AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D Now at a Mouth-watering $329

[SL2]

8+4 config likely doesn't exist because they were shunting as many of those as they could to 7950X3D and 7800X3D skus. Possibly could happen now, but I doubt it.

That goes without saying, but it doesn't change my initial statement of what it could have been.

 

[evernessince]

And gets destroyed in multi-core performance, even after the baseline profile.
The whole point of getting this over the 7800X3D is for multi-core, and the 7800X3D do not have to deal with scheduling issues.

The baseline profile trims the lead of the 13900K to anywhere from 5% - 20% depending on mobo vendor's implementation. Some implementations have a 25% performance penalty for the 13900K and 14900K.

Mind you the 13900K is a $475 CPU so it's a 43.9% price increase over the 7900X at $330 for 33% more MT performance. Objectively it's worse value for multi-threaded performance even at it's full power. Yes you get more MT performance overall but you are spending more money per point of performance. Enabling the baseline profile just makes it catastrophically bad value in comparison as you are just lowering performance at the same high price-tag.

That's before you consider that if you decide to run the 13900K at full power you have to spend on a motherboard and cooler than can handle it, thus making the value proposition even worse. If all the above weren't enough, there's also a potential that you'll have to accept lower performance due to Intel's stability issues that are still being investigated. The Intel platform is also a dead one while AM5 is not.

You could spend $45 more and get the 7950X or $100 more and get the 7950X3D if you wanted to match or beat the 13900K if you have the money to spend and want a superior platform. Alternatively if value is a concern the at $330 the 7900X is providing more of that.

The performance of the 7900X already has scheduling inefficiencies baked into the number. It's not something the end user has to deal with unless they explicitly want to go out of their way to increase performance above what benchmarks show.

 

[Hxx]

7800x3d is $216 at Microcenter, you add any mobo/ram you want to your cart, then add the 7800x3d. Just ordered mine, going to return the 12600kf since I am within return window. this is an absolutely incredible deal I can not pass on.

only way to get this price is in-person at Microcenter, and only way to get the $216 price is if you buy all 3 items as a bundle.

I have no fucking idea how Microcenter pulls off these prices. holy shit, this is incredible.

It’s not 216 on any bundle . You need a specific bundle which has a specific board and ram otherwise it’s just the regular $20 off . If you want that bundle then yeah it’s a great deal but otherwise it depends
They can pull this off because they are a local store and can afford to lose money on some items and make up for it on other items. No different than your local grocery store. With that being said I am thankful to have one near me and have been shopping at mine for a long time

 

[SL2]

Inter-CCD latency makes them hard to recommend for gamers - you can always disable half the cores, but then you just have an overpriced 6 or 8-core CPU, you should have bought that in the first place.

It's not like it's set in stone, tho, as it's purely game dependant.

When the 7950X3D is the fastest it's usually by a small margin, probably because it works as intended in games, which is pretty much like a 7800X3D. The clock speed difference between the two chiplets in question is only 250 MHz.

When the 7950X3D is the slowest it's slower by a wider margin on average, as the dual chiplet doesn't work well with the game in question.

A quick look at TPU's review shows that the 7950X3D is faster in 5 games, and slower in 7.

Given the price, it shouldn't be slower in any of them, but this gives me more info than saying that it's x % slower than the 7800X3D.

 

[kapone32]

Transistor count

7900X3D: 17,840 million

7800X3D: 11,270 million

Clock Speed

7800X3D: up to 5 GHz

7900X3D: up to 5.6 GHz

L3 Cache

7900X3D: 128 MB (shared)

7800X3D: 96 MB (shared)


This is why the 7900X3D will make all of these statements that it is a weak/foolish CPU redundant. As I stated before, I you are on a 5900X and up and are thinking of jumping on AM5. The $5 makes the 7900X3D academic for me. I mean specs still matter right? As far as the scheduler goes, if Windows 11 was made to work better with Intel''s new chips AMD chips have also benefited from Windows updates in that regard and I am willing to bet that anyone on TPU could not tell me that my PC was slow if they used it for a week. The other caveat to all of it is in Gaming, when you have a 4K 144Hz Freesync panel does 120 Fps feel slower than 140? Well I can promise you that with Freesync even at 75 FPS you will not feel it either. Keep in mind that the 7900X3D has access to that entire 128MB of L3 Cache so that is how those 1% lows are Golden. I would not pair this with an Nvidia card either (personal choice) but AMD is doing something with their software that has the IGPU doing some things in Games. I can't tell you what but if it keeps data from going to Systen RAM or Page File you will feel that speed.

