"kneeckaping".
How much performance do you think the CPU loses by limiting it to 200? 6%? Wow, totally kneecapped
AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D vs. Intel Core i9-14900K
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
- Status
How much performance do you think the CPU loses by limiting it to 200? 6%? Wow, totally kneecapped
Are you seriously saying that it's normal to thermal throttle in games? And you're calling me a shill... Shame on you. The 200W "solution" was basicly just meant to show that IF you had a case where cooling is abysmal you can still get atleast ~90% performance if not more. But this will never happen if your cooler is properly installed.
If you power limit an Intel cpu, you are kneecapping it. When AMD power limits a CPU (7950x to 7950x 3d) "WOW, what an insanely efficient CPU, good job AMD".
You just cant win against amd mania.
I'm aware, I've been debunking these ridiculous claims ever since Ryzen came out. I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to actually argument against my claims, or do any testing of their own to which I could compare. It's always the parroting of who-knows-what settings "stock" benchmarks with gimped RAM and ridiculous BIOS settings.
I just wish we could actually compare overclocked performance.
Ah I've done that. Stock vs stock with tuned memories the 7800x 3d is roundabout equal to a 12900k, the 14900k smashes them both. At least in the games I tested, like Hogwarts, cyberpunk, TLOU, starfield, KCD, Spiderman
There's a difference comparing factory settings vs manual settings. When Intel launches a 14900T then it should be measured by its factory settings.
The bottom line is that for most users the an especially gamers the 7800X3D makes most sense.
It is cheaper, you can run it with a relatively cheap air cooler, you don't need expensive memory. All the saved cash can be used for a better GPU. And if you're building a Intel rig for gaming the 14700k also makes more sense.
I bought a 7800X3D even though I'm completely GPU limited @ 5120x1440p with my 6800XT, but it is a fast and solid platform that will last me many years a video cards. And hopefully at some point a Zen6 9800X3D will takes its place.
For me there will always be people who say ones better. I myself am no gamer. I have a 14900k. I like to tweak my setups and for me the 9 does it for me. I don't use water cooling but after a month of tuning I have imo a great machine. Had I gone with amd I'm sure I'd love it too. Both are great choices. I came close to going with amd but as I said I'm not gamer and enjoy tinkering with offset voltage and many other settings. It's become part of the whole deal for me. I don't think either AMD or Intel is necessarily better. They're both awesome! I am grateful AMD has come up like they have and still are because we all get our gear cheaper. I believe we are about to see some very amazing changes when it comes to CPU as technology advances over the next year or two.. We will all laugh at the tech of today in the coming years. I hope AMD and Intel both stay doing well really. I don't knock either. I have an Asus Ryzen 7HS laptop and a 14900k desktop MT build I did back on 13700k just up'd CPU this year. But I love them both really. Then there's apple which if you want a laptop that will last and has excellent battery that's probably about as good as it gets. I recently bought a mouse made by Razer and it's the best thing I've ever owned quality wise. I think my next laptop will be Razer. Whether it'll be Intel or AMD idk but I'm sure I'll be happy regardless. Both AMD and Intel are great imo. Anyone see the latest Intel core reviews where the bios upgrade massively improved performance across the board? Amazing how much a bios can change things, sometimes for better but also sometimes worse. Cool write up. I tend to think people who favor one or other block themselves from really seeing the beauty in both. Kinda like when someone thinks they know something they can't learn much. Sort of that same way... Imo...
There is basically nothing to discuss about who is better. AMD offers 16 high performance cores on top model, Intel only 8. AMD does that with lower power consumption too. Basically Intel's only advantage is bit better single thread performance but that's it. Intel is miles behind.
But hey, Intel has Crap cores that help on multithreading? Yeah but mostly on benhmarks. Intel's Not-so-awesome Thread director, that you cannot even adjust ot bypass easily, happen to put many power hungly processes on Crap cores. And that makes Intel CPUs with Crap cores painfully slow. It's funny to look how people on work have to activate window and move it all the time so that it's not background process.
Miles behind, lol.
Intel has the fastest desktop CPUs right now for both MT and ST performance. When limited to same power limits as the AMD cpus they are tied in performance or just faster. What are you talking about man?
If e cores only help on benchmarks then so do the 8 extra cores on the 7950x. What workload does the 2nd CCD help with and the ecores don't? Can you name any?
I agree, between the 2 cpus the 7800x 3d makes more sense, simply because it's cheaper. But on the same note, the 13600k also makes more sense than the 3d for the same exact reasons.
Using Default settings, Intel CPUs are both more power hungry and slower. You see, most users use their CPU on Default settings because they do not know how to adjust power limits, do not bother to do it or even are not allowed to do that.
Crap cores are mostly for benchmarks because Thread director gladly fill Crap cores first when process is background task. So to have even slight performance advantage on Intel, you must first fill all Crap cores and After that fill all P-cores. Unless all cores are fully loaded, you easily end up with not fully loaded P-cores and on those situations AMD is faster.
Basicall Intel Crap cores only get praise because testers are too dumb, too busy or something else to actually test them, not just run some benchmarks.
To remind, you cannot adjust how Thread director works.
And that's not true. Every single review I've seen using default settings the 14900k is topping the charts in both multi and single threaded performance. Since we are on techspot let's use their own numbers, both the 14900k and the 13900k are the fastest performing CPUs for both MT and ST right now. So...you are just wrong.
And since most people are using default settings you should ask hwunboxed to stop enabling XMP, cause that's defintely not default settings.
So what tasks would benefit from the 2nd CCD on the Ryzen CPUs but don't benefit from ecores? Can you name a couple? Cause as far as im concerned ecores are exactly as useful as the 8 extra cores on the 7950x. So, do I have to ask again or are you going to tell me?
I find it funny you say all that crap about thread director and ecores but it's amd thats suffering from their crap 2nd ccd cores. They are suffering so much to the point that theri high end 7950x 3d is losing in games to the 7800x 3d because of the crap CCD cores getting in the way, lol.
Techspot used water cooler and Intel CPU throttled. Same test on air cooling and Intel would suffer much more. So test was rigged to get Intel faster. Also difference is so small that it would be easy to pick software that get AMD overall winner.
XMP was used for memory because "default" would be by SPD.
Again, Crap cores are slow against P cores but second CCD cores are almost as fast than first CCD cores. That basically means any usage of Crap cores makes CPU much slower. Using another CCD makes CPU just little bit slower. That means Intel is slower than AMD basically Every time Crap cores are used. That's something you don't see on benchmarks. In other words, can you give any reason why Crap cores should be used if All P-cores are not fully loaded?
If you are so concerned about second CCD on games, disabling it takes one click on Ryzen master. Problem solved.
Techspot used water cooler for the 7950x as well and it throttled. Same test on air cooling and AMD would suffer much more. So test was riged to get AMD faster.
Disabling ecores also takes a second and you don't even need an application to do it, just a button on your keyboard.
Can you name me an application that benefits from the crap 2nd CCD but doesn't benefit from ecores?
Bottom line, Intel has the fastest cpus in both multi and single threaded workloads, amd is miles behind. I know you dont like but you have to deal with it
Just read 7950X review, there was no mention about throttling.
When you disable Crap cores, all perfoemance advantage they might give is also gone. That does not sound very wise for MT workloads?
What is funny is that every Intel fanboy would rather take 16 P-Cores instead 8 P-cores and tons of Crap cores. But since Intel couldn't deliver CPU with 16 P-cores on desktop, they pretend that Crap core cluster**** is good .They are so delusional.
Like this Crap cores vs second CCD thing. Why you keep asking that? It makes no sense. Point is that on Every scenario where Crap cores are used before P-cores are fully loaded you lose performance.
And that makes talking about benchmarks pointless since Intel only is bit faster on MT scenatios when CPU is fully loaded. And outside benchmarks that happens very rarely. Usually you have multiple software running at same time and internet connection is enabled. Also if you want to have usable computer, you avoid to fully load all cores.
In other words, using Crap cores before P-cores are fully loaded is just plain stupid. Now, tell me reason why that is good thing? Intel Thread director gladly does just that.
Crap cores are about stupidest thing Intel has brought on desktop CPUs. But Intel fanboys still love them because there is nothing better Intel could do.
For that Intel is faster on MT loads, it's not .Very easy.
Start MT software. Put it in background. What happens?
AMD: Software runs about normal.
Intel: Thread director considers it to be background task and assings it on Crap cores.
So much about Intel being faster on MT loads. Benchmarks are for amateurs made by amateurs.
Start MT software. Put it in background. What happens?
AMD: Software runs about normal.
Intel: Thread director considers it to be background task and assings it on Crap cores.
So much about Intel being faster on MT loads. Benchmarks are for amateurs made by amateurs.
I just tested it, I run cinebench on the background got the exact same score. The hell are you talking about?
I did. As with reviews from other media as well, they were all throttling at 95c.
Yes, when you disable the ecores, they don't work anymore. That's because you disabled them. Lol, are you drunk man?
If you disable crap ccd cores, all performance advantage they give is also gone. That does not sound wise for MT workloads.
Yeap, ecores are very bad. Almost as bad as crap ccd cores. Cause when I disable ecores, I lose performance. EVERYWHERE. Even in games. On the other hand when I disable the crap ccd cores, I gain performance. That's why the 7800x 3d is faster in games than the 7950x 3d. Stop the amd propaganda bs, it's obnoxious.
Ecores are perfectly fine. In fact they are great. 2 ccds on the other hand is not. You need a reality check buddy.
But those are not the Cpus we are comparing. If this had been the 7950X3D vs 14900K, then Intel would have scored a point for price and probably also for less hassle with core affinity.
MSIGamer
Posts: 125 +185
This is the worst thing ever. You can't compile code and switch focus to a chat app because it or windows will often completely lock up due to these thread scheduling issues.
That and the fact that a pre-built 13900k system with asus z790 wasn't even stable due to wrong default SVID settings is just the worst. I lost days of work because I had to dive in and test bios settings to finally get something that is stable.
I wouldn't even recommend Intel for production work at this point. They just cram more power into the chips, which probably degrade much faster this way and the thing runs extremely hot while it's not even faster than the 7950x3d I have at home.
I always bought Intel, but today I would only recommend AMD.
Well sure but isn't that the problem? Why compare 2 cpus when the 14900k dwarfs the 3d? If it's gaming you are after ignore both and go for cheaper options like the 13600k.
This is exactly what I meant. MT load is very generic term and you say: MT load = Cinebench.
I give you hint: most MT loads do not fully load all available cores. In other words, Cinebench does not cause Thread director to do it's crap.
AMD Zen4 cores are supposed to run 95c. That's normal according to AMD specs. Normal behaviour is not same as throttling.
Now you say disabling Crap cores causes games to run slower. No, they run faster on many cases. That's one reason why Intel offers fast way to disable them. Crap cores are total trash. Nobody wants them. Intel fanboys only promote them because Intel cannot offer more than 8 P-cores.
And once again, while benchmarks may say you want to disable other CCD in games, on IRL situations that may be very different thing. For example if you have enough background processes. Those are very rarely present in benchmarks.
Core affinity? What? Difference between two CCDs is miles lower than dfference between P-cores and Crap cores.
Not to mention Intel had to disable AVX-512 they heavily promoted because Crap cores do not support it.
This is just another example of this Thread director "background apps to Crap cores" -thing. Like said many times, Crap cores are only for benchmark purposes, not any real productivity.
Thread director is supposed to put backgound apps to Crap cores. And according to Intel, it does that. Just put some heavy software on background, simple as that. Read MSIGamer post above.
Difference between high temps and throttling is clock speed lowering. If AMD sustains high clock speeds on 95c, it's not throttling. That's why Techspot didn't mention 7950X throttling with liquid cooling unlike you said.
It's obvious you have never used an intel cpu before, that's where this is all coming from. You can choose if you want background or foreground tasks taking priority from within windows.
And if Intel sustains high clock speeds on 100c it's not throttling either. Unless you are telling me the 14900k smashed the crap out of the 7950x while heavily throttling
You are the amd equivalent to userbenchmark man. Knock it off
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest posts
-
PlayStation 5 Pro will be bigger, faster, and better using the same CPU
- Squid Surprise replied
-
Microsoft Xbox Series X/S sales downturn continued last quarter- user478318 replied
-
Ford is losing boatloads of money on every electric vehicle sold- Jigs Gaton replied
