Ryzen 7 5800X3D vs. Ryzen 7 5800X: Zen 3 Gaming Shootout

Aceseven

Posts: 315   +398
What gpu are you currently using?

And for the streaming are you actually doing transcoding for the other device from the main pc, or its just a network stream to those devices and they do all the heavy lifting?

What does processor usage look like on the main box while all of this is running?
3060ti, I only checked that 5600x once when it was transcoding and running gta5 and it was hovering around 31% usage which seems like nothing compared to the old 3770k it replaced which was always around 80%
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,638   +2,416
3060ti, I only checked that 5600x once when it was transcoding and running gta5 and it was hovering around 31% usage which seems like nothing compared to the old 3770k it replaced which was always around 80%
Hmm based on everything you have posted so far I think you maybe good to wait right now. After the Zen 4 launch prices on AM4 cpu should drop even more so look at it again Q1 2023.
You call Userbenchmark.net Intel propaganda review?

I'm speechless.

lol I didn't bother to check that source but Userbenchmarks speaks volumes nothing more needs to be said.
 
Last edited:

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
You call Userbenchmark.net Intel propaganda review?

I'm speechless.
Considering the propaganda you consistently spout about AMD.... I figured it would be a nice change of pace :)

But seriously, despite the obvious Intel slant, can you seriously tell me you would recommend this CPU to anyone who could get their hands on a 5900X for $50 less?
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,665   +1,321
Considering the propaganda you consistently spout about AMD.... I figured it would be a nice change of pace :)

But seriously, despite the obvious Intel slant, can you seriously tell me you would recommend this CPU to anyone who could get their hands on a 5900X for $50 less?
I stick with facts. Userbenchmark is just propaganda.

As usual, it depends on what use buyer is looking to get CPU. For some scenarios, answer is simply yes.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
I stick with facts. Userbenchmark is just propaganda.

As usual, it depends on what use buyer is looking to get CPU. For some scenarios, answer is simply yes.
Name a scenario!

The only one I can think of is... I own a 1000/2000 AMD motherboard and my CPU died.... I have $450 burning a hole in my pocket and I MUST have the absolute best gaming performance I can get and I don't want to spend a penny more...

But anyone who MUST upgrade (and is a rational person) would either A) Get a cheaper 5000 series CPU (they are ALL cheaper except the 5950) B) Wait until AMD's new architecture comes out in a few months C) Go Intel

3060ti, I only checked that 5600x once when it was transcoding and running gta5 and it was hovering around 31% usage which seems like nothing compared to the old 3770k it replaced which was always around 80%
You won't notice much of a difference for games regardless of which CPU you upgrade to. The 5600's gaming performance will be virtually identical to even the 5950x with a 3060Ti...

If you simply MUST upgrade, I'd wait until you notice that it seems "slow" for what you are doing... As the previous poster mentioned, once AMD's new architecture comes out, the 5000 series CPUs will certainly drop in price. You might even be able to snag a 5950 fairly cheaply in a year or so.
 
Last edited:

evolucion8

Posts: 81   +37
You ask me why I care... yet here you are rocking a 5800X?!?! Obviously this CPU isn't for you either!

I am rocking an Intel 5960X.... (I find the naming ironic) I bought it over 7 years ago and despite it being the first real 8-core PC (AMD's do NOT count), it compared quite favourably in most gaming benchmarks to most "modern" CPUs once I upgraded to a 2080Ti a couple years ago.

I am fairly confident it would still do so if I upgraded to a 3090Ti today... but the price of that is ridiculous, and I don't game the way I used to anymore...

The 5900X would be a pretty good upgrade for me - but at this point, I am waiting for the new HEDT lineups from both companies. While I will almost certainly go AMD Threadripper, if Intel's HEDT actually performs better (I doubt it can), I'd buy it instead. My hope is that Intel's will at least be good enough to force AMD to price the 6990 (or whatever they call it) to a more reasonable price point.

Holy CPU bottleneck if you go with anything faster than an RTX 3070 lol, its a very old CPU with high latency and mediocre IPC compared to whats out there now.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
Holy CPU bottleneck if you go with anything faster than an RTX 3070 lol, its a very old CPU with high latency and mediocre IPC compared to whats out there now.
Actually... it isn't... certainly it doesn't perform as well as a "modern" CPU - but not nearly to the point you would think. Most games are GPU bound and I can still play pretty much any AAA title at 4k with 60FPS after toning down only a few settings...

If you only have the money to upgrade either your CPU or GPU - and all you want to do is game - then upgrade the GPU every time.
 

evolucion8

Posts: 81   +37
Actually... it isn't... certainly it doesn't perform as well as a "modern" CPU - but not nearly to the point you would think. Most games are GPU bound and I can still play pretty much any AAA title at 4k with 60FPS after toning down only a few settings...

If you only have the money to upgrade either your CPU or GPU - and all you want to do is game - then upgrade the GPU every time.
Not every time but Haswell is very old, nVidia GPUs have severe CPU bottlenecks due to driver overhead, 4K minimize it a lot but even the Zen 2 designs which are slightly above Skylake IPC still shows bottlenecks even on the almighty RTX 3080.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
Not every time but Haswell is very old, nVidia GPUs have severe CPU bottlenecks due to driver overhead, 4K minimize it a lot but even the Zen 2 designs which are slightly above Skylake IPC still shows bottlenecks even on the almighty RTX 3080.
But MINIMAL bottlenecks... unless you are a seriously competitive gamer needing 200FPS+ (which I am not), you won't really notice...

When I upgrade, it will be for productivity - it takes awhile to render 4k videos... a Threadripper would save me a ton of time...
 

Biostud

Posts: 86   +47
Yes... but for an AMD owner, the 5900X is way better value... and it doesn't get DESTROYED in gaming... for almost any actual scenario, they'll perform virtually identically (as will almost any modern CPU) in games... games are mostly GPU bound nowadays.

But the extra cores make productivity way better...

How do you think the ratio is between number of those using their pc for office/web browsing and gaming vs pc users that runs software that can fully utilize 12+ cores for productivity and game on the same computer. My guess is 100:1
 

EdmondRC

Posts: 247   +333
Well, I guess if you purchased a high-end GPU to play games at the highest framerates and low quality, then the X3D or 12900K are the way to go. But if you purchased that high-end GPU to play the games at 60+ fps and the best quality possible for that framerate, you are going to get very little satisfaction from any of these top-tier CPUs.
 

Mr Majestyk

Posts: 1,206   +1,103
For the games I play and I only do 1440p it didn't make much difference to average fps compared to the 5800X, but those 1% low are the real benefit of the v-cache.

I'm definitely eager to see Zen 4 cpu's with v-cache, I'm thinking a 7900X3D would be a perfect blend of productivity and gaming. I'm assuming Zen4 will see the improved node and architecture see basically no downside to non-gaming performance for v-cache models.

Has anyone compared 5800X down-clocked to X3D levels to see if any productivity software benefits from the v-cache?
 

Darth Shiv

Posts: 2,277   +828
Yes... but for an AMD owner, the 5900X is way better value... and it doesn't get DESTROYED in gaming... for almost any actual scenario, they'll perform virtually identically (as will almost any modern CPU) in games... games are mostly GPU bound nowadays.

But the extra cores make productivity way better...
The gaming perf gain is pretty significant. Most average punters want gaming performance more than productivity perf. Multicore is not a huge benefit for mainstream.

Having said that, if 5900X is $50 cheaper, that to me is a problem.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
The gaming perf gain is pretty significant. Most average punters want gaming performance more than productivity perf. Multicore is not a huge benefit for mainstream.

Having said that, if 5900X is $50 cheaper, that to me is a problem.
It isn’t though.... read the graphs... unless you are a competitive gamer, you won’t notice the difference in 99% of usage... but you WILL notice the difference in performance with 12 cores instead of 8...
 

julesigles

Posts: 22   +27
Wow... you don't read much, do you? Check the website's articles over the past week or so... There are SEVERAL articles all on this one CPU... which hasn't been released yet by the way...

