Ryzen 7 5800X3D vs. Ryzen 7 5800X: Zen 3 Gaming Shootout

Dsirius

Posts: 72   +112
If u included Outer Worlds test for AMD 5800X3D processor, than you should include Microsoft Simulator results in the test with Intel 12900K. Just show 0 fps for Intel processor.
Outer worlds is playing bad with AMD processor, 12900K is unable to play the Microsoft Simulator.
Hiding bad results of Intel 12900K may be seen misleading or at least favoring it.
Many readers are very interested in the weakness of processors to make a better choice BEFORE buying one.
Hope to correct this for future benchmarks or at least warn the readers to not buy Intel 12900K if they play mostly Microsoft Simulator.
 

Usukosej

Posts: 183   +82
Fantastic CPU. Now release 5950X3D and I'm sold.
3D Cache is expensive. A 5950X with 3D cache would be 1000 dollars, pointless when AM5 is coming in a few months. AM4 is a dead platform. 5800X3D is a limited supply because they know it won't sell much.

AMD needs to have 3D Cache on Ryzen 7000 ON LAUNCH or SOON AFTER, not 1-2 years after like Ryzen 5000 series...

I am buying Ryzen 7000/8000 or Raptor/Meteor next. Could not care less about anything else.

My board supports 5800X3D not upgrading my 5800X @ 4.7 for a few percent when AM5 is coming in a few months.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
Compare it to the 5900X.... that CPU is currently selling for under $400 - $50 cheaper than the 5800X3D will...

Almost wondering if AMD paid Techspot to advertise for them... seems we're getting a LOT of articles and comparisons with this dead-end chip...
 

Usukosej

Posts: 183   +82
Compare it to the 5900X.... that CPU is currently selling for under $400 - $50 cheaper than the 5800X3D will...

Almost wondering if AMD paid Techspot to advertise for them... seems we're getting a LOT of articles and comparisons with this dead-end chip...

Gaming performance is identical between 5800X and 5900X because no games needs more than 8 cores and clockspeed is similar. 5800X has 100 MHz higher base and 5900X has 100 MHz higher boost, changes nothing. Both chips will hit same clockspeed with OC.

5800X3D destroys them both in gaming, just like Alder Lake does.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
Gaming performance is identical between 5800X and 5900X because no games needs more than 8 cores and clockspeed is similar. 5800X has 100 MHz higher base and 5900X has 100 MHz higher boost, changes nothing. Both chips will hit same clockspeed with OC.

5800X3D destroys them both in gaming, just like Alder Lake does.
Yes... but for an AMD owner, the 5900X is way better value... and it doesn't get DESTROYED in gaming... for almost any actual scenario, they'll perform virtually identically (as will almost any modern CPU) in games... games are mostly GPU bound nowadays.

But the extra cores make productivity way better...
 

mrSister

Posts: 73   +101
Seems like fantastic upgrade over the regular 5800X regarding gaming. Now you should compare both chips on productivity/creation benchmarks. I'm curious about how the lower clockspeeds on the 3D may affect the performance there.
 

Manuel Diego

Posts: 89   +171
It would be great to see how the 5800X3D performs compared to older, similar Ryzen models (1800X, 1700(X), 2700X, 3800X, 3700X), to see whether this last upgrade oportunity on AM4 is worth it. I'm pretty sure you're already working on it.
 

Usukosej

Posts: 183   +82
Yes... but for an AMD owner, the 5900X is way better value... and it doesn't get DESTROYED in gaming... for almost any actual scenario, they'll perform virtually identically (as will almost any modern CPU) in games... games are mostly GPU bound nowadays.

But the extra cores make productivity way better...
Only casual gamers are GPU bound. Most players with 144+ Hz monitors are CPU bound.

I am CPU bound at 1440p/240Hz/IPS with 5800X @ 4.7 GHz and 3080 Ti @ ~2 GHz .. I aim for 200 fps in all games.

Only settle for 100-120 fps in slower single player titles.. For multiplayer games I need 120 as bare minimum, pref 150-200 fps.

Below 100 fps is close to unplayable for me. At 80 fps I start puking and immersion vanish. Far from smooth.

So yeah, different needs as you can see...
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
Only casual gamers are GPU bound. Most players with 144+ Hz monitors are CPU bound.

I am CPU bound at 1440p/240Hz/IPS with 5800X @ 4.7 GHz and 3080 Ti @ ~2 GHz .. I aim for 200 fps in all games.

Only settle for 100-120 fps in slower single player titles.. For multiplayer games I need 120 as bare minimum, pref 150-200 fps.

Below 100 fps is close to unplayable for me. At 80 fps I start puking and immersion vanish. Far from smooth.

So yeah, different needs as you can see...
lol... you are NOT the person who needs an upgrade!
And the % of people in your shoes are microscopic...
 

Usukosej

Posts: 183   +82
lol... you are NOT the person who needs an upgrade!
And the % of people in your shoes are microscopic...
Tons of people care about fps and uses high refresh monitors.

Pretty much no serious gamer uses less than 120 Hz these days. 144 Hz if LCD. 120 Hz if OLED.

And yeah I need a faster CPU since I am CPU bound. Ryzen 7000/8000 or Meteor Lake will be my new platform.

The % of people who needs 12 cores are microscopic....
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,422   +2,404
If u included Outer Worlds test for AMD 5800X3D processor, than you should include Microsoft Simulator results in the test with Intel 12900K. Just show 0 fps for Intel processor.
Outer worlds is playing bad with AMD processor, 12900K is unable to play the Microsoft Simulator.
Hiding bad results of Intel 12900K may be seen misleading or at least favoring it.
Many readers are very interested in the weakness of processors to make a better choice BEFORE buying one.
Hope to correct this for future benchmarks or at least warn the readers to not buy Intel 12900K if they play mostly Microsoft Simulator.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=12900k+microsoft+flight+simulator
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,422   +2,404
Compare it to the 5900X.... that CPU is currently selling for under $400 - $50 cheaper than the 5800X3D will...

Almost wondering if AMD paid Techspot to advertise for them... seems we're getting a LOT of articles and comparisons with this dead-end chip...
If you're coming from Zen 2 or older, the X3D is complete winner if you want the absolute best CPU on AM4 for gaming.

I would argue anyone on AM4 with a 5600X shouldn't touch any other Zen 3 chip for gaming, unless you really really really want it for its 1080p performance. A 5900X for gaming would just be a chip with 4-6 idle cores. 5900X is a bad buy for gaming.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
Tons of people care about fps and uses high refresh monitors.

Pretty much no serious gamer uses less than 120 Hz these days. 144 Hz if LCD. 120 Hz if OLED.

And yeah I need a faster CPU since I am CPU bound. Ryzen 7000/8000 or Meteor Lake will be my new platform.

The % of people who needs 12 cores are microscopic....
Yes... but upgrading for you RIGHT NOW would be nonsensical... unless you decided you NEEDED the extra few FPS right now that a 5800X3D would give you... I'm thinking even you would think twice about spending $450 for a few % gains...

But for a normal person who is content with casual gaming and productivity who is struggling with their 1400.... going to the 5900X would make quite the difference.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
If you're coming from Zen 2 or older, the X3D is complete winner if you want the absolute best CPU on AM4 for gaming.
If you are coming from Zen 2 or older, why do you need the absolute best gaming CPU? The 5900X is almost as good at gaming - virtually identical for 99% of users - and is cheaper and way better at productivity.
 

Usukosej

Posts: 183   +82
If you are coming from Zen 2 or older, why do you need the absolute best gaming CPU? The 5900X is almost as good at gaming - virtually identical for 99% of users - and is cheaper and way better at productivity.
The 5900X is not even close. 5800X3D and Alder Lake wrecks 5900X in gaming, unless you cherry pick benchmarks and only look at GPU bound gaming in 4K LMAO :joy:

5800X3D is literally 15% faster than 5900X in gaming overall. Huge difference for people with 144+ Hz monitors.

