Hey Guys like the title says just curious if anybody here has read or seen anything like similar issues they had with the 13th and 14th gen CPU’s?
I am looking at getting a 265K seems how I can get a better deal then on a amd and amd total cost is prohibitive for me anyhow… so really not looking at AMD…
Thnx guys.
Well other than being a mixed (P- and E-core) architecture, thus needing Win11 or Linux (not Win10!), they haven’t been out long enough for us to know 
Reviewers seem OK with them (including people like Jay from JayzTwoCents, who called the very high voltage excursions on the 13/14900Ks right from the beginning).
Eh…yes and no.
There are no physical flaws. There is however, a glaring software flaw. While the 13/14th gen had the voltage issue, the Ultras are…underwhelming. Zero performance improvement over 14th, which itself was only incremental over 13th, which was only slightly better than 12th.
As in zero reason to upgrade to it unless you have a really old CPU or are getting a brand new PC.
Even then, though, pretty much 9 out of 10 tech sites stranded on a desert island agree the AMD X3D will get you a lot more bang for your buck.
Intel royally nailed the canine with this generation.
Yeah Intel has finally managed to increase the efficiency of their CPUs, and by quite a bit too. These new chips are even more efficient than the Ryzen 9000 series at many tasks.
They haven’t caught up with the competition in gaming performance but from the looks of it, this Intel gen could indeed be a very cool, reliable CPU.
So if the price is right and you are due for an upgrade, go for it.
While I understand that the 9800X3D is sold at a huge premium that is barely justified by it being the gaming king, do take a look AMD’s more competitively priced options: the gaming performance you get from a 7600X3D is as big a step up from the Ultra 9 285K as the Ultra 9 is up from the Ultra 5 245K. Quite a boost!
The Ryzen 5 7600X3D is €67 cheaper than the Ultra 7 265K where I live.
So if the main usecase is gaming, do consider the 7600X3D. If you really need a lot of productivity performance (video rendering, 3D modeling, raw calculations), the 265K is way better than the 7600X3D.
Well I guess at this point from what you guys are saying is I may not need to upgrade currently?
Let me get this straight you are saying a 7600X3d will be better then a 265k?
For gaming absolutely, for productivity probably not. Not sure how it fares in PS and LR but if I go by my 9800X3D it should be good enough. The 9800X3D is incredible for PS and LR. One of the few productivity workloads where the increased cache size seems to work wonders.
Well I been watching alot of videos on youtube and the comparisons. from what I seen the AMD is better ingaming mostly @1080P and 1440P, @4K it is a bit equal…
I have a Reverb G2 and basically gaming @4K. I will check a few more reviews but I just am not sold on AMD quite yet…
I don’t know if you’ve told us your use-case, sorry, but for serious gaming and light video editing and spreadsheeting - things like that - I would prefer the 7600X3D over the Ultra 265.
And if the 7600X3D [edit: becomes] insufficient for the tasks over time, or if your use-case changes, you have an upgrade path to the 9800X3D or 9900X/9950X if you need those capabilities.
Someone posted this a few days ago. The AMD X3D chips do fare better in VR as well but of course the differences are not that big. Outlier is the 9800X3D which has significantly better 1% lows than the other CPUs but you said that’s outside your budget.
my user case is gaming, mostly DCS, Mechwarrior 5, No Mans Sky… in the video the avg FPS were better in the 13700K but the lows were better with the 9800x3D.
Now he did not have a 265K to compare the other CPU’s with but I am betting it should fair better or at lease the same in those tests.
I am not a trend jumper but from what I been seeing I see no real reason to go with AMD.
The AMD system costs more then the intel. I am just going to hold of either way for now… I really need to get a new VR Headset and there lies the issue…
I can keep the Frametimes good on my current system but running @80% Native rez of the Reverb G2. Now if I got a Pimax It looks like it only supports 72Hz as its lowest Hz rate and that would mean I need too run a lower Frametime then I currently need too.
And that is why I am thinking of getting a new system and if I do that I might be able to trade up my current PC Parts and GPU plus probally some cash to get a better GPU… as I am unsure how I would fair with a Pimax Crystal light and a 12700K, 4070Ti…
Earlier you suggested the X3D chips were a higher price for you than the Ultra. I’m mainly basing my recommendation on knowledge of my home market, where AMD and Intel chips are pretty evenly priced, or my understanding of the NA market, where I believe AMD are cheaper for what they offer than Intel.
Given you are looking at a “budget” or “midrange” segment of the lineup, and your use-case is predominantly (exclusively?) gaming, I’d still recommend AMD if you can get one of the X3D chips for a similar price as the 265. But I may be biased - personally I’d buy a 7600X instead of the Ultra 265 right now. But that opinion is heavily influenced by the possibility of getting a (secondhand?) 7800X3D or 9800X3D later on.
But if they’re more expensive, and you need the CPU upgrade, then obviously you have to seek the best value for your dollar/pound/euro/other currency 
I don’t think you’ll run into the “slow death” problem with any of these chips - but even if you do, Intel did really well with their replacement policy for the 13/14XXXs that were affected, so I wouldn’t worry too much about it?
Well, I can get a 9800x3D at a microcenter but it is an hour and a half away and cost 479usd. I can get the 265K for 339usd at amazon… and the other factor on Amazon I can get the Memory and Motherboard on a no interest 3-5 month payment plan so the money needed up front is not as much either, that is heavily weighing in as my option for that alone.
But since I do not wat to travel that far to get a PC Part it would be cheaper for me to get the Intel at Amazon.
I was going to get just a 14700K and be done with it but then when I found I could just go with a new Intel setup it seemed appealing. plus the socket 1700 is dead now. and my AIO can goto a new 2xx series CPU Socket.
I was just trying to find out of the New 2xx series intel had any issues I was not yet aware of… things can happen overnight in this industry and just wanted to be sure the data I had about the 2xxx cpu was accurate…
I appreciate all the input here… thank you guys.
No one is recommending a 9800X3D as a good price-performance point.
We were talking about the Ryzen 5 7600X3D, which should be cheaper than the 265K, and a lot better at games.
EDIT: The Ryzen 5 7600X3D is apparently not available in the US, pcpartpicker has no known price for it. This changes things, as the 7800X3D is more expensive
The Intel 2xx series are great chips, very efficient and they excel at multicore productivity workloads, they just aren’t better at gaming than the last gen.
I’ll put together some comparison builds with US prices later.
Here is a list of CPU gaming scores, measured by a very reputable tech reviewers site that unfortunately only publishes in the Dutch language:
You can see that the 265K, much like the Ryzen 9900X, is a real multicore productivity specialist that isn’t much better at gaming than an entry level 9600X (240 USD).
Intel CPU + MoBo with at least 2 M.2 slots:
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/xMMBh7
AMD entry level CPU + MoBo with at least 2 M.2 slots:
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/tfVhmC-
160 USD cheaper than Intel, no relevant gaming performance difference. Use the money to save on interest payments or for a better GPU
AMD 3D CPU + MoBo with at least 2 M.2 slots:
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/HJB84p
50 USD more expensive than Intel, much better gaming performance
Honestly, given your requirements with all the VR pixels, I’d go for the 9600X and get the best GPU you can get. That will make more difference at your resolution than the CPU, as you rightly noted.
