Question Dilemma choosing between two CPUs for playing WoW - - - AMD vs Intel ?

[Haysmt228]

Hello all,

I am currently building a new PC that will be incredibly better than my current desktop. During the process of my over analyzing, I came to a split path between two CPUs. I've used Benchmark websites to try to simplify my choice by defaulting to what is considered best high-end performance, however my newest struggle is the fact that one CPU is ranked higher overall but is more focused on multithread and the other is not super far behind overall but excels much better at single thread.

I have heard rumors that a CPU that performs great on single thread is best for WoW. However, since it's been so long since I've built a computer times might have changed. Please help and enlighten me on what would be a better choice. Below I have listed out the names of not only the two CPUs but also the remainder of the build:

CPU1 - AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (this one has a higher rank high end performance but comparing single thread rank, it is like 50th ish)

CPU2 - Intel i9 14900K (this one was a few ranks below the and however it was like number 6th on single thread)

GPU: Nvidia RTX 4070 Super (may go with the Ti Super)

RAM: 32GB DDR5

Mobo: MSI B650-P/Pro Z790 (depending on CPU choice)

Thank you again for the help and sorry I'm long winded and incredibly uncertain.

 

[Math Geek]

wow will run on a potato as they say. meaning it takes very little cpu to run it.

anything top end is overkill and will run it very well.

considering the issues intel is having with the new cpu's, i'd go with the AMD chip until they get it worked out. just my opinion. either way, you are looking at a lot more cpy than is needed by far

 

[Haysmt228]

wow will run on a potato as they say. meaning it takes very little cpu to run it.

anything top end is overkill and will run it very well.

considering the issues intel is having with the new cpu's, i'd go with the AMD chip until they get it worked out. just my opinion. either way, you are looking at a lot more cpy than is needed by far

I have heard before that any of the options I had were overkill. I guess I see it as wanting to ensure no issues and future proof best I can. So "until they get it worked out" could mean seven years cause my current pc lasted that long and I hope next one does too. Or ish.

 

[Math Geek]

right. so far intel has not issued any recalls or any ideas on how to prevent the cpu from eating itself. so to play it safe i would personally avoid them. so if you're buying now and intend to hold onto the system for a long time, i'd go with the AMD and know it'll be a solid cpu for a long time to come.

i'm on a 5900x myself and figure i won't need an upgrade for a number of years myself. i'm more likely to upgrade the gpu or add more ram before changing to a newer gen cpu/mobo combo

 

[Haysmt228]

right. so far intel has not issued any recalls or any ideas on how to prevent the cpu from eating itself. so to play it safe i would personally avoid them. so if you're buying now and intend to hold onto the system for a long time, i'd go with the AMD and know it'll be a solid cpu for a long time to come.

i'm on a 5900x myself and figure i won't need an upgrade for a number of years myself. i'm more likely to upgrade the gpu or add more ram before changing to a newer gen cpu/mobo combo

Thank you for all this. I was set on the amd, despite always buying and being loyal to Intel... Then when Google was like single thread is best for wow and the Intel one is barely below amd overall but is way better than it, ranking wise, than the Amd for single thread, I was like crap now I'm back to square one of overthinking.

 

[Math Geek]

we've all been there

overall all those benchmark numbers are just something for people to argue over. in the end you won't know the difference of which cpu is in the system.

kind of like arguing about super cars. this one has a higher top speed, this one has better 0-60, this one did 2 secs faster on the track and so on and so on. but in the end if you had ANY of those cars, you'd have a smile from ear to ear every time you got behind the wheel. those tenths of a sec here and there are meaningless when you actually get to drive it. !!

we can just actually afford to buy one of these cpu's so we tend to overthink all the data since its a real purchase we're gonna make.

i'm a bang for the buck buyer. i go back and forth depending on what gives me the most for my cash. i'm not swayed by marketing hype for the latest/greatest acronym feature. they rarely make a difference in my computing world. right now AMD has the best bang for the buck for me. cheaper, less power hungry and that means i can spend more on extra ram, more gpu, more storage etc etc etc.

i've never once installed a piece of software and had it tell me "if you had an intel/amd cpu you'd get this extra feature!"

 

[Haysmt228]

we've all been there

overall all those benchmark numbers are just something for people to argue over. in the end you won't know the difference of which cpu is in the system.

kind of like arguing about super cars. this one has a higher top speed, this one has better 0-60, this one did 2 secs faster on the track and so on and so on. but in the end if you had ANY of those cars, you'd have a smile from ear to ear every time you got behind the wheel. those tenths of a sec here and there are meaningless when you actually get to drive it. !!

we can just actually afford to buy one of these cpu's so we tend to overthink all the data since its a real purchase we're gonna make.

i'm a bang for the buck buyer. i go back and forth depending on what gives me the most for my cash. i'm not swayed by marketing hype for the latest/greatest acronym feature. they rarely make a difference in my computing world. right now AMD has the best bang for the buck for me. cheaper, less power hungry and that means i can spend more on extra ram, more gpu, more storage etc etc etc

Hahaha your analogy actually was very solid. I'm the nerd who Sims his characters and considered a single grain of rice will tip the scale... My friend said that any option I had was overkill esp these two cpus. He said that amd has come a long way and tends to out perform Intel more over than not... But then reminded me I'm overthinking on a 20 year old game lol.

 

[Math Geek]

i'm not a player myself but i think there are a ton of mods that can actually ramp up the system requirements. however, if i recall right, they are mostly stuff like 4k textures and such that can tax a gpu more and more. i don't think i've seen anything about a mod that needs more cpu power. but then again as i say i am not an actual player of the game. i just read a lot

so maybe if you try really hard you can mod the heck out of it and force a NEED for the high end cpu,

 

[Gururu]

With my. build below I can only get decent frames low-med quality at 1080. Definitely need a graphics card better than the integrated to go better despite having a strong CPU.

 

[Eximo]

WoW will run on a potato, yes, but the farther into the game you get the more requirements increase. They built or rebuilt each area of the game as the baseline mid-range system got faster. GPU mostly sets what the visuals and effects will look like, CPU really sets your FPS.

Quick research shows that people praise AMD X3D chips for WoW. Despite the lower clock speeds the increased cache makes the single main thread run a lot faster with less memory calls. The solely focused on single thread performance is more in line with what was said 10-15 years ago where an Intel CPU (Core 2 and Core 2 Quad, Sandy Bridge) would thrash the AMD competition (Phenom and FX series).

7800X3D would be my recommendation today.

7950X3D is a little weird, it basically has a 7800X3D and a 7700X on the same chip. You would want to run the game off the CCD with the 3D v cache, and at that point it should have very similar performance to the 7800X3D, which is far cheaper.

4070 Super is a good upper mid-range option and plenty to run WoW at up to 4K with little settings compromises.

 

[Haysmt228]

WoW will run on a potato, yes, but the farther into the game you get the more requirements increase. They built or rebuilt each area of the game as the baseline mid-range system got faster. GPU mostly sets what the visuals and effects will look like, CPU really sets your FPS.

Quick research shows that people praise AMD X3D chips for WoW. Despite the lower clock speeds the increased cache makes the single main thread run a lot faster with less memory calls. The solely focused on single thread performance is more in line with what was said 10-15 years ago where an Intel CPU (Core 2 and Core 2 Quad, Sandy Bridge) would thrash the AMD competition (Phenom and FX series).

7800X3D would be my recommendation today.

7950X3D is a little weird, it basically has a 7800X3D and a 7700X on the same chip. You would want to run the game off the CCD with the 3D v cache, and at that point it should have very similar performance to the 7800X3D, which is far cheaper.

4070 Super is a good upper mid-range option and plenty to run WoW at up to 4K with little settings compromises.

Thank you for the additional information and reply. Interesting I didn't think going down on like numbers, 7800 vs 7950 would lead to a better performance. Ngl no idea how to run the game off the ccd (don't even know what that means lol) with 3D V cache, curious though from a long lasting and ability to hold up and compete with the times, would a 7950 be better long term?

 

[Zerk2012]

Thank you for the additional information and reply. Interesting I didn't think going down on like numbers, 7800 vs 7950 would lead to a better performance. Ngl no idea how to run the game off the ccd (don't even know what that means lol) with 3D V cache, curious though from a long lasting and ability to hold up and compete with the times, would a 7950 be better long term?

I agree with the above just buy you a nice 7800X3D and put the savings into the video card or a larger SSD.

Edit I would get the ti super if you can.

 

[Eximo]

The thing to know about Ryzen CPUs is that they are made of parts.

An I/O die that handles memory, USB, PCIe etc. And Compute Complexes (CCDs) that have the CPU cores and cache. (I may have that slightly wrong (used to also be CCX on the older chips, but I am too lazy to check)

Ryzen 5 and 7 have a single I/O die and a single CCD. Ryzen 9 CPUs have two.

Ryzen 5 has six cores
Ryzen 7 has 8 cores
7800X3D has 8 cores and the 3D v cache, but runs at a lower clock speed.
Ryzen 9 has dual six cores or dual 8 cores.
7950X3D has one 8 core with 3d v cache (same lower clock speed), and one with a regular 8 core chip. Software should prioritize one over the other, but it doesn't always work in practice and becomes a management nightmare.

Having 16 CPU cores only gains you an advantage if you can load them all up at once. Now you could use some of those cores for video capture, encoding, and all sorts of stuff while you are gaming, but if not, then no, little advantage in having it. You end up paying more and have most of the CPU just sitting there idling.

Some of the games that do simulations or long calculating tasks, like turn based games, would run better with more cores. Your typical MMO or other 'real time' game doesn't benefit much.

Now, in the case of Intel their i7 and i9s have 8 P cores, which are comparable to AMDs Zen cores. They have hyperthreading/SMT so you have 16 fast threads, but they also have Efficiency cores, which are more for that multitasking/multithreading compute and do very little in games.

i7 is usually as high as you need to go for gaming performance.