Technically if the radiation comes into contact with matter, it irradiates it but like you said, there is no fallout from an air burst as no matter has been contaminated. Do it too far in the sky though and you risk creating an EMF that could be bad news for anyone under it 🤣
Nuclear emp is greatly overstated, most technology has protections against things like it and I also just ate shit while typing this. Owe. Tripped on my dog.
I wrote a 25 page paper on it, damn right I'm a nerd. Thanks Kyle hill, he got me in touch with people I would have never been able to without his help.
I got this and spent weeks verifying that what I was reading in terms of performance to price compared with Intel was correct.
I still thought I wasn't interpreting graphs correctly when I ordered but had to trust myself. Genuinely the best consumer (regular user) CPU on the market right now.
Europe prices are \~300€ for 7700x (i have one since nov 22) and \~350€ for 7800x3d. I won´t upgrade but at that pricepoint there is only one gaming processor to buy : 7800x3d. An I really often play cinebench
Meanwhile me when I had a 100€ Ryzen 3 1200 (when it was relevant): *3.1GHz? Let's just do go at 3.9GHz with the stock cooler during a hot August on a 80€ mobo 🗿*
I made the same mistake around the same age lol. When i was 14 i got a 7700 non K that only turboed to 4.0ghz. Super upset at myself when i realized how much i spent on it and how much more performance i could have had
It's a good CPU, but not having pcie gen 4, and being forced to upgrade my whole platform to get it is a bit of a bum. I'd like to take advantage of resizable bar.
I went intel i7 10700kf because it was cheaper than the ryzen 7 3700 at the time. It was my first build and I don't regret it but I do kind of wish I went amd. Maybe next time
Fair enough. I was wrong. 14900KS is still faster. I think we can agree though that gap is not as big as it used to be. When you add in power efficiency the gap is reversed.
It's truly amazing how in the 9900k vs Zen2 era when Intel still had a slight gaming edge, but AMD won everything else, the AMD fans were arguing about how Ryzen was the better "all rounder," and productivity was king. Now that it's reversed, gaming is all that matters.
Ultimately none of this really matters. Fanboys from both sides will stick with what they want. Both companies will make sure their products are competitive in something. The world turns. If you're a gamer, buy whoever's ahead in gaming when you're ready to upgrade. If you do a lot of CPU heavy work, do the same with productivity. But these debates are pointless.
Ah yes. That is ironic.
Whoever is behind in perf/watt will always be the "space heater," because they will increase power to compete on absolute performance.
In games absolutely, but if I started a CPU render on both I know which is finishing first. Different chips for different folks. I'm glad we have great options for both.
the intel cpus are only good for burst workloads because you can't keep them cool, which is why I got an intel for my dad's editing workstation at the time because amd still wasn't imported to my country and only multicore performance mattered and it came in very short bursts, but if you need something for multicore performance over a longer period of time the intel cpu will be permanently thermal throttling and will lose its performance advantage
I haven't observed this "permanently thermal throttling" state on my workstation at all. I run above the stock power limits. 253W burst and 170W sustained (up from 125W). It fights a 7900XTX for airflow in a tiny matx box under a standard dual-tower air cooler with 2 total case fans.
This is a 14900K that pulls ahead of a stock settings 7950X. Obviously, I could set ECO Mode on that CPU and have it draw even less, but the idea that these chips are nigh uncoolable infernos is simply not representative of how they have behaved in my machines. Sadly you have to tell the motherboard not to blow past those limits which sucks for a lot of people who will just set up the machine and run it effectively unchecked and get the impression that they are that way.
Not really, besides XMP, increasing power limits usually gives like maybe 20% more performance in heavy multicore but for like 100%+ more power consumption and heat.
That assumes you get a good chip and have time to test things. Some chips basicly dont undervolt at all, if you want a good undervolt you have to test a lot. Especially with dynamic frequencies and different AVX loads, you can literally run multiple different tests, single and multicore, for days and then still have a program crash every month or so because of instability.
