Ryzen 3300x compatibility with a gtx 1080 ti

[accaxm]

Will there be any bottleneck on a system with a gtx 1080ti and a ryzen 3 3300xwill it be better than an I7 4770?

[Letgomyleghoe]

1080ti is an odd choice, and yes I would expect the gpu to be bottlenecked.

[Shimejii]

you will be fine for 1080p/1440p gaming.

[i_build_nanosuits]

23 minutes ago, accaxm said:

Will there be any bottleneck on a system with a gtx 1080ti and a ryzen 3 3300xwill it be better than an I7 4770?

3300X should perform a bit better than 4770 yes especially if you give it a slight clock boost or at least make sure it does boost properly and everything.

I had 4770K 4.3ghz before and with 1080ti at 1440p the CPU wasn't enough for high FPS gaming...battlefield V namely...so i upgraded to 8700K.

I would look for R5 3600 or better...10600K looks cool too.

[Aereldor]

24 minutes ago, Shimejii said:

you will be fine for 1080p/1440p gaming.

Uh.. What? I mean of course he'll be fine with a 3300x and a 1080 ti, but a GPU becomes less and less bottlenecked at higher resolutions... 

He'll be completely CPU bottlenecked, albeit at way higher framerates. At 4k, he'll finally be GPU bound to hit a locked 60FPS at max settings. Maybe some really heavy ones with really bad optimization at 2k...

Watch the LTT video on what bottlenecking is

[i_build_nanosuits]

9 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

Uh.. What? I mean of course he'll be fine with a 3300x and a 1080 ti, but a GPU becomes less and less bottlenecked at higher resolutions... 

He'll be completely CPU bottlenecked, albeit at way higher framerates. At 4k, he'll finally be GPU bound to hit a locked 60FPS at max settings. Maybe some really heavy ones with really bad optimization at 2k...

Watch the LTT video on what bottlenecking is

any quad core CPU will NOT provide the optimum gaming experience in modern demanding titles...especially ''open world'' oriented type of games.

I would pick a R5 2600 over ANY of the quad core chip any day of the week.

[Aereldor]

4 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

any quad core CPU will NOT provide the optimum gaming experience in modern demanding titles...especially ''open world'' oriented type of games.

I would pick a R5 2600 over ANY of the quad core chip any day of the week.

In any gaming scenario the 3300x is on par with the 3600, which means it will handily beat the 2600. It was even a fraction faster than the 3600 in RDR2.

You were saying?
 

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

8 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

In any gaming scenario the 3300x is on par with the 3600, which means it will handily beat the 2600. It was even a fraction faster than the 3600 in RDR2.

You were saying

 

nahh i disagree...they tested the WRONG games...that's all.

Take Far Cry 5, Assassin's creed (any of them new), Battlefiled 5 or BF1...some ghost recon wildlands stuff etc.

Now...YES if you're not into such games and you want to play CSGO, GTA 5, fortnite, overwatch etc. games that are NOT gonna push your CPU a whole bunch then YES the quad core is ABSOLUTELY fine.

 

I know...i had a quacore CPU before and i know MANY gaming situations where it just struggle.

[Shimejii]

31 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

Uh.. What? I mean of course he'll be fine with a 3300x and a 1080 ti, but a GPU becomes less and less bottlenecked at higher resolutions... 

He'll be completely CPU bottlenecked, albeit at way higher framerates. At 4k, he'll finally be GPU bound to hit a locked 60FPS at max settings. Maybe some really heavy ones with really bad optimization at 2k...

Watch the LTT video on what bottlenecking is

I know what bottlenecking is. Its a horrible word and it should not be used by 98% of users. For just gaming, yeah you could get better fps and such, but its not worth it within budgets. It gets the job done and is fine, if it does 80-85% of the top cpu, thats still just fine to me. Instead of 280 Fps you get 230-240, oof so bad. Some games yes it makes a bigger difference, but you can easily just adjust the settings and voila your back to being fine.

 

Not saying its perfect, not saying its guranteed to match, but its still easily good enough and does its job well. its 130$ fucking bucks, you really want to increase that by 75% cost to get the 3600(or near double for the 3600x) for 5% in some games? Thats not worth it for most people on such a strict budget. Now if you can do it, sure its an option and you can do it.

[xAcid9]

3 hours ago, accaxm said:

Will there be any bottleneck on a system with a gtx 1080ti and a ryzen 3 3300xwill it be better than an I7 4770?

It will be better but it all depend on your memory of choice imo, go with at least 3200mhz+

Not really great for high fps gaming unless it's a less graphic intensive e-sport titles. (144+fps)

[Aereldor]

1 hour ago, Shimejii said:

I know what bottlenecking is. Its a horrible word and it should not be used by 98% of users.

You're insulting 98% of the users on this forum and you still haven't got it right

 

1 hour ago, Shimejii said:

I know what bottlenecking is. Its a horrible word and it should not be used by 98% of users. For just gaming, yeah you could get better fps and such, but its not worth it within budgets. It gets the job done and is fine, if it does 80-85% of the top cpu, thats still just fine to me. Instead of 280 Fps you get 230-240, oof so bad. Some games yes it makes a bigger difference, but you can easily just adjust the settings and voila your back to being fine.

 

Not saying its perfect, not saying its guranteed to match, but its still easily good enough and does its job well. its 130$ fucking bucks, you really want to increase that by 75% cost to get the 3600(or near double for the 3600x) for 5% in some games? Thats not worth it for most people on such a strict budget. Now if you can do it, sure its an option and you can do it.

