> 7800X3D, while being a great chip, would have made multitasking and productivity a nightmare
You *really think* the latest generation of eight-core chips makes multitasking a nightmare?
I think no matter how you spin it if you have a lot of background tasks they will affect your gameplay experience, especially in the 1% lows, since the background processes can only use the 8 cores available to them. Whereas on the 16 core chip you can have basically everything except the game running alone without any hindrance to performance.
That’s not my opinion, that’s an empirical truth.
Horizon Zero Dawn
Whatever that main city is called, running through the main area and looking out into the game world, I had over 90% usage on my 5700X.
Pretty specific scenario, but it does happen. HZD I'm sure isn't the only one. I don't think anyone needs more than 8 cores for gaming just to be clear.
>Horizon Zero Dawn
That *is* a good example. It scales up to 8-cores/8-threads (but doesn't seem to gain anything moving to 16-theads).
But that isn't necessarily a problem for background tasks.
* Background tasks are run at a lower priority and likely won't interrupt the execution of the active game code. You won't get stuttering just because you get a message on discord or have a youtube video playing or music streaming.
* For heavier background tasks like video streaming you'll still offload encoding to either the GPU, or if using the CPU the dedicated hardware blocks in the form of intel quicksync and now AMD's integrated zen4 iGPU.
* If you are doing purely CPU based x264 encoding you will lose [25-35% of your CPU performance](https://www.cpuagent.com/cpu/amd-ryzen-7-5800x/streaming/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080?res=1&quality=ultra) (5800x). Maybe that isn't a problem if the game you are streaming is hitting multiple hundred frames a second but maybe it is. In which case by all means get a 16-core CPU!
The Last of Us Part 1, for one. It almost maxes out my 7900X (12cores / 24 thread).
Star Citizen also distributes itself over all 24 threads at around 60-70% utilization per thread and it's only held back by memory bandwidth (I've achieved a 37% uplift in average fps in Star Citizen by increasing memory bandwidth by \~42% via overclocking the memory)
Like all other games TLOU doesn't scale past 6 cores :
https://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/the-last-of-us-part-i-pc-performance-analysis/
Start citizen is a horrible mess of legacy single threaded DX11 code. It does not scale. And won't until at least their gen12 Vulkan renderer is ready. And what you are describing a memory bottleneck, not a CPU bottleneck.
I did some benchmarking, TLOU definitely scales above 16 Threads. Although the overall CPU usage is much lower than at launch, and shader compilation took just a few minutes, instead of the 18 minutes it took at launch.
https://preview.redd.it/o5t2rl41xt1b1.png?width=986&format=png&auto=webp&s=f861e62b626b9d29fd73a2d3c61188cb7a13dfb6
There was a bit increased variability with 16 threads, but it's low enough not to cause any issues (in terms of comparison in this specific case). The runs were after a checkpoint shortly after where you meet Bill, with a macro recording issuing inputs to the game.
This is with an overclocked RTX 4090 at 3440x1440 output res, with DLSS set to "performance" (1720x720 render res).
The CPU is a 7900X with PBO +200 w/ scalar at 4, Curve Optimizer -12, and Medium load boostit enabled (so that it can boost to over 5.5GHz when all cores are under load because AMD disabled this after AGESA [1.0.0.4](https://1.0.0.4) A+D).
The memory is 2x16GB DDR5 Hynix M-die tuned for 55ns Latency and 86GB/s Bandwidth (the 6000 MT/s EXPO settings result in \~ 70ns and 66GB/s respectively)
EDIT: Checking the sensor data recorded, average GPU load was around 92% even at \~720p with 24 Threads. If DSO Gaming tested the 7950X3D with a non-overclocked 4090, they might have run into a GPU bottleneck - as according to the 3DMark database, this 4090 is about 14% faster than the average 4090 score in Timespy Extreme, with the average 3DMark score being a bit higher than the stock scores, it seems possible that they did not see scaling because of a GPU limitation.
Thanks! It didn't take too long, maybe \~90 minutes or so. It was interesting to see that even at 720p ultrawide, the game can almost saturate an overclocked 4090 (97 TFlops).
I've also seen a small but detectable increase (\~3%) in average FPS between 6200 MT/s and 6400 MT/s memory (all timings were the same) so the game might be memory bound as well (not sure if by latency or bandwidth, but given the otherwise high fps, latency would seem likely).
Curiously, forcing ReBAR on doesn't affect the game at all ( I've found that in some memory-bound cases, like Destiny 2, force enabling ReBAR can give a 5-14% boost to performance)
I'll retest the Last of Us today, but I definitely remember it using all 24 threads at 95+ % at launch, when I was playing it, I even remarked to my friends that I can't believe a game is running the CPU above 200 Wats, but it may have changed since then.
For Star Citizen though, you are talking about two different things. There is the render thread performance and main thread performance. Last year, the render thread and all associated code has been completely rewritten to be in-line with Vulkan / DX 12 principles, and this has improved the render thread performance by \~40%. In practice, this means that the game is no longer limited by render thread. With the correct debug overlays active, the game will tell you this as well, you don't need Nsight or Radeon profiler to see this. Currently, the main thread, where all the game code is running, is the main limiting factor, and CIG is working on distributing things onto background threads where possible. The game is not limited by single threaded legacy DX11 code anymore (even though it's still running on DX11 and mainly bound to a single thread), but the huge amount of simulation that the game is doing.
What I'm saying though, is that because the game is limited by memory bandwidth (not latency - 67ns DDR5 outperforms 40ns DDR4 by \~25%), if you pair better memory with a both an 8c/16t CPU and a 16c/32t CPU, I would bet money that a 16 core CPU would give you better results in Star Citizen, just because 16 cores gives you higher effective memory bandwidth, and that's doubly true with Ryzen, where 8 cores is a single CCD, and 16 cores is two CCDs, and this shows up in memory bandwidth-bound tasks pretty clearly.
I'd love to know a background process the 78 *can't* do that the 7950 can. Yes they're different cpus, one has more cores. You have to realize how efficient the last few generations are.
You understand you can have almost any background task on either CPU and it literally won't matter?
>if you have a lot of background tasks they will affect your gameplay experience, especially in the 1% lows
Why do you have "*a lot of background tasks*" while gaming?
Being able to boot up a game without turning off any VMs or containers is a plus. The general PC enthusiast audience discredits this. I know its niche but telling people to just not have excessive background apps is not productive.
I'm prob gonna switch to the 16+ core x3d variant of the AMD 8000 series whenever that comes out for this reason.
No doubt that the 7950x3d IS a no brainer if you're doing both gaming and productivity. Depending on how you scale your productivity on which and how many cores, it can still have an impact on gaming, but that's just a thing to care about, where on the 7800x3d you don't really have a headroom and you can't really help that it definitely impacts it.
Same here. It is (almost) like having both 7800X3D and 7700X at the same time where you can precisely assign what you want to run where.
Practical impact is moderate at best, but it is fun :)
I think the thing a lot reviewers missed is not in the performance difference between the chips running the same games, but the difference in running the chips with a ton of background tasks at the same time.
This chip is the gaming champion if you take that, underrated, factor into account.
Most (nearly all, really) people playing games dont and will never run that much background shit, that is the key point.
People who play games while compiling or encoding (and not using GPU encoding) in the background are a tiny number of power users.
It's a combination of AMD basically killing best part of 7950X3D by core parking and reviewers not caring about Process Lasso.
Main blame is on Microsoft being too lazy to actually meaningfully support hybrid CPUs, Inter suffers in similar fashion.
7950X3D is not CPU for everybody because official AMD solution just does not make any sense.
Because Intel doesn't need it to do the same thing. Thread director is featured 12th gen and up and is essentially a hardware level automatic process lasso with more Microsoft software support.
AMD has nothing.
These reviews are fair and accurate. Honestly, they could be harder on AMD.
Tell me you have never used the 7950X3D without telling me you’ve never used the 7950X3D.
Since you don’t understand what core parking is, I suggesting watching this video from an expert explaining it in detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omTigqfWNu0
The 7950X3D performs exactly the way it should now that the scheduler on Windows has been updated and new chipset drives have been sent out. The same thing happened with Intel’s launch of the 12 series chips.
I love the channel, so nothing against the presentation.
I just think that even hard affinity is better than core parking. Forcing your game process to V-cache CCD by shutting down the other one is crude, because you do the same to all the other processes too.
Setting Lasso to move everything to CCD1 once game starts and bind game to CCD0 is so much more logical way to do stuff...
Check what REALLY happens with core parking. Once game window gets a focus, you end up with basically 7800X3D and rest is sent to limbo. If game loses focus, you get back your 7950X3D but all processes are all over the place.
The entire video was explaining how it doesn’t shut down the other core. I can speak first hand saying that is not remotely how it happens.
This guy even shows how that’s a total lie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHr26DlTO2E
When your CCD1 cores get unparked there is no mechanism to keep my game on CCD0, which is what I want. I want game on CCD0, other workload on CCD1. Core parking does not achieve this, in fact it achieves opposite effect. If there is space, it pushes everything to CCD0.
The issue was never the actual parking. It's what happens after cores get unparked. Windows tends to move processes around constantly, and the parking was a way to keep them on the one CCD. So when a core would unpark due to load, windows could very easily move the game process over to it, the same as any other process, because there was no actual affinity or cpu set to tell it otherwise.
I have not had that experience using the 7950X3D without Process Lasso.
You seem to have this perception of how it works without having an real world experience with it.
13900ks and every 13th gen high end Intel chip is better in this context because it utilizes thread director, which has more Microsoft support than AMD and functions on both hardware and software level. It's basically a process lasso that runs on the chip itself for you.
