Is it worth upgrading my old PC for Shadowlands

[erh]

Hey, I have an 8 year old PC setup that is serving me well but I am slowly starting to feel its age. I was wondering if you guys would recommend I upgrade a certain part of the build or is it just not worth it and I should just get something new altogether. I mainly play wow (casual heroic raiding in a small group) at 1080p (60fps monitor) and i have a second small monitor (1280x1024) for web browsing and youtube while i play. I still have a great experience while playing but i have noticed over the years that i have had to slowly lower the settings to maintain a playable framerate. My goal would be to push some of my settings a bit higher, mainly view distance, but I don't need to max anything out. I would like to play shadowlands and appreciate the world a bit more.

My current setup is:
i5 2500K at 4GHz (i have a hyper 212 evo cooler)
GTX 660
16 GB ram
256 GB SSD + 1TB HDD for storage
550 W power supply (i dont remember which one but it is 80+ bronze)

If a small upgrade is enough what would you recommend? I can OC my CPU a bit more if needed. I was thinking maybe a 1050 Ti that i can get for about 100euros. Im guessing any newer GPU would be bottlenecked by my CPU.
If you think that there is no point in upgrading this system what would you recommend that i get for my desired goals. I don't have a strict budget but i wouldn't want to spend too much over 1000 euros. I don't want something that is overkill, just something reliable and possibly the best bang-for-your-buck system of today like my old system was back then. Thanks for your help

[Varolyn]

Well view distance would depend on the CPU and not the gpu, so CPU I would assume is of higher priority of you. However, the only things I carry over are your storage and PSU. I don't know your ram speed so I can't comment on that. 1650 Super would be way better than a 1050ti while only being about $60 more. Ryzen 1600 AF from AMD would be a decent cpu upgrade, but note you would need to change your motherboard in this case (well, probably with any cpu upgrade now that I think of it). If you want to stay intel a 9400f would be ok and it isn't very expensive but note you would have no internal GPU.

But with specs so old, if you have the cash, a complete upgrade may be necessary.

[Thunderball]

- Your GPU definitely needs an upgrade. The upgrade point depends on your budget though. I'd suggest something like 1650 Super, dont buy a single fan version though.
- I'd also swap the PSU if it's been in the build ever since it was put together.
- I'd definitely get at least 4.5 GHz out of your CPU. Overall your system is still decently capable for WoW if paired with a better GPU. The fact that you have 16GB of RAM helps a lot.
- You can definitely put together something viable for 1000 EUR. You didnt mention where you live/where you're ordering from though.

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3600 3.6 GHz 6-Core Processor (£174.95 @ AWD-IT)
Motherboard: MSI B450 TOMAHAWK MAX ATX AM4 Motherboard (£101.99 @ Amazon UK)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix RGB 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3600 CL16 Memory (£82.79 @ Amazon UK)
Power Supply: Cooler Master MWE Bronze V2 550 W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply (£51.98 @ Amazon UK)
Total: £411.71
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2020-09-12 00:08 BST+0100

Not sure if you need a new case, but you can definitely keep your storage. Plenty of budget here to get new storage aswell though. You can also keep your cooler if you can get AM4 mounting hardware (or maybe AM3 would work) but otherwise just buy another 212. For the GPU I'd suggest waiting for price drops. I'd guess you're looking at something like 2060 Super or 1660 Super.

- - - Updated - - -

Well view distance would depend on the CPU and not the gpu, so CPU I would assume is of higher priority of you. However, the only things I carry over are your storage and PSU. I don't know your ram speed so I can't comment on that. 1650 Super would be way better than a 1050ti while only being about $60 more. Ryzen 1600 AF from AMD would be a decent cpu upgrade, but note you would need to change your motherboard in this case (well, probably with any cpu upgrade now that I think of it). If you want to stay intel a 9400f would be ok and it isn't very expensive but note you would have no internal GPU.

But with specs so old, if you have the cash, a complete upgrade may be necessary.

Anything that's not Ryzen 3000 series is pretty bad for WoW. I'm not even sure it's going to be better than 2500K@4.5.

[Kazjin]

Anything that's not Ryzen 3000 series is pretty bad for WoW. I'm not even sure it's going to be better than 2500K@4.5.

Intel 10th gen is better for gaming than Ryzen 3000

[Thunderball]

Intel 10th gen is better for gaming than Ryzen 3000

Depends on the price point. If you can afford a 10600K then it is, although you must overclock the CPU and the memory. Otherwise AMD is better.

[Kazjin]

although you must overclock the CPU and the memory. Otherwise AMD is better.

You don't need to overclock, no need to lie

[Kalika]

Depends on the price point. If you can afford a 10600K then it is, although you must overclock the CPU and the memory. Otherwise AMD is better.

Here is the very sad thing about AMD CPU vs Intel, AMD is using bleeding edge tech while intel is using tech that is 4 generations (4years) old. 10600 is basically a Skylake (6600) with more cores and hyperthreading and is still better about a $30 cost difference.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for your help

The only salvageable items in your system are the Hard drives, case, and PSU. You can not upgrade your CPU as a new CPU would not be supported in your board, you could not upgrade the bord because your CPU would not fit a new board. The memory you have is likely DDR3 and we are on DDR4.

AMD has pretty much kept the same socket for years so upgrading with AMD in the future is more certain. Intel normally upgrades the socket every two cycles 10 gen CPU is the first cycle so you would be able to run an 11th gen CPU if you wanted to upgrade in a year to take advantage of them enabling PCI-E 4.0. Currently, the only real benefit for AMD is that the m.2 sockets on the board for NVME drive runs at PCI-e 4.0 speeds but coming from 2nd generation intel chip/board and DDR3 memory everything is going to be lighting quick for you.

As for GPU, you could always go with an AMD GPU that might save you some cash, I use RX Vega 64 because I run macOS. In beta, I get 60 FPS @ 4k Max Settings except in Ardenweald because of all the fairy dust floating around.

As for your old Hard drive, a m.2 NVME drive is 5 times faster than the current fastest SSD/SATA drive. So while it is salvageable I would keep it for storage and get a new drive also. I like Western digital SN750 or Samsung 970 Evo Plus.

[Kagthul]

Here is the very sad thing about AMD CPU vs Intel, AMD is using bleeding edge tech while intel is using tech that is 4 generations (4years) old. 10600 is basically a Skylake (6600) with more cores and hyperthreading and is still better about a $30 cost difference.

Who cares how old it is?

Currently, the only real benefit for AMD is that the m.2 sockets on the board for NVME drive runs at PCI-e 4.0 speeds

Which are completely, utterly irrelevant for the average user. End-user wont even notice the difference from a SATA SSD vs a PCIe 3.0 m.2

As for your old Hard drive, a m.2 NVME drive is 5 times faster than the current fastest SSD/SATA drive. So while it is salvageable I would keep it for storage and get a new drive also. I like Western digital SN750 or Samsung 970 Evo Plus.

The speed difference for a non-pro user between SATA SSDs and NVMe SSDs is irrelevant. NVMe is only practically faster when moving large files - once you get to lots of small files (see: game installs, with often thousands of files) the controller becomes the bottleneck, not the speed of the drive.

And getting ath WD or Samsung Evo is a great way to throw away money for zero practical gain. You can get a regular WD Blue or a Crucial for 50-100% less that will perform exactly the same for an end-user.

[Thunderball]

Here is the very sad thing about AMD CPU vs Intel, AMD is using bleeding edge tech while intel is using tech that is 4 generations (4years) old. 10600 is basically a Skylake (6600) with more cores and hyperthreading and is still better about a $30 cost difference.

It's not. You can say as much as Sandy Bridge being the same as Skylake which would be false. The core design follows the same principle, the core manufacturing process is the same but otherwise a lot of stuff is different. Same as Zen vs Zen 3.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't need to overclock, no need to lie

You do. Overpaying $100 on the CPU and $50 on the board for a minuscule increase in performance is simply not worth it.

[potis]

You do. Overpaying $100 on the CPU and $50 on the board for a minuscule increase in performance is simply not worth it.

But when it comes to WoW it is not miniscule

A 3600 will be running at 4.0Ghz at best in WoW, a 10600K runs at 4.6Ghz averagely, fluctuating between 4.5-4.6 in reality and thats default values on a half-decent motherboard.

You dont wanna add OC capabilities, since one can barely reach 4.2Ghz on all cores and the other can do 5.0Ghz kinda faceroll.

It all comes down to what you want from your PC, but if we are talking Blizzard games, anyone suggesting AMD is simply wrong.

And even for other PCs, when you add OC capabilities, i dont see a reason to lose 800Mhz for some sort of AMD trend going on, when it comes to gaming.

For budget PCs and overall work/gaming, AMD all the way, but when it comes to Blizzard games, you simply go Intel, end of story.

Also the price difference is 60e here, and if you really wanna compare, you can get 10600 which for people without the knowledge to OC, its still 600Hz extra, aka 25-30% minimum FPS in Blizzard games for 30e difference.

The AMD trend gets annoying when misinformation start flying around, yes the Zen series is amazing, but for gaming, Intel with 4 year old tech is still far ahead simply because clockspeeds cant be matched.

[Thunderball]

But when it comes to WoW it is not miniscule

A 3600 will be running at 4.0Ghz at best in WoW

No? WoW is a relatively light threaded workload, so I'd say 4.2-4.3.

a 10600K runs at 4.6Ghz averagely, fluctuating between 4.5-4.6 in reality and thats default values on a half-decent motherboard.

Yeah, that's the spec values. Anything that doesnt follow the spec, i.e. 4.5 all core, 4.6 2 core, 4.8 1 core, is already overclocking.

You dont wanna add OC capabilities, since one can barely reach 4.2Ghz on all cores and the other can do 5.0Ghz kinda faceroll.

I dont get the point here. Yea, there's a clock delta, but Zen 3 is also faster clock for clock.

It all comes down to what you want from your PC, but if we are talking Blizzard games, anyone suggesting AMD is simply wrong.

Most people want the performance they want with minimum investment. Sure, if you want maximum performance you go with Intel because AMD is just not capable of providing that. But you're not gonna beat the price point, especially for people who dont overclock. It's slower, but it's A LOT cheaper. And a lot cheaper motherboard+CPU combo means you can invest more money into your GPU.

And even for other PCs, when you add OC capabilities, i dont see a reason to lose 800Mhz for some sort of AMD trend going on, when it comes to gaming.

You dont, same as me, but we're the minority. I hate any kind of fanboism but you cant argue with the facts - AMD is just a better pick for most people right now, and that's the people who are not enthusiasts, who dont want maximum fps, and people who cannot/wont/cba to overclock the CPU or memory.

For budget PCs and overall work/gaming, AMD all the way, but when it comes to Blizzard games, you simply go Intel, end of story.

Based on what argument? Price/performance AMD leads, even in Blizzard games if we consider only Zen 3 CPUs. Futureproofing - the situation is similar. Intel is changing the platform after Rocket Lake again, and AMD is moving from AM4 after Zen 3. PCIe gen 4 support is imo irrelevant for midrange builds.

Also the price difference is 60e here, and if you really wanna compare, you can get 10600 which for people without the knowledge to OC, its still 600Hz extra, aka 25-30% minimum FPS in Blizzard games for 30e difference.

The difference in minimum fps is 5-10% in all games, even with OC. The minimum fps difference has nothing to do with core clocks, it's mostly cache and memory subsystem bottlenecks.

The AMD trend gets annoying when misinformation start flying around

Yes.

Intel with 4 year old tech is still far ahead simply because clockspeeds cant be matched.

What is far ahead? AMD right now has 2 problems:
- Memory throughput problem that is inherent in the design of the architecture and cannot really be fixed, although if one CCX can house more cores it could improve somewhat.
- Performance not scaling up with core count, which can be fixed.

Clock for clock AMD is already ahead since Zen 3, clock speed deficiency is eventually going to be closed since Intel cannot seem to move away from 14nm and TSMC is building a bigger lead as time goes on. Price wise AMD will always have an advantage as long as Intel keep building monolithic dies.

[Kalika]

It's not. You can say as much as Sandy Bridge being the same as Skylake which would be false. The core design follows the same principle, the core manufacturing process is the same but otherwise a lot of stuff is different. Same as Zen vs Zen 3.

- - - Updated - - -

Sandy bridge is is a totally different node processing totally different cpu, while skylake, kabbylake, coffeelake, and cometlake architectually the same with more cores. The next-gen of the intel chip will be different once they put Thunderbolt on the CPU die but it is still the same with minor refinement. In fact, the newer chips run hot because they are juicing more power into old architecture to continue to put up numbers to beat AMD in Single thread.

Yes, the CPU have a different socket, that is true and they have higher clock speeds, and the motherboards use a different chipset to force you to update.

