@@FleaOnMyWiener Yes, this! I understand this video is challenging the claim that it is the fastest gaming CPU, but I feel like the video also doesn't emphasize enough that it's half the price of a near identical performing Intel CPU (for gaming). I watched this video 3 quarters and thought it was a bash video, while in reality, this thing is freaking epic.
It destroys every CPU in games that utilize that v-cache like Flight Sim 2020 and GTA V. It trades blows with the 12900ks, looking at everyone's benchmark results the "best gaming CPU" crown changes according to the game selection. i would say they're on par with each other if it werent for the massive price difference.
I say, run the test again without the DDR5 for intel and stick with the same as AMD. Also the intel motherboard was released 2 years after the AMD board which could also have an advantage. 1000% AMD win
That last point is important. It is still using the AM4 socket. Intel creates a new socket every other release. So sure, this isn't the "fastest" chip out there, but for those who bought in a while back, it makes for a great upgrade without having to invest into an entirely new system.
@@ILoveTinfoilHats to be fair if intel and amd made motherboards direct I would be happy to buy them. I got a bank of i7 3770 on intel motherboards and they are rock solid
dont worry, AMD has already claimed they will do the same thing as intel. they need to be as flexible as possible, they cant lock themselves down to a single socket again.
You compensate the price by needing a 360 AIO, as it's even warmer than the regular 5800X. And that thing is already a bitch to cool. 12900KS is also a workload CPU while 5900X3D is for gaming only, so bad comparison.
@@thedeegee1601 it's runs cooler then the i9, it also draws less power then the regular 5800x. And you don't need a 360 rad for 150 watts. As far as productivity is concerned it's only about 5% slower then the 5800x in most test, where it's not faster. And saying a cpu is for gaming only is... Interesting.
@@thedeegee1601 You don't need a 360 AIO. AMD dynamically scales it's power based on available thermal headroom. If you want PBO to work it's magic then sure, you go big but for normal gaming then a small AIO or even decent tower cooler is more than up to the job. I have a 5800x that sits at 80c under full load on a basic 120mm AIO and that's it's intended thermal target- 80c. 90c is where you start to worry as that's the maximum rated temperature.
It's crazy to think of the insane range of performance that can be had from one single CPU socket. I built my current PC in early 2019 with an R5 2600 on a B450 board and have since upgraded to a 3600 which was already a great boost for gaming, but I could literally drop this CPU in my current MOBO and get like 50% more gaming performance. Heck, some people might even still be on 1st gen Ryzen and could upgrade to this. It hasn't been a perfectly smooth ride, but AM4 has been an absolutely legendary achievement.
I can't upgrade to this because my motherboard is an x370 lol I actually would have to get a new motherboard. on the other hand I could look for something in the ryzen 3000 lineup.
It's actually quite insane to consider that it's on par with intels offering (in terms of gaming) and nearly half the cost and still using ddr4 ram, I can only wait to imagine what Amd has to offer with its upcoming generation.
I just need amd to exist to get intel to move their ass, ill still buy a Intel processor over AMD because you litterely get what you paid for, I've had issue with amd before so possibly I am biased, Intel is just the goat in my book due to the ease I've had with them
I normally fully agree with Anthony. In his point of a 12700K being a better value, I disagree. You said you paired the Intel with your fastest DDR5. That exponentially raises the cost for minor improvements on the work side.
Ram speed has been shown to have very little impact on performance. You could get a cheaper pair of sticks and it would still be close to same performance for $50 less.
@@LiberatedMind1 That’s completely inaccurate. A simple look at LTT’s benchmarks on the 12900K as well as GamersNexus shows performance increases of up to 20% when running DDR5 vs DDR4.
They failed to mention. On top of the $800 for the I9 12900KS you also need to spend more on RAM, more on a motherboard and more on. Power supply. 12900KS is an enthusiast part. The 5800X3D is actually for a regular consumer.
Also note on cooling. To max out the 12900KS you need DDR5 6400 RAM afaik, a 240mm radiator, a more expensive mainboard aswell as a bigger PSU as mentioned. All that to barely beat AMDs 5800X3D on an old socket and architecture, which performs almost identical while drawing less power. Yikes
@@nontoxic9960 You can, but at that point you lose that performance edge you would gain over getting a 5800X3D. Why would you spend $800 on a cpu to knee cap it with DDR4 so it doesn’t perform to its best abilities. Cheaper to buy AMD’s new chip
I agree. But the real kicker is the clock speeds, and this is why so many people think Zen 4 is going to be a really good improvement. This chip is getting this kind of performance running game threads at about 4.4GHz. The 12900K is running those game threads probably around 5.2GHz (somewhere between single thread and all-core, and threads are rotating through the 8 cores to balance load and heat). Imagine if AMD could fix the issue with its interconnect having to clock slower which affects IO and the connection between core chiplets AND limits the speed for memory, AND can push a 5GHz ALL-core, which means it too could run game threads at around 5.2GHz. And even more scary. Zen 3, such as the 5800X can already game as fast as Alder Lake IF those CPUs were clocked the same. So, put this all together. Boosting game threads from about 4.5GHz from something like a 5800X up to 5.2GHz, speed up the interface which reduces latency also, make other improvements to the architecture that helps IPC, AND THEN have a couple SKUs with Vcache for gaming. And I can see why Intel is deciding to make Raptor Lake a blast furnace by boosting ALL-CORE up a couple hundred MHz which then allows game threads to run 5.4 - 5.5GHz with boost clocks. Scary amount of power vs. scary amount of performance.
Yes, true, but no-one is showing the idle/light activity power usage, where most computers spend most of their time. 12th gen Intel is in a league of it's own there, with the chiplet design from AMD preventing it to power down more. I hope AMD will be able to overcome this limitation in the next gen.
@@kasimirdenhertog3516 they might spend most of their time there but unless you just leave your computer on 24/7 and hardly use it the savings at idle over higher useage will likely become worthless
the 5500 is a meme along with most of the others. 5800x3d is a huge win for amd but no overclocking sucks. 12600k/12700k + good ram and an oc is still gonna be better too. lisa has been making so many dumb calls these days, dont really get it
Equally? I think you're mistaken, kind stranger. Intel's running shitscared and everyone knows it. I bet the Intel head engineers are cussing themselves over prioritizing raw electric power (Wattage) instead of cache bottlenecks.
I hate AMD, because of missing iGPU. Intel gen12 processors are far better than stupid AMD. AMD GPU sucks in hardware encoding. Governments should ban sales of CPUs without iGPU.
The cost efficiency of this is insane. No scalped DDR5, used motherboards ok, low power requirements... a whole build with this can easily cost half of one with a 12900k/ks or more money can be thrown into a different tier GPU.
Can everyone please tell MSI to post the new Bios for b350 and x370 motherboards for Ryzen 5000 support. Until that happens we can't buy the damn processors.
@@TheBURBAN111 On this benchmark the 12900k was running on 5,6gHz DDR5. That still bumps the price, if you consider that you can literally use a 4 year old 70 USD mobo with 50USD ram and still match intels performance. You would need a solid mobo because of the i9 power draw and the ram price is triple. So adding that up, you can actually buy a tier higher GPU.
As a last hurray for AM4, the swan song for this platform, I should say: Bravo! What a wild ride! AMD completely impressed me up to the very end. I'll keep building AM4 PCs for the time being, but I'm expecting anxiously for AM5 platform, that hopefully will compete head to head with Intel for the coming years. Farewall, AM4!
I agree. I won't buy it but I'm very glad AMD is giving the Ryzen userbase either A. Something to upgrade from Zen or Zen 2 B. Something exciting for AM5 with 3d cache
i have X570 with R3 2300X then R5 3600 for one last time R7 5800X3D will really be the last one and what's next will be the future if they make AM6 to be 4 gens + across like AM4 (might as well just skip AM5 for many reasons) AMD will be the go to choice since they are proved with Ryzen (if they don't flop like Bulldozer).
Wow, Flight Simulator averaging 113fps vs 80 for the non X3D version is pretty crazy. And it's beating the KS by 20fps for half the price. For hard core flight sim nerds this is going to be part of the go-to build, at least until the 7000 series comes out.
Upgrading the second time without changing the motherboard. That is SO underrated. Love it. So Intel could offer 20% better performance i wouldnt care because it even makes it more expensive to switch.
@@ak9084 because people only upgrade because of being heavily cpu limited lol... Should we talk about someone who bought an 1800x for example, and has upgraded to a 5950x? It's definitely a thing. Cpus become obsolete pretty fast nowadays (i9s too, but with worse upgradability), for people who need top performance all the time.
When I stop to think about it the fact that AMD can compete with their almost one year old generation, with extra cache... at lower temps and lower power usage makes me wonder what the future will look like. I have been using Intel since the 286 days with a short AMD stint for the X2's. But since the first Threadripper and then the 570X platform I have used AMD in my main rig (have many computers and serves) and I haven't regretted it a second. Can I find instances where Intel are faster? Sure! Does AMD give good enough performance that I will gladly support them in order to get at least two major players in the x86 CPU market to enable competition and benefit consumers? Any day of the week.
Same for me i was a huge intel user never owned anything from amd but after going from a i5 6600k to a r9 3900x i was super impressed and im really considering staying with amd even if intel is currently better
@@nayan.punekar dont be stupid the new architecture took way longer and whats wrong with a bit of an older gen processors when they still can hang or beat intel?
@@andreasstrauss5194 I'm not being stupid and nor am I calling it old.Pretty hypocritic of you to call me stupid when you literally are calling a chip with a whole new layer of cache old and all it got was minor gains just about 10-15 more fps for the majority of the tests for 50$ more than the 12700k is clearly more stupid than what I said.
@@nayan.punekar You think it took Intel 6 months to create a brand new architecture? Sorry mate but then you obviously know nothing about what goes into designing CPU's. It took way longer than that. Also, how "old" an architecture is doesn't matter. The feature set and performance matters. If something new is released that suck it would be dumb to buy it just because its new. Heck Intel used to take their previous gen architecture to produce their HEDT platform.
36MB is a lot for l3 that's why many dont see difference, and intel was giving is 12 or 16 MB for LONG TIME, but as those sizes might become popular, stuff will be redesigned to use it more often, which would yeld this cpu some gains down its lifetime as well. 9700k (which is almost 4 year old now) had 12, so big cache is fairly new concept for games, obviously underutilized.
Just a few seconds into the video i am already impressed just by the difference in performance between a standard 5800x and the new 3d version. AMD is really pumping out innovation after innovation over the last couple years. It's insane.
@@Juan800PimpBot To be fair so did AMD. The new budget options they released should have been there. But I guess its on Intel for not being able to put pressure until Alder Lake
Well... that's because they boost so insanely high... This also needs pretty high voltages, which increases current flow in the die, which increases temperature, which causes resistance to drop in a small feedback loop until a thermal equilibrium is reached. That's one of the reasons why extreme overclockers use LN2/DICE. In easier terms: The higher you go, the less efficient you become (diminishing returns).
My 1st gen Asus X370-F motherboard that I got on Ryzen's launch in 2017 just got a firmware update to support this CPU - not bad for a 5yr old platform!
@@UmbraWeiss I don't feel highly motivated to get a new motherboard, CPU, and DDR5 RAM atm, seems more efficient to just swap out the CPU and make the best of current gear.
@@edwarddudley3504 Does it matter? At the end of the day the main takeaway is that the 12900KS isnt good value for users who only do gaming and light productivity loads.
Well GN didnt use a 800+$ Ram kit overclocked to absolute max to push out extra advantage for Intel while using 300$ kit on AMD. LTS did that because their staff gets directly paid by Intel with the 5000$ upgrades for preferance
@ironvxz In canada, our main retailer put out a coupon for the 5800x3d, which brings the price down to 320$ usd for boxing week. microcenter still has it at 340$, which it has been for quite a bit, so I suggest waiting until next week (right around christmas/boxing day which is dec 26) to see if they have some boxing day deals to save up to 30$. If you don't really care for potentially 30$ savings, you aren't missing out if you buy it now.
The 5800X3D is the only 3D CPU to be released before Zen 4 on AM5. There won't be a lineup. It will be interesting however to see what massive amounts of cache do for say a Zen 4 3D lineup.
Would be fun if they left the ability for negative curve optimizer settings. And still limit max core voltage to 1.35v. As it has been one of the best ways to overklick the 5000 series already it would be nice if they left that.
@@CaptainKenway You dont need new "way around". Those 4.8 ghz is a result of boosting "base clock" frequency with locked voltage. This is a very old approach to OC "locked" (non K for Intel) cpu.
It is not that CPU requires that 1.35 constant voltage, but 3-D Cache. So technically you can OC cores, if you don't touch cache so don't harm stability. But core effective clock for AMD is equal to L3 cache clock, so it is more of potential stability issue than anything
@@kiloneie you will hurt it if the voltage goes up. Curve optimizer just say what voltage each clock frequency should offset to. So if you can reduce the voltage the CPU mat boost higher (if it's stable that is) and would provably land at 1.35v anyway, just with higher clockspeed. Amd can't use a baseline to edgy for stability so there is always some margin to push the chip somewhat without increasing heat or voltage. Or the old way of oc, lock the voltage and push the clocks until unstable and backtrack until stable.
I think you should have also ran the tests with DDR4 on the intel platform. Some of the games in the suite have been shown to run better when using lower latency DDR4 than even the fastest DDR5 kits.
I love the fact that AMD decided to release the 5800X3D just to show off their new technology that, most likely, will be integrated into their next gen.
@@Safetytrousers They said that the OC limitation was for this chip only. That leads me to believe that the next iteration won't have the limit (assuming that holds true and tehy are able to work through whatever it is that necessitates the limit).
What do you mean just to show off? They make money by claiming the 'best for gaming' crown and they've rushed this out to keep that from what I can see.
Wait... Half the power consumption, a lot less heat, 3% slower productivity than the competing 12700K and 3% slower in gaming than the 12900KS? And against DDR5-5600? Well, that's a big win in my book.
I think it would be nice if LMG used different colors in their graphs, so that colorblind people like me would be able to tell which is which. Wouldn't be too big of a change but it would be a huge help for the 8% of guys who don't see colors well.
The Intel CPU is twice the price, twice the power consumption and runs hotter due to all that energy, and has practically half the upgradability due to changing the socket more often. If AMD is even on par with Intel these days, they're winning by leagues.
12900KS is a 16 core CPU with twice the multithreaded performance of the 8 core 5800X3D. They aren't competitive processors. Also the AMD CPU is the last release for it's socket while the intel socket will be receiving new CPUs this year, 13th gen Raptor Lake, which will be faster than the 12900KS.
AM4 has been a great platform. I bought in with a x370 and 1700 and now run a 3900x i picked up for £250 last year might be able to drop a 5900x at some point and to be honest i don't really see any reason to leave the platform for at least another couple of years.
Agree. I'll hopefully be able to get one of these chips to replace my 2600X on my MSI Gaming Pro 470 board with 16gb of 3200 ram. I already have a 360mm aio cooler I picked up a few years ago on sale. So I pop this chip in, apply a little thermal paste, and away I go. Solid performance for business tasks while offering outstanding performance for gaming.. which is where I want the performance to be anyway. Definitely a solid system that will hold me 2+ years before replacing it with a whole new build.
For me, the frame stability upgrading from a Ryzen 5 3600 has been astounding. It's been especially great in VR, with vastly more consistent framerate in VR Chat and similar games even on my RTX 2070 Super.
Holy shit this is the exact case scenario I have so good to hear it makes a huge difference, was thinking of just doing an incremental update and skipping the current gen entirely.
what gpu are you using. I just upgraded to a 7800XT and debating between the 5800X and X3D from my 3600. Currently playing BG3 and looking forward to City Skylines 2.
I anyone is still reading this for that exact case scenario then I can confirm it was night and day difference for me, upgraded from a ryzen 5 3800X and got an average of +20 to 30fps in vrchat while being fairly stable (do be careful of vram usage tho). Also it CAN be overclocked but I would advise using the built-in options to do so in bios instead of playing with the numbers manually. A very slight underclock with the highest level of overclock available in bios lets the temp stay around 80 or less while being very stable
I think in the future they might stick the cache under the core and maybe septate the power delivery for the cache so it can operate normally whilst the cores overclock.
Close, but no? Maybe? This would likely cause some issues with timings in some way. Or at least I imagine it would. They could probably fix it, maybe... but I'm not sure. There is a reason afterall why the cores on closest to the substrate, right? What is more likely a probable resolution to this problem, is they will use the direct copper interconnects to transfer heat more efficiently. The thing about electronics is that your copper is always going to be a heatsink in some fashion. At low temps, this doesn't matter. Low temps for copper that is, relatively speaking. So all you need to do is add more of it, with maybe even a vapor chamber or heat pipe in it. These would be ultra tiny, and carry very very little actual vapor of whatever is in it. But they would be used to interlayer between the different heat sources to help direct that heat towards the IHS. They can keep the height the same, by just making the IHS wider so that more heat can be dissipated via the sides as well as the top. So, some new heatsinks with beveled edges might be a thing for enthusiasts, but normal flat heatsinks would still do the job well enough. This solution allows for them to keep the height the same, and even possibly keep using the AM4 socket, provided they don't need to increase the overall PCB size of the CPU. If they do though... then so be it. To help anyone having a hard time visualizing this, think of it this way. They would be giving the CPU a circulatory system for heat to escape the hottest areas. Just imagine it like tiny veins of copper, with a small flat 'heart' that is the vapor chamber. They might need to sacrifice some of that cache space to allow for this, but ultimately the end result would be something like the 5800X3D, but with a lip at the bottom of the IHS to allow for the 'veins' to wrap around and dissipate their heat as well more effectively. This would indeed create a new point of potential failure for CPU's, if somehow that vapor escaped. I'm sure that would cause issues indeed. So there would be a new silicon lottery of sorts. Except now it's the CPU's circulatory system that is the variable. Extreme over clockers might need to figure out new methods to delid these, and/or their capability to use liquid nitrogen at all on them. Anyways. That's just my thoughts on it.
The 5800x3d and the Epyc 3D are proof of concept chips. They establish that the manufacturing process works. It is very well established that some tasks benefit from more cache and some don't. There does need to be a lot more testing, and SW/OS optimization, to get the most out of this tech. The next generation of this tech should be even more interesting.
I was never a huge fan of anthony, but he's a lot calmer than the rest and I think the contrast is what helps him to stand out. That and he's kinda displayed as the most competent member of LTT in the videos at least, everyone else makes normal human mistakes but he's like a terminator and never fucks up, it's creepy. so he kinda grew on me because of that.
Note that the 5800X3D is a Ryzen *7* being compared to the i-*9*, and it performs pretty much equal to or better to the top i-9 in most fields, now think of a Ryzen 9 with this tech. This thing is also a solid few hundred dollars cheaper than the Intel equivalent (the i-9), and doesn't need the 76th new chipset of the week unlike Intel.
That's a ridiculously ignorant take. The i9 is an all-around package intended for productivity use and competes with the 5950x, which it blows out of the water. The 5800x3d on the other hand has subpar productivity performance, because those workloads do not utilize the large cache. The i9 is effectively 2 5800x3d's put together, which would cost MORE ($900).
@@polarbear9672 From what I remember the i9 was released to compete against the thread ripper processors, not the normal Ryzen AM4 CPUs. So it whips a CPU from a lower sque and everyone calls it a win. i9 does not compete with the 5950x, it competes with the thread ripper. Am I missing something here? I have been out of the news for a few years so please let me know if I am wrong.
@@polarbear9672 The 12900K was released several months after the 5950x so it makes sense it would best it. No doubt AMD's next gen series will beat the 12000 series. That's the point of a competitive market. What matters here is that compared to each other, AMD provides the same results (in terms of time) as Intel for equal or less money and better thermals. What I don't get is how you emphasize that the 5800x3D can't be compared to the 12000 series because its 3D cache benefits only from gaming and then in the next sentence compare it to the 12900KS because in that context it supports your argument. AMD absolutely destroyed Intel when considering price-value-thermal ratios; theres just no saying otherwise.
I'm starting to think that 5800X is pretty powerful CPU overall, especially in terms of price to performance ratio. Like, it's released almost a year ago, but it is competing well with its Intel counterpart.
@@rotor13 12100F should give you the most fps per buck, but 12400F would be the obvious choice to pair with a higher end GPU until recently. Right now, the new Ryzen 5600 makes more sense than the 12400F. The more affordable MBs for Ryzen is just a bonus at that point.
@@1337Ox Most of Europe should care about power consumption at this point with energy price hikes, it's only going to get worse too, you could run a second ryzen chip and be about the same or within 20w as what the intel is on it's own.
Nice 3% more performance for Intel with double the power used...I hardly would call this a victory for Intel. When AMD finetunes the cooling solution with Zen4, Intel will legit poop their pants. If they keep pushing more and more power...well that will also have a limit one day.
Depends on what is being done. Intel's chips are really good at doing AI workloads and vector tasks compared to AMD while AMD is really good at throughput and IPC. AMD does have better advantage in efficiency and (at the moment) price, but Intel has better vector instructions, higher clock and higher power scaling compared up AMD, which is already clear in Intel's Laptop Processor Benchmarks.
Intel has 2x core so 12900KS can do more than gaming :) so 5800X3D is gaming only chip while 12900KS can do more than gaming Just pick what u need I guess
8:40 "Probably"? Definitively NOT! There's no way to get this performance overclocking those other CPUs. Doesn't matter is in productivity is slower than the standard 5800X, people upgrading from it will be coming from a Zen 2 or even Zen 1, the gains will be massive.
The fastest gaming CPU for DDR4. I'm pretty sure it'll be a great build especially for Microsoft Flight Simulator. I'd like to see how this stack up in FPS games like Apex or Warzone where rendering scene is all it takes to lower FPS by a couple of margin. Otherwise a good show of performance for Ryzen too bad for the non overclocking capabilities. But its good for those ITX style builds in general.
@@goodygoods3 Yeah, cause that is totally what the benchmarks show - oh right, now. RRD4 vs DDR5 right now makes very little difference. (and sadly they are not testing either of the CPU at stock either)
@@ABaumstumpf wrong. Check Hardware Unboxed's video, they ran the Intel chips on DDR4 and DDR5 (As LTT should have done, seriously what the fuck guys all this did was cause confusion and misinformed takes). DDR5 gave a good uplift to gaming performance for intel, sometimes in the neighborhood of 20 fps. For DDR4 vs DDR4, the 3800X3D is faster.
Tbh with everyone, ontop of all the benefits, we need to keep in mind that the ryzen 7 is an i7 equivalent, the ryzen 9 is still there and still the ryzen 7 is sometimes matching the best performing i9
Ryzen 9 is no faster at gaming than this. With i9 you get productivity and gaming. With 58003D you get gaming, with 5900x you get productivity, in two different chips.
@@DrKrFfXx000000000000 I see a lot of people mentioning this, but how much worse is it actually at productivity? From the benchmarks above I've seen the difference being in the single digit %, if I remember correctly. So how is it a bad productivity chip? Unless I'm missing something crucial. I'm looking to build a new system, and I want both gaming and productivity, but I don't see this 3d cheap as something that won't be good for both.
Because there won't be any upgrade in the future so if you decide to buy a new am4 board, the cpu and ddr4 ram you'll have to buy a new board and ddr5 ram if you want to upgrade your cpu in the future..
@@humersompsen4775 anyone buying a 13900k is in the same boat though. By that logic only the 7000 series on AM5 is an option for new builders. I think most people build a PC and use it for 3+ years, so I don’t know how common it is to be able to use all your memory and mobo
I didn't pay much attn to temps after I switched from a Noctua fan to a 120 and it was just 'better' I never looked back. But when I recently upgraded to a 240 water cooler, my 5800x never gets past 85C during normal use, but I still get pretty wild fluctuations, like jumps from 55C to 75C in less than 2 seconds. Do you find this to be normal? I'm using some blue goo Noctua paste and wondering if I should scrape and try something else, or I'm just too much of a novice to know whether or not this is normal behavior anyway. I never did rigorous testing with the 120 so I don't have a baseline for direct comparison and I don't want to swap back to find out.
To be fair, AMD report their temperatures differently to Intel so what we see as being hot is actually not so hot really. AMD reports the die temperature at the hottest point so 80c under full load is actually perfectly fine. If I ever saw 80c on an Intel chip I would always worry but I don't with AMD.
@@thedeegee1601 That was most likely a compatibility issue with either the motherboard or the RAM (I would bet the RAM) due to AMD using the RAM inline with their infinity cache. That's the only real downside of the Ryzen line-up, they can be a bit picky with the RAM so it can pay to research a little before you buy a system. Other than that the Ryzen chips are much better value for money.
@@rlibby404 I have a cheap CM 120mm AIO and yeah, my temps jump up quick too but that's perfectly normal. As long as you're not getting near to the 90c limit it's fine. It's working as intended and around 80c is the normal running temperature for a 5800x.
As a C++ programmer, I can only say that it's incredibly hard to overstate how important cache memory is. In simple terms, if what you need to work with is not in the cache memory, it might as well be on the moon. RAM is dead slow, and it's unacceptable to have to wait for things from RAM when you could have done literally *thousands* of calculations during the time you merely waiting for data from RAM. So, things better be in cache, and the chance that things are in cache is much better if the cache memory is larger. Programmers spend a lot of time making sure to optimize the chance that data will be in cache. Lectures, books, and so on, all about that one thing. So many specifics to learn about how cache works to avoid things like "false sharing", and so on. When something runs poorly/slowly, it's because of cache misses. Stupid, shitty code that runs off cache will kick the crap out of finely tuned code that isn't on the cache. The difference is roughly 200x, give or take.
I was just thinking this - in the future, perhaps software will be written to take advantage of AMD's huge cache, especially if they're going with the 3D V-cache as a standard feature for all of their CPUs going forward. Imagine if they used that cache for their iGPU!
Hey, I'm currently majoring in IT, but I haven't gotten any classes on Cache and Optimizations. Do you have any keywords for me to learn ahead of curriculum? Thanks :D
@@user-rd3jw7pv7i not worked with cache but for optimisations have a look into beowulf clusters, it's an easy way to learn parallelisation, it's not the 200x speedup as this person said, but using 8 cores and not 1 is still ~8x faster.
Can't wait for the monster ryzen 9/x... In any case, just goes to show: vigorous competition quickly spurs rapid innovations which, ultimately, benefits everyone.
@@beanshady laptops are getting pretty beastly also. I keep a portable for work since my desktop is a tower 900. Don't think I could bring that fridge with me traveling at work.
Who cares, you are always GPU limited anyway. These CPU benchmarks in reviews with RTX3090Ti and 1080p are purely academical. No one (sane) plays at 1080p with such specs. And If you run more mid range GPU at 1080p, then you will still be GPU limited. In the end it's like couple percentage difference between all these new CPU released in the last 12 months, either AMD or Intel, if you game at 1440p, 1800p, 4K. I really hope no one is falling for these CPU marketing campaigns. You don't need to upgrade CPU more than once every 4-5 years. It's much more useful to save that money and upgrade GPU instead every 2-3 years.
@@Glotttis Negative. Sim games, especially Microsoft Flight Simulator, are heavily CPU bound. Because they require heavy "SIMulation." While it is true that MSFS doesn't need insane FPS and that you can easily run at 30FPS and be fine, MSFS is not like your traditional game that is GPU intensive and heavy. It's why in prior upgrades I've done I've seen larger FPS increases when I upgrade my CPU vs upgrading my GPU.
@@Glotttis Other reviewers tested with the 3080 and still got better results with the 5800X3D. But I don't know why a person would buy "the best gaming CPU", and then pair it with a crappy GPU. That's called Logic Unit failure. People didn't pair a 9900K with a GTX 1050 Ti unless they were an idiot. Pairing this GPU with anything less than something along the lines of a 3070 is stupid. It's a GAMING CPU for ultimate gaming. I have a PowerColor Red Devil 6800 XT and I'm going to enjoy the CRAP out of this CPU. For a better understanding on what's going on, but he never does a large suite of game testing, see Level1tech. ua-cam.com/video/fIRWzMnfMPY/v-deo.html Watching that and GN and Hardware Unboxed reviews is usually good enough to get a full understanding of what's happening, but when either HDWU or GN starts getting into their product bashing I ignore that part because I ONLY want the data and not their opinion. On the other hand, Level1tech gives solid opinion without the bashing, sarcasm etc... So I'll listen to everything he says. I feel it's the most unbiased.
Also if you don't believe me, load up Flight Simulator in Dev mode and go into the FPS counter. Look at what is typically limiting. I bet you it says "Limited by main thread" and not GPU
@@DarkRider2k3 Cool story bro. Playing FS2020 and my CPU is at 20-40% usage where as GPU pegged at 100%. 4K TV with 80% res scaling and RTX3080, 12700K. Like I said, it's almost always GPU bottleneck, not CPU.
The power consumption of the Intel is reason enough for me, to go team red. Seems like a no-brainer for a cpu manufacturer to just throw more power to get more performance. The real science is getting as much performance as you can AND keeping the power draw down. So for what's it worth, there's no real competition. Intel is still a decade behind.
"The power consumption of the Intel is reason enough for me, to go team red." Well - they do run the CPU with increased voltage and power-limits - aka OCed..... Run them Stock and the difference shrinks significantly.
Little late to the party but just threw in a 5800x3d coming from a 5800x at 1080p. This thing is crazy and saw huge performance boosts, my 5800x couldn’t keep up the 7800xt I just bought and the 5800x3d is exactly what it needed. I’m getting ridiculous frames at 1080p, gonna be sticking with it until am6 forsure. Love the build rn
I’m so glad I went with an AM4 system back when I decided to build my first PC. My current build, which is unchanged from when I first put it all together, is a gigabyte X570 board, a 3700X and an 2070 super ftw3. This system has served me very well for a few years. I don’t use this pc for productivity workloads, it’s just a basic home use and gaming machine and playing at 1440p on a 144hz ultrawide has been a very good experience. I’ve had minor issues at times where I struggled to reach a consistent 60fps at ideal settings for some highly demanding games but in general, it’s been a great machine. I just ordered a 3080 to replace my 2070 super and a 5800X3D to replace my 3700X because I figured it was about time to juice up the rig a bit and see how much mileage I can get out of my AM4 board after AMD sends it out to pasture. Seeing as Intel could only surpass AMD’s gaming performance by rushing out a new chip for double the price of the X3D, I’m quite confident in that purchasing choice. I grabbed one for $330 and that chip should easily carry me through the next 4-5 years no problem.
I'm really wandering about compilation times. when I compile UE5 from sources, the bottleneck is definitely the cache, so I'd like to see if it's a great last upgrade for AM4 platform.
It's nice to see AMD pushing features that actually benefits gaming performance. Reminds me of the old Broadwell desktop CPUs which "accidently" became a beast for gaming because of the massive L4 cache. Paired with a high end gpu the i7-5775C ran circles around the newer i7 6700k and i7-5960x. Imagine the gaming performance Intel could deliver if they actually cared about that stuff.
the good question here is, will they manage to sort out the 3d V-cache limitation for AM5 boards. i mean, a chip with this much cache, better cooling, better architecture and with DDR5 is going to be a huge leap in performance.
The Vcache isn't sitting over the cores. It's sitting over on-die cache, L2 and L3. It's only the structural silicon that's sitting over the cores. Considering Z height hasn't changed, the distance between the transistors in the cores and the CPU cover is the same either way, but you have a boundary now where heat has to travel from one substrate to another. I have to believe that's going to trap heat a little more at that boundary. And you can't get the same gaming performance from any other Zen 3 CPU by OCing it. There are certain games where the 5800X3D simply destroys other Zen 3 parts. If you play those games, it matters. It can be the different of getting up to the speed of your 2K 144Hz gaming monitor, or being under 100 fps all the time.
For real. I'm just gonna grab a cheap ol ryzen 5 or even 7 from the 2000 or 3000 series for my next budget build. I'm trying to get better performance than the Xbox series s for cheaper. Wish me luck it's gonna take me some parts hunting.
@@annoyingguyoninternet1631 CPUs nowadays are stupidly fast that you really don't need much to catch up to your GPUs. Hell even first gen core i7s can run cyberpunk 2077 with a gtx 1080 equipped at 60 fps.
Very cool you brought up CPU cache miss. This can also perform differently better depending on how the software is written. This is the reason of the desire to use data-oriented design instead of object oriented. Unity D.O.T.S is just this. Very interesting stuff, thanks for the quick lesson on CPU cache miss :).
It seems to me that it would have been appropriate to throw the 5900X into the fray considering its price in comparison with the new chip, especially if you're going to include productivity tests.
The fact that Ryzen can even compete with (and in most cases, beat out) the 12900KS with half the cores, while running at 1ghz less, AND only having DDR4, means Intel is fucked when Zen 4 comes out! Can't wait
i wonder if linus is ever going to visit germany where i could meet him and maybe even the whole crew. a photo with linus and everyone from the crew would be so awesome.
Considering the 19-12900ks costs nearly £250 more than the X3D in the uk, I'd say the X3D absolutely obliterates it for sheer price to performance. It may be slightly worse in some things and a lot worse in others but comparing this 8 core cpu to a 16-core that costs almost 200 more than it, with the 8 core still coming out on top sometimes is mental.
For a lot of people, it doesn’t cost $800, its a new mobo, new psu. Vs just plug n play for amd and older am4 sockets, and i think ur missing the most important part is context.
Currently I have a 3060ti with Ryzen 7 5800x for 1080p obviously aiming for 240hz on low settings for competitive reasons. Is upgrading to the 3D worth it if it’s paired with the 3060ti?
a decent sendoff for an impressive platform. i'm excited to see what am5 brings, but will likely upgrade to an am4 system (depending on pricing and how well first gen release goes)
I think the real question is how will the 5800X3D impact the future? I can see AMD adding more cache to make developers use it this approach would put Intel behind since they have less cache and would need new innovations to match the demand for cache.
I’m confused by the i7 12700K being “way out ahead” and showing it’s 2% faster, is that not within the margin of error? Or does the graph have an error
I think they made a mistake. They said it's close to gaming when it 4% worse but way out ahead in production when it's 2% better and that's just illogical lol
@@sheldonpopesp it’s gotta be right? Like that’s really strong language that the data on the screen doesn’t support lol. Has to be a mistake somewhere either in the language or in the graphs
It's also $50 cheaper, that is, only the chip. The entire Intel platform is more expensive since you have to use DDR5 memory in order to get the results they did.
I came to the comments searching for answers on this as well. In the productivity graph they show the 12900k being over 50% stronger and given the 12700k only gives up 4 e-cores, I'm 100% certain that 98% relative performance is an error. The 12700k can be 40%+ faster in productivity tasks.
Looking at the power draw, it seems the performance per watt of the AMD chip is much better than intel. It is also the case for price to performance as well. Since the overall performance is within a few percent of each other, over the long term, AMD is the better choice. For absolute maximum performance, Intel is preferred.
@@gorty3860 Not if you factor in DDR5 and expensive motherboard. Heck even on DDR4 the 12700k platform might be more expensive than AMD equivallents on for example X470 motherboards. CPU only isn't the question for most buying into new platforms. EDIT: Also in Europe electricity is expensive, so the AMD platform would pay off long term.
@@surena9451 the i7-12700k doesn't suck much more then the ryzen. intel chips sucks more watts when boosting and that only for a short period of time. Overall watt usage is intel really strong
Damn I can't believe the X370 board I got back in 2017 is still compatible with these brand new CPUs all the way in 2022. Intel may have their fancy new Alder Lake chips, but I don't need to pay for a new motherboard.
Back in the beginning of october, when i finally built my rig after years of waiting, I paired a RTX 3070 with a 5600x for 200 eur here in europe. I could have gone for a 5800x3D which was 430 euro at the time. The only time where I need extra frames is when a game brings my GPU to its knees, like cyberpunk 2077 at 1440p RT on which the 3070 manages at around 45 fps. With the 5800x3D i would have probably gotten 60 with those settings, but the 200 eur extra would have been better spend getting a 3080 which would have netted me 25 additional fps instead of 15. Bottom line is: upgrading your cpu should become an issue only for those already rocking enthusiast GPUs, or knowing their high end GPU is bottlenecked by, say, a 3600. Considering a better high end CPU while you are on a mid range GPU is not money well spent.
Great summary of where this chips sits. Remember Intel had just released 10th gen when Zen 3 was first released in 2020, they are now on 12th and only now surpassing AMD, albeit barely and using massive power, that AMD can still compete is pretty impressive and shows how far Intel has fallen behind, especially given how much effort they expended on performance per watt in the AMD wilderness years. The next round in the autumn is looking to be a bit tasty with 13th gen Intel and Zen 4.
I just keep thinking about how high end and expensive owning an 80 MB hard drive, or Zip drive was at the time. That was so much storage back then. Fast forward to today, we managed to put 96MB (100 if you add 4MB of l2) on the silicon itself. Also when we see zen 4 I expect we see normal 6 8 12 and 16 core SKU’s, but the 8 core will also have a 3d cache option. But this 5800x3d is perfect as a last hurrah for am4. It will allow people to socket it into their board even ones as old as x370, and essentially they get 12900k like performance. Will be an upgrade that does not need to be replaced for several years.
Lol you're pictures and face gestures on the clock bait story are great not that it's click bait but the freeze frames are hilarious and get me to watch the video sometimes
I think stats about score/W would be ideal, including a more open approach about the product's price (MSRP at launch). It does not matter if CPU or GPU; you review products and hype them with the best score based on raw performance (higher score). In these benchmarks was, the i9-1290KS a few times better than the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, but it uses ~80% more power. Rich people do not care about spending a lot of money on PC or power consumption, but combining an AMD GPU and CPU instead of Intel and Nvidia. Sacrificing ~10% performance and saving like 200W could be a big win, plus all the money saved on hardware. In the country I live in, is the power price rising, and the situation in eastern Europe made the power prices skyrocket by up to 300% for several weeks. Less power use is also better for the globe, decreasing the carbon footprint.
Thank you! I’m getting a bit tired with LTTs benchmarking reviews just gloss over efficiency as a topic at all, often reducing the videos to just a flurry of performance graphs with a short conclusion regarding the graphs you’ve already seen. They did mention price but not a whisper of efficiency which is the true value of this product- especially with the next Radeon lineup rumoured to be an efficiency king it makes me worried for how they’ll review them
@AFKSOLITUDE If that alone caused his entire bill to go up by 6% thats alot of power saved. But if the PC itself is drawing 6% more, its not a big deal.
I find myself interested to see what a "2nd generation" 3D v-cache product from AMD will look like. I'm hoping they make some Zen 4 parts with a massive cache like this too.
Great idea for us Mini PC enthusiasts, it's soooo hard getting a powerful cpu to run cool enough in those builds. Great review as always, thanks Anthony!
Been waiting for the last iteration of CPU's for my x370MB, zen one was an amazing adventure, and AMD's promise to deliver on cpu upgrading path was amazing too. There last cpu upgrade for the MB is gonna be just as awesome and inovated as the first. I dont see intel doing anything like that for its clients/enthusiasts. At a time of inflation, where cost savings is a premium choice, amd has delivered over intel all day and year on the cpu upgradable path. People like to save money. Energy usage ain't getting any cheaper either, especially since everything's going EV.
While it was a great review, I would like to see the price points compared system wide side by side. The 12700K looks on the same price point, until you consider that you’ll have to pay at least double for going from DDR4 to DDR5, not to mention that the mobo will sting too. Depending on your build you are talking +400-500$ of difference because of your CPU choice, that’s not nothing.
@@tenborck from now onward everything will support ddr5 and no one will develop ddr4 further. Yes it’s dead. Maybe one more gen will support it but probably not even that.
@@muzlee7479 Someone misunderstand what dead means.... Intel continues to make boards for 12th gen with DDR4 compatibility why? It's dead according to you?
So, it's only 3% slower than a 12900KS. Uses half the power. Fits in a 5 year old motherboard.
It's an absolute win for me.
Also costs almost half the price… hopefully this pushes Intel to be even more price competitive than they have been
@@FleaOnMyWiener Yes, this! I understand this video is challenging the claim that it is the fastest gaming CPU, but I feel like the video also doesn't emphasize enough that it's half the price of a near identical performing Intel CPU (for gaming). I watched this video 3 quarters and thought it was a bash video, while in reality, this thing is freaking epic.
It destroys every CPU in games that utilize that v-cache like Flight Sim 2020 and GTA V. It trades blows with the 12900ks, looking at everyone's benchmark results the "best gaming CPU" crown changes according to the game selection. i would say they're on par with each other if it werent for the massive price difference.
less price than 12900ks
I say, run the test again without the DDR5 for intel and stick with the same as AMD. Also the intel motherboard was released 2 years after the AMD board which could also have an advantage. 1000% AMD win
That last point is important. It is still using the AM4 socket. Intel creates a new socket every other release. So sure, this isn't the "fastest" chip out there, but for those who bought in a while back, it makes for a great upgrade without having to invest into an entirely new system.
Except for that fact that everyone cheaps out on motherboards
unfortunately I bought into the platform a little too early. now I'd have to build a whole new system to upgrade.
@@ILoveTinfoilHats to be fair if intel and amd made motherboards direct I would be happy to buy them. I got a bank of i7 3770 on intel motherboards and they are rock solid
dont worry, AMD has already claimed they will do the same thing as intel. they need to be as flexible as possible, they cant lock themselves down to a single socket again.
@@ArtisChronicles don't earlier mobos support ryzen 5000 with bios updates?
Faster in games where it matters, for 40% less power and is 45% cheaper. Seems like a banger.
You compensate the price by needing a 360 AIO, as it's even warmer than the regular 5800X. And that thing is already a bitch to cool. 12900KS is also a workload CPU while 5900X3D is for gaming only, so bad comparison.
@@thedeegee1601 …and you wouldn’t need an AIO for 12900KS, which is >10°C hotter at comparable loads?? Ye, sure sure xD
@@thedeegee1601 it's runs cooler then the i9, it also draws less power then the regular 5800x. And you don't need a 360 rad for 150 watts. As far as productivity is concerned it's only about 5% slower then the 5800x in most test, where it's not faster. And saying a cpu is for gaming only is...
Interesting.
@@thedeegee1601 Don't forget you need overpriced motherboard and ddr5 for Intel
@@thedeegee1601 You don't need a 360 AIO. AMD dynamically scales it's power based on available thermal headroom. If you want PBO to work it's magic then sure, you go big but for normal gaming then a small AIO or even decent tower cooler is more than up to the job. I have a 5800x that sits at 80c under full load on a basic 120mm AIO and that's it's intended thermal target- 80c. 90c is where you start to worry as that's the maximum rated temperature.
It's crazy to think of the insane range of performance that can be had from one single CPU socket. I built my current PC in early 2019 with an R5 2600 on a B450 board and have since upgraded to a 3600 which was already a great boost for gaming, but I could literally drop this CPU in my current MOBO and get like 50% more gaming performance. Heck, some people might even still be on 1st gen Ryzen and could upgrade to this. It hasn't been a perfectly smooth ride, but AM4 has been an absolutely legendary achievement.
I can confirm running a ryzen 5 1600 4.0ghz!!!
I can't upgrade to this because my motherboard is an x370 lol
I actually would have to get a new motherboard. on the other hand I could look for something in the ryzen 3000 lineup.
Soon there will be bios update for you mb
@@ArtisChronicles 5000 series bios for x370, b350 and a320 is on the way.
That's what I have been waiting for, can finally upgrade from my Ryzen 7 1700
It's actually quite insane to consider that it's on par with intels offering (in terms of gaming) and nearly half the cost and still using ddr4 ram, I can only wait to imagine what Amd has to offer with its upcoming generation.
Half the energy consumption! You need an additional air conditioning just for that monster.
I just need amd to exist to get intel to move their ass, ill still buy a Intel processor over AMD because you litterely get what you paid for, I've had issue with amd before so possibly I am biased, Intel is just the goat in my book due to the ease I've had with them
It Loses in productivity workloads Intel is a better all around chip particularly the 12700k
@@russiancommy nice logical bias
@@russiancommy definietely biased
I normally fully agree with Anthony. In his point of a 12700K being a better value, I disagree. You said you paired the Intel with your fastest DDR5. That exponentially raises the cost for minor improvements on the work side.
Ram speed has been shown to have very little impact on performance. You could get a cheaper pair of sticks and it would still be close to same performance for $50 less.
@@LiberatedMind1 That’s completely inaccurate. A simple look at LTT’s benchmarks on the 12900K as well as GamersNexus shows performance increases of up to 20% when running DDR5 vs DDR4.
@@GlitchedEnt I meant within the same gen, of course ddr4 to 5 will make a difference.
@@LiberatedMind1 What was the point in your comment then?
@LiberatedMind - Then why are you talking? Just wait until this month when AMD announces this 3D V-Cache technology WITH DDR5.
They failed to mention. On top of the $800 for the I9 12900KS you also need to spend more on RAM, more on a motherboard and more on. Power supply. 12900KS is an enthusiast part. The 5800X3D is actually for a regular consumer.
Also note on cooling. To max out the 12900KS you need DDR5 6400 RAM afaik, a 240mm radiator, a more expensive mainboard aswell as a bigger PSU as mentioned. All that to barely beat AMDs 5800X3D on an old socket and architecture, which performs almost identical while drawing less power. Yikes
depends if you go for ddr5 boared or ddr4...
@@nontoxic9960 You can, but at that point you lose that performance edge you would gain over getting a 5800X3D. Why would you spend $800 on a cpu to knee cap it with DDR4 so it doesn’t perform to its best abilities. Cheaper to buy AMD’s new chip
@@nontoxic9960 You can. But it's even more of a money waste if you do. It's already a terrible chip, using DDR4 just makes it completely obsolete.
Ah yes, DDR4 and 50w more from your power supply will bankrupt those i9 buyers
Its still rather impressive that this is not only still on AM4 but the fact that it is so damn power efficient as well vs Intel's top performers.
ignore reply above mine ^
@@DeerJerky Report those whenever you see them.
I agree. But the real kicker is the clock speeds, and this is why so many people think Zen 4 is going to be a really good improvement. This chip is getting this kind of performance running game threads at about 4.4GHz. The 12900K is running those game threads probably around 5.2GHz (somewhere between single thread and all-core, and threads are rotating through the 8 cores to balance load and heat).
Imagine if AMD could fix the issue with its interconnect having to clock slower which affects IO and the connection between core chiplets AND limits the speed for memory, AND can push a 5GHz ALL-core, which means it too could run game threads at around 5.2GHz.
And even more scary. Zen 3, such as the 5800X can already game as fast as Alder Lake IF those CPUs were clocked the same.
So, put this all together. Boosting game threads from about 4.5GHz from something like a 5800X up to 5.2GHz, speed up the interface which reduces latency also, make other improvements to the architecture that helps IPC, AND THEN have a couple SKUs with Vcache for gaming.
And I can see why Intel is deciding to make Raptor Lake a blast furnace by boosting ALL-CORE up a couple hundred MHz which then allows game threads to run 5.4 - 5.5GHz with boost clocks. Scary amount of power vs. scary amount of performance.
Yes, true, but no-one is showing the idle/light activity power usage, where most computers spend most of their time. 12th gen Intel is in a league of it's own there, with the chiplet design from AMD preventing it to power down more. I hope AMD will be able to overcome this limitation in the next gen.
@@kasimirdenhertog3516 they might spend most of their time there but unless you just leave your computer on 24/7 and hardly use it the savings at idle over higher useage will likely become worthless
7:44
> i7-12700k DOMINATES if you need productivity
> 2% difference
This is getting ridiculous.
Wow.... I didn't notice that the first time round lmao. Wtf LTT?
I straight went to comment section after hearing that to check if someone also mentioned this. Weird flex.
Nice to see the CPU wars is back where it's supposed to be: Trading blows back and forth equally.
What war ? Intel is just CRAP !
