not that dated and unreliable, also having more performance in general, and overall better shot in selling it once I upgrade.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

It's indeed a very great value but this is a very old platform and original boards are in for their swan songs sooner rather than later and Huanan boards are just pure lottery. I'd rather spend a couple dozen dollars more and get a Ryzen 5500/i5-10400F system or something similar so it's not that dated and unreliable, also having more performance in general, and overall better shot in selling it once I upgrade.

I lucked out. I got a brand new x79 enthusiast board for the cost of shipping from a member here not long ago. I suspect it will last for way longer than most.

 

[Shihab]

a faster boot time by even a second is something you notice

One second off a base of 2 seconds? Most likely, yes. off 10? Doubtful.

One has to keep in mind that the brain isn't a high-precision, measuring instrument. There are differences between hardware generations, it's just that most aren't perceivable without aid of other instruments.

Wondering how long the charade we see with reviews showing gains that don't represent pretty much any real world use can can continue.

Wouldn't call it a charade. Respectable reviewers try to have some benches that cover "light usage." Often some office stuff with some browser benchmarks. Translating these quantitive results to qualitative description of what people would feel is tricky. Such a translation system would be a science of its own, me thinks. But UX people are too busy trying to herd us like sheep and keep up their engagement metrics. -_-

 

[kapone32]

I went from a 5950X to 7950X3D and the 7000 series chip murders it at everything while using less power.... 10w less but still.

For general desktop use they are identical with any difference being placebo.

You need to have a 4090/4080 to notice in gaming at 1440 and a 4090 at 4k, but in any MT task it's super obvious.

Or 7900Xt/XTX

That's the really nice thing about modern computers. With enough memory and solid state storage, most any decent mainstream cpu does most tasks very well. All other specs similar, an i3 runs about as well as an i7 for office, web browsing, etc. In a blind test, it would be hard for most non-tech folk to tell the difference.

Those programs traditionally only use 2 cores at most.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Or 7900Xt/XTX

Radeons have hardware-based command scheduling (it's one of the reasons their performance is consistent on low-end CPUs and slower on high-end CPUs), in most cases you'd probably not feel it either. If API in question is DX12 or Vulkan, depends on how many driver bugs you run into along the way, I suppose.

 

[kapone32]

Radeons have hardware-based command scheduling (it's one of the reasons their performance is consistent on low-end CPUs and slower on high-end CPUs), in most cases you'd probably not feel it either. If API in question is DX12 or Vulkan, depends on how many driver bugs you run into along the way, I suppose.

Yep you know what you are talking about because you have one. Do yourself a favour and read the latest GPU reviews. Make note of where the 7900XTX and 7900Xt are in the charts and realize that you have just tossed a weak word salad. Especially the uninformed comment about Driver bugs?????? That is why the 7900XT is the 3rd best selling GPU on Newegg.com.

 

[Onasi]

Radeons have hardware-based command scheduling (it's one of the reasons their performance is consistent on low-end CPUs and slower on high-end CPUs), in most cases you'd probably not feel it either. If API in question is DX12 or Vulkan, depends on how many driver bugs you run into along the way, I suppose.

NV had higher CPU driver overhead on low-level APIs on current architectures (Ampere and Ada, presumably precisely because of software scheduling), so it’s kind of a wash in the end. The 4080S vs 7900XT will just come down to what that particular game developer was feeling the day they compiled the final release. Obviously, that’s raster only, heavy RT changes things.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Yep you know what you are talking about because you have one. Do yourself a favour and read the latest GPU reviews. Make note of where the 7900XTX and 7900Xt are in the charts and realize that you have just tossed a weak word salad. Especially the uninformed comment about Driver bugs?????? That is why the 7900XT is the 3rd best selling GPU on Newegg.com.

Yeah, very uninformed, I have an iron-forged conviction by now that Radeon users have grown so used to driver problems that they think it's normal and just how things are by this point in time. It's been years and even the supposedly rock-stable drivers for Vega embedded on Zen 3 APUs still crash all the f'ing time for the most random reasons you can possibly think of. This is all I wanted to deal with while I'm typing down the stuff in class, guess what crashed it? Some embedded video on my university's moodle

I am so done

NV had higher CPU driver overhead on low-level APIs on current architectures (Ampere and Ada, presumably precisely because of software scheduling), so it’s kind of a wash in the end. The 4080S vs 7900XT will just come down to what that particular game developer was feeling the day they compiled the final release. Obviously, that’s raster only, heavy RT changes things.

