Define overkill?

Do you really think going with a slower CPU will benefit you somehow? The GPU won't care if the CPU is especially good.

If you want to spend less money then get dropping down pegs until you're happy. It's not like there's so many 5000 series CPU options where this is real difficult.

Oprindeligt skrevet af nullable:

Define overkill?

Do you really think going with a slower CPU will benefit you somehow? The GPU won't care if the CPU is especially good.

If you want to spend less money then get dropping down pegs until you're happy. It's not like there's so many 5000 series CPU options where this is real difficult.

Overkill in this situation: Too powerfull and expensive CPU for my current and future requirements.

Slower, Faster...it's relative. Just trying to figure out the best pairing for lowest bottle-necking without having to throw a bunch of money everywhere and taking shots in the dark.

If getting a "slower(cheaper)" CPU can avoid bottle-necking, it will save me some money that I can use for RAM or storage or adult beverages etc...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not cheap-skate, if the best contender is a 5700X3D, so shall it be.

*****Lets see if the GPU cares about my current 3400G.

You can't avoid bottlenecks because that would require having infinite performance from all parts, and we obviously don't have that. There will always be a bottleneck, on every PC. So instead of worrying about whether something arbitrary exists, only worry about it if it's bringing performance is below your desired level.

As for your CPU decision, you have two choice.

The first is to get something with the greatest value. Overkill performance itself never hurts... because even if you don't need it at the onset, it makes up for it to some degree by lasting longer before needing replaced. However, if the faster part costs disproportionately more, you often come out getting less for your money. The best value for AM4 right noiw would be the 5700X, especially if you have a Micro Center nearby as it's still $130. Otherwise, it's closer to $165.

If you want to make your current AM4 platform last as long as possible, the 5700X3D is probably worth the extra $100 on top of that. It's gone up in price the last half a year so it's becoming a tougher choice in my mind, even for AM4 owners. It's still worth considering mind you, but it's no longer the unanimous upgrade choice that it once was a year ago back when it was $180 to $220 (and when other options were more expensive).

Since your current CPU is Zen(+) based, and it's a cache lacking version on top of that, even the non-X3D Zen 3 (5700X) will be a massive uplift. If your starting point was a bit higher, I'd say the extra cost of the X3D might be that much more worthwhile just to make it more of an upgrade.

Speaking of which, if you decide your priority is extending AM4 as long as possible, I'd suggest giving RAM a look if you have 16 GB or less. Why? DDR4 production is is winding down and spot market pricing is already surging. Consumer market pricing will probably go up in the coming months (3 to 6 I would guess). Many late AM4 (and Intel DDR4) platforms have a lot of life in the CPU-wise, and it would be unfortunate be in a position to want to upgrade RAM and have prices so high that it makes sinking all this money into a CPU now and extra for RAM later counterintuitive. A good AM4 platform will allow you leapfrog AM5 and move to AM6 or whatever Intel has by then (2027/2028), so i figured I'd mention this about RAM.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Illusion of Progress:

You can't avoid bottlenecks because that would require having infinite performance from all parts, and we obviously don't have that. There will always be a bottleneck, on every PC. So instead of worrying about whether something arbitrary exists, only worry about it if it's bringing performance is below your desired level.

As for your CPU decision, you have two choice.

The first is to get something with the greatest value. Overkill performance itself never hurts... because even if you don't need it at the onset, it makes up for it to some degree by lasting longer before needing replaced. However, if the faster part costs disproportionately more, you often come out getting less for your money. The best value for AM4 right noiw would be the 5700X, especially if you have a Micro Center nearby as it's still $130. Otherwise, it's closer to $165.

If you want to make your current AM4 platform last as long as possible, the 5700X3D is probably worth the extra $100 on top of that. It's gone up in price the last half a year so it's becoming a tougher choice in my mind, even for AM4 owners. It's still worth considering mind you, but it's no longer the unanimous upgrade choice that it once was a year ago back when it was $180 to $220 (and when other options were more expensive).

Since your current CPU is Zen(+) based, and it's a cache lacking version on top of that, even the non-X3D Zen 3 (5700X) will be a massive uplift. If your starting point was a bit higher, I'd say the extra cost of the X3D might be that much more worthwhile just to make it more of an upgrade.

Speaking of which, if you decide your priority is extending AM4 as long as possible, I'd suggest giving RAM a look if you have 16 GB or less. Why? DDR4 production is is winding down and spot market pricing is already surging. Consumer market pricing will probably go up in the coming months (3 to 6 I would guess). Many late AM4 (and Intel DDR4) platforms have a lot of life in the CPU-wise, and it would be unfortunate be in a position to want to upgrade RAM and have prices so high that it makes sinking all this money into a CPU now and extra for RAM later counterintuitive. A good AM4 platform will allow you leapfrog AM5 and move to AM6 or whatever Intel has by then (2027/2028), so i figured I'd mention this about RAM.

Great advice, thank you so much. As you noted, my priority is to optimally extend this AM4 for as long as possible. This machine is going to be a hand me down to my son in 6-12 months at which point I plan to get all new for myself wether its AM5 or beyond. I will consider cost and availability of the 5700X and 5700X3D and make the call. As for RAM, I am upping to 32gb.

Oprindeligt skrevet af DieGewapendeSoetPatat:

Oprindeligt skrevet af nullable:

Define overkill?

Do you really think going with a slower CPU will benefit you somehow? The GPU won't care if the CPU is especially good.

If you want to spend less money then get dropping down pegs until you're happy. It's not like there's so many 5000 series CPU options where this is real difficult.

Overkill in this situation: Too powerfull and expensive CPU for my current and future requirements.

Slower, Faster...it's relative. Just trying to figure out the best pairing for lowest bottle-necking without having to throw a bunch of money everywhere and taking shots in the dark.

Well my thinking would be this. A nicer CPU will remain usable longer.

Nothing is stopping you from upgrading the GPU down the road.

If you're going to build this system and not spend another dime on it, then my thinking may not matter. Otherwise future upgrades could be impacted by short changing yourself today in the name of "optimization".

Oprindeligt skrevet af DieGewapendeSoetPatat:

If getting a "slower(cheaper)" CPU can avoid bottle-necking, it will save me some money that I can use for RAM or storage or adult beverages etc...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not cheap-skate, if the best contender is a 5700X3D, so shall it be.

*****Lets see if the GPU cares about my current 3400G.

People worry too much about bottlenecks. Bottlenecks are a problem when your system is crippled as a result. Not when some bit of hardware, like the CPU has power to spare. Plus, not every game is GPU bound, and in those cases a better CPU would help.

That's what makes most bottleneck discussions ridiculous: Trying to appraise bottlenecks across all the software you'll run now, and guess at all the software you'll run in the future.

Just build a decent PC, and magically, in real world use, bottlenecks don't seem to be an issue. I mean unless you're a psychopath who cries themselves to sleep because sometimes a program only uses 66% of the CPU or whatever.

And what are we talking about, a midranged CPU on a dated platform, and a relatively recent mid-high end GPU. There's not really anything wrong or controversial in putting two decent bits of hardware together.

Somehow I don't think you'll ever be like, "thank my lucky stars I went with the 5600X". But if you ever run into that use case I'd love to hear about it.

Keep the 5800x in mind, too. Its often the same price as the 5700x, but clocked higher.