7800X3D in productivity scenario

[Patriot1911]

I'm currently running a system with an i7-8700k and an AsRock 7900 XT (upgraded from an RTX 1080 Ti when Starfield came out because performance sucked on the former). I'm considering an upgrade to the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. I expect that CPU to be a lot better in gaming, but in most reviews it's getting dunked on in terms of productivity. Since I also do a lot of WfH, I do occasionally have to do certain things that lean heavily on the CPU (file compression, virtualization, light rendering). Now, I have to believe that a chip that's 6 years old isn't going to perform any better than a brand new chip, but is there some reason (maybe related to the 3d v-cache) why this would be the case? I'd be fine with similar productivity performance if the gaming performance went up, I just don't like the idea of going down in performance in this specific area.

[GuiltySpark_]

9 minutes ago, Patriot1911 said:

but in most reviews it's getting dunked on in terms of productivity

Context is important. Its going to be miles faster than an 8700k. Sure if your workload heavily relies on core count then more cores will be faster but enough to warrant spending for a 7950x3D? Up to you. 7800x3D will still do all the same things, you just might wait a bit longer. 

[Dedayog]

20 minutes ago, Patriot1911 said:

I'm currently running a system with an i7-8700k and an AsRock 7900 XT (upgraded from an RTX 1080 Ti when Starfield came out because performance sucked on the former). I'm considering an upgrade to the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. I expect that CPU to be a lot better in gaming, but in most reviews it's getting dunked on in terms of productivity. Since I also do a lot of WfH, I do occasionally have to do certain things that lean heavily on the CPU (file compression, virtualization, light rendering). Now, I have to believe that a chip that's 6 years old isn't going to perform any better than a brand new chip, but is there some reason (maybe related to the 3d v-cache) why this would be the case? I'd be fine with similar productivity performance if the gaming performance went up, I just don't like the idea of going down in performance in this specific area.

It's much better than an 8700K for work, and since you're using that pretty much okay...

 

Take a step back and think it through.  Cuz this is just an odd thought to have...

 

"Now, I have to believe that a chip that's 6 years old isn't going to perform any better than a brand new chip, but is there some reason (maybe related to the 3d v-cache) why this would be the case? I'd be fine with similar productivity performance if the gaming performance went up, I just don't like the idea of going down in performance in this specific area."

[Patriot1911]

10 minutes ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

Context is important. Its going to be miles faster than an 8700k. Sure if your workload heavily relies on core count then more cores will be faster but enough to warrant spending for a 7950x3D? Up to you. 7800x3D will still do all the same things, you just might wait a bit longer. 

 

Yeah, that's pretty much what I had hoped to be the case. It just isn't always easy to compare cpu's, and the age gap doesn't help. I guess that in and of itself could have told me something

 

I'm probably just going to go for the 7800X3D. I don't see the need for more than 8 cores right now or the foreseeable future. The way I see it, the 7800X3D is already enough of an improvement for the work stuff.

 

1 minute ago, Dedayog said:

It's much better than an 8700K for work, and since you're using that pretty much okay...

 

Take a step back and think it through.  Cuz this is just an odd thought to have...

 

"Now, I have to believe that a chip that's 6 years old isn't going to perform any better than a brand new chip, but is there some reason (maybe related to the 3d v-cache) why this would be the case? I'd be fine with similar productivity performance if the gaming performance went up, I just don't like the idea of going down in performance in this specific area."

 

For the record, what I was saying was that I expect the 7800X3D to be *faster* than the i7-8700. I worded it a little awkwardly, but I was trying to say: "I think the old chip WILL NOT outperform the new chip, am I wrong?"

[PDifolco]

25 minutes ago, Patriot1911 said:

I'm currently running a system with an i7-8700k and an AsRock 7900 XT (upgraded from an RTX 1080 Ti when Starfield came out because performance sucked on the former). I'm considering an upgrade to the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. I expect that CPU to be a lot better in gaming, but in most reviews it's getting dunked on in terms of productivity. Since I also do a lot of WfH, I do occasionally have to do certain things that lean heavily on the CPU (file compression, virtualization, light rendering). Now, I have to believe that a chip that's 6 years old isn't going to perform any better than a brand new chip, but is there some reason (maybe related to the 3d v-cache) why this would be the case? I'd be fine with similar productivity performance if the gaming performance went up, I just don't like the idea of going down in performance in this specific area.

You're not clearly imagining how things have progressed in 6 years

As rough power measure Cinebench is a pretty useful benchmark

A 7800X3D scores 1900 Single core / 19K all cores, a 8700K is 1200/9K ...

So unless you're into heavy tasks that take hours on your old chip, a 7800X3D will be wonderful  

 

 

[venomtail]

16 minutes ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

Context is important. Its going to be miles faster than an 8700k. Sure if your workload heavily relies on core count then more cores will be faster but enough to warrant spending for a 7950x3D? Up to you. 7800x3D will still do all the same things, you just might wait a bit longer. 

Word.

 

I have a 5800X3D and even though by relative new CPU stuff it gets slammed when it comes to productivity it's plenty for all my stuff. Sure, 7800X3D isn't designed for workloads in mind, I think unless it's some specialized uses 24 cores to compute to compute something for hours at a time, ur not gonna be missing out. 

[Patriot1911]

4 minutes ago, PDifolco said:

You're not clearly imagining how things have progressed in 6 years

As rough power measure Cinebench is a pretty useful benchmark

A 7800X3D scores 1900 Single core / 19K all cores, a 8700K is 1200/9K ...

So unless you're into heavy tasks that take hours on your old chip, a 7800X3D will be wonderful  

 

 

 

Oh that seems like a pretty big improvement. That's more than fine for what I'm going to be doing with it. Thanks

 

EDIT: Also, I'd like to reiterate that I didn't actually expect it to be worse. I just worded my initial post a little awkward.

Edited October 31, 2023 by Patriot1911

[Dedayog]

17 minutes ago, Patriot1911 said:

 

Yeah, that's pretty much what I had hoped to be the case. It just isn't always easy to compare cpu's, and the age gap doesn't help. I guess that in and of itself could have told me something

 

I'm probably just going to go for the 7800X3D. I don't see the need for more than 8 cores right now or the foreseeable future. The way I see it, the 7800X3D is already enough of an improvement for the work stuff.

 

 

For the record, what I was saying was that I expect the 7800X3D to be *faster* than the i7-8700. I worded it a little awkwardly, but I was trying to say: "I think the old chip WILL NOT outperform the new chip, am I wrong?"

You're not wrong.  While I love love love the 8700K, the 7800x3d beats it in all aspects.  All.