I'm diving into shooters like Delta Force, Fortnite, and Counter-Strike, and I'm also working on some light video editing projects. I'm wondering which CPU would give me the edge: the 7600X3D or the Ultra 5 265K? I'd love to air cool the system since I'm not keen on constantly replacing coolers. Also, I'll likely pair it with an RX 9060 XT or an RTX 5060 Ti when MicroCenter opens in Santa Clara.
5 Answers
I’d lean towards the 7600X3D for gaming, especially considering its x3D cache. I've got the 7600X3D, and it handles most games smoothly—only some rough Unreal Engine titles and Tarkov drop below 120 FPS. But I'm curious what guys with the Ultra 5 think about it.
Honestly, I think the Ultra 5 265K might be a better balanced choice for general tasks today, but for gaming performance, the 7600X3D has a significant edge. Intel’s 265K is still powerful, but the upgrade path with AMD’s AM5 socket means the 7600X3D could have better longevity in the long run.
If we’re strictly talking gaming, go for the 7600X3D. But remember, the Ultra 5 265K will be better for multitasking and rendering projects. Amped up with higher cores might be worth it if you’re tackling heavy editing or if you're into more complex projects.
You might be better off avoiding a 6-core option nowadays, especially at that price point. The Ultra 5 might offer more versatility for future tasks as well.
For gaming, the 7600X3D is the way to go. It has a larger and faster cache optimized for gaming, while the Ultra 5 265K shines in productivity tasks thanks to its 20 cores. If your main focus is gaming with some light editing, the 7600X3D is probably your best bet. However, if you're into more demanding video editing, the 265K might serve you better.
That’s a good point! If you’re rendering at high resolutions or doing heavy effects, the 265K really stands out. But for casual projects, the 7600X3D should handle it just fine.