AMD Introduces Next-Generation AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D Processor, $479, Nov 7

[oxrufiioxo]

So 8% average performance increase with an almost 7% price increase.

To be fair the way things going 8% might be two generations for gaming perfomance for non X3D chips......

This has likely way more to do with how much core ultra sucks at gaming. This will likely be a generational leap over it even once it's fixed assuming it can be fixed.

 

[freeagent]

Well.. maybe it will have a higher boost override than 200MHz.. if it has any at all..

I don't even have a job right now, but hopefully I will shortly so I can buy one of these lol..

 

[theglaze]

but compare with the 7800X3D, the 9800X3D only 8% faster on average (still higher than 5% so yay, i guess?)

Wow! 1% to 26% faster than 7800X3D?! What a spread.

How much this CPU kicks ass is totally dependent on the game and testing scenario.

 

[freeagent]

If you can control power and all that, it should boost harder than a regular X3D, meaning higher sustained MC performance when it counts.

Maybe that is the reason they buried the cache..

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Well.. maybe it will have a higher boost override than 200MHz.. if it has any at all..

I don't even have a job right now, but hopefully I will shortly so I can buy one of these lol..

I believe in you!!!!!!

I have a job and still won't pay more for a 9800X3D than I did on my 7950X3D lol....

This is why no gaming competition sucks AMD can just go let's charge 150 more than what the 7800X3D sold for for over 6 months prior to them eoling it....

 

[freeagent]

Thanks buddy!

I got screwed by my previous employer. It happens.. would have been nicer if it was summer though lol. Just waiting on insurance to kick in and I will be ok

 

[xSneak]

It's still disappointing to me this cpu has the same price as the 9900k from 2018 and same amount of cores. I know this has more cache and inflation makes it technically cheaper but it is still a sign of a stagnant duopoly in this market.

 

[jonup]

5.2Ghz is still isn't a high frequency..let's talk about 5.5ghz..

The difference is less than 6%. So in ideal scenario where performance will benefit liniary with clocks you are looking at less than 6% difference. In real world, esp. GPU bound gaming environment (target audience for this SKU) you would be looking at sub 1.5-2% benefit. At 150 FPS, that 2-3fps. Can you really tell the difference 150fps and 153fps!? If you do, you are wasting your talent playing games.

 

[1d10t]

but compare with the 7800X3D, the 9800X3D only 8% faster on average (still higher than 5% so yay, i guess?)

Pouring salt into wound...

credits to Videocardz

 

[Lew Zealand]

It's still disappointing to me this cpu has the same price as the 9900k from 2018 and same amount of cores. I know this has more cache and inflation makes it technically cheaper but it is still a sign of a stagnant duopoly in this market.

Considering the 9800X3D will be about 80% faster in games than the 9900K and games don't take much advantage of higher core counts, I don't see stagnation.

 

[JohH]

$30 more for 8%? lol...
Really AMD and Intel have jumped the shark.

 

[Kyan]

$30 more for 8%? lol...
Really AMD and Intel have jumped the shark.

8% of 450 is 36 so not that bad, it could be 20 but it's still not a high price jump for what it offer

 

[RootinTootinPootin]

Can you really tell the difference 150fps and 153fps!?

Yes..frametimes could be different..

So in ideal scenario where performance will benefit liniary with clocks you are looking at less than 6% difference

I didn't explicitly said that "that's just what I am looking forward" off course I will also be tweaking the memory and everything so it won't be just 6% at the best expected scenario.

 

[Kyan]

What I'm the most curious about is energy efficiency and temps, that's what I'm eager to see with benchmark.

 

[HD64G]

Yeah, but that's not all the games tested (40) - hence the lower average.

Indeed, but thing is for the CPU sensitive games the perf difference will be over 15% or more and that's huge over the best gaming CPU to this day. And that diff will probably increase with the upcoming stronger GPUs. This 9800X3D will be outstanding imho for whoever has the money and wants to make a maxed-out gaming PC. Not for me but I love tech, especially when true revolution exists that has large benefits for the customers (apart from high pricing ofc).

 

[BoggledBeagle]

In the presentation AMD said: "9800X3D is on average 20% faster in gaming than their best", speaking about 285K. Unfortunatelly, Intels gaming best is 14900KS, not 285K.

 

[freeagent]

I converted the price to beaver bucks. Its like 20 bucks more than my 5800X3D was.. I paid 650 for mine.

 

[ThomasK]

People either have short memory or were in their infancy when Intel used to charge 1k for their top of the line gaming CPU, in the good old LGA-775 days.

AMD is charging less than half as much, even after inflation, for a CPU that's designed for gamers.

If you're not gaming, then just don't buy it.

 

[IamEzio]

People either have short memory or were in their infancy when Intel used to charge 1k for their top of the line gaming CPU, in the good old LGA-775 days.

AMD is charging less than half as much, even after inflation, for a CPU that's designed for gamers.

If you're not gaming, then just don't buy it.

Extreme CPU's for extreme people, with extreme pockets.

 

[Redwoodz]

It's still disappointing to me this cpu has the same price as the 9900k from 2018 and same amount of cores. I know this has more cache and inflation makes it technically cheaper but it is still a sign of a stagnant duopoly in this market.

For all those saying AMD is wrong for charging $480 for the greatest gaming cpu ever created, here's a little bigger viewpoint.

AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 Specs

Toledo, 2 Cores, 2 Threads, 2.6 GHz, 110 W

www.techpowerup.com

2006 and $1031 sound better?

 

[capdauntless]

If the price can remain around the launch price, or go down (which of course has not been the case for previous X3D parts), I may finally be convinced to build my next rig. My faithful 5800X still does a great job paired to my 6800 XT but I've been feeling the urge to move on.

 

[Vayra86]

5.2Ghz is still isn't a high frequency..let's talk about 5.5ghz..

Its about 5% more and it'll matter just about as much. Not very relevant - I'll take stellar efficiency then.

 

[Makaveli]

5.2Ghz is still isn't a high frequency..let's talk about 5.5ghz..

I believe that is 5.2Ghz prior to PBO so you maybe adding another 200mhz to that.

 

[Markosz]

I don't even mind the price of the CPU... I just hope it will actually be available at that price and not 2x.

 

[xSneak]

For all those saying AMD is wrong for charging $480 for the greatest gaming cpu ever created, here's a little bigger viewpoint.

AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 Specs

Toledo, 2 Cores, 2 Threads, 2.6 GHz, 110 W

www.techpowerup.com

2006 and $1031 sound better?

I will be polite and say that was one of the first dual core cpus ever released for the consumer market. The equivalent today would be if the 9800x3d was a 32 core / 64 thread cpu.
Pentium D came out prior but those cpus were really junk.