The only reason I am saying what I am saying is that the 7900X3D has been my main PC since I bought one at launch so I have had more than a year's use out of this machine. I also have plenty of other PCs to compare it to as well.

 

[Avro Arrow]

There's a reason why this CPU is being offered for less than even the R9-7900 and that reason is the fact that the R9-7900X3D is easily the worst Zen4 CPU ever produced.

I said it when it was released and I still say it now. The Ryzen 9 X3D CPUs were a huge mistake on AMD's part and the cynicism of its creation really irked me. The R9-7900X3D is especially bad as there's literally nothing that stands out about this CPU to make it compelling to anyone.

The R9-7950X3D is at least compelling as AMD's current flagship CPU (overall, it still sucks though).
The R9-7950X is compelling as the most potent productivity CPU that AMD currently produces.
The R9-7900 offers the best overall value in the Ryzen 9 lineup along with the lowest power draw (TDP of only 65W) and comes with the Wraith Prism included, a CPU cooler that can easily handle it.

The R9-7900X3D can't game as well as the R7-7800X3D, it's not as productive as the R9-7900 or R9-7900X because of the clock and power limitations imposed upon it by the 3D V-Cache, something that has no place on a CPU that is most suited to productivity. The 3D V-Cache is also only on one of the R9-7900X3D's two CCXs which means that it's essentially a hexacore gaming CPU that can experience scheduling issues. Now, at $329, at least its price is compelling, because nothing else about it is.

Whoever made the decision to produce this CPU and price it the same as the R9-7950X instead of creating twice as many R5-3600X3D's should have had their employment at AMD terminated because it was literally the worst thing that they could do. High prices on AM5 parts literally crippled its adoption rate and this was only compounded by the fact that, until the R7-7800X3D was introduced, there weren't any really compelling CPUs for AM4 owners to upgrade to, because the R7-5800X3D is so damn good.

When you're a chipmaker that has adopted the practice of long-lived platforms (like AM4 is and AM5 is supposed to be), what you want is to get as many consumers on board as you can because they become a captive audience. I would estimate that over 90% of AM4 owners had the sense to stay with AM4 the whole way because being able to drop a CPU like the R7-5700X3D or R7-5800X3D into a motherboard from 2017 and get fantastic gaming performance without needing a new board or RAM is a huge boon for most consumers. This strategy not only brought AMD back from the brink of insolvency, it turned them into the market leader in less than five years, a turnaround that has never before been seen in the industry. If you had told me just ten years ago that AMD would be the CPU market leader after Intel had held a stranglehold on the CPU market for over 30 years, I would've asked you what drugs you were on (and where could I get some).

All AMD had to do to make AM5 an unmitigated success was to limit the 3D V-Cache to Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 models. Their pricing strategy was that an X3D CPU would be the same price as the X CPU from the tier above like this (with the exception of the R9-7950X3D of course because it was already the top-tier):

$R9-7900X3D = $R9-7950X
$R7-7800X3D = $R9-7900X

So, all AMD had to do was this: $R5-7600X3D = $R7-7700X and their adoption rate would have increased by a minimum of 50% with a doubling of the adoption rate not out of the realm of possiblity. Even if they didn't make huge profits initially, they would know that the users who adopted AM5 would be buying only AMD CPUs for the life of the platform. It's like Sony's brilliant tactic of making no profit (or even taking a loss) for every Playstation sold because they knew that someone who bought a Playstation would have to buy games (which is where they raked in massive profits). One cannot deny the success of Sony's method when one considers that the Playstation is the undisputed console king, holding a 57.5% share of the US console market.

An R5-7600X3D for the same price as the R7-7700X would've been a guaranteed home run for AMD. Instead they decided to bunt with the Ryzen 9 X3D CPUs (especially the R9-7900X3D) and this is the result, their attempted cash-grab is sitting on the shelves gathering dust just like the RX 7900 XT, RX 7700 XT, RTX 4060 16GB and RTX 4080 did.

