3900x to 5900x for X4

[Scoob]

Hey all,

I've been pondering this for a while, so thought I'd mention it here.

I was on a 2600k for years and planned to upgrade to Zen 3 when it dropped. We'd heard good things about it at the time and it was my buy-in point. IPC gains, larger CDD's etc. were the main feature of interest over prior Zen chips. However, my 2600k started getting flaky, so I bought what was available - the 3900x - which seemed a good fit for my combination of gaming and other stuff. As we know, Zen 3 proved to be more of a jump than many expected...darn it lol.

Fast-forward to today, and most games play really well. In fact, I'm a bit GPU limited only having a 1070 - damn you GPU shortage / price gauging! However, that said, when it comes to most games, I can just turn down a few settings and the venerable old 1070 copes admirably. The thing is, X4 doesn't work that way.

In X4, it's my CPU that's constantly being pushed hard. The game seems to rely on TWO main heavy threads. This will see the 3900x boosting to 4.5ghz+ on two cores most of the time. That's about its limit, two Cores pushed to near the 4.6ghz single-core boost cap. Now, those Cores are at 4.5ghz fairly consistently during play, but they're heavily loaded. There's not much more headroom left, if Process Explorer (3rd party task manager replacement) is to be believed. Indeed, whenever I get fps limited, it's always a CPU thing, with these threads maxed out and the GPU just waiting, under-utilised.

Now, we know the Zen 3 give a solid 15-20% over Zen 2, thanks to IPC gains, higher clocks and, apparently, some other improvements. This should, in theory, mean I'll hold 60fps - that's all my target minimum is - far more reliably.

I'd usually NEVER consider is single generation upgrade, hell, I went from a 2011 Sandy Bridge 2600k to a 2019 3900x - that was quite a jump. However, considering how X4 really loves CPU - shame it doesn't multi-thread better - and Zen 3 was what I actually wanted, I'm tempted to get the 5900x. It'll just drop right in to my current 570 motherboard. The 3900x will go into my Workhorse PC - that's used for a variety of tasks - so it'll not be wasted. I'd just need a new mobo, ram and an M.2 drive and I'm good to go - those parts of cheap at the moment, and I don't need crazy high-end to make the best of the 3900x in this role.

So, I thought I'd run it by people here, in case someone else has done a similar single-generation upgrade.

Btw: I think this is the appropriate forum, as Tech Support is about *support* I don't really need support for the game, this is just a general "upgrade or not" type thing.

[Alan Phipps]

However, hardware performance discussions usually go in Off Topic.

[Panos]

Hey all,

I've been pondering this for a while, so thought I'd mention it here.

I was on a 2600k for years and planned to upgrade to Zen 3 when it dropped. We'd heard good things about it at the time and it was my buy-in point. IPC gains, larger CDD's etc. were the main feature of interest over prior Zen chips. However, my 2600k started getting flaky, so I bought what was available - the 3900x - which seemed a good fit for my combination of gaming and other stuff. As we know, Zen 3 proved to be more of a jump than many expected...darn it lol.

Fast-forward to today, and most games play really well. In fact, I'm a bit GPU limited only having a 1070 - damn you GPU shortage / price gauging! However, that said, when it comes to most games, I can just turn down a few settings and the venerable old 1070 copes admirably. The thing is, X4 doesn't work that way.

In X4, it's my CPU that's constantly being pushed hard. The game seems to rely on TWO main heavy threads. This will see the 3900x boosting to 4.5ghz+ on two cores most of the time. That's about its limit, two Cores pushed to near the 4.6ghz single-core boost cap. Now, those Cores are at 4.5ghz fairly consistently during play, but they're heavily loaded. There's not much more headroom left, if Process Explorer (3rd party task manager replacement) is to be believed. Indeed, whenever I get fps limited, it's always a CPU thing, with these threads maxed out and the GPU just waiting, under-utilised.

Now, we know the Zen 3 give a solid 15-20% over Zen 2, thanks to IPC gains, higher clocks and, apparently, some other improvements. This should, in theory, mean I'll hold 60fps - that's all my target minimum is - far more reliably.

