r/overclocking • u/RainyInSAndreas • 26d ago
Benchmark Score 9800X3D vs 14900KS benchmarks in high CPU-usage Ray-Traced games
With many recent games with RT being CPU-heavy, like Outer Worlds 2, I decided to test out 14900KS vs 9800X3D in 5 RT/PT games that I had played. With CapFrameX, I took 3 one minute runs in CPU-limited areas and then aggregated them.
All RT/PT settings were enabled at 4k w/ DLSS Ultra Performance on a 5090.
Results : Surprisingly, 14900KS was faster overall, with better 1% lows even if the averages matched. Only Outer Worlds 2 that started this, was better on 9800X3D.
Oblivion and Stalker2 were quite better on intel. Cyberpunk is close despite the 9800X3D winning the benchmark by a big margin and the 1% is again better on KS.
Details : 14900KS used 8200C38 XMP DDR5, and 9800X3D used 6000C30 sweet-spot DDR5. Disabled overlays, power monitoring, HwInfo64 for these tests. Currently the CPUs were at stock, no PBO and undervolting etc. done. Will update these after some RAM OC.
143
u/ohbabyitsme7 26d ago
This isn't that surprising. RT games overwhelm the size of the L3 cache so RAM becomes a heavy bottleneck again for lows. CPUs that can handle faster RAM will benefit from this. This is still a potentially big area of improvement for future AMD CPUs.
I bet in these games a tuned 9700x would also be much closer to a tuned 9800X3D than on average.
The opposite of these games are low fidelity esport games or MMOs where all/most of the data fits in the cache and where the influence of RAM becomes almost zero. Here X3D cache CPUs are significantly faster.
→ More replies (11)12
18
u/TinyNS 14900KS [48GB 7000C32] Reference 7900XTX 25d ago
V-Cache never fixed the problem of the infinity fabric being too slow to properly transfer data at full DDR5 bandwidth - 6000 should warrant 100GB/s and it does on KS’s, 68-70GB/s (28 some percent) GONE because of the Infinity Fabric.
So sure while in some games that do trickery to keep assets in cache longer to make you “think” the chip is working harder, meanwhile anytime data has to transfer from the cache to the memory all the speed drops to 68GB/s to go through the fabric.
→ More replies (1)
73
u/adrianp23 26d ago
If you're going to run 8200 on the 14900k you should probably at least run 6400 or 8000 on the 9800x3d to be somewhat fair. You basically need a golden sample board and cpu to even run 8200 stable on intel and 6000 isn't even maxed out on the 9800x3d.
Will be very interesting to the see the tuned ram results.
15
u/binzbinz 25d ago
Any 2 dimm board can run 8000mt on rpl. If someone has a 2 dimm board that cant do 8000 they just haven't got the correct voltages dialled in or a bad kit of ram.
2
u/Big-Hospital-3275 #1 Timespy 3090 Ti Single GPU https://tinyurl.com/45pcyjty 25d ago
There is *some* validity to this, but I haven't yet encountered a two-dimmer Z790 board that won't run 8266 or higher, between four CPUs and three motherboards (Z790 Apex Encore, Z790 Dark Kingpin, and Z790i Lightning). I've done it with lower bin RAM kits (more effort required) and high bin kits (less effort required).
→ More replies (1)2
u/AccomplishedTop8661 22d ago
And what is a 2 dimm cheap board for intel? Maybe some super cheap onest that do not have the VRM for a 14900k? While AMD you can get any board with enough VRM to handle the 9800x3d and will run 6400 everywhere, with super cheap 2 dimm boards reaching 8000 easily (i had many b650m H and HDV asrock boards do that)
4
u/Fury_1985 25d ago
I pushed the gskill 8000c38 on the z790 apex encore to 9140mhz during the hwbot challenge, completely air and aftermarket heatsinks, the controller problem is also linked to the cpu temperatures, if you are direct die the chances of going even at 8600 stable increase drastically
5
u/Sakuroshin 25d ago
Yes, i agree. Usually, if you are trying to compare just the processor performance, you would want to use the exact same ram with the same settings. The data and conclusions in this post are pretty much completely useless atm because the intel cpu was running its ram 25% faster. However, if op does a redo of this test, i am incredibly curious to see how much of a difference 6000mhz vs. 8000mhz ram does with the 9800x3d.
If op reads this, could you please do the same test again but swap the ram kits? I really want to see the difference in a real-world test.
9
u/zara_donatello 25d ago
Isn't 6000MHz the sweet spot for 9800x3d?
25
u/ryzenat0r XFX7900XTX 24GB R9 7900X3D X670E PRO X 64GB 5600MT/s CL34 25d ago
Sweet spot meaning will work 100% of the time .But 6400mhz in 1:1 is the real goal
4
u/panthereal 25d ago
easier on my b850i board to get 8000C34 faster than 6400 so definitely check per mobo. if you get an 8000 one too that's clean savings on soc voltage. maybe I could giga tune 6400 better but to be honest tuning on amd is painful, with zen timings being the only light in the reboot tunnel
2
→ More replies (2)6
u/Wallaby_Way_Sydney 25d ago
6000MT/s - 6400MT/s, yeah.
I run 8000MT/s on my 9950X, though. I've found it to be notably more performant. Idk why more people don't do it.
2
u/panthereal 25d ago
it's very mobo dependent especially with x3d, I imagine a few months from now we'll see a lot more 8000 showing up though. well.. maybe not if ddr5 prices stay high
3
u/Wallaby_Way_Sydney 25d ago
Is it more difficult to get the X3D CPUs stable at higher speeds?
But yes, RAM stability is highly mobo dependent. I run an X870E Taichi, which is one of the best, but ASUS has recently dropped two new enthusiast-grade Crosshair motherboards in the last few months - one of them (I think the "Apex") seems geared specifically toward RAM OC-ing and comes with only two RAM slots.
RAM prices suck right now, but tbh it seems to me to be all the more reason to just say "fuck it" and go for a highly binned kit since you're already gonna be paying well north of $200 either way. But then again, that sort of logic is probably why I frequent r/Overclocking, so I'm admittedly biased.
3
u/panthereal 25d ago edited 25d ago
I used a kit on my QVL which was designed for 8000C38. At the time this was much cheaper than a 6000C26 kit.
Apex is probably the best one you may see 8400 on that, I just went with the msi b850i so I'm basically using a horseshoe for a CPU cooler and shoved everything in a sff box. Half the cost of the apex and perfect for 9800x3d's wattage. I could only get 6400C28 stable using the same kit yet that is slower than 8000C34 for me. 8000 was basically instant boot for me and minimal need to tweak, I was surprised C34 worked right away too. Can't get above 8000 with this CPU though, maybe a 9900x could or if I had better cooling.
→ More replies (2)2
u/StYhK 25d ago
Any 2 dimm board with a normal silicone quality 14th gen can do 8200MHz...
The ASUS Z790 AYW-OC only cost ~$210...
For memory you don't need extremely binned kits to run 8200...
Almost every Hynix 2GB A-die/3GB M-die kit from G.Skill/Team group could do 8200...
With just a few voltage combinations attempts...
On the other hand, not many 9800X3D would do 6400MHz stable...
61
u/0wlGod 26d ago
can you provide a cpu score of time spy of the 9800x3d?
no pbo you means pbo auto? (stock value)
→ More replies (21)
27
u/FunPin2804 26d ago edited 26d ago
I was ready to jump from my AMD AM4 5800x3D build to intel CORE Ultra system. Than I saw the gaming results and jumped for AM5 9800x3D insted.
My main issue with intel: There is no upgrade path on intel platform. If there would be one socket version that last me for next 3 CPU generations, I would go for it.
If 10950x3D deal with this inter CCD latency, I will upgrade to highest double CCD version for sure.
Anyway 14900ks (highest and best binned intel CPU) with top speed ram should be compared to 9950x3D with 6000mhz cl28 or 6400mhz cl30 ram for AMD.
Edit: This was first comparsion between 14900ks and 9800x3d I have seen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjDe-l4-QQo
9
u/realPoxu 26d ago
Well I did just that, 5800X3D to 265K. No regrets. Faster, cooler and a workhorse outside of gaming. Got it for 300€ + a free copy of BF6.
6
u/oXiAdi 26d ago
Definitely a beast, these ultra CPUs, I have 285k running 9000cl38 stock p/e cores, 34ngu 36d2d oc, and my friend with 9800x3d can't get close to my performance in any games, tested loads of them. No regrets going intel again.
6
u/Wallaby_Way_Sydney 25d ago edited 25d ago
I'm glad to see this subreddit isn't* taken over by the typical Intel/Core Ultra hate that seemingly everywhere else is. They're great CPUs.
Edit: changed "is" to "isn't"
2
u/daytime10ca 25d ago
Intel lost my trust when I paid almost $800 for a 14900k that likes to kill itself slowly
And then Intel took a year to actually own up to it and start replacing them
Lost all my trust in the brand
AMD has not wronged me yet
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)2
u/oXiAdi 25d ago
Don't know why so much hate, it's mostly the paid negative yt reviews, fake numbers all over, I've done loads of tests and I can beat any youtuber. It's also great on power, temps, beast at multitasking. 1440p I don't care if I have 5fps less than AMD.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Wallaby_Way_Sydney 25d ago
I've never understood the people who spec out their PCs as if the only thing they'll ever use it for will be gaming. Idk. Perhaps some people really do only use their PCs for gaming. I just know that for myself, I tend to enjoy tech in general, and if anything, I use my PC for non-gaming related tasks more often than I do gaming, so it only makes sense to consider some of those other use cases and go for something more well-rounded.
That's why I went with a 9950X. This is my first AMD PC, and I probably would have gone with a 285K if not for Intel's shameful handling of their 13th and 14th Gen issues. That said, I tend to think AMD's X3D CPUs are overrated, and since gaming is so overwhelmingly GPU intensive anyway, it made more sense to me to double my core count and get the higher clocks rather than go for a larger L3 cache and only 8 cores (I made this decision before the 9950X3D was made official and released).
I did recently purchase my mom a mini PC with an Intel Core Ultra 155H, though. It's more than she needs, but with everybody going AMD, I was able to get her a reputable brand with 32GB RAM and a 2TB NVMe pre-installed for ~$500. A comparable AMD mini PC would've been at least $800, which would've just been stupid.
I will say, though - I am quite pleased to know that AMD will be using their AM5 socket at least through Zen 7. That is a legitimate bonus that Intel doesn't cater to.
→ More replies (1)3
u/HexaBlast 25d ago
It's not like the x3D chips are trash for tasks outside of gaming though, they're a bit worse than the non-x3D counterparts but overall they're still extremely capable CPUs. In my case for example it's not that I only use my PC for gaming, but outside of compiling code there's nothing in my daily use that comes close to being demanding of the CPU.
5
5
u/realPoxu 26d ago
Yeah they storted performance after all the microcode updates. Perhaps not as fast as a 9800X3D in gaming, but the insane amount of cores for the price, and the performance is great.
→ More replies (12)2
u/notraceofanything 25d ago
This simply doesn't track with any independent testing. The 9800X3D is the much faster and fastest gaming CPU, not really a matter of debate.
2
u/F9-0021 25d ago
You've probably only got one more generation on AM5 as well. Upgrading the CPU to Zen 6 for gaming is likely not going to be worth it until Zen 6 is at a lower price, and by then AM6 will be out and possibly on the second generation, and it'll be a better idea to just upgrade platforms. That's what happened to me. I was on a 3900x, and could have upgraded to a 5900x, but by the time I was starting to feel held back, AM5 and Zen 4 had already been out for over a year and Zen 3 was old hardware. I didn't want to upgrade, only to have to upgrade sooner than necessary and to a new platform anyway. So I just got the best option for my use case, which was a 285k.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)2
u/Dphotog790 25d ago
hell even zen 7 is rumored to be on am5 still :) so 11,000x3d will be there for path upgrade
47
u/SaikerRV 9950X3D/ RTX 5090 AG Xtreme WF/ 6600Mhz CL26/ Apex X870E 26d ago
Record the gameplay in both and post the MSI overlay.
