PC Upgrade Advice – AM5 Now or Wait?

[Macusercom]

Budget (including currency): up to € 1000 (but I prefer value over spending that amount)

Country: Austria

Games, programs or workloads that it will be used for: ArmA 3, CS2, Squad

I built my PC in 2021 with the following specs:

• CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
• Motherboard: ASUS B550-E
• Storage: 2x PCIe Gen 4.0 SSD (512GB Windows [Encrypted], 1 TB Game)
• RAM: 2x 16GB DDR4 3600 MHz
• GPU: EVGA RTX 3080 10GB
• Monitor: 3440×1440p, 160Hz

I primarily play Arma 3, Counter-Strike 2, and Squad. While my system performs decently, I’ve started noticing frame dips, especially in Squad and CS2 (ArmA has always been that way ofc).

 

Current Performance & Upgrade Considerations

• GPU Usage: My RTX 3080 often peaks at 99% several times, so I'm wondering if an upgrade would make a significant difference.
• CPU Performance: I know CS2 and Squad benefit from strong single-core performance, and I’m unsure whether upgrading to an AMD 3D V-Cache CPU (like the 5800X3D or 5700X3D) would yield worthwhile gains.
• Platform Upgrade: Since the 5800X3D is hard to find, and the 5700X3D might not be a huge improvement, I’m considering jumping to an AM5 platform instead of sticking with AM4.
• Work vs. Gaming Shift: I originally bought the 5900X for productivity, but over the past year, I’ve moved all my work to my Mac, and my Windows PC is now purely for gaming.
• At some point I'd be going for a 3440x1440 240 Hz QD-OLED (up from my 160 Hz IPS)

GPU Upgrade Dilemma

I also thought about upgrading to the 7900 XT, but in Europe, it costs around €850. Given that I could only sell my RTX 3080 for around €400, I’m unsure if this upgrade makes financial sense.

 

I’m currently out of the loop on PC upgrades, so I’m considering two options:

1. Upgrade to AM5 now – A higher upfront cost but better long-term performance.
2. Wait a few months – Prices might drop on the 9800X3D, and I could reassess GPU options then.

Would you agree that an AM5 upgrade is the best path forward?

 

Other Considerations

• A B650 motherboard should be enough since PCIe Gen 5 isn’t heavily utilized by GPUs yet.
• I could consider a PCIe Gen 5 SSD, but my current motherboard only has one Gen 4 slot, and I already have two Gen 4 SSDs.

Any thoughts or suggestions? Would waiting for price drops be the smartest move?

 

[Millios]

99% GPU utilization means the GPU is limiting you

There isnt a reason to upgrade your CPU and plaform (at least yet)

If you can seel your 3080 for say 400 that brings the price of the 7900xt to 450, go used and then you get it for even less

Honestly your CPU is still more than fine so I'd go with a new GPU for the time being and wait a few more years till am4 actually becomes very restrictive which will take a while

[Macusercom]

Thanks for your reply! I wasn't sure whether GPU usage peaks (especially when not constantly being at 99–100%) could also be caused by the CPU and if the 3D-V Cache helps. Back when I had an Intel Xeon E3-1231v3 if went from an R9 290 to a 1070 Ti and there I started noticing a CPU bottleneck in single core although the CPU was not pinned in any obvious way.

 

That means I'm probably better off waiting for the 9070 XT prices to come down (or NVIDIA if that ever happens). Not sure if the RX 7900 XT(X) would only be interesting for a good discount and if I do not rely on RT I assume?

[Millios]

5 minutes ago, Macusercom said:

Thanks for your reply! I wasn't sure whether GPU usage peaks (especially when not constantly being at 99–100%) could also be caused by the CPU and if the 3D-V Cache helps. Back when I had an Intel Xeon E3-1231v3 if went from an R9 290 to a 1070 Ti and there I started noticing a CPU bottleneck in single core although the CPU was not pinned in any obvious way.

 

That means I'm probably better off waiting for the 9070 XT prices to come down (or NVIDIA if that ever happens). Not sure if the RX 7900 XT(X) would only be interesting for a good discount and if I do not rely on RT I assume?

