5700X3D worth it ?

[EdoTensei]

So I can get fairly cheap (150£) 5700x3D, and I could sell my 5900X then for more than this, but I really can't find a trustworthy benchmarks on YouTube, among fake and unsure videos. 

 

That's why I asking here, if there's any users of this CPU. 

 

I know 5900X is quite good in gaming, but X3D cache could give me more FPS with 7900XT ? 

 

Best option would be 5800X3D, but people here selling those for almost new price, and it's expensive anyway, so 5700X3D seems better value and affordable for my budget, but 5700X3D has max boots clock 4.05ghz, which is way way lower than my 5900X, but also 5900X has 2 CCD for 6 Cores (which theoretically means, that games can use one CCD in time), when 5700X has 8 Cores on one CCD. 

 

5700X non 3D in other hend, has clocks up to 4.65ghz as far as I remember when I had one, so theoretically 5700X3D could be overclocked to 4.5 with my 360 Arctic LF3 ? 

 

But if that's worth anyway? 

[PDifolco]

5700x3d can't be overclocked it's hardware limited 

Now you may gain FPS with it at low resolution (1080p max)  with a 3D chip, but not much at 1440p or above 

[_Omega_]

for gaming, what i heared is that the 5800x3d and 5700X3d are weithin margin of error so very close (maybe a few FPS)... 

 

In my opinion, if you only game you should be better of the the 5700x3d when you can sell your 5900X for more than you par for a 5700x3d.

 

For overclocking, Overclocking isn't really a thing with x3d chips so you wont be doing much there but you dont need to, clock isn't everything for gaming. 

[Stahlmann]

29 minutes ago, EdoTensei said:

So I can get fairly cheap (150£) 5700x3D, and I could sell my 5900X then for more than this, but I really can't find a trustworthy benchmarks on YouTube, among fake and unsure videos. 

Where have you been looking? All the usual channels reviewed it, Hardware Unboxed for example:

 

 

TL;DW: It's the 2nd best gaming CPU AM4 will likely ever get, on average 4% slower @1080p than the 5800X3D. If you play at 1440p they're probably pretty much the same. So yes, for 150£ it's worth it imo. It'll set you up for the next few years, maybe even allow you to skip AM5/LGA1700 entirely before you need to upgrade again.

 

The Arctic LF3 is as good as it gets when it comes to AiOs for AM4.

 

X3D chips cannot be overclocked though, the only thing you can do is use PBO curve optimizer to get slightly higher clocks out of all-core workloads and lower temps a bit. This won't significantly impact gaming performance and single core workloads though. Because of that I only use -15 offset favouring stability and lower temps over the maximum possible performance with the offset at -30 (max).

 

My 5800X3D hovers around 4.2-4.3 GHz in Cinebench on stock settings. With PBO curve optimizer at -30 it hovers around 4.4-4.5 on all cores and scores slightly higher. So best case, you can get the all-core clocks up to your max single core speeds, but not any further because X3D is locked down. No manual overclocking.

 

With a 5700X3D all you can hope for is getting all cores to 4.1, which is the max single core speed according to the spec sheet. But maybe it's already doing that out of the box, since out of the box 5800X3D clock in around the same, idk. In that case all curve optimizer does is potentially lower operating temperatures.

[191x7]

The 5900X bottlenecked my 6950XT in PUBG on 1440p, sidegrading to the 5800X3D solved the issue. The X3D-s are way better for the 0,1% and 1% lows.

[EdoTensei]

Yeah, I was looking at those channels as well, but there is not direct compression to 5900X for some reason. And that what I was looking for, 5900X Vs 5700X3D only.

 

12 Cores, even tho 2x CCD separate, seems more capable of maintaining higher FPS in Warzone, as I back to play it with friends, as it appeared on XGPass, and I playing it on my 1080p 165hz monitor, with competitive settings, even tho that's like nothing for 7900XT, but on bigger maps, I can gets some FPS drops, with no GPU being fully utilized. 

 

So 12 Cores isn't everything as the game may use just 6cores at time with lower Cache, so it may be actually better with 5700X3D. 

 

PS5 has CPU 8/8 up to 3.8ghz, but when I playing games at 1800p-2160p at 60fps locked, CPU doesn't reach more than 4Ghz, usually sitting at 3.2-3.6ghz, but with CoD WZ, CPU can sweat a bit, as it goes up to 4.0-4.6ghz so 4.05 in 5700X3D seems limitation, but you've said clock are not always means everything, so it may be actually better advantage of one 8C CCD and more V-cache tho. 

[YoungBlade]

13 minutes ago, EdoTensei said:

Yeah, I was looking at those channels as well, but there is not direct compression to 5900X for some reason. And that what I was looking for, 5900X Vs 5700X3D only.

The Hardware Unboxed video has a comparison with the 5950X. The 5900X and 5950X are not meaningfully different in terms of their gaming performance. Just compare the 5700X3D numbers to the 5950X numbers and you'll get your comparison.

[venomtail]

1 hour ago, _Omega_ said:

for gaming, what i heared is that the 5800x3d and 5700X3d are weithin margin of error so very close (maybe a few FPS)... 

At most 5800X3D has 10-15% advantage in some tests that I've seen that really push the CPU but the 5700X3D is often on sale beyond being 15% cheaper.

 

In a summary the 5700X3D is a far better performance per dollar option for 99% of people, where as those that want to get the absolute most out of their EOL AM4 system still have one justification for going for the 5800X3D.

[MadAnt250]

1 hour ago, EdoTensei said:

So I can get fairly cheap (150£) 5700x3D, and I could sell my 5900X then for more than this, but I really can't find a trustworthy benchmarks on YouTube, among fake and unsure videos. 

 

Stick with the 5900x, you can always PBO overclock it and get some extra performance. Also, having those extra cores and threads help with CPU intensive workloads.

[EdoTensei]

7 minutes ago, MadAnt250 said:

Stick with the 5900x, you can always PBO overclock it and get some extra performance. Also, having those extra cores and threads help with CPU intensive workloads.

I have already PBO Enabled, with some tweaks to get best of it. I'm only gaming on this PC, and I have no plans to do any work on it any time soon. I have 5900X only because I was able to buy it for 120£ few months ago. 

[EdoTensei]

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

Where have you been looking? All the usual channels reviewed it, Hardware Unboxed for example:

 

 

TL;DW: It's the 2nd best gaming CPU AM4 will likely ever get, on average 4% slower @1080p than the 5800X3D. If you play at 1440p they're probably pretty much the same. So yes, for 150£ it's worth it imo. It'll set you up for the next few years, maybe even allow you to skip AM5/LGA1700 entirely before you need to upgrade again.

 

The Arctic LF3 is as good as it gets when it comes to AiOs for AM4.

 

X3D chips cannot be overclocked though, the only thing you can do is use PBO curve optimizer to get slightly higher clocks out of all-core workloads and lower temps a bit. This won't significantly impact gaming performance and single core workloads though. Because of that I only use -15 offset favouring stability and lower temps over the maximum possible performance with the offset at -30 (max).

 

My 5800X3D hovers around 4.2-4.3 GHz in Cinebench on stock settings. With PBO curve optimizer at -30 it hovers around 4.4-4.5 on all cores and scores slightly higher. So best case, you can get the all-core clocks up to your max single core speeds, but not any further because X3D is locked down. No manual overclocking.

 

With a 5700X3D all you can hope for is getting all cores to 4.1, which is the max single core speed according to the spec sheet. But maybe it's already doing that out of the box, since out of the box 5800X3D clock in around the same, idk. In that case all curve optimizer does is potentially lower operating temperatures.

How about R5 7500F ? I get offer, to swap my bundle, for AM5 bundle, with DDR5 Rams and B650 Mobo, (just don't know what model yet) + some cash on top. 

 

But overall even if that's only 6 core CPU, it's AM5 with DDR5 and more future proof, and potentially upgradeable to some better AM5 CPUs in the future. 

 

But as far as I've seen, 7500F performance better than 5900X and similar to 5700x3d but only with fast ram. 

