Cache vs clock speed for KSP

[mcwaffles2003]

Just a question to the community. Does anybody know which matters more? I would suspect clock speed. I have an AM4 board with a 2700x and am looking to upgrade the CPU. Originally I was going to get a 5800X to replace it (3.8GHz Base, 4.7GHz Boost, 36MB L2+L3 Cache) but noticed the recently released 5800X3D (3.4GHz Base, 4.5GHz Boost, 100MB L2+L3 Cache).

Anyone have any input on the difference between the two? On a possibly relevant note, I frequently play heavily modded installs, currently running through RP-1 at the moment, for example.

[Curveball Anders]

In general terms the big thing is raw single-core performance.

[mcwaffles2003]

3 hours ago, Curveball Anders said:

In general terms the big thing is raw single-core performance.

I get that but single core performance relies on several factors like clock speed, IPC, and cache. 

 

I assume IPC should be relatively similar as both CPUs are same series/same architecture. I Just don't know how much the processes in KSP rely on cache. I'm assuming with a bunch of mods the game isn't going to be very efficient and probably will be  bloated in the cache increasing cpu latency. So I figure going for extra cache size would reduce cycles where the CPU has to pull out of RAM. 

[pwn]

i only found 2 benchmarks for this topic

5800x3d vs 5900x: ("craft explosions")

https://github.com/xxEzri/Vermeer/blob/main/Guide.md

3700x vs 5900x3d

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExjLSWCz3fA&ab_channel=ReidCaptain

i was asking myself same thing, really hope they will optimize the physics engine.