-
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.
What CPU would you use for a high end and a med end PC?
- Thread starter hobib_ali
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 18,680
- Location
- West Side
Gaming 9800x3d, gaming and multi core performance the 9850x3d.
Speed is dependent on work load
Speed is dependent on work load
Last edited:
9800X3D.
9800X3D.
A time machine?
10800X3D (if it has the rumoured 12 cores).
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 18,680
- Location
- West Side
9950x3d Is at the top I miss typed.
10000 incoming no definite date yet.
Intel is still an option depending on workload .
A 265K/285K is not the CPU for gaming-only, but the 265K is decently priced for mixed usage.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,546
Yep, if you're using it for professional use (and are dependent on processing time!) such as content creation then high end Intel may be slightly better, but if it's just gaming then 9800x3D is the best you can currently get.
Even if you do some content creation, but just for hobby/non-professional use, then 9800x3d will be more than enough.
At around the £300-350 mark there are more differences, but for £500 just get the 9800x3D, or if you want to spend more then 9950x3D is a monster! (I'm tempted to get one if I decide to upgrade, mainly because it feels wrong going to less cores than I have now, but my 5950x is doing fine and I'll probably wait until something breaks or if next gen AMD has 12 core CCDs - So 12c24t or 24c48t options)
Even if you do some content creation, but just for hobby/non-professional use, then 9800x3d will be more than enough.
At around the £300-350 mark there are more differences, but for £500 just get the 9800x3D, or if you want to spend more then 9950x3D is a monster! (I'm tempted to get one if I decide to upgrade, mainly because it feels wrong going to less cores than I have now, but my 5950x is doing fine and I'll probably wait until something breaks or if next gen AMD has 12 core CCDs - So 12c24t or 24c48t options)
The CPU situation is pretty horrible really - you can't just spend money and get the perfect high end CPU currently.
For gaming nothing really beats the 8 core per CCD AMD X3D parts both 7000 and 9000 series, unless you are doing stuff like multi-boxing game clients and/or running stuff along side for streaming, etc. where the Intel 14700K, 14900K and AMD 7950X and 9950X tend to be a better choice.
For productivity the 285K is strong in some areas, but struggles against the 14700K in others and likewise for the AMD chips - the top end ones are often stronger in some areas than others.
For reasonable priced all around balanced performance the 265K since the price drop and the 14700K are hard to beat - but Raptor Lake is overshadowed by the degradation issue even though that issue is mostly overblown.
If you are happy with more middle of the road performance there have been some excellent deals on the AMD 7700 chips but at their normal price they can't compete with the similarly priced Intel options.
For gaming nothing really beats the 8 core per CCD AMD X3D parts both 7000 and 9000 series, unless you are doing stuff like multi-boxing game clients and/or running stuff along side for streaming, etc. where the Intel 14700K, 14900K and AMD 7950X and 9950X tend to be a better choice.
For productivity the 285K is strong in some areas, but struggles against the 14700K in others and likewise for the AMD chips - the top end ones are often stronger in some areas than others.
For reasonable priced all around balanced performance the 265K since the price drop and the 14700K are hard to beat - but Raptor Lake is overshadowed by the degradation issue even though that issue is mostly overblown.
If you are happy with more middle of the road performance there have been some excellent deals on the AMD 7700 chips but at their normal price they can't compete with the similarly priced Intel options.
Will fail well before their MTBF.
Not really. AMD offer much better performance per watt and typically better performance per £££. Intel just aren’t worth considering outside of a few specific workload's.
Hysterical hyperbole.
Not with the recent price drops, grey market deals on the 7700 aside, the Intel chips are a much better buy at the price range.
7700X is currently £320 on OcUK the 265KF and 14700KF are £279, the 14600KF £170 (the K variants about £10 if people care about integrated graphics).
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,726
- Location
- Planet Earth
The Ryzen 9 9700X is under £270 delivered. It will fine in a £115 ASRock B850M-X WiFi R2.0 which has PCI-E 5.0 and Wi-Fi. The 9800X3D was £400 the week before last.
The Ryzen 5 7600X had also dipped to around £130 at a few retailers recently.
The Ryzen 5 7600X had also dipped to around £130 at a few retailers recently.
Last edited:
Hysterical hyperbole.
Not with the recent price drops, grey market deals on the 7700 aside, the Intel chips are a much better buy at the price range.
7700X is currently £320 on OcUK the 265KF and 14700KF are £279, the 14600KF £170 (the K variants about £10 if people care about integrated graphics).
Absolutely delusional. Your graph exposes your post. Intel chips aren’t even at the races currently and their platform is a dire waste of money. The 7950 and 9950X both beat the chips in that metric. AM5 is superior in every way.
Let me remind you of the part of my post you were replying to again:
Do you see any mention of high end, 7950 or 9950X? but I guess you are now trying to deflect from the fact AMD is getting spanked in that middle of the road performance area and even the approx. £100 cheaper 14600 chips are competitive against the 9700X.
some markets amd outsells intel 9 to 1
Intel simply isnt competitive anymore.
You just get better value for money with amd and since x3d allows the consumer space to experience a better gaming experience
That is the big brand difference nowadays
which is funny if you go back 10 years as people then would never believe you about todays market
and it changing professionally along the way also
Intel simply isnt competitive anymore.
You just get better value for money with amd and since x3d allows the consumer space to experience a better gaming experience
That is the big brand difference nowadays
which is funny if you go back 10 years as people then would never believe you about todays market
and it changing professionally along the way also
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,726
- Location
- Planet Earth
The Intel CPUs are cheaper because DIY demand has collapsed and some models are tainted by potential degradation issues,so people are avoiding them. You could argue in certain non-gaming scenarios with Quick Sync they look better,but this forum is more clustered around gamers.
The Ryzen 5 7600/7600X have been frequently available for £125 to £150,the 9600X has dipped below £170 and are as fast for gaming and fast enough in most non-gaming scenarios. The 7700/7700X can be had for £200 to £240 in the UK if offers are available.
The AM5 platform has far more upgrade potential,especially if Zen6 is AM5. You can get a £130 Ryzen 5 7600X in a £120 B850 board with PCI-E 5.0 and have the potential to get a 9800X3D or potentially a Zen6 CPU in a few years,when your needs grow.
LGA1700 is an EOL socket and LGA1851 is an EOL socket as Nova Lake will use a new socket.
You also don't have any potentially funky scheduling issues with the whole heterogeneous core layout. Games seem to really only use high performance cores. The 7700X/9700X are also a true 8 core - the 14600K/265K have 6 cores with background cores - as games start to use more cores I am doubtful how long the performance will hold up.
Power consumption is better out of the box,you can use cheaper boards,unlike the Intel CPUs which need to better boards with more robust VRMs and need more expensive RAM to shine. You can get AM5 boards with PCI-E 5.0 dGPU and SSD connections for under £120.
With the Intel CPUs there are ancillary costs around motherboards,RAM and cooling which don't make the Intel CPUs the "bargains" they appear upfront.
Intel is holding on because AMD is capacity limited and as a result Intel still outsells AMD in prebuilt systems. Ironically their manufacturing capacity is keeping them in the game,not their products.
The Ryzen 5 7600/7600X have been frequently available for £125 to £150,the 9600X has dipped below £170 and are as fast for gaming and fast enough in most non-gaming scenarios. The 7700/7700X can be had for £200 to £240 in the UK if offers are available.
The AM5 platform has far more upgrade potential,especially if Zen6 is AM5. You can get a £130 Ryzen 5 7600X in a £120 B850 board with PCI-E 5.0 and have the potential to get a 9800X3D or potentially a Zen6 CPU in a few years,when your needs grow.
LGA1700 is an EOL socket and LGA1851 is an EOL socket as Nova Lake will use a new socket.
You also don't have any potentially funky scheduling issues with the whole heterogeneous core layout. Games seem to really only use high performance cores. The 7700X/9700X are also a true 8 core - the 14600K/265K have 6 cores with background cores - as games start to use more cores I am doubtful how long the performance will hold up.
Power consumption is better out of the box,you can use cheaper boards,unlike the Intel CPUs which need to better boards with more robust VRMs and need more expensive RAM to shine. You can get AM5 boards with PCI-E 5.0 dGPU and SSD connections for under £120.
With the Intel CPUs there are ancillary costs around motherboards,RAM and cooling which don't make the Intel CPUs the "bargains" they appear upfront.
Intel is holding on because AMD is capacity limited and as a result Intel still outsells AMD in prebuilt systems. Ironically their manufacturing capacity is keeping them in the game,not their products.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 1,121
- Location
- Wiltshire
For gaming the best amd x3D chip that fits your budget really.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2021
- Posts
- 4,441
- Location
- Oxon
I did choose the 265K, it has been fine so far. A little hotter than I expected given all the noise about efficiency improvements. The boost voltage is 250/250W not 125/250W which the Intel website claims.
If gaming is being mentioned then an AMD X3D is your best option at all price points. If you want to lean more into productivity, then you get a model with more cores. If you want to heavily lean into productivity, then get a non X3D model as you'll get more cores per £.