Should I cancel my 3800x order? (Upgrade form 2700x)

opethdisciple · 9 Jul 2019 at 14:15

I've just purchased a 3800x yesterday.

An upgrade form a 2700x. Purly gaming purposes. From my understanding there is a nice boost in gaming from a 2700x to a 3800x.

After I sell my 2700x for about £180 the upgrade will cost me £200.

I know I would be better off with a GPU upgrade, but I am trying to hold off until April and Cyber Punk 2077's release.

Should I cancel the 3800x or do you think there is enough gain over a 2700x to keep it?

Some reviews show a big gap in performance other show a very small gap.

Gibbo · 9 Jul 2019 at 14:19

A GPU upgrade will give you a bigger FPS boost unless your on a 2080Ti and can’t upgrade as that fastest card out.

jigger · 9 Jul 2019 at 14:24

I think only you could answer that. The problem with graphics cards right now is they all offer the same performance levels at unrealistic prices can’t nothing is pushing resolution. Graphics card development is a long way behind CPU development we seem to have a stagnation.

sandys · 9 Jul 2019 at 14:31

Where do you find your current machine deficient? On the face of it a 2700 and 1080 should romp through most things at 1440p

opethdisciple · 9 Jul 2019 at 15:13

sandys said:
Where do you find your current machine deficient? On the face of it a 2700 and 1080 should romp through most things at 1440p

It does. In titles that are GPU heavy no issues. But I do find BFV quite heavy (think it's the game) and also I believe titles such as Tomb Raider, Total War can all benefit from a faster CPU.

I just want to make sure that there will be some difference. As reviews out there all differ. Some show nice perf bump others small.

I think it's the minimums where the perf is gained.

It's all so a right bottom to dissemble reassemble PC.

jigger · 9 Jul 2019 at 15:18

opethdisciple said:
It does. In titles that are GPU heavy no issues. But I do find BFV quite heavy (think it's the game) and also I believe titles such as Tomb Raider, Total War can all benefit from a faster CPU.

I just want to make sure that there will be some difference. As reviews out there all differ. Some show nice perf bump others small.

I think it's the minimums where the perf is gained.

It's all so a right bottom to dissemble reassemble PC.

The exact 3800X performance is a little unknown.

Mr.Q · 9 Jul 2019 at 15:20

I was in a similar situation. Tbh I think you should invest in a new gpu, or wait until ryzen 2 prices stabilise after the initial launch. Just my 2 pence.

opethdisciple · 9 Jul 2019 at 15:22

When it comes to GPU, the 2080 Super has my interest but I am wondering if I should hang on until 3000 series.

Like I should also hang on to 2700x.

I can find reviews where they show anywhere from 10-20 fps gained on the minimums and then there are reviews that show at 1440p the average gaming perf difference is about 3%. Dunno what to believe.

lltfdaniel · 9 Jul 2019 at 15:30

Well the 2700x still is capable, higher the resolution the much less difference between intel and amd processors is what i think regarding fps.

If you game at 4k well, the advise would be this, invest in the 2080ti and keep the 2700x as an alternative route.

I am in the same position as you because i have the 2700x and i am thinking about getting the 3700x but i have a vega 64 gpu though.

Dan.

chroniclard · 9 Jul 2019 at 15:38

Also have a 2700X and a 1080, think I am going to wait for next gen GPU's and possibly pick up a Ryzen 2 in the new year. Not really in a rush as it plays everything at a decent FPS now.

While you may get some gains I am unsure you will actually notice much.

lltfdaniel · 9 Jul 2019 at 15:49

chroniclard said:
Also have a 2700X and a 1080, think I am going to wait for next gen GPU's and possibly pick up a Ryzen 2 in the new year. Not really in a rush as it plays everything at a decent FPS now.

While you may get some gains I am unsure you will actually notice much.

I agree the 2700x pumps out satisfactory frames per second, so if you game at 4k then it has to be an graphics card upgrade.

For me i also have a upgrade itch but i don't really need it to be honest hah, i just want a more beefy processor and then i would upgrade the graphics card.

The OP said > then there are reviews that show at 1440p the average gaming perf difference is about 3%. Dunno what to believe. This is normal when the higher the resolution the gap between fps gets a lot smaller as it taxs/uses the graphics card a lot more than processor/cpu and or how the game was designed really, you could have a 9900k vs a 2700x at 4k and the fps gap will be very small.

Dan.

ltron · 9 Jul 2019 at 16:50

opethdisciple said:
It does. In titles that are GPU heavy no issues. But I do find BFV quite heavy (think it's the game) and also I believe titles such as Tomb Raider, Total War can all benefit from a faster CPU.

I just want to make sure that there will be some difference. As reviews out there all differ. Some show nice perf bump others small.

I think it's the minimums where the perf is gained.

It's all so a right bottom to dissemble reassemble PC.

You should see a difference in Battlefield 64 player multiplayer in minimum framerate and frametime consistency I would have thought. I think average frame rate would be better too.

opethdisciple · 9 Jul 2019 at 20:55

I cancelled it.

Brazo · 9 Jul 2019 at 22:31

I have a 2700x and will most likely get the new 12 core AMD part when the dust settles. If I was a high fps gamer and wanted better gaming performance I’m sorry but an intel 9700k would be a no brainer or even a 7700k!

You only have to ask yourself why AMD themselves use a 7700k to ‘show off’ their gpu’s in the best light....

jigger · 10 Jul 2019 at 12:15

Brazo said:
I have a 2700x and will most likely get the new 12 core AMD part when the dust settles. If I was a high fps gamer and wanted better gaming performance I’m sorry but an intel 9700k would be a no brainer or even a 7700k!

You only have to ask yourself why AMD themselves use a 7700k to ‘show off’ their gpu’s in the best light....

Trying to figure out this post is difficult.

Aretak · 10 Jul 2019 at 12:31

Brazo said:
You only have to ask yourself why AMD themselves use a 7700k to ‘show off’ their gpu’s in the best light....

What on earth are you talking about? AMD conducted their Navi testing on systems using a 9900K and, slightly oddly, a 5930K.

Recommending a 7700K to anybody in 2019 is ****ing mental in any scenario, let alone for the purpose of high refresh rate gaming. Maybe if you spend all day playing CS:GO and Far Cry.

jigger · 10 Jul 2019 at 12:51

opethdisciple said:
I cancelled it.

Do you know how hard I’m trying to find 3800X’s in stock right now.

Brazo · 11 Jul 2019 at 20:42

Aretak said:
What on earth are you talking about? AMD conducted their Navi testing on systems using a 9900K and, slightly oddly, a 5930K.

Recommending a 7700K to anybody in 2019 is ****ing mental in any scenario, let alone for the purpose of high refresh rate gaming. Maybe if you spend all day playing CS:GO and Far Cry.

Not sure I mentioned Navi?
I’m not recommending a 7700k just saying that AMD used one to showcase their top gpu. The R7. There’s a reason they used it. Whether or not that fits in with peoples misconceptions.

By all means go ahead and call AMD ****ing mental for doing so...

Mercutio · 11 Jul 2019 at 20:43

Seeing a good few reports that 3800X is 16th onwards.