Soldato
You'll have to update your bios if you haven't
-
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.
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X 3D Cache Eight Core 4.5GHz (Socket AM4) Processor - Retail - Go Go Go xD
- Thread starter pigeonguyuk
- Start date
You'll have to update your bios if you haven't
Done it, I'm on F36.
Soldato
I think it would be more worthwhile at 4k to get a better GPU mate if you can afford it, you will get more of an uplift with frames.
I don't think you'll get that much more of a difference on frames with the 2080 and at 4k, what games do you play?
Last edited:
I'm currently playing Far Cry 6 and have had to remove the HD texture pack and I'm seeing tearing too! That's what has led me to go down the upgrade path in the first place.
I've seen a performance chart just now on another thread that's leading me towards a new GPU as you've said.
NVIDIA 4000 Series
Hmm interesting, so does that mean you have vsync enabled at a global level in NVCP and leave the vsync option disabled in games? Vsync should always be on in nvcp and off in games and use rivatuner to cap 3 fps below refresh rate. Battlenonsense has covered this stuff very well:
forums.overclockers.co.uk
Surprised that there isn't such an uplift from 3900X to 5800X 3D to be honest as the 4K chart states relative performance of 97.4% vs 100.1% respectively.
Thanks for the advice.
Soldato
I'm currently playing Far Cry 6 and have had to remove the HD texture pack and I'm seeing tearing too! That's what has led me to go down the upgrade path in the first place.
I've seen a performance chart just now on another thread that's leading me towards a new GPU as you've said.
NVIDIA 4000 Series
Hmm interesting, so does that mean you have vsync enabled at a global level in NVCP and leave the vsync option disabled in games? Vsync should always be on in nvcp and off in games and use rivatuner to cap 3 fps below refresh rate. Battlenonsense has covered this stuff very well:
Surprised that there isn't such an uplift from 3900X to 5800X 3D to be honest as the 4K chart states relative performance of 97.4% vs 100.1% respectively.
Thanks for the advice.
You're very welcome mate.
Got to decide whether to upgrade the graphics card or the monitor now. 1st world problemsYou're very welcome mate.
Soldato
I had exactly the same dilemma albeit a 3070 with Far Cry 6 and decided that an OLED Alienware would give the most visual difference but £1000.Got to decide whether to upgrade the graphics card or the monitor now. 1st world problems
Will probably wait until Christmas .
Last edited:
Far cry 6 is a really badly optimised game with lots of problems. If your other games run fine don't worry about itI'm currently playing Far Cry 6 and have had to remove the HD texture pack and I'm seeing tearing too! That's what has led me to go down the upgrade path in the first place.
I've seen a performance chart just now on another thread that's leading me towards a new GPU as you've said.
NVIDIA 4000 Series
Hmm interesting, so does that mean you have vsync enabled at a global level in NVCP and leave the vsync option disabled in games? Vsync should always be on in nvcp and off in games and use rivatuner to cap 3 fps below refresh rate. Battlenonsense has covered this stuff very well:
Surprised that there isn't such an uplift from 3900X to 5800X 3D to be honest as the 4K chart states relative performance of 97.4% vs 100.1% respectively.
Thanks for the advice.
wow I paid £999 for 55 inch 4k oled 120hz TV 2 years ago (black friday)
what difference this £400 5800X3D makes to 4K / 1440 UW gaming with a 3080 (or better) card vs a cheap 5600?
from benchmarks Ive seen very few frames at best.
isn't it only "impressive" at low 1080P resolution? so tehnically only on papaer,because who buys a higher end GPU and CPU to play 1080P like it's still 2008?
and it's nothing special when it comes to application/other tasks performance.
maybe I'm missing something but £400 for a chip on a end of the line platform sounds like a complete waste of money,why? just because it scores high in 1080P ? but makes NO difference in real use or real gaming?
is it all about competitive online shooters that played on 1080P monitors?
from benchmarks Ive seen very few frames at best.
isn't it only "impressive" at low 1080P resolution? so tehnically only on papaer,because who buys a higher end GPU and CPU to play 1080P like it's still 2008?
and it's nothing special when it comes to application/other tasks performance.
maybe I'm missing something but £400 for a chip on a end of the line platform sounds like a complete waste of money,why? just because it scores high in 1080P ? but makes NO difference in real use or real gaming?
is it all about competitive online shooters that played on 1080P monitors?
Last edited:
Caporegime
It really depends what you are playing. Some engines (for example Creation engine, which is admittedly an older one) see big increases from the extra cache even at higher resolutions.
Last edited:
It's a question of what your fps target is. With a 5600x you'll be closer to a 60 fps target (but above it) but with 5800x3d you'll be closer to 120 fps (at/near it). F.ex. in The Ascent you get ~88 fps with 5600x, but 117 fps with 5800x3d. As for 1080p, even the 4090 will render from 1080p because you're going to need dlss performance mode for games like Cyberpunk with RT. Besides that you also have even bigger outsized results in certain games which show a bigger difference between a 5600x and 5800x3d than even what was when going from a 1600af to a 5600x, and also put it above any other CPU (even Zen 4/RPL) out this year. Finally it is the most cost effective way of getting close to that 120 fps mark if you're targeting it, because mobos are cheap, you don't need particularly good ram (and it's also cheaper than DDR5), and it's not really more expensive than f.ex. a 7700X/12700K.
what resolution are these FPS bumps you mentioned?
strictly at 3440 x 1440, with an RTX3080 / RTX3080 TI,will the 5800X3D make measurable frame rate difference to a 5600/X? that's what I want to know.
can the 2x price vs 5600 be justified in this case?
again I don't care about any 1080P game or any competitive low res FPS shooter.
monitor is 175Hz.I want 60-100 FPS depending on the game.highest settings.
over 100FPS I don't care.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyyJdYbkI44
You can see from the video that the 5800x3d makes little difference at 4K compared to the old 3600x, except in very old games, but in recent games the results between the 2 chips are pretty much similar. In some games the 3600x beats the 5800x3d.
There are other videos showing similar results.
yes,that's what I mean.I thought I might be missing something.
why there's so much excitement about this chip? are majority of gamers buy a high end GPU and a CPU like this to play only competitive FPS in 1080p?
these tech tubers hyping this chip as "best gaming CPU" etc sounds very misleading when those benchmark scores are only based on low resolution 1080p that no ones actually plays anymore.
if it was a 12 core high performance chip setting records in in real work load (non gaming) yes but £400 for fast performance only in 1080P and no real difference in (common) high resolution gaming, simply don't make sense to me!
in a way it's just display chip with good scores on paper.with no benefit for what people actually do (modern gaming at high resolutions)
Last edited:
Caporegime
Because it's awesome and it draws like 50W. I saw nice improvements coming from a 5950X in 1% lows with a 6950 XT at 4K when I moved to a 5800X3D.
However, if you want to put faith in one review that has the 3600 beating the 5800X3D in some games, I don't really know what to tell you.
4K 5800X3D at 4K joint fastest measured over 30 games, and fastest at 1080P/1440P. (3600 would be way below the lowest CPU in this chart FYI as its 3 and a half years old now)
All i will say is that if you have a low or mid-range GPU it may not be worth it as the gains will be less as you will be more GPU bottlenecked at 4k.
Last edited:
I've seen hudnreds of these charts and 10s of these reviews..Because it's awesome and it draws like 50W. I saw nice improvements coming from a 5950X in 1% lows with a 6950 XT at 4K when I moved to a 5800X3D.
However, if you want to put faith in one review that has the 3600 beating the 5800X3D in some games, I don't really know what to tell you.
4K 5800X3D at 4K joint fastest measured over 30 games, and fastest at 1080P/1440P. (3600 would be way below the lowest CPU in this chart FYI as its 3 and a half years old now)
All i will say is that if you have a low or mid-range GPU it may not be worth it as the gains will be less as you will be more GPU bottlenecked at 4k.
like I said when playing 4K /1440p the difference is MINIMAL.
in the chart you posted : £170 Ryzen 5 5600X = 90. £400 Ryzen 7 5800X3D = 93
3 extra FPS for £230 that's £77 per frame
and you call this "awesome" sure 
it's completely pointless at 1440p / 4k
at least the 5900X / 5950X / i9 have all those extra cores and performance and can really make meaningful difference to other application.