@@infernaldaedra i'd like the msrp for gpu's to go down. each generation is getting more and more expensive, even without scalpers
the 5500 is a meme along with most of the others. 5800x3d is a huge win for amd but no overclocking sucks. 12600k/12700k + good ram and an oc is still gonna be better too. lisa has been making so many dumb calls these days, dont really get it
Equally? I think you're mistaken, kind stranger. Intel's running shitscared and everyone knows it. I bet the Intel head engineers are cussing themselves over prioritizing raw electric power (Wattage) instead of cache bottlenecks.
I hate AMD, because of missing iGPU. Intel gen12 processors are far better than stupid AMD. AMD GPU sucks in hardware encoding. Governments should ban sales of CPUs without iGPU.
The cost efficiency of this is insane. No scalped DDR5, used motherboards ok, low power requirements... a whole build with this can easily cost half of one with a 12900k/ks or more money can be thrown into a different tier GPU.
Can everyone please tell MSI to post the new Bios for b350 and x370 motherboards for Ryzen 5000 support. Until that happens we can't buy the damn processors.
Sounds like a challenge for Jay - build a MOBO / RAM / cooler build for cheaper than the 12900 ....
TIER!
12900ks yes normal 12900k no... 12900k can be found for 500 ish usd... 5800x3d is 449 or near there...
@@TheBURBAN111 On this benchmark the 12900k was running on 5,6gHz DDR5. That still bumps the price, if you consider that you can literally use a 4 year old 70 USD mobo with 50USD ram and still match intels performance.
You would need a solid mobo because of the i9 power draw and the ram price is triple. So adding that up, you can actually buy a tier higher GPU.
Funny how even two years ago they said they wouldn’t recommend it for new builds and here I am in 2024 buying a 5700x3d brand new hahaha
if you go down the loophole of r7 5800xrd, its just basically a petty argument
@@Wutwut1n1 same 😆 got mine today with a 3050.
Price rn of am4 boards and cpus are just unbeatable. Also ddr4 ram is cheap af
Just purchased 5700x3d and 3080 10 gb and can’t wait to experience what everyone was crazy about 4 years ago lol
As a last hurray for AM4, the swan song for this platform, I should say: Bravo! What a wild ride! AMD completely impressed me up to the very end. I'll keep building AM4 PCs for the time being, but I'm expecting anxiously for AM5 platform, that hopefully will compete head to head with Intel for the coming years. Farewall, AM4!
I might upgrade to the 5800X3D from my 1600X on B450. That should keep me going until AM6.
I agree. I won't buy it but I'm very glad AMD is giving the Ryzen userbase either
A. Something to upgrade from Zen or Zen 2
B. Something exciting for AM5 with 3d cache
i have X570 with R3 2300X then R5 3600
for one last time R7 5800X3D will really be the last one
and what's next will be the future
if they make AM6 to be 4 gens + across like AM4 (might as well just skip AM5 for many reasons) AMD will be the go to choice since they are proved with Ryzen (if they don't flop like Bulldozer).
Gives me a good option to upgrade in the next year or 2 from my 5600x. Before i need to change boards.
@@davide4725 zen 2 has begun to age, and you also forgot zen+
Wow, Flight Simulator averaging 113fps vs 80 for the non X3D version is pretty crazy. And it's beating the KS by 20fps for half the price. For hard core flight sim nerds this is going to be part of the go-to build, at least until the 7000 series comes out.
Somebody needs to bench this thing in DCS in VR!
@@IdahoBookworm in VR youre gonna be way more GPU bound compared to desktop unless youre playing at like half resolution
@@lievre460 My primary limitation is CPU
@@lievre460 don't underestimate how CPU intensive those flight sims are
Anyone here going to buy a new GPU then can i have your old GPU? 😅
It may looked like that the 12700K is cheaper, but once you factor in the motherboard cost, the Ryzen still has lower platform cost.
Yea and don't forget the lower energy cost. The AMD has more efficient and better overall CPU here.
Don't forget the price of ddr5 💀 that alone is enough to swerve away from that.
@@NS-py4ky you can use ddr4 with lga 1700, yet not on am5...
Linus is slowly going from the guy who reviews the tech to the guy who appears every video to advertise the sponsor.
slowly?! This channels been all about the adds and nothing about the reviews for years now.
Linus is the bosses husband. Thats all.
@@sadsismint what are you talking about? Their reviews are better than ever.
@@cnr_0778 we still haven't got a "Linux Tech Tips" series with Anthony as a host, so...
@@mukyumukyun don't really think that's gonna justify everything, but either way, I kinda want that to happen in some form or another lmfao
Upgrading the second time without changing the motherboard. That is SO underrated. Love it.
So Intel could offer 20% better performance i wouldnt care because it even makes it more expensive to switch.
Shame they are dropping AMD4 so soon, specially since x570 just launched and DDR5 sucks.
2600 , 3600 and 5600x that will go to my wife
@@faverodefavero x570 boards have been around for 3 years haven’t they? Not ‘just’.
If you could afford an i9 it would last you for years, you wouldn't need to worry about upgrading so quickly
@@ak9084 because people only upgrade because of being heavily cpu limited lol... Should we talk about someone who bought an 1800x for example, and has upgraded to a 5950x? It's definitely a thing. Cpus become obsolete pretty fast nowadays (i9s too, but with worse upgradability), for people who need top performance all the time.
When I stop to think about it the fact that AMD can compete with their almost one year old generation, with extra cache... at lower temps and lower power usage makes me wonder what the future will look like. I have been using Intel since the 286 days with a short AMD stint for the X2's. But since the first Threadripper and then the 570X platform I have used AMD in my main rig (have many computers and serves) and I haven't regretted it a second.
Can I find instances where Intel are faster? Sure! Does AMD give good enough performance that I will gladly support them in order to get at least two major players in the x86 CPU market to enable competition and benefit consumers? Any day of the week.
Same for me i was a huge intel user never owned anything from amd but after going from a i5 6600k to a r9 3900x i was super impressed and im really considering staying with amd even if intel is currently better
By taking 6 months to add a layer of cache on their existing CPUs when intel created a brand new architecture in 6 months pretty ironic right?
@@nayan.punekar dont be stupid the new architecture took way longer and whats wrong with a bit of an older gen processors when they still can hang or beat intel?
@@andreasstrauss5194 I'm not being stupid and nor am I calling it old.Pretty hypocritic of you to call me stupid when you literally are calling a chip with a whole new layer of cache old and all it got was minor gains just about 10-15 more fps for the majority of the tests for 50$ more than the 12700k is clearly more stupid than what I said.
@@nayan.punekar You think it took Intel 6 months to create a brand new architecture? Sorry mate but then you obviously know nothing about what goes into designing CPU's. It took way longer than that.
Also, how "old" an architecture is doesn't matter. The feature set and performance matters. If something new is released that suck it would be dumb to buy it just because its new. Heck Intel used to take their previous gen architecture to produce their HEDT platform.
Basically, cache is the fastest memory outside of the registers on a cpu. If you're interested, look up cache hits and cache misses.
36MB is a lot for l3 that's why many dont see difference, and intel was giving is 12 or 16 MB for LONG TIME, but as those sizes might become popular, stuff will be redesigned to use it more often, which would yeld this cpu some gains down its lifetime as well. 9700k (which is almost 4 year old now) had 12, so big cache is fairly new concept for games, obviously underutilized.
Because I'm not famous like other singers that's why no one see my music videos. Pls see once and then decide ❤️..,,
@@callistoarmy5576 no it’s because you beg in comment replies
@@leeroyjenkins0 incorrect
Cache me outside, how bout da
I’m so glad they talked Anthony to going on camera more. He knows his stuff. And I agree with a previous comment that his skills are improving.
Keep in mind that you don’t need an expensive new board or DDR5 memory to utilize its full potential. AMD for the win here.
Just a few seconds into the video i am already impressed just by the difference in performance between a standard 5800x and the new 3d version.
AMD is really pumping out innovation after innovation over the last couple years. It's insane.
Intel got lazy.
@@Juan800PimpBot To be fair so did AMD. The new budget options they released should have been there. But I guess its on Intel for not being able to put pressure until Alder Lake
it's just insane to see how much more the Intel core consume power.
Well... that's because they boost so insanely high... This also needs pretty high voltages, which increases current flow in the die, which increases temperature, which causes resistance to drop in a small feedback loop until a thermal equilibrium is reached.
That's one of the reasons why extreme overclockers use LN2/DICE.
In easier terms: The higher you go, the less efficient you become (diminishing returns).
Only in workloads that hit 100% usage on all cores.
@@lycanthoss Why would you buy a high end cpu like that if you ware not going to use it properly?
Alderlake p cores are very wide and clocked very high. So it is inevitable
@@edwardecl because you are playing games and it wont use more than some cores. the video title is even talking about gaming cpu :D
My 1st gen Asus X370-F motherboard that I got on Ryzen's launch in 2017 just got a firmware update to support this CPU - not bad for a 5yr old platform!
Same with my Gigabite board... Now i don't know what is better, buying this CPU or wait for the new ones and change to AM5=))
@@UmbraWeiss I don't feel highly motivated to get a new motherboard, CPU, and DDR5 RAM atm, seems more efficient to just swap out the CPU and make the best of current gear.
If you look at other (GN) benchmarks, you'll see that on average it's faster than the 12900KS. It really just depends on what you benchmark
Yup. I was already planning on buying this, but seeing the 1% low uplifts Steve mentioned confirmed my decision.
That's because this channel used Windows 11...
@@edwarddudley3504 Does it matter? At the end of the day the main takeaway is that the 12900KS isnt good value for users who only do gaming and light productivity loads.
@@MrDamning GN used windows 10 and the 5800x3D fares better
Well GN didnt use a 800+$ Ram kit overclocked to absolute max to push out extra advantage for Intel while using 300$ kit on AMD. LTS did that because their staff gets directly paid by Intel with the 5000$ upgrades for preferance
Anthony your on camera presence and presentation skills have improved so much!! Awesome 👍
Waited half a year and the price dropped by 100, and at 350$, or less in some places, it's a good cpu.
it was at 320 in october, I should have bought it but I said I will stick for black friday, where it was sold out.... Its 30$ whatever
@@wasdc In EU the best i found was 350-340€. Didn't see it for less anywhere.
327€ in Lithuania
@ironvxz I don't think it will get much lower from this point, or higher.
@ironvxz
In canada, our main retailer put out a coupon for the 5800x3d, which brings the price down to 320$ usd for boxing week.
microcenter still has it at 340$, which it has been for quite a bit, so I suggest waiting until next week (right around christmas/boxing day which is dec 26) to see if they have some boxing day deals to save up to 30$. If you don't really care for potentially 30$ savings, you aren't missing out if you buy it now.
cant wait to see how the 3D line of cpus stacks up in the long run against the AM5 platform and possibly 13th gen intel.
The 5800X3D is the only 3D CPU to be released before Zen 4 on AM5. There won't be a lineup. It will be interesting however to see what massive amounts of cache do for say a Zen 4 3D lineup.
Zen4 3d will come sometime later, probably again only 1 chip as the cache benefits only gaming and almost nothing else
I see what you did there
What AM5 ? AMD has announced they will move to LGAsmthing quite a while ago.
@@kiloneie AM5 is the new socket name, that doesn't exclude LGA at all.
LGA and PGA doesn't have to be in the name of the socket
Would be fun if they left the ability for negative curve optimizer settings. And still limit max core voltage to 1.35v.
As it has been one of the best ways to overklick the 5000 series already it would be nice if they left that.
Someone on Twitter has already posted shots of one running at 4.8GHz. Bet it won't be long before BIOS mods find a way around all the locks.
@@CaptainKenway You dont need new "way around". Those 4.8 ghz is a result of boosting "base clock" frequency with locked voltage. This is a very old approach to OC "locked" (non K for Intel) cpu.
Pretty sure you will fry it if you OC.
It is not that CPU requires that 1.35 constant voltage, but 3-D Cache.
So technically you can OC cores, if you don't touch cache so don't harm stability.
But core effective clock for AMD is equal to L3 cache clock, so it is more of potential stability issue than anything
@@kiloneie you will hurt it if the voltage goes up. Curve optimizer just say what voltage each clock frequency should offset to. So if you can reduce the voltage the CPU mat boost higher (if it's stable that is) and would provably land at 1.35v anyway, just with higher clockspeed.
Amd can't use a baseline to edgy for stability so there is always some margin to push the chip somewhat without increasing heat or voltage.
Or the old way of oc, lock the voltage and push the clocks until unstable and backtrack until stable.
I think you should have also ran the tests with DDR4 on the intel platform. Some of the games in the suite have been shown to run better when using lower latency DDR4 than even the fastest DDR5 kits.
I love the fact that AMD decided to release the 5800X3D just to show off their new technology that, most likely, will be integrated into their next gen.
Only if they can improve the power limitation for the cache. The 3d is being beaten now by the regular 3800 for productivity.
@@Safetytrousers True, but if the SKU is not being intended for productivity it becomes less relevant.
@@Safetytrousers They said that the OC limitation was for this chip only. That leads me to believe that the next iteration won't have the limit (assuming that holds true and tehy are able to work through whatever it is that necessitates the limit).
It WILL be a big part of ZEN-5 ! and by than, Intel will be a JOKE !
What do you mean just to show off? They make money by claiming the 'best for gaming' crown and they've rushed this out to keep that from what I can see.
Wait... Half the power consumption, a lot less heat, 3% slower productivity than the competing 12700K and 3% slower in gaming than the 12900KS? And against DDR5-5600?
Well, that's a big win in my book.
Hell ya! it is
Don't forget price
3% slower productivity is just mistake in overall productivity chart. 5800X3D is slower than 5800X in producitivity and 12700K is good 10-50% faster.
I think it would be nice if LMG used different colors in their graphs, so that colorblind people like me would be able to tell which is which. Wouldn't be too big of a change but it would be a huge help for the 8% of guys who don't see colors well.
The Intel CPU is twice the price, twice the power consumption and runs hotter due to all that energy, and has practically half the upgradability due to changing the socket more often.
If AMD is even on par with Intel these days, they're winning by leagues.
12900KS is a 16 core CPU with twice the multithreaded performance of the 8 core 5800X3D. They aren't competitive processors.
Also the AMD CPU is the last release for it's socket while the intel socket will be receiving new CPUs this year, 13th gen Raptor Lake, which will be faster than the 12900KS.
If only AMD chips were as stable as Intel..
Intel launches 250w cpu right as electricity prices double 0_o
Yup ! Intel is just full of shit !
Bruh, the 5800X3D is literally on a dead-end platform. At least intel has 13th gen on the same socket.
AM4 has been a great platform. I bought in with a x370 and 1700 and now run a 3900x i picked up for £250 last year might be able to drop a 5900x at some point and to be honest i don't really see any reason to leave the platform for at least another couple of years.
Agree. I'll hopefully be able to get one of these chips to replace my 2600X on my MSI Gaming Pro 470 board with 16gb of 3200 ram. I already have a 360mm aio cooler I picked up a few years ago on sale. So I pop this chip in, apply a little thermal paste, and away I go. Solid performance for business tasks while offering outstanding performance for gaming.. which is where I want the performance to be anyway. Definitely a solid system that will hold me 2+ years before replacing it with a whole new build.
For me, the frame stability upgrading from a Ryzen 5 3600 has been astounding. It's been especially great in VR, with vastly more consistent framerate in VR Chat and similar games even on my RTX 2070 Super.
Holy shit this is the exact case scenario I have so good to hear it makes a huge difference, was thinking of just doing an incremental update and skipping the current gen entirely.
what gpu are you using. I just upgraded to a 7800XT and debating between the 5800X and X3D from my 3600. Currently playing BG3 and looking forward to City Skylines 2.
@@daviddeacon4258same
Damn fr ?? Ima get it then since I also using that CPU as well. I do have a beefed up 2060, but agian it's a 2060. ;-;
I anyone is still reading this for that exact case scenario then I can confirm it was night and day difference for me, upgraded from a ryzen 5 3800X and got an average of +20 to 30fps in vrchat while being fairly stable (do be careful of vram usage tho). Also it CAN be overclocked but I would advise using the built-in options to do so in bios instead of playing with the numbers manually. A very slight underclock with the highest level of overclock available in bios lets the temp stay around 80 or less while being very stable
I think in the future they might stick the cache under the core and maybe septate the power delivery for the cache so it can operate normally whilst the cores overclock.
Close, but no? Maybe? This would likely cause some issues with timings in some way. Or at least I imagine it would. They could probably fix it, maybe... but I'm not sure. There is a reason afterall why the cores on closest to the substrate, right?
What is more likely a probable resolution to this problem, is they will use the direct copper interconnects to transfer heat more efficiently. The thing about electronics is that your copper is always going to be a heatsink in some fashion. At low temps, this doesn't matter. Low temps for copper that is, relatively speaking. So all you need to do is add more of it, with maybe even a vapor chamber or heat pipe in it. These would be ultra tiny, and carry very very little actual vapor of whatever is in it. But they would be used to interlayer between the different heat sources to help direct that heat towards the IHS.
They can keep the height the same, by just making the IHS wider so that more heat can be dissipated via the sides as well as the top.
So, some new heatsinks with beveled edges might be a thing for enthusiasts, but normal flat heatsinks would still do the job well enough.
This solution allows for them to keep the height the same, and even possibly keep using the AM4 socket, provided they don't need to increase the overall PCB size of the CPU. If they do though... then so be it.
To help anyone having a hard time visualizing this, think of it this way. They would be giving the CPU a circulatory system for heat to escape the hottest areas. Just imagine it like tiny veins of copper, with a small flat 'heart' that is the vapor chamber. They might need to sacrifice some of that cache space to allow for this, but ultimately the end result would be something like the 5800X3D, but with a lip at the bottom of the IHS to allow for the 'veins' to wrap around and dissipate their heat as well more effectively.
This would indeed create a new point of potential failure for CPU's, if somehow that vapor escaped. I'm sure that would cause issues indeed. So there would be a new silicon lottery of sorts. Except now it's the CPU's circulatory system that is the variable. Extreme over clockers might need to figure out new methods to delid these, and/or their capability to use liquid nitrogen at all on them.
Anyways. That's just my thoughts on it.
The 5800x3d and the Epyc 3D are proof of concept chips. They establish that the manufacturing process works. It is very well established that some tasks benefit from more cache and some don't. There does need to be a lot more testing, and SW/OS optimization, to get the most out of this tech. The next generation of this tech should be even more interesting.
Can't wait for AM5 and Zen 4. Excited to see how it performs compared to this.
Zen 4 will run hot, news got out today it's running at 1.5 volts.
@@thedeegee1601 still cooler than 12th gen intel
It’s basically competing with 12 gen Intel
It’s out
Been a while but the first release of benchmarks for AM5 Zen4 showed that the 5800X3D beat a lot of the new chips from what I saw.
Anthony really is a credit to the team, can you remember how awkward and shy he used to be?
Honestly, Linus made something truly special with LTT
it's very likely that Linus tampered with his kernel and updated it to a more performing version
I was never a huge fan of anthony, but he's a lot calmer than the rest and I think the contrast is what helps him to stand out. That and he's kinda displayed as the most competent member of LTT in the videos at least, everyone else makes normal human mistakes but he's like a terminator and never fucks up, it's creepy. so he kinda grew on me because of that.
@kris @Goldenblood Why are people so frikin weird? I like anthony, that's all there is.
Man, the more I watch Anthony, the more I love him! Great review!
Okay
okay? Linus is better though
Agree, linus and his guys are doing a great job with their channels. Always entertaining and informative.
Anthony is the best.
I think its a sympathy thing
Note that the 5800X3D is a Ryzen *7* being compared to the i-*9*, and it performs pretty much equal to or better to the top i-9 in most fields, now think of a Ryzen 9 with this tech. This thing is also a solid few hundred dollars cheaper than the Intel equivalent (the i-9), and doesn't need the 76th new chipset of the week unlike Intel.
That's a ridiculously ignorant take. The i9 is an all-around package intended for productivity use and competes with the 5950x, which it blows out of the water. The 5800x3d on the other hand has subpar productivity performance, because those workloads do not utilize the large cache. The i9 is effectively 2 5800x3d's put together, which would cost MORE ($900).
@@polarbear9672 From what I remember the i9 was released to compete against the thread ripper processors, not the normal Ryzen AM4 CPUs. So it whips a CPU from a lower sque and everyone calls it a win. i9 does not compete with the 5950x, it competes with the thread ripper. Am I missing something here? I have been out of the news for a few years so please let me know if I am wrong.
@@utra1 threadripper is dead, INTEL and AMD have abandoned the HEDT market too.
@@utra1 Did you forget that threadripper died a looooong time ago?
@@polarbear9672 The 12900K was released several months after the 5950x so it makes sense it would best it. No doubt AMD's next gen series will beat the 12000 series. That's the point of a competitive market. What matters here is that compared to each other, AMD provides the same results (in terms of time) as Intel for equal or less money and better thermals.
What I don't get is how you emphasize that the 5800x3D can't be compared to the 12000 series because its 3D cache benefits only from gaming and then in the next sentence compare it to the 12900KS because in that context it supports your argument. AMD absolutely destroyed Intel when considering price-value-thermal ratios; theres just no saying otherwise.
I'm starting to think that 5800X is pretty powerful CPU overall, especially in terms of price to performance ratio. Like, it's released almost a year ago, but it is competing well with its Intel counterpart.
almost 2 years.. time flies.
and if you care about power consumption, it sounds even better
12400F is still the best bang for buck CPU for gaming and consumes less power than 5800X
@@rotor13 12100F should give you the most fps per buck, but 12400F would be the obvious choice to pair with a higher end GPU until recently. Right now, the new Ryzen 5600 makes more sense than the 12400F. The more affordable MBs for Ryzen is just a bonus at that point.
@@1337Ox Most of Europe should care about power consumption at this point with energy price hikes, it's only going to get worse too, you could run a second ryzen chip and be about the same or within 20w as what the intel is on it's own.
Nice 3% more performance for Intel with double the power used...I hardly would call this a victory for Intel. When AMD finetunes the cooling solution with Zen4, Intel will legit poop their pants. If they keep pushing more and more power...well that will also have a limit one day.
also almost double the price
Wattage in gaming is not the same as wattage when at 100%.
Depends on what is being done. Intel's chips are really good at doing AI workloads and vector tasks compared to AMD while AMD is really good at throughput and IPC. AMD does have better advantage in efficiency and (at the moment) price, but Intel has better vector instructions, higher clock and higher power scaling compared up AMD, which is already clear in Intel's Laptop Processor Benchmarks.
@@white-bunny AVX512 fused in recent 12th gen processors... so much for better vector tasks
Intel has 2x core so 12900KS can do more than gaming :)
so 5800X3D is gaming only chip while 12900KS can do more than gaming
Just pick what u need I guess
8:40 "Probably"? Definitively NOT! There's no way to get this performance overclocking those other CPUs.
Doesn't matter is in productivity is slower than the standard 5800X, people upgrading from it will be coming from a Zen 2 or even Zen 1, the gains will be massive.
Correct!
The fastest gaming CPU for DDR4. I'm pretty sure it'll be a great build especially for Microsoft Flight Simulator. I'd like to see how this stack up in FPS games like Apex or Warzone where rendering scene is all it takes to lower FPS by a couple of margin. Otherwise a good show of performance for Ryzen too bad for the non overclocking capabilities. But its good for those ITX style builds in general.
Nope. ua-cam.com/video/Ou55IExG3Z8/v-deo.html
"The fastest gaming CPU for DDR4."
12900K(S) both can run with DDR4 just fine.
@@ABaumstumpf but it won't be as fast as in the video lol
@@goodygoods3 Yeah, cause that is totally what the benchmarks show - oh right, now. RRD4 vs DDR5 right now makes very little difference.
(and sadly they are not testing either of the CPU at stock either)
@@ABaumstumpf wrong. Check Hardware Unboxed's video, they ran the Intel chips on DDR4 and DDR5 (As LTT should have done, seriously what the fuck guys all this did was cause confusion and misinformed takes). DDR5 gave a good uplift to gaming performance for intel, sometimes in the neighborhood of 20 fps. For DDR4 vs DDR4, the 3800X3D is faster.
Tbh with everyone, ontop of all the benefits, we need to keep in mind that the ryzen 7 is an i7 equivalent, the ryzen 9 is still there and still the ryzen 7 is sometimes matching the best performing i9
*you mean Ryzen 7 not i7.
@@affugter yes my bad, thank you!
@@blocksource4192 np brother. Keep spreading the gospel..
Ryzen 9 is no faster at gaming than this. With i9 you get productivity and gaming. With 58003D you get gaming, with 5900x you get productivity, in two different chips.
@@DrKrFfXx000000000000 I see a lot of people mentioning this, but how much worse is it actually at productivity? From the benchmarks above I've seen the difference being in the single digit %, if I remember correctly. So how is it a bad productivity chip? Unless I'm missing something crucial. I'm looking to build a new system, and I want both gaming and productivity, but I don't see this 3d cheap as something that won't be good for both.
Why would you not recommend the 5800X3D for new builders? Seems weird when the platform is so affordable and it's really an incredible chip for gaming
Because there won't be any upgrade in the future so if you decide to buy a new am4 board, the cpu and ddr4 ram you'll have to buy a new board and ddr5 ram if you want to upgrade your cpu in the future..
@@humersompsen4775 I decided to avoid DDR5 and AM5, since they are so expensive Maybe 2023 and 2024 is the best bet to buy AM5 and DDR5
@@brizzled5193 And with the performance you can get on AM4 I think it can last 4-5 years depending on the setup before having to jump platforms.
@@brizzled5193 plus am5 and DDR5 is gonna have kinks most likely
@@humersompsen4775 anyone buying a 13900k is in the same boat though. By that logic only the 7000 series on AM5 is an option for new builders. I think most people build a PC and use it for 3+ years, so I don’t know how common it is to be able to use all your memory and mobo
I’m a proud Ryzen 7 5800X owner and this CPU is amazing, and slept on. She runs a little hot, but a 240 AIO controls the temps comfortably.
I didn't pay much attn to temps after I switched from a Noctua fan to a 120 and it was just 'better' I never looked back. But when I recently upgraded to a 240 water cooler, my 5800x never gets past 85C during normal use, but I still get pretty wild fluctuations, like jumps from 55C to 75C in less than 2 seconds. Do you find this to be normal? I'm using some blue goo Noctua paste and wondering if I should scrape and try something else, or I'm just too much of a novice to know whether or not this is normal behavior anyway. I never did rigorous testing with the 120 so I don't have a baseline for direct comparison and I don't want to swap back to find out.
Had a 5800X last year for 2 weeks, nothing but crashes. Got a 11700 for a year now and 0 crashes.
To be fair, AMD report their temperatures differently to Intel so what we see as being hot is actually not so hot really. AMD reports the die temperature at the hottest point so 80c under full load is actually perfectly fine. If I ever saw 80c on an Intel chip I would always worry but I don't with AMD.
@@thedeegee1601 That was most likely a compatibility issue with either the motherboard or the RAM (I would bet the RAM) due to AMD using the RAM inline with their infinity cache. That's the only real downside of the Ryzen line-up, they can be a bit picky with the RAM so it can pay to research a little before you buy a system. Other than that the Ryzen chips are much better value for money.
@@rlibby404 I have a cheap CM 120mm AIO and yeah, my temps jump up quick too but that's perfectly normal. As long as you're not getting near to the 90c limit it's fine. It's working as intended and around 80c is the normal running temperature for a 5800x.
As a C++ programmer, I can only say that it's incredibly hard to overstate how important cache memory is.
In simple terms, if what you need to work with is not in the cache memory, it might as well be on the moon. RAM is dead slow, and it's unacceptable to have to wait for things from RAM when you could have done literally *thousands* of calculations during the time you merely waiting for data from RAM.
So, things better be in cache, and the chance that things are in cache is much better if the cache memory is larger.
Programmers spend a lot of time making sure to optimize the chance that data will be in cache. Lectures, books, and so on, all about that one thing. So many specifics to learn about how cache works to avoid things like "false sharing", and so on.
When something runs poorly/slowly, it's because of cache misses. Stupid, shitty code that runs off cache will kick the crap out of finely tuned code that isn't on the cache. The difference is roughly 200x, give or take.
I was just thinking this - in the future, perhaps software will be written to take advantage of AMD's huge cache, especially if they're going with the 3D V-cache as a standard feature for all of their CPUs going forward. Imagine if they used that cache for their iGPU!
Hey, I'm currently majoring in IT, but I haven't gotten any classes on Cache and Optimizations. Do you have any keywords for me to learn ahead of curriculum? Thanks :D
@@user-rd3jw7pv7i do they teach this in IT tho? I thought it's special to CSE/engineering department.
@@user-rd3jw7pv7i not worked with cache but for optimisations have a look into beowulf clusters, it's an easy way to learn parallelisation, it's not the 200x speedup as this person said, but using 8 cores and not 1 is still ~8x faster.
c++ and performance in the same sentence. okay...
Can't wait for the monster ryzen 9/x... In any case, just goes to show: vigorous competition quickly spurs rapid innovations which, ultimately, benefits everyone.
Exactly. And this benefits everyone who enjoys desktop systems in all classes. Competition drives innovation while driving down prices.
@@beanshady laptops are getting pretty beastly also. I keep a portable for work since my desktop is a tower 900. Don't think I could bring that fridge with me traveling at work.
Downside: older cpu s are quicker ... in the landfill! (Just found a working i7 4960x(!) in the waste...
no way man only one can win in this deathmatch
@@logipilot he just get sold
That performance lift for the x3D on MS flight simulator is incredible and is so tempting to me...
Who cares, you are always GPU limited anyway. These CPU benchmarks in reviews with RTX3090Ti and 1080p are purely academical. No one (sane) plays at 1080p with such specs. And If you run more mid range GPU at 1080p, then you will still be GPU limited. In the end it's like couple percentage difference between all these new CPU released in the last 12 months, either AMD or Intel, if you game at 1440p, 1800p, 4K.
I really hope no one is falling for these CPU marketing campaigns. You don't need to upgrade CPU more than once every 4-5 years. It's much more useful to save that money and upgrade GPU instead every 2-3 years.
@@Glotttis Negative. Sim games, especially Microsoft Flight Simulator, are heavily CPU bound. Because they require heavy "SIMulation." While it is true that MSFS doesn't need insane FPS and that you can easily run at 30FPS and be fine, MSFS is not like your traditional game that is GPU intensive and heavy. It's why in prior upgrades I've done I've seen larger FPS increases when I upgrade my CPU vs upgrading my GPU.
@@Glotttis Other reviewers tested with the 3080 and still got better results with the 5800X3D.
But I don't know why a person would buy "the best gaming CPU", and then pair it with a crappy GPU. That's called Logic Unit failure. People didn't pair a 9900K with a GTX 1050 Ti unless they were an idiot. Pairing this GPU with anything less than something along the lines of a 3070 is stupid. It's a GAMING CPU for ultimate gaming.
I have a PowerColor Red Devil 6800 XT and I'm going to enjoy the CRAP out of this CPU.
For a better understanding on what's going on, but he never does a large suite of game testing, see Level1tech.
ua-cam.com/video/fIRWzMnfMPY/v-deo.html
Watching that and GN and Hardware Unboxed reviews is usually good enough to get a full understanding of what's happening, but when either HDWU or GN starts getting into their product bashing I ignore that part because I ONLY want the data and not their opinion. On the other hand, Level1tech gives solid opinion without the bashing, sarcasm etc... So I'll listen to everything he says. I feel it's the most unbiased.
Also if you don't believe me, load up Flight Simulator in Dev mode and go into the FPS counter. Look at what is typically limiting. I bet you it says "Limited by main thread" and not GPU
@@DarkRider2k3 Cool story bro. Playing FS2020 and my CPU is at 20-40% usage where as GPU pegged at 100%. 4K TV with 80% res scaling and RTX3080, 12700K. Like I said, it's almost always GPU bottleneck, not CPU.
The power consumption of the Intel is reason enough for me, to go team red. Seems like a no-brainer for a cpu manufacturer to just throw more power to get more performance. The real science is getting as much performance as you can AND keeping the power draw down. So for what's it worth, there's no real competition. Intel is still a decade behind.
"The power consumption of the Intel is reason enough for me, to go team red."
Well - they do run the CPU with increased voltage and power-limits - aka OCed..... Run them Stock and the difference shrinks significantly.
@@ABaumstumpf performance shrinks in that case too.
@@Mad-Lad-Chad Yeah - the difference shrinks... what is said.
you could run 2 AMD cpu's and still use less power
*laughing in 600W power draw*
"You have no power here!"
Little late to the party but just threw in a 5800x3d coming from a 5800x at 1080p. This thing is crazy and saw huge performance boosts, my 5800x couldn’t keep up the 7800xt I just bought and the 5800x3d is exactly what it needed. I’m getting ridiculous frames at 1080p, gonna be sticking with it until am6 forsure. Love the build rn
Ok but...for that small of a difference, AMD at $450 vs Intel at $800 is easy enough of a choice.
... or you could get the i7 12700k that can currently be bought for $330 with basically identical performance to the amd.
sadly $450 MSRP = selling @ $ $800 from where i live, that's how AMD price their CPUs.
The power consumption and efficiency also makes it an easy choice
@@LZeugirdor don't buy intel if you poor to afford electricity
@@directlinkrexx4409 thats why i go ryzen.
Nice well-rounded review with all the pros and cons. Thanks!
I’m so glad I went with an AM4 system back when I decided to build my first PC.
My current build, which is unchanged from when I first put it all together, is a gigabyte X570 board, a 3700X and an 2070 super ftw3. This system has served me very well for a few years. I don’t use this pc for productivity workloads, it’s just a basic home use and gaming machine and playing at 1440p on a 144hz ultrawide has been a very good experience. I’ve had minor issues at times where I struggled to reach a consistent 60fps at ideal settings for some highly demanding games but in general, it’s been a great machine.
I just ordered a 3080 to replace my 2070 super and a 5800X3D to replace my 3700X because I figured it was about time to juice up the rig a bit and see how much mileage I can get out of my AM4 board after AMD sends it out to pasture.
Seeing as Intel could only surpass AMD’s gaming performance by rushing out a new chip for double the price of the X3D, I’m quite confident in that purchasing choice. I grabbed one for $330 and that chip should easily carry me through the next 4-5 years no problem.
I'm really wandering about compilation times. when I compile UE5 from sources, the bottleneck is definitely the cache, so I'd like to see if it's a great last upgrade for AM4 platform.
I love when Anthony hosts more technical rewiews , he really sounds like your good math/physics/computer sciences/dog teacher
keep aucking his coc
It's nice to see AMD pushing features that actually benefits gaming performance. Reminds me of the old Broadwell desktop CPUs which "accidently" became a beast for gaming because of the massive L4 cache. Paired with a high end gpu the i7-5775C ran circles around the newer i7 6700k and i7-5960x. Imagine the gaming performance Intel could deliver if they actually cared about that stuff.
Can’t be faster than my good old i3.
what i3...
I still have my i3 4th gen
I have a 2nd Gen 2100
athlon better than 12900ks innit
@@kacper.6537 i3wm of course
the good question here is, will they manage to sort out the 3d V-cache limitation for AM5 boards. i mean, a chip with this much cache, better cooling, better architecture and with DDR5 is going to be a huge leap in performance.
Lisa will bring an oven with her, take out the new Ryzen 7950X chip, and say, "yes". "Yes, we did manage that".
YES!! Anthony's thumbnails should _always_ feature flames, explosions and screaming.
The Vcache isn't sitting over the cores. It's sitting over on-die cache, L2 and L3. It's only the structural silicon that's sitting over the cores. Considering Z height hasn't changed, the distance between the transistors in the cores and the CPU cover is the same either way, but you have a boundary now where heat has to travel from one substrate to another. I have to believe that's going to trap heat a little more at that boundary.
And you can't get the same gaming performance from any other Zen 3 CPU by OCing it. There are certain games where the 5800X3D simply destroys other Zen 3 parts. If you play those games, it matters. It can be the different of getting up to the speed of your 2K 144Hz gaming monitor, or being under 100 fps all the time.
"2K 144Hz"
2K is 1080p. Just call it 1080p. If you mean 1440p, it's 2.5K, and just call it 1440p for the sake of removing ambiguity.