[Somerandomtechyboi]

5700x3d isnt much behind the 5800x3d and overclocking is a pain due to having to use bclk and that entails sata ssd shenanigans cause nvmes are apparently quite problematic with higher pcie though i guess it depends on the nvme aswell

 

buildzoid has a vid on it but youll be limited by temps and 5700x3d arent as good of a bin as the 5800x3d so no dont expect normal 5800x clocks let alone the usual 4.7-4.8ghz allcore oc youd usually be able to do on most zen3 cpus (apus are 4.6ghz ish)

 

if you want to do it for fun sure go ahead but id advise having a secondary windows install on your nvme if youd like to try it just to make sure the thing doesnt decide to corrupt the os even if the bclk is stable on everything else, afaik bclk works similar to ram oc for corruption chance where bad luck and booting a particularly unstable clock can cause the os to get corrupted but nvmes seem to just throw a wrench into all that so id be a tad more cautious with nvmes for bclk

 

https://www.overclock.net/threads/ryzen-bclk-overclockers-post-your-scores.1752454/

 

some extra stuff that might be helpful to read if you wish to attempt though do keep in mind that most of the ppl against bclk oc have 0 experience with it themselves nor actually read up on it, my experience while yes i have bclked is almost irrelevant since its 1155 and thats laughably easy and i have done abit of reading up on it so i have a rough idea on it and how it behaves

 

if you dont want to deal with bclk thats fine cause am4 looks like it wont be as simple as 1155/1150 thats literally just raise bclk as far as the cpu lets you and thats it, at the very least you have to screw around with the pcie link speed and alsonthe nvme dunno what else might affect it so atleast itll be abit more interesting

 

5 minutes ago, EdoTensei said:

How about R5 7500F ? I get offer, to swap my bundle, for AM5 bundle, with DDR5 Rams and B650 Mobo, (just don't know what model yet) + some cash on top. 

 

But overall even if that's only 6 core CPU, it's AM5 with DDR5 and more future proof, and potentially upgradeable to some better AM5 CPUs in the future. 

 

But as far as I've seen, 7500F performance better than 5900X and similar to 5700x3d but only with fast ram. 

yea id just jump to am5 if its not much more, just make sure you get some 6000c32/30 or even 6400c32 (albiet downclock to 6000) so you dont get trash samsungs/microns you cant reuse when cpus start requiring ddr5 7000+ (they definitely will in a few years)

 

6200-6400 is doable with tuning but 6000 is best for set and forget xmp

 

board is also important as you dont want a board with trash vrms that cant even handle a 7950x/9950x, the standard is the b650m hdv capable of handling an oced 7950x with ease

 

heres a b650 vrm roundup by hardware unboxed if youd like to check which boards are good and which ones are complete dogshit

[Stahlmann]

16 minutes ago, EdoTensei said:

How about R5 7500F ? I get offer, to swap my bundle, for AM5 bundle, with DDR5 Rams and B650 Mobo, (just don't know what model yet) + some cash on top. 

 

But overall even if that's only 6 core CPU, it's AM5 with DDR5 and more future proof, and potentially upgradeable to some better AM5 CPUs in the future. 

 

But as far as I've seen, 7500F performance better than 5900X and similar to 5700x3d but only with fast ram. 

Tbh I don't see a point in switching from a higher-end Zen3 to entry level AM5 Zen4. If you get an X3D AM4 chip, you're probably set until AM5 isn't even relevant anymore before the CPU starts to hold you back significantly.

 

If you're still on AM4, then I'd recommend to stay within the platform if there are still significant upgrades to be had. And if you don't have an X3D chip, then you can still get a good upgrade.

 

With the same mentality, you'll want to upgrade your 7500F in the future, but then think about going directly to AM6 gain. Your upgradeability didn't get you very far in that case.

[Agall]

3 hours ago, PDifolco said:

5700x3d can't be overclocked it's hardware limited 

Now you may gain FPS with it at low resolution (1080p max)  with a 3D chip, but not much at 1440p or above 

It depends, multiplayer games are usually hard capped regardless of resolution by the CPU's IPC/frequency/cache. Almost always, 3D v-cache does a really good job at raising that limit dramatically.

 

3 hours ago, EdoTensei said:

I know 5900X is quite good in gaming, but X3D cache could give me more FPS with 7900XT ? 

Problem is that it really isn't, R9 CPUs aren't designed for gaming past Ryzen 3000 when their performance started really taking off. The extra latency of negotiating across the infinity fabric, especially the 12c/24t variants, is going to make it worse than a single CCD 8c/16t variant.

 

I think it depends entirely on the games you actually play. An extremely poorly advertised feature of 3D v-cache is the insanely better minimum framerates and framerate consistency in games that negotiate with other players and/or a server.

 

The theory being that the packets exceed the normal L1-3 cache of non 3D, but the extra 64MB of 3D v-cache is sufficient to prevent draw calls from having to operate in system RAM. The latency difference being insane between those.

 

The best sources for this sort of comparison is with MMO type games. The performance characteristics I've measured in several games when I had a 7950x3D was +50% framerate in the most limiting scenarios (high enemy/player density) even comparing Zen4 vs Zen4 3D (CCD1 vs CCD0). 

[jaslion]

3 hours ago, EdoTensei said:

How about R5 7500F ? I get offer, to swap my bundle, for AM5 bundle, with DDR5 Rams and B650 Mobo, (just don't know what model yet) + some cash on top. 

 

But overall even if that's only 6 core CPU, it's AM5 with DDR5 and more future proof, and potentially upgradeable to some better AM5 CPUs in the future. 

 

But as far as I've seen, 7500F performance better than 5900X and similar to 5700x3d but only with fast ram. 

Well the 7500f is slower than a 5700x3d also what b650 board if its a bad board you'll be power limited and thus also cpu limited upgrade wise before it doesnt get enough power to run

[EdoTensei]

1 hour ago, jaslion said:

Well the 7500f is slower than a 5700x3d also what b650 board if its a bad board you'll be power limited and thus also cpu limited upgrade wise before it doesnt get enough power to run

 

3 hours ago, Agall said:

It depends, multiplayer games are usually hard capped regardless of resolution by the CPU's IPC/frequency/cache. Almost always, 3D v-cache does a really good job at raising that limit dramatically.

 

Problem is that it really isn't, R9 CPUs aren't designed for gaming past Ryzen 3000 when their performance started really taking off. The extra latency of negotiating across the infinity fabric, especially the 12c/24t variants, is going to make it worse than a single CCD 8c/16t variant.

 

I think it depends entirely on the games you actually play. An extremely poorly advertised feature of 3D v-cache is the insanely better minimum framerates and framerate consistency in games that negotiate with other players and/or a server.

 

The theory being that the packets exceed the normal L1-3 cache of non 3D, but the extra 64MB of 3D v-cache is sufficient to prevent draw calls from having to operate in system RAM. The latency difference being insane between those.

 

The best sources for this sort of comparison is with MMO type games. The performance characteristics I've measured in several games when I had a 7950x3D was +50% framerate in the most limiting scenarios (high enemy/player density) even comparing Zen4 vs Zen4 3D (CCD1 vs CCD0). 

Yeah, when I first take my R9, I was hyped of those 12Cores, and I didn't know that it is actually 2x slightly OCed 5600X under one IHS, but I did take it for 120£ so not big deal. 

 

But now I can see, that slower on paper 5700X3D with fewer cores, is actually much faster than 5900X. 

 

I have to wait, cuz probably I will swap my 5900X for 5700X3D, or for AM5 bundle with 7500F, but only if my buddy can offer me at least decent Mobo with decent ram sticks. Otherwise I will choose 5700X3D. 

[EdoTensei]

1 hour ago, jaslion said:

Well the 7500f is slower than a 5700x3d also what b650 board if its a bad board you'll be power limited and thus also cpu limited upgrade wise before it doesnt get enough power to run

Yeah, I have to wait till my buddy let me know what Mobo and ram he got in stock, cuz if someone with decent VRM section/cooling and fast enough rams, I may take it, and then upgrade just a CPU in the future, while being on AM5 already. 

[Agall]

13 minutes ago, EdoTensei said:

 

Yeah, when I first take my R9, I was hyped of those 12Cores, and I didn't know that it is actually 2x slightly OCed 5600X under one IHS, but I did take it for 120£ so not big deal. 

 

But now I can see, that slower on paper 5700X3D with fewer cores, is actually much faster than 5900X. 

 

I have to wait, cuz probably I will swap my 5900X for 5700X3D, or for AM5 bundle with 7500F, but only if my buddy can offer me at least decent Mobo with decent ram sticks. Otherwise I will choose 5700X3D. 

If you wait long enough, the 7800x3D will be within range. No need to compromise on AM4 to get 3D v-cache.

 

5900x to 7800x3D is a solid upgrade, not like what I did and went from a 5800x3D to a 7950x3D. Still a jump, but not nearly as significant as the latter.

[EdoTensei]

23 hours ago, Agall said:

If you wait long enough, the 7800x3D will be within range. No need to compromise on AM4 to get 3D v-cache.

 

5900x to 7800x3D is a solid upgrade, not like what I did and went from a 5800x3D to a 7950x3D. Still a jump, but not nearly as significant as the latter.

As far as I know, I can get from my friend Ryzen 5 7600 with Asus Strix B650 Gaming WiFi (White unfortunately ) but it seems solid Mobo, and 32 GB DDR5 Kingston Renegade 6000MT/s, and that's all swap for my 5900X, B550 Aours Elite V2 AX, 32 GB 3600MT/s + around 50-100£ on top of AM5 bundle, so I guess it would be still better to be already on AM5 and Ryzen 7600 would give me boost in FPS anyways, even if temporary before 7800X3D will drop in price. 

[WallacEngineering]

On 8/16/2024 at 4:55 AM, PDifolco said:

5700x3d can't be overclocked it's hardware limited 

Now you may gain FPS with it at low resolution (1080p max)  with a 3D chip, but not much at 1440p or above 

@EdoTensei

As he says ^, most gaming is GPU-limited at even mid-tier resolutions and medium-high settings.

 

CPU benchmarks in reviews purposefully lower resolution and settings to 1080p low or 1080p medium intentionally to demonstrate the differences in the CPUs and take the GPU out of the equation, as its their job to test the CPU during a CPU review and so letting the GPU run the show would be dumb.

 

However, anyone actually gaming would never use these settings unless they have like an RX 6600/RTX 3060 or lower and even then only for high FPS in modern, demanding AAA titles.

 

In 99% of gaming scenarios on 99% of modern gaming PCs, the GPU is the part stopping the FPS from going any higher.

 

Considering you already have a pretty strong CPU for gaming (5900X was certainly no slouch when it was released and still isn't too this day) and certainly a strong CPU for multi-threaded tasks, I wouldn't see much point in upgrading if you aren't even going to advance to the next generation.

 

In other words, going from a 5900X to a 5800X-3D would be considered a side-grade, and the 5700X-3D would actually be considered a slight downgrade overall because of its lower clock speeds.

 

If you really want to upgrade, honestly waiting is your best option at the moment. Ryzen 9000 reviews aren't exactly great but not only were the release drivers broken along with Windows bugs holding them back, along with instability due to those broken drivers - their overall uplift over Ryzen 7000 is likely to increase over time as issues are worked out.

 

Additionally, the upcoming 9800X-3D is unlikely to have any of the issues that Ryzen 9000 has faced so far because enough time will have passed to patch issues, X3D parts are low-power and so power limits probably won't be an issue, and being a single CCD chip it won't have "core parking" issues either. Also, 800-series MotherBoards might also make a small difference, probably with RAM speeds achievable.

 

So my point is - Why Side-Grade and deal with all that crap for basically no change in the real world, when you can save your money for a TRUE upgrade to a 9800X-3D when it comes around?

 

Considering how badly AMD has shot themselves in the foot with this release (more like unloading the entire magazine of an AK-47 into their foot LOL), I imagine all Ryzen 9000-series CPUs will drop in price quite quickly after their launches as well, so you could even find yourself picking up a 9800X-3D for under $400 USD before too long.

 

That makes a lot more sense to me than the side-grade that likely won't even show you a difference.

[Mark Kaine]

its not worth it for performance because its a wash, but you say you can sell old cpu to make profit so of course it's worth it!

 

sidenote: frequencies =/= performance, never has.

[Mark Kaine]

9 hours ago, WallacEngineering said:

Why Side-Grade and deal with all that crap

i don't know what crap my 5800x3D runs just fine but i don't understand all this side grading that's going on either,  you only need to buy a new cpu every 4-6 years realistically... but op says he can make a profit by selling the old guy, so i say go for it!!!  newer cpus aren't necessarily better anyway plus new motherboard, ram, etc etc its gonna cost him a fortune and then deal with all the issues that always come with new and "improved" tech... nah... im gonna be fine on AM4 for years to come, tyvm. 

 

tldr: AM5 is proven crap, ram issues, barely any real life improvements,  expensive,  why deal with that, AM4 is rock solid in comparison (after years of issues too)  

 

wait for AM6 and hope they don't mess this up too! is my recommendation.

 

 

[WallacEngineering]

6 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

i don't know what crap my 5800x3D runs just fine but i don't understand all this side grading that's going on either,  you only need to buy a new cpu every 4-6 years realistically... but op says he can make a profit by selling the old guy, so i say go for it!!!  newer cpus aren't necessarily better anyway plus new motherboard, ram, etc etc its gonna cost him a fortune and then deal with all the issues that always come with new and "improved" tech... nah... im gonna be fine on AM4 for years to come, tyvm. 

 

tldr: AM5 is proven crap, ram issues, barely any real life improvements,  expensive,  why deal with that, AM4 is rock solid in comparison (after years of issues too)  

 

wait for AM6 and hope they don't mess this up too! is my recommendation.

 

 

 

AM5 is not "proven crap" at all lol . Did you forget that Ryzen 7000 series is AM5? Ryzen 7000 series was a massive release, with huge uplifts over Ryzen 5000 and AM4.

 

I mean I suppose if he can literally make a profit from it then go ahead but when is the last time you sold a used CPU at near retail value? Just like selling anything else used, he is likely to get maybe 50-60% of the current asking price for it. So I don't see how a profit is supposed to be possible when X3D chips are fairly expensive.

 

Ryzen 9000 is proven crap, FOR NOW. It has been shown that their are numerous bugs, that Windows holds back the performance of Ryzen 9000, that the CPUs are unstable, that almost nobody can hit 6000MHz RAM speed and still have the system work correctly, and that there are anomalies and inconsistencies in performance from one tester to another.

 

All of this means that Ryzen 9000 is literally BROKEN right now. The initial reviews literally mean NOTHING because the performance of Ryzen 9000 will CHANGE as updates and fixes resolve these initial issues. So for now there is no way to judge Ryzen 9000 performance because the numbers aren't even the real performance.

 

It kinda sucks for the reviewers because in a few months time Ryzen 9000 will basically have to be reviewed and tested from scratch, all over again.

 

Even Gamers Nexus stated during their R9 9900X review yesterday that they are fully aware that there are issues with these CPUs and that bugs have been found. They stated that "If performance changes with updates, we will be re-testing Ryzen 9000 at that time. However, we are still testing today because the products are available and early adoption is part of the user Experience for some people".

 

So ya, it's pretty much 100% guaranteed that Ryzen 9000 performance will improve over the coming months. By how much? Nobody has any idea. However, once the upcoming 800-Series AM5 MotherBoards are released, I would say that maximum performance should be possible by then. Bugs will have been patched and the 800-Series MotherBoards should allow for higher RAM speeds which will also boost performance slightly.

[Bagzie]

On 8/16/2024 at 12:32 PM, EdoTensei said:

Yeah, I was looking at those channels as well, but there is not direct compression to 5900X for some reason. And that what I was looking for, 5900X Vs 5700X3D only.

 

12 Cores, even tho 2x CCD separate, seems more capable of maintaining higher FPS in Warzone, as I back to play it with friends, as it appeared on XGPass, and I playing it on my 1080p 165hz monitor, with competitive settings, even tho that's like nothing for 7900XT, but on bigger maps, I can gets some FPS drops, with no GPU being fully utilized. 

 

So 12 Cores isn't everything as the game may use just 6cores at time with lower Cache, so it may be actually better with 5700X3D. 

 

PS5 has CPU 8/8 up to 3.8ghz, but when I playing games at 1800p-2160p at 60fps locked, CPU doesn't reach more than 4Ghz, usually sitting at 3.2-3.6ghz, but with CoD WZ, CPU can sweat a bit, as it goes up to 4.0-4.6ghz so 4.05 in 5700X3D seems limitation, but you've said clock are not always means everything, so it may be actually better advantage of one 8C CCD and more V-cache tho. 

The 7800X3D only has 8 cores aswell and it makes your 5900X look pedestrian.

 

Don't worry about clock speeds and core count , The 5700X3D is significantly faster than a 5900X for gaming , if clock speed and core count mattered then people with unlimited budgets would be going for 7950X's and 14900k's but in reality people are going with 7800X3D's if gaming is there number 1 priority.

 

The 7900XT is a powerful GPU and if your using competitive settings at 1440p then you'll definitely see a difference.