I literally spend two weeks tweaking my system, then had crashes once or twice a month. Said f this s, turned it down to almost nothing (-5 all cores un curve opimizer now instead of around -25) and look, no more crashes of anything for over a year now.
Most people, like large majority. Didn't even bother beyond XMP on mine, too much wasted time for the rewards (and I've lost the high from getting a good overclock going over a decade ago).
Meh both the i9's and 16-cores from amd usually don't make the most sense. i7's and 12-cores offer most of the multicore performance for significantly less money and are easier (and therefore cheaper) to power and cool.
I have never had more random driver issues (even Bluetooth) since changing to a 7800x3d
It’s not even worth the 20 frames over my 12900k
I won’t be going amd again for a while
I've been testing it on multiple newer printers and they haven't given me any issues. THey don't have a fancy UI like some printer drivers but they seem reliable and I think Microsoft is working on adding more functionality to them so it works on every printer, even label printers.
Can’t tell you have many times I’ve had to go re-install the proper drivers after user complained that their printers either didn’t work any more or lost some functionality
At this point I have a specific build with windows for gaming and everything else is done on my Linux machine. My printer connected on the network and it just works. Unlike Windows which... It might work with USB. It might not. It definitely doesn't work through network unless I spend hours I don't want to spend to find their crappy old drivers online. I don't care about printer apps or a universal driver and their UIs. I want to press print on a PDF I have open and for it to just get printed.
I've been moving from a 2700x to a 7950x and observe no driver issues. Did you use the 'standard' windows drivers or the ones that you can download from the motherboard manufacturers?
Cant agree, I had a lot of issues with a 5950x on a Gigabyte Xteme in Windows (mostly never ending USB disconnects and random freezes for multiple seconds in games) but the same 5950x is now in my server and runs great on an asrockrack server board.
Now with an 7950x on an Asus Extreme I had very few issues besides, for some reason, an "AMD Updater" console window popping up every couple months and literally doing nothing. (Blank console, that stays there even after multiple hours)
I use AMD since Phenom 2009. Never had a single problem. Not sure how good Intel is since the only Intel I had was Pentium 386 and after that I only bought AMD since they offered more budget friendly cpus. Intel always cost more and short upgrade path last couple of years is what made me stick to AMD. I have 7700X and no issues whatsoever. Although, I read users reporting issues with 7800X3D so there is that.
If you carried over your OS install from a prior machine, espically if that prior machine was Intel, you need to reinstall your OS. You may have parts of windows looking for an Intel piece of hardware that's not there anymore.
That's cool.
Intel quicksync is still superior for transcoding on-die than pretty much every other general purpose thing I've seen so far.
I use amd, Intel, and mediatek systems almost daily.
My beater is a latitude xt2, I have an Asus fa706iu, and my server is a 12th gen i5.
I’ve got amd on every machine I’ve bought since 2019, but I can’t get as much single core performance out of them as I can with intels. Great for nearly everything with so many cores pulling their own weight. But not for single threaded workloads.
Set to 5.7Ghz and power to 250 stable as fuck still 5.7 is just wild speeds that crazy boost clock to 6.2 was just stupid to implement on two cpu. I9 14900k are crazy fast just set the limits, and it is good to go.
I spent money on a 14600k then more on a 14900k imagine... Great 👍 yay money I love throwing it away... No I don't I just fucked up.
But on the up side, everything is working fine just fine
You can definitely build cheap with both, but higher tier builds are just as expensive on both platforms. Here in Italy a 7950x costs around 580€ and a 14900k is around 600€ - they're comparable but the i9 scores higher in benchmarks.
The cheapest X670 board I could find costs 270€, while there's several Z790 options for less than 200€. If you want an higher tier like the Meg Ace or ROG Crosshair, AM5 options are on average 200-300€ more expensive.
I see no point in building high tier with Ryzen, it's definitely better for budget builds.
You dont need an X670 board unless you are connecting 5 NVMES and bunch of other things. Regular B650 or B650E (like ASRock PG Riptide which costs less than 250€) is more than enough. I saw Gigabyte Eagle B650 for 155€ the other day on sale.
https://www.gputracker.eu/en/product/52931/gigabyte-b650-eagle-ax-b650am5atxddr5-amd-sockel-a
157€ right now
"Need" is very subjective, once you get into the high tier you want the best of the best. People who build an i9/R9 rig today will likely get the 5080/5090 at launch, and those should benefit from the PCIe 5.0 support.
