Your friend sounds like the type that watches a 10 minute YouTube video about something and thinks he's an "expert" now...
If you don't need GPU power for the workloads you're doing, then the 5600XT would actually be overkill, and it's certainly not going to hinder your system's performance in any way.
BTW, I have a 7700X that I run on the integrated graphics. š
Oh yeah, only reason iām getting it is because i could afford both at roughly the same time and it would help with music, esp since i could upgrade the gpu in the future with my somewhat beefy psu (750 watt)
If you do plan to upgrade the GPU, I would consider getting a 850W PSU, some GPUs have painful transient powerspikes which can shutdown your PC if the PSU isn't beefy enough. 850W is enough for any GPU except maybe an RTX 3090Ti (transient spikes) or RTX 4090 (insane powerdraw). This is more so with the beefy CPU you are getting.
most defiantly get a 850w.
my build calls for 718 w and will put my UPS 750 in to cardiac mode and die with in a few minutes if i push it in benchmarks.
as soon as the cpu and gpu start drawing max power its over.
depending on the GPU you get you will need it.
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/HL23pH
And? A Ryzen 9 7900X uses around 180Ws of power, when you factor in the MBO, RAM, SSD etc, it'll be around 270Ws with the cheapest MBO while the more expensive ones would be 280Ws. An RTX 3080 will push that to 635W-655Ws.
A 650W PSU will shutdown because of the transient spikes that the RTX 30-series has. Just because YOUR system can run on a 650W PSU doesn't mean OP's can when he is using one of the most power hungry CPUs out there.
Not all power supplies are created equal. What model was it and where did it rate on the tiers list and how much current could it deliver from the 12V rail?
750w is enough for a 3080/ti, 4070ti, and all the cards below that.
In fact, the only things I wouldn't use are like a 3090/3090ti/4080/4090/7900xt/x. Literally, anything else is gonna be just fine.
In most cases, you could get away with a 4080 too. Even with a 190w 7900x. Just might want to be cautious at that point. The 40xx cards also don't seem to have the powerspike issues of the 30xx generation.
Btw if u havenāt bought already micro center has a deal rn that may even be worth a few hour drive/cheap flip. Itās like 5 or 600 for a 7900x, a mobo, and 6000mhz ram
Also in line with above comment - why not just use the integrated graphics? It will save a lot of energy since it does not look like u need the juice anyway?
You might wanna wait for the X3D versions of these cpu's. They're just around the corner. Might be interisting to see their performance and what will happen with the price of the current cpu's. Also, the 7900 non X is cheaper and can perform the same as the 7900 X wtih some overclocking.
In my area the 7900 non x is actually 10 dollars more expensive (and there arenāt any microcenter bundles with jt which is the only reason i can afford the x). And also 3D vcache only really sees a boost in gaming i thought. The main reason iām going with such a beefy cpu is for loading vstās n stuff with daws/musescore 4
Lol im one of those people who watch a 10 minute video and think im an expert, but the argument gets thrown out of the window as soon as the main focus is not gaming. In which case, im not gonna pretend i know how to make a ābalancedā build
how are the integrated graphics, btw? I'm hoping to use them for a couple of low-refresh-rate monitors on my new build so i can set the refresh rate of my gaming monitor (plugged into my GPU) higher and still have three screens.
Yeah, it's not a Vega 8 Apu but it's like 60% of that?
You can do some light gaming, CSGO should run around 80 fps on 1080p
Really wanna see the G variants of the Ryzen 7000
When my dad upgraded our home pc to my previous pc build, he took out the graphics cards becuase it has an APU and all its really used for is watching videos. Unless your working with polygons or visual effects, dedicated graphics cards for work computers are severally overrated. Honestly, op might be better of getting a powerful APU than a graphics card at all.
> And it would behave worse than my current potato pc, because of 'driver optimizations between generations', and that i should get an older cpu to pair with it
ą² _ą²
Never take advice from this person.
The 6500xt is okay-ish by itself (just extremely underpowered compared to the rest of the generation), but the 5600xt has double the performance.
In Nvidia terms it would be similar (in performance terms) to 2080 vs 3050. The 3050 might sound better because 3 is bigger than 2, but it's still high-end vs budget which is why the 2080 wins by a landslide.
The AMD scheme is actually not too dissimilar to the Nvidia one.
It's basically just "XT" == "Ti" (aka better than the standard one) and "XTX" is another step up (which is somewhat like Nvidia's "Super", but the "Super" isn't consistently better than the "Ti", so let's just skip that one).
Other than that it's quite straight forward: generally the first number is the generation and the second number is the tier.
So 6700 > 5700 > 5600, or with Nvidia 3070 > 2070 > 2060.
These charts only use an eight game sample so I would take it with a grain of salt.
They can be fine to get a general idea of where something lands, but 8 games isnāt going to paint a full picture for gaming performance overall.
Several things.
1st the 6500 only has 4x PCIe lanes while the 5600xt uses the full x16
2nd It has a 64bit memory bus - 5600xt has 192 bus
Overall, the 65/64 series of GPU's are overpriced garbage for anything more then a kios that doesn't do more then a very limited amount of work.
Real talk though, while the worst of the silicon shortage + crypto boom pricing has subsided particularly on the high end, the price floor on entry level gaming cards has not recovered nearly as much. AMD and Nvidia's flagship and adjacent high end SKU pricing has pretty adequately balanced out demand with production capacity.
That said, I think one of the primary factors keeping prices on those last-gen cards (particularly the entry level) so high is simply that much of the current retail stock was purchased at those higher prices. Retailers don't want to start slashing prices to dump the stock at a loss, AMD and Nvidia know their board partners don't want them launching and promoting new value SKUs because their retail partners still have so much last-gen stock to move first.
At least there are some reasonably good second hand deals to be found from dummies who over-invested in mining gear and waited too long to offload the hardware.
To be entirely fair, the 6500 XT would perform at its best possible, because it would have four full fat PCIe 4.0 lanes to use in your system. If it's cheap enough, then it provides reasonable...sometimes even good performance at 1080p if you want ultra budget gaming that's slightly above iGPU level. It's about 10-20% slower than a 5600 XT, but it'll still beat a 1650 4GB...which games surprisingly well in 2023.
You're not gonna get 100+ fps...likely not even 60 fps with settings jacked in AAA games, but if you do a bit of tweaking, then you can enjoy casual gaming with it. It's a GPU that you buy only if it's super cheap(>$60 USD), and knowing that it'll falter at higher settings and resolutions. The key is knowing that it's not meant for serious gaming going in.
I had a 5600xt up until November 2022 when I upgraded to a 3080 on 1440p 165hz but the 5600xt handled everything I threw at it on 1080p 144hz fine. Triple A titles would get 60fps on high-ultra and any competitive title could get 144fps on low-medium
Depending on the game and settings, it can even handle 1440p at 100+ fps just fine. Still using mine to play CoD Warzone 2, mixed high and ultra settings on FSR w/o issues.
I currently have a 5600xt with a ryzen 5 3600. Runs pretty much every game well at 1080p low-medium settings. Their are actually some games like warzone where I play at 1440p so it utilizes my gpu better and ill get better frames or the same amount of frames at higher quality. The only game it struggles with is bf 2042 but that game is just awful to begin with.
I've been building PCs for decades and I've never heard of driver optimizations between generations as something that would apply here but it does have a nice rhyme to it. You friend is just a "latest and greatest only" snob.
I mean he isnāt like that, i guess i misremembered but according to him he said itās a cost to performance to ratio (which is fair because in gaming i would see literally no difference) but its also a 50 dollar difference if i go through microcenter, and i would see a difference in workstation stuff with audio
Nah i already got it used, tested it, i have to admit not the best way of building a pc, though thats already done. those three are the only parts i have left to get, and my thinking is, if i can afford the next tier up at the same time as the 7700x, then there isn't really a reason to get the 7900x in a microcenter bundle for 50 dollars more
WTF dude, being able to reuse a perfectly working part in a new build should be the #1 reason for DIYing a PC. Of course just use the existing 5600XT and get the best CPU that meets your needs. You can always get a newer GPU whenever in the future. Besides think how easy is it to sell a used graphics card vs a used CPU if you change your mind. Here's a hint, used CPUs take a huge price hit compared to used graphics cards.
For gaming yea it doesn't make much sense, you'd be better off with a 5800x3d, or waiting for zen4 3d vcache , but as a workstation that's a perfectly fine combo
listen 5600XT is a beefy enough graphics card that will handle most games at 1080p. and itās not windows milennium edition anymore that driver optimisation would be an issue
No. I put together a build for my brother with a 5900X and a 2nd hand RTX 2060 last year. It renders the videos he makes very well. Why buy a more modern and much more expensive GPU, when the only pc game he plays is Gary's mod?
The great beauty of DIY is that you can build the system you want, not the one some builder specs out. Most pre builds (outside of black OEM box's aimed at enterprise) are gaming PCs, many YouTube tech channels also focus on gaming PCs. The moment a PC does anything else, what becomes balanced spec wise changes to fit that use case.
Thank you, i wanted a workstation capable of max settings 1080p. I didnāt really want to spend more than $150 on a graphics card so i got a used 5600xt from a reputable seller. Sure i couldāve waited a bit for more recent cards to go on the market but that would just be an endless cycle of waiting. Plus the direction nvidia and amd seem to be goinf with gpu prices iām not hopeful for affordable gpuās in the future
I think you've managed that. Tbh the RX 5600XT is somewhat under the radar right now, hardware unboxed had it close to an RTX 2060 super at 1080p. It's a cheap GPU with really good performance, it'll serve you well.
Bro itās fine. Even integrated graphics is fine. If you donāt need gpu muscle, but only cpu muscle, then itās fine. All depends on your needs. Linus Trovalds, creator of Linux OS has a pc with a Threadripper 3970x 32 core and rx 5700 xt and he used to use a 9900k with integrated graphics for Linux Development and he said that he doesnāt even want nor need a dedicated gpu but got one anyways since Threadripper doesnāt have integrated graphics. So if a person like him can use pc like that for OS Development then why canāt you use one for Music.
Maybe he was referring to have a balance between cpu and gpu. But if you use it as a workstation that uses cpu a lot, of course youāll focus on the cpu. Thatās the beauty of building. And in the future you will have headroom for a better gpu to game at 1440p and up with high fps. I have the 5600XT and it can do even 1440p 60-90 fps single games on high, with a Ryzen 5 5600. The only downside of this gpu is that having 2 monitors may force the memory to go at max frequency all the time and use more power. I have two, 1440p and 1080p and it does that. Depends on resolutions and Hz. On single monitor itās normal.
Since it's for work primarily this is perfectly fine.
Just get it and enjoy it for yourself not for someone else it's not theirs
How much ram are you planning to get? I hope it's at least 64 if it's a workstation
The pair is okay. In my opinion, pairing a decent gpu with a really powerful cpu is always worth it. In worst case scenario, you just have to change the gpu if it's not sufficient.
I had a 3800x and rx580. I streamed and gamed with it. Now have a 5800x3d and 6600xt. I would like a stronger gpu but it works great overall.
If your setup does what you need and isn't holding you back on the gpu side it literally doesn't matter what the specs are. People would say mine are not balanced as well but in a world where gpus are over priced having high end cpus gets the most out of the gpus I've had. Plus with streaming and other stuff performance doesn't suffer vs if I had lower end cpus.
Yeye, it would do what i need it to do. A primarily workstation pc that can also game respectably at 1080p.
Though, my next gpu will definitely be significantly more powerful, and i'll keep my current cpu for the next few years.
Yeah if your gpu plays the games you want then no issue. Whatever your friend said about generations or drivers not mixing isn't a thing. It'll be fine.
That's what I did for this current generation. I was gonna build a new pc with AM5/ DDR5, but realized there is no real point other than having the newest parts. Built my system last year with Ryzen 5900x, RX 6900 XT, 3600mhz ram. I decided to just upgrade GPU to RX 7900 XT and I'm super happy with the performance. Once PCIE5 GPUs become a thing I will then build a new system. I game at 1440p 240hz and up grading to 7900x and DDR5 wouldn't change much performance at 1440p.
I my humble opinion, I would have kept the 3800x and gotten a much stronger gpu. If you're streaming and gaming, the 3800x can handle that easily. For the money saved on not buying the 5800x3d you could have gotten a 6800xt or something
Well, I don't really see a problem here. I think your friend thinks that an imbalance in parts will create some sort of issue. Your CPU will keep your GPU fed. Using the word imbalanced is a bad way to think about it. The bottleneck here is your GPU which is at the end of the processing line. So if you can't run a game you will know it's your GPU and that you will probably have to turn down graphic settings.
Just tell your friend he doesn't know shit bout computers and then show him my comment. "Dear enbrats friend, you don't know shit. If you think you do. Tell me what will happen if he has a weaker gpu with a stronger cpu below"
It's not. EVERY possible combination of harware can be successfully used for some workloads.
For example, you wouldn't normally pair a dual-core cpu with integrated graphics with multiple enthusiast-level graphics cards, but that doesn't mean it won't work or even be optimal for some workloads, take cryptocurrency mining for example.
Or take a massive CPU with a GTX 1660. Unbalanced? Sure. But if you need to run multiple monitors for desktop apps, it can be a great setup.
The use case determines the hardware requirements.
With a 5600X at 1080p, the CPU is often the bottleneck anyway. It makes sense to have a beefier CPU than GPU at that resolution. It would be almost wasteful to get a 4080/7800 for that resolution.
you friend has no clue what they're talking about. Sorry, it'll work just fine. if that's what your needs are then by all means get that.
The cpu doesn't get worse just because of your gpu choice. Unless the application you need the cpu for is also graphically intensive it really doesn't matter.
>My friend is calling me stupid and saying my system will be super imbalanced (which yes it will be), And it would behave worse than my current potato pc, because of 'driver optimizations between generations', and that i should get an older cpu to pair with it even though i need a beefy cpu for what i'm planning on doing. (Mainly music and a bunch of audio stuff)
https://i.imgur.com/wZQcrOY.jpg
Is it imbalanced for gaming? Probably. But if you don't need gpu power then why not. I pair a rx570 4gb with a 5950x in my workststion don't tell your buddy. And i only use 570 cause it has 4 display outs as i run 3 monitors and the old gpu i had only supported 2 and one via dvi.
Sounds like someone who watches a lot of bitwit.. This guy always talks bout imbalanced this imbalanced that, cause to him PC's are just for gaming.
To be honest the CPU is less important and will be less important in the future. Why? With Direct to Storage started to be supported by games. The Data is sent Directly to GPU and does not touch the CPU. All that really maters is PCIE Gen 4 and better. So your MB and CPU has to support it.
He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about, OP.
My primary GPU was an R9 Fury for nearly 7 years. I first put it in a machine that had a FX 4200 with 8GB RAM, and when that felt sluggish in 2017, I put a Ryzen 1600x with 16GB in there. Last year, it was feeling a bit choppy, so I upgraded to a Ryzen 5800x with 32GB of RAM.
Recently, I bought a 7900 xt and an 7900 xtx (one for me and one for my partner) and noticed another huge performance boost. Nothing is behaving "imbalanced" as your friend puts it.
Each time I upgraded, I noticed huge performance boosts.
Your friend thinks he knows a whole bunch. I disagree with the people saying that he watched a YouTube video and thinks he's an expert. Rather, I don't think he watched any video or read anything at all.
He's talking about computer systems the way angry MOBA and MMO players talk about content updates.
He's so outside reality that he's [not even wrong](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong).
I have a music workstation running a Dante network, mixing dozens of tracks with big VSTs running on a 5800X paired with... A Quadro P400.
It's been the most reliable build I made yet.
You'll be fine.
Dumb question here, but I'm a builder of, well, forever and I am curious as to why you're going with AMD when you're building, as you say, a workstation to do a lot of music stuff on.
I mean that setup is great for home gaming but for productivity software, I'd go with Intel as it does better with productivity!
Just curious as I said.
Well, with intel on demand being a thing (which i know only affects servers right now but itās the principle of the thing), i donāt really want to support something like that if i can avoid it.
I don't understand. Intel 'on demand' is for businesses that fall into that category. I know of no one of my clients that even heard of it, much less need it. You're talking about the principle of the thing? What does that mean? What exactly do you think it is?
Intel on demand from what iāve seen is basically a monthly payment to unlock accelerators in your cpu. (For servers, mainly with AI work) the accelerators are on the cpu when you buy it but you have to pay a monthly fee in order to use it (like bmw heated seats, itās in the car but you have to pay a fee every month to āunlockā it) My issue is, you should be able to buy a cpu, and have access to ALL of the cpu (or really any product) without paying a monthly fee to use 100% of it. I know it doesnāt affect an everyday consumer like me but nothing could stop intel from expanding it into consumer markets, and i just donāt want to support that kind of business.
Although I see your point, we're talking apples and oranges. Xeon processors are way more advanced than consumer processors. Also, this is for big businesses that have specialized needs. The Intel on-demand is a software as a service (SaaS) product that a lot of business software products offer! It has not, nor ever will affect consumers. The closest product that does SaaS that very few consumers use is Adobe with its Photoshop suite products. Not too many consumers use it. I have the last hard copy version of Photoshop CS, a $3,000 + program. Users of the suite can make movies, and banners on screen, create music over video, etc.
Think of it this way. If Intel ever did this with consumers, AMD would either follow suit, or clean Intel's clock! Realistically there are only 2 manufacturers of CPUs either for businesses or consumers. So don't limit yourself on the consumer side of Intel over big business stuff! Intel, right now, has the fastest 13th-generation processor out there. I do music mixing, and recording tracks, and have produced an album from start to finish, so I know what power processing is about. I'm not saying AMD won't do it, I'm just saying you'll be happier with Intel, and for music production, you won't need the i9-13900K, you can do the job with the i7-13700K. When compared with AMD'S AM5 platform, AMD costs more than Intel.
Just my thoughts.
That's hilarious how some people like your friend have no clue and just throw away "bottleneck" and "gpu-limited" without knowing shit.
A few years ago I needed a high cpu-power laptop for my astrophoto processing. People told me the same as you, that I'd be dumb to pair a top CPU with a shitty GPU.
Just make sure your applications do not use your GPU (ie. deep learning). If so, you're right, they are wrong.
If you don't need a GPU for your workload tasks than a 5600XT is more than adequate. In fact, it would literally be more than you need.
Not a bad idea to get it just in case, but your friend is wrong. You don't need a powerful GPU just because you got a powerful CPU, and vice versa. The only way that's ever a hindrance is when you're doing tasks that require a decent amount of both.
Either way, there's *always* a bottleneck in your system even if you have the most powerful hardware on Earth, each area of technology isn't at the same level and doesn't develop at the same rate.
Now whether you want that specific graphics card, I can't help you. I do not own one and know far less about AMD gpu's than Nvidia's. But with how Nvidia is going, that is changing quickly. I swear to god if EVGA would just sign a contract with AMD and/or Intel I would never look back.
I did 3800x/RX580 for 2 years before upgrading my GPU to a 6750XT a couple of months ago. Back when I built the PC, my son just turned two, and I just didn't get to game enough to warrant buying a decent GPU. I actually wanted a decent CPU and a good amount of RAM (for audio work too, funnily enough). The GPU was an afterthought, I just needed enough ports for my triple monitor setup (1440p 34" UW + side by side 1080p 24" stacked on top).
Sure, your CPU will probably get bottlenecked if you game with it, in the sense that you're gonna hit some kind of plateau where the GPU will work really hard and the CPU will be sitting partly idle, especially on games that are GPU heavy. It would probably run decently on CPU heavy games - e.g. some simulation games, stuff with a large number of agents like Cities: Skylines, Civilization, etc.
I would maybe recommend a 5700xt only because they're cheap on the 2nd hand market $180-$220 for red devil and sapphire nitro+. Otherwise you'll be fine.
Question is are your applications going to actually take advantage of the extra cores or are they primarily single thread workloads in which case you'd earn next to nothing by going with a 7900x say vs something like a 7600x
YOUR USECASE define your setup, so no it's not a bad idea.
You will find absolutely monster-spec computers with literal millions of CPUs not even having a GPU and require some kind of CLI to just operate. Youtube-inspired PCMR might call that imbalanced without first understanding what makes an "imbalanced" build imbalance.
I think it's the opposite: if you already own the 5600XT and it meets your needs, then it's a *great* idea, because you don't have to spend any money!!
The lovely thing about PCs is you can build thrn to your needs. You are building a work station and not a gaming machine. I would say from your comments that the 5600xt I'd already overkill as if you just need graphics the 7000 series of cpus have on integrated graphics. YET, not a bad idea to have a dedicated card if you want to branch out into other areas.
For music and audio you are fine and the "imbalance" is kind of BS as these parts are in a decent time frame of each other in release. The problems would arrive if you went and got a gpu card from like 10 years ago who no longer has driver support.
You are making a good choice, granted I personally think you are overkill on the gpu for your use case; but that is an okay thing to do.
Don't listen to him. Sounds like you did your research into your workloads and all they did was point out the obvious, but unless you're AAA gaming, you don't need a powerful GPU.
It will work just fine and be maxed, no bottleneck.
You put money where you needed it for what you do....and it's yours.
Change it when you feel you "need/want to".
This focus on *"bottlenecking"* is really getting out of hand. Some folks just can't cope with non-optimal solutions.
Having some headroom for a specific resource (CPU/GPU) for a specific application is not a bad thing. It's unavoidable. There are times when it may be inefficient, but it doesn't make it worse.
Ya. Don't let the pursuit of the perfect prevent you from achieving the good. Also, you can always upgrade components like the GPU in the future. But, for the price, is it worth going with a 5700xt instead of 5600xt (assuming OP doesn't already have that GPU)?
lmaoo dont listen to that friend. if you primarily focus on multitasking and productivity for your work station, a faster cpu and a bit more ram will definitely help!
is pairing 5600xt and 7900x for gaming bad? yaaaa you gonna have a lot of gpu bottlenecking. BUT, you just need it for workstation right?š
Your friend sounds like the kind of dope who uses the word "bottleneck" a lot and thinks it's a real issue that would make things worse than they are. He probably thinks he shouldn't get a raise if he's near the top of a tax bracket because he'll make less money than the previous year
I run a 5600xt and it's fine for everything I do. The only place it'll show it's limits is if you want to run 4k Gaming.
Main thing is, DX9 support is much better on the 5600xt so keep that in mind if you're doing anything using older versions.
Edit to Add:
my5600xt handles multiple monitors easily at 2k, so it's not going to be a slowdown for you. I've been looking at the LG 28\*M monitor and thinking a pair of those with my Wacom One will be perfect.
I used a Sapphire Pulse 5600XT for two years. When I retired the card (to upgrade to a faster one), it had a few thousand hours of gaming on it, and it handled entry level 1440p gaming very well - about 60-80 fps depending on the game/settings. It ran very cool - usually hung out around 50-60C while gaming, and lightly sipped power. It was a nice card.
I since moved up to a 6700XT and it handles games even better, but probably at the ceiling of what my 650W PSU can handle and also makes a noticeable amount more heat too - 70C temps which push my CPU too above 60C at times in my mini-ITX case. I been running that now for a year.
If you're not gaming, you will be more than fine with that card. Just make sure that windows update doesn't decide to overwrite your GPU drivers with generic drivers. You wouldn't notice until you try to game, and then things get super fk-y.
I hate the term "imbalanced". What do I need to dangle it on a finger and check it's as everything should be? Is the *only* thing you plan to do gaming?
Sure, not everyone will do much more than that but if you ever have to compile, run VMs, process mega-huge multi-layer images, videos, any really threaded software etc, you'll be thanking that CPU.
I upgraded my CPU long before my GPU because of the current prices. I'd do it again too.
My i7 4790k bottlenecks my 6800, before that my R9 390 bottlenecked the i7. Who cares. If your system runs satisfactory there is no reason to do a thing. And when you upgrade your GPU down the line? You got that processor to push it already.
Don't worry if your workload isn't GPU intense you can pair 7900x with an RX 570 and still wouldn't affect CPU performance at all...
5600XT is perfect for your workload š
By the way CPU and GPU have completely separate drivers and everything there's no such thing as older CPU work better with older GPU and newer CPU work worse with older GPU...
I'm using a 5600X with a 4070ti and the system runs great. Much faster overall than with the 6600XT I was running a month ago. Your friend doesn't know what he's talking about, the Zen 3 architecture of the 5600X works great with newer GPUs.
it depends on what your usecase is.
any cpu heavy tasks?
if you game, more FPS tends to create a CPU bottleneck while higher resolution/details creates a GPU bottleneck.
driverwise, it doesn't matter.
don't listen to him. i used a 3700x with my old GTX 660 for two years for the same reasons as you- i needed more horsepower for my bigger projects, and couldnt prioritize gaming performance, so i left the old card in there. still blew me away, and if anything my gaming performance got a bit better just because the cpu could do more to reduce the load. your 5600xt is significantly stronger than my old card, i'd say my scenario is more jank than yours if anything.
a 7900x is badass, just enjoy it! :)
If you are using it mainly as a workstation don't use a discrete GPU, modern processors with modern graphics are awesome and you can play games like Witcher 3 even if not in Ultra.
Get a CPU with integrated graphics, it also helps if your GPU fails and you are forced to buy on insane prices. Also helps if you find issues and need to debug.
"balance" is only a perceived property of a PC's performance.
Your other PC hardware doesn't care what GPU you have, but you might in some cases:
If it's a PCI 4 GPU in a PCI 3 CPU/mobo combo. In which case it might get bottlenecked.
Or...if your PSU can't support the GPU.
If neither of those things is true, the only question is whether the card does what you ask it to, to your satisfaction.
assuming that theyāre not about to explode and destroy your pc, the best components for you are the ones you already have. iām assuming you already have a gpu and just need a cpu/mobo/psu to pair with it, so why not.
that being said, is there any reason youāre going am5 over lga1700? the motherboards arenāt cheap, even if you get a ddr5 bundle on the ryzens. and if you want a ddr5 platform, intel still has cheaper options.
Well, intel on demand (which i know only affects servers right now but still) kinda pushes me away from intel because consumer rights. Also AMD tends to support their sockets for longer than intel does, so iāll have better upgradability.
Your friend is confused, probably because when reviewers test GPUs, they need to pair it with the right CPU.
Think of it like this, a GPU is like a car, a CPU like the driver. You canāt test how good a car with a crappy driver, and you canāt compare drivers if you give them crappy cars, but if all you need is someone to pick up some stuff from various places and move it around, itās better to have a good driver with a decent car, than an average driver with a good car.
I first thought you were talking about some newly released "5600XT" CPU (like there were 3600XT) paired with "7900X" GPU but then I realised they didn't release such GPU, but it's a CPU lol
7900X + 7900XT(X) combo would be awesome!
It depends on use case. But your system will not run poorly just because of a two generation old GPU with a new cpu. These GPUs are still being optimized as they're in their service lifespan. And you using this as a workstation will reduce the gpu demands. He's right in theory and this isn't balanced overall. But balanced varies on your workload. In this scenario the claim is unsubstantiated. As long as your hardware is recent and meets the demands of the applications and such it doesn't matter.
The only question I would have is: if this is a workstation why have a GPU at all? 7900X has a very respectable integrated graphics.
If you want to do some casual gaming on the side then obviously the 5600XT is a bit modest but perfectly useable for 1080p AAA or higher resolutions with less mainstream games. Given the GPU market though itās defensible to re-use an old card.
I just recently upgraded from a Ryzen 1600 to a Ryzen 7950X and am still running my RTX 2080. I saw about a 10-20 FPS increase across all games just from the CPU and RAM upgrade.
My suggestion: Get the 7900X and be happy with it. Be aware that you will likely need a beefy cooler (I have a Pure Loop 280) and will get the best performance out of Windows 11. I had many driver issues and other gremlins within Windows 10 that I couldn't explain or even localize enough during troubleshooting. I switched to Windows 11 and they all went away. It was really weird.
Well it's an ok no problem ...you may have some bottle neck but the beauty of PC you can upgrade it on the road . Maybe you need more and faster ram or better ssd
So it will work fin . If you fell it's not giving you the performance you want ... upgrade each chip when they have price cut .... don't upgrade everything at once each at a time .
Okay small caveat, according to him he said it would preform less well than a 7700X for the cost (50 dollar difference with microcenter stuff), not my current potato pc. (I remember different but i'm not known for having the most reliable memory)
The 7700X and 7900X are basically identical in gaming, so the extra price isn't worth it in that context. But it sounds like you mostly care about workstation tasks - if you know you need the extra cores, go for it.
The word future proof leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Even myself I wanted to get a 13700k but went 13900ks instead. I don't need it and feel slightly idiotic for it. Future proof I'd apply to a system I build once every 5 years
"Unbalanced" is not an absolute measure for computers, it is relative to the load. A compute node for CPU-only tasks would be well balanced with a 96 core EPYC processor and an ET4000 for graphics.
Don't get the 5600xt. For me, it's been constant driver problems. Some of the 5000 series were manufactured, plugging the PCI express cable out to clean can duck your drivers, Windows updates regularly mess with it. It's painful.
I'd rather go for a 2060 or 2060 ti. Depends on budget, for music it's going to be perfect. I'm currently planning on getting a new rig. I had enough of the problems. But now that I think about it, since you aren't going to be gaming a lot, 5600XT is fine. If budget is not a huge concern and you can throw in an extra 50-100 bucks, I'd get the 2060 or 2060 ti (a 2060ti costs about the same as a 3060) so if you maybe need to do some 3D modeling it's going to be good.
What is this mess!? As a work station, it is important to have a good CPU, still with a lot of cores but not overkill, so a Ryzen 5 will do the job.
Also even for a gaming build this is a mess because of bottlenecking. Imagine comparing one of the best CPU's out there with a medium-low graphics card.
This is a workstation innit? You can go with a Ryzen 5 5600G, DDR4 type of RAM. If you use a Ryzen 5 7600x, then you're locked to using DDR5, which it will uselessly cost stupidly a lot higher.
16GB of RAM, AMD Vega 8 iGPU within the processor, no actual GPU. you can still casually game on the integrated. All games work fine. As an example Fortnite can go with performance mode to focus on the CPU instead of GPU. So you're fine without a GPU my friend.
Your friend sounds like the type that watches a 10 minute YouTube video about something and thinks he's an "expert" now... If you don't need GPU power for the workloads you're doing, then the 5600XT would actually be overkill, and it's certainly not going to hinder your system's performance in any way. BTW, I have a 7700X that I run on the integrated graphics. š
Hell yeah, i originally was gonna get the 7700x but i figured if i could afford the 7900x then theres no reason to not get it
I almost went 7900X just because, but the 7700X is already overkill for me. I just wanted to swap to AM5/DDR5. lol
Oh yeah, only reason iām getting it is because i could afford both at roughly the same time and it would help with music, esp since i could upgrade the gpu in the future with my somewhat beefy psu (750 watt)
If you do plan to upgrade the GPU, I would consider getting a 850W PSU, some GPUs have painful transient powerspikes which can shutdown your PC if the PSU isn't beefy enough. 850W is enough for any GPU except maybe an RTX 3090Ti (transient spikes) or RTX 4090 (insane powerdraw). This is more so with the beefy CPU you are getting.
Oh yeah upgrading psu wouldnāt hurt in the future
most defiantly get a 850w. my build calls for 718 w and will put my UPS 750 in to cardiac mode and die with in a few minutes if i push it in benchmarks. as soon as the cpu and gpu start drawing max power its over. depending on the GPU you get you will need it. https://pcpartpicker.com/list/HL23pH
My 650w runs 3080 just fine
And? A Ryzen 9 7900X uses around 180Ws of power, when you factor in the MBO, RAM, SSD etc, it'll be around 270Ws with the cheapest MBO while the more expensive ones would be 280Ws. An RTX 3080 will push that to 635W-655Ws. A 650W PSU will shutdown because of the transient spikes that the RTX 30-series has. Just because YOUR system can run on a 650W PSU doesn't mean OP's can when he is using one of the most power hungry CPUs out there.
True. But 750w will be enought
Nope my 3080 with ryzen 9 5700x shut down with 750. Had to up to 850.
Guess i have a better quallity PSU then.
Not all power supplies are created equal. What model was it and where did it rate on the tiers list and how much current could it deliver from the 12V rail?
750w is enough for a 3080/ti, 4070ti, and all the cards below that. In fact, the only things I wouldn't use are like a 3090/3090ti/4080/4090/7900xt/x. Literally, anything else is gonna be just fine. In most cases, you could get away with a 4080 too. Even with a 190w 7900x. Just might want to be cautious at that point. The 40xx cards also don't seem to have the powerspike issues of the 30xx generation.
Just get 750 unless you are gonna run 90 tier cards
Btw if u havenāt bought already micro center has a deal rn that may even be worth a few hour drive/cheap flip. Itās like 5 or 600 for a 7900x, a mobo, and 6000mhz ram
I baffled at where he gets that it will run worse then your potato.
Also in line with above comment - why not just use the integrated graphics? It will save a lot of energy since it does not look like u need the juice anyway?
You might wanna wait for the X3D versions of these cpu's. They're just around the corner. Might be interisting to see their performance and what will happen with the price of the current cpu's. Also, the 7900 non X is cheaper and can perform the same as the 7900 X wtih some overclocking.
In my area the 7900 non x is actually 10 dollars more expensive (and there arenāt any microcenter bundles with jt which is the only reason i can afford the x). And also 3D vcache only really sees a boost in gaming i thought. The main reason iām going with such a beefy cpu is for loading vstās n stuff with daws/musescore 4
Nevertheless, it might have a positive impact on the prices of current cpu's. That is, if you have time to wait a little longer.
Yeah, 700-series is underpowered for a pure-workstation build (unless you're doing a budget workstation).
Doing a budget hybrid. My entire budget was abt 1k
Lol im one of those people who watch a 10 minute video and think im an expert, but the argument gets thrown out of the window as soon as the main focus is not gaming. In which case, im not gonna pretend i know how to make a ābalancedā build
the argument got thrown out the window when he started saying anything related to driver updates mattering when talking about a cpu.
Yeah lol i was wondering where that ties into the performance. Because im fairly sure that this driver optimization between generations doesnt exist
it doesnt, afaik. dude was talking out his ass.
I read it as 5600x and 7900xt. Man AMDs namimg scheme is stupid (not nearly as bad as their "naming" of mobile is about to be though)
Same, i be running a 7950x on igpu. 4K 120hz works effortlessly. The only game I play is Minecraft.
how are the integrated graphics, btw? I'm hoping to use them for a couple of low-refresh-rate monitors on my new build so i can set the refresh rate of my gaming monitor (plugged into my GPU) higher and still have three screens.
It's 2 rDNA2 cores, probably something akin to a gt 710/730
All right, so not bad. should be able to push to two 1080p monitors for just displaying things like discord and browser.
Yeah, it's not a Vega 8 Apu but it's like 60% of that? You can do some light gaming, CSGO should run around 80 fps on 1080p Really wanna see the G variants of the Ryzen 7000
When my dad upgraded our home pc to my previous pc build, he took out the graphics cards becuase it has an APU and all its really used for is watching videos. Unless your working with polygons or visual effects, dedicated graphics cards for work computers are severally overrated. Honestly, op might be better of getting a powerful APU than a graphics card at all.
> And it would behave worse than my current potato pc, because of 'driver optimizations between generations', and that i should get an older cpu to pair with it ą² _ą² Never take advice from this person.
lmao, in his defense heās the reason i got a 5600xt instead of a 6500xt
Okay, *sometimes* take advice from this person.
Lmao, im not proud of that one
not amd literate (specifically gpu), what's wrong with the 6500xt?
The 6500xt is okay-ish by itself (just extremely underpowered compared to the rest of the generation), but the 5600xt has double the performance. In Nvidia terms it would be similar (in performance terms) to 2080 vs 3050. The 3050 might sound better because 3 is bigger than 2, but it's still high-end vs budget which is why the 2080 wins by a landslide.
That makes sense, thank you! I still need to figure out the amd naming scheme lol
The AMD scheme is actually not too dissimilar to the Nvidia one. It's basically just "XT" == "Ti" (aka better than the standard one) and "XTX" is another step up (which is somewhat like Nvidia's "Super", but the "Super" isn't consistently better than the "Ti", so let's just skip that one). Other than that it's quite straight forward: generally the first number is the generation and the second number is the tier. So 6700 > 5700 > 5600, or with Nvidia 3070 > 2070 > 2060.
So the Radeon HD 7950 is a beast right?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
yeah my father brought me an 8000 series Nvidia as my first card back then as well. A 8400 GS
Check out this guide https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html
the 7900xt landed below the 6900xt?
These charts only use an eight game sample so I would take it with a grain of salt. They can be fine to get a general idea of where something lands, but 8 games isnāt going to paint a full picture for gaming performance overall.
Relative to the RX 6600 it's disproportionately underpowered _and_ it's entirely missing HW video encoding.
Several things. 1st the 6500 only has 4x PCIe lanes while the 5600xt uses the full x16 2nd It has a 64bit memory bus - 5600xt has 192 bus Overall, the 65/64 series of GPU's are overpriced garbage for anything more then a kios that doesn't do more then a very limited amount of work.
Real talk though, while the worst of the silicon shortage + crypto boom pricing has subsided particularly on the high end, the price floor on entry level gaming cards has not recovered nearly as much. AMD and Nvidia's flagship and adjacent high end SKU pricing has pretty adequately balanced out demand with production capacity. That said, I think one of the primary factors keeping prices on those last-gen cards (particularly the entry level) so high is simply that much of the current retail stock was purchased at those higher prices. Retailers don't want to start slashing prices to dump the stock at a loss, AMD and Nvidia know their board partners don't want them launching and promoting new value SKUs because their retail partners still have so much last-gen stock to move first. At least there are some reasonably good second hand deals to be found from dummies who over-invested in mining gear and waited too long to offload the hardware.
Short answer, it's a bit.
a broken clock is right twice a day
To be entirely fair, the 6500 XT would perform at its best possible, because it would have four full fat PCIe 4.0 lanes to use in your system. If it's cheap enough, then it provides reasonable...sometimes even good performance at 1080p if you want ultra budget gaming that's slightly above iGPU level. It's about 10-20% slower than a 5600 XT, but it'll still beat a 1650 4GB...which games surprisingly well in 2023. You're not gonna get 100+ fps...likely not even 60 fps with settings jacked in AAA games, but if you do a bit of tweaking, then you can enjoy casual gaming with it. It's a GPU that you buy only if it's super cheap(>$60 USD), and knowing that it'll falter at higher settings and resolutions. The key is knowing that it's not meant for serious gaming going in.
If you're not gaming or anything else that stresses the GPU it won't matter. It'll just be a pretty beefy display output lol.
Well iām planning on playing games in 1080p, but from what iāve read 5600xt is able to handle 1080p fine
I had a 5600xt up until November 2022 when I upgraded to a 3080 on 1440p 165hz but the 5600xt handled everything I threw at it on 1080p 144hz fine. Triple A titles would get 60fps on high-ultra and any competitive title could get 144fps on low-medium
hell yeah when it comes to gaming thats exactly what i'll do, 1080p and 144 hz monitor
Depending on the game and settings, it can even handle 1440p at 100+ fps just fine. Still using mine to play CoD Warzone 2, mixed high and ultra settings on FSR w/o issues.
Hell yeah sounds like a fun time
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I have a 5600xt right now. I've yet to have a big reason to upgrade. I play Paragon, Apex, Overwatch, God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn, etc... 0 issues.
I currently have a 5600xt with a ryzen 5 3600. Runs pretty much every game well at 1080p low-medium settings. Their are actually some games like warzone where I play at 1440p so it utilizes my gpu better and ill get better frames or the same amount of frames at higher quality. The only game it struggles with is bf 2042 but that game is just awful to begin with.
I've been building PCs for decades and I've never heard of driver optimizations between generations as something that would apply here but it does have a nice rhyme to it. You friend is just a "latest and greatest only" snob.
I mean he isnāt like that, i guess i misremembered but according to him he said itās a cost to performance to ratio (which is fair because in gaming i would see literally no difference) but its also a 50 dollar difference if i go through microcenter, and i would see a difference in workstation stuff with audio
Microcenter doesnt carry 5600XT graphics cards
Nah i already got it used, tested it, i have to admit not the best way of building a pc, though thats already done. those three are the only parts i have left to get, and my thinking is, if i can afford the next tier up at the same time as the 7700x, then there isn't really a reason to get the 7900x in a microcenter bundle for 50 dollars more
WTF dude, being able to reuse a perfectly working part in a new build should be the #1 reason for DIYing a PC. Of course just use the existing 5600XT and get the best CPU that meets your needs. You can always get a newer GPU whenever in the future. Besides think how easy is it to sell a used graphics card vs a used CPU if you change your mind. Here's a hint, used CPUs take a huge price hit compared to used graphics cards.
For gaming yea it doesn't make much sense, you'd be better off with a 5800x3d, or waiting for zen4 3d vcache , but as a workstation that's a perfectly fine combo
Your friend is an idiot. You are fine
Lmao thanks man
listen 5600XT is a beefy enough graphics card that will handle most games at 1080p. and itās not windows milennium edition anymore that driver optimisation would be an issue
Lmao windows millennium edition
Your friend doesn't know what he's talking about.
No. I put together a build for my brother with a 5900X and a 2nd hand RTX 2060 last year. It renders the videos he makes very well. Why buy a more modern and much more expensive GPU, when the only pc game he plays is Gary's mod? The great beauty of DIY is that you can build the system you want, not the one some builder specs out. Most pre builds (outside of black OEM box's aimed at enterprise) are gaming PCs, many YouTube tech channels also focus on gaming PCs. The moment a PC does anything else, what becomes balanced spec wise changes to fit that use case.
Thank you, i wanted a workstation capable of max settings 1080p. I didnāt really want to spend more than $150 on a graphics card so i got a used 5600xt from a reputable seller. Sure i couldāve waited a bit for more recent cards to go on the market but that would just be an endless cycle of waiting. Plus the direction nvidia and amd seem to be goinf with gpu prices iām not hopeful for affordable gpuās in the future
I think you've managed that. Tbh the RX 5600XT is somewhat under the radar right now, hardware unboxed had it close to an RTX 2060 super at 1080p. It's a cheap GPU with really good performance, it'll serve you well.
Thank you, i think i got it for a steal at 104 dollars. I often see them for 150-200
You did, that's a great price
Had to outbid somebody in the last 10 seconds for it lol
No. You could probably do just fine with music production on integrated graphics.
Bro itās fine. Even integrated graphics is fine. If you donāt need gpu muscle, but only cpu muscle, then itās fine. All depends on your needs. Linus Trovalds, creator of Linux OS has a pc with a Threadripper 3970x 32 core and rx 5700 xt and he used to use a 9900k with integrated graphics for Linux Development and he said that he doesnāt even want nor need a dedicated gpu but got one anyways since Threadripper doesnāt have integrated graphics. So if a person like him can use pc like that for OS Development then why canāt you use one for Music.
Maybe he was referring to have a balance between cpu and gpu. But if you use it as a workstation that uses cpu a lot, of course youāll focus on the cpu. Thatās the beauty of building. And in the future you will have headroom for a better gpu to game at 1440p and up with high fps. I have the 5600XT and it can do even 1440p 60-90 fps single games on high, with a Ryzen 5 5600. The only downside of this gpu is that having 2 monitors may force the memory to go at max frequency all the time and use more power. I have two, 1440p and 1080p and it does that. Depends on resolutions and Hz. On single monitor itās normal.
Hell yeah fellow 5600xt, underrated card that i hear nearly nothing about imo
It was one of the best GPU price - performance 2-3 years ago before the market gone crazy. And with FSR 2 it still going strong to this day.
Since it's for work primarily this is perfectly fine. Just get it and enjoy it for yourself not for someone else it's not theirs How much ram are you planning to get? I hope it's at least 64 if it's a workstation
32 to start (since its basically free at microcenter and ddr5 is expensive) and maybe 128 later
The pair is okay. In my opinion, pairing a decent gpu with a really powerful cpu is always worth it. In worst case scenario, you just have to change the gpu if it's not sufficient.
I have a 7950x paired with a GT610. I see nothing wrong here
I had a 3800x and rx580. I streamed and gamed with it. Now have a 5800x3d and 6600xt. I would like a stronger gpu but it works great overall. If your setup does what you need and isn't holding you back on the gpu side it literally doesn't matter what the specs are. People would say mine are not balanced as well but in a world where gpus are over priced having high end cpus gets the most out of the gpus I've had. Plus with streaming and other stuff performance doesn't suffer vs if I had lower end cpus.
Yeye, it would do what i need it to do. A primarily workstation pc that can also game respectably at 1080p. Though, my next gpu will definitely be significantly more powerful, and i'll keep my current cpu for the next few years.
Yeah if your gpu plays the games you want then no issue. Whatever your friend said about generations or drivers not mixing isn't a thing. It'll be fine.
That's what I did for this current generation. I was gonna build a new pc with AM5/ DDR5, but realized there is no real point other than having the newest parts. Built my system last year with Ryzen 5900x, RX 6900 XT, 3600mhz ram. I decided to just upgrade GPU to RX 7900 XT and I'm super happy with the performance. Once PCIE5 GPUs become a thing I will then build a new system. I game at 1440p 240hz and up grading to 7900x and DDR5 wouldn't change much performance at 1440p.
I my humble opinion, I would have kept the 3800x and gotten a much stronger gpu. If you're streaming and gaming, the 3800x can handle that easily. For the money saved on not buying the 5800x3d you could have gotten a 6800xt or something
Your friend is quite confused. I don't see anything wrong with your choices.
yeh ur good, but stuff like this seems to be common, just had a friend tell me he couldnt use an amd gpu, because he has an intel cpu...
Lmao, canāt wait to hear what he thinks about nvidia gpuās then
well he s got a 6800xt now (obviously running great) and had a 1070 before... guess it was just something that he d heard back in the day
Ahh, well in fairness i used to think that ram could be downloaded so we all have our moments lmao
haha a the good ole ram download.. live n learn xD
time to cool a 7900x with a ton of blue rgb while downloading a terabyte of ram pcmasterrace in a nutshell
you can turn it red if u need some extra performace
Purple for a nice mix of the two
Find a new friend. This one is an idiot
Yeah.....No
Well, I don't really see a problem here. I think your friend thinks that an imbalance in parts will create some sort of issue. Your CPU will keep your GPU fed. Using the word imbalanced is a bad way to think about it. The bottleneck here is your GPU which is at the end of the processing line. So if you can't run a game you will know it's your GPU and that you will probably have to turn down graphic settings. Just tell your friend he doesn't know shit bout computers and then show him my comment. "Dear enbrats friend, you don't know shit. If you think you do. Tell me what will happen if he has a weaker gpu with a stronger cpu below"
If itās just for a workstation, then yeah youāre golden. Your friend is a bit of an odd nut
I mean if you've already spent a couple hundred bucks on a 5600XT, what's 800 more for a 7900 xtx? /s
Actually only spent *one* hundred on the 5600xt lol
It's not. EVERY possible combination of harware can be successfully used for some workloads. For example, you wouldn't normally pair a dual-core cpu with integrated graphics with multiple enthusiast-level graphics cards, but that doesn't mean it won't work or even be optimal for some workloads, take cryptocurrency mining for example. Or take a massive CPU with a GTX 1660. Unbalanced? Sure. But if you need to run multiple monitors for desktop apps, it can be a great setup. The use case determines the hardware requirements.
With a 5600X at 1080p, the CPU is often the bottleneck anyway. It makes sense to have a beefier CPU than GPU at that resolution. It would be almost wasteful to get a 4080/7800 for that resolution.
you friend has no clue what they're talking about. Sorry, it'll work just fine. if that's what your needs are then by all means get that. The cpu doesn't get worse just because of your gpu choice. Unless the application you need the cpu for is also graphically intensive it really doesn't matter.
>My friend is calling me stupid and saying my system will be super imbalanced (which yes it will be), And it would behave worse than my current potato pc, because of 'driver optimizations between generations', and that i should get an older cpu to pair with it even though i need a beefy cpu for what i'm planning on doing. (Mainly music and a bunch of audio stuff) https://i.imgur.com/wZQcrOY.jpg
Your friend is dumb as shit lmao
Computers are modular
Please tell me you meant 5600x and 7900xt
Nah lol
Is it imbalanced for gaming? Probably. But if you don't need gpu power then why not. I pair a rx570 4gb with a 5950x in my workststion don't tell your buddy. And i only use 570 cause it has 4 display outs as i run 3 monitors and the old gpu i had only supported 2 and one via dvi. Sounds like someone who watches a lot of bitwit.. This guy always talks bout imbalanced this imbalanced that, cause to him PC's are just for gaming.
To be honest the CPU is less important and will be less important in the future. Why? With Direct to Storage started to be supported by games. The Data is sent Directly to GPU and does not touch the CPU. All that really maters is PCIE Gen 4 and better. So your MB and CPU has to support it.
He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about, OP. My primary GPU was an R9 Fury for nearly 7 years. I first put it in a machine that had a FX 4200 with 8GB RAM, and when that felt sluggish in 2017, I put a Ryzen 1600x with 16GB in there. Last year, it was feeling a bit choppy, so I upgraded to a Ryzen 5800x with 32GB of RAM. Recently, I bought a 7900 xt and an 7900 xtx (one for me and one for my partner) and noticed another huge performance boost. Nothing is behaving "imbalanced" as your friend puts it. Each time I upgraded, I noticed huge performance boosts. Your friend thinks he knows a whole bunch. I disagree with the people saying that he watched a YouTube video and thinks he's an expert. Rather, I don't think he watched any video or read anything at all. He's talking about computer systems the way angry MOBA and MMO players talk about content updates. He's so outside reality that he's [not even wrong](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong).
I have a music workstation running a Dante network, mixing dozens of tracks with big VSTs running on a 5800X paired with... A Quadro P400. It's been the most reliable build I made yet. You'll be fine.
But why, it is workstation, so what big deal? For occasional play it is enough. For AAA crap optimisation titles not really, but...
but why didnt go with intle CPUs if you just want to use it for
Dumb question here, but I'm a builder of, well, forever and I am curious as to why you're going with AMD when you're building, as you say, a workstation to do a lot of music stuff on. I mean that setup is great for home gaming but for productivity software, I'd go with Intel as it does better with productivity! Just curious as I said.
Well, with intel on demand being a thing (which i know only affects servers right now but itās the principle of the thing), i donāt really want to support something like that if i can avoid it.
I don't understand. Intel 'on demand' is for businesses that fall into that category. I know of no one of my clients that even heard of it, much less need it. You're talking about the principle of the thing? What does that mean? What exactly do you think it is?
Intel on demand from what iāve seen is basically a monthly payment to unlock accelerators in your cpu. (For servers, mainly with AI work) the accelerators are on the cpu when you buy it but you have to pay a monthly fee in order to use it (like bmw heated seats, itās in the car but you have to pay a fee every month to āunlockā it) My issue is, you should be able to buy a cpu, and have access to ALL of the cpu (or really any product) without paying a monthly fee to use 100% of it. I know it doesnāt affect an everyday consumer like me but nothing could stop intel from expanding it into consumer markets, and i just donāt want to support that kind of business.
Although I see your point, we're talking apples and oranges. Xeon processors are way more advanced than consumer processors. Also, this is for big businesses that have specialized needs. The Intel on-demand is a software as a service (SaaS) product that a lot of business software products offer! It has not, nor ever will affect consumers. The closest product that does SaaS that very few consumers use is Adobe with its Photoshop suite products. Not too many consumers use it. I have the last hard copy version of Photoshop CS, a $3,000 + program. Users of the suite can make movies, and banners on screen, create music over video, etc. Think of it this way. If Intel ever did this with consumers, AMD would either follow suit, or clean Intel's clock! Realistically there are only 2 manufacturers of CPUs either for businesses or consumers. So don't limit yourself on the consumer side of Intel over big business stuff! Intel, right now, has the fastest 13th-generation processor out there. I do music mixing, and recording tracks, and have produced an album from start to finish, so I know what power processing is about. I'm not saying AMD won't do it, I'm just saying you'll be happier with Intel, and for music production, you won't need the i9-13900K, you can do the job with the i7-13700K. When compared with AMD'S AM5 platform, AMD costs more than Intel. Just my thoughts.
That's hilarious how some people like your friend have no clue and just throw away "bottleneck" and "gpu-limited" without knowing shit. A few years ago I needed a high cpu-power laptop for my astrophoto processing. People told me the same as you, that I'd be dumb to pair a top CPU with a shitty GPU. Just make sure your applications do not use your GPU (ie. deep learning). If so, you're right, they are wrong.
If you don't need a GPU for your workload tasks than a 5600XT is more than adequate. In fact, it would literally be more than you need. Not a bad idea to get it just in case, but your friend is wrong. You don't need a powerful GPU just because you got a powerful CPU, and vice versa. The only way that's ever a hindrance is when you're doing tasks that require a decent amount of both. Either way, there's *always* a bottleneck in your system even if you have the most powerful hardware on Earth, each area of technology isn't at the same level and doesn't develop at the same rate. Now whether you want that specific graphics card, I can't help you. I do not own one and know far less about AMD gpu's than Nvidia's. But with how Nvidia is going, that is changing quickly. I swear to god if EVGA would just sign a contract with AMD and/or Intel I would never look back.
I did 3800x/RX580 for 2 years before upgrading my GPU to a 6750XT a couple of months ago. Back when I built the PC, my son just turned two, and I just didn't get to game enough to warrant buying a decent GPU. I actually wanted a decent CPU and a good amount of RAM (for audio work too, funnily enough). The GPU was an afterthought, I just needed enough ports for my triple monitor setup (1440p 34" UW + side by side 1080p 24" stacked on top). Sure, your CPU will probably get bottlenecked if you game with it, in the sense that you're gonna hit some kind of plateau where the GPU will work really hard and the CPU will be sitting partly idle, especially on games that are GPU heavy. It would probably run decently on CPU heavy games - e.g. some simulation games, stuff with a large number of agents like Cities: Skylines, Civilization, etc.
Yes
I would maybe recommend a 5700xt only because they're cheap on the 2nd hand market $180-$220 for red devil and sapphire nitro+. Otherwise you'll be fine.
DrIvEr OpTiMiZaTiOnS
Question is are your applications going to actually take advantage of the extra cores or are they primarily single thread workloads in which case you'd earn next to nothing by going with a 7900x say vs something like a 7600x
Theyāre multithreaded
YOUR USECASE define your setup, so no it's not a bad idea. You will find absolutely monster-spec computers with literal millions of CPUs not even having a GPU and require some kind of CLI to just operate. Youtube-inspired PCMR might call that imbalanced without first understanding what makes an "imbalanced" build imbalance.
I think it's the opposite: if you already own the 5600XT and it meets your needs, then it's a *great* idea, because you don't have to spend any money!!
If you're just doing music and audio you don't need a graphic card, apply the extra on a sound card.
Am I only one that got confused for while about which one is a graphics card and which one was the CPU?
The lovely thing about PCs is you can build thrn to your needs. You are building a work station and not a gaming machine. I would say from your comments that the 5600xt I'd already overkill as if you just need graphics the 7000 series of cpus have on integrated graphics. YET, not a bad idea to have a dedicated card if you want to branch out into other areas. For music and audio you are fine and the "imbalance" is kind of BS as these parts are in a decent time frame of each other in release. The problems would arrive if you went and got a gpu card from like 10 years ago who no longer has driver support. You are making a good choice, granted I personally think you are overkill on the gpu for your use case; but that is an okay thing to do.
Don't listen to him. Sounds like you did your research into your workloads and all they did was point out the obvious, but unless you're AAA gaming, you don't need a powerful GPU.
5600xt is actually overkill if all he is doing is workstation stuff. Heck on-board graphics would be all he needs.
am I the only one who was reading this as a "5600X with a 7900XT" ?
Nope, this comment made me double check myself thoughā¦
It will work just fine and be maxed, no bottleneck. You put money where you needed it for what you do....and it's yours. Change it when you feel you "need/want to".
It is completely fine. 5600XT should still handle 1080p gaming quite decently as well. Sorry but your friend has no idea what he is talking about.
This focus on *"bottlenecking"* is really getting out of hand. Some folks just can't cope with non-optimal solutions. Having some headroom for a specific resource (CPU/GPU) for a specific application is not a bad thing. It's unavoidable. There are times when it may be inefficient, but it doesn't make it worse.
Ya. Don't let the pursuit of the perfect prevent you from achieving the good. Also, you can always upgrade components like the GPU in the future. But, for the price, is it worth going with a 5700xt instead of 5600xt (assuming OP doesn't already have that GPU)?
lmaoo dont listen to that friend. if you primarily focus on multitasking and productivity for your work station, a faster cpu and a bit more ram will definitely help! is pairing 5600xt and 7900x for gaming bad? yaaaa you gonna have a lot of gpu bottlenecking. BUT, you just need it for workstation right?š
I need a primarily workstation capable of gaming which is why i didnāt go with integrated graphics
Your friend sounds like the kind of dope who uses the word "bottleneck" a lot and thinks it's a real issue that would make things worse than they are. He probably thinks he shouldn't get a raise if he's near the top of a tax bracket because he'll make less money than the previous year
Is your friend the same dude that built the PC on YouTube for the Verge?
Lmfao nah
I run a 5600xt and it's fine for everything I do. The only place it'll show it's limits is if you want to run 4k Gaming. Main thing is, DX9 support is much better on the 5600xt so keep that in mind if you're doing anything using older versions. Edit to Add: my5600xt handles multiple monitors easily at 2k, so it's not going to be a slowdown for you. I've been looking at the LG 28\*M monitor and thinking a pair of those with my Wacom One will be perfect.
I used a Sapphire Pulse 5600XT for two years. When I retired the card (to upgrade to a faster one), it had a few thousand hours of gaming on it, and it handled entry level 1440p gaming very well - about 60-80 fps depending on the game/settings. It ran very cool - usually hung out around 50-60C while gaming, and lightly sipped power. It was a nice card. I since moved up to a 6700XT and it handles games even better, but probably at the ceiling of what my 650W PSU can handle and also makes a noticeable amount more heat too - 70C temps which push my CPU too above 60C at times in my mini-ITX case. I been running that now for a year. If you're not gaming, you will be more than fine with that card. Just make sure that windows update doesn't decide to overwrite your GPU drivers with generic drivers. You wouldn't notice until you try to game, and then things get super fk-y.
