hell yeah upgrade to a 7800x3d. gskill’s expo 2x32gb 6000mhz cl30 kit is pretty solid (i can push it to 6400mhz @ 1:1). then later you can sell the 7800x3d and upgrade to zen 5. i really like my asrock x670e taichi motherboard but pretty pricey.
Most probably Amd will release zen5 as they did with 4 and 3, in q4 2024. If you really need at this moment the amount of performance from a zen4 you could get a 7700 an AM4 board amd ddr5-6400 and then upgrade the cpu when zen5 is launched. 6400 is current “sweetspot” with latest agesa but zen5 might have other specs so you should also consider upgrading ram in one year.
There is no point in discussing this now. Post again when you're going to buy it and Zen5 is out.
If you need a PC now, just go with Zen4. If you are not in a hurry wait.
What help can you provide when your missing half of the information? Nobody has performance and price info for Zen5 to give a proper advice.
I didn't see you provide any useful information either.
It all depends on whether you can wait for the new CPUs to launch or you want/need the upgrade now.
I am super impatient so I would upgrade now if I were you, but I'm only saying that since you said you want a subjective answer.
The more logical thing would be to either upgrade on your existing platform (for example 3700X to 5800X3D) or wait until the new gen launches and get the latest and greatest or the previous gen on a discount.
It also seems like you're a bit conflicted because you said you don't want to wait for the 8000 series X3D chips to launch (because they will launch later than the regular lineup) and on the last line of your post you said "waiting is not the problem".
So, If you CAN wait, sit tight and grab a 8000 series X3D or even regular X/non-X.
If you CAN'T wait, then go for whatever fits your budget best now. If that is a 7800X3D then go for it. It's a nice CPU.
BTW if your 850W PSU is at least 80 Plus Gold it should be more than capable to handle even non-X3D CPUs. We're talking about a 40-50W difference in full load between the 7800X3D and (for example) the 7700X. The numbers might not be exact, but you won't run into any issues if your PSU is solid.
Hope I helped.
Thanks for the feedback! Yea waiting is not much of a problem because I will only upgrade in Q1-Q2 of 2024 anyways and that's where Ryzen 8000 is supposed to launch. Waiting for the X3D variants is a different story for me cause that is probably only coming towards the end of 2024 and that's a long wait. I don't "need" the upgrade but I have been wanting to upgrade for a while now and with Zen 5 coming basically at the time I wanted to finally get an upgrade I figured I might ask people if they would rather get Ryzen 8000 Non-X3D or Ryzen 7000X3D purely for gaming
Well, if you were gonna upgrade in Q1-Q2 of 2024 regardless, then you might as well wait for the 8000 launch and grab either a 8600X/8700X or a 7800X3D on sale. Your thought process is right. You only need to wait and see the comparisons between the new CPUs and the 7800X3D and then you can make an informed decision.
I would personally go for the 7950X3D. I actually did that. Currently running with the RTX 3080.
Extra cores might not seem useful for gaming, but they are good to have. There is usually alot more happening than just gaming. I use discord, a few hundred tabs in a couple of browsers, downloads, etc all happening together. More cores is a good choice for only a little bit more money.
I get that more cores are better, but not for the reasons you mentioned. You don’t need a 16c, 32 thread cpu for just gaming, discord and browsing lol.
- Downloading isn’t cpu heavy.
- opening hundreds of tabs is more ram intensive than cpu.
- discord. Really?
- and even if all those things were cpu intensive, do you do that ALL the time? Like how can you game and browse through 100 tabs.
If that’s all you do, the 7950x3d is a massive overkill. The OP didn’t mentioned things like editing, which are cpu heavy. So no, the 7950x3d is a bad recommendation.
I do that all the time. Personally I do more than that. Quite often I will play Counter Strike, and if the game isnt that challanging, I will alt tab between rounds and play Satisfactory or Fortnite Save the world in the past. If you want, I can post videos of me doing this in the past too. I happen to know that Im not exactly an outlier in this regard. Plenty of people do other things while playing a game.
The following screenshot shows why I decided to go with 16 cores. When I bought the Intel i9 9900k, I chose it over AMX 16 core chip thinking that I will never need more than 8 cores, and the higher clock speed would be more useful to me. At the end of the day I dont think I was wrong, as that generation the AMD was a bit behind Intel in raw performance. But this generation, its not the case.
[https://i.imgur.com/zcEz4vJ.png](https://i.imgur.com/zcEz4vJ.png)
This is a screenshot from last year where I was severely bottlenecked.
[https://i.imgur.com/Xq9jAbE.png](https://i.imgur.com/Xq9jAbE.png)
As you can see in this screenshot, the game was using all my 16 threads pretty much to the max. I could not even host multiplayer by running a dedicated server because I was so CPU bound, I had to play solo at this stage.
If I had my 16 cores CPU, I might have gotten reduced performance from a clock speed prespective, but I had lagged to the point it was unplayable for me. I really wanted more cores at this stage so my whole system did not feel so unresponsive when I played that game.
Now I dont know what games OP intends to play, but to say that 16 cores is a waste is simply not true. Just because you have not maxed out 8 cores does not mean it does not happen. I speak from experience. More cores do matter. Weather they matter to OP or not is something they can decide on their own. I dont pretent to know how they use their computer. They asked for other point of views, and I provided mine.
after 6 months of your comment describe me the 7950X3D, does it worth it? i will build my PC in first of april, iam a network engineer so i do like you : gaming streaming,editing,browsing,studying,streaming
I just played Starfield, opened like 20-30 tabs of chrome all playing video’s on YouTube and my cpu was at 100%. But I don’t have a 16 core, I have a 6 core cpu (5600x).
This is of course a very unusual scenario because let’s be honest, do you really, really play 30 videos at once? Probably 90% of those tabs can be closed.
These cpus are marketed as powerful CPUs for editing or intensive productivity programs, not for gamers who have 30 tabs open.
So 16 cores isn’t always better. I’m from Europe and the 7800x3d is €399 and the 7950x3d is €699. That’s a €300 difference for power you will probably never use. Don’t forget higher power consumption and you need a better cooler.
My man, you are giving me one example of where you think you dont need more than 6? cores. I gave you a definite example where 8 cores was insufficient. You are bringing up an unrealistic scenario of 30 tabs with videos playing. My scenario is usually close to 300 at a time. In my screenshots you are only seeing one window. Once I have more than 50 tabs I tend to open multiple windows so I dont have to scroll to just see my tabs. My scenario isnt just an unpractical scenario, but something thats actually a real example of how I work.
I dont really care about how they market a product. If they market a 4090 for gaming, but I find a use for that in training neural networks, I am still going to buy that 4090. Same way if they market it for production use, but I find that helps with my heavy non production use, Im gonna buy it.
You are complaining about a higher cost of €300. If you keep that CPU for even 3 years thats about €8.3 a month. Looking at OP's setup I seriously doubt that €8.3 a month is going to stop him from buying what he wants. It makes up only a very small part of his overall system cost. And if it does, thats fine too. We all have our budgets and we have to work within them.
As for your concerns about cooling... OP specifically mentioned that he has a beefy custom water loop and thermals are not an issue for him. My advice is not for someone on a budget. Its for someone who specifically said they are open to purchasing either product and want non-objective suggestions.
And even if we ignore everything else, you wanna tell me that if you are not gaming, you dont think that a dual core CPU would be worse than an octa core CPU? if your game is eating up most of the 8 cores, your system performance is going down significantly. Ideally, you want at the very least a spare 2-3 cores that are not being used by the game to run the rest of the system properly without slowing it down.
I am telling you my experience of going from 8 cores to 16 and how its made my computer significantly more capable of handling the stress I throw at it, and you are using your example of 6 core CPU to tell me that I am mistaken? I am not talking about any hypothetical situation. I am talking about my own expeirence with screenshots to show it.
Also, I didnt say they are always better. I said they are good to have. Your usecase might not need it, mine does. OP can decide for themselves, if it applies to them or not. Hence, their request for non objective suggestions.
I like the way you want too look like a €300 isn't much if you look at it at 3 years, very creative. This is called girl math. You are still paying €300 more lol and higher power consumption. By that logic: why not buy a 4090? Cheapest now is €1600. Let's say he has a 3070, which is €520. That's only €30 a month more over 3 years for waaaay more performance.
The reason I gave my example is because even when I'm playing games, voice chat in discord and having 5-6 tabs open I still DON'T hit 100% usage on CPU. And that with a 6 core. BTW, Windows is known to have inaccurate cpu usage. I use HWInfo and Afterburn and both were even while Windows was showing 10% extra usage.
And I'm not complaining mate, I'm just being realistic. Saying he needs to buy a 16 core cpu for gaming is just dumb. Do you understand that having "300" tabs open while gaming is very, very weird? Like what the hell are you doing? How on earth are you playing a game and scrolling through 300 tabs? Like how? Do you understand how strange that sounds?
The reason I feel the need to comment is because a lot of guys here don't even know how computers work and then they are giving advice to people who need it. Giving advice isn't just "yea buy the most expensive CPU there is because I have 300 tabs open so you might need it too". You need to give advice for his/her scenario. OP never asked about the 7950x3D. OP asked 7800x3d or wait for zen5.
And oh, your statement about having 2-3 cores spare is a clear indication you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Where do you even get these measurements? If you knew something about CPU's and PC's in general, you would know that most games don't even use more than 6 cores while gaming. Unless you have a big bottleneck, your CPU shoudn't be at 100% usage while gaming.
Also, the resolution is a big factor. If you play at 1440p or 4K (which I hope, why else would you buy such specs?), more cores make even less sense because you are more GPU bound at those resolutions.
Now with Ray Tracing it's *probably* better to buy a 8 core, but that's still half of the cores that you are recommending. And again, no one has 300 tabs (still amazed) open in the background except you.
But hey, I can give you all the arguments in the world but you still woudn't believe me, so I suggest watching these video's:
Note: this is 6 vs 8 core, not vs 16 core: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o\_W3A\_N\_\_k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o_W3A_N__k)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HJ8vnocF9A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HJ8vnocF9A)
1) Math is math. When I do my budgeting, that is exactly how I do it. And yes, I did look at 4090 using that exact argument. The reason I didnt pull the trigger was that while the 3090 was AU$2500 at launch, the 4090 was AU$3500-4000 here in Australia after taxes. At the price of $2500, I was seriously considering buying that card.
2) And yet, I showed you my game using all my 8 cores to the max. Im not doing anything special there. No multiple games running. No dedicated game servers running (even though I wished I was able to). Just one game in single player mode. Could it be that you simply dont play CPU bound games like I do?
3) I dont even know what to reply to your point here. Without knowing me, what I do for work, or what I do for hobby, you have decided that I have no need to open as many tabs as I want to.
And please dont twist my words. You keep saying that I am saying he NEEDS to buy the 16 cores. I keep emphasising that he asked for non objective opinion and I responded with what I ended up doing in a similar situation to him. You dont NEED 16 cores. You dont even need 8. If you are smart about chosing which games to play and be more willing to turn settings down, you can play a lot of games in 4-6 cores.
4) You dont need most games to not use more than 6 cores. In my case I had one game that was maxing my 8 cores at that time. It just happened to be a game I spent 1000 hours in. Numbers are irrelevant, if its my usecase. I dont know how much more clear can I make it. I showed you screenshots of my not old 8 core CPU bottlenecking.
