• 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.

Poll: Ryzen 7950X3D, 7900X3D, 7800X3D

Will you be purchasing the 7800X3D on the 6th?

  • Total voters
    191
  • Poll closed .
Curlyriff said:
If the 7800x3D is only 10-15% faster than the 5800x3D it is also slower than the 7700x as that on a tatal average of 40 games is about 15% than the 5800x3D although some games are tied. with 1 or 2 slower. That would be shockingly bad if it is only that. And the prices are mental as well. That is a 50% premimum on the 7900x3D over the 7900x currently being sold at. The 5800x3D was a 30% over previous selling price of the 5800x and actually at same MSRP. These are not and that woudl be criminal pricing honestly.
Click to expand...
You got a link to the 40 game average chart please? The 12 game chart puts it about 4% faster than the 13900k based on 15% faster than 5800X3D
 
Bonse said:
You got a link to the 40 game average chart please? The 12 game chart puts it about 4% faster than the 13900k based on 15% faster than 5800X3D
Click to expand...
Ill dig it out from work. I just have a spreadsheet taking out data from other reviews. It does mean there is some variation. The 12 game average though for the previous as you say was 5%. Hardware Unboxed makes it around 7.5%. I only have the list I do at work because it is the games I play so I just track them rather than games I don't as not interested in that particular.

For instance

CS:GO shows the 7700x has a 30% lead already compared to the 5800x3D average and 34% in 1% lows. Yet AMD said the 7800x3D had a 23% increase over the 5800x3D. So that isn't great and would suggest significant regression for a higher end product. Of course that is likely why my result may favour the 7700x comapred to the 5800x3D because I happen to play a few more outliers than those generally testing. To note this is at 1080p high settings for me.

Cyberpunk 2077 being another where I have personally seen a difference from 150fps on a 5800x3D to 180fps on the 7700x. so that about 20% also. If they are only getting 15%-20% increase for x3D then it would be no increase in that game.

I expect it could be worse as well if you happen to play games that go the other way such as Battlefield 2042 that shows the 7700x vs 5800x3d to be about 10% slower instead of anything faster at all. But that would be where it is interesting to see the 7800x3D to compare tbh. Just seemed an odd selection. Maybe CS:GO is just the larger outlier and why I picked up on it in the shown games. The others they noted were year within 5-8% if we only go from the AMD games which yeah means a larger general increase.
 
Last edited:
Frenzy said:
I'm surprised by how much people care about these results considering these are the top of the range cpus and the results being shown are 1080p. Doesn't make much logical sense to me.
Click to expand...
The purpose of the CPU is to get you to a certain framerate, by feeding the GPU. So the question isn't just an abstract relative one like 'which CPU is faster' but rather more concrete like f.ex. 'can this CPU get me 120 fps avg in this game'. Now where testing at very low resolutions comes in is that that's the only way to find out how many fps the cpu can actually pump out if GPU is removed as the bottleneck. Afterall if you test at 4K with all the RT effects and the fps is 25 does that mean all CPUs will do just as well? Ofc not because you don't plan to play at that fps, so the more relevant metric is if it hits your fps target. That's why testing at low res is the only smart way to test CPU otherwise you end up pairing a 4090 with an i3 because you see scenarios like Portal RTX at 4K where even a 4090 can't reach 60 fps so all CPUs are equal then.
 
Although I got excited about the initial announcement, I'm probably better off waiting for the next gen one considering my system is already fine. Not like I have to upgrade my motherboard or anything else.
 
Harshell123 said:
I have a 13900k and it can be very efficient, it also runs very cool which is something I think the 3d chip won’t be. Yes the minimums will be better but not as much as you are exaggerating.

Now I see why you get mentioned so much on here. The way you act as a grown man is very strange indeed.
Click to expand...

I have a 13900k also, great CPU. My comments were regarding the 13900KS, which will have higher TDP for very little gain. The 7950X3D will either match or be faster than this, while using much less power.
 
Bencher said:
Sure, but how many are there, and how many frames are you getting at them already? Because going from 700 to 900 fps in valorant is kind of useless.
Click to expand...
Well, using World of Warcraft as an example, my mere 5800X can easily be brought to its knees when there are a ton of players on screen, and by that I mean sub-60fps. Hell, even sub-40fps occasionally when there are 50+ players hammering a world boss or something. It's extremely difficult to benchmark such scenarios however, as obviously the very nature of an MMO makes performance fluid and non-repeatable in the most demanding situations. However, even in much less demanding scenarios you can already see a large boost to minimums with a 5800X3D. These results are taken simply flying slowly through a zone on a set path with no combat going on:

wowf4i5i.png


Even there you can see a large boost to 1% and 0.1% lows. Don't get me wrong, the performance of pretty much everything on that chart is fine in such a scenario and it's not going to be a horrible experience even on a 3600. But again, that's pretty much a best-case scenario for performance with nothing going on, and even then my current chip is a fair way off delivering a consistent experience on my 144Hz display. I strongly considered getting a 5800X3D for exactly this reason, but in the end I decided that I don't want to sink any more money into AM4 at this point. Plus I also want AVX-512 for other reasons.
 
LtMatt said:
Not for the competitive gamers who play it its not. :D
Click to expand...
Until someone of those competitive players do a blind test between 700 and 900 fps, I call bs. I know you can tell the difference between 360 and 240, but - at least me personally- really need to try. Going from 700 too 900 is on a complete other level and we are way way way past diminishing returns.
 
LtMatt said:
Not for the competitive gamers who play it it’s not. :D
Click to expand...
The ones that buy 8k gaming mice you mean, and swear there is a huge difference and are well worth the money? :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I did upload some footage to YouTube as someone requested Valorant on the X3D. It was running 2x or more as fast as the 12900K videos I could find on YouTube at the time.
 
LtMatt said:
I did upload some footage to YouTube as someone requested Valorant on the X3D. It was running 2x or more as fast as the 12900K videos I could find on YouTube at the time.
Click to expand...
Twice or more? :P Okay

Since we have the same card, care to upload a cyberpunk ultra + RT benchmark with your 7950x? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom