9800X3D vs ??????

[Pocahawtness]

I am looking to buy a new PC. AMD is something new to me, so I am very unfamiliar with what they do.

The 9800X3D seems like a good choice, but I am a little concerned that it's being over-hyped. It seems that it's an E-Sports CPU, and not necessarily for me. I'm not sure about other AMD processors though. I know very little about them.

What are your thoughts on this? Is the 9800X3D a no-brainer for gamers, or are they really just for the 1080P players?

[r.linder]

You can't calculate a bottleneck down to a specific percentage, it's BS and everyone that actually knows anything about computer hardware knows it. We also know that there's always a bottleneck and that it's pointless to worry about it, there's no significant bottleneck until you try something crazy like pairing a Celeron with a 4090.

[Administration]

r.linder님이 먼저 게시:

You can't calculate a bottleneck down to a specific percentage, it's BS and everyone that actually knows anything about computer hardware knows it. We also know that there's always a bottleneck and that it's pointless to worry about it, there's no significant bottleneck until you try something crazy like pairing a Celeron with a 4090.

nonsense. you can totally calculate a bottleneck down to an average (percentage);

a CPU/GPU bottleneck is generally not calculated with a single, precise formula, but is instead assessed by monitoring the utilization percentages of both the CPU and GPU during demanding tasks, where a significant disparity between the two (with the GPU significantly underutilized) indicates a CPU bottleneck, while a high CPU usage with a relatively low GPU usage suggests a GPU bottleneck; essentially, a large difference in utilization between the CPU and GPU during graphics-intensive applications points towards a bottleneck in the component with lower utilization.

a 20% bottleneck out of the box is already a deal breaker for me.

[C1REX]

Administration님이 먼저 게시:

a 20% bottleneck out of the box is already a deal breaker for me.

These calculators are complete nonsense.
A single game with the exact same settings can be CPU bottlenecked in let say a town and then GPU bottlenecked when something explodes. It completely goes out of window when you change settings and games.

[A&A]

lol
300FPS average in GTA V...
At the same time the engine starts to stutter somewhere around 180 FPS.

And do people still use GTA V as a reference? wtf?
And it's crazy how they have CSGO data, which is so stupid. I can literally tell you that the game data on this site is theoretical bs calculations.

Should we be commenting on synthetic benchmarks how comparing an 8P+16E (basically 14 or 16P equivalent of Xeon cpu) processor doesn't equal to only 8P cores? And to praise the single core turbo boost?
Also noting that more precise 4nm lithography is worse than 10nm. wtf?
And that 10% and 20% bottleneck in general tasks? Lol, it can't run with Word or something?
And the logic behind these numbers is garbage, very easly can be shown that the configurator is unreliable.

Don't tell me the next source is going to be from "Test Games" or some other random joke.

[Administration]

C1REX님이 먼저 게시:

Administration님이 먼저 게시:

a 20% bottleneck out of the box is already a deal breaker for me.

These calculators are complete nonsense.
A single game with the exact same settings can be CPU bottlenecked in let say a town and then GPU bottlenecked when something explodes. It completely goes out of window when you change settings and games.

bottleneck calculators act as a guide just like benchmarks do. they are based on users who performed an assessment and submitted their result data to a website. while they are not absolute, they give us a general idea of what is deemably baseline. ive used that site for many years and can vouch that its quite accurate just as it is useful.

the 9800X3D typically has a 20% bottleneck out of the box especially when paired with a 4090 and that's considering a 2% margin of error give or take. anyone can test and repeat this themselves.

a bottleneck isnt dictated by a game or a setting. if you read my previous comment again, you will better understand what a bottleneck is and how to assess one.

[Monk]

Sounds like cope to me.

[C1REX]

Administration님이 먼저 게시:

C1REX님이 먼저 게시:

These calculators are complete nonsense.
A single game with the exact same settings can be CPU bottlenecked in let say a town and then GPU bottlenecked when something explodes. It completely goes out of window when you change settings and games.

bottleneck calculators act as a guide just like benchmarks do. they are based on users who performed an assessment and submitted their result data to a website. while they are not absolute, they give us a general idea of what is deemably baseline. ive used that site for many years and can vouch that its quite accurate just as it is useful.

the 9800X3D typically has a 20% bottleneck out of the box especially when paired with a 4090 and that's considering a 2% margin of error give or take. anyone can test and repeat this themselves.

a bottleneck isnt dictated by a game or a setting. if you read my previous comment again, you will better understand what a bottleneck is and how to assess one.

These numbers can be very misleading.
9800x3D may show as being heavily bottlenecked by most GPUs while at the same time still helping with reducing stutters and 1% lows.
So you can be GPU limited for average FPS and CPU limited for 1% at the exact same time.
These calculators are useless at best and misleading and harmful at worst.

[Administration]

C1REX님이 먼저 게시:

Administration님이 먼저 게시:

bottleneck calculators act as a guide just like benchmarks do. they are based on users who performed an assessment and submitted their result data to a website. while they are not absolute, they give us a general idea of what is deemably baseline. ive used that site for many years and can vouch that its quite accurate just as it is useful.

the 9800X3D typically has a 20% bottleneck out of the box especially when paired with a 4090 and that's considering a 2% margin of error give or take. anyone can test and repeat this themselves.

a bottleneck isnt dictated by a game or a setting. if you read my previous comment again, you will better understand what a bottleneck is and how to assess one.

These numbers can be very misleading.
9800x3D may show as being heavily bottlenecked by most GPUs while at the same time still helping with reducing stutters and 1% lows.
So you can be GPU limited for average FPS and CPU limited for 1% at the exact same time.
These calculators are useless at best and misleading and harmful at worst.

these so called "bottleneck calculators" are not actually calculating anything but rather fetching result data from a database of user submitted results like any benchmarking site does to be used as a guide to help people as explained to you previously.

anyone can pair a 9800X3D with a 4090 in a test station using whatever motherboard and memory they please and assess that there is indeed a 19-21% bottleneck out of the box. this is a fact.

your opinion of whether these sites are accurate or not isnt much of a concern to the experts who will continue to use it. ;)

[Monk]

Sounds like coping

[C1REX]

Administration님이 먼저 게시:

e not actually calculating anything but rather fetching result data from a database of user submitted results

What data? GPU utilisation? In what games and what settings?
This data is extremely misleading if it ignores 1% lows or doesn’t tell you what games and settings it is using for calculation.

Almost all of us are CPU bottlenecked in some games in terms of 1% low and GPU bottlenecked in FPS average in single player games. Both at the same time. Even on 9800x3D and tuned 14900ks.

30% bottleneck calculation can give a wrong idea that something is too strong for the other.

[hackintoshchap]

Bottlenecks explained by a teacher:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QGnTlGUFn0

[Administration]

hackintoshchap님이 먼저 게시:

Bottlenecks explained by a teacher:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QGnTlGUFn0

You can also use Intels PresentMon utility and its GPU wait metric to show how much time the GPU is spending waiting for the CPU.

this video reminded me about another thing, the amount of frame dipping these 9800X3Ds are notorious for is another reason why I would avoid it and go 14900K. ;)

thank you for sharing!

[A&A]

Some time ago, there was maximum pre-rendered frames.

[_I_]

with vsync off if the gpu is not at 100% the cpu or something else is holding it back
can also be ram, drive, os, background tasks, other things

could also be the gpu itself, if it does not have enough vram, cache, or vram bandwidth

[hackintoshchap]

Administration님이 먼저 게시:

this video reminded me about another thing, the amount of frame dipping these 9800X3Ds are notorious for is another reason why I would avoid it and go 14900K. ;)

thank you for sharing!

Frankly this old wives tale about AMD frame dropping started with the 5800X3D. It doesn't pass the sniff test these days. Both Intel and AMD have pros and cons when it come to games and frame times. Like it says in the video "there is always going to be a bottleneck somewhere". A friend of mine has a 14900K/RTX4090 combo and he complains that the frame times should be better in many titles.

Go with any processor you want, but don't bend facts to attempt to persuade others that a 14900K is a better all round gaming CPU cause that one was put to bed some time ago.

Hopefully Intel and AMD can keep producing a whole range of excellent gaming CPU models and I would like them to use less juice than some of the more recent chips.

I have to add that I struggle with intel Arrow lake model numbers. It does also appear as if no one is talking about them and even the Intel die hards agree, that they are best avoided. We could all benefit in the long run with a more able Intel.

We don't need AMD becoming the Nvidia of X86 CPUs.

Game engines can also be a bottle neck - some like UE are well known for stuttering issues, while recent Hardware Unboxed GPU testing is showing game engines appearing to be holding back hardware.