Ryzen 7 5800X3D vs. Core i9-12900K in 40 Games

Irata

Posts: 2,169   +3,748
Thanks again for the very thorough review and the time it took for all the benchmarks.

Great gaming benchmarks across the board. If it wasn't for the productivity regression 5800X3D would be a home run, but because of this it's not even worth looking at if you're already running a Zen 3 CPU.

It wouldn‘t be worth looking at if you already own a Zen 3 processor period. Even if you manage to sell your current CPU for a good price, the value is not there. It‘s even lower for those not owning higher end GPU.

The same usually goes for one gen CPU upgrades unless something drastically changes between them.

For someone on Zen 1 / Zen+ or something like a 3600 this might be worth looking at, or even when building new and all you care about is top gaming performance at a not too outlandish price point.
 

yRaz

Posts: 4,525   +5,386
Great gaming benchmarks across the board. If it wasn't for the productivity regression 5800X3D would be a home run, but because of this it's not even worth looking at if you're already running a Zen 3 CPU.
Considering this is a drop in replacement for my 1800X I think this is a fantastic upgrade option. And a 200mhz difference isn't going to make that big a difference in productivity. I do a lot productivity, you aren't going to notice the difference between a 5800x and 5800x3d in the real world. Maybe if productivity was a major concern and gaming was on the back burner the 12900k would be worth it, but even then that's a stretch. A $450 drop in replacement or ~$1500 for a whole new base system? I'd much rather take that $1000 I'm saving and spend it on hookers and cocaine.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,527   +2,496
Intel did this with the 5775 and 5675C and L4 cache that matched the 6700K in games.
Intel didn't want to even make the part, but people asked for it and then it was gone and wasn't missed until now where I would say the X3D performed similarly.

Rumours are saying Zen 4 won't launch with 3D cache. Even AMD said it only made sense on the 8 core 5800X to start and would only do more if there was demand. Not sure why they would say that when they should know if it's worth doing or not from their own testing. They also said it was expensive, so I don't think the premium on a new CPU in a new generation would even make sense for gains in only some titles.
 

Julio Franco

Posts: 8,871   +1,794
Staff member
Great gaming benchmarks across the board. If it wasn't for the productivity regression 5800X3D would be a home run, but because of this it's not even worth looking at if you're already running a Zen 3 CPU.

Considering this is a drop in replacement for my 1800X I think this is a fantastic upgrade option.

Agree all around. It's amazing for gamers on older AM4 platforms and it's not overly expensive as it's slotting in the original 5800X price point (which I bought a while back for that price).

Intel is way more competitive this generation, so it's not a slam dunk anymore, but another way to see this release is that AMD gets to test 3D V-Cache with a real product while claiming some gaming performance value crown, even if in realistic terms, it's not far off from previous offerings.
 

yRaz

Posts: 4,525   +5,386
Intel is way more competitive this generation, so it's not a slam dunk anymore, but another way to see this release is that AMD gets to test 3D V-Cache with a real product while claiming some gaming performance value crown, even if in realistic terms, it's not far off from previous offerings.
Well here is something else not many people are considering, AMD already has a working, released, mass produced produced product with 3D V-cache. Now that it is a consumer part and not just a proof of concept they can focus on performance optimizations AND lowering production costs.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,981
The 5900X is selling for less right now... if you can get that, it's a much better CPU as an upgrade... slightly worse gaming results (but you won't notice that in 99% of use cases) and far better productivity. I'll take 4 extra cores any time :)
 

shark975

Posts: 83   +102
Great gaming benchmarks across the board. If it wasn't for the productivity regression 5800X3D would be a home run, but because of this it's not even worth looking at if you're already running a Zen 3 CPU.


ehh, I'd disagree to an extent. halo gaming performance pretty much drives everything in the pc market. Look how often gamers ridiculed AMD for falling short of Nvidia, yet often AMD offered better, or at the very least decent value at most or all price points. It's only that Nvidia always had the top spot that led to their domination.

I'd argue theres very few people who actually need faster application performance than "very good", again gaming is what actually drives the need for 90% of performance improvements as the desire for power in that space is uniquely open ended.

So yes, best in class gaming plus "good, fine, you wont notice the difference" application performance I suspect will be a winning formula for AMD at the box office.

