PC Build Time Upgrade from 5930k What's the Best of the Best?

Associate
Joined
30 Aug 2014
Posts
702
I'm trying to get a components list going for a new PC build.

I have been hoping to upgrade every year for the last few years but never actually done it I believe now is the right time.

Build is for production work... music and videos. I would also say game but the 3090 handles every game fine even on an old CPU so what's the point.

Components that will be transferred:

Superflower 1200w modular PSU,
RTX 3090,
All SSDs.

I am also downsizing my case from the Phanteks Enthoo Primo... it's way too big and heavy.

I'm thinking of going for Ryzen 7950x because of longevity. I have looked at stats on this vs Intel and Intel is always better... which is how it was back in the day. AMD just can't keep up... but the AM5 socket has more longevity. Even if Intel beats it now the 8950x will beat the 14900k. Also I think even if 14900k is better it's not THAT MUCH better right?

These are the components I found at the moment:


I'm confused about the motherboard and RAM. I need 64gb RAM... I'm on 32gb at the moment and get close to maxing it. This latency thing... does it even matter for production work? Is it a bad idea to get CL36 @ 5600 when there is these available:


Why can't I have 32gb sticks I don't like the idea of filling all RAM slots with smaller capacity modules. Also on the mobo page it says "4 x DIMM, Max. 128GB, DDR5 5200MHz"... max 5200? So 6600 won't even make a difference?

Also not even sure about the mobo... I made a list of a few that caught my eye:

MSI Pro X670-P WIFI
Asrock X670E Pro RS (5 M.2 Slots)
MSI MPG X670E Carbon WIFI - £433
Gigabyte X670E Aorus Master - £455
Asus ROG Crosshair X670E Hero (4+2 M.2 slots) - £550
MSI MEG X670E Ace
Gigabyte X670E Aorus Xtreme

The last few are stupid money, but the list was base on amount of M.2 and SATA slots. At least 4 M.2 and 6 SATA slots. I plan on keeping the mobo and RAM for a good length of time but popping whatever latest AMD chip comes out in.

The idea of having 1 M.2 for Windows, then 3 more M.2s at 4tb each for music VSTs and samples is so cool. No messing about with SATA cables. Games can stay on SATA they don't deserve m.2.

Also what's the go-to AIO cooler these days that also looks the part?

Black Friday is close hoping for some good deals. Don't have to buy all the parts at once.

Thanks.
 
I wouldn't bother with the 7950x, the 3D cache of a 7x00X3D will likely outlast it. Besides come 2026 or perhaps even 2027/8 you'll be putting in an 8000 or 9000 series CPU if, as expected, AMD continue to support AM5 for 3-4 years and that outlay on the 7950x will have been wasted for very little gain. Or if you are dead-set on the 7950 at least spend the extra on the X3D but I still think it's a bit OTT. IMO the 7800X3D appears to be the best value there.
 
I wouldn't bother with the 7950x, the 3D cache of a 7x00X3D will likely outlast it. Besides come 2026 or perhaps even 2027/8 you'll be putting in an 8000 or 9000 series CPU if, as expected, AMD continue to support AM5 for 3-4 years and that outlay on the 7950x will have been wasted for very little gain. Or if you are dead-set on the 7950 at least spend the extra on the X3D but I still think it's a bit OTT. IMO the 7800X3D appears to be the best value there.
I can get the 7950X3D... they dropped the price to old 7950x price @ £569


But the reason I chose 7950x is that it's showed to perform better than the X3D in non-gaming benchmarks.
 
I can get the 7950X3D... they dropped the price to old 7950x price @ £569


But the reason I chose 7950x is that it's showed to perform better than the X3D in non-gaming benchmarks.
Sounds like you've already convinced yourself so it's unlikely anyone here can change that. go for the 7950x3D.
 
CPUs are in a bit of a weird place currently, there isn't really a best of the best. The x3D chips put up strong gaming performance but at 1440p upwards there isn't much in it between any of the top CPUs specific games aside where one or other is way out ahead. In more general tasks they can fall down the rankings quite a bit. The X chips can put up impressive performance in productivity tasks but fall down the ranks a bit in gaming.

The Intel 13900/14900 put up strong performance but you pay quite a bit for performance that isn't really outstanding compared to the rest of the pack, and not always ahead of quite a bit cheaper chips in some tasks.

I'm not convinced personally buying into AM5 will necessarily pay off longevity wise maybe it will, maybe it won't, though LGA1700 is definitely a dead end.

Personally, and what I went for, I think the 14700K gives the best balance of performance while not costing as much as the top chips, though that isn't really what you asked for. It is generally mixing it up with the more expensive chips and not far behind when it isn't.

Then there are considerations like PCI-e lane requirements and support for PCI-e 5.0, etc.
 
Last edited:
Build is for production work... music and videos.

AMD have just released their Threadripper 7000 CPUs. If your applications can make use of the cores and RAM and you have the budget then it's a no-brainer.



Of particular interest to you may be the additional RAM capacity which you will be able to use for music samples and video processing. Ryzen has problems with more than 64 GB (2x 32 GB) or 96 GB RAM (2x 48 GB), but Threadripper can cope with 1 TB (4x 256 GB) and Threadripper Pro will be able to cope with more. Check out Neil Parfitt, a composer who uses an x86 Mac Pro who started with 384 GB RAM and later upgraded to much more.

