i7-7700k upgrade to 5700X3D worth it?

[ShrimpBrime]

7700k gonna get D slapped by 5700X3D. 1070 gonna get D slapped by 3060ti. Already has the board.....

We should read from OP next, ok guys ordered the gear, will be here Wednesday.

Going to be a "game changer"!!

 

[DAPUNISHER]

My kid is using my 5600X and 3070Ti, I have the boost capped to 4800MHz, and honestly for 1080/60 its pretty decent. GPU is at stock clocks..

Both components get a lot of hate, they don't do the best in benches, but it games just fine.

5600X is great for vast majority of games. It bottlenecked my A750LE in some games. It hit the wall using some ray tracing in CPU heavy games too. Gotham Knights, Spiderman games, Cyberpunk with max crowds and traffic all kicked it in the jimmy using a RX 7800XT. It's over 4yrs old now and starting to show its age.

Daniel-San has a good example. Video is time stamped -

 

[mkppo]

mkppo asked for a benchmark run, so I ran it. Could do a benchmark when I get new parts as well.

This is Helldivers 2, 1440p medium settings, one of the games I want to upgrade my PC for, but it runs horrible right now, left a onedrive link to the performance log below. It seems like the GPU is the main culprit holding me back right?

Performance_Log

Note, I am at the start of the game, doing one of the early missions. I am sure the game gets much more intensive later on with large swarms of bugs and playing online with multiple people.
There is some kind of FSR performance settings, if I put that on I can hit 50-55ish FPS but the game looks like a blurry mess.

Thanks, now put that 5700X3D on if you decide to get it, put the correct memory settings and run the same test. I'd expect better 1% lows even with your current GPU

 

[jormungand]

oh btw @frogmonkey, welcome to the club, i hope you enjoy your upgrade.

 

[docnorth]

In the newest games? Are you sure? (I'm not being sarcastic, this is a genuine question out of curiosity)

No idea, only checked TPU review. But you know what was said about opinions, everybody has one. Mine is to upgrade only GPU for now, which provides also a higher budget for a 1440p card, and decide later for the (needed) CPU upgrade. 5700x3d is still a very good gaming CPU, but in my country costs more than double as e.g. a 5600(x) and 40-50% more than 5700x.

 

[AusWolf]

This video might be worth watching.

 

[JustBenching]

my advice, i had the same system. In fact my son is using it.
GET RID OF THE 7700K !!!!!
DONT KEEP IT, IS BOTTLENECK!!!!!! 1440p yes yes and yes i a freaking bottleneck!!!! i made threads here on that
i upgraded the 1070 to 2070 super AND BOTTLENECK!!!!!
7700k + 2070 super then 3440x1440p same crap, BOTTLENECK!!!

I had to delid the cpu, OC to 5ghz, it helped me a little on the run but once i swapped to 5600x
was day and night.
like it was day and night from my 5600x to my 5800x3D.

get the 5700x3d, or sell everything and try to get a deal on cpu+mobo+ram with a 7700X (if) you have that opportunity with a microcenter nearby

IMO dont keep the 7700K whatever gpu you buy will be a bottleneck.

1- Get the 5700x3d + a new gpu

With a 2070s, at 1440p ultrawide you saw a difference between a 5600x and a 5800x 3d. Bro, come on now.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

This video might be worth watching.

Iceberg has a better test suite and the 6700K at 4.5GHz is a great stand in for the 7700K. TLDW = You are not getting a smooth gaming experience in modern AAA with a 4/8 CPU.

 

[Sh1nta@]

If you already have an AM4 Motherboard then the 5700x3d is an excellent cpu that you can put on it. 8 cores/16 threads/X3D. It's a sweet spot and there is no real discussion.

On the other hand for the gpu try to aim for a card with more than 8GB of Vram. Just to have an optimal upgrade.
The 3060 exists in 12GB I believe but the price will "a little" go up but you will have a better margin of maneuver.
Even if you consider it as a minor upgrade while waiting to put much more in a few years it will piss you off if you have the cpu and gpu power but not the amount of vram even after optimizing your game.
This is the thing that will ruin your whole config if you are not careful.

 

[mkppo]

If you already have an AM4 Motherboard then the 5700x3d is an excellent cpu that you can put on it. 8 cores/16 threads/X3D. It's a sweet spot and there is no real discussion.

On the other hand for the gpu try to aim for a card with more than 8GB of Vram. Just to have an optimal upgrade.
The 3060 exists in 12GB I believe but the price will "a little" go up but you will have a better margin of maneuver.
Even if you consider it as a minor upgrade while waiting to put much more in a few years it will piss you off if you have the cpu and gpu power but not the amount of vram even after optimizing your game.
This is the thing that will ruin your whole config if you are not careful.

I would steer clear of the vanilla 3060, 3060ti with 8GB is better than the 3060 12GB. That thing doesn't even have the grunt to make use of 8GB let alone 12. Only reason nvidia gave it 12GB was because 6 would've raised some eyebrows.

6700XT seems like the best bet IMO.

Iceberg has a better test suite and the 6700K at 4.5GHz is a great stand in for the 7700K. TLDW = You are not getting a smooth gaming experience in modern AAA with a 4/8 CPU.

That's a great comparison/no BS video. 5600X looks like a A+ god tier gaming CPU in this video lol. The 1% lows basically confirm what I said earlier - quad cores are just not enough if you want a well rounded gaming system that can generally handle whatever game you throw at it. But if you pick and choose and only play games that run fine on 4 cores, sure you can drag it a few more years.

Remember that when you're GPU limited, you can reduce game settings. If you're CPU limited, you generally need to buy a CPU.

 

[dirtyferret]

Does anyone know if anyone has done any tests on the 7700K with 2024 games?

8600k/9600k had similar performances to the 7700k and this test was done in 2023

AMD Ryzen 5 3600 vs. Intel Core i5-9600K: 2023 Revisit

Let's revisit the gaming performance of two budget CPUs from years past: the Ryzen 5 3600 and Core i5-9600K to see how they compare in today's games...

www.techspot.com

Both components get a lot of hate, they don't do the best in benches, but it games just fine.

probably higher performance than more than 50% of PC gamers and if you are having fun gaming (or your kid is) then it works

 

[mkppo]

8600k/9600k had similar performances to the 7700k and this test was done in 2023

AMD Ryzen 5 3600 vs. Intel Core i5-9600K: 2023 Revisit

Let's revisit the gaming performance of two budget CPUs from years past: the Ryzen 5 3600 and Core i5-9600K to see how they compare in today's games...

www.techspot.com

probably higher performance than more than 50% of PC gamers and if you are having fun gaming (or your kid is) then it works

8600K/9600K weren't quad core, 6 cores still do the job

 

[JustBenching]

Grab the 3060ti, use it on your 7700k then proceed with upgrading your CPU if the need is there. If the games you wanna play aren't particular core heavy your 7700k will still be surprisingly fast.

 

[dirtyferret]

I would like to say quads are ok, but even after seeing some of the fastest modern quads, I would avoid using one in 2025 if I could.

not advocating for 4c/8t and the majority of the people on this forum have better performing CPUs anyways but W1zzard got pretty good performance out of the i3-14100 in his test

The 14100 is actually a very capable gaming CPU, which can be paired with any graphics card—it will run 1440p and 4K just fine. If you look at our results, take a look at the 11600K, which is an older 6-core design—the 14100 easily keeps up with that, even in minimum FPS

Arc B580 seems to be perfect for my price range and has 12GB vram, but this card does seem to have issues when running on older CPU's and some other stuff.

the 5700X3D is a modern CPU and would keep the B580 towards its full potential although some of the games you mentioned, WoW and Path of the Exile 2 will run fine the RTX 3060 8GB

8600K/9600K weren't quad core, 6 cores still do the job

people who have no clue to what they are talking about talk about cores, people who understand game engines talk about CPU performance

educate yourself

In short, core count (within reason) doesn't matter for gaming; what really matters is overall CPU performance.

 

[SL2]

Yes, it's 2020 games with a 2080 Ti. The world has changed since then. Does anyone know if anyone has done any tests on the 7700K with 2024 games?

You're just repeating me lol

Chances are that the OP won't get a substantially faster card than that given the budget, which means GPU limitation is more likely at 1440.

Yeah, 4 cores is weak and new games are more demanding now, but a new GPU for more $ is the better first step, rather than trying to buy both, splitting the budget between them. New CPU can wait.

$230 5700X3D plus a GPU for whatever remains in the budget is not a balanced plan.

 

[mkppo]

people who have no clue to what they are talking about talk about cores, people who understand game engines talk about CPU performance

educate yourself

In short, core count (within reason) doesn't matter for gaming; what really matters is overall CPU performance.

What's with the unwanted aggression? Jeez man. I merely pointed out the fact that you linked a 6 core CPU when we were talking about quad core CPU's being inadequate. See my link below on how the 7700K > 8600K scaling sort of looks like. I've read the article you linked ages ago and it's not even relevant except a part where steve says "in short, CPU performance matters and not core count" which is stating the obvious.

Sure, all that matters is the gaming performance of the CPU regardless of core count. But if you see the linked articles in the benchmark, some games struggle massively with 4 cores with the main issue being 1% lows. If you take a 20 game average, 19 of them might be close enough but that one game will be a stutterfest. Hence why I said it's still fine if you pick and choose your games and know it won't struggle with 4 cores. Now if there was a 9400X3D with insane clocks, cache and what not, it might easily be faster than most hex cores on the market for most games. But even with that there's no way to tell if a particular game engines will make it struggle/stutter. Some simulation games come to mind.

I linked an article earlier as well where none of the games are that kill quads are present but still paints an interesting picture - HUB

 

[nomdeplume]

I'm just glad that OP listed something beyond generic system specs. So we could leave any further expectations of them responding or being impacted far behind.

Best of luck with your new build @frogmonkey

 

[JustBenching]

What's with the unwanted aggression? Jeez man. I merely pointed out the fact that you linked a 6 core CPU when we were talking about quad core CPU's being inadequate. See my link below on how the 7700K > 8600K scaling sort of looks like. I've read the article you linked ages ago and it's not even relevant except a part where steve says "in short, CPU performance matters and not core count" which is stating the obvious

Number of cores is irrelevant. What people generally mean when they are talking about more cores needed for gaming is more overall performance. The 10900k is faster than the i5 7600k in games, and that's not really because it has more cores, it's because it has more performance. Core count is an issue only when it comes to the performance overhead of switching threads, but that wouldn't be a big issue on the 7700k since it has 8 threads. The 7700k should be as fast / faster than the 9600k at same clocks cause the 6 threads on the i5 part might be an issue.

 

[mkppo]

Number of cores is irrelevant. What people generally mean when they are talking about more cores needed for gaming is more overall performance. The 10900k is faster than the i5 7600k in games, and that's not really because it has more cores, it's because it has more performance. Core count is an issue only when it comes to the performance overhead of switching threads, but that wouldn't be a big issue on the 7700k since it has 8 threads. The 7700k should be as fast / faster than the 9600k at same clocks cause the 6 threads on the i5 part might be an issue.

It's not irrelevant within reason because there's obvious gains to be had with the same CPU and going from 4 to 8 cores at the same speed - see the article I linked. Obviously games stop scaling after a certain point depending on the game engine. I'm not saying it's unwise to get anything less than 8 cores. What i'm saying is some games are bottlenecked by less than 6 cores now and it's been demonstrated in the links provided in this thread.

I'd also argue it's preferable to get 6 cores without HT than 4 with HT for games within the same generation. Edit: Found a link too, see 4:50 onwards for 9600k vs 7700k. See the 1% lows. It's a lot worse than that for some games. - random link

 

[dirtyferret]

What's with the unwanted aggression? Jeez man.

there is no aggression

I merely pointed out the fact that you linked a 6 core CPU

yes since no professional site is going to go back that far with old hardware so the closest I could find was a 2023 test with CPUs that were in the same ballpark of performance hence why I said it

some games struggle massively with 4 cores with the main issue being 1% lows.

as do some games with 6c/6t CPUs, neither here nor there with anything I've said

I linked an article earlier as well where none of the games are that kill quads are present but still paints an interesting picture - HUB

HuB and techspot are the exact same message, Steve from your video is the author of the article I linked so the message would be the exact same

It's not irrelevant within reason because there's obvious gains to be had with the same CPU and going from 4 to 8 cores at the same speed

then the performance would be different, what @JustBenching stated went right over your head. Read the article I linked.

 

[mkppo]

there is no aggression

yes since no professional site is going to go back that far with old hardware so the closest I could find was a 2023 test with CPUs that were in the same ballpark of performance hence why I said it

as do some games with 6c/6t CPUs, neither here nor there with anything I've said

HuB and techspot are the exact same message, Steve from your video is the author of the article I linked so the message would be the exact same

then the performance would be different, what @JustBenching stated went right over your head. Read the article I linked.

