tech

The Impact of CPU on Gaming is Greater Than You Think

A common sentiment that has been circulating in recent years, especially in the realm of CPU benchmarking, is that when gaming at 4K resolution, CPU performance doesn't matter much. It is often said that even with a relatively low-end CPU, you will always be limited by the GPU, so if you are playing games at 4K resolution, there is no need to purchase a "fast" gaming CPU that has been proven to perform strongly at lower resolutions.

Now, there are indeed some examples that serve as evidence for this claim, and most CPU benchmarks that include 4K data will do so. However, these data can be very misleading, more so than low-resolution tests. In this article, we will explain why.

Evaluating CPUs in the Right Context

Firstly, let's discuss CPU evaluations that include 4K data. Typically, CPU evaluations use the most powerful GPU available, as this helps to minimize GPU bottlenecks and better isolate the CPU to assess its gaming performance. Using high or ultra-quality presets might seem counterintuitive, but it is often these higher quality settings that put the most strain on the CPU. Settings such as animations, level of detail, draw distances, and crowd density can be very CPU-intensive.Therefore, when you use a GPU like the GeForce RTX 4090 and test with ultra-high quality settings at 4K resolution, the data you get may be misleading based on your preferences, and these preferences mainly refer to the frame rate you expect. First, the game must run at a frame rate you consider acceptable, which is hoped to be from 60 fps to high refresh rate settings such as 120 fps or higher.

Advertisement

Take the data of "Starfield" as an example. At 4K resolution with the ultra-high quality preset using the RTX 4090 and 7800X3D, we saw an average frame rate of 76 fps in our tests, which is not bad. But if you really want 90 fps or higher, you may lower the quality settings to medium, or more likely enable upscaling technology, but the point is, to achieve the frame rate you expect, you will adjust the quality settings.

In this example, it can be seen that the 7800X3D can push over 100 fps in this game, and actually reach up to 130 fps, but this information can only be obtained by testing with reduced resolution.

The problem is that if we only include 4K results, using only the "Ultra" preset (which is usually the case, because you won't use multiple quality presets to test more than 10 CPUs at multiple resolutions), then 76 fps is the upper limit. This is all the RTX 4090 can manage here.

Therefore, if all the tested CPUs allow the RTX 4090 to render 76 fps, this will give the audience the impression that the CPU is not important at 4K, because comparing 7800X3D and 5800X, the performance seems the same.

However, the 5800X may only reach up to 80 fps at most, and if you are willing to adjust the quality settings to expect 90 fps or higher, it will be impossible. If you upgrade the GPU, this will also become a problem, and we assume you will do this sooner or later, because when you do, you will more easily find the CPU's limits at higher resolutions.

Foreign media spent a week on the test bench, using the Ryzen 5 3600 and Ryzen 7 7800X3D, as well as the Radeon 7700 XT, 7900 XT, and RTX 4090, recording a large amount of data in six games. To illustrate this topic more clearly.

"Hogwarts Legacy" benchmark testWe will start with the 1080p data from "Hogwarts Legacy" using the 7700 XT graphics card, which is considered to be on the lower end by today's standards. Of course, its current price is $400, but the RTX 4060 is priced at $300. At the 1080p resolution, which is more commonly used for testing CPUs, we can see that the 7800X3D is much faster than the 3600, even with the "Ultra" preset. In this example, we went from 73 fps to 98 fps, an increase of 34%.

However, if we test with the "Medium" quality setting, this gap widens to 74%, and it reaches 83% when using the "Low" setting, as the Ryzen 5 processor's frame rate seems to only be slightly above 80 fps. These data clearly indicate that if you are satisfied with a performance of around 80 fps on average, then the 3600 is sufficient, but if you want higher frame rates, an upgrade is necessary.

This is why 4K CPU benchmarks are misleading, because you can learn everything you need from the 1080p data. If you want to achieve 60 fps at 4K, you will adjust the settings accordingly based on your graphics card, and you know that the 3600 can achieve this performance. But if you want 90 fps or higher, the resolution is irrelevant; the 3600 simply cannot reach that level of performance.

When we increase the resolution to 1440p, the Ryzen 5 3600 is still limited to 84 fps with medium and ultra presets. The 7800X3D is slower at 1440p because we start to be limited by the Radeon graphics card, but it is still possible to exceed 100 fps with medium or low presets.

At 4K resolution, it is almost impossible to learn about CPU performance because what is mainly seen is the limitation of the 7700 XT, which can only reach about 67-68 fps with the low preset. There are some noticeable differences in the 1% lowest frame rate, as the 7800X3D is much faster than the 3600, but if you focus on the average frame rate, it is easy to conclude that CPU performance is not important at 4K, especially when you do not have an RTX 4090 graphics card.If you are satisfied with the gaming experience at 60 frames per second, that is indeed sufficient, but for those with higher demands, you will have to lower the resolution or more likely enable upscaling technology. However, no matter which choice you make, the performance of the 3600 will be limited to about 80 frames per second, while the 7800X3D can be much faster. Now, let's take a look at the situation with the 7900 XT graphics card.

Upgrading to the 7900 XT does not significantly improve the performance of the Ryzen 5 processor, which is expected, because even at 1080p, the data of the 7700 XT is completely limited by the CPU. When using low and medium presets, we see an increase in frame rate, but beyond that, the results are roughly the same.

On the other hand, the 7800X3D has a performance increase of 36% when using the ultra preset, 10% when using the medium preset, and 12% when using the low preset. Therefore, these lower quality presets begin to approach the throughput limit of the X3D chip. Previously, when using the 7700 XT, the 7800X3D was only 34% faster than the 3600 at 1080p with the ultra setting, but now it is 82% faster.

Raising the resolution to 1440p does not change the results much. The low preset with ray tracing enabled is now severely limited by the GPU, and it can be seen that the advantage of the 7800X3D when using the ultra preset has narrowed to 61%, but beyond that, the gaps in other presets are very similar.

Now, at 4K resolution with the 7900 XT, the performance of the Ryzen 5 3600 is limited to the same performance range as when using the 7700 XT at 1080p, which is below 90 frames per second. When using the ultra quality setting, the average frame rate performance of the 7800X3D and 3600 is almost the same, as both are limited by the GPU, at around 70 frames per second.After installing the RTX 4090, compared to the 7700 XT, the Ryzen 5 3600 actually experienced a slight performance drop at 1080p, due to the Nvidia driver overhead issue we previously discussed. This impact is most pronounced when using the 7800X3D with low-quality presets, as it was actually 15% faster with the 7700 XT. (But this article is not about exploring the Nvidia overhead issue.)

When comparing the ultra-quality data at 1080p, the 7800X3D's performance increased by 85% relative to the 3600, which seems to be the true performance difference between these two CPUs. With low presets using ray tracing, the gap is even larger, reaching 94%, but this data is more out of scientific curiosity, as few people would use this combination of quality settings.

The point is, as found with the 7700 XT at 1080p, the frame rate of the Ryzen 5 processor is limited to about 80 fps; it cannot push the frame rate higher.

Therefore, when jumping to 1440p, it was found that the 3600 was limited to 78 fps, or 65 fps with ultra presets. The 7800X3D has the same result, as the data is still mainly limited by the CPU there.

Then, at 4K, the 7800X3D data with low and medium settings is still limited by the CPU, although higher frame rates can be achieved with the 7900 XT, but due to the overhead issue, the performance of GeForce graphics cards is limited to about 130 fps. At 4K with ultra-quality settings, the 7800X3D is still 41% faster than the 3600, but as mentioned before, don't pay too much attention to the CPU used; this article wants to show more about how resolution and quality settings scale.

In this example, we know that the 7800X3D can drive 120 fps at 1080p with ultra settings, so, assuming the CPU can reach this performance level, by adjusting the quality settings or choosing the right GPU, this frame rate can also be achieved at 4K.Starfield Benchmark Test

Another new game that can be observed is "Starfield." In this example, the Ryzen 5 3600 is unable to render a frame rate exceeding 60 fps. However, when comparing the 3600 and 7800X3D at 1080p with the 7700 XT graphics card using the ultra preset, one would conclude that the performance of the two CPUs is similar. Of course, if the quality settings are reduced, this will lead to a decrease in GPU-limited data, and it can be seen that at low settings, the 7800X3D is up to 69% faster than the 3600.

Once again, it is emphasized that there is no need for 4K data to prove the performance of the 3600 at 4K resolution. In fact, we do not even need a faster GPU. This is all about frame rate; if you are satisfied with a gaming experience at 60 fps, then the 3600 can achieve this, regardless of the resolution. But if you want a frame rate of 90 fps or higher, then an upgrade from the 3600 is necessary.

When the resolution is increased to 1440p, it can be observed that the results of the ultra and high settings are severely limited by the GPU, but once again, it is emphasized that the performance we see is below 60 fps. But if you use the 7700 XT graphics card with high or ultra settings, you would conclude that CPU performance is not important.At 4K resolution, it can be observed that regardless of the settings used, CPU performance is irrelevant to these data. The Ryzen 5 3600 is capable of matching the performance of the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, which is the appearance of many 4K benchmark data, because most of these examples are severely limited by the GPU, with frame rates below 60 fps. If you play games at 4K resolution with a Radeon RX 7700 XT graphics card, you will not only reduce the quality settings but also enable upscaling techniques, so technically, you are not playing games at 4K resolution.

If you improve GPU performance with a Radeon RX 7900 XT graphics card, it comes as no surprise that it is of no use for the Ryzen 5 3600, as the data is still severely limited by the CPU, roughly around 60 fps. On the other hand, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D sees a 53% performance increase when using extreme settings, with an average frame rate of 92 fps, but we also see that it can reach up to 131 fps with low preset settings.

Increasing the resolution to 1440p does not help the Ryzen 5 3600, as it is still limited to 60 fps. However, when using extreme preset settings, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D is 27% faster than the 3600, and its performance is even up to 92% faster with low-quality settings.

At 4K resolution, most of the data is limited by the GPU, with frame rates at or below 60 fps, although with low-quality settings, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D is 20% faster than the 3600. For those who are not satisfied with 60 fps, this is another example that you may need to reduce the quality settings to high or medium, and then enable upscaling techniques to push performance to the level at 1440p resolution.In "Starry Sky," the issue of Nvidia's additional consumption does not exist, so we did not see a performance drop when using the RTX 4090 at 1080p. On the contrary, these data show us how fast the 7800X3D is, with its performance being more than double that of 3600.

Even at 1440p, the results are mostly very similar. With the ultra preset, the 7800X3D is 84% faster than 3600, 98% faster with the high-quality setting, and 118% faster with the medium setting.

Finally, at 4K, it can be seen that the Ryzen 5 3600 is still limited to 60 fps, which is the highest performance level that the CPU can provide in the test. But even if the upper limit is 70 fps, if you need a frame rate of at least 90 fps, it is not an ideal choice. On the other hand, the 7800X3D can achieve a throughput of 130 fps in this game, so although we only saw 76 fps with the ultra preset, it can be faster, and you just need to reduce the GPU load, either by lowering the visual quality settings or enabling upscaling technology.

"Counter-Strike 2" Benchmark Test

Now, the erroneous view that "the CPU is not important at 4K" is debunked in the face of e-sports games. Although we know that this view mainly comes from players who play single-player games at relatively low frame rates, it is worth noting that CPU evaluations are not entirely targeted at your specific usage.

Take "Counter-Strike 2" as an example. For this game, 150 fps is not much; in fact, many serious players will tell you that it is far from enough, and most "Counter-Strike 2" players strive to maintain a frame rate above 300 fps. They also tend to use medium to low quality settings, as this not only helps to increase the frame rate but also makes it easier to spot enemy players.When testing with a 7700 XT graphics card at 1080p, the Ryzen 5 3600 could only achieve a maximum of about 180 fps in the test, so while it is playable, it is not ideal for competitive gaming. On the other hand, the 7800X3D starts at about 250 fps, but can reach close to 500 fps with the 7700 XT.

Thus, these data once again indicate that if you need a frame rate exceeding 200 fps, the Ryzen 5 3600 cannot provide such a level of performance, regardless of the resolution used.

At 1440p, the 7800X3D is more limited by the GPU at ultra and high-quality settings, of course, the 3600's performance is roughly the same.

At 4K resolution, the situation is essentially the same, with the 3600's frame rates being roughly the same across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K, as these data are severely limited by the CPU. When using the 7800X3D, we found the limits of the 7700 XT, even with low and medium presets.The data for the 7900 XT is also roughly the same. Despite using a faster GPU, the 3600 still caps performance at a maximum of 179 fps, while the 7900 XT can far exceed this speed.

At 1440p, the true limitations of the 7900 XT appear when using ultra-high and high-quality presets, but again, it is emphasized that the data is limited by the CPU when using medium and low presets.

At 4K, if a very high quality setting is used, the performance of the two tested CPUs is comparable. However, when using a medium setting, the 7800X3D is still 119% faster, and the RTX 4090's data is roughly the same. Foreign media also tested several other games, such as "Helldivers 2," "Star Wars Jedi: Survivor," and "Assetto Corsa Competizione," and the results are very similar to the already presented results.

Conclusion

Some may comment that the data here is misleading because the Ryzen 5 3600 is much slower than the 7800X3D. (The foreign media did use extreme examples) But the point is, what matters is the frame rate, not the resolution.Check the results of 4K that often show a frame rate below 60 fps, which are severely limited by the GPU, is not useful for measuring CPU performance, especially if you need a frame rate above 60 fps and are willing to adjust the quality settings to achieve the frame rate you want.

In addition, most players now enable super-resolution technology at 4K, because FSR and DLSS work best at 4K, usually without a noticeable impact on visual quality, but can significantly improve performance, provided that there is a CPU capable of driving more frames.

For example, this is the data of the medium quality settings of "Starfield" just checked with 7900 XT: the frame rate of 3600 is 60 fps, and 7800X3D only has 64 fps. However, if super-resolution technology is enabled in quality mode, the performance of 3600 remains unchanged, and the performance of the 7800X3D configuration is almost increased by 30%, with an average frame rate exceeding 80 fps.

There are many unknown variables, or variables that may change. If your question is "How many frames can I get at 4K?", to answer this question, you need to know the peak performance of the CPU.

For reviewers, testing the RTX 4090 at 4K using the standard preset used for testing (which may be high or ultra-high) does not provide any useful information for the audience, and may actually mislead them. Assuming that no matter what the results are, you will be satisfied, even if the final frame rate is below 60 fps. But in reality, you will enable super-resolution technology or reduce the quality settings to improve the frame rate, and when you do this, you need to know whether the CPU can achieve that level of performance.

Reviews are not to tell you the exact number of frames you will get in a given game; it is just an approximate estimate, because we have only tested a small part of the game, but the performance relative to another product should be quite consistent in scaling, so it will give you a concept of how good the performance of one product is relative to another. Reviewers do not test at low resolutions to make you feel that your current CPU is not good or to entice you to upgrade; this article tests at low resolutions to clearly show the actual performance differences between CPUs, in order to make a wise purchase decision.

Regarding upgrades, whether to upgrade depends entirely on yourself. Are you satisfied with your current performance level? If not, is it limited by the CPU? It is easy to determine whether the GPU performance has been improved by reducing the resolution or quality settings; if not, it is likely limited by the CPU.

Finally, if we use the Ryzen 5 7600, the gap with 7800X3D will be much smaller, and in many 4K situations, there is almost no difference between these two CPUs. Of course, this is also true at 1080p. The reason you choose 7800X3D instead of 7600 or 7700 series is simply because you want the best, either because you can easily afford it, or because you really need the maximum performance.

But in any case, it is important to understand the real performance of these CPUs when comparing them, because although you may not be able to unlock all the performance now, the extra performance may be helpful for future GPU upgrades. Although we do not recommend going beyond your budget on the CPU, especially when components like the Ryzen 7 7700 are already good enough, it is always good to have all the right information to make a wise purchasing decision.