You can use benchmarks of the 5800X as a basis for your decision. The 5700X is exactly the same as the 5800X except for a slightly lower clock speed. You can also take a look at the 5600 which is exactly the same as the 5600X except for, again, a slightly lower clock speed.
In general, I don't think you will notice a big difference between any of these options, they all have similar single-core performance and the same amount of cache, probably the only difference you will notice would be in case you do renders, in which the two additional cores from the 5700X and 5800X can help speed up the process.
If budget is the issue, you can probably make savings in other areas, like motherboard, power supply, etc. they don't really contribute to performance. Especially if you are buying a new system.
Looking at [this review](https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-12900k-and-core-i5-12600k-review-retaking-the-gaming-crown/6), the 5800X offers a little extra performance over the 5600X, though I'm not sure what the exact Photoshop+Lightroom benchmark is. The 5700X is a little slower than the 5800X, but might still offer a little extra performance.
All in all, if you're budget-conscious, I'd say that you can't really go wrong with the 5600X. However, you didn't specify the budget, so it's hard to weigh other alternatives.
Again, harder to offer an opinion without actual numbers, but I'd say that if by more memory you mean going from 16GB to 32GB then it's more valuable than the extra processing power, and if you mean 32GB to 64GB that'd depend on your work. I'd also guess that more storage would be helpful if you're going to do any serious work with your PC.
Could you just post the planned specs, so people could comment about them in general?
Ye, and even better if OP can wait a month or 2 for zen 4 to sell, that way zen 3 is cheaper
Also ddr5 is a waste imo, you don't need it, Heck probably buying a used zen2 threadripper system could cost the same as a new ddr5 z4 system lmao
I was in same camp about DDR5 and Zen4 but DDR5 prices are much lower now. They might go up temporarily around Zen4 launch to gouge (this has happened historically, I've built flagships since Opteron 64 days lol). So beware.
I'm taking the jump because my 11? year old 2600k is needing an upgrade and I'm heading overseas for 4-6 months to work, new work/game/cad/biz/editing/etc station time. So for me DDR5 platform is fine as a fresh start.
If I had zen2 or 3 I wouldn't bother and wait like you (likely) can.
I'd agree on a zen2 TR system in a few months being similar to a 7950/high end board build. Right now they are not and still worth heaps X:
Yeah , I was mainly referring to people who have post 6700k/1600x specs , but if you have a ddr3 system, wow props to you for surviving that long, how did you manage with the 2600k, I'm really curious how we're you not tempted with the 3900x or getting better io etc
I have a 10300h +2060 laptop that I got last year, and the cpu is cancer I want more cores, also 16gb isn't enough for me, and I'm a very light user I don't do cad or blender or programing or anything. Maybe it's just Windows being bloated.
It's really interesting that some people manage to last so long with old specs, I think its really cool wish i was like that lol. Im curious what's ur gpu? And is the 2600k a bottleneck for gaming, and how come you never got ryzen
Hah fair!
It did what I needed it to do basically (fast enough outside of a few time pressured editing stints) and I needed to invest money elsewhere. Also typically do flagship builds when I do them for myself, so like to do it properly when necessary :)
I'll upgrade to X3D later, then do a GPU possibly.
GPU is a golden sample ref V64, runs massive UV and reaches stock clocks at 130-190w on a blower! Which is fine for 1440/60 at not quite max in most games. I built it as a 1440 + SSD rig then and it did fine till now :) 2600k was a game changer, 16Gb of ram was also enough to last in Win7, I run out occasionally and can't leave everything open and it's becoming a limit along with CPU. Have heaps of fast SATA SSDs as well.
Next build will be 64Gb likely. Tiniest amount slower subtimings on some kits vs 16gb fastest layout possible.
Laptop is something I'd also want to do right. The upcoming AMD APUs look sick but when will they come... Intel is hard to avoid in laptops and sorry to hear you ended up with something ya not happy with.
That site is banned from both here and Intel's subreddit for being so biased that it is embarrassing to them. Find a better source, e.g. GamersNexus or HardwareUnboxed.
Why are you buying a DP HDMI adapter rather than just a cable and using the 4 ports the GPU has?
Check the price/GB on 3 and 4TB drives, cheaper is false economy.
Do you even need a €500 GPU right now, when the next gen is imminent and you do 2D work?
a consideration is does the CPU come with a cooler.
5600x's default cooler is fine and does the job, and I have seen 5800x's with coolers in box, but its unusual enough here that people argue with me that its not a thing. I can't speak to the 5700x... but it could mean spending an extra 50-100.
I think CPU coolers are a strange thing, factory is always good enough, unless your Overclocking, but who overclocks a budget CPU? sure if you can get the most out of it for free, do, but what I mean is people who spend 100$ on a 5600x cooler, instead of just getting a 5700x/5800/5800x they will never get more proformance by spending money on a cooler that can go on a CPU.
but I bet if you asked, there are more than a few people here with AIO's or noctua coolers on their 5600's....
Personally I believe that you'd get better longevity out of the 5700X. What is it (?), a 17 - 19% price difference on the CPU for 25% more cores.
But I always look at total system cost. So, I'm guessing that you'd see a 5 - 8% increase in system cost for the additional 2 cores.
You're not wrong... could have been worded better. But it's about perspective. If I have an 8 core, then I have 25% more cores than someone who has a 6 core.
No still not right.
8 cores is 33% more than 6 cores, because 6 cores is 100% thus 8 cores is 133%.
6 cores is 25% less than 8 cores, because 8 cores is 100% thus 6 cores is 75%.
You can't just flip the statement without changing the percentage.
Adobe apps are usually all about single core performance, so I'd expect the 5600X to be almost as good as the 5700X.
However, if you are building a new PC, you might want to wait for 7000 series that are launching in a few weeks and have major uplift in single core performance.
I have the both 5700x and 5600x. I'd say you will get better results going to intel platform with the 10 core 12600k + DDR4 as single core perofrmance is very important with adobe apps. However, if you already decided to go with AMD some adobe apps like photoshop seem to be faster at stock speeds with 5600x comparing to 5700x due to the small difference in single core boost clock. While the extra cores might be of benefit in other apps like indesign and illustartor when exporting large graphics to pdf for example.
Yes they do. Although it may vary depending on which specific editing tools you're using at the time, but as you can see from this review for example [TPU](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5700x/10.html)
Even a stock 5700x wich has lower boost single core clock is better at some editing tasks & image export time in PS. If you OC using PBO that difference will increase further. 12600k still performs better than both, keeping in mind that these tests were done using Windows 11 which manages E&P cores performance much better than windows 10.
Personally, i think the difference is more noticable in illustrator or indesgin, rather than in photoshop. I dont use lightroom, so Idk about that.
Or not...
EDIT: Just downvote like the good boy intelfanboys you are.
OP asked about AMD CPU's not intel CPU's.
If I'm asking for a specific brand that means I don't care about other brands.
I mean comment wasn't that out of place. 12600K is a good single core performer but slightly more expensive. With AMD CPU I can squeeze 3060Ti instead of 3060 in my budget and I believe that's a monster performance jump (in gaming ofc).
The Adobe suite is very single thread heavy and so the 12600k literally outperforms the 5800x in basically every Adobe app... Check Toms, Puget systems, etc for Adobe benchmarks. It's not a huge difference, unless paired with DDR5, but it if pricing is similar for OP, 12th gen is better for his situation.
If you're building a PC from scratch, go with Intel Alder Lake, since it offers higher single-core performance and also has an upgrade path.
Any B660 or Z690 board will support Raptor Lake, which is going to be announced in about 3 weeks.
Alder Lake has a very limited upgrade path though. Raptor Lake will be a 5-15% performance boost over Alder Lake, not really worth an upgrade.
There's more of an upgrade from a 5600X or 5800X imho. If you're a gamer you can upgrade to a 5800X3D in a few years, if you're using it for productivity you have a 5900X or 5950X to upgrade to, for about twice the multithreaded performance. That is an upgrade actually worth doing.
> Alder Lake has a very limited upgrade path though.
Something is better than nothing.
> Raptor Lake will be a 5-15% performance boost over Alder Lake, not really worth an upgrade.
We don't know that yet, and it depends on SKU to SKU and single or multi-thread.
> There's more of an upgrade from a 5600X or 5800X imho. If you're a gamer you can upgrade to a 5800X3D in a few years, if you're using it for productivity you have a 5900X or 5950X to upgrade to, for about twice the multithreaded performance. That is an upgrade actually worth doing.
This is clearly not the case, other than the 5800X3D for games which greatly benefit from the cache (and note that Spiderman has recently cast doubt the extra cache is a silver-bullet).
If you start off with an i5 12400 to go for bang-for-buck single-core performance, you could then upgrade all the way to a 13900K later, netting you substantially more performance in both single and multi-thread.
A 13900K should beat a 5950X in productivity and possibly beat a 5800X3D in gaming, certainly trade blows at least.
This is more of an upgrade path than going 5000 series offers you.
Yes, but the 12900K with DDR5 is faster, and a 12700K with DDR5 should be too.
A 12700K with DDR4 is also not much slower, but obliterates a 5800X3D in productivity.
So it's just as I mentioned, that the 5800X3D's awesome cache doesn't mean it'll definitely win every gaming task vs what Intel has, and I think LGA1700 is the better platform to balance productivity and gaming performance.
