F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop Check both options and see which fits your needs.

Check both options and see which fits your needs.

Check both options and see which fits your needs.

Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next
H
Hades666201
Member
175
07-05-2018, 11:31 AM
#1
I’m weighing my options for a CPU upgrade. I was leaning toward the 14700K first, but after reading some reviews it’s no longer as sure about it. It uses a lot of power and generates a lot of heat, and in games it still lags behind the 7800X3D—though that model is also relatively affordable. On the other hand, I could potentially boost an i7 to around 6Ghz across all cores, which might eventually outpace the AMD option, though I know multipliers can’t be changed much there. For cooling, I’m planning an AIO setup and am eyeing the Lian Li Galahad II 360 Trinity Performance. Please verify my current specs in my profile; I’m focused mainly on gaming performance. For non-gaming tasks, my 10700KF is more than sufficient, so either choice should work fine. By the way, I was also thinking about the 7900X3D, but I think the price difference isn’t worth the performance boost. Let me know if you have any corrections!
H
Hades666201
07-05-2018, 11:31 AM #1

I’m weighing my options for a CPU upgrade. I was leaning toward the 14700K first, but after reading some reviews it’s no longer as sure about it. It uses a lot of power and generates a lot of heat, and in games it still lags behind the 7800X3D—though that model is also relatively affordable. On the other hand, I could potentially boost an i7 to around 6Ghz across all cores, which might eventually outpace the AMD option, though I know multipliers can’t be changed much there. For cooling, I’m planning an AIO setup and am eyeing the Lian Li Galahad II 360 Trinity Performance. Please verify my current specs in my profile; I’m focused mainly on gaming performance. For non-gaming tasks, my 10700KF is more than sufficient, so either choice should work fine. By the way, I was also thinking about the 7900X3D, but I think the price difference isn’t worth the performance boost. Let me know if you have any corrections!

I
Its_Andrea
Junior Member
29
07-05-2018, 11:31 AM
#2
It varies based on your priorities. For handling multiple tasks, the i7/i9 performs better. For gaming, they offer similar performance and can trade advantages. Sometimes the 7800X3D is preferred first, while other titles favor Intel options. If you don’t mind high heat and power usage, Intel is a solid pick. However, in every game you play, Intel uses roughly twice to three times more power than the 7800X3D for the same frame rate. For instance, if the 7800X3D uses 50W, Intel might draw 100-150W for the same output. The 7900X3D features two sets of cores—six cores with X3D access and others without. For gaming only, opt for the 7800X3D or 7950X3D if you need more threads.
I
Its_Andrea
07-05-2018, 11:31 AM #2

It varies based on your priorities. For handling multiple tasks, the i7/i9 performs better. For gaming, they offer similar performance and can trade advantages. Sometimes the 7800X3D is preferred first, while other titles favor Intel options. If you don’t mind high heat and power usage, Intel is a solid pick. However, in every game you play, Intel uses roughly twice to three times more power than the 7800X3D for the same frame rate. For instance, if the 7800X3D uses 50W, Intel might draw 100-150W for the same output. The 7900X3D features two sets of cores—six cores with X3D access and others without. For gaming only, opt for the 7800X3D or 7950X3D if you need more threads.

E
eojeoj1
Member
168
07-05-2018, 11:31 AM
#3
Previous experience with Raptor Lake chips suggests otherwise unless you have an unusually strong cooling setup. Operating at 5.6-5.8GHz is near the maximum achievable for water cooling and most chips, unless you go for extreme techniques like delidding or using liquid metal. Unless you’re playing a handful of titles where Intel truly shines (such as Starfield and FFXIV), the 7800X3D outperforms the 7900X3D. The latter is actually slower due to its 6-core cache compared to the 8-core version.
E
eojeoj1
07-05-2018, 11:31 AM #3

Previous experience with Raptor Lake chips suggests otherwise unless you have an unusually strong cooling setup. Operating at 5.6-5.8GHz is near the maximum achievable for water cooling and most chips, unless you go for extreme techniques like delidding or using liquid metal. Unless you’re playing a handful of titles where Intel truly shines (such as Starfield and FFXIV), the 7800X3D outperforms the 7900X3D. The latter is actually slower due to its 6-core cache compared to the 8-core version.

