Serious issues deciding between 7900X and 7800X3D

SirLouen

n00b
Joined
Nov 11, 2023
Messages
26
I’m having serious issues deciding between these two CPUs for multiple reasons. I come from a 14-year PC socket 1366 that I’ve been renewing for all this time until there were bottlenecks just everywhere and now it’s so difficult to work with it, that I need to renew it ASAP. Likewise, I won’t expect another 14 years with a PC (at least the MoBo because all the other components have been switched, from CPU, to graphics card multiple times).

The situation is this:
  1. First, and probably most important, nowadays, I’m barely playing on PC, but I work on my personal PC from home as a computer scientist, and despite I’m not doing nowadays any heavy lifting on PC, last few days I’ve been trying to edit some videos I need for educational purpose, I’ve suffered seriously hard for the low performance of my current PC. This has been the final straw for me.
  2. Secondly, I don’t like the graphic cards' situation. I find that specially NVIDIA cards are expensive for the value they provide, so for this upgrade on my PC I’m planning to stay away for now and buy the cheapest 3060 possible and wait until I see a graphics card that fits real value for me. Given they launch new cards every two years, I expect that at the end of 2024 maybe the new 50×0 series give me more faith in the humanity. Furthermore, I must say that I won’t be using the card for gaming, most for working and productivity as many people call, so basically AMD cards cannot go into the equation (specially I saw the benchmarks and the 7800 and 7700XT don’t even go into the rankings, completely obliterated by all NVIDIA cards for these specific cards).
  3. Thirdly, I think that I will still be willing to play, but I plan to do it with the GeForce Now service ($100/6 mo.). I could be doing it right now with my crappy current PC, but just to say that gaming specs won’t be a concern, so in this case everything seems to say that 7900X in the right one, right?
  4. Lastly, I will not be investing in a nice and worthy card like 4070 right now because I will not take advantage of it. But my real concern is that I have faith that maybe in 2025, I will actually invest perhaps $600-700 in a card by the time. Which? Probably the 5070 or the 5070Ti of the time. And here is my main concern
The idea is not updating CPU for a long while. Most likely I would only buy the last AM5 CPU released, possibly by 2026 or even further, who knows. This is why now, if I choose between 7900X or 7800X3D it should last for 3–4 years without a hassle.

And where is the possible hassle? When in 2025 I go, buy lets say the 5070Ti and I find a bottleneck with the processor, either 7900X or 7800X3D or the two, for gaming

From the benchmarks I’ve been watching that gaming-wise, 7800X3D is FAR WAY superior to 7900X to the point that 7900X can actually bottleneck very hardly a graphics card like GTX4090. So I’m starting to believe, that MAYBE 7900Xwill bottleneck a future 5070Ti and I will be forced, not to only change the Graphic Card BUT ALSO, the CPU, will be a total failure spending now $400+ to change it in only 2 years.

On the other hand, 7800X3D seems way better in those gaming benchmarks, and it feels that if it doesn’t bottleneck a GTX4090 it will never bottleneck a future GTX5070Ti

But on a final note, I have to say that from other productivity benchmarks, 7800X3D seems to be so mediocre overall, specially compared to 7900X, like 20% worse on average, which is massive given that both cost almost the same. Like doing anything with Premiere Pro, compressing a file, fiddling with Blender, compiling software, just simply doing anything that involves a CPU high processing task.

TL:TR; (beware that maybe this is not enough for an educated answer)

Here I am: I prefer 7900X given that it’s better for my daily basis (productivity), but I know that in two years I would be buying a GPU (namely 5070Ti) for gaming and probably ditching GeForce Now subscription and fearing that the 7900X will bottleneck my system.

On the other side, I believe that MAYBE 7800X3D will not bottleneck the card, but it will be a little shitty on my daily basis because it’s not that great for productivity given his L3 cache nature

With all these constraints in place, what would you rather choose?
 
You barely game and you do a lot of multi-threaded productivity work... You answered your own question: 7900X is the way to go for you. Even if you were gaming a lot, the 7900X isn't "bottlenecking" anything; the additional cache on the 7800X3D just happens to dramatically benefit a lot of games. The performance offered by the top-tiered CPUs today is simply staggering.
 
7800X3D without a doubt. Even for your other non gaming use cases you should be fine.

You barely game and you do a lot of multi-threaded productivity work... You answered your own question: 7900X is the way to go for you. Even if you were gaming a lot, the 7900X isn't "bottlenecking" anything; the additional cache on the 7800X3D just happens to dramatically benefit a lot of games. The performance offered by the top-tiered CPUs today is simply staggering.
Interesting to read both comments because basically are the two thoughts that are fighting currently on my mind.

I'm going to try to answer myself my other concern, based on these two opposed ideas.

On one side I feel that I whatever I choose it will be right because probably 7800X3D is enough powerful CPU wise for most tasks, and for classic CPU intensive tasks, nowadays, most software already can switch to GPU (like some Video editing software for rendering)

On the other side, I saw this video, and it feels that the 7800X3D seriously underperforms in a ton of tasks (from 25 to 50% worse, except for Photoshop, which paradoxically I rarely ever use)


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAlyHZJAXwg

Then finally we see this video.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hizjgYh8WsM

And less than 100 FPS on Red Dead Redemption with a 4090Ti is a clear bottleneck, and obviously the 7900X is the cause. But also judging by this other video


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdCVbVJyuQk

RTX4070 cannot get to more than 70 FPS @ 4K, which 7900X can perfectly handle. Not even RTX4080 can go over 100fps. The same doesn't happen on Cyberpunk @4K where RTX4080 goes over the 70 FPS with ease, while 7900X can't barely manage to get to those 70 FPS, which means, that 7900X is also a bottleneck for GTX4080 in some games

Given the last generation changes, that barely have been able to improve the previous generation performance, I cannot predict if 5070 and 5070ti will be significantly better than 4070 or 4070ti. But all I can say, is that in case that NVIDIA returns to their good manners, GTX5070Ti will be equivalent, if not better than a current GTX4080, meaning that 7900X will ultimately be a bottleneck unfortunately :(

Conclusion

Now I have to choose

1. Or I decide to forget about local gaming forever (or at least high performance gaming), and I just stick to GeForce Now, I could go with the 7900X and the cheaper 3060 and just have a very good working computer that works great for that: pure performance at work, not a gaming PC my any means
2. I decide that local PC gaming should be a thing in my life from the time I get my new computer, ditch GeForce Now and go straight for the RTX4070 with the 7800X3D.
3. Or go with a Intel MoBo, that has best from the two worlds, but with socket 1700 which I don't seriously like compared to AM5 which looks much more future-proof in all senses.

I will probably throw a dice and let the destiny decide :confused:
 
If your productivity work is not time-sensitive enough for a 20% speedup to not instantaneously make you decide to go for it, why bother sweating about it?

The 7800x3d may be "not that great for productivity", but that's only compared to its current competition. Compared to what you have now, either option is going to be orders of magnitude better.
 
Last edited:
The guy was on a 1366 cpu socket. I doubt he will miss 20-60 seconds delta in processing times. However, he will definitely miss 15-20 fps delta by not going with a 7800X3D. Also given he is upgrading after ages and possibly wants to stick around with this PC for a while, it is better to YOLO it and build a gaming setup rather than a productivity one.
 
Ok, let me answer those questions
If your productivity work is not time-sensitive enough for a 20% speedup to not instantaneously make you decide to go for it, why bother sweating about it?
Judging by the benchmarks, it feels like the drop is significant, 30% on average. The truth is that I've been so disconnected from hardware improvements for the past years that I'm not aware of what that extra 30% exactly means.
I do a variety of tasks weekly with multiple software, because basically, I have to do a jack of all trades on my job

This implies having to edit with Premiere Pro, generally I have to have one virtual environment perma running (which nowadays is so slow that I can only use it sequentially I cannot multitask anymore). Also have some multicore tasks like a website auditor, compiling some APK now and then (kind of disgusting task because sometimes when the app grows, the app takes a good time to compile and I cannot care to optimize the compilation process. In fact I've been lately using my GF laptop a lot (significantly newer than my computer)

The guy was on a 1366 cpu socket. I doubt he will miss 20-60 seconds delta in processing times. However, he will definitely miss 15-20 fps delta by not going with a 7800X3D. Also given he is upgrading after ages and possibly wants to stick around with this PC for a while, it is better to YOLO it and build a gaming setup rather than a productivity one.
Be aware of two things.
1. I have a 6-core overclocked 4Ghz CPU Xeon X5675. It's not wonderful but it has proved to be great for a good time.
2. I have a RX580, which is not amazing, but has also done the job
I'm not stuck on a 10yr+ setup but its true that definitely is not even mid-end nowadays, barely lower end.

My productivity for the last 2 years, has gone absurdly under the floor. I have not written much more on the OP because I didnt want to do a book so noone would have liked to read such amount of background. But the thing is that as I say my productivity has been underflooring for a ton of time. And worst part is that I've been sitting on $2K I had set apart just for this purpose for all this time (almost 4-5 years now). You may think: Dude why you have not switched before. For some weird reason, the amount of stress and time that sucks from me a computer change has made me procrastinize on this topic for ages. But lately, it has become everything so extremely slow that it has been the final straw, I cannot pospone it anymore. Now if I see it with perspective I can't believe I've been holding for so much time, but now that I'm on the process, I remember why I've been holding. I hope this was not this stressful but this is what it is for me. I have bought a $30K car in an evening without even browsing any other brands, but I can't f***ng buy a $2K computer in no less than 1 week of reading the whole internet because it stresses the fk out of me. It's omega weird.

I won't probably (at first), note any differences either if I choose any of the two CPU because I don't have a good previous reference as you say. But knowing that maybe working with Premiere Pro for 4 hours and noting that it slows down regularly and is not snappy enough and thinking that maybe the 7900X would have sorted out this, will kill internally kill me after investing so much. On the bright side, maybe on 3 years I could consider upgrading CPU with another AM5 that may better match whatever situation I'm into.

Which productivity apps do you use?

This said, I'm also wondering what kind of productivity apps do all YouTubers and people I read on this another forums that could seriously be impacted by using a 7900X? Do you think is mere placebo? Or there are some specific apps that clearly take this massive advantage?
 
As I said you are looking at a minute here or there lost by going with a 7800X3D. But in gaming the fps loss would be felt much more.
Either way it is your decision. If I were you I would build something like below:
7800X3D
MSI Tomahawk X670E Wifi
32 or 64 GB DDR5 6000 CL 30 GSkill ram (either 16 X 2 or 32 X 2 configuration)
At least a Gen 4 SSD - something like a WD SN850X 2 TB or Samsung 980 Pro 2 TB or Corsair MP600 Pro/XT 2 TB or Kingston Fury Renegade 2 TB - each would cost about the same
RTX 4080 at least for future proofing given you don't upgrade often
Some 1000 W Gold or Platinum PSU

You can thank me later. :).
 
As I said you are looking at a minute here or there lost by going with a 7800X3D. But in gaming the fps loss would be felt much more.
Either way it is your decision. If I were you I would build something like below:
7800X3D
MSI Tomahawk X670E Wifi
32 or 64 GB DDR5 6000 CL 30 GSkill ram (either 16 X 2 or 32 X 2 configuration)
At least a Gen 4 SSD - something like a WD SN850X 2 TB or Samsung 980 Pro 2 TB or Corsair MP600 Pro/XT 2 TB or Kingston Fury Renegade 2 TB - each would cost about the same
RTX 4080 at least for future proofing given you don't upgrade often
Some 1000 W Gold or Platinum PSU

You can thank me later. :).
Did you saw my build? It's funny because it's almost exactly that ATM

1699810362900.png


I'm not going for 1000W because it seems to be a waste as already discussed here and I prefer to go for a top tier PSU, including 3.0 and Titanium Specs sacrificing a little bit of max output

For the cooler, I choose that because it appears to be popular everywhere, I have not studied if there is anything better, but I've seen a video where the 7800X3D literally explodes... so I fear I should go with something even better

And for the last part the card, I chose as I said in the OP, the 3060 at first because I'm not going to be using it right now, and from my experience if you are not using a Video Card from day one, you are wasting money like mad. So I prefer to fly low now, and think on a future upgrade maybe in two or 3 years (or maybe even never because I never step into gaming that seriously to need a new card).

But looking into performance charts, I've seen that ARC 770
1. Costs $50 less than 3060 in my place
2. Works as good as a 3060ti for games
3. Overperforms on rendering both 3060 and 3060ti and even 3080 for Adobe Premiere! which is definitely nuts given it's my main Video editing platform.

So basically, for now this is my final lineup, which seems almost identical to yours.

But I'm not going to lie to you, I'm still battling from inside because I don't feel that 7800X3D is the right decision, specially I discovered that they explode


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiTngvvD5dI
 
That explosion happens when you don't update bios. I loaded it up fine and bios update was 2 mins. Then my volts were below 1.3 and it has been fine since.
And yes you can wait for 4080 super to come out which is expected at 1000$ (200$ cheaper than current 4080).
As for PSU 750 watts is too less. At least an 850 watts is the right amount if you are going to install a powerful card later on.
 
As for PSU 750 watts is too less. At least an 850 watts is the right amount if you are going to install a powerful card later on.
The reality is that I don't have budget to spend on a X080+ series. I think I will never be able to go much beyond $700 and from the history of the video cards from the past til now, I know for sure that I will be fine even with a 600W PSU. So in this sense, is one of the few things I don't have any doubts. I would like to go for the same model but 850W PSU. But it happens also, that the 750W has a great offer and I'm purchasing a very high end PSU at a very low price which is great for now.

I have not seen your signature til now, but judging from it, it seems that you like to have much spare W just in case. 1300W is way too much for that setup, so I understand that you prefer to go 1000W than a little bit more thight on 750W as I proposed.

Also something super interesting I have not considered, is the AIO cooling system instead of just Air one. Now time to check that. I've never had an AIO system but they seem pretty amazing..

EDIT: After checking prices for some nice AIO options I've read n the forum, I have to conclude that I don't have budget for an AIO, so I will stick to the Air system, but I'm starting to think that maybe it wont fit the case.
 
Last edited:
The reality is that I don't have budget to spend on a X080+ series. I think I will never be able to go much beyond $700 and from the history of the video cards from the past til now, I know for sure that I will be fine even with a 600W PSU. So in this sense, is one of the few things I don't have any doubts. I would like to go for the same model but 850W PSU. But it happens also, that the 750W has a great offer and I'm purchasing a very high end PSU at a very low price which is great for now.

I have not seen your signature til now, but judging from it, it seems that you like to have much spare W just in case. 1300W is way too much for that setup, so I understand that you prefer to go 1000W than a little bit more thight on 750W as I proposed.

Also something super interesting I have not considered, is the AIO cooling system instead of just Air one. Now time to check that. I've never had an AIO system but they seem pretty amazing..

EDIT: After checking prices for some nice AIO options I've read n the forum, I have to conclude that I don't have budget for an AIO, so I will stick to the Air system, but I'm starting to think that maybe it wont fit the case.
The Thermalright Peerless Assassin is a great value air cooler that will handle it well (not sure about if it fits in your case...)
 
For your current needs, I would choose 7900x over 7800x3d.
Once you upgrade your GPU (your target is 2025):
1. Read the review of the new gen card and then look for the bottleneck test (usually Hardware Unboxed / Techspot provide those comparison)
2. You can then decide whether to stay with your 2 years old 7900x or upgrade to the newest ryzen 8000/9000 using your current board.
 
Ok, let me answer those questions

Judging by the benchmarks, it feels like the drop is significant, 30% on average. The truth is that I've been so disconnected from hardware improvements for the past years that I'm not aware of what that extra 30% exactly means.
I do a variety of tasks weekly with multiple software, because basically, I have to do a jack of all trades on my job

This implies having to edit with Premiere Pro, generally I have to have one virtual environment perma running (which nowadays is so slow that I can only use it sequentially I cannot multitask anymore). Also have some multicore tasks like a website auditor, compiling some APK now and then (kind of disgusting task because sometimes when the app grows, the app takes a good time to compile and I cannot care to optimize the compilation process. In fact I've been lately using my GF laptop a lot (significantly newer than my computer)


Be aware of two things.
1. I have a 6-core overclocked 4Ghz CPU Xeon X5675. It's not wonderful but it has proved to be great for a good time.
2. I have a RX580, which is not amazing, but has also done the job
I'm not stuck on a 10yr+ setup but its true that definitely is not even mid-end nowadays, barely lower end.

My productivity for the last 2 years, has gone absurdly under the floor. I have not written much more on the OP because I didnt want to do a book so noone would have liked to read such amount of background. But the thing is that as I say my productivity has been underflooring for a ton of time. And worst part is that I've been sitting on $2K I had set apart just for this purpose for all this time (almost 4-5 years now). You may think: Dude why you have not switched before. For some weird reason, the amount of stress and time that sucks from me a computer change has made me procrastinize on this topic for ages. But lately, it has become everything so extremely slow that it has been the final straw, I cannot pospone it anymore. Now if I see it with perspective I can't believe I've been holding for so much time, but now that I'm on the process, I remember why I've been holding. I hope this was not this stressful but this is what it is for me. I have bought a $30K car in an evening without even browsing any other brands, but I can't f***ng buy a $2K computer in no less than 1 week of reading the whole internet because it stresses the fk out of me. It's omega weird.

I won't probably (at first), note any differences either if I choose any of the two CPU because I don't have a good previous reference as you say. But knowing that maybe working with Premiere Pro for 4 hours and noting that it slows down regularly and is not snappy enough and thinking that maybe the 7900X would have sorted out this, will kill internally kill me after investing so much. On the bright side, maybe on 3 years I could consider upgrading CPU with another AM5 that may better match whatever situation I'm into.
Heh, the advantage of having waited so long is that you can buy much more computer power per buck today than two or even one year(s) ago.

One piece of information was added here that is rather critical, imo: you plan on multitasking.

I am happy to be corrected, but in this case I'd say go with the 7900x for the four extra cores, not forgetting to also add tons of memory. In fact, I'd worry more about the amount of memory than about the cpu.
 
For your current needs, I would choose 7900x over 7800x3d.
Once you upgrade your GPU (your target is 2025):
1. Read the review of the new gen card and then look for the bottleneck test (usually Hardware Unboxed / Techspot provide those comparison)
2. You can then decide whether to stay with your 2 years old 7900x or upgrade to the newest ryzen 8000/9000 using your current board.

Another point to remember is that you can get some of your money back off the 7900X by selling it if you choose to upgrade the CPU later. AM4 was very popular for this and it is expected AM5 will be as well. 7900X is not a slouch... somebody will still want it in a couple of years.
 
Another point to remember is that you can get some of your money back off the 7900X by selling it if you choose to upgrade the CPU later. AM4 was very popular for this and it is expected AM5 will be as well. 7900X is not a slouch... somebody will still want it in a couple of years.

I don't think that's much of a point in its favor. The 7800X3D would probably make even more money on resale because it's not IPC dependent for what it's good for. The 8000 (and maybe 9000) series Ryzen processors will probably one up the last gen enough on productivity workloads that they would be quite a bit less attractive... but the X3D models aren't quite as dependent on that, I would wager.

That said, OP I'm not sure why you would get the 7800X3D in your use case. Everything I am reading in this topic is, "I don't game much and I need to do all of this productivity stuff and crap". Fact is, if that's your goal and you're intending to stay on AMD so you can upgrade down the line... why even bother with either the 7800X3D or the 7900X? It seems like you could free up a lot of usable time if you just went for either the 7950X or the 7950X3D (if you want to sacrifice some productivity speed for gaming, and deal with some quirkiness). The latter performs about as well as the 7800X3D in games and also does productivity very quickly. It's also incredibly energy efficient and doesn't need much cooling capacity. If you're intending to stay on this for several years, why not invest in 4 more cores in the system? Buying a throwaway processor that you need to use for years just seems like a waste of time for you since the better options will clearly accelerate your workflow.

More to the point, do you live near Microcenter and what exactly IS your upgrade budget for this? There is still a bundle at Microcenter for the 7700X and 32GB RAM for pretty cheap. As in the total price is less than just a 7800X3D or a 7900X. If you can indeed shift your workflow over to the GPU, and the GPU would be much faster... maybe you could consider getting that bundle, then waiting a couple of months until the Super line from Nvidia, and then buying one of those GPUs for the actual work you need to do, and shift your processes over to GPU? Assuming that it's a lot faster, anyway.

There are a lot of options here, but your current path is basically halfassing your CPU on both productivity and gaming fronts, and then spending $250-300 on a 3060 that is clearly not good enough, and you don't intend to keep using regardless. I think you should just go for a 7950X3D and ditch the 3060. Afterwards, work your way up to a GPU upgrade that actually makes sense to you. If you need a GPU in general in the mean time, maybe consider just picking up something hella cheap off Ebay that would suffice until the 5000 series comes out.

You can also consider Intel, but you won't have an upgrade path that doesn't involve replacing a motherboard and they require beefy coolers. But the 14900KF (/13900KS/F) is a decent gamer in its own right... though not as good as the 7800/7950X3D. Their productivity is also great, but they need good cases and coolers. You can't half ass it.
 
Last edited:
I hate this thread so much. The OP question was so open ended as to encourage a series of opinion advice posts that added to the bleakness. Absolutely the most draining t[H]read I have read to date.
That said I would like to help out, but atm can't figure out how to do so.
 
Last edited:
I hate this thread so much. The OP question was so open ended as to encourage a series of opinion advice posts that added to the bleakness. Absolutely the most draining t[H]read I have read to date.
That said I would like to help out, but atm can't figure out how to do so.

I would say the OP's question actually isn't that open ended.

The idea is not updating CPU for a long while. Most likely I would only buy the last AM5 CPU released, possibly by 2026 or even further, who knows. This is why now, if I choose between 7900X or 7800X3D it should last for 3–4 years without a hassle.

First, and probably most important, nowadays, I’m barely playing on PC, but I work on my personal PC from home as a computer scientist, and despite I’m not doing nowadays any heavy lifting on PC, last few days I’ve been trying to edit some videos I need for educational purpose, I’ve suffered seriously hard for the low performance of my current PC. This has been the final straw for me.

Like, these two points make it pretty clear that if the choice is solely between the 7900X or 7800X3D, they would probably overall value the performance of the 7900X much more given their use case, especially for the near future. The problem is that they then keep floundering on how much the gaming performance actually matters to them (despite clearly stating that they don't game much and possibly don't plan to) and factors into how much they would regret the purchase later. The opening post and its headline made it pretty clear that he needed productivity. The following posts (and somewhere in the wall of text of the opening post's last few paragraphs) called that into question.

Hence... I just outright told them that if the actual importance of both gaming and workstation performance is 50/50 rather than the way they made it initially seem, they're pretty much not going to be satisfied with anything but a 7950X3D. If they want and need the best of both worlds, that's the only current processor that will take them there. The price tag sucks, and they're going to have to ditch the 3060 idea, but I think it might be worth it long term. The cold hard truth hurts, but that's what they need. Either pay up or compromise in one of the two areas. That's AM5 at the moment.

Intel is a bit more balanced in that regard, but you pay for it in other ways (expensive coolers, lacking any upgrade path).
 
Last edited:
I would say the OP's question actually isn't that open ended.





Like, these two points make it pretty clear that if the choice is solely between the 7900X or 7800X3D, they would probably overall value the performance of the 7900X much more given their use case, especially for the near future. The problem is that they then keep floundering on how much the gaming performance actually matters to them (despite clearly stating that they don't game much and possibly don't plan to) and factors into how much they would regret the purchase later. The opening post and its headline made it pretty clear that he needed productivity. The following posts (and somewhere in the wall of text of the opening post's last few paragraphs) called that into question.

Hence... I just outright told them that if the actual importance of both gaming and workstation performance is 50/50 rather than the way they made it initially seem, they're pretty much not going to be satisfied with anything but a 7950X3D. If they want and need the best of both worlds, that's the only current processor that will take them there. The price tag sucks, and they're going to have to ditch the 3060 idea, but I think it might be worth it long term. The cold hard truth hurts, but that's what they need. Either pay up or compromise in one of the two areas. That's AM5 at the moment.

Intel is a bit more balanced in that regard, but you pay for it in other ways (expensive coolers, lacking any upgrade path).
I am happy to be corrected, but in this case I'd say go with the 7900x for the four extra cores, not forgetting to also add tons of memory. In fact, I'd worry more about the amount of memory than about the cpu.

These are the exact conclusions I've gotten so far.

The thing is, as KickAssCop has suggested, I'm significantly concerned that "productivity" apps do not take much advantage really from multicore because all the heavy lifting (which generally is encoding and generation), is nowadays done by the GPU in most applications. So basically, after doing a ton of research, I've found that 7900X is excessively niche, as he said again, will be a matter of a couple of extra minutes for some applications, in exchange for almost negating any form of future gaming (given that the gaming performance between 7800X3D and 7900X is a chasm).

So at this point I'm pretty convinced that the 7800X3D is the way to go here. 7950X3D could be an option but the price tag is not worth (at least where I leave it's more than a 70% expensive and there is, by no means, a 70% increase in performance compared to the 7800X3D in any regard). And I'm also trying to balance the performance for the buck.

