ASUS Z790 ROG motherboard

[Kagthul]

GN has showed it perfectly clear while reviewing the. 7000 serie. The charts are build in a way so they try to create the most cpu-bottlenecked configuration to see how the architecture scales up = 1080p, low settings, etc to see those 600+ fps in rainbow six siege.

Once you start being more gpu bound, the scale flattens immediately. They tested SotTR at 1440p and high details and the first 7 or 8 cpus were all around the same fps. So, in the end all of those are perfectly viable and other factors should be the deciding ones.

7000 is a terrible value proprosition due to the new platform being very costly right now (plus i don't like their cooling solution and totally unnecessary toasting). The 13600k isnsurely interesting due to the reasons you mentioned, but at that point i could go 12600k and don't even see the difference if my gpu can sustain the 144 fps my monitor can actually display.

Gaming wise, any relatively high in the stack cpu is basically the same duebto generally high core count and greatly improved tech.

EDIT: even Intel in their own charts have added the 5800x3d in a sketchy way because it was consistently beatingnor performing on par with the 13900k in gaming.

The reason to go for the 13600K instead of the 12 is that it costs the same. Intel isnt in the habit of fire-saling last gen CPUs. Hell, 10400s still go for within 20$ of MSRP. So, if youre going to slap down ~300$ for a CPU, might as well get the newer one with 4 more cores and better IPC. If there was a stark difference in price, then yeah, the 12600K is still a great gaming CPU and would likely produce results so similar to the 13600K at enthusiast resolutions as to not be noticable, but since theyre basically the same price, might as well get the better of the two.

[potis]

GN has showed it perfectly clear while reviewing the. 7000 serie. The charts are build in a way so they try to create the most cpu-bottlenecked configuration to see how the architecture scales up = 1080p, low settings, etc to see those 600+ fps in rainbow six siege.

Once you start being more gpu bound, the scale flattens immediately. They tested SotTR at 1440p and high details and the first 7 or 8 cpus were all around the same fps. So, in the end all of those are perfectly viable and other factors should be the deciding ones.

7000 is a terrible value proprosition due to the new platform being very costly right now (plus i don't like their cooling solution and totally unnecessary toasting). The 13600k isnsurely interesting due to the reasons you mentioned, but at that point i could go 12600k and don't even see the difference if my gpu can sustain the 144 fps my monitor can actually display.

Gaming wise, any relatively high in the stack cpu is basically the same duebto generally high core count and greatly improved tech.

EDIT: even Intel in their own charts have added the 5800x3d in a sketchy way because it was consistently beatingnor performing on par with the 13900k in gaming.

Realistically the 7700X3D or 7800X3D whatever they call it and release is gonna dominate the market, but hopefully by then prices would have balanced down to more normal levels.

But its refreshing that there is competition, as always from personal experience i avoid AMD like the plague but i can admit they are doing a decent job.

But as mentioned, i dont see how AMD can compete with the pricing of 13600K with the core count and all, right now in my country 7700X is 20e more expensive, and 7950X is double the cost of a 13600K.

I know E-cores arent as strong but if you are gonna pay half the money o.O, for the general view of things.

I am waiting till December for CPU+mobo+RAM combo, i refuse to spend the money they ask for only to have 1 month of buggy ass bios and windows issues as per usual, 3 months after i expect things to have balanced down.

I have a limit of 450e for CPU, 200 for motherboard and 200 for RAM, anything above will be a massive exception (I want DDR5@6400 so i will probably have to fork out 300 D: ), not that i dont have the money, but fuck their pricing.

And if whatever X3D comes out is as impressive (leak suggest december), i might risk it and go that way.

[Kagthul]

Realistically the 7700X3D or 7800X3D whatever they call it and release is gonna dominate the market, but hopefully by then prices would have balanced down to more normal levels.

But its refreshing that there is competition, as always from personal experience i avoid AMD like the plague but i can admit they are doing a decent job.

But as mentioned, i dont see how AMD can compete with the pricing of 13600K with the core count and all, right now in my country 7700X is 20e more expensive, and 7950X is double the cost of a 13600K.

I know E-cores arent as strong but if you are gonna pay half the money o.O, for the general view of things.

I am waiting till December for CPU+mobo+RAM combo, i refuse to spend the money they ask for only to have 1 month of buggy ass bios and windows issues as per usual, 3 months after i expect things to have balanced down.

I have a limit of 450e for CPU, 200 for motherboard and 200 for RAM, anything above will be a massive exception (I want DDR5@6400 so i will probably have to fork out 300 D: ), not that i dont have the money, but fuck their pricing.

And if whatever X3D comes out is as impressive (leak suggest december), i might risk it and go that way.

X3D 7000 series are not coming this year.

Even then, the price premium is going to be insane, because theyre going to cost more than the non X3D variants, and there is only so much 3D vCache can do for framerates when you're GPU limited, which you are when you are playing at enthusiast resolutions and framerates. If your CPU is already sitting idle 50% of the time, having it sit idle 80% of the time isn't going to help you. Which is not me saying they will suck. Maybe AMD will surprise me and itll somehow be relevant at 1440p, 1440p UW and 4K+, and that will be great.

But motherboard pricing isn't coming down. AMD and their board partners like those prices. Leaked B650 (not even the higher end-B650E that actually has PCIe 5.0) BOTTOM OUT at 200$.

AM5 is looking like its just going to be an expensive-ass platform.

DDR5 pricing will come down, im sure, but those motherboard and CPU prices are here to stay until and unless price wars force them to drop.

[potis]

DDR5 pricing will come down, im sure, but those motherboard and CPU prices are here to stay until and unless price wars force them to drop.

Which is on what i am hoping for.

I wont chicken out to fork some extra money, i would prefer not, hence will wait a few months to see if the price wars will bring things down a bit but the main reason i need to upgrade, apart from the 7 year old 6700K, is that the secondary game of choice i have is heavily affected by CPU as an older UE4 game and its multiplayer 50v50 and since i am on 1080p the CPU power affects me a lot, so X3D is actually a great choice.

At least the results of 5800X3D on the specific game are as expected, people with 5600X that switched to 5800X3D saw a 30% increase in FPS as example which is my point, that if i gonna throw like 900e for the 3 parts, i will throw 100 extra for that 10-15% (speculative) above the 13700 i was planning to get, we will see when the whatever X3D comes out.

[Coldkil]

Realistically the 7700X3D or 7800X3D whatever they call it and release is gonna dominate the market, but hopefully by then prices would have balanced down to more normal levels.

But its refreshing that there is competition, as always from personal experience i avoid AMD like the plague but i can admit they are doing a decent job.

But as mentioned, i dont see how AMD can compete with the pricing of 13600K with the core count and all, right now in my country 7700X is 20e more expensive, and 7950X is double the cost of a 13600K.

I know E-cores arent as strong but if you are gonna pay half the money o.O, for the general view of things.

I am waiting till December for CPU+mobo+RAM combo, i refuse to spend the money they ask for only to have 1 month of buggy ass bios and windows issues as per usual, 3 months after i expect things to have balanced down.

I have a limit of 450e for CPU, 200 for motherboard and 200 for RAM, anything above will be a massive exception (I want DDR5@6400 so i will probably have to fork out 300 D: ), not that i dont have the money, but fuck their pricing.

And if whatever X3D comes out is as impressive (leak suggest december), i might risk it and go that way.

The main culprits are mobos. With the Extreme version shenanigans, eveyone is putting unnecessary pcie 5.0 lanes so they can mark up the prices a lot. Longg gone are the days of stuff like the Strix z370 at humane prices. Best bet is to wait for the b650s.

I'm going woth the 5800x3d. While it's a dead platform, it's also at its peak, and performance wise is more than fine. Good b550 mobos are less than 200 with all the features i need (won't oc this time, probably undervolt) ram is cheap and it will last me easily 5 to 7 years.

[potis]

The main culprits are mobos. With the Extreme version shenanigans, eveyone is putting unnecessary pcie 5.0 lanes so they can mark up the prices a lot. Longg gone are the days of stuff like the Strix z370 at humane prices. Best bet is to wait for the b650s.

I'm going woth the 5800x3d. While it's a dead platform, it's also at its peak, and performance wise is more than fine. Good b550 mobos are less than 200 with all the features i need (won't oc this time, probably undervolt) ram is cheap and it will last me easily 5 to 7 years.

Its everything really, first the pointless renaming and price increase for CPUs, secondary the motherboards, but at the same time the B versions have more support as time goes, or maybe my eyes deceived me, and thirdly, RAM, following the same logic and scaling of RAM, freshly released and higher levels (Same when DDR4 2.133 came out and i bought 3.200), its up by 200% at least.

I understand some price increase cause chips recovery rate, but its 10 things at the same time, not one and 8 of those seem like an excuse to up the prices.

[Coldkil]

Its everything really, first the pointless renaming and price increase for CPUs, secondary the motherboards, but at the same time the B versions have more support as time goes, or maybe my eyes deceived me, and thirdly, RAM, following the same logic and scaling of RAM, freshly released and higher levels (Same when DDR4 2.133 came out and i bought 3.200), its up by 200% at least.

I understand some price increase cause chips recovery rate, but its 10 things at the same time, not one and 8 of those seem like an excuse to up the prices.

Agree. In my case, since all the workload ia going to be gpu bound, i can safely go last gen and get good performance for a convenient price. This way i should be able to get a system lasting me long enough yo see a possible normalization of the market. If not, last gen is going to be my modus operandi from now on.