Ryzen 7800X3d, or i7-13700K for games like Farthest Frontier?

[Falsted]

I'm getting ready to put together a new PC build within the next few weeks probably, and I'm most likely going ahead with one of the above noted CPU's for the build. Just wondering if anyone has either of these CPU's, and had recently upgraded to them, that could give me some insight into how good they each are respectively in Farthest Frontier, and of course other simulation type games (ANNO 1800, cities skylines, Civ 6 etc.). The other main genre of game I primarily play is MMO's (basically just World of Warcraft and ESO). I know these types of games are way less dependant on the GPU than newer AAA titles are, and in fact benefit a lot from a good CPU, so that's my main focus of the upgrade.

I've been trying to research both of the CPU's as best I can in regards to what I would primarily be using them for (pretty much just a pure gaming computer build, as I don't do much other productivity tasks etc on this PC). It looks like the 7800X3D would be quite a bit better than the i7 for a primarily gaming PC? I've read that a lot of people are seeing pretty nice FPS increases in older MMO's like WoW too, and that the extra V-cache on the 7800X3D is really good for simulation type games too, but I'm really wondering if it would be quite noticeable or not in Farthest Frontier in particular?

My current CPU is an i5-9600K - so wondering if anyone has upgraded from that chip to either of the above mentioned, and then how noticeable of an increase has it been for you? I'll be continuing to use my existing GPU (RTX 2070 Super), until I upgrade that maybe next year when the 5000 series comes along.

[Schekelberg73]

I wasnt able to find any benchmarks for both CPUs regarding FF.
My friend got the 5800X3D though and i am running a 5600 OCed to a 5600X.
He got way less stutter and even with a bigger town he got more FPS than me. I am just using a &core and he a 8core, but since my utilization is down to less than 50% i know i am not bottlenecked by the amount of cores i got. I suspect game is utilizing Vcache, but how much? i dont know.
With the 7800X3D you can buy cheaper VRAM, its easier to cool, way more efficient, a pure gaming beast and if you do just gaming, go for it.
I upgraded from a 2700X, which is slower than your old CPU to a 5600 and this was already a great jump, more average FPS, less stutters.
In the beginning you will probably bottlenecked by your GPU quite a lot. I am running into a GPU Limit in 1080p with a 6700XT until 400-500 citizens.
But lowering Supersampling should help you.

[Falsted]

Thanks for the input!

[mauvbot]

As someone who owns a 13700k and played FF. I haven't had any issues and it seems to play well. Although I also have an RTX4090, 2 x 2TB 990 pro SSDs (OS & games), 64GB 6000mhz RAM and an angry wife who does't appreciate me spending so much money on a computer.

I saw no determinable difference with the 13900k, so take your partner out for dinner or save the money instead. Maybe some completely unnecessary leds to make your case look cool. Corsair has some nice new link stuff that looks cool and expensive (next build, just don't tell my wife).

As a general rule.
I can play comfortably at an average of 40fps @4k with 1000 people on a large map and very well develop village. Read as 4 separate living areas and extensive road network and all the desirability you can image. It can drop below 40fps, but we aren't talking about an FPS here. It doesn't hurt having a monitor with G-sync module either (extra $$$ though).

It is worth noting that some games struggle with the whole P core E core set up (12 & 13th gen Intel i7 & i5 CPUs). I've seen plenty of reports about games stuttering because they use an E core and the performance drops. There are ways of managing this, ASUS motherboards have the ability to disable E cores by pressing scroll lock when bios function is enabled. There are also usually ways to tell the game to only use specific cores, setting affinity.

Devs can code to utilise the cores effectively, but that can take effort and time.

Don't know if this helps.

[Lefebvre]

I have a 5800XD, a 4090 and 32GB ram (I think they are 3600mhz) and I´m getting anywhere between maybe 18-27 fps with 500 population. If I start moving the camera or if something is going on (a raid for example) my fps drops even further to roughly 10-15 fps.

