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.

[Falsted]

Yeah that's what i'm still not too sure about: Would Farthest Frontier benefit more from the higher cache in the new 3D V cache AMD CPU's, or would it run better on the highest possible Single Core performer you could get for a reasonable price, like the i7-13700K (where you can maybe OC to like 5.8ghz or something)?

You mentioned Civ 6. So you're saying that it runs great with a good Intel chip with lots of P and E cores? I'm interested in how Civ 6 would run on the 3D V cache AMD chips too? I wonder if it's noticeably better than on the i7-13700K?

[Zephyr]

falsted a écrit :

Yeah that's what i'm still not too sure about: Would Farthest Frontier benefit more from the higher cache in the new 3D V cache AMD CPU's, or would it run better on the highest possible Single Core performer you could get for a reasonable price, like the i7-13700K (where you can maybe OC to like 5.8ghz or something)?

You mentioned Civ 6. So you're saying that it runs great with a good Intel chip with lots of P and E cores? I'm interested in how Civ 6 would run on the 3D V cache AMD chips too? I wonder if it's noticeably better than on the i7-13700K?

This will be different in each and every game (no idea about Civ 6, only turn time would be interesting I guess). Some games like 3d cache and some others do not care. In general it seems that lower frequency 3d cache CPUs equal or surpass very high frequency CPUs (like the 13700K) in games. 3d cache CPUs have very good performance (also single core) and very good efficiency in any game.

Then it comes down to price and where I live a 13700K costs as much as a 7800 X3d. If I game mostly with the PC and otherwise have just office work and/or video streaming then I buy the 7800 X3d. If I need something with better productivity as well, then I buy the 13700K.

[Falsted]

Right. So do you know if there's any cases were having that 3D V cache is a negative thing? As in, could it have a bad effect on some games, or will it always be at least normal or better than a comparable non 3D V cache CPU (assuming same clock speeds and cores etc.) You said that "Some games like 3D cache and some others do not care" - so there's no actual real 'negative' to using it then eh? Will the 7800X3D ever perform 'worse' in a game compared to say a Ryzen 7700X (same cores on both of them)? Like when it all comes down to it, If I get the 7800X3D, could I basically look at it like this:

7800X3D=very good performer in all games, and actually out performs the higher clocked 13700K in some additional games that can take advantage of the 3D V cache. No downsides to the CPU compared to the 13700 other than core clock speed essentially? (and number of actual cores of course, but since I don't use this PC for much productivity work at all, I really only care about maximising game performance).

[Zephyr]

falsted a écrit :

Right. So do you know if there's any cases were having that 3D V cache is a negative thing? As in, could it have a bad effect on some games, or will it always be at least normal or better than a comparable non 3D V cache CPU (assuming same clock speeds and cores etc.) You said that "Some games like 3D cache and some others do not care" - so there's no actual real 'negative' to using it then eh? Will the 7800X3D ever perform 'worse' in a game compared to say a Ryzen 7700X (same cores on both of them)? Like when it all comes down to it, If I get the 7800X3D, could I basically look at it like this:

7800X3D=very good performer in all games, and actually out performs the higher clocked 13700K in some additional games that can take advantage of the 3D V cache. No downsides to the CPU compared to the 13700 other than core clock speed essentially? (and number of actual cores of course, but since I don't use this PC for much productivity work at all, I really only care about maximising game performance).

There are no known negative effects of 3D cache itself on games or other CPU tasks.
You can get somewhat lesser performance in some games and many productivity applications that are not using 3D cache at all (the high clock speed is the major factor) vs. a CPU like a 13700K or above but this will not play a large role, the game will still perform very well. Most games "care" at least a little about the extra cache and then the benefit will equal out vs the lower clock and result in comparable performance with high frequency CPUs. You also cannot transform very high clock speed into linear performance gains, sadly that is not how it works. 4000 mhz vs 6000 mhz does not mean 6000 mhz is 50% better, just the clock speed is 50% more.

Just look at several different reviews with quite a few different games between them and you will see this clearly. 3D cache technology is probably here to stay for a while and I would be seriously surprised if Intel did not have thoughts about developing such tech as well. It is very successful.

[Vimes]

This game, albeit I have no previous saves of value - meaning large populations etc, gives the impression of using both P an E cores of my CPU.
As for Civ VI.....

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2838643658

other games do not utilise the E cores at all.

As for the 3D cache options. If I got a 7800x3D and the game did not take advantage of the cache, utilising instead the highest clocked cores, then I would be compromised. Compromised against that of a 13700k, as an example, due to the lack of overclocking potential of that chip. In those circumstances the 7800x3D would lose out.
That is why I considered a 7950x3D.
But the new RL refresh will be released reasonably soon. And the cost of a 7950x3D could be measured up against one of those, albeit that platform, socket 1700, is somewhat at an end for RL.

It is pretty easy to see on YT the AMD chips up against the Intel ones in popular AAA type games. I have not noted many Indie type titles, some of them I play. I notice even less games like city builders. Altho I'm hopeful that Cities Skylines 2 will be popular enough for it to be tested. Then again it has to have a way of producing a repeatable type benchmark.

So, I still remain unsure how a AM5 type CPU will perform in the type of games I tend to play overall. For me it would be a matter of buying memory, CPU and a board, an expensive option where I could just pop a RL refresh into my Z690 board.

[Falsted]

Right, thanks guys :)
Yeah I know the RL refresh will be coming around October probably. Not sure if it's worth waiting for that or not, considering I'd be paying full price for those chips at release, versus pretty much all the main AMD and Intel chips being 'on sale' (reduced from MSRP) right now in Canada.
I could either get the 7800X3D for $589.00, or the 13700K for $549.00. So the 7800X3D is $40.00 more, but it does come with Starfield, so that effectively makes it $499.00 in price, since Starfield is about $90.00 itself.

[Schekelberg73]

falsted a écrit :

Right, thanks guys :)
Yeah I know the RL refresh will be coming around October probably. Not sure if it's worth waiting for that or not, considering I'd be paying full price for those chips at release, versus pretty much all the main AMD and Intel chips being 'on sale' (reduced from MSRP) right now in Canada.
I could either get the 7800X3D for $589.00, or the 13700K for $549.00. So the 7800X3D is $40.00 more, but it does come with Starfield, so that effectively makes it $499.00 in price, since Starfield is about $90.00 itself.

Then Go for AMD
7800X3D is currently the best gaming CPU.
And Overall cheaper.
You can buy cheaper RAM aswell. Because it doesnt need that fast RAM.
6000-6200 is still fine

[Zephyr]

falsted a écrit :

Right, thanks guys :)
Yeah I know the RL refresh will be coming around October probably. Not sure if it's worth waiting for that or not, considering I'd be paying full price for those chips at release, versus pretty much all the main AMD and Intel chips being 'on sale' (reduced from MSRP) right now in Canada.
I could either get the 7800X3D for $589.00, or the 13700K for $549.00. So the 7800X3D is $40.00 more, but it does come with Starfield, so that effectively makes it $499.00 in price, since Starfield is about $90.00 itself.

Seriously, if you also want to play games like Starfield in the future X3D CPUs are a safe bet. At the high performance level this CPU discussion is about you cannot make a "wrong" decision. All the CPUs will perform extremely well and be limited by your older GPU anyway until you can upgrade that as well.

[Falsted]

Hmm...Would it actually be a better idea to just go for a GPU upgrade at the moment then, and leave the CPU upgrade for now? I currently have an i5-9600K and the 2070 Super as mentioned - do you think it would be a more noticeable upgrade in most games if, say, I bought a 4070ti to replace my 2070S? (I think I would prefer to stay with nvidea for the GPU, even though the AMD options are technically better, but I do have the G-Sync monitor, so probably best to just stick with nvidea for now, and the 4070ti is about the max I could do currently). Or since my CPU is getting on in age a bit, would it make more sense to upgrade the CPU to the 7800X3D first? I know everyone says your GPU does most of the heavy lifting in gaming of course, but as mentioned before, I do tend to play games that are more CPU intensive, so I'm not too sure...! Like in FF for example, would the CPU or the GPU upgrade make the most noticeable improvement in my particular case?

[Falsted]

For reference, I do play at 1440p resolution (165hz), so since the higher the resolution is, the more your performance relies on your GPU, I'm guessing the GPU would be the better thing to upgrade first?

[Schekelberg73]

falsted a écrit :

For reference, I do play at 1440p resolution (165hz), so since the higher the resolution is, the more your performance relies on your GPU, I'm guessing the GPU would be the better thing to upgrade first?

Thats a hard decision.
GPU upgrade for all the other games, 2070 Super isnt that strong, but at least Most Games 60fps+ with optimized settings is possible without RT.
I would decide it based on the games you Play. Mostly FF, then CPU, mostly other games, then CPU.

[Vimes]

The more you pay, to a point, the diminishing returns you get.
Internal game timers, engine limitations, less than great optimisations etc etc and so on..... All will influence to a greater, or lesser, extent that throwing hardware at it will have limited benefits.

This game, broad generalisation, still seems to not be that great with larger populations and good performance.
Then again it has just had those population limits lifted and is still work in progress.

Have a look at how, generally, your games perform and are you happy enough. 👍

Not that I expected it to make much of a difference at all but going to a RTX 4080 made absolutely no difference to WRSR.
But I'm getting some early impressions that it could help with this game, considering the eye candy and textures etc.

[Zephyr]

falsted a écrit :

For reference, I do play at 1440p resolution (165hz), so since the higher the resolution is, the more your performance relies on your GPU, I'm guessing the GPU would be the better thing to upgrade first?

Many games are rather interested in the GPU, Farthest Frontier is not one of them :). I owna few games other than FF, one military simulation and Kingdome come Deliverance (RPG) which are both very heavily CPU limited and will not at all care about your GPU when you push certain config settings. Other examples like the recent "The Last of us" port need a beefy CPU as well, otherwise your GPU power will go to waste :).

On the other hand most other games will use primarily your GPU and only need a decent CPU and for those a 9600K should still be enough for a while. It should be more or less on the level of a Ryzen 3700X and while this is a bit older CPU now it is really not "that" old.

As always this is a "money question". If you plan to build something with a 7800 X3d or comparable CPU you should think about a GPU that will really utilize it. Then it "must be" at least a RTX 4070 TI or a comparable GPU or you will not need such a powerful CPU to get your systems best potential. What many people do not get is that from a value perspective a more or less balanced system is the best so that your GPU and CPU can work well together without much of a bottleneck. Ultimately the GPU should hit its performance ceiling first in an ideal setup, because then you can just buy a better one and use the rest of the system further.

As a thought: Since I now know that you want to play Starfield (I assume other AAA games as well) and have a high refresh rate display I would by a GPU first in the very upper mid-range to "entry" high end level (RTX 4070 TI or RX 7900XT depending on what you can afford and you still plan on a 7800X3d or 13700K) and then see how it performs. I would expect good performance for some time to come in most games together with the 9600K. Farthest Frontier will not care I think :).
Then you can make your complete new build when you can afford it. Such a GPU is expensive, yes, but with a weaker GPU you also might as well choose a Ryzen 7700 or 12600K (or even a further step down). This also depends a little on how often you might want to upgrade a GPU again (or how long you plan to use the system)

[Falsted]

Thanks again for the input guys!