Been away from PC gaming, a bit lost...

[#22]

You are making the assumption that future games benefit more from the extra cores over the extra cache. It's important to note that we are talking about e-cores to boot here, not regular cores.

I don't believe anyone here can make that call on which will be better in the future. It could very well be that future games want more cache and thus the 7800X3D pulls further ahead.

We already know that games tend to need more and more multicore performance. Cache is also beneficial, but it don't know how it could make up lack of multicore performance, so I wouldn't mix both here. One thing is sure - 7800X3D will lack multicore performance sooner than 13/14th gen i7.

And btw and to be clear: by "13700" and "14700" I meant their whole families, so multiple models differing with letters. Prices of them are always a mess, so man can find e.g. K chip cheaper than KF.

Mind you I wouldn't necessarily want a 13700 or 14700 in a future where games require more cores because they are very inefficient at higher loads. The best case scenario for the Intel CPUs has them dumping even more heat into your room than they do currently as compared to the 7800X3D which will still be efficiently sipping power. Worse case for the Intel CPUs they still consume more power and are slower.

If you want to look at history as a teacher look at the 5775C, Intel's last big cache CPU. That CPU aged very well and I'd expect the same for the X3D parts.

You are right with the heat and it sucks - I know from my experience of owning even worse offenders But I don't know if OP cares.

 

[Kapone33]

There is still worth considering choice between going AM5 or 1700. It's expectations of CPU longevity, potentially determined by finances. If somebody is likely to sit on chosen CPU for longer, like around five years, I would definitely go similarly priced 13700 or 14700 instead 7800X3D. Reason are games demanding more and more multicore performance and short here 7800X3D will age like milk in this regard. When OP being fine with only 60 fps increases time any CPU would give him satisfying performance. Today it will be few exceptions of games dropping below 60 fps on five years old, fast CPUs like 9900K. Option to upgrade platform with some future chip in not sensible point against for few reasons, but already said one finishing such discussions are longevity expectations.

The problem with that is if you get 7800X3D today you are free 5 years from now to get whatever AMD released in 2025 and beyond. We have no idea what can come down between now and then. The raw truth of it is that right now AMD are objectively better than Intel for a new build with the announcement of Z890. With MBs costing north of $500 for a really flexible board buying today to have just a CPU choice for a few generations makes objective sense. I saw the comment about sub timings for X3D. I guess I am going to have to buy some 6000 Mt/s sticks as my 5200 Mt/s have been serving me just fine. Expo and forget it. Make sure you use the first Expo profile. If you pick the 2nd one the CPU does memory training every boot.

We are also at the start of storage improvement as well with 2nd Gen 5.0 drives hitting 14 GB/s in benchmarks. Having fast storage and the opportunity for lot's of it is why people buy X670E boards but there are some expensive B650E boards that are pretty good.

 

[dgianstefani]

We already know that games tend to need more and more multicore performance. Cache is also beneficial, but it don't know how it could make up lack of multicore performance, so I wouldn't mix both here. One thing is sure - 7800X3D will lack multicore performance sooner than 13/14th gen i7.

And btw and to be clear: by "13700" and "14700" I meant their whole families, so multiple models differing with letters. Prices of them are always a mess, so man can find e.g. K chip cheaper than KF.



You are right with the heat and it sucks - I know from my experience of owning even worse offenders But I don't know if OP cares.

Besides, most benchmarks are done with the (offline) game running and pretty much nothing else.

Perks of the E cores (which do not lower performance except in edge cases with very old games for instance, but this is easily worked around) are that you can put every single background task on them, discord, browsers, messaging, steam, etc. Have all the P cores purely for gaming or foreground tasks.

Software isn't exactly getting less bloated as time goes on, Windows 11 and all the AI crap is testament to that.

The problem with that is if you get 7800X3D today you are free 5 years from now to get whatever AMD released in 2025 and beyond. We have no idea what can come down between now and then. The raw truth of it is that right now AMD are objectively better than Intel for a new build with the announcement of Z890. With MBs costing north of $500 for a really flexible board buying today to have just a CPU choice for a few generations makes objective sense. I saw the comment about sub timings for X3D. I guess I am going to have to buy some 6000 Mt/s sticks as my 5200 Mt/s have been serving me just fine. Expo and forget it. Make sure you use the first Expo profile. If you pick the 2nd one the CPU does memory training every boot.

