Does PoE greatly benefit from a CPU's 3D V-Cache?

made a difference with 7800x3d for me
more fluid etc...
highly recomended using amd x3d tech with poe

"

skjutengris#6643 wrote:

made a difference with 7800x3d for me
more fluid etc...
highly recomended using amd x3d tech with poe

Yes, kind of what I'm expecting. 0.1% and 1% Lows are responsible for that, and the X3D CPUs target that. I don't care about raw FPS in 1080p since I play in 4k, and in terms of benchmarks, the 7600X3D is pretty close to the 7800X3D, though the latter is currently €130-150 more expensive, so the former was a clear choice for me. Decided to get one before they are all gone. People haven't caught up yet and are still too entranced by the 9800X3D to realize. Particularly in 4k, all 3 are pretty close to each other.

That said, there are some games where the lack of cores is a noticeable drawback. You can see this in Gamers Nexus' review of the 7600X3D, where games like Civ VI benefit from more cores. However, the 7600X3D has insane FPS per Watt efficiency and is currently the most power efficient Gaming CPU on the market. Really odd how it is still flying under the radar.

Should have gotten the 7800X3D considering you also do Youtube on the side. For 4k it doesn't matter much right now but there will be a difference once the 5090 comes out. 7600X3D vs 7800X3D not so much but the 9800X3D will be very juicy. It is and likely will continue being unobtanium for quite some time, though.

These chips are all awesome though. Can't recall the last time my 7800X3D sucked more than 36W while gaming.

"

Ulsarek#7159 wrote:

Should have gotten the 7800X3D considering you also do Youtube on the side. For 4k it doesn't matter much right now but there will be a difference once the 5090 comes out.

I will not be getting a 5090, I already have a 4080 that I bought 9 months ago.

I occasionally upload something to YouTube, sure, but I really don't care whether the video takes a few minutes longer to render. The 12400 was rendering in a decent amount of time and the 7600X3D renders slightly faster than it. That does not warrant an extra €150.

As for power consumption, the 7600X3D is even 11% more efficient than the 7800X3D (which previously sat on the throne). :)

Edit: For pricing, see here and here.

"

BaumisMagicalWorld#0673 wrote:

"

Ulsarek#7159 wrote:

Should have gotten the 7800X3D considering you also do Youtube on the side. For 4k it doesn't matter much right now but there will be a difference once the 5090 comes out.

I will not be getting a 5090, I already have a 4080 that I bought 9 months ago.

I occasionally upload something to YouTube, sure, but I really don't care whether the video takes a few minutes longer to render. The 12400 was rendering in a decent amount of time and the 7600X3D renders slightly faster than it. That does not warrant an extra €150.

As for power consumption, the 7600X3D is even 11% more efficient than the 7800X3D (which previously sat on the throne). :)

Edit: For pricing, see here and here.

Ah, Austria. Makes sense. It was the other way around in Germany when the 7600X3D came out due to availability. Out of curiosity what does the 7600X3D pull during juiced maps?

"

Ulsarek#7159 wrote:

Out of curiosity what does the 7600X3D pull during juiced maps?

Can't tell you that because I just ordered it today after my refund for the 13700K was confirmed. It will likely arrive sometime next week. I'll report back when I have it all set up. I haven't had an AMD system in like 12 years.

"

BaumisMagicalWorld#0673 wrote:

"

Ulsarek#7159 wrote:

Out of curiosity what does the 7600X3D pull during juiced maps?

Can't tell you that because I just ordered it today after my refund for the 13700K was confirmed. It will likely arrive sometime next week. I'll report back when I have it all set up. I haven't had an AMD system in like 12 years.

I see. Well then, good luck! It's quite the difference coming from Intel myself. Make sure to read up on pbo and on how to set up a negative curve - it's very much worth it.

"

Ulsarek#7159 wrote:

It's quite the difference coming from Intel myself.

I will say this: If it performs similarly to my 13700K, then I'd get that kind of performance for a fraction of the power draw. For reference, the i7 would pull around 170W, sometimes even over 200W. That's a lot when you compare it to around 60W for the 7600X3D. Not sure how much more I would gain with a small undervolt, but I'm never against better power efficiency. My 4080 is undervolted, too.

Edit: I used this for reference.

There's a bit more to it but in general you're just benefitting from setting up a negative curve. Better thermals, more sustained boost clocks while still performing slightly better than stock. Since these chips can't be overclocked there's no harm it. If you're not a benchmark person then doing a -20 all core gets the job done, most if not all chips from that gen can do it easily.

For comparison; on stock my 7800X3D wouldn't boost and consistently stay at 5050MHz which inherently isn't that bad, 4925-ish was still very close to the advertised speeds. After some trial and error I settled for a stable -30 and now consistently sit at 5050MHz, while dropping 6°C in process. Chasing synthetic benchmark numbers is also a thing for quick comparisons but the above approach actually gave me better 1% and .1% lows - and that is very noticeable. Especially in games like PoE.

"

Ulsarek#7159 wrote:

If you're not a benchmark person then doing a -20 all core gets the job done

I am, to some degree. I mostly benchmark my GPUs when I get new ones. I don't have any meaningful experience with CPU overclocking, as it was easy to do with Intel's Turbo mode. I briefly had a 7900X before I returned it and exchanged it for the 13700K (was cheaper), so I have at least touched on it before. But thanks, I won't forget to do my research before it arrives.