Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2020
- Posts
- 133
Oh haha my bad!Good, that's ideal then but I was talking to OP
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Recommended GPU out of the RTX 3000 series for a Ryzen 5 3700x
Soldato
3090 obvs. Cheap at twice the price. 
If your getting 160fps you gain nothing going up to 200+ fps
I see no bottleneck at all here.
In the vast majority of games a 3600 and some decent ram will be fine with any GPU, even the 3090.
If it is then RIP me and my 2700X LOL
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2020
- Posts
- 133
Some people may have 240hz monitors though
Associate
bottleneck = the 1 component in ur build which is the weakest link and limits ur max frame rate.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2020
- Posts
- 133
Understood!
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 1,195
Ugh. This whole conversation is due to intel's "but we're still better for gaming!" BS.
Yes, at low resolutions, you may drop a few FPS. If you are one of the handful of people who run at 1080p and 240Hz, and you genuinely think you can tell the difference between 230 FPS and 250 FPS, yes, perhaps your processor might be a "bottleneck". But then so is basically everything apart from an i9 10900KS, according to those links. Including every other intel chip going.
Assuming you're playing at a decent resolution, no, your 3700X is not in any way "a bottleneck".
Yes, at low resolutions, you may drop a few FPS. If you are one of the handful of people who run at 1080p and 240Hz, and you genuinely think you can tell the difference between 230 FPS and 250 FPS, yes, perhaps your processor might be a "bottleneck". But then so is basically everything apart from an i9 10900KS, according to those links. Including every other intel chip going.
Assuming you're playing at a decent resolution, no, your 3700X is not in any way "a bottleneck".
Soldato
Yeah there was a review and on average you're looking at 10 fps extra with an intel at 1440p. I would rather go with AMD which I did for later tech and better multithreading.
Soldato
15% less at 1080p is not 'bad'. From what I see the frames are in the hundreds
Last edited:
Really depends on what games you are running and at what detail levels/resolution. Modern games may tax the 3700x more than a 3080 at certain graphics levels, but that will change.
CPUs are not increasing in speed much year on year compared to GPUs. Game developers need to optimise to use more threads rather than expect raw clock speeds. Future games will of course be using higher resolution textures and higher polygon graphics, as well as RTX. These will push the bottleneck back to the GPU. The increased memory of the 3080 over the 3070, and the increased horsepower, will make it a longer lasting card. But of course that comes with a cost. So you must balance that.
AMD doesn't have any CPU that's significantly faster at single threaded loads than what you currently have.
Personally I would buy the 3070 or 3080, whichever best fits your budget, and upgrade the CPU in a year or two. 3000 series GPUs will most likely hold their value for a long time unless AMD can release a competitive alternative.
CPUs are not increasing in speed much year on year compared to GPUs. Game developers need to optimise to use more threads rather than expect raw clock speeds. Future games will of course be using higher resolution textures and higher polygon graphics, as well as RTX. These will push the bottleneck back to the GPU. The increased memory of the 3080 over the 3070, and the increased horsepower, will make it a longer lasting card. But of course that comes with a cost. So you must balance that.
AMD doesn't have any CPU that's significantly faster at single threaded loads than what you currently have.
Personally I would buy the 3070 or 3080, whichever best fits your budget, and upgrade the CPU in a year or two. 3000 series GPUs will most likely hold their value for a long time unless AMD can release a competitive alternative.
Personally I can't really tell the difference between 140 and 165 in most games.
If your playing competitively and need 240 all the time you can probably drop a few settings to achieve it.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2020
- Posts
- 133
Yeah the whole FPS to hertz thing confused me, some say you need 240 fps for 240 hz some say you don’t and can use gsync but then you get Input lag
This triggered me lol. OK, two things, this: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-amd-3900-xt-vs-intel-10900k/20.html and this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=385eG1IEZMU
If you look at a benchmark you will see your GPU is 99%/max and your CPU is <99% so therefore you are still GPU bottlenecked. But really it just comes down to engine x just making use of the hardware.
This is what a CPU bottleneck looks like, Far Cry 5 favours an Intel CPU at 1080 and 1440 https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-amd-3900-xt-vs-intel-10900k/15.html
Last edited:
Soldato
You dont need 240hz for a 240hz monitor.
You can run at (for example) 200hz with freesync or gsync and you wouldn't notice any difference surely!
If you wanted to get an Intel obviously up to you so that you hit 240hz if you can't get there .
Intel have loads of vulnerabilities that have been patched which affect performance plus no innovation, and you can just lower maybe one setting to get to 240hz.. Plus new Ryzens coming out.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 1,195
The other part of the question - is 3080 a bad purchase because of the processor being a bottleneck - is sorta the wrong way round.
Unless you're trying to do something crazy like bodge one into an ancient "Core2 Duo" machine or something, you'll get great performance out of it
Really the question here is "Can I get a few more FPS by getting a faster processor?" And the answer is basically always "yes, how much do you want to spend?"
Unless you're trying to do something crazy like bodge one into an ancient "Core2 Duo" machine or something, you'll get great performance out of it
Really the question here is "Can I get a few more FPS by getting a faster processor?" And the answer is basically always "yes, how much do you want to spend?"
Last edited:
Thanks for feedback. I am 1080p @ 144Hz so might be overkill to get a 3080.Good, that's ideal then but I was talking to OP
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,405
Associate
Not if you want to play games with RTX on max and get a decent framerate. This is precisely why I and many others will be buying 3080s to play at 1080p since last gen only the 2080Ti could run things maxed out with stable >60 fps.
And as stated previously in other "bottlenecking" threads: a 3080 will always give better fps than a 3070 no matter what CPU you have. However you will gain even more fps by also upgrading your CPU. This is true at 1080p right through to 4K although the percentage difference will increase as the resolution gets more demanding. Just read reviews and get the best card for the settings and resolution you want to play at and later upgrade your CPU if you need a few extra fps
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Sep 2020
- Posts
- 211
Being as the 3080 is benchmarked at 64.8 FPS @ 4k RTX on, 111.4 FPS @ 1440p RTX on in Control, one of the most demanding games available, I don't think your arguement holds up personally. Even Quake RTX which is the full shebang can run 1440p RTX @ 74.7 FPS. Feel free to kid yourself but don't get other people to spend more than they need to. Source https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3618-nvidia-rtx-3080-founders-edition-review-benchmarks