The setup at 3700x with 3080 Ti could cause a bottleneck.
The setup at 3700x with 3080 Ti could cause a bottleneck.
In gaming, it runs about 20% slower than Intel 8th generation. It's faster than my 8700K.
Compare to 11600k at 4.6GHz. While 10600k and 8700k are almost identical, RocketLake performs even worse than both in certain titles. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ When paired with a 3080ti at 1080p, the difference should be at least 20% compared to my 5GHz setup, 4000CL17 overclocked 8700k. I didn’t need the Gamestar chart—https://www.gamestar.de/artikel/amd-ryzen-7-3700x-test-2021,3372889.html#ryzen-7-3700x-im-spiele-test-720p-aufloesung Already understood the gaming capabilities of these CPUs. Ryzen 3000 lagged far behind Intel in gaming performance; it was a poor use of silicon there. Still, it works well for productivity.
But many players stick to lower resolutions for competitive play. As a 1440p High-Ultra solo gamer, I find anything from 3600 or 8700K to 5950X or 12900K works just fine. A 2600 or 7700K could be a touch slower in some titles, but they should still run smoothly. Last week I played Quantum Break at 1440p maximum on my 2060 Super and achieved around 90-115fps with 20-30% usage for my 5900X. None of the cores were running at full capacity. Reducing FPS in a CPU-heavy game would need much lower performance, which isn’t ideal. Sure, the 2060 Super is slower than a 3080 Ti, but I’d likely hit around 170Hz on my screen before a 3700X becomes the bottleneck. In such games, exceeding your monitor’s refresh rate doesn’t really help, so for me, any CPU that can sustain 170fps counts as equivalent.
I don’t focus much on FPS in single-player titles; I’m okay with 100fps in fun games. Gsync isn’t a priority for me either. I wouldn’t stress over bottlenecks when graphics are high or resolutions are extreme. Low latency isn’t crucial for me in these games. Still, if asked about potential issues, I tend to think FPS matters.
Having enough money to upgrade is important but doesn’t always mean it’s worth it. I’m running a 5900X with DDR4-3200 CL16 RAM. Since I’ve spent over $550 on my CPU, I could easily afford a better RAM package for $250. But why would I invest in that unless it really improves performance? For what I do, higher speed and lower latency memory wouldn’t make much difference. Similarly, if the person asking isn’t playing games that need top FPS, then even if it’s affordable, the upgrade seems unnecessary.
Outside of a handful of titles, Skylake++++++ with sufficient core count, cache, and speed (overclocked at 8700k, 9900k, 10900k, etc.) usually outperforms Zen 2 when paired with a strong GPU and proper configurations. This has been widely discussed on Gamers Nexus and other platforms over the past few years. Here’s an illustration of a CPU-intensive title using only a 2080ti graphics card: as shown, even a standard 8700k excels significantly against Zen 2 with an overclock. The performance gap narrows but remains clear with higher-end GPUs. Another case demonstrates RTX 3080 scaling at 1080p/medium resolution—there’s a noticeable difference between Zen 2 and Skylake++++. https://www.google.com/amp/s/ A 3080ti is expected to lag behind, which supports @DarkSmith2’s view. Overall, while gaming speed matters, the discussion leans toward long-term trends rather than immediate practicality, especially for those with access to more advanced hardware.
Purchase the 5800X without needing a motherboard upgrade. You’re probably to notice an improvement, even if it’s minor.