RTX 4090 & 53 Games: Core i9-13900K vs Ryzen 7 5800X3D

[daish0]

From what I can see on the screenshots the actual rendering resolution is set to FullHD, guess because of DLSS (Performance) setting.
This is bascially a best case scenario for the CPU in gaming, no wonder the FPS is skyrocketing.

Anyway, I think the 5800X3D is extremely good for gaming right now.

Wanted to upgrade to an Intel system again after my AM4 system because I really hated all the problems I had - felt like a beta test product for me and some things are still not fixed on my board.
But the efficiency of the X3D cache in games makes it really hard not to wait for the next AMD variants with X3D ...

 

[rom64k]

From what I can see on the screenshots the actual rendering resolution is set to FullHD, guess because of DLSS (Performance) setting.
This is bascially a best case scenario for the CPU in gaming, no wonder the FPS is skyrocketing.

Anyway, I think the 5800X3D is extremely good for gaming right now.

Wanted to upgrade to an Intel system again after my AM4 system because I really hated all the problems I had - felt like a beta test product for me and some things are still not fixed on my board.
But the efficiency of the X3D cache in games makes it really hard not to wait for the next AMD variants with X3D ...

Sorry to read that. My motherboard has been running as good as a charm, it's an ASUS TUF GAMING B550-Plus, since day one (however, I've had to update the BIOS several times without any major problems).

 

[SOGOKU]

I thought of you before publishing the article and made sure Days Gone is DX11


Because the vast majority of gamers of Windows 10. I guess I could do a "50 Games Windows 10 vs Windows 11 RTX 4090 + 13900K" article next .. or maybe something with 7700X or 7600X or 13700K. I guess I could start a poll

I don't understand till this day the aversion people have to Windows 11. I'm use it since day 1. Never had an issue ! It's even prettier then Windows 10. It's always the same thing when a Microsoft OS come out. Ok this time is a little different with TPM 2.0, but only for older hardware.

 

[izy]

I don't understand till this day the aversion people have to Windows 11. I'm use it since day 1. Never had an issue ! It's even prettier then Windows 10. It's always the same thing when a Microsoft OS come out. Ok this time is a little different with TPM 2.0, but only for older hardware.

You cant ungroup taskbar for example.

 

[wolf]

Awesome review W1z, and great to know I made a good choice to have a top tier CPU in my AM4 system to give it a final send off.

5800X3D gonna be the CPU version of a 1080Ti.

 

[SOGOKU]

You cant ungroup taskbar for example.

Okay, not in vanilla Win11. Install "Explorer Patcher". Done. There are always simple apps or reg tweaks that can be done, that shape Windows to our liking. Ex: I use Nilesoft "Shell" app because a don't like the context menu on Win11. O&O Shutup since Win10 cause I don't like the lose of privacy, and so on.

 

[docnorth]

Nice work as usual @W1zzard.
1)It would be interesting to test the 13900K with e-cores disabled (or at least 1-2 games that still seem to have problems with the hybrid architecture).
2)Is there a way for us to see the FPS number?
Thanks.

 

[Tek-Check]

Then lets see 7700x vs 13700k

RTX 4090
SAME MEMORY
Everything the same.

With Major fps cpu hungry games.

Like Csgo, Valorant

New games like Plague Tale, God of War, Uncharted , etc etc

No very high quality. 1080p low as always

Because 7700x here is crap in games but on YouTube hardware unboxed the 7700x Beats the 13700k in 12 game average.

7700XT "crap" in games?
On which planet do you live dude?
Differences in gaming between 7700XT and 13700K are negligible, a few percentage points on average.

You might find one or the other CPU more preferable if you predominantly play certain games.

See 3D Centrer chart with all SKUs I posted on the previous page

 

[nomadka670]

7700XT "crap" in games?
On which planet do you live dude?
Differences in gaming between 7700XT and 13700K are negligible, a few percentage points on average.

You might one or the other CPU more preferable if you predominantly play certain games.

See 3D Centrer chart with all SKUs I posted on the previous page

7700XT "crap" in games?
On which planet do you live dude?
Differences in gaming between 7700XT and 13700K are negligible, a few percentage points on average.

You might one or the other CPU more preferable if you predominantly play certain games.

See 3D Centrer chart with all SKUs I posted on the previous page

Let me explain it. There is a lot of benchmark where the 7700x outperform the 13700k . But here they forget to mention if we retest it with csgo valorant hitman horizon, the 7700x way better than the 13900k. So on techpowerup in this games yes the Intel is king theres no doubt

 

[Nopa]

7700XT "crap" in games?
On which planet do you live dude?
Differences in gaming between 7700XT and 13700K are negligible, a few percentage points on average.

You might one or the other CPU more preferable if you predominantly play certain games.

See 3D Centrer chart with all SKUs I posted on the previous page

Differences are close, but 13700K does beat 7700X 9/10 tasks.

 

[SOGOKU]

I really dislike fanboyism ! When are people changing their 5950x's for 13900K's and not the 7950x, there is always someone saying that amd is so much better then intel !

 

[nomadka670]

I really dislike fanboyism ! When are people changing their 5950x's for 13900K's and not the 7950x, there is always someone saying that amd is so much better then intel !

Im not a fanboy I have Both of them. All I sayin its not the 100% real .

 

[AnotherReader]

For that conclusion we'll have to see the 7x00X3D benchmarks.

I think everybody was kind of surprised to what extent extra cache helped the Zen 3 in gaming - maybe even AMD, since they didn't plan to use 3D cache in Zen 4 from the start.

Is it because of the thermal penalty? 5800X3D lost in almost all productivity tests to 5800X. Having a single or two dedicated gaming processors makes sense, lowering productivity scores of the whole CPU generation for the sake of better gaming scores - not so much.

Zen 4 already has thermal issues with temperatures almost constantly jumping to maximum, 95 degrees. What will the extra blanket of cache over chiplets cause? I guess we'll have to see, but I predict similar result - lower boost clocks and lower productivity scores for the sake of uplift in gaming.

And will the extra chache help as much as in Zen 3? I don't see why not, L3 cache sizes are the same per core, and it doesn't look Zen 4 has any big architectural changes compared to Zen 3, most of the performance uplift was brought mainly by frequency uplift.

My forecast is based off the difference between the 5800X and 5800X3D; this accounts for lower clock speeds. The actual difference will, of course, be seen when the reviewers get their hands on these chips.

 

[Voodoo Rufus]

The X3D chips remind me of the K6-2 vs. K6-3 days. The extra cache then helped the K6-3 maintain some competitive value against Intel in those days before the original Athlon. Old trick that still pays dividends.

 

[Tek-Check]

Let me explain it. There is a lot of benchmark where the 7700x outperform the 13700k . But here they forget to mention if we retest it with csgo valorant hitman horizon, the 7700x way better than the 13900k. So on techpowerup in this games yes the Intel is king theres no doubt

There is no "king" dude and no need to explain it to me. That's what I have been trying to tell you. You should always be sceptical towards individual website reviews. The value of 3D Center meta-analysis is the meta-analysis itself. It averages 28 release reviews, including TPU, and it gets better over time, with more reviews taken into account.

Individual website reviews can even get significantly different results when testing the same products, but in different workloads and different selection of games. I noticed this with GPU 6800XT and 3090Ti tested on several ocassions, on its own and in context of other GPUs. Differences could be 10-15 fps in 4K, which is not banal in demanding games.

As I said, those users who have specific games they enjoy, one CPU or the other may fit better. It's about fitting for your own needs, and not "king" branding. Any CPU could become "king" only if it really blows others out of waters, which is not the case with any Intel or AMD CPU from the same product tier. See below.

Branding any new CPU as a "king" is a deep misunderstanding of how things work. Even if 13900K brings 9% on average higher gaming performance, it's productivity rating is the same as 7950X, with a caveat that i9 uses way more power to stay competitive in those heavy workloads, as tested by several reviewers. This means saving on buying new CPU+motherboard, but also spending more on beefier cooler. Someone buying i9 purely for gaming is literally wasting their money. In comparison, one could cool 7950X even with a good air-cooler and lose onyl a few percentages of heavy workload performance, but not in games. So, everything had a more complex perspective and analysis. Remember this.

Differences are close, but 13700K does beat 7700X 9/10 tasks.

You are forgetting that 13700K competes with 7900X, and 13600K with 7700X.
When you put it this way, differences look different.

I really dislike fanboyism ! When are people changing their 5950x's for 13900K's and not the 7950x, there is always someone saying that amd is so much better then intel !

Who does that?

 

[mb194dc]

So at 4k or higher, which is basically the use case for a 4090. Essentially no difference between them.

 

[3x0]

Thanks for the amazing review.

About the bottleneck generated between the 5800X3D and the RTX 4090, here's my experience

I let you two captures from Modern Warfare II performance test at 4k

This one is taken with my new 5800X3D and RTX 4090.

https://bit.ly/3NCqBkd

This other was before to change the CPU, I had a 5600x paired with same RTX 4090 too.

https://bit.ly/3T4wbNm

Both were taken playing at 4k. You can draw your own conclusions.

Wow, incredible difference. Are you sure the settings were the same for both benchmarks?

 

[jallenlabs]

I paid $200 for an 11700K and a free mobo both new a few months ago. At that low of a price I could've cared less if new stuff was coming or if there was better stuff out. The price couldn't be beaten for what it offered.

When I bought mine, it was $320 in a combo deal at newegg and they through in another motherboard in the deal. Sold the board for retail, so my chip was like $120. Got it under a TEC/waterblock, at idle, its below room temp. Way more fun than a few frames with a cpu upgrade. That said, I do have a 12700k in my other rig...

 

[Gica]

There is no "king" dude and no need to explain it to me. That's what I have been trying to tell you. You should always be sceptical towards individual website reviews. The value of 3D Center meta-analysis is the meta-analysis itself. It averages 28 release reviews, including TPU, and it gets better over time, with more reviews taken into account.

Individual website reviews can even get significantly different results when testing the same products, but in different workloads and different selection of games. I noticed this with GPU 6800XT and 3090Ti tested on several ocassions, on its own and in context of other GPUs. Differences could be 10-15 fps in 4K, which is not banal in demanding games.

As I said, those users who have specific games they enjoy, one CPU or the other may fit better. It's about fitting for your own needs, and not "king" branding. Any CPU could become "king" only if it really blows others out of waters, which is not the case with any Intel or AMD CPU from the same product tier. See below.
View attachment 268906
Branding any new CPU as a "king" is a deep misunderstanding of how things work. Even if 13900K brings 9% on average higher gaming performance, it's productivity rating is the same as 7950X, with a caveat that i9 uses way more power to stay competitive in those heavy workloads, as tested by several reviewers. This means saving on buying new CPU+motherboard, but also spending more on beefier cooler. Someone buying i9 purely for gaming is literally wasting their money. In comparison, one could cool 7950X even with a good air-cooler and lose onyl a few percentages of heavy workload performance, but not in games. So, everything had a more complex perspective and analysis. Remember this.

You make some elementary mistakes.
1. The cooler that drives the 13900K to 100 degrees (100 max) drives the 7950X to 95 degrees (95 degrees max).
2. The fps/W ratio is reasonably equal, but the 13900K offers more fps.
3. Those willing to buy these processors do not skimp on the cooler.

So?

 

[laszlo]

considering that a minority have and will have rtx4090 this comparison clearly shows that previous & older gen gpu's can't bottleneck the tested cpu's

 

[Tek-Check]

You make some elementary mistakes.
1. The cooler that drives the 13900K to 100 degrees (100 max) drives the 7950X to 95 degrees (95 degrees max).

Please, before you point out anyone's 'elementary' mistakes, read their text properly.

This is what pros need to know before buying a system for constant MT workloads, and not casual home gaming.

7950X will achieve 95 degrees on any cooler. And that's all to it. After that, CPU will stay there and self-regulate. On AIO 360 mm, you can do full MT onslaught at full performance potential. On air cooler, gaming is good and light MT workloads, with ~3% performance loss in encoding for example.

With i9, you cannot do that. Watch reviews with thermal and throttling testing. Have you seen any? 13900K thermally throttles both with AIO 360 and 420 mm, and it can lose up to 8% performance beyond 100 degrees, while using wapping 340W of power. It's an oven for daily MT workloads in someone's company.

2. The fps/W ratio is reasonably equal, but the 13900K offers more fps.

What's the point of saying this if I had already mentioned that 13900K offers up to 9% more performance in gaming? Did you actually read properly what I wrote?

3. Those willing to buy these processors do not skimp on the cooler

Sure, spend more money, by all means. There is nothing wrong with it.

Just make sure you don't say later it's a cheaper platform, if you have to add another $100 on beefier cooler to cool down the power hungry beast.

Again, if you predominantly play games, you don't need i9. Waste of money on halo product. It's like buying Ferarri and living in a country without motorways. i7 and i5 do gaming job equally well, with negligible difference.

 

[Gica]

I also want to see the miracle of how a 7950X, reached 95 degrees (maximum allowed), "self-regulates" without losing performance.
It seems that you also missed the lesson on heat dissipation, the W/mm2 chapter.

 

[AnotherReader]

I also want to see the miracle of how a 7950X, reached 95 degrees (maximum allowed), "self-regulates" without losing performance.
It seems that you also missed the lesson on heat dissipation, the W/mm2 chapter.

This very site tested this, and found

Our testing in this article shows that the performance losses are minimal, even when pairing the Ryzen 9 7950X flagship with an entry-level cooler that's running at slow fan speed settings.

 

[Viperl0]

Really would've appreciated tests for Final Fantasy XIV, Valorant and Apex. I know you mentioned in a previous CPU specific review it's hard to bench games like that for comparison because the games or on different patch versions at different CPU release dates. But in a straight X vs Y I think it's a great opportunity to do it.

 

[Wasteland]

You are forgetting that 13700K competes with 7900X, and 13600K with 7700X.

I agree with all of your other points, but this one seems iffy. Based on pricing, the 13700k squares off against the 7700x, and the 13600K squares off against the 7600x. These aren't favorable match ups for AMD; the 7600x and 7700x compete well in gaming, but lose hugely in productivity workloads to Raptor Lake at analogous price points.

And if the low-to-mid range Zen 4 CPUs* are going to hang their hats on gaming perf, well, they also lose pretty convincingly to AMD's own 5800x3d, based on platform cost. AMD needs to release some non-X SKUs, or something. I'm sure AM5 will come into its own eventually, but it ain't there yet.

(* - "low"-end is a term of art, in the context of Zen 4 and Raptor Lake, thus far. $300+ CPUs just don't qualify for that category, IMO, which sums up the problem here neatly. Gaming enthusiasts who don't plan to buy an extremely expensive graphics card are almost always best off buying a CPU in the $150-200 range. Frankly, an R5 5600 or an i5-12400 still offers vastly better value for most gamers than any of the new shiny stuff from either AMD or Intel.)

This very site tested this, and found

Yeah, HUB also did a pretty good piece on this:

Zen 4's thermal behavior is actually among its most interesting and attractive characteristics. And AMD kept cooler compatibility with AM4 in the bargain.