7800X3D or 14700K?

[KodiaKro]

I am thinking of upgrading my CPU and I am a bit torn between these 2. 

Initially I was more inclined towards the 14700K, but after reading a couple of reviews I am not that convinced anymore. Very high power consumption and heat dissipation, and in games is still a bit behind the 7800X3D (which is also a bit cheaper)

On the other hand I can probably OC the i7 to ~6Ghz all cores and then maybe it will be faster then the AMD, which, as I understood, can't really be OCed (multiplier locked).

For cooling I will most likely go for an AIO and right now I have my sights set on the Lian Li Galahad II 360 Trinity Performance.

Please check my profile for current hardware specs. 

I am interested only in gaming performance. For any non-gaming activities I do, my current 10700KF is plenty good, so any of these 2 would be more then enough. 

 

PS: I was also considering the 7900X3D, but i think price difference does not justify the performance gain. But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. 

[Naijin]

20 minutes ago, KodiaKro said:

I am thinking of upgrading my CPU and I am a bit torn between these 2. 

Initially I was more inclined towards the 14700K, but after reading a couple of reviews I am not that convinced anymore. Very high power consumption and heat dissipation, and in games is still a bit behind the 7800X3D (which is also a bit cheaper)

On the other hand I can probably OC the i7 to ~6Ghz all cores and then maybe it will be faster then the AMD, which, as I understood, can't really be OCed (multiplier locked).

For cooling I will most likely go for an AIO and right now I have my sights set on the Lian Li Galahad II 360 Trinity Performance.

Please check my profile for current hardware specs. 

I am interested only in gaming performance. For any non-gaming activities I do, my current 10700KF is plenty good, so any of these 2 would be more then enough. 

 

PS: I was also considering the 7900X3D, but i think price difference does not justify the performance gain. But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. 

It depends on what you want/like. For multitasking, the i7/i9 will be better. For gaming, they're more equal and trading blows. Sometimes the 7800X3D comes first, in another game the Intel chips.

If you're not really bothered by high temperatures and power draw, the Intel will be the better choice. Though in every single game you run, the Intel will consome about 2x up to 3x the amount of power that the 7800X3D needs for the same fps. For example, in a game where the 7800X3D consumes 50W, the Intels could draw 100-150W for the same amount of fps.

The 7900X3D has 2 groups of cores, 6 cores have access to the X3D while the others don't. For gaming only, just stick to the 7800X3D or 7950X3D if you need the threads.

[RONOTHAN##]

35 minutes ago, KodiaKro said:

On the other hand I can probably OC the i7 to ~6Ghz all cores and then maybe it will be faster then the AMD

Having used a couple Raptor Lake chips, unless you have a ludicrous amount of cooling, that's not likely. 5.6-5.8GHz is about the limit for what you can expect for water cooling and a good chip unless you resort to extreme methods like delidding and liquid metal. 

 

Unless you play one of the few games where Intel really is better (mainly Starfield and FFXIV), the 7800X3D is just the better chip in every way. 

 

39 minutes ago, KodiaKro said:

PS: I was also considering the 7900X3D, but i think price difference does not justify the performance gain. But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

The 7900X3D is actually slower than the 7800X3D, since the CCD with the cache only has 6 core, so it's effectively a 6 core gaming chip vs. an 8 core. 

[jaslion]

1 hour ago, KodiaKro said:

OC the i7 to ~6Gh

No you cannot.

 

These things run at basically max they can already.

 

A custom loop would be needed to even HOPE to cool that furnace when trying this.

 

Avoid a 7900x3d its worse than a 7800x3d for gaming and worse for multi core tasks than a 7900x3d. Its not a good cpu.

 

The 7800x3d is king of gaming also dont bother with such an overpriced cooler if you really want an aio a liquid freezer II or III is BETTER and cheaper

[porina]

1 hour ago, KodiaKro said:

I am interested only in gaming performance.

7800X3D and you're done. On average it is the best. Higher AMD CPUs add complications that can make them worse for gaming, unless you're regularly using the extra cores for other things outside gaming.

[KodiaKro]

Thank you all for the clarifications regarding 7900X3D. It's off the list now

Regarding the power consumption of the 14700K it's not direct issue, but what i would not like is a big furnace under my desk

The only scenario in which I would live with that, is if the extra performance is significant. Which I am sensing is not the case. Even if I get the 14700K at, let's say, 5.6Ghz all cores, it will probably be around the same perf as the 7800X3D stock, right?

19 minutes ago, jaslion said:

The 7800x3d is king of gaming also dont bother with such an overpriced cooler if you really want an aio a liquid freezer II or III is BETTER and cheaper

From what I saw in some reviews the Lian Li is better then the Arctic, but I will keep that in mind, and do some more research. 

[SkilledRebuilds]

Target your Monitor Refresh Rate as an FPS Target...