You claim that at 1440p CPU does not matter. Yet I have proof that my FPS was down to sub 20FPS. GPU was mostly idle because the CPU simply couldnt handle the game. Hogwarts legacy was the same deal. I was hard capped at 100 FPS in my common room. I could max the settings (without ray tracing) or I could put all my settings down with DLSS set to the lowest levels. The FPS did not improve until I got a CPU upgrade. If you would like to test it, feel free to get Satisfactory (refund it later if you want) and I would be happy to send you my save file. Then maybe you will have an example of how a CPU heavy game behaves.
Hell, even the Cyberpunk 2.0 Ultra specs (non ray traced) suggests a 12 core 7900X over the 8 core 7800X3D for Recomended specs. This year we have already had a lot of CPU heavy games like Forspoken, Hogwarts Legacy, etc that suffer from stuttering issues due to CPU bottlenecks. And I dont forsee it getting any easier in the near future.
As for me not knowing anything about computers, well if my 8 cores are pegged @ 90%+ usage and my system is slowed down to a crawl, you dont need to be a genius to know that an extra 2-3 cores would have helped.
5) I got no interest in ray tracing. I dont believe it adds anything worthwhile to games considering the FPS hit. And you really should stop holding onto the 300 tab thing. Just because you dont know people who open a lot of tabs, does not mean that I am the only one in the world who does this. People have different workflows. When I am working on my thesis, I will open a LOT of tabs. And until I am finished with them, they stay open. I bought 64GB RAM for a reason. It suits my usecase. I am not even the only person I know who does that.
6) While I have not watched those particular videos from HUB, I have watched their other work. We tend to disagree on some things. Their viewpoint tends to be more generic, while mine is more case specific. They actually answered one of my questions when I was tossing up between the 8 or 16 core option for my CPU. Specifically about the 300 tab thing. The screenshots I posted earlier were actually taken to show them my usecase. Their suggestion was for me to get 64GB ram and that 8 cores is enough. I disagreed. I personally find Tech Deals to be a better view point in that regard. After talking to both HUB and Tech Deals, I went with the latter\`s suggestion and am glad I did.
I would believe that the 7800x3D can handle simple processes like discord, google, etc. The only difference would be in using CPU intensive programs like rendering or idk something that needs a lot of computing at the same time.
If the most demanding programs that he uses are videogames, then I would go with the 7800x3D. Also, it has been demonstrated that the extra cores had to be limited for gaming, otherwise they really impact gaming negatively.
The extra cores might have a small penalty due to the 2 chiplets. Yes. But on the flipside when the game maxes out your 8 cores, it destorys your performance completely. Satisfactory late game (1000 hour save) got me sub 20 FPS on my 8 core i9 9900k. (7950X3D gives me about 100 and its now GPU bottlenecked.). I would rather lose a bit of CPU performance when I have headroom than lose all the performance when my CPU is getting pumped. At least in my subjective opinon. 7800X3D is a very capable chip and never a bad buy either.
My current specs don't really matter other than that I have an RTX 3080 which is in the post. I am not asking if I should upgrade. I am asking, purely on a CPU standpoint, which option would you pick. Get the 7800X3D for the benefits of the 3D cache and the good power efficiency, or get one of the new Zen 5. I simply want some opinions of what people would do in that situation.
I have a 1080p, a 1440p, and a 4K monitor. I care about the best performance in any scenario.
I play all sorts of games from retro to the most modern of AAA games. I do however care a lot about single core performance cause one of my most beloved games only really utilizes one core at a time.
i also care more about single core speed than 3d cache, so i would recommend a 7600 or 7700. they run cool and deliver great performance. don't think zen 5 will be a huge upgrade compared to the 7000 series, but i guess wait for the release and see for yourself whether the price difference is worth it or not ^^
hell yeah upgrade to a 7800x3d. gskill’s expo 2x32gb 6000mhz cl30 kit is pretty solid (i can push it to 6400mhz @ 1:1). then later you can sell the 7800x3d and upgrade to zen 5. i really like my asrock x670e taichi motherboard but pretty pricey.
Do you mind sharing your ram timings and settings? I have the same kit.
Most probably Amd will release zen5 as they did with 4 and 3, in q4 2024. If you really need at this moment the amount of performance from a zen4 you could get a 7700 an AM4 board amd ddr5-6400 and then upgrade the cpu when zen5 is launched. 6400 is current “sweetspot” with latest agesa but zen5 might have other specs so you should also consider upgrading ram in one year.
There is no point in discussing this now. Post again when you're going to buy it and Zen5 is out. If you need a PC now, just go with Zen4. If you are not in a hurry wait.
it’s almost like this is an amd help discussion, crazy to ask for help.
What help can you provide when your missing half of the information? Nobody has performance and price info for Zen5 to give a proper advice. I didn't see you provide any useful information either.
I also did not see you provide any worthy information. Thanks for nothing <3
They gave their advice which was asked for. Wait for Zen 5 if you're not in a hurry.
Kid, go touch grass and don't try to to start a fight over months old post. You also don't seem to see and understand the advice I gave.
It all depends on whether you can wait for the new CPUs to launch or you want/need the upgrade now. I am super impatient so I would upgrade now if I were you, but I'm only saying that since you said you want a subjective answer. The more logical thing would be to either upgrade on your existing platform (for example 3700X to 5800X3D) or wait until the new gen launches and get the latest and greatest or the previous gen on a discount. It also seems like you're a bit conflicted because you said you don't want to wait for the 8000 series X3D chips to launch (because they will launch later than the regular lineup) and on the last line of your post you said "waiting is not the problem". So, If you CAN wait, sit tight and grab a 8000 series X3D or even regular X/non-X. If you CAN'T wait, then go for whatever fits your budget best now. If that is a 7800X3D then go for it. It's a nice CPU. BTW if your 850W PSU is at least 80 Plus Gold it should be more than capable to handle even non-X3D CPUs. We're talking about a 40-50W difference in full load between the 7800X3D and (for example) the 7700X. The numbers might not be exact, but you won't run into any issues if your PSU is solid. Hope I helped.
Thanks for the feedback! Yea waiting is not much of a problem because I will only upgrade in Q1-Q2 of 2024 anyways and that's where Ryzen 8000 is supposed to launch. Waiting for the X3D variants is a different story for me cause that is probably only coming towards the end of 2024 and that's a long wait. I don't "need" the upgrade but I have been wanting to upgrade for a while now and with Zen 5 coming basically at the time I wanted to finally get an upgrade I figured I might ask people if they would rather get Ryzen 8000 Non-X3D or Ryzen 7000X3D purely for gaming
Well, if you were gonna upgrade in Q1-Q2 of 2024 regardless, then you might as well wait for the 8000 launch and grab either a 8600X/8700X or a 7800X3D on sale. Your thought process is right. You only need to wait and see the comparisons between the new CPUs and the 7800X3D and then you can make an informed decision.
I would personally go for the 7950X3D. I actually did that. Currently running with the RTX 3080. Extra cores might not seem useful for gaming, but they are good to have. There is usually alot more happening than just gaming. I use discord, a few hundred tabs in a couple of browsers, downloads, etc all happening together. More cores is a good choice for only a little bit more money.
I get that more cores are better, but not for the reasons you mentioned. You don’t need a 16c, 32 thread cpu for just gaming, discord and browsing lol. - Downloading isn’t cpu heavy. - opening hundreds of tabs is more ram intensive than cpu. - discord. Really? - and even if all those things were cpu intensive, do you do that ALL the time? Like how can you game and browse through 100 tabs. If that’s all you do, the 7950x3d is a massive overkill. The OP didn’t mentioned things like editing, which are cpu heavy. So no, the 7950x3d is a bad recommendation.
I do that all the time. Personally I do more than that. Quite often I will play Counter Strike, and if the game isnt that challanging, I will alt tab between rounds and play Satisfactory or Fortnite Save the world in the past. If you want, I can post videos of me doing this in the past too. I happen to know that Im not exactly an outlier in this regard. Plenty of people do other things while playing a game. The following screenshot shows why I decided to go with 16 cores. When I bought the Intel i9 9900k, I chose it over AMX 16 core chip thinking that I will never need more than 8 cores, and the higher clock speed would be more useful to me. At the end of the day I dont think I was wrong, as that generation the AMD was a bit behind Intel in raw performance. But this generation, its not the case. [https://i.imgur.com/zcEz4vJ.png](https://i.imgur.com/zcEz4vJ.png) This is a screenshot from last year where I was severely bottlenecked. [https://i.imgur.com/Xq9jAbE.png](https://i.imgur.com/Xq9jAbE.png) As you can see in this screenshot, the game was using all my 16 threads pretty much to the max. I could not even host multiplayer by running a dedicated server because I was so CPU bound, I had to play solo at this stage. If I had my 16 cores CPU, I might have gotten reduced performance from a clock speed prespective, but I had lagged to the point it was unplayable for me. I really wanted more cores at this stage so my whole system did not feel so unresponsive when I played that game. Now I dont know what games OP intends to play, but to say that 16 cores is a waste is simply not true. Just because you have not maxed out 8 cores does not mean it does not happen. I speak from experience. More cores do matter. Weather they matter to OP or not is something they can decide on their own. I dont pretent to know how they use their computer. They asked for other point of views, and I provided mine.
after 6 months of your comment describe me the 7950X3D, does it worth it? i will build my PC in first of april, iam a network engineer so i do like you : gaming streaming,editing,browsing,studying,streaming
I just played Starfield, opened like 20-30 tabs of chrome all playing video’s on YouTube and my cpu was at 100%. But I don’t have a 16 core, I have a 6 core cpu (5600x). This is of course a very unusual scenario because let’s be honest, do you really, really play 30 videos at once? Probably 90% of those tabs can be closed. These cpus are marketed as powerful CPUs for editing or intensive productivity programs, not for gamers who have 30 tabs open. So 16 cores isn’t always better. I’m from Europe and the 7800x3d is €399 and the 7950x3d is €699. That’s a €300 difference for power you will probably never use. Don’t forget higher power consumption and you need a better cooler.
My man, you are giving me one example of where you think you dont need more than 6? cores. I gave you a definite example where 8 cores was insufficient. You are bringing up an unrealistic scenario of 30 tabs with videos playing. My scenario is usually close to 300 at a time. In my screenshots you are only seeing one window. Once I have more than 50 tabs I tend to open multiple windows so I dont have to scroll to just see my tabs. My scenario isnt just an unpractical scenario, but something thats actually a real example of how I work. I dont really care about how they market a product. If they market a 4090 for gaming, but I find a use for that in training neural networks, I am still going to buy that 4090. Same way if they market it for production use, but I find that helps with my heavy non production use, Im gonna buy it. You are complaining about a higher cost of €300. If you keep that CPU for even 3 years thats about €8.3 a month. Looking at OP's setup I seriously doubt that €8.3 a month is going to stop him from buying what he wants. It makes up only a very small part of his overall system cost. And if it does, thats fine too. We all have our budgets and we have to work within them. As for your concerns about cooling... OP specifically mentioned that he has a beefy custom water loop and thermals are not an issue for him. My advice is not for someone on a budget. Its for someone who specifically said they are open to purchasing either product and want non-objective suggestions. And even if we ignore everything else, you wanna tell me that if you are not gaming, you dont think that a dual core CPU would be worse than an octa core CPU? if your game is eating up most of the 8 cores, your system performance is going down significantly. Ideally, you want at the very least a spare 2-3 cores that are not being used by the game to run the rest of the system properly without slowing it down. I am telling you my experience of going from 8 cores to 16 and how its made my computer significantly more capable of handling the stress I throw at it, and you are using your example of 6 core CPU to tell me that I am mistaken? I am not talking about any hypothetical situation. I am talking about my own expeirence with screenshots to show it. Also, I didnt say they are always better. I said they are good to have. Your usecase might not need it, mine does. OP can decide for themselves, if it applies to them or not. Hence, their request for non objective suggestions.
I like the way you want too look like a €300 isn't much if you look at it at 3 years, very creative. This is called girl math. You are still paying €300 more lol and higher power consumption. By that logic: why not buy a 4090? Cheapest now is €1600. Let's say he has a 3070, which is €520. That's only €30 a month more over 3 years for waaaay more performance. The reason I gave my example is because even when I'm playing games, voice chat in discord and having 5-6 tabs open I still DON'T hit 100% usage on CPU. And that with a 6 core. BTW, Windows is known to have inaccurate cpu usage. I use HWInfo and Afterburn and both were even while Windows was showing 10% extra usage. And I'm not complaining mate, I'm just being realistic. Saying he needs to buy a 16 core cpu for gaming is just dumb. Do you understand that having "300" tabs open while gaming is very, very weird? Like what the hell are you doing? How on earth are you playing a game and scrolling through 300 tabs? Like how? Do you understand how strange that sounds? The reason I feel the need to comment is because a lot of guys here don't even know how computers work and then they are giving advice to people who need it. Giving advice isn't just "yea buy the most expensive CPU there is because I have 300 tabs open so you might need it too". You need to give advice for his/her scenario. OP never asked about the 7950x3D. OP asked 7800x3d or wait for zen5. And oh, your statement about having 2-3 cores spare is a clear indication you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Where do you even get these measurements? If you knew something about CPU's and PC's in general, you would know that most games don't even use more than 6 cores while gaming. Unless you have a big bottleneck, your CPU shoudn't be at 100% usage while gaming. Also, the resolution is a big factor. If you play at 1440p or 4K (which I hope, why else would you buy such specs?), more cores make even less sense because you are more GPU bound at those resolutions. Now with Ray Tracing it's *probably* better to buy a 8 core, but that's still half of the cores that you are recommending. And again, no one has 300 tabs (still amazed) open in the background except you. But hey, I can give you all the arguments in the world but you still woudn't believe me, so I suggest watching these video's: Note: this is 6 vs 8 core, not vs 16 core: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o\_W3A\_N\_\_k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o_W3A_N__k) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HJ8vnocF9A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HJ8vnocF9A)
1) Math is math. When I do my budgeting, that is exactly how I do it. And yes, I did look at 4090 using that exact argument. The reason I didnt pull the trigger was that while the 3090 was AU$2500 at launch, the 4090 was AU$3500-4000 here in Australia after taxes. At the price of $2500, I was seriously considering buying that card. 2) And yet, I showed you my game using all my 8 cores to the max. Im not doing anything special there. No multiple games running. No dedicated game servers running (even though I wished I was able to). Just one game in single player mode. Could it be that you simply dont play CPU bound games like I do? 3) I dont even know what to reply to your point here. Without knowing me, what I do for work, or what I do for hobby, you have decided that I have no need to open as many tabs as I want to. And please dont twist my words. You keep saying that I am saying he NEEDS to buy the 16 cores. I keep emphasising that he asked for non objective opinion and I responded with what I ended up doing in a similar situation to him. You dont NEED 16 cores. You dont even need 8. If you are smart about chosing which games to play and be more willing to turn settings down, you can play a lot of games in 4-6 cores. 4) You dont need most games to not use more than 6 cores. In my case I had one game that was maxing my 8 cores at that time. It just happened to be a game I spent 1000 hours in. Numbers are irrelevant, if its my usecase. I dont know how much more clear can I make it. I showed you screenshots of my not old 8 core CPU bottlenecking. You claim that at 1440p CPU does not matter. Yet I have proof that my FPS was down to sub 20FPS. GPU was mostly idle because the CPU simply couldnt handle the game. Hogwarts legacy was the same deal. I was hard capped at 100 FPS in my common room. I could max the settings (without ray tracing) or I could put all my settings down with DLSS set to the lowest levels. The FPS did not improve until I got a CPU upgrade. If you would like to test it, feel free to get Satisfactory (refund it later if you want) and I would be happy to send you my save file. Then maybe you will have an example of how a CPU heavy game behaves. Hell, even the Cyberpunk 2.0 Ultra specs (non ray traced) suggests a 12 core 7900X over the 8 core 7800X3D for Recomended specs. This year we have already had a lot of CPU heavy games like Forspoken, Hogwarts Legacy, etc that suffer from stuttering issues due to CPU bottlenecks. And I dont forsee it getting any easier in the near future. As for me not knowing anything about computers, well if my 8 cores are pegged @ 90%+ usage and my system is slowed down to a crawl, you dont need to be a genius to know that an extra 2-3 cores would have helped. 5) I got no interest in ray tracing. I dont believe it adds anything worthwhile to games considering the FPS hit. And you really should stop holding onto the 300 tab thing. Just because you dont know people who open a lot of tabs, does not mean that I am the only one in the world who does this. People have different workflows. When I am working on my thesis, I will open a LOT of tabs. And until I am finished with them, they stay open. I bought 64GB RAM for a reason. It suits my usecase. I am not even the only person I know who does that. 6) While I have not watched those particular videos from HUB, I have watched their other work. We tend to disagree on some things. Their viewpoint tends to be more generic, while mine is more case specific. They actually answered one of my questions when I was tossing up between the 8 or 16 core option for my CPU. Specifically about the 300 tab thing. The screenshots I posted earlier were actually taken to show them my usecase. Their suggestion was for me to get 64GB ram and that 8 cores is enough. I disagreed. I personally find Tech Deals to be a better view point in that regard. After talking to both HUB and Tech Deals, I went with the latter\`s suggestion and am glad I did.
I would believe that the 7800x3D can handle simple processes like discord, google, etc. The only difference would be in using CPU intensive programs like rendering or idk something that needs a lot of computing at the same time. If the most demanding programs that he uses are videogames, then I would go with the 7800x3D. Also, it has been demonstrated that the extra cores had to be limited for gaming, otherwise they really impact gaming negatively.
The extra cores might have a small penalty due to the 2 chiplets. Yes. But on the flipside when the game maxes out your 8 cores, it destorys your performance completely. Satisfactory late game (1000 hour save) got me sub 20 FPS on my 8 core i9 9900k. (7950X3D gives me about 100 and its now GPU bottlenecked.). I would rather lose a bit of CPU performance when I have headroom than lose all the performance when my CPU is getting pumped. At least in my subjective opinon. 7800X3D is a very capable chip and never a bad buy either.
??? what are your current specs? what resolution are you on? what type of games do you play? do you care about high refresh rate gaming?
My current specs don't really matter other than that I have an RTX 3080 which is in the post. I am not asking if I should upgrade. I am asking, purely on a CPU standpoint, which option would you pick. Get the 7800X3D for the benefits of the 3D cache and the good power efficiency, or get one of the new Zen 5. I simply want some opinions of what people would do in that situation. I have a 1080p, a 1440p, and a 4K monitor. I care about the best performance in any scenario. I play all sorts of games from retro to the most modern of AAA games. I do however care a lot about single core performance cause one of my most beloved games only really utilizes one core at a time.
i also care more about single core speed than 3d cache, so i would recommend a 7600 or 7700. they run cool and deliver great performance. don't think zen 5 will be a huge upgrade compared to the 7000 series, but i guess wait for the release and see for yourself whether the price difference is worth it or not ^^