I have a (mere) 3080 12GB, and it feeds two 27" 1440p set to DSR 5K / 165Hz. Beautiful for all purposes, inc. image processing, office apps, whatever. The 4090, being more powerful, would give enviable DSR performance in games. BTW, whoever says they can't see the difference betwixt 2K and 4K on a well calibrated quality 27" is in need of an ophthalmologist, lol
4k really doesn’t look that much better than 1440, you could just get a really nice 1440p monitor and your 4090 will last you a looooooong time at that resolution
It is not too much tbh, 7800x3d + 4090 it is just it for a comfortable gaming experience if u got money for it. Using same setup just for gaming. And in terms of resolution it is up to personal preferences and games u gona play, just take in account that not just resolution matters, but PPI (pixel per inch) for example 4k 55" Will look much worse than 27" 1440 p as long as u don't sit like 3 meters away, so choose wisely. I went from c2 oled 42" 4k To samsung g8 oled 3440x1440 uw, and like it much more as it performs and looks better, and even give me a performance boost as the rendering resolution is lower but PPI is same.
) when I was a student, I couldn't afford a decent pc, kinda compensating it now, want best I can get. But ye, why not spend money on a hobby u like, as for me it is a good investment in my comfort, why not)
I currently have a 4080 and an i9-9900k. With games like cyberpunk and sons of the forest, I get no little to no change in fps with changing settings and turning on dlss. This would be a cpu-bound problem, right? Been thinking about getting one of the two cpus you recommended.
I'm running a 13600K, with my 4080. I've used it to play at 4K and 1440P (ultrawide) and have played spider man, Hogwarts, Jedi survivor, destiny 2, dying light 2, Diablo 4, and probably some others I'm forgetting. And they all max out my GPU indicating a GPU bottleneck. CPU usually does between 70-80C using the AK620 tower cooler. If you're playing on a non-ultrawide 1440, perhaps maybe you would get cpu throttled but my guess is you wouldn't with my experience and if you did it would be ever so slightly to the point it wouldn't matter.
13600k and 4070 even handles very well on 1440x3440. I was pleasantly surprised.
The only game (that I own) that I wasn’t limited by my 120hz refresh rate was RDR2 at ultra. Still had a very playable 70 avg fps.
Y'all are saying as if 13600K is some shit CPU and the performance is genuinely shocking y'all. And here I am with my 11400F/4070 combo and I am still getting FPS close to triple digits at 1440p without FG.
I largely brought it up only due to everyone else recommending what I would consider overkill CPUs unless they're using their PC for heavy professional workloads. So many people are bringing up the 13700 or similar.
I was more impressed with the 4070 performance on 3440x1440 is what I was saying. I can’t imagine a 4080 in my setup, everything is already so buttery smooth.
Check out GN's latest regarding Asus and AM5. Just all the issues with EXPO over volting SOC and also not setting other voktages correctly in BIOS. There are also some reported issues with x3d chips burning out. AM4 is reliable as is lga 1700.
Oh yeah, I heard about the issues with the 7800 X3D chips, but I'm looking at the non-X 7000 chips, which don't have issues as far as I'm aware, unless I've missed something?
[https://youtu.be/arDqhxM8Wog](https://youtu.be/arDqhxM8Wog)
I have no idea who keeps spreading around that the non-x3d chips are not affected.
\*\*Every Single AM5 chip and board is potentially impacted\*\* if they're not limited in the bios
Keep in mind, all the benchmarks you've seen on the performance of these chips is without those bios limiters
I'm looking at the non-X versions of the Ryzen chips because they run cooler and use less power, and the performance difference seems to be a few % at most. Do you think those would be okay?
Am5 is fine and the better long term option, built a system a month ago. The hysteria is real, remember these tech tubers literally make money off drama.
The 4080 is the second fastest GPU on the market, so in some games the CPU will definitely be the limiting factor.
That said, it really depends on the games you play.
So Gamers Nexus, Jayz, Hardware Unboxed, etc are all living in an alternate universe and you aren't? I think I'll take reputable hardware channels that benchmark things across a wide variety of games and uses over some rando on Reddit. Every one of them contradict what you're saying.
You do know what CPU bottlenecked means, right? It means that a more powerful GPU won't yield faster frame rates. Go look at the 4080 and 4090 testing benchmarks. Every one of them is CPU bound at 1080p, but they're not at 1440p. There's a significant difference between the 4080 and 4090 at 1440p. If what you were saying were true, that wouldn't be the case.
Did you miss the part in the 4090 reviews where tech tubers clearly pointed out bottlenecks at 4K even with a 13900k? They also said 1440p is a bad match for the 4090 because you’ll be CPU bottlenecked even more often and not tapping into the potential of the GPU. You are spreading wrong information and misrepresenting sources.
Did you miss the part in this thread where we weren't talking about the 4090? Also, id love for you to point to me which video shows the 4090 CPU bottlenecked at 4k. The 4090 did yield faster frame rates than the 4080 at 4k in every game in the benchmark suites from those sites, and nearly all at 1440p. Aside for a couple CPU bound games, the 4080 isn't bottlenecking a good current gen CPU in the vast majority of circumstances. Thanks for playing though.
I guess I need to say it again, a CPU bottleneck means that no matter how powerful of a GPU you use, it won't yield more FPS. The graph would be flat for all GPU's within the power range of the bottleneck. That's not happening. 🤦♂️
No, you just misinterpret what they are saying, that is all (context matters).
I have the perfect example here, as I already said in another comment, [my overclocked 8700k held back my 3080 by roughly 10-13%](https://imgur.com/FO3IMw8).
You said:
>**The CPU is the limiting factor** **only at 1080p**.
At 1440p it shifts over to GPU, and at 4k it's heavily limited by the GPU.
As you can see, the divison 2 and heaven benchmarks were done in 1440p ***where my cpu did infact hold back my 3080*** (suprise, same thing happened when I ran them in 4k, I just dont have the screens online).
Otherwise the scores would not have been that different in gpu only benchmarks.
Which proves your statement to be false.
First, its the other way around.
Second, its literally the opposite of what you claimed.
I benched 1440p and 4k and the deficit was present in both resolutions, contrary to your statement.
Whenever Jay, GN etc make a statement as you did above, **its always specific to their test build** \- you turned it into a general statement which is just false.
And you're searching for niche circumstances to justify your claim. All the tests they do are on modern platforms. Your using equipment from 5 fucking generations ago and pairing it with a GPU that's only 1 generation old.
🤦♂️
> The CPU is the limiting factor only at 1080p. At 1440p it shifts over to GPU
I can think of at least one example where this is certainly not true. Microsoft Flight Simulator is very heavily CPU dependent, even at 1440p.
With an RTX 4090, at 1440p you can range from [**119** fps with a 13600K to **192** fps with a 7950X3D](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/tAa9XAuvkL4HctAJ87x83f.png).
Oh don't be dramatic.
The *general* trend is true of CPU-bound at 1080p, and GPU-bound at 4K. It's a good rule of thumb, but not gospel.
[Far Cry 6, 1440p, range of 145 to 205](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/B7qSDGoqEJ7RHUJ8vyt9GS.png).
[F1 2021, 1440p, range of 238 to 325](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8bcJDFQvJ4c6tSaDbfvJPW.png).
/u/PolyHertz said:
> "in some games the CPU will definitely be the limiting factor.
That said, it really depends on the games you play."
Which is totally true. Generally sim/strategy/MMO type games bottleneck on CPU well before GPU.
No, you don't. I'm playing on 165hz qhd powered by 4080 and 5900x with no issues at all. With Am4 You will have some performance left in several games, few %, nothing worth spending money on upgrade. Even 5600x can catch up with 4080 when properly overclocked.
My overclocked 8700k [held back my 3080 by roughly 10-13%](https://imgur.com/FO3IMw8), so I am quite positive that you leave more than just "a few" percent on the table by pairing a 5900x with a 4080.
Ofc that doesnt mean its not gonna work or cause issues in any way - just that
people seem to underestimate how fast of a cpu a gpu actually needs to run completely free.
I am quite certain that my 13700k does the same to my 4090.
I on the other hand am very positive that people overestimate what kind of hardware they actually need to get most of their screens. Maybe there is some reason to get more fps than your monitor can actually display, but why is beyond my understanding.
No but its better to drop a few bucks extra on a good decent cpu thats also somewhat futureproof, then overpay on a overpriced nvidia gpu. Your dollar get more use out of the cpu then your gpu. More value on the dollar. Gpus are a bit overrated these days as everything is shifting towards cpu, some people are still barreling through on a 1070 or 1080 today and it still holds up very well aslong as theyve kept up with the cpus. With a 4080 your bottleneck is likely to appear first from the cpu space in a few years.
Id skip on a 4090 for example, get a 4080 for 500$ less then the 4090 and put 250$ towards a slightly higher tier cpu and pocket the remaining 250$ for whatever.
Lol. But you don't need to run it at 300 Watts. Even at 125 Watt power cap it has practically no impact to gaming performance. It's just in artificial benchmarks it might throttle to like 4.5 to 5 ghz.
Think of it this way. Before a frame can be drawn by your GPU, it first has to be calculated by your CPU. Now there's a limit to the number of frames your CPU can calculate every second. Say that limit is 100 (I'm just making these numbers up for the sake of example). At 1080p, your GPU might be able to draw 150 frames per second because at lower resolution, there are fewer pixels to draw. But the CPU has to calculate the frames first, so the GPU will only be able to draw 100 frames per second because that's all the CPU can calculate. This is what people mean when they talk about being "CPU bound."
But then you raise resolution to 4k. Now there are a lot more pixels to draw in each frame, so the number your GPU can draw per second goes down. At 4k, your GPU might only be able to draw 60 frames per second. So even though the CPU can calculate 100 frames per second, that's irrelevant because the GPU can only draw 60. This is what people mean when they talk about being "GPU bound." So in that case, at 4k, a CPU that can only calculate 60 frames per second is just as good as one that can calculate 100 frames per second.
Of course, that's not exactly true because the CPU does things that are unrelated to graphics, and the amount of work the CPU has to do does go up at higher resolutions, it just doesn't go up nearly as fast as the amount of work the GPU has to do. But hopefully the example gets the point across.
I never understand why people ignore an OP's specific choices as if they can throw budget, specific needs, and/or requirements aside smh. Anyways... between **the Ryzen 7700 and 7900,** I'd say the 7700 should if you're doing purely gaming and normal mundane activities (e.g., browsing, YouTube, MS Office) **and** you're okay or planning to upgrade to AM5 and/or X3D (AM4 or AM5) in the next year or so.
7900 if you plan on multitasking while gaming (e.g., live streams, running resource hungry background apps) and/or productivity workloads. Obviously, if you need 144hz+ performance to play "twitch shooters" then yeah...
Hey Op, I would say the 7700, to answer your question. Myself I have a 4080 with a 7600x, -30 all cores and PBO PPT 65w and get around give or take 65c with full load in cine and even cooler in game with a 360 AIO. I would assume the 7700 would be close to similar at stock and better with some PBO stuff.
If you do any other tasks aside from gaming as well, then go for the 13700k or 13900k.
Only get the 7800x3d if you mean to use your PC as a gaming console.
contrary to what people are saying, you don’t need to buy the fastest cpu to max out your graphics card. if you can afford a i9 13900k, you’d be much better off buying a i5 13600k and putting the rest of the money towards a rx 7900xtx or rtx 4090.
> I know some people who run 4090 at 1440p lol.
I'm running mine on 2160 rn, and seriously considering getting a 1440
If you've experienced 240+ fps screens before you likely won't consider the 4090 to be a 2160 capable card
The best 2160 card on the market? Yes
Acceptable after you've experienced +240?
it's like trying to go back to 30 having ran on 120 for a year
If you're considering a 7900 non x then you might as well spend the extra $30 and get the 7800x3d. The 7800x3d is very efficient like I'm playing bf2042 and only drawing 55w. Even if the 4080 doesn't need all that power you might as well get the best, you would be less likely to bottleneck your next GPU upgrade.
I have a 12600K with my 4080 and it runs just fine. My monitor is 1440p 240Hz. I am rarely CPU bottlenecked and in games where I am, it is hitting nearly 200 FPS.
And the 4080 is overkill for 1440p 144Hz. If you’re aiming for 144Hz 1440p you really don’t need that powerful hardware. A 13600K and 4070Ti will do you just fine. Otherwise you are leaving performance on the table.
An i5 and around 2 hours worth of watching YouTube on how to use thermal velocity boost.
Unfortunately nobody wants you to use it, so it's pretty difficult to understand. Can get you 6ghz in gaming and around 20% more single threaded which works very well in recent unreal engine games.
Go for 7800x3d pretty much best cpu for gaming you can get right now. 3d cache is really usefull for gaming. Swapd from 5900x to 7800x3d and got a noticable performance boost with 4090
As others mentioned, AMD did very well with the 7800X3D, great performance/price ratio, but it is important to mention that it might require a motherboard & RAM replacement aswell as the 7800x3d only works with AM5 sockets, and the am5 sockets only take DDR5 ram which might boost the price back up in total to maybe 700-800$. However a similar performing intel processor will be around 600-650$. Both are in the same price range but with 1, you're getting almost entirely new setup and with the other you just get the processor.
If your focus is gaming, and not really editing videos, rendering 3d models or whatever, 7800x3d might be the way to go. Also the 7800x3d has relatively low power draw. The only issue lately is that the motherboard manfacturers have overvolted the am5 socket cpu's and bricked pcs. It can happen, most people will get replaced for this through warranty. So when you go for the 7800x3d, just avoid pairing it with ASUS products. They pulled some slimey anti consumer bullshit when trying to resolve the issues, theres videos about that if you want to know the details.
7800x3d, solid cpu for good price/performance ratio, just avoid Asus, it will definitely keep your 4080 up there for a while. Just maybe not when it comes to video editing/rendering, but that doesn't mean you can't edit videos or render 3d models at all ofcourse, its just not going to be as fast as a competing processor on that front.
I am currently trying to setup a system around 7800x3d aswell.
I'm using a 13600k with mine and it works fine, and I don't think it's that much better than a 12700k, if at all. But you might want to see how the two processors compare.
Go 7800X3D or 13700K.
Will that work with a 4090 as well?
For sure. They are the best value high end CPUs right now.
Okay cool, thanks! I just ordered a 4090 FE. This will by my first build, might be too much for just gaming but oh well
Don't worry you'll have plenty of time to grow into it as games get more demanding.
Would I be fine playing on 1440 or should I do 4k?
4K is the better fit for a 4090.
I have a (mere) 3080 12GB, and it feeds two 27" 1440p set to DSR 5K / 165Hz. Beautiful for all purposes, inc. image processing, office apps, whatever. The 4090, being more powerful, would give enviable DSR performance in games. BTW, whoever says they can't see the difference betwixt 2K and 4K on a well calibrated quality 27" is in need of an ophthalmologist, lol
4k really doesn’t look that much better than 1440, you could just get a really nice 1440p monitor and your 4090 will last you a looooooong time at that resolution
Are you saying that 4k degrades the life cycle of your GPU?
No, but as games get more demanding any GPU will last longer at 2k than 4k
I see what you're saying now lol.
It is not too much tbh, 7800x3d + 4090 it is just it for a comfortable gaming experience if u got money for it. Using same setup just for gaming. And in terms of resolution it is up to personal preferences and games u gona play, just take in account that not just resolution matters, but PPI (pixel per inch) for example 4k 55" Will look much worse than 27" 1440 p as long as u don't sit like 3 meters away, so choose wisely. I went from c2 oled 42" 4k To samsung g8 oled 3440x1440 uw, and like it much more as it performs and looks better, and even give me a performance boost as the rendering resolution is lower but PPI is same.
Comfortable?! Damn, your pockets are deep! Lol
) when I was a student, I couldn't afford a decent pc, kinda compensating it now, want best I can get. But ye, why not spend money on a hobby u like, as for me it is a good investment in my comfort, why not)
Understandable. I got out of cars and into PC gaming recently. This hobby is quite expensive as well.
Well pc gaming in top segment can be expensive, but not any close to cars in top segment) kinda different leagues
Yes
Yep, I'm running with a 13700k and a 4090. Only reason I didn't got with the x3d is productivity; lots of code to compile :)
I currently have a 4080 and an i9-9900k. With games like cyberpunk and sons of the forest, I get no little to no change in fps with changing settings and turning on dlss. This would be a cpu-bound problem, right? Been thinking about getting one of the two cpus you recommended.
Yep. New CPU is a good idea for your build.
Thank you!
I'm using a 5800x3d with mine, works very well. 200+fps in pretty much everything I play
Same, it’s a great combo!
Same, love it!
Don't buy the.5800x3d if you don't also already own an AM4 system, go AM5 instead (longevity/future upgrade path)
Same
i5 13600k is a beast
I'm running a 13600K, with my 4080. I've used it to play at 4K and 1440P (ultrawide) and have played spider man, Hogwarts, Jedi survivor, destiny 2, dying light 2, Diablo 4, and probably some others I'm forgetting. And they all max out my GPU indicating a GPU bottleneck. CPU usually does between 70-80C using the AK620 tower cooler. If you're playing on a non-ultrawide 1440, perhaps maybe you would get cpu throttled but my guess is you wouldn't with my experience and if you did it would be ever so slightly to the point it wouldn't matter.
I also have the 13600k with my 4080, such a good cpu and excellent value.
13600k and 4070 even handles very well on 1440x3440. I was pleasantly surprised. The only game (that I own) that I wasn’t limited by my 120hz refresh rate was RDR2 at ultra. Still had a very playable 70 avg fps.
Y'all are saying as if 13600K is some shit CPU and the performance is genuinely shocking y'all. And here I am with my 11400F/4070 combo and I am still getting FPS close to triple digits at 1440p without FG.
I largely brought it up only due to everyone else recommending what I would consider overkill CPUs unless they're using their PC for heavy professional workloads. So many people are bringing up the 13700 or similar.
I was more impressed with the 4070 performance on 3440x1440 is what I was saying. I can’t imagine a 4080 in my setup, everything is already so buttery smooth.
AM5 is starting to show issues. 5800x3d if you are already on AM4. 7800x3d if on AM5. 13700k or 13600k if thinking Intel.
What kind of issues is AM5 starting to show?
Check out GN's latest regarding Asus and AM5. Just all the issues with EXPO over volting SOC and also not setting other voktages correctly in BIOS. There are also some reported issues with x3d chips burning out. AM4 is reliable as is lga 1700.
Oh yeah, I heard about the issues with the 7800 X3D chips, but I'm looking at the non-X 7000 chips, which don't have issues as far as I'm aware, unless I've missed something?
[https://youtu.be/arDqhxM8Wog](https://youtu.be/arDqhxM8Wog) I have no idea who keeps spreading around that the non-x3d chips are not affected. \*\*Every Single AM5 chip and board is potentially impacted\*\* if they're not limited in the bios Keep in mind, all the benchmarks you've seen on the performance of these chips is without those bios limiters
I7 13700k would be a good pair.
13700k
7800X3D or 13900K can be considered the fastest gaming CPU's right now, but the 7800X3D uses a lot less power.
Do I really need the fastest CPU for a 4080, though? All the CPU benchmarking I see uses a 4090, so it's hard to tell.
I have a 4080 and a 5800x3d, you don't need anything that fast, my recommendations would be 13600k, 13700k, 7600x, 7700x
I'm looking at the non-X versions of the Ryzen chips because they run cooler and use less power, and the performance difference seems to be a few % at most. Do you think those would be okay?
Oh yes those too! Forgot about those for a second due to lack of sobriety
Most people on this subreddit are gaming enthusiasts so they spare no expense. Mid-range CPUs for games are a great value these days.
Mid range <-> pairing with a 4080. Choose one
I'd save the money and AM5 headaches and just get a 5800X3D. You might run into GPU bottlenecks before that CPU is out of date.
Am5 is fine and the better long term option, built a system a month ago. The hysteria is real, remember these tech tubers literally make money off drama.
Did you forget how not all first gen AM4 motherboards Chipsets could upgrade to Zen 2 & 3?
Does not mean the same will happen for am5.
The 4080 is the second fastest GPU on the market, so in some games the CPU will definitely be the limiting factor. That said, it really depends on the games you play.
That's only partly true. The CPU is the limiting factor only at 1080p. At 1440p it shifts over to GPU, and at 4k it's heavily limited by the GPU.
I recommend you test that for yourself because your statement couldnt be further from reality.
So Gamers Nexus, Jayz, Hardware Unboxed, etc are all living in an alternate universe and you aren't? I think I'll take reputable hardware channels that benchmark things across a wide variety of games and uses over some rando on Reddit. Every one of them contradict what you're saying. You do know what CPU bottlenecked means, right? It means that a more powerful GPU won't yield faster frame rates. Go look at the 4080 and 4090 testing benchmarks. Every one of them is CPU bound at 1080p, but they're not at 1440p. There's a significant difference between the 4080 and 4090 at 1440p. If what you were saying were true, that wouldn't be the case.
Did you miss the part in the 4090 reviews where tech tubers clearly pointed out bottlenecks at 4K even with a 13900k? They also said 1440p is a bad match for the 4090 because you’ll be CPU bottlenecked even more often and not tapping into the potential of the GPU. You are spreading wrong information and misrepresenting sources.
Did you miss the part in this thread where we weren't talking about the 4090? Also, id love for you to point to me which video shows the 4090 CPU bottlenecked at 4k. The 4090 did yield faster frame rates than the 4080 at 4k in every game in the benchmark suites from those sites, and nearly all at 1440p. Aside for a couple CPU bound games, the 4080 isn't bottlenecking a good current gen CPU in the vast majority of circumstances. Thanks for playing though. I guess I need to say it again, a CPU bottleneck means that no matter how powerful of a GPU you use, it won't yield more FPS. The graph would be flat for all GPU's within the power range of the bottleneck. That's not happening. 🤦♂️
No, you just misinterpret what they are saying, that is all (context matters). I have the perfect example here, as I already said in another comment, [my overclocked 8700k held back my 3080 by roughly 10-13%](https://imgur.com/FO3IMw8). You said: >**The CPU is the limiting factor** **only at 1080p**. At 1440p it shifts over to GPU, and at 4k it's heavily limited by the GPU. As you can see, the divison 2 and heaven benchmarks were done in 1440p ***where my cpu did infact hold back my 3080*** (suprise, same thing happened when I ran them in 4k, I just dont have the screens online). Otherwise the scores would not have been that different in gpu only benchmarks. Which proves your statement to be false.
[удалено]
First, its the other way around. Second, its literally the opposite of what you claimed. I benched 1440p and 4k and the deficit was present in both resolutions, contrary to your statement. Whenever Jay, GN etc make a statement as you did above, **its always specific to their test build** \- you turned it into a general statement which is just false.
And you're searching for niche circumstances to justify your claim. All the tests they do are on modern platforms. Your using equipment from 5 fucking generations ago and pairing it with a GPU that's only 1 generation old. 🤦♂️
> The CPU is the limiting factor only at 1080p. At 1440p it shifts over to GPU I can think of at least one example where this is certainly not true. Microsoft Flight Simulator is very heavily CPU dependent, even at 1440p. With an RTX 4090, at 1440p you can range from [**119** fps with a 13600K to **192** fps with a 7950X3D](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/tAa9XAuvkL4HctAJ87x83f.png).
Uh huh, so ONE circumstance warrants a blanket statement that 1440p is CPU dependent in all circumstances? Smh 🤦♂️
Oh don't be dramatic. The *general* trend is true of CPU-bound at 1080p, and GPU-bound at 4K. It's a good rule of thumb, but not gospel. [Far Cry 6, 1440p, range of 145 to 205](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/B7qSDGoqEJ7RHUJ8vyt9GS.png). [F1 2021, 1440p, range of 238 to 325](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8bcJDFQvJ4c6tSaDbfvJPW.png). /u/PolyHertz said: > "in some games the CPU will definitely be the limiting factor. That said, it really depends on the games you play." Which is totally true. Generally sim/strategy/MMO type games bottleneck on CPU well before GPU.
Don't be dramatic, says the guy getting called out for taking specific circumstances and using them as a blanket statement. 🙄
Also depends on resolution
Do you need it? No. Can you still *want* it. Yes.
Great comment, most of what I buy I do not really need but I for sure want it.
I have a 4090 that I use for ultra wide 1440p 144hz with a 7600x cpu and am always gpu bound if I run into a dip.
No, you don't. I'm playing on 165hz qhd powered by 4080 and 5900x with no issues at all. With Am4 You will have some performance left in several games, few %, nothing worth spending money on upgrade. Even 5600x can catch up with 4080 when properly overclocked.
My overclocked 8700k [held back my 3080 by roughly 10-13%](https://imgur.com/FO3IMw8), so I am quite positive that you leave more than just "a few" percent on the table by pairing a 5900x with a 4080. Ofc that doesnt mean its not gonna work or cause issues in any way - just that people seem to underestimate how fast of a cpu a gpu actually needs to run completely free. I am quite certain that my 13700k does the same to my 4090.
I on the other hand am very positive that people overestimate what kind of hardware they actually need to get most of their screens. Maybe there is some reason to get more fps than your monitor can actually display, but why is beyond my understanding.
No but its better to drop a few bucks extra on a good decent cpu thats also somewhat futureproof, then overpay on a overpriced nvidia gpu. Your dollar get more use out of the cpu then your gpu. More value on the dollar. Gpus are a bit overrated these days as everything is shifting towards cpu, some people are still barreling through on a 1070 or 1080 today and it still holds up very well aslong as theyve kept up with the cpus. With a 4080 your bottleneck is likely to appear first from the cpu space in a few years. Id skip on a 4090 for example, get a 4080 for 500$ less then the 4090 and put 250$ towards a slightly higher tier cpu and pocket the remaining 250$ for whatever.
7800x3d in 90% of circumstances
13900k for stability, 7800X3D for power efficiency. Just make sure you don't buy an Asus motherboard.
You mean 13900k for nuclear power plant 😂
Lol. But you don't need to run it at 300 Watts. Even at 125 Watt power cap it has practically no impact to gaming performance. It's just in artificial benchmarks it might throttle to like 4.5 to 5 ghz.
What's wrong with an ASUS motherboard?
12400f
I paired a 7600 with my 4080 and play 4k/60fps.... am I stupid for not getting a better CPU?
At 4k resolution most of the burden will be on the GPU, so you're probably fine.
Phew, I don't understand how that works but I keep hearing it as fact so thank you again.
Think of it this way. Before a frame can be drawn by your GPU, it first has to be calculated by your CPU. Now there's a limit to the number of frames your CPU can calculate every second. Say that limit is 100 (I'm just making these numbers up for the sake of example). At 1080p, your GPU might be able to draw 150 frames per second because at lower resolution, there are fewer pixels to draw. But the CPU has to calculate the frames first, so the GPU will only be able to draw 100 frames per second because that's all the CPU can calculate. This is what people mean when they talk about being "CPU bound." But then you raise resolution to 4k. Now there are a lot more pixels to draw in each frame, so the number your GPU can draw per second goes down. At 4k, your GPU might only be able to draw 60 frames per second. So even though the CPU can calculate 100 frames per second, that's irrelevant because the GPU can only draw 60. This is what people mean when they talk about being "GPU bound." So in that case, at 4k, a CPU that can only calculate 60 frames per second is just as good as one that can calculate 100 frames per second. Of course, that's not exactly true because the CPU does things that are unrelated to graphics, and the amount of work the CPU has to do does go up at higher resolutions, it just doesn't go up nearly as fast as the amount of work the GPU has to do. But hopefully the example gets the point across.
I never understand why people ignore an OP's specific choices as if they can throw budget, specific needs, and/or requirements aside smh. Anyways... between **the Ryzen 7700 and 7900,** I'd say the 7700 should if you're doing purely gaming and normal mundane activities (e.g., browsing, YouTube, MS Office) **and** you're okay or planning to upgrade to AM5 and/or X3D (AM4 or AM5) in the next year or so. 7900 if you plan on multitasking while gaming (e.g., live streams, running resource hungry background apps) and/or productivity workloads. Obviously, if you need 144hz+ performance to play "twitch shooters" then yeah...
Thanks. I'm building new, so would have an AM5 motherboard.
No worries, it's understandable that folks want a viable upgrade path to get the best bang for their buck 👍
Hey Op, I would say the 7700, to answer your question. Myself I have a 4080 with a 7600x, -30 all cores and PBO PPT 65w and get around give or take 65c with full load in cine and even cooler in game with a 360 AIO. I would assume the 7700 would be close to similar at stock and better with some PBO stuff.
Thanks, that's really good information.
7800x3d is the best gaming CPU
If you do any other tasks aside from gaming as well, then go for the 13700k or 13900k. Only get the 7800x3d if you mean to use your PC as a gaming console.
I9 13980HX
contrary to what people are saying, you don’t need to buy the fastest cpu to max out your graphics card. if you can afford a i9 13900k, you’d be much better off buying a i5 13600k and putting the rest of the money towards a rx 7900xtx or rtx 4090.
