help choosing an amd processor. coming from intel.

[geekygamer]

so im looking to upgrade my cpu by the end of the year but not looking to spend crazy amount of money. i was really looking to get an intel cpu again but after hearing all bs the 13th and 14th gens have i decided to not try my luck with them. i also looked into the ultra 7 but i decided it wont be a beneficial upgrade as that socket type will no longer be supported in the future so for future upgrades id have to get another motherboard and that isnt practical for me. 

 

so now i thought its time to look into the dark side, the side id never thought about going into because amd still confuses me to this day with their choices of cpus.. between the x variants and the x3d and so forth. 

i get that the x3d is supposed to be better for pure gaming and the x is better for productivity and multitasking. but im just looking for a cpu thats great in both departments.

 

processors i looked into:

R7 9800X3D, R9 9900X

 

so let me explain what i currently have and what i do on my pc.

 

Specs:

CPU: Intel Core i7-12700K
CPU COOLER: DeepCool LS720
GPU: MSI 5080 GAMING TRIO

RAM: 64GB DDR5

 

Use cases:

gaming= 1440p with all high graphic settings and using dlss in every game and usually cap fps at 144 since my monitor is 144.

productivity and multi tasking = i always have multiple applications running in the background like discord, spotify, other game applications like xbox and epic games, chrome (with multiple tabs and windows open), cpu and gpu monitoring utilities like cpu z, msi after burner, ect, razer synapse, steelseries gg and also antivirus program malwarebytes and maybe other background programs i have open.

 

yea as u can see im a person that never closes programs even while gaming. its just not practical for me as i use and these programs frequently. i also tend to keep a game running in the background as i use other programs just so i can jump back in a game quickly than re-launching it.  

 

in conclusion im just looking for cpu that is a great balance between gaming and multitasking. like i said not trying spend crazy amount of money so the R9 9950X3D isnt an option unfortunately lol

[YoungBlade]

The 9800X3D will be faster for gaming across the board. Your background tasks listed are not CPU demanding for a modern processor. Additionally, the overall CPU performance of the 9800X3D is a bit faster than your current 12700K when all cores are fully utilized, so whatever you can do on your current system as far as multi-tasking is concerned should at worst perform the same. In practice, the 9800X3D will be faster.

 

If you want to do core heavy productivity work, then the 9900X could make sense, but for just having background tasks open, the 9800X3D is the better option for gaming.

[Tetras]

17 minutes ago, geekygamer said:

R7 9800X3D, R9 9900X

Your multitasking doesn't sound that demanding, honestly.

 

The 9900X is definitely a better CPU for multithreaded productivity (it has 4 more cores, compared to the 9800X3D), but there's a performance loss from running the 6x6 configuration anyway and then missing the 3D cache on top. I'd say you really need to be a power user to justify the sacrifice in games.

 

17 minutes ago, geekygamer said:

CPU: Intel Core i7-12700K

 

17 minutes ago, geekygamer said:

in conclusion im just looking for cpu that is a great balance between gaming and multitasking. like i said not trying spend crazy amount of money so the R9 9950X3D isnt an option unfortunately lol

What are you hoping to get out of this upgrade exactly? Where are you feeling the most performance loss?

 

I can say that the 9800X3D does offer a performance boost in some circumstances, but is that worth the cost of changing platforms? For me, if you're not a competitive gamer that is highly sensitive to overall framerate/framerate consistency then this is more like a sidegrade and I wouldn't be bothering at this stage.

[SpookyCitrus]

The 9800X3D is the best gaming processor on the market currently. With just those background apps running I don't see a point in you needing a 9900X or higher. You really only need the higher end processors for rendering and workstation tasks, which you are not doing.

 

If you were to lean more towards the 9900X side, make sure to do the X3D version since your primary use is gaming. But again, the 9800X3D is more than enough for your use case.

[ArnoG]

From the options listed above, go for 9800X3D

[Leifster]

As stated above, this feels like a sidegrade. 
What is the reason for the upgrade? Do you have money burning a hole through your pocket?

[geekygamer]

6 minutes ago, Tetras said:

Your multitasking doesn't sound that demanding, honestly.

 

The 9900X is definitely a better CPU for multithreaded productivity (it has 4 more cores, compared to the 9800X3D), but there's a performance loss from running the 6x6 configuration anyway and then missing the 3D cache on top. I'd say you really need to be a power user to justify the sacrifice in games.

 

 

What are you hoping to get out of this upgrade exactly? Where are you feeling the most performance loss?

 

I can say that the 9800X3D does offer a performance boost in some circumstances, but is that worth the cost of changing platforms? For me, if you're not a competitive gamer that is highly sensitive to overall framerate/framerate consistency then this is more like a sidegrade and I wouldn't be bothering at this stage.

well there is a few reasons why i want to switch to amd.

1, i wanted to upgrade sooner than later my cpu is already 4 almost 5 years old and i dont want to wait for the end of 2026 or later for intels next gen cpus.

2, i wanted to upgrade for future proofing and performance stability. 

[YoungBlade]

3 minutes ago, geekygamer said:

well there is a few reasons why i want to switch to amd.

1, i wanted to upgrade sooner than later my cpu is already 4 almost 5 years old and i dont want to wait for the end of 2026 or later for intels next gen cpus.

2, i wanted to upgrade for future proofing and performance stability. 

Future proofing is a fool's errand.

 

Waiting with tech tends to be the best choice if your current hardware is meeting your needs. Is your CPU meeting your needs today?

[geekygamer]

Just now, YoungBlade said:

Future proofing is a fool's errand.

 

Waiting with tech tends to be the best choice if your current hardware is meeting your needs. Is your CPU meeting your needs today?

well my cpu is def not as good as it was the first 2 years i had it. have had a handful of issues in the past and present. but its been pretty decent so far. just feel like its not keeping up as it use to. but that maybe just human error. maybe im doing alot more than i use to. 

[Tetras]

25 minutes ago, geekygamer said:

well there is a few reasons why i want to switch to amd.

1, i wanted to upgrade sooner than later my cpu is already 4 almost 5 years old and i dont want to wait for the end of 2026 or later for intels next gen cpus.

AM5 and 1700 are really what I'd consider a competing generation.

 

It is true that the X3D does have some special qualities that push framerates higher in some scenarios, but they're close enough that they're in the same ballpark for gaming.

 

If you have a 12th gen CPU you're getting most of the performance of your graphics card (especially at 1440p), though yeah, it does depends on the game/your settings.

 

You can see some of what I'm talking about here:

 

27 minutes ago, geekygamer said:

2, i wanted to upgrade for future proofing and performance stability. 

For me, the upgrade just doesn't justify it. You're not getting performance that is leagues ahead of what you have and the upgrade path for AM5 may only have one more generation anyway.

 

If you're highly framerate sensitive or have some specific games you need more performance then sure, but otherwise I doubt you'll notice. If you need multitasking performance, then you're looking at even less of an uplift with a 9800X3D.

 

I know you said that you don't want to wait, so eh, but that's what I'd be doing.

[geekygamer]

44 minutes ago, Tetras said:

AM5 and 1700 are really what I'd consider a competing generation.

 

It is true that the X3D does have some special qualities that push framerates higher in some scenarios, but they're close enough that they're in the same ballpark for gaming.

 

If you have a 12th gen CPU you're getting most of the performance of your graphics card (especially at 1440p), though yeah, it does depends on the game/your settings.

 

You can see some of what I'm talking about here:

 

For me, the upgrade just doesn't justify it. You're not getting performance that is leagues ahead of what you have and the upgrade path for AM5 may only have one more generation anyway.

 

If you're highly framerate sensitive or have some specific games you need more performance then sure, but otherwise I doubt you'll notice. If you need multitasking performance, then you're looking at even less of an uplift with a 9800X3D.

 

I know you said that you don't want to wait, so eh, but that's what I'd be doing.

I mean if ill benefit more from waiting than yea I can wait just pricing also an issue these days. Not sure what intel got planned for their prices but I guess we'll see.

[Tetras]

15 minutes ago, geekygamer said:

I mean if ill benefit more from waiting than yea I can wait just pricing also an issue these days. Not sure what intel got planned for their prices but I guess we'll see.

If I were you, I would, yeah.

 

The platforms are not dissimilar, so you're not gaining a whole lot there (especially since you're already on DDR5) and the performance uplift in games/multitasking is not great overall either.

 

Intel's 265K is well priced in most regions (after a bunch of price cuts) and would give you a decent multithreaded improvement, but the gaming performance is only so-so on these CPUs. The 285K is way overpriced for what it offers over the 265K.

 

The 9800X3D, again, a nice uplift in some games/scenarios, but multithreaded is not much better than yours. The 9900X is a better productivity CPU (more comparable to the 265K), but since you lose the X3D's gaming performance that's putting you in win/lose territory again.

 

If you could get a 265K with the gaming performance of a 9800X3D, or a 9800X3D with the multithreaded of a 265K, that'd be more worthwhile, but unfortunately that doesn't exist yet (or at least, not in this price bracket).

 

The rumoured upcoming X3D CPUs (next gen) are thought to have 12 cores with the cache across all 12, so that could be a nice one to have. If Intel can patch the gaming performance on their next gen/next socket CPU, then that'd also be more worthwhile.

[geekygamer]

2 minutes ago, Tetras said:

If I were you, I would, yeah.

 

The platforms are not dissimilar, so you're not gaining a whole lot there (especially since you're already on DDR5) and the performance uplift in games/multitasking is not great overall either.

 

Intel's 265K is well priced in most regions (after a bunch of price cuts) and would give you a decent multithreaded improvement, but the gaming performance is only so-so on these CPUs. The 285K is way overpriced for what it offers over the 265K.

 

The 9800X3D, again, a nice uplift in some games/scenarios, but multithreaded is not much better than yours. The 9900X is a better productivity CPU (more comparable to the 265K), but since you lose the X3D's gaming performance that's putting you in win/lose territory again.

 

If you could get a 265K with the gaming performance of a 9800X3D, or a 9800X3D with the multithreaded of a 265K, that'd be more worthwhile, but unfortunately that doesn't exist yet (or at least, not in this price bracket).

 

The rumoured upcoming X3D CPUs (next gen) are thought to have 12 cores with the cache across all 12, so that could be a nice one to have. If Intel can patch the gaming performance on their next gen/next socket CPU, then that'd also be more worthwhile.

Won't choose the ultra series chip because the socket won't be supported anymore so its not practical in my case. I want an cpu where the socket type will still be supported in the next few years. That's another reason why I was considering the am5 as I hear it'll be supported til like 28

[YoungBlade]

8 minutes ago, geekygamer said:

Won't choose the ultra series chip because the socket won't be supported anymore so its not practical in my case. I want an cpu where the socket type will still be supported in the next few years. That's another reason why I was considering the am5 as I hear it'll be supported til like 28

The current rumor is that Zen 7 (the series after the next one) will use DDR6 on a new socket AM6 and be arriving in early 2028. That's over 2 years away, so maybe AMD will end up putting it on AM5, maybe if DDR6 is delayed for some reason, but it's looking like AM5 will only get 3 generations.

 

We're basically guaranteed at this point to get Zen 6 on AM5, but anything beyond that is likely to just be a refresh, like how AMD has released additional "XT" models and new X3D chips for AM4 to this day.

 

But yes, the rumors also suggest that LGA1851 is one and done, with at best an Arrow Lake refresh later this year if even that.

[Tetras]

12 minutes ago, geekygamer said:

Won't choose the ultra series chip because the socket won't be supported anymore so its not practical in my case. I want an cpu where the socket type will still be supported in the next few years. That's another reason why I was considering the am5 as I hear it'll be supported til like 28

I suspect when they say support to 28, it'll be similar to AM4, which is still technically releasing new CPUs (and BIOS updates), but they're not actually "new", i.e. not a new architecture.

 

If you're not upgrading to a superior platform (with the features, like newer gen PCIE, DDRx, USBx) I'd be cautious of what they're looking to release on that platform in the future.

 

In your situation, AM6 or Intel's new socket (after Core Ultra 200/300) would make me a lot happier.

[geekygamer]

2 hours ago, Tetras said:

The 9800X3D, again, a nice uplift in some games/scenarios, but multithreaded is not much better than yours. The 9900X is a better productivity CPU (more comparable to the 265K), but since you lose the X3D's gaming performance that's putting you in win/lose territory again.

Yea I understand that and this is the reason why I never really choose amd because I feel like they don't put out a balanced cpu at a good price point.

 

If all I really used my pc for was gaming then yes it be a no trainer and I wouldn't be asking questions. But amd is such a black and white area for cpus. Unless I. Missing somthing.

[Tetras]

16 minutes ago, geekygamer said:

Yea I understand that and this is the reason why I never really choose amd because I feel like they don't put out a balanced cpu at a good price point.

Well..., AMD's line-up isn't bad, as such, the non-X3D CPUs do offer decent gaming and productivity performance, but the 265K just happens to be a CPU that Intel have aggressively pushed (price cut) and for a productivity/mixed usage build it has made nearly every other CPU (including Intel's own, like the 285K) redundant. I suppose unless you can get a great deal on something like a 7900/7900X, 7950X or 9900X.

 

The 14700K was in a similar position to the 265K, where it held that productivity niche in the market and was a better choice than the 7800X3D there, but I don't think Intel pushed it as hard as they have with the 265K.

 

16 minutes ago, geekygamer said:

If all I really used my pc for was gaming then yes it be a no trainer and I wouldn't be asking questions.

Yeah, for sure, gaming-only you just get the 9800X3D and job done.

 

If you were upgrading from a weaker CPU (like say... a 10600K), then the 9800X3D would still be a good upgrade in both areas, but the 12700K's competitiveness in multithreading (and the X3D's relative weakness, for the money) undermines it.