News AMD Shares First Official Ryzen 7 7800X3D Gaming Benchmarks vs Core i9-13900K, Up To 24% Faster

[baboma]

Let me put it in another perspective: if you buy a 4090 and a 13600K you will definitely get a superb gaming experience, but in the specific use cases where consistency is king, you're better off going to a 7900XTX and pair it with a 5800X3D or a Ry7000X3D. You will even SAVE money doing that.

I'm avoiding any Intel comparison, because as mentioned it will just bring out the fanboys, and we don't need any more "my platform is better" beeswax. I keeping the comparisons strictly between AMD's offerings for this conversation.

I get where you're coming from, that VCache allows more frame consistency. I also agree with your purchase of an X3D GPU, as you already have a flagship GPU (at that time) and the only gaming improvement left is the CPU side.

But again, you ignore the inconsistency of X3D's gaming boost from game to game, which in my mind more than offset the improved frame consistency you experience. I would also again point out that most people don't have or can't afford a flagship GPU, so the question of "should I put money into a better GPU vs CPU" is more relevant to them than to you. Hence the request for a value proposition test.

 

[dalauder]

...Here's the value proposition: Put the $217 difference into the next higher tier GPU (which will get better gaming perf in ALL games and not just some). Then, compare the 7600X + better GPU vs 7800X3D + normal GPU, and see which wins. My money is on the first combo.

For most of us who have a midrange or low-end GPU and not the 4090, the X3D's "superior" perf is a fantasy, because the bottleneck will most likely be the GPU. Sure, there may be a few exceptions, but not enough to warrant the $200+ price difference.


This is my request to Tom's HW: Test the 3XD gaming value proposition by conducting the above 7800X3D vs 7600X test, levelling out the price difference by using a better GPU for the latter.

You're not wrong, but it is pretty hard to isolate variables because CPUs do a lot more than gaming.

Anyhow...the inarguable point is that X3D CPUs are better than the non-3D Ryzen alternatives and aren't at a gaming disadvantage compared to Intel. The Ryzen 5/i5 value for gaming has always been the best. Yet, plenty of "gaming" computers are sold with i7's. It's more about bragging rights than what helps in games.

Honestly, any game made since Battlefield 3 has been able to achieve photorealistic graphics if they chose to--so everything is more limited by quality of programming than the CPU or GPU.

 

[dalauder]

...I think only full frame-time charts can explain that. Intel closes the gap only with super fast DDR5, from what I've noticed and seen everywhere, but it's still not good enough for some specific scenarios; at least in VR...

There was a lot of great stuff you said about consistency. But the last part about DDR5 is what's maddening for me. People CONSTANTLY bash Ryzen 7000 because it requires DDR5, but then build Intel with DDR5. The fact is, Intel using DDR4 loses to Ryzen 5800X3D with DDR4 in every gaming metric. And Intel loses to Ryzen in every productivity metric.

I think a lot of the Intel defense comes from people who already did an Intel 13th Gen build and they're doing mental gymnastics to justify it.

 

[baboma]

You're not wrong, but it is pretty hard to isolate variables because CPUs do a lot more than gaming.

For the proposed value test (7800X3D + GPU vs 7600X + better GPU), the only variables in play would be the CPU and GPU. Everything else is exactly the same. We are talking about what's best for gaming, so games would be the only items benchmarked. Pretty simple.

the inarguable point is that X3D CPUs are better than the non-3D Ryzen alternatives

That's not the question. Just as 7950X3D is "better than" 7800X3D isn't the question. The question is whether it's "better enough" to justify the price difference. We can safely answer that 7950X3D isn't "better enough" to justify the $250 premium over 7800X3D.

The logical follow-up question is whether the 7800X3D is "better enough" to justify the $217 premium over the 7600X, or should be money be instead put into a better GPU.

 

[mamasan2000]

The problem with the 7000 series X3D chips is their prices and the rise of quality, high refresh rate 4K monitors. They CAN have higher performance in games, if the game takes advantage of the cache, which many don't. They DO have higher efficiency than Intel's 13000 series, but that's not a factor in most parts of the world. As is still the case CPU differences fall off drastically after 1920x1080, and I'll use Techpowerup's graph as TomsHardware did not test the 7950X3D at 4K, so "gamers" who use large 4K monitors, like the Gigabyte OLED that's so often on sale and promoted as a deal on TH, will see little benefit of a X3D chip over a non X3D chip, even with a RTX 4090.

If the 7950X3D didn't have a $100 price penalty out of the gate, and the 5800X3D didn't exist at well under $400 along with a much less expensive platform, it'd be a no brainer. Sure it's selling, "gamers" will value the higher performance in CS:GO and other such games, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its problems that will prevent it from selling to the wider audience.

