Tek-CheckAny source link to such tests?

A lot of YouTubers who bought multiple, and reports from users on overclocking forums who did the same.

Tek-CheckPlease... are you playing a pseudo-psychologist here? It's none of your business. You could simply ask someone, while being courteous in the first place, why they made decisions they did. You are not here on this forum to make quasi-diagnosis of someone's personality or mental health. That's an overreach and you are expected to contain such judgements. Don't go there. It's not a territory you should venture into.

Paying $150 more for a 6 core gaming CPU (core parking) rather than waiting 37 days for the 8 core when you will be using the product for years would seem to be the definition of an ACT of poor impulse control. I never made any accusation of mental health issues or personality flaws, anyone who claims to have never made an impulsive purchase is a liar. I am glad that you enjoy using the product as an owner but that doesn't change that when it was released at $600 and even now at $410 there are cheaper alternatives which beat it at gaming and productivity use cases and more expensive alternatives which beat it at productivity value ($410 7900X3D $34 per core, $500 7950X $31 per core). The 7900X3D is a product that works and does a thing but from an objective perspective, benchmarks, performance per dollar etc, there were and are better choices.

GenericNinjaYou are being asinine here. Obviously my statement indicated that other SKUs beat it in every metric doesn't mean that every individual CPU SKU beats the 7900X3D in all metrics. For CPU mining a 7900X would be cheaper for equal or better performance. While gaming no 7900X3D can do 5.6 Ghz either, as those higher clocked cores are parked. The 7900X3D is not smoother in gaming. In any game it will be equal to or slower then a 7800X3D.

Are basing that on personal experience?

dgianstefaniA lot of YouTubers who bought multiple, and reports from users on overclocking forums who did the same.

Even early production units have different binning and silicon lottery applies to those, as it does to all CPUs. Even some early units were reported to run hotter than others.

To prove anegdotal observation about new productions units, there would need to be a robust and triagulated testing on dozens of CPUs from both periods. Something that Gamers Nexus might want to do, as they did in past.

SOAREVERSORYep this. Gaming is still a niche case. It's not productive and is the piss filled floating turds kiddy pool of computing. So the X3D is a cluster fuck for anybody doing anything even quasi serious on their computer. Even then the reality of PC gaming is it's the farthest thing from high end gaming or a master race. Most gaming PCs get blown out of the water by a modern console.

The X3D tech is cool and all but it's still a niche case. Intel did something similar back in the day and then abandoned it for good reasons. You'll also find at the super high end cache is often just disabled completely. In .nix based systems there's a handy command line for doing this as you often have to for reasons.

You are very wrong about the benefits of cache. Unix based systems have no such command line; you're probably thinking of those that affects OS caches, e.g.

To free pagecache:
echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
To free reclaimable slab objects (includes dentries and inodes):
echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
To free slab objects and pagecache:
echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches

In addition to this, the x86 ISA includes instructionsthat bypass cache. There is an even more blunt way to disable all caches.

To disable the L1, L2, and L3 caches after they have been enabled and have received cache fills, perform the following steps: 1. Enter the no-fill cache mode. (Set the CD flag in control register CR0 to 1 and the NW flag to 0. 2. Flush all caches using the WBINVD instruction. 3. Disable the MTRRs and set the default memory type to uncached or set all MTRRs for the uncached memory type (see the discussion of the discussion of the TYPE field and the E flag in Section 11.11.2.1, “IA32_MTRR_DEF_TYPE MSR”).

For the most part, these instructions are unneeded for most programs. Hard real-time applications eschew caches and other modern niceties, but not because they reduce performance. Rather, they need the performance to be predictable and all of these techniques improve performance for the vast majority of cases, but can have poorer worst-case execution time (WCET) of software due to bad speculation or missing data.

Tek-CheckEven early production units have different binning and silicon lottery applies to those, as it does to all CPUs. Even some early units were reported to run hotter than others.

To prove anegdotal observation about new productions units, there would need to be a robust and triagulated testing on dozens of CPUs from both periods. Something that Gamers Nexus might want to do, as they did in past.

I doubt it's a task anyone will bother with, Silicon Lottery definitely didn't find those stats worthwhile to collect, but there's certainly reason for AMD to prioritize sending the best bins to server chips, just as they've had a history of sending their worst bins to certain consumer CPUs, since efficiency is absolute king for servers, but an extra ~5 W on a ~50 W CPU isn't really noticable on a desktop.

Notebooks also get priority for energy efficient bins, and AMD laptop chips these days come in both monolithic and chiplet based.

kapone32Are basing that on personal experience?

I am basing the argument that the 7800X3D will be equal or faster than the 2 CCD X3D parts at gaming on the results of every single professional review of said parts online.

Tek-CheckWe can have an academic discussion about the significance of latency penalty, but it may be practically fruitless. Also, CPU workloads below clearly show the capabilities of this SKU and it's pointless to split the hair in two and speculate about separate CCDs, especially calling on 7600X.

7600X is FAR less performant and less efficient than 7900X3D. And 7900X is just a little bit faster, but less efficient too.

MT performance	Power/workload/time efficiency (Wh)	Power/workload/time efficiency (KJs)

But here you're talking about benchmarks that make use of both its X3D AND standard CCDs. The allusion to 7600X refers specifically to the standard CCD. Of course both combined the 7900X3D is better.

GenericNinjaPaying $150 more for a 6 core gaming CPU (core parking) rather than waiting 37 days for the 8 core when you will be using the product for years would seem to be the definition of an ACT of poor impulse control.

Have you confirmed this with the member?
Have you asked the member whether he/she got a deal for entire system or joint parts?

GenericNinjaThe 7900X3D is a product that works and does a thing but from an objective perspective, benchmarks, performance per dollar etc, there were and are better choices.

I am sure there were and there are better choices for some buyers, and not for others.
There is no "objective" perspective here, because buyers' choices will depend on many factors, such as use case, price, product availability, deals, enthusiasm, etc. If we agree on this, we understand each other and there is nothing more to discuss as disagreement.

Dr. DroBut here you're talking about benchmarks that make use of both its X3D AND standard CCDs. The allusion to 7600X refers specifically to the standard CCD. Of course both combined the 7900X3D is better.

That's why I said above that allusion to 7600X is practically fruitless. Waste of time. La La Land.

Tek-CheckHave you confimred this with the member?
Have you asked the member whether he/she got a deal for entire system or joint parts?

You were the one who pointed out the hypothetical 7900X3D purchase during the small window between the 2 parts being released, either indicating the possibility of kapone32 or another person doing so or that you yourself in fact did so. If there was some sort of special discount or deal on a 7900X3D system or parts bundled, of course that would change the equation but that is changing the goalpost, we are discussing the current and past actual retail pricing, not "what if he got a deal so that a 7900X3D cost the same as a 7700X?" Of course the member should buy it in that case but that doesn't change that when dealing with actual retail selling prices and product performance that there is an objective perspective, that is why we are all interested in reviews and benchmarks.

Tek-CheckThat's why I said above that allusion to 7600X is practically fruitless. Waste of time. La La Land.

It seems you're also missing the point, applications are often compartmentalized between the standard and X3D CCDs due to scheduling and clock frequency concerns. Rarely will an application effectively utilize both. It's been a "problem" with the 3900X and 5900X as well - except in this case somewhat augmented because it's always been treated as "two 6-core processors" rather than "one 12-core processor".

The only issue I have with this thread is people bashing the 7900X3D, even though they do not own one. It has been established that the 5900X is a fast CPU so let's look at the specs.


5900X

Transistors:	8,300 million

7900X3D

Transistors:	17,840 million

Now people that have PC experience understand that there are more than double transistors

7600X

Transistors:	6,570 million

Now can we all agree that the basic notion of PC software that more transistors lead to more performance. Clock speed and transistor count are the same thing and if you tell me that a CPU that has half or more than half the transistors that you have no understanding of how PCs work. The mitigating factor in this is software and if you believe that the 7900X3D will not get better you have not tried AMD. Just for inquiry let's look at the 7800X3D

Transistors:	11,270 million

Oh that looks like less and that translates to less performance when optimized. I already showed that all cores are used and therefore the transistor count

Let's look at the 13900KS

26 billion transistors

It has more but those are comprised of E cores and we know they are weaker. That is probably why Intel are disabling HT to save on the power envelope but right now it gives you great Gaming performance. The reason it uses more power is directly related to transistor count.

I am not a simp that is just getting into PCs. I have been using Ryzen since the 1700X and before that I started my PC journey with a 965BE. As a result every CPU I have bought has been faster than the one before. Now I have a 7900X3D and love it.

What I don't understand is why people are so passionate to hate on this CPU and that leads to my responses. Imagine if you owned a Caddy STS (I had one) and people keep telling you the Chevy Cavalier is just as good.


I know what I see when Gaming at 4K. Before you jump on me realize that I have 5 PCs in my home and have tried all of them. As an example the 7600XT is a great GPU but not really better than a 6650XT at Mining. Where it shines is playing my Daughter's Games at 4K. It had a 7600X before. These are not AAA games but Games like Unpacking and Dora the Explorer.


Why do I have 5 PCs. Well 3 of them are Mining rigs and BItcoin is at $69000 Canadian. I can't even tell you what I have made but my wallet is over $7000 and growing.

I am also a person that grew up in a real Christian home. As a result I judge Good and Evil. Intel did shady practices against AMD so they do not get my money (Vote with your wallet) and Nvidia made me feel like I did not own my hardware that I paid for. As a result it has been all AMD for like 15 years.

When you do it from that tangent you are quite happy with the free upgrades that come. Some are Nvidia influenced like Freesync and FSR and some are AMD focused like Mantle and the consoles. If you have been doing it that long you probably bought a Nvidia card for Physx (Everybody played Batman) and when they removed it with a driver update it sent me further down the rabbit hole. For the reviewers out there I went from a GTS 450 to a 6800 to a 7950XT Crossfire to Vega 64 Crossfire to RDNA2 5600XT and now have a 7900XT. So yeah my 7900X3D makes my 5.0 PC sing with 2 5.0 drives and all NAND storage, just like how the 5900X does on AM4. For $400, you would be not well served to listen to the narrative, just look at reviews on Newegg or Amazon. Even if it has some propaganda inserted there are still plenty of regular people that have nothing but positive for the 7900X3D.

This is just like the 6500XT (At the time) reviewers bemoaned the lack of what made them succesful but the reviews of people who bought them were the reverse, including me appreciating that it supported 4K 120hz as I have a TV that supports that as much as we like to say the RX 570 is still relevant the lack of 4K 120Hz support means no full VRR. I even bought another one for my one of my mining rigs and since it is doing nothing that 2w power draw is also sweet.

kapone32The only issue I have with this thread is people bashing the 7900X3D, even though they do not own one. It has been established that the 5900X is a fast CPU so let's look at the specs.


5900X

Transistors:	8,300 million

7900X3D

Transistors:	17,840 million

Now people that have PC experience understand that there are more than double transistors

7600X

Transistors:	6,570 million

Now can we all agree that the basic notion of PC software that more transistors lead to more performance. Clock speed and transistor count are the same thing and if you tell me that a CPU that has half or more than half the transistors that you have no understanding of how PCs work. The mitigating factor in this is software and if you believe that the 7900X3D will not get better you have not tried AMD. Just for inquiry let's look at the 7800X3D

Transistors:	11,270 million

Oh that looks like less and that translates to less performance when optimized. I already showed that all cores are used and therefore the transistor count

Let's look at the 13900KS

26 billion transistors

It has more but those are comprised of E cores and we know they are weaker. That is probably why Intel are disabling HT to save on the power envelope but right now it gives you great Gaming performance. The reason it uses more power is directly related to transistor count.

I am not a simp that is just getting into PCs. I have been using Ryzen since the 1700X and before that I started my PC journey with a 965BE. As a result every CPU I have bought has been faster than the one before. Now I have a 7900X3D and love it.

What I don't understand is why people are so passionate to hate on this CPU and that leads to my responses. Imagine if you owned a Caddy STS (I had one) and people keep telling you the Chevy Cavalier is just as good.


I know what I see when Gaming at 4K. Before you jump on me realize that I have 5 PCs in my home and have tried all of them. As an example the 7600XT is a great GPU but not really better than a 6650XT at Mining. Where it shines is playing my Daughter's Games at 4K. It had a 7600X before. These are not AAA games but Games like Unpacking and Dora the Explorer.


Why do I have 5 PCs. Well 3 of them are Mining rigs and BItcoin is at $69000 Canadian. I can't even tell you what I have made but my wallet is over $7000 and growing.

I am also a person that grew up in a real Christian home. As a result I judge Good and Evil. Intel did shady practices against AMD so they do not get my money (Vote with your wallet) and Nvidia made me feel like I did not own my hardware that I paid for. As a result it has been all AMD for like 15 years.

When you do it from that tangent you are quite happy with the free upgrades that come. Some are Nvidia influenced like Freesync and FSR and some are AMD focused like Mantle and the consoles. If you have been doing it that long you probably bought a Nvidia card for Physx (Everybody played Batman) and when they removed it with a driver update it sent me further down the rabbit hole. For the reviewers out there I went from a GTS 450 to a 6800 to a 7950XT Crossfire to Vega 64 Crossfire to RDNA2 5600XT and now have a 7900XT. So yeah my 7900X3D makes my 5.0 PC sing with 2 5.0 drives and all NAND storage, just like how the 5900X does on AM4. For $400, you would be not well served to listen to the narrative, just look at reviews on Newegg or Amazon. Even if it has some propaganda inserted there are still plenty of regular people that have nothing but positive for the 7900X3D.

This is just like the 6500XT (At the time) reviewers bemoaned the lack of what made them succesful but the reviews of people who bought them were the reverse, including me appreciating that it supported 4K 120hz as I have a TV that supports that as much as we like to say the RX 570 is still relevant the lack of 4K 120Hz support means no full VRR. I even bought another one for my one of my mining rigs and since it is doing nothing that 2w power draw is also sweet.

Transistor count is an utterly pointless metric as you're comparing across different process nodes and architectures. It also seems you are not truly aware of the nature of the E-core. It's not power-efficient, it's area-efficient. That's why each cluster of four E-cores translates to roughly one P-core.

But I stopped taking you seriously the moment you brought up religion and how AMD should be defended because of that. Didn't even finish writing a retort, that's just... baffling.

kapone32I already showed that all cores are used and therefore the transistor count

Your previous HWINFO screenshot showing all cores having reached 100% after playing multiple games does not in fact show that all cores were used during gaming. During gaming if you checked the load only the V-cache CCD would be in use, the parked non-v cache CCD cannot run games or background applications while a game EXE is running. They are disabled or sleeping but show 100% utilization because that CCD would have woken up and been the primary CCD while you were switching games. You have a great experience running games (I am glad you are happy with gaming on your 7900X3D) but people are bashing it because the same or better experience can be had for less money.

GenericNinjawhen dealing with actual retail selling prices and product performance that there is an objective perspective, that is why we are all interested in reviews and benchmarks.

I do not have this CPU. I am still on AM4 platform with B550+5900X+7900XTX

At ~$400, the benchmarks we currently have suggest to me that this CPU has become a great deal for those who need even more efficient CPU than vanilla models, a bit more than 7800X3D for productivity and a bit less than 7950X3D to save another $200, while still being really good in gaming. A perfect compromize.

Tek-CheckI do not have this CPU. I am still on AM4 platform with B550+5900X+7900XTX

At ~$400, the benchmarks we currently have suggest to me that this CPU has become a great deal for those who need even more efficient CPU than vanilla models, a bit more than 7800X3D for productivity and a bit less than 7950X3D to save another $200, while still being really good in gaming. A perfect compromize.

The problem is that for most people who focus on gaming the 7800X3D is the better overall package (cheaper, more cores with X3D, very similar core clocks on relevant CCDs) and if they are more productivity focused the 7950x can be had for a few pounds more in the UK.

Dr. DroIt seems you're also missing the point, applications are often compartmentalized between the standard and X3D CCDs due to scheduling and clock frequency concerns. Rarely will an application effectively utilize both. It's been a "problem" with the 3900X and 5900X as well - except in this case somewhat augmented because it's always been treated as "two 6-core processors" rather than "one 12-core processor".

Apart from gaming that we know about, are you able to give examples of such applications that treat one 12-core processor as two 6 core processors?

Looking into performance of 7900X and 7900X3D, and other two vanilla and their X3D SKUs, I can see that X3D models are just a little bit slower due to lower TDP. I cannot see at the moment any benchmarks where V-cache itself hampers CPUs. Those applications that do not benefit from it will simply ignore it, no?

I can see that the main reason why vanilla and their X3D equivalents are so close in performance is because Zen4 CPUs scale really well to 95-96% of performance at 120-125W and little more is available beyond that point.

Dr. DroIt's a strange way to cope, but it's... exactly as fast as the 7900X3D with the 3D cache die off would be. That's what i'm getting at... and what you implied when you said not every game supports 3D cache. Which is true, I just don't see the point in trying to refute this. It also hearkens back to the beginning of this conversation, by buying a 7800X3D, you get the whole gaming performance that 8 cores and single CCX/CCD + X3D benefits would give, by buying the 7900X3D, you either get performance similar to what a 7600X3D would do (most closely replicated by the 5600X3D today) or what a 7600X would do.

It’s not though? A 7900X3D has a 300mhz core advantage on the non vcache CCD not to mention a lot more memory bandwidth when it comes to applications that can take advantage of that - a 7600x will never come close in any workload.

For games that play nicely with thread assignment and use less the 8 main threads the 7900X3D also has a 100-200mhz advantage and over the 7800X3D so there are even times were it will be faster by default.

Everyone is aware, or should be, if you don’t wanna muck about with software to properly assign tasks, the 7800X3D is the easier CPU to just pop in and deal with, but for all intensive purposes the 7950X3D is faster (disabling a CCD takes 10 seconds in the bios, same stupid argument people make about disabling ecores on intel). To the same degree in some circumstances the 7900X3D will be faster via the same process.

Dr. DroTransistor count is an utterly pointless metric as you're comparing across different process nodes and architectures. It also seems you are not truly aware of the nature of the E-core. It's not power-efficient, it's area-efficient. That's why each cluster of four E-cores translates to roughly one P-core.

But I stopped taking you seriously the moment you brought up religion and how AMD should be defended because of that. Didn't even finish writing a retort, that's just... baffling.

Everything is on x86. Religion all I said is Good and Evil. Don't tell me you don't believe in that? Well at any rate I am Canadian and grew up in Toronto. That means I have an appreciation for most cultures and I can tell you that friends were gained from the content of their character. To make a statement like transistor doesn't matter is so asinine that I don't even know what to say. Transistor count is what it is all about. It is a good thing I am drinking or I would have fell out of my chair when you posted that. The posts in this thread have made this the most unproductive day of work for the entire year.

It's a step in the right direction for AMD to become a bit more competitive in value for dollar relative to Intel, but if anything AMD hasn't gone quite far enough. The X3D chips are popular though with gamer's that simply have pretty much one criteria of game performance don't care too much about other considerations. I do care about other considerations and value for dollar though so 14700K ended up being much better value and consideration especially since it was effectively $310's and included GhostRunner 2 and a 2x16GB 6000MT/s CL36 kit of memory while the MB was fairly valued at about $240 and overall high quality.

The out of box stock efficiency is overblown a lot, but a fair enough critique just the same. Intel pushed things a bit heavily to slightly bolster relative benchmark results. Just the same Raptor Lake/Refresh are great chips in the right hands. Alder Lake is a bit more debatable I'd argue since the cache structure was bit different and E-cores not as tunable, but at least are price aggressively at times. They still are pretty great value on a fire sale.

Overall AMD's biggest issue is pricing and value for dollar. That could change with it's next architecture, but until then unless they do more aggressive price cuts on current offerings probably won't change a great deal. One thing not so much in Intel's favor is the initial introductory pricing on Raptor Lake Refresh has eroded quite a bit, but if they can get back to that point it'll certainly puts a lot of pressure on AMD in terms of pricing and value for dollar. Really $310 for a 14700K was if anything entirely too damn cheap for the relative performance it offers that comes modestly close to a 7950X on MT and beats it easily in ST. It also basically slightly beats or matches the 13900K a in ST which is pretty respectable.

That's less than the 7800X3D with these price cuts and destroys it in MT and it's also better ST, but sure it's cache performance isn't quite as good however 7800X3D is actually the worst of the X3D chips on stacked cache amount technically speaking and frequency clocked lower in terms of binning.

It's actually really great that CPU competition is as heated as it is between AMD and Intel. It's a fantastic time for x86 hardware really and certainly can't wait to see the progress to come in the next decade. Exciting times ahead for technology.

kapone32Everything is on x86.

Ok fell out of my chair on this one. Phones, Apple computers, Quite a few ARM based servers both Western and Chinese. RISC-V development accelerating

kapone32Transistor count is what it is all about. It is a good thing I am drinking or I would have fell out of my chair when you posted that.

Zen4C would like a word. And yes its such a pointless metric on its own

kapone32What I don't understand is why people are so passionate to hate on this CPU and that leads to my responses. Imagine if you owned a Caddy STS (I had one) and people keep telling you the Chevy Cavalier is just as good.

Here is why, you have been arguing that its a great CPU for the money with no drawbacks and all the benefits. So lets put this in car terms for you.

Your 7900X3D is a BMW M5 Estate. A very fast car that can also carry a chest of draws. Problem is that a saloon M5 (7800X3D) is a better sports car and a 530d Estate (7950X) is better at carrying the chest of draws as you dont need to stop at every other petrol station on your journey.

To MOST people the compromises either dont make sense or dont offer enough benefits to outweigh other aspects that other "similar" priced offerings give in comparison.

Panther_SeraphinOk fell out of my chair on this one. Phones, Apple computers, Quite a few ARM based servers both Western and Chinese. RISC-V development accelerating

Zen4C would like a word. And yes its such a pointless metric on its own


Here is why, you have been arguing that its a great CPU for the money with no drawbacks and all the benefits. So lets put this in car terms for you.

Your 7900X3D is a BMW M5 Estate. A very fast car that can also carry a chest of draws. Problem is that a saloon M5 (7800X3D) is a better sports car and a 530d Estate (7950X) is better at carrying the chest of draws as you dont need to stop at every other petrol station on your journey.

To MOST people the compromises either dont make sense or dont offer enough benefits to outweigh other aspects that other "similar" priced offerings give in comparison.

I was talking about AMD and Intel or does Apple support Windows?

Yes but the mitigating factor is that you are getting a BMW M5 for the price of a Cavalier. At $409 this is academic. The saloon is good reference as I will be a smoother experience with the BMW vs a Saloon as well and more fuel efficient. As I said before I live in Canada so the 7900X3D was $699 and the 7950X3D was $999. That is $300. The 7800X3D is basically $500 but was $549 for a long time. The best deal was the 7900 for $499.. Those all came later though. I do not regret my purchase in any way. You know where you notice the difference in cores? When you use your PC everyday for hours, when you fully engage with the latest specs. This actually feels better than when I had my 990FX Sabretooth (what a board).

The drawbacks? That is the narrative. If I am enjoying the hell out of my PC where are the drawbacks? I can't make anyone believe that the 7900X3D is a super fast CPU because of this sentiment. Who cares about these other metrics if you just want a fast PC that can do anything just get it. Dual CCD is not new, as much as people would like to say that Windows have done no refinement for Ryzen, well I would have to say that based on my experience I disagree.

So again the narrative has people saying that at $409 this is not a good buy because it was never sampled by AMD. This is for people that just want a fast CPU . Gaming is my hobby and 8 cores just don't do it for me anymore but I also make the occasional video. You don't know how fast your PC is until you use someone else. So yes based on my experience I can strongly recommend this chip for $409. In Canada it is $599 and the 7950X3D is $799.

7900X3D has a mixed reputation, but actually it provided the best per core amount of stacked cache. In some cases it's probably actually better than a 7800X3D or 7950X3D in cache bound scenario's, but across fewer cores. It's not as good on MT as the 7950X3D however and a little worse binning and it's more expensive than a 7800X3D likewise. You could technically disable 4 cores and/or disable a CCX on a 7950X3D and have a better binned 7900X3D in essence, but that's just a big waste of money that could be better spent on other improvements.

None of them are inherently bad chips and all have the cache benefits of X3D. If wanted MT and X3D I'd go with the 7950X3D however generally speaking if cost wasn't a significant consideration between it and 7900X3D. Given the price difference I'd rather get a 7900X3D and higher quality memory kit and board myself which will offset the CCX problem a bit. Possibly some better storage as well. If you cut down the cache miss latency the CCX issue is less dramatic in the end.

I don't know why AMD didn't just make a 7600X3D with the same cache as 7900X3D. Those would sell really well and not be particularly expensive. Instead they made the 5600X3D more inexplicably and much much too little too late.

InVasManiI don't know why AMD didn't just make a 7600X3D with the same cache as 7900X3D. Those would sell really well and not be particularly expensive. Instead they made the 5600X3D more inexplicably and much much too little too late.

Lower margins.

Panther_SeraphinThe problem is that for most people who focus on gaming the 7800X3D is the better overall package (cheaper, more cores with X3D, very similar core clocks on relevant CCDs) and if they are more productivity focused the 7950x can be had for a few pounds more in the UK.

I don't see any problem for anyone buying different SKUs, as soon as you are aware of your needs, the way you use PC and you have done your research. There is plenty of choices among Zen4 CPUs. Something for everyone. There is no one best solution.

- gamers with gaming rigs should absolutely buy 7800X3D. No doubt about it. The best overall gaming CPU to date, hence its great popularity.
- I am in a smaller group of users who would benefit more from 12 cores; it is the best 'compromise-CPU' for productivity and gaming together without breaking the bank on higher SKUs, plus it is more efficient than vanilla model and faster in games.
- productivity powerhouses 7950X or 7950X3D are for users who need ultimate CPU, one more, another one less energy efficient SKU to anyone's liking, plus X3D is an option for some halo gaming aside from productivity

I can see that 90-100 of 7900X3D are sold every week on Mindfactory in Germany only, so some people find it interesting. This means that thousands are sold globally every week. It is impossible to assume that all those users do not know what they are doing by buyng it. That would be an absurd idea to ponder!

I will probably upgrade to Zen5, but if I was to buy today, I'd buy 7900X3D. Why?
- 12-core CPU is a sweet spot for me
- X3D model uses less energy, so more efficiency
- 7950X is £60 more expensive, less efficient and worse in gaming
- 7950X3D is £150 more expensive; not needed for intended case use
- my favourite games, such as MSFS take a great advantage of V-cache


I really need members to open their minds and think out-of-the-box.
There is space for every SKU, for every buyer and all needs.
A good 'problem' to have.