7800X3D vs 14900K video by HWUB. What would you choose for gaming?

[BoggledBeagle]

I saw this video

and I got a strong vibe of it not being very objective. I got even a feeling that Steve will not be proud of this video after some time passes.

If you have a product A 5% stronger in task GAM than product B, and product B 110% stronger than A in task PROD, it seems more than silly making a video bashing product B because it is 4.8% weaker than product A in GAM.

And even if you mention in that video, that B is much stronger than A in PROD, it changes little about the general meaning of the video.

I wonder what would happen if he compared 7700X with 14600K (direct price competitors) and was not shy to show all aspects of CPU performance in the same manner (graphs, etc).

(And BTW 14900K can be tuned nicely to increase power efficiency for people who value it.)

 

[Frick]

The scope of the video is games. Nothing weird or biased about that. If you only play games, why care about compiling code or rendering or whatever?

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Intel and their fanboys/ girls have trolled amd so much with intel is gaming crown owner
So welcome to second place in gaming intel

 

[Assimilator]

I saw this video

and I got a strong vibe of it not being very objective. I got even a feeling that Steve will not be proud of this video after some time passes.

If you have a product A 5% stronger in task GAM than product B, and product B 210% stronger than A in task PROD, it seems more than silly making a video bashing product B because it is 4.8% weaker than product A in GAM.

And even if you mention in that video, that B is much stronger than A in PROD, it changes little about the general meaning of the video.

I wonder what would happen if he compared 7700X with 14600K (direct price competitors) and was not shy to show all aspects of CPU performance in the same manner (graphs, etc).

7800X3D is objectively a better CPU than 14900K except for some very edge cases. I'm sorry that makes you butthurt.

(And BTW 14900K can be tuned nicely to increase power efficiency for people who value it.)

People who use 7800X3D don't have to tune anything to get decent power consumption, which is how things should be out of the box, and thus again 7800X3D is objectively better.

 

[Awwwyeahhhbaby]

Steve is right and has no reason to be embarrassed, he made the video about gaming performance and even mentioned if you have any productivity workloads the 14900K is superior but for a gaming-only build go 7800X3D. The benchmarks backed up his position and most of us echo his sentiment.

Only fanboys will tell people 1 chip is the best out of them all for every scenario, each has their own strengths/weaknesses and knowing the users workload is paramount to getting them into the right system.

 

[sephiroth117]

The 7800X3D is much more efficient and tailored for gaming.
For gaming it puts to shame a CPU that cost 300 EUR more where I live..and a CPU that sips 200+W under load.

In productivity, sure the gazillion number of cores, the insane wattage being consumed IS going to give you a much better performance, but maybe a fairer comparison would be the 7950X3D for productivity ? Which is still 100 EUR cheaper btw where I live

I don't have to tune anything, I did add a PBO curve optimize for even more efficiency but it's insanely good that 7800X3D, Paying 300 EUR more for gaming on a 14900K is insane unless you have the professional tasks to justify it, period.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Indeed out of the box should have results like this not tweak this and that so it's not a freaking space heater and need a nuclear reactor to power it

 

[BetrayerX]

It favors AMD, ergo, it's biased....

 

[jesdals]

Well I am a fan boy of neither and Im currently buying neither because I dont think they are a descent upgrade for my current setup so iLL could care less and so will Steve about this rant of OP

 

[Bill_Bright]

The scope of the video is games. Nothing weird or biased about that. If you only play games, why care about compiling code or rendering or whatever?

I am not watching the whole 19 minute video but I agree with Frick. AS LONG AS the review makes it clear from the very beginning the review has a narrow focus AND both products are being marketed to perform the same tasks in the same performance category, then the comparison is fair. But it is that marketing aspect that bothers me here.

Would you compare a Ford F150 Raptor "truck" with a BMW M3 "sedan" and declare the F150 best because the BMW won't haul a 10,000lb trailer? Or declare the BMW best because the truck won't do 150MPH? Of course not. Why? Because they are not marketed as competing products.

