Optimize your system with a powerful CPU and ample RAM for AI and turn-based games.
Optimize your system with a powerful CPU and ample RAM for AI and turn-based games.
You might expect the Ryzen 7 5800X to reduce load times in those strategy titles compared to a 5900X. Core count may matter less now, favoring speed over quantity. For RAM, focus on lower clock speeds rather than gigahertz—3200MHz CL14 or 16 could be better than 3600MHz with CL16 or 18 for the games you mentioned.
For turn-based games, performance improves with more cores, so 5800X isn't the best choice. These types of games are usually the most efficient up to around 16 cores. If you're focusing on applying XMP without worrying about memory, target a 3600MHz processor and the lowest possible clock speed.
It depends on the number of cores/threads each game supports. The base and boost speeds of the 5800x are slightly lower than the 5900x, but the difference isn't huge. Performance will be more affected by RAM speed, system setup, and CPU cooling. If the game can handle over 16 threads, that matters a lot. As a daily driver using the 5900x unless I render, I mostly skip the heavy CPU usage. It's mainly about showcasing capability. For RAM, a pair of 8GB 3600MHz CL16 modules works well. CAS latency matters, but a pure 400MHz clock will stand out more than a lower one. Don't forget to turn on DOCP / XMP settings.
yep, some of the games I sometimes are, shall I say, ye olde school programing so in these I wanted turn time and AI calculations quickened to reduce the lets go make a cup of tea times. On my current FX 8350 the cores are not all stressed out, so I figured loads more cores are less important for me. But the wait of sometimes 30 minutes per turn in Flashpoint would be nice to lower. Then when I also heard about NVMe gen 4 loading times I said, bother, I want that, so so began my upgrade PC. I also play WoT whilst doing other things in the background or dabble occasionally with Fruity Loops so I figured 5800x should be the minimum I would go for. I also gather the 5900x is 8 core + 4 core, so going back to how either game reduced wait times seemed more important. Lower Ghz and Single Thread Rating than the 5800x but double the internal catch, would that be an edge in turn reducing times? The situation reminds me of when getting a CPU for chess playing was easier when the choice was either a 386, 486 or Pentium and it was quite easy to figure which was best. But now CPUs seems to have more variables /sigh to make a headache of a guess for me.
Civ 6 seems limited to around eight processing units, but the 7740x has its own perspective. It’s not clear if FX is a reliable indicator since many programs weren’t built for its specific architecture. For instance, if the game heavily uses the FPU, your FX 8350 could actually function as a quad-core system. In reality, it’s more like a 6+6 configuration. Adding more cache didn’t improve performance on Zen 2, so expect no significant gains on Zen 3—multitasking still works best rather than scaling cores. If your tasks can utilize up to eight cores, consider using more than that.
I need to look up more information on Civ6 AI tests. So far, it seems like there won't be a major jump between the Ryzen models. The improvement I see is in what I currently have for the latest generation. The YT commenter who mentioned 8 + 4 seems to have made a mistake; based on your notes, it should be 8 - 2 + 8 - 2 = 6 + 6. That site also lists the 5800X as an 8-core and the 5600X as an 8-core with 6 cores. I’ll need to review those reviews after a restful night’s sleep. I was a bit frustrated when AMD claimed the 8350 had only 4 cores instead of 8, but it actually functioned as expected.
I don't blame the low core count of the 7740x either. The frame rates in that game aren't a reliable measure of performance because they usually drop to 20–40fps later on, regardless of your setup. More important is the load time (as you mentioned later). So yes, core count isn't the big factor. For today's games and future projects, focus on what fits your budget without stress—what you can afford now might pay off later if you keep building it up.
The game operates in a sequential manner, making it highly dependent on single-threaded performance. Most titles avoid threading effectively, yielding minimal speed improvements. Co-routines differ from threads and aren’t interchangeable. Server games typically rely on database threading, which introduces high latency. Because games must complete tasks within strict time limits, data stays in RAM until written to disk. Faster RAM won’t significantly boost performance unless paired with a substantial CPU upgrade. In fact, increasing RAM beyond the current limit offers little benefit, especially when memory is constrained by chipset limitations. Performance gains are rare unless the CPU itself is upgraded, as even then, benefits depend heavily on workload type.
Through further research I'm considering the 5800x option more. The quote from W1zzard Administrator suggests it fits better with the idea of being able to afford purchases at the end of the month rather than waiting months. However, there remains an unresolved question about long-term protection. Regarding core usage, most seem to rely on up to four cores currently, but some might use extra cores for performance boosts in future games. Will we see more programs using a 6+6 configuration for better speed, or will the 5900x stay at six cores per program while reserving others? Or will developers favor an eight-core design for next-gen applications?