Discussion
Apparently “The Internet’s Most Trusted Source of Computing Hardware News” has a Ryzen exception
Posted NVIDIA’s own DLSS 5 material showing a Ryzen 7 9800X3D, after the same CPU already appeared in the RTX 50-series presentation, and apparently that was removal-worthy.
For “The Internet’s Most Trusted Source of Computing Hardware News” with the “smartest moderators,” that’s some impressively selective trust. Must’ve tripped the imaginary UserBenchmark firewall.
At this rate, NVIDIA keeps “accidentally” picking Ryzen for gaming demos more consistently than this sub allows Ryzen posts.
But its the only worth buying AMD CPU for windows 11, on windows 10 14900k faster, is that even a worth mentioning win.
14600k/265k>9950x
14700k>7800x3d
EDIT: typical AMD fanboys simply can't handle data that contradicts their expectations. It's no wonder some tech sites and tech YouTubers lie to you, people who try to show a different perspective often face intense backlash and hostility.
You want to get scammed and buy AMD inferior overpriced products do it, but shouldn't other do the same, i provided 3 sources prove the same results and you are still in denial, what more evidence do you want.
The 13600K uses roughly half the power of the 9950X while delivering better gaming performance. In multi-threaded workloads, Intel and AMD are generally on par. In fact, getting more cores is often cheaper on the Intel platform, the Core Ultra 265K costs about the same as the Ryzen 5 9600X, 3x mt performance for the same price.
Since you didn't answer regarding the 9950x question and told me that the point is the entry level Intel outperforms one of the top AMD CPUs and the 13600k vs the 7700x does not fall into that description, I probably won't click play on that one, as it is a different topic/comparison, if that's ok.
EDIT: I thought I should ask Gemini about that channel - Results here
This is my channel. For the first time in PC hardware history, someone doing tests that show the full system specifications, clock speeds, and CPU and GPU usage throughout the test.
Before the price increase, DDR5-7200 used to cost exactly the same as DDR5-6000 CL30 even now if you can pay 470$ for 6000 you can pay 530$ for ddr5 7200, so why not use it?, also memory prices will come down eventually, Using faster memory is mainly an advantage on Intel, since AMD's IMC switches to a 1:2 mode at 6400 MT/s and above, resulting in diminishing returns.
I tested DDR5-7200 on the 7900X, and it performed the same as DDR5-6000 CL30. Also, some of the CPUs in this chart were tested with DDR5-6000 CL30, while others were tested with DDR5-7000, and the performance difference seems like 2%, look at the 9800x3d with ddr5 6000 and 7000.
Interesting infographic. Missing the 270k plus though which would probably tie with the top chip on that list or be second place at least. Very interesting that such a chip was intentionally left out of this chart. The 285k is even faster and should be at the very top of this list.
Not likely. It hits thermal limit faster then gets throttled. It’s not efficient enough. It’s 14900; they’re well known to overheat. It sucks because it would be a great chip otherwise, but if you can’t use all of it, why pay for it?
On the latest BIOS updates, a 14900K running with the Intel Profile delivers same performance of a 14700K. Disabling the Intel Profile can significantly increase power consumption and temperatures. the most reasonable way to gain that extra performance is to disable Hyper-Threading, turn off the Intel Profile, and then apply an undervolt to keep temperatures and power draw under control while getting its full potential.
Then save your money and get the 14700K. Even without tuning, it's much easier to keep the CPU temperatures at a reasonable level using 360AIO, with tuning you can run the cpu on 35$ air cooler.
Mine has no such issues. It’s cooled direct die with a 240mm radiator. The chip needs tuning and is crap out of the box, but tuned it’s still a really good cpu
Sure. There is always a way to keep temps down. Water, ln2, helium or whatever. It is a good chip. Im not disputing that and i think it should be higher on this list too, i just personally would prefer the ultra because that puts you on a z890
This test was done at launch. Core Ultra has received performance improvements through BIOS updates since then.When I tested it a year after release using the latest BIOS updates, the 265K was on par with the 14600K , so I expect the 270K to be roughly on par with the 14700K.
Maybe at launch, but not nowadays. It’s a beast of a chip with those improvements and can handle MUCH faster ram than the 14700 can which btw will overheat and throttle before the 270k. Can’t fit on a z890 mobo either so the whole pc will be a generation behind which as you know also means slower ram. I’m interested in hashing this out though but not for the sake of arguing with you, just because it’s a hypothesis worth testing (not that I’m uncertain though)
Arrow Lake runs cooler because it doesn't have Hyper-Threading, which also allows it to operate at lower voltages. I used the 14700K and later the 14900K, with Hyper-Threading disabled, Intel Profile turned off, with an undervolt applied, they actually ran cool, quiet, and efficiently after that.
Yeah. The gut punch of no HT. Thanks for reminding me. One of my favorite intel techs, goofy and annoying as it can be
So ok, you got them to a good temp and power draw, but by doing all that, where would you then say that they sit against the 270k plus? I mean, you’ve freed up both sides of the chip, but it’s getting less power now. I’m sure turning HT off is more of a gain than the loss to UVing, but by how much I’m curious and does it in fact give it more brute strength in that situation than the 270k?
The only Core Ultra CPU I tested was the 265K. Being on par with the 14600K isn't as bad as you might think. The 14600K is faster than the 9950X and only slightly behind the 7800X3D, while being about 15% behind the 14700K. So, if the 270K is around 10% faster than the 265K, it would probably be only about 5% behind the 14700K. Honestly, that's not bad considering it's a 24-core CPU that doesn't require tuning to run cool or need high-end cooling like the 14700K/14900K, though once tuned noctua D15 is enough to cool them
I have a 9800x3d currently. My previous several builds were Intel. Before that I had an AM3 chip. Next build, I'll choose whichever chip is best for my use again, whether it be Intel or AMD.
Same deal with AMD vs Nvidia. Have had both, will likely have both again. There's no need to 'pick a team' and I don't care if one of them 'steals the lead'. In fact it's better for all of us if they keep the pressure on each other with every release.
Exactly and this goes for everything too; cars, appliances, athletic equipment and shoes, whatever. I don't get this need to justify how you spent your money or insist how others should spend. For some reason it seems especially prevalent in PC tech; been seeing these threads for a decade
I was there too. When i was younger i thought anything other than iphone, nvidia gpu, intel cpu, windows and razer/logitech products is lame and makes me look poor. These people either want to justify spending their money or want to be attached to a company that doesn't give a fuck about them this is seriosuly retarded. I admit i was retarded to think like that in the past too. I've stayed with expensive iphones for a decade then i realised a 200$ cheap chinese phone is all i need because i just scroll insta and reddit and never use any other feature on a flagship. Instead of blindly protecting a multi billion company people need to realise they're just brands that don't care about them. Buy whatever suits your need and is a good deal.
Its not neutral here, but the only way to really be neutral is to look long term and see that both cpu oems can and will fuck us and themselves as a result royally. AM3 was amds shitshow, because they rushed a product to a market it wasnt designed for and it left the pc community divided.
Some people were coping and bought fx-8/9 series cpus even though i3s performed better in most games back then let alone i5s/7s, and you have people like certain people on this sub coping just as hard now about intel. Its cyclical and its intels turn to be rolling in shit.
Y'all way too terminally online to have beef over which silicon manufacturer is superior. Just get the best you can at a reasonable price. Nvidia went with AMD this time around and next time they may go with Intel, don't think too deeply about it
I simply shared some news posted by Nvidia, and the moderators of this subreddit took it very emotionally and reacted with hostility. They must have pretty sad lives.
why should we care about what cpu nvidia chose for testing their graphics cards, and we are fully aware that on windows 11 9800x3d is the fastest gaming though its the only worth buying AMD CPU, and we puplished our findings so intel and Microsoft be aware of the issue and address it in the next major update and if that happened 14900k will end up ahead of 9850x3d, We test and verify which sources most accurately reflect the actual performance of processors, and the only 2 sources were from PCGH and pure pc, By the way, PCGH used DDR5-5600 on Intel. With faster memory such as DDR5-7200, Intel CPUs extend their lead further and perform closer to the 9800X3D.
"With faster memory [...] Intel CPUs extend their lead further and perform closer to the 9800X3D"
Are you drunk? If they need fancy ram to perform closer to AMD they have no lead.
Before the price increase, DDR5-7200 used to cost exactly the same as DDR5-6000 CL30 even now if you can pay 470$ for 6000 you can 530$ for 7200, so why not use it?, also memory prices will come down eventually, Using faster memory is mainly an advantage on Intel, since AMD's IMC switches to a 1:2 mode at 6400 MT/s and above, resulting in diminishing returns.
And while all of that may be true (i am pretty certain 6000mt ram was always cheaper at least in europe though) it doesnt change this fact: If it just leads to Intel performing closer they are still behind, even if just a little. And if Intel is behind they have by Definition No lead.
Also in my opinion top of the line systems should have at least 64 GB ram, which would enlargen the price difference for the ram.
According to the Steam Hardware Survey, around 25% of gamers still use Windows 10, and the performance reduction Intel CPUs experience on Windows 11 could potentially be addressed through future updates. If that happens, the 9800X3D could be dethroned.
I also wouldn't mind a CPU that's 7% slower in gaming on Windows 11 if it offers roughly twice the multi-threaded performance for half the price.
According to the Steam Hardware Survey, around 25% of gamers still use Windows 10, and the performance reduction Intel CPUs experience on Windows 11 could potentially be addressed through future updates. If that happens, the 9800X3D could be dethroned.
I also wouldn't mind a CPU that's 7% slower in gaming on Windows 11 if it offers roughly twice the multi-threaded performance for half the price.
20
u/Doktor_Octopus Team Anyone ☠️ 3h ago
RIP Intel