9900X3D or 9950X3D.. hmm

freeagent9900X3D or 9950X3D.. hmm

If you're wanting a 9900X3D I'd give it a few months that model is likely to get down to 9800X3D prices possibly even lower.

The 9900X is nearly 100 usd lower than msrp at this point at least in the states.

700 USD for a 16 core with X3D... kinda non-expensive? I don't know, it's just wild to me we're not seeing the 999 USD treatment that Intel liked to do for their Extreme Edition CPUs long ago.

windwhirl700 USD for a 16 core with X3D... kinda non-expensive? I don't know, it's just wild to me we're not seeing the 999 USD treatment that Intel liked to do for their Extreme Edition CPUs long ago.

TBF the Intel HEDT platform of old was beast I'd not make the same comparison between 9800x3d and it's higher end siblings.

freeagent9900X3D or 9950X3D.. hmm

They're both going over 9000 so whatever

I don't believe this pricing, the price difference is too low, it would make the 9900X3D kinda pointless.

Totally AMD for you. Never buy at launch, they will lower the price within weeks :)

Broken ProcessorTBF the Intel HEDT platform of old was beast I'd not make the same comparison between 9800x3d and it's higher end siblings.

Why? Because Intel wasn't selling 4 cores for $400 at the same time?

TimbalooI don't believe this pricing, the price difference is too low, it would make the 9900X3D kinda pointless.

It's the same spread as the 7000X3D the 7900X3D dropped pretty fast.

RedwoodzWhy? Because Intel wasn't selling 4 cores for $400 at the same time?

He's talking about the platform which offered substantially better connectivity is my guess even X299 had 60+ pcie lanes which is still substantially better than modern chipsets that cap out in the mid 40s with about half that being available to the end user.

oxrufiioxoIt's the same spread as the 7000X3D the 7900X3D dropped pretty fast.



He's talking about the platform which offered substantially better connectivity even X299 had 60+ pcie lanes which is still substantially better than modern chipsets that cap out in the mid 40s with about half that being available to the end user.

You guys forget these have a different design, thus the pricing is going to be different. Cache is under both CCD's.

oxrufiioxoIf you're wanting a 9900X3D I'd give it a few months that model is likely to get down to 9800X3D prices possibly even lower.

The 9900X is nearly 100 usd lower than msrp at this point at least in the states.

Good advice !

RedwoodzYou guys forget these have a different design, thus the pricing is going to be different. Cache is under both CCD's.

Its not amd already has announced its sticking to the single ccd cache BS and hoping the chipset driver/windows does the heavy lifting on scheduling.

oxrufiioxoIts not amd already has announced its sticking to the single ccd cache BS and hoping the chipset driver/windows does the heavy lifting on scheduling.

Oh really? It still may have similar cost due to the cache under the CCD's.

Looks like AMD does not want to sell any 9900X3Ds, but with the 9800X3D real world prices being where they are, it's no surprise they are overcharging for the 12C.

RedwoodzOh really? It still may have similar cost due to the cache under the CCD's.

It doesn't change the fact that the 6x3d+6 core models always tank in price it hasn't mattered if they have X3D or not the 7900X3D dropped into the low 300s from it's 599 msrp for example somtimes lower than the 7800X3D.

I'm not saying it's a bad cpu or even not worth buying it's just my observations of this configuration from amd so far hasn't resonated with consumers I'm kinda surprised they'd even offer it must mean even at 350-450 they can still make a decent profit on it.

Lets be real they're likely making a killing on 9800X3Ds.

They absolutely are making a killing off of them. Retail up here is about a hundred bucks less than I paid for my 5900X when it was new

oxrufiioxowhich is still substantially better than modern chipsets that cap out in the mid 40s with about half that being available to the end user.

AM5's MSDT CPUs have just 28, of which 4 are reserved for chipset communication, so more like just 24. X299 HEDT CPUs had 28 in some i7 SKUs, and 44 in the rest of i7 and all the i9 SKUs

So the 7900X3D was basically worse than the cheapest 7600X3D for gaming because it was merely a 6-core CPU with 3D v-cache but had the added complication of some threads accidentally ending up on the wrong CCD from time to time.

It plummeted in price to 7800X3D levels because no gamer wanted it and anyone productivity-focused would have looked at the street price ($500-550) of the much faster 7950X and laughed at the $600 7900X3D. Not only did the 7950X run circles around the 7900X3D for productivity, it wasn't even that far behind in gaming because the 7900X3D important CCD with the vCache only clocked to ~5GHz, rather than the 5.7GHz on the 7950X. Many popular games target 8 threads now, because of the consoles, which poses an occasional issue for 6-core CPUs, which is how the 7900X3D was forced to run if it didn't want to fall off the performance charts.

Maybe AMD have done something magical this time.

Maybe the 9900X3D solves the problem of a $600 part performing like a $300 part by combining a highly-binned 8-core CCD with v-cache with a 4-core harvested CCD to make up the 12 cores people expect? It seems unlikely - but that would be a far better product than the expected 6+6 configuration with only one CCD getting the extra cache.

Maybe AMD have given both CCDs the extra cache? That could also be very interesting.

The cynic in me is expecting them to just do the same dumb thing they did with the 7900X3D, including the obvious pricing mistake of thinking it's better in any way than either the 9800X3D or a 9950X (both of which are selling for comfortably under $600 right now!)

windwhirlAM5's MSDT CPUs have just 28, of which 4 are reserved for chipset communication, so more like just 24. X299 HEDT CPUs had 28 in some i7 SKUs, and 44 in the rest of i7 and all the i9 SKUs

Last I checked X299 had up to 44 from the cpu and 24 from the chipset I was talking about the platform as a whole.

Z890 is 48 but half of them are from the chipset.

Again I was talking about the platform difference.

Not just the cpu.

Chrispy_So the 7900X3D was basically worse than the cheapest 7600X3D for gaming because it was merely a 6-core CPU with 3D v-cache but had the added complication of some threads accidentally ending up on the wrong CCD from time to time.

It plummeted in price to 7800X3D levels because no gamer wanted it and anyone productivity-focused would have looked at the street price ($500-550) of the much faster 7950X and laughed at the $600 7900X3D. Not only did the 7950X run circles around the 7900X3D for productivity, it wasn't even that far behind in gaming because the 7900X3D important CCD with the vCache only clocked to ~5GHz, rather than the 5.7GHz on the 7950X. Many popular games target 8 threads now, because of the consoles, which poses an occasional issue for 6-core CPUs, which is how the 7900X3D was forced to run if it didn't want to fall off the performance charts.

Maybe AMD have done something magical this time.

Maybe the 9900X3D solves the problem of a $600 part performing like a $300 part by combining a highly-binned 8-core CCD with v-cache with a 4-core harvested CCD to make up the 12 cores people expect? It seems unlikely - but that would be a far better product than the expected 6+6 configuration with only one CCD getting the extra cache.

Maybe AMD have given both CCDs the extra cache? That could also be very interesting.

The cynic in me is expecting them to just do the same dumb thing they did with the 7900X3D, including the obvious pricing mistake of thinking it's better in any way than either the 9800X3D or a 9950X (both of which are selling for comfortably under $600 right now!)

If it loses to the 9800X3D again in gaming and gets stomped by the 9950X in productivity it's going to tank in price.

Most people don't want to spend a premium on a hybrid type product that is worse than two cheaper products that's just the reality.

I'd rather have two systems over a 12 core X3D part personally one 9800X3D and one 9950X/285k based system depending on my MT needs and if I could only have one system I'd jump to the 9950X3D... My guess is most people feel the same way.

I believe that 9900X3D will be in a much better place than 7900X3D was, at least for productivity, because now both CCDs are high speed, even though only one has the extra cache.
Same for 9950X3D. 2x high speed CCD.

freeagentTotally AMD for you. Never buy at launch, they will lower the price within weeks :)

Tell that to the 9800X3D ;)

Ik what you mean tho

freeagentThey absolutely are making a killing off of them. Retail up here is about a hundred bucks less than I paid for my 5900X when it was new

AMD? They're not making nearly as much as they would if they used the silicon in Epyc chips.

AnarchoPrimitivAMD? They're not making nearly as much as they would if they used the silicon in Epyc chips.

If they did that, then Epyc would suck :)

Cant do that :D

AnarchoPrimitivAMD? They're not making nearly as much as they would if they used the silicon in Epyc chips.

Sure but not 100% of silicon can be used for EPYC. Desktops are just the "scrap" of the wafers.
Even 9950Xs... Better binned than the lower tier AM5 but still scrap compared to EPYC.
And you have Threadripper in the middle.

So if the CCD architecture wasn't unified between AM5, Threadripper and EPYC, actually those that go to desktop would not be used at all (waste) or make up lower entry level Threadrippers for less money (than existing threadrippers). So AMD found a way to make money out of the most silicon possible and feed all sections of the market with 1 CCD design.

From what I have seen, R9 gets the best cores out of the Ryzen lot..