New rtx 5070

[AusWolf]

Do not buy LGA 1700 unless you can get a 13900/14900K(S) for cheap. It's a dead end platform, you should buy either Ryzen 7000/9000 series processor or if sticking to Intel, the new Core Ultra processor on LGA 1851 instead (Core Ultra 7 265K or 9 285K). They are the current generation "15th Gen" processor.

If you are going to play Flight Simulator, you will probably want to buy a Ryzen 7 9800X3D (currently hard to get, don't overpay for it) or 7800X3D processor. It reacts massively to AMD's 3D cache technology. 7800X3D is probably the wisest pick of the bunch right now.

Why is everything that's not the latest and greatest suddenly a "dead end" platform? Just because no new CPUs are being made for a socket, it doesn't mean one can't be happy with the performance they're getting.

Other than that, I agree, the 7800 or 9800X3D are the best choice for gaming right now.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

It has high RAM and bandwidth requirements because it basically streams world data in real time from the Microsoft cloud. It can use even more memory and more bandwidth than this. 8C X3D still heavily preferred for this sim, afaik the extra cores aren't necessary. Chips like 7900X3D or upcoming 9900X3D with 6+63D topology are not gonna measure up (AMD should really just have discontinued this)

Yes in the spirit of this thread but CPUs are using for much more tasks than playing of the m$ flight simulator.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Why is everything that's not the latest and greatest suddenly a "dead end" platform? Just because no new CPUs are being made for a socket, it doesn't mean one can't be happy with the performance they're getting.

Other than that, I agree, the 7800 or 9800X3D are the best choice for gaming right now.

I mean, because it is, your upgrade potential over time is a net zero. If you are spending on a motherboard, ensuring you get some extra mileage out of it is not a bad idea

 

[AusWolf]

I mean, because it is, your upgrade potential over time is a net zero. If you are spending on a motherboard, ensuring you get some extra mileage out of it is not a bad idea

I get where you're coming from, but I'd say it's not as important as people think.

For example, if you bought an LGA-1700 platform with Alder Lake, the fastest CPU you could upgrade to is a Raptor Lake refresh, which isn't a massive jump, not really worth spending money on, imo.
On the other hand, if you buy Raptor Lake refresh now, you can probably skip LGA-1851 altogether, and just upgrade your platform to whatever comes next.

The picture is slightly different on AMD - if you bought a Ryzen 1000 or 2000, then a 5700X3D or 5950X is a massive jump.
Although, I'm not sure if AM5 is gonna end up being as future-proof as AM4 was. There are speculations of Zen 6 being the last generation of CPUs on it.

 

[Ruru]

For example, if you bought an LGA-1700 platform with Alder Lake, the fastest CPU you could upgrade to is a Raptor Lake refresh, which isn't a massive jump, not really worth spending money on, imo.
On the other hand, if you buy Raptor Lake refresh now, you can probably skip LGA-1851 altogether, and just upgrade your platform to whatever comes next.

I just wouldn't get a Raptor myself since even after all those fixes, the processors are still more or less faulty by design

For reliability, 12900K(S) is the wisest CPU on that platform in my opinion.

 

[AusWolf]

I just wouldn't get a Raptor myself since even after all those fixes, the processors are still more or less faulty by design

For reliability, 12900K(S) is the wisest CPU on that platform in my opinion.

I agree, but that's a different matter altogether.

 

[Macro Device]

@Dr. Dro, CPUs are more stagnant than GPUs. One could buy an i7-8700K seven years ago and still be fine in most games today. Sure, AM4 X3D CPUs are a much better fit for gaming than anything LGA1151 but both options are being outclassed by semi-basic solutions of today, namely Ryzen 9600 and i5-14400. And these aren't significantly more expensive.

So instead of wondering if your mobo will allow you enough juice a decade later you can just enjoy the best bang per buck for today and when it's not enough bang just sell your old platform altogether and get something fresh, also receiving not yet existing features such as possible USB 5.0, Thunderbolt Extreme, DP 2.2 on integrated graphics or whatever.

Can you tell 12900K and 14900K apart in gaming? In almost all games, without proper FPS counter, I really doubt that. Same goes to 9800X3D VS 7800X3D. Sure, the former is better but do you really notice the difference without Fraps showing you the exact number? Not really, at least not always.

AM4 was and still is a statistical outlier. AMD are no charity, they will never do it again, unless they go semi-bankrupt again. With Intel helping out by screwing up majorly I don't see a reason for upcoming AM5 CPUs to utterly destroy whatever we got on the market already. Not likely to happen.

I'd still recommend going for a 9800X3D but not because of platform longevity but because there's nothing better for flying simulators period.

 

[Ruru]

@Dr. Dro, CPUs are more stagnant than GPUs. One could buy an i7-8700K seven years ago and still be fine in most games today. Sure, AM4 X3D CPUs are a much better fit for gaming than anything LGA1151 but both options are being outclassed by semi-basic solutions of today, namely Ryzen 9600 and i5-14400. And these aren't significantly more expensive.

