AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D vs. Intel Core i9-14900K: The Definitive Test

[HardReset]

You want productivity? Here's the general results from the many known reviews: the 14900k is slightly better than the 7950x/7950x3D by a few percent, generally trading blows depending on the task. If you want the best workstation CPU (in the consumer market, not HEDT), without caring about power draw, upgradability or ECC memory then you go with the 14900k.

No you don't. Like I have said many times, 14900K is totally useless for productivity. It's only good for benchmarks where only one task is run at a time and that task is foreground.

It's known fact that 14900K's Thread Director puts background tasks on Crap-cores. So what happens when you put productivity app on background? P-cores are not used then. Make a wild guess what happens on productivity then? I have seen what this actually means. If you are running something intensive on virtual machine, you must constantly drag virtual machine window. If not doing that, task is considered background and P-cores are not used.

14900K is made for benchmarks only. On real world situation it just sucks.

 

[zx8086]

Sorry, but why would they cut down the GPU in a CPU test? You can extrapolate the results of a smaller GPU by just pretending that, for example, the 4K/1440p numbers are for 1440p/1080p.

I don't come to tech sites to "extrapolate" but to read articles with hard data.

As for the game samples, fewer titles just means that there is a much higher change that one outlier game can influence the final results. It can also exclude the "broader audience" (as you put it) since it doesn't include their favorite games or games they want to buy in the future.

Not really, if you pick your games wisely according to criteria in my original post you are very likely to cover most bases.

You want productivity? Here's the general results from the many known reviews: the 14900k is slightly better than the 7950x/7950x3D by a few percent, generally trading blows depending on the task. If you want the best workstation CPU (in the consumer market, not HEDT), without caring about power draw, upgradability or ECC memory then you go with the 14900k.

Sorry, but what kind of strategy it is to send a reader to "many different reviews" on different websites, when he came here for an allegedly "definitive" review?

 

[Puiu]

Ah see, the reason I just visit these comment sections rather than joining in these days is because way too many people do not understand why the tests are done the way they are, and extrapolate the data they need.

I legitimately feel sorry for Techspot on these articles, they’re really good, usually my go-to source, then you click on comments and find loads of people who just didn’t understand what they just read.

You extrapolate based on data you are provided, not out of thin air. You already have reviews for specific GPUs, you don't need to test them again. It's better to have more games than more GPUs unless you are testing for very specific things that require more GPUs (like how VRAM might affect FPS)

It's a CPU comparison, you want as many games compared as possible to have a clear general picture of how the CPU will perform. For how it behaves with different GPUs of different power you have the resolution.

 

[STbob]

If you only care about gaming, then right now only 4 products in the CPU market make sense. There's the 12400F and Ryzen 5600 at $110 and $120 respectively, the Ryzen 7600 at $190, and the 7800X3D at $340. Everything else you can just pretend doesn't exist, 14900K included.

I don't have high hopes for Arrow Lake at the high-end, but I'm interested to see what they bring in that $200-ish mid-range, which typically gives you 90% of the gaming performance of the high-end chips for half the price.

I would say any of the X3D chips are great including 5600x3d, 5700x3d and 5800x3d. Frame rates do not tell the micro stutter story that people get with faster intels and smaller cache AMDS. Its there even with faster frame rates. Vcache makes a difference here any of them.

 

[Puiu]

I don't come to tech sites to "extrapolate" but to read articles with hard data.


Not really, if you pick your games wisely according to criteria in my original post you are very likely to cover most bases.


Sorry, but what kind of strategy it is to send a reader to "many different reviews" on different websites, when he came here for an allegedly "definitive" review?

"Sorry, but what kind of strategy it is to send a reader to "many different reviews" on different websites, when he came here for an allegedly "definitive" review?" - if you don't read reviews on multiple sites then you are doing it wrong. very wrong.

"I don't come to tech sites to "extrapolate" but to read articles with hard data." - that's exactly what you are doing. it's hard data that can help you get a good idea of how the CPU performs. you can use this hard data to infer other results that are not directly specified here.

I can give you examples of games that use the same "engine" and behave completely different. There is no short list of games you can use. It's why you sometimes see some reviews saying different things from publication to publication. They use just a few games and the percentages are biased towards one CPU architecture or another (not intentionally).

For example, it's why I don't like the arstechnica reviews even though I read them every time. They have just a few benchmarks and the results generally have to be taken with a grain of salt if you don't read other reviews.

 

[m3tavision]

At what point would anyone want to buy an iNTEL platform and CPU... just to have to buy another mobo and CPU next year to compete with the latest AM5 chip that AMD releases...?

iNTEL doesnt have legs.

 

[Strawman]

It's known fact that 14900K's

Clearly, it's a fact known only to you. Obviously made up.

Please, tell me what do you mean "background tasks" and ill post a video for you. Say if I minimize cinebench it will not run on the Pcores? Is that what you are saying? If yes, Ill post a video and prove otherwise.

Stop the silly misinformation man, if amd has indeed good CPUs you don't need to spread around falsehoods for people to buy them. Just stop.

 

[HardReset]

Clearly, it's a fact known only to you. Obviously made up.

Please, tell me what do you mean "background tasks" and ill post a video for you. Say if I minimize cinebench it will not run on the Pcores? Is that what you are saying? If yes, Ill post a video and prove otherwise.

Thread director, as Intel says, puts background tasks on E-cores. So yes, minimizing Cinebench and running something else on foreground should do just that. Even if you have two games running simultanously, background one goes to E-cores as Intel demonstrated.

So I say: yes.

Stop the silly misinformation man, if amd has indeed good CPUs you don't need to spread around falsehoods for people to buy them. Just stop.

Misinformation? That is how Intel demoed it and Intel itself says it should work. Feel free to prove me AND Intel wrong

As you know very well, best product does not mean best selling product. Like when AMD had Athlon64 and Intel has Prescott, AMD was ahead, well, on everything. Still Intel sold way better. Because of what? Because it was Intel.

 

[Skjorn]

At what point would anyone want to buy an iNTEL platform and CPU... just to have to buy another mobo and CPU next year to compete with the latest AM5 chip that AMD releases...?

iNTEL doesnt have legs.

Most people don't upgrade each year. The last 5 Intel releases have worked on 2 sockets. The last 5 desktop releases from AMD use 2 different sockets as well. People buy Intel that want to have a balanced machine.
Weren't there some problems with Ryzen 5000 and the first like gen or 2 of AM4? I can't quite recall. The socket buying point is just OK if you get in early with AMD and Intel actually goes back to a new incompatible socket every year and you don't need anything from a newer chipset from either side. But if intel do another 3 gens on a single socket again then there's really not a whole lot wrong there in my eye. In my case I try to keep my machines for at least 4-5 years so no matter who I go with there will most likely be a new a socket from both. Buying every year or even two is just plain silly and wasteful for the average person. Buying at the end of a socket cycle isn't a terrible idea either especially if you plan to keep your machine for 4 years or more, everything is mature and you get all the benefits that socket ever had to offer, AMD or Intel.

 

[Strawman]

Thread director, as Intel says, puts background tasks on E-cores. So yes, minimizing Cinebench and running something else on foreground should do just that. Even if you have two games running simultanously, background one goes to E-cores as Intel demonstrated.

So I say: yes.



Misinformation? That is how Intel demoed it and Intel itself says it should work. Feel free to prove me AND Intel wrong

As you know very well, best product does not mean best selling product. Like when AMD had Athlon64 and Intel has Prescott, AMD was ahead, well, on everything. Still Intel sold way better. Because of what? Because it was Intel.

Intel demoed the OPTION, if the user CHOOSES to, to send background tasks to the ecores. You can also, you know, since it's an OPTION, choose NOT to.

So does a browser count? Say I minimize cinebench and then browse around the web, will cinebench be lower cause it's running in the background? Cause I just tested it, it is NOT the case, im scoring the exact same.

Want a video?

Here ya go, now please stop the amd propaganda BS

 

[HardReset]

Intel demoed the OPTION, if the user CHOOSES to, to send background tasks to the ecores. You can also, you know, since it's an OPTION, choose NOT to.

How do you "choose"? How do you make that decision NOT to send background tasks to E-cores?

What Is Intel® Thread Director?

Describes Intel® Thread Director and what it does.

www.intel.com

Intel® Thread Director helps monitor and analyze performance data in real time to seamlessly place the right application thread on the right core and optimize performance per watt.

The Intel® Thread Director supplies the behind-the-scenes magic that maximizes hybrid performance.

Built directly into the hardware, Intel Thread Director uses machine learning to schedule tasks on the right core at the right time (as opposed to relying on static rules). This helps ensure that Performance-cores and Efficient-cores work in concert, background tasks don’t slow you down, and you can have more apps open simultaneously.

Intel® Thread Director:

• Monitors the runtime instruction mix of each thread and the state of each core with nanosecond precision.
• Provides runtime feedback to the OS to make the optimal decision for any workload.
• Dynamically adapts its guidance according to the Thermal Design Point (TDP) of the system, operating conditions, and power settings.

You see, there is not much you can choose. It's hardware based solution with no tweaks available.

Oh, yes, there actually might be IF you have enough privileges. But if you don't have like admin rights, then you are in trouble. I have seen IRL that kind of situation with virtual machines. No admin rights and perhaps something else was also restricted.

So does a browser count? Say I minimize cinebench and then browse around the web, will cinebench be lower cause it's running in the background? Cause I just tested it, it is NOT the case, im scoring the exact same.

Want a video?

Here ya go, now please stop the amd propaganda BS

That's not proof of anything. Perhaps Thread director is not working properly OR you have tweaked something. Perhaps you have Windows performance profile set on "best performance"? Or you have tweaked CPU TDP settings (you have previously said you had tweaked CPU to consume less power). Those things may well affect on that. However not everyone has access to BIOS or even Windows have admin rights.

Almost every CPU rig can be made silent on air cooling IF user tweaks more or less. That's why I'm talking about "normal" situation: CPU on default settings, no Windows tweaks etc. Even on AMD "default" settings are pretty far from settings that actually makes sense. But "normal" user just use default ones.

 

[Strawman]

How do you "choose"? How do you make that decision NOT to send background tasks to E-cores?

What Is Intel® Thread Director?

Describes Intel® Thread Director and what it does.

www.intel.com

You see, there is not much you can choose. It's hardware based solution with no tweaks available.

Oh, yes, there actually might be IF you have enough privileges. But if you don't have like admin rights, then you are in trouble. I have seen IRL that kind of situation with virtual machines. No admin rights and perhaps something else was also restricted.

That's not proof of anything. Perhaps Thread director is not working properly OR you have tweaked something. Perhaps you have Windows performance profile set on "best performance"? Or you have tweaked CPU TDP settings (you have previously said you had tweaked CPU to consume less power). Those things may well affect on that. However not everyone has access to BIOS or even Windows have admin rights.

Almost every CPU rig can be made silent on air cooling IF user tweaks more or less. That's why I'm talking about "normal" situation: CPU on default settings, no Windows tweaks etc. Even on AMD "default" settings are pretty far from settings that actually makes sense. But "normal" user just use default ones.

There is an option right within windows, we have had the exact same conversation before, you really need to stop. You are just spreading misinformation. Right in your windoes settings you can choose if you want background tasks to take priority or not. That's it's. It's an option. An option you don't have on amd cpus. The thread director is a good thing, not a bad thing. Not having it is a bad thing, cause you don't have the option. Okay?

I'll explain it once more, if you still keep spreading your bs I'll just start reporting your posts.

When you have that OPTION enabled what it does it, when you are running something heavy on the foreground, it keeps the background tasks on the ecores. Say you want to play a game while rendering or whatever, with that option enabled the rendering will be sent to the ecores and the game to the pcores.

You also have the CHOICE to do the exact opposite. You can choose the background tasks to take priority, meaning now your game will go to the ecores and the rendering to the pcores.

Okay? We good?

 

[Strawman]

I would say any of the X3D chips are great including 5600x3d, 5700x3d and 5800x3d. Frame rates do not tell the micro stutter story that people get with faster intels and smaller cache AMDS. Its there even with faster frame rates. Vcache makes a difference here any of them.

Which came do I experience micro stutters in? Please clarify

 

[Burty117]

Which came do I experience micro stutters in? Please clarify

I defend you on the whole Thread Director stuff, my 13th gen stuff I use for work and the front room Tv has never slowed down stuff from P to E cores like Hard Reset describes.

However, there is something going on with the whole v-cache micro-stutter thing, games that are in early access, like Valheim and Star Citizen, absolutely stutter much less than the intel CPU’s regardless of fps.

There’s a few released games I noticed this as well, I cba to go play them to prove to myself but there is validity to the claim the higher cache helps with micro-stutter for sure.

 

[m3tavision]

Most people don't upgrade each year. The last 5 Intel releases have worked on 2 sockets. The last 5 desktop releases from AMD use 2 different sockets as well. People buy Intel that want to have a balanced machine.
Weren't there some problems with Ryzen 5000 and the first like gen or 2 of AM4? I can't quite recall. The socket buying point is just OK if you get in early with AMD and Intel actually goes back to a new incompatible socket every year and you don't need anything from a newer chipset from either side. But if intel do another 3 gens on a single socket again then there's really not a whole lot wrong there in my eye. In my case I try to keep my machines for at least 4-5 years so no matter who I go with there will most likely be a new a socket from both. Buying every year or even two is just plain silly and wasteful for the average person. Buying at the end of a socket cycle isn't a terrible idea either especially if you plan to keep your machine for 4 years or more, everything is mature and you get all the benefits that socket ever had to offer, AMD or Intel.

Hunh..?
My AM4 socket lasted 6 years. I went from a 1800x to $350 5800X3D....! It was a great platform for my simulator.

Subsequently, I've already had my 7700x w/AM5 Hero board on my main gaming rig, for 18 months now... and will be upgrading to 8800X 3D when it comes out later this year... and probably another 3rd CPU in 2027..! (30 minute upgrades are nice).

AM5 is a superb platform.


And yes, we know people who buy iNTEL don't care when they build a system, they don't even shop around, they are persuaded by marketing, not performance. Still laughing at a few clan members who decided to build 12th Gen rigs... instead of AM5 rigs. Or anyone building a new iNTEL rig right now...!!

AM5 ftw...

 

[HardReset]

There is an option right within windows, we have had the exact same conversation before, you really need to stop. You are just spreading misinformation. Right in your windoes settings you can choose if you want background tasks to take priority or not. That's it's. It's an option. An option you don't have on amd cpus. The thread director is a good thing, not a bad thing. Not having it is a bad thing, cause you don't have the option. Okay?

There is no options for Thread director. Thread director works automatically. There is no adjustments, there is no disable. Thread director works way I described. That's it, there are NO options for Thread director.

I'll explain it once more, if you still keep spreading your bs I'll just start reporting your posts.

Then report. There are options on Windows. But like I stated multiple times, 1. those options may not be available for every user and 2. average user does probably not know that option even exists.

When you have that OPTION enabled what it does it, when you are running something heavy on the foreground, it keeps the background tasks on the ecores. Say you want to play a game while rendering or whatever, with that option enabled the rendering will be sent to the ecores and the game to the pcores.

You also have the CHOICE to do the exact opposite. You can choose the background tasks to take priority, meaning now your game will go to the ecores and the rendering to the pcores.

Okay? We good?

So what I told about Thread director is exactly right? What you say is exactly what I was saying about Thread director.

Are you certain you can always and under every circumstances make that choice? I guess not. Also does every user know that option even exists?

I defend you on the whole Thread Director stuff, my 13th gen stuff I use for work and the front room Tv has never slowed down stuff from P to E cores like Hard Reset describes.

I already told how Thread director works and Strawman totally agrees with that. You can probably switch settings on Windows but that's another story.

 

[DonquixoteIII]

Using percentages as statistics is misleading, almost deceptiously so. What is 10% of two? What sounds better, 5 frames or 20%? REAL reviewers use REAL numbers. Fanbois resort to percentages.

 

[Strawman]

There is no options for Thread director. Thread director works automatically. There is no adjustments, there is no disable. Thread director works way I described. That's it, there are NO options for Thread director.

Then report. There are options on Windows. But like I stated multiple times, 1. those options may not be available for every user and 2. average user does probably not know that option even exists.

So what I told about Thread director is exactly right? What you say is exactly what I was saying about Thread director.

Are you certain you can always and under every circumstances make that choice? I guess not. Also does every user know that option even exists?

I already told how Thread director works and Strawman totally agrees with that. You can probably switch settings on Windows but that's another story.

Again - no, you were very wrong from the beginning.

It does not send background stuff to the ecores when you are browsing. Didn't I just show you that? It sends background stuff to the ecores when your foreground stuff actually use the Pcores (AND you have the foreground priority selected from windows).

Let's make it even simpler. You have foreground priority selected, and then you run a render on the background and a render on the foreground. The render on the foreground will use the Pcores and the one on the background the ecores.

 

[Strawman]

I defend you on the whole Thread Director stuff, my 13th gen stuff I use for work and the front room Tv has never slowed down stuff from P to E cores like Hard Reset describes.

However, there is something going on with the whole v-cache micro-stutter thing, games that are in early access, like Valheim and Star Citizen, absolutely stutter much less than the intel CPU’s regardless of fps.

There’s a few released games I noticed this as well, I cba to go play them to prove to myself but there is validity to the claim the higher cache helps with micro-stutter for sure.

Star citizen needs (or needed, don't know if it's still the case) ecores off. Just doesn't work with them.

I played valheim didn't notice anything

 

[HardReset]

Again - no, you were very wrong from the beginning.

It does not send background stuff to the ecores when you are browsing. Didn't I just show you that? It sends background stuff to the ecores when your foreground stuff actually use the Pcores (AND you have the foreground priority selected from windows).

Let's make it even simpler. You have foreground priority selected, and then you run a render on the background and a render on the foreground. The render on the foreground will use the Pcores and the one on the background the ecores.

You seem to know very well how this black box -solution works internally.

Problem is that Thread director can be overrided by Windows settings. You have already adjusted Windows settings (and your CPU is probably not on default settings), so you cannot really say what Thread director actually does.

Again, most users run CPU on default settings and Windows settings are also default ones. And I have seen how Thread director very gladly sends processes to E-cores. I didn't even know there is Windows "foreground" setting available. And I have tweaked Windows quite many times. Average user does that basically never.

 

[Skjorn]

Hunh..?
My AM4 socket lasted 6 years. I went from a 1800x to $350 5800X3D....! It was a great platform for my simulator.

Subsequently, I've already had my 7700x w/AM5 Hero board on my main gaming rig, for 18 months now... and will be upgrading to 8800X 3D when it comes out later this year... and probably another 3rd CPU in 2027..! (30 minute upgrades are nice).

AM5 is a superb platform.


And yes, we know people who buy iNTEL don't care when they build a system, they don't even shop around, they are persuaded by marketing, not performance. Still laughing at a few clan members who decided to build 12th Gen rigs... instead of AM5 rigs. Or anyone building a new iNTEL rig right now...!!

AM5 ftw...

I was explaining why you don't need a new mobo every year still if you buy Intel, because you tried to pass that off as being factually relevant still. Intel went 3 gens on LGA 1700. AM4 had 4 gens and Ryzen 5000 barely made it to the x370 chipset, they didn't even want it on 400 series chipset boards.
Never said AM5 was bad.
Buying a new CPU every year is still silly too, even if they all fit.
if they built 12th gen rigs right now that'd be very cheap and they could still put a used 14th gen in them after a few years if needed for a noticeable and presumably very cheap upgrade.
I like the part where you make fun of them for not shopping around but you already have your purchasing plans laid out for 2027.

 

[Strawman]

You seem to know very well how this black box -solution works internally.

Problem is that Thread director can be overrided by Windows settings. You have already adjusted Windows settings (and your CPU is probably not on default settings), so you cannot really say what Thread director actually does.

Again, most users run CPU on default settings and Windows settings are also default ones. And I have seen how Thread director very gladly sends processes to E-cores. I didn't even know there is Windows "foreground" setting available. And I have tweaked Windows quite many times. Average user does that basically never.

Doesn't matter, bios settings do not impact the thread director. I haven't touched anything on windows. The test I uploaded was with foreground priority and it still didn't impact the background cinebench run.


Do you understand that NOT having the option is a bad thing, that's why a lot of people with amd chips use process lasso? Do you get it? You can't not be getting it. Please, leave your fanboyism on the side for a bit.

 

[Strawman]

I was explaining why you don't need a new mobo every year still if you buy Intel, because you tried to pass that off as being factually relevant still. Intel went 3 gens on LGA 1700. AM4 had 4 gens and Ryzen 5000 barely made it to the x370 chipset, they didn't even want it on 400 series chipset boards.
Never said AM5 was bad.
Buying a new CPU every year is still silly too, even if they all fit.
if they built 12th gen rigs right now that'd be very cheap and they could still put a used 14th gen in them after a few years if needed for a noticeable and presumably very cheap upgrade.
I like the part where you make fun of them for not shopping around but you already have your purchasing plans laid out for 2027.

My experience with the whole am4 upgradability fiasco.

I had a b350 and an R5 1600. Was waiting for zen 3. Amd announced it ain't happening. Then AMD announced it's happening. Then I had to wait for 2 years to release bioses for zen 3 on b350 mobos. By that time alderlake was out. The 5800x 3d I was looking at was 450$, a 12700f+ a brand new b660 mobo was 470$.

Easiest choice of my life, a better CPU and a brand new mobo that can take even faster cpus in the future.

You have to love the am4 upgradability, no?

 

[manowar51]

Im bored of seeing flagship CPUs that cost upwards of $300 in gaming only comparisons. You emphatically do not need to spend that money if you are just gaming. Especially if you aren't running a 4090. Lets get some real-world gaming tests on CPUs that cost under $200 on budget boards. I bet you get 90% of the performance of these parts.

Im sure the writer acknowledged that the 14900KS is not a dedicated gaming part and advertised more for content creators. But 7800X3D is advertised as an extreme gaming part and only advertised as such. Its like you are comparing a luxury SUV to a race car on a race track. Its bizarre.

 

[HardReset]

Doesn't matter, bios settings do not impact the thread director. I haven't touched anything on windows. The test I uploaded was with foreground priority and it still didn't impact the background cinebench run.


Do you understand that NOT having the option is a bad thing, that's why a lot of people with amd chips use process lasso? Do you get it? You can't not be getting it. Please, leave your fanboyism on the side for a bit.

As Intel says:

Dynamically adapts its guidance according to the Thermal Design Point (TDP) of the system, operating conditions, and power settings.

So even changing CPU TDP should have some effect on Thread director. As said, I have seen it working so badly that employee prayed for AMD system without it. If it works for You and Your settings, does not mean it works on every system. Especially those that are not and could not be tweaked.

You can use Process lasso with Intel CPUs too. Problem is that for systems that run on "default settings", Thread director may make system totally slow and user could do nothing about it. I have seen it and I don't care if that was only system in the world that works badly because of Thread director. That's still more than enough reason why it's bad and Intel CPUs would be better without it. Again, there is no way to easily disable it.