I've actually long thought this would in fact be a great idea. To tailor a chip specifically for great gaming even to some extent at the expense of general computing. Turns out though it was simpler to do than I thought (not that anything in chip world is actually simple) by just extending L3 cache.

Of course, if the 3D line is as big a hit as I expect, Intel will just copy in time.
 

Usukosej

Posts: 183   +82
I look forward to Ryzen 7000 vs Raptor Lake.

Lets hopy that AMD won't delay 3D cache 7000 chips too much. They said they will come later than the regular ones... And I want to see higher clockspeed so application performance is good too. The gimped clockspeed on Ryzen 5800X3D makes it inferior to 5800X in alot of programs, it's only better in games.

Give me Ryzen 7000 with 3D cache and 5 GHz boost clocks, thank you.
 

Usukosej

Posts: 183   +82
The 5900X is selling for less right now... if you can get that, it's a much better CPU as an upgrade... slightly worse gaming results (but you won't notice that in 99% of use cases) and far better productivity. I'll take 4 extra cores any time :)
I won't for sure. If you want the best of both worlds, 12700K exists, it will beat 5900X in productivity and perform on par with 5800X3D in gaming, especially after OC to 5+ GHz all-core
 

yRaz

Posts: 4,525   +5,386
I won't for sure. If you want the best of both worlds, 12700K exists, it will beat 5900X in productivity and perform on par with 5800X3D in gaming, especially after OC to 5+ GHz all-core
True, but the 5800x3d has something going for it that the 12700k does not and that is legacy systems. If you are on a 1000, 2000 or 3000 series ryzen, this is a drop in replacement. Even if you carry over your dd4 memory, you still have to buy a new motherboard and deal with the hassel of rebuilding a system.

The 5800x3d s market isn't to so much new system builders, it's keeping people with AMDs cpus in the AMD ecosystem as long as possible.
 

Usukosej

Posts: 183   +82
True, but the 5800x3d has something going for it that the 12700k does not and that is legacy systems. If you are on a 1000, 2000 or 3000 series ryzen, this is a drop in replacement. Even if you carry over your dd4 memory, you still have to buy a new motherboard and deal with the hassel of rebuilding a system.

The 5800x3d s market isn't to so much new system builders, it's keeping people with AMDs cpus in the AMD ecosystem as long as possible.

Wrong, tons of 300 and 400 series boards don't support 5000 series.

Even some expensive boards don't allow this.

ASUS ROG HERO CROSSHAIR X370 for example. One of the most expensive boards. Allows up to Ryzen 3000. There is many many more examples, feel free to check all the boards yourself.

Raptor Lake will be supported on same socket; AM4 is dead. 5800X3D and cheap SKUs were the last nail in the coffin.

AM5 + DDR5 + 5nm CPUs is AMDs next move. Why would anyone buy Ryzen 5800X3D for 449 dollars at this point, which can't be overclocked by default.

Sooooo many talk about upgrading the chip without changing motherboard, however barely anyone does it. Ryzen 5800X3D will only be made in limited supply for a reason; They don't expect it to sell well, because AM4 is dead and AM5 is next.

ALSO, Ryzen 5800X3D is very reliant on FAST/HIGH-END DDR4 to perform at 100%
Most Ryzen 1000, 2000 users don't have high-end DDR4. Some 3000 users have 3200/C14, far from all. Back in 2019 it was considered high-end memory. Samsung b-die.

Using 3200/C16 on this 5800X3D lowers performance alot compared to reviews, which all use 3200/C14, 3600/C16, hell some even use 3800/4000 at CL16. This is PREMIUM memory. insanely expensive back in Ryzen 1000 and 2000 days. Completely ruined the value proposition back then, which was the reason why people bought them.

IF you have a motherboard that supports 5000 series AND at least 16GB 3200/C14 then great, 5800X3D might be a good upgrade, or HUGE upgrade if you are coming from Ryzen 1000/2000 which were mediocre at best to begin with.
 
Last edited:

Usukosej

Posts: 183   +82
This test shows that AMD still performs better
I just find it a little weird that the test isn't done with AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16 core
Vs Core i9-12900K that would have been much fairer. That the i9 has then been tested with DDR 5 I find strange to be able to do a fair test, the systems must come together as much as possible, otherwise that test does not mean much. But as it turned out that the AMD from the test still generally performs better than the Intell and the price is considerably lower, namely from 361 euros compared to the i9 452.95 euros.
That is what I wanted to say.

What are you talking about 🤣 Ryzen 5800X3D performs better than 5950X in gaming. This is a gaming test.

Going i9 for gaming is retarded anyway. i5-12600K and i7-12700K will deliver same gaming performance post-OC or within a few percent when at stock half the price, duh...

Go KF model if you want even cheaper and don't need the iGPU (which Ryzen lacks too)

Intel sits on VALUE and PERFORMANCE right now. Go read Techspots Top 5 CPU article if you are in doubt. i9-12900K is pretty much the worst Alder Lake chip of all, performance per dollar and performance per watt is bad compared to all the other...

12600K and 12700K are the chips people should buy. Much better performance per dollar while lowing watt usage ALOT.

Even 12400/12500 is crazy value, especially when paired with a board that allows for OC of non-K chips. It destroys AMDs value SKUs in terms of performance per dollar.

AMD launched new SKUs and lowered all Zen 3 chip prices for a reason. Alder Lake wiped the floor with Zen 3. And this is the reason Intel won CPU sales last 2 quarters.

The only i9 that makes sense is the 12900KS if you want the best of the best and aim for ~5.5 GHz all-core clocks.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for these extensive and in depth 'vs.' comparisons articles, very interesting ! They provide a good overview, and at the same time give insight in the performance differences between games.

When reading these 'vs.' articles (like 3060Ti vs 6700XT), I noticed that the final % performance comparison is always done in a single direction 'A % vs B'. Just to be clear, there is nothing wrong with the data or conclusion, but by comparing 'A % vs B', the 'visual representation' will always be in favor of A.
I would argue this makes it less easy to see the relation between A and B ?

For example, when comparing 'A % vs B', you get a result like this:
itmJzax.png

In this case, it 'looks' as if A is overall significantly faster than B ... but they perform actually the same.
While 80fps vs 40fps results in +100%, 40fps vs 80fps only results in -50%. And 80fps vs 60fps results in +33%, 60fps vs 80fps only results in -25%.
(the larger the difference, the larger the effect)
This type of comparison always visually favors A: faster fps are visually represented 'larger' and slower fps are represented 'smaller'.

Because of this, it might be easier to understand the relation if the graph uses a different representation ? It will use the same data, but instead of comparing A to B, it shows the % faster in both directions. This could look like this:
6V1iFSa.png

Now it's immediately visible that A and B have the same performance.
(additional color coding can make it easy to read: blue=Intel, green=Nvidia, red=AMD :))

Here is a comparison of the graph of '5800X3D vs. 12900K':
Original 'A % vs B':
3BP44V1.png


And a different representation 'A % faster, B % faster':
cZGFWpl.png
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,981
I won't for sure. If you want the best of both worlds, 12700K exists, it will beat 5900X in productivity and perform on par with 5800X3D in gaming, especially after OC to 5+ GHz all-core
Of course.... but we're talking existing AMD owners who want to keep their motherboards... If you must go AMD, then the 5900x is a much better deal right now at $50 less than the 5800X3D...

Out of curiosity, are you perhaps HardReset's evil twin? You seem almost as much of an Intel fanboy as he is an AMD one... the difference, of course, is that you have a good reason to support Intel nowadays...
 

Usukosej

Posts: 183   +82
Of course.... but we're talking existing AMD owners who want to keep their motherboards... If you must go AMD, then the 5900x is a much better deal right now at $50 less than the 5800X3D...

Out of curiosity, are you perhaps HardReset's evil twin? You seem almost as much of an Intel fanboy as he is an AMD one... the difference, of course, is that you have a good reason to support Intel nowadays...

For gaming? Not at all. 5800X3D destroys 5900X. So does 12700K. Even 12600K.

Yeah I am an Intel fanboy, using a 5800X @ 4.7 + 3080 Ti in my main rig :joy: :joy:

I would buy 12700K for sure over any AMD chip if I had to build a new system right now. It has better all-round performance than 5800X3D and still beats or performs on par with 5900X in applications, yet 12700K has much better gaming performance, especially when you jack up clockspeed to 5+ GHz on all cores which is easy.

However I am upgrading in 2023+ when Ryzen 8000 and Meteor Lake are ready and DDR5 have matured (price, clockspeed and timings)

I could not care less about AM4 at this point, it is a dead platform. AMD launches AM5 in a few months + Ryzen 7000 @ 5nm TSMC + PCIe 5.0.

Would be pointless to jump on 5800X3D for a few percent gaming performance while my application performance goes down. I need good all-round performance not just gaming or application perf.

Hard Reset is the biggest AMD fanboy you will ever see. Never compare me to him. I have owned and probably owns more AMD chips than he ever will.

Right now I have 4 AMD chips in my house; PS4 Pro, PS5, NAS (Ryzen 2700 undervolted and underclocked) and 5800X in main rig.

If you can't see that Intel is back then YOU are the fanboy. Or simply go read Techspots recent top 5 CPU article; https://www.techspot.com/bestof/cpu/

AMD better wake up and adjust their pricing accordingly.

This is especially true for the GPU market, which AMD loses fast right now. They are releasing gimped cards (PCIe x8 limitation) uisng 64-128 bit busses... Their lower end and mid-end stuff is garbage, and this is AMDs prime GPU segment. Intel will eat them alive when Arc launches soon, if they don't change this.
 
Last edited:

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,981
For gaming? Not at all. 5800X3D destroys 5900X. So does 12700K. Even 12600K.

Yeah I am an Intel fanboy, using a 5800X @ 4.7 + 3080 Ti in my main rig :joy: :joy:

I would buy 12700K for sure over any AMD chip if I had to build a new system right now. It has better all-round performance than 5800X3D and still beats or performs on par with 5900X in applications, yet 12700K has much better gaming performance, especially when you jack up clockspeed to 5+ GHz on all cores which is easy.

However I am upgrading in 2023+ when Ryzen 8000 and Meteor Lake are ready and DDR5 have matured (price, clockspeed and timings)

I could not care less about AM4 at this point, it is a dead platform. AMD launches AM5 in a few months + Ryzen 7000 @ 5nm TSMC + PCIe 5.0.

Would be pointless to jump on 5800X3D for a few percent gaming performance while my application performance goes down. I need good all-round performance not just gaming or application perf.
Not for a gaming upgrade... for an UPGRADE in general.... and again, this is for AMD owners who AREN'T already on a 5000 series chip... If you are rocking a 1000 or 2000 AMD CPU, and have a compatible motherboard, the 5900X is the best AMD upgrade for you right now.
 

Usukosej

Posts: 183   +82
Not for a gaming upgrade... for an UPGRADE in general.... and again, this is for AMD owners who AREN'T already on a 5000 series chip... If you are rocking a 1000 or 2000 AMD CPU, and have a compatible motherboard, the 5900X is the best AMD upgrade for you right now.
Far from all 300 series chipset boards allows for 5000 series CPUs, most top out with 3000 series.

And I would never buy a 5900X over a 5800X3D if I have a compatible board and 3200/C14 memory, I need good gaming performance _and_ application performance.

5800X3D and Alder Lake destroys 5900X in gaming. Alder Lake 12700K performs on par with 5900X in applications (or beats it) while destroying it in games.

AM4 is a dead platform anyway. No one cares. AM5 + Ryzen 7000 on TSMC 5nm + PCIe 5.0 happen soon and AM4 goes EoL. Zero support. Zero focus. Dead.

I can't wait for 2023 where I will upgrade to Ryzen 8000 or Meteor Lake. Might even pick a Ryzen 7000 if they have 3D Cache and clockspeed around 5 GHz mark.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,981
Far from all 300 series chipset boards allows for 5000 series CPUs, most top out with 3000 series.

And I would never buy a 5900X over a 5800X3D if I have a compatible board and 3200/C14 memory, I need good gaming performance _and_ application performance.

5800X3D and Alder Lake destroys 5900X in gaming. Alder Lake 12700K performs on par with 5900X in applications (or beats it) while destroying it in games.
Again... try to READ my post... and maybe read my previous ones... I'm AGREEING with you on Alder Lake... there's no comparison there...

But if you are an EXISTING AMD 1000/2000 series owner - and you have a COMPATIBLE motherboard - and you MUST upgrade... then the 5900X is the way to go...

I understand this is a small % of people... which is why I feel the 5800X3D makes even less sense... since the % of people in the previous situation who would choose to spend $50 more for slightly better gaming performance than the 5900X at the cost of the extra cores for productivity should be astronomically small...

Spending $450 to upgrade a 5000 series chip - especially the 5800X - would be just plain dumb...