Ryzen 7 9800-X3D vs Ryzen 9 9900X - Upgrade decision

[Precision]

Hello,

Im having a bit of a hard time deciding between the 2 procs. I know that the 9900x has higher single core performance AND has more cores AND scores better when looking at productivity and I am not sure if its wrong or not...to consider X4 more of a productivity thing, rather then a game. Also not sure how many cores/threads the game actually uses efficiently.

But then again...it IS a game, and the 9800x3d excells at gaming performance.
Now I know that overall for other games I will benefit more from the x3d. But stricly talking about X4, im not sure...but im sure im not properly informed.
Gpu and other components are non-issues. 32gb ram and a trusty 6900xt should be more then enough for X4.
Planning on gaming 1440p.

Thx in advance for your thoughts and advice!

[conrado.lacerda]

Maybe it's better to ask at the official Egosoft forum: https://forum.egosoft.com/viewforum.php?f=180

[Kamenik]

ryzen 9950x3d 96 Gb ram rtx 5080 ssd kingstone fury and 10 fps on ultra details dlla on with 3 huge base and 300+ ships in one sector total fail from devs. Vanila without any extension.Total unplayable i have 2300 Real time hours in game and only low details is playable in short time when i send my fleet with 10x xl 300x M and 500 x s ships to fight with 3 xenon I and 2x K + many M and s fps brutal drop aaand........ when use SETA fps is 3 max 5

[MCNacho-ナチョ]

Originally posted by Kamenik:

ryzen 9950x3d 96 Gb ram rtx 5080 ssd kingstone fury and 10 fps on ultra details dlla on with 3 huge base and 300+ ships in one sector total fail from devs. Vanila without any extension.Total unplayable i have 2300 Real time hours in game and only low details is playable in short time when i send my fleet with 10x xl 300x M and 500 x s ships to fight with 3 xenon I and 2x K + many M and s fps brutal drop aaand........ when use SETA fps is 3 max 5

i think your gpu is more a problem. 9950x3d is overkill for realtimecalculating this game. reinstall drivers or sent the gpu in or replace it.

[Laserak]

Nah, this is still very much a game, and it will always end up throttled by one thread.

So the assumption of strong single core is a good one to have.

How much productivity do you do vs gaming?
Because the 3d cache WHEN used is MASSIVE.

[Precision]

85% gaming 15% work. I have a 2nd pc, company provided for work. So gaming is the main focus

[Precision]

Originally posted by Kamenik:

ryzen 9950x3d 96 Gb ram rtx 5080 ssd kingstone fury and 10 fps on ultra details dlla on with 3 huge base and 300+ ships in one sector total fail from devs. Vanila without any extension.Total unplayable i have 2300 Real time hours in game and only low details is playable in short time when i send my fleet with 10x xl 300x M and 500 x s ships to fight with 3 xenon I and 2x K + many M and s fps brutal drop aaand........ when use SETA fps is 3 max 5

Thats quite a big battle, so fps drops are expected. 10 fps is very low indeed. Its unplayable. My goal is to have atleast 30-40 fps in mid sized battles and for the game not slow down so much in late game (lets say 20+ ingame days).

By a mid sized battle I mean 2-3 xl 10L 20-30-ish M and say 100 S vs something similar

[Sundancer]

go for he 9800x3d it will have an edge in gaming compared to the 9900x cuz of the 3d V-Cache.

[Sundancer]

Originally posted by Precision:

Originally posted by Kamenik:

ryzen 9950x3d 96 Gb ram rtx 5080 ssd kingstone fury and 10 fps on ultra details dlla on with 3 huge base and 300+ ships in one sector total fail from devs. Vanila without any extension.Total unplayable i have 2300 Real time hours in game and only low details is playable in short time when i send my fleet with 10x xl 300x M and 500 x s ships to fight with 3 xenon I and 2x K + many M and s fps brutal drop aaand........ when use SETA fps is 3 max 5

Thats quite a big battle, so fps drops are expected. 10 fps is very low indeed. Its unplayable. My goal is to have atleast 30-40 fps in mid sized battles and for the game not slow down so much in late game (lets say 20+ ingame days).

By a mid sized battle I mean 2-3 xl 10L 20-30-ish M and say 100 S vs something similar

as the game is constructed even the fastest CPU that is out currently will most likley not give yu that Performance in endgame maybe the game is playable in endgame with 60 fps in like 10 more years haha

[Laserak]

Originally posted by Precision:

85% gaming 15% work. I have a 2nd pc, company provided for work. So gaming is the main focus

Then just get the 9800x3d.

[Mowglia]

Originally posted by Kamenik:

when i send my fleet with 10x xl 300x M and 500 x s ships to fight with 3 xenon I and 2x K + many M and s fps brutal drop aaand........ when use SETA fps is 3 max 5

I don't use small and medium ships often for this reason. Maybe a few M's for patrols, and some S's as scouts.

All my fleets are Asgards and Syns, with the emphasis on Asgards.

One of the Asgards just took a wrong turn and went through Tharka's Cascade by accident. I only noticed when it was a third of the way across the sector, so I teleported in to deal with it manually and discovered I was being chased by several K's, an I, and perhaps 200 smaller ships.

Eventually I made it out alive (unlike the Xenon capitals) but it was one hell of a fight. My fps dropped as low as 45 (7800X3D + 4090 @4k/DLSS), and obviously I wasn't exactly dogfighting which made it bearable.

No way on Earth would I use a fleet with 1k ships as that would simply be unplayable. I'd be lucky to get 10 fps, lol. The smallest ships I use in fleets are Destroyers for non-station related combat, primarily to thin out swarms.