How Much CPU Does the GeForce RTX 3080 Need?

Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 FE
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

We've just posted the GeForce RTX 3080 Founders Edition review, which now reigns — until next week's launch on the GeForce RTX 3090 — as the best graphics card for gaming and sits at the top of the GPU benchmarks hierarchy. While your graphics card is usually the biggest considering when it comes to gaming performance, however, we also wanted to look at some of the best CPUs for gaming to see just how much performance you lose — or gain! — by running it with something other than the Core i9-9900K we use in our current GPU testbed.

For this article, we've pulled out several of the latest AMD and Intel processors: Core i9-10900K, Core i9-9900K, Core i3-10100, Ryzen 5 3600, and Ryzen 9 3900X. Then just for good measure, we've gone old school and dug up an 'ancient' Core i7-4770K Haswell chip. This is the oldest CPU I've currently got hanging around, and it should help answer the question of just how much CPU you need to make good use of the RTX 3080.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Jarred Walton
Senior Editor

Jarred Walton is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware focusing on everything GPU. He has been working as a tech journalist since 2004, writing for AnandTech, Maximum PC, and PC Gamer. From the first S3 Virge '3D decelerators' to today's GPUs, Jarred keeps up with all the latest graphics trends and is the one to ask about game performance.

  • Crazy Dodo
    I'm curious why the i-5 10600k wasn't part of this test. In this article you list it as your top pick for gaming PC's, and I would have liked to see how it compares to the i-9 at high/ultra settings.
    Reply
  • IceKickR
    I'm also very interested in i5 10600k. It seemed a little strange that i3 was included and such a great CPU as 10600k was not.
    Reply
  • SpitfireMk3
    Thank you for this great analysis. Obviously you have to consider all aspects before upgrading and I'm glad that I can still use my PC for a while before being forced to upgrade. Seeing the 9 series with other RAM outperform the 10 in some tests, how much difference do you think we'll see when DDR5 hits the scene?
    Reply
  • Kiril1512
    This reminds me about that meme where an Nvidia engineer explains about RTX 3000 cpu bottleneck xD
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    Crazy Dodo said:
    I'm curious why the i-5 10600k wasn't part of this test. In this article you list it as your top pick for gaming PC's, and I would have liked to see how it compares to the i-9 at high/ultra settings.
    The biggest reason: I don't have one. Paul has a 10600K, as he's the CPU guy. And I bought the i3-10100 because I was more interested in seeing what happened to a 4-core/8-thread modern Intel CPU (and it was only $130 with tax). I might have an i7-8700K around that I could test, but I've been running a ton of benchmarks for the 3080 launch, and still have lots of things to take care of, so probably it's not happening any time soon.
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    SpitfireMk3 said:
    Thank you for this great analysis. Obviously you have to consider all aspects before upgrading and I'm glad that I can still use my PC for a while before being forced to upgrade. Seeing the 9 series with other RAM outperform the 10 in some tests, how much difference do you think we'll see when DDR5 hits the scene?
    DDR5 will probably be like the DDR3/DDR4 rollout: not much faster at first, but over time the increased bandwidth becomes more important. A lot will depend on the CPU architecture it's paired with of course, and we don't have Zen 4 or Alder Lake yet. :)
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    Christ, so even the 3080 is incapable of keeping up with modern CPUs at 1080 ultra.
    That's a 25% improvement in FPS for the 9900k going to 1080 medium (daheck?! did you run them at stock with TDP enforced? )
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    TerryLaze said:
    Christ, so even the 3080 is incapable of keeping up with modern CPUs at 1080 ultra.
    That's a 25% improvement in FPS for the 9900k going to 1080 medium (daheck?! did you run them at stock with TDP enforced? )
    It's 25% faster at 1080p medium because both the CPU and GPU are doing less work overall. There are a few games where the ultra vs. medium stuff still hits similar speeds, but you'd need significantly more CPU performance to avoid at least a moderate drop in performance. There are games where 1080p ultra is almost completely CPU limited (MS Flight Simulator for sure), others where the graphics complexity is high enough that they're only partially CPU limited, and still others where they're basically GPU limited even at 1080p. Enabling ray tracing in most games pushes them into the last category.

    As for TDP, the 10900K TDP is very loosely defined and the MSI board almost certainly runs it with PL2 constraints rather than restricting it to 125W. For games, it's not coming close to 250W, but it might be breaking 125W. The same applies to the other CPUs to varying degrees. I don't have proper CPU power testing equipment, however, so at best I could try and do Outlet Power - GPU Power. Which I don't have time to try and get done right now.
    Reply
  • greenmrt
    For me, looking forward to playing raytraced games in Ultra at 1440p, I'm gleaming from this that my 3700x will work until I upgrade to the next gen CPU. I'm buying a new GPU for the "purdy" :)
    Reply
  • Zarax
    Another excellent analysis, Jarred.
    Any chance to see how Ryzen XT CPUs behave or some Ashes of the Singularity benchmark?

    Thanks!
    Reply