CPU decision

[bobdabiulder]

I’m looking at getting a high end CPU for my new build.  I do video editing and gaming so I want something that balances performance in those realms very well.
 

The 7800X3D is a popular pick, but it doesn’t perform as well in productivity and non-gaming workloads.

 

The 7900X outperforms the 7800X3D in almost every benchmark, and when it doesn’t it’s still within 5%.  The downside is I would absolutely want an AIO so even though the CPU is cheaper, cooling it is far more costly.

 

The 7900 doesn’t make many lists and it’s almost never directly compared to the 7800X3D, so I’m really looking for information that directly compares them.  A lot of the “versus” websites are dubious — Userbenchmark hates AMD so I’d like another source. BUT if their comparison is replicated on other sources, I’d totally just go for the 7900.

 

So which option balances all-around performance best?  And which does it without being crazy expensive

[PDifolco]

4 minutes ago, bobdabiulder said:

I’m looking at getting a high end CPU for my new build.  I do video editing and gaming so I want something that balances performance in those realms very well.
 

The 7800X3D is a popular pick, but it doesn’t perform as well in productivity and non-gaming workloads.

 

The 7900X outperforms the 7800X3D in almost every benchmark, and when it doesn’t it’s still within 5%.  The downside is I would absolutely want an AIO so even though the CPU is cheaper, cooling it is far more costly.

 

The 7900 doesn’t make many lists and it’s almost never directly compared to the 7800X3D, so I’m really looking for information that directly compares them.  A lot of the “versus” websites are dubious — Userbenchmark hates AMD so I’d like another source. BUT if their comparison is replicated on other sources, I’d totally just go for the 7900.

 

So which option balances all-around performance best?  And which does it without being crazy expensive

For that kind of usage, I'd say 7900X or Intel i7-13700K

7800X3D is really dedicated t gaming and noot very good at anything else

[Agall]

11 minutes ago, bobdabiulder said:

I’m looking at getting a high end CPU for my new build.  I do video editing and gaming so I want something that balances performance in those realms very well.
 

The 7800X3D is a popular pick, but it doesn’t perform as well in productivity and non-gaming workloads.

 

The 7900X outperforms the 7800X3D in almost every benchmark, and when it doesn’t it’s still within 5%.  The downside is I would absolutely want an AIO so even though the CPU is cheaper, cooling it is far more costly.

 

The 7900 doesn’t make many lists and it’s almost never directly compared to the 7800X3D, so I’m really looking for information that directly compares them.  A lot of the “versus” websites are dubious — Userbenchmark hates AMD so I’d like another source. BUT if their comparison is replicated on other sources, I’d totally just go for the 7900.

 

So which option balances all-around performance best?  And which does it without being crazy expensive

7950x3D is the answer, whether the ~$680 is worth it to you is another question. Anything else is going to be a compromise other than maybe a 13900k, but I'd argue that's a compromise in power draw.

 

Everyone seems to still hate on the 7950x3D, but it has its uses. It is specifically designed to be great at gaming and productivity, and it only takes an extra UEFI setting to match/beat the 7800x3D in gaming while having double the multithreading.

[lordmogul]

Pretty much that. If you want the high performance gaming sweet spot, 7800X3D

If you want the best without budgetary limitation, 7950X3D

If you want to save a bit with good performance, 7700X

If you want more workstation performance without breaking the bank, 7900X or even 7900 non-X.

If you want the gaming performance from the big cache, but also the multithread performance for workstation tasks, 7900X3D.

 

Looking at the 7900X3D/7950X3D, only one CCD gets the big cache, but clock lower.

 

And obviously Intel also has alternatives.

 

Now for the 7800X3D vs 7900X with big cooler, you have to see how exactly the prices are where you live. Does the 7900X cost more, how much is it, and is it worth the money for you?

[zim2323]

Intel i9-13900k.  Pay to play.  Wouldn't touch AMD AM5 for anything at this point.

[bobdabiulder]

29 minutes ago, Agall said:

7950x3D is the answer, whether the ~$680 is worth it to you is another question. Anything else is going to be a compromise other than maybe a 13900k, but I'd argue that's a compromise in power draw.

 

Everyone seems to still hate on the 7950x3D, but it has its uses. It is specifically designed to be great at gaming and productivity, and it only takes an extra UEFI setting to match/beat the 7800x3D in gaming while having double the multithreading.

Yes, the over $500 CPU plus the extra $150 for an AIO is more than I’d like to spend here—so I’m not a fan of the 13900k or 7950X

[bobdabiulder]

20 minutes ago, zim2323 said:

Intel i9-13900k.  Pay to play.  Wouldn't touch AMD AM5 for anything at this point.

Care to explain?  The 13900K (and anything Intel these days) seems like a massive compromise in everything except for performance, due to the massively higher price, power consumption and ungodly cooling requirement

[Failure 101]

4 minutes ago, bobdabiulder said:

Care to explain?  The 13900K (and anything Intel these days) seems like a massive compromise in everything except for performance, due to the massively higher price, power consumption and ungodly cooling requirement

5 bucks he's gonna say the gamers nexus videos

[bobdabiulder]

1 hour ago, lordmogul said:

Pretty much that. If you want the high performance gaming sweet spot, 7800X3D

If you want the best without budgetary limitation, 7950X3D

If you want to save a bit with good performance, 7700X

If you want more workstation performance without breaking the bank, 7900X or even 7900 non-X.

If you want the gaming performance from the big cache, but also the multithread performance for workstation tasks, 7900X3D.

 

Looking at the 7900X3D/7950X3D, only one CCD gets the big cache, but clock lower.

 

And obviously Intel also has alternatives.

 

Now for the 7800X3D vs 7900X with big cooler, you have to see how exactly the prices are where you live. Does the 7900X cost more, how much is it, and is it worth the money for you?

The effective cost of the 7800X3D is $50 higher than MSRP due to cooling, whereas the 7900X is $150 above MSRP for that reason.  If I pick the 7900 non-X, it’s cheaper (which is fine idrc) but I’d love to know what I’m losing on performance.

 

userbench indicates a massively lower memory latency with the 7800X3D compared to the 7900, but otherwise performance seems to be a win or a wash for the 7900.  Do other benchmarks (synthetic and real world) show this favorable outcome for the 7900 too?

[lordmogul]

But do both sell at MSRP where you live? If not, than MSRP is worthless as metric. You don't buy at MSRP, you buy at retail price. Are those 100-ish worth the difference? 

 

 

Also keep in mind that userbenchmark is quite biased. Memory latency is obviously lower in the 32-96 MB range on the 7800X3D, having that area as cache "on" the CPU does a lot.

As funny sidenote, my old Core 2 Quad has lower latencies in the 512k-4M range than my i5, simply because that area is filled by L2 on the Core 2 and L3 on the i5.

And guess what, the old i7-5775C has lower L3 and memory latency than the i7-13700K, but latency is only one single thing to test. In terms of bandwith it has no chance and real world performance is also clearly in favour of the newer chip.

[bobdabiulder]

3 minutes ago, lordmogul said:

But do both sell at MSRP where you live? If not, than MSRP is worthless as metric. You don't buy at MSRP, you buy at retail price. Are those 100-ish worth the difference? 

 

 

Also keep in mind that userbenchmark is quite biased. Memory latency is obviously lower in the 32-96 MB range on the 7800X3D, having that area as cache "on" the CPU does a lot.

As funny sidenote, my old Core 2 Quad has lower latencies in the 512k-4M range than my i5, simply because that area is filled by L2 on the Core 2 and L3 on the i5.

And guess what, the old i7-5775C has lower L3 and memory latency than the i7-13700K, but latency is only one single thing to test. In terms of bandwith it has no chance and real world performance is also clearly in favour of the newer chip.

Sorry, I misspoke.  Not MSRP.  The 7800X3D is $449 and the 7900 is $428.

 

 And yeah that’s why I’d like to see benchmarks from other places including real world performance comparisons between the 7800x3d and 7900.

 

 Good point with the latency explanation!  I figured their test would account for caching, but that’s probably too complicated

[lordmogul]

GamersNexus did a review on the 7900 non-X and one on the 7800X3D with interesting results:t

 

The 7900 runs pretty much on par with the 7900X in games, the 7800X3D is faster and fights with the 13700K in those games. (But that can obviously differ from game to game, I've seen the 5800X3D outperform the 12900K in a couple, but here the 12900K runs ahead) For workstation tasks the 7900X is obviously faster.

 

[zim2323]

1 hour ago, bobdabiulder said:

Care to explain?  The 13900K (and anything Intel these days) seems like a massive compromise in everything except for performance, due to the massively higher price, power consumption and ungodly cooling requirement

Similar or better performance in every metric across the board, not just 1 or 2 that get cherry-picked.  More dependable and doesn't catch fire.  They are not "massively overpriced", Brother got his 13900k for $550 and I got my 13900ks for $650.  As for power consumption, watching monitors while gaming and sim racing I don't see more than around 180-190w usage max (usually track loading where CPU is used to decrypt track data), usually it's 120-130w.  Only if I benchmark do I see wattage increase up to around 280w.  Honestly though, who cares how much power is used.  If I need 400w to make it work, then I'll use 400w.  And for cooling, I use the same cooler I used on my i7-10920x.

[Agall]

2 hours ago, bobdabiulder said:

Yes, the over $500 CPU plus the extra $150 for an AIO is more than I’d like to spend here—so I’m not a fan of the 13900k or 7950X

7950x3D is more than capable of being cooled by an air cooler. I run an NH-D15 on mine and have tested it with a 280mm AIO as well, ended up preferring the air cooler.

 

13900k on the other hand is a big no.

