Intel vs. AMD

[Cedaway]

Here is a site reporting some gaming tests for the Zen3 lineup.

Source: https://www.thefpsreview.com/2020/11...m-to-the-test/

 

Another round: https://ithardware.pl/testyirecenzje/test_procesora_amd_ryzen_5_5600x_amd_utarlo_nosa_intelowi-13913.html

[Motomouse]

5600x will be a nice 3600x substitute as soon as bios is available and it will also help to keep the total system power usage low (I have to admit the 5800x is tasty too)

 

Oh and take a look at the 1% low framerate value :-)

[reece146]

5800X + 6900XT is going to rock - might not even need to fork a DCS server to off-load compute.

 

IIRC 4000MHz w/ low CL RAM is the sweet spot for 5X00X CPUs - can't find where I saw that - too lazy to do the math - first coffee of the day - don't put too much stock into it without doing your own research.

 

(caveats around BIOS and video driver quality apply - might not want to be an early adopter if you aren't technically savvy)

[Motomouse]

My CPU frame times are already with a 3600x at very good 5 to 6ms (so no need for dedicated server in my use case). I am totally GPU bound with my 1080Ti at 100% Reverb G1 rendering (10ms frametime). When I unlock my 1080Ti I am able to keep the 90FPS for dogfighting. If I am able to snatch a 6800xt ahead of the chinese miners I hope for dogfighting at 150% rendering :-) If not I just continue to shoot down my opponents at 100% rendering ;-)

[eatthis]

i failed to get a 5900x and now theyr gone :(

 

[LucShep]

Well, not sure how many of you are on the same boat.

 

I've waited, and waited (and waited)... done my research, read and watched, inquired and questioned, on pretty much everything (prices, motherboards, memory, all the procedures, etc), over and over (and over) and, funny enough.....

I'll be going Intel (i7 10700K) afterall.

 

...follow me on this...

 

There's just too much price gap between the Ryzen models (5600x, 5800X, 5900X and 5950X), also more expensive now, that I'd be foolish not to consider an Intel (K) 10th gen chip.

 

I already have a 6c/12t CPU, and will not upgrade to anything less than one of the newest 8c/16t CPUs.

Therefore, for me, and weighing everything, it goes down to these two:

• Intel i7 10700KF (360,00 € is the lowest in my area)
  
• AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (470,00 € is the lowest in my area)
  

The motherboard I chose for either CPU/platform is same price, memory is the same 2x 16GB kit as well.

It all boils down to the CPU then.

 

One may say that LGA1200's Z490 is more or less a dead end, it's doubtfull the incoming Intel 11th gen (start of 2nd quarter 2021) will offer more than 10% IPC improvement over current 10th gen.

Yes, it'll support PCIe-4, but I have no need for it (whatsoever), it's an absolutely meaningless feature to me.

AM4's B550/X570 is also a dead end now - there's no upgrade path possible after Ryzen 5000 - it's last gen on this socket platfom.

 

So, it's a technical draw here.

 

If measuring other pros and cons....

 

Ryzen have always been tipically overly sensitive when it comes to memory timings (not just speed), to the point where you may get into indepth tweaking either to make it stable, or to extract more than what DOCP (same as XMP of Intel) already delivers - this seems to be a given for newest 5000 series as well.

Whereas Intel K chips are absurdly RAM agnostic (every single RAM you use just works). You just set XMP and be done with it, and focus just on the CPU overclock if interested (where it's fun to do, then see the hefty gains), which is another aspect that I'm not yet sure is any worth with Ryzen 5000s.

 

Then the hassle of the BIOS updating for new Ryzen 5000s, prior to installing the chip on the motherboard, and the subsequent BIOS updates ahead (guaranteed for early adopters, be sure of that). Not sure what problems may creep in.

Whereas for Intel 10th gen, old tech as it is now (pretty much Skylake on steroids), it's smooth sailing guaranteed. While the "14nm+++++++++++" meme applies, the truth is that it is an utterly refined, more than proven tech, where issues are pretty much nullified. Built like a friggin tank.

 

Then if I add the benchmarks, where it shows gaming is so similar (both are beasts), and then confronting the +100,00 Euros price difference between 10700K vs 5800X, well... for what I intend to do with my PC, I honestly can't see any justification to pay the extra for the new Ryzen 8 core. It seems to me that, right now, the Intel "K" chips are actually looking like the better deal for price-conscious buyers?

 

I'm done, and closing the deals on parts in the next few days. :-)

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2020 by LucShep
...spelling (?)

[Gryzor]

From a pure performance point of view, in DCS, what do you recomend me? AMD 5900x or Intel 10900K? what is expected to have higher fps?

[Mars Exulte]

From a pure performance point of view, in DCS, what do you recomend me? AMD 5900x or Intel 10900K? what is expected to have higher fps?

 

You could like... read the thread. It's only two pages. Surely you can manage that daunting task @@

[blkspade]

I'm a bit curious as to what your use case is. The 5600X seems to beat or tie the 10700K in many if not most games, with similar results in many multithreaded workloads. Even where it loses in multithread, its closer to the 10700K than the i7 is to the 5800x. That's for 100watts less power (thus heat), and $180 less with an included cooler. That would absolutely run circles around whatever current 6c/12t you could currently have. With a realistic need for the additional threads outside of gaming, the 5800X pulls further away.

 

The only thing that makes want to move from my 3900X, is that there is a noticeable hit to DCS in VR in a VM compared to native. More so than any other VR game, and a non-issue for flat screen games. With plans to transition away from Windows as my regular desktop OS, it can get its own die for gaming while all my main Linux stuff runs on the other. I want the 5950X almost solely to have the 2 8 core CCDs, but could probably realistically get by with the 5900X. Both would raise the lows above the point of concern for VR.

 

Well, not sure how many of you are on the same boat.

 

I've waited, and waited (and waited)... done my research, read and watched, inquired and questioned, on pretty much everything (prices, motherboards, memory, all the procedures, etc), over and over (and over) and, funny enough.....

I'll be going Intel (i7 10700K) afterall.

 

...follow me on this...

 

There's just too much price gap between the Ryzen models (5600x, 5800X, 5900X and 5950X), also more expensive now, that I'd be foolish not to consider an Intel (K) 10th gen chip.

 

I already have a 6c/12t CPU, and will not upgrade to anything less than one of the newest 8c/16t CPUs.

Therefore, for me, and weighing everything, it goes down to these two:

• Intel i7 10700KF (360,00 € is the lowest in my area)
  
• AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (470,00 € is the lowest in my area)
  

The motherboard I chose for either CPU/platform is same price, memory is the same 2x 16GB kit as well.

It all boils down to the CPU then.

 

One may say that LGA1200's Z490 is more or less a dead end, it's doubtfull the incoming Intel 11th gen (start of 2nd quarter 2021) will offer more than 10% IPC improvement over current 10th gen.

Yes, it'll support PCIe-4, but I have no need for it (whatsoever), it's an absolutely meaningless feature to me.

AM4's B550/X570 is also a dead end now - there's no upgrade path possible after Ryzen 5000 - it's last gen on this socket platfom.

 

So, it's a technical draw here.

 

If measuring other pros and cons....

 

Ryzen have always been tipically overly sensitive when it comes to memory timings (not just speed), to the point where you may get into indepth tweaking either to make it stable, or to extract more than what DOCP (same as XMP of Intel) already delivers - this seems to be a given for newest 5000 series as well.

Whereas Intel K chips are absurdly RAM agnostic (every single RAM you use just works). You just set XMP and be done with it, and focus just on the CPU overclock if interested (where it's fun to do, then see the hefty gains), which is another aspect that I'm not yet sure is any worth with Ryzen 5000s.

 

Then the hassle of the BIOS updating for new Ryzen 5000s, prior to installing the chip on the motherboard, and the subsequent BIOS updates ahead (guaranteed for early adopters, be sure of that). Not sure what problems may creep in.

Whereas for Intel 10th gen, old tech as it is now (pretty much Skylake on steroids), it's smooth sailing guaranteed. While the "14nm+++++++++++" meme applies, the truth is that it is an utterly refined, more than proven tech, where issues are pretty much nullified. Built like a friggin tank.

 

Then if I add the benchmarks, where it shows gaming is so similar (both are beasts), and then confronting the +100,00 Euros price difference between 10700K vs 5800X, well... for what I intend to do with my PC, I honestly can't see any justification to pay the extra for the new Ryzen 8 core. It seems to me that, right now, the Intel "K" chips are actually looking like the better deal for price-conscious buyers?

 

I'm done, and closing the deals on parts in the next few days. :-)

 

 

 

 

[LucShep]

I'm a bit curious as to what your use case is. The 5600X seems to beat or tie the 10700K in many if not most games, with similar results in many multithreaded workloads. Even where it loses in multithread, its closer to the 10700K than the i7 is to the 5800x. That's for 100watts less power (thus heat), and $180 less with an included cooler. That would absolutely run circles around whatever current 6c/12t you could currently have. With a realistic need for the additional threads outside of gaming, the 5800X pulls further away.

 

My use case is mostly gaming and modding.

For gaming, I use mainly the simulations kind (flight and racing) with a few AAA and also RTS titles thrown in the mix. Also use console emulators (RPCS3, Xenia). All in a 1080P monitor, most at 2880x1620@75Hz upscaled resolution.

For modding, I do audio (wavelab, soundforge) and textures (photoshop, paintshop) creation and editing, which can push things a bit with a heap of templates, plug-ins and tabs open.

I don't stream, don't render, don't do CAD nor 3D modelling.

 

Not sure where you live, as the reality on prices I see seems quite different to those you mention.

Can't find lower prices than these on the following listed CPUs:

• AMD R5 5600X ---------- 335,00 €
  
• INTEL I7 10700KF ------ 360,00 €
  
• AMD R7 5800X ---------- 470,00 €
  
• INTEL I9 10850KA ------ 480,00 €
  
• AMD R9 5900X ---------- 570,00 €
  
• AMD R9 5950X ---------- 780,00 €
  

Not sure why would one go for the R5 5600X, when for just 25,00 Euros more you can get the i7 10700K, which is indeed the better chip of the two?

Same thing for the R7 5800X, for just 10,00 Euros more you can get the i9 10850K which is indeed the better chip of the two (it's the 10900K just with less 100Mhz)?

 

The only "trully awesome purchases" for Ryzen 5000 that I realize in this landscape are the two highest end products - the 5900X and the 5950X.

Both of which are way over my budget.

One thing I notice is that prices are already getting lower on the 3000 series, and may consider a 3900X (at < 430,00 €).

 

Another thing that is bugging me, and also why I end up leaning towards Intel, is that last time I gave in to hype and benchmarks on a brand new line of processors (yes, drank the kool-aid) was in 2018, when I got an R5 2600 + B450, which ended up being slower (and unstable, awful experience) when compared to the Xeon W3690 (OC@4.5Ghz) that I was using and then got back to again (to this day).

First hand user experience is very important, benchmarks don't tell the whole story.

And here, unfortunately, it's still too early to see how Ryzen 5000s are, the only guaranteed results I have are with Ryzen 3000 series (now mature) and Intel K chips (totally fuss free), as I still build rigs quite frequently so quite accustomated with them.

[Lurker]

The 5600X looks like a best buy at least for most single threaded apps (which DCS definitely is).

[Leaderface]

And here, unfortunately, it's still too early to see how Ryzen 5000s are, the only guaranteed results I have are with Ryzen 3000 series (now mature) and Intel K chips (totally fuss free), as I still build rigs quite frequently so quite accustomated with them.

 

I´m with you here: Being an early adopter is not always a good idea.

I know this time could be different, but only time can tell you that.

If this time we could jump on AM5..... But not untill Zen 4

Things will start to heat up with Rocket lake, but that will be nearing March 21.....

[blkspade]

 

My use case is mostly gaming and modding.

For gaming, I use mainly the simulations kind (flight and racing) with a few AAA and also RTS titles thrown in the mix. Also use console emulators (RPCS3, Xenia). All in a 1080P monitor, most at 2880x1620@75Hz upscaled resolution.

For modding, I do audio (wavelab, soundforge) and textures (photoshop, paintshop) creation and editing, which can push things a bit with a heap of templates, plug-ins and tabs open.

I don't stream, don't render, don't do CAD nor 3D modelling.

 

Not sure where you live, as the reality on prices I see seems quite different to those you mention.

Can't find lower prices than these on the following listed CPUs:

• AMD R5 5600X ---------- 335,00 €
  
• INTEL I7 10700KF ------ 360,00 €
  
• AMD R7 5800X ---------- 470,00 €
  
• INTEL I9 10850KA ------ 480,00 €
  
• AMD R9 5900X ---------- 570,00 €
  
• AMD R9 5950X ---------- 780,00 €
  

Not sure why would one go for the R5 5600X, when for just 25,00 Euros more you can get the i7 10700K, which is indeed the better chip of the two?

Same thing for the R7 5800X, for just 10,00 Euros more you can get the i9 10850K which is indeed the better chip of the two (it's the 10900K just with less 100Mhz)?

 

The only "trully awesome purchases" for Ryzen 5000 that I realize in this landscape are the two highest end products - the 5900X and the 5950X.

Both of which are way over my budget.

One thing I notice is that prices are already getting lower on the 3000 series, and may consider a 3900X (at < 430,00 €).

 

Another thing that is bugging me, and also why I end up leaning towards Intel, is that last time I gave in to hype and benchmarks on a brand new line of processors (yes, drank the kool-aid) was in 2018, when I got an R5 2600 + B450, which ended up being slower (and unstable, awful experience) when compared to the Xeon W3690 (OC@4.5Ghz) that I was using and then got back to again (to this day).

First hand user experience is very important, benchmarks don't tell the whole story.

And here, unfortunately, it's still too early to see how Ryzen 5000s are, the only guaranteed results I have are with Ryzen 3000 series (now mature) and Intel K chips (totally fuss free), as I still build rigs quite frequently so quite accustomated with them.

 

I'm in the US, so prices are a bit different. I'm still confused about where you claim the Intel's are the better. The 5600X manages to outperform even the 10900K in some games, and the whole series is also better in photoshop than Intel's entire line-up. I moved from a 4790K to a R7 2700, with no issues. I eventually gave the 2700 to my kids because the z97 board died (initially thought it was the CPU) that was handed down to them with the 4790K. This is a very in-depth review, and many others mirror it's general results

 

[LucShep]

 

I'm in the US, so prices are a bit different. I'm still confused about where you claim the Intel's are the better. The 5600X manages to outperform even the 10900K in some games, and the whole series is also better in photoshop than Intel's entire line-up. I moved from a 4790K to a R7 2700, with no issues. I eventually gave the 2700 to my kids because the z97 board died (initially thought it was the CPU) that was handed down to them with the 4790K. This is a very in-depth review, and many others mirror it's general results

 

There is no confusion. The i7 10700K is technically the better chip over the R5 5600X. :)

Sure, one may say the R5 5600X has higher IPC, therefore looks better for unoptimized games (we'll see later with DCS), but it still has less cores and threads to spread the workload.

 

For example, pick a game or app that uses cores/threads propperly (something that will happen even more in closing times) and, for that same given program/game, the effort on CPU utilization is higher (less CPU overhead) on the chip with fewer cores/threads, with all the downsides that ensues. This is not rocket science.

This is why most people imediately advised the R5 2600 (or the similar R5 1600AF) instead of the R3 3300X for budget systems meant for longer term usage, even if the latter has higher IPC (ok, and also least CCX latency issues).

 

Between two CPUs of equivalent performance and price, and for the longer term, you want the one with more cores/threads. :)

 

...if there's just 25,00€ difference between the i7 10700K (8c/16t) and the R5 5600X (6c/12t), seems to me that the former is a better deal, rather than the latter.

And same also for the i9 10850K (10c/20t) versus the R7 5800X (8c/16t) with just 10,00€ between them.

 

I appreciate the link for "Tech Jesus" review of the R5 5600X but had already seen it (along with dozens upon dozens of reviews by now).

Speaking of youtube reviews, and funny enough, this fella actually shares my point of view (on the 10700K) at some point:

Edited November 7, 2020 by LucShep
...spelling(?)

[blkspade]

 

There is no confusion. The i7 10700K is technically the better chip over the R5 5600X. :)

Sure, one may say the R5 5600X has higher IPC, therefore looks better for unoptimized games (we'll see later with DCS), but it still has less cores and threads to spread the workload.

 

For example, pick a game or app that uses cores/threads propperly (something that will happen even more in closing times) and, for that same given program/game, the effort on CPU utilization is higher (less CPU overhead) on the chip with fewer cores/threads, with all the downsides that ensues. This is not rocket science.

This is why most people imediately advised the R5 2600 (or the similar R5 1600AF) instead of the R3 3300X for budget systems meant for longer term usage, even if the latter has higher IPC (ok, and also least CCX latency issues).

 

Between two CPUs of equivalent performance and price, and for the longer term, you want the one with more cores/threads. :)

...and if there's just 25,00€ difference between the i7 10700K and the Ryzen 5 5600X, seems to me the former is a better deal, rather than the latter.

 

I appreciate the link for "Tech Jesus" review of the R5 5600X but had already seen it (along with dozens upon dozens of reviews by now).

Speaking of youtube reviews, and funny enough, this fella actually shares my point of view (on the 10700K) at some point:

 

I've watched his as well. Ok. I get that it should be better, on paper. I just feel it should be way better. The problem is that in many actual properly multithreaded applications, its just barely pulling ahead when it manages not to lose. Like I said previously the, 5600X is a lot closer to the i7 in those scenarios, than the i7 is to the 5800x. It does make more sense given the closer pricing in your region I suppose. That still doesn't instill much faith in the gaming transition that will start fully utilizing Zen 2 based consoles with RDNA. Outside of simulators, consoles gets first billing and AMD has positioned itself to start leveraging that advantage. MSFS though will likely need to be heavily optimized for the Xbox SX release. Between Direct Storage (and RTX IO) and Smart Access Memory, PCIe 4 is going to get used for sure. They are clearly features designed specifically to provide symmetry with the incoming Gen of consoles. They are definitely trying to steal free performance optimizations.

 

Quadcore was well past its prime with even the 7700K. Intel just didn't have the incentive to move consumers past it. Hyperthreading and brute force extended it's relevance in gaming. 12 threads will probably carry that 5600X deep in to the life span of the consoles. When my 4790K at 4.7Ghz was on par with the 7700K, I knew I needed at least double the cores to be happy. The 8700K didn't really wow me. GPU transcoding was sub par, handbrake made the computer unusable, and I hosted a plex server. The R7 2700 made the most sense to me. Intel seemingly had only even bothered offering more cores to stay close in productivity workloads. Now their final chip on the platform will only be 8c/16t. Which is also when they'll unlock PCIe 4 on Z490, but maybe it wont be relevant before any other reason to upgrade.

[LucShep]

​

 

I've watched his as well. Ok. I get that it should be better, on paper. I just feel it should be way better. The problem is that in many actual properly multithreaded applications, its just barely pulling ahead when it manages not to lose. Like I said previously the, 5600X is a lot closer to the i7 in those scenarios, than the i7 is to the 5800x. It does make more sense given the closer pricing in your region I suppose.

Oh, I don't refute your point. What AMD is doing, with products able to close up on next upper tier of competition, sure is worth of applause.

But at this price difference, similar performance, getting fewer cores? ...NOPE. Well, you already understood where I'm at. :)

 

That still doesn't instill much faith in the gaming transition that will start fully utilizing Zen 2 based consoles with RDNA. Outside of simulators, consoles gets first billing and AMD has positioned itself to start leveraging that advantage. MSFS though will likely need to be heavily optimized for the Xbox SX release. Between Direct Storage (and RTX IO) and Smart Access Memory, PCIe 4 is going to get used for sure. They are clearly features designed specifically to provide symmetry with the incoming Gen of consoles. They are definitely trying to steal free performance optimizations.

 

That is indeed a good point, can't be underestimated for the longer term (and why I'm not 100% sure yet on the CPU platform purchase).

I worked briefly (sub-contracted) with three different PC game developers, and pretty much every fella doing work was on Intel CPU (+Nvidia GPU). The tests with equivalent hardware (AMD) were an afterthought, just bug hunting adjustments.

If games are made around certain hardware, of course better performance at time of release is achieved if using that hardware. We've seen this since the Intel Core2 was introduced (in 2006), to this day.

Notice how AMD Ryzen 5000 best gaming benchmark results are with newest game titles... the landscape of gaming PCs has been slowly changing to AMD in the last three years (multirole, affordable prices) and, of course, that must count for something.

AMD already provides hardware for next-gen consoles (CPU+GPU based on Ryzen+Navi) and so the roles with Intel may reverse, more so if there are features to provide simmetry with next gen consoles, like you mention.

And, who knows, if their next GPUs (RX6000) succeed, perhaps even a reversion of roles may happen with Nvidia, in the GPU market...

 

The R7 2700 made the most sense to me. Intel seemingly had only even bothered offering more cores to stay close in productivity workloads. Now their final chip on the platform will only be 8c/16t. Which is also when they'll unlock PCIe 4 on Z490, but maybe it wont be relevant before any other reason to upgrade.

​

Yes, but your Ryzen 7 2700 had B450/X470 motherboards readily available at launch, where you could just drop the processor, and off you go. Easy peasy.

None of that happens now, quite different for Ryzen 5000. :)

X570 was released last year, and B550 was released just months ago, presented as "made for next gen Ryzen", except they're not so, not off the shelve, they need user intervention for that.

And that's a problem that I find unbelievable how downplayed it was and is (and noticed, never mentioned) during reviews. Youtube reviewers look like glorified salesmen, more and more (IMHO).

While Intel kind of deserves to be looked as "the dark side of the force", truth is they're always fuss-free. On the other hand,"AMD making technicians from users since 2017" may well be the next popular meme.

 

Everyone getting into AMD Ryzen 5000 needs to understand this - every single AM4 motherboard out there needs to have Agesa 1.1.0.0, and while that seems simple and inoffensive, it's quite a sensitive operation.

After working with PC repairs for quite some time, can say that issues with bricked motherboards due to corrupted BIOS during its update (then requiring new bios-chip if there's no BIOS flashback) is a LOT more common than most think.

If you're not sure or confident on this operation, enquire and ask the seller for assistance before commiting to the deal.

Do not count with PC stores flashing BIOS prior to motherboards purchase (none of those that I contacted do it), the interest is on selling the parts, period.

 

The way that AMD and the AIBs are handling this release is utterly moronic, with no motherboards 100% ready off the shelve for these new processors.

Next weeks probably will show the extension of the problem a little more, I predict there'll be many frustrated users with the migration to AMD after years on Intel.

[LucShep]

By the way, for what is worth:

 

 

[VirusAM]

​

Oh, I don't refute your point. What AMD is doing, with products able to close up on next upper tier of competition, sure is worth of applause.

But at this price difference, similar performance, getting fewer cores? ...NOPE. Well, you already understood where I'm at. :)

 

 

 

That is indeed a good point, can't be underestimated for the longer term (and why I'm not 100% sure yet on the CPU platform purchase).

I worked briefly (sub-contracted) with three different PC game developers, and pretty much every fella doing work was on Intel CPU (+Nvidia GPU). The tests with equivalent hardware (AMD) were an afterthought, just bug hunting adjustments.

If games are made around certain hardware, of course better performance at time of release is achieved if using that hardware. We've seen this since the Intel Core2 was introduced (in 2006), to this day.

Notice how AMD Ryzen 5000 best gaming benchmark results are with newest game titles... the landscape of gaming PCs has been slowly changing to AMD in the last three years (multirole, affordable prices) and, of course, that must count for something.

AMD already provides hardware for next-gen consoles (CPU+GPU based on Ryzen+Navi) and so the roles with Intel may reverse, more so if there are features to provide simmetry with next gen consoles, like you mention.

And, who knows, if their next GPUs (RX6000) succeed, perhaps even a reversion of roles may happen with Nvidia, in the GPU market...

 

​

Yes, but your Ryzen 7 2700 had B450/X470 motherboards readily available at launch, where you could just drop the processor, and off you go. Easy peasy.

None of that happens now, quite different for Ryzen 5000. :)

X570 was released last year, and B550 was released just months ago, presented as "made for next gen Ryzen", except they're not so, not off the shelve, they need user intervention for that.

And that's a problem that I find unbelievable how downplayed it was and is (and noticed, never mentioned) during reviews. Youtube reviewers look like glorified salesmen, more and more (IMHO).

While Intel kind of deserves to be looked as "the dark side of the force", truth is they're always fuss-free. On the other hand,"AMD making technicians from users since 2017" may well be the next popular meme.

 

Everyone getting into AMD Ryzen 5000 needs to understand this - every single AM4 motherboard out there needs to have Agesa 1.1.0.0, and while that seems simple and inoffensive, it's quite a sensitive operation.

After working with PC repairs for quite some time, can say that issues with bricked motherboards due to corrupted BIOS during its update (then requiring new bios-chip if there's no BIOS flashback) is a LOT more common than most think.

If you're not sure or confident on this operation, enquire and ask the seller for assistance before commiting to the deal.

Do not count with PC stores flashing BIOS prior to motherboards purchase (none of those that I contacted do it), the interest is on selling the parts, period.

 

The way that AMD and the AIBs are handling this release is utterly moronic, with no motherboards 100% ready off the shelve for these new processors.

Next weeks probably will show the extension of the problem a little more, I predict there'll be many frustrated users with the migration to AMD after years on Intel.

 

That is exactly what I am worried about.

Unfortunately amazon don’t offer a service to upgrade the bios...but probably many little specialized shops will

[Thinder]

​

Oh, I don't refute your point. What AMD is doing, with products able to close up on next upper tier of competition, sure is worth of applause.

But at this price difference, similar performance, getting fewer cores? ...NOPE. Well, you already understood where I'm at. :)

 

No I don't, how many games uses more than 4 cores? How many cores will Vulkan use? With the Ryzen 5000 series, AMD is right on the ball of what they've always been doing for gamers, cheaper, only this time it's also more performant.

 

You want to do fast QAD rendering or 3D? Chose another CPU, and you'll also will preferably use another GPU than a gaming one, it's up to the user to know what they're gonna use their PC for and I'm not working in a D3 department anymore, so I don't need 12 cores. The 5600X 6 cores will do me just fine.

 

 

​

Yes, but your Ryzen 7 2700 had B450/X470 motherboards readily available at launch, where you could just drop the processor, and off you go. Easy peasy.

None of that happens now, quite different for Ryzen 5000. :)

 

So what? It's not the first time motherboard manufacturers publishes a BIOS update is it? Whatever the reason if there is an update, people should inform themselves, learn how to do it properly and install it, my MSI B450 GAMING PLUS MAX was never designed for the Ryzen 5000 series, but it supports Athlon to Ryzen 3000, so I have no complaint about it, quiet the opposite, because for less than £90 I have the best motherboard I can remember of and this includes some costing twice as much.

 

 

​X570 was released last year, and B550 was released just months ago, presented as "made for next gen Ryzen", except they're not so, not off the shelve, they need user intervention for that.

And that's a problem that I find unbelievable how downplayed it was and is (and noticed, never mentioned) during reviews. Youtube reviewers look like glorified salesmen, more and more (IMHO).

 

Not all of them. What people needs to do is to check on their BIOS.

 

​

While Intel kind of deserves to be looked as "the dark side of the force", truth is they're always fuss-free. On the other hand,"AMD making technicians from users since 2017" may well be the next popular meme.

 

Because you need to be a techie to flash a BIOS? I've been building my PCs since Pentium II, I guess I could apply for a job as technician, because it will not be the first BIOS I flash and update, Intel like AMD, my previous motherboard (Gigabyte GA-78LMT-USB3 Motherboard) saw 1 BIOS updates to fix STR compatibility, if you go AMD way, 75% of the time you're one of those who build their own PCs, and I've even done it in the 3D department employing me, so a BIOS update is not a big deal.

 

​Everyone getting into AMD Ryzen 5000 needs to understand this - every single AM4 motherboard out there needs to have Agesa 1.1.0.0, and while that seems simple and inoffensive, it's quite a sensitive operation.

 

Everything requires to be done with care, flashing and updating BIOS is no more sensitive than installing a new GPU, some people will damage their hardware with static electricity or forcing one piece into slots the wrong way, some will do it with care, although I already know how to do it, I always use a checklist to flash a BIOS, including what kind of standard do I need to formate my USB to, how to check file integrity after a download etc.

 

​

After working with PC repairs for quite some time, can say that issues with bricked motherboards due to corrupted BIOS during its update (then requiring new bios-chip if there's no BIOS flashback) is a LOT more common than most think.

If you're not sure or confident on this operation, enquire and ask the seller for assistance before commiting to the deal.

 

I wonder how many motherboards manufacturers were sold where they didn't make it a lot easier than it was previously to update a BIOS? But I'm using an MSI mid-range which is built with quality in mind so I understand that some people might have issues with BIOS flashing if their board is not designed to make it easier for them, for the info, I think I might have updated half of my motherboard BIOS and never had file corruption.

 

​

The way that AMD and the AIBs are handling this release is utterly moronic, with no motherboards 100% ready off the shelve for these new processors.

Next weeks probably will show the extension of the problem a little more, I predict there'll be many frustrated users with the migration to AMD after years on Intel.

 

Nothing to do with AMD, it's up to motherboard manufacturers to handle this part, at least AMD didn't screw people up and made update possible for X470 and B450 users.

 

Here is a quote from Qiou87 which is more specific about the X570 and compatibility with Ryzen 5000.

 

Qiou87

Never said X570 doesn't support Ryzen 5000. However Ryzen 5000 support is introduced with AGESA 1.0.8.0 which was only available in August/September. So an older X570 does not have this AGESA in its UEFI/BIOS and cannot boot with a Ryzen 5000. Actually you need AGESA 1.1.0.0 to take full advantage of Ryzen 5000, according to AMD themselves, and this one is only available since November. But you can boot with an older UEFI featuring 1.0.8.0 then make the update. Just take a look at your motherboards' UEFI download list, AGESA updates are clearly listed when made available through a UEFI update.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3585...yzen-5000.html

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...82#post7130582

 

In short, if you have a X570 motherboard with the right BIOS it's already supporting the Ryzen 5000 serie unless it's an early release, the other board, like my B450 (- Updated AMD AGESA ComboAm4PI 1.0.0.6), make it real easy to update your BIOS compared to what it used to be...

 

 

[Wali763]

When I got my I5-9600K Ialso had to check the bios on my (then) Z370-board. Did not need to update it at first but did some back and forth flashing without hassle later. Dont see a big difference to the current Ryzen5000 situation now.

 

The last video from gamers nexus, where they found, that a 4xRamstick vs 2xRamstick on Ryzen5000 offers up to 10% more perf is quite interesting.

 

 

Even Im a tiny Amd-fanboy Im a bit underwhelmed by the new genaration. The 10900k still looks pretty strong. I dont see, why Rocketlake should not beat Ryzen again gamingwise. Best solution for me right now seems to wait for Zen4. By then we also should have a clearer picture where DCS is heading (Vulcan/multithreaded etc).

 

@LucShep I did not read all of your posts, but I think in your comparisons you forgot, that for a 10700k you need a new board, which is also some 130e+ for a cheap one. And also a stronger, more expensive cooling solution is needed. With AMD your chances are good, that you can reuse your current board and cooler, which is a considerable saving.

[Thinder]

For the B450 motherboard users, a few tip.

 

1) Don't even think of updating your BIOS before you have your hands on your new CPU.

 

2) Download from MSI Support website when BIOS is made available.

 

3) Formate your USB drive to NTFS.

 

4) Disconnect all Drives SATA cables, Drives power cables and dismount CPU.

 

4) Reset your CMOS by taking the battery out of its socket for <> 30 seconds.

 

Full set of instructions is given on this video, watch it, you'll need to rename your CMOS file, detail is given on the video but check on your board manufacturer board before doing it.

 

 

Not all B450 boards might support support PCI_E4, but apparently this doesn't prevent the possibility of an update since it comes from the CPU, not the Chipset and AMD have put their foot down to obtain this support from manufacturers.

 

MSI 450 Series are well prepared for the update with full PCI_E4 support, DDR4 up to 4133 MHz (by A-XMP OC MODE) for the Gaming Plus Max at least (same, check your board stats) and after the update will have little trouble supporting the new AMD CPU and GPUs.

 

[LucShep]

 

 

No I don't, how many games uses more than 4 cores? How many cores will Vulkan use? With the Ryzen 5000 series, AMD is right on the ball of what they've always been doing for gamers, cheaper, only this time it's also more performant.

 

You want to do fast QAD rendering or 3D? Chose another CPU, and you'll also will preferably use another GPU than a gaming one, it's up to the user to know what they're gonna use their PC for and I'm not working in a D3 department anymore, so I don't need 12 cores. The 5600X 6 cores will do me just fine.

 

The following games are already able to exceed 85% CPU usage on a 6 core chip (

):

Red Dead Redemption 2, AC:Origins, AC:Odissey, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, The Divison 2, Rainbow Six Siege, GR-Breakpoint, all recent Battlefield series, latest Watch Dogs, latest COD games, The Witcher 3, ME:Andromeda (maybe even DA:Inquisition), and many others that I'm surely forgetting, including Turn-Based Strategy and RTS games.

Next coming times we have Cyberpunk 2077, AC:Valhala, Far Cry 6, as well as Bethesda's TES VI and Starlancer, all expected to follow same trend of multi-core usage, and will sure push things if allowed to.

And if all those titles are not enough, imagine in just two years time with a heap more titles coming out...

 

Don't be like the youtube tech dudes, forgetting that most of these games have (and will keep having) ways to get into the config files and hack things to extract even more resources to run them.

...yes mate, it's not just in DCS where users mess with files.

 

Vulkan, like DX12, is supposed to aleviate the CPU bottlenecks, by using as many CPU cores/threads as possible. It needs to be properly implemented (few games have) but this is what is expected to increase hugely in coming years.

Just look at RDR2 or newest Doom titles (both 2016 and Eternal).

 

LOL I get these big flashbacks years back, with opiniated people saying "4690K or 6600K (4c/4t) is all you need, don't buy a 4790K or 6700K (4c/8t)".

.....imagine who had the last laugh (and a really loud one)? :)​

 

A 6c/12t CPU is today what a 4c/8t was just three years ago. It has a predicted short lifespan for gaming (maybe less than 3 years before it's common to see it fully used... hitching and stuttering galore then).

If you intend to upgrade again in about two years from now, or if all you do is old and/or unoptimized single-threaded game-engines such as DCS and Arma 3, then yes, and by all means, a 6c/12t is actually more than enough. Heck, even a 4c/8t for these is all you need (CPU clocks permitting).

But if you have any PC gaming life outside these really constricted game engines, 8 core and 16 threads is the sweetspot right now for a brand new, longer term, CPU investment.

 

Because you need to be a techie to flash a BIOS? I've been building my PCs since Pentium II, I guess I could apply for a job as technician, because it will not be the first BIOS I flash and update, Intel like AMD, my previous motherboard (Gigabyte GA-78LMT-USB3 Motherboard) saw 1 BIOS updates to fix STR compatibility, if you go AMD way, 75% of the time you're one of those who build their own PCs, and I've even done it in the 3D department employing me, so a BIOS update is not a big deal.

 

Everything requires to be done with care, flashing and updating BIOS is no more sensitive than installing a new GPU, some people will damage their hardware with static electricity or forcing one piece into slots the wrong way, some will do it with care, although I already know how to do it, I always use a checklist to flash a BIOS, including what kind of standard do I need to formate my USB to, how to check file integrity after a download etc.

 

You're assuming a lot of things for the positive side, on your experience alone.

That's the arrogance mistake that very vocal AMD fanboys on Reddit and tech forums have been making for the last 3 years, creating false notions without realizing they influentiate perceptions of manufacturers.

Then we have situations like this, where a new CPU generation is launched with no motherboard fully guaranteed to work from the shelve (AFAIK first time it ever happened, and I'm into this since the Pentium 90 days), with manufacturers getting away with it, because "people now can handle it".

 

As a side reflection of COVID and social isolation, there are truck loads of people getting into PC gaming, on mid and high end range builds. And I mean at the "Nth" exponent, more than ever before.

I'm in constant contact with friends that still work in PC retail (parts selling and/or repair) and they all point to absurd mindboggling numbers of problem cases related with mishandling by customers, and many others result of pure bad luck - such as with BIOS flashing - notoriously with AM4.

I'm not even talking about normal things like bad handling of thermal-paste, wrong installation of a cooler, or placing dual kits of RAM in incorrect slots.

I'm talking about episodes of corrupt bios versions directly taken from the manufacturers website (hello Gigabyte!), bricking the motherboard on installation.

 

Imagine spending upwards of 1500,00 EUR/USD/GBP, feeling pumped and ancious to see your new beastly rig working and, as bad as luck can be, you get a corrupted BIOS flash and a bricked board, on day one. Not nice.

Situations like these are likely to happen for Ryzen 5000 series users.

Will it happen to most? Of course not, not even close, but... welcome to the lotery. The point is, it should never even be left as a potential situation for any paying customer, ever.

 

I wonder how many motherboards manufacturers were sold where they didn't make it a lot easier than it was previously to update a BIOS? But I'm using an MSI mid-range which is built with quality in mind so I understand that some people might have issues with BIOS flashing if their board is not designed to make it easier for them, for the info, I think I might have updated half of my motherboard BIOS and never had file corruption.

How many? From what I see it's a LOT more than you imagine.

MSI, and especially ASUS, are (IMO) the best ones for BIOS updates these days, but it doesn't mean it's always flawless.

 

The first thing in tech that must be done for costumers is a clear picture of what people will face. In a universe that expands more and more every month, there are more inexperient and tech-unaware users getting on PCs than ever before.

Giving vague information and tools (instead of ensuring products dispense these) is not the same as ensuring things will go the best way possible.

 

 

Nothing to do with AMD, it's up to motherboard manufacturers to handle this part, at least AMD didn't screw people up and made update possible for X470 and B450 users.

 

Here is a quote from Qiou87 which is more specific about the X570 and compatibility with Ryzen 5000.

 

It has also to do with AMD, it's them who give directives, though manufacturers do have a responsability.

This time not even MSI launched "MAX" versions of motherboards (fully ready for newest processors on launch) like they did with 2nd gen Ryzen, unfortunately so.

 

In short, if you have a X570 motherboard with the right BIOS it's already supporting the Ryzen 5000 serie unless it's an early release, the other board, like my B450 (- Updated AMD AGESA ComboAm4PI 1.0.0.6), make it real easy to update your BIOS compared to what it used to be...

 

In short, you're counting with the lotery of getting a motherboard that may or may not have a capable bios for latest chips?

​ Okies... lets hope my brand new car off the stand floor has oil in the engine.... if not, I'm now supposed to put that oil myself, right? :joystick:​​ OK mate, you do you. :helpsmilie:​

 

 

Edited November 8, 2020 by LucShep
...spelling(?)

[Thinder]

 

The following games are already able to sometimes exceed 85% CPU usage on a 6c/12t chip:

Red Dead Redemption 2, AC:Origins, AC:Odissey, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, The Divison 2, Rainbow Six Siege, GR-Breakpoint, all recent Battlefield series, latest Watch Dogs, latest COD games, The Witcher 3, ME:Andromeda (maybe even DA:Inquisition), and many others that I'm surely forgetting, including Turn-Based Strategy and RTS games.

Next coming times we have Cyberpunk 2077, AC:Valhala, Far Cry 6, as well as Bethesda's TES VI and Starlancer, all expected to follow same trend of multi-core usage, and will sure push things if allowed to.

And if all those titles are not enough, imagine in just two years time with a heap more titles coming out...

 

You visibly haven't seen the charts for the Ryzen 5 5600...

 

> Intel i9 9900K > £350 vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X £300: Equivalent gaming performances overall, 10% faster single corps, 10% faster dual corps, 5% faster single corp O.C, runs cooler, lower power consumption (30W less than the Ryzen 5 5600X and 3600XT and i9 9900K).

 

To me it means that I will be able to use my actual cooler, (a very good Artic 7X ) and use a GPU with a TDP up to 30W higher than my actual 1080Ti 11GB, it won't cost me an extra penny in PSU upgrade even if i O.C it, being 30% more energy efficient and I still will have the same power output margin than today. Beat that with a i9-9900K, that's why the Ryzen 5 3600X is widely regarded as the best gaming CPU today.

 

 

Don't be like the youtube tech dudes, forgetting that most of these games have (and will keep having) ways to get into the config files and hack things to extract even more resources to run them.

...yes mate, it's not just in DCS where users mess with files.

 

I don't need Youtube tech dudes to know that the Ryzen suggested by AMD for gaming doesn't use more than 4 corps, you guys keep writing B.S but have completely missed the point of those 6 corps CPU.

 

I can read it directly from my Ryzen Master App, as a matter of fact, to access the cache at higher rate, corps are shut down and remaining corps clock are boosted, Ryzen 5 5600X is no exception, in fact, they pushed the concept even further by allowing all active corps to access the same cache simultaneously and independently, this, to reduce latency, and it works.

You obviously missed this youtube techies bit, I could almost detect some degree of jealousy there, do you get less than 10K approval for your youtube lectures?

 

 

Vulkan, like DX12, is supposed to aleviate the CPU bottlenecks, by using as many CPU cores/threads as possible. It needs to be properly implemented (few games have) but this is what is expected to increase hugely in coming years.

Just look at RDR2 or newest Doom titles (both 2016 and Eternal).

 

And how exactly is it going to affect the way the Ryzen architecture works? They reached the same performances with less corps, where is your problem exactly?

 

 

LOL I get these big flashbacks years back, with opiniated people saying "4690K or 6600K (4c/4t) is all you need, don't buy a 4790K or 6700K (4c/8t)".

.....imagine who had the last laugh (and a really loud one)? :)​.

 

You're projecting dude, you're the opiniated and uninformed one here, and despite having more cores Intel CPUa in the same price range got left behind in terms of performances, so obviously you're plain wrong here.

 

 

A 6c/12t CPU is today what a 4c/8t was just three years ago. It has a predicted short lifespan for gaming (maybe less than 3 years before it's common to see it fully used... hitching and stuttering galore then).

If you intend to upgrade again in about two years from now, or if all you do is old and/or unoptimized single-threaded game-engines such as DCS and Arma 3, then yes, and by all means, a 6c/12t is actually more than enough. Heck, even a 4c/8t for these may be all you need (CPU clocks permitting).

But if you have any PC gaming life outside these really constricted game engines, 8 core and 16 threads is the sweetspot right now for a brand new CPU investment.

 

I call B.S on this one. I run a Ryzen 5 3600X at the moment and when I see a CPU with equivalent core speeds running games +16% faster, with 8% lower memory latency, 16% higher O.C quad-core speed, with 30W lover power consumption, I know there is something going on there that you haven't got yet. That would be what a gaming CPU is for AMD users.

 

 

You're assuming a lot of things for the positive side, on your experience alone.

That's the arrogance mistake that very vocal AMD fanboys on Reddit and tech forums have been making for the last 3 years, creating false notions without realizing they influentiate perceptions of manufacturers.

Then we have situations like this, where a new CPU generation is launched with no motherboard fully guaranteed to work from the shelve (AFAIK first time it ever happened, and I'm into this since the Pentium 90 days), with manufacturers getting away with it, because "people now can handle it".

 

Talk about arrogance of a fanboy. You geezers completely missed the point of the Ryzen architecture, try to sell us CPUs with MORE corps than we need for gaming and feed us with complete B.S about how many corps the games on your list will use which is completely irrelevant to the gaming Ryzen, FACT Ryzen 5000 doesn't NEED more than 6 cores to run games as fast than the equivalent Intel CPU while costing 50 quid less, using 30W less and running cooler. Get over it.

 

As a side reflection of COVID and social isolation, .....nstallation.

 

More of the same, when your finished venting hot wind on a subject (Ryzen processors and gaming) you visibly haven't studied in any form or detail, let us know.

 

Imagine spending upwards of 1500,00 EUR/USD/GBP, feeling pumped and ancious to see your new beastly rig working and, as bad as luck can be, you get a corrupted BIOS flash and a bricked board, on day one. Not nice.

Situations like these are likely to happen for Ryzen 5000 series users.

Will it happen to most? Of course not, not even close, but... welcome to the lotery. The point is, it should never even be left as a potential situation for any paying customer, ever.

 

I leave the anxiety to you, If I need an opinion or advise on how to build an AMD gaming PC I know where to ask and you're obviously not on my list.

 

How many? From what I see it's a LOT more than you imagine.

MSI, and especially ASUS, are (IMO) the best ones for BIOS updates these days, but it doesn't mean it's always flawless.

 

Yeah like Covid 19 you brought into the conversation it's as much a risks as dying from it compared to dying from a common flue. Get real. As I said I updated my boards BIOS perhaps more often than you built your own PC and never had a file corruption, and as a matter of FACT it never was because of the CPU...

 

Something else, the i9-9900K is compatible with the new Z390 chipset, BUT subject to a BIOS update also compatible with the older Z370 chipset, looks like the AMD situation is common with Intel's after all...

 

In short, you're counting with the lotery of getting a motherboard that may or may not have a capable bios for latest chips?

​ Okies... lets hope my brand new car has oil in the engine once I pick it first day.... if not, I'm supposed to put that oil myself, right? :joystick:​​ OK mate, you do you. :helpsmilie:​

 

Nope, as opposed to you I do my homework before writing on this forum so I knew exactly what to expect in term of possible upgrades and went for a PCI_E4 board, my board architecture is already Ryzen 5000 capable, that's the good aspect of the 450 Gaming series chipset: Socket AM4, PCI_E4, DDR4 4000/ 4133 MHz (by A-XMP OC MODE), the only missing bit will be PCI_E4 support for multi-GPU but I couldn't give a toss since I don't intend to use this solution, better get a faster GPU and it supports them too.

 

The updated BIOS is on the pipeline for January and if people have been done by their manufacturers because they sold them boards with no PCI_E4 support or with missing bits and bobs, there is little AMD can do about it, because support for Ryzen 5000 is not coming from the chipset but the CPU itself, the board design and architecture has nothing to do with AMD.

 

In short you fanboyz AMD bashers are p****d off because your little favorite got spanked and you are venting it out in forum writing tons of nonsense about what AMD have been doing to get there, conveniently forgetting that the Intel users face a similar situation for the i9-9900K and Z370 chipset.

 

Reality is, we still have more ooomph for the buck than Intel/Nvidia can propose today, and to a B450 user, a BIOS update is a little price to pay to have access to the 5000 series, especially when you consider the performances and specs of the board for below £90.

[LucShep]

EH? Spitting the dummie with "fanboyz AMD bashers?" and "we still have" (who's we?).... WTF?

 

I don't think you're even able to read the posts correctly, judging by the answers alone. It's not about yourself, nor your use case.

It's about those migrating to AMD, on what is a perceived and concrete issue. Thanks for contributing to the discussion with valid points. Go fly a kite, will ya?

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

 

You visibly haven't seen the charts for the Ryzen 5 5600...

 

> Intel i9 9900K > £350 vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X £300: Equivalent gaming performances overall, 10% faster single corps, 10% faster dual corps, 5% faster single corp O.C, runs cooler, lower power consumption (30W less than the Ryzen 5 5600X and 3600XT and i9 9900K).

 

To me it means that I will be able to use my actual cooler, (a very good Artic 7X ) and use a GPU with a TDP up to 30W higher than my actual 1080Ti 11GB, it won't cost me an extra penny in PSU upgrade even if i O.C it, being 30% more energy efficient and I still will have the same power output margin than today. Beat that with a i9-9900K, that's why the Ryzen 5 3600X is widely regarded as the best gaming CPU today.

 

 

 

 

I don't need Youtube tech dudes to know that the Ryzen suggested by AMD for gaming doesn't use more than 4 corps, you guys keep writing B.S but have completely missed the point of those 6 corps CPU.

 

I can read it directly from my Ryzen Master App, as a matter of fact, to access the cache at higher rate, corps are shut down and remaining corps clock are boosted, Ryzen 5 5600X is no exception, in fact, they pushed the concept even further by allowing all active corps to access the same cache simultaneously and independently, this, to reduce latency, and it works.

You obviously missed this youtube techies bit, I could almost detect some degree of jealousy there, do you get less than 10K approval for your youtube lectures?

 

 

 

 

And how exactly is it going to affect the way the Ryzen architecture works? They reached the same performances with less corps, where is your problem exactly?

 

 

 

 

You're projecting dude, you're the opiniated and uninformed one here, and despite having more cores Intel CPUa in the same price range got left behind in terms of performances, so obviously you're plain wrong here.

 

 

 

 

I call B.S on this one. I run a Ryzen 5 3600X at the moment and when I see a CPU with equivalent core speeds running games +15% faster with 30W lover power consumption, I know there is something going on there that you haven't got yet.

 

 

 

 

Talk about arrogance of a fanboy. You geezers completely missed the point of the Ryzen architecture, try to sell us CPUs with MORE corps than we need for gaming and feed us with complete B.S about how many corps the games on your list will use which is completely irrelevant to the gaming Ryzen, FACT Ryzen 5000 doesn't NEED more than 6 cores to run games as fast than the equivalent Intel CPU while costing 50 quid less, using 30W less and running cooler. Get over it.

 

 

 

More of the same, when your finished venting hot wind on a subject (Ryzen processors and gaming) you visibly haven't studied in any form or detail, let us know.

 

 

 

I leave the anxiety to you, If I need an opinion or advise on how to build an AMD gaming PC I know where to ask and you're obviously not on my list.

 

 

 

Yeah like Covid 19 you brought into the conversation it's as much risks as dying from it compare to dying from a common flue. Get real. As I said I updated my boards BIOS perhaps more often than you built your own PC and never had a file corruption, and as a matter of FACT it never was because of the CPU...

 

Something else, the i9-9900K is compatible with the new Z390 chipset, BUT subject to a BIOS update also compatible with the older Z370 chipset, looks like the AMD situation is common with Intel after all...

 

 

 

Nope, as opposed to you I do my homework before writing on this forum so I know exactly what to expect and went for PCI_E4, my board architecture is already Ryzen 5000 capable, that's the good aspect of the 450 Gaming series chipset, Socket AM4, PCI_E4, DDR4 4000/ 4133 MHz (by A-XMP OC MODE), the only missing bit will be PCI_E4 support for multi-GPU but I couldn't give a toss since I don't intend to use this solution, better get a faster GPU and it supports it too.

 

The updated BIOS is on the pipeline for January and if people have been done by their manufacturers because they sold them boards with no PCI_E4 support or with missing bits and bobs, there is little AMD can do about it, because support for Ryzen 5000 is not coming from the chipset but the CPU itself, the board design and architecture has nothing to do with AMD.

 

In short you fanboyz AMD bashers are p****d off because your little favorite got spanked and you are venting it out in forum writing tons of nonsense about what AMD have been doing to get there, conveniently forgetting that the Intel users face a similar situation for the i9-9900K and Z370 chipset.

 

Reality is, we still have more ooomph for the buck than Intel/Nvidia can propose today, and to a B450 user, a BIOS update is a little price to pay to have access to the 5000 series, especially when you consider the performances and specs of the board for below £90.

And if the AMD happens to outpace the Intel..

who the f$ck cares?? Is there a prize or something or is it some balled nut boy pissing match???