 

[kapone32]

There's a reason why this CPU is being offered for less than even the R9-7900 and that reason is the fact that the R9-7900X3D is easily the worst Zen4 CPU ever produced.

I said it when it was released and I still say it now. The Ryzen 9 X3D CPUs were a huge mistake on AMD's part and the cynicism of its creation really irked me. The R9-7900X3D is especially bad as there's literally nothing that stands out about this CPU to make it compelling to anyone.

The R9-7950X3D is at least compelling as AMD's current flagship CPU (overall, it still sucks though).
The R9-7950X is compelling as the most potent productivity CPU that AMD currently produces.
The R9-7900 offers the best overall value in the Ryzen 9 lineup along with the lowest power draw (TDP of only 65W) and comes with the Wraith Prism included, a CPU cooler that can easily handle it.

The R9-7900X3D can't game as well as the R7-7800X3D, it's not as productive as the R9-7900 or R9-7900X because of the clock and power limitations imposed upon it by the 3D V-Cache, something that has no place on a CPU that is most suited to productivity. The 3D V-Cache is also only on one of the R9-7900X3D's two CCXs which means that it's essentially a hexacore gaming CPU that can experience scheduling issues. Now, at $329, at least its price is compelling, because nothing else about it is.

Whoever made the decision to produce this CPU and price it the same as the R9-7950X instead of creating twice as many R5-3600X3D's should have had their employment at AMD terminated because it was literally the worst thing that they could do. High prices on AM5 parts literally crippled its adoption rate and this was only compounded by the fact that, until the R7-7800X3D was introduced, there weren't any really compelling CPUs for AM4 owners to upgrade to, because the R7-5800X3D is so damn good.

When you're a chipmaker that has adopted the practice of long-lived platforms (like AM4 is and AM5 is supposed to be), what you want is to get as many consumers on board as you can because they become a captive audience. I would estimate that over 90% of AM4 owners had the sense to stay with AM4 the whole way because being able to drop a CPU like the R7-5700X3D or R7-5800X3D into a motherboard from 2017 and get fantastic gaming performance without needing a new board or RAM is a huge boon for most consumers. This strategy not only brought AMD back from the brink of insolvency, it turned them into the market leader in less than five years, a turnaround that has never before been seen in the industry. If you had told me just ten years ago that AMD would be the CPU market leader after Intel had held a stranglehold on the CPU market for over 30 years, I would've asked you what drugs you were on (and where could I get some).

All AMD had to do to make AM5 an unmitigated success was to limit the 3D V-Cache to Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 models. Their pricing strategy was that an X3D CPU would be the same price as the X CPU from the tier above like this (with the exception of the R9-7950X3D of course because it was already the top-tier):

$R9-7900X3D = $R9-7950X
$R7-7800X3D = $R9-7900X

So, all AMD had to do was this: $R5-7600X3D = $R7-7700X and their adoption rate would have increased by a minimum of 50% with a doubling of the adoption rate not out of the realm of possiblity. Even if they didn't make huge profits initially, they would know that the users who adopted AM5 would be buying only AMD CPUs for the life of the platform. It's like Sony's brilliant tactic of making no profit (or even taking a loss) for every Playstation sold because they knew that someone who bought a Playstation would have to buy games (which is where they raked in massive profits). One cannot deny the success of Sony's method when one considers that the Playstation is the undisputed console king, holding a 57.5% share of the US console market.

An R5-7600X3D for the same price as the R7-7700X would've been a guaranteed home run for AMD. Instead they decided to bunt with the Ryzen 9 X3D CPUs (especially the R9-7900X3D) and this is the result, their attempted cash-grab is sitting on the shelves gathering dust just like the RX 7900 XT, RX 7700 XT, RTX 4060 16GB and RTX 4080 did.

You are forgetting that it was the community that asked AMD for Vcache on Dual CCD chips.

 

[brian111]

It’s not 216 on any bundle . You need a specific bundle which has a specific board and ram otherwise it’s just the regular $20 off . If you want that bundle then yeah it’s a great deal but otherwise it depends
They can pull this off because they are a local store and can afford to lose money on some items and make up for it on other items. No different than your local grocery store. With that being said I am thankful to have one near me and have been shopping at mine for a long time

For what it's worth, I tried adding different motherboard and memory combinations and it always knocked the cpu price down to $216. At my local store at least.

 

[Assimilator]

Well if it helps, almost 70% of us here at TPU use AMD.

It doesn't because this is an enthusiast forum, and thus any sample is invariably biased towards the higher-end.

There's a reason why this CPU is being offered for less than even the R9-7900 and that reason is the fact that the R9-7900X3D is easily the worst Zen4 CPU ever produced.

I said it when it was released and I still say it now. The Ryzen 9 X3D CPUs were a huge mistake on AMD's part and the cynicism of its creation really irked me. The R9-7900X3D is especially bad as there's literally nothing that stands out about this CPU to make it compelling to anyone.

The R9-7950X3D is at least compelling as AMD's current flagship CPU (overall, it still sucks though).
The R9-7950X is compelling as the most potent productivity CPU that AMD currently produces.
The R9-7900 offers the best overall value in the Ryzen 9 lineup along with the lowest power draw (TDP of only 65W) and comes with the Wraith Prism included, a CPU cooler that can easily handle it.

The R9-7900X3D can't game as well as the R7-7800X3D, it's not as productive as the R9-7900 or R9-7900X because of the clock and power limitations imposed upon it by the 3D V-Cache, something that has no place on a CPU that is most suited to productivity. The 3D V-Cache is also only on one of the R9-7900X3D's two CCXs which means that it's essentially a hexacore gaming CPU that can experience scheduling issues. Now, at $329, at least its price is compelling, because nothing else about it is.

Whoever made the decision to produce this CPU and price it the same as the R9-7950X instead of creating twice as many R5-3600X3D's should have had their employment at AMD terminated because it was literally the worst thing that they could do. High prices on AM5 parts literally crippled its adoption rate and this was only compounded by the fact that, until the R7-7800X3D was introduced, there weren't any really compelling CPUs for AM4 owners to upgrade to, because the R7-5800X3D is so damn good.

When you're a chipmaker that has adopted the practice of long-lived platforms (like AM4 is and AM5 is supposed to be), what you want is to get as many consumers on board as you can because they become a captive audience. I would estimate that over 90% of AM4 owners had the sense to stay with AM4 the whole way because being able to drop a CPU like the R7-5700X3D or R7-5800X3D into a motherboard from 2017 and get fantastic gaming performance without needing a new board or RAM is a huge boon for most consumers. This strategy not only brought AMD back from the brink of insolvency, it turned them into the market leader in less than five years, a turnaround that has never before been seen in the industry. If you had told me just ten years ago that AMD would be the CPU market leader after Intel had held a stranglehold on the CPU market for over 30 years, I would've asked you what drugs you were on (and where could I get some).

All AMD had to do to make AM5 an unmitigated success was to limit the 3D V-Cache to Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 models. Their pricing strategy was that an X3D CPU would be the same price as the X CPU from the tier above like this (with the exception of the R9-7950X3D of course because it was already the top-tier):

$R9-7900X3D = $R9-7950X
$R7-7800X3D = $R9-7900X

So, all AMD had to do was this: $R5-7600X3D = $R7-7700X and their adoption rate would have increased by a minimum of 50% with a doubling of the adoption rate not out of the realm of possiblity. Even if they didn't make huge profits initially, they would know that the users who adopted AM5 would be buying only AMD CPUs for the life of the platform. It's like Sony's brilliant tactic of making no profit (or even taking a loss) for every Playstation sold because they knew that someone who bought a Playstation would have to buy games (which is where they raked in massive profits). One cannot deny the success of Sony's method when one considers that the Playstation is the undisputed console king, holding a 57.5% share of the US console market.

An R5-7600X3D for the same price as the R7-7700X would've been a guaranteed home run for AMD. Instead they decided to bunt with the Ryzen 9 X3D CPUs (especially the R9-7900X3D) and this is the result, their attempted cash-grab is sitting on the shelves gathering dust just like the RX 7900 XT, RX 7700 XT, RTX 4060 16GB and RTX 4080 did.

100% agree with all of this. It's especially jarring since AM4 was cheap and fast, then AM5 dropped the cheap part for no other apparent reason than AMD thought it was time to make some big profits. If AM5 was something special I wouldn't have any issues with the price increase, but it's not - it's literally the exact same crippled consumer desktop platform as AM4, just with PCIe 5.0 capabilities that nobody gives a flying f**k about. No USB4, no Thunderbolt, no extra PCIe lanes, just slightly newer IO at a much higher price point.

It also doesn't help that AMD continues to churn out AM4 CPUs by the truckload, thereby cannibalising their own market for AM5. Unless you absolutely need PCIe 5.0, and again literally nobody does, you get very little benefit buying AM5 over AM4, and a much bigger hole in your wallet. So why would anyone buy AM5 then? This is the question AMD seems to be incapable of asking itself, let alone answering.

You are forgetting that it was the community that asked AMD for Vcache on Dual CCD chips.

Running a business based on what "the community" says it wants, is a good way to no longer have a business.

 

[kapone32]

Running a business based on what "the community" says it wants, is a good way to no longer have a business.

I don't understand your sentiment, but it explains how Intel got away with 4 core CPUs for 10 years. On the other hand we now have 24 core Desktop CPUs from Intel for less than $500 when a 6 core during that period was $1000. Regardless of the narrative the 7900X3D is a fine chip. We can thank AMD responding to the Community for that too. Just look at the CPU you have and think of if that would even have existed if the community had no input and Corporations did not respond.

 

[Avro Arrow]

wtf how is it this cheap lmao

Nobody wants to buy it. It's the most pointless of the Zen4 CPUs. There's literally nothing compelling about it.

Demand of this is pretty bad.
It kind of wierd step child for gamers, since it bascially acts as a 6-core in games, and in other workloads it is a lower clocked 7900X. On top of that there is the scheduling issue.
It really wan't attractive at all given it launced at a price higher than the 14700k which has 8 P-cores. And this was before people realized whats going on with Raptor Lake.

AMD tried to make a cash grab instead of making the R5-7600X3D and now they have egg on their faces.

It's as fast as the i9-13900K at gaming, so there's that.

But slower than the R7-7800X3D, which is cheaper.

makes sense I guess, someone told me Project Lasso fixes all of these issues, just requires some work

I guess 7800x3d still makes more sense for someone like me though, as I just went to have plug n play experience for gaming, and really have no need for the extra cores. that being said, this is an incredible price still

It is incredible but the problem is that no matter what you want to do with your PC, another CPU will be better at it than the R9-7900X3D and will cost less. The R7-7800X3D is way better at gaming for less money and the R9-7900X is way better at productivity, also for less money.

I haven't decided for certain yet but I'm leaning towards the 7900X3D for my gaming rig. That should give me more than enough performance for 4 to 5 years.

That would be a mistake. If you want a gaming rig, get the R7-7800X3D. It's less expensive but much better at gaming.

I may even break my steadfast rule against going 4K and pick up a RTX 5090 late this year if they turn out as good as I think they will be.

I hope that you won't have to sell your house for it....

 

[kapone32]

Nobody wants to buy it. It's the most pointless of the Zen4 CPUs. There's literally nothing compelling about it.

AMD tried to make a cash grab instead of making the R5-7600X3D and now they have egg on their faces.

But slower than the R7-7800X3D, which is cheaper.

It is incredible but the problem is that no matter what you want to do with your PC, another CPU will be better at it than the R9-7900X3D and will cost less. The R7-7800X3D is way better at gaming for less money and the R9-7900X is way better at productivity, also for less money.

That would be a mistake. If you want a gaming rig, get the R7-7800X3D. It's less expensive but much better at gaming.

I hope that you won't have to sell your house for it....

Right now the price difference is $5. Now ask the yourself if the 5800X3D is faster than a 5900X in regular computing.

 

[SL2]

But slower than the R7-7800X3D, which is cheaper.

Really?

 

[Tek-Check]

It's as fast as the i9-13900K at gaming, so there's that.

And it uses waaaaay less power both i MT workloads and gaming, up to ~2.5 times less.

And gets destroyed in multi-core performance, even after the baseline profile.

No one really cares. This is $329 bucks CPU, the best deal I have seen so far.
7900X3D is i7 competitor, and not i9. Still, it's super competitve with i9 in gaming, and way cheaper.

 

[A&P211]

I'd guess laptops is one exception.

I wish my laptop had a AMD processor, I love the battery life that comes with a AMD HS mobile processor. It sucks that the options for HS processors where limited when I bought my current laptop. My comes with a 4080 mobile and i9 13th gen cpu, I would change the cpu to a AMD HS cpu to enjoy the longer battery life with a 90w battery.

