14900k or swap to AM5 platform and 7800X3D after return of faulty CPU

[jigger]

Only it isn't just video encoding performance and you know that, when you've got to resort to petulant replies like that you know you are on the losing end.



It is an interesting one in this respect for sure - if someone needs/wants a build running now then waiting for Arrow Lake isn't really going to cut it.

Haha, you’re the one name calling like a big girls blouse Petulant.

If you spend six hours a day encoding video, or run a lot of VMs under Linux the 14900 makes sense, but it is hundreds of pounds more. The 7800X3D is the better CPU for a desktop/gaming windows pc. If the goal is getting the best from a highend Nvidia card for reasonable money the 7800X3D is hands down the chip to get. You know this, but can’t admit it for some reason.

If it worth it for the OP only he can answer.

 

[Wing-Man]

7800x3d is the best gaming chip but not the best at all games. I sold mine to get an 14700k…

In general desktop stuff the 14th gen is better also.

If the op was buying the lot new I would say for gaming go am5, but he already as a full 1700 set up just with no cpu… pending a refund.. for me I would just grab another 14700k

No way would I get a 14900 or 14600 but the 14700 is a good chip.

 

[Rroff]

Haha, you’re the one name calling like a big girls blouse Petulant.

Where am I name calling? you gave a petulant response I called it what it was.

I'm also talking about the 14700, not 14900, give or take it is a similar price build to a 7800X3D - the 14700 wrecks the 7800X3D in a range of desktop tasks it isn't even close and even on average the 7800X3D is ~30% slower for desktop uses, and I have actual experience of both chips as well as a range of other 7000 Ryzens and 13th gen Intel.

In gaming the 14700 will feed most GPUs fine especially anything less than the 4090 and the only scenario where the 7800X3D really stretches its legs is a 4090 at 1080p which unless you are doing hardcore/pro esports isn't a very likely combination for most people. And I've provided all the links to show this. A 4080 Super or anything slower at 1440p/4K with high/ultra settings the difference in gaming, some exceptions aside, between the 7800X3D and 14700 is within margin of error.

 

[Rroff]

No way would I get a 14900 or 14600 but the 14700 is a good chip.

I think the 14700 gets a bit lost in how woeful the rest of the 14th gen really is - as can be seen in the image and review I posted earlier, some exceptions aside, it is often nibbling at the heels of the faster CPUs like the 14900, 7950(X3D), etc. while being considerably cheaper. With a bit of optimisation you can get within 3% (mostly due to the cache difference) of the single core performance of the faster part as well. It also has relatively well balanced performance unlike the rest which are often strong at one thing but weaker at another or just cost a lot more.

By the time GPUs come along where the 7800X3D's ability to push them beyond any GPU bottlenecks at higher resolutions/settings comes into play both the AM5 platform and 14700/LGA1700 platform will be pretty obsolete.

 

[jigger]

Where am I name calling? you gave a petulant response I called it what it was.

I'm also talking about the 14700, not 14900, give or take it is a similar price build to a 7800X3D - the 14700 wrecks the 7800X3D in a range of desktop tasks it isn't even close and even on average the 7800X3D is ~30% slower for desktop uses, and I have actual experience of both chips as well as a range of other 7000 Ryzens and 13th gen Intel.

In gaming the 14700 will feed most GPUs fine especially anything less than the 4090 and the only scenario where the 7800X3D really stretches its legs is a 4090 at 1080p which unless you are doing hardcore/pro esports isn't a very likely combination for most people. And I've provided all the links to show this. A 4080 Super or anything slower at 1440p/4K with high/ultra settings the difference in gaming, some exceptions aside, between the 7800X3D and 14700 is within margin of error.

The OP is looking at a 14900K though… With anything faster than a RTX3080 the 7000X3D chips shine at all resolutions. If you used a 7800X3D you’d know this, so maybe you might want to revisit. Update the game possibly, as you must be running an old version/driver or something.

 

[Rroff]

The OP is looking at a 14900K though… With anything faster than a RTX3080 the 7000X3D chips shine at all resolutions. If you used a 7800X3D you’d know this, so maybe you might want to revisit. Update the game possibly, as you must be running an old version/driver or something.

My advice was to stick with the 14700 replacement. Also you are talking rubbish with the RTX3080 - see my edit above, the 14700 does fine with anything below a 4090 and even with a 4090 it mostly comes into play at lower resolutions where the 7800/7950X3D can show some legs. That comes from actual experience as well as reflected in all the reviews.

There is no way I'd trade a 14700 for a 7800X3D given its mediocre 1-3 generations behind desktop performance at the same price point unless into hardcore esport gaming.

 

[jigger]

My advice was to stick with the 14700 replacement. Also you are talking rubbish with the RTX3080 - see my edit above, the 14700 does fine with anything below a 4090 and even with a 4090 it mostly comes into play at lower resolutions where the 7800/7950X3D can show some legs. That comes from actual experience as well as reflected in all the reviews.

There is no way I'd trade a 14700 for a 7800X3D given its mediocre 1-3 generations behind desktop performance at the same price point unless into hardcore esport gaming.

I’ve noticed your edits chap... The gains are there at all resolutions. For a windows gaming machine the 7000X3D is a no brainer, it’s not even a question between what’s on offer. Sure an encode might take 60 seconds longer, but big deal.

 

[Rroff]

I’ve noticed your edits chap... The gains are there at all resolutions. For a windows gaming machine the 7000X3D is a no brainer, it’s not even a question between what’s on offer. Sure an encode might take 60 seconds longer, but big deal.

As I said denial - I linked above to all the information to show what you are saying isn't the case.

 

[jigger]

As I said denial - I linked above to all the information to show what you are saying isn't the case.

As I said, the 7000X3D is better hardware. The 7800X3D stands out particularly for this use case. Even bone stock it’s a better gaming experience and overall desktop chip.

 

[Journey]

It's a bit of a moot point arguing about 14700K(KF) vs AMD though since the 7800X3D is cheaper, and the 7900X is cheaper and the 7900X3D is the same price. So if you don't want the 7800X3D as you want more cores for other work than just playing games then get the £330 7900X or £370 7900X3D.

 

[Rroff]

It's a bit of a moot point arguing about 14700K(KF) vs AMD though since the 7800X3D is cheaper, and the 7900X is cheaper and the 7900X3D is the same price. So if you don't want the 7800X3D as you want more cores for other work than just playing games then get the £330 7900X or £370 7900X3D.

Price of a whole system build isn't hugely different, depending a bit on what offers/price fluctuations, the 7800X3D is currently on a slight discount though. The 7900X3D due to the split 6+6 CCD can be a bit of a complicated consideration for gaming.

 

[Journey]

Price of a whole system build isn't hugely different, depending a bit on what offers/price fluctuations, the 7800X3D is currently on a slight discount though. The 7900X3D due to the split 6+6 CCD can be a bit of a complicated consideration for gaming.

I'd say £300 for a 7800X3D is pretty compelling with a socket that still has life in it. If I were the OP in this instance I'd swap to the AM5, get the cheapest chip (7600 -£145) to go with it for a few months and nab a 9000 series part, selling the 7600 for a small loss and overall having a huge upgrade for a much longer period of time. I also wouldn't trust the Intel CPU's to not degrade rapidly unless you are running the newest lowest spec profiles for the BIOS's, and failing and having to RMA is a pain if you only have one system.

 

[Rroff]

I'd say £300 for a 7800X3D is pretty compelling with a socket that still has life in it. If I were the OP in this instance I'd swap to the AM5, get the cheapest chip (7600 -£145) to go with it for a few months and nab a 9000 series part, selling the 7600 for a small loss and overall having a huge upgrade for a much longer period of time. I also wouldn't trust the Intel CPU's to not degrade rapidly unless you are running the newest lowest spec profiles for the BIOS's, and failing and having to RMA is a pain if you only have one system.

Bit more than £300 from any reputable retailer, couple of places have sales on at the moment at around £320 but nominally it is mostly around £350.

Not seen any evidence of Intel CPUs degrading rapidly except some edge case 14900s with dodgy Asus BIOS which were putting 1.6+v through them (the 7800X3D actually had the same thing happening with Asus BIOS a year ago which people seem to have quickly forgotten https://www.dexerto.com/tech/asus-officially-responds-to-motherboards-burning-up-cpus-2124161/ ), personally wouldn't recommend the 14900 with all the BIOS shenanigans at the moment though, another reason I recommended towards the 14700.

 

[Craig_d1]

As for the argument about 3d encoding...if you don't video encode, who cares......for 3d printing I'm guess you open program, load the 3 image you want etc and send to the printer, so that does all the work from there on in

my work revolves around massive spreadsheets with macro's, trading platforms, news feeds etc...pc uses more than 32gb ram useage...no video encoding or anything...guessing this is fairly relevant for the masses. My wife's an accountant by training and worked for numerous companies (accountant, insurance, printers(books etc) and now at a school and funnily enough, she never had to do video encoding etc...all this stuff on yt etc going apple and intel, and whats the best pc...who cares...they all work in video editing etc...in grand scheme of work related jobs, it's a smaller percentage..anyway I digress

my work pc is a intel 10900x and at home I have an am4 5800x build(12th gen hadn't come out at time and needed a pc so went am4 as 11th gen was just 10th gen turned up a notch, so heat issues...hmm 14900k...intel not really learning here are they)...now workng abroad I wanted a gaming pc as I'm by myself, as family still at home, and local tv I don't watch, and being alone, have more time) I build a am5 with a 7800x3d
I can work from home 1 day a week if I wish, and when I come back to uk for hols, can work in our london office, and again can work from home so use all my pc's. Our offices all use intel based pc's...(work we have dell or hp machines so will always be intel until they start offering amd...supposedly 2026 in dell case)

From my work perspective, my new amd builds outperform my work pc's so think for work related tasks, makes no difference...so for me above arguement then boils down to gaming and longevity...now we know current intel is eol..whatever you get now, that's it so next build is a fresh build. AM5 is couple years old so halfway thru it's cycle now...we'll have 9000 series cpu, then later the x3d variants...think that'll be it...not sure the generation after that will be am5...but still am5 has an upgrade path whereas intel doesn't...If you upgrade your cpu every couple years, am5 way to go...if you keep it same for 5yrs, then upgrade path becomes irrelevant too, as any new pc will have far faster cpu's so you'll probably replace everything...so that's down to user whether upgrade is relevant to them

What resolution do you game at? 1080 and 1440, then the x3d can help massively...It's not a contest...at 4k, then there's a different argument as workload skews to the gpu a lot more and as cpu processing a lot less fps, actual cpu load decreases, so you can argue dropping from trhe 7800x3d to a 7600x and using the £150 differenct to go from a 4070ti to 4080super (as an example) will bring you better framerates...dropping to low res multiplayer etc, goes back other way, but they you really should be dropping to different res screen at that point.

I think power useage is also relevant..HU recently did a new vid taking into account the new bios revisions with the intel crasing problems, and still with a 14900k, it's using 80 to 100w more to achieve the same framerates that the 7800x3d produces...and with that comes the cooling requirements...my 7800x3d has a arctic a35 arg cooler...that's it...and playing games it's silent...don't think i could do that with a 14900k..it'd thermally throttle

so out of 14900k or 7800x3d, i choose 7800x3d...as others have said no brainer

prob i see is OP already has a going concern platform, so by far cheapest option is just replacing existing cpu 14700kf or k skew, or get a 14700 with it's lower power consumption..at 4k gaming doubt you'll notice any difference in gaming unless it's a specific game that loves the x3d

 

[Journey]

Bit more than £300 from any reputable retailer, couple of places have sales on at the moment at around £320 but nominally it is mostly around £350.

I'd hardly call one of the biggest retailers on the planet not reputable.

Not seen any evidence of Intel CPUs degrading rapidly except some edge case 14900s with dodgy Asus BIOS which were putting 1.6+v through them (the 7800X3D actually had the same thing happening with Asus BIOS a year ago which people seem to have quickly forgotten https://www.dexerto.com/tech/asus-officially-responds-to-motherboards-burning-up-cpus-2124161/ ), personally wouldn't recommend the 14900 with all the BIOS shenanigans at the moment though, another reason I recommended towards the 14700.

The issue isn't now though is it, it 18 months down the line etc. when they go to poo and you've got to recall 50 systems that you have an issue. I don't know how many systems you deal with but I am currently sorting out an upgrade for 75-80 systems for a client, they were going to have Intel 14400's but that is now 8600G as the warranty period needs to be 5 years minimum and I am unwilling to offer anything more than the standard OEM 1 year with Intel CPU's in them.

 

[Rroff]

I'd hardly call one of the biggest retailers on the planet not reputable.

I'm not seeing any reputable retailer at £300 - if you are referring to who I think it is £320 on offer but it will be back to £350 soon.

The issue isn't now though is it, it 18 months down the line etc. when they go to poo and you've got to recall 50 systems that you have an issue. I don't know how many systems you deal with but I am currently sorting out an upgrade for 75-80 systems for a client, they were going to have Intel 14400's but that is now 8600G as the warranty period needs to be 5 years minimum and I am unwilling to offer anything more than the standard OEM 1 year with Intel CPU's in them.

I'm not seeing that being an issue so far, the only indications related to premature degradation are due certain BIOS, mostly Asus, putting too much voltage through certain 14900s - at least as things stand it doesn't seem to be a widespread 14th gen issue - and no one should really be surprised at Asus and that issue as it isn't the first, second or third time it has happened including as I linked to with Ryzen 7000 chips a year ago.

 

[Rroff]

As for the argument about 3d encoding...if you don't video encode, who cares......for 3d printing I'm guess you open program, load the 3 image you want etc and send to the printer, so that does all the work from there on in

Not sure why people are getting hung up on one example - across a broad range of desktop workloads the performance is 1-3 generations behind that was just one example, if people are gaming they are often into clipping videos or streaming, etc. where that can be a factor.

 

[jigger]

I'd hardly call one of the biggest retailers on the planet not reputable.



The issue isn't now though is it, it 18 months down the line etc. when they go to poo and you've got to recall 50 systems that you have an issue. I don't know how many systems you deal with but I am currently sorting out an upgrade for 75-80 systems for a client, they were going to have Intel 14400's but that is now 8600G as the warranty period needs to be 5 years minimum and I am unwilling to offer anything more than the standard OEM 1 year with Intel CPU's in them.

1.6v through 10nm (FinFet or not) is very high. Way, way too high for my liking and even more so considering the thermal load.

Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Journey]

I'm not seeing any reputable retailer at £300 - if you are referring to who I think it is £320 on offer but it will be back to £350 soon.



I'm not seeing that being an issue so far, the only indications related to premature degradation are due certain BIOS, mostly Asus, putting too much voltage through certain 14900s - at least as things stand it doesn't seem to be a widespread 14th gen issue - and no one should really be surprised at Asus and that issue as it isn't the first, second or third time it has happened including as I linked to with Ryzen 7000 chips a year ago.

But they haven't been out long enough to determine if it will be an issue, so why would I take the risk? Its fine if you are a single person user like yourself, but when you deal with many 100's of systems a year, then the thought (and cost) of dealing with the issues are not even worth thinking about. The fact Intel have now said that you can buy a 'K' CPU but need to run it like a non'K chip means all the benchmarks are invalid and irrelevant anyhow. Also, dead end platform which for a consumer isn't a great deal.

Also you must have terrible Google Fu, an no it won't be going back to £350.

 

[Rroff]

But they haven't been out long enough to determine if it will be an issue, so why would I take the risk? Its fine if you are a single person user like yourself, but when you deal with many 100's of systems a year, then the thought (and cost) of dealing with the issues are not even worth thinking about. The fact Intel have now said that you can buy a 'K' CPU but need to run it like a non'K chip means all the benchmarks are invalid and irrelevant anyhow. Also, dead end platform which for a consumer isn't a great deal.

Also you must have terrible Google Fu, an no it won't be going back to £350.

You could say that of any CPU - people like Buildzoid have done a load of videos on it and the scenario of premature degradation is with certain 14900s which are edge cases in combination with certain BIOSes, mostly Asus, which are putting too much voltage due to the way the VF, etc. is handled. Generally I'd say it worth avoiding the 14900 at the moment due to the whole mess with power profiles/BIOS updates needed, etc. but it doesn't really affect the rest of the 14th gen.

I'm not a single user person - that is an assumption though I don't deal with the kind of situation you do of supporting 100s of installations.

Dunno where you are seeing £300 - the only offers at £300 on that big international retailer are used, their current offer price on new is above £300 and it will be going back up a bit. The other place at £300 the seller is a dodgy box shipper type.