Ryzen 7 7800X3D vs. Intel Core i9-14900K (Extreme/Performance Profiles) Updated Testing

[Music] I'm going to assume at this point that you are aware of the stability issues Intel on its board Partners have run into with some 13th and 14th gen processes primarily the core I9 139k and, 1400k now the simplest explanation that I can provide is this Intel doesn't clearly communicate to their Partners what the default operating specifications are for their CPUs and instead provide a series of guidelines but even then those are just guidelines and in reality board makers have been free to really do whatever they want and do whatever they want they have but before we get into that today's sponsor spot is brought to you by ug green and their new nexe x 160 W charger their most advanced solution yet featuring electronic stacking technology enabling a more compact design that's both lighter and more powerful in fact it's 21% smaller than their original 140 W USBC version with four port it provides fast charging via a trio of USB type- C ports and a single type a port for a combined output of 160 wats allowing you to fast charge your laptop mobile phone and tablet at the same time it also includes fast charging for MacBooks with the PD 3.1 protocol allowing a single USBC port to pump out 140 ws and with thermal guard protection system 2.0 it protects your devices from short circuit over voltage over temperature and over current so for more information please please check the link in the video description okay so unlike AMD Intel doesn't certify their motherboards despite having their logo slapped on the box and with no ENC specifications where that be to power limits R safety settings the entire platform has become a bit of a mess now we recently spoke with some of Intel's Partners which gave us some pretty great insight into these issues and a number of the engineers that we spoke to were all too happy to spill the beans so if you did miss that content do go check it out with started to get a pretty good idea of what's going on here and how Intel plans on tackling it or really doesn't plan on tackling it they seem to just be wanting to shift the blame but in any case we've started to see a number of bar updates rolled out to update LGA 1700 motherboards to make them now in Spec though Intel did promise that this mess would be fully addressed by the end of May and that never really happened that said we have at least got some clarification of what the board Partners will be implementing moving forward it seems as though the core I9 Parts such as the 13900 K and 14900 K will run at 253 wats for pl1 and pl2 despite some z790 motherboards currently using the Intel performance profile by default with their latest beta boss revisions the performance profile will reduce the long duration power limit to just 125 wats which isn't great and does result in around a 15% performance decline for core heavy workloads when compared to what we see at 253 3 Watts Now intel has communicated to board partners that setting pl1 to 125 watts is what they call Standard while 253 watts is recommended initially MSI went with 125 watts for their default profile and in fact at the time of filming this that is still the case but they do tell me they will be opting for the recommended 253 WT profile in a future bias update so months later we finally have some power Prof files from Intel though it's not entirely clear how they will be implemented yet as we said MSI is walking back their current implementation but in spite of that I have decided to Benchmark the gaming performance of both the performance and extreme profiles using the core i 94900 k and I'll be comparing that data to the ryzen 7 7800 x3d so regardless of what configuration motherboard manufacturers ultimately go with you will have the results for both of Intel's profiles now about a month guy did a similar thing but at the time it was unclear what was going to happen we didn't test the performance profile as that wasn't yet a thing basically we still need to hear from Intel but a lot of you guys wanted to know how the updated profiles would affect performance and back then it was called a baseline profile anyway we did that testing and it is now outdated still most of the information in that video was accurate and it was certainly accurate at the time but with official information now having come out of Intel I didn't want to risk confusing viewers with that now outdated video so I have deleted it since it was getting around 5,000 views per day still which is very good this updated version though well this should be it regardless of how LJ 1700 boards end up being configured they will use either Intel performance or extreme profile for testing I'm using the MSI MPG z790 carbon Wi-Fi motherboard with bass version 7D 89 V1 C2 and the core I 914 900k will be paired with ddr5 7200 cell 34 memory the ryzen 7 7800 x3d has been paired with 32 GB of ddr5 6000 cell 30 memory now the reason we've gone with faster memory for Intel is because all LGA 1700 CPS that we've tested appear to work perfectly using 7200 memory while am5 processors are limited to DDR 56000 for Optimal Performance as this allows for a 1:1 ratio with the memory control controller and d and AMD themselves claimed that this is the sweet spot for zen4 processors finally in total I've tested 24 games using the RTX 4090 at 1080P 1440p and 4K and we'll go over the individual data for about half a dozen of the games tested before getting into the big breakdown graphs okay let's get into it we'll start by looking at the Assassin's Creed Mirage results and here we see when using the extreme profile so 253 Watts that the 14900 K is just 4% slower than the 7800 x3d or 8% slower when looking at the 1% lows then when using the performance profile the average frame rate of the 14 900k drops by a further 4% but it's the 1% lows that suffer the biggest hit dropping by 10% and this means the 7800 x30 is now on average 8% faster than the power limited 14900 K using the performance profile and up to 20% faster when comparing those 1% lows moving on to cyberpunk 2077 we find that the 7800x 3D is 8% faster than the 14900 K using the extreme profile and 15% faster when limiting the Intel processor to the performance profile that means we're seeing around a 5% reduction of performance for the I9 when using the performance profile next up we have home World 3 and here the 7800 x30 leads the 14900 K by an 8% margin or 15% if we limit the I9 to the performance Pro profile and that means there's a reasonable 7% uplift from the performance to extreme profiles for the 14900 K Counter Strike 2 isn't a core heavy title so the power profiles here don't really make much difference running the 149k using either the performance or ex stream modes yields the same result or near enough to the same and that means that the 7800 x30 was around 12 to 15% faster here now one of the newest games added to our list is senu Saga hellblade 2 though this isn't a game that really tests top tier CPUs and as a result the 7800 x3d and 14900 K were very comparable the performance profile did drop the, 1400k down just below the 7800x 3D but we're only talking about a 5% reduction here Horizon forbidden West is another game that isn't particularly CPU demanding at least not with Flagship gaming processors the 7800 X 3D was just 5% faster than the 14900 K or 6% % faster if you limit the core I9 to the performance profile so overall a very similar performance between these two CPUs regardless of the power configuration next up we have a plagu tower requium and this one is easily won by the 7800 x3d delivering up to 14% greater performance at 1080p we also have another example where the performance profile doesn't hurt the frame rate all that much just a 2% hit to the averages wats leacy another game that the 7800x 3D performs very well in this time outpacing the 14900 K by a 12% margin this is also another example where the performance and extreme profiles deliver similar results so limiting the power of the, 1400k it's not really an issue here the Ratchet and Clank Rift apart performance is very competitive though we are seeing a hit to the 1% lows of the, 1400k when using the performance profile 6% at 10dp for example overall though the 14900 K and 7800 x3d are very comparable in this title finally we're going to look at Starfield and this one plays slightly better on the 14900 k at least when looking at the average frame rate interestingly the 7800 x3d is able to slightly nudge ah head for the 1% lows but I think it is fair to say that overall the experience is very similar okay so here's a look at the average performance seen across the 24 games tested the 7800x 3D was an average 6% faster than the 14900 K when running the extreme profile on the core I9 processor so that's a fairly typical margin that we've come to expect when testing a wide range of games now if you were to limit the 14900 K to Intel's performance profile the 7800 x30 would be 9% faster on average or 11% faster when looking at the 1% lows this also means that on average we saw just a 3% difference between the performance and extreme profiles AC cross our testing of course there were examples where the margin was much greater than this but there were also plenty of examples where the margin was next to nothing so running the performance profile won't likely result in a noticeable performance decline when gaming which I suppose is great but realistically there's no reason not to use the advertised extreme profile that Intel has used previously for all of their in-house benchmarking as we just saw the 7800 x3d was 6% faster on average across the 24 games tested and here's a look at the margins across those games as usual the biggest win for the ryzen processor came in ACC where it was 33% faster but we also saw big wins in Star Wars Judi Survivor Boulders Gate 3 a plague toil reum Hogwarts Legacy and Counter Strike 2 what we didn't see was a single example of the 7800 X 3D was slow up by more than a 5% margin meaning the worst results for AMD were seen when testing in Starfield ghosted suima and Dragon Dogma 2 now when running the 14900 K using the performance mode the 7800 x3d was worst case just 2% slower so in other words when the rise and processor does lose the performance ends up being about the same finally here's a look at the 14900 K running the extreme profile compared to the performance profile and on average it was just 3% FAS using the high up power extreme mode with the biggest margin reaching 7% in home World 3 which is probably the CPU demanding game here for the most part though we were only looking at a difference of a few perc now one of the biggest advantages of the 125 W performance profile is of course power consumption and although still miles worse than the 7800 x3d it is a noteworthy Improvement for example in Starfield the 1400k delivered similar FPS performance using either profile but the performance profile reduced total system usage by a massive 15% shaving wats off the system usage and that's still a 25% increase over the 7800x 3D for similar FPS performance but still it's a great efficiency Improvement here for gaming that said the improvements will vary from game to game and in Assassin's Creed Mirage we're only looking at a 6% reduction in power