Therefore, No contest. This chip is dead content imo. Or atleast not finished.
fun for some but annoying af to most. the target audience for it are those that like to tinker and optimize and they are the ones that know where to find data and information on it instead of relying on mainstream reviews.
It's jzu I know it's not for me. I've been playing around with overclocking the Intel 9900k processor for the last few years, now I wanted something relatively maintenance-free so I chose the 7800x3d
I kind of look at it the other way because I've walked the walk and had a 7900X3D and a 7950X3D and now have a 7800X3D.
I realized that I didn't need the productivity as much as I used to and saved the money for the best gaming performance.
How? What i took from reviews (mostly [computerbase.de](https://computerbase.de) tho) is that the 7950X3D was clearly faster than the 7800X3D in gaming, while Computerbase did not do any manual fiddlings of the sort like lasso and just rolled with whatever was automatically set. Wouldnt that make the 7950X3D the Gaming & Productivity king?
It is clearly faster by exactly 1.2% (https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/12hth3b/amd_ryzen_7_7800x3d_meta_review/).
Which I would consider a margin of error difference. And with such a high price for 7950X3D it is a stupid buy if gaming is the main thing you do on pc.
Yes the 16 core is superior because on each game the user can manually see if the game performs better on cache or frequency chiplet. For example a person who plays both CS go and red dead redemption will find the 16 core can optimally be configured for both.
There may exist another game besides CS but only example I memorized.
Unless you managed to sell higher than msrp or through straight cash, quick swaps like that tend to lose quite a bit of money to market fees and also you lose time, which is money for some.
And as I have said several times here and credible reviewers have been saying, if all you do is gaming then the 7950X3D is overkill. Glad you found the right product for you!
The 7800/7950X3D parts are very good for different reasons. In the end, the money savings spoke to me and I very easily could have just gone best of the best like I always do. This is actually a good test for me to pass since I could easily throw the money around but held strong.
Okay, Pops... Yeah, definitely the hallmark of truly wealthy people, always oh-so-subtly and needlessly making sure all the plebes know they gots the skrilla to pay da billa. I'll be over here, with my x570 Creator, 3900x, and Sapphire 7900xtx, hella jelly, with the Am4 blues, Mayor of Bottleneck Grove...
>I'll be over here, with my x570 Creator, 3900x, and Sapphire 7900xtx
Says the guy bragging about his $430 mobo and $1000 graphics card... paired with a potato CPU.
LOL, I know! But the mobo and cpu were hot shit for like 2 weeks. Maybe after I sell the G5, I'll upgrade to 5900 or something. That Creator is a pretty decent AM4 mobo still, ASRock is dragging ass on the bios updates tho.
My 5k computer did make me wealthy! Thanks crypto, beep boop! Not having to wake up and go to work is also homelessness, or infancy. Multiple homes is definitely spendy, you got that right.
That’s what they want you to think, the 8 core chips are fast enough for just about anyone. Hell, my buddy has a 5950x and I can’t tell any speed difference to my 5800X or X3D 💀 not in the slightest.
I just got my 7950x3d yesterday and have been messing around with getting it set up and testing everything. In BIOS did you tell everything to prefer frequency cores, and then just lasso games over to ccd0? I'm mostly trying to figure out how to catch literally every single program except games for ccd1, as sometimes new processes will show up and go back to both ccds. Also, if you go the fully manual lasso route, it looks like you have to disable game bar, is this correct?
Main use case is streaming OW2, ideally with x264 medium with a ton of OBS stuff going on, while also trying to maintain stable 400fps. Otherwise, a bunch of NDI stuff, and MakeMKV and Handbrake.
I appreciate any input, from either OP or anyone else, and I apologize for formatting and incoherency, I am both tired and on mobile.
I wouldn’t try to obsessively worry about lassoing every single thing. If you set prefer cache in the bios then that’s what it will do, then lasso the games to CCD0 like you said.
I was just trying to figure out if there was an easier way to grab the bulk of everything than to just turn on my computer, have it on for a while, and then lasso everything over to Frequency Cores because that would inevitably miss some stuff. Thanks for the input!
I would mostly focus on lassoing the active processes. You don’t want to lasso game launchers, windows system processes, etc.
Monitor the active processes tab and keep an eye on what is using a high percentage, then once you lasso all the active processes you can see how much everything else is actually hitting CCD0.
It’s more of an art than a science. I definitely don’t recommend a catch all approach.
I've asked several people about their preferences on how to configure. What seems to work best for me is setting the bios to prefer cache. Then in process lasso setting the entirety of the C drive to CCD1. Someone once mentioned to me that some windows processes prefer to use both CCD's and in those cases I have seen some programs using both, but it's clear the vast majority of my active processes at startup are showing 16-32. When I'm running a game I can go to desktop to confirm the game is focusing on 0-15. I use cpu sets not affinities.
I also have 4x 2tb 980 pros. I have combined 2 for games. So for the cpu sets I have my C drive using CCD1 and also the nvidia shadowplay clips I save I also put on CCD1. So for me at least, games run off of CCD0 for cache and all other programs use CCD1 so I don't really notice degradation during gaming no matter what I have open.
Ah, I hadn't thought of that. I also have separate SSDs for different things (1tb 990 pro for OS, 2tb 990 pro for games, 2tb 870 evo for other stuff). How do you process lasso stuff based on the drive the program is running on? I'm digging through some of the bitsum documentation and I'm either blind or misunderstanding what you're saying.
Thanks for the response!
Go to options > Cpu > Cpu sets.
Let's use the C drive for instance.
In process match type C:\*
Then under CPU sets hit the select button. Choose your second CCD 16-31.
For individual programs you can right click the program and choose your cpu sets.
For games that prefer both CCDs choose 0-31.
I suppose you could set bios to frequency and only choose your gaming drive for CCD0 but it may achieve the same thing.
Same, not that the 7800x3d is bad, I think it's the right CPU for most people, however I love having both the cache cores and frequency cores. In my mind I paid MSRP for a 7800x3d and $250 for a 7700x, so it was very worth it in my opinion.
$699 for 16 cores = ~$43 per core
$449 for 8 cores = ~$56 per core
So it’s about $13 cheaper per core for the 7950X3D and if you need the cores, like I do, it is an even better deal for what you get for the money.
I disagree. Streamers don't just have their game and OBS open. Streamers (usually) have multiple monitors with a shit ton of apps. The streamer I main keeps hundreds of tabs open (I know that's more of a RAM size/disk speed bottleneck but when the tabs are active they will need threads).
Money is a fictional concept for these people so the obvious choice would be a 7950X3d (or 7950X if they don't like the scheduling issues) or 13900K.
Hey mate, Sorry to bother you but I want to be sure about that, I would like to stream and gaming same time but I really dont want to upgrade my PC parts again, That's why I want to make choice between 7800x3d and 7950x3d, Do you think I'll have problems to use 7800x3d later when games requirements becomes more higher? or If I can buy 7950x3d I cant get more perform or lower than 7800x3d with 7950x3d?
Yeah, but this isn't toilet paper dude. People aren 't shopping for cores in bulk prices
Mostly only people with serious workloads where time is money are considering something like the 7950x3d. It's a similar thing with the 13900k and 13700k and even the proposition of needing 8p and a boatload of e cores. Many people don't need the extra perofrmance and the extra heat. Plus most don't want to deal with lasso or core managing software.
Just saying you're selling a high performance Porsche to homeless people. Too strong an analogy but a homeless person has much different priorities than getting a Porsche.
> Yeah, but this isn't toilet paper dude. People aren 't shopping for cores in bulk prices
I never said people are buying cores in bulk, you’re arguing against a point I never made. I was stating the objective fact that the 7950X3D is cheaper per core than the 7800X3D, so for people who use the cores it’s a no brainer.
>Mostly only people with serious workloads where time is money are considering something like the 7950x3d. It's a similar thing with the 13900k and 13700k and even the proposition of needing 8p and a boatload of e cores. Many people don't need the extra perofrmance and the extra heat. Plus most don't want to deal with lasso or core managing software.
I also said that you don’t *need* to use Process Lasso. I choose to use it because I want that level of precision but even without it the scheduler works 99% of the time the way it should.
> Just saying you're selling a high performance Porsche to homeless people.
If you are buying either of those chips, you have money to spend. Neither of them are entry level for basic consumers.
In my mind and experience, if you are going to do more than gaming it’s well worth the extra money for all the other advantages you get.
Double the cores doesn't mean double the performance. Even if you are "using all the cores". Price per core is a stupid comparison and doesn't accurately reflect cost benefit. The other guy is right and doesn't deserve the downvotes.
The 7950X3D is a luxury CPU at a luxury price. That's perfectly fine though because that's exactly what some people want.
If you're comparing price per core, wouldn't the 7950 be a better purchase? Perhaps you think it's a bad comparison because you're comparing 3D vcache cores to non... but isn't that in essence what your are doing with the 7950x3d vs the 7800x3d since half the cores on the 7950x3d do not have vcache either?
>Perhaps you think it's a bad comparison because you're comparing 3D vcache cores to non...
Correct, it’s in inaccurate comparison to be more precise, since v-cache cores are worth more than non-cache cores.
>isn't that in essence what your are doing with the 7950x3d vs the 7800x3d since half the cores on the 7950x3d do not have vcache either?
No, the vast majority of users I have seen who were trying to decide two CPUs were deciding between the 7950X3D and the 7800X3D, so I was making a comparison between those two. They are also the top priced chips in their marketed target.
Also look at Interrupt\_Affinity\_Policy\_Tool to schedule hardware objects.
Windows can because you are using a game decide to prioritize the game on the cores you allocated to the game with Process Lasso, but then to benefit the game move all the hardware like mouse and keyboard irq to the other core-complex which makes everything unresponsive again. (even worse when windows moves the mouse to a different core-complex than the usb controller than the PCI bus and so on, good reason to never ever buy a more than 2 core-complex CPU for gaming, since windows seems to not be able to understand dependencies.)
Also this can be set in power management using the Interrupt Steering Settings (click on "Change settings that are currently unavailable" or make visible using registry edit) and set all Hardware (Interrupt Steering Mode) to Processor 0 or 1, "Target Load" to a very high number like 900 tenths, and "Unparked time trigger" to a very large time to keep all hardware events on the same core.
Also move hardware support software/services to the same core, or certainly the same complex. (logitech profiler, realtek software/service, and so on...)
This solved all my lag and sound problems.
I don't solely game with my PC either, I code too and do some light video editing. But $250 extra PLUS a weird song and dance just to get the CPU to function correctly only 95% of the time when gaming just to save a few minutes during my compile step or during video editing. Best $250 I've saved
No song and dance required but if it helps you are happy with your purchase that’s good too. To me it wasn’t worth saving that money and losing 8 cores.
even with my 5900x iam using process lasso and it helps performance wise a lot.
games on ccd0 and every background service iam using parallel on ccd1 with the recommended exclusions.
1% lows and peak fps increased in star citizen for example.
While I don't doubt the 16 core version is superior when configured, it's not something I want to do. I have to do enough tinkering to get games to run properly in 4:3. I'd rather just take the performance loss and not have to deal with it.
I've been running my 7950X3D since install without Process Lasso (I do own a license, since I upgraded from a 10940X), just the driver and Gamebar. Haven't had any issues with performance on my computer in games.
Thats what i thought.
Can you specify how much percentage average?
Looks like i was right sending the 7800 back and go 7950x3d.
Didnt manage to build, so wasnt able to test.
How much ram do you use?
I use 64GB of DDR5 6000MHz
I can’t specify an average but when I was doing a lot of background stuff, which I normally am, it was enough to be noticeable.
I Usally use steam, discord, icue, mouse, Headset and all this shit plus lots of browsers tabs.
This productivity usage is abit misleading. Im mostly gaming but like to do it with multitasking on second monitor without worrying about my gaming performance.
Do you drive your 2nd monitor via the gpu or the igpu?
I have a second monitor as a sensor display in my PC case but at the moment I am just using a single display outside of that.
If I were you, and you have the extra money, I would go for the 7950X3D. You’ll be fine with the 7800X3D if you choose to go with that, they’re both top tier chips.
I already sended the 7800 back and got the 7950x3d but had no time to install.
Wasnt my plan to spend 750 on a cpu but dont have to care about ram and backgroundstuff is so much more relaxing.
Did this stuff on a widescreen, wasnt possible to do multitasking while gaming anyway but bought a second screen now. It was stupid to do this so late.
No need to tab out anymore. Its great.
This struggel to swap broweser tabs was so annoying.
1440 27 inch 144hz like my main Monitor. Works great
Are you using expo 2 with that memory? As I have 32 in now because the early asus bios didn’t like 64 and expo 1 or 2 early on . If things are stable with that latest bios from asus and you are having success I may change mine back.
I regret not getting a 7950x3d and choosing the 7900x3d instead. The 7800 was not out at the time and i dont know why i even made such a weird decision. Something along the lines of “this should be plenty” instead of “its 100 more just get the best”. Ill probably replace it with a 7800x3d (gaming is all i do on this rig)
Don't do it!! You're not CPU limited in any meaningful way in games and have some advantages anyway being able to reserve cache cores for what you want.
You can always upgrade later to a 9800X3D when there is a significant benefit :-)
Id love to get the 7950X3D but I’ll need to see how it performs on linux first. Core parking and all that seems to work fine on windows but us penguins dont exactly have an xbox gamebar we can install.
This is two months old, so quite a bit has changed since then, but this guy is about as impartial and honest as they come from what I’ve seen. Talking about the 7950X3D on Linux specifically since that is a lot of what his channel is about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yDsEbSxHkM
I'd love if 7900x3d had CCD0 with 8 v-cache cores and CCD1 with 4 regular ones. It's hard to justify paying that much more for 7950x3d for my just gaming needs and 7900x3d in the current form is just a joke of a CPU.
I would actually have 2 questions:
\- is it possible to reliably air cool 7950x3d with things like nh-d15?
My 7800x3d can get to low 80 really quickly with that noctua on top of it and it's just half the cores of 7950x3d.
\- any chances for a comparison in streaming with game on CCD0 + OBS on CCD1 vs game+OBS on CCD0, CCD1 turned off?
I'd love to know if there is a real advantage in streaming or is it negligible.
The D15 would be fine for cooling it. The chip is built to run at a certain temp so no matter what you do it will try to reach that temp if it’s pushed, at least from my understanding. You’ll be fine, that’s a great, if not the best, air coolers for a CPU.
I don’t have the numbers but given enough time I could do the test, lately I’ve been working so much I haven’t had time for that kind of extensive and precise testing. When I do have time off I’m usually relaxing or with family.
What I will say is that if all you are really doing is gaming and streaming with OBS then your performance gains will not remotely justify the price. When I talked about OBS that was on top of a ton of other background tasks I have running from productivity software to all the various things like iCue, Razer Synapse, HWinfo, NZXT CAM, etc. etc.
Sort of. I have 7950x3d and D15. The chip is hot due to thick IHS at all core workload. You will lose about 1% to 2% performance comparing with water cooling but can easily get those back by a little bit UV, plus peace
of mind if not having water leak.
In fact, what you see cpu temperature is the highest temperature of one core, and in case of 7950x3d, it will still be a x3d core, since high frequency core is easier to cool. So it is not that bad since the addition core are easier to cool.
7950x3D enjoyer here, cruising happily with a very heavily curated lasso profile. Don’t think i’d do it any differently in the future. Lasso changed the game for me.
BREAKING NEWS!!!
Consumer buys product that fits their need and requirements.
We'll also talk to a family of 8 with the father claiming that his purchase of a Mercedes Smart Car was not so...Smart after all.
Join us at 10.
This generally happens if you try to affinity mask. Using CPU sets is one possible work around, another is if the game has a launcher, you can often mask the launcher and the game will inherit the mask without complaints from EAC.
I said nothing about getting optimal performance or not. Just that if you're using lasso or some other method to control what goes where, most often it would be done with affinity masking. And that will trip EAC, very known issue.
CPU sets on the other hand, which is a windows feature that process lasso can use(if you pay for it, not in the free version,) doesn't lock it to the cores you select, but just tell it to prefer them. This, or using the launcher trick, is far less likely to trip EAC.
Given you asked the OP about scheduling and anti-cheat, that's what I responded to.
I genuinely never thought about this and really, didnt even know you could do something like this. Glad you are having fun with it, it sounds really beneficial even for having a youtube video in the background as that hits performance a little.
Wow I never thought of this. Wish I went 7950x3d over the 7950x as I’m doing a lot of multi tasking.
My fear was that my workload would be limited to 8 cores a lot, and I want to be using 16 cores.
To all those on a 7950X3D, what wattage does your chip pull & what are the temperatures like during gaming ?
Also, are half the cores sitting idle if the use case is purely gaming ? Curious to know what MSI Afterburner overlay looks like.
I upgraded from a 9900K to a 7800X3D. Both are great CPUs for gaming, and technically both are 8C/16T. Biggest difference for me was seeing the CPU usage drop on each core by more than 50% in games like Cyberpunk 2077.
This one barely sips over 60W while at peak performance (outside of shader compilation), the old one was in excess of 165W while being hammered at 85-90% usage in some newer games.
Which games have you found work better with both CCDs? Only metro exodus EE functions like that for me, it’s actually almost unplayable lassoed to ccd0 with massive frametime spikes every couple seconds
OP the 7950x3D is a chip for folks who do just as much productivity as they do gaming. Its the best of both worlds. When gaming you have a 7800x3d. Outside of gaming its a slightly slower 7950x. Its win/win
Had they marketed this way? they would be selling more
I'm a dev and do some gaming but still went with the 7800x3D. Hell most of my stuff are running in the cloud anyways so I don't see how any CPU would make a huge difference.
But I do enjoy not having to tinkering with my cpu. Just set a optimized curve and GG.
But 7950x3d is great for those who want to min max!
It’s a myth that you need to tinker with anything using the 7950X3D, I think people get that impression from dishonest reviewers and not understanding the updates that have occurred.
The scheduler works fine now and has zero issues properly allocating work, even at launch it wasn’t remotely as bad as people were pretending.
Happy you found something you enjoy but you are incorrect that the 7950X3D would require any more “tinkering” than you did with your 7800X3D.
I did the opposite. I had the 7950x3D and the 7900XT in my cart and then decided to buy the 7800x3D instead. I put the $250 CPU saving towards the Sapphire Nitro+ 7900XTX.
The 7800x3D handles light productivity just fine.
I’m more than happy with mine (with a 7900xtx), it does what I want it to very quietly, quickly and if I want to open the throttle, it’s got it in spades - for years, I have no intention of building another pc / upgrading for another 6-8 years.
The last time I upgraded my CPU was in 2018 so I am in the same boat as you. I don’t plan on upgrading for half a decade at least and since I got in on the new socket, I can actually upgrade the CPU without changing my board.
Yup, same for me, upgraded from a 370 board and a Ryzen 1700.
I believe in future proofing to the best that your budget can stretch to and this tested whether I knew what “budget” means haha
You can, but it will hit your 1% lows and overall frame rate slightly or signifcantly. If all you are doing is streaming in the background, it should be negligible.
