Insane Metal
Member
Parity lol
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Intel admits Core Ultra 9 285K will be slower than i9-14900K in gaming
Zathalus
Member
Those power and temperature reductions are very impressive. It seems the chip competes quite favourably with regular Zen 5 in most aspects. With the boost to Zen due to the recent Windows patches it will probably be a bit slower overall at the end but the difference would be minimal.
Frankly I would say you can’t go wrong with either Intel or Zen 5 for a gaming CPU… except that AMD is going to release X3D chips soon and that is going to be faster then regular Zen 5 and Intel by quite a bit.
Honestly any gamer skipping the X3D chips in favour of this (or regular Zen 5) is doing themselves a disservice.
Frankly I would say you can’t go wrong with either Intel or Zen 5 for a gaming CPU… except that AMD is going to release X3D chips soon and that is going to be faster then regular Zen 5 and Intel by quite a bit.
Honestly any gamer skipping the X3D chips in favour of this (or regular Zen 5) is doing themselves a disservice.
Leonidas
AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
I don't know about quite a bit, but I could see Zen5 X3D being anywhere from 5-15% faster, which isn't exciting for me.
There is no game I've seen where 7800X3D meaningfully improves over my current CPU. And my CPU trounces it in MT.
X3D doesn't make sense for the majority of gamers. Most gamers don't need more than a 7600X or 13600K.
Most gamers aren't playing games with a 4090 on a 540 Hz 1080p monitor.
SolidQ
Member
go to Zen5 review thread, and say how you feel about Zen5 epyc vs intel?
Right, the gaming crown is only important when Intel holds it. Just like multithreading performance didn't matter during the Zen 2 era, but is now super important again.
Leonidas
AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
Gaming crown only mattered back when AMD couldn't even hit a stable 60 in certain games.
Today with high refresh and the fact that the top CPUs are all within 5-10% of each other (X3D included) makes it meaningless to me. I myself game at 120 Hz, why am I going to pay a premium for an extra 5-15% when my current CPU already reaches 120 Hz in 90% of games?
Von Hugh
Member
Now your argument is that gaming performance doesn't even matter?
You have either lost it, or you are a master troll.
Leonidas
AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
No one here can point to me a solid list of games where an X3D makes a massive difference over Raptor Lake, when targeting 120 FPS...
I love the wiggle words, slimy language and constant goal post moves. Going to be a conspiracy theorist and say it's a brilliant troll being written with chatgpt. There's no way a human could be so utterly devoted to a company whilst simultaneously devoid of any intellectual weight. You have many fooled my guy, absolutely brilliant show
Leonidas
AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
Why do you take such time creating fantasy scenarios where "if this happened, Leonidas would think this..."
And you're wrong every single time...
You have pretty much 0% accuracy when it comes to reading my thoughts.
Unknown Soldier
Member
WELCOME BACK LEONIDAS
Zathalus
Member
If you don’t see the need to upgrade then don’t, but if a gamer is looking for a new platform then Zen 5x3D simply makes the most sense right now from a performance standpoint.
I suppose Intel might win on the price/performance front. With the temperature and thermals not being stupid anymore, Intel could be the good budget option.
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Of course his accuracy is 0% since having thoughts implies that you think, which you obviously don't. He can't hit what doesn't exist.
Last edited:
Leonidas
AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
And I've always been about price/performance, which is why I went with a 13600K and overclocked both it and the memory, giving my better than 7800X3D MT with ~92% of 7800X3D gaming performance.
Put the two CPUs side by side in my setup and there is not even a performance difference between the two, since I game at 1440p, with a mid-range GPU and go up to only 120 FPS with VRR.
ThanksWELCOME BACK LEONIDAS
But I must bid you adieu, goodbye and goodnight.
I actually prefer Intel. I was having faster performance (originally) in the games I play on the 14900k. The reason I switched to the 7950x3D was because I got 14900k that was defective within a month (which is now more of a main stream problem) and Microcenter had 7950x3D at the time. I had a lot of performance issues with the 7950x3D's performance. These problems were recently fixed for the Ryzen 9.... One issue was resolved due to the Jays2Cent video that discovered that we needed to change the bios to prefer drivers. It's crazy that it took a whole generation to tell us we needed to make this change. That alone made me happy with my CPUs performance. Then we had the Windows update that improved my performance even further. A year later, and I'm now a happy 7950x3D owner.
Now we have a disappointing CPU and GPU generation unfolding. It seems like the Intel chip will perform much worse than my current CPU and require more watts. The AMD 9series generation has been a disappointment Now the 9950x3D will not launch until next year. This has been the weirdest CPU generations for me in history. Has anyone else had a similar experience?
Now we have a disappointing CPU and GPU generation unfolding. It seems like the Intel chip will perform much worse than my current CPU and require more watts. The AMD 9series generation has been a disappointment Now the 9950x3D will not launch until next year. This has been the weirdest CPU generations for me in history. Has anyone else had a similar experience?
During the Zen 2 era games were made with netbook CPUs in mind and even a 3700X was enough to get over 100 FPS. Now we have games like Microsoft Flight Simulator, BG3, Dragon's Dogma 2 and Elden Ring which can drop below 60 FPS on the fastest CPUs, and a bunch more that are stuck below 100 FPS. Of course, now we actually need the extra performance it doesn't matter, but when games were getting hundreds of FPS, that 10% or so that the 3700X was down over the 9900K was terribly important.
marquimvfs
Member
My prediction of Arrow Lake taking the 2024 gaming crown increases even further
Well, there you go.
You said that, but back when you believed in your predictions, gaming was all that mattered.
marquimvfs
Member
It will do well, maybe worse than previous gen, but fanboys will align themselves to buy it anyway.
Last edited:
The Mad Draklor
Member
Have you noticed that he comes off much more bitter than before? He's not even trying to maintain his (poorly acted) "friendly neighbor" persona.
Also Intel ignored their official memory speed numbers in every test do far while the competition always gets slower speeds because of official support. If I remember correctly, raptor lake numbers were also presented with more than 6000 DDR5 speed, while ryzen was at the same chart measured with official limits.
Don't forget that this will also hurt efficiency a lot. Higher clocked memory normally also increases the energy consumption of the CPU, as the controller is inside of it.
It will be interesting what the missing hyper threading will do in real tests.
Brigandier
Gold Member
Monad
Member
This is true for those of us who play in 4K.
I also have a 13600K along with the 4090, and at no point have I experienced CPU bottlenecks when playing at that resolution.
In any case, this is relevant to those who are in the competitive scene or play at 1080p (or maybe 1440p).
GHG
Member
Even at 1440p it's pretty difficult to be CPU bottlenecked unless you have one of the top 3-4 GPUs. The quickest way to find out if you're bottlenecked is to find your GPU in techpowerup.com benchmarks for the game you want to play and make note of the FPS (using spider man as an example):
Then you want to pair that GPU with a CPU that has an equal or better fps on the chart below:
So for the 4080, in that game at 1440p you need a CPU that is capable of doing 190fps and above (so the 13700k as a minimum). You can also see how many frames you're giving up in that specific scenario by having various lower tier CPU's.
Not an exact science, but it should give you a rough idea. Just use the same methodology and cross reference charts for the specific games you'd like to check at the resolution you game at and it will show you what CPU you need to get in order to prevent your GPU from being bottlenecked at that resolution:
AMD Ryzen 7 9700X Review - The Magic of Zen 5
The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X boasts a robust eight-core design and exceptional single-threaded performance with great power efficiency. In our review we saw good gains with PBO overclocking and TDP increases. Unfortunately, the $360 price tag is steep, and there are several good alternatives available.
AMD Ryzen 7 9700X Review - The Magic of Zen 5
The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X boasts a robust eight-core design and exceptional single-threaded performance with great power efficiency. In our review we saw good gains with PBO overclocking and TDP increases. Unfortunately, the $360 price tag is steep, and there are several good alternatives available.
leonokarin
Member
?
If you populate both channels with 1 DIMM it's still just one DIMM per channel. The lower specs are only for when using 2R DIMMs or using 4 DIMMs in total.
Insane Metal
Member
IDK how reliable this is, but if real:
Perf is pretty much on par but the CPU is running anywhere from 10 to 20º celsius hotter than the 14th gen counterpart. Without knowing specifics it's hard to judge but... doesn't look good.
Perf is pretty much on par but the CPU is running anywhere from 10 to 20º celsius hotter than the 14th gen counterpart. Without knowing specifics it's hard to judge but... doesn't look good.
GHG
Member
GHG
Member
latency worse than Zen1
Expected.
From a marketing perspective making ultra high frequency ram able to run with these new boards/chips sounds great. That is, until you realise you'll forever be banished to gear 2 or even gear 4. Until they sort out the memory controller so it's able to run high frequency ddr5 in gear one then it will always be all show and no go.
Last edited:
ap_puff
Member
Definitely OC'd RAM, look at those bandwidth numbers. (It's over 9000) Mt/s
winjer
Gold Member
I doubt it's 9000Mbps memory.
For example, 8000Mbps gives a max theoretical value of 128GB/s.
A proper memory tweaked kit will do 90-95% efficiency.
So my bet that was using 8000-8200 Mbps memory kit.
Last edited:
Bojji
Member
Waiting from GN title " Waste of Sand"
Is this standard in game bench from menu?
It's GPU limited in most cases, both GPUs are on similar level but you have this FSR/DLSS auto bullshit left in. Should have used 720p native and that's it.
Shit test to be honest.
SolidQ
Member
Bojji
Member
7800X3D with weaker GPU
My mistake, you are right test is fully CPU limited at those settings. 5800X3D:
Meme Lake
What a shitshow, looks like 5800X3D is still the beast!
SolidQ
Member
Yeah you can stay until Zen6, but i'm waiting for 9800X3D reviews
Those review deleted from OC3D, seems they was thinking today is review day
Last edited:
Bojji
Member
I love that power consumption is in "hahaha" territory again, ugh.
It's BAD for everyone that we have weak Intel launch...
Where is Leonidas?
winjer
Gold Member
I think Factorio is one of those games that really like low latency for the system memory.
That the 285K is doing so badly, might mean that memory latency is indeed terrible.
Still, I want to see more reviews, before drawing any conclusion.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
14900KS in my main desktop / 9800X3D in my SFF PC....Im gonna be set for years I think.