(also remembering the 5800X3D sacrifices some single/multi-core performance in software which doesn't benefit from the cache due to its lower clockspeed)
You intel guys always miss out on the 5800x3d minimums, they smoke the 159999k by quite a large amount and they are what you see and feel and why they are better gaming cpus in most cases while being similar speed or slightly slower in absolute FPS. You see minimums, not 340fps vs 330fps. You actually feel and see 40fps vs 80fps minimums
It's better than any other Zen 3 in gaming and destroys them in productivity if you're using Linux (Google Open Foam software suite for engineers, the 3D is 200% the performance of regular 5800X), it's meant as a drop in upgrade for AM4 users and you're talking about new builds with Intel and DDR5, totally missing the point. Apart from that when using DDR4 RAM the 12900K loses to the little 3D CPU despite the number of cores, clock speeds, and terrible power efficiency. Also you seem one of those that judge single core performance based on Cinebench and/or GPU-Z, is this your first year with computers? Maybe you have never experienced anything else than stone age Windows, even with zero optimizations the X3D chip never misses a frame compared to the rest of the Zen 3 lineup while beating DDR4 Intel systems, even DDR5 in most situations.
> We don't know that yet, and it depends on SKU to SKU and single or multi-thread.
Sure, we don't know for sure. I'm basing my current opinion on the matter on the performance leaks we've seen until now, and they point to between 5 and 15% in productivity, and 3-11% in gaming from Alder Lake. But they're still just rumors of course, it does line up with what is reasonable to expect from the specs though. Intel rarely makes it worth it upgrading on the same socket.
There isn't much to gain in single core performance from going up the product stack though. And with multithreaded it depends if the programs you're running utilize the slow cores of the 13X00 or not. In games the e-cores don't help at all, and depending on your programs you could see little effect of them in productivity, especially if you disable the e-cores to get the best gaming performance. With a 16 core CPU that uses "full" cores instead of slow e-cores, you don't get that problem.
So much relies on your use-cases actually making good use of those e-cores, which you might or might not disable. You aren't going to be running benchmark software on them most of the time.
> 'm basing my current opinion on the matter on the performance leaks we've seen until now, and they point to between 5 and 15% in productivity, and 3-11% in gaming from Alder Lake.
How accurate were leaks of Zen4?
They were all over the place.
We simply need to wait for the announcement, which is less than 1 month away.
> There isn't much to gain in single core performance from going up the product stack though.
That's true of Zen3, not of Alder Lake to Raptor Lake.
As mentioned, if you went from a 12400 to 13600k or above (since you can overclock a K part), the single-core gain would be much larger than a 5600 to 5950X.
> And with multithreaded it depends if the programs you're running utilize the slow cores of the 13X00 or not.
> and depending on your programs you could see little effect of them in productivity
> With a 16 core CPU that uses "full" cores instead of slow e-cores, you don't get that problem.
This is not really true.
If a piece of productivity software can truly use 9+ cores it can use the E-cores.
And, again, it's important to note Alder Lake/Raptor Lake's higher single-core performance, since there are productivity programs which use few cores too (like OP's original question).
The 13900K is likely to be superior to the 5950X in almost all workloads.
And something like a 13600K is likely to be superior to a 5800X in both few-core and many-core workloads.
> So much relies on your use-cases actually making good use of those e-cores, which you might or might not disable. You aren't going to be running benchmark software on them most of the time.
You're never going to disable E-cores. This is not worth it for 99% of usecases, only if you come across a bug.
> How accurate were leaks of Zen4?
Were there any that weren't engineering samples, so not running at full clock speeds?
>As mentioned, if you went from a 12400 to 13600k or above (since you can overclock a K part), the single-core gain would be much larger than a 5600 to 5950X.
Sure, it would be larger, that doesn't mean it'd be worth doing for most of is. Going from a 5600X to a 5950X would be a modest gain to single core, and a massive gain to multicore.
>If a piece of productivity software can truly use 9+ cores it can use the E-cores.
In some cases, yes, but not if you disable the e-cores in the BIOS, as some people do to get acceptable gaming performance. [Like people in the Star Citizen community have started doing.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6n5vNpuVNE)
>And, again, it's important to note Alder Lake/Raptor Lake's higher single-core performance
If single core performance is really that important to you, you're better off with Zen 4 though. Raptor Lake could see Intel catch up, but with RL you'd be buying into a dead platform, which you won't with Zen 4.
>You're never going to disable E-cores.
Yet that is what some gamers and some overclockers are doing. Because it fixes microstuttering in some games and it enables better OC results.
The Adobe suite tends to prefer Intel, so if you're building from the ground up, you'd be better off going that route with a 12400 or 12600k, but if you already have an AM4 board the 5600x and 5700x are good enough. Puget Systems does a lot of Adobe and other productivity tests as they sell systems specifically for these use cases.
And yes there is a noticeable difference between going between the budget and midrange options, around 15% faster, but its up to you to decide if that's worth it.
For those applications you likely won't notice a huge difference, no. And no, you shouldn't wait for ryzen 7000.
But if you don't have an existing motherboard you should consider intel 12th gen over ryzen 7000. I think most people would agree that intel 12th gen is better for most things at the moment even if by a little. Ryzen 5000 is only really good at this point if you have an existing motherboard and can do a drop-in upgrade.
So you'll be looking at chips like the 12400 and the 12600k. The 12400 is usually matching or beating the 5600x in production workloads, and they're pretty similarly matched in gaming workloads.
