Nullity wrote on Oct 8, 2024, 14:26:

RogueSix wrote on Oct 8, 2024, 14:05:

Nullity wrote on Oct 8, 2024, 13:45:
... and for gaming they compared to the 7950X3D instead of the 7800X3D, showing they're still not attempting to be honest

Huh? Depending on the game/website/benchmark/methodology, the 7950X3D is actually a tiny little bit faster than the 7800X3D but the performance difference is generally negligible. It is also the 16 core part and the Intel CPU is a 24 core part so actually I would say that it is more honest to compare 16 cores (7950X3D) vs. 24 cores (285K) than 8 cores (7800X3D) vs. 24 cores (285K).

The 7950 has 2 CCDs (each with 8 cores), only one of which uses the X3D cache. If the non-3D cache CCD isn't disabled during gaming (core parking), performance will be worse than the 7800 with just a single CCD. So in essence (for gaming specifically), the 7950 and 7800 X3D CPUs are both 8-core parts. I don't trust Intel to do this comparison properly.

Perhaps I should have gone into more detail in my original post. In any case, obviously we need to wait for independent tests.

Yes, but as you can see from the benchmarks (on the same slide), they also compared the two CPUs outside of gaming so I think that Intel chose the correct competitor. The 7950X3D and 7800X3D are almost identical in games due to the reasons you stated but in apps all 16C/32T of the 7950X3D get to work so a comparison against this specific AMD CPU seems fair. In fact, wrt gaming, good on Intel to compare to the 3D parts. They could have compared to the regular non-3D CPUs to make themselves look better in gaming if that was the idea (my Chinese is kinda rusty so I can't read the slide titles ).

Oh well, only 16 more days... then we'll get independent benchmarks of 285K vs. 7800X3D, 7950X3D, 14900K(S), 9700X, 9900X, 9950X until we're blue, green and pink in the face .