Soldato
It's the opposite.. if they all look equal why would anyone spend extra for little benefit.
-
Competitor rules
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.
Intel Core Ultra 9 285k 'Arrow Lake' Discussion/News ("15th gen") on LGA-1851
- Thread starter Dave2150
- Start date
Soldato
??
Caporegime
You run that 265K on the same £90 RAM kit and now its more like a 12600K, you can get those for £160. That's £220 cheaper.
www.overclockers.co.uk
Its a shame they don't have the Ryzen 5700X on that chart as its the same, a CPU now knocking for 5 years old and still sold for £135.
Corsair Vengeance 32GB EXPO (2X16GB) DDR5 PC5-48000C30 6000MHz Dual Channel
Order Corsair Vengeance 32GB EXPO (2X16GB) DDR5 PC5-48000C30 6000MHz Dual Channel now online and benefit from fast delivery.
www.overclockers.co.uk
Its a shame they don't have the Ryzen 5700X on that chart as its the same, a CPU now knocking for 5 years old and still sold for £135.
Last edited:
I'd be interested to see the same 1080P tests re-done but with something like a 7900XTX as I suspect it may perform a little better, as sometimes Nvidia cards have driver overhead at 1080P
I know HUB did a video on this ages ago but sure if that has changed since.
You run that 265K on the same £90 RAM kit and now its more like a 12600K, you can get those for £160. That's £220 cheaper.
Corsair Vengeance 32GB EXPO (2X16GB) DDR5 PC5-48000C30 6000MHz Dual Channel
Order Corsair Vengeance 32GB EXPO (2X16GB) DDR5 PC5-48000C30 6000MHz Dual Channel now online and benefit from fast delivery.
Its a shame they don't have the Ryzen 5700X on that chart as its the same, a CPU now knocking for 5 years old and still sold for £135.
It depends on the ICs on those, as they are most likely Hynix if they are V5.XX then you can get away with pushing them quite high.
I'm half tempted to order a 265K and that kit to see how it runs.
Also, why would they have a 5700X when they have a 5800X3D which offers the best "gaming performance" on AM4.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Because its £135 and the same performance as the 265K with reasonably priced RAM. I thought i said this in the post you quoted?
Last edited:
Soldato
You can be cpu limited at 4k, and when you are, X3D delivers more than others.
Here is just a bit of tinkering with the CPU, RAM is still stock (XMP)
Here is a re-run of CP2077 on MC114 / Windows 24H2 - 26100.2605
The main difference before, is the old run was done on a stripped version of Windoge 24H2 which does help quite a bit However, I'll need to run a like-for-like but most of the other settings are the same other than the ram kit which was 8400 and 8800.
The system as a whole when running that from the wall which includes cooling during the CP2077 benchmark draws 450 - 470W with a 4090 for the result below.
Soldato
The problem is the one that most would buy for gaming at £380 its trying to pass its self off as something it isn't, its only Intel and their loyalists who complain about 1080P testing, the reason being is it shows they are overpriced for gaming, of course they don't like that, they want you to spend near £400 on this thing thinking its going to be great for gaming, if you can see that much cheaper CPU's are just as good or better well then that's a problem...
Even with expensive 8200MT/s RAM, they are giving it the best possible chance they can.... its still garbage for its price. Think what its like with RAM that doesn't cost more than the CPU.
I am not quite sure I get your point there.
But for me, I never allow my PC to become CPU bound. When it comes to frame-rate, I usually limit that to my monitor. So, for me, the important thing about a CPU is power consumption, temperatures, and 1% lows, not at 1080P but at 1440P. Also, my PC mostly isn't gaming, so idle power consumption is important.
These graphs at 1080P give me some indication of whether it is worth upgrading, but not much. I mean, it took me a fair time to even find a reviewer that even mentioned idle temperatures. And I had to turn to small independent testers to look for 1% lows at 1440P.
This doesn't just apply to intel CPU's but to other AMD CPU's. People are just getting carried away with the hype of the 9800X3D. It's like its the only option for any gamer, and I don't think it's true. Especially not at £520 a pop.
Something I have a problem is how often the 7800X3D or 9800X3D get recommended without consideration to workloads outside of gaming, great if people are purely gaming but a lot aren't and the differences compared to other options, even with the 9800X3D, can be considerable. For many people it is probably taking a small hit in all out gaming FPS for significant uplift in all around performance. That and the performance uplift from CPUs which are much cheaper is often not that much especially at higher resolution and settings - for example if you shop around a bit from reputable places you can get a 14700KF £200 cheaper than a 9800X3D and especially if paired up with something below 4090 performance you aren't really gaining much from the 9800X3D unless you need like 1080p 360FPS/Hz.
Last edited:
Caporegime
My point is very simple, £380 is too much money for it.
Soldato
They've basically done an nVidia - rebadged a mid-range performing part as a high end part and priced it likewise...
Soldato
I am tired of trying to decide. Honestly, the one thing I notice in all the reviews is how they vary so much! Temperatures, fps, everything. I think there is no doubt that the 9800x3d is the better gaming CPU, but trying to find realistic figures for 1440P and temperatures and so on, seems near impossible, because they seem to be wildly different from one reviewer to the next. Is the 9800x3d being over-hyped?
Just read this....
"AMD’s 7800X3D and 9800X3D CPUs, priced over $400 USD, are widely marketed as “the best gaming CPUs in the world”. This is demonstrated at low resolutions with a 4090-class GPU, whilst conveniently ignoring 0.1% lows (frame drops). Under cherry-picked cache-bound conditions the X3D chips do excel, but there’s a trade-off: the additional cache results in 6% lower boost clocks and 50% to 80% higher prices than their regular counterparts (9700X and 7700X). As with their Radeon GPUs, AMD is looking to drive demand through advanced marketing rather than delivering real-world performance. While Nvidia has effectively countered AMD’s marketing in the GPU space, Intel's marketers remain asleep (terminally?) at the wheel. Nevertheless, the 13600K and 14600K still deliver almost unparalleled real-world gaming performance for around $200 USD. Spending more on a gaming CPU is often pointless, as games are normally limited by the GPU. Without significant improvements in social media marketing: forums, reddit, youtube etc., Intel now face the very real risk of bankruptcy (third worst-performing S&P500 stock from Jan to Aug 2024). Since this summary was published just two days ago, hundreds of twitter threads, thousands of “pcmasterrace” reddit posts, multiple magazine articles, and several youtube videos have emerged in unanimous support for the $480 USD 9800X3D. All of these supposedly disinterested actors are working the weekend to convince you to pay their favourite billion-dollar brand an extra $280 USD this holiday season."
Just read this....
"AMD’s 7800X3D and 9800X3D CPUs, priced over $400 USD, are widely marketed as “the best gaming CPUs in the world”. This is demonstrated at low resolutions with a 4090-class GPU, whilst conveniently ignoring 0.1% lows (frame drops). Under cherry-picked cache-bound conditions the X3D chips do excel, but there’s a trade-off: the additional cache results in 6% lower boost clocks and 50% to 80% higher prices than their regular counterparts (9700X and 7700X). As with their Radeon GPUs, AMD is looking to drive demand through advanced marketing rather than delivering real-world performance. While Nvidia has effectively countered AMD’s marketing in the GPU space, Intel's marketers remain asleep (terminally?) at the wheel. Nevertheless, the 13600K and 14600K still deliver almost unparalleled real-world gaming performance for around $200 USD. Spending more on a gaming CPU is often pointless, as games are normally limited by the GPU. Without significant improvements in social media marketing: forums, reddit, youtube etc., Intel now face the very real risk of bankruptcy (third worst-performing S&P500 stock from Jan to Aug 2024). Since this summary was published just two days ago, hundreds of twitter threads, thousands of “pcmasterrace” reddit posts, multiple magazine articles, and several youtube videos have emerged in unanimous support for the $480 USD 9800X3D. All of these supposedly disinterested actors are working the weekend to convince you to pay their favourite billion-dollar brand an extra $280 USD this holiday season."
Last edited:
Soldato
Crikey, its userbenchmark
Caporegime
Don't quote userbenchmark
I can make an argument my self for the 14600K, honestly i do think for a bit over £200 its pretty good, i think i said that in this thread so i don't think their point in that is entirely wrong, its the rest of it that's a problem, many of us have been observing userbenchmark for years and its very obvious they have a 'thing' about AMD, they don't seem to like them, to such an extent they are banned from the Intel sub-reddit, no joke.... Even Intel's own fan base think they are a bit much.
Last edited:
Soldato
Don't quote userbenchmark
I can make an argument my self for the 14600K, honestly i do think for a bit over £200 its pretty good, i think i said that in this thread so i don't think their point in that is entirely wrong, its the rest of it that's a problem, many of us have been observing userbenchmark for years and its very obvious they have a 'thing' about AMD, they don't seem to like them, to such an extent they are banned from the Intel sub-reddit, no joke.... Even Intel's own fan base think
I just have a problem with the way that the reviewers are ignoring so much important information and presenting the 9800x3D as the only processor for gaming.
Not necessarily intel as the alternative, and certainly not the 14th series (for me), but they don't really take other AMD CPU's in to account either.
I have been complaining about this a lot, I know, but I am interested in far more than just the fps at 1080P, and incredibly frustrating that most reviewers don't mention anything else, and other sources, like random people on the internet, are presenting inconsistent information.
Just buy something else then. Nobody is presenting the 9800X3D as anything other than the best gaming CPU, which it is. All the reviewers put it up against 10-20 other CPUs and most test thermals and power consumption, 1% lows along with 7-zip, Davinci Resolve etc productivity performance. There are entire videos/articles/posts explaining why they test at 1080p. You have all the resources, just the same as the other people who have upgraded recently.
You've got to the point where you've trawled the internet to find something that validates your position of not buying a 9800X3D (which you don't need validation on, it's perfectly legitimate) and you've ended up at UserBenchmark. The comically anti-AMD website which has been widely mocked and is the David Icke of hardware publications, as has been pointed out.
If you want my opinion (as someone who has managed to upgrade without a weird agenda) then you can look at the 7000X3D chips (the 7800X3D is more power-efficient and cooler than the 9800X3D, info provided from the usual reviewers), 9700x, 7700x, Intel 13th or 14th gen are still competitive if you're comfortable with the well-publicised issues (which from what I gather, if you buy new and apply the necessary updates, shouldn't be a problem?) or wait until the AL lineup goes down to a sensible price. But it depends what you're upgrading from - if it's a 10 year old CPU for example, then you really don't need to go mental.
You've got to the point where you've trawled the internet to find something that validates your position of not buying a 9800X3D (which you don't need validation on, it's perfectly legitimate) and you've ended up at UserBenchmark. The comically anti-AMD website which has been widely mocked and is the David Icke of hardware publications, as has been pointed out.
If you want my opinion (as someone who has managed to upgrade without a weird agenda) then you can look at the 7000X3D chips (the 7800X3D is more power-efficient and cooler than the 9800X3D, info provided from the usual reviewers), 9700x, 7700x, Intel 13th or 14th gen are still competitive if you're comfortable with the well-publicised issues (which from what I gather, if you buy new and apply the necessary updates, shouldn't be a problem?) or wait until the AL lineup goes down to a sensible price. But it depends what you're upgrading from - if it's a 10 year old CPU for example, then you really don't need to go mental.