3800X to 5900X for gaming, make sense?

Nice idea but the thing was when going above 27", wanting Freesync and preferably an IPS panel prices shot up quickly.

Unless you meant ultrawide 1080p?

 

No i meant ultrawide 1440p like odyssey g5 34". I would not be looking for an ipc when you can get a much cheaper va panel and still be good enough.

 

Maxed, how well would you guys think something like Avatar would run @ 1440p?

 

100% dont do it.

My recent upgrade path...... :/

1800x >>>> 2700X >>>>> 3900X >>>>> 5900X

Yes I have owned every generation of Ryzen so far. To be honest, 5000 series is excellent but was it a big enough jump from the 3900X??? Not really and I game at 1440p144Hz. It had the biggest impact on minimums obviously but I could of held onto that 3900X for a long time and kinda wished I had really.

I should of also kept the 1800X and instead jumped to either the 3900X or 5900X which would of made way more sense. The 2700X was barely an upgrade.

I would hold onto your CPU for now, like others have said your 6800XT is falling to sleep at 1080p. Spend your money on a bigger better higher resolution screen. Personally I would also stick to 120Hz as I think its the sweet spot. Its still super smooth, its easy to achieve this fps, and its more compatible if you ever want to get one of the new consoles too. My next screen will be a 4K120 screen for sure.

Its Ubi you are talking about remember................

 

Avatar isn't an e-sport game. Seems like it should be a showcase game for the engine. No last-gen console ports. Guessing it should look close to what's shown in the video, at least. Should be demanding(maxed) - even at 1080p. My guess is around 80 fps with those visuals(6800xt).

 

depends what engine they use
if its the old anvil then more than 80fps

 

Snowdrop - says so on the video box.

Same one they used for The Division, if I recall correctly...

EDIT: It is the same one(+updates)

 

Yeah won't get the CPU, I'll keep an eye on 1440p monitors.

I can assure when playing Cyberpunk, Control with RT, Metro Exodus Enhanced, Doom Eternal with RT the GPU usage is 99 % almost consistently with max boost so definitely not sleeping.

 

Turn off RT and check again

 

Did you watch the video?
Watch Dogs, Division, FC3&4 are not esports games and all showed a huge downgrade in visuals.

What I am saying is temper your expectations as this is Ubisoft, the masters of the downgrade.

 

Watched the video. Aware of the downgrades from before. Time will tell how things go this time...

 

If you are filthy rich and have no other way to burn thru money for no reason, do it. If you are doing it for performance, no.

 

I did a similar upgrade path. Mostly for fun because i like to test new stuff. And i also agre on that the jump from 3000 series to 5000 series didnt do much in 1440p gaming.

 

I wanted to do bit of a follow-up post to make a point.

Look at the below examples, all from the Guru3D review of my particular card:

Spoiler

Yes those are cherry-picked but like said, examples to make a point.

While it's clear 1080p is limiting the top end performance (CPU limit), you can see the 6800 XT is far from overkill when targeting 1080p/144 across the board consistently.
Sure there are also modern games that run at 200 ... 300 fps but they are getting rarer and I do not own or play any of them (BF V, Death Stranding etc.).
Add ray tracing to the mix and the situation becomes even more difficult.

This is what somewhat bothers me when people readily say X is overkill for w/e, do these people look at the same graphs as me?

Granted, my GPU of choice would have been the 6800 non-XT but none were in stock when I had the chance to upgrade.
In retrospect when ray tracing is considered I'm glad I have the XT variant, it packs that bit more oompf.

Another aspect is future-proofing: I was told when I got the 980 Ti back in the day it was overkill for 1080p60 for chrissakes.
Hardly the case these days don't you think.

Now, I actually already had a particular 1440p display in shopping cart but I started benchmarking games I have at 1440p (VSR) and found it increasingly difficult to hit a frame rate closer to 100 fps in the most demanding ones.

Having not too long ago forked out an insane amount for a GPU upgrade having to start compromising settings to reach a performance target - and forking out a few hundred more for the privilege - is not my idea of fun.

Last, this is my take. I favor a high frame rate over high(er) resolution, to me it is what largely defines an enjoyable gaming experience.
Being able to reach a high frame rate while keeping graphics settings maxed or high just adds to that, there's something "magical" in having a gorgeous looking game refresh at a high rate.

The "my PC can do this?!" experience, you know.

Someone has the exact opposite take and says as long as fps is 30+ or 60+, it's 4K or 1440p or nothing and that's fine.
I don't go telling them their CPUs are overkill for that resolution

/wall of text

PS: not directed at anyone, just a general observation

 

division looked great imo
and it was a fresh idea,something that doesn't happen at ubisoft too much.

 

While the division2 looks great...the first onewas pretty far off what was promised, its been a couple of months since i last played the division but it still wasn't what was first advertised, Avaater will probably look more like GR Breakpoints AnvilNext engine

 

Okay follow up of follow up.

I'm also sort of sad as I wouldn't mind a display upgrade.
Have used 1080p for a decade surely.

Had picked a nice (maybe?) curved 31.5" that should have had better color and contrast (VA vs. TN) yet low input lag.
With the possible caveat of more blurring or smearing in motion but whether I'd see the difference who knows.

Also a steal for the price...

This if anything is a first world "problem".

So yeah very contradicted on the other hand.
I know I could upscale etc. but that kind of defies the point of getting a higher res display. Or does it?

On the other (third?) hand not spending money is saving money but on the fourth hand the display was a steal and I can sell the current to compensate.

On the fifth hand I'd need to convince the missus why we need a new display.

Looks like I need Vishnu to solve this one...

Given the choice what would you do?
Would you all just go 1440p and ditch 144(ish) frames?

Idk why this turned out to be so inconclusive to me after all. Maybe I'm having second thoughts about this whole high fps thing.

 

you will.va smearing in motion is awful for someone who is sensitive to motion clarity.
tbh when I switched from va to ips it felt like I was getting more fps,literally.
pixel response time is something that gets lost in today's marketing jargon,but should be the most important thing choosing a high refresh display

what about that nano ips thing ? or whatever it's called.the thing that is supposed to boost ips contrast a lot.I heard to does a great job.and ips's are plenty fast,with low overshoot.

like I said,with your current rig the tradeoff is almost too good.
you'll lose very little performance relatively to how much crisper and more detailed 1440p looks

 

Tried VSR and wasn't good enough?
Tried limiting FPS to ~60 and it was fine?

Surely you have a personal acceptable zone for both...

 

Get a good display with 1440p and higher refresh rate even though you may not fully use it right away.
I wouldn't want to go below that anymore. HDR and VRR are also must-haves for me now that I've had them for a while.

About your initial question, just to add: I upgraded from a 8700k running at 4.8GHz to a 5900X. It's nice to have it but frankly, I don't really have a benefit gaming so far.
I'm sure that'll come at some point but I'm still so undecided that I've kept the board & CPU sitting on a shelf here... so much for that.