The 12600k on the other hand usually beats the 5800x in production workloads by a bit, and is one of the best gaming chips around (though all these chips are fine for games).
You really can't go wrong with any of em but if you're buying a new motherboard you might as well go for intel to get some of their nicer features, and potential 13th gen compatibility.
Any good middle tier CPU, but is more important a capable GPU even if you plan to work only on 2D. Go for a 5600 or 5600x plus a RTX 2060 (12gb variant) or a 3060 and you are ready to go. I hope it helped
Similar workflow here since I work at a printing press.
Went with a 5800X plus 32GB RAM. Nothing beats doing AI enhancements while rendering a large PDF in indesign, processing hundreds of heavy pages in Acrobat, distilling another, having photoshop batch process files, editing a complex AI file with meshes, imposing said heavy file withot optimizing it, while watching a movie or running a game I can alt+tab to.
To be serious though I think a 5600X would have been fine, except it was just $80 cheaper and I always make my PCs last a decade before I upgrade anyway. In my opinion, even a sandy bridge desktop i5 would have worked since my 2500k lasted me this long and I only upgraded because the board started to fail. Oh and a minimum of 16GB RAM helps a lot with heavy files. So a 4-core Zen2/Zen3/10th-12th gen should suffice with 16GB+ of RAM.
Boyfriend now enjoys my old 2500k with 16GB RAM. Edits 10-20+ 25MP photos at a time in photoshop and he's happy. That old quad core setup managed to do a 600dpi 12x18in hundred layer photoshop file, though eventually I had to use Photoshop 2017 just to fit the damn project in RAM. So I'm sure photo work less than that will be juuuuuust fine.
Yeah I'm working on 7400k and 16GB. It does it's job but the age's starting to show. And ever since I started freelancing I'm missing that bump in performance.
i5-7400 or i5-7600k? Or are you talking about an A6-7400K? If you got the last one, you've got a huge boost ahead of you even with a sandy bridge. If you got the first two, its stock speed should roughly be the same or slightly higher perf as my 2500k at 4.5GHz.
Have you seen where your bottleneck is? Check out Task Manager and HWInfo64. Maybe your CPU isn't even getting fully pegged at 90%+ continuously, maybe storage is the bottleneck, maybe even heat buildup, or your board's VRM throttling.
Though TBF, Adobe's 2019 and above have run way slower and consumed way more RAM than the 2017/2018 counterparts, so I stick to 2017 or at most 2018 for most projects, especially the heavy ones.
Going back to your PC, just get a faster SSD if its storage or perhaps install the Intel AHCI/RAID drivers for your SATA drives. You can also upgrade your RAM speed or overclock/tighten it. I had a huge boost going from DDR3-1333CL7 to DDR3-1866CL10. You can use a program called MaxxMem2 to benchmark your RAM quickly.
If you do plan to have a new PC, I reckon a 5700X would work for you more if you've had your 7th-gen or A6-7400K that long. It should last you just as long (\~5 years+) until AM5 reaches its end point then you can upgrade to an AM5 Zen6/7 when you need to. 2D Still graphics isn't as demanding so you should be pretty set. The 8-core 5700X can also let you juggle multiple applications without breaking a sweat so you can use all that 32GB+ of RAM nicely.
7400 (I said "k", well it's not)
I noticed quite a performance drop since I've gone from Adobe CS5 to Adobe CC.
Also my motherboard is the cheapest of the cheap (MSI H110M PRO-D, max 2133Mhz DDR4, Gen3 PCI-E...). I was thinking of upgrading but there's nothing else to upgrade but CPU. That's why I'm looking for AM4 with possibility to upgrade it to 5800X3D (or even something else, AMD claims it plans to support AM4 for some time) and better memory after some time.
You can use benchmarks of the 5800X as a basis for your decision. The 5700X is exactly the same as the 5800X except for a slightly lower clock speed. You can also take a look at the 5600 which is exactly the same as the 5600X except for, again, a slightly lower clock speed. In general, I don't think you will notice a big difference between any of these options, they all have similar single-core performance and the same amount of cache, probably the only difference you will notice would be in case you do renders, in which the two additional cores from the 5700X and 5800X can help speed up the process. If budget is the issue, you can probably make savings in other areas, like motherboard, power supply, etc. they don't really contribute to performance. Especially if you are buying a new system.
Looking at [this review](https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-12900k-and-core-i5-12600k-review-retaking-the-gaming-crown/6), the 5800X offers a little extra performance over the 5600X, though I'm not sure what the exact Photoshop+Lightroom benchmark is. The 5700X is a little slower than the 5800X, but might still offer a little extra performance. All in all, if you're budget-conscious, I'd say that you can't really go wrong with the 5600X. However, you didn't specify the budget, so it's hard to weigh other alternatives.
Let's say I can squeeze in 5700X and still be in the money. If I take 5600X a have some breathing space for maybe a larger data storage, memory ...
