Upgrading...Video editing; CPU, GPU, SSD/NVMe , Memory; how important is each one?

Encoder where, on what?
BTW, it's far beyond a Grudge' as you put it, it's called Principals. I saw that comment the 1st time you made it.
You're refusing the best tool for the job, making your own life harder. You could save a lot of money by just buying an Intel CPU with QuickSync, because you won't need to replace the GPU at obscene expense to get a modern video accelerator.

Intel is not the same company they were in the mid-90s. A lot of the people who worked there are now dead, and all the decision-makers will long since have retired. You're making the fundamental mistake of thinking you can step in the same river twice. It's an almost-entirely different group of people now, who just happen to call themselves Intel.

I like AMD CPUs, and own three of the Zen 3 generation. But they're sharply inferior for your stated purpose in buying the machine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gregorerlich

IceStorm

Ars Legatus Legionis
25,470
Moderator
AM4 is a "budget" platform for AMD now. They don't really care too much about it, and the parts with an IGP are crippled, performance-wise, due to only having 1/2 the L3 cache.

Intel's offerings at the same price point are substantially better for your use case. Intel's video encoding support for what you're doing is quite good.

You could do something like this on the AM4 front:
PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT 3.8 GHz 8-Core Processor ($139.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: MSI B550M PRO-VDH WIFI Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard ($99.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: OLOy ND4U1632161DJ0DA 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3200 CL16 Memory ($39.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: KingSpec XG7000 1 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive ($57.99 @ Newegg Sellers)
Storage: KingSpec XG7000 2 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive ($99.99 @ Newegg Sellers)
Total: $437.95
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2025-04-06 19:46 EDT-0400


This would mean re-using the GTX 1060 for video encoding and display output.

There are several Chinese "RTX 2060 Super" cards on Amazon for $230-$250, like this one. They are shipped from Amazon, so they're at least on Amazon's premise. The RTX 20 series encoders are supposed to be better than the GTX 10 series.
 

BigLan

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
7,382
Intel is not the same company they were in the mid-90s. A lot of the people who worked there are now dead, and all the decision-makers will long since have retired. You're making the fundamental mistake of thinking you can step in the same river twice. It's an almost-entirely different group of people now, who just happen to call themselves Intel.
I'm not saying that Intel/QuickSync isn't the answer, but is there any real benefit to NVENC on a 5070 vs his existing 1060 (or even a cheap Quadro P400)? The developer docs have the only encoding differences as H.264 and H265 YUV 4:2:2, HEVC B Frame and AV1 support.
 

IceStorm;​

You have a Ryzen 7 listed for a AM4 MB.
And I'm looking for full ATX boards despite the price difference. ;)
He's right. The important bit is the leading digit "5" in the model number, which means Zen 3 and AM4. You can also find Ryzen 9s in AM4.

edit: the confusion comes from AMD. You have Ryzen 5, 7, and 9, but then the chip lines are 5000 (Zen 3/AM4), 7000(Zen 4/AM5) , and 9000(Zen 5/AM5). It's easy to get confused, and they shouldn't be doing that.

So you can have a Ryzen 7 5000-series (Zen 3), and then a Ryzen 5 7000-series (Zen 4), and then a Ryzen 5 9000-series (Zen 5), although I'm not sure if they've shipped any Ryzen 5s in the 9000s yet.

Yes, it is dumb. The leading 5/7/9 is just superfluous marketing bullshit.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: videobruce

IceStorm

Ars Legatus Legionis
25,470
Moderator

IceStorm;​

You have a Ryzen 7 listed for a AM4 MB.
And I'm looking for full ATX boards despite the price difference. ;)
The 5800XT is an AM4 CPU. At $139, with a cooler, it's a better option right now than a 5600, which is currently $128. $12 more gets you a better cooler, two extra cores, and those cores are clocked higher. The cooler's probably not enough for a 5800XT at full load, but in ECO mode it would be fine.

The motherboard is to give you an example. You can change the board to better fit whatever I/O or slot layout you want. Stick with B550 or X570 as the chipset, and look for a board with BIOS flashback. Gigabyte has a couple, the B550 Gaming X V2 and B550 Eagle WIFI6, that may fit the bill.