So instead of wondering if your mobo will allow you enough juice a decade later you can just enjoy the best bang per buck for today and when it's not enough bang just sell your old platform altogether and get something fresh, also receiving not yet existing features such as possible USB 5.0, Thunderbolt Extreme, DP 2.2 on integrated graphics or whatever.

Can you tell 12900K and 14900K apart in gaming? In almost all games, without proper FPS counter, I really doubt that. Same goes to 9800X3D VS 7800X3D. Sure, the former is better but do you really notice the difference without Fraps showing you the exact number? Not really, at least not always.

AM4 was and still is a statistical outlier. AMD are no charity, they will never do it again, unless they go semi-bankrupt again. With Intel helping out by screwing up majorly I don't see a reason for upcoming AM5 CPUs to utterly destroy whatever we got on the market already. Not likely to happen.

I'd still recommend going for a 9800X3D but not because of platform longevity but because there's nothing better for flying simulators period.

Depends of the resolution as well. With 4K, my 5800X doesn't need to shame (at least much) next to modern fast CPUs.

 

[Sacwarrior]

Do not buy LGA 1700 unless you can get a 13900/14900K(S) for cheap. It's a dead end platform, you should buy either Ryzen 7000/9000 series processor or if sticking to Intel, the new Core Ultra processor on LGA 1851 instead (Core Ultra 7 265K or 9 285K). They are the current generation "15th Gen" processor.

If you are going to play Flight Simulator, you will probably want to buy a Ryzen 7 9800X3D (currently hard to get, don't overpay for it) or 7800X3D processor. It reacts massively to AMD's 3D cache technology. 7800X3D is probably the wisest pick of the bunch right now.

Thank you

 

[Krit]

It looks like RTX 5070 outside of DLSS4 will be slower than RTX 4070 Ti 12GB overall. RTX 5080 is even worse! So that's why huang lowered prices.

NVIDIA official GeForce RTX 50 vs. RTX 40 benchmarks: 15% to 33% performance uplift without DLSS Multi-Frame Generation - VideoCardz.com

NVIDIA shows more RTX 50 performance figures The next-generation GPU architecture explained a bit more. NVIDIA has disclosed new performance figures for the RTX 50 series, including non-DLSS benchmarks. Unfortunately, those looking for non-ray tracing, pure raster performance data will have to...

videocardz.com

 

[Macro Device]

It looks like RTX 5070 outside of DLSS4 will be slower than RTX 4070 Ti 12GB overall.

Not unexpected. 48 SM VS 60, can't really compensate for that without going for radical architectural improvements.

RTX 5080 is even worse!

Even if the most optimistic performance numbers for 9070 XT come true it's still not faster than a 4080. Why does 5080 need to be much better than that is unknown. It's a league of its own. 7900 XTX is already not better than 4080 to begin with.

What really is curious is how does this 33+ % VRAM bandwidth increase translate into performance at 4K. I can almost guarantee the 4070 Ti will beat 5070 at 1080p and will lose at 4K at the same time.

 

[Krit]

Even if the most optimistic performance numbers for 9070 XT come true it's still not faster than a 4080.

All depends on prices because nvidia gpus are priced too aggressively at least for now. RTX 4080 Super starts at ~ 1053€ where i live.

If RX 9070 XT manages to be only ~10% slower than RTX 4080 on average for 549€ than there are no competition at all AMD just will KO nvidia (simple math)

 

[Dr. Dro]

All depends on prices because nvidia gpus are priced too aggressively at least for now. RTX 4080 Super starts at ~ 1053€ where i live.

If RX 9070 XT manages to be only ~10% slower than RTX 4080 on average for 549€ than there are no competition at all AMD just will KO nvidia (simple math)

Reality: NV card will outsell it by maybe 5 to 1 instead of 10 to 1 lol

And that, of course, assumes the 5070 does not keep up

 

[Krit]

Reality: NV card will outsell it by maybe 5 to 1 instead of 10 to 1 lol

That's their personal issue (buyers).... As long as AMD delivers good price to performance ratio there are no reason to not buy it.

 

[Dr. Dro]

That's their personal issue (buyers).... As long as AMD delivers good price to performance ratio there are no reason to not buy it.

Then, these buyers will learn that raw performance is not everything and will never buy an AMD GPU again. Tale old as time.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

That's their personal issue (buyers).... As long as AMD delivers good price to performance ratio there are no reason to not buy it.

The issue for amd is they need to be better at everything if all it beats the 5070 in is raster performance but it worse at everything else while being priced within 10% nobody is going to buy it but die hard amd fanboys.

They need a clearly superior product not a situationally better ones to compete its just the reality of the current market.

 

[Krit]

Then, these buyers will learn that raw performance is not everything and will never buy an AMD GPU again. Tale old as time.

I already bought RX 7800 XT and RX 7900 XT instead of RTX 4070 Vanilla and RTX 4070 Ti 12GB. Before than I was using nvidia flat out for ~ 14.5 years when it was at least somewhat good at price/performance. RTX 40 Series was complete crap let's see what RTX 50 series will offer this time.