We are also at the start of storage improvement as well with 2nd Gen 5.0 drives hitting 14 GB/s in benchmarks. Having fast storage and the opportunity for lot's of it is why people buy X670E boards but there are some expensive B650E boards that are pretty good.

14 GB gen 5 drives are borderline useless sidegrades that are money sinks. 1-2% real world speed improvement over Gen 4 drives, for the cost of a huge heatsink, almost double the $/GB etc.

Go Optane if you want speed, otherwise something like a SN770 or a Samsung 990 is just fine. NAND flash really hasn't advanced much except for capacity.

Check out W1zzard's SSD reviews if you do not believe me.

 

[Kapone33]

Besides, most benchmarks are done with the (offline) game running and pretty much nothing else.

Perks of the E cores (which do not lower performance except in edge cases with very old games for instance, but this is easily worked around) are that you can put every single background task on them, discord, browsers, messaging, steam, etc. Have all the P cores purely for gaming or foreground tasks.

Software isn't exactly getting less bloated as time goes on, Windows 11 and all the AI crap is testament to that.

So while I am running around in Helldivers2 I want to read my TW discord? You make it seem like today's CPU offerings are meh. We are in the middle of a CPU War and they are all trying very hard. There are things that any CPU with at least 8/16 threads can do just fine without a bottle neck. Assigning cores to tasks so that those E cores take 5-10 seconds longer to load my browser. No thanks. It is is probably why you have a 7800X3D, even though you like to bash AMD.

F me we are trying so hard highend 14th gen parts are unstable enough to have official responses from those Companies involved.

 

[dgianstefani]

So while I am running around in Helldivers2 I want to read my TW discord? You make it seem like today's CPU offerings are meh. We are in the middle of a CPU War and they are all trying very hard. There are things that any CPU with at least 8/16 threads can do just fine without a bottle neck. Assigning cores to tasks so that those E cores take 5-10 seconds longer to load my browser. No thanks. It is is probably why you have a 7800X3D, even though you like to bash AMD.

F me we are trying so hard highend 14th gen parts are unstable enough to have official responses from those Companies involved.

My dude motherboard manufacturers hallucinating absurd "AI boosted" or whatever stock power settings/voltages is one thing, saying "Intel parts are unstable" is another. Please don't project onto me, thanks. I write what I do, and it's clear, no need for a poor 3rd party interpretation.

Arguing about what CPU brand is best for gaming when OP plays at 60 FPS is pretty moot. Get the one with more ST/MT perf for the same price, he might as well benefit from good application performance if he decides to do any work.

 

[Kapone33]

My dude motherboard manufacturers hallucinating absurd "AI boosted" or whatever stock power settings/voltages has nothing to do with Intel. Please don't project onto me, thanks. I say what I've said, and it's clear, no need for a poor interpretation.

Who is the fan boy now. Would you agree that we don't or can't OC our CPUs anymore because they come from the factory turned up to 11?

 

[#22]

The problem with that is if you get 7800X3D today you are free 5 years from now to get whatever AMD released in 2025 and beyond. We have no idea what can come down between now and then. The raw truth of it is that right now AMD are objectively better than Intel for a new build with the announcement of Z890. With MBs costing north of $500 for a really flexible board buying today to have just a CPU choice for a few generations makes objective sense. I saw the comment about sub timings for X3D. I guess I am going to have to buy some 6000 Mt/s sticks as my 5200 Mt/s have been serving me just fine. Expo and forget it. Make sure you use the first Expo profile. If you pick the 2nd one the CPU does memory training every boot.

We are also at the start of storage improvement as well with 2nd Gen 5.0 drives hitting 14 GB/s in benchmarks. Having fast storage and the opportunity for lot's of it is why people buy X670E boards but there are some expensive B650E boards that are pretty good.

You don't know what will land on AM5. It may disappoint and worse scenarios are ones more likely to happen. Plus option to swap CPU after many years for one then few years old may not happen that convincing. Yeah, it's cheaper than buying new CPU and new platform, but it's spending on weaker CPU, so smaller upgrade and one needing replacement sooner.

 

[Kapone33]

You don't know what will land on AM5. It may disappoint and worse scenarios are ones more likely to happen. Plus option to swap CPU after many years for one then few years old may not happen that convincing. Yeah, it's cheaper than buying new CPU and new platform, but it's spending on weaker CPU, so smaller upgrade and one needing replacement sooner.

Well I use past experience so. Ryzen is truly a Phoenix for AMD. Every generation of AM4 came with IPC or Clock improvements so that a 5600 would actually trounce a 1700x today. I expect that AMD know what they are doing with CPUs.

Just look at anyone that is on AM4 and has updated to the 5800X3D for Gaming.

 

[#22]

Well I use past experience so. Ryzen is truly a Phoenix for AMD. Every generation of AM4 came with IPC or Clock improvements so that a 5600 would actually trounce a 1700x today. I expect that AMD know what they are doing with CPUs.

Would you suspect AM5 bringing generational uplifts similar to AM4? And it supporting that many generations?

 

[Kapone33]

Would you suspect AM5 bringing generational uplifts similar to AM4? And it supporting that many generations?

That is exactly what they said. F me they still support AM4 witrh XT CPUs coming or already out. Even the 5700X3D proves AMD is dedicated to their platform longevity.

 

[evernessince]

Funnily enough, besides the X3D chips or the non X AMD chips (equivalent to non K Intel chips), most 14th gen Intel chips actually run cooler.

That depends if you mean under full load or just gaming because the Intel CPUs are absolutely hotter under full load (assuming you don't have them power limited of course).

It's more like some of the Intel CPUs are cooler than some of the AMD CPUs in select scenarios, it's a lot more nuanced than you imply.

Mind most of the Intel CPUs are less power efficient (particularly towards the high-end) and as a result output more heat.

You're making a lot of assumptions about what OP wants or what is relevant. How do you know he's "just trying to get his feet planted in gaming"? AFAIK he's taken a break for three years.

Everyone here is making a lot of assumptions here including yourself and that's down to the fact that the OP never stated their exact use case / desired performance. I specifically mention in my comment where I do make an assumption. Not a single person asked the use case or desired performance before my comment.

As someone who owns Zen 4 X3D, RAM subtiming tuning is one of the most time intensive tasks that exist.

It can be but you are excluding the fact that motherboards have built in tuning profiles. Mine for example you can change sub-timings between basic, performance, and competitive. People who want to spend the extra time for tuning like me and you can but someone doesn't have to.

In certain RAM reviews testing quick OC (set higher MT with stock timings), depending on the game and resolution, @ir_cow has seen 10-30% improvements in FPS, so it's not the simple 0-3% you'd like to throw around.

10-30% is without a doubt a great example of cherry-picking, it doesn't remotely represent what one should expect to gain performance wise of going from 6000 to 7200. You don't gain anywhere near that level of performance from upgrading from a gen old CPU, let alone tuning the RAM.

My number was an average, to present a complete picture of the data and not just one off instances.

Game benchmarks are also done with a 4090 and 14900K/7800X3D, which is what my 0-3% figure accounted for. OP is not running the absolute top of the line and therefore any minute RAM benefits they may have gotten are further reduced.

We already know that games tend to need more and more multicore performance. Cache is also beneficial, but it don't know how it could make up lack of multicore performance, so I wouldn't mix both here. One thing is sure - 7800X3D will lack multicore performance sooner than 13/14th gen i7.

There's no basis for that conclusion. The cache could very well allow the AMD to keep it's cores feed better into the future allowing them to complete more work overall in games than the Intel CPU.

A good example of cores not always being the end all be all is the FX CPUs. More cores but they were completely underfed and as a result additional gaming performance never materialized as a result of those cores.

There are a lot of factors that can impact performance outside of core count, it's impossible to say more cores = better future performance.

Besides, most benchmarks are done with the (offline) game running and pretty much nothing else.

Perks of the E cores (which do not lower performance except in edge cases with very old games for instance, but this is easily worked around) are that you can put every single background task on them, discord, browsers, messaging, steam, etc. Have all the P cores purely for gaming or foreground tasks.

Software isn't exactly getting less bloated as time goes on, Windows 11 and all the AI crap is testament to that.

That's not a perk of e-cores, that's a perk everyone with a 6-core CPU or greater has had for a long time now.

What have I been doing all this time running a 24/7 AV1 handbrake encode (which jumps between 30-70% CPU usage by itself) while playing games buttery smooth on my 7800X3D then? Discord, steam, and everything else in the background to boot.

Would you suspect AM5 bringing generational uplifts similar to AM4? And it supporting that many generations?

Generational uplifts yes. Supporting it for as many generations as AM4? Not sure, AMD has stated that it'll get support through 2025 (so until end of 2025). This means that AM5 will almost certainly include Zen 5 as well. That's 3 full generations but technically AM4 had 4 generations, one of them being Zen+ which was only a refinement. A 4rth gen on AM5 would not be guaranteed.

 

[dgianstefani]

That depends if you mean under full load or just gaming because the Intel CPUs are absolutely hotter under full load (assuming you don't have them power limited of course).

It's more like some of the Intel CPUs are cooler than some of the AMD CPUs in select scenarios, it's a lot more nuanced than you imply.

Mind most of the Intel CPUs are less power efficient (particularly towards the high-end) and as a result output more heat.

It's not exactly surprising a CPU with more than twice the cores (also offering twice the MT performance) outputs more heat under 100% synthetic load... Comparing a 7800X3D to a 14700K here, when tested with a U14S, an 11 year old CPU cooler. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/noctua-nh-u14s/. With something like a D15/U12A or comparable modern coolers, it runs about 5 C cooler, whereas the 7800X3D doesn't improve that much with better cooling as it's a 50-70 W CPU, where the IHS and small physical size of the CCD is the bottleneck.

Taking that into account though, it runs 1-2 C warmer under 100% synthetic MT load than a 7950/7900X, temperature wise is practically identical to a 7900X in gaming, and is 15 C cooler than a 7950X in gaming, and 15C warmer than a 7800X3D in gaming, both CPUs it offers comparable performance to (in gaming, for applications that can use MT it's twice as fast as a 7800X3D).

Oh, the 7800X3D is a whole 4% faster than the 14700K in singleplayer offline games, or ~7 FPS at 1440p. Not great value considering it's half as fast for MT applications that can use n cores.

For CPUs actually comparable to the 14700K in gaming/productivity, e.g. 7900X/7950X/X3D versions of those, the 14700K is actually slightly faster in gaming. So it's really not the 7800X3D that the 14700K competes with, it's those CPUs.

 

[#22]

That is exactly what they said. F me they still support AM4 witrh XT CPUs coming or already out. Even the 5700X3D proves AMD is dedicated to their platform longevity.

I asked you question not making more sense than showing your optimistic answer. Mine simply would be pessimistic and time will tell who was closer.

Summing up 7800X3D to something more useful to OP, I find it great CPU for two groups: ones playing games where it's really faster, not like usual and negligible 15%. Where it really kills Intels with like 40% lead. If I recal e.g. some sims like Corsa. Or enthusiast simply wanting the fastest and not expecting longevity. Both groups are minority and that's my take on "best gaming CPU".

There's no basis for that conclusion. The cache could very well allow the AMD to keep it's cores feed better into the future allowing them to complete more work overall in games than the Intel CPU.

A good example of cores not always being the end all be all is the FX CPUs. More cores but they were completely underfed and as a result additional gaming performance never materialized as a result of those cores.

There are a lot of factors that can impact performance outside of core count, it's impossible to say more cores = better future performance.


Generational uplifts yes. Supporting it for as many generations as AM4? Not sure, AMD has stated that it'll get support through 2025 (so until end of 2025). This means that AM5 will almost certainly include Zen 5 as well. That's 3 full generations but technically AM4 had 4 generations, one of them being Zen+ which was only a refinement. A 4rth gen on AM5 would not be guaranteed.

Here you came to territory of braking the logic, assuming what will happen, giving bad examples and - what's worse - saying I said things I didn't say. So rather deservedly end of discussion with you

 

[dgianstefani]

I asked you question not making more sense than showing your optimistic answer. Mine simply would be pessimistic and time will tell who was closer.

Summing up 7800X3D to something more useful to OP, I find it great CPU for two groups: ones playing games where it's really faster, not like usual and negligible 15%. Where it really kills Intels with like 40% lead. If I recal e.g. some sims like Corsa. Or enthusiast simply wanting the fastest and not expecting longevity. Both groups are minority and that's my take on "best gaming CPU".

Yeah 7800X3D is pretty solid if all you do is game, especially if you don't really know much about PCs, as it's fairly set and forget, low MT RAM, no real need to spend anything on cooling etc. AM5 had a very rocky first year though, so the advice to skip the first gen of Zen CPUs on a new socket still seems to be holding, at least if you purchase within the first year, buying Zen 4 right now it's pretty stable and mature, though still some niggling issues occasionally. The Zen 1 chips weren't perfect either, they started to get really good around Zen 3. My Intel systems have been rock solid, except for a 8350u old laptop that has some issues, but I put that down to being a laptop and having almost zero end user configurability or control over things like power delivery/cooling etc.

Something like a 14700/14900 is pretty good option for "best all rounder" as it can game and do productivity, but is monolithic and has hardware scheduling, so doesn't have the downsides of the dual CCD Zen chips.

The Intel halo options it's worth checking that the motherboard hasn't set idiot voltage/wattage/turbo time duration etc. values in an effort to squeeze 1% performance out of the box though to look better in techtuber motherboard "review" roundups. Manual tune or Intel spec values and it's good to go. For anything not a xx900K/KS though you don't even have to check that.

My policy of manually setting voltages and timings and clocks on both Intel/AMD has served me well to date, even if I'm not overclocking, doubt I'll ever change that.

 

[64K]

Now that a 14700k has entered the discussion, I'll just throw this out there. It's Amazon US. Not sure about pricing in EU.

i7 14700k $400
78003DX $280

Seems to me the 78003DX is definitely the better choice for gaming and even cheaper than the 14600k

 

[dgianstefani]

Now that a 14700k has entered the discussion, I'll just throw this out there. It's Amazon US. Not sure about pricing in EU.

i7 14700k $400
78003DX $280

Seems to me the 78003DX is definitely the better choice for gaming and even cheaper than the 14600k

Motherboard costs. Filter - 5 star rating, top tier chipsets. I've included B650E since that's still pretty good, despite X670E technically being the top chipset.

Vs.

This is EU- Portugal pricing, e.g. where OP lives.

Asrock PG lightning literally 110 euros more for the AM5 version. Both DDR5 boards.

 

[wheresmycar]

Op,

I'm of the opinion you might want to spend a little more on the GPU-side. The 4070 SUPER is a bit of a skimped debacle from Nvidia, more of a 60-class GPU dressed as 70-class. Nvidia eventually dropped a more worthier 70-class contender with the later released 4070 TI SUPER which IMO is better suited for 1440p gaming or in the least will age better. This largely depends on the type of games you play and your preferred quality settings. If you're aiming at some of the more graphics demanding AAA stuff with cranked up high/ultra/epic configs or any graphics-intensive game, i'd prioritise banking on a superior performing GPU first paired with a more affordable platform package. At 1440p you're more-so GPU-bound and newer games are giving GPUs a run for the money with CPUs playing catch-up. If you're playing less demanding titles or games which are predominately CPU-bound regardless of resolution, no doubt your best bet would be to go AM5 with a 7800X3D. Otherwise, i'd bag the most affordable solution even with a 6-core processor (Ryzen 7600/12600K/13600K) and push on the best GPU your budget can buy.

Generally speaking, i'm also backing AM5 this time around. Simply more on offer with AMD for gaming ~ faster and more efficient processor, X3D cache is an absolute beast with significant performance uplift in CPU-bound titles (or select titles), platform forward Gen support is always a preferred option for me and you don't need to spend much on cooling to tame these 6/8 core Zen4 CPUs.

 

[DiogoCDS19]

I mostly want to play games (1440p 60fps and I'm good) the usual internet browsing, some excel sheets (nothing crazy) and that's it.

I know that something new might be around the corner, but that is what always happens

The budget I set is based on what I think would be OK for a nice gaming pc.
After this I'm not planning to upgrade any time soon, maybe in 3 years or more.

My last build is still on my System Specs, at that time it was great but I don't think i've ever spent this amount (2200€), at least upfront.
I do remember that when I bought the 980TI it cost me around 800€

You guys make this so hard to decide

I missed this. Thanks!

 

[Why_Me]

@DiogoCDS19 here's a AMD version of that build I posted earlier. It's 32 euro over your budget. You can delete that 140mm ARGB fan to lower the price.

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: *AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D 4.2 GHz 8-Core Processor (€379.89 @ Switch Technology)
CPU Cooler: *Deepcool LS720 SE WH 85.85 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler (€106.90 @ Switch Technology)
Motherboard: *Asus ROG STRIX B650-A GAMING WIFI ATX AM5 Motherboard (€264.90 @ Globaldata)
Memory: *TEAMGROUP T-Force Delta RGB 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR5-6000 CL30 Memory (€136.50 @ Switch Technology)
Storage: *TEAMGROUP MP44L 2 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive (€134.90 @ Switch Technology)
Video Card: *Zotac GAMING Trinity OC GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER 16 GB Video Card (€938.90 @ Globaldata)
Case: *Lian Li LANCOOL 216 ATX Mid Tower Case (€114.89 @ Switch Technology)
Power Supply: *MSI MAG A850GL PCIE5 850 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply (€127.90 @ Switch Technology)
Case Fan: *Lian Li UNI FAN SL V2 77.6 CFM 140 mm Fan (€27.90 @ Império Multimédia)
Total: €2232.68
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
*Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria
Generated by PCPartPicker 2024-05-22 18:23 WEST+0100

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I mostly want to play games (1440p 60fps and I'm good) the usual internet browsing, some excel sheets (nothing crazy) and that's it.

I know that something new might be around the corner, but that is what always happens

The budget I set is based on what I think would be OK for a nice gaming pc.
After this I'm not planning to upgrade any time soon, maybe in 3 years or more.

My last build is still on my System Specs, at that time it was great but I don't think i've ever spent this amount (2000€), at least upfront.
I do remember that when I bought the 980TI it cost me around 800€

You guys make this so hard to decide

I missed this. Thanks!

You can't really go wrong with either choice both have different pro/cons. I would def be grabbing a 7800X3D if I was getting a cpu right now for gaming but I doubt I would notice a difference with a 14700K the tipping point for me is 14th gen is on a dead socked the 7800X3D is not if I was dead set on going intel I would wait till whatever comes out next as I wouldn't want to drop 2k on a system with no upgrade path but that is just me.

 

[evernessince]

I mostly want to play games (1440p 60fps and I'm good) the usual internet browsing, some excel sheets (nothing crazy) and that's it.

I know that something new might be around the corner, but that is what always happens

The budget I set is based on what I think would be OK for a nice gaming pc.
After this I'm not planning to upgrade any time soon, maybe in 3 years or more.

My last build is still on my System Specs, at that time it was great but I don't think i've ever spent this amount (2000€), at least upfront.
I do remember that when I bought the 980TI it cost me around 800€

You guys make this so hard to decide

I missed this. Thanks!

I think for your goals the system you put together is pretty good performance wise. I would just swap out the AIO with one of the options linked above.

As wheresmycar pointed out you could maybe allocate more towards the GPU as that will make the system last a bit longer but not sure if the budget allows.

AMD and Intel are both going to give you good performance, it's just that people think AMD has the edge for the reasons stated. I don't want you to think that Intel is a bad choice here, you'll still have a great system regardless.

Do you happen to use Ray Tracing or any of the other Nvidia features (DLSS, CUDA)? An AMD video card might make sense if you don't. The extra VRAM might help if you plan on keeping it awhile. Do note that an AMD card will consume more power though, so that's a factor you have to consider.

 

[Vario]

I would also advocate for the 7800X3D, clear choice for gaming CPU right now. The videocard is more important than CPU though.

 

[MasterInvader]

Just pick this one from PcDiga ; PCDIGA Gaming GML-CR77VL3

It´s less money then your original quote, 1899€ (Tax/VAT, shipping all include).
Sure the MB it´s a little "crappy" and CL30 6400mhz RAM would be better, but you still have some margin to upgrade the MB better later on, or just get the system, sell the MB/RAM on OLX (used market) and get a better one.

Full specs for the ones who don't understand Portuguese;

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Cooler: Corsair iCUE H150i Elite
Case: Corsair iCue 5000D
MB: MSI B650 Gaming Plus WiFi
GPU: XFX Radeon 7900 XT 20GB
RAM: Corsair Vengeance RGB (AMD Expo) 32GB (2x16GB) DDR5-6000MHz CL36
Storage: SSD M.2 2280 WD_Black SN770 2TB
PSU: Corsair RMe Series RM850e

2 years full warranty from the best PC parts store in Portugal.