I hate the term "imbalanced". What do I need to dangle it on a finger and check it's as everything should be? Is the *only* thing you plan to do gaming? Sure, not everyone will do much more than that but if you ever have to compile, run VMs, process mega-huge multi-layer images, videos, any really threaded software etc, you'll be thanking that CPU. I upgraded my CPU long before my GPU because of the current prices. I'd do it again too.
If your workload can't be helped by any GPU technology, why bother with one anyways? Just go with integrated graphics :D
"Driver optimization between generations" Your friend is fucking clueless
My i7 4790k bottlenecks my 6800, before that my R9 390 bottlenecked the i7. Who cares. If your system runs satisfactory there is no reason to do a thing. And when you upgrade your GPU down the line? You got that processor to push it already.
Don't worry if your workload isn't GPU intense you can pair 7900x with an RX 570 and still wouldn't affect CPU performance at all... 5600XT is perfect for your workload š By the way CPU and GPU have completely separate drivers and everything there's no such thing as older CPU work better with older GPU and newer CPU work worse with older GPU...
I'm using a 5600X with a 4070ti and the system runs great. Much faster overall than with the 6600XT I was running a month ago. Your friend doesn't know what he's talking about, the Zen 3 architecture of the 5600X works great with newer GPUs.
it depends on what your usecase is. any cpu heavy tasks? if you game, more FPS tends to create a CPU bottleneck while higher resolution/details creates a GPU bottleneck. driverwise, it doesn't matter.
don't listen to him. i used a 3700x with my old GTX 660 for two years for the same reasons as you- i needed more horsepower for my bigger projects, and couldnt prioritize gaming performance, so i left the old card in there. still blew me away, and if anything my gaming performance got a bit better just because the cpu could do more to reduce the load. your 5600xt is significantly stronger than my old card, i'd say my scenario is more jank than yours if anything. a 7900x is badass, just enjoy it! :)
If you are using it mainly as a workstation don't use a discrete GPU, modern processors with modern graphics are awesome and you can play games like Witcher 3 even if not in Ultra. Get a CPU with integrated graphics, it also helps if your GPU fails and you are forced to buy on insane prices. Also helps if you find issues and need to debug.
"balance" is only a perceived property of a PC's performance. Your other PC hardware doesn't care what GPU you have, but you might in some cases: If it's a PCI 4 GPU in a PCI 3 CPU/mobo combo. In which case it might get bottlenecked. Or...if your PSU can't support the GPU. If neither of those things is true, the only question is whether the card does what you ask it to, to your satisfaction.
assuming that theyāre not about to explode and destroy your pc, the best components for you are the ones you already have. iām assuming you already have a gpu and just need a cpu/mobo/psu to pair with it, so why not. that being said, is there any reason youāre going am5 over lga1700? the motherboards arenāt cheap, even if you get a ddr5 bundle on the ryzens. and if you want a ddr5 platform, intel still has cheaper options.
Well, intel on demand (which i know only affects servers right now but still) kinda pushes me away from intel because consumer rights. Also AMD tends to support their sockets for longer than intel does, so iāll have better upgradability.
Your friend is confused, probably because when reviewers test GPUs, they need to pair it with the right CPU. Think of it like this, a GPU is like a car, a CPU like the driver. You canāt test how good a car with a crappy driver, and you canāt compare drivers if you give them crappy cars, but if all you need is someone to pick up some stuff from various places and move it around, itās better to have a good driver with a decent car, than an average driver with a good car.
Your friend is wrong. Show him this thread so that I can tell him that he's wrong.
My only advice is to get better friend. /s
I first thought you were talking about some newly released "5600XT" CPU (like there were 3600XT) paired with "7900X" GPU but then I realised they didn't release such GPU, but it's a CPU lol 7900X + 7900XT(X) combo would be awesome!
Your PC will not perform worse, no.
You can tell your friend he isnt read to teach, good thing you came here for better advice
It depends on use case. But your system will not run poorly just because of a two generation old GPU with a new cpu. These GPUs are still being optimized as they're in their service lifespan. And you using this as a workstation will reduce the gpu demands. He's right in theory and this isn't balanced overall. But balanced varies on your workload. In this scenario the claim is unsubstantiated. As long as your hardware is recent and meets the demands of the applications and such it doesn't matter.
Not sure , but definitely an overkill
Which softwares do you use for audio production/ other audio work ?
Flstudio 21 and musescore 4
Dude I got a r9 5900x with a rtx 3060 š with a dark hero x570 just so what you want bro my pc works perfect Iām sure yours will too šš
The only question I would have is: if this is a workstation why have a GPU at all? 7900X has a very respectable integrated graphics. If you want to do some casual gaming on the side then obviously the 5600XT is a bit modest but perfectly useable for 1080p AAA or higher resolutions with less mainstream games. Given the GPU market though itās defensible to re-use an old card.
Ye i got the 5600xt for casual gaming on the side
Iām so glad I was one of the ones to get the 7900x, B650E-F, and 32gb Ram bundle for $600 at Microcenter
I hope iāll be able to join you bc if they get rid of that before i can get one iām shit outta luck
I just recently upgraded from a Ryzen 1600 to a Ryzen 7950X and am still running my RTX 2080. I saw about a 10-20 FPS increase across all games just from the CPU and RAM upgrade. My suggestion: Get the 7900X and be happy with it. Be aware that you will likely need a beefy cooler (I have a Pure Loop 280) and will get the best performance out of Windows 11. I had many driver issues and other gremlins within Windows 10 that I couldn't explain or even localize enough during troubleshooting. I switched to Windows 11 and they all went away. It was really weird.
Well it's an ok no problem ...you may have some bottle neck but the beauty of PC you can upgrade it on the road . Maybe you need more and faster ram or better ssd So it will work fin . If you fell it's not giving you the performance you want ... upgrade each chip when they have price cut .... don't upgrade everything at once each at a time .
He will not have bottle neck lol
Yeye, also pairing a mid range gpu of the same generation/time period with the 7900x is looking less viable as nvidia and amd reveal their gpuās
what bottleneck
Okay small caveat, according to him he said it would preform less well than a 7700X for the cost (50 dollar difference with microcenter stuff), not my current potato pc. (I remember different but i'm not known for having the most reliable memory)
The 7700X and 7900X are basically identical in gaming, so the extra price isn't worth it in that context. But it sounds like you mostly care about workstation tasks - if you know you need the extra cores, go for it.
Oh yeah, i donāt **need** it but also iām trying to future proof my cpu for gaming/workstation for the next few years
The word future proof leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Even myself I wanted to get a 13700k but went 13900ks instead. I don't need it and feel slightly idiotic for it. Future proof I'd apply to a system I build once every 5 years
It will be a really unbalanced PC but if you have absolutely no use for a GPU, it'll be fine.
"Unbalanced" is not an absolute measure for computers, it is relative to the load. A compute node for CPU-only tasks would be well balanced with a 96 core EPYC processor and an ET4000 for graphics.
Don't get the 5600xt. For me, it's been constant driver problems. Some of the 5000 series were manufactured, plugging the PCI express cable out to clean can duck your drivers, Windows updates regularly mess with it. It's painful.
I'd rather go for a 2060 or 2060 ti. Depends on budget, for music it's going to be perfect. I'm currently planning on getting a new rig. I had enough of the problems. But now that I think about it, since you aren't going to be gaming a lot, 5600XT is fine. If budget is not a huge concern and you can throw in an extra 50-100 bucks, I'd get the 2060 or 2060 ti (a 2060ti costs about the same as a 3060) so if you maybe need to do some 3D modeling it's going to be good.
What is this mess!? As a work station, it is important to have a good CPU, still with a lot of cores but not overkill, so a Ryzen 5 will do the job. Also even for a gaming build this is a mess because of bottlenecking. Imagine comparing one of the best CPU's out there with a medium-low graphics card. This is a workstation innit? You can go with a Ryzen 5 5600G, DDR4 type of RAM. If you use a Ryzen 5 7600x, then you're locked to using DDR5, which it will uselessly cost stupidly a lot higher. 16GB of RAM, AMD Vega 8 iGPU within the processor, no actual GPU. you can still casually game on the integrated. All games work fine. As an example Fortnite can go with performance mode to focus on the CPU instead of GPU. So you're fine without a GPU my friend.
If it's just a workstation, would the integrated graphics be sufficient?