Depending on the game the 7900xtx is about as good if not a lil better than a 4080 super ie about the same as a 5080 (which is like 5ish% better that the 4080s on a good day) when RT isnt involved

 

If you can wait a few months, maybe half a year to 9 months (rough estimate) when prices normalise themselves then it'd be a better time to buy since you still have a functioning card

 

[191x7]

1 hour ago, Macusercom said:

Thanks for your reply! I wasn't sure whether GPU usage peaks (especially when not constantly being at 99–100%) could also be caused by the CPU and if the 3D-V Cache helps. Back when I had an Intel Xeon E3-1231v3 if went from an R9 290 to a 1070 Ti and there I started noticing a CPU bottleneck in single core although the CPU was not pinned in any obvious way.

 

That means I'm probably better off waiting for the 9070 XT prices to come down (or NVIDIA if that ever happens). Not sure if the RX 7900 XT(X) would only be interesting for a good discount and if I do not rely on RT I assume?

 

2 hours ago, Macusercom said:

Budget (including currency): up to € 1000 (but I prefer value over spending that amount)

Country: Austria

Games, programs or workloads that it will be used for: ArmA 3, CS2, Squad

I built my PC in 2021 with the following specs:

• CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
• Motherboard: ASUS B550-E
• Storage: 2x PCIe Gen 4.0 SSD (512GB Windows [Encrypted], 1 TB Game)
• RAM: 2x 16GB DDR4 3600 MHz
• GPU: EVGA RTX 3080 10GB
• Monitor: 3440×1440p, 160Hz

I primarily play Arma 3, Counter-Strike 2, and Squad. While my system performs decently, I’ve started noticing frame dips, especially in Squad and CS2 (ArmA has always been that way ofc).

 

Current Performance & Upgrade Considerations

• GPU Usage: My RTX 3080 often peaks at 99% several times, so I'm wondering if an upgrade would make a significant difference.
• CPU Performance: I know CS2 and Squad benefit from strong single-core performance, and I’m unsure whether upgrading to an AMD 3D V-Cache CPU (like the 5800X3D or 5700X3D) would yield worthwhile gains.
• Platform Upgrade: Since the 5800X3D is hard to find, and the 5700X3D might not be a huge improvement, I’m considering jumping to an AM5 platform instead of sticking with AM4.
• Work vs. Gaming Shift: I originally bought the 5900X for productivity, but over the past year, I’ve moved all my work to my Mac, and my Windows PC is now purely for gaming.
• At some point I'd be going for a 3440x1440 240 Hz QD-OLED (up from my 160 Hz IPS)

GPU Upgrade Dilemma

I also thought about upgrading to the 7900 XT, but in Europe, it costs around €850. Given that I could only sell my RTX 3080 for around €400, I’m unsure if this upgrade makes financial sense.

 

I’m currently out of the loop on PC upgrades, so I’m considering two options:

1. Upgrade to AM5 now – A higher upfront cost but better long-term performance.
2. Wait a few months – Prices might drop on the 9800X3D, and I could reassess GPU options then.

Would you agree that an AM5 upgrade is the best path forward?

 

Other Considerations

• A B650 motherboard should be enough since PCIe Gen 5 isn’t heavily utilized by GPUs yet.
• I could consider a PCIe Gen 5 SSD, but my current motherboard only has one Gen 4 slot, and I already have two Gen 4 SSDs.

Any thoughts or suggestions? Would waiting for price drops be the smartest move?

 

 

You are right in assuming the 5900X could be a bottleneck even for the card you already have.

If the framerate isn't capped (by using a frame limit or v-sync), your GPU should average between 95% and 99% not to be bottleneckedc.

If you have drops to lower or if your average is quite lower, you're experiencing a botttleneck (usually by the CPU or the game engine).

 

The 5900X was a bottleneck for my 6950XT on 1440p, and that GPU is stronger than a 3080, close to the 3090.

Sidegrading to the 5800X3D did not improve my framerate that much (in PUBG), but it did improve my frame drops a lot. The 5%, 1% and 0.1% lows.

With the 5900X I had the same drops with the 6950XT as I had with my previous 5700XT. Stutters when in gunfights, when it matters the most. -.-

The 5900X is, when it comes to gaming, basically a 5600 to 5600X with a huge power draw and double the heat.

 

The 5700X3D would solve oyur issues and allow you to upgrade the GPU to a stronger one (but you should wait a year or two, now it's a bad time to upgrade a GPU which is still quite good for mid-range). The only thing the 3080 10GB lacks, and which makes it a 1080p card, is more VRAM.

 

Oh wait, you're on 1440p ultrawide, that's close to 4K...

Get the 5700X3D and upgrade the GPU. One without the other makes no sense. The 5900X would bottleneck anything stronger, and the 3080 lacks VRAM.

I'd recommend a Radeon 7900XT, 9070XT or 7900XTX for the resolution. Or the RTX 4070 Ti Super 16GB. Don't even think about a 12GB card, even 16GB is a low ammount for the resolution.

[Doobeedoo]

Well depends how satisifed, or not, you are with your current performance in games you care. Even though it's not that old.

That said, check some benchmarks from know YTers for those games, some can have huge uplift in performance, depends. I'd go AM5 for any upgrade on that side, for GPU XTX is very good and really that price is fair for it with all price mess really. Where I am it's same price since launch. 

Your current build is worth more now than it will later down the line too. 

[Macusercom]

3 hours ago, 191x7 said:

 

 

You are right in assuming the 5900X could be a bottleneck even for the card you already have.

If the framerate isn't capped (by using a frame limit or v-sync), your GPU should average between 95% and 99% not to be bottleneckedc.

If you have drops to lower or if your average is quite lower, you're experiencing a botttleneck (usually by the CPU or the game engine).

 

The 5900X was a bottleneck for my 6950XT on 1440p, and that GPU is stronger than a 3080, close to the 3090.

Sidegrading to the 5800X3D did not improve my framerate that much (in PUBG), but it did improve my frame drops a lot. The 5%, 1% and 0.1% lows.

With the 5900X I had the same drops with the 6950XT as I had with my previous 5700XT. Stutters when in gunfights, when it matters the most. -.-

The 5900X is, when it comes to gaming, basically a 5600 to 5600X with a huge power draw and double the heat.

 

The 5700X3D would solve oyur issues and allow you to upgrade the GPU to a stronger one (but you should wait a year or two, now it's a bad time to upgrade a GPU which is still quite good for mid-range). The only thing the 3080 10GB lacks, and which makes it a 1080p card, is more VRAM.

 

Oh wait, you're on 1440p ultrawide, that's close to 4K...

Get the 5700X3D and upgrade the GPU. One without the other makes no sense. The 5900X would bottleneck anything stronger, and the 3080 lacks VRAM.

I'd recommend a Radeon 7900XT, 9070XT or 7900XTX for the resolution. Or the RTX 4070 Ti Super 16GB. Don't even think about a 12GB card, even 16GB is a low ammount for the resolution.

 

It is a really bad time I find myself in. IMHO the best sidegrade for AM4 would have been the 5800X3D but given that it is sold out and being sold for € 400+ here, I'd rather wait for the 9800X3D to come down in price and go AM5. The loss of most cores going from 5900X to 5700X3D would not bother me but the advantage of 3D-V cache heavily depends on the game and the lower boost clocks of the 5700X3D could be a net 0 when sidegrading.

 

The 5700X3D is about € 250 here. An AM5 upgrade would be ~€ 800 now but eventually when the price of the 9800X3D might drop, I might be looking at € 600-700 in a year. I'm not sure if this is the better path then getting the 5700X3D now to "stretch" the AM4 lifespan and then eventually going AM5 anyways or holding on for AM6.

 

It's really difficult to find good comparisons for such "old" games and getting an idea of what a 5700X3D or 9800X3D with the RTX 3080 or a 5900X/5700X3D with a 9070 XT would look like. I just fear that the 3D-V cache and the lower boost clocks of the 5700X3D might yield the same results. It wouldn't be a net loss given I can probably offset the cost of a 5700X3D by selling the 5900X but I'm not sure if this is a good choice

[191x7]

2 hours ago, Macusercom said:

 

It is a really bad time I find myself in. IMHO the best sidegrade for AM4 would have been the 5800X3D but given that it is sold out and being sold for € 400+ here, I'd rather wait for the 9800X3D to come down in price and go AM5. The loss of most cores going from 5900X to 5700X3D would not bother me but the advantage of 3D-V cache heavily depends on the game and the lower boost clocks of the 5700X3D could be a net 0 when sidegrading.

 

The 5700X3D is about € 250 here. An AM5 upgrade would be ~€ 800 now but eventually when the price of the 9800X3D might drop, I might be looking at € 600-700 in a year. I'm not sure if this is the better path then getting the 5700X3D now to "stretch" the AM4 lifespan and then eventually going AM5 anyways or holding on for AM6.

 

It's really difficult to find good comparisons for such "old" games and getting an idea of what a 5700X3D or 9800X3D with the RTX 3080 or a 5900X/5700X3D with a 9070 XT would look like. I just fear that the 3D-V cache and the lower boost clocks of the 5700X3D might yield the same results. It wouldn't be a net loss given I can probably offset the cost of a 5700X3D by selling the 5900X but I'm not sure if this is a good choice

A couple of months ago I sold my used 5900X for 200€ after it sat in my tech&tool wardrobe for more than a year. I should have done it when I got the 5800X3D.

 

For games, a 5700X (non-X3D) beats the 5900X because all the cores are on the same CCD. The 500X3D is better than that.

In the worst case, for the 250€, you'd have just slightly better performance, and in the best cases (titles that profit from the large L3, meaning older games or competitive games, or memory-intensive games)  you'd have an amazing experience.

The 5700X3D is usually from 5% to 10% slower than the 58800X3D, produces less heat and offers the same advantages. That small difference is negated when increasing the resolution.

 

My 5800X3D will probably hold just fine till the next generation CPU-s or even AM6.

 

There's another advantage of the X3D - the DDR4 speed becomes less relevant. It's not held down by slow memory like regular Zen 2 and Zen 3.

 

Look how a 5800X3D performs with a 5090. The cards you're considering are noticeably weaker...

 

[Macusercom]

2 hours ago, 191x7 said:

A couple of months ago I sold my used 5900X for 200€ after it sat in my tech&tool wardrobe for more than a year. I should have done it when I got the 5800X3D.

 

For games, a 5700X (non-X3D) beats the 5900X because all the cores are on the same CCD. The 500X3D is better than that.

In the worst case, for the 250€, you'd have just slightly better performance, and in the best cases (titles that profit from the large L3, meaning older games or competitive games, or memory-intensive games)  you'd have an amazing experience.

The 5700X3D is usually from 5% to 10% slower than the 58800X3D, produces less heat and offers the same advantages. That small difference is negated when increasing the resolution.

 

My 5800X3D will probably hold just fine till the next generation CPU-s or even AM6.

 

There's another advantage of the X3D - the DDR4 speed becomes less relevant. It's not held down by slow memory like regular Zen 2 and Zen 3.

 

Look how a 5800X3D performs with a 5090. The cards you're considering are noticeably weaker...

 

Thanks! I'll guess I'll try it myself and pull the trigger on the 5700X3D now

[191x7]

1 hour ago, Macusercom said:

Thanks! I'll guess I'll try it myself and pull the trigger on the 5700X3D now

I believe that to be a good choice. You can sell the 5900X for nearly the price of the 5700x3d and if you're not satisfied with the 5700x3d you can always sell it for at least 150€. No large losses there.

[Macusercom]

I’ve replaced my Ryzen 9 5900X with a Ryzen 7 5700X3D and here are my results:

Performance Gains Across Games & Benchmarks

• Arma 3 (Yet Another Benchmark)

  • Massive FPS boost in the first and second runs.
  • Significantly higher 1% and 0.1% lows.

• Arma Reforger

  • Definitely GPU-bound. No major CPU-related gains.

• CS2

  • Noticeable improvements in 1% lows.
  • Higher average FPS.

• Shadow of the Tomb Raider

  • Previously GPU-bound on high settings, but now I’m not.
  • Better overall performance.

• Unigine Heaven Benchmark

  • Slight dip in average FPS.
  • A much lower minimum FPS, though this might be a bug.

• Dirt Rally 2.0

  • Average FPS improved.
  • Slightly lower dips, but since there’s no built-in benchmark, this could be due to testing variability.

Final Thoughts

As you predicted, huge improvements in 1% lows, some variance in average FPS, and only minor changes (if any) in max FPS. The tradeoff here seems to be the 4.1 GHz instead of my 4.9 GHz boost clock but the 3D-V cache seems to compensate for it quite well.

