Ryzen 7 5800X3D vs. Ryzen 5 7600X: 50+ Game Benchmark

[Steve]

We take fan favorite Ryzen 7 5800X3D and compare it head to head with the new Ryzen 5 7600X in over 50 games. Yes, the 5800X3D is impressive, but can it counter the advantage of going AM5?

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2592-ryzen-5800x3D-vs-ryzen-7600x/

 

[WhoCaresAnymore]

Anything over 60fps on a non-fps fast moving game, is not really that noticeable. I think the AM4 holds its own very well.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

The whole socket upgradeability point is honestly moot to me, I've never understood the fervor for it. CPUs dont need replaced often, you can keep them for 6+ years and play the latest games without issue. GPUs age more along the line of milk if you like ultra settings and GooberTracing, otherwise even they tend to have long shelf lifes if you buy at the right time (usually the generation AFTER a set of consoles have come out - ati 9800 pro, geforce 9000 series, amd 290x, ece).

When I built my current build, I grabbed a 5800x3d at the dirt cheap price of $330 and I'll likely keep it for a long time coming.

 

[mdenigma]

It is usually a bad idea to buy something you do not require in 2 years, because everything will get cheaper in tech-business. There is no reason to think about $150+ you spend more on AM5 something you may need in 2 years or could benefit from in 4 years. You go value in relation to performance that should outlast 2-5 years of games. For me, that's the 5800X3D. Same page as @Theinsanegamer!

 

[Vulcanproject]

The whole socket upgradeability point is honestly moot to me, I've never understood the fervor for it. CPUs dont need replaced often, you can keep them for 6+ years and play the latest games without issue.

I think it matters more now, at the start of a new socket and generation. So you can buy new now, indeed keep it 5 years, and then still find if you drop in whatever the best last and greatest CPU was for that socket you extend the lifespan further.

5800X3D is something I would definitely buy to install into an older system at this point in time. It's a no brainer if you have a CPU from the first three Ryzen generations and the board is compatible. That's why it is so good. However it is not something I would buy to build as a brand new system, because it is dead ended.

 

[takaozo]

AM4 and 5800x3d are the best value for now.
Onky If AM5 boards and DDR5 get a 50% discount will have the same value.
I know some like "future proofing" but first gen AM4 boards dont have M2 and Pcie4.
For the price of a decent AM4 board with latest features make no sense to me to keep old board. So for me only full platform upgrade it's a valid option. But from $200 to $600 board makes no sense to go from Am4 to Am5.

 

[yannus]

AM4 and 5800x3d are the best value for now.
Onky If AM5 boards and DDR5 get a 50% discount will have the same value.
I know some like "future proofing" but first gen AM4 boards dont have M2 and Pcie4.
For the price of a decent AM4 board with latest features make no sense to me to keep old board. So for me only full platform upgrade it's a valid option. But from $200 to $600 board makes no sense to go from Am4 to Am5.

Why doesn't anybody mention that there are B650 motherboards available at around 200 $ ? Where is the tech press before christmas ?

 

[takaozo]

Why doesn't anybody mention that there are B650 motherboards available at around 200 $ ? Where is the tech press before christmas ?

Not in East Europe, here cheapest B650 available it's 400 Euro.

 

[Nandiman]

5800x3d is for all those people who bought AM4 boards back then but went with the "good enough" choice of the 5600x. If you're building a new pc you're obviously going AM5 and you're going with the "good enough" choice of the 7600x. And when the AM6 comes we will be having the same conversation with the 7800x3d or the 8600x.

 

[godrilla]

Seems like Ryzen 4 has some room for overclocking

Also looks like the 7700x did better vs the 5800x3d at stock for both

 

[BrwPCnrd87]

Thanks for this. Great content. I was undecided on upgrading my AM4 build or a completely new build, and it still depends what I decide to do GPU wise, but this is great information.

 

[godrilla]

Thanks for this. Great content. I was undecided on upgrading my AM4 build or a completely new build, and it still depends what I decide to do GPU wise, but this is great information.

If still on AM4 the 5800x3d makes the most sense especially if you can find it closer to the $329..I have heard some boasting that they were able to get it even below $299.

 

[Rq3EWAq]

The whole socket upgradeability point is honestly moot to me, I've never understood the fervor for it.

I bought first Ryzen at premiere, Ryzen 1600X. Upgraded it for 5800X couple of years later.
That's over +50% in single thread performance, and more than DOUBLE in multi thread performance. All possible on same motherboard, same RAM, same PC.
This is not a couple of percent here and there or even negative in some scenarios like we see in this article, but double the performance. Very worthy upgrade.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Overall, I'd say that this comparison was very well done.

There is one part that I find a bit confusing however...

"Halo Infinite's performance was very similar using either CPU, though the 5800X3D was slightly faster at 1080p and 1440p, delivering 5% more performance.

Performance was nearly the same at the more GPU limited 4K resolution, though as was seen in F1 22 the 7600X was repeatedly slightly faster at the higher resolution."

The game referenced is Halo: Infinite but the graph says CoD: Warzone 2.0 with numbers that contradict what is said afterwards because it's quite clear that it's the R7-5800X3D that does better at 4K (all resolutions actually) while the words say that the R5-7600X did better at 4K. I don't know if the chart is wrong or the words are wrong. I expect that the words are wrong because not only does the chart say a different title, it also has different results.

Perhaps the chart from Halo: Infinite was accidentally omitted along with the verbal synopsis of CoD: Warzone 2.0 which could explain what we see here.

Either way, I'm glad to see such incredible gaming performance is still possible with the R7-5800X3D on the AM4 platform because that's what I have. I expect that my current platform will be viable for many years to come with regard to gaming. Considering what new parts cost, it's quite a comfort to know that by the time I need to upgrade, all of this outrageous tech pricing will have long since calmed down and even what would be considered outdated by then would still be a significant upgrade.

I would point out that the B450 and B550 chipsets would be a waste of money on a new AM4 build with an R7-5800X3D because it can't be overclocked anyway and there is little chance that a gamer would upgrade to a 12 or 16-core AM4 CPU down the road. They'd be completely outclassed by modern parts and wouldn't be worth the money. If a new AM4 build is done, the R7-5800X3D will more than likely be the only CPU that it ever sees.

This makes the "lowly" A520 chipset much more attractive because you don't need fancy VRMs for a 105W CPU that's only running at stock. Anyone who wants to make a new AM4 gaming build is doing so for budgetary reasons which makes the A520 chipset even more applicable and attractive.

We can see here how that plays out:
CPU: R7-5800X3D - $340
Mobo: Asus PRIME A520M-A II/CSM - $80
RAM: Silicon Power GAMING 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3200 CL16 - $68

Total: $488

So, that's a savings of at least $82 up to a savings of $132. That's a considerable chunk of change to put towards improving whatever video card will be used. I would say that the increased GPU budget would have a much more profound effect on gaming performance than having a B550 chipset. In fact, I would argue that it wouldn't even be close. I'm ignoring the B450 chipset because there's no guarantee that the BIOS will recognise a Ryzen 5000 CPU right out of the box.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the budget for the platform and GPU is $1000 (just because it's a nice, round number). This leaves $512 for the video card if you choose an A520 motherboard but only $430 at best to $380 at worst if you take the B450/B550 route.

Looking at what's out there, both B550 configurations allow for an RX 6750 XT:
Best for cheap B550: ASRock Phantom Gaming D Radeon RX 6750 XT - $430
Best for expensive B550: GIGABYTE Gaming OC Radeon RX 6750 XT - $380
They're ironically exactly what the two budgets had so there's no significant difference between them since they can both accommodate an RX 6750 XT.

However, the savings incurred by going with an A520 motherboard change what's possible from an RX 6750 XT to an RX 6800:
ASRock Radeon RX 6800 Phantom Gaming D - $510
Ironically, this is also at pretty much exactly the remaining budget (with $2 left over).

According to TechPowerUp, the RX 6800 is 17% faster than the RX 6750 XT and also has four extra gigabytes of VRAM.

I would say that my configuration would easily give the best gaming performance at $1000 or less for the core components of CPU, GPU, Motherboard and RAM. Now, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't recommend this over an AM5 build unless you're so strapped for cash that the AM5 build would be untenable. With prices as low as they are, it might even be worth it over an LGA 1700 build.

 

[McMurdeR]

This one's cut and dry. If you've already got an AM4 platform, it's the 5800x3d all the way. However if you're building a new platform there's a strong case to go AM5, especially after the price cuts - your next CPU will probably be a drop-in upgrade.

 

[nnguy2]

Hey Steve can you send/link me the raw data? I would love to run some statistical tests since you have a nice 50+ sample!
Sincerely,
A practicing statistician

 

[Theinsanegamer]

5800x3d is for all those people who bought AM4 boards back then but went with the "good enough" choice of the 5600x. If you're building a new pc you're obviously going AM5 and you're going with the "good enough" choice of the 7600x. And when the AM6 comes we will be having the same conversation with the 7800x3d or the 8600x.

That's not a given. Why would someone buy a 7600x when the 5800x3d is near identical in performance, on a far cheaper overall platform? Upgradeability? The kind of person who buys every generation isnt buying a 7600x. The people who are conscious of spending are going to wait, by then the 600 series motherboards will be supplanted by 700 and then 800 series with new features.

This one's cut and dry. If you've already got an AM4 platform, it's the 5800x3d all the way. However if you're building a new platform there's a strong case to go AM5, especially after the price cuts - your next CPU will probably be a drop-in upgrade.

for 99% of consumers there is no reason to upgrade that often. Many of the new 5000 series builds, per their posts on social media, were replacing skylake age hardware, not comet lake. Especially given how hard the community had to SCREAM at AMD to support the 300 and 400 series motherboards, nobody should int heir right mind trust AMD for upgrade compatibility on the 600 series going forward. Guarantee the same thing that happened with the 3000 series will happen again.

This makes the "lowly" A520 chipset much more attractive because you don't need fancy VRMs for a 105W CPU that's only running at stock. Anyone who wants to make a new AM4 gaming build is doing so for budgetary reasons which makes the A520 chipset even more applicable and attractive.

I've said before, with the insane prices of 600 series mobos, that the A620 will be what starts shifting ryzen 7000 CPUs. Once motherboards no longer cost as much as the CPU itself and the cheaper non X series chips are available AMD will regain steam. As it stands the cost is simply way too high.

 

[dhiaa]

The whole socket upgradeability point is honestly moot to me, I've never understood the fervor for it. CPUs dont need replaced often, you can keep them for 6+ years and play the latest games without issue. GPUs age more along the line of milk if you like ultra settings and GooberTracing, otherwise even they tend to have long shelf lifes if you buy at the right time (usually the generation AFTER a set of consoles have come out - ati 9800 pro, geforce 9000 series, amd 290x, ece).

When I built my current build, I grabbed a 5800x3d at the dirt cheap price of $330 and I'll likely keep it for a long time coming.

The only people who do care are hobbyists who enjoy tinkering with their systems and maybe freelance professionals who are making enough money for their work that upgrading every gen makes sense but aren't making so much money as to build a new system from scratch. The former group is a vocal minority as they tend to also be the ones hanging around on Internet forums, and I think this may have had some bearing on AMD's over-pricing of the new platform; they thought they could make people stomach the high entry costs with the promise of better platform support (and people forget AMD only extended AM4 support after backlash).

The truth is, contrary to what some fanboys might tell you, Intel's short platform support was not the reason so many people stuck to their 2600K, 4790K, 7700K, etc. for so long; it was because they simply saw no reason to upgrade and the vast majority of users are content with a good enough experience. And, for the vast majority of users, who may upgrade or build ever 5 years or so, having to spend another 150 dollars or so on a new motherboard barely matters.

 

[dankbot420]

I built an AM4 system a couple years ago and didn't want to build a whole new system again so I grabbed a 5800x3d on sale for $299 sold the 3900x and almost broke even. With a 3080ti and 48" LG C1 the 1% lows and smoothness are so much better. I also do light encoding mostly h.264 which the x3d excels at.

 

[Tantor]

Great article. Thanks Steve!

The 5800x3d is the outstanding example of how AMD brings long term value to customers. In contrast, those who bought into Intel's Rocket Lake were dead-ended in just a few months. Ouch.

It's not just money. It hurts to rip out a fully functional motherboard that faithfully served you for years. That's why, In my house, we're still running three old AM4 mobos from 2017. But they're all upgraded to Ryzen 5 and handle everything we can throw at them. Maybe in a few years I'll treat them to 5800x3ds. No hurry.

My personal 5800x system conveniently died right before the Ryzen 7 rollout (bad PSU took it out), So I built a totally new system with a 7700x. I expect a good 5+ years out of it.

Thank you AMD.

 

[Tantor]

The truth is, contrary to what some fanboys might tell you, Intel's short platform support was not the reason so many people stuck to their 2600K, 4790K, 7700K, etc. for so long; it was because they simply saw no reason to upgrade and the vast majority of users are content with a good enough experience. And, for the vast majority of users, who may upgrade or build ever 5 years or so, having to spend another 150 dollars or so on a new motherboard barely matters.

True, but that's if you're maintaining just one computer. Our family has four computers. I don't want to spend $150 and go through the work of ripping out a fully functional motherboard to upgrade the cpu. I was very happy when AMD enabled Ryzen 5 support for the AM4 bios. It saved me a ton of time and money.

 

[EdmondRC]

I would say if you were Intel 8th gen or Ryzen 2000 series and you have 6 or less cores, or any processors older than those, it is probably time to consider an upgrade. Anything 9th gen or 3000 series with 6 + cores, you should still be good for a while yet.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

The only people who do care are hobbyists who enjoy tinkering with their systems and maybe freelance professionals who are making enough money for their work that upgrading every gen makes sense but aren't making so much money as to build a new system from scratch. The former group is a vocal minority as they tend to also be the ones hanging around on Internet forums, and I think this may have had some bearing on AMD's over-pricing of the new platform; they thought they could make people stomach the high entry costs with the promise of better platform support (and people forget AMD only extended AM4 support after backlash).

That's a big part of it

The truth is, contrary to what some fanboys might tell you, Intel's short platform support was not the reason so many people stuck to their 2600K, 4790K, 7700K, etc. for so long; it was because they simply saw no reason to upgrade and the vast majority of users are content with a good enough experience. And, for the vast majority of users, who may upgrade or build ever 5 years or so, having to spend another 150 dollars or so on a new motherboard barely matters.

Very true, as well since there was 0 competition from AMD, at 5 years old the 2600k and 4790k still performed as well as newer flagships. Demands from games really dried up for some time, 6 core CPUs really didnt show any improvements until late into the PS4/Xbone lifecycle, so why bother?

Today sandy bridge has gotten old enough that even with OC it cannot maintain 60 FPS 1% lows regardless of GPU. That's one hell of a run.

 

[maxxcool7421]

Wake me up when 7xxx-3Ds are here .. or Intel copies AMD with 8 performance cores and stupid amounts of 3d cache ..

 

[Julnor]

3d v-cache makes a big difference for titles like MSFS, Dwarf Fortress, heavily modded Skyrim (and other similar open world titles). It does little to nothing for mainstream GPU heavy games, especially at higher resolutions where modern GPUs can't even native output at a decent framerate. The bottleneck for most of the games above is GPU or the monitor---it makes no real difference if a CPU is getting you 300 or 400 fps when your monitor is at 144. And even there, so many titles people can only play at 90-110fps with the absolute latest hardware, but when that happens they suddenly don't complain about "1% lows" and their love of "buttery smooth high framerates". Suddenly they just think 100 fps is awesome.

Skylake actually wasn't even that big of an upgrade over Sandy Bridge---except in 1% lows. And AL isn't that big over Skylake, it's even less of a difference for gaming. Ryzen was behind Skylake until 5000s where it inched ahead, and now AL inched ahead. But overall, almost any gaming oriented CPU of the past 10 years is fine.

It makes more sense to buy a console nowadays for newer games because of the insane GPU prices, otherwise if someone already has a CPU, especially in the last 5 or so years, they can sit on it just fine. That's why nothing except the 5800X3D is selling now---and it's mostly for previous AM4 owners wanting that extra performance in those specific titles.