Do you have any ideas for CPU upgrades?
Do you have any ideas for CPU upgrades?
I don't think there's a huge difference between them after seeing comparisons on
www.cpu-monkey.com
and
www.cpu.userbenchmark.com
. Thank you for writing up!
😉
The 5700X3D could offer noticeable improvements for gaming. Avoid relying solely on CPU comparison sites, as they often provide inaccurate results outside of benchmarking tools.
The 5700X3D is roughly 5% slower than the 5800X3D, yet it may deliver up to 1.5 times the performance of the 3700X in gaming scenarios
https://www.techspot.com/review/2762-amd...ce_Summary
I believe it's a good idea. Cinebench is just one measurement, not really reflecting a gaming workload.
Overall results indicate gains between 20 and 200 FPS depending on the game.
If you're focused on performance while maintaining resolution and settings at a low level, it will make a bigger difference. For getting the best out of your graphics card, the GPU becomes the key factor.
It still improves the platform for a better GPU. If I had a 58/700X3D, I wouldn’t consider upgrading until AM6.
I don't know for certain, but it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on this. My view is that by the end of the decade, a CPU with 32 cores or more seems likely, especially if the 52-core Nova Lake spec is accurate. I still recall how long it took for 4 cores and 8 threads to become common; thankfully AMD returned to the scene and added some competition, otherwise progress would have been much slower.
Probably not since there’s no pressing need. AMD wouldn’t overshadow their HEDT line more than it already has.
Also, gaming isn’t a strong reason. The 9600X works similarly to the 9950X, just within a 10% range. From AMD’s perspective, the 3D V-Cache boosts performance rather than replacing cores; the 9xxx chips with it outperform standard ones, matching each other closely with the 9800X3D and the 9950X3D showing minor discrepancies in my view. The 5800X3D remains comparable to the 9600X, lagging only slightly by about 10% compared to the 9950X.
In gaming context, that's not really relevant. Those powerful high core count CPUs focus more on overall performance rather than individual core speed. This is the key direction Intel is taking. AMD, with its flexible design, is mainly expanding the number of full-sized cores. They have smaller compact cores, but those aren't being used in desktops yet—currently they're focused on mobile or server applications. A hybrid chip for desktops might be possible, but it seems unlikely outside the APU category at this stage. Buying 32 cores today probably means a mid-range processor in about five years. We've seen this trend with Threadripper; 16 to 32 core CPUs seem promising on paper, but adding a 16-core Zen 5 chip often leads to performance drops. Architecture improvements and feature upgrades will likely compensate for the fewer cores. I believe 16-core high-end chips will become standard for enthusiasts in the near future, just as 8 cores are now. I also think 8-core processors will move into the budget segment, similar to how 6 cores have become common today. Especially with Zen 6 and a potential 12-core CPU, the top consumer chip could reach 24 cores. Intel seems to be shifting toward 16P cores and 32 E cores, along with low-power power cores. I expect quad-core solutions to disappear from next-gen hardware, especially in low-power applications.
It would be worth it, its a good 40%+ performance difference between the two if the game takes advantage of the extra cache. Even without the extra cache its still a 20 - 25% performance difference, and it mostly maxes out your CPU performance for the socket. You would likely be good for another 2 - 3 years with that upgrade.