Radeon RX 7800 XT                                                 GeForce RTX 3090

Rated: 8/10                                                             Rated: 9/10

Pros & Cons

GPU	Pros	Cons
RTX 3090	Great Ray Tracing Skills Excellent 4K gaming performance	High Power Consumption High Price
RX 7800 XT	Fantastic performance in budget Effective cooling system	Lags in ray tracing and upscaling A bit high power draw

Key Takeaways

• In my hands-on testing of the RTX 3090 and the RX 7800 XT, I found that the RTX 3090 leads performance by about 8.5% during 4K games.
• The RX 7800 XT is about 25% more power efficient. Meanwhile, the RX 7800 XT proved a 20.0% advantage in thermal efficiency.
• As of December 2023, the RX 7800 XT is currently being retailed for a price of $530, while the RTX 3090 comes at a slightly higher price tag of $1229.
• The RTX 3090 excels for users seeking absolute gaming power, while the RX 7800 XT is a budget-friendly option, delivering strong performance.

Specifications Sheet

Architectural Difference

• Architecture: The RTX 3090 features Nvidia Ampere architecture, while the RX 7800 XT boosts AMD’s latest RDNA 3.0 architecture with the latest upgrades.
• GPU Chip: We get AMD’s leading Navi 32 chip with the RTX 7800 XT, manufactured using a 5nm node at TSMC. In contrast, the RTX 3090 incorporates the GA102 chip fabricated at an 8nm Samsung node.
• Clock Speed: The RTX 3090 boosts a 100 MHz faster base clock than the RX 7800 XT. However, the RX 7800 XT has a 43.3% higher boost clock because of its advanced architecture.
• VRAM: Regarding the GPU memory, the RTX 3090 provides an 8GB extra VRAM with a larger 384-bit data bus. Additionally, the RTX 3090 has a 50% greater memory bandwidth than the RX 7800 XT.
• Advanced Technologies: Nvidia offered DLSS 2.0 with the RTX 3090. In contrast, the RX 7800 XT presents an advanced version of AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution, the FSR 3. For more details, read Nvidia DLSS Vs AMD FSR.

When I compared the capabilities of the RX 7800 XT with the RTX 4070, the RX 7800 XT was the champ at the end. This article will replace the RTX 4070 with a top-tier 3rd generation Nvidia GPU, the RTX 3090. So, let’s weigh up the RX 7800 XT vs RTX 3090 to determine which GPUs possess superior capabilities.

Gaming Benchmarks – 4K

After thoroughly examining the technical details and architectural differences between the RX 7800 XT vs RTX 3090, let’s focus on how well they perform in challenging games. I played ten taxing games at 4K resolution to check out the performance of these graphics cards. My test system had the following specifications.

Gaming Rig

• OS: Windows 11
• CPU: Intel Core i9-13900K
• Motherboard: ASUS ROG Strix Z790-E Gaming WiFi 6E
• GPU 1: SAPPHIRE NITRO+ Radeon RX 7800 XT 16GB
• GPU 2: ASUS TUF Gaming GeForce RTX 3090 TUF 24GB
• RAM: XPG Lancer RGB 32GB 7200MT/s DDR5
• SSD: XPG GAMMIX S70 BLADE 2TB NVMe
• CPU Cooler: Arctic Liquid Freezer II 420 – AIO Water Cooler
• PSU: ENERMAX REVOLUTION D.F. X 1050W

Cyberpunk 2077

• The first game I played to check the performance of the two GPUs was Cyberpunk 2077, where the RTX 3090 produced 35 FPS on average and defeated the RX 7800 XT’s 31 FPS by 12.9%.
• Regarding the low 1% frame rates, the RTX 3090 mustered up 28 FPS, while the RX 7800 XT yielded 25 FPS.

Forza Horizon 5

• While playing Forza Horizon 5, the RX 7800 XT led the performance by producing 97 FPS. In contrast, the RTX 3090 only produced 93 FPS, 4.3% behind the RX 7800 XT.
• Both GPUs follow the same trend at low 1%. The RX 7800 XT produced 85 FPS at low 1%, while the RTX 3090 delivered 79 FPS.

Hogwarts Legacy

• When I played Hogwarts Legacy at 4K, the RTX 3090 again led with its average frame rate of 57 FPS and surpassed the RX 7800 XT’s 51 FPS by 11.8%.
• Coming to the low 1% performance, the RX 7800 XT only produced 42 FPS in this game, whereas the RTX 3090 made 48 FPS.

Horizon Zero Dawn

• In the next title, Horizon Zero Dawn, the RX 7800 XT lagged behind the RTX 3090 by 19.2%. On average, the RTX 3090 delivered an excellent 87 FPS, while the RX 7800 XT generated 73 FPS.
• The RTX 3090 mustered a beautiful 76 FPS at the low 1%, higher than the RX 7800 XT’s average frame rate. In contrast, the RX 7800 XT provided 66 FPS at its low 1% performance.

Red Dead Redemption 2

• During RDR2 gameplay, the RTX 3090 outperformed the RX 7800 XT, with an average 62 FPS compared to the RX 7800 XT’s 59 FPS, a 5.1% performance difference.
• Regarding the low 1% performance, I observed that the RX 7800 XT achieved 52 FPS at low 1%, whereas the RTX 3090 delivered a one FPS higher 53 FPS.

Remnant 2

• When testing Remnant 2, the RTX 3090 surpassed the RX 7800 XT, averaging 41 FPS compared to the RX 7800 XT’s 39 FPS, indicating a 5.1% performance gap.
• In my assessment, the RTX 3090 achieved 32 FPS at the worst 1% performance, outperforming the RX 7800 XT’s 29 FPS by 10.3%.

Resident Evil 4

• During gameplay of Resident Evil 4, the RTX 3090 outperformed the RX 7800 XT, averaging 75 FPS against the RX 7800 XT’s 65 frames per second, implying a 10.3% performance difference.
• In the low 1% performance analysis, the RTX 3090 achieved 64 FPS, outperforming the RX 7800 XT, which recorded only 44 FPS.

Starfield

• While I was playing Starfield at 4K, the RX 7800 XT outperformed the RTX 3090 by 10.0% with an average frame rate of 44 FPS against the RTX 3090’s 40 FPS average.
• In my low 1% performance analysis of this gaming session, the RTX 3090 achieved 33 FPS, whereas the RX 7800 XT managed 39 FPS.

The Last of Us Part I

• In testing of The Last of Us Part I, I noticed the RTX 3090 outperforming the RX 7800 XT, achieving a superior 61 FPS average at 4K, surpassing the latter’s 49 FPS by 24.5%.
• When comparing the low 1% performance, I noted that the RTX 3090 made 51 FPS in this game, while the RX 7800 XT only managed 44 FPS.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

• While playing The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, the RTX 3090 surpassed the RX 7800 XT’s 34 FPS average frame rate by 11.8% with its superb 38 FPS average at 4K.
• Per my analysis of the low 1% performance, the RTX 3090 produced 25 FPS during this gameplay, whereas the RX 7800 XT only made 22 FPS.

Editor`s Note

Deciding between the RX 7800 XT and RTX 3090? If unlimited gaming power is your goal, the GeForce RTX 3090 is unmatched with top-tier specs. But, for strong performance on a budget, the Radeon RX 7800 XT shines, offering impressive power and 25% greater efficiency, making it a cost-effective choice with cutting-edge features. You can also check more about the performance of the RX 7800 XT in another detailed review of ours.

– Uzair Qureshi

Overall Gaming Performance

Average FPS

After carefully reviewing my benchmark data, it became evident that the RTX 3090 is triumphant in gaming performance, showcasing an impressive average of 58.9 FPS. This beat its rival, the RX 7800 XT, which, although impressive, only managed an average of 54.3 FPS.

In head-to-head performance, the RX 7800 XT showcases its prowess by surpassing the RTX 3090 in Forza Horizon 5 and Starfield. However, concerning the overall performance measured in average frame rate, the RTX 3090 outperforms the RX 7800 XT by 8.5%.

Low 1% FPS

Analyzing the worst 1% performance metrics, the RTX 3090 demonstrated an impressive average of 48.9 FPS, surpassing the RX 7800 XT’s 44.8 FPS. In this context of minimal performance, the RTX 3090 outpaces the RX 7800 XT by a margin of 9.2%.

Winner: NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 3090

Gaming Power Consumption

In light of the critical role that graphics card power consumption plays in overall system performance, it is necessary to compare the power usage of the RX 7800 XT vs RTX 3090 in 4K gaming.

Regarding power use during 4K gaming, our table showcases the RX 7800 XT is a winner, needing 25% less power than the RTX 3090. When we look at performance for each power unit, the RX 7800 XT gives 15% better results than the RTX 3090. So, the RX 7800 XT stands out for being efficient and powerful in gaming.

Gaming Temperatures

During intense gaming sessions, graphics cards may experience overheating issues. Therefore, discussing their optimal temperature management is crucial to ensure peak performance and longevity. 

Regarding keeping cool during gaming, our results throne the RX 7800 XT as the winner because it excels in maintaining a cooler average temperature compared to the RTX 3090. Overall, the RX 7800 XT has a 20.0% advantage in thermal efficiency.

Price And Value

Graphics Card	MSRP	Current Price
Radeon RX 7800 XT	499	530
GeForce RTX 3090	1499	1229
Price Difference	󠀥󠀥󠀥%100.1	%79.4

The table indicates a slight increase for the RX 7800 XT and a notable decrease for the RTX 3090, making it a potentially more cost-effective choice for consumers. Regarding availability, both graphics cards are readily available through reputable online merchants, including Newegg and Amazon.

Which One Would I Recommend?

RTX 3090: If you desire a GPU with unparalleled gaming performance without budget constraints, I highly recommend the RTX 3090 – a powerhouse that promises the ultimate gaming experience.

RX 7800 XT: For those seeking enhanced GPU performance on a budget without compromising operational efficiency, I highly recommend the RX 7800 XT. It delivers exceptional power within a constrained budget and ensures lower ongoing operating costs.

So, considering the RX 7800 XT vs RTX 3090 decision, it should align with your individual requirements and preferences as the determining factor.

More From RX 7800 XT:

• RX 7800 XT Vs RTX 4070
• RX 7800 XT Vs RTX 3080
• RX 7800 XT Vs RTX 4080

More From RX RTX 3090:

• RTX 4070 Ti Vs RTX 3090
• RTX 3090 Ti Vs RTX 3090
• RTX 3080 Vs RTX 3090

Uzair Qureshi

[Comparisons Specialist]

I’m a passionate computer hardware expert specializing in CPUs and GPUs. With a lifelong curiosity for hardware and extensive hands-on experience, I provide valuable insights, practical advice, and in-depth analysis on these components. Engaging with the hardware community, I exchange knowledge and stay at the forefront of technological advancements.

Get In Touch: uzair@tech4gamers.com

RX 7800 XT Vs RTX 3090: Gaming, Price & Overall is a post from Tech4Gamers - All About Technology And Gaming News

With the new 14th-gen processors on the horizon, older Intel processors are falling fast in price, making them a viable option for gamers on a budget. The decision between the Core i5-13600K vs i5-12600K might be one that might confuse a lot of consumers. Not to worry, as our comparison of these two chips will give you all the necessary information to make your purchasing decision!

Key Takeaways

• Our testing of the 13600K showed a 16% advantage in average framerate, making the 12600K look sluggish in comparison.
• The difference in power consumption was higher between the two chips, but it was justified as it scaled linearly with the increase in performance.
• There is an $80 difference in price between these two processors as of the time of writing this article.

Comparison Table

Architectural Differences

1. Core Count: The i5-13600K brought some worthwhile improvement into this family of processors by using 8 efficiency cores over the 4 efficiency cores that the 12600K used. Both processors, however, use 6 performance cores. This brings the thread count up to 20 threads for the 13600K, while the 12600K has only 16 threads.
2. Frequency: The 13600K can clock anywhere from 2.6GHz to 5.1GHz, while the 12600K is slightly behind on both metrics, with a frequency range of 2.8GHz to 4.9GHz.
3. Cache: The Core i5-13600K has an L3 cache of 24MB, whereas the Core i5-12600K has a cache size of 20 MB. The higher cache of the 13600K should help it a lot in gaming scenarios.
4. TDP: The newer chip has a max boost TDP of 181 watts, whereas the 12600K has a max TDP of 150 watts.

i5-13600K Vs i5-12600K – Gaming Benchmarks 

In this section, we’ll be comparing the performances of the Intel Core i5 13600k vs Intel Core i5 12600k in 9 games. We’ll be discussing the power, temperatures, and of course, the differences in FPS of both CPUs to find just how much of a performance boost we got with the 13th gen compared to the last gen. 

Test PC 

• CPU: INTEL CORE I5 13600K / INTEL CORE I5 12600K  
• Motherboard: ASUS TUF Gaming Z690-Plus  
• GPU: MSI RTX 4090 Suprim X  
• RAM: G.Skill Trident Z5 2x16GB, 6000 CL36-36-36-96  
• CPU Cooler: Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360  
• Case: Streacom BC1 Open Benchtable 

Cyberpunk 2077

• In the first game of our testing, Cyberpunk 2077 ran with an average framerate of 111 FPS on the 12600K, while the 13600K was around 12% faster with an average framerate of around 125 FPS.
• 1% lows were around 83 FPS on the older chip, whereas the 13600K only dipped down to 100 FPS during our tests.

Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord

• Our test of this game ran with an average framerate of 206 FPS on the 12600K, while the 13600K ran significantly faster with an average framerate of 246 FPS. This converts to a 17% advantage for the 13th gen processor.
• 1% lows were once again very far apart, with the 13600K dipping down to a minimum of 131 FPS, while the 12600K goes down to around 104 FPS.

Forza Horizon 5

• Forza Horizon 5 ran around 13% better on the 13600K with an average framerate of 253 FPS, while the 12600K averaged a framerate of 222 FPS in our short benchmark.
• The 1% lows were not worlds apart between these two processors in this game. The 13600K dipped to around 181 FPS, whereas the 12600K went down to around a minimum of 168 FPS.

Far Cry 6

• On average, our test of Far Cry 6 had the 13600K producing an average framerate of 123 FPS, while the Core i5-12600K had a framerate closer to 103 FPS. This difference is around 17% in favor of the 13600K.
• The 1% lows were around 81 FPS for the 12600K, whereas the 13600K was significantly smoother with a minimum framerate closer to 103 FPS.

Call of Duty: Warzone

• Once again, we saw a 17% difference in performance between the 12600K and 13600K, with the former achieving an average framerate of 179 FPS, while the latter had a framerate closer to around 210 FPS.
• The 1% lows were all over the place in this game, with 12600K hovering around a minimum of around 95 FPS, while the 13600K was also much smoother in this regard, with minimums closer to 140 FPS.

Microsoft Flight Simulator

• The 13600K had an average framerate of 74 FPS in our test of MS Flight Sim 2020, while the 12600K averaged closer to 64 FPS. This marks another 14% advantage for the newer chip.
• The 1% lows were very choppy on both processors, with the 12600K going down to around 31 FPS, whereas the 13600K was barely smoother, with a minimum of 36 FPS.

Marvel’s Spiderman Remastered

• The 12600K had an average framerate of 108 FPS in our test of Spiderman Remastered, which was around 10% lower than the 119 FPS average that we saw from the 13600K.
• As for the 1% lows, the 12600K went down to around 87 FPS during our testing, whereas the 13600K stayed closer to 95 FPS at its lowest points.

Overall Gaming Performance

There was a very measurable difference between the overall gaming performance of the Core i5-13600K vs Core i5-12600K in our tests. The average of the 12600K in terms of average framerates was around 142 FPS, which was around 16% higher than the 164 FPS average of the 13600K. The extra cores of the newer chip go a long way in providing a higher framerate than the 12600K. 

As for the 1% lows, the 12600K had a framerate of around 93 FPS in the games we tested, while the 13600K had lows of around 112 FPS. This drastically impacted the smoothness of gameplay on the 12600K, making the 13600K feel a lot smoother in comparison. 

The performance of the 13600K was leaps and bounds ahead of that of the 12600K, making the newer chip a great generational improvement. The performance was excellent all around, especially for a mid-range processor.

Power Consumption

The power consumption was quite different between the two processors in our testing. The 13600K had an average power consumption of around 98 watts, whereas the 12600K consumed around 83 watts on average. This compounds to a difference of around 18%.

The 13600K is just as power efficient as the 12600K because it matches its increased power consumption more or less linearly with its increase in performance, which makes us think that the extra power it takes is justified. Still, implementing smaller processing nodes would have been nicer to see efficiency improvements with the new processor.

Price And Availability

When writing this video, the i5 13600K is readily available for $300 on the new market, whereas the 12600K can be had new for around $220. A relatively large price gap between the two processors indicates both target different market segments.

Both processors should be readily available across the world in retail stores, along with the second-hand market.

What We Recommend 

The data we’ve accumulated in our testing of these processors so far has given us enough information to crown a victor when it comes to comparing the Core i5-13600K vs Core i5-12600K.

The performance of the 13600K cannot be matched by its older sibling. It had a substantial 16% lead over the 12600K in the average framerates of the games we tested, while the difference in 1% lows was even larger. This urges us to recommend the 13600K to anyone with the budget.

There is still a case to be made for the 12600K for its stellar price. You can get this chip for very cheap, which allows you to set up your PC for the time being while also keeping your upgrade path very open.

In conclusion, people looking for the best performance should go with the 13600K if they can afford it, while anyone looking for a budget option with a long upgrade path should go for the 12600K.

Pros And Cons

More From Core i5-13600K

• Core i5-14600K Vs Core i5-13600K
• Ryzen 5 5600X3D Vs i5 13600K
• Intel i5-13600K Vs i9 12900K

More From Core i5-12600K

• Core i5-12600k Vs Ryzen 7 5800x
• Ryzen 5 7600X vs i5-12600K
• i7-11700K Vs i5-12600K 

Uzair Qureshi

[Comparisons Specialist]

I’m a passionate computer hardware expert specializing in CPUs and GPUs. With a lifelong curiosity for hardware and extensive hands-on experience, I provide valuable insights, practical advice, and in-depth analysis on these components. Engaging with the hardware community, I exchange knowledge and stay at the forefront of technological advancements.

Get In Touch: uzair@tech4gamers.com

Core i5-13600k Vs i5-12600K [We Tested 7 Games] is a post from Tech4Gamers - All About Technology And Gaming News

Key Takeaways

• The RTX 3070 Ti had a 7.7% lead on average in our gaming benchmarks at 1440p.
• The power consumption of the RTX 4060 Ti was around 71% lower than the RTX 3070 Ti in our tests.
• On the other hand, the benchmark analysis revealed a slight 2.6% advantage in thermal efficiency for the GeForce RTX 3070 Ti and RTX 4060 Ti.

Comparison Table

Architectural Difference

1. Process Size: The RTX 4060 Ti has made strides in efficiency and power management by using a 5nm manufacturing process in its design. The RTX 3070 Ti is a generation behind, using 8nm process nodes.
2. Clock Speeds: The base clock of the RTX 4060 Ti is around 2310MHz, which is much higher than the 1575MHz base clock of the RTX 3070 Ti. The boost clocks suffer from the same difference, with the RTX 4060 Ti going up to 2535MHz while the RTX 3070 Ti goes up to only 1770MHz.
3. VRAM: Both graphics cards use the same 8GB VRAM buffer, though the memory technology on the older card, GDDR6X, is better than GDDR6 on the 4060 Ti. The bus width is also 256-bit on the older card, which is twice as wide as the 128-bit bus on the RTX 3070 Ti.
4. TDP: The more efficient processing nodes show their grace with a TDP of only 160 watts on the RTX 4060 Ti, as opposed to the 290-watt TDP of the RTX 3070 Ti.
5. Other Features: The features of both these cards are mostly matched, apart from the Frame Generation that the RTX 4060 Ti supports and the RTX 3070 Ti does not.

RTX 4060 Ti Vs RTX 3070 Ti: Gaming Benchmarks

Since we have delved into the specifications already, now it’s time to shift our focus to real-world performances and assess how the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti vs RTX 3070 Ti fares in today’s demanding gaming applications.

Testing Rig

Here are the specs of the testing rig we used to provide the benchmark numbers in this comparison:

• CPU: Intel Core i9-13900K
• Motherboard: ASUS ROG Maximus Z690 Hero
• Memory: TridentZ5 RGB DDR5 6000 [32 GB]
• Power Supply: Titanium Modular 1000W
• Storage Drive: WD Blue SN550 1TB, WD Blue 1TB 3D NAND SATA
• Operating System: Windows 10 Pro

Spider-Man: Miles Morales

• According to our test of Spider-Man Miles Morales, the RTX 3070 Ti outperforms the RTX 4060 Ti with an impressive 127 FPS, showcasing a 5.6% increase in average framerate compared to 120 FPS.
• The RTX 3070 Ti surpasses the RTX 4060 Ti in 1% low performance, delivering a remarkable 9.2% increase with 102 FPS, outperforming the RTX 4060 Ti’s 93 FPS.

Apex Legends

• In our benchmark of Apex Legends, the RTX 3070 Ti showed an 11.5% increase in framerate over the newer card, with an average framerate of 156 FPS. Meanwhile, the RTX 4060 Ti could only reach a framerate of 139 FPS.
• 1% lows were around 14.2% better on the RTX 3070 Ti, going down to only 128 FPS compared to the 111 FPS minimum of the RTX 4060 Ti.

Call of Duty Warzone 2.0

• Call Of Duty Warzone 2.0 gave the RTX 3070 Ti an 11.4% increase in performance. According to our test, the RTX 4060 Ti only managed to get 99 FPS, while the RTX 3070 Ti flew past it with an average of 111 FPS.
• Furthermore, the RTX 3070 Ti outperforms the RTX 4060 Ti in terms of 1% low performance, exhibiting an impressive 10.7% increase and achieving 88 FPS, surpassing the RTX 4060 Ti’s 79 FPS.

Microsoft Flight Simulator

• When we ran MS Flight Sim 2020 on both cards, we only noticed a 5% advantage for the RTX 3070 Ti. It had an average framerate of 61 FPS, only a few frames higher than the 58 FPS the RTX 4060 Ti managed.
• Additionally, the RTX 3070 Ti demonstrates its advantage over the RTX 4060 Ti in terms of 1% low performance, with a decent 12.2% increase, delivering 52 FPS as opposed to the RTX 4060 Ti’s 46 FPS.

Forza Horizon 5

• Forza had the RTX 3070 Ti outputting an average framerate of 114 FPS, while the RTX 4060 Ti could only get up to 108 FPS in our testing. This came out to a 5.4% difference between the two.
• In terms of 1% low performance, the RTX 3070 Ti excels with a significant 9.3% increase, delivering 90 FPS, while the RTX 4060 Ti falls short at 82 FPS.

F1 22

• With a slight 2.2% increase in average framerate, the RTX 3070 Ti comes ahead of the RTX 4060 Ti in our test of F1 22, achieving an impressive 136 FPS compared to 133 FPS in benchmark tests.
• With a decent 7.3% increase in 1% low performance, the RTX 3070 Ti showcases its superiority over the RTX 4060 Ti, providing 113 FPS compared to the RTX 4060 Ti’s 105 FPS.

The Witcher 3

• Surpassing the RTX 4060 Ti’s 101 FPS, the RTX 3070 Ti stands out with an impressive 114 FPS in our benchmark of The Witcher 3, boasting a notable 12% increase in average FPS.
• Moreover, the RTX 3070 Ti sets itself apart from the RTX 4060 Ti by delivering superior 1% low performance, boasting a notable 10.7% increase and achieving 88 FPS instead of the RTX 4060 Ti’s 79 FPS.

Overall Gaming Performance

Our comprehensive benchmark analysis shows that the RTX 3070 Ti surpasses the RTX 4060 Ti in terms of both average FPS and 1% lows across the diverse range of games we evaluated.

The average framerate of the RTX 3070 Ti is around 117 FPS, which is around 7.7% higher than the 108 FPS the RTX 4060 Ti provided on average in our testing.

