13900K vs 7950X
13900K vs 7950X
Hi there! I wrote a post a while back about choosing a GPU. I've been using my i7 6700K with a 3070 for about two years now. It's generally working well, even though I know I'm missing out on a lot of speed. When MW2 was released, I started noticing significant drops in FPS. That suggests it's time to consider a proper upgrade. I'm not sure which model to pick. I've been checking out the best options available—13900K and 7950X are at the top of my list because I don't want to wait too long before moving on. A bit about my setup: I mainly play games, especially FPS titles, but also enjoy content creation and streaming. I need something that lets me handle everything smoothly. Right now I have three screens set up: 170Hz at 1440p, 144Hz at 1080p, and 60Hz at 1080p. I'm planning to switch the two 1080p displays to 1440p as well. Which one should I go with? I'm aware there might not be a clear winner here, but I'd love your thoughts and any experience you have with these models. Thanks a lot! Feel free to reach out if anything is confusing. Have a great day everyone!
It's a common discussion, especially on the flagship side. One side features the 13900K, which usually matches the top gaming CPU or is very close to it, but now it's on a declining trajectory. The other side is the first generation of the new AM5 platform, along with the costs of early adoption. Since you need a completely new setup, I’d recommend going with AMD and the 7950X. This way, when the next generation arrives or new 3D V-cache CPUs launch, I’ll be just a simple BIOS update away from an upgrade.
Both options offer strong performance. Key factors to weigh: the X670 tends to be pricier while the B650 is more affordable but both need DDR5 memory. Both processors are optimized closely at default settings, with the 13900k drawing a lot of power and heating up more than the 7950x, which handles heat better despite lower peak draw. High-performance cooling is essential for either—recommended setups include 240AIO or higher. Setting both CPUs to 11 boosts efficiency but reduces clock speeds and power consumption; lowering them can save energy at the cost of speed. Memory speeds vary: the 7950x peaks around 6000-6400 MHz with dual channels, while the 13900k reaches higher with quad channels but costs more. Your CPU history shows a shift from 2 to 4 cores for gaming needs; you're wondering if future games will demand even more threads and whether multi-threaded workloads could become a bottleneck. Regarding Intel's E-cores, I’m not convinced they’re as valuable now, especially since 4 cores were sufficient for older titles. I’m leaning toward AMD due to better value and longevity of their socket design, though I appreciate the performance gains from Intel’s newer architecture. If you prefer Windows 11, it might limit your options on Windows 10, where task scheduling isn’t as flexible. Ultimately, choose based on budget, needs, and what excites you most. Thanks for the detailed breakdown!
Well, things are a bit complex here. My perspective on this topic is the following: If you intend to use your setup for an extended period and might upgrade later, AMD system could be a good fit. They frequently release new platforms, and their history shows they can maintain systems for years (AM2, AM2+, AM3, AM4, AM4+), offering plenty of future upgrade paths. If you plan to refresh everything every five years or so, the AM4 platform is reliable and still competitive with today’s hardware. However, pushing performance limits might leave you with few upgrade choices. For Intel 13th generation, it’s significantly more recent and appealing, but regardless of your choice, options for upgrading remain quite restricted. In short: AMD 7950x with AM5 gives the best future flexibility. LGA1700 with 13th gen Intel provides fewer upgrade possibilities, but as long as it meets your needs, it’s a solid option. New developments will always appear.
It's a tough choice, but if budget matters, I believe the i7-13700K or KF is the better option. The additional E cores on the 900 model won't make much difference. Intel's 13th generation will support improved DDR5 performance, and since you're unlikely to upgrade, that's a key factor. Neither choice seems wrong, but Intel offers the quickest cores (even with just eight) which will boost gaming and overall speed.
Ecores isn't a concern given the 9.9k or even 7.95k configurations that support hyper-threading/smt. The hyper-thread and smt threads are noticeably slower than an e-core. If you had to choose between a single high-performance core with hyperthreading or one high-performance core alone, the latter would run much faster. We've always used a mix of fast and slow threads for a long time before Ecores appeared.
The question revolves around SMT or HT performance relative to an E-core setup. The key concern is whether you prefer 16 P-cores with backup from E-cores over 8 P-cores if additional cores are needed. From the discussion, a stronger preference leans toward 16 P-cores. Intel introduced E-cores to align with AMD's thread-heavy capabilities and possibly reduce power use in mobile devices. It seems the author favors AMD’s approach, while the other side supports Intel’s strategy. ANANDTech notes that SMT boosted performance by around 22% in multi-threaded tasks, with most tests gaining between 5% and 35%. Some workloads underperformed due to thread contention, especially when memory bandwidth became a bottleneck. In gaming, differences were minimal, though certain titles showed slight gains or losses depending on CPU constraints. For power efficiency, running two threads per core often improved performance while lowering energy use, with noticeable gains in some benchmarks.
They appear to be the most powerful in theory, but real-world performance depends on many factors. (I'm not sure about the details, but I think high-end CPUs are often preferred for gaming even if they aren't the most cost-effective.)