it depends, for production work, the 14900 (k/s) is still better because...more cores
-
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.
Reasons for deciding on Intel or AMD
- Thread starter cosmogenesis
- Start date
im still waiting for there 3D-Stacked Cache that was talked about in September 2023.
right now core for core intel is way faster, its the 3D Cache that's beating them to death in games.
all the X3D chips are cooler running because the the speed locked. AMD said the 3D-Cache design doesn't work well with HEAT...
in the mean time intel be like 400w CPU's, with 500 E-cores is what people what...
Last edited:
Associate
I think what they mean is that buying a 7950X3D gives you worst gaming performance compared to a 7800X3D, or something like a few years back where a 5800x would give you better performance only in gaming than a 5950x.
No idea what they mean by 'midrange could be better performance' though. That's seem a bit mental.
this is what i was talking about
yer my 5700x3d and 7800xt is better than a 7950x3d and 4090 bro... because its mis range
unless he means bang for buck, my system could be had for less than 4090 and it dose max games out at 1440..
Man of Honour
I have just switched to AMD after being with Intel since Core2Duo launched. I was on Intel with a 12600 non K but with my upgrade path full of power hungry broken cpu's I bit the bullet and jumped to AMD with a 7800x3d, a Asus ROG Strix B650E-F motherboard and 32Gb of Klevv Bolt V DDR5 6000mhz C30. I did have a problem at first but that was down to my unfamiliarity with the platform and with the advice from some of our forum members soon found out what was wrong and it has been rock solid ever since even though my memory isn't on the motherboards QVL list (which never gets updated anyway). AMD's platforms tend to last much longer than Intel's and on top of that Intel has to go a long way to restore any trust in them that I may have had so it looks like for the foreseeable future I will be sticking with AMD.
Associate
I’m a long term intel user, all the way back to pentium days. Was awaiting the new gen of intel but feeling disappointed in the line up and now seriously thinking of AMD 3d line. Will need to look at board costs first to see which cpu to move to from my current 13600k.
Soldato
AMD because . . . . .
I buy whoever is better at my budget, no loyalty.
At the moment I'm on Intel because the 11400 was significantly cheaper than the 5600x at the time (cheaper anyway + cashback offers and free games) and was sufficient for me.
Next upgrade will likely be to AMD x3d of some sort as I mostly use my pc for playing games.
At the moment I'm on Intel because the 11400 was significantly cheaper than the 5600x at the time (cheaper anyway + cashback offers and free games) and was sufficient for me.
Next upgrade will likely be to AMD x3d of some sort as I mostly use my pc for playing games.
for 90% of people it doesn't.
if your a mid teat gaming and a RTX is 500 but the matching performance AMD is 400. i have never in my life looked up power usage charts
Great. I do though, just answering the question for myself.
But just take your equal performance GPUs £100 difference, for me that may be the case but the Nvidia might save more than£100 in its lifetime in power consumption so then it's not as clear cut.
Value for me is not just at the point of sale but calculated over the lifetime.
Last edited:
what what GPU do you have?
Power consumption, at least in any meaningful way, is a minefield these days, unless you specifically optimised for power consumption above everything else.
If reviewers actually sat down and charted the power consumption of different systems over a whole day of different usage patterns the outcome I think would surprise a lot of people compared to the impression you get from reviews which just do idle and full load testing in canned benchmarks.
Same, if people cared about power they can just undervolt the cpu anyway.
May aswell just go for the best chip within your budget at the time of upgrading.
Could be intel, or it could be AMD depending on what your doing.
Most of the "power" claims are absolute hogwash when it comes to the power they use when gaming. compared to what their max draw is under 100% load.
wasn't their a thing where AMD cards tended to use almost no watts at idle like 4-20watts, where as nvidia cards tended to idle around 30-50watts
No one seems to care one iota
Last edited:
Power supply efficiency can have a fair impact as well - kind of ironic in a way actually that if you've specced the PSU wrong the actual draw at the wall of a lower power draw system could actually be worse or similar to a higher power draw system better matched up with the PSU efficiency heh.
Last edited:
Soldato
Not necessarily. If you don't care about super high end ray tracing, or don't play games built around Nvidia's black box RTX, then a 7800X3D + 7900XTX would match a 14900K + 4090 in most games for a good chunk less money.
when it comes to gaming the 7800x3d and 14900 are high end
and when we are talking about £1k+ GPU's again i think its safe it say it high end.
But if you would call ever of the builds you mentioned MID RANG i think you need to take another look at there range's
Mid range for me would be RTX 4060/RX7700 sort of gear
and 5700/7600 intel i dont know?? 13400/14400???
my full system cost less then a 4090 and TBF the tower could possibly be had for less than a 4080s.
and a lot would still class it as higher end because it can do 1440p at max setting 165Hz
the scale of low mid and high is getting a little missed up now days, a lot of people still game at 720/1080 low setting. but you think 7800X3D + 7900XTX is mid range
Last edited:
so all the people who talk about power consumption.
do they also turn down graphics settings, resolutions etc because lower settings - less watts consumed by the GPU.
or do people just use it as an excuse to justify one manufacturer over another
Ray tracing alone must be about 100-200 watts
cap the fps at 30 imagine the energy savings
do they also turn down graphics settings, resolutions etc because lower settings - less watts consumed by the GPU.
or do people just use it as an excuse to justify one manufacturer over another
Ray tracing alone must be about 100-200 watts
cap the fps at 30 imagine the energy savings
Last edited: