Upgrade AM4 CPU or go for Intel 1700?

[SL2]

According to TPU -

the €200 5600X is 14 % faster than the 3600X,

the €300 5800X is 16 % faster than the 3600X,

while the >€500 5800X3D is 25 % faster than the 3600X,

(tested with a 3080, 1440p)

The 5600X gives the best bang for buck, and the 5800X3D is the fastest. The 5800X makes least sense here, compared to the 5600X.

Shouldn't the extra cache in the 5800X3D make even more of a difference on a PCIe 3.0 system, at least in theory? As in the extra cache compensating for the lower bandwidth? Haven't seen any PCIe 3.0 tests for that one.

 

[Deleted member 202104]

On one hand you say this:

It's been proving with the 6800s and 3080s and above see barely a 5% difference when using PCIe 3.0 vs PCIe 4.0. So how is potential wasted when there wouldn't even be a 5FPS difference.

But then you say this:

Why not get the best of the best if budget permits

OP already has a top of the line GPU, It wouldn't make sense not to pair it with the best possible CPU he can get.

Make up your mind.

 

[Space Lynx]

According to TPU -

the €200 5600X is 14 % faster than the 3600X,

the €300 5800X is 16 % faster than the 3600X,

while the >€500 5800X3D is 25 % faster than the 3600X,

(tested with a 3080)

The 5600X gives the best bang for buck, and the 5800X3D is the fastest. The 5800X makes least sense here, compared to the 5600X.

Shouldn't the extra cache in the 5800X3D make even more of a difference on a PCIe 3.0 system, at least in theory? As in the extra cache compensating for the lower bandwidth? Haven't seen any PCIe 3.0 tests for that one.

depends how long he wants this build to last... i say go for the 5800x3d, the way the world is going... it may be your last chance to get a good rig. take care of it and enjoy the gaming mate

but if you truly are on a budget, i'd say get the 5600x.

 

[Durvelle27]

On one hand you say this:



But then you say this:



Make up your mind.

Now you just grasping at straws

So you compare a statement that PCIe 3.0 vs PCIe 4.0 shows little to no performance difference vs a CPU that will increase his performance over 25%

 

[OliverQueen]

I am considering almost the same thing. In the next couple of months I want to replace the motherboard & CPU in my current machine, and was weighing up between 12th Gen (12900K) & the 5950X. I am leaning towards the 5950X to be honest, purely because the extra cost for the CPU will be returned in savings in electricity over the next year or two (I tend to upgrade my Mobo/CPU every 3-4 years). I know that AM4 is EOL but it has been around longer than Socket1700. I know I could undervolt the 12th gen to save some power consumption but my calculations show that it will still be pulling a lot more power than the 5950X in the same tasks for not a lot more performance. Also the AM4 platform is mature & most, if not all, the known "bugs" & issues have been resolved.

I was also considering waiting for AM5 but that would definitely mean replacing the RAM that I already have (I have a 32MB DDR4 kit that will be put back into the existing board on transplanting in to a new case & the 64MB kit from this system used with the new system) for DDR5 which will add another cost into the equation & not a small one at that.

Going to read through this thread carefully along with future posts made after this one.

 

[SL2]

a CPU that will increase his performance over 30%

Are you referring to gaming at 1080 or lower?

 

[Durvelle27]

Are you referring to gaming at 1080 or lower?

1440P obliviously

I meant 25%+ but lets not forget the OP has a 3600 not a 3600X. Which is still slower than a 3600X


This is not about best bang for buck. This is getting the max performance for the cost. OP has a budget of 500 EURO which affords him a 5800X3D which is easily the fastest Ryzen processor currently available on AM4. Which would have better longevity as well

 

[R0H1T]

The 5600X gives the best bang for buck, and the 5800X3D is the fastest.

I'd argue 5700x (in all tasks) but I don't know what's the pricing for that everywhere else around the world though it's a lot more "future" proof.

 

[HD64G]

In your shoes I would go for one of the 3 CPUs below depending to my pocket's weight:
5600
5700X
5800X3D

 

[lexluthermiester]

Are you referring to gaming at 1080 or lower?

In the OP, they mentioned 1440p, so no 1080p is not being discussed..

In your shoes I would go for one of the 3 CPUs below depending to my pocket's weight:
5600
5700X
5800X3D

A 5600 would be more of a sidegrade than an upgrade from the OP's 3600 and not worth the money being spend.. Similarly, a 5700 has more cores/threads but has lower clocks than the 5600 so it too would be a sidegrade in many games, whereas the 5800X and 5800X3D would be an actual upgrade from a 3600.

