AMD Ryzen 7000X3D Series Prices Revealed, Available Feb 28

[Max(IT)]

RIP ;D. Can't wait to see AMD and intel market shares to go down because of overpriced products.

They cannot both go down… and AMD is overpricing way more than Intel, which is ridiculous considering that for years they depicted themselves as the viable option against the devil

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

They are $50-70 overpriced at least.

IMO, 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).

You bought a ridiculously expensive 4090 for gaming and you are complaining about prices ? Cmon…

 

[Makaveli]

They cannot both go down… and AMD is overpricing way more than Intel, which is ridiculous considering that for years they depicted themselves as the viable option against the devil

This was inevitable if you listen to lisa su speak AMD wants to be in a leadership position they don't want to stay 2nd. And since they are a publically traded company with shareholders there are demands on them. AMD would be just like intel (maybe alittle less evil lol) but would still end up the same if they were in the position for as long as intel has been. They are not really concerned about desktop users that feel they are being cheated because they are raising prices there bottom line matters more than a bunch of us getting cheap parts. This isn't pointed at you but I find too many people on these tech forums don't understand how a business is run its no charity.

 

[HD64G]

Voting with your wallets is the only thing that keeps the companies checked and forces them to lower prices. We customers are late but start to do so in the GPU market. CPU market is very balanced atm and that shows since AMD gives away kits of DDR5 alongside the AM5 CPUs to push them out of the shelves. But I can see that some people cannot understand that we are in a fight and we MUST stop buying anything that is overpriced not only CPU and allow GPU makers to get away with much more overpriced products. Inflation and VATS considered, AM4 is still the budget king and AM5 the best for a new system since the platform will be upgradeable for years to come. As for GPUs, only RDNA2 GPUs are good value for now. When those are gone, the RDNA3 will get price cuts and lower tiered GPUs will arrive with better vfm. Let's hope nVidia follow suit or people will stop buying their GPUs just for gimmicks.

 

[wheresmycar]

They're not overpriced imo. The New Zealand price for most PC components is roughly double the US price. I bought an i7-5960X-E Nov '14 for $1450(NZD), so the 7950X3D which will have vastly better performance at around $1400(NZD) is fine by me. It's how capitalism works when unencumbered by crises and fiscal recklessness. The prices are very reasonable given the economic situations around the world.

Some-what reasonable considering you're probably using these high core count units for multi-threaded workloads, etc. For gaming alone, at best a 7000-series 6-core(SMT) is sufficient and yet none available on AM5 with X3D. For anyone fancying buying into AM5 with the X3D in mind for gaming, its a different story. Its pricey: AM5 features at a higher premium, DDR5 levy and the 7800X3D @ $450 won't appeal to most buyers falling short on affordability on what should be a fitting budget for a gaming upgrade. I was surprised they introduced X3D on Zen 3 almost as if AMD knew AM5 was going to be a no-entry big ask on the wallet for most. Can't complain though... plenty of other affordable options available for a solid gaming rig from both camps but it would have been nice to have bought into AM5's forward Gen support plan at a reasonable budget.

As for capitalism, post-crisis, fiscal recklessness, etc.... that's just business as usual with some added milking-the-mill perks. For Nvidia it's way more than just perks... they're still fighting the pandemic with extortionate profit self-inflicted vaccines. I knew i should have invested in nV all those years ago... silly old me - could do with some of that honey to arouse immunity

 

[wNotyarD]

I was surprised they introduced X3D on Zen 3 almost as if AMD knew AM5 was going to be a no-entry big ask on the wallet for most.

5800X3D was both tech demonstrator and proving ground, and it excelled in either case.
It proved that the stacked cache made a processor much better at most gaming scenarios (which proved the tech), and that gamers were willing to pay extra (compared to 5800X) to have such performance.
AMD certainly would bring 3DV to Zen 4 even if it didn't test it with Zen 3, but more data to work with brings better results.

 

[Fierce Guppy]

Some-what reasonable considering you're probably using these high core count units for multi-threaded workloads, etc. For gaming alone, at best a 7000-series 6-core(SMT) is sufficient and yet none available on AM5 with X3D. For anyone fancying buying into AM5 with the X3D in mind for gaming, its a different story. Its pricey: AM5 features at a higher premium, DDR5 levy and the 7800X3D @ $450 won't appeal to most buyers falling short on affordability on what should be a fitting budget for a gaming upgrade. I was surprised they introduced X3D on Zen 3 almost as if AMD knew AM5 was going to be a no-entry big ask on the wallet for most. Can't complain though... plenty of other affordable options available for a solid gaming rig from both camps but it would have been nice to have bought into AM5's forward Gen support plan at a reasonable budget.

As for capitalism, post-crisis, fiscal recklessness, etc.... that's just business as usual with some added milking-the-mill perks. For Nvidia it's way more than just perks... they're still fighting the pandemic with extortionate profit self-inflicted vaccines. I knew i should have invested in nV all those years ago... silly old me - could do with some of that honey to arouse immunity

Some games are a multi-thread workload, so I go for a high core count, too. I build a PC such that the GPU remains the bottleneck for as long as possible. After 8 years it's that time again. The price for the 7950X3D is good. As for the other components, I've budgeted for the bad, but will not buy the ugly. Up yours NVidia.

 

[lightning70]

If you're going to buy it for pure play, get 7800X3D But if you think you will need it for gaming, rendering and other processes, I think you should get the 7900X because it's 12 cores.

 

[Radxge]

I did some math based on the benchmarks of 16 games between 5800X and 5800X3D at 4K.
I think this may provide some high level indication of the performance of 7800X3D over 7700X/7700.

The raw theoretical impact is
- Average: +6%
- 1% Low: +11%

These metrics are the following when capping FPS at 120 (which is my monitor's limit)
- Average: +1%
- 1% Low: +7%
My thinking is that these metrics are more reflecting of my situation as takes into account the capacity of my monitor.
Of course, the impact is game dependent.
So with respect to the 6 games that are most sensitive to the 3D CPU, the impact on the average is still immaterial but the 1% Lows increases by a whopping 28%.

In conclusion at 4K with a 120hz monitor, the 3D chips has very little impact on the average FPS but helps with 1% lows, but latter varies greatly by game.
So we will know in a few weeks if the 7800X3D will be worth the extra cost versus the 7700X (which is now sold for $299 in the US!)

 

[AnotherReader]

I did some math based on the benchmarks of 16 games between 5800X and 5800X3D at 4K.
I think this may provide some high level indication of the performance of 7800X3D over 7700X/7700.
In conclusion at 4K with a 120hz monitor, the 3D chips has very little impact on the average FPS but helps with 1% lows, but latter varies greatly by game.

Averages hide a lot. In TPU's 53 game comparison of the 5800X3D and 5800X, most games were GPU limited at 4K, but there were 14 games where the difference was 10% and 8 of those had a difference of 19% or more. Of course, that was with a 4090. Any one with a slower GPU wouldn't be impacted.

 

[Radxge]

Averages hide a lot. In TPU's 53 game comparison of the 5800X3D and 5800X, most games were GPU limited at 4K, but there were 14 games where the difference was 10% and 8 of those had a difference of 19% or more. Of course, that was with a 4090. Any one with a slower GPU wouldn't be impacted.

I agree that average is imperfect.

We always hear about GPU limited and CPU limited but never about monitor limited.
I think the benchmark you are referring to is not necessarily reflective of the actual experience since it does not indicate the raw FPS, only proportional increase.
For example, increasing 200FPS to 250FPS does not matter when your monitor is capped at 120FPS.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

I agree that average is imperfect.

We always hear about GPU limited and CPU limited but never about monitor limited.
I think the benchmark you are referring to is not necessarily reflective of the actual experience since it does not indicate the raw FPS, only proportional increase.
For example, increasing 200FPS to 250FPS does not matter when your monitor is capped at 120FPS.

Geeks, sorry esports pros would object and metrics various graphics how much more nimble the frame is and that it has a 20% higher probability of matching the monitor refresh and being rendered correctly.

 

[AnotherReader]

For example, increasing 200FPS to 250FPS does not matter when your monitor is capped at 120FPS.

Unfortunately, the review doesn't show the fps for the games. However, even the 4090 isn't fast enough to exceed 120 fps at 4K in some of these games. Spider Man remastered and CyberPunk are good examples.

 

[Radxge]

Geeks, sorry esports pros would object and metrics various graphics how much more nimble the frame is and that it has a 20% higher probability of matching the monitor refresh and being rendered correctly.

Well, I am not esport, like most people, so not sure why is this relevant for most folks here.

With a 120hz monitor, I think we can agree that the impact of 100FPS to 125FPS (+25%) would be much more significant than 200FPS to 250FPS (+25%) as there is clearly a diminishing return beyond the 120 limit of the monitor. This diminishing return is ignored by the benchmark pointed by AnotherReader.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I did some math based on the benchmarks of 16 games between 5800X and 5800X3D at 4K.
I think this may provide some high level indication of the performance of 7800X3D over 7700X/7700.

The raw theoretical impact is
- Average: +6%
- 1% Low: +11%

These metrics are the following when capping FPS at 120 (which is my monitor's limit)
- Average: +1%
- 1% Low: +7%
My thinking is that these metrics are more reflecting of my situation as takes into account the capacity of my monitor.
Of course, the impact is game dependent.
So with respect to the 6 games that are most sensitive to the 3D CPU, the impact on the average is still immaterial but the 1% Lows increases by a whopping 28%.

In conclusion at 4K with a 120hz monitor, the 3D chips has very little impact on the average FPS but helps with 1% lows, but latter varies greatly by game.
So we will know in a few weeks if the 7800X3D will be worth the extra cost versus the 7700X (which is now sold for $299 in the US!)

You spout some crap?!?.

I'll take W1zzards reviews over your math

But best assured no one is trying to convince you to buy next generation, do what you want but stfu about what you want verses everyone else, your capping frame rates in a comparison, I mean words fail me.


You have about as much idea what 95% wants or needs as I have. Why do you keep posting this BS.

Monitor limited, what about eyeball limited then.

 

[Icon Charlie]

Voting with your wallets is the only thing that keeps the companies checked and forces them to lower prices. We customers are late but start to do so in the GPU market. CPU market is very balanced atm and that shows since AMD gives away kits of DDR5 alongside the AM5 CPUs to push them out of the shelves. But I can see that some people cannot understand that we are in a fight and we MUST stop buying anything that is overpriced not only CPU and allow GPU makers to get away with much more overpriced products. Inflation and VATS considered, AM4 is still the budget king and AM5 the best for a new system since the platform will be upgradeable for years to come. As for GPUs, only RDNA2 GPUs are good value for now. When those are gone, the RDNA3 will get price cuts and lower tiered GPUs will arrive with better vfm. Let's hope nVidia follow suit or people will stop buying their GPUs just for gimmicks.

I agree with this comment and I'll add this video. Understand the following. I AM NOT A FAN OF DR. LISA SU. I know exactly what she is doing and this video explains what she is going to her customer base. And you better believe I do NOT like this one bit. Because it only shows the absolute greed of the Tech industry and all of their damned excuses of why Tech is so high. And as proven time and time again that is a load of Bullsh!t.

VOTE with your wallet. That is the only way you can stop this type of greed from happening.

 

[Max(IT)]

I did some math based on the benchmarks of 16 games between 5800X and 5800X3D at 4K.
I think this may provide some high level indication of the performance of 7800X3D over 7700X/7700.

The raw theoretical impact is
- Average: +6%
- 1% Low: +11%

These metrics are the following when capping FPS at 120 (which is my monitor's limit)
- Average: +1%
- 1% Low: +7%
My thinking is that these metrics are more reflecting of my situation as takes into account the capacity of my monitor.
Of course, the impact is game dependent.
So with respect to the 6 games that are most sensitive to the 3D CPU, the impact on the average is still immaterial but the 1% Lows increases by a whopping 28%.

In conclusion at 4K with a 120hz monitor, the 3D chips has very little impact on the average FPS but helps with 1% lows, but latter varies greatly by game.
So we will know in a few weeks if the 7800X3D will be worth the extra cost versus the 7700X (which is now sold for $299 in the US!)

Hardly unexpected. At 4K the CPU doesn’t really make a difference.

 

[THU31]

Hardly unexpected. At 4K the CPU doesn’t really make a difference.

People always phrase it wrong. It's not the resolution that's relevant, it's the target framerate. If you have enough GPU power for more than 120 FPS, then a faster CPU will make a difference, no matter the resolution. 4090 is a perfect example of that, where many games are CPU-bound even at 4K.

A 7600 is good enough for 120 FPS pretty much across the board (often way more than that). If you're not targeting extreme framerates over 144 Hz, then there's not much point in getting the 7800X3D. By the time new games require more CPU power, it'll be better to upgrade to a newer model. Because while the extra cache doesn't benefit every game, higher IPC and clock speeds always do.

 

[N3utro]

You can begin with quoting the correct price.
View attachment 281887

What did you expect lol? Comparing new with used, way to go. Buying used is usually very cost effective overall.

This price is VAT excluded. And yes since you obviously can't find 7800X3D at used price for now.

A new 5700X would crush a similarly priced and used 9900K and you compare it to a much faster 7800X3D? 2 leagues above at least.

"crush"



You can brag all you want, 9900x or 5700x is not the point here. The point is that the cost/performance ratio of the 7800x is nowhere near as much competitive with older gens CPUs/platforms, especially if you take into account that DDR5 and AM5 motherboards are also very expensive compared to DDR4/AM4.

 

[Max(IT)]

People always phrase it wrong. It's not the resolution that's relevant, it's the target framerate. If you have enough GPU power for more than 120 FPS, then a faster CPU will make a difference, no matter the resolution. 4090 is a perfect example of that, where many games are CPU-bound even at 4K.

A 7600 is good enough for 120 FPS pretty much across the board (often way more than that). If you're not targeting extreme framerates over 144 Hz, then there's not much point in getting the 7800X3D. By the time new games require more CPU power, it'll be better to upgrade to a newer model. Because while the extra cache doesn't benefit every game, higher IPC and clock speeds always do.

Nope. Only with a 4090 the CPU is somehow relevant in 4K, and event there you are going from a 5% advantage (13900K vs 5800X3D) at 1440P



to 1% at 4K



And I wouldn’t call the RTX 4090 as “mainstream”.

 

[THU31]

Nope. Only with a 4090 the CPU is somehow relevant in 4K, and event there you are going from a 5% advantage (13900K vs 5800X3D) at 1440P

You completely missed the point. Resolution has nothing to do with this! GPU power does.

What happens when there's a card twice as fast as a 4090, but you'll be using it with the same CPU? You'll be CPU-limited and your framerate will not go up by a factor of 2.

The way you're phrasing it means that you can't be CPU-limited in 4K, which is not true. You can lower details or use DLSS, which is still considered 4K gaming. You can play competitive games at 4K with hundreds of frames per second, where your CPU will absolutely make a difference. Same with playing old games, which will all be CPU-limited even at high resolutions.
As long as your GPU has enough power, you can be CPU-limited at any resolution.

 

[tussinman]

You completely missed the point. Resolution has nothing to do with this! GPU power does.

What happens when there's a card twice as fast as a 4090, but you'll be using it with the same CPU? You'll be CPU-limited and your framerate will not go up by a factor of 2.

The way you're phrasing it means that you can't be CPU-limited in 4K, which is not true. You can lower details or use DLSS, which is still considered 4K gaming. You can play competitive games at 4K with hundreds of frames per second, where your CPU will absolutely make a difference. Same with playing old games, which will all be CPU-limited even at high resolutions.
As long as your GPU has enough power, you can be CPU-limited at any resolution.

Your both technically correct.

He was trying to say that snobs and AMD themselves will drastically inflate the actual real world performance increase on the 3D chips over the current semi modern line of CPUs (Ryzen 5000, Intel 12/13th gen) which is a fair statement.

At the same time your correct that there are situations where you can be CPU limited even at 4k and if this is a new build or a build that the user plans on sitting on for a while then you will have the benefit of having a better CPU for when the next generation or 2 of video cards come out.

 

[HD64G]

This price is VAT excluded. And yes since you obviously can't find 7800X3D at used price for now.



"crush"

View attachment 282449

You can brag all you want, 9900x or 5700x is not the point here. The point is that the cost/performance ratio of the 7800x is nowhere near as much competitive with older gens CPUs/platforms, especially if you take into account that DDR5 and AM5 motherboards are also very expensive compared to DDR4/AM4.

5800X vs 9900K

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/F8LbVqh2HanAaMDUKLVFZi-970-80.png.webp
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SAXoWK6BiNQ6mAMLbEALVi-970-80.png.webp
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/P8r3x46ksaXGfFN5Uxvmgi-970-80.png.webp
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XUq9Uh9x2UTT97fTGZMbci-970-80.png.webp

7700X vs 5700X

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gN6famm2WrkYuJKybHc7cm-970-80.png.webp
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/6qT6zWijiuhjigNGucq2Rm-970-80.png.webp
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8VzMUnNF6xVSiREU2Jv6nm-970-80.png.webp
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ngtMeenYHHKjnMLJkDXxhm-970-80.png.webp

Remember that 5700X consumes less than 90W and is ~2% slower in games and <5% in apps (even when using the cheapest motherboards) vs 5800X that consumes 142W. 9900K needs much better cooling (180W power draw to get 4,8GHz or else it loses more than 10% in most apps) and higher quality mothernboard.

 

[SOAREVERSOR]

I agree with this comment and I'll add this video. Understand the following. I AM NOT A FAN OF DR. LISA SU. I know exactly what she is doing and this video explains what she is going to her customer base. And you better believe I do NOT like this one bit. Because it only shows the absolute greed of the Tech industry and all of their damned excuses of why Tech is so high. And as proven time and time again that is a load of Bullsh!t.

VOTE with your wallet. That is the only way you can stop this type of greed from happening.

It's not greed it's running a business.

If you look at the computers the average person uses prices are cheaper than ever before. You can get more laptop/notebook for your buck than you could in the past. Prices are solid.

Gaming is a luxury though. The fun thing about competition in luxury is it causes prices to go up, not down, it's how it works. So each generation of stuff as complexity goes up it's going to cost more to make. As the market leader and the brand with the best reputation companies like nvidia and intel cannot lower their prices as it will cause damage to the value and image of their brand. As a second tier company AMD cannot afford to under price their stuff without an impact that they are even worse than they are.

If you want this thing to start happening it's not enough to stop buying. PC gamers as a group will have to state they don't want the latest and greatest graphics anymore, 4k gaming, high refresh displays, and on and on. Get off PC gaming and go buy a laptop from Dell or whomever. You'll get a good deal of value for your money.

 

[Max(IT)]

You completely missed the point. Resolution has nothing to do with this! GPU power does.

What happens when there's a card twice as fast as a 4090, but you'll be using it with the same CPU? You'll be CPU-limited and your framerate will not go up by a factor of 2.

The way you're phrasing it means that you can't be CPU-limited in 4K, which is not true. You can lower details or use DLSS, which is still considered 4K gaming. You can play competitive games at 4K with hundreds of frames per second, where your CPU will absolutely make a difference. Same with playing old games, which will all be CPU-limited even at high resolutions.
As long as your GPU has enough power, you can be CPU-limited at any resolution.

I'm speaking about the situation as it is TODAY and in the near future.
No point in considering a scenario where we have a graphic card twice faster than an RTX 4090. Yes, the situation will be different, but at that point the market will consider moving to 8K resolution (or at least 4K will start becoming a mainstream resolution).

 

[Hofnaerrchen]

RIP ;D. Can't wait to see AMD and intel market shares to go down because of overpriced products.

I would not call a product overprized if it is still at the same price as it's predecessor. The Problem for AMD are not the CPU prices but the decision to go DDR5 only and the cost that is implied to motherboards by this. For AMD the overall platform price sucks, the CPU pricing is OK.