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

[SPDIF]

A new CPU for 100Mhz more, that's what intel names new. AMD just needs a lot less power to do the same.
The intel 12th generation that is still the best CPU, after that looks like Intel was scratching their head what to do.

Title of this article should read Intel 12900K vs 7800X3D really, or even 12900K vs 5800X3D.

 

[Dragam1337]

Well yes, there is nothing entertaining about renaming, increasing frequency and adding cores.

Did your 14900k magically get more cores than the 13900k ?

 

[FoulOnWhite]

A new CPU for 100Mhz more, that's what intel names new. AMD just needs a lot less power to do the same.
The intel 12th generation that is still the best CPU, after that looks like Intel was scratching their head what to do.

Title of this article should read Intel 12900K vs 7800X3D really, or even 12900K vs 5800X3D.

I've had my 12700k 2 years now and its still, imo, pretty good.

 

[Chrispy_]

Both CPUs are fast enough to not be the limiting factor in games, and close enough in performance that the choice isn't really about performance - so the next criteria I use to choose a CPU are:

• How power hungry is it?
• How much longer will the platform be relevant for?
• How much do you need to spend on a CPU cooler for it?
• What is the total platform cost?

The 14900K is godawful compared to the 7800X3D if you're asking those kind of questions, so it's a no-brainer; The AMD is nearly twice as efficient, is on a platform that will likely outlast Intel's next platform, can be cooled effectively with a $25 Peerless Assassin 120, and has plenty of decent B650 boards that offer overclocking that is paywalled behind Intel's Z790 stupidity.

I don't even buy Intel for productivity builds - We have had issues with scheduling workloads to the right cores and power consumption is a big deal in Europe. Even if you ignore the software issues and operating costs on Intel, you still have hot, loud, workstations on dead-end platforms that must be replaced rather than upgraded. From a business buying perspective Intel options have just been a sea of red flags ever since AMD doubled the mainstream core count in 2016.

Edit - why is this thread 14 pages?!

 

[BoggledBeagle]

Did your 14900k magically get more cores than the 13900k ?

Compared to my old 13600K I got 2+8 more cores, 500-600 MHz higher all core frequency (which I elected not to use) and 0.2V lower voltage. I do not believe anybody would upgrade from 13900K to 14900K.

The 14900K is godawful compared to the 7800X3D ...

I would say that 14900K it terrible just by itself. You even do not need to compare it to anything else. It is like a dirty lump of coal and only wise people know how to discover a diamond in it.

EDIT: FLAMING lump of coal.

 

[R0H1T]

Edit - why is this thread 14 pages?!

Because it's effin cold outside, we'd rather fill the empty void of the internet than freeze in the northern hemisphere's winter also holidays

 

[ThrashZone]

Spoiler: Good stuff

Both CPUs are fast enough to not be the limiting factor in games, and close enough in performance that the choice isn't really about performance - so the next criteria I use to choose a CPU are:

• How power hungry is it?
• How much longer will the platform be relevant for?
• How much do you need to spend on a CPU cooler for it?
• What is the total platform cost?

The 14900K is godawful compared to the 7800X3D if you're asking those kind of questions, so it's a no-brainer; The AMD is nearly twice as efficient, is on a platform that will likely outlast Intel's next platform, can be cooled effectively with a $25 Peerless Assassin 120, and has plenty of decent B650 boards that offer overclocking that is paywalled behind Intel's Z790 stupidity.

I don't even buy Intel for productivity builds - We have had issues with scheduling workloads to the right cores and power consumption is a big deal in Europe. Even if you ignore the software issues and operating costs on Intel, you still have hot, loud, workstations on dead-end platforms that must be replaced rather than upgraded. From a business buying perspective Intel options have just been a sea of red flags ever since AMD doubled the mainstream core count in 2016.

Edit - why is this thread 14 pages?!

Hi,
Title changed eventually
It started out as an attempt to tag the video as slanted amd bs and intel is great at blah blah....

But facts are facts and that numbers don't lie x3d is beating intel at gaming period and of course for all reasons you state in the spoiler above and intel people are butthurt over that.
Whether or not someone can tweak this and that to curve power hungry intel chips is irrelevant but intel fan boys and girls can't stop so page by page it continues

 

[trparky]

Whether or not someone can tweak this and that to curve power hungry intel chips is irrelevant but intel fan boys and girls can't stop so page by page it continues

My argument is that one shouldn't need to do that. The fact one has to in order to have an efficiently running processor shouldn't be on the user but the manufacturer, in this case... Intel.

Years ago, people dissed AMD all the time for various reasons but the tables have turned.

 

[A Computer Guy]

Hi,
Title changed eventually
It started out as an attempt to tag the video as slanted amd bs and intel is great at blah blah....

But facts are facts and that numbers don't lie x3d is beating intel at gaming period and of course for all reasons you state in the spoiler above and intel people are butthurt over that.
Whether or not someone can tweak this and that to curve power hungry intel chips is irrelevant but intel fan boys and girls can't stop so page by page it continues

I think this is the first time I have seen efficiency and gaming somehow tied into the same conversation for the first time anybody has ever cared about it.

 

[trparky]

I think this is the first time I have seen efficiency and gaming somehow tied into the same conversation for the first time anybody has ever cared about it.

Electricity bills going up, cooling bills going up, etc. That and maybe not wanting to need exotic cooling just to get good performance.

 

[vMax65]

Both CPU's are great CPU's and the excessive power usuage against the 14900K is really not an issue just an idiotic mistake by Intel (and the mobo manufacturers who pump to much voltage in at stock) as a simple tweak to vcore you can have the 14900K running exceptionally well with no cooling issues at all. As the review stated, if gaming is your priority then the 7800X3D is stellar and overall takes the lead, but to be honest, paired with a good GPU even a 5800x3d/14600K would do the job. The 13th/14th Gen from the 14700K to the 14900K are great all around CPU's if you are in the semi pro applications world with good gaming performance thrown in and when targeting specific use cases especially if you optimise and control power, they can be a good option.

Bottom line, each to his own and we are lucky to have two manufacturers fighting it out with AMD on top this time....Swings and roundabouts

 

[trparky]

Bottom line, each to his own and we are lucky to have two manufacturers fighting it out with AMD on top this time....Swings and roundabouts

Exactly. I wanted to say something like that however, I didn't want to possibly bring the anger of the moderators down upon me. God knows I've already managed to do that quite a few times.

 

[vMax65]

Electricity bills going up, cooling bills going up, etc. That and maybe not wanting to need exotic cooling just to get good performance.

Seriously! Anybody buying the 14700K and 14900K will optimise voltage and drop vcore down from the absurd auto rates the motherboard sets it. I have my 13700K running with an adaptive vcore with a max of 1.287v at 5.5GHz all core with a Cinebench R23 score north of 30K and temps never exceeding 80 degrees with a 360 AIO...Most of the time it will never hit those temps as when gaming they are hardly hitting above 50 degrees. Powerdraw at idle or low use is exceptionally good as well at just 18w with tabs open and watching a youtube video.

 

[A Computer Guy]

Electricity bills going up, cooling bills going up, etc. That and maybe not wanting to need exotic cooling just to get good performance.

I can't argue with that. One of the reasons I haven't jumped to 7950x is the higher power usage. I'll just sip power with my 5950x for awhile longer until dual CCD X3D chips come out.

 

[BoggledBeagle]

... the excessive power usuage against the 14900K is really not an issue just an idiotic mistake by Intel as a simple tweak to vcore you can have the 14900K running exceptionally well with no cooling issues at all.

I believe it is a serious issue because majority of customers will not adjust their CPU. And Intel is doubling down on their ridiculous settings by paying for adverts promoting people to overclock the CPUs even more.

The voltage "excess" is there for a good reason - to ensure stability and prevent problems even if the silicone degrades in time. Undervolting is not a good practice IMO.

 

[R0H1T]

Nah, in this day & age it's not that big of a deal anymore. Sure your avg Joe could be fooled by Intel's ads every now & then but the DIY crowd by & large are more informed than ever! The days of being fooled into buying a P4 over Athlons are long gone, even if it was just a friendly nudge from your neighborhood computer store

 

[vMax65]

I believe it is a serious issue because majority of customers will not adjust their CPU. And Intel is doubling down on their ridiculous settings by paying for adverts promoting people to overclock the CPUs even more.

The voltage "excess" is there for a good reason - to ensure stability and prevent problems even if the silicone degrades in time. Undervolting is not a good practice IMO.

The whole point of the K CPU's is to overclock/underclock play around and modify otherwise you buy the non K CPU's. Anyone buying one will be at the very least doing some research to find out what the best settings are, hell I know I did that as soon as I got my first K CPU many, many years ago......Saying that, I also do agree with you that Intel made a huge mistake in not allowing for decent stock settings and instead allowing for massive power draw in an insane attempt at trying to beat AMD when they just did not need to do that.

Still the overblown and sometimes downright exagerations as to powerdraw on the CPU's is beyond me, yes absolutly slate Intel for the powerdraw but at the same time showcase what normal power draw is, as it certainly is not running Cinebench R23 with no limits.

Finally with regards to undervolting not being good for stability and silcon degrading!!!...never had this issue or heard of it and I am going way back to the 4000 series so 4790K where I stared my adventures in overclocking. I still have a 7700K running in my kids system tha has been overclocked to the wazoo and now undercloked and it has never missed a beat...that also includes the 8700K, 10700K and now the 13700K and this is where proper stability testing comes in...Oh and I also have a 5800X3d system which also has been played around with not missing a beat though early on it was a bit finicky with memory...

One more line to add, all the manufacturers are terrible with thier marketing double speak and outright BS and that inlcudes AMD, Intel and Nvidia so I do not buy based on brand but just what suits my budget for my use case as I know there are only in it for the shareholders and it seems to be getting worse for us the consumer as the years progress..

 

[BoggledBeagle]

Lets say the CPU becomes fully stable at 1.05V and it would be "perfectly fine" to ship it with 1.1V. They will ship it with 1.20V or even 1.25V which will hurt them pretty badly in performance and benchmarks and review charts positions just because there are good reasons to do so.

I am just watching two nice australian gentemen building two white PCs and they are testing 7800X3D in Cinebench R24, it runs under 360 AIO with 75W power draw 75°C hot. I just tested my 14900K and it runs with 150W power draw and with a $40 little air cooler on it 66°C cool. With 75W limit it runs at 48°C. It runs stock voltage, not undervolted. Just a remark to highlight one advantage of the 14900K - it is easy to cool. I almost wrote one and only...

 

[evernessince]

I do not agree with the TLDR and I also have no idea what is wrong with the opening post?

And thus the reason why the mods should have closed this discussion pages ago.

You aren't just arguing that the some YouTube videos put Intel in a bad light, you fundamentally refuse to acknowledge that the 7800X3D is a more efficient CPU despite that position being contrary to every existing review and bit of data we have while providing nothing more than 1 line denials as replies. Textbook trolling.

 

[BoggledBeagle]

you fundamentally refuse to acknowledge that the 7800X3D is a more efficient CPU despite that position being contrary to every existing review

Are you kidding? Have you read this thread? Can you quote anything I wrote that supports your claim? Because I multiple times wrote things which are in direct oposition to your claim.

 

[A Computer Guy]

I can't argue with that. One of the reasons I haven't jumped to 7950x is the higher power usage. I'll just sip power with my 5950x for awhile longer until dual CCD X3D chips come out.

Well after reading this linked post below I may have to eat my words from my prior quoted post and rethink my reasoning about not going to 7950x based on power usage.

The REAL performance difference between the 7950X and 5950X

For those of you wondering if they should get a 7000 series vs a 5000 series AMD CPU, let me show you the following that may make your choice a bit easier. Let's face it, the Tech Media/YouTubers have shown themselves to be as useful as a chocolate teapot when it comes to reviewing Ryzen from...

community.amd.com

The only reason I come back to mention this (other than potentially extending this thread to page 15 ) is it made me rethink the argument and presentation of facts regarding power efficiency. Currently my stance after reading this entire thread that 7800X3D is a more efficient CPU for gaming. I can't believe anything will change my mind at this point but I would like to see those still arguing on the Intel side 14900K to put together the same kind of presentation if possible as the OP in the link above did between 7950x and 5950x. I think the format paints a clearer picture for comparison in terms of voltage, clockspeed, and power.

 

[rv8000]

I mean, why does the 7700X need to run at 1.4 V to achieve a max boost of 5.4 GHz, when the 7800X3D can do 5.05 GHz at 1.1 V? Are the 7700X's clock bins so far up into diminishing returns territory, or is it just unreasonably overvolted by default? Does the chip actually need so much voltage for so little difference in clock speed compared to the X3D?

None of that is really a mystery though. It’s all down to binning. Both Intel and AMD will test for what, on average, is required to hit performance or clock targets.

3Dvcache and the nature of its implementation artificially limit voltage due to heat, so they will in a similar fashion get binned just like any other CPU.

 

[BoggledBeagle]

Well after reading this linked post below I may have to eat my words from my prior quoted post and rethink my reasoning about not going to 7950x based on power usage.