Like any piece of hardware it has its advantages and its flaws, but for the majority the total platform cost makes the 7950X3D lose to the 13900K.

"total platform cost"
Thing is, the total platform cost is for one platform. And on the Intel side, you need a new mobo for a new CPU, almost always. Z690/Z790 is the recent exception. Not so on the AMD side. AM5 should last for a number of new generations. Suddenly the platform cost is in AMD's court. You will only need a new CPU, 3-5 years down the line instead of CPU + Mobo.

4k: Less than 3% has 4k monitors, according to Steam Survey. https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
So who gives a hoot. Ads are ads, ignore them. "Great deal! Save 50 bucks, get this 300 dollar storage unit!" You know what? If I DON'T get it, I save 300 dollars. How about THAT deal?

 

[dalauder]

For the proposed value test (7800X3D + GPU vs 7600X + better GPU), the only variables in play would be the CPU and GPU. Everything else is exactly the same.

But then there's always the kicker--what if I need X3D or more cores for __? If it's just gaming, the Ryzen 5 is always the cost-efficient choice. The ONLY defense of more expensive GPUs and CPUs is qualitative preferences, which is definitively not a measurable metric.

That's not the question. Just as 7950X3D is "better than" 7800X3D isn't the question. The question is whether it's "better enough" to justify the price difference. We can safely answer that 7950X3D isn't "better enough" to justify the $250 premium over 7800X3D.

The logical follow-up question is whether the 7800X3D is "better enough" to justify the $217 premium over the 7600X, or should be money be instead put into a better GPU.

The 7000 series non-3D parts are too much worse at gaming than their nearly identical "-3D" variants to sell well, that's all I meant. There is no 7600X3D, so if someone wants absolute value, the comparison is really between the 7600X and the 5800X3D, I think.

Spending more money on graphics is nearly always the gaming performance best choice. That's why most build advice in the forums for gaming rigs include dropping the CPU to an i5/Ryzen 5 and upping the graphics expenditure.

 

[dalauder]

"total platform cost"
Thing is, the total platform cost is for one platform. And on the Intel side, you need a new mobo for a new CPU, almost always. Z690/Z790 is the recent exception. Not so on the AMD side. AM5 should last for a number of new generations. Suddenly the platform cost is in AMD's court. You will only need a new CPU, 3-5 years down the line instead of CPU + Mobo.

4k: Less than 3% has 4k monitors, according to Steam Survey. https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
So who gives a hoot. Ads are ads, ignore them. "Great deal! Save 50 bucks, get this 300 dollar storage unit!" You know what? If I DON'T get it, I save 300 dollars. How about THAT deal?

There's no point in countering the pro-Intel argument. It's nonsense pushed by people who already did an Intel build. To clarify, I don't personally have a horse in the race. I'm happy with a Ryzen 3600X and I'll eventually upgrade to a 5800X3D.

They say AMD costs too much because of DDR5. But Intel is slower than AMD if you "save" with DDR4. AMD is faster and cheaper if you get a DDR4 compatible chip (5800X3D). AMD is faster and the same price if you get a 7000X3D chip.

Or am I missing something?

 

[P1nky]

Also having the 'up to' disclaimer on every pic probably means that they took the max FPS and not the avg.

What's your proof that AMD's "UP TO" means max FPS, not average FPS?

Also having the 'up to' disclaimer on every pic

Where are these disclaimers on every pic you are talking about?

 

[TerryLaze]

What's your proof that AMD's "UP TO" means max FPS, not average FPS?

The word probably means that it's a guess, learn to read, at least the things you quote.

Where are these disclaimers on every pic you are talking about?

The one I already posted and this is the other one, each individual graph has the 'up to' disclaimer.

 

[-Fran-]

I'm avoiding any Intel comparison, because as mentioned it will just bring out the fanboys, and we don't need any more "my platform is better" beeswax. I keeping the comparisons strictly between AMD's offerings for this conversation.

I get where you're coming from, that VCache allows more frame consistency. I also agree with your purchase of an X3D GPU, as you already have a flagship GPU (at that time) and the only gaming improvement left is the CPU side.

But again, you ignore the inconsistency of X3D's gaming boost from game to game, which in my mind more than offset the improved frame consistency you experience. I would also again point out that most people don't have or can't afford a flagship GPU, so the question of "should I put money into a better GPU vs CPU" is more relevant to them than to you. Hence the request for a value proposition test.

I can't blame you for avoiding the comparison, but at the end of the day it has to be done. I'll agree with you, though: it's not a universal boost as it is super engine dependent for it to "shine". At the same time as a matter of nuance, the "tangible loss" is not an abysmal performance hole and, this is the important bit, you win more (and a LOT) than you lose with the VCache'd siblings. Value for the average gamer is not there and I will agree trying to be more broad. The VCache CPUs are not meant to be "value" parts in any case; at least that's not how AMD has ever positioned them.

Regards.

 

[Zizo007]

For gaming a 7950x3d is a waste unless you need 16 cores for nongaming tasks. The 7800x3d is best for gaming but I still cant justify a platform and ram upgrade from my AM4 system. I have a 3700X with a 2080Ti and play at 4K so I am GPU limited anyways. I will only upgrade my cpu to a 5800X3D when I upgrade my GPU and monitor to a 4K high refresh rate as my current monitor is 4K60Hz. I prefer image quality over high refresh rate but if I had the money to get both I would.

I stayed away from Intel since I upgraded an i7 4770K to a Ryzen 1800X mainly because AMD offered better value but also Intel power consumption was outreageous, my Ryzen 1800X would max out at 54C in cinebench while my 3700X max out at 58C, with PBO +200Mhz it max out at 72C. Ryzen 7000 has high temps too so I hope nextgen will fix this then maybe I can upgrade to that.

I like how AMD support their socket for a long time vs Intel. We even got the X3D on AM4.

 

[baboma]

The VCache CPUs are not meant to be "value" parts in any case; at least that's not how AMD has ever positioned them.

It doesn't matter how a CPU is labeled or positioned. Its performance still has to be justified by benchmarking it against alternatives. The 7600X is the closest competitor to the 7800X3D (not the 7950X3D or the 13900K, used as strawman arguments). It deserves a fair comparison, with "fair" as in equalizing the cost by pairing with a better GPU.

We as consumers are here for the bang/buck comparisons, not marketing narratives about "best gaming CPU." If that's the claim, then let's put it to the test. I'd like to see if the hype is true, don't you?

 

[-Fran-]

It doesn't matter how a CPU is labeled or positioned. Its performance still has to be justified by benchmarking it against alternatives. The 7600X is the closest competitor to the 7800X3D (not the 7950X3D or the 13900K, used as strawman arguments). It deserves a fair comparison, with "fair" as in equalizing the cost by pairing with a better GPU.

We as consumers are here for the bang/buck comparisons, not marketing narratives about "best gaming CPU." If that's the claim, then let's put it to the test. I'd like to see if the hype is true, don't you?

And is mentioned an example of a friend with a 12700K that moved onto a 7900X3D. And no, the "closest" to the 7800X3D would be a 7800X, much like the 5800X was to the 5800X3D, so I'll disagree there. I do agree on the benchmarks backing up the price point though, which, if you think about it, it kind of does?

If you're looking at "value", then the king of the hill is either the i5 13400 or the 5600 (non-X). The 7600(X) and 7800(X) siblings are in a weird spot, since the FPS gains vs the platform cost may not even be there. Heck, I'd even say the 5800X3D is the better competitor still to the non-VCache siblings of the Ry7K family from a value perspective on games alone (platform-wise, Ry7K is better; same-ish with Intel).

Point is: from the top of my head using price and performance from benchmarks on sites, saying the 7600 is the "closest competitor" to the 7800X3D is quite honestly bizarre. It's not from a pure "value" perspective or from a pure "top performance" perspective.

Regards.

 

[baboma]

And no, the "closest" to the 7800X3D would be a 7800X, much like the 5800X was to the 5800X3D, so I'll disagree there.

I'm a stickler for reality, and the reality is that there is no 7800X, just as in reality most people don't have flagship GPU, or if they do, they don't run it at 1080p. Benchmarks should be based on reality, not hypothetical situations.

I do agree on the benchmarks backing up the price point though, which, if you think about it, it kind of does?

No, it doesn't. A 7600X would kill a 7800X3D in gaming benchmarks, if prices were equalized by putting the price difference into a better GPU for 7600X. For midrange GPUs, $217 can get you two tiers higher. There is no way the 7800X3D can justify its price point unless one already has a flagship GPU, which isn't the case for the vast majority of gamers.

If you're looking at "value", then the king of the hill is either the i5 13400 or the 5600...

There is no single "value" tier, but many. We can argue that quadcores (12100F) has best bang/buck value, which it probably does, and we can keep diving down that rabbit hole for ever cheaper options. What's "best value" depends on the budget for the build.

We can't test every conceivable budget range, but we can just focus on the mainstream gaming budget, which would allow for a current-gen 6-core CPU + midrange GPU. This would be most relevant to the vast majority of PC gamers building a new system.

from the top of my head using price and performance from benchmarks on sites, saying the 7600 is the "closest competitor" to the 7800X3D is quite honestly bizarre.

It's only bizarre if X3D is the apple of your eye, and you don't want to see its worth lessened by comparisons to credible challengers (as opposed to strawman comparisons like 7950X3D or 13900K). It's called bias. It's a natural tendency given your decision to have bought one.

It's not from a pure "value" perspective or from a pure "top performance" perspective.

If pure "top [gaming] performance" was the thing, then 7950X3D is the winner.

The notion is 7800X3D is "best" rests on the idea of "value." Then, I'm calling it out on that basis, value for the mainstream PC gamer, for which a 6-core is the current "best."

 

[-Fran-]

I'm a stickler for reality, and the reality is that there is no 7800X, just as in reality most people don't have flagship GPU, or if they do, they don't run it at 1080p. Benchmarks should be based on reality, not hypothetical situations.



No, it doesn't. A 7600X would kill a 7800X3D in gaming benchmarks, if prices were equalized by putting the price difference into a better GPU for 7600X. For midrange GPUs, $217 can get you two tiers higher. There is no way the 7800X3D can justify its price point unless one already has a flagship GPU, which isn't the case for the vast majority of gamers.
--

There is no single "value" tier, but many. We can argue that quadcores (12100F) has best bang/buck value, which it probably does, and we can keep diving down that rabbit hole for ever cheaper options. What's "best value" depends on the budget for the build.
--

We can't test every conceivable budget range, but we can just focus on the mainstream gaming budget, which would allow for a current-gen 6-core CPU + midrange GPU. This would be most relevant to the vast majority of PC gamers building a new system.
--
It's only bizarre if X3D is the apple of your eye, and you don't want to see its worth lessened by comparisons to credible challengers (as opposed to strawman comparisons like 7950X3D or 13900K). It's called bias. It's a natural tendency given your decision to have bought one.

If pure "top [gaming] performance" was the thing, then 7950X3D is the winner.

The notion is 7800X3D is "best" rests on the idea of "value." Then, I'm calling it out on that basis, value for the mainstream PC gamer, for which a 6-core is the current "best."

Ah, right; I forgot it's 7700X (and non-X) this gen.

Overall I can't say you're wrong on what you're saying, but I still insist you're mixing things: "top performance" and "value tier". As I said, and as you also said it, value is relative to the eye of the beholder (more or less). A 7600X is no context for certain types of gamers that want a smooth experience and not max FPS (I already mentioned this), so I think we're going in circles there, so I'll stop here with this final statement: the VCache siblings are not "value" oriented and very specific. To put it into perspective: as you say, I wonder what GPU tier people who bought the 5800X3D usually moves. I can tell you, everyone I know that got a 5800X3D near launch went 3090 or 6900XT; 6700XT and 3060ti as worst cases I know of. That's not "cheap" territory; I mean, we're not talking 3050 or 6500XT territory here, so $200 difference in price is not that relevant around those tiers. While I do get your point about "maximizing budget value", the people that bought the VCache siblings did it knowing exactly what they got them for, as they're not "value" oriented and that's reflected square on the price. That is also the reason why the 5800X3D only went down in price recently (not including special discounted prices from time to time).

Regards.

 

[ubronan]

Lol, did they actually not even know what game they are testing or is there really a horizon zero down?!
Also having the 'up to' disclaimer on every pic probably means that they took the max FPS and not the avg.

If yopu do not know HZD than your not a gamer for me

 

[ubronan]

What i dislike about the silly held back release of the 7800x3d is that they prolly try to slow it down before release in the wild as they did not want it to be the best seller again

 

[ubronan]

As a 5800X3D owner*, this doesn't even tell half the story on how much the VCache makes a difference in the gaming experience.

Well, at least for VR, which is my use case for such a CPU. For general purpose I take more cores (when within strike distance of performance) over cache.

Looking forward to the official reviews to get the real numbers XD

Regards.

More cores does not mean anything performance wise in gaming at all
There s absolute nothing working for games not even new titles i am still waiting till games REALLY start using more than 4 core and 4 ht

 

[ubronan]

It makes the same amount of sense as a heavily overclockable CPU does, the games that do get a boost get a good boost but the overall benefit is questionable.

What is there to test?!
Look at benchmarks of the 7600x and the 7800x3d done at 1080p and look at GPU benches done at 1080p and you can see yourself how a 7600x will do with a faster GPU compared to the 7800x3d with a weaker one.
The maximum amount of frames a CPU can produce does not change.
The x3d will still be faster in the games that can use the extra cache even with a slower GPU, you might have to turn down a few settings in the worst case but it will still be faster.

i love to see truth

 

[Bamda]

Let the cannibalizing begging. This CPU might get me interested in upgrading.