You do. Overpaying $100 on the CPU and $50 on the board for a minuscule increase in performance is simply not worth it.

Some people prefer one brand or another that does not mean they are overpaying that is just your opinion. Most people I know would rather put up the duckets for Intel over AMD. The price difference is about $70 combined 30 on the CPU and 40 on the board.

- - - Updated - - -

Who cares how old it is?

If Intel is beating AMD with 4 year old tech that proves how much more inferior the AMD chip is to the intel chip.

Which are completely, utterly irrelevant for the average user. End-user wont even notice the difference from a SATA SSD vs a PCIe 3.0 m.2

Totally relevant when building a new system, everyone will notice it on the boot, everyone will notice it when starting the game, everyone will notice it when they zone. But just because they will not notice it when they run MS word does not mean it is not faster.

The speed difference for a non-pro user between SATA SSDs and NVMe SSDs is irrelevant. NVMe is only practically faster when moving large files - once you get to lots of small files (see: game installs, with often thousands of files) the controller becomes the bottleneck, not the speed of the drive.

And getting ath WD or Samsung Evo is a great way to throw away money for zero practical gain. You can get a regular WD Blue or a Crucial for 50-100% less that will perform exactly the same for an end-user.

When playing games load times are always a factor and as the games grow load times increase so the faster drive is important. if you notice even blizzard says you should have an SSD drive, the OP looks like they use their systems for many years, no reason they should not use the fastest parts. The difference between a WD blue and a WD black SN750 is about $20 no reason not to spend the $20 for the drive that is meant for gaming.

The Op asked for opinions on building a new system I provided factual information about hardware. While you just tried to shoot it down with your opinion I bet of your 5000+ post most of them are trash.

[Kagthul]

Totally relevant when building a new system, everyone will notice it on the boot, everyone will notice it when starting the game, everyone will notice it when they zone. But just because they will not notice it when they run MS word does not mean it is not faster.

They literally wont. The speed difference PCIe offers is only relevant for extremely large files. When moving lots of files, they are just as slow as a SATA SSD. Because the limitation is the controller. You can literally test it yourself. Move 1000 music files. Watch as it takes almost exactly as long on a SATA SSD as on a PCIe SSD.

When playing games load times are always a factor and as the games grow load times increase so the faster drive is important.

... its like, you didn't actually read anything, or comprehend how anything works. Most games are not single massive files. They are thousands of small files. PCIe wont help with loading tims. LTT did a video showing the loading times between HDDs, Hybrid Drives, SATA SSDs ,and NVMe SSDs.

While SATA SSDs were substantially faster than HDD and SSHD, there is almost no difference in load times. There is NO difference in load times in a more recent video where they tested PCIe 3.0 vs 4.0. Because the bottleneck isnt the speed of the storage, its the SSD controller's limitations and the CPU. Try to keep up.

if you notice even blizzard says you should have an SSD drive,

Sure. Because at this point they are cheap enough there is little excuse not to have one. They aren't saying "get a PCIe 4.0 SSD". Theyre saying "get an SSD, any SSD".

the OP looks like they use their systems for many years,

Okay,... and?

no reason they should not use the fastest parts.

When there is no benefit to doing so, thats a great reason not to use them. By your logic, the OP should also splash out on a 3950X or 10900K. Because theyre "the fastest". Which is base idiocy.

The difference between a WD blue and a WD black SN750 is about $20

Math apparently not your strong suit.

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/QQr...ve-wds100t3x0c - SN750 is 159$
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/Bhm...ve-wds100t2b0c - WD Blue is 104$, and frequently cheaper.

Thats 50$, or more,not 20$. Math hard.

no reason not to spend the $20 for the drive that is meant for gaming.

lolwut? WD Black is not "meant for gaming" - its for professional use.

The Op asked for opinions on building a new system I provided factual information about hardware.

Uhh.. no you didn't. You posted things you believed were facts but were not, actually, facts.

While you just tried to shoot it down with your opinion I bet of your 5000+ post most of them are trash.

No, i posted facts. I refuted your incorrect "information". Plenty of benchmarks out there to back that up. For the average user, there is no benefit from going from SATA SSDs to even a PCIe 3.0 SSD. You will not notice a difference in loading times. Because the only way that PCIe benefits the storage is for large file transfers, not loading games (literally thousands of individual files) or moving small documents.

In fact, when moving lots of files, ANY SSD slows down to speeds only 2-3x that of spinning rust.

Moved my music collection from my previous daily driver to my new one, both PCIe and connected via Thunderbolt (40GB/sec) - never broke ~200MB/s. Move them between drives in the same computer if you want (i moved all the files off my NVMe boot drive to my NVMe storage drive recently when i had to replace a motherboard that had suddenly developed a RAM slot issue)... didn't break 180MB/s

Its like.. you dont even have the barest clue about what you're talking about, and suggesting things that would waste money for no perceptible gain.

Its... exactly like that.

[Kalika]

They literally wont. The speed difference PCIe offers is only relevant for extremely large files. When moving lots of files, they are just as slow as a SATA SSD. Because the limitation is the controller. You can literally test it yourself. Move 1000 music files. Watch as it takes almost exactly as long on a SATA SSD as on a PCIe SSD.

... its like, you didn't actually read anything, or comprehend how anything works. Most games are not single massive files. They are thousands of small files. PCIe wont help with loading tims. LTT did a video showing the loading times between HDDs, Hybrid Drives, SATA SSDs ,and NVMe SSDs.

While SATA SSDs were substantially faster than HDD and SSHD, there is almost no difference in load times. There is NO difference in load times in a more recent video where they tested PCIe 3.0 vs 4.0. Because the bottleneck isnt the speed of the storage, its the SSD controller's limitations and the CPU. Try to keep up.

I think you’re the one failing to keep up I have NVME drives my wife doesn’t my system is far more snappy then hers @ boot, game loading, transferring files, everything. She sits two feet away from me so it is not hard to compare. We have the same motherboard, CPU, GPU, same amount of memory, our drives are the only difference.

Sure. Because at this point they are cheap enough there is little excuse not to have one. They aren't saying "get a PCIe 4.0 SSD". Theyre saying "get an SSD, any SSD".

It is because the game runs better on an SSD then an HDD, but a NVME drive is going to be even better in the long run.

Okay,... and?

That means you should buy the best when you buy it not skimp for a few hundred dollars savings that’s what children do.

When there is no benefit to doing so, thats a great reason not to use them. By your logic, the OP should also splash out on a 3950X or 10900K. Because theyre "the fastest". Which is base idiocy.

You right they should buy the 10900k because it is the fastest, and give them the longest running system.

Math apparently not your strong suit.

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/QQr...ve-wds100t3x0c - SN750 is 159$
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/Bhm...ve-wds100t2b0c - WD Blue is 104$, and frequently cheaper.

Thats 50$, or more,not 20$. Math hard.

Apparently, shopping is not your strong suit, on Western Digital’s own web page they show the black for 79.99 while the blue comes in at 59.99

https://shop.westerndigital.com/prod...sd#WDS500G3X0C

https://shop.westerndigital.com/prod...sd#WDS500G2B0C

lolwut? WD Black is not "meant for gaming" - its for professional use.

Apparently, you have your own opinion but Wester Digital opinion of the black drive is for gaming.

Uhh.. no you didn't. You posted things you believed were facts but were not, actually, facts.
No, i posted facts. I refuted your incorrect "information". Plenty of benchmarks out there to back that up. For the average user, there is no benefit from going from SATA SSDs to even a PCIe 3.0 SSD. You will not notice a difference in loading times. Because the only way that PCIe benefits the storage is for large file transfers, not loading games (literally thousands of individual files) or moving small documents.

In fact, when moving lots of files, ANY SSD slows down to speeds only 2-3x that of spinning rust.

Moved my music collection from my previous daily driver to my new one, both PCIe and connected via Thunderbolt (40GB/sec) - never broke ~200MB/s. Move them between drives in the same computer if you want (i moved all the files off my NVMe boot drive to my NVMe storage drive recently when i had to replace a motherboard that had suddenly developed a RAM slot issue)... didn't break 180MB/s

Its like.. you dont even have the barest clue about what you're talking about, and suggesting things that would waste money for no perceptible gain.

Its... exactly like that.

Sounds like you’re just trying to project your own lack of knowledge and ability to read. NVME is faster period get over it. When I back up my system it is far faster on the NVME then it was with SATA SSD.

[Thunderball]

Sandy bridge is is a totally different node processing totally different cpu, while skylake, kabbylake, coffeelake, and cometlake architectually the same with more cores.

Broadwell is 14nm aswell, why are you not including it? Architectually the cores are pretty much unchanged since Sandy Bridge.

The next-gen of the intel chip will be different once they put Thunderbolt on the CPU die but it is still the same with minor refinement. In fact, the newer chips run hot because they are juicing more power into old architecture to continue to put up numbers to beat AMD in Single thread.

10nm chips use a completely different core architecture. Newer chips dont run hot, they just have too many cores on a monolithic die on an older node.

higher clock speeds

Not much higher if you dont OC.

Some people prefer one brand or another that does not mean they are overpaying that is just your opinion. Most people I know would rather put up the duckets for Intel over AMD. The price difference is about $70 combined 30 on the CPU and 40 on the board.

So they're fanboys? Someone refunds those $150 for them I guess.

If Intel is beating AMD with 4 year old tech that proves how much more inferior the AMD chip is to the intel chip.

It doesnt matter how old the tech is, consumer doesnt care. All they care about is price and performance, and currently AMD is pretty hard to beat there.

Totally relevant when building a new system, everyone will notice it on the boot, everyone will notice it when starting the game, everyone will notice it when they zone. But just because they will not notice it when they run MS word does not mean it is not faster.

There's no difference between a SATA SSD and an NVMe SSD in those. The only difference you're gonna see is moving big files.

[Kalika]

Broadwell is 14nm aswell, why are you not including it? Architectually the cores are pretty much unchanged since Sandy Bridge.

10nm chips use a completely different core architecture. Newer chips dont run hot, they just have too many cores on a monolithic die on an older node.

Because Broadwell is a Haswell architecture shrink not the same architecture as Skylake same processing node though. 10600 is not a 10nm chip still 14nm still the same architecture, still the same cores.

Not much higher if you dont OC.

Still Higher.

So they're fanboys? Someone refunds those $150 for them I guess.

When AMD decided to get off the competing train 10 years ago I vowed to never buy their CPU's again. Only recently have they decided to compete again but I am not going to buy into their Koolaid. It might be important for someone to save $150 but for myself, that translates into 1.5/hrs of work. It is also a Tax writeoff so it makes me care even less, more money I can spend less money going to uncle sam = win/win for me!

It doesn't matter how old the tech is, consumer doesn't care. All they care about is price and performance, and currently, AMD is pretty hard to beat there.

I am a consumer, maybe you call me a prosumer, but it matters to me I am sure it matters to a lot of people. If your bleeding-edge tech product is getting beat by old tech then you're doing something wrong.

There's no difference between a SATA SSD and an NVMe SSD in those. The only difference you're gonna see is moving big files.

Then why does my computer beat my wives in every one of those tests when the rest of our hardware is the same? It might not be a huge difference maybe 15 sec on boot, maybe only 10 seconds on loading... But that doesn't change the fact that it is faster and on my daily backups its 15 - 20 mins faster most of the files it is backing up are between 20 and 50 megs I would not call those files "BIG"!

Also let's not forget the form factor is so much better, no power cable, no SATA cable to worry about plugs right into the board and disappears.

[Blackmist]

I'd just slap a new GPU in it. The CPU is old, but it was a great CPU back then and it's still passable now.

If you find you still want more framerate, then you'll have to upgrade the CPU (meaning motherboard and RAM too).

[mvdv25]

I would try to upgrade the GPU first. If you still think you are not getting the experience you want. then look further to upgrade to a newer CPU. (But that will also need a new Motherboard/Memory and Power Supply)

Since there are not really good benchmarks of World of Warcraft.
I can recommend to check the World of Warcraft benchmarks on Youtube from 'Hardware Numb3rs'.
He does all kind of different tests with Intel/AMD cpu's and memory overclocking or GPU's.

If you want to upgrade your CPU.
You should watch this benchmark of Hardware Numb3rs. 'World of Warcraft 8.3 CPU Roundup - Zen2 Vs 9th Gen Intel - Raid Benchmarks'
Intel will give you a bit higher average framerate, but also lower 0.1% lows. Even when the Intel CPU are overclocked.
However in the end, both of the newer generation AMD or Intel will be a good upgrade.

[Thunderball]

Because Broadwell is a Haswell architecture shrink not the same architecture as Skylake same processing node though. 10600 is not a 10nm chip still 14nm still the same architecture, still the same cores.

