AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D Drops to $409, to Clash with Core i7-14700K

[Tek-Check]

The problem is that for most people who focus on gaming the 7800X3D is the better overall package (cheaper, more cores with X3D, very similar core clocks on relevant CCDs) and if they are more productivity focused the 7950x can be had for a few pounds more in the UK.

I don't see any problem for anyone buying different SKUs, as soon as you are aware of your needs, the way you use PC and you have done your research. There is plenty of choices among Zen4 CPUs. Something for everyone. There is no one best solution.

- gamers with gaming rigs should absolutely buy 7800X3D. No doubt about it. The best overall gaming CPU to date, hence its great popularity.
- I am in a smaller group of users who would benefit more from 12 cores; it is the best 'compromise-CPU' for productivity and gaming together without breaking the bank on higher SKUs, plus it is more efficient than vanilla model and faster in games.
- productivity powerhouses 7950X or 7950X3D are for users who need ultimate CPU, one more, another one less energy efficient SKU to anyone's liking, plus X3D is an option for some halo gaming aside from productivity

I can see that 90-100 of 7900X3D are sold every week on Mindfactory in Germany only, so some people find it interesting. This means that thousands are sold globally every week. It is impossible to assume that all those users do not know what they are doing by buyng it. That would be an absurd idea to ponder!

I will probably upgrade to Zen5, but if I was to buy today, I'd buy 7900X3D. Why?
- 12-core CPU is a sweet spot for me
- X3D model uses less energy, so more efficiency
- 7950X is £60 more expensive, less efficient and worse in gaming
- 7950X3D is £150 more expensive; not needed for intended case use
- my favourite games, such as MSFS take a great advantage of V-cache

I really need members to open their minds and think out-of-the-box.
There is space for every SKU, for every buyer and all needs.
A good 'problem' to have.

 

[Noyand]

We can have an academic discussion about the significance of latency penalty, but it may be practically fruitless. Also, CPU workloads below clearly show the capabilities of this SKU and it's pointless to split the hair in two and speculate about separate CCDs, especially calling on 7600X.

7600X is FAR less performant and less efficient than 7900X3D. And 7900X is just a little bit faster, but less efficient too.

MT performance	Power/workload/time efficiency (Wh)	Power/workload/time efficiency (KJs)
View attachment 334774	View attachment 334775	View attachment 334776

It's more efficient because the chip as whole is running at lower clocks. Stock Ryzen X are not running at their most efficient settings, going from 125w to 230w bring marginal improvement... and the gap between 105w and 125w is again so small, you might as well run the chip at 105w. In gaming, though, the fact that the cache often trumps clock speed make X3D efficiency unmatched in that workload.

A Lighter Touch: Exploring CPU Power Scaling On Core i9-13900K and Ryzen 9 7950X

www.anandtech.com

And from computerBase :

Ryzen 9 7950X3D im Test gegen 5800X3D und 13900K(S): Leistung in Anwendungen, Einrichtung und Fazit

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D im Test: Leistung in Anwendungen, Einrichtung und Fazit / Leistung und Effizienz in Anwendungen

www.computerbase.de

More efficiently operated instead of per se more efficient​

The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D is efficient in applications, which is less due to the per se in the efficiency of the X3D model than its much more efficient operating point in a concrete comparison of the two patterns. The normal AMD Ryzen 9 7950X is simply completely exaggerated in its standard configuration, it is supposed to absorb 30 percent more energy for the last percent of its power. If it is swirled to the level of the X3D model, both CPUs take little to nothing.

 

[Tek-Check]

It's a step in the right direction for AMD to become a bit more competitive in value for dollar relative to Intel, but if anything AMD hasn't gone quite far enough. The X3D chips are popular though with gamer's that simply have pretty much one criteria of game performance don't care too much about other considerations.

Current advantage of AMD in DIY space is selling well both AM4 and AM5 platforms. Plenty of choices for all segments and price points.
So, they are as competitive as possible, hence gradually increasing market share in several segments.
Intel also has competitve options, but they are on EOL platform now, so no more upgrades on 1700 socket.

Another thing is that AMD has both gaming specialised CPUs and productivity specialised CPUs, and the mix of both. This gives them an upper hand in offering diverse products where other considerations may or may not matter. Intel still has one type of generic CPU that does everything. They are preparing a response to V-cache for 2026/27, as they too realised that they need to offer more specialised products for specific PC users.

Overall AMD's biggest issue is pricing and value for dollar. That could change with it's next architecture, but until then unless they do more aggressive price cuts on current offerings probably won't change a great deal

There is no evidence os this, quire contrary. AMD increased market share in desktop in 2023 by 1.2% (Mercury research). It's small, but this industry moves really slowly and gradually.

(14700K...) That's less than the 7800X3D with these price cuts and destroys it in MT and it's also better ST, but sure it's cache performance isn't quite as good however 7800X3D is actually the worst of the X3D chips on stacked cache amount technically speaking and frequency clocked lower in terms of binning.

14700K does NOT cost $310 anywhere with major retailers globally. What kind of nonsense is this? It's $400 and in Europe it's £390-400. Period. If you have got a deal, that's great for you and well done.

Few people care that i7 "destroys" anything. Please do not use this emotive language. 7800X3D is not "the worst". Nonsense. It's the best selling gaming CPU in the world. AMD has a jackpot with this CPU, just like they had with 5800X3D. i7 cannot compete here on value, platform upgrade and gaming speed. 7800X3D is in its own bubble of success and Intel knows this.

Besides, i7 is also, or rather, competitor of 7900X3D, and now that this CPU is £400/~$400, 12-core X3D CPU is suddently a great competitor. i7 is a bit faster in applications, but it guzzles way more power and has poor efficiency. This price drop of 7900X3D will force Intel to reduce the price of i7, which is what Intel users should keep their fingers crossed for and cheer up.

It's actually really great that CPU competition is as heated as it is between AMD and Intel. It's a fantastic time for x86 hardware really and certainly can't wait to see the progress to come in the next decade.

I agree, but next decade? Is this when you plan to upgrade next time?

Your 7900X3D is a BMW M5 Estate. A very fast car that can also carry a chest of draws. Problem is that a saloon M5 (7800X3D) is a better sports car and a 530d Estate (7950X) is better at carrying the chest of draws as you dont need to stop at every other petrol station on your journey.

To MOST people the compromises either dont make sense or dont offer enough benefits to outweigh other aspects that other "similar" priced offerings give in comparison.

Another car comparison. Oh, dear...
I hope you have read my response in #126
£400 for 7900X3D changes the landscape in this segment, as it will force on 14700K to drop the price. In return, in a few months, R9 will drop further a bit. And so on. 7800X3D, as I said, is in its gaming success bubble. There are people, like me, who need a bit more oomph than 8 cores offer, but not as much to waste money on 16 cores. The solution is 12 cores, which I also have now.

It's more efficient because the chip as whole is running at lower clocks. Stock Ryzen X are not running at their most efficient settings, going from 125w to 230w bring marginal improvement... and the gap between 105w and 125w is again so small, you might as well run the chip at 105w. In gaming, though, the fact that the cache often trumps clock speed make X3D efficiency unmatched in that workload.

I agree. That's what I reasoned in #118

 

[Scircura]

Keep in mind the 7900X3D will have higher idle power consumption due to its extra CCD. Expect it to be closer to 7950X3D than 7800X3D.

See the attachment below from Hardware Busters. It's +15-20 W idle power for that second CCD.

As dgianstefani said, if you make money from using your PC it's not something to overly concern yourself about. But if you live in an area with expensive electricity and the price cut is what sways you from the 7800X3D to 7900X3D, then the idle power cost might sway you right back.

 

[GenericNinja]

@Tek-Check In your very specific set of use cases the 7900X3D may be a better choice than a 7800X3D but in that case the 7950X3D would likely be a still better choice, it may be £150 more but do you actually have a productivity task which scales from 16 threads to 24 but not from 24 to 32? In Europe the 7950X3D seems to cost 40% more than the 7900X3D. If you assume €250 for motherboard and €125 for 32Gb DDR5 and current Mindfactory pricing for 7950X3D €579 and 7900X3D €415 then with platform 7900X3D = €790 vs 7950X3D = €954, 21 percent higher cost gets you an 8 core gaming CPU, better energy efficiency than 7900X3D, much better multicore performance, slightly better productivity single core, 33% more cores, higher resale value. Honestly with the price cut the 7900X3D isn't a terrible deal like it was previously but is still very awkwardly placed in the stack.

 

[Tek-Check]

As dgianstefani said, if you make money from using your PC it's not something to overly concern yourself about. But if you live in an area with expensive electricity and the price cut is what sways you from the 7800X3D to 7900X3D, then the idle power cost might sway you right back.

One can easily switch off one CCD when not in use, if idling usage is long and prevalent.
My 10 GbE network switch with ten ports runs 24/7 and uses similar amount of energy as idling CCD.
Not a biggie, but appreciate the feedback.

In your very specific set of use cases the 7900X3D may be a better choice than a 7800X3D but in that case the 7950X3D would likely be a still better choice, it may be £150 more but do you actually have a productivity task which scales from 16 threads to 24 but not from 24 to 32?

I do media encoding up to 4K and 12-core CPU is a sweet spot for faster completion of tasks, for example in Handbrake.

In Europe the 7950X3D seems to cost 40% more than the 7900X3D. If you assume €250 for motherboard and €125 for 32Gb DDR5 and current Mindfactory pricing for 7950X3D €579 and 7900X3D €415 then with platform 7900X3D = €790 vs 7950X3D = €954, 21 percent higher cost gets you an 8 core gaming CPU, better energy efficiency than 7900X3D, much better multicore performance, slightly better productivity single core, 33% more cores, higher resale value.

Appreciate the calculations. Think I mentioned before that I am not buying Zen 4. Do not need 16-core powerhouse. Overkill for my needs. If Zen5 is good, for example ~30% uplift, I will buy it. By the way, energy efficiency between 12-core and 16-core CPUs is on par, especially in workloads such as Handbrake (graph from Tom's Hardware review) and gaming.

Honestly with the price cut the 7900X3D isn't a terrible deal like it was previously but is still very awkwardly placed in the stack.

$410 is a good starting point. It cannot be closer to 7800X3D. Even 5900X was not that cheap after one year. Once 8-core moves down $20-30, 12-core will move too. It needs to keep minimal distance. There is nothing awkward in the stack. AMD CPUs simply compete against each other, which is good. Prices are all over the place around the world until this $200 price drop settles down across vanilla and X3D stack.
Soon, there will be 7700X3D and/or 7600X3D in the stack too, so a full stack. AMD needs time to gather enough dies that do not qualify for 7800X3D, just like they did with 5600X3D.

 

[GenericNinja]

By the way, energy efficiency between 12-core and 16-core CPUs is on par, especially in workloads such as Handbrake (graph from Tom's Hardware review) and gaming.

I didn't realize how close the Zen 4 12 / 16 CPUs were for efficiency. The 5950X is 25% more efficient than the 5900X in Blender per Gamers' Nexus 7900X3D review. The 7950X/X3D are only 2% more efficient than their 12 core counterparts in Blender. Tom's tests show Handbrake X264 is 1.25% more efficient and X265 is 3.5% more efficient. AMD is not kind in their 16 core silicon bins this generation. Interestingly the vanilla 7900 is 19% more efficient than the 7900X3D and 48% more efficient than the 7900X when all are stock.

 

[Tek-Check]

I didn't realize how close the Zen 4 12 / 16 CPUs were for efficiency. The 5950X is 25% more efficient than the 5900X in Blender per Gamers' Nexus 7900X3D review. The 7950X/X3D are only 2% more efficient than their 12 core counterparts in Blender. Tom's tests show Handbrake X264 is 1.25% more efficient and X265 is 3.5% more efficient. AMD is not kind in their 16 core silicon bins this generation. Interestingly the vanilla 7900 is 19% more efficient than the 7900X3D and 48% more efficient than the 7900X when all are stock.

Indeed. I am telling you, 12-core non-X and X3D are super cool CPUs this generation. It's just AMD is AMD. They priced 7900X3D ridiculously at the beginning (like 7900XT GPU...) and undermarketed non-X SKUs, and those 12-core went under the radar while hyping 7800X3D for the mainstream and 7950X3D for halo productivity. Most reviewers also did not make enough effort to get them and test. Bizarre on their part.

I'd even argue that 7900X3D is now better value for buck than 7800X3D because it's only £50 more expensive. It will take some mental effort from tech community to welcome this SKU back, while not exaggerating really minor issue of being 5-6% behind in gaming. Negligible, as it can be tuned by the patient.

 

[Knight47]

As someone who owns this chip I will tell you why this is better than the 7800X3D and 7950X3D. Heat output. You see the 7900X3D does not go above 80 degrees for me. That allows it to maintain a nice boost clock. I know the argument will come about it being a 6 core but that does not matter I am going to link 2 HW info screenshots.

Hey, I have a 7800X3D and I even have lower temps than you. Yours is 77.9C, mine is 72.8C and the fan on the D15S is barely spinning, my octa-core Zen2 cpu was an oven compared to this.

The reason 7900X3D would run cooler is it only needs to dissipate heat from 6 cores/CCD and since it has two of them the IHS can spread out the heat more to the heatpipes.

I don't know much more optimization multi CCD got over the past years, but on Zen2 is wasnt that great especially with RPCS3.

 

[Panther_Seraphin]

Indeed. I am telling you, 12-core non-X and X3D are super cool CPUs this generation. It's just AMD is AMD. They priced 7900X3D ridiculously at the beginning (like 7900XT GPU...) and undermarketed non-X SKUs, and those 12-core went under the radar while hyping 7800X3D for the mainstream and 7950X3D for halo productivity. Most reviewers also did not make enough effort to get them and test. Bizarre on their part.

I'd even argue that 7900X3D is now better value for buck than 7800X3D because it's only £50 more expensive. It will take some mental effort from tech community to welcome this SKU back, while not exaggerating really minor issue of being 5-6% behind in gaming. Negligible, as it can be tuned by the patient.

The 7900X3D is just that awkward offering. AMD didnt even send them out for reviews at all (Notice how TPU dont have a review on it? GN even had to buy one out of pocket for their review)

They were released at the same time as the 7950X3D so were always overshadowed yet the 7800x3d was held back purposely. Then all the issues with CCD behaviour etc became apparent so when the 7800X3D came out everyone who was concerned purely with gaming was like "If you primarily game get this one to avoid all this extra BS". Also the inital pricing was just a ????? move from AMD with a $150 gap between the 7800 and 7900 but only $100 jump up to the 7950.

The 7950X is always in the rear view mirror of what you could get in terms of productivity and it still has pretty damn good gaming performance as well with no CCD BS to deal with/tune/tweak etc. So those who go "but I do some productivty/my PC is my money maker" why didnt you go 7950X/X3D as surely the extra performance in productivity would pay itself back in very short order?

"Oh but the power consumption of X parts is insane!11!1!!111!1"
Go to BIOS enable ECO MODE set to 105 watts
Congrats you just lost ~4-8% performance but your efficency has gone up in some cases over 33%
At this point it basically performs exactly the same as the 7950X3D in productivity and efficency without the X3D benefits for gaming while being considerably cheaper.



So TL : DR
Currently in US pricing the 7900X3D makes sense in specific cases but the moment the 7950X comes down in line similar to how the UK is pricing it that argument goes out the window.
If you are heavily focused in either Productivity or gaming there are better dedicated options

 

[Tek-Check]

If you are heavily focused in either Productivity or gaming there are better dedicated options

I actually wrote about the same things you did in my previous posts and also explained reasoning and rationale.
I related to bad initial pricing, bad marketing, gaming, productivity, even indicators of market sale, etc.
If you read several previous posts, you will find it.

You just need to allow your humble mind a space for all SKUs. AMD competes against itself this gen, which is a good problem to have.
It's a niche product, I agree, and not for most people, but I hope there is a small place in your heart for this SKU to be a member of wide family, even if it's not your personal taste.

 

[gffermari]

7900X3D is the weirdest cpu but it has its purpose in the lineup.
I’m obviously one of the very few would consider buying it.

I don’t care that much about the absolute performance in games but I like the extra push from the vcache. Also I do some photogrammetry, rendering and little video editing. My 5800X3D feels slow and some times I wish I had a 5950X.
Then I play a cpu demanding game and the X3D pays itself back.
So…this Frankenstein of a cpu, the 7900X3D would be nice for me.

But as most of you have said. All the other CPUs are better for what they target.

 

[Panther_Seraphin]

I cannot see at the moment any benchmarks where V-cache itself hampers CPUs. Those applications that do not benefit from it will simply ignore it, no?

V Cache dies actually run slower than the non V Cache counterparts.

So the Turbo speeds you see on AMDs website only corresponds to the NON vcache die. 7950X and X3D both have a Turbo Speed of 5.7. However the Vcache die is actually limited to 5.2. Same story with the 7900X and X3d but its limited to 5.1 or 5.15....I cannot remember.

 

[Tek-Check]

V Cache dies actually run slower than the non V Cache counterparts.

So the Turbo speeds you see on AMDs website only corresponds to the NON vcache die. 7950X and X3D both have a Turbo Speed of 5.7. However the Vcache die is actually limited to 5.2. Same story with the 7900X and X3d but its limited to 5.1 or 5.15....I cannot remember.

