The reason why I have 7800X3D in my 24/7 gaming PC is because it's 80W under full load, while the comparable 13700K/14700K is 200W (with spikes up to 253W) in the same workloads. How can someone even try to defend Intel's efficiency?
Other reasons why I would pick AMD:
- It's much easier to keep AMD cool and running at optimal performance without throttling (in any PC size).
- It's much easier/cheaper to build an SFF PC. Coolers can be small ... like Noctua NH-L9a size small for 6-8 cores, without throttling. RAM doesn't matter much above 6000, so can save on that too.
- It's easier to make a silent or at least quiet PC that won't overheat or throttle (regular large ATX size PC). 14700K goes up to 100°C at stock with 280/360 AIO. If you pick Intel then you already decided on a large PC.
- AMD doesn't need multiple weak e-cores to match the multi-threading performance, that are still not fully supported by every software. For gaming, you literally pay for useless e-cores as who needs 12 or 16 efficient cores for daily home/office tasks, not even to mention games?
Power doesn't matter much for a casual gamer. However, when you add a gaming (count 200W+) graphics card, and you sit next to a running hot, 400W+ PC, then it's no fun. Especially in the summer it's annoying.
I write this having at home R5 7600, R7 7800X3D, R9 7950X, i9-12900K, i7-14700K and i9-14900K. I already know that once the new Intel gen is out then every Intel that I have now will go on sale as I have it only for reviews and tests. I just feel they're useless for me for anything else than tests.