Upgrade, lateral, or downgrade? 5900X to 5800X3D

[Jrasero]

I currently running a B550i mobo w/ a 5900X, DDR4 3600 RAM, and a RTX 4090 and play at 4K.  I only use the computer for productivity and mostly gaming 

 

Would going to a 5800X3D be a upgrade, lateral move, or downgrade?

 

 

I can get a 5800X3D shipped for $350 and sell my 5900X for at least $250, thus swap is possibly just $100.  Reason I am thinking of doing this is to breathe some life into my AM4 setup and push out a total MOBO/CPU/RAM upgrade another 1-2 years

[Ryuikko]

It'll barely make a difference, so net neutral. 4k is way more gpu reliant than cpu, so your 4090 is the theoretical limiting factor 

[YoungBlade]

It would be a side-grade.

 

For gaming, it's an upgrade of about 15-20% in most titles best case, but a slight downgrade in gaming for a select few titles that benefit more from clockspeed than from cache (like CS:GO).

 

For productivity, it's a fairly large downgrade (20-30%) in almost every situation, except for a select few applications that benefit more from cache than from clockspeed and cores (like certain code compilation jobs).

[PDifolco]

Just now, YoungBlade said:

It would be a side-grade.

 

For gaming, it's an upgrade of about 15-20% in most titles, but a slight downgrade in gaming for a select few titles that benefit more from clockspeed than from cache (like CS:GO).

 

For productivity, it's a fairly large downgrade (20-30%) in almost every situation, except for a select few applications that benefit more from cache than from clockspeed and cores (like certain code compilation jobs).

A side downgrade mostly ... Demanding games are still GPU bound at 4K on a 4090, the ones that aren't have insanely high FPS so you won't really notice the difference anyway, and losing 33% of the cores clocking 15% slower make it slower in everything but games

Even in games the difference will be tiny at best, here's some benchmark (with a 5950X but it'll be the same with a 5900X)

 

 

[jaslion]

At 4k games wont perform worse. 4k is just that demanding even for a 4090. In productivity the 5800x3d will be worse.

 

So its a downgrade overall

[xg32]

for gaming only the 5800x3d will be an upgrade, everything else is a downgrade, the 5900x does bottleneck the 4090.

[Somerandomtechyboi]

5800x3d is niche, great gaming cpu or great for anything that can use the cache but when that thing is gonna be bottlenecked by something else like the gpu (gaming) then the 5800x3d simply becomes pointless

 

And productivity usually benifits from more cores/clocks so when the benifits of the 5800x3d arent even usable but the downsides will visibly impact performance then its just a straight up downgrade

 

Maybe itd be great for high refresh 1080/1440p with a 4090 but other than a few other things thatd benifit from cache its just a lower clocked 5800x. You could try overclocking but bclk only goes so far, like a measly 114 max or so and thats likely having to sacrifice pcie and run pcie 2.0 speeds or something like that although bclk boosts everything else too cause its bclk, ocing bclk ocs everything hence why its so annoying and limited to oc. Still havent found any evidence of storage corruption with oced bclk so ill just assume thats some garbage some random guy spread a decade or 2 ago

[ewitte]

I see people with 7000 series or 13th gen Intel getting quite a bit higher than me even at 4k.  There are a LOT of maxed out games at 4k that are somewhat CPU limited on a 4090.  Even something like port royal is 10-12% higher.   I'll probably upgrade to something like a 8700x3d or 8900x when it comes out.  I've met my upgrade quota for the year 

[freeagent]

5900X wide open is a beast. It’s fast as fuck too. Mine will boost to the full 5150 on multiple cores. It breathes fire and chews power. But like I said, it’s fast as fuck.

 

X3D.. super easy to cool, because you in essence just turned your high end rig into a dell lol. If you are Joe Schmoe who just plays games, watches Netflix and porn, buys shit from Amazon then X3D is fast enough for that. 

[Jrasero]

Thanks for replies all.  To reiterate this move is 100% for gaming.  The most I use this computer otherwise is for Office and web browsing, so I understand that the 5900X would be better at productivity but I really only game or do things a Chromebook could accomplish

 

 

 

 

[Sarra]

4 hours ago, Jrasero said:

Thanks for replies all.  To reiterate this move is 100% for gaming.  The most I use this computer otherwise is for Office and web browsing, so I understand that the 5900X would be better at productivity but I really only game or do things a Chromebook could accomplish

 

 

 

 

It will give you better performance in gaming. If you are planning on using this machine without upgrading for several years, it might be worth the upgrade. If you're planning on upgrading in 2-3 years, maybe just hold off and spend the money on something else.

[QuantumSingularity]

For now it's just a neutral move. Will have to see if there will be any performance difference once AMD's RDNA 3 gpus with 3D V-cache roll out. Would the system get a bump in performance if both CPU and GPU have 3d cache... the question that will determine if they will be able to tackle nVidia properly like they did with Intel.

[Mark Kaine]

the 5800X3D is actually slower overall,  and gaming performance is basically the same, it would be a downgrade definitely. 

 

for me, i unno if that helps, it was between 12900K and 5800x3D...  (upgrading from a r5 3600) 

 

 

my wallet won. : p

 

(and Steve helped too lol)  

 

[Mark Kaine]

2 hours ago, Sarra said:

It will give you better performance in gaming

its like 5 fps at 1080p where the 3D has the biggest advantage over the competition... i wouldn't call that better performance,  and certainly not worthy 100 bucks better performance (and the hassle of rebuilding,  possibly troubleshooting etc... ) it's  a complete waste as an "upgrade" imho.

 

 

23 hours ago, Jrasero said:

I only use the computer for productivity and mostly gaming

at 4k you will see no difference (really gpu bound most likely) and a huge downgrade for "productivity"... so up to you i guess?

 

20 hours ago, freeagent said:

X3D.. super easy to cool, because you in essence just turned your high end rig into a dell lol. If you are Joe Schmoe who just plays games, watches Netflix and porn, buys shit from Amazon then X3D is fast enough for that

lololol xD

 

Wait...... you take that back!  >.>

 

(i dont watch netflix lol)

 

[Sarra]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

its like 5 fps at 1080p where the 3D has the biggest advantage over the competition... i wouldn't call that better performance,  and certainly not worthy 100 bucks better performance (and the hassle of rebuilding,  possibly troubleshooting etc... ) it's  a complete waste as an "upgrade" imho.

Well, uh... No? That pic you linked as the 5600 9 FPS under the 5800X3D. You just used a benchmark image with a GPU limit to prove CPU performance?

 

I digress, though. The 5800X3D will give better performance in games, and for a machine that will be kept for multiple years, spending some for it wouldn't be a waste, especially if some or all of the cost could be recouped by selling the 5900X.

[freeagent]

It is smooth like glass. 5900X is still pretty good too. Luckily I still have mine

[Mark Kaine]

2 hours ago, Sarra said:

You just used a benchmark image with a GPU limit to prove CPU performance?

well you gotta discuss this with Steve, its a "CPU benchmark " according to him (also says so in the picture) 

 

he also said (repeatedly)  that the 5800X3D is the strongest at 1080p (they also used medium settings,  i think pretty unusual for GN?) 

 

What this all means in terms of GPU/CPU wasn't really my point,  more like theres literally no difference (also why i wrote "LOL" on the 12900KS... which is like 3 times as expensive lol)

 

you know? i just don't see how this is an upgrade... the 5900X is better all around,  the 3D is slightly better in "some" games.

 

 

Edited November 11, 2022 by Mark Kaine
typo