AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D Review: Gaming Efficiency FTW!

I feel like the jump to the X3 is less this time Vs the 5800X3D against the 5800X. I assume this effected Steve's overall scoring of the CPU.
 
DSirius said:
Great review Steve, thank you.
I would add that you should take into consideration the price of the cooler too, because a liquid cooler for 13900K "oven" is more expensive than a cooler for the Ryzen 7800X3D. Liquid cooler for 13900K is a must, otherwise the performance is falling down both in gaming and productivity.
Click to expand...

Really? I run it on an air cooler, performance looks great,, score 41.500 points in CBR23 at 85C. More than double the score of the 7800x 3d
 
nitebird said:
The game I am building for, Star Citizen, uses all 8 P-cores of my 12700K@5.2Ghz at 100% at certain locations. If I run additional streaming background apps, there is another 20% FPS penalty. My 4090 is not the bottleneck as the utilization is 40-50% in those CPU bottlenecked scenes. Can you tell me if the 7800X3D or 7950X3D would be better or equal for my use? Or does my situation not exist because nothing uses 6 cores?
Click to expand...
7950X3D got the highest fps in Star Citizen among all processors, Intel or AMD. I think that new 7800X3D should do the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion
Strawman said:
Really? I run it on an air cooler, performance looks great,, score 41.500 points in CBR23 at 85C. More than double the score of the 7800x 3d
Click to expand...
Check Steve review and others about 13900K performance for more than 5 min. Without top AIO liquid cooler 13900K cannot sustain the performance for a long time. It was called 13900K premature tempxxxlation.
Run for example AIDA Stability test for 30 min or more. Or encode a video for 30 min.
In gaming 13900K is already slower, so the test is about productivity.
Oh, and summer aka heat is coming.
But if your processor runs OK, it is great, enjoy it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion and Bamda
DSirius said:
Check Steve review and others about 13900K performance for more than 5 min. Without top AIO liquid cooler 13900K cannot sustain the performance for a long time. It was called 13900K premature tempxxxlation.
Run for example AIDA Stability test for 30 min or more. Or encode a video for 30 min.
In gaming 13900K is already slower, so the test is about productivity.
Oh, and summer aka heat is coming.
But if your processor runs OK, it is great, enjoy it.
Click to expand...
Why would I watch someone else's review about a product I have? That doesn't make sense to me...
 
nitebird said:
The game I am building for, Star Citizen, uses all 8 P-cores of my 12700K@5.2Ghz at 100% at certain locations. If I run additional streaming background apps, there is another 20% FPS penalty. My 4090 is not the bottleneck as the utilization is 40-50% in those CPU bottlenecked scenes. Can you tell me if the 7800X3D or 7950X3D would be better or equal for my use? Or does my situation not exist because nothing uses 6 cores?
Click to expand...
If you're already using an 8core and the CPU is pegged on all cores.....why would you want to move to an 8core 7800X3D that has similar application performance as your 8core 12700k? You can check here: https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d/images/relative-performance-cpu.png

This is how it plays out for what hardware you should be looking for:
If you want to stream, get more cores.
If you want to have RAM heavy tasks going, get more RAM.
If you want all the eyecandy in games, get a top-end GPU with plenty of VRAM.
 
Vulcanproject said:
I don't need a gaming CPU, i3 or otherwise. The nutritious value of silicon is not great. However what we desire is by implication something we can't have without qualification, otherwise we would already have it. Very little of what you might want in life is free.

Therefore making the things we want a better financial proposition is of at least some value, no? I wanted a fast car, does that then mean fuel economy or other running costs no longer matter at all and are not worthy of any consideration?

You COULD buy a beater or a bus ticket. You COULD walk. Many prefer not to. That's still personal choice.

In the end I never claimed running costs as the primary reason one would choose a 7800X3D over a 13900K. I do certainly see it as one factor worthy of consideration.
Click to expand...
Sure, operational cost matter, no question. But, when you consider the entire system power draw, what's the real impact of that extra 100W? Also, to be talking about power consumption when they use a 4090 in the benchmark seems a bit hypocritical. The 4090 is the gas-guzzler car you were mentioning.

Also, if you consider non-gaming use, if you have to run a process 2x as long, then how much have you really saved, maybe nothing, right? To me, the 7800 X3D is a great gaming CPU, but it's a mid-range productivity CPU and as someone who uses their computer for more than gaming, I don't think it's right for me.

I have considered doing an AMD build and upgrading to a next gen CPU when they come out in a couple years. However, I am concerned that non-gaming performance may be disappointing and so I might just drop the extra $100 for a Core i9 and save the $400-600 CPU upgrade for a system update in 4 or 5 years.
 
Better efficiency works for me. Less heat. PSU doesn’t have to be ridiculous wattage. Combined with a more efficient GPU, why not? Just because you want to game on a PC, you don’t have to kill ALL the polar bears. Just a few.

And if one PC saves 100-150w then 100 or 1000 or 100000 PCs saves a lot more. It’s not all about saving money to put towards a piece of hardware in four years time. (PC with a 650w psu here and a 3060ti) but performance gains should be twinned with efficiencies as much as possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vulcanproject and TempleOrion
nitebird said:
@Techspot I know benchmarks are done with as few background programs as possible to ensure maximum game performance and apples-to-apples comparison, but this is this getting further from my real use case where I am playing a game, but also chatting on Discord, streaming my game, and watching two streams on my second monitor, plus 20 tabs open in Firefox. Even though the gaming performance of the two CPUs are the same, I would assume the 7950X3D would preserve its gaming performance better than the 7800X3D in this multitask gaming scenario. There there a way to quantify this from the benchmarks you show in your article?
Click to expand...

They have answered that question in their monthly Q&A videos. The impact is very small, at worse it's no more than say a 5% hit on performance if you are really maxing out your PC.
 
Strawman said:
Why would I watch someone else's review about a product I have? That doesn't make sense to me...
Click to expand...
That is why Twitch, Esports, ESPN, Porn, and National Geographic exist. Some of us want to view others doing things we can do for ourselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion
Julnor said:
This performs the same on those new A620 motherboards? If that is really the case then that is absolutely the best setup to go for right now. I might still opt for B650 but I expect downward price pressure on that. The x670 was always pointless for gaming, that's more like the old Intel HEDT stuff, Skylake-X and the like.
Click to expand...

no, most bioses are hard locked to 65 watts at all times, the 78003d would be wasted on that chipset
 
Well, I can't really say that this is much of a surprise. I said that the R9 X3D CPUs didn't really have any reason to exist. Many people disagreed with me but I do believe that the R7-7800X3D has me vindicated.

The X3D SKUs from the 7000-series behave EXACTLY the same as the R7-5800X3D did, which is what I expected. I still think thaT AMD made a mistake by omitting a six-core version like an R5-7600X3D.

Judging from the performance of the R9-7900X3D, a six-core X3D CPU would be an absolute grand-slam at $350.
 
Last edited:
The Ryzen 7800X 3D is a banger Chip and perfect for any AM5 build.

I've had my 7700x for about 6 months now and have no need to upgrade so soon, so I'll wait for the Ryzen 8000 series. (ie: 8800X 3D).

^^
 
The 7950X3D exisist for a couple of reasons.
1. You are both a gamer and a prosumer, that can utilize all cores for work.
2. AMD want to sell an expensive processor, and if they can why shouldn't they?
3. Test vehicle for future heterogeneous CPUs.

 
I'm going to grab either the 5800X3D or 7800X3D pending on which one has a great sale going forward. I'd actually prefer the 5800X3D if it's cheap enough.
 
McMurdeR said:
Paper launch in UK/EU. No stock anywhere until May.
Click to expand...
eBuyer is suggesting 21st April before it has them in stock, but there's a shortage of 7950X3D parts too; only the 7900X3D seems to be available in the UK right now. So less of a paper launch, and more a case that AMD just can't ship enough of them globally.
 
I really liked this article. I consider that it was more trustworthy than Gamersnexus, as their conclusion about motherboards was clearly oriented. Good job.
 
"With just one of the two CCD's armed with 3D V-Cache, the 16-core 7950X3D is heavily dependent on Windows addressing the correct core complex die, and that doesn't always happen."

Solution: buy a Process Lasso Pro license, and tie your games exes to the X3D Vcache enabled die!
That's for those who use their rig to work *and* play, gamers will prefer the less expensive little sibling of course, but that is a practical solution if you want to have the best and/or a multipurpose machine I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TechSpot
  • Locked
AMD Ryzen 7800X3D vs. 7900X3D vs. 7950X3D: Gaming Benchmark
2
Replies
28
Views
538
Squid Surprise
Squid Surprise
TechSpot
  • Locked
AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D vs. Intel Core i9-14900K
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
Strawman
S
TechSpot
AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D vs. Intel Core i9-13900K
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
poshflamingos
poshflamingos

Latest posts

Back