|
Not Wolverine posted:So, the market for the Core i7-11700K is users who want 8 cores and 16 threads, have a budget for a top of the line CPU, need maximum single core performance for MAX FRAMEZZZ in single threaded games from 2-3 years ago, and have no need for multi-core performance. The only meaningful use I can think of for this turd is to be able to run your 5950 stock checking bot faster than everybody else, assuming that even is a single threaded task. Can you please list those magical multi-threaded games.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2020 15:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:14 |
|
|
MikusR posted:Can you please list those magical multi-threaded games. ..and that's about it, really. A lot of engines put subroutines like resource allocation, networking, and a bunch of other things in separate threads - which does help some. Multithreading is still insanely hard to get right, even with threading sanitizers like in LLVM - assuming game developers use tools like that. BlankSystemDaemon fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Dec 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2020 15:54
|
|
|
Notably, Cyberpunk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2020 16:07
|
|
|
Not Wolverine posted:So, the market for the Core i7-11700K is users who want 8 cores and 16 threads, have a budget for a top of the line CPU, need maximum single core performance for MAX FRAMEZZZ in single threaded games from 2-3 years ago, and have no need for multi-core performance. The only meaningful use I can think of for this turd is to be able to run your 5950 stock checking bot faster than everybody else, assuming that even is a single threaded task. Your bot could definitely be multi-threaded, a thread for each site you're checking
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2020 16:27
|
|
|
Some Goon posted:Notably, Cyberpunk. The kind of multithreading I'm talking about is taking something that normally runs on one thread and parallelizing it; ie. how video encoding and decoding used to be thought impossible to do single-threaded, but it turns out that assumption is wrong, which is why you don't need a 6GHz CPU to handle h265 in software.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
MikusR posted:Can you please list those magical multi-threaded games. Yes, it's true some games will still achieve higher frame rates with single threads, yet more and more games today are making use of multiple cores. The Xbox 360 had a 3 core PPC CPU, the PS3 had a 7 core
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2020 19:55
|
|
|
Not Wolverine posted:Let me Google that for you. Never mind 8c/16t, how many games see significant performance scaling past 4c/8t?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
BlankSystemDaemon posted:I haven't had time to examine it with dtrace, but from what little I've seen I get the impression that it's doing what other games do, ie. separating things in their own threads - which does make use of multiple threads on an SMP system, but a sufficiently fast UP system can make up for it. You'll never get that kind of parallelization since games are linear with respect to time, whereas you can encode or decode multiple sections of a video file at once. Games are going to be constrained by the speed of the thread their main loop is running in, but games that are designed for it will expect there to be multiple threads to process things in parallel on and will get bogged down if you try to cram 6x the work into the one thread, it's not something you're going to cover with clockspeed alone. At launch Cyberpunk poo poo the bed when running on a processor without enough threads; fast 4C/4T CPUs have been showing this weakness for years now, Cyberpunk takes it to the next level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
Arzachel posted:Never mind 8c/16t, how many games see significant performance scaling past 4c/8t? PS4 / XB1 had low power E: for some reason I thought the cat cores were derivatives of the construction cores, upon further inspection they are not. Even shittier then. Fantastic Foreskin fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Dec 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
They were not even bulldozer derived, but Jaguar-ish small low power cores on the level of Intel's Atom CPUs
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
The framing of “single-thread only matters if games use literally one single thread” is false. Virtually all games are single-thread bound even when they use multiple threads. (In fact, given sufficient threads, all multi-threaded programs are single-thread bound, that’s what Amdahl’s law says.) (The more correct phrasing is per-thread performance, not single-thread performance, which isn’t strictly the same thing but 99.9% of the time “performance per thread at all core load” is what someone means by single-threaded performance , not actual 1T performance. In the case of true 1T performance, that hasn’t mattered for a long time, like a decade now.) There’s no reason to beat around the bush or add qualifiers, Rocket Lake will be the fastest gaming CPU on DDR4, period. And titles where it does win will be more about Zen3’s giant cache than thread count. To some extent that doesn’t matter, because your real framerate in games is “min(CPU_FPS,GPU_FPS)” so in many situations if you’re playing at ultra settings you’re going to be GPU-bottlenecked. But that’s a completely separate issue from “rocket lake will only win in single-threaded games”, which is false. On the other hand there are titles where CPU performance actually does matter, BF:V for instance was very hard to get to a locked 144 FPS, Zen2 was single-thread bound/bottlenecked in the 115 FPS range - despite the game happily using 6+ cores. And it’s a title where you don’t just open-palm slam everything to ultra settings, it’s a competitive title and you want to maintain a high framerate, despite it being very CPU-intensive. It's not uncommon to run medium settings there. COD probably is another example where you don't just run max-everything. As far as Rocket Lake more generally: I doubt that Intel is going to budge from their traditional set-points on the pricing tiers for i3, i5, i7, etc. The i9 is going to be kind of a “y tho” SKU because the only thing it brings you over the i7 is Thermal Velocity Boost when that only matters under specific narrow circumstances (CPU is under 70C) and you could just manually overclock anyway for better results. So the i7 is likely to be a very good 5600X/5800X competitor - for an extra $25 over the 5600X you get 2 more cores (more future proof) and faster gaming performance, and it will outperform the 5800X at $75 cheaper. The downside will of course be that it’s more difficult to cool and will require a more expensive motherboard. Under non-stress test conditions the disadvantage isn’t going to be all that bad, but they simply won’t be as efficient as AMD’s 7nm processors. The motherboards wind up being maybe $50 more expensive than AMD to account for better VRMs/etc (the sub-$100 tier of AMD motherboards are bad and shouldn’t be used as a comparison for a high-end rig), and the cooler is a wash nowadays since AMD is done with giving you a decent free box cooler (5600X is now the lovely low profile cooler that doesn’t work well, box coolers are removed from all other SKUs). (And I’m going to note right upfront that Prime95-based stress tests for power/thermals are going to be lol at gaming clocks because of the AVX-512. Gaming is way, way less intensive than Prime95 in general but that delta is getting wider and wider as the AVX cores get wider and wider. Intel has AVX offsets configured to keep this under control but people insist on turning them off and that’s going to be lol with gaming clocks and doubled/quadrupled AVX units.) So basically net-effect it does carve out a bit of the price advantage but it’s still likely that AMD is going to come out a little more expensive for a slower (but more efficient) product. It is quite probable that AMD will be forced to lower prices (or release the 5600 / 5700X SKUs) in response. We’ll see how low they are willing to go with everything insta-selling out anyway, but they’ll probably launch something to help steal Intel’s thunder a bit, I think. The biggest problems with Rocket Lake isn’t really the numbers though, it’s the intangibles. This should have been launched <6 months after Zen2 to keep the performance edge. I realize it’s ready when it’s ready and that backporting takes time, but Ice Lake launched in that timeframe and this is essentially 14nm Ice Lake (it’s technically Tiger Lake minus the cache changes - but cache changes were the major change from Ice to Tiger Lake). If they had launched back then they could have held a 30% lead over AMD gaming performance and that would have been a marketing story that they could work with. Instead, they are launching 6 months after AMD leapfrogged them, and only leapfrogging it back by a small amount, with a more power-hungry processor. On top of that it’s only i7 and i9 that are getting Rocket Lake. Lower SKUs are going to be Comet Lake refreshes. So no PCIe4, no NVMe lanes, slower gaming performance, etc. The i7 is basically the only SKU to care about imo. And in general the processors are all fast enough nowadays. Rocket Lake is only like 8% faster than Zen3 which is only like 8% faster than the 14++ Lakes. This isn’t 14++ Lakes vs Zen1 anymore, it’s kinda this-that-or-the-other as far as buying a gaming processor. Availability and relative pricing is kinda gonna determine which you get. If AMD can get a 5600/5700X and keep it on shelves that’s fine, if intel can keep this on shelves that’s fine too. I don't think either Rocket Lake or Zen3 are worth having waited 3 years from the 8700K launch, for basically 15% improvement in gaming at iso-price. The best move still remains having shut up and paid Intel the asking price for the 8700K and just riding it until second-gen DDR5. I waited for the 9900K and I think even that was a mixed bag considering the bump to the $475 price point and the extra year it took. If you are doing heavy productivity work regularly then AMD probably remains the best game in town. The margin may be eroded a bit by AVX-512, tasks like Blender and x265 do benefit from it, but probably not to the extent that the 11700K beats the 5900X. It may shift the math on the 5600X/5800X or 3900X though. That said, that’s really not a lot of consumers compared to gaming. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Dec 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
Not Wolverine posted:Let me Google that for you. Basically all of this is wrong but I liked the smug “let me google that for you” that included a link to a quora page.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2020 21:34
|
|
|
Not Wolverine posted:So, the market for the Core i7-11700K is users who want 8 cores and 16 threads, have a budget for a top of the line CPU, need maximum single core performance for MAX FRAMEZZZ in single threaded games from 2-3 years ago, and have no need for multi-core performance. The only meaningful use I can think of for this turd is to be able to run your 5950 stock checking bot faster than everybody else, assuming that even is a single threaded task. People who'd prefer not to scour the internet for beta AGESA patches and wrestle with half-baked Bioses. Intel just need to bump max XMP speeds to 3200 or so on the midrange (B?) boards, and I'm on board for an 11500 or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
sauer kraut posted:People who'd prefer not to scour the internet for beta AGESA patches and wrestle with half-baked Bioses. actually rumor is B-series boards are going to be memory unlocked entirely
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
sauer kraut posted:People who'd prefer not to scour the internet for beta AGESA patches and wrestle with half-baked Bioses. Whats all this business? I was hitting 3200 on my last 8700K easily.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2020 00:32
|
|
|
redeyes posted:Whats all this business? I was hitting 3200 on my last 8700K easily. H and B series boards for 10th gen are locked at like 2666 Mhz on an i5 or lower and 2933 Mhz on an i7 You need a Z series board for full memory tuning
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2020 00:35
|
|
|
redeyes posted:Whats all this business? I was hitting 3200 on my last 8700K easily. Only the Z series motherboards will let ram clock that high, lower end ones are limited to Intel's spec for the processor. Efb
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2020 00:35
|
|
|
!E-e-e-mpirical Combo! /KillerInstictMCvoice Can't argue with that! ... though, ah, wow. You know that adage about not saying anything at all if you can't say something nice? There's a close analogy here. (Hint: You don't need to Google to know it's not about nicety.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2020 02:12
|
|
|
I'm sorry people are so butt hurt about the fact that "magical" multi thread games not only exist, but exist to a point where Sony and Microsoft are investing in more and more cores in consoles. That's not my fault, I couldn't convince MS and Sony to do that even I wanted to.Paul MaudDib posted:There’s no reason to beat around the bush or add qualifiers, Rocket Lake will be the fastest gaming CPU on DDR4, period. *Qualifier* And titles where it does win will be more about Zen3’s giant cache than thread count.  I think this CPU is probably going to be held back by thermals. But hell, let Intel regain the coveted top spot, AMD is charging premium prices right now and will drop back down to reasonable levels if Intel releases a gamer chip.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2020 05:06
|
|
|
