4070 super with ryzen 5 5600g 2k

[beardberry]

Hey everyone, I'm currently running a Ryzen 5 5600G and looking to gradually upgrade my PC. My first step is considering upgrading the GPU to either a 4070 or 4070 Super. However, I'm uncertain whether my CPU can keep up with this GPU, especially in 2k resolution. Any advice or insights would be greatly appreciated!

 

[Fasauceome]

11 minutes ago, beardberry said:

However, I'm uncertain whether my CPU can keep up with this GPU, especially in 2k resolution

it's a pretty reasonable pairing, the 4070 and the 4070 super would be appropriate for this CPU

[Dedayog]

28 minutes ago, beardberry said:

Hey everyone, I'm currently running a Ryzen 5 5600G and looking to gradually upgrade my PC. My first step is considering upgrading the GPU to either a 4070 or 4070 Super. However, I'm uncertain whether my CPU can keep up with this GPU, especially in 2k resolution. Any advice or insights would be greatly appreciated!

 

Overkill for 1080p, but will work fine.

[Alex Atkin UK]

1 hour ago, Dedayog said:

Overkill for 1080p, but will work fine.

The way games are going, I think its unwise to make this claim.  Especially not knowing what refresh rate their monitor can handle.

 

Its better to have slightly too much GPU performance than too little, especially when there is the option to upgrade the CPU later to get a little more out of it.

[Dedayog]

1 minute ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

The way games are going, I think its unwise to make this claim.  Especially not knowing what refresh rate their monitor can handle.

 

Its better to have slightly too much GPU performance than too little, especially when there is the option to upgrade the CPU later to get a little more out of it.

Devil's Advocate is a solid play here, but a 4070 Super for 1080p, especially going from the iGPU in a 5600g.... a bit much.

 

So no, I am staying strong and saying a 4070 Super is overkill for 1080p.  There are a myriad of sub-$800 GPU's more suited.

 

I understand your point and it's a vague one.  You're just hedging on a "what might happen in the future", may as well get a 4090 then.

[Alex Atkin UK]

46 minutes ago, Dedayog said:

Devil's Advocate is a solid play here, but a 4070 Super for 1080p, especially going from the iGPU in a 5600g.... a bit much.

 

So no, I am staying strong and saying a 4070 Super is overkill for 1080p.  There are a myriad of sub-$800 GPU's more suited.

 

I understand your point and it's a vague one.  You're just hedging on a "what might happen in the future", may as well get a 4090 then.

And you're assuming they don't want to try a little raytracing, and that there isn't evidence that UE5 games are already pushing requirements up.

 

Your last point is ridiculous, as there's a huge difference between allowing some leeway and going full bore insane.

[Fasauceome]

1 hour ago, Dedayog said:

So no, I am staying strong and saying a 4070 Super is overkill for 1080p.  There are a myriad of sub-$800 GPU's more suited.

 

46 minutes ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Your last point is ridiculous, as there's a huge difference between allowing some leeway and going full bore insane.

regardless of the resolution, I still think the GPU is a good pick. ESPECIALLY if the upgrade is directly from the integrated graphics, and I think a monitor upgrade would probably be a good choice in the future too, since the 4070 super would also be good for 1440p 144Hz (not sure what specific monitor OP has and/or plans on getting)

[Linuswasright]

2 hours ago, Fasauceome said:

 

regardless of the resolution, I still think the GPU is a good pick. ESPECIALLY if the upgrade is directly from the integrated graphics, and I think a monitor upgrade would probably be a good choice in the future too, since the 4070 super would also be good for 1440p 144Hz (not sure what specific monitor OP has and/or plans on getting)

It kinda depends. The gpu is good, but if he ever plays in anything besides 1080p the 7900gre would generally be better, and it’s 50$ cheaper. It’s neck and neck at 1080, and price to performance, it’s way betetr

[Fasauceome]

3 minutes ago, Linuswasright said:

, but if he ever plays in anything besides 1080p the 7900gre would win, and it’s 50$ cheaper. It’s neck and neck at 1080, and price to performance, it’s way betetr

yes on the AMD side of things this is a good option to consider

[IkeaGnome]

2 minutes ago, Linuswasright said:

The gpu is good, but if he ever plays in anything besides 1080p the 7900gre would win, and it’s 50$ cheaper.

Are you sure?

The GRE is a better value, but it doesn't just flat out win.

[Linuswasright]

24 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

Are you sure?

The GRE is a better value, but it doesn't just flat out win.

It’s within margins. And for 50$ less, it’d take it。。Let me cite the ancient texts:
 

[Alex Atkin UK]

4 minutes ago, Linuswasright said:

It’s within margins. And for 50$ less, it’d take it。。Let me cite the ancient texts:
 

I'd trust Hardware Unboxed over Toms Hardware on this.

 

Toms is a good rough guide, but you really need to know what specific games you will be playing to properly identify the best value.

 

I'm also still seeing people complain that AMD drivers are just less stable, and their cards use more power which depending where you live means additional cost in power and air conditioning.  That's an ongoing additional cost on a card, rather than just $50 more up front.

[Linuswasright]

56 minutes ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

I'd trust Hardware Unboxed over Toms Hardware on this.

 

Toms is a good rough guide, but you really need to know what specific games you will be playing to properly identify the best value.

 

I'm also still seeing people complain that AMD drivers are just less stable, and their cards use more power which depending where you live means additional cost in power and air conditioning.  That's an ongoing additional cost on a card, rather than just $50 more up front.

That’s true, but we really only can use a rough guide. The guy hasn’t specified games. I’ll watch the hardware unboxed video later
 

AMD Drivers have been stable since they had that glow up ~when ryzen released
 

The extra power use does exist, but not by a ton. A uv should match them up with better performance.

[IkeaGnome]

1 hour ago, Linuswasright said:

Let me cite the ancient texts:

We're going to go with older over newer and retested on fresh drivers?

To be clear, I'm not saying the 4070 Super is a better deal over all. I'm saying that;

1 hour ago, Linuswasright said:

but if he ever plays in anything besides 1080p the 7900gre would win

is just misleading and false. 4070 super and 7900 gre go back and forth. Yes, it's within margin of error, but saying the GRE will win in any case is just wrong.

[Linuswasright]

11 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

We're going to go with older over newer and retested on fresh drivers?

To be clear, I'm not saying the 4070 Super is a better deal over all. I'm saying that;

is just misleading and false. 4070 super and 7900 gre go back and forth. Yes, it's within margin of error, but saying the GRE will win in any case is just wrong.

1. It’s a joke. It’s from like 1-2 months ago. The gre has only been in the worldwide market for not too long

 

im not saying it “wins in every case” I’m saying, as resolution increases, 4070 starts to lag behind and it begins to lean toward 7900gte. Bad phrasing, my bad. At this point, though, why not go with the gre? It has better p/p, with no major drawbacks besides power consumption, which can be fixed with uv

[Alex Atkin UK]

8 minutes ago, Linuswasright said:

AMD Drivers have been stable since they had that glow up ~when ryzen released

I've seen many posts disagreeing with this, it stills seems to be a bit hit and miss where it causes issues for some people and not others.

[Linuswasright]

11 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

I've seen many posts disagreeing with this, it stills seems to be a bit hit and miss where it causes issues for some people and not others.

It’s so much less common, and I’d like to see a source or whatever comparing drivers. From my perspective, both sides have bugs in their drivers, but it’s oretty even in stability (leaning Nvidia)

[beardberry]

21 hours ago, Fasauceome said:

 

regardless of the resolution, I still think the GPU is a good pick. ESPECIALLY if the upgrade is directly from the integrated graphics, and I think a monitor upgrade would probably be a good choice in the future too, since the 4070 super would also be good for 1440p 144Hz (not sure what specific monitor OP has and/or plans on getting)

I'm pleased you mentioned that because it aligns perfectly with my plans. I'm considering upgrading my 1070 since it struggles to keep pace with my 1440p 60hz monitor. Therefore, I've made the decision to upgrade both the GPU and the monitor to the mini LED AOC Q27G3XMN . I've always been intrigued by screens that offer deep blacks, so this seems like the perfect opportunity to try one out.

[Fasauceome]

4 minutes ago, beardberry said:

I've made the decision to upgrade both the GPU and the monitor to the mini LED AOC Q27G3XMN . I've always been intrigued by screens that offer deep blacks, so this seems like the perfect opportunity to try one out

This would be a solid choice. My current setup is running with an IPS 1440p 144Hz display and the deep blacks actually made a pretty big difference in games generally. I play a lot of games with very cinematic elements, but even fast paced shooters look a bit prettier to my eye.

[BahnStormer]

If this is a short-term step until you upgrade to a faster CPU, then fine... but the extra money is wasted until you upgrade that CPU. 

 

Pairing a really weak CPU with a fairly high-end nVidia GPU will not work well. The higher end nVidia GPU's demand more and more from the CPU as you step up the GPU each time, so you get scenarios where higher end GPUs are beaten by MUCH lower ones due to a mismatched CPU.

 

This review is 3 years old, so older hardware, but it shows RTX3070's repeatedly out-performing RTX3090's when paired with slower CPU's:

 

It does also depends what you are playing, but you won't get even half the value out of that  GPU until you upgrade the CPU too.

 

Work out the games that you are playing and decide what you want to achieve: 

 

If you are wanting to play competitive shooters (Fortnite / APEX / Warzone) at 1080P, then your CPU would be the bottleneck even with a 4060Ti, still playable, but lower FPS than if you had a more appropriate GPU.

  

If you're only playing single player games, want to crank up the detail, but NOT touch any ray tracing, then you might be okay.

 

Ray Tracing will likely be off the menu on any game that uses it heavily as that places a lot of extra load on the CPU.

 

In most 1080P scenarios a RTX4070 Super with a 5600G would get beaten heavily by a 5800X3D with a RTX4070 at 1080P, probably the same if you went for 5800X3D + 7700XT, so better to spend the money on a CPU or just save the money on the GPU as it be more of a hinderance than a help.

The 5600G isn't bad for what is was designed for: a home web-browser or office PC, but it just isn't a gaming CPU at all as it has heavily reduced L3 cache (only 16Mb) to save on cost and make room for the iGPU.

 

This 16Mb results in an equally sized step in the OPPOSITE direction to difference between the 5600X (32Mb) and the 5600X3D (96Mb) - on average, each of those three steps from 16Mb, 32Mb and 96Mb equate to 20% change at lower resolutions, where the CPU is normally the bottleneck.

 

 

 

[Alex Atkin UK]

1 hour ago, BahnStormer said:

This review is 3 years old, so older hardware, but it shows RTX3070's repeatedly out-performing RTX3090's when paired with slower CPU's:

That screenshot sure doesn't, all I see is margin of error difference between the 3070 and 3090.

[IkeaGnome]

2 hours ago, BahnStormer said:

Ray Tracing will likely be off the menu on any game that uses it heavily as that places a lot of extra load on the CPU.

Mind sharing your sources for this?

[Dedayog]

8 hours ago, beardberry said:

I'm pleased you mentioned that because it aligns perfectly with my plans. I'm considering upgrading my 1070 since it struggles to keep pace with my 1440p 60hz monitor. Therefore, I've made the decision to upgrade both the GPU and the monitor to the mini LED AOC Q27G3XMN . I've always been intrigued by screens that offer deep blacks, so this seems like the perfect opportunity to try one out.

Well for 1440p, it's a good pick.  Definitely viable for moving up to 1440 UW

[Alex Atkin UK]

3 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

Mind sharing your sources for this?

Its a fair point to say anything that uses it "heavily", but as lots of games are console ports were seeing a lot of games using it relatively lightly.

[Somerandomtechyboi]

if you can afford a 4070s or 7900gre sure pretty decent picks

 

wouldnt bother with the 4070 or 7800xt though when you can save 150$ and get a used 6800xt or 3080 with the same performance

 

personally id prefer something balanced but alot more biased toward the cpu since you can just upgrade the gpu later on anyways, so my reccomendation here would be a used 6800xt or 3080(ti) + a 5700x3d or used 5800x3d instead of going full gpu upgrade with a 4070s/7900gre

 

heres a comparison that has all the gpus above mentioned, you arent really losing that much performance going from a 4070s/7900gre to a used 3080/6800xt but you gain a ton of cpu performance going from a 5600g to a 5700x3d/5800x3d due to the extra cache, you can also overclock the difference away if you want to but id reccomend undervolting instead

 

not to mention prices for the 6800xt/3080 will depreciate alot slower than a 4070s/7900gre since theyre used and have already depreciated quite abit so when the time comes to upgrade gpu again you dont lose as much money on reselling the gpu