Ryzen 9 7900X vs Ryzen 9 7900X3D

[dgianstefani]

This post acts like there is no difference in cost for the CPUs. I bought my 7900X3D for $599 when the 7950X3D was $1099. Further more when the 7800X3D launched it was $549. All of these prices are in Canadian. I will also go back to my first post in this thread as you have never used the chip to have such an "informed" opinion on it.

Your own post indicates the 7800X3D is a better deal. Ironic.

You play at 4K so the CPU is borderline irrelevant, even with the fastest GPU available, which you don't have. Something you still don't seem to understand. Good example of those who think the x900 is a good gaming CPU relative to the alternatives though.

INB4 "my CPU isn't on that list, trust me guys it's actually the best" despite being a dual CCD part with all the disadvantages plus some extra from being cut down.

People bash me all the time but I am going to give you a reason to get the 7900X3D. I bought the chip on launch. I had replaced a 5900X with a 5800X3D and lamented Windows feeling slower. When I got the 7900X3D I can easily play any Game at 4K. Combined with the 7900XT my CPU never goes above 30% usage when Gaming and Games like City Skylines 2 are between 80-100 FPS at 4K. There is also the fact that because it was never sampled to reviewers there is some negative noise about it but that has created a scenario where the 7900X3D can be cheaper than a 7900X.

One x900 chip was enough for me. I learned my lesson. Others in this thread indicated the same.

Perhaps the "bashing" you get from everyone is actually just the general population trying to help you learn that lesson too.

But hey "Windows feels slower" with an eight core CCD than two six core CCDs apparently. From the same perspective that thinks 4K gaming is CPU intensive (a $100 12400F from 2021 performs essentially the same as a $700 CPU from 2024 in this scenario, which is worst case paired with the fastest GPU available).

Gosh, I wonder why AMD never bothered to sample the x900 chips...

 

[kapone32]

Your own post indicates the 7800X3D is a better deal. Ironic.

You play at 4K so the CPU is borderline irrelevant, even with the fastest GPU available, which you don't have. Something you still don't seem to understand. Good example of those who think the x900 is a good gaming CPU relative to the alternatives though.

INB4 "my CPU isn't on that list, trust me guys it's actually the best" despite being a dual CCD part with all the disadvantages plus some extra from being cut down.

View attachment 362607



One x900 chip was enough for me. I learned my lesson. Others in this thread indicated the same.

Perhaps the "bashing" you get from everyone is actually just the general population trying to help you learn that lesson too.

But hey "Windows feels slower" with an eight core CCD than two six core CCDs apparently. From the same perspective that thinks 4K gaming is CPU intensive (a $100 12400F from 2021 performs essentially the same as a $700 CPU from 2024 in this scenario, which is worst case paired with the fastest GPU available).

Gosh, I wonder why AMD never bothered to sample the x900 chips...

Indeed that is why there are so many complaints in all the AMD focused threads? I have used every single AM4 CPU in doing builds and I know that the 7900X3D is much faster than the 5800X3D. Where does that take your argument? Then I also (as I gave said before) bought a 7800X3D and felt the same thing I felt when I went from the 5900X to the 5800X3D. You act like these CPUs do not improve and as far as Inter CCD latency goes is it nearly as complex as Big/Little as maybe the 3900X was not that good but there are not many people who complain about the performance of the 5900X?. This argument onlu came up with X3D being on one of the CCDs.

Maybe the success of the 5900X and the call from the community for Dual CCD X3D inspired them to not sample it. The CPU has fallen exactly $20 since I bought it too so your doom and gloom prognosis is clear evidence of the "hurt feelings" that you infer. You see that chart that you supply shows a .1% difference between the 7800X3D and 7950X3D. I guess the 50 Games in the review stack also compare to the 800+ Games that I can play like TWWH3 in battles (not benchmarks), City Skylines at 4K and modern Games that will run the GPU clock at it's highest the entire time and whatever else I decide to play. I would also like to understand the discrepancy between AMD FPS counter and MSI afterburner. Then you are not using AMD software and not appreciative that all AMD systems do benefit with extra performance enhancements thanks to access to AMD Software. I have a AMD/Nvidia based laptop so I know that AMD software is not fully functional on just the CPU. It may have changed with the introduction of IGPUs on 7000 chips but those are only for troubleshooting as 1080P 60Hz is the max from that chip.

What always blows me away with your posts to me is that you act like we are in the same situation. I own and use daily the chip that you love to complain about. That is not in a vacumn either as I have been around computers since I was 8 years old and saw Star Wars in the theater in 1977 so this is not some penis envy argument to justify my purchase.

I guess you are of the opinion that CPU performance does not matter at 4K but I know that it does. Maybe if you are using a GPU like a 7600XT. I tested that for a week in my rig and most Games were using no more than 10% of the CPU. Plug back in the 7900XT and that average goes to 30%. There is ony 4GB diffrence in VRAM for those GPUs but because the 7900XT is much faster it pushes the CPU to process those 4K images that much faster.

 

[Darkholm]

There's your issue, exclusivity for AMD.

Buy what makes sense, regardless of brand.

There's exactly eight current platform desktop CPUs that make sense today for non-professional workloads.

7600(non X) or it's cheaper derivatives 7500 etc., 9700X, 7800X3D, 9950X, 12400F, 13/14900K, 13600K, 14700K.

It doesn't really matter, it's an objectively, measurably, worse CPU, there is no good reason to buy it. I would literally take a 7700X over a 7900X if both were free.

Your statement "not making money, it is entertainment tool for singleplayer gaming and occasional workload" does not scream "I need 12 cores at the expense of worse at everything else" to me.

Get the 7800X3D/9700X or wait, you're falling for the "x number is higher" trap that AMD is happy to continue to entertain, because it gets rid of twice as many defect dies as the 7600X.

If you encode/render there's little reason to not do that on the GPU anyway, CPU rendering is from last century.

The second major issue besides latency is that the two CCDs, even in 9950X, run at different frequencies, often significantly. AMD gives you one good CCD and one mediocre one. This leads to problems if you're using software that expects all the cores to be the same speed.

Since there's no hardware scheduler like Intel has, this disparity cannot be properly resolved.

7900X is less than 14% faster (with 50% more cores) in TPU MT applications testing, and 5-10% slower in gaming than the 9700X, which would give you none of these drawbacks I've just mentioned.

We found the Missing Performance: Zen 5 Tested with SMT Disabled

Reviews of AMD’s Zen 5 processors this week surprised many, with lower-than-expected results. After some investigation, we discovered that turning off Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT) can yield notable performance gains, particularly in gaming. This article presents our findings, including...

www.techpowerup.com

Additionally, the 7900X uses significantly more power.

Duly noted, sir. Thanks.
You mentioned 7800X3D/9700X, but why not 7700/7700X, any "wrongs" about them? My vendor could get 7700 tray edition for a very low price, much lower than 7700X or 7700 boxed version.
It's review here on TPU says it is basically the same thing as 7700X, and later review says that 9700X is not much faster (7% in app, 1% in gaming without messing with disabled SMT).

7700 tray edition for 140 EUR less than 9700X and 50 EUR less of 7700X should be a steal, don't you think?

Was in the same scenario as yourself coming from a 5900x. I'm primarily a gamer, I just couldn't tell a difference between the 2 cpu's at all in real world use. If you're doing more than gaming, sure, go for those extra threads.

My previous thoughts exactly.

This post acts like there is no difference in cost for the CPUs. I bought my 7900X3D for $599 when the 7950X3D was $1099. Further more when the 7800X3D launched it was $549. All of these prices are in Canadian. I will also go back to my first post in this thread as you have never used the chip to have such an "informed" opinion on it.

Regarding the cost, I might find 7700 tray (no box or cooler) for very attractive price,, but will wait for @dgianstefani opinion

 

[dgianstefani]

You see that chart that you supply shows a .1% difference between the 7800X3D and 7950X3D.

I guess you are of the opinion that CPU performance does not matter at 4K but I know that it does.

Always is astonishing how you manage to badly read data. That's the point bud. Now compare to 1080p or 1440p where there's a much bigger difference. Honestly I think you just like holding a different belief than what's established. Hence why you think x900 is good, and how CPU performance matters at 4K. Always boils down to "but I own this CPU", rather than any actual data. Anyway, boring as usual. Moving on.

Duly noted, sir. Thanks.
You mentioned 7800X3D/9700X, but why not 7700/7700X, any "wrongs" about them? My vendor could get 7700 tray edition for a very low price, much lower than 7700X or 7700 boxed version.
It's review here on TPU says it is basically the same thing as 7700X, and later review says that 9700X is not much faster (7% in app, 1% in gaming without messing with disabled SMT).

View attachment 362609 View attachment 362610

7700 tray edition for 140 EUR less than 9700X and 50 EUR less of 7700X should be a steal, don't you think?



My previous thoughts exactly.


Regarding the cost, I might find 7700 tray (no box or cooler) for very attractive price,, but will wait for @dgianstefani opinion

It's not gaming performance, but applications performance and energy efficiency where it's a bad idea to pick the 7700 over the 9700. Point is, if you can afford the 7900 you can afford the 9700. Zen 5 is a future looking architecture, so current applications suites don't really fully engage it's capabilities either.

Generally a bad idea to buy previous generation parts if you can afford the current gen.

 

[Darkholm]

It's not gaming performance, but applications performance and energy efficiency where it's a bad idea to pick the 7700 over the 9700. Point is, if you can afford the 7900 you can afford the 9700. Zen 5 is a future looking architecture, so current applications suites don't really fully engage it's capabilities either.

Generally a bad idea to buy previous generation parts if you can afford the current gen.

Please see price relations (cannot post exact prices due to my personal exclusivity at my vendor and VAT deduction, but similar relations are at majority EU retaliers ):

7700 - base price
7700X - +50 EUR
7900X - +90 EUR
9700X - +139 EUR
7900X3D - +143 EUR
7800X3D - +155 EUR
7950X - +274 EUR
7950X3D - +299 EUR
9950X - +388 EUR

And let us pull out 8c/16t CPUs only:
7700 - base price
7700X - +50 EUR
9700X - +139 EUR
7800X3D - +155 EUR

Please help me understand. OK, since I am not exclusive gamer, 7800X3D is really not needed, so my 8c/16t options are 7700X and 9700X, and I said that efficiency is not a problem, and you (and one other fella) said that 7900X/3D is a dud, let's scrape that 12c/24t idea and go for 8c/16t parts.
Does 139 EUR difference really pays off between 7700 non-X and 9700X for 1440P gaming and some light productivity performance-wise? We are talking about almost identical performance envelope in 1440P gaming and single digit overall performance uplift in application performance by 9700X for almost 60% price uplift.

Yes, I understand thesis "if I have money for 7900X3D, I have it also for 9700X" and it is legit advice, no questions about it. But then, TPU review and testing conclusions are that 7700/X and 9700X are performance wise almost the same thing.

Bottom line, please correct me if I'm wrong - this 139 EUR plus difference from 7700 to 9700X is for efficiency and future proofing or there is something more that I am missing out?

I can afford it, I can afford 9950X, but cannot justify it to myself mentally

 

[Zach_01]

My EU region retail prices (VAT 24% incl)
From a local market place (Amazon type) that contains many many retailers)

08 - 7700 ------- 280€
08 - 7700Χ ----- 286€ ___ (+6€)
12 - 7900Χ ----- 325€ ___(+45€)
12 - 7900 ------- 333€ ___(+53€)
08 - 9700Χ ----- 379€ ___(+99€)
08 - 7800Χ3D -- 392€ ___(+112€)
12 - 7900Χ3D -- 408€ ___(+128€)
16 - 7950X ----- 495€ ___(+215€)
12 - 9900Χ ----- 506€ ___(+226€)
16 - 7950Χ3D -- 547€ ___(+267€)
16 - 9950X ----- 696€ ___(+416€)

All of the above prices are with a waiting period of 4-10 or 10-30 days

For next day shipping (different retailers) all going up roughly +10-35€ with the exception of 7950X (next day) and 9950X (4-10days, no next day)

08 - 7700 ------- 306€
08 - 7700Χ ----- 310€ ___ (+4€)
12 - 7900 ------- 341€ ___(+35€)
12 - 7900Χ ----- 361€ ___(+55€)
08 - 9700Χ ----- 420€ ___(+114€)
12 - 7900Χ3D -- 423€ ___(+117€)
08 - 7800Χ3D -- 435€ ___(+129€)
16 - 7950X ----- 495€ ___(+215€)
12 - 9900Χ ----- 529€ ___(+223€)
16 - 7950Χ3D -- 570€ ___(+264€)

Looking at prices and performance my go to right now from the 5900X (410€ 2.5y ago) would be the 7900X3D
Its not about only the per core performance but having more cores/threads at your disposal for multi app + VM running.
If it was about perf only, then even the 7700X would suffice.

 

[dgianstefani]

Please see price relations (cannot post exact prices due to my personal exclusivity at my vendor and VAT deduction, but similar relations are at majority EU retaliers ):

7700 - base price
7700X - +50 EUR
7900X - +90 EUR
9700X - +139 EUR
7900X3D - +143 EUR
7800X3D - +155 EUR
7950X - +274 EUR
7950X3D - +299 EUR
9950X - +388 EUR

And let us pull out 8c/16t CPUs only:
7700 - base price
7700X - +50 EUR
9700X - +139 EUR
7800X3D - +155 EUR

Please help me understand. OK, since I am not exclusive gamer, 7800X3D is really not needed, so my 8c/16t options are 7700X and 9700X, and I said that efficiency is not a problem, and you (and one other fella) said that 7900X/3D is a dud, let's scrape that 12c/24t idea and go for 8c/16t parts.
Does 139 EUR difference really pays off between 7700 non-X and 9700X for 1440P gaming and some light productivity performance-wise? We are talking about almost identical performance envelope in 1440P gaming and single digit overall performance uplift in application performance by 9700X for almost 60% price uplift.

Yes, I understand thesis "if I have money for 7900X3D, I have it also for 9700X" and it is legit advice, no questions about it. But then, TPU review and testing conclusions are that 7700/X and 9700X are performance wise almost the same thing.

Bottom line, please correct me if I'm wrong - this 139 EUR plus difference from 7700 to 9700X is for efficiency and future proofing or there is something more that I am missing out?

I can afford it, I can afford 9950X, but cannot justify it to myself mentally

It's about single thread performance with enough threads to do the job. 8/16 is more than enough for you. ST is always relevant, MT is sometimes relevant, and that % of times gets lower the more cores you add. I.e. A quad core cpu will generally always use all it's cores, a hexa will mostly use all it's cores, an octa will sometimes use all it's cores and a 12/16 core will only rarely use all it's cores unless you are a very specific type of user. With this logic it's generally ideal to go for the fastest 6/8 core you can afford, as you won't normally bump into that upper limit of core # requirements, but you'll always make use of fast per core performance.

9700X has more cache, proper AVX512, and it's a much wider core. Like I said, most current benchmarking suites don't really demonstrate these improvements, but they're still there, and will become more relevant as time goes on. Software generally advances much more slowly than hardware when it comes to adding performance.

Phoronix has pretty good workstation and cutting edge testing. Look at HPC computing geomean for example.

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X & Ryzen 9 9900X Deliver Excellent Linux Performance Review - Phoronix

www.phoronix.com

 

[Darkholm]

I understand it now, thanks.

But... how about getting the 7700 now and when the time is right 9700X/10700X due to a fact that I won't see that advancement in my use-case and will it suffice for some transition period of 6-8 months until price dropping or when Zen5 X3D models arrive?
I am quite sure that I could sell that 7700 for almost same amount since the price I'm getting it, is really a bargain, sub 200 EUR to be honest. 9700X is over 300 so thats why I am so reluctant to spend so much more. Hope you understand why am I so annoying to you all with all this

You and some others convinced me not to go for 7900X or 7900X3D, so that's that, and thank you for that. But I cannot be convinced to go for 9700X which is more then 60% more expensive than 7700. If the price is 50 EUR or so difference, but 139 EUR... I think 7700 is a steal for sub 200. Can you agree on that? Thanks.

 

[AleXXX666]

There's your issue, exclusivity for AMD.

Buy what makes sense, regardless of brand.

There's exactly eight current platform desktop CPUs that make sense today for non-professional workloads.

7600(non X) or it's cheaper derivatives 7500 etc., 9700X, 7800X3D, 9950X, 12400F, 13/14900K, 13600K, 14700K.

It doesn't really matter, it's an objectively, measurably, worse CPU, there is no good reason to buy it. I would literally take a 7700X over a 7900X if both were free.

Your statement "not making money, it is entertainment tool for singleplayer gaming and occasional workload" does not scream "I need 12 cores at the expense of worse at everything else" to me.

Get the 7800X3D/9700X or wait, you're falling for the "x number is higher" trap that AMD is happy to continue to entertain, because it gets rid of twice as many defect dies as the 7600X.

If you encode/render there's little reason to not do that on the GPU anyway, CPU rendering is from last century.

The second major issue besides latency is that the two CCDs, even in 9950X, run at different frequencies, often significantly. AMD gives you one good CCD and one mediocre one. This leads to problems if you're using software that expects all the cores to be the same speed.

Since there's no hardware scheduler like Intel has, this disparity cannot be properly resolved.

7900X is less than 14% faster (with 50% more cores) in TPU MT applications testing, and 5-10% slower in gaming than the 9700X, which would give you none of these drawbacks I've just mentioned.

We found the Missing Performance: Zen 5 Tested with SMT Disabled

Reviews of AMD’s Zen 5 processors this week surprised many, with lower-than-expected results. After some investigation, we discovered that turning off Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT) can yield notable performance gains, particularly in gaming. This article presents our findings, including...

www.techpowerup.com

Additionally, the 7900X uses significantly more power.

12400F reviewer here - it does make sense if you go CHEAP - and then, you could even get 12100F for MORE CHEAP. Because, I've tested 12100F, 12400F and 13100F - VERY CLOSE results in games. I've tested this cpus with RTX 3060, 3060 TI and even 3070 Ti at 1080p (60 Hz), 1440p (144 Hz) and 2160p (60 Hz). 7500F all the way no brainer if you doing GAMING setup for "future" reserve, 12400F and i3 I've mentioned if you are on a cheap with cheapest H610 crap and cheapest DDR4 you could find. 7600 also makes no sense IMO cuz it has shitty useless iGPU (if you won't be pairing it with good GPU then it's better to get some GT710 crap with cheaper MB then to get MB with GOOD iGPU IO for modern monitors)

 

[Darkholm]

As said, here are some updates:
- Ryzen 7 7700 (sub-200 EUR price tag) purchased
- 7900X/7900X3D discarded due to some interesting facts and overall price tag (almost 100 EUR more than 7700 tray)
- 7700 vs 5900X: faster in gaming, much cooler and much more efficient, somewhat but insignificantly slower in MT tasks (e.g. loading shaders in-games like Last Of Us or Horizon Forbidden West) and ~16% slower in Cinebenches (like I care )

Asus X670E-E is pretty neat board with all the bells and whistles and it is quite heavy with its "PCI 5.0 heat spreaders". Flashed latest BIOS 3-4 days old. 1st boot was OK, 37 seconds. After couple of reboots, MCR enabled and cold-boot time from pressing power button to BIOS post Asus logo - 12,7 seconds. RAM is Kingston Fury Beast 6000C30 with EXPO profile. No need to reinstall Windows 10. everything was as it was driver-related.

On and around of CPU, Thermalrgiht AM5 Secure frame and Noctua AM5 Offset bracet was installed. CPU is "fresh", B2 revision, 21st week of 2024, boost to 5350 MHz with all cores to that is quite OK.

7700 will suffice for this transition period and I will see how prices will go on Zen5 series or even wait Zen6.

 

[JrRacinFan]

7700 vs 5900X: faster in gaming, much cooler and much more efficient, somewhat but insignificantly slower in MT tasks (e.g. loading shaders in-games like Last Of Us or Horizon Forbidden West) and ~16% slower in Cinebenches (like I care )

I figured you would enjoy that at it's price tag. Enjoy! Have you OC'd witth PBO yet?

 

[Darkholm]

I figured you would enjoy that at it's price tag. Enjoy! Have you OC'd witth PBO yet?

Thanks.
Did not play with PBO. Do you have any settings you can suggest?
I saw some reddit thread with PBO + CO -30 and guy got 6% uplift for a hefty temperature uplift.

 

[JrRacinFan]

It's been a long while since I've had dabbled with PBO myself. Try -20 all core most (90%) of the chips are able to do this. There is a chance of a good sample since it was a late manufacturing week so yours could favor -30

 

[Darkholm]

Thanks. Will try it the next couple of days. Now I like it how it is, cool and quiet. It is very big step in that way from 5900X with same cooler.

 

[SKRDPTSGL]

People bash me all the time but I am going to give you a reason to get the 7900X3D. I bought the chip on launch. I had replaced a 5900X with a 5800X3D and lamented Windows feeling slower. When I got the 7900X3D I can easily play any Game at 4K. Combined with the 7900XT my CPU never goes above 30% usage when Gaming and Games like City Skylines 2 are between 80-100 FPS at 4K. There is also the fact that because it was never sampled to reviewers there is some negative noise about it but that has created a scenario where the 7900X3D can be cheaper than a 7900X.

I'll built a pc for cities skylines 2.What are your suggestions for cpu and gpu?For cpu i'am between 7800x3d,7900x3d,7950x and 9900x,their prices are between 420-500 euros in my country so i don't care for the money.As for gpu i'am between 4070 super,7900GRE and 7900xt.Their prices are between 600-750 euros but if 7900xt,or 4070 super are worth the extra money i'am willing to pay more.

 

[Launcestonian]

OP, you'll love the 7700, it's a neat chip & as you say, runs cool n' quiet. I was overclocking one last year but more with my kit of Samsung B die than fine tuning PBO.

 

[Darkholm]

Thanks mate.
Yes, did the "small" OC:
- TDP: 65W default
- PBO: +200 MHz
- Curve optimizer: All cores / Negative / -30

Works like a charm for 5-6 days now, boosts up to 5550 MHz, temperatures same as "stock".
Tried to give him 120W TDP via reddit instructions, there are some gains in CB23 but temperatures are quite higher, up to 20°C so I revert to that settings above.