Question Productivity and gaming 7800x3d, 7900x3d or 7950x3d?

[charliesdead]

I am making a new build and currently unsure which CPU to get.

Everyone says the 7800x3d is the best for gaming but I also work with video editing, audio(recording bands) and photo stuff and am getting into blender.

I am upgrading from a 2600x rig that has some issues. I didn't build the PC I have it was given to me and its really not working for what I do and I want to just turn it into a media station and build something new.

I have a 3070 which I will be putting into the new build but by November want to upgrade that.

The 7800x3d is clearly the king in gaming but the benchmarks for it in other things seem to suck. The CPU tier list on tomhardware puts the productivity scores for the 7950 and 7900 far above the 7800.

A lot of people seem to be complaining about the 7900x3d because of the core arrangement being only 6 cores with the v cache. But does that matter so much?

The 7800x3d is 450 now.
The 7900x3d is 499 on Antonline.
The 7950x3d is 629 on Amazon. But there is a possibility for my friend who is currently in Texas on holiday to maybe swing by Microcenter on her way driving home to get it for 627 with free ram. Otherwise its a big price different with ram because add 100 bucks for 32gb.

Whatever money I can save I can put into other parts of my build like putting into my GPU later.

So whats the best buy? I am only playing at 1440p and have no plans to move to 4k.

Benches put it as
Gaming:
1. 7800
2. 7950
3. 7900

Single thread
1. 7950 (83.8%)
2. 7900 (80.9%)
3. 7800 (74.1%)

Multithreaded
1. 7950 (94.7%)
2. 7900 (91.6%)
3. 7800 (52.3%)

So this makes the 7800x3d look significantly worse for productivity but a god for games.

So despite all this everyone tells me the 7900x3d is a bad buy and to get the 7800x3d? Is this bias people have or is there something else going on? I know its 6 cores with v cache compared to 8 cores but does that really matter for 1440p? Getting the 7950 is an option but I could use that money for a better GPU later as I have been saving all year to build this computer as it is.

 

[thestryker]

All of the 7900 series are pretty bad buys which is why everyone says that. Any time you go over 6 cores of usage it has to cross to the other CCD so it runs into more performance anomalies than the CPUs with 8 core CCDs.

Is there a specific reason to go AMD? Intel's CPUs are far superior at cross performance between gaming and productivity. The primary negative being they're less effecient when it comes to power usage.

Really what you need to determine is how important each is to you. 3dvcache is best at gaming, worst at productivity, regular AMD is worst at gaming, middle at productivity (except for 7950x tied with Intel) and Intel is middle gaming, but highest productivity (except for 13900K/KS).

 

[charliesdead]

All of the 7900 series are pretty bad buys which is why everyone says that. Any time you go over 6 cores of usage it has to cross to the other CCD so it runs into more performance anomalies than the CPUs with 8 core CCDs.

Is there a specific reason to go AMD? Intel's CPUs are far superior at cross performance between gaming and productivity. The primary negative being they're less effecient when it comes to power usage.

Really what you need to determine is how important each is to you. 3dvcache is best at gaming, worst at productivity, regular AMD is worst at gaming, middle at productivity (except for 7950x tied with Intel) and Intel is middle gaming, but highest productivity (except for 13900K/KS).

I don't know if I can trust anything you just said because its not in line with what I have been told literally anywhere else. The only place I have seem people say the 7000 series is bad is user benchmarks. Is Tomshardare intel biased as well? lol

I say this because I am making a point about saving money and you seem to have ignored that completely to say Intel is better when its across the board less of a bang for the buck and the power efficiency is clearly also a money concern due to power draw. So not being an AMD shill just pointing out the only time I have ever gotten a reply like that is asking on userbenchmark that is extremely biased against AMD.

 

[hotaru.hino]

The only reason why the 7900X3D and 7950X3D series would be "bad" is if you use it for gaming, because the extra cache is only on one of the CCDs. However, AMD provides either a driver or a tool that basically detects if a game is running and sets its affinity so it only can use the CCD with the 3D cache to avoid issues.

Other applications that are more CPU bound at the moment likely won't have issues because the cross CCD boundary thing is only an issue if something is shared between cores and the thread can't find what it wants on its CCD's L3 cache but the other CCD has it in its cache. But this is more of a problem with say server, databases, or anything else that needs some sort of guarantee on write correctness. For something like rendering videos or 3D modeling, that's not a problem, and most of those can't really use the extra cache.

 

[thestryker]

I don't know if I can trust anything you just said because its not in line with what I have been told literally anywhere else. The only place I have seem people say the 7000 series is bad is user benchmarks. Is Tomshardare intel biased as well? lol

I say this because I am making a point about saving money and you seem to have ignored that completely to say Intel is better when its across the board less of a bang for the buck and the power efficiency is clearly also a money concern due to power draw. So not being an AMD shill just pointing out the only time I have ever gotten a reply like that is asking on userbenchmark that is extremely biased against AMD.

You clearly didn't actually read what I said so good luck to you.

 

[charliesdead]

You clearly didn't actually read what I said so good luck to you.

The other poster explained the same thing I have been explained before that contradicts the CCD issue you spoke about. Most sources that I have found rule out that problem very quickly and suggest AMD over Intel each time. So its just hard to follow when the complaint is like this thing so many other sources make a point to rule out before the question is even asked like they are sick of hearing it. So not being rude just like pointing out that issue I feel has already been handled before they show why AMD is better.

 

[hotaru.hino]

If money isn't an object, I'd say go with the 7950X3D.

And if I wanted to provide commentary on this bit:

A lot of people seem to be complaining about the 7900x3d because of the core arrangement being only 6 cores with the v cache. But does that matter so much?

Did they provide actual hard evidence, or are they just spouting out their analysis? Because honestly, a lot of people don't really know how CPUs actually work. I don't claim to be an expert either, but it still boggles my mind how many people throw around things about CPUs that they treat as fact.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people here can't tell me what kind of caching policy is used as Zen 4's LLC off the top of their head, let alone what any of that means.

 

[charliesdead]

If money isn't an object, I'd say go with the 7950X3D.

And if I wanted to provide commentary on this bit:

Did they provide actual hard evidence, or are they just spouting out their analysis? Because honestly, a lot of people don't really know how CPUs actually work. I don't claim to be an expert either, but it still boggles my mind how many people throw around things about CPUs that they treat as fact.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people here can't tell me what kind of caching policy is used as Zen 4's LLC off the top of their head, let alone what any of that means.

Sorry I misunderstood I was multitasking.

The 6 core thing confused me yes because the argument they had was that it was a downgrade from the 7800 but it seems like only maybe a couple percent downgrade and only in specific games and most of the benchmarks I saw with this issue were in 4k.

It also seemed weird because are new games really making use of all of the 8 cores with vcache on a 7800 anyway?

 

[charliesdead]

Also so like gamers nexus benchs show the 7900x3d and 7800x3d very close with like 5% better frames so it beats in gaming. But then workloads the 7900x3d can shave off like 30% - 40% time on rendering etc. So like is it the price thats the issue that makes everyone say its bad? Because its on discount as I said

 

[Karadjgne]

Why the X3D? Yes, the X3D cpus get higher total fps, but not by much and is honestly useless unless you have monitors that can take advantage of that higher fps, otherwise you'll be above refresh, making small % increases meaningless.

The X cpus don't have the Lcache the X3D have, but also do not have the same tempermental voltages either, which puts them at higher boost frequency and boosts production, which Is visible as time saved.

Honestly, the 7950X is the better deal overall if production carries any weight vs gaming.

 

[charliesdead]

Why the X3D? Yes, the X3D cpus get higher total fps, but not by much and is honestly useless unless you have monitors that can take advantage of that higher fps, otherwise you'll be above refresh, making small % increases meaningless.

The X cpus don't have the Lcache the X3D have, but also do not have the same tempermental voltages either, which puts them at higher boost frequency and boosts production, which Is visible as time saved.

Honestly, the 7950X is the better deal overall if production carries any weight vs gaming.

I have 165hz 1440p monitors so yes I do see the frame rates. X3d chips have shown to get better FPS than similar clocked none 3d variants.

The 3d variant just doesn't clock up to help with work performance. The idea behind an x3d chip is to get the gaming performance boost and still have good work station value. So I would be trading off a small percentage in each type of use case for good value in both work cases. Benches show like in average small decreases between 7900x3d and the 7800x3d but a very large gap in work loads with the 7800x3d losing on work loads.

But the difference in 7900x3d and the X variant a small decrease to the x3d. But that would still leave the 7900x3d as able to do both things well but not completely beating the 7950x3d(king of work loads) or the 7800x3d(king of games).

So
Games
7800x3d = 7950x3d > 7900x3d

Workload
7950x3d >7900x >/= 7900x3d > 7800x3d

The question then is value because
7800x3d 450
7900x3d 499 (its on sale!)
7950x3d 630

So thats a big jump I could use to help upgrade my 3070

 

[hotaru.hino]

I think for some people they have some sort of expectation of what certain hardware is and they don't understand or refuse to understand when said hardware isn't meeting that expectation.

At the moment, anything beyond 8 cores is not useful for gaming. Modern games aren't even making 6C/12T processors sweat. Doing a quick test I ran Cyberpunk 2077's benchmark on the lowest graphical settings with the caveat that I frame rate limit everything to about 120 FPS. It was only using about 50% of the CPU on average. Just for laughs and craps, I did remove the FPS limiter and did see the CPU usage go all the way to 100%, but the FPS I got was 300.

So doing something like the 7950X3D where only one CCD has the extra cache is fine, since most games aren't going to saturate that CCD anyway. Or if they are, they're spending it on generating all those frames, not necessarily because the game's logic demands it.

The whole point of the Ryzen 9 X3D processors in my head was to give the impression you could have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Karadjgne]

The whole point of the Ryzen 9 X3D processors in my head was to give the impression you could have your cake and eat it too.

Exactly. Even with a 1440/165, if you do not have the gpu to take advantage, it's useless.

There's 2 fps. There's the fps the cpu sends to the gpu, and the fps the gpu puts onscreen. There's Zero difference to a 165Hz monitor if the cpu is sending 250 or 300fps to the gpu but the gpu can only render 200fps. Even if the gpu was capable of 400fps, you are still above refresh. If the gpu is only capable of 100fps, then either 250 or 300 fos is still moot.

Humans are incapable of seeing a difference in fps once beyond @ 100 fps, most couldn't tell the difference between 50fps and 70fps.

Most seem to believe that FPS is a must have, it's a King, it makes a difference, it does not. It's only one part of the whole equation. You must also have support from the game code, gpu, monitor, network.

Play CSGO on a 7950X3D with a 4090 and you'll get 500+ fps. So? That's no different to someone with a 5600x and a 3070 getting 300fps. Your game experience being totally dependent on your ping.

7800x3d is the better value out of those choices, by a long shot. Diminishing returns just make the 79 series simply not worth the extra cash unless you are doing productivity that takes serious hours, like folding@home, most productivity differences being measured in less than 5 minutes time differences.

 

[charliesdead]

7950x3d only gets around 120 fps max on triple A titles tied with the 7800x3d. I am doing productivity tasks, music videos, big music projects with 40+ tracks with virtual instruments 10+ guitar amp sims running at once etc. Currently have to leave the room and watch tv in the living room to render even the music with my 2600x.

 

[hotaru.hino]

I feel like at the very least, you won't be going "but what if..."