You'll find both are likely sufficient for most peoples needs,... IMO.

1 hour ago, KodiaKro said:

I am thinking of upgrading my CPU and I am a bit torn between these 2. 

I am interested only in gaming performance. For any non-gaming activities I do, my current 10700KF is plenty good, so any of these 2 would be more then enough. 

 

 

 

[TatamiMatt]

10 minutes ago, KodiaKro said:

Even if I get the 14700K at, let's say, 5.6Ghz all cores, it will probably be around the same perf as the 7800X3D stock, right?

7800X3D trades blow with the 14900K and beats it out on average, and while close its still a slight win for the 7800X3D, so the 14700K shouldnt be able to compete with it

[KodiaKro]

8 minutes ago, SkilledRebuilds said:

Target your Monitor Refresh Rate as an FPS Target...

I'm not sure I understand, can you please expand. 

The monitor refresh rate is 240Hz now, and will probably be raised to 360Hz when the AW2725DF will become available in my country. 

I am nowhere near this FPS unfortunately  Maybe in some very old titles, or very light games, which are not that relevant anyway

[MiszS]

3 minutes ago, KodiaKro said:

I'm not sure I understand, can you please expand. 

The monitor refresh rate is 240Hz now, and will probably be raised to 360Hz when the AW2725DF will become available in my country. 

I am nowhere near this FPS unfortunately  Maybe in some very old titles, or very light games, which are not that relevant anyway

Upgrading from 360Hz to 240Hz doesn't make any sense, the difference is way too small

[KodiaKro]

I think you meant from 240 to 360, and I agree. 

I don't really care about the refresh rate as long as it's at least 144Hz. What I care about is image quality, but it seems that producers go for very high refresh rates also.

I am very happy with my current monitor, except for text clarity, which I understand might be better with QD-OLED then it's with WOLED, so that's why I'm considering the display upgrade.

[podkall]

2 hours ago, KodiaKro said:

I am interested only in gaming performance. For any non-gaming activities I do, my current 10700KF is plenty good, so any of these 2 would be more then enough. 

I'm surprised that you're upgrading 10700KF, it's not like it's slow or lacks core count, it got both, it's an i7, it's not decade old either.

 

59 minutes ago, KodiaKro said:

From what I saw in some reviews the Lian Li is better then the Arctic, but I will keep that in mind, and do some more research.

7800x3D doesn't even need AIO, just a big Air tower like Phantom Spirit 120 SE or AG620

 

42 minutes ago, MiszS said:

Upgrading from 360Hz to 240Hz doesn't make any sense, the difference is way too small

for what purpose though, there's small gaps where it could matter

 

49 minutes ago, TatamiMatt said:

7800X3D trades blow with the 14900K and beats it out on average, and while close its still a slight win for the 7800X3D, so the 14700K shouldnt be able to compete with it

while 14900K does it with 3x the power consumption and basically almost double the heat output

[KodiaKro]

45 minutes ago, podkall said:

I'm surprised that you're upgrading 10700KF, it's not like it's slow or lacks core count, it got both, it's an i7, it's not decade old either.

That is a very good point and I would normally agree.

I usually upgrade the CPU every ~5years, but what really triggered this decision is Dragon's Dogma 2

From what I saw in reviews, both 14700K and 7800X3D are around 50% faster in 1440p games then the 10700K, albeit on a 4090. But since my GPU is nowhere near capped in DD2 in a city scene, I expect around the same perf uplift.

I know that even the 14900K struggles with DD2 as it's horribly optimized, but still, i would much rather have 50fps in the city then 35-40 as I currently have.

Another big argument for upgrading now is the timing. I intend to upgrade the GPU soon, probably to a 5080 (or go AMD if they manage to be competitive in Ray Tracing) early next year. So i would rather spread the financial burden in 2 parts, rather then having to update the CPU+GPU around the same time. 

45 minutes ago, podkall said:

7800x3D doesn't even need AIO, just a big Air tower like Phantom Spirit 120 SE or AG620

You are correct, but when I started researching for an AIO I was pretty much focusing on the 14700K. And also i tried to OC the 10700K to 5.1Ghz, and it was reaching 95-100°C on a beefy air cooler (be Quiet Dark Rock Pro 4). Also, i was thinking of moving the heat outside the case as summers get pretty hot here, and with the closed case even at the current speed (4.8Ghz@1.25V) the CPU reaches ~80ºC

And thirdly I never had an AIO, and I thought I might give it a try

 

But, I have not decided yet if I go AIO or not, unless I go for the 14700K, which I am beginning to doubt very much  

[PDifolco]

3 hours ago, KodiaKro said:

I am thinking of upgrading my CPU and I am a bit torn between these 2. 

Initially I was more inclined towards the 14700K, but after reading a couple of reviews I am not that convinced anymore. Very high power consumption and heat dissipation, and in games is still a bit behind the 7800X3D (which is also a bit cheaper)

On the other hand I can probably OC the i7 to ~6Ghz all cores and then maybe it will be faster then the AMD, which, as I understood, can't really be OCed (multiplier locked).

For cooling I will most likely go for an AIO and right now I have my sights set on the Lian Li Galahad II 360 Trinity Performance.

Please check my profile for current hardware specs. 

I am interested only in gaming performance. For any non-gaming activities I do, my current 10700KF is plenty good, so any of these 2 would be more then enough. 

 

PS: I was also considering the 7900X3D, but i think price difference does not justify the performance gain. But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. 

If you're only gaming get the 7800X3D, it's faster, cooler and way more efficient than the 14700K

You really don't need a $200+ LianLi GoldHahad to cool it, any $40 aircooler will do fine

14700K is a good pick if you do gaming AND productivity with its numerous ecores

[podkall]

48 minutes ago, KodiaKro said:

From what I saw in reviews, both 14700K and 7800X3D are around 50% faster in 1440p games then the 10700K, albeit on a 4090. But since my GPU is nowhere near capped in DD2 in a city scene, I expect around the same perf uplift.

but does your 10700k make it unplayable/bad experience?

 

50% more is 50% more, but if you're not having bad experience it doesn't need to be bought for a sake of increase,

 

just like you wouldn't buy faster SSD just because instead of 12 seconds it loads the OS in 6 seconds, 12 seconds is already fast enough.

 

48 minutes ago, KodiaKro said:

I know that even the 14700K struggles with DD2 as it's horribly optimized,

exactly, some games optimize and then suddenly even a budget CPU is fine, or decent at maintaining 60 smooth fps,

 

48 minutes ago, KodiaKro said:

Another big argument for upgrading now is the timing. I intend to upgrade the GPU soon, probably to a 5080 (or go AMD if they manage to be competitive in Ray Tracing) early next year. So i would rather spread the financial burden in 2 parts, rather then having to update the CPU+GPU around the same time. 

any hot deals for 7800x3D or B650 motherboards in your country? or DDR5 RAM?

 

48 minutes ago, KodiaKro said:

with the closed case

yeah that's probably half the culprit, the Dark Rock is pretty good cooler, it would probably be sufficient enough for 7800x3D, perhaps bit of new thermal paste to freshen it up

 

48 minutes ago, KodiaKro said:

But, I have not decided yet if I go AIO or not, unless I go for the 14700K, which I am beginning to doubt very much  

the cost's not worth for just gaming,

 

even if 14700k was faster overall and same price, what's the next upgrade? 14900k furnace? and then you're changing motherboards again

[jaslion]

2 hours ago, KodiaKro said:

let's say, 5.6Ghz all cores, it will probably be around the same perf as the 7800X3D stock, right?

A 14900ks is beat by a 7800x3d almost always so no thats not going to beat it still.

 

Also you can cool a 7800x3d well with a 40$ air cooler that is REALLY good like a thermalright peerless assasin 120 no need to waste money on an aio too.

 

Since gaming is the focus here the 7800x3d is just simply the better cpu.

[podkall]

4 minutes ago, jaslion said:

Also you can cool a 7800x3d well with a 40$ air cooler that is REALLY good like a thermalright peerless assasin 120 no need to waste money on an aio too.

They have be Quiet Dark Rock Pro 4 already, a new thermal paste and maybe static pressure fans if their closed case has empty slots could help though

[KodiaKro]

45 minutes ago, podkall said:

but does your 10700k make it unplayable/bad experience?

Yes

For me 60fps is the bare minimum. Anything below is undesirable. As I was saying in DD2 I get around 35-40 fps in the city, so bumping that to 50-60 would be huge improvement. I am well aware that such an expensive upgrade in not recommended for just one game, but, as I mentioned earlier, there are other reasons too. DD2 was just the final straw

I agree with you that going from 120 to 180 for instance has very little impact on perceived smoothness, but going from 30 to 50 has a huge impact, at least for me.

 

 

55 minutes ago, podkall said:

any hot deals for 7800x3D or B650 motherboards in your country? or DDR5 RAM?

Have no idea how hot the deals are, as I was not following AMD prices but I see the the 7800X3D is ~400EUR.

As for mobo I am going for X670 chipset, and it will probably be the Gigabyte X670 AORUS ELITE AX or the Asus TUF GAMING X670E-PLUS both around 300-320 EUR. 

And for RAM I will probably go for the G.Skill Trident Z5 32GB (2x16GB) DDR5-6000MHz CL30 for around 140-150 EUR.

[jaslion]

6 minutes ago, KodiaKro said:

Yes

For me 60fps is the bare minimum. Anything below is undesirable. As I was saying in DD2 I get around 35-40 fps in the city, so bumping that to 50-60 would be huge improvement. I am well aware that such an expensive upgrade in not recommended for just one game, but, as I mentioned earlier, there are other reasons too. DD2 was just the final straw

I agree with you that going from 120 to 180 for instance has very little impact on perceived smoothness, but going from 30 to 50 has a huge impact, at least for me.

 

 

Have no idea how hot the deals are, as I was not following AMD prices but I see the the 7800X3D is ~400EUR.

As for mobo I am going for X670 chipset, and it will probably be the Gigabyte X670 AORUS ELITE AX or the Asus TUF GAMING X670E-PLUS both around 300-320 EUR. 

And for RAM I will probably go for the G.Skill Trident Z5 32GB (2x16GB) DDR5-6000MHz CL30 for around 140-150 EUR.

Why the x670? A b650 ds3h is all you need to even run a 7950x.

 

Is there anything you NEED the x670 chipset for? All it offers extra are some niche features 99.99% of users wont touch and no reason to massively overpay.If ya want wifi the gigabyte 650 ax is there for 150€

 

Not a single difference in any performance when using these boards

[podkall]

27 minutes ago, KodiaKro said:

Yes

For me 60fps is the bare minimum. Anything below is undesirable. As I was saying in DD2 I get around 35-40 fps in the city, so bumping that to 50-60 would be huge improvement. I am well aware that such an expensive upgrade in not recommended for just one game, but, as I mentioned earlier, there are other reasons too. DD2 was just the final straw

I agree with you that going from 120 to 180 for instance has very little impact on perceived smoothness, but going from 30 to 50 has a huge impact, at least for me.

are you sure this is hardware and not a game problem? I'd reckon those barely reaching 60fps could also be choppy on 14700k even though it's more consistent

 

29 minutes ago, KodiaKro said:

As for mobo I am going for X670 chipset, and it will probably be the Gigabyte X670 AORUS ELITE AX or the Asus TUF GAMING X670E-PLUS both around 300-320 EUR.

you don't need 300€ MB for 7800x3D, even 7900x, they can run on cheaper specific motherboards

[podkall]

source date March 21, don't upgrade just because some brand new game isn't optimized:

 

 

On one hand is reasonable to ask to have for example 5600 CPU to achieve minimum requirements for game,

 

on other hand it's completely unreasonable and stupid to assume everyone that wants to play your game without stutter needs a high end CPU and GPU.

[KodiaKro]

On 4/15/2024 at 4:21 PM, jaslion said:

Why the x670? A b650 ds3h is all you need to even run a 7950x.

 

Is there anything you NEED the x670 chipset for? All it offers extra are some niche features 99.99% of users wont touch and no reason to massively overpay.If ya want wifi the gigabyte 650 ax is there for 150€

The X670 has more PCIe lanes, better VRMs, better build quality, more I/O, etc. I'd rather have more feats than I need now, then regret not having something I need, later. And the price difference is ~50euro anyways (at same product tier), so why bother with the weaker chipset?

 

@podkall As i said earlier DD2 is just one reason. And if it was just this, I wouldn't bother at all.

 

 

 

 

[podkall]

5 hours ago, KodiaKro said:

The X670 has more PCIe lanes, better VRMs, better build quality, more I/O, etc. I'd rather have more feats than I need now, then regret not having something I need, later. And the price difference is ~50euro anyways (at same product tier), so why bother with the weaker chipset?

 

@podkall As i said earlier DD2 is just one reason. And if it was just this, I wouldn't bother at all.

 

 

 

 

yes, but unless you're bloating yourself with multiples of GPUs and expansion cards and storages it doesn't really matter that there's couple more PCIe lanes

 

[TatamiMatt]

On 4/19/2024 at 3:18 PM, KodiaKro said:

The X670 has more PCIe lanes, better VRMs, better build quality, more I/O, etc. I'd rather have more feats than I need now, then regret not having something I need, later. And the price difference is ~50euro anyways (at same product tier), so why bother with the weaker chipset?

 

@podkall As i said earlier DD2 is just one reason. And if it was just this, I wouldn't bother at all.

 

 

 

 

Yes theres more in an X670, but a B650 is already overkill for the average consumers usage and overkill for AM5, and the build quality is irrelevant as there are a lot of different tiers of both X670 and B650 with various build qualities. 

 

Finally VRMs; decent B650 boards are already super overkill for AM5, unless youre heavily overclocking a 7950X, then theyre only adequate, but theyre still adequate

[KodiaKro]

I understand what you are saying, but at the same tier the price difference is not much (at least here). B650 AORUS Elite AX, is -50 euro cheaper then the X670. The B650 Gaming X is ~80 euro cheaper then the X670.

If it was like half the price, it would maybe make sense, but for under 100 euro, I wouldn't bother.