A 13400 is still going to be a better choice, as it has QuickSync built-in. The 5800XT choice will result in either software encoding, relying on the GTX 1060 continuing to function, or taking a chance on a "new" Chinese 2060 Super at an increased cost.
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying that Intel/QuickSync isn't the answer, but is there any real benefit to NVENC on a 5070 vs his existing 1060 (or even a cheap Quadro P400)? The developer docs have the only encoding differences as H.264 and H265 YUV 4:2:2, HEVC B Frame and AV1 support.
I don't actually know details, since video encoding isn't my thing, just that the newer cards have added support for newer algorithms, and I'm presuming OP will probably want to upgrade algorithms along with their workflow.

They don't have to replace the card (or buy an Intel CPU with QuickSync), but I suspect all this money spent won't result in much of an overall improvement unless they do.

That's why it's so self-defeating to refuse an Intel chip; they could have a massive performance advantage for less money. If they don't buy one, the system will be either a lot more expensive, sharply inferior to what it could be, or both.

For most buyers, an AMD chip would be better. But not for this build.
 
I'd say it depends how the OP prioritises quality, speed and file size.
That's a 6-year-old thread, and doesn't talk about x265 much, which has gotten very popular. From an amateur perspective, that's probably what I would be targeting for my final encode after editing. It seems roughly twice as efficient for size at a given quality level.
 

videobruce

Ars Scholae Palatinae
703
Just when I was starting to get use to all the nomenclature. I was going to ask about this since I've seen other listings using the "7" but that 4 digit number begin with a 5, (for example).

Elsewhere since I did a search that was on my to do list, the 5, 7, 9 are suppose to represent the Wintel processor numbers i5, i7, i9. Is that correct?
Yes, it's not a smart system, it only confuses customers more. Most of the search results basically said the same thing.
 

evan_s

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
6,404
Subscriptor
Just when I was starting to get use to all the nomenclature. I was going to ask about this since I've seen other listings using the "7" but that 4 digit number begin with a 5, (for example).

Elsewhere since I did a search that was on my to do list, the 5, 7, 9 are suppose to represent the Wintel processor numbers i5, i7, i9. Is that correct?
Yes, it's not a smart system, it only confuses customers more. Most of the search results basically said the same thing.

Yes. That is how it is intended to be seen. For both the Ryzen 3/5/7/9 or Intel's i3/i5/i7/i9 doesn't tell you anything about the generation of the chip or what socket it uses etc. It just tells you the relative position in that gen's line up with a simple bigger is better.

An R9 5900xt would be a 16 core 32 thread AM4 compatible chip.

Honestly, the desktop stuff is much better than the laptop side for AMD. There is some oddities for specific chips but 1000-5000 = AM4 and 7000-9000 is AM5 chips currently with the same bigger is better with the first digit = generation and everything else sticking to the mainly bigger is better.

G suffix is a laptop APU being used on the desktop which gives you pretty good integrated GPUs but generally has some trade off compared to the regular desktop chips with reductions in I/O (pci-e ports) and often cache. All AM5 chips have some integrated video but the non-G ones are pretty much just run a display for windows and nothing else. There are a couple oddball F chips for AM5 that don't have integrated video.
 
  • Like
Reactions: videobruce

Vulcan_r

Smack-Fu Master, in training
66
Subscriptor
To be fair, Intel hasn't exactly inspired great trust in their recent product lines with the melting 13th and 14th gen debacle. So while Intel is certainly not the company it used to be, current Intel seems to have their own slew of issues.

You also have to consider that AMD is much more willing to let you upgrade on the same generation MB than Intel is, so the cost vs time savings might even out more than you think, if OP upgrades on AM5 in the future for example. If OP is doing hobby editing instead of relying on it for income, the difference in speed on Quicksync/No Quicksync isn't that big of a deal, either, and AMD is a great choice for general PC use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: videobruce

evan_s

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
6,404
Subscriptor
I believe I mentioned speed before was a issue. Quality also. File size isn't since the files are not BD sized (20GB).

If hardware accelerated encoding speed is important. Go for the Intel system. The program's documentation says Nvidia is a 50% speed increase and says Intel is 400%. That's massive.

To be fair, Intel hasn't exactly inspired great trust in their recent product lines with the melting 13th and 14th gen debacle. So while Intel is certainly not the company it used to be, current Intel seems to have their own slew of issues.

You also have to consider that AMD is much more willing to let you upgrade on the same generation MB than Intel is, so the cost vs time savings might even out more than you think, if OP upgrades on AM5 in the future for example. If OP is doing hobby editing instead of relying on it for income, the difference in speed on Quicksync/No Quicksync isn't that big of a deal, either, and AMD is a great choice for general PC use.

Both valid points if the OP was looking at hardware that high up. Given their budget they may well end up going AM4 which doesn't really have much better upgrade potential than a socket 1700 system. Both are basically EOL as far as new releases of new CPUs. AMD has and may still throw out some "new" AM4 chips that just tweak the binning a bit but nothing actually new has been released for years. AFAIK the 10 core Intel Core i5-13400 that has been recommended has never been connected with the 13/14th gen stability issues. It's basically a repackaged/relabled 12th gen chip and uses an entirely different die from the ones that had issues.

AMD would certainly be my general recommendation but Quick Sync is really good at what it does and seems very relevant here so it seems hard to ignore.
 
If OP is doing hobby editing instead of relying on it for income, the difference in speed on Quicksync/No Quicksync isn't that big of a deal,
They're buying an entire computer because the existing solution is too slow, so arguing that they don't want it to go fast is kind of disingenuous.

Speed clearly matters, and if OP wants to work quickly, they want an Intel processor. If they buy AMD, the resulting machine will be a lot slower at what they're buying it for.

The other stuff you mention has already been shut down as features OP cares about. No gaming, expandability isn't that important, it's just for video. Buying anything non-Intel for that use case wastes money and results in a much slower machine at its explicit purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gregorerlich

IceStorm

Ars Legatus Legionis
25,470
Moderator
With a GPU, you're looking at ~$1k:

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 9600X 3.9 GHz 6-Core Processor ($229.99 @ Best Buy)
CPU Cooler: ID-COOLING FROZN A620 PRO SE 58 CFM CPU Cooler ($29.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: MSI PRO B650-S WIFI ATX AM5 Motherboard ($139.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: Silicon Power XPOWER Zenith Gaming 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR5-6000 CL30 Memory ($79.97 @ B&H)
Storage: KingSpec XG7000 1 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive ($57.99 @ Newegg Sellers)
Storage: KingSpec XG7000 2 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive ($99.99 @ Newegg Sellers)
Video Card: Zotac Twin Edge OC GeForce RTX 4060 8 GB Video Card ($389.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $1027.91
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2025-04-07 11:45 EDT-0400


If you decide to go with AM5, just keep in mind that AM5 motherboards do not have to support Windows 10. Just double check the motherboard support site before buying. The MSI on the list above does support Windows 10.
 
Last edited:

evan_s

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
6,404
Subscriptor
The situation for the model numbers of the MB's isn't a heck of a lot better. :(

I'm leaning more to a AM5 MB, ATX form as I always had, I also would prefer rep[lacing the GPU which was my original plan.
Giving to the current situation with morons tariffs, time is against me. :judge:

AM5 definitely gives you much better potential for upgrades in the future. If you are going AMD I think it makes sense to do AM5. At least then you are getting some potential future benefit from the pick even if it does give up QuickSync in the short term.

I tend to like M-ATX as I rarely need more PCI-E slots than it supports. Generally a GPU and maybe a WiFi card if it doesn't have one built in or a m.2 slot on board. It usually saves a little bit of cost on the MB and gives you more options for cases, especially on the more compact side of things. You may loose out a little bit on some M2 slots which might matter more with storage moving that way.

It's still a horrible time to buy a GPU but it's probably going to be a long time before it gets better so you may just have to pay more than you'd like and deal with what ever is available. I have a 9070 on it's way but it's definitely because I expect things to get worse, not better, and probably take a long time to recover. If tariffs weren't looming I would have waited to see if supply catches up with demand or if the 9060/5060 launches help to catch a 9070 or 9070XT at MSRP but I just don't expect that to happen any time soon. I really wanted to get something better than a 3060 for my 4k monitor before I missed out.

I'm still finding it frustratingly hard to find much in the way of benchmarks for hardware accelerated encoding. I have an i3 9100 that I could use for some Handbrake testing if you wanted to try to get even some ballpark ideas on how fast Quick Sync is. That system also has a 2070 super so I could do a Quick Sync to Nvida test on that machine.
 

Vulcan_r

Smack-Fu Master, in training
66
Subscriptor
They're buying an entire computer because the existing solution is too slow, so arguing that they don't want it to go fast is kind of disingenuous.

