Comparing 12600k and 3900K highlights differences in scale and context.
Comparing 12600k and 3900K highlights differences in scale and context.
I would try it. 3900X is slow. Even with cores it’s still fine, but it falls far behind zen3 and the 12th gen. versions.
At 1440p with a 2080 Super? That's not ideal unless you're focused on intense competitive play and top FPS numbers. As demonstrated, over 16 titles, a RX 6800 (significantly more powerful than a 2080 Super) shows minimal distinction between Zen 2 and Zen 3 at this resolution. The gap narrows even more with the 2080 Super. Perhaps competitive gaming could justify it, but unless you already have a 1440p 240Hz display and aren't using lower refresh rates, I suggest upgrading your monitor first. At these settings, the 3900X can consistently hit over 240fps in games like CSGO, Fortnite, and R6S without stuttering, thanks to substantial unused CPU capacity.
I often think about my 3600XT before the 5600X. That CPU was great, but for everyday tasks and benchmarks, the 5600X easily outperformed it. The 5900X is even better, handling 5150 single-core work effortlessly. I don’t focus much on gaming, but I appreciate how smoothly it runs.
This data is helpful but sometimes it doesn't fully reflect real-world performance. It varies a lot depending on the game and especially when using non-ultra configurations (such as typical consumer setups). I enjoy HUB, but I wish they removed Ultra presets for CPU benchmarking. Testing a 6800 at medium settings would bring the results more in line with a 2080S, offering a fairer assessment. In MMO, online, and competitive titles, the gap between older and newer processors becomes much more noticeable. Still, discarding the 3900x would be a waste of money.