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]

Originalmente postado por Administration:

Originalmente postado por r.linder:

Synthetic benchmarks are completely different from real-world results, benchmarks only exist mainly to compare products for that specific benchmark, the data isn't actually relevant to any sense of real performance outside of that benchmark. You're just roughly estimating how much faster x is than y by z%.

right.

higher numbers would mean better performance from these said PCs.

so it does matter.

Except synthetics don't account for everything, the i9-14900K is faster as far a single-core performance which matters for games but it still loses to the 7800X3D and 9800X3D because they have something it doesn't.

3D V-cache is what makes the difference, and it can make a big difference depending on the workload. Baldur's Gate 3 is an extreme case of how much of a difference it can make because the 9800X3D is approximately 30% faster than the i9-14900K in that game.

And like I said, synthetics are only relevant to itself, it doesn't mean with 100% accuracy that one product is exactly that much faster than another, it differs based on the benchmark just as it differs in the workload. So while the 14900K is technically faster, it's also not in every instance, and vice versa, both CPUs have their uses.

Core i9s and Core Ultra 9s are enthusiast processors that technically replaced HEDTs as Intel hasn't really done a proper successor for the i9-10980XE for the actual HEDT platform. The 9800X3D is just a processor mainly focused on gaming than anything else so it's not as well-rounded in performance for all workloads compared to the 14900K.

Really though, if benchmark results mean everything and everything else means nothing to you then maybe you should get a Threadripper or Epyc, because they're sooo much faster than your 14900K.

[Administration]

Originalmente postado por A&A:

Then just buy a threadriper or EPYC, but it won't help you.
Maybe in City Skylines 2, but nowhere else.

https://youtu.be/fZr9JaVmKlc?si=W1EHSepS9fIFSidb

Let's try to stay on the topic.

[Administration]

Originalmente postado por r.linder:

Originalmente postado por Administration:

right.

higher numbers would mean better performance from these said PCs.

so it does matter.

Except synthetics don't account for everything, the i9-14900K is faster as far a single-core performance which matters for games but it still loses to the 7800X3D and 9800X3D because they have something it doesn't.

3D V-cache is what makes the difference, and it can make a big difference depending on the workload. Baldur's Gate 3 is an extreme case of how much of a difference it can make because the 9800X3D is approximately 30% faster than the i9-14900K in that game.

And like I said, synthetics are only relevant to itself, it doesn't mean with 100% accuracy that one product is exactly that much faster than another, it differs based on the benchmark just as it differs in the workload. So while the 14900K is technically faster, it's also not in every instance, and vice versa, both CPUs have their uses.

Core i9s and Core Ultra 9s are enthusiast processors that technically replaced HEDTs as Intel hasn't really done a proper successor for the i9-10980XE for the actual HEDT platform. The 9800X3D is just a processor mainly focused on gaming than anything else so it's not as well-rounded in performance for all workloads compared to the 14900K.

Really though, if benchmark results mean everything and everything else means nothing to you then maybe you should get a Threadripper or Epyc, because they're sooo much faster than your 14900K.

My 14900K slaps the 9800X3D like the Xeon W9-3495X slaps the threadripper.

[r.linder]

Originalmente postado por Administration:

Originalmente postado por r.linder:

Except synthetics don't account for everything, the i9-14900K is faster as far a single-core performance which matters for games but it still loses to the 7800X3D and 9800X3D because they have something it doesn't.

3D V-cache is what makes the difference, and it can make a big difference depending on the workload. Baldur's Gate 3 is an extreme case of how much of a difference it can make because the 9800X3D is approximately 30% faster than the i9-14900K in that game.

And like I said, synthetics are only relevant to itself, it doesn't mean with 100% accuracy that one product is exactly that much faster than another, it differs based on the benchmark just as it differs in the workload. So while the 14900K is technically faster, it's also not in every instance, and vice versa, both CPUs have their uses.

Core i9s and Core Ultra 9s are enthusiast processors that technically replaced HEDTs as Intel hasn't really done a proper successor for the i9-10980XE for the actual HEDT platform. The 9800X3D is just a processor mainly focused on gaming than anything else so it's not as well-rounded in performance for all workloads compared to the 14900K.

Really though, if benchmark results mean everything and everything else means nothing to you then maybe you should get a Threadripper or Epyc, because they're sooo much faster than your 14900K.

My 14900K slaps the 9800X3D like the Xeon W9-3495X slaps the threadripper.

Which depends entirely on the user. For you and a few others that isn't just gaming, the 14900K makes more sense, but for gaming machines, the 9800X3D is almost always going to be better.

But there's a new challenger on the horizon that's going to be able to do both and its primary rival isn't going to be the 14900K, it'll be battling more with the 285K and cheaper X3D SKUs. The R9 9950X3D is going to absolutely steamroll that i9, and while it's probably going to be slightly slower in terms of FPS, its multi-core performance is going to be substantial. Combine that with the fact that L3 cache can help in more than just games, there will be instances where the 14900K just won't be as good of an enthusiast chip.

[Administration]

Originalmente postado por r.linder:

Originalmente postado por Administration:

My 14900K slaps the 9800X3D like the Xeon W9-3495X slaps the threadripper.

Which depends entirely on the user. For you and a few others that isn't just gaming, the 14900K makes more sense, but for gaming machines, the 9800X3D is almost always going to be better.

But there's a new challenger on the horizon that's going to be able to do both and its primary rival isn't going to be the 14900K, it'll be battling more with the 285K and cheaper X3D SKUs. The R9 9950X3D is going to absolutely steamroll that i9, and while it's probably going to be slightly slower in terms of FPS, its multi-core performance is going to be substantial. Combine that with the fact that L3 cache can help in more than just games, there will be instances where the 14900K just won't be as good of an enthusiast chip.

As of the date I'm writing this, the 14900K is steamrolling the latest and greatest from AMD. Absolutely destroys it.

the 285K also steam rolls the 9800X3D and uses less energy than the 9800X3D while also destroying it.

[r.linder]

Originalmente postado por Administration:

Originalmente postado por r.linder:

Which depends entirely on the user. For you and a few others that isn't just gaming, the 14900K makes more sense, but for gaming machines, the 9800X3D is almost always going to be better.

But there's a new challenger on the horizon that's going to be able to do both and its primary rival isn't going to be the 14900K, it'll be battling more with the 285K and cheaper X3D SKUs. The R9 9950X3D is going to absolutely steamroll that i9, and while it's probably going to be slightly slower in terms of FPS, its multi-core performance is going to be substantial. Combine that with the fact that L3 cache can help in more than just games, there will be instances where the 14900K just won't be as good of an enthusiast chip.

As of the date I'm writing this, the 14900K is steamrolling the latest and greatest from AMD. Absolutely destroys it.

the 285K also steam rolls the 9800X3D and uses less energy than the 9800X3D while also destroying it.

Not in games which is why people are buying the 9800X3D. Few people care about everything else that the i9 and CU9 are good at which is why hardly anyone's buying them. Mostly Intel fanboys and overclocking enthusiasts, and based on the coping response based on nothing but useless synthetics and quiet requests to "stay on topic" when we're talking about relative CPU performance because you're making claims that aren't really true for most people here, you're probably the former, because what you just said is pure Intel fanboy copium.

The 285K is slower than the 14900K in many instances where memory latency plays a significant enough role and gets steamrolled by many CPUs in games, it's a terrible gaming chip whereas 14900K is good enough, but gamers that actually want the best are getting the 9800X3D, so get over it. AMD's making the best gaming chips right now while Intel is falling apart just trying to get its bearings after every blow.

[Tonepoet]

Originalmente postado por Administration:

Originalmente postado por A&A:

The average Passmark like benchmark displaying random numbers?

Are you denying these test results?

I don't deny the test results, but I do deny the test's relevance.

The benchmark is probably accurate for the type of computational power the benchmark is designed to test, but that isn't paricularly relevant. Due to lower clock-speeds meant to mitigate against heat sensitivity, 3D-Vcache chips are known to compare poorly when the cache is underutilized, which is likely the case with Nova-bench and many other scoring benchmarks.

This topic is about games, and games only, so you test performance in games.

When we do that, we can see that the 9800x3D outperforms everything else by a fairly wide margin[www.tomshardware.com], with 204.7 average framerate with 148 1% lows across a 13 game sample size (relatively large for reviewers)..The next fastest chip is the 7800x3D which is 178.5 and 126.

The 14900k ranks in fifth with an average frame rate of 157.8 and 1% lows of 111. It's followed immediatly by the Ryzen 9700x which is only about a frame slower in each metric for $120 cheaper.

Maybe the 14900ks can catch up to the 7800x3D and even surpass it in the 1 percent mile lows once you start applying extreme overclocking measures, since the 7800x3D is restricted to P.B.O. but the 9800x3D is starting farther ahead and due to changes in the location of the cache design and the substrate, A.M.D. was able to release the 9800x3D as a fully unlocked chip so we're probably saying you can't play catch-up with it either, although as I am not big into overclocking, I wouldn't know for sure.

If we're just taking about gaming performance, the 9800x3D is the undisputed king. The 285k is a perf. regression compared to the 14900k, so we're not even considering it, especially since it's more expensive than the 9800x3D or the 14900k. That's not even factoring in the raptor lake processor problems.

Of course however, the real discussion regarding which component you should actually use isn't about which chip is the absolute strongest. It's about which part gets you by well enough for its service life for the right price. You don't always need the top-of-the-line part, and in the long run you probably benefit more from buying a mid-range C.P.U. at half the price twice as often than you would spending that same money on the top of the line C.P.U. as often as the same budget allows.

They can only make a C.P.U. so strong at any given point in time, y'know.

[Administration]

Originalmente postado por Tonepoet:

Originalmente postado por Administration:

Are you denying these test results?

I don't deny the test results, but I do deny the test's relevance because it's probably.

The benchmark is probably accurate for the type of computational power the benchmark is designed to test, but that isn't paricularly relevant. Due to lower clock-speeds meant to mitigate against heat sensitivity, 3D-Vcache chips are known to compare poorly when the cache is underutilized, which is likely the case with Nova-bench and many other scoring benchmarks.

This topic is about games, and games only, so you test performance in games.

When we do that, we can see that the 9800x3D outperforms everything else by a fairly wide margin[www.tomshardware.com], with 204.7 average framerate with 148 1% lows across a 13 game sample size (relatively large for reviewers)..The next fastest chip is the 7800x3D which is 178.5 and 126.

The 14900k ranks in fifth with an average frame rate of 157.8 and 1% lows of 111. It's followed immediatly by the Ryzen 9700x which is only about a frame slower in each metric for $120 cheaper.

Maybe the 14900ks can catch up to the 7800x3D and even surpass it in the 1 percent mile lows once you start applying extreme overclocking measures, since the 7800x3D is restricted to P.B.O. but the 9800x3D is starting farther ahead and due to changes in the location of the cache design and the substrate, A.M.D. was able to release the 9800x3D as a fully unlocked chip so we're probably saying you can't play catch-up with it either, although as I am not big into overclocking, I wouldn't know for sure.

If we're just taking about gaming performance, the 9800x3D is the undisputed king. The 285k is a perf. regression compared to the 14900k, so we're not even considering it, especially since it's more expensive than the 9800x3D or the 14900k. That's not even factoring in the raptor lake processor problems.

Of course however, the real discussion regarding which component you should actually use isn't about which chip is the absolute strongest. It's about which part gets you by well enough for its service life for the right price. You don't always need the top-of-the-line part, and in the long run you probably benefit more from buying a mid-range C.P.U. at half the price twice as often than you would spending that same money on the top of the line C.P.U. as often as the same budget allows.

They can only make a C.P.U. so strong at any given point in time, y'know.

https://novabench.com/results

higher results = better.

you can also see from these results how the gpu performed when combined with Intel or AMD.

the winner is clearly Intel.

[The_Abortionator]

Originalmente postado por Administration:

Originalmente postado por The_Abortionator:

lol, the 14900k. You're funny.

Novabench results page -

https://novabench.com/results


9800X3D -

https://novabench.com/results?page=1&search%5Bquery%5D=9800x3d&search%5Bsort%5D=score-desc


14900K -

https://novabench.com/results?page=1&search%5Bquery%5D=14900K&search%5Bsort%5D=score-desc

Intel is clearly the winner.

Thats cool and all if all you do is benchmark but the 9800x3d is literally destroying the all other CPUs in gaming. This isn't even up for a debate.

[The_Abortionator]

Originalmente postado por Administration:

Originalmente postado por r.linder:

Which depends entirely on the user. For you and a few others that isn't just gaming, the 14900K makes more sense, but for gaming machines, the 9800X3D is almost always going to be better.

But there's a new challenger on the horizon that's going to be able to do both and its primary rival isn't going to be the 14900K, it'll be battling more with the 285K and cheaper X3D SKUs. The R9 9950X3D is going to absolutely steamroll that i9, and while it's probably going to be slightly slower in terms of FPS, its multi-core performance is going to be substantial. Combine that with the fact that L3 cache can help in more than just games, there will be instances where the 14900K just won't be as good of an enthusiast chip.

As of the date I'm writing this, the 14900K is steamrolling the latest and greatest from AMD. Absolutely destroys it.

the 285K also steam rolls the 9800X3D and uses less energy than the 9800X3D while also destroying it.

What makes you think that? No really, all real world tests shows Intel is not getting cut from the upper half of the performance charts.

[Administration]

Originalmente postado por The_Abortionator:

Originalmente postado por Administration:

As of the date I'm writing this, the 14900K is steamrolling the latest and greatest from AMD. Absolutely destroys it.

the 285K also steam rolls the 9800X3D and uses less energy than the 9800X3D while also destroying it.

What makes you think that? No really, all real world tests shows Intel is not getting cut from the upper half of the performance charts.

im an expert.

[r.linder]

Expert at something for sure, but definitely not anything related to computers...

[Administration]

Originalmente postado por r.linder:

Expert at something for sure, but definitely not anything related to computers...

cope harder.

[A&A]

Ooooh...
That's why the Intel CPU has to wait 60-70ns to receive information from the RAM, meanwhile the ryzen one does it for 3ns because the most if not all of the game engine information is in the L3 cache.
But who cares?

[_I_]

synthetic bench is designed to keep the cpu fpus at full load without waiting for data from ram or drives

games use all of that and larger amounts of random data from user input and even remote servers when playing online

looking at the bench score is like comparing cars by engine rpm alone, not hp or any other specs that actually make a difference for driving or racing or other tasks