CPU considerations: Multitasking, hobbies and gaming

ElevenFingers

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
187
So the internet seems to agree. If you're building a computer to game and nothing else, buying a relatively low core-count CPU is currently the way to go if you have a budget constricting you as the opportunity cost is high when considering things like GPUs.

That being said, while I game a lot, I generally do it while running background programs on two screens. So I'm thinking about what kind of CPU would best fit my needs and I'm struggling a bit.

I mainly play strategy games (Total War, Kenshi), indie games or online games with RPG elements (MMOs, MOBAs, ARPGs, etc.). I'm not partial to the fast click titles like FPS or RTS (Starcraft). I'm not big on labels, but even though my main hobby has been gaming for the past 20 years, some might consider me a 'casual' for these reasons.

I also dabble in things like Photoshop, Lightroom, Resolve, Fusion 360 for designing DIY projects around the house, light python coding and photogrammetry. I usually listen to videos or podcasts in the background and I generally have multiple programs open at any given time and enjoy alt-tabbing. I also generally have chrome or another browser open with many tabs at any given time.

Specifically for some online games, I also like to multibox playing multiple characters at once, running multiple instances of the game.

For these reasons, I think I need a CPU with more cores, but I also don't want to overdo it, both because of the upfront cost, but also because electricity is expensive where I live and I'd prefer to run a quiet setup with quiet fans as my computer is in a shared room.

I'm fairly sure that I want to build a system around a modern standard like Zen4 with DDR5. I won't be building until early 2023.

What would you guys recommend? Something like the 7600x might be too little? would the 7700x or 7800x better? I think CPUs like the 7900x and 7950x might be too expensive for me and overkill for my needs. Maybe a chip like the 13600k or 13700k?
 
If you plan on using Windows 11, go with a 12 or 13th gen Intel.

If you use Windows 10 or Linux, go with AMD because of the E cores on Intel having scheduling issues that cause performance problems and compatibility issues.

In either case, you're going to be stuck with a heat monster that requires a beefy tower cooler or at least a 240/280mm AIO water cooler.

Since you seem to be a heavy multitasker, I would recommend getting as many cores as you can afford, and probably at minimum 32 GB of RAM.
 
So the internet seems to agree. If you're building a computer to game and nothing else, buying a relatively low core-count CPU is currently the way to go if you have a budget constricting you as the opportunity cost is high when considering things like GPUs.

That being said, while I game a lot, I generally do it while running background programs on two screens. So I'm thinking about what kind of CPU would best fit my needs and I'm struggling a bit.

I mainly play strategy games (Total War, Kenshi), indie games or online games with RPG elements (MMOs, MOBAs, ARPGs, etc.). I'm not partial to the fast click titles like FPS or RTS (Starcraft). I'm not big on labels, but even though my main hobby has been gaming for the past 20 years, some might consider me a 'casual' for these reasons.

I also dabble in things like Photoshop, Lightroom, Resolve, Fusion 360 for designing DIY projects around the house, light python coding and photogrammetry. I usually listen to videos or podcasts in the background and I generally have multiple programs open at any given time and enjoy alt-tabbing. I also generally have chrome or another browser open with many tabs at any given time.

Specifically for some online games, I also like to multibox playing multiple characters at once, running multiple instances of the game.

For these reasons, I think I need a CPU with more cores, but I also don't want to overdo it, both because of the upfront cost, but also because electricity is expensive where I live and I'd prefer to run a quiet setup with quiet fans as my computer is in a shared room.

I'm fairly sure that I want to build a system around a modern standard like Zen4 with DDR5. I won't be building until early 2023.

What would you guys recommend? Something like the 7600x might be too little? would the 7700x or 7800x better? I think CPUs like the 7900x and 7950x might be too expensive for me and overkill for my needs. Maybe a chip like the 13600k or 13700k?
You could certainly get away with a lesser CPU on the gaming side but not so much on the multi-tasking side. I'd definitely go with the advice above and grab a CPU that's got as many cores as you can afford. Preferably the Intel Core i9 12900K, 13900K or AMD's 7900X or 7950X. Of course, if you can't swing that then CPU's like the 7800X or 13700K would be an option. I wouldn't recommend dropping to CPU's like the 7600X or the 13600K.
 
This seems like a solid case for the current Intel CPUs. The E-cores will be good for maintaining background tasks while the P-cores handle gaming or whatever other task is up-front. The i7-13700k would probably be my recommendation as best overall, with 8 each P- and E-cores. The 13900k is slightly faster stock and doubles the E-cores (same P-core count), but that's stupid overkill and not worth the price premium IMO. If budget is a concern the i5-13600k knocks two P-cores and a touch of clock speed, but still has done very well for gaming in the reviews I've seen. You might be able to save a bit more if you drop back to the 12th-gen CPUs, but this will cut in half the E-cores, plus reduce the clock speeds and per-core cache.

There are a few drawbacks to the current Intel CPUs. The poor retention mechanism causes cooling issues. I'd strongly recommend getting a replacement, such as the Thermalright Contact Frame. The LGA-1700 socket looks to be a dead-end, if a drop-in CPU upgrade a year or two from now is of any interest. And, depending on your point of view, requiring Win11 for proper performance (i.e., OS process scheduling between the P- and E-cores) is a negative.

As for AMD, it's a little more straight-forward as it's just P-cores. The 7700x with 8 is a good overall CPU for gaming. The 7900x adds 4 cores for 12, which will give additional breathing room. The 7950x with its 16 cores and premium cost is overkill. If a system with one of those is too expensive dropping back to the 5800x3d is still a solid gaming setup.

Minuses for AMD are that the current gen requires more expensive DDR5 RAM (previous gen and current Intel can be paired with DDR4 depending on the mainboard chosen, for a slight performance hit depending on the app). AMD also bumped up their prices this round so their value isn't what it used to be. Lastly, AMD has seemingly held back on offering 3D cache-equipped CPUs, which tend to offer substantial boosts for gaming (these are expected sometime in the first half of next year).
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Thanks for your contributions. I appreciate your time and thoughts.

If you plan on using Windows 11, go with a 12 or 13th gen Intel.

If you use Windows 10 or Linux, go with AMD because of the E cores on Intel having scheduling issues that cause performance problems and compatibility issues.

I'm fine with either Windows 10 or 11, but I do have a tendency to buy software a few years after it comes out. This applies to games too. I let others pay the fomo premium and deal with the bugs and prefer to buy a polished product at a better price. That being said, I'll see what Windows 11 offers over Windows 10 and if any of those features are something I will appreciate immediately.

Is my understanding correct that you consider 12th or 13th gen intel chips to be better value than AMD chips in general with their only weakness being performance on Windows 10?

