Advice desired: Building an AMD PC with prerogative to quality over form&function

[Kapone33]

Either you error or you don't. Unstable or stable.

6000 MHz is pretty safe for DDR5 AM5. But the platform itself has issues that haven't been patched yet and it's first generation.

I am having no issues. Even the Stress Test in Adreniline software is working properly now. AM5 is fine for adoption. If you can list the issues I can tell you whether or not I have experienced them?

 

[Waldorf]

@Chry
going by the (first) list you posted, you "wasting" money.
things like Ti/Pt rated psu, 32gb ram (vs 16gb; enough if you not editing/making content as a job), and gen 5 drive(s),
yet are trying to save on things like the cpu/cooling, when a 7700/7800X will def have an impact...

and if your worried about "quality" on AIO, go with corsair.
(most of) their AIOs are covered by 5y warranty that will replace ANY component damaged, if it fails,
so far, not even the best air coolers offer that.

 

[Post Nut Clairvoyance]

Hi guys, I want to build a general use PC for home.

Only considering AMD option.

What for: I will be gaming (and amateur messing around Unreal Engine 5), browsing, watching 100GB+ x265 movies as so on.

Budget: 1000-1500€. Less is more.

Priorities: 1st priority is build quality. Performance and everything else is secondary.

Must have: Must be Zen4 based.

I currently have this in mind:

CPU: 8 fast core processor seems to be enough for my needs. More cores would be a waste. Ryzen 7700X. 340-350€. For example: https://www.skytech.lt/100100000591...reads-socket-am5-dezuteje-amd-n-p-602209.html
Should I consider 7800X3D? Considering, I will NOT have a high-end GPU (Radeon 7700XT at most! More likely 7600XT)
Motherboard: I want latest technologies (PCIe5, USB4, DDR5) and overall good quality components used. I also prefer to have as many BIOS options available as possible. So I'm thinking of ASUS Proart B650. 330€. https://www.asus.com/motherboards-components/motherboards/proart/proart-b650-creator/
It also looks great! And the cost is not too high considering other AM5 boards.
GPU: I'll buy a used one (6600XT) FOR NOW and when they become available I play to buy a latest mid-range GPU (Radeon 7600 or something?)
RAM: 16Gb Kingston Fury 6000mhz cl36. 75€. Seems to be okay? Would later upgrade to 2x16Gb. https://www.skytech.lt/kf560c36bbe1...ddr5-cl36-dimm-fury-beast-black-p-608530.html
SSD: Would really prefer a Gen5 SSD but with the poor selection and heat issues I'm not sure if I shouldn't just take Samsung 990 Pro for ~130€.
Maybe I should just wait a month or two before building PC so more PCIe5 SSD options are available?
Case: Literally don't care. will buy something cheap&small for 20-50€. Not sure what's good/best for that price. Selection is huge.
PSU: Since I want the best (titanium), but don't really want to spend 300€, I'm willing to go for 2nd best (platinum) for 155€: https://www.1a.lt/p/maitinimo-blokas-seasonic-prime-platinum-650w-650-w-135-mm/atr
I know it's still expensive but I really want a good one, it will make me feel good.
Cooling: Will either buy the 7700X with Wraith Prism included or buy a NH-L9a-AM5 or something else of good quality and small size. Should be enough for me. 50€. https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Noctua-NH-L9a-AM5-Premium-Profile-Cooling/dp/B0BNL8ZM1T/

Total current price without GPU: ~1130€.

Perhaps forum members here could advice on where price could be cut without hurting quality, or perhaps where quality could be improved, even at more expense? Again, quality is #1 priority. I really like the motherboard and PSU I chose so I would need really good arguments to change those options. They just seem best quality for the money in my eyes.
Also curious whether forum members think I should wait for Gen5 SSDs seeing I want latest tech?
Should I consider 7800X3D?
Should I go with Wraith Prism or Noctua NH-L9a-AM5?

