Something that's been hotly debated over the years is platform longevity. Does it matter? What are the benefits? Who does it benefit? And is it even something you should factor into a buying decision? The list goes on.
One of the first truly strong examples of a well-supported platform was AMD's previous-generation AM4. And yes, AMD did attempt to fumble it at times, but in the end, the community didn't let that happen. Many now agree it's gone down as one of the best PC platforms in history. Even with such a clear example to point to, there are still those who argue that platform longevity doesn't matter, which is an interesting stance given what we've seen with AM4.
We can understand someone saying it didn't benefit them directly – maybe they bought in at a time when it offered no real advantage, or they're happy replacing their motherboard with every CPU upgrade. But to claim that platform longevity doesn't matter at all feels like a stretch. At least, that's how we've seen it play out over the years. Having the option to upgrade your CPU without throwing away your motherboard seems like something everyone should be in favor of, and we fail to see the drawbacks of having that choice.
With that in mind, AMD's AM5 platform continues to age, and we should see at least one more CPU generation on it – possibly two, if rumors prove accurate. Then there's Intel's next-generation Nova Lake CPUs, expected later this year on the new LGA 1954 socket. That means Intel's current LGA 1851 platform will only see the Core Ultra 2 series along with a refresh, which we'd categorize as disastrous when it comes to platform support.
With Nova Lake expected later this year and Zen 6 likely following shortly after, it got us thinking about how much weight platform support will carry for these upcoming releases. In an effort to try to get to the bottom of this – admittedly a foolish endeavor – we spent a few weeks revisiting older hardware to see how things have actually played out over time...
Ryzen's Rocky Gaming Start – and Why People Bought It Anyway
Of course, we haven't tested every possible combination of CPUs and configurations – that would be impossible to cover in a single article – but we've looked at most flagship gaming CPUs from each company. For AM4, it all started back in March 2017 with the first wave of Ryzen 1000 processors based on the original Zen architecture. This lineup included the Ryzen 7 1700, 1700X, and 1800X, all 8-core, 16-thread CPUs priced between $330 and $500.
Because all models were unlocked, they were functionally very similar. As a result, the most affordable option – the Ryzen 7 1700 – received the most attention from consumers. Looking back at our initial Ryzen review, we concluded that for productivity and content creation, the new Ryzen CPUs were very impressive. Gaming performance, however, wasn't as strong as we'd hoped, though it was competitive enough.
We also noted that while Zen showed real potential for delivering a top-tier gaming experience, at the time you still needed an Intel CPU (specifically the Core i7-7700K) for the best gaming performance.
Revisiting the 16-game benchmark we ran nine years ago (graph below), we see that at 1080p, the 7700K was, on average, 21% faster than the Ryzen 7 1800X. Back then, games were lightly threaded and often used only one or two cores, so an 8-core CPU offered no real advantage for gaming.
Today, the Ryzen 1800X is much better utilized by modern games. Even so, across 14 titles, we still found that the Core i7-7700K was, on average, 13% faster at 1080p using medium quality settings.
The gap has narrowed as games take better advantage of additional cores, but the point remains: if you wanted the best gaming performance in 2017, you needed an Intel CPU.
AMD didn't manage to match the i7-7700K's gaming performance until the following year with Zen+. The Ryzen 7 2700X delivered similar results, at least in more CPU-demanding games. Testing both CPUs today using more demanding modern titles shows them trading blows. Despite being a quad-core part, the 7700K has aged surprisingly well, thanks largely to Hyper-Threading providing 8 threads.
By the time the 2700X arrived, Intel had already added two more cores by introducing the Core i7-8700K, which unfortunately required a new motherboard. You couldn't simply upgrade from a 7th-gen Core processor to an 8th-gen model.
Looking back at early-2017 flagship products, AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X launched at $500. Technically, the Ryzen 7 1700 was very similar – just about 5% slower on average – and significantly cheaper. Being unlocked, it could be overclocked to match the 1800X with ease. As a result, it became the more popular option, even though the 1800X was the official flagship.
On Intel's side, the Core i7-7700K launched at around $360. That's about $30 more than the Ryzen 7 1700. Just months after launch, however, it could be found for as low as $300, as AMD was aggressive with pricing and needed Ryzen to succeed.
At the time, we strongly advised viewers to skip the 1800X and buy the discounted 1700 instead, and many of you did exactly that. So if you bought a Ryzen 7 1700 instead of Intel's slightly faster Core i7-7700K, fully aware that Intel offered better gaming performance, did AMD's platform longevity work in your favor?
The Long Game: How AM4 Aged Over Five Years
Based on our updated data, the Core i7-7700K is still 12% faster than the 1800X, making it roughly 18% faster than the 1700, very similar to what we observed nine years ago.
To upgrade from the 7700K, you'd need a new motherboard. If you held onto that CPU for four to five years, which aligns with how long most of you tell us you keep a processor... that brings us to 2021 or 2022. At that point, you could upgrade to the Core i9-12900K and even reuse your DDR4 memory. Realistically, though, most 12900K buyers weren't pairing it with just 16 GB of DDR4. Many likely upgraded their memory as well, either opting for a higher-capacity DDR4 kit or moving to faster DDR5.
Using our updated Core i9-12900K data with premium DDR5-7200 memory, the 12900K averaged 179 FPS at medium quality settings – an impressive 88% uplift over the 7700K. That's the kind of performance increase that clearly justifies an upgrade.
On the other hand, Ryzen 7 1700 owners had multiple appealing upgrade paths over the years...
A low-cost Zen 2 upgrade could boost gaming performance by nearly 40%, making it meaningfully faster than the 7700K.
Zen 3 offered even better options, such as the Ryzen 7 5800X, which is roughly 70% faster than the 7700K and only about 20% slower than the Core i9-12900K – while still using DDR4 memory. Meanwhile, the 12900K results we're referencing here rely on premium DDR5-7200 memory.
And of course, that's not the end of the road for an AM4 user. Just four months after the release of the Core i9-12900K, AMD launched the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, which according to our latest data is currently 5% faster. Once again, the 5800X3D is an AM4 processor using DDR4-3600 memory, while we tested the 12900K with DDR5-7200.
To recap, the initial build cost in early 2017 was very similar between Ryzen and Intel. However, for gaming, the Core i7-7700K was considerably faster at the time. That said, the Ryzen 7 1700 remains very usable even today and has aged reasonably well as games have become increasingly CPU demanding.
There were multiple ideal upgrade points between 2017 and 2022. Parts like the Ryzen 7 3700X dropped as low as $260 in July 2020, making it a very affordable upgrade.
Given that both the AMD and Intel paths required a similar initial investment, a Ryzen owner would have needed to upgrade to at least a Ryzen 7 2700X or newer to match the gaming performance of the 7700K. While the 2700X did drop to $200 in 2019, waiting two years and spending $200 just to match the 7700K's gaming performance doesn't really make sense.
If instead you held out until early 2022 for the 5800X3D, you were looking at a $450 upgrade. The 7700K owner, on the other hand, would need to spend at least $610 on a Core i9-12900K to get close to 5800X3D-level performance. On top of that, they'd need to spend around $220 on a DDR4-enabled Z690 motherboard to keep their existing memory, or closer to $300 for a DDR5 board.
DDR5 pricing at the time was extremely inflated – much like it is today – but let's assume memory prices were reasonable. Say $120 for a 32 GB kit. That would put the Intel platform upgrade at roughly $1,000, or just over $800 if you reused DDR4 memory.
Opting for DDR4, however, would result in slightly lower performance than what we're showing here. If we assume you wanted DDR5 performance to fully unlock the 12900K, you'd be looking at an upgrade cost of around $1,000 versus roughly $450 on the AMD side with the 5800X3D. At that point, the tables had turned, with AMD offering superior gaming performance.
From Zen to Zen 3 with 3D V-Cache, Intel cycled through four completely incompatible platforms.
Of course, it's not quite that simple. As we've said, there are too many combinations to cover exhaustively. On the Intel side, for example, you could opt for a Core i7-12700K. That was a much cheaper option at around $430 and only slightly slower than the 12900K. Even so, you'd still need a new motherboard and likely new memory.
As you move further down Intel's stack, the value proposition gets worse. The Core i5-12600K was a strong performer and launched at just $310, which was a great deal – and our review reflected that. But once you factor in $200+ for a motherboard and the likely need for new memory, the overall value starts to look less appealing. At that point, AM4 owners could point to cheaper and far easier drop-in upgrades like the Ryzen 7 5700X, which isn't dramatically slower.
The truly striking thing about AM4 – or perhaps about Intel's competing platforms – is that it took Intel four separate sockets to match its performance trajectory. From Zen to Zen 3 with 3D V-Cache, Intel cycled through four completely incompatible platforms.
It started with LGA 1151 in early 2017, which was replaced later that same year by LGA 1151 rev 2 – despite being physically identical, it offered zero compatibility, neither forward nor backward. That socket also supported 9th-gen processors, adding two more cores at the top end before being abandoned yet again for LGA 1200. LGA 1200 supported 10th-gen CPUs and the infamous 11th generation, which managed to regress in several ways.
That platform was then dropped for LGA 1700, which supported the 12th and 13th generations, followed by what was effectively a lightly refreshed 14th generation. Meanwhile, AMD continued releasing AM4 CPUs until culminating in the 5800X3D, after which it largely shifted to rebinned models, APUs aside.
In our opinion, the level of platform flexibility afforded by socket longevity – and long-term compatibility – is staggering.
Intel did eventually surpass AM4 on the LGA 1700 platform. Based on our most recent data, the Core i9-13900K is, on average, 13% faster than the 5800X3D, while the refreshed 14900K extends that lead slightly to 14%.
That said, evaluating the full value of the AM4 platform remains extremely difficult. Pricing varied widely by region, and the sheer number of possible upgrade paths on a single socket makes comprehensive analysis nearly impossible. On top of that, some models saw aggressive discounts in certain markets, with occasional sales that dramatically altered the value equation.
Other regions didn't get those sales, or they received them on different models. So yes, there were deals all over the place with AM4. This was true even for the mighty 5800X3D, which hit an all-time low price of just $330 in late 2022 – remarkably, the same year it launched.
Meanwhile, the standard 5800X dropped to around $250, and the 5600X fell as low as $160. As a result, AM4 owners had access to a wide range of very affordable drop-in upgrades, and that remained true for almost the entire lifespan of the platform.
Value, Not Just FPS, Reshaped the CPU Market
Now, if we look at flagship gaming performance over the years – ignoring AMD's 12- and 16-core models, as those were never really gaming CPUs – we see a clear pattern.
For much of AM4's life, Intel held the gaming crown. As we've already seen, the Core i7-7700K was clearly superior to any Ryzen 7 model of that era, including the 1800X. The 8700K only widened the gap, and it took AMD two more generations to roughly match it with the 3800X. By the time that happened, the 9900K was already on shelves and once again faster.
In 2020, we saw the release of the Core i9-10900K and the Ryzen 7 5800X. Performance was close, but Intel generally retained a slight edge in gaming. It wasn't until 2022 that AMD finally came out on top. Even then, Intel later launched its 13th-gen Raptor Lake CPUs, which regained the performance lead – though by that point, they were competing more directly with AM5.
The point is, for the majority of AM4's lifespan, Intel was the king of gaming. It offered the highest-performing models, something we highlighted repeatedly in our Best CPU guides, where parts like the 7700K, 8700K, and 9900K were consistently recommended as no-compromise gaming CPUs. And yet, despite all of this, by the time Zen 2 arrived, it was clear Intel was in trouble. While some denied it, the writing was clearly on the wall.
Intel's retail sales began to suffer as AMD moved far more Ryzen inventory than anyone had expected. By the time Zen 3 launched, the battle felt nearly over – and once the first X3D part arrived, it essentially was. That raises an important question: how was AMD able to dismantle a giant like Intel so quickly and so effectively?
It wasn't through outright performance, at least not at first. Chart-topping gaming results weren't what set the process in motion. We attribute Ryzen's success to a combination of factors that together made the platform extremely compelling.
First and foremost, there was value. In terms of value for money, Ryzen was unbeatable. Gamers got performance close enough to Intel's best, paired with excellent productivity that often exceeded Intel's offerings, even compared to its far more expensive HEDT CPUs. On top of that, Ryzen delivered modern features at aggressively low prices.
Platform longevity further reinforced that value. AMD was also highly aggressive with discounts, offering regular sales, while Intel's pricing remained relatively stable throughout much of AM4's lifespan, particularly in the early years.
While working on this feature, we ran a poll. Unfortunately, YouTube limits the number of response options, which makes these polls less useful than they should be. Even so, the feedback was clear: many of you chose Ryzen over Intel because you perceived greater value in AMD's lineup. That result makes sense and reinforces the idea that most buyers prioritize value over peak performance.
Future platform support was listed as a separate option in the poll, but it clearly ties back into overall value. Platform support alone won't convince someone to buy into a system, you still need compelling CPUs for that platform. Again, that makes perfect sense.
All of that said, we firmly believe that if AMD had followed the same tick-tock-style strategy Intel was using at the time – delivering just one major CPU architecture per socket – then Zen, Zen+, Zen 2, and Zen 3 would not have enjoyed anywhere near the same level of success. We're extremely confident in that assessment.
Nova Lake, Zen 6, and the Next Test for Platform Support
So looking ahead, what does all of this mean for Intel – and, to a lesser extent, AMD?
For Intel's upcoming Nova Lake-based CPUs, it means they will need to offer more value than AMD. They will need to give consumers a compelling reason to invest in LGA 1954. Not only does performance need to be highly competitive, but pricing does as well. On top of that, they must – without question – commit to supporting multiple CPU generations on the same socket. At this point, we don't believe Intel can succeed without doing so.
They simply cannot repeat the mistake of running four sockets to AMD's one. They are already a socket behind with LGA 1851, which has been an absolute disaster in terms of platform support. Retail sales data strongly supports that view, and we're not confident an Arrow Lake refresh will meaningfully improve the situation.
Intel has had few standout moments over the past decade. While the 10th-gen Comet Lake processors were solid, they were followed by a disastrous 11th generation that offered no compelling upgrade path. After that came a new socket.
The 12th generation was strong, but the 13th generation became problematic – delivering good performance gains at the cost of poor power efficiency, particularly at the high end. The 14th-gen refresh did Intel no favors either. To make matters worse, Core i7 and Core i9 13th- and 14th-generation processors suffered widely reported silicon degradation issues.
It's fair to say Intel has had a rocky few years.
AMD, on the other hand, appears to be moving forward with strong momentum. That said, caution is warranted. Zen 6 needs to be something special if AM5 is to have any chance of repeating AM4's success. Ideally, Zen 7 would follow on the same socket to truly cement that platform's legacy.
AM4 Proved Platform Longevity Works – Can AM5 Match It?
Looking at how these processors perform in today's games, it's hard to ignore the numbers. Achieving a 124% performance increase on a single platform – going from the Ryzen 7 1800X to the 5800X3D – is remarkable and exactly the kind of progress we should want to see.
Meanwhile, the largest uplift Intel has delivered while remaining on the same socket over the past 10 years is 15%, seen when moving from the Core i9-12900K to the 14900K. That's difficult to view as meaningful technological advancement when stock power draw increased by nearly 50%. In other words, a 50% increase in power consumption for a 15% FPS boost in CPU-limited scenarios.
The 5800X3D wasn't just 124% faster than the 1800X for gaming, it also consumed slightly less power. Comparing what AMD achieved with AM4 to what Intel delivered over the same period across four different sockets hardly feels like a fair comparison. That likely explains why Amazon's best-selling CPU charts have looked the way they have for much of the past five years.
There are, of course, many other comparisons that could be made. However, we don't believe these examples misrepresent the broader historical context. If anything, scaling down to mid-range CPUs strengthens the case for platform longevity. As CPU prices approach parity with motherboard costs and entry-level CPUs fall below that threshold, the value of long-term socket support only increases.
While platform longevity is arguably most important for PC shoppers on a budget, it appears to have had a broader psychological effect. It boosts consumer confidence. Buyers feel more comfortable investing more in a platform when they believe it will remain viable and offer strong upgrade paths in the future.
Otherwise, it's difficult to explain why parts like the Ryzen 7 7800X3D and 9800X3D dominate sales charts. Historically, the best sellers were Core i3s, Core i5s, and Ryzen 5s. Today, the mass market appears far more interested in high-end CPUs like the 9800X3D, and that trend has been ongoing since the 7800X3D launched three years ago.
At the end of the day, our stance is simple: if there is no clear technical reason to change sockets (e.g. no legitimate architectural limitation requiring it) – then don't. Maintain compatibility until it genuinely no longer makes technical sense. We'd love to hear your thoughts on all of this, so please leave your comments below. We'll be sure to read them.