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

[Cowboystrekk]

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.)

If budget and gaming matters the most 7800X3D is the best deal, period, it is way cheaper and generally a bit faster in gaming. If you do much productivity and game 14900K is a lot better option if you can afford it

 

[Outback Bronze]

Great to see this thread let go!

The question is, is the 14900K the next best gaming CPU after the 7800X3D? If it is then he has a fair video of best "Gaming CPU" you can buy atm.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Great to see this thread let go!

The question is, is the 14900K the next best gaming CPU after the 7800X3D? If it is then he has a fair video of best "Gaming CPU" you can buy atm.

I would say it is the 7950X3D can be similarly as good but it's slightly less consistent, also if you don't mind spending a ton on ram and tinkering you might be able to beat the 7800X3D on average.

 

[Outback Bronze]

I would say it is the 7950X3D can be similarly as good but it's slightly less consistent, also if you don't mind spending a ton on ram and tinkering you might be able to beat the 7800X3D on average.

You can bring up those 1080p benchmarks for sure on the 14900k going 8000+ on the memory and correct board but he did say they used 7200 which isn't too shabby.

For me regardless of all that, 7800X3D still wins, although not by massive margins. The main winner for the 7800X3D is power and platform.

I'd like to come back to this test if more games support Intel's APO. Might make for a much more interesting review but whether APO ever comes into fruition is anybody guess.

 

[BoggledBeagle]

The question is, is the 14900K the next best gaming CPU after the 7800X3D?

From Intel I would say that "the best CPU for gaming with price and overall performance in mind" goes to 14700KF. It is the best value of the 14th gen CPUs. All people who think that a 250W CPU has no place in a desktop computer of course need to adjust it.

 

[rv8000]

I would say it is the 7950X3D can be similarly as good but it's slightly less consistent, also if you don't mind spending a ton on ram and tinkering you might be able to beat the 7800X3D on average.

If a game can be forced to stay on the 3D vcache CCD (or does so without user interference), the 7950X3D will always be faster than the 7800X3D, it’s just not always a reality; disabling the other CCD for the sake of gaming also defeats the purpose. I first noticed this when disabling the non 3D vcache CCD while testing memory scaling in CP2077 on the 7900X3D I have.

If a game is particularly sensitive to memory bandwidth both the 7950 and 7900 X3D chips are also faster than the 7800X3D.

Tightly tuned 6400 c28-c30 with 2133 FCLK can also be a significant boost in heavy CPU based games; which is fairly easy (and cheap) to achieve with any a-die or m-die kit on almost any motherboard.

 

[AusWolf]

Yup, my 5900X and 5600X perform better with more power

Sure, but they're the same CPU just with more power.

The old balding hungry Titan has normal hands and can do much more stuff than the midget who has spanners instead of hands and excells only at driving bolts.

Why is that bad if you're only interested in driving bolts? Surely a spanner is better at driving bolts than a hand, right?

With that logic, phone CPUs are all trash because none of them can do what the 14900K can.

 

[mechtech]

Neither

I game at 4k where cpu don't matter as much.

Intel Core i9-14900K Review - Reaching for the Performance Crown

Core i9-14900K is Intel's new flagship with clock speeds of up to 6 GHz. It's actually clocked even higher than the 13900KS, thanks to an extra 100 MHz when more than two cores are active. Our review confirms that Raptor Lake Refresh is amazing for both applications and gaming, if you can live...

www.techpowerup.com

Got my 5700x cpu with 13% less performance than the 14900k at 4k (avg) for about $600 less (at the time)

 

[mb194dc]

Neither, I'd choose a GPU based on my gaming use case and then the CPU after that.

 

[AusWolf]

From Intel I would say that "the best CPU for gaming with price and overall performance in mind" goes to 14700KF. It is the best value of the 14th gen CPUs. All people who think that a 250W CPU has no place in a desktop computer of course need to adjust it.

Yeah, if you're a gamer, don't buy an 85 W gaming CPU on a platform that will receive lots more CPUs in the future because it's not the best at workstation stuff. Buy a 250 W general purpose CPU on an end-of-life platform instead and limit it to 85 W! Brilliant!

 

[Aquinus]

Neither, I'd choose a GPU based on my gaming use case and then the CPU after that.

Particularly if you're running at higher resolutions because it hits the GPU far harder than the CPU. Like I mentioned before, W1zz's review of using E-cores only shows that at 4k, you're only leaving 5% on the table... with using just E-cores. This is quite literally why I can get away with running at 4k with a 3930k and a Vega 64. Most of the work is being done by the GPU, which is the newer component.

Again, unless the game is of shoddy coding quality, the CPU doesn't play as big of a role for most games. There are exceptions to that, like Cities: Skylines 2. It's one of the only games that I've seen saturate all 12 threads on my machine consistently, however mind you that I'm talking about a CPU almost 12 years old.

So unless you're running 1080p (which looks like ass I might add,) with a high refresh display, you probably don't even need "the best." If you're targeting 4k, you probably can get away with just about anything modern with 8c/16t or more. Probably even 6c/12t with modern hardware. However, the real point is that if my 3930k can do it, just about anything else can too.

What I would suggest to everyone is something completely different. Don't focus on buying the fastest CPU and focus on not giving money to dev shops that half ass their products.

 

[phanbuey]

Particularly if you're running at higher resolutions because it hits the GPU far harder than the CPU. Like I mentioned before, W1zz's review of using E-cores only shows that at 4k, you're only leaving 5% on the table... with using just E-cores. This is quite literally why I can get away with running at 4k with a 3930k and a Vega 64. Most of the work is being done by the GPU, which is the newer component.

Again, unless the game is of shoddy coding quality, the CPU doesn't play as big of a role for most games. There are exceptions to that, like Cities: Skylines 2. It's one of the only games that I've seen saturate all 12 threads on my machine consistently, however mind you that I'm talking about a CPU almost 12 years old.

So unless you're running 1080p (which looks like ass I might add,) with a high refresh display, you probably don't even need "the best." If you're targeting 4k, you probably can get away with just about anything modern with 8c/16t or more. Probably even 6c/12t with modern hardware. However, the real point is that if my 3930k can do it, just about anything else can too.

What I would suggest to everyone is something completely different. Don't focus on buying the fastest CPU and focus on not giving money to dev shops that half ass their products.

I have e-cores and you're not "leaving 5% on the table" it's a stuttery disaster. Do not game on e cores.

Maybe the averages even out to 5%, but the performance is atrocious.

 

[Aquinus]

I have e-cores and you're not "leaving 5% on the table" it's a stuttery disaster. Do not game on e cores.

Maybe the averages even out to 5%, but the performance is atrocious.

I wouldn't mind know what games had that kind of experience and I swear if you say Starfield, you deserve to be smacked.

BuT dOeS iT rUn CrIsIs?!

What I would suggest to everyone is something completely different. Don't focus on buying the fastest CPU and focus on not giving money to dev shops that half ass their products.

 

[phanbuey]

I wouldn't mind know what games had that kind of experience and I swear if you say Starfield, you deserve to be smacked.

You need to simmer down.

Far Cry 5 is probably the worst, but all of them stutter on e Cores.

 

[Aquinus]

You need to simmer down.

Far Cry 5 is probably the worst, but all of them stutter on e Cores.

That's not my experience then because I played FC3 through 5 on my 3930k without it being a stutter fest.

Sorry, but I get really sick of people thinking they need the best hardware to play poorly written games. It has already been brought up at least once.

 

[phanbuey]

That's not my experience then because I played FC3 through 5 on my 3930k without it being a stutter fest.

Sorry, but I get really sick of people thinking they need the best hardware to play poorly written games. It has already been brought up at least once.

You do understand that a 3930K is not the same as e-cores-only yes?

 

[Aquinus]

You do understand that a 3930K is not the same as e-cores-only yes?

I do, but it's also hardware that's 12 years newer. I would expect some improvements. However that might be a tall order considering the 14900k eats almost as much power as my 3930k overclocked.

 

[freeagent]

Sure, but they're the same CPU just with more power.

I don't understand. I can do about 150w with 5600X and PBO, and I can do about 265w with my 5900X. I understand that 5900X is basically 2 5600X, but 5900X boosts 300MHz higher, 4850 vs 5150, that is noticeable for sure. Stock settings are pretty sucky.

 

[AusWolf]

I don't understand. I can do about 150w with 5600X and PBO, and I can do about 265w with my 5900X. I understand that 5900X is basically 2 5600X, but 5900X boosts 300MHz higher, 4850 vs 5150, that is noticeable for sure. Stock settings are pretty sucky.

I mean, if you give more power to a CPU, it will naturally perform better. The question here is if the 14900K is better enough than the 7800X3D to justify its much higher power consumption. If you're a gamer, the answer is a definite no.

 

[freeagent]

The question here is if the 14900K is better enough than the 7800X3D to justify its much higher power consumption.

Strictly as a gamer? I would go 78X3D. I would not even buy the 14900.. unless it was cheap. I don't think my board would appreciate that CPU

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Strictly as a gamer? I would go 78X3D. I would not even buy the 14900.. unless it was cheap. I don't think my board would appreciate that CPU

As long as you don't mind your fans sounding like a jet engine a 14700k would probably be fine.

 

[Ruru]

7800X3D. I don't want a heater in my small apartment.

 

[freeagent]

As long as you don't mind your fans sounding like a jet engine a 14700k would probably be fine.

I think AMD is harder to cool, but I cant say for sure yet. I know the wattage is high on Intel, but I run a similar wattage on 7nm AMD,, it can be a handful.

300w on 7nm is insane, at least with my low end cooling

I think I have a shot of that in the R23 thread somewhere.. like 323w or something..

 

[Bagerklestyne]

The biggest upsell of the intel is productivity, but best I can tell it's the only upsell for it though

Drinks more, platform eol, costs more, probably needs the more expensive ram (In fairness my 7800X3D and my 64 gig of ram was roughly the same price as a 14900K alone when I bought it)

I love competition but I feel like Intel missed the boat here

 

[freeagent]

I should get into reviews one day, but with overclocked settings.. just need someone to supply the hardware

Once I get used to tuning Intel, it should be a ripper. But here is the kicker.. I have a B660 board.. so no CPU OC.

But it should be pretty good for memory.. maybe.. I can find a different board later if I need. Probably will