Is the higher price of lower latency RAM justified when used only occasionally?
Is the higher price of lower latency RAM justified when used only occasionally?
Hey guys! Building new setup after black friday, but i feel i need to order the ram kit now before the prices go up even more here in Europe. It would be very unlikely that any store would have those on sale on BF. There is still few options below 200€ for 2x 16GB sets. So the options are: A) Crucial Pro OC 32 GB DDR5-UDIMM RAM 6000 MT/s CL36 - 119,90€ B) Patriot Memory Viper Venom PVV532G640C32K, 6400 / CL32 / 1.4V / XMP 3.0 - 171,90€ C) Kingston Technology FURY Renegade RGB 6400 / CL32 / 1.4V / XMP 3.0 - KF564C32RWAK2-32 - 173,90€ (if the RGB vomit can be turned off?) Going with B860M motherboard (depending which on sale) and Intel Core Ultra 225F/245KF which has native 6400 support. Basically the Patriot looks much better on paper due to lower latency, but how big of a difference there is in real world? My use is fairly light mixed daily stuff on Win 11 and some older fps games now and then. I have seen people saying "computer feels snappier" and "less stuttering in X games" after they got faster/lower latency ram. I also see from the Tom`s review that the cheaper Crucial ram can be overclocked to 6400, but the CL number remains 36. I have not overclocked ram manually ever just used the XMP with my DDR3 1600 ram. Not sure how easy that would be or time consuming or if potentially reducing reliability. What is disappointing to read is the below average performance with games on the Crucial. Buying new modern cpu i would still want to get the best out of it and Intel probably recommends 6400MT/S ram. Is the price hike worth it with B and C? Like those buy once, cry once things. I`m keeping computer long time, but 52-54€ is still rather steep jump. Thanks!
It can be turned off. I'm running almost the same RAM currently in my two builds (specs/pics in my sig), whereby i have:
Kingston Fury Beast RGB 6400 / CL32 / XMP / EXPO - KF564C32BBEAK2-32.
To turn the RGB off, use either MoBo RGB control software or SignalRGB.
Better get low latency RAM. This gives the best performance.
Also, higher transfer speed isn't always the best, especially when you have high CAS Latency to go along with it. To know which transfer speed and CAS Latency combos are most beneficial, lets put the transfer speed and latency into nanoseconds, with a formula of:
(cas latency/ram transfer speed) x 2000 = latency in nanoseconds
Few examples:
(22/3200) x 2000 = 13.75 nanoseconds (DDR4)
(20/3000) x 2000 = 13.33 nanoseconds (DDR4)
(40/6400) x 2000 = 12.5 nanoseconds (DDR5)
(16/2667) x 2000 = 11.998 nanoseconds (DDR4)
(14/2400) x 2000 = 11.667 nanoseconds (DDR4)
(18/3200) x 2000 = 11.25 nanoseconds (DDR4)
(10/1866) x 2000 = 10.71 nanoseconds (DDR3) <- what i was running in my now retired Haswell build
(15/3000) x 2000 = 10 nanoseconds (DDR4) <- what i was running in my now retired Skylake build
(30/6000) x 2000 = 10 nanoseconds (DDR5)
(32/6400) x 2000 = 10 nanoseconds (DDR5) <- what i'm currently running in my Aurora and Astral builds
With this, slower transfer speed (2400 MT/s) but also smaller CAS Latency (CL14) RAM, is overall quicker, than higher transfer speed (6400 MT/s) and bigger CAS Latency (CL40) RAM.
Manual RAM OC, as it was done with the Crucial set, is VERY time consuming + then some.
XMP/EXPO is also considered RAM OC, but enabling those profiles means that RAM manufacturer has done the legwork for you, whereby they have tested in-depth what frequency is stable at what timings. And put those settings into OC profile, which are commonly known as XMP (for Intel CPUs) and EXPO (for AMD CPUs).
But the idea with manual RAM OC is;
* Establish the baseline JEDEC frequency/timings/voltage the RAM will work at. E.g for that Crucial set, it is 6000 MT/s with 36-36-36-76 timings at 1.4V.
* With RAM OC, you either increase the frequency (e.g 6000 MT/s -> 6400 MT/s), tighten the timings (e.g 36-36-36-76 -> 34-34-34-72), reduce voltage (e.g 1.4V -> 1.35V) or do all of them.
* Once you've done minute change to either of the three values i listed, you then have to make sure the RAM is stable and doesn't spew out errors. For that, you have to test RAM with memtest86 and it takes A LOT of time. 1 full pass (all 15 tests) is bare minimum. 2 full passes are better while 4 full passes is considered acceptable. For 2x 16GB set, it takes ~5h per 1 full pass. Or ~20h for 4 full passes.
More often than not, when you go overboard with the frequency/timings/voltage adjustment, the system isn't stable and will not boot to OS. Then you need to get back to BIOS to adjust it in smaller increment.
Overall, most people do not bother to manually OC their RAM, since it takes a lot of patience and time. Most people just enable XMP/EXPO (that RAM manufacturer has set up) and run that. But there are some folks who want the absolute best on what their RAM possibly can deliver and are willing to spend time and effort in achieving this. While real world difference is small to none.
That's what cheap RAM is. Low price = poor performance. This is so with all things.
AMD Ryzen 9000-series also has native 6400 MT/s support. I'm currently running two Ryzen chips myself, with 6400 MT/s RAM.
But overall, Intel Core Ultra 200 is poor option. You'd get better value with Ryzen 9000-series CPU. E.g R5 9600X.
Gaming performance (1440p) between U5 245K and R5 9600X
Source:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel...5k/20.html
Absolutely glad to hear the response was helpful! It’s clear you’ve thought through your options carefully. I’m focusing mainly on 225F, but if a Black Week promotion hits for 245KF, it might be worth considering a 14C/14T build with a larger cache. My gaming isn’t intense—mostly F2P titles at 1080P resolution. I’ll stick with the 80+ Gold Seasonic 400w PSU and GTX 1060 for now. If GTA VI arrives, things could change.
In Europe, a 225F is about the same price as the most popular budget CPU, 7500F. It gives better performance, runs cooler, uses less power, especially at idle. I keep my PC running around 12 hours daily and electricity costs can spike, especially during winter or with new data centers. The 9600X uses a bit more power when idle than Intel CPUs, but given my lighter usage, it’s close.
I’m not worried about upgrading soon because I expect to keep the system for over six years without needing a CPU change. My current setup is an i5 4670K (4C/4T), so even a 225F would be a big improvement. The 245KF wouldn’t consume much more power in light use, and when pushed harder it could finish tasks faster.
Originally I wanted the CU5 235 because it matched the performance of 245KF with lower TDP (65W) and better MTP. But prices here are high in Europe. Motherboard options between B650M/B850M and B860M aren’t too different, though the Ryzen model is on sale, which helps a bit.
Prices vary by region: 225F is around 167€, 235 at 290€, 245KF at 214€, 265KF at 300€, 7500F at 144€ (from another EU), 7600 at 190€, 9600 at 216€, 9600X at 221€, 9700X at 320€. If you want the link, here it is.
Do note that F-suffix means that there aren't any iGPU inside the CPU. Whereby build must have dedicated GPU (dGPU) in it to see the image.
For the most part, iGPU isn't used and many people opt to getting CPU without iGPU, since it can be a bit cheaper. But when something would happen with your dGPU (GTX 1060), you'd be dead in water. In that instance, iGPU is godsend, since you can then plop out the dGPU, hook monitor to MoBo and continue using your PC (web browsing and light gaming). No proper gaming, but web browsing alone is more than enough than looking at dead PC that requires dGPU to operate.
I, personally, see 0 value in all F-suffix CPUs. iGPU in CPU is great redundancy if something should happen with dGPU.
🤔
Model of your Seasonic unit is? And how old it is?
Since i know only one Seasonic unit that matches the description: X-400 [SS-400FL]. It came out in 2010 and it had 5 year warranty.
Don't tell me that you're currently running 15 year old PSU.
I too live in Europe (Greetz from Estonia!) and prices here, are, yes, high.
When i was looking for new build for myself about half a year ago, for the price of U5 245K, i could've got R7 9700X. (That was before Intel slashed it's prices.) But i ended up going with R7 9800X3D instead (specs/pics in my sig). Just so that CPU would stand better against time. Since i'm planning to use my new AM5 build for 10 years as well, just like i used my earlier i5-6600K build.
If you really want to save on power, better to run 80+ Titanium PSU, like yours truly.
(I'm running Seasonic PRIME 650 80+ Titanium [SSR-650TD].)
It offers the best savings on electricity.
For example;
80+ Gold unit on 50% load is 92% efficient.
80+ Titanium unit on 50% load is 94.5% efficient.
So, a PSU that is 650W and system consumes 325W, then;
80+ Gold PSU pulls from the wall 351W while wasting 26W as excess heat.
80+ Titanium PSU pulls from the wall 342.85W while wasting 17.85W as excess heat.
That's a diff of ~10W. Sure, 10W isn't big amount, but if you multiply it over time; 1 hour = 10W, 10 hours = 100W, 100 hours (4.2 days) = 1000W (1kW), it adds up, fast.
Every place, where electricity is expensive, it is smart idea to run the most efficient PSU there is.
Else-ways, you'd be wasting quite a bit of power as excess heat.
On idle, yes. But when comparing U5 245K on application use, R5 9600X pulls 18W less;
And on multi-core usage (essentially full power), R5 9600X pulls 54W less than U 245K;
Here's in-depth video by reputable reviewer (KitGuru) where Intel Core Ultra 200 lineup is discussed;
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1TDAXftWKc
Just for my interest alone, i checked the same CPU prices from my local store and they cost;
225F - €164.70
225 - €181.99
235 - €304.71
245KF - €207.70
245K - €224.50
265KF - €311.90
265K - €324
285 - €619.50 (€597.70 for tray)
285K - €624.20 (€598.90 for tray)
7500F - €141.30 (€135.90 for tray)
7600 - €190.80 (€173.20 for tray)
9400F - €94.40 for tray
9500F - €216 for tray
9600 - €255.30 (€195.30 for tray)
9600X - €217.20 (€206.40 for tray)
9700X - €318 (€276.40 for tray)
9800X3D - €508 (€474.20 for tray)
Prices look about the same between us.
Buy the cheaper ram.
You wouldn't notice the difference without a synthetic benchmark.
Use the savings elsewhere.
Interesting. Initially I was leaning toward it, but then I explored further and noticed discussions on Reddit and forums mentioning improved responsiveness with faster RAM and reduced lag when moving away from CL36. A YouTube video also suggested that low-latency RAM could help in FPS games. I think it would be a good investment, though these factors might become important as I keep the system longer and play more often.
When you purchase the essential item, do you often question whether your expenses would have been more efficient with an additional 50?
About the snappiness. On one side, there is hardware. In terms of RAM, DDR5 slowest frequency is 4000 MT/s, while most kits sold start at 4800 MT/s. Sweet spot is either 6000 MT/s with CL30 or 6400 MT/s with CL32. Both sets have 10 nanoseconds latency. Anything faster frequency wise, and you're looking towards much expensive CUDIMM, which isn't cost effective anymore.
Same was with DDR4 as well. Frequency started out at 2133 MT/s, sweet spot was 3000/3200 MT/s while anything faster than that wasn't cost effective.
On another side, there is software. Driver conflicts, bloatware, a lot of background processes running - all that can choke the system and make it run sluggish.
So, it is best to create hardware equilibrium, which then can cope better with the amount of software you are running on it. But if the hardware has some weak parts (e.g MoBo VRMs or slow RAM) then adding a lot of software on top of it makes it even worse and you end up with sluggish system.
I
strongly advise
you to replace the PSU. Seasonic G-360 initially released in 2012. At current moment, your PSU is 13 years old, which is more than double the life expectancy Seasonic gave to it (it ever came with 5 year warranty).
Sure, PSU reviewed well when it released in 2012. It wasn't the best Seasonic unit back then (X-series was) but it was considered a good quality PSU.
However, the years they PSU has on it, doesn't do well for it.
For one, capacitors age in time, regardless if you use the PSU or not. And your PSU has only one main cap in it, Hitachi HU420V271MC, rated for 270 uF, 420V and 105°C. That cap has design lifespan of 2000 work hours. Sadly, review doesn't state the make/model of secondary caps, other than saying they are Japanese made. But good quality caps in PSUs last between 5 and 10 years.