CPU - 6 core non-X3D is DEFINITELY not holding back whatever GPU you'll choose. In this case your requirement is tied to your creative endeavors in UE5, so 6-8 core depending on how much you feel like spending, I would just calculate the per core cost and pick the cheaper one, but if you anticipate going more-than-amateur in any pro tools, 8 core might be great for cutting down render/compile time.
Cooling - too many good options, but given you're not gonna get a liquid cooled GPU setup in this budget, get a decent air cooler and call it a day.
Mobo - You specify for Zen4, so DDR5 is a given, I seriously doubt you need PCIe5 and USB4, best just get a decent VRM board with enough USB ports. (checkout hardware unboxed YT for VRM of the boards) PCIe5 won't become useful for SSD perhaps in the useful lifetime of the system because NVME SSDs already have incredible sequential I/O, and random I/O is not improving, that and PCIe 5 SSD so far has just been overpriced and overheating. On consumer platform you won't have enough PCIe lanes for serious extension capabilities bar PCIe re-drivers. ALL OTHER BOARDS HAVE AT LEAST PCIe 4.0!
GPU - current data predicts 7600 to be a sidegrade at best, saving up for a 6700xt/6800 may be much better as their L3 cache size handles 1440p/4k just fine.
RAM - currently zen4 have very weak DDR5 controller, I would suggest you to buy paired rather than add another stick later if you don't want potential BIG headaches. Frequency-wise anything >5400 won't hold you back and more won't make much difference, probably just settle for 5600 sticks.
SSD - Personally, I'd just buy the cheapest option with capacity I want, running TLC NAND and has DRAM buffer, may not be as fast in sequential but probably higher endurance. Samsung tax is real and again super doubting you need that 990PRO enough to justify price.
Case - is actually IMO much more important than what many first- second time builder think. It might be the only part you re-use in the next build! Good cases gives good airflow steadily and so reduce fan noise, is thicker steel panel so not feel like fragile baby, good cable management smooth out building process etc. And where other parts are best working and not getting looked at, the case is looked at everyday. Get something that suits your taste - seriously.
PSU - 80+ rating has no correlation with power output characteristics such as ripple, noise, transience suppression, safety features, EMI supression etc. Check out PSU reviews from TPU (many done by Aris who also have youtube channel hardware busters). As a rule of thumb a Corsair RM or RMx won't fault you, and is widely available at decent prices.

It sounds like you want a PC to boast/feel good about compared to your friends whose buying slightly overpriced pretty RGB prebuilts. If that is the case, please don't take pride in tech enthusiast circle brainwashing of knowing all the jargons "to buy the best computer parts", all of this is to encourage you to consume/spend needlessly, while also making you look stupid for people buying things for doing things rather than as a hobby. You can run UE5 just fine with any hexa-core circa coffee lake era, hardware is the easy bit. Likewise PCIe5 and USB4 is more marketing one-upping one-another. Let me know how you plan to saturate the potential ~15GB/s bandwidth of the x4 lane connected directly to CPU. Are you doing 10gig home networking? Are you running RAID arrays to ingest huge amount of data? Are you bifurcating to many devices to support your now-professional connectivity needs? Do you have a bunch of thunderbolt devices laying around? USB4 SSDs then? All sound too far fetched, maybe you should consider these for future builds should you come to need those.

Oh and the less RGB the better. FUCK WIRING RGBS

 

[Vayra86]

Will I really benefit from 7800X3D if I plan to use AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT?

Phanteks 360P you mentioned seems to be quite costly. Like I said I'd really like to stay within the 20-50€ range. It sounds good though, small but well-fitting.

I actually thought that Noctua NH-L9a-AM5 is better than Wraith Prism. If Wraith Prism is better then I guess I'll just buy the processor that comes with it. It will save me at least 40€. Really I just prefer something that will keep the CPU really cool while not being too heavy ( I know the two factors are connected ).
Wraith Prism is good enough for 7700X? ( I will not overclock )

Whether you will benefit from the CPU being fantastic for gaming loads with a midrange GPU, depends entirely on the games you like to play.

If you're into simulators, (city) builders, 4X and other stuff with lengthy sessions and a constantly increasing CPU load as games progress, the X3D will destroy that content regardless of your GPU - these situations are highly CPU bound. But if you play shooters and other stuff like it, the X3D won't help one bit over cheaper alternatives, and you might be better off funnelling more cash towards the GPU, get a 5800X3D instead and have a better overall balance.

