How much would a new cpu help?

[BEEP!]

If I upgraded from a Ryzen-3600 to a Ryzen-5800x3d how much would that help performance wise?

[KungFury]

I have a 5600x and am thinking of upgrading to 5800x3d too (or maybe 7800x3d).
The 5800x3d should give me 30% more fps in difficult situations, so you should get about 40-50% more fps I would say.

[DEATHLORD]

Before you upgrade just make sure that your mother board does not bottleneck the new cpu.

[BEEP!]

Originally posted by DEATHLORD:

Before you upgrade just make sure that your mother board does not bottleneck the new cpu.

I have the ASUS TUF GAMING X570-PLUS so I should be good to go.

[The Nameless]

I have a pretty new Ryzen myself, and I started ripping my hair out when I discovered that the new HQ starting location was in Heretic's End, which always caused my PC some problems. The new processor did not fix them. I also kept finding myself avoiding my large, complex HQ no matter *where* it was.

Then I started fiddling with graphics settings, and I discovered that the antialias setting I was using was the problem. I had it on MSAA 8x. I switched it to FSAA and immediately the game looked and performed a lot like Elite: Dangerous. By which I mean, beautiful and flawless. After some research into what different types of antialiasing actually mean and what they're for, I switched to SMAA. The difference in appearance is tiny, so I guess it's just a matter of not feeling like my fancy processor is being wasted; FSAA looked just fine.

Anyway, before you go throwing your wallet to Jeff Bezos, you might try playing with the settings and see if maybe you too can find one that will still look beautiful on your monitor without causing your processor to cry tears of blood.

[BEEP!]

Originally posted by The Nameless:

I have a pretty new Ryzen myself, and I started ripping my hair out when I discovered that the new HQ starting location was in Heretic's End, which always caused my PC some problems. The new processor did not fix them. I also kept finding myself avoiding my large, complex HQ no matter *where* it was.

Then I started fiddling with graphics settings, and I discovered that the antialias setting I was using was the problem. I had it on MSAA 8x. I switched it to FSAA and immediately the game looked and performed a lot like Elite: Dangerous. By which I mean, beautiful and flawless. After some research into what different types of antialiasing actually mean and what they're for, I switched to SMAA. The difference in appearance is tiny, so I guess it's just a matter of not feeling like my fancy processor is being wasted; FSAA looked just fine.

Anyway, before you go throwing your wallet to Jeff Bezos, you might try playing with the settings and see if maybe you too can find one that will still look beautiful on your monitor without causing your processor to cry tears of blood.

Yea the AA seems to be the only real performance hitting setting in the game I use MSAAx2 with SMAA-reshade along with FXAA-reshade and that looks the best with only giving up like 5fps

[✭Panther ♂]

Change do not change the settings but the lags near the huge stations will not disappear

[Ð'jinn]

CPU upgrade will of course help, but try playing with the anti-aliasing options. I have the fastest Intel and Nvidia card you can buy right now and X4 can still dip into ~30fps. Lock the frame rate to 60hz is helpful in any case.

I would add that I prefer not to use any of X4's anti-aliasing methods. Yes, FXAA is the fastest but you may not like to additional blur this adds to the game. You can instead download Reshade and when installing choose the following. Don't checkbox them, make sure it is a square selection so you can choose each shader.

■ SweetFX by CeeJay.dk
CAS SMAA
■ AstrayFX by BlueSkyDefender
Clarity SmartSharp
■ FGFX by AlexTuduran
FGFXLargeScalePerceptualObscuranceIrradiance
■ Insane-Shaders by Lord of Lunacy
CMAA2 ContrastStretch LocalContrastCS

Choose X4 when installing and keep it set to Vulkan. Next choose the above shaders. Rehade also has FXXA but I don't recommend to bother with it. It will always blur and distort. Its old tech.

When starting the game for the first time you will see you can open the new configuration menu with the "Home" key. Definitely activate "CAS" on High settings (it is the default, no need to change anything). No brainer there. It is awesome for my eyes and monitor. Also, turn on SMAA at default settings but check this out carefully to see if you need to lower any of its settings if they are causing text to distort or increase its sampling times to improve quality but cause a greater performance hit. Try out its predictive settings. Observe the outlines of the captain's chair and other objects you can interact with. The normally jagged outline is a good visual guide for setting the effect. Set everything to the point where these lines becomes smooth enough for you and go no farther.

For the rest of the shaders, try them out to add additional sharpening and details. "FGFXLargeScalePerceptualObscuranceIrradiance" on a low setting of like 200-300 has a nice effect. I find conservative values on all shaders work the best.

When you are done with settings turn on performance mode. Remap the default "Home" key for activating Reshade to something that isn't used by X4.

In the game, turn off all X4 anti-aliasing setting. Observe the game's new look and fall in love or consider my advice is terrible. It's your eyes deciding. Observe the new frame rate. In any case, the performance hit is minimal, less than any of Egosoft's choices (if you use conservative settings), and on my computer, in my opinion, considerably higher quality. Don't like it? Rerun Reshade setup and choose to uninstall it.

You can go further with it, but you need to start understanding technical details such as how to access the depth buffer. Looks it up if you are interested. I've already written a wall of text.

[Wolfsblut]

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-5800X3D-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3600/m1817839vs4040 about 25% faster.. not enough worth. rather have at least a 50%+ of total performance to be at least worht q few hundreds.

[VPanda]

Originally posted by Wolfsblut:

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-5800X3D-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3600/m1817839vs4040 about 25% faster.. not enough worth. rather have at least a 50%+ of total performance to be at least worht q few hundreds.

it is a synthetic test, in which, my core i7 2600k was not so bad, but after I upgraded to core i5 12400f - all lags in x4 disappeared. Difference on userbenchmark is also not so big on these

[DEATHLORD]

Originally posted by Anonymous:

Originally posted by DEATHLORD:

Before you upgrade just make sure that your mother board does not bottleneck the new cpu.

I have the ASUS TUF GAMING X570-PLUS so I should be good to go.

I am using a tuff z390 plus gaming with an I9 9900kf cpu and a rtx 2080ti card

[XIII]

Originally posted by Wolfsblut:

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-5800X3D-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3600/m1817839vs4040 about 25% faster.. not enough worth. rather have at least a 50%+ of total performance to be at least worht q few hundreds.

Stop spamming Userbenchmark, that site is garbage. 25% advantage, thats actually hilarious.

In reality its more 60-80% faster, and thats while eliminating bottlenecks and improving frametimings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBFNoKUHjcg

Originally posted by VPanda:

it is a synthetic test, in which, my core i7 2600k was not so bad, but after I upgraded to core i5 12400f - all lags in x4 disappeared. Difference on userbenchmark is also not so big on these

Synthetic tests usually overrate modern CPUs, not underrate them. Userbenchmark is just bad, especially when it comes to anything AMD.