Upgrade Build to Replace a 5820k System

[Erous]

My son's PC is showing it's age so we're considering an upgrade for him. He's using my old 5820k and video editing in Adobe Premier Pro is bottlenecking here. Looking for some suggestions on a build considering current CPU stock. Would like to go with the new AMD CPUs but it's been slow going:

Budget Best bang for our buck
Resolution 1440p between 60 and 144
System Purpose Gaming and Video Editing
If a gaming system, what games and settings are desired? WoW mostly. He's a mythic raider and runs most of the time on option 7. So medium settings.
Any other intensive software or special things you do Frequent video editing using Adobe Premiere Pro
Do you plan to overclock? Not sure. We can OC if the chip and MB suggested is capable.
Country USA
Parts that can be reused EVGA 2070 Video Card (non super)
Do you need an OS? No
Do you need peripherals No

[Thunderball]

Considering the fact that you want 1440p 144FPS you will have to replace the GPU. Depending on the settings you want it can be either one: 3060Ti, 3070 or 3080. So I suggest just getting a GPU that you can actually buy. Note that you wont get 144FPS in raids anyway, with any hardware.

In terms of the best bang for the buck CPU for your case it's going to be a 5900X. Pretty expensive though. In terms of the rest of the build: Good 750-850W PSU (depends on the stock aswell), 32GB of 3600 CL16 RAM (Crucial ideally), motherboard depends on your I/O and networking needs, but something like a B550 Tomahawk would be a good place to start.

I suggest you actually buy a GPU (maybe a CPU aswell) first and then come back to get the rest of the build in order.

[Kagthul]

Its remotely possible there could be a worse time to try to build a new computer (i mean, like, the factories that make the parts could all simultaneously burn to the ground i guess).... but its hard to imagine one.

Modern parts are basically not purchaseable. Good luck finding a 3080, 3070 (i wouldnt go with a 30600Ti for AAA 1440p high refresh. If you were sticking with 1440p/60, then itd be OK) or RX 6800XT for anywhere near MSRP (i... sorta did but it took six weeks of checking FB Market dozens of times a day and pouncing on people who listed stuff too low. I actually "paid" less than MSRP but that was because i also traded the guy a 1080, which, if id sold it, would have been ~300).

Same with Ryzen 5000 CPUs in most areas. GFL with that.

You can get the rest of the rig together fairly easily (some price are even depressed, like RAM and storage), but you might wait months trying to land a modern chip or GPU.

And if you wait it out till they are actually readily available "in stock" (which may take 3-6months) - theyll be more expensive even, because the tariff exemption that PCBs and GPUs got last year was not extended, so theyre staring down a 25% Tariff increase which you can be assured will be passed on to the consumer, because thats how Tariffs *actually* work out in the real world).

So... yeah. Good luck man.

You could probably save some coin and headache by just not bothering with Ryzen 5000. Yeah, they are better than Ryzen 3000 but we're not talking like 2x faster or any nonsense like that.

You could grab a Ryzen 9 3900X (12 cores) for less than a Ryzen 7 5800X (8 cores) and youd likely actually be able to FIND the 3900 and purchase it. The 20% IPC difference between Zen 2 and Zen 3 is more than made up for in this case by the extra 4 cores and 8 threads. You could also go top end, with the 3950X going for ~720$ vs the 5950X at over 1200$. Both are 16 cores, and while the 3950X is ~20% "slower" than the 5950X due to IPC, its also nearly half the cost.

And then just take your chances with the secondary market for a GPU.

Considering that base MSRP of a 3080 is likely to end up going up to over 800$ due to the tariff hike, and most AIBs are over the base MSRP (so, more like 850$ at the cheapest, averaging 900$).. if you can score one now for ~1000$ youll "only" be 100$ over the price youd pay 3+ months from now waiting for one to be "in stock" at the then-MSRP.

Also dont be afraid to negotiate with people and offer trades. Thats how i got my 3080. Offered the guy 600$ cash + the 1080 (in the pictures, he clearly got it open-box and actually only paid 649$ for it at Micro Center) for the ASUS TUF 3080; turned out the TUF was just a TINY bit too big (just the very top 3mm of the shroud) to fit in the bracket for my case, so i then traded the TUF + 50$ to a guy selling an EVGA XC3 model. So i still managed to end up less than MSRP out of pocket, but "lost" 300$ on the 1080 (but also didn't have to go through the PITA of selling it).

But like i said that took WEEKS of hovering on FB Market (which thankfully i can get away with thanks to the pandemic) and finding the right deals.

[Erous]

Its remotely possible there could be a worse time to try to build a new computer (i mean, like, the factories that make the parts could all simultaneously burn to the ground i guess).... but its hard to imagine one.

Modern parts are basically not purchaseable. Good luck finding a 3080, 3070 (i wouldnt go with a 30600Ti for AAA 1440p high refresh. If you were sticking with 1440p/60, then itd be OK) or RX 6800XT for anywhere near MSRP (i... sorta did but it took six weeks of checking FB Market dozens of times a day and pouncing on people who listed stuff too low. I actually "paid" less than MSRP but that was because i also traded the guy a 1080, which, if id sold it, would have been ~300).

Same with Ryzen 5000 CPUs in most areas. GFL with that.

You can get the rest of the rig together fairly easily (some price are even depressed, like RAM and storage), but you might wait months trying to land a modern chip or GPU.

And if you wait it out till they are actually readily available "in stock" (which may take 3-6months) - theyll be more expensive even, because the tariff exemption that PCBs and GPUs got last year was not extended, so theyre staring down a 25% Tariff increase which you can be assured will be passed on to the consumer, because thats how Tariffs *actually* work out in the real world).

So... yeah. Good luck man.

You could probably save some coin and headache by just not bothering with Ryzen 5000. Yeah, they are better than Ryzen 3000 but we're not talking like 2x faster or any nonsense like that.

You could grab a Ryzen 9 3900X (12 cores) for less than a Ryzen 7 5800X (8 cores) and youd likely actually be able to FIND the 3900 and purchase it. The 20% IPC difference between Zen 2 and Zen 3 is more than made up for in this case by the extra 4 cores and 8 threads. You could also go top end, with the 3950X going for ~720$ vs the 5950X at over 1200$. Both are 16 cores, and while the 3950X is ~20% "slower" than the 5950X due to IPC, its also nearly half the cost.

.

So the cost difference now on PPP between the 10900k and 3900x is 4.99. Wonder if the 10900k would be the better purchase

[Thunderball]

So the cost difference now on PPP between the 10900k and 3900x is 4.99. Wonder if the 10900k would be the better purchase

No. You're better off with Zen 2 parts if you cant find Zen 3 ones for your case.

[Kagthul]

No. You're better off with Zen 2 parts if you cant find Zen 3 ones for your case.

Uhh... no?

Zen 2 doesn't exactly blow the doors off Comet Lake, particularly given the clock deficit. If you were comparing at 8/16 Zen 2 part to an 8/16 Comet Lake part, as long as the price delta wasn't large, Comet Lake is a completely viable choice.

However, the 10900K being 10 cores and the 3900X being 12 DOES make the difference. The performance difference in games wont be that large, and the extra 2 cores and 4 threads for "work" with premier would be worth it. Either CPU is capable of great performance in games, so the choice, for me, comes down to how well it will do on the other stuff hes doing, and the prices being basically the same, the 3900X is the better choice, IMO.

Now, if you can "wait for it", Rocket Lake chips look to be pretty sweet, but you're again looking at waiting and probably paying more due to soon to increase tariffs (ironically, not on the Intel CPUs though, as they are made here in the US, but definitely any potential Z570 motherboard to put them in), and they beat (marginally - about 5%, or often within the margin of error) the Ryzen 5000 chips.

Not sure its worth waiting though.

No matter what, even with the "lowly" 3900X or (if you really want to stick with Intel) the 10900K you're still looking at stellar game performance and great performance for Premiere. Its not like the Comet Lake or Zen 2 chips all of a sudden became trash. Theyre just not quite as good as the Zen 3 or upcoming Rocket Lake chips, but they are still pretty great (and were top of the line until just like 3 months ago).

[Thunderball]

Uhh... no?

Zen 2 doesn't exactly blow the doors off Comet Lake, particularly given the clock deficit. If you were comparing at 8/16 Zen 2 part to an 8/16 Comet Lake part, as long as the price delta wasn't large, Comet Lake is a completely viable choice.

However, the 10900K being 10 cores and the 3900X being 12 DOES make the difference. The performance difference in games wont be that large, and the extra 2 cores and 4 threads for "work" with premier would be worth it. Either CPU is capable of great performance in games, so the choice, for me, comes down to how well it will do on the other stuff hes doing, and the prices being basically the same, the 3900X is the better choice, IMO.

Now, if you can "wait for it", Rocket Lake chips look to be pretty sweet, but you're again looking at waiting and probably paying more due to soon to increase tariffs (ironically, not on the Intel CPUs though, as they are made here in the US, but definitely any potential Z570 motherboard to put them in), and they beat (marginally - about 5%, or often within the margin of error) the Ryzen 5000 chips.

Not sure its worth waiting though.

No matter what, even with the "lowly" 3900X or (if you really want to stick with Intel) the 10900K you're still looking at stellar game performance and great performance for Premiere. Its not like the Comet Lake or Zen 2 chips all of a sudden became trash. Theyre just not quite as good as the Zen 3 or upcoming Rocket Lake chips, but they are still pretty great (and were top of the line until just like 3 months ago).

That's theory. Practice is that Intel platforms are just way too much work. First of all you have to OC otherwise there's very little point when compared to AMD parts. The fact that you OC, especially a high core part makes you choose your components very carefully because 300W CPU is not a joke. 10600K - sure, a lot of mobos can handle it no problem. 10900K - completely different story. Not to mention the boards are way more expensive on average. Memory is a little bit easier on Intel in a way that you dont have IF sync or odd timings issues but it's still not going to offset the mobo price difference.

And no, it's obviously not a 10700K (useless CPU btw) vs 3800X situation. 3800X systems are slightly more expensive than 10600K systems. It's 3900X vs 10900K (10850K) situation. 3900X system is going to be cheaper, better in most workstation situations and pretty close in gaming situations. Rocket Lake might change the situation, but apparently the maximum core count on launch is going to be 8, so no dice for workstation builds here.

[Erous]

My main complaint for Intel CPUs in general in the AMD vs Intel debate is their upgradeability costs. AMD has done a phenomenal job of allowing motherboards to stay with a simple swap and replace of the CPUs (in most cases.) The launch of the newest Intel line really pissed me off where I could've just dropped a 10900k in place of my 9900k, but such is life.

If the 3900x is solid in performance, it allows for the 5000 series drop and replace at a later point if I purchase the right motherboard for future proofing as well.

[Kagthul]

While im responding to your statement, this isn't targeted specifically at you. But this talking point is basically bullshit, and its a peeve of mine so im going to blow it up.

My main complaint for Intel CPUs in general in the AMD vs Intel debate is their upgradeability costs. AMD has done a phenomenal job of allowing motherboards to stay with a simple swap and replace of the CPUs (in most cases.)

They really haven't.

300 series boards supported about 20 months of CPUs.
400 series boards supported about 20 months of CPUs.
500 series boards really only support the final set of CPUs on AM4.
(and most also support OLDER chips but thats not really a "feature" in most cases)

For Intel:
100 series boards supported 6000 and 7000 series chips.
200 series boards supported 6000 and 7000 series chips and was mostly a replacement for 1xx chipsets. You didnt need to buy one for any reason.
300 series boards supported 8000 and 9000 series chips.
400 series boards will support both 10k and 11k chips.

its literally the same. Each series of boards covers two major releases of CPUs (about 20-24 months of time).

The launch of the newest Intel line really pissed me off where I could've just dropped a 10900k in place of my 9900k, but such is life.

For what possible reason though? Theyre basically the exact same silicon. It would be an upgrade with no meaning. And you'd be just as pissed if you had a B450 board that isn't one of the ones getting beta (and only beta) support for 5000 series chips. Which also kills their backwards compatability and they cant be downgraded later. Want to use that old B450 to build a media PC with that old 1600AF you have lying around? Cant now.

If the 3900x is solid in performance, it allows for the 5000 series drop and replace at a later point if I purchase the right motherboard for future proofing as well.

Not in any realistic scenario unless you're going to buy that 5000 series chip in the next 12-14 months. And that seems like total insanity. Because in about 14 months - probably at the latest, 5000 series chips will go out of production so AMD doesn't end up sitting on massive piles of them (like they did with the 1600 and 2600). And about 2-3 months after that youll be paying more than MSRP or buying used.

And its basically the same as saying if you had a 400 series Intel board (Z490) - you can upgrade to Rocket Lake when it releases. It no different.

The number of people who do drop-in CPU upgrades is miniscule. Not even 1% of the market. So the touted "upgradeability" is like smearking lipstick all over a flying bull pig with tits. AMD managed to make a big publicity thing out of it but the real world benefit is near zero (and the actual difference between their upgrade path and Intels is nearly non existent) and is all hype and marketing BS.

Should still get the 3900 though. Its a better value than the 10900K for what your son is doing. It will provide very similar gaming results to the 10900 and will outperform it in Premiere.

[Thunderball]

If the 3900x is solid in performance, it allows for the 5000 series drop and replace at a later point if I purchase the right motherboard for future proofing as well.

Not going to be much futureproofing possible unfortunately since DDR5 is coming and AM4 platform wont support next gen Ryzen chips (maybe a Zen 3 refresh if it happens). Intel is in exact same situation however.

- - - Updated - - -

For WoW and gaming the 10900K is the better choice. For editing the 3900x is better. Either one could be replaced on a current mobo in the near future with either intel 11th gen(will work on the current Z490’s with a bios update) or a 5000 series(likewise with a current amd mobo).

Problem with Z490 is that you have no clue which boards are going to support PCIe gen4. Might be no boards if Intel decides so.

[Blackmist]

I dunno why people's first instinct is to upgrade the GPU from a 2070.

My 1060 runs Shadowlands at around 60, with only a few settings dropped one notch down from the max (I think reflections and shadows). The 2070 should run it around 100 or so. That's perfectly within your 60-144 parameters. You're honestly not running WoW at 144 for the most part anyway. It's too old and CPU-bound.

[Thunderball]

Not sure that’s actually a problem since the benefit is imperceptible to most users.

The benefit is going to be easily visible with the next generation of GPUs. Average person upgrades the GPU twice before they replace the motherboard. Also, we dont know how much GPU manufacturers really leverage PCIe gen4 since the vast majority of systems is still running gen3.

Not to mention that at this point we know for a fact that chiplet GPUs are coming very soon, so bandwidth requirements will have to go up significantly.

[TyloBedo]

While im responding to your statement, this isn't targeted specifically at you. But this talking point is basically bullshit, and its a peeve of mine so im going to blow it up.

They really haven't.

300 series boards supported about 20 months of CPUs.
400 series boards supported about 20 months of CPUs.
500 series boards really only support the final set of CPUs on AM4.
(and most also support OLDER chips but thats not really a "feature" in most cases)

For Intel:
100 series boards supported 6000 and 7000 series chips.
200 series boards supported 6000 and 7000 series chips and was mostly a replacement for 1xx chipsets. You didnt need to buy one for any reason.
300 series boards supported 8000 and 9000 series chips.
400 series boards will support both 10k and 11k chips.

its literally the same. Each series of boards covers two major releases of CPUs (about 20-24 months of time).

"It's literally the same" but use two different metrics to compare them.

also:
x370/b350 series released feb 2017, Zen 2 initial launch July 2019 (28 months, 3 generations of cpu support)
x470/b450 series released march 2018, zen 3 initial launch November 2020 (32 months, 3 generations of cpu support)
x570 released July 2019 zen 3 initial launch November 2020 (18 months, 2 generations of cpu support assuming no zen 3+ refresh).

Z170 released August 2015, Kaby Lake released January 2017 (16 months, 2 generations of cpu support)
Z270 release January 2017, no upgrade path.
z390 released October 2017, coffee lake refresh initial launch October 2018 (12 months, 2 generations of cpu support)
z490 released May 2020, Rocket lake rumored to release by march 2021 (maybe 10 month life cycle? Let's hope not!)

[Jastall]

I dunno why people's first instinct is to upgrade the GPU from a 2070.

My 1060 runs Shadowlands at around 60, with only a few settings dropped one notch down from the max (I think reflections and shadows). The 2070 should run it around 100 or so. That's perfectly within your 60-144 parameters. You're honestly not running WoW at 144 for the most part anyway. It's too old and CPU-bound.

Ya, if someone is just playing WoW I really wouldn't recommend a high-end GPU at all. I've got a 1660 Super and at 1080p settings 8/10 I'm at 55-60 FPS in raids and 65-70 most everywhere else, only Revendreth dips below 60 a few times, and that's with a positively venerable i5 6200 series CPU.

[Thunderball]

And chiplet gpus aren’t going to be a consumer grade product for quite a while.

