What will the system requirements be? Lets discuss!

[metalmaniac21]

I would personally save for a x570 mobo, to give myself a upgrade path.

Not all X570 are equally good. Low-end ASROCK, MSI X570 A-PRO, Gaming series are bad. I'd straight up avoid X570 if I were upgrading (actually, I do and go for AMD this time). Naturally, I'd straight up avoid X470 too, even weaker VRM that is. B550 is the sweet spot and summer is the time to jump to Zen 2.

 

[prime853]

Good post, i hope we dont need i7 7700 to achieve 60 fps @ max settings.
I have i7 4790k / 5700XT / 32 GB

Still rocking a 4790k myself man, will be doing a whole new build for Cyberpunk but still, don't count your 4790k out just yet.

 

[metalmaniac21]

BTW, I actually have no idea what's what in AMD B450 mobo market. Which ones are better - MSI B450M Gaming Plus or ASRock B450M Pro4? First is 4 phases per cpu and 2nd mobo is 3 phase with doublers which is marketed as 6 phase VRM. How's RAM overclock? The former is only 2 DIMM slots and MSI so it should be better, right?

 

[Restlessdingo32]

BTW, I actually have no idea what's what in AMD B450 mobo market. Which ones are better - MSI B450M Gaming Plus or ASRock B450M Pro4? First is 4 phases per cpu and 2nd mobo is 3 phase with doublers which is marketed as 6 phase VRM. How's RAM overclock? The former is only 2 DIMM slots and MSI so it should be better, right?

No idea. I opted for a reasonably priced x570 board for compatibility and future proofing reasons when picking up a 3900x months ago.

I believe b450 are the budget boards, basically. It's difficult to say which of the options has the stronger VRM. My understanding is you can't base decisions here on phase count alone. It depends on the configuration used, individual component quality, etc.

I've seen the MSI Pro Carbon, Mortar and Tomahawk mentioned as decent options a number of times. Asus and Asrock might have some options too. Although, I couldn't speak to the current pricing.

At this point I'd think b450 would be a questionable choice. Even though AMD backtracked on the lack of support for Zen 3 with boards prior to X570 a bit of apprehension there may be in order. This type of thing isn't always as black and white as people would expect. Does it have support? Sure.... Is it good support? The answer here may be different. Perhaps on a tight budget it would make sense.

At least it's not in the same state as Intel at the moment.....

 

[Andreas_sp]

Still rocking a 4790k myself man, will be doing a whole new build for Cyberpunk but still, don't count your 4790k out just yet.

I only need 60 fps. Not more. I think there are chances the i7 4790k can handle that.. Cheers and fingers crossed ;-)

 

[Triffid77]

I only need 60 fps. Not more. I think there are chances the i7 4790k can handle that.. Cheers and fingers crossed ;-)

During open areas with lots of assets - people / vehicles etc, and firefights with lots of enemies will be peak CPU times.
I assume you have it overclocked. Shouldn't be too bad, maybe dips here and there but its just a guess.

 

[DataEntity.390]

Not all X570 are equally good. Low-end ASROCK, MSI X570 A-PRO, Gaming series are bad. I'd straight up avoid X570 if I were upgrading (actually, I do and go for AMD this time). Naturally, I'd straight up avoid X470 too, even weaker VRM that is. B550 is the sweet spot and summer is the time to jump to Zen 2.

I usually straight up avoid Asrock in general. Have heard bad things about them.

That said, the x570 chipset is pretty much the only market available chipset that supports upcoming Zen 3. Which I assume you are referring to, rather than the currently available Zen 2.

And while B550 will offer Zen 3 compatibility, MoBos with B550s will drop later this summer presumably.

[edit]: That said, the current go to CPU for gaming looks to be the Ryzen 3 3300x from what I can tell.

As for going for AMD at this point;

TLDR; Intel got lazy and started asking customers for "monopoly rents" and got disrupted by AMD. Hence buy AMD, until reversal.

What does Intel really have to offer right now? The i7 and i9 series in the 7k to 10k range are competitive with Ryzen, but native memory clockspeeds seem to lag behind with Intel. And on each tier of performance, there is a cheaper AMD cpu in strike distance of a few tens of frames.

So the money saved can be put towards a gpu, which is always more important for gaming than the CPU. And if you are rocking a older monitor (like me) this is all entirely academic, since your visible fps is capped by your monitors Hz-rate. Which just increases the superior targets for your spending money than a expensive and bottlenecked CPU.

And if you are going for a multi-purpose computer, looking for both productivity and gaming (like me), Intel becomes even worse as a choice. 10th-gen Intel chips look to offer worse performance at twice the price.

 

[Andreas_sp]

During open areas with lots of assets - people / vehicles etc, and firefights with lots of enemies will be peak CPU times.
I assume you have it overclocked. Shouldn't be too bad, maybe dips here and there but its just a guess.

Yeah thats my first concern. I hope they integrate sliders to turn down cpu intense stuff.

 

[metalmaniac21]

B450 will still be relevant for a budget upgrade and PCI-E 3.0 is enough up for xx60 gpus.

I usually straight up avoid Asrock in general.

I saw warm reception for both X470 and X570 Taichi but that's both top tier in the line-up.

That said, the x570 chipset is pretty much the only market available chipset that supports upcoming Zen 3. Which I assume you are referring to, rather than the currently available Zen 2.

And the one that suffers from chipset overheating because it's active cooling system sucks in general sucks off hot air from GPU or gets hidden by GPU leading to overheating again. And paying so much more for PCI-E 4.0 and marginally better VRMs is absurd no matter how put it and in what perspective. Paying 25$ over B450 for PCI-E 4.0 is more manageable.

What does Intel really have to offer right now?

Gaming. No I'm not joking, that's what Intel says in their marketing materials. Though 10400f does outperform in 240hz gaming 5-25 frames. With decent RAM clocked 3200+mhz and Z-chipset. Badum-tss. And loses to AMD in CS:GO. The main problem with ryzen is that everything in a range of R3 3300X to R7 3700X performs very similarly, and R3 3300X sometimes being on top is a huge WTF.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

That said, the x570 chipset is pretty much the only market available chipset that supports upcoming Zen 3. Which I assume you are referring to, rather than the currently available Zen 2.

And while B550 will offer Zen 3 compatibility, MoBos with B550s will drop later this summer presumably.

AMD to Support Zen 3 and Ryzen 4000 CPUs on B450 and X470 Motherboards

www.anandtech.com

As mentioned earlier, Zen 3 only being supported on X570/B550 appeared to be walked back. Once again, I'd still be apprehensive there. Backward compatible support like this often isn't cut and dry.

What does Intel really have to offer right now? The i7 and i9 series in the 7k to 10k range are competitive with Ryzen, but native memory clockspeeds seem to lag behind with Intel. And on each tier of performance, there is a cheaper AMD cpu in strike distance of a few tens of frames.

Another iteration of CPU's from like 5 years ago apparently.

I saw warm reception for both X470 and X570 Taichi but that's both top tier in the line-up.

I can't speak for x470 but for x570 it's more toward the mid-top end (top end x570 are ridiculously expensive). I believe the Taichi is one of the better boards in that range though. Some of the others are boards a step or two down with a couple extra features added on top pretending to be better (many are, in fact).

And the one that suffers from chipset overheating because it's active cooling system sucks in general sucks off hot air from GPU or gets hidden by GPU leading to overheating again. And paying so much more for PCI-E 4.0 and marginally better VRMs is absurd no matter how put it and in what perspective. Paying 25$ over B450 for PCI-E 4.0 is more manageable.

The chipset fans certainly leave a lot to be desired. They're not as big of a dealbreaker as you'd expect though. If the board allows reasonable tuning of the chipset fan behavior anyway. The placement is highly questionable (mine sits right up against my GPU....) but VRM's are built to sustain.... thermal punishment. Assuming the underlying components are of reasonable quality.

The safest play is to wait and see how b550 changes the landscape.

Gaming. No I'm not joking, that's what Intel says in their marketing materials. Though 10400f does outperform in 240hz gaming 5-25 frames. With decent RAM clocked 3200+mhz and Z-chipset. Badum-tss. And loses to AMD in CS:GO. The main problem with ryzen is that everything in a range of R3 3300X to R7 3700X performs very similarly, and R3 3300X sometimes being on top is a huge WTF.

Sure, it's better at gaming. By a couple dozen FPS tops in an ideal scenario. Most reviews and benchmarks in this area intentionally test at lower resolutions and whatnot as well. Those CPU differences tend to converge and become far less relevant when you start scaling resolution up.

At this point I'm genuinely curious to see whether Zen 3 changes this at all. I'd think consumer CPU's lagging behind everywhere compared to the competition would be a problem .

 

[DataEntity.390]

B450 will still be relevant for a budget upgrade and PCI-E 3.0 is enough up for xx60 gpus.

True, but if you want to squeeze maximum benefit from the last two years of AM4's remaining lifespan and updating your rig right now, then you are stuck with x570. If you can be patient for a few months, then the B550 is likely a better choice.

I saw warm reception for both X470 and X570 Taichi but that's both top tier in the line-up.

It's just that I have heard negative things about their budget lineup. But that was years back. If they have gotten their quality control under... Err, control since then, good for them and their customers.

And the one that suffers from chipset overheating because it's active cooling system sucks in general sucks off hot air from GPU or gets hidden by GPU leading to overheating again. And paying so much more for PCI-E 4.0 and marginally better VRMs is absurd no matter how put it and in what perspective. Paying 25$ over B450 for PCI-E 4.0 is more manageable.

While true, the potential value of uncompromized Zen 3 compatibility may be worth the hassle and certainly worth waiting for B550 to drop.

Gaming. No I'm not joking, that's what Intel says in their marketing materials. Though 10400f does outperform in 240hz gaming 5-25 frames. With decent RAM clocked 3200+mhz and Z-chipset. Badum-tss. And loses to AMD in CS:GO. The main problem with ryzen is that everything in a range of R3 3300X to R7 3700X performs very similarly, and R3 3300X sometimes being on top is a huge WTF.

Same gaming performance and lower productivity performance at the same pricepoint is less value for pricepoint. Even if you don't need productivity, what do you gain from not having it, if having it costs the same price?

As for Zen 2 outperforming a 10th gen Intel, that's the difference of 7nm to 14nm. Power usage and thus heat becomes the bottleneck. Under same cooling conditions and sustained load, 10th gen Intel will output more heat and thus throttle lower. Basically reverse of the situation that was for the old AMD FX chips.

And why a 4-core CPU can beat a 6-core one? Games rarely use more than four cores at the moment. Which in turn is likely due to the architecture of the AMD Jaguar APUs powering current gen consoles. And then the situation is the same as with VS Intel. Even on idle CPU cores draw power and thus generate heat. Which in turn means that they heat throttle faster, even with some cores idle, than their slimmer cousins.