Yes, I am aware of that, but does this discrepancy in clocks influence any specific applications to underperform in relation to vanilla chips?

7900X3D is the weirdest cpu but it has its purpose in the lineup.
I’m obviously one of the very few would consider buying it.

I don’t care that much about the absolute performance in games but I like the extra push from the vcache. Also I do some photogrammetry, rendering and little video editing. My 5800X3D feels slow and some times I wish I had a 5950X.
Then I play a cpu demanding game and the X3D pays itself back.
So…this Frankenstein of a cpu, the 7900X3D would be nice for me.

But as most of you have said. All the other CPUs are better for what they target.

Bingo! I am waiting for 9900X3D. Still too early for me to upgrade (on 5900X now), but 12-core X3D CPU looks really good and competitive at $400.
Other CPUs may well be 'better' at what they target, but 7900X3D targets the compromise, which is the segment on its own and no other CPU does it better.
Perfect ooomph for your video editing. 12-cores should do the job well without breaking a bank and paying extra $200 for the halo SKU.

 

[Speedyblupi]

Yes, I am aware of that, but does this discrepancy in clocks influence any specific applications to underperform in relation to vanilla chips?

Yes. In workstation applications which don't benefit significantly from increased cache capacity, but which benefit from higher boost clock frequencies across more than 8 cores.

A few random examples from Techpowerup's benchmarks of the 7950X3D - the 7950X has slightly better performance:

There are some workstation tasks which can benefit from the cache (the 7950X3D performed slightly better than the 7950X in some tests, such as data compression in 7-Zip, and all of the AI tests), but the majority of them don't, and even in those tasks which do benefit from extra cache, I'd argue that the ~3% performance difference isn't large enough to justify a ~20% price difference. The 7950X3D is only worth buying for combined gaming and workstation tasks.

 

[Tek-Check]

There are some workstation tasks which can benefit from the cache (the 7950X3D performed slightly better than the 7950X in some tests, such as data compression in 7-Zip, and all of the AI tests), but the majority of them don't, and even in those tasks which do benefit from extra cache, I'd argue that the ~3% performance difference isn't large enough to justify a ~20% price difference. The 7950X3D is only worth buying for combined gaming and workstation tasks.

1. It's a halo SKU that brings extra ~16% in gaming over vanilla CPU.
2. It uses almost 50% less power in applications, on average.

 

[Speedyblupi]

1. It's a halo SKU that brings extra ~16% in gaming over vanilla CPU.
2. It uses almost 50% less power in applications, on average.

View attachment 335325
View attachment 335326

Yeah, but so does the 7800X3D, at a lower price.

The 7900X3D does make sense for some people, but for people who prioritise gaming performance the 7800X3D is better, and for people who prioritise workstation performance the 7950X is better. For people who want a balance of gaming and workstation performance, Intel's CPUs like the i7-13700KF are also competitive. The 7900X3D exists in a "no-man's land" in the market where most people would be better off with a different CPU. It's not a fundamentally bad design, it's just not the best CPU for any significant number of people.

 

[Tek-Check]

The 7900X3D does make sense for some people, but for people who prioritise gaming performance the 7800X3D is better, and for people who prioritise workstation performance the 7950X is better. For people who want a balance of gaming and workstation performance, Intel's CPUs like the i7-13700KF are also competitive. The 7900X3D exists in a "no-man's land" in the market where most people would be better off with a different CPU. It's not a fundamentally bad design, it's just not the best CPU for any significant number of people.

Not every CPU needs to be a celebrity either. It's fine.
7900X3D now has a better price than 5900X had one year after release.

 

[Orodruin]

When the 5900X came out everyone said Wooow. 5950x was not available on the market at that time. 5900x was a very successful processor. It still is.

Now 7900X3D is out and people are saying bad for this processor. Guys, 7900x or 7900x3d is not weird, what is weird is that people look at everything as FPS. 7950X3D and 7900X3D were developed for both gamers and renderers/multitasking. Just like the 5900X and 5950X. Only people who produce content buy 7900X and 7950X. Those who make both games and content buy the 7900X3D and 7950X3D.

Those who say they want the highest FPS will buy the 7800X3D.

It's that simple. Pure segmentation.
Is there a 50-100FPS difference in FPS between 7900X3D / 7950X3D and 7800X3D? NO.
That's why all these discussions are pointless.
Whichever segment you are focusing on, buy the processor and enjoy it.

