Best way to narrow down options for CPU and MB

[Tetras]

Davinci Resolve

From the benchmarks I've seen on Tech Notice and Puget, AMD performs fine, so I think you're safe to choose an AMD CPU there.

Sony Vegas

I have no idea.

Games at 4K

£600 ish

Unless you can find a great deal somewhere, that leaves you with:
4070 and 7800 XT
4070 Super and 7900 GRE
4070 Ti and 7900 XT

The 7900 XT has the best performance in raster and the most VRAM. If you're sure that all of your work apps function fine with an AMD card then that'd be my pick.

The 4070 and 7800 XT are relatively good value if you can get them near £450, but they're both intended for 1440p, so you're looking at upscaling for the best performance at 4K. Fortunately, DLSS/FSR do work best at higher resolutions.

4070 Super and 7900 GRE are 16% and 10% faster than the non-Super and 7800 XT respectively according to TPU's GPU database (raster, no upscaling and no ray tracing), but when you're looking at playable performance @ 4K, that's not to be discounted. My opinion is that these cards need to be much nearer to £500 than to £600, or the price increase from the 4070 and 7800 XT is not worth paying.

The 4070 Ti I'd discount because it is getting harder to find (replaced by the Ti Super, which has 4GB more VRAM) and I'd not be keen on paying £700+ for a 12GB card, especially to play at 4K.

On the Adamant IT podcast they claimed that the Intel CPUs we get in the UK are not broken as they are not manufactured in Malaysia.

I assume that'd mean future Intel CPUs, because we've had several broken ones here on the forum?

 

[Quartz]

I assume that'd mean future Intel CPUs, because we've had several broken ones here on the forum?

Then the podcast is mistaken.

 

[Tetras]

Then the podcast is mistaken.

Most of the CPUs I've seen are X (Vietnam), but L does still show up a fair bit. I don't know where the bad CPUs were from, but since there are a few different issues with these CPUs, maybe they were referring to the manufacturing fault rather than degradation/binning?

 

[xenon20]

Had a go at OC'ing my CPU last night with Ryzen Master.

Cinebench 2024 baseline:

Single: 92
Multi: 794
MP Rato: 8.59 x

1. Tried auto OC across all cores (in basic view - it took about 45 mins to determine optimised setings)

Single: 94
Multi: 818
MP Ratio: 8.66 x

Temps stayed around 70-75

2. Tried auto OC in detailed view, left all cores at 3400, left PPT, TDC & EDC at default (max) values of 1,000 / 480 / 650 respectively, set Boost Override CPU value to 200.

Single: Didn't test
Multi: 810

Temps were 80-85

Doesn't really seem like much of an increase. It is actually worth overclocking it for a few extra % ? Maybe there's better ways / settings that I'm not aware of but I'm not sure I have the patience to manually tweak and stress test at every setting.

Would it make any difference if RAM and GPU were overclocked first? and is that easy to achieve for an OC'ing noob?

Thanks

 

[Tetras]

Doesn't really seem like much of an increase. It is actually worth overclocking it for a few extra % ?

Undervolting and power limiting are more common than overclocking nowadays, since most of these chips are clocked super high and beyond their optimal efficiency curve "out of the box".

Would it make any difference if RAM and GPU were overclocked first? and is that easy to achieve for an OC'ing noob?

RAM speed doesn't make much difference in most workloads and Ryzen CPUs are twitchy if you go too far, so I wouldn't do it, especially if you value stability due to your work.

Graphics: you can read up about it for your card, but I'm 99% sure that the workload you're finding too slow right now is not affected by the core/memory clocks of the GPU, though they would apply to gaming.

 

[Threepwood]

Also how much life is left in Socket AM5

yonks, it will be suppoorted through2027

 

[adrichardson81]

Check which of your software uses GPU acceleration. Some will do much better on Nvidia.

I've gone from a 12 core 5900x to an 8 core 7800x3d and I'm not noticing a performance hit in DXO PL or Photoshop.

 

[xenon20]

Undervolting and power limiting are more common than overclocking nowadays

Ryzen CPUs are twitchy if you go too far, so I wouldn't do it, especially if you value stability due to your work.

Because I'm not really that bothered about OC'ing and from your statements above, does this mean that if I were to buy another Ryzen CPU then a non-X chip would be better suited for me?

 

[Tetras]

Because I'm not really that bothered about OC'ing and from your statements above, does this mean that if I were to buy another Ryzen CPU then a non-X chip would be better suited for me?

There's a small (a few percent) performance difference at stock between the X/non-X CPUs, but (with AM5) the X CPUs usually don't include a cooler, whereas the non-X CPUs do.

With the 7000 series I'd probably get the non-X just for the spare cooler, unless the X was cheaper.

The 9000 series CPUs don't have a non-X CPU yet anyway.

 

[xenon20]

Still debating.

Single thread performance over multi.

Looks like the i7-13700KF is a good price at the moment (£289) for a thread/cpu mark of 4348/46209.

Obviously hesitant because of the current Intel scenario, read that most MB manufacturers have BIOS updates or will have.

Is the situation blown out of proportion? would you buy intel 13th or 14th gen right now?

Is the thread mark of 4348 based on max performance with an OC? Does it make sense to buy this chip if I decided not to overclock it?

Looks like the best (reasonable value) Ryzen alternative would be the R7-9700X for £339 (4489/37489)

What motherboard would you pair with either chip that has PCIe 5.0 & 4.0 M.2 that is reasonably priced?

 

[Tetras]

Is the thread mark of 4348 based on max performance with an OC?

When you submit a sample to PassMark, I don't know if their software checks for stock operation of the CPU.

I would assume that the majority of the samples are considered 'stock', based on how most motherboards are configured "out the box" (i.e. no overclock on the CPU, but it would have been able to boost forever).

I'd be reluctant to make any buying decisions based on these numbers alone, it is always best to check results for your specific workload(s) from popular reviewers rather than rely on a synthetic benchmark.

would you buy intel 13th or 14th gen right now?

No. I don't want a CPU that could be silently degrading and have a lifespan less than previous Intel/AMD CPUs which can last 10+ years.

RMAs are also a hassle I don't want/need, even if Intel honours it for the full 5-year extended warranty period.

Is the situation blown out of proportion?

It is hard to say. I know that some users definitely have had problems, some users have had BIG problems (e.g. multiple faulty CPUs) and some users have had zero problems.

I do believe the accounts reported by GN and L1Techs, but, since those large users may have had most of their CPUs from the same faulty batch(es), I don't know how meaningful they are for the reliability/stability of Intel CPUs in general.

What motherboard would you pair with either chip that has PCIe 5.0 & 4.0 M.2 that is reasonably priced?

I can't remember if you have any specific requirements, but assuming just PCI-E 5.0 and 4x M.2 slots, then the TUF X670E-Plus is the cheapest X670E board I can see @ OCUK. It looks like the X670E Gaming Plus (MSI) is one of the cheapest available so that is worth considering too.

For Intel, lots of boards are out of stock, but probably the Z790 Aorus Elite X AX. It did nicely in HUB's recent roundup, has "out of the box" compatibility with 14th gen and has been upgraded to 8-layers from the non-X board.