teezzy
Let me have my wanks
- Platforms
As an owner of both a 7700X and a 7900X - I assure you can't go wrong with either

As an owner of both a 7700X and a 7900X - I assure you can't go wrong with either
![]()
Solana validator.Nah I don't plan to buy them lol, I was just curious what people might use them for, for example at work or something.
That's always been the case. It's not core count, it's total power, which is strength of the core x it's number. Most games can only address or need a few threads.More I look into this more I think I might not even need a new CPU. The 7600x matches or *just* exceeds the 7800-7900-7950x for 4K gaming (because all cores are on one CCD).
The only option for me is 7800X 3D or 7900X3D (because of the other ccd without vcache but higher clocks).
If AMD are going on about a 10-20% uplift on their slides, it doesn't really make sense to upgrade for hundreds. It's crazy to think about but the 7600x was only ever meant to be a temporary stop gap till now. It never occurred to me Gaming on a 6 core CPU would make virtually no difference compared to the "higher end" models.
Obviously this is referring to 4K Gaming only and more core CPUs make total sense for productivity workloads. 8 cores also make sense for those that play games and do something else (such as Stream).
That's a tight budget for a DDR5 build. I think the only CPU that would fit in that is the 12400/13100 and you probably don't want that. So I'd add a little and go with a Ryzen 7600 for the AM5 upgradeability. Then whatever cheap mobo and 6000 mhz RAM you can find.Ok people. For around 600 Euro, what would be the best CPU/MOBO/RAM combo? 32GB DDR5 Ram.
What would you recommend?
That's a tight budget for a DDR5 build. I think the only CPU that would fit in that is the 12400/13100 and you probably don't want that. So I'd add a little and go with a Ryzen 7600 for the AM5 upgradeability. Then whatever cheap mobo and 6000 mhz RAM you can find.
Are you against buying DDR4 instead as that would save you quite a bit on both RAM and motherboard?Yeah I'm just seeing that DDR5 MOBOs are more expensive than I thought. 5200hz 32GB DDR 5 can be bought for 135 Euro on Amazon, so it's not that expensive. CPUs like the 12600k are around 300 Euro. But the MOBOS cost as much as the CPU. Wouldn't want to invest more than 650 Euro tbh. Mhm.
Are you against buying DDR4 instead as that would save you quite a bit on both RAM and motherboard?
DDR4 vs DDR5 difference is minor in most games at the moment, although the benefits will likely increase with time. Since your budget is limited I would err on the side of using the savings for a better CPU, especially if you intend to keep the same setup for 5+ years.How big of a performance hit would that mean? I really don't have an idea how big the gains of DDR5 are.
Just checked the prices... yeah I could get a mainboard an 32gb DDR4 for 200 bucks, leaving 400 - 450 for a CPU.
DDR4 vs DDR5 difference is minor in most games at the moment, although the benefits will likely increase with time. Since your budget is limited I would err on the side of using the savings for a better CPU, especially if you intend to keep the same setup for 5+ years.
Don't overthink it. I'm running a 10 year old CPU and a 1660 Super and run everything just fine on a 1080p, and happily run racing games on triple 1080ps or VR (Rift at 90Hz). Tbh any old machine will do a perfectly decent job.Just read a bunch of articles and comparisons. At 1080p, DDR5 6000mhz can be significantly faster than slow DDR4 RAM especially in games like Spiderman.
But going with fast DDR4, like 4800mhz, reduces that to a couple percent. At 1080p, mind you. In higher resolutions, it's even less. So not worth it at all tbh.
I'll go for the best CPU under 400, then fast DDR4 RAM with a Mobo that supports it
Don't overthink it. I'm running a 10 year old CPU and a 1660 Super and run everything just fine on a 1080p, and happily run racing games on triple 1080ps or VR (Rift at 90Hz). Tbh any old machine will do a perfectly decent job.
I wish I was as rich as you. I just don't get the hype with raytracing, I really don't.I am the resident raytracing whore. That's not how I roll lol. I have a 8700k and a 3080 and it's not enough for me.
I am the resident raytracing whore. That's not how I roll lol. I have a 8700k and a 3080 and it's not enough for me.
Is it 1440p you game at? Because at that resolution a 4080 is not that far off a 4090 (-13-14%?... if that). Only at 4k you really notice the +30%+ uplift.
I know you'd have more fun with a 4080. Do it, do ittttt. ×2 upgrade over your 3080. Imagine Returnal and all that Ray tracing goodness.
Playing at 4k more and more often because of my OLED. 4080 is way too expensive, the cheapest one here comes in at 1.350 Euro. I'm not doing that shit.
I wish I was as rich as you. I just don't get the hype with raytracing, I really don't.
Don't know where you saw that but ddr5 can help a ton ; check hardware unboxed Spider-Man vids.Just read a bunch of articles and comparisons. At 1080p, DDR5 6000mhz can be significantly faster than slow DDR4 RAM especially in games like Spiderman.
But going with fast DDR4, like 4800mhz, reduces that to a couple percent. At 1080p, mind you. In higher resolutions, it's even less. So not worth it at all tbh.
I'll go for the best CPU under 400, then fast DDR4 RAM with a Mobo that supports it
Don't know where you saw that but ddr5 can help a ton ; check hardware unboxed Spider-Man vids.
IMO dude please wait for Intel meteor lake that way you can upgrade to Intel 15th (Jim Keller's) royal core design if you like.
Speaking from experience, even this 5800x3d hits bottleneck on ray tracing with this 4070 ti ; we need even better CPUs than what we have now. Personally I will buy the meteor lake i7 k sku later this year.
I wish I was as rich as you. I just don't get the hype with raytracing, I really don't.
As a graphics whore that always favors turning it on, I completely agree. It's overhyped even when it's well-implemented.
If this isn't significant and not enough of a difference, I guess we have very different concepts of reality![]()
Just to add to this...Video games are meant to be fun, interactive experiences. How much is raytracing improving that experience?
There's also the question of whether or not video games need to be more realistic. Some do, some don't, and even for those that do I'd argue that most of them pushing towards realism should prioritize the physics and AI side of the equation rather than visuals.
I can dream up a number of scenarios in games, both single and multiplayer, where real-time RT can become a factor that leads to memorable moments - I've got scenes from games like Goldeneye/Perfect Dark, Zelda and Metal Gear Solid 2 in mind, for starters - but from all I've seen it's not being used in that fashion. It's being used more like a fresh coat of paint, an added layer of visual fidelity with little to no contribution to the interactive experience.
Just so there's no misunderstanding, real-time raytracing is great and I want to see it continue to evolve. However, I also want to see it used sparingly and where it makes sense rather than becoming a cheap and ultimately meaningless marketing gimmick to win over reviewers and the easily-influenced masses.
I don't see its use in Fortnite, for example, as a net positive unless I'm looking at it from the perspective of Intel, AMD and Nvidia - it'll help them push a few extra casual gamers in the low budget or outdated hardware camp to seek upgrades with RT in mind.
My core problem with the video game industry and the market it serves today (ESG aside because that affects the world at large) is the heavy slant towards graphics vs gameplay, it's been tilting more and more in the same direction over time. RT is adding to that problem, but when I start seeing some strong examples of it deciding the outcome of an online firefight or producing entertaining, dynamic single-player experiences my opinion will turn the other way.
If you want to gape, no one is going to stop you.