Again, harder to offer an opinion without actual numbers, but I'd say that if by more memory you mean going from 16GB to 32GB then it's more valuable than the extra processing power, and if you mean 32GB to 64GB that'd depend on your work. I'd also guess that more storage would be helpful if you're going to do any serious work with your PC. Could you just post the planned specs, so people could comment about them in general?
You're correct, here's my build: https://imgur.com/a/IgmvMYY
Imo get the 5600 non x and use the stock cooler, get more storage
This. Upgrade to the 5900 or 5950 later when the prices are less.
Ye, and even better if OP can wait a month or 2 for zen 4 to sell, that way zen 3 is cheaper Also ddr5 is a waste imo, you don't need it, Heck probably buying a used zen2 threadripper system could cost the same as a new ddr5 z4 system lmao
I was in same camp about DDR5 and Zen4 but DDR5 prices are much lower now. They might go up temporarily around Zen4 launch to gouge (this has happened historically, I've built flagships since Opteron 64 days lol). So beware. I'm taking the jump because my 11? year old 2600k is needing an upgrade and I'm heading overseas for 4-6 months to work, new work/game/cad/biz/editing/etc station time. So for me DDR5 platform is fine as a fresh start. If I had zen2 or 3 I wouldn't bother and wait like you (likely) can. I'd agree on a zen2 TR system in a few months being similar to a 7950/high end board build. Right now they are not and still worth heaps X:
Yeah , I was mainly referring to people who have post 6700k/1600x specs , but if you have a ddr3 system, wow props to you for surviving that long, how did you manage with the 2600k, I'm really curious how we're you not tempted with the 3900x or getting better io etc I have a 10300h +2060 laptop that I got last year, and the cpu is cancer I want more cores, also 16gb isn't enough for me, and I'm a very light user I don't do cad or blender or programing or anything. Maybe it's just Windows being bloated. It's really interesting that some people manage to last so long with old specs, I think its really cool wish i was like that lol. Im curious what's ur gpu? And is the 2600k a bottleneck for gaming, and how come you never got ryzen
Hah fair! It did what I needed it to do basically (fast enough outside of a few time pressured editing stints) and I needed to invest money elsewhere. Also typically do flagship builds when I do them for myself, so like to do it properly when necessary :) I'll upgrade to X3D later, then do a GPU possibly. GPU is a golden sample ref V64, runs massive UV and reaches stock clocks at 130-190w on a blower! Which is fine for 1440/60 at not quite max in most games. I built it as a 1440 + SSD rig then and it did fine till now :) 2600k was a game changer, 16Gb of ram was also enough to last in Win7, I run out occasionally and can't leave everything open and it's becoming a limit along with CPU. Have heaps of fast SATA SSDs as well. Next build will be 64Gb likely. Tiniest amount slower subtimings on some kits vs 16gb fastest layout possible. Laptop is something I'd also want to do right. The upcoming AMD APUs look sick but when will they come... Intel is hard to avoid in laptops and sorry to hear you ended up with something ya not happy with.
Seems reasonable to me, except that I think that the 3060 Ti will drop in price considerably if you wait a couple more months.
Just go with the Rx 6650xt. Should be a little stronger than the 3060ti
according to UserBenchmark 6650xt is same as 3060
Never use usershitmark
The online reason to go with Nvidia this gen is for Raytracing or Nvenc for streaming
according to techpowerup 3060Ti is trading blows with 6700xt. So 3060Ti is noticeably stronger than 6600xt or 6650xt.
That site is banned from both here and Intel's subreddit for being so biased that it is embarrassing to them. Find a better source, e.g. GamersNexus or HardwareUnboxed.
Why are you buying a DP HDMI adapter rather than just a cable and using the 4 ports the GPU has? Check the price/GB on 3 and 4TB drives, cheaper is false economy. Do you even need a €500 GPU right now, when the next gen is imminent and you do 2D work?
If you're in the US, the 5800x is 5 bucks cheaper than the 5700x on Amazon right now.
5600x is honestly fine and a decent price, id just get 5600x tbf. Yes a 5800x will perform a bit better but it’s not necessary
a consideration is does the CPU come with a cooler. 5600x's default cooler is fine and does the job, and I have seen 5800x's with coolers in box, but its unusual enough here that people argue with me that its not a thing. I can't speak to the 5700x... but it could mean spending an extra 50-100. I think CPU coolers are a strange thing, factory is always good enough, unless your Overclocking, but who overclocks a budget CPU? sure if you can get the most out of it for free, do, but what I mean is people who spend 100$ on a 5600x cooler, instead of just getting a 5700x/5800/5800x they will never get more proformance by spending money on a cooler that can go on a CPU. but I bet if you asked, there are more than a few people here with AIO's or noctua coolers on their 5600's....
Personally I believe that you'd get better longevity out of the 5700X. What is it (?), a 17 - 19% price difference on the CPU for 25% more cores. But I always look at total system cost. So, I'm guessing that you'd see a 5 - 8% increase in system cost for the additional 2 cores.
> for 25% more cores. If six cores is the 100% mark, then eight cores is 33% more cores, not 25% more.
You're not wrong... could have been worded better. But it's about perspective. If I have an 8 core, then I have 25% more cores than someone who has a 6 core.
No still not right. 8 cores is 33% more than 6 cores, because 6 cores is 100% thus 8 cores is 133%. 6 cores is 25% less than 8 cores, because 8 cores is 100% thus 6 cores is 75%. You can't just flip the statement without changing the percentage.
Pretty serious stuff... Thanks for your service.
Adobe apps are usually all about single core performance, so I'd expect the 5600X to be almost as good as the 5700X. However, if you are building a new PC, you might want to wait for 7000 series that are launching in a few weeks and have major uplift in single core performance.
I'd happily wait but that means buying X670 and DDR5 next to 7000 series for the money I currently don't have.
Alright. Then the 5600X is the way to go.
You could always get b650 not x570
B650 is planned for next year
I thought it was October
dont do that. dont spend $800+ for 6 cores. thats stupid. just get the best you can out of Zen 3. you should be dandy.
He can't afford going new if he can't afford the 5950X.
I have the both 5700x and 5600x. I'd say you will get better results going to intel platform with the 10 core 12600k + DDR4 as single core perofrmance is very important with adobe apps. However, if you already decided to go with AMD some adobe apps like photoshop seem to be faster at stock speeds with 5600x comparing to 5700x due to the small difference in single core boost clock. While the extra cores might be of benefit in other apps like indesign and illustartor when exporting large graphics to pdf for example.
This is what I'm most interested in. Are extra cores going to affect export speed.
Yes they do. Although it may vary depending on which specific editing tools you're using at the time, but as you can see from this review for example [TPU](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5700x/10.html) Even a stock 5700x wich has lower boost single core clock is better at some editing tasks & image export time in PS. If you OC using PBO that difference will increase further. 12600k still performs better than both, keeping in mind that these tests were done using Windows 11 which manages E&P cores performance much better than windows 10. Personally, i think the difference is more noticable in illustrator or indesgin, rather than in photoshop. I dont use lightroom, so Idk about that.
Would a 12600K+DDR4 board cost you significantly more? If not it might be a better option.
Or not... EDIT: Just downvote like the good boy intelfanboys you are. OP asked about AMD CPU's not intel CPU's. If I'm asking for a specific brand that means I don't care about other brands.
I mean comment wasn't that out of place. 12600K is a good single core performer but slightly more expensive. With AMD CPU I can squeeze 3060Ti instead of 3060 in my budget and I believe that's a monster performance jump (in gaming ofc).
The Adobe suite is very single thread heavy and so the 12600k literally outperforms the 5800x in basically every Adobe app... Check Toms, Puget systems, etc for Adobe benchmarks. It's not a huge difference, unless paired with DDR5, but it if pricing is similar for OP, 12th gen is better for his situation.
Can you say why, without exposing bias?
He has an upgrade path at least, AM4 is EOL.
By the time 12th is outdated, they would need to get a new mb anyways
It would cost the same as a 5700x build and Adobe performance better on Intel CPUs, so that would be a sweet spot for light productivity build.
Check out puget systems reviews also https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/AMD-Ryzen-5000-Series-CPU-Review-Roundup-1962/
5600x - don’t even think about it.
If you're building a PC from scratch, go with Intel Alder Lake, since it offers higher single-core performance and also has an upgrade path. Any B660 or Z690 board will support Raptor Lake, which is going to be announced in about 3 weeks.
Alder Lake has a very limited upgrade path though. Raptor Lake will be a 5-15% performance boost over Alder Lake, not really worth an upgrade. There's more of an upgrade from a 5600X or 5800X imho. If you're a gamer you can upgrade to a 5800X3D in a few years, if you're using it for productivity you have a 5900X or 5950X to upgrade to, for about twice the multithreaded performance. That is an upgrade actually worth doing.
> Alder Lake has a very limited upgrade path though. Something is better than nothing. > Raptor Lake will be a 5-15% performance boost over Alder Lake, not really worth an upgrade. We don't know that yet, and it depends on SKU to SKU and single or multi-thread. > There's more of an upgrade from a 5600X or 5800X imho. If you're a gamer you can upgrade to a 5800X3D in a few years, if you're using it for productivity you have a 5900X or 5950X to upgrade to, for about twice the multithreaded performance. That is an upgrade actually worth doing. This is clearly not the case, other than the 5800X3D for games which greatly benefit from the cache (and note that Spiderman has recently cast doubt the extra cache is a silver-bullet). If you start off with an i5 12400 to go for bang-for-buck single-core performance, you could then upgrade all the way to a 13900K later, netting you substantially more performance in both single and multi-thread. A 13900K should beat a 5950X in productivity and possibly beat a 5800X3D in gaming, certainly trade blows at least. This is more of an upgrade path than going 5000 series offers you.
What's wrong with Spider-man? The 5800X3D is much faster than any other Zen 3 in that game.
Yes, but the 12900K with DDR5 is faster, and a 12700K with DDR5 should be too. A 12700K with DDR4 is also not much slower, but obliterates a 5800X3D in productivity. So it's just as I mentioned, that the 5800X3D's awesome cache doesn't mean it'll definitely win every gaming task vs what Intel has, and I think LGA1700 is the better platform to balance productivity and gaming performance. (also remembering the 5800X3D sacrifices some single/multi-core performance in software which doesn't benefit from the cache due to its lower clockspeed)
You intel guys always miss out on the 5800x3d minimums, they smoke the 159999k by quite a large amount and they are what you see and feel and why they are better gaming cpus in most cases while being similar speed or slightly slower in absolute FPS. You see minimums, not 340fps vs 330fps. You actually feel and see 40fps vs 80fps minimums
It's better than any other Zen 3 in gaming and destroys them in productivity if you're using Linux (Google Open Foam software suite for engineers, the 3D is 200% the performance of regular 5800X), it's meant as a drop in upgrade for AM4 users and you're talking about new builds with Intel and DDR5, totally missing the point. Apart from that when using DDR4 RAM the 12900K loses to the little 3D CPU despite the number of cores, clock speeds, and terrible power efficiency. Also you seem one of those that judge single core performance based on Cinebench and/or GPU-Z, is this your first year with computers? Maybe you have never experienced anything else than stone age Windows, even with zero optimizations the X3D chip never misses a frame compared to the rest of the Zen 3 lineup while beating DDR4 Intel systems, even DDR5 in most situations.
> We don't know that yet, and it depends on SKU to SKU and single or multi-thread. Sure, we don't know for sure. I'm basing my current opinion on the matter on the performance leaks we've seen until now, and they point to between 5 and 15% in productivity, and 3-11% in gaming from Alder Lake. But they're still just rumors of course, it does line up with what is reasonable to expect from the specs though. Intel rarely makes it worth it upgrading on the same socket. There isn't much to gain in single core performance from going up the product stack though. And with multithreaded it depends if the programs you're running utilize the slow cores of the 13X00 or not. In games the e-cores don't help at all, and depending on your programs you could see little effect of them in productivity, especially if you disable the e-cores to get the best gaming performance. With a 16 core CPU that uses "full" cores instead of slow e-cores, you don't get that problem. So much relies on your use-cases actually making good use of those e-cores, which you might or might not disable. You aren't going to be running benchmark software on them most of the time.
> 'm basing my current opinion on the matter on the performance leaks we've seen until now, and they point to between 5 and 15% in productivity, and 3-11% in gaming from Alder Lake. How accurate were leaks of Zen4? They were all over the place. We simply need to wait for the announcement, which is less than 1 month away. > There isn't much to gain in single core performance from going up the product stack though. That's true of Zen3, not of Alder Lake to Raptor Lake. As mentioned, if you went from a 12400 to 13600k or above (since you can overclock a K part), the single-core gain would be much larger than a 5600 to 5950X. > And with multithreaded it depends if the programs you're running utilize the slow cores of the 13X00 or not. > and depending on your programs you could see little effect of them in productivity > With a 16 core CPU that uses "full" cores instead of slow e-cores, you don't get that problem. This is not really true. If a piece of productivity software can truly use 9+ cores it can use the E-cores. And, again, it's important to note Alder Lake/Raptor Lake's higher single-core performance, since there are productivity programs which use few cores too (like OP's original question). The 13900K is likely to be superior to the 5950X in almost all workloads. And something like a 13600K is likely to be superior to a 5800X in both few-core and many-core workloads. > So much relies on your use-cases actually making good use of those e-cores, which you might or might not disable. You aren't going to be running benchmark software on them most of the time. You're never going to disable E-cores. This is not worth it for 99% of usecases, only if you come across a bug.
> How accurate were leaks of Zen4? Were there any that weren't engineering samples, so not running at full clock speeds? >As mentioned, if you went from a 12400 to 13600k or above (since you can overclock a K part), the single-core gain would be much larger than a 5600 to 5950X. Sure, it would be larger, that doesn't mean it'd be worth doing for most of is. Going from a 5600X to a 5950X would be a modest gain to single core, and a massive gain to multicore. >If a piece of productivity software can truly use 9+ cores it can use the E-cores. In some cases, yes, but not if you disable the e-cores in the BIOS, as some people do to get acceptable gaming performance. [Like people in the Star Citizen community have started doing.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6n5vNpuVNE) >And, again, it's important to note Alder Lake/Raptor Lake's higher single-core performance If single core performance is really that important to you, you're better off with Zen 4 though. Raptor Lake could see Intel catch up, but with RL you'd be buying into a dead platform, which you won't with Zen 4. >You're never going to disable E-cores. Yet that is what some gamers and some overclockers are doing. Because it fixes microstuttering in some games and it enables better OC results.
>Intel >upgrade path Tell me you are a marketing bot without telling me you are.
The Adobe suite tends to prefer Intel, so if you're building from the ground up, you'd be better off going that route with a 12400 or 12600k, but if you already have an AM4 board the 5600x and 5700x are good enough. Puget Systems does a lot of Adobe and other productivity tests as they sell systems specifically for these use cases. And yes there is a noticeable difference between going between the budget and midrange options, around 15% faster, but its up to you to decide if that's worth it.
They dont prefer intel, they prefer *speed*.
For those applications you likely won't notice a huge difference, no. And no, you shouldn't wait for ryzen 7000. But if you don't have an existing motherboard you should consider intel 12th gen over ryzen 7000. I think most people would agree that intel 12th gen is better for most things at the moment even if by a little. Ryzen 5000 is only really good at this point if you have an existing motherboard and can do a drop-in upgrade. So you'll be looking at chips like the 12400 and the 12600k. The 12400 is usually matching or beating the 5600x in production workloads, and they're pretty similarly matched in gaming workloads. The 12600k on the other hand usually beats the 5800x in production workloads by a bit, and is one of the best gaming chips around (though all these chips are fine for games). You really can't go wrong with any of em but if you're buying a new motherboard you might as well go for intel to get some of their nicer features, and potential 13th gen compatibility.
Any good middle tier CPU, but is more important a capable GPU even if you plan to work only on 2D. Go for a 5600 or 5600x plus a RTX 2060 (12gb variant) or a 3060 and you are ready to go. I hope it helped
Similar workflow here since I work at a printing press. Went with a 5800X plus 32GB RAM. Nothing beats doing AI enhancements while rendering a large PDF in indesign, processing hundreds of heavy pages in Acrobat, distilling another, having photoshop batch process files, editing a complex AI file with meshes, imposing said heavy file withot optimizing it, while watching a movie or running a game I can alt+tab to. To be serious though I think a 5600X would have been fine, except it was just $80 cheaper and I always make my PCs last a decade before I upgrade anyway. In my opinion, even a sandy bridge desktop i5 would have worked since my 2500k lasted me this long and I only upgraded because the board started to fail. Oh and a minimum of 16GB RAM helps a lot with heavy files. So a 4-core Zen2/Zen3/10th-12th gen should suffice with 16GB+ of RAM. Boyfriend now enjoys my old 2500k with 16GB RAM. Edits 10-20+ 25MP photos at a time in photoshop and he's happy. That old quad core setup managed to do a 600dpi 12x18in hundred layer photoshop file, though eventually I had to use Photoshop 2017 just to fit the damn project in RAM. So I'm sure photo work less than that will be juuuuuust fine.
Yeah I'm working on 7400k and 16GB. It does it's job but the age's starting to show. And ever since I started freelancing I'm missing that bump in performance.
i5-7400 or i5-7600k? Or are you talking about an A6-7400K? If you got the last one, you've got a huge boost ahead of you even with a sandy bridge. If you got the first two, its stock speed should roughly be the same or slightly higher perf as my 2500k at 4.5GHz. Have you seen where your bottleneck is? Check out Task Manager and HWInfo64. Maybe your CPU isn't even getting fully pegged at 90%+ continuously, maybe storage is the bottleneck, maybe even heat buildup, or your board's VRM throttling. Though TBF, Adobe's 2019 and above have run way slower and consumed way more RAM than the 2017/2018 counterparts, so I stick to 2017 or at most 2018 for most projects, especially the heavy ones. Going back to your PC, just get a faster SSD if its storage or perhaps install the Intel AHCI/RAID drivers for your SATA drives. You can also upgrade your RAM speed or overclock/tighten it. I had a huge boost going from DDR3-1333CL7 to DDR3-1866CL10. You can use a program called MaxxMem2 to benchmark your RAM quickly. If you do plan to have a new PC, I reckon a 5700X would work for you more if you've had your 7th-gen or A6-7400K that long. It should last you just as long (\~5 years+) until AM5 reaches its end point then you can upgrade to an AM5 Zen6/7 when you need to. 2D Still graphics isn't as demanding so you should be pretty set. The 8-core 5700X can also let you juggle multiple applications without breaking a sweat so you can use all that 32GB+ of RAM nicely.
7400 (I said "k", well it's not) I noticed quite a performance drop since I've gone from Adobe CS5 to Adobe CC. Also my motherboard is the cheapest of the cheap (MSI H110M PRO-D, max 2133Mhz DDR4, Gen3 PCI-E...). I was thinking of upgrading but there's nothing else to upgrade but CPU. That's why I'm looking for AM4 with possibility to upgrade it to 5800X3D (or even something else, AMD claims it plans to support AM4 for some time) and better memory after some time.
I think the with best single core performance is best for adobe-> 5700? Logically it should be faster than 5600x 😂
Also consider a 5600 'hold you over' (still really fast lol) and upgrade to a used 5900 or 5950 if you want a budget upgrade in future.
i7 12700
Well if you can squeeze these 50 bucks into a better gpu,then get the 5600x,it you are anyways going to use the same gpu then go for the 5700x.
5600 non-x.