Speed clearly matters, and if OP wants to work quickly, they want an Intel processor. If they buy AMD, the resulting machine will be a lot slower at what they're buying it for.

The other stuff you mention has already been shut down as features OP cares about. No gaming, expandability isn't that important, it's just for video. Buying anything non-Intel for that use case wastes money and results in a much slower machine at its explicit purpose.
I didn't argue that OP doesn't want speed.
You're arguing that they should buy the best speed they can, which is fair.
I'm arguing that they buy the best they can, within the limits they have set themselves, i.e. no Intel.

OP already knows that Quicksync would be the fastest option, yet has repeatedly said they don't want that. You trying to force the issue isn't going to change that. I'm being practical, working within the limitations OP has set, which is: AMD is fine. No, it's not the fastest but it's still fine. It's going to be an upgrade compared to their old pc no matter what.

You also keep putting words in my mouth; I have never said anything about gaming or expandability. I've specifically said upgradability, which means that OP can save up money and buy a better CPU later down the line, without having to buy a new MB. And «general pc use» doesn't automatically mean gaming. I'm merely making the assumption that OP uses their pc for anything other than video editing, an assumption I'm pretty sure is valid.
 

Vulcan_r

Smack-Fu Master, in training
66
Subscriptor
If hardware accelerated encoding speed is important. Go for the Intel system. The program's documentation says Nvidia is a 50% speed increase and says Intel is 400%. That's massive.



Both valid points if the OP was looking at hardware that high up. Given their budget they may well end up going AM4 which doesn't really have much better upgrade potential than a socket 1700 system. Both are basically EOL as far as new releases of new CPUs. AMD has and may still throw out some "new" AM4 chips that just tweak the binning a bit but nothing actually new has been released for years. AFAIK the 10 core Intel Core i5-13400 that has been recommended has never been connected with the 13/14th gen stability issues. It's basically a repackaged/relabled 12th gen chip and uses an entirely different die from the ones that had issues.

AMD would certainly be my general recommendation but Quick Sync is really good at what it does and seems very relevant here so it seems hard to ignore.
Again, I'm not arguing that they avoid specific models of Intel chips because of their failure rate, I'm making the point that it might not be a bad idea to avoid Intel in general because of their poor design/engineering/software decisions lately. Just because their mid/lower end chips are an older generation and therefore unaffected, doesn't make it a good choice to buy. I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here, because you can reasonably argue that buying Intel anything isn't sound advice, for now.

I've already recommended OP go with AM5, specifically for the reasons you mention. OP has also said multiple times that they are leaning towards AM5.
 
Does anyone really explore CPU upgrades anymore? My last 3 systems I just did a full upgrade (MD, RAM, CPU) as the new hotness and price and speed was worth it vrs doing a minor CPU bump.

Reason I'm mentioning it, if they went with a previous gen system like AMD4 or Intel 12 gen, then the savings could be put into a beefier GPU which could be more beneficial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gregorerlich
But, when you factor in the time to transcode out of mp4 to whatever, then reverse the process, what are you gaining? Again, I'm not doing hi-end editing or Content Creation. I know .mp4 has it's tradeoffs.

I've tried both, years ago w/ Linux (no drivers for one of my printers and many S/W programs that I use didn't have Linux versions). AFA Resolve, I also looked into that. Besides the ridiculous size of the program and the 6 or 7 M$ add-ons that it needs to run with, the 3GB in size is ridiculous. It's beyond complete overkill for anything I would ever do.

I have also tried OpenShot Video Editor, but that is missing two important features and there are way too many 'keyboard shorts' which are impossible to remember (for me). BTW, I'm not looking for the fastest and the newest system out there.

I will look into that link that was provided..
3GB is... Nominal in size on any modern system?? That's a super weird reason to reject a program. And Resolve doesn't need any add-ons, let alone millions of dollars of them. Certainly not for video editing, which they've worked on over the years. You don't need to touch any of the colour grading stuff if you don't want to. Really bizarre stand against a program that's probably the best Linux video editor.

And yeah, sure, there's a case for staying in MP4 if it's already in MP4 and going out again to MP4, but you're going to be doing one transcode anyway at the end. The advantage of adding the transcode at the beginning to an iframe-only codec is a smoother and more pleasant editing experience. Just run a batch process and let it cook by itself while you're not using the computer, adds very little to the process.