@@nathangamble125 semantics. 2K is generally considered 1440p. go outside
Good to see AMD back in the game!
more the competition, better it is for us to get better cpu at lower prices!
And you did not finish the video. This cpu despite being powerful isn't worth it.
For real. I'm just gonna grab a cheap ol ryzen 5 or even 7 from the 2000 or 3000 series for my next budget build. I'm trying to get better performance than the Xbox series s for cheaper. Wish me luck it's gonna take me some parts hunting.
@@annoyingguyoninternet1631 CPUs nowadays are stupidly fast that you really don't need much to catch up to your GPUs. Hell even first gen core i7s can run cyberpunk 2077 with a gtx 1080 equipped at 60 fps.
@@christianhudspeth3338 intel 12th gen is hella cheaper/better than ryzen 3000s, unless ofc you already have an am4 mobo then yeah
@@paisenpaisen ah yes the classic cheaper price but never compare the whole pc builds include new mother board and ram pricing
Very cool you brought up CPU cache miss. This can also perform differently better depending on how the software is written. This is the reason of the desire to use data-oriented design instead of object oriented. Unity D.O.T.S is just this. Very interesting stuff, thanks for the quick lesson on CPU cache miss :).
It seems to me that it would have been appropriate to throw the 5900X into the fray considering its price in comparison with the new chip, especially if you're going to include productivity tests.
The fact that Ryzen can even compete with (and in most cases, beat out) the 12900KS with half the cores, while running at 1ghz less, AND only having DDR4, means Intel is fucked when Zen 4 comes out! Can't wait
Zen 4 already exist
DDR4? are you high? People got DDR5 with the KS
@@nomadace777 no it doesn't. Pretty sad that the guy who smokes weed knows more than you do.
@@twizz420 sorry that I have to do school and work and can’t sit on my ass watching UA-cam all day
and half the power draw!
i wonder if linus is ever going to visit germany where i could meet him and maybe even the whole crew. a photo with linus and everyone from the crew would be so awesome.
Considering the 19-12900ks costs nearly £250 more than the X3D in the uk, I'd say the X3D absolutely obliterates it for sheer price to performance.
It may be slightly worse in some things and a lot worse in others but comparing this 8 core cpu to a 16-core that costs almost 200 more than it, with the 8 core still coming out on top sometimes is mental.
For a lot of people, it doesn’t cost $800, its a new mobo, new psu. Vs just plug n play for amd and older am4 sockets, and i think ur missing the most important part is context.
I agree. I’m upgrading from a Ryzen 7 3800X to a 5800X3D and it’s nice I don’t have to buy new hardware.
This CPU is like the best season final of the Ryzen AM4 show. Now customers exited to see the AM5 season.
This sounds like a similar situation to HBM on video cards. Lots of space but at a trade off that is work load dependent.
Those MSFS2020 results are mind blowing 🤯! Hope to see what results we get at higher resolutions.
Currently I have a 3060ti with Ryzen 7 5800x for 1080p obviously aiming for 240hz on low settings for competitive reasons. Is upgrading to the 3D worth it if it’s paired with the 3060ti?
a decent sendoff for an impressive platform. i'm excited to see what am5 brings, but will likely upgrade to an am4 system (depending on pricing and how well first gen release goes)
did you already buy am4?
or still waiting?
I disagree - I think it was an excellent sendoff.
I think the real question is how will the 5800X3D impact the future? I can see AMD adding more cache to make developers use it this approach would put Intel behind since they have less cache and would need new innovations to match the demand for cache.
Check out lunar lake. That is supposed to put intel on top for a while.
I’m confused by the i7 12700K being “way out ahead” and showing it’s 2% faster, is that not within the margin of error? Or does the graph have an error
They don't wanna make the channel's #1 sponsor look too, too bad. That's all.
I think they made a mistake.
They said it's close to gaming when it 4% worse but way out ahead in production when it's 2% better and that's just illogical lol
@@sheldonpopesp it’s gotta be right? Like that’s really strong language that the data on the screen doesn’t support lol. Has to be a mistake somewhere either in the language or in the graphs
It's also $50 cheaper, that is, only the chip. The entire Intel platform is more expensive since you have to use DDR5 memory in order to get the results they did.
I came to the comments searching for answers on this as well. In the productivity graph they show the 12900k being over 50% stronger and given the 12700k only gives up 4 e-cores, I'm 100% certain that 98% relative performance is an error. The 12700k can be 40%+ faster in productivity tasks.
Looking at the power draw, it seems the performance per watt of the AMD chip is much better than intel. It is also the case for price to performance as well. Since the overall performance is within a few percent of each other, over the long term, AMD is the better choice. For absolute maximum performance, Intel is preferred.
The i7-12700K is the best choice atm. You get gaming + productivity for lower price
@@gorty3860 but you need to buy a new motherboard
@@gorty3860 Not if you factor in DDR5 and expensive motherboard. Heck even on DDR4 the 12700k platform might be more expensive than AMD equivallents on for example X470 motherboards. CPU only isn't the question for most buying into new platforms.
EDIT: Also in Europe electricity is expensive, so the AMD platform would pay off long term.
@@mememanfresh when you buy a new PC then the i7 is better. When you have a supportert AM4 board then this chip is sweet
@@surena9451 the i7-12700k doesn't suck much more then the ryzen. intel chips sucks more watts when boosting and that only for a short period of time. Overall watt usage is intel really strong
I'll probably go for this once the next generation of AMD CPUs are out.
yeah at that point.., on clearance how much will it be? 250USD maybe?
@@Tantium I got it for 275 at micro center
Me too - I really appreciate AMD for giving us its 3D-Vache technology for those of us that won't afford to upgrade to DDR5 yet.
I upgraded to 5800x3D from the 5800x and it was worth it to me. Games where I felt micro stutter I don’t feel it anymore
Can I please have your 5800x for my birthday?😅
This is a gift for AM4 owners before Zen 4...
Damn I can't believe the X370 board I got back in 2017 is still compatible with these brand new CPUs all the way in 2022. Intel may have their fancy new Alder Lake chips, but I don't need to pay for a new motherboard.
The real reason Ryzen is winning
My man! Love watching ur vids keep it up!!
Id like to see how it campares for vr gaming in theory it should remove some of the hitches/stutter that most vr titles suffer from🤔
Yeah! Those improvements to 1% lows are promising ~
I've been hitting 100+fps in 4K on MSFS 2020 for the better part of a year now using a 5900x and 3080 with tons of sim mods so you can do it too!
@@MevRB19 no it's not. Stop lying to yourself. It's Dynamic 4k and runs 4k30 most the time. Don't forget your arm floaties kiddo
Finally a CPU that can run my 2012 game with constant 144 FPS
Everyone talking bout the couch but dang your transition into the Hoodie was smooth. You need some more screen time fasho
as a consumer, I'm very glad to see competition between AMD and Intel. As AMD fanboy I'm always happy to see AMD beating or keeping up with Intel.
im team intel, but ryzen 7 5800x3d is badass
IMO, the fact that it takes a top-tier i9 from Intel to beat out a Ryzen 7 … Imagine if AMD came out with a 5900X3D?
Keep on imagining
It would be the same thing just with 4 more cores
On a 6 year old socket and with DDR4....
@@directlinkrexx4409 Yes. That last part was hypothetical. I know AMD isn’t going to make a 5900X3D.
Back in the beginning of october, when i finally built my rig after years of waiting, I paired a RTX 3070 with a 5600x for 200 eur here in europe. I could have gone for a 5800x3D which was 430 euro at the time. The only time where I need extra frames is when a game brings my GPU to its knees, like cyberpunk 2077 at 1440p RT on which the 3070 manages at around 45 fps. With the 5800x3D i would have probably gotten 60 with those settings, but the 200 eur extra would have been better spend getting a 3080 which would have netted me 25 additional fps instead of 15.
Bottom line is: upgrading your cpu should become an issue only for those already rocking enthusiast GPUs, or knowing their high end GPU is bottlenecked by, say, a 3600.
Considering a better high end CPU while you are on a mid range GPU is not money well spent.
Great summary of where this chips sits.
Remember Intel had just released 10th gen when Zen 3 was first released in 2020, they are now on 12th and only now surpassing AMD, albeit barely and using massive power, that AMD can still compete is pretty impressive and shows how far Intel has fallen behind, especially given how much effort they expended on performance per watt in the AMD wilderness years.
The next round in the autumn is looking to be a bit tasty with 13th gen Intel and Zen 4.
I just keep thinking about how high end and expensive owning an 80 MB hard drive, or Zip drive was at the time. That was so much storage back then. Fast forward to today, we managed to put 96MB (100 if you add 4MB of l2) on the silicon itself. Also when we see zen 4 I expect we see normal 6 8 12 and 16 core SKU’s, but the 8 core will also have a 3d cache option. But this 5800x3d is perfect as a last hurrah for am4. It will allow people to socket it into their board even ones as old as x370, and essentially they get 12900k like performance. Will be an upgrade that does not need to be replaced for several years.
i would like to see this 5800x3d cpu vs 5900x and 5950x
Lol you're pictures and face gestures on the clock bait story are great not that it's click bait but the freeze frames are hilarious and get me to watch the video sometimes
I think stats about score/W would be ideal, including a more open approach about the product's price (MSRP at launch).
It does not matter if CPU or GPU; you review products and hype them with the best score based on raw performance (higher score).
In these benchmarks was, the i9-1290KS a few times better than the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, but it uses ~80% more power.
Rich people do not care about spending a lot of money on PC or power consumption, but combining an AMD GPU and CPU instead of Intel and Nvidia. Sacrificing ~10% performance and saving like 200W could be a big win, plus all the money saved on hardware.
In the country I live in, is the power price rising, and the situation in eastern Europe made the power prices skyrocket by up to 300% for several weeks.
Less power use is also better for the globe, decreasing the carbon footprint.
Thank you! I’m getting a bit tired with LTTs benchmarking reviews just gloss over efficiency as a topic at all, often reducing the videos to just a flurry of performance graphs with a short conclusion regarding the graphs you’ve already seen. They did mention price but not a whisper of efficiency which is the true value of this product- especially with the next Radeon lineup rumoured to be an efficiency king it makes me worried for how they’ll review them
@AFKSOLITUDE you must be in the us. You missed the point entirely.
@AFKSOLITUDE If that alone caused his entire bill to go up by 6% thats alot of power saved. But if the PC itself is drawing 6% more, its not a big deal.
I find myself interested to see what a "2nd generation" 3D v-cache product from AMD will look like. I'm hoping they make some Zen 4 parts with a massive cache like this too.
I love your reviews! Thanks!
Great idea for us Mini PC enthusiasts, it's soooo hard getting a powerful cpu to run cool enough in those builds. Great review as always, thanks Anthony!
Been waiting for the last iteration of CPU's for my x370MB, zen one was an amazing adventure, and AMD's promise to deliver on cpu upgrading path was amazing too. There last cpu upgrade for the MB is gonna be just as awesome and inovated as the first. I dont see intel doing anything like that for its clients/enthusiasts.
At a time of inflation, where cost savings is a premium choice, amd has delivered over intel all day and year on the cpu upgradable path. People like to save money. Energy usage ain't getting any cheaper either, especially since everything's going EV.
Sure
@@casualkeen hey, do you think that x3d cache, will help, with robotic visual processing?
great review lachie
While it was a great review, I would like to see the price points compared system wide side by side. The 12700K looks on the same price point, until you consider that you’ll have to pay at least double for going from DDR4 to DDR5, not to mention that the mobo will sting too. Depending on your build you are talking +400-500$ of difference because of your CPU choice, that’s not nothing.
On the other hand the ddr5 ram and new mobo is not dead tech like am4 and ddr4 so it will be way more useful when the time comes to upgrade.
@@muzlee7479 DDR4 is dead? How much of its bandwith is used by components?
There are ddr4 motherboards... for 200$
@@tenborck from now onward everything will support ddr5 and no one will develop ddr4 further. Yes it’s dead. Maybe one more gen will support it but probably not even that.
@@muzlee7479 Someone misunderstand what dead means.... Intel continues to make boards for 12th gen with DDR4 compatibility why? It's dead according to you?