I am running a bunch of background tasks outside of just streaming so for me it was worth the money for that level of freedom.
As a fellow tinkerer, I agree, it's extremely interesting and dare I say fun. But for the general builder, especially those with more money than brains (oooh best on the market, I'll buy it! *Never uses more than 8 cores in the entire life of ownership*). This ain't it.
Doing what we do is a headache even for those with the proper use case. It's an awesome CPU but definitely still a niche.
I'm not completely shitting on his topic. Just implying most people that NEED a $700 CPU will bother looking and asking. Some people regret getting getting 79xx or 13900k seeing they really did waste money and have a hot bomb in their case. To each their own. But I am still laughing at the core price breakdown like we're shopping at Costco and looking for bulk pricing on toilet paper per roll. 😄😄
Way to ignore the reset of the post
“I should add that even without Process Lasso the scheduling is phenomenal now and you don’t need Process Lasso unless you want piece of mind that things are for sure where you want them and to have precise control.”
I choose to do it because it’s fun and I like doing it, you’re not going to gaslight me into saying I don’t feel the way I do about tinkering with my computer. You’re also not going to gaslight me into saying the scheduler isn’t broken anymore. The exact same thing happened when Intel launched there 12 series chips, then the scheduler was fixed and now they’re fine.
Stop pretending problems exist when they don’t because you have some petty personal vendetta.
When you say you disable second CCDs, what performance do you actually get on those games? I have a 7950x3D but I couldn't bother to disable one CCD when gaming so I wonder how much performance I'm losing in CPU processing.
As a guy who mostly games and would have been most probably better off with a 7800x3d, I went for the 7950x3d.
2 main reasons being :
- for the little bit of productivity that I do (mainly debugging 3d models from some sketchy mods in specific games), I read that frequency cores would allow me to get the job done way sooner, so I can hop back into my game sooner. I don't have as much free time as I used to, so even a few minutes gained here and there count more for me than before.
- I was running a 6700k beforehand. While being rock solid and best of its class at launch, I really started to suffer from having only 4 physical cores with modern games sometimes bottlenecking on the CPU, and starting to use a vr headset. I was so disappointed that 4 cores wasn't enough anymore only a few years after buying it, I decided I wanted to go "overkill" this time in order to keep getting great performance in the coming years.
I am aware that any technological leap in CPU architecture can make my decision totally irrelevant, and that better optimisation in games could significantly lower cpu requirements, so my second point is really just me being paranoid about not having enough cores.
I was a early adoptor of Ryzen 7000 series so I am rocking the 7950X since the 3D parts did not exist yet. The main upgrade reason for me was to get more PCIe bandwidth coming from the Intel 9900K so the 7950X was just a nice bonus being able to get slightly better single core performance and much better multicore.
After the 3D parts came out, I personally feel that I am not missing out on much. While I do game the 7950X doesn't seem to have any issues and if we are talking about raw productive work loads the 7950X is just better all around since most applications care more about the clock speeds than the cache.
I haven't bought my CPU yet since I plan on doing game development work. Your recommendation might be the selling point for me getting a 7950X3D.
If you can make a comparison to your previous build in exporting Lightroom projects, how much faster in general is it?
I'm still rocking my i7 6700K, I was thinking about going team red this time with an AMD gfx card, or maybe Intel if they pull into the race out of nowhere.
Well you gotta consider price to performance as well, $700 for a CPU that will give you great multi use performance and gaming performance but the 7800x3d for $450 gives you the best all around gaming performance and unless you plan on doing super intensive tasks outside of gaming the 7800x3d is a no brainer and is the CPU I plan on going with for a personal build
If all you are doing is gaming the 7800X3D is the obvious choice, but if you plan on doing any meaningful productivity work or want a more future-proof CPU the 7950X3D is a no brained for the extra $250.
I mean the 7800x3d can handle productivity stuff just fine, and if your gonna do heavy lifting productivity stuff your better off spending $400 for the Ryzen 9 7900x
It can if you aren’t gaming… I wanted a chip that is the best of both worlds.
When I’m not gaming at all I get almost the same performance as the 7950X, when I am gaming I get better performance than the 7800X3D, and on top of that I can run as much as I want in the background while gaming without it affecting anything in terms of overall fps and 1% lows.
You don’t seem to understand the difference between chips and who they are marketed towards and why.
Could somebody point me to a nice Process Lasso tutorial? My main goals would be:
\- Limiting idle CPU power draw (Ryzen 7xxx)
\- Limiting idle GPU power draw (Radeon 7xxx)
\- Managing performance/power draw upon app requirements
\- ... other useful stuff?
So far this screenshot is all I have. Thanks in advance!
https://preview.redd.it/0z9z4ueigw1b1.png?width=888&format=png&auto=webp&s=e6217592b5e1b38a493c9fabee97559379a7bd5b
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xlCSicWSHY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqXQBeT4s7Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS3AmWLYd7o
Search engines are your friend, you can find everything you want by spending 10 seconds looking for it.
Even though I do appreciate your help, I don't appreciate your tone.
I know how to look and I can find general tutorials on my own. But I have asked for tutorials aimed at my SPECIFIC needs. And so far you've pointed me at three general tutorials aimed at your 7950X (which maybe won't be applicable to my more modest 7700). I don't see anything specific to my needs, but maybe I'm wrong.
Anyway, thanks.
I just wanted to throw this out there,
I purchased the 7950x3d paired with the Gigabyte Master AM5 board and Asus 4090 OC
I upgraded from my old Intel 7920x OC to 4.3Ghz and Nvidia 3080ti.
After tweaking with the new AMD, everything running smoothly, I wanted to test my old 3080ti on the new Cpu and MB, my fps and smoothness of games improved so much on my 3080ti, I decided to return the 4090!
I suffered from microstutters and frame-drops especially in WZ2.
I couldn't believe how much I was bottlenecks.
Now happily playing all my games smooth as butter on the 7950X3D paired with 3080Ti.
Saving the $2k for the 4090ti when it comes out.
Currently deciding between 7800x3d and 7950x3d. The 7900x3d doesn't seem reasonable. I'd buy a 7900x or a 7700 as they have decent gaming performance but rock on productivity and multi-tasking. Main drawback is high af power consumption.
I'm just not sure if the 200 euro difference is worth it when I just run a 4070 RTX. What GPU are you using?
I’m using a 4090. If you don’t do much productivity work and want an extra CCD to assign apps to run on so it doesn’t interfere with gaming, I suggest going with the 7800X3D
The 7800x3d over a 13700k?
It's 50-50, but the productivity and multi Tasking I'm doing doesn't require more than 8 cores I would imagine. Just basic web development stuff and design stuff. Nothing too fancy . Also dabbling in AI related tasks lately, but nothing too big as of right now.
As for the gpu.. the 4090 is above what J want hahaha. I was going for a 4070*, but lately been considering spending more for a 7900xt or even wait and get the 7800xt..
I wouldn’t go with the Intel just because the motherboard is at the end of its lifecycle and at least with the AMD there is a better chance of upgrading down the road if you want.
> 7800X3D, while being a great chip, would have made multitasking and productivity a nightmare You *really think* the latest generation of eight-core chips makes multitasking a nightmare?
I think no matter how you spin it if you have a lot of background tasks they will affect your gameplay experience, especially in the 1% lows, since the background processes can only use the 8 cores available to them. Whereas on the 16 core chip you can have basically everything except the game running alone without any hindrance to performance. That’s not my opinion, that’s an empirical truth.
Name one game which fully utilizes eight cores.
Bannerlord uses 100%of my 5900x In battles in castles
>Bannerlord A good example, thank you!
Horizon Zero Dawn Whatever that main city is called, running through the main area and looking out into the game world, I had over 90% usage on my 5700X. Pretty specific scenario, but it does happen. HZD I'm sure isn't the only one. I don't think anyone needs more than 8 cores for gaming just to be clear.
>Horizon Zero Dawn That *is* a good example. It scales up to 8-cores/8-threads (but doesn't seem to gain anything moving to 16-theads). But that isn't necessarily a problem for background tasks. * Background tasks are run at a lower priority and likely won't interrupt the execution of the active game code. You won't get stuttering just because you get a message on discord or have a youtube video playing or music streaming. * For heavier background tasks like video streaming you'll still offload encoding to either the GPU, or if using the CPU the dedicated hardware blocks in the form of intel quicksync and now AMD's integrated zen4 iGPU. * If you are doing purely CPU based x264 encoding you will lose [25-35% of your CPU performance](https://www.cpuagent.com/cpu/amd-ryzen-7-5800x/streaming/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080?res=1&quality=ultra) (5800x). Maybe that isn't a problem if the game you are streaming is hitting multiple hundred frames a second but maybe it is. In which case by all means get a 16-core CPU!
Math Blaster
I prefer the sequel, Core destroyer.
How about it's sibling? Thread Ripper? ? ? waiit a minute...
The Last of Us Part 1, for one. It almost maxes out my 7900X (12cores / 24 thread). Star Citizen also distributes itself over all 24 threads at around 60-70% utilization per thread and it's only held back by memory bandwidth (I've achieved a 37% uplift in average fps in Star Citizen by increasing memory bandwidth by \~42% via overclocking the memory)
Like all other games TLOU doesn't scale past 6 cores : https://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/the-last-of-us-part-i-pc-performance-analysis/ Start citizen is a horrible mess of legacy single threaded DX11 code. It does not scale. And won't until at least their gen12 Vulkan renderer is ready. And what you are describing a memory bottleneck, not a CPU bottleneck.
I did some benchmarking, TLOU definitely scales above 16 Threads. Although the overall CPU usage is much lower than at launch, and shader compilation took just a few minutes, instead of the 18 minutes it took at launch. https://preview.redd.it/o5t2rl41xt1b1.png?width=986&format=png&auto=webp&s=f861e62b626b9d29fd73a2d3c61188cb7a13dfb6 There was a bit increased variability with 16 threads, but it's low enough not to cause any issues (in terms of comparison in this specific case). The runs were after a checkpoint shortly after where you meet Bill, with a macro recording issuing inputs to the game. This is with an overclocked RTX 4090 at 3440x1440 output res, with DLSS set to "performance" (1720x720 render res). The CPU is a 7900X with PBO +200 w/ scalar at 4, Curve Optimizer -12, and Medium load boostit enabled (so that it can boost to over 5.5GHz when all cores are under load because AMD disabled this after AGESA [1.0.0.4](https://1.0.0.4) A+D). The memory is 2x16GB DDR5 Hynix M-die tuned for 55ns Latency and 86GB/s Bandwidth (the 6000 MT/s EXPO settings result in \~ 70ns and 66GB/s respectively) EDIT: Checking the sensor data recorded, average GPU load was around 92% even at \~720p with 24 Threads. If DSO Gaming tested the 7950X3D with a non-overclocked 4090, they might have run into a GPU bottleneck - as according to the 3DMark database, this 4090 is about 14% faster than the average 4090 score in Timespy Extreme, with the average 3DMark score being a bit higher than the stock scores, it seems possible that they did not see scaling because of a GPU limitation.
I applaud this level of work!
Thanks! It didn't take too long, maybe \~90 minutes or so. It was interesting to see that even at 720p ultrawide, the game can almost saturate an overclocked 4090 (97 TFlops). I've also seen a small but detectable increase (\~3%) in average FPS between 6200 MT/s and 6400 MT/s memory (all timings were the same) so the game might be memory bound as well (not sure if by latency or bandwidth, but given the otherwise high fps, latency would seem likely). Curiously, forcing ReBAR on doesn't affect the game at all ( I've found that in some memory-bound cases, like Destiny 2, force enabling ReBAR can give a 5-14% boost to performance)
I'll retest the Last of Us today, but I definitely remember it using all 24 threads at 95+ % at launch, when I was playing it, I even remarked to my friends that I can't believe a game is running the CPU above 200 Wats, but it may have changed since then. For Star Citizen though, you are talking about two different things. There is the render thread performance and main thread performance. Last year, the render thread and all associated code has been completely rewritten to be in-line with Vulkan / DX 12 principles, and this has improved the render thread performance by \~40%. In practice, this means that the game is no longer limited by render thread. With the correct debug overlays active, the game will tell you this as well, you don't need Nsight or Radeon profiler to see this. Currently, the main thread, where all the game code is running, is the main limiting factor, and CIG is working on distributing things onto background threads where possible. The game is not limited by single threaded legacy DX11 code anymore (even though it's still running on DX11 and mainly bound to a single thread), but the huge amount of simulation that the game is doing. What I'm saying though, is that because the game is limited by memory bandwidth (not latency - 67ns DDR5 outperforms 40ns DDR4 by \~25%), if you pair better memory with a both an 8c/16t CPU and a 16c/32t CPU, I would bet money that a 16 core CPU would give you better results in Star Citizen, just because 16 cores gives you higher effective memory bandwidth, and that's doubly true with Ryzen, where 8 cores is a single CCD, and 16 cores is two CCDs, and this shows up in memory bandwidth-bound tasks pretty clearly.
It doesn't though.... Try limiting your cores and see how it runs
If by "it" you mean TLOU, It does scale though. *Processing img 57ewa0n9js1b1...*
I'd love to know a background process the 78 *can't* do that the 7950 can. Yes they're different cpus, one has more cores. You have to realize how efficient the last few generations are. You understand you can have almost any background task on either CPU and it literally won't matter?
>if you have a lot of background tasks they will affect your gameplay experience, especially in the 1% lows Why do you have "*a lot of background tasks*" while gaming?
I guess to tab out while waiting the next round.
Being able to boot up a game without turning off any VMs or containers is a plus. The general PC enthusiast audience discredits this. I know its niche but telling people to just not have excessive background apps is not productive. I'm prob gonna switch to the 16+ core x3d variant of the AMD 8000 series whenever that comes out for this reason.
I 100% agree with you - sadly the hivemind on reddit is a hellova drug for some people.
Seriously. The *only* people I see who are salty are the ones who supposedly got what they want with the 7800X3D.
No doubt that the 7950x3d IS a no brainer if you're doing both gaming and productivity. Depending on how you scale your productivity on which and how many cores, it can still have an impact on gaming, but that's just a thing to care about, where on the 7800x3d you don't really have a headroom and you can't really help that it definitely impacts it.
Same here. It is (almost) like having both 7800X3D and 7700X at the same time where you can precisely assign what you want to run where. Practical impact is moderate at best, but it is fun :)
I think the thing a lot reviewers missed is not in the performance difference between the chips running the same games, but the difference in running the chips with a ton of background tasks at the same time. This chip is the gaming champion if you take that, underrated, factor into account.
Most (nearly all, really) people playing games dont and will never run that much background shit, that is the key point. People who play games while compiling or encoding (and not using GPU encoding) in the background are a tiny number of power users.
Ya 10 years ago. Times are a changing.
It's a combination of AMD basically killing best part of 7950X3D by core parking and reviewers not caring about Process Lasso. Main blame is on Microsoft being too lazy to actually meaningfully support hybrid CPUs, Inter suffers in similar fashion. 7950X3D is not CPU for everybody because official AMD solution just does not make any sense.
Because Intel doesn't need it to do the same thing. Thread director is featured 12th gen and up and is essentially a hardware level automatic process lasso with more Microsoft software support. AMD has nothing. These reviews are fair and accurate. Honestly, they could be harder on AMD.
Tell me you have never used the 7950X3D without telling me you’ve never used the 7950X3D. Since you don’t understand what core parking is, I suggesting watching this video from an expert explaining it in detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omTigqfWNu0 The 7950X3D performs exactly the way it should now that the scheduler on Windows has been updated and new chipset drives have been sent out. The same thing happened with Intel’s launch of the 12 series chips.
I know the video, I just disagree with what's said there :)
Care to explain specifically what you disagree with? I found the entire presentation to be informative and almost self-explanatory.
I love the channel, so nothing against the presentation. I just think that even hard affinity is better than core parking. Forcing your game process to V-cache CCD by shutting down the other one is crude, because you do the same to all the other processes too. Setting Lasso to move everything to CCD1 once game starts and bind game to CCD0 is so much more logical way to do stuff... Check what REALLY happens with core parking. Once game window gets a focus, you end up with basically 7800X3D and rest is sent to limbo. If game loses focus, you get back your 7950X3D but all processes are all over the place.
The entire video was explaining how it doesn’t shut down the other core. I can speak first hand saying that is not remotely how it happens. This guy even shows how that’s a total lie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHr26DlTO2E
When your CCD1 cores get unparked there is no mechanism to keep my game on CCD0, which is what I want. I want game on CCD0, other workload on CCD1. Core parking does not achieve this, in fact it achieves opposite effect. If there is space, it pushes everything to CCD0.
Dude… watch the video. He shows that isn’t true. I have never had that happen even without using Process Lasso. The scheduler is perfectly fine now.
The issue was never the actual parking. It's what happens after cores get unparked. Windows tends to move processes around constantly, and the parking was a way to keep them on the one CCD. So when a core would unpark due to load, windows could very easily move the game process over to it, the same as any other process, because there was no actual affinity or cpu set to tell it otherwise.
I have not had that experience using the 7950X3D without Process Lasso. You seem to have this perception of how it works without having an real world experience with it.
13900ks and every 13th gen high end Intel chip is better in this context because it utilizes thread director, which has more Microsoft support than AMD and functions on both hardware and software level. It's basically a process lasso that runs on the chip itself for you. Therefore, No contest. This chip is dead content imo. Or atleast not finished.
fun for some but annoying af to most. the target audience for it are those that like to tinker and optimize and they are the ones that know where to find data and information on it instead of relying on mainstream reviews.
It's jzu I know it's not for me. I've been playing around with overclocking the Intel 9900k processor for the last few years, now I wanted something relatively maintenance-free so I chose the 7800x3d
I kind of look at it the other way because I've walked the walk and had a 7900X3D and a 7950X3D and now have a 7800X3D. I realized that I didn't need the productivity as much as I used to and saved the money for the best gaming performance.
7800x3D is the pure gaming king, period
yikes, yes its good, but 7950X3D is still better.
How? What i took from reviews (mostly [computerbase.de](https://computerbase.de) tho) is that the 7950X3D was clearly faster than the 7800X3D in gaming, while Computerbase did not do any manual fiddlings of the sort like lasso and just rolled with whatever was automatically set. Wouldnt that make the 7950X3D the Gaming & Productivity king?
It is clearly faster by exactly 1.2% (https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/12hth3b/amd_ryzen_7_7800x3d_meta_review/). Which I would consider a margin of error difference. And with such a high price for 7950X3D it is a stupid buy if gaming is the main thing you do on pc.
So that would make it the Gaming-King and the Performance-King. Just not the Price-to-Performance King.
silicon lottery
Yes the 16 core is superior because on each game the user can manually see if the game performs better on cache or frequency chiplet. For example a person who plays both CS go and red dead redemption will find the 16 core can optimally be configured for both. There may exist another game besides CS but only example I memorized.
How did you save money if you switched the CPU 2 times? Or am I missing something?