Not Wolverine posted:I'm sorry people are so butt hurt about the fact that "magical" multi thread games not only exist, but exist to a point where Sony and Microsoft are investing in more and more cores in consoles. That's not my fault, I couldn't convince MS and Sony to do that even I wanted to. I'm sure there will be some titles that have a design that massively benefits from more cores. There are one or two out there right now that benchmark significantly better on 12/16c. But it won't be most games, and it's especially not the type of game people tend to chase 240 fps minimums in. Although with consoles getting far more powerful CPUs and desktops getting beefier as well we might see some grander scale game designs come into existence this decade. I have a 3900x and have had no issues with it. Prior to that I had a 3770k which is still a good gaming CPU (~35% slower than zen3/modern Intel CPUs in games that run identical on 4c to 6c/8c). I've no loyalty or aversion to either company when it comes to cpus. Intel and AMD are both great choices right now so buy the one that has a cheaper motherboard+CPU combo at the feature+performance level you need. Availability may also be a deciding factor for people who want an immediate upgrade. Khorne fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Dec 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2020 05:21
|
|
|
Not Wolverine posted:I'm sorry people are so butt hurt about the fact that "magical" multi thread games not only exist, but exist to a point where Sony and Microsoft are investing in more and more cores in consoles. That's not my fault, I couldn't convince MS and Sony to do that even I wanted to. And still none are named. Also for some reason Sony and Microsoft went with much faster Zen cores instead of 32 Jaguar ones. It seems that the only ones that could from moar cores are games with many Ai players or Chess/Go (but these are moving to GPU accelerated neuralnets) CatHorse fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Dec 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2020 09:28
|
|
|
I mean, the 10700K already matches or slightly beats the 5800x in averaged gaming performance on most review sites/tubes? It's hardly outlandish to think Intel might retake The Gaming Crown with the 11th gen. What exactly is the argument here, that you need 12 cores for gaming? Your per-thread performance is going to limit you far before your core count does, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2020 10:38
|
|
|
sauer kraut posted:People who'd prefer not to scour the internet for beta AGESA patches and wrestle with half-baked Bioses. Wait, are B-series boards seriously still locked to 2933?!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2020 10:42
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:Wait, are B-series boards seriously still locked to 2933?! And 2666 on the 10600 and below! Shrimp or Shrimps posted:I mean, the 10700K already matches or slightly beats the 5800x in averaged gaming performance on most review sites/tubes? It's hardly outlandish to think Intel might retake The Gaming Crown with the 11th gen. What exactly is the argument here, that you need 12 cores for gaming? Your per-thread performance is going to limit you far before your core count does, anyway. You'll have to link some benches, Comet Lake struggles to keep up in everything except RDR2 as far as I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2020 11:58
|
|
|
Arzachel posted:You'll have to link some benches, Comet Lake struggles to keep up in everything except RDR2 as far as I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2020 12:45
|
|
|
TPU has it a little faster: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x/16.html Off the top of my head HBU had it only a little slower than the 5800x, like 5% or something. So I should have been more clear in my previous post, either slightly beating or slighting losing to. Either way, the original point that wolverine guy made that the 11700k would be a poo poo purchase for gaming and he inferred that a 5900x would be better because "lol only 8c/16t can only run 3 year old games" when by the time an 11700k can't run a game, the 5900x won't be doing much better. Shrimp or Shrimps fucked around with this message at 13:02 on Dec 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2020 12:56
|
|
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:they trade blows, where are you seeing zen3 overtaking every title bar RDR2? Gamers Nexus, specifically their tuned 5600x vs 10600k comparison. Shrimp or Shrimps posted:TPU has it a little faster: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x/16.html Off the top of my head HBU had it only a little slower than the 5800x, like 5% or something. So I should have been more clear in my previous post, either slightly beating or slighting losing to. Yeah, the margins are small but that's expected when low double digit performance increases are considered a big deal nowadays. Fully agreed that getting >8c/16t CPU purely for gaming is silly though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2020 13:24
|
|
|
