AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D vs 5800X3D: Zen 3 or Zen 4 3D V-Cache

[lripplinger]

I upgraded from a 5700x to a 5800x3d, its deffinatly noticable (90 fps vs 160 fps on same settings mw2)

My point is that if you did a blind test, how would one even know? How would you notice 90fps versus 160fps, unless you had a software counter tell you that?

 

[Blqckout]

My point is that if you did a blind test, how would one even know? How would you notice 90fps versus 160fps, unless you had a software counter tell you that?

I do benchmarking, overclocking, I use an overlay for usage, temps, core speeds etc, can deffinatly see a difference between 90 and 160 fps with my eyes, much much smoother

 

[waclark]

FWIW, Microcenter also allows online orders.

But a lot of their "special combos" are in-store only.

 

[mbrowne5061]

You should have included Microsoft flight simulator in this benchmark test.

Yeah, for a CPU-centric benchmarking article, there certainly were a lot of GPU-focused games. For CPU tests, they really should bring in some games that are CPU-bound (Stellaris, Civilization, Factorio, Satisfactory, etc). Like, none of the games picked were bad choices (as they are popular), but it is odd to not also include some strategy/planning games that rely on the CPU to do a lot of the heavy lifting.

 

[Julnor]

The price differences are a lot larger than that. It's about $380 now for the 5800X3D if you're reusing RAM, $430ish if you're buying new, DDR4 ram prices are quite low now.

The 7800X3D by itself costs more. You're looking at closer to $780 for that. That's a substantial price difference, it's over twice as much. You can just spend that difference towards a better GPU, unless you're already using the 4090 in which case money doesn't matter and you might as well do the 7800X3D build. For anyone else the price calculations really heavily favor the 5800X3D, especially depending on what you play.

And, going further on price, going towards that range you're better off just getting a PS5 or X-Series, or getting them both. Unless, again, you're going 4090 level, but you can tag another $1500+ on if that's the case and now we're well into the $2k+ range to what, play video games? I mean it's fine if that's what makes you happy, but since the article is citing price points I just don't understand how it makes any sense, from a value perspective you get the 5800X3D or a console, where value doesn't matter at all and you just want the best possible, that's when you get the 7800X3D. But really even there your other components matter, at 4k does it really? Maybe you'd rather get the 13900k?

 

[Julnor]

My point is that if you did a blind test, how would one even know? How would you notice 90fps versus 160fps, unless you had a software counter tell you that?

You can notice 90 vs 160 especially because those won't be the frame minimums. 90 definitely is about the point there are diminishing returns for sure. The difference between 60 to 90 I just don't believe anyone could argue that's not noticeable. Really even 90 to 120 is noticeable though, maybe 120 to 160 isn't as much, but maybe that also depends on the person. If I can get 120 with rock solid, as straight line as possible frametiming (a total straight line doesn't exist, but we just want the least major hiccups we can get) I find that experience to be really pleasant. Truth be told that's still the most important thing, you can even get away with 60 with a straight line, it's just the input and smoothness especially on turning and action in 3d action style games just gets better at 90+ and really 120ish.

 

[ID10T]

Still baffled that Microsoft Flight Simulator is not used in these tests, it’s by far the most CPU heavy game (sim) on the market.

 

[waclark]

The price differences are a lot larger than that. It's about $380 now for the 5800X3D if you're reusing RAM, $430ish if you're buying new, DDR4 ram prices are quite low now.

The 7800X3D by itself costs more. You're looking at closer to $780 for that. That's a substantial price difference, it's over twice as much. You can just spend that difference towards a better GPU, unless you're already using the 4090 in which case money doesn't matter and you might as well do the 7800X3D build. For anyone else the price calculations really heavily favor the 5800X3D, especially depending on what you play.

And, going further on price, going towards that range you're better off just getting a PS5 or X-Series, or getting them both. Unless, again, you're going 4090 level, but you can tag another $1500+ on if that's the case and now we're well into the $2k+ range to what, play video games? I mean it's fine if that's what makes you happy, but since the article is citing price points I just don't understand how it makes any sense, from a value perspective you get the 5800X3D or a console, where value doesn't matter at all and you just want the best possible, that's when you get the 7800X3D. But really even there your other components matter, at 4k does it really? Maybe you'd rather get the 13900k?

Don't know where you're pricing the 7800X3D, but in the US this CPU cost $439-449. A new AMD build will cost more than an old one, for one thing DDR5 is more expensive than DDR4. Mobo prices have come down for AM4 so that's less of an issue now. Based on a quick build at PartsPicker, you're about $400-500 less to build a 5800X3D (~$2000) rig than a 7800X3D (~$2500), but you will toss mobo, ram and CPU when upgrading and it won't perform quite as well.

Suggesting a console is not really an option for a lot of people. Nothing against PS or X-Box but some games don't run on those platforms and I prefer playing some games on keyboard and mouse which is more cumbersome with consoles. Plus a PC will give you the benefits of doing more than just gaming, so if you figure the cost of an average PC for that stuff you would need to add $400-500 to a console purchase.