We compare the three X3D chips available on the AM4 platform: the Ryzen 5 5600X3D, Ryzen 7 5700X3D, and Ryzen 7 5800X3D to see which model offers the best value to PC gamers.
AMD X3D CPU Versus: 5800X3D vs 5700X3D vs 5600X3D
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
godrilla
Posts: 1,246 +797
I wonder how much cache headroom of a bottleneck do we have before we hit a plautau?
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 5,126 +9,510
"this model will surely age better"
I disagree. By the time the 6 core 5600x3d isnt enough for games, the 5700 will also be well too long in the tooth. This console gen, 6 cores is enough because thats all consoles get for actual game usage. When 8 cores for console games is the norm, we'll be on zen 6 or higher, and zen 3 even with cache wont keep up, especially if consoles are rocking zen 4.
We saw this with the FX series. Having 8 cores didnt matter, by the times games used more then 4 the FX was too slow to be useful, and the core i3 STILL beat it on a technicality. Anything that heavily used 6+ was unusable on the FX.
I disagree. By the time the 6 core 5600x3d isnt enough for games, the 5700 will also be well too long in the tooth. This console gen, 6 cores is enough because thats all consoles get for actual game usage. When 8 cores for console games is the norm, we'll be on zen 6 or higher, and zen 3 even with cache wont keep up, especially if consoles are rocking zen 4.
We saw this with the FX series. Having 8 cores didnt matter, by the times games used more then 4 the FX was too slow to be useful, and the core i3 STILL beat it on a technicality. Anything that heavily used 6+ was unusable on the FX.
Yeah, those AM4 cpus won't hold their place forever. A 5800x3d is not a second i7 4790k. And let's also not forget the hefty clock speed penalty because of the 3d cache for 5800x3d and it's siblings. Marketing now tells you to skip DDR5 and drop this gem into your AM4 socket and forget the next years. I am not so sure. Somewhere in the near future those AM4 3d cpus will suffer from their weak clocks and single core performance in gaming. For productivity they already suffer from those restraints today. For gaming, especially if the game is not cache optimized, this will be the same.
Even if you are on a budget and still using AM4, you should put that into consideration. A plain and cheap 7600x is 4% faster than a 5800x3d at 1080p (average over 50 games, source: Techspot). Expect this gap to grow when 9600x hits the road in approx. Q3 this year.
Even if you are on a budget and still using AM4, you should put that into consideration. A plain and cheap 7600x is 4% faster than a 5800x3d at 1080p (average over 50 games, source: Techspot). Expect this gap to grow when 9600x hits the road in approx. Q3 this year.
Last edited:
Totally disagreed. In real world scenarions more cores is always better than benchmarks show. That is because benchmarks only run single software at a time 99.9% of cases and always show best case scenario. However on real life situation you always have multiple software running at same time and software errors Do happen.
This is very evident if you look at benchmarks from start of dual core era. Benchmarks said single cores were better. Everyone who at that time had used dual core CPU on real world situations, disagreed.
Same applies today. More cores for real world, less cores for benchmarks. Trash cores like Intel E-waste cores are exception of course.
What? Did the 4790K last forever somehow? The 5800X3D will be at least as great long-term as the 4790K if not more because it still has CPU power to spare for gaming today, see in this article.
Which hasn't held it back in gaming compared to it's non-X3D siblings, see this article.
What marketing? You are aware that AMD sells a full line of equal to higher performance DDR5 CPUs and they'd like to sell those as well? AM4 users continue to have a great set of choices. People like choices.
You'll note the strong gaming performance as displayed in this article. And single core is a strength of these CPUs, see: ACC results, a single-core heavy game. Yes at some point these X3D CPUs will fall behind, as will every other CPU out there so any point you might be making isn't clear. What alternative are you offering?
The 7600X will require an AM4 owner to buy a new Mobo and DDR5, making it significantly more expensive than a 5800X3D or 5700X3D, or 5600X3D if you live near a Microcenter for the same performance. And then adding a 9600X will increase the cost again.
There are tradeoffs for everything but I don't see what your balance is here. TechSpot/HUB has done the cost analysis more than once and putting an AM4 X3D in an existing AM4 Mobo is simply the best gaming improvement per cost available today, though even a 5600 is good if you're still on Zen/Zen+.
If you're building a new system, then AM5 is better for the upgrade path and if you prefer Intel, maybe wait 'til next gen for the same reasons.
Last edited:
Mr Majestyk
Posts: 2,021 +1,862
And what would X3D bring to the table with even 4070 Ti/7900XT. These are best case scenarios with low res and ridiculous gpu.
In most cases X3D at 1440p+ and lower end gpu won't see much improvement other than in a few games and for that you get much worse productivity scores. Only thing about Zen 4 X3D is how much less power they use.
.
I would still get say 14700 for perfect balance of gaming and productivity.
In most cases X3D at 1440p+ and lower end gpu won't see much improvement other than in a few games and for that you get much worse productivity scores. Only thing about Zen 4 X3D is how much less power they use.
.
I would still get say 14700 for perfect balance of gaming and productivity.
Better frame time consistency in games with high CPU usage. Most notably, I noticed a welcome improvement in open world games moving from a 5600 to a 5800X3D using a 6800 XT, with a reduction in traversal stutter. A little difference in some games, and nothing in some other games. If you upgrade from a 3700X or similar the difference will be even bigger.
These are Zen 3 parts and this is a gaming-focused site and article. X3D is the wrong choice if you're not primarily gaming.
Last edited:
dankbot420
Posts: 14 +11
ScottSoapbox
Posts: 951 +1,688
I replaced a 3900X with a 5800X3D and got 8% improvement in FPS and 13% improvement in lows in Spider-man. Thats at 4K with RT with a 3080.
MarcusNumb
Posts: 147 +282
I'm using a 3600x with a 3070ti at 1080p, should an upgrade to a 5700x3d will be worthy ? Recently I'm having stuttering on my screen while gaming, not a lot but it has not happened before so I'm thinking about an upgrade
I've recently upgraded from a 3600x to a 5800x and games are alot smoother, a big difference, so an x3d would be well worth it especially at 1080p.
I don't. Currently there are only two CPUs for productivity (CPU) that uses big little style architecture, ie at least two types of cores and other one different architecture and also is much faster. Hyper threading "cores" and cores with same architecture are not considered here.
Those are: Intel Alder Lake and Raptor Lake.
Anything else? Servers? Basically no. Even ARM server CPUs tend to use on single core architecture. Laptops? ARM-based Chromebooks perhaps but Chromebooks are barely good for productivity. Desktops? No. Tablets yes but tablets for productivity, eh? Phones, no comment. Apple does use this kind of architecture on some cases but Apple is more focused on GPU productivity for obvious reasons.
So why Intel is only one that makes hybrid architecture CPU for clearly productivity purposes? Because they didn't have any other choice. For productivity, hybrid architecture sucks, plain and simple. It looks good on benchmarks but when Thread director considers important job to be "background task", that task goes into crap cores and so much about that.
14700 is simply joke or productivity. Unless you are running only one task at a time, Cinebench or similar, of course. For any form of multitasking it will suck.
ScottSoapbox
Posts: 951 +1,688
Depends on the game of course, but I believe it would be a nice upgrade for you.
As Spider-man Remastered was a game where I wasn't seeing has high FPS as reviews that included 3080 data, I decided to upgrade and did a before and after with that game at the settings I use when I swapped the CPU on my system. This was just a few weeks ago after many patches had made the CPU limit on Spider-man better.
4K with RT with a 3080, the FPS highs improved 8% and lows 13%.
I personally did it to give enough life to the system that I could upgrade the card again (likely 5070/5080) and not be (too) held back by the CPU.
godrilla
Posts: 1,246 +797
It would be extremely hard to get any accurate deltas without consistencies between runs. Single player titles are scripted, more or less linear and reproducible.
A budget B650M, vanilla DDR5 32GB and a 7600(x) is not 'significantly' more expensive than a new 5800x3d or 5700d. If you feel 100$ or more is a problem then maybe you should'nt invest in hardware parts at this moment of your life.
Staying with AM4 is perfectly fine. But please come up with some real life reasons like being heavily invested in large chunks of fast DDR4 Ram or not wanting to switch boards and so on. Those are good reasons. Yes, I know there are gaming enthusiasts out there that are so broke, anything other than a AM4 3D CPU is 'significantly more expensive'. Yet they have a perfectly capable GPU waiting for the new 3d cpu, so they can unlock it's full gam9ng potential. But otherwise, yeah, they are broke and can't afford another 100 bucks. Lots of those kind of folks around, I guess
Mr Majestyk
Posts: 2,021 +1,862
This site is techspot not gamespot. The benefits of X3D in gaming are overblown to the hilt. Yes it helps, but for those playing at 1440p or 4K the improvements are far less. Yes if all you do is game of course you would buy one, but don't expect miracles in the real world with commonly used resolutions and gpu's for 95% of games.
Mr Majestyk
Posts: 2,021 +1,862
You forgot the smiley. I guess the fact AMD is now selling hybrid apu's has escaped your attention and going forward more and more of AMD's line-up will be hybrid. 14700 kicks the snot out of 7900X for productivity in vast majority of cases. For apps I use like Mathematica, COMSOL, Matlab etc it is massively faster than 7900X in multithreaded use. Saying Intel hybrid is a joke for productivity is possibly the stupidest thing I seen on this site. And BTW I own only AMD cpu's.
Hyperbole much? Nobody's expecting miracles but since you're bringing it up I guess maybe you are?
What non-game tests do you see in this very article? Yup, none. This is a gaming CPU review and that's what the X3D is for: gaming. Also Steve who reviewed this has long maintained that he tests for gaming, not productivity.
I'm pretty sure that most people playing at 1440p/4K with a 3060 Ti aren't going to upgrade their 3600 to a 5800X3D first but if you have a 3080/6800XT or better and are looking for better frametimes/1% lows as well as overall FPS, the X3Ds are good options.
Last edited:
A budget B650M, vanilla DDR5 32GB and a 7600(x) is not 'significantly' more expensive than a new 5800x3d or 5700d. If you feel 100$ or more is a problem then maybe you should'nt invest in hardware parts at this moment of your life.
Staying with AM4 is perfectly fine. But please come up with some real life reasons like being heavily invested in large chunks of fast DDR4 Ram or not wanting to switch boards and so on. Those are good reasons. Yes, I know there are gaming enthusiasts out there that are so broke, anything other than a AM4 3D CPU is 'significantly more expensive'. Yet they have a perfectly capable GPU waiting for the new 3d cpu, so they can unlock it's full gam9ng potential. But otherwise, yeah, they are broke and can't afford another 100 bucks. Lots of those kind of folks around, I guess
Using Techspot's cheapest recommended B650, the 7600X and the cheapest 2x16GB DDR5 (5600MHz), PCPartPicker comes to $438. Oddly, the 7600 is more expensive RN.
The 5800X3D is $285.
The 5700X3D is $241.
So that's 54-82% more expensive. Not $100 but more like $150-200. That is a consideration for many people, even ones that like higher-end gaming. And that's with a cheap motherboard. If you've invested in specific Mobo features, the cost to replicate them can put this price difference $100+ higher.
Ok, agreed on 150$ more (you can get a low budget B650M much cheaper, but anyway). So let's say, you go out and get yourself a new 5x00x3d and put your 3600 or older cpu to rest. And then what? What GPU are you gonna pair this? What Monitor? If you are able to spend 240-285$, but completely unable to spend 438$, you probably don't own a high end GPU and/or are stuck at 60hz gaming anyway. So you end up paring the new CPU with an 6600XT or 3060 or comparable or even older. Thats when the 3d Cache won't live up to it's potential at all.
Data: The 5800x3d is in 23 Games 26% faster compared to an old R5 3600 in 1% FPS @1080P with an 6600XT (Source: Techspot "From Ryzen 5 3600 to 5800X3D: The Big Upgrade"). That's 1% low, avg is a very minor difference. It starts to make sense with an 6750XT or comparable. So your recommendation is Money out of the window for the target audience you describe (150$ more is too much to spend). Makes sense?
The entire point of the 5x00X3D CPU at this time is to upgrade a decent existing AM4 build. One of my kids has an R5 1600AF and a 6700 XT and plays at 1080p. That would benefit from an X3D if he ever needs more CPU (which he doesn't for the forseeable). But 2 years from now it could be the perfect upgrade for his system.
If you're building something new or need to upgrade a bunch of components (effectively the same thing), you get AM5 or if you want Intel and can wait, next Gen's Core ___ as both have upgrade paths. The 5x00X3D is the upgrade path for AM4 and there's not gonna be anything better so you'd never build a new/mostly new system with it.
If I build a new system (and I need another system like a hole in the head), I'd build with the 7600/X, whichever's cheaper.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
AMD X3D CPU Versus: 5800X3D vs 5700X3D vs 5600X3D- lripplinger replied