In either case, you're going to be stuck with a heat monster that requires a beefy tower cooler or at least a 240/280mm AIO water cooler.

Since you seem to be a heavy multitasker, I would recommend getting as many cores as you can afford, and probably at minimum 32 GB of RAM.

Yes, I realize that case and cooling are a serious factor now. I'm liking the NZXT H7 Flow especially with a zero RGB setup like in this video on YouTube. I like the non-nonsense functional esthetic and the traditional timeless form factor. I haven't yet decided on air vs AIO, though my previous build had a NOCTUA NH-D14 and I may go with whatever is it's descendent. I reckon I will end up spending about the same on the case, fans and CPU cooling as I will on the CPU itself. I do plan on using whichever CPU cooler, case and case fans I get for a decade or more if I can. My previous Antec P182 from my 2008 build has served me well thus far.

I will be starting out with 2x16 GB of ram with an upgrade path in mind to upgrade to 4x16 GB when I feel I need it. Whether its DDR4 or DDR5 I still have to think over.

You could certainly get away with a lesser CPU on the gaming side but not so much on the multi-tasking side. I'd definitely go with the advice above and grab a CPU that's got as many cores as you can afford. Preferably the Intel Core i9 12900K, 13900K or AMD's 7900X or 7950X. Of course, if you can't swing that then CPU's like the 7800X or 13700K would be an option. I wouldn't recommend dropping to CPU's like the 7600X or the 13600K.

This seems like a solid case for the current Intel CPUs. The E-cores will be good for maintaining background tasks while the P-cores handle gaming or whatever other task is up-front. The i7-13700k would probably be my recommendation as best overall, with 8 each P- and E-cores. The 13900k is slightly faster stock and doubles the E-cores (same P-core count), but that's stupid overkill and not worth the price premium IMO. If budget is a concern the i5-13600k knocks two P-cores and a touch of clock speed, but still has done very well for gaming in the reviews I've seen. You might be able to save a bit more if you drop back to the 12th-gen CPUs, but this will cut in half the E-cores, plus reduce the clock speeds and per-core cache.

There are a few drawbacks to the current Intel CPUs. The poor retention mechanism causes cooling issues. I'd strongly recommend getting a replacement, such as the Thermalright Contact Frame. The LGA-1700 socket looks to be a dead-end, if a drop-in CPU upgrade a year or two from now is of any interest. And, depending on your point of view, requiring Win11 for proper performance (i.e., OS process scheduling between the P- and E-cores) is a negative.

As for AMD, it's a little more straight-forward as it's just P-cores. The 7700x with 8 is a good overall CPU for gaming. The 7900x adds 4 cores for 12, which will give additional breathing room. The 7950x with its 16 cores and premium cost is overkill. If a system with one of those is too expensive dropping back to the 5800x3d is still a solid gaming setup.

Minuses for AMD are that the current gen requires more expensive DDR5 RAM (previous gen and current Intel can be paired with DDR4 depending on the mainboard chosen, for a slight performance hit depending on the app). AMD also bumped up their prices this round so their value isn't what it used to be. Lastly, AMD has seemingly held back on offering 3D cache-equipped CPUs, which tend to offer substantial boosts for gaming (these are expected sometime in the first half of next year).

I reckon my current favorite CPUs are the 13700k, 7700x and 7900x considering my use case and fluffy budget constraints (total eventual system costs around 1.5 - 2.5k).

I am interested in the i7-13700k, though the power requirements (which I think are higher than AMD's) and dead end LGA-1700 socket hold me back a bit. I tend to do a complete system overhaul every 6-7 years, with a partial upgrade to some components in the middle. If I go with the 13700k, I'll likely not be able to upgrade the CPU or DDR4 Ram until I swap out the platform. That is unless I choose to get the the 13700k with a DDR5 motherboard so that I can upgrade the Ram, but that still leaves me stuck with the 13900k as my only CPU upgrade.

The 7700x and 7900x are both interesting as well. The 7900x is significantly faster, so that might be the way to go, but I need to do more research.

Any further comments, insights or ideas would be well received.
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I would have started with how many pixels you have at home.
At 4k the 13700k already makes no sense anymore, since your usecase is more than fully covered with the 13600k.
A 13900k cut down to a 13700k will always run cooler since the 13900 will do the job generally with less vcore needed.
 
Last edited:
I reckon my current favorite CPUs are the 13700k, 7700x and 7900x considering my use case and fluffy budget constraints (total eventual system costs around 1.5 - 2.5k).

I am interested in the i7-13700k, though the power requirements (which I think are higher than AMD's) and dead end LGA-1700 socket hold me back a bit. I tend to do a complete system overhaul every 6-7 years, with a partial upgrade to some components in the middle. If I go with the 13700k, I'll likely not be able to upgrade the CPU or DDR4 Ram until I swap out the platform. That is unless I choose to get the the 13700k with a DDR5 motherboard so that I can upgrade the Ram, but that still leaves me stuck with the 13900k as my only CPU upgrade.

The 7700x and 7900x are both interesting as well. The 7900x is significantly faster, so that might be the way to go, but I need to do more research.

AFAICT, the real-world power requirements for the current AMD and Intel CPUs are roughly the same. Don't let TPD numbers mislead you, they don't reflect real power draw anymore. The numbers seen in reviews rarely reflect real-world usage, and even gaming typically won't fully stress a CPU. Regardless, mainboards for both platforms typically offer UEFI options to limit the CPU's power draw for not much of a performance hit. Both idle at very low power usage.

The 7900x isn't that much faster than the 7700x per core. Only 200 MHz on paper. The four additional P-cores certainly would make a significant difference if doing something that fully hits all twelve, or your background processes are somehow significant, but typical gaming and the light Photoshop/etc. you mention won't do that.


Is my understanding correct that you consider 12th or 13th gen intel chips to be better value than AMD chips in general with their only weakness being performance on Windows 10?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I do. I think the Intel E-cores do a good job of taking on all those lesser, background processes, leaving the P-cores to focus on the heavy-lifting for gaming or whatever. The cost of the 8 core/16 thread 7700x is ~$400, while the 8p+8e core/24 thread (E-cores don't hyperthread) i7-13700k is ~$440, a fairly insignificant difference IMO. To me, the 7900x and 7950x really only shine in situations where time is money and you have an app that can hit all those P-cores at once and spit out a complete product that much faster.

The issue with Win10 and recent Intel CPUs is the OS process scheduler. It can't differentiate between P- and E-cores, so it might place a busy/heavy process (e.g., the main thread of the game you're playing) on an E-core. Win11's scheduler knows the difference and will properly assign processes to cores.

Win11 has a few other advantages, such as full DirectStorage support (Win10 only has partial) and better HDR support. Things that generally aren't so much now but are up-and-coming.
 
I would have started with how many pixels you have at home.
At 4k the 13700k already makes no sense anymore, since your usecase is more than fully covered with the 13600k.
A 13900k cut down to a 13700k will always run cooler since the 13900 will do the job generally with less vcore needed.
I run up to two 4k panels simultaneously. One PB3200u with a max refresh of 60hz for productivity, browsing, youtube and a LG C2 42" for the fun stuff like movies and games.

May I ask why the 13700k makes no sense at 4k?

AFAICT, the real-world power requirements for the current AMD and Intel CPUs are roughly the same. Don't let TPD numbers mislead you, they don't reflect real power draw anymore. The numbers seen in reviews rarely reflect real-world usage, and even gaming typically won't fully stress a CPU. Regardless, mainboards for both platforms typically offer UEFI options to limit the CPU's power draw for not much of a performance hit. Both idle at very low power usage.

The 7900x isn't that much faster than the 7700x per core. Only 200 MHz on paper. The four additional P-cores certainly would make a significant difference if doing something that fully hits all twelve, or your background processes are somehow significant, but typical gaming and the light Photoshop/etc. you mention won't do that.

This helps put things into perspective, when comparing the 7700x and 7900x for my use case, thanks.

The issue with Win10 and recent Intel CPUs is the OS process scheduler. It can't differentiate between P- and E-cores, so it might place a busy/heavy process (e.g., the main thread of the game you're playing) on an E-core. Win11's scheduler knows the difference and will properly assign processes to cores.

Win11 has a few other advantages, such as full DirectStorage support (Win10 only has partial) and better HDR support. Things that generally aren't so much now but are up-and-coming.

So if you were building a completely new system, you'd install windows 10 instead of 11 regardless of 13th Intel / 7k AMD choice?
 
Last edited:
One consideration could be how often you upgrade, if you keep machine a long time and do not tend to do cpu swap and because lot of ram could make sense for you, a DDR-4 built could be tempting.

Either Raptor Lake or AM4 say a 5900x or a $239, 5800x that a lot of CPU for the price, $140-160 B550, a 2x16gb DDR4-3600 CL16 at $118 or a 13600k DDR4- Z690 route, 13600K has 20 threads, that a good amount.
 
One consideration could be how often you upgrade, if you keep machine a long time and do not tend to do cpu swap and because lot of ram could make sense for you, a DDR-4 built could be tempting.

Either Raptor Lake or AM4 say a 5900x or a $239, 5800x that a lot of CPU for the price, $140-160 B550, a 2x16gb DDR4-3600 CL16 at $118 or a 13600k DDR4- Z690 route, 13600K has 20 threads, that a good amount.

My first build was in 2008, second in 2015 which is my current setup (6700k with gtx 970).

I would like to get 5 years out of whatever I build, but I'm not ruling out making smaller upgrades like additional ram or swapping out components between periods (I bought used ram in 2021 for my current build). I would like to retain the motherboard, GPU and CPU barring a critical failure.

Basically, if I get a DDR5 build I would have completely skipped DDR4. I would buy the cheapest 32GB of DDR5 ram I can get away with now, upgrade when pricing hits a sweet spot in a year or two (if needed) and potentially do a partial system upgrade at the end of the AM5 socket's life to a new CPU (call it the future's AM5 version of the 5950x3d). Whether this is 3 or 5 years from now I cannot say and squeeze another 3 years out of my motherboard. So essentially I'm paying more now, to save on upgrade costs some time in the future. It's a gamble.

On the other hand, I could build a very capable bang for buck DDR4 system now, with the intention to not (or inability to) upgrade the system intermittently. This means building a DDR4, 1700 or AM4 system intended to last 5 years.

This is essentially the dilemma I and every other 'new' builder with my outlook currently face. I will check prices in January, when I finally start ordering parts before making my final decision.

With current pricing though, I think going DDR4 makes most sense, coupled with a 13th or 5000 gen CPU.

I just don't want my 4x strategy games, fusion360 models to stutter or editing software to lag in the next few years like they do now with my vintage hardware. If it wasn't for the economic circumstances affecting hardware, I would have upgraded in 2020 or 2021. It's overdue.

I'd rather err on spending 100-200 too much on a CPU than not. I'm definitely not interested in an FPS gaming rig with a minimal CPU and a fat GPU. I care more about turn times, AI speeds etc than I do about FPS frames or graphics settings. That being said, I've only experienced my 6700k so I don't know how much of a jump even something cheap like a 12th series CPU would be or if it would suffice for the next 5 years. That's essentially why I like CPUs like the 13700k. It's seems to me to be what the 6700k was in 2015. 'Overkill' for my current needs, but enough to get me through half a decade.
 
Frankly, I'm done with intel at the moment. I have a i9-9900K but I vote with my money, I don't agree with intel's segmentation of the server market. So my next upgrade will be AMD.

Think carefully about which company you support.
 
So if you were building a completely new system, you'd install windows 10 instead of 11 regardless of 13th Intel / 7k AMD choice?

Huh? No, the exact opposite. Win11 is practically a requirement for recent Intel CPUs, and I can't see a decent reason to not do so for an AMD setup.
 
Huh? No, the exact opposite. Win11 is practically a requirement for recent Intel CPUs, and I can't see a decent reason to not do so for an AMD setup.
Sorry, yes. That's what I meant to write.

I see some techtubers recommending using the 13600k or 13700k with a B660 motherboard as good value. However, I thought B660s cannot be used to overclock. So are they recommending this combination because Intel doesn't yet offer non-K 13th gen CPUs or am I missing something?
 
Last edited:
I think there are some misconceptions here that need to be cleared up first.
Yes, I realize that case and cooling are a serious factor now. I'm liking the NZXT H7 Flow especially with a zero RGB setup like in this video on YouTube. I like the non-nonsense functional esthetic and the traditional timeless form factor. I haven't yet decided on air vs AIO, though my previous build had a NOCTUA NH-D14 and I may go with whatever is it's descendent. I reckon I will end up spending about the same on the case, fans and CPU cooling as I will on the CPU itself. I do plan on using whichever CPU cooler, case and case fans I get for a decade or more if I can. My previous Antec P182 from my 2008 build has served me well thus far.
First and foremost, it's not really feasible to use hardware for a decade. Sure, it may last a decade but I wouldn't expect it. A case can be used for that long assuming some new form factor doesn't come out and replace everything. Even if it doesn't, you probably don't want to use a case that long. Things change over time. The cases of today are easier to build in and have better airflow than they did ten years ago. Not only that, but cases tend to be one of the cheaper components of the PC. It's not worth planning on a decade of service for a case. Case in point, while you used that P182 for a long time its a poor case by today's standards when it comes to air flow. People liked them because they were decent quality, quiet and good looking. They were never air flow champions.

Using an air cooler for ten years isn't necessarily feasible as the mounting pattern could change or newer CPU's even in the same socket may need a different cooling solution if the shape of their heat spreader changes. You just never know with these things. A top end AIO is better than any air cooler but there is almost no way it will last ten years. However, going with a really good air cooler generally means getting a very large cooler. That cooler will probably block at least one DIMM slot. In such cases you either need to do something ghetto or use lower profile modules to clear the heat sink.
I will be starting out with 2x16 GB of ram with an upgrade path in mind to upgrade to 4x16 GB when I feel I need it. Whether its DDR4 or DDR5 I still have to think over.
If you have any designs of going near a decade of longevity, forget DDR4. That being said, the days of simply having two DIMMs and upgrading to four DIMMs later are long over. It was always problematic as you need to find RAM that matches the existing modules as closely as possible. There is the rub. Even if the same basic semi-conductor continues to be made that long, the actual designs of the RAM change over the years. You will not be able to get the same part number modules you do today four years from now. The SPD's change and even if you could work around all of that, there is still the problem of running four DIMMs. With DDR4, depending on the topology of the memory traces this was either difficult or nearly impossible to achieve. Getting four DIMMs to work usually meant reduced clock speeds and compatibility issues. Some CPU's have a better memory controller than others so this was in part a lottery. Some motherboards also do this better than others.

Going to DDR5 makes this even more difficult as DDR5 has two channels per module. Meaning that running four DDR5 DIMMs is like running eight DDR4 DIMMs. Reduced clock speeds and other issues will come into play. Doing this with today's boards practically means gaining no benefit over DDR4 as you'll probably have to drop the clock speeds to a place where all you have is high latencies and insufficient bandwidth to make up for it. DDR5 is higher latency to begin with but makes up for that with a ton of raw bandwidth. But, the problem with going to DDR4 in the new build is that this RAM will be the more expensive stuff a few years from now. Meaning, all that I said above and higher costs will come into play if you try and upgrade a DDR4 machine down the line.
I reckon my current favorite CPUs are the 13700k, 7700x and 7900x considering my use case and fluffy budget constraints (total eventual system costs around 1.5 - 2.5k).
Good luck keeping it under $2,000. Decent motherboards are $300+ these days. Any decent CPU is going to cost you well more than that. A decent case is over $100, etc.
I am interested in the i7-13700k, though the power requirements (which I think are higher than AMD's) and dead end LGA-1700 socket hold me back a bit.
Power requirements for a desktop are virtually irrelevant. As long as you aren't cutting it close with your CPU this isn't going to matter. As for the dead end socket bit, people over estimate the value of AMD's holding onto a socket forever. The thing is, if you bought anything but a really high end X370 chipset based board, descendants of the Ryzen 1700 series with higher core counts were pretty much a no go as the VRM's on most boards weren't really up to the challenge. Sure, it was generally OK for the 2000 series, but not the 3000 series. There were boards with BIOS chips that were so small, the manufacturers deleted the GUI from the UEFI or made you choose from a couple of different BIOS files that had support for the CPU's you needed.

Anyone sticking with X370 or even X470, also had worse memory compatibility, reduced overclocking capabilities, and other limiting factors that generally meant worse performance from those Ryzen 3000 series CPU's than they'd get on X570 based boards. With the boost clocks being based on certain conditions on the motherboard, the CPU's couldn't necessarily boost as high on older platforms as it could newer ones. You were generally OK being one generation back. That is, using a Ryzen 3000 series on an X470 board (if it was a high end one) but not going all the way back to X370. Additionally, there were no guarantees you could even use X370 for the newest chips as some companies never put out BIOS updates for their boards to use certain CPU's.

Socket longevity has some advantages I'd agree. But it also comes with a lot of conditions and restraints. With lower end and midrange CPUs, it's usually OK. You sometimes lose certain features as the older designs may be incapable of supporting all of a CPU's newer features. We saw this with the 890FX versus the 990FX chipset based boards back in the Bulldozer era. The chipsets were the same but the older VRM's and design of the 890FX boards meant that you couldn't take advantage of the newer C-state Bulldozer CPU's used to save power. This was a minor thing but it's another example of what I'm talking about. Here is another example: On the AMD side we had bullshit like 90w and 130w CPU's. Some motherboards wouldn't support 130w CPUs and some would. Having to know that makes things much tougher than it needs to be.

Intel doesn't support sockets for more than two generations because of the myriad of problems and limitations that come with doing so. Intel knows this better than even AMD does as it used to make something called an overdrive processor back in the day. Literally being able to run a Pentium class processor in an i486 motherboard and a Pentium II on a Pentium Pro motherboard. On both, you sacrificed bus speeds, newer RAM technologies or speeds, and in the case of the latter, you had no AGP support. Essentially, you could make the newer CPU run on those older boards but you were castrating the thing to do it. You ended up with the faster CPU, but it wasn't as fast as a modern system using the same type of CPU. You got none of the platform benefits that those CPU's were designed to co-exist with.
I tend to do a complete system overhaul every 6-7 years, with a partial upgrade to some components in the middle. If I go with the 13700k, I'll likely not be able to upgrade the CPU or DDR4 Ram until I swap out the platform. That is unless I choose to get the the 13700k with a DDR5 motherboard so that I can upgrade the Ram, but that still leaves me stuck with the 13900k as my only CPU upgrade.
As I said above, there are a lot of limitations to upgrading over the long haul. Today's DDR4 motherboards are essentially dead ends as the RAM will be the more expensive choice a few years from now as it goes out of production. DDR5 boards today have significant limitations with being able to run four modules. It's more likely that you will have to ditch whatever RAM you have today and buy all new RAM rather than simply adding more. (As stated above.)
The 7700x and 7900x are both interesting as well. The 7900x is significantly faster, so that might be the way to go, but I need to do more research.

Any further comments, insights or ideas would be well received.
For longevity, the 7900X is your best bet. However, read what I said above about doing that. The short version is, there are no guarantees you'll be able to perform such upgrades or that they will even make sense. Even if they do, there will be limitations and caveats to doing so.
 
ANT online's ebay store has the 13700K for $400. That CPU is incredibly capable. I have a 12700k and am continually impressed with it. And the 13700k solidly outclasses it in reviews.
 
For someone coming from a 2500ST-8960MT passmark CPU (6700k), even a Ryzen 3700x (2665ST-22,698MT) could feel great, it is more than 2.5 time the CPU in certain things. Anything 12400K and above would feel like a massive upgrade and for customer for who CPU upgradibility is not a factor at all, there is not necessary that much value in overthinking it.

Anything new, even a budget 5600x completely destroy a 6700k in multithread performance by a factor of 2.4, (a living that jump again....)

Some stuff will be hard to put and-or find number on like what happen to your all-tab browser experience with 2 version of the same game running at the same time, just one thing; I would go with 32 GB of ram minimum and would orient with my wanted budget if I go DDR-4 or 5 platform without forgetting that element.

I.e. anything will be a great upgrade so simply going via black friday deals, to base decision and taste.
 
Last edited:
I think there are some misconceptions here that need to be cleared up first.
Thanks. I appreciate you for taken the time to write all of this.
First and foremost, it's not really feasible to use hardware for a decade. Sure, it may last a decade but I wouldn't expect it. A case can be used for that long assuming some new form factor doesn't come out and replace everything. Even if it doesn't, you probably don't want to use a case that long. Things change over time. The cases of today are easier to build in and have better airflow than they did ten years ago. Not only that, but cases tend to be one of the cheaper components of the PC. It's not worth planning on a decade of service for a case. Case in point, while you used that P182 for a long time its a poor case by today's standards when it comes to air flow. People liked them because they were decent quality, quiet and good looking. They were never air flow champions.
I think it comes down to standards. Some people refuse to take the bus and others do it every day. I'm sure there are plenty of people all around the world getting by with 10 year old tech in their builds. It might not be as good as the new stuff, but if it gets the job done, there are often better ways to spend 'new case' money. And yes, the P182 is quiet, sturdy and well built. The main reason I'm upgrading is because I can't keep the most modern components cool in it, not because it's broken. If I were to buy sufficiently efficient components, I'm sure it would continue to work fine. I actually had planned to keep it before I saw the new cooling requirements. The key caveat in what I said was 'if I can'. I don't like producing e-waste, if I don't have to.
Using an air cooler for ten years isn't necessarily feasible as the mounting pattern could change or newer CPU's even in the same socket may need a different cooling solution if the shape of their heat spreader changes. You just never know with these things. A top end AIO is better than any air cooler but there is almost no way it will last ten years. However, going with a really good air cooler generally means getting a very large cooler. That cooler will probably block at least one DIMM slot. In such cases you either need to do something ghetto or use lower profile modules to clear the heat sink.
I hope I won't need to get an AIO. And yes, again standards can change. It would be unfortunate because if they didn't, air coolers would last a very long time. I generally repurpose mine as led heat sinks or for other diy projects when I can. I don't know what you mean by 'ghetto', but I'm not afraid of making pragmatic customizations to improve things. I will probably buy no-nonsense no-rgb ram so hopefully with a lower profile, there will be space for a beefy tower cooler.
If you have any designs of going near a decade of longevity, forget DDR4. That being said, the days of simply having two DIMMs and upgrading to four DIMMs later are long over. It was always problematic as you need to find RAM that matches the existing modules as closely as possible. There is the rub. Even if the same basic semi-conductor continues to be made that long, the actual designs of the RAM change over the years. You will not be able to get the same part number modules you do today four years from now. The SPD's change and even if you could work around all of that, there is still the problem of running four DIMMs. With DDR4, depending on the topology of the memory traces this was either difficult or nearly impossible to achieve. Getting four DIMMs to work usually meant reduced clock speeds and compatibility issues. Some CPU's have a better memory controller than others so this was in part a lottery. Some motherboards also do this better than others.

Going to DDR5 makes this even more difficult as DDR5 has two channels per module. Meaning that running four DDR5 DIMMs is like running eight DDR4 DIMMs. Reduced clock speeds and other issues will come into play. Doing this with today's boards practically means gaining no benefit over DDR4 as you'll probably have to drop the clock speeds to a place where all you have is high latencies and insufficient bandwidth to make up for it. DDR5 is higher latency to begin with but makes up for that with a ton of raw bandwidth. But, the problem with going to DDR4 in the new build is that this RAM will be the more expensive stuff a few years from now. Meaning, all that I said above and higher costs will come into play if you try and upgrade a DDR4 machine down the line.
I learned a lot and clearly need to update my understanding of ram. It was easy enough for me to find a near-exact match for the DDR3 ram I bought in 2015 second-hand last year, but I guess it doesn't make sense to gamble on that happening again.
Good luck keeping it under $2,000. Decent motherboards are $300+ these days. Any decent CPU is going to cost you well more than that. A decent case is over $100, etc.
I'll do my best, but I fear I'll fail, having looked at prices. Everything is 50-100% more than it was last time I shopped.
Power requirements for a desktop are virtually irrelevant. As long as you aren't cutting it close with your CPU this isn't going to matter. As for the dead end socket bit, people over estimate the value of AMD's holding onto a socket forever. The thing is, if you bought anything but a really high end X370 chipset based board, descendants of the Ryzen 1700 series with higher core counts were pretty much a no go as the VRM's on most boards weren't really up to the challenge. Sure, it was generally OK for the 2000 series, but not the 3000 series. There were boards with BIOS chips that were so small, the manufacturers deleted the GUI from the UEFI or made you choose from a couple of different BIOS files that had support for the CPU's you needed.

Anyone sticking with X370 or even X470, also had worse memory compatibility, reduced overclocking capabilities, and other limiting factors that generally meant worse performance from those Ryzen 3000 series CPU's than they'd get on X570 based boards. With the boost clocks being based on certain conditions on the motherboard, the CPU's couldn't necessarily boost as high on older platforms as it could newer ones. You were generally OK being one generation back. That is, using a Ryzen 3000 series on an X470 board (if it was a high end one) but not going all the way back to X370. Additionally, there were no guarantees you could even use X370 for the newest chips as some companies never put out BIOS updates for their boards to use certain CPU's.
This is really important and something I hadn't taken into account.
Socket longevity has some advantages I'd agree. But it also comes with a lot of conditions and restraints. With lower end and midrange CPUs, it's usually OK. You sometimes lose certain features as the older designs may be incapable of supporting all of a CPU's newer features. We saw this with the 890FX versus the 990FX chipset based boards back in the Bulldozer era. The chipsets were the same but the older VRM's and design of the 890FX boards meant that you couldn't take advantage of the newer C-state Bulldozer CPU's used to save power. This was a minor thing but it's another example of what I'm talking about. Here is another example: On the AMD side we had bullshit like 90w and 130w CPU's. Some motherboards wouldn't support 130w CPUs and some would. Having to know that makes things much tougher than it needs to be.