 

[Knight47]

 

[kapone32]

In this review, he claims that all of these CPUs were available at the same time. He also only uses 12 Games as a basis at 1080P. Then there are no productivity numbers.

 

[dgianstefani]

In this review, he claims that all of these CPUs were available at the same time. He also only uses 12 Games as a basis at 1080P. Then there are no productivity numbers.

But I thought the 7900X3D was faster than the 7800X3D? At least according to you.

You don't test CPUs at high resolution, because then you're actually testing the GPU.

Slowest of the three. Explains all the discounts.

Bit faster than the also six core 7600X3D but that's almost half the price.

 

[kapone32]

But I thought the 7900X3D was faster than the 7800X3D? At least according to you.

You don't test CPUs at high resolution, because then you're actually testing the GPU.

View attachment 340909

Slowest of the three. Explains all the discounts.

Bit faster than the also six core 7600X3D but that's almost half the price.

I guess you did not see that he is playing at 1080P. Indeed the 7800X3D was not faster in EVERY game. Even in that 12 Game assessment there is a Game that skews the numbers. Did he use rebar? What about Smart Access Memory? Was there a 7900XT or XTX to use? I would also argue that 1080P is no longer a viable option to compare chips when we have GPUs and that are capable of separating themselves even further at 4K based on the CPU.

Then you mention the 7600X3D and price without understanding that the chip does not exist.

You are also missing the elephant in the room. There have been recent threads wanting a 5900/5950X3D chip. Those are even some people that have 5800X3D. The smoothness of 12 cores that is the 5900X has been transitioned to the 7900X3D. Of course he did not use any other benchmarks. He even stated that all of the chips were released at the same time, so you are free to agree with him.

Regardless of how you feel 12 cores feels smoother than 8 cores on AMD when using the PC daily. These numbers are at 4K

 

[dgianstefani]

I guess you did not see that he is playing at 1080P. Indeed the 7800X3D was not faster in EVERY game. Even in that 12 Game assessment there is a Game that skews the numbers. Did he use rebar? What about Smart Access Memory? Was there a 7900XT or XTX to use? I would also argue that 1080P is no longer a viable option to compare chips when we have GPUs and that are capable of separating themselves even further at 4K based on the CPU.

Then you mention the 7600X3D and price without understanding that the chip does not exist.

You are also missing the elephant in the room. There have been recent threads wanting a 5900/5950X3D chip. Those are even some people that have 5800X3D. The smoothness of 12 cores that is the 5900X has been transitioned to the 7900X3D. Of course he did not use any other benchmarks. He even stated that all of the chips were released at the same time, so you are free to agree with him.

Regardless of how you feel 12 cores feels smoother than 8 cores on AMD when using the PC daily. These numbers are at 4K

View attachment 340912

You seriously believe that testing at 4K will separate CPUs more than at 1080p.

For those reading, this demonstrates Kapone's mindset of his "smoother" yet demonstrably slower CPU. If you feel like buying a 6+6 CPU instead of a cheaper 8+0 (7800X3D) that is faster for games, or an equivalently priced (cheaper with motherboard costs taken into account) 8+12 (i7 14700) that is the same speed in games, but faster for productivity, then I guess that is a good place to end the discussion.

 

[kapone32]

You seriously believe that testing at 4K will separate CPUs more than at 1080p.

For those reading, this demonstrates Kapone's mindset of his "smoother" yet demonstrably slower CPU. If you feel like buying a 6+6 CPU instead of a cheaper 8+0 (7800X3D) that is faster for games, or an equivalently priced (cheaper with motherboard costs taken into account) 8+12 (i7 14700) that is the same speed in games, but faster for productivity, then I guess that is a good place to end the discussion.

Let me explain it to you. AMD overlay can do the same thing as MSI afterburner. When using that I noticed that the 7900X3D feeds the GPU 3-5 more GB/s in Gaming vs a 5800X3D at 4K. Please tell me that is not going to matter at 4K. You mention the 14700 without any mention of power draw (even with E cores). No matter how you try to colour it 6+6 cores is better than you think. 5.6 GHz at 45 Watts when Gaming (some) is not a joke.

I know you can't see it but the 12 core Ryzen parts are smooth as butter and FEEL faster than their 8 core cousins in Computing. As if transistor count does not matter. If a 5900X is fast how can a 7900X3D be slow?