madgonad: The boost clocks for 7800X3D SUCK.

I don't know what else they could do this year to shoot themselves in the foot more.

dywed88: madgonad: The boost clocks for 7800X3D SUCK.

I don't know what else they could do this year to shoot themselves in the foot more.

Where does that come from?

It is 0.2GHz lower than the 13900k but AMD has had an IPC advantage for some time so that difference doesn't necessarily mean anything. Plus, that enormous cache is a major benefit for most demanding games. Dropping a couple hundred MHz could easily be offset by the cache alone.

And boost clocks are highly dependent on cooling and other factors with regards to how sustainable they are. The TDP being 30% lower than the 7900X indicates that there will be a good amount of thermal headroom for boosting.

In the end we won't know how any of this actually stacks up until third parties have the CPUs and start completing practical benchmarks.

dywed88: dywed88: madgonad: The boost clocks for 7800X3D SUCK.

I don't know what else they could do this year to shoot themselves in the foot more.

Where does that come from?

It is 0.2GHz lower than the 13900k but AMD has had an IPC advantage for some time so that difference doesn't necessarily mean anything. Plus, that enormous cache is a major benefit for most demanding games. Dropping a couple hundred MHz could easily be offset by the cache alone.

And boost clocks are highly dependent on cooling and other factors with regards to how sustainable they are. The TDP being 30% lower than the 7900X indicates that there will be a good amount of thermal headroom for boosting.

In the end we won't know how any of this actually stacks up until third parties have the CPUs and start completing practical benchmarks.

Sorry, I misread that as 7900X3D.

So it is 0.4GHz below the 13700k and 0.5GHz above the 7800X3d which is very competitive as a gaming CPU.

The rest of the comments still apply.

likefunbutnot: dywed88: So it is 0.4GHz below the 13700k and 0.5GHz above the 7800X3d which is very competitive as a gaming CPU.

The midrange CPUs of the last five years are all going to be perfectly adequate for gaming.

madgonad: dywed88: Sorry, I misread that as 7900X3D.

So it is 0.4GHz below the 13700k and 0.5GHz above the 7800X3d which is very competitive as a gaming CPU.

The rest of the comments still apply.

The 7900X3D and 7950X3D appear to beat 13900 at most games. They lose in most applications because the cache doesn't help. The 7800X3D will probably beat the 13700 in most games, but get beat by a 13600 in most apps. You know that they aren't going to price it around the 13600k. It will probably be $450 which is more than the 13700K. So they will price equivalent to Intel performance based select games, but ignore the the significant platform cost of AM5 and poor performance on almost any other application.

AMD needs inexpensive motherboards ASAP. It appears that DDR5 is going to stay about 50% more expensive for the same performance. They just completely borked this generation for desktop CPUs and GPUs. Servers, laptops, and their commercial stuff seem to be doing just fine.

likefunbutnot: dywed88: Adequate, sure, but if you are looking at these CPUs, which very much do target gaming, you aren't looking for "adequate".

It's just not that interesting. Anything in the midrange in both CPU and GPU get something that will smoke a Playstation or Xbox, which are the targets for any of the highest-budget games. Flight Simulator might be an exception, but if you're already getting 100fps+ in whatever title at your preferred screen resolution, you're already getting a top-tier experience. Future proofing usually isn't worth the effort either; there's a killer feature every couple generations that ensures that.

Gaming isn't going to get interesting again until there's another generation of consoles. Consoles more or less kill real progress in PC gaming.

baron von doodle: dywed88: madgonad: The boost clocks for 7800X3D SUCK.

I don't know what else they could do this year to shoot themselves in the foot more.

Where does that come from?

It is 0.2GHz lower than the 13900k but AMD has had an IPC advantage for some time so that difference doesn't necessarily mean anything. Plus, that enormous cache is a major benefit for most demanding games. Dropping a couple hundred MHz could easily be offset by the cache alone.

And boost clocks are highly dependent on cooling and other factors with regards to how sustainable they are. The TDP being 30% lower than the 7900X indicates that there will be a good amount of thermal headroom for boosting.

In the end we won't know how any of this actually stacks up until third parties have the CPUs and start completing practical benchmarks.

Why stop at practical benchmarks? I want to see how fast the cooling array can make toast.