Question Need help with CPU upgrade for 4K gaming

[twizted3kgt]

Hey folks, I'm having a hard time researching which CPU to choose. I've been at it for 2 days and still not sure.

My current setup is FX-8350 at stock clock paired with an overclocked RTX 2080. I'm running a 60hz 4k setup and am looking to alleviate the bottleneck of my old CPU in newer games like BFV, Metro, and PUBG. Especially when recording in-game using Nvidia Highlights or similar programs.

What I'm struggling to find is a benchmark of all the CPU's at 2160p resolution. Found a few 1080p ranking lists, but that does not apply directly to 4k.

Now, I'm typically a 'bang-for-buck' type of buyer, so I had settled in on the R5 2600 with the intentions of overclocking it to match the 2600x. However, there is only a $30 difference between those 2 right now, so I was thinking of just grabbing the 2600x. Problem is, I can't find any 4K data! Would one be better than the other at 4k? Does Intel blow AMD out of the water at 4K, as it does at 1080p?

Would really appreciate some answers or at least a link to a 4k CPU ranking by FPS in games. And also which motherboards for the recommended CPU's would be nice.

Additionally, my budget is more of a choice this time around. I prefer bang-for-buck, but I love future-proofing if there's a large enough gap in performance. I also understand Ryzen 3xxx series is coming this year, but I'm looking to make the purchase this week. If the new Ryzen's are that much better, I'll deal with it at that time.

Thanks.

 

[Phazoner]

Playing at 4K makes any graphics card struggling so you don't really need a very powerful processor as it won't have to prepare many frames. The 2600 is more than enough.

 

[CountMike]

I'm all for x models because coupled with 400 series chipset OC is not necessary and even if OC-ed it can hit higher numbers.
Just for comparison, I had same MB and FX 8350 runnung at 4.9 GHz and first Ryzen I had, R5 1600x on a x370 MB had at least double performance. 2600x ought to do even better.

 

[twizted3kgt]

I'm all for x models because coupled with 400 series chipset OC is not necessary and even if OC-ed it can hit higher numbers.
Just for comparison, I had same MB and FX 8350 runnung at 4.9 GHz and first Ryzen I had, R5 1600x on a x370 MB had at least double performance. 2600x ought to do even better.

That's the thing about not finding much data. The little bit of data I did find showed little to no difference between the two at 4k, and in more than one case the x model underperforms.

Playing at 4K makes any graphics card struggling so you don't really need a very powerful processor as it won't have to prepare many frames. The 2600 is more than enough.

I guess my concern is that at 1080p, there is a 40-50fps difference between the 99xx Intel and the nearest AMD on the same graphics card. I've found ONE benchmark comparing the same thing at 4K, which showed a miniscule difference between those CPU's. But it was ONE game in ONE benchmark. I want more to go on than that, but the benchmarks don't seem to exist.

Point being, if there is a large fps difference between the top tier Intel and AMD in some games at 4k, as there is at 1080p, then it may be worth my while to go with the Intel. I just can't find the data on it.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Resolution doesn't have any direct affect on CPU usage. If a given CPU is capable of of X fps in a certain game at 1080p, it will be capable of X fps at 4K (if we assume the graphics card is powerful enough such that you're completely CPU-limited).

The difference between one CPU and another will be much reduced at 4K compared to 1080p.

For 60 Hz gaming, any current Ryzen 5/i5 or better should be sufficient.

 

[letmepicyou]

I'm as much of a bang-for-the-buck guy as anybody. But honestly, the last few systems I've built I've been all-in with Intel and, has a gamer, I do not regret the decision.

First, no cpu micro architecture currently has a 100% fix for the spectre/meltdown flaw. That having been said, only the 9th Gen Intels (such as the 9700K I currently run in my gaming rig) have the BEGINNINGS of a fix being integrated into them, so for this reason alone it's a no-brainer.

Second, I have to qualify by saying I'm a long-time AMD fanboy. You can't begin to imagine the number of Socket A and 939 cpus I've been through. But when it comes to gaming performance, right now Intel rules. You may get great "bang for the buck" with AMD (I also have a Ryzen 1600 system that runs quite nicely), if you want the most performance and have the cheddar cheese, I can't recommend the new 9th gen Intel's heartily enough. My gaming PC is hooked to a 65" 4K Samsung display, and even with my single GTX 1080, performance when gaming is beautifully smooth and fluid. I do plan on adding another GTX 1080, only because some games scale very well with SLI and 4k (some, obviously, do not). If you're on a tight budget, AMD's chips do great for the money (2700X is a particular gem). But give Intel serious consideration. You're only cheating yourself not to.

 

[twizted3kgt]

So I ended up going with the Ryzen 5 2600 and a x470 board. OC was the easiest I've ever encountered, 4.0ghz stable on stock cooler with room to play if I really wanted to (I don't). Plays all the games as fluidly and smoothly as I had hoped for and records gameplay without hiccups while doing so. Thanks for the opinions folks.