I'm planning a new gaming PC that I'd like to keep useful for as long as possible, but my budget is limited. The build would include 32GB of DDR5 memory and an RX 9070, or an RX 9070 XT if I find a good deal. I initially considered the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, but comparison tests make the performance difference versus the Ryzen 7 7700 look fairly small in many games, while the 7800X3D costs about 1.64 times as much. Is the extra cost worthwhile, especially for games such as CS2 and Rainbow Six Siege, or would it make more sense to spend the money elsewhere?
2 Answers
It depends heavily on the games, resolution, and frame rates you’re targeting. The 7800X3D can be dramatically faster in CPU-limited or cache-sensitive games, sometimes by 50% or more, but the difference shrinks in GPU-heavy titles where the graphics card is the bottleneck. With an RX 9070, the Ryzen 7 7700 is already a strong pairing for normal 1440p gaming, so the money saved could potentially go toward a better GPU or other components.
For competitive games like CS2 and Rainbow Six Siege, the 7800X3D can be worthwhile if you’re playing at very high refresh rates and using low settings to push the highest possible FPS. Those games can become CPU-limited, especially when aiming for 240Hz or higher. At 1440p with more typical settings, though, the Ryzen 7 7700 should still perform very well, and the improvement may not justify paying 64% more.
I’d compare the minimum and 1% low frame rates rather than only the average FPS. The extra cache can help smooth out performance in some competitive games, but it’s still worth checking benchmarks for your exact resolution and refresh rate.
That makes sense. I mainly play CS2 and Rainbow Six Siege, so I’m more concerned about high and consistent frame rates than cinematic graphics.