When someone posts on a World of Warcraft forum, on their World of Warcraft character, I think it’s sort of implied that it’s one of the games that they play even if they don’t outright mention it in their first post. But you’ve already made it clear that common sense isn’t your forte.
If you have WoW benchmarks, then by all means post them. Otherwise:
Protip: The results aren’t “bad” just because you don’t like them
Using a custom scene with different settings explains why their results aren’t a carbon copy of what you see on other sites, but actually the BG3 results from other sites aren’t particularly dissimilar overall. I’ve also since posted numbers from multiple games and multiple other sites.
Your entire objection seems to revolve around the relative position of the 5700X3D, when in fact my reason for posting those BG3 GamersNexus numbers in my first reply was to compare the 9950X against the 9800X3D (you know, the CPU the OP was planning to buy compared to the one I was actually recommending). I already explained why my side-comment about the 5700X3D was only related to the pricing of the two CPUs, although I do maintain that it probably would be faster than the 9950X in WoW.
You can stamp your feet and scream all you want to, I’ll consider it free entertainment. But as I’ve said already, my focus has always been on trying to help people, not indulge your narcissistic psychopathic desire to control the conversation inside someone else’s forum thread.
Another MAJOR benefit is the lack of need for super fast ram speed due to its large Cache which allows for faster access to frequently used data. Making latency almost nonexistent. I have personally tested this in wow. WoW is HIGHLY Ram Speed sensitive on a non-X3D CPU and drinks it up like water in the desert.
With the 9950x you would need a motherboard capable of 7800-8000mhz Ram Profiles (on AMD due to the loss of 1:1 FCLK) while you would only need (7200mhz+ on intel) to compete with the X3D CPU. WoW. 9800x3D is your go to CPU for pop it in turn on XMP/DOCP/Expo and your done. On the 9800x3D a 6000mhz Expo kit is all you need. Where you will notice the biggest difference between these CPUs is World Events, Raids or Major City hubs. Areas with congested with lots of people.
With all this said the 9950x presents more problems. Its a Dual CCD CPU. Think of it as two 9700x CPUs in the same socket. Unless you are using a 3rd party app like Process Lasso to isolate your game to 1 CCD you will introduce a LOT of Cross CCD latency that will feel like “Blips” or “hiccups” in your game. You may have have heard a term used for this on reddit called “The AMDIP.” Its been blown out of proportion but in reality its just cross CCD latency and is more prevalent in CPU intensive games like WoW. The 9000 series did away with a LOT of this latency but its still there
I feel like AMD needs to do a better job with marketing to steer consumers the right direction - a lot of folks will simply just buy “the best” or what they view as the best which ends up simply being the most expensive part, and unknowingly put themselves in a situation where they are underperforming.
Simply put 99.99% of users have zero need for the 12 or 16 core parts, and for those who do have use for these products, usually have the knowledge on how to optimize their hardware (like Lasso) to get optimal performance.
Consumers need to be steered toward the 6 and 8 core single CCD parts.
You are not wrong at all. I had to talk a friend on my battle tag out of buying the 7900x3D a few months ago
All he saw were the core numbers and he thought “bigger is better” and I had to explain to him that no actually the 7800x3D is better because in a game he will actually have 8 cores to deal with. With the 7900x3D he would only have six.
98% PC Building audience should just make the 9800x3D or whatever new variant of that same CPU is currently out their go to part. People who need a CPU like the 7950x3D are in a niche group. They know they need the CPU and they know why. Like you said they also know how to use process lasso to maximize that CPU
using “cores” as a way to judge performance is a poor way to understand performance (I know you know this). Steve from HB/techspot has several videos and articles on the subject yet you go straight to the comments and it’s filled with “more cores = more better”. It’s not that a specific number of cores is ever needed but rather a specific level of performance is needed.
100% if you are looking for top dog performance but all one needs to do is go look at the latest CPU review chart to find that info. End of the day more people will game on a 9600x rather than a 9800X3D.
specifically the configuration is just not great for gaming in general for reasons already described by shifty
the most common ways to measure levels of performances are synthetic benchmarks, which are also not really going to tell the whole story as “more cores” does end up resulting in “more better,” even if in games it doesn’t really end up being “more better”
the minutiae is just ever present and people should be exercising due diligence when purchasing, but we all know that doesn’t happen and complex concepts need to be dumbed down in order for the most people to get a decent level of information.
a good example is a diabetic diet; most people are unable (or simply unwilling) to comprehend the hows and whys of nutrition in general and you can’t tell the general population that it’s not necessarily about the food types in absolute terms, but the quantities, quality of foods, and methods of preparation that have effect. so you get messaging like “don’t eat excess sugar” which in of itself isn’t necessarily correct, but it gets the job done for most people unable to take in the whole big picture and the little details.
The downside is that you get people who will turn down a fresh fruit because it has more “sugar” and instead gobble down a sugar free cookie which has twice as many carbs in addition to artificial sweeteners that give you diarrhea. a bad choice but one driven by messaging that is tailored to the lowest common denominator.
the same goes for hardware. more cores generally does = more better
But not always.
Most people aren’t going to go looking at CPU deep dives, as evident in tech questions that pop up in the general discussion forum here. People buy what they see marketed. IMO they need to put little rating stickers on the CPUs, like they do in fighting games (power/speed/sturdiness etc) for economy, gaming, production.
many web sites like TPU, Toms, DF, techspot have large gaming suites across many engines. In fact techspot will sometimes go 45 games deep (their last example was AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D vs. Intel Core Ultra 9 285K) in reviews.
it typically doesn’t hurt if they are on the same CPU line but often times people compare prices (especially on pre-built units) rather than CPUs on the same line. So you will see something along the lines of 5800x vs 9600x (eight vs six core) so it’s slower IPC but more cores vs faster IPC and less cores.
