Who else is waiting on Zen 4 x3D before upgrading?

I bought a 5950X a few years back for gaming AND productivity. This thing absolutely tears through games at 4K and when I am working on multiple VMs or running other tasks for work, this PC doesn't break a sweat. Everyone getting worked up over 1080p benchmarks like 2005 is calling for it's monitor back... lol.

Whether or not the 7950X3D and 7900X3D perform well for both type of tasks will likely be up to Windows Scheduler and AMD's drivers (yikes?)... we will all find out soon enough. TBH, I will be skipping this generation as my 5950X should hold out just fine at 4K gaming until next generation I believe. Then I'll see if AMD or Intel is better and go whatever route makes sense.
 
You build a PC based on what you are going to use it for. What is your definition of "productivity"? My definition of productivity is writing a memo/letter in Word or building the occasional Excel spreadsheet/PowerPoint presentation and browsing websites. To be honest, my old overclocked Q6600 from a 2007 build that I was using up until last year ripped through these applications with ease. For others, productivity may mean professional image and video editing, 3D model rendering, simulation, machine learning, game development, playing high-resolution files, etc. If you game and do any of those aforementioned tasks, sure, the 13900k is the logical choice if you have the cash. If you're a gamer occasionally using Microsoft Office products, watches YouTube videos and browses the net, you do not need a 13900k and the 5-15% gain in speed in some games does not justify paying $220+ more for a CPU - right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
PilotKD said:
You build a PC based on what you are going to use it for. What is your definition of "productivity"? My definition of productivity is writing a memo/letter in Word or building the occasional Excel spreadsheet/PowerPoint presentation and browsing websites. To be honest, my old overclocked Q6600 from a 2007 build that I was using up until last year ripped through these applications with ease. For others, productivity may mean professional image and video editing, 3D model rendering, simulation, machine learning, game development, playing high-resolution files, etc. If you game and do any of those aforementioned tasks, sure, the 13900k is the logical choice if you have the cash. If you're a gamer occasionally using Microsoft Office products, watches YouTube videos and browses the net, you do not need a 13900k and the 5-15% gain in speed in some games does not justify paying $220+ more for a CPU - right now.
Click to expand...
I would add most 5800 X3D's bought were for an upgrade and not a whole new system update -> huge price difference between the 5800 X3D and a 13900K.
 
Sure some people will base their choice on a 10-15 percent edge but for myself personally 4 years of guaranteed socket support is way more important. Computers are not throw aways like the old days.
 
It also seems like GPUs are increasing in performance much faster than CPUs that now we are running into more CPU bottlenecks as seen by the 4090. The days of upgrading CPU every 5 years may no longer be the case going forward. We will have to wait and see once the 7000x3d chips come out to see how much 7900xtx or 4090 are being held back by the 7700x at different resolutions. All this to say is that more likely you will want to upgrade CPU along with GPU with the next GPU purchase.
 
The 4090 is a one off freak. Niche.. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on it and draw direct conclusions from it. I'd temper cpu/gpu expectations with the market as a whole. Sometimes being part of the HardOCP microcosim can skew perception. Just because there is better hardware out there doesn't mean people will buy it. Most people really dont upgrade their computers every or every other gen. Compared to say ten years ago, CPUs are on a tear as far as improvement. Code development and threading is probably the area that needs to catch up. Lets see 8 -12 threads being utilized..
 
If there's one thing I was right about back in 2014 it was this: core count matters for longevity of the system.

After a few years it may not be a gaming monster- but it will game well. It will also grow with you as threads in games/drivers increase.

What I want to see is gaming benchmarks, in a 2027 game, between a 5950x and a 5800X3D.
 
Spirit_Retro said:
If there's one thing I was right about back in 2014 it was this: core count matters for longevity of the system.

After a few years it may not be a gaming monster- but it will game well. It will also grow with you as threads in games/drivers increase.

What I want to see is gaming benchmarks, in a 2027 game, between a 5950x and a 5800X3D.
Click to expand...
AMD and Intel are happy to sell you as many cores as you want in advance. You be you.
 
aldamon said:
AMD and Intel are happy to sell you as many cores as you want in advance. You be you.
Click to expand...
14-6087b.jpg


Its like one of those old four barrel carburetors. It uses less gas unless you stomp on it. In small loads it will be very efficient, but if you need the power its there.
 
Sprung said:
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D official performance leaks out

Well the review guide is leaked. Looks pretty good against the Core i9-13900K.
Click to expand...
Was probably hoping to see a little more punch there, because a 13900k with 7200mhz ram will be ~3% faster yet essentially putting them both at par (speaking in general terms).

So if (gaming) performance is more or less a wash then the arguments for the 7950x3d would be:

- cooler/less power
- doesnt need finicky high speed ddr5 kits
- platform longevity

While the arguments for the 13900k would be

- better productivity performance
- cheaper

I think overall I'm still going to go with the 7950X3d but its a closer decision than i thought it would be...

edit: the one thing remaing to be seen is whether 1% lows are more comprehensively or dramatically improved than the averages or not.
 
LittleBuddy said:
On dual CCD processors the lows are usually trash. I hope they will be good on the X3Ds, otherwise I'm waiting for the 7800X3D.
Click to expand...
The scheduler should run games on the x3d cache ccx so it should improve over the standard x models 7900x/7950x. That's the theory at least.
 
2023 and we're still basing performance on $700 CPUs on 1080p benchmarks?

If the x3D chips were crushing Raptorlake, AMD would be yelling it from the rooftops by now.

I'll wait to see the 4k benchmarks, especially the lows, but I have a feeling the entire package may be a bit underwhelming.
 
4RunnerTE said:
2023 and we're still basing performance on $700 CPUs on 1080p benchmarks?

If the x3D chips were crushing Raptorlake, AMD would be yelling it from the rooftops by now.

I'll wait to see the 4k benchmarks, especially the lows, but I have a feeling the entire package may be a bit underwhelming.
Click to expand...

Not everyone games at 4k. Shocking, I know but imagine a world where someone uses a different setup than yours. x3d doesn't have to crush raptor, it just has to compete with the 13x00 at a lower price. Think outside the little box of "your personal usage" scenario.
 
Mega6 said:
Well it's prob worth that now but back in the day.. Anyways I have more than one monitor,. Sheesh.
Click to expand...

Wasn't a shot at you, didn't even look at your sig. But really though, if you're dropping a decent amount on a processor for any usage, usually the rest of the system will be similarly spec'd to include the monitor.
 
ND40oz said:
Wasn't a shot at you, didn't even look at your sig. But really though, if you're dropping a decent amount on a processor for any usage, usually the rest of the system will be similarly spec'd to include the monitor.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. If you're older, your eyesight is probably not 20/20 - 4k means nothing. I like to do lots of other stuff while I game.
 
Spirit_Retro said:
If there's one thing I was right about back in 2014 it was this: core count matters for longevity of the system.

After a few years it may not be a gaming monster- but it will game well. It will also grow with you as threads in games/drivers increase.

What I want to see is gaming benchmarks, in a 2027 game, between a 5950x and a 5800X3D.
Click to expand...
But to be fair (at least for people that like or at least to not hate system change) look at the performance in 2027 between a 5950x, a 5800x3d and what money can buy (with a moderate interest rate) with what you can buy with the money saved going for the 5800x3d.

More count of those days was always bound to age better, I am not sure it was ever the actual question, was it worth the extra cost. Say in 2027 a cheap core i3-18300k destroy a 5950x at gaming, like a cheap 12300k now will do now versus older high core count cpus.

With how the multithread performance by dollars went I am not sure over buying for the future was ever worth it, specially for game, a simple core-i3 will be much better than a corei7-5960x in games and everything else
 
Last edited:
 
I waited this long I might as well wait for the 7800x3D reviews before I jump.
 
4RunnerTE said:
2023 and we're still basing performance on $700 CPUs on 1080p benchmarks?

If the x3D chips were crushing Raptorlake, AMD would be yelling it from the rooftops by now.

I'll wait to see the 4k benchmarks, especially the lows, but I have a feeling the entire package may be a bit underwhelming.
Click to expand...
If they were that much of an improvement I think we would already know. Which is why it was a great time to get a 7900X especially with the deal they had at MC. 7900X and a 4090 at 4K is going to be more than enough, spending the extra couple hundred bucks on the x3d variant for a few fps is going to be a personal choice on squeezing every frame out of it, to each their own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top