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...

[-Fran-]

This is golden. I wonder what type of mental illness causes this. Quite the case study.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1856268961438150670

View: https://x.com/Olrak29_/status/1856268961438150670?t=x3X4DoPw5hhewUTY6vg3_A


Regards.

 

[YSCCC]

This is golden. I wonder what type of mental illness causes this. Quite the case study.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1856268961438150670

View: https://x.com/Olrak29_/status/1856268961438150670?t=x3X4DoPw5hhewUTY6vg3_A


Regards.

holy.... Intel will facepalm for spraying salt on their gaping wound

 

[-Fran-]

holy.... Intel will facepalm for spraying salt on their gaping wound

It's funny how stating "this is the best gaming CPU" is forcing people to buy it.

The logical leap is quite interesting. I guess we're all buying 4090s now.

Regards.

 

[TheHerald]

It's funny how stating "this is the best gaming CPU" is forcing people to buy it.

The logical leap is quite interesting. I guess we're all buying 4090s now.

Regards.

Well the 9800x 3d is far more easily attainable than the 4090. If you check mindfactory sales most people are buying 3d chips and then midrange (7800 xt) gpus. So we can talk crap about UB all day but he has a point.

What makes his take stupid is that he focuses on promoting intel specifically when he could make the same point about the 7600x (or even the 5700x 3d) not just the 13600k

 

[Colif]

Shame I can't bookmark a page before it exists as I want to read their ""review"" of the 9950x3d as that will be fun.

There isn't a lot of logic used in the system designed to stop people buying anything AMD make. they would never suggest another AMD CPU. That isn't the aim here. Its not to inform customer accurately of all the choices, just the ones they prefer.

 

[jp7189]

Future proofing has always been and will always be BS. 2 GPU generations from now is going to be in the 3-4 years from now range. We're looking at Zen 7 at that point. The 5800X3D is 2.5 years old to put that 3-4 year timeframe in perspective. in 2028, if you're shopping for an $800 RTX 6070, you're going to want a better CPU than the 9800X3D.

There are 7 in my family and we all game. Most recently we picked up Ark ASA and the 1080's weren't cutting it anymore, so the i moved the 3080's down to the 9600k systems and bought 4070ti's for the 12900k systems.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Stop spreading false information what are you the minister of propaganda?

He sure seems like it.

 

[logainofhades]

Future proofing has always been and will always be BS. 2 GPU generations from now is going to be in the 3-4 years from now range. We're looking at Zen 7 at that point. The 5800X3D is 2.5 years old to put that 3-4 year timeframe in perspective. in 2028, if you're shopping for an $800 RTX 6070, you're going to want a better CPU than the 9800X3D.

Future proofing is a misnomer, but spending a bit more up front, so you system holds up a bit longer, is not a bad thing. Buy cheap pay twice. We still often see people come here asking for new build advice, that are still using 4790k's. They paid more up front, and it lasted then quite a bit longer than a 4690k would have.


The 5800x3d has held up quite well, and will stay relevant for quite some time. The 9800x3d will easily still be relevant in 2028, for most people. Also with AM5 support going till 2027+, the whole platform will still be quite relevant as well.

 

[TheHerald]

Future proofing is a misnomer, but spending a bit more up front, so you system holds up a bit longer, is not a bad thing. Buy cheap pay twice. We still often see people come here asking for new build advice, that are still using 4790k's. They paid more up front, and it lasted then quite a bit longer than a 4690k would have.


The 5800x3d has held up quite well, and will stay relevant for quite some time. The 9800x3d will easily still be relevant in 2028, for most people. Also with AM5 support going till 2027+, the whole platform will still be quite relevant as well.

Usually spending more (within reason, of course) saves you money in the longrun. I have preached this countless of times - it is true even in the techspace - but people are oblivious to the fact. Now the opposite can also be true, spending more can actually end up in a big pile of burned money (im looking at you 3090).

480$ is a steep price to pay but I can easily see the 9800x 3d being still relevant at 4k in 2030 with the best card of the time. Not that much different than an 8700k (2017 cpu) - it still holds up today. Wouldn't pair it with a 4090 (not at stock untuned xmp anyways), but a 4080? Sure, why not.

 

[logainofhades]

Yea I refused to pay the inflated prices during the GPU shortages. Hence why I battled bots on AMD direct for weeks, to get my RX 6800 for MSRP.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Future proofing is a misnomer, but spending a bit more up front, so you system holds up a bit longer, is not a bad thing. Buy cheap pay twice. We still often see people come here asking for new build advice, that are still using 4790k's. They paid more up front, and it lasted then quite a bit longer than a 4690k would have.

While I wasn't looking for build advice, I was one of those people who very recently upgraded from a 4770k (September 2013 build). Ironically back then I was looking at going with an i5-4670k instead but Newegg had a bundle offer that gave either $100 or $200 off the CPU, Motherboard, and RAM for the 4770k and only like $50 for the bundle with the 4670k so the cost wasn't much higher for the 4770k. Fast forward 11 years and it was still OK for gaming (Borderland 3, RDR2, Civ VI, etc..) but was maxed out at 32GB RAM and that just wasn't enough for me needs anymore. Had I been able to get 64GB RAM into that PC I would probably not have upgraded it for another couple years. All that said your statement about spending a little extra now (assuming budget) for more CPU can save you money in the long run.

 

[spongiemaster]

Future proofing is a misnomer, but spending a bit more up front, so you system holds up a bit longer, is not a bad thing. Buy cheap pay twice. We still often see people come here asking for new build advice, that are still using 4790k's. They paid more up front, and it lasted then quite a bit longer than a 4690k would have.

For CPU's, it really doesn't. When we're talking within single digits for half the price, it's not really a little money either. Going with a 14900k over a 14700k or a 7950x over a 7900x is not going to allow you to put off an upgrade another generation or longer. The extra threads will rarely be useful, and the low threaded performance is so close among the CPU's in a single generation that you're not affording yourself any extra time spending more on a higher end cpu. Knocking $200 off your CPU budget while only losing 5% or so performance will land you a higher rung Blackwell GPU in a few months that will likely net you more than 5% and more consistently as well (not 15% some games and 0% others).

9800X3D will be absolutely fine for gaming in 4 years especially as you go up the resolution chain just as a 12600k is perfectly acceptable for the overwhelming majority of gamers today. The people buying a 9800X3D today are not making a rational decision based in logic. In a few years from now, when they look at the rankings and see the 9800X3D way down the chart like a 5800X3D is today, they're going feel like they are missing out on something, when they really aren't, and are going to get the upgrade itch again.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

For CPU's, it really doesn't. When we're talking within single digits for half the price, it's not really a little money either. Going with a 14900k over a 14700k or a 7950x over a 7900x is not going to allow you to put off an upgrade another generation or longer. The extra threads will rarely be useful, and the low threaded performance is so close among the CPU's in a single generation that you're not affording yourself any extra time spending more on a higher end cpu. Knocking $200 off your CPU budget while only losing 5% or so performance will land you a higher rung Blackwell GPU in a few months that will likely net you more than 5% and more consistently as well (not 15% some games and 0% others).

9800X3D will be absolutely fine for gaming in 4 years especially as you go up the resolution chain just as a 12600k is perfectly acceptable for the overwhelming majority of gamers today. The people buying a 9800X3D today are not making a rational decision based in logic. In a few years from now, when they look at the rankings and see the 9800X3D way down the chart like a 5800X3D is today, they're going feel like they are missing out on something, when they really aren't, and are going to get the upgrade itch again.

You are mostly correct. There is a single question regarding upgrades. Do I get the frame rates I want in the games I want to play? (Assuming it is achievable, today you won’t see 400fps in Starfield)

If you have a strong processor as a base, your gpu is running at 100% and you can’t achieve your desired rate then upgrade the gpu. If the processor is weaker and your gpu is running at (for sake of argument) 50% then upgrade your cpu.

Buying any intel 12 and later 700 class and upper will give you decent longevity, same can be said for the 5800x3d (waning but still relevant), 7800x3x and 9800x3d. For the performance the 9800x3d offers it isn’t overpriced. It is head and shoulders above the competition (across all the reviews I’ve seen) with incredible 1% lows approaching the averages offered by its competitors in many cases.

Granted, it will become relatively weaker as the competition improves just as its successors will make it look less compelling. Its price will come down to some extent.

Replacing your processor? Does it allow your gpu to give you your desired frame rates? Save your money if yes.. replace if no.

I personally go by the idea “buy well, buy once” and I tend to buy above what I need at the moment I am making a purchase. With items with a finite period of relevance e.g. CPUs I tend to change every third generation, last was a 3900x (star citizen is a processor hog so the jump to 9900x is a huge jump and I do see smooth gameplay with the 9900x, I wasn’t seeing the same with the 3900).

 

[logainofhades]

For CPU's, it really doesn't. When we're talking within single digits for half the price, it's not really a little money either. Going with a 14900k over a 14700k or a 7950x over a 7900x is not going to allow you to put off an upgrade another generation or longer. The extra threads will rarely be useful, and the low threaded performance is so close among the CPU's in a single generation that you're not affording yourself any extra time spending more on a higher end cpu. Knocking $200 off your CPU budget while only losing 5% or so performance will land you a higher rung Blackwell GPU in a few months that will likely net you more than 5% and more consistently as well (not 15% some games and 0% others).

9800X3D will be absolutely fine for gaming in 4 years especially as you go up the resolution chain just as a 12600k is perfectly acceptable for the overwhelming majority of gamers today. The people buying a 9800X3D today are not making a rational decision based in logic. In a few years from now, when they look at the rankings and see the 9800X3D way down the chart like a 5800X3D is today, they're going feel like they are missing out on something, when they really aren't, and are going to get the upgrade itch again.

I said a bit more, not a lot more. Resale value is another thing to consider, though. Under normal conditions, the top end CPU for a given platform will sell for more, on the used market, when you are ready to upgrade. The 9900k is still stubbornly selling for like $220 on Ebay. 10900k's are $300+.

 

[spongiemaster]

Buying any intel 12 and later 700 class and upper will give you decent longevity, same can be said for the 5800x3d (waning but still relevant), 7800x3x and 9800x3d. For the performance the 9800x3d offers it isn’t overpriced.

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.

 

[YSCCC]

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.

No it isn't, for best C/P ratio anything above last 2 gen mid range will always be overpriced, you pay extra for a still on going platform, pay extra for TOTL, pay extra for stuffs that still have warranty or replacement parts available, those are same for everything and not only PC parts.

with the cost per frame in mind one should never get anything current gen or first hand, get a used 11th gen i5 with a RX5700XT will be good for those C/P charts, why get anything new?

 

[spongiemaster]

No it isn't, for best C/P ratio anything above last 2 gen mid range will always be overpriced, you pay extra for a still on going platform, pay extra for TOTL, pay extra for stuffs that still have warranty or replacement parts available, those are same for everything and not only PC parts.

with the cost per frame in mind one should never get anything current gen or first hand, get a used 11th gen i5 with a RX5700XT will be good for those C/P charts, why get anything new?

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.

 

[YSCCC]

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.

Can't agree on this one, for the BEST performing stuffs on the market, inflated value is always the case, yes it is no where near the saviour for the poor, but considering it is the best SKU for gaming at the moment, it isn't bad value, as the extra performance means it can sustain useful framerates for more years to come, you forgot to consider the time aspect into the math, which when considered, isn't a bad value in a lot of consumer's opinion.

At this moment of time, yes you can have much better value for a 12600k, still giving usable frames at half the price, but the 9800X3D or the 7800X3D will likely able to sustain playable framerates for 2-4 years extra, which upon the cost per frame per service time, it isn't that much if any overpriced compared to the older SKUs. Don't forget if you buy anything intel at this moment you have no option to just swarp another $400 CPU in it in next 2 years, but AM5 have at least 2-3 years of new SKUs releasing.

 

[TheHerald]

Can't agree on this one, for the BEST performing stuffs on the market, inflated value is always the case, yes it is no where near the saviour for the poor, but considering it is the best SKU for gaming at the moment, it isn't bad value, as the extra performance means it can sustain useful framerates for more years to come, you forgot to consider the time aspect into the math, which when considered, isn't a bad value in a lot of consumer's opinion.

At this moment of time, yes you can have much better value for a 12600k, still giving usable frames at half the price, but the 9800X3D or the 7800X3D will likely able to sustain playable framerates for 2-4 years extra, which upon the cost per frame per service time, it isn't that much if any overpriced compared to the older SKUs. Don't forget if you buy anything intel at this moment you have no option to just swarp another $400 CPU in it in next 2 years, but AM5 have at least 2-3 years of new SKUs releasing.

So - surely the 5800x 3d must have sucked right? Cause the value was as bad and it was a dead end platform compared to intel at the time. 12700 + B660 cost the exact same as the 5800x 3d on it's own back then

 

[dalauder]

I think the thing is not the over 144fps, besides placebo effects, it is basically microstutters resulted from frame time spikes and microstuttering. it's that 0.1% or even 0.01% low where stuffs like FPS opponent jumps into frame or so having an impact.

Okay, that's reasonable. I haven't looked into any recent 0.1% low studies. I wanted to blame it on the GPU, but at that point it could be RAM latency, VRAM getting maxed out, throttling, or a hundred different things.

But I hate screen tearing, so 144 Hz makes me happier.

 

[dalauder]

I guess im too old for this, but testing between 240 and 480 hz (my monitor can do both), I cannot see any difference between the 2. Like 0.

Now have I tried 480 hz for a week and then went back to 240, I think I might have detected something.

But you think you can tell a difference between 240 and 144 Hz? I've never gone over 144 Hz, so I don't have any experience.

I remember 60 Hz CRT screens irritating my eyes. But I've been happy with anything over 72Hz since then.

 

[TheHerald]

But you think you can tell a difference between 240 and 144 Hz? I've never gone over 144 Hz, so I don't have any experience.

I remember 60 Hz CRT screens irritating my eyes. But I've been happy with anything over 72Hz since then.

In FPS games yes, the smoothness of the camera pan while you are aiming around is obvious. In other games not so much.

 

[YSCCC]

So - surely the 5800x 3d must have sucked right? Cause the value was as bad and it was a dead end platform compared to intel at the time. 12700 + B660 cost the exact same as the 5800x 3d on it's own back then

at this point of time, it wouldn't be a good option to upgrade to buying brand new, where have you ever see ppl recommending ppl building a new platform on the 5800X3D in 2024?

In 2022 it make sense for those who just slot in replace the Zen 2 or even Zen1 don't want to jump to the then expensive 12900k and Z690 with crazy expensive DDR5, just like how if one have a full fledge 12th gen 1700 platform and dun bother go into the ARL or whole system swarp to consider the 14th gen i7 or i9 if they don't concern the degradation issues. But for 2024? both LGA1700 or 1851 and AM4 don't make any sense for anybody considering gaming, at all

 

[TheHerald]

at this point of time, it wouldn't be a good option to upgrade to buying brand new, where have you ever see ppl recommending ppl building a new platform on the 5800X3D in 2024?

In 2022 it make sense for those who just slot in replace the Zen 2 or even Zen1 don't want to jump to the then expensive 12900k and Z690 with crazy expensive DDR5, just like how if one have a full fledge 12th gen 1700 platform and dun bother go into the ARL or whole system swarp to consider the 14th gen i7 or i9 if they don't concern the degradation issues. But for 2024? both LGA1700 or 1851 and AM4 don't make any sense for anybody considering gaming, at all

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.

 

[TheHerald]

Now regarding factorio - I broke the 12900k record in the big 50k map at 62-64 UPS, beating the 7800x 3d, but the 9800x 3d is scoring.....~75-80.

Percentage wise, that's is ~25%. Holy cow this thing moves.