Review AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D Review: New Gaming Champ Beats Pricier CPUs

[dalauder]

$500 gaming CPU are not justifiable when PC gaming is in an awful state of broken console ports.

I would go further to say that gaming PCs aren't viable IF you only game on your computer.

I need a computer anyways, so it's really just an extra $250 for a graphics card for me.

That said, I'm pretty happy with my Ryzen 3600X right now. So I the earliest I'll upgrade would be for 8000 series, probably later.

 

[dalauder]

Maybe next time you'll get them AMDers who keep beating your boiz over at Intel, Paul.

It is weird how they always manage to bash AMD on invalid complaints, but the Intel CONS never say
-Unrealistic real-world performance due to thermal throttling
-Requires a premium cooler that makes it lose on price comparisons
-Not upgradeable because Intel will always change their socket
-Pointless DDR4 support because it's slower than AMD's DDR5-based offerings by >10% on DDR4

It's tough to find, but if you look around at a lot of real-world testing of OEM produced Intel i7/i9 builds like from HP for example, you'll find that Intel parts often get like >10% gaming hits due to thermal throttling, so they lose to non-X3D parts in gaming. AMD's literally had the OEM gaming performance crown for like 3 years, but nobody will report on it.

So AMD has been in the lead on gaming, productivity (multi-threading), energy efficiency (why they've dominated the server market), features, and price for about 3 years.

I will admit that the original 7000 series launch was a semi-debacle though, due to pricing and marketing mistakes. Why release a chip that will be outperformed by the similar X3D one you're releasing in a couple months? Who would buy that? But total platform cost is almost identical for AMD, unless you want a new and slow AM4 build.

 

[dalauder]

I am actually quite surprised by how closely the AMD supplied benchmark results were to the results for the same games in the review.

That's the problem. AMD's marketing team is obsessed with journalistic integrity. They tell the truth in their slides and testing and it's hurting them. They should run biased tests and report data that's unachievable in the real world like their competition. They need Don Draper.

 

[dalauder]

I'm building a new ITX rig and I'm really glad that I decided to wait to see what the 7800X3D was going to bring to the table and now I think that's going to be the CPU I put in this rig. Now to find a motherboard that supports it out of the box without a BIOS update.

Do Intel chips work for ITX, or do they run too hot?

 

[dalauder]

...This is going to be really interesting in the Laptop space, Too bad AMD has a really bad naming scheme that requires a decoder wheel to understand what zen generation is being utilized.

Should it be interesting? AMD's been getting better power usage for several generations in laptops, with vastly superior integrated graphics. Unless I'm missing something, Intel's not really competitive in that space.

 

[dalauder]

For those of us that never use software to tweak and only use the bios this is a non issue.

dropping a new chip in the socket will reset the bios back to defaults.

Wait...people are only frying the chip with SOFTWARE overclocks, not in the BIOS? Hahaha...Well that's a non-issue. If you want to fry your CPU, overclock in Windows. That's like the 2nd line in every overclocking guide.

 

[bit_user]

@PaulAlcorn ,
Why are you still dinging premium AMD products for lack of DDR4 support? DDR5 has been on the market for 1.5 years!

If I price 2x 32 GB of DDR4-4000 at Newegg (direct), it's >= $180. The same capacity of DDR5-4800 is $195. As noted here, DDR5 prices are expected to continue falling faster than DDR4, which means the gap will only continue to narrow, in coming months:

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/dram-prices-dropped-20-in-q1-2023-will-keep-falling-in-q2

At this point in time, I doubt anyone spending >= $450 on a CPU is opting to stick with DDR4, even if they have the option to do so. For lower-end CPUs, the point remains valid.

 

[nerdvous]

With Paul getting some flak in the comments, I'd just like to show my appreciation that in the text of the review I think he is very fair, and covers the relative merits and drawbacks of each platform well. The summary may not reflect that, but as someone coming back to PC hardware after a long time away, this site and its reviews (and its community!) have been really useful for getting a sense of what was available to me.

 

[dalauder]

With Paul getting some flak in the comments, I'd just like to show my appreciation that in the text of the review I think he is very fair, and covers the relative merits and drawbacks of each platform well. The summary may not reflect that, but as someone coming back to PC hardware after a long time away, this site and its reviews (and its community!) have been really useful for getting a sense of what was available to me.

Honestly, Paul writes excellent articles.

However, there seems to consistently be a resistance to admitting AMD victories. It's not just this article. It's not just DDR4. It's not just Tom's Hardware. It's just bizarre how consistently AMD is criticized for invalid shortcomings while Intel gets a free pass over and over. Intel spent five years producing chips that couldn't hit their rated performance due to heat problems. But that was never recognized in CPU recommendations or reviews. That's significant because Intel's single percentage wins in performance were invalidated in many heat-bound OEM tests.

 

[TerryLaze]

It is weird how they always manage to bash AMD on invalid complaints, but the Intel CONS never say
-Unrealistic real-world performance due to thermal throttling
-Requires a premium cooler that makes it lose on price comparisons

If you see a review that has intel thermal throttling then delete them from your trusted reviewer list...
They use the "out-of-the-box" excuse to use the mobo with the absolute most terrible settings just to make a clickbaity article.

With everything else being equal, using the same cooling, the 13900k reaches 330W ~30% above their advertised power draw at 86 degrees which is 15-20 degrees below the throttling point while the 7950x reaches the thermal throttle point of 95 degrees without even reaching the advertised power draw.

Just like AMD the better the cooling the higher the possible boost...oh wait, that's not right, AMD throttles before it can go above their performance target.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641/lighter-touch-cpu-power-scaling-13900k-7950x/3

Following on from the temperatures, despite pulling a figure of 330.3 W under full load, the peak core temperature of the i9-1300K was 8°C lower than the Ryzen 9 7950X, which hit 94°C under full load. Given that the power figures given aligned more with the settings on the 13900K than they did on the 7950X, the drop in temperatures on the Intel processor was much better received, with 53°C at 125 W and just 39°C at 65 W.

The 13900k is a 125W base TDP CPU (143W )and here you see why, going to the max turbo TDP of 253W (330W ) only gives you like 20% more performance for more than 100% more power.
On the other hand the 7950x is already at max at 125W (166W ) ,you gain like 5% going to 230W (215W ) because it's already overclocked to the max and thermal throttling at 95 degrees.

(Fromt he same link on the next page)

 

[dalauder]

If you see a review that has intel thermal throttling then delete them from your trusted reviewer list...
They use the "out-of-the-box" excuse to use the mobo with the absolute most terrible settings just to make a clickbaity article.

With everything else being equal, using the same cooling, the 13900k reaches 330W ~30% above their advertised power draw at 86 degrees which is 15-20 degrees below the throttling point while the 7950x reaches the thermal throttle point of 95 degrees without even reaching the advertised power draw.

Just like AMD the better the cooling the higher the possible boost...oh wait, that's not right, AMD throttles before it can go above their performance target.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641/lighter-touch-cpu-power-scaling-13900k-7950x/3

The 13900k is a 125W base TDP CPU (143W )and here you see why, going to the max turbo TDP of 253W (330W ) only gives you like 20% more performance for more than 100% more power.
On the other hand the 7950x is already at max at 125W (166W ) ,you gain like 5% going to 230W (215W ) because it's already overclocked to the max and thermal throttling at 95 degrees.

(Fromt he same link on the next page)

If you use a good case or open bench and cooler, you're absolutely right. Most OEMs don't. Most $100 water coolers still don't dissipate 300W well. But Intel's 13th gen is MUCH better on cooling than 10th, 11th, or 12th generation. My point is that if you're going to knock AMD for DDR4, or other ridiculous claims, they really should've been more direct about Intel's heat issues the last couple generations.

Can you find a review that compares OEM Intel performance? I doubt you'll find a 11th or 12th generation Intel outperforming a similar 3000-series or 5000-series AMD chip. I could be wrong. Nobody tests real-world.

 

[GoldyChangus]

Maybe next time you'll get them AMDers who keep beating your boiz over at Intel, Paul.

#Owned&Pwned HE'S PART OF THE INTEL NEW WORLD ORDER!!

 

[g-unit1111]

Do Intel chips work for ITX, or do they run too hot?

You could, but I wouldn't recommend using the i9. I've seen some pretty crazy custom SFF configurations that have full liquid cooling and the i9-13900K in them. But that's one of those experimental things that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. I was originally planning to use the i7-13700K in this rig (I even bought the motherboard, but Amazon botched the delivery and I'm back to square one) and I still might depending on how the 7800X3D reviews pan out. If the 7800X3D turns out to be the better CPU in the long run I'd definitely go for it.

This is what my planned configuration is going to be and I am in the process of acquiring most of the parts:

Case: Lian Li A4-H20
PSU: EVGA Supernova 850W GM
Motherboard: being determined (probably Asus ROG X670E or MSI Edge Z790)
CPU: Ryzen 7 7800X3D or Intel i7-13700K (being determined)
RAM: Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR5-6200
SSD1: SK Hynix Platinum P41
SSD2: WD Black SN770
GPU: Zotac 4070TI

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

So it's 16.4% faster than the 13600K in gaming and about 14% slower in productivity (multithread) while costing 40% more.

Would you pay 40% more to get 16% faster gaming performance? I sure wouldn't.

 

[PlaneInTheSky]

Do Intel chips work for ITX, or do they run too hot?

Intel has T-series chips specifically for low power builds.

I have an i3-13100T, and when you turn off turbo in the BIOS, it uses maybe 20 watt.You can build waterproof mini PC with these since they don't require fans.

If you want even less power consumption, you should look at embedded ARM systems.

 

[g-unit1111]

So it's 16.4% faster than the 13600K in gaming and about 14% slower in productivity (multithread) while costing 40% more.

Would you pay 40% more to get 16% faster gaming performance? I sure wouldn't.

No that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Intel has T-series chips specifically for low power builds.

I have an i3-13100T, and when you turn off turbo in the BIOS, it uses maybe 20 watt.You can build waterproof mini PC with these since they don't require fans.

If you want even less power consumption, you should look at embedded ARM systems.

It's crazy what you can do with SFF builds these days. A lot of cases like the one I got you can run full desktop CPUs like the 13700K with liquid cooling and full size GPUs in them. If you're going for something even smaller than that, like the In Win Chopin then I would go for the lower power CPU.

 

[-Fran-]

I'm starting to wonder if AMD limited the clocks a bit too much on the VCache CCDs in order to avoid a "3D be too good; Zen5 could not shine as much", kind like it happened with the 5800X3D?

In either case, given the power envelope of this thing, I'm expecting AMD to bring this to a laptop. At least, Zen5's version should be in a laptop. One can dream, right? 😀

Regards.

 

[Jagar123]

With how little power this thing uses would it be ill advised to try running it on an air cooler?

 

[dalauder]

Intel has T-series chips specifically for low power builds.

I have an i3-13100T, and when you turn off turbo in the BIOS, it uses maybe 20 watt.You can build waterproof mini PC with these since they don't require fans.

If you want even less power consumption, you should look at embedded ARM systems.

Haha, that's pretty cool. I'm not clear on what the waterproof application would be, but that's because I use my PCs for productivity, media, and gaming. I guess you'd have to have a wifi chip?

 

[dalauder]

So it's 16.4% faster than the 13600K in gaming and about 14% slower in productivity (multithread) while costing 40% more.

Would you pay 40% more to get 16% faster gaming performance? I sure wouldn't.

That's what a 4090 does.

 

[drivinfast247]

$500 gaming CPU are not justifiable when PC gaming is in an awful state of broken console ports.

What ported games haven't been patched or in process of getting patched? All my ported games run flawlessly.

 

[PaulAlcorn]

@PaulAlcorn ,
Why are you still dinging premium AMD products for lack of DDR4 support? DDR5 has been on the market for 1.5 years!

If I price 2x 32 GB of DDR4-4000 at Newegg (direct), it's >= $180. The same capacity of DDR5-4800 is $195. As noted here, DDR5 prices are expected to continue falling faster than DDR4, which means the gap will only continue to narrow, in coming months:

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/dram-prices-dropped-20-in-q1-2023-will-keep-falling-in-q2

At this point in time, I doubt anyone spending >= $450 on a CPU is opting to stick with DDR4, even if they have the option to do so. For lower-end CPUs, the point remains valid.

Thanks for the feedback.

Admittedly, DDR5 pricing has dropped pretty precipitously since I last checked, which couldn't have been more than two weeks ago. However, I think there are still some meaningful deltas.

Of note, your price comparisons above has what is effectively an overclocked DDR4-4000 kit (Raptor does DDR4-3200 at stock), and a DDR5-4800 kit that doesn't meet the minimum spec for AMD's chips — Zen 4 does DDR5-5200, so that memory kit is insufficient for basic operation.

As we all know, there is a sliding scale of price increases as you go further beyond the rated stock speeds — there isn't a linear correlation between speed and pricing, you really can spend stupid amounts on faster kits. So as a means of leveling the playing field, I prefer to compare memory kit pricing at the stock CPU speeds.

Here are a few PCPartPicker links to lists of kits available from any number of retailers. If you aren't reading this post today, be aware that memory pricing is very volatile and can change quickly.

DDR4-3200 (Raptor)

The ten cheapest 32 GB kits range from $56 to $59
The ten cheapest 64 GB kits range from $106 to $130

DDR5-5200 (Ryzen 7000)

The ten cheapest 32 GB kits range from $90 to $105
The ten cheapest 64 GB kits range from $199 to $224

I prefer to present data like this in table form, but the takeaway is that you will pay, at a minimum, 60% more for a 32GB kit and 87% more for a 64 GB kit.

Yes, the relative impact of paying any amount more for a component can be debatable when viewed through the prism of total system cost, but do realize that if you are paying more for one component you are draining funds from another. Whether it's the extra $35 or the extra $93, I would rather spend that cash on a better GPU or SSD, or just whatever (I have a thing for nice fans). Saving that cash means it is a cost that you don't have to pay elsewhere.

And yes, while the $449 Ryzen 7 7800X3D is a premium chip today, so was the $449 Ryzen 7 5800X3D at launch. Today, the $319 Ryzen 7 5800X3D is an absolute steal and I recommend it to anyone looking for a great gaming-centric chip (In fact, I left it in our Best CPU for Gaming list despite the addition of the 7800X3D today). This is all to say that the 7800X3D will cost less than $449 in the very near future, so it will not be limited to upper-tier builds forever. These reviews live a long time (hopefully forever), so we have to also account for the long term.

Even at $449, the 7800X3D isn't a super top-tier chip for folks that have unlimited budgets. Some enthusiasts will be trying to scrape up enough cash to build a 7800X3D system, and for them, these pricing deltas are something they should consider.

And yes, DDR5 will get cheaper in time, and then the deltas won't matter as much. Micron told me that bit crossover (the point when they sell more DDR5 than DDR4) will occur early next year. However, they still don't expect DDR5 to be cheaper than DDR4 because it simply requires more silicon to meet the same amount of capacity (new error correction overhead), and it also has onboard power circuitry that adds cost. According to them, DDR5 won't be cheaper than DDR4 until the latter is two generations behind. However, the price difference will eventually get smaller. Not to mention that newer chips will no longer support DDR4.

Finally, let's not forget the amount of cost that DDR5 support adds to motherboards. These boards require more robust materials and more expensive componentry to support the faster interface.

Here is how I derive the comparisons for motherboard pricing:

Intel DDR4 B760 starts at $109 to $155
AMD B650 starts at $119 to $195
Intel DDR5 B760 is $140 to $195

Intel DDR4 Z790 is $179 to $275
Intel DDR5 Z790 is $195 to $250
AMD X670 is $259 to $335

Raptor can drop into previous-gen boards, too (if they have the right BIOS):

Intel DDR4 Z690 $129 to $195
Intel DDR4 B660 $85 to $127

 

[Ogotai]

The reviewer forgot to mention one big con:
Might get fried the second you boot it up the first time...
(if you upgrade from a different CPU and the bios settings are not extremely strickt set for the x3d chip)

As I said, if you forget that you had higher Vcore for your previous CPU you can fry it on the spot.

sorry terry, but the times i have done cpu swaps, on intel OR amd, the bios is usually reset when i 1st turn the comp on after switching cpus. i cant remember the wording on the screen, but it then says to enter the bios and load defaults, or adjust things, something to that effect.

your " might get fried " angle, doesnt hold any heat

I was going to disagree with you, but that's a fair point. The BIOS really should reset VCore to default when you change the CPU. If it doesn't, that's a potential serious issue. It's best that people are aware of it.

That said, any fried CPUs when you're changing VCore are the user's fault.

as i said above ,it actually does, at least for the times i have done it with the comps i have upgraded

 

[Ogotai]

$500 gaming CPU are not justifiable when PC gaming is in an awful state of broken console ports.

and a $500 console is not justifiable when there are no games on the console that a person wants to play, or if they are on consoles AND a comp, and the person has them on their comp already, whats your point ?

 

[dalauder]

Thanks for the feedback.

Admittedly, DDR5 pricing has dropped pretty precipitously since I last checked, which couldn't have been more than two weeks ago. However, I think there are still some meaningful deltas.

Of note, your price comparisons above has what is effectively an overclocked DDR4-4000 kit (Raptor does DDR4-3200 at stock), and a DDR5-4800 kit that doesn't meet the minimum spec for AMD's chips — Zen 4 does DDR5-5200, so that memory kit is insufficient for basic operation.

As we all know, there is a sliding scale of price increases as you go further beyond the rated stock speeds — there isn't a linear correlation between speed and pricing, you really can spend stupid amounts on faster kits. So as a means of leveling the playing field, I prefer to compare memory kit pricing at the stock CPU speeds.

Here are a few PCPartPicker links to lists of kits available from any number of retailers. If you aren't reading this post today, be aware that memory pricing is very volatile and can change quickly.

DDR4-3200 (Raptor)

The ten cheapest 32 GB kits range from $56 to $59
The ten cheapest 64 GB kits range from $106 to $130

DDR5-5200 (Ryzen 7000)

The ten cheapest 32 GB kits range from $90 to $105
The ten cheapest 64 GB kits range from $199 to $224

I prefer to present data like this in table form, but the takeaway is that you will pay, at a minimum, 60% more for a 32GB kit and 87% more for a 64 GB kit...

Nice comparison of prices. That post claiming that DDR4 and DDR5 cost the same was misrepresenting information.

I still think the $40 difference for 32GB is pretty small for a gaming PC...especially when going with DDR4 loses more than $40 of gaming performance.

I also think that talking about Raptor Lake like it drops into existing boards is a totally invalid comparison, since data shows that the Intel chips pretty much aren't competitive to 7000 Ryzen chips with DDR4. The 5800X3D drops into existing boards, while we're comparing worse/old platforms.

So I'm still not clear where DDR4 is a valid point to criticize. There aren't really any usage cases for it.

I should acknowledge that my complaints about Intel heat in above posts isn't valid for 13th generation.