 

My next upgrade will likely be the RX 9070XT, followed by an eventual jump to AM5 or AM6. But for now, I’m hitting a stable 153 FPS for G-Sync Reflex on my 160Hz monitor, so I’m very happy! :)

 

EDIT: Also switching CPUs to the same platform is so much easier. Except re-enabling TPM it works just as before. No need for a clean Windows install if I had had switched to AM5. Even with DDU the GPU switch will be quite easy. So I can keep my Windows 11 installation for a bit longer

 

[191x7]

1 hour ago, Macusercom said:

I’ve replaced my Ryzen 9 5900X with a Ryzen 7 5700X3D and here are my results:

Performance Gains Across Games & Benchmarks

• Arma 3 (Yet Another Benchmark)

  • Massive FPS boost in the first and second runs.
  • Significantly higher 1% and 0.1% lows.

• Arma Reforger

  • Definitely GPU-bound. No major CPU-related gains.

• CS2

  • Noticeable improvements in 1% lows.
  • Higher average FPS.

• Shadow of the Tomb Raider

  • Previously GPU-bound on high settings, but now I’m not.
  • Better overall performance.

• Unigine Heaven Benchmark

  • Slight dip in average FPS.
  • A much lower minimum FPS, though this might be a bug.

• Dirt Rally 2.0

  • Average FPS improved.
  • Slightly lower dips, but since there’s no built-in benchmark, this could be due to testing variability.

Final Thoughts

As you predicted, huge improvements in 1% lows, some variance in average FPS, and only minor changes (if any) in max FPS. The tradeoff here seems to be the 4.1 GHz instead of my 4.9 GHz boost clock but the 3D-V cache seems to compensate for it quite well.

 

My next upgrade will likely be the RX 9070XT, followed by an eventual jump to AM5 or AM6. But for now, I’m hitting a stable 153 FPS for G-Sync Reflex on my 160Hz monitor, so I’m very happy! :)

 

EDIT: Also switching CPUs to the same platform is so much easier. Except re-enabling TPM it works just as before. No need for a clean Windows install if I had had switched to AM5. Even with DDU the GPU switch will be quite easy. So I can keep my Windows 11 installation for a bit longer

 

Thanks.

 

Now, you need to make sure you reinstalled the latest AMD chipset drivers (downloaded from AMD) and make sure to use a negative PBO offset of 15 or 20 to get the max boost out of your CPU.

[Macusercom]

25 minutes ago, 191x7 said:

Thanks.

 

Now, you need to make sure you reinstalled the latest AMD chipset drivers (downloaded from AMD) and make sure to use a negative PBO offset of 15 or 20 to get the max boost out of your CPU.

Yeah, I did that and also currently testing a PBO offset of -30 which seems to run stable with my preliminary tests on OCCT. I couldn't really use the PBO CO on my 5900X as with 12 cores it not only is a hassle but I almost never got errors in OCCT until I did with an hour long run. Determining which core it was was also not easy since it showed an error on one core that was already a 0 meaning it probably was the fault of another core. My 5900X also only got around +2% in Cinebench compared to stock.

 

My 5700X3D now has a performance uplift of about +3–4% and runs fine with PBO CO at -30. My be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4 seems overkill now but it idles at 40°C and peaks at 70°C and 90W. Much cooler and quieter now as well

[191x7]

16 minutes ago, Macusercom said:

Yeah, I did that and also currently testing a PBO offset of -30 which seems to run stable with my preliminary tests on OCCT. I couldn't really use the PBO CO on my 5900X as with 12 cores it not only is a hassle but I almost never got errors in OCCT until I did with an hour long run. Determining which core it was was also not easy since it showed an error on one core that was already a 0 meaning it probably was the fault of another core. My 5900X also only got around +2% in Cinebench compared to stock.

 

My 5700X3D now has a performance uplift of about +3–4% and runs fine with PBO CO at -30. My be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4 seems overkill now but it idles at 40°C and peaks at 70°C and 90W. Much cooler and quieter now as well

With an 30 negative ofset a 5700X might throttle; check your performance compared to -15 or -20.

[Macusercom]

1 minute ago, 191x7 said:

With an 30 negative ofset a 5700X might throttle; check your performance compared to -15 or -20.

Yeah, did that with Cinebench 2024:

 

Multi Core

Stock: 781 pts

PPT 100 / TDC 70 / EDC 100: 800 pts

PPT 100 / TDC 70 / EDC 100 & PBO CO -30: 796 pts (792 pts)

PPT/TDC/EDC Auto & PBO CO -30: 805 pts

 

I will test further but I think the main thing is that with -30 it sustains 4.1 GHz for longer which is all you can get from the 5700X3D as it doesn't support overclocking. I will test further though