[SOLVED] Ryzen 9 7950X3D versus Intel i9-14900KF ?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
W

WutisDat

Sep 15, 2023
50
5
35
Hello guys, Im having a little bit of a dillema here. Im not a specialist in this field so I thought I might get some of your insight on this and I plan to use the build mostly for occasional gaming here and there.

I would like to know which one of these CPUs are better, since both cost about the same in my area.
1) Which one consumes more energy per year (whether its in "IDLE" or "GAMING" mode)
2) Is Noctua NH-D14 as cooler, gonna handle its cpu heat?
3) Which one is more future proof?
4) Which one is better and would you pick it?

Thanks a lot for your opinion :)
 
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by votes
Darkbreeze said:
Not even close to twice as fast. Twice as fast would be 68784, not 53657. If you're going to say a thing, it needs to BE what you say it is. Otherwise, say it is 56% faster, which is what it is, not 100% faster, which it is not. It is literally almost exactly HALF as much faster as was said by TheHerald. Details matter.

WCxJEw9.png
Click to expand...
Don't beat ME up.
I was not the one who claimed twice as fast.
I am merely showing one comparative set of performance ratings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 35below0
Upvote 0 Downvote
I was not beating you up geo. We been here long enough I know better than to think you're some noob. I was merely clearing up a discrepancy in what you said, or rather, what you agreed with, which actually WAS NOT what YOU said, it was just that you agreed close enough, and it wasn't. BUT, I made it clear, I thought, that my reply was to TheHerald. If not, my apologies although I really don't think I said anything that requires an apology. My reply to your reply was merely because you seemed to agree that it was comparable, when it really wasn't. BUT I clearly pointed out that the facts were not directed to you. Had I thought it was you, you know me, I'd have said it. So, chill bro.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Phaaze88 said:
Are you and geofelt really calling 53657 'close enough' to twice that of 34392, when there's still 44% left? That's huge for these synthetic benchmarks.
Click to expand...
THIS, is the point. A 44% difference is not "close". It's not even CLOSE, at all. It's, well, it's totally not even close so even trying to make a further point of it is like trying to have explain than a wave breaking over the beach is the same as a wave from a hurricane. Or that eating a chewy Redhot candy is the same as trying to eat a habanero concentrate candy. Ideologically it's KIND of the same, but in reality, they are worlds apart. There really, well, you can try, but there really isn't even an argument for it and I know you weren't really even arguing for it in the first place, you just weren't arguing against it either. Sometimes maybe, ought to.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Darkbreeze said:
Not even close to twice as fast. Twice as fast would be 68784, not 53657. If you're going to say a thing, it needs to BE what you say it is. Otherwise, say it is 56% faster, which is what it is, not 100% faster, which it is not. It is literally almost exactly HALF as much faster as was said by TheHerald. Details matter.

WCxJEw9.png
Click to expand...
That's because passmark isn't properly multithreaded. Even the 7950x, which is really more than twice as fast as the 7800x 3d (twice the amount of cores, higher clocks per core and higher power draw per core) sits at 62k points. Obviously when you are not comparing fully MT workloads the 14700k won't score double, but it still is twice as fast. When you max out both the CPUs either with a full MT workload or with multiple workloads the 14700k is twice as fast.

Obviously depends on the workload, in some workloads that work better on Ecores the difference is even bigger, in some it's even smaller. Let's check CBR23 for example

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i7-14700k/images/cinebench-multi.png

88% difference
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No. It is not why. As I said, show me. Prove it. If you SAY this is how it is, there must be proof and if there is proof, then show it to me and I will agree with you. Otherwise, stop saying it. Period. It's nothing against you. It is simply, well, we have a policy that has stood since the beginning of this forum and that is, if you can't prove it, it is Fing BS. So, show me the money, or don't.

And so far, you haven't. Well, you've tried, but it's definitely not conclusive. Cinebench? Don't make me laugh. But even there, if you look at the MUCH more trustworthy Anandtech results, it's not even in the ballpark. FULL multi suite comparisons only please. ANY CPU can beat the piss out of another CPU in some specific benchmarks. Doing it across the board, is completely different. Granted, I 100% agree that the primary benefit of any of the x3D processors is gaming, and the most recent ones don't get even as much of a clear win as they did last generation, however, to say that the multithreaded performance, in general, meaning specifically across the board, is double, is ludicrous and we both know it.

Here are the REAL, FULL suite results, and nowhere is there anything even remotely approaching twice the multithreaded performance. In fact, it's so far from it that your premise is entirely laughable. Sorry. Again, it's not really against you, just against the misguided idea of what you are trying to say. I know you want to help, that is not in doubt, but you should reconsider some things you take for fact when in fact they are not.

https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2947?vs=2952

And your statement about "when you are not comparing fully MT workloads the 14700k won't score double, but it's twice as fast" makes absolutely no sense, at all, at all, at all. Period. If it does not score double, then it IS NOT twice as fast. Again, period. Stop trying to use Trump logic to make points that simply don't exist. It's BS and this kind of reaching really looks bad on somebody that ought to know better.

And for the record, Blender uses, FULLY, more cores and threads as they are available, than almost any other piece of software that exists, and the 14700k definitely beats the 7950x3d but it's like closer to 17% better and if you look CLOSELY at the charts, which I trust WAY more than I do other posted benchmarks, you will see that even in Cinebench R23, which you MAINLY referenced, it not even close to their results. It's literally only 4% faster in the multithreaded Cinebench R23 results so your convictions are skewed beyond the realm of believability, for me at least.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Darkbreeze said:
No. It is not why. As I said, show me. Prove it. If you SAY this is how it is, there must be proof and if there is proof, then show it to me and I will agree with you. Otherwise, stop saying it. Period. It's nothing against you. It is simply, well, we have a policy that has stood since the beginning of this forum and that is, if you can't prove it, it is Fing BS. So, show me the money, or don't.

And so far, you haven't. Well, you've tried, but it's definitely not conclusive. Cinebench? Don't make me laugh. But even there, if you look at the MUCH more trustworthy Anandtech results, it's not even in the ballpark. FULL multi suite comparisons only please. ANY CPU can beat the piss out of another CPU in some specific benchmarks. Doing it across the board, is completely different. Granted, I 100% agree that the primary benefit of any of the x3D processors is gaming, and the most recent ones don't get even as much of a clear win as they did last generation, however, to say that the multithreaded performance, in general, meaning specifically across the board, is double, is ludicrous and we both know it.

Here are the REAL, FULL suite results, and nowhere is there anything even remotely approaching twice the multithreaded performance. In fact, it's so far from it that your premise is entirely laughable. Sorry. Again, it's not really against you, just against the misguided idea of what you are trying to say. I know you want to help, that is not in doubt, but you should reconsider some things you take for fact when in fact they are not.

https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2947?vs=2952

And your statement about "when you are not comparing fully MT workloads the 14700k won't score double, but it's twice as fast" makes absolutely no sense, at all, at all, at all. Period. If it does not score double, then it IS NOT twice as fast. Again, period. Stop trying to use Trump logic to make points that simply don't exist. It's BS and this kind of reaching really looks bad on somebody that ought to know better.

And for the record, Blender uses, FULLY, more cores and threads as they are available, than almost any other piece of software that exists, and the 14700k definitely beats the 7950x3d but it's like closer to 17% better and if you look CLOSELY at the charts, which I trust WAY more than I do other posted benchmarks, you will see that even in Cinebench R23, which you MAINLY referenced, it not even close to their results. It's literally only 4% faster in the multithreaded Cinebench R23 results so your convictions are skewed beyond the realm of believability, for me at least.
Click to expand...
I think you are deeply confused my man. I was not saying that the 14700k is twice as fast as the 7950x 3d, but from the 7800x 3d.

And I think you just proved that it's true. You just said that the 14700k beats the 7950x 3d. If it beats the 7950x 3d then it stands to reason that it's twice as fast than the 7800x 3d.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
TheHerald said:
If it beats the 7950x 3d then it stands to reason that it's twice as fast than the 7800x 3d.
Click to expand...
If it beats the 7950X3D by 17% ... something something, underpants gnomes, it's twice as fast as the 7800X3D.

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-14700K [64Gb RAM] - 11 111 635rays/s
AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D 8-Core Processor [32Gb RAM] - 6 555 120rays/s

In this benchmark, it is nearly twice as fast, falling short of 13 110 240rays/s it needs to be exactly twice as fast.

However, if you look at the best answer to this thread, it says if you are only gaming take the 7800X3D or 14700K.
Benchmark performance is excluded from the recommendation, so your advice to pick the 14700K for it's multithreaded performance is misguided. The intel is not twice as fast for practical purposes (gaming). Both chips are solid choices. And arguably better choices than either the 7950X3D or 14900KF.

It's up to the OP to take this advice or not, andd choose an AMD or Intel build.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
35below0 said:
If it beats the 7950X3D by 17% ... something something, underpants gnomes, it's twice as fast as the 7800X3D.

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-14700K [64Gb RAM] - 11 111 635rays/s
AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D 8-Core Processor [32Gb RAM] - 6 555 120rays/s

In this benchmark, it is nearly twice as fast, falling short of 13 110 240rays/s it needs to be exactly twice as fast.

However, if you look at the best answer to this thread, it says if you are only gaming take the 7800X3D or 14700K.
Benchmark performance is excluded from the recommendation, so your advice to pick the 14700K for it's multithreaded performance is misguided. The intel is not twice as fast for practical purposes (gaming). Both chips are solid choices. And arguably better choices than either the 7950X3D or 14900KF.

It's up to the OP to take this advice or not, andd choose an AMD or Intel build.
Click to expand...
Well the op at number 4 asked which one is better, so it's very relevant that the 700k has a lot more processing power, even for games down the line.

But it doesn't really matter, dark breeze disagrees with the " twice as fast", which is very accurate. In properly MT workloads it gets between 80 and 110% more performance depending on the task at hand. I just don't understand why he posted benchmarks with a 7950x 3d instead of the 7800x 3d we were talking about.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DarkBreeze objected to your claim "twice as fast". And you continue to use this claim even when your own post shows it isn't true.

Nevermind the passmark, look at the rays test results:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-14700K [64Gb RAM] - 11 111 635rays/s
AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D 8-Core Processor [32Gb RAM] - 6 555 120rays/s

11 111 635rays/s is not 13 110 240rays/s
therefore not twice as fast

If you had disclaimed it by saying it's "nearly" twice as fast then it would have been good enough, but you repeatedly state "twice" as fast. Even though your own evidence shows it is not.

TheHerald said:
In properly MT workloads it gets between 80 and 110% more performance depending on the task at hand
Click to expand...
That could mean anything. More to the point, in gaming tasks, both CPUs perform well. I don't have any benchmarks and i don't have a dog in this fight between AMD and Intel.

Claim "for multithreaded tasks, the 14700K is a much better choice", and you'll be 100% correct. But that is not the hair we're splitting here. We're concerned with whether it is twice as fast as the 7800X3D in MT applications.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
35below0 said:
DarkBreeze objected to your claim "twice as fast". And you continue to use this claim even when your own post shows it isn't true.

Nevermind the passmark, look at the rays test results:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-14700K [64Gb RAM] - 11 111 635rays/s
AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D 8-Core Processor [32Gb RAM] - 6 555 120rays/s

11 111 635rays/s is not 13 110 240rays/s
therefore not twice as fast

If you had disclaimed it by saying it's "nearly" twice as fast then it would have been good enough, but you repeatedly state "twice" as fast. Even though your own evidence shows it is not.


That could mean anything. More to the point, in gaming tasks, both CPUs perform well. I don't have any benchmarks and i don't have a dog in this fight between AMD and Intel.

Claim "for multithreaded tasks, the 14700K is a much better choice", and you'll be 100% correct. But that is not the hair we're splitting here. We're concerned with whether it is twice as fast as the 7800X3D in MT applications.
Click to expand...
Again, it depends on the task. Using darkbreezes Anand tech link, in povray the 7800x 3d scores 6.220,35 and the 14700k 12.696, 47. Thats a little bit over twice as fast.

Regarding corona, you took the highest score of the 7800x 3d vs a lower score for the 14700k. The top score is 12.7, which makes it 95% faster. Sure, technically it's not twice, but we are grasping at straws now.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
TheHerald said:
Again, it depends on the task. Using darkbreezes Anand tech link, in povray the 7800x 3d scores 6.220,35 and the 14700k 12.696, 47. Thats a little bit over twice as fast.

Regarding corona, you took the highest score of the 7800x 3d vs a lower score for the 14700k. The top score is 12.7, which makes it 95% faster. Sure, technically it's not twice, but we are grasping at straws now.
Click to expand...
Let's grasp some more then. The scores i took i took at random. Neither was highest score.
Also, the 14700K test was run with double the RAM, which may skew the result a few %

Whatever information we have, we have to make a selection of the facts available. And there will always be bias.
For example, ignoring passmark results flatters the 14700K. Focusing on gaming performance favors the 7800X3D.

But they don't exist for benchmarks. They have a purpose, gaming in this case.
They both do well and the i7 offers superior performance. Something we can agree on.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
35below0 said:
Let's grasp some more then. The scores i took i took at random. Neither was highest score.
Also, the 14700K test was run with double the RAM, which may skew the result a few %

Whatever information we have, we have to make a selection of the facts available. And there will always be bias.
For example, ignoring passmark results flatters the 14700K. Focusing on gaming performance favors the 7800X3D.

But they don't exist for benchmarks. They have a purpose, gaming in this case.
They both do well and the i7 offers superior performance. Something we can agree on.
Click to expand...
Well maybe I should have phrased it better, something like "it offers twice the processing power". That would have been more accurate I guess, but I'm sure most people understood what I meant by twice as fast.

But yeah, for purely gaming both are fine.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
35below0 said:
Maybe leave well alone? The OP did ask for extra information re. the 7800X3D, so it was indeed relevant.

It is you who has added nothing with your post...
Click to expand...
Look, those who like arguing, as has been seen here, add nothing whatsoever.

So no, I won't leave well alone. "Twice as powerful" was misleading at best and total misinformation at worst given the context of the thread.

Have a great day.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Upvote 0 Downvote
TheHerald said:
The op himself asked why is the 14700k twice as fast in some applications and not in others, and I explained that part. Here is his post

https://forums.tomshardware.com/thr...versus-intel-i9-14900kf.3840453/post-23230056
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying but the whole twice as fast thing is a big misnomer here, especially given the context of the thread. Benchmark numbers are only useful for testing if a system is performing how it should. Seemed to take ages to arrive at the answer when it really didn't appear to need to.

And people are more than welcome to disagree, that's just my opinion.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
John Chesterfield said:
I get what you're saying but the whole twice as fast thing is a big misnomer here, especially given the context of the thread. Benchmark numbers are only useful for testing if a system is performing how it should. Seemed to take ages to arrive at the answer when it really didn't appear to need to.

And people are more than welcome to disagree, that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...
I made it very clear that it only applies to MT workloads and that if you are just gaming it won't make a difference. That was literally my first post.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
John Chesterfield said:
Look, those who like arguing, as has been seen here, add nothing whatsoever.
Click to expand...
But we've settled it.
We're done cooking with the pot you're now stirring.

TheHerald said:
I made it very clear that it only applies to MT workloads and that if you are just gaming it won't make a difference. That was literally my first post.
Click to expand...
Yes! Multithreaded performance was indeed the point of contention between 7800X3D and 14700K from the beginning.

Enough evidence was provided to establish 14700K's superiority, and it's been demonstrated that it's not twice as fast in general but can be in some specific scenarios.
That's why i said leave well enough alone to John. It was a heated exchange that ended amicably. There's no need to go into it again.

The thread was 7950X3D vs 14900KF, with additional information about 7800X3D and the 14700K. Information that was thrashed out thoroughly with no attempt to push misinformation and no arguing in bad faith.
At worst people were stubborn but i think we can live with that, esp. as everyone was determined to stay polite and cool as much as possible.

Attacking TheHerald for wasting time adds nothing and helps no one. Only causes resentment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheHerald
Upvote 1 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom