Should I wait 7000X3D or should I buy 5800x3D or i9-13900K

I’m in the same boat. Going to be upgrading from the i9-10850K. The other issue I run into is I play more than just MSFS. So it’s a trade off I could go for best performance in MSFS and have “worse” performance or FPS in other games. Or vice versa.

Also along that line I’m not a FPS snob as I don’t really care as long as stuff looks good and runs smooth. And seeing as how I don’t play COD or games like that often.

1 Like

Not really. I have only seen that in one benchmark, the Tom’s hardware one.

The Digital Foundry benchmark (published on Eurogamer) shows the 13900K winning decisively by 20%-30% over the 5800X3D in everything (average FPS, 1% lows, 5% lows etc.). In fact, even the 7900X is beating the 5800X3D handily.

Digital Foundry is the most reputable tester out there, in the same league as Gamers Nexus. Here:

The eteknix benchmark also shows the 13900K winning in 1% lows but losing in average fps:

These are the only reliable benchmarks I could find comparing the 13900k and 5800X3D in MSFS. Most of the YouTube benchmarks from small channels are fake.

It makes sense for the faster chip to handle 1% lows better. When there is a cache miss or error, the faster chip will easily win out. In fact, even the 7700x, 7900x would be better than the 5800X3D in those scenarios. Lows are what matter the most because they lead to stutters.

@Ramasurinen has explained this well here:

I think the real choice is between 13900K and 7900X/ 7950X for now. The 7900X is currently bugged in the Windows 2022H2 update but they both easily beat the 5800X3D. The 7900X even beats the 13900K in 1% lows!!

1 Like

From what I can see the numbers in Eurogamer review for 5800X3D made in June are identical as in the recent test of 13900K. Which means that either 13900K was tested in a newer MSFS version after SU10 with its performance improvements, or Digital Foundry has stashed an old, obsolete version of the sim to test all their CPUs. I don’t know if the latter is even possible, will the sim start without updating first?

If anything, Digital Foundry benchmarks show that 1% metric is mostly useless. The Intel CPU that has the best “1% lowest” metric in 1080p is the 12900K with 6000MT memory, but the same CPU also has the worst “1% lowest” metric in 1440p. It’s totally random.

1 Like

One outlier in a benchmark with hundreds of data points does not make the metric worthless. At least they are testing for all these metrics for people who actually can make sense of them.

The 13900K is beating the 5800X3D in 3 out 4 reviews. You are free to beleive whichever ones you want to but its good to remeber that they will all have some flaws. Here’s the fourth one:

Also, 13900K is far more overclockable which reviewers havn’t done fully yet. Even the RAM can go to 7400 MHz while they are still using it at 6000. The 13900K is ahead for now. Let’s see what 7000 X3D brings. No one remains king in the tech race for long.

1 Like

Just a heads up anyone who gets the Ryzen 9 :+1:

Thanks for that great collection of information! I was probably over-relying on the Tom’s Hardware benchmarks.

For me, the big question is whether to wait for the 7000 X3d series, or just go with a 13900K. As you’re saying, the regular 7900X beats the 13900K for lows in the eurogamer benchmarks. It’s a little behind in the other benchmarks, but the X3d cache would probably help somewhat with that.

In addition to @Ramasurinen’s discussion that you cited to, this thread says something similar about the X3d cache being less optimal at really heavy situations (where performance is the most critical):

I think these last two concepts highlight a real limitation of benchmarking for MSFS. A lot of “computer guy” types who don’t actually use it have no clue how to benchmark it, so they get wildly different results. I suspect that explains why something like the 5800X3d can have such divergent results. If Tom’s Hardware tested it at 15,000 feet, then the 5800X3d was in its very best environment. Eurogamer might have tested it on the ground at a major airport, which could have given the opposite results.

The open question is how something like a 7950X3d would do. It would potentially have the best of both worlds. But it still wouldn’t have the raw clock speeds of a non-3d chip.



Have a good long look at these frame time analysis graphs (I wish all reviewers did this!) of the 13900k vs 5800x3d, 7700x, and 12900k. This is by far the most telling review of performance I’ve seen yet, and can tell us a lot about how these processors will fare for MSFS… particularly for VR users where consistency is pretty much everything. The only unfortunate part of this test is that none of the games checked are as cache sensitive as MSFS is… but Cyberpunk is the closest match, being moderately cache sensitive, and shows very comparable frame time consistency between the 13900K and 5800x3d, with AMD coming out almost on par, which bodes well for a 7800x4d I think…

Notice the performance and consistency across the board of frametimes on the 13900K though. It’s pretty astonishing, and in keeping with Intel’s general historical advantage.

I’m very much facing the same dilemma right now. I pretty much have to get a new system this year, for various reasons, but primarily because my 9 year old 6700k system is extremely close to kicking the bucket. Never had a system work so well and last so long though, and it will be buried in the back yard with honours. :wink:

The 13900k definitely seems to have the most consistent performance for the sim right now, with the narrowest gap between average fps and 1% lows, but… the power consumption is kind of ridiculous, which is something I would very much notice given that I usually work about 12-15 hours a day on it, and there’s no real upgrade path without completely ripping the system apart for Meteor Lake next year (if that’s even worthwhile).

On the AMD side the 7950X isn’t really ideal unless you do primarily video editing, or something that scales immensely with a high core count, and it also has considerable power draw issues. The 7900X isn’t ideal either given that it gets somewhat limited by its 6 cores per CCD. That leaves the 7700X as sort of the sweet spot performance and power use wise.

My gut feeling is that I should probably go with a 7700X now and then hope one of the X4D chips really shine early next year, and make for an easy drop-in upgrade, but those charts above certainly give me pause.

1 Like


Thanks for that analysis! My 8700K system isn’t in quite as urgent need of replacement, but it’s time soon (and I have a perfectly good 4090 sitting in a box that I don’t want to bottleneck). I may wind up waiting until the 7000 X3d chips are actually out.

I’m with you on all points. I’m still not convinced that most of the benchmarks really capture what we need the most out of an MSFS CPU.

Here’s my situation, got a 12900K and I think upgrading to 13900K as a temp solution before 7xxxX3D comes out. But then next year when Intel release a brand new CPU architecture (Meteor Lake), the performace might be in a total league compare to the Ryzen. Never ending chase… But based on AM4 track record, AM5 mobo might survive a longer run compare to Intel (every 2 years). But I do think for MSFS specific, the huge cache in AMD architecture will be the best bang for the bucks.

I am in the exact same boat.

I can get a 13900K now and just be done with it for at least a year or two. It has several advantages like better lows and more overclockable RAM.

Or I can get the 7700x for now and then pop in the best X3D when it drops in 5-6 months. The problem with this is we don’t know how much time it will take and we dont know how the X3D will perform because it does have limitations compared to the base version. But it can also overperform if AMD manages to fix some of those limitations.

Either way, the wait is annoying because my 10900K is going to bottleneck my 4090.

1 Like

Every time I think I have this figured out, I find something that throws me for a loop! Several of the points discussed in this thread suggest that the 3D cached chips have the smallest advantage in really heavy workloads like busy airports (right now our only data point is the 5800X3D, but I assume the future X3D chips will behave similarly). @Ramasurinen’s analysis here and in the other thread, @Panthera4409’s here, and @KanadeNyan’s in the other thread all point that direction.

However, some of the less formal tests indicate that those situations play to the 3D cache chips’ advantages. This video (starting about 6:20) makes the claim for MSFS: Does the RYZEN 5800x3D improve VR performance in MSFS? - YouTube

And the beginning video (from someone I very much respect in DCS) makes a similar statement about DCS, which I have to think is similar: DCS VR: Ryzen 5800X3D vs Ryzen 5600X - YouTube

I do note that both of those are VR tests. As I also fly in VR, that is relevant. I’m wondering now if VR might gain more from the 3D cache, if the DCS architecture might benefit, or if there is some other way to reconcile all these thoughts.

Of course, the 7000 X3D chips will be different. They might retain more clock speed or have other advantages or disadvantages. It’s probably impossible to fully predict how they would do in MSFS in high load airports without a lot more information than we have.

@Kreutzberg I think it’s not so much that the current vcache chips are at a disadvantage in heavy scenery, quite the opposite actually, provided that scenery is fully loaded in anyway.

From what I’ve seen the only disadvantage they have is when there is a huge amount of new data being loaded in all at once, such as when approaching a heavy addon airport. In these cases the huge cache is of little use and the higher IPC and clock speeds of other processors allow them to deal better with that large transient load, giving fewer stutters and faster recovery.

From rumours I have read the 2nd generation vcache may be a big upgrade over 1st gen though, with even more cache and higher clock speeds, and with more overclocking headroom. Given that Intel predictably retook the performance crown very quickly with raptor lake (if you have a spare nuclear reactor to run it), it is in AMD’s best interest to get them out as soon as possible. I think a lot of people are waiting for those, given Zen4’s fairly flat sales so far.

Fingers crossed it turns out great and releases soon.


Thanks. That does make sense–hopefully the new chips deliver.

I have a 5800x3D and a 4090 with 32 GB of RAM. I know there are people with a 13900k, a 4090 and 6000mhz RAM. Let’s work out a test scenario and compare so the community can have some answers.


How is it the 4090 with the 5800X3D ?

1 Like

Does anybody know if Gigabyte X670 AORUS ELITE AX is an okay mobo for DDR5 for AMD ? The price is affordable for me and I dont wanna go with a really overpriced mobos but I could use some help here.

1 Like

Get the 5800x3d, it’s £349 now. It’s still the best for MSFS in VR till the 7000 x3d CPUs come out. Use that extra money you saved to get a 4090 or 7900xtx.

1 Like

I have the 5800x3D, 3060ti, G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB, GIGABYTE X570S AORUS Master, [MSI SPATIUM M390 NVMe M.2 500GB Internal Gaming SSD PCIe Gen3 up to 3300MB/s for windows, SAMSUNG 980 PRO SSD 2TB PCIe NVMe Gen 4 Gaming and for other sims. If I had the money and needed to build another I would see what the difference between the 5800x3D and the 5950 was then I would go and see what the difference in the 7950 was and try to extrapolate what the 7950x3D would add compared to the 5800x3D. Also, you didn’t mention what GPU you have the 3060ti only gives me a problem when I use the highest setting for the scenery, and then it only jitters once in a while. I personally would stay with the 5800x3D and then upgrade my GPU to an AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT. Because I don’t see the advantage in the better GeForce RTX GPUs. Although I might want to get the next-gen AMD if I could get them for MSRP. Last I would stay with the 3060TI first as the setting I have to adjust are not important to me. I have only been flying the G36 Bonanza and the V-tail Bonanza so Heavy aircraft might be more of a drain, I don’t know.

1 Like

Yeah, I got one a few weeks ago at the discounted rate.


1 Like

Mee too! And that extra money I saved from upgrading mobo, more expensive CPU and ddr5 ill put towards a 4090 :slight_smile:

1 Like