![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Someone explained this very well on reddit, and I'll attempt (and likely not do nearly as good of a job) to explain why 1080P CPU bound benchmarks are a good thing.
Well upgrading from a 5800x3d for the performance in 4-5 years seem a terrible idea, no ? A cheap not last gen core-i3 in 4-5 years will likely match if not beat any current cpu. Upgrade obviously require to be worth it day 1 (versus buying new because you do not have something that work right now), otherwise may has well buy into AM5 with a revision that will have better DDR-5 support, the ram being better and PCI-E 5.0 drive actually in the wild and so on.
I'm not sure I'm following you.
Ah, I think I see the disconnect.
Yes it fully make sense, it was more the poster already know that, was complaining about people using those to for example push people with a 5800x3d to upgrade, not someone that does not upgrade often has an old cpu and want to decide what he want to buy, a cpu that you buy now need to make a significant change now but you can still look at what it will do for you in the future.
Being that I can't really afford both a new GPU and a new CPU/Motherboard/ram/case, I will go for the later and stick with my old 2080Ti for a while. My 5820k@4.3GHz's life has just about run it's course. I'm sure the 2080Ti will perform much better with a 7800x3D setup.
Um no. You are CPU benchmarking at 1080 because you want to remove any GPU limitations during the bench. This is how you get a relative CPU fps to compare with.
And that data correlates to future 4K performance with that CPU relative to the other CPUs tested with new GPUs and new games.
Do you have any other good examples of where the x3d chips shine? I see it in MMOs, others have mentioned flight sims. I'm looking to run some benchmarks in some (hopefully free) games soon to show how much cache can impact performance. I'm also interested in how much of a trade-off in core clock it's worth (ie. would a 768mb L3 cache Epyc running at 4GHz give you smoother performance than a 144mb 7950x3D running at 5GHz+ ?). For me, it's the massive improvement in FPS lows and such that make a difference. Going from 250fps to 270fps is basically meaningless, but improving frame times or going from 40FPS lows to 60FPS lows is meaningful improvement. So it seems that if you could sacrifice some top-end performance for better low-end performance that it could be worth investigating.
Jeez you guys. There is an entire flaming thread about this in the news section, from a couple weeks ago:
Returnal likes the cache. CoD and Valorant. Racing sims seem to like it. MS Flight sim gets a decent boost from it.
Sorry, I don't play a ton of games and test them vs other hardware. I'd suggest checking with review sites like this - https://www.techpowerup.com/review/rtx-4090-53-games-ryzen-7-5800x-vs-ryzen-7-5800x3d/2.html
Very nice find - that Techspot writeup on it is an even greater in-depth view of what I saw on Reddit. Thanks for that!
Not nearly as excited as when I’m about to release a fart that’s been brewing for a while.
The 7600x is only a little worse in gaming, than the 7700x. The 7900x3D will be a fine gaming CPU
And you still get that mid/high multicore productivity performance.
I'm sure it will be similar in game performance much of the time but there are games that prefer more than 6 cores so for gaming there will be some situations where it will be worse while costing more money, it just doesn't seem worth it.The 7600x is only a little worse in gaming, than the 7700x. The 7900x3D will be a fine gaming CPU
There actually 12 cores on this CPU
And half of the cores will be parked for gaming like the 7950x3d...There actually 12 cores on this CPU
For games which like more cores, the v-cache will still be there. It looks already, as if a couple of games run on the regular CCX, but still reach over to the v-cache. I don't think the 7900x3D will be seeing any meaningful handicap. I'm willing to bet AMD didn't sample it for review----because its more/less as good in gaming as the 7950x3D. But they want people to see that in reviews and buy it, instead.
No reason they can't use all of the cores, for games which like them.
Reviewers were seeing weird and often bad results when they turned off the core parking in games, there's some issues there that need to be resolved if they even can.
Off the top of my head, I am otherwise struggling to think of another game used by reviewers, which is meaningfully better on a 7700x, compared to a 7600x, etc. The separation between the two is often a handful of frames, at most. *This suggests to me that a 6 core Ryzen with V-cache, wouldn't be a lot worse than an 8 core with v-cache.
Agreed. If AMD had offered a 5600X3D, I would have grabbed that over the 5800X3D in a heartbeat. I wasn't after cores. I was after the cache.
The GN review showed the 7900x3d lagging in some games due to only having 6 cores with 3d cache and they came to the same conclusion that I did, it's in an awkward position and doesn't really make sense vs the other options.
A 7600x3d would have been a good budget option but they probably didn't want to undercut the 7800x3d. Personally I think 8 cores is the sweet spot right now for gaming but as a budget part it would have at least made sense.
