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

[agent_x007]

I am not sure if anyone noted that yet, but I just checked and Intel has exactly the same blurb about gaming on each of i9, i7 and i5 pages. They have no special designated "best CPU for gaming".

Intel marketing presentation "Core Tuths Q4 2023" : LINK (page 20)

^Sure they claim Esports there, but there was no other gamer-like use cases mentioned.

 

[phanbuey]

Intel marketing presentation "Core Tuths Q4 2023" : LINK (page 20)
View attachment 325540
^Sure they claim Esports there, but there was no other gamer-like use cases mentioned.

U mean like this?

Or this:

Intel marketing kind of sucks in general tho. Some poor intern made these

 

[agent_x007]

Just wanted to point out, there was a "not the same blurb" out there.

 

[DemonicRyzen666]

I saw this video

and I got a strong vibe of it not being very objective. I got even a feeling that Steve will not be proud of this video after some time passes.

If you have a product A 5% stronger in task GAM than product B, and product B 110% stronger than A in task PROD, it seems more than silly making a video bashing product B because it is 4.8% weaker than product A in GAM.

And even if you mention in that video, that B is much stronger than A in PROD, it changes little about the general meaning of the video.

I wonder what would happen if he compared 7700X with 14600K (direct price competitors) and was not shy to show all aspects of CPU performance in the same manner (graphs, etc).

(And BTW 14900K can be tuned nicely to increase power efficiency for people who value it.)

I don't like hardware unboxed myself, more like hogwash unboggled.
These are the same people who polled their audience to ask them what they valued more rasterization or raytracing & raytracing features.
The end poled shows something like 70%-80% prefer rasterization over raytracing. Then the very next month after this same pole Hardware unboxed constantly recommend any NVidia RTX card cards for "superior raytracing" & D.L.S.S features & more features than AMD's.
I honestly want to know why did they poll their audience at all then? The poll was pointless if they're going to recommend the cards that better at raytracing anyways.

This video feels like it's the same it's just there to riley everyone up about for nothing, since it won't be part of their "recommedations" anyway.

 

[AVATARAT]

I have no doubt that the second gen of AM5 chipset/motherboards will be much more mature than the first gen. I think that the last gen LGA1700 is easier go get going and more reliable than the first gen AM5 boards. I think that X670E and 7800X3D are just a prelude to what AM5 can do this year. 7800X3D is not the best thing ever, it is a worst kind of gaming CPU for AM5 socket. (I am cunningly waiting for better things to come while surviving on an adjusted 14900K)

You can't understand why 7800X3D is better - right?

Because you can't build an Intel system for the same price that can beat 7800X3D (in gaming), without touching anything except XMP/Expo - so everyone who doesn't know anything about PC tuning can use it - say that this is a new kind of Console.
And Intel doesn't have anything close to that.

Tuned Intel 14700k/14900k offers a better overall experience, but the price for that is bigger.
And see, not everyone but a small amount of people will want that kind of performance that Intel offers and will want to throw the money for that.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I would say do not buy such a CPU at all for anything, unless you know what is happening and how to adjust it. The only CPU which I could recomment to somebody, who will leave it as is out of the box is 14600K, because it is well usable under an air cooler and 160W of max power is something that most people doing normal things will never see.

Well AMD is winning in games and Intel accepted being a bit slower with a lazy approach of not trying to compete. They could have built that 10 P core chip with larger cache I mentioned earlier. I think that having problems and being lazy in the same time cannot have any positive impact.

I'm afraid they couldn't, numerous reasons, but let's be real, this "14th Gen" problem is precisely the quotes: it is completely unchanged from the existing 13th Gen processor and as such, it fails to meet a generational expectation. If they called them i5-13650K, i7-13750K and i9-13950K, and extended APO support to all existing chips, and keeping the prices that they are currently charging on these "14th Gen" chips, no one would give Intel any shit for this. Especially if the i9-13950K literally meant, in marketing speech, a discounted i9-13900KS, not that the 14900K isn't precisely that - it is, it's just that it's unworthy of being a generation.

That'd require Intel to outsource the production of their CPU's to TSMC in the first place, and also to design the silicon so the cache stacking can be applied. I'm sure AMD had TSMC telling them it was a future possibility when they first were negotiating 5000-series design and prodution.
Either that, or getting Foveros to allow a similar process.

Meteor Lake's using three different process nodes for its tiles already: Intel 4 for the CPU logic, TSMC N5 for the integrated Arc graphics, and TSMC N6 for the SoC/IO/NPU tile

 

[A Computer Guy]

So is the Core i5 the "ultimate gaming processor" now according to Intel? I think it's still the i9.

Anyway, the point is that if you want to game, then save yourself some money and power, and don't buy a Core i9. Buy a 7800X3D instead (or an i5, which I assume, the video didn't say, but is an equally valid alternative).

Alternatively you could even build a 12600k gaming rig and still have a good gaming experience because as much as CPU's are being overhyped for gaming recently the GPU choice is still king and primary factor for gaming performance.

 

[erocker]

Why only in gaming?

It's the subject of the review. For those who are looking for a CPU for gaming.

 

[SL2]

The price gap is big enough to make a real world difference for gamers.

7800X3D + 7900 XT is about as much as 14900K + 7800 XT.

And there's no need to point out that these CPU's might be overkill here, I know. It's just an example.
EDIT: Or, say, a 7800X3D + RTX 7090 TI for those who can't make up another example in their head.

If you want to talk about productivity, then choose a better source than one with zero productivity. Here's one:

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

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

www.techpowerup.com

Isn't it a good thing to tell gamers that they don't need a $600 CPU to get the best? They don't need a CPU that uses 144 W in games, 56 W is enough? Average air cooling is enough even when gaming in a hot room?

Before you answer, would you still keep on arguing if the tables were turned, brand-wise? I know I would, I've bought both brands before.

 

[Psychoholic]

My 14900K uses around 80-90W in most games which is almost double what my 7800X3D it replaced used.
Granted mine is undervolted and power capped at 180w, neither of those matter in games though.

 

[A Computer Guy]

... 7800X3D is not the best thing ever, it is a worst kind of gaming CPU for AM5 socket. ....

I guess I can understand the former part of your statement but the latter half leaves me feeling a little disabled with the mental gymnastics required to understand how you reached that conclusion?
Specifically why is the 7800x3d the worst kind of gaming CPU for AM5 socket?

Ok so the next iteration will be better. But that also means there is a chance it will eat more power (while still being power efficient for its class) and being presumably more expensive.
In that light 7800x3d may become a gaming effective lower cost opportunity than the bleeding edge much like the 5800x3d is today. This would make it far from the worst choice however pricing is a very important factor that changes over time. Of course there is a lot of speculation in what I just wrote so take it with a grain of salt. Also x3d isn't universally boosting all games so there is that consideration. If you primarily play games that aren't well served by x3d chips then x3d isn't as good choice compared to other options depending on the price.

7800X3D is not a good universal CPU, it is special product for gaming only.

x3d cpus just happen to be great for a lot of games but it's not like you can't use it for other things.

Are you sure that first gen X670E boards will have a long upgrade path? I think that nobody wants a first gen product to hinder a performance of a whole platform for long years.

To my knowledge AM4 300/400 series boards today don't significantly hinder performance of a Zen3 cpu (for PCIe options yes but not CPU perf) so why would you expect todays AM5 socket hinder Zen5 or Zen6 series chips in the future?

If AMD find they need to brake compatibility of future CPUs with these first boards, they will do it.

Based on how they handled thread-ripper this is a risk but ultimately after being called out for their AM4 CPU compatibility shenanigans I think they learned their lesson and are committed to giving AM5 a comparable lifespan as AM4 (fingers crossed). Especially considering the generally higher AM5 motherboard costs but also generally better quality compared to the AM4 lineup as a whole so it's more prepared for future CPU's.

Yes, I believe AM5 socket will bring a lot of VERY interesting stuff in the future. I do not believe it is necessary to jump in this socket in its "prelude phase".

It's often common wisdom to skip the 1st gen of anything but also not as rewarding or punishing either.

7800X3D is like a speciality tool crafted and optimised for gaming made with a modern technology.

x3d in general I consider it somewhat a gimmick but it just happened to work at least enough to be quite impactful for gaming. Personally I think they need to expand on it to offer direct programmable access so devs can use it in creative ways to accelerate their applications or even for OS vendors to accelerate the OS with ultra low latency data.

 

[thesmokingman]

That'd require Intel to outsource the production of their CPU's to TSMC in the first place, and also to design the silicon so the cache stacking can be applied. I'm sure AMD had TSMC telling them it was a future possibility when they first were negotiating 5000-series design and prodution.
Either that, or getting Foveros to allow a similar process.

Intel already buys wafers from TSMC, years now.

 

[SL2]

x3d in general I consider it somewhat a gimmick

At least it takes quite some work to add that extra cache, you know what you're paying for, and you know that it's worth it, mostly because the price difference isn't that big to begin with.

Now if there's something called a gimmick out there it's -KS. Binned and factory overclocked. Impressive.

 

[Dr. Dro]

The price gap is big enough to make a real world difference for gamers.

7800X3D + 7900 XT is about as much as 14900K + 7800 XT.
And there's no need to point out that these CPU's might be overkill here, I know. It's just an example.

If you want to talk about productivity, then choose a better source than one with zero productivity. Here's one:

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

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

www.techpowerup.com

Isn't it a good thing to tell gamers that they don't need a $600 CPU to get the best? They don't need a CPU that uses 144 W in games, 56 W is enough? Average air cooling is enough even when gaming in a hot room?

Before you answer, would you still keep on arguing if the tables were turned, brand-wise? I know I would, I've bought both brands before.

The only problem with the power consumption excuse is that you're saving on the CPU and using it on the GPU. Any substantial increase in CPU power consumption can easily be rebalanced by using a GeForce Ada video card instead, with my 4080 comfortably sitting below 200 W playing games at 4K for most of the time. Bring in DLSS-G into the picture and you're actually looking at 120 W or so for 4K120 gaming on titles such as Starfield. If power consumption is a paramount concern, you want the 7800X3D + a 4070 Ti for about the maximum power efficiency possible on a desktop today.

Now if there's something called a gimmick out there it's -KS. Binned and factory overclocked. Impressive.

And above all, stable and performant, without the headache to overclock a regular part to this level. Wasn't a problem when AMD did it with the FX-9590, I reckon.

 

[thesmokingman]

Intel marketing kind of sucks in general tho. Some poor intern made these

Aren't those made by the king of shills Shrout?

 

[phanbuey]

Aren't those made by the king of shills Shrout?

They said they fired him... but these look pretty shrouty

 

[R0H1T]

7800X3D + a 4070 Ti for about the maximum power efficiency possible on a desktop today.

4080 is the most efficient desktop GPU, traditionally the xx80 cards have been the most efficient as well, at least since Maxwell.

 

[BoggledBeagle]

My 14900K uses around 80-90W in most games which is almost double what my 7800X3D it replaced used.
Granted mine is undervolted and power capped at 180w, neither of those matter in games though.

The power limit affects efficiency only when the CPU starts hitting the limit. When you allow P cores to run at 5700MHz while gaming, they will eat a lot of power, that frequency is way out some "acceptable efficiency frequency interval".

Try limiting frequency of the cores too and see, what performance hit you get and if it is worth it for you compared to power savings.

At the moment I am testing 14900K limited to 5.0 GHz P cores, 4.0 E cores, 150W power limit and HT off, it runs very nice and cool under an air cooler, I do not need more performance now.

 

[Dr. Dro]

4080 is the most efficient desktop GPU, traditionally the xx80 cards have been the most efficient as well, at least since Maxwell.

Yeah, but the 4070 Ti's the xx104 part this time. I think it actually wins a little bit in perf/W ratio, but the 4080's still stupidly efficient, though. At least mine is, although... it's about the best and most exotic 4080 you can get alongside the OC Lab from Galax

 

[phanbuey]

The power limit affects efficiency only when the CPU starts hitting the limit. When you allow P cores to run at 5700MHz while gaming, they will eat a lot of power, that frequency is way out some "acceptable efficiency frequency interval".

Try limiting frequency of the cores too and see, what performance hit you get and if it is worth it for you compared to power savings.

At the moment I am testing 14900K limited to 5.0 GHz P cores, 4.0 E cores, 150W power limit and HT off, it runs very nice and cool under an air cooler, I do not need more performance now.

I dont think you have to limit 5.0Ghz p cores -- go 180W and let them rip - they will limit themselves at the wattage automatically. Stock, and lower LLC and you will have great results with no HT.

 

[fusseli]

Well there’s always the fastest cpu, and then the fanboy cpu. We know which is which

 

[BoggledBeagle]

I dont think you have to limit 5.0Ghz p cores -- go 180W and let them rip

Why, I do not need them running quicker, I have a slow graphic card. BTW I fired up HWinfo and task manager to see what is the CPU doing and was surprised, how CPU intensive is downloading a game, I have no idea why.



I reacted to the message about the CPU using 90W for gaming, because a higher power limit cannot help with that, limiting frequency can (and undervolting too).

 

[AusWolf]

Man, AMD has an advantage of being able to mount additional cache on top of the chip and now has the best gaming CPU, Intel LOST THIS BATTLE NOW AND EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT! There is no point in proving that yet again, when it is evident from hundreds of reviews!

And AMD even does not need any more publicity, because 7800X3D is one of the best selling CPUs now. And by total numbers of all sold desktop CPUs Intel is losing as well.

So why to make such a video, comparing very different CPUs by every metric, when the outcome is clear from the beginning?

7800X3D is made on an efficient process and has limited frequency, that makes it even more efficient. It uses just as much silicone as is needed for the job, nothing more. It has additional cache on it, which benefits it in gaming greatly.

14900K is on an older inefficient process, runs at high frequency, which makes it even more inefficient, has a ton of unnecessary for gaming stuff on it, has no special tech for gaming.

Are these really comparable?

No.

Intel is never going to win in gaming alone or efficiency alone in desktop CPUs now, yet they still make some nice useful chips, which unfortunately need to be first configured from the horrible melted hot silicone mess, that pours out the boxes.

Jesus, man, I haven't seen this much bitterness in a long time! Get a life, seriously.

Have you considered that a comparison doesn't always have to be ultra realistic, sometimes it can be just fun? That I can compare my 7800X3D or my i7-11700 to an old quad-core i7-4765T for no special reason, just because I have one at home?

The video compared those two CPUs because they're the best for gaming from each company. I don't know why thinking that there's some hidden agenda to advertise AMD would make you happier.

 

[BoggledBeagle]

Jesus, man, I haven't seen this much bitterness in a long time! Get a life, seriously.

Have you considered that a comparison doesn't always have to be ultra realistic, sometimes it can be just fun? That I can compare my 7800X3D or my i7-11700 to an old quad-core i7-4765T for no special reason, just because I have one at home?

The video compared those two CPUs because they're the best for gaming from each company. I don't know why thinking that there's some hidden agenda to advertise AMD would make you happier.

What? I am not bitter at all, I was seriously considering scrapping the LGA1700 system and tested the AM5 system, but I for reasons I mentioned earlier I ended up just selling 13600K and getting 14900K (for a good price with gifts). I am a very rational person...

Sure, one can compare and make videos about what he wants, and others can think about that video or creator whatever they want, and also discuss that with other people.

 

[AusWolf]

What? I am not bitter at all, I was seriously considering scrapping the LGA1700 system and tested the AM5 system, but I for reasons I mentioned earlier I ended up just selling 13600K and getting 14900K (for a good price with gifts). I am a very rational person...

Sure, one can compare and make videos about what he wants, and others can think about that video or creator whatever they want, and also discuss that with other people.

If you say so. Your previous posts have come across a different way, though.

If you're happy with your 14900K, that's cool, but that doesn't take away from the 7800X3D's value, nor does the video take away from your experience.

Similarly, I briefly tried a R5 3600 at some point, which ended up horribly. I wanted to use it in a SFF build, and it was just not up to the task regarding cooling requirements and possibilities in the small case. This one bad experience doesn't take away from the 3600's value and the experience of millions who love theirs.