I mean, you've basically said the same thing I did, just nicer about it

 

[kapone32]

Yeah, very uninformed, I have an iron-forged conviction by now that Radeon users have grown so used to driver problems that they think it's normal and just how things are by this point in time. It's been years and even the supposedly rock-stable drivers for Vega embedded on Zen 3 APUs still crash all the f'ing time for the most random reasons you can possibly think of. This is all I wanted to deal with while I'm typing down the stuff in class, guess what crashed it? Some embedded video on my university's moodle

View attachment 368938

I am so done



I mean, you've basically said the same thing I did, just nicer about it

Why are you showing me a laptop when we are talking about 7000 GPUs? Why do you mention AMD drivers when AMD users get monthly updates? Do you not remember the crying that happened when AMD did not update the 6000 GPUs for 2-3 months? You are showing how uninformed you are by doubling down on your narrative.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Why are you showing me a laptop when we are talking about 7000 GPUs? Why do you mention AMD drivers when AMD users get monthly updates? Do you not remember the crying that happened when AMD did not update the 6000 GPUs for 2-3 months? You are showing how uninformed you are by doubling down on your narrative.

You're the only one who thinks I've never used an AMD GPU or got a hate issue with AMD as a whole, and this is a cop-out. We've gone off-topic, anyway, i'll gladly debate you on this elsewhere

 

[AusWolf]

Hahaha, I’m here, guys! Just didn’t have a chance to reply yet.

Oh, my GPU is a watercooled 3080 Ti.

First off, I’m not trolling anyone! I’m not expecting a massive performance gain, just that tiny bump in daily tasks – like installing new apps, extracting files, updating drivers, and copying files between NVMEs (I mean, 2.5GB/s from one KC3000 to another?).

When I upgraded from a Core 2 Duo E8500 to an E8600, yeah, I didn’t notice much. But moving from a Ryzen 1700 to a 2700X? Definitely felt it. And again from the 2700X to a 3700X, and then from the 3700X to the 5900X – each time, there was that little extra boost. Even if Gen3 vs Gen4 NVME isn’t night-and-day in real life, a faster boot time by even a second is something you notice!

Now I’ve gone from Gen3 to Gen4 NVME, DDR4 to DDR5, and a CPU that’s clocking an extra 600-700MHz more than my last one – so where’s that tiny boost?

Perhaps CPUs have just gotten so fast that these incremental gains aren’t noticeable in daily tasks anymore?

I’m not complaining, just trying to figure out why I didn’t get that extra little bump I was expecting.

You are still mostly limited by nvme speed and access time. Anything after Gen 3 is just an upgrade in sequential read and write speeds (depending on the specific SSD model of course), but pretty much the same in everything else. PC hardware developments haven't been as exciting recently as you think, at least not for everyday tasks.

You also need to know that nvme SSDs are limited by their DRAM cache and heat. Once the cache runs out, or they reach a certain heat threshold, their speed drops significantly. The speeds you see on a product website are theoretical maximums when all conditions are ideal.

Edit: The point stands. You bought a gaming CPU, so game on and forget about an uplift in anything else.

Yeah, very uninformed, I have an iron-forged conviction by now that Radeon users have grown so used to driver problems that they think it's normal and just how things are by this point in time. It's been years and even the supposedly rock-stable drivers for Vega embedded on Zen 3 APUs still crash all the f'ing time for the most random reasons you can possibly think of. This is all I wanted to deal with while I'm typing down the stuff in class, guess what crashed it? Some embedded video on my university's moodle

That might be your experience with your laptop, but personally, I never have any BSODs or crashes on my AMD system, and in general, I don't have any more small issues than I do on my Nvidia HTPCs. Anno 2024, both AMD and Nvidia mostly work fine, expect for some weird cases like yours, I'd say. Everything else is anecdotal.

 

[kapone32]

You're the only one who thinks I've never used an AMD GPU or got a hate issue with AMD as a whole, and this is a cop-out. We've gone off-topic, anyway, i'll gladly debate you on this elsewhere

Have you ever read some of what you have posted?

 

[Dr. Dro]

That might be your experience with your laptop, but personally, I never have any BSODs or crashes on my AMD system, and in general, I don't have any more small issues than I do on my Nvidia HTPCs. Anno 2024, both AMD and Nvidia mostly work fine, expect for some weird cases like yours, I'd say. Everything else is anecdotal.

With my laptop and the 6-7 generations' worth of AMD GPUs I had until I threw in the towel. No offense meant, but "it doesn't happen to meee" argument gets old really really fast