 

[Tek-Check]

WTaF AMD. Pretends they are global and only cares about US.

Those are distributor-specific deals.
All complaints to greedy local distributors. Thank you.

Still over priced. There is a big difference between the above mentioned Ryzen 7 7800X3D for only 216, and this overpriced offer of insane 705.
By same logic, RX 7900 XT must cost 499.

You can continue to complain, but why spam this thread with GPUs? Relax and enjoy good news about discounted CPUs.

I have had my experience with AMD and my mouth stays dry as heck.

Great. Drink some water and apply a good lipstick.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Well, if you look at the current exchange rate 789 AUD is equal to 511 USD. Also does the price include your 10% VAT?

That's one of the things that gets overlooked sometimes about US prices. We pay more than the advertised price. For example the 7900X3D lists on Amazon for $400 but when I include Sales Tax for my area (9.25%) the price I actually pay is $437.

Even with all of that you guys in Australia just seemed to get ripped off on pricing for some reason.

From what I gather, nations with higher levels of consumer protection (longer required warranties, higher fines and penalties) are going to naturally see higher prices. There might also be higher tax burdens on corporations operating in those nations. It’s simply not profitable for them to sell items for what you can get them for in the US. I’m into camera gear, and I can get brand-new gray-market lenses for about 20% less than those sold in-market. What I give up is any warranty coverage whatsoever. So a lot of what you are paying for is mandated product coverage based on consumer protection law.

 

[Tek-Check]

The 7900X3D should have been 8 + 4 cores, not 6 + 6.
If possible.

It's not possible because it is not economically viable. Yields on N5 chiplets are over 90%, so there are a few chiplets with one or maximum two defective or underperforming cores. That's why it is 6+6. Chiplets with 4 good cores are almost non-existent and it would be vaste to deliberately disable good cores on chiplets to make 4-core chiplet. Such luxury is only possible on some EPYC SKUs, but money is easily recovered by higher prices.

If I want a X3D CPU, I get the 7800X3D
If I want an all rounder, I get the 7950X
7900X3D just stood there without purpose.

The choice is not binary. 12-core is a compromise for more specific niche of users; for those who need more productivity tha 8-cores and without breaking a bank on more premium 16-core option, and for more relaxed gamers who do not care about 5% less performance.
The CPU was just poorly marketed and overpriced initially. Other than that, there's nothing worng with it. This is the best deal I have ever seen.

 

[phints]

All the naysayers last gen asking for multi-CCD X3D chips and here we have them and the sales are bad. Yes 7800X3D is the way to go for a mostly-gaming build. Personally I'm waiting for a 9800X3D hopefully announced within a few months.

 

[Zubasa]

100% agree with all of this. It's especially jarring since AM4 was cheap and fast, then AM5 dropped the cheap part for no other apparent reason than AMD thought it was time to make some big profits. If AM5 was something special I wouldn't have any issues with the price increase, but it's not - it's literally the exact same crippled consumer desktop platform as AM4, just with PCIe 5.0 capabilities that nobody gives a flying f**k about. No USB4, no Thunderbolt, no extra PCIe lanes, just slightly newer IO at a much higher price point.

FYI, AM5 does actually have 4 more CPU pcie lanes vs AM4.

No one really cares. This is $329 bucks CPU, the best deal I have seen so far.
7900X3D is i7 competitor, and not i9. Still, it's super competitve with i9 in gaming, and way cheaper.

No one really cares is exactly why this CPU is now cheaper than the 7800X3D.
Also due to scheduling issues, on average 14700K is pretty close to the 7900X3D in gaming.
Yes the i7 also with 8 P-cores as the i9 is almost the same in gaming aka competitive with i9.
The difference is in clock speeds between the 2, the 14th i7 gen pretty much just got an overclock to close the gap with the i9.

 

[kapone32]

Just went on Newegg.ca and over 23 people have this in their cart. It is too bad though as over 175 people have the 7800X3D in their cart for $10 less. The narrative is very powerful and it is sad that review sites generally laud on things they don't get to sample. I am not blaming TPU as they are one of the sites that confirms that it is actually a great chip in this very thread. I will concede that the narrative has won as most of the people commenting negatively in this thread don't even use one. For me it is the fastest chip I have ever owned and I have been into PC since 965BE on the DIY side. The fact is also that the 7900X has over 56 people. It is really sad, I hope AMD sample the 9900X3D, or maybe not so I can get one nice and cheap around Black Friday.

 

[Tek-Check]

No one really cares is exactly why this CPU is now cheaper than the 7800X3D.

I'd buy 7900X3D tonight, if I needed it. It fits both my MT workloads and casual gaming needs. Perfect CPU for a niche market of users.
It's very power efficient, while being excellent in many workloads for the price, such as media encoding, way faster than 7800X3D at it, plus still excellent in games I enjoy playing.

The problem with CPU was that it was poorly priced at the beginning and neglected by marketing, as all effort went elsewhere.
At this price, it's an outstanding value for buck. There is no doubt about it.

All the naysayers last gen asking for multi-CCD X3D chips and here we have them and the sales are bad.

7950X3D sells well as power efficient productivity powerhouse. 7900X3D is a niche market offer for select group as people. In Germany alone it sells 70-100 units on a weekly basis, so there are folks who enjoy it.

Besides, AMD had a very strong Q1 revenues from client CPUs. Not all models need to sell the same amount. That's why we have diverse offer for different people.

I don't understand why people attack this CPU which was never created to be for majority of mainstream users, like 7800X3D is. In previous generation, majority of people never bought 5900X and it was, and is, a fantastic CPU. Some CPUs are for wider audiences, some not. It is as simple as that.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Transistor count

Transistor counts etc. don't matter. The 7800X3D's resources are fully available without scheduling issues, the 7900X3D's are not because of its topology.

The problem with CPU was that it was poorly priced at the beginning and neglected by marketing, as all effort went elsewhere.
At this price, it's an outstanding value for buck. There is no doubt about it.

It's simply a bad SKU all around. There's no point in a 6 3D+6 standard processor, because you're never getting the best of both worlds. However, at this price, eh, it's passable. I'd still go with the 7800X3D instead, not to mention Zen 5 soon.

 

[SL2]

Yields on N5 chiplets are over 90%, so there are a few chiplets with one or maximum two defective or underperforming cores. That's why it is 6+6. Chiplets with 4 good cores are almost non-existent and it would be vaste to deliberately disable good cores on chiplets to make 4-core chiplet.

Your explanation is one way to see it, the other is: would 8 + 4 make it a better product, making it more popular, and inte the end not getting such price cuts like what we're seeing here? AMD did 6 + 6, and look where it got them..

I mean, who are we to say that this current impopular product is more economically viable, than an 8 + 4 that could be sold for maybe $100 right now and have a better reputation?

It's all speculation, but using only 4 cores is bad for business, I get that. Putting it next to a 8 core 3D chip isn't the same thing, because now we're talking about AMD's theoretical next best CPU, which would be priced accordingly.

 

[kapone32]

I'd buy 7900X3D tonight, if I needed it. It fits both my MT workloads and casual gaming needs. Perfect CPU for a niche market of users.
It's very power efficient, while being excellent in many workloads for the price, such as media encoding, way faster than 7800X3D at it, plus still excellent in games I enjoy playing.
View attachment 345901

The problem with CPU was that it was poorly priced at the beginning and neglected by marketing, as all effort went elsewhere.
At this price, it's an outstanding value for buck. There is no doubt about it.

It was never sampled to review sites. Hence all of the negative is just conjecture. Just like how HUB called the single CCD a 5600X3D when it had less Cache than a true 5600X3D would have. They use 12 Games to represent the entire library of the average Gamer and certain people on TPU had to admit that it is not slower in every Game vs the 7800X3d. That does not take away from the fact that some people do not think AMD Multi core performance has not improved since the 2920X. I can promise you that my 7900X3D blows my 2920X away and that was a $1000 CPU. The CPU Wars are great for consumers, but the propaganda is choking me with some of the users on TPU that tell me that my PC is not as fast feeling as I feel it. Yes I am drinking Dabs so you get a proper rant. Of course this is not directed at you at you but the people that are telling you that you don't know what you are talking about.

Transistor counts etc. don't matter. The 7800X3D's resources are fully available without scheduling issues, the 7900X3D's are not because of its topology.

Yep Transistor count doesn't matter. So I guess you are ok with a CPU running at 3 Ghz.