Carzy Zarx’s PC Gaming Emporium - Catch Up on All the Latest PC Gaming Related News

[Jizz_Beard_thePirate]

Bofferbrauer2 said:

Captain_Yuri said:

Yea but obviously this means a worse cooler will get lower clocks which will get worse performance than in their benchmarks. 7600X running at 93C with a 360 AIO isn't exactly a good thing not to mention, the room will get hotter more quickly than previous gens. The fact that a 5800X3D runs cooler than a 7600X while delivering similar performance + having two extra cores is crazy.

I'll wait for the other tests from HU before I judge the chips. Having the entry-level chip, the 7600X, beat the 5800X3D (a more expensive CPU, though if you have the Mobo and Ram still a cheaper upgrade), is nothing to scoff at.

Again, I wonder why on LTT the 5800X3D stood out so much in some reviews when it got beaten or was just marginally in front at HU in those same games with a weaker CPU.

Entry level chip that had a 360 AIO to get the higher than expected clocks you mean... And yes, I would expect the newer entry level chip to beat the last gen high end chips... That's how it's always been. The problem this time around is how little the performance has improved while requiring an expensive upgrade. And if you believe there's going to be much of a difference between low end chips and high end chips, all you need to do is look at how close the 5000 series are... If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if the higher tier chips perform worse with the same cooler because they are harder to cool thus gaining lower clocks.

And yea, the LTT benches did stand out with the 5800X3D scores but their benches also showed the 7000 series very handily beating 12900k which is also different than what many other reviewers show as well. So idk... Other than them being weird.