Neither will your PC games have access to the full power of your CPU, with Win10 and various background processes going on.
Win10 PCs at idle can eat ~10% of the CPU just sat there doing housekeeping tasks, virus scan, and other crap.
-
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.
Ryzen 5600x vs 3700x
- Thread starter pilsburypie
- Start date
Win10 PCs at idle can eat ~10% of the CPU just sat there doing housekeeping tasks, virus scan, and other crap.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,840
The 5900X might have an 8 core CCX just like in the 5800X. So it will be faster than the 5800X due to a higher clockspeed.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,394
- Location
- Planet Earth
Most reviews seem to use clean Windows installs IIRC and open test benches,so are showing a best case scenario.
Games have access to all the cores. In consoles games don't. It isn't a comparable situation.
It's your choice if you want to have lots of background processes. Virus scans aren't happening 24/7.
In a console even if the OS core(s) are doing nothing, they don't have access to them. This consoles use 8 cores so it will benefit 8 core PCs fails at the first hurdle. Console games literally cannot use 8 cores.
Games cannot use 8 cores.
How many people do you think will be tweaking their W10 installs to disable the myriad of (not only) background processes, but also sleeping AppX apps (that randomly wake up when they feel like it - check Task Manager some time).
A modern Win10 install is quite a lot like a phone, with tons of apps that don't really go away when you close them, but stay lurking in the background.
But it'd still be 2 CCX's with it being 12cores, I dunno it just makes me even more interested in how 5800X will be in comparison
Many of my games are using all 8 cores.
There is hardly any load on the cores when idle. Background tasks don't need a whole 4ghz core. The only one that might is a system scan. but that happens once a week and the OS is intelligent enough to know when the PC is idle. Windows updates do not happen when I am using the PC.
In a console, games literally cannot use 8 cores.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 20,842
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
If your gaming at higher than 1080p you want to offload the grunt to the GPU. In most games with visuals (not fps cs-go competitive rubbish) you wont stress the CPU half as much so the 3600 is golden.
MANY PC games use 8 cores,last Tomb Rider games and Battlefield 5,Civilisation 8.for example.and from now on more will use 8 cores.
some even use 12 cores (BF5/CIV 8)
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 2,201
- Location
- Droitwich, UK
I've been happy with my 8700K but if buying new 8 core would be preferable. However the 5800X is a great deal more expensive than 8 cores for the current gen. Perhaps a B550 and 3600 would be a good option for now to save some cash and wait and see what further CPU's are announced, there'll surely be a cheaper 8 core 5000 series but likely not for a good few months yet.
Jeez. In consoles, games cannot use 8 cores. That's a fact. Cores are deliberately reserved in consoles for the OS so they can perform things like quick resume and other similar tasks with zero delay and complete smoothness.
Therefore if anything game developers will make games to use less than 8 cores. The argument was that consoles have 8 cores and therefore games will definitely use 8 cores. The very premise of the argument is wrong.
Not sure what mentioning what some PC games do, adds to the conversation. PC game developers can use as many cores as they want. However, as I've pointed out, the number of cores in a console has little to do with that. To date, 6 cores and 12 threads is plenty for for 99% of PC games. Consoles won't be the driving factor for using more cores.
Last edited:
As above, consoles will reserve some footprint for the OS. 6 core will be just fine for the next 3-4 years but is likely to end up as quad core is now, it will handle newer releases just fine but if you multi-task (stream/record/heavy browser) you'll need an upgrade then and by then we will probably have 8 core as standard and cheaper (hopefully).
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 20,842
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
Yep, I mentioned in another thread I think it was foxeye - 6 core CPU is plenty for games especially if its GPU heavy.
That remains to be seen once we start getting next gen games.
I think people saying that "6-core will be fine going forwards" should say how long they expect 6-core to be optimal.
Because as they themselves will know, people don't typically upgrade every gen.
Do they think 6-core will last 2 or 3 years from now and still be optimal?
Let me know when the 2700X overtakes the 3600X. The 3600X was much better at gaming at launch, is still today and likely will be forever.
The OP isn't comparing the 3600X and 3700X. But the 5600X which has a 20% IPC gain (larger than the gain last gen). Like last generation it will be better for games today and the near future. Some hypothetical scenario in the distance future where the 3700X may or may not better does not enter into a rational decision.
Also in terms of pure math 6 cores at 1.2x performance is only slightly behind 8 scores at 1x performance even in this hypothetical future.
By getting a 3700X you are sacrificing gaming performance today and the near future for a completely unproven small performance benefit in the distant future.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 20,842
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
No its unfair to say beyond 3 years, so it wont last forever, but I remember when people were still devoted to two core for gaming and it started to benefit from having four cores that eventually became the norm. So when devs cater to use more cores it will be worth it.
As pointed out though and correctly, when you mention consoles, not all the cores are available so to pass off well that the number of cores PC will need is incorrect.
So you guys are 100% confident there will be no difference between the 5600X and the 5800X in gaming then? Beyond a handful of FPS given the slight clock bump.
Let's say at 1440p as that's a nice middle ground.
And we're talking next-gen games, within the next two years (it's unfair to go beyond 3 years you say so let's keep to 24 months, that should be fair enough to both of us).