Intel doesn't support sockets for more than two generations because of the myriad of problems and limitations that come with doing so. Intel knows this better than even AMD does as it used to make something called an overdrive processor back in the day. Literally being able to run a Pentium class processor in an i486 motherboard and a Pentium II on a Pentium Pro motherboard. On both, you sacrificed bus speeds, newer RAM technologies or speeds, and in the case of the latter, you had no AGP support. Essentially, you could make the newer CPU run on those older boards but you were castrating the thing to do it. You ended up with the faster CPU, but it wasn't as fast as a modern system using the same type of CPU. You got none of the platform benefits that those CPU's were designed to co-exist with.

As I said above, there are a lot of limitations to upgrading over the long haul. Today's DDR4 motherboards are essentially dead ends as the RAM will be the more expensive choice a few years from now as it goes out of production. DDR5 boards today have significant limitations with being able to run four modules. It's more likely that you will have to ditch whatever RAM you have today and buy all new RAM rather than simply adding more. (As stated above.)

For longevity, the 7900X is your best bet. However, read what I said above about doing that. The short version is, there are no guarantees you'll be able to perform such upgrades or that they will even make sense. Even if they do, there will be limitations and caveats to doing so.
More good points. I'm really starting to consider building for the moment rather than worrying about what might happen 3-6 years from now.
 
Last edited:
For someone coming from a 2500ST-8960MT passmark CPU (6700k), even a Ryzen 3700x (2665ST-22,698MT) could feel great, it is more than 2.5 time the CPU in certain things. Anything 12400K and above would feel like a massive upgrade and for customer for who CPU upgradibility is not a factor at all, there is not necessary that much value in overthinking it.

Anything new, even a budget 5600x completely destroy a 6700k in multithread performance by a factor of 2.4, (a living that jump again....)

Some stuff will be hard to put and-or find number on like what happen to your all-tab browser experience with 2 version of the same game running at the same time, just one thing; I would go with 32 GB of ram minimum and would orient with my wanted budget if I go DDR-4 or 5 platform without forgetting that element.

I.e. anything will be a great upgrade so simply going via black friday deals, to base decision and taste.
Yeah, I realize this and have started considering 5000 and 12th gen cpus now too. Having the newest and shiniest is nice, but it comes at a cost. And as you state, pretty much everything I upgrade to will be a considerable improvement.

Multiboxing usually involves a few instances of a game, not just 2. I run 5 copies of diablo 2 resurrected on my 6700k, 970x 32gb ddr3, albeit on minimum settings, but it isn't totally stable.

I think I'll come up with a short list of cpu/gpu combinations at different price levels and then decide how much I'm willing to spend on this hobby once the full build estimate comes together.
 
Intel's locked CPUs should be available sometime in January. I expect the 13700f to be around $360.


If you are considering 12th gen---you may as well get a 13600k. It matches or beat 12900k in gaming. And beats 12700k in multicore/multithread.
 
Thanks. I appreciate you for taken the time to write all of this.

I think it comes down to standards. Some people refuse to take the bus and others do it every day. I'm sure there are plenty of people all around the world getting by with 10 year old tech in their builds. It might not be as good as the new stuff, but if it gets the job done, there are often better ways to spend 'new case' money. And yes, the P182 is quiet, sturdy and well built. The main reason I'm upgrading is because I can't keep the most modern components cool in it, not because it's broken. If I were to buy sufficiently efficient components, I'm sure it would continue to work fine. I actually had planned to keep it before I saw the new cooling requirements. The key caveat in what I said was 'if I can'. I don't like producing e-waste, if I don't have to.
That's precisely my point. A decade is a long time when it comes to computer case design. I wouldn't plan on being able to use a case for more than a build or two. Obviously, you sometimes can. I've had some cases in use for the bulk of a decade but it's not something you can generally do unless you over buy and get something enormous. One of the limitations that older cases have is a lack of room for today's modern video cards. People really started to feel that when single slot cooled video cards pretty much went away and again more recently when the 3000 and 4000 series NVIDIA cards gained so much size and weight.
I hope I won't need to get an AIO. And yes, again standards can change. It would be unfortunate because if they didn't, air coolers would last a very long time.
AIO's are actually pretty great as far as I'm concerned. If you buy a good one they are reliable and perform well. Additionally, they create more space around the CPU allowing you to use whatever RAM you want without worrying about it. Additionally, AIO's look cleaner inside the machine. That's a matter of preference, but AIO's have always looked better to me than most air coolers. There are a few exceptions. The Coolermaster Threadripper cooler was pretty awesome looking as an example.
I generally repurpose mine as led heat sinks or for other diy projects when I can. I don't know what you mean by 'ghetto', but I'm not afraid of making pragmatic customizations to improve things.
Well getting out a Dremel and cutting fins is problematic. Any quality air cooler is also going to have embedded heat pipes in them which means two things. 1.) You can't just cut them anywhere, though the heat pipe usually wouldn't be where you'd need to cut. 2.) Heat pipes do not last forever. They can burst if you overwhelm the cooler. As a final point on air coolers, cutting fins with a Dremel means reduced cooling area. That's not what you want for air cooling. This is assuming you could make practical use of four DIMM slots anyway. As I said, that's not as easy these days.
I will probably buy no-nonsense no-rgb ram so hopefully with a lower profile, there will be space for a beefy tower cooler.
Nope. Most heat spreaders are still too large to clear air coolers when four modules are used. DDR5 modules tend to run hot and need that surface area. In fact, while thinner, the height of G.Skill non-RGB DDR5 RAM and RGB DDR5 RAM is identical.
I learned a lot and clearly need to update my understanding of ram. It was easy enough for me to find a near-exact match for the DDR3 ram I bought in 2015 second-hand last year, but I guess it doesn't make sense to gamble on that happening again.
Well, the second hand market means you could potentially find out of production memory modules. The problem is that RAM compatibility is more of an issue now because of the issues we now have using all four slots. There are no guarantees you could find what you need or that you'd even be able to make practical use of four DIMM slots. Again, you generally can't run DDR5 modules at 5000MHz plus in groups of four. If you aren't going to DDR5 5600MHz or higher, there really isn't much point in it over DDR4 RAM. But again, in a few years time DDR4 will become more expensive than DDR5 RAM. This is how the cycle has always worked. Initially, the outgoing RAM types are cheaper and as production shifts from the old to the new, the older RAM becomes more expensive.
I'll do my best, but I fear I'll fail, having looked at prices. Everything is 50-100% more than it was last time I shopped.
At one time a $300 motherboard was ultra-high end. Now, it's basically the entry level for a decent board which I wouldn't even really consider midrange. High end motherboards are upwards of $1,000 or more now.
This is really important and something I hadn't taken into account.
A lot of people don't consider the difficulties of long term upgrades as they do not understand the technical limitations of maintaining socket compatibility over a five year period where CPU product lines are changing every year.
More good points. I'm really starting to consider building for the moment rather than worrying about what might happen 3-6 years from now.
Now you are getting it. The truth is future proofing has never been a thing. The fact is that these upgrade paths come with technical drawbacks and there aren't ever any guarantees that a path will even be offered. Ask anyone who bought AMD's Threadripper series. 3000 series CPU's wouldn't work on X399 motherboards and there is no upgrade path for TRX40 motherboards as the 5000 series is OEM only.
 
