Question Xeon X5670 vs Ryzen 3700X

hirschbergt

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2009
43
3
18,545
2
I’m looking at upgrading my aging Xeon x5670 (currently clocked at 4.1ghz), as I am beginning to wonder if it is bottlenecking my gtx 1070 some in certain games. Does that sound realistic, or have I just been bitten by the upgrade bug? I game at 1440p @ 60hz, but I might eventually upgrade to 144hz one day. Would a Ryzen 3700X be a sound upgrade and ensure that the 1070 and, eventually, later generation cards have plenty of headroom? Or would it be total overkill?
 

13thmonkey

Titan
Moderator
Not that I'm aware of, that's a pre sandy bridge chip I think, so raw performance quite a lot, maybe 40% per core clock for clock, only they'll clock faster too. How that effects gaming will vary a lot, but if be expecting 60fps would be easy wherever the gpu can cope.
 
Preliminary gaming performance indicates parity or superiority to the 9700K, so, compare your current CPU to the 9700K to roughly extrapolate...

If severely GPU limited, for example, using a GTX1060 or below, gains from CPU upgrades can be often minimal (although there may be worthy boosts to minimum FPS/1% lows, which is perhaps at least as ( if not more than) important than average fps
 

hirschbergt

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2009
43
3
18,545
2
Well I’m wanting a platform that ultimately can handle up to at least 120-144hz at some point, and I’m looking at improving the minimum FPS, so I want to make sure the cpu I select is well suited for those purposes. As for cpu usage during gaming, what application would you recommend for either viewing or recording the load while playing?
 
I use hwinfo64. Select the "sensors only" option when you launch it. It doesn't have built in graphing, but you can tell it to log the results to a .CSV file and then graph it afterwards in Excel or whatnot if you want
 

hirschbergt

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2009
43
3
18,545
2
I just confirmed via afterburner that at most one or two cores rarely hit maybe 90% usage when playing a game (rise of the tomb raider), so I guess I’m now unsure if a cpu upgrade would really do much for minimum FPS. Thoughts?
 

boju

Champion
In msi Afterburner there are fields for individual cores/threads and also total combined cpu usage. Think from memory this entry is called just cpu usage with no number.

60fps isn't such a burden on cpu's as there's not much frame pre-rendering going on. @100+ fps can increase cpu usages and depending how intensive a game is can make hard work for even the best cpus today.

This guy explains the relationship between cpu and fps.

 
Reactions: hirschbergt

hirschbergt

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2009
43
3
18,545
2
Boju, thank you for the video. It was very informative. So it looks like upgrading the platform makes sense in the long term since I eventually plan/hope to upgrade to a 144hz monitor.
 
Reactions: boju

boju

Champion
144Hz+ has been increasing in popularity and higher end graphics cards can achieve most of that depending on settings. With high demand on cpu's, many don't realise how much frame preparation has on a cpu until it's bought and tried and then complain about poor optimisations when their system has fps drops and can't cope. Goes to show in that video, anyone with higher end 6 cores nowadays wanting the same thing aren't safe.
 
Last edited:

13thmonkey

Titan
Moderator
144Hz+ has been increasing in popularity and higher end graphics cards can achieve most of that depending on settings. With high demand on cpu's, many don't realise how much frame preparation has on a cpu until it's bought and tried. And then people blame poor optimisations. Goes to show in that video, anyone with a 6 cores nowadays wanting the same thing have wasted their money.
And that is often down to single core speed, multiple cores may give you stability.
As to whether the 3700X can do it, we'll find out in 3 weeks.
 

boju

Champion
I agree cores helping stability. Higher fps without hitting max usages is part of that and current i5s aren't capable from user experience ive seen. This is cpu usage levels and not benchmarks saying how many fps a cpu can achieve. Besides 1% lows, there's no other kind if measurement that i know of that measures cpu usages properly in an official manner. Time constraints i would understand why there aren't any. :)
 

hirschbergt

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2009
43
3
18,545
2
I guess I’m at a bit of an impasse. Do I upgrade my monitor to a 144hz 1440p first, or go with upgrading to the 3700X platform first? I can’t do both at the same time due to budget constraints. My initial inclination is to upgrade the cpu and associated platform first for initial “future proofing” and then look at 144hz later down the road, as I anticipate the 3700X will last me for quite some time.
 

fagetti

Notable
Mar 1, 2018
919
15
1,165
75
with i7-875k overclocked i get no bottleneck with 980ti which is similar to 1070 performance, and this is way worse processor with less cores and single core performance. I think you wont be bottlenecked with even 1080 , 1080ti might be the limit.

You can always overclock that cpu a bit more too, to around 4.5 ghz your fine with 1070 1080 atleast.
 

hirschbergt

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2009
43
3
18,545
2
One last question related to this topic: once I make the switch to the 3700X and X470 (or X570) platform should I plan on reinstalling Windows 10? Or is W10 "smart" enough to handle such a significant hardware change?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS