Question 7800X3D, 9800X3D or Intel?

[BlakeW]

I've been considering upgrading my main platform for a while now. Currently, I’m running an 8700K with an RTX 2080, and I feel it's time for a platform upgrade, I’ll hold off on a new GPU until the 5080 I think.

After researching, I'm a bit torn on the upgrade path and thought I’d ask for some advice. I’m particularly interested in the latest X3D chips, specifically the 7800X3D and possibly the 9800X3D or the Core Ultra 7 265K if I stuck with Intel.

From the benchmarks I’ve seen, Intel generally outperforms in productivity tasks while still offering solid gaming performance. I work from home and use applications like Blender, Unity, and video editing software regularly. While my 8700K has handled these well, it’s starting to show its age, and I’d like to finally upgrade to not only future-proof my system for a good few years again but also get the new options such as faster storage capabilities with Gen4/5 etc.

The new Intel chips have their issues, but they’re expected to be sorted out over time. Plus, the new socket is rumored to be future-proof for a while, so there’s potential for a later CPU swap. Although their track record with the micro-code issues and the launch of the Core Ultra lineup isn't giving me hope. However, I also game quite a bit, making the X3D chips appealing, especially since my current CPU still manages most tasks well, and a gaming performance boost would be a nice bonus.

So, my main question is: Would an X3D chip be an absolutely fine upgrade for all my day to day usage while also giving great gaming performance or would it be more beneficial to take a gaming performance hit and get something with more cores and something that clocks higher? I'm thinking maybe instead of a 7800X3D a 9700X or an Ultra Core 7 might be a good idea?

Any opinions would help greatly, thanks!

 

[Lutfij]

of those three... 9800x3d all the way!

 

[Lafong]

Considering you are on an 8700K now....6 years old?......you'd likely be quite happy with any upgrade into the upper tier of a recent generation from either AMD or Intel.

Barring something unforeseen and likely unforeseeable. Barring your possible tendency toward buyer's remorse and second-guessing yourself after the fact.

You say "would it be more beneficial". We don't have much insight into your PC purpose other than "gaming" and some other "day to day usage".

Is this machine going to be used for gaming 30 percent of the time or 70?

Reading between the lines, maybe gaming is most important to you...in which case lean AMD.

Not sure about the longevity of the 1851 socket, but you since you are now on a long-extinct socket, maybe that isn't important.

 

[BlakeW]

Considering you are on an 8700K now....6 years old?......you'd likely be quite happy with any upgrade into the upper tier of a recent generation from either AMD or Intel.

Barring something unforeseen and likely unforeseeable. Barring your possible tendency toward buyer's remorse and second-guessing yourself after the fact.

You say "would it be more beneficial". We don't have much insight into your PC usage other than "gaming" and some other "day to day usage".

Is this machine going to be used for gaming 30 percent of the time or 70?

Reading between the lines, maybe gaming is most important to you...in which case lean AMD.

Not sure about the longevity of the 1851 socket, but you since you are now on a long-extinct socket, maybe that isn't important.

Yeah you're basically spot on, I'd say roughly 60% gaming, 40% working (In mostly 3D applications though). In regards to buyers remorse, I'll be happy with whatever I get as both are more than adequate decisions and as you can see I clearly keep what I've got for the long haul.

I'll be 100% keeping an eye out for the full rundown of the 9800X3D when it's revealed more in the coming weeks. But thanks, I think I am leaning more towards AMD at the moment since either way it's a huge upgrade.

 

[triplex1]

Yeah you're basically spot on, I'd say roughly 60% gaming, 40% working (In mostly 3D applications though).

If the work you do brings you money, yes, go for a big processor, but from what I see, you are talking about 60% game, so I think that a 7800X3D covers your needs and pay more money for a graphics card ....... This is it my opinion

 

[geofelt]

My thoughts:

There is no "future proofing" in pc computing.
Whatever you see now will be superseded by better price/performance products in a few years.
Buy what you need now, and for the next 2/3 years.
If you use your pc for work, it is probably best to not go for the latest gen, either Intel or AMD.
There will inevitably be some glitches which may or may not need fixing.
Is your 8700K overclocked? That can give you some 25% better performance for the cost of a good cooler.
Can you now fill all of the 12 processing threads that you now have?
Games depend primarily on the performance of the single master thread so single thread performance is key.
The X3d processors get their performance by a massive cache which works well for gaming.
But, running other tasks like video editing that use many threads will empty the cache and the performance is better with the underlying chip.
7700X vs. 7800X3d for example.
As a simple test, run the cpu-Z bench and look at your single thread performance rating.
You should see about 468:
http://valid.x86.fr/bench/a5wyah

Do you have a budget?
On the amd side, look at the AM5 7000 based processors which have been out long enough to have most glitches resolved.
R7 7700X for example.
On the Intel side, I7-13700k or i7-14700k would be appropriate.
There is a lot of FUD about 13/14 gen intel processors.
That has depressed their prices.
Intel has found the root cause and has developed fixes.
Warranty has been extended 2 years.
Just see that your motherboard has the latest bios updates installed.
Coming from an intel system, there would be a lessened learning curve.
For example, Intel is relatively insensitive to ram speed for performance and compatibility.
Ryzen depends on fast ram and not all seemingly similar ram will work.

On storage:
Do not be much swayed by unrealistic vendor synthetic SSD benchmarks.
They are done with apps that push the SSD to it's maximum using queue lengths of 30 or so. They are done on new/clean drives for repeatability.
Most desktop users will do one or two things at a time, so they will see queue lengths of one or two.
What really counts is the response times, particularly for small random I/O. That is what the os does mostly.
For that, the response times of current SSD's are remarkably similar. And quick.
m.2 pcie devices cost about the same as sata 2.5" ssd devices. The plus is that they are easy to install without psu power and sata data cables.
But, motherboards will have limited numbers of m.2 ports.
Probably it is better to buy one large device vs. several smaller devices. Performance is the same.
Do not worry about gen 4/5. Sequential speed is not usually all that important compared to random i/o.

Gen 3/4/5 for graphics cards makes a difference only for the very top tier of cards.

 

[BlakeW]

My thoughts:

There is no "future proofing" in pc computing.
Whatever you see now will be superseded by better price/performance products in a few years.
Buy what you need now, and for the next 2/3 years.
If you use your pc for work, it is probably best to not go for the latest gen, either Intel or AMD.
There will inevitably be some glitches which may or may not need fixing.
Is your 8700K overclocked? That can give you some 25% better performance for the cost of a good cooler.
Can you now fill all of the 12 processing threads that you now have?
Games depend primarily on the performance of the single master thread so single thread performance is key.
The X3d processors get their performance by a massive cache which works well for gaming.
But, running other tasks like video editing that use many threads will empty the cache and the performance is better with the underlying chip.
7700X vs. 7800X3d for example.
As a simple test, run the cpu-Z bench and look at your single thread performance rating.
You should see about 468:
http://valid.x86.fr/bench/a5wyah

Do you have a budget?
On the amd side, look at the AM5 7000 based processors which have been out long enough to have most glitches resolved.
R7 7700X for example.
On the Intel side, I7-13700k or i7-14700k would be appropriate.
There is a lot of FUD about 13/14 gen intel processors.
That has depressed their prices.
Intel has found the root cause and has developed fixes.
Warranty has been extended 2 years.
Just see that your motherboard has the latest bios updates installed.
Coming from an intel system, there would be a lessened learning curve.
For example, Intel is relatively insensitive to ram speed for performance and compatibility.
Ryzen depends on fast ram and not all seemingly similar ram will work.

On storage:
Do not be much swayed by unrealistic vendor synthetic SSD benchmarks.
They are done with apps that push the SSD to it's maximum using queue lengths of 30 or so. They are done on new/clean drives for repeatability.
Most desktop users will do one or two things at a time, so they will see queue lengths of one or two.
What really counts is the response times, particularly for small random I/O. That is what the os does mostly.
For that, the response times of current SSD's are remarkably similar. And quick.
m.2 pcie devices cost about the same as sata 2.5" ssd devices. The plus is that they are easy to install without psu power and sata data cables.
But, motherboards will have limited numbers of m.2 ports.
Probably it is better to buy one large device vs. several smaller devices. Performance is the same.
Do not worry about gen 4/5. Sequential speed is not usually all that important compared to random i/o.

Gen 3/4/5 for graphics cards makes a difference only for the very top tier of cards.

I went ahead and ran the benchmark you requested, got a score of 488. The chip used to be overclocked a couple years back but I ran into numerous stability issues even with small increases so it's running at stock for now.

I used to work in PC Components RMA testing so I am completely in the loop in regards to the main differences with Intel and AMD with the learning curve you mentioned. So that wouldn't be a problem whatsoever, I've also built Ryzen systems for many friends and family.

Speaking of budget, it's not too much of a concern. I've never needed to go all out and grab i9's with top end Motherboards etc. Absolutely comfortable going with i7's and in this case Ryzen 7. I understand the ram differences, for the build I am thinking of going I went with 2x16GB 6000MHz CL30 Corsair RAM. Used Corsair in every build I've done and specifically here in Australia they have great warranty if anything goes wrong. Which in my experience is rare.

I did consider grabbing a i7-14700K which I can get for a really good price around now and those chips will perform great (assuming the microcode issues actually got fully fixed, we shall see). My main reason against doing this is primarily being locked into a dead generation, going with new Intel and AMD means that there will be future chip releases which will give more options. Whether or not they are improvements is something we will have to wait and see, but then again AMD's AM4 platform is still going strong.

Thanks for all the info, really gave me a ton to re-consider.

 

[80251]

I was/am practically in the same boat but I was running a 1080ti. Instead of upgrading my motherboard+CPU+RAM I upgraded my 1080ti to a 4090. Aside from Fallout 4, the least significant increase I had in FPS was 50%. I couldn't afford both a system upgrade and a new GPU. Of all the upgrades I've even initiated, this one gave me the most significant increase in FPS. I'm waiting on an 9800X3D, but I won't be able to afford such an upgrade until the prices come down.
My 9700k is running at 5.2/4.9 (core/uncore).

 

[TheHerald]

If you are doing productivity and you don't care about 720p gaming with a 4090 you can just skip over the 3ds.

If you don't want to splurge a lot of money, the 13600k is the best value option. If you want to spend a bit more the 265k or the 7950x are both excellent. It all depends on prices in your region though.

Since you keep your chips for a long time upgradability is irrelevant, all of the sockets currently out are probably dead end anyways (maybe 1851 will support an extra gen but who knows). Dont fall into the 3d trap, you'll see 0 difference in your games while being a lot slower in every other workload you are doing.

 

[BlakeW]

If you are doing productivity and you don't care about 720p gaming with a 4090 you can just skip over the 3ds.

If you don't want to splurge a lot of money, the 13600k is the best value option. If you want to spend a bit more the 265k or the 7950x are both excellent. It all depends on prices in your region though.

Since you keep your chips for a long time upgradability is irrelevant, all of the sockets currently out are probably dead end anyways (maybe 1851 will support an extra gen but who knows). Dont fall into the 3d trap, you'll see 0 difference in your games while being a lot slower in every other workload you are doing.

I did notice this when I was looking at every benchmark on the planet showing single and multi core performance.

In almost all non gaming benchmarks the 7800x3d was the last result. I was looking into the 7950x3d which looked like a good middle ground until I saw the $1000 price tag (here in Australia).

As you said I don’t upgrade with every new release so I’m not considering upgradability options anymore. With that being said I’m thinking of maybe grabbing a 14700k as this is what I was considering prior to the microcode issues. But then again I’m unsure if the fixes are good for the long run.

Got a lot to consider, will have to wait and see what the overall performance of the 9800x3d looks like and then make up my mind. Got a few Christmas sales coming up soon so got some time to think it over.

I should probably have mentioned, I also am running 1440p as my primarily resolution.

 

[TheHerald]

I did notice this when I was looking at every benchmark on the planet showing single and multi core performance.

In almost all non gaming benchmarks the 7800x3d was the last result. I was looking into the 7950x3d which looked like a good middle ground until I saw the $1000 price tag (here in Australia).

As you said I don’t upgrade with every new release so I’m not considering upgradability options anymore. With that being said I’m thinking of maybe grabbing a 14700k as this is what I was considering prior to the microcode issues. But then again I’m unsure if the fixes are good for the long run.

Got a lot to consider, will have to wait and see what the overall performance of the 9800x3d looks like and then make up my mind. Got a few Christmas sales coming up soon so got some time to think it over.

I should probably have mentioned, I also am running 1440p as my primarily resolution.

The 14700k is Uber fast but 13th and 14th gen cpus are not good to run out of the box. Regardless of the whole degradation issue (which is easily fixable) they are tuned really badly at stock. If you don't want to mess around in the bios to properly run them go for the new generation. If you don't mind getting into the bios then the 14700k is good.

Again, it all depends on prices in your region.

And just forget the 9800x 3d, for that kinda of money you can get a 7950x or a 9900x, it's just not worth it. Even if you had a 4090 it's not worth it.