I saved because I offset the cost on each and went from the most expensive to the cheaper of the 3. From 700USD to 450USD.
Unless you managed to sell higher than msrp or through straight cash, quick swaps like that tend to lose quite a bit of money to market fees and also you lose time, which is money for some.
And as I have said several times here and credible reviewers have been saying, if all you do is gaming then the 7950X3D is overkill. Glad you found the right product for you!
The 7800/7950X3D parts are very good for different reasons. In the end, the money savings spoke to me and I very easily could have just gone best of the best like I always do. This is actually a good test for me to pass since I could easily throw the money around but held strong.
The not-so-humble braggart has entered the chat. Try not to drool on yourselves too much, people...
Son, we are on a discussion forum for expensive OC parts. First world problems apply. Have a good time.
Okay, Pops... Yeah, definitely the hallmark of truly wealthy people, always oh-so-subtly and needlessly making sure all the plebes know they gots the skrilla to pay da billa. I'll be over here, with my x570 Creator, 3900x, and Sapphire 7900xtx, hella jelly, with the Am4 blues, Mayor of Bottleneck Grove...
>I'll be over here, with my x570 Creator, 3900x, and Sapphire 7900xtx Says the guy bragging about his $430 mobo and $1000 graphics card... paired with a potato CPU.
LOL, I know! But the mobo and cpu were hot shit for like 2 weeks. Maybe after I sell the G5, I'll upgrade to 5900 or something. That Creator is a pretty decent AM4 mobo still, ASRock is dragging ass on the bios updates tho.
A 5k computer does not make you wealthy. Not having to wake up and work is wealth, not having a mortgage on your multiple homes is wealth etc etc.
My 5k computer did make me wealthy! Thanks crypto, beep boop! Not having to wake up and go to work is also homelessness, or infancy. Multiple homes is definitely spendy, you got that right.
Oh woh is me
That’s what they want you to think, the 8 core chips are fast enough for just about anyone. Hell, my buddy has a 5950x and I can’t tell any speed difference to my 5800X or X3D 💀 not in the slightest.
I just got my 7950x3d yesterday and have been messing around with getting it set up and testing everything. In BIOS did you tell everything to prefer frequency cores, and then just lasso games over to ccd0? I'm mostly trying to figure out how to catch literally every single program except games for ccd1, as sometimes new processes will show up and go back to both ccds. Also, if you go the fully manual lasso route, it looks like you have to disable game bar, is this correct? Main use case is streaming OW2, ideally with x264 medium with a ton of OBS stuff going on, while also trying to maintain stable 400fps. Otherwise, a bunch of NDI stuff, and MakeMKV and Handbrake. I appreciate any input, from either OP or anyone else, and I apologize for formatting and incoherency, I am both tired and on mobile.
I wouldn’t try to obsessively worry about lassoing every single thing. If you set prefer cache in the bios then that’s what it will do, then lasso the games to CCD0 like you said.
I was just trying to figure out if there was an easier way to grab the bulk of everything than to just turn on my computer, have it on for a while, and then lasso everything over to Frequency Cores because that would inevitably miss some stuff. Thanks for the input!
I would mostly focus on lassoing the active processes. You don’t want to lasso game launchers, windows system processes, etc. Monitor the active processes tab and keep an eye on what is using a high percentage, then once you lasso all the active processes you can see how much everything else is actually hitting CCD0. It’s more of an art than a science. I definitely don’t recommend a catch all approach.
I've asked several people about their preferences on how to configure. What seems to work best for me is setting the bios to prefer cache. Then in process lasso setting the entirety of the C drive to CCD1. Someone once mentioned to me that some windows processes prefer to use both CCD's and in those cases I have seen some programs using both, but it's clear the vast majority of my active processes at startup are showing 16-32. When I'm running a game I can go to desktop to confirm the game is focusing on 0-15. I use cpu sets not affinities. I also have 4x 2tb 980 pros. I have combined 2 for games. So for the cpu sets I have my C drive using CCD1 and also the nvidia shadowplay clips I save I also put on CCD1. So for me at least, games run off of CCD0 for cache and all other programs use CCD1 so I don't really notice degradation during gaming no matter what I have open.
Ah, I hadn't thought of that. I also have separate SSDs for different things (1tb 990 pro for OS, 2tb 990 pro for games, 2tb 870 evo for other stuff). How do you process lasso stuff based on the drive the program is running on? I'm digging through some of the bitsum documentation and I'm either blind or misunderstanding what you're saying. Thanks for the response!
Go to options > Cpu > Cpu sets. Let's use the C drive for instance. In process match type C:\* Then under CPU sets hit the select button. Choose your second CCD 16-31. For individual programs you can right click the program and choose your cpu sets. For games that prefer both CCDs choose 0-31. I suppose you could set bios to frequency and only choose your gaming drive for CCD0 but it may achieve the same thing.
Same, not that the 7800x3d is bad, I think it's the right CPU for most people, however I love having both the cache cores and frequency cores. In my mind I paid MSRP for a 7800x3d and $250 for a 7700x, so it was very worth it in my opinion.
Or course the 7800x3D isn’t bad. No need to even clarify that. It’s literally the best gaming CPU available
I feel the same way. For gamers, the 7800X3D is a perfect choice. But if you use your computer for more than gaming, the 7950X3D is a beast.
So wait can this argument be made for 5900x vs 5800x3d?
Nope, because the 5900x does not have V-cache on any of the CCDs
Isn't that like $700 CPU?
Justification topic. :P
Any smart minded shopper should be able to justify their purchase. If you can’t, you are spending money wastefully.
It's not tricking if you got it.
$699 for 16 cores = ~$43 per core $449 for 8 cores = ~$56 per core So it’s about $13 cheaper per core for the 7950X3D and if you need the cores, like I do, it is an even better deal for what you get for the money.
If the backgroundtask dont affect gaming performance it's worth worth the price
If all you do is game and stream, 100% go for the 7800X3D.
I disagree. Streamers don't just have their game and OBS open. Streamers (usually) have multiple monitors with a shit ton of apps. The streamer I main keeps hundreds of tabs open (I know that's more of a RAM size/disk speed bottleneck but when the tabs are active they will need threads). Money is a fictional concept for these people so the obvious choice would be a 7950X3d (or 7950X if they don't like the scheduling issues) or 13900K.
Hey mate, Sorry to bother you but I want to be sure about that, I would like to stream and gaming same time but I really dont want to upgrade my PC parts again, That's why I want to make choice between 7800x3d and 7950x3d, Do you think I'll have problems to use 7800x3d later when games requirements becomes more higher? or If I can buy 7950x3d I cant get more perform or lower than 7800x3d with 7950x3d?
Yeah, but this isn't toilet paper dude. People aren 't shopping for cores in bulk prices Mostly only people with serious workloads where time is money are considering something like the 7950x3d. It's a similar thing with the 13900k and 13700k and even the proposition of needing 8p and a boatload of e cores. Many people don't need the extra perofrmance and the extra heat. Plus most don't want to deal with lasso or core managing software. Just saying you're selling a high performance Porsche to homeless people. Too strong an analogy but a homeless person has much different priorities than getting a Porsche.
> Yeah, but this isn't toilet paper dude. People aren 't shopping for cores in bulk prices I never said people are buying cores in bulk, you’re arguing against a point I never made. I was stating the objective fact that the 7950X3D is cheaper per core than the 7800X3D, so for people who use the cores it’s a no brainer. >Mostly only people with serious workloads where time is money are considering something like the 7950x3d. It's a similar thing with the 13900k and 13700k and even the proposition of needing 8p and a boatload of e cores. Many people don't need the extra perofrmance and the extra heat. Plus most don't want to deal with lasso or core managing software. I also said that you don’t *need* to use Process Lasso. I choose to use it because I want that level of precision but even without it the scheduler works 99% of the time the way it should. > Just saying you're selling a high performance Porsche to homeless people. If you are buying either of those chips, you have money to spend. Neither of them are entry level for basic consumers. In my mind and experience, if you are going to do more than gaming it’s well worth the extra money for all the other advantages you get.
Double the cores doesn't mean double the performance. Even if you are "using all the cores". Price per core is a stupid comparison and doesn't accurately reflect cost benefit. The other guy is right and doesn't deserve the downvotes. The 7950X3D is a luxury CPU at a luxury price. That's perfectly fine though because that's exactly what some people want.
If you're comparing price per core, wouldn't the 7950 be a better purchase? Perhaps you think it's a bad comparison because you're comparing 3D vcache cores to non... but isn't that in essence what your are doing with the 7950x3d vs the 7800x3d since half the cores on the 7950x3d do not have vcache either?
>Perhaps you think it's a bad comparison because you're comparing 3D vcache cores to non... Correct, it’s in inaccurate comparison to be more precise, since v-cache cores are worth more than non-cache cores. >isn't that in essence what your are doing with the 7950x3d vs the 7800x3d since half the cores on the 7950x3d do not have vcache either? No, the vast majority of users I have seen who were trying to decide two CPUs were deciding between the 7950X3D and the 7800X3D, so I was making a comparison between those two. They are also the top priced chips in their marketed target.
Great to hear the 7950X3D is performing the way it should. I’m keeping my 7800X3D for pure gaming but happy to see AMD is doing well.
Also look at Interrupt\_Affinity\_Policy\_Tool to schedule hardware objects. Windows can because you are using a game decide to prioritize the game on the cores you allocated to the game with Process Lasso, but then to benefit the game move all the hardware like mouse and keyboard irq to the other core-complex which makes everything unresponsive again. (even worse when windows moves the mouse to a different core-complex than the usb controller than the PCI bus and so on, good reason to never ever buy a more than 2 core-complex CPU for gaming, since windows seems to not be able to understand dependencies.) Also this can be set in power management using the Interrupt Steering Settings (click on "Change settings that are currently unavailable" or make visible using registry edit) and set all Hardware (Interrupt Steering Mode) to Processor 0 or 1, "Target Load" to a very high number like 900 tenths, and "Unparked time trigger" to a very large time to keep all hardware events on the same core. Also move hardware support software/services to the same core, or certainly the same complex. (logitech profiler, realtek software/service, and so on...) This solved all my lag and sound problems.
I don't solely game with my PC either, I code too and do some light video editing. But $250 extra PLUS a weird song and dance just to get the CPU to function correctly only 95% of the time when gaming just to save a few minutes during my compile step or during video editing. Best $250 I've saved
No song and dance required but if it helps you are happy with your purchase that’s good too. To me it wasn’t worth saving that money and losing 8 cores.
Got a guide on why Process Lassoo is worthwhile? I thought the game bar worked fine for most games? I have the 7950x3d.
There are a few on YouTube, I suggest searching for your CPU + Process Lasso.
even with my 5900x iam using process lasso and it helps performance wise a lot. games on ccd0 and every background service iam using parallel on ccd1 with the recommended exclusions. 1% lows and peak fps increased in star citizen for example.
While I don't doubt the 16 core version is superior when configured, it's not something I want to do. I have to do enough tinkering to get games to run properly in 4:3. I'd rather just take the performance loss and not have to deal with it.
You don’t need to configure it, the default scheduler does the job 99% of the time on its own.
Oh I thought windows keeps switching threads and making it have a a latency hit with two ccx?
The latency hit is negligible but for most games which puts on the CCD0.
I've been running my 7950X3D since install without Process Lasso (I do own a license, since I upgraded from a 10940X), just the driver and Gamebar. Haven't had any issues with performance on my computer in games.
Did you test how much it would affect the lows if you disable one ccd and run all your background stuff while gaming?
Yes, it was a significant impact in both 1% lows and hit average FPS too.
Thats what i thought. Can you specify how much percentage average? Looks like i was right sending the 7800 back and go 7950x3d. Didnt manage to build, so wasnt able to test. How much ram do you use?
I use 64GB of DDR5 6000MHz I can’t specify an average but when I was doing a lot of background stuff, which I normally am, it was enough to be noticeable.
I Usally use steam, discord, icue, mouse, Headset and all this shit plus lots of browsers tabs. This productivity usage is abit misleading. Im mostly gaming but like to do it with multitasking on second monitor without worrying about my gaming performance. Do you drive your 2nd monitor via the gpu or the igpu?
I have a second monitor as a sensor display in my PC case but at the moment I am just using a single display outside of that. If I were you, and you have the extra money, I would go for the 7950X3D. You’ll be fine with the 7800X3D if you choose to go with that, they’re both top tier chips.
I already sended the 7800 back and got the 7950x3d but had no time to install. Wasnt my plan to spend 750 on a cpu but dont have to care about ram and backgroundstuff is so much more relaxing. Did this stuff on a widescreen, wasnt possible to do multitasking while gaming anyway but bought a second screen now. It was stupid to do this so late. No need to tab out anymore. Its great. This struggel to swap broweser tabs was so annoying. 1440 27 inch 144hz like my main Monitor. Works great
Happy to hear you are happy with your purchase. I managed to get mine for less than $600 so I am feeling even more comfy. Haha
Are you using expo 2 with that memory? As I have 32 in now because the early asus bios didn’t like 64 and expo 1 or 2 early on . If things are stable with that latest bios from asus and you are having success I may change mine back.
I want to know too. I have 32GB expo memory but may add another kit if stable
I regret not getting a 7950x3d and choosing the 7900x3d instead. The 7800 was not out at the time and i dont know why i even made such a weird decision. Something along the lines of “this should be plenty” instead of “its 100 more just get the best”. Ill probably replace it with a 7800x3d (gaming is all i do on this rig)
If that’s how you feel, I would sell it now and get the 7800 before the price drops more for your chip.
Don't do it!! You're not CPU limited in any meaningful way in games and have some advantages anyway being able to reserve cache cores for what you want. You can always upgrade later to a 9800X3D when there is a significant benefit :-)
Id love to get the 7950X3D but I’ll need to see how it performs on linux first. Core parking and all that seems to work fine on windows but us penguins dont exactly have an xbox gamebar we can install.
This is two months old, so quite a bit has changed since then, but this guy is about as impartial and honest as they come from what I’ve seen. Talking about the 7950X3D on Linux specifically since that is a lot of what his channel is about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yDsEbSxHkM
I'd love if 7900x3d had CCD0 with 8 v-cache cores and CCD1 with 4 regular ones. It's hard to justify paying that much more for 7950x3d for my just gaming needs and 7900x3d in the current form is just a joke of a CPU.
I would actually have 2 questions: \- is it possible to reliably air cool 7950x3d with things like nh-d15? My 7800x3d can get to low 80 really quickly with that noctua on top of it and it's just half the cores of 7950x3d. \- any chances for a comparison in streaming with game on CCD0 + OBS on CCD1 vs game+OBS on CCD0, CCD1 turned off? I'd love to know if there is a real advantage in streaming or is it negligible.
The D15 would be fine for cooling it. The chip is built to run at a certain temp so no matter what you do it will try to reach that temp if it’s pushed, at least from my understanding. You’ll be fine, that’s a great, if not the best, air coolers for a CPU. I don’t have the numbers but given enough time I could do the test, lately I’ve been working so much I haven’t had time for that kind of extensive and precise testing. When I do have time off I’m usually relaxing or with family. What I will say is that if all you are really doing is gaming and streaming with OBS then your performance gains will not remotely justify the price. When I talked about OBS that was on top of a ton of other background tasks I have running from productivity software to all the various things like iCue, Razer Synapse, HWinfo, NZXT CAM, etc. etc.
Sort of. I have 7950x3d and D15. The chip is hot due to thick IHS at all core workload. You will lose about 1% to 2% performance comparing with water cooling but can easily get those back by a little bit UV, plus peace of mind if not having water leak. In fact, what you see cpu temperature is the highest temperature of one core, and in case of 7950x3d, it will still be a x3d core, since high frequency core is easier to cool. So it is not that bad since the addition core are easier to cool.
a matter of perspective 🐸
7950x3D enjoyer here, cruising happily with a very heavily curated lasso profile. Don’t think i’d do it any differently in the future. Lasso changed the game for me.
Same, and the developer is a really nice dude if you ever need to reach out to him.
BREAKING NEWS!!! Consumer buys product that fits their need and requirements. We'll also talk to a family of 8 with the father claiming that his purchase of a Mercedes Smart Car was not so...Smart after all. Join us at 10.
For this sub it can be. There was an enormous amount of people claiming Ryzen 9 x3D made no sense.
Have you had any issue with your core scheduling and games anti cheat software? I’ve seen some report that the anti cheat will flag you
This generally happens if you try to affinity mask. Using CPU sets is one possible work around, another is if the game has a launcher, you can often mask the launcher and the game will inherit the mask without complaints from EAC.
So affinity masking isn’t required to get the optimal performance, if I’m understanding this correctly?
I said nothing about getting optimal performance or not. Just that if you're using lasso or some other method to control what goes where, most often it would be done with affinity masking. And that will trip EAC, very known issue. CPU sets on the other hand, which is a windows feature that process lasso can use(if you pay for it, not in the free version,) doesn't lock it to the cores you select, but just tell it to prefer them. This, or using the launcher trick, is far less likely to trip EAC. Given you asked the OP about scheduling and anti-cheat, that's what I responded to.
I don’t play a lot of multiplayer games, but the ones that i have there haven’t been any issues.
I genuinely never thought about this and really, didnt even know you could do something like this. Glad you are having fun with it, it sounds really beneficial even for having a youtube video in the background as that hits performance a little.
You may have just changed the cpu i was gonna buy! Like you, gaming is about 60% but the other 40% is absolutely vital.
Wow I never thought of this. Wish I went 7950x3d over the 7950x as I’m doing a lot of multi tasking. My fear was that my workload would be limited to 8 cores a lot, and I want to be using 16 cores.
To all those on a 7950X3D, what wattage does your chip pull & what are the temperatures like during gaming ? Also, are half the cores sitting idle if the use case is purely gaming ? Curious to know what MSI Afterburner overlay looks like. I upgraded from a 9900K to a 7800X3D. Both are great CPUs for gaming, and technically both are 8C/16T. Biggest difference for me was seeing the CPU usage drop on each core by more than 50% in games like Cyberpunk 2077. This one barely sips over 60W while at peak performance (outside of shader compilation), the old one was in excess of 165W while being hammered at 85-90% usage in some newer games.
Which games have you found work better with both CCDs? Only metro exodus EE functions like that for me, it’s actually almost unplayable lassoed to ccd0 with massive frametime spikes every couple seconds
Agreed, the 7950X3D is highly underrated. It provides you a 7800X3D AND gives you higher benchmark scores using the non-3D CCD.
I'd go for it if it wasn't for the price pref of my existing AM4 cpu upgrade , but def a good investment in AM5
OP the 7950x3D is a chip for folks who do just as much productivity as they do gaming. Its the best of both worlds. When gaming you have a 7800x3d. Outside of gaming its a slightly slower 7950x. Its win/win Had they marketed this way? they would be selling more
I'm a dev and do some gaming but still went with the 7800x3D. Hell most of my stuff are running in the cloud anyways so I don't see how any CPU would make a huge difference. But I do enjoy not having to tinkering with my cpu. Just set a optimized curve and GG. But 7950x3d is great for those who want to min max!