I'd usually NEVER consider is single generation upgrade, hell, I went from a 2011 Sandy Bridge 2600k to a 2019 3900x - that was quite a jump. However, considering how X4 really loves CPU - shame it doesn't multi-thread better - and Zen 3 was what I actually wanted, I'm tempted to get the 5900x. It'll just drop right in to my current 570 motherboard. The 3900x will go into my Workhorse PC - that's used for a variety of tasks - so it'll not be wasted. I'd just need a new mobo, ram and an M.2 drive and I'm good to go - those parts of cheap at the moment, and I don't need crazy high-end to make the best of the 3900x in this role.

So, I thought I'd run it by people here, in case someone else has done a similar single-generation upgrade.

Btw: I think this is the appropriate forum, as Tech Support is about *support* I don't really need support for the game, this is just a general "upgrade or not" type thing.

Upgraded from 3900X to 5900X over a month ago. Haven't looked back
And is not only the 20% IPC but the 10-15% higher clocks on top, plus the better latency.

[Scoob]

However, hardware performance discussions usually go in Off Topic.

But I'm doing it to *play* X4

Upgraded from 3900X to 5900X over a month ago. Haven't looked back
And is not only the 20% IPC but the 10-15% higher clocks on top, plus the better latency.

Thanks for the reply! So, you feel there is a marked improvement in X4 then? Are you generally able to maintain 60fps assuming no GPU limited scenario? I've been doing some digging, and some titles can see upwards of a 25% uplift, others very little. In theory it should of course help with any situation where one or two threads are heavily loaded and X4 is one of those. Lots of other stuff threads much more evenly - no dominant thread - so the 3900x is great for those of course.

I'm naturally resistant to spending money on myself - last time was 2019 for the 3900x system - plus I want to ensure I get good value. Traditionally, especially with Intel, one generation gives very little. However, I feel Zen 2 to Zen 3 does. Primarily because it eliminates some of the weaknesses of Zen 2, mainly peek boost potential, IPC (not that it was bad) and of course the inter-CCX latency issues to a degree.

I think you may have cost me £450 lol. May buy the other bits at the same time to house the 3900x and make a really nice workhorse PC. That role is currently taken by an old 2500k.

Cheers.

[Imperial Good]

Might want to wait a few months in case the Zen 3 variants with added cache show up. Those should reduce the price of current Zen3 and add an option for a higher performance Zen 3 CPU.

[Scoob]

Might want to wait a few months in case the Zen 3 variants with added cache show up. Those should reduce the price of current Zen3 and add an option for a higher performance Zen 3 CPU.

This is actually something I've been thinking about. There have been rumours for a while that we'll be getting better "Zen 3+" CPU's soon(tm) but there's been no firm information on this as far as I'm aware.

If I were buying *just* the CPU, I'd be more inclined to wait. However, as I want to build a second system around the 3900x, there are some good bargains now, that add up to a not insignificant saving.

I'm not sure which way to jump at the moment. My usual inclination is to wait, something better - be it a better price or a better product - will come along eventually. However, these are unusual times when it comes to product availability.

If you do have any more information regarding the rumours "Zen 3+" (or whatever they'll be called) CPU's I'd be interested to see. There *were* rumours saying that the AM4 platform *won't* get these new CPU's, they'd be AM5 exclusives... other rumours suggest otherwise.

Btw: are you still using your 3900x or have you moved on to something else now?

Edit: just doing some Googling...there's more info on the new Zen 3 V-cache stuff than when I last looking...researching...

Edit 2: the rumours do seem to be more solid than they were. It's expected that we'll see these "Zen 3+" CPU's with basically double the L3 Cache in Q1 2022. I think that'd be worth the wait to get the "best*, and likely last, my existing X570 platform will support. I had though these CPU's might get the "XT" suffix like we saw with the 3900XT etc. However, the Zen 2 "XT's" really were just *slightly* better binned parts. This Zen 3 refresh with v-cache is likely to be more significant, thus it might earn the 6000 series name... I just hope it is indeed on AM4!

Thanks Imperial Good, you nudged my tired brain in the right direction

[Skeeter]

Im more inclined to get the intel 12600k as it matches or beats in alot of benchmarks on utube i noticed when having a look today. Half the price of a discounted 5900 at about 260, the mb the cheapest i can see is about 150 quid and chuck in some cheap 32gig ddr4 for about 80 quid or so. The IPC on these new alderlakes are really good, tho only thing id worry about is the eff cores and if there used properly which i think u need win 11 for cos of its schedular for it to work proper.

The 3d cache versions of the amd ryzens 5xxx ones tho promise a 15 min uplift in IPC so could be nice to wait for them in a month or two for 3d cache versions of i think 5800x and higher. But will it be enough to beat a 12600k at 250 quid ish for near or identical perf IPC wise to a 5900.

Since im on a old 3570k setup im easy to go either way as i dont think about reusing mb or ram etc id need a new setup. But alot are using am4 boards so not surprisingly they wana keep their boards and hsf coolers etc.

[Imperial Good]

If you do have any more information regarding the rumours "Zen 3+" (or whatever they'll be called) CPU's I'd be interested to see. There *were* rumours saying that the AM4 platform *won't* get these new CPU's, they'd be AM5 exclusives... other rumours suggest otherwise.

They would need a different I/O die to use AM5 as the memory controller would need to support DDR5 memory. The performance gains would also not be that much so it would not be a very successful launch of AM5. Makes much more sense for them to throw them out soon to AM4 as its final swan song and then open AM5 with Zen4 late 2022.

Btw: are you still using your 3900x or have you moved on to something else now?

Still using it as the performance is still good.

[Panos]

Might want to wait a few months in case the Zen 3 variants with added cache show up. Those should reduce the price of current Zen3 and add an option for a higher performance Zen 3 CPU.

If you do have any more information regarding the rumours "Zen 3+" (or whatever they'll be called) CPU's I'd be interested to see. There *were* rumours saying that the AM4 platform *won't* get these new CPU's, they'd be AM5 exclusives... other rumours suggest otherwise.

Zen3+ is not rumour. They will be on AM4 platform and compatible with all motherboards currently support Zen 3 and already in mass production.
What we do not know is if there will be only 12-16 core CPUs with it or the 8 core too.

From AMD itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE9PsKWYYXA


Zen 4 late 2022 will be on the AM5/DDR5 platform.

[Scoob]

Im more inclined to get the intel 12600k as it matches or beats in alot of benchmarks on utube i noticed when having a look today. Half the price of a discounted 5900 at about 260, the mb the cheapest i can see is about 150 quid and chuck in some cheap 32gig ddr4 for about 80 quid or so. The IPC on these new alderlakes are really good, tho only thing id worry about is the eff cores and if there used properly which i think u need win 11 for cos of its schedular for it to work proper.

The 3d cache versions of the amd ryzens 5xxx ones tho promise a 15 min uplift in IPC so could be nice to wait for them in a month or two for 3d cache versions of i think 5800x and higher. But will it be enough to beat a 12600k at 250 quid ish for near or identical perf IPC wise to a 5900.

Since im on a old 3570k setup im easy to go either way as i dont think about reusing mb or ram etc id need a new setup. But alot are using am4 boards so not surprisingly they wana keep their boards and hsf coolers etc.

I did consider Intel but, after spec'ing up a parts list it worked out quite pricy. Plus, as you say, there are some issues with E-Cores (which I'm sure will be sorted quickly) in certain titles. Plus I'd need W11 (it's an unknown for me currently) and DDR5 ideally - or a mobo that allows DDR4 - the overall cost was higher when I did it. Still, in isolation, the 12600k is a bargain price.

My hope is that we'll see AMD respond in the same way Intel has with their 12th Gen, improved performance at a lower price. I'd like to see a 5900xt (or whatever they call it) come in at under £400, but I expect that's asking a bit much. We shall see. Regardless, I will try to hold off until we see what the 3d Cache offers.

They would need a different I/O die to use AM5 as the memory controller would need to support DDR5 memory. The performance gains would also not be that much so it would not be a very successful launch of AM5. Makes much more sense for them to throw them out soon to AM4 as its final swan song and then open AM5 with Zen4 late 2022.

Still using it as the performance is still good.

I agree. The rumour mill has gone back and forth on what will come when and will it be the final AM4 refresh or all go in to AM5. I'm leaning towards the former. I just want to get the "best" CPU I can on this platform then stick with it for a while.

Cool, glad it's still working well for you. Mine is great in everything...except X4 at times. X4 will regularly push two cores to their limit in a modified game. It's only what's going on In Sector that works it hard though. I've been experimenting turning SMT Off, which doesn't lead to any higher boosting - it still hits a peak of 4.65ghz on one core and around 4.5ghz on two Cores - but it does change the Core loading...which I don't quite understand yet.

Zen3+ is not rumour. They will be on AM4 platform and compatible with all motherboards currently support Zen 3 and already in mass production.
What we do not know is if there will be only 12-16 core CPUs with it or the 8 core too.

From AMD itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE9PsKWYYXA

Zen 4 late 2022 will be on the AM5/DDR5 platform.

Thanks. I hadn't actually checked up on the (then) Rumours for a while, until Imperial Good jogged my brain into gear. Good to see things have been confirmed, I did watch that video. With him confirming early 2022 it makes the earlier rumours I heard appear more solid.

I think if I can get a "5900xt" or whatever it'll be called, that should see my current platform be as good as it can be. I can then buy some solid, but cheaper, parts to house the 3900x. If I did it *today* with a 5900x - as I considered of course - I'm talking about £750 for the 5900x + motherboard, RAM, M.2 and Case for the 3900x build. I have PSU, older GPU (it won't be used for gaming) and some higher-capacity spinners to make it a solid work horse.

Of course, I *still* need a new GPU at some point, but prices are still going up. Friend stopped me from buying a 3080Ti at £1,200 a couple of months ago, as he was convinced prices would come down. That same GPU is now £600+ more expensive, when it occasionally comes in stock! That £1,200, though still *slightly* above RRP, feels so cheap now. NV's plan of numbing us to high GPU prices is working lol.

[jlehtone]

However, hardware performance discussions usually go in Off Topic.

But I'm doing it to *play* X4

Don't we all?

[Skeeter]

On reddit i saw a discussion about the 3d cache cpus that are coming that they might be limited by cpu speed i.e lower mhz than the ones they replace due to more heat the 3d caches on top of the cpus might be generating. I have no idea if its true or not tho.

Heres the thread if anyone is interested in what was disccused.

https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comme ... rformance/

[Scoob]

Bit of a thread resurrection, but it seems silly creating a new one.

The 5900X is a real bargain currently, as low as £360 here in the UK at the time of writing. That's a good price. However, I do wonder if waiting for the 5800X3D (as that's the only Zen 3 3D vCache CPU now sadly) would be worth it. It's only X4 that pushes my CPU sufficiently hard to bottleneck the system, and that's largely due to the game's thread load characteristics. Other, arguably heavier, games might push the overall load higher, but they make great use of multiple threads, so no cores hit anywhere near the max frequency.

Reviews are out that show the 5800X3D performing exceptionally well in some games, less well one others but, generally ahead of other AMD CPU's and often ahead of the 12900K and even KS. Really quite impressive considering the clock speed reduction. I wonder whether X4 will be one of the titles that LOVES the extra cache or one that's really not fussed about it.

My main PC use case isn't quite what I thought it would be, so losing four cores (eight threads) wouldn't really hurt me. That said, the 5900X, which would still be a decent bump in many titles, is just so darn tempting at this time.

Add to this, a 3080Ti Founders edition can readily be had at RRP at the moment. However, with the 4000 series supposedly just around the corner and the fact that my 1070 is still doing OK (with more and more settings turned down though) I can wait without too much pain.

Just wanted to bounce it around here and see what people think. As X4 is the ONLY game that appears to push my current 3900x (for the reasons mentioned above) I think this remains an "X4" topic at its heart.

Oh, as mentioned before I think, the 3900X will form the basis of a "workhorse" build, so my gateway / Server / internet surfer machine. My natural inclination is to wait, but FOMO gets me at times considering the current pricing.

[Imperial Good]

I would wait for benchmarks with X4 and the R7 5800X3D. There is a good chance that it could absolutely dominate workloads like X4 given what it is doing for other computationally intensive games like Factorio (where in one megabase test it was measured an unbelievable 50% more updates per second than the I9 12900KS).

Given that the 5800X3D should still be cheaper than the 5900X this might be an absolute bargain. But again need to wait until someone reports their performance with one first...

[Scoob]

I would wait for benchmarks with X4 and the R7 5800X3D. There is a good chance that it could absolutely dominate workloads like X4 given what it is doing for other computationally intensive games like Factorio (where in one megabase test it was measured an unbelievable 50% more updates per second than the I9 12900KS).

Given that the 5800X3D should still be cheaper than the 5900X this might be an absolute bargain. But again need to wait until someone reports their performance with one first...

Yes, I'm certainly going to wait and see. I do tend to like games that work the CPU a little harder, so there is value there for me. I doubt though that the 5800X3D will be as cheap as the £360 5900X goes for currently. If it is cheaper though, that'd be rather good.

[BigBANGtheory]

Add to this, a 3080Ti Founders edition can readily be had at RRP at the moment. However, with the 4000 series supposedly just around the corner and the fact that my 1070 is still doing OK (with more and more settings turned down though) I can wait without too much pain.

What you have to appreciate is the scale at which Nvidia and board partners are ripping off consumers.

3080, 3080 (12GB), 3080Ti, 3090, 3090Ti all use variants of the 102 die BUT only one of them has an MSRP of £650.

I appreciate that GPU shortages have caused all manner of price inflation issues and that gamers wanting or needing these parts had to make some unpalatable choices, just remember these companies use all the tricks in the trade to make their high margin products look normal value. There is no good reason right now a 3080Ti shouldn't or couldn't be well under £800, but instead its closer to £1200 for what 10% performance gains or better yet why not pay £1800 for a 3090 for a further 5%

Nvidia right now are going to do everything in their power to keep these prices as high as possible even if it means sacrificing sales for one reason only... They want to overcharge for the 4000 series coming in Q3 and to make matters worse AMD use Nvidia pricing to benchmark their own products so in effect you get choice but zero competition atm not until AMD decides it wants market share

Rant aside, just be aware and don't be persuaded by the marketing.

[Scoob]

Oh I'm 100% with you there, prices are nuts and they've reset the bar to milk customers that are willing to pay the inflated prices. Throughout this, I've refused to pay the rip off prices, even though I could do so with little pain. NV aren't going to be selling any 3080's for RRP when they can sell what's essentially the same die (the 102) for £1,050 in the form of a 3080Ti. The Ti this time isn't the same as the 1080Ti was to the 1080, it's not that much better. However, when you need a GPU and one is available at RRP - albeit at £1,050 - and the "better value" (3080 varients) product isn't much cheaper, then the 3080Ti has more "value"...as much as using that word makes me choke a little lol.

I'll likely not buy, I do like to feel I'm getting good value - just like my current 1070 which I bought the week of launch for £380 (cheapest one available) and it's a really good one. I do still ponder upgrades though, particularly CPU at the moment as I didn't want Zen 2, I was waiting for Zen 3, but my current (at the time) CPU was getting flaky. Of course, it's working 100% fine now...darn thing lol.

At the end of the day though, there will come a point when I'll need a new GPU rather than it just being a nice to have. Numerous other titles I play already have settings turn down to maintain a solid minimum FPS (I'm happy with 60, even though input responsiveness isn't the best) and I'm only playing at 1920x1200 and wanted to get at least a 1440p monitor along with the GPU upgrade. So, I expect I will be paying inflated prices regardless, though I'd hope to not pay over RRP on top of that. So RRP is a bit of a rip, but RRP + "low supply" tax is worse.

I will continue to wait and watch. While the 1070 is pushed in numerous titles, it's still fine and I don't feel like I'm slumming it at all.

[xant]

They want to overcharge for the 4000 series coming in Q3 and to make matters worse AMD use Nvidia pricing to benchmark their own products so in effect you get choice but zero competition atm not until AMD decides it wants market share

You'd be right, if it weren't for Intel to enter the market this year. That changes everything.

Usually, when you try to enter an established market that is dominated by one or two very strong corporations, you have to secure a foothold by severely underpricing your own product. Otherwise consumers would stick to what they know is reliable performance. That means Intel would have to sell at a loss to gain a good portion of the market. And it hurts the newcomer even more, since the established sellers already possess the knowhow and efficiency of being in the market for 20+ years. Basically, Intel will have to produce at a higher cost and will deliver an inferior product (when compared to Nvidia/AMD). And have to sell at a lower price than the competition to get customers.

If the profit margin for the established products is already very thin, it leaves little room to underbid them, so you'd be looking at a huge loss in the forseeable future. You need huge cash reserves and the willingness to burn through some serious money by selling at a huge loss. Kind of what Microsoft did with the XBox 1 and XBox 360, it was very hard and expensive to establish their position on the console market that was previously dominated by Sony and Nintendo. Took a long time to get everything working, to build up the logistics and to make a good console that can turn a profit. And even then it wasn't only possible because MS had billions to spare, but also by Sony messing up with the PS3 by making it way too expensive.

If AMD/Nvidia set their prices too high, they would allow Intel to sell at a smaller loss, maybe even at a profit, while still underbidding AMD/Nvidia prices. That would make Intel a serious (or the only) alternative to get a good enough graphics card at a budget price. Did you know that it is ten times more expensive to gain a new customer than to maintain an existing one?

Should they set their prices too high, Intel will have an easy time selling their cards and getting new customers. And if they do a decent job and customers are happy, they'll build up loyalty with them. It will be hard, if not impossible, to get those people back.

That's why I think that Intel entering the market is what'll ultimately save us from AMD/Nvidia setting the princes too high. The Nvidia/AMD flagships will be more expensive than ever, that much is sure, but they can't afford to lose the lower brackets to Intel. And they will if they overprice their budget cards.

[BigBANGtheory]

They want to overcharge for the 4000 series coming in Q3 and to make matters worse AMD use Nvidia pricing to benchmark their own products so in effect you get choice but zero competition atm not until AMD decides it wants market share

You'd be right, if it weren't for Intel to enter the market this year. That changes everything....

I'll quote you on that later in the year. Won't change anything besides the odd laptop imho.

We'll see though I'd love to be wrong and Navi 31 being priced less than a used car in 6months time.

[xant]

Intel is its own provider for semiconductors and is steadily increasing their manufacturing capacity. Also, if we count integrated graphics, Intel is already the biggest manufacturer/seller of GPUs. They're a giant compared to AMD/Nvidia. To give you some numbers: Intel has more than three times the employees that AMD and Nvidia have combined, with a revenue that is almost three times as much as AMD and Nvidia, again combined.

AMD and Nvidia are in no position to underestimate the threat that Intel poses for them long-term. It would be madness - for both - to jeopardize their market shares and loyal customer base for short-term profit. Not that it would be impossible, of course. Many good corporations saw their end through some dumb decision making. Still, I give them enough credit to see the situation for what it is and act in accordance to that. Intel invested heavily here and prepared for years. And they have the money to eat the expected losses for the first few years.

It won't be easy for AMD/Nvidia. Their flagships, the RTX 4090 and RX 7900 XT, won't have any competition from Intel, at least this and maybe next year. So both can set the price as high as they want for their own high-end flagships (which they will) in this bracket. But below that? From what we know so far, the performance of the Ark Alchemist desktop GPU (Intel's high-end flagship) should be somewhere around that of a 3070/Ti. Nowhere near the new AMD/Nvidia cards, yes, but overall not too bad. The 3070 Ti has a MSRP of 600$/€, and it's doubtful the 4000/7000 series will be much cheaper or widely available in the forseeable future (as unlike Intel, both AMD and Nvidia depend on external semiconductor manufacturers).

Should Intel decide to sell competetive graphics cards at a lower price than AMD/Nvidia, and they drop their products earlier while maintaining a higher availability? Then AMD/Nvidia can't afford high prices. I mean, they can try, but the market will shift accordingly (meaning not to their advantage). Having better performance doesn't mean much for the majority, if the price is too high. Many will settle for something lower, but affordable.

That's all assuming that Intel doesn't mess up somehow. I hope they won't. Anyway, you can come back to my posts at the end of the year, we'll be wiser by then!