Then, there's the fact of PSU failing to keep voltages within spec over time. Since voltage regulation will worsen over time.
Now, G-360 started out with 2% deviation on main rails (+12V, +5V, +3.3V) and while it is lower than ATX spec says (max 5%), the deviation will increase in time. Until PSU surpasses ATX spec and starts to cause instability within the system (either providing too low or high voltages).
For comparison, my Seasonic unit [SSR-650TD] started out with 0.48% deviation on main rails. (
Review
.) That's mythical levels of load regulation (and one of the many reasons why i bought it), whereby my PSU will stand far better against time. That also explains why my PSU has 12 year warranty (the longest warranty for a PSU there is).
Another thing is ripple. Ripple is essentially unwanted noise PSU generates within power rails when it produces DC. And the higher the ripple is - the less stable the system also will be. So, you want as low ripple (noise) in voltage rails as possible. Now, ATX spec about ripple limits is way too high, with up to 120mV on +12V rail and up to 50mV on other rails, +5V and +3.3V.
Your PSU, ripple wise, started out within ATX spec, where +12V rail ripple goes as high as 45mV and other rails peak at 16mV (5VSB rail at 19mV). But in due time, the ripple will increase within voltage rails as well, as PSU ages.
My PSU, ripple wise, started out at mythical levels. Where +12V rail peaks at 12.2mV (or 13.3mV when overloaded 110%), +5V rail peaks at 8mV and +3.3V rail peaks at 11.7mV. Compared to your PSU, my PSU has 3.6 times less ripple on +12V rail, indicating far better build quality (ripple suppression) and in turn, far longer life expectancy as well.
While Seasonic is very well known for their PSU's durability and reliability, where PSUs far outlast the warranty period, i'd play it safe and use the PSU as long as the warranty it has.
And this is what i've also done with my Seasonic units. I used S12II-520 for 3 years (3 year warranty), M12II-850 EVO for 5 years (5 year warranty), Focus+ 550 80+ Platinum for 8 years (10 year warranty, but i didn't need that PC anymore) and my current two PRIME 650 80+ Titanium units (SSR-650TD and SSR-650TR) are 9 and 5 years old (12 year warranty).
Keep in mind: Since PSU powers everything, it is
the most important component
inside the PC.
Hence why NEVER cheap out on PSU! Also, never buy used PSU either and don't use PSU past it's warranty period.
This would only be true when PSU dies within warranty period. And G-series wasn't considered high quality when it released. It was good quality.
However, since your PSU is FAR past the warranty, there is no telling if the protections in the PSU even work anymore. Could very well be, that when PSU finally goes "pop", it releases magic smoke, protections fail to engage (due to being way too old) and PSU fries everything it is connected to (aka your whole PC).
In a similar sense, you could buy high quality winter tires, drive with them for 10 years. You can still see tire tread on the tires, but are tires still great after 10 years? No, they are not. Tire compound hardens over time and for winter tires, it means loss of grip and flexibility, despite the tire still having plenty of tread on it.
Lifespan of a tire is about 6 years, even when the tread isn't worn out.
I know this GPU very well since i had the VERY same GPU in my old main build for many years.
😀
Now, that GPU is in my Astral build, since i upgraded my GPU to MSI GTX 1660 Ti Gaming X 6G.
Check the Astral build pics from my sig, you'll see familiar GPU looking back at you.
Despite the lack of VRAM, for 1080p GPU, it is one of the best ones. Actually, cooling and noise wise, it is the very best GTX 1060 3GB variant. On release, it was also value king (best price to performance ratio GPU). Hence the reasons why i bought it in the 1st place.
Well, R7 9800X3D is titled as gaming CPU since when it comes to gaming, it is currently the best. But gaming isn't only thing CPU can do. It also excels in productivity tasks and with common applications as well, due to 8 cores and 16 threads it has. While compared to Intel, consumes less power.
And i plan to use it for the next 10 years, before looking towards new CPU. I actually doesn't game that much. I'm casual gamer while i'm mostly using my PC to work from home.
Well, i don't have a bias towards Intel or AMD. Before i got my new AM5 build, i used Intel for the past 9 years (i5-6600K) and i actually preferred to get Intel again as well.
But reviews showed that Core Ultra 200 didn't improve much over 14th gen. Most improvements are to do with power consumption and thermals, but we are talking desktop PCs here, where power consumption is not an issue. Also, since CPU coolers can be freely choosed, thermals aren't an issue either. With this, the two strong points Core Ultra 200 has, are meaningless. On top of that, Core Ultra 200 CPUs costed more than their AMD counterparts. And on some instances, even perform worse, performance wise, than Ryzen counterpart.
While i do like to Intel CPUs (especially older generation ones), my brand loyalty isn't that strong that i'm willing to pay more for a worse product.
With this, i had to look towards Ryzen 9000-series, which offered far better value.
4 months ago, when i was looking for a new CPU-MoBo-RAM combo;
U5 235 costed €302.19, while R5 9600X costed €261.90. And R5 9600X offers better single-core performance.
U5 245K costed €343.80, while R7 9700X costed €356.20. And R7 9700X offers far better performance at lower power consumption than U5 245K.
Performance wise, yes. But price wise? U5 235 costs you nearly the same amount as much better U5 265KF. Making U5 235 to have a terrible value (price to performance ratio).
CPU is rarely upgraded within the same MoBo. Since it takes quite a bit of work to replace it and carries high risk (bending CPU socket pins). And by the time the CPU upgrade would be needed, the platform itself is so old, that new CPU-MoBo combo offers far better value, than upgrading to better CPU within same MoBo.
Replacing CPU takes quite a bit of work:
1. Remove CPU cooler.
2. Clean thermal paste from the cooler cold plate (e.g with isopropyl alcohol).
3. Remove old CPU.
4. Put in new CPU, while making sure you don't bend/break any CPU socket pins. (If you do, MoBo is bricked).
5. Put thermal paste on CPU.
6. Put CPU cooler back.
Most people stick to the same CPU for many years, while upgrading GPU based on their needs. And once CPU gets old enough, they go with new CPU-MoBo combo.
Same with me.
When i initially bought my now retired Skylake build, back in 2016, Intel 6th gen was the latest and greatest. I went with i5-6600K. Whereby my CPU upgrade paths were: i7-6700K or i7-7700K. Once Kaby Lake (7th gen) released, i7-7700K costed a lot (and it still does), while giving me mere ~20% uplift in performance.
Since my i5-6600K was enough for my 1080p gaming in the past 9 years, i didn't upgrade the CPU. But my build did see one GPU upgrade in 2020.
When comparing my old i5-6600K to my new R7 9800X3D, then the performance uplift is 534%.
2nd build of mine (wife's build) had i5-4590 (upgradable to i7-4790K) and now, she also has R7 9800X3D, which gave her build massive 644% performance uplift.
Really?
🙄
Source:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-r...0x/18.html
Much better application performance, much lower power consumption and a bit better gaming performance over R5 7600X are "very small" gains for you?
What actually has very small gains (if any) are Core Ultra 200 vs Intel 14th gen.
E.g U5 245K vs i5-14600K;
Equal in application performance (0 improvement);
Slightly better power consumption;
Worse gaming performance;
Source:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel...5k/19.html
While it is unknown for how long AMD keeps AM5 socket around, but this much is known that at least 3 generations of CPUs will support AM5. Ryzen 7000-, 9000- and 10000-series. And if you look the previous AM4 socket, it supported 5 generations of CPUs: Ryzen 1000-, 2000-, 3000-, 4000- and 5000-series.
With Intel, there is 2 generations per socket and that's it.
LGA1151 - 6th and 7th gen.
LGA1151 - 8th and 9th gen (not compatible with previous LGA1151).
LGA1200 - 10th and 11th gen.
LGA1700 - 12th, 13th and 14th gen.
LGA1851 - (15th gen) Core Ultra 200.
With the exception of LGA1700 supporting 3 generations, the rule is 2 generations per socket. So, LGA1851 sees (16th gen) Core Ultra 300 series and then it is new socket again.
Also, do note that U5 255F doesn't have true 10 cores. It has 6x P (performance) cores and 4x E (efficiency) cores. No hyperthreading either since CPU has 10 threads.
The P- and E-core fiasco that Intel is pushing, has it's flaws. Namely, every software must be coded to take advantage of faster P-cores. Else-ways, it will run on much slower E-cores.
This was actually a big issue back in 2021 when 1st P- and E-core 12th gen CPUs came out. Namely many games ran on only E-cores, since games couldn't recognize P-cores. And thus, gaming performance dropped from the cliff.
Yeah, unless one has money to spend, it isn't viable to go with the latest tech as soon as it releases. Since there is always price premium at launch and also growing pains (bugs/faults with brand new tech). So, best to wait 1-2 years before going with latest tech. Since by that time, the most of the hardware bugs are ironed out.
While it would be better to keep the current build as long as possible and upgrade in every 5 or even 10 years.
Even i upgraded not because hardware peformance itself became too weak, but because OS went obsolete and our old builds didn't support Win11. And while i could've gone with GNU/Linux distro to extend the lifespan of our old builds, we still need entertainment (gaming) and thus, for time being, we're stuck using Windows. Maybe in the future, when i don't game anymore, i'll switch to GNU/Linux distro and ditch the Windws bandwagon for good.
As for your build, and if you think Core Ultra 200 series matches your needs, sure, go for it. After all, your money and your PC.
For my use, Core Ultra 200 has little (if any) value.
I actually still have the receipt here and it was bought in 2015. You also keep forgetting that my use has been very light and the computer has not been on as much as these days. Very much the opposite of your usage judging the fact that you bought the fastest CPU in the market for gaming specifically. I still view this PSU high quality compared to what you can get these days for 50-70€. They do not have Japanese 120C parts inside. I have seen much worse/cheap PSUs lasting for ages. When i change this i won´t be picking anything dirt cheap.
BeQuiet 550W Pure Power 13M is around 100€ and very likely the best option which is also silent and comes with 10 year warranty. 80+ Gold, Cybenetics A++ and Platinum. I can´t afford the new Seasonic models and some of them the lower costing ones were poor. If i would have to buy new PSU now it would mean doing some compromises like choosing the slowest and cheapest ram available (5600/6000 CL36) and 1TB M.2 SSD instead of 2TB (which costs only 50€ more). I don´t want to do that either. Even if this is old the PSU is basically cruising 95% of the time as my use is so light. I have also opened the PSU and cleaned the dust out. Scary stuff. I think i´m still going to ride with this for some time. The new computer won´t be taking much more juice than the current 84W TDP Intel i5 with same GPU.
be quiet! Pure Power 13 M 550W ATX v3.1 PSU Review - Page 11 of 11 - Hardware Busters
Hardware Busters - be quiet! Pure Power 13 M 550W ATX v3.1 PSU Review - PSUs
hwbusters.com
Cybenetics Test - be quiet! Pure Power 13 M 550W
Cybenetics Test
www.cybenetics.com
No they are not meaningless gains. With light use the lower idle and load power consumption adds up over time. Also as i pointed out 225 is faster CPU than Ryzen 5 7500F/7600. 7600X isn´t that much faster, but ran hotter and draws more power. 245K is bit let down compared to 14600K for gaming purely, but that review was also done longer time ago and Intel owners have said things have got slightly better from the early days when the reviews were done. No one is actually complaining with real world use with these CPUs.
See the chart below which has the averages from 5 reviews. You can also check gaming comparisons on youtube with 225 vs 7500F. CS2 is optimized for AMD so almost any Ryzen is faster than Intel for that game. Other than that 225 is ahead in games and applications. While also being very efficient and cool running. The low temps can be very beneficial with miniITX build which i have currently, but i´m planning to move into mATX case which does open up more cooling options and also MUCH easier to keep dust free.
https://ibb.co/zT5t0R4K
Here is 225 and 235 review. The site has also reviewed 245K and Ryzen models. They are much more positive about these chips than other sites which heavily push AMD and gaming.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Revie...-W...691.0.html
The Core Ultra 200 is still better jump than the 13 to 14 series which only made the CPU run hotter without bringing any performance gains. Example Tom`s said in the 14400F review;
The Core i5-13400 occupied a spot on our
Best CPUs for Gaming
list due to its then-superior blend of price and performance over competing Ryzen 5 processors. However, the 'new' $225 Core i5-14400 is merely a lackluster refresh of the same silicon and brings almost no meaningful real-world advantages over its predecessor. The $225 Core i5-14400 is only 1% faster in multi-threaded and 2% faster in single-threaded work than the previous-gen Core i5-13400, an imperceptible difference between the two chips. In terms of real-world workloads, this is the same chip. The Core i5-14400 draws significantly more power than the previous-gen Core i5-13400 across the board but for limited performance gains.