In practice, the difference between the two cards in terms of performance is rather hard to notice, but the difference might grow as these cards approach the ends of their respective life cycles.

Average Power Consumption

Our benchmark tests consistently revealed that the RTX 4060 Ti consumed less power than the RTX 3070 Ti, with an average of 130.5 W versus 276.7 W, respectively.

Regarding power efficiency, it is worth noting that the RTX 4060 Ti demonstrates an average consumption of 71.7% more efficiency than the RTX 3070 Ti based on our benchmark testing results. This difference is quite staggering for a generational improvement.

Average Thermal Statistics

During our benchmark testing, it was observed that the RTX 3070 Ti exhibited better thermal efficiency despite the RTX 4060 Ti’s lower power consumption.

Additionally, throughout the benchmark testing, it was observed that the RTX 3070 Ti consistently maintained lower temperatures compared to the RTX 4060 Ti, boasting an average temperature of 64.2°C as opposed to 66°C.

In summary, the thermal efficiency of the RTX 3070 Ti surpassed that of the RTX 4060 Ti by a slight margin of 2.6%, based on the results obtained from the benchmark analysis.

Pricing And Availability

The RTX 4060 Ti goes for around $399 very readily on marketplaces like Amazon or Newegg, whereas the going price for a new RTX 3070 Ti is around $399 also on Newegg. Bear in mind that you can find this card for much cheaper on the used market.

As for availability, both cards should be readily available at most moderate-sized computer parts retailers across the globe.

What We Recommend

Now that we have studied both cards in detail, this part of the RTX 4060 Ti vs RTX 3070 Ti comparison will dissect the good and the bad with both cards.

Though the temperatures of the RTX 4060 Ti are slightly hotter than its rival, it boasts remarkable power efficiency, untouched by anything else in the market.

On the other hand, the RTX 3070 Ti provides a noticeably better framerate, which is perhaps the only thing that your average gamer would care about. The advantage the 40-series had with its frame generation technology has also come to an end with the AMD Fluid Motion Frames technology, available to all cards, 40-series or otherwise.

In conclusion, after evaluating both cards’ pros and cons, we urge you to buy the RTX 3070 Ti unless you’re buying specifically against some power management needs.

Pros And Cons

More From RTX 4060 Ti

• RTX 4060 Ti Vs RTX 2080 Ti
• RTX 4060 Ti Vs RTX 3080
• RX 7900 GRE Vs RTX 4060 Ti 16GB

More From RTX 3070 Ti

• RTX 4070 Vs RTX 3070 Ti
• RTX 4060 Vs RTX 3070 Ti
• RTX 2070 Vs RTX 3070 Ti

Shehryar Khan

[Comparisons Expert]

Shehryar Khan, a seasoned PC hardware expert, brings over three years of extensive experience and a deep passion for the world of technology. With a love for building PCs and a genuine enthusiasm for exploring the latest advancements in components, his expertise shines through his work and dedication towards this field. Currently, Shehryar is rocking a custom loop setup for his built.

Get In Touch: shehryar@tech4gamers.com

RTX 4060 Ti vs RTX 3070 Ti: Benchmarks & Comparison is a post from Tech4Gamers - All About Technology And Gaming News

Key Takeaways

• According to our tests, the gaming performance of the Ryzen 5 7600 is about 13.2% better than the Core i5-13400.
• At 1080p, I observed that the Core i5-13400 presents 20.3% more power efficiency and 35.8% more thermal efficiency than the Ryzen 5 7600.
• There is only an $8 difference in the launch MSRPs of the Ryzen 5 7600 ($229) and the Core i5-13400 ($221).

Comparison Table

Architectural Difference

• Architecture: The Core i5-13400 employs Intel’s advanced hybrid Raptor Lake-S architecture, while the Ryzen 5 7600 integrates AMD’s cutting-edge Zen 4 architecture.
• Process Node: Intel simulates its Core i5-13400 using its 10nm fabrication node. In contrast, the Ryzen 5 7600 is forged on 5nm FinFET process at TSMC.
• CPU Socket: The Ryzen 5 7600 came with AMD’s inaugural LGA socket, the AM5 (LGA 1718), while the Intel Core i5-13400 adopts the FCLGA 1700 socket.
• Clock Speed: The Ryzen 5 7600 has a 35.7% higher base clock than the performance cores of the Core i5-13400, and regarding the boost clock, the Ryzen 5 7600 again takes a lead of about 10.9%.
• CPU Memory: Coming to memory specs, The Core i5-13400 boasts compatibility with DDR4 at a speed of 3200 MT/s, whereas the Ryzen 5 7600 does not support DDR4. Additionally, the DDR5 memory speed of the Ryzen 5 7600 is about 8.3% higher than that of its rival.
• Integrated Graphics: The Ryzen 5 7600 has a dual-core AMD Radeon Graphics iGPU with a turbo clock of 2200 MHz. In contrast, the Core i5-13400 features a dual-core Intel UHD Graphics 730 iGPU with a max clock of 1.55 GHz.

Gaming Benchmarks – 1080p

After reviewing the technical details of the Core i5-13400 and Ryzen 5 7600, let’s now analyze the gaming performance of the two processors. We will discuss their performance in eight demanding games we played at 1080p resolution. The system we used for playing games had the following specifications.

Gaming Rig

• OS: Windows 11
• CPU 1: Intel Core i5-13400
• Motherboard 1: MSI Z790 Tomahawk Max WiFi
• CPU 2: AMD Ryzen 5 7600
• Motherboard 2: GIGABYTE X670E AORUS MASTER
• GPU: Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090 Ti
• RAM: Crucial DDR5 32GB 4800 MHz cl40
• SSD: XPG GAMMIX S70 BLADE 2TB NVMe
• Cooler: Cooler Master MasterLiquid ML360R 360mm AIO

Red Dead Redemption 2

• In our Red Dead Redemption 2 session, the average rendition by the Ryzen 5 7600 was 7 FPS or  4.5% greater than the Core i5-13400.
• The Core i5-13400 produced an average of 147 FPS at its best, while the Ryzen 5 7600 provided a flawless average of 154 FPS.
• During our gameplay, the Core i5-13400 ran at a lower power of 45 W, whereas the Ryzen 5 7600 ran at 62 W.
• Regarding the CPU gaming temperature, the Ryzen 5 7600 was running at a higher temperature of 71°C, while the Core i5-13400 ran at as low a temperature as 46°C.
• Moving to a Low 1% frame rate, we observed that the Ryzen 5 7600 delivered 105 FPS, while the Core i5-13400 could only muster up 97 FPS.

COD: Modern Warfare 2

• On average, the Core i5-13400 rendered 2 only one FPS smoother than the Ryzen 5 7600 in our gameplay of Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare.
• At its finest, the Core i5-13400 delivered an average frame rate of 146 FPS, while the Ryzen 5 7600 delivered an average of 145 FPS.
• Per our testing, the Ryzen 5 7600 operated at 44 W, and the Core i5-13400 ran at a lower power of 38 W.
• We observed that the Core i5-13400 operated at a low temperature of 35°C, while the Ryzen 5 7600 ran at a higher temperature of 50°C in this game.
• Considering the Low 1% performance, the Ryzen 5 7600 produced 120 FPS, and the Core i5-13400 provided 119 FPS.

Cyberpunk 2077

• While testing Cyberpunk 2077 in our benchmarks, the average rendition by the Ryzen 5 7600 was 3 FPS or 1.9% greater. 
• The Ryzen 5 7600 produced an average frame rate of 162 FPS, while the Core i5-13400 generated 159 FPS.
• The Ryzen 5 7600 employed 60 W of electricity during our Cyberpunk 2077 gameplay, in contrast to the Core i5-13400’s consumption of 47 W.
• While the Ryzen 5 7600 ran at a greater temperature of 62°C, the Core i5-13400 ran at a lower temperature of 51°C.
• At its low 1% performance, the Core i5-13400 provided us with 130 FPS, and the Ryzen 5 7600 produced 127 FPS.

League Of Legends

• In our League Of Legends gaming session, the Ryzen 5 7600 produced an average performance of 46 FPS higher or 22.4% better than the Core i5-13400.
• During this game, the Core i5-13400 generated 205 FPS on average, compared to 251 FPS from the Ryzen 5 7600.
• Moving to our power consumption test, the Ryzen 5 7600 consumed 52 W of electricity in this game, while the Core i5-13400’s power consumption was 44 W.
• Regarding gaming temperature, we noticed that the Core i5-13400 ran at 36°C, whereas the Ryzen 5 7600 ran at 46°C.
• The Ryzen 5 7600 generated 156 FPS at a low 1% performance, while the Core i5-13400 produced 136 FPS in League Of Legends.

Lost Ark

• The Ryzen 5 7600 outperformed the Core i5-13400 by an average of 89 FPS, or 27.2%, in our testing of Lost Ark.
• While playing the game, the average frame rate achieved by the Core i5-13400 was 327 FPS, while the average frame rate achieved by the Ryzen 5 7600 was 416 FPS.
• Compared to the Core i5-13400’s 41 W power usage, the Ryzen 5 7600 used 45 W in Lost Ark.
• When we tested the gaming temperatures, the Core i5-13400 ran at 47°C, compared to the Ryzen 5 7600’s operating temperature of 57°C.
• In Lost Ark, the Ryzen 5 7600 produced 283 FPS at a low 1% performance compared to the Core i5-13400’s 165 FPS.

Overwatch 2

• In our Overwatch 2 session, the Ryzen 5 7600 outscored the Core i5-13400 on average by 24 frames per second or 7.4%.
• While playing the game, the Core i5-13400 managed an average frame rate of 326 FPS, while the Ryzen 5 7600 managed a 350 FPS average.
• Coming to our power consumption stats, the Ryzen 5 7600 consumed 51 W of electricity, while the Core i5-13400 ran at a higher power of 52 W in Overwatch 2.
• In this game, we noted that the operating temperatures of the Core i5-13400 and Ryzen 5 7600 were 43°C and 58°C, respectively.
• During our gameplay, the low 1% performance of the Ryzen 5 7600 was at 268 FPS, while that of the Core i5-13400 was at 245 FPS.

PUBG

• The average performance of the Ryzen 5 7600 was 33 FPS or 14.8% better than the Core i5-13400 in PUBG.
• During our gameplay, the Ryzen 5 7600 managed an average frame rate of 256 FPS, while the Core i5-13400 delivered a 223 FPS average.
• The Core i5-13400 ran at a power of 44 W, whereas the Ryzen 5 7600 used 51 W of electricity.
• At 1080p resolution, the Core i5-13400’s running temperature of 40°C was stunning. The Ryzen 5 7600 operated at 61°C in the same conditions.
• Regarding our test of low 1% performance, the Core i5-13400 produced 146 FPS, and the Ryzen 5 7600 managed 143 FPS.

Spider-Man Remastered

• When we played Spider-Man Remastered, the Ryzen 5 7600 yielded 26 FPS or 13.5% better performance than the Core i5-13400.
• The Core i5-13400 could only muster up an average of 192 FPS, while the Ryzen 5 7600 managed to furnish an average of 218 FPS.
• During our gameplay, the Core i5-13400 ran at a lower temperature of 48°C, compared to the Ryzen 5 7600’s higher 65°C operating temperature.
• During our power usage test, the power consumption of the Ryzen 5 7600 was 66 W during Spider-Man Remastered, while the Core i5-13400 performed at 47 W.
• Concerning the low 1% performance, the Core i5-13400 mustered up 131 FPS, and the Ryzen 5 7600 provided 140 FPS.

Overall Performance Analysis

According to our gaming benchmarks, the overall gaming performance of the Ryzen 5 7600 is 13.2% better than the Core i5-13400 at 1080p resolution. In the games mentioned above, the Core i5-13400 delivered us an average frame rate of 215.6 FPS, while the Ryzen 5 7600 rendered a brilliant average of 244 FPS.

In terms of low 1% performance, the Ryzen 5 7600 outperformed the Core i5-13400 by 14.8%. The Ryzen 5 7600 managed an average of 167.8 FPS at its low 1%, while the Core i5-13400 could only provide us 146.1 FPS at its low 1% performance.

Power Consumption

Reminder: The default TDP for the Ryzen 5 7600 is 65 watts. In contrast, the Core i5-13400 is configured with a base power of 65 watts and a max turbo power of 154 watts.

According to the power utilization tests we carried out throughout the games we played, the Ryzen 5 7600 ran at an average power of 53.9 watts, while the Core i5-13400 executed the same games at 44.8 watts. Thus, the Core i5-13400 is about 20.3% more power efficient than the Ryzen 5 7600.

Gaming Temperature

Regarding the CPU gaming temperature, the Core i5-13400 operated at an average temperature of 43.3°C in our gaming session, whereas the Ryzen 5 7600 operated at an average of 58.8°C. Thus, the Core i5-13400 is 35.8% thermally more efficient than the Ryzen 5 7600 based on our measurements. To overcome heating issues, read How To Lower CPU Temperature?

Price And Availability

After a detailed review of the performance and specifications, let’s discuss the cost and availability of the two processors. AMD launched the Ryzen 5 7600 for $229, and Intel launched the Core i5-13400 with an MSRP of $221.

The launch MSRPs of these processors are almost the same, and the trend in their current prices is also the same. Both of the CPUs are currently available in the market for around $200.

Concerning availability, these processors are available in most of the markets. You can also order them from the official online shops of Intel, AMD, and other platforms, including NewEgg and Amazon.

Which One Do We Recommend?

After the in-depth analysis of the Core i5-13400 vs Ryzen 5 7600, it’s time to choose between the two processors.

If you want the best gaming experience, we recommend the Ryzen 5 7600 for its 13% better gaming performance than the rival. But the Ryzen 5 7600 has a higher running cost due to more power consumption.  So, if your monthly spending is limited, we recommend the Core i5-13400 for its about 20% greater power efficiency.

Pros And Cons

More From Core i5-13400

• Core i5-13500 Vs i5-13400
• Core i5-13400 Vs Ryzen 5 5600X
• Ryzen 5 7600X Vs Core i5-13400

More From Ryzen 5 7600

• Core i5-13500 Vs Ryzen 5 7600
• Ryzen 5 7500F Vs Ryzen 5 7600

Abde Manaf

[Comparisons Expert]

Abdemanaf is a skilled creative writer who has been honing his craft since 2011. While initially working in different fields, he found a passion for technology and has been exploring the tech world since early 2015. Over the years, he has developed an in-depth knowledge of the latest tech trends and product offerings by various companies.

Abdemanaf’s writing reflects his analytical mindset and ability to think critically. He has a knack for breaking down complex technical information into easily digestible pieces, making his articles engaging and accessible to readers from all backgrounds. In February 2022, he joined Tech4Gamers as a blog and product comparison writer, where he has been able to hone his skills further.

As a writer, Abdemanaf is dedicated to staying up-to-date with the latest technological advancements and trends, enabling him to provide readers with the most relevant and accurate information. He is always eager to learn more and is constantly seeking new challenges to improve his skills.

Get In Touch: manaf@tech4gamers.com

Core i5-13400 Vs Ryzen 5 7600 [We Tested 9 Games] is a post from Tech4Gamers - All About Technology And Gaming News

Key Takeaways

• In my 4K gaming benchmarks testing 7 games, the RTX 4070 Ti had an average lead of 13 FPS, making it 15.3% better than the RTX 3080 Ti.
• The RTX 3080 Ti is a power-hungry GPU using 15.3% more power from the PSU than the RTX 4070 Ti in my 4K gaming benchmarks. 
• Listed at $899, the RTX 3080 Ti is 12.5% more expensive than the RTX 4070 Ti, which has a starting price of $799.
• RTX 4070 Ti is based on NVIDIA’s latest Ada Lovelace architecture, built with a 4nm process, whereas RTX 3080 Ti is based on NVIDIA’s previous Ampere architecture, built with an 8nm process.

Comparison Table

Architectural Differences

1. Architecture: The RTX 4070 Ti is based on the new Ada Lovelace architecture. It has the AD104 GPU. The AD104 chip offers 7680 CUDA cores. On the other hand, the RTX 3080 Ti is based on the Ampere architecture. It uses the GA102 GPU built with Samsung’s 8nm process.
2. Design: The RTX 3080 Ti graphics card has one of the most loved designs from NVIDIA, with one blade fan on the front and one on the back. Similarly, You will see a triple-fan design from most of them when you shop for RTX 4070 Ti.
3. Clock Speeds: The RTX 4070 Ti has a base clock of 2310MHz and a boost clock of 2610MHz, which means you have 300MHz headroom for overclocking. RTX 3080 Ti has a base clock of 1365MHz and a boost clock of 1665MHz.
4. Ray Tracing And AI Acceleration: Ray tracing and AI-accelerated graphics are available on both graphics cards. However, the RTX 4070 Ti has more to offer here because it has a new architecture.

RTX 4070 Ti Vs. RTX 3080 Ti 4K Gaming Benchmarks

 Now, I shall be testing RTX 4070 Ti and RTX 3080 Ti in 7 games at 4K resolution and ultra-settings. 

Testing PC Specifications

• OS: Windows 10 pro
• CPU: INTEL i9 13900K
• Motherboard: Asus ROG Strix Z790 – E Gaming
• Cooler: Corsair ICUE H150I ELITE
• SSD: WD Black SN850 NVMe SSD
• PSU: ENERMAX REVOLUTION D.F. X 1050W
• RAM: XPG Lancer (2 x 16GB) 32GB RAM DDR5 5600Mhz

Assassin’s Creed Valhalla

• My hands-on experience began with the RTX 4070 Ti showing its prowess, delivering a remarkable 90 FPS on average, which significantly outshone the 75 FPS performance of the RTX 3080 Ti.
• This initial benchmark showcased an impressive 20% improvement in FPS performance for the RTX 4070 Ti when compared to its predecessor, the RTX 3080 Ti.

Cyberpunk 2077

• The RTX 4070 Ti emerged as the winner, offering a substantial 11-frame advantage, providing 62 FPS compared to the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti’s 51 FPS.
• When I delve into the numbers, with the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti at 62 FPS and the RTX 3080 Ti at 51 FPS, I can calculate a significant FPS performance boost of nearly 22% for the former.

Forza Horizon 5

• Both the RTX 4070 Ti and GeForce RTX 3080 Ti performed well in this test, and the FPS difference shrank to only 9 FPS, with the RTX 4070 Ti delivering 125 FPS against the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti’s 116 FPS.
• With a difference of only 9 FPS per second, the improvement in framerates with the RTX 4070 Ti was almost 8% over the RTX 3080 Ti.

God Of War

• In testing, it was quite surprising to observe that the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti delivered an average of 86 FPS, whereas the RTX 4070 Ti outperformed it with a solid 99 FPS.
• When breaking down the numbers, this meant receiving 15.1% more frames per second from the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti compared to the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, as my experience clearly showed. 

Hitman III

• I closely examined the performance of the RTX 4070 Ti and the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti. The RTX 4070 Ti consistently delivered an impressive average of 124 FPS, whereas the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti achieved a slightly lower 108 FPS on average.
• This resulted in a notable 15% improvement in frame generation per second while playing Hitman III on the RTX 4070 Ti in comparison to the RTX 3080 Ti.

Horizon Zero Dawn

• My GeForce RTX 4070 Ti consistently outperformed the RTX 3080 Ti, never allowing it to catch up. My GeForce RTX 4070 Ti impressively displayed an average of 97 FPS on the screen, while its sibling, the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, maintained an average of 79 FPS.
• This remarkable performance translated to a substantial 23% improvement in frame rate compared to the RTX 3080 Ti, with my GeForce RTX 4070 Ti delivering 18 more frames every second, as I closely monitored.

Spider-Man

• The FPS on average for the RTX 4070 Ti was 63 FPS compared to an average FPS of 52 FPS from the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti.
• With a lead of 11 FPS, the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti delivered an impressive performance that was 21% better than what the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti was able to give. 

Overall Gaming Benchmarks

The GeForce RTX 4070 Ti delivered an impressive average of 94 FPS, while the RTX 3080 Ti fell slightly behind with 81 FPS. This 13 FPS difference, on average, was clearly evident during my testing, showcasing the RTX 4070 Ti’s superiority in delivering smoother and more enjoyable gaming experiences.

Power Usage Thermal Statistics

This means the RTX 3080 Ti would be taking up roughly 38 more watts while running games at 4K resolution.  After observing the power draw from both GPUs during the entire benchmark, I have reached the conclusion that the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti is roughly 15% more power-efficient than the RTX 3080 Ti. 

Thermal Statistics

As per my testing, both GPUs were reasonably close in terms of thermal performance. In some games, the RTX 3080 Ti came ahead, whereas in others, the RTX 4070 Ti took the cake. Overall, the difference was fairly negligible.  The GeForce RTX 3080 Ti was around 61.57°C, whereas the RTX 4070 Ti was a bit warmer at 62.28°C. 

Pricing And Availability

Due to the chip shortage that has continued for several months now, the price listed by the manufacturer might not mean much to any potential buyer. However, you should still know that NVIDIA lists the RTX 3080 Ti at a starting price of $899.

NVIDIA lists the starting price of its RTX 4070 Ti at $799, but that becomes irrelevant when you are bound to purchase the card from a board partner. 

If I were to compare the MSRPs of both cards, the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti is $100 more expensive than the RTX 4070 Ti. In other words, you’ll be paying 12.5% more to buy a GeForce RTX 3080 Ti than you would for an RTX 4070 Ti. 

GeForce RTX 4070 Ti vs RTX 3080 Ti: Which One Would I Recommend?

In my opinion, picking one card between the RTX 4070 Ti and the RTX 3080 Ti is not an easy task. They both perform extremely well and have their own perks. However, I can make this decision a bit easier for you after laying down some facts and figures.

Memory clock speeds, RAM bandwidths, and BUS widths are better on the RTX 3080 Ti. It also has more CUDA cores, RT cores, and tensor cores, with better TMUs and ROPs than GeForce RTX 4070 Ti. 

However, I am more inclined to recommend the RTX 4070 Ti. It has a better core clock and a base clock. Furthermore, it offers you a more optimized architecture.

To sum up their performance in my 4K gaming benchmarks, the RTX 4070 Ti was the winner of the FPS battle by offering a 16% improvement over the RTX 3080 Ti in framerates. It is also 15.3% more power-efficient than the RTX 3080 Ti and could save you some energy bills.

More From RTX 4070 Ti:

• RTX 4070 Ti Vs RX 6950 XT
• RTX 4070 Ti Vs RX 6800 XT
• RTX 4070 Ti Vs RX 6900 XT

More From RTX 3080 Ti:

• RX 6800 XT Vs RTX 3080 Ti
• RTX 4080 Vs RTX 3080 Ti 
• RX 7900 XTX Vs RTX 3080 Ti

Abde Manaf

[Comparisons Expert]

Abdemanaf is a skilled creative writer who has been honing his craft since 2011. While initially working in different fields, he found a passion for technology and has been exploring the tech world since early 2015. Over the years, he has developed an in-depth knowledge of the latest tech trends and product offerings by various companies.

Abdemanaf’s writing reflects his analytical mindset and ability to think critically. He has a knack for breaking down complex technical information into easily digestible pieces, making his articles engaging and accessible to readers from all backgrounds. In February 2022, he joined Tech4Gamers as a blog and product comparison writer, where he has been able to hone his skills further.

As a writer, Abdemanaf is dedicated to staying up-to-date with the latest technological advancements and trends, enabling him to provide readers with the most relevant and accurate information. He is always eager to learn more and is constantly seeking new challenges to improve his skills.

Get In Touch: manaf@tech4gamers.com

RTX 4070 Ti Vs RTX 3080 Ti [Gaming Benchmarks + Overall] is a post from Tech4Gamers - All About Technology And Gaming News

Key Takeaways

• Having personally tested the i7-14700K and Ryzen 7 5800X3D, I observed a 10.6% gaming performance advantage with the Intel Core i7-14700K at 1080p resolution.
• At 1080p gaming workloads, I noted that the Ryzen 7 5800X3D boasts an amazing 55.9% higher energy efficiency than the i7-14700K.
• In my tests, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D proved to have 13.5% higher thermal efficiency and better heat management capabilities than the i7-14700K.

Comparison Table

Feature	Intel Core i7-14700K	AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D
Codename	Raptor Lake	Vermeer
No. of Cores	P-Cores: 8 E-Cores: 12 Total Cores: 20	8
No. of Threads	28	16
Base Frequency	P-Cores: 3.4 GHz E-Cores: 2.5 GHz	3.4 GHz
Boost Frequency	Up to 5.6 GHz	Up to 4.5 GHz
Integrated Graphics	Intel UHD Graphics 770	No
Memory Type & Frequency	DDR5: Up to 5600 MT/s DDR4: Up to 3200 MT/s	DDR4: Up to 3200 MT/s
Cache	33 MB Intel Smart Cache	96MB AMD 3D V-Cache
PCI Express® Version	5.0 and 4.0	4.0
Max. Operating Temperature	100°C	90°C
TDP	125W - 253W	105W
Launch Date	Oct 17th, 2023	April 20th 2022
MSRP	$409-$419	$449
Best Motherboards	Best Motherboards For Core i7-14700K	Best Motherboards For Ryzen 7 5800X3D
Best CPU Coolers	Best CPU Coolers For Core i7-14700K	Best Coolers For Ryzen 7 5800X3D
Best RAM	Best RAM For Core i7-14700K	BEST RAM For Ryzen 7 5800X3D
Best GPU	Best GPU For Core i7-14700K	-

Architectural Difference

• Architecture: Intel has implemented its avant-garde Raptor Lake Resume hybrid architecture in the i7-14700K. On the other hand, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D features AMD’s Zen 3 (Vermeer), which is a bit older in architecture.
• Process Node: The i7-14700K employs Intel’s advanced 10nm process, while the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is crafted using TSMC’s leading-edge 7nm semiconductor technology.
• CPU Socket: Considering the socket, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D uses AMD’s AM4 socket, which has a pin count of 1331 pins. In contrast, the i7-14700K features Intel’s LGA 1700 socket, which has a higher pin count to boost data rate and cooling.
• Clock Speed: The CPU cores of the Ryzen 7 5800X3D and the P-cores of the i7-14700K operate at the same base frequency. In terms of CPU turbo clock, the i7-14700K is 24.4% faster than the Ryzen 7 5800X3D.
• CPU Memory: Regarding memory, the i7-14700K supports DDR4 and DDR5, whereas the Ryzen 7 5800X3D only supports DDR4. Moreover, the i7-14700K has about 75% higher DDR5 memory frequency.
• Integrated Graphics: The i7-14700K features Intel UHD Graphics 770, while the Ryzen 7 5800X3D has no iGPU. The UHD Graphics 770 has two multi-format codec engines, 32 execution units, and a maximum dynamic frequency of 1.60 GHz.

Gaming Benchmarks

After an in-depth examination of specifications and architectural differences, let’s evaluate the i7-14700K vs Ryzen 7 5800X3D through a set of 1080p gaming benchmarks, directly comparing their performance in the gaming arena. My gaming setup for these tests featured the following specifications.

Gaming Rig

• OS: Windows 10 pro
• CPU 1: Intel Core i7-14700K
• Motherboard 1: Asus ROG Strix Z790-E Gaming – DDR5
• CPU 2: RYZEN 7 5800X3D
• Motherboard 2: Asus ROG Strix X570-E Gaming WIFI – DDR4
• GPU: Asus TUF Gaming RTX 4090 24GB
• RAM 1: G.Skill Ripjaws S5 6000MHz DDR5 Kit
• RAM 2: G.SKILL TRIDENT Z 32GB DDR4 3200MHz
• Storage: XPG Gammix S70 Blade 2TB NVMe SSD
• PSU: CORSAIR RMX SERIES RM1000X 1000 WATT
• CPU Cooler: CORSAIR iCUE H150i Elite Capellix XT

Assassin’s Creed Valhalla

• The first game I played to test the performance of two CPUs was Assassin’s Creed Valhalla. During this gameplay, the i7-14700K produced an average of 173 FPS, conquering the Ryzen 7 5800X3D’s 157 FPS by 10.2%.
• Regarding low 1% frame rates, I noted that the i7-14700K provided 148 FPS, whereas the Ryzen 7 5800X3D turned 132 FPS.

Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare II

• During my gaming experience of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II, the i7-14700K outperformed the Ryzen 7 5800X3D by 13.6%, delivering an average of 159 FPS compared to the Ryzen 7 5800X3D’s 140 FPS.
• Coming to the low 1% performance, I observed that the Ryzen 7 5800X3D generated 124 FPS, while the i7-14700K achieved 138 FPS.

Cyberpunk 2077

• The i7-14700K beat the Ryzen 7 5800X3D by 8.2% in my gameplay of Cyberpunk 2077, averaging 132 FPS as opposed to 122 FPS for the Ryzen 7 5800X3D.
• Looking at low 1% performance, I found that the i7-14700K produced 94 FPS, and the Ryzen 7 5800X3D produced 89 FPS.

Far Cry 6

• In my testing of Far Cry 6 gameplay, the i7-14700K outperformed the Ryzen 7 5800X3D by 11.0%, averaging 191 FPS compared to the rival’s 172 FPS.
• The i7-14700K produced 166 FPS in my low 1% performance examination, while the Ryzen 7 5800X3D made 148 FPS.

Forza Horizon 5

• During my hands-on testing of Forza Horizon 5, the i7-14700K demonstrated superior performance, outperforming the Ryzen 7 5800X3D by 11.8%. The i7-14700K furnished an average of 256 FPS, while the Ryzen 7 5800X3D only mustered 229 FPS.
• In terms of the low 1% performance, the i7-14700K delivered 186 FPS, while the Ryzen 7 5800X3D lagged behind at 183 FPS.

God Of War

• While playing God Of War, I got a 5.1% greater performance with the i7-14700K. The Core i7-14700K provided an average frame rate of 184 FPS, while the Ryzen 7 5800X3D gained 175 FPS.
• During my low 1% performance test of God Of War, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D generated 122 FPS, while the i7-14700K made 139 FPS.

Hitman 3

• In my Hitman 3 gaming session, the i7-14700K demonstrated an impressive 12.5% performance boost, delivering an average frame rate of 216 FPS compared to the Ryzen 7 5800X3D’s 192 FPS.
• Coming to the worst 1% performance, the i7-14700K turned 171 FPS at its low 1%, while the Ryzen 7 5800X3D achieved 157 FPS.

Horizon Zero Dawn

• During my first-hand experience of Horizon Zero Dawn, the i7-14700K provided 16.2% superior performance, achieving a 151 FPS average compared to the 130 FPS of the Ryzen 7 5800X3D.
• In my low 1% performance test of this game, the i7-14700K scored 128 FPS, and the Ryzen 7 5800X3D scored 102 FPS.

Marvel’s Spider-Man

• When I played Marvel’s Spider-Man with the i7-14700K, I got 4.8% better performance with an average frame rate of 198 FPS. In contrast, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D delivered 189 FPS on average.
• The i7-14700K achieved 146 FPS at the low 1% performance, whereas the Ryzen 7 5800X3D made 131 FPS.

The Last of Us Part I

• While playing The Last of Us Part I at 1080p, I experienced 8.5% higher performance with the i7-14700K. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D scored 153 FPS on average, while the i7-14700K secured a superb 166 FPS.
• In my testing of the worst 1% performance, the i7-14700K attained 143 FPS at low 1%, whereas the Ryzen 7 5800X3D mustered up only 129 FPS.

Editor`s Note

For users with an eye on both performance and the pocketbook, I strongly endorse the Ryzen 7 5800X3D. This processor not only delivers potent computing power but also does so with remarkable energy efficiency, boasting a 55.9% reduction in energy consumption compared to the i7-14700K. This not only translates to substantial savings on electricity costs but also positions the Ryzen 7 5800X3D as a formidable and cost-effective option, as explained in another one of our reviews.

– Uzair Qureshi

Overall Gaming Performance

Average FPS

After thoroughly analyzing my benchmark data, I conclude that the i7-14700K prevails in gaming performance with a significant average of 182.6 FPS. This beats the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, which processed an average of 165.9 FPS.

In every gaming scenario I evaluated, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D failed to surpass the performance exhibited by the i7-14700K. Thus, the i7-14700K leads the Ryzen 7 5800X3D by approximately 10.6% superior performance while gaming at 1080p resolution.

Low 1% FPS

Analyzing the performance metrics at the lower 1% threshold from my benchmarks, the i7-14700K demonstrated an average of 145.9 FPS, surpassing the Ryzen 7 5800X3D’s frame rate of 131.7 FPS. Consequently, the i7-14700K defeats the Ryzen 7 5800X3D by a margin of 10.8% in scenarios reflecting lower 1% performance.

Winner: Intel’s Core-i7 14700K

Gaming Power Consumption

Reminder: The Core i7-14700K boasts a peak TDP of 253 watts, while the Ryzen 7 5800X3D has a standard TDP of 105 watts. This indicates a substantial 140.9% difference in the two CPUs’ stated power ratings.

During my gaming endeavours, the i7-14700K consistently maintained an average power consumption of 100.1 watts, whereas the Ryzen 7 5800X3D exhibited a more frugal energy draw, averaging 64.2 watts. So, when handling the demands of 1080p gaming, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D exhibits an impressive 55.9% greater energy efficiency than the i7-14700K.

Let’s also analyze the efficiency by calculating the performance-to-power consumption ratio. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D demonstrated superior efficiency, producing 2.58 FPS per watt, whereas the i7-14700K exhibited a lower efficiency with 1.82 FPS per watt. Thus, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D yields 41.8% better performance in terms of power draw.

Winner: AMD’s Ryzen 7 5800X3D

Gaming Temperatures

The table below shows the thermal profiles of two processors during the previously discussed games.

During my gaming evaluation, the i7-14700K ran at an average temperature of 61.3°C. In contrast, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D retained a lower average temperature of 54.0°C. Based on these figures, I conclude that the Ryzen 7 5800X3D has 13.5% stronger thermal efficiency than the i7-14700K.

If the temperature of your CPU spikes frequently, you may find valuable assistance within our comprehensive guide on How To Lower CPU Temperature.

Winner: AMD’s Ryzen 7 5800X3D

Prices And Availability

Now, let’s discuss the financial aspects and market accessibility of these processors. In April 2022, AMD released the Ryzen 7 5800X3D at $449, while Intel introduced the i7-14700K for $409-$419 in October 2023.

Since the Ryzen 7 5800X3D was first released on the market quite a while ago, its price has dropped roughly 30%. The current optimal price for the Ryzen 7 5800X3D stands at approximately $322. On the other hand, the recently released i7-14700K can be purchased for as little as $400 at best.

In terms of accessibility, both processors are consistently in stock and conveniently obtainable through NewEgg, Amazon, and other web stores.

Which One Do I Recommend?

I want to offer my recommendation in the concluding segment of the comparative analysis of the i7-14700K vs Ryzen 7 5800X3D.

For outstanding gaming capabilities and adeptness in content creation, I recommend the Intel Core i7-14700K. Though the cost for this processor may be somewhat higher, it distinguishes itself as a premier choice, delivering outstanding overall value through its exceptional multi-core and multi-threading capabilities. It is a cutting-edge CPU incorporating state-of-the-art technological enhancements.

If you aim for a potent CPU without breaking the bank and prioritizing energy efficiency, I recommend the Ryzen 7 5800X3D. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D employs 55.9% less energy than the i7-14700K, thus saving on electricity costs.

Pros And Cons

More From Core i7-14700K:

• Core i7-14700K Vs Ryzen 7 7800X3D
• Core i7-14700K Vs Core i7-13700K

More From Ryzen 7 5800X3D:

• Core i9-12900KS vs Ryzen 7 5800X3D
• Ryzen 5 5600X3D Vs Ryzen 7 5800X3D
• Ryzen 7 5800X3D Vs Core i5-13600K

Uzair Qureshi

[Comparisons Specialist]

I’m a passionate computer hardware expert specializing in CPUs and GPUs. With a lifelong curiosity for hardware and extensive hands-on experience, I provide valuable insights, practical advice, and in-depth analysis on these components. Engaging with the hardware community, I exchange knowledge and stay at the forefront of technological advancements.

Get In Touch: uzair@tech4gamers.com

i7-14700K Vs Ryzen 7 5800X3D: New Vs Old Gen is a post from Tech4Gamers - All About Technology And Gaming News

Key Takeaways

• The Ryzen 9 7900X3D comes in at 5% slower than the Core i9 14900K in terms of average framerates, according to our tests performed at 1080p, while it comes around 13% lower in terms of 1% lows.
• The Core i9 14900K used around 14% more power than the Ryzen 9 7900X3D on average in our gaming tests at around 129 watts, while the Ryzen had a power consumption of around 100 watts.
• The Ryzen 9 7900X3D is around $80 cheaper than the Core i9 14900K.

Comparison Table

Architectural Differences

1. Core Count: The Ryzen 9 7900X3D supports 12 cores, totalling 24 threads. The i9 14900K, however, has different types of cores incorporated into its architecture. It uses 8 performance cores and 16 efficiency cores that compile to make 32 threads.
2. Clock Speeds: The Ryzen has a frequency range from 4.4GHz to 5.6GHz, whereas the i9 14900K can boost from 2.4GHz on its efficiency cores to around 6GHz on its performance cores.
3. Process Node: Intel has once again stuck with the 10nm manufacturing process for the 14th generation of their processors, whereas AMD has started using 5nm processing nodes in the 7000 series of Ryzen processors.
4. TDP: The PL2 TDP of the i9 14900K is 253 watts, while the Ryzen 9 7900X3D can go all the way up to 162 watts.
5. L3 Cache: The headline feature for the Ryzen 7900X3D is its 128MB L3 cache. The i9, in contrast, only comes with 36MB of cache.

Benchmarks

There is no better way to understand the gaming performance of these processors than to gauge their performance in real-world gaming scenarios. To push these chips to their limits, we have created a setup that only leaves the processor as the possible benchmark. The specifications of the test rig are mentioned below:

• CPU – Ryzen 9 7950X3D | Core i9 14900K
• RAM – 2x16GB DDR5 6200MHz
• SSD – Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus G 2TB
• GPU – Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080
• CPU Cooler – Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360
• Motherboard – ASUS TUF Gaming Z690-Plus 
• Operating System – Windows 11
• Resolution – 1080p

Cyberpunk 2077

• Intel’s efforts proved worthy in our test of Cyberpunk 2077, with an average framerate of 115 FPS, while the Ryzen has an average of only 112 FPS. This established a difference of 8% off the bat.
• 1% lows fell to around 89 FPS on the Intel processor, while the Ryzen was treading water with its minimum framerate of 83 FPS. This came out to be a 7% difference between the two processors.

Assassin’s Creed Valhalla

• Our test of AC Valhalla reduced the difference between our two processors, with the i9 getting an average of around 115 FPS, while the Ryzen 9 came around at 108 FPS on average. Here, the difference was around 6.5%.
• 1% lows suffered on our Ryzen 9 7900X3D, hanging around 80 FPS, while the i9 14900K had minimum framerates closer to around 92 FPS. The difference in lows came down to around 15% in this title.

Red Dead Redemption 2

• The difference between our two contenders remained stagnant in our RDR2 test, with average framerates of around 144 FPS on the i9, while the Ryzen 9 had a framerate of around 135 FPS on average. This game gave a 6.6% advantage to the Intel processor.
• The 1% lows were once again treading water on the Ryzen 9 7900X3D, with minimums of around 75 FPS, while the Core i9 had minimums closer to 88 FPS. The stutters on the Ryzen made the i9 feel much smoother in comparison. The difference in lows shot up to 17% in this game.

Watch Dogs Legion

• Testing Watch Dogs Legion on both processes gave similar averages. The i9 showcased an average of around 121 FPS in our tests, whereas the Ryzen 9 had a performance of around 117 FPS. There was only a 3.4% difference in average framerate between our two competitors in this Ubisoft title.
• 1% lows continued to be weak on the Ryzen processor, hanging around 85 FPS, while the i9 came across with minimums of around 98 FPS. This difference came out to be a staggering 15%.

Horizon Zero Dawn

• The performance of these chips came close in our test of Horizon Zero Dawn as well, with the i9 averaging around 134 FPS, while the Ryzen was not very far behind with a framerate of 130 FPS. Only a 3% difference was measured in the averages of this game by our tests.
• The i9 has 1% lows around 110 FPS, while the Ryzen dipped down to around 98 FPS in our benchmark run of this game. The Intel processor was at an advantage of 12% in this test.

Editor`s Note

After weighing the pros and cons, if gaming is your priority, I recommend investing a bit more for the i9 14900K. Despite some drawbacks, its consistent gaming performance makes it a worthwhile choice over the Ryzen 9 7900X3D. But you can find more information on how the Ryzen 9 7900X3D performs against the i9-13900K in another detailed review on our website.

– Shehryar Khan

Overall Gaming Performance

Now that we’ve accumulated the performance of these processors in a handful of games, this part of the comparison will evaluate the overall performance of the Core i9 14900K vs Ryzen 9 7900X3D.

Framerate

Throughout our tests, the i9 14900K kept a solid lead over the Ryzen 9 7900X3D, with an overall average framerate of 127 FPS. The Ryzen was a few steps behind, with an average of 121 FPS. This came out to a median difference of around 5% between the average framerates of these processors.

The 1% lows, however, were all over the place for the Ryzen 9 7900X3D. On average, they touched 84 FPS, while the i9 14900K gave average minimums of around 95 FPS. The cumulative difference between the lows of both processors came out to around 13%. This stands in stark contrast to the difference in averages.

The 1% lows arguably make the biggest difference in your gaming experience, as the hitches in the gaming performance are more noticeable than the smoothness of one processor over the other. We will bear this in mind in our final evaluation of both processors.

Winner: Intel’s Core-i9 14900K

Temperatures

The i9 14900K had an average peak temperature of around 77°C in our testing, while the Ryzen stood at an average peak of around close to 73°C. The i9 14900K affirmed the rumours of it running hot in our tests.

The temperatures of both processors are subject to change depending on your room temperature, cooling solution, and case ventilation. Bearing that in mind, do not expect the same numbers in temperatures as you see here if you choose to purchase either processor.

But if you start facing high temperatures, you can always use our detailed guide on the topic of How To Lower CPU Temperature.

Winner: AMD’s Ryzen 9 7900X3D

Power Consumption

The extra bit of performance from the 14900K came at a disproportionately large difference in power, with the processor averaging a power consumption of around 129 watts. The Ryzen 7900X3D is one of the most power-efficient processors for gaming, averaging a power consumption of around 100 watts on average in our tests.

The i9 consumed around 29% more power for only 5% more performance on average, which can be attributed to its high number of cores. The fact that the 14900K uses an older manufacturing process does not help save its case either. Both factors ultimately lead to power waste and a larger carbon footprint.

Moreover, if you want to get more information on power consumption, you should read our detailed guide on Gaming PC Power Usage.

Winner: AMD’s Ryzen 9 7900X3D

Price And Availability

The i9 14900K has a current price of around $579, which is a hefty price to pay considering that the Ryzen 9 7900X3D can be bought for around $500 at Amazon at the moment. This means that the i9 is significantly more expensive than the Ryzen.

As for availability, these processors should be stocked up at most big computer parts stores around the globe.

What We Recommend

Having examined the ins and outs of these processors, this part of the comparison will weigh out the good and bad parts of both chips. 

Starting with the i9 14900K, it provides class-leading performance, but it has its caveats. Admittedly, most consumers do not care about these problems, but they do weigh in. First and foremost, it does not offer a substantial improvement over its predecessor. The added headaches of the higher power consumption and temperatures are no good things either.

Moving on to the Ryzen 9 7900X3D, it performs excellently for the power it consumes, but it is not the best at anything it does, despite being one of the highest-tier processors AMD sells. For starters, it is equal, if not lower, to the gaming performance of the Ryzen 7 7800X3D while being more expensive. It also doesn’t perform as well in productivity tasks as Intel processors with enormous core counts.

If we had to recommend a single processor for gaming out of the, we would tell you to shill out a little extra money for the i9 14900K, as the consistent gaming performance is worth it.

Pros And Cons

More From Ryzen 9 7900X3D

• Core i9-13900KS Vs Ryzen 9 7900X3D
• Ryzen 9 7900X3D Vs Core i7-13700K
• i9-13900KF Vs Ryzen 9 7900X3D

More From 14900K

• Core i9-14900K Vs Ryzen 9 7950X3D

Shehryar Khan

[Comparisons Expert]

Shehryar Khan, a seasoned PC hardware expert, brings over three years of extensive experience and a deep passion for the world of technology. With a love for building PCs and a genuine enthusiasm for exploring the latest advancements in components, his expertise shines through his work and dedication towards this field. Currently, Shehryar is rocking a custom loop setup for his built.

Get In Touch: shehryar@tech4gamers.com

Core i9 14900K Vs Ryzen 9 7900X3D: 5 Games Tested is a post from Tech4Gamers - All About Technology And Gaming News

Key Takeaways

• Testing the Core i7-13700K, our editor Nauman has given it a solid rating of 9/10 due to  its utilization of hybrid Raptor Lake architecture. However, the i9-14900K generation has slightly updated the architecture and named it Raptor Lake S Refresh.
• According to my benchmarks, the Core i9-14900K renders 5.33% better performance than the i7-13700K at 1080p resolution.
• During my tests, the Core i7-13700K had 4.5% better power efficiency and 3.3% more enhanced thermal efficiency than the i9-14900K.

Comparison Table

Architectural Differences

• Process Node: The i9-14900K and i7-13700K share a common manufacturing process, both crafted at an advanced 10nm Intel node, showing their analogous fabrication technology.
• CPU Socket: Coming to the CPU socket, both the processors utilize the identical FCLGA1700 socket, comprising 1700 pins, to interface with the motherboard’s CPU socket.
• CPU Memory: The i9-14900K and i7-13700K have a max memory size of 128GB and support both DDR4 and DDR5. They have two memory channels and a max memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s.
• Clock Speed: The i7-13700K boasts a 6.25% higher base clock of performance cores, while the i9-14900K has an 11.1% greater maximum turbo clock. Additionally, both the CPUs feature Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 Frequency.
• Integrated Graphics: Both processors feature dual-core Intel UHD Graphics 770 as their iGPU solution, thus ensuring concurrent graphics prowess. Nevertheless, the iGPU of the i9-14900K has a 3.12% higher graphics frequency.

Gaming Benchmarks

Let’s put both processors through rigorous gaming benchmark tests to understand their performance better. I inspected the gaming performance of the Core i9-14900K vs i7-13700K for 12 challenging games at 1080p. The gaming setup I employed had the following specifications.

Test Bench

• OS: Windows 11
• GPU: Asus Rog RTX 4090 OC Edition
• Motherboard: MSI MAG Z790 Tomahawk DDR5 
• RAM: XPG Lancer RGB 32GB 7200MT/s DDR5
• SSD: XPG GAMMIX S70 BLADE 2TB NVMe
• PSU: Corsair RMi Series RM850i – 850 Watt
• Cooler: ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 360 – Multi-Compatible AIO Water Cooler

A Plague Tale: Requiem

• Let’s begin with analyzing the gameplay of A Plague Tale: Requiem. The i9-14900K demonstrated an average frame rate of 150 FPS, 2.0% higher than the i7-13700K’s average of 147 FPS.
• Examining the worst 1% performance, I observed that the i7-13700K achieved 134 FPS, marginally lagging behind the i9-14900K’s 136 FPS.

Assassin’s Creed Mirage

• In my next gameplay, Assassin’s Creed Mirage, the i9-14900K scored a respectable average of 197 FPS, surpassing the i7-13700K’s 189 FPS by 4.2%.
• Considering the low 1% frame rates, I noted that the i9-14900K (164 FPS) established a greater lead of 16 FPS in this game, beating the i7-13700K’s 148 FPS.

