Upgrading to a new Gpu RX 7800 XT

[MarsM4N]

Only if the GPU can keep up, which it can't do in new games. A 4070 Super is what, more than twice as fast the 2070? A 5800x3d will not come close to the boost a GPU will give. Not to mention the 5800x3d can get quite expensive, and spending that much on a EOL platform is not exactly great.

The conclusion to the article is literally "Of course, if you don't have the GPU to unleash the 5800X3D, or you're not interested in using low quality settings, the gains are going to be a lot smaller and we see that with the 6600 XT."

Well, he intends to upgrade to a 7800XT (or maybe 4070 Super), not a peasant 6600XT. So when he does, the CPU will bottleneck.

Sure he could go all out, get a Ryzen 7 7800X3D + AM5 mobo + DDR5 ram (which will cost easily 800€+ extra) and upgrade the whole system. Or go the more cost effective way of just selling the Ryzen 5 3600 for ~30-40€ on eBay (if it's 3600x he could get 60€+ with the cooler included) and just buy a Ryzen 5 5800X3D for ~290€, slap it in & get in most games "almost" the same performance, for a fraction of the AM5 route.

 

[Zach_01]

Well, he intends to upgrade to a 7800XT (or maybe 4070 Super), not a peasant 6600XT. So when he does, the CPU will bottleneck.

Sure he could go all out, get a Ryzen 7 7800X3D + AM5 mobo + DDR5 ram (which will cost easily 800€+ extra) and upgrade the whole system. Or go the more cost effective way of just selling the Ryzen 5 3600 for ~30-40€ on eBay (if it's 3600x he could get 60€+ with the cooler included) and just buy a Ryzen 5 5800X3D for ~290€, slap it in & get in most games "almost" the same performance, for a fraction of the AM5 route.

You got it all wrong

The article is talking upgrades between CPUs and GPUs
1. 3600>>5600>>5800X3D
2. 6600XT>>6950XT

OP is intending to upgrade from 2070 to 7800XT which is the same as 6600XT to 6950XT as I already said before.
I thought that was clear...

If you pass the first 2 images that are only an intensive showcase of bottleneck between the CPUs, because of medium settings, the rest of the game screenshots are not so great upgrade between the CPUs. Not like upgrading the GPU. Its all there. And specially at 1440p as OP said he does (or he'd like to) game.
And the 1% lows of 3600 is not that bad with either card. Its not that drops to 20fps.
It is a misunderstood CPU I think.

...as I already said before
A GPU upgrade is better for an outgoing platform that has no further value based on its low/mid-range mainboard that its not capable really to power anything above 100W, at least I wouldn't want to.
Why should anyone invest on a CPU that can bring those VRMs at the edge of their performance.
A better GPU can uplift performance and be transferred to the next build and the CPU not.

And what does SS below tell us?
In what case the performance upgrade is greater?
CPU or GPU?

 

[Frick]

Well, he intends to upgrade to a 7800XT (or maybe 4070 Super), not a peasant 6600XT. So when he does, the CPU will bottleneck.

Sure he could go all out, get a Ryzen 7 7800X3D + AM5 mobo + DDR5 ram (which will cost easily 800€+ extra) and upgrade the whole system. Or go the more cost effective way of just selling the Ryzen 5 3600 for ~30-40€ on eBay (if it's 3600x he could get 60€+ with the cooler included) and just buy a Ryzen 5 5800X3D for ~290€, slap it in & get in most games "almost" the same performance, for a fraction of the AM5 route.

Look at the graphs in that review. The 6950xt (the upgrade) plus 3600 is in the majority of cases faster than a 6600xt (what he has now) plus a 5800x3d.

 

[AusWolf]

You got it all wrong

The article is talking upgrades between CPUs and GPUs
1. 3600>>5600>>5800X3D
2. 6600XT>>6950XT

OP is intending to upgrade from 2070 to 7800XT which is the same as 6600XT to 6950XT as I already said before.
I thought that was clear...

If you pass the first 2 images that are only an intensive showcase of bottleneck between the CPUs, because of medium settings, the rest of the game screenshots are not so great upgrade between the CPUs. Not like upgrading the GPU. Its all there. And specially at 1440p as OP said he does (or he'd like to) game.
And the 1% lows of 3600 is not that bad with either card. Its not that drops to 20fps.
It is a misunderstood CPU I think.

...as I already said before
A GPU upgrade is better for an outgoing platform that has no further value based on its low/mid-range mainboard that its not capable really to power anything above 100W, at least I wouldn't want to.
Why should anyone invest on a CPU that can bring those VRMs at the edge of their performance.
A better GPU can uplift performance and be transferred to the next build and the CPU not.

And what does SS below tell us?
In what case the performance upgrade is greater?
CPU or GPU?

View attachment 330074

View attachment 330075

View attachment 330076

View attachment 330077

View attachment 330078

Completely agreed.

High fidelity AAA gaming: go for the better GPU.
Competitive shooting: upgrade the CPU first.

 

[Dragaan]

Can't speak much for higher refresh rates, but I play at 4k/60 and I saw a MASSIVE improvement going from 1080Ti to 7800XT on (yes) a 6700K-based sysstem I built in 2016. Damn near doubled my graphics performance in almost everything I play (granted, I don't play many AAA blockbuster-type titles and I don't play competitive rts/moba/fps games). The difference has been phenomenal, especially considering how many people yell "omg cpu bound" these days. I think it's the marketing....

 

[the54thvoid]

I had a 3700X and 16GB with a 2080ti.

I upgraded to a 4070ti. The fps improvement was there but dipped all the time.

I further upgraded to a 7800X3D and 32GB. Night and day. at least a 20% increase in fps (with the same 4070ti.)

Mostly from the CPU, i think, but the extra RAM likely helped.

Point being - the 3600 is going to hold back most GPU upgrades.

 

[Zach_01]

Completely agreed.

High fidelity AAA gaming: go for the better GPU.
Competitive shooting: upgrade the CPU first.

Yeah that is a more accurate statement

 

[dgianstefani]

I had a 3700X and 16GB with a 2080ti.

I upgraded to a 4070ti. The fps improvement was there but dipped all the time.

I further upgraded to a 7800X3D and 32GB. Night and day. at least a 20% increase in fps (with the same 4070ti.)

Mostly from the CPU, i think, but the extra RAM likely helped.

Point being - the 3600 is going to hold back most GPU upgrades.

Furthermore it's only a six core.

 

[Taraquin]

Agree with others here. Gpu-upgrade will be most important, secondly tuning your ram can boost fps in certain games by 20%. 5700X3D is also a worthy upgrade if you can spare the cash and will give you a nice boost if you play a high refresh in some games.

 

[Frick]

I had a 3700X and 16GB with a 2080ti.

I upgraded to a 4070ti. The fps improvement was there but dipped all the time.

I further upgraded to a 7800X3D and 32GB. Night and day. at least a 20% increase in fps (with the same 4070ti.)

Mostly from the CPU, i think, but the extra RAM likely helped.

Point being - the 3600 is going to hold back most GPU upgrades.

Sure, but going from a 2080ti to a 4070ti on a 3700x is a bigger jump in performance than going from a 3700x to a 7800x3d on a 2080ti.

 

[DaemonForce]

DATA

Okay, what I get out of this is that on the 3600, 1080p60 is absolutely guaranteed with reasonable expectation of 120Hz and somewhat hit and miss 144Hz until the 5600 or 5800X3D comes into play, at which point a floor of 144Hz and 165Hz becomes reasonable. That's cool. I should definitely look into the 5800X3D if I ever intend to max out X570.

Is there going to be any expected performance difference between the 5800X3D and say 5700X3D?

 

[AusWolf]

Okay, what I get out of this is that on the 3600, 1080p60 is absolutely guaranteed with reasonable expectation of 120Hz and somewhat hit and miss 144Hz until the 5600 or 5800X3D comes into play, at which point a floor of 144Hz and 165Hz becomes reasonable. That's cool. I should definitely look into the 5800X3D if I ever intend to max out X570.

That depends on the games and settings you play. If you're into single player with maximum visual fidelity, you'll be fine. If you're into competitive shooting and high FPS, um... I'm not sure.

Is there going to be any expected performance difference between the 5800X3D and say 5700X3D?

Maybe 10-15% at most. Nothing to write home about, imo.

 

[MarsM4N]

Is there going to be any expected performance difference between the 5800X3D and say 5700X3D?

I guess the only difference would be clocks & power consumption: 5700X3D: 3.0/4.1GHz / 5800X3D: 3.4/4.5GHz

The thing is, the 5700X3D isn't even out yet, but the release street price will always be on the higher side. Given that you can get the 5800X3D now already for as low as 290€ I don't think it would make sense to wait for the 5700X3D. It will most likely be just a few bucks cheaper, and down the road you will regret not going for the "big boy".

 

[Why_Me]

would like change my RTX 2070 with RX 7800 XT .

Will there be bottleneck?

My computer specifications are as follows:
B450 aorus pro
Ryzen 5 3600
PSU corsair RM750
DDR4 3200 16 GBytes(1600MHz)

thank you

I would look at either of these cpu's.

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/PgcG3C/amd-ryzen-5-5600-36-ghz-6-core-processor-100-100000927box
https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-5-5600

or ...

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/JmhFf7/amd-ryzen-7-5700x-34-ghz-8-core-processor-100-100000926wof

https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-7-5700x

 

[MarsM4N]

I would look at either of these cpu's.

Nah, they are not worth the upgrade (for gaming). You'll get the "FPS Turbo" only with a X3D part.

 

[ratirt]

I'd upgrade to 5800x3d if I was still on a 3600x and go with one of these 7800xt or 4070ti super whichever has a better value.
I sit on a 5800x so I would skip the 5800x3d upgrade and go AM5 instead. I definitely would not go 5800x now if I had a 3600x in my PC but rather 5800x3d instead if my GPU would require it.

 

[las]

I had a 3700X and 16GB with a 2080ti.

I upgraded to a 4070ti. The fps improvement was there but dipped all the time.

I further upgraded to a 7800X3D and 32GB. Night and day. at least a 20% increase in fps (with the same 4070ti.)

Mostly from the CPU, i think, but the extra RAM likely helped.

Point being - the 3600 is going to hold back most GPU upgrades.

Yeah big diff and your minimum fps probably improved big time

You probably went up way more than 20% in average as well, because 7800X3D is 16% faster than a 7700X and 7700X is much faster than Ryzen 3600 -> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d/19.html

If CPU bound I mean

I am amazed tho, how much DLSS Frame Gen can alleviate a CPU bottleneck. I was CPU bottlenecked slightly in Cyberpunk 2077 v2.0 but with Frame Gen enabled, the CPU usage dropped and GPU usage peaked. Completely removed the CPU bottleneck in the CPU heavy areas (mid-town mostly). This is probably the most CPU heavy game I have tried in recent years tho.

I'd upgrade to 5800x3d if I was still on a 3600x and go with one of these 7800xt or 4070ti super whichever has a better value.
I sit on a 5800x so I would skip the 5800x3d upgrade and go AM5 instead. I definitely would not go 5800x now if I had a 3600x in my PC but rather 5800x3d instead if my GPU would require it.

7800XT and 4070 Ti SUPER will be lightyears apart in actual performance but in performance per dollar, the 7800XT wins when looking at pure raster perf and nothing else. Cheaper GPUs always win on price per frame.

4000 series have better performance per watt, better RT/PT, vastly better features and better drivers (especially outside of the most popular games and in early access titles) and this is what you pay extra for. Besides, Nvidia is usually worth more on the second hand market when you sell it too (higher demand). 4070 SUPER is the true 7800XT competitor, not Ti models, especially not the Ti SUPER which is a 7900XT competitor. This is why 7900XT was price dropped to 749, probably dropping below 700 too but should be 649-699 already if they want to attract buyers.

 

[ratirt]

7800XT and 4070 Ti SUPER will be lightyears apart in actual performance but in performance per dollar, the 7800XT wins when looking at pure raster perf and nothing else. Cheaper GPUs always win on price per frame.

4000 series have better performance per watt, better RT/PT, vastly better features and better drivers (especially outside of the most popular games and in early access titles) and this is what you pay extra for. Besides, Nvidia is usually worth more on the second hand market when you sell it too (higher demand). 4070 SUPER is the true 7800XT competitor, not Ti models, especially not the Ti SUPER which is a 7900XT competitor. This is why 7900XT was price dropped to 749, probably dropping below 700 too but should be 649-699 already if they want to attract buyers.

I don't care about RT at this point. Same way I don't care about buying a graphics card for its features. I care about the performance I'm getting for the price. Features are extra but if the performance is there and the price is good, you don't need features to be able to play games. The next thing I would look is the power consumption but that is only if there are more products in the stack or competition competing with each other and the power consumption difference must be staggering not a 50w difference. No matter how you slice it, performance is the most important to me. Obviously, if the card is gobbling hundreds of watts for slight increase in performance and is slightly cheaper, just use your brain and pick what has the most value and is reasonable in all areas.
Better drivers is a nonsense in my opinion. How do you evaluate which is better if these are meant for different products from different companies? AMD's driver layout is way more to my liking than an old NV interface but that does not impact my decision. AMD's driver are very good and if there is anything that needs to be tweaked, well it needs to be tweaked and it is tweaked so I don't need to pay extra for my driver to work. Which is ridiculous to have this point of view since the driver comes with the product and is not even an extra.
Second hand price does not give value to a product in my opinion. You can sell any card on the second hand market including AMD, no problem as long as the price is OK.
I mentioned 4070TI super not because it is 7800xt's competitor but in my opinion, it is way more rounded and has more vram which makes it a better buy than a 4070 super. How exactly it will perform we will see but due to vram capacity I'd put up a bit more $ for it as of now. How it will perform and if my decision changes, depends on the reviews.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

I don't care about buying a graphics card for its features

At the very moment you can't play the game at native resolution with comfortable FPS the urge for upscaling tech kicks in and whoops, DLSS beats FSR with absolute ease. I speak from my experience with older DLSS implementations (relevant as of almost two years ago) and recent FSR implementations. Even the DLSS from two years ago is better. I'm inclined to imagine the current DLSS looks even more on point and is a much better performance booster. I'd pick a plain 4070 over 7800 XT any day if 7800 XT isn't at least 20 percent cheaper. 4070 Super? No-brainer at this point.

 

[las]

I don't care about RT at this point. Same way I don't care about buying a graphics card for its features. I care about the performance I'm getting for the price. Features are extra but if the performance is there and the price is good, you don't need features to be able to play games. The next thing I would look is the power consumption but that is only if there are more products in the stack or competition competing with each other and the power consumption difference must be staggering not a 50w difference. No matter how you slice it, performance is the most important to me. Obviously, if the card is gobbling hundreds of watts for slight increase in performance and is slightly cheaper, just use your brain and pick what has the most value and is reasonable in all areas.
Better drivers is a nonsense in my opinion. How do you evaluate which is better if these are meant for different products from different companies? AMD's driver layout is way more to my liking than an old NV interface but that does not impact my decision. AMD's driver are very good and if there is anything that needs to be tweaked, well it needs to be tweaked and it is tweaked so I don't need to pay extra for my driver to work. Which is ridiculous to have this point of view since the driver comes with the product and is not even an extra.
Second hand price does not give value to a product in my opinion. You can sell any card on the second hand market including AMD, no problem as long as the price is OK.
I mentioned 4070TI super not because it is 7800xt's competitor but in my opinion, it is way more rounded and has more vram which makes it a better buy than a 4070 super. How exactly it will perform we will see but due to vram capacity I'd put up a bit more $ for it as of now. How it will perform and if my decision changes, depends on the reviews.

Sadly for you, upscaling is here to stay and have already replaced AA in tons of games. Running games at native res with no upscaing will make your image quality worse not better. DLSS/DLAA improves on native since it has built in AA and sharpening.

Proof -> https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/outriders-dlss-performance

This is with just DLSS, which raises performance by 50-75% on top.

DLAA on the other hand, will improve on native big time every single time.

Nvidia clearly have better drivers and much better support for new games. They always have drivers ready for new games, AMD does not, and typically releases beta drivers in full panic mode.

Nvidia cards are also worth more in the second hand market, which means you get some of the money you paid back, essentially lowering the TCO.

4070 SUPER beats 7800XT making it the competitor. 4070 Ti SUPER will not only beat 7800XT, it will demolish it. Completely different tiers. 4070 Ti SUPER is a 7900XT competitor. Even 4070 Ti 12GB beats 7900XT in many games.

 

[AusWolf]

4000 series have ... vastly better features and better drivers

I would argue with that. Features are only good if the raw performance is there, and I actually do prefer AMD's driver. Nvidia's menu layout is outdated and overcrowded (3D settings menu, ugh), and unnecessarily restrictive with overclocking. Other than that, I agree.

I don't care about RT at this point. Same way I don't care about buying a graphics card for its features. I care about the performance I'm getting for the price. Features are extra but if the performance is there and the price is good, you don't need features to be able to play games.

This a million times!

