-
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
- Thread starter kindai
- Start date
Soldato
Does Gaming benefit from more than 6 cores? (Outside of if a user does Streaming as well). I currently have a 7600x.
Caporegime
Not really. 8 to be on the safe side if streaming.
Soldato
I game at 4k as well. Going to see if the 7800x offers anything for me (paired with a 4090). If it's just +10% I'll likely pass.
The dual-CCD CPUs are not optimal for gaming, so the 7900/7950(x)s are irrelevant tbh. It's really more about 7700X vs 7800X3D, or rather, the 13600K/13700K vs 7800X3D because the 7700X is still getting spanked by Intel (and even the 5800X3D) in plenty of relevant games. Imo the 7950X3D will be a massive disappointment for gaming (relative to expectations), they half-arsed it by only doing v-cache on one CCD. Regardless, even if they hadn't, the 7800X3D would've still been better, the extra penalties from dual-CCDs just can't be overcome so the ideal CPU will remain a single-CCD one, at least for this decade.
In the era of v-cache it makes no sense buying, or even thinking about, an AMD CPU for gaming without it.
Caporegime
You call 4% "Spanked" ?
And the difference between dual and single CCD is very marginal, its a couple of %.
Last edited:
Soldato
I agree with everything but the last sentence. The high end CPUs are plenty strong enough. Price certainly comes into play for only 10% gains.
I think the 7700x handles itself well wouldnt call it being spanked and its at around £350 ? and on a platform that will also be getting zen5 and zen5 x3d
half-arsed it ? Literally no point having the 2 ccds with cache firstly wouldnt make difference in games we know they dont do anything above 8 cores , secondly it would increase cost of the chip with hardly or no noticable gain in gaming . 3rd the cache cores run with lower clocks so will hurt the multi workloads having both ccd's with cache
I dont see being any difference in gaming between the x3d unless the cached ccd are higher clocked still dont see being much difference, they only showed the boost clocks for the none ccd for the higher core models looks better for marketing
Last edited:
I kind of agree.
Yes 7900/7950 won't be as impressive as the lower skus due to price. They only have the memory on one CCD because it increases heat, hence the lower tdp. From what I've read, windows will use the ccd with the cache for games and the other one for productivity, whether it works as smoothly as they are suggesting is another story. Its just not viable and doesn't make sense to have cache on both ccds with the current limitations.
I think the 7700x3d/7800x3d will be on par with the 13600k/13700k, maybe slightly faster (5fps max) on average if being optimistic. Both manufacturers will have games in which they excel.
I mean, I'm leaning toward the 13900KS myself as £60 extra over a 13900K is nothing when spending this much. For me, intel seems to win in productivity right now, I want to game and have a useful cpu for other tasks. Not that the 7950 is a poor cpu but if I'm spending this much, I want the best. The impression I'm getting is that the extra cache is going to lower productivity performance due to the lower TDP.
Yes 7900/7950 won't be as impressive as the lower skus due to price. They only have the memory on one CCD because it increases heat, hence the lower tdp. From what I've read, windows will use the ccd with the cache for games and the other one for productivity, whether it works as smoothly as they are suggesting is another story. Its just not viable and doesn't make sense to have cache on both ccds with the current limitations.
I think the 7700x3d/7800x3d will be on par with the 13600k/13700k, maybe slightly faster (5fps max) on average if being optimistic. Both manufacturers will have games in which they excel.
I mean, I'm leaning toward the 13900KS myself as £60 extra over a 13900K is nothing when spending this much. For me, intel seems to win in productivity right now, I want to game and have a useful cpu for other tasks. Not that the 7950 is a poor cpu but if I'm spending this much, I want the best. The impression I'm getting is that the extra cache is going to lower productivity performance due to the lower TDP.
Caporegime
This is as ironic as it is moronic considering what you just said, the 13900KS is all but identical to the 13900K, which is identical to the 13900KF, you don't want the best gaming performance, that's not going to be the 13900KS by the time the X3D chips are out, by your own admition, what you want is to have the most expensive Intel CPU.
Last edited:
Well, that depends on expectations. I think of it not so much in terms of relative gains as much as in terms of thresholds hit. For example, my display is 120hz, so when I look at a CPU I look at whether it can give me stable 120 fps gameplay. Unfortunately the best CPUs on the market, and certainly not the AMD ones, come short of that. If it's a game where current CPUs outperform that expectation then I'd have no problem shifting down the stack, but for my preferred games (open world) there's almost always a dearth of CPU power.
When we're talking about products that are priced near each other, and given the usual performance % increases for each CPU gen, then I'd certainly call the Zen 4 line being spanked (in the games I care about, to be clear; see Cyberpunk result below; obviously this is down to the person's game choices).
As for the 7950X3D I'll continue to call it half-arsed, because what's the point of it? If you want the best gaming performance then that will be either the 7800X3D or maybe the 13900K retains its crown. If you want great multi-threading performance AND great gaming performance then the 13900K will remain superior to the 7950X3D, with maybe a slight gaming win for the latter if you start whitelisting particular games where v-cache gives disproportionate gains (f.ex. Factorio), assuming we will even have that much control over which part of the CPU gets used. Then again I consider this kind of micro-managing to be a major downside, certainly at this premium level. But overall still not a clear win over the 13900K for mixed usage imo.
Caporegime
Well, that depends on expectations. I think of it not so much in terms of relative gains as much as in terms of thresholds hit. For example, my display is 120hz, so when I look at a CPU I look at whether it can give me stable 120 fps gameplay. Unfortunately the best CPUs on the market, and certainly not the AMD ones, come short of that. If it's a game where current CPUs outperform that expectation then I'd have no problem shifting down the stack, but for my preferred games (open world) there's almost always a dearth of CPU power.
When we're talking about products that are priced near each other, and given the usual performance % increases for each CPU gen, then I'd certainly call the Zen 4 line being spanked (in the games I care about, to be clear; see Cyberpunk result below; obviously this is down to the person's game choices).
As for the 7950X3D I'll continue to call it half-arsed, because what's the point of it? If you want the best gaming performance then that will be either the 7800X3D or maybe the 13900K retains its crown. If you want great multi-threading performance AND great gaming performance then the 13900K will remain superior to the 7950X3D, with maybe a slight gaming win for the latter if you start whitelisting particular games where v-cache gives disproportionate gains (f.ex. Factorio), assuming we will even have that much control over which part of the CPU gets used. Then again I consider this kind of micro-managing to be a major downside, certainly at this premium level. But overall still not a clear win over the 13900K for mixed usage imo.
Computer Base De are the ultimate cherry picking, always have been.
Pick any other reviewer and they show vastly different results, Computer Base De are the same as user benchmark.
Well, that depends on expectations. I think of it not so much in terms of relative gains as much as in terms of thresholds hit. For example, my display is 120hz, so when I look at a CPU I look at whether it can give me stable 120 fps gameplay. Unfortunately the best CPUs on the market, and certainly not the AMD ones, come short of that. If it's a game where current CPUs outperform that expectation then I'd have no problem shifting down the stack, but for my preferred games (open world) there's almost always a dearth of CPU power.
When we're talking about products that are priced near each other, and given the usual performance % increases for each CPU gen, then I'd certainly call the Zen 4 line being spanked (in the games I care about, to be clear; see Cyberpunk result below; obviously this is down to the person's game choices).
As for the 7950X3D I'll continue to call it half-arsed, because what's the point of it? If you want the best gaming performance then that will be either the 7800X3D or maybe the 13900K retains its crown. If you want great multi-threading performance AND great gaming performance then the 13900K will remain superior to the 7950X3D, with maybe a slight gaming win for the latter if you start whitelisting particular games where v-cache gives disproportionate gains (f.ex. Factorio), assuming we will even have that much control over which part of the CPU gets used. Then again I consider this kind of micro-managing to be a major downside, certainly at this premium level. But overall still not a clear win over the 13900K for mixed usage imo.
thats like 9 games wouldnt call that overall is that both at stock
I seen that site before is that at 720p ? also any 7700x because I aint interested in the 7950x and I know on some games the dual ccd gives issues
Last edited:
No I'll break down the reasoning:
The 13900KF doesn't have onboard video, mayaswell pay £10 to get the onboard video.
13900K see reasoning above.
13900KS is a better chance of a higher binned chip. cost is £60. If I'm already spending £600 on a chip whats another 80/100 odd(looking at various outlets)?
Now I think you misinterpreted what I was saying in regards to performance. I stand by what I said about the lower skus 7700x3d/7800x3d but things are less clear at the top end. I think the dual ccd situation and the increased temperature of the 7950x3d due to cache is going to lower its performance in general.
Now your statement indicates that you think that the x3d parts are guaranteed to be the best, which shows your bias coming through. I'm just giving my thought process rather than stating facts.
edit: to be clear I want the best performing cpu in general, for me that means if the cpu is beaten by another one by around 5fps but is infact better at other tasks then I'm going to go with the former. It's just common sense.
Last edited:
Deleted member 258511
D
Deleted member 258511
I think the competition has got to a stage where the only thing to separate Intel and AMD is price, and it has to start dropping. There is no clear winner in performance so price is the real battle.
wouldnt call that a spanking 54 game average , cant imagine the 7700x being much worse
7700x3d doesnt exist
if you aint bothered about the power used and need multicore work fair enough
Last edited:
Oh interesting! Ignore the fact I stated that then, I just assumed it existed, it still makes sense
Last edited:
Caporegime
The first line is fair enough the iGPU can be very useful and i would do the same.
The second line doesn't make any sense, the 13900K has an iGPU.
I think the 13900K is already binned, Intel aren't sampling reviewers, the only review of them is the one that HUB did and its identical to the 13900K in gaming and only slightly better in productivity, very slightly while using a boat load more power, doesn't seem very binned to me.
Intel are pushing them as far as they will go, the 13900K is already binned, Intel are selling you the S for an extra £60, if it actually meant anything, like it did in previous generations that S would be £200.
Other than the one benchmark you posted everything shows the Ryzen 7000 series at least 90% the performance of the 13900K in games, so unless the X3D chips are a flop, they could be..... it should be better, sure, the one review that you like will no doubt show them still significantly slower than all the Intel CPU's, that is a prediction i'm also willing to make, but i'm talking about an arrogate of 'the rest of the internet'
Last edited:
depends what kind of workloads he does and doesnt mind the power draw its not like AMD doesnt win depending on productivity while using less power, I do agree the 7950x3d will probably be slightly slower over the 7950x in multi work loads due to the cached ccd boosting lower
Last edited: