Why did YOU choose AMD for your processor?

Ready4Dis said:
Yes, it's possible you can put a 4600x for example but not work with a 4950x due to TDP/VRM limits. I can't make any promises for what a motherboard manufacturer may or may not do though!!! Also, remember a lot of B350's where already EEPROM constrained for the 3xxx series. This won't be better for the 4xxx series. Also, a lot of B350's are already over 3 years old, not sure how much more effort the manufacturers are going to put time/effort/resources into them. How many updates do you hear about for a B250 from Intel? Those came out within 1 month apart... the fact that you still see B350's rocking and people still buying them is impressive in it's own right, but I probably wouldn't go buying one and hoping for future support. I have a B450 and am hopeful but wouldn't be that upset if I had to upgrade to a B550 when they come out. It takes microcode updates to support a new CPU (or cpu series), so it is dependent on the Mfg adding the support and the bios having enough space to fit more code.
Click to expand...
Not sure how much effort a new bios update is for a mfg.
 
Hagrid said:
Not sure how much effort a new bios update is for a mfg.
Click to expand...
Depends, if they are memory constrained and need to find space it can be a real PITA. If they have plenty of room there is still a lot of testing/verification to go through. Just look how long it takes now for top of the line boards to get updates. And that's a board worth throwing tons of resources at to not get left behind... So an older board that isn't bringing in cash anymore and was a budget board to start with... I just wouldn't hold my breath, not saying it's impossible, just not as likely.
 
kirbyrj said:
Price/performance and upgradability.

I had a bad taste in my mouth after the Z270 no Coffee Lake support debacle.
Click to expand...

That's my main reason and I wanted to support what I felt were more consumer oriented moves from them as well. Although Dan_D did bring up some good points.
 
Eh. 16c/32t + bazillion lanes. Threadrippers were a fit for my needs.
 
Went from a 6 core Intel back to AMD. The only reason I did was because the performance returned with Zen. Once you add in the extras AMD gives you it's a no brainer. They are as follows:

  1. Non APU's support ECC universally so sever duty home storage servers don't cost an arm and a leg.
  2. Multi-threaded performance is exactly what I need
  3. I don't have to jump sockets every year for relatively small processor upgrades nor big ones. Can go from 4 core all the way to 16 on the same socket.
  4. PCIe 4
  5. Way lower operating voltage. At first you may think that the power difference isn't so bad but my power bill says otherwise. I notice the differance especially since I run more than one computer.
 
noko said:
By AMD keeping the same socket longer allows more people to upgrade their CPUs without having to buy motherboards (OS), rebuild etc. -> AMD gets to sell more CPUs which would probably outweigh any chipset profit.

Motherboard makers don't have to worry as much on an obsolete motherboard since even the first generation is usable way after production stops so any inventory can be sold. So producing larger numbers of motherboards is less of a risk. Better motherboard R&D and investment since a longer term investment.

Why I chose AMD over Intel mostly because better perf/$ or just a better deal. Now not only a better deal but also a significant better performer in general. I can stick a Ryzen 3950x in my x370 motherboard or even my B450 motherboard and have CPU performance beating anything Intel has and virtually all Intel HDET CPUs Intel has ever launched.
Click to expand...

Upgrading CPU without upgrading motherboard is a tiny market these days; we think that the enthusiast market is big because we're part of it, but in terms of global PC shipments, we're tiny (and shrinking). I haven't done a CPU without the rest of the system since the Barton 2500 days.
 
lopoetve said:
Upgrading CPU without upgrading motherboard is a tiny market these days; we think that the enthusiast market is big because we're part of it, but in terms of global PC shipments, we're tiny (and shrinking). I haven't done a CPU without the rest of the system since the Barton 2500 days.
Click to expand...

Umm, actually no, we are not shrinking, thanks to AMD.
 
lopoetve said:
Upgrading CPU without upgrading motherboard is a tiny market these days; we think that the enthusiast market is big because we're part of it, but in terms of global PC shipments, we're tiny (and shrinking). I haven't done a CPU without the rest of the system since the Barton 2500 days.
Click to expand...
I agree. Why would a person want to save money by just buying a cpu, when they can have a little upgrade and spend even more for the MB as well! /s

AMD has done awesome with no MB change unless on some where the bios was not able to be upgraded. I bought a MB with a Ryzen quad core for mining way back.
It is now able to take a 3950x. Pretty impressive. It had the 128mb bios so I am sure they Asrock will update it for the 4000.
 
ManofGod said:
Umm, actually no, we are not shrinking, thanks to AMD.
Click to expand...
Percentage of worldwide shipments, arguably it is (depending on how you want to analyze it). Pure numbers, sure, it's growing, but the number of folks who actually upgrade CPUs vs upgrading an entire system at once? How many people have Dell/HP/Alienware/Falcon/whatever systems that just say "fuck it" and replace the whole box when it gets old? You think any of them actually open the box to swap CPUs, even if it was supported on many of them? That's a niche market; one we're all in, sure, but it's confirmation bias to think that the majority of systems sold ever see that.

Hagrid said:
I agree. Why would a person want to save money by just buying a cpu, when they can have a little upgrade and spend even more for the MB as well! /s

AMD has done awesome with no MB change unless on some where the bios was not able to be upgraded. I bought a MB with a Ryzen quad core for mining way back.
It is now able to take a 3950x. Pretty impressive. It had the 128mb bios so I am sure they Asrock will update it for the 4000.
Click to expand...

The number of folks doing that is going down over time; most folks (outside the enthusiast space) buy a new computer; they don't upgrade the core, especially as the longevity of those parts has greatly extended (See: Core2 to Sandy Bridge was a major update, while Sandy Bridge to even SkyLake is quite a bit smaller). Many enthusiasts (myself included), replace the pair - once a system gets old enough to need an upgrade, we swap it to other tasks (my old workstation is my plex sever, the one after that is my wife's gaming machine, the current Ryzen will soon be a storage target as I replace it with a 9900K). If there's enough of a change, chances are there are other improvements you want too (over praying that the motherboard manufacturer guessed future compatibility well). I haven't done a CPU upgrade since 2005; every time I build a whole new system and put the other one to use doing something different, outside of possibly keeping the video cards and maybe hard drives. Hell, my Core2 E8400 was running as an ESXi server until a few years ago, went on to be a NAS for someone. Then again, CPUs haven't grown fast enough to really require updates - how many folks do you know that just finally got off of Sandy Bridge? How many are on older 4th and 5th gen Intel cpus and don't see a reason to? My gaming box has a 6600k in it. I don't see upgrading that for another couple of years; it might get a new GPU here before long, but the CPU? It's fine.

You may absolutely disagree, but I don't see a lot of benefit to the future compatibility - you see confirmation bias in that you'd use (or have used it), I see confirmation bias on my side as it serves no purpose to me (my x370 box is about to be a NVMeOF target; if I swapped only the CPU, I'd need to go source a board for that, so why not source both at once for the upgrade instead of one?).
 
Seems like s lot of guessing, when Zen 2 or Ryzen 3 hit, AMD almost instantly went to #1 CPU retail sells world wide. I would say the majority of the sells were not with new motherboards.

What would be the purpose of upgrading a X370 or X470 motherboard? I did not as well as many others see any significant benefit in doing that. A lot of folks bought new B450, X470 motherboards for Ryzen 3 processors. You get the same performance out of the CPU. PCIE 4 is the only advantage or upgrade which could potentially be beneficial.

People that buy CPU's, memory, motherboards etc. from Newegg, Amazon or Bestbuy and others are not buying complete computers.
 
Theres a billion 10-16 year old gamers out there playing on shit boxes without any money looking for quick and cheap upgrades to play the latest games. Yesterday's matchbox cars and baseball gloves are today's CPUs and video cards

Thats a huge chunk of people right there, not everyone has disposable income to buy a new machine every 6 months
 
blackmomba said:
Theres a billion 10-16 year old gamers out there playing on shit boxes without any money looking for quick and cheap upgrades to play the latest games. Yesterday's matchbox cars and baseball gloves are today's CPUs and video cards

Thats a huge chunk of people right there, not everyone has disposable income to buy a new machine every 6 months
Click to expand...

Most of my boxes last 3-5 years. A 3 year old or older system can play the latest games just fine; by the time it can’t, you’re upgrading it all anyway.

Aside from that, there are many more people buying Dell/HP/whatever pre made systems and never touching them until they’re thrown out. They don’t care if it’s amd or Intel, why would they care about upgrading? Those outnumber us my orders of magnitude.
 
noko said:
Seems like s lot of guessing, when Zen 2 or Ryzen 3 hit, AMD almost instantly went to #1 CPU retail sells world wide. I would say the majority of the sells were not with new motherboards.

What would be the purpose of upgrading a X370 or X470 motherboard? I did not as well as many others see any significant benefit in doing that. A lot of folks bought new B450, X470 motherboards for Ryzen 3 processors. You get the same performance out of the CPU. PCIE 4 is the only advantage or upgrade which could potentially be beneficial.

People that buy CPU's, memory, motherboards etc. from Newegg, Amazon or Bestbuy and others are not buying complete computers.
Click to expand...

Because quite a few x370 boards don’t have great Ryzen3 support. Mine was a top-end MSI board and doesn’t- only on a shifty beta bios that loses half the options and controls if you use it (x370 Gaming Carbon Pro). Never mind that I don’t have a hell of a lot of faith in that support to begin with, given the mediocre support the board got in the first place (MSI moved on to 470 really fast). I’m replacing everything here shortly; I’m definitely not keeping that old board around for a new CPU. Better Wi-Fi options, better lan options, new chipset that was designed for it from the beginning.

I’m an early Ryzen adopter. I’m upgrading my workstation and it’s going to be all new gear except the PSU, RAM and video card. No way am I keeping that old MB.
 
I chose a Ryzen setup on my last gaming machine parts buy because I wanted to see for myself if one could really load Windows 7 on it and have the machine work properly- and it does.
 
lopoetve said:
Percentage of worldwide shipments, arguably it is (depending on how you want to analyze it). Pure numbers, sure, it's growing, but the number of folks who actually upgrade CPUs vs upgrading an entire system at once? How many people have Dell/HP/Alienware/Falcon/whatever systems that just say "fuck it" and replace the whole box when it gets old? You think any of them actually open the box to swap CPUs, even if it was supported on many of them? That's a niche market; one we're all in, sure, but it's confirmation bias to think that the majority of systems sold ever see that.



The number of folks doing that is going down over time; most folks (outside the enthusiast space) buy a new computer; they don't upgrade the core, especially as the longevity of those parts has greatly extended (See: Core2 to Sandy Bridge was a major update, while Sandy Bridge to even SkyLake is quite a bit smaller). Many enthusiasts (myself included), replace the pair - once a system gets old enough to need an upgrade, we swap it to other tasks (my old workstation is my plex sever, the one after that is my wife's gaming machine, the current Ryzen will soon be a storage target as I replace it with a 9900K). If there's enough of a change, chances are there are other improvements you want too (over praying that the motherboard manufacturer guessed future compatibility well). I haven't done a CPU upgrade since 2005; every time I build a whole new system and put the other one to use doing something different, outside of possibly keeping the video cards and maybe hard drives. Hell, my Core2 E8400 was running as an ESXi server until a few years ago, went on to be a NAS for someone. Then again, CPUs haven't grown fast enough to really require updates - how many folks do you know that just finally got off of Sandy Bridge? How many are on older 4th and 5th gen Intel cpus and don't see a reason to? My gaming box has a 6600k in it. I don't see upgrading that for another couple of years; it might get a new GPU here before long, but the CPU? It's fine.

You may absolutely disagree, but I don't see a lot of benefit to the future compatibility - you see confirmation bias in that you'd use (or have used it), I see confirmation bias on my side as it serves no purpose to me (my x370 box is about to be a NVMeOF target; if I swapped only the CPU, I'd need to go source a board for that, so why not source both at once for the upgrade instead of one?).
Click to expand...

No one here cares, because this is a Why did you choose AMD thread, not a is the PC dying thread.
 
lopoetve said:
Most of my boxes last 3-5 years. A 3 year old or older system can play the latest games just fine; by the time it can’t, you’re upgrading it all anyway.

Aside from that, there are many more people buying Dell/HP/whatever pre made systems and never touching them until they’re thrown out. They don’t care if it’s amd or Intel, why would they care about upgrading? Those outnumber us my orders of magnitude.
Click to expand...

Your boxes and what you do really is irrelevant.

What do you do when it's time to change the oil on your car? Buy a new one?
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
blackmomba said:
Your boxes and what you do really is irrelevant.

What do you do when it's time to change the oil on your car? Buy a new one?
Click to expand...

The thread asks "why did YOU pick AMD". I picked AMD because of the core counts, at the time, and the performance for the applications I was running - same reason I had a Bulldozer system. I had Phenom due to price/performance and budget when that one was built. At the same time, my gaming machine is Intel based for the price/performance argument when I built that one (pre-ryzen).

I then debated the point of upgrading CPUs while keeping the same motherboard, which to me still seems unusual - I prefer an engineered platform where the two are designed to work together from the beginning and are upgraded and planned as one, but how I use my systems is different than you or the others here too; these are my career as well as my hobby, stability is far more important to ME than geeking out over individual parts (I geek out over 100G Networking, Kubernetes, and NVMEoF). I also don't really care about incremental upgrades; I'm still on a 1080 non-TI for my gaming system, as none of the upgrades since have been significant enough to invest in, especially at 1440P that I game at.

Your metaphor is a bit unusual; upgrades are not maintenance, maintenance is not upgrades, and I don't keep cars more than 3 years either - but I'm also not paying for my car. ;)

Apologies for dragging things off track. I just had a different perspective and thought arguing the point would be interesting, as my use case is a bit different, but I'm certainly not alone.
 
lopoetve said:
Because quite a few x370 boards don’t have great Ryzen3 support. Mine was a top-end MSI board and doesn’t- only on a shifty beta bios that loses half the options and controls if you use it (x370 Gaming Carbon Pro). Never mind that I don’t have a hell of a lot of faith in that support to begin with, given the mediocre support the board got in the first place (MSI moved on to 470 really fast). I’m replacing everything here shortly; I’m definitely not keeping that old board around for a new CPU. Better Wi-Fi options, better lan options, new chipset that was designed for it from the beginning.

I’m an early Ryzen adopter. I’m upgrading my workstation and it’s going to be all new gear except the PSU, RAM and video card. No way am I keeping that old MB.
Click to expand...
That is not a MSI top end board, in July 2018 it averaged less than $150, Nov 2017 low of $116. Definitely a learning curve once Ryzen hit back in 2017 for the board makers as well as for AMD. Of course if your motherboard has crap support for the processor you want or lacking features -> upgrade. For me there just was not much more I really needed or wanted at this time with the ASUS CrossHair VI Hero, a board with a very shotty beginning but probably the best Enthusiast supported motherboard I've ever seen, definitely the funnest board I've ever used.
 
ManofGod said:
No one here cares, because this is a Why did you choose AMD thread, not a is the PC dying thread.
Click to expand...

PC isn't dying. I was merely arguing that CPU upgrades without platform upgrades seem strange; I guess I'm weird though, but I'm definitely looking at it from a different set of requirements.
 
lopoetve said:
PC isn't dying. I was merely arguing that CPU upgrades without platform upgrades seem strange; I guess I'm weird though, but I'm definitely looking at it from a different set of requirements.
Click to expand...
I would not in your case, your motherboard is due for replacement in my opinion, A beta bios last year is not good indications of any further support. Most folks with good B450/X470 boards have great upgrade paths for Ryzen 3 with a significant performance gain for little overall cost. B350/X370 I would say is more case by case per motherboard.
 
noko said:
That is not a MSI top end board, in July 2018 it averaged less than $150, Nov 2017 low of $116. Definitely a learning curve once Ryzen hit back in 2017 for the board makers as well as for AMD. Of course if your motherboard has crap support for the processor you want or lacking features -> upgrade. For me there just was not much more I really needed or wanted at this time with the ASUS CrossHair VI Hero, a board with a very shotty beginning but probably the best Enthusiast supported motherboard I've ever seen, definitely the funnest board I've ever used.
Click to expand...

I paid over $200 for it, but that was ~right~ when they came out too (I REALLY wanted off my old Bulldozer system - I run a LOT of VMs on my workstation). It was the best I could find from not-gigabyte at the time (ASUS was sold out, I would have preferred that). Don't trust ASrock for consumer boards (although that seems to be changing), but I use a ton of them for servers.

I'll point out that I research when it's time to upgrade and then tend to ignore this part of the industry outside of playing games; it's not in-scope for me anymore, and as long as the system does what I need it to do, I'm good. I deal with the weird bleeding edge stuff now - more odd, and I get a budget to play with :)
 
lopoetve said:
I paid over $200 for it, but that was ~right~ when they came out too (I REALLY wanted off my old Bulldozer system - I run a LOT of VMs on my workstation). It was the best I could find from not-gigabyte at the time (ASUS was sold out, I would have preferred that). Don't trust ASrock for consumer boards (although that seems to be changing), but I use a ton of them for servers.

I'll point out that I research when it's time to upgrade and then tend to ignore this part of the industry outside of playing games; it's not in-scope for me anymore, and as long as the system does what I need it to do, I'm good. I deal with the weird bleeding edge stuff now - more odd, and I get a budget to play with :)
Click to expand...
X670 looks like they will be out late this year, anyways MSI X570 Tomahawk soon to be out looks very strong for around $200, that is if you can stomach another MSI board :D. I was thinking of getting a TXR40 MSI board in the near future. I have a MSI B50I board (ITX), great board with great VRMs that even supports the 3950x.
 
noko said:
X670 looks like they will be out late this year, anyways MSI X570 Tomahawk soon to be out looks very strong for around $200, that is if you can stomach another MSI board :D. I was thinking of getting a TXR40 MSI board in the near future. I have a MSI B50I board (ITX), great board with great VRMs that even supports the 3950x.
Click to expand...

I'll admit that I'm really twitchy trusting AMD again after 2+ years of troubleshooting stability issues. I also definitely don't trust MSI to keep up, nor their memory compatibility (which changed ~after~ I bought my board and memory).

I'd do TR, but I hear even more fun there getting things stable and happy on the memory side, and that AIO coolers for them are touchy too. Stability is #1 in my world, features second, and then performance third. :)
 
where are people getting "x670 later this year" from? all i see is that "they are outsourcing production", no announcements or anything else....
 
lopoetve said:
PC isn't dying. I was merely arguing that CPU upgrades without platform upgrades seem strange; I guess I'm weird though, but I'm definitely looking at it from a different set of requirements.
Click to expand...

No, in my opinion, you are attempting to deflect and change the topic so please, did you actually choose an AMD processor? If not, they why not but otherwise, let it go.
 
ManofGod said:
No, in my opinion, you are attempting to deflect and change the topic so please, did you actually choose an AMD processor? If not, they why not but otherwise, let it go.
Click to expand...

I did; like I said before, I have a first-gen Ryzen.
 
One of my biggest reasons for AMD, is daisy chaining. When I upgraded one PC the other ones get an upgrade as well. When I bought my 3900x replacing the 2700, the 2700 went into a machine replacing a 1700x and so on. Same with graphics cards, buy one, upgrade all machines because of it.

Intel just does not work that way, for multiple Intel machines -> For the most part stuck with same generation or replace motherboard + CPU + Maybe OS for each machine. Moving motherboards from one to the next is not viable either due to different size cases for different sized motherboard rigs.
 
Just chose AMD again. 3600 came in and it's running 4.3 @1.32v. Not bad.
 
I might have chosen AMD, but I definitely did not chose this CPU. I wanted a 3900X, but after weeks of waiting for it, I cancelled my order and got a 3700X instead. And I was so satisfied with it that I didn't even want to upgrade to the 3900X as I originally planned to. In fact I'm still running the 3700X, and I don't think I'll need to upgrade in the foreseeable future.

On why I chose AMD? Because I like to walk the unbeaten path. So I bought a platform that was brand new (X570), and a cpu that was brand new (3700X) at the time that offered competitive performance. And incidentally the best price / performance ratio.
 
Dan_D said:
"Adjusting for inflation, it's far less than that. A $1,000 Pentium IV Extreme Edition in the late 90's or early 2000's is much more expensive than today's Core i9 10980XE at $1,000."
Click to expand...

Yeah, I stopped reading after this...in case you didn't know P4 Extreme Edition came out 2003/2004. Adjusted for inflation, it is not much more expensive than today's 10980XE, where the P4 XE comes in at $1,402 today's money. That is not a huge inflation. What it is, is AMD has forced Intel to cut prices down by a wide margin. If they didn't then this 10980XE CPU would be nearer the $1400 or greater price range. Thank God for AMD; competition creates better choices and better products.
 
KillA_KIA said:
Yeah, I stopped reading after this...in case you didn't know P4 Extreme Edition came out 2003/2004. Adjusted for inflation, it is not much more expensive than today's 10980XE, where the P4 XE comes in at $1,402 today's money. That is not a huge inflation. What it is, is AMD has forced Intel to cut prices down by a wide margin. If they didn't then this 10980XE CPU would be nearer the $1400 or greater price range. Thank God for AMD; competition creates better choices and better products.
Click to expand...

I chose AMd because its easier to spell AMD
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
traded my 7700k setup straight across for a Ryzen 1700 setup. At the time I was into more video editing than I was gaming ... since that trade .. My wife got the Asus B350 mobo and I sold the 1700 and got a 2200g for her .. I got a 2700x and an ASRock x470 .. got my daughter an ASRock B350 ITX w/2200g. Then .. upgraded wife to the 3400g and my daughter got my old 2700x and I got the 3700x ... Then ... sold the 2700x and got my daughter the 3600x ..and I sold my x470 mobo and got an ASRock x570 motherboard.

..and during all this , I have been sucked back into PC gaming with Crytek's Hunt:Showdown :mad:
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
I like both companies products. Just buy what you need at the time. I'm on AMD now because I get more cores for my dollar. If I was still running a pure gaming rig I wouldn't have sold my 9900K setup.
 
bretaincrab3 said:
I'm interested what reasons people had when there bought Ryzen. Was coming from a i5 4460, upgraded this year to a Ryzen 2700 for an incredible price (215€). In the beginning, I was leaning more towards the 8600K/8700K, but after researching I decided more towards AMD CPUs. At that time, Intel still didn't had the "shortage" price increase. I'm mostly "gaming", but also do a lot of multitasking, streaming and content creation. AMD CPUs just offered me more for a better price, are soldered, come with a useable stock cooler, the idea to switch to the latest AM4 CPU in 2020 if needed, actually dropping prices when a new generation comes out, and and and... Intel offered me better fps, but do I really care if I'm never getting the highest end GPU and not playing @1080? I'm always GPU bottlenecked, so are a lot other people, explaining that and showing them what the difference is if you run Intel vs Ryzen in a not "everything high end but playing on a 1080p"-build, converted a lot of decisions to take AMD over Intel. Pretty much always advicing to put more money on your display and GPU these days. You will be shocked positively how much you improve your gaming enjoyment if you save money from buying just a 2600/x and taking the saved money to buy 1440p 144hz/better Graphics card over taking a extremely pricey Intel Core CPU and staying at 1080p/lower the Graphics card budget. These are my reasons why I ended up with a AMD CPU, now tell me yours please.
Click to expand...
bretaincrab3 said:
I'm interested what reasons people had when there bought Ryzen. Was coming from a i5 4460, upgraded this year to a Ryzen 2700 for an incredible price (215€). In the beginning, I was leaning more towards the 8600K/8700K, but after researching I decided more towards AMD CPUs. At that time, Intel still didn't had the "shortage" price increase. I'm mostly "gaming", but also do a lot of multitasking, streaming and content creation. AMD CPUs just offered me more for a better price, are soldered, come with a useable stock cooler, the idea to switch to the latest AM4 CPU in 2020 if needed, actually dropping prices when a new generation comes out, and and and... Intel offered me better fps, but do I really care if I'm never getting the highest end GPU and not playing @1080? I'm always GPU bottlenecked, so are a lot other people, explaining that and showing them what the difference is if you run Intel vs Ryzen in a not "everything high end but playing on a 1080p"-build, converted a lot of decisions to take AMD over Intel. Pretty much always advicing to put more money on your display and GPU these days. You will be shocked positively how much you improve your gaming enjoyment if you save money from buying just a 2600/x and taking the saved money to buy 1440p 144hz/better Graphics card over taking a extremely pricey Intel Core CPU and staying at 1080p/lower the Graphics card budget. These are my reasons why I ended up with a AMD CPU, now tell me yours please.
Click to expand...
I had an i5 6600k @ 4.2 ghz 240 2 fan liquid cooler on a z170a mobo with 16gb gskill ripjaws ram and gtx 1080 gpu and evga 750 psu and benq2765 1440p monitor for a few years and bought the 7 2700 when the next gen came out, I liked it a lot but got a really good deal on my current rig so passed it on to my grandson. I find it really reliable low power draw and cool running. When AMD competes with itself and keeps bringing out new products everyone wins.
 
Why? I answered that, upstream, already.

I have my second 3700x, enroute (along with RAM and a mobo, of course). It will join my other 3700x and my 2700x. When AMD releases the 4000 series, one of the 3700x will replace the 2700x and the 4700x will go in its place. Intel can't do that.
 
lopoetve said:
PC isn't dying. I was merely arguing that CPU upgrades without platform upgrades seem strange; I guess I'm weird though, but I'm definitely looking at it from a different set of requirements.
Click to expand...
Maybe because you have been using Intel to much? J/k of course, but I fully intend to populate my b450 with a 4xxx series ryzen when they come out. I'll probably find a cheap MB b350 to toss my 1600x into and pass down to one of my kids. I don't care about pcie 4, so unless b550's come in under $100 for an itx before the 4xxx series is released, I see little reason to pay to upgrade. Again, this a why AMD and they planned (and announced) longer term support for AM4 which gives you more options, even if you choose to upgrade MB, you at least had an option even if you didn't use it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
c3k said:
Why? I answered that, upstream, already.

I have my second 3700x, enroute (along with RAM and a mobo, of course). It will join my other 3700x and my 2700x. When AMD releases the 4000 series, one of the 3700x will replace the 2700x and the 4700x will go in its place. Intel can't do that.
Click to expand...
This, I fully plan to hand down my CPU to one of my kids when the 4000 series drops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top