Maybe that makes sense for your workflow, maybe it doesn't, but you won't know unless you try.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vulcan_r
Does anyone really explore CPU upgrades anymore? My last 3 systems I just did a full upgrade (MD, RAM, CPU) as the new hotness and price and speed was worth it vrs doing a minor CPU bump.
I put a 5800X3D into this system to replace a 5800X, which then went into my NAS. AMD CPU upgrades have definitely been a thing in the last few years.

It's also pretty common to put the X3D chips into older AM4 boards. I just saw someone here doing a system upgrade, but re-using an, um, I think it was a B350 board. That's a really old motherboard, but pop a new CPU in there, and it's almost as fast as a B550. Fewer USB ports, and no PCIe4, but still. Coming from the Zen 1 or 2 that they likely had before, that's a massive upgrade on the cheap.
 

evan_s

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
6,404
Subscriptor
Does anyone really explore CPU upgrades anymore? My last 3 systems I just did a full upgrade (MD, RAM, CPU) as the new hotness and price and speed was worth it vrs doing a minor CPU bump.

Reason I'm mentioning it, if they went with a previous gen system like AMD4 or Intel 12 gen, then the savings could be put into a beefier GPU which could be more beneficial.

Personally, I've been building and upgrading my own PCs for a couple decades and I'd say overall it's pretty rare. Like you said, most of the time by the time I'm ready to upgrade it's MB/CPU/Ram all together as everything has moved on and they all need to be replaced. That said I am typing this on a system that started as a Ryzen 5 1500x and has now been upgraded to a 5600x. It's also gone from 8gb to 32gb of ram. I also have an i7 9700f to drop in the i3 9100 system I mentioned earlier.

In this case, since they are aiming for a pretty cheap system/CPU and AMD has stated they are keeping the same socket for at least 2 more years I could definitely see them dropping in a CPU upgrade further down the line. There are already pretty good upgrade options from something like a 7600. You can go 9800x3D if your workload is something that benefits there or something like a 9950x if you are doing something like video editing here that scales well with more cores.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orionquest
Does anyone really explore CPU upgrades anymore? My last 3 systems I just did a full upgrade (MD, RAM, CPU) as the new hotness and price and speed was worth it vrs doing a minor CPU bump.

Reason I'm mentioning it, if they went with a previous gen system like AMD4 or Intel 12 gen, then the savings could be put into a beefier GPU which could be more beneficial.
It has usually been a factor when i made purchases although, in between life happened and i had to rearrange more than once.

On the AM4 side, i have had the 2200G, 3500X,3600 regular, 5600G, 5700G, 5700X (donated) but also several motherboards that i have swapped. I have sold and replaced a lot of desktops and laptops in the past few years, found pre-built systems and deals that were sold at a price that was obviously too cheap etc to make a small profit that i could pay for something else etc. I do not have an AM4 system now.

On earlier platforms i have sourced faster used CPUs for a few dollars if it made any sense from AliExpress to keep a system for longer, and i still do that for others depending on use-case.

On the AM5 side now it is hard to tell what will be released for it in the future, but i am guessing i will upgrade once more from the current 7900X i have, but that will be in many years as i see it currently. That system is only getting a new larger case eventually.

Graphics i update rarely as i am just a casual gamer, but an upgrade from the 5500XT is planned when both the new and used market over here becomes decently sane again. I have a lot of old games in my backlog i am nowhere near finishing.
 
Personally, I've been building and upgrading my own PCs for a couple decades and I'd say overall it's pretty rare. Like you said, most of the time by the time I'm ready to upgrade it's MB/CPU/Ram all together as everything has moved on and they all need to be replaced. That said I am typing this on a system that started as a Ryzen 5 1500x and has now been upgraded to a 5600x. It's also gone from 8gb to 32gb of ram. I also have an i7 9700f to drop in the i3 9100 system I mentioned earlier.

In this case, since they are aiming for a pretty cheap system/CPU and AMD has stated they are keeping the same socket for at least 2 more years I could definitely see them dropping in a CPU upgrade further down the line. There are already pretty good upgrade options from something like a 7600. You can go 9800x3D if your workload is something that benefits there or something like a 9950x if you are doing something like video editing here that scales well with more cores.
Thanks for sharing...Ghessh when I think back on it, I've also been building PC's for the same amount of time. Started with Core2duo... whoa time files. But been using computers well before then (other platform with no build needed).