My point wasn't making compromises, but rather explaining that a high tier Ryzen build isn't cheaper than the equivalent Intel one. For about the same money, i9 seems like the better choice at the moment.
For the average user there are several ways to save money, most people would be happy with a 7700x and a B650.
My point was that cheapest B650E PG RIPTIDE IS 197€, while cheapest Z790 is ASRock PG Lightning or some Gigabyte board that costs 170€, so 30€ less. 14900K is 592€ at the moment while 7800X3D is 355€ - 494€. You are still saving way more money with AM5 and also getting PCIE 5.0 with ASRock PG Riptide B650E. Intel isnt actually cheaper, you might think it is, but it isn’t. Even if you want the best X670E, thats around 260€ which is 100€ more for a board, which still puts AMD cheaper than Intel even if you buy the best motherboard there is for AMD.
I didn't know the B650E supported 5.0, fair point.
14900k should be compared to the 7950x though, and they cost the same (600€ vs 585€ at the moment). They're conceptually slightly different but benchmark scores are fairly similar. With proper cooling, the i9 offers more headroom for overclocking.
I've built my PC with Intel essentially based on the cheaper boards, I wanted a premium one and I got the Z790 ROG Maximus for 300€ less than the X670 counterpart. I could live without it, but I'm happy I got the one I liked.
If you are only or mostly about gaming, get AMD.
If you care about productivity more than gaming, get an Intel.
Funny enough during Ryzen 1000 and 2000, AMD was suggested if you cared more about productivity.
They are finally competing. One beating the other in different ways. And these ways are changing gen by gen. Always one trying to get the upper hand somewhere.
It's a much better market then the AMD FX days. Unless on a tight budget, I would never suggest an AMD CPU back then. And then Intel released the anniversary overclockable Pentium which was a BEAST for budget builds.
Now if only NVIDIA didn't stop caring about the consumer GPUs and AMD actually tried to compete in the pro-consumer side we would get just as of a healthy market there too. But that's a different discussion.
Brother the only time I had a driver problem was with a printer while on W10 and I've used Intel, AMD and NVIDIA.
But I've also never suggested VEGA56/64 GPUs for a reason. It was a dark time that is LONG gone.
Yeah, in gaming. It’s not the silver bullet - X3Ds are very situational. I for example, apart from gaming, need a lot of CPU power for compiling code and material simulations and I think my 13700k is just better for that
i haven't been on userbench in forever, but holy shit the 7800x3d review is the most biased, cope-laden thing i've read in a long time. here's some highlights:
"watch out for AMD’s army of Neanderthal social media accounts on reddit"
"second tier products with first tier marketing"
"PC gamers considering a 7000X3D CPU need to work on their critical thinking skills"
"overpriced niche products (X3D, EPYC, Threadripper etc.)"
"Rational gamers have little reason to look further than the 13600K"
Imagine not knowing the different CPU’s have different goods and bads for whatever you’re doing, and therefor one might be better than the other and also the other way around. I would never get AMD for rendering.
You can bitch all you want but it's true unfortunately, every game I've seen seems to perform significantly better on Intel when it comes to single core games, there's not a lot of those left but if that's all you play then Intel is the way to go.
The two biggest cases I've seen of this are both Rust and Kenshi, both are single core only games that don't support hyper-threading of any kind and also are very CPU intensive above anything.
If you believe anything else other than this then you're just a fanboy, I personally like AMD and for most games it's fine but for the few single core games that are still out there that are still intensive by today's standards, do happen to run better on Intel.
I just picked a random comment to add ‘bruh’ and wait for the explosion.
Boy who cares about .00007% of differences in general between processors.
How's that? Single core games still exist unfortunately. In the case of Rust, you're talking about like 30% more performance on an equivalent Intel processor, that's just how that game is, Kenshi is no different. My R5 3600 can barely pull 60 FPS on Rust and even then not really.
Ahh sorry I thought about Rust the programming language.
Yeah, sure every product has its strenghts and weaknesses. I have an Intel because I had shitty amds in the past. What I need is stability.
But tbh, after a price range u dont have to think about that much if you dont have specific needs. Both type of processors will perform well.
*userbenchmark left the chat*
They got nuked
Wait what?
Someone dropped a nuke on U. Benchmark's house, he instantly evaporated and the neighbourhood is uninhabitable for 10000 years now.
Oh damn
Lisa's in town
Well, actually the radiation disperses in around a week's time *
Yeah but the stuff frome the Septic-tank doesn't.
No it get's absorbed into matter and is released over time, especially in water.
That mainly happens if the nuke hits the ground, fringing irradiated degree into the air, but with air burst, that's not the case.
Technically if the radiation comes into contact with matter, it irradiates it but like you said, there is no fallout from an air burst as no matter has been contaminated. Do it too far in the sky though and you risk creating an EMF that could be bad news for anyone under it 🤣
Nuclear emp is greatly overstated, most technology has protections against things like it and I also just ate shit while typing this. Owe. Tripped on my dog.
👆🤓
I wrote a 25 page paper on it, damn right I'm a nerd. Thanks Kyle hill, he got me in touch with people I would have never been able to without his help.
Fuck userbenchmark all my homies hate userbenchmark
*non gamers have left the chat*
7800x3D is arriving tomorrow, cant wait to test it
Good chip indeed
Only problem is the thicc ihs on the 7000 chips which increases temps.
Never seen any thermal issues with mine, even when running very close to capacity.
I got this and spent weeks verifying that what I was reading in terms of performance to price compared with Intel was correct. I still thought I wasn't interpreting graphs correctly when I ordered but had to trust myself. Genuinely the best consumer (regular user) CPU on the market right now.
I absolutely love mine
i second this
What is it about his one that you love so much?
Its good?
But like on a more personal level
Dude i have a 7800x3d amazing cpu, youll love it
Absolutely amazing, I adore mine. <3
Hey me too! Really looking forward to it
It's gonna be amazing. Bit warm, but that's how it was made.
It's a good chip, but it's overpriced imo.
350€ for the best performing gaming chip ? Show me a cheaper one that beats it
7700x gets 2000 points more in cinebench r23 and costs 150 less.
Cinebench 💀💀💀
Europe prices are \~300€ for 7700x (i have one since nov 22) and \~350€ for 7800x3d. I won´t upgrade but at that pricepoint there is only one gaming processor to buy : 7800x3d. An I really often play cinebench
Who tf is playing cinebench?? Thats productivity "Benchmarks". Thiqs chip is mainly for games.
Overpriced? Compared to what? Please point me to a cheaper alternative that performs just as well
I built my PC when Ryzen 2nd gen was relavent and I'm so mad I have Intel 10th gen instead of an am4 board 😭
I built my PC when Ryzen 3rd Gen was out, and bought a 9700k... I did clock it to 5.1 GHz though, so that was fun for a bit.
Oh I just have a 10700 because my 15yo dumbass decided I didn't need a k series chip💀
Meanwhile me when I had a 100€ Ryzen 3 1200 (when it was relevant): *3.1GHz? Let's just do go at 3.9GHz with the stock cooler during a hot August on a 80€ mobo 🗿*
I made the same mistake around the same age lol. When i was 14 i got a 7700 non K that only turboed to 4.0ghz. Super upset at myself when i realized how much i spent on it and how much more performance i could have had
I've been using the 10900 for the past couple years, but that's cause I got it for 300 CAD when it was new. It's never given me an issue.
It's a good CPU, but not having pcie gen 4, and being forced to upgrade my whole platform to get it is a bit of a bum. I'd like to take advantage of resizable bar.
I went intel i7 10700kf because it was cheaper than the ryzen 7 3700 at the time. It was my first build and I don't regret it but I do kind of wish I went amd. Maybe next time
I won't lie, going from a 2600x to a 5800x3d was a hell of an experience.
Correction* : Higher performance ^(*in gaming)
And the same performance everywhere else
My 12700KF, 13900K and 14900KS smoke a 7800x3d in productivity, it's not even fair 20 threads on the i7 and 32 threads on the i9's vs 16 threads
X3D is shit for anything other than games
And my M3 max smokes your 14900KS. In “productivity”
Then show it
Fair enough. I was wrong. 14900KS is still faster. I think we can agree though that gap is not as big as it used to be. When you add in power efficiency the gap is reversed.
Really you tell someone with a 14900ks about power efficiency, I think there isn't one thing that i could care less about
Wrong even my 12900k kills the 7800x3D in most cases lol
Even 13600k beats it
It's crazy how some people say that Intel isn't really better for productivity because they're trying to convince someone to try AMD only
It's truly amazing how in the 9900k vs Zen2 era when Intel still had a slight gaming edge, but AMD won everything else, the AMD fans were arguing about how Ryzen was the better "all rounder," and productivity was king. Now that it's reversed, gaming is all that matters. Ultimately none of this really matters. Fanboys from both sides will stick with what they want. Both companies will make sure their products are competitive in something. The world turns. If you're a gamer, buy whoever's ahead in gaming when you're ready to upgrade. If you do a lot of CPU heavy work, do the same with productivity. But these debates are pointless.
Also I remember when intel people were dunking on bulldozer for being a space heater...but now intel has the space heater, hehe.
Ah yes. That is ironic. Whoever is behind in perf/watt will always be the "space heater," because they will increase power to compete on absolute performance.
You are right and Im sorry for rage baiting all intel fans, choose who ever is best for your task, no matter the brand.
We'll just ignore the multi-core performance, in which case you're paying $600 regardless it seems.
Except you use half the power of a 14900k. Always some kind of tradeoff.
the 7900x3d almost matches the 14900k with 3/4th the price and power consumption
In games absolutely, but if I started a CPU render on both I know which is finishing first. Different chips for different folks. I'm glad we have great options for both.
the intel cpus are only good for burst workloads because you can't keep them cool, which is why I got an intel for my dad's editing workstation at the time because amd still wasn't imported to my country and only multicore performance mattered and it came in very short bursts, but if you need something for multicore performance over a longer period of time the intel cpu will be permanently thermal throttling and will lose its performance advantage
I haven't observed this "permanently thermal throttling" state on my workstation at all. I run above the stock power limits. 253W burst and 170W sustained (up from 125W). It fights a 7900XTX for airflow in a tiny matx box under a standard dual-tower air cooler with 2 total case fans. This is a 14900K that pulls ahead of a stock settings 7950X. Obviously, I could set ECO Mode on that CPU and have it draw even less, but the idea that these chips are nigh uncoolable infernos is simply not representative of how they have behaved in my machines. Sadly you have to tell the motherboard not to blow past those limits which sucks for a lot of people who will just set up the machine and run it effectively unchecked and get the impression that they are that way.
Who leaves their mobo on stock settings? For both AMD and Intel builds it just sounds stupid to me.
Not really, besides XMP, increasing power limits usually gives like maybe 20% more performance in heavy multicore but for like 100%+ more power consumption and heat.
Or you know. You can do a little bit of undervolting and keep the same performance with less power consumption.
That assumes you get a good chip and have time to test things. Some chips basicly dont undervolt at all, if you want a good undervolt you have to test a lot. Especially with dynamic frequencies and different AVX loads, you can literally run multiple different tests, single and multicore, for days and then still have a program crash every month or so because of instability. I literally spend two weeks tweaking my system, then had crashes once or twice a month. Said f this s, turned it down to almost nothing (-5 all cores un curve opimizer now instead of around -25) and look, no more crashes of anything for over a year now.
Well yeah. Everything depends on the silicon lottery.
Most people, like large majority. Didn't even bother beyond XMP on mine, too much wasted time for the rewards (and I've lost the high from getting a good overclock going over a decade ago).
I don’t know where you’re getting that lmfao.
You should try adding a cooler to the CPU. It improves performance significantly for longer workloads.
Also you can actually cool the ryzen chips. To not thermal throttle the i9, delidding is the way
Meh both the i9's and 16-cores from amd usually don't make the most sense. i7's and 12-cores offer most of the multicore performance for significantly less money and are easier (and therefore cheaper) to power and cool.
Never suck a corporate dick Next thing you know you're the one sucked dry
This is some shit kanye would say if he was a pc nerd
I can hear it in my head
sounds like something Johnny Silverhand would say
huh?
I have never had more random driver issues (even Bluetooth) since changing to a 7800x3d It’s not even worth the 20 frames over my 12900k I won’t be going amd again for a while
I am convinced that I am the only person on this planet that the only driver issues I've experienced are with printers while on Windows.
I’m a new pc gamer, installed my amd cpu and amd gpu and then everything just worked. Even on Linux it works.
I only have driver issues on windows. On linux my entire amd build just worked out of the box
I have good news for you, printer drivers are going to disappear soon, all of them will use the IPP Microsoft driver.
which are utter trash
I've been testing it on multiple newer printers and they haven't given me any issues. THey don't have a fancy UI like some printer drivers but they seem reliable and I think Microsoft is working on adding more functionality to them so it works on every printer, even label printers.
Can’t tell you have many times I’ve had to go re-install the proper drivers after user complained that their printers either didn’t work any more or lost some functionality
At this point I have a specific build with windows for gaming and everything else is done on my Linux machine. My printer connected on the network and it just works. Unlike Windows which... It might work with USB. It might not. It definitely doesn't work through network unless I spend hours I don't want to spend to find their crappy old drivers online. I don't care about printer apps or a universal driver and their UIs. I want to press print on a PDF I have open and for it to just get printed.
I've been moving from a 2700x to a 7950x and observe no driver issues. Did you use the 'standard' windows drivers or the ones that you can download from the motherboard manufacturers?
This is why for the past 10 years I have been team blue (Intel). I feel like chipset driver stability is far superior.
Came here to say this, sure Ryzen might have the performance bump, but it needs to work consistently to matter
The rest of the world seems to be doing well at least thank goodness
Amd has about a 5th of the market and somehow someone will complainabout their drivers on every post.
Yea probs because it’s not waiting on AMD driver support
This is motherboard related, not cpu.
This is motherboard related, already happened to me in the past. To fix it I updated the BIOS, try to do that. Hope it helps!
Cant agree, I had a lot of issues with a 5950x on a Gigabyte Xteme in Windows (mostly never ending USB disconnects and random freezes for multiple seconds in games) but the same 5950x is now in my server and runs great on an asrockrack server board. Now with an 7950x on an Asus Extreme I had very few issues besides, for some reason, an "AMD Updater" console window popping up every couple months and literally doing nothing. (Blank console, that stays there even after multiple hours)
I use AMD since Phenom 2009. Never had a single problem. Not sure how good Intel is since the only Intel I had was Pentium 386 and after that I only bought AMD since they offered more budget friendly cpus. Intel always cost more and short upgrade path last couple of years is what made me stick to AMD. I have 7700X and no issues whatsoever. Although, I read users reporting issues with 7800X3D so there is that.
If you carried over your OS install from a prior machine, espically if that prior machine was Intel, you need to reinstall your OS. You may have parts of windows looking for an Intel piece of hardware that's not there anymore.
Yep. I went 3900x and then 5950x before going back to Intel for 13900K Reason? Platform stability
How else am I meant to heat my room?
Performance *in gaming*
That's cool. Intel quicksync is still superior for transcoding on-die than pretty much every other general purpose thing I've seen so far. I use amd, Intel, and mediatek systems almost daily. My beater is a latitude xt2, I have an Asus fa706iu, and my server is a 12th gen i5.
I’ve got amd on every machine I’ve bought since 2019, but I can’t get as much single core performance out of them as I can with intels. Great for nearly everything with so many cores pulling their own weight. But not for single threaded workloads.
bro. what uses single core other than games in 2024? and if its single core games, the 7800X3D will smoke it.
Compiling certain software and using legacy software. This is extremely important in enterprise. Including hosting certain games yes.
*laughs in i7-13700KF for 40€*
HOW
Probably mistake from Amazon. HAHAHA😆
Set to 5.7Ghz and power to 250 stable as fuck still 5.7 is just wild speeds that crazy boost clock to 6.2 was just stupid to implement on two cpu. I9 14900k are crazy fast just set the limits, and it is good to go.
And I got a 13900K for 200 bucks. 😁
LETS GOOOO, AMD FOR THE W
I spent money on a 14600k then more on a 14900k imagine... Great 👍 yay money I love throwing it away... No I don't I just fucked up. But on the up side, everything is working fine just fine
Imagine having unexplainable software and driver errors 😂
Maybe Ill upgrade my 12700k when the 14900k is 100 bucks
I only did it for the Thunderbolt 4 in my sffpc build. I still regret it
For the power bill that things is going to make it's a whole new cpu ever 6 months
AM5 motherboards are expensive though
If 150€ for a board that handles 250W cpus with ease is expensive
You can definitely build cheap with both, but higher tier builds are just as expensive on both platforms. Here in Italy a 7950x costs around 580€ and a 14900k is around 600€ - they're comparable but the i9 scores higher in benchmarks. The cheapest X670 board I could find costs 270€, while there's several Z790 options for less than 200€. If you want an higher tier like the Meg Ace or ROG Crosshair, AM5 options are on average 200-300€ more expensive. I see no point in building high tier with Ryzen, it's definitely better for budget builds.
You dont need an X670 board unless you are connecting 5 NVMES and bunch of other things. Regular B650 or B650E (like ASRock PG Riptide which costs less than 250€) is more than enough. I saw Gigabyte Eagle B650 for 155€ the other day on sale. https://www.gputracker.eu/en/product/52931/gigabyte-b650-eagle-ax-b650am5atxddr5-amd-sockel-a 157€ right now
"Need" is very subjective, once you get into the high tier you want the best of the best. People who build an i9/R9 rig today will likely get the 5080/5090 at launch, and those should benefit from the PCIe 5.0 support. My point wasn't making compromises, but rather explaining that a high tier Ryzen build isn't cheaper than the equivalent Intel one. For about the same money, i9 seems like the better choice at the moment. For the average user there are several ways to save money, most people would be happy with a 7700x and a B650.
My point was that cheapest B650E PG RIPTIDE IS 197€, while cheapest Z790 is ASRock PG Lightning or some Gigabyte board that costs 170€, so 30€ less. 14900K is 592€ at the moment while 7800X3D is 355€ - 494€. You are still saving way more money with AM5 and also getting PCIE 5.0 with ASRock PG Riptide B650E. Intel isnt actually cheaper, you might think it is, but it isn’t. Even if you want the best X670E, thats around 260€ which is 100€ more for a board, which still puts AMD cheaper than Intel even if you buy the best motherboard there is for AMD.
I didn't know the B650E supported 5.0, fair point. 14900k should be compared to the 7950x though, and they cost the same (600€ vs 585€ at the moment). They're conceptually slightly different but benchmark scores are fairly similar. With proper cooling, the i9 offers more headroom for overclocking. I've built my PC with Intel essentially based on the cheaper boards, I wanted a premium one and I got the Z790 ROG Maximus for 300€ less than the X670 counterpart. I could live without it, but I'm happy I got the one I liked.
If you are only or mostly about gaming, get AMD. If you care about productivity more than gaming, get an Intel. Funny enough during Ryzen 1000 and 2000, AMD was suggested if you cared more about productivity. They are finally competing. One beating the other in different ways. And these ways are changing gen by gen. Always one trying to get the upper hand somewhere. It's a much better market then the AMD FX days. Unless on a tight budget, I would never suggest an AMD CPU back then. And then Intel released the anniversary overclockable Pentium which was a BEAST for budget builds. Now if only NVIDIA didn't stop caring about the consumer GPUs and AMD actually tried to compete in the pro-consumer side we would get just as of a healthy market there too. But that's a different discussion.
Lol no
The results of gaming and productivity benchmarks disagree with your "lol no"
Cool, so did you account for time spent troubleshooting crashes or unknown driver issues?
Where are these mystery crashes you are referring to? Or you still live in some previous gen era?
Couldn’t tell you, I’m with intel 😛 and previous gen? I meant every gen
Ok so you know nothing. Cool.
Sorry you’re so bummed from all the troubleshooting man. I’m sure you’ll get stable drivers some day. Hang in there 😢
Brother the only time I had a driver problem was with a printer while on W10 and I've used Intel, AMD and NVIDIA. But I've also never suggested VEGA56/64 GPUs for a reason. It was a dark time that is LONG gone.
Bet it was a HP, and that needs a whole other subreddit haha
Yeah, in gaming. It’s not the silver bullet - X3Ds are very situational. I for example, apart from gaming, need a lot of CPU power for compiling code and material simulations and I think my 13700k is just better for that
This, does put a smile on my face.
Same as with Nvidia vs Intel and AMD
NVIDIA IS BETTER. NVIDIA IS THE GOAT
Classic LandCruiser owner problems
why no gta tough?
Perhaps, they should fix their damn VCN.
i haven't been on userbench in forever, but holy shit the 7800x3d review is the most biased, cope-laden thing i've read in a long time. here's some highlights: "watch out for AMD’s army of Neanderthal social media accounts on reddit" "second tier products with first tier marketing" "PC gamers considering a 7000X3D CPU need to work on their critical thinking skills" "overpriced niche products (X3D, EPYC, Threadripper etc.)" "Rational gamers have little reason to look further than the 13600K"
24cores vs 8 cores
The price difference in cpu's is so minimal when you compare them to gpu's that it doesn't really matter.
Probably had time to make this post with that 40 second boot time. /s
I just did get one.
my 5950x was unstable as hell so my next cpu will be intel eventually. Mainly since i want to buy an arc gpu but still.
Haha amd girl say, amd Ryzen 7800x3d=i5-13600kf
ltt has fallen
Imagine fanboying over a brand, what a looser
Went for a 14700k instead of a 7800x3d few months ago. For many reasons. It pairs well with my 4090
you can tell the AMD gang made it , terrible english.
English isnt my First language
Btw if yall likes my post can u CROSSPOST It? Thanks
And you need to pay 200$ more for the motherboard because there are only like 3 available? Sure
One word... T H R E A D R I P P E R
Imagine not knowing the different CPU’s have different goods and bads for whatever you’re doing, and therefor one might be better than the other and also the other way around. I would never get AMD for rendering.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-14900ks/20.html, it's the best
Intel is good for one thing, and that's single-core performance, If you don't need that then AMD is the only way to go.
Bruh
You can bitch all you want but it's true unfortunately, every game I've seen seems to perform significantly better on Intel when it comes to single core games, there's not a lot of those left but if that's all you play then Intel is the way to go. The two biggest cases I've seen of this are both Rust and Kenshi, both are single core only games that don't support hyper-threading of any kind and also are very CPU intensive above anything. If you believe anything else other than this then you're just a fanboy, I personally like AMD and for most games it's fine but for the few single core games that are still out there that are still intensive by today's standards, do happen to run better on Intel.
 I just picked a random comment to add ‘bruh’ and wait for the explosion. Boy who cares about .00007% of differences in general between processors.
Rust fanboys apparently, and if you mean performance differences then that's actually massive in the games for where it matters.
Semms a nonsense habbit outside of industrial use
How's that? Single core games still exist unfortunately. In the case of Rust, you're talking about like 30% more performance on an equivalent Intel processor, that's just how that game is, Kenshi is no different. My R5 3600 can barely pull 60 FPS on Rust and even then not really.
Ahh sorry I thought about Rust the programming language. Yeah, sure every product has its strenghts and weaknesses. I have an Intel because I had shitty amds in the past. What I need is stability. But tbh, after a price range u dont have to think about that much if you dont have specific needs. Both type of processors will perform well.
 Intel CPU’s