[SOLVED] Should I upgrade my CPU from a 14500 to a 7800X3D or a 13600K, or just upgrade to a 1440p monitor ?

[Nitrate55]

I upgraded from an i5-13400F to an i5-14500 two months ago to solve a potential bottleneck with my 4070 Super and ended up regretting it, not because there's anything wrong with the processor, but because I realized that for $100 more, I could've gone with a 7800X3D.

The problem with that is, I'd have to buy a new motherboard and RAM, which with the price of the CPU itself, comes up to $605. I can afford this, but now that I'm past the return window for the 14500, I'm wondering if spending this kind of money is even worth it at this point. I was planning on upgrading my motherboard in the future (mostly so I can get a mobo with 3 SSD slots, the one I have now only has 2) and found a deal for a motherboard + CPU bundle (i5-13600K) for $385.

Thing is, the whole reason I upgraded to the 14500 in the first place was to deal with the possible bottleneck from playing at 1080p. I've had my eye on a 1440p monitor for some time now (an AOC Q27G3XMN) and the GPU I have is advertised toward 1440p rather than 1080p anyway. Should I just keep the processor I have now and get the monitor instead? I'm thinking that's the best option, but I just want to be sure first.

Current specs are listed in my signature.

 

[TerryLaze]

The thing is, the whole reason I upgraded to the 14500 in the first place was to deal with a bottleneck from playing at 1080p.

What exactly do you think this bottleneck is?
I mean usually people don't want messed up graphics (tearing) so they play with some kind of *sync and if your system can get the amount of FPS to sync with your monitor then what's the issue?

If you expect 100% usage on both the GPU and the CPU, this will never happen.

 

[Nitrate55]

What exactly do you think this bottleneck is?
I mean usually people don't want messed up graphics (tearing) so they play with some kind of *sync and if your system can get the amount of FPS to sync with your monitor then what's the issue?

If you expect 100% usage on both the GPU and the CPU, this will never happen.

I don't expect 100% usage on both, I'm aware that's unattainable.

The problem was high CPU Usage and low GPU usage, though I only ever saw other people saying that the 13400F isn't powerful enough for a 4070 Super at 1080p. I did not observe a bottleneck while testing my system with a 13400F on Cyberpunk. All I got was low CPU usage (around 50%) and high GPU Usage (about 80%) with DLSS and Frame Gen on at ultra settings. Turning DLSS and Frame Gen off just decreased the CPU usage even further. Not sure if I should've tested more games, but I ended up selling the 13400f to a friend dealing with a bottleneck of his own (high CPU usage, low GPU usage) before I could test any other games.

Right now, my "bottleneck" problem, assuming it ever existed, seems to be solved. With that in mind, I'm mostly just wondering whether I should switch to AMD, stay on Intel and just go for a 13600K or 14600K, or just get a monitor upgrade. I'm leaning toward the third option at the moment, I just wanted to be sure before going ahead with getting a new monitor.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Here's how I'd determine if I really needed a CPU upgrade: run the games I want to run on the lowest graphical settings. If I'm not satisfied with the performance or I don't like the CPU utilization, then it's time to upgrade.

Anything else just helps me sleep better at night, so to speak.

 

[35below0]

The 7800X3D is better-ish than 14500, the real advantage being L3 cache. But both are more than good enough for 1080p and 1440p gaming.

It burns to have missed an 7800X3D, but if you do buy it and an AM5 platform, you'll be $600 down and gain very little in performance.
If you put that money towards a killer monitor or towards a next gen PC, you will gain something.

What is that 13600K bundle?
I have a 13600K and a 12100 and the difference isn't so huge. Maybe don't listen to everyone who insists a 13400F bottlenecks a 4070 Super. It may in a few games, but they're a pretty good match.

Also, the price is suspicious. The 13600K is solid, but the motherboard is probably doo-doo for that price.


If you want a new CPU, skip the 13600K and aim for the 14700K on a good motherboard. That should keep you satisfied for some years.
At the same time, even a 14500 -> 14700K move isn't going to be magical. :/

I humbly suggest a swank 1440p monitor or a new 50XX nvidia once they roll out next year.

 

[Nitrate55]

At the same time, even a 14500 -> 14700K move isn't going to be magical. :/

Yeah, I didn't even notice any difference when going from the 13400F to the 14500, not in gaming or general day-to-day usage. I honestly would've stayed on the 13400F, but I felt bad as I'd sold my old 4060 to a friend whose CPU wasn't good enough for it and he was encountering a bad CPU bottleneck, so I passed my 13400F on to him and went with the 14500. Only now do I realize I should've spent a bit more and went with a 7800X3D. Oh well, too late now.

I humbly suggest a swank 1440p monitor or a new 50XX nvidia once they roll out next year.

Yeah, I'm thinking a monitor upgrade will be the best solution here. To be honest, I was going to buy the monitor either way, as I've been itching to get my hands on it (a Mini-LED! And an affordable one too. Still can't believe it exists), so this post was mostly to see if the CPU upgrade would be worthwhile. Guess I'll just keep the money and save up for a 7800X3D later on down the line, or whichever 9000 series AMD CPU takes its place in the future.

What is that 13600K bundle?

Here's the bundle. It's for an Aorus Elite, and as far as I've heard, Gigabyte's Aorus and Gaming product lines are supposed to be pretty good. The mobo by itself only costs $150, which seems too good to be true. I might actually still get it later this year or next year, without the CPU, just for the fact that it has 3 SSD slots and Wi-Fi 6, and VRMs good enough for an upgrade to a 14700K in the future.

 

[TerryLaze]

All I got was low CPU usage (around 50%) and high GPU Usage (about 80%) with DLSS and Frame Gen on at ultra settings. Turning DLSS and Frame Gen off just decreased the CPU usage even further.

So you got 50% CPU usage and think that that is low so you want to get an even bigger CPU........so that the CPU usage will be even lower?!

Right now your CPU is dealing fine with games laying back at 50% , assuming it gets the FPS you want there is no reason to change anything.
Your GPU is at 80% which is perfect because it has 20% overhead for more difficult areas in the game, so you will get higher GPU usage instead of lower frames.

 

[Phaaze88]

Should I just keep the processor I have now and get the monitor instead? I'm thinking that's the best option, but I just want to be sure first.

Are you honestly dissatisfied with the performance you get now? 'Cause it looks like you might just need to disable the crap that's displaying resources used. It can be poisonous to get too attached to it.

All I got was low CPU usage (around 50%) and high GPU Usage (about 80%) with DLSS and Frame Gen on at ultra settings. Turning DLSS and Frame Gen off just decreased the CPU usage even further.

Whole cpu utility is a useless metric for games - unless you're maxing out some old quad core or other.
Per core, on the other hand...
Speed is still king, for the most part. Large cache(3D Vcache) is situational; great when a game takes advantage of it, negligible when one doesn't.

So you got 50% CPU usage and think that that is low so you want to get an even bigger CPU........so that the CPU usage will be even lower?!

Those 'make moar cores' memes aged well, didn't they?

Your GPU is at 80% which is perfect because it has 20% overhead for more difficult areas in the game, so you will get higher GPU usage instead of lower frames.

A good point for both per core and gpu utility that gets overlooked.

 

[TerryLaze]

Those 'make moar cores' memes aged well, didn't they?

Well those where about dual and quad cores, of that time...
A lot of todays games would run pretty badly on 4 old cores with no htt, not unplayable except for a few but pretty bad.

 

[Nitrate55]

Are you honestly dissatisfied with the performance you get now?

I'm satisfied with how the CPU performs. I spent some time after getting the CPU second-guessing myself and thinking that I should've bought something different, that I'd made the wrong decision, but to tell the truth, the performance is completely fine. I think I may have convinced myself that I was missing out on performance, but I'm starting to think my expectations were too high.

Right now your CPU is dealing fine with games laying back at 50% , assuming it gets the FPS you want there is no reason to change anything.
Your GPU is at 80% which is perfect because it has 20% overhead for more difficult areas in the game, so you will get higher GPU usage instead of lower frames.

Yeah, after upgrading to the 14500, I took advantage of that 20% overhead on Cyberpunk by installing a big graphical enhancement mod, turning on Path Tracing, and getting a bunch of texture mods. I was able to get the GPU usage up to 95% with the same performance as before, averaging around 112–125 FPS with little to no stuttering. Though, since I've only tested Cyberpunk so far, I kept thinking I was missing out on performance. I realize now that I may have just been second-guessing myself for no good reason.

'Cause it looks like you might just need to disable the crap that's displaying resources used. It can be poisonous to get too attached to it.

You're right. I'm starting to think I need to just stop messing with these graphs and resource displays. I kept hearing about people spending too much time looking at performance graphs and then paying hundreds of dollars for components they don't need to solve problems that don't even exist or aren't even discernible with the graphs and resource monitors turned off. Never thought it would happen to me, though...

In any case, what's done is done. I'm just gonna keep the CPU I have now and go for the monitor upgrade once I've saved up for it. Thanks for the help.

 

[hotaru.hino]

You're right. I'm starting to think I need to just stop messing with these graphs and resource displays. I kept hearing about people spending too much time looking at performance graphs and then paying hundreds of dollars for components they don't need to solve problems that don't even exist or aren't even discernible with the graphs and resource monitors turned off. Never thought it would happen to me, though...

I think stats on things is interesting to look at, but the problem is as you mentioned: people get fixated on "gaming" these stats to min-max everything.

And then there's the issue that a lot of stats can't be taken at face value anymore. For instance, CPU temperatures for recent models needs a lot more context to see if there's a problem now, because the CPUs are designed to hit their thermal ceiling first, rather than hit their power limit first. So it's actually expected from the manufacturer for CPU cores to live in around 90C under a workload.

 

[35below0]

Yeah, I didn't even notice any difference when going from the 13400F to the 14500, not in gaming or general day-to-day usage. I honestly would've stayed on the 13400F, but I felt bad as I'd sold my old 4060 to a friend whose CPU wasn't good enough for it and he was encountering a bad CPU bottleneck, so I passed my 13400F on to him and went with the 14500. Only now do I realize I should've spent a bit more and went with a 7800X3D. Oh well, too late now.

I can't fault you for trying to do the right thing.

Here's the bundle. It's for an Aorus Elite, and as far as I've heard, Gigabyte's Aorus and Gaming product lines are supposed to be pretty good. The mobo by itself only costs $150, which seems too good to be true. I might actually still get it later this year or next year, without the CPU, just for the fact that it has 3 SSD slots and Wi-Fi 6, and VRMs good enough for an upgrade to a 14700K in the future.

It's ok, but it's a budget board. There's better motherboards for similar money. If it was an Aorus Elite X z790, then it'd be a better deal.

If you describe key features in as much detail as possible, i'm sure folks here will find recommendations for you.


For now, there is one board i know off the top of my head, and it's better than the B760 Aorus, with 13 Phase 55A DrMOS VRM, 2 PCIe gen 4 M.2 slots + 1 Gen 3 slot, USB-C 3.2 Gen2x2 port + Gen 1 front panel header, and on top of it all it's DDR4 so you can keep your existing CL18 RAM. And it's only $133 on Amazon.

Audio isn't so great, and it's not as great as the AsRock z690 Extreme, but that board is sold out now.
You need to flash it for the 14500. It's got BIOS flashback.

https://pg.asrock.com/MB/Intel/Z690 PG Riptide/index.asp

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/kYwypg/asrock-z690-pg-riptide-atx-lga1700-motherboard-z690-pg-riptide

An excellent B760 board is the MSi Tomahawk: https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/MAG-B760-TOMAHAWK-WIFI/Overview
Briefly, 12 Phase 75A DrMOS VRM, 3 gen 4 M.2 slots, USB-C same as AsRock Riptide. It's DDR5, so new RAM.
$200 on Amazon
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/Cx...tx-lga1700-motherboard-mag-b760-tomahawk-wifi


For $10 more...
https://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Z690 Taichi/index.asp

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/VVC48d/asrock-z690-taichi-atx-lga1700-motherboard-z690-taichi

This is a bonkers motherboard, and it's overkill in every way but price. 👍
DDR5


And finally a z790 board: https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/Z790-AORUS-ELITE-X-WIFI7/sp#sp

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/MZWJ7P/gigabyte-z790-aorus-elite-x-wifi7-atx-lga1700-motherboard-z790-aorus-elite-x-wifi7

Modern and up to date with WiFi 7 and 4 Gen 4 M.2 slots, good audio, and overall no weakness. Still no DisplayPort 1.4 :/ but you'll be using your GPU so it doesn't matter.
It's $300 on Amazon.


And this poses a problem. As it stands right now, you're good with both CPU and motherboard. The B760 DS3H is a budget board so upgrading to a "nice" one would be great. But spending money would not.
If you're going to stay with your 14500 + 4070 Super for a long time, then i think you should grab either the Riptide or the Taichi. Let's face it, Taichi is droolworthy, but...

If you're not too attached to your 14500, and would not mind being one of the early adopters, you could save some money towards a new LGA1851 CPU and 800 series chipset motherboard.
But if all that brings is gen 5 M.2 slots with fan coolers, i don't know i'd bother. Gen 3 is already stupid fast, gen 4 no stupider and gen 5 is only hotter, no stupider. They're all fast.

Gen on gen improvements are not so impressive. Jumping several generations ahead is a different story. Or if there's a fantastic new technology you want a piece of like SSDs a decade ago for example.

AM5 and an X3D CPU are looking like a better option than moving from 14th to 15th gen. You'd pay for the switch but still get a few years of possible upgrades.


If you can swing one of the z690 motherboards, Riptide to save money, Taichi to get a top end board with nicer audio and stuff, then later on you could get yourself a 14700K and keep the machine relevant long enough for several new generations.

If all you need is extra M.2 slots, the AsRock Riptide is the cheapest way to get a decent motherboard.

But ultimately, except for a motherboard change to get M.2, you can't really get much extra performance no matter how much money you throw at this problem.

A z790 Aorus Elite X WiFi7 gets you fast WiFi, but also new RAM with higher latency and it all costs a fortune. The result? A few extra frames here and there, which is ok but not a great return at all for the money spend.
Even with a 14700K it's not going to beat your existing machine into the dirt. so why bother?


As for Gigabyte products being good, i've had a bunch of their motherboards and i've had no complaints with quality. Sometimes a feature i would like is missing but generally even the cheapest ones will have QFlash for easy flashing without CPU/RAM, and i haven't had or heard of complaining about long boot times.
I would recommend a Gigabyte motherboard but in your case, i see others offering better.
I've never had trouble with AsRock either, and only their cheapest boards are suspect.


Anyway, i've given you something to think about. Hope it's good advice.

A lot of todays games would run pretty badly on 4 old cores with no htt, not unplayable except for a few but pretty bad.

This is true. 3570K was nice in it's day and still can keep up today with a lot of tasks, but new games would be too much. And by new i mean anything no older than 5 years.

 

[Nitrate55]

Anyway, i've given you something to think about. Hope it's good advice.

This is absolutely phenomenal advice, thank you so much for this write-up. I'd been looking for some good motherboards that didn't have absurd prices, and you've given me some amazing picks here.

I'll probably go with either the Taichi or the Tomahawk. The Riptide looks like a great deal, and the audio wouldn't be an issue since I use a DAC with my headphones, so I don't even depend on the built-in sound card. The real catch is its lack of a WiFi card. I use WiFi with my current board, and I've never installed a WiFi card onto a motherboard, so I'm not sure whether that's an easy process.

With that in mind, and seeing as I'm gonna have to save up for DDR5 RAM anyway, I'll probably get the Taichi. It looks like a very nice board to have.

Thanks again, this was extremely helpful.

 

[35below0]

I had some weird filter enabled in PcPartPicker so i missed a few parts.

The Steel legend is an option if you're looking at the Taichi. It's cheaper and it has WiFi 6E
https://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Z690 Steel Legend WiFi 6ED5/index.asp

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/f79wrH/asrock-z690-steel-legend-wifi-6ed5-atx-lga1700-motherboard-z690-steel-legend-wifi-6ed5

Price difference is only $20 but if Taichi is too much...

z790 AsRock Lightning for $170 also stands out. Got a lot of good stuff including WiFi 6E, 3 M.2 slots and USB-C 3.2 Gen 2x2.
https://pg.asrock.com/MB/Intel/Z790 Lightning WiFi/index.asp

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/WDMMnQ/asrock-z790-lightning-wifi-atx-lga1700-motherboard-z790-lightning-wifi

Compare it carefuly spec vs spec with the two z690 boards. It's got worse looks, as if that matters, and no DisplayPort, but there's HDMI 2.1, should you need iGPU.

Maybe one of them ticks all the boxes? If so, it comes down to price or personal choice.


B760M Gigabyte Aorus Elite AX is decent for a budget board but is more limited. You get what you pay for, and cheaping out here kinda hurts in the long run.
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/2v...x-atx-lga1700-motherboard-b760-aorus-elite-ax

B760 AORUS ELITE AX (rev. 1.x) Key Features | Motherboard - GIGABYTE Global

Lasting Quality from GIGABYTE.GIGABYTE Ultra Durable™ motherboards bring together a unique blend of features and technologies that offer users the absolute ...

www.gigabyte.com

You can try sorting motherboards using PPP:
https://pcpartpicker.com/products/m...62&sort=price&V=10000,9000,8000&mt=ddr5&E=3,7
I would advise double checking mATX boards or avoiding them completely, mostly because they cut down features and often have "budget" VRM.

Glad i could help. Happy hunting.

 

[TheHerald]

I don't expect 100% usage on both, I'm aware that's unattainable.

The problem was high CPU Usage and low GPU usage, though I only ever saw other people saying that the 13400F isn't powerful enough for a 4070 Super at 1080p. I did not observe a bottleneck while testing my system with a 13400F on Cyberpunk. All I got was low CPU usage (around 50%) and high GPU Usage (about 80%) with DLSS and Frame Gen on at ultra settings. Turning DLSS and Frame Gen off just decreased the CPU usage even further. Not sure if I should've tested more games, but I ended up selling the 13400f to a friend dealing with a bottleneck of his own (high CPU usage, low GPU usage) before I could test any other games.

Right now, my "bottleneck" problem, assuming it ever existed, seems to be solved. With that in mind, I'm mostly just wondering whether I should switch to AMD, stay on Intel and just go for a 13600K or 14600K, or just get a monitor upgrade. I'm leaning toward the third option at the moment, I just wanted to be sure before going ahead with getting a new monitor.

What the actual heck? You used DLSS at ultra performance? Why? Of course you will be CPU bound at that point.I just dont get what the issue is.

 

[Nitrate55]

What the actual heck? You used DLSS at ultra performance? Why? Of course you will be CPU bound at that point.I just dont get what the issue is.

Re-read what you replied to. I said I had DLSS and Frame Gen on at ultra settings, meaning all graphics settings maxed out, not ultra performance. DLSS was set to quality.

In any case, this is not relevant. The question I asked about which component to buy has already been answered.