5700X3D worth it ?
5700X3D worth it ?
Considering the R5 7500F, I received an offer to exchange my bundle for an AM5 configuration. This includes DDR5 RAM and a B650 motherboard, along with some additional funds. Even with just six cores, it's an AM5 build with DDR5, offering better future compatibility and the chance to upgrade to higher-end AM5 processors later. As far as I've noticed, this model outperforms the 5900X and is comparable to the 5700X3D, but with faster RAM speeds.
The 5700x3d is close to the 5800x3d, but overclocking can be tricky because it requires using bclk and often leads to SATA SSD issues. NVMe drives seem to have trouble with higher PCIe versions, though this might vary by model. The 5700x3d doesn’t perform as well as the 5800x3d, so don’t expect typical speeds or the usual 4.7–4.8GHz all-core performance you get on most Zen 3 CPUs (APUs are around 4.6GHz). If you’re into it, go for it but consider installing a secondary Windows setup just in case. NVMe performance will be limited by temperature and the 5700x3d isn’t as strong as the 5800x3d. For fun, you can try it, but be cautious—corruption risks exist even with stable bclk. If you’re unsure, consider an AM4 board instead of a high-end one.
For reference, NVMe drives generally struggle with PCIe 4.0 and above unless the motherboard supports it. Most users have limited experience with bclk overclocking, and many don’t even read about it thoroughly. My own experience shows that 1155 is manageable, but I’ve only read a bit. If you skip bclk, you’re safer.
If you want to proceed, aim for a 6000C32/30 or higher, preferably downclocked to 6000. Avoid using SMT chips from Samsung/Micron unless you’re sure they’ll work with DDR5 7000+. A board with decent VRM and a B650M motherboard is ideal, as it handles higher voltages better. Check hardware unboxed reviews for boards that work well and avoid those with weak VRM or outdated chips.
It seems like you're questioning the value of moving from a higher-end Zen3 to an entry-level AM5 Zen4. If you're using an X3D AM4 chip, you're likely fine until AM5 becomes obsolete before it impacts performance much. If you're still on AM4, it makes sense to stay within the platform if there are still meaningful improvements. Without an X3D chip, you can still make a solid upgrade. Keeping the same approach, upgrading your 7500F later might not be as beneficial, especially if you consider transitioning to AM6. Your upgrade options haven't been very helpful in the past.
It varies, multiplayer titles typically hit a fixed performance ceiling set by the CPU's capabilities rather than resolution. Usually, 3D v-cache significantly boosts that ceiling. The main drawback is that R9 chips weren't built for gaming performance beyond the Ryzen 3000 era, and the added delay from the infinity fabric—especially with 12c/24t models—can actually hurt more than a basic CCD variant. The impact really hinges on the games you play. A major downside of 3D v-cache is its ability to deliver much higher framerates and more stable rates in multiplayer or server interactions. The idea is that the extra data pushes beyond regular caches, avoiding costly draw calls in RAM. This gap is most noticeable in MMO-style games. My tests with a 7950x3D showed about a 50% boost in frame rate under tough conditions, even when comparing Zen4 with Zen4 3D.
When I first got my R9, I was excited about the 12 cores, not realizing it was actually a 2x slightly overclocked 5600X under one IHS. At the time, I bought it for 120£ and didn’t think much of it. Now I see that running at 5700X3D with fewer cores is actually much faster than the 5900X. I’ll have to wait, because I probably won’t get a chance to upgrade my 5900X for the 5700X3D or the AM5 bundle with a 7500F. I’ll only switch if my friend can give me at least a decent Mobo and good RAM sticks. Otherwise, I’ll go with the 5700X3D.
Sure, I need to wait for my friend to confirm the Mobo and RAM specs. If someone has a solid VRM setup, good cooling, and fast enough RAM, I might consider it. Then I can upgrade the CPU later, while I'm already using AM5.
To the best of my understanding, I can connect to my Ryzen 5 7600 using Asus Strix B650 Gaming WiFi (white). It seems stable, and I have a 32 GB DDR5 Kingston Renegade 6000MT/s system. This is essentially an upgrade compared to my 5900X, B550 Aors Elite V2 AX, and a 32 GB 3600MT/s setup with an AM5 bundle, which costs around 50-100£ extra. I think it would still be better to have AM5 and the Ryzen 7600 for a temporary FPS boost, even if prices drop before the 7800X3D model.
@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.