upgrade the AM4 CPU or switch to AM5 DDR5 completely?

[VaNessa#37 | WCL]

so i was wondering if its worth to upgrade to a
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D
https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d-ryzen-7-5000-series/p/N82E16819113734

my current system is
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3700x 3,6GhZ
GPU: KFA ExGamer Pink RTX 4070
MB: AORUS B450 PRO
RAM: AORUS 4x8GB Dual Channel DDR4-RAM CL16

what hardware would you suggest if i should upgrade to DDR5?
(ive got a good RAM Modules with CL16 latency thou...)
so thats why i am questioning myself to just upgrade the CPU

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por De Hollandse Ezel:

a 3700x is about a 12% bottleneck in 1440p
but no bottleneck in 4k.

a 4070 is 600 euro..
so loosing 12% performace = 72 euro of value.

you aint going to get a better am4 cpu for 72 euro.
let alone a full am5 set.

so just sticking with what you got for now is best.

32gb ram for now is enough. for the coming time. by the time you need more you can always look at upgrade options again.

to remove that 12% bottlenevk at 1440p
you would need an ryzen 9 5900x (300 euro)
(even the 5800x3d will npt fully remove the bottlemeck only halve it)
-
or if you pick am5 you would neec at minimum a ryzen 7 7700 (280 euro).

id say just swallow that 12% hit for now.

That isn't how bottlenecks are calculated, you can't really calculate them to begin with because it differs from load to load, configuration to configuration. It's complete hogwash.

It was already a known fact years ago that Zen2 (3000 series) was bottlenecking the 2080 Ti at 2160p in some instances, and the 4070 is able to pull a lot more frames per second than a 2080 Ti so the bottleneck at 2160p would be more easily pronounced in those instances and even more instances than with the 2080 Ti. A CPU upgrade is a good idea to actually take advantage of the card.

You can try to dispute that but I've seen it with my own freaking eyes, I went from a 3900X to a 10850K with a 2080 Ti and saw at least 15~20% gains in average framerates. Zen2 is just. slow.

[Illusion of Progress]

Escrito originalmente por De Hollandse Ezel:

to remove that 12% bottlenevk at 1440p
you would need an ryzen 9 5900x (300 euro)
(even the 5800x3d will npt fully remove the bottlemeck only halve it)

Bottlenecks always exist. Even with the fastest CPU you can have CPU bottlenecks, just less often and not as severely.

A 5900X is slower than a 5800X3D in gaming anyway. A 5900X would be a poor choice to replace a 3700X with for gaming at this point. Either stay with the 3700X, or go with the 5800X3D (or 5600X3D). Not much else makes sense.

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

Escrito originalmente por De Hollandse Ezel:

to remove that 12% bottlenevk at 1440p
you would need an ryzen 9 5900x (300 euro)
(even the 5800x3d will npt fully remove the bottlemeck only halve it)

Bottlenecks always exist. Even with the fastest CPU you can have CPU bottlenecks, just less often and not as severely.

A 5900X is slower than a 5800X3D in gaming anyway. A 5900X would be a poor choice to replace a 3700X with for gaming at this point. Either stay with the 3700X, or go with the 5800X3D (or 5600X3D). Not much else makes sense.

Not to mention the 5800X was often capable of outperforming the 5900X and 5950X in some games, and that was before the 5800X3D basically rendered it irrelevant for high end gaming and made it hard for AMD to even sell AM5 to gamers before they brought out 7000X3D.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

5900X/5950X (Ryzen 9 class) generally were meant for consumer grade workstation needs as a cheaper alternative to ThreadRipper. While they aren't the best at gaming they are great for pro-work apps that need alot of threads, while still being good at gaming. 5800X3D happens to beat them in many games because of games that can utilize the extra cache and throughput rather then extra threads.

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por Bad 💀 Motha:

5900X/5950X (Ryzen 9 class) generally were meant for consumer grade workstation needs as a cheaper alternative to ThreadRipper. While they aren't the best at gaming they are great for pro-work apps that need alot of threads, while still being good at gaming. 5800X3D happens to beat them in many games because of games that can utilize the extra cache and throughput rather then extra threads.

Trend continues with 7000 series where the Ryzen 9 X3D chips are pretty pointless tbh, 7800X3D performs just about the same for less and they sacrifice their own productivity performance for gaming because of the lowered frequencies, even the 14900K makes more sense than that. Basically the same or better gaming performance as 7000X3D but also better productivity, the only downside is power usage.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

At this point they should just make all of the Ryzen 7 / 9 with the X3D design and leave the budget stuff for Ryzen 3 / 5

For example it's rather pointless to have a 7700X and 7800X3D within the same series of CPU family.

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por Bad 💀 Motha:

At this point they should just make all of the Ryzen 7 / 9 with the X3D design and leave the budget stuff for Ryzen 3 / 5

For example it's rather pointless to have a 7700X and 7800X3D within the same series of CPU family.

I think their stack is mostly fine, the reason why it's like this is because of binning. 7600s are just 7600Xs that didn't make the cut, 7700s are poorly binned 7700X, etc.

Ryzen 9 shouldn't even have X3D if they're going to limit it to being on a single chiplet, because that design does NOT work well with Windows' task scheduler, the cache ends up going unused on many loads, and it just takes away from Ryzen 9's intended purpose. There's too many flaws to 3D V-cache for it to make sense for those CPUs and leaves them in a frankly stupid grey area, because it's not really any better than the 7800X3D for gaming, but also worse than the non-X3D Ryzen 9 counterparts and the Core i9s.

[Illusion of Progress]

Escrito originalmente por 尺．し工几ᗪヨ尺:

Trend continues with 7000 series where the Ryzen 9 X3D chips are pretty pointless tbh, 7800X3D performs just about the same for less and they sacrifice their own productivity performance for gaming because of the lowered frequencies, even the 14900K makes more sense than that. Basically the same or better gaming performance as 7000X3D but also better productivity, the only downside is power usage.

The 7950X3D makes some sense to me. It's a 7800X3D but it has an added 7700X on board so it offers the best gaming performance AMD has but also has much better multi-threaded performance than any Ryzen 7. Not quite as good as a 7950X, but it's not substantially slower either, and it has the extra gaming performance the 7950X certainly wouldn't have. It's a workstation/gaming hybrid that is almost equivalent to the best of both, so I'd say it justifies itself. You obviously shouldn't pick it if you're just gaming because the 7800X3D offers you the same for cheaper.

The almost-too-niche one to me is the 7900X3D. The 7900X, and especially the 7900 non-X (this one in particular is massively efficient) are just fine. But the 7900X3D is a bit strange.

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

Escrito originalmente por 尺．し工几ᗪヨ尺:

Trend continues with 7000 series where the Ryzen 9 X3D chips are pretty pointless tbh, 7800X3D performs just about the same for less and they sacrifice their own productivity performance for gaming because of the lowered frequencies, even the 14900K makes more sense than that. Basically the same or better gaming performance as 7000X3D but also better productivity, the only downside is power usage.

The 7950X3D makes some sense to me. It's a 7800X3D but it has an added 7700X on board so it offers the best gaming performance AMD has but also has much better multi-threaded performance than any Ryzen 7. Not quite as good as a 7950X, but it's not substantially slower either, and it has the extra gaming performance the 7950X certainly wouldn't have. It's a workstation/gaming hybrid that is almost equivalent to the best of both, so I'd say it justifies itself. You obviously shouldn't pick it if you're just gaming because the 7800X3D offers you the same for cheaper.

The almost-too-niche one to me is the 7900X3D. The 7900X, and especially the 7900 non-X (this one in particular is massively efficient) are just fine. But the 7900X3D is a bit strange.

The 13900K and 14900K are fundamentally better though due to consistency from not relying so much on cache. The 14900K in particular more easily beats the 7950X3D in pretty much everything and it's usually cheaper. People that actually need both gaming and multi-threaded performance are better off with the i9 than that.

[Illusion of Progress]

Escrito originalmente por 尺．し工几ᗪヨ尺:

The 13900K and 14900K are fundamentally better though due to consistency from not relying so much on cache. The 14900K in particular more easily beats the 7950X3D in pretty much everything and it's usually cheaper. People that actually need both gaming and multi-threaded performance are better off with the i9 than that.

Well the 14900K came out after the 7950X3D did, and the 13900K came out a bit before it but they were probably being developed at similar times. And they trade advantages in gaming from what I know, with the 7000 X3D generally being regarded as faster on average, so I don't agree with the 7950X3D being pointless. It's a "more gaming, less multi-threaded" lean than the Core i9s are. And it's a matter of opinion on what one prefers.

I'm not sure I agree on consistency preference here. That's sounds like "not all stuff benefits so I'd rather not have it"? If so, I don't agree on that. More cache (especially for gaming performance) and non-monolithic is the way forward, and Intel is also going to be doing both of those things going forward. Everything Intel 12th generation and newer also isn't comprised of the same consistent cores either. They're less similar than AMD's cores are (which are the same cores, some just have more cache and are clocked some hundred MHZ lower). If anything, the 7950X3D also justifies itself in that way. Treat it as having a choice between a 7800X3D and a 7700X for gaming, and for the ones that aren't benefiting at all from caching, schedule them to the non-v-cache CCD so you don't lose that hair of performance from the lower clock speeds. Probably not a major enough difference to be worth the effort every time but hey, it's there I guess?

Regardless, the 7950X3D is anything but pointless in my eyes. It may not outperform the 13900K/14900K in ever scenario, but it doesn't need to in order to be viable. So it's at least justified.

The 7900X3D though I agree is maybe a bit too niche to exist (my opinion). I just don't think the 7950X3D belongs with it. And this is coming from someone who'd just pick a 7800X3D over any of the Ryzen 9s or Intel stuff right now (so it might explain my reasoning as my lean is more towards games than seriously highly threaded stuff, but that probably applies for most on these forums).