Yep! I was commenting about the gaming performance gains as that is what everyone in the forums seems to be looking mostly and as the gains were so small people started to call it Zen 5%. See the link below comparison of CPU performance on the most popular game now, BF6! We see the 7600X and 9600X are basically on par. Also 245K gives you basically the same fps (1% lows) even though AMD fanboys are mocking this chip like brainless parrots. I don´t see any issue with it for gaming as it`s priced the same as 9600X and the performance with latest games seems to be on par. On top you get lower gaming and idle power consumption plus lower temps 44C vs. 65C! In the TPU review gaming efficiency chart it also came ahead of 9600X!
😉
Unless something dramatic comes out on Black Friday it looks like Intel is taking the win and considering my fairly light use the 225F at 166€ would be absolutely fine. 245K and potentially undervolt it still remains option if Intel would do a black friday sale. They are now giving some games free like the BF6 with their CPUs, but i don´t have fast enough GPU for that, damn.
There was some crazy deals for CU 7 265K some times ago. I wanted that chip for future proofing as it`s the real 8 (P) core model. In USA the lowest price was like closer to 200$ at some point, crazy! That is still great CPU for productivity and mixed use. Hardcore gamers will look elsewhere even though it has few fps more on BF6 (1% lows) than 9700X. For my light use it could be seen as going waste especially as the power consumption is much higher. Intel has
65W
version of it, but it costs 369€/349€ (F) which is lot more than the K/KF models! The idea of having 20 core / 20 thread CPU would be so cool even if only 8 are P-cores. I was also thinking the 9700X at some point due to 8 cores for future proofing which in a way does make sense. Hopefully AMD fixes the idle power consumption with the upcoming ZEN 6 or 7 models. There is ton of threads of about this and absolutely no reason for CPU to be drawing more constantly as it adds up when you are on computer long hours. For lot of people this state is where their computer lies most of time! Electricity prices are only getting higher when going forward that is certain.
So, this makes your PSU 10 years old while the platform itself is 13 years old.
I mostly help out folks here in TH forums with their hardware issues and in terms of PC hardware, i know about the PSUs the most. 2nd most know hardware for me is UPS.
After all, when it comes to power delivery (be it MoBo VRM, PSU or UPS), it is serious business.
Inside the PSU (actually everywhere in your system, including those on GPU and MoBo), there are electrolytic capacitors. Electrolytic capacitor is a type of polarized capacitor that uses an electrolyte to achieve a large capacitance, making them useful for applications like power supply filtering, voltage stabilization and energy storage.
Electrolytic capacitors, even unused ones, degrade over time due to internal material breakdown, primarily due to the evaporation of the electrolyte in the electrolytic capacitors. This degradation causes a loss of capacitance, an increase in equivalent series resistance (ESR) and eventually - failure. Common shelf life of an electrolytic capacitor is 5 to 10 years.
Do you want to kill yourself???
NEVER-EVER
open up the PSU for whatever reason!
The charge in the caps inside the PSU are lethal, even YEARS after the PSU has been unplugged from the electricity source.
If you want to clean dust from the PSU, DO NOT open it up. Instead use pressurized air to push air in from one side, where dust exits from another side.
Opening up the PSU is a great way to earn Darwin Award though.
Answer me this: You go and buy your new components and upgrade your PC, but you keep using your old Seasonic unit. If, (no, not IF, but WHEN) the PSU dies, possibly killing your new and fancy MoBo as well, then what?
At that point, and with sudden PSU failure, you do not have the money anymore to replace the PSU. Let alone replace any other component killed by the PSU.
With this, you have a nice, big paperweight, which looks like a PC. This sudden PSU failure can put your PC out of work for months, even a year, depending on your monetary situation. Do you really want that?
