News UserBenchmark suggests you buy the i5-13600K over the Ryzen 7 9800X3D — says AMD drives sales with 'aggressive marketing' rather than 'real-world p...

[YSCCC]

Im not talking about 2024, im talking about 2022. For the whole of 2022 the 5800x 3d alone cost more than a b660 + a 12700f combo.

Back in the day it was still faster than a 12900k in gaming, and only make sense for those who have a zen 2 or even zen 1 CPU to do in socket upgrade, getting a b660 and 12700f you will need either fast DDR5 or getting slower DDR4 to boot, not to say needing to reinstall everything for a new platform. For a completely new build in 2022, the general consene was either go with Alder lake which have 1 more generation and saw significant improvement over 11th gen, or go for AM5, and the reviews back then IIRC also says something similar, not going for the dead platform at full cost, buying brand new, nobody ever said it was a bargain for gaming performance, just reasonable if you want to final extend your platform 4+ years old platform.

e.g. TPU review: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d/24.html

Overall, I really like what AMD has done with the Ryzen 7 5800X3D. The technology is impressive. The problem is that the processor is quite expensive. According to AMD, it will sell for $450, which is $100 higher than the Ryzen 7 5800X that is already a highly capable gaming machine, and a better choice for gaming than the 5900X due to its single CCD design. Strong competition comes from Intel's Core i7-12700K ($385), and even the i5-12600K will offer good gaming performance for $260. On the other hand, if you're only looking for gaming performance and have been eyeing the Core i9-12900K ($600) or 12900KS ($750), the 5800X3D is definitely worth considering. Its gaming performance is "close enough," and its lower application performance won't make any difference for most gamers. A huge benefit over Intel's Alder Lake offerings is that the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is drop-in compatible with virtually any AM4 motherboard. This means you can continue using the motherboard and DDR4 memory you already have. Reinstalling Windows isn't necessary, either—it's fire and forget. AMD's next generation of Zen 4 processors releases this year, with DDR5 and PCI-Express 5.0—no doubt, it'll be an expensive platform at first, too, just like Intel's 12th generation. Considering that, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D launched fairly late in the game, but that gives it the potential to become a final option for current owners of an AM4 Ryzen setup to hold out just a bit longer with one final upgrade, and its price may drop into the sub-$400 region by then.

 

[TheHerald]

Back in the day it was still faster than a 12900k in gaming, and only make sense for those who have a zen 2 or even zen 1 CPU to do in socket upgrade, getting a b660 and 12700f you will need either fast DDR5 or getting slower DDR4 to boot, not to say needing to reinstall everything for a new platform. For a completely new build in 2022, the general consene was either go with Alder lake which have 1 more generation and saw significant improvement over 11th gen, or go for AM5, and the reviews back then IIRC also says something similar, not going for the dead platform at full cost, buying brand new, nobody ever said it was a bargain for gaming performance, just reasonable if you want to final extend your platform 4+ years old platform

According to Hub and TPU it was 2% faster than a 12700. Let's say 5 cause it's locked blabla. But it cost 450 vs 310 for the 12700f. Not great value, but anyways,.

 

[YSCCC]

According to Hub and TPU it was 2% faster than a 12700. Let's say 5 cause it's locked blabla. But it cost 450 vs 310 for the 12700f. Not great value, but anyways,.

Look at the conclusion of the TPU review, which I updated on the quote, I never said it is value for money, I said it only make sense in the old platform, maybe you don't have any work to do or life other than PC tinkering, but a lot of ppl does, so for some ppl, spending 450 for a final drop in upgrade without any driver update in like 5 min vs rebuilding the whole syste m, reinstalling windows and all SW you want and so on could be worth it, but definitely not a good value.

I said already if in 2022, I will suggest going for 1700 or AM5, I myself went for Z690 in 2021 coz AM5 was still 1 year to come, and my sandy bridge system for light gaming and work is failing, so instead of going AM4 in it's last breath, I go spending for the new Z690 platform with a 12700KF and DDR5, in good will that intel could be power gaping but being trouble free over the years and the LGA1700 have 2 more years and one more generation expected for the last minute drop in upgrade to the 13th gen i9 at big discount when 14th gen (which was supposed to me LGA1851) releases. Ended up it is a big flop for intel and that is history.

 

[TheHerald]

Look at the conclusion of the TPU review, which I updated on the quote, I never said it is value for money, I said it only make sense in the old platform, maybe you don't have any work to do or life other than PC tinkering, but a lot of ppl does, so for some ppl, spending 450 for a final drop in upgrade without any driver update in like 5 min vs rebuilding the whole syste m, reinstalling windows and all SW you want and so on could be worth it, but definitely not a good value.

I said already if in 2022, I will suggest going for 1700 or AM5, I myself went for Z690 in 2021 coz AM5 was still 1 year to come, and my sandy bridge system for light gaming and work is failing, so instead of going AM4 in it's last breath, I go spending for the new Z690 platform with a 12700KF and DDR5, in good will that intel could be power gaping but being trouble free over the years and the LGA1700 have 2 more years and one more generation expected for the last minute drop in upgrade to the 13th gen i9 at big discount when 14th gen (which was supposed to me LGA1851) releases. Ended up it is a big flop for intel and that is history.

The review conclusions are based only on the CPUs being tested, namely the 12700k. Reality of the situation though is that the 12700f was 90$ cheaper than the 12700kf and 140$ cheaper than the 5800x 3d. Sure it's a drop in upgrade (meaning less hassle) but you are paying through the nose for that. And it goes without saying that bar gaming the 5800x 3d is vastly inferior to the 12700f in everything else right?

 

[YSCCC]

The review conclusions are based only on the CPUs being tested, namely the 12700k. Reality of the situation though is that the 12700f was 90$ cheaper than the 12700kf and 140$ cheaper than the 5800x 3d. Sure it's a drop in upgrade (meaning less hassle) but you are paying through the nose for that. And it goes without saying that bar gaming the 5800x 3d is vastly inferior to the 12700f in everything else right?

well what's the point chief??? why go full fledge fan mode again????

I said multiple times in the past post that in 2022, the 5800X3D didn't make sense for anyone with a new build, especially cost wise, and those reviews said so also that the 5800X3D was worth considering if you only want drop in upgrade, and expected it to drop in price to ~400 soon, which in layman's term, not a bargain. Speaking for paying through the nose for that, maybe your time worth nothing, but IF someone owned a zen 2 platform. the time for drop in vs rebuild for slower gaming performance easily could be a day of installing everything vs 5min, which, I don't know your paid, but middle ranked ppl could earn $300 in a day.

And speaking of inferior to 12700f, surely---- NOT, just look at TPU, at database it is faster than even 12900ks, and in encoding it is much slower, but no sane ppl are buying it over say the regular 5800x or 5900x for drop in upgrade back then, it is solely, and strictly, a gaming CPU, those who would ever consider the X800X3D chips arn't the ones using it for rendering/encoding as main duty, gaming is the main duty they will be in. In gaming, going in a zen 4 system from a drop in upgrade vs building a slower 12700F system is reasonable, vice versa. Is the logic that difficult for you?

 

[TheHerald]

Ok man, whatever.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

Yes, it is. Even at 1080p which puts it in its best light, it's near the bottom of the chart in value. It only gets worse as resolution increases. I don't know why they used $470 for the price when the MSRP is $479 and it is unlikely to sell below that price any time soon, it should be below the 14900k in this chart as well.

By that metric alone you should only buy the 12100. Everything else is over priced or reducing to the absurd, buy a $1 cpu from CEX, say an ancient Celeron, pair it with a nice fermi gpu and be done.

It comes down to the frame rate you desire in your chosen application and what you consider to be value. For its performance and given that it is literally brand new the release price isn’t bad. If it is as sold out as reports would have us believe then plenty of people find the proposition compelling.

Further, chip prices fall through their retail lifetime, pick one up in 6 months if the price fits your personal budget.

As much as Intel is not your friend neither is AMD, they have to make money to keep the lights on and pay salaries. x3d is their relatively inexpensive (to make compared to the none x3d) top end gaming part and as a gaming part is the current top end of the market.

You pay your money for your choice.

 

[YSCCC]

By that metric alone you should only buy the 12100. Everything else is over priced or reducing to the absurd, buy a $1 cpu from CEX, say an ancient Celeron, pair it with a nice fermi gpu and be done.

It comes down to the frame rate you desire in your chosen application and what you consider to be value. For its performance and given that it is literally brand new the release price isn’t bad. If it is as sold out as reports would have us believe then plenty of people find the proposition compelling.

Further, chip prices fall through their retail lifetime, pick one up in 6 months if the price fits your personal budget.

As much as Intel is not your friend neither is AMD, they have to make money to keep the lights on and pay salaries. x3d is their relatively inexpensive (to make compared to the none x3d) top end gaming part and as a gaming part is the current top end of the market.

You pay your money for your choice.

Exactly, the 9800X3D is overpriced compared to previous gens, just like Nvidia when one have no competition, the price will heading into the absurd relam, that's why the downfall of intel isn't a good thing to see, if the current trend continues, the X3D chips will just be Nvidia GPUs costing a kidney to game on...

and TBF, the X800X3D series makes sense coz it offers something for gamers where one don't need more than 16 threads and want blazing flast cache for games at a "budget", where in traditional releases you pay premium from i5 to i7 or even i9 with less gain in gaming and a ton of under utilized extra cores. But well, in short term it could become something not sensible to choose it if it is priced same as the x950X SKUs.

 

[TheHerald]

x3d is their relatively inexpensive (to make compared to the none x3d)

Is that a typo? Why do you think the x3d is inexpensive compared to the non x3d?

 

[stuff and nonesense]

Is that a typo? Why do you think the x3d is inexpensive compared to the non x3d?

It costs more but most of the cost is in the base chip, the modification, the addition of cache is a relatively inexpensive addition for the performance gained.

 

[snemarch]

Cost per frame is an objective math problem, not an opinion. 9800X3D is objectively bad compared to almost all of the competition. Not everyone bases every purchase they make on getting the best bang for their buck. Some people are extremely wealthy and the money means nothing. Others just want the best regardless of cost. That doesn't change the math and make it a better value. It's still a terrible value, but not everyone cares about that.

Objective math, sure, but for *that specific* metric.

But what most people are interested in is a more subjective "value", and is different from person to person. E.g. I'm not that fussed about cost per frame (even if I'm usually too stingy to buy the very top-end CPUs), but I'm interested in power consumption: effort required to cooling, which affects noise levels, and electricity costs. The electricity costs are a bit more complex than just lifetime TCO, OPEX/CAPEX factors in as well. I don't care about ludicrous 400+ fps, but I'd pay a premium for consistenly higher low% fps. Sprinkle in a bunch of things like memory latency, PCI-e lanes, motherboard availability and features, etc...

That (incomplete) set of stuff makes for a more complex and fuzzy model than the simple Cost per Frame, but saying that something is "terrible value" because of a poor CpF (or other simplistic metrics) is reductive 😉

Not sure the 9800X3D would be the best chip for me, but it's in the evaluation pool for building a new rig for my S.O.

 

[TheHerald]

It costs more but most of the cost is in the base chip, the modification, the addition of coach is a relatively inexpensive addition for the performance gained.

Isn't cache super expensive though? In terms of die space?

 

[TheHerald]

Cost per frame is an objective math problem, not an opinion. 9800X3D is objectively bad compared to almost all of the competition. Not everyone bases every purchase they make on getting the best bang for their buck. Some people are extremely wealthy and the money means nothing. Others just want the best regardless of cost. That doesn't change the math and make it a better value. It's still a terrible value, but not everyone cares about that.

Cost per frame is a useless metric. A cpu that gets 10 fps but costs 1$ has an insane value, but nobody will buy it. What matters is the cost per frame at your desired framerate. Without a specific goal in mind cost per frame doesn't tell you anything.

So sure, if you target say 120 fps , the 9800x 3d is bad with current gpu in current games. But it will also outlast anything else on the market (if we are talking about stock performance).

 

[stuff and nonesense]

Exactly, the 9800X3D is overpriced compared to previous gens, just like Nvidia when one have no competition, the price will heading into the absurd relam, that's why the downfall of intel isn't a good thing to see, if the current trend continues, the X3D chips will just be Nvidia GPUs costing a kidney to game on...

and TBF, the X800X3D series makes sense coz it offers something for gamers where one don't need more than 16 threads and want blazing flast cache for games at a "budget", where in traditional releases you pay premium from i5 to i7 or even i9 with less gain in gaming and a ton of under utilized extra cores. But well, in short term it could become something not sensible to choose it if it is priced same as the x950X SKUs.

It is overpriced in the same way a Kawasaki H2R is overpriced compared to a H2S. They both do the same job. The R costs a chunk of change more. I WANT THE R

 

[KyaraM]

Is there a dearth of tech news to report on? This article is somewhat pointless...

 

[stuff and nonesense]

Isn't cache super expensive though? In terms of die space?

You mean the little sliver they placed above and now below the processor, it is effectively free die space with regard to the footprint on the substrate. The cost is in the manufacture of the cache chip and the assembly of the package. Memory has been produced for as long as there have been silicon chips, the manufacturers will have the methods well optimised.

 

[YSCCC]

It is overpriced in the same way a Kawasaki H2R is overpriced compared to a H2S. They both do the same job. The R costs a chunk of change more. I WANT THE R

I have the same opinion, by what I mean is, when it's above any competition, the price increase won't be linear, just like when you look at a Civic Type R and a Ferrari SF90, it surely isn't a dozen times faster, and when it's above in all metrics including styling, the price will start skyrocket. There's always a premium paid to the SOTA/TOTL stuffs every generation

 

[EasyListening]

UserBenchmark has put forth a very interesting take on AMD's Ryzen 7 9800X3D and suggests users snag the i5-13600K instead since "spending more on a gaming CPU is pointless."

UserBenchmark suggests you buy the i5-13600K over the Ryzen 7 9800X3D — says AMD drives sales with 'aggressive marketing' rather than 'real-world p... : Read more

More like LoserBenchmark

Whoever runs UserBenchmark is a psychopath, and I find it amusing, not worrying or concerning at all. It takes all types, I suppose. 9800X3D is just a well rounded CPU. The thing is, it's gonna be sold out everywhere for a while, and scalpers are up to their usual high-jinks. If you are in the market for a a 9800X3D, it makes no sense to compare it to a i5-13600K. It's a $600 CPU vs a $225 CPU. Games drive technological progress, and that's what being an enthusiast is all about. Do you guys know about the bottleneck calculator? If you're gonna drop $1000 or more on a GPU, cheaping out on the CPU is a big mistake.

Bottleneck-Calculator

 

[logainofhades]

5800x3d was definitely the right choice for gamers, still on AM4. Yea the cost was more than an i7 12700* and DDR4 motherboard, but the time saved and potential cost of a new Windows license made switching to Alder Lake less appealing. For a new gaming build, in 2024, the 5700x3d can make sense for budget builders as the price is decent, and DDR4 is dirt cheap, and you can still get decent B550 boards for around the $100-$125 mark.

 

[danny009]

Just get i9-9900K I heard it's fixes global warming

And remember, if u got a K series of a Intel CPU, it means you are elite person.

 

[spongiemaster]

Cost per frame is a useless metric. A cpu that gets 10 fps but costs 1$ has an insane value, but nobody will buy it. What matters is the cost per frame at your desired framerate. Without a specific goal in mind cost per frame doesn't tell you anything.

So sure, if you target say 120 fps , the 9800x 3d is bad with current gpu in current games. But it will also outlast anything else on the market (if we are talking about stock performance).

I agree. Making up theoretical products that will never exist is useless. You're missing the forest for the trees here.

 

[TheHerald]

I agree. Making up theoretical products that will never exist is useless. You're missing the forest for the trees here.

How? I gave you an example of a product that has outstanding value for money, yet it's absolutely useless. These products do in fact exist. I can buy a pentium g for 14,99 euros. I'm sure it tops your performance per value chart

 

[spongiemaster]

How? I gave you an example of a product that has outstanding value for money, yet it's absolutely useless. These products do in fact exist. I can buy a pentium g for 14,99 euros. I'm sure it tops your performance per value chart

The statement was made that based on the performance, the 9800X3D was not overpriced. Based on the objective measure of cost per frame, that is a false statement. No recommendation of any sort or buying advice was volunteered based on that data. Anything else you're trying to read into that exchange is something you're imagining and not something I said or tried to imply.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

The statement was made that based on the performance, the 9800X3D was not overpriced. Based on the objective measure of cost per frame, that is a false statement. No recommendation of any sort or buying advice was volunteered based on that data. Anything else you're trying to read into that exchange is something you're imagining and not something I said or tried to imply.

Cost per frame is a guide but not a metric. Prices change throughout the lifetime of a device. The 7800x3d was close to the $480 retail price of the 9800x3d in the days approaching launch.

How you assign value is up to you. As I said earlier buy what you want that does what you want. If you want to spend less, your choice.

Edit: Digital foundry has a good review of the 9800x3d vs 7800x3d, 14900k and a couple more chips.

 

[spongiemaster]

Objective math, sure, but for *that specific* metric.

But what most people are interested in is a more subjective "value", and is different from person to person. E.g. I'm not that fussed about cost per frame (even if I'm usually too stingy to buy the very top-end CPUs), but I'm interested in power consumption: effort required to cooling, which affects noise levels, and electricity costs. The electricity costs are a bit more complex than just lifetime TCO, OPEX/CAPEX factors in as well. I don't care about ludicrous 400+ fps, but I'd pay a premium for consistenly higher low% fps. Sprinkle in a bunch of things like memory latency, PCI-e lanes, motherboard availability and features, etc...

That (incomplete) set of stuff makes for a more complex and fuzzy model than the simple Cost per Frame, but saying that something is "terrible value" because of a poor CpF (or other simplistic metrics) is reductive 😉

Not sure the 9800X3D would be the best chip for me, but it's in the evaluation pool for building a new rig for my S.O.

The statement that was made, was based on performance it wasn't overpriced. Nothing you listed is relevant to that statement.