Comparing Ryzen 7 5700X and 5700X3D involves evaluating their specifications and performance differences.
Comparing Ryzen 7 5700X and 5700X3D involves evaluating their specifications and performance differences.
Hi everyone
I’m thinking about upgrading my Ryzen 5 5500 soon. I have two options listed, and I play at 1080p 60fps. Would the upgrade to the 3D CPU really help me keep that frame rate? I also have an RX 6600XT coming soon, with a potential upgrade to an RX 9060XT in a few months. The price gap between the two CPUs is quite big—R1600.
I forgot to change the currency, so that's an 88 dollar difference in my country.
I'm not certain about the games you're playing, but 60 FPS is a modest requirement for CPUs overall. Usually, most games start to strain the CPU once you reach triple-digit FPS. Only very demanding titles will really push the CPU at 60 FPS.
The Ryzen 7 5700X makes a solid choice if the X3D chip is costly. The RX 9060 XT isn't particularly fast either, making it a reasonable pairing. However, if you're in Latin America, the Ryzen 5 5500X3D could be a better option, despite having two fewer cores.
You can definitely suggest an alternative perspective.
It might not be necessary to upgrade your CPU. Avoid getting caught up in the idea that your computer is slow. Many gamers feel pressured to upgrade, but if your monitor already handles the performance, extra frame rates won’t make much difference.
Consider purchasing the GPU first. Try playing a few games with a 5500 for a short period and see if the upgrade adds real value.
In fact... check this out: a 5500 paired with an 9060XT.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvQRbVBYxng&t=319s
The main point is that as long as the 1080/60 monitor is used, it will be the limiting factor. The current setup can handle much more than that and will look better with a FreeSync display. I assume the monitor behaves like a typical V-Sync device. If the frame rate drops slightly on a low setting, it causes noticeable stuttering because it jumps from 60 to 30 frames.
Poster could invest in a high-end build for around five thousand dollars, but this would have little impact on the final outcome given the frame limit. There’s value in a system that consistently maintains at least 60 frames without dropping, though it’s unclear how much further one should go in this market.
It claims to be much more capable, yet it falls short in newer titles such as Spider Man 2 and Indiana Jones. The older AMD upscalers also don't perform well. It's reasonable to think that if the "major visual lag" was a concern, they would have upgraded already.
I recently sold a system equipped with an RX6600XT and it performs excellently over 60 FPS at 1080p with the right configurations. The upscaling features really enhance its performance significantly. I won't go into specifics about Indiana Jones, but titles like BG3, CP77, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Division 2, and many others handled visual quality well when settings were adjusted appropriately. In fact, I was achieving over 60 FPS at 1440p with FSR enabled, and even at 1080p it runs smoothly without much strain.
The additional benefit of using AMD alongside a good FreeSync monitor is that the frame timing remains consistently stable, avoiding stuttering into the low 50s. This means you won’t notice the lack of smoothness as you would with V-Sync, even when frame rates dip below 60.