Desperately Seeking Fusion; The Holy Act Of Untouching Myself...

[Donald Keech]

I started here:

Intel i7 4790k

Asus Z97-AR

32gb DDR3

Geforce RTX 3060Ti

 

Playing games (Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, Digital Combat Simulator, Metro Exodus Enhanced, Cyberpunk 2077, Hogwarts Legacy, etc.) at a nicely playable rate, definitely not competition grade, but visually still a lot of fun.

But definitely not another inch to spare.  

 

I threw $500 at it and got this;

AMD Ryzen 7 5700X3D

Thermalright PS120SE

Gigabyte B550 Aorus Elite Ax V2

32gb G. Skill Ripjaws V DDR4

1tb Crucial P3 Plus M.2 SSD

 

Here's the rub; I'm not seeing the kind of "improved" gaming performance I expected from this (albeit minor) step-up in cpu cores and memory bandwidth. And don't even get me started on that elusive ace-in-the-hole "V-Cache" nervana that drool-soaked my collar many a late-night gaming session in the past.

And here we are.

What happened? This amazing new set-up feels...dulled.

Now granted, I realize simply changing the CPU, motherboard, and memory for gaming while using the same video card is not ideal, and the inexplicable hatred of the RTX 3060Ti doesn't help matters, but I still expected a little something...more.

I'm beginning to get the not-so-funny feeling that I picked the wrong processor...maybe it should not have been an "X3D"? Maybe something with more cores/threads?

Am I already seeing everything this processor can do and am simply limited by an inadequate video card?

 

Listen, the improvement is probably $500 worth, but I wanted (and expected) it to feel more like $700 worth.

What went wrong?

I'm not complaining, mind you, just sayin'...ever notice how cheerleaders can't paint?

The proof is my house is a mess. 

 

 

[Average Nerd]

21 minutes ago, Donald Keech said:

Am I already seeing everything this processor can do and am simply limited by an inadequate video card?

 

Easy test: check taskmanager while gaming, if the CPU is just chilling while the GPU is maxed, then you're GPU limited.

[Blue4130]

25 minutes ago, Donald Keech said:

I started here:

Intel i7 4790k

Asus Z97-AR

32gb DDR3

Geforce RTX 3060Ti

 

Playing games (Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, Digital Combat Simulator, Metro Exodus Enhanced, Cyberpunk 2077, Hogwarts Legacy, etc.) at a nicely playable rate, definitely not competition grade, but visually still a lot of fun.

But definitely not another inch to spare.  

 

I threw $500 at it and got this;

AMD Ryzen 7 5700X3D

Thermalright PS120SE

Gigabyte B550 Aorus Elite Ax V2

32gb G. Skill Ripjaws V DDR4

1tb Crucial P3 Plus M.2 SSD

 

Here's the rub; I'm not seeing the kind of "improved" gaming performance I expected from this (albeit minor) step-up in cpu cores and memory bandwidth. And don't even get me started on that elusive ace-in-the-hole "V-Cache" nervana that drool-soaked my collar many a late-night gaming session in the past.

And here we are.

What happened? This amazing new set-up feels...dulled.

Now granted, I realize simply changing the CPU, motherboard, and memory for gaming while using the same video card is not ideal, and the inexplicable hatred of the RTX 3060Ti doesn't help matters, but I still expected a little something...more.

I'm beginning to get the not-so-funny feeling that I picked the wrong processor...maybe it should not have been an "X3D"? Maybe something with more cores/threads?

Am I already seeing everything this processor can do and am simply limited by an inadequate video card?

 

Listen, the improvement is probably $500 worth, but I wanted (and expected) it to feel more like $700 worth.

What went wrong?

I'm not complaining, mind you, just sayin'...ever notice how cheerleaders can't paint?

The proof is my house is a mess. 

 

 

You are playing gpu-heavy games with a low end gpu. If you want more frames, get a faster card.

[thrasher_565]

AMD Ryzen 7 5700X3D looks like its 2x faster then the 4790k oced. so in cpu games you should see alot more fps but in games that use mostly gpu probably not much. i mean if you got a playable frame rate at 40 fps whats the point in like 200+ fps.

 

if we talking desktop stuff there is data to back up that new systems run slower then older for what reason i dont no. i can fire up an x58 pc with 12gb ram and w3680 and it be snappy vs a new system.

[Dedayog]

57 minutes ago, Donald Keech said:

I started here:

Intel i7 4790k

Asus Z97-AR

32gb DDR3

Geforce RTX 3060Ti

 

Playing games (Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, Digital Combat Simulator, Metro Exodus Enhanced, Cyberpunk 2077, Hogwarts Legacy, etc.) at a nicely playable rate, definitely not competition grade, but visually still a lot of fun.

But definitely not another inch to spare.  

 

I threw $500 at it and got this;

AMD Ryzen 7 5700X3D

Thermalright PS120SE

Gigabyte B550 Aorus Elite Ax V2

32gb G. Skill Ripjaws V DDR4

1tb Crucial P3 Plus M.2 SSD

 

Here's the rub; I'm not seeing the kind of "improved" gaming performance I expected from this (albeit minor) step-up in cpu cores and memory bandwidth. And don't even get me started on that elusive ace-in-the-hole "V-Cache" nervana that drool-soaked my collar many a late-night gaming session in the past.

And here we are.

What happened? This amazing new set-up feels...dulled.

Now granted, I realize simply changing the CPU, motherboard, and memory for gaming while using the same video card is not ideal, and the inexplicable hatred of the RTX 3060Ti doesn't help matters, but I still expected a little something...more.

I'm beginning to get the not-so-funny feeling that I picked the wrong processor...maybe it should not have been an "X3D"? Maybe something with more cores/threads?

Am I already seeing everything this processor can do and am simply limited by an inadequate video card?

 

Listen, the improvement is probably $500 worth, but I wanted (and expected) it to feel more like $700 worth.

What went wrong?

I'm not complaining, mind you, just sayin'...ever notice how cheerleaders can't paint?

The proof is my house is a mess. 

 

 

Did you fresh install Windows?

 

But at the end of the day your GPU is not that good.  That CPU is stellar.  I have a 5600X3D with a 6650XT at 1080p and it rocks 80fps in Ark Evolved all day, which we all know is incredibly poorly optimized.  Apex and Valorant are 120+ on High.

 

Also, if you threw $500 at it and got a $500 worth feeling, but wanted a $700 feeling, you should have gotten $200 worth of hookers and blow to make up the difference.

 

[Wh0_Am_1]

Honestly your setup was previously pretty balanced for most GPU bound modern titles... I mean I probably would have recommended nothing more than a 2060 for your old processor, but your CPU was still likely capable of utilizing ~80% of your GPU @ 1080p in most popular titles. So this tracks, for a major uplift I would recommend upgrading to a 3080 or better. 

[Jaw709]

As others have said, the GPU is likely the bottleneck.. you can run stats in the background and see between CPU and GPU which is at 100% (maybe neither) at 1080p.

 

Try 1440p if your monitor supports and compare results / FPS.

 

-Undervolt CPU with PBO Tuner 2 and run Corecycler to test for errors

-Overclock GPU with nvidia driver and increase powerdraw to +15%

-Make sure your games are installed on your fastest SSD

 

Ill post more tips if I think of it

[Donald Keech]

Thanx you guys!

Really great stuff!

I'm discovering in these "Golden Years" of my life that I increasingly find myself more interested in validating my already preconceived notions than I am in the possibility of facing some unwanted truths...just $500 more this time, i swear.

I guess I would rather be called a fool than actually know it!

 

What a long strange trip it's been...

[Mark Kaine]

in seriousness though, you gotta test it properly, several games (shooter,racing,rpg, strat,etc,etc) and especially benchmarks like 3Dmark - before/after... probably too late, old cpu already in the trash(???) but im sure there *are* some improvements, but not everything will show them... 

[starsmine]

I would be shocked if you didnt get large improvements.
You should have tested your suite of games to see how much, or how little a gain you had.