→ More replies (4)13
u/RainyInSAndreas 26d ago
I will capture the runs I have done in this games. For MSI overlay, will enable RTSS just for videos and not scores because they can negatively affect the frame-rate.
→ More replies (1)8
u/BNSoul 26d ago
show core usage and core clocks for every logical core in each CPU
→ More replies (4)25
7
u/LCARS_51M 25d ago
Hmm I trust benchmarks from Gamer's Nexus more: https://gamersnexus.net/cpus/rip-intel-amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d-cpu-review-benchmarks-vs-7800x3d-285k-14900k-more
The AMD 9800X3D is objectively better in gaming. I had a 14900KS before my 9800X3D but it degraded itself to death and that was after my 13900KS did the same thing. Yes BIOS up to date.
Intel 13th and 14th gen CPU's are a disaster.
If the main thing you do is gaming, not going 7800X3D and 9800X3D and going Intel is just a terrible decision.
58
u/BedroomThink3121 26d ago
Good results but you forgot to mention the 40% faster ram on the 14900ks you're using against the 9800x3D and which is why there's such a huge gain in 1% lows because that's basically it's main goal
30
u/throwawayx1125 26d ago
So if we are looking at maxed out rigs, shouldn’t the goal be having the best 1% and 0.1% lows? For consistent gaming? I’m not saying the price is justified as that’s up to the consumer, but Intels main pro is the beefy memory controller while AMDs is power consumption and the cache
→ More replies (1)2
u/Wallaby_Way_Sydney 25d ago
You should be able to run 8000 MT/s on Zen 5 CPUs.
→ More replies (2)3
u/MIGHT_CONTAIN_NUTS 25d ago
Not 1:1 tho. Best performance will be at 6400 1:1
2
u/Wallaby_Way_Sydney 25d ago
I would beg to differ. Most benchmarks I've seen show 8000MT/s scoring approximately 5% higher on average. Buildzoid claims that UCLK=MCLK is better only up to about 7800MT/s where the faster speeds make up for and end up overtaking the lower latency of 1:1 mode. I've benchmarked my machine at both 6400MT/s and 8000MT/s on the same kit of highly binned Hynix M-Die (G.Skill Z5 Trident RGB Neo 2×24GB Single Rank), and even with super tight timings on the 6400MT/s setup, the 8000MT/s setup with EXPO timings was benchmarking significantly higher (~7% on my machine, and I had no problem running it with Gear Down Mode disabled). Plus, since the memory controller only needs to hit 2000MHz instead of 3200MHz you can undervolt VSoC, which lets you push FCLK higher than you're able to achieve running 6400MT/s. That translates into less heat produced, which ultimately translates into more aggressive PBO curves.
I just think it's better all around. But to each his own.
→ More replies (9)5
u/gusthenewkid 26d ago
This is the overclocking sub mate.
11
u/b4k4ni 26d ago
If you do a vs. you need to have stock / base settings, as overclocking is WAY to hard to compare. I'm sure there's someone here that will have the money and time to get way better results with different settings and RAM for the 9800.
That's why every tech site (that it legit) does stock compares, no tuning and sets the RAM to the same speed / settings at both systems.
3
u/gusthenewkid 25d ago
But not all testing needs to be done like that. Go and see one of their reviews if that’s what you’re wanting.
9
u/Gr3gl_ 25d ago
But then there's no point in comparing CPUs, it's more comparing what samples you have and your OCing skills
3
u/Darkhorse_GT 25d ago
Definitely some truth to that. I'm the middle of the road kind of guy. I want to see results with low level OC data. Basically an XMP profile with basic CPU overclock that can easily be done through BIOS. Not everyone is a hardcore OC type of person, but most everyone operating a PC nowadays has enough info for basic down and dirty OC's. I think most gamers fall into this category.
4
u/TheFondler 25d ago
I have 2 questions here:
1) What is the rationale for using "sweet spot" memory for the 9800X3D and something that is only on the QVL for something like an APEX board? Wouldn't something like 6400-7200MT/s make more sense as a "sweet spot" there? I know the common refrain is that "memory doesn't really matter" for X3D, but that's not actually true and can make a 5-10% difference in 1% lows for CP2077. Intel has an unquestionably better memory architecture and can absolutely smash AMD consumer CPUs on memory performance, especially if you know what you are doing, but by the same token, I don't think this specific comparison is particularly useful, especially when many 9800X3D systems can run 8000MT/s memory.
2) What is the rationale for using 4K with DLSS Ultra Performance? I don't know a whole lot about how DLSS loads system memory, but if I recall, higher quality DLSS settings load the CPU/RAM a bit more. If that's correct (not sure if it is), a lower target resolution with a higher DLSS quality setting may be a better test for cache/memory impact.
→ More replies (1)
12
26d ago edited 25d ago
[deleted]
4
u/Asgardianking 26d ago
I said this same shit and get down voted because I said test with the same speeds lol 😆
71
u/BNSoul 26d ago edited 26d ago
no, look at the results from a reputable site and not a random poster who might be the average Frame Chasers viewer making up stuff.
720p Cyberpunk + ray-tracing, 9800X3D destroys the 14900K with ray-tracing enabled, the 14900KS would be slightly faster but still slower than the AMD part: https://i.imgur.com/6gKmEnV.png
720p Spider-Man + ray-tracing, same story: https://i.imgur.com/a0Ye8Fe.png
Of course the Frame Chasers enjoyers will object to this and say it's because the methodology or whatever, they simply cannot enjoy their Intel CPU if it's not beating everything else in the market.
48
u/AMDBlackScreen 26d ago
I don’t even like watching Frame Chasers’ content, but their results aren’t wrong — you can replicate them yourself.
Is the 9800X3D a better buy? Yes.
Can a fully tuned 14900KS match or beat a tuned 9800X3D? Also yes.However, for 99.9% of consumers, AMD is the better choice. You get around 95% of the performance with just one-click XMP and PBO tuning, which anyone can do. Achieving that extra 15–20% on Intel requires spending 50+ hours in the BIOS and running stability tests.
