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

[Ayhamb99]

The comparison proves that going with a 13900k specifically for gaming is a really dumb idea.... The 13600k would get you 2-3% less performance but at a much reasonable price and power/temperature requirements when it comes to gaming... The 5800X3D is still a beast of a CPU for gaming even with the AM4 and DDR4 Platform, makes me wonder if Intel is going to try to come out with a similar sku that has more cache (Maybe a 13650k or something) instead of just binning the I9 to reach higher clocks because that strategy isn't really appealing with the horrendous power consumption and temperatures that come with it.

 

[Tek-Check]

The comparison proves that going with a 13900k specifically for gaming is a really dumb idea.... The 13600k would get you 2-3% less performance but at a much reasonable price and power/temperature requirements when it comes to gaming... The 5800X3D is still a beast of a CPU for gaming even with the AM4 and DDR4 Platform, makes me wonder if Intel is going to try to come out with a similar sku that has more cache (Maybe a 13650k or something) instead of just binning the I9 to reach higher clocks because that strategy isn't really appealing with the horrendous power consumption and temperatures that come with it.

In gaming, power and temperatures of 13900K are fine. There is nothing wrong with it. There is everything wrong with a value for buck if someone predominantly games. 13600K or 5800X 3D are much better options, with similar performance in gaming across resolutions.

 

[Nopa]

In gaming, power and temperatures of 13900K are fine. There is nothing wrong with it. There is everything wrong with a value for buck if someone predominantly games. 13600K or 5800X 3D are much better options, with similar performance in gaming across resolutions.

7600X at 299$ is tempting too when you pair it alongside cheap B650. With CL30 RAM, it even pulls ahead of 13600K.

 

[Ayhamb99]

7600X at 299$ is tempting too when you pair it alongside cheap B650. With CL30 RAM, it even pulls ahead of 13600K.

But in that case you can also pair the 13600K with CL30 with a cheap DDR5 Z690 Mobo or even B660 Board if you do not care about OCing and the total platform cost will be cheaper than the 7600X....

AM5 boards are still more expensive than the LGA1700 Boards unfortunately so I hope that they improve within the next couple of months.

 

[Nater]

But in that case you can also pair the 13600K with CL30 with a cheap DDR5 Z690 Mobo or even B660 Board if you do not care about OCing and the total platform cost will be cheaper than the 7600X....
View attachment 270046


View attachment 270047

AM5 boards are still more expensive than the LGA1700 Boards unfortunately so I hope that they improve within the next couple of months.

AM5 socket potential vs Intel's dead socket is worth $29 all day every day. In fact, it's worth probably $100's, if not into the $1000's saved on mainboard upgrades over the next 4-5 years if AM4 is any indicator. (assuming you upgrade your CPU every release)

 

[Tek-Check]

But in that case you can also pair the 13600K with CL30 with a cheap DDR5 Z690 Mobo or even B660 Board if you do not care about OCing and the total platform cost will be cheaper than the 7600X....

AM5 boards are still more expensive than the LGA1700 Boards unfortunately so I hope that they improve within the next couple of months.

Gigabyte's B650 board costs only $30 more, but it is definitely more superior, with better features across the board and it's future-proof for upgrades.
- it has 20 Gbps USB port (MSI has 5 Gbps)
- 15 ports at rear I/O (MSI has 10)
- Gen 5 and Gen4 NVMe drives
- more powerful VRM 12+2+1, each 60A, robust heatsink and 8-layer PCB
- other heatsinks are also more robust

MSI's B660 has dismal VRM heatsink that does not even cover rear I/O. Other feature are bare bones.

B660 should cost no more than $120 for what it offers in comparison with B650.

 

[wheresmycar]

But in that case you can also pair the 13600K with CL30 with a cheap DDR5 Z690 Mobo or even B660 Board if you do not care about OCing and the total platform cost will be cheaper than the 7600X....
View attachment 270046


View attachment 270047

AM5 boards are still more expensive than the LGA1700 Boards unfortunately so I hope that they improve within the next couple of months.

according to this comparison it doesn't look all that bad! ~$30 investment for fwd Gen support sounds like a treat. For me (1440p gamer) neither of these hot baked cakes and power chugging offerings short of $700 make for an appealing buy. Maybe a little later.... with more affordable and efficient non-K/X parts, possibly cheaper boards and slashed DDR5 kits for around $550 (or ~$600 at the very top)

 

[Ayhamb99]

AM5 socket potential vs Intel's dead socket is worth $29 all day every day. In fact, it's worth probably $100's, if not into the $1000's saved on mainboard upgrades over the next 4-5 years if AM4 is any indicator. (assuming you upgrade your CPU every release)

While the longevity will definitely be an advantage, after what AMD tried to pull off with B450/X470 originally not supporting Zen 3 and only after backlash that it was enabled and Zen 3 support for X370/B350 only becoming available after Alder Lake released plus the poor folks who bought sTRX4, I'm not just gonna take AMD's word and buy into their promise

Gigabyte's B650 board costs only $30 more, but it is definitely more superior, with better features across the board and it's future-proof for upgrades.
- it has 20 Gbps USB port (MSI has 5 Gbps)
- 15 ports at rear I/O (MSI has 10)
- Gen 5 and Gen4 NVMe drives
- more powerful VRM 12+2+1, each 60A, robust heatsink and 8-layer PCB
- other heatsinks are also more robust

MSI's B660 has dismal VRM heatsink that does not even cover rear I/O. Other feature are bare bones.

View attachment 270125
B660 should cost no more than $120 for what it offers in comparison with B650.

I was originally planning to put the MSI PRO Z690-A into the Intel list, with that the total price it would have been equal to AMD's total but i decided to choose what was the most reliable board that was cheaper on both AMD and Intel and the B660-A was there, The B660 Mortar would also be a choice as well

 

[Tek-Check]

I was originally planning to put the MSI PRO Z690-A into the Intel list, with that the total price it would have been equal to AMD's total but i decided to choose what was the most reliable board that was cheaper on both AMD and Intel and the B660-A was there, The B660 Mortar would also be a choice as well

Cheaper often means terrible VRM cooling, skimping on ports and other features, etc. Plus, if you do need CPU for MT workloads, 7600X edges in gaming 3-4%, following 53 game review by HUB, and it's more future-proof for simple drop-in upgrades.

 

[Wasteland]

Cheaper often means terrible VRM cooling, skimping on ports and other features, etc. Plus, if you do need CPU for MT workloads, 7600X edges in gaming 3-4%, following 53 game review by HUB, and it's more future-proof for simple drop-in upgrades.

The aforementioned MSI Pro B660-A and B660 MAG Mortar both have excellent VRM, according to Hardware Unboxed. I've owned both. On the AMD side I also own what is by today's standards an extremely cheap (~$95) B450 Tomahawk Max, which was likewise well reviewed by HUB.

Best Budget Intel B660 Motherboards, VRM Thermal Test

Our first look at VRM thermal performance of entry-level Intel B660 motherboards. On hand we have models boards from Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, Asrock, Soyo and Maxsun. Pricing...

www.techspot.com

Intel B660 Motherboard VRM, Mid-Range Roundup

In this roundup we have 8 new Intel B660 motherboards that go for from $150 to $250. Spoiler alert: We're looking at a hefty 70% difference between...

www.techspot.com

I can't vouch for B650 or other AM5 boards, and as a matter of principle I agree that one should be wary of cheaper boards, but if you can find a trustworthy and favorable review of the product in question, I don't see much in the way of incentive not to go for the "B" chipsets rather than their enthusiast equivalents. In fact, it seems in many cases a cheap Z or X motherboard can be worse (in terms of VRM or even features) than a mid-to-high-range B motherboard.

Of course, the funny part is that "cheap" boards today would have been considered expensive even 3-4 years ago. I've been building PCs for about 25 years now, and until the Zen 2 build I don't think I ever bought a mobo for more than about $70. Nowadays it's considered "budget" if you're not spending $200.

 

[Tek-Check]

The aforementioned MSI Pro B660-A and B660 MAG Mortar both have excellent VRM, according to Hardware Unboxed. I've owned both. On the AMD side I also own what is by today's standards an extremely cheap (~$95) B450 Tomahawk Max, which was likewise well reviewed by HUB.

Best Budget Intel B660 Motherboards, VRM Thermal Test

Our first look at VRM thermal performance of entry-level Intel B660 motherboards. On hand we have models boards from Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, Asrock, Soyo and Maxsun. Pricing...

www.techspot.com

Intel B660 Motherboard VRM, Mid-Range Roundup

In this roundup we have 8 new Intel B660 motherboards that go for from $150 to $250. Spoiler alert: We're looking at a hefty 70% difference between...

www.techspot.com

I can't vouch for B650 or other AM5 boards, and as a matter of principle I agree that one should be wary of cheaper boards, but if you can find a trustworthy and favorable review of the product in question, I don't see much in the way of incentive not to go for the "B" chipsets rather than their enthusiast equivalents. In fact, it seems in many cases a cheap Z or X motherboard can be worse (in terms of VRM or even features) than a mid-to-high-range B motherboard.

Of course, the funny part is that "cheap" boards today would have been considered expensive even 3-4 years ago. I've been building PCs for about 25 years now, and until the Zen 2 build I don't think I ever bought a mobo for more than about $70. Nowadays it's considered "budget" if you're not spending $200.

True that, but boards have also come a long way. They are so much advanced comparison to previous gen boards.

That said, I agree most new boards are overpriced, some ridiculously overpriced, just like 4080 GPU. A terrible value for money.

 

[Kei]

Late to the party, but this was a fantastic test. I wish I could've seen the 1% lows more than anything...but nonetheless this is fantastic work. I say this especially as an owner of a 4090 paired with a vanilla 5800x that I use heavily for VR, so I'm always looking at where the best gain vs cost might be.

 

[vekspec]

Just swapped to 5800x3D from 5900x as I game more than productivity on it (moved to m1 Mac for that) and seeing 20+ fps in games at 1440p with 3080. MMOs seeing largest increase also with FH5 and other racing sims. Really impressive chip if you are gonna gaming focused and up their with the current gens!

 

[evolucion8]

Just swapped to 5800x3D from 5900x as I game more than productivity on it (moved to m1 Mac for that) and seeing 20+ fps in games at 1440p with 3080. MMOs seeing largest increase also with FH5 and other racing sims. Really impressive chip if you are gonna gaming focused and up their with the current gens!

Did the same thing a week ago. While I lost over 20-50% in multi threaded performance. (I don't do productivity as much as back in the day, may be less than 20% of the time), noticed the lows are much higher, constant and the average frame rate of my games between 6-35% depending on the area. Everything even on Dying Light 2 maxed at 2K seems to be smoother and constant with the 5800X3D and the 6900XT than with the 5900X I had before.

 

[gffermari]

Yesterday the company I work for, replaced my laptop to a Lenovo i7 12850HX and RTX A2000…I think that Intel cpu is much faster than my 5800X3D. lol.

 

[AnotherReader]

Yesterday the company I work for, replaced my laptop to a Lenovo i7 12850HX and RTX A2000…I think that Intel cpu is much faster than my 5800X3D. lol.

The cores would be faster, but the entire system should still be slower as the laptop is probably using JEDEC RAM, i.e. DDR5 4800 CL 40 or DDR5 3200 CL22. That throws one of Intel's biggest advantages out of the window.

 

[gffermari]

The cores would be faster, but the entire system should still be slower as the laptop is probably using JEDEC RAM, i.e. DDR5 4800 CL 40 or DDR5 3200 CL22. That throws one of Intel's biggest advantages out of the window.

you're right. It's not that faster.
It's about 1000 points faster in R23.

The ram runs at 4000Mhz at unknown latency...

 

[AnotherReader]

It's about 1000 points faster in R23.

The ram runs at 4000Mhz at unknown latency...

It must be configured to relatively sane PL1 and PL2. Is it using DDR5 at 4000 MHz, because DDR4 at 4000 MHz would be unexpectedly fast.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

It must be configured to relatively sane PL1 and PL2. Is it using DDR5 at 4000 MHz, because DDR4 at 4000 MHz would be unexpectedly fast.

From the NotebookCheck page:

The integrated memory controller supports various memory types up to DDR5-4800 and DDR4-3200.

 

[AnotherReader]

From the NotebookCheck page:

So the memory is even slower than I thought. I expected DDR5 4800 CL40. This squanders away a big advantage of Golden Cove: its lower latency memory controller. Still, that is to be expected for laptops.