Hmm sounded pretty aggressive to me. Maybe it's just the way you communicate but it sounded condescending af. I'll ignore it.

I know HUB and techspot are the same, I linked a different article from HUB, not the text version of the video you linked.

I replied to Justbenching with an article that also demonstrates the bottleneck of quad cores. Maybe you need to have a look at the articles I posted instead. 9600x>7700k, 6 cores without HT has much better 1% lows than a quad with HT. Same clock speed. See where i'm getting at?

And no, no, the simulation games which kill quads are better on 6 cores and much better on 8. But I don't even have to dig those games up because even regular AAA titles are showing the same, but to a less extent.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

not advocating for 4c/8t and the majority of the people on this forum have better performing CPUs anyways but W1zzard got pretty good performance out of the i3-14100 in his test

The 14100 is actually a very capable gaming CPU, which can be paired with any graphics card—it will run 1440p and 4K just fine. If you look at our results, take a look at the 11600K, which is an older 6-core design—the 14100 easily keeps up with that, even in minimum FPS


the 5700X3D is a modern CPU and would keep the B580 towards its full potential although some of the games you mentioned, WoW and Path of the Exile 2 will run fine the RTX 3060 8GB


people who have no clue to what they are talking about talk about cores, people who understand game engines talk about CPU performance

educate yourself

In short, core count (within reason) doesn't matter for gaming; what really matters is overall CPU performance.

W1z isn't the only one with a 14100F.

For a quad core, it's pretty fast. I ran Cyber Punkt 2378 on it just fine. Was not the same fps as a high clocked 14700K, but very totally playable. Enough to drive my Super Duper 4070 in fact.

But its not a great suggestion unfortunately. It's completely locked. System Agent is less than 1v. Makes it difficult to get memory frequency past 6000mhz. Some systems will, mine did not.

So the 14100F lacks key features to call it good for a gaming PC, though it would suffice at 100$ in a tight pinch I would believe.

 

[JustBenching]

It's not irrelevant within reason because there's obvious gains to be had with the same CPU and going from 4 to 8 cores at the same speed - see the article I linked. Obviously games stop scaling after a certain point depending on the game engine. I'm not saying it's unwise to get anything less than 8 cores. What i'm saying is some games are bottlenecked by less than 6 cores now and it's been demonstrated in the links provided in this thread.

I'd also argue it's preferable to get 6 cores without HT than 4 with HT for games within the same generation. Edit: Found a link too, see 4:50 onwards for 9600k vs 7700k. See the 1% lows. It's a lot worse than that for some games. - random link

Your link is testing games. That and every similar channel are just fake. So don't pay any attention.

Look, I don't know what the exact sweetspot is for number of threads in regards to context switching, but cores themselves are irrelevant when it comes to gaming performance. Actually, scrap the gaming part, it's irrelevant to any kind of performance. What matters is the overall "horsepower" (for lack of a better word) of the CPU and having enough threads (not cores, threads) to avoid the penalty of switching threads. Which means, 6c/6t and 4c/8t with the same overall performance (say CBR23 score) should perform identical in games with a slight lead for the 8t part.

 

[dirtyferret]

I replied to Justbenching with an article that also demonstrates the bottleneck of quad cores. Maybe you need to have a look at the articles I posted instead. 9600x>7700k, 6 cores without HT has much better 1% lows than a quad with HT

1) I already said if it was me I'd go with the 5700X3D
2) I don't see where @JustBenching said the 7700k was not going to be bottlnecked. He stated a different path because of the older games (not the path I would go) but I don't see him saying not to upgrade the CPU at all "use it on your 7700k then proceed with upgrading your CPU if the need is there."
3) I posted an article with 6c/6t running into some issues. For the most part the 8600k & 7700k offered similar performance across tests suites. The 9600k was a slightly faster 8600k but otherwise the same CPU. Will there be some games that run better on 6c/6t than 4c/8t and vice versa? Sure, you can always cherry pick games.

 

[chrcoluk]

You will deffo feel 7700K to 5700X3D. Go for it. Ignore the stuff about dead end, that doesnt matter, what matters is if the upgrade works for you at a price you want.