Yeah but even in this extreme scenario its only a 20% difference for like $1000-$1100 worth of upgrades. If you're building a new computer it makes sense I think or if you're upgrading from like a 3k series. 5K series though? I don't think so.
It's not a good one either. If AMD delayed the x3d because they had trouble making it works with more than once ccx then it was not worth it. There really is no point to this cpu. It's not bad there's simply no use case. For the work people do at home the vcache does not help. The only case you could make for this cpu is power comsumption but then you could make the same case for the 7950x in eco mode. Unless the sky fall on our heads the 7800x3d will be faster for gaming. They should have just ditch the 7950x3d and 7900x3d from the start and have the 7800x3d in the launch lineup it would have look much better for them imo.
And at the end of the year Intel will most likely have better CPU's on the market. 7k series makes little sense unless for some reason you are on a platform so old that the 5800X3D is not an option
If you are already on the 7000 series everything makes little sense. You might just as well wait for zen5. Im sure 8600x will smoke all these cpus at 299$.
Same with Guru3D's review. 5800X3D trading blows with RL and beating zen 4 in most cases. https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i9_13900k_review,23.html
Here's TPU directly comparing the 13900K to the 5800X3D using a 4090. HWU wants us to think the 13900K is 15-20% faster than a 5800X3D when in TPU's test a whopping 10 out of 53 games were even 10% faster. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/rtx-4090-53-games-core-i9-13900k-vs-ryzen-7-5800x3d/2.html I don't know why people trust HWU so much. Everything they do centers on making AMD look good.
A 13900k is what, $600? A 5800x3d is $320. Hmmmm......no brainer. Used the money I saved for a new gpu.
Nah Only in lightweight games where the 3d cache doesn't give 5800x3d additional performance over the 5800x, like csgo - there the 7000 series is alot faster. But whenever more cache is beneficial, 5800x3d is faster
E-cores enabled is actual faster in most games now. I guess the only people that know it, is the owners....
Anyone disappointed in this had some misplaced hopes. These results were very predictable. In Windows, we all know that the only real benefit the V-cache has is in gaming. The 5800X3D was mostly just held back by its limited clock speed, because otherwise it pretty much would've been the fastest in gaming. This CPU benefits from higher clock speeds but that's about it; the extra cores do nothing for gaming. If anything, it'll lose performance due to the second chiplet. As has already been discussed, the 7800X3D will be the better option. For what it's worth, this CPU is a much more compelling option under Linux: https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-ryzen9-7950x3d-linux
I always wonder who the heck games at 1080p with a 4090. Sure a damn nice Chip but at 1440p and 4k every Chip does its part. Okay in very few games core count does matter too. But mostly i would get a normal 7950x over the 3d - really no gain except in esport. And they will game on a Intel platform most of the time anyway.
Well at least it can game with the big boys and crunch some numbers too. I'm glad it's better but over all the 7000 series has been a bit of a let down.
There is also additional performance to be had with ddr5 increase in bandwidth alot of games run faster on zen4 becouse of it. 7800x3d will have best of both worlds tho.