That 7800X3D will be mine, I do wonder if my Noctua DH15S (one 140mm fan) will exploit it correctly, maybe I should add a second push 140mm fan to the heatsink.

For gaming it's going to hit hard that one, given how crazy fast the 5800X3D already is

qlumWhile the cpu's themselves seem interesting, I will probably hold out on my current 8700k@5ghz for a bit longer until prices normalize to something interesting. Even if that means being cpu bottlenecked for a bit longer.

The 3D variants will hold their value until something better for gaming comes along, which is likely the next gen X3D parts or Intel's next gen uArch. Now that we've seen a round of price cuts, a large reduction in DDR5 prices, and motherboard pricing come down now it going to be the best time to buy. Otherwise you might as well lock yourself in for waiting for next gen.

DimitrimanIf we were still in chip shortage times I can easily see AMD pricing top dog at $999, so I think these prices are "reasonable" for MSRP, let's not forget retailers will have flexibility to sell at discounts.

CPUs were hardly impacted during the chip shortage. If it were still going on today pricing would still look similar. We already have shortage pricing baked in to CPUs, GPUs, and motherboards. All still inflated.

RadxgeNot because I am willing to pay for a 4090, which provides real tangible additional gaming performance, that I am willing to throw my money out of the window.

I think we both agree that processor has less impact at 4K than gpu but 4K performance is not CPU independent when using a 4090... seems to me that you are up-to-date on this topic:
www.techpowerup.com/review/rtx-4090-53-games-ryzen-7-5800x-vs-ryzen-7-5800x3d/2.html

No, with a 4090 the processor absolutely has a large impact at 4K, especially if you use any sort of RT. The X3D variants in particular will benefit certain games regardless of resolution as the additional cache allows you to get through certain bottlenecks.

I'd have to agree with the other poster. $1,600+ on a 4090 and you are complaining about spending $120 more on a CPU that'll net you 22% more gaming performance across the board. I don't know what your system specs are but if you don't have a top tier CPU you are leaving performance on the table. Might as well limit your 4090 to a 60-70% power budget because performance is going to be identical.

Tempting, but I'll stick with my 5800X3D and AM4 platform for now.

Personally I am concerned with the cache being available to one CCD. Plus the very conservative TDP estimates.

fancuckerPersonally I am concerned with the cache being available to one CCD. Plus the very conservative TDP estimates.

Will be really interesting to see how Windows handles having the extra cache on one CCD, wonder how Windows will figure out that it’s a game that benefits from the extra cache so it must go to that specific CCD and not the other or worse bounce between CCDs.

sephiroth117That 7800X3D will be mine, I do wonder if my Noctua DH15S (one 140mm fan) will exploit it correctly, maybe I should add a second push 140mm fan to the heatsink.

For gaming it's going to hit hard that one, given how crazy fast the 5800X3D already is

Wait for reviews. I have a feeling the 7900x3d is actually going to be the big winner in benchmarks. I won't be spending this kind of money on a CPU though, you are better off with a 13400f at $220 and spending the extra $400 on GPU budget imo. That is assuming AMD's claims are like 20% increases over 5800x3d in a handful of games, and lets face it, these chips will be much much cheaper on Black Friday sales when they inevitably don't sale, the supply chain is saturated, inflation is at an all time high... its a double whammy... prices will come down, they just have to start off high for stock reasons.

Raiden85Will be really interesting to see how Windows handles having the extra cache on one CCD, wonder how Windows will figure out that it’s a game that benefits from the extra cache so it must go to that specific CCD and not the other or worse bounce between CCDs.

good question here... hmm..

Space LynxWait for reviews. I have a feeling the 7900x3d is actually going to be the big winner in benchmarks. I won't be spending this kind of money on a CPU though, you are better off with a 13400f at $220 and spending the extra $400 on GPU budget imo. That is assuming AMD's claims are like 20% increases over 5800x3d in a handful of games, and lets face it, these chips will be much much cheaper on Black Friday sales when they inevitably don't sale, the supply chain is saturated, inflation is at an all time high... its a double whammy... prices will come down, they just have to start off high for stock reasons.

7900X and 7950X actually bring the best of both worlds. Huge cache on one CCD and high clock speeds on the other for applications where cache doesn't matter as much. Now, if only they can assure no OS scheduling issues arise...

550€ for an 8 core processor when you can have a used 9900K with 8/16 as well for 200€. Is the 7800 more powerful? Yes. Does the performance difference justifies over double the price? Hell no

N3utro550€ for an 8 core processor when you can have a used 9900K with 8/16 as well for 200€.

You can begin with quoting the correct price.

N3utroDoes the performance difference justifies over double the price? Hell no

What did you expect lol? Comparing new with used, way to go. :rolleyes: Buying used is usually very cost effective overall.

sephiroth117For gaming it's going to hit hard that one, given how crazy fast the 5800X3D already is

We'll see. In unrealistic scenarios ($2000 dollar card at 720p) it might hit hard and look amazing on the benchmarks but in actual real-world scenarios it might not be much faster than the current mid range chips.

That's not the fault of the 7000x3d more so gaming requirements for modern games have been kind of stagnant lately and the popular older games present day are easy to run high FPS on

evernessinceThe 3D variants will hold their value until something better for gaming comes along, which is likely the next gen X3D parts or Intel's next gen uArch. Now that we've seen a round of price cuts, a large reduction in DDR5 prices, and motherboard pricing come down now it going to be the best time to buy. Otherwise you might as well lock yourself in for waiting for next gen.



CPUs were hardly impacted during the chip shortage. If it were still going on today pricing would still look similar. We already have shortage pricing baked in to CPUs, GPUs, and motherboards. All still inflated.



No, with a 4090 the processor absolutely has a large impact at 4K, especially if you use any sort of RT. The X3D variants in particular will benefit certain games regardless of resolution as the additional cache allows you to get through certain bottlenecks.

I'd have to agree with the other poster. $1,600+ on a 4090 and you are complaining about spending $120 more on a CPU that'll net you 22% more gaming performance across the board. I don't know what your system specs are but if you don't have a top tier CPU you are leaving performance on the table. Might as well limit your 4090 to a 60-70% power budget because performance is going to be identical.

22% is impossible at 4K (this is 1080p impact under best case scenario, "not across the board").
The gain between 5800 and 5800X3D was less than 7% at 4K according to techpowerup tests.
This 7% does not take into account that any gains beyond the refresh rate of my monitor (120hz) has no real impact... So effective real impact is perhaps 3-5%, which is not noticeable (although some games will benefit more).

In summary at 4K:
- $800 more for a GPU that provides 50-70% uplift => Makes sense to me (don't have to agree of course)
- $125 more (and no free game!) for *presumably* average effective gain of 3-5% (versus 7700X - TBC of course)=> Does not make sense to me (again you don't have to agree)

evernessince$1,600+ on a 4090 and you are complaining about spending $120 more on a CPU that'll net you 22% more gaming performance across the board.

That's almost certainly not going to be true, definitely not at 4K.

RadxgeNot because I am willing to pay for a 4090, which provides real tangible additional gaming performance, that I am willing to throw my money out of the window.

I think we both agree that processor has less impact at 4K than gpu but 4K performance is not CPU independent when using a 4090... seems to me that you are up-to-date on this topic:
www.techpowerup.com/review/rtx-4090-53-games-ryzen-7-5800x-vs-ryzen-7-5800x3d/2.html

That's my point, it's not reviewed but likely the APEX of this moment, your into that and willing to pay, evidenced by you, and at 4k you know CPU matter's little, yet we're here.

Your entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to my opinion of your opinions and vice versa, you're not making sense IMHO

And your still arguing the upgrades not good enough wtaf, it's a rumour at this point, no bench confirmed.

And it's the only CPU in the next 12 months that your version of PCMR is worth buying but you delude you, that this convo is worth a shit I'm done mocking you're leets and Q.

Moar I get you I can see that point 7999 with 32/64 cores or GTFOzzzzz, and 6Ghz all core and it Betta be the same price as a 7700X or AMD turded again.

finally, a CPU to give me bragging rights on winning benchmarks!

@Radxge Turn on RT and your CPU bottlenecked at 4K with a 4090. TPU doesn't test and talk about the impact of RT on CPUs enough. Your 7% number is RT off. Really don't know why you wouldn't want RT on with a 4090.

Upgrayedd@Radxge Turn on RT and your CPU bottlenecked at 4K with a 4090. TPU doesn't test and talk about the impact of RT on CPUs enough. Your 7% number is RT off. Really don't know why you wouldn't want RT on with a 4090.

I just realized your name is from the movie Idiocracy. lmao

Some whining about being overpriced, while no one comments the price history.

16 cores:
2023 7950X3D - $700
2022 7950X - $700
2020 5950X - $800
2019 3950X - $750

1 core:
2005 FX-57 - $1030

I mean, why start complainig now? Graphics cards on the other hand... :D

MatsSome whining about being overprized, while no one comments the price history.

16 cores:
2023 7950X3D - $700
2022 7950X - $700
2020 5950X - $800
2019 3950X - $750

1 core:
2005 FX-57 - $1030

I mean, why start complainig now? Graphics cards on the other hand... :D

yeah honestly the 7950x3d is priced too low imo. its a very niche chip and they need to make money off of it.

i have no need for it, so its not for me, but eh.

gpu's aren't too bad really, i mean 6800 xt's are hovering around 500 even now, and they pack a lot of bunch. only 20 fps slower on average once oc'd vs a 4070 ti in a lot of games at 1440p. /shrug

The dramatically lower clocks on the 7800X3D is strong evidence that the clock speeds of the other two apply only to the non-vCache chiplet.

Don't forget, the 7900X3D uses two harvested chiplets that are typically lower-quality and closer to the edge of the wafer. The 7800X3D requires a perfect, fully-functioning die from the highest-yielding, best silicon that's usually near the centre of the wafers.

The fact that a CPU using harvested parts is so much faster than a CPU using perfect parts is more than just product segmentation - it implies that the lack of a second non-vCache chiplet in the 7800X3D is why they can't claim 5.4GHz boost clocks for that model.

I know this was rumoured, and this seems to confirm that rumour - but have AMD officially disclosed that yet?

N3utro550€ for an 8 core processor when you can have a used 9900K with 8/16 as well for 200€. Is the 7800 more powerful? Yes. Does the performance difference justifies over double the price? Hell no

A new 5700X would crush a similarly priced and used 9900K and you compare it to a much faster 7800X3D? 2 leagues above at least.

Chrispy_The dramatically lower clocks on the 7800X3D is strong evidence that the clock speeds of the other two apply only to the non-vCache chiplet.

Don't forget, the 7900X3D uses two harvested chiplets that are typically lower-quality and closer to the edge of the wafer. The 7800X3D requires a perfect, fully-functioning die from the highest-yielding, best silicon that's usually near the centre of the wafers.

The fact that a CPU using harvested parts is so much faster than a CPU using perfect parts is more than just product segmentation - it implies that the lack of a second non-vCache chiplet in the 7800X3D is why they can't claim 5.4GHz boost clocks for that model.

I know this was rumoured, and this seems to confirm that rumour - but have AMD officially disclosed that yet?

I guess it's not only about wafer yields. Taking 5800X3D's history, the extra cache doesn't like heat that much so AMD nerfed the clocks. Such limitation is still present, but the process now allows for a tad higher clock (compared to Zen 3) albeit lower than what the 7700X can achieve.

Huh, I was expecting the 7950X3D to be priced at $800 or $850, I guess AMD will be sticking with the $575 price point after the black friday price cuts for the normal 7950X....

Although I do not understand why the 7900X3D is at $600 though, at that point spending the extra $100 would be better for the extra cores if you're using it for applications (Which tbh is the only reason one would choose the 7900X3D or 7950X3D if they want to game and also use applications.) The go to X3D chip for most will probably be the 7800X3D.

AM5 Motherboards have improved but are still somewhat expensive so I still don't really think people are willing to take the plunge yet.

Space Lynxgpu's aren't too bad really, i mean 6800 xt's are hovering around 500 even now, and they pack a lot of bunch. only 20 fps slower on average once oc'd vs a 4070 ti in a lot of games at 1440p. /shrug

Yeah, I meant the newer cards tho. Nothing wrong with the 6800 XT and similar these days.

Imagine if AMD competed with Nvidia as much as they do with Intel.

MatsYou can begin with quoting the correct price.

MSRP USA and retail price in some European countries are very different animals.