News AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D vs Intel Core i9-13900K Faceoff

[alan.campbell99]

Hmm, I did wonder how much the power efficiency difference would factor into overall costs [especially in Europe?]

 

[Endymio]

You know which site you're reading at when [the] game-winning CPU isn't declared winner but it's "a draw".

Next time read the article:
"...Category Gaming ... Winner: AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D "

 

[SunMaster]

Next time read the article:
"...Category Gaming ... Winner: AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D "

Oh, I did. Did you?

 

[atomicWAR]

You know which site you're reading at when title of the article is "AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D vs Intel Core i9-13900K Faceoff: Battle of the Gaming Flagships" and the game-winning CPU isn't declared winner but it's "a draw".

The title implies, at least for most people, that the chips gaming capabilities are what is being tested.

I agree with you sentiment. I feel like they should have just left the word "Gaming" out of the title if it wasn't going to be the primary focus of the results and/or testing for the sake of clarity. Yes Tom's stated AMD won the gaming category and YES the other categories weighed in are absolutely reasonable for general CPU comparisons BUT the title does imply a gaming-centric face off, something the article lacked as a whole as it came across as stated, a general purpose CPU comparison that happened to include gaming as one of its several categories for comparison. Thus the way the CPUs were ultimately graded felt a tad flawed for having the word gaming in the title.

If gaming truly was the focus it would have made more sense if AMD won the competition even as graded a tie because though AMD had tied they won the gaming category (ie gaming is a tie breaker IF its a battle of the 'gaming' flagships), then yeah that title and those modified results would make more sense. IDK maybe I am getting hung up on the semantics of wording a title. But I would say the inverse if it had been the battle of productivity or overclocking flagships. Ok tied but ultimately Intel wins because while they tied, they won the focus category. Ties should not be something generally possible if you have a focus category in these CPU face offs. Get a tie? No problem, the focus category winner takes the win (unless...read on). I can get where you have a tie when its just a general CPU comparison or the gaming (or what ever the focus is) numbers are literally within margin of error of eachother (ie a true tie in the focus category as well) but that wasn't the case. Anyways I would make it clear a win like this is an extremely narrow win but a win all the same, something the article sadly lacked by declaring a draw.

 

[atomicWAR]

Next time read the article:
"...Category Gaming ... Winner: AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D "

IDK, short answer is I tend to agree with Sunmaster's sentiment. YES Toms said AMD won in gaming you are not wrong...but it is supposed to be a gaming-centric face off, at least according to the title. Yet its called a tie when AMD won in gaming? Doesn't sit quite right. See my longer response above to Sunmaster for further clarification on my reasoning/stance but the short of it is if Toms is going to have a focus on a particular category for their CPU battle...then said category becomes the tie breaker should a tie ensue. Anyways that just my take on things...

 

[Main_gano]

Why at pricing Intel is a winner and it is not a tie I not agree.
The Intel has over time a reasonable disadvantage in power consumption and at current energy prices (at least in Europe) that is a considerable factor.
Investment in such a processor is for at least 5 years, as any improvement in that period is for the general user not as big to dump such powerfull processor.
DDR4 too is only cheaper in the long run. To now invest in DDR4 means that it get outdated soon and might not get used in the followup system.
In that point of few at long run it is cheaper now to invest into a modern system. In my case with Pro Art X670e (slightly above € 400 net price) with modern high speed connections that in 5 years still will be fast enough.
All I need to invest in about 5 years might be a processor, and maybe a graphics card and I will be done.
Who now invest into a board with DDR4 will have much higher expenses in about 5 years.
By the way for example fo rthe price of a G.Skill 6000 CL 30 I actually only get a 3600 CL 16 of DDR4 (32GB)
If someone aim for a high end proc rather invest in high end memory too

 

[TerryLaze]

If gaming truly was the focus it would have made more sense if AMD won the competition even as graded a tie because though AMD had tied they won the gaming category (ie gaming is a tie breaker IF its a battle of the 'gaming' flagships), then yeah that title and those modified results would make more sense.

If gaming really was the focus then they would have to test more than the 8 games they did test, they would have to include the same amount of games that don't scale at all with cache as games that do scale with cache.
And since the titel also isn't 'of the AAA gaming Flagships' they would also have to include indy games, those rarely scale even with cores, and also lower budget mmos that also don't scale well.
It could still have ended up in a tie if not even a slight win for intel.
Also if only gaming was a focus then power consumption wouldn't be a negative for intel anymore because you would only care about FPS.

The Intel has over time a reasonable disadvantage in power consumption and at current energy prices (at least in Europe) that is a considerable factor.

Then don't game with the 4090 they use in the test and use a lower power GPU, then you can also use an i3 and save a lot more money on the CPU, let alone on the power, and the FPS will still be the same(ish)

Let alone that they state gaming but then test the power draw with power viruses instead of with games...

 

[Endymio]

IDK, short answer is I tend to agree with Sunmaster's sentiment. YES Toms said AMD won in gaming you are not wrong...but it is supposed to be a gaming-centric face off, at least according to the title.

You're confusing prepositions. They said it was the battle OF gaming flagships, not the battle FOR gaming supremacy. The fact remains that they did run gaming tests -- and ran them in a way that drastically overstates the actual margin of victory (*) -- then awarded that victory to AMD. So where's your beef? In the real world, the average consumer -- even the average gamer -- considers other factors than pure gaming performance when buying a computer. Did you want them to hide that information from you?

(*) the fact that their methodology was the correct choice doesn't change the fact that it results in a margin far higher than the normal person will experience. Most people don't buy 4090s to play in 1080p)

 

[atomicWAR]

They said it was the battle OF gaming flagships, not the battle FOR gaming supremacy.

I admitted I may be hung up on semantics... but so are you with that statement imo. I also clearly stated the other tested categories were reasonable. I never once said gamers don't care about other work loads. What I did say and my whole point was tie breakers could be used if your running a category based cpu comparison using said category as the tie breaker.

 

[colossusrage]

These "gaming" CPU just aren't very useful considering how PC gaming today is a straight up disaster.

So many games on PC have been absolute trash lately. Every game based on Unreal-engine using DX12 has major shader compilation stuttering.

These CPU don't fix that problem. And they're overpriced to boot.

Consoles cost a fraction of the price and don't have compilation stuttering. Nintendo will probably have a new Switch out next year, I'll just save some money for that instead.

Soooo, why are you here?

 

[atomicWAR]

If gaming really was the focus then they would have to test more than the 8 games they did test, they would have to include the same amount of games that don't scale at all with cache as games that do scale with cache.
And since the titel also isn't 'of the AAA gaming Flagships' they would also have to include indy games, those rarely scale even with cores, and also lower budget mmos that also don't scale well.
It could still have ended up in a tie if not even a slight win for intel.
Also if only gaming was a focus then power consumption wouldn't be a negative for intel anymore because you would only care about FPS.

Then don't game with the 4090 they use in the test and use a lower power GPU, then you can also use an i3 and save a lot more money on the CPU, let alone on the power, and the FPS will still be the same(ish)

Let alone that they state gaming but then test the power draw with power viruses instead of with games...

I don't disagree for the most part. Thus why I felt leaving gaming out of the title would have been the better call. I game at 4k where the difference would be single digit fps so I know exactly what you mean. More gpu helps than more cpu, generally. As for Intel potentially winning.... I have no problem with that if the test data points that direction. With a few tweaks in how things were measured would certainly changed the outcome in their favor. Like you said most gamers don't care about power draw. I'd been ok not having it as a category considering and then Intel would win. I am not fanboying either side only pointing out I could see where sunmaster was coming from based on the title and offered a potential solution to ties of this nature.

 

[xiixexe]

Then don't game with the 4090 they use in the test and use a lower power GPU, then you can also use an i3 and save a lot more money on the CPU, let alone on the power, and the FPS will still be the same(ish)

This is saying why buy a Tesla when you can buy a Prius and save a lot of money, let alone on fuel efficiency. A Tesla Performance and Prius both can hit 80Mph as well. Why do we have to choose performance over efficiency when we can have both? It's not like these CPUs don't exist. If I can have a high performance and energy efficient CPU, I'll take it. I don't care if it's Intel or AMD. To me, power consumption while maintaining high performance is more important than a few extra FPS or +1% in benchmark point for daily use.

 

[Soario7]

The article basically mentions that when going up in resolution (1080p to 1440p) that the percentages of amd over Intel drop. Who the heck is buying top end chips like this to game in 1080p?!? I want to know what the numbers are in 4k...