 

[ratirt]

Sadly for you, upscaling is here to stay and have already replaced AA in tons of games. Running games at native res with no upscaing will make your image quality worse not better. DLSS/DLAA improves on native since it has built in AA and sharpening.

Why sadly? I'm not cheering for companies to drop it but I have my understanding of what to look in a graphics card and what I'm actually paying for. I disagree with worse image quality. You can tweak native image just like you have to tweak upscaled image to make it look better. You are quoting companies that are selling you upscaling tech. It improves one thing and make other worse.
Better support for drivers and new games? It depends on so many things that I still deem bringing drivers into that equation foolish.
I already said about the second hand market i wont repeat myself but I can tell you, if a company charges $1k, the second hand market product will not cost $400 after a year. So it does correlate to what MSRP is and what the competitor's price is. You saw a drop in NV cards prices and so second hand cards drop too. It is really not that hard to grasp. If you have inflated price for a product the second hand will be high as well.
I really dont care what it beats or not. That is just you bragging and advertising for the company how great it is for some reason. I'm more realistic about what i spend my money for and what I get for it. I'm not buying the marketing scheme and advertisement the way they want me to. Features are good no dobt about it, but I'm not paying for them to be able to play games.
FG and upscalers are cool. DLSS is not for everyone since it is restricted and FSR is does not have the quality. FG is usable only if you have a top notch card to really benefit from it so no thanks. If these are free and widely available sure I might use it some day but I'm not paying for them.
And if you speak about RT being the future. Call me when the future is here since I can't see it now. Just because you have RT possibility it does not mean we are in the future yet.

 

[las]

Why sadly? I'm not cheering for companies to drop it but I have my understanding of what to look in a graphics card and what I'm actually paying for. I disagree with worse image quality. You can tweak native image just like you have to tweak upscaled image to make it look better. You are quoting companies that are selling you upscaling tech. It improves one thing and make other worse.
Better support for drivers and new games? It depends on so many things that I still deem bringing drivers into that equation foolish.
I already said about the second hand market i wont repeat myself but I can tell you, if a company charges $1k, the second hand market product will not cost $400 after a year. So it does correlate to what MSRP is and what the competitor's price is. You saw a drop in NV cards prices and so second hand cards drop too. It is really not that hard to grasp. If you have inflated price for a product the second hand will be high as well.
I really dont care what it beats or not. That is just you bragging and advertising for the company how great it is for some reason. I'm more realistic about what i spend my money for and what I get for it. I'm not buying the marketing scheme and advertisement the way they want me to. Features are good no dobt about it, but I'm not paying for them to be able to play games.
FG and upscalers are cool. DLSS is not for everyone since it is restricted and FSR is does not have the quality. FG is usable only if you have a top notch card to really benefit from it so no thanks. If these are free and widely available sure I might use it some day but I'm not paying for them.
And if you speak about RT being the future. Call me when the future is here since I can't see it now. Just because you have RT possibility it does not mean we are in the future yet.

You are very wrong. I sold a 3090 for 1000 bucks before getting 4090, about 2 years later. Meanwhile AMD was selling 6900XT and 6950XTs for dirt cheap prices, making it impossible to sell the second hand AMD cards. The demand for my 3090 was crazy, meaning I put it at 800 dollars but ended up getting 1000, tons of people wanted my card. This is why demand matters.
Nvidia is clearly in more demand in the second hand market and prices go up. Think iPhone vs Android. Android phones are worth nothing when you are done with them, for the most part, since they drop in price alot of time. Same with AMD hardware, price is what AMD adjust. This is also what AMD is going now with entire 7000 series. They did it with 6000 series. This makes your old AMD GPU a hard sell and its 100% fact. Sold tons of hardware from both sides.

Upscaling but especially DLAA improves on native res every single time. Native is not even close in terms of IQ. DLAA is the best AA in the world right now. Regular AA is slowly dying and leaving new games, FSR, DLSS and XeSS is the only option in most of them and going forward, this will be the case for pretty much every game released.

Nvidia drivers are better for sure, this is commen knowledge and you can find tons of proof confirming this. Nvidias driver team is much bigger than AMDs. They support older GPUs for longer, in their recent driver they had a fix for 10 year old Maxwell series. When you leave the most popular games, play early access games or even using emulators, Nvidia is MUCH better overall. Support is next level here.

On the other side, AMD drops hardware support fast when they leave the arch (instead of doing refreshes of the same arch like they did many times earlier) -> https://www.anandtech.com/show/21126/amd-reduces-ongoing-driver-support-for-polaris-and-vega-gpus

Remember Radeon VII? High-end GPU that went EoL after 4-6 months or so. Price plummet and MSRP was high to begin with. Proof found -> https://www.notebookcheck.net/Radeo...-just-6-months-after-its-launch.432773.0.html


While DLAA is the best for pure image quality, DLSS can easily improve on native as well, while also improving frames by 50-75% on Quality preset -> https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/outriders-dlss-performance

Native looks worse, not better. Screenshots included here. Easy to see.

Pretty much all new games today have DLSS/DLAA or can be modded easily to do it. Nvidia uses dll files and you can easily change out versions, or mod them in. AMD on the other hand don't use dll files and you can't replace them. Starfield, the AMD sponsored game which did not have DLSS/DLAA on launch, got a DLSS/DLAA mod on day one that easily beat FSR. Techpowerup tested it, and this was their conclusion. My experience as well.

I already used RT and PT in tons of games. The future is now for RTX owners. AMD is several generations behind on this too. However, improving FSR and AFMF should be top priority for now.

In like 10 years, games won't even have fake lightning. RT will be needed, just like Metro Exocus EE, which won't run without RT support.

RT means developers don't have to waste time on lighting, GPU does it for you. Correct lightning and less work for devs. RT is here to stay and eventually it will become a must have.

AMD GPUs are cheaper for a reason, if they were actually better, they would be selling in much bigger numbers. They need to have aggressive pricing to even make people consider buying them and yet most people don't anyway. Why? Because they want great features, good support/drivers and overall better performance. This is not worth saving a few bucks for. The savings are wasted on power over time anyway, because AMD has worse performance per watt. And like I said earlier, when you actually sell the card later, you get way less money back from an AMD card. All this means that AMD GPU is not really cheaper. You pay less on initial buy maybe, but tocal cost of ownership is not really higher with Nvidia and you have less issues when you use it as well + better features.

I would argue with that. Features are only good if the raw performance is there, and I actually do prefer AMD's driver. Nvidia's menu layout is outdated and overcrowded (3D settings menu, ugh), and unnecessarily restrictive with overclocking. Other than that, I agree.

Raw performance is there. Thats why they have the fastest GPU in the world, without even using the full die. And what is raw performance? Rasterization only? Nah. A GPU in 2024 should have much more than just simple raster perf. Features matter and will matter ALOT for longevity as well.

I am talking about actual game support, WHQL drivers in time for NEW games and BETA titles. Nvidia always have them ready and AMD does not. They don't have the manpower to focus on all releases, which is why they spend most time optimizing games thats getting used in reviews. When you leave these titles, AMD performance takes a dive in most games. Nvidia performs much better overall - when looking at the big picture - and you will have less issues in new games. Most developers optimize and tweak for Nvidia because 80+% of the PC gaming market uses Nvidia GPU.

I don't think AMDs control panel looks good and alot of features listed are gimmick and beta features. They don't actally work in reality. Nvidia CP is tested and tried, has tons of options if you actually know how to use it.

I use Afterburner for Undervolt and OC, would never use the control panel to do it. It's too simple. Including AMDs. You can overclock in Nvidia Experience, and Experience is aimed at lesser technical users as well.

 

[the54thvoid]

I just wrote a big post and realised it was all OT. (I just deleted it).

If you can't speak about the OP topic, don't waste time posting huge replies.

 

[Vayra86]

I had a 3700X and 16GB with a 2080ti.

I upgraded to a 4070ti. The fps improvement was there but dipped all the time.

I further upgraded to a 7800X3D and 32GB. Night and day. at least a 20% increase in fps (with the same 4070ti.)

Mostly from the CPU, i think, but the extra RAM likely helped.

Point being - the 3600 is going to hold back most GPU upgrades.

So does a 8700K like I have right now, with a 7900XT on it.

And yet, everything runs royally above 60 FPS unless its a major CPU hog.
I want an X3D system, but I have to be honest: the necessity is precisely zero. Sure, some games, and especially even some specific games I play, will be performing a LOT better. I'll get more than 30% boosts more often than not. But need? Nope.

Its a perfect time and situation to wait on a good/better price on 7800X3D with 32GB of DDR5. You can save a bit of money now and get a 5800X3D instead, but then you're spending money on a platform and DDR4 that is EOL.