expired Posted by Jaggsta • Jul 7, 2023
Jul 7, 2023 2:44 PM
Item 1 of 4
Item 1 of 4
expired Posted by Jaggsta • Jul 7, 2023
Jul 7, 2023 2:44 PM
ASUS B550-PLUS TUF AM4 ATX Motherboard + Ryzen 5 5600X3D + 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws V
+ Free Store Pickup$330
$439
24% offMicro Center
Visit Micro CenterGood Deal
Bad Deal
Save
Share
Leave a Comment
Top Comments
First- you linked to a review where they didn't use the 7900X for comparison at all.
Meanwhile, the review I reference (Gamers Nexus) actually DOES directly compare the 5600X3D to the 7900X and it beats in the majority of games tested or is within a couple percent where it's close.
Second- in the part where you suggest it "suffers with increased settings" you are misunderstanding what the review actually said.
They're telling you what I already told you and you didn't understand.
At higher resolution/settings you are GPU limited not CPU limited.
The higher you go in resolution the less the CPU matters.
So a more expensive CPU won't help you
You need more GPU, not CPU, in that case.
But even if it DID matter- the X3D CPUS are faster at gaming at any resolution than the non-X3D ones.
https://www.techpowerup
This gives a good example of what your review was ACTUALLY talking about with higher settings. reducing the impact of ANY CPU.
They use a 4090, the fastest gaming GPU on the planet, significantly faster than what 99% of gamers are actually using today... and compared a 5800X to a 5800X3D.
At 1080p over 53 games the X3D chip averages 18.5% higher FPS.
At 1440p over 53 games the X3D chip averages 15% higher FPS
At 4k though, same 53 games, the X3D is only 6.8% faster.
Because even with a 4090 you're largely GPU limited at 4k... thus the large reduction in performance gain from having a "better" CPU.
If you dropped the GPU down a notch or two, as most people would because they're not running a 4090, you'd see roughly 0 difference between CPUs.
Here- A similar test was done a generation ago with a 3080- here's the 4k ultra testing results in a chart:
https://www.tomshardwar
A core i-9 averaged 98.6 FPS across their suite of test games.
A core i-3 averaged 95.2 FPS across the same suite.
A MASSIVE difference in CPU power, and a performance difference of... about 3%
Heck for fun they also tested a ten year old 4770k and it still put up 91.4 FPS... a difference of only about 7% compared to what was the top of the line 10 years newer CPU at test time.
And even a 3080 is still faster than the GPU most folks are running today.
It's at the lower resolutions that a faster CPU matters-- exactly backward from how you are thinking of it.... and also why most CPU reviews don't bother posting 4k results.
49 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
??
Your GPU is what will primarily determine that, not your CPU.
Not to mention the R9 bundle if it's the one I'm seeing is a 7900X... no 3D...meaning it won't be any better for gaming either way but still costs $220 more.
Now if you ALSO need to do productivity stuff the $220 might be worth it for the extra cores/higher clocks.... but not gaming.
Also rumors swirling that Starfield is going to be bundled in the near future with Ryzen 7000 series CPU's. So that might make it worth it for some people looking leaning towards a new build.
No GD Micro Center near me!!
No GD Micro Center near me!!
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Also rumors swirling that Starfield is going to be bundled in the near future with Ryzen 7000 series CPU's. So that might make it worth it for some people looking leaning towards a new build.
Leave a Comment