Should I keep my 5600x for a few generations?

[rippy4500]

I was thinking of upgrading again in a couple generations, like intel 15th gen or amd equivalent, or even longer. Would my 5600x hold up well with upcoming games until then?

 

Running 1080p 280hz (140fps is what I shoot for, with 60 being a minimum for me to consider enjoyable, depends on the game though obviously.) It can probably get 150-200fps in alot of games (not 100% sure though as i havent upgraded my gpu yet)

 

full specs: 

5600x smt off, 4.75ghz 1.35v all core

noctua nh-d15s

gigabyte b450m ds3h (just got the asrock b550 extreme4, still wating for it to get here, I bought it for reasons unrelated to this post.)

trident z rgb 2x8 3600 cl16 with tuned subtimings

evga gtx 970 (getting the 4090 eventually)

evga 1000 t2 psu (bought it for the 4090)

phanteks p400a

windows 10 home 64 bit (highly tuned windows install, slightly better fps on average, much better lows and reduced microstuttering)

[Zando_]

Keep it until it doesn't provide the performance you want. 

 

Nobody can predict when that will be, CPUs typically remain usable for near a decade if you aren't on the bleeding edge of gaming or in a "time is money" business. 

[rippy4500]

1 minute ago, Zando_ said:

Keep it until it doesn't provide the performance you want. 

 

Nobody can predict when that will be, CPUs typically remain usable for near a decade if you aren't on the bleeding edge of gaming or in a "time is money" business. 

Not sure what you mean by "bleeding edge of gaming", Im trying to get 280hz which is higher than what most people shoot for, with 140 being a minimum for a good high refresh experience, and my 5600x can handle it but barely, and not in every game.

[Slave2school]

Exactly as above. When you use your computer, ask yourself if it is performing as well as you want it to for what you actually do. (Unless you have cash to burn and you want to YOLO)

 

My son is rocking a 5600x right now with a 2080 ti under water and 32gb of ram 1440p.  He likes it but I am going to pump him up to a 5900x and trade his mother's office pc for that cpu. He plays some strategy games that will benefit him, hearts of iron 4 I believe.

[rippy4500]

1 minute ago, Slave2school said:

Unless you have cash to burn and you want to YOLO

Probably lol, not yet tho 

2 minutes ago, Slave2school said:

Exactly as above. When you use your computer, ask yourself if it is performing as well as you want it to for what you actually do.

For now its fine, just not sure if it will be in a couple years.

[Zando_]

4 minutes ago, rippy4500 said:

Not sure what you mean by "bleeding edge of gaming", Im trying to get 280hz which is higher than what most people shoot for, with 140 being a minimum for a good high refresh experience, and my 5600x can handle it but barely, and not in every game.

Ultra high refresh rate (over 240hz) and/or 4K and beyond at 144Hz+. If you want to get the full 280Hz (you said you're happy with 144) then you would be on that, to keep at that level in newer titles you'll have to upgrade more often. 

 

If your 5600X can barely handle an acceptable experience right now, then you have to make the choice to either upgrade now or make do until there's a larger performance jump. 

[Mister Woof]

Yes, you don't need to upgrade every generation

 

Please ignore my signature which includes CPUs from 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 13th gen Intel

[Slave2school]

1 minute ago, rippy4500 said:

Probably lol, not yet tho 

For now its fine, just not sure if it will be in a couple years.

I wish I could help you with that but at the pace of things lately? That a strong prolly maybe.

[ewitte]

Just dropped so much on the 4090 its going to be at least Zen5 before I consider upgrading.  

[Mister Woof]

1 minute ago, Zando_ said:

Ultra high refresh rate (over 240hz) and/or 4K and beyond at 144Hz+. If you want to get the full 280Hz (you said you're happy with 144) then you would be on that, to keep at that level in newer titles you'll have to upgrade more often. 

 

If your 5600X can barely handle an acceptable experience right now, then you have to make the choice to either upgrade now or make do until there's a larger performance jump. 

I can't speak for the OP but I wonder how many people are actually able to take advantage of such high framerates anyway. I get that there are some pro players, but I also get the feeling there's a lot of guys rolling around with very fast cars that can't even properly back out of a driveway

[rippy4500]

Just now, Shimmy Gummi said:

I can't speak for the OP but I wonder how many people are actually able to take advantage of such high framerates anyway. I get that there are some pro players, but I also get the feeling there's a lot of guys rolling around with very fast cars that can't even properly back out of a driveway

I find it more enjoyable than a 144hz 1440p+ monitor, thats all. Its just preference.

[Slave2school]

2 minutes ago, Shimmy Gummi said:

I can't speak for the OP but I wonder how many people are actually able to take advantage of such high framerates anyway. I get that there are some pro players, but I also get the feeling there's a lot of guys rolling around with very fast cars that can't even properly back out of a driveway

/s Let's not even get into what their wives look like and how they perform ok?

[Zando_]

1 minute ago, Shimmy Gummi said:

I can't speak for the OP but I wonder how many people are actually able to take advantage of such high framerates anyway. I get that there are some pro players, but I also get the feeling there's a lot of guys rolling around with very fast cars that can't even properly back out of a driveway

Plenty of folks who play fast paced/twitch shooters notice the diff. Optimum Tech is "just" an SFF YouTuber guy and he regularly does videos on the latest high refresh rate monitors, breaking down differences that I can't even see. Seems a person-by-person thing, plenty of people who aren't professional gamers still get a more enjoyable experience with higher refresh monitors. 

[Slave2school]

Just now, rippy4500 said:

I find it more enjoyable than a 144hz 1440p+ monitor, thats all. Its just preference.

I can understand that. Until I had my current monitor I was unsure it would be as crisp looking as they said. I wish it was 240hz for the odd thing.

[rippy4500]

1 minute ago, Zando_ said:

Plenty of folks who play fast paced/twitch shooters notice the diff. Optimum Tech is "just" an SFF YouTuber guy and he regularly does videos on the latest high refresh rate monitors, breaking down differences that I can't even see. Seems a person-by-person thing, plenty of people who aren't professional gamers still get a more enjoyable experience with higher refresh monitors. 

144hz to 280hz is obvious for me, 144 even feels a little sluggish when compared to 280hz. I can even tell 240 from 280 in some specific scenarios. I guess im just really sensitive to it.

[Mister Woof]

Ya'll I cap at 120 even with a 165hz display

 

Is this where you guys tell me 

 

 

[Intelfreak]

5600X will keep you going for some time. But 6 cores is not as future prof as 8 cores. 

 

But when or if you get a rtx 4090. 5600X will be a cpu bottleneck at times. This comes from one with a Ryzen 9 5950X and a rtx 4090. In some cases my 5950X is actually the bottleneck. So with 4090 you might want to consider a upgrade to get the full potential of 4090. But the solution for new cpu doesn't have to be that expensive. Look 5800X3D. That will work on am4 boards and is just around as fast as a new Zen 4 cpu in games. This cpu is a little gem for us am4 people. Just my advice. 

 

Keep 5600X amd when you get 4090. You might want to consider 5800X3d. That cpu would better could feed 4090. Specially if you are a high fps gamer. 

[Slave2school]

30 minutes ago, Shimmy Gummi said:

Ya'll I cap at 120 even with a 165hz display

 

Is this where you guys tell me 

 

 

Seriously though, view an oled for a while if you can.  It is like plasma response or better.

[Slave2school]

19 minutes ago, Intelfreak said:

5600X will keep you going for some time. But 6 cores is not as future prof as 8 cores. 

 

But when or if you get a rtx 4090. 5600X will be a cpu bottleneck at times. This comes from one with a Ryzen 9 5950X and a rtx 4090. In some cases my 5950X is actually the bottleneck. So with 4090 you might want to consider a upgrade to get the full potential of 4090. But the solution for new cpu doesn't have to be that expensive. Look 5800X3D. That will work on am4 boards and is just around as fast as a new Zen 4 cpu in games. This cpu is a little gem for us am4 people. Just my advice. 

 

Keep 5600X amd when you get 4090. You might want to consider 5800X3d. That cpu would better could feed 4090. Specially if you are a high fps gamer. 

5800x3d is like the dx2 50mhz OverDrive of yore. I like it.

[rippy4500]

40 minutes ago, Intelfreak said:

5600X will keep you going for some time. But 6 cores is not as future prof as 8 cores. 

 

But when or if you get a rtx 4090. 5600X will be a cpu bottleneck at times. This comes from one with a Ryzen 9 5950X and a rtx 4090. In some cases my 5950X is actually the bottleneck. So with 4090 you might want to consider a upgrade to get the full potential of 4090. But the solution for new cpu doesn't have to be that expensive. Look 5800X3D. That will work on am4 boards and is just around as fast as a new Zen 4 cpu in games. This cpu is a little gem for us am4 people. Just my advice. 

 

Keep 5600X amd when you get 4090. You might want to consider 5800X3d. That cpu would better could feed 4090. Specially if you are a high fps gamer. 

5800x3d isnt a big enough upgrade, and it isnt overclockable which i dont like.

[Mark Kaine]

generally a good'ish cpu would be good for 4-5 years nowadays, so if its just gaming you should be good for the most part.

 

1 hour ago, rippy4500 said:

5800x3d isnt a big enough upgrade, and it isnt overclockable

thats what sold me on it, cpu overclocking is near useless nowadays anyway (same as GPUs actually) 

 

you often get better performance by undervolting btw due to how chips are binned.  

 

[rippy4500]

2 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

generally a good'ish cpu would be good for 4-5 years nowadays, so if its just gaming you should be good for the most part.

 

thats what sold me on it, cpu overclocking is near useless nowadays anyway (same as GPUs actually) 

 

you often get better performance by undervolting btw due to how chips are binned.  

 

My system feels more responsive with a static clock speed, so I just do that and then push it as far as I can without having high temps or voltage.

[Mark Kaine]

4 minutes ago, rippy4500 said:

My system feels more responsive with a static clock speed, so I just do that and then push it as far as I can without having high temps or voltage.

oh i see, yeah sometimes weird things like that can make a diff.

 

i just upgraded my pc too (for more than one reason...) and i somehow wasn't happy with it, it didn't feel right... then i somehow changed my dram voltage and it feels much better all of the sudden?  Doesn't really make sense but it definitely did something lol.

 

 

[rippy4500]

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

oh i see, yeah sometimes weird things like that can make a diff.

 

i just upgraded my pc too (for more than one reason...) and i somehow wasn't happy with it, it didn't feel right... then i somehow changed my dram voltage and it feels much better all of the sudden?  Doesn't really make sense but it definitely did something lol.

 

 

I adjust my settings so that its as consistent and fast as possible. Some power saving stuff like cstates, amd cool and quiet, etc, all potentially can reduce performance and can decrease responsiveness, so it feels like best practice to just turn them off, even if they arent necessarily causing any issues.

Also smt is weird, but Its the same thing where my system feels more responsive without it, so I disable it always.

 

Dynamic cpu clocks in any form are just worse, dont know why, but the system just feels inconsistent and slower. There is also that clock stretching nonsense and I dont understand the point of it but its probably one of the factors that make it worse.

[Mister Woof]

I haven't done a static frequency OC in years. Even the 10900K i only changed the active core turbo, I actually am leaving my 13700K stock for now.

 

I did some goofing around with a 5.5ghz P core OC, which works with XTU; but it gets some kind of issue with BIOS OC in that 5.5ghz all P-core gives me a low single core score. Which shouldn't even happen since 5.5ghz is higher than stock single core turbo.

 

Additionally, the VCORE kept going up and up in BIOS when I would do offest +0.005v....even when resetting to optimized defaults and auto, it would stay at 1.35v or higher. All reset settings, full load VCORE was 1.38v

 

Had to clear the CMOS to get it to revert back to its native 1.09v starting point, and under full load to around 1.26v. 

Weird behavior on this BIOS.