AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D and 9900X3D to Feature 3D V-cache on Both CCD Chiplets

[InVasMani]

The wider the frequency gap the less consistent OS feels and behaves in terms of P cores and E cores. I'm sure it's true of individual P cores as well. Consistency matters you can't have crazy amplitude differences and expect smoother consistency.

 

[chrcoluk]

The wider the frequency gap the less consistent OS feels and behaves in terms of P cores and E cores. I'm sure it's true of individual P cores as well. Consistency matters you can't have crazy amplitude differences and expect smoother consistency.

My comment is in reference to just p-cores. Windows will over load the 2 cores at 5.4ghz, and the 5.3ghz cores get much less load in thread heavy software. Down clocking so all cores are at 5.3ghz fixes it completely.

AMD has a much easier fix though, I think there is a bios option that disables preferred core scheduling. With these new chips I would then (if AMD dont do this automatically) just make sure games have an affinity configured to use one CCD so will always hit cache.

 

[b1lancer2059]

I wonder how much it'll add to the price.

Probably either $549.99 or $599.99

 

[DirtyDan]

AMD needs to lower prices on the new 9000 series CPU's, period. They are just not value oriented enough and are way too expensive for what they bring to the table compared to AMD's own 7000 series and the Intel 13k series. Intel is offering 14 cores for as cheap as $300, while AMD are stuck with 6 cores at those prices, its absurd.

The 9600x is $280 for 6 cores and barely 3-4% improvement in gaming over the 7600x, around 9% improvement in multithreading, while Intel's 14600 offers 14 cores for $260. Its around 15% faster over the 9600x in multithreaded apps and offers similar gaming performance.

Thing is the 9600x should cost $230 at most, with the 7600x starting at $200 and the 7600 vanilla at $180. The 9700x trades blows with the 14600k in terms of gaming, but falls short in multithreading, while being $70 dollars more.

damned if you do, damned if you dont it seems for AMD. Countless years of them having higher cores and less performance and everybody complained that cores cant make up the difference compared to Intel. Fast forward to today and it seems performance cant make up the difference to core count. Get on Intel and tell them the higher core count cant make up the difference....

 

[FoulOnWhite]

damned if you do, damned if you dont it seems for AMD. Countless years of them having higher cores and less performance and everybody complained that cores cant make up the difference compared to Intel. Fast forward to today and it seems performance cant make up the difference to core count. Get on Intel and tell them the higher core count cant make up the difference....

Core count can't make a difference to X3D. AMD have won with X3D, who wants the non X3D chips now, that's why scalpers can get so much for them.

 

[Zach_01]

Core count can't make a difference to X3D. AMD have won with X3D, who wants the non X3D chips now, that's why scalpers can get so much for them.

Scalpers will price as high as people are willing to pay.
Do those people lack PCs already? Is their life depend on the new gaming CPU?
Some people are impatient, some don’t care about money and others are both.

And because of them everyone else gets foked

I don’t blame the sellers. At the end demand is what drives a free market…

 

[Hankieroseman]

Scalpers will price as high as people are willing to pay.
Do those people lack PCs already? Is their life depend on the new gaming CPU?
Some people are impatient, some don’t care about money and others are both.

And because of them everyone else gets foked

I don’t blame the sellers. At the end demand is what drives a free market…

It's why I got the 9800X3D when it was available at the retail price. The goal was 9950X3D but I'll wait for the test results now.