efficient cpu + gpu?

Soldato
Joined
24 Jun 2021
Posts
4,385
Location
Oxon
I don't need a full system spec, just a cpu and gpu recommendation to build a system around.
Something that isn't going to cause me heat and noise problems, but still performs well.
I have a strong preference for very low noise and not heating the room up.
Usage: web browsing, gaming (1440p 144hz freesync / gsync compatible)
Full system budget: £2k ish
System being replaced is: i7 6700K + GTX 1080 Strix
 
Last edited:
5070 or 9070 are around 200-250 watts when gaming and rank near the top on efficiency, realistically I don't think you'd want much less grunt than that for 1440p.

You could probably run those cards even better than their stock config through power limits and undervolting, but I haven't seen many articles/videos on that subject.

5060 Ti 16GB would be another option, they're around 150-170 watts, but you would have to start compromising the settings sooner than the former options.

7800X3D is the winner for gaming efficiency (frames per watt).
 
7800x3d and a 9070 would perform very well.

You can undervolt a 9800x3d by a fair margin but it still uses quite a lot more power over a 7800. You can undervolt a 9070 as well (like me). That’s what I would do, it’s possible to make that a very quiet system that still performs extremely well.
 
Some questions having looked up the 7800X3D:

1. If the 7800X3D (120W) uses less power in reality than 9700X (65W) why does it say 120W and not 65W?

2. If the 7800X3D is using less power than the 9700X why is approx 10c hotter? And is it right to assume this means the cpu cooler will be louder?

3. Would the 9700X be your second choice recommendation for me, or something else? (More options please)
 
My 7800x3d (PBO -28 neg curve optimiser, Scalar x10, auto OC +200) is always around 57-58w when gaming, it's a fantastically efficient cpu although terribly overpriced at the moment. When I bought mine they were £315 and I got the cpu and motherboard in a bundle for just £515. There have been quite a few in our MM recently with prices around £280 so keep your eyes open for a good one.

It doesn't run particularly hot if you have good airflow. I had a Thermalright Peerless Assassin SE120 on mine with the fans set to the silent profile in the motherboard bios and mostly the cpu was in the mid-high 60's but did peak at 75 degrees C every now and then. This was acceptable to me for the silent running and the fans just didn't ramp up. This was aided by me fitting a third fan to the cooler. Due to me messing around with my gpu and fitting a heatsink to the rear of it I was suffering from heat soak from the gpu to the cpu cooler and the fans started ramping up a lot. Previously it was fine so it was all my own doing. I decided to replace the PA120 with a AIO to get the heatsink away from the gpu. Due to space limitations I could only fit a 240mm in my case and picked the Thermalright Frozen Edge 240 for the grand price of £44 and fitted it in the side panel furthest away from the gpu. Now my cpu temps are down to a maximum of 58 degrees C while gaming and back to silence again although it's hot (for us up here) today so this may increase a tad. You don't need to spend a fortune on expensive coolers to keep them cool.

The 9700x is a fine cpu and on offer at the moment although I can't help but feel it's overpriced compared to what I paid for my 7800x3d. With 8C and 16T it should last a decent length of time for 1440p gaming as the gpu is more important at that res and upwards. However, it would be hard to ignore the 7600x at it's current price of around £200 or less (shop around and you can find it for £171) which is a cracking price. Yes it's 6C, 12T but it shouldn't be too much of a downside for a couple of years and is still a massive upgrade from your 6700k. You could look at it as a stop gap until the Ryzen 10000 series launches (still on AM5) then drop one of those in once the prices have settled down. It's certainly worth thinking about.
 
Between the CPUs being mentioned here, there is very little difference
Any of these is a good choise for a low power
Any of these could be run in Eco mode or manually lowered power limit.
And probably all will need some manual intervention in cooler fan curves so that temperature spikes don't make fans go crazy.

X3D is more efficient in gaming - more frames for same power. I think that temperature chart is misleading in that it is actually doing more work and is able to use more power so hits higher temperatures. In a frame rate limit situation it should be cooler.
 
1. If the 7800X3D (120W) uses less power in reality than 9700X (65W) why does it say 120W and not 65W?
The X3D is considered a high-end part (intended for enthusiasts) and I think the high TDP rating is just a legacy of that and allows the CPU to use however much power it needs to give you top performance.

In reality, the CPU just doesn't need that much power when gaming.

The 9700X is more of a regular CPU (despite the X) and these have 65 watt TDPs to indicate they're suitable to be used in standard desktops with basic cooling. The X3D can use the same simple coolers, but it doesn't really make sense when a peerless assassin is just ~£30 and plenty good enough for either CPU.

2. If the 7800X3D is using less power than the 9700X why is approx 10c hotter? And is it right to assume this means the cpu cooler will be louder?
The X3D tends to run a little hot, partly due to the positioning of the cache and the density, but since the power consumption is very low, the CPU cooler doesn't have to work very hard and should not be loud (or at least, can be configured that way).

The 9000 series CPUs are often cooler and I think AMD designed them that way, but it isn't a problem for any of these CPUs to run hot.

(More options please)
There's really nothing else that can give you this level of performance for a high-end gaming PC. I sometimes suggest the 8500G for a basic desktop, or the 13400 (same), which both have low power consumption and decent efficiency, but their overall performance is not competitive for gaming against the 7800X3D or other higher-end Ryzen CPUs.



The new Core Ultra CPUs score way better than the previous gen, the 245K is pretty high up TPU's gaming efficiency chart, but their gaming performance is still inconsistent and you need decent RAM to get the best out of them. They're best for mixed usage rather than just gaming.

The previous gen 7700 and especially the 7900 (non-X) were also praised for their efficiency, but again, the 7900 is best for mixed usage or mainly productivity.


The new 9600 (non-X) might do very well there too, but I haven't seen any reviews yet.
 
That's helpful ty, I also have some questions about GPUs, assuming it's the 5070/9070 tier I'm aiming for:

1. How much weight should I give to choosing between DLSS Super Sampling and FSR? Is one massively better than the other, does it matter? Would I even need to use them at 1440p? Do they provide future-proofing?

2. When choosing a GPU model, prioritising quietness, which tier is going to be quieter, a low tier with low clocks and basic cooler, a mid tier with better cooler but higher clocks, or a top tier with massively better cooler but also much higher clocks? (and it must not have coil whine) (I paid extra for the 1080 Strix and it was money well spent)

3. I have used Nvidia mainly, my last foray into ATI was the 5870 which had unstable drivers and I missed out on PhysX, so I ended up looking like a fool while we were playing Borderlands and I couldn't see half the effects and I crashed out every session and I'm therefore wary of switching but I have heard about Nvidia drivers being unstable lately. What is the current situation? Are there any feature differences, or stability, latency, etc - what would I notice if I made the switch to AMD now?
 
1. How much weight should I give to choosing between DLSS Super Sampling and FSR? Is one massively better than the other, does it matter?
The consensus from what I've seen is that FSR4 is massively better than FSR3.x and AMD are now competitive, but it still lags behind DLSS overall.

Would I even need to use them at 1440p?
No, both cards can do native 1440p.

Do they provide future-proofing?
That's hard to answer. In theory, yes, because you can upscale to maintain decent frame rates as your card ages, but developers seem to be starting to "optimise" their games with the assumption of upscaling being used and that's a development I'd argue is diminishing the value-add it would otherwise have been.

2. When choosing a GPU model, prioritising quietness, which tier is going to be quieter, a low tier with low clocks and basic cooler, a mid tier with better cooler but higher clocks, or a top tier with massively better cooler but also much higher clocks? (and it must not have coil whine) (I paid extra for the 1080 Strix and it was money well spent)
The factory OC on most models is so tiny that the added heat/power is usually not significant when compared to the superior coolers. I don't know if this opinion is supported by the reviews, but my impression is that the AMD 9070 non-XT cards are pretty overbuilt for the level of power and you shouldn't have much trouble with them, but some of the 5070 coolers are really not great.

With a little undervolting and power limiting all the cards (even the basic ones) can be made to run quietly, but I'd definitely check reviews.

Would I personally pay extra from something like a Ventus (5070)? Yes. Would I pay extra over a Pulse (9070)? No, probably not. I'd be concerned about the quality of the overall cooling too, memory, VRM, GPU die, I wouldn't want 100C memory, for example and a backplate that actually has thermal pads and provides some cooling would be nice.

What is the current situation?
The nvidia drivers for the 5000 series have been pretty widely reported to be bad and I don't think nvidia has denied this, but there are also 5000 series owners that have had no issues. I've seen few reports of driver problems on the forums with the 9070/9070 XT, but as always, AMD has a reputation there and are going to be blamed quickly, even if the drivers are not responsible.

Personally, from the buying experience(s) of those on the forums, if you have strong doubts about the AMD drivers I would always suggest don't buy one. As I said, they're going to be the first thing that gets blamed and the card will get sent back and replaced with the nvidia one, so better/easier for ererybody to just go that way from the start.
 
2. When choosing a GPU model, prioritising quietness, which tier is going to be quieter, a low tier with low clocks and basic cooler, a mid tier with better cooler but higher clocks, or a top tier with massively better cooler but also much higher clocks? (and it must not have coil whine) (I paid extra for the 1080 Strix and it was money well spent)
Techpowerup are a good resource for this as they do noise normalized testing of every model they review.
 
I got a bit further along, in that now that I have some options priced up just to see what's doable in budget (£2k ish). GPUs are a bit of a problem, either out of stock or overpriced, so I'm in no rush to order (maybe in 1-3 months). But getting to this stage means I can post it and you can suggest stuff, so here it is:

BepOUHg.png


To explain not choosing X3D - gaming is one of my requirements but I don't game a lot so I don't want to pay a premium for it (GPUs already feel borderline not worth it). I play at 1440p, high settings is fine (ultra not needed), not fussed about ray tracing, 100fps is fine. Generally not playing AAA games / unoptimized console ports etc.
 
Last edited:
honestly no point discussing specific pricing now if you're not going to order now.

if just gaming and web browsing, don't really need a 9700x, i would go for either a 7600/9600/9600x or a 7800x3d/9800x3d
if dropping down to a 7600/9600, would be able to fit a 9070xt into budget, which for gaming, a 7600+9070xt would obviously be a better combo

also £68 for a 1tb ssd is also madness - especially the sn770 since it's nothing special (tlc, no dram cache). i'd just pony up the extra for a 2tb team mp44l, that's available for £100

lastly, £108 for win 11 is madness. there's other ways to get it cheaper
 
Last edited:
The 9600 non-X hasn't been reviewed widely yet, but I'd take a look if you can find one, because the non-X CPUs typically run cooler and use less power. Though, the 9700X/9600X aren't bad on that front anyway, so maybe it won't be true for them.

I wouldn't want to pay that much for a motherboard, for either the 245K or the 9700X. Their power use is very low, so there's just no need for a high-end board. The £150 region is where I'd be looking. PCIE 5.0 is nice, but it is getting turned off a lot lately to avoid issues anyway. If a cut in the motherboard meant you could afford a 9070 XT or 5070 Ti instead, for example, I'd get the cheap board every time. The only time I would not, is if I had plans to run the CPU at very high load for extended periods.

5070 for £700? Lol. Get out of town. Anyhow, when you order in however long the market might be completely different by then anyway.
 
The build in my sig cost me £2000 not including peripherals. The 4080 super is end of life so a 5070ti would be a great replacement but would recommend the 7800xd3d over a 245k for gaming as the new intel core ultra chips are great for productivity but not very good for gaming and besides the 7800x3d is a power house for gaming :). If you know how to undervolt, you could get this system to use less than 500W even lower than 450W at full load.
 
Back
Top Bottom