New Build - 4K@120FPS

[rasz]

Budget (including currency): ~5000 AUD (no real limit but want to be sensible and not spend money needlessly)

Country: Australia

Games, programs or workloads that it will be used for: 

- 80% gaming (AAA titles targeting 4K@120FPS), 20% work (CAD, coding, photo/video editing).

Other details:

Building my first PC in over 10 years and finding part selection much more challenging this time around, and in particular CPU selection. 

 

I have been tossing between a system built around a 4090 and the following CPUs:

- Either a 13700K which is more than sufficient for gaming and more suitable for potentially intensive workloads than the 13600K with the only real downsides being power consumption and that LGA 1700 is essentially EOL.

- Or a 7800X3D which is obviously the best CPU for gaming at present, is much more power efficient and is on a platform (AM5) which will have more longevity. Would be an easy choice if it performed better in other non-gaming workloads. 

 

Also finding motherboard and memory selection difficult so really just placeholders at this stage.

 

Preliminary builds here --> 13700K Build

                                                -->7800X3D Build

 

Thanks for any advice in advance.

[Why_Me]

Here's another option. Use that 4TB SATA SSD for storage. This cpu runs cooler than the 13700K yet gives you similar performance.  

 

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: *Intel Core i7-13700 2.1 GHz 16-Core Processor  ($598.00 @ Centre Com) 
CPU Cooler: *Deepcool LT720 85.85 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler  ($178.00 @ Centre Com) 
Motherboard: *MSI B760 GAMING PLUS WIFI ATX LGA1700 Motherboard  ($284.00 @ Skycomp Technology) 
Storage: *Samsung 870 Evo 4 TB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($356.19 @ Amazon Australia) 
Total: $1416.19
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
*Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria
Generated by PCPartPicker 2023-06-19 11:04 AEST+1000

 

https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/B760-GAMING-PLUS-WIFI

 

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/230490/intel-core-i713700-processor-30m-cache-up-to-5-20-ghz/specifications.html 

Processor Base Power: 65W
Maximum Turbo Power: 219W

 

The difference between the locked and unlocked 12 gen i7's is one frame per second on average. I doubt it's any different with the 13 gen i7's.  

https://www.techspot.com/review/2391-intel-core-i7-12700/

 

 

[rasz]

12 minutes ago, Why_Me said:

The difference between the locked and unlocked 12 gen i7's is one frame per second on average. I doubt it's any different with the 13 gen i7's. 

I did not realise the non K cpus ran cooler but then maybe with this approach it would almost be worth dropping to the 13600. 

[Why_Me]

7 minutes ago, rasz said:

I did not realise the non K cpus ran cooler but then maybe with this approach it would almost be worth dropping to the 13600. 

These four cpu's are identical other than the unlocked cpu's can be overclocked and they use more juice and put out more heat as in they run hotter. I would look at the 13700 so you have the option to use Intel Quick Sync if you do any video editing. It also works great for streaming but not as good as Nvidia NVENC.

 

i7 13700K is unlocked and comes with integrated graphics. 

i7 13700K is unlocked and has no integrated graphics.

i7 13700 is locked and has integrated graphics.

i7 13700F is locked and has no integrated graphics.

[KaitouX]

43 minutes ago, Why_Me said:

Here's another option. Use that 4TB SATA SSD for storage. This cpu runs cooler than the 13700K yet gives you similar performance. 

 

Processor Base Power: 65W
Maximum Turbo Power: 219W

The 13700 doesn't run cooler, it's the same CPU but locked and have a lower power limit. If you adjust the power limit of the 13700K they are identical. In gaming they are close because games don't fully load the CPU, so it doesn't actually hit the power limit that often, even the heaviest games max out at around 120W on the 13700K, most stay under 100W, but it's important to note that on that graph the 12700 has its power limits disabled so it's effectively runs at the same wattage as the 12700K, except the one that says "65W", which is significantly slower.

The 13700F seems to be much better priced, so they should go for that or the 13700KF that is only slightly more expensive than the 13700 if they decide to go with Intel, unless they want to use the iGPU.

28 minutes ago, rasz said:

I did not realise the non K cpus ran cooler but then maybe with this approach it would almost be worth dropping to the 13600. 

It doesn't. It only has a lower default PL2, which you should increase, because 65W will cause a pretty big performance drop. Only 13600K and above are Raptor lake and have the improvements that come with it, others below are Alder Lake based.

 

If you don't do, and have no intention of starting to do multi-core heavy workloads, and price isn't an issue, I would say that the 7800X3D is the better option. The 13700F is the better value by a mile, in particular for heavy multi-core loads where the 13700 is a lot faster, but the 7800X3D is slightly faster and uses less power in games.

[Why_Me]

4 minutes ago, KaitouX said:

The 13700 doesn't run cooler, it's the same CPU but locked and have a lower power limit. If you adjust the power limit of the 13700K they are identical. In gaming they are close because games don't fully load the CPU, so it doesn't actually hit the power limit that often, even the heaviest games max out at around 120W on the 13700K, most stay under 100W, but it's important to note that on that graph the 12700 has its power limits disabled so it's effectively runs at the same wattage as the 12700K, except the one that says "65W", which is significantly slower.

The 13700F seems to be much better priced, so they should go for that or the 13700KF that is only slightly more expensive than the 13700 if they decide to go with Intel, unless they want to use the iGPU.

