Are people planning an upgrade?

[JustBenching]

I have mine locked at 5.55 GHz in a manual OC at 1.23 V, it has actual second gen V-Cache and the wider cores of Zen 5 which aren't immediately obvious in gaming benchmarks currently. A big leap from Zen 4, just not at stock. The 7800X3D Is only efficient because it's forced to run low volts from first gen V-Cache, not by AMD's choice. As for heat and power draw it's irrelevant and entirely dependent on settings, just like Zen 4.

About to tune a 6600 MT/32 64 GB white Dominator Titanium kit that's arriving today. Got some TG Putty Pro to keep it cooler than stock.

6600 is a ***tch to run. You need to run a LOT of stability tests cause IMC / FCLK instabilities are hard to detect. Or im just clueless. I settled for 6400c28 cause I couldn't bother finetuning for 6600.

Also looks like you have a godtier bin, mine hits a wall at 5.4ghz / 1.3v flat. Which is terrible...

 

[wolf]

Yeah, the 7800X3D barely crosses 1 V on the cores. It is set up extremely conservatively by default, but that's why I love it. The 9800 is maybe 10% faster, but with 100% higher power. Wider cores and new V-cache sound nice on paper, but I'm a practical person

The only thing I'd add here is that's either an exaggeration or you're being fairly selective about the numbers you want to put forward. Near 100% more power is in all core workloads, not games, were it's closer to 20% faster on average, of course with apps that do better and worse than that. Then in gaming it's closer to your 10% faster but uses more like 40% more power (46w VS 65w). Still relatively quite inefficient no doubt about it, but there more to it borne out in the numbers, and given its a through and through gaming chip, I doubt many are fussed about productivity power consumption. I want to be clear that I agree it's considerably more inefficient.

 

[dgianstefani]

6600 is a ***tch to run. You need to run a LOT of stability tests cause IMC / FCLK instabilities are hard to detect. Or im just clueless. I settled for 6400c28 cause I couldn't bother finetuning for 6600.

Also looks like you have a godtier bin, mine hits a wall at 5.4ghz / 1.3v flat. Which is terrible...

I'm not going to run 6600.

It's just a high bin kit I bought.

 

[AleXXX666]

I-I dunno, I dunno if I'm being overly petty here. Even if you don't know I'm using one, I can't digest why I ...or monitors of that form factor got hit with such a, erm, bad rude take.
There's a wall between "waste of money scammy trash" and "top-of-the-line product in a niche form factor with a price tag to match". And maybe I'm crazy, but for this specific case I know well enough on what I'm gaining with the product. I'm commited to the plan, and I don't need someone else trashing on the plan.

YEAH, I agree and have seen that there are even 24" 4K, which, again were "blessed by happy photoshoppers", but, even for this one I have "my story": I got 24" WQHD (2K) one for office work, then... realized it's UNUSABLE at 100% without deep-eye-penetrating into screen, which is already pain in the.. umm well again eyes, because the screen is small to stare at, compared to, say, 27". So again we have "case", where pictures/movies will be "PERFECT to watch at", but at the same we are having LOWER THAN ADVERTISED RESOLUTION (recommended by Windows is 125% which is 2048x1152, wtf is this compared to 1080p then, and even lower than 1200p vertical of that "gold 16:10 era" lol) or we need to burn eyes using it at 100%. So it isn't "niche", it's better "dumb", sorry. No offence bro.

I'm really skeptical about the new GPU releases and GPU's in general. On one hand you have NV with the high prices, despite what NV says about those and what tech it offers. On the other hand you have AMD which may be lower in price but still does not offer much of a performance bump. Intel, well Intel is still waiting for an opportunity. I must say, it will be hard for me to upgrade my graphics. Considering i dont play much nowadays, and if I do, my 6900xt agrees with me fully with games I play, I might skip this gen upgrade as well.

Yeah i dont need scaling as well with my 27-inch 4K screen and why would I? I see everything clearly. 32-inch is too big for me anyway.

same here. I understand that this is "bad" for the eyes, but that's me, when "chillin" with PC I'm ok to "sit close" to monitor utilizing full resolution for my tasks whichever this resolution is. But for 9-17 workday I sit from distance and using crazy scaling factor, well, just not to burden my eyes lol. as about 32" I have tried to use 32" TV (FHD lol) as a monitor. Super good for "healthy distance", not usable for "close sit" then. Well, I'm currently a lappie-boy, (don't want to mess with external monitor again), but, in future if I will go for 32" it will be clearly 4K, and if I'll choose 2K (I hate WQHD break-ya-tongue-name) it will be 27".

 

[AusWolf]

The only thing I'd add here is that's either an exaggeration or you're being fairly selective about the numbers you want to put forward. Near 100% more power is in all core workloads, not games, were it's closer to 20% faster on average, of course with apps that do better and worse than that. Then in gaming it's closer to your 10% faster but uses more like 40% more power (46w VS 65w). Still relatively quite inefficient no doubt about it, but there more to it borne out in the numbers, and given its a through and through gaming chip, I doubt many are fussed about productivity power consumption. I want to be clear that I agree it's considerably more inefficient.

That's true, but that's why I'm not keen on it. Pushing considerably more power for a tiny bit of more performance isn't progress. It's brute force. Exactly what Intel has been doing lately. I love my 7800X3D, but the 9800 doesn't impress me.

 

[Aken Bosch]

Most likely I'll jump to 64 gigs this year (not that I need' em, just an itch). Also, some racing stuff is required in order to be more comfy, probably a Next Level Racing chassis of some kind (i still have to figure out the actual space required for that). CPU and GPU upgrades - I guess 2027 at best, not sooner, I don't have any reason to upgrade neither (at least for now).

 

[Prime2515102]

Definitely older tech at lower prices. Video cards and motherboards have skyrocketed since the crypto rush. I remember paying insane money for my GTX 1080; on sale.

I need an overhaul though. I'd like to give Win11 a try, without the worry of getting cut off at any moment. And I definitely need a new GPU that can run HDR/4k/10-bit/4:4:4/120hz all at the same time. I'm not too worried about the performance, low-end is 1080 level by now.

 

[wheresmycar]

I mean - half a grand these days is like 2 runs to the grocery store

What on earth are you buying from there? Premium Japanese beef, caviar and truffles, all downed with some rare vintage spirits? lol Nah i agree, nowadays stomach/home-wares have blown projected-budget shopping sketches through the roof. Esp. if you're hunting for farmer fresh veg/fruits and generally a healthier lifestyle. I still check receipts when the Mrs returns and have those 'silent WTF moments'.

You got me thinking - discounted bulk-buy months supply of instant noodles for the fam and put that bundle of joy towards a more comfy 5080 splurge. Sacrifices must be made for the greater good

 

[wolf]

but the 9800 doesn't impress me.

From the perspective of a 7800/7900/7950X3D owner mostly interested in gaming, I doubt it impressed many if any. My perspective is it was enough to entice myself and others from generations of AMD and Intel older than that.

 

[Todestrieb]

YEAH, I agree and have seen that there are even 24" 4K, which, again were "blessed by happy photoshoppers", but, even for this one I have "my story": I got 24" WQHD (2K) one for office work, then... realized it's UNUSABLE at 100% without deep-eye-penetrating into screen, which is already pain in the.. umm well again eyes, because the screen is small to stare at, compared to, say, 27". So again we have "case", where pictures/movies will be "PERFECT to watch at", but at the same we are having LOWER THAN ADVERTISED RESOLUTION (recommended by Windows is 125% which is 2048x1152, wtf is this compared to 1080p then, and even lower than 1200p vertical of that "gold 16:10 era" lol) or we need to burn eyes using it at 100%. So it isn't "niche", it's better "dumb", sorry. No offence bro.

It's probably only "dumb" for your eyes.
If my IT department somehow offers to swap / add a monitor of 24" 1440p I know I will raise hand and then use it at 100% scaling and probably some more on Excel.
( I don't mean any offense here. There are older wiser calmer colleagues than me who struggles / has to scale their generic 1080p, so that is that. )

But, the "LOWER THAN ADVERTISED RESOLUTION" argument doesn't quite stand because
whatever the GPU outputs after scaling is still in the display's intended resolution by default. I can see the images smoother in my 27" 4K than my brother's 27" 1440p in terms of pixelating, be it in games like Forza Horizon 5 or texts on general Windows usage (with mine at 150% scaling currently because 1080p displays on its side). it's not annoying at all but I can notice that in probably close but normal distance without trying any hard.

Let's just say we have very very very different experience and views on this topic, maybe I'm the crazy niche one here and move on.

 

[Nater]

I'm pretty much always planning an upgrade. Don't always pull the trigger tho.

 

[Fokker]

I'm upgrading my cooling and just going to push my hardware a little further. Nothing coming down the pipe interests me, so no need for new hardware.

 

[ratirt]

YEAH, I agree and have seen that there are even 24" 4K, which, again were "blessed by happy photoshoppers", but, even for this one I have "my story": I got 24" WQHD (2K) one for office work, then... realized it's UNUSABLE at 100% without deep-eye-penetrating into screen, which is already pain in the.. umm well again eyes, because the screen is small to stare at, compared to, say, 27". So again we have "case", where pictures/movies will be "PERFECT to watch at", but at the same we are having LOWER THAN ADVERTISED RESOLUTION (recommended by Windows is 125% which is 2048x1152, wtf is this compared to 1080p then, and even lower than 1200p vertical of that "gold 16:10 era" lol) or we need to burn eyes using it at 100%. So it isn't "niche", it's better "dumb", sorry. No offence bro.


same here. I understand that this is "bad" for the eyes, but that's me, when "chillin" with PC I'm ok to "sit close" to monitor utilizing full resolution for my tasks whichever this resolution is. But for 9-17 workday I sit from distance and using crazy scaling factor, well, just not to burden my eyes lol. as about 32" I have tried to use 32" TV (FHD lol) as a monitor. Super good for "healthy distance", not usable for "close sit" then. Well, I'm currently a lappie-boy, (don't want to mess with external monitor again), but, in future if I will go for 32" it will be clearly 4K, and if I'll choose 2K (I hate WQHD break-ya-tongue-name) it will be 27".

It is not bad for the eyes if you have sufficient ambient light. If you sit 1m from the monitor or around you should be ok.
For me the 4K is the way to go.