Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
His 3900X should be fine anyway, I used to have that CPU. Ditched it only because I was tired of constant firmware issues that was partially Gigabyte's fault.
You have a 3090, so if you are playing at 1080, then the 3900X will definitely bottleneck the 3090 some in CPU intensive games. The 5800X3D can help to minimize a lot of that bottleneck and allow the 3090 to see better utilization.
However, like I said, you have a 3090. So I assuming you are playing at 1440 or 4K. If you are playing at 4K, then forget it. At this point you are extremely GPU limited and upgrading to a 5800X3D will not really net you any meaningful performance gain. At this point, I think it would be a waste, IMO.
If you are 1440p, again, I don't think that the 3900X is bottle-necking the 3090 much. But in CPU intensive games, you still can become CPU limited. Just not as much as at 1080p. But the 5800X3D could help to mitigate that.
With all that said, I still don't think it is worth upgrading from a 3900X. Not to a 5800X3D anyway. Ryzen 7000 series will release in September. So, I would at least wait for that. I would even wait till Intel's Raptor Lake CPUs release later in the fall. If you aren't looking to upgrade platform, meaning new Mobo and Ram, at least the prices of current gen CPUs, like the 5800X3D, might go down some. Then, it might be a better time to buy one. At a better value.
You're entirely correct about two things you state, just for entirely wrong reasons.
There is less difference at higher resolutions, yes. That's purely because the CPU tends to become less of a factor (and the GPU more of one) as the resolution goes higher. Ergo, this applies to any CPU, and not exclusively the 5800X3D.
You are also correct that faster RAM makes less of a difference, again, because cache naturally counteracts that. That's literally how it works. A larger cache means less time is spent going to the RAM. It doesn't specifically mean "it was made for slow RAM".
The 5900X makes little sense unless you have a use for the 50% extra cores/threads right now. Otherwise, your argument should be to go with the standard 5800X (or even better yet, the 5700X).
The 5900X is a 5800X with more cores. The 5800X3D is a 5800X with extra cache.
The extra cores don't do much for most games. The extra cache is hit or miss, however it does a lot more for gaming in general than the extra cores will. It's not even a question, plenty of benchmarks exist to show the substantial improvements it can bring.
The 5900X is a phenomenal value right now... but unless you can make use of the cores, you're still better off just saving even more money and getting the Ryzen 7 equivalents (5700X or 5800X). After all, if the idea is "future proofing", then the main priority should be spending wisely and avoiding excess, no? If you never justify those cores before you replace it, then you ended up making a wasteful choice to go with it instead of the 5800X/5700X to begin with. Now whether you will need those extra cores or not is something only hindsight can answer (meaning trying to future proof to begin with is a gamble).
Something to consider there if one is trying to make that gamble is this; most gamers still have quad cores, which is just about to be hex cores. Those two alone represent the vast majority of the market. I would thus posit that octo cores aren't going to be incapable anytime soon. Therefore, between a 5800X3D and 5900X, you're probably going to want to replace either of them by time you need more than eight cores. Either of them will last a silly amount of years, but the 5800X3D will be better for games in the meantime. If you don't like the poor value aspect of it, just go with the 5800X/5700X instead. The 5900X wins in no situation except the one where you know you need the cores now.
Maybe mention the Op will will need a new motherboard and the much more expensive DDR5 for a performance par with the 5800X3d.
The 3800X3d will be a benefit for gaming if you upgrade.
If you do a lot of cpu intense productivity work, maybe video rendering, then will be a downgrade.
A 5800X3d with 64GB memory will be fairly 'future proof' as I see it - that is for gaming. Due to the big CPU cache, high memory latency (probable for 64GB) is much less of an issue.
The CPU you already have is still a good one though.
Based on engineering sample benchmarks, the 7600X with 6000 MHz RAM will very likely smash the 5800X3D because its single core performance and FCLK will just be too high for that cache to even matter. It's not futureproof, it's going to be outclassed very quickly, and it still only has 16 threads. If AMD manages to put out a Ryzen 9 7900X3D next year, THAT would be closer to the myth holding true.
There's no point in buying an expensive 8 core CPU that'll be outclassed. It's already outclassed, even the 13900 engineering sample got toppled by the 7600X ES, and leaks suggest well above the promised 15% IPC gain for Zen4, some cases it was apparently closer to 50% in overall core performance gains with at least 20% for single core. That coupled with 6000 MHz RAM will easily topple what that cache can do, makes more sense than blowing slightly less big money an outdated socket.
And I think the "future proofing" mention was that it would remain sufficient for a while, not that it will remain at the top of performance. But I didn't make the claim so I can only speak of my interpretation of it.
And buying a 5800X3D right now isn't necessarily always an awful idea, mostly if you're already on AM4 and using either nicer or a lot of RAM already and will be replacing an older CPU with. The AM5 platform (cheaper motherboards come later), the DDR5 RAM it needs, and the CPU itself will also command a high price too. It makes sense to wait if you're currently looking at having to buy a CPU, motherboard, and RAM anyway, but for someone like me (decent AM4 board, a lot of RAM, but a Zen 2), such an upgrade would be far cheaper than an entire new AM5 setup. It'd be slower, yes of course, but still cheaper so it lines up. Something doesn't need to be the newest or fastest to make it make sense.
Granted, I'm not saying this because I'm tempting going with one (I did, but passed on it). But if I wanted an uplift more than the "standard" Zen 3 but less expensive than a new AM5 platform, it would fit in-between nicely. if you're not already on AM4 of course, then yeah at this point there's little prospect in going for a 5800X3D. Better off just waiting for AM5/Intel's new stuff.
I agree with you. thanks for your view. my english is not that good and i wanted to explain it so briefly and without too much technical understanding. that's why I also wrote that you should look at different benchmarks of the CPUs. I also assumed that Gokan would not want to upgrade to the next generation. you should wait with the new generations anyway until all major manufacturers offer their products and the first official tests are available. only rumors have been heard so far. regards
Just keep the 3900X. Unless you have a very specific use case where it is not enough any upgrade is really not justifiable. 2023 will simply open up better options to sink your money in.
In most scenarios, all you'd need is a 5800X
But overall, a 3900X should hold you over for a couple years. Shouldn't have a reason to upgrade yet.
Outside of 1440p or lower rez high refresh there isnt much reason in games to jump beyond the 3900x. That said the 3900x does struggle at the upper end of high refresh.
Example Red Dead Redemption 2, in the cities, the 3900x would limit the GPU and frame rate would be in the 80's or 90's, while out of town in the wilderness it would run closer to 150-175+, with the 5950x at same settings I get closer to 120-140 with far less limiting to the GPU in the cities, and nearly constant 165+ in the wilderness.
But at 4K or 1440p/60-120hz, the 3900x would be more than enough in most cases.
The entire reason it potentially performs less is because power draw and heat (which the extra cache lead to) become factors and require the clock speed to be a bit lower than the base 5800X that the 5800X3D is built upon. This is particularly why a 5900X3D didn't happen, and why a 5600X3D may have been interesting (this tradeoff may not have been necessary there?).
But the level of performance that is lost in these situations basically translates to something you won't see without measuring it. I'm not saying that differences only measurements show don't exist, but I am saying that terming it as half a CPU is a huge exaggeration.
The other side of the coin is the level of performance it gains due to the cache MORE than offsets those aforementioned performance losses, at least in selective tasks (namely, gaming). The benchmarks and averages don't lie; it's one of the best gaming CPUs right now. The only other thing better is the latest Core i9, which is better by the slimmest of margins and costs even more than it.
Yes, different things benefit to different degrees with the 5800X3D which I get not everyone is fond of. And yes, it's mostly gaming (and select other things) that it benefits, but I don't see why that matters. Premium CPUs never are the "general, all around, best value" proposition. They are there for the people who want the best within their specific use. If you need something that is the best at gaming and highly parallelized productivity, then yes, the 5800X3D isn't your best choice, but in that case it's less because of the cache and more because it's an 8 core CPU to begin with, when options with far more cores exist.