Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
I'm not sure why you'd consider the 5800X on the AM4 platform though. The 5700X is the "same thing" with a pretty large savings. Generally, the 5600, 5700X, and 5800X3D are the three options I'd look at on AM4 (maybe the 5900X, but definitely not for just gaming, and maybe only if you're already on the platform).
I think going with a hex core is too little at that point, at least with the rest of your proposed parts and cost, and if you want it to last longer. You'd need to move up to the 7700X to get an octo core, but then you're competing with the 5800X3D which, IMO, is a better choice for gaming.
The 7800X3D will release soon but will cost 50% more than the 5800X3D (it isn't anywhere near 50% better though). Obviously total cost isn't 50% higher though so it's still very worthwhile if you're after the best gaming performance. But if I was going with AM5 at all, that's the lowest CPU I'd go with. Everything below it has too strong of competition from the 5700X/5800X3D IMO.
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with AM4, it's just that AM5 will be used for newer processors going forward. So if you plan to upgrade your processor in the future while keeping your motherboard, always use the most recent socket available if you can. (In this case, AM5)
The single core speed of 7600x is so high that even though it's just a 6c/12t CPU, it will serve you for long time, far beyond your GPU's life span /acceptability.
There is no such record in history that a faster per core 6c/12t CPU is beaten by a slower per core 8c/16t CPU in gaming. It never happens. Ryzen 7600x is a better buy.
Also, you will be able to use your DDR5 RAM with your future builds, it will be an asset.
At that point you're comparing platforms that differ in ~$100. Now if they were like for like comparisons, I'd say yes, spend the extra $100 and go with the faster AM5 option.
The problem is the $100 premium also gets you 25% deficit on cores/threads.
Credit where credit is due; you're sticking to the data and right now, yes, that's the case.
But while what you say hasn't happened at that particular core point, history has shown it has happened at lower core counts. It's been shown that a slightly faster but less core/thread count CPU might be slightly faster UNTIL it lacks cores/threads, and then is overtaken by the slightly slower one with more cores/threads. At that point, the "faster" one with less cores/threads become not only slower, but possibly more of a stutter fest.
But sometimes looking beyond just the raw data of today and also factoring in other things in the landscape is worth doing.
Namely, I'll point to this, There's already been a couple of of recent games (Hogwarts Legacy and The Last of Us) modeled after the latest consoles that have been releasing and hitting the market hard in some key areas like core count, RAM, and VRAM. And there's more coming (this one isn't too heavy on the CPU or RAM asks, but more the GPU). Both of these games, especially The Last of Us, released in a relatively poor state and/or to poor reception. I only wonder how much of that is because the PC market is lacking behind in some regards compared to what the consoles have. I'm not saying they might not also be bad ports, but I mean the examples that "next generation" games will be asking a lot are just adding up. And then PC players have to deal with either lengthy shader compilation times or stutter during gameplay, but I digress.
But the way I see it is this. The consoles have what is similar to a 3700X, 16 GB of shared RAM/VRAM, and an RDNA2 GPU that is like, what, around 6700 XT/RTX 2070 Super (?) or so levels of performance. If I'm putting together a PC close to two grand, there's no way I'm putting a hex core in it. I'm just not.
I will point out that it seems AM4 CPUs have been going up in average price over the last handful of days, so I think that cuts the appeal of the AM4 option a little bit (still not enough to make it a non-option, though). That might open the viability of the 7700X a bit (before I think the 5800X3D made it tough to consider), but then I think the 13600K/13700K deserve strong looks too. I know OP asked about the two options in the OP but it's still worth the consideration.
It's certainly undeniable that AM5 CPUs are faster than AM4, so IF a new AMD based rig is gonna be built, AM5 is the logical choice. I have two AM4 rigs, upgraded my R9 3900X to a 5900X, and built another AM4 rig with the R9 3900X instead of selling it off. Made sense to me as I already have some parts spare leftover (PSU, GPU, case. etc) so a 3900X build was the logical (and cheaper) build compared to a new AM5 build.
The obvious answer to me, if buying a system now would be AM5.
If you really have to go for the AM4 setup, look at the 5800X3D. It is the best gaming CPU for AM4.
Also the 7800X3D is out. I may be hard to get for a while though.
The benchmarks are impressive.
Not so for AM4. I think AM4 is being phased out if it isn't pretty much dead already.
So AM5 probably gives you more CPU upgrade options, and there's no reason to go AM4.
My best guesses...