Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Its the wrong question to ask, 16-20-20 are incredibly lose timings and that matters more than the clock speed, my 32GB kit was £90 and i can get timing tighter that that at those speeds. Its some seriously #### RAM he's running on that 5800X3D.
And it can't run higher than 1866 FCLK so very limited ram speeds.
Yeah, i dont understand the panic. It's not like we didnt have a cpu that matches the 12900k in gaming for a fraction of the cost. The 12700f is 310 euros and delivers 96% of the 5800x 3d game perfromance while absolutely annihilating in everything else. Yet amd has the audacity to ask 50% more money for the 3d. That is a joke. Make it 300 euros and you got a good product. At 450, get the heck outta here.It's slower in some games v the 5800x, slower in most apps, can't overclock, gets beat of the 12700k and 12600k in a number of games, 3d cache is very inconsistent when it comes to performance. Terrible look for $450.
After all your pro intel rhetoric these last few days i really do not care. Fact is in relative performance at 1080 and 1440 it is with a margin of error as fast as Intels top 2 chips while consuming less power and with much slower clock speeds. Oh did i mention its cheaper to. Intel now have teh 2 most expensive consumer chips (thats before platform costs) without a clear winning marginAnd its also 50% more expensive than the 12700f while being only 2% faster in games and getting demolished in everything else. Lol, yeah, great cpu
Exactly, that's why no one is praising the 12900k. The real value is on the i7 series. The 12900k is a damn good cpu, but the i7 is too close for comfort at a much nicer price.@Bencher using your argument the same can be said for the 12900K, there is no difference worth mentioning in gaming between the two and for productivity the 12900K isn't much quicker either.
Exactly, that's why no one is praising the 12900k. The real value is on the i7 series. The 12900k is a damn good cpu, but the i7 is too close for comfort at a much nicer price.
I wonder if the reason it can't be overclocked, is that it's already hitting the power limits on the AM4 socket?
The 5800X3D seems OK for people with an older AM4 CPU looking for an upgrade. The extra cache + lower clock speed is going to provide an improvement for gamers, but not other things as expected.
It's about an 8% improvement in framerate in games at 1080p vs its little brother, the 5800X, so not that exciting, based on this:
https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d/images/relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png
I wonder if the reason it can't be overclocked, is that it's already hitting the power limits on the AM4 socket?
It's not really convincingly beating the 12700K at 1080p or 4K resolution. For once, I'd say the 4 E-cores are helping the 12700 / 12700K to hold their ground here. Also, these CPUs are definitely ahead in non gaming tasks.
The 12700f seems like a better buy in general.
Still think an LGA1700 board + cheap Alder Lake CPU is a better long term option, as it allows upgrades to Intel's 13th gen.
Iirc AMD said that the cache can't exceed 1.3-1.35v.
The thing about cheap RAM like that they also have sub-timings that are slacker that a pair of old tights, wich also matters, no reviewer in their right mind would use RAM that cheap.
Im more interested in how memory scales, if it scales at all. I assume bigger cache = less dependency on good ram kits.Well i can't argue with that, the 12700K right now is the CPU i would recommend, but as a gaming focused rig i need to see more about the 5800X3D, that TPU review is far too contrived to draw any conclusions from.
No one should be buying the 12900K, it offers nothing meaningful over the 12700K, other than Kudos to say "look at me i have one"
Also at £370 the 5900X is back in contention.
My thoughts exactly. For 3-4% gaming performance youll pay 50% more for the CPU and lose horribly in MT and ST performance. Also, socket longevity. It just seems like a bad bad deal. They should really lower the price, by a LOT.It's not really convincingly beating the 12700K at 1080p or 4K resolution. For once, I'd say the 4 E-cores are helping the 12700 / 12700K to hold their ground here. Also, these CPUs are definitely ahead in non gaming tasks.
The 12700f seems like a better buy in general.
Still think an LGA1700 board + cheap Alder Lake CPU is a better long term option, as it allows upgrades to Intel's 13th gen.
Its 4% faster in games, 50% more expensive and gets its ass handed to it in everything else by a 12700f. And you consider that killing intel. Yikes, fanboys...Kills off intel newest generation.
Perfect upgrade with 5800x3D while one awaits zen4 to mature.
7 days to go