AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D

[evernessince]

9950X3D won't have any extra cache for the 8 cores that will be used in games though, even if they put it on both dies. Maybe they'll clock it sky high this time and possible gains from there, considering 7950X3D with a CCD disabled was generally faster than 7800X3D.

The 9950X3D is likely to be a better bin.

Can we say with certainty that data that would otherwise be a cache miss cannot be fetched from the other CCD's X3D cache? If we can't, I'll wait for reviews to reserve judgement. If that's implemented, while it wouldn't be as ideal as fetching from the local X3D it's still far faster than fetching from main system memory.

Plus you have to wonder if that other large L3 cache can soak up background applications and windows so the CCD where the game is actually running is completely free.

Too many questions given we haven't see a dual X3D cache consumer part.

 

[Arkz]

I almost wonder if 7800x3d is still technically the better chip, look at those power savings, for not much difference in performance: source: techspot

View attachment 370535

A cinebench stress test?
In gaming, what people are actually buying these for, on average it's a 20W difference.
If 20W more is too much for you on a more powerful chip that costs this much money then you should probably change your gaming habits. Like to using a Steam Deck instead.

Yep. The energy efficiency was without the doubts the crucial feature of 7800X3D, and even 5800X3D (especially 5700X3D). The doubled power consumption is a big "no no", unless it would be tested at same clocks and power limit as 7800X3D, and with better BIOS/UEFI. But something tells me, this isn't a software/firmware issue, and it is here to stay.
This might be non issue, in case if the 9800X3D will scale great, with a slight undervold. But the sole fact, and the additional steps leave the sour tastes.


Nothing prevents user to set up the 65W limit in the UEFI. But it's still interesting to see 9800X3D capped at 7800X3D specs.

20W difference in gaming. And the power efficiency wasn't the crucial feature. Getting as high a frame rate as possible and being the best gaming CPU was. If you want low power usage play on a Switch.

 

[1sanpedro1]

What a legend CPU !
7950x3d not too far in games esp. when I bought it for 449$ , actually I am surprised how that 8 cores consume higher power in gaming/MT workload than 7950x3d

Got a 7950x3d in a bundle deal, and very happy with it, especially the efficiency as I do run it max load for sometimes days straight. Part of me does sometimes wonder if I should've just gone with the 9950x, but really no clue how much improvement would be there in my workload

 

[evernessince]

A cinebench stress test?
In gaming, what people are actually buying these for, on average it's a 20W difference.
If 20W more is too much for you on a more powerful chip that costs this much money then you should probably change your gaming habits. Like to using a Steam Deck instead.


20W difference in gaming. And the power efficiency wasn't the crucial feature. Getting as high a frame rate as possible and being the best gaming CPU was. If you want low power usage play on a Switch.

As a 7800X owner I highly disagree. Power consumption was absolutely a big factor. If I didn't care about that I would have just gotten a 14900K.

 

[Space Lynx]

A cinebench stress test?
In gaming, what people are actually buying these for, on average it's a 20W difference.
If 20W more is too much for you on a more powerful chip that costs this much money then you should probably change your gaming habits. Like to using a Steam Deck instead.


20W difference in gaming. And the power efficiency wasn't the crucial feature. Getting as high a frame rate as possible and being the best gaming CPU was. If you want low power usage play on a Switch.

yeah 20w is not bad, plus its 10 celsius colder in gaming on top of that. so yeah the 9800x3d is fairly impressive I will admit. only 3% gain in avg gaming at 1440p though, still sticking with my 7800x3d until 11800x3d, but i am 100% upgrading to 11800x3d. AMD is kicking ass.

 

[Airisom]

Definitely buying 9950X3D if it has two 3D dies.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

yeah 20w is not bad, plus its 10 celsius colder in gaming on top of that. so yeah the 9800x3d is fairly impressive I will admit. only 3% gain in avg gaming at 1440p though, still sticking with my 7800x3d until 11800x3d, but i am 100% upgrading to 11800x3d. AMD is kicking ass.

This cpu had one job... Be the fastest gaming cpu on the planet. Job accomplished

It's not for 7000X3D owners but everyone else with a 4090 or soon to be faster 5090 this is the cpu for them.

 

[sector-z]

or maybe Der8auer has a very good sample? Der8auer also delidded the chip. We'll see in the future.


I have mixed feeling about this chip. It uses substantially more power than 7800X3D. I don't think there's any magic here. Moving the cache to the bottom allowed AMD to crack-up the frequency (and the power). I am pretty sure if you run the 9700X at 120W, you'll get the exact the same performance in all applications except the most cache sensitive ones (games, mysql).
Likewise, if you force the 9800X3D to run at 65W, you'll find the familiar Zen 5% over the 7800X3D.

Every review with OC unit included in data are from 5.4GHz to 5.75GHz. So I think it the one from Techpowerup imo.

 

[rodrigorras]

Thank you for the review, this is what I saw so far, the 9800x3d uses a lot more power than the 7800x3d, maybe underclock it a little and lower the voltage a little will make it a champion x the 7800x3d in power consumption and efficiency. Also the 9800x3d appears to be at least 30% more efficient in cooling x 7800x3d. While 7800x3d does 69c stock using much less power, 9800x3d stock does 60c while using a lot more power.

Apps
9800x3d is 15% faster than 7800x3d

Gaming:
1080p 9800x3d is 4% faster than 7800x3d.
2160p 9800x3d is 1% faster than 7800x3d.

because it's not tested with Win24H2. those numbers are not good

 

[Airisom]

Would like to see it tested on W10 since it's better for gaming than W11

 

[umeng2002]

I want to see it tested on Windows 95. Only way to be sure.

 

[Airisom]

W2K is the obvious choice, but you don't know if reviewers will disable the massive resource hog that is Clippy, so take their results with a grain of salt.

 

[AusWolf]

There are quite a few games where it beats the 7800X3D by a margin of 20% or more.

View attachment 370550

Yeah but with 200% the power used. I'm not sure if I'd call it impressive or excessive. A bit of both, I guess.

 

[Tek-Check]

- the paradigm of halo gaming chips is changing with this one
- main criticism of 7800X3D was that is was slow in productivity tasks
- this has now been addressed and 9800X3D is way more versatile chip
- it's ~18% faster in applications than the older brother, plus 11% faster in gaming (24H2 at Hardware Unboxed)
- it's appealing especially in content creation
- sure, it uses a bit more power to achieve this, within sanity, but the outcomes are impressive
- the best gaming CPU in the world suddenly become a really good daily CPU for many other tasks
- this is going to widen the market appeal and more buyers, aside from halo gamers, will flock to it
- best seller for Black Friday, Xmas shopping and way beyond

 

[Space Lynx]

plus 11% faster in gaming (24H2 at Hardware Unboxed)

this is 1080p gaming though? that percentage shrinks down to 3-4% at 1440p I assume, even on 24H2? I will have a look later if you can't share a screenshot

 

[AusWolf]

this is 1080p gaming though? that percentage shrinks down to 3-4% at 1440p I assume, even on 24H2? I will have a look later if you can't share a screenshot

It varies with your GPU as well. Anything less than a 4080, and I'd expect the difference to shrink to 0%.

 

[rodrigorras]

+15% across the board in Games vs 7800x3d,
if tweaked, extra 3.5%

 

[freeagent]

Welp..

Got the job

Good pay, union shop.. nice.

Looks like I am getting this CPU haha

 

[Marcus L]

This cpu had one job... Be the fastest gaming cpu on the planet. Job accomplished

It's not for 7000X3D owners but everyone else with a 4090 or soon to be faster 5090 this is the cpu for them.

I fail to see how 1-2% difference @4k compared to 7800x3d, 14900k, 14700k, 7800x3D, Core ultra etc makes any bit of difference to a consumers decision when looking for a "gaming" CPU, most people who own these CPU's and 4090's soon to be 5090's will not see any difference between the 10-20 fastest "gaming CPU's" at 4k resolution which when you are throwing $5-600 for a CPU and upto $2k for a GPU you are 100% going to be gaming at, 1080p there's a 10% difference, 720p it's 15-20% but no one in their right mind is running those resolutions who buy these so the "fastest gaming CPU in the world" tag is a bit of misnomer, as things stand at 4k you are always GPU limited, so 12700k-14900, Core Ultra 245-285, Ryzen 7600x and anything above and in between you are literally talking single digit figures difference in FPS and 3%, fools and their money

 

[AnotherReader]

Yeah but with 200% the power used. I'm not sure if I'd call it impressive or excessive. A bit of both, I guess.

I would expect it to beat the 7800X3D even if limited to the same power draw. Of course, the margins would be lower.

 

[ManofGod]

Thank you for the review, this is what I saw so far, the 9800x3d uses a lot more power than the 7800x3d, maybe underclock it a little and lower the voltage a little will make it a champion x the 7800x3d in power consumption and efficiency. Also the 9800x3d appears to be at least 30% more efficient in cooling x 7800x3d. While 7800x3d does 69c stock using much less power, 9800x3d stock does 60c while using a lot more power.

Apps
9800x3d is 15% faster than 7800x3d

Gaming:
1080p 9800x3d is 4% faster than 7800x3d.
2160p 9800x3d is 1% faster than 7800x3d.

I like it but, I wonder what the difference would be a 3440 x 1440 with a 6800XT going from a 5900X to this? I would have to, after all, pay at least $850 or so to upgrade to this processor, a X870 or X670 board and 32GB of DDR 6000 ram.

I fail to see how 1-2% difference @4k compared to 7800x3d, 14900k, 14700k, 7800x3D, Core ultra etc makes any bit of difference to a consumers decision when looking for a "gaming" CPU, most people who own these CPU's and 4090's soon to be 5090's will not see any difference between the 10-20 fastest "gaming CPU's" at 4k resolution which when you are throwing $5-600 for a CPU and upto $2k for a GPU you are 100% going to be gaming at, 1080p there's a 10% difference, 720p it's 15-20% but no one in their right mind is running those resolutions who buy these so the "fastest gaming CPU in the world" tag is a bit of misnomer, as things stand at 4k you are always GPU limited, so 12700k-14900, Core Ultra 245-285, Ryzen 7600x and anything above and in between you are literally talking single digit figures difference in FPS and 3%, fools and their money

Sure, if you already have a 7800x3d, I would agree but, if you are upgrading from AM4 or older and plan on upgrading your videocard in a next couple of years, I would imagine you would definitely benefit from it.

 

[Marcus L]

I like it but, I wonder what the difference would be a 3440 x 1440 with a 6800XT going from a 5900X to this? I would have to, after all, pay at least $850 or so to upgrade to this processor, a X870 or X670 board and 32GB of DDR 6000 ram.



Sure, if you already have a 7800x3d, I would agree but, if you are upgrading from AM4 or older and plan on upgrading your videocard in a next couple of years, I would imagine you would definitely benefit from it.

Not my point, just this whole fastest gaming CPU moniker that is thrown about every new gen, this is no faster give or take than the 7800x3d or 10-15 other CPU's when tested at 4k with a 4090, no one is buying this to play at 720p or 1080p or with a middle of the road GPU, yes it gets 1-3FPS better than the next 10 CPU's in the 4k list, it's a nothing burger but still people will buy and pay more for with their 4090 or 5090 when released for epeen value, nothing else, most CPUS from the last 3 years can drive a 4090 @4k as you are GPU limited, people just like to have the latest and greatest when in fact it's good CPU and yes miles ahead (AT 720p/1080p!!!) move up to 1440p or 4K and you could literally buy a Ryzen 7600 or 12700k and anything in between and be within 3% difference

 

[AusWolf]

I would expect it to beat the 7800X3D even if limited to the same power draw. Of course, the margins would be lower.

That would be an interesting scenario to test. It's a shame I've given up on buying hardware purely for science (but I do accept donations).

I fail to see how 1-2% difference @4k compared to 7800x3d, 14900k, 14700k, 7800x3D, Core ultra etc makes any bit of difference to a consumers decision when looking for a "gaming" CPU, most people who own these CPU's and 4090's soon to be 5090's will not see any difference between the 10-20 fastest "gaming CPU's" at 4k resolution which when you are throwing $5-600 for a CPU and upto $2k for a GPU you are 100% going to be gaming at, 1080p there's a 10% difference, 720p it's 15-20% but no one in their right mind is running those resolutions who buy these so the "fastest gaming CPU in the world" tag is a bit of misnomer, as things stand at 4k you are always GPU limited, so 12700k-14900, Core Ultra 245-285, Ryzen 7600x and anything above and in between you are literally talking single digit figures difference in FPS and 3%, fools and their money

Low resolution tests are done to simulate what you can expect if you keep the CPU for a long time and go through a few GPU upgrades with it. Lots of people don't get it and rush out to buy "the best gaming CPU" with a midrange graphics card or 4K monitor.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I fail to see how 1-2% difference @4k compared to 7800x3d, 14900k, 14700k, 7800x3D, Core ultra etc makes any bit of difference to a consumers decision when looking for a "gaming" CPU, most people who own these CPU's and 4090's soon to be 5090's will not see any difference between the 10-20 fastest "gaming CPU's" at 4k resolution which when you are throwing $5-600 for a CPU and upto $2k for a GPU you are 100% going to be gaming at, 1080p there's a 10% difference, 720p it's 15-20% but no one in their right mind is running those resolutions who buy these so the "fastest gaming CPU in the world" tag is a bit of misnomer, as things stand at 4k you are always GPU limited, so 12700k-14900, Core Ultra 245-285, Ryzen 7600x and anything above and in between you are literally talking single digit figures difference in FPS and 3%, fools and their money

Not everyone games at 4k for one even those with 4090s me included. Plenty of people play only simulation style games or games that hit the cpu pretty hard which most the games I play do....

Also there is the esports crowd the one I build 90% of the computers I do for who will pay for the best and then proceed to drop the settings to medium or lower on a 360/480hz monitor and want to see a stable high framerate.

That's irreverent though because yours and my use case doesn't really matter the consumer who reads this review and decides to buy or not buy this is all that matters

I did say in this thread I believe but definitely in a 9800X3D article that the 7600 is already good enough for 99% of users although people act like it's slow AF by today's standards.

I'll probably pick one up early next year for testing regardless becuase local hands on is always better than a bunch of 1-2m benchmarks in a random area of the game

Low resolution tests are done to simulate what you can expect if you keep the CPU for a long time and go through a few GPU upgrades with it. Lots of people don't get it and rush out to buy "the best gaming CPU" with a midrange graphics card or 4K monitor.

I think the majority of 4090 owners already see cpu limits in a lot of games even with 7000X3D cpus I know I do more so at 1440p UW but also at 4k in multiple titles but that's just for my use case everyone games different.

5090 is gonna do that in a lot more games currently the 7800X3D isn't worth buying anymore and in most scenarios Intel ultra is too slow leaving just this for that 1% of the market lol.

 

[vbq7qK68eyYAH4iR]

Also keep in mind that some folks are chasing high FPS at reduced quality settings, for the smoothest experience. To hit 360FPS of an AW2725DF, you need a very fast CPU to achieve a GPU bottleneck in this situation.