No, AMD CPUs are generally efficient for multitasking and perform well in modern applications.
No, AMD CPUs are generally efficient for multitasking and perform well in modern applications.
My recent experience with AMD was during the 1.4 Thunderbird/AthlonXP era, where performance shined in games but struggled with multitasking. Switching to the core2 Duo felt like moving from a high-performance engine to a heavy diesel. Is this still true today? I'm thinking about upgrading from my i9 10850K at 4.9GHz to the Ryzen 9800X3D. It's a mix of gaming and apps, roughly equal. During winter, I mostly play games; in summer, I do a lot of GoPro filming—stabilizing multiple 4K videos while rendering in Vegas Pro. Would the Ryzen 9800X3D be suitable for both? When gaming at full 4K, I barely see frame gains, but overclocking gives a noticeable boost. Even with a 3080Ti OC, I notice performance drops at higher settings. If I push my CPU, I can get about 10 extra frames in 4K. A future upgrade is planned, possibly moving to the 5090, so what should I choose now? Microcenter has a good deal on the 14900K, but it overheats easily. What advice do you have?
AMD currently outperforms Intel in multitasking due to their mix of performance and efficiency cores. Unlike Intel's older setup, AMD now offers both E and P cores. An E core represents efficiency, while a P core handles performance. The i9 14900K features 8 performance plus 16 efficiency cores, whereas the 9950X contains only 16 performance cores.
Well yes that is a 6 year older cpu that at the time was very high end but it was still a more early cpu for running many things at once and a single core to boot. Amd revolutionized things with the athlon 64x2 and then the core 2 took that and made it even better. Also the core 2 is 5 times faster so yeah big difference. Just saying this as I don't really find it a fair comparison? Would have been the same if you went from a 2 ghz p4 to a core 2 e6400 or something. Anyway on to what you are doing. It's going to be a it depends situation. The 9800x3d without a doubt is THE BEST gaming cpu on the market and it's NOT close. For multi core it is about 85% faster than a stock 10850k but a oc'd one it looks more like 75% faster. So a big jump BUT it may actually be smarter for you to get a 9900x then or a 7900x as the 9000 series was mostly a MASSIVE efficiency increase over a big performance leap. 7800x3d is also an option btw it's like 5% slower if even. Potentially a little bit. It is a lighter scene in the game no? So not a too big surprise as the gpu doesn't have to work too hard there. That is an understatement. To have it stand a chance at matching amds 7950x in multi core it has to run AT AT LEAST 253w of power (preferably faster but that is now more locked away as it literally kills the cpu which is a whole thing that is resolved for now but we don't know if that will hold up in the future) when a 7950x runs at half of that. This also means spending some extra on a good cooler (not too much like 90$ for a 360m aio from arctic vs 35$ for a thermalright peerless for the 7950x). Aio has to be intake on a mesh side with as little obstruction as possible tho. Also the 14900k has e an p cores usually not an issue but it can sometimes still have a wrong core assigned for some reason. Dunno why that is still a weird problem sometimes but it is :p. Especially when you are on laptops haha it sucks when it happens I speak from experience. Now it depends on what cpu to go for as well you can have MANY choices and basically all are a good upgrade. Since you game at 4k I don't think a 9800x3d is needed AT ALL as even a 5090 is NOT a native 4k high refresh card as shown in reviews all over. It can do a good few games like that but a lot don't already. So technically a 7700x is already heaps plenty for gaming. Then I'd say maybe push it to a 12 core amd like the 7900x/9900x as you get HEAPS more multi core performance whilst staying in the 9800x3d's price bracket still. Either way don't need much to run em either, 35$ cooler 150$ or so GOOD b650 board and DONE. So depending on where you see yourself going in the future I'd say choose between a 7700x/9700x or 7900x/9900x or up as you DON"T need the 9800x3d's gaming power at all for your setup. Don't get a 7900x3d or 7950x3d as only half the cores are x3d which make them slower than the 7800x3d and the 7900x3d because it only has 6 3dvache cores is sometimes slower than the regular one. The new 9000 series x3d chips aim to fix that but we will have to see.
I’m suggesting you’re focusing on real performance gains rather than just a brand update. The shift from one core to two and a newer design likely mattered more than the change in branding. Today’s desktops usually have fewer than six cores, so finding ten threads is tough. You’ll probably need to dive into more specialized areas like Atom for meaningful multitasking. I’m not comfortable with the software details, and the answer really depends on how your apps use the processor. It feels like the focus has moved beyond simple multitasking to something more demanding.
This scene is actually one of the more challenging parts of the game, often causing the lowest frame rate. When I go to 1080p low quality, I barely see any improvement in frames per second, and my GPU usage stays around 80%. But if I push the CPU too much, I start getting noticeable lag. That’s why I’m considering an upgrade before jumping for a new GPU.
I’m using a Noctua HD-15S with AMD mounts, which gives me a solid cooler already. I’m evaluating the 9900X and 9950X models. The price gap between them is about $170, which should cover most of what you’d spend on a decent mid-range motherboard. I’m leaning toward the 9900X for its balance of cost and performance, especially if I want to run high-end games at high resolutions and handle video editing tasks.
The 9950X bundle with the same motherboard and RAM is still $50 cheaper than the 9800X3D bundle. That puts it in a good budget range. If I can save around $250 from bundle discounts and see a significant boost from my current CPU instead of rushing for a GPU, I might prefer that option.
Regarding performance, the 9900X has 12 cores and 24 threads, which should be sufficient for my needs. It should handle RTX 5080/5090 at 4K with decent frame rates and still save me a few hundred dollars compared to a GPU upgrade.
The main scaling setting is currently 8/16 for most modern games. Adding more threads will likely get lost in the background. If your setup doesn’t require heavy background processing, getting the 9800X3D at its original price of $479 USD would be better. Other options include 7700X or 7800X3D.
review the full discussion past the title. The user probably has another explanation for the lag versus their original 13900k, plus a huge number of unoptimized plugins running in-game.
You're wondering if the 9800X3D could handle the workload smoothly. It would require up to 10 separate 4K video renderings at once while managing proxy files from those same files, all without slowing down browsing or streaming. For someone focused on gaming and non-work tasks, that many renderings feels excessive for a chip built mainly for entertainment. Your concern about the 9900X/9950X is valid—there might be performance issues with them too.