Ryzen 7 9800X3D Review: "Devastating Gaming Performance" (Tom's Hardware)

[r.linder]

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d-review-devastating-gaming-performance/2

So the rumors mostly appear to be true, the 9800X3D really is going to dominate more than expected, Intel is at least around 30% behind now with the 14900K and even further behind with the 285K. They really need to fix this, and fast, or we might end up with diminished upgrades per generation again.

[Vince ✟]

Is that 5.7 delided or...?

[smokerob79]

its simple kids.....intel's lame idea to keep fab works in house only lead them to being behind....AMD not having the fab works in house means they can get the latest tech on production without the costs.....

intel said a quad core was all we needed for a decade and now we are saying we dont need intel at all......almost sounds like UBI-sucks saying we dont own games only to find out they wont own a company soon......

[Illusion of Progress]

Capt Spack Jarrow님이 먼저 게시:

And yet these CPU's barely matter for most.

LTT did a great objective viewpoint on this, for most people they are not at 1080P or with a GPU like a 4090.

Cool it got 800 FPS whilst the other got 750! it's pointless.

"You should choose based on what a purchase does for you today, not based on what it might do for you later"

Where a stronger CPU shines in gaming is when it is doing extreme calculations like Factorio.

This same thing gets said every time.

I remember back when Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer were competing, there were a lot of people going "yeah the difference exists but it doesn't matter since most people are GPU limited more often than CPU limited so Bulldozer is fine".

And yeah, that can be true to an extent, and most people don't NEED the fastest CPU. Buying a 7800X3D/9800X3D and paring it with an entry level GPU like an RTX 4060 might not be the best approach. But you don't buy it for 700 FPS over 650 FPS. You buy it for the Minecrafts, the City Skylines, the Factorios, the Unreal Engine 5 games, or whatnot to keep your minimums up, or to allow you to push things higher.

Or, you do it to let your CPU last longer. A good platform will see you through a GPU upgrade, maybe two, without having to worry as much. And that's worth it, because the alternative is buying the starting CPU on a platform, only to realizing that turning around and replacing it too soon is a foolish way to waste money (because you'll realize you should have just gotten the faster CPU initially instead of spending for two CPUs so quickly), only to delay it and then realize that by time you need to NATURALLY get more CPU performance, new platforms are likely to be out anyway. And most people don't upgrade CPUs that often, so going high on them (within reason) is often worthwhile. Not necessary, but not pointless either.

Obviously you can't truly future proof but if you ONLY buy for today and never look forward, you may be replacing stuff much more often than otherwise. Either approach is fine.

Also, upscaling is becoming more common as time goes on with the way games are going, so if you do that, suddenly you're back down a tier on resolution.

It's more than just RTX 4090s at 1080p scenarios that will see benefits. The low resolution, fastest GPUs are just used in performance reviews/tests to remove all the other masks that might be hiding the difference. Of course you should be aware you won't see all of that difference, all the time, but that doesn't mean it isn't there at other times (being GPU limited 100% of the time isn't the guarantee on all games or with all hardware), and it doesn't mean that there aren't other benefits like longevity.

[Skkooomer Lord]

Erm the 7800X3D is not far enough away from a 9800X3D to pull a 2600K vs 8150 joke here.

[A&A]

smokerob79님이 먼저 게시:

its simple kids.....intel's lame idea to keep fab works in house only lead them to being behind....AMD not having the fab works in house means they can get the latest tech on production without the costs.....

intel said a quad core was all we needed for a decade and now we are saying we dont need intel at all......almost sounds like UBI-sucks saying we dont own games only to find out they wont own a company soon......

Yes, it will always be the same or similar. The funny thing is that they have the reliable technology left on the table and they are "we will not compete".

[Illusion of Progress]

Capt Spack Jarrow님이 먼저 게시:

Erm the 7800X3D is not far enough away from a 9800X3D to pull a 2600K vs 8150 joke here.

Weird response, because I never said it was.

It should have been apparent that I was pointing that out as examples of one of the many, many times where people have went with the "differences between CPUs don't matter because other things mask the differences".

If you want to ignore the actual point I made because of an arbitrary detail, so be it.

[Skkooomer Lord]

Illusion of Progress님이 먼저 게시:

Capt Spack Jarrow님이 먼저 게시:

Erm the 7800X3D is not far enough away from a 9800X3D to pull a 2600K vs 8150 joke here.

Weird response, because I never said it was.

It should have been apparent that I was pointing that out as examples of one of the many, many times where people have went with the "differences between CPUs don't matter because other things mask the differences".

If you want to ignore the actual point I made because of an arbitrary detail, so be it.

The difference between the 7800X3D and 9800X3D is not the same as the difference between Sandy Bridge and first gen FX.

Yes I read correctly what you said, you don't like the answer is all.

[r.linder]

Capt Spack Jarrow님이 먼저 게시:

Illusion of Progress님이 먼저 게시:

Weird response, because I never said it was.

It should have been apparent that I was pointing that out as examples of one of the many, many times where people have went with the "differences between CPUs don't matter because other things mask the differences".

If you want to ignore the actual point I made because of an arbitrary detail, so be it.

The difference between the 7800X3D and 9800X3D is not the same as the difference between Sandy Bridge and first gen FX.

Yes I read correctly what you said, you don't like the answer is all.

That isn't what they said, you just didn't read properly.

Illusion said:

Illusion of Progress님이 먼저 게시:

This same thing gets said every time.

I remember back when Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer were competing, there were a lot of people going "yeah the difference exists but it doesn't matter since most people are GPU limited more often than CPU limited so Bulldozer is fine".

And yeah, that can be true to an extent, and most people don't NEED the fastest CPU. Buying a 7800X3D/9800X3D and paring it with an entry level GPU like an RTX 4060 might not be the best approach.

It's not about the difference between the CPUs, it's about the fact that most people don't need the fastest CPUs available if they aren't going to push it with the fastest video card available.

Thread topic wasn't even about anyone needing a 9800X3D, it was simply to marvel at how far AMD has come and how far Intel has fallen, and to marvel at how insane of a performance gap there is between AMD and Intel's overall best processors for gaming in a best case scenario. You really didn't need to explain that because people already understood that.

If I could spare the cash, then I definitely would drop thousands on a 9950X3D and 7900-XTX (specifically because I use Linux and AMD has better support, although I would prefer a 4090) but I really can't because there's more important things to deal with. My 10850K and 3080 are also more than adequate.

[Peter]

r.linder님이 먼저 게시:

the 9800X3D really is going to dominate

A complete load of rubbish

Techpowerup proved in their tests that the relative performance of the 12900k, 13900k and 14900k to the 9800X3D {given at 100%}, at 4k resolution, with a 4090, is as follows,

12900k is 97.2%

13900k is 98.7%

14900k is 98.9%

LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL.

If you don't get the above point, lets put it in FPS numbers.

The average FPS of a stock 9800X3D at 4k is 101.4 FPS {lol, overclocking didn't add an extra full frame}

12900k at 4k, average FPS is 98.3 FPS

13900k at 4k, average FPS is 100.0 FPS

14900k at 4k, average FPS is 100.3 FPS

Oh Lord my ribs are about to burst from laughter!!!

The only domination here is the shilling dominating your empty cavity between your ears.

[THE LORD]

Anyone knows the retail price?

Can't seem to find this on sale anywhere.

[r.linder]

THE LORD님이 먼저 게시:

Anyone knows the retail price?

Can't seem to find this on sale anywhere.

Probably the same MSRP as the 7800X3D and the latter will get a reduction.

[r.linder]

Peter님이 먼저 게시:

*dropping a long winded and complete load of rubbish*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-lFgbzU3LY

Benchmarks don't lie. There are easily instances like BG3 where it pulls way ahead of Intel and other AMD processors. AMD only promised 8% but they underestimated their own chip in many instances.

Your claims are also for 2160p resolution which is freaking GPU bound, genius. If you're running 2160p, you don't even need a 9800X3D because it won't make a noticeable difference until there are far more powerful GPUs available.

[Set-115689]

Isn't the chip bad for productivity vs intel?

[r.linder]

It's an 8 core CPU focused primarily on gaming, if you're going into productivity, then you go for Ryzen 9.

Intel really isn't worth buying into right now, a lot of people don't even touch BIOS and there's a good chance people end up with a board with an older BIOS that doesn't have the fixes. Arrow Lake so far is also almost a complete flop.

[Peter]

r.linder님이 먼저 게시:

Peter님이 먼저 게시:

*dropping a long winded and complete load of rubbish*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-lFgbzU3LY

Benchmarks don't lie. There are easily instances like BG3 where it pulls way ahead of Intel and other AMD processors. AMD only promised 8% but they underestimated their own chip in many instances.

Your claims are also for 2160p resolution which is freaking GPU bound, genius. If you're running 2160p, you don't even need a 9800X3D because it won't make a noticeable difference until there are far more powerful GPUs available.

I'll stick with Intel but my point is applicable to the 9800X3D.

Well, if you really really think that the vast majority of people who buy i9 cpus {I own a 12900KS and a 13900K} play at 1080p, then your thinking is out of date and irrelevant and at least a full decade behind the times.

We play with 3090 and 4090 gpus {yep I own both} on 4K OLED and 4K MiniLed monitors like the Asus PG42UQ and Asus 32UQX respectively. {yep I own both}

Sorry to burst your bubble but the 9800X3D has barely a ONE FPS ADVANTAGE over my 2 year old 12900KS at 4K, which will go down as one of the greatest cpus ever released for the enthusiast.