🤔
I, for one, try to avoid this scenario for you. Current moment would be best for buying the new PSU since you have the money for it.
120C cap in the PSU?
🤔
Do show me one such unit.
Since for most of the times in good/great quality units (including in my PIRME units), there are at most 105C caps in them. Lower quality PSUs have at most 85C caps in them.
That is one option, yes. Another would be NZXT C750 Core 80+ Gold,
pcpp:
https://de.pcpartpicker.com/product...ed...a-7g3bb-us
NZXT C-series 80+ Gold units are also good/great quality units. Albeit the one i linked, is 2025 model year and doesn't have proper review as of yet. But based on the same series 850W and 1kW units, the 750W unit should also be good quality unit.
For proper PSU for a PC with dedicated GPU, Tier A is proper. Like: Seasonic Focus/Vertex/PRIME, Corsair RMx/RMi/HXi/AXi, Super Flower Leadex Gold/Platinum/Titanium.
PSU tier list:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...JW...1973454078
Tier A- will do too, while Tier A+ is preferred.
The two Seasonic PRIME units that i have, are both Tier A+.
I did not buy my R7 9800X3D chip for gaming specifically. I bought it to stand the test of time. For the next 10 years when i plan to use the AM5 build. Since if i were to buy cheaper but also slower CPU, it would've become slower much faster, maybe in 5-6 years, depending on the chip. And i don't plan to buy new CPU in that time, like you are.
On the low-end CPU segment, Intel CPUs, yes are better. Since Intel has always had better single-core performance than AMD. While AMD focuses on multi-core performance (heavy CPU tasks). Hence, for your use case, Intel CPUs offer better options (including power draw on idle).
Most people however shop at mid-tier level of CPUs, like: U5 245K, R5 9600X. There, AMD offers better value since Intel CPUs are way overpriced for what they can deliver.
Also, from the generation comparison i linked above, R5 9600X does have good performance uplift over it's predecessor, R5 7600X. However, when it comes to Intel, U5 245K has no performance uplift over it's predecessor i5-14600K. Mid-tier CPU users are mainly gamers, but they also use their CPU for application uses.
And then there is high-end. Those people mainly use their CPU for heavy workload. Either 3D render and the like (content creators) or 4K gaming (streamers). Some select few use the CPU for extended period of time as well (like yours truly). And in high-end segment, AMD offers far better value than Intel. Especially the 3D cache the CPUs have, which help immensely with gaming.
There, of course, is also top-end CPUs, like R9 9950X3D and U9 285K. True workstation builds. Borderline server builds. There, AMD dominates with the sheer amount of cores/threads CPUs have. E.g R9 9950X3D is 16c/32t CPU with hyperthreading. While currently the best from Intel, U9 285K has 8Pc/16Ec/24t without hyperthreading.
Fun fact: it was actually AMD and their release of Ryzen 1000-series CPUs, that pushed Intel to increase core amounts in their CPUs as well. Since for a long time, Intel ever released only 4c/8t CPUs for consumers.
E.g 7th gen Core i5 (mid-tier CPU), is 4c/4t CPU.
But R5 1400 (low-end mid-tier CPU) is 4c/8t, while R5 1600 (solid mid-tier CPU) is 6c/12t.
So, Intel had to release 8th gen CPU with more cores. E.g i5-8500 is 6c/6t CPU.
Back then, when you wanted 6c/12t CPU, you had an option: R5 1600X with $249 MSRP or i7-8700K with $359 MSRP.
Since then, AMD has gained a lot of market share from those, who need to use multi-core performance CPUs. Single-core performance with high frequency has remained Intel's strong side.
Even today, those who need good single- and dual-core performance and/or high CPU frequency, are best off with Intel.
But those who need good quad- and multi-core performance, are best off with AMD.
Many people are now multitasking with their PC, thus, the usage of quad- and multi-cores have increased over the years.
I'm skeptical about the Black Friday deals. Since sales are done to get rid of the useless stuff people would not otherwise buy at full price. While hot ticket items (good CPU/SSD/GPU etc), remain at full price, because there is still demand for them.
Power efficiency on idle hasn't been AMD's strong side. But power efficiency under load - there AMD offers better options.