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

[Super Firm Tofu]

I seen it all coming, amd vs intel is pure fanboy stuff now. Even to the point youtubers are now pushing out troll videos to fuel it.

And 11 pages threads on other sites to talk about them.

 

[BoggledBeagle]

... I had a weird feeling from Jays video. What he described seemed like a faulty CPU or motherboard and he should have troubleshot the problem and solve in a standard way. I think a part of his switch was that he got some of those parts for free and he could not use a warranty repair/exchange, and that he had some Intel parts again available for use (possibly again for free).

I watched the video again and that madman is INCREASING those already mad stock frequencies (E cores to 4.6 GHz) and then he complains about temps!!! OUCH!!!

That decreasing in time stable RAM frequency shows that something was slowly deteorating (memory controller in the CPU? one of the RAM sticks?) and could have been fixed. The other problems with booting and crashes may have been caused by the same thing as the RAM frequency problem, or by faulty motherboard, or anything else. I think he made a mistake of not trying to find the problem, he could have made a video or even a serie of videos about it.

 

[AusWolf]

I don't understand the rub. In the first video FRS and XeSS are not used in the benchmarking so these videos are totally different.

The point is that if HU is sponsored by AMD to slag Intel off, like some people here claim (with no proof), then why are they saying that XeSS is better than FSR in another video?

I seen it all coming, amd vs intel is pure fanboy stuff now. Even to the point youtubers are now pushing out troll videos to fuel it.

That definitely is a thing, unfortunately. Whatever gets the views, I guess.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

The point is that if HU is sponsored by AMD to slag Intel off, like some people here claim (with no proof), then why are they saying that XeSS is better than FSR in another video?


That definitely is a thing, unfortunately. Whatever gets the views, I guess.

Can't really blame techtubers/websites if it puts food on the table.

Head to heads are fun even when they don't make sense a similar comparison from Steve would be a 7900XTX vs a 4090 in 50 games but would the outcome even matter one is nearly double the cost.... Guessing he would do the comparison is the 7900XTX was better and still sub 1k.

The best thing about the 7800X3D is it offers some of the best gaming performance at a price most can afford the only downside is the gpus people need to make it stretch it's legs start around 1000 usd....

 

[AusWolf]

Can't really blame techtubers/websites if it puts food on the table.

True. That's why I watch these videos with an active information filter in my mind.

Head to heads are fun even when they don't make sense a similar comparison from Steve would be a 7900XTX vs a 4090 in 50 games but would the outcome even matter one is nearly double the cost.... Guessing he would do the comparison is the 7900XTX was better and still sub 1k.

The result of that comparison is obvious - the more expensive card wins hands down. Boring, so not gonna happen.

The best thing about the 7800X3D is it offers some of the best gaming performance at a price most can afford the only downside is the gpus people need to make it stretch it's legs start around 1000 usd....

In my opinion, the good thing about a fast CPU is that it'll serve you well in the future after potentially upgrading your GPU a few times. I'm pretty sure the 5800X3D will last a good while longer than a 5700X, for example, even if you're not noticing any difference right now.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

The result of that comparison is obvious - the more expensive card wins hands down. Boring, so not gonna happen.

I still find it interesting Daniel Owen did a comparison with a 4090/4080/7900XTX in UE5 games and it's good to see AMD doing pretty well they still need to improve upscaling (UE5 almost requires it to get good framerates even at 1440p in most released games)

In my opinion, the good thing about a fast CPU is that it'll serve you well in the future after potentially upgrading your GPU a few times. I'm pretty sure the 5800X3D will last a good while longer than a 5700X, for example, even if you're not noticing any difference right now.

While True it's also good to do it when you actually need that extra cpu performs at least for gaming a lot of people pair crazy cpus with hella slow gpu's and by the time you need the extra cpu grunt the platform/CPU is already outdated.

A buyer of a 5700X vs 5800X3D has to weight if spending 75% more is worth it vs saving up for a platform upgrade or better served going towards thier gpu upgrade at some point. I for one would much rather have the faster gpu over the fastest gaming cpu given the choice.

 

[dgianstefani]

Faster CPU means you can bring 1% lows up to your monitor refresh rate peak. For me it means my FPS stays between around 215 to 237 which is my frame limit in the games I play. 0.1% lows might dip a bit further but that's pretty unnoticeable.