[Donald Keech]

Actually, I do have the "before" 3DMark scores. I just don't have the "Afters" yet. 

I'm still on the older system (with the RTX-3060Ti) as I type this.

The new build is still on the workbench (with only a GTX-560) as I move through the set-up, file transfer, and fine-tuning of this new system before I put it into service in replacement of the old.

In order to accurately test the new system graphically, I have to remove the 3060Ti from the old, put it in the new computer, and swap from the new computer's 19" test monitor (with only a GTX-560) to the 3840x2160 50" monitor (with the RTX-3060Ti) i am currently using.

I am slowly, in my own feeble way, bringing it all together...eventually. FTW!

[starsmine]

10 hours ago, Donald Keech said:

Actually, I do have the "before" 3DMark scores. I just don't have the "Afters" yet. 

I'm still on the older system (with the RTX-3060Ti) as I type this.

The new build is still on the workbench (with only a GTX-560) as I move through the set-up, file transfer, and fine-tuning of this new system before I put it into service in replacement of the old.

In order to accurately test the new system graphically, I have to remove the 3060Ti from the old, put it in the new computer, and swap from the new computer's 19" test monitor (with only a GTX-560) to the 3840x2160 50" monitor (with the RTX-3060Ti) i am currently using.

I am slowly, in my own feeble way, bringing it all together...eventually. FTW!

Wait, Im so lost to the point of this thread then
You are complaining about the performance of the new system, but you have yet to test the new system in any way?

[atxcyclist]

Not sure why people are calling a 3060 Ti ‘low end’, it’s a midrange card from one generation ago. I get very good performance in Cyberpunk 2077 in 1080P, you just cannot crank things like raytracing.

 

That said it’s not a 4K card, and I wouldn’t bother with anything more than a high-refresh 1080P display as that’s where the card performs best.

[starsmine]

12 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

Not sure why people are calling a 3060 Ti ‘low end’, it’s a midrange card from one generation ago. I get very good performance in Cyberpunk 2077 in 1080P, you just cannot crank things like raytracing.

Yea even the 3060 is mid range, and they both do RT just fine. 

12 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

That said it’s not a 4K card, and I wouldn’t bother with anything more than a high-refresh 1080P display as that’s where the card performs best.

Not Me playing 4k on a bunch of games, even new games on my *checks gpu* RTX 3060 12GB. 

[Dedayog]

2 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Yea even the 3060 is mid range, and they both do RT just fine. 

Not Me playing 4k on a bunch of games, even new games on my *checks gpu* RTX 3060 12GB. 

You're compromising a lot to run 4k, depending on game.  Unless you run the fps stuff only?

 

Not sure why not to go 1080 or even 1440, and be able to put more of the nice stuff on.

 

I guess when playing you don't notice a low vs medium setting?

 

 

[starsmine]

1 hour ago, Dedayog said:

You're compromising a lot to run 4k, depending on game.  Unless you run the fps stuff only?

 

Not sure why not to go 1080 or even 1440, and be able to put more of the nice stuff on.

 

I guess when playing you don't notice a low vs medium setting?

SH2 was a bit rough though outside of that game needing DLSS quality to run it, no I dont really compromise shit to run 95% of games in my library. Like do people actually not play a mix of Old, new, indie, and AAA games? The ONLY games that are rough are brand spaking new AAA games. which are like what 15% of your gaming content? Even then new ones are often not that hard to run like RE4R. Like just steam for me is

I will have ZERO problems playing FF7 Remake part two in January for example at 4K. 

yes the 3060 I do think is getting long in the tooth, but Im in no rush to upgrade till I can get 4070 performance with 12GB of ram for 300 bucks. 

[Dedayog]

Just now, starsmine said:

SH2 was a bit rough, outside of that needing DLSS quality to run it, no I didnt compromise shit. Like do people actually not play a mix of Old, new, indie, and AAA games? The ONLY games that are rough are brand spaking new AAA games. which are like what 15% of your gaming content?

Right, but with most things you buy for the hardest stuff.

 

If I am going to track my car, I don't buy a 4 door kia and hope for the best.

 

You buy to handle the worst you'll throw at it.

 

Old games , i play a lot.  Just played the original Wasteland in dos box.   They look the same on good or bad monitors.

 

But stalker 2 and path of exile 2 and medieval dynasty... I'm making sure they run and look good.

 

My preference, I was just curious on your experience.  All good.

[starsmine]

13 minutes ago, Dedayog said:

Right, but with most things you buy for the hardest stuff.

 

If I am going to track my car, I don't buy a 4 door kia and hope for the best.

 

You buy to handle the worst you'll throw at it.

 

Old games , i play a lot.  Just played the original Wasteland in dos box.   They look the same on good or bad monitors.

 

But stalker 2 and path of exile 2 and medieval dynasty... I'm making sure they run and look good.

 

My preference, I was just curious on your experience.  All good.

Go track your daily beater, its fun, and far more a test of skill. Anyone saying you need to go get a 50k Sports sedan minimum to track is taking the piss. Remember, Top gear put everyone on the track with a cheap car. Because that shit is still fun. If you need to make some cheap modifications, all the better for the fun factor, because you are doing actual car enthusiast shit. 

Stalker 2 is great, but how many people have played through stalker 1 trilogy? go do that. By the time you have played through those, that 5060 12GB will be out for you. The game will still exist, waiting for you, besides its an FPS, ill play that on my 1440p monitor on my PC rather then my 4k TV. Path of exile 2 is easy to run. 

Im not saying people should buy a 3060 today necessarily, but there is no reason to call the 3060 or 3060 ti, low end today. 
The i7 4870 in most cases with a 3060ti, CPU bottlenecks, what OP did was make the right choice.

I ran a i7 2600k with a 3060 and I was CPU bottlenecked, which was fine. because there is no such thing as not bottlenecking.

[Dedayog]

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

Go track your daily beater, its fun, and far more a test of skill. Anyone saying you need to go get a 50k Sports sedan minimum to track is taking the piss. Remember, Top gear put everyone on the track with a cheap car. Because that shit is still fun. If you need to make some cheap modifications, all the better for the fun factor, because you are doing actual car enthusiast shit. 

Stalker 2 is great, but how many people have played through stalker 1 trilogy? go do that. By the time you have played through those, that 5060 12GB will be out for you. The game will still exist, waiting for you, besides its an FPS, ill play that on my 1440p monitor on my PC rather then my 4k TV. Path of exile 2 is easy to run. 

Im not saying people should buy a 3060 today necessarily, but there is no reason to call the 3060 or 3060 ti, low end today. 
The i7 4870 in most cases with a 3060ti, CPU bottlenecks, what OP did was make the right choice.

I ran a i7 2600k with a 3060 and I was CPU bottlenecked, which was fine. because there is no such thing as not bottlenecking.

Well I have played all of them, and you don't have to go in order.  Intentionally waiting for a year to play a game is a personal preference I guess.

 

And I've tracked a lower end car, midrange and more track focused car.  Hyuandia Sonata, modified G35, and a Ford Focus RS.  You can ru the Sonata if you want, I'll pass.

 

But I get what you';re saying, and I was more curious than anything.  Just wasn't sure why a 1080p or 1440p monitor wasn't more appropriate, but you made good points.  Personal preference works for me.

[Wh0_Am_1]

16 hours ago, starsmine said:

 

Not Me playing 4k on a bunch of games, even new games on my *checks gpu* RTX 3060 12GB. 

That GPU can handle 4k much better than the standard 3060 due to the fact that it has all that VRAM, it can handle 4k usually better than the 3070 for that reason.

[starsmine]

14 minutes ago, Wh0_Am_1 said:

That GPU can handle 4k much better than the standard 3060 due to the fact that it has all that VRAM, it can handle 4k usually better than the 3070 for that reason.

That is the standard 3060, and in general outside of a few exceptions with the most modern of games the 3060ti and 3070 handle 4k better.