CPU for 4K Gaming Misunderstanding

[Tetras]

I get what you saying with this thread, but see other point of view also. My take is that if you have a high end cpu, turning down the setting a bit when upgrading a gpu down the line will help massively increase you fps and also help prolong the life of your cpu...helps if there's a new release coming and you want to eek out a few more months etc

It is funny because high refresh monitors have created a market for CPU upgrades that didn't exist the same way before.

Like..., previously you could upgrade the graphics card and be happy with the new shinies in the latest AAA games, but now, I suspect that even many 7800X3D users are going to want to upgrade the CPU with their 5090/6090, since they're trying to sustain mega-FPS. I've seen a fair few posts on here, I want to sustain 150-300+ and that's going to be flippin' expensive to maintain that habit over the long-term.

 

[Nitefly]

@Craig_d1 yup that makes sense and a good point: it's most likely to be relevant when someone is building from scratch (or making an ad-hoc upgrade that will lead to) an 'unbalanced system'. If you're going to 'go big' with a new build then you're just going to 'go big' = no issue.

(I didn't expressly acknowledge it but this was what @ICDP also mentioned in an earlier post - again, it's a good point)

 

[Armadillo]

competetive games. for those that do, fps is everything where they turn down the game settings so it loks ***p, just so they can get the extra fps

Not just for fps, playing on high/ultra on competitive games will put you at a disadvantage, even if you have the grunt for high fps & shiny graphics.

Overwatch isn't hard to run, you can have both shiny graphics and fps, but you'll be a disadvantage. Low model details will get rid of some bushes and other map clutter making it much clearer & easy to see enemies. Same with lots of other competitive games.

 

[Craig_d1]

It is funny because high refresh monitors have created a market for CPU upgrades that didn't exist the same way before.

Like..., previously you could upgrade the graphics card and be happy with the new shinies in the latest AAA games, but now, I suspect that even many 7800X3D users are going to want to upgrade the CPU with their 5090/6090, since they're trying to sustain mega-FPS. I've seen a fair few posts on here, I want to sustain 150-300+ and that's going to be flippin' expensive to maintain that habit over the long-term.

just think of the gpu cost...selling a 3080 now, £350 last i saw, so a £300 loss...those that bought 3090ti for £1800, they were going £650 when the 4000 series came out...£1150 loss....4090 similar price £1800..they did get over £2k at one point...going £1200/£1400 now...when 5080/90 come out, i reckon they'll be down the 800 mark, and then when the 5070 come out, if they're at £550, that'll drop again....people be having to get used to loosing £1k on top end gpu gaming every time they upgrade..people that don't want to buy a 1k card aren't going to buy a 2nd hand £1.8k card at 1k either...that's for the higher earners, and a lot of those want the latest and greatest...why some of the owners are selling now and going back to lesser backup cards in meantime

 

[HangTime]

So I think the key factor here is whether you favour high framerate at the expense of visuals or not.

If you want good graphics all the time then CPU matters less in relative terms. You aren't going to run on Low, even if you get a big rise in fps, and hence you are better off spending less on the CPU and more on the GPU.
On the other hand, if you are playing competitive FPS at high framerates with reduced visuals then yes you want a good CPU. I use a 500hz monitor for example to play a very old game and there's little benefit from anything better than say a RX480.

It should be well known by most half savvy PC builders that balance is key. Don’t pair a top end GPU with a low end CPU and of course the same applies the other way.

This has always been my mantra however I think in general you get more bang for buck for gaming from spending on the GPU over CPU, or at least the windows of value are a bit skewed. So generally the tipping point where you start to see diminishing returns from spending more money is much lower with the CPU. A £250 CPU can run a £500 CPU pretty close for 'normal' (i.e. not chasing high FPS at low settings, or extreme strategy games that benefit from many cores) gaming, but that's not really the case for the GPU.

One consideration however is that it's much, MUCH easier to accommodate weaker GPUs via settings than it is weak CPUs. By that I mean, it's rare to find a game where you can't get a decent boost in FPS on weak GPUs by lowering the graphics settings. CPU bottlenecks are a lot harder to deal with as much fewer settings are CPU-intensive, if you are cpu-limited it can be hard to relieve that limitation. Kudus to games like the Forza Horizon series where settings are labelled based on what they impact with a benchmarking tool that lets you track the bottlenecks more easily.

 

[ICDP]

Absolutely true, a half decent CPU will last 3 or 4 GPU upgrades before it becomes a noticeable bottleneck.

The problem with that HUB video is they picked a very old 3600 CPU to compare with. Had that been a 5600 the gaps would be a lot less, if it had been a 5800X3D the gaps at 4K would be almost zero.

I have a 7900X3D and another system with a 5800X3D. Testing the same 4080 GPU at the same high/ultra 4K settings in most graphical intensive games saw no difference between them. It was only a handful of games like MSFS it mattered. Or when you played at lower res or lower settings.

So really all that video showed was that an older crap CPU will hold back any half decent GPU.

 

[Craig_d1]

Absolutely true, a half decent CPU will last 3 or 4 GPU upgrades before it becomes a noticeable bottleneck.

The problem with that HUB video is they picked a very old 3600 CPU to compare with. Had that been a 5600 the gaps would be a lot less, if it had been a 5800X3D the gaps at 4K would be almost zero.

I have a 7900X3D and another system with a 5800X3D. Testing the same 4080 GPU at the same high/ultra 4K settings in most graphical intensive games saw no difference between them. It was only a handful of games like MSFS it mattered. Or when you played at lower res or lower settings.

So really all that video showed was that an older crap CPU will hold back any half decent GPU.

absolutely, just as a 3600 beat previous gen 1 series and 5600 beat a 3950x and 7600 beat a 5950x in gaming, it's the single thread performance that counts the most in gaming most of the time
I was thinking the same as for midrange builds I see people put the 7800x3d in with a 4070 or 7800XT and just think not worth it...get a better gpu and put a 7600 or 7600X in there..if you're after visuals...if competetive 1080p, then by all means get the better cpu and lesser gpu...techpowerup did a good article comparing a 7600 with a 4070ti vs a 4070 with a 7800x3d...same price...overall the 4070ti/7600 pairing gave better performance

Faster GPU or Faster CPU: Ryzen 7600 + RTX 4070 Ti vs. Ryzen 7800X3D + RTX 4070

Usually we recommend PC gamers on a budget to adopt the min/max strategy. This means spending as little as possible on almost everything, except the GPU, where...

www.techspot.com

 

[Rroff]

I was thinking the same as for midrange builds I see people put the 7800x3d in with a 4070 or 7800XT and just think not worth it...get a better gpu and put a 7600 or 7600X in there..if you're after visuals...if competetive 1080p, then by all means get the better cpu and lesser gpu...techpowerup did a good article comparing a 7600 with a 4070ti vs a 4070 with a 7800x3d...same price...overall the 4070ti/7600 pairing gave better performance

Not hating on the 7800X3D but I've always found the hype for it a little bemusing when it's strengths come into play at 1080p with a 4090 so outside of purely hardcore/professional eSports or certain specific games you are better off with a different CPU on balance. With something like a 4080 or below at higher res and ultra settings there are other CPUs which on average come within margin of error for gaming and either much faster for non-gaming use while a similar price or much cheaper while having similar non-gaming performance. Or as you mentioned you are better putting more of the budget towards GPU first.

 

[ICDP]

Ah but this brings us back to a CPU generally lasting 3 or 4 GPU cycles. When that person gets a 6070 or 7070 the balance will swing. So when getting a CPU I tend to plan more in advance because a CPU will last 4 - 5 years or more, my GPU will be replaced twice in that timeframe.

My 5900X was bought when I had a 2080, then through a 3080 and finally a 4080, before I eventually upgraded the CPU to a 7900X3D.

 

[jigger]

Not hating on the 7800X3D but I've always found the hype for it a little bemusing when it's strengths come into play at 1080p with a 4090 so outside of purely hardcore/professional eSports or certain specific games you are better off with a different CPU on balance. With something like a 4080 or below at higher res and ultra settings there are other CPUs which on average come within margin of error for gaming and either much faster for non-gaming use while a similar price or much cheaper while having similar non-gaming performance. Or as you mentioned you are better putting more of the budget towards GPU first.

I think you are hating on the 7800X3D a little bit. The 7800X3D is a bonkers fast CPU for 75- watts. It’s probably the greatest desktop CPU of all time. After testing one for a few hours I could hardly believe AMD pulled this off for this money.

 

[Craig_d1]

Ah but this brings us back to a CPU generally lasting 3 or 4 GPU cycles. When that person gets a 6070 or 7070 the balance will swing. So when getting a CPU I tend to plan more in advance because a CPU will last 4 - 5 years or more, my GPU will be replaced twice in that timeframe.

My 5900X was bought when I had a 2080, then through a 3080 and finally a 4080, before I eventually upgraded the CPU to a 7900X3D.

ah, but if you'd bought a 5600x instead of a 5900x, for gaming I don't think you'd of noticed too much difference, except your wallet would have been fatter and helped with the upgrade to am5 sooner.
everything is time dependent though isn't it...I mean the the article above now is less relevant to an extent as the 4070super has come out, and at 1440p is only 6% behind the 4070ti, so the natural pairing is 7600 with the 4070super, as the 4070ti is just now too expensive to be not worth it
QAlso, I bought a 7800x3d prelaunch at £450, but I think the 7600x was over £300 a tthe time so I justified to myself, why not, it's 50% more but the 3dv cache comes in handy for some games which makes in more relevant with new cpu releases. Now the 7600 is out for £188 on ocuk compared to £360 for the 7800x3d, making it 86% more expensive...if i was buying now I's get a 7600 no question...the saving I'd make will make upgrading to the 9000 series cpu sooner rather than later a no brainer imho (benefit of going am5 with the upgradeability)...7800x3d will still beat 9000 in some games that like the v cache, but single core performance of the 9000 series will hopefully make the new cpu a better allrounder...a lot depends on the price of the new cpu's of course

 

[jigger]

ah, but if you'd bought a 5600x instead of a 5900x, for gaming I don't think you'd of noticed too much difference, except your wallet would have been fatter and helped with the upgrade to am5 sooner.
everything is time dependent though isn't it...I mean the the article above now is less relevant to an extent as the 4070super has come out, and at 1440p is only 6% behind the 4070ti, so the natural pairing is 7600 with the 4070super, as the 4070ti is just now too expensive to be not worth it
QAlso, I bought a 7800x3d prelaunch at £450, but I think the 7600x was over £300 a tthe time so I justified to myself, why not, it's 50% more but the 3dv cache comes in handy for some games which makes in more relevant with new cpu releases. Now the 7600 is out for £188 on ocuk compared to £360 for the 7800x3d, making it 86% more expensive...if i was buying now I's get a 7600 no question...the saving I'd make will make upgrading to the 9000 series cpu sooner rather than later a no brainer imho (benefit of going am5 with the upgradeability)...7800x3d will still beat 9000 in some games that like the v cache, but single core performance of the 9000 series will hopefully make the new cpu a better allrounder...a lot depends on the price of the new cpu's of course

If for gaming it very much depends on the GPU. No point in spending £1000 on a graphics card for it to drop 25% of it’s potential performance.

 

[Craig_d1]

If for gaming it very much depends on the GPU. No point in spending £1000 on a graphics card for it to drop 25% of it’s potential performance.

agreed, that's what I've been saying, but more cores doesn't make a better gaming cpu. most games still benefit from faster single cores, why the 7600x beats all the 5*** series cpu's, and a 5600x beats at 3*** series cpus etc
outlier is the x3d chips...but on average the 7600x is on a par with the 5800x3d...sure, the 5800x3d will smash it in games that favour the l3 cache, but then games that don't the 7600x will smash the x3d chip...why they average roughly the samer...so choosing your cpu isn't so simple as you really need to know the games you want to play

 

[jigger]

agreed, that's what I've been saying, but more cores doesn't make a better gaming cpu. most games still benefit from faster single cores, why the 7600x beats all the 5*** series cpu's, and a 5600x beats at 3*** series cpus etc
outlier is the x3d chips...but on average the 7600x is on a par with the 5800x3d...sure, the 5800x3d will smash it in games that favour the l3 cache, but then games that don't the 7600x will smash the x3d chip...why they average roughly the samer...so choosing your cpu isn't so simple as you really need to know the games you want to play

Depends greatly on the game and system configuration. The 7950X can outperform the X3D chips in certain games.

7600X is a very different beast and has a lot more power available per core and isn’t powering the 3D cache. The 7600X is also more like £200 and not in the same performance league as the 7800X3D.

 

[CaptainRAVE]

Ok my CPU upgrade was pretty big, but my FPS went up massively, far more than expected at 4K.

It was a funny cascade.

Wanted an OLED, but my 1080Ti didn’t have HDMI 2.1 to power 120hz.

Went for a 7900XTX that worked well, but in most games my old 9700k was reaching about 80% usage.

A 7800X3D has solved the final problem. That’s not to say that I get 120fps in most modern games, but it’s usually 100+.

 

[Craig_d1]

Depends greatly on the game and system configuration. The 7950X can outperform the X3D chips in certain games.

7600X is a very different beast and has a lot more power available per core and isn’t powering the 3D cache. The 7600X is also more like £200 and in the same performance league as the 7800X3D.

what are you talking about...there's always going to be a game that favours 1 cpu over another or more cores over less...that's why you take an average over multiple games to get an overall idea of how a cpu will perform
and so what that the 7600x costs £200...the 7600 is £188...£12 difference...the 7800x3d is £350...that's a massive difference in price.... and a 7950x is £530. Fine , if you want to build a gaming rig with a £530 7950X in it, go for it

 

[jigger]

what are you talking about...there's always going to be a game that favours 1 cpu over another or more cores over less...that's why you take an average over multiple games to get an overall idea of how a cpu will perform
and so what that the 7600x costs £200...the 7600 is £188...£12 difference...the 7800x3d is £350...that's a massive difference in price.... and a 7950x is £530. Fine , if you want to build a gaming rig with a £530 7950X in it, go for it

What are you talking about? The 7600 and 7600X aren’t the same chip at all.

The question of what what CPU will offer more performance depends entirely on the individual. A stripped back OS and minimal hard configuration with minimal services running requires less cores. A typical desktop not so much.

 

[Kirby Wurm]

Not hating on the 7800X3D but I've always found the hype for it a little bemusing when it's strengths come into play at 1080p with a 4090 so outside of purely hardcore/professional eSports or certain specific games you are better off with a different CPU on balance. With something like a 4080 or below at higher res and ultra settings there are other CPUs which on average come within margin of error for gaming and either much faster for non-gaming use while a similar price or much cheaper while having similar non-gaming performance. Or as you mentioned you are better putting more of the budget towards GPU first.

It makes perfect sense for gamers looking for the best performance. If one's not looking to use a system for intensive work and purely game then there's no value in buying the 14700K instead as for the same outlay it offers inferior (albeit still excellent) gaming performance, higher power consumption under load, and a platform with no upgrade path (other than to a 14900K).

As for whether it's worth it over cheaper options that are generally pretty close (particularly at higher resolutions), the X3D's cache can offer some significant improvements to minimum FPS. The recent HUB video adds the 7600X, and even at 4K when below Ultra settings the gap in minimum FPS when using the 4090 is notable in many cases.

 

[Craig_d1]

It makes perfect sense for gamers looking for the best performance. If one's not looking to use a system for intensive work and purely game then there's no value in buying the 14700K instead as for the same outlay it offers inferior (albeit still excellent) gaming performance, higher power consumption under load, and a platform with no upgrade path (other than to a 14900K).

As for whether it's worth it over cheaper options that are generally pretty close (particularly at higher resolutions), the X3D's cache can offer some significant improvements to minimum FPS. The recent HUB video adds the 7600X, and even at 4K when below Ultra settings the gap in minimum FPS when using the 4090 is notable in many cases.

vid begs the question now though...so original post was about higher end older cpu's still getting decent fps when lowering settings...and here is a low end new cpu doing exactly that too...so is it better getting a lower end cpu each gen and upgrading that on a long life platform, or a high end cpu and upgrading every few cycles...I mean the 7600x sits squarely between the 5700x3d and 5800x3d in the chart, and the in depth is using a 7600, which is slower still...didn't check whether he's enabled PBO though, which would bring 7600 to within a % of the 7600x

 

[Raiden85]

I've been saying it for ages, once you have a 4090 class GPU even with some games with maxed out settings at 4K the CPU matters a lot these days. I didn't want to change platforms yet so over a year and a half ago I went from a 5950X to a 5800X3D because the 5950X even at 4K was holding it back in some games and the averages went up by a decent amount as well as the minimums, plus it was able to keep the GPU pegged at 99% far more often. So even at 4K don't cheap out on a CPU even for 4K gaming.

For example The Division 2 maxed out in the White House area my 4090 on a 5950X struggled to pass 90% GPU usage, the moment I popped in a 5800X3D my GPU without any changes to the BIOS or Windows kept the GPU pegged at 99% without issues and gave me a nice average FPS increase.

Here's Far Cry 6, the 5800X3D walks all over the 5950X and again, no BIOS or Windows changes, just popped in the new CPU and booted the game up, massive performance increase and this game was running fully maxed out at 4K. If I was to go for a newer 7000 series or the latest Intel chips then this would be a bigger jump again because the GPU in this game is still being held back by the CPU.

This is only going to get worse once the 5000 series cards are out and a 4090 becomes a higher end 5070/5080. These days GPUs are so fast that 4K is not a difficult resolution to run anymore and it needs a lot of CPU power to keep these fast cards fed properly.