• 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.

Upgrading from 5600X to 5700X3D not really worth it?

minimum fps boost from x3d is worth it. and if your on am4 its a good option thats quick and easy to swap out not to mention that you can sell your old cpu on to make the upgrade even more worthwhile.
 
Cyber-Mav said:
minimum fps boost from x3d is worth it. and if your on am4 its a good option thats quick and easy to swap out not to mention that you can sell your old cpu on to make the upgrade even more worthwhile.
Click to expand...
It's somewhat game dependant, but this 100%.

Especially on something like a 4070 or better.
 
I've held off too with a 5800x. I don't always shoot for high frame rates so I've been reasonably happy. Seeing how Blackwell and the 9000 X3D chips pan out is where I'll be looking instead.
 
I was conteplaiting this upgrade, but ultimately decided against it.

Reasons:
  • I mainly play non-competitive games at 1440p. Problem of low 0.1% does not bother me in practice. Unless reviewers pointed this out, I would never notice.
  • 5700x3d and 5800x3d run substantially hotter, but I only have NH-U9S for cooling. With 5600x it is mostly silent, but I suspect it will have to work hard and produce some noise with x3d chips.
  • My monitor refresh rate is 144Hz, GPU is 4070.
  • I have mini-ITX case, so will have to disassemble everything in order to change and re-paste CPU.

I agree, it looks tempting. But yeah, better off spending this money on AMD stock and getting compound returns.
 
I went from a 5700X to a 5700X3D. No regrets (net cost was something like £80-£90 to upgrade after selling the 5700X).

I'm on a Radeon 7900 XT @ 4K/60 and 3440x1440 @ 100 Hz, so definitely in the higher res / graphics quality and lower FPS range.

For me the 5700X3D really helped address those moments when the FPS was suddenly a let down during otherwise smooth gameplay (i.e. high population areas in Cyberpunk 2077 / TLOU / WoW), or chaotic transition-style scenes in Tekken 8 and even Rise of The Tomb Raider's in built benchmark.

I was paranoid about my 140mm AIO not being able to handle an X3D chip, but to my welcome surprise the 5700X3D ran lower wattage and lower temp than my 5700X in games. Only in something synthetic like Cinebench at 100% CPU utilization does the 5700X3D go thermonuclear, forcing my AIO to get noisy to keep it at 70C (otherwise low to mid 50C in games with the AIO fan being inaudible).
 
jigger said:
You probably would be suffering running a 3700X with an anything much faster then a 3070.
Click to expand...

It's really game / resolution / settings dependent. My 3900X drives a 7900XT pretty well, but I tend to play either indies where it doesn't matter or AAA single player stuff at 4K 60; If I let the framerate run free can easily keep the GPU saturated. That's obviously not going to be your experience if you're trying to get high framerates in a competitive shooter at 1080p.
 
Xelene said:
It's really game / resolution / settings dependent. My 3900X drives a 7900XT pretty well, but I tend to play either indies where it doesn't matter or AAA single player stuff at 4K 60; If I let the framerate run free can easily keep the GPU saturated. That's obviously not going to be your experience if you're trying to get high framerates in a competitive shooter at 1080p.
Click to expand...

Radeon cards don’t suffer the CPU driver overhead as with Nvidia, plus a 3900X has a greater power envelope to work with.
 
jigger said:
Radeon cards don’t suffer the CPU driver overhead as with Nvidia, plus a 3900X has a greater power envelope to work with.
Click to expand...
The 3700X and 3900X should be within a few % in gaming depending on how how multithreaded they are. The 3900X has a 200Mhz higher boost clock and an overhead due to 2 CCD with 6 cores. Somewhat fair point on driver overhead although I think its a bit overblown.

The OP said a 3700X would struggle driving anything faster than a 3070, was offering a counterpoint given that a 7900XT is a LOT faster than a 3070.

TBF, i'm right at the limit of where that CPU is holding up - a few titles like Dragons Dogma 2, Baldurs Gate 3 Act 3 and some games with heavier BVH structures for RT are starting to expose it. Personally i'm waiting for to see what the zen5 line up looks like, and then replatforming; I think a 5700X3D or 5800X3D is a reasonable upgrade on AMD if you have an 8 core or less CPU and you can get it cheap (and play games in a way that would take advantage of it - so 1080p-1440p, high framerate)

EDIT: For my use case I suspect would be bottlenecking a 4070 Ti Super or 7900 XTX or above.
 
Last edited:
Xelene said:
The 3700X and 3900X should be within a few % in gaming depending on how how multithreaded they are. The 3900X has a 200Mhz higher boost clock and an overhead due to 2 CCD with 6 cores. Somewhat fair point on driver overhead although I think its a bit overblown.

The OP said a 3700X would struggle driving anything faster than a 3070, was offering a counterpoint given that a 7900XT is a LOT faster than a 3070.

TBF, i'm right at the limit of where that CPU is holding up - a few titles like Dragons Dogma 2, Baldurs Gate 3 Act 3 and some games with heavier BVH structures for RT are starting to expose it. Personally i'm waiting for to see what the zen5 line up looks like, and then replatforming; I think a 5700X3D or 5800X3D is a reasonable upgrade on AMD if you have an 8 core or less CPU and you can get it cheap (and play games in a way that would take advantage of it - so 1080p-1440p, high framerate)

EDIT: For my use case I suspect would be bottlenecking a 4070 Ti Super or 7900 XTX or above.
Click to expand...

If we assume we are powering 8 cores the 65 watt parts have circa 8 watts to operate within and the 95 watt parts offer closer to 12 watts. That’s a rather large gain. Even a vanilla 4070 will require a very highend system behind to see it full performance.

I seen a huge performance uplift between between a 3700X and 5900X running a RTX 3080 and would assume a RTX 3070 is about the point a a 65 watt AM4 part will become an issue with an Nvidia card.
 
FWIW, I did find my bottleneck eventually; it's Jedi Survivor at 4K w/ RT of all places. That's getting up to 55-60% CPU and dropping the GPU down to 75-80%. I suspect the BVH part of RT is where it gets really heavy.

Comparing a 3700X and a 5900X is like comparing Apples to Avocados, a 3700X and 3900X comparison is valid - despite the power limits being a bit different; they are similar per CCD and it's the same architecture so IPC should be a wash. Most games aren't multithreaded enough to cause too much of a difference; but yeah sure it'll be a lot different in GCC or something. (which is the entire reason I have a 12c part)
 
Xelene said:
FWIW, I did find my bottleneck eventually; it's Jedi Survivor at 4K w/ RT of all places. That's getting up to 55-60% CPU and dropping the GPU down to 75-80%. I suspect the BVH part of RT is where it gets really heavy.

Comparing a 3700X and a 5900X is like comparing Apples to Avocados, a 3700X and 3900X comparison is valid - despite the power limits being a bit different; they are similar per CCD and it's the same architecture so IPC should be a wash. Most games aren't multithreaded enough to cause too much of a difference; but yeah sure it'll be a lot different in GCC or something. (which is the entire reason I have a 12c part)
Click to expand...

The Nvidia driver is likely tapping out a low number of cores and ignoring the rest, this is the point the extra power envelope and IPC comes into its own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom