What I mean is, I feel like if i buy a 9000 cpu series, I'm gonna be upgrading it again when I upgrade my GPU in a few years, but for some reason, my gut instinct tells me that I can still use the 265kf in 3-4 years when I upgrade to a 7060 ti or 8060 ti. It's just a gut feeling.

But I also heard the Ultras don't use a monolithic IC. Is that weird?

Then buy a 9800X3D or 9950X if you feel that way about the 9700X.
Intel isn't going to hold up any longer/better.

You issue really is that you are aiming too low with your GPU. Get a 5070 or 5070 Ti minimum

Oprindeligt skrevet af St✩rlight:

I feel like the ultras might be a bit more future-proof than the AMD.

Why?

If we look at some actual gaming data, the 265K seems to be the slightly slower CPU in gaming compared to the 9700X, at least presuming that you use the common RAM speeds between them. It's certainly not by much, but it goes against the idea of the 265K holding up better.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-ultra-7-265k/18.html

Sure, the 265K can use faster RAM than that, and it can likely get some more gaming performance out of it... but it still won't be much faster, and then at that point, it's probably no longer the cheaper option so why would you do that to begin with? The big reason the 265K is attractive enough to even look at right now is precisely because of its lowered price. It makes it a considerable value alternative to AMD, because that's what Intel is right now; the value alternative. And there's nothing wrong with that (I choose a 3700X over a 10700K in 2020 for the same reason).

For that same reason though, the 7700X should be considered because it's not much slower than the 9700X (Zen 5 is typically not much faster than Zen 4, the X3Ds aside since they shed some of the clock speed disparity they used to have), so the 7700X lands at a similar price/performance spot as the 265K, at least in games. The difference is that 265K will be faster in "infinitely parallelized" workloads. So it could be argued as the slightly overall better choice, but the advantage to the 7700X (or 9700X) is that AM5 will have one more new generation in the future whereas LGA 1851 is probably (or is it confirmed?) a one generation and done socket like Haswell was. This might be a point of consideration for you since you raised concern over longevity.

With an entry level graphics card though, any of the three CPUs (7700X, 9700X, 265K) will likely be nigh on indistinguishable in most things as you'll often be GPU bound, and even in CPU limited instances, they should (typically) be rather close on average.

I don't think the 265K is a bad choice here (I don't think it's the best either though), but it's certainly not the more performant option which would support your feelings of better longevity. I think you may be forming that feeling based on the trends of the past when Intel had a clear performance advantage, but the reality of today is quite different.

Oprindeligt skrevet af St✩rlight:

Also I feel intel might get along better with an nvidia card.

Is there a reason other than feelings?

If anything, nVidia drivers are often said to have higher CPU overhead so a faster CPU will work better with it. But even the slowest CPUs among these three can handle that so it doesn't matter.

It really won't make much difference, so, go with the cheapest option tbh.

The amd option will likely be a bit cheaper to get the most out of it as it can use a B series mobo and cheaper memory than the Z series boards and potentially faster memory, but, unless you decide to go tweaking the system to within an inch of its life, see my first point and buy the cheapest.

Thanks, you guys are the best. I'll just wait until the 265 comes up, Prime day next week ;D

Prices have dropped on the Ultra 200 series as of late, so they are actually decent choices now. They are generally better tier for tier vs AMD in multi core performance, and with a 5060 Ti, the CPU is unlikely to cause noticeable performance differences since the GPU isn't powerful enough.

That said if you are primarily building a gaming machine and you can afford it, get the X3D parts. They are noticeably stronger than anything Intel has to offer gaming wise. You will pay a premium unfortunately. It is not worth it to get a X3D CPU if it requires you to drop down a GPU tier though.

The only X3D I can get right now is a 5700X3D and I don't want that because it is AM4.

And it is overpriced at $200 for an AM4 chip.

Thanks guys I'll just get a decent busget DDR5 65w chip.

Oprindeligt skrevet af St✩rlight:

Thanks, you guys are the best. I'll just wait until the 265 comes up, Prime day next week ;D

You are relying on Amazon?
If you are within USA try MicroCenter instead

Just make sure the ram is not too budget, for AMD you'll want cl28-30 6000 to 6400MHz ish and 7200 for Intel CL 32/34 ish to be good but not too expensive

Oprindeligt skrevet af St✩rlight:

The only X3D I can get right now is a 5700X3D and I don't want that because it is AM4.

And it is overpriced at $200 for an AM4 chip.

$200 is actually a really good price for that (even if the 5700X still comes out as a better value), but I wouldn't buy into AM4 if you're not already on it unless you're going with a super budget PC using a 5500 or 5600 or something. The 5700X3D is often well over $250 in the states (a bit better in Europe I think but still rising overall), so it's now getting to the point where it's not as unanimous of a choice even for current AM4 owners. I was saying this around a year ago, but the best time for in-platform upgrades for AM4 owners was back then.

A bit off topic, but it's going to get worse if DDR4 RAM prices go up later this year, which is likely since production on it is likely going to drop, so to anyone using any DDR4 systems (primary, secondary, doesn't matter) that wants to keep using them for a while, I'd suggest considering RAM upgrades sooner rather than later.

Oprindeligt skrevet af St✩rlight:

The only X3D I can get right now is a 5700X3D and I don't want that because it is AM4.

And it is overpriced at $200 for an AM4 chip.

That CPU trades blows with the 14900k, you'll be fine.

Currently no reason to buy Intel.

Oprindeligt skrevet af The_Abortionator:

Oprindeligt skrevet af St✩rlight:

The only X3D I can get right now is a 5700X3D and I don't want that because it is AM4.

And it is overpriced at $200 for an AM4 chip.

That CPU trades blows with the 14900k, you'll be fine.

a 5700x3d does NOT trade blows with a 14900k, that's the 7800X3D, an overclocked 14900k has no issue wiping the floor with both but that is where the 9800X3D comes into play

Oprindeligt skrevet af The_Abortionator:

Oprindeligt skrevet af St✩rlight:

The only X3D I can get right now is a 5700X3D and I don't want that because it is AM4.

And it is overpriced at $200 for an AM4 chip.

That CPU trades blows with the 14900k, you'll be fine.

That is simply not true.