Just... What? We're talking about gaming, and the 3300x beats the breaks off the 2600 in games. It's 15% faster in most cases. It's slower in Blender, Handbrake etc, but OP hasn't even mentioned productivity.

But you're not even making that argument. You're saying 'it's okay, it's more expensive and not as fast, but it's still okay because 240 FPS is as good as 280?'.

[Aereldor]

2 hours ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

nahh i disagree...they tested the WRONG games...that's all.

Take Far Cry 5, Assassin's creed (any of them new), Battlefiled 5 or BF1...some ghost recon wildlands stuff etc.

Now...YES if you're not into such games and you want to play CSGO, GTA 5, fortnite, overwatch etc. games that are NOT gonna push your CPU a whole bunch then YES the quad core is ABSOLUTELY fine.

 

I know...i had a quacore CPU before and i know MANY gaming situations where it just struggle.

This sounds like a phobia against quad cores... Did you even watch Linus' video?

Here's another benchmark vid. 

Battlefield 5, basically identical. Ghost Recon - basically identical. RDR2, within 10%, Linus showed it even beating the 3600, so fair to say... Basically identical. Far Cry New Dawn - basically identical. 

It suffers a 10-15% loss in Assassin's Creed Odyssey and Shadow of the Tomb Raider So I'll give you that. 

It's also going to launch at $120. That's almost half of the R5 3600's $200 launch... And the gaming performance is virtually identical.

[i_build_nanosuits]

6 hours ago, Aereldor said:

This sounds like a phobia against quad cores... Did you even

 

What?! I'm talking from EXPERIENCE....it's NOT all about average fps....it's about frametimes and Smootness...you're wasting my time keep watching your stupid benchmark video some day you'll learn from your own experiences as well. Have a good day.

[Aereldor]

4 hours ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

What?! I'm talking from EXPERIENCE....it's NOT all about average fps....it's about frametimes and Smootness...you're wasting my time keep watching your stupid benchmark video some day you'll learn from your own experiences as well. Have a good day.

What the fuck are you so salty about? You could watch other benchmark videos and they tell a similar story. 

Your 'experience' has a sample size of one. Also, can you substantiate your claims that the R5 3600 provides a frametime advantage over a 3300x? ... You haven't yet.

[xAcid9]

25 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

What the fuck are you so salty about? You could watch other benchmark videos and they tell a similar story. 

Your 'experience' has a sample size of one. Also, can you substantiate your claims that the R5 3600 provides a frametime advantage over a 3300x? ... You haven't yet.

Meh, reviewer use clean system for benchmark. Once you include your regular programs running in the background 4c/8t it could drop more frames compare to 3600. 
4c/8t is the new low but for gaming i wouldn't get 1st/2nd gen Ryzen over 3rd gen Ryzen. 
 

Spoiler

 

 

 

But for someone that just want a good 60fps gaming, 3300x is definitely one the best budget CPU you can get right now. 
Make sure not to skim on system RAM, get a pair of fast ram. That's where the 4770 lack.

[Aereldor]

17 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

Meh, reviewer use clean system for benchmark. Once you include your regular programs running in the background 4c/8t it could drop more frames compare to 3600. 
4c/8t is the new low but for gaming i wouldn't get 1st/2nd gen Ryzen over 3rd gen Ryzen. 

Yeah but what background processes would you have running that take up that much CPU usage? Not to mention the reviewer was running benchmarking software... 

 

Also, by that logic, the 3600 should have had a greater edge in the titles where it DID win... It doesn't, though. 10-15% in tomb raider and odyssey. 

The 3300x is half the price... And virtually the same gaming performance. It's hard to argue in favor of the 3600. This is primarily owing to its single CCX layout, according to Linus...
 

 

[xAcid9]

44 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

Yeah but what background processes would you have running that take up that much CPU usage? Not to mention the reviewer was running benchmarking software... 

The usual suspect is browser, discord. 

Most recent benchmarking software is very lightweight. 

44 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

Also, by that logic, the 3600 should have had a greater edge in the titles where it DID win... It doesn't, though. 10-15% in tomb raider and odyssey. 

You were asking evidence for r5-3600 frametime advantage and i did.

5 years ago games only use 4 cores max, now some games started to use 6 cores because of 8th gen i5. 
Once game start to use 8 cores because of 10th gen i5, you'll see r5-3600 advantage increase even more.

44 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

The 3300x is half the price... And virtually the same gaming performance. It's hard to argue in favor of the 3600. This is primarily owing to its single CCX layout, according to Linus...

Yes, that single CCX is doing it's magic in games because of lower latency. It's a great budget gaming CPU indeed.

[732]

Any frames over your monitor refresh rate is redundant.

So unless something in your game works better with higher fps, or you have a 240hz+ monitor (which is unlikely), then choose the 3300x.

 

If you're multitasking (like streaming), then get the 3600.

[porina]

IMO the 3300X will on average be faster than the 4770, but to me not enough to make the "upgrade" unless you want it for other reasons e.g. features on mobo. I used a 6700k with the 1080Ti for a long while. Going to 1st gen Ryzen was a step backwards even with more cores, at least for the games I tried. Zen 2 should have addressed that, although I've not gone back to do more benches. Today games might make better use of more cores, so personally I'd only upgrade if you can target the 3600. I switched to more cores on Intel side as it helped with minimum framerates which was more interesting than higher average fps.