Anyone “upgraded” from 5900X to 5800X3D for gaming?

Should I get a 5800X3D?

  • Total voters
    105
K

KickAssCop

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 19, 2003
Messages
8,326
Anyone made this move? After seeing lots of Intel 13 series reviews it seems the cheapest route is to just grab a 5800X3D. Wondering if it is worth the hassle?

Not really interested in a full platform switch and am thinking maybe I can get 1 more year out of my current setup.

It’s in sig and I play 1440P 240 Hz most of the time. I do have an OLED but I am too lazy to hook it up. 👀

What do you guys say?
 
I traded a 5900X out for the 5800X3D and it was a solid move but I play a lot of direct X11 titles still and it really shines there. It’s like having a Zen3000 on steroids as it clocks like a 3000 series but kicks ass while doing it.
 
I'm considering a 5600X or 5800X3D for 4K+ VR gaming for my ancient Zen1 platform. I am having a [Hard] time deciding on the value of each. The $$ diff if large and how impactful at 4K+ will it be? Mine is an EOL system so shy of throwing $$ around. If X3D gives me the life I need I'll be all over it.
Anyone have a link to 4K comparo?
 
It depends on what games you play and what else you do with your computer. Most games don't even come close to fully utilizing 8 cores, and even fewer (basically none) make use of 12 cores. So the only real advantage of 12 cores vs 8 cores is the ability to run extra stuff in the background without impacting your game performance. Whether that is something that applies to you or not is something that you can answer for yourself. If in doubt, keep task manager up on a 2nd monitor and see what tasks (if any) are showing significant amounts of CPU usage in the background while you game. Depending on the game you play, if it only uses 2-6 cores like most games do, then you will still have some headroom even with an 8-core CPU.

The other question, especially if you plan to stick with this platform for a while, is how will core usage among popular games change in the next few years? Well, current gen consoles have 8-core CPUs so many games are being made with that in mind. Also, the brand new top-tier i9-13900k, even though it has 24 cores total, only 8 of those are Performance cores. Even though the 16 Efficient cores would obviously help with extra stuff running in the background, you're probably not running that much stuff in the background... Really only those 8 P cores are relevant for gaming. Some even purposefully disable the E cores. So you can see that for multiple reasons, 8-cores should be enough for gaming for a while. Even among games that are well multi-threaded, there are almost always still parts of the game that are not, and still rely on having the best single-core performance possible.

Games have always lagged behind CPU technology, especially core count. Buying a CPU with more cores than games can actually make use of has never paid off. I had a 2-CPU system (dual socket) back when everything was single-core. I went quad-core right when things were just starting to make use of more than 1 core. I went hex-core right when some games were finally just starting to use 3-4 cores, and I went 12-cores right when games were starting to make use of more than 4 cores. Being "ahead of the curve" in that respect never really paid-off in terms of gaming performance. The ability to do more multi-tasking while gaming showed big gains early on but severe diminishing returns as core counts increased - fact is that in 2022, 8 cores is still a lot of cores. I will also probably swap my 5900X out for a 5800X3D. I love the extra cores in the 5900X, but with the games I play, the 5800X3D is guaranteed to give me a big performance boost. I wish that they had made a 5900X3D or 5950X3D, but it is what it is
 
Last edited:
I play all latest games. PC is really only used for gaming and browsing. I don’t have any CPU intensive workloads and I don’t run 2 games at a time 👀.

5900X was purchased to give me 2-3 years on the platform. 2 years are complete now. Looking at benches it seems the 5800X3D can add a year without any major changes required to the platform.

As for gaming there is nothing out now “requiring” me to upgrade. Everything runs smooth and most games are now able to hit 240 fps with 1440P resolution on my 4090. Recent ones are Dying Light 2, Plague Tale and Modern Warfare 2. All run at around 240 fps for most scenes and even when it drops to 180-190 FPS, I don’t really feel it.

Still the upgrade bug is up my ass so was asking…
 
KickAssCop said:
Anyone made this move? After seeing lots of Intel 13 series reviews it seems the cheapest route is to just grab a 5800X3D. Wondering if it is worth the hassle?

Not really interested in a full platform switch and am thinking maybe I can get 1 more year out of my current setup.

