-
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.
Which AM5 CPU's would you pair with a 7900XT level card?
- Thread starter Darujhistan
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 383
What is it that you don't understand?
If you've designed some outlandish scenario where we're talking about £2,400 GPU's then I'm telling you now that it is irrelevant to 99% of PCGaming buyers.
e.g. higher-res / lower-framerate = £500 GPU + £250 CPU
e.g. lower-res / higher-framerate = £333 GPU + £250 CPU
I can't begin to describe how indifferent I am that your extreme scenario doesn't fit a "ball-park" rule for the enormous majority of gamers.
Last edited:
To be honest there's really no brains involved in picking a CPU/GPU.
Without going into budget builds and speccing AM4/intel, then if purely for gaming there's only a handful of "sensible" choices.
1) lower end = 7600/9600x
2) needing a couple more cores = 7700/9700x
3) top = 9800x3d
The bulk of the budget goes into the GPU (Nvidia knows this too)
Without going into budget builds and speccing AM4/intel, then if purely for gaming there's only a handful of "sensible" choices.
1) lower end = 7600/9600x
2) needing a couple more cores = 7700/9700x
3) top = 9800x3d
The bulk of the budget goes into the GPU (Nvidia knows this too)
should be an example of this please e.g. lower-res / higher-framerate = £333 GPU + £250 CPU
where dose the 9800x3d fit into this scale?
i mean if you want a high FPS at 1080p you need a hell of a fast CPU, but thats needs a GPU to back it up, what GPU do you get for £333.
7600xt or a 4060(none ti) both ok GPU's but there not putting out 260hz at 1080p.
and with a £250 - 7600x / 14600k thats defo not happing
the GPU market in silly expensive, this may have worked 10 years ago but i dont see it working now
and again high res low frames rate, who go into gaming saying i want 1440p but at a solid 60FPS.
based on what you have said if i want to game at 1440p 165hz max setting what should my budget be? as a percentage?
this table could be flipped to a degree deepening on the res.
low res high FPS = 9800x3d 100%
high res low FPS = 7600 easy all day
but high res high FPS = again could be any of the CPU's really as it almost all GPU horsepower needed
Last edited:
Agreed.
Basically what I mainly spec nowadays in the "spec me" threads.
Either the 7600 or the 9800x3d
And that's without going into the complexities of games which might heavily favour the CPU, especially X3D over GPU. While rare they do exist, the metric suggested by the tea person is utter nonsense. Hell, even the 9600 over the 7600 in games like Asseto Corsa, if a person was only into that one game it's a healthy 20-30% uplift.
You can get a 7500F for £80-100 on entry level AM5, it's barely slower than a 7600, it just lacks the iGPU. By the standards suggested the average gamer should spend another £100 plus on minimal processor gains at the expense of their overall budget.
Things aren't black or white.
Last edited:
this why i always say what games/res do you play when people say im building a gaming rig so i NEED 9800x3d.
because in a lot of cases at over 1080 so 1440+ most of the time you dont NEED a £500 CPU, you would be better off with a £250 CPU and adding an extra £250 to the GPU budget
that can in a lot of cases make the differance in a 4070 and a 4080s and in games that's a massive differance
then poeple say yer but with DLSS a 9800x3d is better than a 7700x.. but with DLSS you no longer gaming at 1440 or 4k are you...
if you want a 4k rig but cant afford a 4k rig build a kick ass 1440 200hz reg instead as the gaming experience will be better than 4k DLSS performance at 70fps
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 383
lovely that people disagree with their extreme edge cases of people who only play one game that is extremely CPU dependent, or want the rule to work with extreme outlier GPU's that cost more on their own than even a high-end pre-built gaming rig.
twenty years of building gaming PC's tell me these absurdist scenarios are ********, and have no relevance to a "ball-park" rule.
www.overclockers.co.uk
twenty years of building gaming PC's tell me these absurdist scenarios are ********, and have no relevance to a "ball-park" rule.
Login | OcUK
Leading the way in bespoke PC systems and PC gaming, any and all of your components & peripherals needs are met with our vast range of products and services.
www.overclockers.co.uk
Last edited:
lovely that people disagree with their extreme edge cases of people who only play one game that is extremely CPU dependent, or want the rule to work with extreme outlier GPU's that cost more on their own than even a high-end pre-built gaming rig.
twenty years of building gaming PC's tell me these absurdist scenarios are ********, and have no relevance to a "ball-park" rule.
this is what your said...
so your saying for high res low FPS a 7700x and a 4070/7800xt is good? and your right.
BUT 7400f and a 4080/7900xt would be better and they could be had for the same budget
the problem with this is lower res higher FPS is often harder to driven on a lower budget that higher res lower FPS
the RTX 3070 is a good run of the mill 1440p GPU but at 1080 it actually sucks. this is why i had to replace the boys with his 260hz 1080 screen so.. low res high FPS..
Last edited:
25 + years of building PCs on my end tell me the ball park rule you came up with is utter nonsense tbh. Frankly it always has been, especially in the earlier enthusiast days with over clocking taken into account.lovely that people disagree with their extreme edge cases of people who only play one game that is extremely CPU dependent, or want the rule to work with extreme outlier GPU's that cost more on their own than even a high-end pre-built gaming rig.
twenty years of building gaming PC's tell me these absurdist scenarios are ********, and have no relevance to a "ball-park" rule.
Everything is a case by case dependent on user, but even averaging things out your "rule" makes no sense as I already proved, you just hyper focused on one aspect of a post. It's hilarious levels of irony, you gave bad advice, just let it go.
Last edited: