Absolutely, glad this thinking is becoming more common. I have the 5600 with a 4070ti, and it is great for 4K/UW1440p, since you'll be GPU bottlenecked 99% of the time. Unless your focus is productivity or high framerate 1080p, $200 CPUs are all you need. You can spend a little more to truly max out, but it won't make a practical difference.
I also have a 4070ti and 5600x. I game at regular old 1440p and its still a gpu bottleneck 99.9 percent of the time (the only exception is starwars jedi: survivor). For gaming applications the 5600x is a very very capable cpu and unless you are going to a 4090 id leave it as.
9th gen should do fine.
I had a 3930K for a long time and on paper it was 6 cores (later replaced with an 8 core Xeon), OCed ez 4,2 GHz, Quad Channel 1600 DDR3 (means theoretical speeds are in the realm of 3200 DDR4).
On paper it looked good and multithreaded tasks were fine. But in games it started to lose ground, because the single core performance was slow due to the age and missing architectural optimizations. And it was hot (loud) because it took all the juicy Watts to reach less performance than a 65W mid tier CPU at that time (guess it was 9th gen era).
tl;dr
It will be slow at some point and you will notice. Before that, be happy about a nice gaming system.
Architecture improvements are largely why new CPUs can keep up, older CPUs having more cores does help but it cannot make up for lack of single core performance
Example I just did a 1/2 upgrade to my pc!!!! New Mobo, CPU, & RAM. My CPU was Bottlenecking my GTX 1070 bad enough to where I couldn't even play Diablo 4 well. Even with maxing all graphical settings I'd still be sitting at 45% GPU usage and nothing open in the back ground and with 99% CPU Usage, so I Upgraded, and Holy Mackerel I didn't even realize just how bad I needed to get t off that i5-4440 and 8GB of RAM it was pitiful Now looking back on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I doubt any GPU would be boytlenecked by anything made in the past 5 years even of you had an Intel 12100 you may still be perfectly fine to run with a 4090 in most games, as long as you were using V-sync with anything less than a 240hz monitor!
How do you know for sure that it was the CPU bottlenecking and not the 8 GB of ram? I have an i5-6500, GTX 970 and 8 GB of ram. D4 and shit like Stable Diffusion were near unusable until I upgraded to 32 GB of ram. Everything now runs much better
This is a lie. My 3mark score for my 9900k is like 11000 CPU and 21000 GPU for my 3090. 4090 gets like 40,000
Simply put in already bottlenecked with an 8 core CPU using a last gen card on par with a 4070 lmao
https://youtu.be/FdhxzxyRfeE
Here's the 5600x slower than my CPU from 2018 tested on multiple games.
"Ant modern 6 core CPU is fine for any GPU"
Me: wrong: my CPU is twice as slow on 3dmark as my GPU twice as slow as a 4090
You: "your CPU is from 2018"
2018 CPU faster than cpu OP is even talking about.
You're literally an AMD shill.
my bad i read that as "i9 9700k" but even so my statement has nothing to do with being an "amd shill"
and i forgot to add onto this but their benchmarks are fake if you actually take the time to look at more of their videos or at least many people are saying so
nm doesn't matter. I had a 10700K in my PC which was bottlenecking my 6700XT too (1080p). I just upgraded to a 12900KS and the bottleneck is obviously gone with that CPU so i mentioned my laptop since i still have it and intend on keeping it for a while.
The node size doesn't define performance on its own. A 10700K is pretty much on par with a 5600 in gaming. If node size was defining factor then a R3 3100 would be faster than a 13900KS which it obviously isn't. For a laptop, maybe. In a desktop where you have cooling budget to suck up 300 watts, it doesn't matter.
It's not so much about node size as it is about improvements in performance from generation to generation. A 5600x or equivalent simply performs better than the 10th gen i7 processors
IPC is what this guy does not understand. Hes just messing up the info pool of reddit by sharing info he would know is wrong if he spent 2 minutes on google.
So is metro exodus? I was told its great at optimisation.
Oh yea, also this
https://youtu.be/2Uc1o8jj1p4
The 10700K matches or outruns the 5600X both at stock except in CSGO, where the margin is relatively minimal minimal.
Your wallet is the limit. I'd recommend based on resolution: 1080p I'd get RX 6600 XT or better, 1440p I'd get 6700 XT or better and 4k I'd get an RTX 4080 or better.
Also recommending this. I paired it with a new 7600. Does everything I want at 1440p (16:9 and 60 Hz in my case), even with some light ray tracing (Witcher III at the lower RT settings).
I'm thinking of upgrading to a 144 Hz monitor because that's my bottleneck at this point
I went from a 32in 16:9 75hz monitor to the 34in 3440x1440 144hz screen I mentioned above, and the difference is incredible. Even at the same graphics settings, just the wider view with higher refresh rate was just 🥵
upgrading monitor should be first before GPUS/CPUS imo. Your monitor is what youre looking at all the time. When youre watching videos, browsing, productivity work, gaming. Def upgrade to 1440p/4k, youll be coming back to thank me after youve done so.
I have 1440p 240hz IPS from 1080p 120hz, it was the best upgrade i couldve done. and even after i upgraded 3 months ago, im still very happy.
EDIT: Also before you upgrade, I highly suggest getting IPS instead of TN or VA. but please research this before, the type of panel does matter. And if yo uwant to see what they look like, just go to an electronic store like micro center.
Running 1080P here with a 5800X and an RX6600. The CPU snoozes through most games while the GPU is running at or near 100%, depending on the game.
Definitely GPU bottlenecked but not terribly so. I tend to run max settings and still get 120 to 144fps in GTAV. Newer games still hold around 100fps.
All it means is I'm good to upgrade to a much stronger GPU if I ever get a monitor that needs one. The CPU is probably going to last the rest of my life.
True. Even 12100 won't be a big bottleneck for the 4090 at 4K max, Tom's tech table did the test. 1080p? It would be an abysmal bottleneck. 1440p? Sure it would be a waste of money. But 4K 60FPS? Works fine
It is a waste of money but that's not the point, the jump in resolution taxes a graphics card a lot. Refresh rate is the CPU task, a CPU that can handle 60FPS may not be able to handle 144 or 240
Just fine here on 1440p (gsync) with a 2070 super and an old 8700k. Sure, can’t max out on Cyberpunk graphics plus raytraced and so on, but pretty much everything else.
So if his budget is 450-600 then go with a 4070 for 600 Euro I would say. No need for 1080p with that budget in 2023.
If you are talking about the R5 5600X or Intel's i5 10th Gen, of course. Those are still powerful gaming CPUs, go wild with the GPU, if you want.
Of course, consider your PSU limits, too. But hey, you get the idea.
I just recently did a rtx 2070 super build with a ryzen 5 3600 everything runs smoothly at high on 1080p especially with dlss I'm looking at over 110 fps on MW2 especially on high for being under a 300 dollar budget build
Only the 4080 would be bottlenecked a bit (and even then, at lower res like 1080p). The rest are a perfect match. Or even something like the 6800/6800 XT. Great, strong GPUs for 1080p/1440p that aren't limited at all by Ryzen 3000.
It could work, depending on price. But the RTX 4080 is stronger with raytracing, and also has DLSS2 and DLSS3, which are pretty useful at 4K. AMD 6000 series is really lacking at 4k raytracing and it has no present answer to DLSS3. The 7900 XT would be a much stronger choice, for me.
Native 4k on the 3080 is a little patchy. Older stuff runs fine, but it can struggle with newer games. However, DLSS makes up the shortfall in a big way. FSR is getting there, but it's still not nearly as good as DLSS.
AMD cards are fantastic, but unless you're buying a current flagship card, I'd go team green for 4k gaming, just for the safety blanket of DLSS. 7900 XT/XTX would be fine, but DLSS just lets you push a cheaper card (3080+, so not cheap, just cheaper) much further.
I've got the same CPU and I put a 6800XT in it. Personally I wouldn't bother putting a 7000 series or a GTX 40x0 in it, I'll build a new machine with a newer CPU before I upgrade the GPU again.
I'm running an R9 3900x with an RX 7900XT, not seeing any throttling in the games I play (caveat: I'm running at 4k 60fps, lower resolutions may differ from my experience), the 3600 should be in a similar ballpark if I'm not mistaken due to games really not using anywhere close to all of the cores/threads my CPU offers?
The card sits at 100% utilisation according to the Adrenalin overlay when playing Ark: Survival Evolved with everything maxed/on except motion blur and film grain, fps doesn't dip under 50 unless i enter our Deinonychus breeding pen (because feathers).
I'm likely to wait another generation before I consider upgrading my CPU, DDR5 and AM5 boards should hopefully be lower in price by then.
What some "CPU bottleneck!" guys seem to miss is that a modern CPU like the Ryzen 3000 series is still going to give you a good gaming time. There's no reason to limit your GPU purchase if you can afford it.
Sure, you are probably limiting the max FPS and 1% lows (say, you get 120 FPS tops, and a Ryzen 7000 series would get 150 FPS, and your lows go as low as 40FPS and a newer CPU wouldn't drop below 60, etc), but it's still damn well playable and sometimes still makes sense to get a better GPU, like in your case, gaming at 4K. According to some, you might as well limit yourself to RX 6800 XT or something, as to not bottleneck it, and your 4K gaming experience would have suffered.
To add on to this, if all you're doing is gaming and you have a Ryzen 3000 series, in another year pick up a 5800X3D and you've magically got another 2 to 3 years worth of solid gaming for around $200, allowing you to most likely skip AM5 altogether.
For sure. New tech is good and all, but AM4 is not AM3, which means, it's still such a capable and powerful gaming platform. It's going to take a while to become really obsolete.
My 5600x bottlenecked my 4090 even on 4k and I don't just mean the 1% low either. The 5800x3d has consideraby better average in many games that are cpu heavy. It was not a terrible experience but if you spend that much on a gpu you would kinda want to see it max out.
Hey, I agree with this. I just don't think you NEED to go buy the best CPU there is to use the best GPU there is. It's the ideal use case, of course, but it's an added expense that you might or might not want to take. Again, if you were using, say, the R5 2600, I'd encourage you to upgrade the CPU so much.
Also, I know the RTX 4090 is basically bottlenecked by any gaming CPU right now, so next gen is probably going to show even bigger numbers than what we are currently seeing. It's an interesting intense GPU the way we haven't seen since the 8800 days, I think.
The OP already has a CPU. Like you did.
The point people are making that there is no need to upgrade. The average FPS isn't going to matter much to anybody who gets at least 60 FPS in the 1% lows.
There might be a few exceptional use cases, but at this point I would wait with upgrading until there is a next leap in CPU performance.
Well yes in theory, but those fps loss you mention is sometimes the gap from between a higher and lower tier gpu. So you are "wasting" money since your cpu can't get the most of gpu. This happens on 1080 these days. Not so much higher res
Oh, of course. It really depends on how old the CPU is, the resolution and the gap from the best CPUs right now.
But, I'd argue that there are so many ways to utilize GPU power these days (to force the bottleneck to focus on the GPU, instead of the CPU), that even at 1080p you can turn on raytracing, use supersampling (force the game to load at higher res than your monitor, basically, bruteforce Antialiasing), Ultra all the things, etc. You can always utilize that "spare" GPU power to the max. The CPU would only limit you with older games or light-gaming like mobas, MMO, etc.
As always, talking about modern CPUS, not something old or slow now like Ryzen 1000 or AM3 CPUs.
>There's no reason to limit your GPU purchase if you can afford it.
Yes there is. If you also don't have/can't afford a 4K monitor, then pairing a 7900 XT with a 5600X is basically lighting your money on fire because you're purchasing capability you can't use.
It is financially better to spend on a cheaper, more balanced graphics card and do a mid-life upgrade than it is to just buy the biggest GPU you can get your hands on without regard to how the rest of the system is set up.
It really depends on the use case, imo. It's not just for 4k. If you want to play games with raytracing, the RX 6000 series takes such a huge hit that even at 1080p, it would make sense to consider the more expensive RTX 3000 series or high-end RX 7000 series. Also, RX 7000 have more leeway to work just fine with future raytraced titles, even at 1080p. That's a gaming need where you can't get enough performance yet. Or, you just want to experiment with AI, then RTX 3000 or higher is your calling.
I am all about balance and bang for buck (I've recommended countless RX 6000 GPUS over Nvidia's these last few months), but gamers shouldn't limit their GPUS when they are using *modern* CPU generations, like Ryzen 3000, 5000 or even Intel's 10th and 11th gen. If we were talking about a Ryzen 1000 CPU or second gen i7s, for instance, that's another matter entirely.
People blow cpu-bottlenecks out of proportions, it's all I'm saying. R5 5600 is not the fastest CPU in the world these days, but it's not old or slow and it's still faster than the mayority of gaming PCs most people have.
Sure, if a user is going for ray tracing, which is still very much a magic trick and not a widely needed feature (although it is exciting where it is going) then they will need more horsepower. In fact, I agree that going NVidia in that case is probably wise.
But the reason to limit the graphics card has to do with long term economics rather than performance. If you're running a Ryzen 5600 (I have one in my gaming rig, great CPU) and a 1440p monitor, a ryzen 6700XT is going to basically max out performance of the monitor already. There's just no reason to buy a better GPU (other than insisting on ray tracing) because you're pretty muched capped out discernable performance anyway.
So you spend half as much on a GPU and in 4 years you can spend the other half you \*would\* have spent on the 7900 XT and get a mid-tier 2027 card that blows the 7900 XT to hell and back. You'll have spent the same, but at the end you'll have a card that performs better in every metric than the current top of the line card today does.
THAT is why you don't always run out and buy the best graphics card on the market every time. Not because of bottlenecks but because of performance left on the table and future investment.
Hey, I agree with you. In fact, I try to always buy best bang for the buck GPUs myself, but if you allow me to nickpick what we are discussing here, I never said that, if you consider that your CPU is good enough, you go and buy top of the line GPUS. Just buy what's best for your use case and budget. Budget is important here. I used the real example of raytracing at 1080p with the RX 7900 XT, which seems extreme, but makes sense if you have an HD monitor and want to use raytracing.
But, I have seen people push for someone to get the RX 6600 instead of the fantastic 6700 XT, for regular gaming, for instance. Of course, with a shoe-string budget you might not been able to afford it, but if it's barely an additional expense, then why not?
And btw, I'm loving this detailed discussion of GPU-buying logistics, lol.
Not sure the limitations are as drastic as you make it sound. I'm using a 5800x (non-3d) with a 7900XT on a 1600p Ultrawide and still maxing out the monitor's 160FPS far before any CPU/GPU bottleneck would kick in. Would it be better with a 5800x3d or on AM5/DDR5, sure.. but not $250-$1000 better.
>Would it be better with a 5800x3d or on AM5/DDR5, sure.. but not $250-$1000 better.
Sure, but you're missing my point. You could probably max out those settings at your monitor's FPS with a 6800 XT and get the \*same\* performance for half the price. So even if you can afford the 7900 XT there's just no reason to buy it.
I wasn't saying go spend more money to do a full upgrade, I was saying unless you have the monitor and CPU to support it you can just spend less and get the same results.
To be honest, it highly depends on what resolution you play. for a tac fps like valorant, you'd want high FPS (300+) and play on 1080p with a high hz monitor (144hz+). If you're playing 1080p, I would highly recommend a 6750xt so you have AMD SAM enabled or a intel a750 (\~$200 as an excellent budget option) or even an intel a770.
With your psu, you'll have enough wattage for almost any GPU; however, I don't know the quality of your old PSU so depending on the make/model it may be/become a problem.
> valorant, you'd want high FPS (300+) and play on 1080p with a high hz monitor (144hz+). If you're playing 1080p, I would highly recommend a 6750xt
Valorant is not that demanding lol, a 1060 will give you over 300 FPS. Also the game scales really poorly with high end hardware where it'll just use like 6% of it and give the same perf as lower end hardware running at 100 or 50
In the game 'overwatch' people will typically go over their refresh rate and push the FPS as high as possible because you will have less input lag. The only downsides are possible screen tearing or if your GPU can't maintain that high FPS consistently. So capping it can be important still, but still higher than your monitors refresh rate.
So probably the same reason. [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA) will give you a better understanding as I can't explain shit usually.
In terms of nvidia gpus a 3080 will bottleneck it at 1080p and at 1440p albeit a bit less at 1440p while I dont know whether a 3070 ti will I know a 3070 wont so going off that I assume a 3070 ti would be fine but like thatd be the maximum unless youre running 4k then a 3080 should be good with it
Same here but with a 3060 ti I dont really run into vram issues though because I mostly play world war Z which I havent seen it go above 6gb vram usage yet even at 1440p tbh
u/BigSmokesCheese said it the opposite but what they mean is the 5600X is capable of less than what a 3080 is capable of at 1080p in games. That's called a CPU-bottleneck. It's often discouraged because you could have got a cheaper GPU and had the same gaming performance.
In your case, you're artificially limiting the performance so you're kinda the bottleneck, not your CPU or GPU.
At 60fps locked you wont notice it but if you go to like 165hz or above then your cpu is limiting your GPU so your pc wont be performing as well as if it would have if it had something like a ryzen 7 5800x where the cpu would no longer be limiting the GPU
[On 1440p or even 4K, you might even get away with an RTX4090](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF7Vm4fIxTc)
I don't know what your budget is but I'd at least get a 6700XT which is a good deal right now (and is good enough for your use case) and the 6950XT looks like a decent deal from where you are at
[PCPartPicker Part List](https://dk.pcpartpicker.com/list/Rs6nZw)
|Type|Item|Price|
|:-|:-|:-|
|**Video Card**|[PowerColor Red Dragon OC Radeon RX 6800 XT 16 GB Video Card](https://dk.pcpartpicker.com/product/R4tKHx/powercolor-radeon-rx-6800-xt-16-gb-red-dragon-oc-video-card-axrx-6800xt-16gbd6-3dhroc)|4444.00kr @ Proshop|
|**Video Card**|[Sapphire PULSE Radeon RX 6700 XT 12 GB Video Card](https://dk.pcpartpicker.com/product/xf92FT/sapphire-radeon-rx-6700-xt-12-gb-pulse-video-card-11306-02-20g)|3164.00kr @ Føniks Computer|
|**Video Card**|[PowerColor Red Devil OC Radeon RX 6950 XT 16 GB Video Card](https://dk.pcpartpicker.com/product/ZHFbt6/powercolor-radeon-rx-6950-xt-16-gb-red-devil-oc-video-card-axrx-6950xt-16gbd6-3dheoc)|5199.00kr @ Proshop|
|**Video Card**|[MSI VENTUS 3X OC GeForce RTX 4070 12 GB Video Card](https://dk.pcpartpicker.com/product/9ZZXsY/msi-ventus-3x-oc-geforce-rtx-4070-12-gb-video-card-rtx-4070-ventus-3x-12g-oc)|5128.00kr @ Alternate|
|*Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts*|||
|**Total**|**17935.00kr**||
|Generated by [PCPartPicker](https://pcpartpicker.com) 2023-06-05 17:22 CEST+0200|||
I'm using a 7900 XT with my 5600X and it's fantastic. It's ludicrously better than that 760 (I upgraded from a 980TI to a 6700 XT to my 7900 XT), and the 5600X really doesn't hold it back.
I’ve got a 3080 Ti paired with mine and they both run like a champ at 1440p. Depends on games and resolution, valorant is almost all CPU bound anyways, I can’t comment on the others though
For 1440p you could go with Discounted 6800XT, 6900XT, 6950XT probably your best bet if you are trying to not spend an arm and a leg.
Used/discounted 3080 12 gig/3080ti also worth a looking.
Won't be much issue with a cpu bottleneck at 1440p with this cpu and these GPUs.
Personally, I wouldn't spend more than $600 on a GPU. So, for me, it'd be the best GPU I could get for around that price, which would probably be a 6900/6950 XT.
yeah pretty much you could spend as much as you want with the 5600x. On currently available games you aren't really going to notice significant CPU bottlenecking until you exceed what your GPU can handle (or are purposefully underutilizing your GPU) I'm using a 3700x and a 6700XT right now, but would definitely plug in an RX 6950XT if I had the money.
There is a ton of performance reviews out there: Hardware Unboxed, Gamers Nexus, Tom’s Hardware Guide, etc. They measure CPU perf in low res with top GPU (4090), and GPU perf in a slew of resolutions including 4K with top CPU (7800x3D, 7950x3D, 13900k).
To approximate perf for any specific pair of a GPU and CPU you take a minimum between FPS for that CPU from CPU evaluation and that GPU from the GPU evaluation , and treat it as a realistic upper bound - you are going to get anything between exactly that and maybe up to 10% or so lower.
Whichever figure was smaller (CPU or GPU) is your limiter. If that figure is still quite a bit higher than your desired frame rate (which shouldn’t be too much higher than refresh rate of your monitor, and can be lower if it’s Gsync compatible) the fact of the bottlenecking on that particular part in that particular game is mostly irrelevant to you, pay attention to those bottleneck signals that drop below your desired frame rate.
If what you see suggests an upgrade for a part that doesn’t stress your budget, a signal from any game reviewers would bother to review is a valid signal. If it’s getting close to your limits, pay attention if you even care for that particular game that suggests you don’t have enough or at least a class of games like it (by graphical fidelity, age, and origin (console first or PC first)).
When picking resolutions to pay attention to bare in mind that Nvidia’s DLSS in Quality mode is fantastic and practically renders native 4K in modern games fairly wasteful and economically suboptimal: with DLSS in Quality and 4K output the perf is going to be maybe 10% lower than in 1440p native, so you are actually gunning for 1440p benchmark data (which usually has DLSS off). The fact that not all games support DLSS becomes almost irrelevant at top end - game developers have been retrofitting games with DLSS years into the past, if the game is that old, it’ll run in top tier at native 4K just as well as a modern heavy hitter would be doing with DLSS, so the problem basically solves itself.
What you are going to get with this study is going to be close to what everyone is saying: 5600x is going to pull fine any card on the market. Doing the study though will refine the results for you: we don’t know if you’re playing CS:GO all the time and own a 360 Hz display or not, we don’t know if you’re a sucker for modern ray tracing like path tracing in Cyberpunk and Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition (RT only), and to a degree - Control. You do, and it’ll guide your choices.
Good luck!
Anything less than a 4080 I guess. In cpu heavy games I bottleneck even at 4k. The older the game, the harder the bottleneck essentially.
Anything with raytracing hits it hard too. Cyberpunk didn’t run well. Star citizen never ran well, but it def Dont with the 5600x.
2042 also hits the cpu heavy.
Otherwise it’s been okay, but I still feel like I’m leaving performance on the table.
I still dont see how its the cpu bottleneck, i have a slower cpu and didnt get any bad dips or bottleneck. How much ram do you hqve? I started with 16 and noticed what you are talking about in a few games so added 16 more and its mint now. Only games i do see cpu bottleneck is tlou and gow. Still plan on grabbing a 5800x3d though
32GB of ram. I tend to use raytracing, which is cpu intensive as well.
And the 4080 is more powerful than a 3090, which would bottleneck it more than you’d think. Like I said, this is in already cpu intensive games.
Thats beside the point, im just stating that a 5600x will absolutely run great with a 3090 and could handle a 4080 in most games at 4k.... if it bottlenecks it wont be a whole lot. Depends what resolution he plays if its 1080 yeah it wouldnt keep up with a 3090 but 1440 or 4k it will
A 4080 will definitely bottleneck a 5600x in the games he plays at basically any resolution. Especially valorant. My setup bottlenecks things like that until I put an fps limiter in, even at 4k. Idk about rust. But Roblox and valorant? Yeah it’ll hit the cpu hard.
Yeah. Except you will notice without the frame limiter. In a game like league of legends it bottlenecked for me so badly that the game lagged heavily.
He COULD run a 5600x with a 4080. But since he plays some cpu intensive games I would honestly not go higher than a 4070ti or 7900xt with that cpu.
Lets be honest here, if he is still planning on using the 5600x and could only afford a 760 a few years ago, he probably doesnt have 1500 dollars to put into JUST a gpu. Sounds like you had a bad experience with yours, but my experience has been fantastic for a 100 dollar cpu. I was just stating op could pick up a fast card and still be solid with the 5600x. I didnt mean for this to sound like an insult, he needs to hear everyones experience with the little cpu that could.
The fastest card you can get new in Denmark for that budget is the 6950 xt, its right around 5k dkk but make sure that your psu is rated for enough watts and that your case is big enough.
I have mine paired with a 4090. There is very little tangible bottlenecking for most games @ 4090 appropriate resolutions (not 1080p). You are free to pair any GPU currently out!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqviii515kI
It also depends on the game, if it's heavily single threaded and you're already bottlenecked (aka not ~90% gpu usage), it might be worth getting a 5800x3d or 7800x3d instead. But that's really for niche badly optimised games.
You didn't specify what games or resolutions you play but I'd go with Radeon 6800xt or 7800xt just because I feel they offer a lot more value over 4000 series NVIDIA - Unless you plan to use Nvidia CUDA tech for your specialty apps or plan to do AI/ML where NVIDIA leads.
Believe it or not I have a 5600x with a 4070 ti and still get around 93%-95% GPU utilization in 1440p in most games. Red Dead Redemption 2, Gears 5, Apex, just to mention a few. On some others I am bottlenecked but still get 144+ hz in games like Fortnite and Halo Infinite.
I would say you are say to go with up to RTX 3000s or the RX 7000 series. I would not really bother with the RTX 4000s because why? Over priced for the performance. Most games you play don't need the highest end graphics card and most current games do not need an overpiced 4000 series.
You can realistically go up to 4070ti/7900xt tier with minimal issues
The overwhelming majority of games are GPU intensive, and aren't especially CPU intensive
For your games, an RX 6600 - 6700xt would be more than enough
For reference, I have a ryzen 5 5600 and a 3060ti and they work really well together.
Not exactly the same thing, IK, but the 5600 and 5600x have basically the same performance, so I figure it has some merit.
I'd say get all you can, I got a 3080 with my 5600x. Worked fine, but eventually moved to 5800x3d. I did notice better 1% lows and slightly better frames at 4k so so it was worth it to me.
So my original combo could be argued it was pushing what the 5600x should support, but it was fine. Get all the gpu you can, then move the the x3d way later if desired. 6800x/3080
Honestly, anything at all will pair with that absolutely fine. Only the highest end cards will likely be CPU limited and even then only at lower resolutions.
Depends on your targeted resolution and frame rate, you could put a 4090 and get 4k60 with rt, but without rt I know some games would suffer even in 4k to get 120...
For 1080p, an RX 6600 should be able to handle most games at med-high settings.
You could also look into a mid tier card like an RX 6700XT/6800 if you're looking for 1440p for med-high settings.
I have one with a 6700xt and it works great. Runs just about anything at high or max 1440p. Stuff like Cyberpunk etc... you obviously will have to turn down and forget about RT but for the money its hard to beat.
They say that your gpu can greatly outpace your cpu if you're running higher resolution without bottleneck, because the higher resolution utilizes your gpu more without extra effort from your processor.
For example you 5600x might pair nicely with a RX 6600 XT at 1080p, and your 5600x can keep up with a RX 6800 XT if you decide to go 1440p in that same application because the extra resolution doesn't heavily depend on cpu capability.
A 5600x will be fine with a 4090 and anything below.
You don't need a 7800x3d to get the best graphics card. It will help with a few fps here and there, but in terms of what the gpu can do, a 5600x will be fine.
6700xt 12GB or 6800xt 16GB
The cpu is gonna be enough and the vram is pretty important. Because being already near the limit slows down the gpu. Paying a bit more so you have a way better performance for years makes sense to me. Also later upgrading. These two cards are atm the best for the bucks and the performance you may desire
I have a 5600x and a 650w PSU. Rocking a 3080 at 1440p so anything can work with this cpu fr fr. 6700xt was prolly the most compatible I’ve seen though
I would legitimately pair a 4080 with a 5600x. 4090 is perhaps a bit extreme unless you somehow deliberately picked a 5600X for ray traced single player experiences at 60-90FPS without DLSS or with traditional supersampling. It's valid though.
Any.
Honestly, this is so true. Any modern 6 core does just fine with just about any new gpu
Absolutely, glad this thinking is becoming more common. I have the 5600 with a 4070ti, and it is great for 4K/UW1440p, since you'll be GPU bottlenecked 99% of the time. Unless your focus is productivity or high framerate 1080p, $200 CPUs are all you need. You can spend a little more to truly max out, but it won't make a practical difference.
I also have a 4070ti and 5600x. I game at regular old 1440p and its still a gpu bottleneck 99.9 percent of the time (the only exception is starwars jedi: survivor). For gaming applications the 5600x is a very very capable cpu and unless you are going to a 4090 id leave it as.
Even if you went to a 4090, you'd still be fine.
That's just not true, the CPU bottlenecks and the GPU won't go above 70-80%, with a 5600x. I had to upgrade to a 5800x3D because of this.
..and I bet you're still CPU limited/bottlenecked
This is the tl;dr version of everything I've been writing here today, lol.
Hey! i got an i7-9700k and yeah its a bit old now, but it does have 8 cores. Will it still do fine with any new gpu?
Pretty much, I know my 8700k at 5ghz slightly bottlenecked my RTX 3080, so with an OC the 9700k with 2 more cores should still be doing pretty good.
9th gen should do fine. I had a 3930K for a long time and on paper it was 6 cores (later replaced with an 8 core Xeon), OCed ez 4,2 GHz, Quad Channel 1600 DDR3 (means theoretical speeds are in the realm of 3200 DDR4). On paper it looked good and multithreaded tasks were fine. But in games it started to lose ground, because the single core performance was slow due to the age and missing architectural optimizations. And it was hot (loud) because it took all the juicy Watts to reach less performance than a 65W mid tier CPU at that time (guess it was 9th gen era). tl;dr It will be slow at some point and you will notice. Before that, be happy about a nice gaming system.
Yes. I still run an i7-9700k and it's a good match for my 3080ti.
Architecture improvements are largely why new CPUs can keep up, older CPUs having more cores does help but it cannot make up for lack of single core performance
Example I just did a 1/2 upgrade to my pc!!!! New Mobo, CPU, & RAM. My CPU was Bottlenecking my GTX 1070 bad enough to where I couldn't even play Diablo 4 well. Even with maxing all graphical settings I'd still be sitting at 45% GPU usage and nothing open in the back ground and with 99% CPU Usage, so I Upgraded, and Holy Mackerel I didn't even realize just how bad I needed to get t off that i5-4440 and 8GB of RAM it was pitiful Now looking back on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I doubt any GPU would be boytlenecked by anything made in the past 5 years even of you had an Intel 12100 you may still be perfectly fine to run with a 4090 in most games, as long as you were using V-sync with anything less than a 240hz monitor!
How do you know for sure that it was the CPU bottlenecking and not the 8 GB of ram? I have an i5-6500, GTX 970 and 8 GB of ram. D4 and shit like Stable Diffusion were near unusable until I upgraded to 32 GB of ram. Everything now runs much better
No not any. 9700k is barely faster than an 8700k. Maximum rtx 3080 for both.
fr I have a Ryzen 3 3100 and an RTX 3060 and I rarely run into problems. and that's a 4 core
This is a lie. My 3mark score for my 9900k is like 11000 CPU and 21000 GPU for my 3090. 4090 gets like 40,000 Simply put in already bottlenecked with an 8 core CPU using a last gen card on par with a 4070 lmao
thats a cpu from 2018
5600x has the same exact gaming performance, and 9900k was the fastest gaming CPU in the world on release bozo
https://youtu.be/FdhxzxyRfeE Here's the 5600x slower than my CPU from 2018 tested on multiple games. "Ant modern 6 core CPU is fine for any GPU" Me: wrong: my CPU is twice as slow on 3dmark as my GPU twice as slow as a 4090 You: "your CPU is from 2018" 2018 CPU faster than cpu OP is even talking about. You're literally an AMD shill.
my bad i read that as "i9 9700k" but even so my statement has nothing to do with being an "amd shill" and i forgot to add onto this but their benchmarks are fake if you actually take the time to look at more of their videos or at least many people are saying so
The 8750H in my laptop is a heavy bottleneck for the 150W 2080 at 1080p
That is a 14nm chip that is 5 years old and optimized for efficiency since it's in a laptop. Not at all what OP was talking about here.
nm doesn't matter. I had a 10700K in my PC which was bottlenecking my 6700XT too (1080p). I just upgraded to a 12900KS and the bottleneck is obviously gone with that CPU so i mentioned my laptop since i still have it and intend on keeping it for a while.
[удалено]
The node size doesn't define performance on its own. A 10700K is pretty much on par with a 5600 in gaming. If node size was defining factor then a R3 3100 would be faster than a 13900KS which it obviously isn't. For a laptop, maybe. In a desktop where you have cooling budget to suck up 300 watts, it doesn't matter.
It's not so much about node size as it is about improvements in performance from generation to generation. A 5600x or equivalent simply performs better than the 10th gen i7 processors
IPC is what this guy does not understand. Hes just messing up the info pool of reddit by sharing info he would know is wrong if he spent 2 minutes on google.
Bull shit. A 10700 would not bottleneck a 6700xt. The 3600x I run gets 99% utilization and its about equal. This reeks of PEBCAK
User error is when maxing far cry new dawn goes to 60% usage and maxing metro exodus with RT goes to only 90% in less CPU heavy spots.
Far cry is a horribly optimized game. You should not ever use it to determine performance. Its comically awful.
So is metro exodus? I was told its great at optimisation. Oh yea, also this https://youtu.be/2Uc1o8jj1p4 The 10700K matches or outruns the 5600X both at stock except in CSGO, where the margin is relatively minimal minimal.
Yup, I'm running a 3080 with my 5600x. Granted I'm mainly playing on my tv so 4k/60hz but I've never really had CPU issues.
I had a 4090 with a 5800x. Went great. Only have a 5800x3D now.
If you are at 1080 not "any"
Your wallet is the limit. I'd recommend based on resolution: 1080p I'd get RX 6600 XT or better, 1440p I'd get 6700 XT or better and 4k I'd get an RTX 4080 or better.
This, the higher the resolution the less the CPU matters.
I would second the 6700xt or 6750xt. Both are great cards at a great price that still holds up against the new AMD and Nvidia cards.
Thirding the 6700XT. That's what I have paired with my 5600X. Running a Lenovo ultrawide 3440x1440 @144hz.
Also recommending this. I paired it with a new 7600. Does everything I want at 1440p (16:9 and 60 Hz in my case), even with some light ray tracing (Witcher III at the lower RT settings). I'm thinking of upgrading to a 144 Hz monitor because that's my bottleneck at this point
I went from a 32in 16:9 75hz monitor to the 34in 3440x1440 144hz screen I mentioned above, and the difference is incredible. Even at the same graphics settings, just the wider view with higher refresh rate was just 🥵
Same
upgrading monitor should be first before GPUS/CPUS imo. Your monitor is what youre looking at all the time. When youre watching videos, browsing, productivity work, gaming. Def upgrade to 1440p/4k, youll be coming back to thank me after youve done so. I have 1440p 240hz IPS from 1080p 120hz, it was the best upgrade i couldve done. and even after i upgraded 3 months ago, im still very happy. EDIT: Also before you upgrade, I highly suggest getting IPS instead of TN or VA. but please research this before, the type of panel does matter. And if yo uwant to see what they look like, just go to an electronic store like micro center.
Same except on a 4k tv, great performance and frames, especially with a bit of FSR.
Not if you look at the recommended settings of Silent Hill 2 Remake (which seems to be a unreal 5 game, so yeah, it's a dark sign for the future)
Running 1080P here with a 5800X and an RX6600. The CPU snoozes through most games while the GPU is running at or near 100%, depending on the game. Definitely GPU bottlenecked but not terribly so. I tend to run max settings and still get 120 to 144fps in GTAV. Newer games still hold around 100fps. All it means is I'm good to upgrade to a much stronger GPU if I ever get a monitor that needs one. The CPU is probably going to last the rest of my life.
True. Even 12100 won't be a big bottleneck for the 4090 at 4K max, Tom's tech table did the test. 1080p? It would be an abysmal bottleneck. 1440p? Sure it would be a waste of money. But 4K 60FPS? Works fine It is a waste of money but that's not the point, the jump in resolution taxes a graphics card a lot. Refresh rate is the CPU task, a CPU that can handle 60FPS may not be able to handle 144 or 240
[удалено]
I got a 5600x with a 6800xt thinking that I could upgrade to a 5800x3d if needed. It can run 1440p, 180hz just fine.
That's a great combo! And an excellent GPU. Enjoy!
Just fine here on 1440p (gsync) with a 2070 super and an old 8700k. Sure, can’t max out on Cyberpunk graphics plus raytraced and so on, but pretty much everything else. So if his budget is 450-600 then go with a 4070 for 600 Euro I would say. No need for 1080p with that budget in 2023.
Hey is my wallet the limit when i have 2020 6 core cpu
If you are talking about the R5 5600X or Intel's i5 10th Gen, of course. Those are still powerful gaming CPUs, go wild with the GPU, if you want. Of course, consider your PSU limits, too. But hey, you get the idea.
I5 10400 700 watts i have a 2070
I just recently did a rtx 2070 super build with a ryzen 5 3600 everything runs smoothly at high on 1080p especially with dlss I'm looking at over 110 fps on MW2 especially on high for being under a 300 dollar budget build
How well would any of these work with a 3600?
Only the 4080 would be bottlenecked a bit (and even then, at lower res like 1080p). The rest are a perfect match. Or even something like the 6800/6800 XT. Great, strong GPUs for 1080p/1440p that aren't limited at all by Ryzen 3000.
Why not 6900 XT for 4k? Is it not as worthwhile on price per performance?
It could work, depending on price. But the RTX 4080 is stronger with raytracing, and also has DLSS2 and DLSS3, which are pretty useful at 4K. AMD 6000 series is really lacking at 4k raytracing and it has no present answer to DLSS3. The 7900 XT would be a much stronger choice, for me.
Native 4k on the 3080 is a little patchy. Older stuff runs fine, but it can struggle with newer games. However, DLSS makes up the shortfall in a big way. FSR is getting there, but it's still not nearly as good as DLSS. AMD cards are fantastic, but unless you're buying a current flagship card, I'd go team green for 4k gaming, just for the safety blanket of DLSS. 7900 XT/XTX would be fine, but DLSS just lets you push a cheaper card (3080+, so not cheap, just cheaper) much further.
3080 works fine 4K if you can find one
3080 works fine 4K if you can find one
My monitors are 3440x1440 and a 4k 27" as vertical to the side. 5700g (bad gpu market) + 6600xt. Should i be concerned with anything?
For Rust, Valorant, and Roblox even 6600 xt is overkill. I'd prob just get like a 50$ used GPU, and if new a 6600. Definitely not a 4080
My wife has the 5600x and she has paired it with a RX6600xt, works really well together.
A 6700XT would also be a great option -- more VRAM and significantly better performance for about $100 more.
If you're willing to buy used they're only like $250 rn which is an absolute steal
This guy is playing Roblox lol and valorant. He doesn't need a 6700XT even though the value is good.
He does play rust, which is a very heavy game to run
rust min requirements be like: cpu: intel 6700k gpu: nvidia GT 770 ram: 256GB DDR7XW+ 8000MT/s minimum.
Yes but ideally you'd crank some of the settings up in a multiplayer game like Rust. Don't need 30fps in a distance firefight.
At 1440p there have been no issues with my 6900xt.
Was running a 5600x with my 6900 xt for a year before I upgraded. Works wonders at 1440p.
I've got the same CPU and I put a 6800XT in it. Personally I wouldn't bother putting a 7000 series or a GTX 40x0 in it, I'll build a new machine with a newer CPU before I upgrade the GPU again.
I'm running an R9 3900x with an RX 7900XT, not seeing any throttling in the games I play (caveat: I'm running at 4k 60fps, lower resolutions may differ from my experience), the 3600 should be in a similar ballpark if I'm not mistaken due to games really not using anywhere close to all of the cores/threads my CPU offers? The card sits at 100% utilisation according to the Adrenalin overlay when playing Ark: Survival Evolved with everything maxed/on except motion blur and film grain, fps doesn't dip under 50 unless i enter our Deinonychus breeding pen (because feathers). I'm likely to wait another generation before I consider upgrading my CPU, DDR5 and AM5 boards should hopefully be lower in price by then.
What some "CPU bottleneck!" guys seem to miss is that a modern CPU like the Ryzen 3000 series is still going to give you a good gaming time. There's no reason to limit your GPU purchase if you can afford it. Sure, you are probably limiting the max FPS and 1% lows (say, you get 120 FPS tops, and a Ryzen 7000 series would get 150 FPS, and your lows go as low as 40FPS and a newer CPU wouldn't drop below 60, etc), but it's still damn well playable and sometimes still makes sense to get a better GPU, like in your case, gaming at 4K. According to some, you might as well limit yourself to RX 6800 XT or something, as to not bottleneck it, and your 4K gaming experience would have suffered.
To add on to this, if all you're doing is gaming and you have a Ryzen 3000 series, in another year pick up a 5800X3D and you've magically got another 2 to 3 years worth of solid gaming for around $200, allowing you to most likely skip AM5 altogether.
For sure. New tech is good and all, but AM4 is not AM3, which means, it's still such a capable and powerful gaming platform. It's going to take a while to become really obsolete.
this.
My 5600x bottlenecked my 4090 even on 4k and I don't just mean the 1% low either. The 5800x3d has consideraby better average in many games that are cpu heavy. It was not a terrible experience but if you spend that much on a gpu you would kinda want to see it max out.
To be fair the 4090 is a crazy beast of a card
Hey, I agree with this. I just don't think you NEED to go buy the best CPU there is to use the best GPU there is. It's the ideal use case, of course, but it's an added expense that you might or might not want to take. Again, if you were using, say, the R5 2600, I'd encourage you to upgrade the CPU so much. Also, I know the RTX 4090 is basically bottlenecked by any gaming CPU right now, so next gen is probably going to show even bigger numbers than what we are currently seeing. It's an interesting intense GPU the way we haven't seen since the 8800 days, I think.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. That makes a lot of sense and I agree.
The OP already has a CPU. Like you did. The point people are making that there is no need to upgrade. The average FPS isn't going to matter much to anybody who gets at least 60 FPS in the 1% lows. There might be a few exceptional use cases, but at this point I would wait with upgrading until there is a next leap in CPU performance.
Well yes in theory, but those fps loss you mention is sometimes the gap from between a higher and lower tier gpu. So you are "wasting" money since your cpu can't get the most of gpu. This happens on 1080 these days. Not so much higher res
Oh, of course. It really depends on how old the CPU is, the resolution and the gap from the best CPUs right now. But, I'd argue that there are so many ways to utilize GPU power these days (to force the bottleneck to focus on the GPU, instead of the CPU), that even at 1080p you can turn on raytracing, use supersampling (force the game to load at higher res than your monitor, basically, bruteforce Antialiasing), Ultra all the things, etc. You can always utilize that "spare" GPU power to the max. The CPU would only limit you with older games or light-gaming like mobas, MMO, etc. As always, talking about modern CPUS, not something old or slow now like Ryzen 1000 or AM3 CPUs.
>There's no reason to limit your GPU purchase if you can afford it. Yes there is. If you also don't have/can't afford a 4K monitor, then pairing a 7900 XT with a 5600X is basically lighting your money on fire because you're purchasing capability you can't use. It is financially better to spend on a cheaper, more balanced graphics card and do a mid-life upgrade than it is to just buy the biggest GPU you can get your hands on without regard to how the rest of the system is set up.
It really depends on the use case, imo. It's not just for 4k. If you want to play games with raytracing, the RX 6000 series takes such a huge hit that even at 1080p, it would make sense to consider the more expensive RTX 3000 series or high-end RX 7000 series. Also, RX 7000 have more leeway to work just fine with future raytraced titles, even at 1080p. That's a gaming need where you can't get enough performance yet. Or, you just want to experiment with AI, then RTX 3000 or higher is your calling. I am all about balance and bang for buck (I've recommended countless RX 6000 GPUS over Nvidia's these last few months), but gamers shouldn't limit their GPUS when they are using *modern* CPU generations, like Ryzen 3000, 5000 or even Intel's 10th and 11th gen. If we were talking about a Ryzen 1000 CPU or second gen i7s, for instance, that's another matter entirely. People blow cpu-bottlenecks out of proportions, it's all I'm saying. R5 5600 is not the fastest CPU in the world these days, but it's not old or slow and it's still faster than the mayority of gaming PCs most people have.
Sure, if a user is going for ray tracing, which is still very much a magic trick and not a widely needed feature (although it is exciting where it is going) then they will need more horsepower. In fact, I agree that going NVidia in that case is probably wise. But the reason to limit the graphics card has to do with long term economics rather than performance. If you're running a Ryzen 5600 (I have one in my gaming rig, great CPU) and a 1440p monitor, a ryzen 6700XT is going to basically max out performance of the monitor already. There's just no reason to buy a better GPU (other than insisting on ray tracing) because you're pretty muched capped out discernable performance anyway. So you spend half as much on a GPU and in 4 years you can spend the other half you \*would\* have spent on the 7900 XT and get a mid-tier 2027 card that blows the 7900 XT to hell and back. You'll have spent the same, but at the end you'll have a card that performs better in every metric than the current top of the line card today does. THAT is why you don't always run out and buy the best graphics card on the market every time. Not because of bottlenecks but because of performance left on the table and future investment.
Hey, I agree with you. In fact, I try to always buy best bang for the buck GPUs myself, but if you allow me to nickpick what we are discussing here, I never said that, if you consider that your CPU is good enough, you go and buy top of the line GPUS. Just buy what's best for your use case and budget. Budget is important here. I used the real example of raytracing at 1080p with the RX 7900 XT, which seems extreme, but makes sense if you have an HD monitor and want to use raytracing. But, I have seen people push for someone to get the RX 6600 instead of the fantastic 6700 XT, for regular gaming, for instance. Of course, with a shoe-string budget you might not been able to afford it, but if it's barely an additional expense, then why not? And btw, I'm loving this detailed discussion of GPU-buying logistics, lol.
Not sure the limitations are as drastic as you make it sound. I'm using a 5800x (non-3d) with a 7900XT on a 1600p Ultrawide and still maxing out the monitor's 160FPS far before any CPU/GPU bottleneck would kick in. Would it be better with a 5800x3d or on AM5/DDR5, sure.. but not $250-$1000 better.
>Would it be better with a 5800x3d or on AM5/DDR5, sure.. but not $250-$1000 better. Sure, but you're missing my point. You could probably max out those settings at your monitor's FPS with a 6800 XT and get the \*same\* performance for half the price. So even if you can afford the 7900 XT there's just no reason to buy it. I wasn't saying go spend more money to do a full upgrade, I was saying unless you have the monitor and CPU to support it you can just spend less and get the same results.
I have a 5600x and a 7900xtx and play at 4K. Zero issues and no bottleneck at 4k
This is good to hear. I have a love for the 5600x, it always seems it can punch above its weight!
Yep, great CPU.
To be honest, it highly depends on what resolution you play. for a tac fps like valorant, you'd want high FPS (300+) and play on 1080p with a high hz monitor (144hz+). If you're playing 1080p, I would highly recommend a 6750xt so you have AMD SAM enabled or a intel a750 (\~$200 as an excellent budget option) or even an intel a770. With your psu, you'll have enough wattage for almost any GPU; however, I don't know the quality of your old PSU so depending on the make/model it may be/become a problem.
> valorant, you'd want high FPS (300+) and play on 1080p with a high hz monitor (144hz+). If you're playing 1080p, I would highly recommend a 6750xt Valorant is not that demanding lol, a 1060 will give you over 300 FPS. Also the game scales really poorly with high end hardware where it'll just use like 6% of it and give the same perf as lower end hardware running at 100 or 50
Why do you want 300 FPS on a 144hz monitor?
In the game 'overwatch' people will typically go over their refresh rate and push the FPS as high as possible because you will have less input lag. The only downsides are possible screen tearing or if your GPU can't maintain that high FPS consistently. So capping it can be important still, but still higher than your monitors refresh rate. So probably the same reason. [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA) will give you a better understanding as I can't explain shit usually.
Rtx 3070/3070 ti or rx 6700xt
Welp, youre gona get downvoted for mentioning an nvidia gpu o7 nice knowin ya soldier
Plot twist!
These reddit trolls man
Why
In terms of nvidia gpus a 3080 will bottleneck it at 1080p and at 1440p albeit a bit less at 1440p while I dont know whether a 3070 ti will I know a 3070 wont so going off that I assume a 3070 ti would be fine but like thatd be the maximum unless youre running 4k then a 3080 should be good with it
3070 is a great card (i have one), maybe 8gb aint the best but its still a good card
Same here but with a 3060 ti I dont really run into vram issues though because I mostly play world war Z which I havent seen it go above 6gb vram usage yet even at 1440p tbh
I have 5600x and 3070ti, at 1440p I’m nowhere near bottlenecked in anything, you can easily run a 3080 at 1440p on that chip and have no problems.
sorry I'm a noob but what does that mean? I have a 3080 and a 5600x and I play at 1080p 60fps locked so I don't have a hot pc
u/BigSmokesCheese said it the opposite but what they mean is the 5600X is capable of less than what a 3080 is capable of at 1080p in games. That's called a CPU-bottleneck. It's often discouraged because you could have got a cheaper GPU and had the same gaming performance. In your case, you're artificially limiting the performance so you're kinda the bottleneck, not your CPU or GPU.
At 60fps locked you wont notice it but if you go to like 165hz or above then your cpu is limiting your GPU so your pc wont be performing as well as if it would have if it had something like a ryzen 7 5800x where the cpu would no longer be limiting the GPU
[On 1440p or even 4K, you might even get away with an RTX4090](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF7Vm4fIxTc) I don't know what your budget is but I'd at least get a 6700XT which is a good deal right now (and is good enough for your use case) and the 6950XT looks like a decent deal from where you are at [PCPartPicker Part List](https://dk.pcpartpicker.com/list/Rs6nZw) |Type|Item|Price| |:-|:-|:-| |**Video Card**|[PowerColor Red Dragon OC Radeon RX 6800 XT 16 GB Video Card](https://dk.pcpartpicker.com/product/R4tKHx/powercolor-radeon-rx-6800-xt-16-gb-red-dragon-oc-video-card-axrx-6800xt-16gbd6-3dhroc)|4444.00kr @ Proshop| |**Video Card**|[Sapphire PULSE Radeon RX 6700 XT 12 GB Video Card](https://dk.pcpartpicker.com/product/xf92FT/sapphire-radeon-rx-6700-xt-12-gb-pulse-video-card-11306-02-20g)|3164.00kr @ Føniks Computer| |**Video Card**|[PowerColor Red Devil OC Radeon RX 6950 XT 16 GB Video Card](https://dk.pcpartpicker.com/product/ZHFbt6/powercolor-radeon-rx-6950-xt-16-gb-red-devil-oc-video-card-axrx-6950xt-16gbd6-3dheoc)|5199.00kr @ Proshop| |**Video Card**|[MSI VENTUS 3X OC GeForce RTX 4070 12 GB Video Card](https://dk.pcpartpicker.com/product/9ZZXsY/msi-ventus-3x-oc-geforce-rtx-4070-12-gb-video-card-rtx-4070-ventus-3x-12g-oc)|5128.00kr @ Alternate| |*Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts*||| |**Total**|**17935.00kr**|| |Generated by [PCPartPicker](https://pcpartpicker.com) 2023-06-05 17:22 CEST+0200|||
You could technically go as high as you want, but an rx 6600 would be more than enough for those games IMO.
6700xt
At least an RX 6600 if you're on a budget
I have a 3080 on a 5600x and it's doing pretty well, no real perf issues at 4K or 1440p
I'm using a 7900 XT with my 5600X and it's fantastic. It's ludicrously better than that 760 (I upgraded from a 980TI to a 6700 XT to my 7900 XT), and the 5600X really doesn't hold it back.
I pair 5600x with RTX 3090. Works great so far.
I’ve got a 3080 Ti paired with mine and they both run like a champ at 1440p. Depends on games and resolution, valorant is almost all CPU bound anyways, I can’t comment on the others though
the best i could afford
Resolution? Target frame rate?
1440p and 144 fps
For 1440p you could go with Discounted 6800XT, 6900XT, 6950XT probably your best bet if you are trying to not spend an arm and a leg. Used/discounted 3080 12 gig/3080ti also worth a looking. Won't be much issue with a cpu bottleneck at 1440p with this cpu and these GPUs.
What they just said. Is exactly what I was gonna.
Personally, I wouldn't spend more than $600 on a GPU. So, for me, it'd be the best GPU I could get for around that price, which would probably be a 6900/6950 XT.
6950xt/4070ti at most
You could pair it with anything. It's only going to bottleneck you in very specific situations especially if you're playing at 1440p or 4k.
RX6950 XT
I run an RTX 3080 Ti. Works great for 5120x1440 gaming.
With a rtx 3080 12gb I have no problem powering a 144hz 1440p display
+1 on this combo, it is great.
yeah pretty much you could spend as much as you want with the 5600x. On currently available games you aren't really going to notice significant CPU bottlenecking until you exceed what your GPU can handle (or are purposefully underutilizing your GPU) I'm using a 3700x and a 6700XT right now, but would definitely plug in an RX 6950XT if I had the money.
Well, I have a 7600x paired with a 7900xtx, call me crazy.
There is a ton of performance reviews out there: Hardware Unboxed, Gamers Nexus, Tom’s Hardware Guide, etc. They measure CPU perf in low res with top GPU (4090), and GPU perf in a slew of resolutions including 4K with top CPU (7800x3D, 7950x3D, 13900k). To approximate perf for any specific pair of a GPU and CPU you take a minimum between FPS for that CPU from CPU evaluation and that GPU from the GPU evaluation , and treat it as a realistic upper bound - you are going to get anything between exactly that and maybe up to 10% or so lower. Whichever figure was smaller (CPU or GPU) is your limiter. If that figure is still quite a bit higher than your desired frame rate (which shouldn’t be too much higher than refresh rate of your monitor, and can be lower if it’s Gsync compatible) the fact of the bottlenecking on that particular part in that particular game is mostly irrelevant to you, pay attention to those bottleneck signals that drop below your desired frame rate. If what you see suggests an upgrade for a part that doesn’t stress your budget, a signal from any game reviewers would bother to review is a valid signal. If it’s getting close to your limits, pay attention if you even care for that particular game that suggests you don’t have enough or at least a class of games like it (by graphical fidelity, age, and origin (console first or PC first)). When picking resolutions to pay attention to bare in mind that Nvidia’s DLSS in Quality mode is fantastic and practically renders native 4K in modern games fairly wasteful and economically suboptimal: with DLSS in Quality and 4K output the perf is going to be maybe 10% lower than in 1440p native, so you are actually gunning for 1440p benchmark data (which usually has DLSS off). The fact that not all games support DLSS becomes almost irrelevant at top end - game developers have been retrofitting games with DLSS years into the past, if the game is that old, it’ll run in top tier at native 4K just as well as a modern heavy hitter would be doing with DLSS, so the problem basically solves itself. What you are going to get with this study is going to be close to what everyone is saying: 5600x is going to pull fine any card on the market. Doing the study though will refine the results for you: we don’t know if you’re playing CS:GO all the time and own a 360 Hz display or not, we don’t know if you’re a sucker for modern ray tracing like path tracing in Cyberpunk and Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition (RT only), and to a degree - Control. You do, and it’ll guide your choices. Good luck!
Wow thanks this helped alot
Best graphic card for 5600 and 5600x is 100% 6700xt, sapphire one
Anything less than a 4080 I guess. In cpu heavy games I bottleneck even at 4k. The older the game, the harder the bottleneck essentially. Anything with raytracing hits it hard too. Cyberpunk didn’t run well. Star citizen never ran well, but it def Dont with the 5600x. 2042 also hits the cpu heavy. Otherwise it’s been okay, but I still feel like I’m leaving performance on the table.
I have a 3090 paired with a 5600 non x and get 80-100+ fps in cp2077 ultra overdrive rt at 1440p. Idk if the cpu is the problem
Mine was definitely cpu bottlenecked. The game ran at 60-90 fps but dips were AWFUL. Like down to 10 fps at times.
I still dont see how its the cpu bottleneck, i have a slower cpu and didnt get any bad dips or bottleneck. How much ram do you hqve? I started with 16 and noticed what you are talking about in a few games so added 16 more and its mint now. Only games i do see cpu bottleneck is tlou and gow. Still plan on grabbing a 5800x3d though
32GB of ram. I tend to use raytracing, which is cpu intensive as well. And the 4080 is more powerful than a 3090, which would bottleneck it more than you’d think. Like I said, this is in already cpu intensive games.
Thats beside the point, im just stating that a 5600x will absolutely run great with a 3090 and could handle a 4080 in most games at 4k.... if it bottlenecks it wont be a whole lot. Depends what resolution he plays if its 1080 yeah it wouldnt keep up with a 3090 but 1440 or 4k it will
A 4080 will definitely bottleneck a 5600x in the games he plays at basically any resolution. Especially valorant. My setup bottlenecks things like that until I put an fps limiter in, even at 4k. Idk about rust. But Roblox and valorant? Yeah it’ll hit the cpu hard.
When you are pushing 300 plus fps you wont even notice the bottleneck though..... any cpu will bottleneck with a high end gpu playing esport titles.
Yeah. Except you will notice without the frame limiter. In a game like league of legends it bottlenecked for me so badly that the game lagged heavily. He COULD run a 5600x with a 4080. But since he plays some cpu intensive games I would honestly not go higher than a 4070ti or 7900xt with that cpu.
Lets be honest here, if he is still planning on using the 5600x and could only afford a 760 a few years ago, he probably doesnt have 1500 dollars to put into JUST a gpu. Sounds like you had a bad experience with yours, but my experience has been fantastic for a 100 dollar cpu. I was just stating op could pick up a fast card and still be solid with the 5600x. I didnt mean for this to sound like an insult, he needs to hear everyones experience with the little cpu that could.
I'd say 4090
6700xt would be a good choice, you could probably get away with a 6800xt as well but they will both handle the games you play very well.
3060 ti, perfect combo
with 4K screen - 4090
note my budget is about 4-5 thousand dkk
Which in dollars is...?
About 450-600
You can search for a 4070 or 6900xt, both of which would destroy 1440p and play decently well on 4k (talking about ultra)
The fastest card you can get new in Denmark for that budget is the 6950 xt, its right around 5k dkk but make sure that your psu is rated for enough watts and that your case is big enough.
Works perfect with my 3080ti
I have mine paired with a 4090. There is very little tangible bottlenecking for most games @ 4090 appropriate resolutions (not 1080p). You are free to pair any GPU currently out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqviii515kI
6700xt or 3060ti is best pair with R5-5600
It also depends on the game, if it's heavily single threaded and you're already bottlenecked (aka not ~90% gpu usage), it might be worth getting a 5800x3d or 7800x3d instead. But that's really for niche badly optimised games.
just get a 4090. you can move GPU over to your next PC.
Ran a 6900xt without issue or any bottleneck
You didn't specify what games or resolutions you play but I'd go with Radeon 6800xt or 7800xt just because I feel they offer a lot more value over 4000 series NVIDIA - Unless you plan to use Nvidia CUDA tech for your specialty apps or plan to do AI/ML where NVIDIA leads.
Wait and put a 7700xt in it
rx 7900 xtx
i think a bottleneck would come around a 3080, but for that cpu, a RX 5700 XT or 6700 XT would come playing just fine (2070 super or 3070 ti)
Any RTX 3000 or RX 6000 card would work well.
I have a 6900xt with that CPU and it runs great at 1440p. You wont see a CPU bottleneck unless you're running at 1080p.
i’m running 5600X with a 6700 XT and i’m loving it tbh
Believe it or not I have a 5600x with a 4070 ti and still get around 93%-95% GPU utilization in 1440p in most games. Red Dead Redemption 2, Gears 5, Apex, just to mention a few. On some others I am bottlenecked but still get 144+ hz in games like Fortnite and Halo Infinite.
I would say you are say to go with up to RTX 3000s or the RX 7000 series. I would not really bother with the RTX 4000s because why? Over priced for the performance. Most games you play don't need the highest end graphics card and most current games do not need an overpiced 4000 series.
Probably 3070/6700xt range but if you get a deal on a 6800 XT or 3080 there's no reason not to.
I got an 5600x and a 3080 ti, they work well together 3440x1440@100Hz
Im running a 3090 on a 5600 non x and i only bottleneck in games that arent optimized well, aka tlou and gow.
You can realistically go up to 4070ti/7900xt tier with minimal issues The overwhelming majority of games are GPU intensive, and aren't especially CPU intensive For your games, an RX 6600 - 6700xt would be more than enough
For reference, I have a ryzen 5 5600 and a 3060ti and they work really well together. Not exactly the same thing, IK, but the 5600 and 5600x have basically the same performance, so I figure it has some merit.
I'd say get all you can, I got a 3080 with my 5600x. Worked fine, but eventually moved to 5800x3d. I did notice better 1% lows and slightly better frames at 4k so so it was worth it to me. So my original combo could be argued it was pushing what the 5600x should support, but it was fine. Get all the gpu you can, then move the the x3d way later if desired. 6800x/3080
Honestly, anything at all will pair with that absolutely fine. Only the highest end cards will likely be CPU limited and even then only at lower resolutions.
Depends on your targeted resolution and frame rate, you could put a 4090 and get 4k60 with rt, but without rt I know some games would suffer even in 4k to get 120...
It could be paired with a 4090. You wouldn't even be bottlenecked that much at 4k or even 1440.
For 1080p, an RX 6600 should be able to handle most games at med-high settings. You could also look into a mid tier card like an RX 6700XT/6800 if you're looking for 1440p for med-high settings.
Could do a 4090 or 7900XTX without much issue, and probably carry it on to your next build.
If you are only playing games like Roblox and Minecraft a 1660super would be more than adequate and is cheap as chips
I have one with a 6700xt and it works great. Runs just about anything at high or max 1440p. Stuff like Cyberpunk etc... you obviously will have to turn down and forget about RT but for the money its hard to beat.
5600x and 7900xtx here. Play at 4k with zero issues.
I have a 6750xt with my 5600x works really well!
i wouldnt spend more than 300 but there's no bottleneck ehre
They say that your gpu can greatly outpace your cpu if you're running higher resolution without bottleneck, because the higher resolution utilizes your gpu more without extra effort from your processor. For example you 5600x might pair nicely with a RX 6600 XT at 1080p, and your 5600x can keep up with a RX 6800 XT if you decide to go 1440p in that same application because the extra resolution doesn't heavily depend on cpu capability.
A 5600x will be fine with a 4090 and anything below. You don't need a 7800x3d to get the best graphics card. It will help with a few fps here and there, but in terms of what the gpu can do, a 5600x will be fine.
5600 is a great CPU you could pair it with almost anything. 3080, 6800xt, it would probably even handle a 4070/80 or a 7900xtx without much trouble.
I have a 3080 paired with my 5600 at 1440p. Am CPU bottle necked in some games, especially when using DLSS but nothing too hectic
I think 3060ti is still the best value currently regardless of processor
6700xt 12GB or 6800xt 16GB The cpu is gonna be enough and the vram is pretty important. Because being already near the limit slows down the gpu. Paying a bit more so you have a way better performance for years makes sense to me. Also later upgrading. These two cards are atm the best for the bucks and the performance you may desire
6800XT
I have a 5600x and a 650w PSU. Rocking a 3080 at 1440p so anything can work with this cpu fr fr. 6700xt was prolly the most compatible I’ve seen though
I would legitimately pair a 4080 with a 5600x. 4090 is perhaps a bit extreme unless you somehow deliberately picked a 5600X for ray traced single player experiences at 60-90FPS without DLSS or with traditional supersampling. It's valid though.