 

[freeagent]

RTX 40 Series was complete crap let's see what RTX 50 series will offer this time.

Its better than the 10, 20, and 30 series lol..

 

[AusWolf]

Even if the most optimistic performance numbers for 9070 XT come true it's still not faster than a 4080. Why does 5080 need to be much better than that is unknown. It's a league of its own. 7900 XTX is already not better than 4080 to begin with.

Because the 4080 (Super), 5080 and 7900 XTX are $1,000 MSRP cards ($1,200 in case of the vanilla 4080), while the 9070 XT is rumoured to cost around half of that.

 

[Krit]

Because the 4080 (Super), 5080 and 7900 XTX are $1,000 MSRP cards ($1,200 in case of the vanilla 4080), while the 9070 XT is rumoured to cost around half of that.

Even if msrp is the same nvidia still will be more expensive! That's how it works when buyers are riding on those hype horses, fake frames and fake latency (which is the most critical thing)

 

[Sound_Card]

It looks like RTX 5070 outside of DLSS4 will be slower than RTX 4070 Ti 12GB overall. RTX 5080 is even worse! So that's why huang lowered prices.

NVIDIA official GeForce RTX 50 vs. RTX 40 benchmarks: 15% to 33% performance uplift without DLSS Multi-Frame Generation - VideoCardz.com

NVIDIA shows more RTX 50 performance figures The next-generation GPU architecture explained a bit more. NVIDIA has disclosed new performance figures for the RTX 50 series, including non-DLSS benchmarks. Unfortunately, those looking for non-ray tracing, pure raster performance data will have to...

videocardz.com

Ouch. No wonder Nvidia only talked about conceptual frames at CES.

 

[Mindweaver]

The 10850K is a CPU from 2020 so a 5070 shouldn't be too bottlenecked imo, and even less with MFG since the frames will be added by the GPU anyway...

I have to disagree. When I upgraded from a 12700k to my current 14700k my performance increase was great. It gave me better fps, and higher average fps overall. One of my Nephews has the same 4070 Ti but with an intel gen 10 i7 and my fps is much better than his overall. I would not buy a new 5070. I would update my system first then worry about a new GPU.

EDIT: I see I'm late to the party. A lot of members have already stated this. lol

 

[x4it3n]

I have to disagree. When I upgraded from a 12700k to my current 14700k my performance increase was great. It gave me better fps, and higher average fps overall. One of my Nephews has the same 4070 Ti but with an intel gen 10 i7 and my fps is much better than his overall. I would not buy a new 5070. I would update my system first then worry about a new GPU.

EDIT: I see I'm late to the party. A lot of members have already stated this. lol

I didn't say there would be "no bottleneck at all", I said "the 5070 shouldn't be too bottlenecked". Also it depends if someone plays at 1080p, 1440p or 4K. I usually play at 4K unless my fps are too low then I use DLSS Quality.
Also the 10850K is a "K" CPU so he can Overclock it since they were made for that. Until last November I had a 5900X and a 4090 and wasn't too bottlenecked (I have a 9800X3D now so I saw a slight fps bump but not too crazy either since I mostly play at 4K or 4L DLSS Quality).

 

[ShrimpBrime]

I didn't say there would be "no bottleneck at all", I said "the 5070 shouldn't be too bottlenecked". Also it depends if someone plays at 1080p, 1440p or 4K. I usually play at 4K unless my fps are too low then I use DLSS Quality.
Also the 10850K is a "K" CPU so he can Overclock it since they were made for that. Until last November I had a 5900X and a 4090 and wasn't too bottlenecked (I have a 9800X3D now so I saw a slight fps bump but not too crazy either since I mostly play at 4K or 4L DLSS Quality).

Wouldn't be horrible. About the same as like 5600X or 12400F, but just a little slower...

But if he jumped to like 9000 AMD cpu, looking at 50%+ system performance gains over what he's got. That's a decent jump.

I would do platform first, card later. The 3090 he's got will then hit the FPS it should and he might not need a card right away. Just depends on desires vs expectations.

 

[Mindweaver]

I didn't say there would be "no bottleneck at all", I said "the 5070 shouldn't be too bottlenecked". Also it depends if someone plays at 1080p, 1440p or 4K. I usually play at 4K unless my fps are too low then I use DLSS Quality.
Also the 10850K is a "K" CPU so he can Overclock it since they were made for that. Until last November I had a 5900X and a 4090 and wasn't too bottlenecked (I have a 9800X3D now so I saw a slight fps bump but not too crazy either since I mostly play at 4K or 4L DLSS Quality).

That's fair, but by your logic he should be happy with his 3090 because he can overclock his 3090 even though it's an older card. I like how you are trying to justify your "it's good enough" by explaining what the K stands for.. Did you notice the K in my specs.. I pretty sure I know what the K means. We haven't even got the first review for the 5070 yet and your trying to sell it. Again I would upgrade my system first if I was on a gen 10 intel i7... Also, gen = generation and even with a K that's a dated processor. Like others have stated by him upgrading his system he would see better performance with his 3090. That's still a great card.