Which AM5 CPU's would you pair with a 7900XT level card?

[humbug]

This, or the none X version when it comes out.

AMD Ryzen 7 9700X Eight Core 5.50GHz (Socket AM5) Processor - Retail

Order AMD Ryzen 7 9700X Eight Core 5.50GHz (Socket AM5) Processor - Retail now online and benefit from fast delivery.

www.overclockers.co.uk

 

[kute]

This might just be me, but since the X3D chips aren't THAT expensive, leaving all that performance on the table is weird to me. Like it might save you a generation or two down the line, the 9800x3d is like 60% stronger than the random non 3D am5 cpu's isn't it?

To me this is like buying the 4070 for 500 dollars over the 4090 for like 900 dollars, yea maybe you don't need the 4090, but you're leaving so much performance on the table for the sake of a couple hundred? With that said, if your use and/or budget are locked in solid, then just get like a 7600x

I'm just so immune to core talk, every single CPU thread since 2012 has a couple guys who say, "well the consoles are starting to use more cores now" and then 6 cores are eternally enough. I mean maybe they're right but I'm sure you've all seen the same thing for a decade+ and it kind of numbs you to that talking point

 

[WARburton]

This might just be me, but since the X3D chips aren't THAT expensive, leaving all that performance on the table is weird to me. Like it might save you a generation or two down the line, the 9800x3d is like 60% stronger than the random non 3D am5 cpu's isn't it?

all what performance on the table? GPU and Monitor have a massive impact on how well the X3d chip's will do.

if you have a 4090 and a 11700k @ 1080p then yes a then yep the upgrade to X3d is massive.
But if you have 9700x and a 7900xt @ 4k then no the upgrade to X3d would be minimal.

i love that the forum is full or people with 9800x3d's and a 7800xt that all say yer but im going to buy a 5090 bro.. but in the real world its more than they make in a month and just wanted the X3d chip to show off.
there not going to get a 5090...

unless you have income to burn a good PC is about balance. and saying X3d's (£550) aren't THAT expensive, than pairing it with a $500 GPU and a £150 monitor
there is so many better ways to have spent the £300 saving on a 9700

To me this is like buying the 4070 for 500 dollars over the 4090 for like 900 dollars

not even a close comparison, 4090 is £1800

 

[Gray2233]

Last I checked you could get a 7500f for around £100, it's only a tiny bit slower than a 7600. I'd go for that and wait for some sanity to return to the X3D pricing.

As for X3D performance at 4K, it really depends on the game. While most won't care, you'll still see a big benefit from certain titles, 4X and Sims, some MMO's etc.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

7800x3d and 7900XTX here

 

[Darujhistan]

For refernce i'm running a 5700x and a 7800xt right now, so I wouldnlt step down to 6 cores.

It seems to be bottlenecking the 7800xt, not so much that i'm all that bothered tbh. But does that sound right?

In any case it does seem like something mid-rangish with 8 cores would be the way to down the line with a stronger card on AM5 alternatively I might just ride it out for 2-3 more years as is, it's not as if I have a set up that I can't happliy play games on, I did find my 6700xt wasn't enough for 4k, so I went 34" UW OLED at the stated res instead. I was going to hang with the 6700xt and then buy a much better card for 4K, but then I realised that really the issue was 4K. It was really playing at 4K, there's a definite upgrade on1440p, but 4K IPS isn't a better experience than OLED 1440p IMO.

It might just be that my original thought to wait until AM6 was my best bet all along.

 

[bells]

5900x and 7900Gre user here but the real option is going Am5 which i will have to do as well

 

[arc@css]

Still with AM4, but when making the transition to AM5 (can't see it being Intel anytime soon),
then I'd most likely choose an 8-core CPU or higher.

My use case is a mixture of gaming and productivity. So, from what is available at present,
it would most likely be a 9700X or 9800X3D (the eventual release of the 9700 (non-X) would also be a strong contender).

However, I'm quite confident that a 9600X would be more than adequate for my needs in a number of productivity applications, e.g. Photoshop.

How the higher ranking X3D chips stack up, of course, remains to be seen.

 

[Poneros]

If you want >60 fps then it has to be an X3D. I have an R5 7600 currently but in stress cases (f.ex Cyberpunk) it clings closer to 60-70 fps and doesn't get me to my 120 fps cap. There's plenty of other examples just like that. Going from a 5700x to anything other than X3D would be a waste. Maybe get a 5700X3D to tide you over until AM6 because it's going to be a long wait and it's otherwise a cheap upgrade.

 

[WARburton]

For refernce i'm running a 5700x and a 7800xt right now, so I wouldnlt step down to 6 cores.

It seems to be bottlenecking the 7800xt, not so much that i'm all that bothered tbh. But does that sound right?

if you at 4k thats not a bad match, x3d would help with 1% lows but thats about it

 

[stuie]

If you want >60 fps then it has to be an X3D. I have an R5 7600 currently but in stress cases (f.ex Cyberpunk) it clings closer to 60-70 fps and doesn't get me to my 120 fps cap. There's plenty of other examples just like that. Going from a 5700x to anything other than X3D would be a waste. Maybe get a 5700X3D to tide you over until AM6 because it's going to be a long wait and it's otherwise a cheap upgrade.