 

[SL2]

1440P obliviously

I meant 25%+ but lets not forget the OP has a 3600 not a 3600X. Which is still slower than a 3600X

Yeah, no.
It's 25 % at 1440, simple as that, given that the 5800X3D is 25.6 % faster than the 3300X. CCX count doesn't outweigh thread count in gaming performance.

This is not about best bang for buck.

Neither is my post. I compared some alternatives.

In the OP, they mentioned 1440p, so no 1080p is not being discussed..

You missed my point, I was referring to the 30+ % remark. All my posts have been about 1440p.

5600 would be more of a sidegrade than an upgrade from the OP's 3600 and not worth the money being spend.. Similarly, a 5700 has more cores/threads but has lower clocks than the 5600 so it too would be a sidegrade in many games, whereas the 5800X and 5800X3D would be an actual upgrade from a 3600.

That doesn't make sense. 14 % improvement for €200 is a sidegrade, but 16 % for €300 isn't?

 

[Deleted member 202104]

Yeah, no.
It's 25 % at 1440, simple as that, given that the 5800X3D is 25.6 % faster than the 3300X.

Neither is my post.

You missed my point, I was referring to the 30+ % remark. All my posts have been about 1440p.


That doesn't make sense. 14 % improvement for €200 is a sidegrade, but 16 % for €300 isn't?

It appears that some in this thread aren't reading the reviews from this very site, or even bothering to look at the graphs they post themselves.

/leaves thread

 

[lexluthermiester]

You missed my point, I was referring to the 30+ % remark. All my posts have been about 1440p.

Ah ok, sorry about that.

That doesn't make sense. 14 % improvement for €200 is a sidegrade, but 16 % for €300 isn't?

You're forgetting that was a one graph comparison, overall gaming performance for 1 resolution. IF the OP were to read the entire review a clearer picture would come into view, because some games perform better than others with more cores.

IMHO, the OP should either hang on to what they have for another year or go for the best their board can handle and call it good for 2 or 3 years.

 

[kapone32]

Ah ok, sorry about that.

You're forgetting that was a one graph comparison, overall gaming performance for 1 resolution. IF the OP were to read the entire review a clearer picture would come into view, because some games perform better than others with more cores.

IMHO, the OP should either hang on to what they have for another year or go for the best their board can handle and call it good for 2 or 3 years.

I am planning to get a 5800X3D instead of getting AM5. I saw in one review that you get 40 more FPS at 1440P vs the 5000 series chips in TWWH series which is the Game I play most. Of course that is just my personal thoughts of what to get.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I am planning to get a 5800X3D instead of getting AM5. I saw in one review that you get 40 more FPS at 1440P vs the 5000 series chips in TWWH series which is the Game I play most. Of course that is just my personal thoughts of what to get.

But you have a 5950X already. Why would you get a CPU that has fewer(half) cores/threads? That seems like a serious downgrade to me..

 

[Bones]

OP also stated he rig is only for "Gaming" so none of that matters

When it comes to gaming the 5800X3D is the clear winner in CPU limited games compared to any other Ryzen

Here's the real takeaway from it - At least mine after reading through all this.
If you can tell a difference, let's say from 120FPS to 145FPS then I'd have to say it may be worth it IF actual FPS matters that much to you.
However not everyone can tell such a difference between these framerates.

Here's a little something to read about on the subject: Human Eye FPS: How Much Can We See and Process Visually?

Now - I do know many CAN perceive a difference in how it looks, based on the example I gave above but at the same time it's been said once you reach a framerate of about 150-160FPS it doesn't matter because you can't perceive changes above a certain threshold of FPS viewed.
It differs from person to person in what can be seen and noticed, that's natural but if you're already at 150FPS and it looks fluid, beyond that FPS is just a numbers game and really nothing else.

Useful for benchmarking and scores but that's about it.

Is the additional cost for it to go faster by the numbers alone worth it to you?

In that case it's your call - I mean it is anyway but if paying for something you can't differenciate in a game and that's what your needs are based on, aren't you just wasting money?
Paying extra for something that makes no difference in your personal gaming experience?

I will say what matters isn't max framerates, it's minimum framerates that makes or breaks things in a game.

If you're getting good minimium framerates to the point it still looks fluid then there is really nothing to gain, however I will admit in nearly every case this can be seen or at least noticed.
And what about games in which framerates are capped?
Well.. With a FPS cap in place it may run smoothly but not at the numbers in the charts above.

I'm bringing these points up because they are relevant and may be something to think about beyond simply pointing at numbers/percentages on a chart here.

 

[SL2]

You're forgetting that was a one graph comparison, overall gaming performance for 1 resolution.

Actually no, I'm not forgetting anything here, as the resolution in question has been pointed out by the OP, me, and others throughout the thread.

The OP never asked about other resolutions, or specific games, so I didn't bother speculating about that.

 

[kapone32]

But you have a 5950X already. Why would you get a CPU that has fewer core/threads? That seems like a serious downgrade to me..

I know and it is a beast but the 5800X3D is 40 FPS faster in TWWH2 at 1440P. That is enough for me with 2900+ hours of that Game to justify it. I have plenty of boards sitting around that I could put that into anyway. I also feel that as Gaming continues to have Console and PC integration on AM4 it could be the best you can get. I also want to test it with several GPUs to see if a 6500XT and 5800X3D can rival a PS5 or Xbox1 console in performance.

 

[LifeOnMars]

Definitely 5800X3D, you have a good card, RAM and that processor will push it to the max at 1440p for some lovely gameplay. It will be a very nice setup.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Actually no, I'm not forgetting anything here, as the resolution in question has been pointed out by the OP, me, and others throughout the thread.

The OP never asked about other resolutions, or specific games, so I didn't bother speculating about that.

Ok, that's fair, just be cool though. No one is attacking you. Share your insights and let the OP make up their own mind.

I also want to test it with several GPUs to see if a 6500XT and 5800X3D can rival a PS5 or Xbox1 console in performance.

Why would you care? The point of PC gaming to to exceed that which can be done by consoles. My guess is that an RX6500 would be just shy of a PS5 or XB in the graphic area, regardless of CPU. But that's off-topic..

 

[kapone32]

Why would you care? The point of PC gaming to to exceed that which can be done by consoles. My guess is that an RX6500 would be just shy of a PS5 or XB in the graphic area, regardless of CPU. But that's off-topic..

Curiosity of course.

 

[Durvelle27]

Here's the real takeaway from it - At least mine after reading through all this.
If you can tell a difference, let's say from 120FPS to 145FPS then I'd have to say it may be worth it IF actual FPS matters that much to you.
However not everyone can tell such a difference between these framerates.

Here's a little something to read about on the subject: Human Eye FPS: How Much Can We See and Process Visually?

Now - I do know many CAN perceive a difference in how it looks, based on the example I gave above but at the same time it's been said once you reach a framerate of about 150-160FPS it doesn't matter because you can't perceive changes above a certain threshold of FPS viewed.
It differs from person to person in what can be seen and noticed, that's natural but if you're already at 150FPS and it looks fluid, beyond that FPS is just a numbers game and really nothing else.

Useful for benchmarking and scores but that's about it.

Is the additional cost for it to go faster by the numbers alone worth it to you?

In that case it's your call - I mean it is anyway but if paying for something you can't differenciate in a game and that's what your needs are based on, aren't you just wasting money?
Paying extra for something that makes no difference in your personal gaming experience?

I will say what matters isn't max framerates, it's minimum framerates that makes or breaks things in a game.

If you're getting good minimium framerates to the point it still looks fluid then there is really nothing to gain, however I will admit in nearly every case this can be seen or at least noticed.
And what about games in which framerates are capped?
Well.. With a FPS cap in place it may run smoothly but not at the numbers in the charts above.

I'm bringing these points up because they are relevant and may be something to think about beyond simply pointing at numbers/percentages on a chart here.

Raw numbers just isn't the main key with the 5800X3D. It also has much much better 1% lows which gives a much smoother playback

 

[eidairaman1]

Keep your existing parts and just upgrade the cpu.

 

[QuietBob]

Thank you for your replies. I'll try to get the 5800X3D for a reasonable price. Currently it retails at around 530 Euro in local stores.

I'd also recommend the 5800X3D, as it is the simplest upgrade for your current rig. You already have good RAM and a powerful video card. The 5800X3D will utilize them to their fullest. Since your primary use is gaming and you're not planning on overclocking, this CPU appears to be the obvious choice.

A word of caution, however. If you end up getting the 5800X3D, you will need much more capable cooling than your Fera. This cooler will definitely throttle the CPU in multicore scenarios, and may even be inadequate for sustained single-threaded loads.

 

[tussinman]

Tricky situation. Your CPU is just good enough to where your probably getting at least 90+ FPS on most games.

Whether to upgrade will depend on what games you favor along with if your happy or not with the performance you currently getting

4th option is to migrate to Zen 4 in the fall. But I don't want to invest so much money into early DDR5 adoption.

To be fair the £500 your fine spending now along with the £150-175 ish you could sell your current motherboard/cpu/ram combo should be enough to get into a good Zen 4 setup

It's not like your going to be wasting money, it's be basically the same price.