• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

7600X to 7600X3D

WARburton said:
i wouldn't call 50% a tiny increases, it all depends on the game and resolution
Click to expand...

Can't actually recall seeing anything other than a few FPS in many of the online articles. Bar a few CPU intensive games at medium settings 1080p.

Anyone looking at Hardware unboxed or any other videos would be hard pressed to find any 50% nonsense because so far the only time you see a real boost is with a bloody 5090 and again in a minority of titles.

The harsh reality is that the majority of people buying X3D CPU's with mid range GPU"s see small improvement.

It's why so many on YouTube build recommendations don't bother with X3D, it's less sense than a 5080 over the 5070ti when you look at the videos from the likes of Hardware Unboxed when playing the general popular games on 1440p and 4k high and ultra.

It's why we have articles online discussing the poor value and real world performance of these CPU due to the current CPU/GPU scaling figures.

So far I have seen zero instances where someone with a 7600x and 9070xt went from 120fps to 180fps simply by adding a 9800X3D.
 
if what your saying is most people dont need one then yes, if what your saying is most people should put money into a GPU over the X3D chip then yes
if what your saying is the X3D chips dont work then your just wrong or have been licking under a rock

i myself with a mid range GPU went from 80fps to over 130fps in squads because the game is(was) CPU bottle necked, i had about 6 GPU's and the game would just sit at about 70% GPU usage.
i then went 3600x > 5600x > 5800x > 13900k > 7800x3d(in the space of 3 months) the only CPU that gave me a meaningful upgrade was the X3D

but you know also Baldur's gate 50 to 70% on X3D
imgur.com

imgur.com

Discover the magic of the internet at Imgur, a community powered entertainment destination. Lift your spirits with funny jokes, trending memes, entertaining gifs, inspiring stories, viral videos, and so much more from users.
imgur.com imgur.com

how ever i do agree that so many people are buying 9800x3d's to go with 5070's/9070's when they should buy a 9700x and a better gpu
 
WARburton said:
if what your saying is most people dont need one then yes, if what your saying is most people should put money into a GPU over the X3D chip then yes
if what your saying is the X3D chips dont work then your just wrong or have been licking under a rock

i myself with a mid range GPU went from 80fps to over 130fps in squads because the game is(was) CPU bottle necked, i had about 6 GPU's and the game would just sit at about 70% GPU usage.
i then went 3600x > 5600x > 5800x > 13900k > 7800x3d(in the space of 3 months) the only CPU that gave me a meaningful upgrade was the X3D

but you know also Baldur's gate 50 to 70% on X3D
imgur.com

imgur.com

Discover the magic of the internet at Imgur, a community powered entertainment destination. Lift your spirits with funny jokes, trending memes, entertaining gifs, inspiring stories, viral videos, and so much more from users.
imgur.com imgur.com

how ever i do agree that so many people are buying 9800x3d's to go with 5070's/9070's when they should buy a 9700x and a better gpu
Click to expand...

Your just confirmed my points. Your saying you seen an improvement and your using a 5080, and I stated the X3D CPU's show little worth unless your running a high end GPU like the 5080. I also stated only a few CPU intensive titles show a difference. What I have stated has been on various Youtube content too, I guess you think the majority of content creators who reported the small gains with benchmarks made it up after licking rocks too? Despite you actually confirming the points made? As an example, Baldurs Gate at 1080p Ultra with a 4090. You can get 400 fps with World of Tanks at 1080p Ultra using a 7600x and 9060xt, pointless figures.

People need to remember most reviewers are running 9800X3D with 5080/5090 combos and many watching reviews buy the X3D based on that and internet hype, that's why there are people out there with 3060ti running 9800X3D due to a lot of reviews going OMG the 9800X3d is the best cpu EVA...


As for upgrading from a 7600x, currently I think at under £320 the 7800X3D is a better option than the 7600X3D, if your set on an X3D CPU.

The reality is not that X3D CPU's do not work, it's simply that they often cannot work optimally due to CPU/GPU scaling issues as you see in the above videos.
 
Yes I did agree with you… are x3d cpus better 100% yes. Are they always needed nope.

If the budget was there 7800x3d over 9700x every day. But if the option is 7600x3d or a fast 8 core for me go with 8 cores
 
If you watch this test run. You can see it’s a split between the two CPU’s, the bench’s that 9700x wins are the games that are heavily threaded games. And as we move forward there will be more games that want more than 6 cores

Just remember for the price of a new 9700x you can buy a second hand 7800x3d.

 
WARburton said:
If you watch this test run. You can see it’s a split between the two CPU’s, the bench’s that 9700x wins are the games that are heavily threaded games. And as we move forward there will be more games that want more than 6 cores
Click to expand...
Interesting benches.

Big wins for the 9700X: Civ VI, Minecraft Java and Assetto Corsa.

Big wins for the 7600X3D: PUBG, Fortnite, AC:Odyssey.

I do wonder though, if cores/threads are not why the 9700X gets those wins?

Civ VI, you'd expect to be heavily threaded, but the overall CPU utilisation is still low. AC is known for loving Zen 5, but also has low CPU utilisation.

Minecraft I thought was supposed to be heavy on single core performance?

Civ VI bench says it is AI and Minecraft says Java, so I wonder if the improvements that Zen 5 made to certain workloads (particularly server-oriented workloads, as Phoronix's testing showed) is actually the reason here, rather than the core count.
 
Tetras said:
I do wonder though, if cores/threads are not why the 9700X gets those wins?
Click to expand...

The 9600 is roughly 20-25% faster than the 7600 (vanilla) in Assetto Corsa so I doubt it's entirely related to cores/threads.

As for suggesting to buy a 5080 over a 5070ti/9070XT while including an X3D?

www.techpowerup.com

Sapphire Radeon RX 9070 XT Pulse Review

Sapphire’s Radeon RX 9070 XT Pulse trades flashy extras for substance, to hit its $600 MSRP. There's no RGB lighting or factory overclock, but you get an outstanding cooler that runs whisper-quiet at full load with good temperatures. Performance where it counts.
www.techpowerup.com www.techpowerup.com

Can't say I'd spend £300-400 + on a 5080 over those two cards instead of filtering in a 7600X3D or 9800X3D for the same or notably less money, I'd wager overall performance would be better too depending on resolution/games played and you've a better platform for upgrades going forward.

If someone primarily plays CoD they want an X3D CPU and a 9070XT, if someone primarily plays WoW they want an X3D and a mid + tier Nvidia GPU ideally speaking. You need to take things as a case by case basis rather than blanket recommendations, for my use case I absolutely benefit from having an X3D even with a mid tier GPU. For others it might matter less or not at all.
 
Last edited:
No as one would have to spend nearly double the price after selling the 7600 for the 7600X3D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom