AMD X3D Turbo vs. Intel 200S Boost One-Click Overclocking

[daffy duck]

We dont have confirmation on zen 6's CCD core count yet.

But you went on about 16 core ccd's. 12 cores have all but been confirmed by dozens of leaks. No, AMD hasn't confirmed them, but internal sources have. Don't forget engineering samples are out in the wild and people have leaked details. The 16 core per ccd is for dense Zen 6c cores, not for desktop usage (at this stage).

 

[JAmie71]

I just don’t think the majority of people who own a Ryzen 9800X3D and a top-tier GPU like the RTX 5080/5090 are playing at 1080p. Once you move beyond 1080p and take the CPU bottleneck out of the equation, the performance gap between high-end CPUs becomes far less noticeable at 1440p and especially 4K.

Sure, you’ll find competitive e-sports players chasing every last frame at 1080p, but that’s a niche audience compared to the broader PC gaming community. Most enthusiasts buying top-tier hardware are aiming for high-fidelity experiences with ray tracing, maxed-out settings, or ultra-wide/4K resolutions.

On top of that, modern GPUs are so powerful that at higher resolutions, the workload shifts almost entirely onto the GPU. Benchmarks consistently show that at 1440p and 4K, even mid-tier CPUs keep up closely with flagship ones. In those scenarios, the investment in a bleeding-edge CPU doesn’t translate into big gains—your graphics card does the heavy lifting.

 

[jpvalverde85]

FX-8320 also was a good all rounder back then, but Sandy Bridge...
Also a Ryzen 5 3600 could be choked with detail and pixels to get close to the kings, the more detail the closer... but at low res low detail when legs have to stretch, the 285K is 2/3 of the speed of the 9800X3D, that's a loooooooong way behind.

 

[manowar51]

Does anyone have a reliable source for minecraft testing? Thats all I ever play and the worlds I play in are very complex and in some locations will reduce my 12700H gaming laptop to 20fps. I recently learned however that my friend who plays on my server with a desktop 5800X3D gets 12-14fps in the same area. After experimenting with my friends setups, it seems that Intel chips savagely outperform AMD chips in loaded java minecraft environments (notably my friend with a 10900K has the best performance, significantly outperforming my laptop and the friend of mine with a 5800X3D).

I have recently been looking to build a desktop PC to play games on as 20fps in the middle of my storage system is not acceptable. But I can no longer just assume that AMDs X3D lineup would perform best. Does anyone have any links to testing or benchmarks that could be representable to loaded java minecraft environments? I cant find a thing!

 

[Tantor]

Does anyone have a reliable source for minecraft testing?.... ... I have recently been looking to build a desktop PC to play games on as 20fps in the middle of my storage system is not acceptable. But I can no longer just assume that AMDs X3D lineup would perform best. Does anyone have any links to testing or benchmarks that could be representable to loaded java minecraft environments? I cant find a thing!

I searched using "amd x3d vs intel in Minecraft" and found this long and informative article. It compares Minecraft versions, mods and shaders.
https://nemez.net/posts/20241117-quick-minecraft-zen5-arrowlake-w11-24h2-testing/

His conclusion is this:

"As for the CPUs tested, not much has changed for the older models. And for the newer ones it is quite clear - the Intel Core Ultra 200S series CPUs are quite underwhelming if you don't have a use for all the cores but they aren't awful either, they still provide excellent performance, but ultimately discounted Intel 14th gen is probably the better way to go about this.

But then there is the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D, the new king of the block, there is simply nothing better for gaming, and in Minecraft it shows even greater improvements than in other games - if you have the money for it, it is a no-brainer gaming chip."

 

[manowar51]

I searched using "amd x3d vs intel in Minecraft" and found this long and informative article. It compares Minecraft versions, mods and shaders.
https://nemez.net/posts/20241117-quick-minecraft-zen5-arrowlake-w11-24h2-testing/

His conclusion is this:

"As for the CPUs tested, not much has changed for the older models. And for the newer ones it is quite clear - the Intel Core Ultra 200S series CPUs are quite underwhelming if you don't have a use for all the cores but they aren't awful either, they still provide excellent performance, but ultimately discounted Intel 14th gen is probably the better way to go about this.

But then there is the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D, the new king of the block, there is simply nothing better for gaming, and in Minecraft it shows even greater improvements than in other games - if you have the money for it, it is a no-brainer gaming chip."

Generally speaking Ryzen is better at minecraft and has been since the 5th gen. However in complex redstone worlds Ryzen CPUs also seem to tank the hardest. The testing in your link doesnt really test that, it seems to ramp up the graphical options.

I did also poise the same question on reddit and there were a few responses confirming similar results to what we are getting, where Intel parts seem to handle the really laggy areas a bit better.

I was just going to buy a 9800X3D and be done with it. I probably will still but I am going to investigate a bit further. I dont really do anything else CPU intensive.

 

[Loadedaxe]

I don’t know about the rest of you, but if I’m spending this much on a processor, I’m not playing at 1080p. They do this all the time here on TS....we all know that increasing the resolution changes performance dynamics significantly.

How about testing at all resolutions so we can get a truly accurate picture, instead of another “wow, 1080p is awesome sauce” review?

If we were talking about Core 225’s vs R5 9600X, then sure, 1080p tests would make sense....but that’s not what this is.

 

[Steve]

I don’t know about the rest of you, but if I’m spending this much on a processor, I’m not playing at 1080p. They do this all the time here on TS....we all know that increasing the resolution changes performance dynamics significantly.

How about testing at all resolutions so we can get a truly accurate picture, instead of another “wow, 1080p is awesome sauce” review?

If we were talking about Core 225’s vs R5 9600X, then sure, 1080p tests would make sense....but that’s not what this is.

 

[Loadedaxe]

View attachment 90716

I get the whole 1080p argument, but realistically, people aren’t buying CPUs just for gaming anymore. They cost too much for that. I’m sure there are a lot of people like me who use their system for both work and play.

I’ve actually got two builds sitting in my Amazon cart right now, one AMD and one Intel, because I use my PC for work during the day and gaming in my downtime.

I’m leaning toward the Intel build since I use the full Adobe suite and occasionally need to run AutoCAD. (And no, the web version isn’t an option for what I do.) And the Intel build is cheaper.

So while I understand the “just go AMD, it’s not that far behind Intel in productivity” argument, my counter is that at 1440p, neither is Intel far behind in gaming. Yet people rarely make that comparison, and while I did see you mention it in the article, there wasn’t much detail on where or by how much.

 

[HardReset]

I’ve actually got two builds sitting in my Amazon cart right now, one AMD and one Intel, because I use my PC for work during the day and gaming in my downtime.

I’m leaning toward the Intel build since I use the full Adobe suite and occasionally need to run AutoCAD. (And no, the web version isn’t an option for what I do.) And the Intel build is cheaper.

So while I understand the “just go AMD, it’s not that far behind Intel in productivity” argument, my counter is that at 1440p, neither is Intel far behind in gaming. Yet people rarely make that comparison, and while I did see you mention it in the article, there wasn’t much detail on where or by how much.

Not sure why should anyone even consider Intel build TBH:

- AMD has much lower power consumption under load
- AMD CPUs are not known to have CPU durability issues
- AMD CPUs have more future proof platform
- AMD CPUs are also much more future proof because Intel Will support AVX512 on future CPUs and therefore current Intel CPUs are obsolete already
- Thread director Will screw up virtual machine usage unless running on full power all time (and huge power consumption)

But yea, perhaps Intel build is cheaper.

 

[Steve]

I get the whole 1080p argument, but realistically, people aren’t buying CPUs just for gaming anymore. They cost too much for that. I’m sure there are a lot of people like me who use their system for both work and play.

I’ve actually got two builds sitting in my Amazon cart right now, one AMD and one Intel, because I use my PC for work during the day and gaming in my downtime.

I’m leaning toward the Intel build since I use the full Adobe suite and occasionally need to run AutoCAD. (And no, the web version isn’t an option for what I do.) And the Intel build is cheaper.

So while I understand the “just go AMD, it’s not that far behind Intel in productivity” argument, my counter is that at 1440p, neither is Intel far behind in gaming. Yet people rarely make that comparison, and while I did see you mention it in the article, there wasn’t much detail on where or by how much.

AMD is faster for those workloads, though the 9950X/9950X3D does cost more. But if you're worried about money going with a dead platform makes no sense at all.

As for you getting the 1080p argument, claiming people aren't building gaming PCs is wild.

 

[Loadedaxe]

AMD is faster for those workloads, though the 9950X/9950X3D does cost more. But if you're worried about money going with a dead platform makes no sense at all.

As for you getting the 1080p argument, claiming people aren't building gaming PCs is wild.

I never said people don’t build gaming PCs … I said not everyone building one is doing it just for gaming.

And yeah, the 9950X3D is pricey, but I’m not looking for something I can upgrade in two years. I need a platform that’ll last me around five. By then, AM5 boards will likely be obsolete anyway, so that whole “upgrade path” argument doesn’t really matter. I’m sure a lot of people are in the same boat, when it’s time to upgrade again in five years, I’ll be doing a full rebuild regardless.

 

[Steve]

I never said people don’t build gaming PCs … I said not everyone building one is doing it just for gaming.

And yeah, the 9950X3D is pricey, but I’m not looking for something I can upgrade in two years. I need a platform that’ll last me around five. By then, AM5 boards will likely be obsolete anyway, so that whole “upgrade path” argument doesn’t really matter. I’m sure a lot of people are in the same boat, when it’s time to upgrade again in five years, I’ll be doing a full rebuild regardless.

There is a very good chance AM5 will see serious upgrades over the next 5 years, LGA1851 won't, it's already dead. Sorry I didn't realize you were stating the obvious, yes not everyone builds a PC for gaming, but we were making gaming focused content for those primarily gaming.

Anyway, If Zen 7 really does end up on AM5 you'll feel silly buying a Core Ultra processor.

 

[Loadedaxe]

There is a very good chance AM5 will see serious upgrades over the next 5 years, LGA1851 won't, it's already dead. Sorry I didn't realize you were stating the obvious, yes not everyone builds a PC for gaming, but we were making gaming focused content for those primarily gaming.

Anyway, If Zen 7 really does end up on AM5 you'll feel silly buying a Core Ultra processor.

And I get that. However, even if they do release new chips for the AM5 platform in five years, the motherboards available then will have features that current AM5 boards simply don’t, just like B350 boards weren’t really ideal for Ryzen 5000 series. Sure, you could use them, but they didn’t perform nearly as well as newer boards with updated chipsets, PCIe 4.0 support, and other advancements.

It’s kind of like dropping a Ferrari engine into a Volkswagen...just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

Anyway, I’ll stop beating that dead horse. I think I’m going to wait. I’ve never been this indecisive about a new build before. So in that sense, it probably makes more sense for me to just do that..wait.