AMD in its Computex 2026 presentation, celebrated 10 years of the Socket AM4 platform that kickstarted the company's long march to competitiveness with Intel in the desktop PC processor market, and its eventual domination. Socket AM4 supports the original "Zen" and "Zen+," across the Ryzen 1000 and ...
I’m not sure I understand, you said before you were prioritizing value and longevity. AM4 is the value king, and will last for many years into the future, especially as you have an affordable upgrade path to the AM4 X3D CPUs.
AM5 would only be a meaningful upgrade if you had fairly specific requirements, which would be if you prioritize low resolutions for high FPS monitors (with at least a 180hz refresh rate or above), and were able to also afford a top end GPU so that the CPU and RAM actually become the limiting factor for what the framerate will be.
Is the above scenario what you are targeting? Because if not, an average or good value AM5 system paired with the same GPU you have now would result in very little difference in actual performance, since most games will max out your GPU long before the CPU or RAM speeds can even come into play, and that will hold true going forward as well, since future games are going to be pushing the GPU harder and harder, meaning that is almost always going to be your bottleneck unless you lower the resolution to like 720p and put the graphics on low.
The PC industry is always going to try to push a sense of FOMO onto you for not having the latest system, but in practice old systems last a long time now that Moore’s law is effectively dead, and the pace if improvements has stagnated. We’re now in an era of computing where systems can effectively last virtually a decade between upgrades, and prioritizing the latest and most ‘future proof’ system now may only put off the need to upgrade by a year or two at most, meaning it may last 11 or 12 years instead of 10.
AM4 is not longevity. Its last-gen technology. AM5 debuted 4 years ago. What “last” means to you obviously does not seem to be the same to me, because you seem to think it means “still functions”, which the same could be said about a Commodore 64.
No one ever mentioned upgrading to AM5. This conversation was about AM6. Its about investing in a platform that has the potential to be upgraded 1 or 2 more times over the next 7-10 years instead of one that is already dead and can never be upgraded again.
I was using the term upgrade just in reference to the relative performance delta between the two platforms from the perspective of someone deciding between which one to invest in. When I personally am making a buying decision between different tiers of equipment, I think of the more expensive option in terms of ‘if it’s worth the upgrade’, even before any purchase has been made, if that makes sense.
You mentioned that you regret buying into a dead platform, AM4. AM6 does not yet exist, so your only other option when building/buying a new PC was AM5, and I’m pointing out that had you gone that route, it wouldn’t have made a monumental difference in most average gaming scenarios. It only would’ve made a large-ish difference unless you were also able to afford a top of the line GPU and/or stuck with lower resolutions.
Did you mean that you wish you had stuck with whatever you had before you built your AM4 system and waited until AM6?
You should scroll up and read again. My original comment was about when AM6 would be available.
No, I meant that I wish I had just bought into AM5 originally when it debuted, as is my current intention for AM6.
I’m aware you started it asking about AM6, but I was responding to your comment farther below about regretting going with AM4.
I’m basically just making the case that you didn’t really make that big a mistake going with AM4, is all.