News Ryzen 7 5800X3D vs Core i7-12700K and Core i9-12900K Face-Off: The Rise of 3D V-Cache

[Unolocogringo]

My Ryzen 3600 and 5600x BOTH perform much better with modified settings.
3600 does 4.4ghz all core @1.28v medium LLC.
PBO,CORE BOOST, CORE Optimizer, Etc...... Everything turned off.
5600x does 4.65ghz 1-4 @1.22-1.26 core boost 4.5 6core boost. 1.28-1.31
CORE Boost,Core optomizer etc.... turned off.
PBO set to manual PPT 142 TDC 95A EDC 140A
Curve optomizer@-30 LLC@ medium high
Can get a 100mhz higher stable but voltage is too high for 24/7/365 use.
https://valid.x86.fr/ttjtpg

https://valid.x86.fr/tlzkw8
Quite respectable for BUDGET computing. And if you look in my sig below they run 24/7/365 running folding@Home.

 

[USAFRet]

Do we need to give some people a time out?
Send you to the corner, sitting on a stool for a few days?

This is the final warning....
No personal attacks.

 

[486SupportTech]

I just hope AMD releases the 7900x3d right away and doesn't make it a later upgrade. Don't tease us amd, give us the best right way. Can't wait to order. Intel is in my rear window.

 

[Darkbreeze]

I would love to build a SFF with a 5800x3D. Wouldn't dare try with a 12900k

Just for clarity, the 20% and 30% difference in everything NOT gaming that was mentioned earlier, was the 12700k, not the 12900k. Look at the chart. There is zero reason you can't use a 12700k in a SFF built so long as it's a case with at least ok airflow and at least a halfway decent cooler. I mean, I'm cooling mine, easily, with a Noctua U14S and even under some pretty substantial loads it doesn't get unreasonably warm or noisy. Not to mention, it's more than capable enough for any card out there for 90% of gamers if not more. Just sayin'.

 

[KyaraM]

I just hope AMD releases the 7900x3d right away and doesn't make it a later upgrade. Don't tease us amd, give us the best right way. Can't wait to order. Intel is in my rear window.

You are out of luck. There won't be a 5900X3D.

 

[VforV]

I just hope AMD releases the 7900x3d right away and doesn't make it a later upgrade. Don't tease us amd, give us the best right way. Can't wait to order. Intel is in my rear window.

I'm afraid all the leaks point out to the opposite...

The only way AMD will release Zen4 + V-Cache from start is if Raptor Lake is actually better than Zen4 without V-Cache and they need the V-Cache to beat it.

So if the initial lineup does not have V-Cache, that means Zen4 alone will be able to beat Raptor Lake and does not need extra oomph to do that, which means the V-Cache version will come in 2023 as a refresh to battle the next intel architecture.

Zen 4 having or not having V-Cache from start will be telling (at least for me) how powerful or not so powerful is Zen4 on it's own.

For me there are only 2 scenarios with high probability happening and one with very low probability:

1. Zen4 wins without V-Cache.
2. Zen4 wins, but with the added power of V-Cache.
3. Raptor Lake wins any version of Zen4, that's less than 5% probability of happening for me, based on leaks we have so far.

That being said I don't expect Raptor Lake to be destroyed, Raptor Lake will be pretty close, but a measurable win for Zen4 nonetheless.

 

[KyaraM]

I'm afraid all the leaks point out to the opposite...

The only way AMD will release Zen4 + V-Cache from start is if Raptor Lake is actually better than Zen4 without V-Cache and they need the V-Cache to beat it.

So if the initial lineup does not have V-Cache, that means Zen4 alone will be able to beat Raptor Lake and does not need extra oomph to do that, which means the V-Cache version will come in 2023 as a refresh to battle the next intel architecture.

Zen 4 having or not having V-Cache from start will be telling (at least for me) how powerful or not so powerful is Zen4 on it's own.

For me there are only 2 scenarios with high probability happening and one with very low probability:

1. Zen4 wins without V-Cache.
2. Zen4 wins, but with the added power of V-Cache.
3. Raptor Lake wins any version of Zen4, that's less than 5% probability of happening for me, based on leaks we have so far.

That being said I don't expect Raptor Lake to be destroyed, Raptor Lake will be pretty close, but a measurable win for Zen4 nonetheless.

There would have to be an actual spy in Intel for AMD to really tell if Raptor Lake will be definitely better or not, or they have to release late enough to both see it perform, and redo their production schedules, which I highly doubt. I would hold my expectations in either direction. Only actual benchmarks will tell how they stack up.

From what we know about Raptor Lake, it will have higher ICP, core counts (negligible for gaming, sure), clocks, official support for faster DDR5 RAM , and IPC, and Intel is reportedly working on improving TDP as well while Raphael apparently stays as it is in power consumption. I find it hard to anticipate how they will stack up each other. I certainly do hope for good competition and improvements all around.

 

[ottonis]

AMD of course didn't release the new 3D cash chip just for a few gamers.
Nobody building a new system from scratch is going to go with the very last CPU of an architectural generation, without having any prospect to upgrade anymore.

This chip was primarily made for the nervous stock exchange markets and the investors, showing one thing: they (AMD) have a top notch architectural feat that may not be only a great value for gamers, but that also gives AMD the ability to adapt this technology using different kinds of stacked hardware accelerators which may give their CPUs a healthy performance boost in specific sets of tasks.
Ian Cuttress recently argued in his YT blog, that AMD's acquisition of Xilinx may give the the opportunity to use their little chunks of AI-specialized hardware.

One reason why Apple silicon is so hugely attractive with video editors and graphic designers, is that it provides CPUs that have built-in, extremely powerful and power-saving. accelerators for graphic- and video- specific work flows.

 

[msroadkill612]

So 5800X3D is really a one trick pony.

Best at games, full stop, if you have something along the lines of a $1900 3090. The difference looks to be 5-10% with that GPU.

Outside of that , the 5800X3D gets shattered by the ~$80 less expensive 12700K in virtually all productivity tasks, both multi and single thread. And it's not close, like -20% not close in single thread and -30%+ in multi.

Absurd.
Compared to what?... Intel's only real new gen in many, many years, yet ye old amd costs less, out performs & can use half the power - and thats before zen 4 in just a few months.

 

[VforV]

There would have to be an actual spy in Intel for AMD to really tell if Raptor Lake will be definitely better or not

Ever heard of tech espionage? All big tech companies do it.

That being said, from a leaker's perspective, like Tom from MLiD which has gotten inside sources better and better over the years it's even easier to make these predictions based on sources from intel that say how good next gen will be compared to current gen and then put that info versus sources inside AMD that say how good their next gen will be compared to current gen...
So doing this math from 2 different perspectives can give you a 3rd perspective = next gen intel vs next gen AMD result, of course by approximation, but close to it anyway.

AMD of course didn't release the new 3D cash chip just for a few gamers.
Nobody building a new system from scratch is going to go with the very last CPU of an architectural generation, without having any prospect to upgrade anymore.

This chip was primarily made for the nervous stock exchange markets and the investors, showing one thing: they (AMD) have a top notch architectural feat that may not be only a great value for gamers, but that also gives AMD the ability to adapt this technology using different kinds of stacked hardware accelerators which may give their CPUs a healthy performance boost in specific sets of tasks.
Ian Cuttress recently argued in his YT blog, that AMD's acquisition of Xilinx may give the the opportunity to use their little chunks of AI-specialized hardware.

One reason why Apple silicon is so hugely attractive with video editors and graphic designers, is that it provides CPUs that have built-in, extremely powerful and power-saving. accelerators for graphic- and video- specific work flows.

Not only Ian, but also Tom (MLiD) leaked how future architectures, so those after the next gen, from multiple companies, will most of them if not all, have dedicated built in accelerators in both their CPUs and GPUs.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

In response to my point about how PCIe5 will have imminent benefits and it is better to have than not: his point wasn't relevant and seemed to be just some unrelated fanboyism. May as well have been "red is my favorite color so there!"

I think you're mixing up 'longevity' with 'future-proofing' ( a term which I dislike). In terms of longevity (long existence or service), no one can argue with AM4. In terms of 'future proofing' yes, you could say a new platform like Intel have just introduced will have better future proofing or better connectivity options/faster ram etc. That's normal. What's not normal is for one socket to last 6 years or so.

Also, please refrain from making assumptions about me, and spouting them out on a forum. Don't make it personal. I have had many systems from both Intel and AMD. I have no loyalty to either of them based on brand, only to what hardware I can buy that suits my needs at a given time. Certainly not a fanboy, as you put it.

Cheers

 

[KyaraM]

Ever heard of tech espionage? All big tech companies do it.

That being said, from a leaker's perspective, like Tom from MLiD which has gotten inside sources better and better over the years it's even easier to make these predictions based on sources from intel that say how good next gen will be compared to current gen and then put that info versus sources inside AMD that say how good their next gen will be compared to current gen...
So doing this math from 2 different perspectives can give you a 3rd perspective = next gen intel vs next gen AMD result, of course by approximation, but close to it anyway.

Not only Ian, but also Tom (MLiD) leaked how future architectures, so those after the next gen, from multiple companies, will most of them if not all, have dedicated built in accelerators in both their CPUs and GPUs.

Yeah, I did hear of that. Pretty sure that can be deemed a crime, though.

Anyways, I only believe cold, hard facts, though, not math based on some leakers that may or may not tell the truth/have all the facts. And when tests are out, I tend to compare as many as possible, preferably big ones, to see what is better, based on my own needs.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Absurd.
Compared to what?... Intel's only real new gen in many, many years, yet ye old amd costs less, out performs & can use half the power - and thats before zen 4 in just a few months.

Did you read any of the posts in this thread or did you just put this out there straight away? Because, aside from gaming, hence the "one trick pony" moniker, everything you've just said is patently wrong.

The i7-12700k beats the 5800x3d in pretty much EVERYTHING except gaming, by margins of 23% in single threaded comparisons and 33% in multi threaded performance. And right now, it costs about $111.00 than the least expensive 5800x3d you can find, which right now seems to be on Newegg BUT yesterday, the cheapest one I could find was about 600+ dollars through Amazon, so the reality is that it isn't much of a deal at all especially when you consider that for gaming it only beats the 12700k by about 5% and if we start throwing the 12900k in the mix the performance difference in gaming is like 5 FPS across the entire 1080p gaming test suite and the non-gaming difference in performance jumps to like 47% in multithreaded and 25% in single threaded, for anywhere from 50-100 bucks less than what I was seeing the X3D selling for yesterday.

Today it is less expensive than the 12900k, but it wasn't yesterday, and it might not be tomorrow, so rather than assuming anything when it comes to price, comparisons that are ONLY based on cost should be done on a daily basis because things are fluctuating at a very rapid rate due to all the instability in the market and the continuing supply chain issues.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Yeah, I did hear of that. Pretty sure that can be deemed a crime, though.

Anyways, I only believe cold, hard facts, though, not math based on some leakers that may or may not tell the truth/have all the facts. And when tests are out, I tend to compare as many as possible, preferably big ones, to see what is better, based on my own needs.

Besides which, just as often, what gets "leaked" or "discovered" ends up being only about half the story OR is based on a SINGLE performance metric, like, ONE single test, not general performance characteristics. Nearly every time we hear "the upcoming blah blah blah is going to be 20% faster" it is, but only in one result, while the reality usually is that we get anywhere from 6-10% over the previous generation. And that seems to apply equally to both camps. When the NDAs come off and reviews come out, that is when we can say, well, anything about anything.

 

[VforV]

Anyways, I only believe cold, hard facts

And you're entitled to do that, but your also subjecting yourself to receive "old" news by the time you hear them, because I follow leaks and leakers and know of them way in advance.

Are leaks 100% accurate? Of course not! But based on previous leaks some leakers are better than others and have a pretty decent track record. And that's good enough for me.

I like to be informed in advance about the approximate performance figures and designs of next gen tech, you like to stay in the dark and contradict those leaks, until you have trusted launch reviews. To each their own.

You can tell me at launch I was wrong for believing them when/if they prove wrong, or the opposite I will tell you that you distrusted them and buried you head in the sand for nothing. I guess we'll see what will happen...

 

[Darkbreeze]

Of course it's interesting to read or listen to rumors and "leaks", which are generally NOT leaks, but are intentionally allowed out because it's a common marketing tactic to bolster interest and build up anticipation, but you don't actually GAIN anything from it because:

1. You have no realistic way of knowing if it is true or not, much like unicorns and dragons, until you actually see first hand accounts of it or see it yourself.

2. Still have to wait until after actual reviews come out to get your hands on whatever it is, aside from a few engineering samples that MIGHT escape into the wild, but again are a lot more likely to have been "fed" into the wild to build up interest, and either way, it's unlikely that you or I will ever obtain one of these prior to the end of NDA for any given product anyhow.

3. We don't write articles or reviews, or at least I don't, and if you do then link to that would be appreciated in order to validate who you are, but it's rather doubtful or you'd have already mentioned it, so again, there is really nothing to gain from any early information that may or may not even be remotely accurate, aside from it's just interesting to get little bits and pieces of what might be coming down the pipe simply for fun.

None of which really has a whole lot to do with this thread, since this is a released product, aside from a very brief derail regarding a possible upcoming SKU that likely won't even release soon enough to really even be relevant to this SKU or thread.

 

[Stoshie]

The comments here confirm what I've seen for many, many years; there are AMD fans out there, and Intel fans. Both will find reasons to support their choice. Both will cherry-pick reasons why their platform is the best. Both will find performance stats to support their choice.

Am I any different? Am I more objective than anyone else? Nah...it's Intel all the way for me. And, of course, like people in both camps, I'm right, and the other camp is wrong!

 

[Stoshie]

You've already flagged yourself then as being the worst one-dimensional "IT tech" in your profession if you can't understand, or acknowledge, how good tech can be from any given particular brand, at any particular time, to serve a particular need. Not sure if you're aware of this, but it's not exactly something to be proud of, being a fanboy.

An IT tech in the business world would not care about gaming performance when they are evaluating what to buy. I don't agree that AMD is for building toys, but this article is largely about gaming performance of the new AMD processor.

 

[Darkbreeze]

The comments here confirm what I've seen for many, many years; there are AMD fans out there, and Intel fans. Both will find reasons to support their choice. Both will cherry-pick reasons why their platform is the best. Both will find performance stats to support their choice.

Am I any different? Am I more objective than anyone else? Nah...it's Intel all the way for me. And, of course, like people in both camps, I'm right, and the other camp is wrong!

While that is true, that is not the lesson you should take away from this thread.

I build systems using hardware from EVERY available manufacturer. In the past that has included a lot more than just AMD and Intel, but it certainly DOES include them.

The lesson you should take is, read, be informed, then make your own decision as to WHAT CONFIGURATION is going to do WHAT YOU NEED it to do, for as long as possible, and then refine it based on all available input as well as the restrictions of whatever budget you have to work with.

It literally has nothing to with camp A versus camp B, unless you are simply LOOKING for that.

All of the tangible metrics are there in these reviews. So either you use them as tools, and only as tools, or you go with your gut/loyalty/whatever. Pretty simple really.

 

[Stoshie]

While that is true, that is not the lesson you should take away from this thread.

I build systems using hardware from EVERY available manufacturer. In the past that has included a lot more than just AMD and Intel, but it certainly DOES include them.

The lesson you should take is, read, be informed, then make your own decision as to WHAT CONFIGURATION is going to do WHAT YOU NEED it to do, for as long as possible, and then refine it based on all available input as well as the restrictions of whatever budget you have to work with.

It literally has nothing to with camp A versus camp B, unless you are simply LOOKING for that.

All of the tangible metrics are there in these reviews. So either you use them as tools, and only as tools, or you go with your gut/loyalty/whatever. Pretty simple really.

I agree with what you say, in spite of my snarky Intel comment. PCs are tools, and one should pick the tool that best does the job it is intended for. I feel the same way about the Apple vs Windows vs Linux vs whatever battle; find the one that is best suited for your needs.

But I seriously doubt if most people reading comparisons like this do so objectively. Most people are indeed in one camp or the other. I think the comments in this thread show that fairly clearly. I've seen it elsewhere for years, too. I'm retired now, but when I was working in IT, the Mac vs Windows battle raged, and for the geeks, Intel vs AMD did also.

Personally, I'm glad AMD and Intel both exist. They push each other to improve their products. Without that competition, we likely wouldn't see the advances we are seeing in processors.

 

[KyaraM]

And you're entitled to do that, but your also subjecting yourself to receive "old" news by the time you hear them, because I follow leaks and leakers and know of them way in advance.

Are leaks 100% accurate? Of course not! But based on previous leaks some leakers are better than others and have a pretty decent track record. And that's good enough for me.

I like to be informed in advance about the approximate performance figures and designs of next gen tech, you like to stay in the dark and contradict those leaks, until you have trusted launch reviews. To each their own.

You can tell me at launch I was wrong for believing them when/if they prove wrong, or the opposite I will tell you that you distrusted them and buried you head in the sand for nothing. I guess we'll see what will happen...

I do read leaks when I find them here or elsewhere. But I neither seek them out, nor do I ever really trust them because, as others stated, there is simply no way to verify them, and they never paint the complete picture, so they are pretty much useless to me. I want actual performance numbers, not some imaginary numbers they throw out there.

Best example, the 5800X3D this article is about. Huge promises before release, do some small test that doesn't remotely represent the huge amount of different games out there and the results look very good and about in line with that. Do a real test over many games like Hardware Unboxed did, and suddenly the difference is all but gone. Heck, even the PCGH released a more differentiated test than this. Then there is the horrid application performance when put in comparision with any chip in the same price range, or 100+ bucks less. Add to that the price, and suddenly the awesome gamer CPU isn't so awesome and different than their competition, both AMD and Intel, anymore... and that doesn't even account for the billions of hardware configurations out there that play a role in it all.

Or in other words, reality is often vastly different from the lab.

The comments here confirm what I've seen for many, many years; there are AMD fans out there, and Intel fans. Both will find reasons to support their choice. Both will cherry-pick reasons why their platform is the best. Both will find performance stats to support their choice. Am I any different? Am I more objective than anyone else? Nah...it's Intel all the way for me. And, of course, like people in both camps, I'm right, and the other camp is wrong!

Last 15 years, I owned 2 AMD and 3 Intel systems, with a lifecycle of around 4-6 years. I have no need to get the latest hardware whenever it releases. Currently active are my old Kaby Lake system at my parent's house, my new Alder Lake system from February, and my Ryzen 3000 laptop from last year that I use as a guest machine and for when I'm on work travel. So processor brand loyalty isn't really a thing here considering that they are pretty much equally used and I consider Ryzen 5000 still good, if outdated by now considering its age and it being mere months to Raphael. I tend to buy whatever has the best performance for my set needs and budget no matter who made it, with the sole exception being GPUs due to very bad past experiences with a certain company. I still consider both companies when making recommendations, though. What annoys me is the constant bashing of one company over the other, and how people act as if it was some great mistake to buy anything Intel. If I come across as overly defensive or "fanboying", I'm sorry, but it's simply annoying when feeling like people are guilt-tripping or mocking you for buying a certain product, and also the half-truths and sometimes lies thrown around here everywhere. To me, both make great products and there is generally no shame or wrong in buying one brand over the other. I want both to exist and be good so that we won't have the situation of a few years ago again when AMD was simply bad (which kinda is the reason Intel leads by one system, too). But that seems to be just me.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Personally, I'm glad AMD and Intel both exist. They push each other to improve their products. Without that competition, we likely wouldn't see the advances we are seeing in processors.

This is what we've been saying forever. And it's awfully hard to argue with.

 

[VforV]

Best example, the 5800X3D this article is about. Huge promises before release, do some small test that doesn't remotely represent the huge amount of different games out there and the results look very good and about in line with that. Do a real test over many games like Hardware Unboxed did, and suddenly the difference is all but gone. Heck, even the PCGH released a more differentiated test than this. Then there is the horrid application performance when put in comparision with any chip in the same price range, or 100+ bucks less. Add to that the price, and suddenly the awesome gamer CPU isn't so awesome and different than their competition, both AMD and Intel, anymore... and that doesn't even account for the billions of hardware configurations out there that play a role in it all.

Or in other words, reality is often vastly different from the lab.

How? How can people see the same thing completely different?

5800X3D is every much the CPU AMD said it will be, they delivered 100% of what they said, I could say even more than that, because they said "on average +15% over 5900X" and it's actually more than that, it's about +19% on average better. They said it's for gamers, a gamign CPU and that's what it is. AMD never said it's an all around champ in everything. It's also the best top end perf/$$$ gaming CPU at the moment.
What more did you want from a refresh of an almost 2 year old generation?
If you want bigger leaps, wait for Zen4, you'll see them and everyone else will see them too.

You seem to treat leaks as the plague... Well you said it, you don't look for them and you only see them if they happen to come your way, right?

Well that the difference between us: I look for them in all the sources possible and from dozens of sources I have a hierarchy of which are the more trusted ones and not and from these multiple sources I then make my own mind about what are the possibilities and probabilities, also based on older leaks proven true.
I don't need them to be 100% accurate, like someone visited the future accurate, but take for example the RDNA2 leaks where a lot of people said the top GPU will be 2080Ti level and ended up looking like fools, while Tom from MLiD said from the start it will be about 3080 performance levels. He was closest to the truth, because it ended up even better than that.

If anything the number or leakers, but more important the accuracy and quality of leaks from some leakers have gotten really high in the past years, much better than in the past. It's 2022, not 2010.

We have completely different views, I understand yours, but I don't agree with it. I consider it narrow, very narrow.

Let's see how wrong these leaks I believe in are, when these products will launch:
- Zen4 with beat Raptor Lake by about 5-10% in both ST and MT.
- RDNA3 will beat Lovelace by about 5-10% in raster and probably tie in RT performance, while consuming less power. If AMD does win, they will charge a premium price, possibly more than nvidia for the top halo GPU (and that I won't like at all).

I believed in the leaks of RDNA2 being better than a 2080 Ti and it was indeed much better, I belived in the leaks that PS5 is at least as good as XSX despite the fools eating the TF PR BS believing XSX will crush PS5 because it has 2 extra TF and it turned out the leak was true, PS5 is not worse, actually in many cases it's better than XSX. So why should I not believe leaks that have a high probability of coming true from proven sources?

I don't believe any leak from anyone, like some say now RDNA3 is 3x Navi 21. I can discern from BS and exaggeration and which would be much closer to reality and which won't be... I also don't care much about leaks for products that are more than 1 year away, like 2-3 years away. I think it's silly to believe those leaks because too much can change until then.

Anyway, I have said all I wanted. See ya in Q3-Q4.

 

[KyaraM]

How? How can people see the same thing completely different?

5800X3D is every much the CPU AMD said it will be, they delivered 100% of what they said, I could say even more than that, because they said "on average +15% over 5900X" and it's actually more than that, it's about +19% on average better. They said it's for gamers, a gamign CPU and that's what it is. AMD never said it's an all around champ in everything. It's also the best top end perf/$$$ gaming CPU at the moment.
What more did you want from a refresh of an almost 2 year old generation?
If you want bigger leaps, wait for Zen4, you'll see them and everyone else will see them too.

You seem to treat leaks as the plague... Well you said it, you don't look for them and you only see them if they happen to come your way, right?

Well that the difference between us: I look for them in all the sources possible and from dozens of sources I have a hierarchy of which are the more trusted ones and not and from these multiple sources I then make my own mind about what are the possibilities and probabilities, also based on older leaks proven true.
I don't need them to be 100% accurate, like someone visited the future accurate, but take for example the RDNA2 leaks where a lot of people said the top GPU will be 2080Ti level and ended up looking like fools, while Tom from MLiD said from the start it will be about 3080 performance levels. He was closest to the truth, because it ended up even better than that.

If anything the number or leakers, but more important the accuracy and quality of leaks from some leakers have gotten really high in the past years, much better than in the past. It's 2022, not 2010.

We have completely different views, I understand yours, but I don't agree with it. I consider it narrow, very narrow.

Let's see how wrong these leaks I believe in are, when these products will launch:
- Zen4 with beat Raptor Lake by about 5-10% in both ST and MT.
- RDNA3 will beat Lovelace by about 5-10% in raster and probably tie in RT performance, while consuming less power. If AMD does win, they will charge a premium price, possibly more than nvidia for the top halo GPU (and that I won't like at all).

I believed in the leaks of RDNA2 being better than a 2080 Ti and it was indeed much better, I belived in the leaks that PS5 is at least as good as XSX despite the fools eating the TF PR BS believing XSX will crush PS5 because it has 2 extra TF and it turned out the leak was true, PS5 is not worse, actually in many cases it's better than XSX. So why should I not believe leaks that have a high probability of coming true from proven sources?

I don't believe any leak from anyone, like some say now RDNA3 is 3x Navi 21. I can discern from BS and exaggeration and which would be much closer to reality and which won't be... I also don't care much about leaks for products that are more than 1 year away, like 2-3 years away. I think it's silly to believe those leaks because too much can change until then.

Anyway, I have said all I wanted. See ya in Q3-Q4.

Cool your head, you seem pretty heated right now. Not sure why you are getting so worked up tbh, because I don't follow leakers? What? Why does that trigger you so much?

For all you seem to believe in leaks, you really seem to miss out on actual tests, which paint a different picture than what you claim the leakers and manufacturers prove, and which is kinda my point. Again, look at Hardware Unboxed, and think about what their test says. AMD promised the best gaming processor, but it beats Intel's second best by only 1%, so they are basically equal; small differences like that are essentially within measurement tolerance. What does that tell us... ah, right, there is the forgotten child above them. Right. I also don't consider a one-trick-pony the best price/performance value in any way. Especially if it is so dependent on which games you play, and where you are located in the world. Soneone above mentioned the 12900K being over a 100 bucks cheaper in their area. Meaning that a processor that is only one percent behind is also a fifth cheaper. That's a better price to performance ratio in this scenario. somewhere else it might be the other way round. Then obviously you are correct, but the point is, it's not an absolute statement.

What I want you ask? A CPU also covering my needs that go past gaming and is the best in its price range, and that also features interesting design I would like to test out. That's why I picked the 12700K in February. Great gaming performance and good performance in applications as well, for a far more reasonable price point than either the 5800X3D, 12900K, or 12900KS. A lot more reasonable than anything AMD back then, considering I needed a new mainboard as well regardless.

And if you want to believe that AMD will win on every front, that's fine. I wouldn't hold my breath any which way until knowing more. I also won't gloat no matter who is right because that's completely idiotic and childish. But you seem to be one of the people who desperately want AMD to be king of the hill in every regard, though, so I'm not really spending any more time on you now or in the future.

 

[msroadkill612]

Did you read any of the posts in this thread or did you just put this out there straight away? Because, aside from gaming, hence the "one trick pony" moniker, everything you've just said is patently wrong.

The i7-12700k beats the 5800x3d in pretty much EVERYTHING except gaming, by margins of 23% in single threaded comparisons and 33% in multi threaded performance. And right now, it costs about $111.00 than the least expensive 5800x3d you can find, which right now seems to be on Newegg BUT yesterday, the cheapest one I could find was about 600+ dollars through Amazon, so the reality is that it isn't much of a deal at all especially when you consider that for gaming it only beats the 12700k by about 5% and if we start throwing the 12900k in the mix the performance difference in gaming is like 5 FPS across the entire 1080p gaming test suite and the non-gaming difference in performance jumps to like 47% in multithreaded and 25% in single threaded, for anywhere from 50-100 bucks less than what I was seeing the X3D selling for yesterday.

Today it is less expensive than the 12900k, but it wasn't yesterday, and it might not be tomorrow, so rather than assuming anything when it comes to price, comparisons that are ONLY based on cost should be done on a daily basis because things are fluctuating at a very rapid rate due to all the instability in the market and the continuing supply chain issues.

Thats a lot of words to argue something allegedly so self evident.

Whatever. We are comparing an AM4 ecosystem evolved since pre 2017 to Intels sadly desperate conglomeration of prematurely introduced tech like ddr5 & pcie5 to save some face from the 10nm fiasco before zen 4 makes 10nm+an all new platform completely still born.

with a 5 year cadence on am4, as long as u dont mention AL's absurd power consumption at performance settings (no hope of AL sales in data center where the money is), then of course amd wont win in every category. Nobody at amd said they would. Not a bad effort from old fella AM4 tho eh? Just plug in a 8/8+3d/12/16 core into ur existing am4, & ur pretty close in ur main app to intels best AL.

Intel making money from AL is another matter tho. Any victory will be pyric - ie - a loss.