Shrimp or Shrimps posted:Either way, the original point that wolverine guy made that the 11700k would be a poo poo purchase for gaming and he inferred that a 5900x would be better because "lol only 8c/16t can only run 3 year old games" when by the time an 11700k can't run a game, the 5900x won't be doing much better. Not Wolverine posted:So, the market for the Core i7-11700K is users who want 8 cores and 16 threads, have a budget for a top of the line CPU, need maximum single core performance for MAX FRAMEZZZ in single threaded games from 2-3 years ago, and have no need for multi-core performance. The only meaningful use I can think of for this turd is to be able to run your 5950 stock checking bot faster than everybody else, assuming that even is a single threaded task. But honestly none of this really matters since when I made my original post I thought I was posting in the AMD thread where it is considered bad form to not poo poo on whatever Intel is shilling. If Intel does pull off a faster CPU again, it will be short lived and waaay more expensive than the nearest AMD equivalent. But it doesn't really matter, in just a few years ARM is going to swallow both Intel and AMD with multi core superiority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
post through the wrongness, never admit you might be wrong. never stop, never surrender: the posters creed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
Not Wolverine posted:If Intel does pull off a faster CPU again, it will be short lived and waaay more expensive than the nearest AMD equivalent. I kind of doubt it. I'd be surprised if the 6 core CPU is much over AMD's pricing. Maybe it'll be $350.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2020 22:07
|
|
|
Intel doesn't really change their price points, they change what they offer at a given price point. we already know the i7 is 8C16T from leaks, I don't see Intel changing their i7 price point, it'll be $375-385 RCP+tray price just like the last fifty-seven generations have been. that essentially guarantees that it will come in under the 5800X (which is $449 MSRP). AMD will probably launch the 5700X shortly before Intel launches in order to stay competitive, but Intel basically can't not come in under AMD's current pricing unless something drastically changes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2020 23:40
|
|
|
Good. The 5800X is an overpriced trap so if the i7 undercuts it (or forces them to discount it) that'd be my pick for a general purpose gaming/development/CAD/editing machine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2020 23:43
|
|
|
it's always a little funny to see the AMD fanboys assume that Intel is just going to come in above AMD at every price point with something inferior. Intel does respond when AMD is perceived as ahead, in response to the 1800X intel launched the 8700K which basically dumpstered the 1800X in gaming and tied it in productivity at 2/3rds the price. In response to Zen2 (and up to 16 cores it offered), Intel cut the prices of the X299 processors literally in half and hit price points that AMD didn't with TRX40 (and consumer boards don't really substitute for the memory/IO capability of HEDT). Obviously there is only so much they can do with the silicon they have, you can't magic products out of thin air, but they do respond when they are getting legitimately beaten in a serious way (which, AMD fanboys pretty much have been nonstop shouting they're beating Intel for the last 10 years even when it's not the case). This generation Intel is allowing memory overclocking on B560, which cuts the cost premium that Z-series boards imposed (particularly relevant for midrange builds), and the i7 is basically going to be the i9 minus 100 mhz, while coming in $75 cheaper than AMD's 8-core. The 6-core is going to be probably $75 cheaper than the 5600X as well. Both of them will be faster in gaming, and completely matching it in IO capability. That's really not an overall bad deal for a gaming-focused home user. Still nothing in the 12-core class, which is a bit of a bummer, but those only really come into play in productivity tasks at this point. AMD pretty much is going to have to respond with the value-oriented SKUs they didn't want to launch this year. So either way you benefit. AMD's availability hasn't been as good as Intel this year (oh how the turntables) though so regardless of what they do on paper, good luck actually buying it. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Dec 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2020 23:53
|
|
|
Not Wolverine posted:Hold on, what did I say? Lets take a closer look: Yeah but still what exactly is your point here. That games will become increasingly parallelized because consoles are now 8c/16t parts? Sure. But then you said that you can't think of a use for the 11700k except for running a 5950x bot. Does that also mean a 5800x has no use for gamers? Do you think that by the time the per-thread performance of the 11700k cannot run a game at xyz level, that a 5950x will be doing much, if any better? The performance per-thread is going to limit you in gaming long before core count does. There is going to be no game where a 5800x can't run it, but a 5950x can. Even by the time games are that efficiently parallelized, the 5950x will be an outdated cpu in per-thread performance. That will be your limiting factor. In some not-perfectly-parallelized apps (but still better than gaming is currently and possibly for a long time), the IPC and clock improvements allowed an 8c/16t part (5800x) to surpass a 12c/24t (3900xt) part from last generation. Why do you think a 16c/32t part from this generation will somehow outlast an 8c16t part in gaming, of all things? If for gaming strictly the 5800x and 11700k are "turds", then the 5950x is just a more expensive turd. Like if you wanted to make this about what is surely to be comical power consumption of the 11700k, fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
The 11700k will be the best gaming cpu until amd/intel release ddr5 based chips. If they price it aggressively against the 5800x it will be a very good buy if you aren't doing sff and can throw cooling at it, but gaming power consumption honestly won't be that much worse than zen3. 20w probably. The consoles are going from 8c8t to 8c16t but the much bigger impact in cpu performance is the massive uplift in per core performance going from cat cores to zen2. If anything there is less incentive with next gen consoles for game devs to spend resources wringing as much performance as they can from parallelism because they aren't hamstrung by an absolute garbage uarch. Suggesting a 16c32t CPU for gaming is uhh... Silly. And that's being charitable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2020 02:02
|
|
|
loving idiots. Obviously a 64 core Epyc is the best gaming CPU. 56 idle cores will give you the most supreme performance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2020 02:13
|
|
|
VorpalFish posted:The 11700k will be the best gaming cpu until amd/intel release ddr5 based chips. If they price it aggressively against the 5800x it will be a very good buy if you aren't doing sff and can throw cooling at it, but gaming power consumption honestly won't be that much worse than zen3. 20w probably. tbh it's still kind of a lovely time to buy. Like, you can either buy the very last DDR4 platforms knowing there is going to be no upgrade path, and with Intel still on 14nm, but buying the very first DDR5 chips is also going to be a shitshow (early DDR4 controllers were pretty loving awful, and DDR5 memory is likely to be several times the price that you can currently buy DDR4), and Intel's 10nm chips are going in kind of a weird direction with big.LITTLE on the DDR5 chips. And if you buy right now, AMD cranked all their MSRPs and even still you can't even find them. 8700K/9900K (especially 8700K) and Zen2 (when they were running 20% under MSRP) appears to have been a bit of a golden age for purchasing PC hardware. Too bad memory prices were insane for a lot of that. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Dec 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2020 02:15
|
|
|
Intel completely gave up on locking-away hyperthreading behind a premium with 10th gen so yeah, they definitely respond to competition. Other content: There's this rumor about a hedge fund that's trying to push Intel to spin-off its fabs and I found it really annoying to read because it's just going to be another example of vulture financialization that's going to ruin a company if it succeeds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Intel completely gave up on locking-away hyperthreading behind a premium with 10th gen so yeah, they definitely respond to competition. Activist investors have been squawking about that for 30 years. I wouldn't give it much thought
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:14 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:tbh it's still kind of a lovely time to buy. Like, you can either buy the very last DDR4 platforms knowing there is going to be no upgrade path, and with Intel still on 14nm, but buying the very first DDR5 chips is also going to be a shitshow (early DDR4 controllers were pretty loving awful, and DDR5 memory is likely to be several times the price that you can currently buy DDR4), and Intel's 10nm chips are going in kind of a weird direction with big.LITTLE on the DDR5 chips. And if you buy right now, AMD cranked all their MSRPs and even still you can't even find them. Good news! It's almost impossible to buy now anyways! Honestly "no upgrade path" isn't really that bad for cpus. I got a solid 9 years out of a 2500k, jumped to a 5800x and I'd be very surprised if it wasn't good enough for 144hz gaming for 5+ years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2020 03:40
|
|