Swap out 5600G to 5600X - too lateral or a good change?

[Deleted member 289973]

I've been thinking about upgrading my CPU. Currently I have a 5600G. It's a great processor but it's not a practical fit for what I currently use or what I'm planning to build. I was wondering if it would make sense to upgrade (if it can be called that) to the 5600X for the following reasons:

1. I don't need integrated graphics and can't even use them if I wanted to. I have an RTX 3060 and my current MB lacks integrated graphics support.
2. Higher boost clock which reduces the need and intensity of overclocking.
3. Double the L3 cache.
4. PCIe 4.0 support. This is probably the most significant of my reasons to upgrade. GPU would be able to utilize 4.0, SSD is only 3.0 if that makes any difference. I might consider a 4.0-supported SSD in the future if it's worth it.

I can't think of any specific reasons I shouldn't upgrade, but I figured I'd ask here as many people with far more knowledge than I have would be able to tell me if there's some reason I shouldn't, or if it's just not worth it and I should stick with the 5600G.
Also, before anyone suggests I go to the 5800X, I'd prefer not to make that big of a change. Increased power consumption, considerably higher price, and the fact I probably wouldn't take much advantage of the two extra cores leads me to say it would not be practical or cost-effective.
Thanks in advance.

 

[OKC Yeakey Trentadue]

Needless e-waste is a reason not to upgrade. In what scenario is the 5600g truly holding you back? As for going SSD 3.0 to 4.0, the upgrade is mostly academic. You will save a couple seconds on game loads and that's about it.

Your reasons not to upgrade to the 5800x does not really make sense either. It will not use more power doing the same work. In fact, if you keep time constant, an 8 core running at 3.0 ghz will use less power than a 6 core running at 4.0 ghz while completing multicore operations like video editing in the same time.

All said, it is not a worthy upgrade IMHO. Also, what motherboard does not have support for an igpu? I didn't know that was a thing.

 

[Deleted member 289973]

Needless e-waste is a reason not to upgrade. In what scenario is the 5600g truly holding you back? As for going SSD 3.0 to 4.0, the upgrade is mostly academic. You will save a couple seconds on game loads and that's about it.

I would resell or find a way to reuse the 5600G. I agree about the e-waste. SSD is not a big deal. I think the greater benefit would be seen more with the GPU being able to utilize 4.0, but I suppose it might not matter unless I'm pushing the GPU to its limits.

Your reasons not to upgrade to the 5800x does not really make sense either. It will not use more power doing the same work. In fact, if you keep time constant, an 8 core running at 3.0 ghz will use less power than a 6 core running at 4.0 ghz while completing multicore operations like video editing in the same time.

A lot of what I do relies on single core, if that matters. Also the 5800X is 105w TDP vs 65 for the 5600X. I get how it would run more efficiently on more cores, but since TDP is higher, why would the power consumption be lower and not more, or at least the same, since in each case in your example, you would be getting a total of 24Ghz of processing power? I'll be honest, when it comes to CPUs I am not well-versed beyond the bare basics of cores and clock speed.

All said, it is not a worthy upgrade IMHO. Also, what motherboard does not have support for an igpu? I didn't know that was a thing.

An HP motherboard that came in a prebuilt I bought. I'm looking at tearing it down and reusing some of the components for a rebuild.

 

[pitingres]

The benefits of PCIe 4.0 are usually over-estimated in a typical consumer use setting, such as a gaming computer. The GPU is rarely PCIe limited, and you'll only see a percentage point or two at best. 4.0 can produce impressive looking SSD transfer rates, but only for sequential I/O, and you need to be sequentially transferring massive files (10's of gigabytes) before it really starts to make a perceptible difference. (I have both 4.0 and 3.0 SSD's in a database development box. Running a hour-long test goes a few minutes faster on the 4.0 SSD, and that's all. Interactively there's no apparent difference.)