Assetto Corsa Competizione

• During my test of Assetto Corsa Competizione, the i9-14900K outperformed the i7-13700K by 6.2%, achieving a brilliant 172 FPS compared to later’s 162 FPS.
• Regarding low 1% performance, the i7-13700K managed 135 FPS, whereas the i9-14900K mustered a higher frame rate of 149 FPS.

Baldur’s Gate 3

• In my evaluation of Baldur’s Gate 3, the i9-14900K topped the i7-13700K by 4.5%, attaining an impressive 155 FPS compared to the latter’s 148 FPS.
• The i7-13700K yielded 127 FPS at low 1% performance, while the i9-14900K demonstrated a higher frame rate of 132 FPS.

Cyberpunk 2077

• During my assessment of Cyberpunk 2077, the i9-14900K defeated the i7-13700K’s 163 FPS by 3.7%, achieving a superb 169 FPS.
• Per my testing, the i9-14900K delivered a higher frame rate of 142 FPS, while the i7-13700K provided 137 FPS at the low 1% performance.

Hitman 3

• While playing Hitman 3, I got 282 FPS with the i9-14900K, an 8.05% better average performance than the i7-13700K’s 261 FPS.
• Additionally, the i9-14900K exhibited superior low 1% performance with a frame rate of 253 FPS, outshining the i7-13700K’s 238 FPS.

Hogwarts Legacy

• According to my test of Hogwarts Legacy’s gameplay, the i7-13700K was only 2 FPS or 2.7% behind the i9-14900K’s average frame rate of 76 FPS.
• In the low 1% performance domain, the i9-14900K excelled further with a notable 50 FPS, eclipsing the i7-13700K’s performance at 45 FPS.

Spider-Man Remastered

• Assessing my Spider-Man Remastered gameplay, the i7-13700K lagged behind the i9-14900K’s 156 FPS by 11 FPS, or 7.6%, with an average frame rate of 145 FPS.
• Regarding low 1% framerates, the i9-14900K exhibited superior prowess with an impressive 128 FPS, outshining the i7-13700K’s performance at 123 FPS.

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor

• During my assessment of Star Wars Jedi: Survivor, the i9-14900K outpaced the rival by 6.3%, achieving a beautiful 168 FPS on average compared to 158 FPS for the i7-13700K.
• Furthermore, per low 1% framerates, the i9-14900K showcased its supremacy again, boasting an impressive 152 FPS against the i7-13700K’s performance at 144 FPS.

Starfield

• In scrutinizing my experience with Starfield, the i7-13700K fell short of the i9-14900K’s 108 FPS by 11 FPS or 11.3%, maintaining an average frame rate of 97 FPS.
• At the low 1% performance, the i9-14900K proved its superiority, achieving a remarkable 91 FPS contrasted to the i7-13700K’s 84 FPS.

The Last of Us Part I

• While playing The Last of Us Part I, the i9-14900K overtook the i7-13700K’s 177 FPS by 2.8% with an impressive average score of 182 FPS.
• About the low 1% performance of two CPUs in this game, I observed that the i7-13700K could only manage 158 FPS, while the i9-14900K turned 169 FPS.

Watch Dogs: Legion

• Considering my Watch Dogs: Legion gameplay results, I found that the i9-14900K heads the i7-13700K’s 161 FPS by 4.3%, attaining an average of 168 FPS.
• In my test, the i9-14900K delivered a prominent low 1% performance with a frame rate of 124 FPS, while the i7-13700K produced only 117 FPS.

Editor`s Note

For a well-rounded choice that delivers strong gaming and work performance without straining your budget, my top recommendation is the i7-13700K. It’s cost-effective, providing excellent value with a 51.8% lower price tag compared to the Core i9-14900K, making it an easier selection for balanced performance on a budget. You can read more about it in another review of ours where we put the i7-14700K to test against the i7-13700K.

– Abde Manaf

Overall Gaming Performance

Average Frame Rate

When I analyzed my overall benchmark metrics of the Core i9-14900K vs i7-13700K, the i9-14900K came out the top in gaming mastery. It produced a striking average of 158.0 FPS at 1080p, surpassing the i7-13700K’s 150.0 FPS average enactment.

I played 12 challenging games at 1080p, and the i7-13700K could not beat the i9-14900K’s performance in any game. Hence, the i9-14900K demonstrates a 5.33% gaming performance edge over the i7-13700K at 1080p.

Low 1% Frame Rate

Analyzing the metrics of low 1% performance, the i9-14900K demonstrates a mean of 132.0 FPS, surpassing the i7-13700K’s 124.0 FPS. So, at the low 1% gaming performance, the i9-14900K prevails over the i7-13700K by a margin of 6.4%.

Winner: Intel’s Core-i9 14900K

Gaming Power Consumption

During my gaming spell, the i9-14900K dissipated an average power of 120.75 watts. On the other hand, the i7-13700K had a comparatively lower power draw of 115.5 watts.

About the performance-to-power ratio, the i7-13700K yielded 1.31 frames per watt, while the i9-14900K registered 1.30 frames per watt. Accordingly, the i7-13700K leads the i9-14900K by an average of 4.5% in terms of power efficiency, leading to savings in electricity costs.

To learn more about energy consumption in gaming, read Gaming PC Power Usage.

Winner: Intel’s Core-i7 13700K

Gaming Temperatures

During the course of my testing, the  i9-14900K maintained an average gaming temperature of 67.8°C. In contrast, the i7-13700K exhibited a cooler thermal profile, registering an average temperature of 65.6°C.

The i7-13700K exhibited elevated temperatures relative to the i9-14900K in specific gaming scenarios. However, it concurrently maintained a lower average temperature across the tested games. My results indicate that the i7-13700K proves a thermal efficiency superiority of 3.3% over the i9-14900K.

To save your processor from overheating, seek guidance from our guide on How To Lower CPU Temperature.

Winner: Intel’s Core-i7 13700K

Price And Availability

Regarding the MSRP, Intel launched the i7-13700K at a price point of $419 and introduced the i9-14900K with a price tag of $599.

Nevertheless, the pricing dynamics of processors fluctuate with market demands and the introduction of newer models. The i7-13700K presently commands a retail price of $364 on Amazon, while the i9-14900K is available at a rate of $575.

Coming to performance per dollar, the i7-13700K offers 0.41 FPS per dollar, while you get 0.27 FPS for every $1 with the i9-14900K. Thus, the i7-13700K surpasses the i9-14900K by 51.8% in cost-effectiveness.

Finally, about availability, both of the processors are easily available in both online and offline markets. You can also order them from Intel’s official store.

Which One Should You Go For?

To conclude the comparison of the Core i9-14900K vs i7-13700K, let us decide which of these processors aligns more suitably with your preferences and computational requirements.

If you are looking for an optimal processor that balances excellent performance for gaming and routing work at a lower cost, I recommend the judicious selection of the i7-13700K. It is 51.8% more cost-effective than the i9-14900K, providing duly justified performance in budget.

Notwithstanding, for those inclined to invest without constraint in pursuit of paramount gaming prowess, I recommend the i9-14900K. It also performs incredibly well in terms of productivity and content generation.

Pros And Con

More From Core i7-13700K:

• Core i9-13900K Vs Core i7-13700K
• Core i7-13700K Vs Core i7-12700K
• Core i7-13700K Vs Core i5-13600K

More From Core i9-14900K:

• Core i9-14900K Vs Ryzen 9 7950X3D

Abde Manaf

[Comparisons Expert]

Abdemanaf is a skilled creative writer who has been honing his craft since 2011. While initially working in different fields, he found a passion for technology and has been exploring the tech world since early 2015. Over the years, he has developed an in-depth knowledge of the latest tech trends and product offerings by various companies.

Abdemanaf’s writing reflects his analytical mindset and ability to think critically. He has a knack for breaking down complex technical information into easily digestible pieces, making his articles engaging and accessible to readers from all backgrounds. In February 2022, he joined Tech4Gamers as a blog and product comparison writer, where he has been able to hone his skills further.

As a writer, Abdemanaf is dedicated to staying up-to-date with the latest technological advancements and trends, enabling him to provide readers with the most relevant and accurate information. He is always eager to learn more and is constantly seeking new challenges to improve his skills.

Get In Touch: manaf@tech4gamers.com

Core i9-14900K Vs i7-13700K: We Tested 13 Games is a post from Tech4Gamers - All About Technology And Gaming News

Key Takeaway

• According to our tests, the Core i9 14900K is around 13% faster than the Ryzen 9 7900X at 1080p, running around 165 FPS on average instead of the Ryzen’s 146 FPS average.
• From what we observed, the 14900K uses around 23% more power than the Ryzen 9 7900X at around 123 watts, instead of the 99.5 watts of the Ryzen.
• The Core i9 14900K is around $160 more expensive than the Ryzen 9 7900X at launch.

Comparison Table

Architectural Differences

1. Frequency: The Ryzen 9 7900X has a base clock of around 4.7GHz, while it can boost all the way up to 5.6GHz. In contrast, the lowest frequency the i9 can achieve is around 3.2GHz on its efficiency cores, while it can go all the way up to 6GHz.
2. Core Count: The Ryzen has 12 cores, which add up to 24 threads, while the i9 has 16 efficiency cores in addition to 8 performance cores, adding up to a behemoth of 32 threads in total. 
3. L3 Cache: The L3 cache size is around double on the Ryzen, around 64MB, much higher than the 36MB L3 cache of the i9.
4. Default TDP: Both processors can go up to very large power draws, but the Ryzen draws around 170 watts of power at default, while the i9 only takes aback 125 watts. We will see their real-world performance in a later section of this comparison.
5. Process Node: The i9 14900K has 10nm processing nodes, while the Ryzen 9 uses a newer 5nm process size.

Gaming Benchmarks

You might wonder about the actual real-world differences between these processors, which is why we’ve put both these processors through rigorous testing using our test setup.

Test Bench

The setup we’ve used in this comparison puts the processor as the only point of failure in the system to give you the worst-case scenario for when your CPU becomes the limiting factor in your system. To do this, we’ve tested several games at the 1080p resolution.

• MOBO – Gigabyte X670E Master
• MOBO – MSI MAG Z790 Tomohawk DDR5
• RAM –XPG Lancer RGB 32GB 7200MT/s DDR5 RAM
• CPU Cooler – Artic Liquid Freezer II 360
• Graphics Card – Asus ROG  RTX 4090 OC Edition
• SSD – Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus G 2TB
• OS – Windows 11 Version 21H2

Baldur’s Gate 3

• We noticed quite a dramatic difference between our two cards when benchmarking the city area of Baldur’s Gate 3, with an average framerate of around 155 FPS on the 14900K, while the 7900X had an output of around 123 FPS. This equates to a massive 26% advantage for the Intel processor.
• The 1% lows of the 14900K hung around 132 FPS in our short benchmark run, which is higher than the average performance of the AMD processor. Meanwhile, the 1% lows of the 7900X was around 101 FPS.

Starfield

• It is no secret that AMD had a big part in the creation of Starfield, but the Intel processors knocked it out of the park in our test of the game. The 14900K had an average framerate of 108 FPS, while the Ryzen 9 7900X had a much lower average of around 87 FPS. The advantage here for the Intel processor is up to 24%.
• The 14900K had 1% lows of around 91 FPS, making the gameplay significantly smoother than the 7900X, which had a minimum framerate of around 77 FPS.

Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty

• The 14900K had an average framerate of 170 FPS in our benchmark of Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty. The 7900X kept disappointing us with an average framerate of around 146 FPS. The Intel processor had an advantage of around 16% in this game.
• The 14900K had a relatively high framerate for its 1% lows, with minimum framerates of around 142 FPS. The Ryzen 9 7900X had minimums closer to 125 FPS.

The Last Of Us Part 1

• The Last Of Us Part 1 did not fare any better on the AMD processor, with an average framerate of around 166 FPS, while the 14900K scored above the competition with a framerate of 182 FPS. This gave the Intel processor an approximate 9.6% advantage in our test of this game.
• The minimum framerates of the Ryzen 9 7900X hung around 144 FPS, while the 14900K had lows of 169 FPS. The difference was barely noticeable at such a high framerate, but it was there nonetheless.

Spider-Man Remastered

• Though the differences were still there, Spider-Man Remastered had both of our processors relatively close to each other in terms of average framerate. The i9 clocked in at around 156 FPS, while the Ryzen came across with an average of 147 FPS, marking a 6% difference between the two.
• The 1% lows were even closer, with the Ryzen coming across with minimums of around 125 FPS, while the Intel processor came with minimums of around 128 FPS. This marked an almost similar performance between the two contenders.

A Plague Tale: Requiem

• These processors were relatively close once again in our test of A Plague Tale: Requiem, with the Intel processor getting an average framerate of 150 FPS in A Plague Tale Requiem, while the 7900X came out with an average of 146 FPS. This was an advantage of around 2.7% for our Intel processor.
• The 1% lows were also closer than ever, with the i9 giving a minimum framerate of 136 FPS, while the Ryzen had a minimum framerate of 133 FPS.

Assassin’s Creed Mirage

• In our test of the new Assassin’s Creed game, the Intel processor had an average framerate of 197 FPS, while the 7900X got an average of 183 FPS. This difference equates to an advantage of around 7.6%.
• The 1% lows were closer in this game than the averages. The i9 had an average of 164 FPS, while the minimum framerate was around 161 FPS for the Ryzen 9 7900X.

Editor`s Note

Considering your budget constraints and performance needs, I recommend the Core i9 14900K. It offers exceptional gaming and multi-threaded performance, albeit at a higher cost. If top-tier performance is your priority and you can accommodate the budget, the i9 14900K is the optimal choice. But you can also read more about how well the Ryzen 9 7900X stacks up against the i9-12900K in another of our reviews.

– Shehryar Khan

Overall Gaming Performance

The i9 beat out its competition by quite a bit, with an average framerate of 165 FPS in our tests, while the Ryzen 9 was around 146 FPS on average. This comes out to a performance uplift of around 13% advantage for the Intel processor. Do note that our cumulative performance includes some games we did not discuss above. The overall gaming experience was significantly smoother on the Core i9 14900K.

The 1% lows had deficiencies for the Ryzen as well, culminating in an average of around 140 FPS for the i9, while the Ryzen 9 had minimums of around 123 FPS on average in our tests.

Winner: Intel’s Core-i9 14900K

Temperatures

All the i9 14900K cores can’t be packed without some high thermal numbers, which we found in our testing. The Ryzen 9 had an average temperature of around 53°C, while the Intel processor hung out closer to 56°C. Our tests stood to prove that the 14900K ran slightly warmer than the 7900X.

Bear in mind that the conditions for our test bench could be very different than your setup, so your mileage might vary. So, if you are facing high temperatures, you can opt to another guide on How To Lower CPU Temperature.

Winner: AMD’s Ryzen 9 7900X

Power Consumption

On average, the Ryzen consumed 99.5 watts of power, while the Intel processor was significantly more power-hungry, with a power consumption of around 123 watts. The higher power consumption comes hand in hand with the higher performance of the i9.

The performance per watt of the Ryzen comes out to be around 10% greater than that of the Intel processor. Realistically, the drastic difference in performance can justify this power draw situation.

In case you are a gaming fan, we have dissected this topic in great detail in our guide Gaming PC Power Usage.

Winner: AMD’s Ryzen 9 7900X

Price And Availability

The performance of the i9 14900K comes with a hefty price tag of $589, while the Ryzen 9 7900X comes relatively cheap at around $429. This makes the Core i9 14900K significantly more expensive than the AMD chip.

Both processors should be accessible all around the globe in any relatively large computer store.

What We Recommend

By and large, the comparison of the Core i9 14900K vs Ryzen 9 7900X comes down to the budget restraints you might have on your build. The i9 performs significantly faster but comes in at a significantly higher price as well.

We find it important to point out that if your concerns lie with gaming only, rearing towards the Ryzen 7 7800X3D may make you a happier customer. 

In conclusion, the i9 14900K is for people who want great gaming and multi-threaded performance, while the Ryzen 9 7900X is a cheaper option that gets you good results.

Pros And Cons

More From Ryzen 9 7900X

• Ryzen 7 7700X Vs Ryzen 9 7900X
• Intel i9-13900k Vs Ryzen 9 7900X
• Ryzen 9 7950x Vs Ryzen 9 7900x

More From Core i9 14900K

• Core i9-14900K Vs Ryzen 9 7950X3D

Shehryar Khan

[Comparisons Expert]

Shehryar Khan, a seasoned PC hardware expert, brings over three years of extensive experience and a deep passion for the world of technology. With a love for building PCs and a genuine enthusiasm for exploring the latest advancements in components, his expertise shines through his work and dedication towards this field. Currently, Shehryar is rocking a custom loop setup for his built.

Get In Touch: shehryar@tech4gamers.com

Core i9 14900K Vs Ryzen 9 7900X: A Battle of Titans is a post from Tech4Gamers - All About Technology And Gaming News

Key Takeaways

• Throughout our testing, the RTX 3060 Ti was around 20% faster than the RTX 3060 at 1440p.
• The power consumption was around 20% greater on the RTX 3060 Ti during our testing as well.
• The RTX 3060 Ti is only $50 more expensive than the RTX 3060 as of the time of updating this article.

Comparison Table

Architectural Differences

1. Process Node: As two graphics cards from the same generation, the RTX 3060 and 3060 Ti use Samsung’s 8nm processing node.
2. Clock Speed: As you would expect, the RTX 3060 Ti is clocked slightly higher than the RTX 3060. It has a base frequency of 1410MHz, while the RTX 3060 has a base clock of only 1320MHz. The boost clock is unexpectedly lower on the RTX 3060 Ti, around 1670MHz than the 1780MHz of the 3060.
3. TDP: The RTX 3060 Ti has a TDP of 200 watts, while the RTX 3060 takes it down a tad with a TDP of 170 watts.
4. VRAM: Confusingly, the lower tier RTX 3060 has more VRAM than the higher end RTX 3060 Ti, 12GB and 8GB, respectively. The 3060 Ti has a wider 256-bit bus, though, while the RTX 3060 uses a 196-bit memory bus.

Benchmarks

With the differences between the RTX 3060 and 3060 Ti GPUs clarified, it’s time to put them through their paces. Understanding a graphics card’s efficiency is just as important as knowing its price. Simply put, we need to know whether or not a GPU’s performance justifies its price.

PC Specifications

• Processor: Intel Core i9-10900K
• Motherboard: MSI MPG Z490 GAMING PLUS
• CPU Cooler: Corsair iCUE H150i PRO XT RGB
• Graphics Cards: GeForce RTX 3060 12GB (MSI VENTUS 2X) & Geforce RTX 3060 Ti 8GB (MSI VENTUS 3X)
• RAM: 32Gb RAM DDR4 3600Mhz
• Power Supply:  CORSAIR RM850i 850W
• Resolution: 1440p

Cyberpunk 2077

• In the first game of our testing, the RTX 3060 Ti had an average framerate of only 44 FPS, while the RTX 3060 had an even lower performance of only 37 FPS. This comes out to a difference of around 19%, in the advantage of the RTX 3060 Ti, of course.
• The 1% lows were even worse on both cards, around 32 FPS on the RTX 3060 and 38 FPS on the 3060 Ti.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

• The second game on the chopping block had a 21% performance advantage for the RTX 3060 Ti. Our testing showed that the RTX 3060 had an average performance of 47 FPS in SotTR, while the RTX 3060 Ti managed to get an average framerate of 57 FPS.
• The 1% lows were around 41 FPS, while the RTX 3060 Ti was noticeably less stuttery, with minimums closer to 48 FPS.

Forza Horizon 5

• Testing Forza Horizon 5 was a rather pleasant experience on both our graphics cards, though the RTX 3060 Ti ran it 20% better in terms of average framerates. The RTX 3060 had a performance of 115 FPS on average, while the 3060 Ti leaped ahead with a performance of 138 FPS.
• The 1% lows were around 100 FPS on the RTX 3060, while the Ti was once again 20% ahead with lows of 120 FPS.

Horizon Zero Dawn

• The RTX 3060 Ti leaped 20% ahead of the RTX 3060 once again in our test of Horizon Zero Dawn. The higher-tier card had an average framerate of 78 FPS, while the RTX 3060 delivered an average of 65 FPS.
• The 1% lows were 61 FPS on the RTX 3060 and a much smoother 70 FPS on the RTX 3060 Ti.

Battlefield V

• Our test of Battlefield V ran 18.75% better on the RTX 3060 Ti, with an average framerate of 76 FPS, while the RTX 3060 had an average framerate closer to 64 FPS.
• The 1% lows were around 66 FPS, while the RTX 3060 was hitting 56 FPS, which felt noticeably more stuttery.

Red Dead Redemption 2

• The average framerate difference returned to 20% in our run of Red Dead Redemption 2, with the RTX 3060 averaging a  framerate of around 60 FPS, while the RTX 3060 Ti had a framerate of around 72 FPS.
• The 1% lows dwindled down to around 51 FPS for the lower-end GPU, while the RTX 3060 Ti managed to get a minimum of 57 FPS.

Control

• Our test of Control on Ultra settings once again showed a 20% difference between the performance of these GPUs, with the RTX 3060 delivering an average framerate of 56 FPS, while the RTX 3060 Ti delivered around 67 FPS on average.
• The 1% lows were around 53 FPS when we tested this game with the 3060, whereas the RTX 3060 Ti gave minimums of around 63 FPS.

Overall Gaming Performance

In the seven games we tested, the RTX 3060 Ti consistently came on top with an average framerate of 76 FPS, whereas the RTX 3060 had an average of around 63 FPS, which is around 19% lower.

The 1% lows were also 19% lower on the RTX 3060, averaging 56 FPS in opposition to the 67 FPS lows that the RTX 3060 Ti produced.

Temperatures

The temperatures were around 51°C on average on the RTX 3060, whereas the RTX 3060 Ti had an average temperature of around 54°C. The extra toastiness of the RTX 3060 Ti is no point of concern.

Power Consumption

Power consumption scaled linearly with the performance of these GPUs, with a 20% increase on average between the two. The RTX 3060 Ti had an average power consumption of around 176 watts, while the RTX 3060 took aback 146 watts.

Price And Availability

The RTX 3060 can be had for around $249 new from online retailers, whereas the RTX 3060 Ti goes for around $299.

Both graphics are very relevant in this market and should be available around the world.

RTX 3060 vs RTX 3060 Ti: What We Recommend

Now that we have the details on the RTX 3060 Ti vs RTX 3060, this part of the comparison will answer the question of what you should get.

Realistically, the $49 upcharge for the RTX 3060 Ti is worth the 20% or so performance uplift for most people, so we would encourage anyone with the budget to go for the RTX 3060 Ti.

If you find the RTX 3060 for a good deal or can’t afford the RTX 3060 Ti, remember that this card was not made for anything higher than 1080p. If you keep your expectations in check, the RTX 3060 can be a delightful card to use on a daily.

Abde Manaf

[Comparisons Expert]

Abdemanaf is a skilled creative writer who has been honing his craft since 2011. While initially working in different fields, he found a passion for technology and has been exploring the tech world since early 2015. Over the years, he has developed an in-depth knowledge of the latest tech trends and product offerings by various companies.

Abdemanaf’s writing reflects his analytical mindset and ability to think critically. He has a knack for breaking down complex technical information into easily digestible pieces, making his articles engaging and accessible to readers from all backgrounds. In February 2022, he joined Tech4Gamers as a blog and product comparison writer, where he has been able to hone his skills further.

As a writer, Abdemanaf is dedicated to staying up-to-date with the latest technological advancements and trends, enabling him to provide readers with the most relevant and accurate information. He is always eager to learn more and is constantly seeking new challenges to improve his skills.

Get In Touch: manaf@tech4gamers.com

RTX 3060 Vs 3060 Ti: Should You Upgrade? [2023 Tests] is a post from Tech4Gamers - All About Technology And Gaming News