Sure, if I zoom in I´m also getting 40+ fps but that is the only time I´m seeing 40+ fps in late game.

This is while playing a medium map in version 8.3. My resolution is 5120x1440 with everything on the highest settings. I´ve tried lowering my settings but nothing makes any difference on my fps. I would get the same fps if i played at 640x480.

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by Lefebvre:

I have a 5800XD, a 4090 and 32GB ram (I think they are 3600mhz) and I´m getting anywhere between maybe 18-27 fps with 500 population. If I start moving the camera or if something is going on (a raid for example) my fps drops even further to roughly 10-15 fps.

Sure, if I zoom in I´m also getting 40+ fps but that is the only time I´m seeing 40+ fps in late game.

This is while playing a medium map in version 8.3. My resolution is 5120x1440 with everything on the highest settings. I´ve tried lowering my settings but nothing makes any difference on my fps. I would get the same fps if i played at 640x480.

That is a bit weird. I have also an 5800 X3d and I can play at 50-60+FPS with more than 700 population. The GPU is not that important, I have a RX 7900 XT and play at 1440P. The GPU is not really "awake" when I limit FPS to 60.

Perhaps it is because I play at half speed since I cannot stand the hectic people who run always, but generall the game is running very good for me, even on large maps. Did you install on SSD? Do you play current stable version?

Edit: Windowed fullscreen runs significantly better for me than full screen. Playing the game at half speed significantly reduces framedrops and stutters. Average FPS with a 5800 X3d and RTX 4090 should be significantly over your current performance in any case I think.

[Lefebvre]

It´s the current stable version, not playtest, and it´s installed on a M.2 harddrive. Just in case I also did a re-installation but it did nothing.

Even if I drop down to 1920x1080 and turn all the settings off/lowest value I´m only getting 25-33-ish fps at half speed. This is while paning over my city. If I dont do anything its pretty stable at 33-ish fps.

One thing that I think might have helped somewhat is turning on "Resizable bar". Didn´t do much but it did something,

Love the game tho despite the lag (450h or so now), but sure would like more FPS.

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by Lefebvre:

It´s the current stable version, not playtest, and it´s installed on a M.2 harddrive. Just in case I also did a re-installation but it did nothing.

Even if I drop down to 1920x1080 and turn all the settings off/lowest value I´m only getting 25-33-ish fps at half speed. This is while paning over my city. If I dont do anything its pretty stable at 33-ish fps.

One thing that I think might have helped somewhat is turning on "Resizable bar". Didn´t do much but it did something,

Love the game tho despite the lag (450h or so now), but sure would like more FPS.

Ok, very weird. I never had such bad performance with the game. There was an issue for me that affected earlier savegames:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1044720/discussions/0/3829787744083805573/

But since then performance improved quite nicely for me. A part of this might be my new GPU but since you have a 4090 which can use mine as a warm up sparring partner, well... . Does not explain you proor performance.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3013326813 huge map normal performance now almost everywhere.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3013326689
same map, for some reason the worst spot

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3013326624
settings

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3013326656

Population number. I always play at half game speed. 1x speed is too hectic for me by far in a city builder and has much heavier stutters. Perhaps some of this helps. But I do not think it is the game then. Somehow the game and your system do not like each other, clearly.

[Falsted]

Hmm. Hard to make up my mind :P Could even go for a slightly lower budget build, with a 5800X3D like you guys were mentioning, and maybe put the extra money towards a newer GPU then? Just not to sure if the GPU upgrade would really worth it too too much in the games I regularly play, like FF...since they're more CPU intensive?

What do you guys think makes more sense: Go for a higher CPU build (say a 7800X3D, and keep my current 2070 Super to use with it), or a more mid range CPU build but with possibly a newer GPU as well (like the 5800X3D and then get a RTX 4060 or something similar)? Not to sure how much of an upgrade the 4060 even is compared to my 2070 Super, so not sure if that's even worth it or not really?

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by falsted:

Hmm. Hard to make up my mind :P Could even go for a slightly lower budget build, with a 5800X3D like you guys were mentioning, and maybe put the extra money towards a newer GPU then? Just not to sure if the GPU upgrade would really worth it too too much in the games I regularly play, like FF...since they're more CPU intensive?

What do you guys think makes more sense: Go for a higher CPU build (say a 7800X3D, and keep my current 2070 Super to use with it), or a more mid range CPU build but with possibly a newer GPU as well (like the 5800X3D and then get a RTX 4060 or something similar)? Not to sure how much of an upgrade the 4060 even is compared to my 2070 Super, so not sure if that's even worth it or not really?

Do not buy something like a RTX 4060 or 4060 TI. That is a scam, really. The 4060 would be only a bit better than you 2070 super. Probably 10-20%, really not worth it. For Farthest Frontier the GPU does not really matter that much, but if you want to play newer games in the nearer future you should look at least at a RTX 4070/TI or AMD equivalent. AMD will give you much better value compared to Nvidia, if you are not interested in Ray Tracing.

As for the CPU, you will have to built a new System in any case. The 5800 X3d is AM4 and the best CPU you can buy for that platform (gaming). It will be sufficient for the next 4-5 years and does work very nicely together with GPUs as powerful as a RX 7900 XT or RTX 4080. So, buying a CPU from that tier (either AMD or Intel) will be completely fine. The question is: Do you plan to upgrade again in the coming years? Then a 5800 X3d is not your choice, but with intel you often need to switch mainboards as well due to chipset changes. Then AM5 remains as a choice for relatively safe upgrade paths.

[Falsted]

Makes sense, thanks. Yeah, I figured a 4060 wouldn't really be worth it. Seems like the best move at the moment then is to just go with the 7800X3D, so that I'm on AM5, which should future proof me a bit if I decide to upgrade again down the road in a few years. As for the GPU, guess I'll stick with my 2070 Super for now, and then when I can afford it, upgrade to a 4070 or something equivalent.

Another quick question: I currently have a G-Sync monitor. Do you know if I can still use an AMD GPU with it, and take advantage of some type of V-sync (I don't think it technically has Freesync)? Like, if I got an AMD GPU in the near future (like an RX7900 XT), can it utilise the G-Sync monitor at all, or would I be better off just sticking with an NVIDIA card to be able to use G-Sync properly?

[tgree69]

Personally my priority would be getting a 12+ gb video card(your choice of card) and a good am5 mobo. Games are rarely CPU bound with the newer CPU's. Get a basic AM5 CPU, good mobo and GPU. You will be set for a few years. The CPU is fairly reasonable to upgrade later for a few bucks.

[mauvbot]

Maybe consider the i5 13600k, it's really solid for most stuff (gaming & productivity). Although there's still the whole P/E Core pain for some games.
"fan boy hat off"
The 5800 is very solid also.
Check prices on motherboard/cpu combos and see which combo meets your price range.

Don't buy an NVIDIA 4000 series (that coming from someone who owns an RTX4090).
All of the youtube people say to go AMD this gen and they are probably smarter than me. Just forget about ray-tracing as Zephyr said.

Small edit, AMD freesync monitor support is a lot cheaper than one with a g-sync module.

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by falsted:

Makes sense, thanks. Yeah, I figured a 4060 wouldn't really be worth it. Seems like the best move at the moment then is to just go with the 7800X3D, so that I'm on AM5, which should future proof me a bit if I decide to upgrade again down the road in a few years. As for the GPU, guess I'll stick with my 2070 Super for now, and then when I can afford it, upgrade to a 4070 or something equivalent.

Another quick question: I currently have a G-Sync monitor. Do you know if I can still use an AMD GPU with it, and take advantage of some type of V-sync (I don't think it technically has Freesync)? Like, if I got an AMD GPU in the near future (like an RX7900 XT), can it utilise the G-Sync monitor at all, or would I be better off just sticking with an NVIDIA card to be able to use G-Sync properly?

Regarding the monitor I am not 100% sure. My monitor has Free-Sync technically, but worked with G-Sync as well when I had a RTX 3070. Should probably also work the other way around, but you might want to make sure :).

Yes, AM5 is probably the best for you, especially if you want to upgrade the platform one more time. Intels 13th gen is seriously top notch as well, though. Just to be fair.

The GPU situation is overall a bit weird. Nvidia has no more interest in entry level and mid-range GPUs anymore it seems. That the RTX 4070 is "ok" seems like a fake consolation price as to not completely annoy the customer base. Everything below a RTX 4070 is complete garbage if you already own a 2070 or RTX 3000 gen. AMDs previous RX 6000 gen from a 6700XT onwards will start to kill the RTX 4060/TI GPUs in raw performance and be more or less equal in even Ray tracing + you get more VRAM for often lower price points (because of great price drops for even a 6800 XT or 6950 XT).

A similar picture continues with the RX 7000 series. The RX 7900XT is the same price or less now than a 4070 TI but sits somewhere between the RTX 4070 TI and the RTX 4080 in raw performance and a little behind in ray tracing. But you get a whopping 8 GB of VRAM more. Power efficiency is better for the RTX 4000 series, though. The RX 7000 series is about as efficient as the RTX 3000 series I would say.

Personally I had a RTX 3070 the last two years and Nvidia GPUs since 2013. The RTX 3070 was actually quite fine, but recently newer games need so much VRAM that I could not use some graphic options properly anymore (at 1440 P mind you). Since this will only continue to get worse I got tempted when a Sapphire Pulse 7900 XT was available for "only" 830 Euros+a free game code.

Some experience sharing (sort of advertisement), ignore if you wish:

The Sapphire RX 7900XT Pulse is hands down the best GPU I have ever had. Build quality and used materials are premium class, but they got rid of everything that is not functionally needed (no RGB lights and such). The cooling solution is very powerful but silent and the card wipes the floor with most games, except the most graphically challenging (or very badly optimized). And even then we are talking 80-100 FPS native performance at 1440P (no FSR/DLSS equivalent, no Ray tracing). With a little tweaking and FPS limit set to 80-120 the card usually needs anything between 170-270 W depending on the game. Fans will never go over 45 % rpm (custom curve), the card will not reach 70° C (75-82 °C hotspot usually). As a long time Nvidia user I was also surprised that the AMD software has evolved quite far. Easy to tweak everything on your card and no stability issues so far in any game I tried.

[MΛRCUS HΞLIUS]

From what I have learned, you want the fastest single core speeds you can buy, because 90% of all the processing (even on multithreaded games) happens on one core.

My next upgrade will have this in mind, in the hope that ~5.0GHZ core speed will finally be enough to run this game even close to a playable fps...

[Vimes]

I'll would like to get back into this game, only played a little so far.

I was also wondering how this game, if at all, would benefit from a Ryzen's 3D cache over that of the highest single core, kinda, top speed CPU.
Not the cheapest option but perhaps the 7950x3D would provide an option, with half of the cores being utilised on the CCD with the extra 3D type cache and the other half of the core being more conventional in their use.

I can enjoy some AAA type games that are not city building ones BUT these are what I enjoy the most.

I was surprised at how well a game like Civ VI takes advantage of both the P and E cores of my CPU, turn based strategy.
Whilst the game I'm playing the most right now, WRSR, seems to be VERY limited to its engine, rather than improve with faster hardware.
Diminishing returns and all that.

I am hopeful that since they have offered an option to remove the population cap on this game that it runs well on my PC.

Interesting results noted above, if mixed. nobody as yet reporting with an AM5 3D chip.

Good to see Zephyr's results, using a AMD GPU. For various reasons I have never had good luck using an AMD GPU, my last one, the 6800XT being refunded.