Worth upgrading from I7 10700K to i7 13700k/14700k? I have a 4090.

[Desolate Eden]

Will I see a noticeable upgrade in gaming performance to justify the upgrade?
I've seen some videos showing about 15-20 fps increase, but I'm on the fence.

[Dutchgamer1982]

https://pc-builds.com/bottleneck-calculator/

helpfull tool.

in 4k your cpu reduces performave by 17%
on 1400p your cpu reduces performance by 32%

a 14700k
-lessens this performance ise due cpu to 5.6% for 1440p
-completely removes it in 4k..

presuming you use 4k..
your 4090 should get around 115fps in ultra settings.
but due your current cpu you getting around 95-100

so yes upgrading that cpu will gain you 15-20 fps.

[Desolate Eden]

Dutchgamer1982님이 먼저 게시:

https://pc-builds.com/bottleneck-calculator/

helpfull tool.

in 4k your cpu reduces performave by 17%
on 1400p your cpu reduces performance by 32%

a 14700k
-lessens this performance ise due cpu to 5.6% for 1440p
-completely removes it in 4k..

I play in 1440p so that means Im getting 32% less performance right now?

Thanks

[Dutchgamer1982]

Desolate Eden님이 먼저 게시:

Dutchgamer1982님이 먼저 게시:

https://pc-builds.com/bottleneck-calculator/

helpfull tool.

in 4k your cpu reduces performave by 17%
on 1400p your cpu reduces performance by 32%

a 14700k
-lessens this performance ise due cpu to 5.6% for 1440p
-completely removes it in 4k..

I play in 1440p so that means Im getting 32% less performance right now?

Thanks

yes in which case the gain in fps is even bigger upgrading.

you now have 95-100 fps. in 1440p ultra
after upgrading you should have 130-135fps.

(which still means you loose out some frames) but 5% loss is a lot better than 32% loss.

[Desolate Eden]

Dutchgamer1982님이 먼저 게시:

Desolate Eden님이 먼저 게시:

I play in 1440p so that means Im getting 32% less performance right now?

Thanks

yes in which case the gain in fps is even bigger upgrading.

you now have 95-100 fps. in 1440p ultra
after upgrading you should have 130-135fps.

(which still means you loose out some frames) but 5% loss is a lot better than 32% loss.

That makes sense, thanks for that!

[Ralf]

Dutchgamer1982님이 먼저 게시:

https://pc-builds.com/bottleneck-calculator/

helpfull tool.

Nice website, but why's the 7800X3D weaker than a 13600K or even the 7700 non-X? Or why is the 7900X3D better(should be worse in gaming) than the 7800X3D? Is this maintained by the Userbenchmark guys?

[Amuro0079]

Desolate Eden님이 먼저 게시:

Will I see a noticeable upgrade in gaming performance to justify the upgrade?
I've seen some videos showing about 15-20 fps increase, but I'm on the fence.

It depends on what games you play. You can test this with your most played games. First establish your baseline, which in your case is 1440p max settings, play a game as you normally would, track the FPS. Now, drop the resolution to 1080p or 720p, and if you gain significantly more FPS, your CPU bottleneck is not bad, if your FPS don't change much then you're severely bottlenecked, in which case upgrading the CPU is worth it.

[pasa]

switching to last intel makes little sense. Stay or build with 7800x3d.

[Illusion of Progress]

Ralf님이 먼저 게시:

Dutchgamer1982님이 먼저 게시:

https://pc-builds.com/bottleneck-calculator/

helpfull tool.

Nice website, but why's the 7800X3D weaker than a 13600K or even the 7700 non-X? Or why is the 7900X3D better(should be worse in gaming) than the 7800X3D? Is this maintained by the Userbenchmark guys?

It's equally useless regardless of who runs it.

Bottleneck calculators are a concept trying to sell a solution for a problem that doesn't exist to the extent these places present it. There's always a bottleneck (all that changes is where it is, how often, and by how much), and whatever they use to arrive at their calculated average might not match your own use cases.

As for why the 7800X3D is worse than the 7700X, it's very simple. That's what happens when "single core speed" is presumed to reflect average gaming performance, and if whatever is being used to determine this "single core speed" doesn't have its results impacted by the extra cache of the X3D. Even Passmark's single core speed doesn't get impacted by this, meaning using it as a measure for gaming performance is outdated, but they have a new gaming measure that should be used instead (or, ultimately, put less stock in synthetics and put more stock in real world results, but nobody wants to do that because instead of researching and learning, which is time and effort, these websites prey on lazier people who want a simpler plug in comparison).

I've tried pointing this particular flaw out to people who still treat single core speed as the holy grail to CPU or gaming performance but people don't want to listen. The 7800X3D has a lower clock speed than the 7700X, so a synthetic test that doesn't get benefited by the cache of the 7800X3D will give slower results on it due to the lesser clock speed. This means the "single core" result is being measured by ignoring the cache entirely.

In other words; they're not even truly testing this. They're plugging in "single core speed" for the CPU's actual performance and anyone who takes that as a sign of gaming performance is fooling themselves, because we know from real world results that the cache of the X3D CPUs tends to do a lot for gaming performance, so such a method is seriously flawed. Treating single core speed as reflective of CPU gaming performance might work well... if you ignore the existence of the X3D CPUs entirely. But doing so is living in a reality different from this one.

A lot of websites exist merely as SEO benefactors in order to turn up as the top few results when people Google "X versus Y" and that's it. Anything that feeds you a chart of synthetics to tries to feed you some silly value like "effective FPS" or "bottleneck amount" instead of actually doing proper reviews and benchmarks should be avoided.

[Guydodge]

pasa님이 먼저 게시:

switching to last intel makes little sense. Stay or build with 7800x3d.

this is so wrong intel 14900k//13900k trades blows with the 7800x3d and beats it in the
1% lows in almost every game and when intel is overclock beat it in most.
intel hands down is more stable FACTS !!!

[Guydodge]

before you do anything overclock your 10700k you should be able to pull off a all core
5.3 to 5.4ghz this should give you a nice little boost.

[pasa]

Guydodge님이 먼저 게시:

pasa님이 먼저 게시:

switching to last intel makes little sense. Stay or build with 7800x3d.

this is so wrong intel 14900k//13900k trades blows with the 7800x3d and beats it in the
1% lows in almost every game and when intel is overclock beat it in most.
intel hands down is more stable FACTS !!!

Maybe, if you pay through the nose on its running environment and live with the fallout. Why would a sane person pay extra to get maybe-the-same-ish?

Facts, as you say. While the push is just emotions and fanboyism. Which is fine as long as you use your own resources -- but moral hazard on a forum asking for advice.

[r.linder]

Desolate Eden님이 먼저 게시:

Will I see a noticeable upgrade in gaming performance to justify the upgrade?
I've seen some videos showing about 15-20 fps increase, but I'm on the fence.

There isn't that much of a point right now, your current CPU will give more than adequate framerates and LGA1700 is most likely about to be replaced with the next generation.

Guydodge님이 먼저 게시:

pasa님이 먼저 게시:

switching to last intel makes little sense. Stay or build with 7800x3d.

this is so wrong intel 14900k//13900k trades blows with the 7800x3d and beats it in the
1% lows in almost every game and when intel is overclock beat it in most.
intel hands down is more stable FACTS !!!

...While using up to THREE TIMES as much power and costing more to purchase and cool because it's a flagship "9" versus a "7." The 7800X3D uses around 50W in games on average while the 14900K with a MILD overclock uses over 150W on average.

Choosing to overspend and overclocking to solve inadequacies isn't facts, it's fanboyism.

[_I_]

Guydodge님이 먼저 게시:

before you do anything overclock your 10700k you should be able to pull off a all core
5.3 to 5.4ghz this should give you a nice little boost.

overclocking is nearly pointless with newer cpus, ryzen and intel around 6th gen and newer, they will boost to what they can and throttle at their temp limits, just get a better cooler for them
attempting to oc will just make it throttle sooner and lower than if left at stock

[C1REX]

Desolate Eden님이 먼저 게시:

Will I see a noticeable upgrade in gaming performance to justify the upgrade?
I've seen some videos showing about 15-20 fps increase, but I'm on the fence.

Use MSI afterburner and check your GPU utilisation in games you play.
If your GPU is at about 97-100% utilisation then you will likely won't gain any FPS. At least not the average number. You still may improve your 1% lows and stutters.

[r.linder]

_I_님이 먼저 게시:

Guydodge님이 먼저 게시:

before you do anything overclock your 10700k you should be able to pull off a all core
5.3 to 5.4ghz this should give you a nice little boost.

overclocking is nearly pointless with newer cpus, ryzen and intel around 6th gen and newer, they will boost to what they can and throttle at their temp limits, just get a better cooler for them
attempting to oc will just make it throttle sooner and lower than if left at stock

it's also an erroneous waste of electricity, 13900K uses easily over 150W in games while overclocked to only 5.6 on the P-cores and 4.4 on the e-cores, only around 120W at stock

7800X3D uses only around 50W in games, same as the 5800X3D, yet gets around the same performance as a 14700K and 14900K, there's just no point