 

[Kapone33]

It's not exactly surprising a CPU with more than twice the cores (also offering twice the MT performance) outputs more heat under 100% synthetic load... Comparing a 7800X3D to a 14700K here, when tested with a U14S, an 11 year old CPU cooler. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/noctua-nh-u14s/. With something like a D15/U12A or comparable modern coolers, it runs about 5 C cooler, whereas the 7800X3D doesn't improve that much with better cooling as it's a 50-70 W CPU, where the IHS and small physical size of the CCD is the bottleneck.

Taking that into account though, it runs 1-2 C warmer under 100% synthetic MT load than a 7950/7900X, temperature wise is practically identical to a 7900X in gaming, and is 15 C cooler than a 7950X in gaming, and 15C warmer than a 7800X3D in gaming, both CPUs it offers comparable performance to (in gaming, for applications that can use MT it's twice as fast as a 7800X3D).


View attachment 348418View attachment 348420View attachment 348419

Oh, the 7800X3D is a whole 4% faster than the 14700K in singleplayer offline games, or ~7 FPS at 1440p. Not great value considering it's half as fast for MT applications that can use n cores.

For CPUs actually comparable to the 14700K in gaming/productivity, e.g. 7900X/7950X/X3D versions of those, the 14700K is actually slightly faster in gaming. So it's really not the 7800X3D that the 14700K competes with, it's those CPUs.

View attachment 348421

It's not exactly surprising a CPU with more than twice the cores (also offering twice the MT performance) outputs more heat under 100% synthetic load... Comparing a 7800X3D to a 14700K here, when tested with a U14S, an 11 year old CPU cooler. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/noctua-nh-u14s/. With something like a D15/U12A or comparable modern coolers, it runs about 5 C cooler, whereas the 7800X3D doesn't improve that much with better cooling as it's a 50-70 W CPU, where the IHS and small physical size of the CCD is the bottleneck.

Taking that into account though, it runs 1-2 C warmer under 100% synthetic MT load than a 7950/7900X, temperature wise is practically identical to a 7900X in gaming, and is 15 C cooler than a 7950X in gaming, and 15C warmer than a 7800X3D in gaming, both CPUs it offers comparable performance to (in gaming, for applications that can use MT it's twice as fast as a 7800X3D).


View attachment 348418View attachment 348420View attachment 348419

Oh, the 7800X3D is a whole 4% faster than the 14700K in singleplayer offline games, or ~7 FPS at 1440p. Not great value considering it's half as fast for MT applications that can use n cores.

For CPUs actually comparable to the 14700K in gaming/productivity, e.g. 7900X/7950X/X3D versions of those, the 14700K is actually slightly faster in gaming. So it's really not the 7800X3D that the 14700K competes with, it's those CPUs.

View attachment 348421

If you love Intel so much why are you using a 7800X3D. I notice you don't include power draw in any of these charts.

Motherboard costs. Filter - 5 star rating, top tier chipsets. I've included B650E since that's still pretty good, despite X670E technically being the top chipset.

View attachment 348423
Vs.

View attachment 348422

This is EU- Portugal pricing, e.g. where OP lives.

Asrock PG lightning literally 110 euros more for the AM5 version. Both DDR5 boards.

Again creating an illusion when X670E have way more PCie 5.0 tunneling than any Z790. I have 5.0 drive in my top M2 slot and do not lose 8 lanes from my GPU because of it. Can you say the same for Z790?

 

[dgianstefani]

If you love Intel so much why are you using a 7800X3D.

Literally because I already had an Optimus AMD waterblock so going to AM5 was a little cheaper, rather than buying new watercooling parts moving from AM4 to LGA 1700. AM5 was an experiment I learned from, Intel it is for the next build. Same goes for other professionals I know who I won't name.

But honestly, you need to stop using emotional arguments "love" "fanboy" etc. it's tedious to read and doesn't make you come off as informed.

I notice you don't include power draw in any of these charts.

Here you go. From the 7800X3D review, since you love bringing that CPU up as if it's magic.

Something you might notice is that the last gen (Alder Lake) non K parts top efficiency charts. It just so happens that TPU hasn't reviewed Raptor Lake parts that aren't K series 600K/700K/900K since they weren't sampled this time around, but has reviewed the non X AMD parts, which are equivalent, lower clocked tuned for efficiency. Hence why those SKUs along with X3D parts (similar story, undervolted underclocked, but in this case due to cache voltage sensitivity) cause AMD to look so good in "efficiency" charts (100% all core synthetic load is not a typical use case BTW).