The REAL performance difference between the 7950X and 5950X

For those of you wondering if they should get a 7000 series vs a 5000 series AMD CPU, let me show you the following that may make your choice a bit easier. Let's face it, the Tech Media/YouTubers have shown themselves to be as useful as a chocolate teapot when it comes to reviewing Ryzen from...

community.amd.com

The only reason I come back to mention this (other than potentially extending this thread to page 15 ) is it made me rethink the argument and presentation of facts regarding power efficiency. Currently my stance after reading this entire thread that 7800X3D is a more efficient CPU for gaming. I can't believe anything will change my mind at this point but I would like to see those still arguing on the Intel side 14900K to put together the same kind of presentation if possible as the OP in the link above did between 7950x and 5950x. I think the format paints a clearer picture for comparison in terms of voltage, clockspeed, and power.

Person in the link writes:

3) CPU Wattage
7950X at 4.115 GHz 54 Watts
7950X at 5.35 GHz 177 Watts
For the performance increase it uses 321% more power

Difference in CBR23 score
7950X at 4.115 GHz 31,108
7950X at 5.35 GHz 40,210
The score increase is 29.2%

which illustrates dramatic changes in power draw and energy efficiency at different frequencies.

I already wrote at least five times in this thread than Intel runs the CPUs too fast which has HUGE impact on efficiency.
I already wrote that the fundamental energy efficiency disadvanteage of Intel stemming from the technology they use is approx. 30%.
If you run the disadvantaged CPU at breakneck speed and the CPU with advantage at modest speed, you get a dramatic difference in efficiency.

I and others also argued multiple times why 7800X3D is not really comparable with 14900K.

I would gladly perform some comparison tests is somebody lent me a 7950X system, and that will not happen. I have also a weak graphic card and I am not well equipped to test gaming performance. So I unfortunately cannot provide any such kind of presentation.

 

[A Computer Guy]

Person in the link writes:

3) CPU Wattage
7950X at 4.115 GHz 54 Watts
7950X at 5.35 GHz 177 Watts
For the performance increase it uses 321% more power

Difference in CBR23 score
7950X at 4.115 GHz 31,108
7950X at 5.35 GHz 40,210
The score increase is 29.2%

which illustrates dramatic changes in power draw and energy efficiency at different frequencies.

I already wrote at least five times in this thread than Intel runs the CPUs too fast which has HUGE impact on efficiency.
I already wrote that the fundamental energy efficiency disadvanteage of Intel stemming from the technology they use is approx. 30%.
If you run the disadvantaged CPU at breakneck speed and the CPU with advantage at modest speed, you get a dramatic difference in efficiency.

I and others also argued multiple times why 7800X3D is not really comparable with 14900K.

I would gladly perform some comparison tests is somebody lent me a 7950X system. I have also a weak graphic card and I am not well equipped to test gaming performance.

You focused on the wrong part. In the first part the OP in the link normalized the different CPU's to produce the same CB-R23 scores which is what is relevant. Sorry I should have pointed that out better.
In a similar manner for gaming you would use some game (or games) to do the same thing and take the place of CineBench
Once the CPU's are normalized to the same performance level in a given Game test you can then compare.

Person in the link writes:

Going from 7nm to 5nm with my Ryzen 5950X and Ryzen 7950X I get the following results

At the same performance level (maximum CineBench R23 score for my 5950X) I get the following:

1) CPU voltage
5950X 1.3 Volts
7950X 0.83 Volts
For the same performance vs 7nm the 5nm uses 63% of the Voltage (or rather the 5950X uses 56.6% more Voltage)

2) CPU Clockspeed
5950X 4.675 GHz
7950X 4.115 GHz
For the same performance vs 7nm the 5nm needs 89.2% of the clockspeed (or rather the 5950X needs 12.7% more Clockspeed)

3) CPU Wattage
5950X 180 Watts
7950X 54 Watts
For the same performance vs 7nm the 5nm uses 30% of the Power (or rather the 5950X needs 333% more Power).

 

[BoggledBeagle]

You focused on the wrong part. In the first part the OP in the link normalized the different CPU's to produce the same CB-R23 scores which is what is relevant. Sorry I should have pointed that out better.
In a similar manner for gaming you would use some game (or games) to do the same thing and take the place of CineBench
Once the CPU's are normalized to the same performance level in a given Game test you can then compare.

Well, somebody of course could test what frequency 7950X and 14900K require to reach say 100 fps in some game (while being CPU limited), at what frequency they run and what power they draw.

Or 7800X vs 14600K.

Intel has nothing to compete with 3D CPUs from AMD. I already wrote earlier that they lost this battle now and that they did not even try to compete, e.g. by making a 10 P-core CPU with enlarged cache.