 

7950x system I have runs an NH-U9S but its also in a server room with its own air conditioning with its TDP set to 105W, however it always runs at 5.5GHz due to how Windows Server 2019's scheduler works with that CPU and the application its running. 

[bobdabiulder]

1 hour ago, Agall said:

7950x3D is more than capable of being cooled by an air cooler. I run an NH-D15 on mine and have tested it with a 280mm AIO as well, ended up preferring the air cooler.

 

13900k on the other hand is a big no.

 

7950x system I have runs an NH-U9S but its also in a server room with its own air conditioning with its TDP set to 105W, however it always runs at 5.5GHz due to how Windows Server 2019's scheduler works with that CPU and the application its running. 

Ok so you’re telling me that if I have a perfectly cool room and I limit the TDP to 60% of the rated value, I can air cool a CPU that’s out of my budget with a mid sized cooler.  Awesome!

[Agall]

10 minutes ago, bobdabiulder said:

Ok so you’re telling me that if I have a perfectly cool room and I limit the TDP to 60% of the rated value, I can air cool a CPU that’s out of my budget with a mid sized cooler.  Awesome!

7950x will run up to 250W if you let it, it'll min-max its thermal headroom. 13900k being the same. 7950x3D is a 150W at most CPU comparably which usually runs into the 89C thermal limit with the 3D v-cache CCD.

[bobdabiulder]

43 minutes ago, Agall said:

7950x will run up to 250W if you let it, it'll min-max its thermal headroom. 13900k being the same. 7950x3D is a 150W at most CPU comparably which usually runs into the 89C thermal limit with the 3D v-cache CCD.

That’s so cool!  Unless you were planning on sending me money, it’s still out of my budget.  Anyway…

[Agall]

8 minutes ago, bobdabiulder said:

That’s so cool!  Unless you were planning on sending me money, it’s still out of my budget.  Anyway…

I would recommend stating a budget if that's out of your budget. Your OP just defines 'high end' and 'without being crazy expensive', while also discussing ~$450 CPUs, so a $680 CPU wouldn't be interpreted as 'crazy expensive' in my opinion. What would fall into that category would be Threadripper, at least by a reasonable person.

 

If a 7950x3D and 13900k are "out of your budget", then I feel like you've already figured out that a 7900/x, 7800x3D, or 13700k are within the sphere of your budget. At that point its just deciding which compromise is best for you. 7900 vs 13700k have basically the same score but the 7900 at a better wattage, 13700k at better gaming performance. 7800x3D having the best gaming performance and at a better wattage with a compromise in multithreading. It really just depends on what you value most. 

 

7900x3D and 13900k have about the same price, but most reasonable people would recommend the 13900k over the 7900x3D for simplicity's sake. However if drawing double the wattage is a concern, then the 7900x3D has a particular use case, being a blend of gaming and productivity being that. I've tested a 12c/24t down configuration with my 7950x3D and it performed just as good in most titles. Games that overload a 6c/12t don't seem to do much better on 8c/16t and can make use of the extra cores anyways where you usually see the 7950x3D gapping the 7800x3D which tracks nicely for the 7900x3D.

 

The sarcasm and snarkiness are obnoxious, but unless you're defining what your actual 'budget' is, expecting people to assume that a 13900k is 'outside your budget' that you never established is quite rude.

 

If your budget is $500, then just buy the 7900 or a 13700k and a solid air cooler. You can configure PBO to make it practically match the 7900x. If you're looking for a simple 'value' suggestion, time = money but if you value it less, than what's stopping you from just buying a $200-300 CPU?

[bobdabiulder]

23 minutes ago, Agall said:

I would recommend stating a budget if that's out of your budget. Your OP just defines 'high end' and 'without being crazy expensive', while also discussing ~$450 CPUs, so a $680 CPU wouldn't be interpreted as 'crazy expensive' in my opinion. What would fall into that category would be Threadripper, at least by a reasonable person.

Ah yes, spending 50% more money for <15% improvement in some tests is not unreasonable.  I suppose could see that making sense at the Ryzen 5 —> Ryzen 7 level.  But from 7 to 9? Idk
 

Quote

The sarcasm and snarkiness are obnoxious, but unless you're defining what your actual 'budget' is, expecting people to assume that a 13900k is 'outside your budget' that you never established is quite rude.

I am genuinely looking for help, and I said I won’t go for a 7950X long before you ever posted.  When I used gentle sarcasm at first, you doubled down on your bad recommendation.  I think it’s entirely justified to call out your niche, weird recommendation of providing less power to a CPU Ive already said I don’t want.

 

If you want a specific budget, call it $500 for the CPU and $600 for the cpu and cooler.  That puts anything over the 7900/X out of budget.  I basically already said that: 

 

5 hours ago, bobdabiulder said:

Yes, the over $500 CPU plus the extra $150 for an AIO is more than I’d like to spend here—so I’m not a fan of the 13900k or 7950X

Reading this would’ve saved you sooooo much time!

 

Can we move on and put this behind us?  I’ve decided on 7900, unless there are any objections