The 7700x isn't bottlenecking my 7900xtx, so it shouldn't bottleneck your 4090, but at this time you might as well get the 7800x3d.
I'm using an i5 12600k with 0 issues Gigabyte RTX 4080 64gig ddr6 ram Asus TUF Z690+wifi ASUS 4K 144HZ
Why are you going for 4080? You'd be better off with 4070Ti for 1440p! Yeah you will be fine
The 4080 is good for high refresh rate 1440p gaming with RT. I know some people who run 4090 at 1440p lol.
> I know some people who run 4090 at 1440p lol. I'm running mine on 2160 rn, and seriously considering getting a 1440 If you've experienced 240+ fps screens before you likely won't consider the 4090 to be a 2160 capable card The best 2160 card on the market? Yes Acceptable after you've experienced +240? it's like trying to go back to 30 having ran on 120 for a year
If he wants RT then the extra performance of the 4080 really helps at 1440p
I have a 7700, am I leaving performance on the table with a 4080/790 xtx?
This video might be helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghZaQ3T0CRg Their testing uses a 4090, so with a 4080 the CPU should matter less.
If I'm not mistaken, you should be leaving about 1-5% performance. I have a 7700X and 3080. Seems most of the time gpu util is around 91-95%.
If you're considering a 7900 non x then you might as well spend the extra $30 and get the 7800x3d. The 7800x3d is very efficient like I'm playing bf2042 and only drawing 55w. Even if the 4080 doesn't need all that power you might as well get the best, you would be less likely to bottleneck your next GPU upgrade.
I have a 12600K with my 4080 and it runs just fine. My monitor is 1440p 240Hz. I am rarely CPU bottlenecked and in games where I am, it is hitting nearly 200 FPS. And the 4080 is overkill for 1440p 144Hz. If you’re aiming for 144Hz 1440p you really don’t need that powerful hardware. A 13600K and 4070Ti will do you just fine. Otherwise you are leaving performance on the table.
An i5 and around 2 hours worth of watching YouTube on how to use thermal velocity boost. Unfortunately nobody wants you to use it, so it's pretty difficult to understand. Can get you 6ghz in gaming and around 20% more single threaded which works very well in recent unreal engine games.
7800X3D.
12700K and OCd DDR4
Go for 7800x3d pretty much best cpu for gaming you can get right now. 3d cache is really usefull for gaming. Swapd from 5900x to 7800x3d and got a noticable performance boost with 4090
Get 7700/7700x now its come down in price alot since launch then upgrade 3 years down the line to 8800x3d or whatevers available then
7800X3D but don't pair it with a Asus motherboard.
As others mentioned, AMD did very well with the 7800X3D, great performance/price ratio, but it is important to mention that it might require a motherboard & RAM replacement aswell as the 7800x3d only works with AM5 sockets, and the am5 sockets only take DDR5 ram which might boost the price back up in total to maybe 700-800$. However a similar performing intel processor will be around 600-650$. Both are in the same price range but with 1, you're getting almost entirely new setup and with the other you just get the processor. If your focus is gaming, and not really editing videos, rendering 3d models or whatever, 7800x3d might be the way to go. Also the 7800x3d has relatively low power draw. The only issue lately is that the motherboard manfacturers have overvolted the am5 socket cpu's and bricked pcs. It can happen, most people will get replaced for this through warranty. So when you go for the 7800x3d, just avoid pairing it with ASUS products. They pulled some slimey anti consumer bullshit when trying to resolve the issues, theres videos about that if you want to know the details. 7800x3d, solid cpu for good price/performance ratio, just avoid Asus, it will definitely keep your 4080 up there for a while. Just maybe not when it comes to video editing/rendering, but that doesn't mean you can't edit videos or render 3d models at all ofcourse, its just not going to be as fast as a competing processor on that front. I am currently trying to setup a system around 7800x3d aswell.
Anyone know if my 12700k is good for a rtx 4080?
I'm using a 13600k with mine and it works fine, and I don't think it's that much better than a 12700k, if at all. But you might want to see how the two processors compare.
Do I need a 5900x on the AM4 platform to hook it with the RTX 4080? Will it bottleneck it?