You could compromise and go with a SUV - vehicles designed to (more or less) meet the demands of both worlds, sedans and trucks. But when you compromise, there NEVER is the case where the product is best in every category. That's why it is called a compromise. And in this case, you probably should be comparing the BMW X6 SUV with the Lincoln Aviator SUV, and not the BMW sedan with the Ford truck (for those unaware, Lincoln is Ford's luxury line, like Lexus is to Toyota, Acura to Honda).

If you look at the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D home page, it is all about gaming. Not one mention of any other tasks. Just gaming. That's fine! I'm okay with that.

For sure, the Intel Core i9 page includes significant marketing hype about gaming too - no denying that. But it also mentions "creating", "streaming" and "everyday user tasks". In other words, it is NOT being marketed just for gaming. That is significant.

To me, the AMD is being marketed as a formula 1 race car, designed to go as fast as possible on the track, while the Intel is being marketed as a fast SUV. Apples and oranges. Both fruit, yes. But competing products?

OF COURSE, Intel and AMD are competitors, just as Ford and BMW are competitors, as well as the apple and orange farmers are competitors. Each want us to spend our money on their products. But are the Ryzen 7 7800X3D and the Intel Core i9 14900K being marketed as competing products?

Is the Ford 150 being marketed as a competing product to the BMW sedan or SUV?

The Ford F150, Chevy Silverado 1500, and RAM 1500 are all marketed by their respective manufacturers as competing products. And so it makes total sense to compare them against each other as competing products.

But who is claiming these two CPUs are competing products? Intel and AMD? Not really. It is the respective fanboys, bloggers and reviewers looking to get likes and followers, and wannabe journalists in the IT media.

So okay, the reviewer makes it clear, they are talking about gaming. Great! But is the review biased as Snoopy's cousin wonders?

Well, if you look at the video just 9 seconds in, in the lower left corner, check out the names of the products they are reviewing. I will illustrate here - exaggerating to emphasis my point just in case it is not as obvious to you as it was to me.

AMD RYZEN 7 7800X3D​

vs​

INTEL Core i9-14900K​

Now why do that? From a marketing perspective, the objective is clear - you want the AMD to stand out. But in terms of presenting an unbiased, objective review? Well, you can come to your own conclusions.

 

[Vya Domus]

Intel has a brand and marketing problem, a problem that they created themselves.

They built a reputation for "best gaming performance at all costs" and now that they've lost that one metric that they could always boast about their entire lineup looks embarrassingly overpriced. It doesn't help that AMD is beating them with a CPU that has 66% less cores and uses less than half as little power in gaming. People always used to say "I only care about gaming" back when Intel had the advantage even though that's never really true and now their only option is to either beat AMD by a good margin or undo all that marketing they used to build their image upon.

 

[evernessince]

Intel has a brand and marketing problem, a problem that they created themselves.

They built a reputation for "best gaming performance at all costs" and now that they've lost that one metric that they could always boast about their entire lineup looks embarrassingly overpriced. It doesn't help that AMD is beating them with a CPU that has 66% less cores and uses less than half as little power in gaming. People always used to say "I only care about gaming" back when Intel had the advantage even though that's never really true and now their only option is to either beat AMD by a good margin or undo all that marketing they used to build their image upon.

Yep and IMO a 7800X3D is a vastly better processor than Intel's four core gaming processor were relative to the time they were released. 8 cores in today's world lets you run a game and background apps without stuttering. I remember upgrading from a 4790K to a 5820K explicitly because 4 cores were not enough and any background process would cause micro-stuttering. That was really the smoothness people were referring to when Zen 1 came out, people realizing that yeah there's an immediate benefit to having 6-8 cores for gaming.

It's just ironic that Intel's decades of failing to push multi-threaded is now coming back to bite them as they have all those cores yet anything above 8 provides zero benefit to gamers in the vast majority of cases. Would be great to see more than 8 cores utilized in games as adding more cores is vastly cheaper and easier than adding more IPC.

 

[dgianstefani]

It's as objective as you can be while only looking at singleplayer games. The situation is a bit different for multiplayer.

The ST/MT comparison is more relevant in my opinion, as its predictive of general performance, not just games that may or may not benefit from 3DVCache.

 

[Bill_Bright]

They built a reputation for "best gaming performance at all costs"

Oh? Please show us the Intel marketing materials that claim to be "the best." I am just point out that it is not always Intel making the claims.