That said, another route is to just get the 7800X3D regardless so you can make the whole platform last several GPU upgrades, though its likely you can even do that too on a 5800X3D anyway. Its so much CPU grunt... you'll be set for a long time.

Similar stuff applies to resolution / GPU choice. Higher res will lower the CPU load as framerate will nosedive so the CPU has more time for each frame.

 

[Post Nut Clairvoyance]

@Chry
going by the (first) list you posted, you "wasting" money.
things like Ti/Pt rated psu, 32gb ram (vs 16gb; enough if you not editing/making content as a job), and gen 5 drive(s),
yet are trying to save on things like the cpu/cooling, when a 7700/7800X will def have an impact...

and if your worried about "quality" on AIO, go with corsair.
(most of) their AIOs are covered by 5y warranty that will replace ANY component damaged, if it fails,
so far, not even the best air coolers offer that.

well yea, air coolers tends to NOT gunk up or leak possibly conductive liquid while system is running, where the fan bearing of the cooling fan is the most likely thing to fail on air coolers, and that won't be long-warranty-covered with how small the margins on them are.
But yes the choices made seems to be superfluous

 

[dgianstefani]

Whether you will benefit from the CPU being fantastic for gaming loads with a midrange GPU, depends entirely on the games you like to play.

If you're into simulators, (city) builders, 4X and other stuff with lengthy sessions and a constantly increasing CPU load as games progress, the X3D will destroy that content regardless of your GPU - these situations are highly CPU bound. But if you play shooters and other stuff like it, the X3D won't help one bit over cheaper alternatives, and you might be better off funnelling more cash towards the GPU, get a 5800X3D instead and have a better overall balance.

That said, another route is to just get the 7800X3D regardless so you can make the whole platform last several GPU upgrades, though its likely you can even do that too on a 5800X3D anyway. Its so much CPU grunt... you'll be set for a long time.

Similar stuff applies to resolution / GPU choice. Higher res will lower the CPU load as framerate will nosedive so the CPU has more time for each frame.

There's plenty of shooters that benefit from X3D, e.g. Tarkov, anything Unity based, Battlefield, Borderlands, Far Cry etc.

 

[Vayra86]

There's plenty of shooters that benefit from X3D, e.g. Tarkov, anything Unity based, Battlefield, Borderlands, Far Cry etc.

With a x600XT range GPU? Mkay

 

[dgianstefani]

7800X3D is the only worthwhile AM5 chip for gaming in my opinion. Otherwise go for a 13600K.

With a x600XT range GPU? Mkay

Yes. 7600XT should be around a 3070/3070 Ti, and TPU testing shows significant CPU differences in many shooters at that tier.

 

[Kapone33]

7800X3D is the only worthwhile AM5 chip for gaming in my opinion. Otherwise go for a 13600K.

I am willing to bet that my 7900X3D will be faster than the 7800X3D in RTS Games like TWWH and COH3.

 

[dgianstefani]

I am willing to bet that my 7900X3D will be faster than the 7800X3D in RTS Games like TWWH and COH3.

Yeah well unless you're lassoing your entire OS, or are assuming that the software scheduler that operates on a per application basis list without any hardware scheduler as with Intel Hybrid, I wouldn't be so quick to assume your CPU schedules every task onto the right type of core 100%. Based on feedback from people who have reviewed specifically the 7950X3D.

 

[Post Nut Clairvoyance]

Thanks to all for your feedback. Does my latest build-to-buy look good?:

CPU: 7600X @ 230€
CPU Cooler: NH-U12S SE-AM4 83€
RAM: 2x16Gb | G.Skill Trident Z5 Neo | 5600MT/s | 30-36-36-89 | AMD EXPO 163€
Main: ASUS Proart B650 330€
PSU: Seasonic Prime Platinum 156€
SSD: Samsung 990 Pro Heatsink 160€
Case: Fractal Design Focus 2 70€

Total: 1190€. Around 1200€ with shipping.

The only item I find questionable is RAM as the selection is huge. But this looks like a good premium kit.

The only problem is, the Samsung 990 Heatsink Edition will only arrive to Europe on April 6th and then it will take up to a week to arrive to my place. But I guess it's worth the wait if I want the best quality. I want to know my SSD is not overheating!
The reason I am leaning towards 990 Pro instead of Gen5 SSDs is because I think I'd rather have the #1 Gen4 SSD than the very first experimental Gen5 ones that will be left behind soon by new releases every month.

Edit:
Possible easy savings that I consider:
Could take cheaper simpler RAM for 110€.
Simple 990 PRO for 140€
And Noctua U12S Redux cooler for 60€
For total savings of 96€

I want to say I manage a similar performing build with rx6700 included under 1200eur, albeit where I am (Australia) parts are cheaper.
If you want reply with your country and I'll come back with a PCPP partlist with rationales for all the parts

Edit: saw .it in your links, assuming italy, this is the way I'd build for myself, which you should alter to your taste, coming in at €1480.87 full build:

https://it.pcpartpicker.com/list/QgGg9r

I thought PCPP showed "details" to people using the link but it doesn't, so ill attach it here:

CPU - WOW I didn't know the 7600X is cheaper than 7600...

Cooler - cheapest cooler with screw mount, which is less headache than mount on even cheaper coolers. weight suggest it has enough copper and aluminum to cool 7600x just fine. (can pay a few cents more to GET RID of ARGB -> one less header to wire!)

MoBo -

video suggest this board will handle any 7000 series CPU you upgrade to in the future. Has wifi. Has VRM heatsink which is also flush to the edge, making it look ok inside a case. Can get ASUS PROART if you insist, I don't know your I/O requirements, just make sure to have enough ports. Can also downgrade to cheaper boards if style (ugly, not flush to edge heatsink), I/O(less USB etc) and upgrade (won't handle ryzen 9) is not of concern. I didn't see any zen4 mobo without heatsink so no terrible options here for a ryzen 5.

RAM - expo 5600 2x16 from kingston with heatspreaders...

SSD - DRAM cached NVMe SSD sort by price, all top options looks like TLC NAND, 980Pro doesn't look expensive, you can also upgrade to 990Pro if you want.

GPU - you said 1440p, so >6700 is best, and 6700XT looks like best value.

Case - is my taste, choose what you like. Airflow and build quality is important and gamers nexus YT does case reviews, and so does many other.

PSU - I remember the MPG A-GF performing on par with Strix gold, which is to say very good. Price is good. Full modular as well. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/msi-mpg-a750gf-power-supply-review

 

[siluro818]

7800X3D is the only worthwhile AM5 chip for gaming in my opinion. Otherwise go for a 13600K.

This is the first generation of AM5 CPUs. I.e. the exact same situation as back in 2017 where you'd want a Ryzen 1600 just to get on the platform.
If you don't need the performance right now for something very specific you don't need to overspend on a 7800X3D when you're trying to get within a budget.
Intel is not an alternative in this case - it's a trap lol

 

[R0H1T]

Get the 7700x on a deal, don't settle for anything less than an 8c today unless budget is a major issue

 

[siluro818]

Get the 7700x on a deal, don't settle for anything less than an 8c today unless budget is a major issue

I don't even know if that is the case: https://www.techspot.com/review/2555-intel-core-i5-13600k/#12_Game_Average

 

[dgianstefani]

I don't even know if that is the case: https://www.techspot.com/review/2555-intel-core-i5-13600k/#12_Game_Average

14 Cores vs eight or six.

Mainstream media reviews aren't accurate.

Only CPUs that beat Raptor Lake are X3D chips.

 

[Kapone33]

Yeah well unless you're lassoing your entire OS, or are assuming that the software scheduler that operates on a per application basis list without any hardware scheduler as with Intel Hybrid, I wouldn't be so quick to assume your CPU schedules every task onto the right type of core 100%. Based on feedback from people who have reviewed specifically the 7950X3D.

I am talking about Gaming. I am talking about 2 Games that I mention that have real time GPU for the Battle Map and CPU for turn times. I am not talking about the benchmark run either but actually playing the Game for more than an hour to experience it. I had a 5800X3D and where the 7900X3D is great is keeping high frames when there are 7-9K units (for each side) at 4K Ultra unit size without dips. Or no skipping but just smooth scrolling across the Map in COH3

I do play Just Cause 4, Project Cars 1,2 Grim Dawn, Orcs Must Die 3, Spacebourne 2, Everspace 2 and they all play faster than before. In those Games I don't hear the fan I have connected to the CPU temp ramping up to 2800 RPM. That is the key for me so there is work to be done on those titles but it's not like they don't play fine already.


I can't speak for the 7950X3D my chip was $400 cheaper so that must also come into the equation. I suspect that popularity will push the price of the 7800X3D to close to or above $500 (where I live) but boards and RAM are no longer much more of a premium over AM4 so there is that. Adding another $200 to get the 7900X3D (If you can afford it) makes sense to me.

 

[siluro818]

14 Cores vs eight or six.

Mainstream media reviews aren't accurate.

Only CPUs that beat Raptor Lake are X3D chips.
View attachment 288700View attachment 288701View attachment 288702View attachment 288703

No, no, they're accurate. You just insist on using 720p data over 1080p
And the reason I don't care about 720p is that by the time it becomes relevant pretty much everyone would have upgraded their CPU.

 

[dgianstefani]

No, no, they're accurate. You just insist on using 720p data over 1080p
And the reason I don't care about 720p is that by the time it becomes relevant pretty much everyone would have upgraded their CPU.

Try again.

The "scheduler set to prefer cache" is basically a simulated 7800X3D, as game load will be on X3D eight core CCD exclusively.

 

[siluro818]

Try again.

The "scheduler set to prefer cache" is basically a simulated 7800X3D, as game load will be on X3D eight core CCD exclusively.
View attachment 288709

Doesn't matter, man. You choose to pick one source over the other. Both use a dozen games, just different games. Neither is definitive.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Doesn't matter, man. You choose to pick one source over the other. Both use a dozen games, just different games. Neither is definitive.

Also both are using different ram and motherboards which unfortunately with AM5 currently can cost a lot of performance... The 13600K is the safer option just because you can get most of it's performance just randomly picking the components

With AM5 currently the memory/motherboard combination can have a massive sometimes even as much as a 10% difference.... Going with a X3D chip eliminates that for the most part.

At the same time the OP plans on going with a RX 7600 last I checked that likely at best will match a 6750XT so anything above a R5 7600 with decent ram is going to be fine fighting over 4090 numbers vs a gpu that will be less than half as fast seems comical to me.

Don't get me wrong everyone has really good points imo but I think the OP has enough information to make a good decision on a semi budget build at least going by 2023 prices.

 

[dgianstefani]

Also both are using different ram and motherboards which unfortunately with AM5 currently can cost a lot of performance... The 13600K is the safer option just because you can get most of it's performance just randomly picking the components

With AM5 currently the memory/motherboard combination can have a massive sometimes even as much as a 10%.... Going with a X3D chip eliminates that for the most part.

At the same time the OP plans on going with a RX 7600 that likely at best match 6750XT so anything above a R5 7600 witch decent ram is going to be fine fighting over 4090 numbers vs a gpu that will be less than half as fast seems comical to me.

All the 4090 does is eliminate most of the GPU bottleneck, allowing for better real comparison of the CPUs. The reason most people in this thread are recommending 7700X as a minimum and preferentially the 7800X3D or 13600K+, is for these reasons.

What this testing infers is minimum lows from CPU performance even if you use a lower tier GPU that makes you GPU limited most of the time, at least you'll be maxing out that GPU and your framerates will be stable without the stutters that come from CPU limits in certain scenes.

Making up some numbers, I'd take a £400 CPU and a £400 GPU anyday that ended up giving me 100 FPS average with min lows of 80, over a £200 CPU and a £600 GPU that gave me 150 FPS average with min lows of 60 or lower. Framerate deviations are more noticeable than a slight loss of average FPS. Since your CPU/mobo/RAM platform are unlikely to be upgraded as much or as easily as a GPU, and with lower gains if you buy into the "buy the future proof platform" concept, it makes more sense to buy the best CPU you can out of the gate, and maybe upgrade GPU in a couple of years or every two generations. There's also the strong argument of following an eight core 16 thread minimum when building a new system, since that's what consoles use.

Plus ray traced titles and implementations are only getting more and more CPU intensive, so I wouldn't be surprised to see the advantages of stronger CPU platforms being even more apparent as time goes on.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

All the 4090 does is eliminate most of the GPU bottleneck, allowing for better real comparison of the CPUs. The reason most people in this thread are recommending 7700X as a minimum and preferentially the 7800X3D or 13600K+, is for these reasons.

What this testing infers is minimum lows from CPU performance even if you use a lower tier GPU that makes you GPU limited most of the time, at least you'll be maxing out that GPU and your framerates will be stable without the stutters that come from CPU limits in certain scenes.

Making up some numbers, I'd take a £400 CPU and a £400 GPU anyday that ended up giving me 100 FPS average with min lows of 80, over a £200 CPU and a £600 GPU that gave me 150 FPS average with min lows of 60 or lower. Framerate deviations are more noticeable than a slight loss of average FPS. Since your CPU/mobo/RAM platform are unlikely to be upgraded as much or as easily as a GPU, and with lower gains if you buy into the "buy the future proof platform" concept, it makes more sense to buy the best CPU you can out of the gate, and maybe upgrade GPU in a couple of years or every two generations. There's also the strong argument of following an eight core 16 thread minimum when building a new system, since that's what consoles use.

I understand the point you are trying to make if it was me I would be going with a 7700 non X and some Gskill 6000 CL30 at a min just for the sake of not needing to likely replace anything down the line for a good while. At the same time if I was limited to 1500 usd or whatever the local equivalent I would be prioritizing the gpu. I much rather have a $200 CPU and a $500 GPU vs a $400 CPU and a $300 GPU... That is just my opinion though. Not saying anyone else is wrong or that I am right I just think if gaming is the priority the gpu should be most important component within reason.

 

[dgianstefani]

I understand the point you are trying to make if it was me I would be going with a 7700 non X and some Gskill 6000 CL30 at a min just for the sake of not needing to likely replace anything down the line for a good while. At the same time if I was limited to 1500 usd or whatever the local equivalent I would be prioritizing the gpu. I much rather have a $200 CPU and a $500 GPU vs a $400 CPU and a $300 GPU... That is just my opinion though. Not saying anyone else is wrong or that I am right I just think if gaming is the priority the gpu should be most important component within reason.

Sure, but by prioritizing the GPU in the short term you're compromising the platform in the long term, if your budget is limited. Two to four years comes around and the gamer wants to upgrade his GPU, now he's plugging it into a system that will be 10-20% slower or even more than that if they'd gone with a solid CPU/mobo initially. Look at how 4690 vs 4790K aged. Now imagine having a six core CPU in 2026, when you could have had a 14 core, or at least a very fast eight core.

I think the OP gets this and it's why he's emphasising quality, and why others have mentioned how case is important for these reasons. You keep the case, the PSU, the motherboard, between iterations of builds, and while you can certainly get bigger numbers by dumping half or more of your budget into GPU, I don't think it's wise. What's going to happen is what could have been a simple GPU upgrade in future, turns into a "I was going to upgrade my GPU but now I see it would be bottlenecked by my CPU" thread.

 

[Vayra86]

Also both are using different ram and motherboards which unfortunately with AM5 currently can cost a lot of performance... The 13600K is the safer option just because you can get most of it's performance just randomly picking the components

With AM5 currently the memory/motherboard combination can have a massive sometimes even as much as a 10% difference.... Going with a X3D chip eliminates that for the most part.

At the same time the OP plans on going with a RX 7600 last I checked that likely at best will match a 6750XT so anything above a R5 7600 with decent ram is going to be fine fighting over 4090 numbers vs a gpu that will be less than half as fast seems comical to me.

Don't get me wrong everyone has really good points imo but I think the OP has enough information to make a good decision on a semi budget build at least going by 2023 prices.

This, exactly my earlier point about system balance and relating that balance to your preferred resolution, upgrade path and gaming favorites.

Its all about balance. Bench results only tell you the overall story. Its like statistics; good for average view on things, horrible for personal choices.

