gamers nexus "best cpu's of 2023" -AMD killing it

[Onasi]

7950x 3d or 14900k. If price is taken into account then 14700k / 13700k.

Best overall, to me, means being top or near the top on any workload, single multi gaming or what have you.

7950X3D is great, but too finicky with its need to rely on Win11 Game features to properly function and gives no better (slightly worse, actually) performance in games compared to 7800X3D which has no such issue.
I think the whole idea of a “best overall” CPU is silly. There is no such thing. Trying to find a CPU that will do it all and not be saddled with serious drawbacks (I don’t care that you can tune a 14900K to be less power hungry, Intels default intended OOB configuration is laughable) is a fruitless task. If you are interested in strictly gaming and normal desktop use you get 7800X3D. If you need a lot of MT grunt professionally, then you look to Threadripper since time is money. If you’re looking for a middle ground you will have to compromise something.

 

[JustBenching]

I agree. You missed power consumption but I'm pretty sure you include this as well.

I see the Frankenstein 7900X3D as the best of both/all worlds, including price, power consumption out of the box etc.
Also, although it shouldn't matter much, since we're talking about cpus only, but the platform gives a plus to the X3Ds.

I didn't miss power consumption, it's just irrelevant. Efficiency is the same between amd and intel, unless you do what reviewers do, they get into the bios and remove power limits, then yeah okay.

In fact even the 13600k, let alone the 13700k or the 14700k, is faster than the 7800x 3d in both MT and ST workloads at same power limits. They are in fact vastly more efficient.

7950X3D is great, but too finicky with its need to rely on Win11 Game features to properly function and gives no better (slightly worse, actually) performance in games compared to 7800X3D which has no such issue.
I think the whole idea of a “best overall” CPU is silly. There is no such thing. Trying to find a CPU that will do it all and not be saddled with serious drawbacks (I don’t care that you can tune a 14900K to be less power hungry, Intels default intended OOB configuration is laughable) is a fruitless task. If you are interested in strictly gaming and normal desktop use you get 7800X3D. If you need a lot of MT grunt professionally, then you look to Threadripper since time is money. If you’re looking for a middle ground you will have to compromise something.

There is no such thing as an oob configuration. I've tested 4 motherboards, in all 4 of them, before you can even try to enable XMP you have to choose your power limits. Usually there are 3 options ranging from 125w all the way up to unlimited. Reviewrs always choose the - you guessed it - unlimited option, and the complain the cpu pulls too much power. That's asinine.

If I was on a budget and wanted a good all arounder I'd go for the 13600k or the 13700k personally

 

[Onasi]

…that’s cool and all, but Intel themselves specify PL2 for Turbo Boost at 253 watts. This is ignoring TVB on top. This isn’t something that reviewers just made up, it’s Intel spec. And the CPU is designed to operate at said PL2 if the thermal and power conditions allow. I agree that removing ALL limits is silly, but I maintain that 200+ Watt for a desktop chip is a ridiculous config. And yes, you can set the limit at something more reasonable if you want, never disputed that.

 

[Jacky_BEL]

It's still 8core ccds, so big meh. I'm wating for 12core ccds with 3d cache and then I may jump to amd, assuming they also do something with that power draw on light loads.

I already have 4 amd laptops and an amd desktop. What?

Besides strawmans, can you actually address my point?


How is it a good all a rounder though? It's slower than much cheaper cpus in both ST and MT performance.

I can't see how it's not a worse version of the 7700k

So which is it?

Trashing AMD , but using AMD over Intel anyway. I find that inconsistent.

 

[JustBenching]

…that’s cool and all, but Intel themselves specify PL2 for Turbo Boost at 253 watts. This is ignoring TVB on top. This isn’t something that reviewers just made up, it’s Intel spec. And the CPU is designed to operate at said PL2 if the thermal and power conditions allow. I agree that removing ALL limits is silly, but I maintain that 200+ Watt for a desktop chip is a ridiculous config. And yes, you can set the limit at something more reasonable if you want, never disputed that.

PL2 at 250w is completely different from running at 370 watts, which a lot of reviewers are doing. But that's not really the point, my point is the mobo FORCES you to choose a limit, and reviewers choose unlimited and then complain about power draw. That's monumentally stupid.

Furthermore, there are lots of Intel cpus with much lower limits. The non k and the t versions have limits as low as 35w. But nope, we will the k only, remove power limits and then complain. Generates more clicks

 

[Onasi]

We have the numbers from W1zz’s test. We know how the silicon of 14900 (regardless of whether you want to talk about K or non-K or T) scales with power consumption. It’s both true that running it at unlimited doesn’t actually achieve much except for more consumption AND that going significantly below Intel spec sacrifices any edge the CPU has over competition, both AMD and Intels own models. At 35W you mentioned it becomes a completely pointless product for all but the most niche of uses. It’s designed to run with its Boost PL as a base. End of story. I see no point in arguing the obvious.

 

[JustBenching]

So which is it?

Trashing AMD , but using AMD anyway. What is your reasoning?

I'm not trashing amd, I'm trashing a specific product out of the 100s they are making. I'm sorry that not liking a specific product makes me a hater in your eyes.

We have the numbers from W1zz’s test. We know how the silicon of 14900 (regardless of whether you want to talk about K or non-K or T) scales with power consumption. It’s both true that running it at unlimited doesn’t actually achieve much except for more consumption AND that going significantly below Intel spec sacrifices any edge the CPU has over competition, both AMD and Intels own models. At 35W you mentioned it becomes a completely pointless product for all but the most niche of uses. It’s designed to run with its Boost PL as a base. End of story. I see no point in arguing the obvious.

According to wizs test, running it at 200w makes it more efficient than the 7950x.

 

[Onasi]

Marginally, yes, if we’re talking about Cinebench MT test. Not particularly surprising, E-cores tend to do better in it than SMT. If we compared other workloads like Blender the results would probably be more equal. It’s fairly academic.
Don’t know why you are so eager to point this out to me since I didn’t make any claims about 7950X efficiency and the point that I was making had nothing to do with it. But… gewd jewb Intel, I guess?

 

[Vya Domus]

the 7800x 3d is a slower more expensive version of the 7700k, and damn the 7700k was horrible.

I knew you were clueless but are you also like high or something ?

 

[JustBenching]

Marginally, yes, if we’re talking about Cinebench MT test. Not particularly surprising, E-cores tend to do better in it than SMT. If we compared other workloads like Blender the results would probably be more equal. It’s fairly academic.
Don’t know why you are so eager to point this out to me since I didn’t make any claims about 7950X efficiency and the point that I was making had nothing to do with it. But… gewd jewb Intel, I guess?

I think vray is were the 7950x has a big lead but sure, point is they are pretty much identical in efficiency, we agree.

 

[the54thvoid]

^^ You've posted more than a third of the 35 posts in this thread to pretty much trash the 7800X3D. And you just bulldoze through other peoples opinions as if yours is sacrosanct. That's quite an achievement.

 

[JustBenching]

^^ You've posted more than a third of the 35 posts in this thread to pretty much trash the 7800X3D. And you just bulldoze through other peoples opinions as if yours is sacrosanct. That's quite an achievement.

Thanks, and out of the 10 replies I got Noone is addressing my argument but me personally. Says a lot about how true my position is

 

[Onasi]

I think vray is were the 7950x has a big lead but sure, point is they are pretty much identical in efficiency, we agree.

Me: “I didn’t make any claims about 7950X efficiency and the point that I was making had nothing to do with it”
You: “point is they are pretty much identical in efficiency, we agree”

Good talk.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
All i can say is the intel laptops with ...hx chips are/ were stupid priced and the H chips aren't worth messing with because they are locked from pl alterations !
So that left me with amd 7840hs and I'm liking it for less $ to !
I wish it had x3d dammit but I'll roll with 8 real cores.

 

[freeagent]

If they can bake X3D into their "production" chips, and not just gaming chips, I would be interested in that. But as it stands right now, I don't think I will buy another X3D chip. I think a CPU should be good at everything, not strong in one area, and mediocre in another. Just looking at my 58X3D. Cool chip, but has its drawbacks.

 

[the54thvoid]

Thanks, and out of the 10 replies I got Noone is addressing my argument but me personally. Says a lot about how true my position is

You're making zero effort to understand other peoples viewpoints, then resort to blaming reviewers for creating (effectively) a pro AMD environment. I gave you my thoughts, and I said it was a good all rounder (because it clearly is from reviews) but you just flat out refute them.

Let me make this very crystal clear: there are many great CPU's, and people value them for different reasons. I mostly game, so the 7800X3D looked like a great gaming chip, because it irrefutably is. It also helps speed things up compared to my older chip. Now, yes, other chips may be better, but for me, and a great deal of other people, it is a good all rounder. That isn't to say there are Intel chips that aren't good all rounders - there are plenty of great Intel chips (especially when you go down to the 6 core chips, fast and efficient). It would be wrong to state they weren't good all rounders. But you seem intent on defying logic and stating unequivocally, that the 7800X3D isn't a 'good' all rounder. A competent chip that aces gaming aggregates to a 'good' all rounder.

You're also taking exception to the vast majority of reviews (which I read before buying) to declare they're wrong and you're right.

 

[Frick]

The best CPU is the Ryzen 5600 I have, everything else is a lie.

 

[Onasi]

The best CPU is the Ryzen 5600 I have, everything else is a lie.

The best CPU was my old Prescott Pentium 4. It kept me warm in winter. Can’t beat that multi purpose titan.

 

[JustBenching]

You're making zero effort to understand other peoples viewpoints, then resort to blaming reviewers for creating (effectively) a pro AMD environment. I gave you my thoughts, and I said it was a good all rounder (because it clearly is from reviews) but you just flat out refute them.

Let me make this very crystal clear: there are many great CPU's, and people value them for different reasons. I mostly game, so the 7800X3D looked like a great gaming chip, because it irrefutably is. It also helps speed things up compared to my older chip. Now, yes, other chips may be better, but for me, and a great deal of other people, it is a good all rounder. That isn't to say there are Intel chips that aren't good all rounders - there are plenty of great Intel chips (especially when you go down to the 6 core chips, fast and efficient). It would be wrong to state they weren't good all rounders. But you seem intent on defying logic and stating unequivocally, that the 7800X3D isn't a 'good' all rounder. A competent chip that aces gaming aggregates to a 'good' all rounder.

You're also taking exception to the vast majority of reviews (which I read before buying) to declare they're wrong and you're right.

Nope, I didn't say they are creating a pro amd environment. I said it generates more clicks when you can title your video "it burns forests"

The 7800x 3d is as good of an all rounder as the 7700k was. In fact, the 7700k was better, since it was much cheaper on release and also aced in st workloads. I considered the 7700k a horrible product so I can't in good conscience pretend the 7800x 3d is a good product either. If you considered the 7700k a great cpu then sure, it makes sense that you also think the 3d is great.

 

[gffermari]

fevgatos has a correct point. The best overall cpu does not need to top anywhere but has to be 90+% of the top performance on any task.
The 7900X3D is close to 7800X3D in gaming and close to 7950X3D in MT. It costs less than them and it's ultra efficient in any workload.

The 14700K is a similar case but for me the 7900X3D wins due to being efficient all the time, no matter the workload, and not when I make it by changing the settings in the BIOS. It's on a better platform while its price is reasonable.

 

[freeagent]

In fact, the 7700k was better, since it was much cheaper on release and also aced in st workloads

7700K had a price of 305 USD, 7800X3D is 358 USD..

 

[ratirt]

If they can bake X3D into their "production" chips, and not just gaming chips, I would be interested in that. But as it stands right now, I don't think I will buy another X3D chip. I think a CPU should be good at everything, not strong in one area, and mediocre in another. Just looking at my 58X3D. Cool chip, but has its drawbacks.

I think this is coming at some point but that would depend if there will be more different version of the chips. I think AMD wants to have more variations and that might be hard to achieve if the X3D is in every single one. You can always fiddle with the amount of the Vcache.

 

[Onasi]

7700K had a price of 305 USD, 7800X3D is 358 USD..

In fact, taking inflation into account, they are similarly priced with 7800X3D being potentially cheaper depending on where and when you get it. So… yeah.

 

[JustBenching]

7700K had a price of 305 USD, 7800X3D is 358 USD..

358 is higher than 305, but regardless, it launched at 450 vs 330. Big difference.

 

[freeagent]

358 is higher than 305, but regardless, it launched at 450 vs 330. Big difference.

I cant even begin to compare a 7700K to a 7800X3D.

But I have nothing to add so I am out.