It doesn't. It only has a lower default PL2, which you should increase, because 65W will cause a pretty big performance drop. Only 13600K and above are Raptor lake and have the improvements that come with it, others below are Alder Lake based.

 

If you don't do, and have no intention of starting to do multi-core heavy workloads, and price isn't an issue, I would say that the 7800X3D is the better option. The 13700F is the better value by a mile, in particular for heavy multi-core loads where the 13700 is a lot faster, but the 7800X3D is slightly faster and uses less power in games.

The 13700K / 13700 outperforms the 7800X3D in productivity.  That's one of the drawbacks when you lay on the extra cache.  As far as the 7800X3D being that much faster than the i7 at gaming ... 

 

[KaitouX]

15 minutes ago, Why_Me said:

The 13700K / 13700 outperforms the 7800X3D in productivity.  That's one of the drawbacks when you lay on the extra cache.  As far as the 7800X3D being that much faster than the i7 at gaming ...

The benefit from the extra cache is extremely game dependent, in some games the difference can go over 10% even at 4K, also using 4K as benchmark isn't ideal to see CPU performance in games, even if it's realistic in this case. The 7800x3D also uses about 50W less on average while gaming.

Single core the 7800x3D while slower, is pretty close to the 13700 in both performance and power usage to the point where it's mostly irrelevant, that's why I only mentioned multi-core workloads as a benefit of the 13700, where the 13700K can perform well over 50% better. The 13700F is also a lot cheaper than the 7800X3D, so even with the worse power consumption, it still likely makes sense to get. But depending on the games the 7800X3D can be the better option if price isn't an issue.

[Why_Me]

7 minutes ago, KaitouX said:

The benefit from the extra cache is extremely game dependent, in some games the difference can go over 10% even at 4K, also using 4K as benchmark isn't ideal to see CPU performance in games, even if it's realistic in this case. The 7800x3D also uses about 50W less on average while gaming.

Single core the 7800x3D while slower, is pretty close to the 13700 in both performance and power usage to the point where it's mostly irrelevant, that's why I only mentioned multi-core workloads as a benefit of the 13700, where the 13700K can perform well over 50% better. The 13700F is also a lot cheaper than the 7800X3D, so even with the worse power consumption, it still likely makes sense to get. But depending on the games the 7800X3D can be the better option if price isn't an issue.

The 7800X3D gets waxed in productivity such as CAD. There's no overclocking that cpu since they started frying when users were enabling AMD EXPO. Add to the fact that there's like a one to two frame per second difference at 4K with those cpu's not to mention Intel Quick Sync and it's a no brainer. Raptor Lake refresh will make it even more interesting. 

[brob]

2 hours ago, Why_Me said:

The 13700K / 13700 outperforms the 7800X3D in productivity.  That's one of the drawbacks when you lay on the extra cache.  As far as the 7800X3D being that much faster than the i7 at gaming ... 

 

 

Post a link to the article from which you took the chart. Without more context the chart doesn't mean much.

[Why_Me]

3 minutes ago, brob said:

 

Post a link to the article from which you took the chart. Without more context the chart doesn't mean much.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d/

[KaitouX]

2 hours ago, oofki said:

A counter argument is the AM5 platform is still in its early days. There’s a very real possibility the CPU can be replaced in the future for a big performance bump. 

It's likely B650/X670 will have only one more generation, just like B760/Z790(this one is going to be only a refresh though), based on what AMD have said about AM5 support and their release cadence.

[rasz]

Some good points above. Thanks for your responses. I guess thinking upon my purchasing behaviour, buying computers infrequently and using for extended periods of time maybe longevity of a platform is less important than use case as I will generally skip multiple generations.

[rasz]

13700K Build

 

Any comments regarding motherboard, memory or PSU selection?

[filpo]

1 minute ago, rasz said:

13700K Build

 

Any comments regarding motherboard, memory or PSU selection?

nope, looks good!

[Why_Me]

2 minutes ago, rasz said:

13700K Build

 

Any comments regarding motherboard, memory or PSU selection?

A 360 AIO will work fine for that cpu.  That psu is one of the best ^^ Everything looks good other than I would change up on the board.

 

Better board.

https://au.pcpartpicker.com/product/9B2WGX/msi-mag-z790-tomahawk-wifi-atx-lga1700-motherboard-mag-z790-tomahawk-wifi  

 

https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/MAG-Z790-TOMAHAWK-WIFI

[Jake from WA]

Hi guys i don't know if I should start a new thread but the topic is related and I thought it might give another option aside from upgrading a whole rig just for gaming at 4k, what if you just upgraded the video card?

 

I have a 9900KF that I can OC to 5Ghz and a 2080ti. I primarily game RPG and strategy games like Assasin's Creed and Skylines. If i just upgrade my video card to a 4090, will i get much bottlenecking from my cpu? I know it's bottlenecked at 1080p and 1440p but haven't seen many reviews aside from the below video which shows a bimodal distribution of 5% to 20% of bottlenecking depending on the game and its optimization. I plan on buying the Samsung Odyssey Ark because it's on sale now and my company perk allows me to get it even cheaper at $1599. I do eventually plan to upgrade the rest of my rig, but these two upgrades themselves are already well over $3000.

 

Your thoughts on this?

 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Jake from WA
explanation on how it relates to topic