Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Wait for 9th gen Intel?
PNM_Jennings
Member UncommonPosts: 1,093
in Hardware
So my mobo is kinda on the way out and I should replace it soon. And while I'm replacing it there's kind of no good reason not to replace the cpu at the same time (I'm running an i5 2500k haha). So here's my question: would it be at all worth it to wait for the 9th gen Intel cpus or just upgrade to 8th gen now? Is the difference going to be significant enough that I'm better off waiting?
Comments
Rumors say that the next refresh will offer 8 core CPUs, while their current mainstream lineup only goes up to 6 cores. If you think those two extra cores are worth waiting for, then maybe you wait. But otherwise, no. If you wait for 10 nm, you'll likely be waiting at least another year for the low end dual cores, and likely longer for anything bigger than that.
It's also worth mentioning that AMD CPUs are competitive now, and certainly the most competitive that they've been since Conroe arrived in 2006. If you buy a Core i7 8700K for $350 from Intel or its successor in the refresh at likely a higher price tag, you can argue that it's a little better than what AMD offers if you put a high value on single-threaded performance. But for anything below that, AMD offers a competitive product at a competitive price. I'm not saying that you should definitely buy AMD, but only that it's worth considering, and available today as they recently refreshed their lineup.
Some extra questions to ponder.
1. Memory.
You didn't mention it but your current setup will have DDR3. Current builds use DDR4. Given your question I assume you don't want to look at older cpus + motherboards that support DDR3 - increasingly hard to get - but that does mean you will need to budget for new memory.
2. Operating System.
Windows is keyed to motherboards. Unless you are using a copy of Windows 10 that you purchased (or maybe Linux) you might end up having to buy another copy of Windows. Suggest you check out your options. Motherboard only is one thing but if you change your cpu and memory .... suffice to say you might have to budget for an operating system as well.
3. If - as a result - you end up getting a motherboard ..... and a cpu, memory and operating system the obvious next questions are:
Storage. If you have an SSD OK? If you don't ...... well SSDs, or NVMe's that are replacing them, will make a much bigger difference than i7 or i9 - budget for new storage?
And Windows OEM copies - nominally - is suposed to come with new system but system builders usally have copies as well and will nominally sell with "upgrade parts". Not saying you can't get OEM copies on their own just how it is supposed to work.
If you do end up looking at all of the above I would also ask whether you have an SSD. If you don;t the question becomes: are you really thinking about a new system?
(SSDs - or the newer NVMe - being one of the single biggest improvements to system performance in the last several years.)
If so the bugbear in the room is graphics cards. And - sadly - even if you have an "old" graphics card it may still represent "decent value". As in "the cost to get a decent improvement can be huge".
If they remove hyperthreading from i7 that is just... really quite dumb.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
So. Is it worth investing a little more in a new hs+f? Or would the stock work? Which option will have the most longevity? I'm willing to take a small performance hit now to save me having to upgrade for an extra year or two. I assume no matter what (from what I can see) a 650W psu will be enough to handle the new cpu and a 970?
Also just what about mobos? Because frankly I don't know what I'm looking for in either case. (Though I realize this question isn't really answerable until I decide whether to go with AMD or Intel.)
If you get new mobo + processor to replace I5 2500K, then you'll also need to get DDR4 RAM because you will have DDR3 which is not compatible with new processors and motherboards. Other parts you could likely keep.
You do not need to buy a new cooler if you buy AMD, their stock coolers are good enough. You can always buy better cooler for overclocking, or to get the computer's noise level down, but you don't need to the stock cooler is ok. With Intel you should buy cooler separately their stock coolers are so bad.
If you want to get cheap I'd suggest looking at I5-8400 + cheap motherboard + new RAM (because your old one isn't compatible) + using your existing cooler if you already have a good cooler for Intel. Something like this, you could still keep it in $400 even with having to purchase RAM https://pcpartpicker.com/list/hW6hmq
Disclaimer: That's meant as an example. I built that in less than 2 minutes
EDIT: You don't need to worry about PSU power. I5 8600K and Ryzen 5 2600X both have same power draw as I5 2500K. That I5 8400 I'm recommending uses less power. Your PSU will be able to run them since it was able to run I5 2500K.
EDIT 2: Do you have an SSD? If you don't have one already, then you could add ~500GB SSD to that example built I made, and still keep it in $500 budget
As far as power supplies go 650W will power most systems out there. Processors, memory and storage have all moved to use less power.
As far as AMD or Intel go - either will do. For current-generation parts (AMD Ryzen 2000 or Intel 8th Generation) it doesn't matter.
Remember / key point: for gaming the biggest limiting factor is - usually - the graphics card.
So if you opt for Intel say any 8th gen i5, i3 or even a Pentium! will be a huge leap over what you have now. And the recent resurgence of AMD means that cpu prices don't scale in a linear fashion - so spending a bit more can reap huge gains in performance - but this can be a tweak when you make a final decision.
If your budget will have to include memory - and operating system? - allow for those first. They are the same for AMD and Intel. When it comes to memory you can get different speeds, over-clocked etc. and there are sweet spots but - basically - decide whether you want 8Gb, 16Gb etc., try to make sure you have an upgrade option. Although that may come down to what motherboard you end up with.
If this alters your budget then what I would then suggest is you create an AMD and an Intel system.
However your motherboard hasn't died! So - if you don't have an SSD in your system I would get one of those today and wait. (If you go with a new mobo then NVMe.)
So here's what I'm thinking right now. It's pushing the envelope a little bit, but I would prefer to invest a little more now than to have to reinvest again sooner. AMD 5 2600X for $230 (only $30ish more than a 8400 or 8500), and G Skill Ripjaw V 16GB DDR4 3200 for $170. I'll just use the stock fan.
That just leaves the question of the motherboard unless someone finds fault with that setup. What I'm thinking is the Asus ROG Strix B350-F since it allows for overclocking (which I may or may not do in the future) but doesn't support SLI (which I have no intention of doing) for $125.
That brings the total up to $525 which is on the high end of what I can afford, but I won't have to worry about upgrading again any time soon. What does the hive mind say?
1) directly, as the CPU is cheaper
2) cheaper motherboards if you want to get something nice, as AMD commonly charges less for their higher end chipsets than Intel, and motherboard manufacturers pass that cost along to you
3) no need to buy an aftermarket cooler, as AMD's stock cooler is comparable to a $30 aftermarket cooler
It sounds like (3) might not apply to you.
As for the power supply, a good quality 650 W power supply will be plenty for that setup unless you're into liquid nitrogen overclocking or something crazy like that.
But do you have an SSD? Your computer sounds so old that you might not have, and if you don't have one then I think saving with CPU to buy an SSD would be a good idea.
Upon further review, only the Ryzen 7 2700X gets the wraith prism cooler. AMD's stock coolers for their cheaper CPUs aren't nearly as good.
My info was outdated, and Ryzen 5 2600 would likely be better price/performance than I5 8400.
Sorry for posting outdated info.
Case: Antec 300 Illusion ATX
Fan: Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus
PSU: Corsair Enthusiast TX 650W
HDD: Seagate 2TB
SSD: Samsung 850 EVO 500GB
GPU: MSI GTX 970
Current motherboard: Asrock P67 Extreme4
Current CPU: Intel i5-2500k
Current RAM: GSkill Ripjaw DDR3 4x4GB
Also an ASUS DVD burner
EDIT: And since I always want to learn, the SSD is an issue because of bottlenecking right?
AMD also tends to have better iGPUs than Intel, which is good for workloads where you can use the iGPU for Display and dGPU for Compute (i.e. Video Editing with DaVinci Resolve).
Aside from that, I don't touch AMD.
I also feel like more software is optimized with a bias for Intel/Nvidia, which results in software running better on their CPUs. Anything that supports CUDA tends to de facto run better on Nvidia than Intel/AMD OpenCL.
I didn't even consider AMD when I bought my new machine a few months ago. I've already been bitten by their laggard single thread performance, multiple times, and I feel their support lifecycle for products is not as good as Intel or Nvidia's.
A 512GB SATA3 SSD costs only $109.99, these days (the 3D NAND Ultra from SanDisk). Samsung 500GB EVOs are barely more expensive (maybe $15 or so).
That is not something I'd save money on a CPU to get, especially when you can jut get a 120-250GB SSD for dirt cheap for your OS and then run your games off of a 7,200 RPM Drive (probably the same one currently in the system). Honestly, FireCuda 5.400 RPM SSDs are fine to run games off of. I've done it. They basically outperform most 7,200 RPM drives. The SSD is only really a big deal if you want instant-load times in some types of games (ARPGs, Competitive Shooters like OW where you want to insta-lock your Hero, etc.).
If the OP is that hard up for cash, chances are he cannot afford an SSD big enough to be used as a gaming drive, anyways. Games are coming in at 50-100GB+, these days. You'd need a 1-2TB SSD to comfortably use it for that; and I'd argue that the ardent gamer basically needs 2GB to start (unless you want to constantly manage this the way people with 500GB XBO's were, before external storage support was added). This is why a lot of Gaming PCs and laptops ship with Smaller SSD for System/Apps + Large HDD/SSHD for Data/Game Storage (and why almost all gaming laptops have dual drive bays).
Which CPU you get also depends on what applications you run other than the games, as well. This will change the general gist of what you're saying, when factored in. Currently, the suggestions are based on fairly one-dimensional assumptions and considerations. This also applies to GPUs, as some applications bias heavily in favor of CUDA or OpenCL, and this determines which brand of GPU you get for your build.
Everything depends on how you plan to use the PC, Gaming or otherwise.
But if you don't have SSD, there are many situations where the computer is less responsive because it has to load stuff from slow HDD, and SSDs are already cheap enough that getting an SSD to any but cheapest computer builds should be a no-brainer.