AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D Drops to $409, to Clash with Core i7-14700K

[rv8000]

A hypothetical scenario where software scheduling has no issues doesn't change the testing done in reality, where the 8 core 7800X3D is always faster than the 6+6 core 7900X3D. Frequency isn't the only difference.

When scheduling works, and there's no issues with latency, you're right, the 7950X3D is faster than the 7800X3D, the problem is it doesn't always work in reality, as testing shows.


You can undervolt non X3D chips to get the same efficiency gains.

The X3D chips can undervolt further because they don't have to hit the same frequency targets. You can't expect a 5 GHz chip to undervolt to the same voltage as a 4.5 GHz chip, while maintaining performance.

Caveat being disabling the second CCD on a 7950X3D, it would always be faster than a 7800X3D if thats what someone is really after.

Not to mention with proper thread assignment there are games that primarily run with a main thread or dont fully utilize all cores/threads on the 7900X3D/7950X3D that are faster already.

 

[kapone32]

Less useless than the 7900X3D which is gaming focused due to being X3D, but slower than cheaper alternatives for both gaming and productivity.

At least the 5900X is faster in it's intended role - productivity, than the 5800X.

Thanks for calling my CPU useless. I will remember that when I am Gaming today

 

[GenericNinja]

Thanks for calling my CPU useless. I will remember that when I am Gaming today

I think you need to find your Zen place. Too much emotional attachment to a purchasing decision can lead to unclear thinking. If you bought 7900X3D purely for gaming, you made a poor purchasing decision, just accept it and stop encouraging others to make the same mistake. No one said it wouldn't game or do productivity, just that it is beaten by every metric by other AMD processor SKUs.

 

[Panther_Seraphin]

When loads are properly assigned to vcache cores on the 7900X3D and 7950X3D it is actually IMPOSSIBLE for the 7800X3D to be faster as its boost clock is lower than both the 7900X3D/7950X3D vcache CCDs.

Thread assignment shenanigans make hybrid CPUs (yes intel too) very annoying to obtain consistent/accurate results.

Not all tests show the 7950X3D slower by default, so incorrect.

Having owned and thoroughly tested a 7900X3D, disabling the non vcache CCD, strictly for testing purposes, it is indeed faster than a 7800X3D. It’s a shame thread hoping across CCDs can hamper performance.

This is why the 7800X3D is the most favoured/recommended for most people

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.

Caveat being disabling the second CCD on a 7950X3D, it would always be faster than a 7800X3D if thats what someone is really after.

Not to mention with proper thread assignment there are games that primarily run with a main thread or dont fully utilize all cores/threads on the 7900X3D/7950X3D that are faster already.

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.

 

[Tek-Check]

As a gaming CPU how does being slower than the 7800X3D and more expensive make the 7900X3D "very competitive"? If you claim higher clocks better just disable two cores on the 7800X3D to achieve the same clocks on your 3D cores and don't worry about 2nd CCD issues (and Ryzen 7 still cheaper).

12 and 16 cores X3D CPUs are not only gaming CPUs, but productivity-oriented too. You can't box it as gaming only. That's narrow-minded approach.
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?

Sure, but this still applies.

And new price applies too.

 

[Panther_Seraphin]

And new price applies too.

In the UK the 7950x is farr too close to the 7900x for it to be a good proposition.

 

[freeagent]

Can confirm as an owner. The bloody thing constantly tells me to go f**k myself any time I try to run Blender or load up a game. Just a BSOD with a “Go eff yourself. Love, your 5900X”. Lazy bum.

Sounds like you have other problems. My 5900X rips it up.

 

[GenericNinja]

12 and 16 cores X3D CPUs are not only gaming CPUs, but productivity-oriented too. You can't box it as gaming only. That's narrow-minded approach.
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.

Do you actually have a productivity load that scales from 8 to 12 but not to 16 cores? Because otherwise the $500 7950X or even the $600 7950X3D still make more sense. The non-V cache 2 ccd CPUs also suffer from fewer multi CCD issues than the 3D parts, so gaming performance of the 7950X is shockingly close to the 7900X3D. Otherwise if productivity per dollar is the metric the 7900X is cheaper and will outperform the 7900X3D in productivity and be virtually indistinguishable in performance at 4K gaming. The 7900X3D isn't competitive for you or any other audience. The consumer friendly move to dispose of these defective dies should have been a 7600X3D.

 

[dgianstefani]

Do you actually have a productivity load that scales from 8 to 12 but not to 16 cores? Because otherwise the $500 7950X or even the $600 7950X3D still make more sense. The non-V cache 2 ccd CPUs also suffer from fewer multi CCD issues than the 3D parts, so gaming performance of the 7950X is shockingly close to the 7900X3D. Otherwise if productivity per dollar is the metric the 7900X is cheaper and will outperform the 7900X3D in productivity and be virtually indistinguishable in performance at 4K gaming. The 7900X3D isn't competitive for you or any other audience. The consumer friendly move to dispose of these defective dies should have been a 7600X3D.

If you actually earn money with your CPU I *highly* doubt saving ~$100 by going with the 7900X over the 7950X is worth it from a returns perspective. Cost of equipment for professionals/businesses is marginal compared to cost of software licenses. If you don't use it for paid work, but are gaming focused or a casual user, why look at high core count CPUs? I'm guessing these chips weren't sampled to reviewers because there's little demand for them.

 

[Noyand]

Thanks for calling my CPU useless. I will remember that when I am Gaming today

You are taking some things a bit too personally. AMD got X3D CCD who cannot use more than 6 cores, and they need to go somewhere. My guess is that a 7600X3D would have been too disruptive in their own product stack, so the 7900X3D was born. (Ideally the 7900X3D would be an 8+ 4 configuration, with perfect core parking, but I'm not even sure if an asymmetrical CCD core count is something that can work on Ryzen). The 7900X3D isn't "useless" by its performance metrics, it's just a bit of an awkward product. Most gamers should rather get the 7800x3D and a faster GPU, if gaming is their main concern. The price reduction made it better, but that doesn't apply to every country.

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.

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Review - Best of Both Worlds

The Ryzen 9 7950X3D is the spearhead of the AMD Zen 4 X3D lineup. In our performance review we test AMD's new 16-core flagship with dozens of applications and 14 games at up to 4K, to see whether AMD can take the performance crown from Intel, how power consumption is affected, and what can be...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[rv8000]

This is why the 7800X3D is the most favoured/recommended for most people

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.

I already established this, why quote and reiterate?

Buy what you need/can. Doesnt change the fact the 7950X3D is the faster/fastest CPU in any use case vs the 7800X3D

 

[Tek-Check]

Less useless than the 7900X3D which is gaming focused due to being X3D, but slower than cheaper alternatives for both gaming and productivity.

"Slower" is relative category, and you know it. Some workloads are negligibly slower, some not. "Cheaper" is also a non-binary category, depending on buyer's plans with their platforms. If someone has 1700 socket and wants an easy upgrade, it's a no brainer to buy 13700K or 14700K, or other Intel CPU. If someone buys a new platform with intention of easy upgrade, new 1700 socket PC is a big no-no as it is EOL, but AM5 is the way to go, or wait for Arrow Lake. Plus, there are plehora of other factor to consider, such as power draw, as this CPU is very efficient.

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.

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.

As Wendell showed in his testing, cores on the other CCD can be parked during gaming, so it's up to game engine to use cache and/or clocks as it pleases.

 

[dgianstefani]

"Slower" is relative category, and you know it. Some workloads are negligibly slower, some not. "Cheaper" is also a non-binary category, depending on buyer's plans with their platforms. If someone has 1700 socket and wants an easy upgrade, it's a no brainer to buy 13700K or 14700K, or other Intel CPU. If someone buys a new platform with intention of easy upgrade, new 1700 socket PC is a big no-no as it is EOL, but AM5 is the way to go, or wait for Arrow Lake. Plus, there are plehora of other factor to consider, such as power draw, as this CPU is very efficient.

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.

View attachment 334744

View attachment 334745

Both "slower" and "cheaper" are objectively measurable metrics that can and have been directly compared in this thread.

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.

 

[Tek-Check]

Both "slower" and "cheaper" are objectively measurable metrics that can and have been directly compared in this thread.

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)

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.

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.

I agree with your summary and I fit this category of users. I also agree that it's a niche product and buyers should have as many choices as possible.

 

[SOAREVERSOR]

Thanks for calling my CPU useless. I will remember that when I am Gaming today

Gaming is useless incel crap, especially on the PC.

 

[kapone32]

I think you need to find your Zen place. Too much emotional attachment to a purchasing decision can lead to unclear thinking. If you bought 7900X3D purely for gaming, you made a poor purchasing decision, just accept it and stop encouraging others to make the same mistake. No one said it wouldn't game or do productivity, just that it is beaten by every metric by other AMD processor SKUs.

Wow. Can I ask you, was the 7800X3D released the same time as the 7900X3D? Is the 7900X3D faster than a 5800X3D? Is the 7900X3D cheaper than a 7950X3D? Does every Game use Vcache? When you say every metric what exactly do you mean?

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.

 

[Imouto]

BTW DDR5 Ram come with Data check it may not be ECC on them but I don't know what I am talking about.

Anyone can check your first post in this thread to realize that you don't.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Have you personally reviewed this chip? Since when does the 7950X3D run cool? One of the complaints about the 7800X3D is clock speed. Does a 7800X3D do 5.6 GHz on any core?

It has never been a secret that the dual CCD chips have similar thermal and electrical characteristics, the 3900X was not any colder than the 3950X, same for the 5900X and 5950X, and it remains the same with the 7000 series. The reasons are likely because despite having fewer cores, they're of a worse bin, too. The 7900X3D is just... the black sheep of the Ryzen 7000 family. dgian is right when he says the 7800X3D is a better gaming chip, and also when the 7950X3D is also a better gaming chip (and better workstation processor).

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.

 

[kapone32]

Anyone can check your first post in this thread to realize that you don't.

You don't even list your specs

 

[Imouto]

You don't even list your specs

How does that make any statement in your first post true?

 

[Tek-Check]

Because otherwise the $500 7950X or even the $600 7950X3D still make more sense.

Prices are all over the place with main UK retailers at the moment. It's a flux, which also influence different narratives here.
7900X - £345, £360, £370, £440
7950X - £460, £500, £510
7900X3D - £401, £410, £440
7950X3D - £550, £560

 

[kapone32]

It has never been a secret that the dual CCD chips have similar thermal and electrical characteristics, the 3900X was not any colder than the 3950X, same for the 5900X and 5950X, and it remains the same with the 7000 series. The reasons are likely because despite having fewer cores, they're of a worse bin, too. The 7900X3D is just... the black sheep of the Ryzen 7000 family. dgian is right when he says the 7800X3D is a better gaming chip, and also when the 7950X3D is also a better gaming chip (and better workstation processor).

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.

Yep the 5900X does not run cooler than a 5950x. You can bash my 7900X3D but it is just as fast as your 13900Ks.

How does that make any statement in your first post true?

My first post has actual screenshots that show my specs. You respond with nothing. I am not talking about this chip like I don't have it and have been using it for over a year already.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Yep the 5900X does not run cooler than a 5950x. You can bash my 7900X3D but it is just as fast as your 13900Ks.

My first post has actual screenshots that show my specs. You respond with nothing. I am not talking about this chip like I don't have it and have been using it for over a year already.

I wasn't bashing it at all... in fact, for that price, I think it's a decent deal, just don't think it's worth it over a 7800X3D. If we talk productivity, my 13900KS will annihilate it, it's not even in the same league, granted, at probably twice the power consumption, but, yeah.

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"

 

[Tek-Check]

As predicted. Slower than 7950X3D, which is slower than 7800X3D (in gaming).

Yes, 7800X3D is the best for pure gaming, especially in 1080p/1440p.
In 4K, none of this matters much, a few fps up or down.

Having owned and thoroughly tested a 7900X3D, disabling the non vcache CCD, strictly for testing purposes, it is indeed faster than a 7800X3D. It’s a shame thread hoping across CCDs can hamper performance.

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.

If you bought 7900X3D purely for gaming, you made a poor purchasing decision, just accept it and stop encouraging others to make the same mistake. No one said it wouldn't game or do productivity, just that it is beaten by every metric by other AMD processor SKUs.

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.

 

[GenericNinja]

Wow. Can I ask you, was the 7800X3D released the same time as the 7900X3D? Is the 7900X3D faster than a 5800X3D? Is the 7900X3D cheaper than a 7950X3D? Does every Game use Vcache? When you say every metric what exactly do you mean?

For CPU mining a 7900X3D would be better than a 7700X

No 7800X3D core can do 5.6 Ghz

You 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.