Frame consistency means aim memory and in game performance is higher plus immersion breaking moments are gone.

I would take what I have now over 1000 FPS averages with dips to 100.

It's why I push buying the best CPU/RAM you can, which for singleplayer games is X3D and for multi is 14900K. Dips and low 1% are what you notice. 250 FPS average instead of 200 isn't.

Ever had stuttering when you move your mouse fast in a multiplayer game? That's your CPU.

This is also why I frown at 6C CPUs, regardless of their perf. TPU testing in isolations shows CPU scaling up to eight cores. Add in the background tasks our test benches aren't running and you have issues with low core count CPUs. This also goes for 7900X tier stuff, but not the 14600K as it has E cores for background.

 

[AusWolf]

While True it's also good to do it when you actually need that extra cpu performs at least for gaming a lot of people pair crazy cpus with hella slow gpu's and by the time you need the extra cpu grunt the platform/CPU is already outdated.

A buyer of a 5700X vs 5800X3D has to weight if spending 75% more is worth it vs saving up for a platform upgrade or better served going towards thier gpu upgrade at some point. I for one would much rather have the faster gpu over the fastest gaming cpu given the choice.

This is why I got my brother a R5 5500 last year when he was doing an upgrade. He doesn't need more to pair with a 2060, but he can pop in a 5800X3D, or even a 5950X later, if he needs one. The 58 being so popular, I'm sure the used market will be flooded with them at some point.

 

[A Computer Guy]

A buyer of a 5700X vs 5800X3D has to weight if spending 75% more is worth it vs saving up for a platform upgrade or better served going towards thier gpu upgrade at some point. I for one would much rather have the faster gpu over the fastest gaming cpu given the choice.

I thinks this makes a lot of sense. Also I saw this same idea from tech tuber TechDeals. Basically 5700x is fine with a good GPU and seems a better management of cost if one is financially constrained choosing AM4 or upgrading within the AM4 space.

Can't really blame techtubers/websites if it puts food on the table.

I was kind of shocked when I saw this one. Not that I have anything against Intel but I felt somewhat conflicted about what I was seeing because it didn't seem like anything comparable that I have read elsewhere about 14900K that has been considerably more pessimistic btw. It was kind of dreamy and as an AMD user I secretly desire a 14900K now.

 

[Psychoholic]

Surprised this thread is still going.. i do find it quite entertaining as well as the other one that's currently ongoing.
I went from 7950X to 14900K (with a 7800X3d mixed in there for a while) never had a problem with any of them.. I'm just a geek that jumps back and forth.
To be honest i cant tell the difference in any of these in gaming, in general use the 14900K is maybe a tad snappier but i suppose that comes from being a monolithic chip.

 

[A Computer Guy]

Surprised this thread is still going.. i do find it quite entertaining as well as the other one that's currently ongoing.
I went from 7950X to 14900K (with a 7800X3d mixed in there for a while) never had a problem with any of them.. I'm just a geek that jumps back and forth.
To be honest i cant tell the difference in any of these in gaming, in general use the 14900K is maybe a tad snappier but i suppose that comes from being a monolithic chip.

Nobody has talked about input latency yet. I just found this. Sadly it doesn't cover the 7800X3d but the 7950x instead vs. 14900K.

 

[Bagerklestyne]

The 14900K provides

1. Superior RAM scaling and higher RAM freq. support
2. Thunderbolt
3. Better motherboard availability
4. Quicksync, a phenomenal technology
5. Better workstation capabilities and all-roundedness
6. More stable software support and execution (check out Jayztwocents and why he switched)
7. Far more stable system after build
8. The opportunity to support a country currently experiencing brutalities

The choice is clear.

1. Ram scaling is less relevant because of the 3D v-cache - compared to the non X3D's I'd generally agree.
2. What's the value here (don't roast me, educate me) I have usb 4 and it seems to me thunderbolt is more useful to video editing workstation types (again, this is valuable, but not to a gamer)
3. multiple generations in so they should be more available
5. This is true, but not overtly relevant given it's a 'gaming' comparison.
7. That's debatable, mine hasn't crashed, at all since I built it.

So I'm not looking to flame/fight, just educate me on these conclusions you drew.

 

[AusWolf]

Surprised this thread is still going.. i do find it quite entertaining as well as the other one that's currently ongoing.
I went from 7950X to 14900K (with a 7800X3d mixed in there for a while) never had a problem with any of them.. I'm just a geek that jumps back and forth.
To be honest i cant tell the difference in any of these in gaming, in general use the 14900K is maybe a tad snappier but i suppose that comes from being a monolithic chip.

This!

Conclusion: nearly any modern CPU is good enough for gaming.

Edit: maybe this has something to do with why Intel and AMD are competing so fiercely for that unnoticeable extra 1% performance to get the crown.

 

[Deleted member 229121]

My home PC is just for gaming/basic use, so 7800X3D.
If I needed the performance for productivity and gaming though, I'd go Intel.

Edit: maybe this has something to do with why Intel and AMD are competing so fiercely for that unnoticeable extra 1% performance to get the crown.

That's the best situation we (consumers) can be in, right there.

 

[Hyderz]

i would choose the 7800X3D between these two cpus..

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Versus threads always deliver the lulz.

This is the best DIY CPU market in ages. Fierce competition has resulted in all of us being able to buy more CPU for less money, regardless of brand preference.

 

[BoggledBeagle]

I was kind of shocked when I saw this one.

Was that shockingly bad for you?

He talks about increasing frequency over the previous gen. and overclocking the CPU, when even those frequencies of the previous gen. are extremely high and far away from the reasonable efficient frequency based on the older process Intel makes these CPUs on.

The processor out of the box is an extreme power hog and he even wants to make it worse by oveclocking it more?!

He boasts about AI overclocking software and how it performed wonderfuly in the games after overclocking, and then the videos of the gameplay show 5700MHz, which is a stock speed?

And why is he talking about extremely expensice PCIE 5th gen SSDs, when you SHOULD NOT USE such SSDs on the LGA1700 platform, because it steals lanes from a graphic card? 4th gen SSDs are still good enough.

And what about the results being compared to nothing else on the market? Is there any sense in presenting these numbers alone???

Why is Intel not trying to be more reasonable in advertising??? They decided not to innovate, they decided to make the same CPU again instead of really improving it, they decided to make it on an old process, which runs reasonably efficiently on frequencies only up to 5 GHz, and after all these mistakes they are trying to undo them by silly advertising and applying crazy stock frequencies and power limits?

Is it not normal to be the second one after you put out a low (no) effort product? Why to try to appear being nr.1?

I see I used "extremely" many times in this text, perhaps because I am extremely pissed off by Intel even after all their mistakes making QUITE GOOD and usable processors and then trying hard to destroy (melt) them.

 

[iameatingjam]

Nobody has talked about input latency yet. I just found this. Sadly it doesn't cover the 7800X3d but the 7950x instead vs. 14900K.

I made a thread about this some time ago. Except back then it was about the latency of 13th gen vs 10th gen.

10th/11th gen intel performing better than 13th in regards to latency?

Thoughts? Is there anything to this? I mean, I guess it doesn't matter for most use cases but still, coming from 11th to 13th gen, its not exactly exciting to think it was more of a side-grade when you consider io. And could this perhaps be a factor in that thread I saw here last week showing...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[AusWolf]

I was kind of shocked when I saw this one. Not that I have anything against Intel but I felt somewhat conflicted about what I was seeing because it didn't seem like anything comparable that I have read elsewhere about 14900K that has been considerably more pessimistic btw. It was kind of dreamy and as an AMD user I secretly desire a 14900K now.

I tried to watch this video, I really did, but when I heard "this video is sponsored by Intel and parts supplied by Intel", I had to stop. Not because it's Intel - Steve from GN did an Intel factory tour a couple months back (also sponsored by Intel) which was awesome. No, when a review is sponsored by the same company whose product you're reviewing, it's not a review anymore, but a lengthy advert, totally not worth my time.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

I tried to watch this video, I really did, but when I heard "this video is sponsored by Intel and parts supplied by Intel", I had to stop. Not because it's Intel - Steve from GN did an Intel factory tour a couple months back (also sponsored by Intel) which was awesome. No, when a review is sponsored by the same company whose product you're reviewing, it's not a review anymore, but a lengthy advert, totally not worth my time.

So just because they supplied the parts he cannot be objective? In that case most reviewers must be shills then as they all get supplied the parts by the company of the item they are reviewing, even GN, jayztwocents.

 

[AusWolf]

So just because they supplied the parts he cannot be objective? In that case most reviewers must be shills then as they all get supplied the parts by the company of the item they are reviewing, even GN, jayztwocents.

No. It's because this specific video was sponsored by the company he's reviewing from. So basically, he built a rig and advertised it on Intel's commands.

When you watch the GN review of a new graphics card, you never hear Steve saying "this video is sponsored by AMD/Nvidia".

Edit: Sponsoring works either by you calling X company to ask if they can give you some money or material for your next video, or by X company calling you and saying that a nice pile of cash is gonna land in your pocket if you say something nice about their product. The second case is just a paid ad, but even in the first case, you wouldn't betray X company's trust by saying bad things about their product in the very same video that they helped you create, would you? They didn't pay you to portray them in a bad light, obviously, and if you do, you can be damn sure they won't pay you again.

So, sponsored reviews, no thank you.

 

[authorized]

Was that shockingly bad for you?

He talks about increasing frequency over the previous gen. and overclocking the CPU, when even those frequencies of the previous gen. are extremely high and far away from the reasonable efficient frequency based on the older process Intel makes these CPUs on.

The processor out of the box is an extreme power hog and he even wants to make it worse by oveclocking it more?!

He boasts about AI overclocking software and how it performed wonderfuly in the games after overclocking, and then the videos of the gameplay show 5700MHz, which is a stock speed?

And why is he talking about extremely expensice PCIE 5th gen SSDs, when you SHOULD NOT USE such SSDs on the LGA1700 platform, because it steals lanes from a graphic card? 4th gen SSDs are still good enough.

And what about the results being compared to nothing else on the market? Is there any sense in presenting these numbers alone???

Why is Intel not trying to be more reasonable in advertising??? They decided not to innovate, they decided to make the same CPU again instead of really improving it, they decided to make it on an old process, which runs reasonably efficiently on frequencies only up to 5 GHz, and after all these mistakes they are trying to undo them by silly advertising and applying crazy stock frequencies and power limits?

Is it not normal to be the second one after you put out a low (no) effort product? Why to try to appear being nr.1?

I see I used "extremely" many times in this text, perhaps because I am extremely pissed off by Intel even after all their mistakes making QUITE GOOD and usable processors and then trying hard to destroy (melt) them.

The very first question you should ask yourself is why you are "extremely pissed off".
Why would you care so much? Did you invest in Intel stocks?

 

[BoggledBeagle]

The very first question you should ask yourself is why you are "extremely pissed off".
Why would you care so much? Did you invest in Intel stocks?

I am pissed off because Intel should publish a tutorial "how to adjust the stock settings to get a nice efficient easy to cool CPU" and instead they put out adds making you to push the CPUs even further into the silicone melting inferno. As I explained, it is not a good way how to correct the mistakes they made.

BTW that 5 gen SSD mention in the video reminded me that I was thinking about upgrading the motherbord too, because I really like the new Asus boards with 5 SSDs (with the ideal layout IMO - you can get to 3 of 5 SSDs even when a large graphic card is mounted, there are two separate heatsink strips for the 4 SSDs), however the Strix E model uses the stupid 5 gen links for the SSD stolen from the graphic card, only the lower models F and A use gen 4 links from CPU for 1 SSD and the rest SSDs are from the chipset.

 

[A Computer Guy]

Was that shockingly bad for you?

ha ha ha, I never said bad. you forgot to quote the part where I said "It was kind of dreamy and as an AMD user I secretly desire a 14900K now. "

 

[BoggledBeagle]

ha ha ha, I never said bad. you forgot to quote the part where I said "It was kind of dreamy and as an AMD user I secretly desire a 14900K now. "

Honestly that is weird, I cannot imagine what in that video would you make to desire a 14900K, because there was not even a hint of any objective information about it. I view it as a good material for adjustment, after which you get "a quite good and usable powerful CPU" and most likely quite an easy building experience and stable system. Nothing more or less.