Playing Cyberpunk2077 in High Native 4K with an i5-3570K and an RX 9070 16GB vs an i7-14700T

I finally got my m-ATX test bench up, and I put an iTX motherboard on it with a delidded i5-3570K with an RX 9070 16GB. Unfortunately, it's not an overclockable motherboard. Still, I was curious how it would do at 4K, and I was actually surprised.

It took forever to get into the game, all 4 cores of the CPU was pegged at 100%, but it was because FSR was enabled by default (even though I had turned it off via the Adrenaline software). Once I got it to 4K native, it was actually not too bad. There were some noticeable slowdowns here and there, but for a 12-year-old quadcore CPU, it let the RX 9070 16GB do all the heavy lifting.

i5-3570K Average FPS = 63.41
i7-14700T Average FPS = 69.82

i5-3570K Min FPS = 46.17
i7-14700T Min FPS = 61.76

i5-3570K Max FPS = 81.39
i7-14700T Max FPS = 82.37



This is with an i7-14700T. Same graphics card, same settings, same everything.


One day, I'm going to get my golden i7-3770K that could do 5.0GHz a try (if it can still get there), and maybe an i7-3930K at 4.6GHz. They'll definitely perform better, I'm sure.

What's pretty cool is that CPU coolers and TiM has gotten much better over the last 12 years. I used a Pccooler RZ620M X and Gelid GC-5 between the die and IHS, and the IHS to the CPU cooler, and at constant load, I don't think it ever got higher than the mid-50's.

This is actually kind of depressing as it shows us how little Intel and AMD have actually pushed the bar forward. More cores with effectively the same performance. Now, I am sure all the AMD fanboys will be coming out of the woodwork to say there are no AMD processors here. However, the 14th Gen Intel CPUs are pretty close on performance with most CPU's in the wild. Not accounting for massive cache dumps on chips like the X3D stuff. But it's felt like nothing much has changed in a decade or so. OS'es get more bloated and our systems appear to stay the same or get slower. Looks like, in many respects all CPUs really did was gain more cores and refine existing pipelines adding little to the actual innovation.

I know tons of little things changed, AI processors and all that shite. But it's amazing how well 12 year old CPUs can still compete all the while we are being told we have to continuously upgrade and how fast the newer stuff is.

I had a Devils Canyon Quad core 4790 or something to that effect that I sent to someone on here up in Canada at no cost. I forget who it was. However, It was plenty fast and could do 5 Ghz. I suspect it would be more than enough to run 90% of today's games. Seeing i was close enough to your test candidates. Man.... Intel has progressed so little. AMD was playing catchup after the bulldozer era and we only ... NOW have started to get stuff coming out that might be starting to leapfrog older architectures if the hype is real about the next Intel and AMD parts.

El_Capitan said:

I finally got my m-ATX test bench up, and I put an iTX motherboard on it with a delidded i5-3570K with an RX 9070 16GB. Unfortunately, it's not an overclockable motherboard. Still, I was curious how it would do at 4K, and I was actually surprised.

It took forever to get into the game, all 4 cores of the CPU was pegged at 100%, but it was because FSR was enabled by default (even though I had turned it off via the Adrenaline software). Once I got it to 4K native, it was actually not too bad. There were some noticeable slowdowns here and there, but for a 12-year-old quadcore CPU, it let the RX 9070 16GB do all the heavy lifting.

i5-3570K Average FPS = 63.41
i7-14700T Average FPS = 69.82

i5-3570K Min FPS = 46.17
i7-14700T Min FPS = 61.76

i5-3570K Max FPS = 81.39
i7-14700T Max FPS = 82.37

View attachment 821069

This is with an i7-14700T. Same graphics card, same settings, same everything.
View attachment 821070

One day, I'm going to get my golden i7-3770K that could do 5.0GHz a try (if it can still get there), and maybe an i7-3930K at 4.6GHz. They'll definitely perform better, I'm sure.

What's pretty cool is that CPU coolers and TiM has gotten much better over the last 12 years. I used a Pccooler RZ620M X and Gelid GC-5 between the die and IHS, and the IHS to the CPU cooler, and at constant load, I don't think it ever got higher than the mid-50's.

Click to expand...

I gamed with my 3570k till 2020/2021 when I did my current 5950x build - 3570k became HTPC CPU till I bought a Xeon 1280v2 cheap off ebay to replace it for higher thread count (and utilize VT-d and such with my mobo)

Try The Div 2 and Last of Us Pt 1 Remake

Legendary Gamer said:

This is actually kind of depressing as it shows us how little Intel and AMD have actually pushed the bar forward. More cores with effectively the same performance. Now, I am sure all the AMD fanboys will be coming out of the woodwork to say there are no AMD processors here. However, the 14th Gen Intel CPUs are pretty close on performance with most CPU's in the wild. Not accounting for massive cache dumps on chips like the X3D stuff. But it's felt like nothing much has changed in a decade or so. OS'es get more bloated and our systems appear to stay the same or get slower. Looks like, in many respects all CPUs really did was gain more cores and refine existing pipelines adding little to the actual innovation.

I know tons of little things changed, AI processors and all that shite. But it's amazing how well 12 year old CPUs can still compete all the while we are being told we have to continuously upgrade and how fast the newer stuff is.

I had a Devils Canyon Quad core 4790 or something to that effect that I sent to someone on here up in Canada at no cost. I forget who it was. However, It was plenty fast and could do 5 Ghz. I suspect it would be more than enough to run 90% of today's games. Seeing i was close enough to your test candidates. Man.... Intel has progressed so little. AMD was playing catchup after the bulldozer era and we only ... NOW have started to get stuff coming out that might be starting to leapfrog older architectures if the hype is real about the next Intel and AMD parts.

Click to expand...

Well, with the Tick-Tock cycle, it's always been:
1. Make it smaller, add more cores = Tick
2. Make it more efficient = Tock

Every now and then, they'd try something new.

With powerful graphics cards and higher resolutions, it gets less CPU-bound. Most applications are now utilizing GPU's more, but there are still a lot that focuses on the CPU and memory. Processor speed typically corresponds to better minimum FPS, especially at 4K.

kram182 said:

I gamed with my 3570k till 2020/2021 when I did my current 5950x build - 3570k became HTPC CPU till I bought a Xeon 1280v2 cheap off ebay to replace it for higher thread count

Try The Div 2 and Last of Us Pt 1 Remake

Click to expand...

I don't have those games. But yeah, I was on a 1080Ti until late 2021 (RTX 3070), and a i7-3930K until mid 2024 (i5-13600K). I stopped paying attention when my kids were born, and the most I could remember was contemplating about upgrading to an i7-5820K, and the GTX 2000 series being kind of lackluster. I heard I missed some good XEON's for gaming CPU's.

El_Capitan said:

Well, with the Tick-Tock cycle, it's always been:
1. Make it smaller, add more cores = Tick
2. Make it more efficient = Tock

Every now and then, they'd try something new.

With powerful graphics cards and higher resolutions, it gets less CPU-bound. Most applications are now utilizing GPU's more, but there are still a lot that focuses on the CPU and memory. Processor speed typically corresponds to better minimum FPS, especially at 4K.


I don't have those games. But yeah, I was on a 1080Ti until late 2021 (RTX 3070), and a i7-3930K until mid 2024 (i5-13600K). I stopped paying attention when my kids were born, and the most I could remember was contemplating about upgrading to an i7-5820K, and the GTX 2000 series being kind of lackluster. I heard I missed some good XEON's for gaming CPU's.

Click to expand...

Div 2 has a demo (large download though 100GB+, like the whole game for just the demo lol)


View: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2221490/Tom_Clancys_The_Division_2/

I remember getting CPU bottlenecked at the time with it (3570k) and my old RTX 2070 @1440p

kram182 said:

Div 2 has a demo (large download though 100GB+, like the whole game for just the demo lol)


View: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2221490/Tom_Clancys_The_Division_2/

I remember getting CPU bottlenecked at the time with it (3570k) and my old RTX 2070 @1440p

Click to expand...

I'll might try it out one day... I got tired of FPS games, even tactical ones, with all the cheaters/hackers. It just wasn't fun, anymore.

Yeah, I gamed at 1440P (and still do), and could feel the bottleneck with the 3930K and DDR3 with web browsing and 2K gaming.

I just found it crazy people always recommending CPU's first for gaming, then a GPU with higher VRAM. Like, for a $1K budget, they would recommend a 7800X3D/9800X3D, and then a RTX 3060 12GB. I was always the opposite, get the best graphics card, first, then a CPU that won't be the bottleneck at 2K, for half the budget.

Legendary Gamer said:

This is actually kind of depressing as it shows us how little Intel and AMD have actually pushed the bar forward. More cores with effectively the same performance. Now, I am sure all the AMD fanboys will be coming out of the woodwork to say there are no AMD processors here. However, the 14th Gen Intel CPUs are pretty close on performance with most CPU's in the wild. Not accounting for massive cache dumps on chips like the X3D stuff. But it's felt like nothing much has changed in a decade or so. OS'es get more bloated and our systems appear to stay the same or get slower. Looks like, in many respects all CPUs really did was gain more cores and refine existing pipelines adding little to the actual innovation.

I know tons of little things changed, AI processors and all that shite. But it's amazing how well 12 year old CPUs can still compete all the while we are being told we have to continuously upgrade and how fast the newer stuff is.

I had a Devils Canyon Quad core 4790 or something to that effect that I sent to someone on here up in Canada at no cost. I forget who it was. However, It was plenty fast and could do 5 Ghz. I suspect it would be more than enough to run 90% of today's games. Seeing i was close enough to your test candidates. Man.... Intel has progressed so little. AMD was playing catchup after the bulldozer era and we only ... NOW have started to get stuff coming out that might be starting to leapfrog older architectures if the hype is real about the next Intel and AMD parts.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that's universally true, it depends a lot on what you're trying to play. Going from a 3700x to a 5800x3D made a huge difference for me in terms of perception of smoothness due to far more consistent 1% lows on fast-paced games, even when I was GPU-bottlenecked. By contrast, my i5-4670k feels hopelessly slow in some titles. Poor performance in Battlefield 1 was what incited me to upgrade to the 3700x in the first place, just because the i5 was badly showing its age (although even at the time, that wasn't true in all titles, and many ran perfectly fine). I'd be trying to play the game with choppy performance and an incredibly bored GPU running at 60%-70% capacity. A CPU upgrade made all the difference. Interestingly enough, people who had the i7-4770k at the time did not see the same issue, no doubt due to hyperthreading. You can also see a huge difference between CPU performance in games like CIV, where faster CPUs lead to quicker turn times as they simulate the world faster.

Also, these benchmarks are at 4K, so the processor is less a limiting factor. If you're playing a lower res, the differences between the CPUs becomes even more obvious.

That said, you're not entirely wrong either, and the days of a revolutionary CPU upgrade every 18 months are clearly over. CPUs that are 5+ years old are still perfectly fine in most cases, which wouldn't have been something you could say in the late 90s/early 2000s when I entered the hobby. Overall, that's a great thing, because it means we don't have to spend nearly as much as we had to back in the day in order to be satisfied with what we have.

HockeyJon said:

I wouldn't say that's universally true, it depends a lot on what you're trying to play. Going from a 3700x to a 5800x3D made a huge difference for me in terms of perception of smoothness due to far more consistent 1% lows on fast-paced games, even when I was GPU-bottlenecked.

Click to expand...

That's a good point about smoothness and 1% lows. The OP's setups have min FPS reported by the CP2077 benchmark as 46.17fps for the 3570k vs. 61.76 for the 14700T. By my estimation, that means the 14700T setup is ~1/3 faster. I tune settings based on minimums/1% lows. Average isn't important. Gotta get those mins up high enough so the game stays smooth.

zandor said:

That's a good point about smoothness and 1% lows. The OP's setups have min FPS reported by the CP2077 benchmark as 46.17fps for the 3570k vs. 61.76 for the 14700T. By my estimation, that means the 14700T setup is ~1/3 faster. I tune settings based on minimums/1% lows. Average isn't important. Gotta get those mins up high enough so the game stays smooth.

Click to expand...

I’m actually impressed the minimums for the 3570k are where they are to be honest. As I said, Battlefield 1 absolutely wrecked my 4670k, but then it would also be smooth in, say, Tomb Raider. I’d be curious to see what gets charted in sustained gameplay. Cyberpunk is quite CPU intensive and can easily stress an 8-core CPU, which the 3570k is not. I would anticipate fairly consistent and noticeable drops when you’re actually playing the game and the CPU is trying to deal with positioning a large number of NPCs and things like that. I’m just thinking back to my 4670k experience. It likely wouldn’t be an enjoyable gaming experience.

What I would also be interested in is a chart of GPU and CPU loading, although at 4K the GPU is likely also overwhelmed. Might be an interesting test at 1080p medium though.

HockeyJon said:

I’m actually impressed the minimums for the 3570k are where they are to be honest. As I said, Battlefield 1 absolutely wrecked my 4670k, but then it would also be smooth in, say, Tomb Raider. I’d be curious to see what gets charted in sustained gameplay. Cyberpunk is quite CPU intensive and can easily stress an 8-core CPU, which the 3570k is not. I would anticipate fairly consistent and noticeable drops when you’re actually playing the game and the CPU is trying to deal with positioning a large number of NPCs and things like that. I’m just thinking back to my 4670k experience. It likely wouldn’t be an enjoyable gaming experience.

What I would also be interested in is a chart of GPU and CPU loading, although at 4K the GPU is likely also overwhelmed. Might be an interesting test at 1080p medium though.

Click to expand...

Speaking of NPCs, Crowd Size is big variable in CP2077 and I'm not sure it shows up in the in-game benchmark and I don't know what setting the OP was using if it does. The "Crowd Size" setting has a significant impact on CPU load. Hits GPU load too due to more people and cars to render. It can also change gameplay a fair bit. Set it to minimum and the streets are kinda empty. Set it to max and there are people all over the place downtown and you get into a lot more traffic jams. High crowd size settings encourage motorcycle use.

The CP2077 benchmark is basically GPU bound, you can expect a 50% hit to whatever you get there out in the city. Still, a pretty good showing for an old workhorse. I miss those fast booting DDR3 chips with snappy Windows 7.

Legendary Gamer said:

This is actually kind of depressing as it shows us how little Intel and AMD have actually pushed the bar forward. More cores with effectively the same performance. Now, I am sure all the AMD fanboys will be coming out of the woodwork to say there are no AMD processors here. However, the 14th Gen Intel CPUs are pretty close on performance with most CPU's in the wild. Not accounting for massive cache dumps on chips like the X3D stuff. But it's felt like nothing much has changed in a decade or so. OS'es get more bloated and our systems appear to stay the same or get slower. Looks like, in many respects all CPUs really did was gain more cores and refine existing pipelines adding little to the actual innovation.

I know tons of little things changed, AI processors and all that shite. But it's amazing how well 12 year old CPUs can still compete all the while we are being told we have to continuously upgrade and how fast the newer stuff is.

I had a Devils Canyon Quad core 4790 or something to that effect that I sent to someone on here up in Canada at no cost. I forget who it was. However, It was plenty fast and could do 5 Ghz. I suspect it would be more than enough to run 90% of today's games. Seeing i was close enough to your test candidates. Man.... Intel has progressed so little. AMD was playing catchup after the bulldozer era and we only ... NOW have started to get stuff coming out that might be starting to leapfrog older architectures if the hype is real about the next Intel and AMD parts.

Click to expand...

What is more depressing is people on a "tech forum" confusing GPU limited (4K) with "lack of progress" on CPU's.
I bet it is the same people recommending top end CPU's for 4K gameplay with 1080p benches

littlegreenmenfromhome said:

What is more depressing is people on a "tech forum" confusing GPU limited (4K) with "lack of progress" on CPU's.
I bet it is the same people recommending top end CPU's for 4K gameplay with 1080p benches

Click to expand...

While x3D parts can have a smoothing effect on things like 1% lows. Most modern processors (7-9 years or less old) can handle 4K gaming with a capable GPU.

Just some do it better than others.

I know plenty of people surviving on 8th gen + parts and functioning ok. The tests here show you can run old shite and function, albeit sluggishly, with modern stuff.

Legendary Gamer said:

I know plenty of people surviving on 8th gen + parts and functioning ok. The tests here show you can run old shite and function, albeit sluggishly, with modern stuff.

Click to expand...

8th gen Intel & Ryzen 5 seem like a "line" of sorts. 6 cores and 12 threads has been standard since ~2020 for a new gaming rig. Still seems fine (I have a 9600X in one of my rigs), but games that can use 8 are getting more common and 8 cores seems to have gotten more popular. Back in 2021 a lot of people thought 8 cores for gaming was a waste of $. Save a few bucks on the proc, buy a 5600X, spend the savings on a better GPU. At any rate 8th gen was the first Intel desktop generation with more than 4 cores, and I figure you want more than 4 cores for modern stuff at this point.