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

ok now add AM5 board prices to the equation. See. AMD would have totally raised prices, but there was simply no more room

wNotyarDI 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.

The cache doesn't like voltage.

Heat is not the issue.

RadxgeIMO, the 7800X3D is just too expensive compared to the 7700.
I can get a 7700 for $CAD500 (including taxes and free game)... The 7800X3D will exceed $CAD 700 (including taxes and likely no free game)... so $CAD 200 difference!!
Clearly, AMD's margin is much higher on the 3D.

I play at 4K on a 4090 and cannot imagine that the extra-performance of the X3D versus the 7700 makes sense at this price (perhaps a different story at lower resolution).

Comparing the price of 7800X3D vs 5800X3D is not fair as ignores the platform cost.

Anyway, I will get an 7700 but can still upgrade to 3D along the way (the cheaper A620 should make the used market more receptive to the 7700).

Isn't Jedi Survivor the free game included? That's why I'm buying the 7800X3D.

Well that's a bit of a bummer, I was hoping they would all be available in the middle of the month.
Price is about what I was expecting

When I got my 5950X at $799.99 and Asus Dark Hero at $449.99 when they first release, waited and waited for GFX card, just got the PNY XLR8 4070Ti
@ $799.99 and new TCL 646 ,55 inch TV , it will be years before I upgrade again

Radxge22% 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.

TechPowerUp tested with a 3080 so yeah. That's a GPU bottleneck plain and simple especially at 4K. HardwareUnboxed has them with a 26% performance increase testing with a 3090.

RadxgeThis 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)

The higher your FPS the lower your latency, regardless of monitor refresh rate. Take a look at the below graph from Nvidia:



The grey lines represent each display refresh whereas the green lines represent the frames generated by the GPU.

As you can see, GPUs produce frames asynchronously from the display's refresh cycle. This happens regardless of whether you have G-Sync or Nvidia reflex enabled (both of which are designed to tackle different issues). This is down to the fact that it's not possible for a GPU to have the exact unit of work it needs to do align with the refresh rate window. Your monitor refreshes every 7.14 seconds but each frame may take anywhere from less than 1 ms to greater than 20ms depending on the game, game settings, ect.

If you only produce frames equal to the monitor's refresh rate, this means that your latency will always be | Frame processing time + time to next refresh cycle +display latency | late

Frame processing time being the time it takes for your GPU to create a frame, time to next refresh cycle being the next time your display refreshes, and display latency being how long it takes your display to processes and output that frame.

Now let's compare the above graph to a mockup I made demonstrating when your FPS is equal to your refresh rate:



As you can see, frame time is significantly worse across the board, often resulting in a latency penalty of a majority of the refresh rate windows, in some cases exceeding the length of an entire refresh rate window.

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

It depends how much the 4090 is bottlenecked at 4K resolution and it's going to vary heavily based on the test suite used.

What I can say it that at 1440p the 5800X3D improved average FPS at 1440p by 26% and lows by 27.23% based off Tom's test suite:

www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d-review/5

My figure is based off my theory that the 4090 is bottlenecked in some games even at 4K. This idea is based off the fact that the 4090 only achieves 25% greater performance despite having 68% more shader cores (among much greater amounts of other resources).

evernessinceTechPowerUp tested with a 3080 so yeah. That's a GPU bottleneck plain and simple especially at 4K. HardwareUnboxed has them with a 26% performance increase testing with a 3090.

His 7% claim was actually techpowerups article where they did the 5800x vs 5800x3d using an RTX 4090 on 53 games




They did the same article again with the 5800x3d vs the 13900k and it only saw a 1.3% increase at that resolution by using the 13900k

evernessinceThis idea is based off the fact that the 4090 only achieves 25% greater performance despite having 68% more shader cores (among much greater amounts of other resources).

Shaders and performance do not always scale linearly because of many other reasons which are more likely than CPU bottlenecks such as memory bandwidth and power constraints. GTX 1080 had exactly twice the shaders the 1060 had but it's performance was far from being exactly double and you can't tell me that a 1080 was CPU bottlenecked at 4K back in 2016 when a lot of games were barely even playable at that resolution.

Anyway I suspect this generation of 3D v-cache CPUs are not going to be significantly faster than the 5800X3D, there is no reason for them to be other than the increased clockspeed.

Looking forward to Wizz review on these. Especially the 7800X3D in April.

didnt i see somewhere, the 7600X3D? only one im intrested in.

Ownedtbhdidnt i see somewhere, the 7600X3D? only one im intrested in.

There is no 7600X3D and I don't think there will ever be for technical reasons, fitting the v-cache over a CCD with defective or disabled cores probably makes no sense for them.

7950X3D, eh? 16c/32t w/ 3D Cache? o_O

Next-Gen ThreadRipper will have to be especially impressive. Else, AMD just cannibalized TR before it even launched.
(Though, motherboards w/ *actual expansion* might be TR's selling point. Most X670 and B650 boards seem to be 'on the lacking side' w/ PCIe expansion)

LabRat 891Next-Gen ThreadRipper will have to be especially impressive. Else, AMD just cannibalized TR before it even launched.

More cache is not a substitute for more cores also TR has more memory channels, mitigating the need for larger caches.

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

For new parts, yes. The 5800X3D is currently at $323 and €332. Those who are buying at launch pays a premium, as usual.

LabRat 8917950X3D, eh? 16c/32t w/ 3D Cache? o_O

Next-Gen ThreadRipper will have to be especially impressive. Else, AMD just cannibalized TR before it even launched.
(Though, motherboards w/ *actual expansion* might be TR's selling point. Most X670 and B650 boards seem to be 'on the lacking side' w/ PCIe expansion)

Only 1 chiplet, so no danger to TR and more likely there will be problems because of that, we shall see in the review on TPU. :-)

pavlemore likely there will be problems because of that

Do you have a source for that claim? Guessing isn't good enough of a source. :D

MatsFor new parts, yes. The 5800X3D is currently at $323 and €332. Those who are buying at launch pays a premium, as usual.

Lowest available price in my country in this moment is 365€ but still in half of the stores the price is over 400 euros, and there is a store with an offer for 461 euros. And these are supposedly normal stores, not markets with organized auctions for bidding.

TumbleGeorgeLowest available price in my country in this moment is 365€ but still in half of the stores the price is over 400 euros, and there is a store with an offer for 461 euros. And these are supposedly normal stores, not markets with organized auctions for bidding.

Having such a spread on price is normal, and being 10 % more expensive than germany is expected in pretty much all euro-countries, sometimes even more. From what I can see, it goes all the way up to $462 in the US.

Vya DomusMore cache is not a substitute for more cores also TR has more memory channels, mitigating the need for larger caches.

Not incorrect. However, (w/ little knowledge/experience in the field) there are applications where 16 (faster) cores and a large amounts of ultra-low-latency cache are particularly useful. -which (AFAIK), previously were covered by Intel's workstation Xeons and AMD's lower-core-count TR/EPYC.

I could see the 7950x3d in particular finding a niche in non- consumer/entertainment use.

pavleOnly 1 chiplet, so no danger to TR and more likely there will be problems because of that, we shall see in the review on TPU. :)

Fair. As far as we know, there's nothing (other than cost) preventing a cache module atop each chiplet in the many-cored TR/EPYC.
I'm not itching to upgrade my R5 5600 anytime soon, but I too am eager to see benchmarks on these new chips.


I suppose I should've been more specific:
The top-end 7950x3d looks to cannibalize the entry-level of TR and Workstation EPYC.

IMO, a ~$700 AM5 CPU with 'choice' RAM and Mobo, will 'out-value' an equal/lesser core-count TR/EPYC 'workstation'.
It happened the last couple generations of AM4, with the 3950X and 5950X vs. 3945/3955WX, 3960X and 5945/5955WX. As well as the 3950X and 5950X generally outperforming the first two generations of TR (in all but the most 'many-threaded' applications on the 2970/2990WX).

The expanded memory bandwidth and capacities, along w/ additional PCIe expansion remain indisputable 'values' on TR/EPYC. However, those considering an 'entry-level' TR/EPYC might not have the budget (or use) prospect(s) to (ever) utilize those features.

The 7800x3d clock speeds are lower than even the 7700, making it a comparison to a 330 dollar chip. Hopefully the extra cost is worth it.
I wish they would make a 6 core version, but then people would buy that and they wouldn't make as much money.

MatsSome 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

Awesome comment. I wonder how many here were old enough to know that $1000 desktop CPUs existed 17 years ago. CPUs are super cheap today compared to what you got over the past two decades.

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.



good question here... hmm..

Of course, I alway wait for reviews, especially since CPU stocks seems far more stable than GPU.
I have a 4090 paired with a 16:9 1440p (maybe a 21:9 1440p by march), I play a lot of RTS games like Warhammer 3, flight simulator too so I held for the 7000X3D series because I think it's optimal for my case maybe, I'm running a 5600X right now

Vya DomusThere is no 7600X3D and I don't think there will ever be for technical reasons, fitting the v-cache over a CCD with defective or disabled cores probably makes no sense for them.

7900X3D says otherwise.
I guess it *could* be 8C+4C if they're only putting vCache on perfect 8C chiplets, but I am expecting it to be 6C+6C like on the 7900X.

Edit
Wikipedia says 6C+6C, though I don't know if that's verified by AMD. Certainly an 8C+4C would be a first for any Zen-family CPU to date, and I'm sure AMD have talked about symmetry being important for reducing the required complexity of the Infinity Fabric.

Vya DomusThere is no 7600X3D and I don't think there will ever be for technical reasons, fitting the v-cache over a CCD with defective or disabled cores probably makes no sense for them.

Doesn’t the 7900X3D have two chiplets with defective and/or disabled cores.

AnarchoPrimitivJust out of curiosity, what should they be priced at and why?

There should be a 7600X3D for $350. But they don't want to sell a 6-core chip with top performance, obviously.

The performance difference between between a 7600 and a 7800X3D will be completely out of proportion with the price difference. Most games will probably be in the 10-20% range.

But the 7800X3D is for those who want the best gaming performance, not the best value. I'd rather get the 7600 and upgrade just the CPU two generations from now.