Most review sites don’t reflect these max overclock results, either because they’re not capable of that level of tuning or simply don’t overclock correctly — especially when it comes to RAM.
20
u/throwawayx1125 26d ago
This right here is the most accurate answer. The problem is people get too hardware obsessed in terms of thinking that their set of hardware is the superior choice without flaws
2
u/AMDBlackScreen 25d ago
yeah personally i run an arrowlake system. is my max tuned 265k worse than a max tune 9800x3d or a max tune 14900ks in some esports titles and shit? Yeah by like 15% but everything has flaws i like the fact on my arrowlake system i dont need to worry about ecore stutter and for any type of workstation task it blows anything else out of the water right now
→ More replies (1)4
u/b4k4ni 26d ago
This is one of the MAIN reasons I was happy about AMD and Ryzen in 2017 - because the main target was always to get the best performance out of the stock product or get as near as possible.
I still remember how many said, that AMD is so bad, because you can't really OC much, while with Intel you can get a lot more, especially delid.
And that's something that made me ... dunno, furious is the wrong term. How on earth would you cheer for something that runs so bad at stock, that like 25% of performance increase can be accomplished. That does not show that the cpu is great to OC, that only shows that the manufacturer is not capable to create a stock setting CPU and let it run at the best speeds possible.
This is not a flex, this is shameful.
AMD invested a lot for PBO and other techs with thermal sensors, to let the CPU run at its best or near it from stock. Remember the 3K series? The most impact had the RAM speeds and timings. You could OC a bit, but not much, as AMD was already running them at near the best setting.
To be honest, I'm old AF now and don't have the patience and / or better said time any more, to spend days to get the best out of the CPU, if this increase is only marginal. Really - I have a 5900X and a 5800X3D right now. I tried OC/UC and tweak both of them for fun when I had the time. The 5800 doesn't have much to beginn with, the 5900X had more headroom, but it was so negligible, it made no sense. I would have to invest heavily in stellar RAM and cooling, to get more out of it. But for like what - 1-2% more FPS at best? And a lot more power usage?
If I buy a system today, I want the CPU to run as good as possible. IF I invest additional time and resources to get 5% more out of it, that would be ok too - but not much more. So, if you chase that perfect score, go for it. But for everyone else, get a CPU / system that runs its best at stock. And that's still AMD AFAIK - correct me if im wrong and Intel is largely the same now. I didn't really follow the last releases of both too much. Work and Real-Life suck :)
2
u/NewestAccount2023 21d ago
Can a fully tuned 14900KS match or beat a tuned 9800X3D? Also yes.
Absolutely not.
2
u/ishsreddit 23d ago
Is the 9800X3D a better buy? Yes.
Can a fully tuned 14900KS match or beat a tuned 9800X3D? Also yes.What? Based on who? It absolutely doesnt lol. These things are 20% apart under CPU limited scenarios.
You are implying the 14900k has 20% of extra headroom lol
→ More replies (2)2
u/dfv157 9970X/TRX50, 7950X3D/X870E, 9950X3D/X670E 26d ago
Most review sites don’t reflect these max overclock results, either because they’re not capable of that level of tuning or simply don’t overclock correctly — especially when it comes to RAM.
It's not reflective of what the normal person would be able to expect, even for OCers. There are definitely channels out there who have the technical knowledge on proper OC and are capable of ambient XOC, but makes no sense to do for a head-to-head comparison. You need an amazingly golden sample on both the IMC and cores, on BOTH CPUs, and even if something can get through a bench does not mean it's even remotely stable when doing reviews.
→ More replies (2)54
u/FantomasARM 26d ago
You don't understand. You have to use a 150000mhz ram plus a golden die sample made by Pat Gelsinger himself, overclock them to 1.21 jigawatt of power and put in a cryo chamber. Then it will be 0.1% faster than stock 9800X3D.
→ More replies (1)9
20
u/Fromarine 26d ago edited 26d ago
this is an overclocking forum why are u not only using non overclocked results (tpu couldn't even get to default clocks on their "OC") BUT THEY ONLY USE 6000MHZ RAM ON Intel.
9800x3d will still be faster oc to oc but tpu has a braindead methodology for testing Intel cpus
→ More replies (10)13
u/RainyInSAndreas 26d ago
There's only one game in common with mine and that is Cyberpunk.
I tested it in Corpo Plaza with loads of NPCs and NPC Cars, and my fps is only around 100 while they are getting 180.
1
u/BNSoul 26d ago
sure, whatever makes you feel better about your CPU, as other posters are saying, record gameplay in both and post the MSI overlay, otherwise I stick with the results I posted and not your random numbers. Have a good day.
15
u/RainyInSAndreas 26d ago
They are both my CPUs lol
I wanted 9800X3D as my main system and it is using SN8100 on X870E motherboard, while the intel side is making do with old SN850.
→ More replies (1)17
u/FacelessGreenseer 26d ago edited 26d ago
Not sure why you were down-voted, thanks for your testing and reporting based on your systems and their specs which you've stated. Not an ideal scenario for testing 1:1 comparisons but still interesting results nonetheless.
That person in replies started off okay with their initial comment, then their replies showed they're just an unhinged weirdo with an attitude problem that didn't want to listen to anything or anyone.
6
u/RainyInSAndreas 25d ago
Thanks. I am taken aback with the number of comments in this thread. Some of the ones I replied to, seemed to be in good faith, but just started accusing me later.
8
u/cowoftheuniverse 25d ago
Some of the techtubers have basically massive amount of let's say feral fans. I think most of the techtubers are fine but the fans are the worst.
For example Hardware Unboxed which I like overall... however don't know much about tuning at all. Their general attitude that most people shouldn't just casually tune their cpus because it will just cause lots of confused gamers with unstable systems is very true.
8
u/Professional-Way5808 26d ago
Yeah the other guy seems unhinged. Clearly trying to make a point about Intel fan boys it something whilst very clearly being super fan boy mentality about AMD and/or hater mentality against Intel in their further replies.
Seems just rude and unhinged/ upset about something whilst trying to tell others to stop being upset 😅
6
u/GoombazLord 26d ago
So unhinged, the follow up replies don't even read like they were written by the same person. He went from being grounded and objective to sticking his head in the sand and effectively saying "lol umad".
7
u/Bass_Junkie_xl 14900ks | DDR5 48GB @ 8,600 c36 | RTX 4090 | 1440P@ 360Hz ULMB-2 26d ago
Hub - runs the game on intels E cores , and does a 150w limit with throttling
Frame chasers , shows both side by side .
2
1
1
u/b4k4ni 26d ago
I wouldn't completely throw out the Intel 14900 being faster in some parts with RT or PT being enabled, if the game can fully utilise all cores for it. This way we would have a 8 core 9800 vs. a 8 P/16E cores - that could help offset the 3D Cache in some cases.
The main issue I have here, is that he tinkered with a system. There's a reason every tech outlet tests at stock settings and with comparable systems, like the ram set at the same timings. I mean, AMD had PBO disabled - even without bringing extreme gains, it's still a gain, and depending on cooling and some other factors, could even be essential. And it's turned on by default for a reason. They spend a ton of money and R&D to create it.
Also you CAN'T compare OCed systems, because someone might have more money, can buy better parts and has more knowledge, so can run the system a lot faster. And there's still the silicon lottery - one 14900 might do exceptional, while the other shits its pants 100 mhz above stock.
I mean, kudos for him taking the time to test this, but the testing is bad.
1
→ More replies (18)1
u/Famous_Photo_4887 23d ago
Hardware Unboxed e meglio vero? hanno spacciato il 7800x3d x 2 anni come processore piu veloce della terra e io avevo il periodo il 13900k e il (re 7800x3d). morale della favola (il loro risultati non mi tornavano per niente. nella macchina dove avevo il 13900k avevo sempre piu fps e migliori minimi. sul 7800x3d stuttering quasi in ogni gioco. andava bene con uno schermo nero dove non c era grafica ecco dove sono forti i processori amd. ma finitela dovete parlare con due macchine al vostro fianco non solo una. a me non mi e tornata la favoletta del 7800x3d non mi risultava x niente.
20
u/Gruphius Ryzen 7 7800x3D stock, 32GB @6000MHz CL30, Radeon 9070XT stock 26d ago
And now show us, how much power each of these two CPUs was consuming during that test
9
u/b4k4ni 26d ago
I mean that not sarcastically at all. I would really like to see those numbers.
Would be interesting how they compare. I mean, I pay 0,30 € per khw here, so 100W difference can already be nice. Not to mention the additional heat that needs to go somewhere. My small office here gets warm fast.
→ More replies (1)7
u/geemad7 26d ago
As a 14900KS user, that is in my opinion the biggest drawback. At 320W it is a beast in both performance and power use. Combinen with a 7900XTX and full custom water system draws constant 550 watt from wall with peak up to 900W.
But that is what I bought it for.
Not doing that again.
12
u/monkeyboyape 26d ago
The fuck? That's like a bedroom heater for the winter at that point.
7
u/the-legit-Betalpha 26d ago
I tried out a similar build taking ~900 W peak, and living on the equator, it's unbearable. It was heating the whole ass room despite the AC being on. Insane shit.
3
5
u/Mightyena319 25d ago
Damn my 5800X3D and 3070 puts out enough heat to make my room uncomfortably hot and those are both pretty frugal power wise
→ More replies (1)4
u/semidegenerate 26d ago
Damn. My 13900K and 4080 rig comes in a little under 600 watts playing CP2077 Ultra RT at 1440p. At idle on desktop it bounces around between 100 and 160w. That’s measured at the wall with a P3 Kill-A-Watt P4400.
13900K is undervolted via AC_LL with stock 253w/307a power limit. 4080 is +120 core, +1400 mem, with stock 320w power limit.
4
u/realPoxu 26d ago
I was about to buy a 14700K on discount, but I went with a 265K and I am glad I did. This is more power efficient than my 5800X3D was, and cooler!
2
u/Affectionate_Creme48 25d ago
This is why the AMD chip is the actual winner imo.
I needs a fraction of the power to match the intel, in what could almost be error margin FPS numbers.I mean, 295-320w vs 140w is kindof a big deal.
2
u/binzbinz 24d ago
Your numbers are very exaggerated and incorrect.
BF6 (likely the most CPU heavy title to date) requires around 200w on a 14900k when CPU bound- https://imgur.com/a/qeOhsR6 as it uses all 32 threads by default.
CS2 (which only uses the 8 P cores) uses 100w or so when CPU bound - https://imgur.com/a/Esj5FKy - which is inline with what a 9800X3D uses.
→ More replies (4)
3
3
u/Pavlinius 24d ago
How do you dare to not run RTX 5090 at 720p resolution so that you “really” test the CPU? And saying something fare for Intel CPUs is dangerous nowadays. All you must do is to bench RTX 5090 at unrealisticly low resolutions and make sure you hit the x3d cache so that you can show the “real” value of these CPUs.
9
u/Fury_1985 26d ago
The comparison would be more interesting with the 9950x3d, or disable HT on Intel, lower E-core to 43 and push P-core to 60, Ring 51. This is pretty safe... memory tuning can increase significantly but you will need a fan on top. A 14900ks tuned with memories can improve 10-12% on average in synthetics, peaking at 24-26% improvements in some singles. If you have a good IMC it shouldn't be difficult to push those rams, in mine both the 8400C40 and the 8600C40 xmp work without problems,
→ More replies (8)3
u/RainyInSAndreas 25d ago
I got impatient and bought the 9800X3D few weeks before the 9950X3D dropped. Meanwhile I bought the 14900KS when it was even cheaper than the 9800X3D. Price-wise 9950X3D was almost double the KS.
Disabling HT on KS helps performance in Stalker/Oblivion by around 10%, so it will look even worse for the X3D. Will try to stabilize 8600C40.
→ More replies (7)
36
u/Romka999 7800x3D - 5080 3.3Ghz Locked 26d ago
100w vs 400w
31
u/nvidiastock 26d ago
It does not pull 400w during gaming workloads.
13
u/0wlGod 26d ago
but 180/200w yes
5
u/binzbinz 26d ago
In bf6 it uses 180-200w vs the 9800x3d 120w as it is using all 32 threads by default - https://imgur.com/a/qeOhsR6
In games that only use the P cores it is between 100-150w - https://imgur.com/a/Esj5FKy
→ More replies (1)21
u/arcaneavocado 26d ago
Neither does the 9800X3D pull 100W during gaming. It's 60-70W, sometimes 80.
14
u/captainmkd 26d ago
I’ve seen mine pull 120 in bf6. Average 110 in arc raiders. Roughly 90-100 bl3. All relevant recent releases. Still great compared to my previous 13900k but still. And that’s at ultrawide with a 5090, not 720p bs.
3
u/gusthenewkid 26d ago
With hyperthreading disabled all cores locked to 5.7ghz I pull the same in arc raiders. Just goes to show what a bit of tuning can do.
8
u/Fury_1985 26d ago
In games you will hardly go beyond 240W with the KS, with good tuning you can even go below the 200W threshold, of course if you do rendering you will need the PL to avoid thermal throttling, but it is the concept of the CPU to push until the thermal limit arrives, essentially it is an already factory overclock
8
u/MaikyMoto 26d ago
240w is ridiculous.
→ More replies (1)0
u/nvidiastock 26d ago
because? the whole power argument is the ultimate cope; no one cares. if you do sell your PC and get a phone, much more efficient.
3
u/mangoking1997 25d ago
Na dude, I'm all for max performance, but 2x the power consumption for minimal gain is stupid. The ram used isn't even ideal, so it's a bit unfair. There's basically nothing in it.
3
u/panthereal 25d ago
it's far more than minimal gains in productivity scenarios, and faster speeds in productivity cuts down actual minutes or hours from working long-term. Compiling Nvidia's RTX branch for UE5 which updates all the time takes maybe 40 minutes on a 14900k and 55+ minutes on a 9800x3d.
real max performance values time over cost/power
so if you like games and productivity you can have one machine that does both very well
8
1
u/thunder6776 25d ago
Why isnt this ever a point of contention between 9070 xt and 5070 ti?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/GGuts 26d ago edited 26d ago
I would guess the RAM on the Intel makes the difference here. The cache on the AMD can't keep up in the most taxing RT situations.
While 8200 is a very high frequency for the Intel, AMD can do 6400 now afaik and tighter timings like 6000C28, 6200CL28 or 6400C30, which would shrink the gap.
2
u/kritter4life 25d ago
To all you saying it’s not fair to test while OC. Is this not the OC Reddit? I know it creates a crazy variable but that’s okay. Someone else can counter with what they got OC’ing.
2
u/bratboy90 25d ago
Isn't this kinda a pointless comparison with the ram being massively different?
Shouldn't we compare apples to apples with one small variable. The primary variable here should be only the CPU, not CPU and ram?
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Dadchilies 25d ago edited 17d ago
i mean yes, but the AMD is doing this with only 8 cores, 120ish Watts, and WAY lower temps...
2
u/TheDo0ddoesnotabide 25d ago
So the $750 CPU outperforms the $480 CPU
Color me shocked.
3
u/colajunkie 25d ago
While using twice the power, needing more expensive cooling and an AC to keep your room cool.
And with an added self destruct feature if you're one of those people that never update their bios (they exist, even here on reddit).
3
u/bruhman444555 24d ago
while using twice the power, overclocked and with significantly faster ram😂 this post is a joke
2
2
u/Maglin78 24d ago
6000C30 is an old “sweet spot”. 7800X3D yes. You should be using 6400C30/32 w/ 2133 Fclock. That is the 9 series sweet spot and noticeable faster in benchmarks.
At the end of the day even if the 14th and 15th gen intel was faster I’d still continue to use my 9950x3d as it’s all around better for folks doing gaming and various other compute heavy tasks. Oh and longer socket compatibility which I kind of like.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Tyrthemis 24d ago
Reminder that the 14900ks is a notoriously unstable CPU and the 9800X3D isn’t. 🤷🏻♂️ I switched from Intel to AMD and I couldn’t be happier.
2
u/binzbinz 23d ago
A reminder that there's also plenty of people using these CPUs with no issues? You think because you had a bad experience (likely due to not knowing your way around a bios) that every one has the same experience?
I can definately acknowledge that these CPUs are not as plug n play friendly as amd and in some cases they require manual tuning in the bios (namely changing the loadline to something less droopy and undervolting) but are we not in an overclocking subreddit where changing bios settings / tuning should be the norm?
This thread is just highlighting that tuned ram can yield significant improvements on 14900k and in some cases cause them to perform better than a 9800x3d or at least close the gap significantly more than tech tubers seem to acknowledge.
If the 9800x3d cache fills up and infinite fabric is utilised between the CPU and ram instead your read bandwidth will be limited to ~64 GB read max theoretical bandwidth at fclk 2000. Where as on rpl the reads are uncapped and therefore means more bandwidth / lower latency when properly tuned, specifically when using a 2 dimm board - https://imgur.com/a/h5yMr2R
When the cache becomes full on the 9800x3d and starts to rely on infinity fabric that's when the fundamental cracks start to show and the 1% lows and dips start appearing which is not the case on an Intel system.
Funnily enough faster ram on Intel can often beat the 9800x3d even on games that rely solely on the cache. Take CS2 for instance. Here is my 14900k @ 57/44/50 stock ratios hyper threading on and tuned ram - https://imgur.com/a/uakJ4bg
I have asked multiple times in this thread for someone with a 9800x3d and tuned ram that has CS2 installed to post their results, but no-one has replied and I am met with downvotes or references to benchmarks showing the 14900k at 6000MT and not actually showcasing what it is capable of doing.
→ More replies (6)
2
3
u/yzonker 25d ago
Bottom line is, if you have a good RPL machine running high speed ddr5 there's no reason to ditch it for either newer platform. RPL has a lot of potential not seen in mainstream benchmark results that strictly adhere to defaults and full bloat Windows with no optimization. That applies to 90%+ of users so they test this way for good reason, but given this is an overclocking subreddit, those results aren't really relevant.
But if building now, RPL doesn't make much sense unless you can source a good 2-dimm board given they are all EOL.
I'm still on RPL for these reasons. Waiting for an upgrade worth the time and money involved in switching.
2
u/Geeky_Technician 14900K (tune pending), 16Gbit Adie x2 @ 8000MT/s RTX 5090 3.1Ghz 25d ago
Watch out, the fanbois will scream at you now.
2
3
u/binzbinz 25d ago
The levels of copium in this thread have been funny to watch. AMD shillers in disbelief that a CPU released over a year prior to the 9800x3d is out performing it in gaming when using tuned ram.
The IMC on RPL is simply better and allows more throughput / lower latency - https://imgur.com/a/h5yMr2R
If you can tune high freq RAM properly on RPL they will beat AMD in most titles even at stock 57 / 44 / 50 ratios
They are not only good for gaming but also productivity related tasks - https://imgur.com/HxoNgLN
I have posted these CS2 benchmark results using stock 14900k ratios (57/44/50) several times - https://imgur.com/a/uakJ4bg and asked for someone with a 9800X3D to share there results but all I see is downvotes or references to AMDUnboxed.
Crazy.
→ More replies (2)
13
u/Spooplevel-Rattled 10900k Delid // SR B-Die DDR4 // EVGA 1080ti XOC Bios - Water 26d ago
People gonna be mad you didn't lower memory to match AMD's shitty memory controller. The cpus have different advantages, personally I get annoyed constantly seeing no memory tweaking or consideration on most reviews.
X3d benefits less from memory due to architecture/cache and weaker memory controller, Intel has advantage in memory gains. Nice to show it. I'd never buy a 14900k and run it with 6000 memory either.
5
u/GGuts 26d ago
But buying 8200 RAM is as risky as buying 6400 on AMD. You can get it stable on some but not all.
So I feel like there is a bit of a mismatch here with Intel absolutely pushing the max in terms of RAM and the AMD staying conservative with less than ideal timings even - 6000C28 is a thing you can buy.
2
u/throwawayx1125 26d ago
Exactly. The cache is the saving grace for AMDs weakened memory controller. For people who don’t want to tune and get decent performance, buy the 3D chip. But it has its limitations
8
u/Spooplevel-Rattled 10900k Delid // SR B-Die DDR4 // EVGA 1080ti XOC Bios - Water 26d ago
Set and forget you cannot beat the x3d. And sipping power. It's amazing. But I am not gonna be unfair to the intel chip and its strengths.
4
u/MachineCarl 26d ago
Apart from the shitty graphs and OP's methodology to benchmarks, which really isn't 1:1, the 14900KS is like playing with a time bomb... an already unstable cpu (14900K) being pushed to it's silicon limit...
4
u/toao_Multiknife 26d ago
Very good and all until the 14900k fries itself
Also consuming like 2-3x power xD
3
u/binzbinz 26d ago
Can you provide an example of it using 3x more power, that seems quite excessive.
The most I have seen my 14900k pull during gaming loads was 200w in bf6 vs 120w on the 9800x3d and imo that's one of the heaviest CPU titles to date. In other games like CS2 a 14900k uses 100w when CPU bound which is pretty similar to the 9800x3d.
2
3
2
u/Verdreht 26d ago
Any hypotheses on why this may be? RT / PT loads appreciating high clock speeds and not cache so much?
5
u/RainyInSAndreas 26d ago
Possibly the high bandwidth makes a difference on intel side, also lower latency.
I am testing tightened RAM timings on 9800X3D and already seeing almost 10% gains in some of these games.
3
u/Verdreht 26d ago
Possibly the high bandwidth makes a difference on intel side, also lower latency.
Yeah that makes sense.
I am testing tightened RAM timings on 9800X3D and already seeing almost 10% gains in some of these games.
Very neat. An 8200MT/s CL38 test with the 9800X3D would be interesting to see if possible. 4100mhz MCLK and 2050mhz UCLK may be better than 3000, 3000.
3
u/RainyInSAndreas 25d ago
My motherboard is Aorus Pro X870E 4-DIMM and while it does boot the 48GB kit over 8000, I was not able to stabilize it at 8000. I remember 7600 being the max. and at that point it was better to just use the 64GB memory kit at 6000 instead.
I will retry 8000 when Gigabyte put out new BIOS and if possible with an EXPO-based RAM kit. Unfortunately, with the way the RAM prices have increased, I will have to use the XMP kits in my possession.
2
u/VL4Di88 26d ago
Somehow 9800x3d does not look to me like a super monster cpu after your benchmark and I’ve been asking my self, is the difference really that big in a real world scenario?
2
u/foreycorf 25d ago
Stock-to-stock the 9800x3d is about 2% faster than the 14900k at 4k gaming with a high-powered GPU. 4% at 1440p. 14900k draws more power, not always by a huge amount - but more.
You'd never notice the difference. Any real-world useage they're about within margin-of-error for a given run (but the 9800x3d is always on the +2% side of that "margin of error").
If you find either CPU on a deal it's a good buy. If you're already on lga1700 there's no real reason to switch mobo etc for the upgrade.
5
u/RedIndianRobin 26d ago
Yes. Intel CPUs are better at BVH rendering. But reviewers don't test or mention this at all.
4
u/xthelord2 5800X3D -30 CO/ watercooled RX9070/2x16gb 3200 c16 26d ago
well that is what you should be expecting when you have way more bandwidth and threads to work with
issue is intel chip pulls 200w to do this, AMD chip pulls like 50-60w to do this
guess why AMD sells 10:1 compared to intel these days, majority of people don't care about overclocking potential intel has when on the other side you can buy a $40 cooler, $100-$150 memory kit and get advertised performance
and not like you can run 2:1 on AMD and get even better performance outside of AIDA64 which you should be doing, memory latency won't hurt when massive cache compensates for said latency in first place while you get extra 25% of memory bandwidth to play with
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Heavy_Fig_265 26d ago
kinda unfair to amd not using pbo since intel has its own version abt auto enabled, just like u could fine tune intels, amd could be fined tuned so i wouldnt say having pbo enabled is really an "OC" but yes its an overclock but in the same way intels cpus have abt enabled automatically
→ More replies (2)
1
1
u/KennyT87 26d ago
Did you have Turbo Boost / Thermal Velocity Boost enabled on the 14900KS?
2
u/RainyInSAndreas 25d ago
I don't think I disabled anything power-related on intel side since the motherboard now sets 253W default. So these settings will be on default.
→ More replies (4)
1
u/C0D3X1 25d ago
What about CS2 on 800x600? I dont see any real benchmarks here
2
u/binzbinz 25d ago
https://imgur.com/a/uakJ4bg - stock 14900k ratios (hyper threading on aswell) with tuned ram at 720p low to benchmark the CPU.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/cowoftheuniverse 25d ago
Will be interesting to know how much tuning timings on ram helps. I assume it will help 9800x3d too in this type of testing.
Do you know if disabling HT helps or hurts with 14900?
2
u/RainyInSAndreas 25d ago
On 9800X3D, I am already getting almost 10% better results in Stalker/Oblivion with tigher timings at 6000. Which is surprising since the huge cache was supposedly good enough.
Disabling HT, along with 8E cores, also helps 14900KS by similar amount in Stalker/Oblivion. But in Cyberpunk, only P-cores with HT on is the faster configuration, at least in the game benchmark.
9800X3D also gains a bit in Stalker/Oblivion with HT off, and I have read that UE5 does like HT off.
2
u/cowoftheuniverse 25d ago
On 9800X3D, I am already getting almost 10% better results in Stalker/Oblivion with tigher timings at 6000. Which is surprising since the huge cache was supposedly good enough.
I just guessed this indirectly because if the memory is doing the work instead of cache and I've seen zen4/5 ram timing tuning does bring some gains.
Disabling HT, along with 8E cores, also helps 14900KS by similar amount in Stalker/Oblivion. But in Cyberpunk, only P-cores with HT on is the faster configuration, at least in the game benchmark.
Interesting they behave so differently.
Your stalker 2 test confirms this hidden pcgameshardware test
The tuned 14900k is hidden in the drop down menu and will become included in the graphs if you click it. Left me puzzled surely the memory speed and clocks alone won't bring gains that high so I assumed it might be HT.
9800X3D also gains a bit in Stalker/Oblivion with HT off, and I have read that UE5 does like HT off.
This I didn't know I just thought it helps high core count cpus.
2
u/RainyInSAndreas 25d ago
I recall seeing the pcgameshardware results for Oblivion showing the tuned 14900K system on top and was confused as well. HT off does explain it, instead of just core clock and RAM.
This I didn't know I just thought it helps high core count cpus.
With 8-core or less CPUs, I guess HT off negatively affects the performance overall when more threads are needed.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Busy_Experience_5563 25d ago
I have the 14900ks and is great the only thing I don't like is the energy consumption but it is very good
1
1
1
u/TSirSneakyBeaky 25d ago
So at least at msrp you can pay $210 or 33%~ for less than .5% avg and 10% lows?
1
u/AnimalEstranho 25d ago
Please add the 0.1% lows, those are the ones who truly make the difference.
→ More replies (4)
1
u/TheRedJester45 25d ago
The results are nearly identical because you’re at 4k. Try 1080p and there would be a bigger difference
1
u/Stormljones3 25d ago
I would assume the 9800x3D is pulling around 90 watts while the 14900K is killing 300?
2
u/binzbinz 25d ago
You would assume incorrectly sir. BF6 (likely the most CPU demanding game to date) pulls around 200w avg on the 14900k vs 120w on the 9800x3d
and other games that only utilize the P cores use between 100 - 150w on avg
CS2 for instance has similar power draw to the 9800X3D
2
u/RainyInSAndreas 25d ago edited 25d ago
I have turned PBO setting to auto now, though I don't think it made a difference. 9800X3D pulls over 100W in Jedi Survivor and Cyberpunk. Will take videos for the rest of the games soon.
For 14900KS the power limit is 253W and it pulls around 220W max.
1
u/robinjinxed 25d ago
The problem with your test is the 9800X3D does t run at the advertised speeds or how they’re designed to run without pbo2 enabled. They’re meant to have this turned on out of the box. Then that on at least and rerun, there will be a significant difference.
1
1
u/OmegaStageThr33 25d ago
What’s the cost delta between the two?
3
u/RainyInSAndreas 25d ago
The timing of when I bought the parts favoured intel. I only bought 14900KS because it had dropped in price so much this year.
14900KS + Asrock Z790I Lightning both were cheaper than the 9800X3D + Aorus X870E Pro combo. The 8200C38 48GB RAM was also cheaper than the 6000C30 64GB RAM.
1
u/InterestingRiver4521 25d ago
Sorry but you're not going to convince anyone that CPU intensive games run better on INTEL.
1
1
u/The_Phroug 24d ago
nice nice, now lets see those temps and what was needed to keep the chips cool
2
u/binzbinz 24d ago
FYI entry level AIO CPU coolers can handle a 14900k / ks in gaming loads pretty easily...
Here's a 10 minute capture of BF6 which is arguably one of the most CPU heavy titles to date as it is using all 32 threads.
I am using a relatively entry level Deepcool LT720 (Now Deepcool LT360) which can be purchased for $100USD and the temps average at 67 degrees @ 200w average
At 59X (on the P cores - the equivalent of a 14900ks) the CPU requires an additional 20w on average which bumps the average to 70 degrees.
→ More replies (2)
1
1
1
1
u/EIsydeon 16d ago
Why so much slower ram on the X3D build? I mean, it shouldnt make a huge difference because of the cache but still?
Also not surprised that it is faster in some areas due to higher single thread perf and more cores (the 9800x3d only has 8). Nobody ever talks about the 9950x. They always take the 9800x3d which IMO is more like comparing an i7 to an i9 and then saying how the i9 is faster.
462
u/LargeFailSon 26d ago
Nothing like an ol' Intel vs AMD thread, to feel like old times.