Intel has a brand and marketing problem, a problem that they created themselves.

I certainly don't disagree with that. A quick search of TPU for the term "marketing weenies" posted by me shows I am not a fan of any of them. I rate marketing weenies right down there with the other bottom feeders like shysters, insurance companies, big pharma, big banks, and politicians.

But this marketing/reputation problem you note is not, by any means, exclusive to Intel. Nor is it caused exclusively by them - especially in forums and with the IT media where fanboys of all ilk thrive - jumping on and repeating in viral fashion any and all shortfalls.

You are absolutely correct that Intel created much of their dilemma on their own. They let their own pride and egos get in their own way, sitting on their laurels while AMD played catch up, and in many areas, leapfrogged over Intel.

I am saying ALL marketing hype should be taken with a 10lb bag of salt. And I am saying comparison reviews should too, unless the products under review are indeed being marketed, by the makers, as competing products.

 

[Gica]

The perfect topic for a big battle between supporters.

I ask: how much stronger is A or B in gaming if my video card is... hmmm... RTX 4070?

Why HU is comparing apples to pears, I have known for a long time. That's why I didn't access the video and I don't access anything from them. I know their tactics because it is identical to what happens with television stations sponsored by political parties.

Steve is right and has no reason to be embarrassed, he made the video about gaming performance

Why only in gaming? Can't the processors be used for something else?
Rhetorical question, of course.

 

[HD64G]

The video is objective since 7800X3D is less pricy, cooler, more efficient, not in need of ultra fast/expensive RAM, on an upgradeable platform and faster in games, which it the scope of this video testing. Very few people predicted the effect 3DVcache would have in the CPU world. It indeed turned the tides in gaming and efficiency. And now it got into servers. Until Intel brings something equally revolutionary in the CPU tech, they will be behind.

 

[Eskimonster]

Another good reason to never jugde a product on one youtube channels pro´s and con´s.
That said, i would reckomend AMD atm for gaming all day long. the former pc i made was a 10600k, at launch that came out best imho. This year i made a 5800X3D.

 

[BoggledBeagle]

The scope of the video is games. Nothing weird or biased about that. If you only play games, why care about compiling code or rendering or whatever?

OK, if you only play games and take a locked 8 core CPU worth $350 running at a moderate frequency as your baseline, why would you ever compare it to unlocked 24 core CPU worth $600 running so quickly as it can, when you know that the games can not utilise 32 threads?

The latter CPU would always consume more energy and be less efficient than the first one, even if they were from the same manufacturer.

BTW if you tune 14900K to run at lower frequencies and limit its power draw, it may became say 15% weaker than 7800X3D in gaming, but still say 70% stronger in productive tasks, while being efficient and very easy to cool. For some, that 70% more in productive tasks would justify paying 50% more for it, and the tuned 14900K would be more more balanced and universally usable CPU.

 

[tabascosauz]

OK, if you only play games and take a locked 8 core CPU worth $350 running at a moderate frequency as your baseline, why would you ever compare it to unlocked 24 core CPU worth $600 running so quickly as it can, when you know that the games can not utilise 32 threads?

The latter CPU would always consume more energy and be less efficient than the first one, even if they were from the same manufacturer.

BTW if you tune 14900K to run at lower frequencies and limit its power draw, it may became say 15% weaker than 7800X3D in gaming, but still say 70% stronger in productive tasks, while being efficient and very easy to cool. For some, that 70% more in productive tasks would justify paying 50% more for it, and the tuned 14900K would be more more balanced and universally usable CPU.

But it's literally an entirely gaming focused video the title says it, the testing shows it, and even the power is limited to the game test suite (which incidentally also makes the 14900K look better than it is). Not sure why all the cope

Both are what their respective companies consider their top dog for strictly gaming. If those other tasks were of sufficient importance to a potential buyer, then the 7800X3D would be out of the running in the first place, replaced by a 7950X/7950X3D.

 

[Aquinus]

Oh? Please show us the Intel marketing materials that claim to be "the best." I am just point out that it is not always Intel making the claims.


I certainly don't disagree with that. A quick search of TPU for the term "marketing weenies" posted by me shows I am not a fan of any of them. I rate marketing weenies right down there with the other bottom feeders like shysters, insurance companies, big pharma, big banks, and politicians.

But this marketing/reputation problem you note is not, by any means, exclusive to Intel. Nor is it caused exclusively by them - especially in forums and with the IT media where fanboys of all ilk thrive - jumping on and repeating in viral fashion any and all shortfalls.

You are absolutely correct that Intel created much of their dilemma on their own. They let their own pride and egos get in their own way, sitting on their laurels while AMD played catch up, and in many areas, leapfrogged over Intel.

I am saying ALL marketing hype should be taken with a 10lb bag of salt. And I am saying comparison reviews should too, unless the products under review are indeed being marketed, by the makers, as competing products.

I agree with just about everything that you've said, however I will point out that products can compete even if Intel or AMD doesn't say that it's competing with a particular segment. If performance between two chips is fairly similar, I'd say that people will naturally consider them competitors because when push comes to shove, a lot of people care about cost effectiveness. So regardless of how Intel or AMD markets their chips, I would be evaluating it for my needs, not for what Intel or AMD thinks it caters to.

The marketing BS is the beginning, not the end. If you have two CPUs being compared and one is objectively faster and cheaper, more often than not, it doesn't matter what marketing says unless you're a fanboy, a shill, or a dolt... or some combo of those 3.

A half intelligent person who is willing to inform themselves will typically pick the best bang for the buck for their use case when given the option, unless the person has more money than they know what to do with. All in all, I'd agree with the sentiment that AMD has an objectively superior product for most consumers. This appears to be true for performance in most cases, power consumption is far lower, and the cost is competitive. Does it win outright? Nah, but it doesn't have to be in order to be a contender. It just has to be a cost effective option and check most of the boxes.

That's my 2 cents, so take it for what it's worth. All in all though, I personally would go with AMD with the way the market is right now.

 

[mama]

If they could jam a 7800X3D or the upcoming 8800X3D in a console as a pure gaming chip then that would convert me.

 

[phanbuey]

it depends - the 14900k is an all-rounder... if you have discord and youtube in the background (how I like to play games) I imagine the 14900K wins, if you're looking for the best power/perf while gaming then get the 7800x3d.

But overall -- it really doesn't matter. at all. you won't be able to tell a difference between these two.

 

[Vya Domus]

if you have discord and youtube in the background (how I like to play games)

Don't have a 7800X3D but I am more than convinced you can play games just fine with youtube and discord in the background, I don't think you need a gazillion cores for that. The truth is as you said these 2 CPUs are going to seem nearly identical to an average user unless they do really specific things.

 

[phanbuey]

Don't have a 7800X3D but I am more than convinced you can play games just fine with youtube and discord in the background, I don't think you need a gazillion cores for that. The truth is as you said these 2 CPUs are going to seem nearly identical to an average user unless they do really specific things.

Right -- you can do that with an i3 - my point was that the margin between the top CPUs is so slim that background apps could change it... basically it doesn't matter. AM5 is a much better buy now though you would really need to want intel to get the 14900K.

 

[Aquinus]

it depends - the 14900k is an all-rounder... if you have discord and youtube in the background (how I like to play games) I imagine the 14900K wins, if you're looking for the best power/perf while gaming then get the 7800x3d.

But overall -- it really doesn't matter. at all. you won't be able to tell a difference between these two.

I think you're overstating how much the CPU impacts performance of games. You know that I still game on my 3930k and Vega 64 with stuff running in the background? The vast majority of the time I'm not CPU limited with some rare exceptions like Cities: Skylines 2. If my 11 year old 6c/12t CPU can handle these things fine for the most part, I assure you that a 7800X3D will as well. Also YouTube is likely GPU accelerated so there is also that.

Remember that one time that W1zz did a test for gaming on just the E cores? I suggest checking that out again. At 4k the difference was a whole whopping 5% (if you round up,) from E cores to P cores. The only time it really matters is if you're trying to pump out as many frames as possible with something like a 144hz display. If you're running at 60Hz though, probably doesn't make much difference.

So unless you're compiling software in the background while you game, you probably will be fine, and even then that's what `nice` and Task Manager is for. Just adjust scheduling priority to dedicate less to background tasks that might cause problems and more to the task at hand if it's _really_ that much of a problem.