Ryzen 7 7800X3D Processor Outperforms Intel Core i9-13900K by up to 24%, According to AMD Gaming Benchmarks

Thing is default-configured voltages are just insane. Same is true for AMD CPUs, but 3D cache already helps a lot with consumption.
I don't see why enthusiasts should care much about @stock results when situation can be improved dramatically without much hassle.

 

I can't see the watt per fps?

 

The stupid part in this context is you spent a lot extra on a CPU that clearly isn't being worked that hard. If you actually take advantage of its potential, you wouldn't be quoting power draw like it's no big deal. The 13900K doesn't top gaming charts yet has a notably higher power draw than a 7900X3D (I'm using that as an example since it is comparable in price), so, it starts to not look like such a great option anymore. The irony is, the 13900K is a clearly better performer than the 7900X3D is in productivity workloads [in Windows], yet you dismiss Cinebench (a test where the 13900K does better). Granted, the 13900K's power draw skyrockets once you start pushing all those cores.

Factor in the KS and the situation looks even less favorable for Intel.

So let's put things in a different perspective - you want to get a sports car. You have 2 choices:
Car A puts 500KW to the wheels and consumes 4.25kmpl.
Car B puts 400KW to the wheels and consumes 7kmpl.
Both cost the same. In most situations, both can accelerate fast enough to trigger traction control. Both have a similar driving experience in normal city roads. Car B is ever so slightly faster around most (but not all) circuit race tracks, car A is reliably faster in a straight line. Car A can sometimes perform better in more circuits with more expensive fuel.
Which do you think is the smarter choice for a sports car? Even if the race track(s) you have access to are the ones where A is faster, is it actually still worth the additional fuel cost?

 

well, it does look like that through red glasses.
factor in 13600KF/13700KF + platform cost and ddr5 oc headroom on 12/13 gen and amd is beaten for price/perf easily. 7900x3d costs as much as 13700KF ($350) a decent z790 board ($200) and there's still $50 difference.

 

4 grand every 2 years?

I must be doing something right spending that every 12 years maybe, if i even reach that.

 

This 'conversation' about power draw is interesting to read.

Thank god I'm a 60fps pleb, I always limit them via msi afterburner, my cpu power draw hovering aroud ±20w when gaming lol.

 

Yes but I can get 13900k+ gaming performance with a 6 years old aircooler, 6000 memory and a ITX board when buying a 7800x3d.

No need for CPU mounting frames or direct die kits for better temps and less warp of the CPU, no need for highend motherboard to reach 8000 mem speeds, no need for memory fan, no need for silicon luck on the memory controller to reach 8400 memory.

 

I'm the opposite :x MOAR FRAMES!!!

 

wow this thread has gotten off track...

in any case, i was all set to go w/ the 7900X3D to have a little more + in productivity. but this is going to be my main gaming rig for the next three years so i think i can both save money and upgrade to a platinum psu by going to the 7800X3D.

this will be my first mass market cpu in years, but like the 5800X3D it looks to hold up like the Intel Q6600 so what a great value.

 

I'm still not pulling the trigger until I see what Intel brings with Meteor Lake, but if ML is disappointing then yes, this will likely be my upgrade path.

 

Unless intel works some magic with cache, they might have trouble beating the 7800x3d at gaming.
On a side note competition is amazing!.
On a further side note....reading the comments on this thread is like reading videocardz comments :S

 

Fast DDR5 with a 7800x3D wont help as much as you might think.
The extra cache already does much of the legwork very fast ram would give, even using slow ram.
Whats left to improve with very fast ram isnt so much.
This was demonstrated with the 5800x3D.

 

And it also outperforms the mighty 7950X3D???
If 7800X3D will be the best selling CPU then 7950X3D will be the worst Intel move that AMD pulled since quite some time...

P.S. - I love the fact that AMD is making these performance benchmarks using Nvidia video cards

 

On paper some Ferrari, outperformed my old track cat by 30%...
But they have seen my car rear side most of the time.
Never believe test from a brand by the same brand (NVidia, Amd or Intel: they all do the same ) as it might NOT be neutral.

 

If you play normal time each day, you have even more reason to go AMD right now (calculate the VS by month then X12: results are astonishingly horrible for wallet )

 

There are some games where tunning memory on a 5800X3D can bring some big improvements.
For example, here is Star Citizen.

 

Yep, outliers are expected, its good to know what they are for your own use case

 

You can't count that wattage being used as waste all the time, for example my pc runs for free during the winter as the heat it produces helps warm up the room. For people who live in colder climate like in Canada, efficiency of your pc is irrelevant half the year, overclock the hell out of that thing.

 

Not every thing can fit in 96MB of L3 cache. And there are games that really use a lot of asset streaming.

 

end of story pretty much. 7950x with non x3d ccd disabled isn't even 2% faster overall.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/ryzen-7800x3d-performance-preview/16.html

(btw, see how no 6c/12t even makes it to the top10 on the charts, they're dead in the water in new games)

That's the problem with marketing these days, "up to". same BS from nvidia (dlss3 charts), intel (did you see their 13900k charts with up to 50% over 5900x ?) and amd, cherry picking scenarios.
I don't blame them though, people are gullible and most amd/intel enthusiasts have made up their minds before the product lauches.

 

Why in the wide world of sports would I "go by" your suppositions? I look at benchmarks. Your suppositions are worth exactly what I paid for them.