Ryzen 7 7800X3D vs Core i7-13700K: Top $400 Gaming CPU?

[Steve]

It's time for a classic AMD vs. Intel head-to-head gaming battle, comparing the Ryzen 7 7800X3D against the Core i7-13700K, both high performance CPUs and a close match in terms of pricing.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2700-ryzen-7800x3d-vs-core-i7-13700k/

 

[emmzo]

"Considering all these factors, if we were to build a new gaming PC with a platform budget of around $700, we would unquestionably snap up the 7800X3D."

Yes, for gaming only. But if you want an all-rounder then the i7 13700k, hands down. It trades blows depending on your selection of games, but it`s marginally slower, which amounts to what? A few fps slower? You won`t ever notice. It runs hotter, ok, as long as it is stable, I don`t care. 100W more is not that big of a deal. But then... productivity. Just look at the numbers (google it!), it`s trashing the 7800X3D from all sides. Thus, I feel Intel has a better package if you want a PC for everything, not just exclusively gaming.

 

[scavengerspc]

Its rare in the tech world that engineering can overcome marketing (IE Bullshit), but it has here.
Its not just performance, its the efficiency. Very impressive.

And thanks for this to Steve. It's rare nowadays such an obviously superior product goes against its direct apple's to apple's competitor.

 

[grvalderrama]

Impressive stuff, I don't think you can go wrong with any of this mighty cpus. AMD is doing a great job with their processors, making them faster each generation while trying to hold on the power consumption, which can become an issue in some cases (like nvidia 4090 cases).
Thanks for the review

 

[Mak Kien Leong]

I've dealt with beta quality BIOS for a year on 5900X. With recent 7800X3D killing itself and the motherboard. More beta quality BIOS as well. I would be careful when I wanna try it.

 

[mdenigma]

Much more interesting is the fact, that a 5800X3D at 285€ EUR (incl. VAT) is all you need for a 100-200 FPS (!) experience the next years. As a casual gamer, my aged 5775C runs sub 30W in Diablo 4 and there is virtually no market for these CPU's - only desire. Sorry.

 

[WhiteLeaff]

The best CPU for gaming overall.

 

[poshflamingos]

"Considering all these factors, if we were to build a new gaming PC with a platform budget of around $700, we would unquestionably snap up the 7800X3D."

Yes, for gaming only. But if you want an all-rounder then the i7 13700k, hands down. It trades blows depending on your selection of games, but it`s marginally slower, which amounts to what? A few fps slower? You won`t ever notice. It runs hotter, ok, as long as it is stable, I don`t care. 100W more is not that big of a deal. But then... productivity. Just look at the numbers (google it!), it`s trashing the 7800X3D from all sides. Thus, I feel Intel has a better package if you want a PC for everything, not just exclusively gaming.

Except those two are not the only $400 CPUs that exist, and for that price you can also get a Ryzen 7900X, which is faster than the 13700K in MT workloads, only marginally slower in gaming (which according to you you'll "never notice") and isn't a 250W furnace.

 

[HardReset]

Yes, for gaming only. But if you want an all-rounder then the i7 13700k, hands down. It trades blows depending on your selection of games, but it`s marginally slower, which amounts to what? A few fps slower? You won`t ever notice. It runs hotter, ok, as long as it is stable, I don`t care. 100W more is not that big of a deal. But then... productivity. Just look at the numbers (google it!), it`s trashing the 7800X3D from all sides. Thus, I feel Intel has a better package if you want a PC for everything, not just exclusively gaming.

Productivity? Remember that because Intel added crap cores, it cannot support AVX-512 that helps a lot in ... productivity. Facepalm from Intel.

Also 100 watt difference really is big unless you accept that your computer is very noisy. Adding that AMD motherboards are better and have much better upgrade paths, I see zero reason going with Intel.

 

[Rock Dirty]

How hard would it have been for you all to color-code the graphs by manufacturer?

This is really "Presentation 101" level stuff.

C'mon people...

 

[jpvalverde85]

The only game where the Core i7 is faster is literally Cyberpunk 2077, and that one was recently patched by an user/fan due to wrong use/detection of available threads on Ryzen, thrashing the performance, so Steven could you include a set of results of patched Cyberpunk 2077 to check where it stands when properly optimized for Ryzen? Thanks

 

[antiproduct]

"100W more is not that big of a deal."

As previous posters pointed out your problems with reasoning and other CPUs you'd get if productivity was your concern not to mention that this article is specifically about gaming, I wanted to focus on the power usage, which you think isn't a big deal. Where I live, it's $0.56 per kWh (and it gets more expensive as you use more electricity, price so high thanks to greed and deregulation). So, let's see... say we use the computer for 8 hours a day, that adds up to about an extra $163.52 each year. Which, when you're comparing cost as much as they are in this review, that counts. Also, not to mention 100W of extra heat in your room, which would require additional room cooling. Although, I guess that'd be nice in the winter, but in general I'd think cooling a localized room would be what you'd be doing more since you'd probably heat your entire house another way.