Pretty much no consumers cares about productivity, and if they do; They buy 5950X, Threadripper or Alder Lake instead of 5900X

Or simply wait a few months for Ryzen 7000 and Raptor Lake, these will destroy 5900X even more
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,422   +2,404
If you are coming from Zen 2 or older, why do you need the absolute best gaming CPU? The 5900X is almost as good at gaming - virtually identical for 99% of users - and is cheaper and way better at productivity.
You missed the "ifs" in my comment...
Gaming or productivity? The 5800X3D is trash for productivity for its price, so how did we get to productivity all of a sudden?

5600X is just as fast as everything above it in the Zen 3 lineup. The proof is on this site.

 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
You missed the "ifs" in my comment...
Gaming or productivity? The 5800X3D is trash for productivity for its price, so how did we get to productivity all of a sudden?

5600X is just as fast as everything above it in the Zen 3 lineup. The proof is on this site.

Exactly... if the 5600 is just as good at gaming for 99% of people... why waste $450 on a 58003DX? The only upgrade that makes sense is for PRODUCTIVITY... and the 5900X is cheaper than the 5800X3D right now
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,422   +2,404
Exactly... if the 5600 is just as good at gaming for 99% of people... why waste $450 on a 58003DX? The only upgrade that makes sense is for PRODUCTIVITY... and the 5900X is cheaper than the 5800X3D right now
Correct, but the 5800X3D isn't in the same league as the 5900X for what it was designed for. Gaming and productivity are two very different markets.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
Correct, but the 5800X3D isn't in the same league as the 5900X for what it was designed for. Gaming and productivity are two very different markets.
But it IS in the same league... because for 99% of gamers, you won't see a difference...

Unless you are a competitive gamer (and if you are, what were you doing with a Ryzen 1000/2000 system!??!), you won't see a difference between the 5800X3D or 5900X.... if 5900X is cheaper... why not get that?
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,422   +2,404
But it IS in the same league... because for 99% of gamers, you won't see a difference...

Unless you are a competitive gamer (and if you are, what were you doing with a Ryzen 1000/2000 system!??!), you won't see a difference between the 5800X3D or 5900X.... if 5900X is cheaper... why not get that?
I said why.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,638   +2,416
Fantastic CPU. Now release 5950X3D and I'm sold.

Its out here I'm seeing it in stock I could grab one right now however I game at 3440x1440 so the gains don't seem worth it for me over a stock 5800X which is what I'm using.

Current pricing in CAD.

5800X3D $569
5800X $427
5900X $499

I doubt we will see a 5950X I believe its not going to cost effective for them since its will require double the V-Cache on the 2CCD models and I also think there maybe a performance hit on those models also.
 
Last edited:

julesigles

Posts: 22   +27
Compare it to the 5900X.... that CPU is currently selling for under $400 - $50 cheaper than the 5800X3D will...

Almost wondering if AMD paid Techspot to advertise for them... seems we're getting a LOT of articles and comparisons with this dead-end chip...
So never again advertise new launches from a company producing CPUs on a socket that's going to change in the next few months... got it! I'm sure Intel will just LOVE hearing that news today and for the last ten years, eh? Not!

New tech gets news. Always has, always will. Don't like gaming crowns... don't read 'em. Stupid comment.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
So never again advertise new launches from a company producing CPUs on a socket that's going to change in the next few months... got it! I'm sure Intel will just LOVE hearing that news, eh? Not! New tech gets news. Always has, always will. Don't like gaming crowns... don't read 'em. Stupid comment.
Wow... you don't read much, do you? Check the website's articles over the past week or so... There are SEVERAL articles all on this one CPU... which hasn't been released yet by the way...

I'm not saying "don't do it"... I'm just wondering why so many articles (and more are planned) are being written about it! I'm assuming because it's the only CPU being released and since Techspot got one, they have to justify having it :)

And despite what some of our AMD fanboys will tell you, this CPU makes 0 sense for almost anyone... if this was AMD's equivalent to the 12500/12600/12700, I'd understand...