The comparison hinges on specific benchmarks and settings, so results may vary based on your hardware and usage context.
The comparison hinges on specific benchmarks and settings, so results may vary based on your hardware and usage context.
I won’t be purchasing either since I already own 14600KF. Still, why pay double the price for a CPU that excels at 1080p but struggles at 1440p (mainly due to GPU limitations)? It’s curious... I checked a few benchmarks—just for reference: these numbers reveal only a single-digit variation in most games. 7800X3D is about 500€ here, while 14600KF is around 230€.
On average, yes, the variations stay within single digits. Titles might vary slightly, but that's typical for averages. 1440p link: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-r...3d/19.html 4K link: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-r...3d/20.html (this is the latest version of the graphics review).
It seems the most reliable choice for a new gaming setup might be the Ryzen 7 7700, thanks to its strong value and future upgrades. This option also leaves room to invest more in the graphics card budget.
The issue is likely blending CPU and GPU reviews. At high resolutions like 1440P, components that aren't fully CPU-dependent can start affecting performance negatively. The main constraint is usually the GPU. This isn't a direct CPU comparison anymore. In the future, newer GPUs like the 6090 or 7090 should resolve these issues. You might prefer a 7800X3D over a 14600KF, which would encourage more people to upgrade to the 7800X3D instead. (And steer clear of any known problems with the 13th/14th generation models.) Many setups still use a 7700K, and used systems are available elsewhere... In fact, some sellers list X99-based units as brand new.
Sure, I'm looking at different gaming options. Saving around 200€ by skipping the 7800X3D and picking 7700 or maybe 14600KF could mean you get better performance from a stronger GPU. I might have labeled this a bit awkwardly, but I wanted to note that the 7800X3D is a bit pricey unless you're using an RTX 4090. It seems like this advice is fairly common now.
People often don't immediately replace an entire system with new components. It's usually better to focus on either the CPU or GPU first, not both at once. For instance, you might buy a used 3080, upgrade to a 5800X3D in the next year, then move to AM5, and eventually sell the old model for a newer one like the 5080. This approach can save time and money. A 7800X3D might let you skip several generations without major performance drops.
It depends on how you want to play your games. If you need to run on native resolution, it usually doesn’t make much difference since you’ll be using the GPU most of the time. Do you aim for a specific FPS and tweak your settings accordingly? That choice can really impact performance, especially with different CPU options depending on the game and your target. I don’t think we should focus on resolutions when talking about CPU performance—either the CPU will meet your needs or it won’t, and you’ll rely on the GPU to handle it.
Recent titles show significantly reduced frame rates on high-ultra compared to low settings. Once you could achieve more than half the performance with low configurations versus high-ultra, that gap has narrowed. This trend is widely recognized, though 7800X3D and 9800X3D often feel excessive for typical players. Most individuals understand their hardware needs but still wonder about the impact.
But the 7800X3D was cheaper than 350 USD, and the 14600KF was comparable or better. Also, it can wear out over time. Oops, I missed that. So, right now it’s not the ideal choice. However, if you consider the heat and power needs of X3D chips, a cooler and more efficient processor would be worth the extra cost. It’s not just about raw frame rates. Think about low-end performance, MMORPG demands, temperature, power consumption, Intel’s claims, AMD’s claims, etc. THEN decide. Unless you only focus on a car’s 0-100kph time during the purchase?