Yes, and Haswell is the shrink of the Ivy Bridge which is Sandy Bridge with PCIe gen 3 support. Yadda-yadda.

Still Higher.

Mhm, for 30-40% higher price tag.

When AMD decided to get off the competing train 10 years ago I vowed to never buy their CPU's again. Only recently have they decided to compete again but I am not going to buy into their Koolaid.

They didnt decide to get off the competing train, the just didnt figure out the next big thing. Intel was in the exact same position with NetBurst. Also, AMD were way behind with the manufacturing process at the time aswell.

It might be important for someone to save $150 but for myself, that translates into 1.5/hrs of work. It is also a Tax writeoff so it makes me care even less, more money I can spend less money going to uncle sam = win/win for me!

Fair enough, but you're an extreme minority and you have to understand that you cannot project your situation on everybody else.

I am a consumer, maybe you call me a prosumer, but it matters to me I am sure it matters to a lot of people. If your bleeding-edge tech product is getting beat by old tech then you're doing something wrong.

1) As I said, you're an extreme minority in this space.
2) It doesnt matter how old is the tech, all that matters is who has the best product and making money off it. Currently AMD has the best product.

Then why does my computer beat my wives in every one of those tests when the rest of our hardware is the same?

I'm not arguing that your PC will win the test, but it doesnt matter if your PC gets to the desktop in 15 or 18 seconds. For someone who doesnt run tests and relies just on their experience (which is the vast majority) those are the same.

It might not be a huge difference maybe 15 sec on boot, maybe only 10 seconds on loading... But that doesn't change the fact that it is faster and on my daily backups its 15 - 20 mins faster most of the files it is backing up are between 20 and 50 megs I would not call those files "BIG"!

Yea, it's 1-2 seconds on each of those, and the average user doesnt do daily backups. If you do then you're a specific usecase where it could make sense. Dont forget that the tradeoff is you're most likely having a worse GPU in your system.

Also let's not forget the form factor is so much better, no power cable, no SATA cable to worry about plugs right into the board and disappears.

Yea, it's better but then again I would take a better GPU over that anyday.

[Kalika]

Yes, and Haswell is the shrink of the Ivy Bridge which is Sandy Bridge with PCIe gen 3 support. Yadda-yadda.

So we agree and that is why I did not group them.

Mhm, for 30-40% higher price tag.

AMD is maybe an American company but it is not supporting America Intel does and there is a premium on American made stuff. Unless your apple then there is a premium no matter where it is made.

They didnt decide to get off the competing train, the just didnt figure out the next big thing. Intel was in the exact same position with NetBurst. Also, AMD were way behind with the manufacturing process at the time aswell.

AMD was winning their chips were better at all metrics and then they announced we are no longer going to compete we are going to make crappy cheap chips and dropped out.

Fair enough, but you're an extreme minority and you have to understand that you cannot project your situation on everybody else.

When someone says they do not have a hard budget I assume a few hundred dollars is not a big deal but your right few hundred to me is not the same as a few hundred for you.

1) As I said, you're an extreme minority in this space.
2) It doesn’t matter how old is the tech, all that matters is who has the best product and making money off it. Currently AMD has the best product.

I am not sure they got the best product, though they have the best price. Like I said if your bleeding edge vs old tech and you’re not destroying your product must be inferior. Yes AMD have beat intel on the core count but when you compare core for core intel wins.

I'm not arguing that your PC will win the test, but it doesn’t matter if your PC gets to the desktop in 15 or 18 seconds. For someone who doesn’t run tests and relies just on their experience (which is the vast majority) those are the same.

Much of computer metrics are measured in fractions of seconds so 15-18 second is an eternity.

Yea, it's 1-2 seconds on each of those, and the average user doesn’t do daily backups. If you do then you're a specific use case where it could make sense. Don’t forget that the tradeoff is you're most likely having a worse GPU in your system.

I use an AMD video card, not because of cost but instead because I run macOS and macOS does not support Nvidia.

Yea, it's better but then again I would take a better GPU over that any day.

At the point your breach 60 FPS the GPU is Overkill since most monitors only are doing 60hz… if you happen to have a 120hz monitor then sure you need to better GPU. As I noted earlier I get 60 FPS @4k max settings everywhere in Shadowland outside of ardenweald with my dated Vega 64. I can not say what it does on other games because I am not really a gamer and only play wow because of my wife.