Well, that landed with a wet thud.

[Kagthul]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gCz...el=GamersNexus

Ill start off immediately by saying:

Im not saying its a bad chip. Im not saying it isn't a decent technical achievement.

Im just saying... man, was that underwhelming after all the self-hype AMD fans have been giving themselves. (Edit: not dinging AMD themselves here, they didnt make any outrageous claims AFAIK)

Before these came out i predicted three things:

1 - they would be better than the non-X3D chips for gaming.
2 - they would NOT be AS MUCH better than the basic non-X3D chips as the 5800X3D was vis-a-vis the regular 5000 series chips.
3 - they would not "crush" the 13900K.

All of which turned out to be true.

They ARE better for gaming..

But they are NOT as big of an uplift over the regular 7000 chips, because AMD already massively increased the L3 cache on 7000 series chips vs 5000 series chips, so there is left uplift to get.

... and they did not crush the 13900k.

Honestly, the biggest takeaway for me is...

Until and Unless 3DVcache can be made useful at higher resolutions....

I just dont see the point.

I cant fathom spending 700$ on a CPU to game at the only resolution where it matters (1080p).

I cant think that the venn diagram of people spending 3k on a rig overlaps with the people who just LOVE 1080p.

And on top of that, as Steve notes... they are better - at performance levels that arent even visible anyway.

I really like that AMD is trying to innovate here.

Id just like it to actually matter more.

[Sorshen]

7800x3D will be a good deal tbh. This one, not so much.

[Linkedblade]

The largest problem is that only one ccd has the highest speed access to the v-cache. Yes they fixed the scheduler, but next gen they need to give both ccd's their own. Otherwise I'd expect the 7800x3d to be the chip with the most gains as it won't have the other ccd competing for l3 cache.

[Pann]

The 7950x3d certainly seems to be an odd product, the choice to limit the fast access to the V-cache to one CCD seems to have left it some strange no-man's land where it is not fast enough in games or have an advantage in productivity tasks to justify the premium over a 7950x.

Ultimately it seems to be an experiment to see whether consumers will part with $700 for a CPU rather than a showcase for V-cache technology in high core count processors.

It will be interesting to see how the 7800x3d performs.

[Kagthul]

7800x3D will be a good deal tbh. This one, not so much.

I agree. And like i said, its not a bad chip or anything. Its just.. the gains pretty much only exist at a resolution that enthusiasts arent really interested in, which is underwhelming.

[Pann]

HWUB's benchmark has the 7800x3D on it, they just turn off the non 3D CCD in the firmware. Its practically a 7800x3D in that configuration. Overall the simulated 7800x3D beat it out, but HWUB, GN, and others didn't run the various configurations that the chip has, to include UV, PBO optimization, prefer cache, and prefer frequency. HWUB at least tested it without the 2nd CCD enabled.

Its not a drop in chip like the 5800x3D and likely the 7800x3D, the 7900x3D and 7950x3D require tuning to get the maximum performance if not the same or better performance to the now cheaper 7950x (or even a tuned 7600).

I saw HUB's video and to be honest I was quite underwhelmed by the simulated 7800x3d compared to the 7700x, roughly 10% FPS over the 7700x, and given that the majority of people will not be running a 4090 the gains are likely to be smaller in the real world. Unless the price premium for the x3d version is 10% or less I can't see the value in the x3d product line based on current benchmarks.

As I said I will be interested in 7800x3d benchmarks but this is mainly from a curiosity stand point rather than excitement for the product.

[Pann]

I suspected a month ago when the 7600 came out that it'll end up being the best CPU of the generation...

Throughout AM4's lifespan the R5 x600 was always the best choice in terms of performance versus price and I agree that this does not look like changing with AM5.

The 5800x3d offered gamers a genuine performance uplift compared to the regular 5800x whereas the AM5 x3d seems to offer little over the regular chip, couple this with the high motherboard prices (especially compared to similarly specced Intel boards) I think Zen 4 x3d is thus far a disappointment.

[mrgreenthump]

It's a bit of a shame that they screwed up with the 7950X3D, but then again I no longer need a lot of cores due to offloading simulations to a dedicated machine.. So 7800X3D sounds tempting, although as I got a 5950X, I might just wait for Zen5/next gen Intel.

[Kagthul]

It's a bit of a shame that they screwed up with the 7950X3D, but then again I no longer need a lot of cores due to offloading simulations to a dedicated machine.. So 7800X3D sounds tempting, although as I got a 5950X, I might just wait for Zen5/next gen Intel.

Yeah i think the 7800X3D is going to be a *better* proposition.

Its still just.. underwhelming. Im not interested in spending 700$ on a CPU and MoBo to play at 1080p.

Im glad they are innovating. I want it to continue, and id love them to find some way to make this less niche.

[Biglog]

I don't think any site predicted it would "crush" the i9-13900k. In fact most of the reviews are positive. The benchmarks are within a 1-2 fps of the 13900k +/- for most games, ahead in some behind in others including at 4k. And considering they are basically the same price, that's what we should expect. The goal for AMD was matching Intel's performance at that price point which they did. It's a major performance improvement over the 7000 series.

And it's also important to note that the power consumption of the Ryzen 9 7950X3D is 1/2 the i9-13900k. The 13900k uses twice as many watts as the 7950X3D to reach the same performance in testing, so it's going to have a higher cost of ownership that will show up in your power bills. Under load it averaged around 280w for the Intel, vs. 140w for the AMD, and an extra 140w over time adds up. Needless to say less energy use is better environmentally too.

AMD has had plenty of bad ones, but this definitely isn't a bad release. It's a case of maybe some Youtubers setting their expectations unrealistically high, or at least overestimating the impact of the 3D vertical cache. It helps, but it's not something to take it into crushing the competition territory.

[rogoth]

The 7950x3d certainly seems to be an odd product, the choice to limit the fast access to the V-cache to one CCD seems to have left it some strange no-man's land where it is not fast enough in games or have an advantage in productivity tasks to justify the premium over a 7950x.

Ultimately it seems to be an experiment to see whether consumers will part with $700 for a CPU rather than a showcase for V-cache technology in high core count processors.

It will be interesting to see how the 7800x3d performs.

while i won't deny that money is a motivator, this new process technology is definitely a huge step up over their first iteration which was a 'can we actually do it?' and this time around many of the fundamental flaws of the first iteration have been fixed and the issues currently affecting this chip specifically is all software based and all on windows due to the scheduler being fucked, why do you think Intel payed microsoft so much money and worked so closely with them in the run up to 12000 series processors so that they would actually work at all with windows, the same thing needs to apply here, if/when microsoft can pull its finger out and develop software updates to accommodate these new chips, then we will see massive improvements across the board, also, this feels like a next step in a chain, i suspect if this iteration goes well AMD might try and do a full L3 cache setup on everything instead of segregating it as it is now, again seeing if it's possible first work out the kinks then iterate on it further i suspect it's a major design problem to have both CCDs layered up and they need to do some tweaking to voltages and such to prevent some overvolting by having more vcache.

[Huzzaa]

In short, the massive L3cache was there to address the single thread IO bottleneck.

Which it effectively does for programs that leverage that 1 core to a huge degree, such as games.

Now, we're seeing DR.
Expected. But still, damn they are ridiculously good compared to stuff just 10 years ago. 3770Ks etc.

[rogoth]

I agree. And like i said, its not a bad chip or anything. Its just.. the gains pretty much only exist at a resolution that enthusiasts arent really interested in, which is underwhelming.

here's a fundamental flaw in your understanding, this chip SPECIFICALLY, is not designed for gaming, this chip SPECIFICALLY is designed for productivity workloads and with the 3d vcache addition it makes it a *BETTER* chip to game on that all the previous *950x top end ryzen chips AMD has produced were not, likely part of the reason this is being released now, no review samples of the 7900x3d were ceded and why the 7800x3d is delayed 4-6 weeks is because for GAMING exclusively, this chip ain't it, and while some games see a massive uplift across all resolutions from the vcache tech, this is not the example to be looking at for gaming, AMD made that pretty clear when talking about the 5800x3d vs the 5950x and why it was chosen for 'gaming' instead of the actual flagship processor.

each AMD cpu has a niche, you want high core count work horse: *950x, you have a slightly smaller budget but still need decent core count for workloads: *9**x, you want a good gaming cpu: *8**x3d, you want a decent cpu for gaming and productivity: *8**x (or in this gen *7**x), you want an entry level gaming cpu: *6**x, simple as that, unlike Intel who are still using their geriatric process node and archaic product stack system, they don't have processors for different niches it's just 'hur dur number get bigger me go faster' - the cpu. This is partially why AMD has taken control of the desktop cpu space over recent years because not only are their CPUs superior in terms of forwards facing tech, they are also built with a specific need in mind to cater to many different types of people, until Intel can actually innovate they will continue to languish and fall behind.

[Pann]

The specific advantage of the x800x3D SKU is drop in performance, especially with the 5800x3D. Noting specifically the low TDP of the 5800x3D which made it a clear winner to the Intel competition in SFX builds. The 5800x3D didn't even have PBO (my x570 impact that it started in did let me OC it to start, where I could get the chip to 4.7GHz all core) but that got disabled at some point. Basically slap a 3600MT/sec kit of memory and you're done.

The 7950x3D or 7900x3D (mind you is a 6+6 configuration) is a prosumer part that requires tuning, even on the software side. Its definitely going to be an interesting part to play with from an enthusiast standpoint and worst case scenario, just disable CCD1. It'll be curious to see when the 7800x3D comes out if there's a delta between the 7950x3D simulated SKU to see if they've done any binning on their 8c/16t 3D modded CCDs.

The optimist in me is saying that the hybrid design with some tweaking could be literally the best of both worlds, and the software/firmware implementation so far appears to have the necessary layers to allow that. Being able to choose which CCD handles what task could allow for some incredible min-maxing. Worst case, set the firmware to 'prefer cache' mode, turn on PBO and your EXPO profile and call it a day.

The problem is that 7950x3d doesn't really offer much over the 7950. I would guess that the majority of users who buy a 16c/32t chip do so because they need it for their work and in productivity tasks it offers little over the regular 7950x and in some cases it performs worse thus I cannot see why anyone would pay a nearly 35% premium (based on UK prices) for at around a 10% increase in gaming FPS.

Even the ridiculously priced 13900KS is nearly 10% cheaper and given the disparity in board prices the Intel platform becomes an even better prospect.

[rogoth]

The problem is that 7950x3d doesn't really offer much over the 7950. I would guess that the majority of users who buy a 16c/32t chip do so because they need it for their work and in productivity tasks it offers little over the regular 7950x and in some cases it performs worse thus I cannot see why anyone would pay a nearly 35% premium (based on UK prices) for at around a 10% increase in gaming FPS.

Even the ridiculously priced 13900KS is nearly 10% cheaper and given the disparity in board prices the Intel platform becomes an even better prospect.

so this isn't true, what you're thinking of is z690 chipsets, which have stopped being made, so for the majority of people they will be forced to buy z790 boards, which are markedly more expensive than x670E right now, meaning that outside of DDR5 pricing, a full AMD platform change is cheaper than an Intel change at this point in time.

[Pann]

so this isn't true, what you're thinking of is z690 chipsets, which have stopped being made, so for the majority of people they will be forced to buy z790 boards, which are markedly more expensive than x670E right now, meaning that outside of DDR5 pricing, a full AMD platform change is cheaper than an Intel change at this point in time.

It is true and nor am I thinking of z690 boards. Looking at Partpicker there are a number z790 MBs at £250 or under (the cheapest being £182), the cheapest x670e - the ASRock X670E PG Lightning - is £275 and the cheapest x670 is £250.

If you are looking at high end boards, which you probably will be if you're in the market for a 13900K(S) or a 7950x3d), then prices are somewhat comparable between AMD and Intel but as a platform Intel offers better value over AMD this generation.

[rogoth]

It is true and nor am I thinking of z690 boards. Looking at Partpicker there are a number z790 MBs at £250 or under (the cheapest being £182), the cheapest x670e - the ASRock X670E PG Lightning - is £275 and the cheapest x670 is £250.

If you are looking at high end boards, which you probably will be if you're in the market for a 13900K(S) or a 7950x3d), then prices are somewhat comparable between AMD and Intel but as a platform Intel offers better value over AMD this generation.

when you were looking at the z790 in PPP did you make sure it was a DDR5 board and not a DDR4 board, the ones you listed were DDr4 when i looked, and not DDR5, the cheapest DDR5 z790 boards are £260+, that was my point, if you look at purely apples to apples thanks to the AMD forced price reductions on all mainboards then it's cheaper to go full AM5 platform right now than it is to go full Intel platform.

[Ssateneth]

sounds like intel fanboy doing damage control/copium. this is a win. dont need a huge amount of energy, don't need expensive 7200+ mhz memory, don't need top of the line motherboard, dont need 1000+ watt power supply. just get a cheap 6000mhz memory kit, b650 or a620, and off you go to top fps.

and if you want to wait for 7800x3d, prices are going to be even cheaper then.

[Pann]

when you were looking at the z790 in PPP did you make sure it was a DDR5 board and not a DDR4 board, the ones you listed were DDr4 when i looked, and not DDR5, the cheapest DDR5 z790 boards are £260+, that was my point, if you look at purely apples to apples thanks to the AMD forced price reductions on all mainboards then it's cheaper to go full AM5 platform right now than it is to go full Intel platform.

They are a mixture of DDR4 and 5 - I can't be bothered to look through all of them - however the cheapest z790 with DDR5 is the ASRock Z790 PG LIGHTNING for £201.53 from CCL, the next cheapest is the Gigabyte Z790 UD AC for £213.84 from Amazon.

I don't know about you but when I went to school £201 and £214 were both cheaper than £275.

However this irrelevant and incorrect derailment does not change my point if you are building the best of the best the 13900KS is currently better than 7950x3d in terms of value.

[Pann]

X670e is overkill for most users since it only offers better PCIe/USB capacity over something like B650e. B650/B650e are far better for 95% of the consumer base, even people buying 7950x.

Agreed but I was responding to a specific reply and in fairness I wasn't thinking of any particular chipset when I said that there was a disparity in AMD and Intel board prices.