[SOLVED] 2700x vs 5900x

[irishconvict]

I have a 2700x
Looking at upgrading to a 5900x

Would I see a difference in fps when playing games at 4k?

I have a rtx 2080 at the momment

I run triple monitor aswell

 

[Darkbreeze]

That depends ENTIRELY on the game and the settings. Assuming you are not able to adequately play at Ultra settings on most high end AAA games, or probably even high for a lot of them, it might not make a lot of difference on THOSE type of games, IF those games are purely/mostly GPU bound.

For any game that is seriously CPU intensive, you'd see a big difference, regardless of quality settings or graphics card model.

If you are running a 4k panels x 3, it's still the same story but I'm not sure how you could run a 4k three panel configuration with an RTX 2080 since that can barely handle a single 4k panel very well unless you have some significant reductions in settings. In that case, it's probably still the same answer as it always is.

If the settings are reduced to the point where the GPU is not above 90% most of the time, then you'll likely see gains from a more powerful CPU.

If the game is very CPU intensive, then you'll likely see gains regardless of any graphics card or quality setting considerations.

If the game is almost entirely GPU bound, and there is no reduction in settings, especially with three 4k panels, then you will likely NOT see any gains at all, other than perhaps simply being "smoother".

Much depends on the game. If you are playing light eSports or low demand type games, and are shooting for extremely high frame rates, then you will likely see significant gains from upgrading to the 5900x.

 

[irishconvict]

Alrighty cheers, yeah I'm looking at getting a rtx 3090 for my screens. With the 5900x

I have alot of setting changed to play with the 2080 but only getting around 40fps.
So I'm hoping to atlest get 60fps with a rtx 3090 and a 5900

 

[irishconvict]

Alrighty cheers, yeah I'm looking at getting a rtx 3090 for my screens. With the 5900x

I have alot of setting changed to play with the 2080 but only getting around 40fps.
So I'm hoping to atlest get 60fps with a rtx 3090 and a 5900

Games i play are call of duty mw, cold war and world of warcraft

 

[xxscienceboyxx]

Games i play are call of duty mw, cold war and world of warcraft

If your system is for only gaming, I'd suggest the 5800x. The 5900x, with 12 cores, is a bit overkill for only gaming.
But if you're going to do content creation too (ex. video editing) then the 5900x might be better if you have the budget.

 

[irishconvict]

If your system is for only gaming, I'd suggest the 5800x. The 5900x, with 12 cores, is a bit overkill for only gaming.
But if you're going to do content creation too (ex. video editing) then the 5900x might be better if you have the budget.

Yeah only gaming no editing at all.
Would the 5900x perform better with more cores?

 

[Nemesia]

Yeah only gaming no editing at all.
Would the 5900x perform better with more cores?

Unless games start using more than 6 cores you won't see much of a difference between the 5600X, 5800X, 5900X and 5950X. It's like the 3600X, 3700X, 3800X, 3900X and 3950X. In some titles the 5900X is slower than the 5600X and 5800X but like in Hitman the 5900X is having a nice difference.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV2oZMUkRFg

 

[xxscienceboyxx]

Yeah only gaming no editing at all.
Would the 5900x perform better with more cores?

It might perform slight better, but by an imperceptible amount. The 5900x will be mostly the same as the 5800x for gaming, and I don't really think it would be worth $100 more for your use case.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Yeah only gaming no editing at all.
Would the 5900x perform better with more cores?

For "just" gaming? No, it won't. Not really.

In fact, seems like personal results from a lot of user data, and quite a few of the reviews, shows that the 5800x has a much higher all core sustained boost with a full load than the 5900x does, which likely translates to better overall gaming experience since those extra cores really aren't going to factor in favor of the 5900x in a gaming only scenario except in a very small sampling of titles that actually CAN use a lot of cores or in one or two cases, as many as you can throw at them.

Honestly, I think the 5600x would do what you need to do and would still be an incredible upgrade from the 2700x you have now. In fact, considering that this six core CPU beats out most of the current Gen Intel i7 and i9 CPUs in a variety of things including some gaming benchmarks, it's definitely a very good option and much cheaper. Then, perhaps you could put the difference in price aside towards your next upgrade which ought to be the graphics card. Few hundred bucks already saved to put towards that couldn't hurt at all.