I think if they are jumping up in hardware from a few years to now, the update, whatever it is, will be impressive enough. 1080 video editing hasn't been very demanding for a while, or 264 encoding. If we were talking about 4k and 256 encoding then the story might be different. Also if they are using transport formats in editing (MP4's, mkv's etc), instead of intermediate formats, then they are not doing themselves any favours and will still be seeing some inefficiencies regardless of hardware muscle.

I've only come around to the AMD side of things recently with my haswell to AMD4 Zen3 5700x, it was a nice update and for only $500 bucks (MB, RAM, CPU, already had a decent GPU). I've been pretty impressed with it, I thought it might have a different "feel" from a intel system, but honestly it's been zero trouble, and I've have not had to fiddle with anything. Who know's maybe I might explore an intermediate bump when time comes to do the update.
 
Last edited:
I've only come around to the AMD side of things recently with my haswell to AMD3 5700x, it was a nice update and for only $500 bucks (MB, RAM, CPU, already had a decent GPU). I've been pretty impressed with it, I thought it might have a different "feel" from a intel system, but honestly it's been zero trouble, and I've have not had to fiddle with anything. Who know's maybe I might explore an intermediate bump when time comes to do the update.
AM4 boards seem to be exceptionally solid now. Zen 3 had significant teething problems, AMD's typical botched launch, and it took a long time get things nailed down properly. But at this point, this system seems extremely stable, and I've heard few complaints from other AM4 owners.

AM5 still seems problematic in some ways; fortunately, there's enough accumulated wisdom about it here that it's safe to build one, but landmines still lurk if you don't know to avoid them. (eg, non-SK Hynix RAM.)
 

evan_s

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
6,404
Subscriptor
You should hit up wizbang in the agora, he's got some AM5 systems up for sale at similar prices.


Yeah.

"Combo 3"
Ryzen 7950X, Gigabyte B650 Aorus Elite AX, 2 x 32 GB Mushkin DDR5. Asking $400 shipped.

Seems like a solid upgrade to the proposed build. Zen 5 instead of Zen 3. 16 cores instead of 12. Same brand and line of MB. Twice the memory. Only thing that seems to be missing is a Cooler for the combo but there are inexpensive options that should work fine and everything else is a pretty solid upgrade.
 

videobruce

Ars Scholae Palatinae
703
Can i ask why you selected this one? It launched in July 2019 and is getting fairly old at this point.
But, AM4 is getting old also, right?
To answer the question, my long time M$ expert has this system for sale and one other person is now interested, I was just given a deadline that includes the processor, I was considering just the MB & memory.
I did more research into that Processor and the biggest compliant is the single core performance. The multi-core is fine. Any comments on that?
 
But, AM4 is getting old also, right?
To answer the question, my long time M$ expert has this system for sale and one other person is now interested, I was just given a deadline that includes the processor, I was considering just the MB & memory.
I did more research into that Processor and the biggest compliant is the single core performance. The multi-core is fine. Any comments on that?
Run to buy the deal from above link, the 7950X. It is way way faster and you double the memory. I do not think you are getting a good deal from your "M$" expert as you can easily buy quite a bit faster single-core performance machine for less as posted in multiple examples above from others with AM4 examples.
 
Yeah.

"Combo 3"


Seems like a solid upgrade to the proposed build. Zen 5 instead of Zen 3. 16 cores instead of 12. Same brand and line of MB. Twice the memory. Only thing that seems to be missing is a Cooler for the combo but there are inexpensive options that should work fine and everything else is a pretty solid upgrade.
It is a no-brainer basically. I would run to take that. I paid $380 for just the 12-core 7900X and 32GB of memory 2 months ago used, so that deal up there is a steal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: steelghost

BigLan

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
7,382
Run to buy the deal from above link, the 7950X. It is way way faster and you double the memory. I do not think you are getting a good deal from your "M$" expert as you can easily buy quite a bit faster single-core performance machine for less as posted in multiple examples above from others with AM4 examples.
Please buy it before I end up taking it... My wallet starts sweating whenever Wizbang starts a new thread.
 

videobruce

Ars Scholae Palatinae
703
It's all yours.
I went for the known working and assembled (no surprises) local deal from a friend who sold me my 1st 'Tower' 25+ years ago. As to the processor, it's a '9' series and a '3' version, but there is room for improvement down the road if needed. That full size MB is the top of the line chipset for AM4