Wait for DDR 5, or build a DDR 4 4000 Mhz system?

Lack of response is probably because rocket lake doesn’t really change much for AMD and given the leaked pricing they don’t really need to adjust anything either... perhaps there will be a few price cuts (or at least more cost effective non-X SKUs) once RL actually launches but with demand/supply as it currently is they can’t keep stuff on the shelf anyway so probably feel little need to adjust any price strategy yet.

Warhol likely to come this fall to help fend off Alder Lake until Zen 4. I wonder how they will stack up when the rumours point to it being a fairly minor refresh, while Alder Lake is looking like a fairly decent step forward (with all the new toys!). Perhaps given the discussion it may actually find DDR5 a handicap initially...

Perhaps Warhol will stay on AM4 or at least DDR4/Pcie4.0 and thus end up the value option vs Alder Lake... who knows!
 
Zeeflyboy said:
Lack of response is probably because rocket lake doesn’t really change much for AMD and given the leaked pricing they don’t really need to adjust anything either... perhaps there will be a few price cuts (or at least more cost effective non-X SKUs) once RL actually launches but with demand/supply as it currently is they can’t keep stuff on the shelf anyway so probably feel little need to adjust.

Warhol likely to come to help fend off Alder Lake until Zen 4, but I wonder how they will stack up when the rumours point to it being a fairly minor refresh but Alder Lake is looking like a fairly decent step forward.

Perhaps Warhol will stay on AM4 or at least DDR4/Pcie4.0 and thus end up the value option vs Alder Lake... who knows!
Click to expand...

Alder Lake offers around 19% higher IPC vs Rocket Lake, according to Intel. Perhaps we will still some higher clocked, high tier models too?

The thing is, Alder Lake isn't coming this year, Intel are behind on their server processor platforms and still haven't released the Ice Lake SP yet. I think we won't see Alder Lake until the Sapphire Rapids launch (uses the same 10nm SuperFin enhanced fab. process as Alder Lake).

Therefore, AMD doesn't need to release a competitor this year.
 
Last edited:
Last rumours (admittedly not particularly recent) I saw pointed to Q4 for Alderlake, but we all know Intel hasn’t exactly been running on time lately and ultimately rumours are just rumours at the end of the day! Either way if it launches before Zen4 then Warhol will be left to fight it until then.

Anyway, I personally don’t think rocket lake changes anything for AMD really - hence the perceived lack of reaction. We’ll see how it fares when it actually launches.
 
Either way, waiting for Rocket Lake's launch + possible reaction from AMD seems to be the way to go.

A large price reduction in the Ryzen 5800x (or a cheaper 8 core variant) would sway me towards an AMD system probably.
 
It looks like the +20% IPC claim for Rocket Lake CPUs is true based on this:

4-1080.52b7b315.png


The 10700K get's ~558 points in the single threaded CPUz benchmark, 20% lower than the 11700K, apparently running at multiplier of 49 (therefore 4.9ghz). The 11700K ST score appears to be slightly ahead of the 5800x.

The multithreaded score of 6377.2 is bit lower than the 5800x score of 6593.

This is taken from the retail version of the 11700K, rather than the lower scoring engineering samples seen on some early reviews.

Link here:
https://www.computerbase.de/2021-02/pr-gau-intel-core-i7-11700k-handel/
 
Last edited:
g67575 said:
I recently brought a RTX 3070 FE and it's a bit of a beast for gaming, compared to my previous AMD R9 390, but it seems held back a bit by the slow DDR 3 RAM (maybe 4 core CPU too).
Click to expand...

No idea why people wait so long for what could be a cheap stop gap update.

Just buy a 10400f (~£120), cheap H/B series board (~£70), and the cheapest 3000MHz+ DDR4 you can get 2x 8GB (~£60). Sell you old gear for probably around £100, total cost less then £150.

There's no need to spend big money you are happy to spend £500 on a GPU, yet struggle with old tat in the rest of the system.
 
Journey said:
No idea why people wait so long for what could be a cheap stop gap update.

Just buy a 10400f (~£120), cheap H/B series board (~£70), and the cheapest 3000MHz+ DDR4 you can get 2x 8GB (~£60). Sell you old gear for probably around £100, total cost less then £150.

There's no need to spend big money you are happy to spend £500 on a GPU, yet struggle with old tat in the rest of the system.
Click to expand...

This pretty much.

I can’t see another release fromAMD or intel this year. Neither company has fully released their current generation yet and they re flying off the shelves currently.
 
Yeah, I'll probably go with a 11700F if the price is reasonable and they are in stock. No point buying Comet Lake at this point. Need a half decent upgrade (at least 8 cores) from a 4770K, to make it worthwhile.

It does seem like a waisted opportunity for the 11th gen, if there's no 10nm CPUs this year (based on Tiger Lake / Super Fin transistors), considering the technology exists but will only being used in octa core laptops.

When you add up the IPC gains from Haswell to Alder Lake, it actually only comes to around 50-55%...
 
Last edited:
g67575 said:
Yeah, I'll probably go with a 11700F if the price is reasonable and they are in stock. No point buying Comet Lake at this point. Need a half decent upgrade (at least 8 cores) from a 4770K, to make it worthwhile.
Click to expand...

How/why do you know you need at least 8 cores to make it worthwhile? What will the 11700F offer over the 11400f or the 10400f. Are you doing something that needs 8 cores? The CPU alone will be £300 for an 11700F (minimum) that is more than the total cost of the parts I suggested above.

Making a large but incremental change gives you the opportunity to see if your assumptions about the next generations platforms become true, and if so smart move, you can drop in a fast/higher core count 10/11th Gen CPU when you need to either new or second hand, and you'll end up spending almost the same over the course of 12-36 months, and if the assumptions are completely way off you haven't overinvested and can swap to the newer superior platform and recoup a lot of the cost you already have made.

It hard when you only have first hand experience with an older platform, and the rest it theoretical knowledge, and data gathered from third parties and people telling you that you should be getting 8 core minimum etc. Hands on real world experience will show you that most of time people struggle to tell the difference between one system and another in a blind test unless the differences are in the extreme. :)
 
The naked eye isn't going to notice the difference between the 10400f, 11400f, 11700f or say 5600x when running a 3070 on a 4k monitor in games. The fps will be gpu bound, the big difference is in production apps. The 11700f should last many years gaming at 4k, but a 11400f should do very well. If budget isn't an issue then get the 11700f. If budget is more of an issue wait for the 11400f and put the savings compared to the 11700f towards the next gpu upgrade. When they are out, going to a nvidia 4070 from a 3070 should be a much bigger upgrade than say a 11400f to 11700f. https://youtu.be/AlfwXqODqp4?t=1470
 
There's some situations where your PC might benefit from 8 CPU cores, like Cyberpunk 2077, or Total War games like Warhammer II.

xxJ2hsYaDZZbTTAeNpR33o-970-80.png

8 or more cores can be useful for other tasks too like game development in UE4.

6 core CPUs are tempting from a price point of view though. But based on the graph above, I'd probably look for a 5600X as a minimum, due to high ST performance. I think the 5600x and 5800x prices will come down a bit when RL is released.

Sorry, I said the C word :D
 
Last edited:
There are definitely games that benefit from 8 cores compared to 6 when gaming at 1080p. If you want to get the most out of your 4k monitor a 11400f with an upgraded GPU rather than an upgraded cpu eg 5600x and the 3070 is the way forward.

https://youtu.be/U0Ay8rMdFAg?t=631

Of course you can use dlss ultra performance to give a good increase to fps in some games like Cyberpunk, but I understand that some people are saying that using dlss at this setting results in worse looking graphics than native resolution. It depends on what impacts on your personal level of game play enjoyment
 
Last edited:
The RTX 3070 isn't really suited for Ray Tracing imo, unless they find a way to magically improve the performance with DLSS. I think you can play WD Legions on RT medium if you have a decent CPU + RAM as well, and it actually looks really good...
 
g67575 said:
Which of you guys are waiting to upgrade to a DDR5 system in 2022?

Who is still using DDR3 RAM?​
Click to expand...
I still use DDR3 and with what must be a 10 year old CPU as every time I look at a new build it seems like a waste of money with nothing worthwhile to upgrade to. I know there are better CPUs but it seems like a lot of money for very little overall gain. EDI: I am well overdue an upgrade just have no idea what to upgrade to.
 
Last edited:
The fastest CPUs nowadays have approx. 2.3x the single threaded performance of the fastest 1st generation Core CPU (i7 950). For example, the 5800x gets a score of 650, vs the i7 950's score of 278. Link here:
https://valid.x86.fr/bench/60vs0l/1

From this perspective, you could say progress has been a bit slow, I think Intel's (very) delayed desktop adoption of 10nm is partly to blame - Apparently the multi-patterning of the 10nm fab. process caused a lot of problems with production (high failure rates) back in 2018. They chose multi-patterning in favour of EUV lithography apparently, unlike TSMC's 5nm fab. process.

The multicore speed of 1st gen. i7s is many times slower than 6/8 core Rocket Lake or Zen 3 CPUs, however.
 
Last edited:
g67575 said:
The fastest CPUs nowadays have approx. 2.3x the single threaded performance of the fastest 1st generation Core CPU (i7 950). For example, the 5800x gets a score of 650, vs the i7 950's score of 278. Link here:
https://valid.x86.fr/bench/60vs0l/1

From this perspective, you could say progress has been a bit slow, I think Intel's (very) delayed desktop adoption of 10nm is partly to blame - Apparently the multi-patterning of the 10nm fab. process caused a lot of problems with production (high failure rates) back in 2018. They chose multi-patterning in favour of EUV lithography apparently, unlike TSMC's 5nm fab. process.

The multicore speed of 1st gen. i7s is many times slower than 6/8 core Rocket Lake or Zen 3 CPUs, however.
Click to expand...
Rocket Lake if they turn out to be as good as they look might be the first CPU in 10 years that is worth upgrading to. Thank you for pointing me in that direction. I will have to read up on them. The 11900K looks like it might be a worth while upgrade on my 10year old CPU. Everything before this generation seems to offer very little for the cost.
 
Pottsey said:
The 11900K looks like it might be a worth while upgrade on my 10year old CPU. Everything before this generation seems to offer very little for the cost.
Click to expand...

$599 US, so £520-550 here, I don't see that as a great deal for 8c/16t, the 11700K is the same CPU just clocked lower out of the box, and is only ~£420, I say only that is still more than a 5800X which from the look of things is still going to be faster in almost every application unless you need AVx-512. :)
 
Pottsey said:
I still use DDR3 and with what must be a 10 year old CPU as every time I look at a new build it seems like a waste of money with nothing worthwhile to upgrade to. I know there are better CPUs but it seems like a lot of money for very little overall gain. EDI: I am well overdue an upgrade just have no idea what to upgrade to.
Click to expand...

If the computer does what you want it to do there isn't any need to upgrade. I found going from my i2500k to the Ryzen 5600x makes everything quicker and smoother from using the web to playing recent games, however, the i2500k could still do a lot of what I wanted
 
I think of the most noticeable benefits is install time of Windows updates and software. My desktop machine can install updates much quicker, without the CPU being overwhelmed, like on several laptops I've used. I expect install times to reduce further with a new 6/8 core CPU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom