Can I do better than a 9800X3D? Is there a better all-rounder CPU?
Posted by KeenAmateur@reddit | buildapc | View on Reddit | 106 comments
I'm finally upgrading my ageing 10-year-old PC (yes I know, worst time I could possibly have picked...) and ideally I'd like this build to last at least 5-7 years. I play some games, but rarely brand-new ones so my nVidia 3080 GPU is plenty enough for now, and is easily upgraded down the line.
I had my eye on a 9800X3D for the processor to replace my 4790K, but I wondered if there's a better all-round choice out there for a similar price? I'm just as interested in my system being nice and snappy doing regular office work, and whilst I don't do any hugely intensive tasks like video rendering I do use my PC for the occasional photo editing job, plus all my media files are saved locally (I have a relatively big music collection for example). I also dabble in Unity game creation and some web design.
I often hear the 9800X3D touted as the 'best gaming CPU', but if I can get something with 90% of the gaming performance and 150% of the regular performance then I'd take that instead. To be honest I find it quite difficult to quantify the comparisons people make. I'm sure most new CPUs would be perfectly adequate for today's workload, but I'd love it to still feel fast 7 years later - my current PC still feels quicker than my modern work-issued laptop for example. Any advice would be gratefully welcomed!
TLDR: could I get a faster future-proofed CPU than the 9800X3D by taking a small hit to game performance?
shepgooner@reddit
Yeah there good I’ve had one for one year and now ordered the 9950x3d to get rid of my old i9 9900k only play at 1440p so will be perfect upgrade yes recommend the 9800x3d for sure amazing fps
Australasian25@reddit
9800x3d.
Dont cheap out or skimp.
Especially if you want to keep it for 5 to 7 years.
Desth-Metal@reddit
I got the 9950x (not 3d) 30% cheaper than the 3d, and honestly; I don’t think I would notice the difference at all.
-UserRemoved-@reddit
9950X3D offers more cores, but that's not going to do anything for gaming or "regular performance" since neither of those workloads really uses more cores.
If you have productivity workloads that leverage all cores, then that CPU makes sense. If you simply want the best gaming CPU (which is entirely capable of productivity tasks, as is any other top end CPU), then 9800X3D or 9850X3D would be it.
Future proof doesn't exist, it's simply a fancier way of saying you want to spend more on performance you dont' use.
Left_Zebra7393@reddit
Future proof does exist if you can't be bothered to upgrade your PC every 2 years...
Some people just want to build a pc and just stay with it for some years
trireme32@reddit
Shit I just upgraded from an 8700k/2080 that I’d had for like 7 years to a 9850x3d/5080. Before that I had upgraded from a 7700k/1080 two years prior. The 8700k system still didn’t really feel dated, but I was getting errors so decided it was a sign.
Sure the new system is just so much faster and I’m able to get much much better performance in games, but I definitely feel like it’s viable to go longer in between major upgrades as it feels like tech increases are becoming more incremental vs major leaps like back in the day (I’ve been building PCs since the 90s).
Accomplished_Hold204@reddit
We living the same reality, I put my 8600k in my girls pc, sold my 1070 somehow and got her a used 4060 ti, it runs all esport titles perfectly and she’s fine playing sims, now I have a 9800 x3d an the biggest difference is just in playing non esport games…
JackSpadesSI@reddit
8700k was such a great chip. I also just upgraded from it to 9800X3D last month. Better frames in games for sure, but in general OS I honestly don’t notice any difference.
trireme32@reddit
I feel like that was the last great Intel generation.
It’s interesting — I’ve been building PCs for nearly 3 decades. The same thing happened in the early 00s where AMD overtook Intel for processors. But then Intel got back on top. I wonder if they’ll flip again soon.
Intelligent-Sense-13@reddit
I made the exact same upgrade and appreciate the extra performance, but I definitely could have lasted a few more years playing at lower settings. The only reason I jumped the gun is because I was able to find my gpu at msrp.
JackSpadesSI@reddit
It’s kind of nutty how many 8700k to 9800X3D upgraders there are (me too)
Aggravating_Cause970@reddit
Yea I had i7 and 3060 for like 5 years or so who tf wants to upgrade every 2 years with the prices that are now who know what the future brings in the old days sure you could upgrade every 2-3 years but these days you can’t do that
Save up smart buy smart so you can have a clear upgrade path as well future proofing isn’t just buying the bigggest baddest out
It’s having clear upgrade path over the the years to come
PIO_PretendIOriginal@reddit
OP is using a 4th gen 4790k, anything will be a big upgrade
FluteGunner@reddit
This is why I buy the top end when I upgrade. It means I’m chilling for 2-3 gens.
7800x3D and 4090 serving me amazingly well in 480hz and 4k gaming right now and I think it will for a good few years to come.
BorleyHauntedMansion@reddit
If you need to upgrade after 2 years, you've built a phenomenally bad PC. My last build was a 1600 & 2060 built for 1080p gaming. Lasted me 10 years, and the only upgrade I made was to switch out the 1600 for a 5600 about halfway through.
animeman59@reddit
I went from a i7-4790K with a 1080ti to just upgrading to a 2080ti, since the prior GPU died. Kept that until I got a Ryzen 9 5950X. Kept the 2080ti until last summer when I bought the 5070ti.
I still don't feel like replacing my CPU, because it still does so well at 1440p and productivity work. And with the recent memory fiasco, I'm even less inclined to upgrade.
vampirepomeranian@reddit
Funny how the enthusiasts masquerade their true intentions, 'want', by using 'need' as the excuse, topped of by 'future proofing' to affirm their enthusiast overkill bias. We see it every day.
Fredasa@reddit
That's me. And truthfully the 9800X3D wasn't a complete slam dunk. A lot of the games I play are CPU bound. That goes without saying, especially for older games that only use so many cores. And the 9800X3D, even taking its 3D cache into account, isn't the best you can buy if that's your overriding mandate.
padmanek@reddit
So what is the best you can buy, besides "the upgraded 9800X3D" - 9850X3D?
Take any recent CPU review, look at the lowest resolution tests for CPU bound scenarios, check the ranking list and what do you see? https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9850x3d/images/relative-performance-games-1280-720.png
source is: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9850x3d/17.html
Fredasa@reddit
I mean, this is why I tried to be unambiguous when I specified single-core performance. Single-core. Like this. If your gaming scenario is genuinely capping CPU before GPU, then 9800X3D will not give you the best performance. That's the beginning and end of it. I never framed this as an Achilles' heel.
hank81@reddit
Flight Simulator 2025 and Battlefield 6 are probably the most intensive CPU games available and the 9800X3D is still ahead of the 285K for a good margin.
Fredasa@reddit
Fallout New Vegas definitely runs better on a newer Intel. And that's not a snarky response, either. I've spent 20% of my gaming life playing, modding or making mods for that game.
Axyl@reddit
for CPU heavy stuff, i'd things like super-late-large-game Stellaris, or a late-game Rimworld colony. BF6 really isn't that CPU heavy compared to stuff like that
hank81@reddit
I was considering games where GPU rendering is a thing. Apart from that, even if an ARM chip like the M5 posts impressive single core scores, I’m not convinced it can handle the sustained, simulation heavy workloads typical of large scale 4X strategy titles.
Axyl@reddit
I have a 9800X3D and play large scale 4X strategy titles. It's a hell of a CPU. I had an i9 10900k before, which I know is an older chip, but even with the age / generation difference taken into account, the 9800X3D blows it out of the water.
Short of having some very specalised requirements, I can't see the vast majority of people having any issues with it, regardless of what they're playing.
YMMV, of course, but to me, it feels like the best CPU on the market should.
83736294827@reddit
I think the latest intel chips have better raw single thread performance. The 265 and above I believe.
-UserRemoved-@reddit
How long a PC lasts depends on personal standards and future games. When I was broke in college, I made my PC last for a decade bydoing the best I could with what I had and just learning to live with it. My standards were low. I now upgrade every few years because I can. It comes down to personal standards, not how much money you are spending. You can make a PC last however long you want to regardless of the future.
The other half is performance in future games, which obviously no one knows since no one can see the future.
As such, the entire concept of future proofing is buying more than you need now, in hopes that it makes a difference later. AKA overspending. In reality, you'll probably end up upgrading around the same time anyways.
Neither_Berry_100@reddit
My phenom 2 quad core from 2010 lasted me over a decade. I really didn't miss out on much because computers barely improved during those years. Quad core was the standard. And I don't think single threaded performance increased much either. Video cards did however, but I kept what I had and stuck to older games. And I only had 4 GB of ram, which wasn't enough to run solid works which required 16 GB around 2016 to 2019.
Dazzling-Stop1616@reddit
Technically a computer just stops working/won't turn on eventually, and eventually a computer won't be able to run the current os (Microsoft forces updates on you).
MaddogBC@reddit
I have an early 2000 PC running XP sitting beside me. Runs fine and works great for the limited uses I still have for it.
egotripping@reddit
Just curious what do you use it for?
MaddogBC@reddit
My contracting business, writing invoices and such. I have air gapped security out of pure laziness.
egotripping@reddit
Perfect use case
Reasonable_Heat8143@reddit
If i had bought a 6700k instead of a 6600k, I would have kept it running for much longer. The 100 difference in 2016 would have been worth it. Everything ive ever cheated out on anything, ive regretted it.
MaddogBC@reddit
My 6700k made it 8 years oc'd. I lucked out and found a 6600K on the local classifieds. Couldn't tell the difference. Upgraded anyway
Oakland_Warrior@reddit
still running my 2020 box. works fine.
KeenAmateur@reddit (OP)
I can see both sides of the argument but I definitely got lucky with my existing PC - other than swapping out my GTX970 for a (used) 3080 a short while ago it's managed remarkably well for almost 10 years. If I could replicate that lifespan I'd be very pleased!
Aggravating_Cause970@reddit
Smh the idiots in Reddit that say dumb shit is shocking
Choosing parts or systems today that will stay useful, compatible, and powerful for longer as technology, software, and demands evolve is future proofing
Sure buying what you can afford is a thing but in the long run you probably end up spending the same amount anyways to keep up with the ever evolving industry
That’s like saying it’s not worth buying 4tb vs 1tb let’s see how long that would last lmao
KeenAmateur@reddit (OP)
Thanks for your reply! Could you explain what sort of productivity workloads you mean? I often hear people mention things like this but I never know if it's just people cranking out some sort of video producing task or if it means something less specialised.
dabocx@reddit
3d design, production video editing, loads of vms.
If you aren’t a professional and doing that sort of work hours and hours a day you probably don’t need it. If you have loads of money to burn that’s fine too
-UserRemoved-@reddit
Video editting, programming, AI/LLM/ML workloads, CAD design, engineering, advanced mathmematics, hashing, recording, trading, etc....
TBH it sounds like the 9800X3D is already more than you need.
Defiant_Ad5381@reddit
9850X3D would be the peak, but a 9800X3D or 7800X3D would likely last you equally as long. You’d probably get a good 10 years out of any of them if that’s the goal.
I have a 9800X3D and love it, I doubt I’ll have to upgrade before the early to mid 2030s but we will see
AreMeOfOne@reddit
Doesn’t sound like you’ll be doing heavy multi-core stuff. The 9800x3D is plenty. I use it for both gaming and professional work.
Antenoralol@reddit
There is nothing faster for gaming.
Maaaaaybe the 9950X3D but it's a few frames difference and is $200+ more expensive.
eatingpotatochips@reddit
This is why the sub is comedic. They are pushing the 9800X3D as an "all-rounder", when it gets shit on by the 14700k in multithread, a CPU released a year earlier which everyone shit on because of the microcode issues. 9800X3D is a terrible CPU unless the only thing you do is play video games.
ConsistencyWelder@reddit
Your point is made invalid by the 9950X3D though. It wipes the floor with the 14700k, and doesn't degrade over time.
eatingpotatochips@reddit
Yeah, at a much high price point. Guess what, the 9995WX is faster than all of the above, but you’d be a dumbass to compare the two. Take your AMD glazing somewhere else. Lisa Su isn’t paying you a dime to do it.
KeenAmateur@reddit (OP)
Ah, but this gets to the point of my question. Are the multithread performance stats something I really need to care about given the usage profile I outlined above? And is the 98000X3D really "terrible" at general work, or just not quite as good at crunching a big video render?
Falkenmond79@reddit
Unpopular opinion, but the 285k from Intel for example isn’t exactly a slouch in gaming. It’s no 7800/9800x3d or 14900ks, but it’s brutally fast in everything else but gaming.
If you primarily game though, 9950x3d would be the way to go right now. That is brutally fast in everything.
Sad-Object3365@reddit
I agree. Everyone gets so hung up on gaming benchmarks that they forget that Intel is the king of productivity right now, at least in the affordable cpu range. Even a 265k is so fast and can game well and is cheap comparatively.
webjunk1e@reddit
Not really. It depends on the CPUs you're comparing against, obviously, but the only thing current Intel has going for it is sometimes more cores at the same price point, which can possibly give it a leg up in multi core productivity workloads. Not all of those cores are created equal, though, and it's all single threaded, so more cores doesn't always mean more parallelization. It all depends on the workload. I have a 9950X3D and I can load every one of the 32 threads. Even a 285K isn't going to touch it.
Falkenmond79@reddit
That is no question. But the 9950x3d is about 670€ at a quick glance while the 285k is st 480, and the 265k is around 240-270 depending on model (KF etc), which is actually insane, since you almost pay the same for a 7700x and the same or a tad more for a 9700x.
If o had to chose between 265k and a 9700x now, NGL, I’d probably take the Intel.
And that comes from someone who has 5 PCs working right now, with the following: 7800x3d, 5800x3d, 5800x, 3600x and the oldest is a i7 10700 GPUs are also both Nvidia and AMD.
The 10700 is still workstation first and gaming second. To upgrade that one, I’d be sorely tempted to get a 265k.
KeenAmateur@reddit (OP)
How about if you had to choose between a 285k and a 9800x3D? Both are a very similar price right now where I live.
Falkenmond79@reddit
Would heavily depend on what I intend to do. If it’s primarily gaming? I’d go for the 9800x3d. That being said, it’s no slouch in normal productivity tasks, either. It’s a fast 8core/16threads CPU after all.
If 50% of your time is spent editing videos though, or compiling stuff etc., then the 285k might be viable.
I personally chose the 7800x3d for my main back then. I do work from that PC, but mostly the usual stuff. Office work, editing some PDFs, word processing, compiling the occasional short video for websites, some remote desktop work on servers. The 78 is perfectly capable for all that. Does it take 2 min to compile a video where the 285 might take 1 min 30 sec. Or even just 1 min? Sure. Does it matter? No, unless i spend half my day doing that and it would add up.
80-90% is gaming on that machine, though, so the benefits are clearly in favor of the 78.
If I spent video compiling each day and would only game on the weekend? The 285 would be perfectly fine for that.
coolboy856@reddit
Important to mention socket support as well! You can get incremental updates on am5 for years to come
Falkenmond79@reddit
That is true. Socket 1851 is basically dead already, iirc. I seem to remember the refresh with the 3X5 being on socket 1851 but those are supposed to be only a slight 10% upgrade or so.
Sad-Object3365@reddit
I would agree with that
DoorsUK@reddit
As someone that moved from a 4770k to a 7800x3D that does some light blender, video editing etc the x3D range it perfectly fine for general performance unless your planning to run lots and lots of renders.
In which case I may think about intel but I’d be aware of the actual hardware issue they are currently having. Wouldn’t want to have to send of my cpu for a second time to be replaced due to that issue with 13th/14th gen like a friend did.
jfp555@reddit
The intel 265 is great. The Ryzen 9700 is also really good if you get it on a good deal.
dabocx@reddit
It’ll easily do all those tasks. And you can always upgrade on the same motherboard in a few years to zen 6 or maybe zen 7
KeenAmateur@reddit (OP)
Oh I didn't realise that. My experience with the 4790k was that I pretty much topped out for that generation of motherboard and was stuck with what I had.
ThereAndFapAgain2@reddit
These days they support they support the same socket for multiple CPU generations. AM5 will support 3-4 VPU generations for example, though you may have to update your BIOS if you decide to upgrade down the line.
First-Tutor-5454@reddit
Why take a hit when you can get 9950x3d and crush gaming and everything else?
KeenAmateur@reddit (OP)
Largely because the 9950x3D is about 150% of the cost of the 9800x3D... do you think it's worth the outlay?
PIO_PretendIOriginal@reddit
its am5, they plan to keep supporting am5 motherboards on new cpus for another 4 years, so your not stuck with older cpu.... you can upgrade again in 4 years if you feel the 9800x3d isnt cutting it for productivity. and that cpu will likely have decent resale value
First-Tutor-5454@reddit
It is meaningfully better in multi-core workloads. If you have a need for that, or just have the money and want it, then yes it is worth it
Everborn128@reddit
The 9800/9850x3d would be an insane upgrade for you
NapsterKnowHow@reddit
Ya I upgraded from a 5800X and it's been amazing having the 9800X3D
RedRageXXIV@reddit
I have a 10900k and even for me it would be a generational leap. Its crazy good technology.
DiZzY_404@reddit
I mean it kind of is literally a generational upgrade
i5aac92@reddit
Multi generational in fact!
KeenAmateur@reddit (OP)
That is very much what I'm hoping for :) I just don't want to miss out on an insaner one! (also, I'd like to not have to research all this stuff again for the best part of a decade...)
Everborn128@reddit
Dude I'm telling you, you'll be blown away from the difference lol.
jojamon@reddit
Holy cow for sure. I went from an i5-2500k to a 5600x and that was huge. StarCraft 2 no longer had stutters and drops during big battles, even while still running my GTX1070. This CPU upgrade for you along with DDR5 memory and your 3080 will keep you gaming smoothly at 1080p or 1440p even in AAA games still very well. For esports games you will be hitting over 240fps easily.
Everborn128@reddit
I also had a 2500k. I went from a 2500k -'> 6700k -> 3800x->5900x->9850x3d. Tbh if I currently had a 5800x3d I wouldn't have upgraded to a 9850x3d. I even considered staying with AM4 & swapping my 5900x for a 5800x3d but they were to pricey.. made no sense.
moedex@reddit
Ryzen 9 9900X fits your logic perfectly. 12 cores give you 50% better multi-threaded performance for Unity builds and photo editing. Gaming hit? With a 3080 at 1440p, GPU bottleneck hides the difference completely. 3D V-Cache on the 9800X3D is wasted on your workload.
Neither_Berry_100@reddit
I develop in unity. It is basically the only thing I do that can max out my 8 core CPU. This happens for an instant. It is still mostly single threaded bound. It mainly uses 2 to 4 cores. 12 cores won't help much at all for Unity. The ryzen 9800x3d is still the best chip. At least the 3d v cache provides around 30% better gaming performance.
7f0b@reddit
I was about to make a comment similar to this, and had to scroll all the way to the bottom to find someome not blindly recommending a 9800X3D (or a 9950X3D, completely ignoring the "similar price" request in the OP).
A 9900X is cheaper than a 9800X3D with mostly better workstation performance. The main area where an X3D shines is somewhat muted as OP has an older GPU, higher res, and doesn't often play the latest games.
Naerven@reddit
Honestly just getting a R7-7700 or R7-9700X with that RTX 3080 or even a RTX5080 with a 1440p monitor you would likely never notice a difference for gaming. If you just want peace of mind longevity wise, then the 9800X3D is fine. It will of course be replaced at least 4 times over in the next 7 years with next years X3D chips promising 12 cores on a single CCX die.
Neither_Berry_100@reddit
Zen6 is going to be huge. Zen7 should be good as well, but there aren't even rumors about what it will bring except for a die shrink (2nm to 1.4nm). After that I'm really worried we won't be seeing any more upgrades. Die shrinks will stop pretty soon because the transistors are getting to be as small as they can possibly be made. And adding more cores is useless for most tasks, so that rules out threadripper type chips even if they became cheaper. And single threaded improvements are hard to come by, especially without clock speed increases. And we are hitting the wall on clock speed as well. The absolute max is around 8-9 GHz. Chips are already running in the ~4-5 GHz range. I expect CPU improvements to really slow down and maybe even stop. Modern PCs may remain viable for many, many years to come.
Late_Gas_7813@reddit
Get a 7800X3D, the 9800X3d is overkill, most games wont even use the full potential of that cpu, for the tasks you mention, if you get a 9800X3D you will have a lot of silicon you will never use, my advise is get the 7800X3D. in gaming the difference is about 3%. If your needs change you can always upgrade later.
KeenAmateur@reddit (OP)
I appreciate the comment, but right now where I live the 7800X3D is about 90% the price of the 9800X3D - the upgrade seems like a relatively small extra cost for a bit more performance down the road...
Late_Gas_7813@reddit
That makes sense, then go for it, it would not hurt to have that extra power and who knows maybe 5-6 years from now developers will actually be able to develop games that utulize that monster of a cpu.
repocin@reddit
With how the market is going, I wouldn't be too sure about that.
SupposablyAtTheZoo@reddit
You know, there's this thing called what if I keep this pc for 10 years...
TheWarBug@reddit
Was looking for a comment like this, this is exactly what he means. An optimal price/performance ratio.
Catabre@reddit
I just upgraded to a 9800X3D/5080 from a 4790k/1080. Incredible performance boost. The 9800X3D paired with the 1080 tripped my frames over the previous set up.
OddInspection3856@reddit
Just updated from a 4790k to 9800X3D - I keep them as long as I can, and felt the 9800X3D met my needs perfectly, without paying for performance I won’t ever utilize.
wsfrazier@reddit
Depends on your resolution, if you're at 4k or higher, go 265k/285k for sure. If 1080p, no doubt AMD X3D would be better.
dodoroach@reddit
With the tasks you mentioned the difference you would feel between 9800 x3d and an all rounder x3d CPU is negligible at best. If you’re not doing video rendering etc that requires you to run tasks for hours, stick with 9800x3d and enjoy your extra fps.
Source: software engineer with a 9800x3d.
Big-Salamander-2158@reddit
No. It is the best for gaming, but is also still an 8 core processor. It will also work pretty fast for your other needs.
Dazzling-Stop1616@reddit
I was talking buying "now" because past windows 10, Microsoft can force updates if you're connected to the internet. BTW what are your limited uses for the windows xp machine.
lunarman1000@reddit
I replaced my 4790k with a ryzen 5 5600 like 2 years ago and it was an insane jump lol
prank_mark@reddit
https://www.techspot.com/review/3017-ryzen-9800x3d-vs-7600x-cpu-scaling/
A 9800X3D is complete overkill. A 7800x is more than good enough.
Which-Sentence3123@reddit
The 9850 is 50 better and the 9950 is 100 better.
evergreenwv@reddit
9850x3d or 9950x3d
Mundane-Expert7794@reddit
The fact that it is a gaming GPU does not mean it is a slow cpu. But if you do a lot of video editing some cpus with more core are much faster if the software you use can handle so many cores. But the 9800x3d is a very fast cpu.
Trollatopoulous@reddit
Nope, there's no such alternative. In the past it could've been possible with stuff like 14900K vs 7800X3D, but now the difference is too great and the 9800X3D is simply that good.
Embarrassed-Let-9161@reddit
It depends on what your regular workload requires. Just as a referemce, my normal productivity workload uses 14..16 cores of my CPU. At least 3 graphical apps opened at the samee time, big files, plus more browser with dozens of tabs open plus many smaller apps. 8 core would not be enough for me. In the very little gaming I do the rig uses only a few cores.
F1T_13@reddit
Idk, I guess Threadripper if you got stupid money.
BastianHS@reddit
Save the money and get a 7800X3D
NewestAccount2023@reddit
9800x3d has exceptional single thread performance and mediocre multi thread performance because it only has 8 total cores. Any cpu from the last four years with more cores will generally beat it in "productivity" work like video editing or compressing anything (video, sound, files, pictures), but for longevity it's single thread performance that matters most as it's what powers games and makes windows and programs feel snappy, we haven't crossed the threshold yet in parallelizing and concurrentizing software such that multiple threads makes the general feel of programs and games better, that's still driven by single thread performance. As of today if anything takes more than a few seconds to calculate then higher core counts should make it quicker but all windows stuff and gaming takes milliseconds or less so better per-clock single core performance matters more.
The 9800x3d is the better but if you only do long running tasks once a week or less and "long running" is an hour or less IMO. A CPU with more cores can turn that hour long calculation down to 30 minutes, but you're only saving that 30 minutes once a week while every single other thing you do is slower. And if you're not sitting and waiting for the 30 minutes anyway then it being a bit slower doesn't matter anyway, like if you go make an eat dinner the video will be compressed when you get back whether you went with more cores or not.
Easy_Contract_6454@reddit
Il core ultra 9 285k oppure il 9850x3d, ma di base per quello che devi fare il 9800x3d va più che bene
hyperduc@reddit
It's a fantastic and an all around choice.
Maybe something on the Intel side for workloads and non gaming but I haven't kept up with them.
jamvanderloeff@reddit
You generally can't, unless your "regular" use includes a lot of very well threaded workloads that can prefer Intel's many E cores and/or going 12/16 core non-X3D AMD, which it sounds like isn't that common for you.
MagicPistol@reddit
The 9800x3d would still be fine for all those other things you plan to do.