Ryzen 7 7800X3D vs Core i7-13700K: Top $400 Gaming CPU?

[DZillaXx]

"Considering all these factors, if we were to build a new gaming PC with a platform budget of around $700, we would unquestionably snap up the 7800X3D."

Yes, for gaming only. But if you want an all-rounder then the i7 13700k, hands down. It trades blows depending on your selection of games, but it`s marginally slower, which amounts to what? A few fps slower? You won`t ever notice. It runs hotter, ok, as long as it is stable, I don`t care. 100W more is not that big of a deal. But then... productivity. Just look at the numbers (google it!), it`s trashing the 7800X3D from all sides. Thus, I feel Intel has a better package if you want a PC for everything, not just exclusively gaming.

Real World Productivity, Not really....

I don't know of many day to day productivity apps that need crap ton of CPU cores.

Intel only leads in this area because of core count, which is one of the areas AMD led for the last half decade. Even first Gen Ryzen walked all over Intel when it came to these workloads... Now they are important?... Lets be real, No one is here is encoding and editing video footage or rendering 3D Models on the day to day. And if they are, more likely it is for work and they are using a workstation provided by their company....

Intel is still behind in performance per watt race, this latest generation showed they know how to close the gap when clock speeds are kept down low. But on performance models with high clock speeds, it is still a joke.

 

[poshflamingos]

Imagine how crap are amd cores when they are losing in MT performance to crap cores. LMAO

But they aren't. The 7900X (same price as the 7800X3D) beats the 13700K in multithreaded performance despite having 4 fewer cores and consuming only 2/3rds as much power.

Again, the 7800X3D isn't the only product AMD has. It launched later as an alternative to the regular 7000X models, trading off some cores for the large 3D cache. The regular SKUs beat Intel in MT, and the X3D SKUs beat Intel in gaming. There is no scenario where Intel is the best choice. And that's just looking at performance, before adding the fact that Intel's power consumption is ridiculous, and that the Intel platform has no upgrade path.

 

[emmzo]

Real World Productivity, Not really....

I don't know of many day to day productivity apps that need crap ton of CPU cores.

Intel only leads in this area because of core count, which is one of the areas AMD led for the last half decade. Even first Gen Ryzen walked all over Intel when it came to these workloads... Now they are important?... Lets be real, No one is here is encoding and editing video footage or rendering 3D Models on the day to day. And if they are, more likely it is for work and they are using a workstation provided by their company....

Intel is still behind in performance per watt race, this latest generation showed they know how to close the gap when clock speeds are kept down low. But on performance models with high clock speeds, it is still a joke.

Let me ask you this: do you use a PC just for gaming? No? Ok, then with the i7 13700k most of your apps will be like 1.5-1.7x faster than 7800X3D and depending on the game, you lose a few frames, then would you really care about performance per watt? Real world productivity? You mean for professional use? I never said anything like that. Please read before replying. I only said this is an all-rounder. I don`t use a PC just for gaming. Heck, even if my WinRar will work faster, should I care about "the planet"?

But they aren't. The 7900X (same price as the 7800X3D) beats the 13700K in multithreaded performance despite having 4 fewer cores and consuming only 2/3rds as much power.

Again, the 7800X3D isn't the only product AMD has. It launched later as an alternative to the regular 7000X models, trading off some cores for the large 3D cache. The regular SKUs beat Intel in MT, and the X3D SKUs beat Intel in gaming. There is no scenario where Intel is the best choice. And that's just looking at performance, before adding the fact that Intel's power consumption is ridiculous, and that the Intel platform has no upgrade path.

But then you should build two systems, one for gaming and one for apps. There goes your argument for a 700$ build.

 

[kindle12015]

But they aren't. The 7900X (same price as the 7800X3D) beats the 13700K in multithreaded performance

They have pretty much the same MT performance.

same price as the 7800X3D

And you know why 7900X is sold at $400-449 (originally 7700X price) and not at $549 MSRP? Because it flopped hard at release and AMD was forced to drastically reduce price to compete.

the regular SKUs beat Intel in MT

13400 - same MT as 7600X, better efficiency, is cheaper.
13600K - faster than 7700X in MT, same efficiency, is cheaper.

 

[Strawman]

Intel have 16 cores, AMD have 8. Intel needs double cores vs AMD. Crap cores are so slow.

Nobody is stopping amd from adding more cores Were you using the same arguments back when 7700k had only 4 cores? That amd needs double cores vs intel?

I don't care about the numbers of cores, the 13700k is WAY faster in multi threaded and faster in single threaded performance.

 

[Strawman]

Intel is still behind in performance per watt race, this latest generation showed they know how to close the gap when clock speeds are kept down low. But on performance models with high clock speeds, it is still a joke.

That is totally not true. I know reviews show otherwise, cause reviewers test intel unlocked with 4096w power limits. That's absurd, nobody is going to run 10 hours of lets say, blender at 300 watts. At same wattage Intel is leading in performance (and therefore efficiency) in most pricepoints. Believe it or not, its amd that needs to improve their efficiency.


R7 7700x vs i7 13700, set them both at 125 watts and test. The 13700k will absolutely wipe the floor using the R7 as a mop in both performance and efficiency. The same applies to the 7600x vs the 13600k. Only the 7950x has a small lead over the 13900k, 10-15%, and that's it

Actually techspot tested the 12700f, the locked i7. It has the exact same efficiency as the 7700x. So basically zen 4 is competing with intel's 2021 CPUs in efficiency, lol.

 

[HardReset]

Nobody is stopping amd from adding more cores Were you using the same arguments back when 7700k had only 4 cores? That amd needs double cores vs intel?

I don't care about the numbers of cores, the 13700k is WAY faster in multi threaded and faster in single threaded performance.

You claimed that Intel crap cores are faster than AMD cores. Thanks for confirming that they are not faster, there are just more of them.

 

[HardReset]

That is totally not true. I know reviews show otherwise, cause reviewers test intel unlocked with 4096w power limits. That's absurd, nobody is going to run 10 hours of lets say, blender at 300 watts. At same wattage Intel is leading in performance (and therefore efficiency) in most pricepoints. Believe it or not, its amd that needs to improve their efficiency.


R7 7700x vs i7 13700, set them both at 125 watts and test. The 13700k will absolutely wipe the floor using the R7 as a mop in both performance and efficiency. The same applies to the 7600x vs the 13600k. Only the 7950x has a small lead over the 13900k, 10-15%, and that's it

Actually techspot tested the 12700f, the locked i7. It has the exact same efficiency as the 7700x. So basically zen 4 is competing with intel's 2021 CPUs in efficiency, lol.So

What you basically say is that Intel cannot adjust their own CPUs to have good efficiency. LOL.

Also 7700x at 125 watts is overclocking that naturally reduces efficiency.

 

[Strawman]

What you basically say is that Intel cannot adjust their own CPUs to have good efficiency. LOL.

Also 7700x at 125 watts is overclocking that naturally reduces efficiency.

Of course Intel can. They already have, they are called non k and T models. They are the most efficient cpus on planet earth. Reviewers just don't test them, cause then amd fanboys won't be able to claim amd is more efficient.

The 13900t scores 16k @ 35 watts. Nothing beats that in efficiency. The 13700t scores 15k @ 35 watts. Nothing beats that in efficiency either. And the list goes on. If reviewers actually tested those parts, there wouldn't be a single AMD cpu in a top 10 efficiency chart. It would be Intel dominated, rofl XD

Regarding the 7700x, it loses to the 13700k in whichever power limit you wanna test. It literally gets its *** handed to it in efficiency. I mean, the 13700k scores around 25k @ 125w. The 7700x needs 500 watts to get that score

 

[poshflamingos]

But then you should build two systems, one for gaming and one for apps. There goes your argument for a 700$ build.

Intel fanboys are so mind-blowingly delusional they think a Ryzen 7900X is incapable of running games.

They have pretty much the same MT performance.

No, they don't. The 7900X is ~10% faster in Geekbench, Passmark, and Blender. The only benchmark where they tie is Cinebench.

And you know why 7900X is sold at $400-449 (originally 7700X price) and not at $549 MSRP? Because it flopped hard at release and AMD was forced to drastically reduce price to compete.

How is this relevant in any way? I'm not paying the launch price, I'm paying today's price, and at today's price the 7900X is a much better option for professional usage.

13400 - same MT as 7600X, better efficiency, is cheaper.

The 13400 is significantly slower than the Ryzen 7600 in gaming, is the same price, and is worse in power efficiency too. No wonder you had to deliberately go out of your way to pick the 105W 7600X instead (a CPU that nobody buys with the 7600 exists) in order to make Intel appear better than it actually is, hoping nobody would notice.

13600K - faster than 7700X in MT, same efficiency, is cheaper.

While the 13600K is the only Raptor Lake CPU that isn't garbage, you're still way off here, as it it's only ~5% faster than the 7700X in MT while consuming 37% more power (189W vs 138W under load, as per techpowerup review), meaning much worse efficiency. They're also the same price, $320, but the Intel chip ends up more expensive anyway because you'll need a more expensive cooler to handle it.

 

[poshflamingos]

Intel has both the fastest

The 7950X is the fastest desktop CPU in multithreaded workloads and the 7800X3D is the fastest CPU in gaming. No clue what you're talking about.

and the most efficient cpu

This is by default grotesquely incorrect as Intel's manufacturing process is very far behind TSMC's. It's literally, physically impossible for Intel 7-based (formerly "10 nm") chips to be more efficient than TSMC N5-based chips, which is why both AMD and Apple run circles around Intel is power efficiency (I.e. Ryzen U and Apple M CPUs wipe the floor with Intel's 15W chips, the 13900K needs 50% more power to barely match the 7950X, and the Epyc line made the entire Xeon product line obsolete).

Intel literally only has two products that are kind of competitive, the 12100F and the 13600K. Literally every single other product they have might as well not exist. And both mobile and enterprise segments are included in that statement. And Intel execs know this, which is why Pat Gelsinger makes so many press releases and presentations about "the challenges for Intel", "how Intel can get back to competitiveness in the next X years" and such.

It's inspiring how Intel fans can be so delusionally optimistic when even Intel execs and employees themselves know how catastrophic their current situation is.

 

[Strawman]

The 7950X is the fastest desktop CPU in multithreaded workloads and the 7800X3D is the fastest CPU in gaming. No clue what you're talking about.

Νο, it isn't. Not even close. The 13900k hits 41500 cbr23 score at stock. The 13900ks does even more, but don't know how much, hanent tested it.

 

[poshflamingos]

Νο, it isn't. Not even close. The 13900k hits 41500 cbr23 score at stock. The 13900ks does even more, but don't know how much, hanent tested it.

Again, you have no clue what you're talking about.

I just looked, and the 13900K has an average score of 39600 on Cinebench R23's database.

And Cinebench is just one benchmark. The 7950X is ~4% faster in Geekbench, ~9% faster in Blender, ~9% faster in V-Ray, and ~6% faster in Passmark. And all of this while only consuming about 2/3rds as much power as the 13900K does.

 

[Strawman]

Again, you have no clue what you're talking about.

I just looked, and the 13900K has an average score of 39600 on Cinebench R23's database.

And Cinebench is just one benchmark. The 7950X is ~4% faster in Geekbench, ~9% faster in Blender, ~9% faster in V-Ray, and ~6% faster in Passmark. And all of this while only consuming about 2/3rds as much power as the 13900K does.

The 13900k score 41500 in CBR23. Reviewers like hwunboxed test it for 30 minutes, then their cooler gets overwhelmed dropping performance and power draw. I can show you my score at stock, im getting 41500 with a u12a at 85c.

Geekbench and passmark aint multithreaded. Geekbench is mostly memory bound.
Anyways, the 13900ks is the fastest cpu on planet earth by far, and the 13900t is the most efficient cpu on planet earth, again, by far. Wait for zen 5

 

[neeyik]

Enough of the pointless bickering. Stick to the topic/content of the article (I.e. the gaming performance of the two CPUs tested).

 

[paul1122]

Yeah. Like I sit down and consider all options from all manufacturers whenever I decide to upgrade my pc. Take weeks and weeks of unbiased study to plan every part of my new pc.

...

No, I read about something the media I pick will be better than my last build. There aren't 1000 other people living in my home to put my pc up against, so whatever I end up with is the best in the house.

So do all of you, big mouths or not.

 

[Khamul]

AMD/AM4/X3D keeps winning. The 5600X3D is a big & bad meanie. Too bad not launched worldwide. There's so many of us that are still using Ryzen 1600/2600/3600/1700/2700.

 

[loki1944]

Still not seeing a reason to upgrade my i9 10920X and i7 10700KF systems; when getting 130+FPS @3440 Ultra AND higher/max AA settings across a 42 game spread it's clear that for gaming the urgency has concistently been overinflatee; like a massive IO/PSYOP campaign for consumers' wallets. Even a decently overclocked i7 920 can get 80+ FPS at the same resolution with the same cards; and around 55-60 with a 1080Ti.

 

[Stan1ey]

I have 2 pc’s at home right now. One is mine and the other my sons PC. Both were built 3 around 2 months ago. The specifications…

Mine is:
i7-13700K
ASUS ROG Z790-I itx mobo
Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB 32GB DDR5 6000MHz RAM 2x16gb AMD expo
Palit RTX 4090 OC gpu

My Son’s PC is:
AMD RYZEN 7800x3d
ASUS TUF X670E plus wifi mobo
Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB 32GB DDR5 6000MHz RAM 2x16gb AMD expo
Palit RTX 4090 OC gpu

So, basically I know something about it lets say that. Cut long story short, we both have 4K 144hz monitors and there is no difference at all, I will repeat this again, absolutely every game runs with the same FPS, exactly the same. So it doesn’t matter which chip you want to buy for 4K gaming really, however, in terms of every day use I would never ever buy this AMD chip simply because 13700K feels million times quicker!

 

[godrilla]

The smoking gun deal on all AMD going forward
https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-sta...clude-ryzen-7000-cpus-and-radeon-rx-6600-gpus
For me the 7800X3D can be had as low as $399 at microcenter after 5% discount and free $70 Starfield game. Intel will now only lose with efficiency but value as well.

 

[Julnor]

I have 2 pc’s at home right now. One is mine and the other my sons PC. Both were built 3 around 2 months ago. The specifications…

Mine is:
i7-13700K
ASUS ROG Z790-I itx mobo
Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB 32GB DDR5 6000MHz RAM 2x16gb AMD expo
Palit RTX 4090 OC gpu

My Son’s PC is:
AMD RYZEN 7800x3d
ASUS TUF X670E plus wifi mobo
Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB 32GB DDR5 6000MHz RAM 2x16gb AMD expo
Palit RTX 4090 OC gpu

So, basically I know something about it lets say that. Cut long story short, we both have 4K 144hz monitors and there is no difference at all, I will repeat this again, absolutely every game runs with the same FPS, exactly the same. So it doesn’t matter which chip you want to buy for 4K gaming really, however, in terms of every day use I would never ever buy this AMD chip simply because 13700K feels million times quicker!

If everything runs the same how can the 13700k feel faster? lol

 

[waclark]

"Considering all these factors, if we were to build a new gaming PC with a platform budget of around $700, we would unquestionably snap up the 7800X3D."

Yes, for gaming only. But if you want an all-rounder then the i7 13700k, hands down. It trades blows depending on your selection of games, but it`s marginally slower, which amounts to what? A few fps slower? You won`t ever notice. It runs hotter, ok, as long as it is stable, I don`t care. 100W more is not that big of a deal. But then... productivity. Just look at the numbers (google it!), it`s trashing the 7800X3D from all sides. Thus, I feel Intel has a better package if you want a PC for everything, not just exclusively gaming.

As the old joke goes, Ed Zachary! I always wonder, if you were running in a real gaming environment, which means running Discord, maybe have a web page or two open, maybe running streaming software and more, how does that impact results? I know, everyone will say it's too hard to do a benchmark like that (though I don't agree), but you have to know that running multiple other tasks is going to impact CPU performance.

Also, I don't know that I would buy the 7200 DDR5. You can get 6400 DDR5 for $50 less and I'll bet it won't make 1-2% difference if that. Last but not least, I wonder how under-volting the Intel would be from a power consumption perspective? I've seen Intel CPUs do well with this. 100W isn't the end of the world, but it can have a cost impact over several years.

 

[waclark]

Productivity? Remember that because Intel added crap cores, it cannot support AVX-512 that helps a lot in ... productivity. Facepalm from Intel.

Also 100 watt difference really is big unless you accept that your computer is very noisy. Adding that AMD motherboards are better and have much better upgrade paths, I see zero reason going with Intel.

100W won't make for a noisy computer. Both of these CPUs will run in a system with 750 (or less) watts. Easily cooled with no significant noise.

 

[waclark]

If everything runs the same how can the 13700k feel faster? lol

I think he said from a gaming standpoint they are the same. Everyday use, which is more than just gaming, it "feels" faster. I can see that when you go outside gaming and are running multiple apps, web browser, email and whatever.

 

[Angelscry]

I can't wait to see how powerful Intel chips would be after they move to 5nm. But, I don't think that will happen anytime soon at the pace they are going right now.