I may be late to the game on this one, but i multi-task like a mofo., from 3-4 VM's running at once, to 2 citrix sessions for clients, to all my apps running, to sometimes have a game i alt+tab in and out of. Originally i had a 3900XT cause the 5950x could not be found when i built, i then got my 5950X couple months back and my rig is butter smooth.

While people say "less cores faster Mhz for gaming" while i do not play highly taxing games maybe, with my 5950X, AMD RX6800 and gaming at 1440p, i can keep the games i play around 144mhz with settings cranked with out issues, and i never have a sluggish feeling system.
So, if other people have preached it, more cores is better, sure there is a balance, but the different of 200-400Mhz per core for some games vs more cores for doing more I feel is a better trade off.
 
Would the Z690 AORUS PRO be a good fit for the i7-13700k and DDR5? Or is there a better value board out there for the same or less money? MSI Z690 Pro-A perhaps?

From my understanding, I will be unlikely to leverage the overclocking potential of the board due to being held back by heating limitations on the CPU. So would it be correct to assume I could get a board with less overclocking capabilities and still do well?
 
Last edited:
Possible problem with any Z690 or any other mainboard from that generation is that it might not recognize a 13th-gen CPU out of the box. You'd first need to drop in a 12th-gen CPU, upgrade UEFI (assuming the manufacturer has released an upgrade for 13th-gen compatibility), then swap the CPU to the desired one.

Simpler and better to just get a mainboard with a Z790 or other 13th-gen chipset.
 
Possible problem with any Z690 or any other mainboard from that generation is that it might not recognize a 13th-gen CPU out of the box. You'd first need to drop in a 12th-gen CPU, upgrade UEFI (assuming the manufacturer has released an upgrade for 13th-gen compatibility), then swap the CPU to the desired one.

Simpler and better to just get a mainboard with a Z790 or other 13th-gen chipset.
I think if the Z690 is flashback capable, updating the BIOS takes a few minutes via USB dongle and requires no 12th gen CPU.

Both of the boards I'm considering above have this feature, but I may not understand this correctly.
 
Sorry if i'm Late to the party, I do exactly what you do Eleven,

Although minus the photoshop and Coding.

I got 3 Monitors 2 1440p 1 1080p, and i'm going balls to the wall in terms of specs. If you can afford it don't hold anything back, it will save you cash in the long run on the next upgrade cycle 4-5 years from now.

My Parts:
i9-13900KS
Asus-z790 Strix E-Gaming
Corsair Dominator DDR5 5600 4x16GB (64GB)
Corsair 1200 HXi PSU (2Yrs)
Asus 3090 Tuf OC 24 GB (2 Yrs)
Lian Li Dynamic XL Case (2 Yrs)
Arctic Cooling ARGB Freezer II 280mm
Loads of Bequiet! Fans both 120mm and 140mm (2Yrs)

an easy $2.5K CAD on my part on the mobo,ram,cpu,cooler upgrade, but that's the spice of life when it comes to high end parts. It may be overkill for my needs, but I rather the computer serve me and not wait for it to catch up and other tasks.
 
I'm in the same boat. I don't game, but want to get into video editing and some 3-D modelling. I can't decide between an Intel i7-13700K or an AMD 7900x. I also plan to wait a while to get a graphics card. So my considerations are:

-Which CPU runs cooler and draws less power?
- Which CPU has better integrated graphics?
- Which CPU has a better upgrade path?
 
I'm in the same boat. I don't game, but want to get into video editing and some 3-D modelling. I can't decide between an Intel i7-13700K or an AMD 7900x. I also plan to wait a while to get a graphics card. So my considerations are:

-Which CPU runs cooler and draws less power?
- Which CPU has better integrated graphics?
- Which CPU has a better upgrade path?
1. For long-sustained work load, I would opt for it's vanilla option: Ryzen 7900 (you can read the review here: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-5-7600-cpu-review)
It's ~95% multi threaded performance of i7 13700k, but using less than 100w on long-sustained work load.
It's easier to cool than 7900x and 13700k for that kind of workload

2. The intel i7 has better performance for integrated graphics

3. AM5 / ryzen 7900
 
video editing
I would look for the specific program you tend to use how much Intel quicksync is used and how much it bring benefit (provided by your iGPU), even if you have a discrete GPU I think there some scenario that you can still use it.

Otherwise for your question 1-3 it should be a clean 7900x win.
 
Thanks.

My impression from everything I've read is that Intel has better compatibility with more codecs (although I think with Alder Lake and Raptor Lake they dropped AV1 support?).

My usage will be 80-90% office work and about 10-20% video editing and 3-D modelling. So, I'm not sure how much power savings benefit I'd see based on video editing/3-D modelling alone. I guess I'm more interested in thermals and power draw during long sustained idling (which is basically what the power level of office work is). A 7900 is essentially the same as a 7900x with eco-mode on.

I keep reading conflicting reports on whether Intel or AMD has better integrated graphics. I'm still not sure.
 
Thanks.

My impression from everything I've read is that Intel has better compatibility with more codecs (although I think with Alder Lake and Raptor Lake they dropped AV1 support?).

My usage will be 80-90% office work and about 10-20% video editing and 3-D modelling. So, I'm not sure how much power savings benefit I'd see based on video editing/3-D modelling alone. I guess I'm more interested in thermals and power draw during long sustained idling (which is basically what the power level of office work is). A 7900 is essentially the same as a 7900x with eco-mode on.

I keep reading conflicting reports on whether Intel or AMD has better integrated graphics. I'm still not sure.


I have spent a fair bit of time researching this.

If you need to save every single watt, intel is better at idle, provided you enable core parking, sleep states etc etc this isn’t an inconsiderable amount of effort but with a bit of knowledge, quick cpu (software) can get you there.

This in large part is due to the I/O die on amd chips.

As soon as you light up the silicon though, AMD intel is more efficient per watt. (see video below)
 
Last edited:
So, I still haven't pulled the trigger and will likely wait until June 2023 when AMD releases some of its more reasonable GPUs in terms of power efficiency. However, I update my hypothetical builds fairly regularly. If I had to buy something right now, I reckon I'd go with the 7900 (non-X) coupled with a Gigabyte AORUS X670 ELITE AX, MSI MAG B650 TOMAHAWK WIFI, MSI Pro X670-P WIFI or MSI MAG B650M MORTAR WIFI in either a H7 Flow or Asus AP 201. GPU would likely be the 6800 (non-X).

Here in the Netherlands electricity is quite pricy, so it really factors into total cost of ownership especially with my daily usage requirements. However, I like to have the option to push everything when I need to and to have a motherboard that can hopefully handle any future AM5 CPUs.

In the meantime, my 6700k, GTX 970 and z170-A continue to serve me well past their best-by date. I recently bought a 4TB Transcend MTE250H which I am going to take with to the new build. Depending on whether sensible PCIe5 M.2 SSDs are available when I build, it will either be the primary or secondary drive.
 
Last edited:
Your requirements aren’t clear so I am not going to recommend anything yet.

In terms of actual hours over a normal 1-2 week period of using a computer, what do you actually do?

For example:
I use my pc for approximately 30 hours a week

Of that 30 hours
  • Most of the time (20 hours) the computer is idling while I’m using chrome or Remote Desktop or using teams.
  • I play games (cp2077/DoW/StarCraft etc) for 4-6 hours - all single player. I usually have a low priority (not time bound) task in the background.
  • The other 4 hours is misc, from watching videos to analysing stats in excel.
  • I do compiling and rendering using fusion or inventor occasionally, but not regularly (not weekly, maybe every 6 months)
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's a question of hours per week in my case. My work and life make it so I may or may not have time to use my personal computer due to professional projects or travel. I can be using it for 80 hours a week intensively or not at all for 2-3 months straight.

Like I wrote in my OP, my typical usage during an intensive period is to have multiple games, software and browser tabs open at once. I play real-time and turn-based strategy games offline and mmos online. I might even have a single player strategy game running in the background while I'm waiting for something to happen online or have multiple instances of a game open for multibox gaming.

When I need to build a new piece of furniture or am working on a new structure in the garden, I like to sketch it out in Fusion 360 before I actually build or buy anything. I'm usually pressed for time in these situations and even though I don't use the software professionally, there is a lot of other things I could be doing with my time than waiting for it to load and dealing with it stuttering (current situation). I will likely also have a few YouTube videos and websites open to help me in the process as I am a novice.

Same goes for photo/video editing... we prioritize travel in our lives and take a lot of photos and videos. I've got a massive backlog of content I want to sort, process and share and need a good computer to do this efficiently. Again, I don't do it every day professionally, but I'm also not a retiree that can afford to spend hours and hours. I'm looking to have a semi-professional workflow to get through TBs worth of raw images, videos and scanned negatives.

So, what I'm looking for is a computer that can support the most extreme situations, while still being efficient most of the time, which is why I'm looking at the parts I'm looking at.

I'm the kind of person that will often spend the money to buy a quality tool and invest time in learning to do something myself rather than spending the same amount of money on someone who has the tool, to do it for me. Over the years, I've found that investing in myself in this way saves me a lot on unnecessary expenses. I see a good computer as such a tool. I don't need to have the best of the best, but I do want something I can rely on, that doesn't get in the way or frustrate me when I need to get something done.

SHAB summed it up in their last sentence:

It may be overkill for my needs, but I rather the computer serve me and not wait for it to catch up and other tasks.
 
Ok.

Based on that, if you can afford it, I would suggest a similar setup to SHAB rather than going AMD.

Here's why:
  1. It'll boot quicker
  2. It'll be able to handle a lot more memory (I'd probably start at 64gig and consider double that, with what you're talking about)
  3. It's a more stable platform so you don't waste time debugging stuff
  4. It _can_ be efficient if you lock the TDP to defaults (or under)
  5. It has more cores
  6. It will idle with lower power

Example build (This is pretty much my end-it-all build using current parts)
  • i9-13900k
  • Gigabyte Z790 aorus master
  • 64 gig Gskill trident z5 (2x32) (if you can get 2x64, I would, but I haven't seen many kits)
  • I'd get a second hand 3080ti or a new 4080
  • Corsair RM1200 shift
  • Lian li mesh iii
  • Arctic freezer 480 ii rev 7
  • Bequiet or Noctua fans for the other fan slots (your choice) - or if you want to save some money, the arctic p12s.
I would shoot for a mild overclock on the efficiency cores, cause you've got 16 of them to play with, a small boost (400mhz) across that many cores makes a big difference, and with that cooler, you'd have a bit of headroom.

Remember, you only use a bunch of power when you're firing on all cores, with core parking enabled, a mild undervolt/overclock, you'll be able to run with most cores off when you don't need them, then ramp up to full power pretty quickly.


This video gives you some interesting information - showing ultimately, intel is more efficient per watt.

And finally - there will be plenty of times when you've got it idling, so idle power does matter.
 
Last edited:
Ram it, slam it, jam it damn it :D

For your use cases, having sufficient ram (32GB min, preferably 64GB) will be as important as the CPU, as well as having enough (fast) drive space for your apps & their temp/cache files...
 
Something in my current desktop stopped working. I'm getting some lights on the Z170-A, but nothing happens when I use the power button or short the pins. The computer just turned off in the middle of listening to a podcast, no heavy usage. I'm taking this as a sign from RNGesus to finally put together my new desktop, though I may use the GTX 970 until June to see what AMDs GPUs are like then.

Here's the build I'm thinking of [euros]:

[105] Asus AP201 mATX case
[250] Gigabyte B650M AORUS ELITE AX
[405] AMD Ryzen 9 7900
[255] G.Skill Ripjaws S5 DDR5-5600 WH C36 DC - 64GB
[120] Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360
[have] Transcend 250H 4 TB

Looking at 850w PSUs

your thoughts?
 
That issue sounds like a dead psu.. replacement of that may get it working again


I have offered a lot of advice here in this thread, so I will make it short

  • Case wise, I lean lian li. 216 or mesh iii, fractal (torrent) is my second choice
  • amd vs intel, you know where I stand based on previous posts
  • power supply wise Corsair rm850x shift is my preference
 
Last edited:
That issue sounds like a dead psu.. replacement of that may get it working again


I have offered a lot of advice here in this thread, so I will make it short

  • Case wise, I lean lian li. 216 or mesh iii, fractal (torrent) is my second choice
  • amd vs intel, you know where I stand based on previous posts
  • power supply wise Corsair rm850x shift is my preference
Yes, thanks. It's much appreciated. When you first posted, I tried to build around a 13700k, but struggled to find an equivalent mATX setup in my market. I'll look again today. I've decided to go with the smaller from factor for a few reasons too boring to list here, so that limits case and Mobo options.

The rm850x was on my shortlist before bed. I'll do some more research today and try replacing the PSU before buying the rest. No harm in trying.
 
Back
Top