The additional L3 cache is probably the best argument in favor, and that's not going to make a huge difference. If you can do the change for little or no total cost, selling the 5600G, then by all means go ahead; but don't expect too much.

 

[kirbyrj]

The benefits of PCIe 4.0 are usually over-estimated in a typical consumer use setting, such as a gaming computer. The GPU is rarely PCIe limited, and you'll only see a percentage point or two at best. 4.0 can produce impressive looking SSD transfer rates, but only for sequential I/O, and you need to be sequentially transferring massive files (10's of gigabytes) before it really starts to make a perceptible difference. (I have both 4.0 and 3.0 SSD's in a database development box. Running a hour-long test goes a few minutes faster on the 4.0 SSD, and that's all. Interactively there's no apparent difference.)

The additional L3 cache is probably the best argument in favor, and that's not going to make a huge difference. If you can do the change for little or no total cost, selling the 5600G, then by all means go ahead; but don't expect too much.

Exactly. I don't know if you'd be able to tell the difference in a blind test between the two CPUs at all.

 

[learners permit]

5600G vs 5600X graphics comparison using RTX 3080.

 

[Deleted member 289973]

5600G vs 5600X graphics comparison using RTX 3080.

Made a bit bigger difference than I would have expected. But I noticed something -- could someone explain why the X was using more power and running hotter, despite lower utilization percentage and same TDP?

The benefits of PCIe 4.0 are usually over-estimated in a typical consumer use setting, such as a gaming computer. The GPU is rarely PCIe limited, and you'll only see a percentage point or two at best. 4.0 can produce impressive looking SSD transfer rates, but only for sequential I/O, and you need to be sequentially transferring massive files (10's of gigabytes) before it really starts to make a perceptible difference. (I have both 4.0 and 3.0 SSD's in a database development box. Running a hour-long test goes a few minutes faster on the 4.0 SSD, and that's all. Interactively there's no apparent difference.)

The additional L3 cache is probably the best argument in favor, and that's not going to make a huge difference. If you can do the change for little or no total cost, selling the 5600G, then by all means go ahead; but don't expect too much.

Good to know, thank you. I'm wondering if it might not be a bad idea after all to consider going up to the 5800X (or even a 3700X), although that would mean I'd be looking at around $200 more out of pocket even after selling the G. I've heard lots of good points here.

 

[OKC Yeakey Trentadue]

A lot of what I do relies on single core, if that matters. Also the 5800X is 105w TDP vs 65 for the 5600X. I get how it would run more efficiently on more cores, but since TDP is higher, why would the power consumption be lower and not more, or at least the same, since in each case in your example, you would be getting a total of 24Ghz of processing power? I'll be honest, when it comes to CPUs I am not well-versed beyond the bare basics of cores and clock speed.

An HP motherboard that came in a prebuilt I bought. I'm looking at tearing it down and reusing some of the components for a rebuild.

If it's running the same single core freq, they will use the same power regardless of claimed tdp. Same goes for the "24 ghz" scenario in both CPUs. If anything the 8 core will be more efficient by way of extra cache and typically higher binning.

 

[legcramp]

Depends if you play at competitive settings or not.. (lowering video settings to get as much FPS as possible). Clearly the difference is pretty big in that video as your 5600G is more in the line of a 3600X than a 5600X chip due to the cache. But if you play at 1440p with as high video quality settings as your RTX 3060 can handle, you're probably not going to see a difference.

The 5600X is probably a better chip for you though since you're not really using the integrated graphics and it's a gimped cpu compared to the 5600X... if the swap isn't a lot out of your pocket I would just do it IMHO.

 

[OKC Yeakey Trentadue]

Even though the MB doesn't have video out, can it still do video editing using the igpu while gaming with the GPU? Just something else to consider. And yes, the 3060 will not see much of a difference like the 3080 did.

 

[Mchart]

I guess I don’t understand why you wouldn’t just spend $50 more on the 5800x.

