Hey guys,
I am about to build my new rig since mly last rig was build 6-7 years ago. I am still battling between the intel 14900Ks vs 7800X3D. Don't know which one I shoudl target to. I don't play game much ...my spare time is doing video editing and play abit game once in a whilte.
Can anyone feeedback which one should I build

Thanks

Both cpus can do the job. But Sounds like you want intel though if doing workloads outside of strictly gaming. I would say strictly gaming amd be way to go

 

If you need it now and do not plan on upgrading anytime soon, 7950X3D.

If you can wait, Zen 5 is going to get released in 2H 2024 and is expected to brin 14~26 IPC performance boost compared to Zen 4.

Intel's current offering is not good. It is extremely hot and power hungry and there are reports it could be unstable.

PC maker offers a potential fix for crashing Intel CPUs

While Intel continues to investigate sporadic stability issues with its 14th gen and 13th gen, famed PC maker Falcon Northwest is offering stopgap advice for some.

www.pcworld.com

There were performance fix, but it drops the performance of the CPU

14th gen worse performance fix - Google Search

 

The fact you do more video rendering and really don't game much makes the 7800X3D a non starter in your selection process.

It really comes down to a 7950X3D or a 14900KS which gives you optimal multi-core performance and two killer gaming CPUs for when you do game.

Unless you're in a rush, wait for Zen5 as BIOSes are already being updated for its launch.

 

I cannot recommend intel anymore after i hhad one ofy p-cores go bad making my previously stable system unstable.

I used a 200W power limit and didn't really overclock due to weak cooler.

 

I am not rushing... Will wait for the Zen5 cuz I plan to keep the rig for atleast 4-5 yrs before upgrade to next one.

 

14700k kf . ram 6400mhz . rec the rig fory
That's why you have Intel(R) Extreme Tuning Utility

 

if youre asking this question dont get a KS... 14900K will do just fine

 

Given what we know now in regards to the Intel 13th/14th gen issues, I could not possibly recommend Intel to anyone.

Intel = dumpster fire

 

Given what we know now in regards to the Intel 13th/14th gen issues, I could not possibly recommend Intel to anyone.

Intel = dumpster fire

Well it performs well if you have very good cooling and tune it properly (if you didn't lose the silicon lottery).

But it's a lot of effort and cost for performance that might not even last very long due to degradation.

DDR5 overclocking is also a nightmare with intel due to the imc unless you are willing to accept your ram throwing an error once a day or something like that.

 

Imo go 7800x3d. New cpus are suppose to come out for am5 at the end of the year vs Intel you have zero upgrade path at all without a new board.

 

I think the answers you would have got 6 months ago would have been different. but with the reports on the failure rates for 14th gen, i don't think many people will recommend 14th gen for anyone. especially since the next gen for intel will be on a new platform, meanwhile AM5 will be good at least for the upcoming release of Ryzen 5 (and probably ryzen 6 after it)

 

Lotsa Intel flaming in this thread. Intel is in fact better if you are doing anything else other than gaming/3D work. The 14900k is faster at everything else. The issues with power are the MB makers settings being unhinged. I myself have never had an issue with Intel in the last 15 years (I have used one AMD cpu in that time and it was fine too). Read up on some reviews/benchmarks directly related to what you are going to do with your PC. Then pick the one thats best for YOU.

 

Two options here:

First, the 14900ks only if you plan on direct die cooling. Otherwise get the K but that also requires water and even direct die cooling for best results. Both are beat by the X3D chips in games.

Option 1": I would recommend, if you absolutely have to get a new PC, the 7800X3D because AMD's next CPU will be compatible with the current socket. Intel's LGA17000 socket is dead after the 14th gen CPUs.

Option 1a: If you can, I would recommend waiting for the new AMD CPUs to be released and then choose.

 

Two options here:

First, the 14900ks only if you plan on direct die cooling. Otherwise get the K but that also requires water and even direct die cooling for best results. Both are beat by the X3D chips in games.

Option 1": I would recommend, if you absolutely have to get a new PC, the 7800X3D because AMD's next CPU will be compatible with the current socket. Intel's LGA17000 socket is dead after the 14th gen CPUs.

Option 1a: If you can, I would recommend waiting for the new AMD CPUs to be released and then choose.

AM5 suffers from a horrible IMC design, you cant use fast ram, intel decimates am5 when overclocked, you cant overclock AM5, they both run hot when you do try and run them fast, the chiplet design renders the only useful cpu is the 8 core, the motherboards are horrible, intel has better 1% lows, software works better for Intel like adobe and several others... i can go on about memory compatibility problems, etc...

 

From someone that has a 12600k setup and a 7600x setup id say go am5. 13/14th gen is having issues not running stable out the box. Also 14th gen is maxed out for that socket while am5 has two to three more refreshed left

 

Also, Intel blaming the board partners for this mess simply isn't all true. They messed up.

 

and on come the fans of the cpu you cant overclock, followed by the gamers that dont overclock, followed by the reviewers that dont overclock... yet they will post this crap on a forum called OVERCLOCK.NET

 

Can't oc? You quite literally don't know what you are talking about. Buy b650 board with clock gen and oc x3d

 

The truth is that AMD simply is currently a leader in the gaming space. There are arguments all across the board in favor of specifics. All of that is subjective debate.

Objectively speaking a 7800X3D will out perform the 14900 chips if simply comparing "stock" operation, in gaming.

Objectively speaking the 14900 chips will out perform the 7800X3D in various other workloads.

Subjectively speaking, when discussing the side argument here - which isn't which one is faster at gaming, see above - it's what else you might expect from the CPU besides gaming.

I'm going to do what shouldn't be done but will none-the-less.

In all fairness, in all reality, in all simplistic approach, your experience isn't going to differ dramatically between the two for 99% of users.

For the very niche gamer+advanced+developer+content creator*VPA and on... etc.... then the 14900 chips are a better choice.

For all intents and purposes AMD currently offers the best all-around chips, with a nod at gaming primarily.

 

how is gamer+advanced+developer+content creator*VPA and on... etc. a niche compared to gamer only? this sounds more like opinion vs reality... do you have any data to back this up with?

 

No - and rereading, I intended to insert assume as an adjective, suggesting that your average user-experience is unlikely to differ substantially between them for much of general use cases. For a small niche part of that, again it's assumed that those who need something specifically fine tuned are going to use one or the other specifically. Completely subjective take.

 

hmmm looks like intel is twice as popular

 

Very polarized in here.

For mixed workloads, I’d go 14900K, or 7950X, leaning towards 14900K; not KS.

For gaming only, 14700K/14900K, or 7800X3D. The stickler here is whether you want to deal with memory tuning or not. If you want to run the chip completely stock with XMP, I think the 7800X3D is your best option. If you’re looking for a platform that you are interested in tweaking heavily, the ceiling is higher on Intel, but I wouldn’t recommend it unless you enjoy it (and already know you’d enjoy that aspect). Even then, it depends on the game. Some games Intel dominates, some benefit a ton from the 3D cache.. I don’t think you can go wrong with either option currently.

Having played games on both platforms, I prefer how Intel performs/feels. IMO, there’s some things benchmarks and average FPS benchmarks don’t pick up, and that’s where my issues with AMD start.

I wouldn't call AMD’s IMC bad, but Intel’s IMC, again, has a higher ceiling. Plenty of us have 8200+ stable without any retrain issues (what people refer to when they say “one day it’s stable, the other it’s not”); just takes time to get it honed in.

If you’re keeping the rig for 4-5 years, I don’t think the longevity of the platform matters at all. You’d be silly to replace the CPU at that point.

Buy based off what you think is best right now, or if you want to wait, new Zen chips are apparently coming somewhat soon.

 

I don't know what your guys talking about, i have 13700kf on 2 Pc both undervolted and works great, on Asus and Msi mid boards.

 

Same... the KS i had was garbage, so I will give credit where credit is due on that cpu... I used AMD for almost 25 yrs and was actually an trained salesperson who went to conventions etc.. I switched to Intel a little over 18 months ago, and Ill just say that the responsiveness and sheer power is something that cannot be ignored. There's the little things like the overclocking rewards, the ability to literally double the power by overclocking over default. taking advantage of good parts like running an open loop, or good quality motherboard and memory.. its nice to be able to tune and tweak something and get the results you were expecting or more. Also with Intel everything just works nad doesnt cut out or give you a bsod, and software doesnt need to be patched or configured. The BIOS with intel motherboard also is deeper to an extent, more features, options that actually mean or do something.

Overclocking is just better

 

5.5 ghz 7600x would also like to have a chat with 6400 cl30 gear 1

 

If gaming isn't the primary focus, the 7800X3D isn't really a comparable part to the 14900KS. You should be looking at something like a 7950X or 7950X3D.

Between a 14900K(S) setup and a 7950X(3D) setup, budget is going matter quite a bit. The 14900K needs a lot more support hardware, but can also be faster.

Given what we know now in regards to the Intel 13th/14th gen issues, I could not possibly recommend Intel to anyone.

Someone who is completely manually tuning things shouldn't be too concerned about Intel feeding their board partners vague nonsense for default settings, or board partners pushing the bounds of sanity with auto/XMP settings, as almost none of that will be used.

I don't trust stock to be stable and when I'm done setting up a system, there is scarcely an 'auto' setting to be found anywhere. However, I don't want to assume this will be the case with the OP, and for more normal users, or even most enthusiasts, there is a lot of baggage to consider with the top Intel parts and the current state of board firmware.

AM5 suffers from a horrible IMC design

Debatable. Having the IMC on a separate chiplet increases latency and limits the useful bandwidth due having to cross an off die fabric link, but the IMC itself isn't really the issue.

you cant use fast ram

True for Raphael, at least relative to Intel, but mostly irrelevant as fast RAM is only good for the ultimate performance it enables. In games a vcache part can generally match Intel despite a main memory performance deficit, and in many other tasks one might need all the resources of a 14900K for, memory performance is often not a bottleneck at all.

intel decimates am5 when overclocked

Highly subjective to workload.

you cant overclock AM5

False.

they both run hot when you do try and run them fast

True, but for very different reasons, which can be very relevant to one's budget. The rational budget ceiling for cooling a top LGA-1700 part is a about he price of the CPU. The rational budget ceiling for cooling most AM5 parts is $40.

the chiplet design renders the only useful cpu is the 8 core

Mostly false.

Raphael's inter-CCX latency is high, but this is not a significant problem for most tasks. The overwhelming majority of games do not benefit much from leveraging the second CCD and thus inter-CCX latency rarely comes into play, if the system is properly configured. The majority of highly-parallel content creation workloads (like the OP's video editing) do not have enough coherency overhead for inter-CCX latency to matter.

the motherboards are horrible

I wouldn't recommend many X670 boards as I consider essentially all of them to be rip offs, but there are plenty of solid B650 boards and a quality board for AM5 can be much less expensive than ones for LGA-1700, due in no small part to less need for a monstrous VRM.

intel has better 1% lows

Sometimes.

software works better for Intel like adobe and several others...

Unless an Intel specific feature (like QuickSync) is in play, or an AMD specific feature (like AVX-512 on the mainstream platforms, ironically enough) most software works the same, differentiated only by raw performance.

i can go on about memory compatibility problems, etc...

Memory compatibility problems are user error at this point.

Also with Intel everything just works nad doesnt cut out or give you a bsod, and software doesnt need to be patched or configured.

I don't expect everything to just work without configuration on either brand's platforms and any BSOD, without a demonstrably defective part, generally means whoever setup the system screwed something up.

Both Intel and AMD have issues where software doesn't always schedule itself properly without patching or configuring. This is a problem with all heterogenous and/or non-monolithic systems, especially when OS schedulers haven't fully caught up. Atlas Fallen was a prime example of a title that had to be patched to work correctly on Intel's heterogenous parts. Intel's Thread Director itself needed OS patches to function and still isn't flawless. AMD has similar problems getting CPPC to prioritize the right cores on their v-cache CCX in their 79x0X3D parts.

Ultimately, I am highly skeptical of the views of those who cannot be bothered to make sure both platforms are working correctly before trying to compare and contrast them.

 

Someone who is completely manually tuning things shouldn't be too concerned about Intel feeding their board partners vague nonsense for default settings, or board partners pushing the bounds of sanity with auto/XMP settings, as almost none of that will be used.

I don't trust stock to be stable and when I'm done setting up a system, there is scarcely an 'auto' setting to be found anywhere. However, I don't want to assume this will be the case with the OP, and for more normal users, or even most enthusiasts, there is a lot of baggage to consider with the top Intel parts and the current state of board firmware.

Yea, I'm speaking as a general recommendation and the fact that it appears Intel is trying to be sleezy and wiggle out of RMA's by setting high voltage and low power limits to stabilize otherwise unstable CPUs. In the past they've been fine with no power limits which has been going on for years and years like Steve pointed out in his HUB video recently.

Same... the KS i had was garbage, so I will give credit where credit is due on that cpu... I used AMD for almost 25 yrs and was actually an trained salesperson who went to conventions etc.. I switched to Intel a little over 18 months ago, and Ill just say that the responsiveness and sheer power is something that cannot be ignored. There's the little things like the overclocking rewards, the ability to literally double the power by overclocking over default. taking advantage of good parts like running an open loop, or good quality motherboard and memory.. its nice to be able to tune and tweak something and get the results you were expecting or more. Also with Intel everything just works nad doesnt cut out or give you a bsod, and software doesnt need to be patched or configured. The BIOS with intel motherboard also is deeper to an extent, more features, options that actually mean or do something.

Overclocking is just better

Tell that to all the people that got turds that aren't stable at bios defaults. Lots of people popping all the time now with this issue. Kinda ironic as Intel has been viewed in the past as the more stable platform and I probably would have agreed, but not for 13th/14th gen i9's.

-------------------------------------------------

And just to be clear, my current primary machine is Intel. I have 4 machines in my house. 2 Intel, 2 AMD. Not a fanboy of either. Just build the one that suites my current needs the best.

 

Yea, I'm speaking as a general recommendation and the fact that it appears Intel is trying to be sleezy and wiggle out of RMA's by setting high voltage and low power limits to stabilize otherwise unstable CPUs. In the past they've been fine with no power limits which has been going on for years and years like Steve pointed out in his HUB video recently.



Tell that to all the people that got turds that aren't stable at bios defaults. Lots of people popping all the time now with this issue. Kinda ironic as Intel has been viewed in the past as the more stable platform and I probably would have agreed, but not for 13th/14th gen i9's.

-------------------------------------------------

And just to be clear, my current primary machine is Intel. I have 4 machines in my house. 2 Intel, 2 AMD. Not a fanboy of either. Just build the one that suites my current needs the best.

any system is a turd out of the box, but if they are here than thats just being lazy

 

You get a FPS dip with AMD in games, lol Ignore the failures reported on Intel, they just needed some more voltage (not broken) or kept in Intel motherboard spec.

 

1.55 vcore is absolutely not safe on a 13th/14th gen cpu. Might wanna watch buildzoids video on gigabyte and Asus Intel baseline profile....

 

If you live near a Microcenter, buy the 7800X3D. They changed their combo deal to work with any motherboard and RAM combo. So as soon as you add all 3 to the cart it drops the price of the CPU. It even works with open box components.

If you run it for a while and it meets you needs, great. If not, you can grab a 9950X when those release and sell the 7800X3D for more than you paid for it.

 

If you live near a Microcenter, buy the 7800X3D. They changed their combo deal to work with any motherboard and RAM combo. So as soon as you add all 3 to the cart it drops the price of the CPU. It even works with open box components.

If you run it for a while and it meets you needs, great. If not, you can grab a 9950X when those release and sell the 7800X3D for more than you paid for it.

View attachment 2657886

weird to post this in this thread... im guessing youve found it to be awesome because you didnt know how to tune a cpu and you need that validation?

 

weird to post this in this thread... im guessing youve found it to be awesome because you didnt know how to tune a cpu and you need that validation?

Lol ok bud... So in a suggestion thread it's bad to suggest that they could possibly get one of the two CPUs they are already interested in for a considerable discount?

OP is using a 6-7 year old rig so literally any modern CPU is going to be a huge jump for them. Just because it's OCN, doesn't mean that people treat every build like it's their test bench.

strange, when i posted that this thread was in the 14900k Intel thread

This was never the 14900K thread, it's a suggestion thread. Since you're lost, how about you go over here if you want to talk about tuning a 14900K.

https://www.overclock.net/threads/overclocking-raptor-lake-refresh-14900k-14700k-14600k-etc-results-bins-and-discussion.1807439/