The 7800X3D's price has reached a 12 month high in Germany. 25% more expensive than a couple months ago. All Ryzen 9000 did was make Ryzen 7000 look like the only sensible choice
just retailers trying to make a quick buck. we saw the same thing happen with the 5800X3D for a month after 7k series launched, along with when 11th gen launched vs the 10700/900k. prices will drop again.
Felt Like they increased the 7800x3d by 10 every Week to Sell the 7600x3d for the old 7800 Price. The 7800 went from 320 to 420 and now the 7600 is 320
@@sirmonkey1985This isn't a scenario where retailers are conspiring against us. Consumers realized the 7800X3D remains the gaming king and demand spiked. It's almost completely sold out in my country.
I am also from Germany, but I stick to a Ryzen 5800X 3D build with cheaper used parts from the online stores 🤑 Will first upgrade my GPU the next years, cause I still use a RTX360 12GB 🫡
The main update/fix with 24H2 was for the new branch prediction added to the 7000 series, so 5000 series CPUs basically don't have a performance uplift in comparison (at least from the very small sample size of games I tested on a 5900x on both 23H2 and 24H2 none of them had any uplift)
@@titotech terrible point. These intel chips are known to be overvolted like hell. Undervolt the 14700k and that margin comes down. Not mention AMD sucks at light loads wattage. My 13600k uses 10-15w to watch RU-vid and do any light task. A 7800x3d idles at 25-30w, and will use above 35w to do those tasks. In the end, a 13600k and 7800x3d use the same amount of power after a day of use. Not a single person talks about this because it makes AMD look bad.
@@ProVishGaming you do realise that you get 5 hours of youtubing with 25w more, for one hour of gaming? Like game 1-2 hours a day, and you basically don't have the time to win back that excess power usage on Intel.
@@ProVishGaming Theoretical power draw from single components is less useful than the whole system from the wall, as that's what you pay for. I have never seen a good test showing how an Intel platform draws less power at idle or under light load than an AMD platform. Maybe that's why "no one talks about it"? Check Techpowerup's review of the 7800x3d for instance. For reference I went from a B550/r55600/3600MHzCL16DDR4 32GB RX 7900 XT platform -> B650/r77800X3d/6000MHzCL30DDR5 32GB and the same RX 7900 XT and I have virtually the same numbers at idle and under relatively high load (those were the tests I made).
@@mikkelkirketerp4884 do you realize my 13600k only uses 60w on average when gaming, probably only 10w more than a 7800x3d. Do you realize that I get 20% more production workload? Do you realize that I play 1440p with 4070ti so I’m gonna to see the same amount of fps no matter what? Do you realize I spent $250 for my 13600k, at a time when the 7800x3d was $450? I know some idiots that would have bought a 7800x3d and 4070 with my budget instead of a 13600k and 4070ti just cause Intel bad AMD good. $200 difference for the same performance in gaming! And with 7800x3d combo that I mentioned, you’d get way worse fps!
For all those that keep posting about the new 1202 Agesa micro-code doesn't apply to the 9700X. There is only 1 CCD for all the cores to communicate across, thus core to core latency can't get faster unless they have micro-code issues causing extra latency.
They're defending a product that they own because they don't have issues. It's anecdotal and it makes sense why they're making it. It's still stupid. Both Intel and AMD fanboys are stupid tho. @@damienlobb85
Good call. I fully forgot about that detail. But, I'm also trying out a shot of absinthe in wine, and it's way more effective than I was banking on... As for the AGESA update, the one user example WCCFTech cited definitely didn't see a change in inter-core latency. But, for when it matters in testing later on, they did see _inter-CCD_ latency come down to the same ~75 nanoseconds we get in the 7000 series. Obviously, it still doesn't matter for here, though. LOL
@@Frozoken I'm a fan of the best product for a person's needs, available funds, region, etc.. Hence why I attempted nip the Agesa bud before it blooms. That's all.
Because it beats a 14700K which is mostly a 13700K from 2 years ago in gaming and loses bigtime outside of gaming? For 7800X3D to be legendary, it needs to perform like Arrow Lake in gaming but will get demolished outside of gaming regardless.
@@Dr.WhetFarts UberBen'sShark tier waffle. OP specifies "gaming CPU". As in, specifically within the context of gaming, in case that's not clocking for you. There's currently no gaming CPU that will get you the 7800x3D's output at that insane efficiency and none on the horizon. Also, Arrow Lake? Can't wait to see how Intel scams people into buying dud chips with the power draw of a nuclear reactor. lol
If I can make one small recommendation. Could you also make an game average graph for all the games, for the 1% lows. As this metric is important to gauge smooth the game is running.
Yeah I think the issue with it is that the 1% lows will contain more noise, is most likely to end up with inaccurate values and is less likely to represent the experience across the entire game and more representative of that portion they chose to test Maybe a 5 or 10% lows average will be better? But I totally understand why he doesn’t have something like that all together
You wouldn't want _just_ the 1% low figures themselves, as that's meaningless - you can only really evaluate the lows _relative_ to the average. So you'd need some way of incorporating how far below the average the 1% lows are, too. This gets tricky. You can't just do it as a plain percentage, because e.g. "15% lower than 60 fps" means a very different experience to "15% lower than 180 fps"; those might both be "15% lower" but they're far from the same thing. It's hard to display this much information concisely. To be more precise, you just _can't_ boil this type of information down to a single figure - you have to do what you have to do right now, take in all the data and jumble it around in your head to get a feel for it.
@@johnnypopstar You are right but Not exactly. 1% lows can have a standalone meaning. Think of it this way. 0% low is essentially minimum framerate. If you wanted to know the absolute worst performance of a GPU. The problem with it here is that even a single frame can completely tank the value measured and it doesn’t tell you anything about the “typical” experience On the flip side, your eyes tend to notice 1% lows than actual average frame rates
@@odytrice Not so simple. If 1% is 70 and average is 80, that's great; if 1% is 70 and average is 140, that's terrible. The figure of 70 by itself tells you nothing.
Not buying intel until they get the power consumption under control. 150-200w power draw + the requirement to buy watercooling just to get the thermals in check, is just too much cost. AMD still better value EVEN with bad ryzen 9000 launch
Yeah, I legit don't understand how anyone can give any current intel chips the light of day. Barely improved performance, sometimes worse, for double the power usage! What a bargain. 😂
Said absolutely no one on the GPU comparison video, while in CPU one it's always a big deal, for some reason. I wonder why. As for the temps: I've seen lost of videos where 7800X3D eats at least twice less power, yet still runs hotter than my 14900KF. The power draw not always equals to temperature.
@@someperson1829People absolutely do talk about GPU power consumption, are you blind and deaf? Especially when there’s melting connectors involved. The thing is though that with a 4090 you can power limit or undervolt it and still keep most of the performance.
@@Mediiiicc~1 yr ago some amd chips had issues with asus boards and they ended up frying both the mobo and cpu but I think it ended up being asus' fault not amds
yes very hard to believe when my 13600k that is overclocked as much as humanly possible uses about 2.5x less power in significantly more cpu bound games where the pcores are all at 100%
It shouldn't be hard to believe. It's behind a whole node generation, and it's being pushed way, way beyond any kind of efficiency sweetspot. You could likely drop like 70w on it and have it perform on par with 9700X.
@@heatnup If you had energy prices that spike up to even 0,5€/kWh then you would start to care. Electricity doesn’t cost the same everywhere in the world. Less power also means less heat and noise. So yes people genuinely care.
In the office, we already have one 14700k destroyed from moderate daily usage. It will be covered by the warranty but the choice between the two is obvious for us.
Im sorry but if an Intel CPU is considered "nerfed" at 125 watts of power, there's no point in getting one. Those ppwer usage numbers were absolutely abysmal. Intel CPUs need double the power ro have on par performance with AMD. I'm hoping Core 200 CPUs will be better but I highly doubt it, even though its a new architecture.
@@TorreyCTX my 7800x3D uses 20-30W in games (tarkov, bf2042 )at 1440p and you can also see the 9950x right in those benchmarks, it's nowhere near 14700k
@@TorreyCTX Bro there is no reason to defend Intel on this.. its widely known and excepted that Intels is using way to much power, especially on the high end.. and saying its a 2022 offering makes no sence because AMD's 2022 offering also uses allot less power
@@immanuelkant7552 That doesn't change the fact that as a gaming CPU it makes no sense. Also doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people who have an actual need for multi threaded productivity buy OEM systems, so the retail price becomes meaningless.
That's not changed, btw - the 14th gen is using the same absurd high power on 23H2 too. It's just the chips. My 14700k's sat in a pretty massive Be Quiet case, under my desk, and _holy moly_ the top of the case gets *so* warm to the touch after a gaming session.
There's no way a 14700k is using 171w sustained during gameplay. That's just not possible. With my 13700k that has the same TDP, most games use between 40-80w of power. Only in loading screens when all cores (including e-cores) get pinned to 100% do you see 170w+. But that's just for the loading screen, not gameplay.
@@joelfernando1X3D CPUs don't. A 7950X3D can only use a maximum of 140W, with average around 100W with an all-core FCLK overclock. X3D CPUs don't use a lot of power because the 3D VCache can only tolerate temperatures 10C less than a normal Ryzen 7000 Zen 4 core. The X3D chiplet is also given less voltage, which decreases the power draw as well.
@@Manakuski except this parallelism makes no sense. A NA V8 is beautiful to listen to and provides great throttle response. An intel 14k provides big fan noise and big electricity bills lol
@@Manakuski I am sorry, but it seems to me your comparison doesn't fit the situation. NA V8 has far more advantages compared to smaller turbo engines (longevity and simplicity and all the derevatives which come from those), while Intel has no objective advantages other than a brand name. We can only hope it will change soon, and customers get more options to choose from.
AMD probably stopped production. TSMC does the vertical bonding for AMD, and AMD is the only customer of the technology, so it's not like TSMC has invested in a gigantic facility. We still don't have credible rumors on when the 8800X3D will launch, but I have a feeling that lackluster Zen 5 sales might push it a bit out, as AMD bins the absolute bejesus out of their chiplets (absolute best for Epyc, next best for Threadripper, next best for X3D parts, etc) so they need wafer volume to make the X3D parts.
EDIT: Are you using those older recommended settings where they still gave an "Extreme" profile for the i7s? (253/253/400A)? On that newer chart of theirs (post 13/14th gen SNAFU), they don't even have an "Extreme" profile for the i7s, only for the i9s. And on there, "Performance" (for i7s) = 253/253/307A. Which seems to limit my 14700KF to 200W power-draw - only when I up ICCmax to 360A or so will the CPU hit 250W.
Useful data. The stability concerns you pointed to relating to 13/14th Gen Intel are indeed an unresolved question, in fact I had to RMA my 13700K a week ago; the outlet confirmed it was dead and replaced it with a 14700K because that was all that was available.
almost as if my boi steve knows what he's doing 💪💪 jokes aside i really respect these guys, i hope the don't have a villain arc where they become shady tho they haven't let me down since the gtx 1000 days
With such a wide range of results it's easy to cherry pick the results required to support your narrative. I'm not saying they have a bias but just pointing out that it's not that impressive. I rate them highly but they're still engagement driven reviewers.
Agesa 1202 just came out and it fixes the high core to core latency issue for zen5. Steve has to now redo all these benchmarks, have fun Steve you'll need the redbull!!
It fixes the inter CCX latencies for the dual chiplet SKUs and also only does so in synthetic benchmarks that only measure these latencies. The way these benchmarks work just didn't work well with the changes to core parking in Zen5, it doesn't have any meaning for real world applications
A note for those who saw "Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024" at 4:08 and are wondering if there's a new version... well, there is, but it doesn't get released until November. What he tested was MSFS 2020, so ignore what's labeled there.
I was waiting for this, thanks Steve. Let's wait to see if Arrow Lake can fix this massive power consumption issue with the 14700K while almost improving on performance(and also stability of course).
I wanted to buy the 7800x3d at 330 euros but I figured the release of the 9000 series might drop the prices a little more, so I held off for a month, and now the cheapest one I could find is selling for 400 euros..
This is why they didn't release the 9800x3D as they know the 7800x3D will be popular due to the failure of the 9000 series CPUs, so clearing the stock at inflated prices!
@@AlexHusTech No that's not it. They didn't release the x3ds, because they never did it on new releases. They always wait a few months. Maybe this time longer tho...
@@pf100andahalf Mine absolutely did. It runs Windows 10 and given that I don't play lots of demanding games performance has been perfectly fine. I've been thinking that when I upgrade I'll drop Windows 98 on the old system so that I can still use my parallel port-based device programmer. :-D
True, with the launch of the x3D variances to claim their rightful place on top of gaming, along with a much-needed price reduction, the 9700x will be value king and darling of the industry. At the right entry-level price, this chip's a winner.
I still do not understand why you would not use the 105W mode on AMD. In the old video you said PBO would bring around 1,5-2% performance, while maybe using 10-20W more in gaming loads. The 14700K is just 3% in front on average while using almost 100W more with the extreme preset.
I mean a lot of people bought it after Zen 5’s launch it’s now out of stock almost everywhere. Of course retailers will jack up the prices when the demand is so high.
3% slower on gaming. Way behind in productivity. I'm amazed people are surprised that an 8 core CPU uses less power than a 20 core CPU. When you consider that, the Intel chips are surprisingly efficient.
@@jimmer411 The thing just is that in the vast majority of games the e-cores sit either completely idle or very close to idle, so it's the 8 p-cores, the cache and the memory controller sucking down all that juice. Several outlets have shown that simply disabling the e-cores in BIOS only change the power consumption and performance by single digit percent in gaming. So no, the Intel chips are not "surprisingly efficient. Especially not when you compare to the 7950X3D or 7950X that go toe to toe with the 14900k in productivity at 40-65% the powerdraw depending on the workload.
I imagine i am not the only one but would have loved to see the 7800x3d and 7600x3d parts alongside to see what kind of a bump with the latest Windows update they are getting in comparison?
I just checked. The BIOS F33B contains the AMD 1.2.0.1a, but only the next AGESA (1.2.0.2) is said to fix the inter-CCD latency. So you can start testing again...again....again. You guys are so unlucky omg! xD I suggest waiting...a little. ^^
Would be interesting to see another Memory Scaling video with 24H2, particularly for Zen 4 and 5 (7800x3d/9700X). Particularly with the new windows optimizations and recent AGESA releases, I'd be interested to see if high speed memory on Zen 4 (7800x3d specifically) now has any additional benefit.
When I built my first AM5 system: I chose the 7700X due to using mixed work loads. Now with the 7800X3D supply problem: I feel almost vindicated for using a non top of the line gaming CPU. Having said that: my 7700X doesn't back down from anything I've thrown at it and the only lag or jitters I've experienced were due to network connectivity and not the actual CPU.
Noticed Steve was saying in the conclusion that 7800X3D has been harder to come by, do we know if this a supply issue in the sense that less are being made? If so, this might be an indicator that they are gearing up for the 9000X3Ds launch.
Recently picked up a 7700x on amazon for $220 on prime day for my server I use for plex and some video editing. Been VERY happy with it especially for the price.
So basically, using faster, costlier ram and consuming double the power is crucial for Intel 14700k to take 3% avg lead over AMD's $50 cheaper, general purpose (non x3d variant) CPU.
6000MHz 32gb EXPO kit $88.99 720032gb MHz XMP kit $110 Only a $21 difference and the 7200mhz kit is faster. The 7200mhz kit is a better deal and if $21 is too much of a difference for you then just skip McDonald’s for a couple days and eat affordably and healthily.
@@heatnup That's one. How about the other two? And that's not even including a possible fourth - 9700x able to get by with smaller, cheaper power supply or be utilized in mini itx case builds. Greater than a mere $21 for maybe 3% diff in performance. Whatever.
tbh, nobody are buying these for gaming. If you are a shrewd buyer specifically for gaming, you would wait for 9800x3d or even the 9700x3d or 9600x3d if you are on a budget but want a newer gaming CPU. and the largest factor to improve your rig's gaming performance is your GPU. So all things considered, unless your gaming rig is dead or dying, you would never even consider these non-x3d chips close to the launch day in the first place. Just wait for Black Friday or Xmas sales. I never buy any tech items outside these dates. just ignore the noise in the meantime.
I cannot in my right mind understand where this idea that gamers are only buying $400+ CPU's nowadays. smh The normal, non-Vcache CPU's are still entirely viable and good for gaming.
true. in my region the top 2 most popular processor is 7800x3d and immediately after it - budget 7500f (that will be possible to upgrade in 3-5 years to 9800x3d or 9700x3d(or 10000) for cheap'ish) top3 is i5-12400F, top4 5700X3D, top5 7950X3D. first 9000 cpu is top12 9950X
I agree with you in theory... just know the pool of "I also game" customers is much larger then the "I only game" customer. Yes many people that buy this CPU will be doing some gaming on it... if you really "only game" then ya x3d or bust.
Huge thanks for including the power consumption! While data points like TDP and PL1=PL2=253Watts are easy to find, the ACTUAL power draw while gaming often is not.
This honestly just makes me curious for Intel's new gen coming "soon". Der8auer said his engineering samples really excited him and Zen5's lukewarm launch could be a great chance for Intel to change things up for the first time in like 4 years. We still wont get AVX-512 tho :/
Feel sorry for the reviewers testing the 9000 series, first the initial review, then reviewed again with the Windows 11 patch and now it will have to be tested all over again with the core latency BIOS patch. Great job AMD, if you only waited a month or two and put a bit more polish in you could have avoided all of this crap 😄
Fantastic Seinfeld reference editor!! ! ( Is it Balen? Balan ? Bailin? Bailen?) HUB should really start putting production credits in the description = you guys ARE professional hacks after all aren't you (?)
Yeah, the 14700k is a $400 CPU vs $330 for the 9700x. Not only that but the 14700k literally sucks down double or more power to give you less than a 5% advantage in performance.
That is the easiest detail for the buyer to find and the most likely to vary with time and location. Price per performance will be the first part of a video like this to become outdated, so why bother?
@@emptyshirtWhy make justifications not to include it? Simply put the USD vs USD at the price at the start of the video. We can then get a rough idea of what to expect.
Let's play devil's advocate for a moment: AMD tested 9000 series against Intel at the 125w limit since power wise that is the more direct comparison right? Why not also test at this same power to see if their numbers were accurate? We all bemoan Intel's decision to jack power to an unsustainable useage level. Even if Intel wins the benchmark numbers game, power consumption is still a massive problem and AMD will win that every time.
Gaming is a terrible CPU test, it's too memory sensitive so it's limited by cache and RAM speed and latency. The are only a few games that are CPU limited, and most of them are RTS.
@@kevinerbs2778 That's just sad, it feels like we are moving backwards. Upscaling caused all of this, the lazy devs (not all of them are lazy) use it as a crutch instead of properly optimizing their game, I rather not play those games, they don't deserve our money.
@@HP4L16 well developers could always put in mGPU. Except the agurment is always oh no one uses it and everyone uses a rtx 3060 ti or a 4060 ti, which is usually based off of steam survey which is only one pc gaming platform. I think using mGPU type games would be much better to compare cpus. Expect audeinces only now care about games that "everyone is playing" even if its a crapp coded or rushed out, & over hyped game. There around 10 mGPU games that will show differences for cpus by full removing thw gpu bottlwneck completelty even at 4k its just reviewers & audenices don't care because they're either old games or games that by their standards "no one is playing". Last no one is going to buy 2 gpus is their last aguement bevause of stuttering. Meanwhile many games have shader stuttering or treveral stuttering or just rabdom microatuttering or just plain stuttering on aingls gpu setups. Just a last note there ia mGPu setup of two rtx 4090 running cherynnolbite benchmark in 4k on tehcpowerup from the new nvidia 566 driver. It also has a 96 core epyc cpu. Gains are insane
So if we actually want to compare apples with apples, we just have to overclock the snot out of AMD to get equal power consumption? It goes to show how bad the Intel CPU in sense of optimization.
I think either Steve here or Steve from GN mentioned that AMD locks down motherboard configurations pretty tightly, unlike Intel who just rubbed stamps all mobos. There isn't much more performance to be had even at elevated power levels with PBO on, as they've tested before.
@@leocheung2547 interesting, because it's not quite a fair comparison at this point. I guess we could also just downclock the Intel CPU instead and see how that compares with the same power usage.
@@p_mouse8676at the same power, the Intel CPU loses...and yes, Intel CPU scale horribly when it comes to performance. These benchmarking videos really need disclaimers. Intel isn't advertising the 14700k to be a 200w CPU. It's disingenuous at the least.
I just bought 9700x, using Gigabyte B650's one-click 105w TDP function, greatly improved performance, HWiNFO monitoring, 3.72~5.54GHz, core VIDs 0.9V~1.37V, CPU Power 38W~105W, temperature 44°C~82°C (HyperFlow ARGB 360) my 3DMark time spy \ Steel Nomad DX12 \ (9700X+4070 Gigabyte Gaming oc ) are all NO.1 (^.^)YA~
I believe 14700k only has 8 powerful cores and the rest is efficient a.k.a slower cores, so in games/demanding tasks it's still a battle between two 8 core processors
are u also amazed how 8 keep up with 16 in amds own product stack? It's almost like the extra 8/12 aren't meant for gaming. Mfs will do anything but stop glazing AMD smh
AMD Wins! Imagine having a car being 3% faster, while consuming more than twice the amount of fuel. Ridiculous… The choice is obvious. And please include the price of a motherboard capable of 250W in your formula.
did you disable core isolation on windows 11? because don't seems so and impact a lot more performance on zen 5 up to 24% compared to 8% on intel...you can see test on Tech YES City channel and he have a very different numbers in games like in cyberpunk 250fps on 9700x, 230fps on 14700kf
Has nothing to do with VBS, also everyone has know about this for years. Scaling on W10 and W11 with the patch should be much the same: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-izqEZmjTfuM.html
@@Hardwareunboxed so did you test it with memory integrity on or off? i think more patch are needed and in Tech YES City test windows 10 it's still a lot faster than win 11 (patched or not) compared to your test i would like to know why
We never test with VBS enabled, which means memory integrity is off. This was very clearly explained in the video I linked you to. Again this isn't news, everyone has know about the impact VBS has on performance ever since Windows 11 was first introduced.
@@Hardwareunboxed you did not answer why in his test windows 10 is still a lot faster than windows 11 24h2 while in your test it's not the case....same gpu/cpu the only difference is memory i think 6200 mhz on tech yes city test
Every review site needs to just call out Microsoft for historically nerfing AMD. I'm putting my 7800X3D build together today and I'm dual booting Linux. It is painfully clear what Microsoft is doing. I remember when Kyle, Tom, and Anand called out intel when they released the 1.1 Ghz Pentium. Grow a pair. EDIT: Grow a bigger pair...
I remember when everyone was like “nah, it’s just a bad CPU generation, they won’t have a fix that makes it 5%+ faster, it will be less then margin of error” 8%+ is pretty significant Especially in those few situations where it’s a 15% performance increase There was a huge issue on launch, this isn’t a bad CPU generation from AMD, just yet another terrible launch because they didn’t let it cook long enough 🤷🏻♂️
Are you mad cause your intel cpu is heating up your room? Even if the 14700k was 25% better in benchmarks, it doesnt mean anything if they still use 2x the wattage 😅😂😅 or are you mad cause intels stock is falling faster than amds has grown? 😂
@@ivangerginov5648 i have smileys and lols, and im the mad one lolol... Look at your super serious comment. Another intel madboi i see. Dont let all those watts go to your head my brother. 😂🫡
@@danielvannuland2681 AMD Fanboy please leave. You only hurt your lovely brand and drag the AMD users credibility down. (I'm on 7800x3d and rx 6700xt btw., before you try to call me anything)
Amazon came through for me on 7800X3D, no drive, $350 USD during the summer. If I wanted one now I'd just wait since AMD is probably scrambling to get a 9800X3D out the door.
The day after you benchmarked the 9700X on release. I went to Micro Center and bought the 7800X3D bundle, B650-E Wifi (Asus), 32GB DDR5 6000MT for $499+TAX. It is a upgrade from my AM4 5800X3D. It is my gaming pc. Still rocking my Sapphire Toxic 6900XT. I am getting 63fps in Warhammer 40K 2 @1440p high. It took me an hour to play thru the 1st area. The game is not easy, but played flawlessly in game. The visuals were crisp compared to the YT videos of game play I've see from other content creators. But my go to game is still The Division 2. I wish you would bring it back to your test suite. The visuals continue to rival current games w/RT. It's the textures and the proper application of shadows I think that make it look so good.
Agree this is important too, although I don't leave my computer idle that often. More reviews need to show this. I'm also wondering if AMD will improve this with their new motherboard chipset releasing soon.
The power draw difference is insane. Could you imagine how many more people would recommend the 9700x if they had priced it at like $279? It would be flying off the shelves right now.
The problem with Zen 5 is that it doesn't bring much in the way of performance over Zen 4. Pricing wont really fix that, and wont get us back a whole generation of lost potential performance progress. We now have to wait another two years for AMD to offer something that will hopefully be a lot better.
@@maynardburger That may or may not be the case. Zen 5 was back-ported to 4nm because 3nm was facing delays and yield issues. However, AMD continued Zen 5c on 3nm, which the same architecture, but with smaller caches and more densely packed logic. If AMD want's to do a mid-cycle refresh of Zen 5 they basically have everything at their disposal to do "Zen 5+" on 3nm without major investment.
*AMD aren't silly, they knew if they released the 9800x3D chip no one will buy the 7800x3D without a big discount, so they are holding back while stock clears, that said the price has increased!*
@@Chrissy717 9800X3D will beat 7800X3D by 10-15% due to higher clock speeds and will be unlocked for OC for further gain. 9800X3D is absolutely not going to perform on par with 7800X3D. 7800X3D is great, I have gone, but the clockspeed is pretty low and why application performance is mediocre, meaning it loses to 7700X outside of gaming in everything and 7700X can even be overclocked for more performance while 7800X3D is locked down completely due to sensitive 3D cache, that is going to be LESS sensitive on 9000X3D.
What's exactly RAM price delta? I'd assume that 7200Mhz vs 6000Mhz is quite a bit more expensive. I checked now an it's like 60 usd more in the States. And all of that even omiting patchy support (definetely not gauranteed by Intel) of such RAM speed.
Are u purposefully ignoring the fact that new windows update alco increased intel performance in some games up to 30% or just blinded by some weird fanboyism?
@@keldon1137 Are u purposefully ignoring the fact that the new windows update increased intel performance much less than the AMD CPU's, in fact in most games it did not get a performance boost at all while the AMD CPU's did?
@@nossy232323 Different architectures will be affected differently, theres nothing weird about that. Especially considering that some background load (which was one of the issues with 23h2) would be handled by ecores on Intel, which AMD dosent have, its 20 cores vs 8 ecores. Its way different than 'win 11 is being made for intel while gimping amd' which clearly sounds and reads as tinfoil theory suggesting malicious behaviour/intent.
@@nossy232323 Different architectures will be affected differently, theres nothing weird about that. Especially considering that some background load (which was one of the issues with 23h2) would be handled by ecores on Intel, which AMD dosent have, its 20 cores vs 8 ecores. Its way different than 'win 11 is being made for intel while gimping amd' which clearly sounds and reads as tinfoil theory suggesting malicious behaviour/intent.
@@keldon1137 You can't just negate the fact that the performance difference with the update is abnormally large for AMD CPU's. I'm old enough to remember how Microsoft nerfed the performance of Cyrix CPUs by disabling the cache of the CPUs in Windows. It was not for nothing people called it a Wintel platform.
It honestly doesn't matter if the 9700X is faster or just as fast or 3 - 5% slower because you would have to be silly to pick the 14700K over the 9700X anyway
It doesn't matter if it can make me coffee and fetch me my slippers in this context. This was a pure gaming review, which means the target audience, for the advice given, are people who purely game. I happen to need multi threaded performance more than gaming performance myself (software developer who's only occasionally gaming) but I understand that I'm not the target audience, and I understand that I don't need to pester every gamer with my BuT i HaVe OtHeR nEeDs bovine manure in the comment section of every piece of content produced for them.
Multicore performance for what task? 7800X3D keeps up with it on most benchmarks, Office, Photoshop, etc. and destroys it gaming. All the cinebench accelerator/E-cores do is waste power.