OCUK have a business arm which may be better suited to providing you a Threadripper solution.
 
I'm confused about the motherboard and RAM. I need 64gb RAM... I'm on 32gb at the moment and get close to maxing it. This latency thing... does it even matter for production work? Is it a bad idea to get CL36 @ 5600 when there is these available:


Why can't I have 32gb sticks I don't like the idea of filling all RAM slots with smaller capacity modules. Also on the mobo page it says "4 x DIMM, Max. 128GB, DDR5 5200MHz"... max 5200? So 6600 won't even make a difference?
4 sticks have been problematic since release, AMD only guarantees DDR5-3600 for 4 sticks even if they're single rank (8GB or 16GB).

The official max for Zen 4 is 5200, but I doubt you're going to run at stock, no?

The actual max capacity for AM5 is 192GB, but some of the specs haven't been updated yet:

 
I wouldn't bother with the 7950x, the 3D cache of a 7x00X3D will likely outlast it. Besides come 2026 or perhaps even 2027/8 you'll be putting in an 8000 or 9000 series CPU if, as expected, AMD continue to support AM5 for 3-4 years and that outlay on the 7950x will have been wasted for very little gain. Or if you are dead-set on the 7950 at least spend the extra on the X3D but I still think it's a bit OTT. IMO the 7800X3D appears to be the best value there.
The 7950X is faster for production work, the 3D cache is not that helpful for most loads, but extra frequency is.
 
4 sticks have been problematic since release, AMD only guarantees DDR5-3600 for 4 sticks even if they're single rank (8GB or 16GB).

The official max for Zen 4 is 5200, but I doubt you're going to run at stock, no?

The actual max capacity for AM5 is 192GB, but some of the specs haven't been updated yet:

What does it mean when it says 5200 stock but 6000 OC? Does OC mean simply going into the bios and selecting a higher EXPO setting? I hear people on Youtube saying 6000 is optimum for AM5 which is why it doesn't make sense to read max 5200.

Also realistically does RAM speed matter for production work? 5600MHz and CL40 is common for 32gb sticks.
 
Also I don't need insane XEON/Threadripper power... I just want something substantially better than what I got... but also being the best either AMD or Intel have to offer. Budget is 1-2k for the lot including CPU cooler.

Realistically how much better would 7950x/x3d be than a 2014 5930k? Considering the time gap I'm expecting at least 4x the performance?
 
What does it mean when it says 5200 stock but 6000 OC? Does OC mean simply going into the bios and selecting a higher EXPO setting? I hear people on Youtube saying 6000 is optimum for AM5 which is why it doesn't make sense to read max 5200.
AMD's officially supported speed for 2 sticks is 5200 @ JEDEC timings/voltage. Anything else is an overclock of the CPU's memory controller. EXPO is a semi-automated (in theory, one click to enable in the BIOS) overclocking profile for your memory, but while your motherboard and memory might be rated to operate at 6000 (or whatever), the CPU is not.

AMD themselves said 6000 was optimal for Ryzen 7000 and prior to the recent AGESA updates that unlocked higher speeds, it was difficult to run Ryzen CPUs much above 6200/6400.

If you want higher than 5200, it is difficult to do without EXPO, because manual tuning is not just DRAM frequency and voltage anymore.

Also realistically does RAM speed matter for production work? 5600MHz and CL40 is common for 32gb sticks.
Depends on what you're doing, see the benchmarks at Puget, here:


Realistically how much better would 7950x/x3d be than a 2014 5930k? Considering the time gap I'm expecting at least 4x the performance?
This is a very rough guide, but not far from the truth when heavily multithreaded.
 
Depends on what you're doing, see the benchmarks at Puget, here:


This article has answered the RAM question... solely by mentioning:

G.Skill Trident Z5 RGB 64GB 6400MHz CL32 DDR5 Memory​


OCUK doesn't stock these so I didn't even know they existed. It's a no brainer at £220 to go for the G Skill and clock it at 6000MHz.

Also the power draw on the 7950X3D is so much lower than the 7950x it looks like a better choice... even if it performs slightly worse in benchmarks.

Still not sure on the mobo though.
 
It's a no brainer at £220 to go for the G Skill and clock it at 6000MHz.
Keep in mind some of these sticks only have 1 XMP/EXPO profile programmed and depending on the board, it can be a pain to do this manually.

From the Puget article, if you missed it:
However, the tradeoff for that increased performance is the potential for decreased system stability. In our experience, attempting to push higher frequencies and lower timings can result in a higher likelihood of Windows BSODs and applications crashing. A great example is what we saw when using the DDR5-6400 RAM on AMD. Although we have seen others use that fast of memory – you can even buy AMD EXPO kits for it – we couldn’t get it to work while running any content creation applications. While this is acceptable for many enthusiasts, as they are more willing to tinker with timings and voltages to get to a point of sufficient stability, as workstation manufacturers, it is not something we can endorse right now if you need your system to be a reliable part of your workflow.
 
Keep in mind some of these sticks only have 1 XMP/EXPO profile programmed and depending on the board, it can be a pain to do this manually.

From the Puget article, if you missed it:
Yup I was going to keep it at 6000MHz for stability. Seems like a better idea to downclock a 6400MHz chip than OC a 5600MHz one to 6000.
 
Back
Top Bottom