Monday, January 6th 2025
AMD Launches Ryzen 9 9000X3D Series "Zen 5" Desktop Processors with 3D V-Cache
AMD today expanded its Ryzen 9000X3D line of Socket AM5 desktop processors that combine the "Zen 5" microarchitecture with 3D V-Cache technology, with the introduction of two high core-count models, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D and the Ryzen 9 9900X3D. The 9950X3D is a 16-core/32-thread chip, while the 9900X3D is 12-core/24-thread. These are dual-CCD processors, and much like the Ryzen 9 7000X3D, the 3D V-Cache is only present on one of the two CCDs, while the other is a regular CCD with just the 32 MB on-die L3 cache. There is one key difference, though. Since AMD has redesigned 3D V-Cache for "Zen 5" to be below the CCD and not above, the CCD with it has the same clock speed boosting characteristics as the CCD without 3D V-Cache; and AMD has worked to refine its software-based OS scheduler optimization such that productivity applications favor either of the CCDs, while games stick to the one with 3D V-Cache.
The Ryzen 9 9950X3D comes with a base frequency of 4.30 GHz, and boosts up to 5.70 GHz, with a 170 W TDP. This is much higher than the 5.20 GHz maximum boost frequency of the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, which makes the 9950X3D the company's fastest gaming desktop processor. The Ryzen 9 9900X3D is similarly interesting—you get a base frequency of 4.40 GHz, and 5.50 GHz maximum boost frequency, which is higher than that of the 9800X3D, although the CCD with the 3D V-Cache only has 6 cores. The 9950X3D should hence end up beating the 9800X3D in gaming workloads, while the 9900X3D should be either on par or slightly slower than the 9800X3D at gaming, although faster than any chip from the non-X3D Ryzen 9000 series.
AMD claims that the Ryzen 9 9950X3D is on average 8% faster than the 7950X3D, and on average 20% faster than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K in gaming workloads, tested across 40 games. It's also 13% faster than the 7950X3D at productivity, and 10% faster than the 285K across the same productivity tests. The company hence claims that the 9950X3D will be the "world's best processor" for both gaming and productivity, ceding no ground to Intel. The company made no first-party performance claims for the 9900X3D. AMD says that the Ryzen 9 9950X3D and 9900X3D will be available in Q1 2025.
The Ryzen 9 9950X3D comes with a base frequency of 4.30 GHz, and boosts up to 5.70 GHz, with a 170 W TDP. This is much higher than the 5.20 GHz maximum boost frequency of the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, which makes the 9950X3D the company's fastest gaming desktop processor. The Ryzen 9 9900X3D is similarly interesting—you get a base frequency of 4.40 GHz, and 5.50 GHz maximum boost frequency, which is higher than that of the 9800X3D, although the CCD with the 3D V-Cache only has 6 cores. The 9950X3D should hence end up beating the 9800X3D in gaming workloads, while the 9900X3D should be either on par or slightly slower than the 9800X3D at gaming, although faster than any chip from the non-X3D Ryzen 9000 series.
63 Comments on AMD Launches Ryzen 9 9000X3D Series "Zen 5" Desktop Processors with 3D V-Cache
Having V-cache on one CCD is ideal. If you want V-cache on the other CCD as well to minimize performance loss for games that jump CCD, which is literally the only reason one might want it, just use project lasso for that specific game. Now why would I want dual CCD to increase performance for those specific games when I can get higher performance with a single (or dual) V-cache CPU by just pinning it to the correct CCD with lasso. Once pinned, there is going to be zero difference between dual and single CCD V-cache.
In my 7950X3D I only noticed older games jumping CCD and among the 20 or so games I tested it was only the one game that regressed performance slightly.
Edit: If AMD completely overhauls the design and other CCD's cache can be shared without going through the IF, maybe dual CCD cache might make sense. At present, it's pretty pointless
I want a processor which is the same. Nothing half baked. It makes my task optimising the code for the hardware impossible.No. No. No.
The ideal scenario is a symmetrical processor. So you do not need any software overhead to manage those tasks. Maybe my ryzen 7600x is symmetrical.
E-Cores = overhead
cache tile vs no cache tile = performance penalty // software overhead by pinning software to the V-Cache CCD. - moving software to the desired cores.
This is how it’s supposed to be on 7000X3D when the nonV-cached CCD has much higher frequency.
Here the game is loading and the threads are handled mostly on nonV-cached CCD
Here the loading ended and 3D graphics are on handled (switched) at the V-cached CCD while the higher frequency is handling background threads.
Nothing is disabled ever. Just proper scheduling.
Dual CCD 7000X3Ds are suppose to run a dedicated win service for this.
X3D is not "half-baked". It's built to dominate gaming benchmarks first and foremost. It does that rather well.
Just for information: Other tasks benefit also from cache.
I will not explain what purpose an arithmetic logic unit, cache and a scheduler has.
Just use a very old windows version without those "software" fixes for those "unbaked" processors. We had those topics for months in the past. Denying facts?
Extra E-cores, or cache vs frequency cores is just adding nuances to the above, but it's still the same idea.Eh, not many that you would want to run in a puny consumer CPU with only a 128-bit memory bus. Apart from games, it's often CFD and Database stuff that's really sensitive to bandwidth, which cache helps a lot, but that you should be using more memory channels to begin with.I don't think this has anything to do with the discussion and you seen to be trying to move the goalposts.
Cache on both CCDs won't help in most games since few, if any, games meaningfully use more than eight cores (at least to the extent to see a real benefit), and for those few that might, crossing CCDs has performance penalties that largely counteracts (if not more than negates?) the benefit. So you would be left with a processor that now needs to be much more expensive for very very little benefit, if any at all. At least for most things/gaming. I mean, maybe it's a cool concept to speculate about for something like Minecraft with Distant Horizons (which scales with core count and I don't think latency matters much, and that's presuming the LOD generation is even sped up by extra cache which I'm not sure of so maybe the current hybrid approach works just as well) or something, but... yeah, those types of niches are too uncommon to make it worthwhile for now.
What about the non-gaming situations where it could benefit massively? There's always exceptions, but it seems they are too few in number (at least for now, and at least in AMD's opinion) to make it worthwhile. Making the CPU that way would mean it needs to be even more expensive, meaning they will likely lose more buyers than they gain in profits from those abstaining from buying it over this single fact.
So "it's not worth the additional cost/resulting higher price we'd need to charge because the benefits are too few/low". This isn't just my speculation anymore; it's the very reason AMD has recently claimed as to why they aren't doing it.
So yeah, the extra cache is really only meaningful for some niche workloads even in the enterprise space.
I made the last part up but one can hope.