C
CreativeWorker
Junior Member
5
07-05-2018, 11:31 AM
#4
They operate near their limits already. A tailored loop would be required just to try cooling the furnace effectively. Skip the 7900x3d—it’s worse than the 7800x3d for gaming and even more so for multi-core work than the 7900x3d. It’s not a solid CPU. The 7800x3d is the best choice for gaming, and you don’t need an expensive cooler if you really want an AIO liquid freezer II or III instead.
C
CreativeWorker
07-05-2018, 11:31 AM #4

They operate near their limits already. A tailored loop would be required just to try cooling the furnace effectively. Skip the 7900x3d—it’s worse than the 7800x3d for gaming and even more so for multi-core work than the 7900x3d. It’s not a solid CPU. The 7800x3d is the best choice for gaming, and you don’t need an expensive cooler if you really want an AIO liquid freezer II or III instead.

X
xpoison2
Junior Member
1
07-05-2018, 11:31 AM
#5
7800X3D is complete. On average it performs well. More powerful AMD CPUs can introduce issues that might hurt gaming, unless you're consistently using extra cores for tasks besides gaming.
X
xpoison2
07-05-2018, 11:31 AM #5

7800X3D is complete. On average it performs well. More powerful AMD CPUs can introduce issues that might hurt gaming, unless you're consistently using extra cores for tasks besides gaming.

K
Koollojoe
Posting Freak
830
07-05-2018, 11:31 AM
#6
Thanks for the updates on 7900X3D. It's no longer on the list. Concerning the power usage of the 14700K, it's not a major concern, though a large cooling unit under my desk would be undesirable. I'd only tolerate that if the performance gain was substantial. Based on what I've seen, the extra features don't seem to justify such heat output—even at 5.6Ghz with all cores, it should perform comparably to the stock 7800X3D. From the reviews I read, Lian Li appears to outperform Arctic, but I'll consider that further and do more research.
K
Koollojoe
07-05-2018, 11:31 AM #6

Thanks for the updates on 7900X3D. It's no longer on the list. Concerning the power usage of the 14700K, it's not a major concern, though a large cooling unit under my desk would be undesirable. I'd only tolerate that if the performance gain was substantial. Based on what I've seen, the extra features don't seem to justify such heat output—even at 5.6Ghz with all cores, it should perform comparably to the stock 7800X3D. From the reviews I read, Lian Li appears to outperform Arctic, but I'll consider that further and do more research.

L
lucarich
Member
133
07-05-2018, 11:31 AM
#7
Adjust your Monitor Refresh Rate to an FPS goal... Both options should generally work well... In my opinion.
L
lucarich
07-05-2018, 11:31 AM #7

Adjust your Monitor Refresh Rate to an FPS goal... Both options should generally work well... In my opinion.

T
TweeYeno
Member
69
07-05-2018, 11:31 AM
#8
The 7800X3D performs well compared to the 14900K, outperforming it on average. Even though they’re close, the 7800X3D still holds a slight advantage, meaning the 14700K likely can’t match its performance.
T
TweeYeno
07-05-2018, 11:31 AM #8

The 7800X3D performs well compared to the 14900K, outperforming it on average. Even though they’re close, the 7800X3D still holds a slight advantage, meaning the 14700K likely can’t match its performance.

P
ParmesanChez
Junior Member
7
07-05-2018, 11:31 AM
#9
The display refresh speed has increased to 240 frames per second, and it is expected to be improved to 360 Hz once the AW2725DF becomes available in your region. Currently, I’m not seeing enough frames for smooth performance, especially in older games or very light titles.
P
ParmesanChez
07-05-2018, 11:31 AM #9

The display refresh speed has increased to 240 frames per second, and it is expected to be improved to 360 Hz once the AW2725DF becomes available in your region. Currently, I’m not seeing enough frames for smooth performance, especially in older games or very light titles.

B
BlueJayTitan
Junior Member
13
07-05-2018, 11:31 AM
#10
The change from 360Hz to 240Hz seems negligible, it doesn't really matter
B
BlueJayTitan
07-05-2018, 11:31 AM #10

The change from 360Hz to 240Hz seems negligible, it doesn't really matter

Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next