 

[pitingres]

I guess I don’t understand why you wouldn’t just spend $50 more on the 5800x.

Depends on whether the extra couple cores make a difference to what the OP does. There are still a lot of game engines that aren't all that effectively multi-threaded, or are rate-limited by one main thread. Or, he might be GPU or monitor limited most of the time. The 5800X is definitely a bit trickier to cool.

Just trying to say that it's not a sure thing either way. I can think of any number of situations where that $50 would be better spent on a decent single malt.

 

[Deleted member 289973]

I guess I don’t understand why you wouldn’t just spend $50 more on the 5800x.

Well for just $50 I would do it. Just checked parts on PCPartPicker and it looks like about $85 difference when looking at the current best prices. CPU prices are a bit more consistent across the board than other components, far as I've noticed. That's not too bad, considering $150 MSRP difference.

Depends on whether the extra couple cores make a difference to what the OP does. There are still a lot of game engines that aren't all that effectively multi-threaded, or are rate-limited by one main thread. Or, he might be GPU or monitor limited most of the time. The 5800X is definitely a bit trickier to cool.

Just trying to say that it's not a sure thing either way. I can think of any number of situations where that $50 would be better spent on a decent single malt.

Generally I need good single-core performance, although some games I play are more CPU-intensive and could benefit from extra cores. The cooling is a considerable concern though. I might need to liquid cool, which I am not opposed to, but it might make me get creative. This will be in a mini-ITX or microATX case, so if there's anything I need to be cautioned of, I need to know.

Even though the MB doesn't have video out, can it still do video editing using the igpu while gaming with the GPU? Just something else to consider. And yes, the 3060 will not see much of a difference like the 3080 did.

I don't think so, but I'm not sure. The iGPU is completely disabled and I can't even enable it in the BIOS. HP's BIOS is by far the worst I've ever seen. If it is being used for any video encoding/streaming, or editing, I wouldn't know it.

 

[pitingres]

My understanding of the 5800X cooling issue is that it's not as much a problem of total heat output, as it is a very small hot-spot (one chiplet running its max 8 cores). I threw an NH-D15 at mine and turned off PBO and declared victory. Unfortunately mine isn't a gaming machine and I don't have confidence that my load patterns are representative of gaming-style loads.

I think, without proof, that you could do quite well with a good midsize air cooler, decent case airflow, and a bit of careful tweaking in the BIOS to limit top-end power dissipation. You might lose a smidgen of benchmark performance; unless your real life loads look like benchmarks, I doubt that it would matter a lot. (I see that I'm assuming a decent BIOS here that can expose the various power limits, which might be a stumbling block in your case.)

 

[Deleted member 289973]

My understanding of the 5800X cooling issue is that it's not as much a problem of total heat output, as it is a very small hot-spot (one chiplet running its max 8 cores). I threw an NH-D15 at mine and turned off PBO and declared victory. Unfortunately mine isn't a gaming machine and I don't have confidence that my load patterns are representative of gaming-style loads.

I think, without proof, that you could do quite well with a good midsize air cooler, decent case airflow, and a bit of careful tweaking in the BIOS to limit top-end power dissipation. You might lose a smidgen of benchmark performance; unless your real life loads look like benchmarks, I doubt that it would matter a lot. (I see that I'm assuming a decent BIOS here that can expose the various power limits, which might be a stumbling block in your case.)

BIOS won't be an issue. I am swapping out the MB for a real one with a real BIOS so I can adjust fan curves, power settings, and overclocking (to a modest degree). And no, generally my CPU does not run at full load often. Usually around half or less, but I am reliant on good single-core performance, so that increase is usually one core running very hard and the others near-idling.
The most limiting factor for the build is the potential that I go m-ITX. I don't have a lot of desk space, and anything beyond a mATX mini tower is pretty much out of the question. A m-ITX will basically force me to use an AIO cooler, which I'm okay with. I'm highly considering the Meshlicious m-ITX case, which has great airflow for starters, and very viable liquid cooling possibilities. If I air-cool, I'm gonna have to go with a mATX tower, few of which are known for good airflow.

 

[LukeTbk]

Seem hard to find some tests (most I find are with a 3080 or 3090 which could be quite misleading, being much easier to bottleneck those at regular possible FPS for a standard monitor than a 3060), one thing is sure it would be a nice gesture for the person looking for a GPU.

I would not do it for PCI-express 4.0 I doubt it is an issue for your current video card and if you ever change, and it becomes an issue, possible that a better option will be out like the 5800xd or a nice priced 5900x.

But looking at how big the difference is with the high end video card (then again maybe those do not like the pci-express 3.0) it is not a crazy queston.

 

[OKC Yeakey Trentadue]

Perhaps at least wait for the 5800xd. The massive cache may improve frame consistency with some games, which really matters most.

 

[jfreund]

BIOS won't be an issue. I am swapping out the MB for a real one with a real BIOS so I can adjust fan curves, power settings, and overclocking (to a modest degree). And no, generally my CPU does not run at full load often. Usually around half or less, but I am reliant on good single-core performance, so that increase is usually one core running very hard and the others near-idling.
The most limiting factor for the build is the potential that I go m-ITX. I don't have a lot of desk space, and anything beyond a mATX mini tower is pretty much out of the question. A m-ITX will basically force me to use an AIO cooler, which I'm okay with. I'm highly considering the Meshlicious m-ITX case, which has great airflow for starters, and very viable liquid cooling possibilities. If I air-cool, I'm gonna have to go with a mATX tower, few of which are known for good airflow.

That case has me tempted to do another mITX build, but I really don't need another system right now.

 

[tosgamer]

Seem hard to find some tests (most I find are with a 3080 or 3090 which could be quite misleading, being much easier to bottleneck those at regular possible FPS for a standard monitor than a 3060), one thing is sure it would be a nice gesture for the person looking for a GPU.

I would not do it for PCI-express 4.0 I doubt it is an issue for your current video card and if you ever change, and it becomes an issue, possible that a better option will be out like the 5800xd or a nice priced 5900x.

But looking at how big the difference is with the high end video card (then again maybe those do not like the pci-express 3.0) it is not a crazy queston.

5600G would slot in between the 3600x and 5600x (closer to a 3600x). RTX 3060 is equal to the 5700XT. Conclusion: You could basically run a Ryzen 5 1600x with a 3060 tier graphics card and lose essentially nothing.

 

[Mchart]

Perhaps at least wait for the 5800xd. The massive cache may improve frame consistency with some games, which really matters most.

The issue with that is that it will likely never come down in price and be the same in cost as a 5900x. The normal 5800x can be had for $300 or even less. The 3d will never be less then low $400s as it will be a very limited run of production until AM5 parts hit, and at that price the 5900x may still be the better buy even for gaming.

My point here is that the 5800x3D and 5900x are in a different price bracket. The 5600x and 5800x are so close now that it seems silly to me to not pay $50 more for more cores, cache, and clock.

 

[OKC Yeakey Trentadue]

MEDIA=youtube]AlfwXqODqp4:1002[/MEDIA]

5600G would slot in between the 3600x and 5600x (closer to a 3600x). RTX 3060 is equal to the 5700XT. Conclusion: You could basically run a Ryzen 5 1600x with a 3060 tier graphics card and lose essentially nothing.

Agreed, and if your GPU takes a dump you can still just get a cheapo B450/550 motherboard to hold you over. Just make sure the B450 comes with an updated bios.

 

[GiGaBiTe]

MEDIA=youtube]AlfwXqODqp4:1002[/MEDIA]

Agreed, and if your GPU takes a dump you can still just get a cheapo B450/550 motherboard to hold you over. Just make sure the B450 comes with an updated bios.

There are still B550 boards floating around that don't have Ryzen 5000 series BIOS support, I've encountered this problem more than once.