Asenna Steam
kirjaudu sisään
|
kieli
简体中文 (yksinkertaistettu kiina)
繁體中文 (perinteinen kiina)
日本語 (japani)
한국어 (korea)
ไทย (thai)
български (bulgaria)
Čeština (tšekki)
Dansk (tanska)
Deutsch (saksa)
English (englanti)
Español – España (espanja – Espanja)
Español – Latinoamérica (espanja – Lat. Am.)
Ελληνικά (kreikka)
Français (ranska)
Italiano (italia)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesia)
Magyar (unkari)
Nederlands (hollanti)
Norsk (norja)
Polski (puola)
Português (portugali – Portugali)
Português – Brasil (portugali – Brasilia)
Română (romania)
Русский (venäjä)
Svenska (ruotsi)
Türkçe (turkki)
Tiếng Việt (vietnam)
Українська (ukraina)
Ilmoita käännösongelmasta
Keskusteluiden säännöt ja ohjeistukset
Ilmoita tämä viesti
No... everything gaming, it does well. All of the X3D CPUs from AMD usually have proved to do Gaming better then Intel.
The problem is that pricing has gone up and right now there really isn't this whole "Oh go with AMD its the better bang for buck" ~ Hmm yea right now when you factor in CPU + Motherboard + RAM; going either AMD or Intel is a toss-up. Going either way is fine.
The only reason to use Intel still today is for certain Professional Apps.
If your mainly doing gaming, then I would suggest AMD. However make sure you look more in-depth at the various Motherboards too.
For some, the cost difference is in the hundreds, for what's essentially a guaranteed flat average uplift of 8% with occasional uplifts well into the double digits. But that's also diminished if you're running 2160p, more-so if you're not running a 4090.
Realistically, I don't see the point of getting a 9800X3D if you're not going to be running it with the absolute fastest graphics available, if going for that CPU means you have to step down to a 4080 or 4070 when you could easily afford a 4090 with a comparable chip, then you're making a mistake. It's more about min-maxing than anything else, its potential is wasted if you don't have fast enough graphics to fully unlock its potential.
Even for 4K gaming.
Sure, nobody needs 500fps on average and you will be GPU limited anyway but almost everybody will appreciate less stutters and less big dips below their monitor’s native refresh rate.
Check 1% lows data as it better represents how a CPU will handle dips and stutters at higher resolutions and with a mid range GPU.
Also upgrading a CPU is more of a hassle than upgrading a GPU. If you think of holding to your CPU for about 6years then yeah - a no brainer.
Just don’t over spend on it as the prices are still inflated in many places.
9950x best for workloads like 3D render, virtual music studio
when you want save some bucks a AMD Ryzen 7 8700F will probably be enough for gaming
and intel core ultra 7 265k is a good mid cpu for workloads
cpu does not limit res, but can limit fps
if using a 1080p 1000+hz display, cpu will most likely be the bottleneck
but 16++k res the gpu will be limiting factor
Here's the thing; the hype is just the delayed collective reaction of the market realizing "wait, it's not just a dominant Intel anymore?"
Ten to fifteen years ago, Intel was so dominant (and AMD was in such dire positions) that they could almost completely stagnate.
Ryzen released and needs no introduction. It was a huge jump up from what AMD's previous offerings were, finally brought higher core counts to the market, kept the low price, and while it was a bit slower than Intel, it was close enough to make them competitive.
Intel's reaction was to go from stagnating on core count for seven generations to panic increasing them three generations in a row (and then having to slightly dial it back in the disastrous 11th generation).
During those three generations, AMD kept edging closer. The original Ryzen was already close; Intel was moving from Sky Lake to Kaby Lake and Ryzen was probably around Haswell. So, not far back, but one generation does not earn trust, and enthusiasts/gamers stuck with Intel. By time the Ryzen 3000 series launched, the writing was on the wall; Ryzen is for real. It was still behind in performance to the 9th and 10th generation, but it was close enough while being a third cheaper. The following 5000 series saw AMD claim the performance spot from Intel for the first time in well over a decade.
The good thing was, Intel wasn't entirely sitting on its hands. While all that stale coffee from all those Coffee Lake refreshes was barely hanging on, the 12th generation was a real improvement. It had issues... like socket issues and a new non-homogeneous architecture, the latter of which led to scheduling (and even lack of game access!) issues. But performance was good and Intel was back on top, and the e-cores, while misunderstood, were good in their own way.
Then AMD tossed a latecomer out known as the 5800X3D. "What the heck is stacked cache?" Things have never been the same since. While it didn't bring up what I'll call "baseline performance", the cache was a real boon to most latency sensitive applications... games. It was the best gaming CPU, bar none. It went up against AMD's own upcoming 7000 series and matched it in games (not outside them though). And best of all, it dropped right into existing AM4 motherboards. This platform had just cemented itself as one that offered the largest increase from start to end, outdoing the previous holder of that claim, LGA 775.
But again, one generation a pattern does not make. The 5000 series had proven itself, but what about beyond that?
Well... the rest needs no introduction. The 13th generation would have been a real solid refresh (the 14th generation is an excuse of one though)... but it started showing those problems we know it to have. The 7000 series also saw an X3D release, and even the Ryzen 9s joined in.
That brings us to today. Intel's latest generation has gone backwards in games (but gone up in productivity), and the 9800X3D is so far alone it isn't even funny.
Now, do you need a 9800X3D specifically? Probably not. With pricing the way it is, I'd argue the 5700X3D would be a better alternative to most people (cheaper platform pricing and half the cost of the CPU itself while offering somewhere around 75%-ish of the performance, and that difference will shrink if you're not CPU bottlenecked anyway), even if they're not already on AM4 (but there's a good argument for a 7600/9600 instead too, but I'd only go that route if you plan to do a fast turnaround in-platform upgrade to a 10800X3D or whatever it ends up being called later). If you have less than a modern/yesterday mid-range/upper mid-range GPU and/or don't play CPU heavy games, then I'd say you don't need a 9800X3D. But is it just hype? No, it's factually shown itself to be the best gaming CPU there is and it's not even close.
This has gotten people to try and latch onto a narrative that it's bad outside games and this has also proven to be false. It's true that if you're heavy into multi-threaded productivity alone, it's never the best option from a price standpoint, but that's not what it's for. If you're not "using all the cores" level of professional work, then you're not skipping out on anything better to choose it. What else is there to buy right now? The Core Ultra 200s? That's a good single generation (Haswell repeat) platform because its predecessor was cancelled on the desktop, and the Ryzen 9000 gives that a close run in pricing for gaming/productivity performance. The 13th/14th generation CPUs? Have fun with those. The 12th generation is still fine if you find it cheap... but then it's not matching AMD's latest, and even the 5700X3D is something I'd choose over a 12600/12700 right now. There's not much reason to look at Intel if you're gaming right now. If you still have an older one that's one thing because their older stuff is still solid, but I personally wouldn't be buying anything from their current offerings.
the 7800X3D was winning 80% of the time against the crappy 14900ks, the 9800X3D completely burried it especially when you can OC it to 5.6ghz from the standard 5.4 or 5.2 stock
there's a pretty funny video of a guy coping about it, his channel is called framechasers, he's a very delusional br*tish youtuber who overclocked his 14900ks to the max with extreme cooling but left the 9800X3D at stock settings with very bad cooling and low memory speed as well, some people just cry behind the scenes.
edit: i would like to add that the 8 core 7700X and 9700X are completely utter garbage and useless now since the 9800X3D exists and can do everything those do but better
but it is priced to high.
the 7800x3d was only 330 euro.
(before they artificially created scarsity to drive up it's price)
the 9800x3d came out at mrsp of 539 euro but it only is 20% faster.. (which explaines why they inflated the price of the 7800x3d)
and at current 650 euro the 9800x3d is WAY to expensive. prices should drop BELOW mrsp not rise above it by this much..
=
the current 550 for an 7800x3d is also ridiculous..
imho an 9800x3d at 450 euro.. and the 7800x3d back at 330 euro.. would be fair prices.
if you have no imediately need to buy either..
I would raise my middle finger and wait till prices drop to something closer to these reasonable prices.
and if you can't wait.. get something else thats not overprices by as much.. you still can get an 7600x (not 3d) for 200-250 euro.. which is a much better pick at that pricepoint..
getting that.. saving yourself the scalper price for an 9800x3d or 7800x3d... and buying one later when the price is more fair.. seems than the smarter path..
He's Canadian, not British and tends to push both systems to the limit, amd simply cannot use as fast memory, as for cooling, if there is no need gir extreme cooling, why waste time using it, that AMD didn't need it is a plus not a negative, Intel, especially pushed to the limit needs extreme cooling, and has lower limits for its great performance so does not.
As for which chip to get, AMD will be the easier and faster option for the vast majority of people now, with the only downside being lower 0.1% lows or 'dips' when the fame doesn't fit in the chips cache.
As for Intel, you need to tune the system to get the best out of it, they are below the peak fps of AMD now but tend to have higher lows, so if you know what you are doing, you can get a better average experience with them, but, it will take time and money to do so, only really worth it if you tend to notice stutters happening.
You'll also have to go into the bios and lock voltages / clocks on Intel 13/14th gen chips so they don't kill themselves.
The new intel 'core ultra' chips seem a bit of a let down tbh (who'd of guessed a new architecture would have issues....)
If you are budget constrained, the 9800X3D may not be the CPU for you. If dropping down a GPU tier is required to afford the 9800X3D, you are usually probably better with a better GPU. If you are considering a top end GPU like the RTX 4090, then you do want the 9800X3D to make the best use of the GPU.
Really, any game you want to run, the 9800x3d should eat everything for breakfast. But you could just go for the option just below that and save some good money and just that would be for ram and other parts
this is the lies that need to stop.....the 9700x beats the 9800x3d in many tasks.....X3D is gaming....the rest of the stack already competes without it.....
real world if you want to do anything out side of gaming you should NOT get a X3D chip regardless of generation
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d/27.html
Without even taking other OC settings into account, it's almost 10% faster in applications than the 9700X. Users who want to take risks with overclocking can push it even further.
For users who are doing gaming but also using their machine for other applications, it's a good choice, users that need more cores may as well wait for the 9900X3D and 9950X3D because they'll get more performance in the latter, potentially without any loss in gaming performance, and rumors have suggested that the 9950X3D might even be faster as a gaming chip than the 9800X3D, which we'll have to believe once we see it, otherwise they'll just be similar.
However, AMD often sabotages itself, so it didn't last. Intel recovered most of their market share, and AMD faltered for a while. They came back, and now they're big in the console market. The Ryzen has also been a success, but it's the X3D chips that really killed it. They're not just hype.
However, the performance differences are most apparent at low resolutions. At 1920x1080, probably any high end CPU would be fine, but the 7800X3D and 9800X3D top the charts. At 2560x1440, you can get a potentially noticeable boost by using the 9800X3D or 7800X3D over a budget CPU. At 4k, the gains are generally pretty minimal, though there are exceptions. Minimum FPS is pretty much the same. source[www.techpowerup.com]
I just grabbed a 9800X3D, and I'll put it together as soon as my RAM arrives. I may try running a couple benchmarks myself to see how it runs a few of my favorite games, but TechPowerUp already did pretty comprehensive testing. I would be curious to see if the 9800X3D helps at all when upscaling, for example.