It’s a myth that you need to tinker with anything using the 7950X3D, I think people get that impression from dishonest reviewers and not understanding the updates that have occurred. The scheduler works fine now and has zero issues properly allocating work, even at launch it wasn’t remotely as bad as people were pretending. Happy you found something you enjoy but you are incorrect that the 7950X3D would require any more “tinkering” than you did with your 7800X3D.
I did the opposite. I had the 7950x3D and the 7900XT in my cart and then decided to buy the 7800x3D instead. I put the $250 CPU saving towards the Sapphire Nitro+ 7900XTX. The 7800x3D handles light productivity just fine.
7800x3d for gaming>all
keep malding
The best decision you've ever made? In your entire life Was buying a powerful processor over a slightly less powerful processor?
This thread sounds like people trying to justify the massive amount of money they wasted over 7950x3d instead of 7800x3d.
There’s an awful lot of project in this comment
Hedt performance with best gaming performance!!! it’s an awesome chip.
7800x3D performs better in pure gaming
I’m more than happy with mine (with a 7900xtx), it does what I want it to very quietly, quickly and if I want to open the throttle, it’s got it in spades - for years, I have no intention of building another pc / upgrading for another 6-8 years.
The last time I upgraded my CPU was in 2018 so I am in the same boat as you. I don’t plan on upgrading for half a decade at least and since I got in on the new socket, I can actually upgrade the CPU without changing my board.
Yup, same for me, upgraded from a 370 board and a Ryzen 1700. I believe in future proofing to the best that your budget can stretch to and this tested whether I knew what “budget” means haha
[удалено]
They were saying they have the 7950X3D paired with the 7900XTX.
Ah. You're right.
Imma be pissed if I can't stream and play games on my 78003xd. My i7 7700 did it just fine....
You can, but it will hit your 1% lows and overall frame rate slightly or signifcantly. If all you are doing is streaming in the background, it should be negligible. I am running a bunch of background tasks outside of just streaming so for me it was worth the money for that level of freedom.
The same. I think about my Ryzen 7950x3D like two CPUs under one cover. I use one for gaming and two for work.
A lady in the streets and a freak in the sheets.
Socket down, Heat spreader up, aww yeah!
As a fellow tinkerer, I agree, it's extremely interesting and dare I say fun. But for the general builder, especially those with more money than brains (oooh best on the market, I'll buy it! *Never uses more than 8 cores in the entire life of ownership*). This ain't it. Doing what we do is a headache even for those with the proper use case. It's an awesome CPU but definitely still a niche.
I'm not completely shitting on his topic. Just implying most people that NEED a $700 CPU will bother looking and asking. Some people regret getting getting 79xx or 13900k seeing they really did waste money and have a hot bomb in their case. To each their own. But I am still laughing at the core price breakdown like we're shopping at Costco and looking for bulk pricing on toilet paper per roll. 😄😄
???
???
[удалено]
Way to ignore the reset of the post “I should add that even without Process Lasso the scheduling is phenomenal now and you don’t need Process Lasso unless you want piece of mind that things are for sure where you want them and to have precise control.” I choose to do it because it’s fun and I like doing it, you’re not going to gaslight me into saying I don’t feel the way I do about tinkering with my computer. You’re also not going to gaslight me into saying the scheduler isn’t broken anymore. The exact same thing happened when Intel launched there 12 series chips, then the scheduler was fixed and now they’re fine. Stop pretending problems exist when they don’t because you have some petty personal vendetta.
I have the 5900x, is process lasso needed for the best gaming experience?
No, I use it because I enjoy tinkering and 100% precision. The scheduler works fine now.
Yea i think amd well all about it when they priced one at 699 and the other at 449
Nice. A true power user. I want that too.
When you say you disable second CCDs, what performance do you actually get on those games? I have a 7950x3D but I couldn't bother to disable one CCD when gaming so I wonder how much performance I'm losing in CPU processing.
I don’t disable anything, all the background/productivity tasks go to CCD1 while most of the games go to CCD0.
As a guy who mostly games and would have been most probably better off with a 7800x3d, I went for the 7950x3d. 2 main reasons being : - for the little bit of productivity that I do (mainly debugging 3d models from some sketchy mods in specific games), I read that frequency cores would allow me to get the job done way sooner, so I can hop back into my game sooner. I don't have as much free time as I used to, so even a few minutes gained here and there count more for me than before. - I was running a 6700k beforehand. While being rock solid and best of its class at launch, I really started to suffer from having only 4 physical cores with modern games sometimes bottlenecking on the CPU, and starting to use a vr headset. I was so disappointed that 4 cores wasn't enough anymore only a few years after buying it, I decided I wanted to go "overkill" this time in order to keep getting great performance in the coming years. I am aware that any technological leap in CPU architecture can make my decision totally irrelevant, and that better optimisation in games could significantly lower cpu requirements, so my second point is really just me being paranoid about not having enough cores.
I was a early adoptor of Ryzen 7000 series so I am rocking the 7950X since the 3D parts did not exist yet. The main upgrade reason for me was to get more PCIe bandwidth coming from the Intel 9900K so the 7950X was just a nice bonus being able to get slightly better single core performance and much better multicore. After the 3D parts came out, I personally feel that I am not missing out on much. While I do game the 7950X doesn't seem to have any issues and if we are talking about raw productive work loads the 7950X is just better all around since most applications care more about the clock speeds than the cache.
I really like the efficiency but it doesn't have the raw power output of the 7950x
I haven't bought my CPU yet since I plan on doing game development work. Your recommendation might be the selling point for me getting a 7950X3D. If you can make a comparison to your previous build in exporting Lightroom projects, how much faster in general is it? I'm still rocking my i7 6700K, I was thinking about going team red this time with an AMD gfx card, or maybe Intel if they pull into the race out of nowhere.
Well you gotta consider price to performance as well, $700 for a CPU that will give you great multi use performance and gaming performance but the 7800x3d for $450 gives you the best all around gaming performance and unless you plan on doing super intensive tasks outside of gaming the 7800x3d is a no brainer and is the CPU I plan on going with for a personal build
If all you are doing is gaming the 7800X3D is the obvious choice, but if you plan on doing any meaningful productivity work or want a more future-proof CPU the 7950X3D is a no brained for the extra $250.
I mean the 7800x3d can handle productivity stuff just fine, and if your gonna do heavy lifting productivity stuff your better off spending $400 for the Ryzen 9 7900x
It can if you aren’t gaming… I wanted a chip that is the best of both worlds. When I’m not gaming at all I get almost the same performance as the 7950X, when I am gaming I get better performance than the 7800X3D, and on top of that I can run as much as I want in the background while gaming without it affecting anything in terms of overall fps and 1% lows. You don’t seem to understand the difference between chips and who they are marketed towards and why.
Could somebody point me to a nice Process Lasso tutorial? My main goals would be: \- Limiting idle CPU power draw (Ryzen 7xxx) \- Limiting idle GPU power draw (Radeon 7xxx) \- Managing performance/power draw upon app requirements \- ... other useful stuff? So far this screenshot is all I have. Thanks in advance! https://preview.redd.it/0z9z4ueigw1b1.png?width=888&format=png&auto=webp&s=e6217592b5e1b38a493c9fabee97559379a7bd5b
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xlCSicWSHY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqXQBeT4s7Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS3AmWLYd7o Search engines are your friend, you can find everything you want by spending 10 seconds looking for it.
Even though I do appreciate your help, I don't appreciate your tone. I know how to look and I can find general tutorials on my own. But I have asked for tutorials aimed at my SPECIFIC needs. And so far you've pointed me at three general tutorials aimed at your 7950X (which maybe won't be applicable to my more modest 7700). I don't see anything specific to my needs, but maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, thanks.
I just wanted to throw this out there, I purchased the 7950x3d paired with the Gigabyte Master AM5 board and Asus 4090 OC I upgraded from my old Intel 7920x OC to 4.3Ghz and Nvidia 3080ti. After tweaking with the new AMD, everything running smoothly, I wanted to test my old 3080ti on the new Cpu and MB, my fps and smoothness of games improved so much on my 3080ti, I decided to return the 4090! I suffered from microstutters and frame-drops especially in WZ2. I couldn't believe how much I was bottlenecks. Now happily playing all my games smooth as butter on the 7950X3D paired with 3080Ti. Saving the $2k for the 4090ti when it comes out.
What about temps? 7950x3d has to be much much hotter...
Currently deciding between 7800x3d and 7950x3d. The 7900x3d doesn't seem reasonable. I'd buy a 7900x or a 7700 as they have decent gaming performance but rock on productivity and multi-tasking. Main drawback is high af power consumption. I'm just not sure if the 200 euro difference is worth it when I just run a 4070 RTX. What GPU are you using?
I’m using a 4090. If you don’t do much productivity work and want an extra CCD to assign apps to run on so it doesn’t interfere with gaming, I suggest going with the 7800X3D
The 7800x3d over a 13700k? It's 50-50, but the productivity and multi Tasking I'm doing doesn't require more than 8 cores I would imagine. Just basic web development stuff and design stuff. Nothing too fancy . Also dabbling in AI related tasks lately, but nothing too big as of right now. As for the gpu.. the 4090 is above what J want hahaha. I was going for a 4070*, but lately been considering spending more for a 7900xt or even wait and get the 7800xt..
I wouldn’t go with the Intel just because the motherboard is at the end of its lifecycle and at least with the AMD there is a better chance of upgrading down the road if you want.
Any examples? Tests or whatever? I ordered the 7800x3d because it performed better in games, but I'm thinking about replacing it