I'm not saying "don't do it"... I'm just wondering why so many articles (and more are planned) are being written about it! I'm assuming because it's the only CPU being released and since Techspot got one, they have to justify having it :)

And despite what some of our AMD fanboys will tell you, this CPU makes 0 sense for almost anyone... if this was AMD's equivalent to the 12500/12600/12700, I'd understand...
I've read all of them. Why imply otherwise? And as I stated, "New tech gets news. Always has, always will. Don't like gaming crowns... don't read (about) 'em." One article was an announcement from AMD. Those articles always get published. One was a review when it came out. Those articles always get published. Two others are benchmarks - benchmark articles get published when chips are flagships or claim to take the crown in specific areas. Would you believe... wait for it... such articles always get published.

Believe it or not there exist a ton of computer people who enjoy reading news about what is claimed to be the new gaming king in the CPU world and what, according to the benchmarks showing it to be depending on the title, are accomplished while spending a significantly less amount of money that through a platform switch with new MB, RAM, CPU, and possibly PSU.

Later in this thread you respond, "...we're seeing giant benchmark articles - but against CPUs that make no sense to compare it to!"

Wrong again. It is compared to the Intel i9-12900K. Why do you think that is? Well, Techspot answers that with, "As a gamer, you would only buy the Core i9-12900K because you want the best of the best, at least from Intel. Whereas you'd buy the Ryzen 7 5800X3D because you want the best gaming CPU the AM4 platform has to offer."

Does that make sense? If you fail to see how I just cannot imagine what you're thinking unless you cannot comprehend the words in Techspot's articles you've eluded to. It's literally spelled out.

It also gets compared to it's brother, the 5800X. They could have chosen the 5600X, 5700X, 5800X, 5900X, 5950X. Let's suppose they didn't want to rehash benchmark comparisons to ALL of those but chose just one. Can we not guess that for those upgrading to a 5000 series CPU they'd enjoy a comparison of 5000 series CPUs? It makes perfect sense to me. In fact it makes glaring sense.

In yet ANOTHER post you state, "The only benchmark that makes sense - comparing it to an Intel CPU that actually costs the same or similar - still hasn't come out yet... but it's coming... THAT article I'll actually be interested to read!"

So which is it? Do you want less articles about the 5800X3d because you, "Almost wondering if AMD paid Techspot to advertise for them... seems we're getting a LOT of articles and comparisons with this dead-end chip...", or do you want more? Care to retract then?

As for the arguing others elude to and as someone pointed out you seem to be projecting. You responded, "Of course I'm projecting my own view... this is an internet forum!" I would guess he/she meant you are projecting your views onto others. It should go without saying it is your own personal perspective, no?
You claim people who'd see an upgrade with this new champ is a "microscopic" pool. I mean, how many b550 and x570 motherboards are there who can easily afford to drop this in? Do you look at sales reports of all manufacturers and can glean the tech budgets of all the people across the globe who may be purchasing this exact CPU and may very well do so based on articles they read on the internet? Seems to me you are unquestionably projecting your viewpoint onto others. You're saying, "I wouldn't buy it so y'all shouldn't either and stop writing about it unless it compares what I want [so to speak]". And that's fine, I guess. Just like it's fine when others enter the thread and say they want it and could make use of it given their hardware specs or see it selling out where they shop.

Perhaps it's okay for you to respond to them but not have others respond to you? But methinks not. And yes, you did come right out and say not to buy it.
In yet another post you claim, "No... it's don't buy this because there are better (and cheaper) alternatives!", in reference to poster Lionvibez. Name a cheaper alternative to achieve the current best CPU in half the gaming titles. I'll wait. Again, the gaming throne matters. It always has and always will. Both AMD and Intel kicked out their latest CPUs for this very reason - the 5800X3D and the i9-12900KS. Let me say that again for emphasis - the best gaming CPU is ALWAYS newsworthy - for both companies. And many of us consumers who love to game really like it that way. Imagine that!?!

Oh and one of those latter 2 CPUs mentioned just happens to cost a lot more than the other and that's if you didn't have to purchase a new platform of MB, RAM, possibly PSU and CPU.

Think, man.

Do note Techspot's own article(s) speaks to this as a gaming CPU beast, not a productivity one. I'm guessing other people who read English in these articles can read that too. Oddly enough there are quite a few gamers in the world who, to switch your own words around, "if you are upgrading from a 1000/2000 system, you will not notice much of a difference gaming with a 5900X or 5800X3D... but you might notice how much faster your productivity apps run - 4 extra cores really matter...". Ummm, no, most apps you won't much care about - but if you want THE current top of the line gamer CPU on an AMD platform you might very well want this one. Duh! Who goes around benchmarking how fast their browser opens up or a folder or a picture or a song?

Now, as for your quote beginning, "Here's a telling review from a different website I'll leave for you (and them) to peruse.

"The 5800X3D has the same core architecture / IPC as the 5800X but it runs at lower clock speeds and has an extra 64MB of cache (96MB up from 32MB)...."

That's a quote from a user (just like you, me, and every other poster here and on other message boards) taken from ht tps : cpu user benchmark dot com from someone with 207 posts about CPUs. I skimmed his/her posts noting all positive reviews on Intel CPUs/all negative on AMDs including all 3000 series and 5000 series. lol - OBVIOUS Intel fanboy. What would you expect from such a poster?

Now after some tit-for-tat between you and another user who both will evidently not be purchasing this CPU you state, "So you accuse me of having an agenda because I have no interest in buying this CPU - but I am pointing out the flaws in this CPU... yet you come on here, also with no interest in this CPU and simply post that I have an agenda? What's YOUR agenda?"

I'll answer that. He/she did not say you seem to have an agenda because "I [YOU] have no interest in buying this CPU".

YOU insinuated he/she did. Correction - you outright said he/she did. That's like throwing out a red herring. You just based an argument on something you claim he/she said but he/she did not say that in such a context at all. wtf?

And although this thread may well continue, lastly you state, "...you won’t notice the difference in 99% of usage..."

That's twice you've used this "99%" figure. Tech people like hard facts and truths. Where'd you get yours?

You've outright told people in this thread not to buy the 5800X3D and provided your reasoning (albeit with glaring holes and what seems blatant bias). Is that your end statement on the matter? Is there anything else you wish to add that can be so easily and demonstrably picked apart?

And then when someone asks if you have some ulterior motive you fabricate something they've stated and begin an argument on the matter? How disingenuous can you be?

Seriously, dude! Your view has been taken and decided on it would seem. Any more and it's looking like you've done more than enough to be irritating to others rather than just placing your opinion here on a friggin' piece of computer hardware that Techspot has seen fit to take the time and let us know about.

Why not just move along instead of arguing like some sorta' bought & paid for mainstream news network reporter with an obvious slant? It really gets annoying and tiresome, bro.
 
Last edited:

Usukosej

Posts: 183   +82
The gaming perf gain is pretty significant. Most average punters want gaming performance more than productivity perf. Multicore is not a huge benefit for mainstream.

Having said that, if 5900X is $50 cheaper, that to me is a problem.

5900X is cheaper for a reason. 99% of consumers don't need more than 8 cores, they barely need 6 cores and 5800X3D destroys 5900X in gaming combined with a 144+ Hz monitor

Most people that care about gaming, will notice the difference in performance.

Both Alder Lake and 5800X3D beats 5900X with ease in high fps gaming. Better minimums, higher avg and max. Exactly what high refresh rate gamers like myself want.

I will wait for Ryzen 7000/8000 or Meteor Lake tho. Big leaps incoming.
 

Geralt

Posts: 1,124   +1,736
I've read all of them. Why imply otherwise? And as I stated, "New tech gets news. Always has, always will. Don't like gaming crowns... don't read (about) 'em." One article was an announcement from AMD. Those articles always get published. One was a review when it came out. Those articles always get published. Two others are benchmarks - benchmark articles get published when chips are flagships or claim to take the crown in specific areas. Would you believe... wait for it... such articles always get published.

Believe it or not there exist a ton of computer people who enjoy reading news about what is claimed to be the new gaming king in the CPU world and what, according to the benchmarks showing it to be depending on the title, are accomplished while spending a significantly less amount of money that through a platform switch with new MB, RAM, CPU, and possibly PSU.

Later in this thread you respond, "...we're seeing giant benchmark articles - but against CPUs that make no sense to compare it to!"

Wrong again. It is compared to the Intel i9-12900K. Why do you think that is? Well, Techspot answers that with, "As a gamer, you would only buy the Core i9-12900K because you want the best of the best, at least from Intel. Whereas you'd buy the Ryzen 7 5800X3D because you want the best gaming CPU the AM4 platform has to offer."

Does that make sense? If you fail to see how I just cannot imagine what you're thinking unless you cannot comprehend the words in Techspot's articles you've eluded to. It's literally spelled out.

It also gets compared to it's brother, the 5800X. They could have chosen the 5600X, 5700X, 5800X, 5900X, 5950X. Let's suppose they didn't want to rehash benchmark comparisons to ALL of those but chose just one. Can we not guess that for those upgrading to a 5000 series CPU they'd enjoy a comparison of 5000 series CPUs? It makes perfect sense to me. In fact it makes glaring sense.

In yet ANOTHER post you state, "The only benchmark that makes sense - comparing it to an Intel CPU that actually costs the same or similar - still hasn't come out yet... but it's coming... THAT article I'll actually be interested to read!"

So which is it? Do you want less articles about the 5800X3d because you, "Almost wondering if AMD paid Techspot to advertise for them... seems we're getting a LOT of articles and comparisons with this dead-end chip...", or do you want more? Care to retract then?

As for the arguing others elude to and as someone pointed out you seem to be projecting. You responded, "Of course I'm projecting my own view... this is an internet forum!" I would guess he/she meant you are projecting your views onto others. It should go without saying it is your own personal perspective, no?
You claim people who'd see an upgrade with this new champ is a "microscopic" pool. I mean, how many b550 and x570 motherboards are there who can easily afford to drop this in? Do you look at sales reports of all manufacturers and can glean the tech budgets of all the people across the globe who may be purchasing this exact CPU and may very well do so based on articles they read on the internet? Seems to me you are unquestionably projecting your viewpoint onto others. You're saying, "I wouldn't buy it so y'all shouldn't either and stop writing about it unless it compares what I want [so to speak]". And that's fine, I guess. Just like it's fine when others enter the thread and say they want it and could make use of it given their hardware specs or see it selling out where they shop.

Perhaps it's okay for you to respond to them but not have others respond to you? But methinks not. And yes, you did come right out and say not to buy it.
In yet another post you claim, "No... it's don't buy this because there are better (and cheaper) alternatives!", in reference to poster Lionvibez. Name a cheaper alternative to achieve the current best CPU in half the gaming titles. I'll wait. Again, the gaming throne matters. It always has and always will. Both AMD and Intel kicked out their latest CPUs for this very reason - the 5800X3D and the i9-12900KS. Let me say that again for emphasis - the best gaming CPU is ALWAYS newsworthy - for both companies. And many of us consumers who love to game really like it that way. Imagine that!?!

Oh and one of those latter 2 CPUs mentioned just happens to cost a lot more than the other and that's if you didn't have to purchase a new platform of MB, RAM, possibly PSU and CPU.

Think, man.

Do note Techspot's own article(s) speaks to this as a gaming CPU beast, not a productivity one. I'm guessing other people who read English in these articles can read that too. Oddly enough there are quite a few gamers in the world who, to switch your own words around, "if you are upgrading from a 1000/2000 system, you will not notice much of a difference gaming with a 5900X or 5800X3D... but you might notice how much faster your productivity apps run - 4 extra cores really matter...". Ummm, no, most apps you won't much care about - but if you want THE current top of the line gamer CPU on an AMD platform you might very well want this one. Duh! Who goes around benchmarking how fast their browser opens up or a folder or a picture or a song?

Now, as for your quote beginning, "Here's a telling review from a different website I'll leave for you (and them) to peruse.

"The 5800X3D has the same core architecture / IPC as the 5800X but it runs at lower clock speeds and has an extra 64MB of cache (96MB up from 32MB)...."

That's a quote from a user (just like you, me, and every other poster here and on other message boards) taken from ht tps : cpu user benchmark dot com from someone with 207 posts about CPUs. I skimmed his/her posts noting all positive reviews on Intel CPUs/all negative on AMDs including all 3000 series and 5000 series. lol - OBVIOUS Intel fanboy. What would you expect from such a poster?

Now after some tit-for-tat between you and another user who both will evidently not be purchasing this CPU you state, "So you accuse me of having an agenda because I have no interest in buying this CPU - but I am pointing out the flaws in this CPU... yet you come on here, also with no interest in this CPU and simply post that I have an agenda? What's YOUR agenda?"

I'll answer that. He/she did not say you seem to have an agenda because "I [YOU] have no interest in buying this CPU".

YOU insinuated he/she did. Correction - you outright said he/she did. That's like throwing out a red herring. You just based an argument on something you claim he/she said but he/she did not say that in such a context at all. wtf?

And although this thread may well continue, lastly you state, "...you won’t notice the difference in 99% of usage..."

That's twice you've used this "99%" figure. Tech people like hard facts and truths. Where'd you get yours?

You've outright told people in this thread not to buy the 5800X3D and provided your reasoning (albeit with glaring holes and what seems blatant bias). Is that your end statement on the matter? Is there anything else you wish to add that can be so easily and demonstrably picked apart?

And then when someone asks if you have some ulterior motive you fabricate something they've stated and begin an argument on the matter? How disingenuous can you be?

Seriously, dude! Your view has been taken and decided on it would seem. Any more and it's looking like you've done more than enough to be irritating to others rather than just placing your opinion here on a friggin' piece of computer hardware that Techspot has seen fit to take the time and let us know about.

Why not just move along instead of arguing like some sorta' bought & paid for mainstream news network reporter with an obvious slant? It really gets annoying and tiresome, bro.
Could you explain it in greater detail, please?
 

Darth Shiv

Posts: 2,277   +828
It isn’t though.... read the graphs... unless you are a competitive gamer, you won’t notice the difference in 99% of usage... but you WILL notice the difference in performance with 12 cores instead of 8...
I don't see how you can draw that conclusion? ~15% is significant. People aren't upgrading from a 5800X to a 5800X3D right? They are upgrading from some potato and going to a better bang for buck chip. Are you saying ~15% isn't important?

Huge numbers of gamers play 1440p with decent GPU and monitor for example. Most of my friends play with absolute minimum 144Hz displays. Most use better. I don't know a single one of them that wouldn't get more value from the 15% than the productivity gains from a 5900X for example. The vast majority of people I know with gaming rigs never do any significant productivity processing on their rigs.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
I don't see how you can draw that conclusion? ~15% is significant. People aren't upgrading from a 5800X to a 5800X3D right? They are upgrading from some potato and going to a better bang for buck chip. Are you saying ~15% isn't important?

Huge numbers of gamers play 1440p with decent GPU and monitor for example. Most of my friends play with absolute minimum 144Hz displays. Most use better. I don't know a single one of them that wouldn't get more value from the 15% than the productivity gains from a 5900X for example. The vast majority of people I know with gaming rigs never do any significant productivity processing on their rigs.
It's 15% at 1080P with a 3090 GPU... for the average computer user, it will be far closer to ZERO...

Again, unless you are a competitive gamer, any 5000 series or 12000 series CPU will provide virtually identical gaming performance.
 

julesigles

Posts: 22   +27
According to sales upon release, the 5800X3D shot up to #2 in CPU sales on its first day then ran out of stock. Apparently even AMD's director of gaming marketing didn't expect it to sell so well and sell out so fast. Presently it is 3rd behind Ryzen 5900X and 5600X with AMD taking the top 6 spots, Intel's 12600K at 7th and the 12900K in 8th.

People aren't stupid. It seems they know what they want, why they want it, and how much they're willing to pay for it given much pricier options or less gaming performance for the same $. When the market of consumers speaks the marketplace of producers tend to listen.

The proof is in the pudding and in the benchmarks and the reviews from sites and video tech reviewers across the interwebz.

However it looks like AMD did make a mistake underestimating demand for it and stocks will be mostly unavailable for who knows how long.

As for me, salivating for the Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 series later this year and hoping they see the writing on the wall with gamer's wishes to continue on w/ their stacked 3D L3 cache.
 
Would be very interested in seeing more benchmarks from Starcraft 2, particularly the 5800x3d vs 5900x and vs Alder Lake but using an 68/900XT with smart access memory enabled.

Better yet, world of warcraft benchmarks too!
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
Would be very interested in seeing more benchmarks from Starcraft 2, particularly the 5800x3d vs 5900x and vs Alder Lake but using an 68/900XT with smart access memory enabled.

Better yet, world of warcraft benchmarks too!
Pretty sure ANY modern CPU will play those games at higher than 200FPS... so it wouldn't really matter which one you chose...