 

[Strawman]

As previous posters pointed out your problems with reasoning and other CPUs you'd get if productivity was your concern not to mention that this article is specifically about gaming, I wanted to focus on the power usage, which you think isn't a big deal. Where I live, it's $0.56 per kWh (and it gets more expensive as you use more electricity, price so high thanks to greed and deregulation). So, let's see... say we use the computer for 8 hours a day, that adds up to about an extra $163.52 each year. Which, when you're comparing cost as much as they are in this review, that counts. Also, not to mention 100W of extra heat in your room, which would require additional room cooling. Although, I guess that'd be nice in the winter, but in general I'd think cooling a localized room would be what you'd be doing more since you'd probably heat your entire house another way.

The 13700k doesn't consume 100w more though, that's absurd. In games the difference is barely even 50w. In productivity you can run it at the same watts as the 7800x 3d and still be MUCH faster, meaning the 13700k will actually save you electricity.

Also, the 13700k idles and does simple tasks (like web browsing) at way lower wattage than the 7800x 3d. Intel browses the web using less 5 to 10 watts, the 7800x 3d needs 20+.

 

[Julnor]

Much more interesting is the fact, that a 5800X3D at 285€ EUR (incl. VAT) is all you need for a 100-200 FPS (!) experience the next years. As a casual gamer, my aged 5775C runs sub 30W in Diablo 4 and there is virtually no market for these CPU's - only desire. Sorry.

Yeah if you're already on AM4 just upgrading to the 5800X3D and then forgetting about CPUs for several years makes sense. The 7800X3D is more for new builders, but with platform costs and maturity, it's probably better to wait that out too, maybe grab the 7700 and wait for an X3D down the line, the value on the 7700 looks impressive tbh.

 

[mbk34]

There's also the point that you will be able to upgrade the AMD CPU whereas this is the end of the road with Intel. It would of been interesting comparing the numbers with the 7600 (no X) and the i5-13500 to see whether it's worth spending $400.

Personally, in CPU reviews, I'd like to see what GPU (from all manufacturers) best matches the CPU being tested. Also vice versa when doing GPU reviews. It would save a lot of research.

 

[HardReset]

Also, the 13700k idles and does simple tasks (like web browsing) at way lower wattage than the 7800x 3d. Intel browses the web using less 5 to 10 watts, the 7800x 3d needs 20+.

Intel probably uses crap cores for those "light" tasks like web browsing. Too bad those crap cores are also much slower and that also means AMD runs more smoothly.

 

[Strawman]

Intel probably uses crap cores for those "light" tasks like web browsing. Too bad those crap cores are also much slower and that also means AMD runs more smoothly.

Nope, browsing is butter smooth and draws literally 5 watts compared to 20+ on a 7800x 3d. Those electricity costs are going to be nutty for amd users

 

[antiproduct]

The 13700k doesn't consume 100w more though, that's absurd. In games the difference is barely even 50w. In productivity you can run it at the same watts as the 7800x 3d and still be MUCH faster, meaning the 13700k will actually save you electricity.

Also, the 13700k idles and does simple tasks (like web browsing) at way lower wattage than the 7800x 3d. Intel browses the web using less 5 to 10 watts, the 7800x 3d needs 20+.

I was responding to specifically what the other person said when they said "100W wasn't a big deal." Aside from that, did you read the article where it showed the total system power usage difference and that 100W was the average? If I was a "Last of Us Part 1" fan, it seemed closer to 200W. Also, when I was making my hypothetical comparison of using it 8 hours a day, I wasn't talking about using it while idle, was considering gaming or other high workload usage. Please go fanboy somewhere else if you don't even read the article in reference.

 

[waclark]

Productivity? Remember that because Intel added crap cores, it cannot support AVX-512 that helps a lot in ... productivity. Facepalm from Intel.

Also 100 watt difference really is big unless you accept that your computer is very noisy. Adding that AMD motherboards are better and have much better upgrade paths, I see zero reason going with Intel.

In this case, it's not that big of a deal. In the results posted here all results were sub-700W meaning you can power the system with a 750/850 PSU. You can easily cool this system, even running the Intel CPU, quietly with the proper fan set up.

 

[waclark]

Intel probably uses crap cores for those "light" tasks like web browsing. Too bad those crap cores are also much slower and that also means AMD runs more smoothly.

I think you would be hard pressed to prove that AMD runs "more smoothly". Both of these CPUs are doing well over 100fps and for most of these games, you wouldn't notice a 10% fps difference. A 2% difference at 4K? Hardly noticeable.

 

[mcnabney]

The 13700k doesn't consume 100w more though, that's absurd. In games the difference is barely even 50w. In productivity you can run it at the same watts as the 7800x 3d and still be MUCH faster, meaning the 13700k will actually save you electricity.

Also, the 13700k idles and does simple tasks (like web browsing) at way lower wattage than the 7800x 3d. Intel browses the web using less 5 to 10 watts, the 7800x 3d needs 20+.

Reread. The power delta is between 50 and 100w across the games they listed.

 

[emmzo]

As previous posters pointed out your problems with reasoning and other CPUs you'd get if productivity was your concern not to mention that this article is specifically about gaming, I wanted to focus on the power usage, which you think isn't a big deal. Where I live, it's $0.56 per kWh (and it gets more expensive as you use more electricity, price so high thanks to greed and deregulation). So, let's see... say we use the computer for 8 hours a day, that adds up to about an extra $163.52 each year. Which, when you're comparing cost as much as they are in this review, that counts. Also, not to mention 100W of extra heat in your room, which would require additional room cooling. Although, I guess that'd be nice in the winter, but in general I'd think cooling a localized room would be what you'd be doing more since you'd probably heat your entire house another way.

You have a problem with reading. This is an article about gaming and I agreed with the conclusion. However, I said as an all rounder, i7 is better, not that productivity is my main concern and thus I should be looking for a CPU that does it better. All my apps will work faster AND I can game at similar speeds. Also, if you can't afford 163$ a year, for overall better performance, but you spend 700$ for a system, ok. Complaining about the heat from 100W, lol, for comparison that used to be a light bulb, so, the difference is negligible and probably only when the CPU is stressed. So, not even 163$ a year, as you won't keep it stressed all the time.

 

[HardReset]

Nope, browsing is butter smooth and draws literally 5 watts compared to 20+ on a 7800x 3d. Those electricity costs are going to be nutty for amd users

I'm sure there is difference using crap cores and performance cores for browsing.

In this case, it's not that big of a deal. In the results posted here all results were sub-700W meaning you can power the system with a 750/850 PSU. You can easily cool this system, even running the Intel CPU, quietly with the proper fan set up.

100 watt difference from CPU only makes huge difference when it comes to cooling. Add GPU in the mix and it becomes even harder. You probably could build passively cooled system using both CPUs but for AMD it's just miles easier.

For 100 watt difference, that's pretty easy to test. No need to even add 100 watts. I have pretty silent cooling including over 1 kilogram CPU cooler and 5 case fans (4*140mm, 1*120mm) with automatic RPM adjustment. When CPU consumes around 90 watts, I cannot hear fans ramping up. Allow CPU to consume around 160 watts and soon this system is not silent any more. That's "only" 70 watt difference with no GPU load. 13700K can consume around 250 watts btw.

I think you would be hard pressed to prove that AMD runs "more smoothly". Both of these CPUs are doing well over 100fps and for most of these games, you wouldn't notice a 10% fps difference. A 2% difference at 4K? Hardly noticeable.

This was about using crap cores vs using performance cores. I doubt there is no difference.

 

[emmzo]

Productivity? Remember that because Intel added crap cores, it cannot support AVX-512 that helps a lot in ... productivity. Facepalm from Intel.

Also 100 watt difference really is big unless you accept that your computer is very noisy. Adding that AMD motherboards are better and have much better upgrade paths, I see zero reason going with Intel.

I believe 100W difference could only be in stressful situations, I doubt it's a given number all the time. I don't care either about "crap cores" as you called them, only that the CPU is much faster for applications. Noise can be dealt with, it's a whole discussion and again 100W is like what? 2-3 db louder? Depends on the cooler, case, etc. Better paths for upgrading, you mean using the same motherboard, ok. I'm a guy upgrading 5 to 6 years or more, I'm not going to use some old mobo.

 

[HardReset]

I believe 100W difference could only be in stressful situations, I doubt it's a given number all the time. I don't care either about "crap cores" as you called them, only that the CPU is much faster for applications. Noise can be dealt with, it's a whole discussion and again 100W is like what? 2-3 db louder? Depends on the cooler, case, etc. Better paths for upgrading, you mean using the same motherboard, ok. I'm a guy upgrading 5 to 6 years or more, I'm not going to use some old mobo.

I gladly take system that is silent on all situations, including stressful ones. Crap cores are probably used for lighter tasks too that makes system slower on those "lighter" tasks. Too bad Intel's thread director is black box and there is no way to adjust that.

100 watts more means much louder (see my previous post) unless you have already excellent (and not so silent) case cooling system or effective cooling system like water cooler is used.

Using same CPU for 6 years without upgrading and same time talking about productivity performance? Does not sound very wise tbh. Upgrading CPU could give huge boost for productivity tasks especially if budget is "only" around $400.