Sure, but by prioritizing the GPU in the short term you're compromising the platform in the long term, if your budget is limited. Two to four years comes around and the gamer wants to upgrade his GPU, now he's plugging it into a system that will be 10-20% slower or even more than that if they'd gone with a solid CPU/mobo initially. Look at how 4690 vs 4790K aged. Now imagine having a six core CPU in 2026, when you could have had a 14 core, or at least a very fast eight core.

I think the OP gets this and it's why he's emphasising quality, and why others have mentioned how case is important for these reasons. You keep the case, the PSU, the motherboard, between iterations of builds, and while you can certainly get bigger numbers by dumping half or more of your budget into GPU, I don't think it's wise. What's going to happen is what could have been a simple GPU upgrade in future, turns into a "I was going to upgrade my GPU but now I see it would be bottlenecked by my CPU" thread.

It really all depends on the relative cost of the two. Half budget into GPU is in fact a rule of thumb for any gaming system. But it matters quite a lot if that budget is 1000,- or 2000,-. The former will get you a big pile of nothing these days if you take that path.

Still though, the impact of CPU performance with a weaker GPU is just incredibly overrated, there is generally much more value in a GPU upgrade even if you're losing a few % on CPU bottleneck. The exception to this rule is not in shooters; its precisely in the games that turn heavily CPU bound as described earlier. I think you're being a bit too hung up on the numbers/percentages and too little into the experience of actual gaming on different genres / types of games.

History repeats in that sense... We've seen this all before and 90% of the CPUs on offer now are in a fantastic place wrt gaming perf, nobody cares if they push 160 FPS or 200.

As for core count... 6 today would indeed come up short for a future upgrade. But 8c/16t is more than fine, especially if those 8 cores are on an X3D chip. 14? Absolute nonsense, and certainly not an advantage over 8 good ones, nor better future proofed. And it won't be different in 2025 or 2026 either.

All the 4090 does is eliminate most of the GPU bottleneck,

This, while true, is also not entirely a genuine statement. Why? Because we're measuring 4090 performance on current day games. It won't be going up in the future (!), in a relative sense, it will relatively perform 'less' as newer games arrive and those newer games won't necessarily push harder on the CPU alongside that. So as time passes on any GPU you have, its likely that the bottleneck still keeps moving towards GPU rather than CPU, or at worst, in equal measure. This is again why balance matters. If there is CPU headroom today, you can safely say it'll last several GPU upgrades just like that.

Back in the day when CPU performance was largely single threaded and struggling in more titles than it was shining, that's when the above principle (of looking ahead by taking the fastest GPU) rang true, simply because CPU performance was lagging behind massively. Today, we're looking at a diametrically different situation: GPU performance is actually stalling gen-to-gen, while CPU performance has leaped forward since Ryzen. The leaps after you reach an 8 core CPU with >4.5 Ghz are in fact of very little interest to the vast majority of games/systems.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Sure, but by prioritizing the GPU in the short term you're compromising the platform in the long term, if your budget is limited. Two to four years comes around and the gamer wants to upgrade his GPU, now he's plugging it into a system that will be 10-20% slower or even more than that if they'd gone with a solid CPU/mobo initially.

I think the OP gets this and it's why he's emphasising quality, and why others have mentioned how case is important for these reasons. You keep the case, the PSU, the motherboard, between iterations of builds, and while you can certainly get bigger numbers by dumping half or more of your budget into GPU, I don't think it's wise.

I think if he was set on intel sure he would have likely no decent upgrade option 2 years from now but if he spends 300 or less now on the cpu and in 2-3 years upgrades to a similarly priced cpu he likely will be much better off vs spending almost 500 on a 7800X3D.

Given how dismal the low end gpu's have become where even the 4070ti is kinda trash a 500 usd gpu is likely not going to be very good anyways though I guess.

Even though the budget is way different with my current build I prioritized just getting a 4090 and sticking with my 5950X vs going AM5 regardless of how much faster a 7800X3D is if my budget was limited to 1800 usd whatever gpu I paired it with would be a trash experience at 4k a good reason regardless of budget people need to look at what makes the most sense to them. As it is my 3080ti is a joke comparatively and Nvidia only sub 1k card is pretty disappointing.