Thursday, February 15th 2024
AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D Drops to $409, to Clash with Core i7-14700K
AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D is the often-ignored middle child of the 7000X3D series that's flanked by the reigning gaming CPU champion, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D; and the company's flagship Ryzen 9 7950X3D, which performs within 5% of the 7800X3D in gaming, but with the added 8 cores shoring up its productivity performance against the Core i9-14900K. Pricing of the 7900X3D dropped to $409 on Amazon, which is a huge departure from its $600 launch price. At this price, the 7900X3D is set up for a direct clash with the Intel Core i7-14700K, which is going for $400, with its iGPU-disabled sibling, the i7-14700KF listed at $392.
The Ryzen 9 7900X3D is is a 12-core/24-thread dual-CCD processor, with its 12 cores spread among two CCDs in a 6+6 configuration. The first of the two CCDs has the 96 MB L3 cache thanks to the 3D Vertical Cache (3D V-cache) technology, while the second is a regular CCD with just the 32 MB on-die L3 cache, but which can sustain higher clock speeds than the 3D V-cache CCD. The similar 16 core 7950X3D flagship can be had for $600, or about $50 higher than the i9-14900K, while the 7800X3D is going for $370.
Source:
VideoCardz
The Ryzen 9 7900X3D is is a 12-core/24-thread dual-CCD processor, with its 12 cores spread among two CCDs in a 6+6 configuration. The first of the two CCDs has the 96 MB L3 cache thanks to the 3D Vertical Cache (3D V-cache) technology, while the second is a regular CCD with just the 32 MB on-die L3 cache, but which can sustain higher clock speeds than the 3D V-cache CCD. The similar 16 core 7950X3D flagship can be had for $600, or about $50 higher than the i9-14900K, while the 7800X3D is going for $370.
153 Comments on AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D Drops to $409, to Clash with Core i7-14700K
You dont have to deal with any of the inter CCD thread hoping shennanigans, play around with game bar/thread lassoo to make sure your gettings the best out of your CPU or flat out disabling via BIOS 50% of your CPU from the get go.
"It Just Works" as most console gamers would say. Is the 7900/7950x3d faster? Sure if you also dont mind tinkering settings here and there.
I mean this is literally the 2nd video about the 7900x3d on Youtube...
TL: DW
"Please go into your BIOS and LIMIT your NON X3D CCD to speeds SLOWER than your X3D CCD"
Plenty of threads about different games having issues with CCD allocation, DCS, MW2, MSFS to name a few.Yes it would be slightly faster due to the higher allowed speeds......for nearly double the price
And to the 2nd point refer to above.
It's more niche CPU, for those who don't mind 5-6% less performance in gaming, but need more cores for other workloads.
I'd buy 7900X3D, if I needed it. I have 5900X for my workloads. So, 7800X3D is not for me, as I am not everyday gamer, but I need more cores for my worklaods. I play on 4K/120 OLED display only, so minor fps hit does not really matter to me, as GPU does most of the work and 12 cores ensure I have what I need. Simple. The price of 7900X3D has never been better, so it's very competitive now for specific audience, like myself. Do we understand each other now?And new price applies too.
Another thing : the much higher clocks of the 7950/7900X3D only apply to the CCD without X3D, otherwise you are only looking at a 200mhz difference and that's with the 7950X3D who got the highest clocks of the bunch. So you need to assume that windows can figure out if a game prefers the cache or higher clocks.
www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-7950x3d/27.html
Buy what you need/can. Doesnt change the fact the 7950X3D is the faster/fastest CPU in any use case vs the 7800X3D
At ~$400, 7900X3D brings a completely new and fresh perspective of looking into this CPU. So, I am asking you to open your mind to more holistic considerations rather than resorting to oversimplified and catchy binaries like "slower" and "cheaper".
7900X3D at the new price is a compromise for casual gamers like myself, and productivity needs, without breaking a bank and spending additional $200 for 4 extra cores that 7950X3D provides. I'd buy 7900X3D today if I needed it. I have 5900X, but these days I play a bit more, but still need 12 cores.
For the 7900X3D to make sense, you have to
1. Have a productivity requirement, but not make money from your productivity work (if you do make money, the 7950X3D/7950X pays for itself by working faster, plus the cost of a CPU is marginal compared to software licenses or professional GPUs)
2. Also be a gamer that chooses to game on the same PC you work on (many corporations or individuals avoid this due to security concerns of DRM, virus exposure in some games, physical location of workplace etc.)
3. Not be bothered by having slower gaming performance than cheaper options, or slower productivity performance than cheaper options. Or by doing professional productivity on a platform where ECC memory isn't validated and you only have two RAM channels.
4. Not want to go with the 14700/K instead, which is comparable in gaming performance and faster in productivity while being also being cheaper.
This is a highly specific and I would say, unusual, use case. Hence why the 50% higher core count chip is only 10% higher in price than the 7800X3D, there's simply not much demand.
For CPU mining a 7900X3D would be better than a 7700X
No 7800X3D core can do 5.6 Ghz
There is no one in my opinion who would not be happy with this.
Now let me tell you why I bought a 7900X3D. As I have stated I had a 5800X3D. Before that I had a 5900X and that CPU was butter smooth in everything except Games that supported Vcache. You see the 5800X3D does not feel as fast a 5900X. That meant that there was a call for 2CCD chips to get Vcache. AMD did exactly that and told us there was no real benefit to Vcache on both CCDs.
From the beginning I have established that people will complain about this because it has 6 cores. I have already talked about how powerful the CPU is vs the power it draws.
So regardless of people telling me that my CPU is useless or I made the wrong decision. I do not think that and am quite happy with my CPU. Happy enough to say yes at $409 it is an academic purchase.
I am not even going to respond to the next post from dgianstefani as that post is rife with misinformation. I guess 407 FPS in AMS2 @4K is slow. I guess 165 FPS at 4K in CP2077 is slow as well. I guess I have not been enjoying my library of Games and not profiting from CPU mining.
BTW DDR5 Ram come with Data check it may not be ECC on them but I don't know what I am talking about.
It also has the same problem of the 7950X3D, it's nothing on Microsoft: namely its reliance on AMD's custom scheduler driver to handle the mismatched CPU cache sizes... in short, it's just nowhere near the optimal configuration processor on AM5. That doesn't mean it's bad... it's just not perfect.
7900X - £345, £360, £370, £440
7950X - £460, £500, £510
7900X3D - £401, £410, £440
7950X3D - £550, £560
What dgian and imouto were trying to get is that due to its design constraints and tradeoffs, the 7900X3D is a jack of all trades and master at none. It'll lose to the 7800X3D and barely match the Core i7 in gaming performance, but it's going to get wrecked by the 7950X3D and the Core i9 in productivity, leaving it in this state of "might as well save 50 bucks and buy the 7800X3D, not needing to worry about core scheduling issues as all cores have 3D cache available" or "might as well just buy a Core i9 and get raw performance instead of fluff"
In 4K, none of this matters much, a few fps up or down.True that. That's why I said it's a niche CPU for those who know what to de with it and are willing to play with tweakers.
It's £401 today with one retailer in the UK, so kiss-and-go deal.You are not giving people a benefit of a doubt, but you make rushed conclusions with "if" qualifier. Not nice.
7800X3D came into the market later. Some people needed/wanted new systems before.
There are more simple factors guilding buyers, such as time or release, availability and geographical variance.
Stay open-minded before hurling judgments.