Bofferbrauer2 said:
I would rather opt for the 5700X/12700 non-k to make sure I don't run into a core bottleneck if I plan to use the CPU for several years.
I don't see why not. AM3 and AM2 also lasted very long. In fact, the number denotes the used DDR standard used on the boards. So unless DDR6 comes out soon, AM5 will last quite a while. I could see some AM5+ somewhere along the way, but AM5 should last long. Now, being able to use new CPUs on old boards and vice versa is a different question... |
My reasoning is that AMD seems to have made some odd decisions when designing the AM5 platform, like putting the capacitators on top of the CPU, forcing the heatspreader to have cuts in it, or that the socket is of similar size as the AM4 one, reason why most AM4 coolers will be compatible from the get go.
I fear that these decisions could limit the number of CCDs or CCXs, forcing AMD to launch a new platform when they launch processors with higher core counts. After all, we've heard rumors of AMD also adopting a big.little solution with their CPUs in the near future, and that will demand bigger dies.
On another note, I agree with you that an 8-core CPU would be a better investment for a PC that will be used for many years.
Please excuse my bad English.
Former gaming PC: i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070
Current gaming PC: R5-7600, 32GB RAM 6000MT/s (CL30) and a RX 9060XT 16GB
Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.







