Today we're taking a look back at AMD's value king, the Ryzen 5 3600, but this time running games with the GeForce RTX 3080. Bad or brilliant idea?
https://www.techspot.com/article/2113-ryzen-3600-rtx-3080-combo/
Today we're taking a look back at AMD's value king, the Ryzen 5 3600, but this time running games with the GeForce RTX 3080. Bad or brilliant idea?
https://www.techspot.com/article/2113-ryzen-3600-rtx-3080-combo/
Zen 3 (AMD Ryzen 5000) anybody?Intel CPU + Nvidia GPU = WIN
Same as anything, if you're at 4K which with this GPU you probably should be then the CPU choice is not so important.
At 1440p which is the next most common resolution that an RTX3080 owner might be at then Intel's top end 10900k advantage shows, but it isn't going to ruin your experience with a CPU significantly less than half the cost.
The final note has to be if this is your existing system and you planned well, you should be able to drop in a Zen 3 part in the near future. It's not even worth worrying when a 5800X is awaiting you, be it next month or in a year from now when prices drop. You'll have ample CPU upgrade headroom.
Looks like a mid-range CPU is enough for 1440p gaming regardless of the graphics card.
it's $50 moreI have a 3600x and a 3080 on order. No one should be surprised by the results here, CPUs just aren't that important, even at 1080P. I'll be selling my 3600x and getting a 5600x because paying literally 3 times more money for a CPU that will give you 5% more performance at 1080P is insane IMHO.
Ryzen 3600 nv 2080 on 2k its beutiful to plaxIntel CPU + Nvidia GPU = WIN
where is AMD Epyc on your scale if 3600 is middle-range?
edit: I'd say, 3950 is middle-range, everything bellow is low range, lower range and lowest range.
it's $50 more
i3 and R3 is entry level, enough for most people who don't game, 5 is mid-range, 7 is high-end and 9 is "enthusiast level" basically overkill even for most gamers. The fact that R5 or i5 can game at any resolution without issues shows that it cannot be "low-end", you can make a case that it's actually high mid-range since you don't really need better. Epyc is not for regular consumers, it's for servers. Pentiums and Athlons are the true "low-end".where is AMD Epyc on your scale if 3600 is middle-range?
edit: I'd say, 3950 is middle-range, everything bellow is low range, lower range and lowest range.
it's $50 more
where is AMD Epyc on your scale if 3600 is middle-range?
edit: I'd say, 3950 is middle-range, everything bellow is low range, lower range and lowest range.
it's $50 more
Intel CPU + Nvidia GPU = WIN
i3 and R3 is entry level, enough for most people who don't game, 5 is mid-range, 7 is high-end and 9 is "enthusiast level" basically overkill even for most gamers. The fact that R5 or i5 can game at any resolution without issues shows that it cannot be "low-end", you can make a case that it's actually high mid-range since you don't really need better. Epyc is not for regular consumers, it's for servers. Pentiums and Athlons are the true "low-end".
They haven't even used hardware they are talking about. They just assume if their fps dips in a game on an i9 it must be horrible on anything else.Indeed.
I have big issues with PC enthusiast who always quote like i5/R5 with 2060 as "low end". Find me a game outside of flight simulator that can't play games at 1080P with stable FPS on at least medium settings. Because these are the same people that go "console sucks".
People overrate what is needed for PC gaming, mainly because they probably wildly overspent already. I remember I was arguing with someone on Steam forum for Hitman 2, they say you need minimum 1060 to play the game smoothly and will not accept any argument. And here I am sitting with my old 1050Ti laptop and running the game quite fine on medium settings with no framerate jutter. For futureproofing, maybe. But when if you buy at least mid-tier, you probably can go through 3 generations of GPU before you start to suffer.
Enthusiasts would consider a 2060 "low end" because if you are looking at 1080 medium, well, that's console quality. A lot of PC game enthusiasts are aiming for bare minimum 1080p ultra, usually 1440p/4k ultra with 75+ Hz refresh rates.Indeed.
I have big issues with PC enthusiast who always quote like i5/R5 with 2060 as "low end". Find me a game outside of flight simulator that can't play games at 1080P with stable FPS on at least medium settings. Because these are the same people that go "console sucks".
People overrate what is needed for PC gaming, mainly because they probably wildly overspent already. I remember I was arguing with someone on Steam forum for Hitman 2, they say you need minimum 1060 to play the game smoothly and will not accept any argument. And here I am sitting with my old 1050Ti laptop and running the game quite fine on medium settings with no framerate jutter. For futureproofing, maybe. But when if you buy at least mid-tier, you probably can go through 3 generations of GPU before you start to suffer.
It's fascinating that in any game outside of AC:O, the 3600 can maintain over 60 FPS average and 60 1% lows, except for situations where none of the processors could maintain 1% above 60, in which case they are all within margin of error.
Given the sheer number of people that play at 60 FPS cap, it really does show how little you really need. A 3600 is the best choice for gaming perf/$, especially when you consider the cheaper B450/550 chipsets can OC memory while anything lower then a Z series on intel cannot.
Enthusiasts would consider a 2060 "low end" because if you are looking at 1080 medium, well, that's console quality. A lot of PC game enthusiasts are aiming for bare minimum 1080p ultra, usually 1440p/4k ultra with 75+ Hz refresh rates.
The 2060 definitely isn't low end (well, maybe with the 3090/3080 and the 3070/3060 coming out it is considered low end now performance wise) but it is also not high end, especially if you want RT for some reason.