About the memory, for now, I will be going with a total of 64GB with the G.Skill Trident Z5 6000 that seem reasonable and seem to fit the box I have selected (according to a guy that mounted the PC and showed his photos). If I see that it underperforms and the memory is always topping I will get another two units for a total of 128 GB.

I hate this thread so much. The OP question was so open ended as to encourage a series of opinion advice posts that added to the bleakness. Absolutely the most draining t[H]read I have read to date.
That said I would like to help out, but atm can't figure out how to do so.
Yep, that is going into my mind. I also hate my mind when it brings me to these strange crossroads, also having to game and work from the workstation (where somewhat fortunately I don't game that much lately because I don't really have time, but I would if I could).

Also, I've gained a ton of experience with all the builds I've done in the past. What I should do and avoid, and one of the best conclusions I got was, that GPU should be bought as soon as you need them. Last build I did, I bought a $30 graphics card at the start, because I knew I wasn't playing at all for a long while (I have periods of hardcore gaming and no-gaming at all). In fact, this morning I found a RX580 at $40 on Aliexpress, and I was about to buy it just to fulfill this temporary lack of necessity for GPU, but it ended out of stock before I could get it.
 
So at this point I'm pretty convinced that the 7800X3D is the way to go here. 7950X3D could be an option but the price tag is not worth (at least where I leave it's more than a 70% expensive and there is, by no means, a 70% increase in performance compared to the 7800X3D in any regard). And I'm also trying to balance the performance for the buck.

What?

View: https://youtu.be/78lp1TGFvKc?t=251

View: https://youtu.be/B31PwSpClk8?t=1168
It depends on what you're doing, but it's more like the difference can be much bigger than 70%. It's closer to 100%. The 7950X3D can also offload processes to a higher clocked set of cores for single workload acceleration. Although if you just want single core performance, Intel probably beats AMD here anyway?

You need to stop floundering around with hypothetical stuff and just look up some benchmarks of all of the tools you might ACTUALLY use, and compare them across the two/three processors. I'm going to tell you right now that nothing will fulfill both of your goals as well as the 7950X3D. Full stop. If you think the 7800X3D is "good enough", then that's a decision you can make. But if you're doing this for a living or as an important hobby, then cascade a few extra minutes of processing time per workload... across possibly years of work. Is it worth it? And if you're aiming to do fully GPU accelerated workloads instead, I think you should consider cheaping out on the processor even further so you can instead invest more in the GPU. Otherwise what you're doing right now is just:

1. Buying the best pure gaming CPU out right now... while intending to mostly use it for productivity tasks.
2. Wasting money on a 3060 that probably wouldn't be bottlenecked by basically anything that's out right now... to pair with that CPU that's meant to be paired with a 4090 or nearby.
3. Ditching the 3060 when the 5000 series comes out... getting probably nothing in the way of resale.
4. Upgrading to the 5k series which will finally use the 7800X3D... like 1.5 years later... but it could have used the 7950X3D just as well.

This kind of seems nonsensical to me, but it's your move.
 
You need to stop floundering around with hypothetical stuff and just look up some benchmarks of all of the tools you might ACTUALLY use,
I already knew of the presence of these benchmarks and much more that these guys are not even considering, like live previews performance.

I have to agree to disagree here. They are not taking into consideration, that most of these "productivity" benchmarks are done solely, with the foundation of using only the CPU for the task. In the case of Blender Rendering and Premiere Encoding, both tasks can be done way better with a 7900X than with a 7800X3D. But as I've said in the previous post, GPU is used for most of these tasks nowadays with a zillion better performance than the CPU processing [1][2]. Funny enough, Photoshop better performs with 7800X3D because the L3 gimmick has been always proven to be efficient with image processing. Same happens with modeling in software like Sketchup, Blender and AutoCAD, L3 gimmick is beneficial.

Processing anything with CPU nowadays is like going 15 years ago in the past for 95% of the productivity tasks. Nowadays, CPU should be only meant (on a home or workstation) to not bottleneck a GPU (and bottlenecks come in a various of forms, not only frequency). I've been looking for the whole weekend for CPU-only productivity applications that were worthy a mention, but I have found none. I have written a full analysis in this regard by now. Tell me if you disagree with this, and I will not ask you to provide facts because I understand that this is very time-consuming, but I'm ok if you disagree. You have to consider that I've been doing my due diligence in this regard, so now I'm not in the same clueless position as in the first message.

As I said before, the only concern I had, is that they literally explode and I did not want to pay $250+ for a cooling system (otherwise I would rather go for a X7950 for that price). I understand that many people like water cooling systems because they are very silent, but I fortunately I don't need silence. But I fear it will literally explode with my air cooling system, although KickAssCop told me that it's solved with a BIOS upgrade (still maybe a future BIOS thing could make them explode again :eek:, the exploding nature is still there, latent). Also, I've observed in every single game benchmark that they are 20ºC on average compared to any other CPU. This is the only fact where I see the 7800X3D a serious threat.

[1] https://www.pugetsystems.com/solutions/3d-design-workstations/blender/hardware-recommendations/#:~:text=How does Blender utilize the,can still provide increased performance.
How does Blender utilize the CPU? The processor, or CPU, is one of the most important pieces of a Blender workstation. The CPU handles tasks such as modeling, animation, physics simulations, and rendering. While GPU rendering is significantly faster in Blender, the CPU can still provide increased performance.
[2] https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/gpu-acceleration-and-hardware-encoding.html
 
GPU is used for most of these tasks nowadays with a zillion better performance than the CPU processing [1][2].

First of all, the Blender article you're quoting even recommends a Threadripper depending on what you're doing in it.

Do more CPU cores make Blender faster?​

More cores will speed up some actions such as rendering and fluid simulations, so if those tasks take up a lot of your time then maxing out the number of cores you can afford would be ideal. Additional cores will not speed up modeling and animation, though, as those are single- or lightly-threaded.

Note that 7950X3D would also be faster for single or lightly threaded things since, again, it can clock a subset of cores higher. I'm sure you've been doing your research, but to prove what you're trying to prove you would need to be 100% sure that for all workflows you intend, they're essentially all lacking parallelism. Because the 7950X3D will complete any multithreaded workload about twice as fast as the 7800X3D.

Second, if you're doing encoding, consider that the 4000 series also has twice the encoders of 3000 series, when getting up to the 4070 Ti and over:
https://developer.nvidia.com/video-encode-and-decode-gpu-support-matrix-new
This link is on the adobe page you're quoting. Hence, waiting for the 4070 Super (supposing it has 2 encoders), might be to your benefit, even if you hate the current Nvidia pricing. Note, also, that Nvidia supply tends to be a crapshow for a while... we don't know how the 5000 series is going to pan out, supply wise.

If you're going to be doing more GPU-accelerated stuff and you ARE 100% sure that everything you're doing can be GPU-accelerated instead... then point number 2 in the post you're quoting applies. That is, consider a worse CPU and better GPU. You're getting a CPU that you're not going to be using to full potential for at least 1.5 years with a GPU that doesn't need it. Instead, you could consider a CPU that's rightsized for the GPU you're getting, and get a better GPU instead. It might lose some frames, but it's not like you're getting a 4090 and then playing at 1080p or something. We also don't know much about whether the next gen 5070/Ti will be as good as a 4090 anyway, which is what basically all of those bottlenecking videos are using as a basis (and some at 1080p, which is also asinine; 1440p minimum tbh).

Either way, what you're choosing right now is not quite the best use of your money, imo. You're investing a lot of money into a meh CPU and GPU for productivity for some supposed payoff ~1.5 years down the line... and the GPU money is basically going to be wasted. The 7950X3D is the better future facing option, and a 7600 or 7700(X) with a 4070 Super is a better option for 1.5 years worth. I've written a wall of text on it myself, so I think that's about it. If you agree to disagree with this, it is what it is. I appreciate you not getting aggressively defensive like a lot of people would, props to that.
 
Last edited:
Skip the X3D processors, they do not carry their weight when you include the lower thermal limits which reduce clocks ultimitely. Jayzee came to the same conclusion. I went 7950X due to the likelihood the extra clock headroom and additional cores will increase its' relevant life in my system...
 
If you're going to be doing more GPU-accelerated stuff and you ARE 100% sure that everything you're doing can be GPU-accelerated instead... then point number 2 in the post you're quoting applies. That is, consider a worse CPU and better GPU. You're getting a CPU that you're not going to be using to full potential for at least 1.5 years with a GPU that doesn't need it. Instead, you could consider a CPU that's rightsized for the GPU you're getting, and get a better GPU instead. It might lose some frames, but it's not like you're getting a 4090 and then playing at 1080p or something. We also don't know much about whether the next gen 5070/Ti will be as good as a 4090 anyway, which is what basically all of those bottlenecking videos are using as a basis (and some at 1080p, which is also asinine; 1440p minimum tbh).
This is a good argument, but I don't understand the point. Remember that I will be picking an 3060 or a A770 probably, both way more powerful options than the processing power of any CPU right now (for heavy lifting tasks, like we have been commenting as like you say here:

You're getting a CPU that you're not going to be using to full potential for at least 1.5 years with a GPU that doesn't need it

So I don't understand why you maintain that 7950X3D is a better option future-proof-wise. You are spending a ton of money and it doesn't matter if I get a 3060 or a 4070Ti, it will perform the same when GPU tasks are involved. There is almost no single scenario where that CPU will be shinning.

On the other hand, you have raised a very interesting thing that I've also been thinking about: Going for 7700X instead of 7800X3D and saving money. This makes a lot more sense for me because, unfortunately, all benchmarks I've seen, as you have also noted, are testing with a RTX4090 in the background, so even a hypothetical future 5070Ti, will probably not even compare to that card. But for this matter, we must do this through inference.

First we can establish the baseline for Benchmark using 2160p games, for example Cyberpunk 2077
Here we can see benchmarks for 3070, 3070 Ti and 3080 on a i9 10900K (unluckily most benchmarks revolve around Intel CPUs).

Anyway, if you compare all 10900K, 12900K, 13900K, the differences are negligible with the same card (RTX4090), so essentially all I can see is that the idea that AMD brought down to the table with X3D is not bad at all given the fact that GPU is capping the CPU market

Finally, if we keep inferring:
3080 vs 3090Ti with 12900K behind

7800X3D vs 7900X with 3090Ti behind

7800X3D vs 7950X3D, with negligible differences for the massive difference of price


We get down to a point: X3D does a thing here, but to an extent where it seems to start stalling after 7800X3D for some reason

So basically, you find that for at least 2 years, there will not be a single bottleneck for any extra card update on my side with such CPU, while also saving almost $100, which you suggest I could, instead of going for a $300 card, opt for a better card ($400?). But there are no significantly better $400 cards unfortunately, I have only considered the GTX3060Ti as an alternative because any of the ATI despite they are massive on games, they are really bad for productivity purpose, which is my main interest ATM. And opting for a GTX4070 is not the $100 extra I'm saving on the CPU, but a grand $300 extra, which is too much ATM also :(

So the conclusion here for me is: If I go with a 7700X now, I will be hard-capped in the future, according to what it has been inferred above.

Skip the X3D processors, they do not carry their weight when you include the lower thermal limits which reduce clocks ultimitely. Jayzee came to the same conclusion. I went 7950X due to the likelihood the extra clock headroom and additional cores will increase its' relevant life in my system...
Sorry, I don't really get this. Do you mean like temp capping for some reason? Can you, please, put me an example of this, when and why should I be including some lower thermal limits? I remember back in the day I did some underclocking, but so far, away that I can't remember why.

Who is Jayzee BTW?
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I don't really get this. Do you mean like temp capping for some reason? Can you, please, put me an example of this, when and why should I be including some lower thermal limits? I remember back in the day I did some underclocking, but so far, away that I can't remember why.

Who is Jayzee BTW?

View: https://youtu.be/JZGiBOZkI5w?si=RUpAlcyO35k0tBAt
Ignore the fact that he is switching to an Intel CPU, he addresses the issues he experienced with his 7950X3D, in other words the shortcoming of the chip design he encountered, and basically expressed the thought he would have been better off with the 7950X from the start. The X3D chips have a lower heat threshold (TDP) due to the stacked cashe and will keep the clocks down to accommodate that lower TDP, obviously load dependent but more often than not kept the clock suppressed. There are other issues where games select the non-X3D CCD (which will slow them down), or the game/OS will switch between the two CCDs causing stutter.
 
Last edited:

View: https://youtu.be/JZGiBOZkI5w?si=RUpAlcyO35k0tBAt
Ignore the fact that he is switching to an Intel CPU, he addresses the issues he experienced with his 7950X3D, in other words the shortcoming of the chip design he encountered, and basically expressed the thought he would have been better off with the 7950X from the start. The X3D chips have a lower heat threshold (TDP) due to the stacked cashe and will keep the clocks down to accommodate that lower TDP, obviously load dependent but more often than not kept the clock suppressed. There are other issues where games select the non-X3D CCD (which will slow them down), or the game/OS will switch between the two CCDs causing stutter.

Thanks for the video, I always like to see more points of view on different aspects

I have not gone yet into the "overall overclocking" part (RAM, GPU, CPU, whatever), so I'm completely unaware ATM of which are the current RAM stock frequencies, etc. I see that 99% of the people are choosing 6K MT/s memories, but I did not know that it was 4.8K stock on BIOS. Good to know this.

I was reading through the comments as well and maybe ASUS (which was his MoBo), was the real issue here of his frustration

1699890912149.png


I'm currently looking into the MSI Tomahawk which happens to have a massive offer right now where I live + it seems to be the one that KickAssCop bought (wondering his experience also with memory overclocking, training and all that stuff).

After watching the JayzTwoCents video, all I can conclude is that he is can't see the forest for the trees. I've seen many other videos where they benchmark multiple RAM and that, and changes in OC of memories are barely noticeable. I find that the 7800X3D is one of those few CPUs that should be run stock with a nice MoBo and happy to go. There was a time in the past when I loved OC'ing and all that stuff, but seriously, I cannot care anymore, and I don't have time to deal with issues for such minor improvements.

It's true that JayzTwoCents covers a lot of other important stuff, like the fact that X3D is a new technology that like first AMD TR, aims to create a leap in the market, probably with many flaws, like he suggested while playing Indie games and the liking (who cares about FPS, graphics and such when playing Indie games BTW? All the problems in the PC Master Race come exclusively because of this friking AAA industries, pushing the limit forward of the machines over and over again, while trying to render machines old in no time). So I don't really get the point of JayzTwoCents

These other guy addresses, more reasonably from my standpoint, this issues to the "Silicon lottery", recommending that ASUS clearly says that limits are around 5200.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kX4kGi77KA&t=247s

I can clearly see & conclude that there is no point of moving into the OC line here. Whatever the setup I decide to ultimately buy, I will buy the cheapest $200 G.Skill RAM (I always had G.Skill for the past 20 years, not sure why) for the 2×32 GB I need, and I won't even care about EXPO or whatever thing AMD has pulled out of the hat in the past few years.
 
I’m having serious issues deciding between these two CPUs for multiple reasons. I come from a 14-year PC socket 1366 that I’ve been renewing for all this time until there were bottlenecks just everywhere and now it’s so difficult to work with it, that I need to renew it ASAP. Likewise, I won’t expect another 14 years with a PC (at least the MoBo because all the other components have been switched, from CPU, to graphics card multiple times).

The situation is this:
  1. First, and probably most important, nowadays, I’m barely playing on PC, but I work on my personal PC from home as a computer scientist, and despite I’m not doing nowadays any heavy lifting on PC, last few days I’ve been trying to edit some videos I need for educational purpose, I’ve suffered seriously hard for the low performance of my current PC. This has been the final straw for me.
  2. Secondly, I don’t like the graphic cards' situation. I find that specially NVIDIA cards are expensive for the value they provide, so for this upgrade on my PC I’m planning to stay away for now and buy the cheapest 3060 possible and wait until I see a graphics card that fits real value for me. Given they launch new cards every two years, I expect that at the end of 2024 maybe the new 50×0 series give me more faith in the humanity. Furthermore, I must say that I won’t be using the card for gaming, most for working and productivity as many people call, so basically AMD cards cannot go into the equation (specially I saw the benchmarks and the 7800 and 7700XT don’t even go into the rankings, completely obliterated by all NVIDIA cards for these specific cards).
  3. Thirdly, I think that I will still be willing to play, but I plan to do it with the GeForce Now service ($100/6 mo.). I could be doing it right now with my crappy current PC, but just to say that gaming specs won’t be a concern, so in this case everything seems to say that 7900X in the right one, right?
  4. Lastly, I will not be investing in a nice and worthy card like 4070 right now because I will not take advantage of it. But my real concern is that I have faith that maybe in 2025, I will actually invest perhaps $600-700 in a card by the time. Which? Probably the 5070 or the 5070Ti of the time. And here is my main concern
The idea is not updating CPU for a long while. Most likely I would only buy the last AM5 CPU released, possibly by 2026 or even further, who knows. This is why now, if I choose between 7900X or 7800X3D it should last for 3–4 years without a hassle.

And where is the possible hassle? When in 2025 I go, buy lets say the 5070Ti and I find a bottleneck with the processor, either 7900X or 7800X3D or the two, for gaming

From the benchmarks I’ve been watching that gaming-wise, 7800X3D is FAR WAY superior to 7900X to the point that 7900X can actually bottleneck very hardly a graphics card like GTX4090. So I’m starting to believe, that MAYBE 7900Xwill bottleneck a future 5070Ti and I will be forced, not to only change the Graphic Card BUT ALSO, the CPU, will be a total failure spending now $400+ to change it in only 2 years.

On the other hand, 7800X3D seems way better in those gaming benchmarks, and it feels that if it doesn’t bottleneck a GTX4090 it will never bottleneck a future GTX5070Ti

But on a final note, I have to say that from other productivity benchmarks, 7800X3D seems to be so mediocre overall, specially compared to 7900X, like 20% worse on average, which is massive given that both cost almost the same. Like doing anything with Premiere Pro, compressing a file, fiddling with Blender, compiling software, just simply doing anything that involves a CPU high processing task.

TL:TR; (beware that maybe this is not enough for an educated answer)

Here I am: I prefer 7900X given that it’s better for my daily basis (productivity), but I know that in two years I would be buying a GPU (namely 5070Ti) for gaming and probably ditching GeForce Now subscription and fearing that the 7900X will bottleneck my system.

On the other side, I believe that MAYBE 7800X3D will not bottleneck the card, but it will be a little shitty on my daily basis because it’s not that great for productivity given his L3 cache nature

With all these constraints in place, what would you rather choose?
You don't game much right now. And your GPU is on the lower end, an RTX 3060.

You do some computer science work, but do not specifiy exactly what kind of work, or if it would really benefit from a lot of cores.

It sounds like you rarely edit video. But, are doing some editing, right now. Video editing timelines are mostly dependant upon single thread IPC and/or video codec decode acceleration, via GPU. Extra cores can help, sort of. But mostly the extra cores come into play for exporting/rendering the final video. And even that should usually be done on the GPU, anyway.

You also say you want to upgrade to Zen 5 or 6, in a couple of years.


So right now, I think you should buy a Ryzen 7600 or 7700. They will game as well as a 13600k. Which is way more than enough for an RTX 3060. You would be GPU limited in all gaming scenarios, with a 3060 and one of those CPUs. Not CPU limited.
And be totally fine for video editing. And should be fine for a lot of "work", unless it specifically needs a lot of cores. if you need a lot of cores, get a 7900 non-X.

And then someday, if you start gaming a lot AND get a better GPU, you can buy the latest X3D CPU,.
 
You also say you want to upgrade to Zen 5 or 6, in a couple of years.
First thanks for the analysis

Secondly there are some things that maybe I've expressed wrongly. I will not probably upgrade CPU until I see that it's clearly flawed or limited. For ideal will be the exact last CPU that will be released for AM5 in the future and no more

Finally, the card is going to be renewed at some point 100% for sure. Given my budget and economy, I don't think it will never surpass the X070 or 70Ti models, maybe 5070Ti or maybe not, who knows, but I don't want to close that door by limiting anything. Yes, as I've said above 7700X was on the mix and I will probably end throwing a dice between 7800X3D and 7700X which are the two main candidates right now
 
First thanks for the analysis

Secondly there are some things that maybe I've expressed wrongly. I will not probably upgrade CPU until I see that it's clearly flawed or limited. For ideal will be the exact last CPU that will be released for AM5 in the future and no more

Finally, the card is going to be renewed at some point 100% for sure. Given my budget and economy, I don't think it will never surpass the X070 or 70Ti models, maybe 5070Ti or maybe not, who knows, but I don't want to close that door by limiting anything. Yes, as I've said above 7700X was on the mix and I will probably end throwing a dice between 7800X3D and 7700X which are the two main candidates right now
If you can wait a few months, Zen 5 should be out in January or February. Personally, I would wait for that and buy an 8700x or whatever it will be called. It will give you a better balance of CPU computing power, and should also be more/less equivalent (or better) to 7800x3D in gaming. Zen 5 is supposed to be a large improvement over Zen 4.
 
If you can wait a few months, Zen 5 should be out in January or February. Personally, I would wait for that and buy an 8700x or whatever it will be called. It will give you a better balance of CPU computing power, and should also be more/less equivalent (or better) to 7800x3D in gaming. Zen 5 is supposed to be a large improvement over Zen 4.
After spending like a ton of hours on researching I'm already on the boat. If I had dedicated my time invoicing all the time I have dedicated I would probably have right now the money for a second setup from scratch :confused:
So I'm moving on with whatever the dice decided. I think it has been fruitful the whole discussion by now.

The last part I'm missing to close the setup are the case fans (y)
 
I can clearly see & conclude that there is no point of moving into the OC line here. Whatever the setup I decide to ultimately buy, I will buy the cheapest $200 G.Skill RAM (I always had G.Skill for the past 20 years, not sure why) for the 2×32 GB I need, and I won't even care about EXPO or whatever thing AMD has pulled out of the hat in the past few years.
You don't need to OC the processors any more, they do it themselves, I just PBO undervolted slightly to run cooler. The memory controller running at 6000 is the sweet spot for Ryzen 9, I may have lucked out with single rank at 2x16GB with my kits, but the system is running pretty awesome actually. I chose the ASUS X670E-E for the additional power stage headroom. As always, YMMV...
 
You don't need to OC the processors any more, they do it themselves, I just PBO undervolted slightly to run cooler. The memory controller running at 6000 is the sweet spot for Ryzen 9, I may have lucked out with single rank at 2x16GB with my kits, but the system is running pretty awesome actually. I chose the ASUS X670E-E for the additional power stage headroom. As always, YMMV...
I will consider this by the time it gets, thanks for the ideas.
 

I'm just going to point out that I said "7600-7700(X)", not that you should just straight jump to a 7700X (which you immediately started talking about). A 7600 is about $180 cheaper than a 7800X3D at current prices. A 3060 is around 250-320 dollars. A 4070 Super is rumored to retail around 600 dollars. I consider within around 100-170$ to basically be ”within spitting distance" (considering you never actually set any explicit budget...), though you're free to (and probably will) disagree.

That's about it. As I said, I've said my piece so I'm not going to sit here and try to convince you on any other front by making any new arguments... Was just kind of confused by where you went with that (well I'm confused with a lot of things but...)...
 
if you have concern that the CPU will bottleneck in gaming just buy a 4k monitor
 
If you are coming from a 1366 system, the 7800X3D will blow your mind. I came from an X99 i7-5960X which is already 8 cores at 4.2Ghz, DDR4 and NVMe and I can't believe the difference going from that to the 7800X3D.

The upgrade was pending wife approval and I really wanted a 4090. Getting a 7800X3D to cut back on cost seemed like a no brainer. Also, this is a new platform so there is always the possibility of upgrading to a new CPU later.
 
I'm just going to point out that I said "7600-7700(X)", not that you should just straight jump to a 7700X (which you immediately started talking about). A 7600 is about $180 cheaper than a 7800X3D at current prices. A 3060 is around 250-320 dollars. A 4070 Super is rumored to retail around 600 dollars. I consider within around 100-170$ to basically be ”within spitting distance" (considering you never actually set any explicit budget...), though you're free to (and probably will) disagree.

That's about it. As I said, I've said my piece so I'm not going to sit here and try to convince you on any other front by making any new arguments... Was just kind of confused by where you went with that (well I'm confused with a lot of things but...)...
As I told you, I was about to throw a dice which any of the two (7700X and 7800X3D and pick the best deal).
Finally I got the 7700X for $190 on a Pre Black Friday deal. I think it's much better deal than going under on 7700, 7600X or 7600.
As expected, I was monitoring all the best deals from all ecommerce and wanted to evaluate which were the best CPU at the best prices. But at $190 7700X is no rival for a $380 7800X3D :p

Now same for the GPU, I'm considering between a ARC 770, 3060, 3060 Ti, 4060 or 4060 Ti, the cheaper wins :p I'm not playing with AMD because for rendering it's seriously bad compared to all those according to benchmarks
 
I have a 7900X and a 4080. Really it doesn't matter. Get what you want. My 7900X and 4080 gives me 120fps on my LG C2 and that is all I really care about. Production work that I do is totally fine.

You are pinching pennies even discussing this.
 
I have a 7900X and a 4080. Really it doesn't matter. Get what you want. My 7900X and 4080 gives me 120fps on my LG C2 and that is all I really care about. Production work that I do is totally fine.

You are pinching pennies even discussing this.

Yep.
 
Back
Top