It’s in sig and I play 1440P 240 Hz most of the time. I do have an OLED but I am too lazy to hook it up. 👀

What do you guys say?
Click to expand...
If you're not willing to switch platform and already have AM4, then 5800x3d is no brainer (I voted yes because you want to maximize your gaming experience).
But your 5900x is still awesome if you plan to keep it until next year or 2024 (when Zen 5 or Meteor Lake show up).
 
funkydmunky said:
I'm considering a 5600X or 5800X3D for 4K+ VR gaming for my ancient Zen1 platform. I am having a [Hard] time deciding on the value of each. The $$ diff if large and how impactful at 4K+ will it be? Mine is an EOL system so shy of throwing $$ around. If X3D gives me the life I need I'll be all over it.
Anyone have a link to 4K comparo?
Click to expand...
You will notice quite difference jumping to 5600x (assuming you keep using rtx 2080 on your sig).
Or you can choose the vanilla 5600 as it's cheaper and not much performance difference between those two.

I don't think you need 5800x3d to maximize your rtx 2080 (even 5600/x will maximize the performance of rtx 3000 / rx 6000).
 
WCCFTech claims to have seen AMD's internal roadmap and expects the Zen 4 3D chips to be announced by CES Jan 5-8. One option is to wait till then and save up in the meantime for a new DDR 5/AM5 setup. It's up to you though, and no one knows how far away the new 3D chips are from hitting shelves.

I honestly don't think you're going to feel a very big difference going from a 5900X to a 5800X3D. Techspot compared the 5800X3D to a 5800X and found it just 9% faster on average at 1440P with a 3090 Ti. So you're probably looking at a performance boost that will be nearly unnoticeable coming from a 5900X.

If you feel like upgrading though, by all means go ahead. The 5800X3D is an amazing chip and will certainly be better for gaming than your 5900X. I love mine.
 
"Worth it" at 1440P with a 4090? Possibly, although the 5000 Series is no slouch by itself. I guess if you are trying to push that 240Hz to the max it could help some... I'm assuming you have enabled PBO and tweaked the curve and all that jazz on the 5900X? There is a good 5~10% left on most those 5000 CPUs by playing with the PBO curve. At least there was on my 5950X. I was hoping an X3D of the 5950X would come out some day, but it's not looking that way. But I also use my PC for work and multiple VMs, so the extra cores have helped. Gaming at 4K in my case, it is still serving me very well.
 
KickAssCop said:
The gains are not relevant for DX12 games? I am mostly playing DX12.
Click to expand...
The gains can be very game/application specific. MMOs, Flight Sims, and some others benefit heavily while with others you might not see any benefit from the 3d v-cache. I'd look up game specific benchmarks to see if it'll be worth it to you. I don't play MMOs anymore, but in that use-case it seems like you get huge benefits in heavily populated city centers and raid scenarios, which is basically where people have always struggled the most for FPS no matter how good their hardware is.
 
I've been wanting to upgrade from my 5800X and stretch the AM4 setup a little longer. But with PBO and some fine tuning, I'm pretty happy with the 5.1Ghz boost on 2 cores and between 4.9-4.85 on the others. Gaming is not too shabby @ 1440 & 60Hz.

Of course if a X3D falls off a truck.....
 
5800X3D is a game changer. I play on a 5800X3D rig and a 7950X rig during the day (both with 4090) - different resolutions but the end result for my gaming (Fortnite) is the same. Frankly, it's a bit smoother today on 5800X3D. But it's a killer CPU for that use case.

I went 5800X to 5800X3D - so not relevant for you. However, if you have a 5900X there are still plenty that want to upgrade so that will recoup a lot of the 5800X3D costs (if not all, with the sales that I have seen). No brainer, IMO!
 
KickAssCop said:
I play all latest games. PC is really only used for gaming and browsing. I don’t have any CPU intensive workloads and I don’t run 2 games at a time 👀.

5900X was purchased to give me 2-3 years on the platform. 2 years are complete now. Looking at benches it seems the 5800X3D can add a year without any major changes required to the platform.

As for gaming there is nothing out now “requiring” me to upgrade. Everything runs smooth and most games are now able to hit 240 fps with 1440P resolution on my 4090. Recent ones are Dying Light 2, Plague Tale and Modern Warfare 2. All run at around 240 fps for most scenes and even when it drops to 180-190 FPS, I don’t really feel it.

Still the upgrade bug is up my ass so was asking…
Click to expand...
I have a 5900X and it's within 4 FPS for all 4K gaming. It's not too shabby for 1440P and the 5800X3D really shines in 1080P.

The 5900X is faster by frequency for games that care about that. It's got better single threaded performance, which a ton of older games rely on.

I have been mulling it over, but I just can't see the value in the 5800X3D when my 5900X runs cooler, has more cores, has 85%+ the performance or more (actually beats it in a couple games).

Think about it this way: the 5900X has 64 Megs of Cache, the 5800X3D has 96, it's not that big of a difference.

Your call, but I don't really think you're gonna be blown away by what the 5800X3D delivers coming from the 5900X. If you had a 3900X, sure, the 5000 series is like 25% faster.

If you have disposable money, go for it. Otherwise, wait a generation or two because you can.
 
Lot depends on the price you get for the used 5900x and how easy your setup is to a cpu swap, it could be a near non brainer for a near pure gaming machine if you do not mind the step involved.
 
As someone that came from an i9 10940X, for gaming there's no dang comparison. I say this as someone who games at 4K and plays CPU bound games like Star Citizen. Love it or hate it, that game (yes, alpha) was CPU bound at 4K in many places with my 10940X. This 5800X3D with the same RAM (3600MHz C16) and same GPU/driver (3090 Ti 522.25) blows it away and it feels like I'm playing a whole new game. Same for old DX9 titles at 4K (WoTLk private servers).

Edit - some performance numbers that I took note of in multiple game sessions in Star Citizen. Low flying around moons I'd get 30 to 40FPS with the 10940X and 50% or less GPU usage. 5800X3D I get 98 to 99% GPU utilization and 70+ FPS. At the Area 18 floating tram, Habs side, I'd get 30 to 35 FPS waiting for the tram with the 10940X and low GPU utilization. 5800X3D I get 90 to 99% GPU utilization and 50 to 60 FPS.

The only suggestion that I have is that if you're looking for a whole system upgrade, it might make more sense to wait for the 7K series X3D chip(s?) to drop in Jan or Feb. Then you'll be set even longer. (or maybe pick up an even cheaper 5800X3D)
 
Last edited:
Legendary Gamer said:
I have a 5900X and it's within 4 FPS for all 4K gaming. It's not too shabby for 1440P and the 5800X3D really shines in 1080P.

The 5900X is faster by frequency for games that care about that. It's got better single threaded performance, which a ton of older games rely on.

I have been mulling it over, but I just can't see the value in the 5800X3D when my 5900X runs cooler, has more cores, has 85%+ the performance or more (actually beats it in a couple games).

Think about it this way: the 5900X has 64 Megs of Cache, the 5800X3D has 96, it's not that big of a difference.

Your call, but I don't really think you're gonna be blown away by what the 5800X3D delivers coming from the 5900X. If you had a 3900X, sure, the 5000 series is like 25% faster.

If you have disposable money, go for it. Otherwise, wait a generation or two because you can.
Click to expand...

Wow, the majority of your post is either misleading or outright wrong. Let's unpack this...

Legendary Gamer said:
I have a 5900X and it's within 4 FPS for all 4K gaming. It's not too shabby for 1440P and the 5800X3D really shines in 1080P.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you are GPU limited, then a CPU upgrade will not increase your performance. Besides, didn't you recently say that your monitor is limited to 60fps anyway?

Legendary Gamer said:
The 5900X is faster by frequency for games that care about that. It's got better single threaded performance, which a ton of older games rely on.
Click to expand...

While the stock base and boost clocks are lower on the 5800X3D, that doesn't directly correspond to what speed it will actually run at during usage. In many cases boost clocks are limited by power consumption and with the 5800X3D you have 4 fewer cores consuming power. Not to mention that you can squeeze a lot out with PBO, curve optimizer, etc. Even if a game "cares" about frequency (whatever that is supposed to mean), the massive extra cache will more than make up for any slight clockspeed disadvantage. Make no mistake, the 5800X3D is pretty much the best CPU you can get for single-threaded performance. If you think that the 5900X has the advantage in this category, then your idea of how these CPUs work, even on a basic level, is pretty flawed.

Legendary Gamer said:
I have been mulling it over, but I just can't see the value in the 5800X3D when my 5900X runs cooler, has more cores, has 85%+ the performance or more (actually beats it in a couple games).
Click to expand...

The main reason that the 5900X "runs cooler" (lower temperatures) is because it has twice the surface area carrying heat from the CPU die to the heat-spreader (two CCDs vs one CCD), and each of those two CCDs on the 5900X only has a max of 6 cores running compared to the one CCD on the 5800X3D with all 8 cores activated. It's also important to understand that there is a performance penalty with the 5900X when each CCD has to communicate with each other across the infinity fabric. Since the 5800X3D only has one CCD, this will never occur. I'd love to see an example of a game where the 5900X beats the 5800X3D, please provide one.

Legendary Gamer said:
Think about it this way: the 5900X has 64 Megs of Cache, the 5800X3D has 96, it's not that big of a difference.
Click to expand...

Again, the 5900X uses 2 CCDs, each with 32MB cache. The cores on each CCD only have access to the cache on that CCD. So you can't really add it up to 64MB, because no single core will ever have access to more than 32MB. On the 5800X3D, with one CCD, every one of those 8 cores has access to the full 96MB of cache. So each core in the 5800X3D has access to THREE TIMES AS MUCH CACHE compared to each core in the 5900X. That IS a big difference.

Legendary Gamer said:
Your call, but I don't really think you're gonna be blown away by what the 5800X3D delivers coming from the 5900X. If you had a 3900X, sure, the 5000 series is like 25% faster.
Click to expand...

The 5800X3D does show a ~20% boost in some games over a 5900X.
 
Last edited:
GotNoRice said:
Wow, the majority of your post is either misleading or outright wrong. Let's unpack this...



Yeah, if you are GPU limited, then a CPU upgrade will not increase your performance. Besides, didn't you recently say that your monitor is limited to 60fps anyway?



While the stock base and boost clocks are lower on the 5800X3D, that doesn't directly correspond to what speed it will actually run at during usage. In many cases boost clocks are limited by power consumption and with the 5800X3D you have 4 fewer cores consuming power. Not to mention that you can squeeze a lot out with PBO, curve optimizer, etc. Even if a game "cares" about frequency (whatever that is supposed to mean), the massive extra cache will more than make up for any slight clockspeed disadvantage. It's also important to understand that there is a performance penalty with the 5900X when each CCD has to communicate with each other across the infinity fabric. Since the 5800X3D only has one CCD, this will never occur. Make no mistake, the 5800X3D is pretty much the best CPU you can get for single-threaded performance. If you think that the 5900X has the advantage in this category, then your idea of how these CPUs work, even on a basic level, is pretty flawed.



The main reason that the 5900X "runs cooler" (lower temperatures) is because it has twice the surface area carrying heat from the CPU die to the heat-spreader (two CCDs vs one CCD), and each of those two CCDs on the 5900X only has a max of 6 cores running compared to the one CCD on the 5800X3D with all 8 cores activated. I'd love to see an example of a game where the 5900X beats the 5800X3D, please provide one.



Again, the 5900X uses 2 CCDs, each with 32MB cache. The cores on each CCD only have access to the cache on that CCD. So you can't really add it up to 64MB, because no single core will ever have access to more than 32MB. On the 5800X3D, with one CCD, every one of those 8 cores has access to the full 96MB of cache. So each core in the 5800X3D has access to THREE TIMES AS MUCH CACHE compared to each core in the 5900X. That IS a big difference.



The 5800X3D does show a ~20% boost in some games over a 5900X.
Click to expand...
Fine, I'm wrong.

I actually appreciate you taking the time to break down now wrong I was. I learned something.

The following, however, isn't wrong regardless of the 3 x the cache the 5800x3d has:

For 1080p benchmarks, the Ryzen 7, 5800X3D took the lead with an average of 120 FPS compared to Ryzen 9 5900X's 116 FPS. Ryzen 7 5800X3D was also ahead by a few frames in 1% low FPS drops at 96 FPS. Contrastingly, the Ryzen 9 5900X dropped to a lower 1% FPS at 89 FPS. the 5800X3D advantage does erode at 1440p and disappear entirely at 4K where we're GPU-limited.

There is a negligible difference moving from the 5900X to the 5800X3D
 
Last edited:
Legendary Gamer said:
There is a negligible difference moving from the 5900X to the 5800X3D
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you even found those numbers, but here are some benchmarks that very clearly show the 5800X3D having a big advantage in many games:

https://www.techspot.com/review/2449-amd-ryzen-5800x3D/#Gaming_Benchmarks
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1733...-96-mb-of-l3-3d-v-cache-designed-for-gamers/3
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_5800x3d_review,22.html
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d-review/5

And here is even an Intel marketing slide from their 13-series launch; Intel being the last company on earth that would exaggerate the performance of an AMD CPU. They even had to get "creative" with how to present the numbers for the 5800X3D so that it didn't make their new CPUs look as bad. But the slide also compares the 5800X3D against the 5950X.
Intel13seriesWoW.png

So yeah, not only is the 5800X3D faster, it's quite a bit faster in most games. In a few games, the difference might be smaller. It really depends on how each game is able to utilize that extra cache.
 
GotNoRice said:
I'm not sure where you even found those numbers, but here are some benchmarks that very clearly showing the 5800X3D having a big advantage in many games:

https://www.techspot.com/review/2449-amd-ryzen-5800x3D/#Gaming_Benchmarks
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1733...-96-mb-of-l3-3d-v-cache-designed-for-gamers/3
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_5800x3d_review,22.html
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d-review/5

And here is even an Intel marketing slide from their 13-series launch; Intel being the last company on earth that would exaggerate the performance of an AMD CPU. They even had to get "creative" with how to present the numbers for the 5800X3D so that it didn't make their new CPUs look as bad. But the slide also compares the 5800X3D against the 5950X.
View attachment 521059

So yeah, not only is the 5800X3D faster, it's quite a bit faster in most games. In a few games, the difference might be smaller. It really depends on how each game is able to utilize that extra cache.
Click to expand...
That's not most games, that's 9 games (none of which I actually play and some I have never heard of). Set to average FPS, no actual hard data.

ALL YOUR EXAMPLES ARE AT 1080P

THE OP PLAYS HIS GAMES AT 1440P

IF YOU WANT TO DO THE GUY A FAVOR, GET HIM DATA THAT IS PERTINENT TO HIS GAMING HABITS.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2458-ryzen-5800x3D-vs-core-i7-12700/

He's not going to see an earth shattering difference in performance moving to the 5800X3D.

If he had a bullshit CPU, moving to the 5800X3D would be a big deal.
 
Last edited:
Legendary Gamer said:
That's not most games, that's 9 games (none of which I actually play and some I have never heard of). Set to average FPS, no actual hard data. No resolution information, 1080p? I think the OP primarily games at 1440p?
Click to expand...

Every one of the reviews I posted has benchmarks that were done at other resolutions if you just click one or two pages over, and all of those reviews clearly list the specs of the systems that were used for the benchmarks. I also think it's ironic that you are trying to nitpick the results from the multiple established tech sites that I provided links to while you still haven't posted any links at all to wherever you got your cherry-picked data from.

Legendary Gamer said:
He's not going to see an earth shattering difference in performance moving to the 5800X3D.

If he had a bullshit CPU, moving to the 5800X3D would be a big deal.
Click to expand...

Instead of trying to read the OP's mind and make all kinds of assumptions about what games he plays and what level of performance increase is worth his (or her) money, I think the better approach is to supply the data and let them make the decision for themselves.

KickAssCop said:
I play all latest games.
Click to expand...
 
GotNoRice said:
Every one of the reviews I posted has benchmarks that were done at other resolutions if you just click one or two pages over, and all of those reviews clearly list the specs of the systems that were used for the benchmarks. I also think it's ironic that you are trying to nitpick the results from the multiple established tech sites that I provided links to while you still haven't posted any links at all to wherever you got your cherry-picked data from.



Instead of trying to read the OP's mind and make all kinds of assumptions about what games he plays and what level of performance increase is worth his (or her) money, I think the better approach is to supply the data and let them make the decision for themselves.
Click to expand...
It's a waste of money for him to move to the X3D. That's an actual fact. He can make up his own mind, I'm certain.

This has been educational.
 
You guys are swatting at gnats and waving e-peens.

At these performance levels what's the point? Buy "moar cores" if you do more than gaming, buy 5800X3D if all you do is gaming. Or wait for the 7000 series X3D.

Right now, today, if you do production or IT work and game, you buy a 5950. If you only game you buy a 5800X3D.

Counting frame rates with these types of margins? Why?
 
Spirit_Retro said:
You guys are swatting at gnats and waving e-peens.

At these performance levels what's the point? Buy "moar cores" if you do more than gaming, buy 5800X3D if all you do is gaming. Or wait for the 7000 series X3D.

Right now, today, if you do production or IT work and game, you buy a 5950. If you only game you buy a 5800X3D.

Counting frame rates with these types of margins? Why?
Click to expand...
There's a pretty big margin. Legendary Gamer is just misrepresenting it.
 
Thanks for the comments. As mentioned earlier I play all the latest games. I am targeting 1440p 240 Hz which does require a CPU to push hard as it can even with a 4090.

What I saw at that resolution was close to 10-40 frames improvement (about 3-20%) in some of the games I play.

I can easily wait next year for a 7XXX series 3D cache version. Money is not a problem and the intent was to increase longevity of current platform without throwing money around. The 7XXX series has been quite underwhelming from my perspective and Intel 13900K really shines even at 4K but don’t feel like throwing 1500$ for a platform switch right now.

This whole thing would cost me about $150-180 given my 5900X sells for 250 bucks. I am not in the US so won’t get more than this.

Hope this answers most questions. Thanks for the suggestions. I will continue thinking about it some more. Watching the 40 game bench video.
 
I went from a 3900x to 5800x3d and I care less about the average increase. It is the lows that this processor becomes godlike. Flight Simulator at 4k went from 36fps to 53fps. Farcry 6 had these bad sub 36fps lows at 4K to never going below 66fps.

Wake up call for me the importance of keeping your lowest frame numbers high.

Now going from a 5900x to a 5800x3d would probably not be as big with my graphic cards but for a 4090?
 
KickAssCop said:
Such mixed responses on the poll. Confusing the shit out of me lol.
Click to expand...
I mean, you are on a pretty good setup now, even for 1440p you are rarely going to be CPU limited for reasonable game settings. Now if you are one of those gamers who try to hit max Frequency/FPS by putting everything on the lowest possible setting, then maybe worth it.
 
Actually I max out every single setting in game with exception of motion blur and chromatic abomination… 👀

Really want to hit max fps at this resolution. And I do notice difference between 120 and 240 fps. I know people don’t and that is fine. But I personally do and that is why the ask that is this the cheapest route to even better gaming performance or not!
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
KickAssCop said:
Actually I max out every single setting in game with exception of motion blur and chromatic abomination… 👀

Really want to hit max fps at this resolution. And I do notice difference between 120 and 240 fps. I know people don’t and that is fine. But I personally do and that is why the ask that is this the cheapest route to even better gaming performance or not!
Click to expand...
The cheapest? I think you know what the answer to that is, simply lower a few in-game settings. But from what I've seen you always seem to go for the most expensive route, not the cheapest.
 
Antonline (where I picked up my 5800X3D for $374) has it for $329. Both their website and their ebay store. That's the lowest that I've seen it, and I kinda wonder if it'll go even lower to clear out stock?
 
I just don't see it being worth it at higher resolutions, and the sacrifice of the 4 cores and frequency. If you were upgrading from something less, sure, why not. But already on a 5900x? Yeah, not worth it.
 
Mchart said:
I just don't see it being worth it at higher resolutions, and the sacrifice of the 4 cores and frequency. If you were upgrading from something less, sure, why not. But already on a 5900x? Yeah, not worth it.
Click to expand...
Depends on the game and if it's CPU bottlenecked - I gave my own examples at 4K in post #19
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top