 

[irishconvict]

Alrighty cheers guys,
Yeah I guess its the 5800x

 

[Darkbreeze]

Honestly, all these models have better single core performance than any previous CPUs that have ever been, so you can't really go wrong with any of them. Whatever you choose, will be a good choice, even if it's only the 5600x. The higher you go, maybe performance gets better, if what you're doing can benefit from it, maybe it doesn't. Probably offers moderately longer lifespan in terms of relevance though because applications and games DO consistently seem to improve in terms of how well they can leverage additional cores and threads as time goes by.

 

[irishconvict]

yeah thats true,
but im planning to get a rtx 3090 and run 3, 4k monitors for gaming so i thought the 5900x would be better due to the 3 screens, if that classed as multitasking while gaming.

i have 3 4k screens now but my 2080 and 2700x cpu struggle to get 50fps with changes to settings so im hoping the new cpu and 3090 will give me the well atlest 60fps

 

[sizzling]

yeah thats true,
but im planning to get a rtx 3090 and run 3, 4k monitors for gaming so i thought the 5900x would be better due to the 3 screens, if that classed as multitasking while gaming.

i have 3 4k screens now but my 2080 and 2700x cpu struggle to get 50fps with changes to settings so im hoping the new cpu and 3090 will give me the well atlest 60fps

Running 3 screens makes very little to no difference to the cpu, the majority of the extra workload is on the gpu. 60fps with one monitor will be similar cpu workload to 60 FPS across 3 monitors.

As you are only aiming for 60fps I see little need to upgrade your cpu. As an experiment set your game resolution to 3x1080p instead of 3x4k. Leave all other settings alone. If you now get over 60fps you have shown your current cpu can already handle 60fps. You just need a stronger gpu for such a demanding resolution (3x4k).

 

[Darkbreeze]

yeah thats true,
but im planning to get a rtx 3090 and run 3, 4k monitors for gaming so i thought the 5900x would be better due to the 3 screens, if that classed as multitasking while gaming.

i have 3 4k screens now but my 2080 and 2700x cpu struggle to get 50fps with changes to settings so im hoping the new cpu and 3090 will give me the well atlest 60fps

Those screens, and the resolution, and all of that display related stuff, literally have NOTHING to do with the CPU performance, at all, ever, so long as the graphics card is able to keep up with it's part of the job. Or at least, it has VERY little to do with it, in a worst case scenario.

It wouldn't matter if you had five 4k screens, or just one, the load on the CPU would mostly be the same either way. It's the graphics card that is going to get severely taxed by the high resolution and the number of displays. Now, the refresh rate is relevant, or might be, to the CPU, because you generally want a CPU that is capable enough to provide pretty close to the same frames per second as what the refresh rate is. Having a display with G-sync or Freesync reduces or eliminates some of this concern to some degree, but even so, you STILL kind of want to land in that zone that's relatively in the ballpark in terms of at least being within shouting distance of your refresh rate if not exceeding it, and we're talking minimum FPS, not average or peak, because minimums are where problems occur.

But, the refresh rate has nothing to do really, not directly anyhow, with CPU performance. It doesn't PUT a load on the CPU, you just want a CPU that is capable enough to be well matched for whatever the refresh rate of any displays being actively gamed on is.

Honestly the 5600x could manage 60fps without any problem on most games, IF the graphics card were capable enough to ensure that GX related performance isn't what is slowing things down and right now I'm pretty sure it IS the biggest culprit in that regard. If you get ANY Ryzen 5000 series CPU that's been released so far, and an RTX 3090, you should be well on your way to where you want to be and beyond, and if you're not, well, there's nothing else out there that's better that could get you there anyhow, so it wouldn't really matter. You'd already be doing about the best you could do. Consider, one year ago the 9900k was the best gaming CPU money could buy, and the 5600x outperforms it in most titles and most applications.

So do the higher end 5000 series models. So, anything along those lines is doing pretty well and for a multiple 4k setup graphics is going to absolutely be where any tremendous bottlenecks are found unless you're trying to get 144fps or higher. Then the CPU might become a factor, but if so, there isn't anything better you could opt for anyway, so (shrug).......

 

[irishconvict]

Cheers guys really appreciate the input with this

 

[LeiHeJun]

Yeah only gaming no editing at all.
Would the 5900x perform better with more cores?

A cpu with more cores, has slower individual cores.

For example each core of 5800x is faster than each core of 5900x.