The Best CPUs: Gaming, Productivity, and the Best Bang for Your Buck

[poshflamingos]

No I think most people buying a 12700 / 12700f had bought a prebuild which has those limits enforced by default. The k chips are more popular in the DIY space.

This is a moot point. The K version was still slower than the 5900X.

The 5900x was a lot slower in ST performance.

lol
Yes, every Alder Lake CPU had higher ST performance than every Zen 3 CPU, that's a feature of those architectures. You can compare the 12100F to the 5950X, and the 12100F will still have higher ST performance.

Except nobody buys expensive CPUs with 12+ cores for single-thread performance.

The 5900x was 540$ at the time

No, it wasn't.
As you can see in this review, at the time the 5800X3D launched, the 5900X cost $450.

with the 12700f being at 330$.

Again, wrong. $330 was the price that prerelease TechSpot article speculated was going to be the price, based on the prices of the 11700K and the 11700F. In reality, the MSRP at launch was $350, as per Intel's own website.

which is why the 5900x was 200$ more expensive than the 12700f

Except it wasn't. The 5900X was 28% more expensive ($450 vs $350) while being about 30% faster (as per Passmark).
Compared to the 12700K, the 5900X was 15% more expensive ($450 vs $390) while being about 12% faster (Passmark).
That's just normal, ordinary pricing that is well in line with the CPUs' performance. There's nothing abnormal about how much AMD CPUs cost, they were priced exactly in line with what Intel CPUs were priced at.

But if you did not have a motherboard, you get to pay 200$ extra anyways for no reason.

Blatant lie.

The 7800x 3d was the same price but it was faster at least in games than cheaper CPUs (like the 7600x and the 7700x) and wasn't majorly lagging behind in ST and MT.

Congratulations, you accidentally discovered how CPU generations work!
Yes, the 7800X3D was indeed faster than the 7600 and 7700X, because they were all in the same generation. Exactly like the 5800X3D was also faster than the 5600 and 5700X, because they were also in the same generation. Just like the 12900K was faster than the 12700K and the 12400F, because they were also in the same generation. And just like the RTX 3080 was also faster than the RTX 3070 and RTX 3060, because they were all in the same generation.

But comparing the 5800X3D and the 7600 is stupid, because they were NOT in the same generation. Just like being upset that the 12400F outperforms the 11900K would also be stupid, because they are not in the same generation.

Do you finally comprehend how generations work now, buddy?

Simply put, it made sense to buy the 7800x 3d even if you didn't have an am5 mobo.

This statement is just nonsensical. Ryzen 7000 was the first generation that existed on AM5. Nobody had an AM5 board before that, because it didn't exist.
The longevity of AM5 only came into play the next generation, when the 9800X3D came out.

It did not make any sense to buy the 5800x 3d if you didn't have an am4 mobo.

Before AM5 came out, it absolutely did make sense to buy the 5800X3D even if you didn't have AM4 already. Everyone knew it was the last generation supported on AM4 so it was a dead platform at that point, but Intel's platform was also dead, and the 5800X3D was the best gaming CPU. You couldn't get similar gaming performance from Intel unless you paid significantly more.

Once AM5 came out, sure, then the 5800X3D (which was soon discontinued) became just a "extend the life of the AM4 system you already have" option.

But none of that meant AMD CPUs were more expensive than Intel's. The 5800X3D was just as expensive as every other X3D CPU would be, and the other Ryzen 5000 options were equally priced to their equivalents (5600 and 12400F were both ~$150, 5700X and 12600K were both ~$250, 5950X and 12900K were both $600, etc).

 

[poshflamingos]

But it does not mean 7700x gives no advantage over 7600x.

The link I provided you includes both the 7600X and 7700X in the tests. You can see exactly how much advantage the 7700X gives you over the 7600X. Spoiler: it's almost none.

Why is 7600x better than any Ryzen 5000?
Big IPC gain AND big frequency hop between Zen3 and Zen4 cores.
Going from DDR4 to DDR5 gives some performance too. Just check Intels 12th~14th gen CPUs using DDR4 vs DDR5

Yes, that's exactly the other commenter's point. Other factors like architecture/IPC, cache and memory affect gaming performance drastically more, while core count barely matters. It doesn't matter how many dozens of cores your CPU has, the person who buys the next generation's sub-$200 6-core CPU will run games better than you.

Ray tracing or not. There are more CPU heavy games.
Multiplayer FPS and MMOs.
And simulation games (like Factorio) are different story where every bit of CPU power counts.

Here you can see how the 7600X and the 7700X compare in Battlefield 6 multiplayer. The 7700X is 7.6% faster on "overkill" settings, 4.7% faster on "high" settings, and 0% faster on "low" settings (they are exactly tied).
Simulation games, sure, they are the outlier. They are closer to multithreaded workloads than they are to other typical games, they do benefit from more cores. But for people who don't play simulation games, more than 6 cores is a waste.

 

[Strawman]

LOL, new rule, you can't compare cpus that not of the same generation. Which means - you can't compare anything with anything really, reviews are pointless.

Except nobody buys expensive CPUs with 12+ cores for single-thread performance.

Citation needed. You are making it up

Except it wasn't. The 5900X was 28% more expensive ($450 vs $350) while being about 30% faster (as per Passmark).

Except it wasn't 30% faster unless you power limited the 12700. But regardless, these cpus are different generations made from different companies so you can't compare them. You can only compare cpus that are of the same generation and same company.

But none of that meant AMD CPUs were more expensive than Intel's.

Yes it did. The 5800x 3d was lagging majorly in both ST and MT (super important, as you just said in another thread) yet it was much more expensive than the CPUs beating it in those areas.

 

[Melkor Unlimited]

The link I provided you includes both the 7600X and 7700X in the tests. You can see exactly how much advantage the 7700X gives you over the 7600X. Spoiler: it's almost none.

Do you want to compare 6 vs 8 cores?

We Tested Every Ryzen 5 and 7 X3D CPU: From 5800X3D to 9800X3D

Nine X3D CPUs, two platforms, and 14 games tested. We compare every Ryzen 5 and 7 X3D processor to find out how much performance has improved since...

www.techspot.com

7800x3D vs 7600x3D in Battlefield 6
+8.6% in avg fps
+17.3% in min fps (which is more important for game fluency)

I do hope we are over the Intels mantra "4 cores ought to be enough for everybody"

 

[poshflamingos]

LOL, new rule, you can't compare cpus that not of the same generation. Which means - you can't compare anything with anything really, reviews are pointless.

I didn't say you can't compare them.

I said you can't claim that AMD charges a premium for platform longevity by comparing a high-end chip from an old generation to an entry-level chip from a new generation, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that AMD chips were always priced equal to their Intel counterparts.

Who do you think you're fooling with these blatantly bad faith arguments?

Citation needed. You are making it up

You want a citation for why people don't do something that is incredibly stupid?

Imagine you work with one of the extremely few programs that are still tied to ST performance and don't benefit from MT (I.e. parametric CAD like SolidWorks, or real-time DSP in audio production, and that's about it). In this circunstance, where you need ST and don't care about MT, why the hell would you buy a 32-core CPU?

Those people buy the cheapest unlocked K chip they can, disable HT and E-cores, and overclock it.

Except it wasn't 30% faster unless you power limited the 12700.

Passmark proved otherwise.

Yes it did. The 5800x 3d was lagging majorly in both ST and MT

Really? You need me to explain this to you again?
The 5800X3D was not made to offer good MT performance, it's a gaming-only CPU. If you needed MT performance, the 5900X was available for the exact same price.

Again, who do you think you're convincing by being this intentionally obtuse?

 

[poshflamingos]

Do you want to compare 6 vs 8 cores?

We Tested Every Ryzen 5 and 7 X3D CPU: From 5800X3D to 9800X3D

Nine X3D CPUs, two platforms, and 14 games tested. We compare every Ryzen 5 and 7 X3D processor to find out how much performance has improved since...

www.techspot.com

7800x3D vs 7600x3D in Battlefield 6
+8.6% in avg fps
+17.3% in min fps (which is more important for game fluency)

Except in that case you're not comparing just 6 cores to 8 cores. The 7600X3D and 7800X3D have a pretty big difference in TDP (65W vs 120W) and sustained boost clocks as well.
7600X and 7700X are a good comparison because they're both 105W chips and have very similar boost clocks.

 

[Melkor Unlimited]

Except in that case you're not comparing just 6 cores to 8 cores. The 7600X3D and 7800X3D have a pretty big difference in TDP (65W vs 120W) and sustained boost clocks as well.
7600X and 7700X are a good comparison because they're both 105W chips and have very similar boost clocks.

I do not think the higher TDP gives that big difference.
Check the real power consuming.
7800x3D does not use the full 120W TDP / 162W PPT limit.

AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D Review - The Best Gaming CPU

AMD's Ryzen 7 7800X3D is everything that gamers want: eight fast cores, in a single CCD, with 3D VCache stacked on top at a price point of $450. In our review we can confirm that 7800X3D is indeed the fastest gaming CPU available, beating Intel's 13900K and even the 7950X3D.

www.techpowerup.com

BTW .. I am using my Ryzen CPUs at ECO setrtings (65W on 105W model, resp 45W on 65W model) without losing too much performance.

 

[poshflamingos]

I do not think the higher TDP gives that big difference.
Check the real power consuming.
7800x3D does not use the full 120W TDP / 162W PPT limit.

AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D Review - The Best Gaming CPU

AMD's Ryzen 7 7800X3D is everything that gamers want: eight fast cores, in a single CCD, with 3D VCache stacked on top at a price point of $450. In our review we can confirm that 7800X3D is indeed the fastest gaming CPU available, beating Intel's 13900K and even the 7950X3D.

www.techpowerup.com

BTW .. I am using my Ryzen CPUs at ECO setrtings (65W on 105W model, resp 45W on 65W model) without losing too much performance.

Well, I gave you data that shows a 6-core CPU and an 8-core CPU with identical TDPs and very similar clocks, and the performance difference between them is tiny. You showed data that shows a 6-core CPU and an 8-core CPU with very different TDPs and different clocks, and the performance difference between them is a bit larger. Doesn't take a genius to arrive at the right conclusion to explain what the difference is, does it?

Or were you hoping that the link you gave me erases the one I gave you, and it means my link stops being true?

 

[Strawman]

You want a citation for why people don't do something that is incredibly stupid?

Imagine you work with one of the extremely few programs that are still tied to ST performance and don't benefit from MT (I.e. parametric CAD like SolidWorks, or real-time DSP in audio production, and that's about it). In this circunstance, where you need ST and don't care about MT, why the hell would you buy a 32-core CPU?

You are creating a scenario that doesn't exist. Lots of productivity workloads have components that benefit from ST and / or MT.

Passmark proved otherwise.

No, it did not.

Really? You need me to explain this to you again?
The 5800X3D was not made to offer good MT performance, it's a gaming-only CPU. If you needed MT performance, the 5900X was available for the exact same price.

What the heck does that even mean? "It wasn't made to offer good MT performance", hows that an excuse, lol. Ok, whichever CPU you don't like wasn't made to be good, that's why you don't like it. There you go, problem solved. What kind of nonsense was that? Anyways, nobody cares about gaming performance as you yourself admitted in the other thread, MT is the most important thing (your words, not mine).

Anyways, im tired of this boss. MT performance isn't important when Intel slumdunks AMD but it will become important again when amd gets their crap together and makes a CPU worth a damn. God I love flip floppers.

 

[poshflamingos]

You are creating a scenario that doesn't exist. Lots of productivity workloads have components that benefit from ST and / or MT.

MT, obsolutely, yes. 99.9% of productivity workloads are MT.

ST, no. I mentioned the only two common productivity tasks that are still locked to ST performance because they are serialized by design and literally cannot be multithreaded. Outside of those two, ST is largely inconsequent for productivity. A CPU having 20% higher ST performance might occasionally save you a couple second here or there at most, if that. A CPU having 20% higher MT performance saves you hours of work.

Nobody who actually works chooses a workstation CPU based on single-thread performance. Except maybe the few people who work on those two specific fields I mentioned (parametric CAD or real-time DSP).

What the heck does that even mean? "It wasn't made to offer good MT performance", hows that an excuse, lol. Ok, whichever CPU you don't like wasn't made to be good, that's why you don't like it. There you go, problem solved. What kind of nonsense was that?

"It's worth noting that this is a gaming focused CPU. We're sure there will be some productivity workloads that can benefit from the extra L3 cache, but AMD has refrained from giving any examples if they exist. Instead, AMD is 100% pushing this as a gaming CPU, and once you see the data it will make sense why there isn't a "5950X3D."" - TechSpot

"As you can see, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D takes the crown as the fastest gaming chip in our test suite and lives up to AMD's claim that 3D V-Cache delivers an increase in gaming performance equivalent to what we would normally only see from a new microarchitecture. However, the 58000X3D isn't as fast as comparable chips in other types of single- and multi-threaded work beyond gaming. That's because the other models have a core count and frequency advantage." - Tom's Hardware

"If any processor would have been called a special edition, it could be the 5800X3D. It's the duplicate 5800X proc, interlinked with an additional 64MB of L3 cache offering you more game performance. It ends there though, as normal applications do not seem to be thrilled or excited by that big whopper of an L3 cache. That's okay though as the proc solely addresses gamers and costs the same as the original 5800X launch price, 449 USD." - guru3d.com

I don't know if you actually are this dumb or if you're just pretending, but it's widely known from the very start, by everyone on this PC hobby, that X3D CPUs were never intended to be workstation CPUs and have never been recommended as such by anyone, not even AMD themselves.

 

[Hecate91]

Because it will drive CPU prices high the same way it drives AMD prices high.

AMD prices are higher because they're faster in gaming, and more are buying them.
Intel is undercutting and likely selling at a loss to gain marketshare back, at some point Intel will be the more expensive parts, Intel fans will no longer have the "but intel is cheap" defense to keep buying new motherboards.

Anyone who bought a B650 or X670/X670E board and a 7000 series CPU can drop in a Zen 6 CPU, boards which launched around when Intel 12th gen did, though Intel won't give you the option to use a Bartlett Lake CPU or Core ultra. Anyone in the market for Nova Lake will ultimately be paying significantly more to get new RAM optimized for the platform.

 

[Strawman]

Intel is undercutting and likely selling at a loss

Good, that explains why their CPUs are so much better at every price point. We don't want nvidia / amd type companies with huge margins. Intel for the win.

 

[LordVile95]

Thing is Intel is on a dead platform. You might as well go AM5 for future upgrade ability and if you want the best performance in high thread count t applications you need to go HEDT not a consumer platform

 

[amstech]

All I know is that for 4K gaming my 7700X is holding up remarkably well. I'll hold on to it and see what AMD's next set of chips will bring.

For 1440p and 4K gaming something like a 265K gives you the exact same real world performance as any other chip, you won't notice any actual difference, only on charts.

Thing is Intel is on a dead platform. You might as well go AM5 for future upgrade ability and if you want the best performance in high thread count t applications you need to go HEDT not a consumer platform

I wouldn't call the company that hold 76.1% of the desktop CPU share a dead platform.

 

[erickmendes]

I wouldn't call the company that hold 76.1% of the desktop CPU share a dead platform.

I think you miss the point... He is not saying that Intel is a dead platform... He is talking about LGA1700...

 

[Strawman]

Thing is Intel is on a dead platform. You might as well go AM5 for future upgrade ability and if you want the best performance in high thread count t applications you need to go HEDT not a consumer platform

Right now Intel is on the more upgradable platform, since it offers 9950x / 9900x performance at much lower price points (270k and 250k). With the leftover money you can upgrade to any platform you like down the like, whether its novalake, am5 or am6. If you go with AMD right now you are stuck to AM5.

 

[LordVile95]

Right now Intel is on the more upgradable platform, since it offers 9950x / 9900x performance at much lower price points (270k and 250k). With the leftover money you can upgrade to any platform you like down the like, whether its novalake, am5 or am6. If you go with AMD right now you are stuck to AM5.

But you can just swap out the 9950x when the next generation comes out as it will still be on AM5 for at least another generation likely 2 if you’d like whereas the 250k would require a platform upgrade.

 

[Hecate91]

Good, that explains why their CPUs are so much better at every price point. We don't want nvidia / amd type companies with huge margins. Intel for the win.

The only thing Intel has is cheaper CPU prices, you still lose out on platform longevity.

Right now Intel is on the more upgradable platform, since it offers 9950x / 9900x performance at much lower price points (270k and 250k). With the leftover money you can upgrade to any platform you like down the like, whether its novalake, am5 or am6. If you go with AMD right now you are stuck to AM5.

Intel LGA1851 has no upgrade path, you wouldn't be saving any money having to replace the motherboard and RAM. With AM5, it has an upgrade path to Zen 6 without needing to buy new RAM, which IMO is important given the cost of buying a RAM kit. The less needing to unnecessarily replace parts, the better.

 

[Strawman]

The only thing Intel has is cheaper CPU prices, you still lose out on platform longevity.

If the price is cheaper then that means you can buy a new mobo if you want to. So it offers better longevity than am5 right now

Intel LGA1851 has no upgrade path, you wouldn't be saving any money having to replace the motherboard and RAM. With AM5, it has an upgrade path to Zen 6 without needing to buy new RAM, which IMO is important given the cost of buying a RAM kit. The less needing to unnecessarily replace parts, the better.

Why would you have to replace the ram though? You are making stuff up. Going for LGA1851 will save you enough money to buy a new motherboard for novalake, am5 or even am6, so it offers by far the superior longevity. If you don't value longevity and platform upgradability then you can go with am5 I guess.

 

[Strawman]

But you can just swap out the 9950x when the next generation comes out as it will still be on AM5 for at least another generation likely 2 if you’d like whereas the 250k would require a platform upgrade.

And you can still buy a new motherboard if you want to with the money you saved buying the 270k over the 9950x / 9950x 3d.

 

[LordVile95]

And you can still buy a new motherboard if you want to with the money you saved buying the 270k over the 9950x / 9950x 3d.

If you also don’t need new RAM, new cooler mounts etc and assuming the performance gain is actually worth it. It’s also a lot more time with cable management vs just removing a cooler and swapping the CPU.

 

[Strawman]

If you also don’t need new RAM, new cooler mounts etc and assuming the performance gain is actually worth it. It’s also a lot more time with cable management vs just removing a cooler and swapping the CPU.

Why would you need new ram? Am5 is ddr5, novalake is ddr5.