usage which is a lot less impressive given that the average frame rate also dropped by 4% and the 1% lows by 10% then we see a 12% reduction in The Last of Us Part One which is nice though that's still 25% more power than what the 7800 X 3D used for a similar level of performance looking at a few more games we saw an 8% reduction in power usage for the, 1400k with the performance profile in cyberpunk 2077 and that meant it still used 18% more power than the 7800 X 3D which isn't great for Intel given the 3D vcash part was 15% faster the 14900 K saw its power usage reduced by 12% down to 485 Wat for the entire system in Spider-Man which again is nice but it's still a 35% increase from what we see with the 7800x 3D and that particular part averaged just 358 Watts finally when testing with Ratchet and Clank Rift apart the power usage was extreme for either profile that is either Intel profile switching to the performance mode only reduced total system usage by 4% and overall we did see a similar level of FPS performance and sadly this does mean even with the performance profile the total system usage is 43% higher than that of the 7800x 3D so there you have it for gaming not a lot has changed really which isn't that surprising given that Intel has always tested their 12th 13th and 14th gen CPUs using what we now call the extreme profile so pl1 equals pl2 at 253 Watts power consumption at 253 watts is still it's high extreme you could say because you know the CPU is sucking down 253 watts and that is a lot of power for a desktop CPU and certainly much more than the 7800 x3d as we just saw in our power testing although the performance mode did D back power consumption by reasonable margin for only a very small performance decrease the end result still wasn't great especially relative to what we saw from the ryzon 7 7800 X 3D having the ability to load a more power efficient 125 W profile for the 1400k is kind of nice but I'm also not sure why Intel has this specification for these Flagship kcq Parts after all if you want a more efficient processor just buy the nonk models it'll save you a fair chunk of change as well this does cause us to question Intel's intentions here and having recently spoken with multiple Engineers from Intel's board Partners we have speculated that Intel is using the performance profile to dodge any potential RMA requests from customer customers we've been told in no uncertain terms that some Intel Core I9 processors that have been running without power and safety elments have suffered silicon degradation and this is the reason why many of them have started to run into stability issues using even the extreme profile and there have been many online reports of just that so for Intel having the ability to tell those users that they must run the performance profile to solve their stability issues is a nice get out of jail free card and while we yet to have any evidence that this is going on it seems like the most plausible explanation for why Intel's now mandating their Partners include the performance profile on all LJ 1700 motherboards regardless of what we think might be going on the performance profile need not exist for unlocked Z series motherboards using unlocked kcq processors the minimum configuration here should be the one Intel advertisers so pl1 equal pl2 at 253 Watts anything short of that is completely unacceptable as for how all this new information changes our past reviews and recommendations it doesn't gaming performance isn't significantly different to what we've shown in the past nor is power efficiency and we still believe the 7800 x3d is the better overall gaming CPU especially in terms of value given it cost just $340 us right now pretty great bargain that the 14900 K on the other hand that costs consider considerably more at $550 us and while it is a much better productivity CPU if that's what you're after the 7950 x3d might be worth considering given it's recently dropped down to just $500 US the point is we never really recommended the, 1400k or even the 1300 Gamers they just cost too much they use way too much power and as a result they do run very hot and of course the LGA 1700 platform it has no future look they're by no means bad gaming CPU so just want to stress that point in fact in terms of gaming performance they're actually really good but with a part such as the 7800x 3D costing much less and it is typically a bit faster the choice has always been pretty obvious AMD has also just announced extended am5 support to 2027 plus so that is great news for those of you who have already invested in the platform finally if you've just purchased a cor9 processor or you've been running one for some time without an issue just make sure you're using the your extreme profile and you should be right moving forward if you have been suffering stability issues and the extreme profile is still unstable then you really should be seeking a replacement CPU as running at the performance profile is unacceptable and that is going to do it for this video if you liked it you know what to do subscribe for more content and if you want some more Harbor unbox goodness we do a float plane or patreon signing up to either one of those gives you access to our exclusive Discord server monthly live streams behind the scenes content and some Q&A stuff so so check that out if you're interested but if not that is perfectly fine and I would like to thank you for watching this video I'm your host Steve see you next time [Music] [Music]

Channel: Hardware Unboxed

Views: 145,710

Keywords: hardware unboxed

Id: OuJ0IOSnWxM

Length: 18min 27sec (1107 seconds)

Published: Sat Jun 15 2024