This makes me chuckle. GPU manufacturers have been looking to dramatically increase core counts in a single GPU for a while. In professional space this is not usually an issue - you can stack GPU boards no problem. Not to mention that it will heavily reduce the costs. The problems were 1) placing all of that on one board and powering it, which is getting solved now with improved lithography and insanely powerful powerstages that are available; 2) bandwidth. Also, noone thought that Ryzen wasnt going to come to consumer market because of it's approach.

[Kagthul]

"It's literally the same" but use two different metrics to compare them.

also:
x370/b350 series released feb 2017, Zen 2 initial launch July 2019 (28 months, 3 generations of cpu support)
x470/b450 series released march 2018, zen 3 initial launch November 2020 (32 months, 3 generations of cpu support)
x570 released July 2019 zen 3 initial launch November 2020 (18 months, 2 generations of cpu support assuming no zen 3+ refresh).

Z170 released August 2015, Kaby Lake released January 2017 (16 months, 2 generations of cpu support)
Z270 release January 2017, no upgrade path.
z390 released October 2017, coffee lake refresh initial launch October 2018 (12 months, 2 generations of cpu support)
z490 released May 2020, Rocket lake rumored to release by march 2021 (maybe 10 month life cycle? Let's hope not!)

Problem with your theory is that support for later CPUs REMOVES support for earlier CPUs.

When updating the BIOS of my wife's B450M Pro 4, it clearly says not to update past a certain point or it will no longer support Zen 1, and after a certain point, Zen+.

So they generally, as i said, support 2 CPU generations. Just like Intel.

And given that you are far more likely to have to upgrade the platform (MoBo) for desired new features before the CPU's practical end of life, its moot.

Its a panacea with no realistic benefit or meaning.

If i'd had, say, an X370 and was thinking of Ryzen 5000.... i'd have upgraded to a B550 anyway for PCIe 4. As an example. Even if i had B450 (well if i had a system based on B450, i wouldn't be wasting hundreds on a 15% performance upgrade) id theoretically want PCIe 4 anyway.

Its just a nothing-burger that people make a huge deal out of that doesn't actually mean anything.

[Erous]

I dunno why people's first instinct is to upgrade the GPU from a 2070.

My 1060 runs Shadowlands at around 60, with only a few settings dropped one notch down from the max (I think reflections and shadows). The 2070 should run it around 100 or so. That's perfectly within your 60-144 parameters. You're honestly not running WoW at 144 for the most part anyway. It's too old and CPU-bound.

Fortunately as noted in my post, the 2070 is the hardware piece that's staying. I'm looking primarily for the CPU/MB/RAM as a replacement

[Erous]

Back in topic, I'm putting together a build. Is it worth it to pay the extra dollars for a x570 vs b550 motherboard? The goal will be to eventually add the newer generation chips assuming they ever become available. I'm also weighing 4000 vs 3600 speed RAM for the build.

Edit: Initial build here. I'll be reusing the power supply, case and video card. I could potentially reuse more. Perhaps the RAM and SSD also. The Wraith prism cooler with the CPU may also be a cost savings. haha, I might just need the CPU and MB.

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 3.8 GHz 12-Core Processor ($543.89 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: Corsair A500 75 CFM CPU Cooler ($49.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock X570 Taichi ATX AM4 Motherboard ($299.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3600 CL16 Memory ($86.99 @ B&H)
Storage: Samsung 970 Evo Plus 500 GB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive ($84.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $1065.85
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2021-01-14 11:16 EST-0500

[Thunderball]

The goal will be to eventually add the newer generation chips assuming they ever become available.

Next gen chips are not going to be on AM4 socket.

I'm also weighing 4000 vs 3600 speed RAM for the build.

Completely useless for 3000 chips and not worth the price increase in general.

Edit: Initial build here. I'll be reusing the power supply, case and video card. I could potentially reuse more. Perhaps the RAM and SSD also. The Wraith prism cooler with the CPU may also be a cost savings. haha, I might just need the CPU and MB.

A500 is bad, there are plenty of good coolers in that range: Mugen 5, Fuma 2, Dark Rock 4 (non-Pro), Thermalright Macho (if you can find it in the US). Wraith Prism will hold, but it will be hella loud, so I would advice against it. For motherboard Taichi is a good pick for that usecase, but I would pick the B550 Taichi instead. It's simply better since it has been released later. The only thing you lose is PCIe 4 on secondary M.2 slots.