CPU upgrade

[Schoewal]

Budget (including currency): 

Country: 

Games, programs or workloads that it will be used for: 

Other details (existing parts lists, whether any peripherals are needed, what you're upgrading from, when you're going to buy, what resolution and refresh rate you want to play at, etc)

Im going to upgrade my GPU to a RTX 3060 ti soon. After that i wanted to upgrade my AMD ryzen 5 3600x to a ryzen 5 5600x but then i saw that the gaming performance difference is so minimal that it might not mater. Any thoughts?

[jaslion]

Ehh not worth the money imo

[Schoewal]

does anyone have a good CPU upgrade from me?

[An0maly_76]

  

32 minutes ago, jaslion said:

Ehh not worth the money imo

EDITED / ADDED: @Schoewal

 

Agreed. The 3060ti is an okay upgrade from a 1080ti, and arguably the RTX3xxx price-performance sweet spot. But you won't see much performance increase from the 5600X over the 3600X. The only real difference is one is Zen2, the other is Zen3. A 3700X, 3800X, or 3900X might be worth it, but I doubt it unless you find one for $100 on eBay or something. And that could happen.

 

The higher-tier cards might benefit from an 8, 12, or 16-core processor, but the 3060ti will not, I can attest to this from personal experience. I've personally had an RTX3060ti running in a 3600X and it did great. No noticeable performance issues over my 5900X (which is overkill) with the same GPU. And, I might add, the 5900X only reduced the CPU usage over my 1700X (2 more cores and 4 more threads than the 3600X), it did nothing for performance with a 3060ti.

 

In retrospect, I could have gotten a Phillips Momentum 144hz 55", an RTX3090ti, and upgraded storage, keeping the 1700, which would have been a far better use of the money. Don't get me wrong, I love my 5900X, but in hindsight, it was hardly the best bang for the buck.

 

The 3600X is still a capable processor going into 2023. I'd say if anything, add what you would have spent on the 5600X to your GPU budget, maybe you can swing a 3070ti or even a 3080ti. You might even luck out and find a cheap 3700X / 3800X / 3900X on eBay. I got a perfectly good 3600X for half of retail that way.

Edited January 26, 2023 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[Queen Chrysalis]

19 minutes ago, Schoewal said:

does anyone have a good CPU upgrade from me?

No.  The 3600x is more than capable of running the 3060ti at its full potential.

16 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

The 3600X is still a capable processor going into 2023. I'd say if anything, add what you would have spent on the 5600X to your GPU budget, maybe you can swing a 3070ti or even a 3080ti.

Really if you want to do a better upgrade, keep the 3600x in place and spend whatever you would have spent on a CPU upgrade on getting an even better GPU.  A 3080 from eBay would be your best bet, as they are way overpriced new but can be under $500 used, and even the used ones are not very old and many have barely been used.  That would be the fastest GPU you could run with the 3600x, and be the most worthwhile upgrade you could do.  Going from a 1080ti to a 3060ti is not much of an upgrade.

[191x7]

30 minutes ago, Schoewal said:

does anyone have a good CPU upgrade from me?

Ryzen 7 5800X3D.

 

You did not mention the resolution you're using.

Asuming it's 1080p (1920x1080) and knowing that a 3060Ti is close to a 3070 and is a competitor for the Radeon 6700 non-xt or the 6650XT, and taking into account that nVidia cards require a stronger CPU for the same performance class GPU as AMD (Nvidia = worse driver overhead), the 3600X would bottleneck the 3060Ti on 1080p and the 5600 would a bit less and maybe not at all.

If it's 1440p, then there's no difference between a 3600X and a 5600 feeding a 3060Ti - there it's a balance.

[Queen Chrysalis]

24 minutes ago, 191x7 said:

Ryzen 7 5800X3D.

 

You did not mention the resolution you're using.

Asuming it's 1080p (1920x1080) and knowing that a 3060Ti is close to a 3070 and is a competitor for the Radeon 6700 non-xt or the 6650XT, and taking into account that nVidia cards require a stronger CPU for the same performance class GPU as AMD (Nvidia = worse driver overhead), the 3600X would bottleneck the 3060Ti on 1080p and the 5600 would a bit less and maybe not at all.

If it's 1440p, then there's no difference between a 3600X and a 5600 feeding a 3060Ti - there it's a balance.

Even at 1080p there really isn't a worthwhile difference when using a GPU like a 3060ti.  The difference you see in benchmarks is with a 3090ti.  Upgrading a CPU one generation like that when using anything other thana flagship GPU is a waste of money.  And with a specialty chip like the 5800x3d, it's a huge waste of money.  That chip alone would cover most of the purchase of a used 3080.

[191x7]

1 minute ago, Queen Chrysalis said:

Even at 1080p there really isn't a worthwhile difference when using a GPU like a 3060ti.  The difference you see in benchmarks is with a 3090ti.  Upgrading a CPU one generation like that when using anything other thana flagship GPU is a waste of money.  And with a specialty chip like the 5800x3d, it's a huge waste of money.  That chip alone would cover most of the purchase of a used 3080.

I disagree with almost everything you've written there.

 

Did you actually test a combination like that?

[jaslion]

4 minutes ago, 191x7 said:

I disagree with almost everything you've written there.

 

Did you actually test a combination like that?

As an owner of a 3900x and 5950x + 3090 I went from 144fps+ to 144fps+ with the cpu upgrade.

 

So basically did not notice it one bit. Also didnt upgrade for games but thats besides the point.

[191x7]

1 minute ago, jaslion said:

As an owner of a 3900x and 5950x + 3090 I went from 144fps+ to 144fps+ with the cpu upgrade.

 

So basically did not notice it one bit. Also didnt upgrade for games but thats besides the point.

1080p? A bottleneck is a bottleneck...

What exactly does 144fps+ to 144fps+ mean; 150 average with 80 drops to 160 average with 110 drops?

[jaslion]

1 minute ago, 191x7 said:

1080p? A bottleneck is a bottleneck...

What exactly does 144fps+ to 144fps+ mean; 150 average with 80 drops to 160 average with 110 drops?

My gaming display is 144hz 1440p older benq. Then downstairs is 32 inch lg somethibg 1440p 144hz display.

 

I still go over the cap of my screen wether the 3900x is there or a 5900x.

 

Drops probably a bit worse on the 3900x but during gaming nobody notices as these displays have freesync anyway.

[191x7]

7 minutes ago, jaslion said:

My gaming display is 144hz 1440p older benq. Then downstairs is 32 inch lg somethibg 1440p 144hz display.

 

I still go over the cap of my screen wether the 3900x is there or a 5900x.

 

Drops probably a bit worse on the 3900x but during gaming nobody notices as these displays have freesync anyway.

Would you be willing to compare those on 1080p? We are talking about 1080p here.

Any small difference on 1440p would be vastly increased when lowering the resolution.

 

Freesync prevents tearing, it doesn't magically improve the latency spikes in huge framedrops.

[jaslion]

22 minutes ago, 191x7 said:

Would you be willing to compare those on 1080p? We are talking about 1080p here.

Any small difference on 1440p would be vastly increased when lowering the resolution.

 

Freesync prevents tearing, it doesn't magically improve the latency spikes in huge framedrops.

In the end here it comes down to yes the 3600x is worse than a 5600x or 5800x3d but it wont have issues playibg games.

 

If op can get a noticeably better gpu for the price they would have spent on the cpu the gpu will be the far bettee option as a 3600x is still a good gaming cpu no matter what.

 

 

As for 1080p benchmarks thats a no. Thats a lot of time and besides I have a 3090 its usually being held back by the cpu anyways in the games that can push well past 144fps

[191x7]

7 minutes ago, jaslion said:

In the end here it comes down to yes the 3600x is worse than a 5600x or 5800x3d but it wont have issues playibg games.

 

If op can get a noticeably better gpu for the price they would have spent on the cpu the gpu will be the far bettee option as a 3600x is still a good gaming cpu no matter what.

 

 

As for 1080p benchmarks thats a no. Thats a lot of time and besides I have a 3090 its usually being held back by the cpu anyways in the games that can push well past 144fps

Well, I went from a 1600X over a 3600 to a 5900X. 380X to 5700XT. From 1080p to 1440p.

I know the difference between a 1600X, 3600 and 5900X (and 5900X locked to 6 cores simulating a 5600X) with a 5700X both on 1080p and 1440p.

[jaslion]

1 minute ago, 191x7 said:

Well, I went from a 1600X over a 3600 to a 5900X. 380X to 5700XT. From 1080p to 1440p.

I know the difference between a 1600X, 3600 and 5900X (and 5900X locked to 6 cores simulating a 5600X) with a 5700X both on 1080p and 1440p.

Thats fine. I known the difference between a 3600x and 5600x is up to 25% but as for op I dont see any use upgrading as a 3600x is still a good gaming cpu and their budget is better spent on a better gpu

[191x7]

1 minute ago, jaslion said:

Thats fine. I known the difference between a 3600x and 5600x is up to 25% but as for op I dont see any use upgrading as a 3600x is still a good gaming cpu and their budget is better spent on a better gpu

Not really if it's going to be bottlenecked, and it is.

I'd rather have a not-bottlenecked 20% weaker GPU than a bottlenecked 20% stronger. Bottlenecked means higher frame variations and that's terrible for input delay, muscle memory, tracking ability and overall. And it happens at the worst time - right when an enemy shoots at you you get a huge frame drop.

[Queen Chrysalis]

1 hour ago, 191x7 said:

Not really if it's going to be bottlenecked, and it is.

I'd rather have a not-bottlenecked 20% weaker GPU than a bottlenecked 20% stronger. 

So a 3080 would be bottlenecked by a 3600x?  What CPU were people supposed to used it with when it came out?  the 10400 is not much faster, and are you really telling me that when the 3080 came out the only viable CPU to pair it with was one that was literally just released?  So nVidia really released a non-flagship GPU that could only go with the newest CPU on the market, expecting anyone who wanted it to get a whole new system?  Or perhaps, just maybe, it's a 1440p GPU so being bottlenecked slightly at 1080p wasn't ever a concern, because who the hell is playing 1080p games with a 3080?

1 hour ago, 191x7 said:

Bottlenecked means higher frame variations and that's terrible for input delay, muscle memory, tracking ability and overall.

that's if you're a dunce who's playing uncapped instead of with freesync on(or at least with framerate capped at refresh rate), and that the CPU is actually hitting 100% utilization.  That's not the case with a 3080 and a 3600x at 1440p with frames capped at the refresh rate, as they should be.  Also, fps variation doesn;t do that much when fps are staying above 60-100 for most gameers, as long as it's not dropping below 60 it still appears smooth.  Also, input delay is not affected like that in a non-theoretical way.  That's some real picky stuff that people who aren't pro-gamers and hardware enthusiasts at the same time would never be able to notice in a way that affects gameplay.  And again, that's if they were playing at 1080p uncapped and frames were dropping below like 50, which they wouldn;t with a 3080 and a 3600x.

[jaslion]

2 hours ago, 191x7 said:

Not really if it's going to be bottlenecked, and it is.

I'd rather have a not-bottlenecked 20% weaker GPU than a bottlenecked 20% stronger. Bottlenecked means higher frame variations and that's terrible for input delay, muscle memory, tracking ability and overall. And it happens at the worst time - right when an enemy shoots at you you get a huge frame drop.

Heh?

 

A 3600x really isnt gonna hold back even a 3080. Sure the average fps wont be as high as a 5600x but it will still push it most of the time. Worst case turn up the graphics a bit.

 

There wont ve huge frame drops either. I feel like you are forgetting that a 3600x was a goto cpu 3 years ago when the 3000 series launched and was a popular choice for 3080 builds back then too

[191x7]

43 minutes ago, Queen Chrysalis said:

So a 3080 would be bottlenecked by a 3600x?  What CPU were people supposed to used it with when it came out?  the 10400 is not much faster, and are you really telling me that when the 3080 came out the only viable CPU to pair it with was one that was literally just released?  So nVidia really released a non-flagship GPU that could only go with the newest CPU on the market, expecting anyone who wanted it to get a whole new system?  Or perhaps, just maybe, it's a 1440p GPU so being bottlenecked slightly at 1080p wasn't ever a concern, because who the hell is playing 1080p games with a 3080?

that's if you're a dunce who's playing uncapped instead of with freesync on(or at least with framerate capped at refresh rate), and that the CPU is actually hitting 100% utilization.  That's not the case with a 3080 and a 3600x at 1440p with frames capped at the refresh rate, as they should be.  Also, fps variation doesn;t do that much when fps are staying above 60-100 for most gameers, as long as it's not dropping below 60 it still appears smooth.  Also, input delay is not affected like that in a non-theoretical way.  That's some real picky stuff that people who aren't pro-gamers and hardware enthusiasts at the same time would never be able to notice in a way that affects gameplay.  And again, that's if they were playing at 1080p uncapped and frames were dropping below like 50, which they wouldn;t with a 3080 and a 3600x.

Yes, on 1080p severely. When the 3080 came out it was advertised as a high end card, meaning a card for 4K and 1440p high refresh, and it is for that. People were supposed to use it with the midrange and high end CPU-s from the time AND IF USED ON 1080p it was bottlenecked. Just check the benchmarks. And yes, it was not important for 1080p cause who'd buy a $700 card that often reached 1000+ and even more and use it on a $100 to $200 monitor. Bottlenecking on 1080p weasn't a concer.

Freesync doesn't cap the rate, it just syncs the GPU output and the monitor when the framerate is inside a framerate range, if the framerate goes above there still might be tearing.
A CPU doesn't need to reach 100% to be a bottleneck, most game engines don't even use a 4C/8T CPU to the max, multithreaded programming isn't easy.

A 3600X is probably still fine for a 3080 on 1440p, that's not the question here. It's 1080p. 1080p is just 56.5% of 1440p, 1440p is 77.78% more pixels comapred to 1080p.

Also, the last sentence you're wrong too - because a severely bottlenecked 3080 would enter lower power states and have lower performance - and there would be huge framerate drops and spikes when the GPU switches between the power modes.

 

19 minutes ago, jaslion said:

Heh?

 

A 3600x really isnt gonna hold back even a 3080. Sure the average fps wont be as high as a 5600x but it will still push it most of the time. Worst case turn up the graphics a bit.

 

There wont ve huge frame drops either. I feel like you are forgetting that a 3600x was a goto cpu 3 years ago when the 3000 series launched and was a popular choice for 3080 builds back then too

Read above. Please inform yourself.