Upgrading your gaming PC can help lower latency from 30ms to 40ms.
Upgrading your gaming PC can help lower latency from 30ms to 40ms.
This is nonsense. You are talking of more than 100% improvement, while TechPowerUp tests show an average of 18% difference between the 5800X and the 5800X3D. Either your youtuber is wrong or you misunderstood something.
If I look at some videos myself, the 5800X with a 3070 runs at ~90 fps on The Finals at 1440p epic quality settings and 130 fps at low settings. A similar test at low settings 1440p but with a 5800X3D and a 3080 runs at ~160 fps. Which means that you get about 23% improvement with a 5800X3D/3080 as compared to a 5800X/3070 for this particular game at 1440p low quality settings.
In the broader context the 5800X and 5800XT don’t meet my needs because I require steady 144+ FPS in "Battlefield 6" and "The Finals" without frame drops, and I need X3D over 200 FPS. The video I referenced was from memory and I just reviewed it now.
It runs at 90FPS but on the beta build; the current release performs better but still frequently falls below 144FPS during intense moments, especially on more demanding maps that could bring it down to around 120FPS. Only X3D CPUs satisfy my requirements.
Thanks for the helpful feedback, JayGau! I might lower the monitor to a 120Hz setting if suitable options appear.
I would avoid using the 5700x or any X3D CPUs on an AM4 platform, focusing instead on building a new PC. Avoid investing in upgrades for a platform that isn't improving soon, as prices for AM4 X3D CPUs aren't expected to drop anytime soon. The lower-end 6-core Ryzen 7000 and 9000 chips are about two-thirds the cost of a new or used 5700x3D, often matching or exceeding their performance, sometimes even being faster. You'll likely also need a new GPU to achieve higher frame rates at 1440p. If you haven't already adjusted your graphics settings, consider lowering them for better performance in online games.
Also seriously think about the alternative that higher frame rates or consistency don't necessarily improve your gaming skills. If you struggle at lower FPS, boosting to higher numbers might not significantly enhance your performance. I'd suggest aiming for a stable high frame rate of 90 FPS or 90Hz, and be comfortable with up to 120 FPS until you can upgrade to a better system.
I am checking how I am measuring the delay. I believe you are not relying on ping times while playing games. This kind of delay mainly depends on the distance between your home and the game server. It has some connection to the speed of light, but changing your graphics card, monitor, or even your keyboard won’t influence this value.
If you are referring to the time between pressing a key on the keyboard and seeing it on the screen, that’s another metric. You usually need specific tools to track that, and even then it’s not always possible to get an accurate reading. For instance, using a TV instead of a computer monitor might introduce some delay because TVs often have image filters. This can add a small amount of lag, but since the processing happens inside the screen, it’s hard to measure precisely—perhaps by pointing a camera at the display.
As previously noted, there isn’t a proven system that guarantees improvement in gaming performance. I’m quite bad at first-person shooters, and even with the best machine, I’d still struggle. The issue is that no scientific studies confirm people can actually perceive 200 frames per second. Most existing research suggests around 30 fps.
Lots of claims on Reddit suggest some individuals claim superior vision, but these are just personal opinions. There’s no solid evidence to support such performance claims.
I understand the context; during 2022-2023 the Ryzen 3600 was considered the top CPU for most users, and anyone opposing it was seen as supporting Intel.
It’s clear your current setup isn’t ideal for your needs.
In my opinion, you have three choices, listed from least to most expensive.
Purchase a Ryzen 5800 X3D or comparable and stop there.
Upgrade to an AM5 platform and pair it with a 7000-9000 series X3D CPU.
Swap your entire PC, including the RTX 3070, which isn’t powerful enough for high refresh rate 1440p gaming.
Of course, cost is important, but finding a 5800 X3D or similar at affordable prices is challenging. Right now, DDR5 RAM isn’t available at reasonable rates either, leaving you in a tough spot. Personally, I’d suggest:
If you’re after the greatest performance at the lowest cost possible, opt for a 50XX X3D CPU and accept it as sufficient.
If that won’t suffice and you don’t want to invest in an outdated setup, go ahead and upgrade your motherboard (with all related expenses).
I believe the optimal approach involves two steps;
1. Look for a used 5600 non X or 5600X model priced between $70 and $90, allowing you to make a solid upgrade now without extra costs for a new CPU cooler.
2. Hold off on DDR5 until prices settle next year, then plan to install an AM5 socket system for greater future flexibility.
Some might argue that upgrading the GPU first could boost FPS enough to postpone the platform upgrade, especially if you’re already running at 1440p. You’d likely need at least an RTX 5070 or RX 9070, or a used 4070 Super. The recent $600 price on the RX 9070 XT is a solid deal for those in the USA who can afford it.
Here we begin once more. Research indicates that the human eye operates at a rate not measured in frames per second, and it can easily tell the difference when motion exceeds 30 fps. Films shot at 30 fps often show noticeable blur, making them feel slow. At a consistent 60 fps, the visual experience remains smooth, but in gaming the situation changes significantly. You're not just observing passively; you're actively engaging with the game, and higher frame rates provide a clearer connection between your eyes, the screen, and your actions. With controllers, gains beyond 60 fps are minimal (which explains why this idea is strong among console users), but using a mouse and keyboard unlocks a much wider range—between 60 and 140 fps, especially in fast-paced games like competitive shooters. Playing isn't just about watching a film—it's an interactive experience. Personally, I can't run at 60 fps on my PC without discomfort; I require at least 90 fps, preferably above 120. This isn't just a claim or a placebo effect—I've felt the impact firsthand when a Windows update caused Assassin's Creed Shadows to drop from 120-130 to 70-80 fps. It was a sudden, severe drop that forced me to enable an overlay to diagnose the issue, revealing a significant performance loss. After uninstalling the update, everything returned to normal at 120-130 fps. This myth about the human eye's limit has been widely debunked many times, yet it still appears frequently in online discussions. It's frustrating to encounter it here.
Display any evidence of claims beyond simple assertions. Present scientific findings indicating 200fps may surpass 120, 60, or 30. Highlight how many sellers make unsupported statements, relying only on others' opinions. Emphasize the lack of clear frame counts and the absence of verifiable data. Point out that without a concrete number displayed, it's hard to assess accuracy. Stress that these discussions seem more about personal beliefs than facts. Request credible sources or studies for verification.
This thread is being taken over to share this nonsense. People here don’t care if I need “science” for my hobby, they just want to enjoy higher fps, and wasting keystrokes isn’t their thing. Just chill, or do something else. No one asked about your obsession with frame rates.