Look at your package temp
You need to pop pbo on that 7600 will get it up to 5.4ghz which might help

 

[kute]

all what performance on the table? GPU and Monitor have a massive impact on how well the X3d chip's will do.

if you have a 4090 and a 11700k @ 1080p then yes a then yep the upgrade to X3d is massive.
But if you have 9700x and a 7900xt @ 4k then no the upgrade to X3d would be minimal.

i love that the forum is full or people with 9800x3d's and a 7800xt that all say yer but im going to buy a 5090 bro.. but in the real world its more than they make in a month and just wanted the X3d chip to show off.
there not going to get a 5090...

unless you have income to burn a good PC is about balance. and saying X3d's (£550) aren't THAT expensive, than pairing it with a $500 GPU and a £150 monitor
there is so many better ways to have spent the £300 saving on a 9700


not even a close comparison, 4090 is £1800

Sorry my bad I didn't make things clear.

What I mean is that in 3 years when he buys an rtx 8060, a 7600x might bottleneck where a X3D chip won't. I just mean that for the sake of a couple hundred bucks, you can buy somethign so much more powerful.

That's what I meant by the 4090 thing, I'm saying it's like having access to a cheapish super powerful GPU, but opting to save a buck and getting something much worse. Like if the 4090 was 800 bucks, you'd be crazy not to get it over like a 600 dollar 3080 or something

Normally I'm all for saving money, but those X3D chips have such massive uplift and it's not really that expensive. The 9800x3d is like what, 50% performance over like a 7600, idk, I'm just guessing, but it's something pretty impressive. That might buy him a few generations upgrade.

Sometimes products are so impressive that it becomes...odd not to buy them. Those x3d chips are that rare PC hardware where you might get an extra gen or two as opposed to a normal decent cpu like a 7600 or a 13600k or something. Like, the 9800x3d's only competition is its own predecessor. Things are crazy lopsided right now in favour of AMD, and those CPU's are so damn impressive

 

[Rroff]

If you want >60 fps then it has to be an X3D. I have an R5 7600 currently but in stress cases (f.ex Cyberpunk) it clings closer to 60-70 fps and doesn't get me to my 120 fps cap. There's plenty of other examples just like that. Going from a 5700x to anything other than X3D would be a waste. Maybe get a 5700X3D to tide you over until AM6 because it's going to be a long wait and it's otherwise a cheap upgrade.

That seems kind of low? my ancient 6 core / 12 thread Xeon barely does worse than that in CP2077, but it is a game which can benefit a bit from extra cores and massively benefits from memory bandwidth as well as cache.

 

[Gray2233]

That seems kind of low? my ancient 6 core / 12 thread Xeon barely does worse than that in CP2077, but it is a game which can benefit a bit from extra cores and massively benefits from memory bandwidth as well as cache.

Yeah, but it's an utterly useless metric without settings/resolution/native v upscaler etc lol.

 

[humbug]

Ryzen 9700X vs 5800X, there is clearly a significant difference between the two.

Speaking of Cyberpunk the 9700X is 10% better at 1440P highest settings with a 4090, same with BFV at 4K, for a real world tests are those a huge difference? no, ok.... in FC6 the 9700X is 30% better at 4K High, in Spiderman Remastered the 9700X is 25% faster again at 4K High.

If you have a 5800X or any sort of Zen 3 CPU it is worth upgrading to a 9700X or even a 9600X if you play at 1440P.

 

[Poneros]

Look at your package temp
You need to pop pbo on that 7600 will get it up to 5.4ghz which might help

Eh, marginal returns. I'd rather keep the quiet.

That seems kind of low? my ancient 6 core / 12 thread Xeon barely does worse than that in CP2077, but it is a game which can benefit a bit from extra cores and massively benefits from memory bandwidth as well as cache.

Nah, not so close. Plus the frametimes are so much smoother (real feel). Here's my 6800K (pre-PL so 10-15% less cpu taxing, rt psycho, <720p):

Yeah, but it's an utterly useless metric without settings/resolution/native v upscaler etc lol.

You don't need to know any of that to see the clear CPU bottleneck, just read the metrics. This was PT 720p FSR Ultra Perf, but saw similar with RT. Non-RT will allow the CPU to breath more but will take it into the 80s-90s and not 120. Only other thing that would help is lower crowd density, which I don't recommend for actual gameplay. Better to bite the bullet and accept the cost. Besides can use frame gen to make up the difference.

 

[stuie]

If you want >60 fps then it has to be an X3D. I have an R5 7600 currently but in stress cases (f.ex Cyberpunk) it clings closer to 60-70 fps and doesn't get me to my 120 fps cap. There's plenty of other examples just like that. Going from a 5700x to anything other than X3D would be a waste. Maybe get a 5700X3D to tide you over until AM6 because it's going to be a long wait and it's otherwise a cheap upgrade.

What GPU is that that's only sucking back 150w

Also what resolution and settings you using?

As said it's impossible to tell what your doing or trying to achieve if you don't post full specs

You will be CPU bottlenecked if your running 1080p low.

Crank the settings up and you'll be GPU bottlenecked.

I run a 3090 and 5120x1440p with a 7600 (pbo) I'm not CPU bottlenecked in any game, cyberpunk, satisfactory, you name it. CPU usage sits between 30 and 50% where the GPU is pinned sucking back over 400w